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.

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.

July 1, 2009

An excellent point.

Taser's cheap stage trick

Headline:
"Tasers offer police additional nonlethal options"
- by The Republican Newsroom [LINK]



Several points need to be made here:

1) Note that the misleading word "nonlethal" is back (as opposed to less-lethal).
2) Many cults use painful rites of passage as part of their brainwashing.
3) Note the continuing use of FAKE demos into the trainee's (cardiac safer) back.


The fact that essentially all taser training hits and demos are into the back (never the chest) is clear and compelling evidence that Taser International (who influences the training standards to the point of control) understands the risks of chest-side taser hits. They want to build up the number of deployments without taking the risk of killing some of their customers.

Face shields and personal cups would be perfectly acceptable, as would use of manually-applied alligator clips. Just put the current into the chest across the heart and let's see if Taser's confident claims of cardiac safety really hold water. If you really believe Taser's claims of cardiac safety, then there is no reason not to start clipping the taser wires across the chest so that the current vector passes through the area of the trainee's heart. It needs to become the standard training method - not just some small sample. Across the heart hits need to be S.O.P.

The current situation is clear and compelling evidence that Taser International understands the risk of the cardiac effects of taser hits to the chest.

If they disagree, then they only need to change their training standards as described above (chest, clips, across heart) and let it run for a year or so.

Taser lawyer David Neave hurls insults

VANCOUVER — A lawyer representing Taser International attacked the medical opinions that Robert Dziekanski died as a result of being Tasered at Vancouver International Airport almost two years ago as “junk science.” Taser Lawyer David Neave told the Braidwood Commission inquiring into Dziekanski’s death that there was no evidence that “the Taser device caused or contributed to his death.” [LINK]


Really? No evidence whatsoever? None?

I guess if you choose to completely and utterly ignore the timeline. Disregard the universal axis of time, one of the four mutually-orthoganol directions in the space-time continuum. Why would anyone in their right mind choose to totally ignore the blatently obvious time sequence? Oh, I guess that's a rhetorical question, isn't it?

Mr. Dziekanski was tasered five times for a total of 31 seconds and was dead within minutes.

The most significant thing that occurred to Mr. Dziekanski during the last couple of minutes of his life was that he was tasered, and tasered, and tasered, and tasered, and tasered again. This would be 'the most significant' by a factor of, oh..., about one hundred.

His last words (in Polish) were: "Have you lost your mind?" Not exactly strong evidence that he was completely out-of-touch with reality. When I see the video, I want to ask the taser-happy RCMP officers the exact same question.

Here is the timeline [LINK] drawn to a fairly accurate scale.

Basing the claim of inherent safety on a lack of explicit postmortem evidence, when that is exactly what would be expected for a device that is sufficiantly low power as to not be capable of leaving any explicit postmortem clues, but is obviously strong enough to cause death in some percentage of cases where the taser darts happen to land in a critical location on the victim's body.

For example, ...ahem... the chest.

And as far as "speculation" is concerned, the real world evidence, for example the taser's "Curious Temporal Asymmetry", or the finding by Prof. Savard that the risk of death is linearly proportional to taser exposure time, etc. ...these real world observations indicating direct cause-and-effect obviously take precedence over so-called "studies" where even I (a layman) can spot and describe the logical and systematic flaws.

For example, the inherent circular logic of excluding two taser-associated deaths, leaving zero, because there was no postmortem evidence. And this Wake Forest study was led by Dr. Bozeman who is quoted as saying (basically) that '...of course tasers are capable of killing...".

For example, all the so-called studies where they follow the training protocol and apply short taser hits (1, 2, or 5 seconds) to "various locations" using non-penetrating alligator clips. And we've recently noted that the darts used on training (always fired into the back) are about 40% shorter penetration depth than the real darts used on the street. And nobody but nobody ever mentions such details as the exact location of the "various" locations used.

For example, the pathetic computer model (Unileg Weeble man) that not only proved that taser were safe, but simultaneously proved they would have no effect whatsoever except to make one chest muscle twitch. [LINK]

For example, the many so-called studies that perhaps (at best) indicated that there was not a high risk of death. Duh. Strawman argument. We are arguing about low to moderate risk of death even under the worst taser darts on chest. Studying a small number of healthy volunteers not only does not answer The Main Question, it simply muddles the issue (I strongly suspect it is intentional).

For example, Taser International holding up studies of lower INJURY rates (where taser dart puncture wounds are defined as a non-injury while baton-induced injuries are counted - more circular logic), while failing to answer the mail on death rates per full deployment to the chest.

For example, where is the M26 versus X26 death rate per full deployment to the chest?

For example, where is the death rate for chest hits versus taser hits in locations that would obviously be safer?

Because the pipeline has been solidly plugged up with defectively-structured studies, many with flaws so obvious that even a layman can spot them a mile away, and with a history of nondisclosure of ties to Taser International, denial of negative findings to local government officials, redacting obviously critical technical information, etc...

And you complain about besmirching their reputation?!??!

Good night.

More than 14 million years - or something like that...

(CP) Legal power of Taser is cause for concern at Canadian inquests

You can read the entire article at [LINK]. My role is to examine the propaganda coming from Taser spokespuppets.

(CP) VANCOUVER — ...Steve Tuttle, spokes[puppet] for Taser International... "Look at our 14-year track history... ...more than a million exposures to the Taser system in the field and with volunteers."

"million exposures": The vast majority of these exposure are 'FAKE'. By fake I mean that the typical training scenario puts the X26 barbs anywhere on the trainee except across the chest. Even in actual street deployments, the 'Drive Mode' where the device is applied to the lower torso appears to be far more common than using the stand-off mode where the barbs are fired towards the chest. And even if the barbs are fired, they're only going to actually land on the chest in the worst location in some fraction of those incidents.

Taser is 'Denominator Washing'. [LINK] "More than a million" is meaningless. The X26 barbs on chest number is unknown, but it is certainly a very tiny fraction of that meaningless washed-out denominator.

What is the death rate when the barbs actually do land on the chest? [LINK][LINK][LINK]

"14-year track history": Taser's Smith admitted that "...the original technology did not work that well". And then he went on to describe the (19Hz) X26. [LINK] The X26 taser has been out since 2003. The taser-associated death rate started to go up dramatically starting at about the same time. See figure below and [LINK] for details and source links.

Death rate estimated - feel free to provide rebuttal

There's a subtle (not really) error, or propaganda trick, being tossed into the latest debate about the taser statistics in Canada.

First the taser advocates will rightly point out that a reported 'taser incident' does not always represent a complete deployment (where the victim is actually shocked). Even if the taser is just displayed as a deterrent, a formal 'taser incident' report may have to be filed. For that reason, the actual taser-shock incidents are not as common as the raw data may appear.

Fair enough. This is good news in that it reduces the actual taser abuse rate from the insanely ridiculous to the simply insane.

But then another taser advocate will use the same raw statistics to compute a flawed calculation purported to demonstrate the low risk of death.

Ah, wait a second...

Yes, displaying a taser as a deterrent probably won't kill anyone. Duh. Using a taser in Drive Mode (pressed into the victim) might be safer than shooting the X26 barbs across the chest where the current distribution may be more risky.

So let's review the stats with some estimates to compensate for this factor. This will be based on some guesstimates. If the RCMP would like to provide corrections, please - send them in.

2007 British Columbia: 496 taser incidents

How many were actual X26 barbs fired into the chest in B.C. during 2007? Probably a fairly small fraction of the raw 496 incident count. It seems (based on the news) that most taser deployments are in Drive Mode where the gun in pressed into the victim (often in the back - a possible self-evident indicator for torture as opposed to self-defence by the way).

Chest hits with the X26 are almost certainly less than 10% of the total taser incident rate. Almost certainly more than 2%. These are guesstimates to set reasonable bounds on the secret data. If anyone has actual deployment data, then please feel free to provide it.

So lets choose 5% (a guesstimate) as the precentage of these 'taser incidents' where the X26 was actually fired AND the X26 barbs landed somewhere on the chest. This (5% of 496) is the required denominator for the calculation. So, roughly 25 taserings across the chest in British Columbia during 2007.

It might be 50; it might be 10. Something roughly in that range. If you have a more reliable number, please - send it in.

Deaths in British Columbia 2007: Either one or two (Robert Dziekanski killed Oct. 2007, and Robert Knipstrom, died Nov. 2007). This is the required numerator for the calculation.

Result: 1 or 2 deaths divided by roughly 25 full-on X26 deployments = about a 6% death rate

Might be 1% (maybe). Might be 10% (maybe). Might be a bit higher. Might be a bit lower.

This finding is reasonably aligned with the common sense reaction to the spate of taser-associated deaths in Canada in late 2007. There were FIVE during THREE MONTHS (September to November 2007). That's what caught the attention of Canadians.

So the taser is not quite as bad as Russian Roulette (1 bullet in 6 chambers), but it's still arguably dangerous if the X26 barbs land in a worst case location and other factors (luck, fitness, who knows?) conspire against you.

"Safer than Tylenol" my ass.

Video of more FAKE taser training hits to the BACK

Ardmore Police Get New Tasers and Get Tased [LINK]

Follow the 'Featured Video' link on the above-linked page to watch the KTEN video.


Note how each and every police trainee is tasered in the BACK in accordance with Taser's policy of generating FAKE taser deployment numbers for use in the denominator washing of their taser safety data.

(Previous posts related to denominator washing [LINK])


Background - News reports seem to show a trend that people that die after being tasered are quite often tasered in the chest. Basically, there seems to be a statistical surplus of taser hits to the chest amongst those that die.


Those the truly believe that tasers-R-safe (cardiac-wise) should, logically, be very quick to welcome the opportunity to have all these taser trainees tasered in their chest (exactly in the manner that the taser is used on the street) to help establish evidence for their position. The fact that they don't avail themselves of this excellent opportunity is highly indicative.


Hey Taser - I double-dog-dare you to change your training policy. Have all the trainees turn around, don a suitable face shield, and take the full 5-second taser hit directly to their chest. And if they're so tough, repeat the exposure for several cycles.

If you don't invoke this policy change, then perhaps it is because you're very scared of the possible outcome. It certainly would be awfully embarrassing to have a healthy, drug-free customer killed during his taser training.


See also The 2008 Taser Challenge [LINK] from May 2008. We're coming up on the 1st anniversary of this simple challenge.

Alberta taser-associated death rate

I've been extremely clear on this point. I'm not claiming that the taser is 100% lethal. I'm arguing against the claim that the taser is essentially 100% safe (with respect to internal risk factors).


My personal opinion is that the X26 taser is capable of DIRECTLY CAUSING a death.

Perhaps there are contributing factors in many cases. Perhaps the death rate is considered to be low enough to be acceptable to some unthinking and evil slimebags. But there have been enough examples where people are tasered and then die that I personally believe that you'd have to be a complete idiot to maintain the belief that tasers-R-safe in the face of so many counter-examples.


Do the math for Alberta:

Alberta NDP Leader Brian Mason said that at least five people have died in the province after being tasered by police in recent years

Five taser-associated deaths. Maybe 2500 deployments. Same period?

Only a small fraction of 'deployments' involve taser darts hitting the chest. Depending on what is included as a 'deployment', the denominator can be washed out with everything including simple displays of the taser.

Let's assume that about one-quarter of these deployments involve the darts, and let's assume that the darts hit the chest in about half of that quarter. Feel free to pick your own numbers, it's not that critical. About 300 incidents with tasers darts on chest. Does anyone track this level of detail?

If these assumptions are true, then the unwashed-out taser-associated death rate when taser darts hit chest is about 1.7%, the same old low end, single digits as before.

This is a ball-park number because the complete data is not readily available.


For some perspective, see the Quote of the Week [LINK].

Family of teen killed by Taser shock sues gun maker

Suit accuses Taser of failing to tell officers about danger of using device near chests. [LINK]

The civil suit, filed in federal court on Tuesday, says Taser International didn't warn its customers that the weapon could be lethal if deployed near the chest, which happened in Darryl Wayne Turner's case. ...

Tuesday's suit against Taser points to a 2006 study funded by the company that concluded that users should avoid discharging the Taser in the chest area. The suit alleges that company didn't warn its users to avoid shocking people in the chest.

"There was a wealth of information, from our perspective, available to Taser that indicated that there was an inherent problem related to deploying the Taser to the chest area," Harris said. "Despite the wealth of information available, they failed to warn their customers and those using the Tasers of the dangers."

Taser International is so screwed.

How does Taser International define "extremely low"?

Stun gun maker Taser International has released studies saying a shot to the chest has an "extremely low" risk of causing a heart attack. [LINK]

So, anyone else notice that Taser International is extremely reluctant to put a numerical value on exactly what they mean by the phrase "extremely low"?

When I've had access to limited data sets that allow me to divide the taser-associated death rate by the estimated rate of taser darts hitting chest for a given region I consistently get values in the low end of single digits - about 3% as a rough order of magnitude. [LINK] Keep in mind that this is after all denominator washing [LINK] has been removed leaving only an estimated rate of taser chest hits. [LINK]

Taser International tries to leave the impression that the risk is always so low that it has never happened.

The "Cardiac Safety" page on their website makes outrageous claims, and compares being hit with a taser to being hit with a ping pong ball. Kroll makes the false claim that unlimited duration taser hits are no more dangerous than a single short duration hit. This claims is clearly false as indicated by the real world results as reviewed by Prof. Savard. He noted a linear proportionality between exposure time and risk of death [LINK]. See also [LINK].

I've noticed that the news reports of young healthy folks being tasered and more-or-less immediately begining the process of dying seems to have a high rate of chest hits. [LINK]

There's another 'smoking gun' that we're working on. We are still working on it, and we hope that we can bring it to you in the coming weeks.

A question of credibility...

For years, Taser International has strenuously denied any possibility that tasers could ever affect the heart. Their denial was not half-hearted. It was a confident and self-assured denial.

Dr. (not a medical doctor) Mark Kroll intoned the various reasons why the taser was hugely, massively, essentially-perfectly safe with respect to inherent internal risk factors such as cardiac effects.

Even when presented with the cold hard facts of young men, healthy and drug free, being tasered in the chest and being dead within minutes, they still would not allow the possibility of any risk whatsoever.

And then, in late-September 2009, they quietly release new taser targeting guidelines that recommend avoiding the chest.

Fair Use / Fair Dealing claimed

It's way past time for political leaders and law enforcement decision makers to stop putting their utter faith in these people. Face facts, they're stun gun salesmen. Of course they're going to be able to stand in a bucket of turds and speak eloquently for hours without ever mentioning the bucket of turds. We would expect no less a performance. But facts are facts.

- They've denied the risk for years.

- Others, such as this blogger and many others, have been observing and reporting the obvious facts.

- Now they've essentially admitted that there actually is a cause for concern. And it's sufficiently serious for them to swallow their pride and advise avoiding taser chest hits. It is not some minor concession. Wouldn't you want to be a fly on the wall during that meeting?

So, what have we been friggen telling you all this time?



Best keep d'em d'ere ping-pong balls away from d'e chest, eh? LOL

Kroll: "If one ping-pong ball hit to the head does not kill you, 1,000 probably cannot either."

Too bad Prof Savard found a linear relationship between taser exposure time and risk of death.

Post # 1000 - Attention: Taser International

This is published Post # 1000.

It is dedicated to the unanswered 2008 Taser Challenge [LINK]. They've never answered this challenge, and it has been more than a year.

Taser International more-or-less completely controls the taser training. For years, they recommended that trainees be tasered as part of the training. But they've always arranged for those taser training hits to be into the trainees' backs (never the chest). [LINK]

I believe that this is because they're scared sh_tless of the possible cardiac effects (whatever those may be) of so many taser hits to so many healthy subjects (their customers). There is no other reason that I can think of for their "backs only" policy for taser training hits.

What other reason would that have for the bass-ackwards taser training? So turn around the trainees and have them take it in the chest, like a real man. Not in the back like some sort of frightened school girl.

If they're worried about the darts, then trainees could wear a face mask and a protective cup. They could even clip the wires to the subject (arranged for maximum current vector through the chest) - there's really no need for flying darts.

That they have failed to avail themselves of the opportunity to prove my suspicions wrong is highly indicative.

So I will repeat this challenge to Taser International.

Turn the trainees around. Chest hits only.

It's "safe", right?


And no more 2-second hits either. Minimum 5 seconds. Trainers must take at least 10 seconds. Master Trainers, at least 15 seconds. Any staff from Taser International must take 30 seconds. Anything less is pure fakery. Especially when you claim that these training hits are evidence of safety.

New Taser Man Guidelines - didja notice the arms?

Hey, look at the new taser targeting guidelines shown below.

Did you notice the arms on Taser Man (a.k.a. Ken Smith)?

The subject's arms, like the subject's chest, are parts of the subject's body that Taser International now recommends be avoided. And not just the front of the arms, but both the front and back surfaces of both arms.

Why are the subject's arms now off-limits? What's with the arms? Are there critical organs in human arms? Perhaps there's a hidden message in those funny 'Taser Man' arms...

The LEFT arm is connected to the upper left chest. So a taser dart landing anywhere on the left arm (assuming that the other taser dart lands somewhere else that completes the circuit) would result in the taser waveform current running up the arm, left shoulder, and then through the upper left chest. Paraphrasing the old song, the (LEFT) arm-bone connects, eventually, to the heart-bone.

So what about the RIGHT arm? Why is the RIGHT arm off-limits?

Think! Wouldn't it be just a bit too obvious if their new 'Taser Man' diagram disallowed the LEFT arm and allowed the RIGHT arm? Wouldn't that sort of left-biased lateral asymmetry be just a little bit too blatent?

(NOTE: This is all just pure speculation based on a seemingly-trivial observation. LOL.)

(Fair Use / Fair Dealing claimed)

See also previous related posts:
1) Defacto admission [LINK]
2) "Avoiding chest..." [LINK]

Weebles wobble but they don't fall down...

Estimation of TASER Current Flow and Effects on Human Body

Available here [LINK] (833KB .pdf)



This human body model (bought and paid-for by Taser International) was intended to show that the distribution of taser current in the "worst case" could not possibly affect the heart.

But notice also that the calculated taser current (in this case) is tightly confined to the very small area on the chest.

Let that sink in for a second...  ...ready?

When someone is struck in the chest with a taser, a direct hit to the chest over the heart as shown in this model, does the subject simply stand there blinking, with one pectoral chest muscle twitching, and no other affect?

That seems to be what this model is indicating.

The current is so tightly confined in the model, to protect the heart (and to attempt to protect Taser International's bottom line) that there's nothing left to knock the subject over.

The only muscle affected by the direct taser hit is one pectoral muscle.

So this Weeble wobbles, but he doesn't fall down.

But the computer model analysis collapses under its own weight.

Yet another FAKE taser demo

A recent episode of a TV show called Time Warp (on The Discovery Channel) featured, everyone's favorite occasional contributor to unintentional deaths, the taser.

The TV show, being a rather mindless and uncritical propaganda piece for Taser, included the inevitable FAKE demonstration where the idiot volunteer takes a short X26 taser hit TO THE BACK.

In the real world taser hits are quite often to the chest, and they sometimes contribute to the victim's death, and there seems to be a correlation between these two. But in these FAKE demos, the taser is ALWAYS aimed at the back and everyone goes home happy and stupid.

The following screen capture ('fair use'/'fair dealing' of this copyrighted image righteously claimed, see legal notice in right hand column) shows Taser spokespuppet Steve Tuttle standing on his hind legs at the left, the stage magician wielding the X26 taser standing BEHIND the volunteer, the brainwashed volunteer with his back to the taser, and the mindless TV host who is so ill-informed of the overall taser issue that he doesn't know enough to ask the volunteer to turn around to make it a more realistic test.

These tasered-in-the-back demos are FAKE




Until Taser changes its demonstration policy to mandate that all taser demonstrations will be aimed directly at the volunteer's chest, and held for several of the 5-second cycles, then we should consider these FAKE demos to be obvious evidence of Taser's own internal uncertainty of the real-world safety of tasers with respect to internal risk factors associated with occasional, possibly fatal, cardiac effects.

Why else would Taser make sure that all their idiot demo volunteers and brainwashed police trainees are ALWAYS tasered in the back, and NEVER in the chest? Are they frightened of something?

Go ahead Taser - change your demo policy.

I double-dare you.


Everyone else should pay attention to this sort of cheap stage trickery and ask themselves WHY DOES TASER AVOID THE CHEST for demos?

And why has nobody else in the entire world asked Taser to explain this interesting and yet trivial observation?


PS: As I have previously mentioned, if required to eliminate secondary injuries from taser barbs hitting the face, it's trivial to don a face shield.

Taser International admits that tasers can kill

One comment left at The Raw Story article [LINK] is worth highlighting:

[Formatted for clarity, emphasis added, original available at above link.]

A new Taser International Training Bulletin was quietly released on May 1, 2010 on its website. The language in the new bulletin is much stronger; the meaning more overt, but it is proof positive that for the first time the company is admitting its electronic guns can cause deadly cardiac and metabolic effects.

This is ironic and contradictory, considering the company spent ten days trying to discredit Judge Thomas Braidwood who made the same conclusion in his Inquiry Commission report in Vancouver, Canada. How can Taser International justify wasting Canadian court time and subverting our system of accountability, while at the same time they are telling their trainers and other insiders that the weapons are more dangerous than they ever admitted before?

How can our police justify the continued use of the devices when they compare what they were told by Taser International a decade ago, with what the manufacturer now recognizes as very real risks to human health and what could now carry considerable [additional] legal liability, if nothing is done to acknowledge this new development?

This new Bulletin goes further than last fall's warning about the avoidance of chest shots. Taser International said then, that they simply did this, so officers could "avoid the controversy" of having to try to explain why a suspect dies in a Taser-related incident. The controversy was that it can't be proven if their weapons contribute to fatal cardiac events, not that people actually DO die because of Taser shocks. That is a subtle but crucial difference.

The new Training Bulletin is currently on Taser International's website, although acquiring the details is difficult. It is buried in a 458 Megabyte document! It takes 35-minutes to download! The salient points can be found in the Cardiac section on pages 22 to 30, in the PowerPoint presentation on the X-26 model.

Here are some direct quotes I have pulled out from the Bulletin's PowerPoint presentation:

"The risk of an ECD application having a negative effect on a person's heart rate and/or rhythm is not zero."

(In other words, cardiac capture CAN happen)

"The risk of an ECD causing cardiac arrest in humans from VENTRICULAR FIBRILLATION is sufficiently remote that making accurate estimates is very difficult."

(Thus, though rare, VF can happen from ECD strikes-- something Taser International has denied until now)

"Experts have indentified heart-to-dart distance as being a key determining factor in whether an ECD can affect the heart."

(Darts landing closer to the heart can affect it-- possibly adversely!)

"The further an ECD dart is away from the heart, the lower the risk of affecting the heart."

(Again, an admittance that the heart can be affected adversely)

"When possible avoiding chest shots with ECDs reduces the risk of affecting the heart and avoids the controversy about whether ECDs do or do not affect the human heart."

(Last Fall's red-herring warning about 'controversy' aside, it is now implicit that if you avoid chest shots, you will reduce cardiac dangers.)

"The available human data directly contradicts animal studies and does not reveal evidence of breathing impairment or respiratory acidosis."

(Another bit of trickery-- the 'available human data' is biased-- taken from Taser International's own paid researchers, while the 'animal studies' (pig studies from Kumar at U of T and Walters at Cook County Trauma Centre) are derived independently. Also, what about metabolic acidosis? That is conveniently side-stepped).

"The ECD can produce physiologic or metabolic effects."

(Like the aforementioned concern of metabolic acidosis, this is an admittance that lower PH levels in the blood from Taser shocks, can cause the muscles in the chest to stop working-- which can lead to heart failure. The frequency of the Taser waveform causes 'fibrillation', which produces lactic acid, which floods the bloodstream, leading to acidosis, which can be deadly, especially with prolonged 'applications').

"Reasonable effort should be made to minimize the number of ECD exposure and resulting physiologic and metabolic effects."

(That's because there are consequences of the number and duration of stuns, causing serious and possibly deadly changes to body chemistry; in early promotional material, Taser International wrote, "The rapid work cycle instantly depletes the attacker's blood sugar level by converting it to lactic acid..." That IS metabolic acidosis, something Taser International later claimed to be impossible. It now appears they have changed their tune again. They didn't pull one vial of blood for acidosis testing with the one pig and five dogs tested before they went to market with the M-26).

"ECD use has not been scientifically tested on pregnant women, the infirm, the elderly, small children and low body-mass index (BMI) persons, ECD Use on these individuals could increase the risk of death or serious injury."

(That risk of death is mentioned again; this warning is a far cry from the company's first promotional material that said Tasers are "non-lethal, with the stopping power of a .38... safe to use... on any attacker").

"Any physiologic or metabolic change may cause or contribute to death or serious injury."

(A chicken-or-egg scenario-- if deadly metabolic change is brought on by Taser shocks, is it the weapons or the metabolic changes that may lead to serious injury or death? IE: It wasn't the snake that killed the man-- it was the effects of venom).

Also in the SAFETY fine print, some oxymorons, and 'washing-of-hands' of liability:

"Disregarding this information could result in death or serious injury..."

(And yet...)

"These warnings are state of the art but cannot address all possible ECD application circumstances or permutations."

(User beware!)

"These warnings do not create a standard for care."

"Law enforcement agencies are force tools experts and are solely responsible for their own guidance... Taser has no power or authority to mandate or require guidance, set policy, require training or establish standards of care or conduct."

(Use at your own risk... and the risk of endangering anyone you use it on)

"Incapacitation involves risks that a person may get hurt or die."

(So Taser stuns can kill!)

"The signal word WARNING indicates a hazardous situation which, if not avoided or heeded, could result in death or serious injury."

(That seems plain enough)

"The ECD can produce physiologic or metabolic effects, which include changes in: acidosis, adrenergic states, blood pressure... heart rate and rhythm..."

"Risks of severe acidosis and cardiac arrest may exist prior to, during or after law enforcement intervention or ECD use."

(A bolder admittance-- again in the fine print-- there are risks of cardiac arrest during ECD use... and of course acidosis is generally a delayed response to shock, not instantaneous...)

"Recommend all Taser ECD users conduct their own research, analysis and evaluation."

(Above is my personal favorite from page 8 of the X-26 Powerpoint found in the new Training Manual. It is a real cop-out-- as one would think the manufacturer would have conducted all neccessary research before the devices were marketed, and that the user shouldn`t be expected to conduct the research! Verify safety claims-- sure-- but actually DO the research?).

So in summary: Taser International and so-called "experts" such as their minion "Dr." (LOL) Mark W. Kroll were WRONG, dead wrong, when they made persistent claims that tasers could not affect the heart and carried no risk of death.

We bloggers and campaigners were correct when we pointed to the blatantly-obvious real-world evidence and stated that tasers are not as safe as was being claimed at the time.

They were wrong. We were right. People were killed. Many. Probably hundreds.


Here's the tragic punchline. A long time ago it was reported that about 95% of law enforcement agencies (the ones that have tasers), are using Taser Use Policies that can be traced back to Taser International.

Not The New Taser International, but the old one that claimed that repeatedly claimed that tasers-R-safe.

So almost all the currently-in-use Taser Use Policies are based on lies. They're all defective.

How many have been updated? Very few. Canada. Palo Alto. A few other places.

People will continue to be killed where there is no intention by the naive policeman to kill.

If someone dies at the other end of your taser wires, you'd better be prepared to justify it as a lawful and moral killing.

What a fricken mess.

Taser International suggests: "Avoiding chest..."

Aim low, try to hit a moving leg with the lower dart. Avoid chest. Maybe wander around to the subject's back. Shoot the taser into his back. Just avoid the chest. Puhleeze avoid the chest.

CTV Calgary [LINK] (well done!)

At least they've addressed the observation I made that taser training hits (always into the trainees' backs) are FAKE. But they certainly took an unexpected approach to resolving the discrepancy between the training and the real world.

And the Boise "Mounted" Police [LINK] [LINK] will be happy to see that the subject's anal regions are still considered a suitable target. Taser International is happy to accommodate their client's peculiar preferences.

(Fair Use / Fair Dealing claimed)

X26 taser linked (DIRECTLY) to Cardell's death

[UPDATE: The pro-taser fanboy e-mails are all causing blog hits that are landing DIRECTLY on this post. See bottom of post for more.]

H/T to the It All Goes Here blog: Taser Linked To Death [LINK]


In June, Taser International's bought-and-paid-for minion "Dr." (not a real [medical] doctor) Mark Kroll wrote a letter to The Salt Lake Tribune in a pathetic attempt to blame "excited delirium" (solely) for the death of Brian Cardell. [LINK]

'Excited delirium,' not TASER, killed Brian Cardall, By Mark Kroll (26 June 2009) [LINK]

As is so often the case when dealing with Taser International's bought-and-paid-for minions, he was and is wrong. Dead wrong.


"Excited delirium theory nixed"...


The Salt Lake Tribune (19 November 2009) - A Taser that twice shocked Brian Cardall contributed to or caused heart irregularities in the 32-year-old man that led to his death on the side of southern Utah highway in June, the Utah Medical Examiner's Office has ruled.

Deputy Chief Medical Examiner Erik Christensen cited "ventricular fibrillation following conducted energy weapon deployment during a manic episode with psychotic features" as Cardall's cause of death. ...

Christensen's report states that prongs from a Taser deployed by a Hurricane police officer struck Cardall over his heart. While Christensen acknowledged other factors could have contributed to Cardall's death, he pointed out several factors that indicate a Taser electrocuted a naked, unarmed Cardall.

Report: "...the circumstances in this case represent a combination of the factors that are believed to increase the risk of a potential electrical death. These include the placement of the barbs over the cardiac axis, the penetration of the barbs deeply into a thin chest wall directly over the heart, absence of intervening clothing and more than one cycle of electrical stimulation. Additionally, the initial cardiac rhythm of ventricular fibrillation is consistent with findings seen in cases of electrocution."

The conclusion that the X-26 Taser, manufactured by Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Taser International, played a significant role in Cardall's death is a bold finding by Christensen. ...
...
Excited delirium theory nixed
...
[LINK]


Has anyone else noticed that there seems to be a statistical surplus of taser hits to the chest in those that die?


Note also the following facts:
1) Taser International recently recommended "avoiding the chest".
2) Taser International's training protocol has always been into the back, not the chest.
3) Training cartridges have darts that are about 40% shorter than regular.
4) Taser International hints at avoiding repeated cycles.

And for the benefit of those that might point to Mr. Cardell's mental state as being a contributing factor, are you willing to agree that tasers present a serious risk of death for those in such a condition?

So, WTF are tasers for?


2009 - interesting year, eh?


UPDATE2: See also [LINK].


UPDATE1: My tracking systems are revealing a flurry of blog hits from known and suspected pro-taser fanboy locations. These hits are landing DIRECTLY on this post. The word 'directly' doesn't mean that the blog hit happened in perfectly isolation. Their PC needs to be turned on, they have to get an e-mail, they have to click in the link embedded in the e-mail. But they there is a straightforward cause-and-effect relationship from the click to landing 'directly' on this post.

Taser International has, at times, taken refuge behind the word "directly". They toss into the air all the pre-existing medical conditions and circumstances of the incident, and then make a faulty logical leap to try to disconnect the cause-and-effect relationship between the taser, the electrical shocks it emits, the direct effect of those shocks on the subject, and the (directly) resultant death.

I'm not prepared to let them get away with an escape in the case of Brian Cardell. By any reasonable interpretation of the autopsy report (as reported in the media), it seems clear that there is, in this case, a direct link from being tasered to being dead.

And regarding the other circumstances? What they never highlight is the obvious fact that the taser is marketed for use on this exact population. If they imply that the taser is potentially deadly in such circumstances, but continue to Fail to Warn, then they're heavily liable.

Training Cartridges - darts about 40% shorter

Most taser training and demonstration hits are applied anywhere EXCEPT the idiot voluteers' chest. This issue was first mentioned on this blog in May of 2008 [LINK].

In fact, many taser training and demonstrations are accomplished with carefully applied alligator clips attached to the idiots' lower torso and one ankle.

Talk about "avoiding the chest"... ...Taser International's highly FAKE demonstration and training protocols have been avoiding the chest for many years. Coincidence? LOL. And Taser International has been quoting these FAKE demonstration and training hits as an indicator of safety. If you've been fooled, then look at who has been playing you like a trumpet.

Another thing worth mentioning is that the taser darts used in training, and probably in many studies, have a penetration depth about 40% shorter (0.25 vice 0.40 inch) than those used on the street. It probably doesn't matter for all those FAKE back hits, but if any chest hit studies used training cartridges and failed to highlight this difference, and depending who was involved in the study and in supplying them with cartridges, then it would not be unreasonable to wonder if such lack of complete details was intentional.

Fair Use / Fair Dealing claimed

"Tasering could affect heartbeat..."

"Canadian researchers are reporting that research suggests stun gun discharges are able to stimulate heart muscle under certain circumstances."[LINK]

Yeah, is that surprising?

"The researchers from the University of Toronto and two Toronto hospitals found that the positioning of the barbs, which transmit the electrical impulses from the device, played a key role. Placing them across the chest, nearest the heart, simulated 'the worst-case scenario of creating a current vector that directly passes through the heart,' the researchers reported.
If the barbs were placed away from the chest and across the abdomen, none of the 56 test discharges stimulated the heart, 'suggesting that the location of the barbs had a crucial influence on stimulating the heart'. "

Taser will protest that the study is not valid for this and that reason. Blah blah blah.

I would like to point out that this study supports my conclusion that the vast majority of Taser's "600,000 safe demonstrations" (or whatever), rarely if ever applied across the chest, are basically FAKE and serve no purpose except to wash-out the denominator of their statistics.

See The 2008 Taser Challenge - [LINK]

Let's renormalize the 1.4%

"1.4 per cent mortality for individuals subdued by police using a taser..." [LINK]

"An analysis of 183 Victoria police incident reports from 2005 to 2007 revealed the device was used in push-stun in 57 per cent of all cases where police activated their tasers." [LINK]

As Taser well knows, using the taser in push-stun (or 'Drive Mode', almost always not into the chest) is vastly safer (with respect to cardiac issues) than shooting the barbs and trailing wires towards the chest. That's why Taser loves to wash out the statistics (denominator washing) by including all deployments in any mode.

So right off the bat, we can make one correction to the overall mortality rate by adjusting out the Drive Mode deployments using the Victoria incident statistics given above.

1.4% times (inverse of (100%-57%)) = 3.3%

In other words, if the overall mortality rate for all individuals 'subdued by police using tasers' in any mode is 1.4%, and if 'Drive Mode' is generally much much safer, and if deploying the barbs and wires only occurs in about 43% of all usages, then the actual mortality rate when using the barbs and wires must be about 3.3%.

And this is being very generous due to lack of detailed data. For example, I suspect that there may be other categories of deployment such that my calculated 43% (from 100% - 57%) is too high. If so, then the calculated 3.3% mortality rate would be that much higher again.

And this is just the first correction.

Another correction might be required for the reported 20% failure rate [LINK] Or the reported 10% ineffective rate. [ibid]

3.3% becomes 4.1% becomes 4.6%.

Now we're getting within sight of the unwashed (no denominator washing) mortality rate for full-on X26 taser deployments where the barbs land on the chest.

And it all roughly matches: [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] [LINK]