CBC/The Canadian Press: "...Police then tasered him twice, briefly stopping his heart and rendering him unconscious. ..." [LINK]
This report is from the Hyde Inquiry in Halifax.
I assume that Taser International's lawyers will take exception to this report that the taser caused a very significant and direct impact on Mr. Hyde's heart. And I assume that CBC/CP now have more than enough dirt on Taser International that they've got zero fear of Taser International, due to their (Taser's) rather-fragile legal position in Canada.
Friday, July 10, 2009
USC Study misses the entire fricken point
I've read through the 17-page summary [LINK] of the recent University of South Carolina study on the 'safety' of tasers and I'd like to congratulate the researchers for their ability to ignore the '800-lb gorilla' sitting in the room with them. Their summary report barely mentions the issue of the many taser-associated DEATHS. The entire study appears to be about injuries.
Geesus H. - what is the approximate ratio of importance between an average injury and a DEATH? Ten thousand to one? A million to one?
On this blog, I've barely mentioned injuries. If tasers only ever caused injuries to the subject, then it's very likely that I wouldn't even have bothered to start this blog.
And besides, Taser International (now) readily admits that tasers can cause a wide variety of injuries. It's the issue of the many poorly-explained taser-associated deaths that is the nub of THE main argument.
Putting out a "major" study about taser safety, and then dismissing the many hundreds of taser-associated deaths, and the obvious patterns visible at the large scale, as being so unimportant an issue that it can be dismissed with barely a mention is insulting to the families of those that have "died", and it's an affront to basic human values.
Let's sort out the FAR MORE IMPORTANT QUESTION of the taser-associated DEATHS before moving on to other secondary issues such as the relative rate of injuries.
This study is almost completely irrelevant.
And the essentially a hijacking of the word "safety" in the context of the much larger taser safety issue is playing into the hands of the manufacturer. They're probably overjoyed at this added muddling of the real issue.
Geesus H. - what is the approximate ratio of importance between an average injury and a DEATH? Ten thousand to one? A million to one?
On this blog, I've barely mentioned injuries. If tasers only ever caused injuries to the subject, then it's very likely that I wouldn't even have bothered to start this blog.
And besides, Taser International (now) readily admits that tasers can cause a wide variety of injuries. It's the issue of the many poorly-explained taser-associated deaths that is the nub of THE main argument.
Putting out a "major" study about taser safety, and then dismissing the many hundreds of taser-associated deaths, and the obvious patterns visible at the large scale, as being so unimportant an issue that it can be dismissed with barely a mention is insulting to the families of those that have "died", and it's an affront to basic human values.
Let's sort out the FAR MORE IMPORTANT QUESTION of the taser-associated DEATHS before moving on to other secondary issues such as the relative rate of injuries.
This study is almost completely irrelevant.
And the essentially a hijacking of the word "safety" in the context of the much larger taser safety issue is playing into the hands of the manufacturer. They're probably overjoyed at this added muddling of the real issue.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Driver tasered for being too slow to produce 'zee papers'
Old news recently making the rounds again...
Driver pulled over for alledgedly going ~65 mph in a 60 zone.
Video available here: [LINK]
The festering bag of putrid slime (*)... Sorry, ...the 'officer' demands that the driver produce his papers, and tasers the driver when he's too slow to produce them.
No, not five minutes. Forty seconds.
(* To be clear, most police are nice and would never do such a thing. Except that many (perhaps even most?) of them would also fail to speak out strongly against this sort of behaviour. Such silence is not nice.)
Driver pulled over for alledgedly going ~65 mph in a 60 zone.
Video available here: [LINK]
The festering bag of putrid slime (*)... Sorry, ...the 'officer' demands that the driver produce his papers, and tasers the driver when he's too slow to produce them.
No, not five minutes. Forty seconds.
(* To be clear, most police are nice and would never do such a thing. Except that many (perhaps even most?) of them would also fail to speak out strongly against this sort of behaviour. Such silence is not nice.)
Can you spell "Torture"?
"...an alternative response to resistance option,” said George Fenton, vice president of government and military sales for Taser. [LINK]
I'd call that 'torture'. Using ultra-painful electroshock as a form of physical torture to overcome what he all-inclusively calls "resistance".
And not a word to restrict the meaning of his intended category of 'resistance'. Thereby including passive resistance, back-talking, asking questions, attempting to assert ones' rights, slow response, health issues, health crisis, or even just being a child.
Evil. Satanically evil.
There's a special place in Hell waiting for the stun-gun salesmen.
I'd call that 'torture'. Using ultra-painful electroshock as a form of physical torture to overcome what he all-inclusively calls "resistance".
And not a word to restrict the meaning of his intended category of 'resistance'. Thereby including passive resistance, back-talking, asking questions, attempting to assert ones' rights, slow response, health issues, health crisis, or even just being a child.
Evil. Satanically evil.
There's a special place in Hell waiting for the stun-gun salesmen.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
"Obey or die"
Dumbest comment of the week.
Second comment here: [LINK]
The commenter is proposing that the penalty for disobeying a police officer should include death.
Maybe it's just me {ROLLS-EYES}, but I thought that maybe the police officer should simply add that charge to the list. Then bring the accused before the courts to face that charge. See the whole discussion in the right hand column.
Political leaders should consider the long term advantages of reinstituting 'Civics' classes in Grade 6 again. It's obvious that some citizens are missing some fundamental knowledge of the role of the police as opposed to the courts.
Second comment here: [LINK]
The commenter is proposing that the penalty for disobeying a police officer should include death.
Maybe it's just me {ROLLS-EYES}, but I thought that maybe the police officer should simply add that charge to the list. Then bring the accused before the courts to face that charge. See the whole discussion in the right hand column.
Political leaders should consider the long term advantages of reinstituting 'Civics' classes in Grade 6 again. It's obvious that some citizens are missing some fundamental knowledge of the role of the police as opposed to the courts.
Smoldering Bobby-cams
News report of problems with some sort of Robbo-Bobby helmet camera system in the U.K. [LINK]
No details about which brand or manufacturer is involved.
No details about which brand or manufacturer is involved.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Tasers: A Reassessment (San Jose, 2005)
Coalition for Justice and Accountability, San Jose, CA
10 March 2005 (!!)
[LINK]
Ahead of their time. Well worth another review.
10 March 2005 (!!)
[LINK]
Ahead of their time. Well worth another review.
Police can't outrun girl...
So the 14-year-old girl ends up being tasered right into her skull. [LINK]
Requires surgery to remove taser dart from head.
"Better than being mowed down with a 50-calibre machine gun.", is approximately what some idiots will offer up as the justification.
Requires surgery to remove taser dart from head.
"Better than being mowed down with a 50-calibre machine gun.", is approximately what some idiots will offer up as the justification.
And then the real details emerge...
Update to previous post [LINK] about BC's claimed "classic" taser 'save'...
It turns out that the "...intoxicated man..." was actually a 15-year-old child. [LINK]
Sergeant Roger Morrow was actually correct in that this is a classic taser 'save'. A "classic" taser 'save' in the sense that when further details eventually emerge, it becomes even more debatable.
Perhaps the officer could well have used a good old fashioned billy club to whack the intoxicated child on the offered forearm or hand holding the knife. Or used pepper spray. Or who knows...
To claim this as a 'death-prevented' because of the taser, is almost certainly not logically justifiable.
It turns out that the "...intoxicated man..." was actually a 15-year-old child. [LINK]
Sergeant Roger Morrow was actually correct in that this is a classic taser 'save'. A "classic" taser 'save' in the sense that when further details eventually emerge, it becomes even more debatable.
Perhaps the officer could well have used a good old fashioned billy club to whack the intoxicated child on the offered forearm or hand holding the knife. Or used pepper spray. Or who knows...
To claim this as a 'death-prevented' because of the taser, is almost certainly not logically justifiable.
Friday, July 3, 2009
BC claim a 'save'
"Morrow said the situation on Thursday was a classic case of where the taser was deployed appropriately." [BROKEN LINK]
I guess he means "classic" in the sense of a 'classic' car.
From a more innocent time.
Not seen very often.
Rare.
Keep in mind that the annual death toll from lethal police gun play in Canada is extremely low; barely into double digits per year (if even that some years). My credulity is just a bit stretched by the implicit claim that "...an intoxicated man armed with a knife..." represented one of the top ten (or so) examples of the grievous threats to police in Canada for the year.
Reasonable people would grant them their 'save' of a drunk, potential cop-killer.
But, we're being generous.
UPDATE: Far too generous it turns out. See subsequent post: [LINK].
I guess he means "classic" in the sense of a 'classic' car.
From a more innocent time.
Not seen very often.
Rare.
Keep in mind that the annual death toll from lethal police gun play in Canada is extremely low; barely into double digits per year (if even that some years). My credulity is just a bit stretched by the implicit claim that "...an intoxicated man armed with a knife..." represented one of the top ten (or so) examples of the grievous threats to police in Canada for the year.
Reasonable people would grant them their 'save' of a drunk, potential cop-killer.
But, we're being generous.
UPDATE: Far too generous it turns out. See subsequent post: [LINK].
Rory McKenzie, age 25
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. -- A man died Thursday morning after being arrested by Kern County Sheriff's deputies. ...25-year-old Rory McKenzie ... Deputies went to an apartment on the 900 block of Feliz Drive in east Bakersfield and used a taser and sheriff's dog when Rory McKenzie resisted arrest, according to a sheriff's office news release. Deputies noticed he had stopped breathing and took him to Kern Medical Center, where he died. [LINK]
I have no further information about the above incident. But I'm willing to bet that Mr. McKenzie was either tasered several times, or was tasered across his chest (with one dart in the upper left and the other further down). More than likely, it was either one or the other.
Why would a 25-year old suddenly stop breathing?
Another "coincidence"?
I have no further information about the above incident. But I'm willing to bet that Mr. McKenzie was either tasered several times, or was tasered across his chest (with one dart in the upper left and the other further down). More than likely, it was either one or the other.
Why would a 25-year old suddenly stop breathing?
Another "coincidence"?
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
One more response for John Alexander
I was copied on an e-mail (recent, I believe) where Mr. Alexander is quoted:
"Sorry, but I don't see any fatalities in any of these reports. My single issue is whether or not there is reason to believe that the electrical discharge from an ECD (Taser specifically) can contribute to death. I argue that the scientific and applications evidence overwhelmingly shows it does not."
Wow. It's difficult to believe that someone that purports to be "an expert" in 'non-lethal' (sic) weapons would be so divorced from the 'recent' (December 2006 and December 2008) information.
Obviously he reads only from the information provided by the 'helpful' folks at The Church of Taser. That's a mistake. A huge mistake. One should choose one's friends very carefully.
Here's some information from TWO other sources:
1) FACT: In 37 of the 98 autopsy reports plus two inquest transcripts reviewed by Amnesty International, medical examiners listed the use of a Taser as a cause or contributory factor in the death. Medical examiners or coroners reportedly made similar findings in at least 13 other cases where Amnesty International did not have the autopsy reports. [LINK]
That's running 37% of the 100 cases studied. Extrapolate it and you're looking at 37% of about 400, or approaching 150. But even 50 is much greater than zero. [LINK]
In case you don't like AI (why?), then try this one...
2) Use of a Taser was considered a potential or contributory cause of death in 27% [of the autopsy reports reviewed during this study]. [LINK]
Authors: Jared Strote, Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA; and H. Range Hutson, Department of Emergency Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
37% [LINK] or 27%. With all the downward pressure on coroners and medical examiners over the years, these sorts of numbers can only be low ball ratios.
But this sort of fraction (about a third, as it stands today) can almost certainly be extrapolated to the entire List Of The Dead [LINK]. Adds up to 130 to 150 or so. And that's with today's low ball fraction. These numbers can only increase with time. Yikes. [LINK]
For obvious reasons, autopsy reports are not easily available on-line. Google doesn't have an Autopsy tab. It takes a lot of effort to gather the reports and review them. In these two reviews, involving a huge effort, the results were 'about one-third' of the cases reviewed.
ABOUT A THIRD. Multiply by 400+. Do the math.
Hint - it's not zero.
So Mr. Alexander...
At this point do you acknowledge that you're being provided with 'incomplete' information from your 'friends' at The Church of Taser?
It's your reputation. Do with it what you will.
Don't blame the messenger. Blame your 'friends'.
"Sorry, but I don't see any fatalities in any of these reports. My single issue is whether or not there is reason to believe that the electrical discharge from an ECD (Taser specifically) can contribute to death. I argue that the scientific and applications evidence overwhelmingly shows it does not."
Wow. It's difficult to believe that someone that purports to be "an expert" in 'non-lethal' (sic) weapons would be so divorced from the 'recent' (December 2006 and December 2008) information.
Obviously he reads only from the information provided by the 'helpful' folks at The Church of Taser. That's a mistake. A huge mistake. One should choose one's friends very carefully.
Here's some information from TWO other sources:
1) FACT: In 37 of the 98 autopsy reports plus two inquest transcripts reviewed by Amnesty International, medical examiners listed the use of a Taser as a cause or contributory factor in the death. Medical examiners or coroners reportedly made similar findings in at least 13 other cases where Amnesty International did not have the autopsy reports. [LINK]
That's running 37% of the 100 cases studied. Extrapolate it and you're looking at 37% of about 400, or approaching 150. But even 50 is much greater than zero. [LINK]
In case you don't like AI (why?), then try this one...
2) Use of a Taser was considered a potential or contributory cause of death in 27% [of the autopsy reports reviewed during this study]. [LINK]
Authors: Jared Strote, Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA; and H. Range Hutson, Department of Emergency Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
37% [LINK] or 27%. With all the downward pressure on coroners and medical examiners over the years, these sorts of numbers can only be low ball ratios.
But this sort of fraction (about a third, as it stands today) can almost certainly be extrapolated to the entire List Of The Dead [LINK]. Adds up to 130 to 150 or so. And that's with today's low ball fraction. These numbers can only increase with time. Yikes. [LINK]
For obvious reasons, autopsy reports are not easily available on-line. Google doesn't have an Autopsy tab. It takes a lot of effort to gather the reports and review them. In these two reviews, involving a huge effort, the results were 'about one-third' of the cases reviewed.
ABOUT A THIRD. Multiply by 400+. Do the math.
Hint - it's not zero.
So Mr. Alexander...
At this point do you acknowledge that you're being provided with 'incomplete' information from your 'friends' at The Church of Taser?
It's your reputation. Do with it what you will.
Don't blame the messenger. Blame your 'friends'.
John Alexander's letter to 'Coast to Coast AM'
Letter to 'Coast to Coast AM' from John Alexander about tasers. [LINK]
Alexander is a former US army colonel and long time advocate of "non-lethal" (sic) weapons. For the record, he has stated that he has no connection to Taser International.
This is his third appearance on this blog. Previously [LINK][LINK]
His letter to 'Coast to Coast AM' (Fair Use claimed):
There is no doubt that people die after the use of Taser. People die after reading newspapers, watching TV, or just breathing, but that does not infer a causal relationship. A few coroners have listed Taser as a possible contributing cause, but most of those have lost out in court.
People also die just before reading newspaper, and just before watching TV. That randomness in time correlation appears to be missing with almost all taser-associated deaths.
See [LINK] for more details of this bizarre asymmetry in the typical taser-associated death time line. There's a detail there about taser-display reporting requirements that will address the most-obvious attempt at rebuttal. Leaving only the bizarre asymmetry...
Bottom line, despite the claims of Amnesty International (AI), there is zero probability that Taser has caused any death, and exceedingly small probability that Taser was a contributory cause of death in any case. AI simply lists every case in which death follows the use of Taser. At times, those deaths have been days later...
For every rare taser-associated death listed where the death followed 'days later', there are many more incidents where healthy young victims were tasered-and-died in quick succession. There is no alternate, and reasonable, explanation for many of these deaths.
Tasers have, not one, but TWO candidate death mechanisms:
It's one of the worst lies to claim that there's 'no science' to support these candidate taser-death mechanisms. That's actually one of the ugliest damn lies. There are many fine scientists that have made significant findings that are impossible to explain away. [LINK] [LINK]
So Taser International plugs their ears and sings loudly, "La la la la... I can't hear you..."
The common factor in all deaths following the use of a Taser was the behavior of the suspect that led them to interact with police. The two leading issues are drug use and exertion from fighting with police. Excited delirium is an established cause of death and there are a few people who are unaware that they have potential heart problems.
Wrong. Robert Dziekanski did not fight with police. Robert Dzikanski did not have any drugs in his system. Robert Dziekanski was tasered, fell down, and died. The most significant thing that happened to him at that time was that he was tasered. The other police actions pale in comparison to the obvious impact of the mutiple taser hits lasting the final 31 seconds of his life.
That's just one counter-example.
The only common factor in taser-associated deaths is the taser. That may sound circular, but since most taser incidents have their own built-in experimental control (the time just before the taser is fired [ibid]), it's actually a very significant observation.
There is also the oft repeated figure of "50,000 volts" shot through their bodies. This number is specious and totally irrelevant. Volts don't kill, amps do. See how many stories report the amperage, or in Taser's case, milliamps. The amps are 0.0026. That is far less than what one would receive from a Christmas Tree light bulb, which runs about one amp...
The "Average" versus RMS current has been fully explored here [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] [LINK]. Short version is that the electrical industry uses RMS bacause "averages" can be so misleading. M26 and X26 tasers are about 150-160 mA RMS.
And we also have a damn fine argument in our back pocket as to what Kroll forgot about on this particular topic. [LINK] It's a good one, but might have been somewhat eclipse by the outstanding work of Prof Savard et al [LINK] and others.
We do have a control group that can be measured. Now over 750,000 people have been exposed to Taser voluntarily, and when they were not involved in illegal or aberrant activities, there have been ZERO (0) deaths in that group. IF Taser were even a contributory cause of death, there would be some small number of death anticipated. BTW: contrary to opponents comments, all of these volunteers were not medically screened healthy young males.
Taser hits to the BACKS of taser trainees are called FAKE. [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] etc. etc. etc. etc. ...
Do you think that this is just a coincidence that these idiots are only ever tasered in the BACK, and almost NEVER the chest?
What? You didn't notice? Really? Feeling sheepish now that I've pointed it out? Seems obvious once it has been pointed out.
Taser International has ignored my challenge to turn the trainees around. [LINK] They're too frightened to even consider the possibility of having the training standard demand a full 5-second (or more) taser hit with the clips attached at the very upper left chest and somewhere below the sternum to force the current into the cardiac risk area. Do that first, and then (after a couple years) you can claim these training hits as evidence of anything.
Reviewing the daily taser news appears to indicate an "unexpected" preponderance of taser hits to the upper left chest in those healthy young men (not particularly agitated) that are tasered-and-die in quick succession. [LINK] The statistics of this obvious correlation are well buried. As are the victims. [LINK]
To date, Taser has been held "partially responsible" as a cause of death in one of the about 80 cases that has gone to court. That bizarre finding held that Taser was 15 percent responsible, and that the victim's voluntary use of illegal drugs was 85 percent responsible. In 41 states, Taser could not have been held responsible when the irrational behavior of an individual was the primary cause. That California case is not over yet, but the jury's award for punitive damages were thrown out...
Already addressed [LINK]. Punitive damages were canceled on a minor point of law (a legal 'technicality'). The 'Blood pH' taser-death mechanism is the main point, and is one of Taser International's worst nightmares. The original judgment wiped about $50M off TASR's market capitalization, and the smug smiles from their faces, virtually overnight.
Tasers save lives!
Perhaps once in a while. But considering that they actually used about ONE HUNDRED TIMES as often as the police have historically and generally-acceptably used their guns, then the actual 'save' rate is many times less than claimed.
The Solicitor General of Alberta actually claimed that tasers had saved thousands of lives in the Canadian province of Alberta. [LINK] This claim is insanity-in-a-can. It implies that the police in Alberta would have become the largest band of mass murderers in Canadian history, except we were saved by the taser. Well, thank goodness... {ROLLS-EYES}
And it's very bad morals to randomly exposed people that did nothing to deserve lethal force to all the risks of tasers. You only have to follow the news to know that the argument that tasers replace guns is the original taser lie. [LINK]
And the real world (large study) the results weren't anywhere as good as the carefully selected cities that Taser International reports. [LINK]
John Alexander
This is exactly why I started this blog. All these sorts of pro-taser arguments have already been fully examined and systematically shredded.
All I had to do to completely shred Mr. Alexander's letter is go through it, paragraph-by-paragraph, search up the applicable previous posts, and paste them into some context language so that everyone can follow.
In other words: Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Yawn...
The tattered carcasses of the pro-taser arguments are left hanging on the gates of the Excited-Delirium blog for all to see.
I'm still waiting for a new round of pro-taser arguments.
Anyone, anywhere, can win any taser-debate against any pro-taser foe. The 1000+ posts on the Excited-Delirium.com (do not forget the dash!!) cover all the arguments-to-date.
And along the way, we've uncovered some other very interesting findings... ...see the blog.
[Hat tip to TR]
Alexander is a former US army colonel and long time advocate of "non-lethal" (sic) weapons. For the record, he has stated that he has no connection to Taser International.
This is his third appearance on this blog. Previously [LINK][LINK]
His letter to 'Coast to Coast AM' (Fair Use claimed):
There is no doubt that people die after the use of Taser. People die after reading newspapers, watching TV, or just breathing, but that does not infer a causal relationship. A few coroners have listed Taser as a possible contributing cause, but most of those have lost out in court.
People also die just before reading newspaper, and just before watching TV. That randomness in time correlation appears to be missing with almost all taser-associated deaths.
See [LINK] for more details of this bizarre asymmetry in the typical taser-associated death time line. There's a detail there about taser-display reporting requirements that will address the most-obvious attempt at rebuttal. Leaving only the bizarre asymmetry...
Bottom line, despite the claims of Amnesty International (AI), there is zero probability that Taser has caused any death, and exceedingly small probability that Taser was a contributory cause of death in any case. AI simply lists every case in which death follows the use of Taser. At times, those deaths have been days later...
For every rare taser-associated death listed where the death followed 'days later', there are many more incidents where healthy young victims were tasered-and-died in quick succession. There is no alternate, and reasonable, explanation for many of these deaths.
Tasers have, not one, but TWO candidate death mechanisms:
It's one of the worst lies to claim that there's 'no science' to support these candidate taser-death mechanisms. That's actually one of the ugliest damn lies. There are many fine scientists that have made significant findings that are impossible to explain away. [LINK] [LINK]
So Taser International plugs their ears and sings loudly, "La la la la... I can't hear you..."
The common factor in all deaths following the use of a Taser was the behavior of the suspect that led them to interact with police. The two leading issues are drug use and exertion from fighting with police. Excited delirium is an established cause of death and there are a few people who are unaware that they have potential heart problems.
Wrong. Robert Dziekanski did not fight with police. Robert Dzikanski did not have any drugs in his system. Robert Dziekanski was tasered, fell down, and died. The most significant thing that happened to him at that time was that he was tasered. The other police actions pale in comparison to the obvious impact of the mutiple taser hits lasting the final 31 seconds of his life.
That's just one counter-example.
The only common factor in taser-associated deaths is the taser. That may sound circular, but since most taser incidents have their own built-in experimental control (the time just before the taser is fired [ibid]), it's actually a very significant observation.
There is also the oft repeated figure of "50,000 volts" shot through their bodies. This number is specious and totally irrelevant. Volts don't kill, amps do. See how many stories report the amperage, or in Taser's case, milliamps. The amps are 0.0026. That is far less than what one would receive from a Christmas Tree light bulb, which runs about one amp...
The "Average" versus RMS current has been fully explored here [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] [LINK]. Short version is that the electrical industry uses RMS bacause "averages" can be so misleading. M26 and X26 tasers are about 150-160 mA RMS.
And we also have a damn fine argument in our back pocket as to what Kroll forgot about on this particular topic. [LINK] It's a good one, but might have been somewhat eclipse by the outstanding work of Prof Savard et al [LINK] and others.
We do have a control group that can be measured. Now over 750,000 people have been exposed to Taser voluntarily, and when they were not involved in illegal or aberrant activities, there have been ZERO (0) deaths in that group. IF Taser were even a contributory cause of death, there would be some small number of death anticipated. BTW: contrary to opponents comments, all of these volunteers were not medically screened healthy young males.
Taser hits to the BACKS of taser trainees are called FAKE. [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] etc. etc. etc. etc. ...
Do you think that this is just a coincidence that these idiots are only ever tasered in the BACK, and almost NEVER the chest?
What? You didn't notice? Really? Feeling sheepish now that I've pointed it out? Seems obvious once it has been pointed out.
Taser International has ignored my challenge to turn the trainees around. [LINK] They're too frightened to even consider the possibility of having the training standard demand a full 5-second (or more) taser hit with the clips attached at the very upper left chest and somewhere below the sternum to force the current into the cardiac risk area. Do that first, and then (after a couple years) you can claim these training hits as evidence of anything.
Reviewing the daily taser news appears to indicate an "unexpected" preponderance of taser hits to the upper left chest in those healthy young men (not particularly agitated) that are tasered-and-die in quick succession. [LINK] The statistics of this obvious correlation are well buried. As are the victims. [LINK]
To date, Taser has been held "partially responsible" as a cause of death in one of the about 80 cases that has gone to court. That bizarre finding held that Taser was 15 percent responsible, and that the victim's voluntary use of illegal drugs was 85 percent responsible. In 41 states, Taser could not have been held responsible when the irrational behavior of an individual was the primary cause. That California case is not over yet, but the jury's award for punitive damages were thrown out...
Already addressed [LINK]. Punitive damages were canceled on a minor point of law (a legal 'technicality'). The 'Blood pH' taser-death mechanism is the main point, and is one of Taser International's worst nightmares. The original judgment wiped about $50M off TASR's market capitalization, and the smug smiles from their faces, virtually overnight.
Tasers save lives!
Perhaps once in a while. But considering that they actually used about ONE HUNDRED TIMES as often as the police have historically and generally-acceptably used their guns, then the actual 'save' rate is many times less than claimed.
The Solicitor General of Alberta actually claimed that tasers had saved thousands of lives in the Canadian province of Alberta. [LINK] This claim is insanity-in-a-can. It implies that the police in Alberta would have become the largest band of mass murderers in Canadian history, except we were saved by the taser. Well, thank goodness... {ROLLS-EYES}
And it's very bad morals to randomly exposed people that did nothing to deserve lethal force to all the risks of tasers. You only have to follow the news to know that the argument that tasers replace guns is the original taser lie. [LINK]
And the real world (large study) the results weren't anywhere as good as the carefully selected cities that Taser International reports. [LINK]
John Alexander
This is exactly why I started this blog. All these sorts of pro-taser arguments have already been fully examined and systematically shredded.
All I had to do to completely shred Mr. Alexander's letter is go through it, paragraph-by-paragraph, search up the applicable previous posts, and paste them into some context language so that everyone can follow.
In other words: Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Yawn...
The tattered carcasses of the pro-taser arguments are left hanging on the gates of the Excited-Delirium blog for all to see.
I'm still waiting for a new round of pro-taser arguments.
Anyone, anywhere, can win any taser-debate against any pro-taser foe. The 1000+ posts on the Excited-Delirium.com (do not forget the dash!!) cover all the arguments-to-date.
And along the way, we've uncovered some other very interesting findings... ...see the blog.
[Hat tip to TR]
John Alexander didn't get the memo
The Talk Radio world is (apparently) abuzz with talk of tasers.
Coast to Coast AM: Last week's guest with George Knapp, John Alexander, [a fan of] 'non-lethal' (sic) weapons, claimed that no one has ever been killed by a taser. George received a number of emails to the contrary... [LINK]
We've met John Alexander before [LINK]. It's obvious that he would certainly benefit from a good long cover-to-cover read of the Excited-Delirium.com blog. His statements are out-of-date and past their best-before date.
For example, his claim that "...no one has ever been killed by a taser..." is demonstrably false.
In the Pikes case [LINK] multiple coroners agreed that the taser CAUSED the death. [LINK] But Taser International points out that they forgot to include the words "directly" (and perhaps the word "pomegranate", for the next go-round) in their findings.
Also, the 'Blood pH' taser-death mechanism is common sense medically, and is now legally established. The 15% - 85% ratio on that case was not a statement of causality, only of assigned legal responsibility. And the $5+M 'refund' was on a small point of law, not about the facts of the case.
See the 'Blood pH' topic on this very blog: [LINK]. We made some very good progress over the past few weeks in figuring out some of the arguments.
So, in response to these two crystal-clear taser-deaths, the official cue-card wording (for those that have up-to-date cue cards) has been changed to limit the scope of the safety claims as follows:
"...the use of a taser by a police officers in the lawful execution of their duty has [never] been found to have been the direct cause of a fatality." [LINK]
In other words, the claim of taser safety is now (newly-) limited to so-called "lawful" deployments, but not "awful" deployments. I wonder how the interactions of body chemistry and electrons knows what is lawful, and what is not? Smells like an exclusion based on happenstance and hindsight, not logic.
It seems clear that John Alexander didn't get the (secret?) memo about the new, more limited, claims.
He's not alone in this regard. Taser International is a bit careful about who they keep informed of the latest, more-limited, carefully-worded, claims. They're happy to let the more ill-informed fan-boys spout-off old obsolete nonsense. So it's best to wipe the spittle off John, because you're being played like a trumpet.
Don't feel bad. Chief Kaye, VP of CACP [LINK] didn't get the memo either, and he read from an obsolete cue-card. It wasn't until OPP Commish Fantino actually looked down and carefully read the new wording. [LINK] I'd love to have an excuse to subpoena the communication records surrounding that pro-taser news conference.
It's been a source of entertainment to the taser-critical bloggers to track the changes in the claims from Taser International over the past few years. Their claims of "no deaths" are slowly being spiraled down in scope and geographical coverage. [LINK] [LINK] The more recent claims are positively adjective-laden with language that subtracts from the broad claims previously made (in the time before we started to figure the issue out).
I'll fully address Mr. Alexander's recent letter to 'Coast to Coast AM' in another post.
Coast to Coast AM: Last week's guest with George Knapp, John Alexander, [a fan of] 'non-lethal' (sic) weapons, claimed that no one has ever been killed by a taser. George received a number of emails to the contrary... [LINK]
We've met John Alexander before [LINK]. It's obvious that he would certainly benefit from a good long cover-to-cover read of the Excited-Delirium.com blog. His statements are out-of-date and past their best-before date.
For example, his claim that "...no one has ever been killed by a taser..." is demonstrably false.
In the Pikes case [LINK] multiple coroners agreed that the taser CAUSED the death. [LINK] But Taser International points out that they forgot to include the words "directly" (and perhaps the word "pomegranate", for the next go-round) in their findings.
Also, the 'Blood pH' taser-death mechanism is common sense medically, and is now legally established. The 15% - 85% ratio on that case was not a statement of causality, only of assigned legal responsibility. And the $5+M 'refund' was on a small point of law, not about the facts of the case.
See the 'Blood pH' topic on this very blog: [LINK]. We made some very good progress over the past few weeks in figuring out some of the arguments.
So, in response to these two crystal-clear taser-deaths, the official cue-card wording (for those that have up-to-date cue cards) has been changed to limit the scope of the safety claims as follows:
"...the use of a taser by a police officers in the lawful execution of their duty has [never] been found to have been the direct cause of a fatality." [LINK]
In other words, the claim of taser safety is now (newly-) limited to so-called "lawful" deployments, but not "awful" deployments. I wonder how the interactions of body chemistry and electrons knows what is lawful, and what is not? Smells like an exclusion based on happenstance and hindsight, not logic.
It seems clear that John Alexander didn't get the (secret?) memo about the new, more limited, claims.
He's not alone in this regard. Taser International is a bit careful about who they keep informed of the latest, more-limited, carefully-worded, claims. They're happy to let the more ill-informed fan-boys spout-off old obsolete nonsense. So it's best to wipe the spittle off John, because you're being played like a trumpet.
Don't feel bad. Chief Kaye, VP of CACP [LINK] didn't get the memo either, and he read from an obsolete cue-card. It wasn't until OPP Commish Fantino actually looked down and carefully read the new wording. [LINK] I'd love to have an excuse to subpoena the communication records surrounding that pro-taser news conference.
It's been a source of entertainment to the taser-critical bloggers to track the changes in the claims from Taser International over the past few years. Their claims of "no deaths" are slowly being spiraled down in scope and geographical coverage. [LINK] [LINK] The more recent claims are positively adjective-laden with language that subtracts from the broad claims previously made (in the time before we started to figure the issue out).
I'll fully address Mr. Alexander's recent letter to 'Coast to Coast AM' in another post.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
U.L. lawyers work Sundays?
First the SEC [LINK] (maybe), and now the U.L. (maybe).
An interesting hit on the blog about two hours ago:
1) Seattle, Washington arrived directly on post titled "Taser Director Kroll invokes U.L." [LINK]
U.L.'s head office appears to be in Washington state.
"Someone" is going to have a very interesting Monday.
Free advice: When you're standing under 'a ton of bricks' that are 'hanging by a thread', don't poke at it.
An interesting hit on the blog about two hours ago:
1) Seattle, Washington arrived directly on post titled "Taser Director Kroll invokes U.L." [LINK]
U.L.'s head office appears to be in Washington state.
"Someone" is going to have a very interesting Monday.
Free advice: When you're standing under 'a ton of bricks' that are 'hanging by a thread', don't poke at it.
Before and After - the built-in experimental control
How often have people died just BEFORE they were about to be tasered?
Has there EVER been any reports of people falling over dead after the taser had been drawn and displayed, but BEFORE it had actually been fired? Many jurisdictions actually do require written reports when the taser is even pulled from the holster. So logically, there should be plenty (hundreds) of reports where the taser was drawn and displayed, and the subject fell over dead BEFORE the taser was fired.
Did the four RCMP officiers arrive on the scene and find that Mr. Dziekanski had already died, just moments BEFORE they arrived? Did Mr. Dziekanski look like he was about to die, in that half-minute BEFORE he was tasered?
When did Brian Cardell die? Did the police arrive and find him already dead? Did he fall over in the (reported) minute or so after the police arrived, and just BEFORE he was tasered?
If the taser hits have no causal relationship to the subsequent death, then basic logic would dictate that you would expect to see roughly as many people falling over dead just BEFORE being tasered, as just AFTER being tasered.
Feel free to normalize each incident on a 'per unit time' basis (it won't make any difference). But you should include the total duration of the incident timeline.
Virtually every taser incident that results in a death has its very own, built-in experimental control. The experimental control is the time BEFORE the taser hit.
An asymmetrical distribution would seem to provide clear-cut evidence of causality.
If the asymmetry is extreme, then the argument is over.
(The following graphic is for illustrative purposes only and is not based on anything more than my recollection of the many news reports of taser-associated deaths, and the fact that Taser International isn't proudly showing off a thick stack of reports of the hundreds of people that died just BEFORE being tasered. Actual data may vary. The ball is in Taser International's court to explain-away this very simple observation.)
Has there EVER been any reports of people falling over dead after the taser had been drawn and displayed, but BEFORE it had actually been fired? Many jurisdictions actually do require written reports when the taser is even pulled from the holster. So logically, there should be plenty (hundreds) of reports where the taser was drawn and displayed, and the subject fell over dead BEFORE the taser was fired.
Did the four RCMP officiers arrive on the scene and find that Mr. Dziekanski had already died, just moments BEFORE they arrived? Did Mr. Dziekanski look like he was about to die, in that half-minute BEFORE he was tasered?
When did Brian Cardell die? Did the police arrive and find him already dead? Did he fall over in the (reported) minute or so after the police arrived, and just BEFORE he was tasered?
If the taser hits have no causal relationship to the subsequent death, then basic logic would dictate that you would expect to see roughly as many people falling over dead just BEFORE being tasered, as just AFTER being tasered.
Feel free to normalize each incident on a 'per unit time' basis (it won't make any difference). But you should include the total duration of the incident timeline.
Virtually every taser incident that results in a death has its very own, built-in experimental control. The experimental control is the time BEFORE the taser hit.
An asymmetrical distribution would seem to provide clear-cut evidence of causality.
If the asymmetry is extreme, then the argument is over.
(The following graphic is for illustrative purposes only and is not based on anything more than my recollection of the many news reports of taser-associated deaths, and the fact that Taser International isn't proudly showing off a thick stack of reports of the hundreds of people that died just BEFORE being tasered. Actual data may vary. The ball is in Taser International's court to explain-away this very simple observation.)
More on The Significant Difference...
Further to previous post The significant difference [LINK]...
Upon further reflection it seems obvious that it is not feasible to reproduce the characteristics of the 'acutely agitated individuals' in a controlled environment.
Having someone perform some voluntary exercise until they consciously report that they're feeling a bit tired, and then tasering them to see if they die - although it is perhaps moving along the same 'Blood pH' axis, the magnitude of the parameter probably isn't even close (*).
(* Remember that, for example, 70% is ten times further away from 100% than is 97%. You need to measure the gap from 'the far end' of the scale. It's a common and despicable debating trick to measure the factor from the uninteresting 'zero' end of the scale to make the difference look much smaller.)
I don't think that any "studies" along these lines carry any weight whatsoever. The real world results cannot be reproduced in a lab environment - at least not in any civilized county.
Upon further reflection it seems obvious that it is not feasible to reproduce the characteristics of the 'acutely agitated individuals' in a controlled environment.
Having someone perform some voluntary exercise until they consciously report that they're feeling a bit tired, and then tasering them to see if they die - although it is perhaps moving along the same 'Blood pH' axis, the magnitude of the parameter probably isn't even close (*).
(* Remember that, for example, 70% is ten times further away from 100% than is 97%. You need to measure the gap from 'the far end' of the scale. It's a common and despicable debating trick to measure the factor from the uninteresting 'zero' end of the scale to make the difference look much smaller.)
I don't think that any "studies" along these lines carry any weight whatsoever. The real world results cannot be reproduced in a lab environment - at least not in any civilized county.
Taser Director Kroll invokes "U.L."
Dr. Mark W. Kroll, Member of the Board of Directors of Taser International:
"The X26 taser satisfies the Underwriters Laboratory electric fence standards..." [LINK]
According to reports, tasers have NEVER been certified by the Underwriters Laboratory [LINK] [LINK]. And if it hasn't been tested by an approved laboratory (certified by U.L.), then this claim is essentially false.
It seems apparent that tasers would not, and could not, actually pass U.L.'s scrutiny. If they could, they would have already - and Taser International would be proudly claiming the fact (instead of leaving the false impression).
Kroll has been informed that the electric fence standards DO NOT APPLY to tasers for several very good reasons. Differences include application, waveform, duty cycle, frequency spectrum, and probably even build quality. He knows all this, and yet he chooses to ignore it.
Furthermore, the specified output from the X26 taser is 100 microcoulombs (100 uC). And yet the published X26 waveform graph clearly shows that "100 uC" is a significant understatement [LINK]. So even playing Kroll's semantic games, it's still not clear that the basic facts are exactly as he claims.
Taser International has reportedly had their wrist slapped before for falsely invoking the U.L. trademarks [ibed]. And here they go again...
It's like cleaning up after a pigeon. It only takes him about five seconds to emit the crap,but it takes us twenty minutes to clean it up.
[HT: CM & TNT]
"The X26 taser satisfies the Underwriters Laboratory electric fence standards..." [LINK]
According to reports, tasers have NEVER been certified by the Underwriters Laboratory [LINK] [LINK]. And if it hasn't been tested by an approved laboratory (certified by U.L.), then this claim is essentially false.
It seems apparent that tasers would not, and could not, actually pass U.L.'s scrutiny. If they could, they would have already - and Taser International would be proudly claiming the fact (instead of leaving the false impression).
Kroll has been informed that the electric fence standards DO NOT APPLY to tasers for several very good reasons. Differences include application, waveform, duty cycle, frequency spectrum, and probably even build quality. He knows all this, and yet he chooses to ignore it.
Furthermore, the specified output from the X26 taser is 100 microcoulombs (100 uC). And yet the published X26 waveform graph clearly shows that "100 uC" is a significant understatement [LINK]. So even playing Kroll's semantic games, it's still not clear that the basic facts are exactly as he claims.
Taser International has reportedly had their wrist slapped before for falsely invoking the U.L. trademarks [ibed]. And here they go again...
It's like cleaning up after a pigeon. It only takes him about five seconds to emit the crap,but it takes us twenty minutes to clean it up.
[HT: CM & TNT]
The SEC works Saturdays?
An interesting pair of hits on the blog within the past hour:
1) Washington, DC arrived directly on post titled "Dr. Mark Kroll's arguments torn to shreds (call the SEC)" [LINK].
2) Washington, DC left via sltrib.com [LINK].
So are NASDEQ-listed companies permitted to have their Directors go out and foist one-sided propaganda onto the unwitting public, while that Director is holding 36,000 TASR stock options, potentially worth many hundreds of thousands of dollars?
I'm not an expert in SEC rules, but I know that they have a lot of rules. I can't believe that a stock-option-laden Company Director would be allowed to issue Letters to the Editor without having them go through proper corporate channels to include the usual disclaimers.
It's not the first time he's done this sort of thing. I can provide pointers to previous examples; my blog e-mail address is near the top of the right hand column.
Maybe this sort of corporate / Director behavior is allowed. But if so, then it shouldn't be.
Disclaimer: Me? I hold no financial interest in the stun gun market, or even anything even remotely related. Zero. Not paid by Amnesty International either. Nothing similar either. This blog is simply intended to address my desire to provide my input into the very important public policy taser debate, on both sides of the 49th parallel.
1) Washington, DC arrived directly on post titled "Dr. Mark Kroll's arguments torn to shreds (call the SEC)" [LINK].
2) Washington, DC left via sltrib.com [LINK].
So are NASDEQ-listed companies permitted to have their Directors go out and foist one-sided propaganda onto the unwitting public, while that Director is holding 36,000 TASR stock options, potentially worth many hundreds of thousands of dollars?
I'm not an expert in SEC rules, but I know that they have a lot of rules. I can't believe that a stock-option-laden Company Director would be allowed to issue Letters to the Editor without having them go through proper corporate channels to include the usual disclaimers.
It's not the first time he's done this sort of thing. I can provide pointers to previous examples; my blog e-mail address is near the top of the right hand column.
Maybe this sort of corporate / Director behavior is allowed. But if so, then it shouldn't be.
Disclaimer: Me? I hold no financial interest in the stun gun market, or even anything even remotely related. Zero. Not paid by Amnesty International either. Nothing similar either. This blog is simply intended to address my desire to provide my input into the very important public policy taser debate, on both sides of the 49th parallel.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
The significant difference...
Every now and then I mention something in passing, and it later occurs to me that it's an important enough point that it's worth posting again, on its own, to make sure that the point doesn't get missed.
This is one of those times:
From the post Blood pH - which direction would be good? [LINK]
...And significantly, the taser totally bypasses any built-in survival mechanisms that might naturally keep the subject from actually (i.e. in the real world) killing themselves through over-exertion.
That's a key difference - between what the subject might be ALMOST doing to themselves (naturally limited by built-in survival mechanisms), and what boundary the taser can push them right through and beyond.
The taser lacks any such natural limiting feed-back signals. It just stupidly and blindly locks-up the muscles (a massive form of over-exertion).
The taser could probably lock-up the muscles on a fresh corpse.
The point here is that humans have who-knows-how-many? built-in feedback loops. These 'negative feedback' (self-limiting) mechanisms would include: conscious awareness, discomfort, fatigue, pain, and so on - right down to utter collapse (loss of consciousness).
These feedback signals, which exist in multiple layers at every possible level of the human-machine, almost always prevent people from killing themselves through over-exertion.
Where a person is operating under their own command (even if acting 'insane'), they will eventually reach their limits. If they exceed those limits, there's a very good chance that they'll become unconscious and thereby avoid death by some margin.
My assumption here is that there exists a margin (possibly a small margin) between the point where a person would become unconscious (thereby providing life-saving rest), and the point where they're destined to die. I believe that this is a reasonable assumption. If you disagree with this argument, then you need to disprove this assumption, because everything else flows logically from it.
The taser simply bypasses many of these natural self-preservation limits. Even if the person has a Blood pH level (for example) which has rendered them unconscious, the taser keeps going and going and going. It will not stop.
The taser respects no ultimate limits within the subject.
There's no feedback loop (except the operator, possible defectively-trained).
And there's not necessarily any safety in being unconscious, especially if the taser makes the victim's muscles continue to twitch in a "fighting" and "threatening" manner.
This lack of feedback and lack of respect for the subject's ultimate limits perfectly explains the significant difference in the real-world outcomes between the subject just over-exerting themselves, versus them also being given a good solid tasering.
This simple hypothesis bridges the 'taser-science' (sic) knowledge gap surrounding "excited delirium" (the arguably-mythical condition), and trying to explain all those many "excited delirium deaths" (the all-too-convenient excuse for a 'taser-associated' death).
If 'excited delirium' is a problem, then the taser is not the right solution. In fact, it seems to be the worst possible approach.
It's as if the subject is walking along the edge of a cliff, and the suggested solution is to push them over the edge.
Even the RCMP acknowledged this plain fact: "The RCMP's revised [Taser] policy underscores that there are risks associated with the deployment of the device and emphasizes that those risks include the risk of death, particularly for acutely agitated individuals." [LINK]
Behavior that some people call "Excited Delirium" is a clear-cut indicator to put away the taser.
PS: Scientific American reference: [LINK] (Thanks Critical Mass)
This is one of those times:
From the post Blood pH - which direction would be good? [LINK]
...And significantly, the taser totally bypasses any built-in survival mechanisms that might naturally keep the subject from actually (i.e. in the real world) killing themselves through over-exertion.
That's a key difference - between what the subject might be ALMOST doing to themselves (naturally limited by built-in survival mechanisms), and what boundary the taser can push them right through and beyond.
The taser lacks any such natural limiting feed-back signals. It just stupidly and blindly locks-up the muscles (a massive form of over-exertion).
The taser could probably lock-up the muscles on a fresh corpse.
The point here is that humans have who-knows-how-many? built-in feedback loops. These 'negative feedback' (self-limiting) mechanisms would include: conscious awareness, discomfort, fatigue, pain, and so on - right down to utter collapse (loss of consciousness).
These feedback signals, which exist in multiple layers at every possible level of the human-machine, almost always prevent people from killing themselves through over-exertion.
Where a person is operating under their own command (even if acting 'insane'), they will eventually reach their limits. If they exceed those limits, there's a very good chance that they'll become unconscious and thereby avoid death by some margin.
My assumption here is that there exists a margin (possibly a small margin) between the point where a person would become unconscious (thereby providing life-saving rest), and the point where they're destined to die. I believe that this is a reasonable assumption. If you disagree with this argument, then you need to disprove this assumption, because everything else flows logically from it.
The taser simply bypasses many of these natural self-preservation limits. Even if the person has a Blood pH level (for example) which has rendered them unconscious, the taser keeps going and going and going. It will not stop.
The taser respects no ultimate limits within the subject.
There's no feedback loop (except the operator, possible defectively-trained).
And there's not necessarily any safety in being unconscious, especially if the taser makes the victim's muscles continue to twitch in a "fighting" and "threatening" manner.
This lack of feedback and lack of respect for the subject's ultimate limits perfectly explains the significant difference in the real-world outcomes between the subject just over-exerting themselves, versus them also being given a good solid tasering.
This simple hypothesis bridges the 'taser-science' (sic) knowledge gap surrounding "excited delirium" (the arguably-mythical condition), and trying to explain all those many "excited delirium deaths" (the all-too-convenient excuse for a 'taser-associated' death).
If 'excited delirium' is a problem, then the taser is not the right solution. In fact, it seems to be the worst possible approach.
It's as if the subject is walking along the edge of a cliff, and the suggested solution is to push them over the edge.
Even the RCMP acknowledged this plain fact: "The RCMP's revised [Taser] policy underscores that there are risks associated with the deployment of the device and emphasizes that those risks include the risk of death, particularly for acutely agitated individuals." [LINK]
Behavior that some people call "Excited Delirium" is a clear-cut indicator to put away the taser.
PS: Scientific American reference: [LINK] (Thanks Critical Mass)
Two possible taser death mechanisms
The 'Blood pH' taser death mechanism was proven in court [LINK]. And it's based on basic medical facts that are almost beyond dispute [LINK]. This taser death mechanism is potentially applicable to cases where the victim was worked up and perhaps tasered for long durations. It's in the news again because of the death of Brian Cardell and Kroll's letter [LINK] where he explained (unintentionally) exactly how and why the taser could have tipped Mr. Cardell over the edge [LINK] (maybe).
Meanwhile, there's also the 'cardiac effects' taser death mechanism. This one is considered by some to still be in dispute. Taser (meaning Kroll et al) think it's impossible. But those holding this warped worldview are forced to ignore the cases where healthy young people were tasered across the heart and died either immediately, or after a few minutes. The non-VF explanation that bridges the 'taser-science' (sic) knowledge gap is covered here: [LINK][LINK]
Not included in the above list-of-two is the issue of defective tasers which can lead to an unnecessary escalation in the violence and spiral into a death-by-gunfire. [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] [LINK]
UPDATE: Make it three...
Comment on [LINK] 'Critical Mass' wrote:
One factor often present during the restraining of a detainee is "positional asphyxia", at a time when the detainees need for oxygen is great.
An excellent point.
Meanwhile, there's also the 'cardiac effects' taser death mechanism. This one is considered by some to still be in dispute. Taser (meaning Kroll et al) think it's impossible. But those holding this warped worldview are forced to ignore the cases where healthy young people were tasered across the heart and died either immediately, or after a few minutes. The non-VF explanation that bridges the 'taser-science' (sic) knowledge gap is covered here: [LINK][LINK]
Not included in the above list-of-two is the issue of defective tasers which can lead to an unnecessary escalation in the violence and spiral into a death-by-gunfire. [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] [LINK]
UPDATE: Make it three...
Comment on [LINK] 'Critical Mass' wrote:
One factor often present during the restraining of a detainee is "positional asphyxia", at a time when the detainees need for oxygen is great.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positional_asphyxia
The reason we need an aqualung with pressurized air, to be able to breathe in as little as a depth of 2 to 3 feet under water, is that the muscles which expand the chest to allow for the intake of air, are some of the weakest muscles in our body. You can't breathe while 2 feet underwater, through a garden hose, because the weight of the water can't be overcome by the chest cavity muscles.
Imagine a long distance runner crossing the finish line of a race, immediately being placed in any restraint where his/her ability to fully expand and contract their chest cavity was reduced by a factor of 50% or greater. The result might be fatal.
When I see videos of arrestees being restrained on the ground with several law enforcement officers on their neck or their back, I'm not surprised at the number who die during "restraint".
If stun guns affect those fairly weak chest muscles, by rapidly exercising them to the point of exhaustion, it may explain why their victims often complain of not being able to breathe after being tasered.
We focus on stun guns somehow affecting the heart, while it is possible that tasers may induce "positional asphyxia" symptoms, without putting any weight on the chest. The chest muscles are simply unable to do their job due to being depleted by the taser shocks.
If you agree, you may have to add a third death mechanism ~ "Induced Positional Asphyxia", besides blood Ph and cardiac effects.
Good luck.
An excellent point.
Excellent comment from 'Critical Mass'
I stole this comment from the Truth ... Not Tasers blog [LINK].
Critical Mass wrote:
The Truth is that in a typical career as a police officer, the lethal gun will never be used, and that correlates pretty well with the 100 [times ratio of] Taser uses, versus the use of a firearm by a law enforcement professional.
None of my friends in Law Enforcement (over 10 persons) have ever fired their service guns in a police confrontation.
I have often alluded to the fact that many well-meaning law enforcement professionals who relied on their Taser Training and actually believed their Tasers could not cause death, and then saw their suspect die on the ground, writhing in pain and screaming, are burdened with a lifetime of knowing and suspecting that they caused the death of a human being who had not been charged, convicted or sentenced for any crime. Many of these police officers suffer in silence, and they too are "Taser Victims".
The "Lies Promoted/Sanctioned by Taser International" have real victims on both ends of a Taser use ~ The Officer involved in a Homicide, as well as the guiltless dead soul on the receiving end of a fatal electric torture shock.
Victims at both ends of the taser wires: one dead, and the other feeling damaged and deceived.
It's a very good point.
I wonder if and when one of those '2nd victims' will get around to speaking out about their feelings? So far it's been silence.
And maybe it's a new class of lawsuit ("I thought you told me this thing was 'safe'?") against the supplier of the training?
Critical Mass wrote:
The Truth is that in a typical career as a police officer, the lethal gun will never be used, and that correlates pretty well with the 100 [times ratio of] Taser uses, versus the use of a firearm by a law enforcement professional.
None of my friends in Law Enforcement (over 10 persons) have ever fired their service guns in a police confrontation.
I have often alluded to the fact that many well-meaning law enforcement professionals who relied on their Taser Training and actually believed their Tasers could not cause death, and then saw their suspect die on the ground, writhing in pain and screaming, are burdened with a lifetime of knowing and suspecting that they caused the death of a human being who had not been charged, convicted or sentenced for any crime. Many of these police officers suffer in silence, and they too are "Taser Victims".
The "Lies Promoted/Sanctioned by Taser International" have real victims on both ends of a Taser use ~ The Officer involved in a Homicide, as well as the guiltless dead soul on the receiving end of a fatal electric torture shock.
Victims at both ends of the taser wires: one dead, and the other feeling damaged and deceived.
It's a very good point.
I wonder if and when one of those '2nd victims' will get around to speaking out about their feelings? So far it's been silence.
And maybe it's a new class of lawsuit ("I thought you told me this thing was 'safe'?") against the supplier of the training?
Greg Meyer on Excited Delirium
Sigh... Hold your nose and see his letter [LINK].
Where do I start?
First of all - Meyer tries to justify tasers being used against people that are in a state of "excited delirium" (a.k.a. acutely agitated individuals). Given the medically and legally-established facts about the taser 'Blood pH' death mechanism [LINK], it is obvious that the taser is probably the worst possible choice for people that may have worked themselves into a state where their blood pH is getting close to dangerous levels. Using a taser in such cases might be exactly the same as having them participate in a rapid fire weight lifting contest. Every muscle in their body is straining or even 'locked-up' - thereby pushing them over the 'Blood pH' edge. See previous post [LINK]
Second - tasers are far more often used as a tool of convenience, excess authority and street-level punishment than against people having mental health crisis. Canadian stats showed that the majority of taser applications were against completely unarmed and mostly-harmless drunk young men. In fact I'll go so far as to point out that tasers are almost certainly abused (by any reasonable standard) far more often than used against people having mental health issues.
Third - Meyer claims we offer no alternative. Of course we do. Explicitly. Repeatedly. Put away the tasers (except as a replacement for lethal force, this would be a 95-99% reduction). Use de-escalation techniques. Re-learn legal standards about lawful force (being a noun, not a verb). Learn from those jurisdictions that have rejected tasers, and are not having any of the fear-mongering nightmares predicted by the stun gun salesmen. Look at how mental health institutions (most of which still do not use tasers, thank goodness), and see how they deal with people in crisis without killing them. Open your mind and learn.
Mr. Meyer - I'd take your opinions seriously if you could divorce yourself from The Church of Taser, stop apologizing for them, explicitly acknowledge those abuses of tasers which occur on a daily basis, and stop ignoring the medical debate that is only now just getting under way [LINK][LINK].
Where do I start?
First of all - Meyer tries to justify tasers being used against people that are in a state of "excited delirium" (a.k.a. acutely agitated individuals). Given the medically and legally-established facts about the taser 'Blood pH' death mechanism [LINK], it is obvious that the taser is probably the worst possible choice for people that may have worked themselves into a state where their blood pH is getting close to dangerous levels. Using a taser in such cases might be exactly the same as having them participate in a rapid fire weight lifting contest. Every muscle in their body is straining or even 'locked-up' - thereby pushing them over the 'Blood pH' edge. See previous post [LINK]
Second - tasers are far more often used as a tool of convenience, excess authority and street-level punishment than against people having mental health crisis. Canadian stats showed that the majority of taser applications were against completely unarmed and mostly-harmless drunk young men. In fact I'll go so far as to point out that tasers are almost certainly abused (by any reasonable standard) far more often than used against people having mental health issues.
Third - Meyer claims we offer no alternative. Of course we do. Explicitly. Repeatedly. Put away the tasers (except as a replacement for lethal force, this would be a 95-99% reduction). Use de-escalation techniques. Re-learn legal standards about lawful force (being a noun, not a verb). Learn from those jurisdictions that have rejected tasers, and are not having any of the fear-mongering nightmares predicted by the stun gun salesmen. Look at how mental health institutions (most of which still do not use tasers, thank goodness), and see how they deal with people in crisis without killing them. Open your mind and learn.
Mr. Meyer - I'd take your opinions seriously if you could divorce yourself from The Church of Taser, stop apologizing for them, explicitly acknowledge those abuses of tasers which occur on a daily basis, and stop ignoring the medical debate that is only now just getting under way [LINK][LINK].
Blood pH - which direction would be good?
RCMP Commissioner said: "The RCMP's revised [Taser] policy underscores that there are risks associated with the deployment of the device and emphasizes that those risks include the risk of death, particularly for acutely agitated individuals." [LINK]
Now, I'm not a doctor. But there's nothing particularly complicated about the following.
In an 'acutely agitated individual', assuming that they've worked themselves into a state of over-exertion, and their blood pH is possibly at dangerous levels, then does it seem like a good idea to shoot them with a taser, that "can" (I guess, assuming it works at all) cause extreme levels of muscle lock-up - which is a form of massive physical exertion - which can only make things in the 'Blood pH' department much worse?
Which way do you want to go? One step closer to death?
And significantly, the taser totally bypasses any built-in survival mechanisms that might naturally keep the subject from actually (i.e. in the real world) killing themselves through over-exertion.
That's a key difference - between what the subject might be ALMOST doing to themselves (naturally limited by built-in survival mechanisms), and what boundary the taser can push them right through and beyond.
The taser lacks any such natural limiting feed-back signals. It just stupidly and blindly locks-up the muscles (a massive form of over-exertion).
The taser could probably lock-up the muscles on a fresh corpse.
The operator might have been "trained" (if you can call it that) to hold the trigger down until the victim stops "fighting" (i.e. stops moving).
The outcome, in the worst cases, is perfectly obvious.
Now, I'm not a doctor. But there's nothing particularly complicated about the following.
In an 'acutely agitated individual', assuming that they've worked themselves into a state of over-exertion, and their blood pH is possibly at dangerous levels, then does it seem like a good idea to shoot them with a taser, that "can" (I guess, assuming it works at all) cause extreme levels of muscle lock-up - which is a form of massive physical exertion - which can only make things in the 'Blood pH' department much worse?
Which way do you want to go? One step closer to death?
And significantly, the taser totally bypasses any built-in survival mechanisms that might naturally keep the subject from actually (i.e. in the real world) killing themselves through over-exertion.
That's a key difference - between what the subject might be ALMOST doing to themselves (naturally limited by built-in survival mechanisms), and what boundary the taser can push them right through and beyond.
The taser lacks any such natural limiting feed-back signals. It just stupidly and blindly locks-up the muscles (a massive form of over-exertion).
The taser could probably lock-up the muscles on a fresh corpse.
The operator might have been "trained" (if you can call it that) to hold the trigger down until the victim stops "fighting" (i.e. stops moving).
The outcome, in the worst cases, is perfectly obvious.
Who is "Dr." Mark W. Kroll
First - Dr. Mark W. Kroll is NOT a real (medical) doctor.
"Kroll holds a PhD in Electrical Engineering from the University of Minnesota; and a MBA from the University of St. Thomas."
I don't see any medical qualifications listed there at all. None.
For a review of Kroll's ideas on medical matters (such as the relative risk of 'excited delirium' as compared to a good solid tasering), please review the multiple pages of comments starting here [LINK].
If you want to see the laughing face of The Man that forgot Fourier, then click here [LINK].
MORE: Kroll is also the author of Taser International's gold-plated liability bulls-eye article on "Cardiac Safety". I'm not positive, but it appears that this article has been yanked from their website.
Plaintiffs' lawyers need to get a copy of this article that compares repeated taser hits to being repeatedly hit with a ping pong ball.
Contact the blog if you require pointers.
"Kroll holds a PhD in Electrical Engineering from the University of Minnesota; and a MBA from the University of St. Thomas."
I don't see any medical qualifications listed there at all. None.
For a review of Kroll's ideas on medical matters (such as the relative risk of 'excited delirium' as compared to a good solid tasering), please review the multiple pages of comments starting here [LINK].
If you want to see the laughing face of The Man that forgot Fourier, then click here [LINK].
MORE: Kroll is also the author of Taser International's gold-plated liability bulls-eye article on "Cardiac Safety". I'm not positive, but it appears that this article has been yanked from their website.
Plaintiffs' lawyers need to get a copy of this article that compares repeated taser hits to being repeatedly hit with a ping pong ball.
Contact the blog if you require pointers.
Taser bad-news sh*t storm continues
KHOU (Friday, 26 June 2009): Montgomery County coroner makes ruling in taser death
MONTOMERY COUNTY, Texas -- A coroner has ruled that the death of a Montgomery County man who was tasered a homicide. Deputies tasered Robert Welch in February after responding to a call of an attempted suicide. The coroner says marks on Welch’s body indicated he’d been tasered at least nine times. The deputies involved are still on the job. The Montgomery County district attorney is referring the case to a grand jury. [LINK]
Another successful taser 'save'. An attempted suicide completely prevented. Yes sirree. Changed that potential suicide right into a homicide.
Suggestion to KHOU's editorial staff. When Taser International calls up to complain about the "taser death" in your headline, just tell them to F-off. You're backed up by the coroner's finding of homicide. If they want a fight, give it to them.
MONTOMERY COUNTY, Texas -- A coroner has ruled that the death of a Montgomery County man who was tasered a homicide. Deputies tasered Robert Welch in February after responding to a call of an attempted suicide. The coroner says marks on Welch’s body indicated he’d been tasered at least nine times. The deputies involved are still on the job. The Montgomery County district attorney is referring the case to a grand jury. [LINK]
Another successful taser 'save'. An attempted suicide completely prevented. Yes sirree. Changed that potential suicide right into a homicide.
Suggestion to KHOU's editorial staff. When Taser International calls up to complain about the "taser death" in your headline, just tell them to F-off. You're backed up by the coroner's finding of homicide. If they want a fight, give it to them.
Kerik's friendly news spinners
Bernie Kerik is, among his many other accomplishments [smirk], a former member of the Board of Directors of Taser International.
I've been wondering where all the inexplicable and frankly-weird Kerik headlines were coming from over the past few months. I've seen them popping up on the headline banner at the top of this blog. Even I (only barely keeping an eye on the Kerik news of the day) had started to notice that some of the headlines were stretching the truth well past the breaking point.
Well, others have noticed and kept score. It turns out that there seems to be a campaign to "rehabilitate" [the slightly tarnished reputation of] Mr. Kerik.
Newsmax is putting a lot of effort into rebuilding the disgraced former New York police chief into a credible spokesman on terrorism issues and whitewashing the corruption charges he still faces. [LINK] [LINK]
Honestly - I don't understand. The right wing side of politics has many fine and upstanding people. People that can keep their pants on, and not engage in unethical behavior. And can choose their friends with care. I don't understand why The Right would try to salvage one particular individual that has so many 'issues'. It's not as if there's a worldwide shortage of right-leaning spokespuppets for hire.
I've been wondering where all the inexplicable and frankly-weird Kerik headlines were coming from over the past few months. I've seen them popping up on the headline banner at the top of this blog. Even I (only barely keeping an eye on the Kerik news of the day) had started to notice that some of the headlines were stretching the truth well past the breaking point.
Well, others have noticed and kept score. It turns out that there seems to be a campaign to "rehabilitate" [the slightly tarnished reputation of] Mr. Kerik.
Newsmax is putting a lot of effort into rebuilding the disgraced former New York police chief into a credible spokesman on terrorism issues and whitewashing the corruption charges he still faces. [LINK] [LINK]
Honestly - I don't understand. The right wing side of politics has many fine and upstanding people. People that can keep their pants on, and not engage in unethical behavior. And can choose their friends with care. I don't understand why The Right would try to salvage one particular individual that has so many 'issues'. It's not as if there's a worldwide shortage of right-leaning spokespuppets for hire.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Kroll: "...very short pulses..."
Dr. Mark Kroll wrote: "The actual pulse voltage delivered by the TASER X26 is 600 volts and that is in very short pulses." [LINK]
As I suspected, Dr. Mark Kroll (in spite of his purported education) fails to understand Fourier Transforms. I've made this point before, and I assume Kroll has read this blog cover-to-cover, but he apparently still doesn't get it.
The 19 Hz and all associated spectral components (harmonics) emitted by the X26 taser are 100% continuous duty cycle. These low frequency energies begin when the 5-second cycle begins and are completely continuous for the entire deployment cycle.
There is NO SUCH THING as a "very short" (100+ microsecond) pulse of 19 Hz.
It's impossible.
Think.
Duh!
Plaintiff lawyers may well wish to use this self-evident ignorance displayed by Dr. Kroll against him and against Taser International. I recommend bringing a Prof. of EE to explain to Dr. Kroll about the ins and outs of Fourier Transforms.
He's obviously failed to include such fundamental and elementary basics of waveform theory in his worldview of how tasers work.
Which is completely amazing to me.
PS: The "600 volts" is a new and lower-than-ever claimed value. I've been following the taser issue since late-2007 and I've never seen a claim that the applied voltage after the arc phase is as 'low' as 600 volts. The usual number is 1200 volts. I get the impression that these idiots just make this sh*t up as they go along.
As I suspected, Dr. Mark Kroll (in spite of his purported education) fails to understand Fourier Transforms. I've made this point before, and I assume Kroll has read this blog cover-to-cover, but he apparently still doesn't get it.
The 19 Hz and all associated spectral components (harmonics) emitted by the X26 taser are 100% continuous duty cycle. These low frequency energies begin when the 5-second cycle begins and are completely continuous for the entire deployment cycle.
There is NO SUCH THING as a "very short" (100+ microsecond) pulse of 19 Hz.
It's impossible.
Think.
Duh!
Plaintiff lawyers may well wish to use this self-evident ignorance displayed by Dr. Kroll against him and against Taser International. I recommend bringing a Prof. of EE to explain to Dr. Kroll about the ins and outs of Fourier Transforms.
He's obviously failed to include such fundamental and elementary basics of waveform theory in his worldview of how tasers work.
Which is completely amazing to me.
PS: The "600 volts" is a new and lower-than-ever claimed value. I've been following the taser issue since late-2007 and I've never seen a claim that the applied voltage after the arc phase is as 'low' as 600 volts. The usual number is 1200 volts. I get the impression that these idiots just make this sh*t up as they go along.
Dr. Mark Kroll's arguments torn to shreds (call the SEC)
Dr. [not a real (medical) doctor] Mark Kroll, a bought and paid-for Taser International shrill (*), wrote a letter to The Salt Lake Tribune in a pathetic attempt to blame "excited delirium" (solely) for the death of Brian Cardell. [LINK]
Between the comments on the Salt Lake Tribune website [LINK] (and don't miss the several pages of comments...), and the Truth ... Not Tasers blog [LINK], and here [LINK], Dr. Kroll's pathetic arguments and purported facts have been systematically shredded by the members of the public.
All that's left is that he believes that over-exertion can kill, and tasers cannot. But he fails to acknowledge that tasers cause uncontrolled and extreme physical exertion. Ba da bing.
* Mark W. Kroll "...holds an option to acquire 36,000 shares of stock at an exercise price of $7.22 ... with an expiration date of January 7, 2014..." [SEC Form 4/A, filed 01/06/09].
If he, a Taser insider in all senses of the word, can issue such twisted propaganda with a view of defending the indefensible, and if he can get the TASR stock back up over $21, then he makes a cool half-million dollars.
Aren't there SEC rules about such stock market manipulation? Aren't such company-originating propaganda supposed to be subject to SEC rules? With disclaimers, disclosures and such-like? Are company insiders and major options holders allowed to manipulate the market like this?
HELLO SEC REGULATORS !!!
Between the comments on the Salt Lake Tribune website [LINK] (and don't miss the several pages of comments...), and the Truth ... Not Tasers blog [LINK], and here [LINK], Dr. Kroll's pathetic arguments and purported facts have been systematically shredded by the members of the public.
All that's left is that he believes that over-exertion can kill, and tasers cannot. But he fails to acknowledge that tasers cause uncontrolled and extreme physical exertion. Ba da bing.
* Mark W. Kroll "...holds an option to acquire 36,000 shares of stock at an exercise price of $7.22 ... with an expiration date of January 7, 2014..." [SEC Form 4/A, filed 01/06/09].
If he, a Taser insider in all senses of the word, can issue such twisted propaganda with a view of defending the indefensible, and if he can get the TASR stock back up over $21, then he makes a cool half-million dollars.
Aren't there SEC rules about such stock market manipulation? Aren't such company-originating propaganda supposed to be subject to SEC rules? With disclaimers, disclosures and such-like? Are company insiders and major options holders allowed to manipulate the market like this?
HELLO SEC REGULATORS !!!
Nearly-instant Internet video from mobile phones
A very, very long time ago (two months - April 2009), I made a prediction that mobile telephones would eventually be able to stream live video to the Internet. [LINK] So far as I know, we're not quite there yet (out-bound live video streaming).
But a similar, not quite real-time, function is available now.
Modern "3G" mobile phones can capture a good quality still image or an SD-quality video, and then post it to a blog (or anywhere else on the Internet) with the press of a button or two. One simple approach is the 'mail-to-blog' feature.
Still images can appear on the Internet within seconds. Maybe a grand total of 30 seconds from pressing the shutter button, to the image being available worldwide on the Internet. Seriously. Literally about thirty seconds. From Click to on the 'net. 30 seconds. Wow.
Videos take a bit longer. It seems that many websites need to 'process' the video before it appears on the website and is actually available for viewing. This delay ranges from maybe two minutes to perhaps ten. But the video file will have left the phone within seconds (depending on the size of the file).
And these can all be linked to social networking sites for instant notification. I've a friend that monitors Twitter Trends so that he knows the worldwide news virtually as soon as it happens.
Sarcasm: Police agencies should save their money. No need to purchase expensive video devices and vastly overpriced storage 'service' recurring fees. For any disturbance in a public location, members of the public will provide more-than-adequate video coverage. Free.
But a similar, not quite real-time, function is available now.
Modern "3G" mobile phones can capture a good quality still image or an SD-quality video, and then post it to a blog (or anywhere else on the Internet) with the press of a button or two. One simple approach is the 'mail-to-blog' feature.
Still images can appear on the Internet within seconds. Maybe a grand total of 30 seconds from pressing the shutter button, to the image being available worldwide on the Internet. Seriously. Literally about thirty seconds. From Click to on the 'net. 30 seconds. Wow.
Videos take a bit longer. It seems that many websites need to 'process' the video before it appears on the website and is actually available for viewing. This delay ranges from maybe two minutes to perhaps ten. But the video file will have left the phone within seconds (depending on the size of the file).
And these can all be linked to social networking sites for instant notification. I've a friend that monitors Twitter Trends so that he knows the worldwide news virtually as soon as it happens.
Sarcasm: Police agencies should save their money. No need to purchase expensive video devices and vastly overpriced storage 'service' recurring fees. For any disturbance in a public location, members of the public will provide more-than-adequate video coverage. Free.
Dr. Mark Kroll supports 'Blood pH' taser-death mechanism
Kroll has graciously provided direct support for the 'Blood pH' taser death mechanism. [LINK]
Dr. Mark Kroll: "The fundamentals of an excited delirium [+ taser] death are not that difficult to understand. Our bodies have limits to exertion. ... would eventually tire and slow down or stop because our brain recognizes signals of overexertion such as acid in our blood. If we were to continue -- because our brain ignored such signals [or because you're being tasered] -- we would exert ourselves until we died. The body has limits for a reason. If these limits are sufficiently exceeded we will die." [LINK]
What does the taser do even when it is working exactly as planned?
It locks-up muscles, perhaps many muscles. Perhaps similar to weight lifters when they strain every muscle in their bodies.
To quote the obviously-incomplete and liability-inducing taser warning sheet:
"The TASER device can cause strong muscle contractions that may result in physical exertion or athletic/sports-type injuries."
Now think!
What would be the exactly worst device to use on someone that might already be worked up in the manner described by Kroll? The subject is already teetering on the edge of their limits of exertion. And the officer comes along, and (in accordance with his training and product promises) gives them a good solid tasering (more physical exertion), and thereby pushes them right over the edge, and the victim ends up dead.
It all makes sense.
Dangerously exerted. Add lots more involuntary physical exertion. Surprise, surprise.
This alternate (non-cardiac) explanation for taser-CAUSED deaths suggested by Dr. Mark Kroll is exactly in alignment with the 'Blood pH' taser death mechanism which won the "$6.2M" FAILURE TO WARN lawsuit against Taser International. [LINK]
Given that Dr. Mark Kroll sits on (...a thick stack of TASR stocks and options, and on...) the scientific and medical advisory board for TASER International, his opinion regarding this self-evident taser-induced death mechanism might be quite useful for the next flood of 'Blood pH' (or anything similar) taser death lawsuits.
The original story is here [LINK]. Plaintiff lawyers may wish to grab a copy and compare this admission to the obviously-incomplete official Taser product warning sheet.
Dr. Mark Kroll's statement may be directly applicable to the likely-inevitable lawsuit regarding the death of Brian Cardall. He's just tossed Taser International into the mix.
Note also - all of this also fits into the RCMP warning that tasers are especially dangerous (including risk of death) when used on people in an agitated state.
See also the comments associated with Kroll's letter [LINK].
"So, Excited delirium is a term invented when COWBOYS roamed the wild wild west huh? Makes sense. It uses about the same amount of medical mentality and knowledge as they had 200 years ago when everyone carried a gun, rode a horse, and dodged sagebrush on their way to work shoeing horses."
"Mark Kroll is about as deceptive a shill as they come. If a search is done from the AMA website using their search function not a single document comes up that is available to be accessed by the public that even mentions "excited delirium". The true fact is that the AMA DOES NOT recognize 'excited delirium' as a valid medical or psychiatric condition. That fact is easily confirmed by performing a simple Google search. It is also not recognized by the American Psychiatric Association as a valid medical or psychiatric condition..."
PS: I wonder if Taser International is on the line to Kroll telling him to Shut up!, or if this is part of an elaborate scheme to (somehow?) reduce liability in the long run.
Dr. Mark Kroll: "The fundamentals of an excited delirium [+ taser] death are not that difficult to understand. Our bodies have limits to exertion. ... would eventually tire and slow down or stop because our brain recognizes signals of overexertion such as acid in our blood. If we were to continue -- because our brain ignored such signals [or because you're being tasered] -- we would exert ourselves until we died. The body has limits for a reason. If these limits are sufficiently exceeded we will die." [LINK]
What does the taser do even when it is working exactly as planned?
It locks-up muscles, perhaps many muscles. Perhaps similar to weight lifters when they strain every muscle in their bodies.
To quote the obviously-incomplete and liability-inducing taser warning sheet:
"The TASER device can cause strong muscle contractions that may result in physical exertion or athletic/sports-type injuries."
Now think!
What would be the exactly worst device to use on someone that might already be worked up in the manner described by Kroll? The subject is already teetering on the edge of their limits of exertion. And the officer comes along, and (in accordance with his training and product promises) gives them a good solid tasering (more physical exertion), and thereby pushes them right over the edge, and the victim ends up dead.
It all makes sense.
Dangerously exerted. Add lots more involuntary physical exertion. Surprise, surprise.
This alternate (non-cardiac) explanation for taser-CAUSED deaths suggested by Dr. Mark Kroll is exactly in alignment with the 'Blood pH' taser death mechanism which won the "$6.2M" FAILURE TO WARN lawsuit against Taser International. [LINK]
Given that Dr. Mark Kroll sits on (...a thick stack of TASR stocks and options, and on...) the scientific and medical advisory board for TASER International, his opinion regarding this self-evident taser-induced death mechanism might be quite useful for the next flood of 'Blood pH' (or anything similar) taser death lawsuits.
The original story is here [LINK]. Plaintiff lawyers may wish to grab a copy and compare this admission to the obviously-incomplete official Taser product warning sheet.
Dr. Mark Kroll's statement may be directly applicable to the likely-inevitable lawsuit regarding the death of Brian Cardall. He's just tossed Taser International into the mix.
Note also - all of this also fits into the RCMP warning that tasers are especially dangerous (including risk of death) when used on people in an agitated state.
See also the comments associated with Kroll's letter [LINK].
"So, Excited delirium is a term invented when COWBOYS roamed the wild wild west huh? Makes sense. It uses about the same amount of medical mentality and knowledge as they had 200 years ago when everyone carried a gun, rode a horse, and dodged sagebrush on their way to work shoeing horses."
"Mark Kroll is about as deceptive a shill as they come. If a search is done from the AMA website using their search function not a single document comes up that is available to be accessed by the public that even mentions "excited delirium". The true fact is that the AMA DOES NOT recognize 'excited delirium' as a valid medical or psychiatric condition. That fact is easily confirmed by performing a simple Google search. It is also not recognized by the American Psychiatric Association as a valid medical or psychiatric condition..."
PS: I wonder if Taser International is on the line to Kroll telling him to Shut up!, or if this is part of an elaborate scheme to (somehow?) reduce liability in the long run.
Manitoban dies from...
Headline: Third Manitoban dies from swine flu
A third person in Manitoba has died from swine flu, the Manitoba government announced Thursday. Few details were provided about the death, other than the person had "underlying medical conditions." [LINK]
My condolences to the family, and I hope they'll forgive me for using this as an example.
Why is this 'swine flu death' news story on the Excited-Delirium blog?
It's because of the relationship between the stated cause of death ("swine flu") and the "underlying medical conditions." Even given the contributing factor of the underlying medical conditions, it's still called a 'swine flu' death.
The underlying conditions certainly deserve a mention, but there's no twisted logic regarding the actual and obvious-to-all cause of death.
As opposed to...
SWINEVILLE, Ariz., June 25, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- SWINE-FLU International, Inc. (Nasdaq: OINK), the market leader in advanced swine flu infections (SWIs), has issued the following NEWS Alert:
According to an article on the June 25, 2009 edition of CBC Manitoba's on-line news website, entitled "Third Manitoban dies from swine flu," a third person in Manitoba has purportedly died "...from swine flu...".
Few details were provided about the death, other than the person had "underlying medical conditions," according to a government news release.
It is important to note that this case is still under investigation. It is premature to draw any conclusions about the cause of death until after a lengthy delay when things might have blown over.
SWINE-FLU International, Inc. would like to point out that swine flu has never been 'directly' linked to any death in the north-eastern section of Manitoba on an early-summer Thursday in a year ending with the digit "9". Not once.
The complete story is available at: http://news.google.com/news?q=swine+flu.
This information was compiled through publicly available media reports and distributed by SWINE-FLU International, Inc. of Swineville, Arizona.
SWINE-FLU International disclaims any responsibility for the accuracy of the media. The reports are the sole responsibility of the attributed media source.
For more information on enjoying the many life-saving benefits of swine flu, please visit: www.swinefluinternational.com.
A third person in Manitoba has died from swine flu, the Manitoba government announced Thursday. Few details were provided about the death, other than the person had "underlying medical conditions." [LINK]
My condolences to the family, and I hope they'll forgive me for using this as an example.
Why is this 'swine flu death' news story on the Excited-Delirium blog?
It's because of the relationship between the stated cause of death ("swine flu") and the "underlying medical conditions." Even given the contributing factor of the underlying medical conditions, it's still called a 'swine flu' death.
The underlying conditions certainly deserve a mention, but there's no twisted logic regarding the actual and obvious-to-all cause of death.
As opposed to...
SWINEVILLE, Ariz., June 25, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- SWINE-FLU International, Inc. (Nasdaq: OINK), the market leader in advanced swine flu infections (SWIs), has issued the following NEWS Alert:
According to an article on the June 25, 2009 edition of CBC Manitoba's on-line news website, entitled "Third Manitoban dies from swine flu," a third person in Manitoba has purportedly died "...from swine flu...".
Few details were provided about the death, other than the person had "underlying medical conditions," according to a government news release.
It is important to note that this case is still under investigation. It is premature to draw any conclusions about the cause of death until after a lengthy delay when things might have blown over.
SWINE-FLU International, Inc. would like to point out that swine flu has never been 'directly' linked to any death in the north-eastern section of Manitoba on an early-summer Thursday in a year ending with the digit "9". Not once.
The complete story is available at: http://news.google.com/news?q=swine+flu.
This information was compiled through publicly available media reports and distributed by SWINE-FLU International, Inc. of Swineville, Arizona.
SWINE-FLU International disclaims any responsibility for the accuracy of the media. The reports are the sole responsibility of the attributed media source.
For more information on enjoying the many life-saving benefits of swine flu, please visit: www.swinefluinternational.com.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Bobbies refuse tasers
British police (Bobbies) are world-famous as being some of the very best. The old joke goes that 'Heaven is where the police are British...'.
Many Bobbies are not even issued firearms.
The [London, UK] Metropolitan Police has rejected plans to extend the use of taser weapons to non-firearms officers. The country's largest force has snubbed Home Office policy to give out 10,000 more of the electric shock weapons. The Met and Sussex Police will not give the weapons to any officers not also trained to use firearms, a freedom of information request has revealed. [LINK]
LONDON, June 22 (UPI) -- Several major British police forces say they are refusing the government's calls to extend the use of taser stun guns to thousands of officers. The Sussex Police have joined the London Metropolitan Police in refusing to extend the use of tasers to officers who are not specially trained to wield the weapons... [LINK]
See also a Daily Mail story via TNT: [LINK]
Other UK jurisdictions are contemplating the same thing.
Suggestion - In Canada, tasers are considered to be 'Prohibited Firearms' (note the keyword FIREARMS). Canadians, in general, are not known for being unreasonable people. Did I mention "FIREARMS"?
One of the people pushing tasers in the UK was former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. She was recently forced to step down after her husband accidentally billed some porn flicks to the British taxpayer, and Jacqui herself was caught fiddling her residence expenses ("...claimed £116,000 expenses for her sister's home in London..."). [LINK]
Many Bobbies are not even issued firearms.
The [London, UK] Metropolitan Police has rejected plans to extend the use of taser weapons to non-firearms officers. The country's largest force has snubbed Home Office policy to give out 10,000 more of the electric shock weapons. The Met and Sussex Police will not give the weapons to any officers not also trained to use firearms, a freedom of information request has revealed. [LINK]
LONDON, June 22 (UPI) -- Several major British police forces say they are refusing the government's calls to extend the use of taser stun guns to thousands of officers. The Sussex Police have joined the London Metropolitan Police in refusing to extend the use of tasers to officers who are not specially trained to wield the weapons... [LINK]
See also a Daily Mail story via TNT: [LINK]
Other UK jurisdictions are contemplating the same thing.
Suggestion - In Canada, tasers are considered to be 'Prohibited Firearms' (note the keyword FIREARMS). Canadians, in general, are not known for being unreasonable people. Did I mention "FIREARMS"?
One of the people pushing tasers in the UK was former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. She was recently forced to step down after her husband accidentally billed some porn flicks to the British taxpayer, and Jacqui herself was caught fiddling her residence expenses ("...claimed £116,000 expenses for her sister's home in London..."). [LINK]
Edmonton Sun columnist Andrew Hanon on tasers
I don't know if Mr. Hanon gets to write his own headlines, but this one certainly misses some critical details.
U.S. docs support stun guns [LINK]
In fact, the AMA position was far more subtle than the headline claims. Here is an extract from a previous post [LINK] on the same subject:
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]
If (oh, if only...) those concerns listed above (matching almost exactly what almost all taser-critics have been saying) were fully addressed and completely solved, then perhaps it would put us into a position where the promises made by the Phaser salesmen might just barely start to reflect reality. That imaginary world would be where tasers are used only to replace higher forms of force, not lower forms of force.
Dream on sunshine. Now snap out of it.
Mr. Hanon tries to compare taser stun guns to automobiles, and tries to make a comparison in the death rates. This is a horrible bit of illogical nonsense, but let's extend the analogy and see how it stands up.
Imagine if there was a company that made ultra high performance motorcycles, AND claimed that they were perfectly safe and could therefore be driven at maximum speed all the time. Any crash-associated deaths of speeding bikers was obviously due to unrelated factors and had nothing to do with the marketing approach.
That's the insane and warped world of tasers. The manufacturer keeps saying that they cannot possibly directly cause deaths. But many reasonable people draw a different conclusion. Everything flows from this one fundamental issue.
One interesting tidbit mentioned by Mr. Hanon is the following:
"...in the past decade, 20 people across the entire country (six in Edmonton [I think that he means the province of ALBERTA]) have died shortly after being zapped by a police stun gun. ..."
Do you see any problem with that?
Perhaps Mr. Hanon should stop apologising for the pro-taser lobby and start asking why 30% of the taser-associated deaths in Canada are occuring in his province.
U.S. docs support stun guns [LINK]
In fact, the AMA position was far more subtle than the headline claims. Here is an extract from a previous post [LINK] on the same subject:
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]
If (oh, if only...) those concerns listed above (matching almost exactly what almost all taser-critics have been saying) were fully addressed and completely solved, then perhaps it would put us into a position where the promises made by the Phaser salesmen might just barely start to reflect reality. That imaginary world would be where tasers are used only to replace higher forms of force, not lower forms of force.
Dream on sunshine. Now snap out of it.
Mr. Hanon tries to compare taser stun guns to automobiles, and tries to make a comparison in the death rates. This is a horrible bit of illogical nonsense, but let's extend the analogy and see how it stands up.
Imagine if there was a company that made ultra high performance motorcycles, AND claimed that they were perfectly safe and could therefore be driven at maximum speed all the time. Any crash-associated deaths of speeding bikers was obviously due to unrelated factors and had nothing to do with the marketing approach.
That's the insane and warped world of tasers. The manufacturer keeps saying that they cannot possibly directly cause deaths. But many reasonable people draw a different conclusion. Everything flows from this one fundamental issue.
One interesting tidbit mentioned by Mr. Hanon is the following:
"...in the past decade, 20 people across the entire country (six in Edmonton [I think that he means the province of ALBERTA]) have died shortly after being zapped by a police stun gun. ..."
Do you see any problem with that?
Perhaps Mr. Hanon should stop apologising for the pro-taser lobby and start asking why 30% of the taser-associated deaths in Canada are occuring in his province.
Moberly, MO pays $2.4M - plus Taser Moratorium !!!
Moberly, MO - Attorneys say a northeast Missouri city has agreed to pay $2.4 million to survivors of a man who died after police fired a taser at him numerous times. Lawyers for the family of 23-year-old Stanley Harlan say the settlement with the city of Moberly was filed Monday in U.S. District Court in St. Louis. The agreement includes an indefinite moratorium on the use of Tasers by Moberly police officers. [LINK]
I told you that 2009 was going to be 'an interesting year' for Taser International.
Other jurisdictions might wish to consider this news carefully.
I told you that 2009 was going to be 'an interesting year' for Taser International.
Other jurisdictions might wish to consider this news carefully.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Handbag fight within The Church of Taser ?
Compare and contrast:
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] [LINK]
But Australia’s Taser distributor, George Hateley, told the Australian he has warned police authorities not to shoot Tasers more than once. Hately was personally involved in training Australian police in the use of the weapon. [LINK]
Welcome to the muddled, inconsistent, make-it-up-as-they-go-along world of taser 'safety'.
In case you're wondering who is right, see [LINK].
I'll bet that the phones lines from Scottsdale, AZ to Mr. George 'Multiple-Taser-Hits-Are-Dangerous' Hateley in Australia are carrying some heated conversations.
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] [LINK]
But Australia’s Taser distributor, George Hateley, told the Australian he has warned police authorities not to shoot Tasers more than once. Hately was personally involved in training Australian police in the use of the weapon. [LINK]
Welcome to the muddled, inconsistent, make-it-up-as-they-go-along world of taser 'safety'.
In case you're wondering who is right, see [LINK].
I'll bet that the phones lines from Scottsdale, AZ to Mr. George 'Multiple-Taser-Hits-Are-Dangerous' Hateley in Australia are carrying some heated conversations.
Use your head...
Could 'excited delirium' be cause of [taser-associated] deaths? [LINK]
There have been hundreds of people that have died just AFTER being tasered. Often within seconds, sometimes the symptoms begin within minutes as the disturbed heart rhythm falters (Google the keywords taser + asystole or bradycardia).
So how many people have died of 'excited delirium' just BEFORE being tasered? Logically you'd expect to have an approximately equal number of reports from the police that they were just about to taser someone, when the subject suddenly dropped dead in front of them (just before the taser was used). I've not seen any such reports, but there should be hundreds.
Conclusion? Cause-and-effect follows in the correct temporal order.
There have been hundreds of people that have died just AFTER being tasered. Often within seconds, sometimes the symptoms begin within minutes as the disturbed heart rhythm falters (Google the keywords taser + asystole or bradycardia).
So how many people have died of 'excited delirium' just BEFORE being tasered? Logically you'd expect to have an approximately equal number of reports from the police that they were just about to taser someone, when the subject suddenly dropped dead in front of them (just before the taser was used). I've not seen any such reports, but there should be hundreds.
Conclusion? Cause-and-effect follows in the correct temporal order.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Intriguing study titles...
Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences - 2009 Annual Meeting [LINK]
A Five Year Study of Ineffective Taser Deployments - Komaal Collie, Florida Gulf Coast University
Tasing Down the Streets: An Analysis of Police Use of Force - Kyle Thomas, Garrett Foster, Caitlin Forbes, Peter Collins, all of Washington State University
I've not (yet) found copies of these studies on-line. Pointers would be appreciated.
A Five Year Study of Ineffective Taser Deployments - Komaal Collie, Florida Gulf Coast University
Tasing Down the Streets: An Analysis of Police Use of Force - Kyle Thomas, Garrett Foster, Caitlin Forbes, Peter Collins, all of Washington State University
I've not (yet) found copies of these studies on-line. Pointers would be appreciated.
IMIM and tasers (which are 'Firearms')
In Canada, tasers are legally defined as 'Prohibited Firearms'. [LINK] Note the word '...Firearms'.
Police in Canada, being under the control of the stun-gun salesmen from the USA, failed to notice the Laws of Canada and their entire approach to tasers in Canada has been mirrored on the practices from the USA.
...research by Ottawa-based consultant John Kiedrowski indicates taser guns are actually explicitly defined in Canadian criminal law as "prohibited firearms" – a designation that brings much stiffer rules around storage, training, certification and usage. Likewise, any offence with a firearm, such as unauthorized use, would bring harsher mandatory minimum jail penalties. [ibid]
In Canada, police claim to follow the Incident Management Intervention Model (IMIM). [LINK]
Inexplicably and indefensibly, even in the 2008 version, the IMIM makes no specific mention of tasers.
But it does clearly show that 'firearms' are at the very top of the scale, and are associated with perception of DEATH of GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM (upon the officer).
In Canada, tasers are firearms.
Using the same logic as '2+2=4', the only conclusion is that the police in Canada have been repeatedly violating their own purported intervention model.
See also [LINK] about the Canadian laws that would seem to apply to the taser Touch Torture mode.
Police in Canada, being under the control of the stun-gun salesmen from the USA, failed to notice the Laws of Canada and their entire approach to tasers in Canada has been mirrored on the practices from the USA.
...research by Ottawa-based consultant John Kiedrowski indicates taser guns are actually explicitly defined in Canadian criminal law as "prohibited firearms" – a designation that brings much stiffer rules around storage, training, certification and usage. Likewise, any offence with a firearm, such as unauthorized use, would bring harsher mandatory minimum jail penalties. [ibid]
In Canada, police claim to follow the Incident Management Intervention Model (IMIM). [LINK]
Inexplicably and indefensibly, even in the 2008 version, the IMIM makes no specific mention of tasers.
But it does clearly show that 'firearms' are at the very top of the scale, and are associated with perception of DEATH of GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM (upon the officer).
In Canada, tasers are firearms.
Using the same logic as '2+2=4', the only conclusion is that the police in Canada have been repeatedly violating their own purported intervention model.
See also [LINK] about the Canadian laws that would seem to apply to the taser Touch Torture mode.
Braidwood Inquiry should call Pam Schreiner
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
