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, October 13, 2010

Cranky-pants misses the point

J. Karl Miller, USMC (ret.) puts on his cranky-pants and grumbles about the Taser Ballot initiative in Columbia, MO. [LINK]

The notion that the police can be trusted with firearms such as pistols and shotguns but are forbidden to carry the less-than-lethal Taser gives new meaning to absurdity.

First, tasers are "less-than-OR-EQUAL-TO-lethal". Even Taser International has been forced to admit this long-denied fact. Tasers can kill. Randomly. Even healthy adults. But perhaps more vulnerable are at even higher risk of DEATH.

Second, in general, police have demonstrated a responsible attitude to guns and shotguns. But tasers have been accompanied by deceptive marketing about the risk of death, and a glossing-over of the fact that their use is a form of torture. No visible booster cables and damp sponges, but still electro-torture unlike any other weapon.

Even the most intellectually challenged must agree the police-issued service weapon is far more lethal than the Taser.

FACT: Tasers are deployed about ONE HUNDRED TIMES as often as guns. It's a round number, but proven many times over. Scroll down for your 'badge'.

It stands to reason that the individual officer's personal safety is enhanced by being so armed [with tasers].

Actually, tasers are sufficiently unreliable, especially now that Taser International recommends aiming away from the chest, that it's barely rational for an officer presented with a life-threatening attack to put his faith in a taser.

And there's the annoying fact that police shootings tend to go UP in the first year that tasers are issued. So there's something going on (defective training is the simplest explanation) that doesn't align with your overly-simplistic worldview.

Finally, to that perhaps 1 percent of residents to whom the Taser incites fear, here is an unfailing recipe to evade its consequences.

FAIL. Diabetics are in constant danger of being tasered. Those suffering from epilepsy are tasered for failing to obey. Those suffering mental health crisis are often tasered even if they represent no threat.

Tasers are mostly used as an electro-torture device to "persuade" the subject to submit and obey and show 'proper respect'.

As a soldier (retired), you must be familiar with the exact legal definition of torture. It would be part of your training. Perhaps you'd be in a position to take the 'Taser Cigarette Challenge'? The challenge is to explain the legal and ethical difference between a taser used in Touch Torture mode and using the glowing end of a lit cigarette for the same purpose. No one has ever answered this simple challenge. Look up the applicable post [HERE] for complete details.

Is that it? I think I've addressed each of your actual argument points (skipping over the filler). That was easy. I guess it comes from having examined this issue for almost three years and knowing ALL the arguments cold.

This blog has 2000+ similar posts covering all aspects of the debate. Enjoy...

PS: How about a smile? Geesh... ["MUG"]

Old joke: "I *am* smiling!"

No comments: