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, June 30, 2008

NIJ findings are not '1-in-a-million'

Billo claims that the risk of significant taser-induced (internal) injury (I think he intends to include death in this figure) is "1-in-a-million". But that isn't what the interim NIJ report stated. The NIJ report uses words that are more compatible with risks in the range of 1-in-100. The report uses words like "low", the report doesn't use words like "extremely low".

In fact, they said almost the opposite: "...found no conclusive evidence of a high risk..." [LINK]

Billo is vastly exaggerating the NIJ's findings of safety (in spite of him being on the panel).

And to be clear - some taser critics might settle for a risk figure in the single-digit percentage range.


The NIJ panel was forced to conclude that multiple taser hits are possibly dangerous. These must be the steepest bell curves in history if two or more hits are sufficiently dangerous to be worth mentioning, while one taser hit is essentially perfectly safe ("1-in-a-million"). Does not make sense on its face.


This eagerly-awaited 'major' study fails to make any distinction between drive-stun mode or dart-firing mode. Even for an interim report, this is a mile-wide hole.


And here are the NIJ safety findings in graphical format. The areas are approximately in proportion to the population. And if you think that tasers are less likely to be used on children and the elderly (weighting), then they're more than compensated for by the population of drug users with heart problems or those 'at risk'. The graphic speaks for itself.


No comments: