Mission Statement - De-Spinning the Pro-Taser Propaganda

Yeah right, 'Excited Delirium' my ass...


The primary purpose of this blog is to provide an outlet for my observations and analysis about tasers, taser "associated" deaths, and the behaviour exhibited by the management, employees and minions of Taser International. In general, everything is linked back to external sources, often via previous posts on the same topic, so that readers can fact-check to their heart's content. This blog was started in late-2007 when Canadians were enraged by the taser death of Robert Dziekanski and four others in a short three month period. The cocky attitude exhibited by the Taser International spokespuppet, and his preposterous proposal that Mr. Dziekanski coincidentally died of "excited delirium" at the time of his taser-death, led me to choose the blog name I did and provides my motivation. I have zero financial ties to this issue.

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Taser - an ideal weapon...

An ideal weapon....for a 'Police State'.

This UCLA-student-without-an-ID incident happened over a year ago [LINK][LINK], but it is a perfect example of the police getting confused between lawful force (noun) and unlawfully force (verb).

"Stand up or we will tase you again...", and again, and again.

Eventually they carried him off.

"Stand over there or you'll get tased too."

Those statement are classic examples of some members of the police these days being so completely uneducated as to not even understanding the difference between lawful force (the noun), and illegally trying to force (the verb) someone to obey. Force (verb) is clearly illegal in most circumstances.

(NOTE - The right hand column contains quite a bit on the topic of force - noun or verb?)

YouTube [LINK] - tough to watch. It's disturbing on many levels at once.

Wiki [LINK]: The UCLA PD released its new Taser policy on December 10, 2007. According to UCPD Chief Karl Ross, the new policy is considerably longer, includes specific definitions of appropriate and inappropriate use, and explicitly prohibits use against a "passive resister".

(Isn't that already the law?)

Wiki [LINK]: The UCLA PD policy in effect at the time of the incident calls the Taser a "less lethal device" and says that "although not absolutely prohibited, officers should give additional consideration to the unique circumstances involved prior to applying the Taser to ... Individuals who are handcuffed or otherwise restrained" (4C). According to the policy, the "Drive Stun" capacity is appropriate "to eliminate physical resistance from an arrestee in accomplishing an arrest or physical search" (6A) as well as "pain compliance against passive resistors" (6B).

Massive lawsuit is pending. Million$ would be perfectly appropriate.

Someone should check to see if that original, illegal, and plainly stupid UCLA Taser Use-Policy originated from Taser. If so, then they should be held accountable.

PS: Another advantage to sticking to lawful force (noun) - besides it being legal and moral - is that the police would be less likely to taser an unconscious diabetic over and over and over again because he's not responding to their commands.

Really - think about it - it's just common sense.

No comments: