No rush on Tasers.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Pretend you're a police officer responding to an emergency call from a downtown hotel. You enter the lobby and see a large, disheveled man screaming and flailing. He fails to respond to your orders, and it's clear that he poses a risk to bystanders, to you and to himself. Back-up is on the way, but you can't afford to wait.

Your options involving force include your handgun, baton, pepper spray and, the latest addition, a stun gun that can temporarily - and safely, you've been assured - disable unruly suspects with a 50,000-volt charge delivered from up to 25 feet away.

Which do you choose? Many police officers across the country would pick the stun gun, commonly known as a Taser, the name of the largest manufacturer. The appeal is obvious - a device that allows officers to control distraught, psychotic or drug-influenced suspects without resorting to deadly force or putting police in harm's way.

More than 5,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States, including some in Oregon, have acquired stun guns. The federal Transportation Security Administration has said they can be used aboard commercial airliners. Call it a trend with a capital "T" - as in Taser.

Despite the obvious appeal of Dick Tracy technology that promises police a nonlethal edge over out-of-control suspects, the Eugene Police Department recently suspended plans to train and arm patrol officers to test Tasers. The decision was the correct one, and not merely because Eugene police have more urgent acquisition priorities, most notably the installation of digital video cameras in patrol cars.

A recent report by Amnesty International has documented 74 Taser-related deaths nationwide in the last four years. It urges law enforcement agencies to halt use of Tasers until independent medical study can determine whether they're safe when used on the elderly, drug addicts or people with heart conditions.

The report also warns that some police are improperly using Tasers as a routine force option to subdue people who are not out of control and don't pose a serious risk. The report says police may be tempted to misuse the weapons because of the manufacturer's claims that they cause no lasting physical damage.

The report cites a number of disturbing examples, including the use of Tasers on a handcuffed 9-year-old in Arizona, a 6-year-old mentally disturbed child in Florida and a partially blind 71-year-old woman in Oregon. In Florida, where 17 Taser-related deaths have been reported since 2000, a deranged man died shortly after police subdued him with Tasers in a hotel lobby incident similar to the one outlined at the outset of this editorial.

Meanwhile, a Defense Department study has recommended more research on the impacts of Tasers on sensitive or intoxicated people. A U.S. Justice Department study on the effects of Tasers and other "electro-muscular disruption devices" on the human body won't be completed until next year.

Eugene police wisely haven't ruled out acquiring Tasers. That would be a premature move, given their potential for saving lives. But they're prudent to wait until more information is available. It's also encouraging the department has committed to work with the Eugene Police Commission to develop usage guidelines if a decision eventually is made to acquire stun guns.

Tasers may prove to be a valuable addition to police arsenals in Eugene and across the country, one that produces fewer deadly force incidents and injuries. But, for now, the technology remains unproven.