Police on Weapon Company Payrolls

[30 cal slob]

Got this off of this morning's McPaper. Thought it would be of general interest...

Police on weapon company payrolls
By Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Hundreds of police officers nationwide also are on payrolls of companies that supply weapons, riot gear and other equipment to the officers' departments, creating possible conflicts of interest.

The arrangements have involved officers who advise their departments on what equipment to buy, according to a survey of at least a half-dozen companies by USA TODAY.

Taser International, the nation's leading maker of stun guns, says it pays at least 270 officers to conduct training seminars for other police. It also sends money to the survivors of police who are killed while on duty. (Related story: Taser contributes to police families)

When contacted by USA TODAY, several other private companies that supply equipment to police — including Armor Holdings, which makes bullet-resistant clothing; ASP, a police baton manufacturer; and PepperBall Technologies, a maker of pepper-spray repellent — said they also pay officers to train other police to use the companies' products.

Much of the debate over such arrangements has focused on Arizona-based Taser, which in recent months has defended the safety of its products amid reports by Amnesty International and The Arizona Republic that more than 80 people have died after being shocked with electrical stun guns. About 7,000 of the nation's estimated 16,000 police agencies use the device.

Taser's hiring of police as trainers has come under scrutiny in several communities. Police officers in Arizona and Minnesota were being paid as Taser trainers while they were involved in making stun-gun purchasing recommendations for their departments. Last year, Minneapolis police closed an investigation when the officer took a full-time job with Taser. In a separate inquiry, the city of Chandler, Ariz., found no violations. That officer also went to work full time for Taser.

Such arrangements between equipment providers and police have generated no formal allegations of wrongdoing. Taser International President Tom Smith says police are paid about $600 plus travel expenses to oversee a two-day training session on their days off.

"We bring in officers for their expertise," he says. "You don't have nurses train pilots."

Armor Holdings spokesman Michael Fox says the employment of police is "widely accepted" in a competitive industry.

Law enforcement analysts say the arrangements are troubling.

"You have police officers who are supposed to be looking out for their departments when they have another competing interest" in a private company, says David Harris, a University of Toledo law professor who has studied police conduct.

Hartford, Vt., Police Chief Joseph Estey, president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, says the arrangements are "a kind of minefield" for police executives. Estey says he "probably would not" allow an officer to work for a supplier.

Equipment suppliers say the police who work for them are not involved in sales. "Police officers learn best from other officers," says Terry Naughton, ASP's director of corporate sales.

One major supplier to police, gunmaker Smith & Wesson, does not employ active-duty officers. "I see it as somewhat of a conflict of interest," spokesman Paul Pluff says. "We don't do it."

 

[Firethorn]

Ouch, tough topic.

I guess that the best way this could work is if the officer/s is sent to learn how to work & test various tasers. He then makes his recommendations (after using and being trained on several different makes). Then, it not being a limitless department(and the fact that the officer is already there), the company that won pays that officer to train.

 

[GreenFurniture]

That practice is rampant around here. There are many officers that are on the books with several different companies and it makes it very hard to get in the door to supply their departments.

 

[yorec]

Conflict of interest... So since I was trainned by Armalite as an Armorer for the AR weapons system means I'll always purchase Armalite stuff? Nope - dept. issued Bushmasters.

But if Armalite had given me a $tipend on the condition that the dept would purchase Armalite products...? Hmmm... I can see this could work into problems.

By the way, the Armalite trainers in no way hinted toward such things - in fact they recommended quite a few other brand products! Truely a class act company... I guess some folks are above such actions as feared in this article, but "Who?" is the question.

Trainning through a company is a great way (and sometimes least expensive way) to learn about a tool destined for use in a department and bias toward that brand is a natural side effect... Even without money's involvement.

 

[jefnvk]

If they're being paid to give a company preferential treatment, that is bad.

If they're being paid to train other people how to use a companies system, I can see a problem, but let's deal with those who abuse the power.

 

[Jeff White]

This looks to me like nothing more then another way to attack Taser. Many companies that market equipment to police departments certify officers to be trainers/instructors for their products.

Monadok and ASP certify officers to instruct in the use of their impact weapons. Most of the firearms manufacturers certify armorers, and HK, Smith and Wesson, SIGARMS (as well as a couple others that don't come immediately to mind) train and certify officers as instructors in the use of their products. So do the makers of less lethal munitions.

Having a factory trained instructor to help write policy and train the other officers is good from many viewpoints, not the least being that that instructor is available to testify in court on how other officers used the product and if it's use was within the guidlines not only of the department, but how the manufacturer intended the product to be used.

The article is taking established policies and twisting them to make the point that somehow this is a bad thing.

Taser's hiring of police as trainers has come under scrutiny in several communities. Police officers in Arizona and Minnesota were being paid as Taser trainers while they were involved in making stun-gun purchasing recommendations for their departments.

I may be wrong, but I'm not aware of a product made by any manufacturer that is comparible to the Taser. So how is this stifling competition? And how is it unethical. You note the article says the Taser instructors were involved in the decsion to purchase them, not that they made the decsion. So when the chief makes the decsion who is he supposed to ask, they guy on his dept who's a Taser instructor or the ACLU?

Last year, Minneapolis police closed an investigation when the officer took a full-time job with Taser. In a separate inquiry, the city of Chandler, Ariz., found no violations. That officer also went to work full time for Taser.

