What is the approximate level of that risk?
Taser International claims it is so low that it could be rounded to zero. That wording allows ratios as high as 0.49% risk of death (1 in 200), but they're intentional unclear about what they're actually claiming. If we could demand a number, they would deny anything even within several orders of magnitude of 0.49%.
This just in: A recent study by Dr. Swerdlow included a significant finding that supports the proposition that the electrical current from a conducted energy weapon is capable of capturing the heart and triggering ventricular fibrillation. He determined that one out of 56 subjects collapsed immediately after a conducted energy weapon was deployed across his chest, and the first cardiac rhythm presented was ventricular fibrillation. The subject had no drugs or cardiac pathology. In relation to this subject, Dr. Swerdlow stated: "The time sequence and electrode location are both consistent with electrically induced VF [ventricular fibrillation] in one subject (subject 1), and neither drug use nor cardiac disease provides alternative explanations. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first reported fatality suggestive of CEW-induced VF." Braidwood, p. 329
"...one out of 56 subjects..." is about 2% (roughly).
What did I fricken tell you?
I've posted many times: It's the "Low End Of Single Digits", given actual taser hit to the chest.
See previous posts such as [LINK], [LINK], [LINK], and many others.
The reason that this specific topic is such an important issue is that acknowledging the significant risk of death obviously leads directly to better policy. It also leads to reduced sales of tasers, once the police decision-makers come to the conclusion that they've been sold a bill of goods by the smarter-than-them, slick-talking stun-gun salesmen. Finally, this long-delayed acceptance of the ugly reality should also lead to criminal prosecution of those making false claims of safety, as those claims (wrapped in