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.

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Taser International - the world's dumbest motion

Quoting from:

Document 284
Filed 03/29/10 USDC Colorado
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Case No. 07-cv-01844-PAB-KLM
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT TASER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT


Taser argues that “there is no evidence that the TASER Device properly connected to Wilson to deliver electricity to his body.” ... However, in what appears to be an attempt to have its cake and eat it too, Taser also argues that the “Device functioned as intended, as it immediately incapacitated Wilson – effectively restraining Wilson so that he would not be a threat to himself or others.

Wow. Taser's motion was self-contradictory. Duh.

I've said it before. Each of their claims is perhaps (in some insane world) believable when viewed alone. But when all their arguments are laid on the table and examined at once, the self-contradictions start to reveal themselves.

The extracts from their motion almost give the impression that they've resigned themselves to their fate. They're not even trying. Either that or they're idiots.

Anyone  know who underwrites their corporate liability policies?

No comments: