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.

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Misleading the press

Clarification: Taser Rape story [LINK]

The Associated Press

HATTIESBURG, Miss. -- In a July 9 story, The Associated Press quoted Hattiesburg police as saying they were looking for a suspect who allegedly attacked a woman with a Taser before raping her. Hattiesburg police spokesman Synarus Green said the woman told police she had been "tased" but they had not recovered the device used to determine if a brand name Taser device was used. Green said Friday that police have not ruled out that the suspect may have used a stun gun.

A Taser shoots a probe that delivers a shock. A Taser spokeswoman said each Taser cartridge contains 20-30 small, confetti-like tags that have the serial number of the Taser cartridge imprinted on them. If a Taser device is misused, the police will find these tags and can use them to identify the registered owner of the Taser device.

This is typical Taser-speak. Misleading. Incomplete. Very close to a damn lie.

This Taser-mandated "clarification" (sic) gives the impression that Taser-brand tasers always have their anti-felon tags, and it gives the impression that if the tags are not found then it probably wasn't a Taser-brand taser.

"If a Taser device is misused, the police will find these tags and can use them to identify the registered owner of the Taser device."

Bollocks. The above-quoted statement (apparently originating from Taser International) is simply not true.

A criminal armed with a taser is more than likely to have a taser without a cartridge. Perhaps the original taser cartridge was used up by the original owner, before that very same (10-second, 100-yard dash) criminal got to his feet, ran them down, and killed the smug, but out-of-shape and breathless, taser owner with his bare hands. So now the murdering criminal has a Taser-brand taser without a cartridge.

No cartridge.
No wires.
No darts.
And no anti-felon tags.

But it is still a Taser-brand taser and can still be used in Touch Torture mode (sometimes called Drive Stun mode).

So in this case, who knows? Perhaps it was a Taser-brand taser. Or perhaps it was a cheap (possibly higher quality) stun gun bought on the Internet for $10.

The reported lack of anti-felons tags provides very little evidence of anything. And the spokeswoman (possibly Hilary Gibeaut) knows that. She knows that even the consumer tasers can be used in Touch Torture mode. [LINK]

And she knows that the anti-felon tags have NOTHING to do with such use or misuse.

This clarification is misleading.


PS: In case you need further guidance: If you think about it, it seems clear that whatever was used in this attack, it's more likely to have been used in the Touch Torture mode (not the Dart Deploy mode). Otherwise there would have been darts embedded in the victim, and trailing wires, and a used cartridge probably left behind. And then there wouldn't be any mystery about the brand name. Thus, the device was almost certainly used in Touch Torture mode. And thus, the reported lack of Taser-brand anti-felon tags (assuming the police were even looking for them) have nothing to do with anything.


Critical Mass said...

Although specific instances of civilians using stun guns in the commission of a crime are few, in many jurisdictions the charge will include "Assault with a DEADLY Weapon":


Why is a stun gun a "deadly weapon" in the hands of a civilian, when it is used against a Law Enforcement Officer, or in a crime against another person, but when the Law Enforcement Officer uses his taser/stun gun excessively or illegally, he/she is rarely or ever charged with the same "Assault with a Deadly Weapon"?

If tasers are "deadly weapons", it should not matter whom is pulling the trigger. Taser abuse by law enforcement should therefore result in a charge, among others, of "Assault with a deadly weapon".

The irony and inconsistency is pretty obvious.

Excited-Delirium.com said...

It's just as stupid in Canada.

In Canada taser are legally considered to be "Prohibited Firearms". And yet most police forces, being completely under the 'bromance' induced spell of the stun-gun salesmen, took them at their word about the (American) classification.

There are rules and laws in Canada surrounding the use and storage of firearms. Many of these have been explicitly ignored by the police forces.

And not a single charge has ever been laid regarding this massive fiasco cause by the too-close relationship between the slippery stun gun salesmen and the gullible police.

They should hang their heads in shame at being so skillfully played. Idiots.