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.

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Real scoop on Tasers un-buried

Link= Calgary Sun: Real scoop on Tasers buried

Columnist Michael Platt tries to make the point that this taser 'success story' is being ignored. Well, I'll not ignore it. Let's celebrate it.

"Instead of reaching for his gun, a move justified in an obvious case of self-defence, the officer radioed for help, then tried to use a Taser on the man. ... The Calgary cop clearly chose to defend himself in a way least likely to kill the attacker."

That's nice. No seriously! That is actually nice.

"When the Taser didn't work, traditional fisticuffs thankfully did."

"On Tuesday, the Taser failed to stop the suspect, possibly due to his thick clothes. But instead of resorting to a bullet, the officer fought on, eventually wrestling the man into submission."

So thank goodness he had a taser!! (??????) Because... because? Because he didn't have to shoot him with a gun, which he apparently didn't even when the taser was ineffective.

I give up trying to piece the logic together.

But thank goodness he had a taser... (????)


Nate said...

Yep, I couldn't follow the anti-anti-taser logic either.

As far as I can tell, the piece is saying that asking authorities to reign in police who needlessly taser is wrong because one cop found a taser ineffective and resorted to traditional means of law enforcement. Like you say, it's great that he had that taser right?

Michael said...

Well, I guess I have one to add to this.

There is one fact that isn't mentioned here. The cop DIDN'T resort to the "drive stun mode" option, as happens OFTEN when officers find the initial deployment "ineffective". Kudos to the officer who did his job. Seems odd to have to "celebrate" just doing your job correctly though....wtf?!