Braidwood concluded that “conducted-energy weapons do have the capacity to cause serious injury or death” and that the risk increases with multiple use and when aimed at the person’s chest.... a conclusion also reached by Taser International : Instructor and User Warnings, Risks (via Stanford) :
"When practicable, avoid prolonged or continuous exposure(s) to the TASER device electrical discharge. The stress and exertion of extensive repeated, prolonged, or continuous application(s) of the TASER device may contribute to cumulative exhaustion, stress, and associated medical risk(s). Severe exhaustion and/or over-exertion from physical struggle, drug intoxication, use of restraint devices, etc. may result in serious injury or death."
Nonetheless, Taser contends the Braidwood Inquiry ignored "an enormous body of medical and scientific literature, all of which we provided to the commission, to support the safety of the conducted energy weapon".
Presumably not included in Taser Int's "enormous body of literature" was this Canadian Medical Association Journal article, in which Dr. Matthew B. Stanbrook notes the company's tendency to use researchers who "occasionally neglect to mention their participation on TASER International’s medical advisory board or board of directors", and their success in "suing a researcher for publishing scientific results critical of tasers in a peer-reviewed journal and a medical examiner for the “error” of listing taser exposure on a death certificate as the cause of death".
Taser lawyer : "Taser is of the view that the conclusions and recommendations in this report would put law enforcement and Canadian citizens at risk."
So we have the four RCMP who tasered Robert Dziekanski appealing a previous court decision that allowed Braidwood to make misconduct findings against them in the taser part of the inquiry, and now Taser Int.'s suit as well.
When part two of Braidwood's inquiry resumes in Sept. 2009, after having been derailed in June by a last minute surfacing of an incriminating RCMP email, will the argument be that certain issues can no longer be reviewed by the inquiry because they are now before the courts?