Only days after Taser International was found liable in a wrongful death suit, a new study conducted by CBC News/Radio-Canada and the Canadian Press have concluded that one in three people shot by a Taser require medical attention. The information was gathered from RCMP incident reports filed between 2002 and 2007. Of the 3,226 tasings laid down during that period, 910 of the victims went to a medical facility to treat their injuries—and many more potentially serious cases did not seek treatment.
Well, I've conducted my own independent study, and I've found that 100% of the people shot by a handgun need medical attention (if you count the coroner as "medical attention" too).
What in the world does this "study" accomplish? Does it establish that it's dangerous to be tasered? Well, duh. Is the goal to get police to stop using tasers because of concern about the safety of perpetrators? I don't see how it can possibly improve safety to take a means of non-lethal self-defense out of the cops' hands. Are the researchers just hoping to be called as expert witnesses in the upcoming slew of taser lawsuits? Ah, now we may be onto something.
What in the world does this "study" accomplish? Does it establish that it's dangerous to be tasered? Well, duh.
ReplyDeleteTaser likes you to believe otherwise. This study simply shows that Tasers don't save lives (they actually kill,) but when they don't kill there can be serious injuries.
By the way, your own study stinks. There have been many shootings where nobody gets hurt at all. So much for bringing the facts.
Is the goal to get police to stop using tasers because of concern about the safety of perpetrators?
No, it's to stop idiot police officers from killing innocent people who don't carry weapons at all. Studies are not the problem, but trigger-happy lazy police officers who forgot what good policing is, are.
By the wat, did you ever hear about the Taser-Nazi Awards?
"There have been many shootings where nobody gets hurt at all."
ReplyDeleteWow, really? Are you actually saying that, when the cops are trying to apprehend an uncooperative suspect, you would prefer they shoot at them with a gun than a taser? Well, there's part of me that agrees with you, but it's not the charitable, suspects-rights part.
Are you actually saying that [..] you would prefer they shoot [a suspect] with a gun [instead of a] taser?
ReplyDeleteNo, I said that police officers are poor shooters. Except for when it's convenient that they are not, such as the wonderful work of this incredible rubber mountie