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.

Monday, May 26, 2008

Reilly's presentation includes ancient data

From the Braidwood Inquiry [LINK]

Mr. Reilly said:

This is a summary of deaths following Taser exposures. There is really no clearinghouse of, you know, data that comes in and where you can have a good representation of this, what are the incidents where people actually die. But there have been some publications in this case. This is the Los Angeles Police Department published some data on where they said they had thousands of incidents and they refer to a small number of deaths, and cardiac-related five deaths. And in most cases the time between the Taser use and the death was some minutes.

Some of these subjects had drug intoxication, others had major pathologies such as kidney, severe kidney problems, or major injuries like gunshot wounds. So you might wonder whether there could be, you know, whether some subset like these five subjects might have died, did they die because of the Taser? And if that were so, you can just see by looking, taking five and divided by whatever "N" is, it's in the thousands, they didn't give the exact number but they said it was thousands, it would be worst a small probability. [LINK]


Did anyone notice the date of this data? See page 9 of his slide package. [LINK]

"Data from ... 1991"

1991 ?!?!?! That's 17 years ago.

This is a classic example of someone using the word 'taser' to mean something different than the X26 taser introduced in 2003, or even the M26 taser introduced in 1999. Even Chairman of Taser Tom Smith has admitted that the earlier tasers were nothing more than ineffective, low-power shock sticks. They have very little in common with the M26 and X26 tasers in use today.

The age of this data makes it perfectly obsolete, totally useless, extremely irrelevant and probably very misleading.


Extract from patrick_reilly.pdf presentation package, page 9:

No comments: