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.

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Inexplicable recommendation

#63: July 17, 2004, Jerry Knight, 29, Mississauga, Ontario [LINK]

Canwest News Service (13 June 2008) Brampton, Ont. - Jurors at an Ontario coroner's inquest into the death of a 29-year-old man in police custody recommended Friday the provincial government consider authorizing all front-line officers either to carry or have access to a taser. Jerry Knight, a former amateur boxer, died in the summer of 2004 less than 30 minutes after police were called to a Mississauga motel lobby by a clerk reporting an unruly guest. High on cocaine and acting erratically, officers used pepper spray and eventually a taser to try and subdue Knight who died after loosing consciousness while lying on his stomach, hog-tied in handcuffs. ... [LINK]

Note - the police in this case did have and did use a taser. Then they hog-tied the subject. And the subject then died (from something or other).

So therefore [the coroner's jury concludes], 'tasers are good.'

Huh?

There's more to the article, but none of it really satisfactorily explains the recommendation. The only thread-bare whisker of attempted logic is:

"Ron Ellis, a lawyer for Knight's family, said using a taser to immediately subdue the 29-year-old may have prevented the ensuing melee that involved more than 20 officers."

What? Based on some sort of assumption that, in spite of reportedly being high on cocaine, the subject would have reacted politely to being shocked with 50,000 volts, and thus the hog-tying would have been avoided, and thus the death (which, by the way, was attributed to everything except the taser) would have been avoided.

That's quite the series of assumptions. Almost a trifecta.

And based on this apparent nonsense, they're basically recommending a taser-quicker policy?

This recommendation is inexplicable.

No comments: