[NYTr] Forest Service Spends $600,000 to Buy Tasers

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

sent by MichaelP - Dec 6, 2007

PEER via CommonDreams - Dec 4, 2007
http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1204-04.htm

CONTACT: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)

Carol Goldberg (202) 265-7337

          Cash-Starved Forest Service Spends $600,000 to Buy Tasers
            Devices Remain in Boxes Because Rangers Lack Training

       WASHINGTON, DC - December 4 - The U.S. Forest Service has bought 
$600,000 worth of "Electronic Control Devices" without any training 
program, rules for use or even a written explanation as to why the
devices are needed, according to agency records posted today by Public
Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The devices, known
as Tasers, are sitting in storage and cannot be issued because the
agency has yet to develop a training course.

     Due to an intense fire season, the Forest Service is now
staggering\ under a more than a quarter-billion dollar deficit, causing
it to begin jettisoning core programs. For example, the agency lacks
enough funds to draw up new timber sales. At the same time, the Forest
Service law enforcement program is hobbled by more than 200 vacant
positions, leaving only one officer to cover each 300,000 acres of
National Forest and 750,000 annual million visitors.

     In late September 2007, the Forest Service purchased 700 weapons
and "related accessories" from Aardvark Tactical, Inc. of Azusa,
California, a subsidiary of Taser International, at a cost to taxpayers
of $600,001.52, according to agency records obtained by PEER under the
Freedom of Information Act. This represents enough to equip every
single Forest Service special agent and law enforcement officer with an
Electronic Control system at a cost of $857 apiece.

     The reason for this purchase is unknown since the Forest Service
was unable to produce any document justifying the need for these
weapons. John Twiss, the Director of Law Enforcement and Investigations
and the official who made the decision to buy the Tasers, wrote PEER in
a letter dated November 7, 2007:

       "[I]n the interest of customer service, we can tell you that the 
Forest Service is currently developing the required training and law 
enforcement officers will be required to attend prior to the issuance
of, or authorization to carry or use, an Electronic Control Device.

     "There must have been a fire sale on Tasers, otherwise why would
an agency buy 700 of them without a program, protocol or need?" asked
PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that the federal fiscal year
ended September, around the time of the hurried single source purchase.
"The Forest Service has many more pressing law enforcement priorities
that should have received any end-of-fiscal-year surplus."

    In addition to the cost of training its entire law enforcement
staff, the Forest Service may be assuming significant financial
liability for injuries and deaths. In October, Amnesty International
released a study estimating that 290 civilians have died from police
use of Tasers since 2001.

      Tasers are touted as a non-lethal alternative to the use of
deadly force. Since Forest Service rarely is called upon to apply
deadly force, the role of these electronic devices on national forest
visitors is problematic. Nonetheless, Taser International now also
equips the National Park Service.

     "The proliferation of Tasers within federal land management
agencies has all the earmarks of a mindless arms race that has eluded
any thoughtful public or congressional review," Ruch added. "As a
result, in addition to the howl of the coyote and the hoot of the owl,
the plaintive cry of 'Don't tase me, bro' may soon echo through the
forest night."