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.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

Define "low"

...Taser International says the risk of a cardiac arrest in connection with Taser use is low... [LINK]

Taser International's use of the word "low" is ill-defined.

This blogger, looking at the reports of victims that were tasered-in-the-chest_and_died, and estimating the ball-park rate per full deployment into the chest, is getting figures in the low end of single digits (1 - 5%). It's a Rough Order of Magnitude guesstimate. And I strive to remove all external safety factors to guesstimate the magnitude of the inherent risk. And it is based on real-world figures.

Taser International likes, for obvious reasons, to include all sorts of muddling-the-issue external safety factors such as random dart placement, and they also have historically washed-out the datasets by including all sorts of extraneous garbage (such as FAKE training hits into the back). They quoted one pure garbage "study" that calculated one-in-millions risk. After having seen so many similar garbage "studies" being foisted, one builds up a certain degree of skepticism.

Anyway, what is meant by "low"? Do they consider 3% to be "low"?

Keep in mind that Taser International minion "Dr." (not a medical doctor) Kroll has made claims that essentially deny any risk what-so-ever.

An increased level of precision in the use of words would assist everyone, except Taser International and their liability-enhancing minions.

No comments: