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.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Taser subtly shifts its safety claims again

As part of its carefully-planned, almost-imperceptible sneaky legal shuffle away from liability [LINK], Taser has just subtly shifted the wording of its safety claims again.

"...the taser device is not... ...unreasonably dangerous..." [LINK]

So now the taser is 'not unreasonably dangerous'.

In other words, it is dangerous - just not unreasonably so.

That's a vast change from the taser being perfectly incapable of affecting the heart in any manner whatsoever as Taser and Kroll have repeatedly claimed.

Can we all now agree that there actually is a moderate risk of DEATH from internal risk factors (such as cardiac effects) when the X26 darts actually land on the victim's chest?

Such an acknowledgment would certainly help to explain all those incidents where people have died immediately after being tasered.

I have guesstimate the odds of DEATH as being within sight of the low end of the single digit range - once all the possible external safety factors and denominator washing factors are eliminated (leaving only the inherent safety margin alone, naked, scared, and certainly not 15-to-1).

The risk certainly ain't millions-to-one as Taser and their fan-boys have tried to claim. They're obviously off by several orders of magnitude.

It's like watching a bad child shifting sideways - heels left, toes left, heels left, toes left, heels left, toes left.

Hey, where do you think you're going?

1 comment:

Reality Chick said...

Another example of this wording in a report today: ""The Taser weapon, the gun, performed just as it is supposed to perform," said Darrell Townsend, attorney and case analyst. "There was nothing defective about it. There was nothing unreasonably dangerous about it, based on all that the plaintiff's attorneys have been able to discover about the weapon over the course of a couple years."

I guess the "plaintiff's attorneys" referred to are none other than "Doug Klint, executive vice president and general counsel for Taser"?

Here's a link to today's report: