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.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Does Taser International remain a qualified vendor?

William Elliott, Commissioner of the RCMP, in a letter to CPC, "...we have emphasized the risks associated with the use of the weapon, including the risk of death." [LINK]

Allow me to ask a very specific and carefully-worded question. Do the RCMP and Taser International share a common understanding on the exact and precise nature of the risk of death associated with taser use?

On the surface, the Commissioner is giving the impression that the RCMP have shifted their official position away from the corporate propaganda promulgated by Taser International.

Taser International is ever so slowly moving the reality of their position without ever admitting that they're moving their position. They claim that tasers cannot possibly affect the heart, but now (at huge cost to their reputation) advise that police avoid aiming towards the chest. They claim that the X26 taser is perfectly safe, but the newer X3 emits about 40% less electrical charge output.

So, are the RCMP and Taser International on the exact same page, or not?

If their positions are actually perfectly aligned, then either the RCMP hasn't changed, or Taser International has. Either way, big news.

And if they have differing opinions on the risks of these products, then isn't that an indicator of vendor disqualification?

After all, what exactly are the RCMP purchasing?

Are they purchasing a "Less than lethal" weapon that is safe, or are they purchasing a "Less than, OR EQUAL TO, lethal" weapon where each deployment carries unknown risks, including the risk of death?

If they can't even agree on exactly what is being procured, then there may be government procurement rules that may preclude any further purchases.

Perhaps PWGSC should become more involved to make sure that tax dollars are not being exchanged for products where the buyer and seller cannot even agree upon the most fundamental characteristic.

No comments: