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.

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

"...avoid use of lethal force?"

Is the following question the slightest bit confusing?

"Did the threat or use of CEW avoid use of lethal force?"


CPC Report -
The result of this misunderstanding is that members tend to answer "yes," when "no" or "not applicable" would be a more appropriate answer given the circumstances. [LINK]


Sorry - the question appears to be perfectly clear to me.

'Yes' obviously means, 'Yes, the CEW helped the officer avoid the use of lethal force.'

I simply do not buy this ridiculous attempt to wriggle free from the obvious false-reporting.


To make the books balance (with respect to ~600 'avoided' killings per year, as opposed to maybe a dozen or so), you'd have to expect the public to believe that ~98% of the RCMP Members misinterpreted this simple question and did not intend to claim that they would have been forced to use lethal force on the subject.


Puhleeze...

There are alternative explanations that do not stretch the bounds of logic and common sense.


Update: CPC Chair Kennedy said, "There were at most two cases where the subject could be considered so dangerous that lethal force might have been used to prevent escape."[LINK] So that means that the "~98%" calculated above should actually be more like 99.67% (?!?). That's one hell of a question misinterpretation rate. Do you think their excuse would stand-up in a court of law, if push comes to shove?

No comments: