It' so sad; I'm really angry

[rafikz]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/11/14/bc-taservideo.html

Video
http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/bc/ondemand/video/YVRTASERVIDEO.wmv

Taser related deaths in Canada
http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/map-tasers-canada/

[michaelskar]

really unfortunate stuff there...

[rafikz]

The "funniest" part (there is nothing funny, but you get my point) was this comment of an RCMP representative : "this video is not the whole story"; pretty lame excuse; I so wanted to beat him when he said that (but I guess he would have thrown 1 000 000 Volts at me, just for thinking about it)

[VR6ofpain]

Well the article you posted indicates, "The video was recorded in three segments". What he was probably trying to say was that watching the video does not give you the whole story. You have no idea what took place during the two unfilmed segments. So he has a point.

[rafikz]

Well the article you posted indicates, "The video was recorded in three segments". What he was probably trying to say was that watching the video does not give you the whole story. You have no idea what took place during the two unfilmed segments. So he has a point.

Technically, he has a point, but as an RCMP member, he knows what everybody witnessed, so this is pure hypocrisy.

[Doc4]

Every time I see that video, I get so p!$$ed off.

I don't have a problem with the tazer being part of the police equipment, but the behaviour of those 4 officers was way over the top ... that guy was way down the 'force response spectrum'.

I suspect that part of the problem is how excessive security has become at airports in the past few years ... over-reaction is "okay" there.

[MotoMike]

Something about the Tazer rubs people the wrong way. They feel like it is not a fair fight and people would just rather see those 4 cops manhandle him to the ground and wrestle him into submission. If it were a full on wrestling match in which everyone is trying as hard as they can, someone would get hurt.

In this case the results were tragic. I will say that on first blush and from the vantage point of the video, it could look like they were trigger-happy. My take is that just before he backed against the wall, they had tried to cuff or otherwise take him into custody. He then escaped their grasp and backed against the wall. We could not see if he had anything in his hands or if he was trying to get something out of his pocket. I am sorry that he died. I do feel however that when you are ranting and raving and smashing computer monitors and holding up tables and what ever else he was doing in there, that it is reasonable to expect that law enforcement will be taking you into custody. You have already demonstrated a violent tendency. I encourage people to allow the investigation to be completed.


Most departments have a use of force continuum, which dictates where the Tazer may be used. It usually goes between the verbal commands and the use of an impact weapon or pepper spray. In otherworlds, if you tell someone they are under arrest and to turn around and put their hands behind their backs, and they tell you to screw off and try to leave, it is Tazer time.

The concern about using pepper spray in the airport is a real one. The story made it seem like a lame excuse. If you have ever been involved in an incident where pepper spray was used, you would know that it spreads very far and effects everyone who gets a whiff. I think I have seen schools evacuated from using it to control one subject.

Tazers do not in the hundreds of thousands of uses cause death. In the greatest majority of cases Tazers reduce injury to officers and suspects.

They must not have gotten him with both probes on the first shot, as he did not drop where he was, that is why you hear the second crack. They did not continue to use the Tazer as he continued to resist. The idea is to get him cuffed up before the 5-second initial shot finishes. Their use of force protocol probably allowed additional doses until the he complied.

I have been shot with a Tazer and found it to be the most painful and longest 5 seconds of my life. I was trying to stay on my feet and fight. It was not possible. Immediately after the initial dose, which is 5 seconds automatically, The pain went away and I was back to normal.

Regards,

Mike

[Suzuki]

It so easy to criticize police officers for using "excess" force when subduing people in situations like this and the media is quick to jump on the police brutality bandwagon.

I am not saying how the situation was or wasn't appropriate.

I also note that the "code red" appeared to have been said by a security guard, not one of the police officers and it was said while the struggle was still onsuing - my sense is that the use of the term "code red" was to signal a disturbance, and not any indication that the person being subdued was in medical distress. The struggle was still in process and there simply wasn't time for anyone to have determined that medical attention was needed when this was said.

Its unfortunate and there should be a complete investigation - including external investigators - to determine what happened, whether proper procedures were followed and how this sort of thing can be avoided.

However, when you're a decent sized guy acting erratically in an airport, you've got to expect a pretty severe police reaction. To do this where you also don't speak the language can only worsen the situation.

As I said above, its so easy to criticize police officers/armchair quarterback, but at the end of the day, very few of us are ever going to be in a situation where we have to physically subdue someone. The police can't win - its not ok to draw their weapons, its not ok to use a baton, its not ok to use physical force, its not ok to use a taser - you get my point.

The reality is that you can't talk people into submission in many cases and that force is needed. While I definitely think police officers need to use restraint, they do need to be able to use appropriate amounts of force. I personally know a police officer who spent several months in hospital and was lucky not to have been killed - why - because he tried to intervene in a situation, was concerned that he could get into trouble for drawing his weapon and decided to use his baton instead. I suspect he would have very much wished an option such as a taser had been available to him.

And the video is not the whole story - the man may have had something in his hands, may have said something to the police, etc...

I wasn't there so I'll wait until there's a proper investigation before passing judgement or suggesting that I want to beat a police officer who said something I didn't agree with or insinuating that police go around using tasers on people who they don't agree with.

[Texican]

+1. I'm with Suzuki on this one.

Whether or not excessive force was used, the man should have cooperated with police. Case in point...

My wife is a type-I diabetic. One day in college when we were dating, we drove to church one Sunday. While driving through the city with me, her blood sugar plummeted, sending her into a state of erratic behavior - swerving in and out of traffic dangerously and screaming at me (if anyone has ever been with a type-I diabetic or watched the movie "Steel Magnolias" you know what I am talking about.) I pulled the emergency brake, got out of the car, and put her in the passenger seat so that I could tend to her and call 911 for assistance.

Someone saw the incident and called the police, thinking that I was having a "domestic disturbance" with her. The police arrived and saw blood (I pricked her finger with the glucon-monitor to see what her blood sugar was while waiting for the ambulance to come) and a passed out girl in the passenger seat.

They did what any sane, rational, and thoughtful police officer would have done - they cuffed me for their safety, pulled me to the side, and spoke to me. After I told them what had happened, and they saw that the ambulance arrived, they apologized and uncuffed me to let me render assistance.

Several college student friends of mine thought this was excessive. Here I was - not only being a Good Samaritan and a church-going citizen, but a good boyfriend helping the girl that I loved, and I was put in irons and dragged to the side of the road?

It might have been, but they were doing it for their protection. They had no idea who I was or what I was doing.

I know this situation doesn't compare, but it is an example of an extreme police sometimes must take in order to see to their own safety, and how important it is to cooperate with law enforcement in times of confusion.

[rafikz]

+1. I'm with Suzuki on this one.

Whether or not excessive force was used, the man should have cooperated with police. Case in point...

My wife is a type-I diabetic. One day in college when we were dating, we drove to church one Sunday. While driving through the city with me, her blood sugar plummeted, sending her into a state of erratic behavior - swerving in and out of traffic dangerously and screaming at me (if anyone has ever been with a type-I diabetic or watched the movie "Steel Magnolias" you know what I am talking about.) I pulled the emergency brake, got out of the car, and put her in the passenger seat so that I could tend to her and call 911 for assistance.

Someone saw the incident and called the police, thinking that I was having a "domestic disturbance" with her. The police arrived and saw blood (I pricked her finger with the glucon-monitor to see what her blood sugar was while waiting for the ambulance to come) and a passed out girl in the passenger seat.

They did what any sane, rational, and thoughtful police officer would have done - they cuffed me for their safety, pulled me to the side, and spoke to me. After I told them what had happened, and they saw that the ambulance arrived, they apologized and uncuffed me to let me render assistance.

Several college student friends of mine thought this was excessive. Here I was - not only being a Good Samaritan and a church-going citizen, but a good boyfriend helping the girl that I loved, and I was put in irons and dragged to the side of the road?

It might have been, but they were doing it for their protection. They had no idea who I was or what I was doing.

I know this situation doesn't compare, but it is an example of an extreme police sometimes must take in order to see to their own safety, and how important it is to cooperate with law enforcement in times of confusion.

He should have cooperated, but does that justify 50 000 (yes 50 000) Volts ? NO !!!!

4 policemen, 1 man; they could have just grabbed him and calm him down, but no, they had to tase him; they are not real men, they are cowards.

[moses]

He should have cooperated, but does that justify 50 000 (yes 50 000) Volts ? NO !!!!

4 policemen, 1 man; they could have just grabbed him and calm him down, but no, they had to tase him; they are not real men, they are cowards.

I wouldn't be so fast on that, perhaps. I have not looked at the video yet (at work) but.... The idea is for no one to get hurt. Now, 99% of the time, with a tazer, no one gets hurt (yes, I realize the tazer hurts like hell at the time, but that is relatively fleeting). I doubt that could be said of physically subduing people.

-Mo

[Texican]

As Suzuki said, we don't know whether or not this gentleman had a weapon or what.

It is a very unfortunate situation, and I feel for the man and his mother. I cannot judge as I have never been a police officer or in law enforcement. And having in laws in the FBI doesn't count either. But I think this incident should not be a pretext for removing tasers from the RCMP arsenal. All in all, it is a weapon that saves lives - not only decreasing the amount of police fatalities, but perpetrators ones as well.

[Doc4]

He should have cooperated, but does that justify 50 000 (yes 50 000) Volts ? NO !!!!

4 policemen, 1 man; they could have just grabbed him and calm him down, but no, they had to tase him; they are not real men, they are cowards.

If he spoke any English, maybe he would have complied.

I don't object to police using tazers in appropriate situations, or other appropriate force. And whatever comes out of the inquest and trial will no doubt sway my opinions ... but right now I'm waiting for that process to convince me as to why what I saw on that video was an appropriate response. (It may have been appropriate, but right now I don't see it. But I'm always willing to change my opinions if I ought to.)

[Rolo]

I can't believe that there are actually people defending those cops. Yes the man was irate, but the cops didn't do anything to try to calm him down. And they tazed him four times? You just can't defend that.

Has anyone explained why he was there for 8 hours after landing with nobody to help him? YVR really screwed up big time.

I saw the vid of his mom and it broke my heart.

[Doc4]

As Suzuki said, we don't know whether or not this gentleman had a weapon or what.

It is a very unfortunate situation, and I feel for the man and his mother. I cannot judge as I have never been a police officer or in law enforcement. And having in laws in the FBI doesn't count either. But I think this incident should be a pretext for removing tasers from the RCMP arsenal. All in all, it is a weapon that saves lives - not only decreasing the amount of police fatalities, but perpetrators ones as well.

Typo? You mean should not be a petext to remove tasers? :whistling:

[Rolo]

If he spoke any English, maybe he would have complied.
Several witnesses told the cops that he didn't speak English, that he only spoke Russian (I guess it sounds like Polish).

[Texican]

Typo? You mean should not be a petext to remove tasers? :whistling:

Yes it was a typo. I made the appropriate edit. Thanks. :wink:

[liege]

I'll bet Rodney King and most of Los Angeles wishes Mr. King had only been "tazed".

[Rolo]

I'll bet Rodney King and most of Los Angeles wishes Mr. King had only been "tazed".
So the choices are being beaten to a bloody pulp by a bunch of out of control cops or being tazed to death?

[Texican]

I don't know what to say. I can't say whether it was or wasn't extreme force for the circumstances. I'm not a law enforcement expert.

But I do agree that this case should be investigated thoroughly.

[liege]

In the RK case, if he had been tazed that would have been the end of it. There would be no video and there would be no riots and the ensuing deaths. He would have been taken into custody for his drug induced high-speed evasion of police escapades. I am saying that we saw 30 seconds of a home video over and over and all people would say is how brutal was the beating this man received. It was brutal but all we ever saw was 20-30 seconds of the whole episode. Yes, the police did overreact.

[ScottS]

I'll bet Rodney King and most of Los Angeles wishes Mr. King had only been "tazed".

Rodney King is worth so much more now than he was before, that I'm sure he'd do it again in a second if it came down to it. If my net worth raised by the same percentage, I'd take that beating twice!

[MotoMike]

He should have cooperated, but does that justify 50 000 (yes 50 000) Volts ? NO !!!!

4 policemen, 1 man; they could have just grabbed him and calm him down, but no, they had to tase him; they are not real men, they are cowards.

I understand your feelings. I respectfully disagree.

If 4 people try to grab me and all they are doing is trying to immobilize me, I guarantee you that it will not be easy for them. Even If all I do is flail around and try to keep pulling away from them, someone could get injured. And if I really want to resist, I guarantee someone will get hurt, a couple of them and me. After I punch or kick one or more cop one or more times, they will have to use their impact weapons or pepper spray and take me down with overwhelming force. It would definitely appear to be a police excessive use of force case to observers, but it would not be. And I would get banged up in the process.

As Mo has pointed out, the Tazer's results are fleeting. I can tell you that within seconds you feel no pain. Where as arm bars or other pain compliance moves and strikes with batons can cause a lot of damage. And pepper spray, Man you are a hurting unit for a long time after getting a dose of 10% OC in the face. Several hours before it only hurts real badly.

50 kvolts a 100 kvolts it doesn't matter, in all but the rarest cases the Tazer causes no damage except for the very minor wounds where the barbs on the probes are pulled out.

This guy had a lot of chances to make it end peacefully. He could have refrained from smashing the computer on the floor, he could have turned his back to them and put his hands behind his back when the coppers walked up and allowed himself to be cuffed. It is a tragedy that he died.

But I don't know how it happened and the video is only one piece of evidence.


Let's wait till the investigation is done before passing judgment.

Mike

[BMWRider]

I know this will not be a popular opinion here, but as far as I can tell Tazers are another tool for over exuberant police officers who abuse people by abusing the tool. If you want to see some shocking stuff go to YouTube and search for police tazer videos. There was a recent situation where a young man was questioning John Kerry at a political Q & A and he was repeatedly Tazered. Another case occurred in Delaware when a young man was Tazered several times and when he "refused" to put up his hands, he was shot to death. Wonder how quickly the officer who killed him would raised his hands with thousands of volts shooting through his body? We can all say what private citizens "should" do, but do you think it would have been cool to Tazer Martin Luther King, Ghandi, or Malcolm X? All they had to do was comply with government. Additionally I would like to point out that Tazers effect different people different ways. What is fleeting to you may last minutes for me.

[liege]

I know this will not be a popular opinion here, but as far as I can tell Tazers are another tool for over exuberant police officers who abuse people by abusing the tool. If you want to see some shocking stuff go to YouTube and search for police tazer videos. There was a recent situation where a young man was questioning John Kerry at a political Q & A and he was repeatedly Tazered. Another case occurred in Delaware when a young man was Tazered several times and when he "refused" to put up his hands, he was shot to death. Wonder how quickly the officer who killed him would raised his hands with thousands of volts shooting through his body? We can all say what private citizens "should" do, but do you think it would have been cool to Tazer Martin Luther King, Ghandi, or Malcolm X? All they had to do was comply with government. Additionally I would like to point out that Tazers effect different people different ways. What is fleeting to you may last minutes for me.

He later admitted he was wrong and deserved what he got.

[BMWRider]

He later admitted he was wrong and deserved what he got.

Saw the interview, not what he said.

[rafikz]

Well, if Tazers effect different people in different ways, they should not be used, period.

Some can die because of it, some can't; so basically, you can kill a man who is not that dangerous because the previous guy you have tazed didn't die ?

When I doubt, don't do anything

[Mr. Gillette]

It is outrageous, to be sure. I learned this lesson once the hard way, as a newly-married 21-year old, screaming out of the driveway after an argument, in front of a Michigan State Police car, at 2 AM, being pulled over immediately. My shoes were not fully on my feet, so as the two officers approached, I was trying to fix it, my hands out of sight under the seat as I tugged at my sneakers. I found myself propelled through the door, sprawled on the hood, and looking squarely into the barrel of a service revolver. The situation was resolved quickly, no ticket was issued, and one of the officers advised me to go home and settle things with the bride and go to bed. Still-- I learned a valuable lesson...

...it's not like a kid misbehaving in the grocery store, where mommy says "1...2...I'm counting..." These guys have to assess the situation and get in there and deal with it.

But 4 against one in the way they did it is pretty overwhelming.

Still-- I'd like to pose this question, calmly-- rationally-- how many of YOU, on B&B have been tasered (against your will!) or shot (not in military service, or by accident), but deliberately, either by police or anyone else. I haven't, and not many of my friends have. If so, I'm sorry. It must be a scary experience. If not, why do you think this is?

I feel sorry for this guy. I also look at it as a sober reminder to keep myself away from situations or postures where I might somehow represent a threat to 4 guys who would do such a thing.

Waffling? Yes...trying to see a number of points here. Wanting to believe that these 4 cops weren't just "bullies", wishing we could live in a world where Andy Taylor could truly be the Sheriff Without a Gun, and that Barney could keep his bullet in his pocket at all times.

And I don't mean to make light of it-- I watched it soon after it was posted, probably 6 hours ago, and only now felt like responding to the post. It is, indeed, upsetting to say the least. Thanks for sharing it, though.:crying:

[liege]

So let's see. Tazers might kill someone so they're out. Guns definitely might kill someone so they're out. People have been killed by nightsticks, chokeholds, you name it. What recourse does law enforcement have? Just wrestle with a person high on PCP?

[Suzuki]

He should have cooperated, but does that justify 50 000 (yes 50 000) Volts ? NO !!!!

4 policemen, 1 man; they could have just grabbed him and calm him down, but no, they had to tase him; they are not real men, they are cowards.

You've obviously never had to restrain someone who was resisting vigorously.

Its not easy and you have to use a lot of force - generally much less controlable than a metered dose of electricity.

I suspect (have not done the research/seen the stats) that more serious injuries have been caused by forceful restraint (including deaths) than by tazers - on a per incident basis.


I can't believe that there are actually people defending those cops. Yes the man was irate, but the cops didn't do anything to try to calm him down. And they tazed him four times? You just can't defend that.

Has anyone explained why he was there for 8 hours after landing with nobody to help him? YVR really screwed up big time.

I saw the vid of his mom and it broke my heart.

I think its very unlikely that the investigation will conclude he was tazed four times.

You say the cops didn't try to do anything to calm him down - you weren't there and you don't know what was said or done (as we couldn't see the man's hands) immediately before the situation escalated.

I don't know what YVR (Vancouver airport) staff did or didn't do, doesn't excuse his behaviour - which was clearly erratic. Someone who is old enough to have grown up in a pre-glasnost Poland knows better than to act the way he did in an airport.

I agree that this is an unfortunate incident and I feel horribly for his mother - however, this doesn't add anything to the discussion of whether the police did/didn't act appropriately. However, it does sell ad space.



So the choices are being beaten to a bloody pulp by a bunch of out of control cops or being tazed to death?

Please - you have the option of complying with laws, not acting erratically in public places where there is a heightened concern regarding security.

If you chose to break laws or do what this guy was doing in an airport, bad things will happen to you.


I know this will not be a popular opinion here, but as far as I can tell Tazers are another tool for over exuberant police officers who abuse people by abusing the tool. If you want to see some shocking stuff go to YouTube and search for police tazer videos. There was a recent situation where a young man was questioning John Kerry at a political Q & A and he was repeatedly Tazered. Another case occurred in Delaware when a young man was Tazered several times and when he "refused" to put up his hands, he was shot to death. Wonder how quickly the officer who killed him would raised his hands with thousands of volts shooting through his body? We can all say what private citizens "should" do, but do you think it would have been cool to Tazer Martin Luther King, Ghandi, or Malcolm X? All they had to do was comply with government. Additionally I would like to point out that Tazers effect different people different ways. What is fleeting to you may last minutes for me.

Tazers are a tool and can be misused - police who misuse their tazers should be disciplined appropriately.

To say that tazers "are another tool for over exuberant police officers who abuse people by abusing the tool" is an insult to the majority of law enforcement officers who are respectful of their position of authority and who use any force as a last resort.

Also, while definitely not a perfect tool, I suspect that the data, beyond sensationalist clips uploaded to YouTube, shows that tazers have saved more lives/prevented more serious injuries than the number of people they have killed. Does this mean we shouldn't carefully think about the appropirate use of tazers or design better/safer non-lethal means to subdue people in appropriate situations - absolutely not. But it also doesn't mean that we should stop law enforcement officers from having and using tazers.


Well, if Tazers effect different people in different ways, they should not be used, period.

Some can die because of it, some can't; so basically, you can kill a man who is not that dangerous because the previous guy you have tazed didn't die ?

When I doubt, don't do anything

Easy for someone who will likely never have to forceably subdue someone - see my comments above regarding the fact that physically subduing someone often causes injuries, puts officers at risk and has caused deaths as well.

Using your logic, police shouldn't attempt to subdue anyone and should just let people who don't want to be arrested (which I suspect is the majority) go because they might get hurt trying to resist arrest. I'm not sure that's the way to go if you want to be able to live in a society where you don't lock yourself in at night and keep a shotgun handy at all times.


So let's see. Tazers might kill someone so they're out. Guns definitely might kill someone so they're out. People have been killed by nightsticks, chokeholds, you name it. What recourse does law enforcement have? Just wrestle with a person high on PCP?

I think the folks at Nerf might make something that would be acceptable to the folks at Amnesty International.

Again, I'm specifically not saying whether the police who tazered the guy in Vancouver were right or wrong, just that we shouldn't jump to conclusions based on some bad video and sensationalist reporting.

Similarly, we shouldn't let a handful of unfortunate incidents decide whether police should or shouldn't have access to tazers as a tool to subdue people in appropriate situations.

[_JP_]

He should have cooperated, but does that justify 50 000 (yes 50 000) Volts ? NO !!!!

4 policemen, 1 man; they could have just grabbed him and calm him down, but no, they had to tase him; they are not real men, they are cowards.

You're right. And they should have bludgeoned him into submission with their billy clubs when he continued to resist. :out: That was the method that was commonly used before tazers.

When it comes to electricity, it's the amps that kill, not the volts. High voltages delivered at low amps is very survivable as is demonstrated by the tazer systems.

The tazers have been so widely accepted by police forces because they are not only affective at rendering the suspect immobile, they have proven to be the safest means at hand for doing so. Safe not only for the police and bystanders, but the suspect as well. As with anything in life there are exceptions. On a case by case basis, far fewer suspects have been injured or killed by the use of tazers than any other means, including wrestling down the suspect.

One thing about "calming down" an agitated person is that it sometimes can't be done! The person might be under the influence, or completely mentally unbalanced to the point of not responding.

[Rolo]

I think its very unlikely that the investigation will conclude he was tazed 4 times.

You say the cops didn't try to do anything to calm him down - you weren't there and you don't know what was said or done (as we couldn't see the man's hands) immediately before the situation escalated.
At least 2 witnesses said that he was tazed four times

20 seconds elapsed between the time the cops first engaged him and then decided to tazed him. During those 20 seconds Dziekanski didn't do anything threatening, in fact at one point he walked away with his hands raised. At least twice on the video his hands were clearly seen. He wasn't holding anything.
At the time when the cops (not the security guards) show up he was pretty calm. Might have something to do with the fact that he was heard calling "policja". Perhaps at this point he thought he would finally get some help.


I don't know what YVR (Vancouver airport) staff did or didn't do, doesn't excuse his behaviour - which was clearly erratic. Someone who is old enough to have grown up in a pre-glasnost Poland knows better than to act the way he did in an airport
No one is excusing his behavior. However, his anger and frustration are understandable. The cop's reaction is not.
The guy was lost in international arrival area for over 8 hours. His mother who was waiting for him at baggage claim. When he didn't show up she inquired about him several times. Hours later she was told that her son never arrived. So yes, YVR did screw up.

I agree that this is an unfortunate incident and I feel horribly for his mother - however, this doesn't add anything to the discussion of whether the police did/didn't act appropriately. However, it does sell ad space.
Well, at least you feel sorry for his mother, that's something.

Please - you have the option of complying with laws, not acting erratically in public places where there is a heightened concern regarding security.
I was answering to the poster brought the Rodney King incident into this. You took it out of context.

If you chose to break laws or do what this guy was doing in an airport, bad things will happen to you.
A fine, sure. A night in a cell yes.

Getting tazed to death? No

[TimmyBoston]

It so easy to criticize police officers for using "excess" force when subduing people in situations like this and the media is quick to jump on the police brutality bandwagon.

I am not saying how the situation was or wasn't appropriate.

I also note that the "code red" appeared to have been said by a security guard, not one of the police officers and it was said while the struggle was still onsuing - my sense is that the use of the term "code red" was to signal a disturbance, and not any indication that the person being subdued was in medical distress. The struggle was still in process and there simply wasn't time for anyone to have determined that medical attention was needed when this was said.

Its unfortunate and there should be a complete investigation - including external investigators - to determine what happened, whether proper procedures were followed and how this sort of thing can be avoided.

However, when you're a decent sized guy acting erratically in an airport, you've got to expect a pretty severe police reaction. To do this where you also don't speak the language can only worsen the situation.

As I said above, its so easy to criticize police officers/armchair quarterback, but at the end of the day, very few of us are ever going to be in a situation where we have to physically subdue someone. The police can't win - its not ok to draw their weapons, its not ok to use a baton, its not ok to use physical force, its not ok to use a taser - you get my point.

The reality is that you can't talk people into submission in many cases and that force is needed. While I definitely think police officers need to use restraint, they do need to be able to use appropriate amounts of force. I personally know a police officer who spent several months in hospital and was lucky not to have been killed - why - because he tried to intervene in a situation, was concerned that he could get into trouble for drawing his weapon and decided to use his baton instead. I suspect he would have very much wished an option such as a taser had been available to him.

And the video is not the whole story - the man may have had something in his hands, may have said something to the police, etc...

I wasn't there so I'll wait until there's a proper investigation before passing judgement or suggesting that I want to beat a police officer who said something I didn't agree with or insinuating that police go around using tasers on people who they don't agree with.

Thank goodness a voice of reason. Well said, Chris. :thumbup1:

[MotoMike]

I know this will not be a popular opinion here, but as far as I can tell Tazers are another tool for over exuberant police officers who abuse people by abusing the tool. If you want to see some shocking stuff go to YouTube and search for police tazer videos. There was a recent situation where a young man was questioning John Kerry at a political Q & A and he was repeatedly Tazered. Another case occurred in Delaware when a young man was Tazered several times and when he "refused" to put up his hands, he was shot to death. Wonder how quickly the officer who killed him would raised his hands with thousands of volts shooting through his body? We can all say what private citizens "should" do, but do you think it would have been cool to Tazer Martin Luther King, Ghandi, or Malcolm X? All they had to do was comply with government. Additionally I would like to point out that Tazers effect different people different ways. What is fleeting to you may last minutes for me.

Is this true? All tenured teachers are lazy, don’t do their jobs, and are simply taking up space waiting for retirement. They know they would have to commit an ax murder to get fired.

It is not true because I said “all teachers”. You and I know that it is true of some teachers. But when I paint all teachers with the same broad brush it is an insult to those hard working, passionate teachers who are dedicated to their profession.

Your videos don't characterize a whole profession, they are anomalies and because of their being outside the norm, they receive attention.

I would expect someone working in a thankless profession to be more understanding of those working in another thankless profession.

Regards,
Mike

[Roman414]

Where I live, every few weeks there is an incident of the police killing someone, often an unarmed person. The police story is always the same..."He looked like he was reaching in his waistband" or "She tried to run me down with her vee-hickle." And in every case, the killing is ruled "justified", and "within guidelines." One officer on the force has killed five people "in the line of duty". I don't know what to make of this. Are only thugs attracted to police work? Why do five or six cops have to shoot someone armed with a stick? Why aren't they taught a little martial arts, or something? Any police on here have a comment?

[Dr. Mike]

For me, it boils down to this. Should cops be held to a higher standard than others? Absolutely! They are put in a position where they can legally take a person's life, if need be. So they should be more scrutinized. However, too many people are looking for them to screw up. And too often many people would like to overlook the whole innocent until proven guilty issue when it comes to cops.
When cops do their job quietly and effectively, and nothing happens to you, you ignore them. Most of us lead happy lives, and rarely have brushes with crime. You can thank cops for that. These guys put themselves on the line every day. You purposely avoid situations where you might be injured, whereas they purposely enter those situations so you can go about your day. When they approach someone, they never know if that person is going to behave calmly and rationally, or if they are going to try and kill them. Put yourself in their situation. There is so much talk about how little teachers get paid, but what about cops? I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. Do some step out of line? Sure. Should they be held accountable? Absolutely. Should we call for their heads everytime some video appears that seems to show brutality on their part? Tazers are used because they can incapacitate an individual long enough to be restrained. When you have to just wrestle a man down, more injuries can result. Think about it. If the guy doesn't want to go, and you need multiple guys to restrain him, its pretty likely that you may break some bones, and potentially cause some life-threatening injury. Anytime somebody commits a crime and resists arrest, they are putting themselves in danger. The police officer's number one responsibility is to protect innocent bystanders and his own life. The criminal is secondary. Don't like it? Don't commit a crime, and don't resist arrest.

[SilkySmooth]

Poor Guy


What's this world coming to?

[iron maiden]

As a state trooper, I'll try to address some of the tazer issues out there.

So, here goes nuthin'......

In all of the tazer related deaths I have researched, the person is suffering from what is called "excited delirium." This is a physiological condition brought on by overdosing on a stimulant (cocaine, methamphetamine, crack, etc.), and excessive physical activity. The officers have been forced to repeatedly tazer the person, several officers have attempted to subdue the person, and onlookers have become upset at what they were witness to. The sad thing is that even if the person weren't tazed, he or she would have died. Death is brought on by a super-elevated core temperature. In plain language, the person "cooks" from the inside until the delicate brain tissue is damaged to a point where it causes death. I know this might sound weird, but think of small children with very high fevers. Sometimes they are given ice baths to save their lives. This same treatment is the only treatment which can save the life of a person who has excited delirium.

To an innocent onlooker, the officers might seem overzealous or even brutal. However, from first hand experience, when somebody resists arrest, it ain't pretty. Sometimes it takes several officers to subdue a person who is high on crack, PCP, etc.

From what I saw on the video, the man who was tazed seemed to be sweating and breathing hard but this is NOT to say he was high on drugs...however, if it came out that he had drugs in his system....I wouldn't be surprised. Having seen tazer use first hand, I would hesitate to say that the officers were using excessive force. I would say that once they got him subdued, they should have gotten him handcuffed, and then called EMS to get the man checked out. This seems like a training issue to me, but I am hesitant to Monday Morning quarterback somebody when I wasn't there.

So hopefully this answers some of your questions or concerns, and for the record:

Yes, I have been tasered. Hurt like hell, the worst five seconds of my life, but once it stopped, the pain was gone.
Yes, I am trained in martial arts.

The tazer is a much better choice than mace or OC spray because that stuff lasts much longer, and will affect the whole room.

As far as my reaction to the video, I hate to see it. Before we react and call the officers cowards or using police brutality, I'd wait for the internal investigation to get the whole story. The police investigators will be able to link each taser to a computer to see how many times it was fired, and I'm sure each and every witness to the incident will be thoroughly interviewed by somebody who wasn't there. At least that is the way we would do it in Ohio.

[SilkySmooth]

He was probably just tazered once or twice.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.....Bzt.

[iron maiden]

Silkysmooth:

Each time the tazer trigger is pulled the electrical impulse lasts 5 seconds.....to get that many "bzzzzzzzzz'es" it would take several trigger pulls, and I didn't see that many.

[Roman414]

Yes, I have subdued men who didn't want to be arrested. Never been a cop, but I did six months on Shore Patrol in the Navy. We didn't have guns, mace, or tazers, but we had batons...very effective at close range if you have been trained to use one. You don't swing it, you jab with it. I never had to use my baton. My partner and I would tackle an adversary together, one high and one low. Get an aikido wrist or arm hold on him, he can't do anything. Then cuff him and put him in the wagon. We had a week of baton and unarmed combat training before we assumed our duties. Anyone who has to pull a gun on an unarmed opponent, especially when there are two or more of you, is too fearful and timid to be a police officer. Just my opinion.

[SilkySmooth]

Just kiddin' at your prior defense of the device. I knew that would get a rise out of someone. There's probably more to the story that we haven't seen. It's also ashame that someone lost their life over the ordeal.


==Tom

[iron maiden]

Roman414, you do realize that today you'd have to hold an advanced degree and a whole lot of other qualifications to wield your simple nightstick. :wink:

Silkysmooth, wasn't getting mad, just wanted to clarify the technical aspects of the tazer.:wink:

But this does bring a good point. I remember when the tazer was being introduced to the troopers at the academy. It was hailed as an end to resisting arrests of any kind because the absolute horror and pain of the device would get spread around quickly. When we first got it, this actually happened. I can remember being called to respond to fights, domestic disturbances etc. when we were first issued the tazer to assist other officers who didn't have the tazer. Most of the time, people who were fighting would see the state trooper car pull up, and they would just cease and desist.

But once other agencies got issued the tazer, and it was used more and more, word seemed to spread around that it wasn't the fix-all, and could be defeated with a little luck and the effectiveness of it has diminished somewhat over the years. I don't know what the future will hold for the tazer. I am not getting paid to endorse it, and don't have any stock in the company. But I would say that if I'm ever a civilian at an event and the tazers are being pointed at me, I'll probably do what the cop says.:scared:

[SilkySmooth]

Back in the day it was always pepper spray, nightstick, gun. Now where does the tazer fall in between spray and stick or stick and gun or before spray or after gun?



==Tom

[BMWRider]

I would expect someone working in a thankless profession to be more understanding of those working in another thankless profession.


I have worked in both. Just as some teachers scare me, some officers scare me. The days of protect and serve seem to have been replaced by a paramilitary mindset that is disturbing. There are many law enforcement organizations that have not adopted the use of Tazers, and they have good reasons for doing so. Just because most officers out there are good hard working people trying to do their jobs, does not mean I won't criticize those who attended the Lon Horiuchi LE Academy.

[Suzuki]

At least 2 witnesses said that he was tazed four times

20 seconds elapsed between the time the cops first engaged him and then decided to tazed him. During those 20 seconds Dziekanski didn't do anything threatening, in fact at one point he walked away with his hands raised. At least twice on the video his hands were clearly seen. He wasn't holding anything.
At the time when the cops (not the security guards) show up he was pretty calm. Might have something to do with the fact that he was heard calling "policja". Perhaps at this point he thought he would finally get some help.


No one is excusing his behavior. However, his anger and frustration are understandable. The cop's reaction is not.
The guy was lost in international arrival area for over 8 hours. His mother who was waiting for him at baggage claim. When he didn't show up she inquired about him several times. Hours later she was told that her son never arrived. So yes, YVR did screw up.

Well, at least you feel sorry for his mother, that's something.

I was answering to the poster brought the Rodney King incident into this. You took it out of context.

A fine, sure. A night in a cell yes.

Getting tazed to death? No

As for how many times this guy was tazed, I still think its likely less than 4, but I'll let the experts analyze the tape and see what the person holding the tazer says rather than rely on witness statements. Witness statements are often unreliable and have been proven so on several occasions.

I think we should wait to hear from the Airport authorities before concluding that they "screwed up". Its the airlines who have detailed passenger information. We also don't know if there were any other issues that complicated the situation.

I do feel sorry for his mother - but the fact that she's lost a son is, in the big picture, incidental to the larger issue of if, when and how law enforcement officers use tazers (and force generally). The media doesn't care one bit about this woman, she's only being put on TV because the image of a tearful mother gets ratings/sells ads. In the context of the media coverage of this incident, the mother is nothing but a tool to the media. If the dead man had been an orphan, would/should we care less about what happened?

This is a good example of typical irresponsible media - they sensationalize the story, provide selective disclosure and then get a bunch of "man/woman in the street" comments and cherry pick the ones they actually print/air. The majority of the mass media in Canada is left-leaning and this bias is often reflected in the way they cover news. Compounding this is the fact that the RCMP and airport authorities can't make any comment, as they have to conduct internal investigations before they are in a position to do so. This "no comment" only fuels the media's ability to sensationalize a story. (I realize I've now introduced another potentially contentious issue regarding media bias/coverage/morality and whether media reports vs. makes the news - but I think its relevant to the discussion as to whether the police did or didn't act appropriately in this situation.).

Also, when was the last time you saw a headline like this:

"Police use of tazers dramatically reduces injuries to both police officers and suspects"

or

"Police successfully take down suspect with tazer without incident"

We're not going to see these types of headlines because they don't sell - despite the fact that they are a much more accurate reflection of tazer use than the headlines that are running now.

As for deserving what he got, I'm not suggesting that he deserved to die - nor do I think you believe that this is what I meant. What I do mean is that when you act erratically in a place like an airport, you can expect law enforcement to become involved. In this case that led to this man's death, but there was certainly no intent on the part of the police officers to kill - in fact, I suspect that they reasonably believed that the use of a tazer would minimize harm to the person they were trying to arrest.


Yes, I have subdued men who didn't want to be arrested. Never been a cop, but I did six months on Shore Patrol in the Navy. We didn't have guns, mace, or tazers, but we had batons...very effective at close range if you have been trained to use one. You don't swing it, you jab with it. I never had to use my baton. My partner and I would tackle an adversary together, one high and one low. Get an aikido wrist or arm hold on him, he can't do anything. Then cuff him and put him in the wagon. We had a week of baton and unarmed combat training before we assumed our duties. Anyone who has to pull a gun on an unarmed opponent, especially when there are two or more of you, is too fearful and timid to be a police officer. Just my opinion.

I'm glad that in your 6 montsh of SP, you never had to use your baton and that you and your partner were able to take people into custody without issue.

I also suspect that none of the people you arrested were high on coke and that you didn't worry about that possibility. I also suspect you didn't worry too much about having someone come at you with a weapon.

I think that your limited experience in a very distinct type of policing/enforcement environment (military policing of military personnel) does not qualify you to make a blanket statement that "Anyone who has to pull a gun on an unarmed opponent, especially when there are two or more of you, is too fearful and timid to be a police officer."

Yes, you're entitled to your opinion, but it does contrast with the restraint/suspect control procedures being taught by most law enforcement agencies. So I guess what you're saying is that most cops today are wusses who shouldn't be cops because they're not as tough as the SP and, wherever possible use 3 or 4 officers to do a takedown.

While two police officers might be able to takedown an unarmed suspect (and lets be fair here, you don't always have the luxury of knowing whether someone is armed, high or a ninja blackbelt who can beat the crap out of a couple of cops without breaking a sweat), its going to require a lot of force if the person vigorously resists, as well as more danger to the police officers. The restraint/control techniques being taught today involve completely overwhelming the suspect by having multiple officers restrain the head and limbs without having to use excessive force and without having to put excessive weight/pressure on the chest/abdomen - why - to both prevent the risk of escape/injury to police officers and to prevent injury to the suspect. This isn't about being macho, its about taking someone down as quickly as possible while minimizing the risk of injury to all involved.



There's probably more to the story that we haven't seen. It's also ashame that someone lost their life over the ordeal.


==Tom

I agree 100% on all counts.

[Groundhog]

FYI to all concerned - the Taser has a chip inside that is removed for data download; the investigators will know exactly the number times it was used, and whether or not it was "fired" (using the barbs), or used in the "drive" mode (which is like a stun gun).

[ScottS]

Well, if Tazers effect different people in different ways, they should not be used, period.

Some can die because of it, some can't; so basically, you can kill a man who is not that dangerous because the previous guy you have tazed didn't die ?

When I doubt, don't do anything

If you take away this less-lethal option, more people will die or receive serious injury. It's all about numbers-- like most public health concerns.

[Suzuki]

If you take away this less-lethal option, more people will die or receive serious injury. It's all about numbers-- like most public health concerns.

Exactly! Doctors screw up operations, people die from contaminated food, etc.

This doesn't mean that we should prohibit operations or processing food (the alternative to which is having everyone grow/raise their own).

Again, its very unfortunate that a man died and there should be scrutiny as to whether this was an appropriate use of a tazer, as well as whether there should be changes made to tazers to prevent this type of thing from happening. However, the call for a moratorium on tazer use is premature and nothing but a knee-jerk reaction.

[galopede]

Police taser man in diabetic coma (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/7096456.stm)

An interesting taser report on yesterday's BBC news...

[SLider]

Police taser man in diabetic coma (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/7096456.stm)

An interesting taser report on yesterday's BBC news...

from the article "He said as this was happening, another officer was pointing a real gun at his head."

If he was in a diabetic coma, how would he know they were holding a gun to his head?

[Suzuki]

from the article "He said as this was happening, another officer was pointing a real gun at his head."

If he was in a diabetic coma, how would he know they were holding a gun to his head?

Silly you, you're letting facts/logic get in the way of a sensationalist piece of "journalism".

You'll never make it an a Fox anchor :biggrin:

[Roman414]

Suzuki, we never knew if someone was armed either, although your point about the different populations is probably valid. My point, if you coordinate with your partner, one tackle high and one tackle low, he will go down. And if you do get hit going in the blow will not have much power behind it. I got a few uniforms ruined and a few abrasions but I never had to kill anyone.
I think attitude has a whole lot to do with it, and sometimes the police create or exacerbate situations with their attitudes. If a police officer approaches me with courtesy and respect, I understand he is doing a job and my instinct is to cooperate with him. If he gets in my face in a confrontational, intimidating way my instinct is to give it right back to him. I suspect most men are the same way. Some cops, I think, are ltheir own worst enemies.

[ScottS]

People with severe glucose problems can have impaired judgment and can be fairly belligerent, and police on the scene have no idea as to why. If this is what happened, the man should be thankful that he wasn't seriously injured.

[SLider]

Suzuki, we never knew if someone was armed either, although your point about the different populations is probably valid. My point, if you coordinate with your partner, one tackle high and one tackle low, he will go down. And if you do get hit going in the blow will not have much power behind it. I got a few uniforms ruined and a few abrasions but I never had to kill anyone.
I think attitude has a whole lot to do with it, and sometimes the police create or exacerbate situations with their attitudes. If a police officer approaches me with courtesy and respect, I understand he is doing a job and my instinct is to cooperate with him. If he gets in my face in a confrontational, intimidating way my instinct is to give it right back to him. I suspect most men are the same way. Some cops, I think, are ltheir own worst enemies.

Honestly, I think the odds of breaking your neck from tackling someone (or breaking the neck of the victim) are probably pretty similar to the odds of someone getting killed by a tazer. Judging by all the sweat and heavy breathing the victim was displaying, and the amount of struggle he still put up AFTER the tazer shot, he could have easily had some kind of heart failure due to all the exertion

[Suzuki]

Suzuki, we never knew if someone was armed either, although your point about the different populations is probably valid. My point, if you coordinate with your partner, one tackle high and one tackle low, he will go down. And if you do get hit going in the blow will not have much power behind it. I got a few uniforms ruined and a few abrasions but I never had to kill anyone.
I think attitude has a whole lot to do with it, and sometimes the police create or exacerbate situations with their attitudes. If a police officer approaches me with courtesy and respect, I understand he is doing a job and my instinct is to cooperate with him. If he gets in my face in a confrontational, intimidating way my instinct is to give it right back to him. I suspect most men are the same way. Some cops, I think, are ltheir own worst enemies.

My point was that I think there's a difference between SP arresting military personnel (including facing military justice for resisiting arrest/assulting SP, etc...) and a cop on the beat facing more variables. I'm not trying to suggest in any way that a nasty, drunk sailor/marine will peaceably comply with the SP or that you didn't have some dangerous situation on your hands. Also, you can generally assume that most military personnel are in reasonably good health (generally sailors/marines don't have heart/lung conditions, etc...).

Also the "tackle" method you described is undoubtedly effective, but it does require a fair bit of force - something that is possibly less tolerated on civy street than in the forces. Knocking someone down like that may not result in injury to the tacklers, but it can certainly result in injury to the tacklee - who gets knocked down and ends up with two SPs on top of him to boot.

I agree totally that attitude can play a big role in whether an officer cools off or exacerbates a situation. Like any other profession, there are cops out there who really aren't suited for their work.

[Dr. Mike]

You know, if they issued police carrots to use to subdue people, I'm sure the media would be able to find somewhere a video of a person dying as a result of the police subduing them with a carrot.
To be honest, I don't know why anybody would want to be a cop anymore. There is nothing good about it. When you do your job well, nobody notices it. When you screw up, or when people are convinced you screwed up, they want your head on a platter. So many people anymore just assume that cops are racist and crooked by nature. The only time anybody has anything good to say about cops is when one is killed in the line of duty. And yet how much better are our lives thanks to them?
Am I sorry the guy died? Yes. I don't know, though, what happened to bring it all about. I'm glad that some people already know exactly what happened and are ready with their verdict based on somebody's edited together video clips and some witness testimony. You should be volunteering for jury duty based on your perfect judgement skills.
Do I think this was done by 4 cops meaning to intentionally hurt this guy, maybe even kill him, just because they were on some power kick and a bunch of cowards? Again, not having all the evidence, I can't say, but I tend to think not. If that is your motive, you take the guy out back where there are no witnesses. In this day and age, with everybody owning a cell phone being able to take pictures and shoot video, looking for hot footage to post on YouTube, do you really think that is what these guys were wanting to do? Even in clear cut cases, I can imagine every police-related fatality gets heavily investigated. That these 4 cops would willingly and knowingly endanger the life of a man for no good reason in broad daylight, in a crowded facility, with plenty of witnesses observing, is hard to believe.

[jnich67]

I agree with those stating that we should wait for a proper investigation before condemning those who put their lives on the line to protect us everyday - if anything, we should give them the benefit of the doubt. Either way, this death is tragic.

And, people who know little to nothing about the tactical realities of police work should refrain from telling cops "their business". That's not to say mistakes don't happen or that there aren't a few bad apples in the bunch, but you wouldn't tell a doctor what he did wrong if they lost a patient or missed a diagnosis. Should those situations be investigated and lessons applied? Of course, but I get sick of hearing "why didn't they just shoot him in the leg?" from people who've never fired a hand gun, let alone been under the stress of a life threatening situation. Life is not like an episode of "The A-Team".

I'm almost done with my rant:blink:...as Chris has pointed out; the media play a huge role in stirring the pot. I recently took a job where I work from home 90% of the time and I usually have the cable news stations on in the background. It is shocking how far they have come in "creating" news instead of reporting it. They are desperate to fill time and create headlines. Everyone needs to calm down and let things play out. It takes more than a few hours or days to collect the facts.

There...TGIF! :biggrin:

Jordan

[Dr. Mike]

from the article "He said as this was happening, another officer was pointing a real gun at his head."

If he was in a diabetic coma, how would he know they were holding a gun to his head?

I can only imagine that someone else reported to him that the police put a gun to his head. However, the bigger question arises. If he was in a coma already when he was tasered and had a gun to his head, he can't possibly know at all what happened to him. In that case, how can he have post traumatic stress disorder from the incident? I could imagine he might be a bit perplexed, or maybe even angry. But PTSD?
As a diabetic myself, I have never gone into a coma. However, I have had many times when my blood sugar gets very low, and my wife will tell you that I am not myself then. In addition to chills and profuse sweating, I tend to be short tempered, and will get upset and yell for the stupidest things. In addition, my judgment becomes impaired, and I will do stupid things (like walk downstairs in the middle of the night without telling my wife my blood sugar is low, so if I were to pass out, she wouldn't know until the next day). Not to say that all my actions are logical and well thought out at other times! :biggrin:

[denissawyer]

Several witnesses told the cops that he didn't speak English, that he only spoke Russian (I guess it sounds like Polish).


It has been confirmed that the man was from Poland. The ongoing investigation should reveal some pretty grimmey details of the incident however an independent committee has been formed that will probably support the actions of the RCMP.

[Rolo]

However, the call for a moratorium on tazer use is premature and nothing but a knee-jerk reaction.
Where are you getting this from?
No one here is calling for a moratorium. And I haven't heard the media doing so either. This is as much a strawman as Bill O'Reilly's so-called war on Christmas.


The point here is that Mr. Dziekanski didn't have to be tazed to begin with. He was fairly calm, he just seemed frustrated. All this speculation that he might have been on drugs, or had "something" in his hand is bs.
Even before the cops approached him, one had asked if he could tased him. That was their intent and they did it. It should've been a last resort, not their first option. This guys were obviously trigger happy and used force instead of reason. And a poor immigrant had to pay for it with his life.


I'm in favor of cops using a taser gun. It seems a much better option than betting someone with a nightstick. The taser gun is not the problem, the problem rests with this trigger happy abusive cops.

[Mysterion]

Cops have a difficult job, frequently performed under hostile conditions.

However...

My work has brought me in contact with many police officers. I have seen uncooperative, intoxicated people subdued by a single officer, without weapons.

I have also seen a uniformed officer kick an unconscious homeless man. The man had passed out in the middle of a city street, on a bitterly cold night. The officer got out of his cruiser, approached him, and kicked him hard in the ribs, demanding that he "Get the f*** up!" He softened only after another officer pointed out that there was a reporter (me) present.

