Their position on taser safety seems to be a bit muddled over recent months. And I suspect that this muddle is completely intentional.
They continue to 'defend the safety' of the taser.
But if you watch their feet intently, they're doing that tiny and subtle feet-twist sideways movement as they slowly and almost imperceptibly slide from the position that Tasers-R-Safe, to slyly warning that tasers are now "not without risks".
These risks are rather ill-defined. Some people think that they remain just the falling down and banging heads sort of external risks. But the wording has been subtly changed so as to not exclude internal risk factors such as cardiac effects of any sort.
Did they think that nobody would notice the change that the more-limited 'individual susceptibilities' is now an all-inclusive 'not without risks' (everyone is welcome to join the life-or-death risk party)?
See also this recent news [LINK] from Australia that Taser International (reportedly) now admits that multiple taser hits can be dangerous and that officers are now being trained to avoid multiple taser hits. Holy Sh_t! Does this warning apply outside Australia too? Anyone seen such a thing in North America? Is this news correct?
Does this new Australian-based warning now mean that all those taser-associated deaths (in North America), where the victim was tasered several (or many) times and died, that Taser International will now be happy to open their checkbook and compensate the families for these deaths which are now, perhaps more clearly, seen as being possibly the direct result of this previously-unforeseen risk from multiple taserings? Or will they continue to be dirty slime-bags and deny all responsibility and leave the victims' families bankrupt? Hey, I'm just asking...
Remember Kroll's article in IEEE Spectrum in December 2007? [LINK] Wouldn't we like to have him appear on the witness stand and try to defend that article given the ugly reality of the real-world results?
Maybe certain EE's shouldn't be (essentially) practicing medicine. Maybe some of them shouldn't be allowed to practice engineering either. Hubris is very dangerous.
Decision makers of the Law Enforcement world should carefully compare their original taser training materials to the latest version(s) - including the Australian version. If the overall taser safety message has slowly evolved through annual subtle adjustments, then perhaps the net change is more significant than they've been led to believe.
Someone, somewhere should be auditing this warnings / training issue. Regulators of the world - where are you?
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.