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, November 1, 2009

An administrative solution to closing the gap

Everyone that is both informed and honest now acknowedges that tasers are capable of occasionally, almost randomly, causing death.

But some police forces are still seduced by the promise of a Star Trek 'Phaser' with it's dial set to "Stun*". Since they are uncritical and lack attention to detail, they didn't notice the asterisk and didn't follow it to the disclaimer where Taser International subtly hints at the risks and glosses over the rate of them being ineffective.

So how does the gap get closed?

I have a suggestion:

It is very common for Purchase Orders to also include conditions and demands for very specific certification paperwork.

Why not include a mandatory line item on your next purchase order?

The requirement for a legally-binding acknowledgement and certification, signed in permanent ink by authorized Company officials, that they admit that tasers are inherently dangerous, that they agree that tasers are capable of directly contributing to death through inherent internal risk factors, and given certain ill-defined conditions tasers can cause death, and that they agree that tasers must therefore be used sparingly and only in those limited circumstances where the subject's behaviour has risen to the level where potentially-lethal force is morally and legally justifiable.

No signed certification, then no order.

Given the present state of denial, political and police leaders should consider the ethics of procuring devices that are potentially lethal from a company that continues to deny these risks.

No comments: