Remember this?

Compare this crap-fest (less than six months ago) to what we are now hearing at the Braidwood Inquiry:

Tasers safer than Tylenol, engineer tells conference

CBC News (Friday, November 30, 2007) - A biomedical engineer with ties to the company that makes Tasers insists that the stun-guns are safer than Tylenol.

"You have Tylenol in your home? As far as an electronic controlled device killing you, this stuff is safer than Tylenol," Dr. Mark Kroll said Thursday in Las Vegas.

Kroll, an adjunct professor at California Polytechnic State University who specializes in electrical currents, made his comments while addressing a group of 360 doctors, police officers, lawyers and medical examiners attending a three-day conference on sudden death and in-custody deaths.

Kroll and some of the other medical specialists and law enforcement officials who spoke at the conference stressed that Tasers do no harm, despite the outcry over the death of Robert Dziekanski, a Polish man who died last month after RCMP officers stunned him with a Taser gun at the Vancouver International Airport.

The federal government is examining the case, as are officials from Poland and the B.C. Coroner's office.

Kroll insisted Tasers are safe under all circumstances, and have never been proven to have directly killed anyone. He said they don't output enough electricity to kill, even if people are stunned several times.

There are several myths surrounding the stun-guns that are not true, Kroll said.

"One myth is that these devices can affect the heart. That myth has almost died out but you still see it once in awhile," he said.

"Another myth is that they're more dangerous [if the person being hit with a Taser is on] drugs, but one of my favourite myths is that these devices can harm pacemakers."

Kroll said even though he consults with Taser International, the maker of Tasers, and sits on the company's advisory board, he said he does not speak for the company.

Others at the sudden death conference, which ends Friday, also had ties to Taser International — three researchers in attendance are consultants with the company, while Taser paid for 10 of its employees to attend.

John Peters, who directs the U.S. Institute for the Prevention of In-Custody Deaths [IPICD], said his organization is not influenced by Taser International, despite the ties.

"We're not funded by Taser, we teach at the Taser academy a couple of times a year, but that's it," he said.

He conceded that his conference did not include the work of researchers who raised safety questions about Tasers.

"Their studies were very small, they were isolated," he said. "I thought it wasn't a good fit."

[LINK]

Kroll's ties to Taser also included stock options potentially worth about a million dollars. He sold about half his TASR holdings on 26 Oct 2007, pocketing $413,500. At the same time, he was sitting as chair of Taser's in-house so-called Medical Advisory Board. [LINK] [LINK]

IPICD is not funded by Taser. But IPICD is sponsored by Taser's lawyer, Micheal Brave. [LINK] [LINK]

Here's one of the people that should be sued...

Link= Sock-puppet stands on hind legs and speaks at taser-fanboy conference

'Safer than Tylenol' my ass. I'll bet/hope that Tylenol/McNeil sues his butt into the next galaxy.

People are tasered and then they (sometimes) die. And this ding-dong is their expert? No wonder they're in trouble.

Scuzzy Taser is in a different realm than Tylenol/McNeil. Any reputable company would issue a recall on a defective or dangerous product. McNeil is just such a reputable company. Taser is not.

Sue sue sue and sue some more is the only solution.

The Rockford Files

(Rockford, Illinois) The fact that two Rockford residents have died in the last two months when tasers have been used is raising some questions. Rockford Police say there’s no clear indication that Sunday’s death was caused by the use of a taser. [LINK]


For purposes of comparison, does anyone have a count on the number of Tylenol-related deaths in Rockford, Illinois in the past two months? What's that? 'None' you say? Zero?

Well - I guess that tasers must be used a lot more often than Tylenol in Rockford, Illinois.

(Deep sarcasm indicated by blue text colour)


Tasers - "Safer than Tylenol" my ass.

(BS indicated by poo-poo brown text colour)

'1.4%' death rate vs. "Safer than Tylenol"

The Province (May 20, 2008) - ...Dr. Michael Janusz, a heart surgeon at Vancouver General Hospital and UBC told the Braidwood Inquiry into Taser use Tuesday that "Tasers almost certainly can cause cardiac arrest in humans, particularly in people with underlying heart disease." Janusz told retired judge Tom Braidwood that the risk of dying after being Tasered is similar to the chances of dying after major heart surgery. Janusz quoted San Francisco cardiologist Dr. Zian Tseng's findings of about "1.4 per cent mortality for individuals subdued by police using a taser... (which) is similar to the mortality risk of a coronary artery bypass operation." [LINK]

Note - 'subdued by police using a taser' is much different than those FAKE demonstrations and training sessions. The clever propaganda ploy of denominator washing is bypassed by using this inherently real-world definition of the included data.

This "1.4%" is roughly in the same single-digit range as I had guesstimated based on the 2007 British Columbia statistics. I wrote: Result: 1 or 2 deaths divided by roughly 25 full-on X26 deployments = about a 6% death rate Might be 1% (maybe). Might be 10% (maybe). Might be a bit higher. Might be a bit lower. [LINK]

My estimate quoted just above was for full-on X26 taserings across the chest. The 1.4% risk of death appears to be for something less specific (possibly less dangerous). If anyone has any further details about this 1.4% death rate, please pass along by e-mail (see right hand column) or by comment.

Remember when Kroll stated that the taser was "Safer than Tylenol"? Well, he was wrong for thinking it, and certainly wrong for saying it.

The Big Picture (hint: it's not the knife)

I left this comment [LINK] on the It all goes here blog [LINK]. The comment addresses the red herring about the knife in the recent tragic apparently-tasered-to-death incident involving a 17-year old, 5-foot-6-inch, 145 lb youth in Winnipeg that was reportedly wielding a knife.


The issue is NOT the knife.

The issue is that Taser claims that the taser (x26) is safe ("safer than Tylenol"), and quotes studies that claim that the risk of death (cardiac-wise) from a taser hit is in the low end of the parts-per-million range.

Those figures are obviously off by MANY orders of magnitude.

Officers have been brainwashed by Taser's propaganda and they use the tasers as if they are perfectly safe.

Obviously they're not. I think that even many law-and-order nut cases understand that tasers are not 'perfectly safe'; but they haven't followed the larger debate. This level of ignorance is often displayed by the inane 'safer than a gun' argument.

If Taser would just admit that they were wrong and there is actually a modest risk of death from being hit in the chest with an X26 taser, then we could all come to a happy agreement.

Well, except that Taser would then be sued into the next galaxy, and the senior staff and advisers would be personally bankrupted, and some of them might even see the inside of a jail cell.

And so we sit waiting for the most-obvious conclusion to become so un-ignorable that action will have to be taken.

Meanwhile the death count grows.

That's the big picture.


The It all goes here blog wrote an excellent post here: [LINK]

"Tasers cannot affect the heart" vs. the ugly results

A Queensland (Australia) man [Antonio Galeano] shocked 28 times by a police officer with a 50,000-volt taser died of a heart attack within minutes, an autopsy has confirmed. [LINK]

The stun gun's US manufacturers have claimed the weapon cannot cause a heart attack.


Tasers are safer than Tylenol.

Tasers have a large safety margin.

The only risks of death are the following: 1) unauthorized replacement parts, and 2) falling down and banging ones' head. [Official Taser Warning (paraphrased, please refer to the original for complete details. Search the document for the word 'death'.)]


To be complete, the news reports also indicate that Mr. Galeano was an amphetamine addict and had an existing heart condition. Taser fan-boys will be quick to claim cover from these contributing factors.

But Taser International can't. They can't claim that the "taser is safe, except for drug users." They're not selling these things to maintain order at church picnics. They're being sold to police for use on the drug-infested streets. So if the taser can cause a heart attack in a drug user, then it's not reasonable to call it "safe".


Taser International is in for a rough ride in Australia. It'll be a repeat performance of what they've experienced in Canada, except a bit warmer and with more poisonous spiders and snakes.

Injuries vs. Death

Apparently some so-called experts, even some doctors (!!), don't seem to make much of a distinction between an injury and a death.

Read this post [LINK] on the Truth...Not Tasers blog about a so-called study by the 'Canadian Police Research Centre', and then read it again and notice that these obviously pro-taser folks in Calgary are casually lumping DEATH into the same pot as injuries.

"No use-of-force technique available to police officers can be considered 'safe.' ... Every use-of-force encounter between the police and a citizen carries with it the possibility for injury for one or all of the participants, however unexpected that injury might be," says a synopsis of the report.

Oh shut the f-ck up.

What is the claimed and actual rate of DEATH ?

Look, if there had been 22 people injured in Canada by tasers, then I wouldn't have bothered to create this blog.

The issue with Taser and tasers is the apparent discrepancy between the claimed level of safety and the actual field safety for the taser (with respect to DEATH from internal mechanisms). And the bad training. Which leads to overuse, misuse and abuse. Which - when all combined - leads to the unnecessary deaths of innocent people (people that would never in a million years have been shot with a gun by the police).

Taser quotes 'studies' by Webster that claim the the chances of death, by any internal mechanism, is in the single digit parts-per-million range. Taser has never acknowledged any internal risk mechanism. Kroll claims the taser is "safer than Tylenol". That's the claim.

Do you believe that?

And do NOT include all the denominator washing that Taser likes to create [LINK] and include [LINK].

What's the actual death rate once the X26 dart(s) hit the chest and the device is cycled one or more times?

The taser has been described as a street level death lottery.


I'm sick and tired of this sort of crap propaganda from these sort of pro-taser folks that can't even make up a good lie.

And why would the folks at the so-called 'Canadian Police Research Centre' try to slip such clumsy pro-Taser propaganda past us? What's with THAT?

If this (injuries/death: same thing) is the quality of output that we're going to get from the Canadian Police Research Centre, then I say that they should be disqualified from the debate.

Are you smarter than a 5th grader?

WPXI.com - Allegheny County officials are forming a committee to investigate the physical effects of being stunned. District Attorney Stephen Zappala said the group will include medical professionals and law enforcement personnel. The group is being formed after two recent police Taser incidents in the Pittsburgh area.

[I guess they are starting to doubt Taser's spin and propaganda.]

Last week, Jason Schmidt, 29, was hospitalized after police used a Taser on him. Officials were called to a house on Observatory Hill on Friday, where they said Schmidt was acting erratically and was having convulsions. It took four stuns by two officers to subdue him, police said. Schmidt is currently in intensive care at Allegheny General Hospital.

Earlier this month, police in Swissvale stunned Andre Thomas, 37, who later died. On Monday night, more than 60 people attended a meeting focusing on Thomas' death. Two autopsies on the body were inconclusive. The medical examiner is waiting for the results of toxicology tests. Thomas' family said they believe police used excessive force. [LINK]


So Allegheny County's committee is going to figure it all out are they?


Here is my suggestion for a starting point (just a sanity check):

You now have the beginings of a data set; it might not yet be strictly statistically significant, but it might still be common-sense indicative. You have one taser-associated death and another taser victim in the ICU. Let's call this numerator 1.5 to split the difference. It's within a heartbeat of being either 1 or 2, so 1.5 is perfectly reasonable for this type of rough estimate.

Next, estimate the approximate number of taser deployments over some reasonable period of time. To be fair, it doesn't have to be just the past month. Take the past several months (this is being generous to the pro-taser side). You can decide how many months to include: 6, 8, or even 12. The exact number of months to include is not very critical since we're just trying to establish a rough order of magnitude (ROM) estimate of the risk of death from a taser deployment.

Now, remove from the denominator all the Touch-Torture (non-dart) mode deployments unless they were fired directly into the subject's chest (a la Pikes). Remove any misses. Remove any other denominator washing (for example, don't include any taser training hits to the back). Don't include any 'displays' of the taser spark. You want to denominator to be a reasonable reflection of real taser deployments that actually had darts on the chest and thereby should be included in the risk calculation.

Finally, divide the numerator (1.5) by the denominator (more or less about 100?).


So, is this taser risk of death ratio close to 1-in-10 million ?

Does it seem to be "safer than Tylenol" ?

These are Taser's claims (or those of their spokes-puppets or pro-taser minions).


Or is your result more like a single digit percentage result (within sight of 5%)?


To obtain Webster's 1-in-10 million number, you would have had to taser every living soul in Allegheny County on a weekly basis for several months and still have had just two casualties. Not likely.


So, what are your conclusions?

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.

More details emerging about Winnipeg taser death

The victim was just 17 years old.

Many commenters are missing the point: The police were told that the taser is safe. Not that it was safer than a gun (an easy comparison), but 'safer than Tylenol'.

If the police had realized that a deployment of a taser might lead to a death, then they might have considered other options. It is not reasonable to assume that they would have immediately used a gun.

In this case, even if lethal force could be justified, the main issue is that we have a death that appears to be (according to the limited reports) very closely associated with the taser deployment. And Taser will claim that there is no connection.

I think that Taser's position is self-serving and self-evidently perposterous. But that's just my opinion.

Death rate estimated - feel free to provide rebuttal

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

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

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

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

Ah, wait a second...

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

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

2007 British Columbia: 496 taser incidents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Safer than Tylenol" my ass.

Taser International (TASR) et al - shades of deception

Examples of deception by Taser International et al. Potentially very useful for shredding their corporate or personal credibility in court. This is not a complete list by any means.

Example 1: Claiming that the tasers (M26 and X26) emit only 2mA "average" and implying that this is relevant. This claim is utter deception; it is obviously intended to confuse and mislead those that are not educated about technical topics. See [LINK] for detailed explanation. Further details available upon request - blog e-mail address is in the right hand column.

Example 2: Do you remember when Smith4Brains testified at SECU that the X26 taser is powered by a couple of wee-little harmless [-looking] batteries of the same sort (CR123A) used in digital cameras? He was trying to leave the deceptive impression that those batteries wouldn't hurt a flea. Those claims were intentionally deceptive. Those are powerful lithium cells and they drain them at a rate that is literally off-the-scale of the battery application notes. See [LINK] for an explanation using their own deceptive numbers.

Example 3: Claiming that their legal win/loss record was unblemished, when in fact they had quietly settled some lawsuits. They described these settlements as "dismissed" and (apparently intentionally) left a false impression with many. And they did nothing to correct the false impression when the misinformation was spread by ill-informed taser fan-boys.

Example 4: For years there existed a discrepancy in that all taser training and demonstration taser hits were only ever fired into the subjects' backs, or connected to the same area, or clipped to one leg. Trans-cardiac (chest) applications were intentionally avoided. (Now they advise "avoiding the chest" for all.) And yet they claimed that these "FAKE" taser deployments were evidence of safety. They counted them as safe deployments (my term is "denominator washing"). This was deception on a grand scale.

Example 5: Claiming that the X26 taser's waveform consists of just short pulses, and claiming some sort of magical "chronaxie" safety advantage of the "short pulses". In fact, the X26 taser has a waveform with significant low frequency spectral components, and those spectral components are continuous 100% duty cycle for as long as the trigger is held down. To be fair, this false claim by them probably started out as an elementary technical oversight; it was probably not deception at the outset. But their failure to correct this dumb-ass technical error is clearly pure deception.

Example 6: Taser International fights the various acidosis taser-death mechanisms. They cannot deny acidosis, but they gamely try to downplay the self-evident role that the taser deployment would play. The deception involves their struggling to maintain a straight face while trying to pass-off their position as reasonable. See [Kroll] and especially [Ho].

Example 7: Taser International and their minions have repeatedly claimed that tasers do not affect the heart. As late as May 2009, Taser International sent their unwashed hired help, on expenses I'll assume, to a meeting of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) to try to defend this insane position (their mere attendance being an obvious 'red flag' if there ever was one...). See [LINK]. Meanwhile, buried in their legal paperwork is the admission that the taser "...can produce... changes in... heart rate and rhythm..." - see [LINK]. This is a huge discrepancy between their various statements (marketing lies, false claims, and legal warnings).

Example 8: Taser International and their minions and fan-boys have a nasty habit of failing to disclose that which should obviously be disclosed. I could find no mention of "Braidwood" (or anything similar) in their most recent Annual Report (15 March 2010) [LINK] - a matter clearly worthy of SEC investigation. Or Kroll's Mole-Role Trolls [LINK]. Or William Oliver (a.k.a. Billo the blogger) was discovered to be sitting on a NIJ panel "studying" (LOL) the safety of tasers, while actively promoting tasers in his spare time [LINK]. Or the seemingly-slimy connections, both direct and financial, between Taser International, the IPICD, and those promoting "excited delirium" [LINK][LINK][LINK] and more.

Example 9: Kroll's repeated and infamous reassurances of taser safety. His utterly-deceptive IEEE Spectrum article in which he repeats his many technical mistakes, including forgetting about Fourier (Hint: There's no such thing as 100 microseconds of 19 Hz). His claim of a reassuringly large "15-to-one" (sic) safety margin (self-evidently a vast overstatement). His claim that tasers are "safer than Tylenol". His evil comparison of being repeatedly being tasered to being repeatedly hit with "a ping ping ball" - at one time prominently published on Taser International's website under "Cardiac Safety" (sic), since then mysteriously pulled (?). All of these claims have misled people and organizations. The actual safety margin is much lower than they've claimed. And they've utterly failed to contemplate other Taser-death mechanisms.

Example 10: Taser International often makes claims and statements that appear to make sense in the limited context of the moment. But a wider view (and a better memory) reveals their statements to be at odds with their previous statements. (10a) They claimed at the time that the 1999-era M26 taser was "safe" BECAUSE the output waveform is high frequency and thus very low duty cycle. But the newer less-safe 2003-era X26 taser has a waveform that contains a DC pulse after the arc phase. When repeated at 19Hz this is low frequency and is thus continuous 100% duty cycle. In spite of the lower peak amplitude of the X26, there's no disagreement on either side that the X26 taser is the most dangerous of the two. But even well past 2003, they were still claiming the characteristics of the M26 waveform as safety factors. (10b) When asked about variations in taser current given inevitable variations in the resistance of humans, they immediately claimed that the taser is "a constant current source" and is thus insensitive to variations in the resistance of the target. Later, when investigators finally became curious about taser output, it was noted that a high percentage of units were out of spec, some were above spec. The response from Taser International was to start nitpicking the exact value of test resistor used. The contradiction is self-evident. Their habit of ever-changing stories aren't even good deceptions.

Example 11: The entire "excited delirium" (explain-away in-custody-death for hire) industry. Taser International and the IPICD (...Lawsuits) are connected right from the initial "start-up funding" for IPICD. These connections were not exactly highlighted (they were hidden, downplayed, and denied). The slimy connections were revealed by outside investigators one-by-one, including too-direct-to-be-ethical web-links to the University of Miami. Their insane claim that "excited delirium" (as might apply to a taser-death) has a history that goes back 150 years to a previously-described condition, Bell's Mania - where mental patients would starve themselves to death over a period of several weeks, is obviously utter nonsense. There are so many irrational aspects to their claims about "excited delirium" as a handy excuse for In-Custody Death (always in-custody) that the entire industry falls apart under its own illogic.

Example 12: A pair of cases where Taser International's outrageous behavior resulted in a couple of legal face-plants. These are deception (very poor attempts) because of what they were trying to accomplish. (12a) A B.C. Supreme Court judge has roundly rejected attempts by Taser International to discredit a lawyer and a medical expert who participated in the Braidwood inquiry... Justice Robert Sewell said allegations of bias and dishonesty against lawyer Art Vertlieb and Dr. Keith Chambers were "unnecessary, scandalous and vexatious," and ordered Taser International to pay their legal costs. [LINK] (12b) In denying Taser International's Motion for Summary Judgment... Judge Almquist also found that a portion of Taser International's motion was "substantially immaterial and irrelevant to the substance of the motion and created unnecessary time and expense for the parties and the court" and was filed in "bad-faith". He ordered the scoundrels to pay plaintiffs' counsel the sum of $15,000 in attorneys' fees to compensate them for the time spent responding to the motion. [LINK]

Example 13: Back in May 2009, 'someone' (LOL) in San Jose, California arrived from search.yahoo.com on "www.Excited-Delirium.com: Presentation by Dorin Panescu" by searching for first:"dorin" last:"panescu". Gee, I wonder who that was? Perhaps someone that had just returned (all expenses paid) from testifying at the Braidwood Inquiry, and was checking the news? Then, the same anonymous Internet user, accessing the Internet at an ISP-reported location just blocks from the listed address for Dorin Panescu, fraudulently stuffed the ballot box on a poll I was running. Simplest explanation is that 'someone' was caught red-handed engaging in deceptive behaviour. Fresh off the witness stand at Braidwood (?). [LINK]

Example 14: Taser International's bought and paid-for expert witness presented 'evidence' to 'prove' that the taser current has no effect on the heart. Unfortunately the same defective computer model also showed that the taser would have absolutely no effect beyond, perhaps, making one pectoral muscle slightly twitch. This is deception; but it's just not very good deception. It's laughable. [LINK]

Taser "safety margins" and pre-existing medical conditions

Taser International (Kroll) explicitly claim that the (X26?) taser is "safer than Tylenol" and provides (according to them) "a 15-to-1 safety margin" for any imaginable cardiac effect from the electric shock.

But when someone is tasered in the chest, immediately shows a serious medical reaction, and then subsequently dies, Taser International et al are extremely quick to leap onto any evidence of any pre-existing medical condition, no matter how slight and/or unrelated. They'll claim that the subject was drunk, or suffering from alcohol withdrawl, or had taken drugs, or was tired from travel, or anything at all.

Nobody has yet called them on this insane leap of illogic.

Where does it show that people that are drunk, or on drugs, or are tired from travel... ...where does it show that these people are FIFTEEN TIMES more susceptible to electrocution compared to people in perfect health?

Either the claimed 15-to-1 safety margin is utter BS (bingo!), or the brain trust at Taser International is aware of some new 'science', roughly equivalent to spontaneous human combustion or ESP.

Every now and then, something hilarious...

Mark 'Safer than Tylenol' Kroll is a Taser director and general pro-taser spokespuppet. I guess when he drones on endlessly about how perfectly safe tasers are, the word Droll enters the listeners' minds and this funny alternative surname ends up in articles.

[So as not to be too convenient for those that might want to correct this funny error, a link is not provided.]

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]

Repost: Taser "safety margins" and pre-existing medical conditions

This is a repost from 30 December 2009.

Taser "safety margins" and pre-existing medical conditions [LINK]

Taser International (Kroll) explicitly claim that the (X26?) taser is "safer than Tylenol" and provides (according to them) "a 15-to-1 safety margin" for any imaginable cardiac effect from the electric shock.

But when someone is tasered in the chest, immediately shows a serious medical reaction, and then subsequently dies, Taser International et al are extremely quick to leap onto any evidence of any pre-existing medical condition, no matter how slight and/or unrelated. They'll claim that the subject was drunk, or suffering from alcohol withdrawl, or had taken drugs, or was tired from travel, or anything at all.

Nobody has yet called them on this insane leap of illogic.

Where does it show that people that are drunk, or on drugs, or are tired from travel... ...where does it show that these people are FIFTEEN TIMES more susceptible to electrocution compared to people in perfect health?

Either the claimed 15-to-1 safety margin is utter BS (bingo!), or the brain trust at Taser International is aware of some new 'science', roughly equivalent to spontaneous human combustion or ESP.

[Comment for repost: Their various safety claims sometimes sound reasonable when viewed individually, but when the claims are all put on the table at once, the contradictions become obvious. The same situation exists with their claims of safety for the older 1999-era model M26 as compared to the newer 2003-era X26. The waveform features that they had claimed as the basis of safety for the M26 were removed from the X26. And then watch the monthly taser associated death rate start to climb in mid-2003. The point is, their claims are best attacked by comparing them with their other claims.]

Houston - we have a problem.

See Truth...Not Tasers blog [LINK]

#102: February 18, 2005: Joel Dawn Casey, 52, Houston, Texas
#171: January 13, 2006: Daryl Dwayne Kelley, 29, Houston, Texas
#226: October 6, 2006: Herman Carroll, 31, Houston, Texas
#261: April 23, 2007: Unidentified male, Houston, Texas
#359: July 14, 2008: Marion Wilson Jr., 52, Houston, Texas [LINK][LINK][LINK]


Yep. Tasers are perfectly safe. Yep.

Sure... Wanna buy a bridge?


The news reports linked above indicate that tasers have been deployed by Houston police about 1600 times. And we have five deaths (those that we know about) that, on their face, appear to be 'taser-associated'.

Taser and their spokes-puppets will claim that these deaths have nothing to do with the taser.

So, logically, you'd expect to see the same 5/1600 (one in 320) coincidental death rate for other 'perfectly safe' law enforcement activities - like handing out speeding tickets (sans taser deployment). Do the math and you'd see that every police officer on traffic enforcement duties would have several people dying on them (when asked to produce their driver's license at a traffic stop) every month.

Five doesn't seem like a large number, but the ratio 5/1600 is insane for something that is supposedly 'safer than Tylenol'.


But it actually gets worse if you think it through a bit more.

When you consider that drive-stun mode (call it what it is: Push-Pain mode, or perhaps Touch-Torture mode) deployments, normally considered to be safer, vastly outnumber barb- or dart-mode deployments, and that even in dart-deployment mode many times the darts would land in a location on the subject's body that everyone would agree is not as dangerous, then you can see that this 5/1600 ratio is just the tip of the iceberg.

This raw number of 0.3% (=5/1600) might suddenly become something like about 3% or 6% when the denominator washing (10:1, 20:1?) is adjusted out to reveal the true risk of full-on taser hits.

Get it?

'But it's better than a gun' - another angle

It's well past time to address the other aspect of this 'better than a gun' argument. (As opposed to my first reaction that tasers are used about 100 times as often - roughly - as guns ever were.)

Sometimes this 'better than a gun' argument is used by reasonable but ill-informed people in response to a taser-associated death. Their point is something like: 'Although the taser might have caused this death, it's still better (safer) than a gun.' It's a nice argument and it's also correct (in a trivial manner).

But it misses the point, and it'll also bankrupt Taser if they ever admit to it.

The reason is that Taser has never clearly admitted ('warned') to any internal risk mechanism (such as lethal cardiac effects). They've made claims of safety that preclude any such internal mechanism of death.

In fact, this detail is the entire freaking point of the entire overall debate.

If Taser admits to, or is found liable for, any particular taser death due to an internal mechanism (such as direct or indirect cardiac effects), then they're screwed. They'll be successfully sued into the next galaxy multiple times. It'll be a feeding frenzy as the plaitiff lawyers race to beat the other to the meat before there's nothing left but bleached bones.

So if you're one of those people that simply feel that the taser is 'safer than a gun' (as opposed to Taser's position that the taser is "safer than Tylenol"), then please realize that it's not the point of the argument.

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.

Maneuvering for a legal 'soft-landing'?

I've noticed a few very subtle clues that indicate to me that Taser has been carefully laying the groundwork to try to achieve a legal 'soft-landing'.

For example, it is occasionally mentioned that Kroll does not speak for Taser (which almost makes no sense anyway). And then Kroll makes outlandish claims about the level of safety ("Safer than Tylenol" and similar nonsense). It is almost as if they laying a trap that legal attacks will be aimed towards Taser, but based on Kroll's statements. Then Taser will suddenly jump away from Kroll's opinions.

And the exact wording used by Tom Smith when questioned is very well rehearsed. Sometimes his mouth is moving, but nothing meaningful is being emitted. Many examples of very clever non-answers.

Also, I've seen the writings of Taser lawyer Michael Brave. There are some very clever word smithing that can be interpreted one way or the other.

It'll take an attentive lawyer to cut-off their pre-planned legal escapes.