Here, we're not given any specifics on either case, yet it's implied that Taser somehow ended these investigations by hiring the officer full time and taking him/her off the street. There is more in what this part of the story doesn't say then what it does say. I have a feeling the writer wants us to believe that Taser only gave these officers full time jobs because they were involved in a questionable use of the product.

Then there is this:

Taser International, the nation's leading maker of stun guns, says it pays at least 270 officers to conduct training seminars for other police. It also sends money to the survivors of police who are killed while on duty. (Related story: Taser contributes to police families)

Yes, contributing to funds that provide for the survivors of officers killed on duty is a sure way to tell a company's evil intent.

Don't be fooled folks, you're supposed to read this article and walk away thinking that Taser International is an evil corporation that is selling a product that was designed to torture and kill innocent citizens and will go to any length to sell it's product, including putting people inside police departments onit's payroll and giving them a golden parachute of full time employment if the get in trouble using their product. :banghead:

Jeff

 

[orangeninja]

Taser actually got a good interview on "NPR" or National Public Radio. I was surprised. I think the Taser product is one of the best things going. The only disconcerting thing about the interview was when the president (VP?) of Taser said somthing like "Mace has seen it's day" implying that mace is no longer effective.

Uhhh....Calling Mr. Obvious, Mr. Obvious please.....

Mace is still one of the best intermediate weapons because nothing other than the chemical hits the suspect....Tasing a dog may kill it, mace just bugs the crap out of it.

Tasing a guy who refuses to get out of his car may prove problematic. Spraying mace in there until he decides the air is better outside may be a better solution.

Mace will more often than not blind a suspect. Tasers don't.... thus getting a flank on a suspect is a lot easier. Though to be honest with a Taser, flanking is a moot point.

Mace doesn't require a reload after one shot. Tasers do, so don't miss, an Officer in San Antonio was killed trying to Taser a suspect with a gun. He should have used a gun, but he did not have adequate training (the training officer was with him at the time) and he believed in the Taser's ability too much. I'm sure the Taser would have worked, but who goes into a deadly situation with a single shot pistol on purpose?

Mace is situationally proven with predictable results. Not that Taser isn't but Taser is just different.

Taser will usually require EMS to remove the little prongs...(from what I've been told) Mace can be removed with a cool wet towl...unless the guy has asthema or somthing.

Lastly, Mace tastes better on red beans and rice.

 

[JohnBT]

"Police officers in Arizona and Minnesota were being paid as Taser trainers while they were involved in making stun-gun purchasing recommendations for their departments."

Caught with their hands in the old cookie jar. I guess they don't have to fill out yearly conflict of interest forms like we do. There's no way we'd be allowed to make purchasing decisions while working for one of the vendors - because we'd be fired.

John

 

[Standing Wolf]

This looks to me like nothing more then another way to attack Taser.

That was my impression, too. The "article" feels like another leftist extremist hit piece to me.

 

[akviper]

My goodness, how horrible, end users of the product involved in the testing, selection, and training of a product. I think the finance department should select police weapons and provide the training. That way we would always get the cheapest product instead of what really works. (Finance folks please don't take offense, I'm just trying to make a point.)

All kidding aside, there wasn't much competition for the police Tazer until the last couple of years so it's a bit of a stretch to say it was improper. When we bought our system 25 radios Motorola was the only provider so it didn't matter who did the selection or training. Most good trainers will always push for the best product irregardless of the manufacturer. Often the manufacturer of a new product will be the root source of training. When the ASP and PR 24 first appeared the manufacturers provided the train the trainer courses for spreading the knowledge. This is part of the natural evolution of new systems.

 

[Leatherneck]

Some of these activities would land a Department of Defense employee in jail:

• Revolving door with no restrictions
• LEO paid by contractor involved in procurement decisions
• Ethics investigation terminated when LEO gets hired ***???

Perhaps you remember the name "Darlene Druyan" currently residing in Club Fed, formerly head of USAF acquisition?

Same standards should apply to all public servants responsible for taxpayer money.

TC

 

[Jeff White]

Leatherneck said;

Some of these activities would land a Department of Defense employee in jail:

* Revolving door with no restrictions
* LEO paid by contractor involved in procurement decisions
* Ethics investigation terminated when LEO gets hired ***???

Perhaps you remember the name "Darlene Druyan" currently residing in Club Fed, formerly head of USAF acquisition?

Same standards should apply to all public servants responsible for taxpayer money.

I don't for one minute believe that things are any different in DOD. During my time in the Army I saw all kinds of people leave active duty and go to work for a defense contractor doing essentially the same job the did on active duty. Then a few years years later I would run into these same people who now had civil service jobs. Don't tell me there is no revolving door and IMHO the restrictions are a joke.

It's one thing to comment on the ethics of what's going on, but to hold DOD up as a shining example of morals and ethics when it comes to safeguarding the taxpayer's money is a little bit disingenuous.

Jeff

 

[Andrew Rothman]

My goodness, how horrible, end users of the product involved in the testing, selection, and training of a product.

Straw man. If Taser wanted to "train the trainers," for free, that's fine. The trained officer could then teach the rest of his department ON THE DEPARTMENT'S CLOCK.

What Taser was doing is PAYING THE OFFICER ON HIS DAYS OFF to train other oficers. That's different, and it creates at least the appearance of a conflict of interest, if not the conflict itself.

Public servants (especially those with guns and badges) must conform to the highest standards of ethical behavior, and this simply doesn't pass the smell test.