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.

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

'Police One' exposes bias

Apparently, at one point, the NIJ's website had an error in their summary of the interim NIJ taser report. The website summary had apparently accidentally included the 'condition' "Excited Delirium" in the list of populations where tasering was thought to be more dangerous than normal.

The website PoliceOne has a column [LINK] where the author, Capt. Greg Meyer (ret.), describes his efforts to get the NIJ webpage corrected. And he laments that the incorrect information is now being widely reported though-out the media.

But the erroneous NIJ webpage summary had also accidentally excluded those "at risk".

Mr. Meyer didn't mention that little detail. In fact he stepped around it very carefully.

Considering that this 'at risk' population is of unknown size, and is ill-defined, makes it a major issue.

In fact, this 'at risk' might be the entire point of the taser-safety issue.

Perhaps we can issue a joint statement where everyone on both sides of the taser safety issue can agree that:

Taser are 'safe', excluding several defined populations and provided that the subject is not 'at risk'. The 'at risk' status is ill-defined and may only be revealed at autopsy.

See [LINK]

UPDATE - Agitated Individuals are now widely accepted as being at risk. Via [LINK].

No comments: