Think: A six-shot revolver, with one bullet. What are the odds?
"One-in-six" is the obvious answer, and it is the right answer. But it's probably not what an informed stastician would be expecting to see in the real-world results.
What are the odds of what? Death?
Are you assuming that the revolver is actually fired in the expected manner? What if the subject is just pistol-whipped? Are you assuming that the aim is true? Depending on circumstances, there would be some percentage of misses. Are you assuming that the result is fatal? Not all bullet wounds are fatal.
If someone would design a study of full taser deployments where the taser darts actually hit the subject's chest, and the taser is actually cycled repeatedly, I'll bet that the results would be "very interesting"...
These too frequent all-inclusive studies, such as Wake Forest and similar uninteresting nause, where they include all forms of taser deployments, are not answering The Main Question about the inherent risks (as opposed to external safety factors).
The Main Question goes back to the claims of inherent safety being propagated by Taser International and their minions.
Find the inherent risk first, then decision makers can explicitly adjust for external safety factors.
It's common sense.
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.