www.Excited-Delirium.com: Taser subtly shifts its safety claims again

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, January 27, 2009

Taser subtly shifts its safety claims again

As part of its carefully-planned, almost-imperceptible sneaky legal shuffle away from liability [LINK], Taser has just subtly shifted the wording of its safety claims again.

"...the taser device is not... ...unreasonably dangerous..." [LINK]

So now the taser is 'not unreasonably dangerous'.

In other words, it is dangerous - just not unreasonably so.

That's a vast change from the taser being perfectly incapable of affecting the heart in any manner whatsoever as Taser and Kroll have repeatedly claimed.

Can we all now agree that there actually is a moderate risk of DEATH from internal risk factors (such as cardiac effects) when the X26 darts actually land on the victim's chest?

Such an acknowledgment would certainly help to explain all those incidents where people have died immediately after being tasered.

I have guesstimate the odds of DEATH as being within sight of the low end of the single digit range - once all the possible external safety factors and denominator washing factors are eliminated (leaving only the inherent safety margin alone, naked, scared, and certainly not 15-to-1).

The risk certainly ain't millions-to-one as Taser and their fan-boys have tried to claim. They're obviously off by several orders of magnitude.

It's like watching a bad child shifting sideways - heels left, toes left, heels left, toes left, heels left, toes left.

Hey, where do you think you're going?

1 comment:

Reality Chick said...: Another example of this wording in a report today: ""The Taser weapon, the gun, performed just as it is supposed to perform," said Darrell Townsend, attorney and case analyst. "There was nothing defective about it. There was nothing unreasonably dangerous about it, based on all that the plaintiff's attorneys have been able to discover about the weapon over the course of a couple years."

I guess the "plaintiff's attorneys" referred to are none other than "Doug Klint, executive vice president and general counsel for Taser"?

Here's a link to today's report:
http://www.wsmv.com/news/18585583/detail.html; January 29, 2009 at 12:10 AM

Why "Excited-Delirium.com" ???

It's used in the sense of "excited delirium" my ass.

I don't believe it. My finely-honed 'BS Detector' pegs when I see that flimsy excuse being dragged out.

But my real intent in choosing this counter-intuitive name was to preempt Taser's use of the phrase.

Now, every time Taser uses the phrase excited delirium, they are essentially advertising this blog. This blog is now on the first page for any Google search [LINK] for the phrase excited delirium. I love it.

Taser et al hate it. They've been forced to switch to the new meaningless empty phrase Sudden Death Following Restraint (shouldn't that be '...During Restraint'?). If you look at that phrase closely, you can see that it is a placeholder for ignorance.

So by choosing the name Excited-Delirium.com, I have made a good attempt at preempting Taser's use of the phrase excited delirium.

And it is not as if they could actually trademark the phrase...
(see the Trademark Notice section for the rest of the joke).

Disclaimers

There may be the occasional error or omission in this blog. I've tried to be as accurate as I can, but please check all information for yourself before using it for any significant purpose.

If you have any particular concerns about what you perceive is an inaccuracy or significant omission, please do not hesitate to contact the blog at the e-mail address given (in this right-hand column, in the cute little baby-blue box). I will be happy to make any required corrections provided that your request is self-evidently reasonable, or is backed-up with trust-worthy scientific evidence.

Any incoming legal documents will be immediately scanned-in and published. If you don't want this to happen, then don't bother sending them. If you send in such legal documents, that action on your part indicates your legal and binding agreement that such documents may be scanned in and published on this weblog and others (3rd party, such as Chilling Effect and EFF). You agree that this legal disclaimer takes precedence over any copyright notices that may be contained on, or with, or applicable to, your submissions. You agree that the copyright of all such legal documents is assigned to the party receiving same. This agreement will also apply in reverse (we must be fair).

For Taser's point of view on many of these issues, please head on over to their website. This intent of this blog is to provide the other side of the story; therefore their views on controversial issues will generally not be included here.

Every post is subject to being continuously updated without notice to correct typos, minor inaccuracies, improve wording, make more clear, or for any other purpose.

A Point to Ponder - Part 1

Since when did 'compliance' to police orders become mandatory on pain of death(*) or of immediate application of excruciating pain (torture)?

(* Except - obviously and reasonably - in the case of something like 'Drop that gun!" And apparently, in Canada, attempting to escape from prison.)

For example: if a police officer tells you to get into the back seat of his police car, and you don't (in a passive manner similar to Ghandi), is the police officer:

1) Allowed to kill you?
2) Allowed to induce unnecessary severe pain (torture)?
3) Allowed to pick-up your sorry ass and shove it, and you, into the back seat of his police car himself (or with others helping); and if you accidentally bonk your head on the way in, too bad?

I thought that the ONLY correct answer was #3, and I don't recall ever getting a memo that said that #1 or #2 were EVER considered to be legal.

I'll repeat that because it's REALLY important...

I don't think that options #1 nor #2 are EVER considered to be legal.

If there is a law about obeying a police officer's orders, and you don't, then it should result in just ONE MORE CHARGE and (maybe) ANOTHER 30 DAYS IN JAIL (or whatever). It certainly doesn't justify #1 nor #2.

Such a law, where such laws exist, is just another law. It is not a blank check for police to commit murder, nor to commit abuse.

Passive disobedience should never be considered to allow #1 (murder) or #2 (abuse) by the police under any circumstances (except, as mentioned above, in the case of "Drop the gun!")

Did I miss the memo? Or have we all forgotten our 'Civics' lessons from Grade 6?

Continued below...

A Point to Ponder - Part 2

Some of you might still be wondering why #2 isn't permissible.

Well, let's think about that for a second...

Imagine that instead of tasering YOU (the passive-resistive subject), the police officer grabs YOUR CHILD and starts to taser your child until you obey his verbal orders to get in the back of his car. I'm sure that this sort of emotional extortion would be highly effective in most cases, but would it be acceptable?

Well obviously not. Tasering a subject's child to coerce obedience from the subject is completely unacceptable and totally illegal in any civilized country.

So what's the difference between the passively-resisting subject and the subject's innocent child?

Answer: NOTHING.

You might be thinking that the subject is breaking the law (or laws) and therefore deserves to be punished.

Yeah, maybe. But that's for the court to decide. Remember all that mumbo-jumbo about 'innocent until proven guilty'?

In the eyes of The Law, the subject is exactly as innocent as the child until he is convicted in a court of law.

This Philosophy-101 thought-experiment clearly demonstrates that a very common (the most common?) actual field application of the taser (i.e. pain compliance) is illegal in any civilized country.

I'm honestly surprised that this point hasn't been the subject of successful lawsuits ten-thousand times over by now.

And the Taser training material and methods should be closely reviewed to ensure that they haven't been promoting this sort of illegal pain-compliance abuse (such as 'Drive-mode'). If they've been the source of this confusion, then I hope that they're somehow sucked into the civil rights lawsuits.

Continued below...

A Point to Ponder - Part 3

Why has the legal system failed to pursue this point each and every time that someone's rights are so flagrantly violated?

I think that the authorities are getting confused between the two different words, both spelled 'force'. It's as simple as noun versus verb.

Legal or lawful force is physical force (noun) sufficient to accomplish the goal and no more. It means that if the police want someone to get into the back seat of the police car, then the police are entitled to physically place the subject into the back seat of the police car using reasonable amounts of physical force (noun).

For back-up of this statement, please refer to the following blog post regarding the Criminal Code of Canada - lawful force where the conclusion is that "...the Criminal Code of Canada ... the word 'force', when applied to the concept of lawful force, is ALWAYS a noun, NEVER a verb."

Another meaning of the word 'force' would be an extortion (or an intimidation, or a coercion). As in to 'force' (verb) someone to do something.

Examples of this meaning include:

"Get in the car or we'll taser your child."

"Get in the car or we'll taser you."

"Get in the car or we will beat your child with a club."

"Get in the car or we will beat you with a club."

"Get in the car or we'll shoot your dog."

"Get in the car or we'll torture you with a cattle-prod."

"Get in the police car or we'll kick-in the grill of your car."

All of these statements are clearly illegal. They're a form of extortion or coercion (which is illegal), and they're threats of police abuse (which are also illegal). And if the threat is actually carried out, those actions would also be illegal.

What would be legal or lawful approach is something like the following:

"Get in the police car. Or we will place you in the police car anyway, and then we will ALSO charge you with 'Failure to obey...' and perhaps 'Resisting Arrest', in accordance with (chapters and verses). It is your choice sir, and I'll give you another few seconds to consider your options."

Now, doesn't that sound more civilized? And it sounds strangely familiar too. Like from another era (1968?) when perhaps people understood the subtle meaning of words slightly better than it seems that they do now.

A Point to Ponder - Conclusion

The boundary between what constitutes lawful force (noun), and what constitutes illegal police abuse, is a very fine line.

But with the subtle distinction described above, it is also (thankfully) a very clear and distinct line, and one that can be easily tested in court.

It is an important distinction that is critical to forming the basis of the society.

If you live in a society that generally permits the police to force (verb) people to obey their orders, then (putting it simply) you live in what amounts to a police state. On that side of the very fine line is a very slippery slope.

But if you live in a society where the police powers are generally limited to issuing tickets and making arrests, where the determination of guilt and assignment of punishment of any form is the strict domain of the courts, where the police are never allowed to apply severe pain as a method to force (verb) compliance or as an on-the-spot punishment, then you live in a society that is under the Rule of Law.

We obviously need a clear boundary. This appears to be a very good one. It also seems that it is already written into the Criminal Code of Canada. But it really seems that we've forgotten.

