[Max Combined]

"who began life as the son of a New Jersey prostitute"

Was this really necessary in the article?

[mattdono]

Tasers are kewl.

[petro45acp]

Kerik will do just fine. He is yet another with a "ground up" view. From street cop to top cop, probably doing a bunch of the inbetween jobs will give him both perspective and credibility. The same can be said for the new commerce secretary. From truck driver to running Kelloggs.

Military types will appreciate the idea of "mustangs" in positoins of power. From my own experience, it was hard to find a bad mustang officer (not that they didn't exist, I had one who was really awful).

Cheers,
Top sends

[angkor]

I do recall Taser being listed somewhere as a recommended buy stock more than a year ago.

[edfrank_1998]

Nothing unusual when you consider what TASR was doing just a couple of years ago. Back in 2002, for instance, you could buy it (split adjusted) for less than $.50 for a good part of the year, and less than $2.00 for all of 2001 and 2002. found at: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1069183/000120919104052610/xslF345X02/doc4.xml SEC Form 4

FORM 4

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP

Filed pursuant to Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 17(a) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 or Section 30(h) of the Investment Company Act of 1940

OMB APPROVAL

OMB Number:		3235-0287
Expires:	January 31, 2005
Estimated average burden
hours per response		0.5

Check this box if no longer subject to Section 16. Form 4 or Form 5 obligations may continue. See Instruction 1(b).

1. Name and Address of Reporting Person^*

KERIK BERNARD B

---

(Last)

(First)

(Middle)

% TASER INTERNATIONAL INC.

7860 EAST MCCLAIN DRIVE, #2

---

(Street)

SCOTTSDALE

AZ

85260

---

(City)

(State)

(Zip)

2. Issuer Name and Ticker or Trading Symbol
TASER INTERNATIONAL INC [ TASR ]

5. Relationship of Reporting Person(s) to Issuer
(Check all applicable)

X	Director		10% Owner
	Officer (give title below)		Other (specify below)

3. Date of Earliest Transaction (Month/Day/Year)
11/11/2004

4. If Amendment, Date of Original Filed (Month/Day/Year)

6. Individual or Joint/Group Filing (Check Applicable Line)

X	Form filed by One Reporting Person
	Form filed by More than One Reporting Person

Table I - Non-Derivative Securities Acquired, Disposed of, or Beneficially Owned
1. Title of Security (Instr. 3)	2. Transaction Date (Month/Day/Year)	2A. Deemed Execution Date, if any (Month/Day/Year)	3. Transaction Code (Instr. 8)		4. Securities Acquired (A) or Disposed Of (D) (Instr. 3, 4 and 5)			5. Amount of Securities Beneficially Owned Following Reported Transaction(s) (Instr. 3 and 4)	6. Ownership Form: Direct (D) or Indirect (I) (Instr. 4)	7. Nature of Indirect Beneficial Ownership (Instr. 4)
			Code	V	Amount	(A) or (D)	Price
Common Stock	11/11/2004		M		45,833	A	$2.37	0	D
Common Stock	11/11/2004		M		38,333	A	$0.57	0	D
Common Stock	11/11/2004		M		18,000	A	$14.43	0	D
Common Stock	11/11/2004		M		102,166	D	$57.317	0	D

Table II - Derivative Securities Acquired, Disposed of, or Beneficially Owned (e.g., puts, calls, warrants, options, convertible securities)
1. Title of Derivative Security (Instr. 3)	2. Conversion or Excercise Price of Derivative Security	3. Transaction Date (Month/Day/Year)	3A. Deemed Execution Date, if any (Month/Day/Year)	4. Transaction Code (Instr. 8)		5. Number of Derivative Securities Acquired (A) or Disposed of (D) (Instr. 3, 4 and 5)		6. Date Exercisable and Expiration Date (Month/Day/Year)		7. Title and Amount of Securities Underlying Derivative Security (Instr. 3 and 4)		8. Price of Derivative Security (Instr. 5)	9. Number of derivative Securities Beneficially Owned Following Reported Transaction(s) (Instr. 4)	10. Ownership Form: Direct (D) or Indirect (I) (Instr. 4)	11. Nature of Indirect Beneficial Ownership (Instr. 4)
				Code	V	(A)	(D)	Date Exercisable	Expiration Date	Title	Amount or Number of Shares
Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy)	$2.37	11/11/2004		M			45,833	05/14/2002	05/11/2012	Common Stock	45,833	$2.37	4,167 ( 1 )	D
Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy)	$0.57	11/11/2004		M			38,333	10/21/2002	10/18/2012	Common Stock	38,333	$0.57	1,667 ( 1 )	D
Employee Stock Option (Right to Buy)	$14.43	11/11/2004		M			18,000	01/07/2004	01/14/2014	Common Stock	18,000	$14.43	0 ( 1 )	D

Explanation of Responses:

1. This does not include beneficial ownership of options from other classes or options not yet vested.

Remarks:

	Berard B. Kerik, by Daniel M. Behrendt, Attorney-in-Fact	11/12/2004
	** Signature of Reporting Person	Date
Reminder: Report on a separate line for each class of securities beneficially owned directly or indirectly.
* If the form is filed by more than one reporting person, see Instruction 4 (b)(v).
** Intentional misstatements or omissions of facts constitute Federal Criminal Violations See 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 15 U.S.C. 78ff(a).
Note: File three copies of this Form, one of which must be manually signed. If space is insufficient, see Instruction 6 for procedure.
Persons who respond to the collection of information contained in this form are not required to respond unless the form displays a currently valid OMB Number.

[TommyDale]

Good for Bernie! He made a legitimate gain on his stock options as a director of the company. So what? Now he is financially rewarded for a job well done. Is someone complaining about it already?

[cynicom]

When a person seeks and attains national stature in government, the media has every right to expose his barnacles as well as his accomplishments. When we stoop to forgetting the past history of the likes of Kennedy etc etc, we are in trouble.

[jigsaw]

Just a note that Christopher Byron, the author of this article, may or may not be the son of a prostitute and the husband of one too.

[Tacis]

It is clear to me from this and other stories that have been leaked very recently (his middle-Eastern wife), that some one doesn't like Bernie. Easy access to the media suggestes that it is the liberal progressive lefties that are trying to stick it to him. Which Senate committee covers this nomination?

[Lijahsbubbe]

Another stuner!

[GVnana]

Tasers are a ridiculous weapon. I know of a man who was high on drugs and making threatening remarks so the police were called.

They used a taser on him, and he became so enranged at being shocked, he ended up nearly klling the cop and was beaten to death. (Accidentally, I'm sure.)

I think its a form of torture.

[untrained skeptic]

The NY Post is back to their same old tricks of casting dispersions on any Bush appointee.

Kerik's life is an amazing story of a man who has achieved amazing things despite humble beginnings.

The Post accuses the "hero machine" of making his history look better than it is. What examples do they use?

Iraqi police were hired without background checks when he was rebuilding their police force. How exactly does the Post think he should have performed those background tests? The government was in shambles, and had a past history of making up charges to throw dissidents in jail. Kerik had a job to do, and he did the best he could do with the tools he had available.

They mention how one of his appointees was corrupt and is serving a one year jail term. However, the Post never seemed bothered by the number of Clinton appointees who ended up in jail because of corruption.

There is also nothing to point to Kerik profiting at all from the corrupt acts. Out of a lifetime of public service, they can point to one person that he appointed that turned out to be a bad apple. Considering the amount of corruption in politics, that's a pretty good track record.

Then there's his making a profit off of his stock in TASER. How dare someone get involved in a product that makes law enforcement safer for both Police and civilians? He was a good choice for TASER, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with him lending his credibility to a product that appears to be having a profound positive impact on law enforcement.

The ACLU doesn't like TASERs. If you really think that the ACLU has credibility in such issues, read their press releases, and then research the facts.

If you want to cast dispersions on someone based on finical benefits, why not look at the ACLU which is made up of mostly lawyers who have a habit of making huge amounts of money by suing law enforcement agencies.

The Post doesn't even bother mentioning that Kerik is likely selling his stock to remove a conflict of interest before taking public office.

The ACLU has a direct conflict of interest, but that never seems to bother the Post. However, Kerik selling his stock and removing a conflict of interest appears to concern them.

[wildbill]

"Kerik seems comfortably in the clear, for whatever his reasons may have been for selling his shares, they are now changing hands for almost exactly what they were selling for when he unloaded them on Nov. 11th..."

And the point of this column is what???

After a lot of innuendo, there seems to be no there, there.