Well, I heard him say it. It was in relation to the Member's question about minimum weight of the victims (60 lbs, i.e. tasering children is fine).
Smith said the taser has a "fifteen to one safety margin" (15:1).
And as is his little propaganda trick, he did not specify which taser model he is referring to. But I'm fairly certain that the study in question (being rather fundamental to their whole operation) was from the early days before the X26 was introduced in 2003. And thus was for the M26 or earlier models, but probably not covering the X26.
So, given that Taser has defended itself against Ruggieri by claiming a 100:1 safety advantage for the older M26 due to the 50 kHz high frequency, and the newer more powerful X26 is only 19 Hz low frequency (and thus must walk away from the claimed 100:1 advantage of high frequency), they appear to be left with little (if any) safety margin for the X26. The only safety margin in practice would be the placement of the barbs, the victim's condition, and pure luck.
And that may explain why newer studies (on the newer X26) are seeing more problems than that huge stack of old, probably obsolete, studies that almost certainly predate the X26.
Smith also stated, in response to a direct question from a Member, that Taser had no information that the X26 model is more dangerous than the M26 model.
I'd recommend checking into that claim.
If you arrived here on direct link to a specific post, then you may click here if you wish to view all the latest posts on the Excited-Delirium blog.