Good source of details regarding the taser-death of Nickolos Cyrus

Jury could decide whether police used excessive force with taser gun in man’s death

[State Bar of Wisconsin]

... At that point, Mukwonago Lieutenant Thomas Czarnecki drew and fired his taser gun, striking 29-year-old Nickolos Cyrus in the back. Cyrus fell to the ground, and was lying on his stomach. Either before or after back-up arrived, Cyrus stood up, staggered, and then fell to the ground again. More “taser stuns” were deployed. Czarnecki testified that he fired the taser gun six times, twice upon the initial encounter and four times when Cyrus was on the ground. However, the taser gun’s internal computer registered 12 trigger pulls during the relevant timeframe. When the officers finally handcuffed Cyrus, they rolled him over to find that he was not breathing. He never gained consciousness and was pronounced dead later that day. ...

...Czarnecki argued that “asking a jury to infer causation without expert testimony would be akin to proceeding under a theory of res ipsa loquitur – improper in a [section] 1983 action. …” In that case, Czarnecki argued, the Cyrus estate would be arguing that force must have been excessive because people do not ordinarily die from taser shock. ...

One wag noted that the taser is "a street-level death lottery".

Five of six people will survive a spin at Russian Roulette, but one of the six will have a bullet in their brains. So it can be claimed that "people do not ordinarily die from Russian Roulette".

Although the odds vary, the logic is identical.

Fish, barrel, bang.

--

See also previous post Federal Appeals Court says 'Not so fast there, Sunshine' [LINK]

DAZER LASER - a truly non-lethal alternative to the unreliable death-lottery of the TASER ?

The DAZER LASER uses strong light to temporarily (?) blind and disorient the subject.

Having long ago learned to be skeptical, I'm not yet prepared to offer a full endorsement, but it's obviously time for the law enforcement community to examine other options than the unreliable and occasionally lethal taser.

National Institute of Justice is seeking alternatives to tasers

Via the Truth...Not Tasers blog [LINK].

...The device would be safe across a broad range of populations with predictable physiological effects.

Yeah, as opposed to the Street-Level Death Lottery that are tasers.

Not exactly a glowing recommendation for tasers, is it?


By the way, the NIJ did find that 'tasers are safe' (as is so clearly shown [sic] in this interpretive graph prepared by the Excited-Delirium blog).

Taser Understatement of the Decade - "It's clearly not a magic bullet."

In response to reports of an incident where one or more tasers were completely ineffective, Taser International spokespuppet Steve Tuttle abandoned the Corporate lie that tasers are "...safe and effective", and was forced to let slip a brand new admission:

Mr. Tuttle stated that tasers are "...clearly not a magic bullet."

No sh_t Einstein.


...Donald Barry Minter of Martinsville... Another officer shot Minter with high-voltage stun gun darts, but he apparently wasn't fazed. ... An officer broke the car window and blasted Minter again with Taser darts. Again, he was unaffected. ...Police shot Minter twice more with Taser darts -- again without effect... [LINK]

Since the various tasers were ineffective, ineffective, ineffective, ineffective, police were forced to shoot the subject dead. According to the report, the killing was perfectly justifiable on all levels.

Tragic, unfortunate, sad. But I don't see any legal, ethical, nor moral issues associated with the police...

...Except focused on the obviously and repeatedly-ineffective tasers. That's simply loaded with legal, ethical and moral issues.

"Not a magic bullet..."

Street-level death lottery is a more accurate description.

'A tool unlike any other' (repost 26 Aug. 2008)

With nearly 1200 posts, and new visitors arriving every day, it might be useful to simply pull-up some previous posts that already nail down a particular line of thought.


Ontario's provincial police commissioner Julian Fantino [LINK] says "the taser is a tool like any other." [LINK]

Wrong. Dead wrong.

The difference between the taser and other policing tools is that the taser is surrounded by claims of essentially perfect safety with respect to internal risk factors (cardiac effects or similar). And the field results do not support these claims (too many mysterious deaths, some backed-up with legal findings).

I can think of no other police tool where the claims are so at odds with the reality (when viewed from the point of view of claimed perfection - see this [LINK] or you may not understand).

Guns, batons, fists, pepper-spray - all of these have a very obvious and predictable worst-case outcome. The risks are well understood. The taser is thought to be safe, but has proven to be what some have termed a street level death lottery.

The training and policies, both under Taser International's influence, reflect this level of claimed safety (except that the trainees are never shot in the chest, because Taser International wants them in the denominator rather than the numerator of the gross, washed-out, risk ratio).

This propaganda-based training leaves police officers with an incorrect view of the risk.

And this leads directly to abuse, misuse and overuse.

And that's the problem.

And that's the difference.

Braidwood, page 16:

Conducted energy weapons [tasers] do have the capacity (even in healthy adult subjects) to cause heart arrhythmia, which can lead to ventricular tachycardia and/or fibrillation, which if not treated immediately, can cause death... [LINK]

TASERS CAN CAUSE DEATH.

The stungun salesmen at Taser International will probably seize upon the multistep death-by-taser death mechanism, so carefully-explained, as constituting a lack of directness.

That's playing semantic word games.

TASER CAN KILL (directly).

Even healthy adults.


We've used the phrase "a street-level death lottery" before on this blog.

Banging one's head against a very thick Wall...

"Tasers are not the problem" (sic) [LINK] [LINK]

By Allison Wall, the Lloydminster Meridian Booster (Alberta, Canada)


Okay - stand back just a bit.


OK I’ve watched these stories bounce around in the headlines and stir up controversy and debate – even a column in the Booster – for almost two years. Everyone has an opinion on Tasers, and so do I.

But is your opinion an informed opinion?

Let's see...


Obviously, I’m a journalist – not a cop – and have never seen, touched, used or been stunned with a Taser (nor do I ever want to be), but I believe this controversial weapon is 100 per cent acceptable. If I was doing something warranting police intervention, I’m pretty certain I would rather be stunned with a Taser than shot with a gun.

This is completely stupid. Police intervention equals only gun or taser? No other option?

You are so ill-informed that you believe that every taser incident is an averted police shooting? Didn't notice that the taser incidents outnumber the historical and accepted rate of police gun fire by about ONE HUNDRED to ONE? Don't follow the news, much, eh?

And you also missed the whole Dziekanski controversy? Still have some thoughts that perhaps Mr. Dziekanski presented such a threat that it justified an RCMP bullet?

Please - get a brain and have it installed.

This guns-vs.-tasers argument has been shredded over and over again. It is not consistent with even the most basic facts. It reveals only that you are a taser-issue newbie. And certainly not qualified to spout-off in a newspaper.

It's such a pathetic argument that we don't normally even bother to address it beyond offering up your badge [LINK].

It's not normally worth the effort, but we've made a special exception for this rebuttal.


Perhaps underlying health conditions or an agitated state from drugs and alcohol could increase my chances of death from a Taser (or perhaps not), but a bullet in the chest will lead to an almost certain demise. I’m not good at math, but I think my odds of surviving a Taser stun far outweigh the other grisly option.

"The other grisly option." Oh, please try to keep up.

And there have been more and more cases where young and otherwise perfectly-healthy young men are tasered and drop dead. Taser International and their scum-sucking minions try to muddle the issues with red-herring distractions of "individual susceptibilities" and drug use.

Are tasers only to be used on people in perfect health? Not on the real-world subjects including drug users and drunks?

And even when they are used on people in perfect health, people still 'mysteriously' die.

Especially when used repeatedly. Strange correlation if there's no correlation.


Yes, we hear always hear about people who die after being Tasered, but we don’t hear of the many, many cases of people who are subdued by the Taser and live a long and healthy life (although) perhaps in jail).

Taser saves? Sure we do. Taser International loves to issue press releases about such saves. Such press releases aren't as common as you might expect.

[There will be one issued shortly, guaranteed.]

But Taser International has never, as far as I can see, issued as much as a memo about even the most obvious cases of taser abuse, misuse, and overuse. If such a guidance document exists, then they've hidden it very well.

And you may wish to consider the moral and karma issue surrounding the institution of a street-level death lottery. [LINK]


Unfortunately, Robert Dziekanski was Tasered and died at the Vancouver International Airport on Oct. 14, 2007, and now four Mounties are under fire for allegations they acted improperly and tried to cover up their actions. Says who?

Mr. Dziekanski didn't "die". He was killed; cause and effect. The only argument left is about exactly what killed him. Most reasonable people know exactly what killed him.


Many of you may have seen the video, but a simple viewing doesn’t mean we were there and doesn’t mean we have first-hand knowledge of what these officers were thinking and feeling and how they were reacting.

We know quite a bit about what they were thinking and feeling and reacting. And it does not reflect well upon them as RCMP officers, or even as humans.

And it is an indictment of the clearly-defective taser training. The four officers couldn't even comprehend that Mr. Dziekanski was in serious medical distress because they had been so badly brainwashed by the propaganda from Taser International. They didn't believe their own eyes.


The allegations against one officer include improperly assessing the situation and failing to react appropriately when confronting Dziekanski, misrepresenting Dziekanski’s behaviour in the notes and statements given to homicide investigators, continuing to misrepresent the events while testifying during the inquiry and offering a misleading and self-serving interpretation of his notes during the inquiry.

Yes, this is the first paragraph you've written that is reasonably accurate...


Let me reiterate. I am not a cop and most likely, neither are you. These brave men and women put themselves in danger every single day to keep us safe. They are on the streets fighting – sometimes very violent – crime and need to be able guard themselves. Why should the alleged criminal have the upper hand? Until we are in the situation and can understand the peril, I don’t think any of us can judge the actions of those who use Tasers.

Police work isn't even in the Top 10 list of the most dangerous jobs in Canada. More police are killed in automobile and other accidents than through violence. The number killed in airplane crashes defies explanation.

Police have guns. If they are in serious danger, they have my full permission (as if that were even required) to plug the assailant with a .45 slug. Most of the time it won't really get to that point (just drawing a gun is a good deterrent). Of course, they'll have to be able to fully justify their actions. And if they've over-reacted, they may face manslaughter or murder charges - not to mention living with themselves.

Police gun-fire in Canada has never really presented itself as a major issue. I'm prepared to trust the police and I've never felt nervous around police with guns because they've consistently proven themselves to be perfectly (99.999+%) responsible. The root-cause of this inherent responsibility is that the effects from gun-fire are so clear-cut and easy to predict. There's no shirking of responsibility.

Tasers are not so clear. Because they're trained that tasers-R-safe and they're unfortunately not as safe as is claimed. That discrepancy is THE issue. And they're about one hundred times as likely to shoot a taser as shoot a gun (taser trigger-happy). And that combination makes me nervous.


Sure, police should be held accountable for their actions when necessary, but we’ve got to realize – as in any other situation – there will always be that select group of people who abuse the use of Tasers, which should be the real crux of the controversy.

No - that is just ONE of the two primary taser issues. The other side of the issue is actually more important because it is a partial cause of the abuse issue.

The fundamental issue is that Taser International and their minions claim that tasers are essentially inherently safe with respect to internal risk factors (such as cardiac effects of any sort). "Safer than Tylenol" is one variation of their safety claim.

Some of us taser critics 'smell a rat', regarding these claims. We've detected manipulative and clearly unethical behaviour by some pro-taser forces. The numbers don't add-up. There are clear logical errors in the arguments. There are signs of technical errors in the design of their products.

The simplest explanation is that tasers are not as inherently safe as is claimed by Taser International and their minions.

And the safety gap is many orders of magnitude.

The second part of the taser issue is the abuse, misuse, and over-use of tasers. This evil springs, in part, from the faith-like belief that tasers-R-safe. If we can get it through the thick heads of the police policy writers that tasers can occasionally kill, then perhaps the abuse issue will sort itself out at least partially.

As evidence of this, I present the fact that taser use is down in Canada by about half since Mr. Dziekanski was killed (along with four or five others in the same late-2007 period). By HALF! But we're not done. The vast majority of the other half is not acceptable either.

Also, Line-Of-Duty death of police officers in Canada has flat-lined to zero since that same point in time (late-2007). Deescalation techniques are the opposite of violence. Well worth putting away the tasers and using the safer-for-all old-school techniques.


I know there is a lot about Tasers I don’t understand,...

Yes, we're in perfect agreement on that point...


...but I believe police have my best interest at heart.

In general that is true. Believe it or not, I do not 'hate' police.

I hate that they've been played like a trumpet by an unethical company. I dislike their naive approach to the stun-gun marketing.

I hate the real-world outcomes where tasers are used - plain and simple - to torture. And any police officer that uses his taser to repeatedly torture has some serious issues.

The police can do much better. But they won't unless they're forced. Their first reaction is to close ranks and protect the guilty-as-hell. And that first reaction of the Blue Code of Silence is pure evil (and should be explicitly listed as a criminal offense).

A politically-imposed taser moratorium appears to be required - if for no other reason than to capture their attention and break the spell cast by the stun-gun salesmen.



The rebuttal presented above is just the bare-bones. Please avail yourself of the information on this blog.

This blog has more than 1000 posts where all the pro-taser arguments have been carefully examined and systematically shredded. I'm not aware of a single solitary pro-taser argument left standing. Not one. If you know of one, send it in and we'll shred it for you.

Everything on this blog is referenced back to sources (sometimes via internal links to previous posts on the same subject), so you can fact-check to your heart's content.

Tuttle stands on hind legs and speaks...

Taser International responds to yesterday's needless taser-associated death of Brian Cardall. [LINK]

"Although exposure to CED is not risk free, there is no conclusive medical evidence within the state of current research that indicates a high risk of serious injury or death from the direct effects of CED exposure. Field experience with CED use indicates that exposure is safe in the vast majority of cases. Therefore, law enforcement need not refrain from deploying CEDs, provided the devices are used in accordance with accepted national guidelines." Steve Tuttle, Vice President of Communications and Propaganda, Taser International.

Questions:

1) "...not risk-free..." Does Taser acknowledge that tasers can occasionally DIRECTLY KILL via internal risk factors such as cardiac effects of any sort? Let's be perfectly clear about "falling down and banging head", "individual susceptibilities", and plain-and-simple dangerous.

2) "...[no evidence of] high risk..." 'High' risk? That's a strawman argument there Steve-4-brains. What about a low to moderate risk (low end of single digits, RISK OF DEATH)? Does Taser International acknowledge that there exists a low to moderate risk of death once the taser darts happen to land on the chest?

3) "...safe in the vast majority of cases..." Do you think it is morally acceptable to turn day-to-day police work into a street level death lottery? Should ANYONE be exposed to a low to moderate RISK OF DEATH because the police officer doesn't want to bother trying other methods? How much of the safety factor is from external factors such as random dart placement (not on chest)?

4) "...accepted national guidelines..." Huh? Does such a thing actually exist? Reference please. Do police actually follow it? Has Taser International ever (EVER!) issued even a small gently-worded press release in those cases where an officer violated these (mythical?) guidelines?

Comment wars in the US media...

In Canada, the comments about tasers are running about 95% against. The battle for public opinion has already been overwhelmingly won by those that criticize tasers.

In the US media, there are many more people that are as yet uneducated about the issue. The pro-taser comments there are (right now) running ahead of those that have concerns. It's a clear indication of the level of ignorance of the subject.

The reason that I use the word 'ignorance' is simply that the pro-taser arguments being presented are the very oldest and already shredded nonsense.

On the following news story, the police were shown proudly tasering one of their trainees (in the back of course). Seriously, it is well past time to tell the police to either start tasering their trainees directly in the chest for at least 31 seconds, or shut the hell up about how safe taser are. It's pure BS and people should be ashamed that they've so easily been tricked.

[LINK]

There are many myths and lies about tasers. One of the oldest lies is that they replace guns. Fact is that tasers are used roughly 100 times as often as guns ever were. This ratio will vary with place and time, but it is a very good round number. To even mention that tasers replace guns in relation to incidents where teenagers were tasered and died is skirting the edges of basic human morality.

And the point about doing some sort of trade-off between saving lives of those that arguably deserve to be shot dead, at the expense of instituting a street-level death lottery for those that did nothing to deserve a lethal outcome is completely unethical.

The problem with the taser debate is that there are so many old and stale arguments still floating around. It's like herding cats trying to stay on issue. Virtually all of the the old pro-taser arguments have been examining and shredded. My blog has nearly 1000 posts where you can try to catch up with the latest aspects of the issue.

The primary issue is the following:

Are tasers as safe as claimed?

The manufacturer and their minions claim that there is essentially zero risk from internal risk factors. The training reflects the same hubris and over-confidence. People sometimes die right after being tasered. Even those that are young and healthy. Especially when hit in the chest. Especially by the latest X26 model. Low end of single digits risk of death (given certain assumptions).

Common sense tells the truth.

Do you think that taser demos are almost ALWAYS into the back for any reason other than reducing risk of death for the trainees? It's the most-obvious stage trick in the world once you notice it. If they're so confident in the real-world safety, then let's see them turn around. They can even use clip leads if they're worried about the darts. Go ahead...

Real-world safety. THAT is the main issue. Everything else is a distraction.

RCMP: "...[taser] risks include the risk of death..."

Here are the exact words:

"The RCMP's revised [Taser] policy underscores that there are risks associated with the deployment of the device and emphasizes that those risks include the risk of death, particularly for acutely agitated individuals." [LINK]


Make sure that you parse the whole sentence correctly.

The risks [always] 'include the risk of death'.

And if the individual happens to be acutely agitated, then the risk of death is even higher.


Considering that tasers are very often used on acutely agitated individuals, it means that the actual risk (weighted by actual application frequency) is often at the higher level.


Now - think about how tasers are used on individuals that did nothing to deserve having a risk of death imposed upon them. Not really fair. Not really moral. Not really ethical. Not really legal to have a street-level death lottery happening on the streets of Canada, or any other civilized state.


As has been so clearly pointed out on the Truth...Not Tasers blogs, it's not the (rare) success stories that count. It's the utterly evil failures. And if you're going to play a pure numbers game, then harvesting baby organs is the next evil step in such perverted logic.

And the taser numbers aren't very good anyway (keep in mind the 100:1 overusage ratio compared to guns).

'Any press is good press', eh?

"...recognizes the stun guns can cause death..." - CBC [LINK]
"...tasers potentially lethal..." - CTV News [LINK]
"...stun guns can cause death..." - Int'l Herald Tribune [LINK]
"...[tasers] ...can cause death..." - The Associated Press [LINK]
"...the weapons [tasers] can kill." - Reuters [LINK]
"...the stun gun can cause death..." - Canada.com [LINK]
"...the stun gun poses a risk of death..." - The Star (Toronto) [LINK]
"...tasers can cause deaths..." - All Headline News [LINK]
"...taser stun guns can kill..." - The Canadian Press [LINK]

Let's see: death, potentially lethal, death, death, can kill, death, death, deaths, kill.

"Protect life", eh?

The guy that called the taser 'a street level death lottery' was bang-on.

RCMP - "...tasers are potentially lethal..."

CBC News - New RCMP policy recognizes that stun guns can cause death — especially in "acutely agitated" suspects — and restricts their use to defuse threats, the head of the force said Thursday. RCMP Commissioner William Elliott outlined the policy shift as he spoke to the House of Commons public safety committee. Elliott said the Mounties will no longer use Tasers or other stun guns against suspects who are merely resistant.

Stun gun use must be reported with each firing or threat to fire, and must be justified as a reasonable and necessary response to a threat to an officer or public safety.

Elliott said the contentious weapons save lives [once in a while, but they also 'contribute to' death, making it a bit of a lottery], and officers will now refresh stun gun training each year instead of every two years.

The RCMP did not adopt the all-party committee's call to reclassify the stun gun as an impact weapon. Elliott said that's because it's already considered a prohibited firearm with clear policy restrictions for its use. [LINK]

2008 - a year in review...

The Year 2008 In Review

(And this is just a sample. It's not even all the major highlights.)


We started the year 2008 with a review of an "article" in IEEE Spectrum written by Taser's leading braintrust member, Dr. Mark Kroll. We more-fully exposed Dr. Kroll's extreme financial ties to Taser. [LINK] & [LINK] Then we dissected his Taser mouthpiece article more fully. [LINK] It was also noted that Dr. Kroll is a serial non-discloser of his close ties to Taser. [LINK]

Also very early this year, we noted that the X26 taser has a electrical waveform with characteristics that are the exact opposite of those characteristics that were claimed to be the reason that the M26 taser was 'safe'. The older 1999-era M26 taser is high frequency and low duty cycle. The 2003-era X26 taser is low frequency and very high continuous 100% duty cycle. I've not seen this critical technical distinction high-lighted in any other source. Taser's own data sheets mention the raw information, but not a word about this critical change to the waveform. [LINK] [LINK] and [LINK]. See also [LINK].

Some of the basics of Canadian law jumped out at me. I'm not a lawyer, and perhaps there is 'case law' that has taken away some of our fundamental rights (I doubt it). But some of the mistakes being made are (quite literally) elementary. Lawful 'force' is a noun. It's not a damn verb. Police officers and officials that think that they're allowed to use painful electric shock as a form of on-the-spot torture to coerce (force - verb) someone to obey are morons. Let me repeat - morons. The language used to forbid such behaviour is crystal clear. If 'failure to obey' is an offense, then add it to the list of charges and bring the subject before the court. You're not allowed to torture. And Tasers-R-Torture. [LINK]

By the 6th day, it had been noted that former Taser Board of Director member Mr. Bernie Kerik was facing charges that might result in him being jailed for up to 142 years. [LINK] [LINK] (Update: now facing just 28 years. [LINK]) In Canada, we have Sgt Darren Laur (Victoria, BC) and his 'apparent and perceived conflict of interest' [LINK], and coroner James Cairns' jaunts [LINK]. There are quite a few more ethical lapses associated with Taser and/or Taser-associated folks - eg. [LINK] - review the whole blog for more.

Shooting holes in Taser propaganda is a continuing theme of this blog. After Smith's appearance before SECU, I blasted away at the pure BS Taser propaganda. [LINK][LINK][LINK] There is so much propaganda from Taser that is so weak that almost anyone with a modicum of skepticism can instantly see the logical and technical flaws.

By early February, I'd tracked down a certain Taser fan-boy, (apparently) named David E. Zuskin, who (it seems) had been spamming the Internet with his nonsense trademark 'TASERS SAVE LIVES EVERYDAY' (in all caps) - which is both factually and grammatically incorrect. He has since installed a brain and now keeps a much lower profile (now he's 'Bob'). But he's still out there spamming the Internet - and nursing his investments [smirk...]. He got his bum smacked by his ISP [LINK] after clumsily entering my blog e-mail address into many investment-related news letters as some sort of punishment. Typical... ...these law and order (sic) folks are the ones that will break the law to maintain their order. LOL.

Another theme of this blog is taser abuse, misuse and overuse. For some reason [LINK], tasers are constantly being used where there is little to zero justification. Honestly, I don't care if the police are equipped with flame-throwers, so long as everyone is being perfectly honest. But if the manufacturer of flame-throwers starts claiming that they're perfectly safe, and that the burnt-to-a-crisp subjects are simply examples of Spontaneous Human Combustion, then those flame-throwers need to be put away until the brains are reinstalled and lawsuits settled.

By March, we had had a visit from Grettir, who may or may not be Dr. Mark Kroll himself (it certainly sounded like him). [LINK] The flawed thinking by Grettir was crystal clear - some of the logical errors were shocking in their simplicity - such as double-dipping for the natural protection of everybody's shared anatomical characteristics. The other points were equally easy to shred. It's clear that even self-styled big thinkers sometimes make small mistakes.

I note with interest that as these sorts of pro-taser arguments have been shredded by this blog, they tend to disappear from the Taser PR machine. The only argument that they've been using recently has been the 'reduces injuries to the police officers'. Yeah, so would a 'shoot first and let God figure it out' policy. They've very few arguments left standing.

By April, I had noticed that the higher RMS current values had been expunged from the later data sheets. [LINK] Taser would probably say that it was to reduce confusion. Yeah thanks for thinking of us. Nothing to do with ~160 milliamperes RMS being well above the safety limits, eh?

BC Transit Police revealed their empty-headed policies in April. Tasering fare-cheats for gawd's sake. [LINK] Idiots!

Safety margins were examined here [LINK]. They didn't stand-up very well to even a modest application of scrutiny.

But the most important contribution of this blog might be highlighting the relationship between the M26 waveform, and the X26 waveform, and the potentially huge impact of the seemingly-minor change to the waveform. A little DC offset changes everything - it lowers frequency (more dangerous), and it VASTLY increases duty cycle (to 100% continuous). It really seems that Taser forgot about Fourier. [LINK]

See also the guesstimated spectrograms [LINK].

We started plotting the number of taser-associated deaths per month, by month. The running average jumped up from much less than 1 per month before the introduction of the X26 taser in 2003, to a fairly steady 7 per month after that point. Perhaps it's just a coincidence. Perhaps all these deaths are just coincidences. [LINK] and others... [LINK]

In May, the brave BC Mounties tasered an 82-year old man in his hospital bed. Because he had a knife. It was 'a very dangerous situation'. So the frightened officer walked up really, really close to the elderly man and zapped him at close (zero) range. Yeah, it makes no sense to me either. [LINK]

Taser chairman Tom Smith more-or-less accidentally admitted that tasers takes one life for every 70 'lives saved'. [LINK] Well - ah - that's nice. Except that they claim that almost every time a taser is deployed, it counts as a life saved. Which is nonsense. And that just leaves the lives lost. Not to mention the Karma issue [LINK] of saving some lives at the expense of instituting a street level "death lottery" [LINK] on everyday citizens that do not deserve such risks.

We've reported incidents where diabetics in comas [LINK], people sleeping [LINK], and those having epileptic episodes [LINK] are tasered. These sorts of examples, which are almost endless in number, shred the old stale argument about 'just obey the police and you won't be tasered'. If you see that argument, please be gentle to the weak and ill-informed mind that houses it.

Another theme is the extraordinarily bad Taser-certified training. Given the actual behaviour of some supposedly-trained police officers, the only possible explanation is that the Taser-certified Trainers are brainwashed numskulls, and the Taser-certified training material is so poor as to be considered evil. [LINK] How else can you explain this nonsense? [LINK] !!!

This issue is (far and away) more than sufficient to fully justify a moratorium to allow time to surgically removed all the Taser propaganda from the skulls of those that have been Taser-certifiably brainwashed. It might take a year or two to sort out.

It's probably time to remind the readers that this taser issue is not just in the cross-hairs of a few outrage civilian bloggers. People with PhDs are also pointing out that some of Taser's so-called studies are useless. [LINK] And a more skeptical mind might ask, 'Wouldn't the pro-taser 'researchers' be familiar with the basics of Statistics 101?' Are these uselessly-small sample sizes an innocent mistake? ...or a sign of deeper issues?

Inconvenient facts like this [LINK] must annoy Taser: "...people with heart problems are about 5% of the general population (2% to 8% averages to 5%), but they represent 54% of the (tasered-then-dead) victims. That's about an 11-to-1 ratio that needs to be explained. Well obviously [sic] there's no connection [sic] between the taser and the heart. None at all...[ROLLS EYES]..."

Mid-way through 2008, the NIJ released a report that found no evidence of a high risk from tasers. Well DUH! What about low to moderate risk? And NIJ excluded huge swaths of the population, which add up to most of the population. [LINK]

Then a truth-stretcher named Billo turned the NIJ statement around to claim that this proved that Tasers-R-Safe. [LINK] Which it doesn't. [LINK]

Oh my! Then it was noted by another blogger that Billo the Blogger is a certain William Oliver and he is sitting on the same damn NIJ Taser Study panel!! Oh my gawd. [LINK][LINK] and especially [LINK] !!! Isn't that amazing!! This unabashed taser fan-boy is sitting on the NIJ panel "studying" tasers. And then he systematically twists the NIJ findings to suit Taser. What a bunch of clumsy clots.

On the subject of clumsy clots - I discovered by accident that Taser's lawyer Micheal Brave was registering domain names that promote "Excited Delirium" and he points these URLs to a seeming-front organization. Read it here [LINK] and [LINK] You're either in on it, or you're being played like a trumpet.

Taser likes to highlight its legal record, but not that fact that they actually settled many cases to make them go away. [LINK] [LINK]

By September, the RCMP had been body-slammed by an independent report [LINK]. But by mid-December, the RCMP thumbed their noses at the Parliamentary committee SECU that directed that the RCMP recategorize tasers as impact weapons (to cut back on the abuse, misuse, and overuse). [LINK][LINK] I guess the RCMP doesn't take them seriously, but they should... [LINK]

Still in September, the Canadian Police Research Center (seemingly acting as a branch of Taser sometimes, sat beside Taser at SECU for gosh sakes!) report failed to note that tasers are already considered to be firearms. [LINK] You'd think that might be worth noting. They had their chain yanked in August [LINK].

Taser's French distributor got himself arrested. [LINK] For some reason, Taser seems to be occasionally associated with people (Di Zazzo, Kerik) that are not as far above the law as they thought.


There is so much more. The above tidbits are just a sample of the issues that we've discussed. I've made some very interesting findings along the way.

It's been a crazy year for Taser. Their stock has tanked "due to oil prices", but I believe that the next year is when the perfect storm of cold hard facts will intersect with the legal system to make the year 2009 even more interesting for them.

