RESTRAINT - Risk of Death in Subjects That Resist

The so-called Canadian Police Research Centre is working on a study called 'RESTRAINT (Risk of Death in Subjects That Resist)'. [LINK] The head of the CPRC sat beside Taser's Tom Smith in Ottawa at the Commons committee. Not even trying to maintain a credibility air-gap.

I assume that CPRC will eventually be presenting a Part 2 to be entitled:

DEATH-LOTTERY (Risk of Death in Subjects that are, for example, simply standing there failing to understand commands yelled at them by RCMP officers who have already been told that the subject doesn't understand the English language and those officers already decided that they were going to use the taser even before they arrived on the scene)


"...Subjects that Resist" my ass.

Even the sub-title of the report is evil propaganda that discounts an entire class of taser victims.


Look up 'Karma' on this blog for some ethical guidance about forcing people to unwillingly participate in a street-level death-lottery.


Now, you want to discuss Risk of Death?

Taser proudly points to a so-called study by Webster et al that (get this!) calculates that the risk of death from a taser hit is in the low end of the single digit range in parts per million (some pro-taser spokespuppets [hi Greg] round it to 1-in-10 million).

Not coincidently, this insanely low number means that, given some 700,000+ deployments (including all those many FAKE taser demonstration shots into the back - and ignoring this denominator washing for the time being...), that it is most likely that not a single person in history has ever been killed by a taser [sic(k)]. How convenient from a liability point of view.

With 'science' like this, who needs sorcery?

Taser and Kroll claim that the taser is "safer than Tylenol".

So CPRC - here is the question: Do you believe this crap?

Look at some of the taser-associated deaths reported here and tracked on other blogs. There are more and more cases where the young victim is DRUG FREE, and has NO PRE-EXISTING MEDICAL CONDITION. And yet they are tasered and die of obvious cardiac effects.

(Update: By the way, drug use and pre-existing medical conditions should be considered as 'givens' in the population - so these sorts of issues cannot be considered to be escape clauses in any case. This subtle point has been examined in some detail in this blog before, look it up.)

And now, recently, some coroners and medical examiners have managed to swim away from the excited delirium and related propaganda campaign (indirectly sponsored by Taser by the way) and have found that the taser was the cause of death [LINK].

According to Taser's twisted and perverted world-view - this can't be happening.


If you believe that the risk of death-by-taser (internal, cardiac) is higher than 1-in-10 million, then you must also conclude that Taser and Kroll are wrong. And if they're wrong, then they're liable and deserve to be bankrupted.

So what is your position CPRC?


PS: Have your work checked (if you dare) by epidemiologist Dr. Chambers [LINK][LINK] to see if it jives with the real world statitics. There appears to be zero chance of any overlap between Taser's world-view and the real world (but that's just my opinion based on common-sense).

Update: See also previous post 'Injuries vs Death' [LINK]