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.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

The missing taser dart may explain the outcome

UPDATED - Re. 2nd dart location.

I read through the Closing Submission from Taser International to the Braidwood Inquiry. [LINK]

The big picture is that Taser International continues to control what they amusingly refer to as "the science". If you're not a member of their little club, then your findings are "junk science".

But more importantly, one series of reported facts caught my eye.

I may have spotted a possibility that perhaps no one else has considered. At least I haven't yet stumbled across any reports that the following possibility has been considered.

The submission reports that one taser dart hit Mr. Dziekanski in the chest just below the sternum. And that first taser dart reportedly buried itself in and left a good mark. This taser dart just below the sternum is Part A of a possible worst case taser current vector.

But where did the other taser dart land?

CORRECTED: The submission goes on to report that the location where the second taser dart landed was uncertain. Furthermore, the submission reports that the second taser dart apparently did not make good contact, didn't stay attached, didn't leave a puncture wound, the taser wire was broken at some point, and the dart itself was lost (reportedly never found).


Has anyone considered the possibility that Mr. Dziekanski, in the process of flailing his arms at the beginning of the taser incident (clearly visible on the YouTube video [LINK], starting at 5m30s), may have made contact with the second wire, thereby establishing a contact (an arc path, remember it is 50,000 volts peak for that exact purpose) from the second taser wire to his left arm?

Fair Use / Fair Dealing claimed.

It's not really that far-fetched a suggestion... Kinda obvious actually.

And if this occurred, then this would provide Part B of a worst case taser current vector, between the left arm and a point just below the sternum. (This is equivalent to the upper left chest to just below the sternum that I challenged Taser International to make their taser training protocol.)

Also, remember that the new Taser Man targeting guidelines explicitly exclude the arms. Probably because the left one makes a good taser conductor.

This seems like a possibility that may bridge the gap between the "science", and the real world results.

So why wasn't this fairly-obvious possibility raised by the Taser International's so-called Subject Matter Experts?

Oh sorry. Rhetorical question...

UPDATE: To make this post complete, I must point out that Taser International has issued a Revision 2 of the new taser targeting guidelines. For no apparent reason (LOL) they have reinstated the hands and arms as preferred taser target areas. This changes jives with their own financial motivation, but I'm not sure how it would make any sense from a taser current vector versus cardiac safety point of view.


Dan Walter said...

Thanks for all your good work. Much appreciated. And shame on the medical professionals who sell out for this sleazy company.

Excited-Delirium.com said...

Keep in mind that some of the "Dr."-s involved in this are not real (medical) doctors. They have PhDs in EE, combined (apparently) with a poor grasp of some of the fundamentals.

When someone like me (essentially a layman) can review their work and spot fundamental flaws from a mile away, it indicates just how low their "scientific" standards really are.

I feel their true role is to plug up the plumbing with a backlog of "studies". Obviously, given how sneaky they are at not mentioning and highlighting the differences (dart placement, dart length, much more), we can assume that the best experiment is the real world.