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.

Friday, April 24, 2009

Tolerances and analysis

Tasers are failing, in significant numbers, to pass newly-instituted test procedures.

There's some talk that some of the failures are not significant because they're just outside the specified limits.

Obviously, the next step is to revised the specifications and widen the specified tolerance band. If +/-20% isn't wide enough, then maybe +/-25% would allow more tasers to pass the relaxed tests. Maybe +/-30% would be even 'better'? +/-50%?

[Excuse me. The 'We is High Tech' sign on your building has fallen down and is sticking out of a pile of cow dung.]

But here's the catch.

You have to re-do all the studies, including performing again what is called a 'Monte Carlo' type analysis to matrix all the variations of taser output against all the variations in human conditions to calculate a predicted risk of death rate for X26 taser darts on chest.

('...again...' ?)

Then, after this inherent risk has been calculated, peer-reviewed by skeptical critics (not fan-boys), published... ...then they can subsequently and explicitly adjust for the reduction in risk arising from somewhat random dart placement.

A correct answer can be identified when it matches the real-world results. If they come up with the nonsensical one-in-millions risk of death, then you know they are still playing games.

No comments: