Taser International spokespuppet Steve Tuttle, "Overly restrictive policies on taser device usage will force police officers to migrate to other, more dangerous force options, such as batons, physical force and even firearms, resulting in more, not fewer, deaths and injuries in police confrontations." [LINK]
The above statement is typical Taser-speak. It is as misleading as it can possibly be. And yet, if you parse the words just-so, then it could be defended as being technically not-completely false. But if you read it the way they intend it to be taken, then you'll be left with false impressions that will muddle your thoughts and lead you to false conclusions.
The most despicable trick that the scoundrels at Taser International are using is to lump deaths in with injuries.
"...deaths and injuries..."
Think about that. It's basically a lack of distinction that is evil.
Any thinking human, one with even the smallest shred of moral fiber in their soul, would instinctively realize that injuries are not even in the same chapter as death, let alone on the same page.
In my ethical book, there is first death, then (after a gap) there is permanent injuries, and then (after another gap) there is non-permanent injuries. Taser International has lumped all these together as "deaths and injuries". If it was going to be an e-mail address, then it would be deathsandinjuries [all one word] @taser.com.
Taser International is very intentionally muddling the taser-death issue by mixing in injuries. It's yet another form of denominator washing where they fiddle with the categories to suit their purposes.
NOT TO MENTION that I've seen at least one so-called 'study' where the injuries inherent with use of a taser (dart penetration injuries, electrical burns) were taken as givens and not counted as injuries. Watch out for that trick.
Let's go through the rest of the Taser-spew phrase-by-phrase:
"...more dangerous force options..."
Note "...more dangerous..." versus "...potentially more lethal...".
Braidwood page 218: ...the incidence of deaths proximate to their use suggests that they [tasers] are potentially more lethal than more traditional intermediate weapons, such as batons, oleoresin capsicum (pepper) spray, or rubber bullets.
Note that Judge Braidwood has not allowed himself to be muddled into considering injuries as being an equivalent consideration as deaths. The debate is about potential lethality, not the "danger" of a twisted finger.
"...and even firearms..."
There is nothing to prevent any officer from choosing to use a taser in cases where they would be legally authorized to use a gun. Obviously, if a police officer is legally justified in using a firearm, then he or she may use a taser if the opportunity presents itself. I don't believe that there is anything in the Braidwood recommendations that would force an officer to migrate to use of firearms.
In fact, I doubt that anyone could even find a hypothetical circumstance where the new "...overly restrictive policies on taser device usage will force police officers to migrate to ... firearms."
The above perfectly-reasonable and ultra-clarifying parsing of the statement from Taser International reveals their statement to contain a deceptive, fear-mongering, damn lie.
This level of despicable deception should be kept in mind when dealing with these scoundrels.
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.