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, April 1, 2010

Taser International - a 'Hail Mary' shot, and a miss...

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


Finally, Taser’s reliance on the "sophisticated purchaser/learned intermediary doctrine" is misplaced. ... Even assuming Colorado courts would apply the doctrine to a TASER under appropriate circumstances, the doctrine does not assist Taser under the facts of this case. As an initial matter, Taser’s arguments elsewhere in its brief conflict with any contention that its products, like prescription drugs, are "‘unavoidably unsafe,’" ...in their own right.

[Taser International caught in yet another WASC (Wide Area Self-Contradiction), LOL.]

The warnings cited by Taser do not clearly indicate that, even if misused, a TASER device could cause death absent other circumstances inherent to the use of force. Taser does not, and cannot contend, that the police have the expertise to independently determine, as a matter of electrical engineering and cardiology, the safe and proper use of a TASER device. ... In fact, Taser’s warning can be read to assure police that they can apply their expertise regarding the inherent risks of force application without fear that the TASER will cause a fatality in a manner distinct from other non-lethal applications of force.

If there's any doubt about the magnitude of their (misplaced) confidence, take a close look at the Cardiac Safety webpage, found on Taser International's very own website. It's very much an example of 'Go Big or Stay Home' - it would have been better if they'd stayed home.

2 comments:

JC said...

Did Taser allege here that their products are "unavoidably unsafe?" Doesn't it seem like that could backfire?

Excited-Delirium.com said...

No, more like the opposite.

They claimed the "sophisticated purchaser/learned intermediary doctrine". But the judge logically completed their thought for them and pointed out that they're NOT admitting that the taser is "unavoidably unsafe". They're not entitled to the former unless they accept the latter.

It is perfectly typical that the arguments used by Taser International each make some sort of twisted sense when viewed each on their own. But anyone that pays attention can see that there are meta-contradictions spanning across their various arguments.

And this particular judge is switched-on enough to notice that their arguments contradict at the top level.

Taser International is so very very VERY screwed.