6 ms·

> Ho served with Mash and another Taser consultant on a 19-member task force that prepared an influential 2009 white paper on excited delirium for the American

by rdtsc 9y ago

> Ho served with Mash and another Taser consultant on a 19-member task force that prepared an influential 2009 white paper on excited delirium for the American College of Emergency Physicians, representing 31,000 doctors. The paper described the condition as “a real syndrome of uncertain etiology,” or cause. This is some special kind of evil. They not only have coroners and police departments in their pockets. But also invented a whole new disease and funded a "white paper" about it. They fully expected for this to end up in court from day one, as they know exactly what their product does to people. So they inoculated themselves by generating "scientific research" to shove in front of juries during a trial. "Oh look science! Victim was suffering from a case of excited delirium when officer Jones pressed the trigger. Here is a paper on it". After serving on a jury, I believe this would totally fly there. Juries are not allowed to research or study the facts about the case on their own. Once "evidence" is shown or an expert is declared "an expert in <blah>" then you are told to base your judgment on what they present.

21 9y ago
Unless, of course, the expert is from the defense: > Taser persuaded a judge to exclude a medical examiner and pathologist with 25 years’ experience whose testimony was central to the family’s case, arguing that it was “unqualified, unsupported and unreliable.” Or even better, sue anyone who says Tasers are dangerous: > Also in 2006, Taser sued electrical engineer James Ruggieri, who wrote a peer-reviewed study that said Taser shocks were more dangerous than the company stated. In its lawsuit, Taser said Ruggieri was mounting an “anti-Taser campaign,” was unqualified to do so, and made money from delivering anti-Taser presentations and appearing as an expert witness. And make everybody afraid to implicate a taser: > Such cases have an impact on medical examiners, according to a 2011 survey of 222 medical examiners nationwide. Its conclusions: 14 percent said they modified diagnostic findings due to the possible threat of litigation from Taser, and 32 percent said that threat could affect future decisions.
- sova 9y ago
  Any time I read "Taser persuaded" I am reminded of their primary form of persuasion. Scare tactics should not fly in Court
- hd4 9y ago
  If judges can be persuaded to exclude medical experts because they went against what X company asserted then isn't the weakness in the system the judge?
pragone 9y ago
Er... "excited delirium" is both very real and very serious, a constellation of symptoms due to another underlying process (e.g., drugs, usually of the illicit nature). It can generally be treated well with Ketamine.
- sova 9y ago
  The cure is ketamine? That's an animal tranquilizer.
  - pragone 9y ago
    It's not a cure, it's a treatment. Ketamine, I do believe, is an animal tranquilizer. Not being a veterinarian, I don't know much about that application. However, in humans it has shown tremendous benefit as an analgesic and a dissociative agent, with a tremendous safety profile.
  - SeanDav 9y ago
    > "The cure is ketamine? That's an animal tranquilizer." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketamine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketamine Ketamine has very important human use. From article above: "It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines"
  - JshWright 9y ago
    Do you think humans aren't animals...? Ketamine is a very safe and effective drug when used properly. In many areas it's a first drug of choice for prehospital ("ambulance") sedation. Around here our protocols prefer benzodiazepines like Versed, but we have Ketamine on the rig, and use it in cases like this.
    - SeanDav 9y ago
      > "Do you think humans aren't animals...?" One has to be quite careful with type of comment. Of course humans are animals, but we are animals of a particular species and what one animal species eats or easily tolerates, can be deadly to another animal species. Some simple examples to illustrate the point. Chocolate and grapes are dangerous, even deadly for dogs yet of course are not only tolerated, but even actively enjoyed by the vast majority of humans with no ill effects. https://www.aspca.org/pet-care/animal-poison-control/people-foods-avoid-feeding-your-pets https://www.aspca.org/pet-care/animal-poison-control/people-...
AlexCoventry 9y ago
> Juries are not allowed to research or study the facts about the case on their own. Do jury members get to go home overnight during their service, or is this actually enforced?
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Do jury members get to go home overnight during their service Usually (though sequestration does happen in some cases), but... > or is this actually enforced? Yes; like most laws, it is enforced after-the-fact.
- rdtsc 9y ago
  It depends, in most cases yes they go home. In high profile cases they get put in a hotel. I got to go home in my case, it was a civil suit. The judge instructed us not to look up research related to the case and I listened and didn't. After the fact, I believe the verdict would have been different if we had been allowed to lookup how that type of case was being run and what happens and so on. It was an auto insurance litigation for injuries and medical bills.
  - sova 9y ago
    Hmm this is very distressing because all the relevant societal facts and not just the facts that paid for floor time must have voice in the court system. Inadmissible evidence and Evidence policies should not preclude common sense, inquisitiveness, a desire and action to become informed on a topic, and general understanding. In a case where media exposure would implicate certain individuals I can understand an imperative such as "watch no TV" but how in good conscience can one say "learn no more about the matter than what you know this very moment!" Seems like an easy recipe for buy-the-verdicts-you-like
    - fleitz 9y ago
      An independent jury undermines the power of the court and the government. If you let juries make decisions next thing you know you get verdicts like not guilty.
saryant 9y ago
Some states now allow juries to question witnesses. I think that pushes the balance back a bit.
beambot 9y ago
That always confused me: if juries are the arbiters of fact (as instructed by a judge), why can't they consult external references? Why do they have to rely exclusively on testimony and their predetermined factual knowledge?
- eximius 9y ago
  Presumably each side will present the best facts available to fill in the jury members knowledge. Can you imagine if jury members (some of whom might believe in homeopathy or other bizarre pseudoscience) were allowed to base their judgements on `facts` not presented by one of the parties involved? It'd be madness, very quickly.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    > Can you imagine if jury members (some of whom might believe in homeopathy or other bizarre pseudoscience) were allowed to base their judgements on `facts` not presented by one of the parties involved? But jury members are allowed to use their pre-existing knowledge of homeopathy, are they not? They're just prevented from learning more about homeopathy (or psychopathology) in a way that could influence their decision. Now I wonder if an elementary textbook on a topic would be admissible evidence, and whether jury members would be allowed to ask for it.
  - Chris_Jay 9y ago
    That a jury is made of common people who might have a wide range of beliefs seems rather the point of the system though doesn't it? Also, this is your weekly reminder that vaccines are homeopathy.
    - eximius 9y ago
      Vaccines and allergy shots are NOT homeopathy and that is extremely dangerous to say. Homeopathy is characterized by the belief that 'like cures like'. They ingest poisons to innoculate themselves to fevers, etc. It is very, very different from simply gaining a resistance to specific compounds.
- 9y ago
cardiffspaceman 9y ago
As a juror, I can base my judgement on my own analysis of what is before me, I don't have to rely on what they tell me it means. I can consider the MRDA rule[1] when something seems too convenient for the person saying it. I can consider whether or not that oddly-timed eye blinking is a tell. I would be able to form these opinions privately during the testimony and then share these opinions with my fellow jurors during deliberation. Based on instructions I received as a juror, I think it would be inbounds to send in a factual question to the judge, and maybe that question would lead to additional evidence that could be presented and also balanced with rebuttal or otherwise handled fairly. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRDA_(slang) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRDA_(slang)
- rdtsc 9y ago
  Sure nothing I said disagrees with what you mentioned. Yes you can make you own opinion, draw from your experience, consider whatever evidence you choose and deliberate with your fellow jurors. What the judge instructs jurors is that they shouldn't research related information or talk about the case during lunch or if they go home and have to come back and so on. So in this case you might hear the defense "experts" talk about "delirium" and presenting it as peer reviewed, settled science. A juror would want open up Wikipedia page on it and read about and find that it's mostly bullshit. But they are instructed not to. Now maybe the plaintiff's attorney is good enough to call their experts and testify against the other expert. Or maybe you already know or is familiar with these topics. No problem there then, but you might be struck out initially by the defense if they say "is anyone familiar or an expert in X" as a preventive measure to bolster their chances of winning. Now here is something interesting to think about - maybe there is a way to find out a-priori about all the cases on the docket for that day you are called and research and learn as much as possible about them. For busy court house that could end being a lot of cases.

by rdtsc 9y ago

21 9y ago

Unless, of course, the expert is from the defense: > Taser persuaded a judge to exclude a medical examiner and pathologist with 25 years’ experience whose testimony was central to the family’s case, arguing that it was “unqualified, unsupported and unreliable.” Or even better, sue anyone who says Tasers are dangerous: > Also in 2006, Taser sued electrical engineer James Ruggieri, who wrote a peer-reviewed study that said Taser shocks were more dangerous than the company stated. In its lawsuit, Taser said Ruggieri was mounting an “anti-Taser campaign,” was unqualified to do so, and made money from delivering anti-Taser presentations and appearing as an expert witness. And make everybody afraid to implicate a taser: > Such cases have an impact on medical examiners, according to a 2011 survey of 222 medical examiners nationwide. Its conclusions: 14 percent said they modified diagnostic findings due to the possible threat of litigation from Taser, and 32 percent said that threat could affect future decisions.

sova 9y ago
Any time I read "Taser persuaded" I am reminded of their primary form of persuasion. Scare tactics should not fly in Court
hd4 9y ago
If judges can be persuaded to exclude medical experts because they went against what X company asserted then isn't the weakness in the system the judge?

pragone 9y ago

Er... "excited delirium" is both very real and very serious, a constellation of symptoms due to another underlying process (e.g., drugs, usually of the illicit nature). It can generally be treated well with Ketamine.

sova 9y ago
The cure is ketamine? That's an animal tranquilizer.
- pragone 9y ago
  It's not a cure, it's a treatment. Ketamine, I do believe, is an animal tranquilizer. Not being a veterinarian, I don't know much about that application. However, in humans it has shown tremendous benefit as an analgesic and a dissociative agent, with a tremendous safety profile.
- SeanDav 9y ago
  > "The cure is ketamine? That's an animal tranquilizer." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketamine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketamine Ketamine has very important human use. From article above: "It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines"
- JshWright 9y ago
  Do you think humans aren't animals...? Ketamine is a very safe and effective drug when used properly. In many areas it's a first drug of choice for prehospital ("ambulance") sedation. Around here our protocols prefer benzodiazepines like Versed, but we have Ketamine on the rig, and use it in cases like this.
  - SeanDav 9y ago
    > "Do you think humans aren't animals...?" One has to be quite careful with type of comment. Of course humans are animals, but we are animals of a particular species and what one animal species eats or easily tolerates, can be deadly to another animal species. Some simple examples to illustrate the point. Chocolate and grapes are dangerous, even deadly for dogs yet of course are not only tolerated, but even actively enjoyed by the vast majority of humans with no ill effects. https://www.aspca.org/pet-care/animal-poison-control/people-foods-avoid-feeding-your-pets https://www.aspca.org/pet-care/animal-poison-control/people-...

