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.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

AMA on tasers (the bit about, ah yeah, DEATH)

AMA: "...(3) CEDs [tasers] may contribute to the death of suspects, either directly or indirectly."


There's a lot of spin being put on the AMA report.

Keep in mind that Taser International's position on taser safety with respect to inherent internal risk factors such as cardiac effects is extreme. They admit no such risk exists, with the exception of the victim's own problems. Their position is extreme.

Sometimes the taser fanboys will present a slightly more rational face, but they do not speak for Taser International. As is obvious when they're forced by the daily news to acknowledge what others have been pointing out for years - tasers are overused. But their characterization of this as a rare problem is obvious nonsense.

Taser International's official position on Cardiac Safety is that '...if one ping pong ball won't kill you, then neither will a thousand.' You can look this up on their website. It was still there last time I checked.

If Taser International is able to get past this irrational (my opinion) position on taser safety, then (and only then) can the debate shift to discussions about the acceptablity of that risk of death versus others policing tools.

Assuming Taser International survives such a transition.

It's not reasonable to discuss such numerical life-and-death trade-offs while they maintain the position that their number is a neat and perfect "zero".

No comments: