Tasers fire stronger current than company says

[Zed Snardbody]

Some tested Tasers fire stronger current than company says: CBC/Radio-Canada probe

Some Tasers deliver a higher level of electricity than the manufacturer promises, reveals a series of tests on 41 stun guns that was commissioned by CBC News and Radio-Canada.

The abnormal X26 model Tasers were manufactured before 2005, prompting some scientists to suggest police should stop using any older versions of the stun guns until they can be tested.

Of the 41 Tasers tested, four delivered significantly more current than Taser International says is possible. In some cases, the current was up to 50 per cent stronger than specified on the devices.

The tests, conducted by the U.S.-based lab National Technical Systems, used X26 Tasers from seven police departments in that country. Each weapon was fired at least six times.

Arizona-based Taser International makes virtually all the stun guns being used by police forces. The technical term for a stun gun is conductive energy weapon, or CEW. They are intended to incapacitate people with an electric shock.

The RCMP says it has pulled a random sample of some of the forces' Tasers for testing based on the results of the CBC News/Radio-Canada investigation.

"Given that you have raised this issue with us, we are taking steps to take CEWs out of our inventory devices that have deployed across the country, we are gathering up samples from each of our divisions, every province and every territory and we will have them independently tested," RCMP Commissioner William Elliott told CBC News at a recent policing event.

A force communications official, Supt. Tim Cogan, informed CBC News late Thursday that preliminary test results showed the sample of Tasers operated within the manufacturer's specifications.

Cogan said the tests were conducted at an accredited, independent laboratory in Ottawa, but didn't provide details on how many Tasers were tested or which lab conducted the analysis. The RCMP is still awaiting final test results.

"The RCMP recognizes that any use of force, including the CEW, carries risks, both to the public and to the police," Cogan said in a letter to CBC News.

"We do not take the use of force lightly. Ongoing assessment of the tools provided to our members and of the policies that guide their use is essential to mitigate these risks."

Pierre Savard, a biomedical engineering professor at École Polytechnique de Montréal, designed the technical procedure for the CBC's testing based on Taser International’s specifications.

Savard told CBC News it is scientifically significant that about nine per cent of the Tasers fired in the tests delivered more current than they are supposed to do, especially since he believes no one is verifying the company’s claims.

"I think it's important because Taser is not subjected to international standards," Savard said.

"When you use a cellphone, well, cellphones have to respect a set of standards … for the electric magnetic field that it emits. The Taser, well, nobody knows except Taser International."

Savard said the cause of the increased current could be either due to faulty quality control during the stun guns' manufacturing or electrical components that deteriorate with age.

The findings are troubling, since police officers are trained to aim a Taser at the chest, said Savard, who studies heart rhythms and how they are affected by electrical stimulation.

"When you combine an increased current intensity with a dart that falls right over the heart for somebody who has cardiovascular disease or other conditions such as using drugs, for example, it can all add up to a fatal issue," Savard said.

Malfunctioning Tasers

Police forces across North America assure people that Tasers are safe. The manufacturer, Taser International, has said its product has a higher safety margin than Tylenol.

Taser International said they couldn’t provide someone for an interview before the CBC published results from the tests.

However, Magne Nerheim, Taser's vice-president of research and development, sent a written response to the results, in which he called the four malfunctioning Tasers an anomaly — one that could be explained if the weapons are not spark tested on a regular basis.

Nerheim also suggested the testing be repeated to verify the results. He made no comment about the age of the Tasers and whether there could be an issue of reliability.

During the tests commissioned by CBC News and Radio-Canada, three of the weapons didn't fire, even with charged battery packs. Those were set aside and not counted in the final results.

But a Taser that doesn't deploy can potentially create a safety issue for a police officer, Savard said.

"When we are talking about Tasers that don’t function, I think it is dangerous for the policeman who would try to use the Taser and the individual response can be aggressive," he said.

The CBC showed the results to several electrical engineers as a peer review of the analysis. They agreed that at the very least, the Tasers made before 2005 should not be used again until they are tested and proved reliable.

Link

Tasers may very well be kosher it would seem, and we're just being bit in the ass by bad quality control.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I don't understand why the company would be bothered if it was due to aging components--that just means you have to buy tasers more often, after all, which is not a bad thing from their perspective.

Poor quality control, I suspect, is the cause here, simply based on their trying to evade a question like that.. If they knew the components decayed over several years, they'd just use that to market the prompt purchase of replacements to drive sales up further.

[CmdrWilkens]

I honestly don't know what the Preventitive Maintenance procedures looks like for a Taser but given that 3 of the units they tested (out of 44 total units) failed to fire is indicative of either failure to properly maintain or serious manufacturing defect. A failure rate that high suggests that there is likely no middle ground (excepting maybe some minor defects combined with poor maintenance). I think of it in the same way as a firearm, the best weapon in the world in unlikely to operate correctly if you use it once and then leave it unattended on a shelf for a matter of months or years. Christ I haven't had occasion (thank goodness) to use my handgun since I bought it but I still take it out for weekly cleaning and lubrication just to keep it healthy.

So anyway either they never bothered to maintain these units or there is a serious manufacturing problem and the RCMP investigation would likely be the best place to start double checking.

[Enigma]

I honestly don't know what the Preventitive Maintenance procedures looks like for a Taser but given that 3 of the units they tested (out of 44 total units) failed to fire is indicative of either failure to properly maintain or serious manufacturing defect. A failure rate that high suggests that there is likely no middle ground (excepting maybe some minor defects combined with poor maintenance). I think of it in the same way as a firearm, the best weapon in the world in unlikely to operate correctly if you use it once and then leave it unattended on a shelf for a matter of months or years. Christ I haven't had occasion (thank goodness) to use my handgun since I bought it but I still take it out for weekly cleaning and lubrication just to keep it healthy.

So anyway either they never bothered to maintain these units or there is a serious manufacturing problem and the RCMP investigation would likely be the best place to start double checking.

Actually it is seven out of forty four that malfunctioned. Three were set aside because they failed to work and four delivered a current that was up to 50% more than they were rated. That is a failure rate of one per six pre-2005 Tasers.

[Coyote]

I don't understand why the company would be bothered if it was due to aging components--that just means you have to buy tasers more often, after all, which is not a bad thing from their perspective.

Poor quality control, I suspect, is the cause here, simply based on their trying to evade a question like that.. If they knew the components decayed over several years, they'd just use that to market the prompt purchase of replacements to drive sales up further.

They're probably thinking in terms of liability concerns, legal fees, and what kind of out-of-court settlements they have to make in someone is killed because of there "advertised as nonlethal" Tasers does, in fact, kill someone.

[CmdrWilkens]

Actually it is seven out of forty four that malfunctioned. Three were set aside because they failed to work and four delivered a current that was up to 50% more than they were rated. That is a failure rate of one per six pre-2005 Tasers.

I was actually just addressing the 3 total failures as, without reference, we have no idea how far outside the current range the other 4 failures were (so assesment of degree of failure is harder). Yes they stated that current differed by as much as 50% that could mean 3 of the 4 failures were that large or it could be that 1 was 50% and three were 2.5% or something similairly small. In other words I didn't think there was informaiton to make any judgements on the 4 defective but oeprational units while the 3 non-functional units tell a story all their own.

[Death from the Sea]

well, the ones that failed to fire could be caused by improper maintenance... which is you are supposed to "spark test" daily. Meaning you remove the cartridge and pull the trigger which makes sure the unit is working and recharges the components (no not the battery). If you fail to do this regularly, the unit can malfunction or not turn on.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I don't understand why the company would be bothered if it was due to aging components--that just means you have to buy tasers more often, after all, which is not a bad thing from their perspective.

Poor quality control, I suspect, is the cause here, simply based on their trying to evade a question like that.. If they knew the components decayed over several years, they'd just use that to market the prompt purchase of replacements to drive sales up further.

They're probably thinking in terms of liability concerns, legal fees, and what kind of out-of-court settlements they have to make in someone is killed because of there "advertised as nonlethal" Tasers does, in fact, kill someone.

Which is unfortunate, because people don't seem to grasp the fact that the taser triggers underlying cause that kills the person. Using these peoples logic running can be a lethal exercise if it triggers a heart attack which ends up killing the runner.

[SirNitram]

I don't understand why the company would be bothered if it was due to aging components--that just means you have to buy tasers more often, after all, which is not a bad thing from their perspective.

Poor quality control, I suspect, is the cause here, simply based on their trying to evade a question like that.. If they knew the components decayed over several years, they'd just use that to market the prompt purchase of replacements to drive sales up further.

They're probably thinking in terms of liability concerns, legal fees, and what kind of out-of-court settlements they have to make in someone is killed because of there "advertised as nonlethal" Tasers does, in fact, kill someone.

The 'Legal Fees' seems discondant with the fact they're actively filing lawsuits against MEs who declare a Taser caused the death. Sure, liability and settlements are probably part, but one doesn't mount an offensive lawsuit war to avoid legal fees.

[Edi]

I don't understand why the company would be bothered if it was due to aging components--that just means you have to buy tasers more often, after all, which is not a bad thing from their perspective.

Poor quality control, I suspect, is the cause here, simply based on their trying to evade a question like that.. If they knew the components decayed over several years, they'd just use that to market the prompt purchase of replacements to drive sales up further.

They're probably thinking in terms of liability concerns, legal fees, and what kind of out-of-court settlements they have to make in someone is killed because of there "advertised as nonlethal" Tasers does, in fact, kill someone.

Which is unfortunate, because people don't seem to grasp the fact that the taser triggers underlying cause that kills the person. Using these peoples logic running can be a lethal exercise if it triggers a heart attack which ends up killing the runner.

The problem with this is that Tasers can kill people with no prior heart conditions as well.

This is not actually a difficult issue. The human heart is essentially a biomechanical machine part regulated by electrical impulses. A taser is a mechanical device that causes disruption in the human bioelectrical regulatory system (aka nervous system). If someone dies after being tasered, the pretty fucking obvious first item on the list of suspected causes is naturally the disruption to the nervous system that was deliberately triggered via a mechanical device (the taser).

Just like after someone dies from getting shot in the head, a possible brain aneurysm is not the first suspected cause.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The problem with this is that Tasers can kill people with no prior heart conditions as well.

Source?

This is not actually a difficult issue. The human heart is essentially a biomechanical machine part regulated by electrical impulses. A taser is a mechanical device that causes disruption in the human bioelectrical regulatory system (aka nervous system). If someone dies after being tasered, the pretty fucking obvious first item on the list of suspected causes is naturally the disruption to the nervous system that was deliberately triggered via a mechanical device (the taser).

Indeed. Yet, only a few medical examiners rule the taser was a contributory factor in the death. I have not heard of one that was ruled the cause of death. Unless you know of something that I do not?

Just like after someone dies from getting shot in the head, a possible brain aneurysm is not the first suspected cause.

Ugh. Terrible analogy. A bullet is visibly shown to destroy tissue. In most cases you don't need a medical examiner to tell you that someone was killed by being shot in the head. However, in the case with tasers in many situations the person who died had cocaine or some other narcotic in this blood stream. So, no it's nothing like a bullet.

[General Zod]

Indeed. Yet, only a few medical examiners rule the taser was a contributory factor in the death. I have not heard of one that was ruled the cause of death. Unless you know of something that I do not?

In all these cases of taser related death, is there anything at all that shows they would have died anyway had the taser not been used?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Indeed. Yet, only a few medical examiners rule the taser was a contributory factor in the death. I have not heard of one that was ruled the cause of death. Unless you know of something that I do not?

In all these cases of taser related death, is there anything at all that shows they would have died anyway had the taser not been used?

I don't know if that's been included in the report. However, I imagine that they would still be alive had they not interacted with police. The real question is would they have died if they were taking into custody with just physical force instead of a taser deployment.

[General Zod]

I don't know if that's been included in the report. However, I imagine that they would still be alive had they not interacted with police. The real question is would they have died if they were taking into custody with just physical force instead of a taser deployment.

In other words, no. I don't see how anyone can come to the conclusion that the taser wasn't a primary factor otherwise.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I don't know if that's been included in the report. However, I imagine that they would still be alive had they not interacted with police. The real question is would they have died if they were taking into custody with just physical force instead of a taser deployment.

In other words, no. I don't see how anyone can come to the conclusion that the taser wasn't a primary factor otherwise.

Actually, what I said was a bit more appropriate than the very narrow question you attempted to back me into a corner with. Obviously, the medical examiners ruled that it wasn't the primary factor because it just wasn't. Do you have something concrete besides you saying how the medical examiner should do their job?

[General Zod]

Actually, what I said was a bit more appropriate than the very narrow question you attempted to back me into a corner with. Obviously, the medical examiners ruled that it wasn't the primary factor because it just wasn't. Do you have something concrete besides you saying how the medical examiner should do their job?

And we should take the medical examiners on their word. . . why? They're using terminology that's not supported by the AMA or APA to explain these deaths, which makes their claims dubious at best. Why looky what I found.

It's an old article but it lends credence to the idea that all these justifications just might be bullshit.

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.

"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.

The chair of Taser, Tom Smith, told the inquiry Monday that Tasers save lives and reduce injuries to police and suspects.

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.

Dziekanski, exhausted and disoriented, was exhibiting bizarre behavior as RCMP officers arrived and, seconds later, shot him more than once with a Taser. He died at the scene.

An amateur video of the incident caused international public outrage and led B.C.'s attorney-general to order the current public inquiry before commissioner Thomas Braidwood, a retired judge.

"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.

Earlier in the day, Dr. Lu Shaohua, a psychiatrist at Vancouver General Hospital, told the inquiry he has seen about 1,000 people suffering from delirium and most are confused, agitated, sometimes aggressive and paranoid.

Lu said precipitating factors can include prolonged sleep deprivation, exhaustion caused by a long-haul flight and dehydration.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Actually, what I said was a bit more appropriate than the very narrow question you attempted to back me into a corner with. Obviously, the medical examiners ruled that it wasn't the primary factor because it just wasn't. Do you have something concrete besides you saying how the medical examiner should do their job?

And we should take the medical examiners on their word. . . why? They're using terminology that's not supported by the AMA or APA to explain these deaths, which makes their claims dubious at best.

We've been here before to. NAME (National Association of Medical Examiners) does recognize the terminology. Also, has AMA or the APA given an alternative explanation. Have they examined the bodies of people who have expired due to taser use? No. Then perhaps you should find something else.

It's an old article but it lends credence to the idea that all these justifications just might be bullshit.

Yes! You have proof that medical examiners world wide are conspiring together!

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.

For the record I am against multiple uses of a taser. If it isn't effective on the first couple tries, and you haven't taken the opportunity to handcuff that person then unless you have a good reason for not doing so then you should be held liable for excessive force.

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.

It's cool that he gets to call it a mythical condition. I guess NAME doesn't deserve any respect or recognition.

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.

Actually, it's a term to describe a set of symptoms so police can recognize the need for immediate medical attention. It's not an excuse to taser more, or use excessive force. It's so law enforcement can recognize the signs, and can sum it up in one term to medical responders so they know what's going on. However, that's okay let's continue to just disregard the people in the appropriate field of science because it doesn't fit with our belief system.

"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.

This could be true. Like I said above. Multiple uses with no attempts or no reason to not handcuff the person should be viewed as excessive force.

"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.

Translation - I'm not a cop, but I can say that those people don't exist because I am a psychologist on a mission, and police reports only matter when I like them.

The chair of Taser, Tom Smith, told the inquiry Monday that Tasers save lives and reduce injuries to police and suspects.

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.

Yes, I agree training needs to be changed and officers need to recognize that other force options might be more appropriate than others.

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.

Dziekanski, exhausted and disoriented, was exhibiting bizarre behavior as RCMP officers arrived and, seconds later, shot him more than once with a Taser. He died at the scene.

A bit more complicated than him just wandering around and then getting shot by a taser. If I remember the incident correctly he resisted attempts to take him into custody without the use of a taser.

"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.

Couldn't agree more. That's why my department puts all its officers through C.I.T. training.

[CmdrWilkens]

There was one quote I though paticularly apot to get to the root of the issue

"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.

The times where Tasers have caused death are quite often much mroe complex than a one sentence summary but the recurring theme seems always to be police officers who view the Taser as a "non" rather than "less" lethal tool. The distinction may have been the cause of lawsuit and some grumbling over semantics but the actual difference is huge. If Tasers were truly "non" lethal then only truly excessive force (much as excessive pain compliance technique) could cause death. With Tasers being "less" lethal then there are a range of problems that can occur if they are used inappropriately or as a crutch.

Training with ANY weapon needs to emphasize the restraint neccesarry in deployment but at the same time blaming the weapon for excessive use is like blaming a pistol for when someone fires 12 shots...the improper use is what causes fatal damage rather than the use of the device period. One can utilize firearms in a less lethal manner but the safety margins are MUCH slimmer so I would prefer for a police force I happen to encounter to have a device where the safety margins are much wider.

I think the question nobody is asking is "What would happen in each of these Taser death cases if the device was not available?" Certainly in many cases pysical retraint may have been tried and suceeded (though likely with physical injury to both the officer and the suspect) in other cases firearms may have been drawn at which point a fatal outcome is much mroe likely. The companion quesiton to this is "What would happen in all of the non-fatal Taser use instances if the device was not available?" Again physical restraint may have been used (again resulting in injury) and firearms would have been drawn in others.

Tasers, batons, tear gas, etc. All of these are tools that can reduce the need for a police officer to draw their firearm and that, in turn, dratically lowers the chances that an encounter will resutl in a fatality. In turn officers need to be trained as to the limitations of each of these methods.

[Ekiqa]

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.

Dziekanski, exhausted and disoriented, was exhibiting bizarre behavior as RCMP officers arrived and, seconds later, shot him more than once with a Taser. He died at the scene.

A bit more complicated than him just wandering around and then getting shot by a taser. If I remember the incident correctly he resisted attempts to take him into custody without the use of a taser.

How can police attempt to take someone into custody just SECONDS after they arrive? They had no time to introduce themselves, all they had time for was pulling out the weapon.

