It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Taser International Inc. sues Canadian government

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:23 PM

Taser International Inc. filed a lawsuit Friday in Canada blasting a government report that prompted severe limitations on how and when law-enforcement officers in British Columbia can use stun guns.

Link to AZCentral

This article is a couple weeks old but I didn't see it reported on ATS. It goes along with a couple discussions about tasers.

The 18-month-long Braidwood Inquiry, headed by retired Judge Thomas Braidwood, concluded in July that Tasers can cause death.

In his 556-page report, Braidwood criticized law enforcement for putting the stun gun on the street with little or no independent testing and recommended restricting use of Tasers. Within hours, the head of public safety in British Columbia adopted all 19 of Braidwood's recommendations, including a ban on Tasers in non-criminal situations or where there is not an imminent threat of bodily harm.

A spokesman for the Braidwood Inquiry said Friday that officials were surprised by Taser's reaction.

"We didn't expect this type of action to be taken," said Chris Freimond. "Mr. Braidwood is an experienced and respected jurist."

The Braidwood Inquiry was sparked by the 2007 death of a Polish immigrant at Vancouver International Airport who stopped breathing after being shocked five times by Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers.

Braidwood was charged by the provincial government with looking into Taser use in the province, where Tasers were introduced in Canada. Braidwood was also asked to provide a complete record of the circumstances surrounding the airport death, which is still ongoing.

So, when a Government entity questions the use of tasers and even comes up with evidence to support that, when used incorrectly, they can be lethal, they are sued by the manufacturer of the device and called biased.

Of course taser Intl. is going to DEFEND their devices. What else are they SUPPOSED to do? Perhaps admit that without proper training, restraint, or attitude of officers employing their devices, they are deadly? That would detract from the whole 'non' or 'less' lethal argument, wouldn't it?

It sounds to me like BC is getting a handle on things.

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:34 PM
Amazing. Nothing these guys do these days surprises me. That company should be disposed of. Waste of space

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 07:26 PM
Honestly tasers can be a useful non-lethal weapon in the use of responsible professionals.

However most cops are not responsible. They use tasers for convenience, which leads to unnecessary deaths. If a subject cannot be taken down by physical force AND he is posing an immediate threat, then he should be tased. It is the government's responsibility to prevent these unnecessary deaths.

I fail to see what point Taser INC is making with this lawsuit...

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 08:01 PM
Sigh sometimes i feel like my tax dollars just go right to the lawyers.Also the comments are really good in the article you linked.

It doesn't seem right when a company can claim a product is absolutely safe, and that product has on multiple occasions killed people, then a government inquiry finds the device can be lethal and said company sues for what exactly? Name calling? It doesn't even matter who wins in the end the Canadian citizens end up paying

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 08:11 PM
I suppose many LEO might prefer a cattle prod instead.

I don't really car for them using these so much. A threatening dog might work better, but you can't have one in every squad car. My brother was sprayed with pepper spray after he used a racial slur. He pretty much deserved it. A taser would have been more memorable and preferred by my sister. He was arerested and later sent to a psychiatric hospital for treatment.

top topics

log in