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.

Friday, May 8, 2009

Protecting... [the M.E. from] ...the facts

Superintendent Wayne Rideout testified that he did not correct falsified reports in the media because his “...belief at the time is we needed to protect the facts we were gathering”. [LINK]


Excuse me.

The Medical Examiner that performed the autopsy testified that he was left with the false impression that Mr. Dziekanski was tasered just twice, as opposed to five times for 31 seconds.

So this failure to correct the false media reports also extends to misleading the medical examiner. Which is criminal.

They could have told the M.E. about the five taser shocks and asked him to keep the info to himself.

But they didn't.

Which is highly indicative.


sal said...

I dont know about the taser but you cannot influence a pathologist in the execution of his duty. If the cops had provided opinion or information to the pathologist, it would be highly improper. The coroner is the one to be given information for his inquiry. The pathologist has a duty to perform without interference.

Excited-Delirium.com said...

Hello Sal, thanks for your comment.

Reading between the lines, I believe that we're in basic agreement about letting people do their jobs without unethical influence.

I've replied in the blog with all the background.