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, May 12, 2009

"Minimum force" - it's a noun...

The word "force"... It's so confusing. One day, it's a noun. The next day, it's a verb. One can hardly be expected to keep up...

Lockport, NY — A Niagara Falls police lieutenant testified Monday that an assistant county prosecutor gave officers the go-ahead last fall to use “minimum force” necessary to take a DNA sample from a man who was subsequently shocked by a taser when he wouldn’t submit to a mouth swab. ... [LINK]

The thing is, this distinction was clearly understood back in the turbulent late-1960s. Protesting students were often lifted bodily, using minimum lawful 'force' (noun), and carted off. But everyone knew during that era that lawful 'force' was a noun. They didn't get away with using cattle-prods to 'force' (verb) people to obey.

Every now and then society takes a giant step backwards. Allowing the law enforcement community to get confused by the word 'force' is one such example.

And allowing a company to openly sell what is clearly "an instrument of torture" is a huge error.


By the way - anyone out there conquered the Cigarette Challenge [LINK] yet?

Why can't the police just 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. The cigarette might be safer. They seem to be perfectly equivalent from a functional point of view. Please explain what's the legal, moral, and ethical difference? Well?

Hey buddy - allow us to take a DNA swab from your mouth or we will burn you in the shoulder for two seconds with this glowing cigarette.

No comments: