The Salt Lake Tribune (19 June 2009) [LINK]
Brian Cardall's body was lying on the side of the road -- naked and still warm -- when the Hurricane Police Department started working on what a sharp attorney could call a defense.
"Did he come after you?" a cop asked officer Ken Thompson.
"Does he have any drugs? Let's find out. Any narcs, anything like that?"
"He was foaming at the mouth when we got here," Thompson says.
No, Cardall's wife says. No other drugs. Just 400 mg of Seroquel, the medicine he takes for bipolar disorder.
"He went right at you?" someone asks Thompson.
"Huh?" he asks.
"He went right at you?"
"Yeah," Thompson says.
Someone calls for a defibrillator.
"He went down, and now he's not breathing," Thompson says. [These are the words of someone that was taught one thing, and is now looking at the opposite. He's in a state of shock.]
"Excited delirium, huh?" his colleagues ask. It's the catchall, street-side diagnosis for those who inexplicably die in police custody.
They fiddle with the taser's prongs. Why aren't they closer to where Thompson is pointing?
"The wind is blowing them?" one suggests. "I'm just trying to find somethin' for you."
Hurricane police wouldn't need to find something if tasers really were non-lethal. If the officers who responded to Anna Cardall's hysterical 911 call had stopped traffic and used their hands. If Thompson had waited a minute --- just a minute --- before zapping Cardall full of 50,000 volts. Or if the officer had left well enough alone and not electrified the man writhing and moaning on the ground a second time.
But they aren't. And they didn't. And he didn't. And Brian Cardall, a 32-year-old father of two and doctoral student, died June 9 on the windswept side of Highway 59. ...
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
RCMP email 'bombshell' on Braidwood Inquiry
CBC News - Newly disclosed RCMP email drops bombshell on Taser inquiry [LINK]
The email between two senior RCMP supervisors suggests that the four Mounties who responded to a call at the airport discussed a plan to use a taser against the Polish immigrant before they arrived. The four officers had already stated under oath at the inquiry that they had not discussed using the stun gun before arriving at the airport.
The commission was scheduled to begin hearing closing arguments on Friday morning, but after learning of the email, commissioner Thomas Braidwood announced the inquiry will resume on Sept. 22, so the commission lawyers have time to review the email and conduct an investigation.
"I am obviously appalled," a clearly upset Braidwood said.
Man oh man.
I'll betcha a dollar that between now and September they find even more information that damages the four officers and the RCMP.
The email between two senior RCMP supervisors suggests that the four Mounties who responded to a call at the airport discussed a plan to use a taser against the Polish immigrant before they arrived. The four officers had already stated under oath at the inquiry that they had not discussed using the stun gun before arriving at the airport.
The commission was scheduled to begin hearing closing arguments on Friday morning, but after learning of the email, commissioner Thomas Braidwood announced the inquiry will resume on Sept. 22, so the commission lawyers have time to review the email and conduct an investigation.
"I am obviously appalled," a clearly upset Braidwood said.
Man oh man.
I'll betcha a dollar that between now and September they find even more information that damages the four officers and the RCMP.
Taser 'hits back' at Aussie critics...
It certainly seems like a very common misrepresentation by taser-wielding police to massively under-report the number of times that they fire the taser. It's happened in several famous taser-associated deaths. These all-too-common discrepancy would be another good topic for mental-health professionals to investigate. There's certainly something funny going on inside The Church of Taser.
ABC (Australia) The World Today - Friday, 19 June 2009: Taser International says regardless of whether its stun gun was used three times - as originally reported by police - or 28 times as later came to light, it would not have killed North Queenslander Antonio Galeano. [LINK]
Oh, okay then. I'm glad you cleared that up. So what exactly have you been smoking?
You don't recall that Taser International was found partial liable, originally to the tune of $6.2M, because your idiot minions failed to account for a well-established causal pathway (blood pH) that can cause death? Forgot about that one? Remember, the case you LOST?
Taser International won a subsequent appeal of the amount, based on a legal technicality. The judgment of partial liability has not, to my knowledge, been overturned.
The company says that Amnesty International's claim that the Taser is linked to more than 300 deaths worldwide is wrong because no coroner has ever made such a finding.
Reportedly, AI's review of more than a hundred autopsy reports found that the corners linked the taser deployment to the death in about one-third (variously reported as 27% or 37%) of all the cases reviewed. And this is in spite of the best efforts to avoid such a finding. [LINK]
And you don't recall the Pikes case where the coroners (several) all agree that the death was caused by the multiple taser hits? [LINK]
There comes a point where the local Taser spokespuppets are reading from out-of-date cue cards. The result is that they're making statements that are demonstrably false.
Such as claiming that "no coroner has ever made such a finding."
Folks in Australia should pounce on this obviously false statement. The people making these claims are either ignorant, or liars.
ABC (Australia) The World Today - Friday, 19 June 2009: Taser International says regardless of whether its stun gun was used three times - as originally reported by police - or 28 times as later came to light, it would not have killed North Queenslander Antonio Galeano. [LINK]
Oh, okay then. I'm glad you cleared that up. So what exactly have you been smoking?
You don't recall that Taser International was found partial liable, originally to the tune of $6.2M, because your idiot minions failed to account for a well-established causal pathway (blood pH) that can cause death? Forgot about that one? Remember, the case you LOST?
Taser International won a subsequent appeal of the amount, based on a legal technicality. The judgment of partial liability has not, to my knowledge, been overturned.
The company says that Amnesty International's claim that the Taser is linked to more than 300 deaths worldwide is wrong because no coroner has ever made such a finding.
Reportedly, AI's review of more than a hundred autopsy reports found that the corners linked the taser deployment to the death in about one-third (variously reported as 27% or 37%) of all the cases reviewed. And this is in spite of the best efforts to avoid such a finding. [LINK]
And you don't recall the Pikes case where the coroners (several) all agree that the death was caused by the multiple taser hits? [LINK]
There comes a point where the local Taser spokespuppets are reading from out-of-date cue cards. The result is that they're making statements that are demonstrably false.
Such as claiming that "no coroner has ever made such a finding."
Folks in Australia should pounce on this obviously false statement. The people making these claims are either ignorant, or liars.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
"Tasers cannot affect the heart" vs. the ugly results
A Queensland (Australia) man [Antonio Galeano] shocked 28 times by a police officer with a 50,000-volt taser died of a heart attack within minutes, an autopsy has confirmed. [LINK]
The stun gun's US manufacturers have claimed the weapon cannot cause a heart attack.
Tasers are safer than Tylenol.
Tasers have a large safety margin.
The only risks of death are the following: 1) unauthorized replacement parts, and 2) falling down and banging ones' head. [Official Taser Warning (paraphrased, please refer to the original for complete details. Search the document for the word 'death'.)]
To be complete, the news reports also indicate that Mr. Galeano was an amphetamine addict and had an existing heart condition. Taser fan-boys will be quick to claim cover from these contributing factors.
But Taser International can't. They can't claim that the "taser is safe, except for drug users." They're not selling these things to maintain order at church picnics. They're being sold to police for use on the drug-infested streets. So if the taser can cause a heart attack in a drug user, then it's not reasonable to call it "safe".
Taser International is in for a rough ride in Australia. It'll be a repeat performance of what they've experienced in Canada, except a bit warmer and with more poisonous spiders and snakes.
The stun gun's US manufacturers have claimed the weapon cannot cause a heart attack.
Tasers are safer than Tylenol.
Tasers have a large safety margin.
The only risks of death are the following: 1) unauthorized replacement parts, and 2) falling down and banging ones' head. [Official Taser Warning (paraphrased, please refer to the original for complete details. Search the document for the word 'death'.)]
To be complete, the news reports also indicate that Mr. Galeano was an amphetamine addict and had an existing heart condition. Taser fan-boys will be quick to claim cover from these contributing factors.
But Taser International can't. They can't claim that the "taser is safe, except for drug users." They're not selling these things to maintain order at church picnics. They're being sold to police for use on the drug-infested streets. So if the taser can cause a heart attack in a drug user, then it's not reasonable to call it "safe".
Taser International is in for a rough ride in Australia. It'll be a repeat performance of what they've experienced in Canada, except a bit warmer and with more poisonous spiders and snakes.
AMA report on tasers - "directly"
"An AMA report finds that tasers, when used appropriately, can save lives during interventions that would have otherwise involved the use of deadly force."
Okay. Now engage brain and think. What about the other 99% of the time? ...When tasers are used to replace lower and less violent forms of force?
