Seven of the eight tasers that failed in the British Columbia round of testing "failed to produce a pulse rate high enough to meet manufacturer's specifications." Taser would probably claim that these tasers failed safe since the output was apparently lower than specified.
But is it safe to have a weapon that is experiencing a ten percent failure rate, even if many of those failures are on the low side?
What happens when your taser doesn't do what it is supposed to do?
Sometimes in a stand-off, the police might have the option of simply waiting, negotiating, or using normal calming and de-escalation techniques.
But the police have now all been brainwashed that the taser can solve all manner of situations quickly and easily (sic!). So they decide to use the taser. And then it doesn't work. Now what? You can't really go back to de-escalation at this point. "Oh, sorry about that attempted tasering. Did it hurt? Sorry. How about we try talking again?"
So, given unlucky circumstances, the subject ends up being shot dead.
Here is just one example of how an ineffective taser was involved in a fatal shooting [LINK].
(Note - the only evidence that this particular incident was a case of a failed taser is that it was ineffective - perhaps there were other factors...)
In at least some of these sorts of cases, de-escalation techniques might have been the better option.
Failing safe could be deadly.
Would you accept bullets where every tenth bullet was a dud? Would you accept pepper spray where every tenth can was filled with root beer? Would you accept a baton where every tenth baton was made of balsa wood?
It's a crap shoot. For all concerned. Things might not work out as you expect. An example of a so-called high-tech tools that apparently are not quite ready for prime time.
Even if we grant Taser International every possible consideration, a ten percent failure rate is pretty high. And this is over and above the rate of darts missing target.
Tasers: Unreliable. Untrustworthy. Potentially ineffective in some unspecified percentage of deployments.
And why the hell does it take CBC to break this story?
Where were all the highly-qualified Master Instructors? Didn't anyone notice that 10% of all tasers were not firing at 19 Hz? 15 Hz rate (for example) can be compared to 19 Hz rate by ear. Anyone paying attention? Duh!
Where was Taser International? Helloooo?
Where was the Canadian Police Research Center?
Where was the US NIJ?
Where are the Federally-approved standards?
Where are the equipment qualifications?
Where is the calibration cycle?
Where is the test equipment?
Geesus H. What a bunch of nitwits...
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query failing safe. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query failing safe. Sort by date Show all posts
Friday, April 3, 2009
Friday, February 26, 2010
Edmonton: "Cops say stun guns safe"
Edmonton Sun - Despite public concern about stun guns sending out more electrical current than specified by the manufacturer, Edmonton police say that most of their small percentage of defective Tasers have registered below-tolerance readings. And the few deemed to be above tolerance were still within safe parameters, said Const. Olena Fedorovich, of the Edmonton Police Service officer safety unit. "There’s an assumption that they’re above tolerance. They’re not. They’re below most of the time. There have been a few where either their pulse rate or main phase was slightly above manufacturer’s specifications — but they’re still considered safe." Chief Mike Boyd told the Edmonton Police Commission last week that 23 conducted energy weapons (CEWs) were pulled from service in 2009 because they failed independent testing. That amounted to about 6% of the EPS’s stock last year. ... [LINK]
Naive and stupid.
Even if the tasers are "failing safe" (electrical output on the low side), that still makes them (even more than normal) unreliable. And an unreliable weapon is a very very very dangerous weapon. For everyone involved (police AND the subject themselves).
See [LINK] for detailed explanation.
Example 1: "Police shocked the man with a Taser stun gun twice, with no effect. Officers then fatally shot the man." [LINK]
Example 2: Taser had no effect - Or did it? [LINK]
There have been innumerable examples of ineffective tasers, some with directly deadly consequences that might not have occurred with other (deescalation) approaches.
This amount of explaining away of tasers failing by the Edmonton police is very disturbing. They shouldn't be doing that. It's indicative of the level of 'Church of Taser' type-thinking within the law enforcement community.
Well duh!
Naive and stupid.
Even if the tasers are "failing safe" (electrical output on the low side), that still makes them (even more than normal) unreliable. And an unreliable weapon is a very very very dangerous weapon. For everyone involved (police AND the subject themselves).
See [LINK] for detailed explanation.
Example 1: "Police shocked the man with a Taser stun gun twice, with no effect. Officers then fatally shot the man." [LINK]
Example 2: Taser had no effect - Or did it? [LINK]
There have been innumerable examples of ineffective tasers, some with directly deadly consequences that might not have occurred with other (deescalation) approaches.
This amount of explaining away of tasers failing by the Edmonton police is very disturbing. They shouldn't be doing that. It's indicative of the level of 'Church of Taser' type-thinking within the law enforcement community.
Fedorovich admitted that some officers have some apprehension about using CEWs stemming from recent controversy. "...[members] also have a heightened understanding of the liability and accountability associated to it."
Well duh!
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
More, many more, defective tasers (80% now?)
British Columbia's Solicitor General Rich Coleman ordered the RCMP in B.C. to yank more than 570 older-model [M-26] Tasers from deployment after 80% [!!!] of identical models used by other law-enforcement agencies failed routine performance tests. The tests showed the $1,500 [junk] were not generating the required amount of sustained output... [LINK]
They're right to pull these defective peices of junk off the street. Taser's idiot spokespuppet once tried to claim that failing low was failing safe. I was one of the first to point out that such "failing safe" claims were utter crap. [LINK] [LINK] [LINK]
But I'd still like to point out that I feel that the X-26 taser is the one that appears to be more-commonly associated with taser-associated deaths. The M-26 taser provides a potentially useful experimental control. [LINK]
Where's the fricken' M-26 vs. X-26 data? [LINK] [LINK]
With a price tag of $1,500 to replace the weapon, and an apparently abysmal life span (three years since purchase) one can't help but wonder - never mind the controversy around its use - how cost-effective the Tasers are to begin with. [ibdi]
They're right to pull these defective peices of junk off the street. Taser's idiot spokespuppet once tried to claim that failing low was failing safe. I was one of the first to point out that such "failing safe" claims were utter crap. [LINK] [LINK] [LINK]
But I'd still like to point out that I feel that the X-26 taser is the one that appears to be more-commonly associated with taser-associated deaths. The M-26 taser provides a potentially useful experimental control. [LINK]
Where's the fricken' M-26 vs. X-26 data? [LINK] [LINK]
With a price tag of $1,500 to replace the weapon, and an apparently abysmal life span (three years since purchase) one can't help but wonder - never mind the controversy around its use - how cost-effective the Tasers are to begin with. [ibdi]
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Yet another example of "failing safe"
Jacksonville, FL - A police officer says his attempt to arrest a shoplifter had a deadly ending when his X26 taser, made by defendants Taser International and DGG Taser, failed him. Jared Reston says when the stun gun failed the shoplifter pulled out a gun and shot him in the chin, and didn't stop shooting until Reston pulled his own gun and killed the man. [LINK]
Previous posts on "failing safe" [LINK]
Previous post on "high failure (mostly out-of-spec) rate" [LINK]
It's intriguing to try to imagine Taser International's awkward legal and moral position with the above lawsuit. What possible defense would they have? How aggressively can they legally fight-back against this injured police officer?
Sucks to be Taser these days.
Previous posts on "failing safe" [LINK]
Previous post on "high failure (mostly out-of-spec) rate" [LINK]
It's intriguing to try to imagine Taser International's awkward legal and moral position with the above lawsuit. What possible defense would they have? How aggressively can they legally fight-back against this injured police officer?
Sucks to be Taser these days.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
A call for IEEE Spectrum to retract Kroll's incorrect claims about taser safety
How a Taser Works
The stun gun shocks without killing--but how safe is it? Two experts take a look
IEEE Spectrum magazine - December 2007 [LINK]
By Mark W. Kroll [LINK][LINK], Patrick Tchou
[technical errors highlighted]
Compare and contrast the above wildly-inaccurate claims with what was released on May 1st, 2010:
Taser International admits that tasers can kill [LINK]
The basic technical mistakes are:
1) Assuming that "average" waveform currents are applicable when in fact the correct measurement would be 'effective'. Nobody knows exactly what the effective current is, but it seems likely to be in the range of about 30 to 50 mA considering the effects. The RMS current is about 150 mA, that's clearly not right either (a bit too high). But the "average" of about 2mA is also clearly not the correct measure (duh-obviously too low, considering the effects). See [LINK].See also [LINK].
2) Forgetting Fourier and failing to consider that the DC pulse after the arc phase is low frequency and thus those spectral components are continuous 100% duty cycle [LINK]. So the incorrectly-assumed chronaxie safety factor disappears for all low frequency spectral components. Even mentioning "chronaxie" without addressing the DC pulse is an obvious oversight. Again, nobody knows exactly what percentage of the current is low frequency and what percentage is high frequency. But this blogger was (as far as I know) the first to point out that the "experts" at Taser International appear to have slept through the Fourier class during EE 101.
These errors are really quite elementary.
And these errors perfectly explain the apparent discrepancy between what Kroll et al erroneously believed (that tasers were cardiac safe by a wide margin), and the cold hard fact that they aren't as safe as was claimed.
I don't mind dumb errors, but when combined with hubris...
The stun gun shocks without killing--but how safe is it? Two experts take a look
IEEE Spectrum magazine - December 2007 [LINK]
By Mark W. Kroll [LINK][LINK], Patrick Tchou
[technical errors highlighted]
...about 1 percent of what's needed to cause the heart of the typical male to fibrillate. So the Taser's average current is far from the danger zone for healthy human hearts. ...a Taser's 100-us pulses are such a small fraction of the heart's chronaxie... ...you wind up with a pretty large margin of safety.
Compare and contrast the above wildly-inaccurate claims with what was released on May 1st, 2010:
Taser International admits that tasers can kill [LINK]
The basic technical mistakes are:
1) Assuming that "average" waveform currents are applicable when in fact the correct measurement would be 'effective'. Nobody knows exactly what the effective current is, but it seems likely to be in the range of about 30 to 50 mA considering the effects. The RMS current is about 150 mA, that's clearly not right either (a bit too high). But the "average" of about 2mA is also clearly not the correct measure (duh-obviously too low, considering the effects). See [LINK].See also [LINK].
2) Forgetting Fourier and failing to consider that the DC pulse after the arc phase is low frequency and thus those spectral components are continuous 100% duty cycle [LINK]. So the incorrectly-assumed chronaxie safety factor disappears for all low frequency spectral components. Even mentioning "chronaxie" without addressing the DC pulse is an obvious oversight. Again, nobody knows exactly what percentage of the current is low frequency and what percentage is high frequency. But this blogger was (as far as I know) the first to point out that the "experts" at Taser International appear to have slept through the Fourier class during EE 101.
These errors are really quite elementary.
And these errors perfectly explain the apparent discrepancy between what Kroll et al erroneously believed (that tasers were cardiac safe by a wide margin), and the cold hard fact that they aren't as safe as was claimed.
I don't mind dumb errors, but when combined with hubris...
*** An URGENT call to IEEE Spectrum ***
This above referenced article, especially the section written by Dr. Mark Kroll where he argued that tasers are essentially cardiac-safe, should be formally retracted, or somehow marked as "taser safety claims now known to be incorrect".
Taser International, in their latest training bulletin released 1 May 2010 [LINK], has abandoned their long-standing position that tasers are essentially inherently safe. They now formally acknowledge that tasers can significantly affect the heart if a dart happens to land too close. They also now acknowledge that tasers may cause acidosis. And they acknowledge that these are potentially lethal impacts.
The position taken by Kroll in this article was wrong at the time, and has now been contradicted by the position recently adopted by Taser International themselves. Again, see [LINK].
Because of the human-safety aspect to those false claims of taser safety, it is essential that this article be formally acknowledged as being wrong in those areas where Kroll argued (incorrectly) that tasers are essentially cardiac-safe.
This situation represents an important test for the editors and management of IEEE Spectrum to demonstrate the basic ethics that are such an important part of engineering where it intersects with human safety.
Safety claims now revealed to have been incorrect MUST be formally corrected.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Any advertising is good advertising, eh?
Nice semi-advertising, light-weight, puff-piece on Taser International at The Economist. [LINK]
It's good free advertising.
Too bad about the comments: [LINK]
It's good free advertising.
Too bad about the comments: [LINK]
Even with the mention of the "controversy", this article is a bit of a puff-piece. Allow me to be specific.
"The device’s success has been electrifying. In the 15 years since it first came on the market..."
First, the M26 taser was introduced in 1999, and the X26 taser was introduced in 2003. The company touted the M26 as safe "because" the output waveform was high frequency and very low duty cycle. But the X26 taser waveform contains a DC pulse after the arc phase. This DC pulse repeats at 19 Hz and is thus more dangerous low frequency and is continuous 100% duty cycle. This makes the X26 taser significantly more dangerous than the older M26.
The monthly taser "associated" death rate shows a clear ramp up from just several per YEAR to a running average of SEVEN per MONTH starting in, guess when... ...2003. It's an extraordinary outbreak of taser associated deaths (often a.k.a. "excited delirium") starting coincident with the introduction of the X26 taser in 2003.
Mr. Smith is quoted as saying of the XREP "...it won’t kill you." Funny, they said the exact same thing about the X26 taser that has been firmly linked to numerous deaths, and suspected in hundreds more (it leaves no postmortem evidence). The US AMA concluded that tasers can kill, "directly or indirectly". The huge $4M Braidwood Inquiry in Canada (which heard from Taser International) concluded that tasers can kill, through a variety of mechanisms, even with healthy adults. The Maryland Attorney General recently issued a report that concluded that Taser International has "significantly" understated the risk of taser use.
The XREP contains a feature, the Hand Trap, that encourages the subject to grab the device and thereby be more-fully shocked via his hand. This intentional design feature directly contradicts the recent advice given by Taser International to "avoid aiming at the chest" to avoid trans cardiac paths. The arm (especially the left) being the worst case of such a path.
Regarding their new X3: They've never admitted that the X26 was a huge mistake, forgetting Fourier transforms and accidentally dropping two key safety features, but it's worth highlighting that the new X3 reportedly emits about 40% less electrical charge than the X26.
With respect to the [taser associated] death toll, standing at 450+, [primarily associated with] the X26 taser.
1) The device leaves little postmortem clues. None that anyone has identified as being reliable.
2) Taser International has sued Coroners that dare to find the taser as a cause. It's been described as a "chill" on free and honest findings.
3) They promote (*) "excited delirium" as an alternate explanation for the taser associated deaths.
[* Their own lawyer, Micheal Brave, has registered dozens of Internet domain names with the words "excited" and "delirium" in the URLs. He has then pointed these URLs to an outfit that is studying "in-custody" (strangely: only in-custody) deaths via "excited delirium".]
In spite of these efforts, a review of 150 autopsy reports found about one-third had mentioned the taser as a cause or contributor to the death. I don't see any reason why this one-third ratio cannot be extrapolated to the entire 450. And it can only be a low-ball ratio given the factors mentioned above.
We have several cases where healthy young men were tasered and died essentially immediately. Even the famous Dziekanski cases at Vancouver, an incident that rocked Canada to its foundation, was a death by "cardiac arrest" perfectly coincident with the application of the taser for 5 cycles and 31 seconds.
Prof Savard has noted a linear correlation in the real world risk of death with the length of the taser application. More taser duration, more risk of death. The NIJ noted the same unexplained trend.
I've notice the taser's 'Curious Temporal Asymmetry' in that the taser associated deaths occur at a vastly higher rate in the seconds to minutes AFTER the deployment than in the seconds to minutes after the taser is drawn but BEFORE it is fired. You essentially NEVER read about a person dropping dead at the verbal warning before the taser hit.
It's also been noted that the taser associated death rate PER DEPLOYMENT with the X26 taser appears to be much higher than with the older (safer?) M26. In Canada the complete data is being withheld, but overlapping data sets indicate that there was a period of several years (2004...) when the M26 was still being used by the RCMP THREE TIMES more often than the newer X26, but ALL deaths in Canada (where the information is available) were associated with the X26. My question is: Where's the data to support this simple sanity check of their claims of safety?
At this point, the taser debate newbies chime in with such nonsense as:
"It's better than being shot with a gun! Duh!"
In fact, in many jurisdictions the taser is used at a rate about one-hundred times (100x) higher than the historical rate of police gun fire. This is obviously a round number, but it's a good round number.
This issue is that, exactly as concluded by the Maryland Attorney General, Taser International has significantly understated the risks.
This raises an issue with procurement of these devices. What are they buying?
The vendor explicitly claims (and maintains the deception) that tasers are "non-lethal", to quote Mr. Smith "...it won’t kill you...". Sometimes they use the term "less-than-lethal", but one wag quipped that term should be corrected to "less-than-OR-EQUAL-TO-lethal".
But the UN, the US AMA, the ACLU, the Canadian RCMP, the various inquiries, and even some researchers that Taser International likes to selectively quote - they all acknowledge that tasers can kill.
Is it legal for government departments to procure items where there is no common understanding of the prime characteristic? This is not just basic contract law, it is very very dangerous territory and can have real-world negative impacts.
Other recent news is that the 9th Circuit Court with jurisdiction over the western states has just explicitly ruled that a perfectly-typical taser deployment was a violation of the subject's constitutional rights. They explicitly ruled that the taser needs to be moved to the very top of the "non-lethal" (sic) list. They characterize the taser as "the most intrusive form of force" that they have ever encountered.
Taser International has characterized this ruling as essentially insignificant. Their spokes-puppets are spreading lies about the record of the 9th Court (it's not "the most overturned" by any reasonable measure). Meanwhile, legal experts and scholars have universally concluded it is a very significant ruling.
Hopefully this ruling is the begining of the end for the overuse, misuse and abuse of tasers, all committed by officers that have been fully trained and certified by Taser International's vertically integrated propaganda and law enforcement infiltration scheme.
In front of a Canadian House of Commons committee (SECU), the other Smith brother testified that Taser International does not provide draft Taser Use Policy. Meanwhile a survey by ACLU-NC found that 95% of jurisdictions were using policy provided by Taser International.
In Canada, the CBC (public media) undertook a survey of tasers in field use. They found that about 10% were out of tolerance. Various jurisdictions across Canada followed up and they all found a failure rate of about 10-12%. One or more units were emitting MORE output than specified. Most were underpowered.
Underpowered tasers are characterized as "failing safe" by Taser International. In fact, during a stand-off, escalating a non-violent situation relying on an ineffective tasers can lead directly to a death by shooting when the taser fails to be effective. In theory, it could also lead to the death of the officer putting his faith in it. There's no such thing as failing safe with weapons. The stungun salesmen aren't always being completely honest.
I could, quite literally, go on all day.
My blog at Excited-Delirium (don't forget the dash) now has 1500 posts on the subject. Everything is linked back to sources to facilitate independent fact checking. My own ideas and opinions are based upon these facts. My interest in the subject is purely as an interested citizen of Canada - I was outraged by the death of Mr. Dziekanski and several others in quick succession in late-2007 which is when I started the blog.
My blog also links to other blogs providing reliable coverage of the taser-related news.
If you want balance, then head on over to the company's website. Don't miss their 'Cardiac Safety' webpage where their in-house expert compares a 5-second taser hit to being hit with a ping-pong (table tennis) ball. Seriously.
Happy New Year.
PS: Local storage of officer-captured video would potentially be much cheaper. Uploading several GB per day PER OFFICER to some remote underground lair seems like a ploy to convert an equipment purchase into a 'service" with associated monthly fees. The phrase 'better, faster, cheaper' seems to apply to the local storage option, and 'worse, slower, more dear' to their money-making scheme.
"...beam the recordings instantly back to the higher-ups at headquarters..."
That must be an optional extra. The existing system described a docking station back at base. "Beaming" the video "instantly" is not part of the basic feature set presently on offer. And it would obviously require 3G/4G hardware and MORE monthly fees.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Banging one's head against a very thick Wall...
"Tasers are not the problem" (sic) [LINK] [LINK]
By Allison Wall, the Lloydminster Meridian Booster (Alberta, Canada)
Okay - stand back just a bit.
OK I’ve watched these stories bounce around in the headlines and stir up controversy and debate – even a column in the Booster – for almost two years. Everyone has an opinion on Tasers, and so do I.
But is your opinion an informed opinion?
Let's see...
Obviously, I’m a journalist – not a cop – and have never seen, touched, used or been stunned with a Taser (nor do I ever want to be), but I believe this controversial weapon is 100 per cent acceptable. If I was doing something warranting police intervention, I’m pretty certain I would rather be stunned with a Taser than shot with a gun.
This is completely stupid. Police intervention equals only gun or taser? No other option?
You are so ill-informed that you believe that every taser incident is an averted police shooting? Didn't notice that the taser incidents outnumber the historical and accepted rate of police gun fire by about ONE HUNDRED to ONE? Don't follow the news, much, eh?
And you also missed the whole Dziekanski controversy? Still have some thoughts that perhaps Mr. Dziekanski presented such a threat that it justified an RCMP bullet?
Please - get a brain and have it installed.
This guns-vs.-tasers argument has been shredded over and over again. It is not consistent with even the most basic facts. It reveals only that you are a taser-issue newbie. And certainly not qualified to spout-off in a newspaper.
It's such a pathetic argument that we don't normally even bother to address it beyond offering up your badge [LINK].
It's not normally worth the effort, but we've made a special exception for this rebuttal.
Perhaps underlying health conditions or an agitated state from drugs and alcohol could increase my chances of death from a Taser (or perhaps not), but a bullet in the chest will lead to an almost certain demise. I’m not good at math, but I think my odds of surviving a Taser stun far outweigh the other grisly option.
"The other grisly option." Oh, please try to keep up.
And there have been more and more cases where young and otherwise perfectly-healthy young men are tasered and drop dead. Taser International and their scum-sucking minions try to muddle the issues with red-herring distractions of "individual susceptibilities" and drug use.
Are tasers only to be used on people in perfect health? Not on the real-world subjects including drug users and drunks?
And even when they are used on people in perfect health, people still 'mysteriously' die.
Especially when used repeatedly. Strange correlation if there's no correlation.
Yes, we hear always hear about people who die after being Tasered, but we don’t hear of the many, many cases of people who are subdued by the Taser and live a long and healthy life (although) perhaps in jail).
Taser saves? Sure we do. Taser International loves to issue press releases about such saves. Such press releases aren't as common as you might expect.
[There will be one issued shortly, guaranteed.]
But Taser International has never, as far as I can see, issued as much as a memo about even the most obvious cases of taser abuse, misuse, and overuse. If such a guidance document exists, then they've hidden it very well.
And you may wish to consider the moral and karma issue surrounding the institution of a street-level death lottery. [LINK]
Unfortunately, Robert Dziekanski was Tasered and died at the Vancouver International Airport on Oct. 14, 2007, and now four Mounties are under fire for allegations they acted improperly and tried to cover up their actions. Says who?
Mr. Dziekanski didn't "die". He was killed; cause and effect. The only argument left is about exactly what killed him. Most reasonable people know exactly what killed him.
Many of you may have seen the video, but a simple viewing doesn’t mean we were there and doesn’t mean we have first-hand knowledge of what these officers were thinking and feeling and how they were reacting.
We know quite a bit about what they were thinking and feeling and reacting. And it does not reflect well upon them as RCMP officers, or even as humans.
And it is an indictment of the clearly-defective taser training. The four officers couldn't even comprehend that Mr. Dziekanski was in serious medical distress because they had been so badly brainwashed by the propaganda from Taser International. They didn't believe their own eyes.
The allegations against one officer include improperly assessing the situation and failing to react appropriately when confronting Dziekanski, misrepresenting Dziekanski’s behaviour in the notes and statements given to homicide investigators, continuing to misrepresent the events while testifying during the inquiry and offering a misleading and self-serving interpretation of his notes during the inquiry.
Yes, this is the first paragraph you've written that is reasonably accurate...
Let me reiterate. I am not a cop and most likely, neither are you. These brave men and women put themselves in danger every single day to keep us safe. They are on the streets fighting – sometimes very violent – crime and need to be able guard themselves. Why should the alleged criminal have the upper hand? Until we are in the situation and can understand the peril, I don’t think any of us can judge the actions of those who use Tasers.
Police work isn't even in the Top 10 list of the most dangerous jobs in Canada. More police are killed in automobile and other accidents than through violence. The number killed in airplane crashes defies explanation.
Police have guns. If they are in serious danger, they have my full permission (as if that were even required) to plug the assailant with a .45 slug. Most of the time it won't really get to that point (just drawing a gun is a good deterrent). Of course, they'll have to be able to fully justify their actions. And if they've over-reacted, they may face manslaughter or murder charges - not to mention living with themselves.
Police gun-fire in Canada has never really presented itself as a major issue. I'm prepared to trust the police and I've never felt nervous around police with guns because they've consistently proven themselves to be perfectly (99.999+%) responsible. The root-cause of this inherent responsibility is that the effects from gun-fire are so clear-cut and easy to predict. There's no shirking of responsibility.
Tasers are not so clear. Because they're trained that tasers-R-safe and they're unfortunately not as safe as is claimed. That discrepancy is THE issue. And they're about one hundred times as likely to shoot a taser as shoot a gun (taser trigger-happy). And that combination makes me nervous.
Sure, police should be held accountable for their actions when necessary, but we’ve got to realize – as in any other situation – there will always be that select group of people who abuse the use of Tasers, which should be the real crux of the controversy.
No - that is just ONE of the two primary taser issues. The other side of the issue is actually more important because it is a partial cause of the abuse issue.
The fundamental issue is that Taser International and their minions claim that tasers are essentially inherently safe with respect to internal risk factors (such as cardiac effects of any sort). "Safer than Tylenol" is one variation of their safety claim.
Some of us taser critics 'smell a rat', regarding these claims. We've detected manipulative and clearly unethical behaviour by some pro-taser forces. The numbers don't add-up. There are clear logical errors in the arguments. There are signs of technical errors in the design of their products.
The simplest explanation is that tasers are not as inherently safe as is claimed by Taser International and their minions.
And the safety gap is many orders of magnitude.
The second part of the taser issue is the abuse, misuse, and over-use of tasers. This evil springs, in part, from the faith-like belief that tasers-R-safe. If we can get it through the thick heads of the police policy writers that tasers can occasionally kill, then perhaps the abuse issue will sort itself out at least partially.
As evidence of this, I present the fact that taser use is down in Canada by about half since Mr. Dziekanski was killed (along with four or five others in the same late-2007 period). By HALF! But we're not done. The vast majority of the other half is not acceptable either.
Also, Line-Of-Duty death of police officers in Canada has flat-lined to zero since that same point in time (late-2007). Deescalation techniques are the opposite of violence. Well worth putting away the tasers and using the safer-for-all old-school techniques.
I know there is a lot about Tasers I don’t understand,...
Yes, we're in perfect agreement on that point...
...but I believe police have my best interest at heart.
In general that is true. Believe it or not, I do not 'hate' police.
I hate that they've been played like a trumpet by an unethical company. I dislike their naive approach to the stun-gun marketing.
I hate the real-world outcomes where tasers are used - plain and simple - to torture. And any police officer that uses his taser to repeatedly torture has some serious issues.
The police can do much better. But they won't unless they're forced. Their first reaction is to close ranks and protect the guilty-as-hell. And that first reaction of the Blue Code of Silence is pure evil (and should be explicitly listed as a criminal offense).
A politically-imposed taser moratorium appears to be required - if for no other reason than to capture their attention and break the spell cast by the stun-gun salesmen.
The rebuttal presented above is just the bare-bones. Please avail yourself of the information on this blog.
This blog has more than 1000 posts where all the pro-taser arguments have been carefully examined and systematically shredded. I'm not aware of a single solitary pro-taser argument left standing. Not one. If you know of one, send it in and we'll shred it for you.
Everything on this blog is referenced back to sources (sometimes via internal links to previous posts on the same subject), so you can fact-check to your heart's content.
By Allison Wall, the Lloydminster Meridian Booster (Alberta, Canada)
Okay - stand back just a bit.
OK I’ve watched these stories bounce around in the headlines and stir up controversy and debate – even a column in the Booster – for almost two years. Everyone has an opinion on Tasers, and so do I.
But is your opinion an informed opinion?
Let's see...
Obviously, I’m a journalist – not a cop – and have never seen, touched, used or been stunned with a Taser (nor do I ever want to be), but I believe this controversial weapon is 100 per cent acceptable. If I was doing something warranting police intervention, I’m pretty certain I would rather be stunned with a Taser than shot with a gun.
This is completely stupid. Police intervention equals only gun or taser? No other option?
You are so ill-informed that you believe that every taser incident is an averted police shooting? Didn't notice that the taser incidents outnumber the historical and accepted rate of police gun fire by about ONE HUNDRED to ONE? Don't follow the news, much, eh?
And you also missed the whole Dziekanski controversy? Still have some thoughts that perhaps Mr. Dziekanski presented such a threat that it justified an RCMP bullet?
Please - get a brain and have it installed.
This guns-vs.-tasers argument has been shredded over and over again. It is not consistent with even the most basic facts. It reveals only that you are a taser-issue newbie. And certainly not qualified to spout-off in a newspaper.
It's such a pathetic argument that we don't normally even bother to address it beyond offering up your badge [LINK].
It's not normally worth the effort, but we've made a special exception for this rebuttal.
Perhaps underlying health conditions or an agitated state from drugs and alcohol could increase my chances of death from a Taser (or perhaps not), but a bullet in the chest will lead to an almost certain demise. I’m not good at math, but I think my odds of surviving a Taser stun far outweigh the other grisly option.
"The other grisly option." Oh, please try to keep up.
And there have been more and more cases where young and otherwise perfectly-healthy young men are tasered and drop dead. Taser International and their scum-sucking minions try to muddle the issues with red-herring distractions of "individual susceptibilities" and drug use.
Are tasers only to be used on people in perfect health? Not on the real-world subjects including drug users and drunks?
And even when they are used on people in perfect health, people still 'mysteriously' die.
Especially when used repeatedly. Strange correlation if there's no correlation.
Yes, we hear always hear about people who die after being Tasered, but we don’t hear of the many, many cases of people who are subdued by the Taser and live a long and healthy life (although) perhaps in jail).
Taser saves? Sure we do. Taser International loves to issue press releases about such saves. Such press releases aren't as common as you might expect.
[There will be one issued shortly, guaranteed.]
But Taser International has never, as far as I can see, issued as much as a memo about even the most obvious cases of taser abuse, misuse, and overuse. If such a guidance document exists, then they've hidden it very well.
And you may wish to consider the moral and karma issue surrounding the institution of a street-level death lottery. [LINK]
Unfortunately, Robert Dziekanski was Tasered and died at the Vancouver International Airport on Oct. 14, 2007, and now four Mounties are under fire for allegations they acted improperly and tried to cover up their actions. Says who?
Mr. Dziekanski didn't "die". He was killed; cause and effect. The only argument left is about exactly what killed him. Most reasonable people know exactly what killed him.
Many of you may have seen the video, but a simple viewing doesn’t mean we were there and doesn’t mean we have first-hand knowledge of what these officers were thinking and feeling and how they were reacting.
We know quite a bit about what they were thinking and feeling and reacting. And it does not reflect well upon them as RCMP officers, or even as humans.
And it is an indictment of the clearly-defective taser training. The four officers couldn't even comprehend that Mr. Dziekanski was in serious medical distress because they had been so badly brainwashed by the propaganda from Taser International. They didn't believe their own eyes.
The allegations against one officer include improperly assessing the situation and failing to react appropriately when confronting Dziekanski, misrepresenting Dziekanski’s behaviour in the notes and statements given to homicide investigators, continuing to misrepresent the events while testifying during the inquiry and offering a misleading and self-serving interpretation of his notes during the inquiry.
Yes, this is the first paragraph you've written that is reasonably accurate...
Let me reiterate. I am not a cop and most likely, neither are you. These brave men and women put themselves in danger every single day to keep us safe. They are on the streets fighting – sometimes very violent – crime and need to be able guard themselves. Why should the alleged criminal have the upper hand? Until we are in the situation and can understand the peril, I don’t think any of us can judge the actions of those who use Tasers.
Police work isn't even in the Top 10 list of the most dangerous jobs in Canada. More police are killed in automobile and other accidents than through violence. The number killed in airplane crashes defies explanation.
Police have guns. If they are in serious danger, they have my full permission (as if that were even required) to plug the assailant with a .45 slug. Most of the time it won't really get to that point (just drawing a gun is a good deterrent). Of course, they'll have to be able to fully justify their actions. And if they've over-reacted, they may face manslaughter or murder charges - not to mention living with themselves.
Police gun-fire in Canada has never really presented itself as a major issue. I'm prepared to trust the police and I've never felt nervous around police with guns because they've consistently proven themselves to be perfectly (99.999+%) responsible. The root-cause of this inherent responsibility is that the effects from gun-fire are so clear-cut and easy to predict. There's no shirking of responsibility.
Tasers are not so clear. Because they're trained that tasers-R-safe and they're unfortunately not as safe as is claimed. That discrepancy is THE issue. And they're about one hundred times as likely to shoot a taser as shoot a gun (taser trigger-happy). And that combination makes me nervous.
Sure, police should be held accountable for their actions when necessary, but we’ve got to realize – as in any other situation – there will always be that select group of people who abuse the use of Tasers, which should be the real crux of the controversy.
No - that is just ONE of the two primary taser issues. The other side of the issue is actually more important because it is a partial cause of the abuse issue.
The fundamental issue is that Taser International and their minions claim that tasers are essentially inherently safe with respect to internal risk factors (such as cardiac effects of any sort). "Safer than Tylenol" is one variation of their safety claim.
Some of us taser critics 'smell a rat', regarding these claims. We've detected manipulative and clearly unethical behaviour by some pro-taser forces. The numbers don't add-up. There are clear logical errors in the arguments. There are signs of technical errors in the design of their products.
The simplest explanation is that tasers are not as inherently safe as is claimed by Taser International and their minions.
And the safety gap is many orders of magnitude.
The second part of the taser issue is the abuse, misuse, and over-use of tasers. This evil springs, in part, from the faith-like belief that tasers-R-safe. If we can get it through the thick heads of the police policy writers that tasers can occasionally kill, then perhaps the abuse issue will sort itself out at least partially.
As evidence of this, I present the fact that taser use is down in Canada by about half since Mr. Dziekanski was killed (along with four or five others in the same late-2007 period). By HALF! But we're not done. The vast majority of the other half is not acceptable either.
Also, Line-Of-Duty death of police officers in Canada has flat-lined to zero since that same point in time (late-2007). Deescalation techniques are the opposite of violence. Well worth putting away the tasers and using the safer-for-all old-school techniques.
I know there is a lot about Tasers I don’t understand,...
Yes, we're in perfect agreement on that point...
...but I believe police have my best interest at heart.
In general that is true. Believe it or not, I do not 'hate' police.
I hate that they've been played like a trumpet by an unethical company. I dislike their naive approach to the stun-gun marketing.
I hate the real-world outcomes where tasers are used - plain and simple - to torture. And any police officer that uses his taser to repeatedly torture has some serious issues.
The police can do much better. But they won't unless they're forced. Their first reaction is to close ranks and protect the guilty-as-hell. And that first reaction of the Blue Code of Silence is pure evil (and should be explicitly listed as a criminal offense).
A politically-imposed taser moratorium appears to be required - if for no other reason than to capture their attention and break the spell cast by the stun-gun salesmen.
The rebuttal presented above is just the bare-bones. Please avail yourself of the information on this blog.
This blog has more than 1000 posts where all the pro-taser arguments have been carefully examined and systematically shredded. I'm not aware of a single solitary pro-taser argument left standing. Not one. If you know of one, send it in and we'll shred it for you.
Everything on this blog is referenced back to sources (sometimes via internal links to previous posts on the same subject), so you can fact-check to your heart's content.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Hands up Mr. Ten Percent
BC tests eighty-two (82) tasers and finds that eight (8), or about 10%, are defective. [LINK]
Ten percent.
Again.
Same as CBC. Same as RCMP. Same as Quebec. Same as other jurisdictions.
It's pretty safe to conclude that 10% of all tasers are defective. The science certainly supports such a clear-cut conclusion and bold statement.
One of the eight failed because of mumble-mumble. What? "A number of mumble-mumble unspecified mumble-mumble reasons." Perhaps it emitted 1.21 gigawatts. Perhaps it squirted out water instead of electricity? Who knows? They didn't say...
Taser International will certainly be very proud that seven (7) of these failures appear to be for what is called 'low' output. They "failed to produce a pulse rate high enough to meet manufacturer's specifications."
Taser would call that failing safe.
I'll address that very dangerous fallacy in the very next post (above).
Ten percent.
Again.
Same as CBC. Same as RCMP. Same as Quebec. Same as other jurisdictions.
It's pretty safe to conclude that 10% of all tasers are defective. The science certainly supports such a clear-cut conclusion and bold statement.
One of the eight failed because of mumble-mumble. What? "A number of mumble-mumble unspecified mumble-mumble reasons." Perhaps it emitted 1.21 gigawatts. Perhaps it squirted out water instead of electricity? Who knows? They didn't say...
Taser International will certainly be very proud that seven (7) of these failures appear to be for what is called 'low' output. They "failed to produce a pulse rate high enough to meet manufacturer's specifications."
Taser would call that failing safe.
I'll address that very dangerous fallacy in the very next post (above).
Monday, April 13, 2009
Another example of 'failing-safe'...
Folsom, California - Reports of a man locked who was hallucinating and had locked himself in a bedroom. When officers arrived they found the man holding a knife. He was ordered to drop the knife. The man then reportedly approached officers in a threatening manner. Police shocked the man with a Taser stun gun twice, with no effect. Officers then fatally shot the man. [LINK]
Considering that there might be other old-school approaches that would perhaps have had a better outcome, one must ask if it is really wise to rush in with a taser.
Escalation explicitly chosen over de-escalation; based on promises made, but not kept.
There are perfectly reasonable arguments that would assign at least partial blame for this death on the failure of the taser (whether it was yet-another equipment failure, or its inherent operational limitations).
Considering that there might be other old-school approaches that would perhaps have had a better outcome, one must ask if it is really wise to rush in with a taser.
Escalation explicitly chosen over de-escalation; based on promises made, but not kept.
There are perfectly reasonable arguments that would assign at least partial blame for this death on the failure of the taser (whether it was yet-another equipment failure, or its inherent operational limitations).
Friday, July 2, 2010
Taser International (TASR) et al - shades of deception
Examples of deception by Taser International et al. Potentially very useful for shredding their corporate or personal credibility in court. This is not a complete list by any means.
Example 1: Claiming that the tasers (M26 and X26) emit only 2mA "average" and implying that this is relevant. This claim is utter deception; it is obviously intended to confuse and mislead those that are not educated about technical topics. See [LINK] for detailed explanation. Further details available upon request - blog e-mail address is in the right hand column.
Example 2: Do you remember when Smith4Brains testified at SECU that the X26 taser is powered by a couple of wee-little harmless [-looking] batteries of the same sort (CR123A) used in digital cameras? He was trying to leave the deceptive impression that those batteries wouldn't hurt a flea. Those claims were intentionally deceptive. Those are powerful lithium cells and they drain them at a rate that is literally off-the-scale of the battery application notes. See [LINK] for an explanation using their own deceptive numbers.
Example 3: Claiming that their legal win/loss record was unblemished, when in fact they had quietly settled some lawsuits. They described these settlements as "dismissed" and (apparently intentionally) left a false impression with many. And they did nothing to correct the false impression when the misinformation was spread by ill-informed taser fan-boys.
Example 4: For years there existed a discrepancy in that all taser training and demonstration taser hits were only ever fired into the subjects' backs, or connected to the same area, or clipped to one leg. Trans-cardiac (chest) applications were intentionally avoided. (Now they advise "avoiding the chest" for all.) And yet they claimed that these "FAKE" taser deployments were evidence of safety. They counted them as safe deployments (my term is "denominator washing"). This was deception on a grand scale.
Example 5: Claiming that the X26 taser's waveform consists of just short pulses, and claiming some sort of magical "chronaxie" safety advantage of the "short pulses". In fact, the X26 taser has a waveform with significant low frequency spectral components, and those spectral components are continuous 100% duty cycle for as long as the trigger is held down. To be fair, this false claim by them probably started out as an elementary technical oversight; it was probably not deception at the outset. But their failure to correct this dumb-ass technical error is clearly pure deception.
Example 6: Taser International fights the various acidosis taser-death mechanisms. They cannot deny acidosis, but they gamely try to downplay the self-evident role that the taser deployment would play. The deception involves their struggling to maintain a straight face while trying to pass-off their position as reasonable. See [Kroll] and especially [Ho].
Example 7: Taser International and their minions have repeatedly claimed that tasers do not affect the heart. As late as May 2009, Taser International sent their unwashed hired help, on expenses I'll assume, to a meeting of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) to try to defend this insane position (their mere attendance being an obvious 'red flag' if there ever was one...). See [LINK]. Meanwhile, buried in their legal paperwork is the admission that the taser "...can produce... changes in... heart rate and rhythm..." - see [LINK]. This is a huge discrepancy between their various statements (marketing lies, false claims, and legal warnings).
Example 8: Taser International and their minions and fan-boys have a nasty habit of failing to disclose that which should obviously be disclosed. I could find no mention of "Braidwood" (or anything similar) in their most recent Annual Report (15 March 2010) [LINK] - a matter clearly worthy of SEC investigation. Or Kroll's Mole-Role Trolls [LINK]. Or William Oliver (a.k.a. Billo the blogger) was discovered to be sitting on a NIJ panel "studying" (LOL) the safety of tasers, while actively promoting tasers in his spare time [LINK]. Or the seemingly-slimy connections, both direct and financial, between Taser International, the IPICD, and those promoting "excited delirium" [LINK][LINK][LINK] and more.
Example 9: Kroll's repeated and infamous reassurances of taser safety. His utterly-deceptive IEEE Spectrum article in which he repeats his many technical mistakes, including forgetting about Fourier (Hint: There's no such thing as 100 microseconds of 19 Hz). His claim of a reassuringly large "15-to-one" (sic) safety margin (self-evidently a vast overstatement). His claim that tasers are "safer than Tylenol". His evil comparison of being repeatedly being tasered to being repeatedly hit with "a ping ping ball" - at one time prominently published on Taser International's website under "Cardiac Safety" (sic), since then mysteriously pulled (?). All of these claims have misled people and organizations. The actual safety margin is much lower than they've claimed. And they've utterly failed to contemplate other Taser-death mechanisms.
Example 10: Taser International often makes claims and statements that appear to make sense in the limited context of the moment. But a wider view (and a better memory) reveals their statements to be at odds with their previous statements. (10a) They claimed at the time that the 1999-era M26 taser was "safe" BECAUSE the output waveform is high frequency and thus very low duty cycle. But the newer less-safe 2003-era X26 taser has a waveform that contains a DC pulse after the arc phase. When repeated at 19Hz this is low frequency and is thus continuous 100% duty cycle. In spite of the lower peak amplitude of the X26, there's no disagreement on either side that the X26 taser is the most dangerous of the two. But even well past 2003, they were still claiming the characteristics of the M26 waveform as safety factors. (10b) When asked about variations in taser current given inevitable variations in the resistance of humans, they immediately claimed that the taser is "a constant current source" and is thus insensitive to variations in the resistance of the target. Later, when investigators finally became curious about taser output, it was noted that a high percentage of units were out of spec, some were above spec. The response from Taser International was to start nitpicking the exact value of test resistor used. The contradiction is self-evident. Their habit of ever-changing stories aren't even good deceptions.
Example 11: The entire "excited delirium" (explain-away in-custody-death for hire) industry. Taser International and the IPICD (...Lawsuits) are connected right from the initial "start-up funding" for IPICD. These connections were not exactly highlighted (they were hidden, downplayed, and denied). The slimy connections were revealed by outside investigators one-by-one, including too-direct-to-be-ethical web-links to the University of Miami. Their insane claim that "excited delirium" (as might apply to a taser-death) has a history that goes back 150 years to a previously-described condition, Bell's Mania - where mental patients would starve themselves to death over a period of several weeks, is obviously utter nonsense. There are so many irrational aspects to their claims about "excited delirium" as a handy excuse for In-Custody Death (always in-custody) that the entire industry falls apart under its own illogic.
Example 12: A pair of cases where Taser International's outrageous behavior resulted in a couple of legal face-plants. These are deception (very poor attempts) because of what they were trying to accomplish. (12a) A B.C. Supreme Court judge has roundly rejected attempts by Taser International to discredit a lawyer and a medical expert who participated in the Braidwood inquiry... Justice Robert Sewell said allegations of bias and dishonesty against lawyer Art Vertlieb and Dr. Keith Chambers were "unnecessary, scandalous and vexatious," and ordered Taser International to pay their legal costs. [LINK] (12b) In denying Taser International's Motion for Summary Judgment... Judge Almquist also found that a portion of Taser International's motion was "substantially immaterial and irrelevant to the substance of the motion and created unnecessary time and expense for the parties and the court" and was filed in "bad-faith". He ordered the scoundrels to pay plaintiffs' counsel the sum of $15,000 in attorneys' fees to compensate them for the time spent responding to the motion. [LINK]
Example 13: Back in May 2009, 'someone' (LOL) in San Jose, California arrived from search.yahoo.com on "www.Excited-Delirium.com: Presentation by Dorin Panescu" by searching for first:"dorin" last:"panescu". Gee, I wonder who that was? Perhaps someone that had just returned (all expenses paid) from testifying at the Braidwood Inquiry, and was checking the news? Then, the same anonymous Internet user, accessing the Internet at an ISP-reported location just blocks from the listed address for Dorin Panescu, fraudulently stuffed the ballot box on a poll I was running. Simplest explanation is that 'someone' was caught red-handed engaging in deceptive behaviour. Fresh off the witness stand at Braidwood (?). [LINK]
Example 14: Taser International's bought and paid-for expert witness presented 'evidence' to 'prove' that the taser current has no effect on the heart. Unfortunately the same defective computer model also showed that the taser would have absolutely no effect beyond, perhaps, making one pectoral muscle slightly twitch. This is deception; but it's just not very good deception. It's laughable. [LINK]
Example 1: Claiming that the tasers (M26 and X26) emit only 2mA "average" and implying that this is relevant. This claim is utter deception; it is obviously intended to confuse and mislead those that are not educated about technical topics. See [LINK] for detailed explanation. Further details available upon request - blog e-mail address is in the right hand column.
Example 2: Do you remember when Smith4Brains testified at SECU that the X26 taser is powered by a couple of wee-little harmless [-looking] batteries of the same sort (CR123A) used in digital cameras? He was trying to leave the deceptive impression that those batteries wouldn't hurt a flea. Those claims were intentionally deceptive. Those are powerful lithium cells and they drain them at a rate that is literally off-the-scale of the battery application notes. See [LINK] for an explanation using their own deceptive numbers.
Example 3: Claiming that their legal win/loss record was unblemished, when in fact they had quietly settled some lawsuits. They described these settlements as "dismissed" and (apparently intentionally) left a false impression with many. And they did nothing to correct the false impression when the misinformation was spread by ill-informed taser fan-boys.
Example 4: For years there existed a discrepancy in that all taser training and demonstration taser hits were only ever fired into the subjects' backs, or connected to the same area, or clipped to one leg. Trans-cardiac (chest) applications were intentionally avoided. (Now they advise "avoiding the chest" for all.) And yet they claimed that these "FAKE" taser deployments were evidence of safety. They counted them as safe deployments (my term is "denominator washing"). This was deception on a grand scale.
Example 5: Claiming that the X26 taser's waveform consists of just short pulses, and claiming some sort of magical "chronaxie" safety advantage of the "short pulses". In fact, the X26 taser has a waveform with significant low frequency spectral components, and those spectral components are continuous 100% duty cycle for as long as the trigger is held down. To be fair, this false claim by them probably started out as an elementary technical oversight; it was probably not deception at the outset. But their failure to correct this dumb-ass technical error is clearly pure deception.
Example 6: Taser International fights the various acidosis taser-death mechanisms. They cannot deny acidosis, but they gamely try to downplay the self-evident role that the taser deployment would play. The deception involves their struggling to maintain a straight face while trying to pass-off their position as reasonable. See [Kroll] and especially [Ho].
Example 7: Taser International and their minions have repeatedly claimed that tasers do not affect the heart. As late as May 2009, Taser International sent their unwashed hired help, on expenses I'll assume, to a meeting of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) to try to defend this insane position (their mere attendance being an obvious 'red flag' if there ever was one...). See [LINK]. Meanwhile, buried in their legal paperwork is the admission that the taser "...can produce... changes in... heart rate and rhythm..." - see [LINK]. This is a huge discrepancy between their various statements (marketing lies, false claims, and legal warnings).
Example 8: Taser International and their minions and fan-boys have a nasty habit of failing to disclose that which should obviously be disclosed. I could find no mention of "Braidwood" (or anything similar) in their most recent Annual Report (15 March 2010) [LINK] - a matter clearly worthy of SEC investigation. Or Kroll's Mole-Role Trolls [LINK]. Or William Oliver (a.k.a. Billo the blogger) was discovered to be sitting on a NIJ panel "studying" (LOL) the safety of tasers, while actively promoting tasers in his spare time [LINK]. Or the seemingly-slimy connections, both direct and financial, between Taser International, the IPICD, and those promoting "excited delirium" [LINK][LINK][LINK] and more.
Example 9: Kroll's repeated and infamous reassurances of taser safety. His utterly-deceptive IEEE Spectrum article in which he repeats his many technical mistakes, including forgetting about Fourier (Hint: There's no such thing as 100 microseconds of 19 Hz). His claim of a reassuringly large "15-to-one" (sic) safety margin (self-evidently a vast overstatement). His claim that tasers are "safer than Tylenol". His evil comparison of being repeatedly being tasered to being repeatedly hit with "a ping ping ball" - at one time prominently published on Taser International's website under "Cardiac Safety" (sic), since then mysteriously pulled (?). All of these claims have misled people and organizations. The actual safety margin is much lower than they've claimed. And they've utterly failed to contemplate other Taser-death mechanisms.
Example 10: Taser International often makes claims and statements that appear to make sense in the limited context of the moment. But a wider view (and a better memory) reveals their statements to be at odds with their previous statements. (10a) They claimed at the time that the 1999-era M26 taser was "safe" BECAUSE the output waveform is high frequency and thus very low duty cycle. But the newer less-safe 2003-era X26 taser has a waveform that contains a DC pulse after the arc phase. When repeated at 19Hz this is low frequency and is thus continuous 100% duty cycle. In spite of the lower peak amplitude of the X26, there's no disagreement on either side that the X26 taser is the most dangerous of the two. But even well past 2003, they were still claiming the characteristics of the M26 waveform as safety factors. (10b) When asked about variations in taser current given inevitable variations in the resistance of humans, they immediately claimed that the taser is "a constant current source" and is thus insensitive to variations in the resistance of the target. Later, when investigators finally became curious about taser output, it was noted that a high percentage of units were out of spec, some were above spec. The response from Taser International was to start nitpicking the exact value of test resistor used. The contradiction is self-evident. Their habit of ever-changing stories aren't even good deceptions.
Example 11: The entire "excited delirium" (explain-away in-custody-death for hire) industry. Taser International and the IPICD (...Lawsuits) are connected right from the initial "start-up funding" for IPICD. These connections were not exactly highlighted (they were hidden, downplayed, and denied). The slimy connections were revealed by outside investigators one-by-one, including too-direct-to-be-ethical web-links to the University of Miami. Their insane claim that "excited delirium" (as might apply to a taser-death) has a history that goes back 150 years to a previously-described condition, Bell's Mania - where mental patients would starve themselves to death over a period of several weeks, is obviously utter nonsense. There are so many irrational aspects to their claims about "excited delirium" as a handy excuse for In-Custody Death (always in-custody) that the entire industry falls apart under its own illogic.
Example 12: A pair of cases where Taser International's outrageous behavior resulted in a couple of legal face-plants. These are deception (very poor attempts) because of what they were trying to accomplish. (12a) A B.C. Supreme Court judge has roundly rejected attempts by Taser International to discredit a lawyer and a medical expert who participated in the Braidwood inquiry... Justice Robert Sewell said allegations of bias and dishonesty against lawyer Art Vertlieb and Dr. Keith Chambers were "unnecessary, scandalous and vexatious," and ordered Taser International to pay their legal costs. [LINK] (12b) In denying Taser International's Motion for Summary Judgment... Judge Almquist also found that a portion of Taser International's motion was "substantially immaterial and irrelevant to the substance of the motion and created unnecessary time and expense for the parties and the court" and was filed in "bad-faith". He ordered the scoundrels to pay plaintiffs' counsel the sum of $15,000 in attorneys' fees to compensate them for the time spent responding to the motion. [LINK]
Example 13: Back in May 2009, 'someone' (LOL) in San Jose, California arrived from search.yahoo.com on "www.Excited-Delirium.com: Presentation by Dorin Panescu" by searching for first:"dorin" last:"panescu". Gee, I wonder who that was? Perhaps someone that had just returned (all expenses paid) from testifying at the Braidwood Inquiry, and was checking the news? Then, the same anonymous Internet user, accessing the Internet at an ISP-reported location just blocks from the listed address for Dorin Panescu, fraudulently stuffed the ballot box on a poll I was running. Simplest explanation is that 'someone' was caught red-handed engaging in deceptive behaviour. Fresh off the witness stand at Braidwood (?). [LINK]
Example 14: Taser International's bought and paid-for expert witness presented 'evidence' to 'prove' that the taser current has no effect on the heart. Unfortunately the same defective computer model also showed that the taser would have absolutely no effect beyond, perhaps, making one pectoral muscle slightly twitch. This is deception; but it's just not very good deception. It's laughable. [LINK]
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Air bags and air head
Taser Chairman Tom Smith compared tasers to automotive air bags. He claimed that it was okay that tasers claimed the occasionally life because air bags can also be lethal. [LINK]
First of all, I'd like to thank him for finally admitting that using a taser does sometimes result in a life lost.
Now - this comparison is an obvious non-starter.
Air bags try to save lives, but sometimes fail to save lives due to circumstance beyond their control (like crashing into a rock wall at 225 kmh for example). The malfunction rate for air bags is extremely low, certainly not as high as 1/70, it might be 1/million (a guess), certainly very rare. And I'm not aware of any significant design errors. There have been improvements over the years; but stupid design errors - next to none as far as I know. The associated dangers of air bags are well known and well documented. It's all written down, probably on your car's sunvisor.
Tasers try to lock-up a person's muscles without affecting any vital organs, but sometimes seem to fail to make this distinction due to... ??? Perhaps forgetting about Fourier? Double dipping into anatomical features? Over confidence? Hubris? And tasers are "perfectly safe" so long as you don't "fall down" and bang your head. The manufacturer strenuously denies any risk except secondary issues such as drowning or falling down. Nothing but denial.
To be clear, if tasers occasionally failed to perform and the victim was able to complete his suicide, or continued to attack the police and had to be shot, that sort of failure is unfortunate but forgivable. It is simply a QA and liability issue - such failures are not directly an ethical failure (unless the failure rate is too high). Taser could be forgiven for the occasional equipment failure. It isn't the main issue. It's the actively causing death that would be the issue.
But the failure rate does seem a bit high: "...tasers fail to work 20 per cent of the time. And even with optimal deployment -- when both darts hit the subject, ideally with a 36-inch probe spread -- one out of 10 times it won't cause the ideal five seconds of neuromuscular incapacitation." [LINK] Actual failure rate seems a bit high...
So, air bags not only have the advantage in the ratio of a failure causing death (next to zero), and also in the ratio of failing to prevent a death (quite low), but also in the ethical dimension (discussed previously).
This air bag comparison by air head is no comparison at all. It's not even a good analogy. And even if you stretch your mind to contemplate it, the taser comes in very poorly in any case.
First of all, I'd like to thank him for finally admitting that using a taser does sometimes result in a life lost.
Now - this comparison is an obvious non-starter.
Air bags try to save lives, but sometimes fail to save lives due to circumstance beyond their control (like crashing into a rock wall at 225 kmh for example). The malfunction rate for air bags is extremely low, certainly not as high as 1/70, it might be 1/million (a guess), certainly very rare. And I'm not aware of any significant design errors. There have been improvements over the years; but stupid design errors - next to none as far as I know. The associated dangers of air bags are well known and well documented. It's all written down, probably on your car's sunvisor.
Tasers try to lock-up a person's muscles without affecting any vital organs, but sometimes seem to fail to make this distinction due to... ??? Perhaps forgetting about Fourier? Double dipping into anatomical features? Over confidence? Hubris? And tasers are "perfectly safe" so long as you don't "fall down" and bang your head. The manufacturer strenuously denies any risk except secondary issues such as drowning or falling down. Nothing but denial.
To be clear, if tasers occasionally failed to perform and the victim was able to complete his suicide, or continued to attack the police and had to be shot, that sort of failure is unfortunate but forgivable. It is simply a QA and liability issue - such failures are not directly an ethical failure (unless the failure rate is too high). Taser could be forgiven for the occasional equipment failure. It isn't the main issue. It's the actively causing death that would be the issue.
But the failure rate does seem a bit high: "...tasers fail to work 20 per cent of the time. And even with optimal deployment -- when both darts hit the subject, ideally with a 36-inch probe spread -- one out of 10 times it won't cause the ideal five seconds of neuromuscular incapacitation." [LINK] Actual failure rate seems a bit high...
So, air bags not only have the advantage in the ratio of a failure causing death (next to zero), and also in the ratio of failing to prevent a death (quite low), but also in the ethical dimension (discussed previously).
This air bag comparison by air head is no comparison at all. It's not even a good analogy. And even if you stretch your mind to contemplate it, the taser comes in very poorly in any case.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Tasers "may effect heart rhythm and rate" and "cardiac capture"
What's it all mean? Is it dangerous?
The term "cardiac capture" means that the taser has randomly connected itself to the subject such that it is trying to pace the heart.
The common X26 taser pulses at 19 times per SECOND.
This would imply that the heart is a quivering mass trying, and failing, to beat at over 1000 beats per minute.
Imagine if this continued for, say, more than about 10 to 15 seconds.
Dangerous? Gee, do ya think?
Remember that "Dr." Mark Kroll persistently claimed that the taser would not affect the heart. He wrote an article actually published in IEEE Spectrum. He wrote an article about "Cardiac Safety" that was prominently published on Taser International's website (recently deleted without comment). And many more... All of these argued that tasers are "cardiac safe".
Keep in mind that this "Dr." (of EE, not medicine) headed Taser International's Medical Safety Panel.
But now even Taser International, in their latest bulletin (May 2010) admits that tasers CAN affect the heart. Especially if a dart happens to land on the wrong location on the chest.
In my personal opinion, the liability is not just civil ($), but seems to reach the level of criminal liability. It's just my opinion. But professional and corporate negligence at this level, blind to the obvious evidence that surrounds them, negligence that is associated with an unknown number of deaths (hundreds?) deserves more than a slap on the wrist.
But these are just my personal opinions.
The term "cardiac capture" means that the taser has randomly connected itself to the subject such that it is trying to pace the heart.
The common X26 taser pulses at 19 times per SECOND.
This would imply that the heart is a quivering mass trying, and failing, to beat at over 1000 beats per minute.
Imagine if this continued for, say, more than about 10 to 15 seconds.
Dangerous? Gee, do ya think?
Remember that "Dr." Mark Kroll persistently claimed that the taser would not affect the heart. He wrote an article actually published in IEEE Spectrum. He wrote an article about "Cardiac Safety" that was prominently published on Taser International's website (recently deleted without comment). And many more... All of these argued that tasers are "cardiac safe".
Keep in mind that this "Dr." (of EE, not medicine) headed Taser International's Medical Safety Panel.
But now even Taser International, in their latest bulletin (May 2010) admits that tasers CAN affect the heart. Especially if a dart happens to land on the wrong location on the chest.
In my personal opinion, the liability is not just civil ($), but seems to reach the level of criminal liability. It's just my opinion. But professional and corporate negligence at this level, blind to the obvious evidence that surrounds them, negligence that is associated with an unknown number of deaths (hundreds?) deserves more than a slap on the wrist.
But these are just my personal opinions.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Taser "Training" handbag fight in Iowa raises disturbing questions
Judging by the results, I've come to the conclusion that the so-called "Training" promulgated by Taser International over the years amounts to corporate propaganda; propaganda that leaves the unwitting trainees with an incomplete understanding of the inherent risks of tasers.
Honest training would have entire chapters dedicated to the possibility of death-dealing cardiac effects, acidosis risks from long duration or repeated taser hits, and on the uncontrollable risk of tasers being ineffective. Honest training would not assume that "excited delirium" is a genuine condition that is also coincidentally fatal in the minutes after a taser hit.
Trainees emerging from honest and accurate training would naturally not use tasers except in those relatively rare instances where it might actually be an ethical choice. Back-talking motorists and cranky elderly folks would be safe from the risk of death by electro-torture.
Given that the official Taser International training program is obviously failing to achieve these common-sense goals, it's my opinion that the official training is dishonest, incomplete, immoral, and amounts to a form of corporate propaganda from The Church of Taser.
--
[Geesus H...]
So when I read the above [LINK][via TNT] about an "unofficial", NON-Taser International approved taser 'trainer' getting into a handbag fight with the vertically-integratedmarketing 'training' pyramid-scheme promoted by the fork-tongue stungun salesmen, it raises some disturbing questions...
If the bedrock beliefs (about taser safety) of The Church of Taser are demonstrably incorrect, then who the hell are they to "certify" the entire pyramid-scheme of the official "training" process?
If the trainees are walking out of the official taser training scheme and are immediately MORE LIKELY to use lethal force against citizens (gunfire found to increase post-taser training), then what exactly is going on?
One of the root evils of the entire taser issue is that the training and policy have been controlled or influence by an unregulated cartel of fork-tongue stungun salesmen that have promoted a falsehood: that tasers are not capable of causing, or contributing to, death.
Allowing Taser International to control the taser training, essentially without adult supervision, is an incredibly dangerous abdication by the chain of command that should be traceable to elected political leadership. As it is now, it branches off to Taser International.
PS: How do you like those accusations about alledged confessions of falsifying a police report to protect the brotherhood? Is anyone following THAT up? Geesus H...
The Law Enforcement Community really needs to get 'an Ethic' and have it installed.
Honest training would have entire chapters dedicated to the possibility of death-dealing cardiac effects, acidosis risks from long duration or repeated taser hits, and on the uncontrollable risk of tasers being ineffective. Honest training would not assume that "excited delirium" is a genuine condition that is also coincidentally fatal in the minutes after a taser hit.
Trainees emerging from honest and accurate training would naturally not use tasers except in those relatively rare instances where it might actually be an ethical choice. Back-talking motorists and cranky elderly folks would be safe from the risk of death by electro-torture.
Given that the official Taser International training program is obviously failing to achieve these common-sense goals, it's my opinion that the official training is dishonest, incomplete, immoral, and amounts to a form of corporate propaganda from The Church of Taser.
--
...Iowa Law Enforcement Academy... ...Academy Director E.A. "Penny" Westfall has faced harsh criticism from officers around the state... They reported allegations that Gil Hansen, a longtime instructor at the academy, told a class that he once falsified a police report to make it appear that a colleague on the Waterloo police force had died of an accidental gun discharge rather than suicide. Hansen allegedly told the class he did it to "protect the brotherhood" and "would do it again today" if faced with the same circumstances. ...some Iowa officers attended Taser classes taught by Hansen at a time when Hansen was not certified by Taser International....
[Geesus H...]
So when I read the above [LINK][via TNT] about an "unofficial", NON-Taser International approved taser 'trainer' getting into a handbag fight with the vertically-integrated
If the bedrock beliefs (about taser safety) of The Church of Taser are demonstrably incorrect, then who the hell are they to "certify" the entire pyramid-scheme of the official "training" process?
If the trainees are walking out of the official taser training scheme and are immediately MORE LIKELY to use lethal force against citizens (gunfire found to increase post-taser training), then what exactly is going on?
One of the root evils of the entire taser issue is that the training and policy have been controlled or influence by an unregulated cartel of fork-tongue stungun salesmen that have promoted a falsehood: that tasers are not capable of causing, or contributing to, death.
Allowing Taser International to control the taser training, essentially without adult supervision, is an incredibly dangerous abdication by the chain of command that should be traceable to elected political leadership. As it is now, it branches off to Taser International.
PS: How do you like those accusations about alledged confessions of falsifying a police report to protect the brotherhood? Is anyone following THAT up? Geesus H...
The Law Enforcement Community really needs to get 'an Ethic' and have it installed.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
