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.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Taser (partially) quotes NIJ...

In relation to the taser-associated death of Brian Cardall, but without mentioning the name "Brian Cardall", Taser International spokespuppet Steve Tuttle issued the following statement to KSL:

"While we continue to acknowledge that Taser technology is not risk free, [So, can it kill, directly? Yes? No? Hello?] the NIJ report speaks volumes affirming our previous statements concerning the safety of Taser devices..." - Steve Tuttle, VP of Communications, Taser International. [LINK]

Mr. Tuttle extracts only what he wants from the interim NIJ report. His extract doesn't put it into complete context.

See the following for a more-complete understanding of the NIJ interim findings.

Copied below is a related post, first posted almost one year ago (27 June 2008) [Original].

NIJ: 'Safe. Except for you & you & you & you...'

The US National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has carefully studied the propaganda and their interim report on 'conducted energy weapons' (tasers) has concluded that they are sometimes generally safe.


...except for that 43% of the time when they're used repeatedly,

...or used on that up to 8% of the population known to have heart problems,

...or used on the elderly, ...or used on children,

...or used on the other ill-defined and unknown-size population that is 'at risk' (I guess known only after the fact, when their 'unique anatomical makeup' [LINK] is discovered at autopsy- this is just ONE example). And some would say that those that tend to come into contact with the police tend to be those 'at risk'.

So there you have it.

No comments: