From:Cynthia Replogle
To:City Council
Subject:Re: Opposition to Proposed Purchase of Axon Taser 10 Devices (Item 9.I Nov-18) Date:Friday, November 14, 2025 7:29:04 AM
External Email
Summary: Independent investigations and medical research show that Tasers (including Axon’s new Taser 10) are less reliable and more dangerous than Axon claims. Police rate Tasers as ineffective in up to 45% of field uses, and there are over 1,000 documented deaths in the U.S. after police Taser use. Peer-reviewed studies show Tasers can cause cardiac arrest, and human-rights organizations have tracked hundreds of Taser-linked deaths. Given these risks and high ongoing costs, approving the Taser 10 purchase is not evidence-based, not fiscally prudent, and not necessary for public safety.
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
I urge you not to approve the proposed purchase of Axon’s Taser 10 conducted-energy weapons, cartridges, and training packages. Independent investigations and medical research show that Tasers are less reliable and more hazardous than Axon advertises, and that upgrading to the Taser 10 would add cost without demonstrable public-safety benefit.
Real-world effectiveness is significantly lower than Axon claims Axon promotes Tasers as highly reliable and cites internal data claiming that 99.75% of 1,201 field uses resulted in “no serious injury,” based on a DOJ-funded study summarized in its marketing materials “How Safe Are TASER Weapons?” and subsequent brochures.
https://www.axon.com/resources/how-safe-are-taser-weapons However, independent field data tell a different story about effectiveness:
One of the best-known peer-reviewed studies, White & Ready (2007), examined all Taser deployments over three years in a large U.S. police department and found about 85% effectiveness—meaning roughly 1 in 7 deployments did not achieve incapacitation even under relatively favorable conditions.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1098611106288915 A more recent year-long investigation by APM Reports, “When Tasers Fail,” found that officers in several major U.S. departments rated their Tasers as effective as little as 55% of the time, and that 258 fatal police shootings (2015–2017) occurred after a Taser failed to incapacitate a person.
https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2019/05/09/when-tasers-fail
In other words, even in a study often cited as supportive of Tasers, they still fail often enough to force officers to escalate to other force options. APM’s multi-city data suggest that in some departments, real-world reliability can drop close to a coin flip.
Serious medical risks, including cardiac arrest, are well-documented Medical literature has established that Taser shocks can cause cardiac arrest in humans under certain conditions:
A 2012 paper in the American Heart Association journal Circulation analyzed case reports and concluded that Taser X26 shocks can induce ventricular fibrillation and cardiac arrest when darts land near the chest.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.097584 A follow-up analysis reiterated that conducted-energy devices can cause cardiac arrest in humans, directly challenging claims that Tasers are physiologically incapable of doing so.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24396013/
Human-rights groups and journalists have documented the consequences at scale:
Amnesty International’s “Less than lethal?” and related reports list hundreds of deaths in the United States following police Taser use between 2001 and 2008, with medical examiners in some cases identifying the Taser as a causal or contributory factor. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/amr51/146/2008/en/ A Reuters investigation compiled a database of more than 1,000 deaths in the U.S. since the early 2000s following police Taser use, often in incidents that also involved other force (restraint, strikes, etc.).
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-taser-database/ Reuters also found that nearly a third of the U.S. population falls into groups at higher risk of death or serious injury from Tasers (older adults, people with heart disease, pregnant people, etc.), yet police continue to use Tasers on these vulnerable individuals. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-taser-vulnerable/ These are not early-adoption anomalies; they reflect long-term, systemic risks associated with CEWs.
The Taser 10 introduces additional, not yet independently validated, hazards The Taser 10 is substantially different from older models, with up to 10 probes instead of 1–2, a longer effective range, and more total penetrating darts.
Axon’s own materials promote the Taser 10 as offering extended range and multiple “opportunities” to connect, and they heavily emphasize “show of force” and warning
features to de-escalate situations.
However, there is no independent, peer-reviewed evidence yet that Taser 10 is safer or more effective than prior models. Increasing the number of probes and range logically increases the risk of errant hits (including to the head, neck, chest, or bystanders) and of multiple penetrating injuries in a single incident. In light of existing evidence on cardiac and other risks, introducing a more powerful, more complex CEW without independent validation is not a cautious use of public funds.
The fiscal case is weak compared to alternatives
Approving the Taser 10 purchase would lock the city into device and cartridge costs (10- shot cartridges are more complex and expensive), training and re-training tailored to a single vendor, and maintenance and upgrade contracts. In addition, the city is exposed to potential liability if a Taser-linked death or serious injury occurs, particularly given that independent investigations and peer-reviewed research have long flagged these risks.
Meanwhile, there is strong evidence that non-weapon investments—such as de- escalation training, crisis intervention teams, mental-health co-response, and improved supervision and accountability—can reduce force incidents and injuries without adding a high-risk device.
Recommendation
Given that:
Independent investigations show Tasers are significantly less reliable in practice than Axon claims;
Peer-reviewed medical research has established that Tasers can cause cardiac arrest;
Human-rights monitors and journalists have documented hundreds to over a thousand deaths following police Taser use in the U.S.; There is no independent evidence that the Taser 10 specifically improves safety or effectiveness over older models; and
The purchase would commit public funds to a high-risk technology rather than proven de-escalation measures,
I respectfully urge the Council to reject the proposed Taser 10 contract and instead invest in strategies that are demonstrably safer, more cost-effective, and more consistent with community well-being. Alternatively, before making a decision on the expenditure, the Council should direct staff to return with a revised report that includes discussion of these issues.
Best,
Cynthia Replogle
Pismo Beach resident
Pronouns: she/her/hers
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.