[Kamakazie Sith]

How can police attempt to take someone into custody just SECONDS after they arrive? They had no time to introduce themselves, all they had time for was pulling out the weapon.

"Police Department! Get on your knees. Do it now!" (Failure to comply) "Get on your knees. Do it now!" (Failure to comply) "This is your last warning get on your knees. Do it now!" (Taser Deployment)

Approximately 22 seconds passed between first contact with police and him being tased. Within that time multiple commands were likely issued, and subsequently not obeyed.

EDIT - It should also be noted that he continued to struggle with those officers for at least a full minute after deployment while they were attempting to get him into handcuffs.

[Ekiqa]

"Police Department! Get on your knees. Do it now!" (Failure to comply) "Get on your knees. Do it now!" (Failure to comply) "This is your last warning get on your knees. Do it now!" (Taser Deployment)

Is the very first thing you do when you see someone is yell at them to get on their knees? I thought you were supposed to converse with the person and calm them down without resorting to violence?

[Alyeska]

I imagine if the suspect is already acting hostile to begin with, they can go immediately into the warning phase.

[Kamakazie Sith]

"Police Department! Get on your knees. Do it now!" (Failure to comply) "Get on your knees. Do it now!" (Failure to comply) "This is your last warning get on your knees. Do it now!" (Taser Deployment)

Is the very first thing you do when you see someone is yell at them to get on their knees? I thought you were supposed to converse with the person and calm them down without resorting to violence?

Did I type in capital letters or something? No. The exclamation point was to imply firmness, and a sense of urgency. Not to imply that we yell at people. Though I imagine when he failed to follow instructions then he was yelled at...

[Edi]

The problem with this is that Tasers can kill people with no prior heart conditions as well.

Source?

Electrical shocks, even fairly minor ones, have sometimes killed people with no history of or even presence of underlying heart conditions. To say that a taser could not possibly do this when it delivers an electrical shock powerful enough disrupt limb coordination in a human is fairly preposterous on its face.

This is not actually a difficult issue. The human heart is essentially a biomechanical machine part regulated by electrical impulses. A taser is a mechanical device that causes disruption in the human bioelectrical regulatory system (aka nervous system). If someone dies after being tasered, the pretty fucking obvious first item on the list of suspected causes is naturally the disruption to the nervous system that was deliberately triggered via a mechanical device (the taser).

Indeed. Yet, only a few medical examiners rule the taser was a contributory factor in the death. I have not heard of one that was ruled the cause of death. Unless you know of something that I do not?

So if it is a contributory factor, then that needs to be taken into account rather than brushing away attempts to intimidate anyone who says that much, which is what Taser Inc is doing. If a taser is a contributory factor, then the officer who used it may or may not face consequences for excessive use of force and his possible negligence must be assessed. This goes right into what Wilkens says above. Taser Inc is trying to claim that there is no possibility that its products could even be a contributory cause and trying to suppress any findings to that effect. If that is okayed by the courts, in practice this would lessen the duty of care required of police officers when using force against suspects. Not a good thing.

It is not a qustion of just the tasers themselves, because they are inextricably linked to police use of force.

Just like after someone dies from getting shot in the head, a possible brain aneurysm is not the first suspected cause.

Ugh. Terrible analogy. A bullet is visibly shown to destroy tissue. In most cases you don't need a medical examiner to tell you that someone was killed by being shot in the head. However, in the case with tasers in many situations the person who died had cocaine or some other narcotic in this blood stream. So, no it's nothing like a bullet.

Point. But if a taser is a risk factor when other conditions can be present, this actually makes its use a fairly dangerous proposition on the officer's part if there is indication of these other conditions possibly being present. It all goes back to how accountability and duty of care are assessed.

Note that I am not against using tasers as such, but the bullshit currently coming from their manufacturer I am not going to accept at all unless they present independently verifiable test results. Which they have yet to do.

[Gil Hamilton]

Which is unfortunate, because people don't seem to grasp the fact that the taser triggers underlying cause that kills the person. Using these peoples logic running can be a lethal exercise if it triggers a heart attack which ends up killing the runner.

Yes. Strong physical exertion can be lethal, particularly amongst the elderly and infirm. I'm not sure I see what your point is.

The taser is still the cause of death there, because it delivered the shock that, for example, caused someone's pacemaker to fail. To say it isn't the taser that does the killing is preposterous. You could claim using that logic that all weapons are none lethal.

"No, it wasn't the gun that killed him. It was his renal failure that killed him. The bullet only destroyed a large section of the kidney is passed through, causing it to stop working properly."