TASER OPINIONS?

[larry Strong]

As has been previously stated, we do not know what was going on in the minds of the officers at the time, though Charles Adler (talk show host) might have been close to the truth when asked that question, answered with "nothing". The fact that 4 healthy, physically fit Officers cannot control one man without resorting to that level of force as a first recourse raises legitimate question's, and knowing that the police attempted to suppress the video could imply a level of guilt.

Police officers go about  their business effectively the majority of the time, but unfortunately there are numerous cases across the country of cover ups and suppression of facts that do require public scrutiny. It is disturbing to realise that your innocence, and/or life, is as tenuous as a coin toss, depending on whether the policeman who accosts you is a man of integrity who respects the rule of law or an officer who is arrogant, authoritative, and is perpared to abuse his authority. The odds are you will run into a good officer, however to deny the other possibility is naive to say the least.

The fact that police conduct their own internal inquiries (whether with their force or an outside force) suggests that they are essentially unaccountable. Police officers are humans and make mistakes, and yet they hold ultimate authority in their hands. Therefore they need to be held to the highest standards of accountability when they appear to cross the line. I think we need full disclosure from the RCMP to restore public confidence. An independent review panel would be a step in the right direction.
I think that  our "Judicial" system does not help any either. The revolving door policy held by most judges has to demoralise Police forces. Does it make them less sure of their purpose and mandate? Does it breed an attitude of indifference and apathy?

I don't feel that we should blindly endorse the RCMP and look the other way when things go wrong. It is healthy and right that they should be questioned and their actions should be able to withstand scrutiny.

This is my .02 cents worth, besides I was getting tired of hunting down this thread.

 

[J.J]

It amazes me the hypocrisy of some of my fellow members of the CF. Some demand "professional courtesy" when encountered by a LEO and want preferential treatment. I know many will say, "I don't do that" or "I don't ask for that". I cannot tell you how many times when I ask for identification I receive a Military ID card or a DL and a Military ID card or variations of it. What are you doing when you present that card? You are identifying yourselves as a member of the CF and discreetly indicating "I am like you". I do not receive work ID from an auto worker or an accountant. They don't deserve it. I give "professional courtesy" to "my brother in arms", because I believe we have similar jobs. The soldier just does it on a grander scale. When a situation like the incident at the airport arises, several o my "brothers in arms" are no different than the politicians or those that blindly follow the mass media/hysteria. I am sorry if I am using a broad brush here to paint everyone as being an hypocrite, I am only disgusted at those that this applies to.
How many soldiers/sailors/airmen raise a stink when civilians review the CF? We hate it because they do not understand our job as a member of the CF/LEO. We are not public servants and the rules that apply to taxation cannot be applied to us. We, meaning the CF and LEO, do need civilian oversight, as we are a democracy, but we also have to let the process work. Yes Larry Strong there has been coverups, concerning pension, budget etc. There has not been to my knowledge a serious use of force incident covered up in recent memory. To the contrary, the LEO had been crucified and vilified in the media and the courts before a investigation had been completed.
Did the members that attended make mistakes, yes they did, criminal mistakes, no they did not. Was the use of the CEW justified, very much so. Did Mr Dziekanski die from the CEW, no he did not. Mr. Dziekanski did die from Excited Delirium. He was going to die regardless.
What I ask of "my brother in arms" is not to jump on the media band wagon and follow the mass hysteria, but wait for the report and then make an educated judgement.

My .02 cents

 

[larry Strong]

There was a report that came out in 2005 "The Taser Technology Review Report -- by the B.C. Police Complaints Commissioner"

http://www.opcc.bc.ca/Reports/2005/Taser%20Report.pdf

Chief among the recommendations were that Tasers should not be used against someone who is "passively resisting"; that police should not use the Taser multiple times; and that after a Taser shock, the subject should be restrained in a way that allows him to breathe easily.

2005 B.C. TASER REPORT

RECOMMENDATION

Tasers should be used only against a subject who is actively resisting arrest or posing a risk to others, not someone who is "passively resisting."

BUT AT VANCOUVER AIRPORT

Robert Dziekanski, who did not speak English, did not appear to be resisting, and there were no other people in the area who could be hurt by his actions.

RECOMMENDATION

Officers should avoid shocking a subject multiple times.

BUT AT VANCOUVER AIRPORT

Mr. Dziekanski was shocked twice within a matter of seconds.

RECOMMENDATION

Following a Taser shock, a subject should be restrained in a way that allows him to breathe easily.

BUT AT VANCOUVER AIRPORT

At one point, four officers were on top of Mr. Dziekanski. Two officers knelt with their full weight on his neck and back.

RECOMMENDATION

"A number of force technologies, including the Taser ... have been described as 'less lethal' ? We believe this terminology has inadvertently created a mindset among users and the public that these weapons can never have lethal effects."

Michael Lyman, a policing expert at  Columbia College in Missouri, said the four officers on the scene should have been able to physically restrain Dziekanski without resorting to the Taser: "I don't even think batons or mace would have been necessary, given that there were four officers on the scene."

http://www.policeexpert.net/

For the record...My  uniform and nothing else saved me from 2 speeding tickets and I also recived 2 tickets while in uniform, I have never tried used my ID to get of an offense

 

[axeman]

You state that you get CF ID when you ask for ID. Funny it's Goverment issued ID thats the same from coast to coast the only variation of it is the uniform pic and name. i commonly use use it because its easy to identify.You claim we are vilifiying the RCMP , NO we are calling out the ones that tasered Mr Dziekanski . Many CF members use the continum of force circle, and are held liable for the actions of the end result. there was a death after some one got tasered andthe gang piled no first aid was attempted .A entire regiment was disbanded for a wrongful death . We are not asking for disbandment just a trully open third party investigation. many of us can make an educated judgement .I contacted a few ex ARMY personel  that are now RCMP and other LEO's and they all say those 3are at fault..    my 2 cents

 

[Roy Harding]

You state that you get CF ID when you ask for ID. Funny it's Goverment issued ID thats the same from coast to coast the only variation of it is the uniform pic and name. i commonly use use it because its easy to identify.You claim we are vilifiying the RCMP , NO we are calling out the ones that tasered Mr Dziekanski . Many CF members use the continum of force circle, and are held liable for the actions of the end result. there was a death after some one got tasered andthe gang piled no first aid was attempted .A entire regiment was disbanded for a wrongful death . We are not asking for disbandment just a trully open third party investigation. many of us can make an educated judgement .I contacted a few ex ARMY personel  that are now RCMP and other LEO's and they all say those 3are at fault..    my 2 cents

Please speak for yourself - you're "we" may or may not include me.

 

[J.J]

You are correct on the use of the CEW. It is considered an intermediate device on the IMIM. Mr Dziekanski was displaying combative and it could be argued Death or grievous bodily harm behaviour. Mr Dziekanski was throwing a computer and chairs. From the Globe & Mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071127.GTATASER27/TPStory/National

Just after 1 a.m. on Oct. 14, Mr. Dziekanski, agitated and throwing items around, died after being subjected to two taser blasts from four Mounties

That is not passive behaviour. That is the behaviour of a subject out of control. Again you are correct, in that you do not pile upon a subject that is restrained and compliant. Mr Dziekanski fought till his heart stopped beating, that is what Excited Delirium does to a human being. The 4 members were fighting with someone who did not want to be restrained.

Michael Lyman, a policing expert at  Columbia College in Missouri, said the four officers on the scene should have been able to physically restrain Dziekanski without resorting to the Taser: "I don't even think batons or mace would have been necessary, given that there were four officers on the scene."

That has to be the most asinine comment I have ever read. It is written by someone who has never been involved in  a violent confrontation. Mr Dziekanski was generally a healthy male, a construction worker with obvious strength and obviously very much in distress. If the 4 members would have encountered Mr Dziekanski with "hands on", there would have been some serious injuries on both sides and Mr Dziekanski would have still died. You as the public then would say that 4 cops beat a man to death.
Those members were in bad situation and using the CEW was the right decision and the decision I would have made.