What has been missing is a more aggressive approach on the part of lawyers representing victims of abuse, and perhaps less tolerance from the courts to fanciful tales of 'high risk' encounters with people that obviously pose very little risk on any sensible scale.

If the police officers involved in some of these incidents are so risk-adverse that they're willing to taser someone before trying other approaches, then perhaps those police should be reassigned to a nice (very safe) desk job for the next year or two, or perhaps they should even be forced to permanently change careers away from policing to something with less risk.

The take-away point is this:

Lawful 'force' is a noun, never a verb.

Extreme-pain, extra-judicial punishment device

It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway. Using the taser as an extreme-pain extra-judicial punishment device is ALWAYS illegal.

In other words, once the police have the subject under control, then any further applications of the taser as 'punishment' constitute torture, unlawful abuse, and a clear violation of civil rights. Have a look at YouTube for far-too-many examples of this exact crime.

There are examples where, after the fact, the police force and prosecutor will strike a bargain with the victim along the lines of, "We'll ignore your heinous crime if you ignore ours."

What SHOULD happen is that the local prosecuting attorney should go after BOTH parties. The subject should be prosecuted for whatever misdemeanor he committed, and the police officer(s) for all the applicable serious crimes that they may have committed.

The local prosecuting attorney should not be in the business of trading-off one crime against another. In fact, negotiating such a trade (often on behalf of the police, for the purpose of 'making it go away') should itself be a crime. There have even been horror stories where the prosecutor reportedly threatened to pile-on more charges to intimidate the victim into not suing everyone involved.

Sarcasm

Here's an idea that might explain the 'unexpected' lethality of the tasers:

Maybe some victims really believed in their bones that they were in a free and democratic 'Rule of Law' society - as opposed to a police state where they could be tortured in public. So, while they are contemplating the meaning and purpose of life during the longest five seconds of their life, they decide that they are now so disappointed at what has happened to their country, that they basically just lose the will to live.

Look at the common sense: If we have 3000 people standing around one afternoon drinking Tim Hortons coffee and tasering each other for laughs, will 20 of them topple over dead if there wasn't some sort of connection? Even if some of them were snorting cocaine and fighting, 20/3000 is still one heck of a death rate. The fact that these incidents are spread out in time, doesn't change the absurd ratio.

And if the country-wide total denominator is actually much higher than 3000 (thereby helping to reduce this apparent taser-related death ratio) because of other organizations (other than the RCMP) also being taser trigger-happy, then this recalculation simply adds fuel to the fire about how often the tasers are being misused in Canada (as evidenced by the even larger excessive deployment rate)!

Trademark Notice

TASER, X26, and M26 are registered trademarks owned by TASER International, Inc.

In this blog, the word 'Taser' is generally used to refer to TASER International, Inc. The exceptions are primarily in quotations from others. This usage is nominative, fair and reasonable because that's the company to which I'm referring.

In this blog, the word 'taser' is generally used to refer to the X26 or M26 Conducted Energy Weapons. And 'X26' and 'M26' are used to refer to those specific Taser products. Again, this usage is nominative, fair and reasonable because those are the products to which I'm referring.

'Excited Delirium' is apparently not a registered trademark of Taser, although sometimes it seems that way.

All trademarks are property of their respective owners and are being used without permission. The publication of the trademarks has not been authorized by, associated with or sponsored by the trademark owner. Click on this paragraph for legal guidance on fair use of trademarks.

For more information about US trademarks, please visit the US Patent and Trademark Office.

Link= www.USPTO.gov

Copyright "Fair Use" Notice

This blog will contain occasional small extracts from documents and related material that may be copyrighted by TASER International, Inc., or by other companies or organizations.

FAIR USE (FAIR DEALING) is claimed for purposes including but not limited to education, criticism, reporting and informed discussion of an important public policy issue.

All copyrighted material used in this blog (webpage) is property of the respective owners and is being used without explicit permission. The publication of the extracts has not been authorized by, associated with or sponsored by the copyright owner.

www.Excited-Delirium.com

Mission Statement - De-Spinning the Pro-Taser Propaganda

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Taser subtly shifts its safety claims again

1 comment:

Contact, Comment, Complain:

Recommended Search Method

Secondary search method

De-spinning the spin

Taser's worst nightmares?

Allies in the blogosphere

Komputer tłumaczenie nie jest doskonały.

Why "Excited-Delirium.com" ???

Criminal Code of Canada on torture

Disclaimers

Navigation note:

Hit Counter

A Point to Ponder - Part 1

A Point to Ponder - Part 2

A Point to Ponder - Part 3

A Point to Ponder - Conclusion

Disclaimer:

Criminal Code of Canada: R.S., c. C-34, s. 26.

Extreme-pain, extra-judicial punishment device

Sarcasm

Trademark Notice

Copyright "Fair Use" Notice

E-D blog Privacy Policy

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Map

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed

Blog Archive

Legal Disclaimer