Electronic Control Device Comparative Review

1
Electronic Control DeviceComparative Review

• Stinger S-200(T), TASER X26, TASER M26

2
Electronic Control Device Key Factors

• Supplier Viability and Trustworthiness
• Device Reliability, Safety and Testing Support
• Device Effectiveness
• System Features
• Accountability Controls
• Price

3
SEC Federal Law Suit Against Stinger Gruder
Stinger announced a settlement with the SEC on
May 1, 2008. It appears that the case against
Mr. Gruder was not settled.
4
Supplier Financial ViabilitySource Public
Financial Filings for Year Ended 12/31/2007
5
Supplier Financial ViabilitySource Public
Financial Filings for Year Ended 12/31/2007
6
Future Product Support Enhancement

• TASER is investing 12X as much in research
  development and accelerating each year
• TASER has announced RD investment will triple to
  13 - 15 million in 2008
• Stinger has slashed RD spending

7
Past Performance in ECDsTASER International,
Inc.
TASER M26 Introduced 1999 Status 75,000
Shipped TASER X26 Introduced 2003 Status
250,000 Shipped TASERCam Recording
System Introduced 2004 Status 20,000
Shipped TASER Air Cartridge Introduced
1995 Status 5,500,000 Shipped
Shipping
Shipping
Shipping
Shipping
8
Past Performance in ECDsStinger Systems
Stinger S400 Introduced Late 2004 Status
DISCONTINUED Tru-Vu Camera Introduced Late
2004 as feature in S400 Status Never Shipped /
DISCONTINUED Stinger S200 Introduced
2007 Status DISCONTINUED See Slide
Notes Stinger S200T Introduced Late 2007 /
Early 2008 Status Unknown number shipped
9
Reliability, Safety and Testing Support

• TASER Safer Design
• TASER Clean Darts Stinger Contaminated Darts
• TASER Reliable Operation Stinger Shocks Weapon
  Operator (see DOJ Study)
• TASER Consistent Ballistics Stinger Fires
  Shrapnel Shards (see DOJ Study)
• Stinger S200 probe penetrates deeply at close
  distances, but lost ability to penetrate targets
  over greater distances (See DOJ Study)
• TASER More Effective
• the majority of people reported a much lower
  level of incapacitation when hit with the Stinger
  S200 in comparison to the TASER X26 (See DOJ
  study)
• TASER Proven Safety
• 20 Published Human Studies on TASER, 129 Studies
  Total
• 0 Published Human Studies on S200T, 2 Studies on
  S200 Total
• TASER Better Product Quality
• Cartridge Misfires
• TASER 1 (see DOJ) Stinger up to 47
  (see DOJ)
• Drop Test Failures
• TASER 0 (see DOJ) Stinger 60 (see DOJ)
• Stinger probes were unable to penetrate clothing
  and in many cases would bounce off the target
  (See DOJ Study)

Stinger Dart Contaminated
TASER Dart
10
TASER 129 Medical and Field Studies are Published

• Samples of Studies
• US Dept of Defense
• US DOJ/Wake Forest University
• UK Home Office
• Canadian Police Research Centre
• Alfred Hospital, Australia
• Potomac Policy Institute
• Journal of Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
  (PACE)
• Orange County Task Force
• Cincinnati Police Department
• Madison, WI Police
• San Diego State University

Note Study types and topics add to more than
total number as each study may cover multiple
types and topics.
11
Stinger S200 2 Medical and Field Studies are
Published

• 2 Studies
• US Dept of Justice Evaluation
• Animal Study Presented at 2008 Rocky Mountain
  Bioengineering Symposium
• In a 2/21/2008 Press Release responding
  to the US DOJ Study, Stinger Notes The version
  of the S-200 EID that was tested has been
  discontinued and The current S-200 has had
  significant improvements including greater
  take-down power, new electronics design, and new
  cartridge and dart configurations. Apparently,
  there have been several different configurations
  of device sold under the S200 moniker, making
  it more difficult to determine which version may
  have been used in the animal study presented.

Note Study types and topics add to more than
total number as each study may cover multiple
types and topics.
12
Department of Justice StudyReliability Concerns
A report to the National Institute of
Justice January 25, 2008
A quantitative review of the weapon systems shows
greater reliability of the TASER X26 over its
Stinger S200 counterpart.
After each member of the group was
shocked with each CED, and the CED used was
randomly changed, they repeated the process with
the second CED. In all cases of TASER
deployment, the subjects were immediately
incapacitated. However, the majority of people
had little reaction when hit with the Stinger
S200 while this CED was affixed to them via gator
clips.
Cartridges were dropped from a height of four
feet to determine their survivability. None of
the TASER cartridges broke during this test
however, fourteen out of the twenty Stinger
cartridges were damaged upon impact with a
carpeted floor.
With the exception of two cartridges that
did not deploy properly, all of the TASER
cartridges behaved as advertised and as expected.
The probe spread was predictable and the weapon
was consistent in its operation. The Stinger
S200, however, exhibited little consistency.
Both subjects reported that a drive stun from the
TASER was more incapacitating than one from the
Stinger.
Note Despite the release date of Jan 25, 2008,
Stinger Systems claims that the tests were
conducted on an old S-200 and are not relevant.
Claim needs to be viewed in light of general
credibility.
13
Department of Justice StudySafety Concerns
A report to the National Institute of
Justice January 25, 2008
Shocked User In addition to the electric
shock received from activating the safety while
the Stinger is in a firing cycle, there were two
events where the shooter was shocked through the
grip during testing. Unlike a short, low
intensity bite, which occurs when officers
briefly touch an area that is charged from a CED
deployment, this shock was the equivalent of a
drive stun and equally incapacitating. It is
unclear why this occurs with the Stinger weapons,
but it occurred with two different weapons that
were from two different shipments. No problems
of this type were noted with TASER weapons.
Further problems existed in that the
Stinger cartridges would also discharge little
pieces of plastic and metal that could best be
described as shrapnel. This was noted numerous
times in testing as these items constantly struck
the research team. These items were randomly
dispersed and would sometimes fly out at nearly a
90-degree angle to the weapon, striking people
next to the person deploying the Stinger S200.
Cartridge Exploded In two cases, the
Stinger cartridge exploded when the weapon was
fired. Beyond the shrapnel that was produced
from the Stinger, these cartridges dislodged
their entire firing mechanism.
Note Despite the release date of Jan 25, 2008,
Stinger Systems claims that the tests were
conducted on an old S-200 and are not relevant.
Claim needs to be viewed in light of general
credibility.
14
TASER Scientific Medical Advisors

• Richard Carmona, MD
• 17th Surgeon General of the United States
• Mark Kroll, PhD
• Adjunct Professor Cal Poly
• Holds more patents on implantable cardiac devices
  and electrical medical devices than any other
  person in the world
• Hugh Calkins, MD
• Director of Electrophysiology, Johns Hopkins
  Hospital
• Richard Luceri, MD
• Director of Arrhythmia Service, Holy Cross
  Hospital
• James Sweeney, PhD
• World Recognized Expert on Nerve Stimulation
• William Heegaard, MD
• Assistant Chief of ER, Hennepin County Medical
  Center, Level 1 Trauma Center
• Robert Stratbucker, MD, PhD
• Nuclear Cardiologist

15
TASER COURT TESTED SAFETY AND TRAINING MATERIALS

• 69-0

TASER Legal Record - 4/25/2008 TASER provides
litigation and expert support to its customers.
STINGER S200T UNTESTED IN COURT.
16
TASER Field Proven Results
17
TASER Field Proven Results
TASER Introduced
18
Training Support

• TASER International

• Stinger

• TASER Training Academy
• Instructor and user courses certified by several
  state POST Commissions
• (Approx. 500 instructor courses per year on
  average)
• Corrections Courses
• Security Courses
• Armorer Course
• Forensic Investigation Course
• Use of Force, Risk Management and Legal
  Strategies Seminars

• Instructor and user courses
• (none scheduled according to Stinger website)

19
Device EffectivenessTASER vs. Stinger
S-400Conducted by CRT Less-Lethal
Click here to view video
20
Device EffectivenessTASER vs. Stinger
S-200Conducted by CRT Less-Lethal
Click here to view video
Note Stinger Systems claims that the S-200
has been discontinued and replaced by a new
system called the S200T.
21
Suggested Effectiveness Test Protocol

• Fire probes at conductive target. Turn device
  off immediately.
• Tape probes on outside of clothing
• Avoid locations where clothing is very loose to
  avoid disconnect
• Select location where electricity has to arc
  about ¼ through clothing
• Note Vendors may suggest using a medical
  electrode patch to connect the wire to the
  subject. This technique is unrealistic (officers
  dont get the opportunity to attach the probes
  via an electrode patch in the field), and may be
  used to mask poor device performance in arcing
  through clothing.
• Suggest varying configuration across volunteers
• Consider medical supervision if using devices
  without documented human safety data
• Motivate volunteer to attack target for monetary
  reward
• Avoid firing probes at volunteer due to Stinger
  probe contamination and probe breakage risks

22
Accountability Features
AFID Anti-Felon Identification
Dataport Accountability
Audio / Video Recording
23
Features Range
24
System Features Size
25
Price

• TASER Offers Highest Performance AND Lowest Price

TASER M26 399
Stinger S200T 499
TASER X26 799