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 10, 2009

Tuttle stands on hind legs and speaks...

Taser International responds to yesterday's needless taser-associated death of Brian Cardall. [LINK]

"Although exposure to CED is not risk free, there is no conclusive medical evidence within the state of current research that indicates a high risk of serious injury or death from the direct effects of CED exposure. Field experience with CED use indicates that exposure is safe in the vast majority of cases. Therefore, law enforcement need not refrain from deploying CEDs, provided the devices are used in accordance with accepted national guidelines." Steve Tuttle, Vice President of Communications and Propaganda, Taser International.

Questions:

1) "...not risk-free..." Does Taser acknowledge that tasers can occasionally DIRECTLY KILL via internal risk factors such as cardiac effects of any sort? Let's be perfectly clear about "falling down and banging head", "individual susceptibilities", and plain-and-simple dangerous.

2) "...[no evidence of] high risk..." 'High' risk? That's a strawman argument there Steve-4-brains. What about a low to moderate risk (low end of single digits, RISK OF DEATH)? Does Taser International acknowledge that there exists a low to moderate risk of death once the taser darts happen to land on the chest?

3) "...safe in the vast majority of cases..." Do you think it is morally acceptable to turn day-to-day police work into a street level death lottery? Should ANYONE be exposed to a low to moderate RISK OF DEATH because the police officer doesn't want to bother trying other methods? How much of the safety factor is from external factors such as random dart placement (not on chest)?

4) "...accepted national guidelines..." Huh? Does such a thing actually exist? Reference please. Do police actually follow it? Has Taser International ever (EVER!) issued even a small gently-worded press release in those cases where an officer violated these (mythical?) guidelines?

No comments: