If I'm getting the news correct, then he's still going to be CEO.
His place in history:
Taser International under Tom's watch. [LINK]
Monday, February 13, 2012
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Braidwood on "excited delirium"
In a 1,000-page report, Braidwood concluded... [LINK]
This conclusion is perfectly clear.
... It is not helpful to characterise people displaying these behaviours as suffering from "excited delirium". Doing so implies that excited delirium is a medical condition or diagnosis, when mental health professionals uniformly reject that suggestion.
Assigning responsibility to such symptoms (in the guise of a diagnosis) conveniently avoids having to examine the underlying medical condition or conditions that actually caused death, let alone examining whether use of the conducted energy weapon and/or subsequent measures to physically restrain the subject contributed to those causes of death. ...
This conclusion is perfectly clear.
BBC FileOn4: Deaths involving police restraint
BBC audio PodCast webpage [LINK]
In the podcast (starting at about 6m00s into the podcast), Dr. 'Excited Delirium' Mash describes a typical "excited delirium" death as a long sequence of events, eventually leading to the police applying restraint, and "...the next minute they're dead."
That's exactly what she said.
Dr. Mash has repeatedly claimed that deaths following this sequence are "caused" by the underlying symptoms, and that the police restraint is not a cause of death. Her unproven theories regarding "excited delirium" have been used to take the focus off of police restraint techniques and how some are potentially more dangerous than others.
She then explains (at 6m30s), "...proximity is not causality...".
The obvious logical error that she makes here is that close temporal proximity - combined with consistent ordering (restraint -> death) - clearly does imply causality.
If these subjects are about to die "...the next minute...", then the police are too late to save the subject's life. They should, regrettably, stand back for the additional minute and allow the person to die without police putting themselves into legal jeopardy by applying restraint during the death.
(NOTE: The above paragraph is a Reductio Ad Absurdum and is intended to demonstrate that theory being proposed by Dr. Mash is absurd.)
Dr. Mash is not so thick that she doesn't understand cause-and-effect and inductive logic. So why does she ignore basic logic? Why indeed...? Why are there strange links between her and Taser International? [LINK]
To be clear - I have no explanation and I'm not implying anything. I'm just pointing out that her logic is twisted into nonsense, and her conclusions about excited delirium as a purported cause of death are extremely "unhelpful".
Deaths involving police restraint under-reported in UK [LINK]
Why are police restraint-associated deaths in the UK being under-reported?
Why do they propose to delay (for an entire year) providing a correct report?
In the podcast (starting at about 6m00s into the podcast), Dr. 'Excited Delirium' Mash describes a typical "excited delirium" death as a long sequence of events, eventually leading to the police applying restraint, and "...the next minute they're dead."
That's exactly what she said.
Dr. Mash has repeatedly claimed that deaths following this sequence are "caused" by the underlying symptoms, and that the police restraint is not a cause of death. Her unproven theories regarding "excited delirium" have been used to take the focus off of police restraint techniques and how some are potentially more dangerous than others.
She then explains (at 6m30s), "...proximity is not causality...".
The obvious logical error that she makes here is that close temporal proximity - combined with consistent ordering (restraint -> death) - clearly does imply causality.
If these subjects are about to die "...the next minute...", then the police are too late to save the subject's life. They should, regrettably, stand back for the additional minute and allow the person to die without police putting themselves into legal jeopardy by applying restraint during the death.
(NOTE: The above paragraph is a Reductio Ad Absurdum and is intended to demonstrate that theory being proposed by Dr. Mash is absurd.)
Dr. Mash is not so thick that she doesn't understand cause-and-effect and inductive logic. So why does she ignore basic logic? Why indeed...? Why are there strange links between her and Taser International? [LINK]
To be clear - I have no explanation and I'm not implying anything. I'm just pointing out that her logic is twisted into nonsense, and her conclusions about excited delirium as a purported cause of death are extremely "unhelpful".
Deaths involving police restraint under-reported in UK [LINK]
Why are police restraint-associated deaths in the UK being under-reported?
Why do they propose to delay (for an entire year) providing a correct report?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