You state that you get CF ID when you ask for ID. Funny it's Goverment issued ID thats the same from coast to coast the only variation of it is the uniform pic and name. i commonly use use it because its easy to identify.You claim we are vilifiying the RCMP , NO we are calling out the ones that tasered Mr  . Many CF members use the continum of force circle, and are held liable for the actions of the end result. there was a death after some one got tasered andthe gang piled no first aid was attempted .A entire regiment was disbanded for a wrongful death . We are not asking for disbandment just a trully open third party investigation. many of us can make an educated judgement .I contacted a few ex ARMY personel  that are now RCMP and other LEO's and they all say those 3are at fault..    my 2 cents

I do understand it is government issued ID, but if I am trying to determine someones residency or if they are a licenced driver, what does a Military ID card prove? If I request it for identification purposes, yes then it is sufficient. Why do I need to see it with a passport or with a DL? I don't need to see it. I like to see it so I can offer the courtesy to them.
Your contacts that say they are at fault are either really out of tune with the IMIM or their services use of force model  or they do not know the complete story. My argument is with those that say the CEW killed Mr Dziekanski. It did not kill him. What is in question is not ensuring EMS was present in a timely manner. Is it their fault? The fault of the airport? The fault of the EMS? At this time, NOBODY really knows. That is what an investigation will reveal. If the answer is not sufficient to yourself and the mass media, then it is your right to call for a judiciary review.

 

[larry Strong]

There has not been to my knowledge a serious use of force incident covered up in recent memory.

Guess that depends on your definition of force:

http://www.stonechildinquiry.ca/finalreport/default.shtml

Thats a abuse of force/power in anyones books. A "cover up" maybe not, but read articles 9 to 13 of the summary of findings...and he was just one.


And for the record again, I am on the side of Law and Order, otherwise Rabble.ca would rule, and thats not the way I want to live.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

The fact that 4 healthy, physically fit Officers cannot control one man without resorting to that level of force as a first recourse raises legitimate question's, and knowing that the police attempted to suppress the video could imply a level of guilt.

Okay, so when you are on gate duty in KAF, and a local is walking towards you and is ignoring your commands to stop, since you and your buds are "healthy, physically fit" soldiers you of course go out and meet the guy and simply use your hands to restrain him, right?  Of course not.  That isn't safe.  But more so, you have a set of rules that says that you don't have to put your life on the line like that in order to accommodate an individual that is being a problem.  It works the same for me.  Why should an officer have to get that close and put a smack down on a guy (which would have looked a whole lot worse on camera) and risk getting injured?  The taser is there for a reason; to incapacitate the bad guy in order to effect an arrest.  That is what happened. 

It is disturbing to realise that your innocence, and/or life, is as tenuous as a coin toss, depending on whether the policeman who accosts you is a man of integrity who respects the rule of law or an officer who is arrogant, authoritative, and is perpared to abuse his authority. The odds are you will run into a good officer, however to deny the other possibility is naive to say the least.

Bullshit.  How about "don't act like a jackass and conduct yourself like a civilized human being" or fail to and get dealt with.  Joe Citizen going to Mac's to get some milk isn't going to get mauled just for the hell of it.  There is always a reason for why things happen.  I think I understand what you were trying to get at, but your choice of words are insulting. 

The fact that police conduct their own internal inquiries (whether with their force or an outside force) suggests that they are essentially unaccountable. Police officers are humans and make mistakes, and yet they hold ultimate authority in their hands. Therefore they need to be held to the highest standards of accountability when they appear to cross the line. I think we need full disclosure from the RCMP to restore public confidence.  An independent review panel would be a step in the right direction.

 

We do our own inquiries because we understand the mechanics of how situations unfold.  As well, the findings are made public, so if anyone needs to go mucking about, they can do so.
Again I compare this situation to the military setting.  You have a situation in theatre escalate and you shoot a civilian.  The shoot is justified, but now it is going to be reviewed by a panel of arm chair quarterbacks back in Canada who weren't there and have no clue what it is to have to react to a situation in a heart beat.  Is that what you would want to see for you and your members?
As for "public confidence" there shouldn't be an issue here.  The media has run away with a non-issue and has created a sensation.  If that is all it takes to crush "public confidence" then things are pretty bad (but then again, we are talking about the Left Coast)

I think that our "Judicial" system does not help any either. The revolving door policy held by most judges has to demoralise Police forces. Does it make them less sure of their purpose and mandate? Does it breed an attitude of indifference and apathy?

The judicial system does not help anything.  However, it doesn't affect how we deal with people.  When a situation is going down, the last thing in an officers mind is "is he going to get off in court".  We show up at cluster f$cks and make them better.  That is our purpose.  Your suggestion that the life of a suspect might not be of interest to us because of "indifference and apathy" again is a slap in the face to law enforcement. 

I don't feel that we should blindly endorse the RCMP and look the other way when things go wrong. It is healthy and right that they should be questioned and their actions should be able to withstand scrutiny.

All LEO's know that anything they do is subject to scrutiny.  That is part of the job.  However, what is going on is unreasonable and unfair, and also appears to be based on the concept that these officers did something wrong.  They did not.  Given the state this guy was in, for how long he was in it, there is a good chance he would have died even if he was just ignored and left in the luggage area, regardless of police involvement. 

 

[bdog]

I think the RCMP really have to push failure of Airport Staff to have translation (from what I heared Mr.Dziekanski was able the speak Russia wich should be resonable on the list of langage spoken by airport [furter I read that there was a staff member who spoke polish working that day]) had he been give help in find the area were his mother was meeting him rather the be locked up for 10 hours it would be highly unlike that the would have been any such situtation. I hope that there will be a good long inquest into that 

 

[Roy Harding]

I think the RCMP really have to push the failure of Airport Staff to have translation services available (from what I heard Mr.Dziekanski was able the speak Russian which should be reasonable on the list of languages spoken by airport personnel [further I read that there was a staff member who spoke polish working that day]) had he been give help in finding the area where his mother was meeting him rather than being locked up for 10 hours it would be highly unlikely that the would have been in any such situtation situation. I hope that there will be a good long inquest into that these things.

And when you can communicate properly in ONE official language, I'll accept your contention that others should be able to communicate in a different language.

Should you not be a native English speaker - fill out your profile; right now it's empty, which leaves me free to assume anything I want.  And right now I'm assuming that you need work on your grammar and spelling. 

 

[bdog]

And when you can communicate properly in ONE official language, I'll accept your contention that others should be able to communicate in a different language.

Should you not be a native English speaker - fill out your profile; right now it's empty, which leaves me free to assume anything I want.  And right now I'm assuming that you need work on your grammar and spelling. 

I have a quite major spelling and writing disorder so I do apologizes  if my post may be hard to understand at times as that well I am a Native speaker of English my written comuication some time does not reflact that.
Further as per your sujection I did add that Infomation to by Profile once more I am sorry it was hard to understand however I think the point is a valid one

 

[Roy Harding]

I have a quite major spelling and writing disorder so I do apologizes  if my post may be hard to understand at times as that well I am a Native speaker of English my written comuication some time does not reflact that.
Further as per your sujection I did add that Infomation to by Profile once more I am sorry it was hard to understand however I think the point is a valid one

Fair enough.

Keep in mind that the ONLY thing we in the "cyber world" have to go by is what you put forward.  If you leave us a blank slate, we'll fill it with whatever we want.

Back to the discussion - I think the point you make IS a valid one.  However, as I understand it, there are Polish translation services available 24/7 (this statement is based on an interview I heard on CBC Radio with the Polish Ambassador to Canada) - how one avails oneself of these services, I don't know.  One would hope that the personnel who come into initial contact with foreign nationals (read CBSA) would have access to these services.  I'll grant you that a non-Slavic speaking person wouldn't know the difference between Polish, Russian, Ukrainian, or Serbo-Croation - but I'm willing to bet that he'd know it was a Slavic language - from there, one could narrow it down fairly quickly, having called in the appropriate experts.

I DO know that when I travel to a foreign country, I ALWAYS have the phone number of the nearest Canadian Embassy/Attache written down - this, along with the aforementioned (in this thread) cards explaining (in the local language) that I do NOT speak the local language has always been enough to keep me out of serious trouble.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I have a quite major spelling and writing disorder

The spell check function will help with that quite a bit.  If I didn't have access to it, my posts would look like hamburger. 

 

[FastEddy]

And when you can communicate properly in ONE official language, I'll accept your contention that others should be able to communicate in a different language.

Should you not be a native English speaker - fill out your profile; right now it's empty, which leaves me free to assume anything I want.  And right now I'm assuming that you need work on your grammar and spelling. 

As for correctness, Mod edited for just plain old common decency

But back on topic, considering the general consensus for the issue and employment of Taser's.

Should they be issued and employed by the Military Police ? .

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Fast Eddy,
If you had bothered to notice they had worked things out.

Your 'Hitler' comparison to a retired long-time serving member is just friggin' brutal.
Welcome to the warning sysyem.

 

[FastEddy]

Fast Eddy,
If you had bothered to notice they had worked things out.

Your 'Hitler' comparison to a retired long-time serving member is just friggin' brutal.
Welcome to the warning sysyem.

As you wish, but if you consider RH's "working it out" as sufficient, considering (your expression Brutal) reply and  condescending statement to bdog's posts, well I for one and possibly many others might just disagree with you.

As for the Hiel Hitler comment, it is used to make reference to a dogmatic "absolute Dictatorial, Authoritative manner and style".

Aso does it mean that "retired longtime serving members" are exempt to criticism or rebuke ?.

However even though bdog's post was laced with grammatical and spelling error's, the substance and ideas were fully comprehendable and did not need to held up to public ridicule.

IMO, considering the circumstances, bdog deserves a apology from RH and not a washover.

 

[Strike]

Quote from: Larry Strong on November 27, 2007, 20:31:05
The fact that police conduct their own internal inquiries (whether with their force or an outside force) suggests that they are essentially unaccountable. Police officers are humans and make mistakes, and yet they hold ultimate authority in their hands. Therefore they need to be held to the highest standards of accountability when they appear to cross the line. I think we need full disclosure from the RCMP to restore public confidence.  An independent review panel would be a step in the right direction.

 

We do our own inquiries because we understand the mechanics of how situations unfold.  As well, the findings are made public, so if anyone needs to go mucking about, they can do so.
Again I compare this situation to the military setting.  You have a situation in theatre escalate and you shoot a civilian.  The shoot is justified, but now it is going to be reviewed by a panel of arm chair quarterbacks back in Canada who weren't there and have no clue what it is to have to react to a situation in a heart beat.  Is that what you would want to see for you and your members?
As for "public confidence" there shouldn't be an issue here.  The media has run away with a non-issue and has created a sensation.  If that is all it takes to crush "public confidence" then things are pretty bad (but then again, we are talking about the Left Coast)

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the RCMP conducting their own inquiries.  Compare it to the Flight Safety system in the CF.  It's run by a panel of aviators and others in related trades.  Even though they are investigating incidences that involve their own they are not afraid to call a spade a spade, because in the end it could very well save their own life one day.

 

[observor 69]

Aso does it mean that "retired longtime serving members" are exempt to criticism or rebuke ?.

Ah, that would be a "No." 

 

[medaid]

MPs should be able to be equiped with TASERS or ECWs IF it was re-written in to their training, and incorporated into their Use of Force continium. It's a SAFE less/sub lethal force enforcement tool. It is NOT non-lethal.

 

[The_Falcon]

Fair enough.

Keep in mind that the ONLY thing we in the "cyber world" have to go by is what you put forward.  If you leave us a blank slate, we'll fill it with whatever we want.

Back to the discussion - I think the point you make IS a valid one.  However, as I understand it, there are Polish translation services available 24/7 (this statement is based on an interview I heard on CBC Radio with the Polish Ambassador to Canada) - how one avails oneself of these services, I don't know.  One would hope that the personnel who come into initial contact with foreign nationals (read CBSA) would have access to these services.  I'll grant you that a non-Slavic speaking person wouldn't know the difference between Polish, Russian, Ukrainian, or Serbo-Croation - but I'm willing to bet that he'd know it was a Slavic language - from there, one could narrow it down fairly quickly, having called in the appropriate experts.

I DO know that when I travel to a foreign country, I ALWAYS have the phone number of the nearest Canadian Embassy/Attache written down - this, along with the aforementioned (in this thread) cards explaining (in the local language) that I do NOT speak the local language has always been enough to keep me out of serious trouble.

I believe what that cbc report was referring to was the over the phone translation service, that pretty much every 911 call centre in North America makes use of, (and some other agencies as well).  Whether or not the CBSA or the airport authorities had access to that service through their own means, I don't know.  Could the have call 911 and went through them, maybe.  I suspect we will have some answers after the what 5 or 6 inquiries/investigations wrap up.