Taser mole spokespuppet still drooling lies

A certain pro-taser arsehole that has been previously discussed in this blog [LINK] is continuing to leave his idiotic comments all over the on-line news outlets. His mindless comments typically have the following, grammatically- and factually-incorrect, Zuskin-trademark heading:

"Taser Saves Lives Everyday" (sic, and also very sick)


His latest moronic comment is the following:

Tasers have never killed anyone,

Yes they have. See De-spinning the Spin at the top of the right hand column for a couple of choice examples. $6.2M judgment for failure to warn (of the risk of death). And a case where three coroners that have pointed directly at the taser shocks as THE cause of a fatal cardiac arrest. Even Taser chairman Smith admitted that use of tasers results in lives lost in a ratio that he felt was acceptable (but who the hell gave him the right to make such moral trade-offs?). So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

'...a taser cannot kill a person unless they die due to a fall... '

Utter B.S. See De-spinning the Spin. The obvious-in-hindsight blood pH issue has been established in court. Coroners have found that taser shocks can cause cardiac arrest. And many more.

'Tasers give Police control over the uncontrolable, ...'

First, you don't have to capitalize the word "police" - they're not gods. Secondly, chuck yur spilling...

Back to tasers: tasers are unpredictable. Sometimes they work as they're suppose to. Sometimes they don't (today's example: [LINK]). Sometimes they are associated with the subject's death. Sometimes they are linked causually to that death. But most often they're overused, misused, and abuse. The taser success stories are so rare that Taser often celebrates them with a press release.

'...without getting hurt. Tasers reduce injuries to Police and Perps alike. ...'

Tasers have been called a 'street level death lottery'. I think that most 'perps' (and victims) would prefer to risk a minor injury rather than take a chance of being killed. A due to Taser's endless denominator-washing, the risks are actually higher than you might have been led to believe. Recent reports have warned of the risks of accepting the maufacturer's propaganda at face value - so you should stop quoting it.

Also, search this blog for a lesson on Karma. See [LINK] [LINK] and [LINK].


I hope that someone can figure out the exact relationship between this idiot and Taser. There is obviously a connection that drives him. If it isn't his life's savings tied-up in now less valuable TASR stocks, then perhaps there is a family connection. There must be something...


Where is Michael Moore when we need him?

A tool unlike any other

Ontario's provincial police commissioner Julian Fantino says "the taser is a tool like any other." [LINK]

Wrong. Dead wrong.

The difference between the taser and other policing tools is that the taser is surrounded by claims of essentially perfect safety with respect to internal risk factors (cardiac effects or similar). And the field results do not support these claims (too many mysterious deaths, some backed-up with legal findings).

I can think of no other police tool where the claims are so at odds with the reality (when viewed from the point of view of claimed perfection - see this [LINK] or you may not understand).

Guns, batons, fists, pepper-spray - all of these have a very obvious and predictable worst-case outcome. The risks are well understood. The taser is thought to be safe, but has proven to be what some have termed a street level death lottery.

The training and policies, both under Taser's influence, reflect this level of claimed safety (except that the trainees are never shot in the chest, because Taser wants them in the denominator rather than the numerator of the gross, washed-out, risk ratio).

This propaganda-based training leads to police officers with an incorrect view of the risk.

And this leads directly to abuse, misuse and overuse.

And that's the problem.

And that's the difference.

RESTRAINT - Risk of Death in Subjects That Resist

The so-called Canadian Police Research Centre is working on a study called 'RESTRAINT (Risk of Death in Subjects That Resist)'. [LINK] The head of the CPRC sat beside Taser's Tom Smith in Ottawa at the Commons committee. Not even trying to maintain a credibility air-gap.

I assume that CPRC will eventually be presenting a Part 2 to be entitled:

DEATH-LOTTERY (Risk of Death in Subjects that are, for example, simply standing there failing to understand commands yelled at them by RCMP officers who have already been told that the subject doesn't understand the English language and those officers already decided that they were going to use the taser even before they arrived on the scene)


"...Subjects that Resist" my ass.

Even the sub-title of the report is evil propaganda that discounts an entire class of taser victims.


Look up 'Karma' on this blog for some ethical guidance about forcing people to unwillingly participate in a street-level death-lottery.


Now, you want to discuss Risk of Death?

Taser proudly points to a so-called study by Webster et al that (get this!) calculates that the risk of death from a taser hit is in the low end of the single digit range in parts per million (some pro-taser spokespuppets [hi Greg] round it to 1-in-10 million).

Not coincidently, this insanely low number means that, given some 700,000+ deployments (including all those many FAKE taser demonstration shots into the back - and ignoring this denominator washing for the time being...), that it is most likely that not a single person in history has ever been killed by a taser [sic(k)]. How convenient from a liability point of view.

With 'science' like this, who needs sorcery?

Taser and Kroll claim that the taser is "safer than Tylenol".

So CPRC - here is the question: Do you believe this crap?

Look at some of the taser-associated deaths reported here and tracked on other blogs. There are more and more cases where the young victim is DRUG FREE, and has NO PRE-EXISTING MEDICAL CONDITION. And yet they are tasered and die of obvious cardiac effects.

(Update: By the way, drug use and pre-existing medical conditions should be considered as 'givens' in the population - so these sorts of issues cannot be considered to be escape clauses in any case. This subtle point has been examined in some detail in this blog before, look it up.)

And now, recently, some coroners and medical examiners have managed to swim away from the excited delirium and related propaganda campaign (indirectly sponsored by Taser by the way) and have found that the taser was the cause of death [LINK].

