We’re extremely disappointed with a recent op ed out of Raleigh, NC - Time to Ban TASERs. We recognize that there’s some controversy that surrounds our technology. We realize that not everyone agrees with our more than 16,500 law enforcement agencies (where to buy a TASER) that deploy our electronic control devices (ECDs). We’ve seen more than our fair share of negative media stories but this op ed’s arguments are based on supposition. Furthermore, the author contacted us & only asked one question about the Turner verdict which BTW he failed to include in his writings tht the case has not been entered by the judge. This is a lack of being candid when a reporter interfaces with a company’s Communications Department & isn’t forthright.
While the columnist just used his opinions, he still uses incorrect data points to postulate his view. For one, he states that a shock from a TASER ECD “rendered” a man brain dead. This is purely speculation at this point. The investigation into this incident is ongoing & an autopsy has not been completed to establish a cause of death. A reporter would have to correct this story but since it’s a column he gets a hall pass on this conjecture.
He also states that TASER ECDs are the only non-lethal weapon that can kill when used properly. First, we’d like to know the source of this statement? Did he do any research into other non-lethal weapons? He also says that officers know they, “can depend on the nonlethal force of pepper spray or a baton.” What is he implying & what’s the source of this statement? Any law enforcement folks feel that you can depend on pepper spray or batons?
It also doesn’t seem as if he contacted any law enforcement for their experiences with TASER ECDs. Wouldn’t this be one of the first places to start one’s scrutiny into whether a police tool should or shouldn’t be banned?
It appears that Mr. Martinez didn’t do balanced research & didn’t want to include any other opinon other than his own predetermined views.
Are our expectations for a more balanced opinion piece out of line? What do you think?
Everyone these days is well aware of the numerous TASER videos that can be found on YouTube. These videos include law enforcement arrests caught on dashcam & TASER CAM videos or from a bystander with a cell phone. There are also the silly ones of guys fooling around in their backyard voluntarily taking an exposure just for fun? Certainly, the “Don’t tase me, bro,” video will long be remembered. The phrase even earned Andrew Meyer the Most Memorable Quote of 2007. More recently, is the 2010 incident in Philadelphia (see photo). This earned the high school senior (at the time) the moniker, “TASER boy.”
TASER consumer – TASER®, tazer, or tazor? We regularly see our brand name mispelled & misused. They say brand awareness is crucial to success. The media & the public use our brand name to describe generic stun guns all the time. On one hand it’s favorable that our brand is so well known. On the other hand our brand is often erroneously used when referring to stun gun crimes. Obviously, we don’t want our products used to commit crimes that’s why we’ve installed so many accountability features but we also don’t want our brand name falsely associated with crime. Numerous times every week we have to contact different media & reporters to request that they remove our brand name from stories they’ve written.
Headline failures – TASER attack, TASER home invasion & TASER assault.
TASER is an acronym taken from the original inventor of the first TASER back in the early 1970s, Jack Cover. Jack’s favorite childhood book, “Tom Swift and his Electric Rifle.” TASER is our brand name & also an adjective. TASER technically shouldn’t be used as a verb. To the dismay of our hard-working IP department it seems that “tasing” or “tasering” has become part of the vernacular. This “bastardizes” the brand name and dilutes the trademark.
If you ever wonder why Coke or Pepsi is such an important question, it’s due to protecting one’s registered trademark. A trademark is a word, symbol, or phrase, used to identify a particular manufacturer or seller’s products and distinguish them from the products of another. The registered trademark can’t become generic, so we have to protect it as much as Band Aid®, Coke®, Clorox®, Kleenex®, and Jeep®. Once a term is deemed “generic” it no longer can serve as a trademark. No company wants to lose a powerful brand name and fall victim to infamous losses of powerful brands like aspirin, thermos & escalator.