Ventura Police Tighten Stun-Gun Rules : Weapons: The department’s chief reacts to community concerns after an epileptic man was repeatedly shocked.

Ventura Police Chief Richard F. Thomas, responding to community concern about his department’s use of stun guns, announced a new policy Thursday that prohibits jolting crime suspects with the 50,000-volt weapons simply to get them to comply with orders.

The new policy still allows Ventura Police Department officers to use stun guns instead of nightsticks or firearms in more serious situations in which suspects pose a danger to officers or the public.

“They should be considered defensive weapons,” the new policy states.

The policy change comes 12 days after a motorcycle officer shocked a driver nine times while the man was still groggy from an epileptic seizure, and it comes 4 1/2 months after the death of a psychiatric patient with heart disease whom Ventura police repeatedly stunned while he was tethered to a bed.

Thomas, in an hourlong news conference, said many local residents have expressed concern about the June 23 stun-gun incident. On that day, witnesses said that epileptic Donn Christensen Jr. was shocked by an officer not only to get him out of his vehicle but also while he was standing passively beside it.

“The folks that I have frequent contact with are concerned about that incident,” Thomas said.

Thomas, a 21-year veteran of the Ventura force, said he can remember no other time that the department has changed its policy before completing its own review of a case involving alleged brutality.

The department began a criminal investigation of the actions of Officer Steven Mosconi last Friday after newspaper accounts of the incident.

In addition to the recent outcry, the department’s stun-gun policy has been criticized as lax because of mounting evidence that the weapon can be deadly. Thomas said he was worried that the weapons are not entirely safe and is concerned about the possibility of lawsuits.

Christensen, 26, has already filed a claim against the city, Thomas said. And the parents of deceased 24-year-old mental patient Duane Johnson filed a $2.5-million claim shortly after he died in February.

“There is some question as to whether these weapons are properly categorized as non-lethal,” Thomas said.

County Coroner F. Warren Lovell concluded that police use of a Taser stun gun was one of three primary causes of Johnson’s death. But the department cleared the two officers who used the weapon on Johnson of any wrongdoing.

The district attorney’s office is conducting a criminal inquiry into the Johnson case. Thomas said it is his understanding that prosecutors will recommend restrictions on the use of the stun gun. He described his new policy as a temporary measure that may be tightened if that is recommended by the district attorney.

Deputy District Atty. Peter D. Kossoris, the prosecutor in charge of the Johnson inquiry, applauded Thomas’ move.

“This certainly indicates that he is making a good-faith effort to put into place policies that will result in less likelihood of serious injury or death or inappropriate use,” Kossoris said.

“There appears to be quite a bit of evidence that stun guns are more dangerous and more potentially lethal than one would believe if you just read the literature from the manufacturers,” Kossoris said. He said he sent a draft of his report to the police chief Thursday.

Ventura City Council members said they are troubled by the stun-gun incidents.

Councilman Jim Monahan said that at next Monday’s council meeting he will move to suspend the use of stun guns until the council and Thomas agree on when to use them.

Council members Gary Tuttle and Cathy Bean said they have taken their concerns to City Manager John Baker, who by city charter hires the police chief.

“I believe we should re-evaluate whether we need these guns,” Bean said. “If we do need them, then I think police officers absolutely need more training on how to use them.”

Mayor Richard L. Francis, who said that stun-gun policy should be left to the Police Department, said he nonetheless asked Baker about the city’s risks of being sued over stun-gun use.

Baker said Thursday that he passed on the council’s concerns to Thomas. “Whenever the council members raise questions in newspapers or tell me they have concerns, I’m going to let Chief Thomas know, as I would with any other city department head,” he said.

All seven council members have been given copies of the police report on the shocking of Christensen while he was disoriented from an epileptic seizure, Baker said. And Thomas and Baker have discussed that incident several times, both said.

“I stand by Chief Thomas and fully support his decision,” Baker said.

Thomas said that he felt no political pressure to restrict his department’s use of stun guns, and that he had decided to change policy last Friday, long before Monahan’s views were reported in a newspaper.

Although the wording of both stun-gun policies is similar, the new one says the weapons should be used for defense and does not allow their application to a suspect who is belligerent, unless the person is a threat to officers or the public.

The new policy will supersede a provision in the department’s training manual that says stun guns can also be used “where there are no other practical methods of subduing the suspect,” Lt. Pat Rooney added.

Stun guns traditionally have been used by his officers about four or five times a month, Thomas said. About 50 of the department’s 120 officers have used the weapon, he said, but some voluntarily stopped using it in the last week.

Thomas said he has encouraged the officers to continue to use stun guns because he considers them an essential tool in cases in which suspects are violent and officers do not want to use batons or firearms.