According to Taser's twisted and perverted world-view - this can't be happening.


If you believe that the risk of death-by-taser (internal, cardiac) is higher than 1-in-10 million, then you must also conclude that Taser and Kroll are wrong. And if they're wrong, then they're liable and deserve to be bankrupted.

So what is your position CPRC?


PS: Have your work checked (if you dare) by epidemiologist Dr. Chambers [LINK][LINK] to see if it jives with the real world statitics. There appears to be zero chance of any overlap between Taser's world-view and the real world (but that's just my opinion based on common-sense).

Update: See also previous post 'Injuries vs Death' [LINK]

Injuries vs. Death

Apparently some so-called experts, even some doctors (!!), don't seem to make much of a distinction between an injury and a death.

Read this post [LINK] on the Truth...Not Tasers blog about a so-called study by the 'Canadian Police Research Centre', and then read it again and notice that these obviously pro-taser folks in Calgary are casually lumping DEATH into the same pot as injuries.

"No use-of-force technique available to police officers can be considered 'safe.' ... Every use-of-force encounter between the police and a citizen carries with it the possibility for injury for one or all of the participants, however unexpected that injury might be," says a synopsis of the report.

Oh shut the f-ck up.

What is the claimed and actual rate of DEATH ?

Look, if there had been 22 people injured in Canada by tasers, then I wouldn't have bothered to create this blog.

The issue with Taser and tasers is the apparent discrepancy between the claimed level of safety and the actual field safety for the taser (with respect to DEATH from internal mechanisms). And the bad training. Which leads to overuse, misuse and abuse. Which - when all combined - leads to the unnecessary deaths of innocent people (people that would never in a million years have been shot with a gun by the police).

Taser quotes 'studies' by Webster that claim the the chances of death, by any internal mechanism, is in the single digit parts-per-million range. Taser has never acknowledged any internal risk mechanism. Kroll claims the taser is "safer than Tylenol". That's the claim.

Do you believe that?

And do NOT include all the denominator washing that Taser likes to create [LINK] and include [LINK].

What's the actual death rate once the X26 dart(s) hit the chest and the device is cycled one or more times?

The taser has been described as a street level death lottery.


I'm sick and tired of this sort of crap propaganda from these sort of pro-taser folks that can't even make up a good lie.

And why would the folks at the so-called 'Canadian Police Research Centre' try to slip such clumsy pro-Taser propaganda past us? What's with THAT?

If this (injuries/death: same thing) is the quality of output that we're going to get from the Canadian Police Research Centre, then I say that they should be disqualified from the debate.

What are the odds? (Winnipeg data)

From the news: "In 2007, city police used their Tasers 173 times, with just under half the total being incidents where the weapon was not fired or used to shock a person. From Jan. 1 to Jun. 25 of this year, the total is 63. Again, just under half the times Tasers were used, they were used only to coerce suspects, and not deployed." [via LINK]

So, about half of 173 + about half of 63 = about 120 actual taser deployments over 18 months in Winnipeg. The remaining incidents were simply displays of the weapon.

[By the way - This data clearly indicates that the taser is not simply a replacement for the gun. It is perhaps a bit under the 100-to-1 overuse ratio that we see in some jurisdictions, but it is also obviously evidence that the old argument that the taser is better than a gun is nothing but a damn lie.]

Roughly half of the taser deployments in this data would have been in the assumed-to-be-safer Push-Pain (Touch-Torture) mode as opposed to Dart Deployment mode where the darts might happen to hit the chest. So we almost certainly have some fraction of 120-ish being the full on dart deployments (ball park guess about 60-ish). And in many of these the darts would have landed on the subject in an area of the body that everyone might agree is relatively safe (with respect to internal cardiac effects). So the X26 hits to the chest in Winnipeg over 18 months are maybe about 30-ish in 18 months.

And we have a death.

So, again, the actual field risk (of death) from full on X26 hits to the chest is turning out to be something in the middle of the single digit range (roughly 3%). Might be more, might be less.

If you think that this is okay, then you haven't been paying attention.

Police have been brainwashed that the taser is essentially perfectly safe. Taser admits no internal (for example - cardiac) risk. Taser quotes 'studies' that put the risk in the parts-per-million range.

Does this outcome appear to be expected if the risk was really in the parts-per-million? Does that make any sense on its face? Do you trust people that would make claims that are so at odds with reality?

If the police were not brainwashed by Taser's propaganda about the level of safety, would they use the taser so freely? Do we want a street-level death lottery?

It all goes back to the fundamental question: People get tasered. People die. Is there a connection?

Karma revisited

For those that are new to the taser issue, or haven't been following along this blog long enough to have read all 460+ posts, here is one topic that you might wish to catch-up on:


Karma: "...it is not fair to trade-off the lives of [the many] innocents against the lives of [a few] violent criminals that may be attacking the police." Remember that tasers are used about 100 times more often than guns ever were.

Search 'Karma' on this blog: [LINK]


The It all goes here blog [LINK] used the words: "...Are people really ready for police with unbridled authority employing devices that implement a death lottery for anyone getting out of line? ..." [LINK]