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 24, 2009

Motley Fool admits '07 TASR buy recommendation was foolish

Motley Fool writer Rick Aristotle Munarriz has acknowledged [LINK] that his recommendation [LINK] of Taser International has not worked out for anyone foolish enough to invest.

Company, Rick's Call, Price Now, Loss
TASER, 9/20/07, $15.65, $4.50, (71%)


Notice the date: 20 September 2007.

Mr. Munarriz can't be blamed. There's no way that he would realize at the time the sh_t storm that was about to descend on Taser International.

14 October 2007 - Vancouver Airport, Robert Dziekanski, 40, tasered five times by X26 taser and died of cardiac arrest almost immediately. And critically, incident captured on video.

UPDATE: Motley Fool writer Rich Duprey repeats history. [LINK] I recommend that Mr. Duprey read his collegue's column.

And the MD AG's report.

"Training materials provided by the manufacturer of these devices ... tended to significantly understate the risks associated with [taser] use." [Executive Summary, page 2, paragraph 3]

Not just '...understate the risks...', but "...SIGNIFICANTLY understate the risks..."

No comments: