National Post (13 June 2008) - "...be glad that there exists a level ... between bare-handed self-defence and the bullet. ...And many police forces require officers equipped with the Taser to take a jolt from the weapon before it is issued — an impressive show of faith in its safety. ..." [LINK]
Most of the article is good, but a few items of pro-Taser propaganda have slipped through:
1. "...be glad [taser better than] ...the bullet."
First, tasers are used about 100 times more often than bullets (police gunfire) ever were. This figure varies widely, but it's a reasonably good round number. This fact makes any argument based on "better than a gun" or "alternative to the gun" (or similar) into nothing but a damn lie.
2. "[training shocks] ...an impressive show of faith in its safety."
Utter bollocks. Taser training is NEVER done with the barbs fired into the chest. Look at all the examples of training on YouTube or news photos where the training session includes a tasering into the back; but NEVER into the chest. There are several studies that indicate that the safety issue is closely related to the placement of the barbs or darts (chest potentially dangerous, back much less so).
If the police are so confident about the inherent safety, then they should take their taser training shots into their chests (across the heart) as it is often deployed on the street (or in airports). This old-taser-into-the-back trick is such a clear example of a cheap 'stage trick' that I'm surprised that they still get away with it.
If you'd like references to my claims, they are well documented in the blog below...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments from Taser International Inc. or their sock-puppets will not be published, but will be investigated. If you have a good pro-taser argument, then go start your own blog (they are free). Comments are moderated. And Google now automatically filters out comment spam.