Setting the goal post - a 95% reduction

Recent news from Canada is that taser 'use' (of any sort, including 'display') is down about 30% from 2007 to 2008, and actual taser deployment (in Touch Torture mode, Dart Deployment mode, or both modes) is down about 50% from 2007 to 2008. [LINK]

"Overall, I am encouraged by the decrease of taser usage and increased restraint show by RCMP members in the field," said Paul Kennedy, Chair of the CPC (Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP). [LINK]


Yes, the Excited-Delirium blog is also encouraged by this 50% decrease.

But I attribute the sudden drop to the RCMP having 'burnt fingers' after having taken the manufacturer's claims at face value.

[ I can only imagine that the telephone lines from Ottawa, ON to Scottsdale, AZ must have carried the occasional screamed obscenity starting in late-2007 (just a guess). It must be extremely frustrating to realize that you've been played like a trumpet for several years. ]


But what's the goal? How much reduction are we looking for?

The reported rate of tasering people has been about one hundred times (varies widely) as high as the historical and accepted rate of police shooting people. What this means is that if the taser is going to go back to its original justification as 'a replacement for the gun', or 'a less-than-lethal alternative', or "saving lives everyday" [sic(k)], then we need to see a roughly 99% reduction in the rate that the taser is being deployed in Canada.

That sort of reduction is extremely unlikely. Which makes the original justification for the taser's introduction to Canada into a damn lie.

And even if we allow the taser to be justifiably deployed in situations where gun-fire has traditionally not been employed, even by a generosity-allowance of 'several' times (for example: accepting a very generous usage rate of five times more than guns), then we are still looking for a 95% reduction!.

Yes, a 50% reduction is a good first step. But we have a long way to go before the day-to-day usage of tasers will meet the existing legal (s.269.1, and [LINK]) and basic moral standards.


See also [LINK] (upon which this post is partially based).

Interesting hit from Michigan

Lambertville, Michigan arrived from google.com on "www.Excited-Delirium.com" by searching for: where to send brain to deborah mash for excited delirium analysis.

Someone in Michigan is looking for some "expert help"?

Yeah, good luck with that...

Ref: 25 April 2009, Buckeye Cablevision Inc., Mac, Safari, 1920x1200.

UPDATE: 9:17am 26 April 2009. Someone living near Mound, Minnesota (Kroll?) received an e-mail from web e-mail account on secureserver.net and then lands directly on this blog post: "www.Excited-Delirium.com: Interesting hit from Michigan".

Why would someone be getting e-mails about someone in Michigan (the very same state where there have been two recent deaths of kids that were tasered) looking for help with "where to send brain to deborah mash for excited delirium analysis". Strange.

The next court case, there should be some interesting subpoenas flying around to gather-up evidence of the connections amongst all these pro-taser 'excited delirium' folks. I'll bet that they wouldn't want half of their communications to be brought into court.

Attention pro-taser folks - you can use this blog as a reference if you wish. But it comes with a cost.

Looking for 'proof' in all the wrong places

Some taser fanboys on the web are demanding proof. They won't accept even the possibility that there might be any sort of connection without some sort of "proof".

We've already discussed The Proof Issue [LINK] in that the X26 taser current (for example), whether 2mA "average" or 151mA RMS, is way too low to leave any physical signs. Even a coroner has admitted that there would be nothing to see. No sign. No evidence. No proof.

If there wasn't this proof issue, then there wouldn't be a controversy. It's a bit thick-headed not to understand this point and constantly demand proof of a connection.

If we ask a pro-taser fanboy about exactly what they would accept as proof, I can predict exactly how it'll go:

"We's demand scientiphic papers."
Okay - A, B, and C.
"No, not those ones! They're flawed."
Okay - X, Y, and Z.
"No, not those ones either! They're flawed in a different way. We demand a coroner's report."
Okay - D, E, F, G, and H for example.
"No, not them. They're wrong and they're being sued. Try again."
Sigh...

[Note - I've already had these sorts of exchanges. Waste of time.]

So - how about we turn it around?

Where is the 'scientific paper' where Taser explains why the previously-specified RMS current of 151mA (X26) or 162 mA (M26) are not a safety considerations? And how about they compare the specified currents against a COMPLETE risk model of the IEC 479-1, including a Bell Curve analysis (not just 5% population cut-off) to define EXACTLY (numerically) what has been calculated for the respiration and cardiac risk (including both temporary rhythm capture and ventricle fibrillation) based on a complete analysis of the entire weighted population (weighted by likelihood of being involved in a taser incident) including drug users and drunks, those with pacemaker wiring, and those susceptible to "Excited Delirium" [rolls-eyes]. Repeat for both the M26 and X26. Justify the differences between these two models. Assume worst case barb placement in all cases, and then show barb placement safety factor curve as a separate line item. Show your work.

Hint: The answer is not "zero". The answer is not "it's safe".

We'll know that they've provided a reasonable answer when we see something like: x.xx% risk of XXXX and z.zz% risk of ZZZZ (etc.). This value should be written on the specification sheet and explicitly addressed during training.

Actually, if they were a regulated industry (as they should be, since they're claiming "safety" for a weapon - which leads to Use Policy decisions), they'd have been forced to provide such information to the regulating agency before getting their products licensed for sale.

If they'd prefer not to calculate the exact numerical risks, then they should not be permitted to claim any level of safety. The government should impose a put up or shut up policy on Taser.

Again - the answers are numerical and will not be zero.

Their answers can be checked against what we're seeing with actual usage stats. A trained statistician can tell you if their numbers are believable as compared to the reasonably-adjusted stats. In other words, if they claim 1.1 parts per million risk (for example), then your statitican can look it over and report back: 'That's highly improbable based on what we're seeing on the street' or whatever.

All of this is common practice in industries where safety is critical.

Taser International (TASR) et al - shades of deception

Examples of deception by Taser International et al. Potentially very useful for shredding their corporate or personal credibility in court. This is not a complete list by any means.

Example 1: Claiming that the tasers (M26 and X26) emit only 2mA "average" and implying that this is relevant. This claim is utter deception; it is obviously intended to confuse and mislead those that are not educated about technical topics. See [LINK] for detailed explanation. Further details available upon request - blog e-mail address is in the right hand column.

Example 2: Do you remember when Smith4Brains testified at SECU that the X26 taser is powered by a couple of wee-little harmless [-looking] batteries of the same sort (CR123A) used in digital cameras? He was trying to leave the deceptive impression that those batteries wouldn't hurt a flea. Those claims were intentionally deceptive. Those are powerful lithium cells and they drain them at a rate that is literally off-the-scale of the battery application notes. See [LINK] for an explanation using their own deceptive numbers.

Example 3: Claiming that their legal win/loss record was unblemished, when in fact they had quietly settled some lawsuits. They described these settlements as "dismissed" and (apparently intentionally) left a false impression with many. And they did nothing to correct the false impression when the misinformation was spread by ill-informed taser fan-boys.

Example 4: For years there existed a discrepancy in that all taser training and demonstration taser hits were only ever fired into the subjects' backs, or connected to the same area, or clipped to one leg. Trans-cardiac (chest) applications were intentionally avoided. (Now they advise "avoiding the chest" for all.) And yet they claimed that these "FAKE" taser deployments were evidence of safety. They counted them as safe deployments (my term is "denominator washing"). This was deception on a grand scale.

Example 5: Claiming that the X26 taser's waveform consists of just short pulses, and claiming some sort of magical "chronaxie" safety advantage of the "short pulses". In fact, the X26 taser has a waveform with significant low frequency spectral components, and those spectral components are continuous 100% duty cycle for as long as the trigger is held down. To be fair, this false claim by them probably started out as an elementary technical oversight; it was probably not deception at the outset. But their failure to correct this dumb-ass technical error is clearly pure deception.

Example 6: Taser International fights the various acidosis taser-death mechanisms. They cannot deny acidosis, but they gamely try to downplay the self-evident role that the taser deployment would play. The deception involves their struggling to maintain a straight face while trying to pass-off their position as reasonable. See [Kroll] and especially [Ho].

Example 7: Taser International and their minions have repeatedly claimed that tasers do not affect the heart. As late as May 2009, Taser International sent their unwashed hired help, on expenses I'll assume, to a meeting of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) to try to defend this insane position (their mere attendance being an obvious 'red flag' if there ever was one...). See [LINK]. Meanwhile, buried in their legal paperwork is the admission that the taser "...can produce... changes in... heart rate and rhythm..." - see [LINK]. This is a huge discrepancy between their various statements (marketing lies, false claims, and legal warnings).

Example 8: Taser International and their minions and fan-boys have a nasty habit of failing to disclose that which should obviously be disclosed. I could find no mention of "Braidwood" (or anything similar) in their most recent Annual Report (15 March 2010) [LINK] - a matter clearly worthy of SEC investigation. Or Kroll's Mole-Role Trolls [LINK]. Or William Oliver (a.k.a. Billo the blogger) was discovered to be sitting on a NIJ panel "studying" (LOL) the safety of tasers, while actively promoting tasers in his spare time [LINK]. Or the seemingly-slimy connections, both direct and financial, between Taser International, the IPICD, and those promoting "excited delirium" [LINK][LINK][LINK] and more.

Example 9: Kroll's repeated and infamous reassurances of taser safety. His utterly-deceptive IEEE Spectrum article in which he repeats his many technical mistakes, including forgetting about Fourier (Hint: There's no such thing as 100 microseconds of 19 Hz). His claim of a reassuringly large "15-to-one" (sic) safety margin (self-evidently a vast overstatement). His claim that tasers are "safer than Tylenol". His evil comparison of being repeatedly being tasered to being repeatedly hit with "a ping ping ball" - at one time prominently published on Taser International's website under "Cardiac Safety" (sic), since then mysteriously pulled (?). All of these claims have misled people and organizations. The actual safety margin is much lower than they've claimed. And they've utterly failed to contemplate other Taser-death mechanisms.

Example 10: Taser International often makes claims and statements that appear to make sense in the limited context of the moment. But a wider view (and a better memory) reveals their statements to be at odds with their previous statements. (10a) They claimed at the time that the 1999-era M26 taser was "safe" BECAUSE the output waveform is high frequency and thus very low duty cycle. But the newer less-safe 2003-era X26 taser has a waveform that contains a DC pulse after the arc phase. When repeated at 19Hz this is low frequency and is thus continuous 100% duty cycle. In spite of the lower peak amplitude of the X26, there's no disagreement on either side that the X26 taser is the most dangerous of the two. But even well past 2003, they were still claiming the characteristics of the M26 waveform as safety factors. (10b) When asked about variations in taser current given inevitable variations in the resistance of humans, they immediately claimed that the taser is "a constant current source" and is thus insensitive to variations in the resistance of the target. Later, when investigators finally became curious about taser output, it was noted that a high percentage of units were out of spec, some were above spec. The response from Taser International was to start nitpicking the exact value of test resistor used. The contradiction is self-evident. Their habit of ever-changing stories aren't even good deceptions.

Example 11: The entire "excited delirium" (explain-away in-custody-death for hire) industry. Taser International and the IPICD (...Lawsuits) are connected right from the initial "start-up funding" for IPICD. These connections were not exactly highlighted (they were hidden, downplayed, and denied). The slimy connections were revealed by outside investigators one-by-one, including too-direct-to-be-ethical web-links to the University of Miami. Their insane claim that "excited delirium" (as might apply to a taser-death) has a history that goes back 150 years to a previously-described condition, Bell's Mania - where mental patients would starve themselves to death over a period of several weeks, is obviously utter nonsense. There are so many irrational aspects to their claims about "excited delirium" as a handy excuse for In-Custody Death (always in-custody) that the entire industry falls apart under its own illogic.

Example 12: A pair of cases where Taser International's outrageous behavior resulted in a couple of legal face-plants. These are deception (very poor attempts) because of what they were trying to accomplish. (12a) A B.C. Supreme Court judge has roundly rejected attempts by Taser International to discredit a lawyer and a medical expert who participated in the Braidwood inquiry... Justice Robert Sewell said allegations of bias and dishonesty against lawyer Art Vertlieb and Dr. Keith Chambers were "unnecessary, scandalous and vexatious," and ordered Taser International to pay their legal costs. [LINK] (12b) In denying Taser International's Motion for Summary Judgment... Judge Almquist also found that a portion of Taser International's motion was "substantially immaterial and irrelevant to the substance of the motion and created unnecessary time and expense for the parties and the court" and was filed in "bad-faith". He ordered the scoundrels to pay plaintiffs' counsel the sum of $15,000 in attorneys' fees to compensate them for the time spent responding to the motion. [LINK]

Example 13: Back in May 2009, 'someone' (LOL) in San Jose, California arrived from search.yahoo.com on "www.Excited-Delirium.com: Presentation by Dorin Panescu" by searching for first:"dorin" last:"panescu". Gee, I wonder who that was? Perhaps someone that had just returned (all expenses paid) from testifying at the Braidwood Inquiry, and was checking the news? Then, the same anonymous Internet user, accessing the Internet at an ISP-reported location just blocks from the listed address for Dorin Panescu, fraudulently stuffed the ballot box on a poll I was running. Simplest explanation is that 'someone' was caught red-handed engaging in deceptive behaviour. Fresh off the witness stand at Braidwood (?). [LINK]

Example 14: Taser International's bought and paid-for expert witness presented 'evidence' to 'prove' that the taser current has no effect on the heart. Unfortunately the same defective computer model also showed that the taser would have absolutely no effect beyond, perhaps, making one pectoral muscle slightly twitch. This is deception; but it's just not very good deception. It's laughable. [LINK]

Misleading the press

Clarification: Taser Rape story [LINK]

The Associated Press

HATTIESBURG, Miss. -- In a July 9 story, The Associated Press quoted Hattiesburg police as saying they were looking for a suspect who allegedly attacked a woman with a Taser before raping her. Hattiesburg police spokesman Synarus Green said the woman told police she had been "tased" but they had not recovered the device used to determine if a brand name Taser device was used. Green said Friday that police have not ruled out that the suspect may have used a stun gun.

A Taser shoots a probe that delivers a shock. A Taser spokeswoman said each Taser cartridge contains 20-30 small, confetti-like tags that have the serial number of the Taser cartridge imprinted on them. If a Taser device is misused, the police will find these tags and can use them to identify the registered owner of the Taser device.


This is typical Taser-speak. Misleading. Incomplete. Very close to a damn lie.

This Taser-mandated "clarification" (sic) gives the impression that Taser-brand tasers always have their anti-felon tags, and it gives the impression that if the tags are not found then it probably wasn't a Taser-brand taser.

"If a Taser device is misused, the police will find these tags and can use them to identify the registered owner of the Taser device."

Bollocks. The above-quoted statement (apparently originating from Taser International) is simply not true.


A criminal armed with a taser is more than likely to have a taser without a cartridge. Perhaps the original taser cartridge was used up by the original owner, before that very same (10-second, 100-yard dash) criminal got to his feet, ran them down, and killed the smug, but out-of-shape and breathless, taser owner with his bare hands. So now the murdering criminal has a Taser-brand taser without a cartridge.

No cartridge.
No wires.
No darts.
And no anti-felon tags.

But it is still a Taser-brand taser and can still be used in Touch Torture mode (sometimes called Drive Stun mode).


So in this case, who knows? Perhaps it was a Taser-brand taser. Or perhaps it was a cheap (possibly higher quality) stun gun bought on the Internet for $10.

The reported lack of anti-felons tags provides very little evidence of anything. And the spokeswoman (possibly Hilary Gibeaut) knows that. She knows that even the consumer tasers can be used in Touch Torture mode. [LINK]

And she knows that the anti-felon tags have NOTHING to do with such use or misuse.

This clarification is misleading.

Typical...


PS: In case you need further guidance: If you think about it, it seems clear that whatever was used in this attack, it's more likely to have been used in the Touch Torture mode (not the Dart Deploy mode). Otherwise there would have been darts embedded in the victim, and trailing wires, and a used cartridge probably left behind. And then there wouldn't be any mystery about the brand name. Thus, the device was almost certainly used in Touch Torture mode. And thus, the reported lack of Taser-brand anti-felon tags (assuming the police were even looking for them) have nothing to do with anything.

And exactly what would he have been looking for?

The chief medical examiner for Nova Scotia ... didn't find any evidence that Hyde died ... from the Taser shock. [LINK]

Exactly what would the good doctor have been looking for? If he can't answer this question, then this finding can be lumped in with all the others as being essentially meaningless.


PS: I note with some satisfaction that the vast majority of those commenting on the CBC news site have explicitly rejected the 'excited delirium' finding.

Looking for 'proof' in all the wrong places (2)

Further to #21, Jeffrey Marreel [LINK]

Ottawa Citizen (25 June 2008) - ...An autopsy performed yesterday was inconclusive and further forensic tests have been ordered to assist in determining the cause of death. [LINK]

A hypothetical taser-death would leave no evidence. [LINK] [LINK]

Dr. Zian Tseng, a San Francisco cardiologist and electrophysiologist, said, "If there's a person that dropped dead suddenly after Taser application and you can find nothing else on the autopsy, I would venture to say that's due to arrhythmic death." [LINK]

So, in addition to looking for clues, you need to be prepared for the situation where, ahem, you don't have a clue.

TrueSlant - Steve Weinberg: Police on the streets with Tasers: Protecting citizens, or endangering them?

TrueSlant (20 May 2010) - Two uniformed officers in Columbia, Missouri, spent two hours last night educating [?] the Citizens Police Review Board about Taser use. ...   [author Steve Weinberg is] ...one of nine volunteers from Columbia appointed to the Review Board by the City Council. We began operating Jan. 1, 2010. ...  [LINK]

When I read the first sentence, the word "educating" jumped out at me. Police providing unbiased "education" about tasers? Puhleeze...

My immediate reaction is that the word "educating" in this context is a misspelling of the phrase "...passing along propaganda originating from Taser International to..."

Seriously, of all the information they presented, what percentage do you think was provided by Taser International (answer: probably 100%), and what percentage of counter-balancing information was provided (answer: probably 0%).

Let's do a little test (a spot-check):

These are critically important facts that would be mentioned by any reasonable educator:

Did these two officers happen to mention that Canada's national police force, the RCMP, has acknowledged that use of tasers involves risks, and those risks include risk of death? Was that mentioned?

Did these two officers happen to mention that the American Medical Association (AMA) have determined that tasers can cause or contribute to death, directly or indirectly? [LINK] Did that get mentioned?

How about the fact that the Maryland Attorney General has formally concluded that Taser International has "significantly" understated the risks associated with taser use? [LINK] Forgot to mention that? ...

... "They have to be trained and told that this device can and does, in certain circumstances, cause death or serious injury," said Cary J. Hansel, III, report panel member. [LINK]

[How is the pass/fail mark for those two officers holding up?]

See also this post for more examples of formal conclusions from formal inquiries and similar: [LINK] The point here is that it is a bald-faced lie that the only folks concerned about taser safety are crazy bloggers and lunatic activists.

See also the subtle admission by Taser International that tasers can, in fact, affect the heart. [LINK].

See also the statement by Taser International's very own "medical director" (sic) that directly supports the conclusion that tasers can provide the final and fatal contribution to death by acidosis in highly agitated subjects. [LINK]

[Slip-ups like this happen given the circumstances - ahem - they find themselves in...]


I can't include everything in this one post...

