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.

Thursday, February 5, 2009

A concerned_citizen was paying attention in 'Civics' class

This comment was posted on a CBC news story. [LINK]

concerned_citizen2 wrote:
(Posted 2009/02/04 at 2:19 PM ET)

Since when do police have the authority to "punish" people without trial? I thought that punishment was something that was decided AFTER someone was convicted of a crime? Sure, they have the authority to charge her, detain her, and to use REASONABLE force if required to keep her or others safe. I just cannot see how this kind of force was justified when she was already in police custody (in a cell!). ...

Exactly!!

This concerned citizen obviously remembers what they learned in their Grade 6 'Civics' class.

Using tasers for pain compliance is a violation of several laws (start with s. 269.1). Sooner or later the legal system will catch-up with this issue.


For those with foggy brains that aren't keeping up, please read on...

Why can't the police use the glowing end of a lit cigarette to cause pain? Both the taser and a lit cigarette can leave minor burns. Both cause more-than-intense pain. They seem to be perfectly equivalent from a functional point of view. Please explain what's the legal, moral, and ethical difference? Well?


The hot cigarette is probably safer and cheaper.

No comments: