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, September 10, 2010

Palo Alto adopts much tighter Taser Use Policy

The new policy creates a stricter standard and requires that the suspect "pose an immediate threat of physical injury before firing a Taser is appropriate."
...previous department policy, which permited Taser use when suspects are "actively resisting," which includes such actions as "tensing" or "bracing" to resist arrest.

Do I agree with this change?

That's almost a stupid question.

I've stated more than once that if the police are under ACTUAL (not imagined) "...immediate threat of physical injury...", then I don't care what they have to do to protect themselves (hopefully proportional to the magnitude of the ACTUAL threat). I've even stated that I don't care if they are forced to "use a fricken flame-thrower", so long as the resultant burnt humans are not blamed on 'Spontaneous Human Combustion'.

This new policy, assuming it is implemented honestly, and assuming that Palo Alto had the usual rate of taser overuse, should result in a reduction in taser use of about 90% or so (roughly). Might be 75%, might be 97%. but it SHOULD be significant. That's what happened in BC (about 90% reduction).

One last question: What naive moron (or, more likely, Church of Taser infiltrator within the department) cut-and-paste the previous rights-violating, unconstitutional, electro-torture advising Palo Alto Taser Overuse Policy directly from Taser International's propaganda?

Is he allowed a clean getaway? Even though "his" defective policy led directly to multiple instances of civil rights violations?

Is that okay with you?

Hey, I'm just asking!

PS: Those whose rights were violated should seek legal advice. Might be some compensation available (hint: 6-figures minimum).

No comments: