Taser International has panicked.
David Neave, the lawyer for Taser International at the Braidwood Inquiry, asked that the reports by Tseng and several other doctors who were critical of Tasers be blocked; he also asked for a pony for his next birthday (no he didn't). Judge Thomas Braidwood decided the testimony of Tseng and the other medical experts would be allowed, and that Neave wouldn't be getting a pony for his next birthday (just kidding). [LINK]
Taser International has used this type of legal trick in U.S. courts before. They make the claim that their bought-and-paid-for experts are the only experts on the subject of tasers. In the USA it's called a Daubert motion and invokes the Daubert Standard [WIKI].
As (ab)used by Taser International, it's a circular argument of the highest order.
If you Google Taser Daubert [LINK] you will get at least 2800 hits.
It seems obvious to me that, in the mid-term, the pro-taser "scientific evidence" is the crap that will eventually be shown to be of negative value. This process of slowly and inexorably moving away from Taser International's pro-taser 'evidence' of essentially-perfect safety (with respect to internal risk factors), to facing the real world risks (which are obviously not zero as claimed) should not be impeded.
Taser International's pathetic attempt to squash the testimony and/or reports of experts like Dr. Butt (a forensic pathologist with almost 40 years’ experience who was awarded the Order of Canada in 2000 for his work) and Dr. Zian Tseng (a cardiac electrophysiologist at the University of California in San Francisco and a medical expert in sudden death) is more like a Dilbert Motion. [LINK]
Nice try. Three points for style, but no goal. Welcome to Canada.
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.