[This posting attempts to put into words what your gut feelings may have been struggling to communicate to your conscious mind. I hope that this helps to clarify your thoughts on this subtle issue.]
In the simplest analysis, if tasers are used 'N' times more frequently than the gun, then they have to be 'N' times safer than the gun, just to break even.
But that overly-simplistic trade-off neglects the fundamental injustice of redistributing the risk of state-imposed death from the situation of an officer justifiably fending off a violent criminal (for example), onto the average citizen that failed to pay his transit fare (for example).
Factor that feisty little philosophical issue into the equation and you could slide the decimal point right about three more places just to achieve some sort of karma balance. Exactly how far to adjust it is a matter that could be debated. That it needs to be adjusted seems perfectly clear.
What this all means is the following:
If the police are going to use the taser about one-hundred times more often (as they have been, varies widely) than they've historically and acceptably used their firearms, then the 'N' starts out at 100 (before karma adjustment). Now factor in the karma adjustment of roughly 3 decimal places (1000x), then the karma-adjusted 'N' becomes something like 100,000.
So we would require that the taser be 100,000 times safer than the revolver.
I don't believe that this level of taser safety has been demonstrated in the real-world statistics. Not even close.
It's bad karma.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query karma. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query karma. Sort by date Show all posts
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Karma revisited
For those that are new to the taser issue, or haven't been following along this blog long enough to have read all 460+ posts, here is one topic that you might wish to catch-up on:
Karma: "...it is not fair to trade-off the lives of [the many] innocents against the lives of [a few] violent criminals that may be attacking the police." Remember that tasers are used about 100 times more often than guns ever were.
Search 'Karma' on this blog: [LINK]
The It all goes here blog [LINK] used the words: "...Are people really ready for police with unbridled authority employing devices that implement a death lottery for anyone getting out of line? ..." [LINK]
Karma: "...it is not fair to trade-off the lives of [the many] innocents against the lives of [a few] violent criminals that may be attacking the police." Remember that tasers are used about 100 times more often than guns ever were.
Search 'Karma' on this blog: [LINK]
The It all goes here blog [LINK] used the words: "...Are people really ready for police with unbridled authority employing devices that implement a death lottery for anyone getting out of line? ..." [LINK]
Saturday, May 17, 2008
c. 400BC: 'First - do no harm'
I've already posted about The Karma Factor in a previous post. [LINK]
Bad Karma - that's the problem with Smith's approach. His accounting is overly-simplistic. He claims his device "saves 70 lives for every life lost." [LINK]
What if (for example) we could save 70 lives by executing a cute little innocent baby? Would we? Who gets to choose? Who plays God? I'm not saying that one life is worth more than any other, but that doesn't mean that it is ethical to claim one possibly-innocent life in order to save even 70 others (innocent or not).
Then you mix in the all-too-common taser abuse, the entire 70-to-1 concept gets wonky and YouTube gets clogged with blatantly-obvious examples of unethical taser applications. It's all tied together in a huge mess.
Anyway - back to Ethics 101.
I believe that some medical doctors generally face tougher ethical choices on a day-to-day basis than do the police. And the doctors have already addressed this ethical quandary of trading-off lives more than 2400 years ago with the Hippocratic Oath.
The oath includes words to the effect of: first, do no harm.
If you go with Smith's simplistic math is ethics, then you end up with the sort of nightmare future-world that is sometimes seen in the most frightening of the science fiction stories. Ethically, Smith's 70-to-1 taser trade-off would be quite similar to [please excuse the grotesque example] grinding up newborn babies for their stem cells (saving hundreds of lives for every baby lost).
The taser is a science fiction weapon from those horrid future-worlds imagined in the worst nightmare SciFi.
And although these sorts of lives-for-life trade-offs appear to be an ethical quandary, it is a quandary that was clearly resolved about 2400 years ago.
Canadians (and new immigrants) deserve much better than tasers.
Bad Karma - that's the problem with Smith's approach. His accounting is overly-simplistic. He claims his device "saves 70 lives for every life lost." [LINK]
What if (for example) we could save 70 lives by executing a cute little innocent baby? Would we? Who gets to choose? Who plays God? I'm not saying that one life is worth more than any other, but that doesn't mean that it is ethical to claim one possibly-innocent life in order to save even 70 others (innocent or not).
Then you mix in the all-too-common taser abuse, the entire 70-to-1 concept gets wonky and YouTube gets clogged with blatantly-obvious examples of unethical taser applications. It's all tied together in a huge mess.
Anyway - back to Ethics 101.
I believe that some medical doctors generally face tougher ethical choices on a day-to-day basis than do the police. And the doctors have already addressed this ethical quandary of trading-off lives more than 2400 years ago with the Hippocratic Oath.
The oath includes words to the effect of: first, do no harm.
If you go with Smith's simplistic math is ethics, then you end up with the sort of nightmare future-world that is sometimes seen in the most frightening of the science fiction stories. Ethically, Smith's 70-to-1 taser trade-off would be quite similar to [please excuse the grotesque example] grinding up newborn babies for their stem cells (saving hundreds of lives for every baby lost).
The taser is a science fiction weapon from those horrid future-worlds imagined in the worst nightmare SciFi.
And although these sorts of lives-for-life trade-offs appear to be an ethical quandary, it is a quandary that was clearly resolved about 2400 years ago.
Canadians (and new immigrants) deserve much better than tasers.
Friday, July 24, 2009
File under: 'No Sh_t, Einstein'
Headline: Tasers 'less dangerous than guns' [LINK]
Wow. Really? Are you sure that you're keeping up there, Gomer?
Seriously, talk about missing the point...
The above-quoted statement is technically true in the duh!-obvious sense, but the argument it supports is the refuge of taser-debate newbies and plain fools. (Anyone need a badge? [LINK])
Even Taser International has been forced by circumstances, and by their goal of increased sales, to walk away from this original taser lie - that tasers have anything to do with replacing guns. They want tasers to replace pepper spray, the baton, hands-on, talking, waiting, and burning hot cigarettes pressed into flesh...
Tasers are used far, far, far and away more often than the police have historically and generally-acceptably used their guns. The ratio of overuse varies with both jurisdiction and almost certainly over time as well.
It would be ridiculous to try to put too accurate a number on it. But it's generally much more than ten, and generally much less than a thousand. I've decided to call it approximately one-hundred (as a rough order of magnitude estimated average). You can argue about the ratio here or there, or then and now, but 100x is a fair and reasonable number.
Given this ratio of overuse, it can be seen that any claim that tasers replace police gun fire is approximately 99% Bull Sh_t. Essentially, it's a damn lie.
The facts are that tasers are used to replace other (apparently safer, with respect to risk of death [LINK]) weapons, basic de-escalation techniques, and perhaps even simply waiting the subject out.
So, right off the bat, the taser would have to be at least 100 times safer than the gun, SIMPLY TO BREAK EVEN in a simple (amoral) body count.
(And when I use the word 'safe', I'm most concerned about DEATH. Injuries are obviously important, but they're not even on the same page as death. Let's sort out the taser-death issue before moving on to discuss injuries.)
The researchers compared the results with firearms, which had a mortality rate of about 50 per cent. [ibid]
Guns are 50% deadly. Perhaps not as high a mortality rate as some people might think.
Therefore, given the overuse ratio of 100x, just for a basic (amoral) body count break-even, the taser needs to be at or below a 0.5% risk of death.
And it meets that goal.
435+ taser-associated death out of some 700,000 (?) deployments is 0.06% risk of death.
That's about ten times better than required for (amoral) body-count break even.
You may be surprised by this relatively low ratio (just 8.3x) of first-order improvement. You might have assumed that it's many thousands of times safer. But not when normalized to make the comparison fair.
But wait... ...there's more to consider.
The mortality rate for firearms (guns) almost certainly only includes cases where the bullets actually hit the subject. I'll bet that (for example) a shot fired that does not contact the subject does not enter into the calculation of firearm mortality.
But Taser International are professional denominator washers [LINK]. They include almost everything in the denominator. They absolutely, positively include the incidents where the taser is applied in the Touch Torture mode. The certainly include the essentially-FAKE training and demonstration hits into the BACK. I'm not sure if they include 'display'.
A few of these inflationary denominator-washing factors, each of which is individually in a several-to-one ratio, brings the actual oranges-to-oranges comparison much closer to unity once adjusted for the overuse ratio.
And we've not even touched on the Karma issue [LINK] of moving from a scheme where those that attack police are subjected to a significant risk of death, to a scheme where anyone might eventually be subjected to a low to moderate risk of death. Bad karma. Very bad. Evil. Which is why I kept mentioning "amoral" above with respect to the raw body count.
Taser International's rebuttal would be that tasers cannot possibly be responsible for any of these 434+ [LINK] taser-associated deaths. Unfortunately for Taser International, that argument has now been officially rejected. [LINK]
So what are we left with?
Can we make the taser safer? Perhaps the new X3 has a waveform that eliminates the apparently-dangerous DC pulse after the arc phase? That would be interesting...
But it's not our job to design tasers.
So the only handle we have is to vastly cut back on the insane 100x ratio of overuse as compared to guns. This needs to be cut back by about 95% to 99%. And the 95% is being generous by potentially allowing about five times more taser incidents than the usual rate of police gun fire. Generous and trusting is what that is.
This sort of massive cut-back imposed by new sweeping restriction on the use of tasers is exactly what Judge Braidwood has recommended. Given that he couldn't bring himself to recommend a moritorium (at this time), then it was the only reasonable way forward.
He's a very smart man.
Bless his heart.
Wow. Really? Are you sure that you're keeping up there, Gomer?
Seriously, talk about missing the point...
The above-quoted statement is technically true in the duh!-obvious sense, but the argument it supports is the refuge of taser-debate newbies and plain fools. (Anyone need a badge? [LINK])
Even Taser International has been forced by circumstances, and by their goal of increased sales, to walk away from this original taser lie - that tasers have anything to do with replacing guns. They want tasers to replace pepper spray, the baton, hands-on, talking, waiting, and burning hot cigarettes pressed into flesh...
Tasers are used far, far, far and away more often than the police have historically and generally-acceptably used their guns. The ratio of overuse varies with both jurisdiction and almost certainly over time as well.
It would be ridiculous to try to put too accurate a number on it. But it's generally much more than ten, and generally much less than a thousand. I've decided to call it approximately one-hundred (as a rough order of magnitude estimated average). You can argue about the ratio here or there, or then and now, but 100x is a fair and reasonable number.
Given this ratio of overuse, it can be seen that any claim that tasers replace police gun fire is approximately 99% Bull Sh_t. Essentially, it's a damn lie.
The facts are that tasers are used to replace other (apparently safer, with respect to risk of death [LINK]) weapons, basic de-escalation techniques, and perhaps even simply waiting the subject out.
So, right off the bat, the taser would have to be at least 100 times safer than the gun, SIMPLY TO BREAK EVEN in a simple (amoral) body count.
(And when I use the word 'safe', I'm most concerned about DEATH. Injuries are obviously important, but they're not even on the same page as death. Let's sort out the taser-death issue before moving on to discuss injuries.)
The researchers compared the results with firearms, which had a mortality rate of about 50 per cent. [ibid]
Guns are 50% deadly. Perhaps not as high a mortality rate as some people might think.
Therefore, given the overuse ratio of 100x, just for a basic (amoral) body count break-even, the taser needs to be at or below a 0.5% risk of death.
And it meets that goal.
435+ taser-associated death out of some 700,000 (?) deployments is 0.06% risk of death.
That's about ten times better than required for (amoral) body-count break even.
You may be surprised by this relatively low ratio (just 8.3x) of first-order improvement. You might have assumed that it's many thousands of times safer. But not when normalized to make the comparison fair.
But wait... ...there's more to consider.
The mortality rate for firearms (guns) almost certainly only includes cases where the bullets actually hit the subject. I'll bet that (for example) a shot fired that does not contact the subject does not enter into the calculation of firearm mortality.
But Taser International are professional denominator washers [LINK]. They include almost everything in the denominator. They absolutely, positively include the incidents where the taser is applied in the Touch Torture mode. The certainly include the essentially-FAKE training and demonstration hits into the BACK. I'm not sure if they include 'display'.
A few of these inflationary denominator-washing factors, each of which is individually in a several-to-one ratio, brings the actual oranges-to-oranges comparison much closer to unity once adjusted for the overuse ratio.
And we've not even touched on the Karma issue [LINK] of moving from a scheme where those that attack police are subjected to a significant risk of death, to a scheme where anyone might eventually be subjected to a low to moderate risk of death. Bad karma. Very bad. Evil. Which is why I kept mentioning "amoral" above with respect to the raw body count.
Taser International's rebuttal would be that tasers cannot possibly be responsible for any of these 434+ [LINK] taser-associated deaths. Unfortunately for Taser International, that argument has now been officially rejected. [LINK]
So what are we left with?
Can we make the taser safer? Perhaps the new X3 has a waveform that eliminates the apparently-dangerous DC pulse after the arc phase? That would be interesting...
But it's not our job to design tasers.
So the only handle we have is to vastly cut back on the insane 100x ratio of overuse as compared to guns. This needs to be cut back by about 95% to 99%. And the 95% is being generous by potentially allowing about five times more taser incidents than the usual rate of police gun fire. Generous and trusting is what that is.
This sort of massive cut-back imposed by new sweeping restriction on the use of tasers is exactly what Judge Braidwood has recommended. Given that he couldn't bring himself to recommend a moritorium (at this time), then it was the only reasonable way forward.
He's a very smart man.
Bless his heart.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Taser saves the baby, or the deranged man?
Exactly as was predicted here [LINK], Taser International has laid claim to the recent "save" of a deranged man...
Oh wait... They're claiming that the taser saved the baby, not the deranged potential baby-killer.
Baby With Knife Held to Her Throat Saved... [LINK]
Now that's a bit of a stretch. Babies aren't that big. There would be plenty of deranged potential baby-killer sticking out that could have been shot with a gun.
Thus, it would be reasonable to claim that the taser helped to save the deranged potential baby-killer from a bullet to the stomach, but Taser International's PR machine (which does include the police in this case) is really making a stretch to claim that the "taser saved the baby".
But I will be generous and credit Taser International with this "save" of a deranged man that was cutting the baby's neck with a knife.
Nice job Taser. Well done. Be sure to put that "save" on your Karma scorecard to trade-off against the more-innocent victims that have "died" shortly after being tasered.
{ROLLS-EYES}
Oh wait... They're claiming that the taser saved the baby, not the deranged potential baby-killer.
Baby With Knife Held to Her Throat Saved... [LINK]
Now that's a bit of a stretch. Babies aren't that big. There would be plenty of deranged potential baby-killer sticking out that could have been shot with a gun.
Thus, it would be reasonable to claim that the taser helped to save the deranged potential baby-killer from a bullet to the stomach, but Taser International's PR machine (which does include the police in this case) is really making a stretch to claim that the "taser saved the baby".
But I will be generous and credit Taser International with this "save" of a deranged man that was cutting the baby's neck with a knife.
Nice job Taser. Well done. Be sure to put that "save" on your Karma scorecard to trade-off against the more-innocent victims that have "died" shortly after being tasered.
{ROLLS-EYES}
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Fatal shooting in Vancouver
See also the later update here [LINK].
Police fatally shoot knife-wielding man in downtown Vancouver
A Vancouver police officer shot and killed a man on Friday after he refused orders to drop a knife and advanced on police... "We know that the suspect advanced on the officers with the extended blade of an X-Acto utility knife and did not comply with orders to drop the knife. The two officers held the man at gunpoint, but as he advanced he was shot." [LINK]
I've received correspondence from someone that I will describe as a rabid pro-taser fan-boy (fan-girl?) seemingly immune to reasonable logic and ill-equipped to contribute to the debate.
Here is what they offered as their point:
Wow I see another police shooting in Vancouver to day
Guess you guys are happy with the new no taser policy
There are several problems with this failed attempt at presenting a logical argument.
First, given the fact that there is a significant real-world failure rate for tasers (combining equipment failures and operational limitations), even the most reasonable, liberal-minded person should not begrudge the police the option of using their gun in the sort of circumstances described. Using a taser when someone is advancing on you with a knife would put your own life at risk. And those that espouse the view that they are 'very concerned' about the safety of our police should have even less reason to complain.
By way of crystal-clear example, it was only a day-and-a-half ago that I left the following comment on the Truth...Not Tasers blog:
If someone is threatening you with a knife then you cover them with a gun. Pull up a chair, call for back-up. If they advance, feel free to plug them. [LINK]
Please read that again to make sure you get it. I wrote it.
Based on the news report, this is almost exactly what happened! (except for the chair)
Both sides of the taser debate (excluding those that are completely ignorant of the state of the debate, such as our correspondent) are now in agreement that tasers are not a replacement for the gun. But they have the same position for different reasons. The pro-taser folks want to be able to justify use of tasers at a rate that is about one-hundred times the historical rate of police gun-play. The taser critics have little concern about those very few and rare incidents where the taser actually does replace a gun; we tend to focus on the other 99% of the issue where the taser (and its "risk of death") replaces talking, or simply waiting, or other de-escalation techniques.
Perhaps the tasers should be withdrawn, and the police issued with those fold-out chairs... (note - this does not apply to this most-recent incident in Vancouver where it appears, based on the news report, that the police did display more-than-adequate patience. )
If tasers were actually used to only replace police gun-fire, then I might have started a blog to celebrate their use and track the lives saved. But that's not what's happening about 99% of the time.
Second, even if this [updated] life in Vancouver could have been saved, it still does not justify the other 99% of taser use and imposing the risks (which "include the risk of death") on those that are not presenting the level of threat displayed in this incident. It's bad karma, and poor ethics, to randomly redistribute the risk of death. Leave such risks where they (unfortunately) belong.
Third, incidents where police in Canada shoot-to-death people are not very common. I've searched for exact figures, and I've seen numbers in the range of 12 to 20 per year. I would welcome pointers to more authoritative data. It's reasonable to assume that the vast majority of such incidents are perfectly justifyable and have zero ethical issues. In other words, there's not much of a 'problem' that requires solving (and I do NOT intend to devalue the lives that are lost).
In summary, trying to link this particular police shooting to the taser debate is an example of the pro-taser folks (I'm including even the most ignorant) trying to play both sides of the "replace guns" argument.
If you still believe that tasers are a useful replacement for guns to "save lives everyday", then please join with those of us that criticize the misuse, overuse, and abuse of tasers the other 99% of the time. But this gun-replace position is well past its Best Before date. Even Taser International has been forced to walk away from this stinker (although they continue to use the slogan).
On the other hand, if you're taking the position that tasers are simply a "perfectly safe" Force Option that can be used many thousands of times per year in Canada, then you can't really claim that police gun-play has anything to do with the taser debate.
And in closing - a major study showed that police gun-play was increased by 2.3x when tasers were first introduced to a police agency, and this then dropped back to normal (no reduction) after officers shook the Taser Training out of their heads after a year. And CBC noted that police gun-play was not reduced by tasers.
Shredding this pathetic attempt at a pro-taser argument has taken many words. But it was hardly an intellectual challenge.
PS: This correspondence actually accused me of being someone that I'm not.
You never replied which law firm you work for
LOL.
Police fatally shoot knife-wielding man in downtown Vancouver
A Vancouver police officer shot and killed a man on Friday after he refused orders to drop a knife and advanced on police... "We know that the suspect advanced on the officers with the extended blade of an X-Acto utility knife and did not comply with orders to drop the knife. The two officers held the man at gunpoint, but as he advanced he was shot." [LINK]
I've received correspondence from someone that I will describe as a rabid pro-taser fan-boy (fan-girl?) seemingly immune to reasonable logic and ill-equipped to contribute to the debate.
Here is what they offered as their point:
Wow I see another police shooting in Vancouver to day
Guess you guys are happy with the new no taser policy
There are several problems with this failed attempt at presenting a logical argument.
First, given the fact that there is a significant real-world failure rate for tasers (combining equipment failures and operational limitations), even the most reasonable, liberal-minded person should not begrudge the police the option of using their gun in the sort of circumstances described. Using a taser when someone is advancing on you with a knife would put your own life at risk. And those that espouse the view that they are 'very concerned' about the safety of our police should have even less reason to complain.
By way of crystal-clear example, it was only a day-and-a-half ago that I left the following comment on the Truth...Not Tasers blog:
If someone is threatening you with a knife then you cover them with a gun. Pull up a chair, call for back-up. If they advance, feel free to plug them. [LINK]
Please read that again to make sure you get it. I wrote it.
Based on the news report, this is almost exactly what happened! (except for the chair)
Both sides of the taser debate (excluding those that are completely ignorant of the state of the debate, such as our correspondent) are now in agreement that tasers are not a replacement for the gun. But they have the same position for different reasons. The pro-taser folks want to be able to justify use of tasers at a rate that is about one-hundred times the historical rate of police gun-play. The taser critics have little concern about those very few and rare incidents where the taser actually does replace a gun; we tend to focus on the other 99% of the issue where the taser (and its "risk of death") replaces talking, or simply waiting, or other de-escalation techniques.
Perhaps the tasers should be withdrawn, and the police issued with those fold-out chairs... (note - this does not apply to this most-recent incident in Vancouver where it appears, based on the news report, that the police did display more-than-adequate patience. )
If tasers were actually used to only replace police gun-fire, then I might have started a blog to celebrate their use and track the lives saved. But that's not what's happening about 99% of the time.
Second, even if this [updated] life in Vancouver could have been saved, it still does not justify the other 99% of taser use and imposing the risks (which "include the risk of death") on those that are not presenting the level of threat displayed in this incident. It's bad karma, and poor ethics, to randomly redistribute the risk of death. Leave such risks where they (unfortunately) belong.
Third, incidents where police in Canada shoot-to-death people are not very common. I've searched for exact figures, and I've seen numbers in the range of 12 to 20 per year. I would welcome pointers to more authoritative data. It's reasonable to assume that the vast majority of such incidents are perfectly justifyable and have zero ethical issues. In other words, there's not much of a 'problem' that requires solving (and I do NOT intend to devalue the lives that are lost).
In summary, trying to link this particular police shooting to the taser debate is an example of the pro-taser folks (I'm including even the most ignorant) trying to play both sides of the "replace guns" argument.
If you still believe that tasers are a useful replacement for guns to "save lives everyday", then please join with those of us that criticize the misuse, overuse, and abuse of tasers the other 99% of the time. But this gun-replace position is well past its Best Before date. Even Taser International has been forced to walk away from this stinker (although they continue to use the slogan).
On the other hand, if you're taking the position that tasers are simply a "perfectly safe" Force Option that can be used many thousands of times per year in Canada, then you can't really claim that police gun-play has anything to do with the taser debate.
And in closing - a major study showed that police gun-play was increased by 2.3x when tasers were first introduced to a police agency, and this then dropped back to normal (no reduction) after officers shook the Taser Training out of their heads after a year. And CBC noted that police gun-play was not reduced by tasers.
Shredding this pathetic attempt at a pro-taser argument has taken many words. But it was hardly an intellectual challenge.
PS: This correspondence actually accused me of being someone that I'm not.
You never replied which law firm you work for
Cameron, why are you hiding behind a blog site????
LOL.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Sgt. Mark Tonner, Vancouver police officer
Sgt. Mark Tonner, a Vancouver police officer, wrote a thoughtful op-ed piece for The Province which was published today.
The article is entitled: Price in public opinion could outweigh good that Tasers do bring [LINK]
Sgt Tonner is making some good points. But his entire argument is based upon the relatively new position that tasers are used to replace going hands-on (fighting) with resistive subjects. This is the new "Reducing Police Injuries" argument (introduced after all previous pro-taser arguments have been shredded).
But tasers were brought into Canada on the promise that they would be used sparingly and their use would replace gunfire. Now here we have a front-line police officer clearly stating that tasers are primarily used to replace basic hands-on techniques. That wasn't the original justification for tasers.
Okay, so let's back-up on tasers and start the trade-off analysis again. Is it worth the actual overuse, abuse and misuse, and the risk of death? Many people agree with Sgt Tonner that it might be time to package these devices up and send them back.
On the issue of public opinion - public perception didn't arrive on a silver platter from an alien source. This negative public perception of tasers and their all-too-frequent overuse, abuse and misuse arrived on the nightly news. And the news organizations didn't make it up. Elderly men really are being tasered in their hospital bed. Children really are being tasered in their own bedrooms. And a tired and confused immigrant was tasered and died almost immediately.
This blog, and others such as Truth ... Not Tasers, document many, many, many such crazy un-Canadian examples of police misusing, abusing and over-using tasers (and BC seems to lead the pack for some reason).
Not to mention the very bad karma of handing out a moderate risk of death to people that did nothing to deserve it.
Not to mention that such typical use of tasers in Canada is on an extremely weak legal footing, what with being classified as a Prohibited Firearm and being used to apply 'torture' to the victim in order to force (verb) them to comply. Lawful force is a noun. Force (as a verb) is also called 'torture' (CC s. 269.1).
I agree with Sgt Tonner's conclusion: tasers are not worth the negatives.
The article is entitled: Price in public opinion could outweigh good that Tasers do bring [LINK]
Sgt Tonner is making some good points. But his entire argument is based upon the relatively new position that tasers are used to replace going hands-on (fighting) with resistive subjects. This is the new "Reducing Police Injuries" argument (introduced after all previous pro-taser arguments have been shredded).
But tasers were brought into Canada on the promise that they would be used sparingly and their use would replace gunfire. Now here we have a front-line police officer clearly stating that tasers are primarily used to replace basic hands-on techniques. That wasn't the original justification for tasers.
Okay, so let's back-up on tasers and start the trade-off analysis again. Is it worth the actual overuse, abuse and misuse, and the risk of death? Many people agree with Sgt Tonner that it might be time to package these devices up and send them back.
On the issue of public opinion - public perception didn't arrive on a silver platter from an alien source. This negative public perception of tasers and their all-too-frequent overuse, abuse and misuse arrived on the nightly news. And the news organizations didn't make it up. Elderly men really are being tasered in their hospital bed. Children really are being tasered in their own bedrooms. And a tired and confused immigrant was tasered and died almost immediately.
This blog, and others such as Truth ... Not Tasers, document many, many, many such crazy un-Canadian examples of police misusing, abusing and over-using tasers (and BC seems to lead the pack for some reason).
Not to mention the very bad karma of handing out a moderate risk of death to people that did nothing to deserve it.
Not to mention that such typical use of tasers in Canada is on an extremely weak legal footing, what with being classified as a Prohibited Firearm and being used to apply 'torture' to the victim in order to force (verb) them to comply. Lawful force is a noun. Force (as a verb) is also called 'torture' (CC s. 269.1).
I agree with Sgt Tonner's conclusion: tasers are not worth the negatives.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Tasers are what's 'off the rails'
Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino says the taser debate "...has gone off the rails." [LINK]
No.
What's off the rails is the abuse, misuse and overuse of tasers. Tasering fare dodgers in Vancouver. Tasering old men in their hospital bed. Tasering exhausted immigrants. Tasering children in their bedroom. Tasering minorities after (reportedly) picking a fight with them.
I don't need to provide links - if you've been paying the slightest bit of attention then you know these examples (Canadian examples, each and every one) off by heart.
What's off the rails is the degree of influence that Taser exerts in Canada. Holding hands with Toronto Police officials at a dog & pony show. Sitting comfy beside CPRC in front of SECU. Paying coroners travel expenses. Making deals with police officers in positions of influence.
Ditto
What's off the rails is the unwarranted faith some people have in tasers, and (worse yet) Taser. See De-spinning the Spin at the top of the right-hand column. Look up Bernie Kerik and note that he was a Taser Director during a critical period.
Let me put a challenge to you:
What is your estimation of the risk of death associated with taser use once the X26 darts land on the chest and the victim is exposed to the X26's waveform current of 150 mA (RMS) of 19 Hz waveform at continuous 100% duty cycle?
Taser points to studies that foolishly 'calculated' 1-in-10 million. Taser claims the taser is "Safer than Tylenol". Do you think that they're correct?
But what if they're wrong (read it all)?
And don't miss the subtle point about karma: [LINK] and [LINK].
Debate 'off the rails'... {ROLLS-EYES} We're just getting started.
No.
What's off the rails is the abuse, misuse and overuse of tasers. Tasering fare dodgers in Vancouver. Tasering old men in their hospital bed. Tasering exhausted immigrants. Tasering children in their bedroom. Tasering minorities after (reportedly) picking a fight with them.
I don't need to provide links - if you've been paying the slightest bit of attention then you know these examples (Canadian examples, each and every one) off by heart.
What's off the rails is the degree of influence that Taser exerts in Canada. Holding hands with Toronto Police officials at a dog & pony show. Sitting comfy beside CPRC in front of SECU. Paying coroners travel expenses. Making deals with police officers in positions of influence.
Ditto
What's off the rails is the unwarranted faith some people have in tasers, and (worse yet) Taser. See De-spinning the Spin at the top of the right-hand column. Look up Bernie Kerik and note that he was a Taser Director during a critical period.
Let me put a challenge to you:
What is your estimation of the risk of death associated with taser use once the X26 darts land on the chest and the victim is exposed to the X26's waveform current of 150 mA (RMS) of 19 Hz waveform at continuous 100% duty cycle?
Taser points to studies that foolishly 'calculated' 1-in-10 million. Taser claims the taser is "Safer than Tylenol". Do you think that they're correct?
But what if they're wrong (read it all)?
And don't miss the subtle point about karma: [LINK] and [LINK].
Debate 'off the rails'... {ROLLS-EYES} We're just getting started.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
"Tasers save lives" - So how many?
In Canada, police have historically shot-dead relatively few people each year. Some reports indicates it's about 12 people killed per year. Others reports indicates it might even be about 20 people killed per year. Perhaps it's a bit higher these days.
Other news reports have mentioned that they're not even tracking this data. I've not yet found a database or list (if you have a link, please send it in).
But it's clear that the police in Canada have never been encumbered with a reputation for being trigger-happy with guns.
So when police officials claim that tasers save lives, then we need to ask a series of perfectly logical questions:
1) How many per year are you claiming?
2) What are your criteria for claiming a 'save'?
3) How many supposed "gun-replacement" 'saves' are you claiming?
4) Does this number exceed the historical rate of lethal police gun-play in Canada?
5) Has the rate of lethal police gun-play gone down correspondingly?
6) What about the taser-associated deaths - do they count against?
7) What about the cases where the taser "contributed to death"?
I can't see any combination of the raw data available to me that would support the claim that "tasers save lives" in Canada, let alone in Chief Kaye's little city of Owen Sound.
At best, depending on the particular shade of rose-coloured lenses in their glasses and the thickness of the smoke curling off the stuff that they must be smoking, they'd be just barely breaking into the plural.
Even then you'd be left with the totally-unresolved Karma issue [LINK].
'Tasers save lives'? Puh! Show me the numbers.
See also [LINK]
Other news reports have mentioned that they're not even tracking this data. I've not yet found a database or list (if you have a link, please send it in).
But it's clear that the police in Canada have never been encumbered with a reputation for being trigger-happy with guns.
So when police officials claim that tasers save lives, then we need to ask a series of perfectly logical questions:
1) How many per year are you claiming?
2) What are your criteria for claiming a 'save'?
3) How many supposed "gun-replacement" 'saves' are you claiming?
4) Does this number exceed the historical rate of lethal police gun-play in Canada?
5) Has the rate of lethal police gun-play gone down correspondingly?
6) What about the taser-associated deaths - do they count against?
7) What about the cases where the taser "contributed to death"?
I can't see any combination of the raw data available to me that would support the claim that "tasers save lives" in Canada, let alone in Chief Kaye's little city of Owen Sound.
At best, depending on the particular shade of rose-coloured lenses in their glasses and the thickness of the smoke curling off the stuff that they must be smoking, they'd be just barely breaking into the plural.
Even then you'd be left with the totally-unresolved Karma issue [LINK].
'Tasers save lives'? Puh! Show me the numbers.
See also [LINK]
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Police almost admit what Taser will not... can not...
Law enforcement agencies consider Tasers to be a less-than-lethal weapon that, like all weapons, includes the risk of death, said Lt. Scott Dunn of the Sheriff’s Department. "There are risk factors," he said, "but there’s less risk using a taser than a gun." [LINK]
What sort of risk factors Lt. Dunn?
Taser admits falling down and banging one's head. Taser admits drowning if you taser someone while they're underwater. But Taser likes to play word games when it comes to individual susceptibilities. In other words, if you die from internal risk factors (cardiac is one example), then it must be pretty-much all your fault. Because (Taser claims, with a well-executed straight face), the taser cannot possibly affect your heart.
I suspect that Lt. Dunn, like many police officers, knows in his heart that there is more to the risk than Taser is willing to clearly admit. Everyone knows what is going on... ...it's become a liability-avoidance issue.
Back to Lt. Dunn prehistorical argument about less risk than a gun.
As has been discussed many times before, this argument is sort-of true - but it covers up a much larger, much more important, truth. It is also a mark of ignorance on those making this type of 'better than a gun' argument.
Fact: Tasers are used roughly one-hundred times as often as police historically used their guns (varies widely).
So, just to start, they would have to be roughly one-hundred times as safe just to break even.
My review of the news indicates that much of the safety factor is external as opposed to inherent. The risk of death when taser darts hit sensitive areas seems to be in the single digits (low, but infinitely larger than zero) - but perhaps these occasional taser-associated deaths are just a coincidence. {rolls eyes}
But it's actually worse than that... Because tasers are so overused, misused and abused, the risk of death is being meted out on people that did nothing to deserve death. Search this blog for the word 'karma' [LINK (start at the bottom)] in case you're not familiar with the intricacies of this subtle point.
What sort of risk factors Lt. Dunn?
Taser admits falling down and banging one's head. Taser admits drowning if you taser someone while they're underwater. But Taser likes to play word games when it comes to individual susceptibilities. In other words, if you die from internal risk factors (cardiac is one example), then it must be pretty-much all your fault. Because (Taser claims, with a well-executed straight face), the taser cannot possibly affect your heart.
I suspect that Lt. Dunn, like many police officers, knows in his heart that there is more to the risk than Taser is willing to clearly admit. Everyone knows what is going on... ...it's become a liability-avoidance issue.
Back to Lt. Dunn prehistorical argument about less risk than a gun.
As has been discussed many times before, this argument is sort-of true - but it covers up a much larger, much more important, truth. It is also a mark of ignorance on those making this type of 'better than a gun' argument.
Fact: Tasers are used roughly one-hundred times as often as police historically used their guns (varies widely).
So, just to start, they would have to be roughly one-hundred times as safe just to break even.
My review of the news indicates that much of the safety factor is external as opposed to inherent. The risk of death when taser darts hit sensitive areas seems to be in the single digits (low, but infinitely larger than zero) - but perhaps these occasional taser-associated deaths are just a coincidence. {rolls eyes}
But it's actually worse than that... Because tasers are so overused, misused and abused, the risk of death is being meted out on people that did nothing to deserve death. Search this blog for the word 'karma' [LINK (start at the bottom)] in case you're not familiar with the intricacies of this subtle point.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Did he actually say that?
Taser's Tom Smith testifying in Vancouver, "Tasers save 70 lives for every life lost."
See The Karma Factor [LINK]
Let the lawsuits commence.
More later.
See The Karma Factor [LINK]
Let the lawsuits commence.
More later.
Monday, December 29, 2008
2008 - a year in review...
The Year 2008 In Review
(And this is just a sample. It's not even all the major highlights.)
We started the year 2008 with a review of an "article" in IEEE Spectrum written by Taser's leading braintrust member, Dr. Mark Kroll. We more-fully exposed Dr. Kroll's extreme financial ties to Taser. [LINK] & [LINK] Then we dissected his Taser mouthpiece article more fully. [LINK] It was also noted that Dr. Kroll is a serial non-discloser of his close ties to Taser. [LINK]
Also very early this year, we noted that the X26 taser has a electrical waveform with characteristics that are the exact opposite of those characteristics that were claimed to be the reason that the M26 taser was 'safe'. The older 1999-era M26 taser is high frequency and low duty cycle. The 2003-era X26 taser is low frequency and very high continuous 100% duty cycle. I've not seen this critical technical distinction high-lighted in any other source. Taser's own data sheets mention the raw information, but not a word about this critical change to the waveform. [LINK] [LINK] and [LINK]. See also [LINK].
Some of the basics of Canadian law jumped out at me. I'm not a lawyer, and perhaps there is 'case law' that has taken away some of our fundamental rights (I doubt it). But some of the mistakes being made are (quite literally) elementary. Lawful 'force' is a noun. It's not a damn verb. Police officers and officials that think that they're allowed to use painful electric shock as a form of on-the-spot torture to coerce (force - verb) someone to obey are morons. Let me repeat - morons. The language used to forbid such behaviour is crystal clear. If 'failure to obey' is an offense, then add it to the list of charges and bring the subject before the court. You're not allowed to torture. And Tasers-R-Torture. [LINK]
By the 6th day, it had been noted that former Taser Board of Director member Mr. Bernie Kerik was facing charges that might result in him being jailed for up to 142 years. [LINK] [LINK] (Update: now facing just 28 years. [LINK]) In Canada, we have Sgt Darren Laur (Victoria, BC) and his 'apparent and perceived conflict of interest' [LINK], and coroner James Cairns' jaunts [LINK]. There are quite a few more ethical lapses associated with Taser and/or Taser-associated folks - eg. [LINK] - review the whole blog for more.
Shooting holes in Taser propaganda is a continuing theme of this blog. After Smith's appearance before SECU, I blasted away at the pure BS Taser propaganda. [LINK][LINK][LINK] There is so much propaganda from Taser that is so weak that almost anyone with a modicum of skepticism can instantly see the logical and technical flaws.
By early February, I'd tracked down a certain Taser fan-boy, (apparently) named David E. Zuskin, who (it seems) had been spamming the Internet with his nonsense trademark 'TASERS SAVE LIVES EVERYDAY' (in all caps) - which is both factually and grammatically incorrect. He has since installed a brain and now keeps a much lower profile (now he's 'Bob'). But he's still out there spamming the Internet - and nursing his investments [smirk...]. He got his bum smacked by his ISP [LINK] after clumsily entering my blog e-mail address into many investment-related news letters as some sort of punishment. Typical... ...these law and order (sic) folks are the ones that will break the law to maintain their order. LOL.
Another theme of this blog is taser abuse, misuse and overuse. For some reason [LINK], tasers are constantly being used where there is little to zero justification. Honestly, I don't care if the police are equipped with flame-throwers, so long as everyone is being perfectly honest. But if the manufacturer of flame-throwers starts claiming that they're perfectly safe, and that the burnt-to-a-crisp subjects are simply examples of Spontaneous Human Combustion, then those flame-throwers need to be put away until the brains are reinstalled and lawsuits settled.
By March, we had had a visit from Grettir, who may or may not be Dr. Mark Kroll himself (it certainly sounded like him). [LINK] The flawed thinking by Grettir was crystal clear - some of the logical errors were shocking in their simplicity - such as double-dipping for the natural protection of everybody's shared anatomical characteristics. The other points were equally easy to shred. It's clear that even self-styled big thinkers sometimes make small mistakes.
I note with interest that as these sorts of pro-taser arguments have been shredded by this blog, they tend to disappear from the Taser PR machine. The only argument that they've been using recently has been the 'reduces injuries to the police officers'. Yeah, so would a 'shoot first and let God figure it out' policy. They've very few arguments left standing.
By April, I had noticed that the higher RMS current values had been expunged from the later data sheets. [LINK] Taser would probably say that it was to reduce confusion. Yeah thanks for thinking of us. Nothing to do with ~160 milliamperes RMS being well above the safety limits, eh?
BC Transit Police revealed their empty-headed policies in April. Tasering fare-cheats for gawd's sake. [LINK] Idiots!
Safety margins were examined here [LINK]. They didn't stand-up very well to even a modest application of scrutiny.
But the most important contribution of this blog might be highlighting the relationship between the M26 waveform, and the X26 waveform, and the potentially huge impact of the seemingly-minor change to the waveform. A little DC offset changes everything - it lowers frequency (more dangerous), and it VASTLY increases duty cycle (to 100% continuous). It really seems that Taser forgot about Fourier. [LINK]
See also the guesstimated spectrograms [LINK].
We started plotting the number of taser-associated deaths per month, by month. The running average jumped up from much less than 1 per month before the introduction of the X26 taser in 2003, to a fairly steady 7 per month after that point. Perhaps it's just a coincidence. Perhaps all these deaths are just coincidences. [LINK] and others... [LINK]
In May, the brave BC Mounties tasered an 82-year old man in his hospital bed. Because he had a knife. It was 'a very dangerous situation'. So the frightened officer walked up really, really close to the elderly man and zapped him at close (zero) range. Yeah, it makes no sense to me either. [LINK]
Taser chairman Tom Smith more-or-less accidentally admitted that tasers takes one life for every 70 'lives saved'. [LINK] Well - ah - that's nice. Except that they claim that almost every time a taser is deployed, it counts as a life saved. Which is nonsense. And that just leaves the lives lost. Not to mention the Karma issue [LINK] of saving some lives at the expense of instituting a street level "death lottery" [LINK] on everyday citizens that do not deserve such risks.
We've reported incidents where diabetics in comas [LINK], people sleeping [LINK], and those having epileptic episodes [LINK] are tasered. These sorts of examples, which are almost endless in number, shred the old stale argument about 'just obey the police and you won't be tasered'. If you see that argument, please be gentle to the weak and ill-informed mind that houses it.
Another theme is the extraordinarily bad Taser-certified training. Given the actual behaviour of some supposedly-trained police officers, the only possible explanation is that the Taser-certified Trainers are brainwashed numskulls, and the Taser-certified training material is so poor as to be considered evil. [LINK] How else can you explain this nonsense? [LINK] !!!
This issue is (far and away) more than sufficient to fully justify a moratorium to allow time to surgically removed all the Taser propaganda from the skulls of those that have been Taser-certifiably brainwashed. It might take a year or two to sort out.
It's probably time to remind the readers that this taser issue is not just in the cross-hairs of a few outrage civilian bloggers. People with PhDs are also pointing out that some of Taser's so-called studies are useless. [LINK] And a more skeptical mind might ask, 'Wouldn't the pro-taser 'researchers' be familiar with the basics of Statistics 101?' Are these uselessly-small sample sizes an innocent mistake? ...or a sign of deeper issues?
Inconvenient facts like this [LINK] must annoy Taser: "...people with heart problems are about 5% of the general population (2% to 8% averages to 5%), but they represent 54% of the (tasered-then-dead) victims. That's about an 11-to-1 ratio that needs to be explained. Well obviously [sic] there's no connection [sic] between the taser and the heart. None at all...[ROLLS EYES]..."
Mid-way through 2008, the NIJ released a report that found no evidence of a high risk from tasers. Well DUH! What about low to moderate risk? And NIJ excluded huge swaths of the population, which add up to most of the population. [LINK]
Then a truth-stretcher named Billo turned the NIJ statement around to claim that this proved that Tasers-R-Safe. [LINK] Which it doesn't. [LINK]
Oh my! Then it was noted by another blogger that Billo the Blogger is a certain William Oliver and he is sitting on the same damn NIJ Taser Study panel!! Oh my gawd. [LINK][LINK] and especially [LINK] !!! Isn't that amazing!! This unabashed taser fan-boy is sitting on the NIJ panel "studying" tasers. And then he systematically twists the NIJ findings to suit Taser. What a bunch of clumsy clots.
On the subject of clumsy clots - I discovered by accident that Taser's lawyer Micheal Brave was registering domain names that promote "Excited Delirium" and he points these URLs to a seeming-front organization. Read it here [LINK] and [LINK] You're either in on it, or you're being played like a trumpet.
Taser likes to highlight its legal record, but not that fact that they actually settled many cases to make them go away. [LINK] [LINK]
By September, the RCMP had been body-slammed by an independent report [LINK]. But by mid-December, the RCMP thumbed their noses at the Parliamentary committee SECU that directed that the RCMP recategorize tasers as impact weapons (to cut back on the abuse, misuse, and overuse). [LINK][LINK] I guess the RCMP doesn't take them seriously, but they should... [LINK]
Still in September, the Canadian Police Research Center (seemingly acting as a branch of Taser sometimes, sat beside Taser at SECU for gosh sakes!) report failed to note that tasers are already considered to be firearms. [LINK] You'd think that might be worth noting. They had their chain yanked in August [LINK].
Taser's French distributor got himself arrested. [LINK] For some reason, Taser seems to be occasionally associated with people (Di Zazzo, Kerik) that are not as far above the law as they thought.
There is so much more. The above tidbits are just a sample of the issues that we've discussed. I've made some very interesting findings along the way.
It's been a crazy year for Taser. Their stock has tanked "due to oil prices", but I believe that the next year is when the perfect storm of cold hard facts will intersect with the legal system to make the year 2009 even more interesting for them.
(And this is just a sample. It's not even all the major highlights.)
We started the year 2008 with a review of an "article" in IEEE Spectrum written by Taser's leading braintrust member, Dr. Mark Kroll. We more-fully exposed Dr. Kroll's extreme financial ties to Taser. [LINK] & [LINK] Then we dissected his Taser mouthpiece article more fully. [LINK] It was also noted that Dr. Kroll is a serial non-discloser of his close ties to Taser. [LINK]
Also very early this year, we noted that the X26 taser has a electrical waveform with characteristics that are the exact opposite of those characteristics that were claimed to be the reason that the M26 taser was 'safe'. The older 1999-era M26 taser is high frequency and low duty cycle. The 2003-era X26 taser is low frequency and very high continuous 100% duty cycle. I've not seen this critical technical distinction high-lighted in any other source. Taser's own data sheets mention the raw information, but not a word about this critical change to the waveform. [LINK] [LINK] and [LINK]. See also [LINK].
Some of the basics of Canadian law jumped out at me. I'm not a lawyer, and perhaps there is 'case law' that has taken away some of our fundamental rights (I doubt it). But some of the mistakes being made are (quite literally) elementary. Lawful 'force' is a noun. It's not a damn verb. Police officers and officials that think that they're allowed to use painful electric shock as a form of on-the-spot torture to coerce (force - verb) someone to obey are morons. Let me repeat - morons. The language used to forbid such behaviour is crystal clear. If 'failure to obey' is an offense, then add it to the list of charges and bring the subject before the court. You're not allowed to torture. And Tasers-R-Torture. [LINK]
By the 6th day, it had been noted that former Taser Board of Director member Mr. Bernie Kerik was facing charges that might result in him being jailed for up to 142 years. [LINK] [LINK] (Update: now facing just 28 years. [LINK]) In Canada, we have Sgt Darren Laur (Victoria, BC) and his 'apparent and perceived conflict of interest' [LINK], and coroner James Cairns' jaunts [LINK]. There are quite a few more ethical lapses associated with Taser and/or Taser-associated folks - eg. [LINK] - review the whole blog for more.
Shooting holes in Taser propaganda is a continuing theme of this blog. After Smith's appearance before SECU, I blasted away at the pure BS Taser propaganda. [LINK][LINK][LINK] There is so much propaganda from Taser that is so weak that almost anyone with a modicum of skepticism can instantly see the logical and technical flaws.
By early February, I'd tracked down a certain Taser fan-boy, (apparently) named David E. Zuskin, who (it seems) had been spamming the Internet with his nonsense trademark 'TASERS SAVE LIVES EVERYDAY' (in all caps) - which is both factually and grammatically incorrect. He has since installed a brain and now keeps a much lower profile (now he's 'Bob'). But he's still out there spamming the Internet - and nursing his investments [smirk...]. He got his bum smacked by his ISP [LINK] after clumsily entering my blog e-mail address into many investment-related news letters as some sort of punishment. Typical... ...these law and order (sic) folks are the ones that will break the law to maintain their order. LOL.
Another theme of this blog is taser abuse, misuse and overuse. For some reason [LINK], tasers are constantly being used where there is little to zero justification. Honestly, I don't care if the police are equipped with flame-throwers, so long as everyone is being perfectly honest. But if the manufacturer of flame-throwers starts claiming that they're perfectly safe, and that the burnt-to-a-crisp subjects are simply examples of Spontaneous Human Combustion, then those flame-throwers need to be put away until the brains are reinstalled and lawsuits settled.
By March, we had had a visit from Grettir, who may or may not be Dr. Mark Kroll himself (it certainly sounded like him). [LINK] The flawed thinking by Grettir was crystal clear - some of the logical errors were shocking in their simplicity - such as double-dipping for the natural protection of everybody's shared anatomical characteristics. The other points were equally easy to shred. It's clear that even self-styled big thinkers sometimes make small mistakes.
I note with interest that as these sorts of pro-taser arguments have been shredded by this blog, they tend to disappear from the Taser PR machine. The only argument that they've been using recently has been the 'reduces injuries to the police officers'. Yeah, so would a 'shoot first and let God figure it out' policy. They've very few arguments left standing.
By April, I had noticed that the higher RMS current values had been expunged from the later data sheets. [LINK] Taser would probably say that it was to reduce confusion. Yeah thanks for thinking of us. Nothing to do with ~160 milliamperes RMS being well above the safety limits, eh?
BC Transit Police revealed their empty-headed policies in April. Tasering fare-cheats for gawd's sake. [LINK] Idiots!
Safety margins were examined here [LINK]. They didn't stand-up very well to even a modest application of scrutiny.
But the most important contribution of this blog might be highlighting the relationship between the M26 waveform, and the X26 waveform, and the potentially huge impact of the seemingly-minor change to the waveform. A little DC offset changes everything - it lowers frequency (more dangerous), and it VASTLY increases duty cycle (to 100% continuous). It really seems that Taser forgot about Fourier. [LINK]
See also the guesstimated spectrograms [LINK].
We started plotting the number of taser-associated deaths per month, by month. The running average jumped up from much less than 1 per month before the introduction of the X26 taser in 2003, to a fairly steady 7 per month after that point. Perhaps it's just a coincidence. Perhaps all these deaths are just coincidences. [LINK] and others... [LINK]
In May, the brave BC Mounties tasered an 82-year old man in his hospital bed. Because he had a knife. It was 'a very dangerous situation'. So the frightened officer walked up really, really close to the elderly man and zapped him at close (zero) range. Yeah, it makes no sense to me either. [LINK]
Taser chairman Tom Smith more-or-less accidentally admitted that tasers takes one life for every 70 'lives saved'. [LINK] Well - ah - that's nice. Except that they claim that almost every time a taser is deployed, it counts as a life saved. Which is nonsense. And that just leaves the lives lost. Not to mention the Karma issue [LINK] of saving some lives at the expense of instituting a street level "death lottery" [LINK] on everyday citizens that do not deserve such risks.
We've reported incidents where diabetics in comas [LINK], people sleeping [LINK], and those having epileptic episodes [LINK] are tasered. These sorts of examples, which are almost endless in number, shred the old stale argument about 'just obey the police and you won't be tasered'. If you see that argument, please be gentle to the weak and ill-informed mind that houses it.
Another theme is the extraordinarily bad Taser-certified training. Given the actual behaviour of some supposedly-trained police officers, the only possible explanation is that the Taser-certified Trainers are brainwashed numskulls, and the Taser-certified training material is so poor as to be considered evil. [LINK] How else can you explain this nonsense? [LINK] !!!
This issue is (far and away) more than sufficient to fully justify a moratorium to allow time to surgically removed all the Taser propaganda from the skulls of those that have been Taser-certifiably brainwashed. It might take a year or two to sort out.
It's probably time to remind the readers that this taser issue is not just in the cross-hairs of a few outrage civilian bloggers. People with PhDs are also pointing out that some of Taser's so-called studies are useless. [LINK] And a more skeptical mind might ask, 'Wouldn't the pro-taser 'researchers' be familiar with the basics of Statistics 101?' Are these uselessly-small sample sizes an innocent mistake? ...or a sign of deeper issues?
Inconvenient facts like this [LINK] must annoy Taser: "...people with heart problems are about 5% of the general population (2% to 8% averages to 5%), but they represent 54% of the (tasered-then-dead) victims. That's about an 11-to-1 ratio that needs to be explained. Well obviously [sic] there's no connection [sic] between the taser and the heart. None at all...[ROLLS EYES]..."
Mid-way through 2008, the NIJ released a report that found no evidence of a high risk from tasers. Well DUH! What about low to moderate risk? And NIJ excluded huge swaths of the population, which add up to most of the population. [LINK]
Then a truth-stretcher named Billo turned the NIJ statement around to claim that this proved that Tasers-R-Safe. [LINK] Which it doesn't. [LINK]
Oh my! Then it was noted by another blogger that Billo the Blogger is a certain William Oliver and he is sitting on the same damn NIJ Taser Study panel!! Oh my gawd. [LINK][LINK] and especially [LINK] !!! Isn't that amazing!! This unabashed taser fan-boy is sitting on the NIJ panel "studying" tasers. And then he systematically twists the NIJ findings to suit Taser. What a bunch of clumsy clots.
On the subject of clumsy clots - I discovered by accident that Taser's lawyer Micheal Brave was registering domain names that promote "Excited Delirium" and he points these URLs to a seeming-front organization. Read it here [LINK] and [LINK] You're either in on it, or you're being played like a trumpet.
Taser likes to highlight its legal record, but not that fact that they actually settled many cases to make them go away. [LINK] [LINK]
By September, the RCMP had been body-slammed by an independent report [LINK]. But by mid-December, the RCMP thumbed their noses at the Parliamentary committee SECU that directed that the RCMP recategorize tasers as impact weapons (to cut back on the abuse, misuse, and overuse). [LINK][LINK] I guess the RCMP doesn't take them seriously, but they should... [LINK]
Still in September, the Canadian Police Research Center (seemingly acting as a branch of Taser sometimes, sat beside Taser at SECU for gosh sakes!) report failed to note that tasers are already considered to be firearms. [LINK] You'd think that might be worth noting. They had their chain yanked in August [LINK].
Taser's French distributor got himself arrested. [LINK] For some reason, Taser seems to be occasionally associated with people (Di Zazzo, Kerik) that are not as far above the law as they thought.
There is so much more. The above tidbits are just a sample of the issues that we've discussed. I've made some very interesting findings along the way.
It's been a crazy year for Taser. Their stock has tanked "due to oil prices", but I believe that the next year is when the perfect storm of cold hard facts will intersect with the legal system to make the year 2009 even more interesting for them.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Attn: San Francisco Police Chief George Gascón
SAN FRANCISCO (KCBS) - ... San Francisco Police Chief George Gascón, who ordered the study shortly after coming on the job in July 2009, wants to bring tasers into his department’s arsenal. ... [LINK]
The study in question, using the numbers provided in the report itself, reveals that tasers might save approximately two (2) lives per five year period.
There might be five (5) "opportunities" to use the taser (per the report), but tasers would only actually save about two (2) lives per 5-year period. It's important to be clear about such roughly 2-to-1 errors in logic, or lack of clarity.
Unfortunately, it is very likely that tasers would be used approximately 1500 times during the same period (almost every day). Perhaps this inherent overuse ratio could be adjusted downward slightly by good policy and good (non-OEM) training, but it's simply not rational to make unrealistic promises. If tasers are introduced to San Fransisco, they WILL be used well over a hundred times per year.
How many people would be killed by those 'extra' taser deployments is the subject of debate, but using even Taser International's own promises, the taser death toll could be as high as seven (7) during a 5-year period. It's even more likely that it will be at least two.
Mesa, AZ, where Gascón was previously Police Chief, has had THREE taser associated deaths in a period of approximately five years. [LINK] So it's not rational to presuppose that San Fransisco would be immune.
A key change that tasers bring is that the very real risk of death is redistributed from the most violent people (those whose lives we're talking about saving), to non-violent people (those who get a good solid tasering because the officer is having a bad day). Very bad karma.
None of this is particularly complicated. You simply start with a smidgen of skepticism. And review the claims carefully.
Note - all above is just a summary, please see the following previous post for complete details. [LINK]
The study in question, using the numbers provided in the report itself, reveals that tasers might save approximately two (2) lives per five year period.
There might be five (5) "opportunities" to use the taser (per the report), but tasers would only actually save about two (2) lives per 5-year period. It's important to be clear about such roughly 2-to-1 errors in logic, or lack of clarity.
Unfortunately, it is very likely that tasers would be used approximately 1500 times during the same period (almost every day). Perhaps this inherent overuse ratio could be adjusted downward slightly by good policy and good (non-OEM) training, but it's simply not rational to make unrealistic promises. If tasers are introduced to San Fransisco, they WILL be used well over a hundred times per year.
How many people would be killed by those 'extra' taser deployments is the subject of debate, but using even Taser International's own promises, the taser death toll could be as high as seven (7) during a 5-year period. It's even more likely that it will be at least two.
Mesa, AZ, where Gascón was previously Police Chief, has had THREE taser associated deaths in a period of approximately five years. [LINK] So it's not rational to presuppose that San Fransisco would be immune.
A key change that tasers bring is that the very real risk of death is redistributed from the most violent people (those whose lives we're talking about saving), to non-violent people (those who get a good solid tasering because the officer is having a bad day). Very bad karma.
None of this is particularly complicated. You simply start with a smidgen of skepticism. And review the claims carefully.
Note - all above is just a summary, please see the following previous post for complete details. [LINK]
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Taser mole spokespuppet still drooling lies
A certain pro-taser arsehole that has been previously discussed in this blog [LINK] is continuing to leave his idiotic comments all over the on-line news outlets. His mindless comments typically have the following, grammatically- and factually-incorrect, Zuskin-trademark heading:
"Taser Saves Lives Everyday" (sic, and also very sick)
His latest moronic comment is the following:
Tasers have never killed anyone,
Yes they have. See De-spinning the Spin at the top of the right hand column for a couple of choice examples. $6.2M judgment for failure to warn (of the risk of death). And a case where three coroners that have pointed directly at the taser shocks as THE cause of a fatal cardiac arrest. Even Taser chairman Smith admitted that use of tasers results in lives lost in a ratio that he felt was acceptable (but who the hell gave him the right to make such moral trade-offs?). So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
'...a taser cannot kill a person unless they die due to a fall... '
Utter B.S. See De-spinning the Spin. The obvious-in-hindsight blood pH issue has been established in court. Coroners have found that taser shocks can cause cardiac arrest. And many more.
'Tasers give Police control over the uncontrolable, ...'
First, you don't have to capitalize the word "police" - they're not gods. Secondly, chuck yur spilling...
Back to tasers: tasers are unpredictable. Sometimes they work as they're suppose to. Sometimes they don't (today's example: [LINK]). Sometimes they are associated with the subject's death. Sometimes they are linked causually to that death. But most often they're overused, misused, and abuse. The taser success stories are so rare that Taser often celebrates them with a press release.
'...without getting hurt. Tasers reduce injuries to Police and Perps alike. ...'
Tasers have been called a 'street level death lottery'. I think that most 'perps' (and victims) would prefer to risk a minor injury rather than take a chance of being killed. A due to Taser's endless denominator-washing, the risks are actually higher than you might have been led to believe. Recent reports have warned of the risks of accepting the maufacturer's propaganda at face value - so you should stop quoting it.
Also, search this blog for a lesson on Karma. See [LINK] [LINK] and [LINK].
I hope that someone can figure out the exact relationship between this idiot and Taser. There is obviously a connection that drives him. If it isn't his life's savings tied-up in now less valuable TASR stocks, then perhaps there is a family connection. There must be something...
Where is Michael Moore when we need him?
"Taser Saves Lives Everyday" (sic, and also very sick)
His latest moronic comment is the following:
Tasers have never killed anyone,
Yes they have. See De-spinning the Spin at the top of the right hand column for a couple of choice examples. $6.2M judgment for failure to warn (of the risk of death). And a case where three coroners that have pointed directly at the taser shocks as THE cause of a fatal cardiac arrest. Even Taser chairman Smith admitted that use of tasers results in lives lost in a ratio that he felt was acceptable (but who the hell gave him the right to make such moral trade-offs?). So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
'...a taser cannot kill a person unless they die due to a fall... '
Utter B.S. See De-spinning the Spin. The obvious-in-hindsight blood pH issue has been established in court. Coroners have found that taser shocks can cause cardiac arrest. And many more.
'Tasers give Police control over the uncontrolable, ...'
First, you don't have to capitalize the word "police" - they're not gods. Secondly, chuck yur spilling...
Back to tasers: tasers are unpredictable. Sometimes they work as they're suppose to. Sometimes they don't (today's example: [LINK]). Sometimes they are associated with the subject's death. Sometimes they are linked causually to that death. But most often they're overused, misused, and abuse. The taser success stories are so rare that Taser often celebrates them with a press release.
'...without getting hurt. Tasers reduce injuries to Police and Perps alike. ...'
Tasers have been called a 'street level death lottery'. I think that most 'perps' (and victims) would prefer to risk a minor injury rather than take a chance of being killed. A due to Taser's endless denominator-washing, the risks are actually higher than you might have been led to believe. Recent reports have warned of the risks of accepting the maufacturer's propaganda at face value - so you should stop quoting it.
Also, search this blog for a lesson on Karma. See [LINK] [LINK] and [LINK].
I hope that someone can figure out the exact relationship between this idiot and Taser. There is obviously a connection that drives him. If it isn't his life's savings tied-up in now less valuable TASR stocks, then perhaps there is a family connection. There must be something...
Where is Michael Moore when we need him?
Sunday, August 17, 2008
RESTRAINT - Risk of Death in Subjects That Resist
The so-called Canadian Police Research Centre is working on a study called 'RESTRAINT (Risk of Death in Subjects That Resist)'. [LINK] The head of the CPRC sat beside Taser's Tom Smith in Ottawa at the Commons committee. Not even trying to maintain a credibility air-gap.
I assume that CPRC will eventually be presenting a Part 2 to be entitled:
DEATH-LOTTERY (Risk of Death in Subjects that are, for example, simply standing there failing to understand commands yelled at them by RCMP officers who have already been told that the subject doesn't understand the English language and those officers already decided that they were going to use the taser even before they arrived on the scene)
"...Subjects that Resist" my ass.
Even the sub-title of the report is evil propaganda that discounts an entire class of taser victims.
Look up 'Karma' on this blog for some ethical guidance about forcing people to unwillingly participate in a street-level death-lottery.
Now, you want to discuss Risk of Death?
Taser proudly points to a so-called study by Webster et al that (get this!) calculates that the risk of death from a taser hit is in the low end of the single digit range in parts per million (some pro-taser spokespuppets [hi Greg] round it to 1-in-10 million).
Not coincidently, this insanely low number means that, given some 700,000+ deployments (including all those many FAKE taser demonstration shots into the back - and ignoring this denominator washing for the time being...), that it is most likely that not a single person in history has ever been killed by a taser [sic(k)]. How convenient from a liability point of view.
With 'science' like this, who needs sorcery?
Taser and Kroll claim that the taser is "safer than Tylenol".
So CPRC - here is the question: Do you believe this crap?
Look at some of the taser-associated deaths reported here and tracked on other blogs. There are more and more cases where the young victim is DRUG FREE, and has NO PRE-EXISTING MEDICAL CONDITION. And yet they are tasered and die of obvious cardiac effects.
(Update: By the way, drug use and pre-existing medical conditions should be considered as 'givens' in the population - so these sorts of issues cannot be considered to be escape clauses in any case. This subtle point has been examined in some detail in this blog before, look it up.)
And now, recently, some coroners and medical examiners have managed to swim away from the excited delirium and related propaganda campaign (indirectly sponsored by Taser by the way) and have found that the taser was the cause of death [LINK].
According to Taser's twisted and perverted world-view - this can't be happening.
If you believe that the risk of death-by-taser (internal, cardiac) is higher than 1-in-10 million, then you must also conclude that Taser and Kroll are wrong. And if they're wrong, then they're liable and deserve to be bankrupted.
So what is your position CPRC?
PS: Have your work checked (if you dare) by epidemiologist Dr. Chambers [LINK][LINK] to see if it jives with the real world statitics. There appears to be zero chance of any overlap between Taser's world-view and the real world (but that's just my opinion based on common-sense).
Update: See also previous post 'Injuries vs Death' [LINK]
I assume that CPRC will eventually be presenting a Part 2 to be entitled:
DEATH-LOTTERY (Risk of Death in Subjects that are, for example, simply standing there failing to understand commands yelled at them by RCMP officers who have already been told that the subject doesn't understand the English language and those officers already decided that they were going to use the taser even before they arrived on the scene)
"...Subjects that Resist" my ass.
Even the sub-title of the report is evil propaganda that discounts an entire class of taser victims.
Look up 'Karma' on this blog for some ethical guidance about forcing people to unwillingly participate in a street-level death-lottery.
Now, you want to discuss Risk of Death?
Taser proudly points to a so-called study by Webster et al that (get this!) calculates that the risk of death from a taser hit is in the low end of the single digit range in parts per million (some pro-taser spokespuppets [hi Greg] round it to 1-in-10 million).
Not coincidently, this insanely low number means that, given some 700,000+ deployments (including all those many FAKE taser demonstration shots into the back - and ignoring this denominator washing for the time being...), that it is most likely that not a single person in history has ever been killed by a taser [sic(k)]. How convenient from a liability point of view.
With 'science' like this, who needs sorcery?
Taser and Kroll claim that the taser is "safer than Tylenol".
So CPRC - here is the question: Do you believe this crap?
Look at some of the taser-associated deaths reported here and tracked on other blogs. There are more and more cases where the young victim is DRUG FREE, and has NO PRE-EXISTING MEDICAL CONDITION. And yet they are tasered and die of obvious cardiac effects.
(Update: By the way, drug use and pre-existing medical conditions should be considered as 'givens' in the population - so these sorts of issues cannot be considered to be escape clauses in any case. This subtle point has been examined in some detail in this blog before, look it up.)
And now, recently, some coroners and medical examiners have managed to swim away from the excited delirium and related propaganda campaign (indirectly sponsored by Taser by the way) and have found that the taser was the cause of death [LINK].
According to Taser's twisted and perverted world-view - this can't be happening.
If you believe that the risk of death-by-taser (internal, cardiac) is higher than 1-in-10 million, then you must also conclude that Taser and Kroll are wrong. And if they're wrong, then they're liable and deserve to be bankrupted.
So what is your position CPRC?
PS: Have your work checked (if you dare) by epidemiologist Dr. Chambers [LINK][LINK] to see if it jives with the real world statitics. There appears to be zero chance of any overlap between Taser's world-view and the real world (but that's just my opinion based on common-sense).
Update: See also previous post 'Injuries vs Death' [LINK]
Saturday, August 22, 2009
"harm" = sprained wrist, or painful death?
...The true controversy with the Tasers is whether to provide an instrument that some officers may use as a violent method of persuasion. However, in a situation where force is needed, a Taser will incur less harm to officers and "resisting subjects." Kit Collins, Averill Park [LINK]
WRONG.
The only way that anyone can hold such an opinion is if they are still under misconceptions about the possible level of harm that attend use of tasers. In other words, one would have exclude consideration of the risk of death, or weight such a risk at zero, or be fooled by the latest insane muddle of lumping deaths in with injuries.
My moral code indicates that death is many, many times worse than injury. As such, it needs to be considered as a separate parameter in any moral, basic justice, or karma accounting.
Collins' use of the word "harm" is very much like Taser International's use of the phrase 'deathandinjuries'. In both cases there is a distinct lack of specificity that leads to muddled thinking and defective arguments.
WRONG.
The only way that anyone can hold such an opinion is if they are still under misconceptions about the possible level of harm that attend use of tasers. In other words, one would have exclude consideration of the risk of death, or weight such a risk at zero, or be fooled by the latest insane muddle of lumping deaths in with injuries.
My moral code indicates that death is many, many times worse than injury. As such, it needs to be considered as a separate parameter in any moral, basic justice, or karma accounting.
Collins' use of the word "harm" is very much like Taser International's use of the phrase 'deathandinjuries'. In both cases there is a distinct lack of specificity that leads to muddled thinking and defective arguments.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
How low is low?
In my immediately previous post [LINK] I tried to make clear that it is not fair to trade-off the lives of innocents against the lives of violent criminals that may be attacking the police. I tried to describe how the karma factor imposes a very high standard upon the taser.
So stating that the risk of death is "low" is not clear enough. "Well less than 1%" (even if that were true, which appears unlikely) is probably unsatisfactory.
Also, have a look at a previous post to understand the relativity of the viewpoint. [LINK]
The long and short of it is that these experts need to be more clear when they speak about low numbers.
And they need to direct their attention to full-on X26 deployments with the barbs across the chest and the 5-second cycle repeated several times. Washing out the statistics (by artificially increasing the denominator of the ratios, intentionally or otherwise) by including deployments that do not meet this riskiest deployment is misleading. When we try to consider this factor from our end, the real-world statistics are only made to look many times worse.
So stating that the risk of death is "low" is not clear enough. "Well less than 1%" (even if that were true, which appears unlikely) is probably unsatisfactory.
Also, have a look at a previous post to understand the relativity of the viewpoint. [LINK]
The long and short of it is that these experts need to be more clear when they speak about low numbers.
And they need to direct their attention to full-on X26 deployments with the barbs across the chest and the 5-second cycle repeated several times. Washing out the statistics (by artificially increasing the denominator of the ratios, intentionally or otherwise) by including deployments that do not meet this riskiest deployment is misleading. When we try to consider this factor from our end, the real-world statistics are only made to look many times worse.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Surprise-surprise, Taser International fails to make a profit
Sales fell 26 percent...
October-December net loss was $200,000...
Revenue fell 34 percent...
For the full year, a net loss of $4.4 million
Karma.
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.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Webster is being ignored
I note with some satisfaction that today (Tuesday, 6 May 08) most of media outlets are picking up Reilly's almost-reasonable opinions about tasers and their "not zero" safety [LINK], and are (for the most part) studiously ignoring Webster's crazy "6 in a million worst case" nonsense ([LINK] and [LINK] if you're interested).
I've already discussed How low is low? [LINK] and The Karma Factor [LINK]. Add to this the possibility of denominator washing [see below and LINK] and there seems to be the slight possibility of finding common ground between Reilly's opinions and the real world outcomes that we are seeing [raw data: LINK]. Even getting within sight of roughly an order of magnitude (within the range of ten times to one-tenth) would be a tremendous first step.
[Clarification - I'm assuming that Reilly's view when adjusted, normalized and finalized will be in approximate alignment with the real-world incidents that we're seeing. I admit I'm being generous with my view of his opinion at this time. It's because he is being so much more reasonable - I think - than Webster. But if Reilly starts to move his opinion away from being aligned with the real-world incidents, then my opinion of his opinion would shift exactly in step.]
By denominator washing I mean that 'someone' has apparently decided that it would be beneficial to increase the total number of taser 'incidents' and 'deployments' by including everything under the sun. Reportedly, in some jurisdictions, even threatening to use a taser or displaying a taser counts as a deployment. If they can get away with inflating the denominator, then it artificially decreases the ratio. That's why I cry FAKE when Taser tries to include those obviously much safer (cardiac wise, as backed-up by a recent study [LINK]) training sessions where the taser is applied almost anywhere except across the chest. [LINK]
I've already discussed How low is low? [LINK] and The Karma Factor [LINK]. Add to this the possibility of denominator washing [see below and LINK] and there seems to be the slight possibility of finding common ground between Reilly's opinions and the real world outcomes that we are seeing [raw data: LINK]. Even getting within sight of roughly an order of magnitude (within the range of ten times to one-tenth) would be a tremendous first step.
[Clarification - I'm assuming that Reilly's view when adjusted, normalized and finalized will be in approximate alignment with the real-world incidents that we're seeing. I admit I'm being generous with my view of his opinion at this time. It's because he is being so much more reasonable - I think - than Webster. But if Reilly starts to move his opinion away from being aligned with the real-world incidents, then my opinion of his opinion would shift exactly in step.]
By denominator washing I mean that 'someone' has apparently decided that it would be beneficial to increase the total number of taser 'incidents' and 'deployments' by including everything under the sun. Reportedly, in some jurisdictions, even threatening to use a taser or displaying a taser counts as a deployment. If they can get away with inflating the denominator, then it artificially decreases the ratio. That's why I cry FAKE when Taser tries to include those obviously much safer (cardiac wise, as backed-up by a recent study [LINK]) training sessions where the taser is applied almost anywhere except across the chest. [LINK]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
