SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., Feb. 20, 2008 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) -- TASER International, Inc. (Nasdaq:TASR), the market leader in advanced electronic control devices (ECDs), today announced that it has obtained a copy of the draft final report dated January 25, 2008 of a U.S. Department of Justice funded study titled: "A Qualitative & Quantitative Analysis of Conducted Energy Weapons: TASER X26 vs. Stinger S200" through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the National Institute of Justice. According to the report, the purpose of the study is "to objectively evaluate both the TASER International and Stinger weapon systems. This is accomplished by evaluating the performance, safety, and reliability of both products." (p. 10)
TASER International will be providing a copy of the report to Stinger Systems (OTCBB:STIY) pursuant to on-going discovery in its patent infringement litigation, "TASER International, Inc. v. Stinger Systems," in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, case number CV07-0042-PHX-MHM.
Some of the key findings of the 93-page report are:
1. Lower level of incapacitation when exposed to the Stinger S-200
* "...the majority of people reported a much lower level of
incapacitation when hit with the Stinger S200 in comparison to
the TASER X26." (p. 6)
* "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." (p. 24)
2. Safety Concerns
* "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 stuck the research team."
(p. 37)
* "Should the user make contact with the cross-bolt switch while
the Stinger S-200 is discharging a cycle of current, the user
also receives a shock for the duration of the cycle." (p. 74)
3. TASER X26 is a more reliable device
* "A quantitative review of the weapon systems shows greater
reliability of the TASER X26 over its Stinger S200 counterpart."
(p. 6)
* Stinger S-200 "exhibited little constancy" (p. 35)
* "...the malfunction rate on the Stinger weapon, which was
measured, for the initial equipment, at 47.35%. Many times the
cartridge simply would not fire..." (p. 36)
* "Should the user make contact with the cross-bolt switch while
the Stinger S200 is discharging a cycle of current, the user also
receives a shock for the duration of the cycle." (p. 75)
4. TASER X26 is a more durable device
* "... a number of 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." (p. 7)
* "Additionally, a number of Stinger cartridges were broken while
still in their shipping container. The blast doors fell off,
releasing the wire tether." (p. 68)
5. Stinger's Training Materials contained incorrect information
* "Some of the material was found to be outdated and incomplete,
and the instructor advised participants to ignore sections of the
handout material where discrepancies were noted." (p. 17)
6. Stinger S-200 probes flew erratically and frequently broke
* "In addition to the erratic spread of the (Stinger) probes, the
probes tended to fly in an untrue linear manner and did not
penetrate the target as they would often hit the target sideways.
Evidence of this was when the barbs bounced off the target and
flew back towards the researchers." (p. 36)
* "One concern with the Stinger weapon system was that the Stinger
S200 probes frequently broke free from their barbs in the
target." (p. 6)
* "As was the case with our initial volunteer tester, almost every
(Stinger) barb broke off in the plastic dummy target." (p. 36)
* "In this case, the barbs could not be removed by attendant EMS
staff and the subject had to be transported to the local hospital
for removal by a physician. Due to an ethical concern about doing
harm to the additional volunteer subjects involved in this
testing, subsequent testing with all other subjects involved the
use of alligator clips." (p. 22)
* "The Stinger probes frequently broke off in the target during
testing and their removal. During this testing, 52 Probes out of
159 Stinger cartridges broke off in the testing target (32.8%)."
(p. 66)
"We are pleased to have a new independent government-funded study which documents TASER technology as being superior in ECD performance," commented Tom Smith, Chairman and Founder of TASER International. "These results are also being confirmed in law-enforcement agencies around the country, such as the Pennsylvania State Troopers and the California Highway Patrol, that have done comparisons and selected the field-proven TASER technology," concluded Smith.
A full copy of the study can be found at www.taser.com/research/government_studies/NIJReport.pdf
About TASER International, Inc.
TASER International's products protect life. TASER provides advanced Electronic Control Devices (ECDs) for use in the law enforcement, medical, military, corrections, professional security, and personal protection markets. TASER devices use proprietary technology to incapacitate dangerous, combative, or high-risk subjects who pose a risk to law enforcement officers, innocent citizens, or themselves in a manner that is generally recognized as a safer alternative to other uses of force. For more information, please call TASER International at (800) 978-2737 or visit our website at www.TASER.com.
The TASER International logo is available at http://www.primenewswire.com/newsroom/prs/?pkgid=2931
Note to Investors
This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), including statements, without limitation, regarding our expectations, beliefs, intentions or strategies regarding the future. We intend that such forward-looking statements be subject to the safe-harbor provided by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The forward-looking information is based upon current information and expectations regarding TASER International. These estimates and statements speak only as of the date on which they are made, are not guarantees of future performance, and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results could materially differ from what is expressed, implied, or forecasted in such forward-looking statements.
TASER International assumes no obligation to update the information contained in this press release. These statements are qualified by important factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those reflected by the forward-looking statements. Such factors include but are not limited to: (1) market acceptance of our products; (2) our ability to establish and expand direct and indirect distribution channels; (3) our ability to attract and retain the endorsement of key opinion-leaders in the law enforcement community; (4) the level of product technology and price competition for our products; (5) the degree and rate of growth of the markets in which we compete and the accompanying demand for our products; (6) risks associated with rapid technological change and new product introductions; (7) competition; (8) litigation including lawsuits resulting from alleged product related injuries and death; (9) media publicity concerning allegations of deaths and injuries occurring after use of the TASER device and the negative effect this publicity could have on our sales; (10) TASER device tests and reports; (11) product quality; (12) implementation of manufacturing automation; (13) potential fluctuations in our quarterly operating results; (14) financial and budgetary constraints of prospects and customers; (15) order delays; (16) dependence upon sole and limited source suppliers; (17) negative reports concerning the TASER device; (18) fluctuations in component pricing; (19) government regulations and inquiries; (20) dependence upon key employees and our ability to retain employees; (21) execution and implementation risks of new technology; (22) ramping manufacturing production to meet demand; (23) medical and safety studies; (24) field test results; and (25) other factors detailed in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including, without limitation, those factors detailed in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K and its Form 10-Qs.
The statements made herein are independent statements of TASER International. The inclusion of any third parties does not represent an endorsement of any TASER International products or services by any such third parties.