State of New Mexico Awards Stinger Systems Purchase Contract for S-200s Wednesday February 13, 8:55 am ET
TAMPA, Fla., Feb. 13 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Stinger Systems, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: STIY - News), a leader in electro-stun technology today announced that the State of New Mexico has awarded Stinger Systems a general services contract. The contract stipulates a locked in price of Stinger S-200 projectile stun guns for one year. All law enforcement agencies throughout the state of New Mexico will be able to purchase under the guidelines of the general services contract
-------------------- What can i say??I'm a greedy B*stard
IP: Logged |
Research Group at a Major US University Completes Study Comparing Peak Current Levels of the Stinger S-200 to Taser M-26 and X-26 weapons
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Research Group at a Major University Completes Study Comparing Stinger S-200 Model Weapon to Taser M-26 and X-26 Weapons
Study demonstrated that the S-200 delivers appreciably less electrical current to the animal than either the Taser M-26® or X-26® models
TAMPA, Fla., February 19, 2008, Stinger Systems, Inc. (OTCBB: STIY), a leader in electro-stun technology today announced that a research group at a major U.S. University has completed a study comparing the output of the Stinger S-200 projectile stun gun to the Taser M-26 and Taser X-26 in an animal model. Details of the study are being withheld pending scientific publication. However, among other findings, the peak current of the Taser brand X-26 was approximately 75% higher than the peak current of the Stinger S-200, and the peak current of the Taser brand M-26 was approximately 750% higher than the peak current of the Stinger S-200 peak current of the S-200. The Company believes that a reduction in current may be possibly important from a safety perspective, when one or both of the probes strike the chest of the subject. Further research will test whether this reduction in delivered current translates into a safer device. Since the S-200 effectively disables with lower current, Stinger intends to move to have this study accepted into evidence at trial of Case CV-07-0042-PHX-MHM, that is Taser International, Inc (NASDAQ:TASR). v. Stinger Systems, Inc
Ron Bellistri stated “The Stinger S-200 has demonstrated comparable knock-down power to the Taser devices. We now have independent data from a premier university that confirms that the S-200 achieves this level of incapacitation while delivering peak current levels to the animals that are only a fraction of the levels delivered by the Taser devices. Current is what is dangerous, even Taser acknowledges that fact in their sales literature (page 15 of their sales brochure quotes ‘It’s not the volts, but the amperes that matter for electrical safety). ”
IP: Logged |
posted
Simple electronics...voltage doesn't kill, current does....but...amperage is determined by resistance....the lower the resistance, the higher the current....
A 9 volt battery can kill a human with very low resistance.
Department of Justice Study Evaluates Electronic Control Device Technology; Report Obtained Through FOIA Request Supports Superiority of TASER Devices
SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., Feb 20, 2008 (*********wire via COMTEX) -- TASER International, Inc. (Nasdaq:TASR), the market leader in advanced electronic control devices (ECDs), today announced that it has obtained a copy of the draft final report dated January 25, 2008 of a U.S. Department of Justice funded study titled: "A Qualitative & Quantitative Analysis of Conducted Energy Weapons: TASER X26 vs. Stinger S200" through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the National Institute of Justice. According to the report, the purpose of the study is "to objectively evaluate both the TASER International and Stinger weapon systems. This is accomplished by evaluating the performance, safety, and reliability of both products." (p. 10) TASER International will be providing a copy of the report to Stinger Systems pursuant to on-going discovery in its patent infringement litigation, "TASER International, Inc. v. Stinger Systems," in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, case number CV07-0042-PHX-MHM.
Some of the key findings of the 93-page report are:
1. Lower level of incapacitation when exposed to the Stinger S-200
* "...the majority of people reported a much lower level of incapacitation when hit with the Stinger S200 in comparison to the TASER X26." (p. 6) * "In all cases of TASER deployment, the subjects were immediately incapacitated. However, the majority of people had little reaction when hit with the Stinger S200 while this CED was affixed to them via gator clips." (p. 24)
2. Safety Concerns
* "Further problems existed in that the Stinger cartridges would also discharge little pieces of plastic and metal that could best be described as `shrapnel.' This was noted numerous times in testing as these items constantly stuck the research team." (p. 37) * "Should the user make contact with the cross-bolt switch while the Stinger S-200 is discharging a cycle of current, the user also receives a shock for the duration of the cycle." (p. 74)
3. TASER X26 is a more reliable device
* "A quantitative review of the weapon systems shows greater reliability of the TASER X26 over its Stinger S200 counterpart." (p. 6) * Stinger S-200 "exhibited little constancy" (p. 35) * "...the malfunction rate on the Stinger weapon, which was measured, for the initial equipment, at 47.35%. Many times the cartridge simply would not fire..." (p. 36) * "Should the user make contact with the cross-bolt switch while the Stinger S200 is discharging a cycle of current, the user also receives a shock for the duration of the cycle." (p. 75)
4. TASER X26 is a more durable device
* "... a number of cartridges were dropped from a height of four feet to determine their survivability. None of the TASER cartridges broke during this test; however, fourteen out of the twenty Stinger cartridges were damaged upon impact with a carpeted floor." (p. 7) * "Additionally, a number of Stinger cartridges were broken while still in their shipping container. The blast doors fell off, releasing the wire tether." (p. 68)
5. Stinger's Training Materials contained incorrect information
* "Some of the material was found to be outdated and incomplete, and the instructor advised participants to ignore sections of the handout material where discrepancies were noted." (p. 17)
6. Stinger S-200 probes flew erratically and frequently broke
* "In addition to the erratic spread of the (Stinger) probes, the probes tended to fly in an untrue linear manner and did not penetrate the target as they would often hit the target sideways. Evidence of this was when the barbs bounced off the target and flew back towards the researchers." (p. 36) * "One concern with the Stinger weapon system was that the Stinger S200 probes frequently broke free from their barbs in the target." (p. 6) * "As was the case with our initial volunteer tester, almost every (Stinger) barb broke off in the plastic dummy target." (p. 36) * "In this case, the barbs could not be removed by attendant EMS staff and the subject had to be transported to the local hospital for removal by a physician. Due to an ethical concern about doing harm to the additional volunteer subjects involved in this testing, subsequent testing with all other subjects involved the use of alligator clips." (p. 22) * "The Stinger probes frequently broke off in the target during testing and their removal. During this testing, 52 Probes out of 159 Stinger cartridges broke off in the testing target (32.8%)." (p. 66)
"We are pleased to have a new independent government-funded study which documents TASER technology as being superior in ECD performance," commented Tom Smith, Chairman and Founder of TASER International. "These results are also being confirmed in law-enforcement agencies around the country, such as the Pennsylvania State Troopers and the California Highway Patrol, that have done comparisons and selected the field-proven TASER technology," concluded Smith. A full copy of the study can be found at www.taser.com/research/government_studies/NIJReport.pdf
IP: Logged |
One thing though this report had already been made public, so im not sure why there a stock price reaction.
The only reason this is in a PR now is because the Patent lawyer for TASER requested a COPY of this report.
Coming from a great English background this is a comparison and contrast paper which is unethically written. It emphasises on stingers failures and downplays the taser failures (such as the probe hitting the instructor being less signficant than the stingers plastic hitting the instructor).
Either way there was not even a reason to PR this, outside of rebuttal to Stinger for stinger's study showing its device is safer and that the TASER killed the animals.
I have a good feeling that it was a huge scare on TASER to make them PR this.
IP: Logged |
posted
I bailed today, sold most, some I couldn't sell. I will wait until all the dust settles. Too much going on. I put my money into PTSH.
IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, I dont hold a signifiant amount so im just ignoring the buy/sell button and focusing on a couple others, most my others are big boards like IOC and KEX.
posted
Taser Notices Intent to Serve Subpoena for Information on Old NIJ Tests in Taser v. Stinger Thursday February 21, 9:15 am ET Fails to Disclose Test Dates in Press Release
TAMPA, Fla., Feb. 21 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Stinger Systems, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: STIY - News) a leader in electro-stun technologies announced today that as required pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b)(1), Taser International (Nasdaq: TASR - News) has noticed Stinger Systems, Inc. in Taser International, Inc. v. Stinger Systems, Inc. (Federal Case CV07-0042-PHX-MHM) of Taser's intent to serve a subpoena duce tecum on the National Institutes of Justice for information on its dated tests comparing Taser's model X-26 projectile stun gun to early versions of Stinger's model S-200 projectile stun gun and that the study was commissioned over a year ago. ADVERTISEMENT
In publishing selected portions of the unfinished National Institute of Justice report of the comparison study in a press release yesterday, Taser failed to disclose that this as yet incomplete NIJ report was being updated with information about current versions of Stinger's S-200 projectile stun gun. The study was commissioned in 2005 prior to the S-200 even being designed (http://www.ojp.gov/nij/awards/2005_solicitation.htm).
In the press release, Taser also failed to publish reports of a recent medical research report documenting a scientific comparison of Taser's M26 and X-26 model stun guns and current versions of Stinger's model S-200 stun gun. A new study led by Wayne McDaniel, Ph.D. of the University of Missouri recently showed that the S-200 technology is much different from the Taser brand products. A recent study confirmed that peak amperage (current) by the Taser brand products was approximately 75% higher and 750% higher than the S-200 with the X-26 and M-26 models respectively. Taser International's sales literature states that it is amperage (current) that matters for electrical safety.
Ron Bellistri, acting C.E.O. of Stinger Systems, stated, "The Stinger S- 200 has demonstrated comparable knock-down power to the Taser devices. We now have independent data from individuals from a premier university that confirms that the S-200 achieves this level of incapacitation while delivering peak current levels to the animals that are only a fraction of the levels delivered by the Taser devices."