For those that just crawled out of their cave and aren't aware, tasers are deployed approximately one hundred times as often as police have historically and generally-acceptably fired their guns. This 100X ratio varies widely, but it's a reasonable approximate number.
So that leaves the vast majority of actual taser deployments, which most often occur when lethal gun-fire would have never been used, without this purported moral justification.
There were some bright spots in the AMA report:
The AMA’s report detailed concerns about the use of Tasers in three general areas:
1) They are used too frequently and at lower levels on the use-of-force continuum than indicated.
2) Appropriate training and supervision of Taser use is lacking in some [most] jurisdictions.
3) And they may contribute to the death of suspects [or victims], either directly or indirectly. [LINK]
So this AMA taser report is hardly the ringing endorsement that Taser International will pretend it is.
AMA left open, intentionally and explicitly (!), the possibility that tasers can "directly" (a word that will inflame Taser lawyers) "contribute to" a death.
"DIRECTLY"
By the way, if tasers were only used during incidents that would have otherwise involved the use of deadly force, then I would not have bothered starting this blog.
That's the oldest taser lie.
It's the original taser lie.
...that "tasers replace guns".
Okay. Now engage brain and think. What about the other 99% of the time? ...When tasers are used to replace lower and less violent forms of force?
For those that just crawled out of their cave and aren't aware, tasers are deployed approximately one hundred times as often as police have historically and generally-acceptably fired their guns. This 100X ratio varies widely, but it's a reasonable approximate number.
So that leaves the vast majority of actual taser deployments, which most often occur when lethal gun-fire would have never been used, without this purported moral justification.
There were some bright spots in the AMA report:
The AMA’s report detailed concerns about the use of Tasers in three general areas:
1) They are used too frequently and at lower levels on the use-of-force continuum than indicated.
2) Appropriate training and supervision of Taser use is lacking in some [most] jurisdictions.
3) And they may contribute to the death of suspects [or victims], either directly or indirectly. [LINK]
So this AMA taser report is hardly the ringing endorsement that Taser International will pretend it is.
AMA left open, intentionally and explicitly (!), the possibility that tasers can "directly" (a word that will inflame Taser lawyers) "contribute to" a death.
"DIRECTLY"
By the way, if tasers were only used during incidents that would have otherwise involved the use of deadly force, then I would not have bothered starting this blog.
That's the oldest taser lie.
It's the original taser lie.
...that "tasers replace guns".
Taser camera fails exactly when required
Look at this:
Ryan S. Smith was taser-tortured Sept. 29 in Police Headquarters, while he was handcuffed, because he refused to open his mouth to allow the inside of his cheek to be swabbed for a DNA sample. ... A video camera in the Taser itself recorded some of what happened, but the screen goes white and the sound turns to static when the trigger is pulled. The digital clock on the screen skips forward by one minute and 17 seconds after the picture returns. [LINK]
Badly designed. Badly made. Rubbish.
This is just my personal opinion. But it is based on the many reports of taser failures and other related evidence.
Ryan S. Smith was taser-tortured Sept. 29 in Police Headquarters, while he was handcuffed, because he refused to open his mouth to allow the inside of his cheek to be swabbed for a DNA sample. ... A video camera in the Taser itself recorded some of what happened, but the screen goes white and the sound turns to static when the trigger is pulled. The digital clock on the screen skips forward by one minute and 17 seconds after the picture returns. [LINK]
Badly designed. Badly made. Rubbish.
This is just my personal opinion. But it is based on the many reports of taser failures and other related evidence.
The Minions of Minneapolis, Minnesota
A flurry of blog traffic from the pro-taser minions of Minneapolis, Minnesota. They're banging away on the blog and sending each other e-mails with direct pointers to the posts of interest. Some of them are on the road in Iowa City, Iowa.
They're most interested in the following two recent posts:
1. What is Taser International's position on safety? [LINK]
2. Dr. Brian Crandall lays it out... [LINK]
For their benefit, I've made another post that provides further information on the 800-lb discrepancy of interest. See Discrepant messages from Taser International ? [LINK]
I for one would certainly appreciate a crystal-clear, unambiguous, double-or-nothing, fully official statement from Taser International that defines their belief du jour on the issue of internal risk factors (such as cardiac effects of any sort) that might lead to death in normal, and abnormal, population groups.
Please provide numerical values and avoid meaningless adjectives.
Right now the official warnings do not acknowledge any such risks. The only possible causes of death are from using un-approved parts, or people falling down and banging their head. The word 'death' is not mentioned in any other health warning section.
This challenge is a risky double-or-nothing bet. Which is why they will almost certainly never answer it.
They're most interested in the following two recent posts:
1. What is Taser International's position on safety? [LINK]
2. Dr. Brian Crandall lays it out... [LINK]
For their benefit, I've made another post that provides further information on the 800-lb discrepancy of interest. See Discrepant messages from Taser International ? [LINK]
I for one would certainly appreciate a crystal-clear, unambiguous, double-or-nothing, fully official statement from Taser International that defines their belief du jour on the issue of internal risk factors (such as cardiac effects of any sort) that might lead to death in normal, and abnormal, population groups.
Please provide numerical values and avoid meaningless adjectives.
Right now the official warnings do not acknowledge any such risks. The only possible causes of death are from using un-approved parts, or people falling down and banging their head. The word 'death' is not mentioned in any other health warning section.
This challenge is a risky double-or-nothing bet. Which is why they will almost certainly never answer it.
Hey! Hey - pssst! "Did he come after you?"
The Salt Lake Tribune - Moments after a Hurricane police officer twice deployed a Taser on Brian Cardall on the side of a southern Utah highway earlier this month, other officers at the scene apparently conferred about how they could make the officer's actions appear justified. [LINK]
"Did he come after you?" an officer whispered at Hurricane police Officer Ken Thompson, who shot Cardall twice with a Taser, once when Cardall was already incapacitated and laying on the ground.
"Huh?" Thompson replies.
"He went right at you?" another officer asks Thompson again, later.
"Yeah," Thompson replies, flatly.
This isn't going to look (sound) good in court.
Sometimes I think that there could be a 24-man, 6-camera Imax film crew ten feet away, and the police would still completely forget that they're being recorded.
"Did he come after you?" an officer whispered at Hurricane police Officer Ken Thompson, who shot Cardall twice with a Taser, once when Cardall was already incapacitated and laying on the ground.
"Huh?" Thompson replies.
"He went right at you?" another officer asks Thompson again, later.
"Yeah," Thompson replies, flatly.
This isn't going to look (sound) good in court.
Sometimes I think that there could be a 24-man, 6-camera Imax film crew ten feet away, and the police would still completely forget that they're being recorded.
Discrepant messages from Taser International ?
"If one ping-pong ball hit to the head does not kill you, 1,000 probably cannot either." - Taser International [LINK] [LINK]
"Prepared by: Mark W. Kroll, PhD ... Published: 3/25/2007"
"Electricity does not build up in the body like poison. If an electrical current does not electrocute someone in 2–5 seconds, it will not electrocute the person with a longer application. Thus, longer applications have no materially different effect on the heart."
Taser document 'Warnings - Law Enforcement.0408' makes no specific mention of any health (or death) risks associated with repeated taser exposure. They do recommend minimal exposure, but do not provide any health (or death) warnings associated with that recommendation.
The word "death" appears three (3) times in the above-referenced warning document, and the only associated warnings of risk of death are with use of non-approved parts, or from the startle response where the victim might fall down and bang their head.
There is no other warning of risk of death. None.
And yet... ...this just in:
"...the warnings and training by the stun gun's American manufacturers that multiple use on a person is dangerous." [LINK]
The above discrepancy is the muddled safety message from Taser International that I'm talking about.
And there is still plenty of scope for Failure to Warn lawsuits regarding the risks when taser darts hit the victims' chests, and are repeatedly cycled.
An analysis by Montreal biomedical engineer Pierre Savard, made available to [CBC], suggests the chances of someone dying after being hit with a police taser increase the more times they're stunned. [LINK] [LINK]
If there's no connection, then this correlation is pretty-well completely inexplicable.
"Prepared by: Mark W. Kroll, PhD ... Published: 3/25/2007"
"Electricity does not build up in the body like poison. If an electrical current does not electrocute someone in 2–5 seconds, it will not electrocute the person with a longer application. Thus, longer applications have no materially different effect on the heart."
Taser document 'Warnings - Law Enforcement.0408' makes no specific mention of any health (or death) risks associated with repeated taser exposure. They do recommend minimal exposure, but do not provide any health (or death) warnings associated with that recommendation.
The word "death" appears three (3) times in the above-referenced warning document, and the only associated warnings of risk of death are with use of non-approved parts, or from the startle response where the victim might fall down and bang their head.
There is no other warning of risk of death. None.
And yet... ...this just in:
"...the warnings and training by the stun gun's American manufacturers that multiple use on a person is dangerous." [LINK]
The above discrepancy is the muddled safety message from Taser International that I'm talking about.
And there is still plenty of scope for Failure to Warn lawsuits regarding the risks when taser darts hit the victims' chests, and are repeatedly cycled.
An analysis by Montreal biomedical engineer Pierre Savard, made available to [CBC], suggests the chances of someone dying after being hit with a police taser increase the more times they're stunned. [LINK] [LINK]
If there's no connection, then this correlation is pretty-well completely inexplicable.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Tip-toeing around the obvious
The death of 16-year-old Robert Mitchell is being attributed to an underlying genetic heart condition - arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia (ARVD), a genetic disorder that causes an arrhythmia - exacerbated by the taser.
The autopsy said that Mr. Mitchell suffered two taser probe-related injuries -- above and below the nipple -- on the left side of his chest. [Coincidence my ass.]
The taser is basically listed as a contributory factor.
The autopsy didn't reveal any other signs of injury to Mitchell's body. "There was no additional trauma to his body. There was no type of physical compression on his body or on his chest. He was never in a choke hold, never hog-tied and basically the only thing we saw were the application of the taser marks." [LINK]
Given that this purported ARVD is a genetic condition, then Robert Mitchell would have had this condition from birth. And yet his death is very closely time-aligned (and in the right order) with the taser hit to his chest.
So, in my opinion, the taser deployment is THE CAUSE and the ARVD can be listed as a CONTRIBUTORY FACTOR.
It's a semantic hijack and an affront to self-evident logic to reverse the two. What exactly does the word "cause" mean?
And here's evidence of another logical error that may have affected the clear-thinking of those involved with the autopsy.
Forensic pathologist Cheryl L. Loewe basically quotes the world-view of Taser International and, by context, applies the 'logic' (sic) to this case: "In a healthy adult, it's unlikely an arrhythmia may have been precipitated by a taser." [ibid]
Think! Does 'unlikely' count for anything in these circumstances? They don't deliver the taser survivors for autopsy! The paramedics select those 'unlikely' few that happened to be the ones that died, and deliver only those to the morgue.
So an 'unlikely' death-by-taser is exactly as certain to show up in the morgue as a more-common death. It's a basic error of logic to use the likelihood of a death mechanism to exclude it from further consideration, or move it down the causal factors list.
And the fact that she actually opened her mouth and made this statement, given the context, is not an insignificant observation. Why is she quoting Taser International's world-view?
Yes, I realize that it looks suspiciously like a death caused by the javelin to the head, but you have to admit that that's a pretty unlikely death mechanism. How many people die of javelins to the head during a normal week? Not many! And yes, we've noticed the 8-foot javelin sticking out of the victims' skull. But it's still a pretty darn unlikely death just the same. So we suspect it was a genetic condition that was the actual cause of death. Perhaps the javelin to the head was a contributing factor...
The autopsy said that Mr. Mitchell suffered two taser probe-related injuries -- above and below the nipple -- on the left side of his chest. [Coincidence my ass.]
The taser is basically listed as a contributory factor.
The autopsy didn't reveal any other signs of injury to Mitchell's body. "There was no additional trauma to his body. There was no type of physical compression on his body or on his chest. He was never in a choke hold, never hog-tied and basically the only thing we saw were the application of the taser marks." [LINK]
Given that this purported ARVD is a genetic condition, then Robert Mitchell would have had this condition from birth. And yet his death is very closely time-aligned (and in the right order) with the taser hit to his chest.
So, in my opinion, the taser deployment is THE CAUSE and the ARVD can be listed as a CONTRIBUTORY FACTOR.
It's a semantic hijack and an affront to self-evident logic to reverse the two. What exactly does the word "cause" mean?
And here's evidence of another logical error that may have affected the clear-thinking of those involved with the autopsy.
Forensic pathologist Cheryl L. Loewe basically quotes the world-view of Taser International and, by context, applies the 'logic' (sic) to this case: "In a healthy adult, it's unlikely an arrhythmia may have been precipitated by a taser." [ibid]
Think! Does 'unlikely' count for anything in these circumstances? They don't deliver the taser survivors for autopsy! The paramedics select those 'unlikely' few that happened to be the ones that died, and deliver only those to the morgue.
So an 'unlikely' death-by-taser is exactly as certain to show up in the morgue as a more-common death. It's a basic error of logic to use the likelihood of a death mechanism to exclude it from further consideration, or move it down the causal factors list.
And the fact that she actually opened her mouth and made this statement, given the context, is not an insignificant observation. Why is she quoting Taser International's world-view?
Yes, I realize that it looks suspiciously like a death caused by the javelin to the head, but you have to admit that that's a pretty unlikely death mechanism. How many people die of javelins to the head during a normal week? Not many! And yes, we've noticed the 8-foot javelin sticking out of the victims' skull. But it's still a pretty darn unlikely death just the same. So we suspect it was a genetic condition that was the actual cause of death. Perhaps the javelin to the head was a contributing factor...
Strange correlation...
39-year old Antonio Galeano was tasered and died.
Oh yeah, he was tasered as many as 28 times. [LINK]
And he died.
28 times!
Died.
28!
Coincidence?
An analysis by Montreal biomedical engineer Pierre Savard, made available to [CBC], suggests the chances of someone dying after being hit with a police taser increase the more times they're stunned. [LINK] [LINK]
Even the taser fan-boy stuffed NIJ panel found the correlation difficult to ignore.
This correlation is a very inconvenient fact for Taser International.
Oh yeah, he was tasered as many as 28 times. [LINK]
And he died.
28 times!
Died.
28!
Coincidence?
An analysis by Montreal biomedical engineer Pierre Savard, made available to [CBC], suggests the chances of someone dying after being hit with a police taser increase the more times they're stunned. [LINK] [LINK]
Even the taser fan-boy stuffed NIJ panel found the correlation difficult to ignore.
This correlation is a very inconvenient fact for Taser International.
A topic for psychoanalysis...
Queensland (Australia) Police Union acting-General President Ian Leavers is warning of a police shooting spree and resultant bloodbath if tasers are withdrawn. "A knee-jerk withdrawal of tasers will only see a marked increase in use of police firearms..." [LINK]
Go ahead - call this bluff. There's evidence to suggest that the opposite is true.
Try de-escalation techniques; such techniques are a form of non-violence. Tasers are violence and have many failure modes that leave you headed up the scale when perhaps you should have tried going down.
The Queensland Police Union, which lobbied hard in support of the introduction of Tasers, insists the electric shock devices are safe.
Safe? Perfectly safe? What are you smoking? Follow the news? What's going on here? Defective training? Sheer ignorance?
39-year-old Antonio Galeano died on the floor after being shot three times with a taser.
There's a PhD waiting for the first psychiatry student that can figure out what exactly is going on inside the brains of the police that have become so addicted to the promises made by stun-gun salesmen, even while they're totally blind to what lays sprawled lifeless on the floor at their feet.
It's a subtle form of insanity.
Go ahead - call this bluff. There's evidence to suggest that the opposite is true.
Try de-escalation techniques; such techniques are a form of non-violence. Tasers are violence and have many failure modes that leave you headed up the scale when perhaps you should have tried going down.
The Queensland Police Union, which lobbied hard in support of the introduction of Tasers, insists the electric shock devices are safe.
Safe? Perfectly safe? What are you smoking? Follow the news? What's going on here? Defective training? Sheer ignorance?
39-year-old Antonio Galeano died on the floor after being shot three times with a taser.
There's a PhD waiting for the first psychiatry student that can figure out what exactly is going on inside the brains of the police that have become so addicted to the promises made by stun-gun salesmen, even while they're totally blind to what lays sprawled lifeless on the floor at their feet.
It's a subtle form of insanity.
What is Taser International's position on safety?
Their position on taser safety seems to be a bit muddled over recent months. And I suspect that this muddle is completely intentional.
They continue to 'defend the safety' of the taser.
But if you watch their feet intently, they're doing that tiny and subtle feet-twist sideways movement as they slowly and almost imperceptibly slide from the position that Tasers-R-Safe, to slyly warning that tasers are now "not without risks".
These risks are rather ill-defined. Some people think that they remain just the falling down and banging heads sort of external risks. But the wording has been subtly changed so as to not exclude internal risk factors such as cardiac effects of any sort.
Did they think that nobody would notice the change that the more-limited 'individual susceptibilities' is now an all-inclusive 'not without risks' (everyone is welcome to join the life-or-death risk party)?
See also this recent news [LINK] from Australia that Taser International (reportedly) now admits that multiple taser hits can be dangerous and that officers are now being trained to avoid multiple taser hits. Holy Sh_t! Does this warning apply outside Australia too? Anyone seen such a thing in North America? Is this news correct?
Does this new Australian-based warning now mean that all those taser-associated deaths (in North America), where the victim was tasered several (or many) times and died, that Taser International will now be happy to open their checkbook and compensate the families for these deaths which are now, perhaps more clearly, seen as being possibly the direct result of this previously-unforeseen risk from multiple taserings? Or will they continue to be dirty slime-bags and deny all responsibility and leave the victims' families bankrupt? Hey, I'm just asking...
Remember Kroll's article in IEEE Spectrum in December 2007? [LINK] Wouldn't we like to have him appear on the witness stand and try to defend that article given the ugly reality of the real-world results?
Maybe certain EE's shouldn't be (essentially) practicing medicine. Maybe some of them shouldn't be allowed to practice engineering either. Hubris is very dangerous.
Decision makers of the Law Enforcement world should carefully compare their original taser training materials to the latest version(s) - including the Australian version. If the overall taser safety message has slowly evolved through annual subtle adjustments, then perhaps the net change is more significant than they've been led to believe.
Someone, somewhere should be auditing this warnings / training issue. Regulators of the world - where are you?
They continue to 'defend the safety' of the taser.
But if you watch their feet intently, they're doing that tiny and subtle feet-twist sideways movement as they slowly and almost imperceptibly slide from the position that Tasers-R-Safe, to slyly warning that tasers are now "not without risks".
These risks are rather ill-defined. Some people think that they remain just the falling down and banging heads sort of external risks. But the wording has been subtly changed so as to not exclude internal risk factors such as cardiac effects of any sort.
Did they think that nobody would notice the change that the more-limited 'individual susceptibilities' is now an all-inclusive 'not without risks' (everyone is welcome to join the life-or-death risk party)?
See also this recent news [LINK] from Australia that Taser International (reportedly) now admits that multiple taser hits can be dangerous and that officers are now being trained to avoid multiple taser hits. Holy Sh_t! Does this warning apply outside Australia too? Anyone seen such a thing in North America? Is this news correct?
Does this new Australian-based warning now mean that all those taser-associated deaths (in North America), where the victim was tasered several (or many) times and died, that Taser International will now be happy to open their checkbook and compensate the families for these deaths which are now, perhaps more clearly, seen as being possibly the direct result of this previously-unforeseen risk from multiple taserings? Or will they continue to be dirty slime-bags and deny all responsibility and leave the victims' families bankrupt? Hey, I'm just asking...
Remember Kroll's article in IEEE Spectrum in December 2007? [LINK] Wouldn't we like to have him appear on the witness stand and try to defend that article given the ugly reality of the real-world results?
Maybe certain EE's shouldn't be (essentially) practicing medicine. Maybe some of them shouldn't be allowed to practice engineering either. Hubris is very dangerous.
Decision makers of the Law Enforcement world should carefully compare their original taser training materials to the latest version(s) - including the Australian version. If the overall taser safety message has slowly evolved through annual subtle adjustments, then perhaps the net change is more significant than they've been led to believe.
Someone, somewhere should be auditing this warnings / training issue. Regulators of the world - where are you?
Taser (partially) quotes NIJ...
In relation to the taser-associated death of Brian Cardall, but without mentioning the name "Brian Cardall", Taser International spokespuppet Steve Tuttle issued the following statement to KSL:
"While we continue to acknowledge that Taser technology is not risk free, [So, can it kill, directly? Yes? No? Hello?] the NIJ report speaks volumes affirming our previous statements concerning the safety of Taser devices..." - Steve Tuttle, VP of Communications, Taser International. [LINK]
Mr. Tuttle extracts only what he wants from the interim NIJ report. His extract doesn't put it into complete context.
See the following for a more-complete understanding of the NIJ interim findings.
Copied below is a related post, first posted almost one year ago (27 June 2008) [Original].
NIJ: 'Safe. Except for you & you & you & you...'
The US National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has carefully studied the propaganda and their interim report on 'conducted energy weapons' (tasers) has concluded that they are sometimes generally safe.
Well...
...except for that 43% of the time when they're used repeatedly,
...or used on that up to 8% of the population known to have heart problems,
...or used on the elderly, ...or used on children,
...or used on the other ill-defined and unknown-size population that is 'at risk' (I guess known only after the fact, when their 'unique anatomical makeup' [LINK] is discovered at autopsy- this is just ONE example). And some would say that those that tend to come into contact with the police tend to be those 'at risk'.
So there you have it.
"While we continue to acknowledge that Taser technology is not risk free, [So, can it kill, directly? Yes? No? Hello?] the NIJ report speaks volumes affirming our previous statements concerning the safety of Taser devices..." - Steve Tuttle, VP of Communications, Taser International. [LINK]
Mr. Tuttle extracts only what he wants from the interim NIJ report. His extract doesn't put it into complete context.
See the following for a more-complete understanding of the NIJ interim findings.
Copied below is a related post, first posted almost one year ago (27 June 2008) [Original].
NIJ: 'Safe. Except for you & you & you & you...'
The US National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has carefully studied the propaganda and their interim report on 'conducted energy weapons' (tasers) has concluded that they are sometimes generally safe.
Well...
...except for that 43% of the time when they're used repeatedly,
...or used on that up to 8% of the population known to have heart problems,
...or used on the elderly, ...or used on children,
...or used on the other ill-defined and unknown-size population that is 'at risk' (I guess known only after the fact, when their 'unique anatomical makeup' [LINK] is discovered at autopsy- this is just ONE example). And some would say that those that tend to come into contact with the police tend to be those 'at risk'.
So there you have it.
Dr. Brian Crandall lays it out...
Dr. Brian Crandall specializes in the electrophysiology of the heart. He says making a blanket statement about a Taser's low risk when users often don't know the medical background of the person they're tasing.
Crandall said, "If someone is going to get tasered, they're not evaluating their medical history going into it, so you don't know those things in advance, so it's difficult to make any blanket statements."
Dr. Crandall says the balanced electrical rhythm of the heart can be fragile even in a normal heart, depending on what's happening at the moment inside the body. In a heightened mental condition where anxiety is pervasive, circulating hormones and the nervous system have an impact on the heart. Crandall explained, "The heart is heavily nerved and the nervous system has a big influence on the heart and the heart rhythm."
Also, a lot depends what part of the body is targeted by the Taser user. For example, if the victim is hit in the chest. "The proximity would definitely play a role," explained Crandall. "It would hit the heart much more there than if it were at a further distance away."
Tasing is simply not a "one-for-all" answer in disabling someone. [LINK]
Compare the above statements to the bold claims made by Kroll and the other idiot pro-taser minions. Justice will only be served when those folks are bankrupted (personally) and held professionally and criminally responsible for their actions and statements about the safety of tasers.
Look at the real-world consequences of their hubris.
Crandall said, "If someone is going to get tasered, they're not evaluating their medical history going into it, so you don't know those things in advance, so it's difficult to make any blanket statements."
Dr. Crandall says the balanced electrical rhythm of the heart can be fragile even in a normal heart, depending on what's happening at the moment inside the body. In a heightened mental condition where anxiety is pervasive, circulating hormones and the nervous system have an impact on the heart. Crandall explained, "The heart is heavily nerved and the nervous system has a big influence on the heart and the heart rhythm."
Also, a lot depends what part of the body is targeted by the Taser user. For example, if the victim is hit in the chest. "The proximity would definitely play a role," explained Crandall. "It would hit the heart much more there than if it were at a further distance away."
Tasing is simply not a "one-for-all" answer in disabling someone. [LINK]
Compare the above statements to the bold claims made by Kroll and the other idiot pro-taser minions. Justice will only be served when those folks are bankrupted (personally) and held professionally and criminally responsible for their actions and statements about the safety of tasers.
Look at the real-world consequences of their hubris.
Taser considered too dangerous, guns used instead
Wow - this story isn't one that Taser International will be promoting; so I will.
The original news report is written in Australian [LINK], so I'll provide a translated version that is hopefully easier to follow and still faithful to the reported events:
Central Queensland, Australia. A 24-hour stand-off. Police had been informed that the subject had a heart condition that would have somehow interacted with the "Safer than Tylenol" ('will never affect the heart, not under any circumstances') taser. So when the man rushed the police waving a machete, they shot him several times with their police-issue pistols. They hit him in the abdomen and upper thigh. The man was taken to Rockhampton Hospital, where he remains under guard. His injuries are not considered life-threatening.
If you're surprised by this story and the outcome, then you've not been paying attention.
The Big Lie is that "Guns always kill, and tasers couldn't possibly."
Update - "Police deny avoiding taser for medical reasons" [LINK]
[This denial] "...conflicts with the statement made by a Queensland Police Union (QPU) spokesman who told the Brisbane Times that police were advised not to use a taser because the man suffered from a serious heart condition."
So who knows?
More - Assistant Commissioner Ann Lewis and the police union are in dispute over why officers used guns, not tasers, to stop another man at Rockhampton this week. ...But a police union spokesman hit back... "Our officers were advised by senior officers that they were not to use tasers because of the medical condition," he said. [LINK]
Seems pretty clear to me. Somebody is trying to cover-up what was really said at the time, and the police union are having none of it.
Don't fight kids.
The original news report is written in Australian [LINK], so I'll provide a translated version that is hopefully easier to follow and still faithful to the reported events:
Central Queensland, Australia. A 24-hour stand-off. Police had been informed that the subject had a heart condition that would have somehow interacted with the "Safer than Tylenol" ('will never affect the heart, not under any circumstances') taser. So when the man rushed the police waving a machete, they shot him several times with their police-issue pistols. They hit him in the abdomen and upper thigh. The man was taken to Rockhampton Hospital, where he remains under guard. His injuries are not considered life-threatening.
If you're surprised by this story and the outcome, then you've not been paying attention.
The Big Lie is that "Guns always kill, and tasers couldn't possibly."
Update - "Police deny avoiding taser for medical reasons" [LINK]
[This denial] "...conflicts with the statement made by a Queensland Police Union (QPU) spokesman who told the Brisbane Times that police were advised not to use a taser because the man suffered from a serious heart condition."
So who knows?
More - Assistant Commissioner Ann Lewis and the police union are in dispute over why officers used guns, not tasers, to stop another man at Rockhampton this week. ...But a police union spokesman hit back... "Our officers were advised by senior officers that they were not to use tasers because of the medical condition," he said. [LINK]
Seems pretty clear to me. Somebody is trying to cover-up what was really said at the time, and the police union are having none of it.
Don't fight kids.
Who is paying Zuskin's salary?
"A Taser cannot kill anyone unless they fall and hit their head."
[LINK] (the very first comment, as always...)
I'm very suspicious of this endless pro-taser clown. He is still at it - spreading the same old pro-taser bald-faced lies, and he is still often the very first to comment. Must be a full-time job to (almost) always be first.
He's changed his name from "David E. Zuskin" (Poquoson, VA) to "Robert" (or "Bob"), and it seems that he FINALLY found his 'old fart' button (CAPS LOCK key) and turned it off.
It makes no sense that he would be doing this clumsy PR (sic!) work on behalf of Taser International for free. I wonder if there are some under-the-table payments for 'services rendered' being laundered through some 'arms length' (my ass) front?
I'm just a bit suspicious...
[LINK] (the very first comment, as always...)
I'm very suspicious of this endless pro-taser clown. He is still at it - spreading the same old pro-taser bald-faced lies, and he is still often the very first to comment. Must be a full-time job to (almost) always be first.
He's changed his name from "David E. Zuskin" (Poquoson, VA) to "Robert" (or "Bob"), and it seems that he FINALLY found his 'old fart' button (CAPS LOCK key) and turned it off.
It makes no sense that he would be doing this clumsy PR (sic!) work on behalf of Taser International for free. I wonder if there are some under-the-table payments for 'services rendered' being laundered through some 'arms length' (my ass) front?
I'm just a bit suspicious...
Taser saves the baby, or the deranged man?
Exactly as was predicted here [LINK], Taser International has laid claim to the recent "save" of a deranged man...
Oh wait... They're claiming that the taser saved the baby, not the deranged potential baby-killer.
Baby With Knife Held to Her Throat Saved... [LINK]
Now that's a bit of a stretch. Babies aren't that big. There would be plenty of deranged potential baby-killer sticking out that could have been shot with a gun.
Thus, it would be reasonable to claim that the taser helped to save the deranged potential baby-killer from a bullet to the stomach, but Taser International's PR machine (which does include the police in this case) is really making a stretch to claim that the "taser saved the baby".
But I will be generous and credit Taser International with this "save" of a deranged man that was cutting the baby's neck with a knife.
Nice job Taser. Well done. Be sure to put that "save" on your Karma scorecard to trade-off against the more-innocent victims that have "died" shortly after being tasered.
{ROLLS-EYES}
Oh wait... They're claiming that the taser saved the baby, not the deranged potential baby-killer.
Baby With Knife Held to Her Throat Saved... [LINK]
Now that's a bit of a stretch. Babies aren't that big. There would be plenty of deranged potential baby-killer sticking out that could have been shot with a gun.
Thus, it would be reasonable to claim that the taser helped to save the deranged potential baby-killer from a bullet to the stomach, but Taser International's PR machine (which does include the police in this case) is really making a stretch to claim that the "taser saved the baby".
But I will be generous and credit Taser International with this "save" of a deranged man that was cutting the baby's neck with a knife.
Nice job Taser. Well done. Be sure to put that "save" on your Karma scorecard to trade-off against the more-innocent victims that have "died" shortly after being tasered.
{ROLLS-EYES}
Monday, June 15, 2009
Taser now admits multiple hits dangerous?
Lots of news in one taser news report from down-under. [LINK]
The rollout of Tasers to Queensland police has been frozen as it emerged officers last week repeatedly shot a man, who later died, against the warnings and training by the stun gun's American manufacturers that multiple use on a person is dangerous.
Queensland Taser Moratorium, eh? Yee haw.
...The new review and freeze comes as George Hateley, the exclusive distributor of Tasers in Australia, told The Australian that police have been warned against shooting a person more than once with the weapon.
Interesting...
...In Queensland, Mr Roberts and Police Commissioner Bob Atkinson said they could not reveal what had prompted the review and freeze because it was evidence before the coroner.
...On Saturday, The Weekend Australian revealed Taser International was last year held partially responsible for the death of a man in Texas, shot repeatedly with the stun gun, after a civil jury found police "didn't know repeated exposures could kill someone".
Did I miss that news? Texas vs. California?
I hadn't seen anywhere before that Taser International now admits that multiple taser hits can be dangerous. I'm surprised by this reported news, as it is essentially an admission of a risk that Taser International and their minions previously denied.
If this is true, then it is lawsuit heaven. Anyone in North America that lost a family member to multiple taser hits could use this reported change to the training as evidence in their lawsuits.
More later...
The rollout of Tasers to Queensland police has been frozen as it emerged officers last week repeatedly shot a man, who later died, against the warnings and training by the stun gun's American manufacturers that multiple use on a person is dangerous.
Queensland Taser Moratorium, eh? Yee haw.
...The new review and freeze comes as George Hateley, the exclusive distributor of Tasers in Australia, told The Australian that police have been warned against shooting a person more than once with the weapon.
Interesting...
...In Queensland, Mr Roberts and Police Commissioner Bob Atkinson said they could not reveal what had prompted the review and freeze because it was evidence before the coroner.
...On Saturday, The Weekend Australian revealed Taser International was last year held partially responsible for the death of a man in Texas, shot repeatedly with the stun gun, after a civil jury found police "didn't know repeated exposures could kill someone".
Did I miss that news? Texas vs. California?
I hadn't seen anywhere before that Taser International now admits that multiple taser hits can be dangerous. I'm surprised by this reported news, as it is essentially an admission of a risk that Taser International and their minions previously denied.
If this is true, then it is lawsuit heaven. Anyone in North America that lost a family member to multiple taser hits could use this reported change to the training as evidence in their lawsuits.
More later...
4 Mounties 'Hail Mary' appeal fails
The B.C. Supreme Court has dismissed a constitutional challenge questioning whether a provincial inquiry can find fault against the four RCMP officers involved in Robert Dziekanski's death. ... [LINK]
Magna Carta (*) - déjà vu, all over again, a second time, just like before. Rulers subject to the rules. Nobody is above the law. Who'd have guessed?
(*Sealed by King John on this same date, 15 June, in the year 1215.)
Magna Carta (*) - déjà vu, all over again, a second time, just like before. Rulers subject to the rules. Nobody is above the law. Who'd have guessed?
(*Sealed by King John on this same date, 15 June, in the year 1215.)
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Anatomy of a typical taser deployment...
The New South Wales (Australia) police force says it will (re-)investigate a Sydney officer's possible improper use of a stun gun after new video footage of the incident came to light. ... Fresh CCTV footage of a Taser being used on Sydney's Oxford Street on March 29 sparked the investigation. ... The new footage allegedly shows the man walking away from officers, seemingly in compliance with police requests... [LINK]
Assistant Commissioner Catherine Burn said, "You do need to look at every part of the use of the Taser. A footage on its own tells one part of a story. It does not tell what was happening, it does not convey the potential threat, the potential aggression of the situation. So you do need to look at all other material."
Exactly. The officers' warped perception and cover-up lies are an important part of the story. Also worth investigating is the criminal cover-up of each others' illegal actions (The Blue Brotherhood of Silence).
Also, the Taser-cam video was useless ("obscured"). Waste on money. Designed by idiots. Bought by idiots.
Let's review:
Drunk man. Posing zero threat.
Three other officers at hand.
Reportedly complying to some degree.
Tasered (and, in this case, survives).
Complaint, investigation, whitewash.
Plenty of officers, little truth on offer.
Then - suddenly - a new video emerges.
Authorities reopen the whitewash process.
Victim sues. Huge legal mess follows.
Just another day in the farcical world of tasers.
Assistant Commissioner Catherine Burn said, "You do need to look at every part of the use of the Taser. A footage on its own tells one part of a story. It does not tell what was happening, it does not convey the potential threat, the potential aggression of the situation. So you do need to look at all other material."
Exactly. The officers' warped perception and cover-up lies are an important part of the story. Also worth investigating is the criminal cover-up of each others' illegal actions (The Blue Brotherhood of Silence).
Also, the Taser-cam video was useless ("obscured"). Waste on money. Designed by idiots. Bought by idiots.
Let's review:
Drunk man. Posing zero threat.
Three other officers at hand.
Reportedly complying to some degree.
Tasered (and, in this case, survives).
Complaint, investigation, whitewash.
Plenty of officers, little truth on offer.
Then - suddenly - a new video emerges.
Authorities reopen the whitewash process.
Victim sues. Huge legal mess follows.
Just another day in the farcical world of tasers.
Friday, June 12, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
How many people die just BEFORE being tasered?
There are 400-some people that have "coincidentally" died in what seems to be a temporally-ordered, cause-and-effect relationship. But some would deny the causality. If that world-view of non-causality is true, then wouldn't one expect to see an approximately equal number of people dying just BEFORE the police officer deploys the taser?
So where are the reports like this? "I was just about to taser the subject, when he went into medical distress. The taser was not deployed, although I was preparing the CED for use. I had just yelled the taser warning, 'Taser taser taser' - and the subject at that point became unresponsive and subsequently died."
I've not seen any such reports.
But logically [sic], there should be hundreds.
I first asked this question more than a year ago (9 May 2008): What's the "Taser taser taser" death rate? [LINK]
So where are the reports like this? "I was just about to taser the subject, when he went into medical distress. The taser was not deployed, although I was preparing the CED for use. I had just yelled the taser warning, 'Taser taser taser' - and the subject at that point became unresponsive and subsequently died."
I've not seen any such reports.
But logically [sic], there should be hundreds.
I first asked this question more than a year ago (9 May 2008): What's the "Taser taser taser" death rate? [LINK]
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
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?
"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?
This ruling will have an impact...
An Edmonton man has been acquitted of assaulting a police officer, which reportedly even included a kick to the groin, because the officer(s) were too quick to use their tasers. [LINK]
Think about it. This is huge.
Think about it. This is huge.
Delicious irony...
Ocean City, MD - ...The Town's Police Chief is pushing to outlaw tasers and stun guns, because they could be used against police officers. The proposed law would ban the sale, possession, and use of a stun gun. Violators could face up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. [LINK]
Well I don't blame him. Those damn things can be dangerous!
Must
...Not
......Laugh.
Well I don't blame him. Those damn things can be dangerous!
Must
...Not
......Laugh.
Taser folks nervously checking ?
Blog hit minutes ago (about 8PM EDT, 9 June 2009):
Scottsdale, Arizona arrived from google.com on "www.Excited-Delirium.com" by searching for "Brian Cardall" + taser.
Geesh. Google is fast. I only posted [LINK] minutes before.
Scottsdale, Arizona arrived from google.com on "www.Excited-Delirium.com" by searching for "Brian Cardall" + taser.
Geesh. Google is fast. I only posted [LINK] minutes before.
Ready, Aim, ... ...Fired (?)
Check out the tentative wording regarding misconduct: [LINK]
Tick-tock-tick-tock-tick-tock...
I hope that nobody starts drinking (and driving) while nervously awaiting the outcome of the Hail Mary appeal to the BC Supreme Court asking for a 'Federal Bail-out'.
Tick-tock-tick-tock-tick-tock...
I hope that nobody starts drinking (and driving) while nervously awaiting the outcome of the Hail Mary appeal to the BC Supreme Court asking for a 'Federal Bail-out'.
More, many more, defective tasers (80% now?)
British Columbia's Solicitor General Rich Coleman ordered the RCMP in B.C. to yank more than 570 older-model [M-26] Tasers from deployment after 80% [!!!] of identical models used by other law-enforcement agencies failed routine performance tests. The tests showed the $1,500 [junk] were not generating the required amount of sustained output... [LINK]
They're right to pull these defective peices of junk off the street. Taser's idiot spokespuppet once tried to claim that failing low was failing safe. I was one of the first to point out that such "failing safe" claims were utter crap. [LINK] [LINK] [LINK]
But I'd still like to point out that I feel that the X-26 taser is the one that appears to be more-commonly associated with taser-associated deaths. The M-26 taser provides a potentially useful experimental control. [LINK]
Where's the fricken' M-26 vs. X-26 data? [LINK] [LINK]
With a price tag of $1,500 to replace the weapon, and an apparently abysmal life span (three years since purchase) one can't help but wonder - never mind the controversy around its use - how cost-effective the Tasers are to begin with. [ibdi]
They're right to pull these defective peices of junk off the street. Taser's idiot spokespuppet once tried to claim that failing low was failing safe. I was one of the first to point out that such "failing safe" claims were utter crap. [LINK] [LINK] [LINK]
But I'd still like to point out that I feel that the X-26 taser is the one that appears to be more-commonly associated with taser-associated deaths. The M-26 taser provides a potentially useful experimental control. [LINK]
Where's the fricken' M-26 vs. X-26 data? [LINK] [LINK]
With a price tag of $1,500 to replace the weapon, and an apparently abysmal life span (three years since purchase) one can't help but wonder - never mind the controversy around its use - how cost-effective the Tasers are to begin with. [ibdi]
Would he have died anyway?
Brian Cardall, the 32-year old son of KSL (Salt Lake City, Utah) Editorial Director Duane Cardall, dies after being tasered by police. Condolences to the family.
The Washington County (Utah) Undersheriff Jake Adams says that after being hit by the taser, the man became unconscious. Paramedics treated him, but he was pronounced dead at a hospital. [LINK] [LINK]
So, would he have died ~ right then ~ if the taser had not been used? I think it's an obvious question. And I think that the true answer is pretty obvious too. Examine the timeline. Do the math. What are the odds?
But this tragic death will probably be marked down as yet another 'Excited Delirium' death. It happens all the time, especially when tasers are involved.
The Washington County (Utah) Undersheriff Jake Adams says that after being hit by the taser, the man became unconscious. Paramedics treated him, but he was pronounced dead at a hospital. [LINK] [LINK]
So, would he have died ~ right then ~ if the taser had not been used? I think it's an obvious question. And I think that the true answer is pretty obvious too. Examine the timeline. Do the math. What are the odds?
But this tragic death will probably be marked down as yet another 'Excited Delirium' death. It happens all the time, especially when tasers are involved.
Tasering 72-year old grandmother (in an expert manner)
72-year old Winkfein responded with "...Go ahead and tase me. I dare you." [LINK]
I guess that's good enough reason. 'She asked for it.'
Deputy Beize is the Taser instructor for Precinct 3. We're told he would know if tasering Winkfein could have been a hazard to her health.
I call a Bullsh_t on that claim. Taser Instructors, being almost at the very bottom of the taser propaganda food-chain (long past the point where 'it' could still considered to be food), will be amongst the very last people on Earth to learn about the safety concerns swirling around tasers.
They've less than useful amounts of knowledge. Worse than useless.
The only possible value in listening to anything that they have to say would be if investigators into the larger Taser Issue would like to interview them for posterity, and for laughs and giggles.
I guess that's good enough reason. 'She asked for it.'
Deputy Beize is the Taser instructor for Precinct 3. We're told he would know if tasering Winkfein could have been a hazard to her health.
I call a Bullsh_t on that claim. Taser Instructors, being almost at the very bottom of the taser propaganda food-chain (long past the point where 'it' could still considered to be food), will be amongst the very last people on Earth to learn about the safety concerns swirling around tasers.
They've less than useful amounts of knowledge. Worse than useless.
The only possible value in listening to anything that they have to say would be if investigators into the larger Taser Issue would like to interview them for posterity, and for laughs and giggles.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
The oldest taser lie...
Moronic headline reads: "Better to be Tasered than shot" [LINK]
And thus, Rhett Watson, The Daily Telegraph (Australia), earns his badge.
(Hint - tasers are used about 100x as often as guns ever were.)
And thus, Rhett Watson, The Daily Telegraph (Australia), earns his badge.
(Hint - tasers are used about 100x as often as guns ever were.)
Misleading headline: "Mounties want..."
Mounties want B.C. court to prevent Taser inquiry from finding misconduct [LINK]
No, it's not THE Mounties (the RCMP, the organization). It's just the four particular Mounties, and their lawyers.
I haven't seen anything to indicate what THE Mounties would want included in the scope of the Braidwood Inquiry. But I suspect that they wouldn't mind if their hand was forced.
No, it's not THE Mounties (the RCMP, the organization). It's just the four particular Mounties, and their lawyers.
I haven't seen anything to indicate what THE Mounties would want included in the scope of the Braidwood Inquiry. But I suspect that they wouldn't mind if their hand was forced.
The 'Moth + Light' taser deployment model
Brooksville, FL -- The [taser] knocked [Justin Robert Miller] to his knees. When Miller tried to get up, the deputy [activated] the taser a second time, then a third time, and once more. When Miller tried to lunge at another deputy, Cari Grasso, Junker sprayed him with pepper spray, finally subduing him. [LINK]
So the five-second taser bursts are not actually being used provide an opportunity for the police to move in and hand-cuff the subject (as has been more-or-less promised on the tin). The five-second taser hits are simply being used, even in this dart deployment mode example, as a form of pain compliance - repeated until the moths get tired of banging into the light bulb (four times in the case).
Decision makers that may have been left with the impression that the purpose of the taser is to incapacitate the subject, with the subject neatly hand-cuffed at the end of the first deployment cycle (or maybe the second), may wish to consider if that is actually how tasers are being used.
Apparently not, judging by reports such as these.
And judging by the many examples of repetitive taserings (strangely correlated with taser-associated deaths, considering that there's supposedly zero connection [rolls-eyes]).
Is this how the taser training says to do it?
'Taser the subject until he stops moving.' [??]
(See previous post on the same subject: [LINK].)
Do you see any problems with this Moth + Light deployment model?
So the five-second taser bursts are not actually being used provide an opportunity for the police to move in and hand-cuff the subject (as has been more-or-less promised on the tin). The five-second taser hits are simply being used, even in this dart deployment mode example, as a form of pain compliance - repeated until the moths get tired of banging into the light bulb (four times in the case).
Decision makers that may have been left with the impression that the purpose of the taser is to incapacitate the subject, with the subject neatly hand-cuffed at the end of the first deployment cycle (or maybe the second), may wish to consider if that is actually how tasers are being used.
Apparently not, judging by reports such as these.
And judging by the many examples of repetitive taserings (strangely correlated with taser-associated deaths, considering that there's supposedly zero connection [rolls-eyes]).
Is this how the taser training says to do it?
'Taser the subject until he stops moving.' [??]
(See previous post on the same subject: [LINK].)
Do you see any problems with this Moth + Light deployment model?
Monday, June 8, 2009
"Tasers are deadly..."
"Tasers are deadly, anything else anyone says about it is a sham."
Tim King, Salem-News.com [LINK]
Note: Mr. King is also a former U.S. Marine. Good luck there Steve. Wear clean shorts... ...in case you come back wearing them pulled-up and over your head.
Tim King, Salem-News.com [LINK]
Note: Mr. King is also a former U.S. Marine. Good luck there Steve. Wear clean shorts... ...in case you come back wearing them pulled-up and over your head.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
QOTW - by Taser CEO Rick Smith
Taser International CEO Rick Smith on the real-world results:
"I've sat at the defense table at trials where these officers are being called killers and their integrity is questioned, their honor is questioned. It's a very difficult process for them and a very expensive process for their agencies." [LINK]
It's very nice to see that even the CEO of Taser International realizes that his primary product, so full of promise, actually causes endless problems in the real word. Especially the part about being called "killers" - not good. You might want to look into that...
A big thank-you very much from a Canadian tax-payer. I've paid for your defective products, the mounting legal costs, the evil outcomes from the defective training, and the endless federal and provincial inquiries. Millions and millions. Thanks a lot... ...a$$hole.
Smith-4-brains then goes on to advertise their new video service, where you have to pay to store the videos off-site. Because, as we all know, storage is - ah - 'expensive'. It's not as if you could simply burn the critical incident videos off to a pair of DVD's, load the video into an NAS, and enter the details into a flat-file DB. Why spend $40 when you can spend so much more? Yawn...
Thing is... In Canada, the Pritchard video of the Dziekanski killing is what turned the tide. [LINK] Yes - video is good. But $5k a pop (for a $500 gadget), and endless service fees is stupid.
The Police IQ test continues...
And if the police think that if they have the video, they therefore control the video, then they're not thinking clearly. Seriously, I'll bet that some dim-wits decision makers are actually thinking along those lines. But duh!, the other public videos captured by a dozen mobile phones will still exist. They'll still be on YouTube within minutes, and the evening news later the same day.
In summary:
Video? Yes. Sure. Good thing.
More products from Taser International? Yuck. Gag. Puke. What, are you really that stupid?
"I've sat at the defense table at trials where these officers are being called killers and their integrity is questioned, their honor is questioned. It's a very difficult process for them and a very expensive process for their agencies." [LINK]
It's very nice to see that even the CEO of Taser International realizes that his primary product, so full of promise, actually causes endless problems in the real word. Especially the part about being called "killers" - not good. You might want to look into that...
A big thank-you very much from a Canadian tax-payer. I've paid for your defective products, the mounting legal costs, the evil outcomes from the defective training, and the endless federal and provincial inquiries. Millions and millions. Thanks a lot... ...a$$hole.
Smith-4-brains then goes on to advertise their new video service, where you have to pay to store the videos off-site. Because, as we all know, storage is - ah - 'expensive'. It's not as if you could simply burn the critical incident videos off to a pair of DVD's, load the video into an NAS, and enter the details into a flat-file DB. Why spend $40 when you can spend so much more? Yawn...
Thing is... In Canada, the Pritchard video of the Dziekanski killing is what turned the tide. [LINK] Yes - video is good. But $5k a pop (for a $500 gadget), and endless service fees is stupid.
The Police IQ test continues...
And if the police think that if they have the video, they therefore control the video, then they're not thinking clearly. Seriously, I'll bet that some dim-wits decision makers are actually thinking along those lines. But duh!, the other public videos captured by a dozen mobile phones will still exist. They'll still be on YouTube within minutes, and the evening news later the same day.
In summary:
Video? Yes. Sure. Good thing.
More products from Taser International? Yuck. Gag. Puke. What, are you really that stupid?
Taser demo - and NOT in the back
The Chronicle (Centralia, WA) police reporter Andy Campbell (young and expendable) volunteered to be zapped by a taser.
Most such idiot demonstrations are shot into the volunteer's back. But this one was applied to Mr. Campbell's front. [LINK][VIDEO]
I use the word 'front', not chest, because it is hilarious how the taser wires were attached to Mr. Campbell's far upper right shoulder, and left thigh. Neither taser wire is actually on his chest. This is not a coincidence. Taser International and their minions are still running chicken-sh_t scared to death of advising that volunteers be tasered directly across the chest.
The next thing about this video is the duration. Mr. Campbell apes for the camera while signing the release (may we see the release?). He indicates a willingness to be tasered for five seconds. Didn't happen. It was about two seconds. It wasn't five seconds even in the slow-motion replay.
The Chronicle, thus having paid the minimal, but still painful, entry fee to the Church of Taser, writes a glowing propaganda piece repeating some of the same old stale lies.
"...only 50 [taser-associated deaths] could be traced to the use of a Taser, and even those ones are classified as the Taser “contributing” to the death."
Autopsy reports are notoriously difficult to obtain. AI made strenuous efforts and was able to obtain some number of reports. Of that sample, 50 mentioned the taser as a contributing factor. The percentage was 27% or 37% (let's call it 'one-third'). This rate can probably be extrapolated to all taser-associated deaths. So it's not "50", it's about one-third of all taser-associated deaths. And this is in spite of best efforts at containment.
"...Overall statistics lead us to believe that Tasers, when properly used, do way more good than harm."
Failing grade for basic ethics. If you put any reasonable weighting on the significance of the unexpected deaths of those that simply did not deserve to die, then it's a difficult argument to make that the benefits outweigh the costs. Perhaps in some ideal world where the taser training doesn't gloss over the risk of death, then in that imaginary world perhaps the argument could be made. But not on this planet. Not with the evil propaganda being foisted on the unsuspecting public.
As for cub reporter Campbell?
He had better wipe the saliva off. He's been played like a trumpet.
Most such idiot demonstrations are shot into the volunteer's back. But this one was applied to Mr. Campbell's front. [LINK][VIDEO]
I use the word 'front', not chest, because it is hilarious how the taser wires were attached to Mr. Campbell's far upper right shoulder, and left thigh. Neither taser wire is actually on his chest. This is not a coincidence. Taser International and their minions are still running chicken-sh_t scared to death of advising that volunteers be tasered directly across the chest.
The next thing about this video is the duration. Mr. Campbell apes for the camera while signing the release (may we see the release?). He indicates a willingness to be tasered for five seconds. Didn't happen. It was about two seconds. It wasn't five seconds even in the slow-motion replay.
The Chronicle, thus having paid the minimal, but still painful, entry fee to the Church of Taser, writes a glowing propaganda piece repeating some of the same old stale lies.
"...only 50 [taser-associated deaths] could be traced to the use of a Taser, and even those ones are classified as the Taser “contributing” to the death."
Autopsy reports are notoriously difficult to obtain. AI made strenuous efforts and was able to obtain some number of reports. Of that sample, 50 mentioned the taser as a contributing factor. The percentage was 27% or 37% (let's call it 'one-third'). This rate can probably be extrapolated to all taser-associated deaths. So it's not "50", it's about one-third of all taser-associated deaths. And this is in spite of best efforts at containment.
"...Overall statistics lead us to believe that Tasers, when properly used, do way more good than harm."
Failing grade for basic ethics. If you put any reasonable weighting on the significance of the unexpected deaths of those that simply did not deserve to die, then it's a difficult argument to make that the benefits outweigh the costs. Perhaps in some ideal world where the taser training doesn't gloss over the risk of death, then in that imaginary world perhaps the argument could be made. But not on this planet. Not with the evil propaganda being foisted on the unsuspecting public.
As for cub reporter Campbell?
He had better wipe the saliva off. He's been played like a trumpet.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Tasers shunned in Victoria, Australia
Victoria (Australia) Chief Commissioner Simon Overland has announced that there will be no widespread roll out of Taser stun guns across the force. [LINK]
Instead, the police police will be provided with new, powerful .40-calibre semi-automatic pistols, and (basically) training on how to avoid using them!
Following an internal review of 11 recent police shootings, including December's fatal shooting of teenager Tyler Cassidy, dramatic changes will be made to procedures for confrontations. It is the first overhaul of Victoria Police procedures in a decade. Mr Overland says current police practice, such as shouting at a mentally ill armed person, can escalate situations. New police training will reverse current protocols of rushing to secure an early resolution, which police chiefs say risks the safety of officers and the community. Officers will be retrained in how to identify and speak to vulnerable people and those affected by alcohol or drugs.
Excellent!
Instead, the police police will be provided with new, powerful .40-calibre semi-automatic pistols, and (basically) training on how to avoid using them!
Following an internal review of 11 recent police shootings, including December's fatal shooting of teenager Tyler Cassidy, dramatic changes will be made to procedures for confrontations. It is the first overhaul of Victoria Police procedures in a decade. Mr Overland says current police practice, such as shouting at a mentally ill armed person, can escalate situations. New police training will reverse current protocols of rushing to secure an early resolution, which police chiefs say risks the safety of officers and the community. Officers will be retrained in how to identify and speak to vulnerable people and those affected by alcohol or drugs.
Excellent!
"Tasers are effective 50 or 60 percent of the time."
This is my taser quote of the week:
Boulder County Sheriff Joe Pelle, "(Tasers) are effective 50 or 60 percent of the time." [LINK]
Nothing like a bit of uncertainty and randomness to make the day more interesting.
Does any other device in common use by the police get away with having such a poor track record? Imagine 50-60% applied to other police hardware. With 'friends' like this, who needs enemies?
By the way, the subject in this incident was shot with a gun. Right in the torso. He'll be fine.
Boulder County Sheriff Joe Pelle, "(Tasers) are effective 50 or 60 percent of the time." [LINK]
Nothing like a bit of uncertainty and randomness to make the day more interesting.
Does any other device in common use by the police get away with having such a poor track record? Imagine 50-60% applied to other police hardware. With 'friends' like this, who needs enemies?
By the way, the subject in this incident was shot with a gun. Right in the torso. He'll be fine.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
RCMP pull the wrong taser model
There are two models of tasers still in common use: The older M26 was introduced in 1999. The newer X26 taser was introduced in 2003. They have different waveforms. The M26 waveform is high frequency and very low duty cycle. The X26 waveform contains a DC pulse that creates (is) low frequency and thus is 100% continuous duty cycle. I've explained all this many time before on this blog.
Recent news:
RCMP pull M26 tasers for testing [LINK]
B.C. orders M26 tasers off street [LINK]
N.S. RCMP pulls M26 tasers [LINK]
All the evidence that I've seen indicates that the newer X26 taser is the model that is actually involved with more taser-associated deaths (per deployment) than the older M26.
And here the police go, pulling all the older (apparently safer) M26 tasers.
Please refer to my previous post X26-bias in taser-associated deaths? [LINK] and please read it very carefully.
According to the CPC report, during the period 2002-2007 the older M26 taser was actually used by the RCMP three times more often than the newer X26. And yet, the Canadian taser-associated deaths are 100% X26 - at least for all cases where the taser model is identified. That's pretty strange. [ibid]
Is anyone going to follow-up on this? This is all just hints and suspicions at this point. And most of the available data for taser-associated deaths strangely omits any mention of the taser model used.
It's not just about meeting the manufacturer's specifications. The fact is that it appears that Taser International and their minions failed to notice the implications of the new X26 waveform and its DC pulse. They've (accidentally) given-up their explicitly-stated safety factors of high frequency and low duty cycle. And they continued to claim these safety factors even after they were long gone with the introduction of the X26.
The X26 was introduced in 2003. Find the year 2003 on the following graphic.
Recent news:
RCMP pull M26 tasers for testing [LINK]
B.C. orders M26 tasers off street [LINK]
N.S. RCMP pulls M26 tasers [LINK]
All the evidence that I've seen indicates that the newer X26 taser is the model that is actually involved with more taser-associated deaths (per deployment) than the older M26.
And here the police go, pulling all the older (apparently safer) M26 tasers.
Please refer to my previous post X26-bias in taser-associated deaths? [LINK] and please read it very carefully.
According to the CPC report, during the period 2002-2007 the older M26 taser was actually used by the RCMP three times more often than the newer X26. And yet, the Canadian taser-associated deaths are 100% X26 - at least for all cases where the taser model is identified. That's pretty strange. [ibid]
Is anyone going to follow-up on this? This is all just hints and suspicions at this point. And most of the available data for taser-associated deaths strangely omits any mention of the taser model used.
It's not just about meeting the manufacturer's specifications. The fact is that it appears that Taser International and their minions failed to notice the implications of the new X26 waveform and its DC pulse. They've (accidentally) given-up their explicitly-stated safety factors of high frequency and low duty cycle. And they continued to claim these safety factors even after they were long gone with the introduction of the X26.
The X26 was introduced in 2003. Find the year 2003 on the following graphic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
