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.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Deju vu - all over again - a 4th (or 5th?) time

(CP) Vancouver, BC (25 June 2008) - British Columbia's police complaints commissioner, Dirk Ryneveld, on the subject of tasers: [LINK]
  1. doesn't advocate a moratorium
  2. they've become a 'tool of convenience'
  3. more testing, study and training is required
  4. had a long-standing concern with the taser and how it's being used
  5. issues raised several years ago still haven't been resolved.
  6. needs to be placed higher on the use-of-force scale
  7. a national protocol

Gee, that all sounds very familiar...

But here is the kicker. You are unlikely to see any significant results until a (temporary?) moratorium is declared. This view is based on item 5 in the above list. Recommendations have been ignored and ignored and ignored.

It's time to stop 'boiling the frog' and toss him into the frying pan.


zonga said...

To our host:

Your blog is informative, factual, clear and to the point.

Please do not get tired - please do not stop.

Thank you
Thank you.
Thank you.

Anonymous said...


To all the readers that share my concerns about this issue...

What YOU can do (if you're not too busy) is to take advantage of this blog (which saves you the effort of arguing until you're blue in the face), and simply pass along the URL to as many interested people and open web-comment pages as possible. Also, mention it to your local newspaper. Write an e-mail to the editor.

(don't forget the dash)

Please include the tag line "(don't forget the dash)" because when the link is verbalized as it is passed along, the dash might be dropped (which is bad as it leads to a site owned by Taser's lawyer).

The main point is that this blog has gathered up (and created a few) the rebuttals to Taser's propaganda. We've virtually cleaned-out their arsenal of arguments.

The stupid argument "Better than a gun" is dead. Killed stone-cold dead by statistics and counter examples. Now that argument is a mark of ignorance.

"Incapacitation" is walking wounded.

Many many more. Their arguments are mostly wiped out. Destroyed or damaged.

Please pass along the link so that more people will see it.

Thank you.

zonga said...

Unless the taser is used IN PLACE OF A GUN where A GUN WITH BULLETS would seem appropriate it is torture. The police must heel. They must be forced to make accurate reports and tasering must be investigated as police shootings are investigated. Otherwise we are back to torture.

I have posted links to this site when I can - the latest was at
by William N. Grigg.

Anonymous said...

Another lie that I've exposed is the 'incapacitation' argument. The taser is supposed to provide a 5-second period of incapacitation. But if the police officer is busy holding the taser and doesn't take any practical advantage of the period, then what's the point?

This makes the stand-off deployed barbs (often) no better than the drive-stun mode. It's simply pain for pain's sake. Just a bit further away.

And it leads to repeated 5-second cycles. What else do you do after standing there for five seconds holding the taser?

I find it all so obvious once the arguments are considered for a day or two.