# TASER OPINIONS?



## pbi

The recent fatal incident at Vancouver Airport has certainly ignited some controversy about the use of the taser by Cdn LEAs, not to mention about the details of the incident itself. We seem to be seeing a division into two camps: those questioning the use of the taser and calling for inquiry, further restrictions, banning, etc; and those (mostly on the LEA side) standing up for continued use.

In the midst of all this, the Chief of the Kingston Police Service has come out with a very interesting public commentary that recently appeared in the Whig-Standard. The KPS has around twenty tasers, but they can only be deployed by the tactical teams or by supervisors. One individual has died after being tasered by the KPS, although the death was eventually attributed to other causes.  Be careful not to dismiss the KPS as a "hick-town po-leese dee-part-mint" that has nothing to do: there are seven federal penitentiaries in or near the city, a considerable undesirable and s***t bird population in certain areas, and an active drug world. Kingston is very far from its red brick and limestone tourism image, let me assure you, and its police officers are not chasing stray cows.

Anyway, the Chief strongly suggests that there is disinformation being circulated about the taser. He seems to point the finger at the manufacturers and some LEAs. His points are:

a) there is not much "candidness" (his word)  about how often and how tasers are used, so that its use is misunderstood; and

b) the taser is perhaps not being used as a "deescalation" of force at all: instead it is being used unnecessarily, when lesser force such as spray, sticks, or restraining holds might have been used. The Chief suggests that there is a false representation that  tasers are used instead of  firearms (i.e. as risk reduction) when in fact in many taser incidents firearms normally never would have been drawn, and other lesser methods with much less risks would have been used.

I'd be interested in knowing what our LEA members (Zipperhead Cop, etc) think about this.

Cheers


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

pbi said:
			
		

> b) the taser is perhaps not being used as a "deescalation" of force at all: instead it is being used unnecessarily, when lesser force such as spray, sticks, or restraining holds might have been used. The Chief suggests that there is a false representation that  tasers are used instead of  firearms (i.e. as risk reduction) when in fact in many taser incidents firearms normally never would have been drawn, and other lesser methods with much less risks would have been used.



Having been on the receiving end many times of all three [Redman suit doesn't always protect all places :crybaby:] of those techniques, I think the chief is extremely wrong in his opinion of the force continuum.

"Spray, sticks, or restraining holds" will generally require medical attention 100% of the time if the "subject" is truly interested in not being put into custody. The Taser, no matter how unpleasant it is for the few seconds, left me wide awake and ready for 'shipment' in no time at all.

In my perfect world the taser would be the third step after 1. Officer presence, 2. Tactical communication.


----------



## Shamrock

As above, I've been on the receiving end of spray and Taser.

Although spray hurt considerably more, as a determined person, I could see myself working through it.  Taser robbed me of ability if not determination.  Taser also has the added bonus of stopping immediately, making it an effective negative reinforcer.  I also think the crackle of a Taser is more intimidating than a spray can or a baton.


----------



## axeman

sure theres a crack and the person goes down  but more and more we are seeing the general health of the nation of the country go down in a spiral. so at what point re we going to re-evaluate what 50K of voltage can do to a person . theres a small percentage of ppl that this ca n kill right away . theres a way smaller percentage  that will have respitory problems after OC spray . tasers they KNOW can KILL someone .  IMO tasers should be removed from the arsenals of the various law enfocement  departments . i belive they are a lazy persons way out . shoot em and let the officers swarm this person . now that the way its being used is falling under suspicion maybe a rethink is required.with OC they generaly have to think about what they are doing not so with a Taser. Maybe if the RCMP in YVR would of thought the big debate would not take place but we have now got to deal with yet another fact placed on the table. any way i degress . AFTER doing research online with emed professionals the taser isnt listed as a cause of death its listed as a FACTOR  of death. "the fall didnt kill the person  the way his skull colapsed on his brain was a factor in his death ,.the way his heart wascrushed by the ribcagethat was a factor in his death ETC . you can bury the basic facts but the facts are that this is not a safe alternative to a real bullet.


----------



## krustyrl

I 'm really puzzled on the whole BC situation re: the Taser incident.  I just have this feeling as most haved jumped on the victims bandwagon, I personally need to hear the LEA side, also.  There is probably copious info not yet released that may somewhat justify LEA actions.
Don't get me wrong, I feel for the families loss but the actions of throwing a table thru a window and the yelling signals distress in the person that we still don't know why, did he suffer from a mental stste possibly.?

Anyone else feel this way.?

The radio talk show on CJBQ (Belleville) had the host ready to throw the RCMP involved in the clink for overuse of force.


----------



## Armymedic

I am in favour of the use of Tasers and a non lethal force weapon.

But as a medical professional, I want to know why they cause certian people to die? 

Why is it safe enough for thosands of police officers to be tased in tng, but not for certian others?


----------



## garb811

A couple of points with the caveat that I've never received, although I did see a few happen on a Use of Force course with the RCMP, and we do not carry it.

Back when OC spray was being widely introduced, there was much press about the number of deaths being caused by its use (ie. this Australian Parliamentary research note from 2002 states 60 deaths in the US had been attributed to its use up until the time of its writing:  Capsicum Spray-The Record to Date) and the same research note states Amnesty International condemned its use against peaceful protesters as "...tanamount to torture...".  When was the last time an OC related death hit the news?

The tsk-tsking of the many who say this should have been done or that should have been done because "in the old days" a cop wouldn't have resorted to using a taser remind me of the old MPs who never thought we should have received intermediate weapons, a weapon we can carry with one up the spout and body armour and resisted it every step of the way because they got along just fine without any of that.  What they neglect to mention is that in the good ol' days, many a LEO and more suspects ended up injured as a result of there being no option except getting in there and duking it out when the arrest needed to be made and there was a good chance buddy would have fallen down a flight or two of stairs on the way to the holding cell if they rubbed the copper the wrong way or got a good shot or two in before he was subdued.

People need to get through their heads that intermediate weapons CAN KILL!  OC Spray CAN KILL and cause serious, permanent damage to various parts of the body.  A baton CAN KILL if the strike is to a red zone (intentional or not) and cause permanent, debilitating injuries.  Handcuffing CAN KILL if a person suffers from certain conditions and you end up laying them in the wrong position, hard hands CAN KILL (as Chuck Norris knows).  There is no method available which will result in submission injury free to all parties involved 100% of the time.  The taser is a good thing IMHO as it essentially takes away the need for a "pile on" and the danger of injury that entails.

I think what is seriously missing from this debate witch hunt is the fact that out of every deployment of a taser where something went wrong and someone ended up dieing, "xxx" number of other deployments resulted in the person subdued with no lasting, physical, effects.  Whether or not the deployment was justified in this instance I'm not going to wade in on as the only people who know the training received in its use are those involved and their Use of Force instructor.


----------



## JBP

I'm all for the Taser, especially because it's a safer option for the police as well. They don't have to get too close to you that way, especially if a subject has something like a knife! Also, if you're on the recieving end of a Taser, it's probably for a reason and you're an idiot, or for the time being, at least an idiot... 

If people don't want to get Tasered, don't be a tool and get yourself into that level of trouble!
 :


----------



## Long in the tooth

Tasers on Stun; Shoot to Kill Shoot to Kill

4 Charges of Murder, please.

The disconnect between the video (thank God) and the RCMP spin is just breathtaking.

And no, cops should not investigate cops.

If 4 healthy, young and well trained officers can't subdue a middle aged man then perhaps Regina should be disbanded.  Today.


----------



## Mike Baker

Well, I will have to go with Bruce on this. If things done to calm down the person goes sour after 2-3 tries, sure, use the taser. But, there are other methods that do work, like Bruce said. They are a very valuable piece of equipment that our Officers have, and I for one don't want them to stop using them. They are much better to use, then having to kill a person because there was no other viable option.



			
				St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> But as a medical professional, I want to know why they cause certian people to die?


That is the main question of it all, in my opinion, and I hope that we can get the answer some time soon.


----------



## CADPAT SOLDIER

I got tased last week and didn't die, shit happens look at all the lives the taser saves by giving options other than lethal force.


----------



## garb811

Otto Fest said:
			
		

> 4 Charges of Murder, please.



And that there is a huge part of the problem.  1 member deployed the taser, why are you calling for 4 charges of murder?!


----------



## muskrat89

.. and we hate it when non-soldiers pick apart our actions. Priceless.

 :


----------



## aesop081

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> .. and we hate it when non-soldiers pick apart our actions. Priceless.
> 
> :



+1


----------



## medaid

Otto Fest said:
			
		

> If 4 healthy, young and well trained officers can't subdue a middle aged man then perhaps Regina should be disbanded.  Today.




My partner and I, plus 3 other members (2 from a different departments) had trouble holding down a suspect that was maybe a tad taller then I was. Does this mean we all failed Use of Force training? Because of this, my partner and the other members should have been failures at the respective academies?

To echo some others on here, I'd prefer the alternative to getting OC'd, but not the PDB... that thing really really really smarts!


----------



## observor 69

http://tinyurl.com/yt43r5

Globe & Mail

RCMP falsehoods on Dziekanski's death

   
Saturday, November 17, 2007 – Page A28 

Canadians cannot believe a word the RCMP have to say over the taser death of Robert Dziekanski. The cruelty of the response by four Mounties to the Polish man's plight is a shocking example of police inhumanity. The disinformation campaign waged later can only further harm the reputation and credibility of the force. How, when an RCMP spokesman stands up in the future and calmly gives a version of events involving a member, can he be trusted?

What is clear is that in the aftermath of the Oct. 14 tasering at Vancouver International Airport, RCMP spokesman Sgt. Pierre Lemaitre provided a version of events to the public that contrasts sharply with what was captured on the now world-famous taser death video. 

Witnesses said Mr. Dziekanski wasn't a threat to anybody, but Sgt. Lemaitre told CBC Television that police arrived and, despite efforts to calm him, were met aggressively and confrontationally by Mr. Dziekanski. "The officers were using gestures saying, you know, relax, relax, put your hands on the desk there where the computer was taken; to no avail, [he was] still throwing things around," said Sgt. Lemaitre. 

He gave a similar account to the Vancouver Sun: "The officers tried to speak to him, tried to calm him down, but he continued to throw things around and yell and scream." The police spokesman also told a CTV reporter that "he was pounding on the windows behind us, he was throwing chairs." 

The video shows Mr. Dziekanski rearranging furniture, and throwing something earlier on, but not as the four officers approached him. Instead, he raised his hands and moved away a few steps. He gave the appearance not of posing a threat but of exhibiting resignation. There is no evidence on the video of any attempt to negotiate with the man, or to calm him in the few seconds before he was hit with 50,000 volts.

The first taser blow left him immediately convulsed and screaming on the floor. Sgt. Lemaitre's claim that the taser "didn't seem to have any kind of effect on him" is laughable. The officer also said that "even after the handcuffs, he continued to fight." That is the RCMP's stated justification for tasering Mr. Dziekanski again, and putting pressure on what Sgt. Lemaitre claimed was his "shoulders." The video shows Mr. Dziekanski writhing, not fighting, before he was hit again with the taser, and reveals that pressure was placed not on his shoulders but on his neck, with a knee. 

Without the video, shot by Paul Pritchard, it would have been the word of four Mounties against those of a few civilian witnesses. Now, the entire world knows how the RCMP callously misread the situation and brutally dispatched a distressed and exhausted man from Poland.

A charitable interpretation of the statements made by Sgt. Lemaitre would be that he did not have all the information, or was himself duped by officers involved in Mr. Dziekanski's killing. Then again, it may be that Sgt. Lemaitre was complicit in an attempt to whitewash the affair. Only the RCMP know the truth. Don't expect a straight answer


----------



## karl28

While I feel for the Victim of this I dont blame the officer  they chose the best action that they thought at the time would due the least amount of harm .    How was the Police officer to know that the Tazer would kill this man ?        I think the airport staff and management  it's self should bare the brunt of blame for  this  incident  .  I believe that  CTV stated the man had been in the Airport for 10 hours and was agitated cause he couldn't communicate with any one   .   Well that's a no brainer I would be ticked to  especially  after a long flight. Why did they keep him there that long and why  didn't the airport staff and management  due more for this Victim ?   IF this had been adressed in the first place  and the Victim be allowed to carry on about his business this  whole event probably wouldn't of happend  .   * I blame the Airport staff and Management not the police .*


----------



## Long in the tooth

I have no doubt that this will be swept under the carpet as usual; as for the 4 charges of murder, up to 3 (that's three) tasers are alleged to have been fired.  Permission was asked and granted to use the taser and this will dilute the responsiblity further.  Being a member of the military I was unfairly called a 'baby killer'.  The RCMP can now be called murderers.

The video speaks for itself.


----------



## eurowing

We also have no idea what info the RCMP had as they walked in.  Were they told he had been there for 10 hrs? Or were they just called in and had little info to go on?

Sadly, I believe that armchair quarterbacks are going to turn prospective members away. Why would anyone want to be a policeman in this kind of climate?  And we wonder why the RCMP has trouble recruiting?

Sheesh.

To the media.  STFU, wait for the inquest.

Yes, I have sympathy for the man that died, but as I say, let the inquest sort it out.


----------



## Roy Harding

Otto Fest said:
			
		

> I have no doubt that this will be swept under the carpet as usual; as for the 4 charges of murder, up to 3 (that's three) tasers are alleged to have been fired.  Permission was asked and granted to use the taser and this will dilute the responsiblity further.  Being a member of the military I was _*unfairly*_ called a 'baby killer'.  The RCMP can now be called murderers.
> 
> The video speaks for itself.



And calling the RCMP "murderers" is _fair_?

Because you (and I) were given an untrue and unfair label in the past it's now OK somehow for us to do the same to the RCMP?


----------



## medaid

Uh... LOOK at the video. ONLY ONE member had a taser. LOOK, only one of them had a T.A.S.E.R strapped to their thighs, so where did the other 2 miraculously come from?


----------



## Flip

My purely civvie - news watcher perspective...........



> IF this had been addressed in the first place  and the Victim be allowed to carry on about his business this  whole event probably wouldn't of happend  .    I blame the Airport staff and Management not the police .



I'm inclined to agree with you here Karl and I am also inclined to think the Taser 
should remain in service.

But,  with all of the tragic occurrences of late involving the RCMP, I'm inclined to suspect
a training problem.

From the fallen four incident in Maythorpe to this one it appears these tragedies
could all have been avoided. I repeat - I don't know but that how things appear.
If I'm wrong tell me, but there's my opinion.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Otto Fest said:
			
		

> If 4 healthy, young and well trained officers can't subdue a middle aged man then perhaps Regina should be disbanded.  Today.



Awww, never mind.........way below the level of intelligence I expect from this website.
Bruce


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

This may shed some light though......


			
				Otto Fest said:
			
		

> The 18-34 group really limits things.  After 20 years + CF service I guess I don't meet their needs.... Oh well, a whole bunch of great people must be lining up.  (My Personal gripe -WASP male, applied for job in 80s, scored 9/897, not hired).  Reap the whirlwind, boys... and girls.


----------



## SprCForr

Removing the taser removes an intervention tool, which would limit response options. There was no reasonable expectation that Mr Dziekanski would die from being tasered. 
IMHO the use of the taser was appropriate in this instance. If there is concern on aspects of it's employment, then by all means study it, make recommendations and adopt a different policy. I fail to see how being jumped on by four Mounties and physically wrestled into submisssion is more acceptable than the use of a taser to incapcitate.

Mr Dziekanski demonstrated a willingness to violently use what he had to hand. Het met the RCMP criteria for being combative. The Mounties made the call and acted. To judge them after the fact with knowledge that they wouldn't possibly have at the time, is wrong on many levels. It's also wrong to minimize the actions of the subject prior to his death and a lot of reporters are doing just that.

Yes, it was sad that Mr Dziekanski died, but murder? Can't see it.


----------



## aesop081

Murder ?

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/M.aspx



> Intentional homicide (the taking of another person’s life), without legal justification or provocation.



I'm no lawyer but are you saying the RCMP *intended * to kill this guy ?


 :


----------



## axeman

maybe not murder but criminal  negligence causing death. as the vid that all are up in the air about shows ZERO attemps at first aid .  :-\ 

Every one is criminally negligent who in doing anything, or in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons."

The Canadian Judicial Council's standard set of jury instructions includes this extract on topic:

"The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the acused's conduct showed a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable person in the circumstances; and that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have foreseen that this conduct posed a risk of bodily harm.

"Bodily harm" is any hurt or injury that interferes with a person's health or comfort and is more than brief or minor. In deciding what a reasonable person would have done or foreseen, you must not take into account (the accused's) individual characteristics or experiences."


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

I've been watching the newscasts and the endless rerun of the video for the last few days and must say I'm baffled by two things.
1.  Why they decided to use the Taser even before they talked to the man (one mountie asks another clearly on the video as they are entering the arrival hall if they should use the taser and is answered in the affirmative)
2.  Why they didn't attempt first aid or call for paramedics to revive the man.

I have many friends in the RCMP and two nieces on the Force, both in BC, and a lot of them are pretty tight lipped on this incident as we would be with the public if our comrades were in the soup.

I think all parties are owed a full, open and honest inquiry to get to the bottom of this so it doesn't happen more often.


----------



## SprCForr

I presume that a "combative" classification allows for an increase in options, a taser being one of them.

I agree with your second point. It is baffling why they didn't perform such. I guess that comes out in the inquiry.



> I think all parties are owed a full, open and honest inquiry to get to the bottom of this so it doesn't happen more often.



+1


----------



## Thompson_JM

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> I think all parties are owed a full, open and honest inquiry to get to the bottom of this so it doesn't happen more often.



+1 as well.

It seems fairly obvious that some person or persons definately crapped the bed on this one... but was it the RCMP? I think alot of responsibility lies with immigration, Border Services, and the airport themselves... questions like why he was detained for 10 hours, why no interpreter was ever brought in. etc.. etc..  I look forward to seeing what the investigation will find. to see where the fault truly lies, and hope that occurances like this dont happen again..

as far as my views on the Taser, being a Dumb Civie more or less... I like the option that police have with regards to it being deployed as an intermediate weapon. I think it needs to be reassesed though.. the common perception is that it is a last chance before the gun type of thing.. and clearly the LEO's in the feild and those in the know are saying it is better then the other intermediates of spray and stick... if we are going to use it as often as we do, then it should be re-classified, as such... in the sense that the public are aware of it being used in such a way... and so the public doesnt have a perception that it is becomming a Convenience Weapon...

And as it was said before... If you dont want to be on the recieving end of a use of force report, then dont antagonize LEO's..... common sense really.....

though a couple of the posts before mine certainly showed a real lack of that... or maybe it was just sour grapes...


----------



## zipperhead_cop

I always marvel when military people engage in broad brush indictments against the police.  I have yet to every hear any of my colleauges make a wholesale panning comment about the military.  Where the animosity comes from, I don't really know.  I frequently hear "you don't question the guys on the ground" held out for military field operations but maybe that doesn't apply to the police?  

I notice a few things about the video that I saw off of YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeViFiODSYo

1.  The guy is already breathing really heavy and laboured before anyone engages him.  I can't think of a mental health condition that might do that, except a panic attack.  I am no expert, though.  However, it would be consistant with someone who had ingested a quantity of drugs.  

2.  He is wielding weapons of opportunity before the police get there.  This info would be relayed to any officers inbound from the security, and would start creating a picture for them.  

3.  Surely, by now, some Polish speaking person could translate parts of the vid, so we could know what he was going on about?

4.  It is clear from the comments and behaviour of the other people around that some sort of abnormal incident is going on.  At 2:45 the guy is certainly wielding the table as a weapon.

5.  At 4:05 he is throwing things in the presence of the security who are now on scene.  Camera guy says "whoa, right in front of the cops, too" (sic)

6.  At 6:48 the subject becomes hostile and starts kicking something.  Regardless of not speaking Polish, the officers are giving hand directions, and it isn't a big mystery what they are trying to get him to do, which is stop walking around.  The subject then advances on the middle officer and raises his fist.  He is demonstrating assaultive behavior, and the use of the taser is justified.  There are also a number of loose items still around and about that can end up weapons of opportunity again.  It is at that point he gets nailed.

7.  He continues to struggle and writhe on the floor.  In any situation, until the subjects hands are brought under control, the officers are in danger.  

8.  Subject continues to struggle (not convulse  :) and scream at least until 8:28.

9.  At 8:58 there is a break in the video stream, but from the positions of the officers it would appear that very little time has passed.  Although the subject is not moving, that doesn't rule out him not being a threat.  I personally have dealt with a number of mental health issue persons who had maniac crazy strength while they were fighting and then went completely catatonic, only to go back to being raging maniacs in a heart beat.  

10.  The officer is seen checking the guys pulse, but there is nothing to say that there wasn't one at that point.  

My opinion.
There was one justified administration of the taser.  It did its job, and got the guy on the ground.  The Mounties didn't pound the crap out of him, or repeatedly tase him.  IMO they used quite a bit of restraint, and there is no indication whatsoever that the taser killed this guy.  
When someone dies from excited delirium, it is because the person has exerted themselves beyond the bodies ability to survive.  Only after the adrenaline wears off do they "realize" that they are dead, and then the body catches up.  This appears to be the case.  
I would also be very interested in finding out the results of the tox screen on this guy after the autopsy results are in.  If he was body packing drugs, and something broke, that might explain his behavior.  Remember, he didn't plan on being in the airport that long, and any packaging for the drugs could have deteriorated.  If he wasn't on drugs, he was most certainly having some sort of mental breakdown. 

IMO the taser is effective, safe, and is really the most humane option in the situation.  It gets the guy to the ground unharmed, and allows the officer to get the subject under control.  When people die after these deals, it is always found that they would have anyway regardless of the taser.  But the taser is new, and for some reason is some sort of media boogey man that draws all kinds of attention and bad press.  It's all bullshit.  All that is going to happen is some misinformed wad is going to recommend that we not be allowed to use tasers anymore, and then look to see more shootings and lingering injuries on bad guys.  Don't think that I'm saying it like that is a bad thing, but it's just the reality of the situation.  As already mentioned, people die when any sort of force is used from time to time.  
Seems to me Chris Rock had some helpful tips about how to avoid negative police attention at one point.


----------



## Civvymedic

After hearing all the media spin and opinions on this over the last few day's I'm glad Zipperhead_cop said exactly what I was thinking. 

The video is only a short glimpse of what really happened. It appears to me that the TASER was used as per usual Police protocol. I do not think that the individual RCMP officers are to blame. Excited Delirium is a cause of death post TASER and should really be researched by those commenting so heavily on this issue.

While I am not a LEO I have put together and delivered the Medical Response to TASER course for 2 large Police and EMS stems and a large ER. I have also treated several persons post TASER. All the facts are not in here and I think a rush to judgement is being made here by many.

Many factors could have contributed to this Mans death. We need ALL the facts.


----------



## observor 69

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071115.BC-TaserTranscript16/BNStory/National


Following Dziekanski's final encounter
TRANSLATION BY CYNTHIA YOO AND RAFAL GERSZAK 

Globe and Mail Update

November 15, 2007 at 10:05 PM EST

Vancouver — Voice off camera: Computer's on?

Voice off camera: What language do you speak?

Muffled responses, comments off camera. 

Voice off camera: Just look at his face! 

Voice off camera: There's 300 people coming in...coming in.

Muffled comments off camera.

Voice off camera: He did it. He almost threw the chair through the window to get out. Look at it. Look...

Muffled voices talk excitedly off camera. 

Mr. Dziekanski paces the whole length of the secure arrivals area, walking back to the entrance doors.

Dziekanski: Breathing deeply. I'm going to break this desk. Is this going to continue?

Muffled voices off camera.

Voice off camera: Is there anybody at the door?

Voice off camera: I can't believe he's ... out!

Voice off camera: Nobody's here...from security.

Muffled voices off camera.

Voice off camera: Just five minutes before ...comes down with 300 people on it...

Dziekanski: Holding and waving a small wooden fold-up stool at the entrance door, speaking in Polish. I'm going to break windows. I'm going to break this window here. 

Voice off camera: ...something's wrong with him.

Voice off camera: ... is Russian. He speaks Russian.

Voice off camera: Is that what he's speaking? I don't even know what he's speaking.

Voice off camera: What language do you speak?

Voice off camera: He doesn't speak English...

Voice off camera: Russian? Russian?

Muffled voices off camera.

Voice off camera: Ruskian? Nope.

Dziekanski: Mr. Dziekanski holds and waves a small wooden fold-up stool in the entrance doors. I will not allow them. 

Voice off camera: There's nothing wrong! There's nothing wrong...it's okay.

Voice off camera: We need a Russian interpreter. We need someone to open the arrivals area...

Dziekanski: Still holding the stool in the entrance doors, I'm going to report on you and the rest of them. 

Voice off camera: Calm down.

Dziekanski: Fine, fine. Takes a breath. We'll see.

Woman walks over to Mr. Dziekanski, motioning to him, holding out her hand. 

Woman: Calm down. She motions to him, holding out her hand in order to communicate with him.

Dziekanski: Still holding stool, pacing in the entrance doors,. Get away. Get away.

Muffled voices off camera.

Dziekanski: Swears.

Muffled voices off camera.

Woman : Motioning to Mr. Dziekanski. Calm down please.

Woman tries to communicate through the clear glass partition, with Mr. Dzienkanski who has gone into the arrivals area.

Dziekanski: (Inaudible)

Woman: ....Excuse me...I know I know...

Mr. Dziekanski and the woman speak through the partition, nodding and motioning.

Woman walks back away from partition.

Muffled voices off camera. 

Voice off camera: Look! He's got a computer...

Mr. Dziekanski throws some laptop or computer on to the glass partition.

Voice off camera: Whoa.

Voice off camera: Right in front of the cops too.

Voice off camera: Jesus Christ.

Mr. Dziekanski holds up an electric equipment and attempts to throw it.

Voices off camera: No no no. 

Mr. Dziekanski puts down the equipment rather than throwing it.

Two airport security officer come to the entrance doors and Mr. Dziekanski comes to the doors to meet them.

Voice off camera: He speaks Russian and nobody can help him...You need a Russian interpreter here to calm him down. Cathay's coming down in five minutes.

Voice off camera: ...Russian interpreter.

Voice off camera: ...Can you call Customs and tell them to stop it....

Voice off camera: He is so scared...just leave him.

Voice off camera: Why are the police not here? We called security, we called the police. 

Voice off camera: Calm down, calm down please. 

Camera turns to police.

Dziekanski: Mr. Dziekanski screams. Police! Police! 

Police speaks to him and points. They motion him to inside and they point to a spot on the ground and they encircle him.

Dziekanski: What are you doing? An RCMP officer points at him. There's nothing here . 

An RCMP officer shoots him with a Taser.

RCMP officer: Get down, get down!

Dziekanski: (Screams as he falls to the ground)

Police fire two more Taser blasts.

RCMP officer: Get a Taser.

RCMP officer: Put your hands up.

RCMP officer: Get him down, get him down!

Dziekanski continues to struggle, scream

Security guard: Operations…(unintelligible)

Dziekanski: Oh, no! It's pinching.

Four RCMP officers pin Mr. Dziekanski as they restrain him. 

Dziekanski: Bandit!

Pritchard: Jesus.

RCMP officer: Get his knees, right…

Pritchard: How is he still fighting them off?

Off-camera: Noboby knows why. He speaks Russian. Nobody knows why. No rhyme or reason.

Pritchard: Prime footage for my home videos. 

Pritchard: He's unconscious…I heard him say Code Red.

Pritchard: I've only got three minutes of footage, three minutes of memory, three minutes of memory left.


----------



## Strike

Unfortunately I feel too many people are missing the forest for the trees.

There are so many factors that led up to this, as stated previously by some posters.  Everyone played a part in this man's death, whether they want to admit it or not.  In fact, in that short 9 minute video, the only person I see trying to help was the woman who approached Dziekanski and tried to calm him down.

Who's to blame?
Airport security, for not trying sooner to get a translator (does it really take 10 hrs?).  Even handing the man a bottle of water might have calmed him.
Every bystander who stood by and did nothing, especially those who wondered why nothing was being done.  This includes the guy with the camera.  Really, is it that hard to try and talk to someone like the one lady did?
Mr Dzielanski himself.  For whatever reason, he was agitated.  If it was because of some problem beyond his control (ie, a mental health issue) than I remove this accusation.
Finally, there is probably some blame that can be attributed to the RCMP, but given that there is still an investigation pending on their behaviour, and much too much criticism being thrown their way, I will leave that one alone.


----------



## noneck

zipperhead_cop+100  Thank you, you hit the nail on the head!

 I have purposely stayed out of this discussion as I know the members involved and during my early service I worked at YVR for a year and dealt with similar types of incidents.

The comments by Mr. Pritchard in the transcript are quite telling...I wonder how many people think of him as "the good guy" now as opposed to the parasite just trying to make a buck off a death in custody. Anyway he's the one that's gotta live with himself!

Noneck


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

noneck said:
			
		

> zipperhead_cop+100  Thank you, you hit the nail on the head!
> 
> I have purposely stayed out of this discussion as I know the members involved and during my early service I worked at YVR for a year and dealt with similar types of incidents.
> 
> The comments by Mr. Pritchard in the transcript are quite telling...I wonder how many people think of him as "the good guy" now as opposed to the parasite just trying to make a buck off a death in custody. Anyway he's the one that's gotta live with himself!
> 
> Noneck



Ah yes shoot the messanger that's brilliant! I don't think he realized the guy was dead at the point where he said he had footage for his home archive....he probably thought they would cart him off to jail and he would have and interesting incident on tape. 
A public inquiry has now rightly been called and hopefully all will come to light especially the protocols whereby anyone of us may be tasered.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071119/vcr_tasers_071119/20071119?hub=TopStories


----------



## zipperhead_cop

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> A public inquiry has now rightly been called and hopefully all will come to light especially the protocols whereby anyone of us may be tasered.



You don't need one.  The answer is easy.  Act like you are going to assault an officer.  If they have a taser, you can get tased.  Simple, n'est pas?



			
				IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071119/vcr_tasers_071119/20071119?hub=TopStories



From that link:



> Earlier Monday, NDP Leader Jack Layton asked that all RCMP officers authorized to use Tasers go through a re-training program, until those investigations are complete.
> He also suggested an outright moratorium on the use of Tasers.



Gee, what a shock that Gearbox Jack is chiming off on an issue that he knows nothing about, but still feels entitled to opine on.  This isn't a friggin' training issue.  

And here is a sentiment that most officers will echo:



> Insp. Kelly Keith, who teaches use of force at the Atlantic Police Academy in P.E.I., said Tasers are a crucial non-lethal tool for officers, and often less harmful than other options.
> "If I was going to have a choice and I was a suspect, and they said you can get 'Tased' or hit with (pepper spray), I'd take the Taser every time," he told CTV Atlantic.



Tasing is physically debilitating while the current is on.  Full stop.  It does not cause physical damage.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Respectfully ZIP this isn't just about the LEOs reponse. The Inquiry will also look into why nobody helped this guy when he was standing beside an International arrivals baggage carousel for 6 and half hours and no one asked him if he needed assistance. It will find out why the Welcome Wagon folks out front didn't assist his mother in connecting with him inside the secure area....and hopefully the lessons learned will prevent another incident like this from happening. How did the Border agency folks handle him etc....he did clear customs so someone talked to him.

I suspect the fact that a flight full of passengers about to arrive on Cathay Pacific also provided a degree of urgency in getting this resolved quickly from security's point of view. The results of the Coroner's report will also be important to the whole issue.

The bottom line for me is that this is an open and democratic society and we are all entitled to know exactly what happened in that arrival lounge that night not just the press realease of any particular agency. We can't just write this off as a guy who acted weird, got tased, died...oh well. I have no doubt that the LEOs followed their protocols....but why did it get to this point when the guy arrived 10 hours earlier??


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Seems to me that hundreds of thousands of people every day somehow manage to conduct themselves from the luggage pickup to outside of the secured area.  Maybe the airport should have noticed him, but it seems that once your luggage pukes out of the carousel, they are done with you.  People sit around in airports for all kinds of reasons.  This has worked for decades.  So this guy flips out, and what?  People have to have time limits to get out of the airport?  Everyone gets a tracking collar to make sure they toddle along at a reasonable pace?  
Plus, he was not being detained.  You can clearly see in the video that when he approaches the one set of doors, they are set to open automatically.  He could leave any time he wanted.  
But then this guy has some sort of brain dump, and sits there and works himself into a lather.  If he has some sort of mental health issue, maybe he should have had someone with him on the plane.  If his mom knew he had issues, why didn't she tell some one, instead of just leaving the airport without so much as checking the manifest to see if her son was on the plane?  
It is unfortunate that this man died.  But this is an anomaly.


----------



## 284_226

Just out of curiosity, is there a protocol dealing with LEOs administering first aid to a person they've just put in custody?  Judgment call?  Wait until paramedics arrive?

I can see how it could be risky to resuscitate someone you've just had to Tase to subdue, but if the LEO knows there's no pulse, and knows medical assistance is more than four minutes away...


----------



## zipperhead_cop

If someone was VSA, you would probably do CPR.  However, there is nothing in that video that suggests that the subject was not breathing or didn't have a pulse.  You don't do CPR on a beating heart.  
And it is unlikely that it would have helped.  CPR has an effective rate of something around 5%, and with excited delirium, the body is pretty much too tired to live.


----------



## J.J

I don't think in all the time I have been a member of this forum have I been so angry and amazed at the hypocrisy of some members here. I am a LEO, I am also a professional full time Use of Force Trainer. I have also 20+ years in the Reserves, so I have a bit of knowledge in both worlds. I would never question what a soldier had done in the heat of battle. I would never question why a soldier would shoot a civilian approaching a convoy. I would assume, through the soldiers training, they made the correct decision. I know there will be an investigation and the truth will come out. If the soldier did something wrong, deal with it. I would not say there are systematic problems with training because 1 person made a mistake or even 2 or 3 did. Do not judge until all the info is out, as you would not judge a soldier who shot a civilian approaching a convoy. 
Like Noneck I have intimate knowledge of this case and I have to be careful on what I say.



> IMO tasers should be removed from the arsenals of the various law enfocement  departments . i belive they are a lazy persons way out . shoot em and let the officers swarm this person . now that the way its being used is falling under suspicion maybe a rethink is required.with OC they generaly have to think about what they are doing not so with a Taser.


This may be a surprise to you, but on the IM/IM (the RCMP use of force module), the taser is an intermediate device, equal to OC. On that, OC is not "karate in a can". It will not automatically disable you, it has an average 3-5 second delay before it takes effect. It does not effect everyone the same way. Some people it is has little or seemingly no effect on. Deploying OC in an airport environment is frowned upon, as the air is recycled and if the liquid is brought into the ventilation it can affect many others. Then people, like yourself, will complain because it was used indoors and why wasn't something else used. When a person is exhibiting behaviours like Mr. Dziekanski it is not generally a smart move to try empty hand hard (strikes) or empty hand soft (joint manipulation/pain compliance) techniques, as it may cause injury to the subject or the member may get injured. If the subject is suffering from the condition known as excited delirium, as Zipperhead alluded to, OC or strikes etc will not work. Little is known about this condition. 
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3804/is_200307/ai_n9301741
Here is excerpt from this article
_The features of this extreme state, referred to as "excited delirium," include agitation, excitability, paranoia, aggression, great strength, and numbness to pain. When confronted or frightened, these delirious individuals can become oppositional, defiant, angry, paranoid, and aggressive.
_


> If 4 healthy, young and well trained officers can't subdue a middle aged man then perhaps Regina should be disbanded.  Today.


You seem to be bitter because you were not accepted into depot or just an all around hater of the LEO. I had a an onslaught planned out on what to say to you, but with people like you common sense is a foreign concept. I will just ignore your rantings as coming from a bitter disillusioned wanna be.




> .. and we hate it when non-soldiers pick apart our actions. Priceless.


+1 again




> I have no doubt that this will be swept under the carpet as usual; as for the 4 charges of murder, up to 3 (that's three) tasers are alleged to have been fired.  Permission was asked and granted to use the taser and this will dilute the responsiblity further.  Being a member of the military I was unfairly called a 'baby killer'.  The RCMP can now be called murderers.
> 
> The video speaks for itself.



See my above comments directed to your rantings




> Mr Dziekanski demonstrated a willingness to violently use what he had to hand. Het met the RCMP criteria for being combative. The Mounties made the call and acted. To judge them after the fact with knowledge that they wouldn't possibly have at the time, is wrong on many levels. It's also wrong to minimize the actions of the subject prior to his death and a lot of reporters are doing just that.


+1 




> Who's to blame?
> Airport security, for not trying sooner to get a translator (does it really take 10 hrs?).  Even handing the man a bottle of water might have calmed him.


VIA is the only airport in Canada with a fulltime staff of translators. The number off the top of my head is 24 languages are available for translation 24/7. I am unsure if Mr Dziekanski was released from Immigration as he was attempting entry into Canada. For normal circumstances a Landed Immigrant takes time to process, but if there are issues that come to light, there can be a lengthy delay.




> Respectfully ZIP this isn't just about the LEOs reponse. The Inquiry will also look into why nobody helped this guy when he was standing beside an International arrivals baggage carousel for 6 and half hours and no one asked him if he needed assistance. It will find out why the Welcome Wagon folks out front didn't assist his mother in connecting with him inside the secure area....and hopefully the lessons learned will prevent another incident like this from happening. How did the Border agency folks handle him etc....he did clear customs so someone talked to him.
> 
> I suspect the fact that a flight full of passengers about to arrive on Cathay Pacific also provided a degree of urgency in geting this resolved quickly from security's point of view. The results of the Coroner's report will also be important to the whole issue.
> 
> The bottom line for me is that this is an open and democratic society and we are all entitled to know exactly what happened in that arrival lounge that night not just the press realease of any particular agency. We can't just write this off as a guy who acted weird, got tased, died...oh well. I have no doubt that the LEOs followed their protocols....but why did it get to this point when the guy arrived 10 hours earlier??



How did he get from his home to the airport? Did someone hold his hand to cross the street? He is an adult male, he can take care of himself. Everytime I am in the airport I see people that look like they are living there. VIA is this country's 2nd largest airport, people spend days in there. People have to be accountable for their own actions or in actions.


----------



## Osotogari

Looks like everything that could have gone wrong did, and what happened when the RCMP were called into clean up someone else's mess is the tragic result.

Hopefully this government won't try to hang them out to dry like the Libs did after APEC


----------



## Thompson_JM

Having watched the full 10 minute video, there is ALOT (read: SH!TLOADS) that the media is leaving out of this.... 

now that ive seen the whole thing, yeah, it looks like the cops were doing what they were supposed to be doing.... Bringing order to chaos, containing a suspect who appears to not be in a rational state of mind, protecting themselves and those around them in the airport.

Im not blaming the RCMP for this one, one bit. hell... that mealworm Prichard said it himself at Time mark 8:12 "he's still fighting them off" after the taser had been deployed... 

This looks more to me like the Soft handed left wing Hippie bullsh!t "oooh oooh oooh the police are bad and hurting someone" typical response i see whenever a use of force is captured on video. 

The media show 15-30 seconds of this tape and all of a sudden we are supposed to make a judgement on it?? give me a break.

as far as Im concerned the officers on scene did their job. its way too easy to be an armchair quaterback...

most of the #$%#Pumps talking big about this, dont even have the balls to go into a situation like that in the first place.... (and yes if i sound mad its because I got into an argument with my left minded father tonight about this exact subject... and like a typical left winger, he refuses to listen to annoying little things like Fact or proffessional opinion because that just gets in the way of their ideal happy little world... those people contradict themselves so often its nauseating...)

ugh... Rant-Off... 

BZ to the Coppers on the scene.

to Zip, Noneck, and the rest of the LEO's on this board. My Apologies for doubting you guys.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Tommy said:
			
		

> to Zip, Noneck, and the rest of the LEO's on this board. My Apologies for doubting you guys.



No worries, bro.  At least you are open to information.


----------



## rregtc-etf

Seven years ago (2000) in Toronto a man named Otto Vass died after physical struggle with four police officers.  The Toronto officer's were charged with manslaughter and later acquitted by a jury.  During the trial, it was shown that the man died of over exertion and drugs.  Seemingly healthy people dropping dead in their 40's is not unheard of.  I would guess that a person's health would also be a factor in situations like this.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Coverage in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix:

http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/third_page/story.html?id=cb385943-2aaa-41cc-bdd4-af58082eb839

Man's lack of co-operation necessitated force
Les MacPherson, The StarPhoenix
Published: Saturday, November 17, 2007

We have all by now seen the disturbing video of the hapless Polish immigrant screaming, writhing and dying after RCMP officers used a Taser on him at the Vancouver airport. Now almost everyone in the country is piling on police for using excessive force. Excuse me for not joining in.

What people seem not to realize is that there is no way to subdue a violent, irrational and potentially dangerous suspect that isn't disturbing. What, exactly, would these armchair critics have had the police do?

Talk to the guy?

They tried. Police when they approached the man were as non-threatening as they could be. It didn't work. The suspect, after storming around the airport, smashing up furniture and alarming everyone around him, was now ignoring police instructions. Instead of co-operating, as any reasonable person would have and should have done, he threw up his hands, turned around and walked away. Were police supposed to let him go? Were they to let him storm around some more until he felt like obeying them?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> No worries, bro.  At least you are open to information.



I think most reasonable people are open to more information, that's why the inquiry is a good thing. Perhaps it will even convince a few people that think they can get away with bad behaviour that when police tell you to put your hands on the counter and cease and desist it's time to comply with the lawful request.

I take your points that lots of other people make it through YVR and our other major gateways every day without incident and agree whole heartedly with your opinion that this guy was indulging in unacceptable behaviour. 

I must say that airports are not my favorite place. I can remember one night in Pearson when Air Canada was in disarray because they had just taken over Canadian Airlines 
and their flights were all screwed up there were a lot of people in the departure lounge that night who were ready to wring somone's neck. There was a particularily rude and officious Ground Agent who would have been well employed in the Third Reich's concentration camp system that many people were ready to have a go at that night because of her insensitivity to what was going on around her. I decided to get away from the cattle pen and have a few wets in the bar (a default setting learned from time in the Navy ha  ha) till the whole thing settled down. When I came back Air Canada had wisely removed her from the line of fire and were trying to address the situation.
My point is that something went wrong that night for this guy and we need to figure it out so that the system works properly and people don't end up doing the funky chicken on the floor of the Arrivals lounge.....it's bad for business.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> My point is that something went wrong that night for this guy and we need to figure it out so that the system works properly and people don't end up doing the funky chicken on the floor of the Arrivals lounge.....it's bad for business.



ACT VIOLENT = GET DEALT WITH

I think that system works pretty well.  Not a whole lot of tweaking needed.  

People spin out.  It happens.  The police get called.  That is also what happens.  Everyone else stands around.  That always happens.  But that is what we get paid the big bucks for.  We are expected to show up at these sort of donkey shows and make them better.  Subject is being violent and irrational?  Take him down.  
Especially considering how many tragedies the RCMP have suffered in the last year or so, I think those guys should have gotten a big thank you for how much restraint they used, not getting jerked over just because some asshat wanted to video a crazy guy getting taken down.


----------



## IrishCanuck

It's pretty simple... don't brandish a table at an innocent civilian.. don't pick up a stapler as a weapon of oppurtunity when the police are *talking* to you, and you won't have an intermediary device or worse used on you.

I'm so tired of hearing the bullshit about 4 officers gang tackling him.

So just rush him and hope for the best? 
Hope you don't take a heavy blunt object shot to the temple? Or a staple to the eye?
Hope he doesn't have a concealed shiv or other weapon he pulls on you once you are too close to get away? 
Hope you can get him down and controlled (which took all 4 of them after the table) before he can get your tools off your belt, god forbid him getting a hold of your sidearm.

Too much hoping for me.

Or... use a non-lethal intermediary device to effect control safely for both all the officers involved and the public?

The fact is, the bleeding heart ivory tower left wingers would complain no matter what had happened if it resulted in a death. Excited delirium or not.

They offer now why they didnt use OC, or baton strikes.

If they would have used OC and the subject had an allergic reaction, or still died of positional asphyxia and excited delirium, they would have asked why not use the taser?

If they would have used baton strikes.. oh jeez I can just imagine the uproar, Rodney King all over again.  :

The officers will be cleared in this case, as their actions fall completely within the use of force continuum, and the incident intervention model. The only way they will be hung out to dry is if they some how cannot articulate how they felt threatend by a man yelling brandishing a blunt weapon.


----------



## observor 69

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> If his mom knew he had issues, why didn't she tell some one, instead of just leaving the airport without so much as checking the manifest to see if her son was on the plane?
> It is unfortunate that this man died.  But this is an anomaly.



She asked at one info Desk about her sons whereabouts and was told they had nothing on him. Her second inquiry later at another info desk was we have no info and "You should go home." So she went home. How much of a s@@t storm must one raise to get accurate info in an airport?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

..and your first hand source is?


----------



## observor 69

Outside, in the public area, his mother spent nearly six hours pacing the corridors and, in broken English, asking airport officials for help in locating her son.

Mr. Kosteckyj said she visited one booth in international arrivals "at least three to four times and conveyed to them that she was concerned about her son being in the area and she wanted to get a message to him and how could she do that? They wrote her name down and said that they would make inquiries."

At about 10 p.m., she was told he wasn't there. She made the long drive home, only to find a phone message waiting, saying her son had been found.

"She called back to immigration when she got in, which would have been around 2 a.m., and spoke to someone there and was advised that her son was somewhere in the area and was fine. And she advised, you know, 'Please take care of him because he can't speak English and I'll get there as soon as I can.' And of course he had died, been killed really, some time on or about 1 or 1:30," Mr. Kosteckyj said.  
 http://tinyurl.com/2h42sg

Everything went wrong. His mother, Zofia Cisowski, had told him to wait for her in the baggage area, forgetting it is a secure area. When she realized her mistake, she begged to be let in. She was refused and nobody went to look for her son. 

Some six hours later, Cisowski, who'd driven the 366 kilometres from Kamloops to meet her only son, was told he wasn't there. She was told to go home. 

Sadly, not long after, Dziekanski, who'd been sitting in the secured area about 100 metres away from his mother, finally cleared customs. 

His mother, understandably distraught, was already on her way back to Kamloops. 
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Columnists/Cockburn_Lyn/2007/11/16/4659774.html


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

If the LEOs did all according to Hoyle then there's no problem....the Inquiry will establish that. The Police, the Customs officials, the Airport authority are not above having questions asked about how they conducted themselves. A man died.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Baden Guy,
So her version, through her lawyer, is gospel?.........................aww, for craps sake.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> http://tinyurl.com/2h42sg



Info from the lawyer, who would never have an agenda  :



			
				Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Columnists/Cockburn_Lyn/2007/11/16/4659774.html



An unbelievably inflammatory and inaccurate editorial piece.  

Did you just need so badly to maintain your status as "the guy who disagrees with everything" that this is the best you could come up with?  Did you even watch the video, or are you just trying to troll up responses per usual?  

Google news search results:

Results 1 - 10 of about 990 for Robert Dziekanski.

Results 1 - 10 of about 172 for Const Douglas Scott.
Thus, the media can kiss my pale Scottish ass.   :-*


----------



## Thompson_JM

Im willing to put ALOT more fault towards the Airport and the mouth breathers working the desks there... then I will at the RCMP.

it still looks like someone %##$ the bed here, but it wasnt the mounties... they did their job the way they were supposed to. 

for all its worth, maybe mom didnt try hard enough to find her son? lets face it. weve all seen people who will take 10 minutes to muster up the guts to ask someone something, and then if they dont get the right answer they just give up.... perhaps she gave up too early? 

a crazy theory maybe? no crazier then the one some idiots are spouting off about the RCMP being murderers..... 

oohhh wait.. it doesnt tie in with the left wing agenda though... so its got to be wrong.... at least in the eyes of the media, and most of canadas mouth breathing citizens....

sigh... these are the people weve sworn to protect??


----------



## TN2IC

+1 for Tommy and Zip. 

I prey to God these Mounties do not get charged for doing their jobs. Media loves to leave out tons of parts to make the truth semi-false/false.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Here's a guy that they used all their devices on; baton, spray and taser and he still took 4 of them to control him....wow....i don't envy them this job that's for sure.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071120/taser_chilliwack_071120/20071120?hub=TopStories


----------



## observor 69

Z C "Did you just need so badly to maintain your status as "the guy who disagrees with everything" that this is the best you could come up with?  Did you even watch the video, or are you just trying to troll up responses per usual? "

Yes I watched the video. If  you checked in this thread you would see I also provided the transcript of the translation from the Globe and Mail. I do not post to be "disagreeable." I post the thoughts of media I respect such as the Globe and Mail and the New York Times because I think it is valuable to hear their opinions.

Ref the Vancouver airport authorities, from the first time I heard of this incident my thinking has been these people let down the mother and her son. They were both in the airport and in spite of the mothers repeated inquires for information she could not get together with her son.
I live near Pearson International airport and for one reason or another I hear similar stories of anger and confusion. Unfortunately I suspect this is a fairly common event in many of the worlds major airports.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Ref the Vancouver airport authorities, from the first time I heard of this incident my thinking has been these people let down the mother and her son. They were both in the airport and in spite of the mothers repeated inquires for information she could not get together with her son.


Yup, I convicted anyone in authority from the first time I heard of this. :

One day last month I was supposed to hook up with my daughters and her friends at the Stone Road Mall food court but our timings didn't jive and they had to phone me later......................guess I should blame the mall administration because of the sheer size of the building and number of people whom were there at the time. 
Holy get-a-grip, Batman.


----------



## Thompson_JM

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Yup, I convicted anyone in authority from the first time I heard of this. :
> 
> One day last month I was supposed to hook up with my daughters and her friends at the Stone Road Mall food court but our timings didn't jive and they had to phone me later......................guess I should blame the mall administration because of the sheer size of the building and number of people whom were there at the time.
> Holy get-a-grip, Batman.



I dunno Bruce.... Stone Road Mall is pretty massive.. its like the west edmonton mall of guelph! wait.. isnt it the only mall in guelph? (unless you count that weird little shopping center downtown...)  ;D  The real question is, did you start throwing tables and chairs because you couldnt find them?


----------



## jimb

Did anyone besides me see the CBC news story that was shot in this guys' home town in Poland the other night ?

It seems that he has   been out of work for the past two years ( he was a coal miner  before that ) . His neighbours said that he is an alcoholic, who has had mental problems for  many years. He is know to be irrational at times and  physically abusive to wards others when he drinks. The CBC reporter found at least 4 people who  would speak about him on camera, and the translation showed that he was a person who was feared for his temper .The local police said that he has a minor criminal record for theft and assault. 

My question is.........Why would someone like this be approved to come to Canada, as an immigrant ?  Are there no background checks being done on anyone anymore ?  Was he able to pass a medical examination in Poland, by Canadian authorised  Doctors ? 

A final bit of interesting information, he had recently stopped smoking tobacco. 

If any one can find that CBC tv report, feel free to post it here. I couldn't  find it, but I know I saw it here in Toronto in the past few days on the 6 oclock report.

Jim B Toronto.


----------



## KevinB

Anyone see the Chris Rock video - how not to get your ass beat by police?  

 Funny it would have worked here...


FYI -- they are Less Lethal options -- not Non-Lethal.


----------



## Greymatters

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Anyone see the Chris Rock video - how not to get your *** beat by police?



Found it here:

http://www.ifilm.com/video/2458063

You're right, hilarious!  Such basic common dog...


----------



## zipperhead_cop

jimb said:
			
		

> My question is.........Why would someone like this be approved to come to Canada, as an immigrant ?  Are there no background checks being done on anyone anymore ?  Was he able to pass a medical examination in Poland, by Canadian authorised  Doctors ?



There is nothing saying that he was.  I have yet to see any info from Immigration Canada that indicates that he was approved to immigrate here.  Sometimes people come here as visitors, but then it becomes apparent that they intend to live here.  In that case, they would be held and in this guys case, possibly be being deported.  If he has a criminal record he definitely wouldn't have good odds of getting in.  From the various media outlets though, it seems as though he had cleared the CBSA area, and was just spinning his wheels because his mommy wasn't there to lead him by the hand out of the area.  
The more I hear about this, the more I'm glad he didn't end up in Canada.  Don't think he needed to be dead, but I'm also glad he didn't end up circulating in the general public.


----------



## xena

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> FYI -- they are Less Lethal options -- not Non-Lethal.


Exactly.  If you get shot with a Taser you have a small chance of dying.  If you get shot with a 9mm, you have a small chance of living.  It should be a no-brainer.


----------



## The_Falcon

Wow, just watched tonights CTV news (no link yet it just aired), this is just getting ridiculous.  A little blurb from Stockwell Day saying the mounties involved could face criminal charges, the head of RCMP public complaints commision, saying he has never really bought into the use of TASERS, and that there needs to be more reviews done, and the head of the RCMP in BC saying they might just stop using the things altogether.  Plus assorted other soundbites from the reporter saying how other forces across the country are looking at reviewing, and/or yanking tasers.  The ONE clip in favour of the device came from Fantino, and I think they gave him about 5 seconds of airtime.  Seriously this spinelessness at the top, is getting nauseating.


----------



## a_majoor

I can only imagine the outcry the next time LEO's have to take down a violent or resisting offender using pepper spray, batons or going hand to hand; since those are the options now that Tasers are frowned upon.

Of course, the other option of using a firearm would make this media storm look like a quiet day in the park...........


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Didn't see the CTV news last night but watched the CBC side.This on the CTV website this morning.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071121/taser_kennedy_071121/20071121?hub=TopStories

*RCMP watchdog worries Tasers overused*



  
Paul Kennedy, the head of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, said he is concerned that at times the Taser is brought out too quickly.

A memorial service was held for Robert Dziekanski, 40, at a Kamloops, B.C., funeral home on Saturday, Nov. 17, 2007. Jeff Bassett / THE CANADIAN PRESS

This amateur photo shows a man being taken away after a violent altercation with police who allegedly beat and Tasered the man.

CTV.ca News Staff 
  
Updated: Wed. Nov. 21 2007 9:56 PM ET 

The chairman of a Mountie watchdog group looking into Taser use by police in Canada says he's concerned the electronic stun guns may be overused. 

Paul Kennedy -- the head of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP who is investigating the death of Robert Dziekanski -- will try to determine if police need wider guidelines on using Tasers. 

"Is it a good tool? If it is a good tool, when do you use it because inappropriate use of a good tool can have a bad outcome," Kennedy told CTV News, outlining some of the questions he will look at during his investigation. 

He noted Wednesday that he is concerned that at times the Taser is brought out too quickly. 

"I have seen clearly cases that have come to my attention where I thought it was being used earlier than it ought to have," he said. 

Kennedy says part of the reason Tasers may be used too often is that they don't generally leave any marks and that may undervalue the pain they inflict. 

Kennedy's report for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day is due by mid-December. He has said the four officers involved in the takedown of Robert Dziekanski could face criminal charges. 

The report was ordered following a public outcry over his death. Dziekanski died at Vancouver International Airport in October after arriving from Poland. He was held in a secure area of the airport for about 10 hours and became agitated. 

The Mounties were called in, confronted Dziekanski, and Tasered him within 25 seconds of arriving. Dziekanski died shortly afterwards. The incident was video recorded by a witness, who released it to the public earlier this month. 

Kennedy is also looking into another incident involving the Mounties and the use of a Taser on a suspect. This one occurred on Monday in Chilliwack, B.C. Police used a Taser, pepper spray and batons in an attempt to subdue the 36-year-old man. He was listed in critical condition in hospital on Wednesday. 

CTV British Columbia has learned from sources that the man's organs are failing and that he has been put on kidney dialysis. 

Kennedy is currently talking to experts, reading scientific literature, and examining reports about Tasers and their effects. 

Day is expected to release a report by Friday about the Canadian Border Service Agency's role in the Dziekanski's detention at Vancouver Airport.


----------



## Greymatters

Too high profile.  Everyone's scrambling to cover their butts...


----------



## Drummy

I don't think that it has been mentioned in this thread, and I'm pretty sure that the media hasn't brought it up.

I was wondering how many people have been tasered since it's inception, and how many of those have been just picked up and carted of to jail, with no ill effects, as opposed to the number who have died.

ps: I didn't google this      Drummy


----------



## The_Falcon

Drummy said:
			
		

> I don't think that it has been mentioned in this thread, and I'm pretty sure that the media hasn't brought it up.
> 
> I was wondering how many people have been tasered since it's inception, and how many of those have been just picked up and carted of to jail, with no ill effects, as opposed to the number who have died.
> 
> ps: I didn't google this      Drummy



I know Toronto Police keeps stats on their own use, and last time I saw them, the number was pretty high (over 100).  I think if one were to compile stats from every agency that uses tasers in North American, you would see that 1000s of people have been tased and they all lived.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Feh, screw it.  Take away all of our less than lethal options.  I'll take my chunk, a 3' hickory stick and a blackjack and go git 'er done.  I never use the spray anyway, and I'm not a supervisor or Tac guy, so I won't be seeing a taser any time soon.  
However, these devices were brought in so that we _don't_ have to go "old school" on idiots, which generally resulted in serious injuries.  
Whatever works for the quail hearted politicians.   :


----------



## Thompson_JM

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Feh, screw it.  Take away all of our less than lethal options.  I'll take my chunk, a 3' hickory stick and a blackjack and go git 'er done.  I never use the spray anyway, and I'm not a supervisor or Tac guy, so I won't be seeing a taser any time soon.
> However, these devices were brought in so that we _don't_ have to go "old school" on idiots, which generally resulted in serious injuries.
> Whatever works for the quail hearted politicians.   :



+1

I really am growing more and more convinced that the public really are just a bunch of window licking mouth breathers En masse....


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Tommy said:
			
		

> +1
> 
> I really am growing more and more convinced that the public really are just a bunch of window licking mouth breathers En masse....



That would be the people that you took an oath to defend is it? One of the benefits of living in a democracy is that people who disagree with the police or the army or any of our public institutions have the right to their opinions, and the right not to be brutalized or killed if they hold a contrary opinion.
We also live by the laws that the majority of people have decided are good for the collective. If the collective wisdom of our country decides to get rid of tasers and encourage police to "go old school" that is what we'll do...we serve, we don't decide the rules.


----------



## Sub_Guy

I wouldn't call it collective wisdom.  

Sure the guy at YVR got tasered multiple times, the video only shows a portion of what really happened.  The media plays up this story about the poor immigrant who can barely speak english, and his mother who was no better off.  I guess Kamloops has a big Polish community, and from the quotes in the various newspapers the person picking him up at the airport could speak some pretty good english.  This guy supposedly studied Canada, surely he knew some english, or at least how to use a phone to CALL someone he knew.......I just don't buy the poor him story.  This guy snapped (from what the video showed), snapping at an airport is a bad idea....

I am not saying he deserved it (multiple taser shots), but there is more to this than that stupid video.  From what the video did show he deserved to be taken down, hey I guess next time people will think twice before they throw a computer or a chair at a plane of glass in an airport.

Doesn't everyone who uses the Taser, get Tasered as part of their training?  I don't hear stories of police cadets dying as a result of the Taser.  Before people start jumping, I know the YVR guy got more than one Taser, but there have been other news stories over the past year of guys dying from the Taser after only being shot once.  

It would be nice to know the stats of how many people are actually dying from the Taser, compared to those who just do the funky chicken and get locked up.


----------



## axeman

By Jim Bronskill And Sue Bailey, The Canadian Press
Figures on Taser use based on reports filed by the RCMP 


OTTAWA - Number of events reviewed: 606 

Dates: March 2002 to March 2005. Majority from 2004. 

Number of events by province and territory: B.C. 230; Alberta 95; Saskatchewan 152; Manitoba 21; Ontario 1; New Brunswick 9; Nova Scotia 8; P.E.I. 21; Newfoundland and Labrador 27; Northwest Territories 10; Yukon 11; Nunavut 21. 

Number of events in which Taser used: 563 

Number of events in which Taser unholstered but not used: 43 

Number of events in which suspect unarmed: 445 

Number of events in which suspect armed: 118 

(Source: Canadian Press analysis of RCMP Taser use reports) 

and etc as i will not bring over the entire text      

   
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/071118/national/taser_firings


----------



## Jarnhamar

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> That would be the people that you took an oath to defend is it?



Well said.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> One of the benefits of living in a democracy is that people who disagree with the police or the army or any of our public institutions have the right to their opinions, and the right not to be brutalized or killed if they hold a contrary opinion.






			
				Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Well said.



Not really.......he has every right to insult those whom he defends........that 'democracy' thing you speak about.


----------



## Teflon

> Not really.......he has every right to insult those whom he defends........that 'democracy' thing you speak about.



That being well said

I don't believe Tommy took an oath to defend anyone against becalled a window licking mouth breather or other such names anyways and is simply exercising his right to voice his opinion of those he defends


----------



## Greymatters

axeman said:
			
		

> Number of events by province and territory: B.C. *230*;  Alberta 95; Saskatchewan 152; Manitoba 21; Ontario 1; New Brunswick 9; Nova Scotia 8; P.E.I. 21; Newfoundland and Labrador 27; Northwest Territories 10; Yukon 11; Nunavut 21.



Uh... yeah BC, we're number #1?  With 230?

This is mind-boggling.  With only about 10% of the Canadian population, BC has 40% of incidents?  

Same with Saskatchewan, hell, even NWT, Yukon and Nunavut are surprising when comparing number of incidents versus population base.  Is the population in Yukon so violent that 11 people got tasered?

Why so few in Ontario when almost a third of Canada's population lives there?  Does that suggest everyone in Ontario gets along better than the rest of the country, or different training and/or policies on the use of tasers than the rest of the country?  And its a shock to hear 'zero' in Quebec.  

Any suggestions from resident LEOs as to why the numbers are the way they are? (Other than Western focus of RCMP police branches).

Are there statisitcs for provincial forces for Ontario and Quebec available?


----------



## J.J

The reason for the low stats in Ontario & Quebec is that the RCMP do not do any contract policing in the these provinces. Only Federal legislation like drugs, Customs/Excise, Immigration/Passport etc. We have our provincial/muni forces and their stats I would hazard a guess would be higher than the RCMP.



> Figures on Taser use based on reports filed by the RCMP


It helps to read everything


and yes Ontario gets along better with others  ;D


----------



## Greymatters

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Are there statisitcs for provincial forces for Ontario and Quebec available?



Yes it does help... I thought it was implied from this line, so I'll rephrase it.  

"Are there statistics for provincial forces in Ontario and Quebec available which be in supplement to the statistics already provided by the RCMP?"



> The reason for the low stats in Ontario & Quebec is that the RCMP do not do any contract policing in the these provinces.



Thanks, thought they did some, didnt know they did not do any contract policing there at all.


----------



## The_Falcon

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Yes it does help... I thought it was implied from this line, so I'll rephrase it.
> 
> "Are there statistics for provincial forces in Ontario and Quebec available which be in supplement to the statistics already provided by the RCMP?"
> 
> Thanks, thought they did some, didnt know they did not do any contract policing there at all.



Using the search terms "TASER Statistics Toronto" in google I found this report http://www.taser.com/research/statistics/Documents/Toronto%20Annual%20TASER%20ECD%202006%20Report%2002%2018%2007.pdf on Toronto's stats for TASER use.  Its pretty detailed.  Presently I don't think the Ontario Ministry of Community Safety publishes online stats of taser use in the province, altough they do compile stats.  You would probably need to file a FOI request to see the stats.


----------



## noneck

GreyMatters- The reason that the stats are so high for BC in this RCMP report is that fully 1/3 of the RCMP's uniformed strength is in BC, with the majority of that being posted in the LMD. LMD Detachmnets were also very quick to realize the effectiveness of the CEW and as a result have purchased and equipped the LMD Dets with a higher percentage of CEW's for roadable members. E Div also has quite a few National Use of Force Experts ( One of whom , a good friend) has been all over the media explaining the IMIM and the CEW. Hope that puts it in perspective for you....but then again stats are merely stats and they can be manipulated to show whatever you want!

Noneck


----------



## Jarnhamar

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Not really.......he has every right to insult those whom he defends........that 'democracy' thing you speak about.



He has the right but how professional does it make us look?
Media could put a dirty spin on it. 
"Afghan vet feels majority of Canadian citizens are bla bla".

I kinda feel the "US vs THEM" is an attitude we don't want in the CF, especially considering the support were getting from Canadian citizens.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> He has the right but how professional does it make us look?
> Media could put a dirty spin on it.
> "Afghan vet feels majority of Canadian citizens are bla bla".
> 
> I kinda feel the "US vs THEM" is an attitude we don't want in the CF, especially considering the support were getting from Canadian citizens.



Exactly  my point Flawed Design. Generally when police and military begin to think of those they serve as "window licking mouth breathers" or "sh!tbirds" or "scrots" they begin to treat everyone as an idiot or worse as a criminal. I can remember the first 10 years of my brother in laws career as an OPP officer when he referred to the general public in such terms all the time....it tainted his view and his attitude when he dealt with people...he didn't sound like a professional and most of the time he was not a pleasant person to listen to when he spoke. After he gained some maturity and life experience in dealing with people he rose to the rank of Staff Sergeant and retired as the head of large detachment. He had to deal daily with the civilian authorities of the town and work with a lot of agencies in order to run his detachment and protect the town. 
It's OK to differ in opinions, that was my whole point, but when you write off those who disagree with you as "window licking mouth breathers" (and he categorized the majority of the population as that) then you have assumed a superiority that is undeserved. If he's a member of the Forces he did take an oath to protect the people of this country and if he thinks they are all a bunch of idiots why does he bother?


----------



## axeman

how ever the term Proffesional Crime comes to mind with all this back and forthing 



1. A professional who expressly contracts to accomplish or avoid a specific result will, even in the absence of negligence, be liable for breach of contract if he or she fails to comply 
Fraud 
A professional may be held liable for the tort of fraud if the elements of that cause of action are present. These elements are as follows: 
1. the professional misrepresented a material fact; 
2. the professional knew that it was false, did not know whether it was true or false, or under the circumstances, should have known that it was false; 
3. the professional made it with intent to induce the client to rely on its truth; 
4. the client was injured when acting in justifiable reliance thereon. 

5. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 
A person who deliberately or recklessly inflicts severe emotional or mental suffering on another by means of outrageous conduct will be liable in tort for intentional infliction of emotional distress. ''Outrageous conduct'' is that which is so extreme in degree that it is beyond the bounds of decency, is regarded as atrocious, and is utterly intolerable in a civilized community. 

1. A duty on the part of the professional to use the degree of care that a reasonably careful member of the profession would use under like circumstances. 
2. A breach of that duty. 
3. Actual loss or damage to the plaintiff. 
4. A proximate causal connection between the professional's negligence and the resulting injury. 
Existence of Duty of Care 
The existence of a legal duty on the part of a defendant to perform services in accordance with professional standards is an essential element of a professional negligence action. Ordinarily, an undertaking to provide professional services gives rise to a legal duty to perform those services in compliance with a particular standard of care. That is, unless a specific standard is mandated by statute, a person who performs professional services must exercise that degree of knowledge, skill, and care usually possessed and exercised by other members of the profession under similar circumstances. The existence and scope of a professional's duty of care depends on two essential factors: 
1. whether the defendant expressly or impliedly agreed to render professional services; and 
2. whether the agreement or law under which a duty of care arises precludes the imposition of or limits that duty. 
Limitations on Scope of Duty 
A professional's duty of care is circumscribed by the contract that creates the duty, by the statute that imposes it, and by the range of the expertise and services that, by custom and practice in the business community, are ordinarily expected of persons who provide similar professional services 
Duty to Third Persons Existence of Duty 
Under certain circumstances, Florida courts have held that professionals owe a duty of care to third parties who are neither clients nor patients but are nevertheless affected by the conduct of the professional. 
Factors in Determination of Existence of Duty 
In determining whether a duty of care is owed to a third party who is neither a party to, nor a third-party beneficiary of, nor a person in privity with, a contract with a professional, the courts have balanced the following considerations: 
2. The extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff. 
3. The forseeability of harm to the plaintiff. 
4. The degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered the injury. 
5. The closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury. 
6. The moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct. 
7. The policy of preventing future harm. These factors are not exclusive; a court may examine other relevant factors that arise in a particular case. 
8. Breach of Fiduciary Duty 
Professionals may be held accountable in negligence for breach of a fiduciary duty. This standard of care is also higher than that for ordinary negligence; it requires the professional to act with honesty, candor, and fairness in dealing with clients. 
9. The general rule is that a professional who stands in a fiduciary relationship to a client is under a duty to make a full disclosure of all material facts to that person. Professionals who have been held to be fiduciaries include real estate brokers, attorneys, and physicians. 

10. Violation of Statute, Regulation, or Ordinance 
The violation of a statute, regulation, or ordinance that establishes a duty of care to protect a particular class of persons from a particular injury or type of injury is negligence per se; that is, proof of the violation demonstrates a negligent breach of the duty of care imposed


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Beg your pardon,..but, what is that cut and paste actually supposed to mean?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Beg your pardon,..but, what is that cut and paste actually supposed to mean?



....and what relevance does it have to the discussion?


----------



## Bigrex

Personally, I feel that the RCMP responding acted accordingly, they were called about a individual that was causing a scene, and at one point was throwing stuff around and ignored multiple people trying to help him and calm him down. Once they arrived, they probably told him to get down, but he started to walk away, which they couldn't allow, and was acting as if on drugs, so the best possible action was to taser him, ( paramedics are always called in afterwards). the other options were to pepper spray him, which usually affects the officers as well and takes time to evaporate, making the area unusable, or their asp batons, which can and will break bones or kill. The numerous cracks you hear in the video is just extra jolts being transmitted, after he continued to struggle, which is normal for individuals using drugs. What surprises me, is that people didn't say they beat him once handcuffed, when the officer was banging his asp baton on the ground near him to close it. This was just an unfortunate accident, nothing more, but their first concern is the safety of the officers and the public, not the suspect.


----------



## Greymatters

noneck said:
			
		

> Hope that puts it in perspective for you....but then again stats are merely stats and they can be manipulated to show whatever you want!



As here, they can be taken the wrong way without clarification or context.  Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I do understand where the the frustration is coming from mind you.

I don't think people realize
a. How utterly hard it is being a cop and being placed in the positions they are placed and,
b. How many MORE lives would be lost, both officer and taser victim, if the police officer used his pistol instead.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> I do understand where the the frustration is coming from mind you.
> 
> I don't think people realize
> a. How utterly hard it is being a cop and being placed in the positions they are placed and,
> b. How many MORE lives would be lost, both officer and taser victim, if the police officer used his pistol instead.



+1 no argument here.....when it comes time to handle nasty belligerent people it's gotta be tough.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Context: There is a Health Care workers dispute going on down here right now between the Gov't and the Union.


----------



## JesseWZ

I am going to have to agree with Flawed Design. Even in ordinary run of the mill policework such as issuing traffic tickets and the like, all they take is flak. Never mind if the situation was potentially life threatening to themselves or civilians, whatever action they take will be scrutinized with a 10 000X microscope and the legendary 20/20 hindsight.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

This is amazing that the family would apologise to the business where this incident took place yet ignore the fact that this guy caused a lot of problems for the RCMP. These guys used all the resources available and couldnt control this guy...in this case it looks like they had no other option than to use the taser.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071124/custody_death_071124/20071124?hub=TopStories

*Man who was Tasered and batoned by police dies*

This amateur photo shows Robert Knipstrom, 36, shortly after police allegedly beat and Tasered him.

CTV.ca News Staff 
  
Updated: Sat. Nov. 24 2007 7:46 PM ET 

A man who was hit with a baton, pepper-sprayed, and Tasered by police in Chilliwack, B.C., has died in hospital. 



Thirty-six-year-old Robert Knipstrom died Saturday morning, four days after he was confronted by police at a rental store. During the confrontation, police brought out batons, pepper-spray, and an electric stun gun known as a Taser before subduing Knipstrom.

Police say the case is considered an "in-custody" death and an RCMP investigation has been launched along with the B.C. Coroner's Office. 

RCMP Const. Lea-Anne Dunlop told CTV Newsnet on Saturday that "We're actually not sure if the Taser did make contact with the individual, but all of the levels of force and intervention options that were utilized are subject to the investigation at this time." 



Witnesses told CTV British Columbia last week Knipstrom had been driving erratically before entering a Chilliwack business. He appeared to be extremely agitated and became even more so when he learned that police had been called. 




When police arrived on the scene, "they encountered a very aggressive individual and the members, as we are informed at this point and time, were engaged in a very difficult struggle to control this person who was combative and aggressive," RCMP Assistant Commissioner Peter German told reporters shortly after Knipstrom was taken to hospital. 




When none of the police tactics worked, the two Mounties who initially responded had to call for back-up. 




According to police, Knipstrom was initially conscious and talking after he was taken into custody. But his condition worsened after he was taken to hospital. 

The RCMP have said it is not clear what led to the man's medical condition. 



On Saturday, the Mounties released a statement from Knipstrom's father Robert Thurston Knipstrom. 



He asked for privacy, but the statement also said: "The family is shocked and saddened by the recent incident between our son and the Chilliwack RCMP. We apologize on behalf of our son to the staff of the EZ Rentals for any distress that was caused because of this incident." 




The Mounties have been in the middle of a public firestorm since mid-October when a Polish immigrant died after another Taser incident with police. 




A video recording of the incident released earlier this month showed that RCMP officers used a Taser on Robert Dziekanski within 30 seconds of confronting him at Vancouver International Airport on Oct. 14. 



There are currently no less than seven provincial and federal public investigations under way regarding Taser use in Canada.


----------



## Thompson_JM

Jeeze... I stop checking in for two or three days and this place goes right batty.....  never thought I could have this sort of effect on anyone!  ;D



			
				Flawed Design said:
			
		

> I do understand where the the frustration is coming from mind you.
> 
> I don't think people realize
> a. How utterly hard it is being a cop and being placed in the positions they are placed and,
> b. How many MORE lives would be lost, both officer and taser victim, if the police officer used his pistol instead.



Yes. That is exactly where it is comming from.

Do I think the General public is stupid? 

as individuals, No.

as a collective... yeah... i kinda do... 

I notice more and more often, that there is this tendancy to just Dogpile like mad onto whatever the popular opinion is out there, and that it seems to be that all these people with NO training, and NO experiance are all of a sudden Experts......  (who here hasnt used the term "Sheeple" before?) 

Im not even going to get into the blind ignorance people have when it comes to the media... "but why would the news lie????" sheesh....

im no cop. But ive spent some time working in the feild though. downtown toronto where things can go from ok, to bat-@#$@ in a matter of seconds... and i didnt have a firearm, or even intermediate weapons to use....

ive just been lucky that the arrests i had to make were compliant.... and didnt really fight back... (well until after i had the one guy in cuffs... then all of a sudden he turned into a big man, and started spouting off.... etc...) but whatever... Did I start hitting him at that point? no... I let him spit all over the floor and all that, because as much as I wanted to thump him one, Im not going to attack someone who is already restrained for no reason... That is called Assault. its that fine line that law and security professionals dont cross... you use the minimum force.... sometimes all it takes is a firm conversation, other times it takes a firearm.. or anything in between...

and speaking as someone who has been on the pointing, and being pointed at end of firearm usage... sometimes you have act or react very quickly or else its gonna be too late.You have to think on your feet, thats for sure. 



			
				IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> That would be the people that you took an oath to defend is it? One of the benefits of living in a democracy is that people who disagree with the police or the army or any of our public institutions have the right to their opinions, and the right not to be brutalized or killed if they hold a contrary opinion.
> We also live by the laws that the majority of people have decided are good for the collective. If the collective wisdom of our country decides to get rid of tasers and encourage police to "go old school" that is what we'll do...we serve, we don't decide the rules.



Yes, and i will continue to serve as per, but I still have the right, to voice my opinion as well.... if CTV wants to run a story that some Afghan Vet is cheesed off and angry on an online message board then whoop de doo.. they can go run with that for all I care. Just because I wear the uniform, doesnt mean I forfit my right to get PO-ed when the public acts stupid. it just means I have to have the knowledge to know when to speak and when to keep my yap shut....

online? i think im ok... standing in CF's in front of a CBC news crew? not a smart move obviously... Thankfully I know the difference... which brings me to the next one...



			
				IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> ...Generally when police and military begin to think of those they serve as "window licking mouth breathers" or "sh!tbirds" or "scrots" they begin to treat everyone as an idiot or worse as a criminal. ...
> If he's a member of the Forces he did take an oath to protect the people of this country and if he thinks they are all a bunch of idiots why does he bother?...



Its because alot of the people Cops deal with are D!ckheads..... do i think that all of Canada is this way? No... do I or will I treat them all this way? No... once again, I can differentiate....  I get pissed off when people are ignorant of facts. and when said facts are presented, they choose to continue to Ignore them, in favor of ANYTHING that will support their veiwpoint no matter how back assward or out to lunch it may be.... 

Im accually a pretty liberal minded Conservative... (yes they do exist....) I try to keep an open mind, and willingly play devils advocate just so I can see the other perspective, or the story behind the story......    

And why do I continue to Serve? because although from time to time, the idiots of the world Piss me off, I do know there are alot of good people out there.... and theyre the ones worth fighting for.... but that doesnt mean I wont get cheesed off at society from time to time, when they decide to collectively turn their backs on those who are sworn to protect them..... for no reason other a slightly one sided video, and a bias media report. 

Have we all forgotten Somalia? All of us grouped into one big racist hatefull group. because of the Actions of very few individuals....
It doesnt take alot for the Sheeple to change their mind.....

and it wasnt that long ago that WE were on the bottom of that Dogpile.

but thats just my .02


----------



## zipperhead_cop

As a generality, _in my experience_, LEO's tend to subscribe to a "you're as good as your last performance" rule when dealing with people.  If you display yourself to be dangerous, unpredictable, belligerent or generally a dickweed, you will get treated as such.  Prior to poor behavior on your part, you will get treated professionally and politely.  The "client" is the one who dictates what face the officer adopts, and this decision process generally occurrs within seconds of first contact.  More and more frequently, it is well after the first contact is made, and the polite options are exhausted is when the average clown fires up his video (or the media chooses to start coverage from this point).
This ends up translating into the general population who feel they can chime off on police issues without having Clue #1 as to how it works in the real world.  So as such time as some chump decides to wax on about what we should or shouldn't do in a situation that they were not a part of, we tend to adjust our attitudes accordingly.  To whit, this thread.  All fairly educational, until misinformed individuals started making broad brush indictments of a situation that they had no clue about.  Therein ensues frustration on the LEO's parts and comments are made.  
As well, to build on Tommy's comments, I don't believe that there can be found carte blanche condemnations from LEO's against military members for any of a number of discreditable/criminal incidents that have occurred over the years.  Perhaps we are just looking for the same professional courtesy that we have afforded most of you.


----------



## 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 weapon_s 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

axeman said:
			
		

> 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

WR said:
			
		

> 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

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> 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.  



			
				Larry Strong said:
			
		

> 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.  



			
				Larry Strong said:
			
		

> 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)



			
				Larry Strong said:
			
		

> 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.  



			
				Larry Strong said:
			
		

> 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

bdog said:
			
		

> 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

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> 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

bdog said:
			
		

> 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

bdog said:
			
		

> 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

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> 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

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> 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

FastEddy said:
			
		

> 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

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I suspect we will have some answers after the what 5 or 6 inquiries/investigations wrap up.



Yeah, that after this guys reasoning skills jumped the rails he would have ignored directions in Polish as well.


----------



## Shamrock

FastEddy said:
			
		

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



You tell us.  My initial response is why the hell not.

However, the questions arise: have there been enough significant incidents within normal policing duties that require another less-lethal alternative within the Branch?  Would Tasers have remedied these situations and reduced the likelihood of harm to MP's?  

And the big one: would it be financially viable?  Given the turn-over in MP's into little m roles where they aren't required to carry any weapons on a daily basis and transition to civilian policing, would this training be put to effective use within the CF, or would it just be of benefit to the individual soldiers.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

As far as MP's go, I think they should have them.  We don't have our weapons necessarily because of the frequency of use.  If that was the case, you wouldn't see C-8's replacing shotguns province wide.  It is the _potential_ for use that matters.  At such time as a member gets tased instead of pepper sprayed, they will than that MP if they know the difference.
As for cost I could see them only being issued to supervisors, much the same as with us Muni guys.


----------



## larry Strong

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> 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.



Sorry I won’t buy that analogy. To try an equate a situation where in the one, the person goes thru numerous security checks, and who remains within an enclosed environment between 2 major international airports. With one where no one knows who the mook is, or where he has been or is coming from over in the “Wild West” of Afghanistan, where near everyone owns an AK and suicide bombers abound, is like trying to compare Apples and Oranges, There are no similarities.



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> 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 affect an arrest.  That is what happened.



That’s it isn’t it. You see the Taser as a means of making your job easier, not for what it was intended to be, an intermediate means between  a soft arrest (for lack of a better word) or lethal force.
Why would I drill a 30% sour well, where inhaling less than a pin head of a invisible gas will drop me in my tracks….because it’s my job, it’s what I chose to do and what I get paid to do. Same with you. You chose your career path for reasons of your own. No one twisted your arm and forced you to become one. If I don’t like it I can move on. If LEO members have a concern about getting hurt, well maybe they should look for a different job. Some things come with the paycheck. It might have looked worse on camera, however Mr. Dziekanski  could  still be alive today,.



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> We show up at cluster f$cks and make them better.  That is our purpose.



http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/10/23/bc-taser.html

.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/07/03/pepper-spray-parents.html

It’s got to be something to do with the air out there 






			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> 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. .





			
				Strike said:
			
		

> 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.



Apples and Oranges again. A good majority of the public might not have the technical skills to tell you how a plane lifts of the ground, however I am pretty sure most of us poor, beerbellied sharecroppers have the mental acumen to figure out the mechanics of how situations unfold, Not much rocket science there


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> That’s it isn’t it. You see the Taser as a means of making your job easier, not for what it was intended to be, an intermediate means between  a soft arrest (for lack of a better word) or lethal force.
> Why would I drill a 30% sour well, where inhaling less than a pin head of a invisible gas will drop me in my tracks….because it’s my job, it’s what I chose to do and what I get paid to do. Same with you. You chose your career path for reasons of your own. No one twisted your arm and forced you to become one. If I don’t like it I can move on. If LEO members have a concern about getting hurt, well maybe they should look for a different job. Some things come with the paycheck. .


Well Mr. Big Brave Man.........next time the gasses are swirling around show us what a hero cookie you are and don't don a mask like those around you.
You must be friggin' kidding me.



			
				Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Apples and Oranges again. A good majority of the public might not have the technical skills to tell you how a plane lifts of the ground, however I am pretty sure most of us poor, beerbellied sharecroppers have the mental acumen to figure out the mechanics of how situations unfold, Not much rocket science there



Really......list me the stages of inmate uprisings and the appropriate measures to counteract, please,.....just in case I've missed something over the last 18 years.



			
				Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Sorry I won’t buy that analogy. To try an equate a situation where in the one, the person goes thru numerous security checks, and who remains within an enclosed environment between 2 major international airports. With one where no one knows who the mook is, or where he has been or is coming from over in the “Wild West” of Afghanistan, where near everyone owns an AK and suicide bombers abound, is like trying to compare Apples and Oranges, There are no similarities.



I guess 9/11 was just a bad dream also......................please enlighten us how you know the difference between a "mook" and an average Canadian everyday person.
Careful how you word your response or a WDHP inquiry might kick in.....................


----------



## larry Strong

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Well Mr. Big Brave Man.........next time the gasses are swirling around show us what a hero cookie you are and don't don a mask like those around you.
> You must be friggin' kidding me.



You mask up when the situation warrants it, probably the same as when a Taser should be deployed.
 What exactly was his crime? The biggest crime he committed, that I can figure out is he was damaging some airport property while losing his cool. 
To follow this reasoning if someone comes into my house, and damages some of my propeerrty, I should be able to blast him. I don't think so. To the best of my knowledge the law states "minimum amount of force" and if I am not wrong that also applies to LEO's.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> You mask up when the situation warrants it, probably the same as when a Taser should be deployed.
> What exactly was his crime? The biggest crime he committed, that I can figure out is he was damaging some airport property while losing his cool.
> To follow this reasoning if someone comes into my house, and damages some of my propeerrty, I should be able to blast him. I don't think so. To the best of my knowledge the law states "minimum amount of force" and if I am not wrong that also applies to LEO's.



If you equate "blast him" to being tased than you are pathetically underqualified to even be in this conversation.....go back to the second post in this thread that was supposed to be about tasers and not the 'incident'.

You have every right to restrain someone in your house damaging property.......got that?

Now the kicker, I'll bet Mikes next paycheque that even if the officers had shown up with friggin' candles and singing Kumbya, that this guy had worked himself into "delirium' and was going to die anyway..........of course than the medical report would say stroke or aneurysm.

By the way, where is the thread where the LEO's on this site tell you how wells should be drilled?


----------



## The_Falcon

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> You mask up when the situation warrants it, probably the same as when a Taser should be deployed.
> What exactly was his crime? The biggest crime he committed, that I can figure out is he was damaging some airport property while losing his cool.
> To follow this reasoning if someone comes into my house, and damages some of my propeerrty, I should be able to blast him. I don't think so. To the best of my knowledge the law states "minimum amount of force" and if I am not wrong that also applies to LEO's.



And that was the minimum amount of force.  You can't have it both ways, you can't say the officers involved should have used the minimum amount of force required, and then in the same breath say they should have dogpiled him, in order to subdue him or resort to other pain compliance techniques which DON'T FRIGGEN WORK on individuals in the state of mind he was in.  Here watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIZQEc_o7Is and you can see how well pain compliance works on a determined individual.


----------



## Shamrock

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4X4aD9JQ48&feature=related

He got apologetic some fast.  

Somehow, I think that if Rob was required to deal the Tower of Mike alone, the outcome would have been a little less amicable.


----------



## medaid

Shamrock said:
			
		

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4X4aD9JQ48&feature=related
> He got apologetic some fast.



That's a classic video shown during Use of Force training. Seen it more then once. 



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> And that was the minimum amount of force.  You can't have it both ways, you can't say the officers involved should have used the minimum amount of force required, and then in the same breath say they should have dogpiled him, in order to subdue him or resort to other pain compliance techniques which DON'T FRIGGEN WORK on individuals in the state of mind he was in.  Here watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIZQEc_o7Is and you can see how well pain compliance works on a determined individual.



This one was not so much as pain compliance, as it was the irritant being applied at the beginning. People develop "tolerances" to OC, and at times under alcohol or other form of narcotics, they will still be able to fight through it like this guy was. He did wash some of it out of his eyes though, or attempted to in the washroom. 

Like I said, it took me, my partner, another 2 members to subdue a suspect who was smaller then the suspect in the first video. All of us about 200~ lbs with gear on, and we couldn't subdue him. He was fighting us even though he was still on the ground. OC was used, and compliance gained after that. Who ever thinks we can wrassel people to the ground and gain compliance 100% of the time is RTFOH. 



			
				Larry Strong said:
			
		

> You mask up when the situation warrants it, probably the same as when a Taser should be deployed.



because you, who've never been near a ECW or worked with LEOs know exactly when a ECW should be deployed? 




			
				Larry Strong said:
			
		

> What exactly was his crime?



I don't know... how about causing a disturbance... or if you'd like disturbing the peace. How about threatening with a weapon (stool), how about resisting arrest? How about obstruction? How about ignorance of the law is NOT an excuse? 



			
				Larry Strong said:
			
		

> To the best of my knowledge the law states "minimum amount of force" and if I am not wrong that also applies to LEO's.



Obviously, you did NOT watch the video. You have NOT read the thread thoroughly and you have obviously ignored ALL of the explanation by LEOs who are on this forum (one a Use of Force instructor) who have explained time and time again, that ECW (T.A.S.E.R) was acceptable as the MINIMUM use of force applied. I can't seem to find the Use of Force continuum or the Incident Management Intervention Module (IMIM) used by the RCMP anywhere on line, or maybe my GoogleFu just sucks right now. Regardless, if I had it, maybe I could better illustrate WHERE on the behaviour band Robert D. was on the day of the incident. 



			
				Larry Strong said:
			
		

> To follow this reasoning if someone comes into my house, and damages some of my property



You have the right to defend yourself. If you perceive the threat to be enough that your life was in danger, you have the right to use the minimum amount of force to defuse that situation. This means, if you were about to receive previous bodily harm or severe hurt and injury, you may use the appropriate level of force to end that possible harm or injury. In YOUR example, it is no where NEAR or CLOSE to what happened at the airport. 



			
				Larry Strong said:
			
		

> I should be able to blast him



If you mean "blast" as in, shooting and killing (because we all know that we're taught shoot to LIVE right?) then no, it wouldn't work. That would be Man Slaughter.



			
				Larry Strong said:
			
		

> I don't think so.



Neither do I.


----------



## Thompson_JM

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> By the way, where is the thread where the LEO's on this site tell you how wells should be drilled?



Cant be that hard bruce... I mean if any old tom dick or harry can see that 4 strong young mounties should just dogpile onto a nutter in the airport then us Drooling Idiots should all know that all you really need are some shovels.... its just a well.... dig till you have a hole... then build a little stone work around the top, and a roof and a thing to lower the bucket..... i mean, I saw a movie on it once.... where this guy dug a hole.... and water came up... and thats what happened in the video, so obviously that the way it is....   :


and having been to af-stan, AND worked security in toronto, I felt safer at times in the ghan... I had a weapon and ROE's to protect me.... as a guard in downtown toronto, I had my wits and a kevlar vest.... but both jobs i had the same mentality.... I come home at the end of my shift, and if comes down to me or him (the baddie) screw him. cause Im comming home... I dont get paid enough to be a punching bag....

Seriously Larry, You're so far out of your Arcs on this one that you're hitting range control.... 

but dont stop on my account.... Since you seem so fond of digging holes I say keep going... lets see how deep you can go...


----------



## The_Falcon

MedTech said:
			
		

> This one was not so much as pain compliance, as it was the irritant being applied at the beginning. People develop "tolerances" to OC, and at times under alcohol or other form of narcotics, they will still be able to fight through it like this guy was. He did wash some of it out of his eyes though, or attempted to in the washroom.


Not to nitpick to much  , yes OC acts as an irritant, however it is deployed as a pain compliance measure, because it "supposed" to hurt like hell and take the fight out of you (personal experience).  And your right about the tolerances, that why I posted the link to that video, to attempt to show Larry that people in altered mental states (alcohol, drugs, etc.), can either a)completely block out the effects of OC, b) fight through it despite the pain, or both. Was he trying to wash some of it off? Well he was trying, more likely just trying to cool his face off, but even still, the spray WAS NOT EFFECTIVE in incapacitating him, and they (NOPD) still dogpiled the guy (with way more than 4 officers) and he was still RESISTING.  The video also highlights the negatives of using OC and thats cross-contamination. 




> Like I said, it took me, my partner, another 2 members to subdue a suspect who was smaller then the suspect in the first video. All of us about 200~ lbs with gear on, and we couldn't subdue him. He was fighting us even though he was still on the ground. OC was used, and compliance gained after that. Who ever thinks we can wrassel people to the ground and gain compliance 100% of the time is RTFOH.



In your case, OC was effective, however like you just said you had to wrestle first, thereby increasing the risk of potential injuries to all parties, and increasing the chances for cross-contamination (which is no fun, and not something I would like to repeat unless its a training environment).


----------



## Koenigsegg

There is a picture of a Use Of Force diagram in the Gallery...if that is similar enough to the IMIM.  I think it is in the General album.  I would provide the link, but things are messed up at my end.


----------



## medaid

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Not to nitpick to much



Nitpicker . You can still fight after OC's been applied. Hell I had to under training. Grab my radio and call it in, it sucked. But you're right though, it's a form of "pain" compliance. In my case, if we had waited till a ECW arrived, I would not have ripped my SBA and I would not have gotten my pants dirty and boots scuffed... I worked really hard on my damn boots!!  :rage:


----------



## portcullisguy

axeman said:
			
		

> AFTER doing research online with emed professionals the taser isnt listed as a cause of death its listed as a FACTOR  of death. "the fall didnt kill the person  the way his skull colapsed on his brain was a factor in his death ,.the way his heart wascrushed by the ribcagethat was a factor in his death ETC . you can bury the basic facts but the facts are that this is not a safe alternative to a real bullet.



You bring up a good point.  In a basic law class they bring up the issue of cause and effect with this age-old question:  "If a man who jumps off a building passes a window at the exact moment another man fires a gun out of the window, killing the falling man, is he guilty for causing his death?"

Is the gunshot wound merely a factor in the inevitable death of the falling man?  Or is it the direct cause?  Afterall, it's possible the person falling could have survived (if the building wasn't that tall, or a bunch of trees break the fall, etc).


----------



## Old Ranger

Tasers..Yes!  they are a direct influence on the individual that needs to learn compliance.

Spray is indirect and affects innocents with respiratory problems.

Zap someone and if they need to go in my Ambulance, I'm back in service like normal.
Spray someone, and if they need to go in my Ambulance, I'm out of Service for hours to get all that crap out, so it doesn't harm my next patient.

How about remote control tasers attached to repeat offenders.... >


----------



## JesseWZ

Old Ranger said:
			
		

> How about remote control tasers attached to repeat offenders.... >


Now THAT is an idea I could live with.  ;D


----------



## medaid

Old Ranger said:
			
		

> How about remote control tasers attached to repeat offenders.... >



Like a pacemaker? Rather a _peacemaker_? "Sir, stop immediately or I will..." (activates the remote) "AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH"


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Heheheheh.  Soon, my young apprentice.  All in good time.  Once we control the Senate we will be unstoppable!


----------



## Shamrock

Amputation is cheaper and more effective.  Remove the means, remove the temptation.


----------



## Thompson_JM

Two Words..

Judge Dredd...

and you get to utter cool catch phrases like " I AM THE LAW!"


----------



## medaid

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Heheheheh.  Soon, my young apprentice.  All in good time.  Once we control the Senate we will be unstoppable!




_These are NOT the T.A.S.E.R.s that you're looking for_


----------



## zipperhead_cop

So, as taser opinions go, I think I trust the Canadian Police Association.  I came across this open letter to Sen. Colin Kenny:

http://www.oppa.on.ca/images/homepage/Senator%20Kenny%20November%2028-letterhead.pdf
November 28, 2007
The Honourable Colin Kenny, Senator
Senate of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A4
Fax (613) 996-3737
Email kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca

Dear Senator Kenny:
We are writing on behalf of the 57,000 members of the Canadian Police Association, to voice our extreme displeasure and disappointment over your recent public commentary concerning Conducted Energy Devices (CED).
It is unfortunate that you have chosen to venture outside of your mandate as Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, to comment on matters which are apparently, from your comments, beyond your area of expertise and understanding. It is irresponsible of you to suggest, without any regard for the body of scientific knowledge concerning these devices, nor any understanding of police training and procedures related to same, that a moratorium should be imposed on the use of CEDs.
We consider this to be an unwarranted and misinformed intrusion into legitimate health and safety concerns of Canada’s front line police personnel. Those incidents which have given rise to recent public attention are the subject of multiple layers of investigation and oversight, and the public can be assured that the interests of all Canadians will be accounted for in these processes.
Furthermore, the officers involved in these incidents have the right, in our democracy, to the presumption of innocence pending the outcome of these inquiries. Your commentary only serves to undermine this presumption.
We would respectfully encourage you to focus your efforts and attention on the important questions related to the adequacy of the security measures related to our borders, which certainly appear to be less than satisfactory at present.
Sincerely,

Tony Cannavino
President
c.c.: National Press Gallery

For what it's worth, anyhoo.


----------



## Greymatters

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Furthermore, the officers involved in these incidents have the right, in our democracy, to the presumption of innocence pending the outcome of these inquiries. Your commentary only serves to undermine this presumption.



The most rational comment Ive read on this thread so far...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

If that isn't a "Stay in your lane" letter I don't know what is.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

This looks fairly reasonable to me.

RCMP should restrict taser use immediately: report
BRODIE FENLON 

Globe and Mail Update

December 12, 2007 at 1:09 PM EST

The RCMP should immediately restrict the use of tasers to only the most serious encounters with people who are combative or pose a risk of “death or grievous bodily harm,” the head of the force's public complaints commission says.

The recommendation is among 10 made by commission chairman Paul Kennedy in an interim report released Wednesday.

However, there is no call for a moratorium or outright ban on tasers, which is sure to please RCMP Commissioner William Elliott, who said on Tuesday that such a ban would “compromise both officer and public safety.”

Mr. Kennedy was asked to advise on the use of the electric stun gun after the death of Polish citizen Robert Dziekanski at the Vancouver airport on Oct. 14.

  Among his recommendations: 

• reclassify the taser as an “impact weapon” rather than an “intermediate” device such as pepper spray, which changes how officers use it according to the RCMP's use of force model. In other words, the taser should only be used in situations where a person is being “combative” or poses a risk of “death or grievous bodily harm” to the officer, themselves or the general public.

• change the RCMP's taser training program to reflect its status as an impact weapon 

• require recertification in taser use every two years 

• require and enforce stricter reporting requirements every time a taser is used 

“The most powerful asset in a police officer's arsenal is public support. Anything that erodes that support reduces the ability of officers to successfully perform their duties on behalf of the public,” Mr. Kennedy said in a release.

Liberal public safety critic Ujjal Dosanjh said he welcomes the proposed restriction, which he said “goes a long way to deal with the issues that might be dealt with by a moratorium.”

“So I am satisfied, but I believe all of the recommendations need to be embraced by the RCMP,” Mr. Dosanjh told CBC News.

NDP Leader Jack Layton, who has called for a moratorium, has expressed skepticism that a moratorium on tasers would endanger the safety of the public or officers.

“Before the invention of tasers, police officers had certain approaches that they used. We feel that while we figure out what's really going on with tasers and taser use here in Canada, that a moratorium makes sense,” he said.

But Commissioner Elliott said that barring the use of tasers might force officers to use guns, batons, or other methods to apprehend people in some cases. “If that tool is not available, that, in and of itself, could result in a situation where the individual being apprehended, or the officer, might well be injured,” he said.

Separate reviews into Mr. Dziekanski's death are being conducted by the Canada Border Services Agency, the B.C. coroner and the Vancouver Airport Authority, as well as a public inquiry that has been promised by the B.C. government.

Mr. Kennedy's report is just one of several examinations of the RCMP expected this week. A task force on restructuring the force, headed by lawyer David Brown, is expected to report Friday.

With reports from Campbell Clark


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Bunch of clods that don't know what they are talking about.  Tasers don't cause injuries.  You can't put them at the same level as a baton.  
But it's a big "whatever".  It's a minor point of articulation in a report.  Much time wasting.
And don't forget, Dziekanski was demonstrating assaultive behavior, so he would have gotten tased in any case.

As for this tripe:


			
				IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> “Before the invention of tasers, police officers had certain approaches that they used. We feel that while we figure out what's really going on with tasers and taser use here in Canada, that a moratorium makes sense,” he said.



How about shut up until *YOU* figure out how they work?  But since when did knowing what he was talking about stop Ojacka Bin Layton from chiming off in public?  But once again, he shows that it is his feeling that police safety should take a back seat to knee jerk uninformed reactionism.  Or just further pandering to his strange universe of constituents.


----------



## riggermade

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> This looks fairly reasonable to me.
> 
> RCMP should restrict taser use immediately: report
> BRODIE FENLON
> 
> Globe and Mail Update
> 
> December 12, 2007 at 1:09 PM EST
> 
> The RCMP should immediately restrict the use of tasers to only the most serious encounters with people who are combative or pose a risk of “death or grievous bodily harm,” the head of the force's public complaints commission says. Quote
> 
> Not that I am qualified here but if I went to an airport and there was some big Polish guy throwing furniture and computers around then I just might consider that as a risk to cause grievous bodily harm.


----------



## Rodahn

It is my belief that taser's are still a valuable tool for the LEO's, based upon my last medical training (although the PA's could provide better information) I think that they should be considered as a usage prior to deadly force. Reasoning is that the heart is controlled by electrical impulses, and the usage of the taser could possibly disrupt the signals the body provides. As my last medical training stated once starting CPR you carry on until de-fibrillation restarts the heart or the person is declared deceased.

(Course run this past summer)....


----------



## QV

I have been tasered in training along with thousands of other police officers over the years and I am still alive.  It is very clear that there are always other circumstances (drugs, weak heart) at play when someone dies in custody after a taser or other UOF option was deployed.  It sucks but IMHO that is the risk you take when you want to fight with the police.  

This same crap happened when OC first came out and the storm eventually subsided.  This shit storm will eventually blow over like everthing else.  No use getting all worked up about it, as matter of fact we should be used to this chicken shit in our society by now.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

QV said:
			
		

> No use getting all worked up about it, as matter of fact we should be used to this chicken shit in our society by now.



Agreed, but the taste of BS still isn't a pleasant one, and it is still hard to swallow.  



			
				Rodahn said:
			
		

> I think that they should be considered as a usage prior to deadly force. Reasoning is that the heart is controlled by electrical impulses, and the usage of the taser could possibly disrupt the signals the body provides.



I don't know why this concept is so hard for people.  THE TASER DOESN'T DAMAGE TISSUE OR CAUSE INJURIES!  Yes, it is a stressful event, but so is getting dropped on your ass and bent into a pretzel.  
The issue of initiating fibrillation is something that was extensively looked at in the development of the taser, and in cases where a death has occurred it has not been found to be the cause.


----------



## KevinB

Lets not let rational informed opion into this ZC


----------



## zipperhead_cop

My bad.


----------



## Munxcub

We sure wouldn't want facts to get in the way of all this proof.


----------



## Rick Delaney 1

The fact is if you do as the officer tells you,then you won,t get tasered ,shot or some other unpleasant experience,We as a society ask these people to deal with people and situations that we don,t know how or don,t want to deal with.Often this requires split second decisions that we can pick apart for months.Unfortunately at times accidents happen in situations that the police didn,t create.Like our military We train and equip these fine people and I think that it,s about time that we stand behind them instead of being another obstacle in front of them.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Shared with usual disclaimers.

The Chronicle Herald Published:       2007-12-14

RCMP to curb Taser use

Critical report urges policy change

By STEPHEN THORNE The Canadian Press

OTTAWA — The RCMP will restrict its use of Tasers, just days after a critical report said the national police force was firing the stun guns too often.

The Mounties say they will more clearly define use-of-force terminology and limit Taser use to situations where ``a subject is displaying combative behaviours or is being actively resistant.''
RCMP bosses have issued an operational bulletin outlining the policy changes and will include them in future Taser training.

The announcement came Friday, two days after the RCMP complaints commissioner issued recommendations to drastically curb the Mounties' increasing reliance on the electronic stun guns.

Paul Kennedy's 53-page report said the 50,000-volt Tasers should only be used when suspects are ``combative'' or pose a risk of ``death or grievous bodily harm.''

``The RCMP recognizes the need to take action on the issues raised in the report and is committed to making immediate improvements in a number of areas,'' RCMP Commissioner William Elliott said in a statement.

Kennedy's report was commissioned amid an international furor surrounding the case of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski, who died Oct. 14 after he was repeatedly Tasered and pinned to the floor by RCMP officers at Vancouver International Airport.

Taser use ``has expanded to include subduing resistant subjects who do not pose a threat of grievous bodily harm or death and on whom the use of lethal force would not be an option,'' Kennedy said in an interim report released Wednesday.

He said Taser restrictions should apply in cases of so-called ``excited delirium,'' in which suspects are in a heart-pounding state of agitation. Excited delirium has been repeatedly blamed for sudden deaths after Tasers were used.

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day asked Kennedy last month to look at how RCMP use the electronic guns, which can be fired from a distance of several metres or applied at close range.

The document stopped short of calling for a moratorium on the widely used stun guns. Kennedy, whose full report is due next summer, said Tasers should be considered an ``impact weapon'' rather than an intermediate tool such as pepper spray or a baton.

Until now, the six-level police force protocol began with officer presence and built in intensity to: verbal commands; empty-hand control techniques; use of pepper spray, batons or Tasers; less-lethal force such as weapons that fire bean bags or rubber bullets; and finally deadly force.

Mounties have fired the electronic guns over 3,000 times since their introduction in December 2001. Yet Kennedy found no annual report has been produced, nor has the police force thoroughly examined its statistical information on Taser use in developing policy.

In keeping with Kennedy's recommendations, the Mounties will enhance their Taser data base, establish more robust reporting and analysis, and file quarterly and annual reports on all use-of-force incidents, including those involving Tasers.

Elliott said preliminary reviews had suggested training and policy were adequate. But that apparently changed in light of Kennedy's report.

``We will also establish a position in our national headquarters to better co-ordinate these critical aspects of our use-of-force policy framework to ensure accountability at all levels,'' said the commissioner's statement.

``The RCMP recognizes the importance of research in the development of use-of-force policies and the assessment of models, tools and techniques.''

The force will continue working with medical experts and police organizations ``to examine medical, legal, and social aspects of use-of-force issues, including (Tasers), and their impact on persons suffering from excited delirium syndrome.''

Some 2,800 Tasers are being used by more than 9,100 RCMP members across the country.

Dziekanski is recorded as the 18th person in Canada to die in recent years after being hit by a Taser.

Taser International, makers of the device, stress that the weapons have never been directly blamed for a death.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Yup, and the next punk that ends up with a cracked skull and busted bones will be suing & complaining that they should have tazed him instead of using their batons.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

> The Mounties say they will more clearly define use-of-force terminology and limit Taser use to situations where ``a subject is displaying combative behaviours or is being actively resistant.''
> RCMP bosses have issued an operational bulletin outlining the policy changes and will include them in future Taser training.



Excellent!  They hold a big news conference and feed the sheep a dressed up version of "we're still going to use them the same way we were before".  For once the media having no clue as to what it's reporting works for the good guys.  



> Dziekanski is recorded as the 18th person in Canada to die in recent years after being hit by a Taser.



In 2005 2,923 people in Canada died in motor vehicle incidents.  43,443 in the United States!  I guess a moritorium on cars and trucks should be issued, because what is more important; going places or saving lives?  
Stats


----------



## Roy Harding

"18th person in Canada to die in recent years".

I'd be interested to know how many times a TASER was deployed in those same years.  In other words - do those 18 deaths represent 1 in 10 TASER incidents?  1 in 1000?  1 in 1,000,000?

I'm willing to do the research, and report back here - but I have no idea where to find this information.  Anybody got any ideas regarding where to start?


Roy


----------



## zipperhead_cop

That sort of use-of-force info is generally kept by the training branches of the various Departments.  I don't think it is public info, although maybe you could dig it up for the RCMP, since they are federal.  I am also of the belief that there is a national use of force symposium (meeting? conference?) every year or so where these sort of issues are bandied about.  As for whether or not it is published is anyones guess.  
I know around our parts they get used all the time, and there isn't anything too sexy to report about them.


----------



## Roy Harding

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> That sort of use-of-force info is generally kept by the training branches of the various Departments.  I don't think it is public info, although maybe you could dig it up for the RCMP, since they are federal.  I am also of the belief that there is a national use of force symposium (meeting? conference?) every year or so where these sort of issues are bandied about.  As for whether or not it is published is anyones guess.
> _*I know around our parts they get used all the time, and there isn't anything too sexy to report about them. *_


(Emphasis added by Roy)

Thanks, ZC - I'll start with the RCMP and see what is available publicly.

Your last sentence makes the point that I _THINK_ the stats will show - IE, TASERS have been used THIS many times, and only THIS many deaths resulted from it (and of those 18 THIS many were attributed directly to the use of the TASER).  I guess what I'm driving at is that if the chances of dying from being TASER'd are less than the chances of winning the lottery, then there IS no problem.  On the other hand, if the stats say something else, then TASER use MAY need to be reconsidered.

I've followed this issue with interest, and it has frustrated me that such statistics aren't out there in the public realm (or at least I haven't run across them - and I read a LOT of newspapers every day)  - you get vague stats such as "18th death in recent years", which are MEANINGLESS unless placed in context.  It's the context I'm interested in.

If I dig anything up (keep in mind that I'm a rank amateur at this type of thing), I'll be sure to post it here.


Roy


----------



## Koenigsegg

In what IN HOC SIGNO posted, it is stated that tasers have been fired by the RCMP over 3000 times since their adopting in 2001.  So at least going off that, those 18 deaths make the chances of dieing from them no worse than 0.6%.  No matter how you look at it, it CAN NOT be worse than that.  In fact, it isn't even that bad, because the 3000 is less than what they have really fired.  That number is just the RCMP, and the 18 deaths are for all across Canada, and not just by the RCMP (Or so I assume).

So the odds are less than 0.6%.


----------



## Roy Harding

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> In what IN HOC SIGNO posted, it is stated that tasers have been fired by the RCMP over 3000 times since their adopting in 2001.  So at least going off that, those 18 deaths make the chances of dieing from them no worse than 0.6%.  No matter how you look at it, it CAN NOT be worse than that.  In fact, it isn't even that bad, because the 3000 is less than what they have really fired.  That number is just the RCMP, and the 18 deaths are for all across Canada, and not just by the RCMP (Or so I assume).
> 
> So the odds are less than 0.6%.



Thank you.

I saw that - but the 18 deaths reported are NOT all from RCMP incidents, therefore the .6% figure you calculated MUST actually be lower.  I'm interested in the totality of the issue - IE - X Number of TASER "pulses" fired since year X - in the same time X deaths happened during the incidents, of those X deaths, X are directly attributable to TASER use.

You've made a good start, based on the available material - once again, thank you.


Roy


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> and of those 18 THIS many were attributed directly to the use of the TASER



From what I understand, there has never been a death directly linked to the taser. There have been in-custody deaths where the taser happened to be deployed, but as mentioned a few times, they would likely have died in any case.  
Somewhat unrelated, but still passingly pertinent:
A few years back we had a guy die in a bar fight from a single punch to the head.  This person had been warned by his doctor that he had a very thin blood vessel in his brain, and that he should avoid physical altercations.  This came up, because the guy was a dickhead and like to pick fights.  He was about 6'1" and 300 lbs.  Typical bar bully.  
However, he still goes to one of our dive bars (The Little Memphis, for you locals) and proceeds to make sexually derogatory comments to a woman whose boyfriend is quite a bit smaller.  Boyfriend steps up and tub-o-goo challenges him to a fight.  Boyfriend clocks him, T-O-G goes down.  Couple leaves, not thinking much of anything.  
I guess my point is that there are people out there who have known physical conditions that most people would avoid aggravating.  But these people cannot help their inner-dickwad, and still do what they feel like doing.  Invariably, they run afoul of the law and we have to deal with them.  So when they do end up calving out, we get panned for "excessive force" or "brutality".  Funny, these peoples family wouldn't spit on their face if it was on fire, but once the popo is involved, the dollar signs start flying around and the media is all too happy to feed the flames.  
Here is a guaranteed statistic:  100% of people who don't act like idiots will not be injured by a taser weapon.


----------



## Koenigsegg

You're very welcome.  I just thought I would give you and others something to fall back on just in case more indepth information is harder to come across.


----------



## Koenigsegg

Article link:
http://www.hour.ca/news/news.aspx?iIDArticle=13498

And here is a relevent part of said article:

"We don't have a policy about when you use and when you don't use," explains Montreal police spokesman Sgt. Ian Lafrenière. "Unfortunately for police, you never know [what you may be confronted with]. And just because you have the recipe doesn't mean you're going to make the perfect cake."

He cites a personal example of when simple physical force was not enough. "There was this one girl at La Ronde who was 15 years old, and we were six of us on her and we still couldn't control her. You never know what drugs they are on sometimes."

And therein lies the problem: It is starting to become apparent that the people who are most likely to be encountered by police in a situation that would cause a TASER to be used are the very people who should not be TASEd.

A recent American medical study (Strote and Huston) identified factors associated with the sudden death of 37 men, aged 18-50, after having been subjected to a TASER: "Illegal substance use was found on toxicology screening for 78.4 per cent; within that group, 86.2 per cent were found to have been using stimulants. A diagnosis of excited delirium was given for 75.7 per cent of the cases. Use of a TASER was considered a potential or contributory cause of death in 27 per cent." In short, psychological and medical factors - in combination with various restraint practices, as we will doubtless see in the case of Dziekanski - play an enormous role in TASER fatality rates, considerations that don't exist in usage policy because usage policy itself is largely non-existent."


I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but from what I have heard police officers saying in my area...what the author is saying has merit.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Senator Kenny wading in again this morning on the Taser question.

Published: 2007-12-15 in The Chronicle Hearld, Halifax NS
Time for a strategic retreat on Taser use 


By COLIN KENNY 


RCMP Commissioner William Elliott says he doesn’t want a moratorium on the use of Tasers. Nor does Paul Kennedy, Commissioner for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, recommend a moratorium in his interim report on Taser use within the agency. 

So why am I recommending a self-imposed RCMP moratorium on the use of Tasers? Because there is no way of getting to Mr. Kennedy’s goal – more restrained and capable use of Tasers by the RCMP – without one.

There are two hurdles to making Taser use beneficial that a moratorium would help solve. The first is that too many RCMP officers are undertrained in the use of Tasers, which Mr. Kennedy points out. 

Until the RCMP can assure the public that every officer using a Taser is well trained and understands the consequences of misuse, the officers should not be using them. 

Second, the RCMP is using outdated Tasers that will need to be replaced. That will take time – to order the new Tasers, get them delivered, and train personnel in their use. 

The Taser – manufactured by Taser International Ltd. – is meant to be a less lethal alternative to the gun, to be used when other options such as words, headlocks, pepper spray and batons aren’t up to defusing situations in which the physical safety of officers or other people appears to be in danger.

That last part is important – no police force should be using Tasers in situations in which someone’s personal safety isn’t threatened. Yet Mr. Kennedy’s report reveals that RCMP policy allows for the use of Tasers even in cases of simple resistance, rather than in combative situations in which there is risk that an officer or anyone else could be killed or suffer grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Kennedy believes that Tasers should not be used in simple cases of resistance. He is dead right.

He also laments the fact that officers as well as their supervisors should be given better training on the use of these weapons. But here is where he confuses me. When the RCMP first began using Tasers, officers were required to retrain on them every year – as they are required to retrain on the use of pistols, pepper spray and batons. Somehow the requirement slipped to every three years on Tasers, while it stayed at one year for the other control devices.

That makes no sense. Mr. Kennedy recommends recertification every two years. Surely if baton and pepper spray retraining is required every year, Tasers should be as well. 

The Auditor General released a report in 2006 emphasized that too many RCMP officers are young, and too many are not fully trained. The report said that 16 per cent of newly graduated cadets had not received what is supposed to be mandatory field coaching – a valuable form of mentoring. She also noted that 12 per cent of field coaches had less than two years of experience in the force, and that 18 per cent of those coaches hadn’t taken the courses that are supposed to be required to do the coaching. 

These gaps can’t be redressed without a moratorium. Nor can the fact that, as Mr. Kennedy points out, most RCMP supervisors have not, themselves, been trained in the use of Tasers. They should be, if they are going to make the decision as to when their units are sufficiently trained on the weapons to use them wisely.

They should also be using modern Tasers, not the outdated Tasers that the cash-strapped RCMP is stuck with. The older model they use, the M26, doesn’t accommodate audio-video equipment. The modern X26 Tasers allows users to add two ounces of audio-video equipment for approximately $400 a weapon. This equipment has been available since 2005. It records everything that the Taser is pointed at as soon as the safety lock comes off. 

How much more likely is a police officer to show restraint in the use of a Taser if everything that officer does is going to be recorded? I suggest there would be a lot more restraint. Furthermore, reviewing officers will have a clear picture of what transpired from the officer’s perspective. 

City police forces in places like Ottawa and Edmonton use Tasers equipped with audio-video equipment, which helps turn the Taser into what it is capable of being: an effective, civilized alternative to riddling suspects with bullets.

It is crucial that the RCMP convince the public that these Tasers – which when used correctly and with restraint can save lives – aren’t going to be misused. If there are many other mishaps with Tasers, the public won’t be calling for a moratorium – it will be calling for abolition.

This is supposed to be a law-and-order government. It needs to quit starving the RCMP of funds and allow the force to buy up-to-date Tasers, or Canadians are going to lose an important law enforcement device. 

Our police officers are often confronted with situations in which it is extremely difficult to tell whether there is a hidden weapon or hidden madness. Far too many Canadian police officers have died when people they were trying to treat with civility declined to return the favour. 

These officers live through terrifying moments that most of us can’t imagine. But none of this justifies police using Tasers improperly. The public won’t put up with it, nor should it.

We’ve got to stop using them until every Canadian inside and outside our police forces knows they are being used properly. The RCMP needs to retreat before it advances in the use of Tasers. A little short-term pain will lead to a lot of long-term gain. 

( kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca)

’If there are many other mishaps with Tasers, the public won’t be 

calling for a moratorium – it will be calling for abolition.’


----------



## Roy Harding

I've been digging, but although there are many sources which list the number of deaths in various jurisdictions, there are none I could find which would indicate how many non-lethal Taser deployments were conducted in those jurisdictions.  There doesn't seem to be anybody keeping track of such information.  

It is my understanding that some (perhaps MOST?) Police Services require a report of some kind after an Officer deploys his Taser - so the statistics exist (perhaps only in individual departments), but aren't easily discovered (by an amateur at any rate).  I suspect an Access To Information request may have to be made to get at this information - a route I'm not willing to personally go down.  I don't have the time or resources to devote to such an endeavour.  I have written to various MSM publications suggesting that such research may be worthwhile for them.  We'll see.

In the meantime, during my poking around, I came across MANY reports regarding Taser use.  I found this one both very informative, and as it was completed by a Canadian group (Canadian Police Research Centre), I thought others here may find it as interesting as I:

http://www.taser.com/research/statistics/Documents/Canadian%20Police%20Research%20Centre%20FINAL%208%2005.pdf

Although the document is located at www.taser.com it was not completed at the behest of the Taser industry and makes, I believe, an unbiased assessment of Taser use.

I will continue to look for statistics regarding number of Taser deployments compared to number of Taser involved deaths, but I don't hold much hope for success, at least on the open sources available to me (coupled with my admitted amateur non-existent research abilities).

Roy

Edited to add:  right after posting the above, didn't I come across this little gem:  http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=169acb15-4a5f-417e-840b-a8e12e1a7bc1

The search continues.


----------



## bigguy

As a police veteran of 35yrs service I think the Taser is a good weapon when used properly and under the correct conditions. There are times when it's use has ended in death but the alternative is the sidearm which would cause many more deaths.

There has been discussion about the "old days" before Tasers. I went thru those old days when the only weapon was the 38 spl. To apprehend someone you had three options: 1) talk them into submission 2) trick them into submission 3) fight them into submission 4) the last resort only when used to prevent loss of life was to shoot . In those days we did our best  to do the job with options 1 and/or 2 because using 3 usually hurt like hell.   I think today that the new breed is tending to skip the first 2 options and to go directly to the Taser as  it lowers the personal risk factor and removes the need to get down and dirty.  There are still many officers out there everyday not equipped with a Taser and able to survive

Chief Closs and the Kingston Police have learned the hard way that Tasers kill  and they have studied the matter at great length and their policies reflect that. By limiting the use of Tasers  to supervisors and ERT they are ensuring the weapon is being used by *experienced * and well trained officers and thereby reducing then risk of causing more deaths.  But as the Auditor General says, there are alot of inexperienced officers out there. This will be the situation  for some time as the attrition rate in all Forces nation wide will continue to be high for several years  .

I think LEA's have to re-think this issue and then re-tool their training programs to instill the idea that Tasers are far more lethal than originally thought and that their use has to be much more restricted.  

The world is changing and the new breed officer is faced with many more challenges than we "oldtimers" ever were. Today's officers are better educated, better trained, better equipped and better paid but I don't envy their job one bit. I wish them all the best.

bigguy


----------



## a_majoor

While the thrust in Canada seems to be to limit or eliminate the use of Tasers (and reduce the number of "use of force" options), in the United States things are swinging the other way:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/1129taser1128.html#



> *Taser parties stunning success with female clients*
> Social events aimed at female clients and their personal safety
> 
> Nicole Gomez
> Special for The Republic
> Nov. 29, 2007 12:00 AM
> Pack up your Tupperware, and get ready for a new kind of party.
> 
> Dana Shafman, founder of Shieldher Inc., has recently started sponsoring Taser parties, giving women a chance to buy Tasers for $300, or $350 with a laser beam to help with aiming.
> 
> Shafman's parties allow women to get together to discuss concerns and learn about the Taser C2, the newest consumer Taser that is similar to the device police officers use. "I felt that we have Tupperware parties and candle parties to protect our food and house, so why not have a Taser party to learn how to protect our lives and bodies," Shafman said.
> 
> She has had parties in Phoenix and Scottsdale by invitation. Guests have the opportunity to shoot the Taser for the first time at a cardboard cutout during the parties. For safety reasons, no alcohol is served and no one is actually Tasered.
> 
> After her first Taser party in Scottsdale recently, Shafman said, "I think the party was spectacular. It opened up opportunities for people to ask questions and get informed about the Tasers."
> 
> Debi McMahon was excited to get her Taser activated.
> 
> "I feel like I'm 6 feet tall and 250 pounds. I'm going to buy one for my mom. It's going to be her 81st birthday present."
> 
> The Tasers come in color choices of pink, blue, silver or black, which caused the women at the Scottsdale party to worry that their small children might see the colored Tasers as a toy.
> 
> Caily Scheur, a mother of two, said, "I want to protect my children from (the Taser) just as much as I want to protect myself by using it."
> 
> Scheur said that once the Taser enters her house, she will keep it in a locked box under her bed with the key high enough so her children cannot open the box.
> 
> But some of the other women planned on telling their children what the Taser does and why it should be handled only by Mommy and Daddy.
> 
> Shafman created Shieldher Inc. in February and became the only Taser party coordinator in the nation, she said.
> 
> Shafman used to sleep with knives in her nightstand for protection until she came across Taser International Inc.
> 
> "I did not understand why they weren't doing marketing," she said, so the idea materialized to sell the Tasers at house parties or office parties. Shafman learned more about the product and volunteered to be shot by a Taser so she could inform others about the product. "I want to provide something that will allow people to protect themselves in and outside of their house."
> 
> The Taser C2, which is not considered a firearm, comes with a manual, training DVD and one replaceable C2 cartridge that loads into the device. The cartridge contains two small probes that can reach an attacker up to 15 feet away. After the trigger safety cover is released, the Taser is aimed at the target and the push of a button to activates the probes. The small probes either attach onto the attacker's clothing or into their skin, releasing up to 50,000 volts in their body and rendering them motionless. The Taser sends volts for a maximum of 30 seconds, compared with police Tasers that only last for five seconds. Shafman said the consumer model's voltage lasts longer to give the owner more time to escape.
> 
> There is no special certification to own one, but owners must be at least 18 and pass a background check before the Taser can be activated. A call to Taser headquarters or accessing their Web site will activate the device once the background check is complete. Shafman warned that the device is prohibited in seven states, so check the Taser Web site for more information before purchasing or traveling with it.
> 
> "As a dealer, I take a cut of all the Taser C2's and Taser C2 accessories that pass through Shieldher," she said.
> 
> Shafman also said the party hosts will receive a free Taser if 10 devices are sold during their party. She hopes to get the parties going nationwide, sending out representatives and attending the parties herself when possible.


----------



## The_Falcon

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> I've been digging, but although there are many sources which list the number of deaths in various jurisdictions, there are none I could find which would indicate how many non-lethal Taser deployments were conducted in those jurisdictions.  There doesn't seem to be anybody keeping track of such information.
> 
> It is my understanding that some (perhaps MOST?) Police Services require a report of some kind after an Officer deploys his Taser - so the statistics exist (perhaps only in individual departments), but aren't easily discovered (by an amateur at any rate).  I suspect an Access To Information request may have to be made to get at this information - a route I'm not willing to personally go down.  I don't have the time or resources to devote to such an endeavour.  I have written to various MSM publications suggesting that such research may be worthwhile for them.  We'll see.
> 
> In the meantime, during my poking around, I came across MANY reports regarding Taser use.  I found this one both very informative, and as it was completed by a Canadian group (Canadian Police Research Centre), I thought others here may find it as interesting as I:
> 
> http://www.taser.com/research/statistics/Documents/Canadian%20Police%20Research%20Centre%20FINAL%208%2005.pdf
> 
> Although the document is located at www.taser.com it was not completed at the behest of the Taser industry and makes, I believe, an unbiased assessment of Taser use.
> 
> I will continue to look for statistics regarding number of Taser deployments compared to number of Taser involved deaths, but I don't hold much hope for success, at least on the open sources available to me (coupled with my admitted amateur non-existent research abilities).
> 
> Roy
> 
> Edited to add:  right after posting the above, didn't I come across this little gem:  http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=169acb15-4a5f-417e-840b-a8e12e1a7bc1
> 
> The search continues.



I posted a link to the stats for Toronto Police earlier in this thread.  From what I gathtered from reading several police service board minutes is that agencies in Ontario are required to record all usage of tasers, however not all of them post the info on the net, and your probably right you would need to file an ATI request (or spend your time digging through police service board minutes).


----------



## Roy Harding

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I posted a link to the stats for Toronto Police earlier in this thread.  From what I gathtered from reading several police service board minutes is that agencies in Ontario are required to record all usage of tasers, however not all of them post the info on the net, and your probably right you would need to file an ATI request (or spend your time digging through police service board minutes).



Yes indeed you did - I read the link.  What has me stymied is a lack of similar reporting nation wide.  When I try to find statistics, I get LOTs of hits which report the number of Taser related deaths - but NONE that put the number in anything close to context.  This is true of the MSM in both the US and Canada - very frustrating.


----------



## Chester Rush

This is my first post on this Forum and this particular thread caught my attention.  About 2 weeks ago a friend of mine drank a little too much at the bar in our hometown and got into a fight with the bouncers. after beating up the bouncers, police were called to the scene. Immediatly he engaged them in a fight and they were forced to taser him 3 times before he was subdued.  His personal opinion was that he was glad they used the taser gun before he seriously injured himself or someone else.  We can only hope that this taught him a lesson and he won't be drinking anymore.  My opinion is that the Taser is a great tool when used responsibly, and yes it sometimes causes death, but handguns have a better chance of causing death.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While the thrust in Canada seems to be to limit or eliminate the use of Tasers (and reduce the number of "use of force" options), in the United States things are swinging the other way:
> 
> http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/1129taser1128.html#



Just what we need.....not only will handguns be stored in nightstands for little kids to find but now tasers too....what a brilliant idea!


----------



## armyvern

Something smells around here.

Do tasers burn the skin? They are way out of my lane ... just wondering? Can someone answer --- I'm in a receiving mood right now.  ;D


----------



## Shamrock

SleighBelle the treetopping angel said:
			
		

> Can someone answer --- I'm in a receiving mood right now.  ;D



Is this the Verninatrix asking?


----------



## Cheshire

Bigguy....

Small correction..... :-[

"Ontario's chief coroner has ruled the death of a 43-year-old Kingston man was not caused by a Taser gun.
Dr. Jim Cairns said the death of the man, who died hours after being shot with a Taser Sunday morning, was caused by a drug overdose.
"I can state categorically that the Taser did not play any role whatsoever in his death," Cairns said."

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/08/09/taser_040809.html

Wasn't the taser that killed him, it was the dope.


----------



## The_Falcon

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> Yes indeed you did - I read the link.  What has me stymied is a lack of similar reporting nation wide.  When I try to find statistics, I get LOTs of hits which report the number of Taser related deaths - but NONE that put the number in anything close to context.  This is true of the MSM in both the US and Canada - very frustrating.



And you think MSM and those with an agenda would really, want to report the stats for all the times tasers are used and no death occurs, then they wouldn't be able to demonize the use of device.  Although you would think that with all the controversy around them, police agencies would make the stats easier to find/obtain.


----------



## Roy Harding

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> And you think MSM and those with an agenda would really, want to report the stats for all the times tasers are used and no death occurs, then they wouldn't be able to demonize the use of device.  Although you would think that with all the controversy around them, police agencies would make the stats easier to find/obtain.



I'm not that naive - your last sentence above is what is frustrating me - I _THINK_ the stats would prove that these weapons are GENERALLY non-lethal - and the chances of them proving otherwise are an "acceptable risk" associated with their use.  And yet - stats aren't out there.


----------



## The_Falcon

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> I'm not that naive - your last sentence above is what is frustrating me - I _THINK_ the stats would prove that these weapons are GENERALLY non-lethal - and the chances of them proving otherwise are an "acceptable risk" associated with their use.  And yet - stats aren't out there.



Didn't mean to suggest your naive, forgot to add the appropriate smilie


----------



## Roy Harding

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Didn't mean to suggest your naive, forgot to add the appropriate smilie



And I didn't mean to suggest that you suggested ..., I was trying to be a smart ass.    Ain't the internet grand? 

The point we're both making remains the dearth of accurate statistics.  Which stats would, I'm _pretty sure_ take some of the heat off LEAs around the country.  I don't know how they'd get out (if they exist), though - I can't see the MSM jumping on that particular bandwagon.


----------



## The_Falcon

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> And I didn't mean to suggest that you suggested ..., I was trying to be a smart ***.    Ain't the internet grand?
> 
> The point we're both making remains the dearth of accurate statistics.  Which stats would, I'm _pretty sure_ take some of the heat off LEAs around the country.  I don't know how they'd get out (if they exist), though - I can't see the MSM jumping on that particular bandwagon.



Start posting the stats on blogs and message boards, where the MSM usually winds up getting alot of their info anyways ;D


----------



## armyvern

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Is this the Verninatrix asking?



Nah, I was just being nice; suddenly though, it's smelling a lot better around here.


----------



## Cheshire

Someone wanted statistics? Here is Toronto's 2006 Stats........

Edited to add......

And here are a bunch more, I only went through Toronto's, none of the others so I cannot vouch for it's content. But here is the link to the site that has them, BTW.......is it a little biased that the stats are on the page for TASER? The company that makes the things? I dunno. But at least it is statistics.

http://www.taser.com/research/statistics/Pages/FieldUseandStatistics.aspx


Click on the attachment below......


----------



## Roy Harding

Chesire:

Thanks for the links.  I had come across the Taser.com site, but decided that using those stats would be unwise - as you stated, too much chance of bias.  I'm not saying those stats are slanted, but the possibility of bias would impeach the source.

As I pull more and more stats in (thanks to folks like you), I'll try to post something making sense of what stats are available from reliable sources (like LEAs).


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Looks like this guy exhausted all his options to be subdued.....I wonder what part of "Drop the weapon!" he didn't understand?

Police shoot suspect after failing to subdue him
Updated Tue. Dec. 18 2007 5:51 PM ET

The Canadian Press

WINNIPEG -- Police in Winnipeg say an officer was forced to shoot and kill an armed man when efforts to subdue him with a Taser were unsuccessful.

Sgt. Kelly Dennison said police were called to a neighbourhood with a rough reputation about 11 p.m. Monday to deal with a 911 call from someone being threatened by a man.

Two officers were "confronted in a threatening manner'' by the man, who was armed with a gun and a bat, Dennison said Tuesday.

One of the officers fired his Taser, but for some unexplained reason it did not work properly. An officer was then forced to use his service pistol, he said.

"From all appearances at this point in time, the Taser was deployed correctly, but it was unsuccessful. The reason it was unsuccessful is still part of this investigation.''

When fired, Tasers shoot two probes that deliver an electrical shock to the target. The stun guns can be finicky, however. They can fail to jolt if one of the probes misses a person and they won't work through thick clothing.

Police do not believe the suspect, whose name was not released, fired his gun.

It's not clear whether the Taser and the gun were fired by the same officer, although Dennison confirmed that under Winnipeg police policy an officer brandishing a Taser would normally be backed up by another officer with a service pistol.

"That's the way we go through our training. One officer, if displaying a Taser, another officer would be in a lethal force position.''

Dennison said it was too early in the investigation to reveal many details about what happened, but he did say the two officers felt threatened when the man confronted them outside a west-end apartment block.

"If our officers are confronted by individuals armed with firearms or weapons, and their lives or other people's lives are in jeopardy, we have to take the appropriate action.

"That's what we're trained for. That's what you pay us for.''

The suspect and the tenant he allegedly threatened over the phone were acquaintances, but it was not a domestic dispute, Dennison said.

"No, they weren't arguing over the hydro bill, but all of those details will come out.''

An entire city block around the Langside Street apartment remained taped off with yellow police ribbon Tuesday morning. Officers were restricting access to the block, which is full of big, old, once-beautiful homes, some apartments and rooming houses. There is also the odd pocket of recently renovated properties.

Neighbour Derek Alberts said he arrived home early Tuesday to commotion. Though the neighbourhood has seen some upgrades, Alberts said there are still rough parts on his street.

"It's `Gangside,''' Alberts said, referring to Langside Street's notorious nickname.

Students at Balmoral Hall, a posh all-girls private school, were not allowed to use the back entrance to their complex, which is directly across the street from the apartment where the shooting took place.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Moron's armed with a gun and they tried to 'tase' him??  A lot braver, or maybe something else, than I would be......


----------



## QV

Just because someone is holding a gun doesn't necessarily mean they get shot.  For example the bad guy may have had the ability and the means to inflict death or GBH but not showing intent, that is probably why the taser was deployed first - with lethal over watch of course.  The bad guy probably then made some move that would show intent to cause death or GBH which would then compel the officers to use lethal force to stop him.  Once the ability, means and intent to cause death or GBH are present then that is when lethal force is authorized.


----------



## Cheshire

Bad day for everyone.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

This editorial appears in the Chronicle Hearald in NS this morning. It must be said that police here in NS are not using the Taser very much although there was a guy recently who died in holding cells after an incident where he was tased. There has not been any conclusive evidence that the tasering was the reason for his demise.
Shared with the usual disclaimers

Quebec leads on Tasers


Thu. Dec 27 - 4:47 AM

MOST reasonable people would likely agree that when police use force, the amount they deploy should be proportionate to the perceived threat.

But that’s the nub of the controversy over police Taser use. Too often, it appears, police officers have chosen to zap individuals with thousands of volts of electricity even when that person they are engaged with does not represent an imminent physical danger to anyone.

Last week, the province of Quebec did the right thing and explicitly put restrictions on the police use of Tasers. Responding to a provincial task force report that made about 60 recommendations, the Quebec government said Tasers should be only used in those situations where an individual’s resistance to police posed a serious risk to officers, suspects or bystanders. The government further said that police would be required to call for medical help if the suspect appeared "agitated."

As has been noted in recent news coverage, there have now been 15 investigations into police Taser use in 2007. The reason? A string of disturbing deaths after individuals were Tasered by police, and a corresponding public outcry over seemingly inappropriate uses of Tasers – including incidents where people died -- when thoses being zapped did not appear to pose a direct risk to anyone.

The RCMP’s own watchdog – after reviewing the incident at Vancouver airport earlier this fall where a disoriented Polish immigrant died after being Tasered, despite offering no physical resistance to the four Mounties confronting him – recommended the force’s Taser use be restricted to more serious situations. But disturbingly, the report’s author now says the RCMP’s response, though sounding compliant, actually changes nothing in terms of an RCMP officer’s discretion to deploy their Taser.

Meanwhile, recent reports have undermined one of the long-repeated maxims of Taser backers, that the stun gun would save lives by keeping police’s far deadlier weapons, firearms, holstered.

New studies have challenged that assumption. Data from several Canadian cities show that police, after Tasers were introduced, did not discharge their firearms at rates any different from in the past. This despite Taser’s manufacturers, numerous police spokesmen and various politicians all being on record as arguing stun guns are a non-lethal way to handle situations in which someone otherwise might be shot and killed.

There is a mounting international debate over Taser use, for the same reasons as here – police using the weapon far too casually, with far too frequent fatal outcomes. Governments need to follow Quebec’s lead and restrict Taser use.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Wow.  That's some "leadership".  They articulated what we already do.  Alakazam, **POOF**  MAGIC!


----------



## midgetcop

QV said:
			
		

> Just because someone is holding a gun doesn't necessarily mean they get shot.  For example the bad guy may have had the ability and the means to inflict death or GBH but not showing intent, that is probably why the taser was deployed first - with lethal over watch of course.  The bad guy probably then made some move that would show intent to cause death or GBH which would then compel the officers to use lethal force to stop him.  Once the ability, means and intent to cause death or GBH are present then that is when lethal force is authorized.



Er...as a cop, I doubt there would be a lot of time spent looking for "intent" vs....I dunno, just holding a gun..? If someone is holding a firearm (or edged weapon) and doesn't drop it immediately upon being told to by police, then getting shot is procedure. Police don't give them any benefit of the doubt - not when their own lives or other innocents lie in their hands.


----------



## medaid

the_midge said:
			
		

> Er...as a cop, I doubt there would be a lot of time spent looking for "intent" vs....I dunno, just holding a gun..? If someone is holding a firearm (or edged weapon) and doesn't drop it immediately upon being told to by police, then getting shot is procedure. Police don't give them any benefit of the doubt - not when their own lives or other innocents lie in their hands.



Uh... who are you and what kind of experience do you bring to the table?

You don't shoot just because. This is never been the way. Where did you ever get that kind of idea? From Die Hard? Or Lethal Weapon? When you come up to any one with a weapon you assess the situation. You DO NOT unholster, present and shoot away!

By the way QV's got some experience in the area of LE...


----------



## midgetcop

I never said "shoot just because". I said shoot when one has a weapon and doesn't follow instructions. My point being that police often don't have time in critical situations to assess whether a suspect is going to use their weapon or not. I didn't mean to imply that cops should just "blow people away", but rather that police don't take chances with armed suspects. Of course a situation needs to be assessed, but often there's not a lot of time for assessment in critical situations. If I came across as crass or blunt, I apologize. And no, I've never actually seen 'Die Hard' or 'Lethal Weapon'.  

I didn't realize I needed to introduce credentials before coming into an a conversation and offering an opinion. If you're still interested, send me a PM.


----------



## medaid

the_midge said:
			
		

> I never said "shoot just because". I said shoot when one has a weapon and doesn't follow instructions. My point being that police often don't have time in critical situations to assess whether a suspect is going to use their weapon or not. I didn't mean to imply that cops should just "blow people away", but rather that police don't take chances with armed suspects. Of course a situation needs to be assessed, but often there's not a lot of time for assessment in critical situations. If I came across as crass or blunt, I apologize. And no, I've never actually seen 'Die Hard' or 'Lethal Weapon'.
> 
> I didn't realize I needed to introduce credentials before coming into an a conversation and offering an opinion. If you're still interested, send me a PM.



You may be over simplifying things. I have never seen a member shoot because someone didn't follow instructions, but that's not saying when there are times when that is justified. Routinely doing so is NOT justified. There are things called threat ques which assist in the decision making or any member when employing their sidearm, and you're quite right that members don't often take chances with armed suspects. That being said, caution and proper tactical procedures are followed through before a shot is ever fired. Also, time is of the essence, and you may not have time sometimes, but that's where your training kicks in. 

You don't have to introduce your credentials, but filling out your profile completely would be helpful. Especially offering opinions on topics such as this, it would often help to know where the person is coming from and what kind of experience or background they have. Many of the board members have been around a long time, and their profiles may be diluted after a while due to varying reasons, but its nice for new members to let us know a bit about them. 

It's too bad you've never seen those movies , they were good >


----------



## midgetcop

You may right - I'm probably over-simplifying things. I'm over-sensitive to the general public and their views on police use-of-force. As for my credentials - I'm a supervisor for a campus police service. Lots of training on use-of-force...but not a heckuva lot of respect or recognition. 

As for the movies, they're on my list.


----------



## QV

Police don't and can't shoot someone just for not dropping a weapon when told to do so.  And no it's not procedure.  There have been countless standoffs with armed people that have lasted hours and hours.

If some guy is standing there holding a pistol pointed at the ground and *not * saying anything like "I'm gonna shoot ya" there is no intent displayed (I'm trying to simplify here).  He is basically just holding a pistol, although it would be n everybody's interest he wasn't.  There is definately a threat of death or GBH with the presence of a pistol like I just described.  A prudent police officer would draw and aim his own firearm, but try and de-escalate from there.

If that same guy does something like point it, starts to raise his arm, or verbalizes that he is going to use it on you, then he has shown intent and lethal force is authorized.  At this point the police will shoot and shoot until the threat has been stopped.  Hopefully the bad guy lives in order to answer to justice.  

Obviously shootings like this are very dynamic and can happen in split seconds.  Many police officers across the country are forced to make a life or death decision in a split second while the courts and media second guess those decisions for months with full hindsight .... and after dragging the officer through hell, they decide it was a clean shot.  

MedTech sounds like he knows what he is talking about, for a MedTech.


----------



## midgetcop

I see where you're coming from, QV. Just not as able to articulate as you clearly are, from your experience.


----------



## medaid

QV said:
			
		

> MedTech sounds like he knows what he is talking about, for a MedTech.



I don't know much  I just want to learn like everyone else


----------



## Old Ranger

How about the new 12gauge Taser..probless rubber bullet with an extra How ya doing. 

(I'll try add pic here)..Can't so here is link.
Go to See armoury (big box), picture number 7
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/future-weapons/weapons/zone3/slideshow/slideshow.html

Would switching to a probless taser be better or worse? 
You get to hear the Shotgun go boom, the bad guy/gal falls to the ground doing a funky chicken in-front of a camera. What would public "outcry" be then? Would there be less Medical complications?


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Old Ranger said:
			
		

> How about the new 12gauge Taser..probless rubber bullet with an extra How ya doing.
> 
> (I'll try add pic here)..Can't so here is link.
> Go to See armoury (big box), picture number 7
> http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/future-weapons/weapons/zone3/slideshow/slideshow.html
> 
> Would switching to a probless taser be better or worse?
> You get to hear the Shotgun go boom, the bad guy/gal falls to the ground doing a funky chicken in-front of a camera. What would public "outcry" be then? Would there be less Medical complications?



That would be an interesting device to try out.  However, for us a shotgun is usually a support weapon and isn't usually carried into a situation unless it is a firearms call.  So if it is a firearms call, you would want to be loaded up with your good ole slug ammo.  
Lets just get people over the Taser, and I think that will be sufficient.


----------



## Old Ranger

Maybe down the road they'll be able to make 9mm or 40cal version.
Simple mag change and every officer can have one. >
Less room on your belt.


----------



## gate_guard

Unfortunately the taser shotgun shells are approx $100 each...not exactly cost efficient when compared against other less lethal options. 

Old Ranger, I like your sentiment but I cringe at the thought of carrying a mag of "less lethal rounds" (technological issues aside) on my duty belt. In high stress/adrenaline situations, the last thing you want to be doing is messing around with clearing your duty pistol in order to load a less lethal magazine. As well, what happens if the guy who previously presented an active resistant/assaultive threat pulls a knife/gun and you suddenly need lethal force. Too many variables there for my liking.


----------



## Old Ranger

Gate Guard - seen.

Unless 1st or 2nd round is the Taser...but still probably not good for those double tappers.
And I guess you wouldn't get the visual threat tactic of the Taser.

12 ga. would seem like the best option for cycling out of the way for the now I really mean it round.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Interesting developments in NS.S\
Shared with usual disclaimers

N.S. needs clearer standards for Taser use: report
Updated Wed. Mar. 5 2008 11:05 AM ET

The Canadian Press

HALIFAX -- A review into police use of Tasers in Nova Scotia says the amount of officer training "differs significantly'' between police departments and suggests the province establish standard qualifications for those using the devices.

The report, released Wednesday, also says that police use of the devices has shot up 80 per cent in the past three years -- from 101 to 182 incidents last year.

Provincial Justice Minister Cecil Clarke called for the review in November following the death of a 45-year-old Dartmouth man about 30 hours after he was Tasered by Halifax police.

Howard Hyde, a man who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, was arrested for spousal abuse. He had struggled with jail guards moments before his death in a Dartmouth jail.

Hyde's case was one in a series of Taser-related incidents that prompted concern over police use of stun guns.

Nova Scotia's review is one of several across Canada ordered following the death of Robert Dziekanski, the Polish man who died after he was Tasered by RCMP officers at Vancouver International Airport on Oct. 14.

Reviews have also been ordered in British Columbia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and nationally by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Research Centre.

The Nova Scotia review concluded there were wide variations in the Taser policies adopted by various police forces and correctional institutions.

Some police forces require notification of a supervisor before Tasers are fired, while others do not. 
The RCMP manual is the only one that sets up special procedures when the person is in excited delirium, a state of heart-pounding agitation. 
Some forces caution against using the device more than once, while others contain no reference to the topic.
But the report repeatedly zeros in on training.

"The amount of training differs significantly among law enforcement agencies: municipal police officers and Sheriff Services receive eight hours of training in order to qualify...while the RCMP and Correctional Services staff receive 16 hours of training.''

In recent months, Nova Scotia's Opposition New Democrats have been pushing Clarke to get tough on what they see as excessive use of the devices.

But the minister has said he won't be rushed into any decisions.

The second part of the review will see a panel of external experts, including representatives from law enforcement and scientific communities, examining the findings and providing advice to the minister.

The justice minister has said the review would also consider a February 2007 incident in which Halifax police shocked a 17-year-old while trying to arrest the teen in her bedroom.

Three officers went to the girl's Dartmouth home after her mother asked her to leave following a dispute. 

Police tried to arrest the teen after she started swearing at them. She fought back, was wrestled her to the bed, Tasered, then handcuffed. 

Two of the officers were kicked in the face while trying to arrest the girl, who was later acquitted of assault.

Police maintained that proper procedures were followed, but a judge ruled the officers had no legal grounds to arrest the girl.


----------



## MedTechStudent

When I was in Truro Nova Scotia last week I was talking to to police officers about this actually.  And I agree with what they said. 

According to them, before this incident, there were people being given the taser hundreds of times a day in Canada, and that it is a very effective way to detaining someone.  Now with all this publicity, it has become harder for them to do their job.  Also, people don't die from the taser, they die from the over exited state their heart goes into while being shocked .  They begin to panic and their heart goes into over load and they have fatal heart attacks.  Most of the people who die from tasers are out of shape, have poor hearts or other medical conditions.  The guns themselves have cameras and mics built in so that ever time its drawn there is a record of it.  Every time its shot there is evidence why and to what means.  I mean the whole notion of taking the weapon away is ridiculous.  They are needed to subdue dangerous people, even if they are misused every once in a while, they are still needed.  The police officer I spoke to, tole me she had tased a man about 300 pounds and it had brought him to his knees, she said without that gun  he would have overpowered and possibly killed her.  

I don't think the question should be "Should they take the taser away as a weapon"... it should be more of a "On what grounds should it be used" type of debate.


----------



## medaid

MTS,

What you have said are points that have been raised by the members of the thread already. There are also already "when should they be used" rules, and they are called UoF continuems.


----------



## MedTechStudent

MedTech said:
			
		

> MTS,
> 
> What you have said are points that have been raised by the members of the thread already. There are also already "when should they be used" rules, and they are called UoF continuems.



Oh yes absolutely, I just noticed the thread about Nova Scotia above, and was reciting what the police officers there I talked to had to say about it.  Those two at least seamed pretty bitter about the situation.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

In the Halifax paper yesterday. More reporting on tasers. Shared with usual disclaimers

Taser info blocked by privacy laws
RCMP spokesman says all that can be released has been
By The Canadian Press
Thu. Mar 27 - 5:42 AM

OTTAWA — The RCMP fended off increasing attacks Wednesday, blaming federal information and privacy laws for its move to strip public Taser reports of crucial details.

Sgt. Sylvie Tremblay says the Mounties released "all the information that could be provided" under the Access to Information Act when it disclosed newly reclassified and heavily censored records last week.

"The RCMP is committed to respecting the public’s right to know while upholding the law and protecting the privacy rights of individuals," Tremblay said in an interview.

"Requesters may challenge the RCMP’s application of various exemptions . . . should they be dissatisfied with the processing of their request."

Critics say that’s a lame excuse for shielding details — including whether zapped suspects were armed or injured — that were once routinely disclosed.

A joint investigation by The Canadian Press and CBC found the Mounties are now censoring key elements that must be recorded each time officers draw their electronic weapons.

As a result, Canadians know much less about who is being hit with the contentious 50,000-volt guns and under what circumstances.

Advocates of more openness point out the names and addresses of Tasered people are already struck from the forms, making further deletions unnecessary.

"The leadership of the RCMP appears to have a tin ear for what the public wants in relation to Taser use," says Frank Addario, president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association.

"It seems obvious that the public wants transparency in relation to the training and circumstances in which this . . . device is used, limitations on its use after any apparent threat to public or officer safety is managed and, above all, thorough training of police officers in advance of using these devices."

Another RCMP spokesman, Troy Lightfoot, has said internal analysis of Taser reports concluded the weapons were being used correctly.

Newspaper editorials and opposition critics and newspaper editorials say that amounts to a "just-trust-us" approach.

The Mounties say they correctly withheld information on the forms under provisions of the information law related to personal privacy and police investigations.

Tremblay had no comment when asked if the RCMP broke the law by previously releasing details that it now insists must be protected. 

A Canadian Press analysis last November of 563 cases between 2002 and 2005 found three in four suspects Tasered by the RCMP were unarmed.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> A Canadian Press analysis last November of 563 cases between 2002 and 2005 found three in four suspects Tasered by the RCMP were unarmed.



Yea, cause if they were armed they would hopefully be shot instead............deadly force begots deadly response,  etc......


----------



## J.J

Bruce,
Stop using common sense, it will get you in trouble.... You should know that by now!  ;D


----------



## midgetcop

If it was between me and an armed suspect.....you'd better BELIEVE I wouldn't reach for that taser.  :


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Bottom line is hippies like to see enforcers get hurt.  They would like to see police use tactics that would put Members into harms way just the same way that they want to see soldiers fail in Afghanistan and be removed in defeat.  Some people cannot handle the fact that force needs to be used against people from time to time, and those people sometimes get hurt (with reference to Chris Rock's helpful instructions on police relations).  
Those same people invariably get air time on TV.  
They also have rubber sheets.


----------



## ENGINEERS WIFE

I have a question, this thread is very long, so if it's been answered, forgive me.   When the person with the taser is actually tasing does the 'shock' stay on all the time or does it go in bursts?  So, what I'm asking is can someone be tased constantly for 10 mins or the taser more like a electric fence and 'shocks' intermittently?  And is there standard training and are all the tasers at the same standard? Compared to a deadly use of force I think they are a great idea, but just like everything in the wrong, untrained hands what could be the consequences?


----------



## medaid

TASERS only shocks when the trigger is depressed or activated. There's guidelines which states how long the trigger is depressed in different situations which I will not get into. There will very likely never be a situation where a TASER is continously shocking for 10min. Once the trigger is no longer depressed the shock is turned off and no energy is being transmited between the TASER and the subject in question. There is now a National UoF standard that applies to all LE UoF tools to which the TASER is a member of. 

No untrained pers will be issued or equiped with a TASER or any UoF tools. If you do not qualify, you don't get to use it. In many cases and many agencies, it also means you sit in an office and NEVER go on the road if you fail any one of your UoF tool competencies. 

The result of misuse of force could be Criminal or Civil or Both proceedings, departmental disciplinary action which would cover many different things.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

The shock is on for only 5 seconds at a time, regardless of how long you hold the trigger down.  You can let the trigger go, and pull it again, but you will only get another 5 second exposure.  The machine records the exposures, so you need to be able to justify why you gave a guy 15 doses.
If someone got a 10 minute dose, they would probably be dead.  But that could not happen.  There may be times when a person has the taser barbs with wires attached in them for an extended period of time (only medical personnel can remove barbs from sensitive areas, such as the face or genitals) but the current would not be flowing the whole time.


----------



## ENGINEERS WIFE

Thanks for answering my questions.  I think it is great that police officers are able to use such things as tasers instead of deadly force.  And at the end of the day, make it back safe to their families.  And hopefully the bad guys, in jail after being tased and not shot.  
Thank you.


----------



## Old Ranger

And for the record, I would much rather be tazed than sprayed... :-*


And would prefer that if I have to take such a person requiring either, tazing doesn't put my Ambulance out of service for uniform changes and super deep cleans so as not to affect any other patients.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Old Ranger said:
			
		

> And for the record, I would much rather be tazed than sprayed... :-*



That is pretty much the universal opinion for those who have gotten both.


----------



## medaid

Oh come on OC's not THAT bad... It's tasety on steak


----------



## Old Ranger

Only a Cylon would prefer OC, tasing could short circut them....oops wrong thread ;D


----------



## medaid

Muahahahahaha! All your base belong ours!!!


----------



## Shamrock

MedTech said:
			
		

> Oh come on OC's not THAT bad... It's tasety on steak



I'm still trying to determine if that's a typo or a bad pun.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

MedTech said:
			
		

> Oh come on OC's not THAT bad... It's tasety on steak



Now don't go saying that.  Some mindless gob will think you are serious, hose down some meal with dog spray and choke to death when his throat seizes.


----------



## medaid

Come on now ZHC, they deserve it if they were that stupid  muahahahahahahahaha...


----------



## Shamrock

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Now don't go saying that.  Some mindless gob will think you are serious, hose down some meal with dog spray and choke to death when his throat seizes.



Darwin.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Darwin.



Darwin, agreed.

Mr. Bobbitt sued.  Not so good.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Something fresh to revive the debate a bit, from the "ya can't win for losing" school of thought - emphasis mine.  Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._

*RCMP fatally shoot man on southeast Saskatchewan reserve*
Canadian Press, 14 Jun 08
Article link

People who live in an aboriginal community southeast of Regina say they are angry that RCMP fatally shot a man on the reserve Saturday morning.

Police said two Mounties were responding to a family fight on the White Bear First Nation near Carlyle.

The man, 21, was shot outside a home and was pronounced dead on the scene, Sgt. Carole Raymond said.

"He was armed with a knife at the time of the incident," she said.

A woman who lives on the reserve said the dead man had been attending a graduation party for Grade 12 students from the Whitebear Education Complex. It was not clear if he was a student or not.

*She said residents are upset a Mountie shot the man instead of using some other means of apprehending him.

"They could have used some other kind of force or strategy. They didn't have to kill him," said the woman who declined to be named.

"People are way upset. They have got Tasers and they have got pepper spray. There could have been some other way than to shoot to kill."*

The RCMP Major Crimes unit was investigating the shooting under the supervision of an officer from the Regina Police Service, Raymond said.

The name of the dead man was not released.

In a separate incident, RCMP said they were investigating the death of a 37-year-old man found on the shore of Lac La Ronge in northern Saskatchewan.

RCMP said they are treating the case as a suspicious death.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

A lethal force option to combat a lethal force threat................bottom line.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> "People are way upset. They have got Tasers and they have got pepper spray. There could have been some other way than to shoot to kill."[/b]



Just another uninformed clod.  : We don't "shoot to kill" and the old "don't bring a knife to a gun fight" are two good points to pass on.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Bean bag guns and practice in warning shots then starting at the knees before moving up to lethal area's would be an option. 

 Tasers are bad for the heart and bad for public relations imho, nothing good has come from them since the choice was made to use them. I see no reason to use them with other better and cheaper alternatives out there.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Have you been bean-bagged, tased, maced and/or pepper sprayed?

I have, and I will take the taser as the most effective AND the most humane.....


----------



## COBRA-6

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Bean bag guns and practice in warning shots then starting at the knees before moving up to lethal area's would be an option.



1. Gunshot wounds to the leg are not "non-lethal", conversely gunshot wounds to the head do not always kill. 

2. Anyone who advocates shooting for the leg/arm/gun in the hand etc has likely never carried a firearm professionally.

3. I would take a tasing EVERY TIME over being shot.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

If the person holding the gun feels threatened obviously his inclination will be to use that gun for his protection, why give authority figures a gun if they are going to be crucified when forced to use it? 

 As for being beaned or sprayed, no i haven't been, but then i'm not one to go out into public looking to find out how that feels. Some people obviously don't give a crap and end up getting more than they can chew. Factor in the "pig, and no way in hell i'm going to jail" mentality and well you get many scenario's that end up with people getting hurt or killed using force.

 If you say tasers are the most humane way of disabling someone then so be it, yet it still has the potential to be lethal on contact leads me to think that beans and sprays althought LESS humane may be a better means of subduing someone who doens't want to comply.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Beans and spray have that potential also, as do batons, as do open hand techniques, etc, etc,.....


----------



## medaid

Your opinions are great and all..ever worked the streets and had to use force? Everything is lethal. Just how you use it...


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Bean bag guns and practice in warning shots then starting at the knees before moving up to lethal area's would be an option.



No.  
Bean bags:  Fired out of shotguns and can be plenty lethal.
Warning shot:  What is that?  Lobbing a round into the night?  
Shooting the knees:  Is pretty much impossible (unless you're Norm Gardiner) and it doesn't necessarily stop the threat.  It is hard enough to shoot center mass under stress in a moments notice.  
Sprays:  Many psychotics and crack/meth heads can ignore most of them.  Even a determined individual can.  (and I agree 100% that I'd rather be Tased _again_ than get sprayed _again_) 



			
				Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Tasers are bad for the heart


  

Not substantiated by facts.  Many arseholes have fought past the point of exhaustion and killed themselves.  Not a Taser issue.



			
				Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> and bad for public relations imho,



And this is a police issue why?  So you would rather see officer and suspect safety go south so that you don't have to hear about a force option which you know nothing about.  Thanks for your concern and support.



			
				Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> nothing good has come from them since the choice was made to use them. I see no reason to use them with other better and cheaper alternatives out there.



Please stop.  Seriously.  
Thousands of successful arrests.  Hundreds of officers who would attest to their personal safety being preserved by the device (myself included).  Only a handful of dead people who would have died in any case.  
As for alternatives?  
Better?  You haven't offered one yet.
Cheaper? Sure, the old hickory stick is cheaper and in my opinion more fun similarly effective, except that the officer loses his safety distance.  But why let officer safety get in the way of saving a few dollars.  
Your profile suggests you are starting your military career.  Once you get how things work, see if you are interested in the CF going on the cheap for your personal protective equipment.  Or makes you do thing in a more unsafe manner for the sake of avoiding something that is 





			
				Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> bad for public relations



Hope that helps.


----------



## Thompson_JM

+100 Zip...

Maybe the government should take away our guns... since lets face it... we've had accidental shootings of civies, including kids over in Afghanistan.... 

and thats just awful for public relations.....

seriously though, back over here in the real world... we as the professionals in our various occupations do the best we can in the given time with the means we are given... and yes... I have been in a couple life or death situations and have come very close to pulling the trigger... bottom line is that I was lucky that I was never forced to make that call, and that the situation calmed down quickly enough that it never had to end up as a shooting situation... 

I look at it this way, If you want Omlettes then some eggs are gonna break... and the sad reality is that sometimes good people, or innocent people get hurt in the process.... its a sad fact of life in a war zone....  

same is my view with the police... if you dont want to get hurt, then either a) dont resist, or b) Dont put yourself in a position where you need to worry about it... ive run into alot of cops. and very rarely are they the trigger happy, taser loving, pain enforcers that the media might want us to think they are...

theyre just trying to do a very hard job, under alot of public scrutiny within laws which bind their hands and give the criminal more rights then the victims and innocent public.

But hey, thats just me, and my opinion.

Cheers
   Tommy


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Tommy said:
			
		

> ive run into alot of cops. and very rarely  are they... pain enforcers that the media might want us to think they are...



Only because you haven't come to Windsor for a ride along in the summer time yet  ;D


----------



## medaid

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Only because you haven't come to Windsor for a ride along in the summer time yet  ;D



And only find ONE member like that  and it's not Zip... right...? 

Zip?? ;D


----------



## RangerRay

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> ...warning shots then starting at the knees before moving up to lethal area's would be an option...



Where would that warning shot go?  Someone's house?  Someone walking down the street a block or two away?  Not good.

Shooting the knees?  Have you ever fired a handgun, let alone done so under stressful conditions?  They are not very accurate to hit a 2" X 2" target at 25 yards.

When one is pepper sprayed, you have to deal with the effects until someone is nice enough to decontaminate you.  Not fun.  Dirtbags with prior medical conditions have been known to die after being sprayed.  As well, determined and wacked out people can work through the spray and continue resisting or attacking.

With a taser, the effects end as soon as power is shut off.


----------



## adaminc

I think that a Taser should only be used in a situation where they would use a firearm, which from all the stories I have read (nonlethal and lethal) doesn't seem to be the case. 

Also, enforce copious amounts of paper work to be filled out in triplicate if a taser is used. I think that would prevent overzealous use of a Taser. I am also wondering if it would be possible to measure the heart of the person after being tased, but I'm thinking that the lines are too long and would pick up too much interference.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Don't get me wrong, i'm not against Authorities having to use force during thier daily jobs, nor am i against the use of deadly force when it's required. It just seems that with all the other options out there for use besides tasers there would be a better choice.

 Bad people don't care about rules and laws and most of all they don't care about anyone trying to prevent them from doing harm to others, the options get narrowed down pretty fast when having to deal with that type of mentality. As for warning shots, that's not the best idea(my oversight) but if people are forcing authorities to alternative then perhaps just letting them clearly warn the perpetrator that force will be used and it will be thier own fault for the consequences.


----------



## muskrat89

To my knowledge they are all told repeatedly that they will be taser'd, if they don't comply

Look - people keep "tossing out ideas" that quite frankly - make them look silly. The Use of Force Continuum for police agencies isn't something they wrote on a napkin in the lunchroom. It is the result of experience, training, law, and the technology that is available. Officers, shrinks,lawyers,behavioralists - everybody and their dog has had input, before a Department makes it policy.

I'm not someone required to use any force in my line of work - that's why I have stayed out of this thread. I've never been wrongly detained, accused, roughed up or pulled over, even here in the big bad US. We don't like it when people outside of the military question our tactics - I will not do the same thing to the police.


----------



## stryte

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> A lethal force option to combat a lethal force threat................bottom line.



I would waive caution with that statement solely on the basis that the article simply does not provide enough information. S.25 of the C.C.C. speaks to use of force which is both reasonable and necessary. Simply stating the subject had a knife would not suffice for a lethal force control response in my opinion. It may be perfectly reasonable to use lethal force however without hearing the officers articulation of the event we cannot know that if it was necessary. (I would like to point out that I do believe from the officers perspective it was reasonable and necessary and they acted appropriately.) 



			
				muskrat89 said:
			
		

> To my knowledge they are all told repeatedly that they will be taser'd, if they don't comply
> 
> Look - people keep "tossing out ideas" that quite frankly - make them look silly. <b>The Use of Force Continuum</b> for police agencies isn't something they wrote on a napkin in the lunchroom. It is the result of experience, training, law, and the technology that is available. Officers, shrinks,lawyers,behavioralists - everybody and their dog has had input, before a Department makes it policy.
> 
> I'm not someone required to use any force in my line of work - that's why I have stayed out of this thread. I've never been wrongly detained, accused, roughed up or pulled over, even here in the big bad US. We don't like it when people outside of the military question our tactics - I will not do the same thing to the police.



Emphasis added to quote. I am not aware of any police agency in Canada which uses a use of force <u>continuum</u>. We have the National Use of Force Framework which the majority of police agencies (with the exception of the RCMP who use IMIM) use as their use of force <u>model</u>. The problem with continuum's is much like a ladder where one must move up in increments where as with the model where you enter it is dependant on the level of resistance presented by the subject taking into consideration your training and if your agencies uses the PPCT one plus one theory or similar response with one level of control higher than resistance encountered. 

A couple general comments on some of the previous posts:

Saying that police should shoot for the arms, legs, knees etc. is unrealistic. In a lethal force situation it is unlikely based on the stress and time that you will have time to think about such a thing. What hopefully will happen is that you'll act, and the way you act with be consistent with the training you receive which is two to the centre mass of the chest. Agencies do not practice shooting at legs or arms or knees, to suddenly expected in a high stress situation is why I feel it is unrealistic.

I would also like to point out it is not necessary to first warn a subject that you are about to taser, spray, hit or shoot him. Whatever level of control you are going to use you want it to be effective, giving the subject a heads up on whats coming is simply not practical. There is no level of control that will work absolutely all the time in every situation. There are plenty of videos of people who are get tasered and are unaffected and I will leave it up to you to search youtube or blutube for them. 

Lastly here is a summary from a June 2008 study by the U.S. Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice on Deaths Following Electro-Muscular Disruption

Study of Deaths Following Electro Muscular Disruption: Interim Report presents interim findings from a NIJ study of deaths of individuals following exposure to electro muscular disruption (EMD) technology from conducted-energy devices (CEDs). CEDs use a high-voltage, low-power electrical charge to induce involuntary muscle contractions that cause temporary incapacitation.

This report presents the findings of a medical panel composed of physicians, medical examiners, and other specialists in cardiology, emergency medicine, epidemiology, pathology, and toxicology, based on mortality reviews of CED-related deaths and a review of the current state of medical research relative to the effects of CED.

The report includes sections on background, methodology, findings, recommendations for post-event medical care following CED exposure, and considerations in death investigations for deaths that occur following deployment of a CED. It also includes a glossary and an extensive list of selected references.

Full text here: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/222981.pdf


----------



## muskrat89

> Emphasis added to quote. I am not aware of any police agency in Canada which uses a use of force continuum. We have the National Use of Force Framework which the majority of police agencies (with the exception of the RCMP who use IMIM) use as their use of force model. The problem with continuum's is much like a ladder where one must move up in increments where as with the model where you enter it is dependant on the level of resistance presented by the subject taking into consideration your training and if your agencies uses the PPCT one plus one theory or similar response with one level of control higher than resistance encountered.



Please note my LOCSTAT. I understand the difference you noted between continuum and model; that being said, in the context of _this_ thread, I would say that it is semantics. Whether an agency uses a model or continuum, my point was that it was not some arbitrary thought process.


----------



## stryte

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Please note my LOCSTAT. I understand the difference you noted between continuum and model; that being said, in the context of _this_ thread, I would say that it is semantics. Whether an agency uses a model or continuum, my point was that it was not some arbitrary thought process.



Fair enough. The very end of my original post and link to the published document was what I originally came on to share. It wasn't my desire to drift off into another topic but did choose to provide some input after reading some previous posts which I hope helped with your point (which I agree with) that it is not some arbitrary thought process.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

stryte said:
			
		

> Simply stating the subject had a knife would not suffice for a lethal force control response in my opinion.



I would hope so.  Be a pretty bad shift if I ever had to do a call in a steak house.  
"He's got a knife!" POW
"_She's_ got a knife!" POW
"*THEY ALL HAVE KNIVES!!*"  POWPOWPOW....
 ;D

A quote from the provided link:



> Although exposure to CED is not risk free, there is no conclusive medical evidence within the state of
> current research that indicates a high risk of serious injury or death from the direct effects of CED
> exposure. Field experience with CED use indicates that exposure is safe in the vast majority of cases.
> Therefore, law enforcement need not refrain from deploying CEDs, provided the devices are used in
> accordance with accepted national guidelines.



Which is what we have been saying for a while.  
BTW, in Ontario we call the use of force "model" a continuum.  And there is no requirement to go from one step to the next per se.  You can jet right to lethal force if you need to.


----------



## marshall sl

CSC calls it a" SITUATION MANAGEMENT MODEL"  All use of force is inmate driven..We use force accordingl to his/her behaviour.

Situation Management Model 
CSC Staff and Management will prevent, respond and resolve situations using the safest and most reasonable intervention 
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/plcy/cdshtm/567-cd-eng.shtml#_16


----------



## EDS334

First and foremost, I'm all for the use of tasers by LEO's.  Just one more piece of kit for those who protect and serve; just one more tool.

The problem as I see it, is that the idea of tasers was sold to the public (by the media) as a non-lethal weapon, when in fact they are less-than-lethal weapons.  Civilians who can't/won't try to understand the the difference between "non" and "less than" cry outrage at the appeared overuse of a weapon they don't fully know.  The common argument is "would you rather the cop use his gun outright?" Most I know would answer "No, BUT!.." and bring up use-of-force.

I would hazard the guess that most people like the idea of the "ideal" taser.  A stun gun with no long term ill effects on anyone zapped, while actually stunning them long enough for them to be safety secured.  The problem is there are way to many "what if's" to guarantee the "ideal" taser (presently).  So they must be labeled - correctly - as less than lethal. Not "non-lethal".

The solution:  Educate the public to "use of force" and reality via video footage of reality imho.  Helmet cameras, or similar, could (with proper censorship to maintain privacy rights) provide the public with an unbiased view of what the LEO is having to deal with.  From that point, whether the civilian is sitting at home watching it on TV, or in a court room, they are able to interpret what they see, and ignore the increasing opinions of reporters.  Also, that footage would be an immense training tool for applications of the departments' protocols.


----------



## stryte

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> BTW, in Ontario we call the use of force "model" a continuum.  And there is no requirement to go from one step to the next per se.  You can jet right to lethal force if you need to.



Well I stand corrected. Thank you for letting me know. If the steakhouse situation ever becomes a <b>good shift</b> start to worry.  

<b>EDS334</b>:You make some good points. A lot of police services are offering citizen police academy's or auxilary policing which I think goes towards educating the community. Another good step would be to invite the media to view some of the training and educate them there.


----------



## muskrat89

> offering citizen police academy's



Coincidentally, where I learned about the use of force continuum   ;D


----------



## larry Strong

Best way to educate the public, is to start making the penalties stiffer so people realize there are repercussions


----------



## medaid

adaminc said:
			
		

> I think that a Taser should only be used in a situation where they would use a firearm, which from all the stories I have read (nonlethal and lethal) doesn't seem to be the case.



That's because if it warrants the use of a member's sidearm, it is often to the point beyond TASER. It's escalated to deadly force already.

It's also a common mistake to reference the Criminal Code as the Canadian Criminal Code. There is no such thing, it is only the Criminal Code, since there is no other form of such an item here... in Canada.


----------



## stryte

MedTech said:
			
		

> That's because if it warrants the use of a member's sidearm, it is often to the point beyond TASER. It's escalated to deadly force already.
> 
> It's also a common mistake to reference the Criminal Code as the Canadian Criminal Code. There is no such thing, it is only the Criminal Code, since there is no other form of such an item here... in Canada.



In school depending on the professor and subsequently in training depending on the instructor some wished us to put CCC but not to stand for the Canadian Criminal Code rather the Criminal Code of Canada which I thought was its proper long title but I was wrong.


----------



## medaid

Mate, it was a painful mistake that I had to go through. Having had a judge look quizically at you after reading a brief and ask "what's C.C.C?" will fix one up quick.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

People seem to have a hard time with what force can be employed at the point of "assaultive".  The serious bodily harm/death one is pretty straight forward.  The officer's life is in some fairly serious jeopardy.  
Assaultive means just that.  The criminal is resisting beyond simply struggling to not get arrested.  They are throwing punches, kicks, biting etc.  They can also be verbally demonstrating their intent.  Now, this is the part that many people have a hard time with.  The force used is based on the officers _perception_ of the situation.  For my part, I know what I can handle physically and I generally am fairly good at assessing a criminals ability.  This comes from training and experience.  So I might have some crackhead calling me on (happens so frequently, it's kind of amusing) and my reaction will be to: 
1.  Giggle to myself 
2. Advise said crackhead of his imminent situation and flawed thinking 
3.  Move in and rag doll him.
But another officer in the same situation might do it differently.  With demonstrated assaultive behavior we have the green light to use baton, spray or taser (if we have them, which most of us don't in Ontario) or still go with hands.  No one can tell the officer what they should use.  It's that officers decision based on all of the factors going on at the time.  And as always we are not getting paid to get hurt.  We do not fight fair.  We do not give bad guys the chance to get one in.  If things have to be physical, it is swift, brutal and decisive.  To the public, it can look harsh but they aren't the ones who are expected to go towards the hate.  We are.  
Please believe that the Taser is still the best option for the bad guy in most situations.  These clods that died would have anyway.  
Here is the Ontario Use of Force continuum/model/guideline:


----------



## stryte

Good points Zip. Especially:



> Please believe that the Taser is still the best option for the bad guy in most situations.  These clods that died would have anyway.



Eventually I believe this will become evident. It seems that the majority of these individuals who die are already in a state of excited delirium when they are Tasered. Some argue it reduces the already limited amount of time they have prior to dying which may be true. Regardless I see it as a trade off. The sooner we can gain control of the subject the sooner we can get them medical attention and the Taser is the best option. Hopefully more research is done like the article I had linked and that it's taken into consideration by the decision makers. Here in Saskatchewan the Police Commission has pulled back on its deployment of Tasers based on the RCMP findings.


----------



## medaid

stryte said:
			
		

> Eventually I believe this will become evident.



Several reports have already outlined Excited Delirium as the cause of death rather then the TASER itself.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Just read this one locally.


http://www.thespec.com/News_Wire/National/article/413469   :skull:


----------



## stryte

MedTech said:
			
		

> Several reports have already outlined Excited Delirium as the cause of death rather then the TASER itself.



Yes I agree however there still remains those in society and the media who blame the tool and those who do not believe excited delirium is a medical condition. It is interesting how, as you noted there exists several reports/studies which show excited delirium to be the cause but not a whole lot disputing it yet we still are in this anti-Taser environment.  :brickwall:


----------



## Greymatters

stryte said:
			
		

> In school depending on the professor and subsequently in training depending on the instructor some wished us to put CCC but not to stand for the Canadian Criminal Code rather the Criminal Code of Canada which I thought was its proper long title but I was wrong.



Referring to the Criminal Code (CC) as the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC) is quite common.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Just read this one locally.
> http://www.thespec.com/News_Wire/National/article/413469



Sometimes both barbs don't stick into the subject.  At that point, you have the applied force of a fish hook owie.  Not generally effective.  
But at least they tried to zap him.  Guess the customer was demanding the full meal deal.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Missed this gem somehow.



			
				adaminc said:
			
		

> I think that a Taser should only be used in a situation where they would use a firearm, which from all the stories I have read (nonlethal and lethal) doesn't seem to be the case.



Wha?
And that is based on your broad based knowledge and experience with shoot/don't shoot threats on the street?  



			
				adaminc said:
			
		

> Also, enforce copious amounts of paper work to be filled out in triplicate if a taser is used. I think that would prevent overzealous use of a Taser.



Double wha?  
So you think that my use of a device for the protection of the public and my safety should be somehow hampered with harassing paper work?  And you think that my oath to protect the same would be shaken by the lack of desire to complete forms?  Here's a news flash:  we do a lot of paper work now.  We don't care.  
(And super-news flash:  triplicate forms only have to be filled out once.  That's why they're triplicate forms) 
Two ears, one mouth... :


----------



## abo

My thoughts:

 The taser is an effective non lethal tool for bringing an assailant under control. But due to the fact that is is generally higher risk then other conflict control tools its use should be considered only after other safer approaches have been ruled out.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

abo said:
			
		

> then other conflict control tools its use should be considered only after other safer approaches have been ruled out.



Like what?? Have you read anything from the law enforcement people in this thread?



			
				abo said:
			
		

> But due to the fact that is is generally higher risk



Again......your thoughts are wrong.....


----------



## gate_guard

abo said:
			
		

> My thoughts:
> 
> The taser is an effective non lethal tool for bringing an assailant under control.



Yes, it is an effective LESS LETHAL weapon, it is not a NON LETHAL weapon. 



			
				abo said:
			
		

> But due to the fact that is is generally higher risk then other conflict control tools



Facts? What facts? Generally higher risk according to what statistics? Which other "conflict control tools" are you comparing them too? The study I read stated that only pepper spray was of lower risk of causing injury than a taser...



			
				abo said:
			
		

> its use should be considered only after other safer approaches have been ruled out.



Umm, I always rule out any other "safer approach" before drawing any intermediate weapon as does any officer operating according to the National Use of Force Model. Not exactly groundbreaking tactics here.

Guys (z_c and Bruce) I commend you for continually trying to educate the uneducated...you've got way more patience for this than I do.


----------



## medaid

gate_guard said:
			
		

> Facts? What facts? Generally higher risk according to what statistics? Which other "conflict control tools" are you comparing them too? The study I read stated that only pepper spray was of lower risk of causing injury than a taser...



I've read the same study. The only reason that OC was rated to be less injury causing then a TASER was because of the higher compliance rate after OC was used and minimal injuries resulted i.e. dead.

Also no permanent injuries...


Regardless, I'd still go with being TASED then OC'd.... I hate OC...


----------



## RangerRay

But if someone were whacked out on scooby snacks, or determined, OC has little to no effect.  To them, it would be like a little shampoo got in their eyes.


----------



## medaid

That is very true. That's why TASER is often the prefered method to stop someone because OC has been determined to be ineffective on some of the 'customers' better to be safe then worry.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I hate to say I told you so but.........

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/12/12/7727321-cp.html


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Not at all, by all means told-you-so away  ;D
I'm always hoping to see "Darwinism" emerge as a cause of death in one of these things.


----------



## Yrys

Amnesty wants tougher controls on the use of Taser stun guns.

Industry claims that Taser stun guns are safe do not stand up to scrutiny and tougher controls over their use are needed, 
says Amnesty International.

Taser guns - used by police forces around the world - deliver a 50,000 volt shock to disable suspects. A report by the 
human rights group said Taser shocks caused or contributed to dozens of deaths in the US. Amnesty urged governments 
to limit their deployment to life-threatening situations or suspend their use.

In its report on the use of Tasers in the US, Amnesty said between 2001 and August 2008, 334 Americans died after being 
subjected to a Taser shock, with medical examiners and coroners concluding that at least 50 of the deaths were caused or 
contributed to by the shocks. 


More ('Open to abuse', More understanding) on link


----------



## Love793

These people should stand on the receiving end of a 40 Cal. or 9mm and then conplain of what the odd Tazer may do (if the leads don't make propper contact, etc etc). I wish they would count the number of lives that Tazer has saved, just in situations where if Tazer wasn't avail the Officer involved would have no option but deadly force. Next thing they'll be complaining that Hand Cuffs are inhumane and may cause death if the suspect has high blood pressure.


----------



## Greymatters

I point Ive seen made in other articles is not that Tasers should be removed from use, but that it is finally being acknowledged that some Tasers were not working as they were supposed to, and a proper investigation after the first reported death would have prevented other Taser-related deaths.

Of course, some specific agencies are going to complain about their use anyway, but it seems they've been handed some factual ammo in this case...


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Okay was that article put up for tongue-in-cheek amusement?  That is one of the lamest half assed Taser bashes Ive seen yet.  Although excellent choice that they included the now classic "Dont Tase Me Bro" video. 
This sums it up for me:



> "The problem with Tasers is that they are inherently open to abuse, as they are easy to carry and easy to use and can inflict severe pain at the push of a button, without leaving substantial marks," said the report's author Angela Wright, a researcher at Amnesty International.



So she works for them and is thus biased.  Any use of force option is "inherently open to abuse" and makes pain easy and can be done without marks.  As for a Taser "not leaving marks" that just shows that she is right the f@ck out of 'er.  No research criteria, no methodology.  Just sensational tripe.  
And the Taser was never offered as non-lethal.  It is less-than-lethal.  
I guess Bono must have gotten Tased recently.   :


----------



## Greymatters

Quote
"The problem with Tasers is that they are inherently open to abuse, as they are easy to carry and easy to use and can inflict severe pain at the push of a button, without leaving substantial marks," said the report's author Angela Wright, a researcher at Amnesty International.

In reply - Which is why they are not sold to the general public, but instead carried by authorized persons trained in their use.  Like the previous poster said, all tools are open to abuse, its a pretty lame argument, and insinuates their use is currently being abused without showing evidence...


----------



## dannybou

My apologies for joining in this thread quite late as I just joined the forum. If I may add to other posts on the taser:

It is a less than lethal use of force option;
It can be deployed in situations of active resisting;
It is not a substitute for lethal confrontations.

The model used by my department is the X-26 and it works, even as a deterrent. I have seen situations diffused simply by showing up and the bad guy seeing the bright green blast doors of the cartridge and becoming compliant by fear of the taser. I have also been advised of instances when the bad guy offering to fight, hears the radio transmission that officers are asking for a taser and that in itself calms the situation down. So the Taser is a great piece of equipment wether it is deployed or not. My 2 cents


----------



## medaid

dannybou said:
			
		

> The model used by my department is the X-26 and it works, even as a deterrent. I have seen situations diffused simply by showing up and the bad guy seeing the bright green blast doors of the cartridge and becoming compliant by fear of the taser. I have also been advised of instances when the bad guy offering to fight, hears the radio transmission that officers are asking for a taser and that in itself calms the situation down. So the Taser is a great piece of equipment wether it is deployed or not. My 2 cents



Well same could be said about Officer Presence, Other Enforcement Tools... eh? ;D

The ECW is merely another tool... it is what it is. People will fight regardless of its presence sometimes... I mean hey, members carry guns everywhere and baddies still fight.


----------



## The_Falcon

Love793 said:
			
		

> These people should stand on the receiving end of a 40 Cal. or 9mm and then conplain of what the odd Tazer may do (if the leads don't make propper contact, etc etc). I wish they would count the number of lives that Tazer has saved, just in situations where if Tazer wasn't avail the Officer involved would have no option but deadly force. Next thing they'll be complaining that Hand Cuffs are inhumane and may cause death if the suspect has high blood pressure.



Like this instance

http://www.mississauga.com/article/22451


> Friends call for probe into fatal shooting
> 
> By: The Mississauga News
> 
> December 24, 2008 03:09 PM - Friends of a 25-year-old man gunned down by police last Sunday in a Port Credit apartment building are calling for a probe into the fatal shooting.
> 
> CBC News is reporting that friends of Gregg Moynagh say they want to know if police had any other option. Moynagh was known to police and was known to suffer from bi-polar disorder.
> 
> Danny Vrekalic told the CBC that police could have used a stun gun to subdue his friend.
> 
> "They couldn't use a Taser on him because there wasn't a sergeant there. So they trust new cops with guns but not Tasers. There's something wrong with that," Vrekalic told the CBC.
> 
> Moynagh was shot and killed at about 1 a.m. on Sunday following a confrontation in an apartment building on Helene St. N.
> 
> According to Ontario's Special Investigations Unit, Peel Regional Police officers arrived at the apartment building after 9-1-1 callers reported a man yelling and throwing objects from a fifth-floor balcony.
> 
> The SIU says Moynagh died of two gunshot wounds to the upper body.
> 
> SIU investigators are waiting to interview the officer who shot him. Several witnesses have already been interviewed.
> 
> SIU spokesman John Yoannou told the CBC "there was a confrontation in the hallway just outside the apartment ... it was in that area that the officers confronted the man and during that confrontation the man was shot. The SIU has recovered two knives from the scene. The part they (the knives) played in this scenario we don't know right now."
> 
> Peel Police won't comment on the case while it is under investigation by the SIU.



Not wanting to speculate here though, even if a taser was availble this still may well have ended up badly (prescence of knives make it a deadly force situation, taser or no taser).


----------



## medaid

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> (prescence of knives make it a deadly force situation, taser or no taser).



Force +1


----------



## zipperhead_cop

> "They couldn't use a Taser on him because there wasn't a sergeant there. So they trust new cops with guns but not Tasers. There's something wrong with that," Vrekalic told the CBC.



It is always a bit of a drag when some unmedicated MHA dude jumps the rails and gets themself hurt or killed.  IMO if someone is diagnosed with a chemical imbalance caused mental disorder the State should mandate forced medication with immediate incarceration on failure to comply with medical regimen prescribed.  However, that might be a topic for a separate thread.  
As for the above quote, that is the reality on the ground in Ontario for municipal officers (not sure what the OPP policy is).  Only members of the Tactical squads or sergeants are allowed to carry Tasers as part of their standard equipment.  One goofy nuance is that if I am the acting sergeant one day, I have to take out a Taser with me.  But if the next day I'm back to regular patrol, I can't carry it.  My qualification didn't evaporate at the end of the shift, but since the books say that we can't carry it, we don't.  I think every officer would be happy to have that extra less-than-lethal tool on their belt if it meant that they might not have to shoot a guy.  
However, at such time as more of us have Tasers, there will obviously be more Taser related incidents (and the predictable whining, pissing and moaning that goes with that).  At present, what you won't read in the paper is how often we put ourselves at risk fighting with or disarming people instead of shooting them.  Of course, there are plenty of people out there that think it is part of our job to get hurt in the line of duty.  They typically are the ones who bray against Taser use.


----------



## J.J

A letter from the Victoria Times Colonist...it took a Doctor to speak the truth . Let's see if CBC, CKNW, CTV etc pick up on this one/ Any bets? Read on..

Choice to subdue Dziekanski right


December 20, 2008



I am not a police officer. I am a physician.

I have seen aggressive, psychotic individuals unable to be subdued by three or four burly, strong men, both in and out of hospital.

I have seen unstable individuals deprived of alcohol, nicotine, friends and in isolation (airplane), with an inability to communicate, in a confined space, turn into an aggressive psychotic individuals, unable to be subdued by four strong males.

The police did not have the luxury of medicines at hand as is the case in hospitals.

They had only the choice of being unable to subdue Robert Dziekanski or using the tools that were issued to them for just such an incident.

Their choice was correct.

Unfortunately, his aggression continued despite several Taser stuns, and he eventually died, but not from the Taser, according to the autopsy report.

I support the police in their actions, in this case.

Peter Richardson

Saanich
© Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist


----------



## observor 69

Ah yes the good Doctor is a man of strong opinions.


http://www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/116694/BC/Victoria/Richardson


----------



## zipperhead_cop

So maybe his people skills are lacking?  Nobody faulted him on job knowlege.  In what way is he lacking the ablility to speak to a medical condition?   ???

This comment was classic though:



> He makes Greg House seem like Tinky Winky



Good luck with your lame ticker, thin skinned one.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Quote
> "The problem with Tasers is that they are inherently open to abuse, as they are easy to carry and easy to use and can inflict severe pain at the push of a button, without leaving substantial marks," said the report's author Angela Wright, a researcher at Amnesty International.



I have a little device on my keychain known as a Kubotan, and I'm trained in its use.  It can do all the things this report claims, and costs about $9.00.  ANY weapon, lethal or otherwise, makes the playing field uneven, that's what they're SUPPOSED to do.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Sorta looks like a mini asp.


----------



## The_Falcon

And you can also be charged for carrying one 

CC Sec 90



> 90.   (1) Every person commits an offence who carries a weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition concealed, unless the person is authorized under the Firearms Act to carry it concealed.



Definition of Weapon Sec 2 CC


> "weapon" means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use
> 
> (a) in causing death or injury to any person, or
> 
> (b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person
> 
> and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a firearm;


----------



## Kat Stevens

No, it's a keychain if anyone asks.  Local mounties saw it hanging out of my pocket, and asked what it was.  Why, a key fob, constable, nudge nudge, wink wink.  Oh, have a nice day then, nudge nudge, wink wink.  And they're not prohibited, you can buy them at any MA supply store.


----------



## The_Falcon

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> No, it's a keychain if anyone asks.  Local mounties saw it hanging out of my pocket, and asked what it was.  Why, a key fob, constable, nudge nudge, wink wink.  Oh, have a nice day then, nudge nudge, wink wink.  And they're not prohibited, you can buy them at any MA supply store.



That works until you run into an officer with a martial arts background (or just happens to know what a kubaton is), and decides to be an asshole.  And I never said it was a prohibited weapon, that doesn't mean sec 2 and 90 don't apply.


----------



## IrishCanuck

I was wondering as well if you could get charged with weapons dangerous for having the kubotan.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

If I beat someone with a jug of milk it would be assault with a weapon.  If you use it as a weapon it becomes one.  

Kubotans by themselves are only illegal if they are the ones with the blade that is concealed on the inside.  

Irish, you would have to be doing some pretty crazy shite to get Weapons Dangerous with a kubotan


----------



## Kat Stevens

I've had to use mine, once in the 12 years I've carried one, nothing too dramatic, and the guy didn't stay around to press charges.  It's a pretty devastating little device if used properly.  Both my daughters now carry them.


----------



## IrishCanuck

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> If I beat someone with a jug of milk it would be assault with a weapon.  If you use it as a weapon it becomes one.
> 
> Kubotans by themselves are only illegal if they are the ones with the blade that is concealed on the inside.
> 
> Irish, you would have to be doing some pretty crazy shite to get Weapons Dangerous with a kubotan



lol 10-4


----------



## mariomike

CBC story from Dec 2009.
It caught my eye because it says:
"Police rethinking Taser use on mentally ill, inquiry told":
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2009/12/01/ns-hyde-police-taser-training.html
"It also plans to train dispatchers to recognize signs of mental health disorders when a 911 call is made and to *deploy Emergency Health Services in such cases*."
This story is from Halifax. I was surprised to read this was not the case there already.

I know the Toronto 911 Call Receivers have never hesitated to transfer their "211" ( mental ) calls to the Paramedic dispatchers. The mental health community has always been pretty vocal in this city. As one of them put it, “We’re worried because we’re the people who are going to get shocked.” 
Quote:
"According to Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair’s own analysis, in 2006, city cops deployed the devices in 156 incidents. In all but nine, the subject appeared “to have a mental disorder” or was in some sort of “crisis.” "
Globe and Mail 11 Feb 2008.

The police services board seemed less than enthusiastic to hand tasers out:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/07/11/to-taser.html

P.S. I am not "anti-Taser". Anything that made the job easier was ok by me. I only wish they invented them three or four decades ago. Sometimes, quietly sitting down and letting them blow off steam at you helped calm them ( and the family ). 
I never saw a taser used, but I was trained ( like everyone else ) to remove the probes. ( Except above the clavicles; in the nipples; or in the scrotum or genital area ).
I heard about a guy got Tasered in the eye at Dufferin and St Clair:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/10/29/siu-taser.html


----------



## zipperhead_cop

mariomike said:
			
		

> CBC story from Dec 2009.
> It caught my eye because it says:
> "Police rethinking Taser use on mentally ill, inquiry told":
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2009/12/01/ns-hyde-police-taser-training.html
> "It also plans to train dispatchers to recognize signs of mental health disorders when a 911 call is made and to *deploy Emergency Health Services in such cases*."
> This story is from Halifax. I was surprised to read this was not the case there already.



That story smacks of politically correct, fluffy idiocy.  When someone is clearly suffering from a mental heath disorder, we already treat them differently.  If you go too heavy on them, you just make it hard on the next officer.  We go out of our way to talk to them and try to diffuse whatever is going on.  A Taser is a USE OF FORCE OPTION, used when a person is starting to range out of the active resistive (struggling to get away, kicking, thrashing) portion of the use of force model and into the assaultive portion (trying to punch, kick, harm us deliberately).  The two have NOTHING to do with each other.  At such time as anyone, regardless of mental state or lack thereof, is demonstrating the behaviors I mentioned (or worse) they get dealt with.  There is* never * going to be a time where officers put their safety on the line in order to put on kid gloves just because somebody decided not to take their meds.  Perhaps the medical community should get their thumbs out of their asses and make community treatment orders more common?  



> "According to Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair’s own analysis, in 2006, city cops deployed the devices in 156 incidents. In all but nine, the subject appeared “to have a mental disorder” or was in some sort of “crisis.” "
> Globe and Mail 11 Feb 2008.



Well, thank you for that Chief Obvious.  I bet a large percentile of high speed collisions happen when cars drive fast too.  



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> The police services board seemed less than enthusiastic to hand tasers out:
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/07/11/to-taser.html



That article is from 2007!  I think they got over it.  They needed more info.  That is reasonable.  



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> P.S. I am not "anti-Taser". Anything that made the job easier was ok by me. I only wish they invented them three or four decades ago.



They did, but they used to be called "hickory sticks" and "black jacks"  



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> Sometimes, quietly sitting down and letting them blow off steam at you helped calm them ( and the family ).



Paramedic crews here will not enter a house that has an MHA person until we have arrived, entered and signalled them to come in.  However, if Toronto Paramedic crews want to wade into potentially violent MHA calls without the police and get into a protracted chit chat about life and its nuances they can have at 'er.  At least they will be qualified to tend to their own wounds when they start getting injured.


----------



## mariomike

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> However, if Toronto Paramedic crews want to wade into potentially violent MHA calls without the police and get into a protracted chit chat about life and its nuances they can have at 'er.



As the result of a lawsuit against the city for "Delay of Service", which resulted in the unpaid suspensions of two Emergency Medical Dispatchers, two Paramedics, and one Operations Supervisor, there is a new S.O.P. on when to delay service, and when not to.:
http://www.toronto.ca/emssoprecs/

Edit to add:
This is the new "Delay of Service" S.O.P. for our Paramedics.:
"Paramedics are reminded of their responsibility under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Section 43, (1) and (2).2 *These sections exclude paramedics from the right to refuse work* where the circumstances are inherent in their work and/or if the work refusal would directly endanger the health and safety of another person."

"Not enter a scene until the appropriate agency has arrived in circumstances involving;
• the *use* of weapons at the scene;
• *continuing* violence at the scene;
• fire / hazardous materials"
http://www.toronto.ca/emssoprecs/pdf/Patient-Care-and-Scene-Safety-Policy.pdf

"The decision to delay EMS service must include recognizing and evaluating the reasons for problematic patient behaviour—such as metabolic causes of combative behaviour—*to ensure staff are not jeopardizing the patient’s life, health or safety.*


----------



## WTShields

I feel inclined to chime in here.

Someone that I know quite well works in the stats as a sheriff's deputy. He is a taser carrying unit, and uses Taserhappy as part of his online identity. Shortly after the aformentioned Vancouver incedent, I said to him that he might want to change it incase anyone heard his name in conjunction with his taser use.
His quote was as follow "Man , I have  been trained in its use. I know what it does and I have had it used on me. If I deploy my taser its because the F*@&er deserved it." 

Secondly,
All I see with the local service (and it really bugs me) is so back and forth. If members deploy a taser as a non-lethal they say "NO tasers are wrong." 2 weeks later when a non-taser baring unit shoots a Native Male carrying a large butcher knife in a crowded parking lot , they say "Why didn't they just wait for a taser unit ?"
*NEWS FLASH SOCIETY !!!! YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!!*


----------



## mariomike

WTShields said:
			
		

> *NEWS FLASH SOCIETY !!!! YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!!*



Darned if you do, and darned if you don't.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

WTShields said:
			
		

> *NEWS FLASH SOCIETY !!!! YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!!*



You must be from somewhere other than Canada?  In this country, you certainly _can_ have it both ways.  Multiple ways.  Then you get to complain that you had too many options.  Then you get to point the finger at the person who helped you find multiple ways.  
The sheeple seem to feel that it is part of an officers job to risk injury to get the job done.  We take on a certain amount of risk, but we do not (and never will) tolerate violence for the sake of consideration towards a subject.  If our general society wasn't so lacking in integrity and personal accountability this would be a no brainer.  But people want to be able to poke the dog through the fence and still be able to demand it gets put down when it jumps over and bites them.


----------



## stukirkpatrick

Now now ZC, nobody forced you to be a police officer, and you should expect all these risks of injury...  :blotto:  strangely enough hypocritical words always said by people who aren't the first in line to help someone.

I saw an MHA call last week where local EMS got the original call and waited until police attended before opening the apartment door.

It was my belief that the Taser was a tool of choice in these situations (where warranted) as an alternative to having to shoot an emotionally disturbed person with a knife, bat, samurai sword or other close-range object.  Less so in a case where it's a rationally thinking bad guy who just wants to hurt/maim/kill you for their own reasons.


----------



## medaid

Please keep in mind that individuals with knife, sword, gun, weapons in general fall under the death/grievous bodily harm spectrum on the UoF model. In such a case, officers are and should respond with firearms if attacked. Keep in mind safety of self and public, out weigh the 20/20 hind sight of the uneducated masses.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Oh don't worry.  Popular opinion will never change how we do business.  Home at the end of the shift.  That is all that matters.  
Funny, for some reason people like to say "you don't question the boots on the ground" but that couldn't possibly relate to police apparently.


----------



## J.J

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Oh don't worry.  Popular opinion will never change how we do business.  Home at the end of the shift.  That is all that matters.
> Funny, for some reason people like to say "you don't question the boots on the ground" but that couldn't possibly relate to police apparently.


I find that separation to be very hypocritical .

Don't worry some posters have family members that are LEO's so they know as well if not better than LEO's on how to do the job.  :


----------



## Occam

WR said:
			
		

> I find that separation to be very hypocritical .
> 
> Don't worry some posters have family members that are LEO's so they know as well if not better than LEO's on how to do the job.  :



Yep, Vancouver's finest on the job.  Are you telling me I need to be a cop to be qualified enough to say they screwed up?

Get off the "unqualified, stay in your lane" attitude.  You don't need to be a mechanic to know the tire's flat.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I just read that and the only thing PROVEN so far is that the police didn't realize there were 2 suites in the *house. If indeed the complaintent did take the first swing and/or tried to close the door on the police when they had reason to believe that there might be others inside in danger then sometimes one receives what they started.



*One thing I've noticed is that the illegally separated homes in my neighbourhood don't readily throw up that fact on the front door........just saying.


----------



## Occam

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I just read that and the only thing PROVEN so far is that the police didn't realize there were 2 suites in the *house. If indeed the complaintent did take the first swing and/or tried to close the door on the police when they had reason to believe that there might be others inside in danger then sometimes one receives what they started.



You forgot the other PROVEN thing:  That the Vancouver Police Chief had to not only apologize for the arrest, *but had to retract an earlier statement that the man had resisted arrest*.

So...if Mr. Wu didn't resist arrest, why does he look like a piece of hamburger?


----------



## J.J

Occam said:
			
		

> Yep, Vancouver's finest on the job.  Are you telling me I need to be a cop to be qualified enough to say they screwed up?
> 
> Get off the "unqualified, stay in your lane" attitude.  You don't need to be a mechanic to know the tire's flat.



Get off your soap box and listen to what is being said again....

No one is saying what happened in Vancouver was correct, but like it has been said out here several times....let's not pass judgement on something until the whole story is out.

I really don't know what your issue with LEO's are, but you make a disparaging remark then counter it with "I have  family members in law enforcement ". It is like a racist saying I am not a bigot I have a "insert colour" friend.

LEO's are giving you informed, educated and experienced opinions, but you choose not to listen. Instead you try and insert appeared misconduct of 2 officers in an agency of 1,327 sworn officers to bolster any argument you have.

Out here, in this thread contributing are active police officers, correction officers etc. As a LEO I personally spend a good part of my work week training others in use of force, tactics and firearms, so I know what I am speaking about. I do it for a living!

Nothing wrong with having an opinion, like an a**shole, we all have one.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Occam,
He apologised for PC reasons, it's the "in" thing and doesn't officially change anything. He probably IS sorry someone [anyone] got beat up, there is nothing wrong with that.

Any official statements concerning the case would have to be retracted, to protect both sides in any future investigation, or would you rather have whomever is in the wrong 'walk' on account of that?

You should post on subjects you know something about as investigations certainly isn't one of them.


----------



## Occam

WR said:
			
		

> Get off your soap box and listen to what is being said again....
> 
> No one is saying what happened in Vancouver was correct, but like it has been said out here several times....let's not pass judgement on something until the whole story is out.



The Vancouver Police Chief had to apologize for the arrest, and retract a previous statement that the man had resisted arrest - and yet he looks like a piece of hamburger.  How much more story do you need?  He fell down the stairs to the lockup?  Twelve times?



> I really don't know what your issue with LEO's are, but you make a disparaging remark then counter it with "I have  family members in law enforcement ". It is like a racist saying I am not a bigot I have a "insert colour" friend.



Now see, there's the problem - I'll correct your statement.

As I said numerous times before, I don't have a problem with the majority of LEOs, who are law-abiding.  I do have a problem with those in the minority who abuse their authority, and live above the law they're supposed to uphold.  You know why I made the statement that I have family in law enforcement, which was to counter the ludicrous claims that I was anti-police, so I don't know why you keep asking the question.  Had you and others not attacked my support of LEOs (because I pointed out a few instances of police misconduct), I would not have had the need to expound upon why I do hold honest LEOs in high regard.



> LEO's are giving you informed, educated and experienced opinions, but you choose not to listen. Instead you try and insert appeared misconduct of 2 officers in an agency of 1,327 sworn officers to bolster any argument you have.



You forgot the Fredericton Police Officer who has been charged with assault.  Would you like me to find more examples of cops who have been convicted of criminal offences?  You have this righteous indignation about you that LEOs can do no wrong - I have pointed out that they can and do.  Why am I being pointed out as the bad guy?



> Out here, in this thread contributing are active police officers, correction officers etc. As a LEO I personally spend a good part of my work week training others in use of force, tactics and firearms, so I know what I am speaking about. I do it for a living!



You're a peace officer for the purposes of _Immigration and Refugee Protection Act_ and an extremely limited section of the _Criminal Code_, but you're not a police officer.  How many times have you been tased?  How many times have you employed the taser?  Are you qualified on the taser?

I didn't just fall off the turnip truck - and I can make educated, fair comment on generalities without having to be an "expert" LEO.



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Occam,
> He apologised for PC reasons, it's the "in" thing and doesn't officially change anything. He probably IS sorry someone [anyone] got beat up, there is nothing wrong with that.
> 
> Any official statements concerning the case would have to be retracted, to protect both sides in any future investigation, or would you rather have whomever is in the wrong 'walk' on account of that?



They arrested the correct person almost immediately after the mistaken arrest.  If they held an honest belief that they had the right person the first time, and beat the crap out of him for resisting arrest applied judicious use of force to effect the arrest, and then later recant their story about him resisting, what bearing does that have on the lawful arrest of the real offender 15 minutes later?  None!  The Chief of Police had no reason to retract the story other than the fact that it wasn't true.  If it came out at a civil trial down the road that he knew Mr. Wu didn't resist arrest, and let the statement stand, there'd be a bunch of heads on the chopping block.  There was nothing "PC" about it.

Now, I'm going to walk away from this thread.  I was raised by a Police Officer, and raised to respect Police Officers - nobody here has any right to question my regard for them.  The ones who stay on the right side of the law, anyway.


----------



## J.J

Occam,
First I am going to counter one of your many misconceptions about what i do for a living. Yes I work for CBSA, but this is where you are wrong. I do not work at a port of entry, I do not wear a uniform, I will not elaborate on what I do, but the some of the mod's do not know what I do. They can confirm what I am claiming.
I enforce and have full powers in IRPA, the Customs Act, the Criminal Code and 90 + other acts of parliament. My occupation  holds more legislative powers and authorities than a Police Officer. 
So get back on the turnip truck where you belong.

I am also going to ignore whatever you have to say concerning anything to do with this subject. You seem to have strong opinions that cannot be changed by reason, experience, knowledge or training. You seem to have an agenda that cannot be wavered.
I am used to dealing with personalities like yours on a daily basis at work; I don't need to deal with them at home (except with my 4yr old). 

Here are some websites more suited to your beliefs; Milnet may not be your style.

http://mostlywater.org/montreal_pigs_brutalize_antipolice_brutality_demo
http://antipolicemisconduct.meetup.com/
http://michaelbluejay.com/police/
http://www.policebrutality.info/


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Occam said:
			
		

> Now, I'm going to walk away from this thread.



Not quite so fast dimwit.

You would make a friggin' wonderful Adjudicating Officer, how [a] do you know "they got the correct man"? You do know he is presumed to be innocent?  As are anyone in that whole scenario until convicted, well except the cops in your opinion. 
[b} While the number of use of force's may lean in my direction I can assure you WR knows more about giving and receiving tasers than I do.

[c] 'respect'? Methinks not, respect is what I give to anyone on this site who has been on either a two shooting range, or even moreso, those who's hands were tied to a one way range, since I never managed to do either of those jobs.  Look through my 11,000 [I need a life] posts and see if, even once, I questioned the way that they did the job AT THE TIME? 

You meanwhile, convict people from reading media and not ever having walked in their shoes......



EDIT: corrected some horrible grammar, I blame night shifts.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

This has circled the drain enough. There is nothing positive or redeeming left to say.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## George Wallace

Topic still LOCKED.  This new info provided by mariomike:




			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> Hi George:
> 
> Tasers have been in the news lately. The topic is locked, but here are some new stories, if you think they would add anything to the discussion.
> 
> "RCMP gives cash settlement to Taser victim’s mother"
> Apr 2 2010
> http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/788678--rcmp-gives-cash-settlement-to-taser-victim-s-mother
> 
> April. 8, 2010
> "Smile! You're on Taser Cam":
> http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100406/bc_taser_camera_100406/20100406?hub=BritishColumbia
> 
> Ontario: See "Top Stories"
> March 30, 2010
> "Ontario Sets New Standards For Taser Use":
> http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/default.html


----------

