From:CA Central Coast Chapter
To:City Council
Subject:Agenda Item #9.1 November 18, 2025
Date:Saturday, November 15, 2025 1:18:19 PM
Attachments:NLG Axon Taser 10 Opposition.pdf
External Email
Dear Mayor & City Council -
Attached please find my letter outlining the National Lawyers Guild Central Coast Chapter's opposition to the upcoming resolution for the purchase and deployment of the Axon Taser 10.
We strongly request you not adopt this resolution for the reasons outlined in our letter.
If you have any questions or need additional data regarding the Axon Taser 10, please feel free to reach out to me at this email.
Thank you for considering the safety of all members of the community.
Sincerely,
Nora Schild, Co-Chair
California Central Coast Chapter
National Lawyers Guild
nlg.org/ccc
Re: Opposition to Police Contract for Axon “Taser 10” Devices
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
The National Lawyers Guild California Central Coast Chapter (NLG-CCC) writes to urge you to reject the proposed contract to acquire Axon’s “Taser 10” conducted-energy weapons, supplies, support services, and training. We also urge city leaders and the Pismo Beach police department to prioritize the use of non-weaponized, de-escalation methods by well-trained crisis intervention teams rather than relying on potentially deadly weapons.
The National Lawyers Guild has monitored law enforcement use of force for nearly a century. NLG chapters, including the San Francisco Bay Area Chapter, have long opposed the deployment and expansion of Tasers because the evidence consistently shows these weapons do not reduce police violence, pose serious medical risks, and increase the likelihood of excessive force particularly against vulnerable and marginalized communities.
We oppose this contract for the following reasons:
• Evidence-based alternatives exist and they work. Research overwhelmingly shows that harm-reduction investments reduce police uses of force more effectively and at lower cost. These include de-escalation training, crisis- intervention programs, mental-health and social-worker co-response models, improved supervision and accountability, and community-based safety strategies.
• Tasers carry well-documented medical dangers, including cardiac arrest and death. Peer-reviewed research published by the American Heart Association has demonstrated that Taser shocks can induce cardiac arrest. Human-rights organizations, medical researchers, and journalists have documented hundreds of deaths following Taser use in the United States. These fatalities are not limited to early adoption periods nor to inexperienced agencies; they are inherent risks of the weapon.
• Tasers are disproportionately used against marginalized communities. National data on use of force consistently demonstrates that Black, Latino, disabled, and mentally ill individuals bear the brunt of less-lethal weapon use, including Tasers.
This exacerbates existing disparities and fuels mistrust between vulnerable communities and law enforcement.
• Tasers routinely fail to incapacitate people in real-world situations. Independent investigations of multiple police departments across the country have shown that
Tasers can fail to incapacitate people up to 45% of the time. Even research supportive of Taser adoption has documented failure rates of 15%, meaning officers often escalate to higher levels of force when the device does not work. A weapon with such inconsistent performance does not reduce harm—it increases it.
• The proposed Taser 10 introduces new, untested, and higher-risk features. It fires up to ten darts at longer ranges, dramatically increasing the risk of multiple penetrating injuries; errant strikes; inadvertent hits to the head, neck, chest, or bystanders; and unpredictable impacts in dynamic, crowded environments. There is no independent scientific evidence that the Taser 10 is safer or more effective than older models. Its marketing claims come solely from the manufacturer, not from neutral evaluation.
• The contract exposes the city to serious legal and financial liability. When Tasers cause deaths or serious injuries—events with extensive documentation nationally—cities face wrongful-death and civil-rights claims with the potential for multi-million-dollar settlements, reputational harm, and the erosion of public trust.
By choosing a newer, more complex, and less studied device, the city heightens its liability. Adopting technology with known risks makes the city responsible when foreseeable harm occurs.
For all these reasons, the NLG-CCC strongly urges the Council to reject the Axon Taser 10 contract. As Axon support for the city’s current Tasers has ended, the city would benefit from discontinuing their use altogether and instead invest in the real public- safety tools: de-escalation, crisis-response alternatives, and approaches that reduce harm rather than compound it.
Thank you for your attention to this critical matter. We welcome any questions and are available to provide further information.
Sincerely,
Nora Schild, Co-Chair
National Lawyers Guild California Central Coast Chapter nlg.org/ccc
[email protected]