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, January 8, 2010

Eugene committee wrestles with legal, safety, practical questions

The Register-Guard - "A citizen advisory committee and Eugene police officers on Wednesday wrestled with possible changes to the police department’s use of Tasers, two weeks after police said a number of committee recommendations are unworkable. ..." [LINK]

The punchline is that it is the year 2010, and people are still struggling to figure where to draw the line for acceptable Taser Use Policy.

Suggestion: consider the following points.

First come to terms with the growing consensus, at least of all that are both informed and honest, that tasers can sometimes - essentially randomly - cause death ("directly or indirectly" [US AMA]).

Tasers also cause excrutiating pain, and are an ideal torture device.

They've indisputably been overused, misused, and abused.

You already know about the 9th Circuit Court decision. This decision means that those that would deploy their tasers in what have been very common situations (and in accordance with the training traceable back to the manufacturer) would now be exposed to extreme legal jeopardy.

The Maryland AG concluded that the manufacturer has "significantly" understated the risks - so you cannot trust their claims, nor can you accept the "expert" advice of anyone that has been trained brainwashed by this misinformation regarding safety.

Putting these facts into your heart makes creating a new Taser Use Policy very simple.

It can almost be cut-and-paste from a combination of the 9th Circuit Court, the Maryland AG report, some insight from the Canadian Braidwood Inquiry. And excluding any and all advice from those that have been so clearly shown to have been in the wrong (the manufacturer, and all that have been associated with their vertically-integrated training brainwashing and departmental infiltration scheme).

It's not that complicated.

No comments: