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, May 19, 2010

Taser International's "Volunteer Exposure Release" form

Volunteer Warnings, Risks, Liability Release and Covenant Not to Sue [LINK]

[Fair Use / Fair Dealing righteously claimed for these extracts]

The ECD can produce physiologic or metabolic effects which include, but are not limited to, changes in: acidosis; adrenergic states; blood pressure; calcium, creatine kinase (“CK”); electrolytes(including potassium), heart rate and rhythm; lactic acid; myoglobin; pH; respiration; stress hormones or other biochemical neuromodulators (e.g., catecholamines). Reasonable effort should be made to minimize the number of ECD exposures and resulting physiologic and metabolic effects.

"The ECD can produce... changes in... heart rate and rhythm..."

In other words, tasers can affect heart rhythm.

It says exactly that.

And this is a direct contradiction to other claims that:
The TASER ECD Affects the Nerves and Muscles but not the Heart [Kroll, 2007]


Hmmm... I wonder if an upset heart rhythm that might lead to difficulty breathing in some victims...?

...ECD Use on a pregnant, infirm, elderly, small child, or low body-mass index (BMI) person could increase the risk of death or serious injury. ECD Use has not been scientifically tested on these populations. The ECD should not be Used on members of these populations unless the situation justifies possible higher risk of death or serious injury.

"...higher risk of death..."

In other words, even in the absence of these listed special factors (with normal healthy adults), there still exists a risk of death. The risk is "higher" in these listed populations. But this statement is written in a way that admits that there is a risk of death, even with what Braidwood called "healthy adults".

If the risk was essentially zero with normal populations, then the last sentence could have been phrased as follows:

The ECD should not be used on members of these populations unless the situation justifies possible risk of death or serious injury.

But that's not how it is written. Their warning includes the word "higher".

I'm not just being pedantic. This level of detailed parsing of the exact wording they've carefully selected reveals the truth.

I hope that these findings are of some help in dealing with the appeal by Taser International of the findings made by the Braidwood Inquiry. These observations are simple enough and straightforward enough that there's no rational rebuttal.

No comments: