Thesis - odds of being correct: '1-in-a-million'

Billo left another pro-taser comment in a previous post [LINK]. I really dislike 'comment wars' because they're too much of a time-sink for too little benefit. But I do enjoy shredding pro-taser arguments.


Billo billo billo...

What am I to do with you? (By the way, any response to [LINK]?)

The paper you referenced reveals the sad, sad state of the "science" surrounding tasers. The "science" is immature in the extreme, and rife with external (internal?) influences. It is also based on a house of cards of early taser 'science' built by Taser fan-boys before the issue was noted by others.

The referenced paper has 38 explicitly listed assumptions, and hundreds more implicit ones. One of the worst assumptions is the utter crudeness of their computer model as compared to the human body. By my estimation, the detailed structure human body is probably about 100,000 times more complex than their crude-by-comparison finite element model (FEM). Their model assumes isotropic blocks of a number of tissue types which leads to predictions of a smooth distribution of current. Not included are any small details such as veins, arteries, nerves, and the millions of other small detail that make a human body distinct from a Ken-doll.

In high-current electrocutions (power lines, not tasers) the outcome is normally not broad sections of cooked meat (as this type of computer model would indicate). The outcome is often a current track (often just one), a thin wire-like path of burnt tissue, running from entry point to exit point. This current track indicates that the current primarily followed a distinct path, and was not distributed in smooth waves though each chunk of tissue. The smooth distribution of current shown in this paper does not jive with this well-known reality. And there is nothing to suggest that the taser would be any different.

Also of note, this thesis contains material literally cut-and-paste from the mothership Taser. Not just for reference, but as input.

The findings are ludicrous and (given the numbers) even one taser-associated death linked to the taser as a contributing cause of death would reveal the paper's conclusions to be incorrect or overstated. Since we have many more than one clear examples (about 30 [?] at last count, including a $6.2 judgment), the real world is not explained by this "science".

Let me summarize it this way. If your computer model predicted that a prototype automobile was going to get a million miles per gallon, would you believe it?

G.I.G.O.