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.

Thursday, June 5, 2008

What's the simplest explanation?

CLAY, N.Y. - An Onondaga County grand jury won't charge a Syracuse-area police officer who used a Taser on a man who later died. Christopher Jackson [#329, LINK] went into cardiac arrest in March after Clay Police Officer Kevin Drumm stunned him with a taser. Authorities were called to Jackson's apartment for a domestic complaint involving his mother. While Drumm was interviewing a witness, the 37-year-old Jackson tried to grab him. After warning that he was going to use a taser, Drumm shot Jackson with the stun device. Within 90 seconds of handcuffing Jackson, officers noticed he was unresponsive and called for paramedics. Jackson was pronounced dead at a local hospital. [LINK]

"...within 90 seconds..." What are the odds?


Kroll insisted tasers are safe under all circumstances... [LINK]

Do you think, maybe, possibly, perhaps, that Kroll is just plain wrong?

The first of Clark's three laws [LINK]: When a distinguished but elderly scientist [Kroll, but he's not THAT old, and neither is he THAT distinguished] states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

Kroll thinks that a taser death is impossible [we're not talking about falling down here].

I think that Kroll is very probably wrong.

No comments: