FOP Speaks Out

The FOP 36 and its members are deeply concerned with the direction the media and certain civic leaders have responded in this most recent allegation.

As stated in the past, an officer must be afforded due process and presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is not for the: FOP, the City of South Bend, the Police Department or any other person or group to outright accuse, persecute or prosecute any persons, police officers included, before due process investigation has been completed.

Cpl. Elliott's innocence or guilt is not a matter that ought to be discussed in a public forum and is certainly not one that "confidential informants from within the department" should be speaking about. There are internal mechanisms in place that steer the investigative course and those avenues should be followed.

For "confidential sources within the department" to speak about an internal and on-going investigation, whether fact based or not is a breach of ethical and moral obligation to the oath of office as a police officer and an FOP member.

The FOP is sickened by the obvious disregard of these oaths which tarnishes the badge we wear. We are and have been confident in the internal investigative process and whatever the outcome of Cpl. Elliott's investigation, we are bound by contract with the Board of Safety and the City administration to follow the next course. In the meantime, Cpl. Elliott and his family should be allowed the process without having biased allegations and assumptions playing a part in that process.

Scott Ruszkowski

PRESIDENT FOP LODGE #36

Once again Trina Robinson has skewed the views of the FOP in order to detract from the bottom line. That line is: Cpl. Elliott should be afforded due process without biased remarks. No more and no less than anyone else, citizens included. The FOP has stated this countless times and maintains its stance contrary to whatever motives others may have.

Next, Joan Raymond rushed to judgment without cause. Cpl. Fields (SJCPD) exhibited his TASER. He did his job as an officer by stopping a fight before it started. He was completely justified legally and ethically by doing what he did regardless of how anyone else perceived his actions. He was trained in the use of a TASER as well as determining what actions would best facilitate the matter. To judge him without experience or knowledge undermines the duties officers are trained to perform.

Joan Raymond also made an error in statement concerning the shootings at School Field. This was in fact a school related incident. There were kids from 2 area high schools there, and they were there because of a school function (high school football game). How much more relation must there be?

Scott Ruszkowski

(President FOP Lodge #36)

Response to several questions by Steve Tuttle, CEO of Taser International.

I understand your bombardment by the media and such. No big deal, believe me I really understand.

Some things I'd like to simply point out and take it for what it's worth. Keep in mind the POLICE OFFICER'S perspective, that's my issue:

1. " 60 second ride ": while true that the trigger could be held on any TASER for that duration or the 60 second cycle could be set has no relevance. An OFFICER could/would be affected in either case and essentially be witness to their own death (worse case). Or a "law-abiding" citizen at night while we're in search of a suspect may exit their confines with a stun weapon. I/we have no choice but to use deadly force (unless of course we holster our sidearm, reach the cross-draw, unleash, point, remove safety, sight acquisition and fire). What option should or would officers take?

2. Incapacitate/debilitate like OC, pen, shotgun ? No way! All 3 require a lucky shot (except shotgun at close range). I can still physically do something in ANY of the 3 mentioned items. I can fight through a pen, OC and gun (shotgun too) blast. 38% accuracy/death with a firearm. 95% TASER probes with 99% incapacitation in less than one second. Physically nothing one can do. Personally I can fight through a drive-stun by a TASER or other, the main issue is with probe deployment. I can't outrun or out maneuver the laser sight unless I'm lucky. I have a better chance of those if it were a gun pointed at me. The probe spread allows more room for error. And once they hit, I'm done. Anyone who has taken a ride (or more as in my case) can testify to that fact. If they couldn't they/ I wouldn't be such a supporter of the TASER AS a police officer, only in police hands.

3. AFID's : Nice gesture but it only applies to the weapon owner, not the user. I could steal your TASER and use it and YOU would be held responsible. A thief isn't going to let you or the police know he stole it. The ONLY thing the AFID's tell is what TASER it was fired from. That would make no difference to an officer with AFID's all over him fired by a TASER thief. The generous instruction given to legislator's was merely something to show them how it works, what it does and shows the AFID's were fired from that specific air cartridge NOT what TASER. I could take an air cartridge from another officer and shoot someone and the other officer would get the blame (barring the data port exception but that's for law enforcement). While letting the legislator's play, did anyone tell them these "could" be used on police officers too? Did they care?

4. Replacement for a firearm : While not disputing that it is an excellent replacement as less-lethal, it is only so in the hands of law-abiding, honest citizens. While that TASER sits on your nightstand, is there a guarantee that it will stay there? Even when Joe Thug breaks in? How about when Joe Thug and John Mope both break in and they're armed with firearms? You might get one but not both, unless your wife has one on her side of the bed. I realize there is a lot of  "what if's?" but when it comes to police it isn't a "what if?" it's a matter of "when?" Believe me when I tell you it's only a matter of time before this happens and I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of the phone when a lawyer calls with a subpoena for a wrongful death suit (note: see hot coffee and McDonald's). I know I (and others) have publicly stated "fair warning" and I GUARANTEE you (save this e-mail because it WILL happen) that an officer will be killed or beaten senseless after a probed stun weapon is used on them!

5. In your own #3 concerning pepper spray you stated; " won't stop a focused attacker and you have to target a specific area. With the TASER a hit ANYWHERE on the body can be effective making it easier to use under stress ." A cop fighting for his life, I'm sure,  would be very focused, he'd be able to fight through pepper spray, bullets, baseball bat, pen or any other device unless he received a lucky shot. With probes a "lucky shot" isn't needed. "ANYWHERE can be effective."

6. " 35,000 people die every year from bullet wounds ": And the point is? Out of 35,000 who die from bullet wounds, how many SURVIVE bullet wounds? (note the 38% I mentioned earlier). This is biased and misleading, there has to be a ratio listed to compare the 35,000 to. Doctors theoretically kill over 800,000 people a year, this is undisputed. How many do they save in comparison? Catch my drift?

7. " we firmly believe that our citizens should have access to non-lethal weapons so they can defend themselves without killing. And we believe we'll save hundreds if not thousands of lives ."

These are NOT "non-lethal", they are "less-lethal". That was a grave error on Rick Smith's part to give such an answer (as were the few before). Is a cotton ball non-lethal? Before you answer, consider if it were rammed down someone's throat and their moth and nose were held shut. Now it's lethal but it was only less-lethal to begin with. I really can't think of anything that is "non-lethal". Not even a piece of dust that could eventually lodge in a lung and spur the growth of a cancer cell. Eventually it could be lethal, therefore it is essentially less-lethal.

Our Council did not receive your information in writing, in time, I DID tell them about your statistics and that I had spoken to you. The ordinance passed on Monday, stating that NO stun weapons or devices could be rented, sold, purchased or possessed in the City of South Bend . Granted it's only a civil step and only fines are involved but any stun weapon (with/without probes) will be confiscated and the holder fined. It is a felony to use any such device on a law enforcement officer (state law that is certainly going to be amended to include modern technology to increase criminal penalties). The only exception is a certified law enforcement officer with certified training.

As I stated before and still stand behind it. I do not wish to punish or hinder safety or defense for any law-abiding citizen. My concern in my capacity as an officer and FOP President is with officers and how they could/will be affected by stun weapons (unfortunately TASER models too). ALL officers on the SBPD agree that the TASER is THE most effective and purposeful tool we've ever had in our arsenal, but we also agree that it does not belong in the hands of anyone else. This should be at least ONE thing that citizens shouldn't have made available to copy our duty belt items/weapons. If we keep making the playing field even, how are we to gain the upper hand? We have laws and rules we must follow moreso than the law-abiding citizen. The criminal thug has absolutely no regard for the law in any form. Even with this civil fine, it probably won't make a difference. The thugs will still get them and eventually use them (again I guarantee it).

I do have a win-win solution (my perspective anyway). Make TASER for civilian use WITHOUT air cartridge/probe capacity. MOST officers can/should be able to fight through a drive-stun, that's where training comes into play. No matter the amount of training or focus, I've yet to see or hear about a person who was shot with the probes being able to do anything. A 15' distance is hard to get away from when doing an officers job, especially when we're talking over 150' per second probe deployment. That's only my thoughts but I'm sure our other TASER instructors and users would agree with me as would our administration.

I will get actual numbers to you as soon as I can. I do know that in 6 months, we have used the TASER 190 times. Our officer injury rate has dropped

66%. We've had some faults (operator error, low charge or no charge, clothing, deployment on the run/misses and a few others) but mainly it works. We've had one person hospitalized from the TASER because a Doctor decided to write "electrocution affects caused by stun gun." Ironically this was one of my arrests. He was an EDP, on several drugs, naked and an officer had his leg broken while fighting this guy while another broke her finger. The guy was also dehydrated badly, but of course the press and a few activists complained that TASER caused it. TASER did not!

I'll send you a chart showing our results.

SCOTT RUSZKOWSKI