This blog has nearly 2000 posts covering this issue since late-2007. Essentially everything is linked back to sources (often via previous posts on the same subject) so you can fact-check to your heart's content. The arguments are often very straightforward and the conclusions are typically crystal clear.

And to be clear, I'm not holding myself out as an authority. The more-technical points that I've explained in this blog should be vetted by a highly qualify person (i.e. - someone with the first name "Prof.") if you're bringing them to trial. But even a first-year EE knows that there's no such thing as a short pulse (100 microsecond) of low frequency (19Hz and harmonics). See [LINK] and more detail below.



jcalton commented [ibid]:  Virtually all information on Tasers circulated for public consumption by cities and police departments is provided by Taser International. The blog Excited Delirium serves as a clearinghouse for Taser studies, articles, and news stories not condoned by Taser. You can ignore his commentary [WTF? LOL...] and just follow the information back to its original sources, although sometimes his explanations of the science involved can be helpful to refute claims made by Taser (because no one else is).

Ignore my commentary? Humph...

Seriously... That's okay...

I was once called "righteously indignant" [LINK], and that's pretty accurate.

But you have to understand the exact nature of the safety claims made by Taser International and their minions. They leave the clear impression that tasers-R-safe. They make these claims to increase sales. But these demonstrably-false safety claims lead directly to the overuse, misuse and abuse of tasers. And nothing but pure evil and suffering comes from the overuse, misuse and abuse of tasers.

(I think that I'm entitled to provide some 'righteously indignant' commentary given the situation...)


Of course there may be the occasional opportunity where the taser is the ideal weapon. No argument. And there may be opportunities where a fricken' flame-thrower might be the ideal tool for the job.

The San Fransisco Police Department actually reviewed their records and found that tasers might be perfectly justifiable (actually replacing lethal force, as advertised) perhaps once a year. [LINK] The disturbing fact is that tasers are typically used about one-hundred times (roughly) as often as that.



"Excited Delirium" is used to explain away many taser deaths in the same way that "Spontaneous Human Combustion" could be used to explain away crispy-fried humans "coincidentally associated with" flame-thrower deployments.

Important point: The self-contradictions emerging from the pro-taser propaganda are often only evident at the highest level. They'll say X one year, and not-X another year.


For example, the older M26 taser from 1999 is "safe" BECAUSE the waveform is very short pulses of high frequency. Very short pulses makes it safer. High frequency makes it safer. But the newer X26 taser from 2003 added a significant DC pulse after the AC arc-phase. Those that remember their Fourier-101 will instantly realize that that innocent-looking DC pulse added to the X26 taser waveform changes everything. It's a DC pulse that repeats at 19 Hz. 19 Hz is the more-dangerous low frequency. And low frequency is inherently continuous 100% duty cycle (no such thing as a short, 100us, pulse of low frequency, 19Hz). Thus the X26 has walked away from both safety factors. This is a self-contradiction that (I believe) Taser International did not appreciate. Their in-house expert still spoke of "Chronaxie" (the safety of short pulses) even in his 2007 IEEE article. That's demonstrably an error. A fatal error.

Another example. Taser International first stated that the taser is a constant current source and the human body impedance was therefore not critical. No matter if the human is higher or lower impedance, the taser waveform current will be the same. But later, when experts tried to test tasers and found that the current was out-of-spec, all of a sudden the precise value of the test resistor become oh-so-critical. That's a discrepancy that spans several years. (Apparently) Nobody notices these things except me.

Anyway...

Feel free to skip over any "commentary" that you don't appreciate.


By the way, the index and searching functions (top right) are now working extremely well. They can help you to find related posts on any subject.

The blog e-mail address is also in the right hand column. I'm happy to provide pointers into the blog if you're looking for anything in particular.

Setting the goal post: a 95% reduction

As has been already proven ([LINK], [LINK], and many more), tasers are used about 100 times as often as guns ever were.

What this means is that if the taser is going to go back to its original justification as 'a replacement for the gun', or 'a less-than-lethal alternative' (keyword 'alternative'), or "saving lives everyday" [sic(k)], then we need to see a 99% reduction in the number of times that the taser is being deployed in Canada.

That sort of reduction is extremely unlikely. Which makes the original justification for the taser's introduction to Canada into a damn lie.

And even if we allow the taser to be justifiably deployed in situations where gun-fire has traditionally not been employed, even by a generosity-allowance of 'several' times (for example: accepting a very generous usage rate of five times more than guns), then we are still looking for a 95% reduction!!!!

A 20-to-1 reduction, even if we're generous!!!!

I don't believe that this has sunk into the skulls of those that will have to make this happen.

• The taser-use policy is all wrong.
• All the training is wrong.
• All the trainers are wrong.
• The 'qualifications' from Taser are a sign of brainwashing.
• Procedures need to be put in place for medical attention.
• Disciplinary policies need to be put in place.
  

A 95% reduction!!!!
That's a 20-to-1 reduction!!!!
And we're being generous (allowing 5:1).

And the approach so far has been to more-or-less, agree-in-principle, maybe. Even Kennedy's initial report was not fully adopted.

THIS IS NOT OVER.

What stage have we reached in this process?

Well, we have paper and we have talk .

So we're right about at this stage:
[LINK] (PS: the Nazi reference is incidental.)

Mr. Smith goes to Ottawa (on 'camera' batteries)

I was only able to view (on-line) a part of the testimony by Smith and Palmer. I'll be looking for the transcript or (hopefully) a complete video download.

UPDATE: It took a while, but the minutes are out. [LINK] Other SECU Minutes and Evidence are available on here [LINK].

One quote from today's meeting (found on-line) is as follows:

Smith, “I think some people are surprised to learn that the energy source for the Taser, the batteries that power it are the same batteries that are in most digital cameras.”

First of all, there isn't any such thing as "the Taser". There is the M26, and there is the X26, and there are others. It is misleading to lump them all together to cherry-pick the most favourable details to make the best argument (constantly switching back and forth).

Let's discuss the batteries in the X26 model.

I'm quite familiar with the CR123A camera batteries as used in the X26 taser. These are powerful batteries with a very low internal impedance. If you were to short out this type of battery you would see just how powerful they are. The math is this: 3.0 volts over just the 0.25 ohm internal resistance (a dead short) would result in a current of about 12 amperes (probably a conservative estimate). That's a lot. It could probably melt a paper clip placed across the terminals (NOT RECOMMENDED!!). These are very powerful batteries that can last for thousands of pictures, easily an entire vacation, in a modern digital camera.

But the X26 taser draws so much current from the two 'camera' batteries that if the taser is used continuously, the lifespan of the batteries is rated by Taser as only about 16 minutes, and then they're dead.

(Taser specification sheet for the X26 states "195" five-second shots which is just 16 minutes and 15 seconds).

The X26 taser current consumption is so high that the battery specification sheet doesn't even go that high. The electrical current consumption of the X26 taser is literally off-the-scale (of the battery specification sheet).

So I hope you can see that this is exactly the sort of propaganda that Smith and Taser specialize in. They'll happily tell you that the taser only uses a wee little harmless camera battery. But you have to come here to find out the other side of the story, which sheds an entirely different light on this little detail.

More later.

Ref: Link= Duracell Specification Sheet (.pdf format)

Ref: Taser spec sheet for the X26, Link= LG-STND-TECDBEC-001 (.pdf format)

Canadian police brainwashed by Taser

Vancouver Sun, May 14, 2008 - A police psychologist blasted Taser International at the public inquiry probing the controversial use of Tasers, claiming Tuesday that Canadian police have been "brainwashed" by the manufacturer to justify "ridiculously inappropriate" use of the electronic weapon.

Mike Webster accused the company that makes Tasers of instructing police in Canada that when they encounter a person suffering from a "mythical" condition that Taser calls "excited delirium," police have few options other than jolting the person with the controversial electrical weapon, which delivers a five-second shock that incapacitates a person.

"When you think the only tool you have is a hammer, then the whole world begins looking like a nail," Webster told the inquiry in Vancouver.

Excited delirium is not a recognized medical diagnosis, he said, but is a "dubious disorder" used by Taser International in its training of police in Canada and the U.S.

The term is also used by the Institute for the Prevention of In-custody Deaths, which is headed by John Peters, a business associate of Taser International of Arizona. He pointed out Peters is one of Taser's "star witnesses" in court when the company defends itself against lawsuits alleging a person was killed by a Taser.

[Also, one of the sponsors of IPICD is Taser's litigation lawyer Mr. Brave. Coincidence? Brave also registered to domain name ExcitedDelirium.com (no dash) and redirected it to IPICD's homepage. ...Pointedly unsubtle.]

"It may be that police and medical examiners are using the term [excited delirium] as a convenient excuse for what could be excessive use of force or inappropriate control techniques during an arrest," Webster said.

"My own opinion on this is that Canadian law enforcement, and its American brothers and sisters, have been brainwashed by companies like Taser International and the Institute for the Prevention of In-custody Deaths," he added. "These organizations have created a virtual world replete with avatars that wander about with the potential to manifest a horrific condition characterized by profuse sweating, superhuman strength and a penchant for smashing glass that appeals to well-meaning but psychologically unsophisticated police personnel," Webster said.

...Webster, however, said he has been shocked and embarrassed by recent "ridiculously inappropriate applications of the Taser" in low-risk situations involving people who are mentally imbalanced, likely suffering from "plain old delirium."

He specifically mentioned the case of Frank Lasser, an 82-year-old Kamloops man who was delirious in his hospital bed after heart bypass surgery last week when he produced a pocket knife and an RCMP officer gave him several jolts with a Taser.

He also cited Robert Dziekanski, the Polish immigrant who died last Oct. 14 at Vancouver International Airport after wandering around the airport for nine hours, unable to find his waiting mother, who finally left the airport.

..."It is neither humane nor logical to inflict crippling pain upon someone who has lost his mental balance," Webster told Braidwood.

Police need to create a non-threatening environment to defuse crisis situations by using calm communications skills and neutral body language, he said. He suggested people who are agitated are in a state of hyper-arousal, which disrupts a person's ability to process information, including police commands, and causes unpredictable behaviour.

Asked by commission lawyer Art Vertlieb what his motivation was in making a presentation, Webster said he wasn't anti-police. "I've worked with police for over 30 years," said the police psychologist, who teaches crisis management skills to Vancouver police and at the Canadian Police College. [LINK]

See also Canadian Press version [LINK]


This speaks for itself. I don't need to add any commentary.

Thank you Mr. Webster.

By the way - the RCMP have reportedly threatened to black-ball Webster from receiving any future police work or contracts. Because his criticism of the force is "disloyal". Don't miss this little insight into the minds of the RCMP's top brass-holes. [LINK]

Why?

Fair Use / Fair Dealing claimed

Why did Taser International issue new taser targeting guidelines?


My Analysis:

They claim it is "more to do" with "avoiding controversy" than anything to do with their view of safety concerns.

First, note the equivocation in their carefully-nuanced language: "...more to do..." They're carefully avoiding language that explicitly excludes consideration of safety concerns. In other words, they're leaving themselves an 'out'. But even the residual claim makes little sense when viewed from a cost-benefit angle.

They're taking all this heat 'mostly' to help their customers "avoid controversy"?

That purported 'pure-as-the-driven-snow' motivation really seems to be out of balance with the steep price that they're paying. Alarm bells are going off. Their claim appears to be ever-so-subtly wrong.

Let's do the analysis.

COST:

The blowback that Taser International is getting on their new taser targeting guidelines is costing them a fortune in terms of PR image, legal exposure, providing ammunition to critics, serious potential for increased insurance costs, setting the stage for providing even more hard statistical evidence, lost trust with police, products that are obviously much less useful, etc.

In the mid-term, it all adds up to a massive cost in real dollars. In the long run, we're potentially talking eight or nine-figures (neglecting the counter-balancing considerations that I'll address in a moment.)

NOT REALLY A SURPRISE:

No way that Taser International didn't see this coming. They're not that stupid.

Look at their incredible legal record - a product that can cause death, they deny it, people die, and they still win cases. They even somehow managed to turn plain $ettlement$ into "di$mi$$al$".

Aside from a few intellectual blind spots and some startling examples of clumsiness with IT work, they do show some evidence of being crafty. They're certainly not incapable of predicting and calculating the future.

So if they start turning on the 'wide-eyed innocent' act and begin pretending that they're surprised by the blowback, then that'd be fake.

MAKE SENSE?:

So it seems pretty far fetched to claim that they started this massive conflagration simply to help their customers "avoid controversy."

That purported explanation is, by my judgment, about three orders of magnitude (1000-to-1) insufficient in value to them to balance the decision logic.

ALTERNATE EXPLANATION:

The only counter-balancing consideration that I can imagine that would drive them to this extremely costly course of action is their realization that there actually is a real world problem with taser safety (I suspect that they've known for several years...), AND their realization that this conclusion was becoming more and more obvious to everyone, AND that it was getting to the point where they realize that everyone knows that they know that everyone knows that they know about the real world safety facts.

That last multi-level point on 'who knows who knows what' is intentional. It really is a multilayer puzzle like the plot line from a Chinese drama.

They projected the past and present into the future and the area under the curve (future liability for false claims of safety) probably scared the hell out of them.

They were left with no choice. They had to take a baby-step in the opposite direction. This was the smallest baby-step that they could find. But the reversal is obvious. They knew that any reversal on taser safety would be obvious, even if buried on page 2 of the document.

NEXT STEP:

To mask their real motivation for issuing the new targeting guidelines (because it could be used against them), they need to claim that they "never saw it coming" ("it" being the magnitude of the blowback). In other words, they'll be tempted to play dumb.

So sit back and wait for their next move.

Watch for the wide-eyed protestations of surprise and "hurt feelings". And to make it even more believable, they'll wheel out their least clever looking spokespuppet to play this role.


[updated repeatedly]

On the lack of regulation of the taser (ECD) industry

This was originally posted as a comment on the Truth...Not Tasers blog. [LINK]

The following version has been gently edited, and extended.


Let's talk about taser (ECD) electrical safety standards, the lack of them, and the results.

In 1999, Taser International introduced the M26 "Advanced" taser. It had a waveform that was high frequency and very low duty cycle. At the time, Taser International claimed it was safe BECAUSE the electrical output was high frequency and low duty cycle. The monthly taser-associated death rate was less than one per month.

But Taser International continued to fiddle. In 2003, they introduced the X26 taser. They didn't give it a name, but the "X26 Hubris" would be appropriate. This taser model added a harmless-looking little DC pulse to the waveform, and all indications are that even the head of their Medical Safety committee, a man with a PhD in EE, failed to remember his EE 101. He has repeatedly and explicitly claimed that the output still has "short pulses" and a low duty cycle.

In fact, the harmless-looking DC pulse occurs at 19 Hz and is therefore low frequency and continuous 100% duty cycle. The waveform is no longer just high frequency and very low duty cycle as was the case with the 1999-era M26. They've walked away from the two waveform characteristics that they had previously claimed were the reason it was safe with the previous model.

The government regulators did not react to this change because there are no government regulators with responsibility over taser standards. And there are no standards.

The monthly taser associated death rate shows a near step-function increase from less than one taser-associated death per month to about 7 per month starting coincident with the introduction of the newer X26 model in mid-2003.

Looking for references? Here is one to get you started: [LINK].

In fact, the Canadian reports appear to indicate that, even during years when the older M26 taser model was actually being used three times more often than the newer X26 taser, the taser deaths in Canada during that period were reportedly exclusively associated with the X26.

If this preliminary observation from mismatched data sets can be confirmed by the regulators, then it may be critical evidence of the different risks between the M26 and X26 tasers. Oh damn, there are no government regulators.

If Taser International has this info, you can bet that they'll have shredded it by now. If the police have this info, they're keeping it to themselves. The available on-line database does not mention the M26 vs. X26 taser model used. I wonder why? But data gathered by taser critics shows a disturbing X26 bias.

And now, in late-2009, Taser International has just introduced the new X3. It emits about 40% less electrical charge than the X26. And they seem to be keeping the waveform shape and frequency spectrum under wraps. I've poked around and I haven't found the info yet. I'm sure the government regulators would have some questions about the 40% reduction after all the taser deaths with previous model. Oh damn, zero regulatory involvement.

And their new XREP projectile includes an explicit and intentional "Hand Trap" feature that violates their own guidance (revision 1) issued 30 September 2009. They've changed the guidance to avoid having to explain about the arms and hands. I'm sure that the regulators review such life and death critical documents for accuracy and consistency. Oh damn, zero government oversight.

Wild West. Yee Haw.

The lack of government oversight of this one-company industry is as startling as it is inexplicable. The direct result of this hands-off approach has been corporate behaviour that should make any keen observer incandescent with rage.

Nobody noticed that they expunged the RMS current values (about 160 mA) from the data sheets, leaving only the misleading 2 mA "average" value. The inherent claim that the "effective" current is the average is insane nonsense. Comparing the actual effects makes it clear that the effective current is much closer to the RMS value than the "average".

Nobody seems to have noticed that there seems to be a statistical surplus of taser chest hits in those victims that died. Many thousands of trainees were tasered in the back with only a few major injuries reported. But the real world has had police told that "tasers are safe" and they've been firing them into the chest and people die.

And now they advise "avoiding the chest" and make the preposterous claim that this guidance (which carries an extremely high cost to them), is just to help their customers "avoid controversy". What a crock...

If this industry (company) were subjected to even a small fraction of the Federal regulatory oversight imposed on every other company, they'd probably be shut down.

The utter abdication of the governments in their fundamental role to protect the public, not just "criminals" but also those having mental heath emergencies right down to average citizens facing police that, in some cases, are demanding more respect than they've earned... ...this abdication is inexplicable and dangerous. People do not deserve to face a risk of death unless their behaviour escalates to the thresholds defined by Judge Braidwood. All of this overuse, misuse, and abuse stems from the false claim from Taser International that tasers are inherently safe with respect to internal risk factors such as, for example, cardiac effects.

This industry, their potentially-deadly products, their ever-changing story, their manipulative relationships with medical examiners, their fiddling with the "science", their too-nuanced twisting of language, their defective training, all of it. This blog contains dozens and dozens of examples of them playing the system.

It all needs governmental oversight.

Now.

Monday should be interesting...

I've added some {commentary} and links to applicable posts.


(CP) VANCOUVER – The company that sells more conducted energy weapons to law enforcement than any other rushed to market with faulty safety and medical research, claims the head of a company that plans to market a device to compete with the Taser. Ken Stethem, founder and chairman of Ageis Industries, told the public inquiry into Taser use that Taser International's methodology was flawed in designing, developing and deploying the conducted energy weapons (CEWs).

Normally a company would develop medical and safety data, then test the product on animals and humans, Stethem told the inquiry. "In my humble opinion that's not how the current CEWs were developed and deployed. And that's why we're having problems today."

Stethem disputed several claims made by Taser on medical evidence and safety connected to the device. He pointed to Taser's patent information that says the device puts out between 100 and 500 milliamps of electricity. Medical experts say it only takes about 100 milliamps to cause the heart to go into a fatal rhythm, Strethem told the inquiry.

{Actually - perhaps as low as 30mA for the continuous 100% duty cycle for 5-seconds, very low frequency 19Hz waveform emitted by the X26 taser [LINK]. Also there is the ole' RMS versus "Average" tricky-doodle. [LINK] [LINK] and [LINK]. Spin spin spin...}

He said medical studies say low voltage electrocutions can happen without any visible evidence of injury. "Now the burden of proof has been shifted to the public that these aren't safe, instead of law enforcement and manufacturers that they are," Strethem told the inquiry.

{What would you be looking for? [LINK]}

Stethem's company designs what he called intermediate force options similar to a conducted energy weapon in a baton that incapacitates muscles with electrical output. "I'm not here to bang Taser International or anybody else," he told commissioner Thomas Braidwood. "I'm here to report what we've learned through our research."

The chairman of Taser International, Tom Smith, will have a chance to respond to the accusations when he speaks to the inquiry on Monday.


A heart-rhythm expert also told the inquiry there are real risks to Taser use, despite the company's safety claims.

"Just because somebody collapses of sudden death minutes later after a Taser application doesn't mean that the two are not connected," said Dr. Zian Tseng, a San Francisco cardiologist and electrophysiologist.

Tseng said any normal, healthy person could die from a jolt of the conducted energy weapon if the shock was given in the right area of the chest and during the vulnerable point in the beating of the heart. He stressed the risk of death is far greater if there is adrenaline or illicit drugs coursing through the body or if the person has a history of heart or other medical issues.

Tseng fell into studying conducted energy weapons about three years ago when he created a media storm by telling a San Francisco newspaper the device could induce cardiac arrhythmia. "Shortly thereafter I was contacted by Taser directly to reconsider my statements to the media. They even offered to support (my) research, to give me grant funding," Tseng said, adding he declined the offer in order to remain independent.

Tseng said there needs to be much more real-world studies on the use of the weapon, instead of using police officers – often large, healthy males – to test the device.

He also said medical examiners should be given more freedom to investigate such deaths, even seizing the weapon for investigation if necessary. "If there's a person that dropped dead suddenly after Taser application and you can find nothing else on the autopsy, I would venture to say that's due to arrhythmic death."

{What else? What are the odds of it being anything else? [LINK]}

The risk to suspects being shocked could almost be zero to the heart if police avoided using the weapon in the chest area, and Tsang suggested that be one of Braidwood's recommendations.

Tsang also said police should avoid repeated shocks to lessen the chance they'll set the heart into an abnormal rhythm.

He said the risks are very low of a person dying while being arrested by police. "What we don't know is has the Taser increased that risk from that very low rate to a slightly higher rate."

The inquest was launched after the very public video of the minutes before Robert Dziekanski's death was aired world wide. The Polish immigrant created a disturbance last October at the arrivals area of the Vancouver International Airport and was twice shocked by an RCMP Taser.

[LINK]

The dangerous world of law enforcement...

Line-of-Duty Deaths of Law Enforcement Officers in Canada - 1999-2008

All data from www.odmp.org [LINK for Canada/1999, then browse year-by-year].

Death by violence marked with red.

With all due respect to the fallen, we must examine the facts.


1999: Total Line of Duty Deaths: 6 (Aircraft accident: 1, Automobile accident: 1, Struck by vehicle: 2, Training accident: 1, Vehicular assault: 1)

2000: Total Line of Duty Deaths: 9 (Aircraft accident: 2, Automobile accident: 1, Fall: 1, Heart attack: 1, Motorcycle accident: 2, Struck by vehicle: 2)

2001: Total Line of Duty Deaths: 7 (Aircraft accident: 1, Automobile accident: 2, Drowned: 1, Gunfire: 2, Training accident: 1)

2002: Total Line of Duty Deaths: 12 (Automobile accident: 6, Gunfire: 1, Heart attack: 1, Natural disaster: 1, Struck by vehicle: 3)

2003: Total Line of Duty Deaths: 6 (Aircraft accident: 2, Automobile accident: 3, Motorcycle accident: 1)

2004: Total Line of Duty Deaths: 7 (Assault: 1, Automobile accident: 1, Gunfire: 1, Heart attack: 2, Stabbed: 1, Vehicular assault: 1)

2005: Total Line of Duty Deaths: 11 (Aircraft accident: 2, Automobile accident: 2, Drowned: 1, Gunfire: 5 [four in one horrific incident], Heart attack: 1)

2006: Total Line of Duty Deaths: 6 (Automobile accident: 1, Duty related illness: 1, Gunfire: 3, Vehicular assault: 1)

2007: Total Line of Duty Deaths: 4 (Gunfire: 3, Vehicular assault: 1)

2008: Total Line of Duty Deaths: 2 (Automobile accident: 1, Heart attack: 1)


Observations:

Accidental deaths are about 70% (49 of 70) of the total. Therefore, logically as opposed to emotionally, to address legitimate concerns about officer safety, the first attention should be directed to traffic safety issues, seatbelt use, procedures for conducting vehicle stops in busy traffic, etc.

And what's up with all these aircraft accidents? Eight (8) deaths in ten years - in aircraft accidents!! How many police officer get on airplanes in the normal course of their duties? And how many get off again? Geesh. Too many officers learning to fly on Company time perhaps? Joy rides masked as aircraft traffic patrols perhaps? Who knows... But if you're looking for somewhere to start - start with that!


2003 was the year when Taser introduced the X26 taser. This more-or-less marks the point where tasers really started to be more and more common in Canada. There were just four (4) officer deaths by violence - total - in the 5 years before this point (1999-2003 inclusive). There were seventeen (17) officer deaths by violence in the 5 years after this point (2004-2008 inclusive).

Even generously adjusting for the tragic Mayerthorpe incident in 2005, where four officers were murdered in one day, the overall trend of officers being killed (through violence, as opposed to accidents) is still sharply UP coincident with the introduction of more and more tasers into the Canadian law enforcement system.

No matter how you look at the data, the increased usage of tasers in Canada has been coincident with a significant upturn in officers' deaths. And it's not a small change. It's a three- or four-to-one ratio from one end of a decade to the other. That's huge.


Late-2007, with the well-publicized and video-captured killing of Mr. Dziekanski at Vancouver Airport, was when the Canadian public first noticed tasers, became outraged, and began the push-back against tasers. While the taser 'debate' raged in Canada during 2008, police actions were scrutinized like never before. There is some indication that some police forces began to scale-back some of the more outrageous taser overuse and misuse. A certain police chief even fretted out-loud that his officers might be mass-murdered if they were slow to zap subjects due to the public outcry.

But according to this data, there have been zero violent deaths of police officers since late-2007. All through 2008, and even including 2009 to date, no officers were murdered in Canada.

More than a year. Zero. None. Zip. Nada.

So police officer deaths by violence in Canada plummetted to zero in 2008 perfectly coincident with increased public scutiny of taser overuse, misuse and abuse.


These are the facts.

Draw your own conclusions.


P-flop... P-flop... P-flop... - the distant sound of taser fan-boys' heads exploding due to overexertion.

The invisible arrow of death

"...an Italian immigrant died in police custody two days after he was shocked four times with a stun gun. ...the Crown says there is nothing in the autopsy report to indicate Castagnetta's death was caused directly by the stun gun." [LINK]

Ah, what would the coroner be looking for? Can anyone explain that?

Assuming for the moment that the taser can caused fatal cardiac effects, then what postmortem signs would be available for discovery?

Imagine that the taser leaves no clues, but actually is lethal. What then? Think it through.


(This question for the general case remains open even if Castagnetta's death can be fully attributed to other causes. And it is a very important question.)

Taser output PROVEN to be unreliable and potentially dangerous

CBC News [LINK]

Researchers led by a Carleton University professor have found the charges delivered by some Tasers and other conducted-electricity weapons can vary from the manufacturer's specifications, delivering either too much or not enough of a jolt.

Andy Adler, the Canada Research Chair in biomedical engineering at Carleton in Ottawa, said three to 10 per cent of the 6,000 Tasers and other stun guns tested were found to be delivering charges that were outside specified thresholds, or tolerances.

Weapons that deliver a more powerful shock than they are rated for could put the target at greater risk, said Adler. And weapons that deliver too little charge can also pose dangers too, he said. "The weapon that is below tolerance would have less effect on the subject," said Adler. "That would worry a police officer because they are looking for a particular effect. They are relying on their equipment to do something and if the equipment doesn't do it, it puts everyone involved in a dangerous scenario."

Unreliable, untrustworthy, poor quality, dangerous CRAP.

And keep in mind that the specifications and tolerances were created (for the tasers) by Taser International. They made them up and they STILL can't consistently meet them.

And those values, chosen by Taser International, are not as safe as they have repeatedly claimed. Even the Maryland Attorney General concluded that Taser International has "significantly understated" the risks of taser use.

And don't get me started about their (obviously intentional) DECEPTION in their use of the phrase "2mA average" and implying that it is relevant. Google "How many amps in a police taser?" for the complete explanation about how they have been deceptive with the output current specifications.

Repost: Another possible taser-death mechanism

Reading Part 7 of the most-recent Braidwood Report reminded me of this previous post.


From Sunday, April 26, 2009: [LINK]

Another possible death mechanism (?)

Out of the mouths of...

...What killed Dziekanski... "This is not due to a Taser," says Deborah Mash [LINK], a neurology professor at the University of Miami who has been studying excited delirium for 20 years. "This is in the brain and they die because the mechanisms that control the heart and the lungs fail." [LINK]


Has anyone looked into the possibility that the taser shock is capable of affecting the nervous system (duh!) mechanisms such that these systems sometimes fail due to a long duration taser shock?

Perhaps, with bad luck and thus occuring in just a fraction of incidents, the central nervous system pathways that control the heart and the lungs just happen to carry enough of the randomly-placed taser current to have their stock of neurochemical transmitters depleted by long duration electric current from the taser.

In the same way that bright lights can temporarily blind you. In the same way that loud sounds can temporarily deafen you. In the same way that repeated impacts can eventually lead to numbness. In the same way that a constant smell eventually becomes imperceptible. Nervous systems eventually shut-down if they're been triggered too much.

Perhaps the taser current sometimes (randomly) rides the pathways that control the heart and lungs. Perhaps those pathways become depleted and thus incapable of functioning for a critical period.


This proposed explanation makes as much, or possibly more, sense than 'excited delirium' in many cases where the late victim obviously wasn't even as excited as the police, and certainly wasn't even the slightest bit delirious.


Something to keep in mind is that the taser is really the first device that often applies the current directly across the chest. Most of the safety standards are not written to assume that the electrician falls chest-first into box of high voltage circuitry. Those standards often assume that the current arrives on one hand, and exits down one leg. This may be an important element in solving the taser-associated death mystery.

Also, I'm very suspicious of those 'expert' calculations of smooth distributions of current through the human body (as if it made of large homogeneous chunks of material). I suspect that the current prefers to travel on small structures that are good conductors and cover larger areas (nerves?).

This post is just a suggestion for further consideration.


PS (June 2010): It's obvious to me that there are probably several different internal taser-death mechanisms. Direct cardiac impact (several variations), blood pH, depletion of neurochemical transmitters, and probably several others. Those that might be looking for just one explanation would become confused.

Day's Delay

Reuters - Canada's federal police watchdog has delayed a report expected to raise concerns about the use of electronic stun guns so the government can have more time to look at the report's findings, an official said on Thursday. [LINK]

CBC - ...Spokesman Nelson Kalil said the report by RCMP complaints commissioner Paul Kennedy will be released next Wednesday instead, at the request of Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day. ... Day, who is travelling, received an advance copy of the report on Tuesday. [LINK]

National Post - According to Mr. Kennedy's office, Day has a copy of the report but wants to take the commissioner up on his offer to meet in person. The two are trying to co-ordinate their schedules for a meeting early next week and the report is now expected to be released next Wednesday. [LINK]

As with Kennedy's initial report, this one is expected to recommend some common-sense changes to the RCMP taser-use policies. And as with the initial report, the RCMP (being extremely brainwashed by Taser) will have difficulty with those recommendations.

This delay is interesting, but it seems clear that Day is not in a position to request changes. And Mr. Kennedy would be unlikely to accept any requests for changes from Mr. Day. And there's probably no time for changes.

The government is probably looking for more time to prepare some spin.

Canadian Police Research Centre (CPRC) - gone silent?

We've met the Canadian Police Research Centre (CPRC) before.

Previous posts:
7 January 2008 - Canadian Police Research Centre (another report) [LINK1]
17 August 2008 - RESTRAINT - Risk of Death in Subjects That Resist [LINK2]
26 August 2008 - DRDC pulls plug on non peer reviewed CPRC taser "study" [LINK3]
18 September 2008 - CPRC makes massive oversight [LINK4]



Well, where have they gone?

According to their Publications webpage [CPRC Publications], they've not had a single publication since 2008. I've browsed around their webpage, and it's essentially dormant. Maybe I'm missing something...

They had previously announced that they were going to gather data for one year starting on 1 January 2008 and write another report. [ibid1] Well, gathering data for one year starting at the beginning of 2008 should have been completed almost a year ago. It shouldn't take a year to write a report.

Not to mention the report that was pulled... [ibid3]

Amazing how the pro-taser 'science' dries up when it's put in the spotlight.


If they're looking for something to do, perhaps they could answer the great unanswered question about the death rate per taser deployment, comparing the M26 vice the X26. See [LINK].

An ideal opportunity for redemption.