Robert Gruder continued to state for Stinger, "With its state of the art production models of the S-200 projectile stun gun, Stinger is making inroads into electronic incapacitation device markets. The Washington State Department of Correction recently selected Stinger's S-200 projectile stun gun for purchase over Taser's M-26 and X-26 projectile stun guns. The State of New Mexico has awarded Stinger Systems, Inc. a general services contract for its S-200 product. In my opinion, Taser's actions yesterday and its release of similarly incomplete information by direct marketing to law enforcement and correction agencies considering purchase of the Stinger S-200 projectile stun gun smack of utter desperation to maintain a market for its older and, in my further opinion, less competitive, M-26 and X-26 technologies."
IP: Logged |
posted
I am really starting to like this stock...Great for a quick flip.
Stinger Systems Responds to Purported NIJ Study Last update: 2/21/2008 10:30:00 AM Year old study was based on S-200 version no longer sold Earlier comparison studies would be irrelevant, not valid and extremely misleading TAMPA, Fla., Feb 21, 2008 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ -- Stinger Systems, Inc. (STIY), a leader in electro-stun technology announced today that a segments of a National Institute of Justice Electronic Immobilization Device (EID) study released by Taser International (TASR) is based on a study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice in 2005. At the time of the request for units for the study, the Company was just completing development of its flagship S-200 EID. The version of the S-200 EID that was tested has been discontinued. Documentation from the Company affirming that the S-200 tested is no longer being manufactured had already been sent to the NIJ, but these comments were omitted from the selected information in yesterday's release by Taser International. According to Stinger's Device Master Record of versioning control, the gun tested was based on an earlier release version and Stinger's current model S-200 version is several releases later. The current S-200 has had significant improvements including greater take-down power, new electronics design, and new cartridge and dart configurations. Earlier comparison studies to discontinued devices are irrelevant, not valid and extremely misleading. The Company believes that recent sales wins including the Washington Department of Corrections and the State of New Mexico General Services contract, along with several new domestic and international sales, validate the superior new S-200 technology over its older version. The Company is confused why this release is relevant news considering the EID tested is not even being sold by Stinger Systems. A new study led by Wayne McDaniel, Ph.D. of the University of Missouri recently showed that the S-200 technology is much different from the Taser brand products. Their study showed that peak amperage (current) delivered by the Taser M-26 is 7.5 times the peak current delivered by the S-200, while the peak current delivered by the X-26 is 75% higher than the peak current delivered by the S-200. Taser International's sales literature states that it is amperage (current) that matters for electrical safety. The Company has enhanced many features of the S-200 since its initial introduction. Essentially the only aspect that is similar between the current S-200 and the previous versions is the name. Almost all of the external features of the S-200 such as the basic look of the gun and its great form functions such as a cartridge eject system, recessed cartridge and off the shelf batteries remain. Under the covers, it is a whole new story. Enhancements include new electronics improvements, superior cartridge and dart designs, and new fabrication processes for superior durability. Some of the great improvements can be seen in an outline at . Go to the S-200 products page and click on the "ALWAYS IMPROVING TO CREATE THE BEST EID" link. Further, Stinger Systems recently held a press conference in New York City attended by many police departments as well as press from CNBC, Fox, CBS, and the Associated Press. Several officers along with the Associated Press reporter took direct hits from the S- 200. All individuals taking direct hits confirmed its incapacitation ability. The Associated Press reporter's and some officer hits can be seen at . Additionally, the Company has engaged HP White Laboratories to perform an accurate and current comparison between the Taser brand EIDs and the Stinger S-200. The Company is very confident that the Stinger S-200 will have features that are superior to its competitor, and that is why this commission was engaged to one of the leading ballistic laboratories in the country. Stinger Systems, Inc. (STIY) a leader in electro-stun technologies announced today that as required pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b)(1), Taser International (TASR) has noticed Stinger Systems, Inc. in Taser International, Inc. v. Stinger Systems, Inc. (Federal Case CV07-0042-PHX-MHM) of Taser's intent to serve a subpoena duce tecum on the National Institutes of Justice for information on its dated tests comparing Taser's model X-26 projectile stun gun to early versions of Stinger's model S-200 projectile stun gun.
Stinger Systems To Offer Taser Trade-In Program Tuesday June 10, 9:45 am ET Verdict Against Taser International May Concern Law Enforcement Departments
TAMPA, Fla., June 10 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Stinger Systems, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: STIY - News), the leader in electro-stun technology, today announced that it is offering existing law enforcement departments that have purchased Taser brand stun products an opportunity to trade their weapons in for Stinger S-200 electronic immobilization devices in exchange for price concessions.
Ron Bellistri, Stinger's CEO, stated, "In light of the recent $6 million wrongful death verdict against Taser International, we felt we would give law enforcement agencies currently using Tasers a way to get their Taser products off the streets. Studies show that the S-200's waveform places considerably less current into the body than the Taser products. In my opinion, I believe the S-200 is just as effective, yet more humane than Taser. Therefore, for a limited time, Stinger Systems will negotiate buy backs of Tasers from agencies, depending upon their quantity, model types, and age of the Tasers. The buy back price will be credited towards purchases of Stinger S-200's, the most advanced stun technology available."
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
