I don't know if I agree with that statement, not entirely. I mean, that's like saying someone died of pnuemonia when they had AIDS. "AIDS didn't kill him..." Well, yeah. It sort of did. I think off the top of my head in that situation, the death certificate would read "complications resulting from" or "complications of".
And before you start disagreeing too much, I have an accidental death certificate. There are two lines, both states slightly different reasons of death. One the technical organ failure, and the other... umm... Jesus I hate to use this term, but "method" of death. (At least, if memory serves me) In this case, it may be "arrhythmic heart attack" in one line, and "taser" listed in another.
I'm not disagreeing with your implication. I'd go as far as to say their behavior killed them before a taser did. But they could still feasibly live for the rest of their life with an underlying heart condition, had they not been tased/taken drugs/stuck a butter knife in an electric socket. The reason I'm making my point is because it just seems that if you walk into a court room and say that type of broad sweeping statement, you'd set up to lose a lawsuit for your department. "Contributing factors" suggests yes a taser did have something to do with their death.
I agree with you on one very indisputable fact. Tasers saves lives.
My sentiments exactly...just didn't feel like stirring up nolacop today ;-)