Here are the exact words:
"The RCMP's revised [Taser] policy underscores that there are risks associated with the deployment of the device and emphasizes that those risks include the risk of death, particularly for acutely agitated individuals." [LINK]
Make sure that you parse the whole sentence correctly.
The risks [always] 'include the risk of death'.
And if the individual happens to be acutely agitated, then the risk of death is even higher.
Considering that tasers are very often used on acutely agitated individuals, it means that the actual risk (weighted by actual application frequency) is often at the higher level.
Now - think about how tasers are used on individuals that did nothing to deserve having a risk of death imposed upon them. Not really fair. Not really moral. Not really ethical. Not really legal to have a street-level death lottery happening on the streets of Canada, or any other civilized state.
As has been so clearly pointed out on the Truth...Not Tasers blogs, it's not the (rare) success stories that count. It's the utterly evil failures. And if you're going to play a pure numbers game, then harvesting baby organs is the next evil step in such perverted logic.
And the taser numbers aren't very good anyway (keep in mind the 100:1 overusage ratio compared to guns).
If you arrived here on direct link to a specific post, then you may click here if you wish to view all the latest posts on the Excited-Delirium blog.