AlexCoventry 9y ago

> Juries are not allowed to research or study the facts about the case on their own. Do jury members get to go home overnight during their service, or is this actually enforced?

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Do jury members get to go home overnight during their service Usually (though sequestration does happen in some cases), but... > or is this actually enforced? Yes; like most laws, it is enforced after-the-fact.
rdtsc 9y ago
It depends, in most cases yes they go home. In high profile cases they get put in a hotel. I got to go home in my case, it was a civil suit. The judge instructed us not to look up research related to the case and I listened and didn't. After the fact, I believe the verdict would have been different if we had been allowed to lookup how that type of case was being run and what happens and so on. It was an auto insurance litigation for injuries and medical bills.
- sova 9y ago
  Hmm this is very distressing because all the relevant societal facts and not just the facts that paid for floor time must have voice in the court system. Inadmissible evidence and Evidence policies should not preclude common sense, inquisitiveness, a desire and action to become informed on a topic, and general understanding. In a case where media exposure would implicate certain individuals I can understand an imperative such as "watch no TV" but how in good conscience can one say "learn no more about the matter than what you know this very moment!" Seems like an easy recipe for buy-the-verdicts-you-like
  - fleitz 9y ago
    An independent jury undermines the power of the court and the government. If you let juries make decisions next thing you know you get verdicts like not guilty.

saryant 9y ago

Some states now allow juries to question witnesses. I think that pushes the balance back a bit.

beambot 9y ago

That always confused me: if juries are the arbiters of fact (as instructed by a judge), why can't they consult external references? Why do they have to rely exclusively on testimony and their predetermined factual knowledge?

eximius 9y ago
Presumably each side will present the best facts available to fill in the jury members knowledge. Can you imagine if jury members (some of whom might believe in homeopathy or other bizarre pseudoscience) were allowed to base their judgements on `facts` not presented by one of the parties involved? It'd be madness, very quickly.
- yorwba 9y ago
  > Can you imagine if jury members (some of whom might believe in homeopathy or other bizarre pseudoscience) were allowed to base their judgements on `facts` not presented by one of the parties involved? But jury members are allowed to use their pre-existing knowledge of homeopathy, are they not? They're just prevented from learning more about homeopathy (or psychopathology) in a way that could influence their decision. Now I wonder if an elementary textbook on a topic would be admissible evidence, and whether jury members would be allowed to ask for it.
- Chris_Jay 9y ago
  That a jury is made of common people who might have a wide range of beliefs seems rather the point of the system though doesn't it? Also, this is your weekly reminder that vaccines are homeopathy.
  - eximius 9y ago
    Vaccines and allergy shots are NOT homeopathy and that is extremely dangerous to say. Homeopathy is characterized by the belief that 'like cures like'. They ingest poisons to innoculate themselves to fevers, etc. It is very, very different from simply gaining a resistance to specific compounds.
9y ago

cardiffspaceman 9y ago

As a juror, I can base my judgement on my own analysis of what is before me, I don't have to rely on what they tell me it means. I can consider the MRDA rule[1] when something seems too convenient for the person saying it. I can consider whether or not that oddly-timed eye blinking is a tell. I would be able to form these opinions privately during the testimony and then share these opinions with my fellow jurors during deliberation. Based on instructions I received as a juror, I think it would be inbounds to send in a factual question to the judge, and maybe that question would lead to additional evidence that could be presented and also balanced with rebuttal or otherwise handled fairly. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRDA_(slang) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRDA_(slang)

rdtsc 9y ago
Sure nothing I said disagrees with what you mentioned. Yes you can make you own opinion, draw from your experience, consider whatever evidence you choose and deliberate with your fellow jurors. What the judge instructs jurors is that they shouldn't research related information or talk about the case during lunch or if they go home and have to come back and so on. So in this case you might hear the defense "experts" talk about "delirium" and presenting it as peer reviewed, settled science. A juror would want open up Wikipedia page on it and read about and find that it's mostly bullshit. But they are instructed not to. Now maybe the plaintiff's attorney is good enough to call their experts and testify against the other expert. Or maybe you already know or is familiar with these topics. No problem there then, but you might be struck out initially by the defense if they say "is anyone familiar or an expert in X" as a preventive measure to bolster their chances of winning. Now here is something interesting to think about - maybe there is a way to find out a-priori about all the cases on the docket for that day you are called and research and learn as much as possible about them. For busy court house that could end being a lot of cases.