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.

Saturday, March 7, 2009

RCMP confirms some tasers out of spec

In December, the RCMP said initial results of its own tests, carried out by an independent lab, showed all 30 tasers pulled randomly from service for scrutiny were within the manufacturer's specifications. This week the police force issued an update that said two of the stun guns tested "were found to be outside" Taser International's 2005 testing protocol standard for open circuit voltage. [LINK]

CBC's testing found 4 of 41 out of spec (~9.7%).

RCMP now admits 2 of 30 out of spec (~6.7%).

Pretty good agreement for a low number of samples. Smells like it is at least indicative.


Has Taser International achieved any of the fundamental Quality certifications that are so common in the world of manufacturing?

ISO9000?

6-sigma?

CMMI?

Anything? Anything at all?


Maybe the police procurement folks should cut-and-paste the usual QA requirements onto their next P.O. heading to Taser's distributor.

In fact, if they neglect to do so, and someone is killed by a defective taser, then some of the liability might very possibly land on their desk for failing to impose the the most basic procurement QA safeguards for what might be a potentially dangerous product.

Do want the plaintiff's lawyer asking you why you didn't impose the normal QA requirements?

1 comment:

Kate said...

When Robert Bagnall died in Vancouver in 2004, the two guns fired were sent to a lab for testing. Both produced more charge than they were supposed to- one was 85 times over normal. Taser International claimed the testing lab used the "wrong method".
No safety standards for Tasers, inquest hears
May 25, 2007
http://www.cameronward.com/docket/2007_05.shtml
There are no Canadian safety standards for Tasers, a "less-lethal" weapon that is designed to fire 50,000 volts of electricty into a person's body, inflicting excruciating pain and overwhelming the central nervous system, a coroner's jury heard yesterday.
Allan Nakatsu, a project team leader with global product testing firm ETL Intertek Semko, testified that, unlike toasters, hair dryers, electric toothbrushes, or even cattle prods and electric fences, no electrical standards or testing protocols exist for the weapons, which were quietly introduced into Canada in 2000.
Mr. Nakatsu also testified that one of the two Tasers Intertek tested generated energy output of 30.42 joules/pulse, eighty-five times greater than the manufacturer's specification of .36 joules/pulse. Earlier, the jury heard that police investigators took the two Tasers used on Robert Bagnell to the lab to be tested.
The manufacturer, Arizona company Taser International Inc., maintains that the Taser is safe. Company spokesman Steve Tuttle has reportedly said that the energy output of .36 joules/pulse is too low to cause cardiac damage.