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.

Friday, December 18, 2009

Taser procurement in the face of fundamental disagreement

As was reported in the previous post [LINK], the Maryland Attorney General has concluded that tasers can kill, and should therefore be treated as dangerous weapons.

Taser International strongly disagrees.

How on Earth can procurement of tasers be permitted to continue between a buyer that has formally concluded that taser are capable of causing death, and a vender that continues to deny that tasers can kill?

Procurement contracts are based on a description of the product. By any rational measure, there has to be a common understanding of the primary characteristics of the product - for example, if a weapon is potentially lethal or not.

If there exists a clear disagreement on such a fundamental characteristic, then it is insanity to permit procurement to continue in such circumstances.

The problems that will inevitably arise are real. It's not just Contract Law theory.

For example, if a vender supplies tires to the state. And the vendor claimed that these tires would never, never-ever, skid. State employees believed the claims, and the rate of vehicle crashes increased. Employees die in violent crashes (always on curved roads). Memos are issued. Procurement continues. Internal battles break out. Vendor blames "excited driving" and maintains the lie that his tires never skid. More folks die. Lawsuits. Vendor manufactures studies that "prove" his tires simply will not skid, even at 750 miles per hour into a hairpin turn. Lawsuits are thrown out. Vendor become cocky. State tries to gain control of the driving schools to control the message. Vendor website still claims skid-free tire technology. It spirals into endless lawsuits - all because the Procurement Department turned a blind eye.

You've been warned.

No comments: