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.

Sunday, February 8, 2009

A letter to The Star...

Please read the entire letter here at The Star: [LINK]

Feb. 4

The use of the taser on a 14-year-old girl for 'picking at the paint' while in custody in Sioux Lookout demonstrates more than 'usage creep.' It is a measure of our society – and a sad measure at that. ... The taser, at best, has become a morally corrupt and dangerous tool of mindless public enforcement agencies and institutions, and poorly directed civil servants. At worst, it may have become a pleasure toy for potentially sadistic and cowardly individuals who have sought and achieved positions of authority. ... When will we demand that our politicians in all political parties cease their dithering on this issue?

Barry Kurtz, Toronto


Amen!


I'll bet that nobody can answer the following question:

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?

Actually I can answer it: There's ZERO difference.

Except for the evil and deceptive propaganda that surrounds tasers. The outcome of that propaganda is that some decision makers have been convinced that tasering children, to make them behave, is now acceptable.

There will be a special place in Hell reserved for people that allow this outrage to continue.

No comments: