Mission Statement - De-Spinning the Pro-Taser Propaganda

Yeah right, 'Excited Delirium' my ass...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The primary purpose of this blog is to provide an outlet for my observations and analysis about tasers, taser "associated" deaths, and the behaviour exhibited by the management, employees and minions of Taser International. In general, everything is linked back to external sources, often via previous posts on the same topic, so that readers can fact-check to their heart's content. This blog was started in late-2007 when Canadians were enraged by the taser death of Robert Dziekanski and four others in a short three month period. The cocky attitude exhibited by the Taser International spokespuppet, and his preposterous proposal that Mr. Dziekanski coincidentally died of "excited delirium" at the time of his taser-death, led me to choose the blog name I did and provides my motivation. I have zero financial ties to this issue.

Tuesday, January 1, 2008

Oh my... a goldmine...

Have a read and then come back to review:

Link= CrunchGear

Start with this:

TASER’s Mark W. Kroll responds in an email:

Him again? Keeps turning up like a bad penny...

The infamous Ruggieri clearly does not count as he is a high-school dropout fired by the Coast Guard where he had been hired by falsely claiming to be an engineer. His junk science manuscript, “Lethality of TASERs” was rejected by the reviewers for the Journal of Forensic Science so he has never had a peer-reviewed article. Ruggieiri got a friend to do a photocopy “publication” of an amusing piece which claimed, among other things, that cardiomyopathy patients could die from the static shock of walking across carpet or combing their hair. He also apparently solved the energy problem by getting 704 watts out of a TASER device powered by a 30 watt pack of 8 AA cells. One glance at this piece will disabuse anyone of the fantasy that it was ever peer reviewed.


Some rebuttals:

Jean | November 27th, 2007 at 1:34 am

Thanks for this article. It seems there are many here who wish to silent you too. The Taser’s respondant Mark W. Kroll should verify his sources. His reply only shows contempt but not a single ounce of consideration for others opinion nor for the truth, and this is precisely what we could object to Taser. Recently a UN committee expressed concerns regarding the Taser saying that is looks like a torture gun.

About Ruggieri’s credentials, one should read the following article:

www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/11338

“Ruggieri said he left high school to attend college in New York. He later obtained a master’s degree in computer science from the University of Phoenix. Ruggieri’s resume shows that he is a professional engineer with licenses in five states. He said he has investigated electrical accidents for federal agencies and helped write electrical safety standards for top electrical laboratories and commissions. (His) study, published … in the peer-reviewed Journal of the National Academy of Forensic Engineers, concluded that the shocks are powerful enough to cause fatal heart rhythms. It is one of the few scientific studies of Taser’s electric jolt in which the company did not participate. Journal Editor Marvin Specter said the academy is affiliated with the National Society of Professional Engineers and is made up of experts in several engineering disciplines. The Journal lists a technical review committee for Ruggieri’s study that includes 20 engineers, including one well-known Taser consultant. The reviewers’ identities are confidential and have not been released, Specter said. Specter said Ruggieri’s paper went through a rigorous peer-review process before being published in the biannual journal”



Gerteg Brueller | March 30th, 2007 at 3:07 pm

"The comment of Mark Kroll is part of why the Taser Co. has lost so much respect. I am a professor of physics and electrical engineering and I have verified the study made by Mr. Ruggieri. Also, an esteemed professor at Duke University at the United States, and a close former student of my at a national laboratory has also confirmed Ruggieri’s testing and results. I looked up Mark Kroll and note that he is employed by Taser. Why did he not reveal that he has a large axe to grind? This company has lost so much respect and affection and we will never use these equipment here in this country."


Anonymous Engineer | June 14th, 2007 at 7:53 am

Ignoring the debate on the merits of Tasers for a moment, there is a serious flaw in the argument. Did Mark Kroll (Chief Technologist of St. Jude Medical Cardiac Rhythm Management) and apparently on the board of directors at Taser, seriously make this dismissive statement:

“He also apparently solved the energy problem by getting 704 watts out of a TASER device powered by a 30 watt pack of 8 AA cells.”

If that is Mark’s considered opinion, he is clearly incompetent to speak on the issue. It is TRIVIAL to get 704 watts out of a 30 watt pack of batteries. It doesn’t break the laws of conservation of energy. ‘Watts’ is a measure of POWER, not ENERGY. A chief technologist working for Taser should be competent enough to know the difference. For example, you could charge a capacitor from the 30 watt pack of batteries for 12 seconds, then discharge the capacitor in half a second … that would give you an output of 720 watts. (Ignoring inefficiencies - I’m pointing out the lack of logic here, not designing a circuit for them)

I hope that this was only a momentarily lapse of competence on Taser’s behalf. I hope.

(PS: This comment is anonymous because it doesn’t rely on my identity to give it value. Any competent engineer will confirm the details.)



Well, I can vouch for that basic fact about power and energy. If a so-called Ph.D. doesn't know that of the top of his head, then he should turn in his diploma.

The above exchange reflects very badly on that cornered wild animal that Taser has become. Very dangerous.

No comments: