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, October 24, 2009

Discrepancy with arms

Taser International issued new taser targeting guidelines on 30 September 2009. These guidelines advised avoiding the chest, but the diagram clearly included both arms in that new excluded area.

Those "Revision 1" taser Targeting Guidelines made headlines across Canada and Australia, but were completely ignored in the US media.

That media gap has never really been explained, but it may be an important clue as to how this issue is being "stick-handled" (subtly managed) by Taser International.

On 9 of October 2009, I made a post entitled "...Didja notice the arms?" [LINK]

Taser International then issued "Revision 2" on 12 October 2009.

Fair Use / Fair Dealing claimed



This adjustment to the policy raises many questions.

Why the change (between Revision 1 on 30 September and Revision 2 on 12 October)?

If Taser International tries to brush it off as a minor typographical error, then at the very least it provides a clear example of the poor Quality Assurance (QA) standards they have. If they can't even issue a major and critical document where the most important image is basically correct, then it's clear that their internal QA processes are substandard.

Were Canada and Australia being used as a trial run before the big day in the USA?

Why exclude the RIGHT side of the chest? Why not just exclude a circular area directly over the heart? Or would that be just a bit too obvious?

Was this change anything to do with avoiding the issue of the XREP "Hand Trap" feature?

What about the arm to just below the sternum path? The old expression is that electricity tends to follow the path of least resistance, but the reality is that it follows Kirchhoff's Circuit Laws [LINK]. However, there may well be some non-linearities in the chemistry of the human body that would tend to focus the current into a single path. Victims of high power electrocution reportedly display carbonized current tracks.

Anyway...


The good news is that the US media are all over these new guidelines (revision 2) now.

And it looks like both the US media, and the US law enforcement community, for the most part, are reading the true message about "avoiding the chest" (versus "avoiding controversy" LOL).

[Updated]
[h/t to N]

No comments: