NIJ findings are not '1-in-a-million'

Billo claims that the risk of significant taser-induced (internal) injury (I think he intends to include death in this figure) is "1-in-a-million". But that isn't what the interim NIJ report stated. The NIJ report uses words that are more compatible with risks in the range of 1-in-100. The report uses words like "low", the report doesn't use words like "extremely low".

In fact, they said almost the opposite: "...found no conclusive evidence of a high risk..." [LINK]

Billo is vastly exaggerating the NIJ's findings of safety (in spite of him being on the panel).

And to be clear - some taser critics might settle for a risk figure in the single-digit percentage range.


The NIJ panel was forced to conclude that multiple taser hits are possibly dangerous. These must be the steepest bell curves in history if two or more hits are sufficiently dangerous to be worth mentioning, while one taser hit is essentially perfectly safe ("1-in-a-million"). Does not make sense on its face.


This eagerly-awaited 'major' study fails to make any distinction between drive-stun mode or dart-firing mode. Even for an interim report, this is a mile-wide hole.


And here are the NIJ safety findings in graphical format. The areas are approximately in proportion to the population. And if you think that tasers are less likely to be used on children and the elderly (weighting), then they're more than compensated for by the population of drug users with heart problems or those 'at risk'. The graphic speaks for itself.