Another officer, speaking about gang violence, told me that it really wasn't that important, because "They only kill each other, not real people."

I offer these examples not as an indictment of all police officers, but as reflections on a police culture, which, unfortunately, emphasizes action over thought, and displays of machismo over conflict resolution. I have known many officers who were intelligent, considered people, men and women who deserved the public trust. Alas, I've also known a number who were nothing more than small-minded knuckleheads with a badge and a gun.


Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[iron maiden]

On the response to resistance continuum used by the Ohio state patrol, the tazer is on the same level as the mace or pepper spray. Actually tackling somebody either by yourself or with a partner goes up a level of force because there is considerable higher chance that somebody is going to get injured....think tackle football minus the pads, and you'll get my point.

I've been in law enforcement for over 11 years, and have never seen anybody killed, much less hurt, by being tasered. I have seen several cops get seriously injured in trying to tackle somebody. When police administrators come up with these use of force continuums, they are simply looking at the bigger picture with a fair dose of common sense.

I can't expect to make those people who have seen the video become experts or converts on police tactics any more than I can expect to change somebody else's mind on politics, for example. But I will say that overall, a Taser cartridge costs the police agency around $40, a new uniform costs $80, and a trip to the hospital with an injured police officer or suspect plus a lawsuit, etc......$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

It all comes down to the bottom line. Police deal with tens of thousands of irate people every day. Several hundred are tasered every day. Once in a great while, a person dies. In all of the instances of "taser related death" that the state patrol has studied, the result of the death has been found to be caused by the excited delirium/drug overdose I mentioned earlier. And they do study every one which grabs headlines because the business of the Ohio State Patrol, LAPD, RCMP, etc., is business. It only makes sense for the administrators to seek to find problems and correct them before they get sued.

I've said this before, I would say that there was something else in this man's system. I feel bad for his family, and truly hate that he died, but the fact that we've seen a pieced together video only reinforces some of the other members' opinions that this is journalistic sensationalism.

I do appreciate all the support for law enforcement that I've seen on this thread. Thank you very much. :biggrin: In all the times I have only had to tell some drunken person that I had a taser, I never had a news camera shoved in my face and there were no headlines saying how good a job the police are doing.....that stuff just doesn't sell like bad news does!!!!

I'm not saying that there aren't cops out there who may be a little trigger happy with their taser, but IMHO, the taser has made it easier for me to do my "thankless" job just by being on my belt. No offense intended to our overseas subscribers, but I'd hate to think of doing my job as a trooper without a gun and/or taser.

[Dr. Mike]

Where are you getting this from?
No one here is calling for a moratorium. And I haven't heard the media doing so either. This is as much a strawman as Bill O'Reilly's so-called war on Christmas.


The point here is that Mr. Dziekanski didn't have to be tazed to begin with. He was fairly calm, he just seemed frustrated. All this speculation that he might have been on drugs, or had "something" in his hand is bs.
Even before the cops approached him, one had asked if he could tased him. That was their intent and they did it. It should've been a last resort, not their first option. This guys were obviously trigger happy and used force instead of reason. And a poor immigrant had to pay for it with his life.


I'm in favor of cops using a taser gun. It seems a much better option than betting someone with a nightstick. The taser gun is not the problem, the problem rests with this trigger happy abusive cops.

It is not a matter of whether they should have saved it as a last resort. The issue here is whether they acted within acceptable police procedure. Sure, maybe somebody else might have been able to handle the job better. In what profession is that not true? In every profession out there, in order to get the job, you have to meet minimum requirements, not maximum. I don't see what is wrong with the cop asking if he could tase the man. Being unfamiliar with the situation, he was trying to determine what level of force he could use, if need be. It's just like when I got my wisdom teeth out. I had to sign a form ahead of time acknowledging that it was possible my jaw might get broken, and they would have to wire my mouth shut.
You point to these cops overreacting. How do you know? Because others told you so? How many times have you yourself been confronted by someone who may try to do you harm? This guy was not cooperative. Maybe some guys are put off by cockiness and macchismo in cops, but that doesn't mean they get to disobey them. And I tend to think that the tender, less aggressive people, by and large, are not as interested about going into law enforcement. It is a tough job. You willingly put yourself at greater risk of injury every day on the job than anybody in any other profession, except firemen and military personnel. You don't want to kill people, but sometimes you have to. Someone comes along with a new weapon that will incapacitate someone so that they cannot harm you, you won't have to wrestle them and potentially hurt them, and the risk of causing death is low. For crying out loud, people get killed regularly from even less dangerous activities.

[Suzuki]

It has been confirmed that the man was from Poland. The ongoing investigation should reveal some pretty grimmey details of the incident however an independent committee has been formed that will probably support the actions of the RCMP.

Maybe we should wait to see who's on the committee, how the investigation is conducted and what they actually say before we accuse them of pro-police bias.


Where are you getting this from?
No one here is calling for a moratorium. And I haven't heard the media doing so either. This is as much a strawman as Bill O'Reilly's so-called war on Christmas.


The point here is that Mr. Dziekanski didn't have to be tazed to begin with. He was fairly calm, he just seemed frustrated. All this speculation that he might have been on drugs, or had "something" in his hand is bs.
Even before the cops approached him, one had asked if he could tased him. That was their intent and they did it. It should've been a last resort, not their first option. This guys were obviously trigger happy and used force instead of reason. And a poor immigrant had to pay for it with his life.


I'm in favor of cops using a taser gun. It seems a much better option than betting someone with a nightstick. The taser gun is not the problem, the problem rests with this trigger happy abusive cops.

There have been some politicians, activists (Amnesty International in particular) and journalists who have called for a moratorium on tazer use as a result of this incident. Others will quickly jump on this bandwagon if they believe that there is hay to be made from doing so.

Unlike you, I'll wait until the evidence is in before I conclude that the person who was tazed did/didn't do anything that could have justifiably provoked the use of a tazer or that the police offers were "trigger happy and used force instead of reason". I'm not saying whether they were right or wrong - I'm just saying that I want to hear ALL the facts, not just bystanders and sensationalist, one-sided media reports before reaching any conclusion (in particular, I'd like to hear what the police officers who were actually involved have to say about their actions).

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty - put yourself in the shoes of the police officers for a second instead of the dead person. How would you feel if you were being condemned, hanged, drawn and quartered (you get the picture) by the media and public without them even listenting to your side of the story. The police officers involved are almost certainly prohibited from speaking to the media and we at least owe them the right to be heard before we reach any conclusions regarding the propriety of their behaviour.


Cops have a difficult job, frequently performed under hostile conditions.

However...

My work has brought me in contact with many police officers. I have seen uncooperative, intoxicated people subdued by a single officer, without weapons.

I have also seen a uniformed officer kick an unconscious homeless man. The man had passed out in the middle of a city street, on a bitterly cold night. The officer got out of his cruiser, approached him, and kicked him hard in the ribs, demanding that he "Get the f*** up!" He softened only after another officer pointed out that there was a reporter (me) present.

Another officer, speaking about gang violence, told me that it really wasn't that important, because "They only kill each other, not real people."

I offer these examples not as an indictment of all police officers, but as reflections on a police culture, which, unfortunately, emphasizes action over thought, and displays of machismo over conflict resolution. I have known many officers who were intelligent, considered people, men and women who deserved the public trust. Alas, I've also known a number who were nothing more than small-minded knuckleheads with a badge and a gun.


Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

You have brilliantly made my point regarding media coverage of stories such as this.

I find it interesting that only two lines of your post say that many (if not most) police officers do a difficult job well, are respectful of the public, and try to avoid using force wherever possible - then the bulk of your post speaks to two isolated incidents and concludes with a gratuitous smear on police officers generally.

Your very biased and inflamatory comments on the prevailing police culture are unreflective of the vast majority of law enforcment officers and only serve to unfairly malign the law enforcement profession as a whole.

I also suspect you've never been in need of police assistance following a break-in, assult or any other type of crime. Most of the people I know have had positive experiences with the police.

Are there bad cops - yes there are and they should be weeded out and removed from the force. Should screening, training, tactics, etc. continually be reassesed and modified, yes.

At the same time, there are journalists who take isolated incidents out of context, sensationalize, make unjust accusations, etc... in other words, bad journalists. To the extent that we think we should get rid of bad cops, perhaps we should do the same with bad journalists...

[Mysterion]

I also suspect you've never been in need of police assistance following a break-in, assult or any other type of crime.

To the extent that we think we should get rid of bad cops, perhaps we should do the same with bad journalists...

Wrong on all three counts. Thirty years of urban life means I have called police more than once after burglaries, muggings, and other incidents. Some cops were good, some weren't. I haven't weighed in on any of the gun control arguments, but I wonder how many other posters have had a .38 pointed at their face?

I thought my post fairly nuanced--I'm sorry if you felt that it was one-sided. My writing on handgun usage by local police drew positive Letters To The Editor from both the NRA and Handgun Control, Inc. This doesn't mean I'm without personal opinion or bias. But I think it speaks to my goals. Obviously, I'm human, and imperfect; the mere fact of my presence influences the events I observe.

My point was simply that police culture does not always reward the best officers. As I said, it's a hard, hard job, and many cops do it very well. But in any undertaking, no matter how good we are, we can always improve our performance.

[iron maiden]

Never had a .38 pointed at me.....did have a .44 (although it looked much bigger at the time):eek:
But that's another story for another time.....or not

[Suzuki]

Wrong on all three counts. Thirty years of urban life means I have called police more than once after burglaries, muggings, and other incidents. Some cops were good, some weren't. I haven't weighed in on any of the gun control arguments, but I wonder how many other posters have had a .38 pointed at their face?

I thought my post fairly nuanced--I'm sorry if you felt that it was one-sided. My writing on handgun usage by local police drew positive Letters To The Editor from both the NRA and Handgun Control, Inc. This doesn't mean I'm without personal opinion or bias. But I think it speaks to my goals. Obviously, I'm human, and imperfect; the mere fact of my presence influences the events I observe.

My point was simply that police culture does not always reward the best officers. As I said, it's a hard, hard job, and many cops do it very well. But in any undertaking, no matter how good we are, we can always improve our performance.

My assumption that you had not called police for assistance was based on the fact that you didn't report your postive personal experiences with police officers, but emphasized two negative incidents in detail.

While your post did include three lines saying positive things about police officers, that was buried by the nine lines detailing negative police conduct, making negative remarks about the prevailing police culture and concluding with a remark about many police officers being "nothing more than small-minded knuckleheads with a badge and a gun."

If that's your idea of nuanced, I'd hate to see what you think constitutes biased :biggrin:

I agree completely with you last post - and that we can all strive to do our jobs better (including journalists :biggrin: ).

On an unrelated point, while this is a politically-charged subject/debate, its good to see that we can exchange views and vigorously debate the issues while maintaining decorum and respect for one another.

[iron maiden]

On an unrelated point, while this is a politically-charged subject/debate, its good to see that we can exchange views and vigorously debate the issues while maintaining decorum and respect for one another.[/QUOTE]

Hear, hear Suzuki:thumbup1:

This is why I like B&B so much.....we can all behave like gentlemen, and agree to disagree if the situation calls for a difference of opinion

[Mysterion]

While your post did include three lines saying positive things about police officers, that was buried by the nine lines detailing negative police conduct, making negative remarks about the prevailing police culture and concluding with a remark about many police officers being "nothing more than small-minded knuckleheads with a badge and a gun."

On an unrelated point, while this is a politically-charged subject/debate, its good to see that we can exchange views and vigorously debate the issues while maintaining decorum and respect for one another.

Emotions do run high around these issues, and I, too, am encouraged by the overall tone of this debate.

I'm not going to go tit-for-tat about how many lines of my post were pro and how many lines were con. And I'm the first person to agree that some journalists are lacking. But just as you feel that my post ignores the subtleties of police work, I feel that your responses overlook the subtleties of my presentation. As a writer, all I have is words, and I choose them very carefully. I clearly noted that "many" police officers were thoughtful and measured individuals, and only cast "a number" as unworthy of the public trust:


I have known many officers who were intelligent, considered people, men and women who deserved the public trust. Alas, I've also known a number who were nothing more than small-minded knuckleheads with a badge and a gun.

I'm sure it's frustrating from your perspective to face emotional, one-sided reflections on police work. It's equally frustrating for me when readers (I'm not pointing a finger at you...) focus only on words, phrases, or sentences within my copy, without reflecting on the substance.

Ultimately, we all want the same things--an orderly society and a free press. How we get there, and how we measure them, are the issues.

[VR6ofpain]

He should have cooperated, but does that justify 50 000 (yes 50 000) Volts ? NO !!!!

4 policemen, 1 man; they could have just grabbed him and calm him down, but no, they had to tase him; they are not real men, they are cowards.
Who are you to judge? Police Officers risk their own lives on the job. The same can't be said about you. Calling Police Officers cowards is completely ridiculous as is your reaction to this incident.

I guess you would rather they brought this guy into your house, so he could break your furniture and attack you, putting your life and your famlies life in danger?

[SLider]

On an unrelated point, while this is a politically-charged subject/debate, its good to see that we can exchange views and vigorously debate the issues while maintaining decorum and respect for one another.

+1... both sides have displayed good points and have countered arguments without any nasty name calling. That's the reason I've continued to read this.



The point here is that Mr. Dziekanski didn't have to be tazed to begin with. He was fairly calm, he just seemed frustrated. All this speculation that he might have been on drugs, or had "something" in his hand is bs.

I wouldn't really call throwing chairs and computers calm... this guy was definitely throwing a temper tantrum. I can't say the tazering was necessary, but I can't really say it wasn't either. Part of me also wonders if this guy would have surrendered more calmly if he had had 4 guns pointed at him instead. The video just kind of shows the police officers standing around him, and if anything that would just make him more confused. Guns are pretty internationally known and if one is pointed at you you generally know not to move.

[Suzuki]

Let's keep this this civilized - please, no personal slights.

I'm all for attacking someone's views/logic as part of a civilized/gentlemanly debate - but I'm totally against personal attacks/insults.

Let's not have what has thus far been a good, heated discussion on the merits suffer the same plight that so many other threads in the Barber Shop have.

Thanks guys.

[moses]

In all of the instances of "taser related death" that the state patrol has studied, the result of the death has been found to be caused by the excited delirium/drug overdose I mentioned earlier....

I've said this before, I would say that there was something else in this man's system.

The news reports I've read indicated that the man's autopsy was clean for substances.

-Mo

[Groundhog]

I've pretty much avoided becoming involved this thread until now, but I'll offer this perspective to everyone participating, from the "lets wait and see what the investigation shows" crowd to the "none of those cops are real men" crowd.....

I've been a cop for 21 years, and I've had to use varying degrees force many times. Technically, an officer's "mere presence" is a use of force, going back to the days when we were taught the "ladder of escalating force." (I've also had my ass kicked a few times.:wink: ) I don't have a great deal of experience with Tasers, simply because my large urban department only owns a few (in the hands of the SWAT team), as much because they're expensive as well as controversial. I do know that practically every agency that issues them requires officers in training to "take the ride" before being issued one, just like they have to suck down some OC spray before they can carry that. Every cop I know from other departments has said the OC was much worse. The bottom line is, that the use of force, even when properly applied, is never pretty. In the movies, cops do all kinds of outrageous crap to the bad guys and audiences love it because they've been sitting in the theater watching the bad guy get away with all kinds of heinous sh*t. In reality, the public generally doesn't see anything that led up to the use of force, just the application.

I'm not defending the RCMP guys, but I'm not gonna hang them out to dry yet either. If the investigation shows that anything beyond the first shot with the Taser was unecessary (therefore used as "punishment" rather than "control"), then they should get disciplined within the RCMP's policy up to termination. If the investigation shows that the Taser was properly applied within policy, then they should be exonerated. Rest assured, as I posted earlier, the investigators will know how many times and in what mode that Taser was used.

[Suzuki]

I'm not going to go tit-for-tat about how many lines of my post were pro and how many lines were con. And I'm the first person to agree that some journalists are lacking. But just as you feel that my post ignores the subtleties of police work, I feel that your responses overlook the subtleties of my presentation. As a writer, all I have is words, and I choose them very carefully. I clearly noted that "many" police officers were thoughtful and measured individuals, and only cast "a number" as unworthy of the public trust:

I'm sure it's frustrating from your perspective to face emotional, one-sided reflections on police work. It's equally frustrating for me when readers (I'm not pointing a finger at you...) focus only on words, phrases, or sentences within my copy, without reflecting on the substance.

Ultimately, we all want the same things--an orderly society and a free press. How we get there, and how we measure them, are the issues.

I don't want to go off topic and get into whether the comments regarding positive policing may have been a tad too subtle or whether anyone spent too much time focusing on the words as opposed to the substance of your earlier post.

Let's just agree to disagree on this point - at least in this thread...

FYI, I'm not a law enforcment officer, nor do I play one on daytime TV - my comments/views are solely those of the man on the street.

I agree completely with the last line of your post.

[Mysterion]

Let's just agree to disagree on this point - at least in this thread...

Agreed. Let's consider this a verbal handshake.

[Suzuki]

Agreed. Let's consider this a verbal handshake.

Done!

[Groundhog]

Agreed. Let's consider this a verbal handshake.


Done!

Good....I was worried I was going to have to separate the two of you.....

[rafikz]

Who are you to judge? Police Officers risk their own lives on the job. The same can't be said about you. Calling Police Officers cowards is completely ridiculous as is your reaction to this incident.

I guess you would rather they brought this guy into your house, so he could break your furniture and attack you, putting your life and your famlies life in danger?

Who am I to judge ? a human being

This guy wasn't really dangerous

[Rolo]

There have been some politicians, activists (Amnesty International in particular) and journalists who have called for a moratorium on tazer use as a result of this incident. Others will quickly jump on this bandwagon if they believe that there is hay to be made from doing so.
I did a quick google search I found that you were partially correct; There was a call for a moratorium, but it was done after a second man died yesterday, not because of just this one incident.

" Amnesty International called yesterday for a moratorium on the use of Tasers following the second Taser death in Canada this week. Quilem Registre, 39, died in Montreal yesterday.He was Tasered on Sunday, the same day that Robert Dziekanski, 40, was Tasered at Vancouver International Airport, where he died a few minutes later."
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=2b534407-c7a6-4f15-9d90-aa03bef05c6b

I also found this from amnesty international.

"Excessive use of force
In October 2006, Paul Kennedy, chairman of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission expressed concern about how officers are using the taser, including how early on in a confrontation they are deploying the weapon."

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR200022007?open&of=ENG-2AMSeem

Well, this is exactly what happened. Looks like Kennedy was right to be concerned about the itchy finger of the RCMP officers.

[Rolo]

I wouldn't really call throwing chairs and computers calm... this guy was definitely throwing a temper tantrum. I can't say the tazering was necessary, but I can't really say it wasn't either. Part of me also wonders if this guy would have surrendered more calmly if he had had 4 guns pointed at him instead. The video just kind of shows the police officers standing around him, and if anything that would just make him more confused. Guns are pretty internationally known and if one is pointed at you you generally know not to move.
As I said earlier: By the time the cops (not the security guards) got there, he wasn't throwing anything around. In fact he wasn't doing much of anything.

[Rolo]

Who are you to judge? Police Officers risk their own lives on the job. The same can't be said about you. Calling Police Officers cowards is completely ridiculous as is your reaction to this incident.

I guess you would rather they brought this guy into your house, so he could break your furniture and attack you, putting your life and your famlies life in danger?

Not a very "gentlemanly" response.

And sorry, but I happen to agree with him. The actions of those cops can easily be judge as cowardly. Four armed men against one unarmed middle-aged guy.
Just because they're cops doesn't mean they can't be cowards.

[liege]

Any law enforcement listening in please let me know: If you drop your guard, even for a few seconds on an apparently non-threatening person, is there a chance that that person could take advantage of that momentary lapse? And the police officer/officers could be injured or even killed? Isn't it part of your training to have complete control of any situation you are involved in, which usually means handcuffs at a minimum?

[rafikz]

I totally agree with Rolo and Liege

[Groundhog]

Any law enforcement listening in please let me know: If you drop your guard, even for a few seconds on an apparently non-threatening person, is there a chance that that person could take advantage of that momentary lapse? And the police officer/officers could be injured or even killed?

Yep....convicts teach each other the techniques in prison.


Isn't it part of your training to have complete control of any situation you are involved in, which usually means handcuffs at a minimum?

Well, yes to a degree. Applying handcuffs even to a compliant, cooperating, individual is considered a use of force........and any application of force has to be justified and reasonable.

[jnich67]

Who am I to judge ? a human being

This guy wasn't really dangerous

I've really said my peace on this already and realize I'm not going to change anyone's mind, but I have to ask… if he wasn't dangerous, why was he holding furniture in a threatening manner while a woman approached with open hands and tried to help/comfort him? Why was everyone else in the terminal keeping their distance saying "oh my god". That seemed like a dangerous guy to me and this was probably communicated to the police by security..."hey, this guy might be dangerous".

Jordan

[BarryR]

I've really said my peace on this already and realize I'm not going to change anyone's mind, but I have to ask… if he wasn't dangerous, why was he holding furniture in a threatening manner while a woman approached with open hands and tried to help/comfort him? Why was everyone else in the terminal keeping their distance saying "oh my god". That seemed like a dangerous guy to me and this was probably communicated to the police by security..."hey, this guy might be dangerous".

JordanI agree with those who said we really don't know all the facts and should reserve judgement, BUT here I go with my guess: it looks excessive to me.

I treat brain injury (and other delirious) patients. We care for them in hospitals and they can be a lot more agitated than this guy was. We don't use tasers and we often don't have four strong guys around. Those who are trained in dealing with these patients are taught to de-escalate the situation. If possible, they could have backed off, and waited for an interpreter. It was very unlikely that he had a weapon since airport security would have confiscated anything (including a DE razor blade - even a smooth one like a DORCO). The likelihood of him being a terrorist seems pretty slim. So what was the rush? To prevent another computer monitor from being smashed?

Also, those who 'blame' him for what happened seem to ignore the fact that he was being totally irrational, possibly confused, so perhaps there was a medical or psychiatric condition resulting in his behavior (or intoxication).

Of course, if there was imminent danger to others, that's another story...

And my final thought: the use of Tasers, per se, is not necessarily the problem, but perhaps the threshold for using them needs to be higher since they can be fatal (albeit, uncommonly). For those who say they're safer than guns, I don't think the RCMPs would have remotely been able to justify the use of guns in this case.

[SLider]

As I said earlier: By the time the cops (not the security guards) got there, he wasn't throwing anything around. In fact he wasn't doing much of anything.

well when the police were called, I'm sure whoever called them described the situation so that they had some idea of what was going on before they showed up. From the video it definitely didn't look like he was threatening them but it also didn't look like he was being very cooperative either. My basic problem is for anyone to really try and say what was going on just from the video when we can't hear everything that was being said, or see everything that was being done. The police could have screwed the pooch big time or they could have been well within reason, and it's very arrogant for any of us to posture that we know what the correct or incorrect approach was in this situation based on what we've seen in this video.

[_JP_]

As I said earlier: By the time the cops (not the security guards) got there, he wasn't throwing anything around. In fact he wasn't doing much of anything.

You can bet that the police had been given more information about what was going on than just what they were seeing when they got there. That information was part of the decision making process on how to handle the guy. They weren't simply sent to scene being told only "There's a problem at the airport, go fix it." The two paragraphs below are from an article that I found on Reuters yesterday (Article linked at the bottom of this post):

Simon Fraser University criminologist Neil Boyd said he was not surprised by the strong public reaction to the video's images and sounds. But he urged caution, saying the video does not show what police had been told before they arrived on the scene at the airport.

"The public tends to react to criminal justice events in a kind of tidal wave of emotion, and often very bad, unusual cases end up creating criminal justice policy. That worries me," Boyd said.

As others have said, there are details to the story that we don't know yet.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN1529234420071115?pageNumber=3

[Suzuki]

Not a very "gentlemanly" response.

And sorry, but I happen to agree with him. The actions of those cops can easily be judge as cowardly. Four armed men against one unarmed middle-aged guy.
Just because they're cops doesn't mean they can't be cowards.

Some day I hope to be so all-knowing so as to have the ability to pass judgement in such a manner.

Seriously, I don't think any of us are in a position to categorically determine whether the RCMP acted appropriately in this situation.

Just like any of us would want the benefit of the doubt or to be assumed innocent until we had a chance to be heard, I think the police in this situation should be afforded this courtesy before we demand their head on a platter or label them as "cowards".

I think that even the most anti-police participants in this thread believe that the police in this situation should be presumed innocent until they have been allowed to tell their side of the story. Just like people don't want police to be able to trample over our rights, the mob shouldn't be allowed to do the same to police.

[gglockner]

The guy appeared to be very upset about something. Maybe he is/was just a bit off his rocker. The only thing that bothers me about watching the video is that it was 4 to 1 and they really didn't try very hard or attempt to subdue him before they gave him a jolt. Sad as it all may seem, but if I were in there shoes and had seen what he had been doing I would have used the non lethal force first to. I think he had health issues. Look at the way he was breathing early on in the video. I wonder what the gal in the video thinks about it all.

Glen

[Roman414]

When I got my orders to SP duty, my old chief told me, "If you get to pick your partner,pick the smallest, scrawniest looking guy there." When I questioned the wisdom of that, "I want a big, mean-looking bruiser", the old chief said. "Naw. If some bad-ass marine wants to impress his buddies by punching a Shore Patrolman out, which one is he going to swing on?"

[Rolo]

Some day I hope to be so all-knowing so as to have the ability to pass judgement in such a manner.
No need to be all-knowing, but thanks. That whole 4 armed VS 1 unarmed thing when the 1 is killed at the end is sufficient enough to make that call.


Seriously, I don't think any of us are in a position to categorically determine whether the RCMP acted appropriately in this situation. I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you, after all a man was killed, so obviously something didn't go right.
And then there is this:
"Paul Kennedy, chairman of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission expressed concern about how officers are using the taser, including how early on in a confrontation they are deploying the weapon."
So for at least a year someone in the RCMP was worried about the improper use of tasers.


Just like any of us would want the benefit of the doubt or to be assumed innocent until we had a chance to be heard, I think the police in this situation should be afforded this courtesy before we demand their head on a platter or label them as "cowards".
Well there's still that whole 4 to 1 business.


I think that even the most anti-police participants in this thread believe that the police in this situation should be presumed innocent until they have been allowed to tell their side of the story. Just like people don't want police to be able to trample over our rights, the mob shouldn't be allowed to do the same to police.
The police are here to "protect and serve" the people. We pay their salaries. Sometimes some seem to forget that. Instead they harass, abuse and in extreme cases even kill.
As people and professionals they should be held to a much, much higher standard than the average citizen, because unlike most other professions, when they goof people die.

[iron maiden]

Somewhere on this thread, it was mentioned about cops having complete control over situations which might call for handcuffing.

We call this "investigative detention." I have used it repeatedly to control multiple persons in a vehicle when I was by myself. I was able to effectively explain this to the people I handcuffed, (we all spoke English) and I explained they weren't under arrest, but I was handcuffing them for their safety and mine.

Sometimes, I have left the handcuffs on and placed them under arrest, and other times, I have dusted them off, given the proverbial handshake, and let them on their way.

Mo mentioned earlier the guy was free of drugs in his system. This is new to me....obviously he had something physically wrong with him, or there was more that took place which we didn't see. It'll be interesting to see how this turns out after the internal investigation is over.

[Suzuki]

No need to be all-knowing, but thanks. That whole 4 armed VS 1 unarmed thing when the 1 is killed at the end is sufficient enough to make that call.

Please, please, please, don't ever serve on a jury.

There are lots of cases where things are not as they first appear and its important to get all the evidence before reaching a conclusion.

The issue is whether these officers did/didn't follow proper procedure. The fact that a person was killed is not relevant to the issue of whether the police used proper procedure.

However, the fact that a person was killed is relevant to the issue of whether the current procedure needs to be changed.

Let's not mix issues - the fact that a person was killed adds a human element and makes for a good media frenzy, but let's be honest, the police involved would not likely be under the microscope if this had gone the same way that the vast majority of tazings go - i.e., suspect gets tazed, suspect gets arrested and suffers no harmful effects of the tazing.



I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you, after all a man was killed, so obviously something didn't go right.

Its your right to disagree, but the fact that someone got killed, while terrible, does not mean someone is blameworthy.

Take for instance a situation where a vehicle slides out of control due to black ice and hits another vehicle. The investigation concludes that the driver of the vehicle didn't do anything wrong - does it make a difference whether the the person in the vehicle did/didn't suffer injuries or die in determining whether the driver should/shouldn't be punished - I don't think so.

As I said above, the fact that someone got killed is reason to examine and consider how and when tazers should be used - but this is a different discussion than whether the police officers acted improperly


then there is this:
"Paul Kennedy, chairman of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission expressed concern about how officers are using the taser, including how early on in a confrontation they are deploying the weapon."
So for at least a year someone in the RCMP was worried about the improper use of tasers.

A statement of general principle adds absolutely nothing to the debate regarding whether the police did/didn't act appropriately/follow procedure in this case.

The fact that the RCMP has a complaints commission with civilians as members (including the chairman) means that a full, hopefully-impartial investigation into this matter will be conducted.

Here are the terms of the complaint initiated by Mr. Kenneday as chaor of the PCC:

http://www.cpc-cpp.gc.ca/DefaultSite/Reppub/index_e.aspx?articleid=1587

As you can see, it will consider both the actions of the officers involved in the incident at issue and whether existing policies/guidelines were followed.

I fully support the need for a full, fair investigation into these issues.

Well there's still that whole 4 to 1 business.



The police are here to "protect and serve" the people. We pay their salaries. Sometimes some seem to forget that. Instead they harass, abuse and in extreme cases even kill.
As people and professionals they should be held to a much, much higher standard than the average citizen, because unlike most other professions, when they goof people die.

While I completely disagree with almost everything you've posted in this thread, I think we can agree on many of the points in this paragraph.

As I've previously said, just like there are bad police officers, there are bad apples in every profession (and I mean as in folks who completely abuse their positions of trust/authority/responsibility - psychologists who have sexual relationships with vulnerable clients, doctors who molest clients; lawyers who steal from their clients; contractors who knowingly use shoddy materials; teachers who have sexual relationships with students; stockbrokers who steal from clients/trade improperly...unfortunately, I could go on, but I trust you get my drift).

However I truly believe that the bad apples are the exception and not the norm. I also feel very strongly that the bad apples should be weeded out and, if they abuse their position, should be punished as appropriate.

This applies to "bad" police officers as it applies equally to "bad" (used in the context described above) doctors, pychologists, lawyers, contractors, teachers, brokers, etc...

And yes, professionals (including police) are almost always held to a higher standard when assessing whether they acted appropriately - in this case, the will likely be held to the "reasonable police officer" standard - as in what would the reasonable, properly trained police officer have done in the situation. This is a high standard in that it assumes a level of specialized training, familiarity with rules/procedures and practical experience.

However, the law in Canada and the US is "innocent until proven guilty" - and police deserve the benefit of this principle the same way you or I do.

[SilkySmooth]

I agree Chris.


==Tom

[Rolo]

Please, please, please, don't ever serve on a jury.
What's with the personal digs?

As it happens this isn't a Trial. This is just public online forum in which I'm free to voice my opinion on the behaviour of those cops. And of course, you're perfectly free to disagree with me. But do it without the personal jabs. As a moderator of an internet site that claims to promote civil discourse and gentlemanly behavior among its members you should know better.

[Crag]

All I can say is that for a Society that doesn't believe in Capital Punishment, there sure are a lot of "Taser" Related Deaths there...Something I can't understand, is that he is obviously unconscious at 9:57, and then again at 9:58 yet he is still cuffed, and no one is making any attempt to revive him.

This is a poke at the Government, not the people, so please no flaming. And no offensive quoting and rebuttal. Rebuttals are welcome, but let's keep them Civil. Otherwise lock the thread and be done with it.

[Suzuki]

What's with the personal digs?

As it happens this isn't a Trial. This is just public online forum in which I'm free to voice my opinion on the behaviour of those cops. And of course, you're perfectly free to disagree with me. But do it without the personal jabs. As a moderator of an internet site that claims to promote civil discourse and gentlemanly behavior among its members you should know better.

This wasn't intended as a personal attack (and if you did take it as such, I apologize), but a comment on the fact that you seem to feel its not necessary to get all the facts before passing judgement. Which is inconsistent with being a good jury member.

It in no way speaks to whether I do or don't agree with your opinion - reasonable people often disagree. In fact, its possible that, after all the facts are out, I'll agree with you - which is why I've specifically not opined on the issue of culpability.

As for the last sentence in the post above, that's certainly a deliberate jab. So, let's call ourselves even on that score and continue to debate the issue - making sure we both focus on the merits.

[Roman414]

I think the fact than someone WANTS to be a police officer; goes down and eagerly applies for the job, indicates a certain type of personality. And, in my mind, is the kind of person who should be watched very closely once he has that badge and gun. I mean, if you ask an applicant why he wants the job, almost always he says, "Because I want to help people," But a shoe saleman helps people, ambulance drivers help people, but he isn't applying for one of those jobs.

[moses]

I think the fact than someone WANTS to be a police officer; goes down and eagerly applies for the job, indicates a certain type of personality. And, in my mind, is the kind of person who should be watched very closely once he has that badge and gun. I mean, if you ask an applicant why he wants the job, almost always he says, "Because I want to help people," But a shoe saleman helps people, ambulance drivers help people, but he isn't applying for one of those jobs.

I really do not think that is remotely fair to law enforcement personnel in general. I don't doubt that some people have less than noble reasons for wanting to be in law enforcement - over fondness of power over other people or the like. But to suggest that this it should be assumed that this sort of thing is a factor with most officers? I find that rather offensive actually. It is a tough job, and a major public service. We should honor and thank our law enforcement, not go around making this kind of assumptions.

-Mo

PS - None of the above should be taken to suggest that I don't think a high level of oversight and accountability is in order.

[red2]

First let me say that I have been on the whole incredibly impressed with the respectful tone of this debate, so much so that I feel comfortable adding my perspective. I offer my comments in a respectful spirit.



The issue is whether these officers did/didn't follow proper procedure. The fact that a person was killed is not relevant to the issue of whether the police used proper procedure.

However, the fact that a person was killed is relevant to the issue of whether the current procedure needs to be changed.

Let's not mix issues - the fact that a person was killed adds a human element and makes for a good media frenzy, but let's be honest, the police involved would not likely be under the microscope if this had gone the same way that the vast majority of tazings go - i.e., suspect gets tazed, suspect gets arrested and suffers no harmful effects of the tazing.




As I said above, the fact that someone got killed is reason to examine and consider how and when tazers should be used - but this is a different discussion than whether the police officers acted improperly


Chris, I think that we are not far apart here, but I would like to clarify perhaps two points.

Because someone died here, it is important to try to find out why. I think that the investigation should first determine whether or not proper police procedures and protocols where followed. If proper procedures and training were applied, it is important to determine whether those procedures are appropriate and adequate. It is reasonable to expect that one ought not die from a tazing. Indeed, tazers were specifically designed to be non-lethal.

Something went wrong. We need to determine what it is. It is possible that the police officers did not follow the proper procedures and training and therefore are culpable for the death. It is possible that the officers did properly follow their training and are not culpable for the death; It is possible that the procedures and training were inadequate and had they been different this death could have been avoided. In this case the training policy is at fault for the death and ought to be changed in order to avoid similar incidents. It is also possible that the procedures were followed and were reasonable and that some rare unusually factor/circumstance was at play here. In this case, the death, while incredibly tragic, could not have reasonably been avoided.

The reason this is news is that something went wrong. Someone died. It is exactly why this tazing is under the microscope and not the vast majority of other tazings. It is entirely appropriate for this incident to be under the microscope. The media are performing a vital function here. I will need another post to discuss media sensationalism and bias; however, my point is that it ought not to be a surprise that it is this case, and not the vast majority of applications of tazers, which is receiving scrutiny.




As I've previously said, just like there are bad police officers, there are bad apples in every profession (and I mean as in folks who completely abuse their positions of trust/authority/responsibility - psychologists who have sexual relationships with vulnerable clients, doctors who molest clients; lawyers who steal from their clients; contractors who knowingly use shoddy materials; teachers who have sexual relationships with students; stockbrokers who steal from clients/trade improperly...unfortunately, I could go on, but I trust you get my drift).

However I truly believe that the bad apples are the exception and not the norm. I also feel very strongly that the bad apples should be weeded out and, if they abuse their position, should be punished as appropriate.

This applies to "bad" police officers as it applies equally to "bad" (used in the context described above) doctors, pychologists, lawyers, contractors, teachers, brokers, etc...

And yes, professionals (including police) are almost always held to a higher standard when assessing whether they acted appropriately - in this case, the will likely be held to the "reasonable police officer" standard - as in what would the reasonable, properly trained police officer have done in the situation. This is a high standard in that it assumes a level of specialized training, familiarity with rules/procedures and practical experience.

However, the law in Canada and the US is "innocent until proven guilty" - and police deserve the benefit of this principle the same way you or I do.

I think that it is critically important, given the particular power we grant to police officers, that we hold them to high standards. It would be unfortunate if an initial belief that the actions must be good because police officers are good prevented us from seeing either dangerous reckless bad apples or systemic problems which cause too high a level and or too long a duration of this behavior. It would also be unfortunate if an equal but opposite initial belief that the actions must be bad because police officers are bad prevented us from seeing both decent hard-working officers who do difficult jobs well and a system which consistently produces quality officers. I have had direct personal experience with officers behaving in both manners.

I am enjoying this conversation.

[BMWRider]

I am firmly on the side of all law enforcement agencies taking a long hard look at Tazors, as I have stated earlier in this thread. I have also made it very clear that I have a problem with the minority of officers that we used to call "cowboys" back in my LE days. I believe most, if not all of the abusive actions that we read, see, or hear about are perpetrated by those "cowboys." I actually discussed this thread with my SRO (School Resource Officer - a full time city police officer) and he is of the same school about Tazors. He does not like them and feels that they are often used too quickly. But to imply he, his co-workers, or that most of the folks that I worked with for many years were on a power trip of some kind is not a position I support. It is the tool I have a problem with along with the butt clowns who abuse it. Not the officer who is doing his (or her) best to "serve and protect. I know I am a liberal on this issue, but I am not so liberal as to indict the entire law enforcement profession.

[Groundhog]

I think the fact than someone WANTS to be a police officer; goes down and eagerly applies for the job, indicates a certain type of personality. And, in my mind, is the kind of person who should be watched very closely once he has that badge and gun. I mean, if you ask an applicant why he wants the job, almost always he says, "Because I want to help people," But a shoe saleman helps people, ambulance drivers help people, but he isn't applying for one of those jobs.

So, you're in effect stating ALL police officers have a personality disorder merely because they ever wanted an LE career to begin with..... hmmmm. Thanks for letting me know that I've wasted the last 20+ years of my life. I shall immediately retire and seek counseling for my obvious aggressive tendencies and my abnormal desire "to help people" (or trying to make my little corner of the world a better place to live).

I guess I'll change my sig line to something even more sarcastic....perhaps add ".......but you should watch me very carefully because I could go on a power trip at any moment...."

[kestrel]

To me the most important point is that Robert Dziekanski was in that waiting area for nearly ten hours. In all that time was it not possible for someone to follow through on his behalf? Figure out what language he spoke?
Get him something to eat? If someone had, he might still be alive.
It is so easy to forget how important it is for us to look out for one another;
what happened to Robert Dziekanski has got to remind us of that.

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

Graham

[Roman414]

I apologize, Groundhog. But you must see where I am coming from. If I were a foot fetishist I think shoe salesman would be my dream job. If I had an unnatural attraction to young boys I would probably make a strong effort to become a Scout leader. And if I had a sadistic, bullying streak how could I do better than becoming a police officer? I don't think that factor should be ignored. After all, police can pretty much kill at their own pleasure and get away with it (He was reaching in his waistband!) The level of scrutiny (and scepticism!) should be very high.

[ScottS]

To me the most important point is that Robert Dziekanski was in that waiting area for nearly ten hours. In all that time was it not possible for someone to follow through on his behalf? Figure out what language he spoke?


Yeah, airline personnel can be so helpful. :001_unsur

[moses]

After all, police can pretty much kill at their own pleasure and get away with it (He was reaching in his waistband!) The level of scrutiny (and scepticism!) should be very high.

Oh please. Do you really believe the investigation that happens every time an officer draws her/his weapon is that easy?

-Mo

[jnich67]

I apologize, Groundhog. But you must see where I am coming from. If I were a foot fetishist I think shoe salesman would be my dream job. If I had an unnatural attraction to young boys I would probably make a strong effort to become a Scout leader. And if I had a sadistic, bullying streak how could I do better than becoming a police officer? I don't think that factor should be ignored. After all, police can pretty much kill at their own pleasure and get away with it (He was reaching in his waistband!) The level of scrutiny (and scepticism!) should be very high.

I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous statement....

Jordan

[Holton181]

I apologize, Groundhog. But you must see where I am coming from. If I were a foot fetishist I think shoe salesman would be my dream job. If I had an unnatural attraction to young boys I would probably make a strong effort to become a Scout leader. And if I had a sadistic, bullying streak how could I do better than becoming a police officer? I don't think that factor should be ignored. After all, police can pretty much kill at their own pleasure and get away with it (He was reaching in his waistband!) The level of scrutiny (and scepticism!) should be very high.

Wow, dude. That's about as "Glass is Half Empty" as it gets. Not to jump on the bash Roman bandwagon, but geez man, cops have lost their jobs for a lot less.

[Rolo]

This wasn't intended as a personal attack (and if you did take it as such, I apologize), but a comment on the fact that you seem to feel its not necessary to get all the facts before passing judgement. Which is inconsistent with being a good jury member.

It in no way speaks to whether I do or don't agree with your opinion - reasonable people often disagree. In fact, its possible that, after all the facts are out, I'll agree with you - which is why I've specifically not opined on the issue of culpability.

As for the last sentence in the post above, that's certainly a deliberate jab. So, let's call ourselves even on that score and continue to debate the issue - making sure we both focus on the merits.

If this was a trial and I was a member of the jury I would most definitely wait to see all the evidence. But since this is not the case, I'm under no such obligation. Besides, I wasn't "passing judgment" on the criminality (if there is any) of their actions.

As for the last sentence in my previous post, it was not intended as an attack nor was it about getting an "even score". I was merely bringing to your attention that with that statement (and 2 previous ones) it seemed that you were making it personal, That's all. Now that that's clear, let's just move on.

[Groundhog]

I apologize, Groundhog. But you must see where I am coming from. If I were a foot fetishist I think shoe salesman would be my dream job. If I had an unnatural attraction to young boys I would probably make a strong effort to become a Scout leader. And if I had a sadistic, bullying streak how could I do better than becoming a police officer? I don't think that factor should be ignored. After all, police can pretty much kill at their own pleasure and get away with it (He was reaching in his waistband!) The level of scrutiny (and scepticism!) should be very high.

Roman I do see where you're coming from....you're just a little misinformed. You make some semi-valid arguments when you mention foot-fetishists & shoe salesmen, Scout leaders & pedophiles, etc. But do you honestly think we just hire every Barney Fife that comes along asking for a badge & gun and the power to take away your rights to life, liberty, & property? Granted, some can and do slip through the cracks, but the system of checks and balances in the form of psychological interviews, testing, thorough background investigations, etc. tend to weed the vast majority of these folks out. Take a guess as to how many application packages it takes to get an academy class of 30 with my department....if you say 500-600, you'd be right, and that's with some relaxed hiring standards we've had shoved down our throats the last few years (don't even get started on that topic :mad: )...it used to be more like 700-800.

As to killing for my "own pleasure" and getting "away with it", I'll leave that alone....everyone else seems to be hammering your a** pretty good for that one....

BTW, apology accepted. I've decided not to retire just yet.

[Rolo]

I think the fact than someone WANTS to be a police officer; goes down and eagerly applies for the job, indicates a certain type of personality. And, in my mind, is the kind of person who should be watched very closely once he has that badge and gun. I mean, if you ask an applicant why he wants the job, almost always he says, "Because I want to help people," But a shoe saleman helps people, ambulance drivers help people, but he isn't applying for one of those jobs.
I agree with Roman to an extend; I think that some who enter the police force do tend to have that certain personality. Of course there are plenty of well intention applicants (perhaps most) who just want to make a difference. There are also those who go into it because of family tradition.
But there is definitely that percentage that go into it for the power trip or other reasons that are less then noble. I wonder if a study has been done on the subject, it'd be interesting to find out.
What I can say from my personal experience, is that out of the 3 guys in my high school who went on to become cops, two were those stereotypically cartoonish tough-guys who liked to push people around. I don't know if they're still cops, or if they've changed, but in my experience, people don't change that much. I hope that they got weeded out.

[Rolo]

...Something I can't understand, is that he is obviously unconscious at 9:57, and then again at 9:58 yet he is still cuffed, and no one is making any attempt to revive him.

To me the most important point is that Robert Dziekanski was in that waiting area for nearly ten hours. In all that time was it not possible for someone to follow through on his behalf? Figure out what language he spoke?
Get him something to eat? If someone had, he might still be alive.
These are questions that definitely need to be answered along with:
Why did they used the taser so soon after arriving?
Why did the cops not use their CPR training?
Why did they did it take 11 minutes for the emt to show up, when there was help 2 minutes away?

I guess we'll have to wait to find out.

BTW, another man who was tased the same day in Quebec just died soon after. Clearly something has to be done

[canman23]

I was not going to post on this subject but, after reading all the different opinions I felt I should post. I am a police officer and I do carry and have used the taser on people. The department I work for does have a use of force policy and we have to go through training every year to be re-certified with the taser. I will also tell you before I was able to carry the taser I had it used on me during training. I could try but, no words would come close to how bad it hurt. If I use the task on someone we have to call medics and have the person checked out. I will say the taser is an invaluable tool for me. Our policy is that if someone resist (verbally or physically) to my commands I can then deploy the taser. For example, if I ask someone to get out of the car and they refuse I can advise them if they don’t comply to my commands they will be tasered. You must understand that my safety is just as much of a concern for me as the person(s) I’m dealing with. If using a taser keeps a situation from getting out of hand then yes, I will and have used it. I been on the job for over 14 years and have seen a lot, been spit on, punched, kicked and called ever name in the book. So, before you go busted the police in the nuts go do a ride along with them, talk to them or get to know them. The last time I checked police officers are only human and not robots. It’s easy to second guess the police when you have hours or days to look at something but, for the officer he/she may only have seconds to make a life or death decision. Sometimes they make the right decision and sometimes they don’t. I have read and seen to many officers lose their life because they hesitate. Try living in your town without the police and then get back to me. Oh, I read a post on here that talked about why people want to be officers and they made a reference to a shoe salesman. I didn’t become a police officer to help people, if I do then great. I became one because I wanted to make a difference. If I get a drunk driver off the road great! If I help someone great! Either way I made a difference one I’m sure you (the person that made that post) would never understand.

[Dr. Mike]

In my life, I have known 4 people that were police officers. 3 of them I knew before they became police officers. Of the 4, only one of them could have anything like the personality that Roman described, but apart from the fact that he could have a bullying streak in him, he would also give you the shirt off of his back without even being asked. All were nice guys. None of them every talked with a twinkle in their eye about the possibility of killing somebody and getting away with it. By and large, I think that people who get a kick out of the possibility of killing people or hurting them for thrills tend to go into the serial killer business. All this talk about how those types of personalities go into law enforcement is totally ridiculous. No evidence is provided for this whatsoever. You are giving your opinion. I don't know what has prejudiced you against cops, or made you think so low of them, but I personally like the nice, relatively peaceful live that I am allowed to lead thanks to a bunch of people that go out and stand guard for me. Sure, I'm not the biggest fan when they pull me over, and I get nervous when I see a squad car behind me while driving down the road, but they are doing their job. It is really easy to sit here and condemn them when you live in a nice country where your security is watched over by these guys. Go to a country where such protection does not exist, and you might change your opinion. Yes, when something like this happens it is tragic, and there should be an investigation to make sure that the officers didn't violate their rules. They should be held to a higher standard. But, because of the danger that they put themselves in daily to keep you and I out of danger, they should also be given the benefit of the doubt more than the average person. Do your wife and kids have to worry that much about whether you will be killed on the job?

[Roman414]

Where I live, San Diego, hardly a month goes by without cops shooting someone, more often than not unarmed. The shootings are ALWAYS ruled justified and within department guidelines. And almost always the excuse was "he appeared to be reaching in his waistband." Why would all those unarmed people be reaching in their waistbands? As I said, there is one officer who, to date, has killed five people. Just what am I supposed to think? Yeah, those cops certainly "made a difference" in the lives of a lot of families. And another point: there are usually fifteen or twenty shots fired by the police for every hit. It would seem to be fairly difficult to hit someone with a handgun. Would it be that risky to wait and see if the object the person reached for is his wallet with his identification or actually a gun? Why so quick to shoot?

[Dr. Mike]

Okay, you are a cop. You are approaching a person that you suspect of some wrong-doing. You don't know if that person is going to do as you ask. You don't know if that person is armed or not. You tell the person to keep their hands where you can see them. Instead, they reach for their waistband or their pocket, two potential locations for a weapon. You decide to hold off on shooting until you can clearly see what he is grabbing for, even though you have told him to keep his hands out in the open. Maybe he is only going for a wallet, or a smoke, or a phone, or he has an itch to scratch. Or maybe he is going for his gun and your wife gets a call in the middle of the night telling her you are dead. It is a dangerous job. These guys are allowed to protect themselves in the course of enforcing the law. Maybe your idea would make for better PR for the cops, and more people would love the cops, but I suspect we would also see a sharp rise in police deaths and more brazen criminal activity if they know that cops are going to wait to shoot until you light up a neon sign over your head that says, "Dear Mr. Police Officer, I have a gun in my hand and am going to try to shoot you. You may ready your weapon." The job of a police officer is not to make the public love them. My question is where are those police shootings you refer to? In crime-ridden areas? Or in quiet suburbs? That statistic that you cite is completely meaningless out of context. If you had, say, 5 police-related shootings a day in some place like Beverly Hills, that might raise some eyebrows. But for a major city? How does that compare to other major cities? Are these shootings in areas where crime rates are higher than average? Is there significant gang activity? Do the crimes in that area frequently involve the use of weapons? Did the person that was shot have a weapon?
If it is above average, then definitely it should be investigated. But if you think that cops just shouldn't be able to use any kind of force other than what they can deliver with their own two hands, then first of all, your problem will not be police-related shootings, but higher crime rates, as you will not be able to convince people to join the police force. If the cops are in the wrong, by all means prosecute them. But don't smear them when they are only doing their job, protecting you and me.

[BarryR]

Okay, you are a cop. You are approaching a person that you suspect of some wrong-doing. You don't know if that person is going to do as you ask. You don't know if that person is armed or not. You tell the person to keep their hands where you can see them. Instead, they reach for their waistband or their pocket, two potential locations for a weapon...I realize that you're talking of generalities, but lets keep in mind that for this particular case in the airport, the police pretty much knew that he was unarmed since he had not gone anywhere since getting off the plane. I agree that we can't conclude what happened yet, but to me given the information available thus far, it is very troubling.

[Dr. Mike]

If you would follow this link (http://www.sandiego.gov/police/stats/), you will find some interesting facts.
One of the links on the page shows actual crime statistics from 1950 to 2006. Crime rates hit an all time high in San Diego around 1990, with just over 100,000 major crimes occurring in that year. In the 16 years since that, crime has dropped by about 50%, down to just over 50,000 in 2006. This is despite the fact that in that time the city grew in population by about 200,000 people. From these statistics, it would seem that, rather than warranting your disdain, the police there seem to be doing a pretty good job. Cutting crime in half is a statistic that any politician would love to tout.

[moses]

I realize that you're talking of generalities, but lets keep in mind that for this particular case in the airport, the police pretty much knew that he was unarmed since he had not gone anywhere since getting off the plane. I agree that we can't conclude what happened yet, but to me given the information available thus far, it is very troubling.

Well. I think Mike was responding to Roman's comments about shooting in SD, not talking about the airport incident, in particular.

-Mo

[Crag]

So....

How about that Hillary Clinton? :c9:

[Dr. Mike]

Well. I think Mike was responding to Roman's comments about shooting in SD, not talking about the airport incident, in particular.

-Mo

Thanks, Mo. Yeah, I was responding to the post immediately prior. I thought if I posted it quick enough, it would go right after, and would be apparent that I was responding to it. I guess I should have quoted it as well. My comment there doesn't apply as well to the airport incident, because, as somebody else pointed out, the fact that he arrived by plane and hadn't left the airport would make the idea of some kind of lethal weapon on his possession unrealistic (although not impossible). But that case is also different, because they did not draw regular guns on the man.
I can sort of understand why some people are very upset about the airport incident. It is a case where nobody intended for a person to die. It is certainly tragic. What I'm having a harder time understanding are the other more general anti-police comments. Police are by and large a force for good. They allow us to live a more civilized life. We don't all have to provide for our own specific protection thanks to police. We don't live in the wild west anymore. If anybody here is confronted by a violent criminal, I doubt they are going to refuse police aid. Because there are some bad apples, who are blown up to mythical proportions by the media and on the silver screen, you condemn the whole profession? There are some bad doctors out there too. But if my appendix is about to burst, I'm not going to shun their assistance and denounce the whole profession. There are bad teachers out there. Should we shut down all the schools (well, maybe there is something to that, actually)? An exception does not necessitate trashing the whole system. How would these people propose enforcing the law without these police they so clearly have issues with?
Ironically, I would be more than willing to bet that the same people who complain about police on here would also be the first ones to complain if crime rates were to go up, thinking the police weren't doing their job.

[Roman414]

Recent killiings I can remember included a suspected drunk driver (he was driving erratically) who was shot by an off-duty cop in civilian clothes and an unmarked car when he got out of his car in front of his home. He was unarmed but the cop claimed he was "reaching in his waistband". Another was a mentally disturbed man who became agitated when approx ten cops started shouting at him and he picked up a stick and refused to drop it. Another was a woman pulled over for a traffic stop and refused to get out of her car when ordered (probably afraid). She didn't have a waistband, evidently. She was reaching for her glove compartment (where she kept her registration and proof of insurance?)...there are far too many for me to remember all the details. And what does any of this have to do with the crime rate?

[moses]

Recent killiings I can remember included a suspected drunk driver (he was driving erratically) who was shot by an off-duty cop in civilian clothes and an unmarked car when he got out of his car in front of his home. He was unarmed but the cop claimed he was "reaching in his waistband". Another was a mentally disturbed man who became agitated when approx ten cops started shouting at him and he picked up a stick and refused to drop it. Another was a woman pulled over for a traffic stop and refused to get out of her car when ordered (probably afraid). She didn't have a waistband, evidently. She was reaching for her glove compartment (where she kept her registration and proof of insurance?)...there are far too many for me to remember all the details.

Not to say that those aren't deserving of investigation. All I know is none of what you told me establishes to me, one way or the other, whether the police in question did something wrong or not.

Interesting thought.... Had those officers had tasers, perhaps some of those lives would not have been lost.


And what does any of this have to do with the crime rate?

Well, honestly, not a lot, that I can see. Except that a decreasing crime rate show that the police are doing a good in meeting their primary overall goal.

-Mo

[Suzuki]

These are questions that definitely need to be answered along with:
Why did they used the taser so soon after arriving?
Why did the cops not use their CPR training?
Why did they did it take 11 minutes for the emt to show up, when there was help 2 minutes away?

I guess we'll have to wait to find out.

BTW, another man who was tased the same day in Quebec just died soon after. Clearly something has to be done

While I completely disagree with your comments regarding police and the sort of individual who wants to be a police officer, I agree that the questions you listed do need to be answered.

Basically the two main questions are (i) did the police follow SOP in this incident and (ii) is the SOP appropriate.


Where I live, San Diego, hardly a month goes by without cops shooting someone, more often than not unarmed. The shootings are ALWAYS ruled justified and within department guidelines. And almost always the excuse was "he appeared to be reaching in his waistband." Why would all those unarmed people be reaching in their waistbands? As I said, there is one officer who, to date, has killed five people. Just what am I supposed to think? Yeah, those cops certainly "made a difference" in the lives of a lot of families. And another point: there are usually fifteen or twenty shots fired by the police for every hit. It would seem to be fairly difficult to hit someone with a handgun. Would it be that risky to wait and see if the object the person reached for is his wallet with his identification or actually a gun? Why so quick to shoot?

The fact that there are police shootings does not mean that the police are doing anything wrong or that the SDPD is more/less trigger happy than any other PD. You would need to do a comparson between the SDPD and other PDs who police similar urban areas to be able to make an assessment of whether the SDPD has a greater propensity to use force or shoot suspects than other PDs.

Attempting to draw a conclusion that, since its hard to hit someone with a handgun, police should wait longer to see if someone is reaching for a wallet or a gun makes no sense. There is no logical connection between the issue of handgun accuracy and waiting to see if someone is a threat.

Its so easy to put ourselves in the position of the "victim" - try to put yourself in the position of the police officer - its dark, you're alone, you tell someone to put their hands in the air or give them some other similar command and instead, they do something that is as consistent with pulling a gun as it is getting a wallet/ID.

Do you wait to see if they're getting a gun or do you assume that, since they are obviously not complying with your instructions they are a threat. I'm not going to answer this one, but its not an easy decision to make - and you only have seconds to make it. Its easy to say that police need to be 100% sure (and in an ideal world they would be - but we don't live in an ideal world) before using force - especally when you're never going to be in that type of situation. I for one do not want police officers to have to wait so long that they jeopardize their safety - at the same time, I don't want them to use weapons (or force generally) unless required.


I realize that you're talking of generalities, but lets keep in mind that for this particular case in the airport, the police pretty much knew that he was unarmed since he had not gone anywhere since getting off the plane. I agree that we can't conclude what happened yet, but to me given the information available thus far, it is very troubling.

I believe there are reports that he had a stapler in his hand - while not a gun, anything in a suspect's hand can be viewed as a weapon.


Recent killiings I can remember included a suspected drunk driver (he was driving erratically) who was shot by an off-duty cop in civilian clothes and an unmarked car when he got out of his car in front of his home. He was unarmed but the cop claimed he was "reaching in his waistband". Another was a mentally disturbed man who became agitated when approx ten cops started shouting at him and he picked up a stick and refused to drop it. Another was a woman pulled over for a traffic stop and refused to get out of her car when ordered (probably afraid). She didn't have a waistband, evidently. She was reaching for her glove compartment (where she kept her registration and proof of insurance?)...there are far too many for me to remember all the details. And what does any of this have to do with the crime rate?

Actually what does it have to do with anything - police are often confronted with situations that none of us ever will be. They don't have the benefit of hindsight or the information subsequently provided about the person shot or tazed.

As I mentioned above, put yourself in the shoes of the police officers involved in these situations and think about what you would do when you tell someone ignores your command and does something potentially threatening - do you wait to let them shoot first or do you assume bad things are going to happen given the refusal to follow a command and a threatening actoin. Do this and then perhaps you won't be so quick to pass judgement on police officers.

[ScottS]

All this just goes to show you that something as simple as a traffic stop can turn dangerous very quickly, and should always be taken seriously. Follow the officer's instructions as best as you can. When pulled over (and this happens more than I like it to!), I immediately roll down my window, place my hands on the wheel, and leave them there until told to do otherwise. When asked for my license and registration, I tell the officer they're in my wallet, tell him which pocket the wallet is is, and ask if its OK to get it. When asked for my insurance card, I tell the officer its in my glove compartment, and usually they tell me not to bother with it. I suspect they can see the info when they call up the plate, anyway, and they prefer not to have me rooting around the glove compartment.

Partially, this is to keep me safe, but I think of it as common courtesy. Pulling over strangers is an unknown risk, and anything I can do to alleviate the officer's concern is OK. I find they appreciate the courtesy, and give warnings, or shave a few miles per hour off to bring me to the lower fine bracket.

[Dr. Mike]

Recent killiings I can remember included a suspected drunk driver (he was driving erratically) who was shot by an off-duty cop in civilian clothes and an unmarked car when he got out of his car in front of his home. He was unarmed but the cop claimed he was "reaching in his waistband". Another was a mentally disturbed man who became agitated when approx ten cops started shouting at him and he picked up a stick and refused to drop it. Another was a woman pulled over for a traffic stop and refused to get out of her car when ordered (probably afraid). She didn't have a waistband, evidently. She was reaching for her glove compartment (where she kept her registration and proof of insurance?)...there are far too many for me to remember all the details. And what does any of this have to do with the crime rate?

I found this article (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/reports/shootings/20030122-9999_mz1n19gun.html) about police shootings in San Diego. Granted, it is from 2003, but it is still relevant.
According to the article, police in San Diego respond to about 1.5 million calls per year. So out of 1.5 million calls, you mention less than 10 police shootings? According to that article, in the previous year, there were 15 police shootings, with 6 being fatal. Based on those numbers, that means that in the police state of San Diego, you have a 0.001% chance of being shot by a police officer when confronted by one. That means that you would be shot, on average, once every 100,000 times you are confronted by a police officer. You have a 0.0004% chance of being killed by a police officer. Now, granted, you probably stand a better chance of being shot by a cop than winning the lottery, but I think most rational people would consider 0.001% about as close to zero as you are going to get. Consider that the following year, 2004, about 300 people died from traffic accidents. You are 50 times more likely to die in a traffic accident in San Diego than from a cop shooting you. And at that time, San Diego had the sixth lowest crime rate of all cities with 500,000 or more citizens. Yeah, it sounds like they are just running out of control and above the law down there. I would even go so far as to predict that if you factor out the shootings that were irrefutably justified, the rate of police shootings would drop to an even more insignificant number. And according to the article, San Diego has one of the highest rates of police shootings in the nation! I'm surprised we have as large a population as we do with all of these trigger happy cops out there!
And I think it is also disingenuous to imply that the cops get off scott free. According to the article, there are 5 separate inquiries following each and every officer-related shooting. First the homicide unit investigates, then the internal affairs division, then the department's shooting review board. After all of those inquiries within the police department, it is then investigated by the District Attorney's office and the citizen's review board. I'd say they are some of the most scrutinized people out there, when you also factor in the news media supplying unfounded innuendo to sensationalize the story and boost ratings, and private citizens looking for some juicy footage to make them instantly famous on YouTube.

[BarryR]

Thanks, Mo. Yeah, I was responding to the post immediately prior. I thought if I posted it quick enough, it would go right after, and would be apparent that I was responding to it. I guess I should have quoted it as well. My comment there doesn't apply as well to the airport incident...I sort of realized that, but this whole thread was in response to the airport incident. Nevertheless, my comment was probably 'misplaced' coming after that post.


While I completely disagree with your comments regarding police and the sort of individual who wants to be a police officer......
I hope and assume that the great majority of police officers are not bullies and thugs. I do agree with some other posters that some are in it exactly because of their personality defects. Unfortunately, I think the culture in the police force has been one of protecting ones colleagues rather than seeking the truth and this perpetuates the distrust. A similar problem has existed in medicine and is slowly changing.

Part of the solution in medicine is exactly to recognize that people make mistakes and to look at process improvement and a culture that encourages and rewards error and near-miss reporting.

For example, it is possible that the RCMPs made a terrible mistake but that they're good officers. Perhaps the policy around Taser use, etc., needs to be revised. It's also possible, as has been pointed out previously, that there is information we're missing and that the use of force was justified (though as I've mentioned this seems less likely to me).


...I believe there are reports that he had a stapler in his hand - while not a gun, anything in a suspect's hand can be viewed as a weapon.That would seem to me to be an overly broad definition of weapon, unless he was using it (or seemed about to use it) to smash someone's head.

I also think part of the problem is the level of fear that we're living with (in my partisan opinion in part as a political ploy) which adds to the hair-trigger response in airports. Remember the MIT woman who almost got machine-gunned because of lights and electric circuits on her sweatshirt?

It sort of reminds me of movies or twilight zone episodes in which people fearing some evil start suspecting each other and killing each other, creating the evil that they thought they were fighting.

[Roman414]

One last incident then I will shut up, I promise. A friend of mine was walking to his car late one night after working late. He passed an alley with a police car in it, and saw what looked like two figures struggling in it. Thinking an officer might need help or something, he walked up to the car. There were two cops in it, a male and a female, having sex. My friend tapped on the window, said, "Is this what I pay taxes for?" and continued on his way. He had reached his car and opened the door when the police car pulled up. They dragged him roughly from his car, slammed him up against it, and handcuffed him. He spent the night in the detox tank, and when they released him (with no charges) the next day, his car had been towed! He had to call me to come pick him up. We figured they had arrested him as a preventive measure, so if he reported them He had no intention to) he would have no credibility. I guess they could have just as easily shot him and claimed he was "reaching in his waistband." To me, that is the San Diego police force. I am sure they are not all a--holes. but the ones who are not tolerate the ones who are, don't they? They share the same image voluntarily.

[liege]

Every police officer that I have ever had contact with has been very professional, super-nice, and helpful. Based on some of the logic that has been proffered on this thread that must mean they are all like that, right?

[Dr. Mike]

One last incident then I will shut up, I promise. A friend of mine was walking to his car late one night after working late. He passed an alley with a police car in it, and saw what looked like two figures struggling in it. Thinking an officer might need help or something, he walked up to the car. There were two cops in it, a male and a female, having sex. My friend tapped on the window, said, "Is this what I pay taxes for?" and continued on his way. He had reached his car and opened the door when the police car pulled up. They dragged him roughly from his car, slammed him up against it, and handcuffed him. He spent the night in the detox tank, and when they released him (with no charges) the next day, his car had been towed! He had to call me to come pick him up. We figured they had arrested him as a preventive measure, so if he reported them He had no intention to) he would have no credibility. I guess they could have just as easily shot him and claimed he was "reaching in his waistband." To me, that is the San Diego police force. I am sure they are not all a--holes. but the ones who are not tolerate the ones who are, don't they? They share the same image voluntarily.

I can't comment on your friends experience here, but if it went as you said, it is very problematic. First of all, they could not have tossed him into detox overnight if he was not intoxicated. He could have requested any number of sobriety tests, and would have had to be released from detox immediately if he registered sober. As for not reporting it, well, I'm afraid then that, if the incident is true, your friend is as much at fault as these other officers that you claim "tolerate" bad cops. He could have very easily reported it and filed charges against them for wrongful incarceration, or something similar. I would think that, if the cops would be unable to establish that your friend was intoxicated, they would be in a very shaky situation.
But even assuming that all of the above is true, it still falls way below the other accusations you have been leveling against the police in general, and the SDPD in particular. You make the passing comment that maybe they could have just shot him. But they didn't. By your account, unless you left that tidbit out, they didn't even draw their weapons. Certainly it would be a case of police misconduct, but not on the level of the unwarranted killings that you lay at their feet.
Again, I'm not saying that all cops are honest and model citizens. But I am saying that these guys risk their lives so that law-abiding citizens can live in peace and security. Cut them some slack and give them the benefit of the doubt, or at the very least, presume their innocence until somebody can prove them guilty. As I mentioned in my last post, after all of the peer investigations of police shootings, you know, the ones where they would be looking out for one another and covering for each other, every shooting then gets reviewed by both the District Attorney's office, and a citizens review board. 5 total investigations. If there is a wrongdoing on the part of the police officer, one of them is going to catch it.

[Badger Dog]

I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank all the LE types out there. For the most part it is a thankless job; but I don't think they're in it to receive accolades or praise. I'm in a related field. I'm a soldier, and I think most soldiers, like most cops do it to make a difference and a sense of duty to a country, state, or city they love. Very rewarding.

I don't expect everyone to understand this, and I really don't care if they do. There will always be some who think the worst of people, ie. all scout leaders are pedophiles or all cops want to brutalize the populace, etc. I imagine all soldiers are psychopathic killers to them. I'll defend his right to think and talk that way, and I'm sure the cops will be there for him in his time of need as well.

BTW Iron Maiden, I've probably paid for a couple of your Tazers over the years on the Ohio Turnpike. I used to have a heavy right foot and a strong throttle hand when on my bike. :biggrin:

Tom

[Groundhog]

One last incident then I will shut up, I promise. A friend of mine was walking to his car late one night after working late. He passed an alley with a police car in it, and saw what looked like two figures struggling in it. Thinking an officer might need help or something, he walked up to the car. There were two cops in it, a male and a female, having sex. My friend tapped on the window, said, "Is this what I pay taxes for?" and continued on his way. He had reached his car and opened the door when the police car pulled up. They dragged him roughly from his car, slammed him up against it, and handcuffed him. He spent the night in the detox tank, and when they released him (with no charges) the next day, his car had been towed! He had to call me to come pick him up. We figured they had arrested him as a preventive measure, so if he reported them He had no intention to) he would have no credibility. I guess they could have just as easily shot him and claimed he was "reaching in his waistband." To me, that is the San Diego police force. I am sure they are not all a--holes. but the ones who are not tolerate the ones who are, don't they? They share the same image voluntarily.

OK man, we get it. Seems like you and everybody you know has had numerous encounters with crooked cops, and your hometown PD is a bunch of incompetent & corrupt buffoons. You've obviously got a problem with cops for whatever reason. Thanks for sharing.

[Roman414]

"For whatever reason?" I have given my reasons.

[Dr. Mike]

"For whatever reason?" I have given my reasons.

Granted, but what I think he means is that a 0.001% rate of cops shooting people and one particular instance involving your friend and only 2 police officers just doesn't seem to add up to your general disdain for them. I understand, you think that any death caused by a cop is abysmal. But if you were to hear of, say, a mailman running over a couple of people, would you likewise denounce the U.S. Postal Service?
For as much as you have complained about the police, and the SDPD specifically, it seems like you would have some more instances of grievances, both general and specific to you, that's all.

[Groundhog]

Granted, but what I think he means is that a 0.001% rate of cops shooting people and one particular instance involving your friend and only 2 police officers just doesn't seem to add up to your general disdain for them. I understand, you think that any death caused by a cop is abysmal. But if you were to hear of, say, a mailman running over a couple of people, would you likewise denounce the U.S. Postal Service?
For as much as you have complained about the police, and the SDPD specifically, it seems like you would have some more instances of grievances, both general and specific to you, that's all.

Thanks for the assist Mike.....that's exactly what I meant..........doesn't add up at all.

[moses]

Thanks for the assist Mike.....that's exactly what I meant..........doesn't add up at all.

Agreed. If he were an African American man in L.A. in the 70s, that would be one thing, but given the circumstances, I just don't get the general dislike.

-Mo

[Rolo]

I understand, you think that any death caused by a cop is abysmal. But if you were to hear of, say, a mailman running over a couple of people, would you likewise denounce the U.S. Postal Service?.
This really isn't a fair comparison at all. The Postal Service are just here to deliver the mail, that's all. The better analogy would be if some of the local mailmen have a history of losing packages and the Post Office protects them by blaming the homeowners because no one was home or blaming the the neighbor's dog.
The Police are here to "Protect and Serve". When they get that badge and gun we put a huge amount of trust on them. If even one breaks that trust by abusing his/her authority and not "Protecting" and gets away with it, then yes, that department gets a bad name. The police have an "us" vs "them"(civilians) mentality and they tend to protect their own.

[moses]

The police have an "us" vs "them"(civilians) mentality and they tend to protect their own.

Generalizing without adequate support a little there, aren't we?

-Mo

[Rolo]

One last incident then I will shut up, I promise. A friend of mine was walking to his car late one night after working late. He passed an alley with a police car in it, and saw what looked like two figures struggling in it. Thinking an officer might need help or something, he walked up to the car. There were two cops in it, a male and a female, having sex. My friend tapped on the window, said, "Is this what I pay taxes for?" and continued on his way. He had reached his car and opened the door when the police car pulled up. They dragged him roughly from his car, slammed him up against it, and handcuffed him. He spent the night in the detox tank, and when they released him (with no charges) the next day, his car had been towed! He had to call me to come pick him up. We figured they had arrested him as a preventive measure, so if he reported them He had no intention to) he would have no credibility. I guess they could have just as easily shot him and claimed he was "reaching in his waistband." To me, that is the San Diego police force. I am sure they are not all a--holes. but the ones who are not tolerate the ones who are, don't they? They share the same image voluntarily.
A similar incident happened to a friend of mine.

One New Years eve a bunch of us were in Pasadena hanging out on Colorado Blvd. in Old Town, which is the Rose Parade route. The whole street is closed to traffic and people camp out and party the whole night. Being 21, we decided to go bar hopping. We got there at around 10:00pm. At this point we had had a couple of beers earlier that night, and no one was drunk. While looking for a bar with a short line, a bunch of cops (can't remember if they were Pasadena PD or LA Sheriff) were arresting some guys our age. One of my friends said "oh that sucks" to no one in particular as we walked by, and one of those cops turns around, red faced and yells at him "what the f.... did you say"? He then started to grill him about who he was, what did he have to drink etc. My friend said he had a beer earlier and that was enough for the cop to arrest him on the spot for drunk and disorderly. Obviously my friend was neither. He spend the night in cell.

[Rolo]

Generalizing without adequate support a little there, aren't we?

-Mo
No not at all. I just read a study where this same words were used. And is not like this is a secret.

[rabidpotatochip]

Generalizing without adequate support a little there, aren't we?

-Mo


No not at all. I just read a study where this same words were used. And is not like this is a secret.

:confused1 Now I'm curious, what study?

If it was really an "us versus them" mentality as you say I think there'd be a lot more people getting shot on the side of the road for reaching into their pocket for their ID. When you say something like that, you have to back it up.

[moses]

No not at all. I just read a study where this same words were used. And is not like this is a secret.

Oh. And was it a study of the police in general, or a particular department at a particular time, in a particular city? I mean, if you want to argue from such a study to police as a whole, sure, it provides some support, but not proof. I know various departments have had problems with this at times, but I think it is very unfair to suggest this is true of "the police" in general.

-Mo

[Rolo]

:confused1 Now I'm curious, what study?

If it was really an "us versus them" mentality as you say I think there'd be a lot more people getting shot on the side of the road for reaching into their pocket for their ID. When you say something like that, you have to back it up.
I will. I soon as I have time to look for it, I'll post it today.
I know I should've linked it, but I when I saw that post I wanted to respond right away.

As far as the police having that mentality of protecting their own, that's nothing new. You always hear about that kind of thing.

[rabidpotatochip]

As far as the police having that mentality of protecting their own, that's nothing new. You always hear about that kind of thing.

Oddly, no, I don't. It still seems like an unsubstantiated claim from this end of the debate. Mind you, I am in Canada where the police wield hockey sticks instead of guns and we all live in igloos and ride polar bears to work. It's true, you always hear about that kind of thing.

I won't argue that there are members of the police who perpetuate the stereotype by abusing their position, but I don't think we're at a point where it's impossible to tell the criminals from the law-enforcement either. It sounds to me like a few bad experiences/stories have ruined your impression of the police, but from personal experience I can tell you that there are a lot of good ones and that they're really handy to have around when someone else puts your life in danger.

[Haiku]

Several witnesses told the cops that he didn't speak English, that he only spoke Russian (I guess it sounds like Polish).

The more that comes out about this nightmare, the worse it looks.

[Rolo]

Unfortunately I wasn't able to find the specific study that I had in mind. However, a quick Google search produced an abundance of info on the so-called "blue code of silence" and the us vs them mentality. The first 2 links cited several studies regarding the subject, but I didn't search for those studies myself.


National Institute of Justice survey.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181312.pdf


"The code of silence. Some of the strongest and most varied opinions expressed by respondents concerned the difficult question of whether officers should report other officers’ misconduct.
Responses on this subject suggest the possibility of a large gap between attitudes and behavior. That is, even though officers do not believe in protecting wrongdoers, they often do not turn them in.....
..... A surprising 6 in 10 (61 percent) indicated that police officers do not always report even serious criminal violations that involve the abuse of authority by fellow officers.9"

http://law.jrank.org/pages/1677/Police-Police-Officer-Behavior-Individual-characteristics-officers.html


Police subculture. ...Van Maanen has described the recruitment, training, and on-the-street experiences of new patrol officers that socialize them into the police subculture. These officers develop a "working personality" or police view of the world. This view is often an "us versus them" orientation that allows officers to identify themselves as different from citizens...

This is an article by Christopher Cooper, a former D.C. police officer. He is on the board of directors of the National Black Police Association and is an associate professor of criminal justice with a specialization in policing at St. Xavier University in Chicago.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/072100-105.htm

"Sadly, in our early tenure as cops, we are instructed on the "code" of the police subculture. These are norms that are almost always perverse. Two such norms were operable in the Jones mob attack. The first is that if a citizen runs from one of us, we are to beat him severely.
Another is that if a citizen physically hurts one of us, we are to hurt that citizen even more before we bring him to the station. And if that citizen has killed a cop, he shouldn't make it to the station alive. This is well-documented in research literature about policing (including the work of Elizabeth Reuss-Ianni and Jonathan Rubinstein) and in public testimony by police officers."

Those of you who are supporters of Ron Paul, or consider themselves conservative Libertarians, then you might know who Lew Rockwell is. This is an article from his website. I don't like the tone of the author (Greenhut) but he does pose interesting questions.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/072100-105.htm

[Rolo]

The more that comes out about this nightmare, the worse it looks.
It would seem that way.

A Polish blogger translated what Dziekanski was saying. And they're not threatening words.

"I want to get out, help me find the way...Police! Police! Can't you help me?"

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10476459

I know people heard him call "Policja" and thought he was probably Russian.

[cr8n]

After 8 hours the RCMP might have found a Polish translator.

And what of the poor fellow's mother waiting for him close by?

OK, HERE COMES MY CENTRAL CANADA BIAS:

Tazers are used only infrequently in Central Canada. If you guys out west really had interactive dialog with your police these things wouldn't happen.

From Manitoba to BC, the local police are seldom held accountable by the local citizenry. We had a tazer death in Toronto about 24 months ago. Since then, check out the Tazer usage and deaths in Ontario. Almost none.

West of Ontario, Canadians do not hold their local police as accountable as they should. This is the result.

Paul

[Dr. Mike]

This really isn't a fair comparison at all. The Postal Service are just here to deliver the mail, that's all. The better analogy would be if some of the local mailmen have a history of losing packages and the Post Office protects them by blaming the homeowners because no one was home or blaming the the neighbor's dog.
The Police are here to "Protect and Serve". When they get that badge and gun we put a huge amount of trust on them. If even one breaks that trust by abusing his/her authority and not "Protecting" and gets away with it, then yes, that department gets a bad name. The police have an "us" vs "them"(civilians) mentality and they tend to protect their own.

Okay, I will grant you that my analogy was a poor one. Yours, however, is not much better. I would suggest a better one.
This is analogous to doctors performing operations that can potentially save lives, and are completely acceptable medical procedures that have been studied extensively and found to be, while not 100% safe, in the overwhelming majority of cases, they can save a life where other procedures carry a much higher risk of harm. However, in a very, very small percentage of cases, something tragic can occur. When one such incident occurs, the media transmits it to the world, and this one incident, while tragic, does not mean that the doctor is criminally responsible, nor does it mean that the procedure should be abandoned. However, a group of people, with some unknown grievances against the medical profession, use this to get this procedure banned, and use it to cast dispersions on the medical doctor in question, before a formal inquest has been completed, and then also proceed to vent their anger at the medical profession in general. All of a sudden, a whole profession is demeaned because something tragic happened during a procedure that is allowed and has been overwhelmingly shown to be overwhelmingly effective while carrying a very small risk factor.

[Dr. Mike]

After 8 hours the RCMP might have found a Polish translator.

And what of the poor fellow's mother waiting for him close by?

OK, HERE COMES MY CENTRAL CANADA BIAS:

Tazers are used only infrequently in Central Canada. If you guys out west really had interactive dialog with your police these things wouldn't happen.

From Manitoba to BC, the local police are seldom held accountable by the local citizenry. We had a tazer death in Toronto about 24 months ago. Since then, check out the Tazer usage and deaths in Ontario. Almost none.

West of Ontario, Canadians do not hold their local police as accountable as they should. This is the result.

Paul

Well, obviously if the frequency of taser usage went down, you would also expect a drop in taser-related deaths. If they were also to take guns aways from cops, I would also predict a drop in police shootings.
A report that I found said that tasers have been used by law-enforcement officers in Canada since 2001. In six years, 17 people have died after being tasered, including this individual at the Vancouver airport. The first deaths didn't even occur until a full 2 years after they began being used, in 2003.

[Dr. Mike]

Unfortunately I wasn't able to find the specific study that I had in mind. However, a quick Google search produced an abundance of info on the so-called "blue code of silence" and the us vs them mentality. The first 2 links cited several studies regarding the subject, but I didn't search for those studies myself.


I read through these, and found some interesting points.
In the second article, in particular, these points were interesting:
"Most quantitative research on police behavior, however, has found only weak relationships between officers' attitudes and their behavior." - this means that, regardless of what kind of attitude the cop has, it has only a weak bearing on how he will behave as a cop. This seems to contradict the opinions posted on here about cops.

"One possible explanation for the findings that officers' characteristics have very little impact on their behavior is that the recruitment, selection, and training processes screen out individuals with attitudes and characteristics that are inconsistent with the dominant values of police officers. A second possibility is that peer pressure to conform to organizational values and behaviors exerts a powerful influence." - this suggests that those with attitudes that might behave in a rogue manner tend to get weeded out. Additionally, it also suggests that the peer pressure amongst officers drives most to conform to the organizational values, as opposed to the few rogue officers exerting pressure on the vast majority to conform to, or at least ignore, their infractions, which people here have suggested without evidence.

At the end of the paragraph that you quote talking about the "us versus them" mindset that you suggest is prevalent, you forgot to add what the article says, "These propositions, however, have not been supported with systematic empirical research." - Yes, it is nice that that one sentence supports what you think, but the authors throw it out as a potential explanation, while explaining that they have no empirical evidence for it.

The first article, as well, is problematic in making the point you are hoping for. It is informative of what officers think, but not what they do. Rather than comparing officers' attitudes to actual statistics, all we are told is what officers think other officers are doing. If you come in and ask me, off the record and anonymously, what I think my other co-workers think and how they perform and act, you will get my skewed opinion. I would probably tell you that, while I work hard, others are not so dilligent. Is it true? Maybe in my eyes, but go ask them the same questions, and you might get a different answer. I think with these studies, to truly be informative, it might be critical to determine how those attitudes are actually reflected in how they perform their jobs.

[ScottS]

There are bad people in every field. I'd rather have four cops give me the Amadou Diallo treatment than have an Enron Exec steal my pension.

[Haiku]

Well, obviously if the frequency of taser usage went down, you would also expect a drop in taser-related deaths. If they were also to take guns aways from cops, I would also predict a drop in police shootings.
A report that I found said that tasers have been used by law-enforcement officers in Canada since 2001. In six years, 17 people have died after being tasered, including this individual at the Vancouver airport. The first deaths didn't even occur until a full 2 years after they began being used, in 2003.

Among the deaths is the death of a woman in police custody. She was at the station. She was in handcuffs. They wanted her to go into a holding cell. She refused. They electrocuted her. This killing is currently under investigation as well.

[Haiku]

After 8 hours the RCMP might have found a Polish translator.

And what of the poor fellow's mother waiting for him close by?

OK, HERE COMES MY CENTRAL CANADA BIAS:

Tazers are used only infrequently in Central Canada. If you guys out west really had interactive dialog with your police these things wouldn't happen.

From Manitoba to BC, the local police are seldom held accountable by the local citizenry. We had a tazer death in Toronto about 24 months ago. Since then, check out the Tazer usage and deaths in Ontario. Almost none.

West of Ontario, Canadians do not hold their local police as accountable as they should. This is the result.

Paul

From the reports I've read, it was ten hours not eight.

There was no need for the RCMP to find a Polish translator. There was a man fluent in Russian and Polish right at the scene. He is an airport worker. He was, as I understand it, the man who called the police. He was never asked for any assistance by the police.

And yes, I agree with you. The police need to be held accountable. They need to be held accountable for this killing, for the outstanding allegations that there appears to have be an attempted cover up and for the outstanding allegations that they lied about what happened.

[Haiku]

Not all that long ago, a Canadian couple was murdered in Mexico. Canadians across the country demanded that our police forces be permitted to investigate in Mexico. The Prime Minister even got involved as I recall.

Are any of these people demanding that the Polish authorities investigate this killing? Frankly, I would welcome it. At least that way there will not be any allegation of a cover-up.

[Holton181]

There are bad people in every field. I'd rather have four cops give me the Amadou Diallo treatment than have an Enron Exec steal my pension.


I don't know dude. I can work at WalMart the rest of my life to avoid that....

[BarryR]

There are bad people in every field. I'd rather have four cops give me the Amadou Diallo treatment than have an Enron Exec steal my pension.Don't mean to flame, but that's an amazingly insensitive response. He was brutally sodomized and had severe rectal trauma requiring surgery. I would guess that he's emotionally scarred forever.

[ScottS]

Don't mean to flame, but that's an amazingly insensitive response. He was brutally sodomized and had severe rectal trauma requiring surgery. I would guess that he's emotionally scarred forever.

Nonetheless, I spoke the truth, and I didn't even factor in the financial settlement that Diallo received. I'd much rather undergo a physical/emotional trauma that I could recover from than face a future with no resources. While I'm a young man, and can recover, picture being 60 and having your whole retirement account go up in smoke. Now, multiply this by hundreds, perhaps thousands of employees, and try to figure out who did more damage to their karma-- the abusive police, or the Enron execs.

[rabidpotatochip]

Nonetheless, I spoke the truth, and I didn't even factor in the financial settlement that Diallo received. I'd much rather undergo a physical/emotional trauma that I could recover from than face a future with no resources. While I'm a young man, and can recover, picture being 60 and having your whole retirement account go up in smoke. Now, multiply this by hundreds, perhaps thousands of employees, and try to figure out who did more damage to their karma-- the abusive police, or the Enron execs.

Of course it's worse that thousands of people suffer as opposed to one; that's not the argument though, we're discussing one person. You would be amazed how much intense physical/emotional trauma can continue to affect you well after the event, and how little any amount of money means when you're dehumanized and scarred. You still feel like someone stole your life away from you.

[ScottS]

You would be amazed how much intense physical/emotional trauma can continue to affect you well after the event, and how little any amount of money means when you're dehumanized and scarred. You still feel like someone stole your life away from you.

I'd argue that either circumstance would leave you dehumanized and scarred. The targets of both actions are victims, one of police brutality, and the other of brazen robbery, and both where the perpetrators were in a position of trust. Having your retirement savings stolen is not like having your wallet stolen, or your house robbed, or even burned down. Such a victim has had a rather bleak future thrust upon them.

[ScottS]

we're discussing one person.

Not really-- we're speaking of police policy and the impact on public health and safety, and I'm just trying to put things in perspective. There are worse crimes out there, and higher priorities.

[Suzuki]

While people can have whatever views they want about police generally, there's no doubt that you can find stats, studies and quotable quotes that belittle and denigrate law enforcement officers.

However, the selective use of information does not prove anything and the use of isolated incidents (and, in the context of the millions of interactions police have with people daily, they are isolated) does nothing more than suggest that there are some police officers who abuse their position/shouldn't be police officers. More to the point, it does not provide a logical basis for smearing all police officers.

I'm sure that with the power of Google at my fingertips, I could effectively smear any profession or trade. Similarly, I could find information that lionizes police officers or any other profession or trade. In most cases, as with police officers, the reality is between these two extremes. I tend to think that the majority of police officers do a good job for the right reasons (but I certainly agree that there are "bad" police officers out ther), others seem to think that the majority of police officers are "bad" (I'm simplifying, but that's the gist of it).

What's interesting is that almost all of the posters who are generally supportive of police acknowledge that there are "bad" police officers and that it is important to address this issue, but the posters with an anti-police bias seem to have nothing good to say about law enforcement professionals.

If this thread has degenerated to "I think police officers suck" vs. "I think police officers don't suck", we should all move on, as trying to change someone's views on the subject isn't going to happen and if this is where we are, we're wasting our time.

[rabidpotatochip]

Not really sure why you had to break my reply into two posts, but I'll put yours back into one for clarity.


I'd argue that either circumstance would leave you dehumanized and scarred. The targets of both actions are victims, one of police brutality, and the other of brazen robbery, and both where the perpetrators were in a position of trust. Having your retirement savings stolen is not like having your wallet stolen, or your house robbed, or even burned down. Such a victim has had a rather bleak future thrust upon them.

It seems to me the issue is getting confused a bit. Your original comment regarding Amadou Diallo was that you'd rather receive his treatment than the Enron treatment; reading a bit further I can only assume it's because he received a large settlement for what happened to him. Of course the targets of both actions are victims, I never said they weren't. I only said that you shouldn't underestimate the effect a traumatic experience can have.


Not really-- we're speaking of police policy and the impact on public health and safety, and I'm just trying to put things in perspective. There are worse crimes out there, and higher priorities.

However, perspective isn't exactly given by comparing fraud to anal rape. They're both horrible things and I don't think anyone who's been a victim of either would care that worse crimes could have been inflicted upon them. They probably don't want to hear they're not a high enough priority either, though.

[ScottS]

Not quite, and I thought I made that pretty clear--
[QUOTE]...and I didn't even factor in the financial settlement that Diallo received.

I was comparing the two different types of trauma, and only the two different types of trauma. In one case, you're hurt during a crime of violence upon your person, you physically heal, and you either move on or find some way to live with the trauma inflicted upon you. Some people do better than others, but you stand a fair chance of being able to put a very nasty happenstance behind you to some extent.

In the second circumstance, you wake up every morning for the rest of your life living a lifestyle less comfortable (sometimes much less comfortable) than what you spent your whole adult life working to create, and then you remember that you're in the situation because of the actions of some greedy bastards.

Choose your poison. Both situations are simply different levels of the same hell, and if I were forced to choose one, I've already stated which one I would choose.

[ScottS]

However, perspective isn't exactly given by comparing fraud to anal rape. They're both horrible things and I don't think anyone who's been a victim of either would care that worse crimes could have been inflicted upon them. They probably don't want to hear they're not a high enough priority either, though.

Everything we do or don't do is assigned a priority, de facto. People living in poverty don't want to be told they're not high enough on our list to remove them from that circumstance, but they know it all to well.

[moses]

Can a make a suggestion, please. This thread is about tasers. And arguably police practices in general. What it is not about is the honestly rather ridiculous argument about whether beating rape with inanimate objects or stealing of pension benefits is worse. Please, they are both awful, and which is more is totally irrelevant and probably unanswerable. Just let it go.

-Mo

[Suzuki]

Can a make a suggestion, please. This thread is about tasers. And arguably police practices in general. What it is not about is the honestly rather ridiculous argument about whether beating rape with inanimate objects or stealing of pension benefits is worse. Please, they are both awful, and which is more is totally irrelevant and probably unanswerable. Just let it go.

-Mo

+1

[rabidpotatochip]

Can a make a suggestion, please. This thread is about tasers. And arguably police practices in general. What it is not about is the honestly rather ridiculous argument about whether beating rape with inanimate objects or stealing of pension benefits is worse. Please, they are both awful, and which is more is totally irrelevant and probably unanswerable. Just let it go.

-Mo

Will do, just have to add one more comment.


Not quite, and I thought I made that pretty clear--


You did, I just misread it. I apologize for the mistake.

[ScottS]

Me too-- I'll tone it down. I should stop posting on rainy days. Back to the topic, though, it is interesting how differently Canadians and US citizens are reacting to this incident.

[BarryR]

Me too-- I'll tone it down. I should stop posting on rainy days. Back to the topic, though, it is interesting how differently Canadians and US citizens are reacting to this incident.How so? I wasn't paying close attention to where people where from.

[Groundhog]

What's interesting is that almost all of the posters who are generally supportive of police acknowledge that there are "bad" police officers and that it is important to address this issue, but the posters with an anti-police bias seem to have nothing good to say about law enforcement professionals.

Very true & typical of the "anti-cop" sentiments I've dealt with (and just come to accept) my entire professional career. The "anti-cop" crowd typically fall into 2 camps: the first type being folks that question any type of authority at any level and basically don't like anyone telling them what to do. The 2nd type are usually referred to as "criminals." Type one I deal with and accept as part of the territory; type 2 I just lock up at every opportunity.


If this thread has degenerated to "I think police officers suck" vs. "I think police officers don't suck", we should all move on, as trying to change someone's views on the subject isn't going to happen and if this is where we are, we're wasting our time.

+1.....kinda like gun control, abortion, Iraq, etc. Nobody's changing anyone's mind.




Can a make a suggestion, please. This thread is about tasers. And arguably police practices in general. What it is not about is the honestly rather ridiculous argument about whether beating rape with inanimate objects or stealing of pension benefits is worse. Please, they are both awful, and which is more is totally irrelevant and probably unanswerable. Just let it go.

-Mo

also +1.....

[Haiku]

Very true & typical of the "anti-cop" sentiments I've dealt with (and just come to accept) my entire professional career. The "anti-cop" crowd typically fall into 2 camps: the first type being folks that question any type of authority at any level and basically don't like anyone telling them what to do. The 2nd type are usually referred to as "criminals." Type one I deal with and accept as part of the territory; type 2 I just lock up at every opportunity.



+1.....kinda like gun control, abortion, Iraq, etc. Nobody's changing anyone's mind.





also +1.....


Without trying to generalize here, I suspect that this is one of the areas where Canadians and Americans differ. And I am very sure that we certainly differ with respect to our reactions to this incident.

Among my reasons for saying this is that we do not have very much of the type of problems with the police that America has. Our societies really are very different with respect to issues of crime, punishment, policing and so on.

You do not have a police force that is comparable to the RCMP. The RCMP has played a very significant role in Canadian history and it is very much part of the fabric of Canadian culture.

The force is a national force, and it is generally well respected, and indeed well loved. The force is still a "mounted" force. They still use horses and the RCMP "Musical Ride" is a performance that Canadians love. There is real romance associated with the force. Historically, they were the Northwest Mounted Police, and among other things, they fought Riel and his forces 150 years ago and quashed an armed rebellion. The dress uniform of the RCMP, the red coat, the hat and the trousers are symbols of pride for Canadians.

We see the RCMP as a symbol of much of what is good about our country. For Canadians to see RCMP officers doing what these four officers did, in addition to being abhorrent, goes against what we believe this country and the RCMP stands for.

Most Canadians would tell you that they would have expected the RCMP to have treated this man with dignity and respect. We would not have expected the RCMP to kill him.

[kestrel]

Ontario

I feel much the same way, but it doesn't change the fact that the Mounties have done some incredibly awful things over the last few years. Indeed alot of what I've heard some our American neighbours say about their police in this thread, I have heard from Torontonians about our city's police. The difference is of degree rather than kind.

There are similarities too. All of us , Canadians and Americans, know (hope? pray?) that such failures are the exception rather than the rule. Most of us are still willing to extend trust to our police in return for honesty and fair dealing.
And most of us are wise enough to know that our police will more likely remain accountable to us if we actively require it of them.

Please God, what happened to Robert Dzeikanski, may it never happen again.



Graham
_____________________________
"We have met the enemy, and he is us"

Pogo

[Haiku]

Ontario

I feel much the same way, but it doesn't change the fact that the Mounties have done some incredibly awful things over the last few years. Indeed alot of what I've heard some our American neighbours say about their police, I have heard from Torontonians about our city's police. The difference is of degree rather than kind.

There are similarities too. All of us , Canadians and Americans, know (hope? pray?) that such failures are the exception rather than the rule. Most of us are still willing to extend trust to our police in return for honesty and fair dealing.
And most of us are wise enough to know that our police will more likely remain accountable to us if we actively require it of them.

Please God, what happened to Robert Dzeikanski, may it never happen again.



Graham
_____________________________
"We have met the enemy, and he is us"

Pogo


Amen.

[Suzuki]

Ontario

I feel much the same way, but it doesn't change the fact that the Mounties have done some incredibly awful things over the last few years. Indeed alot of what I've heard some our American neighbours say about their police, I have heard from Torontonians about our city's police. The difference is of degree rather than kind.

There are similarities too. All of us , Canadians and Americans, know (hope? pray?) that such failures are the exception rather than the rule. Most of us are still willing to extend trust to our police in return for honesty and fair dealing.
And most of us are wise enough to know that our police will more likely remain accountable to us if we actively require it of them.

Please God, what happened to Robert Dzeikanski never happens again.



Graham
_____________________________
"We have met the enemy, and he is us"

Pogo

I agree with the general sentiments in this post.

One thing I think needs to be clarified is that many of the problems that the RCMP has experienced or is currently dealing with are as attributable to poor leadership/management (if not more so) than to conduct by the officers who are actually on the street.

It does illustrate the importance that management/setting an example from the top in establishing a culture/attitude (in all organizations, including police forces).

[BillEllis]

If this thread has degenerated to "I think police officers suck" vs. "I think police officers don't suck", we should all move on, as trying to change someone's views on the subject isn't going to happen and if this is where we are, we're wasting our time.

I think that's exactly what you have here, Chris. I'm just pleased to know who's who for future reference.

I certainly don't understand the mentality that espouses police restraint so that it becomes a fair fight and the person doing wrong gets his licks in because the police are cowards and degenerates and psychopaths. Yes, that's exactly what some of you are saying.

Getting injured dealing with obstreperous subjects is NOT an expected duty of the job. It's a risk, but it should never be an expected result of having to cope with aggressive behavior. That opinion always angers me when a law enforcement officer is the one injured and some of the public (looks like there are a few of them here) cavalierly state that it's part of the job. "But, Oh, that's what they get paid for." Give me a break.

An officer's own safety comes first, the public second, and the offender last. If I hear one more bogus story about how cops threw someone in jail because they were caught screwing, I'm gonna puke.

[joel]

I think that's exactly what you have here, Chris. I'm just pleased to know who's who for future reference.

I certainly don't understand the mentality that espouses police restraint so that it becomes a fair fight and the person doing wrong gets his licks in because the police are cowards and degenerates and psychopaths. Yes, that's exactly what some of you are saying.

Getting injured dealing with obstreperous subjects is NOT an expected duty of the job. It's a risk, but it should never be an expected result of having to cope with aggressive behavior. That opinion always angers me when a law enforcement officer is the one injured and some of the public (looks like there are a few of them here) cavalierly state that it's part of the job. "But, Oh, that's what they get paid for." Give me a break.

An officer's own safety comes first, the public second, and the offender last. If I hear one more bogus story about how cops threw someone in jail because they were caught screwing, I'm gonna puke.

Instead of just a "+1" to Bill's post, let me also add - have any of you EVER gone on a police ride along? I've gone on 2 this month, with 2 different (local) departments, and I think you'd be absolutely stunned as to what they ACTUALLY do day to day, and how amazing these men, and women actually are.

Another note... whenever you meet a businessman (or woman), do you immediately assume they are as trustworthy as Kenneth Lay? As with ANY/ALL professions, you're going to have the good ones, and the bad ones, but as far as police officers go, due to the incredibly lengthy and arduous process of being hired (lie detector tests, psych tests, etc) the amount of "bad cops" out there is pretty small.

Go on a ride along, and your opinion will change... QUICK.

[Mottern Man]

I think that's exactly what you have here, Chris. I'm just pleased to know who's who for future reference.

I certainly don't understand the mentality that espouses police restraint so that it becomes a fair fight and the person doing wrong gets his licks in because the police are cowards and degenerates and psychopaths. Yes, that's exactly what some of you are saying.

Getting injured dealing with obstreperous subjects is NOT an expected duty of the job. It's a risk, but it should never be an expected result of having to cope with aggressive behavior. That opinion always angers me when a law enforcement officer is the one injured and some of the public (looks like there are a few of them here) cavalierly state that it's part of the job. "But, Oh, that's what they get paid for." Give me a break.

An officer's own safety comes first, the public second, and the offender last. If I hear one more bogus story about how cops threw someone in jail because they were caught screwing, I'm gonna puke.

I have always loved that line but my favorite is "I pay your salary". Every time I hear that I always want to say "well every time I eat at McDonald's I pay yours". I stopped eating at McDonald's long ago.

They guys on the other side amuse me so.........

[Mottern Man]

OK I watched the vid and here is my take.

They probably did not need to use tasers but I wasn't their. Dude could have pulled a switchblade out for all I know or they just wanted to take him down fast and easy without getting hurt.

If it comes to me or you, its going to be you.

[ouch]

May I suggest using your night stick officer?


-Billy Ray Valentine

[BarryR]

OK I watched the vid and here is my take.

They probably did not need to use tasers but I wasn't their. Dude could have pulled a switchblade out for all I know or they just wanted to take him down fast and easy without getting hurt.

If it comes to me or you, its going to be you.Highly unlikely (though not impossible) that he'd have a switch blade having gone through airport security. Couldn't they have tried to talk him down and only tasered him if there was iminent risk? (Which their may have been but is not apparent to me from the video).

[Mottern Man]

Unlikely but possible, I have a Credit Card Tool (knife, bottle opener etc. that fits in a credit card case) and got on a plane with it (forgot it was in my wallet).

I am not saying they had to tase him under perfect conditions but the people that say its not a fair fight and their were 4 cops and yada yada yada have obviously never taken down a nut case (I have) and that dude from what I could see was nuttier then a chinchilla in a dust bowl. To the ones that say it’s not a fair fight I have a proposition. Bring 3 of your toughest buds (I'm talking Big Jim, Big Slim, and the Junk Yard Dog) over to my house, I will do a few lines of Coke and you guys see if you can take me down without getting yourself hurt.

[Mottern Man]

May I suggest using your night stick officer?


-Billy Ray Valentine

I CAN SEE!

[Groundhog]

I CAN SEE!

AND I HAVE LEGS! :smile:

Seriously, thanks to those who seem to understand what a cop goes through, and that 99% of the men & women out there are not doing the job are not bad cops.

[Haiku]

To the extent that this thread has degenerated into the type of discussion that Bill sees, he's right. And I have no doubt that if any one of us went along on a police ride-a-long, we would have a very different understanding of what policing is about. And yes, it is completely inappropriate to generalize.

One of my points in all of this is that Americans shouldn't lose sight of what the nature of the debate is in Canada. I don't believe most Americans understand just how significant a role the RCMP plays in Canadian identity.

Canadians generally see, or have seen, the force as representing much of what we consider to be the best about this country. We see, or we want to see, the force as honourable, honest and decent. There is a huge mythology in this country about the mounties. "The Mounties always get their man" is a slogan or a motto that we all grew up with and we all grow up with. The mounties are a significant part of our mythology as a nation. Canadians believe, or want to believe that the RCMP is a group of men and women of honour, courage and integrity and they are perfectly capable of dealing with any and all crime. We see the mounties as one of the reasons that we have so little crime in this country. We more or less see the RCMP as a sort of elite. Every large city has its own police force, and then there's the RCMP. We generally take pride in our police and the RCMP is the best we have, and we believe them to be the best, period, full stop, no debate or discussion.

Perhaps an example is in order: in my own case, I was not surprised to learn about sex scandals involving Catholic priests. It didn't and doesn't surprise me in the least and I haven't changed my opinion about the Church as a result of these scandals. I am stunned almost beyond words to learn that RCMP officers acted the way these officers did. And I don't think I'm alone in this.


Instead of just a "+1" to Bill's post, let me also add - have any of you EVER gone on a police ride along? I've gone on 2 this month, with 2 different (local) departments, and I think you'd be absolutely stunned as to what they ACTUALLY do day to day, and how amazing these men, and women actually are.

Another note... whenever you meet a businessman (or woman), do you immediately assume they are as trustworthy as Kenneth Lay? As with ANY/ALL professions, you're going to have the good ones, and the bad ones, but as far as police officers go, due to the incredibly lengthy and arduous process of being hired (lie detector tests, psych tests, etc) the amount of "bad cops" out there is pretty small.

Go on a ride along, and your opinion will change... QUICK.

[Rolo]

About the 4 vs. 1 not being a "fair fight", some of you have completely missed the point. It isn't about a "fight"; no one said anything about a fight simply because there wasn't a fight. It is about four cops attacking an unarmed man who at that specific time was not posing any threat to himself or anyone around him. Neither was he looking to fight the police. In fact, he was yelling for the police to come and help, witness heard him and it was later confirmed. You can clearly see from that from the video.

All this speculation about him having a "switchblade" or another weapon, well that wouldn't be very realistic and it wasn't the case. First of all, one can clearly see his hands on the video a couple of times, and he wasn't holding anything when the officers confronted him. Secondly, where prey tell would he get it? Out of thin air? Or was he hiding it where the sun don't shine all the way from Poland, passed security, fallowed by a layover in Frankfurt, passing through security a second time and then on to Vancouver where he went through security a third time? This whole flight took 18 hours. Not to mention the 10 hours on top of that that he spent at the airport in a secured zone.

Ontario is right about the RCMP and what it stands for. So is not surprising to hear that most Canadians are appalled at what happened. What's interesting is that so many Americans are so quick to blame the victim and defend the cops. To be sure, demographics and political leanings have a lot to do with it though.

One more thing; those who say that an officer's safety comes first and the public second, should never go into that field. If they have, then surely they're part of the problem. Good thing that those cops that risked their lives (and some lost it) during 9/11 didn't feel that way.

[kestrel]

This discussion about the police, their obligation to us and ours to them has been interesting, and useful, but in the present context I think it is somewhat beside the point. We Canadians have always seen our country as diverse, peaceful, and above all, welcoming to others.

Our welcome for Robert Dziekanski fell more than a little short, and the blame for that stretches further than the just Mounties who Tazed him. He was after all stranded in that airport for a long time, and didn't get much help.

We failed to take care of a guest.

The shame and horror of what happened to him will stay with all Canadians for a long time.

Like I said before

"We have met the enemy, and he is us"

Graham

[_JP_]

One more thing; those who say that an officer's safety comes first and the public second, should never go into that field. If they have, then surely they're part of the problem. Good thing that those cops that risked their lives (and some lost it) during 9/11 didn't feel that way.

Whoa there! It isn't an officer vs public thing. In this case, it's the officer vs the suspect or perpetrator. Of course the officer will protect himself and the public from the suspect in that case. In the case of 9/11 it was the officer protecting the public and rescuing the victims. Two completely different scenarios calling for different sets of actions.

[BillEllis]

One more thing; those who say that an officer's safety comes first and the public second, should never go into that field. If they have, then surely they're part of the problem. Good thing that those cops that risked their lives (and some lost it) during 9/11 didn't feel that way.
That would be me that said that and you know it. Secondly, someone shouldn't be in law enforcement... part of the problem... because you say so?

Then again what would I know?

[Mottern Man]

About the 4 vs. 1 not being a "fair fight", some of you have completely missed the point. It isn't about a "fight"; no one said anything about a fight simply because there wasn't a fight. It is about four cops attacking an unarmed man who at that specific time was not posing any threat to himself or anyone around him. Neither was he looking to fight the police. In fact, he was yelling for the police to come and help, witness heard him and it was later confirmed. You can clearly see from that from the video.

All this speculation about him having a "switchblade" or another weapon, well that wouldn't be very realistic and it wasn't the case. First of all, one can clearly see his hands on the video a couple of times, and he wasn't holding anything when the officers confronted him. Secondly, where prey tell would he get it? Out of thin air? Or was he hiding it where the sun don't shine all the way from Poland, passed security, fallowed by a layover in Frankfurt, passing through security a second time and then on to Vancouver where he went through security a third time? This whole flight took 18 hours. Not to mention the 10 hours on top of that that he spent at the airport in a secured zone.

Ontario is right about the RCMP and what it stands for. So is not surprising to hear that most Canadians are appalled at what happened. What's interesting is that so many Americans are so quick to blame the victim and defend the cops. To be sure, demographics and political leanings have a lot to do with it though.

One more thing; those who say that an officer's safety comes first and the public second, should never go into that field. If they have, then surely they're part of the problem. Good thing that those cops that risked their lives (and some lost it) during 9/11 didn't feel that way.

1. Did you even read my post?
- I have taken a knife on a plane
- I was not one of the police but IMHO they thought it was the best action at the time. I really doubt four of these officers were out too kill. Excessive, I could agree with that most definitely but don't ever question something you don't know. I don't know so I am not questioning the officers intent but when some one calls a police man a chump I'll tell em to step in the ring.

2. (on the 9/11 topic) I don't want to die but I will do anything I can to save you, I took an oath (Oath of Enlistment and the Hospital Corpsman Pledge) and I hold it true more then most will ever comprehend. The fist thing they tell you in EMT school is Scene Safety or as I like to call it when teaching is "DON'T GET DEAD" but oddly enough persons in my field have been awarded the Metal of Honor 22 times (most were postmortem), why you ask? BECAUSE I CARE! so don't think I am going to let that "should never go into that field" slide by.

[Mottern Man]

I am going to go ahead and apologize, my last post may have sounded like a personal attack but it wasn't. I was attacking ideology that I am never going to change, it's like someone saying "I like Snickers" and I say "no you don't".

I have a feeling this thread is a colic baby that will never get better so I will back out and just read.

[ScottS]

About the 4 vs. 1 not being a "fair fight", some of you have completely missed the point. It isn't about a "fight"; no one said anything about a fight simply because there wasn't a fight. It is about four cops attacking an unarmed man who at that specific time was not posing any threat to himself or anyone around him. Neither was he looking to fight the police. In fact, he was yelling for the police to come and help, witness heard him and it was later confirmed. You can clearly see from that from the video.


That rhetoric isn't going to help with anything, frankly. What you actually have is 4 officers who used less-lethal means because they thought it necessary to detain a man who they thought might not have been rational. You could argue that perhaps their assessment was wrong, you might argue that perhaps their training was bad, you could argue that the underlying policies were bad.

As to not posing any threat, you're not in any situation where you could fairly make that assessment. You weren't there, and if you had been there, I'd 100% guarantee that the officers on the scene were better trained and equipped to make that determination than you are. As for unarmed, every TSA test given in the US shows just how ineffective screening is, so a weapon needs to be assumed. Just about anything he picked up there, like that table that he was wielding in a menacing fashion, could have hurt somebody. If he were under the influence of a variety of narcotics, he could have done an awful lot of damage with his bare hands (which could have explained why he continued resisting after being tased). I'm sure under the ensuing public scrutiny, such assessments will be fairly made, and by people more capable of impartially making them than you are, and by people with a whole lot more information about the circumstances available to them than you have.

Police face dangerous situations every day, and some might suggest that they should err on the side of personal safety. What you you think if Tasers were banned, and an incident comes along where some police are badly injured because that tool wasn't on their belt? Or if some traffic offender who got violent was shot and killed by police because the less-lethal means aren't available?

[Suzuki]

About the 4 vs. 1 not being a "fair fight", some of you have completely missed the point. It isn't about a "fight"; no one said anything about a fight simply because there wasn't a fight. It is about four cops attacking an unarmed man who at that specific time was not posing any threat to himself or anyone around him. Neither was he looking to fight the police. In fact, he was yelling for the police to come and help, witness heard him and it was later confirmed. You can clearly see from that from the video.

All this speculation about him having a "switchblade" or another weapon, well that wouldn't be very realistic and it wasn't the case. First of all, one can clearly see his hands on the video a couple of times, and he wasn't holding anything when the officers confronted him. Secondly, where prey tell would he get it? Out of thin air? Or was he hiding it where the sun don't shine all the way from Poland, passed security, fallowed by a layover in Frankfurt, passing through security a second time and then on to Vancouver where he went through security a third time? This whole flight took 18 hours. Not to mention the 10 hours on top of that that he spent at the airport in a secured zone.

Ontario is right about the RCMP and what it stands for. So is not surprising to hear that most Canadians are appalled at what happened. What's interesting is that so many Americans are so quick to blame the victim and defend the cops. To be sure, demographics and political leanings have a lot to do with it though.

One more thing; those who say that an officer's safety comes first and the public second, should never go into that field. If they have, then surely they're part of the problem. Good thing that those cops that risked their lives (and some lost it) during 9/11 didn't feel that way.

If the RCMP is a Canadian institution (and I agree that it is), we (I'm Canadian - born and bred) shouldn't be so quick as to allow a single incident to justify smearing the entire force - especially when the vast majority of RCMP officers provide yeoman service to the Canadians they serve.

As for differing views, its not a Canada/US thing, its a let's wait until we get the facts vs. I don't need to get all the facts before judging the officers involved in this incident. There have also been several American posters who have been critical of both the police officers involved in the incident that launched this thread, as well as anti-police generally.

As for your last comment, regarding an officer's safety vs. that of the public - that's an over-simplification of the issue and your attempt to bolster your point by using the conduct of police on 9/11 makes no sense as it confuses an officer's safety vs. that of a suspect with putting their lives in danger to save others.

When it comes to an officer's safety when dealing with suspects, while prudence should be used, I don't believe an officer should have to wait to get hit or worse before being able to defend themselves. Its not fair to police to take the position that they should allow themselves to be targets or subject themselves to unnecessary risks.

I'm amazed at the standards that several people have set for police officers - I guess its easy for people to set unrealistic standards for others when they know they'll never have to personally live up to them.

[ScottS]

Ontario is right about the RCMP and what it stands for. So is not surprising to hear that most Canadians are appalled at what happened. What's interesting is that so many Americans are so quick to blame the victim and defend the cops. To be sure, demographics and political leanings have a lot to do with it though.


You can certainly defend the cops without blaming the victim. The guy wasn't necessarily in control, and didn't understand the language. The cops thought they were using non-lethal methods. They didn't know if he was armed, they didn't know if he was on drugs, they didn't know that he had been flying all day-- they knew that they were being called to the scene of a disorderly person, and they make the best assessment that they can when they get there.

Sometimes, everything goes exactly the way it was supposed to based on training, and something bad still happens.

[jncc]

The cops thought they were using non-lethal methods.

Maybe the taser should be reclassified--- as, I don't know, a weapon that can be deadly -- that is, some kind of step down from a deadly weapon.

It seems that some of the problem is that cops have been using the taser when suspects are not cooperating. For instance, here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMaMYL_shxc&e).

There have been comments upthread that compare cops to doctors. To follow that line of thinking, maybe this instrument does not work as well, or is more dangerous, than the manufacturers have been advertising or possibly knew about (say, like Vioxx or Thalidomide).

[BillEllis]

...cops have been using the taser when suspects are not cooperating.
HELLO.

[jncc]

Perhaps I should have written "Cops have been using tasers when suspects are doing nothing more than not cooperating"

As far as I can tell from the link I posted, the suspect there was not being dangerous. Not cooperative, certainly. An a-hole, maybe. Needing to be tased?

If the taser is perfectly safe, maybe talking back to an officer is reason that someone deserves to be tased on the spot.

Let's say (in some other country) police officers have been equipped with 1/4 inch long knives because they had been trained to believe that, properly used, such knives are very useful tools for controlling subjects. In most cases an uncooperative suspect stabbed with one would not be killed. (Only with those with heart or blood clotting conditions, or a stab to the throat or artery would be lethal) So their training shows that these knives are not lethal weapons and are good law enforcement tools.

My question about such (hypothetical) knives is the the same as with the taser. That is, is it possible that these are more dangerous/harmful/painful/lethal than cops have been led to believe?

This is not a question about cops being "bad". All I am wondering is whether police forces know what they need to about the physiological effects of the taser.

[Suzuki]

Perhaps I should have written "Cops have been using tasers when suspects are doing nothing more than not cooperating"

As far as I can tell from the link I posted, the suspect there was not being dangerous. Not cooperative, certainly. An a-hole, maybe. Needing to be tased?

If the taser is perfectly safe, maybe talking back to an officer is reason that someone deserves to be tased on the spot.

Let's say (in some other country) police officers have been equipped with 1/4 inch long knives because they had been trained to believe that, properly used, such knives are very useful tools for controlling subjects. In most cases an uncooperative suspect stabbed with one would not be killed. (Only with those with heart or blood clotting conditions, or a stab to the throat or artery would be lethal) So their training shows that these knives are not lethal weapons and are good law enforcement tools.

My question about such (hypothetical) knives is the the same as with the taser. That is, is it possible that these are more dangerous/harmful/painful/lethal than cops have been led to believe?

This is not a question about cops being "bad". All I am wondering is whether police forces know what they need to about the physiological effects of the taser.

The comparison between a knife and a tazer is silly.

A knife or baton or any similar piece of gear is designed to be a weapon - they are designed to inflict some form of injury/harm. You can't use a weapon without a reasonable risk of causing lasting injury.

The tazer, on the other hand, is designed to subdue suspects without causing injury/harm beyond the initial jolt (and I'm in no way trying to downplay the unpleasantness of being tazed).

The fact that a VERY small number of people have died as a result of being tazed does not mean police should stop using them as an enforcement tool - I suspect that tazers have, on the whole, reduced injuries to both suspects and police officers. Thatdoesn't mean police shouldn't continually evaluate tazer use or seek better tools for the job. Sometimes you have to use what's available even if its not perfect.

For example, I suspect there are people who have been tazed who, but for the availability of a tazer, might have been shot. Similarly, there are lots of folks who have been shot with rubber bullets (which can also be lethal) who are quite thankful that they weren't shot with the real thing.

I'll take my chances with a tazer or rubber bullet (even knowing that they can be lethal) over a real bullet any day of the week. In fact, I'd rather take my chances with a tazer than hit with a baton or physcally subdued by several police officers.

[BillEllis]

Knives... Tasers
Knives... Tasers... hmmm
Knives... Tasers...

GOOD ONE!

Don't think I'd be giving any officer a reason to taze me. Wouldn't turn an officers instruction into a debate on the side of the road or be putting my hands near my pockets for any reason. Don't think I'd attempt to divert his attention away by walking a little too briskly towards him while pointing behind him, either. I certainly wouldn't keep walking off when the officer repeatedly told me to turn around and put my hands behind my back.

How 'bout instead, the video is placed down where everyone gets a drivers license as a warning that if you go to getting stupid that this may happen to you. I like that one.

Just so you know. Nimrod there can be arrested for refusing to sign the ticket. Signing a traffic ticket is not an admission of guilt... it's a promise to appear in court in your own behalf for the offense comitted. Not signing the promise means you go to jail to wait for the court appointment since you wouldn't promise that you'd be there to face the charge. If the person feels that the officer's conduct was inappropriate, they can file a complaint. Don't adopt the ignorance to tell me that doesn't work... it does... and misbehavior is dealt with whether you hear about it or not.

Why should errant behavior be a concern? Oh, gee, I don't know...
Video 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cB2U2bwqaWY)
Video 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWPUqzDq9LM) those mean cops should have tried talking to him first.
Video 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYDZK2u0g-o)
Video 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMT6UV5vYF4) Gee... all they were doing was not cooperating
Video 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAS2dblM6jQ)
Video 6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtfEMhYrMoo)

[BMWRider]

You know as a history teacher I just wonder what we would have thought of those old Alabama police if they repeatedly Tazed Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Ralph Abernathy or any of the freedom fighters of yesteryear. "All they had to do is comply." Firehoses were also a method to ensure people complied with the law. Let's bring those back too. Passive resistance without threat, rebellion, questioning of authority are all old and great American traditions. Reading some of the replies here, I see what a nation of sheep we have become. Again it is not always the officer's fault, more often it is the law makers, but using a device designated by several organizations as an instrument of torture is vile. The response that "all you have to do is comply" is just sad. Baaa, baaa, let the nanny state do my thinking.

[liege]

You know as a history teacher I just wonder what we would have thought of those old Alabama police if they repeatedly Tazed Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Ralph Abernathy or any of the freedom fighters of yesteryear. "All they had to do is comply." Firehoses were also a method to ensure people complied with the law. Let's bring those back too. Passive resistance without threat, rebellion, questioning of authority are all old and great American traditions. Reading some of the replies here, I see what a nation of sheep we have become. Again it is not always the officer's fault, more often it is the law makers, but using a device designated by several organizations as an instrument of torture is vile. The response that "all you have to do is comply" is just sad. Baaa, baaa, let the nanny state do my thinking.

I was raised to respect authority. I haven't been billy clubbed, tazed, hosed, or shot at. Yes, I will continue to comply with an officers lawful order. This doesn't make me a "sheep" of the nanny state. There is a difference between what Dr. King did in passively resisting an unjust law and some yahoo flipping the bird to a cop and walking away in defiance. As a history teacher you should know the difference.

[BMWRider]

I was raised to respect authority. I haven't been billy clubbed, tazed, hosed, or shot at. Yes, I will continue to comply with an officers lawful order. This doesn't make me a "sheep" of the nanny state. There is a difference between what Dr. King did in passively resisting an unjust law and some yahoo flipping the bird to a cop and walking away in defiance. As a history teacher you should know the difference.

I am not sure that an officer can give anyone a "lawful order." Last I checked I was born free as an American and am not to be ordered about. Secondly I'll play your game and ask you what the difference is between what Dr. King did and what some of the people who have been tazed at political speeches did? Third, who are you to determine what is "unjust?" I assure you in 1959 most people in America thought Dr. King was wrong and basically was "flipping off" authority. Take off your 20/20 hindsight glasses and you'll understand my question a little better. Do a little research on the subject and you'll discover many Tazer victims did not "flip off" the cops. The initial video is but one example of that.

Oh yeah, I was raised to question authority. Consequently I do not take my freedom for granted.

[BillEllis]

You know as a history teacher I just wonder what we would have thought of those old Alabama police if they repeatedly Tazed Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Ralph Abernathy or any of the freedom fighters of yesteryear. "All they had to do is comply." Firehoses were also a method to ensure people complied with the law. Let's bring those back too. Passive resistance without threat, rebellion, questioning of authority are all old and great American traditions. Reading some of the replies here, I see what a nation of sheep we have become. Again it is not always the officer's fault, more often it is the law makers, but using a device designated by several organizations as an instrument of torture is vile. The response that "all you have to do is comply" is just sad. Baaa, baaa, let the nanny state do my thinking.I got your sheep, sport.

Tell you what's really sad... Having this kind of hogwash forced down a classrooms gullet under the pretext of a history lesson.

Instrument of torture? Instrument of torture? Get back!

[Suzuki]

You know as a history teacher I just wonder what we would have thought of those old Alabama police if they repeatedly Tazed Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Ralph Abernathy or any of the freedom fighters of yesteryear. "All they had to do is comply." Firehoses were also a method to ensure people complied with the law. Let's bring those back too. Passive resistance without threat, rebellion, questioning of authority are all old and great American traditions. Reading some of the replies here, I see what a nation of sheep we have become. Again it is not always the officer's fault, more often it is the law makers, but using a device designated by several organizations as an instrument of torture is vile. The response that "all you have to do is comply" is just sad. Baaa, baaa, let the nanny state do my thinking.

Your comparison of using a tazer on someone like Martin Luther King or Ghandi who is peacefully advocating social reform to tazing someone who isn't complying with a police officer's instructions during a confrontation/traffic stop and who may pose a legitimate threat to the officer's safety doesn't hold water.

In fact, the illegitimate use of force by the authorities has brought down as many regimes as it has maintained.

The fact that Amnesty International or similar groups may have designated the tazer as "an instrument of torture" doesn't make it so. If it was up to these sorts of orgainizatoins, police would be armed with Nerf batons - regardless of what the criminals were packing.

Complying with an officer's reasonable requests during a confrontation/traffic stop is just common sense as is not provoking a police officer for no reason - its got nothing to do being a sheep.

As a history teacher, you should know that many of the most successful social reformers practiced passive resistance of some form - but followed the laws in force and respected authorty - and it was the authority's illegitimate use of force that helped win support for the cause at issue/bring about the change sought. At the flip side of social movements are those that pursued attacks on the authorities (such as the American Revolution), which obviously cause a response in kind - which is a legitimate response as far as I'm concerned, regardless of which side is on the side of the angles from a philosophical perspective.

I realize that we've now gone as off topic as possible - but I did want to comment on the lack of any connection between your comments regarding the use of force to silence social critics to the legitimate use of force by police in situations where they have a legitimate concern for their safety.

[liege]

There are too many angry people in this barber shop. I just wanted a haircut and to shoot the breeze for a while. The barber here might get too animated in his discussion of tazing and accidentally cut off my ear. I think I'll go down the street to that other barber shop and have a nice discussion with them. I hear the people there aren't so angry.

[BMWRider]

I got your sheep, sport.

Tell you what's really sad... Having this kind of hogwash forced down a classrooms gullet under the pretext of a history lesson.


You know what, that was an inappropriate comment, before you question my ability as a teacher you may want to do a little research.

[Suzuki]

Let's try to keep this as civil as possible.

As I said in a previous post, its fine to attack the content of someone's post, but we'll have to shut this down if people start making personal attacks.

[BMWRider]

The fact that Amnesty International or similar groups may have designated the tazer as "an instrument of torture" doesn't make it so. If it was up to these sorts of orgainizatoins, police would be armed with Nerf batons - regardless of what the criminals were packing.

Complying with an officer's reasonable requests during a confrontation/traffic stop is just common sense as is not provoking a police officer for no reason - its got nothing to do being a sheep.

Remember what provoked this conversation initially was the death of an upset man in an airport who could not communicate in the local language and was consequently unable to comply with police officer's requests. If we research Tazers we find out they have been responsible for a few deaths. I am no bleeding heart liberal by any stretch, but what I see looks like torture. I have been pepper sprayed, Curbed, Maced, and had the crap beat out of me with a collapsible asp during my LE training, but Tazers are a different game and I would not carry one if still doing that job. Nerf batons are not an option either, but Tazers seem to be bad news.

The videos that upset me most are the people who are Tazed during political rallies, which is an egregious violation of their first amendment rights.

[BMWRider]

Research... what? The hogwash came from the horses mouth.

I'm done with this conversation. It's getting personal and I'd rather not engage in that sport. I'll leave it lie.

[jncc]

The tazer, on the other hand, is designed to subdue suspects without causing injury/harm beyond the initial jolt (and I'm in no way trying to downplay the unpleasantness of being tazed).


Designed not to cause harm does not necessarily = causes no harm.

Here, have some perfectly safe thalidomide. It causes no harm to every single person who has ever taken it. Have some Vioxx too. Here, have some DDT, it's a good way to keep pests away. Don't worry if some gets on your hands. Here's a Ford Pinto, drive carefully and hope no one tailgates you.


The fact that a VERY small number of people have died as a result of being tazed does not mean police should stop using them as an enforcement tool


I did not suggest otherwise


I suspect that tazers have, on the whole, reduced injuries to both suspects and police officers.




For example, I suspect there are people who have been tazed who, but for the availability of a tazer, might have been shot. Similarly, there are lots of folks who have been shot with rubber bullets (which can also be lethal) who are quite thankful that they weren't shot with the real thing.

I'll take my chances with a tazer or rubber bullet (even knowing that they can be lethal) over a real bullet any day of the week. In fact, I'd rather take my chances with a tazer than hit with a baton or physcally subdued by several police officers.

Sure, I would prefer to not be shot either -- and given the choice would prefer to be tased than shot.

But this is not necessarily the choice that has to be made.

I seriously doubt that every time a taser has been used it was a deployed in a situation where if the officer did not have a taser on hand he or she would have shot the non-complying person.

If tasers had not been available would Robert Dziekanski have been shot? Would he now be dead?

My point is not to say that tasers should not be used. Instead, I wonder why anyone who is not a paid shill of Taser Incorporated is absolutely sure that tasers are absolutely safe

[ILLfarmboy]

what I find interesting and quite distressing is the presumption that if a police officer tazers someone, well that person had it coming because we all know policemen never overreact or do anything bad.

I don't remember the particulars but I once read of a study conducted by a collage regarding the conditioning of obedience to authority figures. Subjects were told that they were administering a mild electric shock to another group of volunteers in an adjacent room. A large glass window separated the two groups. Those supposedly administering the shocks could see the reactions of the individual being shocked. In reality no one was being shocked. The person(s) who believed they were administering the shocks were actually the only test subjects, everyone else was in on it. What they found was when an authority figure wearing a lab coat and name tag stood adjacent to the person administering the shocks the subjects were more willing to up the voltage (as per the instructions) when the person being questioned/shocked got the answer wrong. They were also more willing to continue the experiment even when the supposed subjects showed increasing levels of pain as the experiment progressed and the fake voltage increased with each wrong answer. The presence of "an authority figure" made a big difference in how far they were willing to go.

[red2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Brad, I think this is what you were talking about.

[liege]

I am not sure that an officer can give anyone a "lawful order." Last I checked I was born free as an American and am not to be ordered about. Secondly I'll play your game and ask you what the difference is between what Dr. King did and what some of the people who have been tazed at political speeches did? Third, who are you to determine what is "unjust?" I assure you in 1959 most people in America thought Dr. King was wrong and basically was "flipping off" authority. Take off your 20/20 hindsight glasses and you'll understand my question a little better. Do a little research on the subject and you'll discover many Tazer victims did not "flip off" the cops. The initial video is but one example of that.

Oh yeah, I was raised to question authority. Consequently I do not take my freedom for granted.

Oh, look. The light's still on in the barber shop.

When a judge pronounces sentence after a guilty verdict, he is ordering you to prison. When a police officer puts his red lights on, he is ordering you to pull over. If you don't, you are breaking the law and can be arrested for disobeying an order. Yes, the police can lawfully order you to do things, even in America.

Regarding political speech, I am assuming you are referring to the gentleman who was tazed while John Kerry was speaking. By his own admission he was disturbing the peace and should have been removed. Maybe being tazed was a bit much in this instance. He was interfering with Senator Kerry's First Amendment right to free speech. That is a no-no, even in America.

I was alive but unaware of the situation in Alabama because I was too young. Looking back at the time through an historical lens, though, any reasonable person would say that what was happening to blacks was grievously unjust and needed to be remedied. It's not just my opinion or judgment. America judged this to be true. You insult Dr. King when you say he was "basically flipping off authority." He saw injustice and was working to change the status quo in a peaceful, non-violent manner. He was a man of God!

I wonder, if we take away tazers completely, what would change? Would more people get beat by clubs? Would more people get shot? I don't know, but I think the answer is probably yes.

[BarryR]

...I once read of a study conducted by a collage regarding the conditioning of obedience to authority figures...

That's the Milgram experiment, done at Yale, if I'm not mistaken. The researchers asked their colleagues to predict what percent of subjects would comply and the estimates were very low, in actuality, a majority of subjects complied. The other interesting thing is that Human Subjects Committees arose, in part as a response to this experiment because many subjects became very despondent when 'debriefed' (so the tables were turned and the investigators were being questioned as to how far they went in the name of science. So, today, you couldn't do an experiment like this.

[ILLfarmboy]

....The researchers asked their colleagues to predict what percent of subjects would comply and the estimates were very low, in actuality, a majority of subjects complied.

My point in bringing this up was to show that BMWRider was not far off with his "sheep" remark. The truth hurts and many people don't like this unflattering characterization. But....

[Suzuki]

Designed not to cause harm does not necessarily = causes no harm.

Here, have some perfectly safe thalidomide. It causes no harm to every single person who has ever taken it. Have some Vioxx too. Here, have some DDT, it's a good way to keep pests away. Don't worry if some gets on your hands. Here's a Ford Pinto, drive carefully and hope no one tailgates you.



I did not suggest otherwise






Sure, I would prefer to not be shot either -- and given the choice would prefer to be tased than shot.

But this is not necessarily the choice that has to be made.

I seriously doubt that every time a taser has been used it was a deployed in a situation where if the officer did not have a taser on hand he or she would have shot the non-complying person.

If tasers had not been available would Robert Dziekanski have been shot? Would he now be dead?

My point is not to say that tasers should not be used. Instead, I wonder why anyone who is not a paid shill of Taser Incorporated is absolutely sure that tasers are absolutely safe

Perhaps injury would have been a better word than harm, but quibbling about semantics just takes us off track. Your examples of products that were believed safe and subsequently taken off the market may foreshadow where the tazer will go - if its demonstrated that it poses an unnecessary risk to those its used on. We tolerate risk in all areas of our lives - I think its interesting in that the very unlikely risk that someone will die as a result of being tazered creates so much controversy and outcry, and worry less about more pedestrian risks. No technology is perfect, but the risks associated with tazer use are much lower than risks we routinely assume/accept. Does this mean we shouldn't question whether tazers are appropriate too for police officers - of course not - but it does suggest that we should put things into perspective. In this regard, the problems/risks associated with tazer use don't come close to being as widespread/signficant as the examples you cited above (except perhaps the Pinto - but that's a very different story given the executives willful knowledge of the fault and deliberate calculation of whether it was cheaper to do a recall vs. pay damages when a Pinto actually blew up - corporate greed is a very different motive than that behind whether tazers should continue to be an option for police officers).

While I completely agree that in every, if not most, situations where a tazer was used, the alternative would have been to shoot the suspect. However, I suspect the use of the tazer saved suspects and police from more serious injury in several cases, avoided officers having to draw their weapons, etc. - resulting in both an overall reduction of injuries and risk of injury, inlcuding by shooting.

I do not believe that tazers are absolutely safe - its just that I'm willing to accept the risks associated with tazer use as I beleve they're outweighed by the overall benefits - to both suspects and police officers. I also accept that others may disagree with my calculus, but if they do, they should be prepared to suggest an effective alternative, beyond making police targets or subjecting them to increased risks.


what I find interesting and quite distressing is the presumption that if a police officer tazers someone, well that person had it coming because we all know policemen never overreact or do anything bad.

I don't remember the particulars but I once read of a study conducted by a collage regarding the conditioning of obedience to authority figures. Subjects were told that they were administering a mild electric shock to another group of volunteers in an adjacent room. A large glass window separated the two groups. Those supposedly administering the shocks could see the reactions of the individual being shocked. In reality no one was being shocked. The person(s) who believed they were administering the shocks were actually the only test subjects, everyone else was in on it. What they found was when an authority figure wearing a lab coat and name tag stood adjacent to the person administering the shocks the subjects were more willing to up the voltage (as per the instructions) when the person being questioned/shocked got the answer wrong. They were also more willing to continue the experiment even when the supposed subjects showed increasing levels of pain as the experiment progressed and the fake voltage increased with each wrong answer. The presence of "an authority figure" made a big difference in how far they were willing to go.

I'm not sure if I follow the connection between this experiment and whether someone generally believes that someone who got tazered somehow deserved it or had it coming.

The fact that people tend to follow orders given by authority figures doesn't necessarily translate this way. Also, it makes it even more surprising that people don't follow orders given by police officers - which might actually suggest that someone who doesn't follow an order given by a police officer should be percieved as a threat (althoughtthis doesn't suggest that someone automatically deserves to be tazered if they don't do what they're told to by a police officer.)


My point in bringing this up was to show that BMWRider was not far off with his "sheep" remark. The truth hurts and many people don't like this unflattering characterization. But....

The fact that people may be sheep doesn't really add anything to this debate - if people are sheep, then there are liberal sheep, conservative sheep, pro-police sheep, anti-police sheep - so at least the flock has some variation :biggrin:

[BillEllis]

It is incredulous to me that logic, common sense, and right from wrong seems to get bulldozed to the side to further an antiestablishment, I-hate-authority (and especially the police) agenda. Cherry picking a study I actually remember reading about back in 1966 to bolster a "sheep" story seems weak, pure and simple. To do it with the pretext that it is absolute "truth" or makes a perfect model to identify the outline of a sheep is more elongated than a 200 foot bungee cord.

Comparing the use of tasers to the effects of thalidomide is also at the bottom of that stretch. I'd really like to hear the progression of thought processes that led to that conclusion. I'm waiting for "hanging chads" to be thrown in next as an argument for not finding qualified personnel in every police department in the country.

Being called a sheep because someone chooses to follow a governing set of rules in a society that can't successfully exist without them is clearly intended as a condescending personal insult. Bleating like a sheep as a follow-up comment is brazenly taunting them with the intent of further embarrassment because of those beliefs. I will not be spit at without responding to comments like that. I don't care who you are.

I would offer that the offenders in the videos where police were shot undoubtedly grew up being taught to challenge authority, or at least learned to embrace it with deadly consequences. I think our society is in a cancerous stage of decay due, in part, to these challenges. In general, just take a look at how so many of our children and teens behave in public, how they react to adults, and how they treat their teachers. Look how they react when they get a little older and are instructed to sign a traffic violation...

I don't care if you don't believe in tasers. That's ok. I don't care if you don't like the police. That's ok, too. I don't care if you don't believe the same things that I do. I don't even care if you think Hillary Clinton is the answer to your prayers. I can show respect for dissenting values. Just know that if you start insulting me or my conservative values, I will not let it slide.

To come back on topic, let me say this...

Tasers are the same as pepper spray and batons, both PR-24 types and the collapsibles. They are all considered as a medium level of force.
Pepper spray and pain-compliance techniques don't work on subjects under the influence of drugs. You can crank someone's arm until things start popping and they just look at you wondering what the noise was.
Oh boy, howdy, I'd rather be tased than hit on the side of my knee with a baton. Then again, I wouldn't be giving anyone a reason to use any of those methods of compliance on me. Let those who advocate a challenge of authority do that kind of stuff. If you choose to think that's a smooth move... go for it.
If I fly into a foreign country and don't speak the native language, whether I've been detained for bogus reasons or not, I guarantee you I wouldn't be keeping people at bay or try to gather attention by throwing things around.
Those officers did not tase the guy in the airport with the intent of killing him... no way. Anyone who says that is making stuff up.
I doubt the guy had a knife, but to eliminate the possibility that he could have had a weapon because of ongoing airport security is false. You have no idea how big some of the stuff is that people often stuff up their butt when they want to hide it.
I think that comparing isolated cases of "bad" cops as being an argument against the use of tasers is not valid. Being constantly reminded that there are a few bad apples who don't belong on the force is very insulting to those who walk a beat most of you would be afraid to travel... especially when the donut type comments start rolling. It's the insinuation that all police are under suspicion that makes these comments particularly offensive.
If this same guy were hanging from a bridge because he lost his balance crossing it, I'd bet all of those officers would have risked their life to save him. But since he was acting out the way he was, he had to be stopped as safely as possible. The taser is the answer.
Gaining control of someone who is ticked off is extremely difficult, at the very least, but it's always, I said always, dangerous. Just hitting your knee on the concrete just right as you are trying to gain control of a subjects movement can end your career. Tasers eliminate these types of injuries.
To demand any type of expectation that any potentially dangerous person's safety comes before an officer's own well being needs to actually walk in their shoes a while.Finally... farmboy... the "truth hurts" comment you made was nowhere near as clever as you thought it was.

[Mottern Man]

I am not sure that an officer can give anyone a "lawful order." Last I checked I was born free as an American and am not to be ordered about.

So when your boss tells you to do something you tell him "I am not to be ordered about"?


An officer can give a lawful order, that is why they are called...






Wait for it…










THE LAW!



I would love to see this,

Officer "Step out of the car Sir",

BMWRider "I am a free man and I don't have to do what you say"....

....................The rest is left you your imagination.



EDIT to my post before this one: guess I can't let it go.

[Mottern Man]

You know as a history teacher I just wonder what we would have thought of those old Alabama police if they repeatedly Tazed Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Ralph Abernathy or any of the freedom fighters of yesteryear. "All they had to do is comply." Firehoses were also a method to ensure people complied with the law. Let's bring those back too. Passive resistance without threat, rebellion, questioning of authority are all old and great American traditions. Reading some of the replies here, I see what a nation of sheep we have become. Again it is not always the officer's fault, more often it is the law makers, but using a device designated by several organizations as an instrument of torture is vile. The response that "all you have to do is comply" is just sad. Baaa, baaa, let the nanny state do my thinking.


My point in bringing this up was to show that BMWRider was not far off with his "sheep" remark. The truth hurts and many people don't like this unflattering characterization. But....

Officer - "Sir step out of the car"
Doc Mottern - "Yes officer"

So I am sheep but the Lord is my Shepherd.

[Woknblues]

Let me bring this back to the point, rather than "go there".

Police, like other people put into authority are held to a higher standard. (Anyone in the medical field or educational field for example will attest to this) As such, they are subject to public scrutiny, and the overwhelming majority of both law enforcement or medical practitioners, or public school teachers (to cite that example again) would agree that the scrutiny is necessary to protect the public interests.

The most valuable weapon a police officer has is his authority, and as such, he or she is an agent of our society to "serve and protect" (or some other variation of that well known slogan). Any policeman/bouncer/etc type knows that most of all potentially violent interactions can be brought to a non violent resolution. Did these officers conduct due diligence when confronting this individual? Did they utilize enough non violent objectives before resorting to what amounts to a "moderate" amount of physical force to subdue this person? Perhaps, and perhaps not. A formal investigation will come out, and we may find that they did not. Wielding excessive force sounds about right. Murder? No way. Unless the "taseror" does this kind of thing all the time, only then, perhaps.

I think the arguement of "fair fight" is a weak one. Getting your clock cleaned just once in a "fair fight" will likely change your attitude about the nobleness of rolling your sleeves up and going bare knuckled one on one with someone. Being a good cop isn't about being able to kick the tar out of someone in a one on one fair fight. It is about protecting the public peace.

We should be extremely cautious about who gets these positions of authority, and we should be extremely cautious about what kind of powers we grant these people. 99% of my dealings with police have been positive. I have been relieved to see police on several occasions, helping and serving as they should. All the cops I have known personally are great guys. I have also been "abused" (never physically hurt, mind you) by police on a couple of occasions. The "abuse" came from a probable combination of lack of training, a bad and busy day, or more likely, a combination of the two.

[ILLfarmboy]

[/LIST]Finally... farmboy... the "truth hurts" comment you made was nowhere near as clever as you thought it was.

Was I being clever? At any rate it seems to have hit a nerve.

Most people are more likely to unquestioningly follow authority even when that authority is acting in a questionable manner. Or to follow the orders given them by an authority figure (like a cop) even when said authority is overstepping their bounds.

At the other end of the extreme are those anti-social types who will challenge even the legitimate request/order of a police officer.

The problem as I see it with regard to our discussion here is those in the first group who see anything but a slavish attitude to wards authority as illegitimate and anti-social can't seem to make the distinction between an "unjust order" and a righteous one.
Statements that might typify those in this group are: If you have nothing to hide why would you mind the police searching your home or car or whatever........... They are just trying to make sure everyone is safe..........

[jnich67]

[QUOTE=BillEllis;376078] ...If I fly into a foreign country and don't speak the native language, whether I've been detained for bogus reasons or not, I guarantee you I wouldn't be keeping people at bay or try to gather attention by throwing things around.
Those officers did not tase the guy in the airport with the intent of killing him... no way. Anyone who says that is making stuff up.
Gaining control of someone who is ticked off is extremely difficult, at the very least, but it's always, I said always, dangerous. Just hitting your knee on the concrete just right as you are trying to gain control of a subjects movement can end your career. Tasers eliminate these types of injuries.

Thank You! That needed to be said - or said again.

Just because I follow an officer's orders on the street doesn't make me a sheep. If I disagree with those orders, I'm not going to argue it out on the street. I know I can't win there. I'm going to do what the cop says and then complain to a judge or any number of other institutions including the media...please, this notion of disobeying the law because a cop is being a "bully" is just nonsense.

Jordan

[Haiku]

I realize that we've now gone as off topic as possible - but I did want to comment on the lack of any connection between your comments regarding the use of force to silence social critics to the legitimate use of force by police in situations where they have a legitimate concern for their safety.


The question before the Canadian authorities is whether the police acted appropriately. Please note that the investigation into the Vancouver situation is taking place in the context of other deaths by electrocution at the hands of our police, including a woman who was in handcuffs who was killed by a taser at a police station.

Now, all discussions about authority, legitimate or otherwise aside, I think everyone will agree that when a woman in handcuffs, in a police station is killed by electrocution, at the hands of the police, then an investigation is called for, and public outrage is to be expected.

[rabidpotatochip]

Now, all discussions about authority, legitimate or otherwise aside, I think everyone will agree that when a woman in handcuffs, in a police station is killed by electrocution, at the hands of the police, then an investigation is called for, and public outrage is to be expected.

I think that if anyone dies from a weapon that's supposed to be "non-lethal" an investigation is called for. Handcuffed or flailing wildly really doesn't matter; a taser is supposed to subdue a person without killing them and when it fails to do that they (the makers/users) had damn well better fix it.

[SilkySmooth]

I don't know about you guys, but if I have a half dozen guys with mace, knight sticks, and guns, and I don't have anything, I'm gonna be cuffed peacefully whether or not I speak the language. The guy must have had mental issues. It's a shame he died over the incident, but what can you do? I just wouldn't want to be the guy that pulled the trigger on the tazer. He obviously didn't want to kill the man. It's just sad that it happened.



==Tom

[Suzuki]

The question before the Canadian authorities is whether the police acted appropriately. Please note that the investigation into the Vancouver situation is taking place in the context of other deaths by electrocution at the hands of our police, including a woman who was in handcuffs who was killed by a taser at a police station.

Now, all discussions about authority, legitimate or otherwise aside, I think everyone will agree that when a woman in handcuffs, in a police station is killed by electrocution, at the hands of the police, then an investigation is called for, and public outrage is to be expected.

I agree completely that any time someone dies while in custody or while being taken into custody should be investigated - and never suggested otherwise.

I find it interesting that you say that public outrage should be expected - wouldn't it make more sense to actually have an investigation before determining if outrage is warranted...

[Haiku]

I agree completely that any time someone dies while in custody or while being taken into custody should be investigated - and never suggested otherwise.

I find it interesting that you say that public outrage should be expected - wouldn't it make more sense to actually have an investigation before determining if outrage is warranted...

1) I didn't think you suggested otherwise.

2) Yes. You're right, it would make more sense.

[michaelskar]

I think that if anyone dies from a weapon that's supposed to be "non-lethal" an investigation is called for. Handcuffed or flailing wildly really doesn't matter; a taser is supposed to subdue a person without killing them and when it fails to do that they (the makers/users) had damn well better fix it.

+1

I think this is the true issue here. Tazers are supposed to be non lethal, they have proven to be lethal (at times), and so thorough studies should be done to figure out "what went wrong" so it never happens again. of course, all of that is more easily said than done...even non-lethal, perfectly operating amusement park rides can be lethal to someone with an undiagnosed condition... I'll just stop here before I confuse myself.

[BillEllis]

I agree completely that any time someone dies while in custody or while being taken into custody should be investigated - and never suggested otherwise.

I find it interesting that you say that public outrage should be expected - wouldn't it make more sense to actually have an investigation before determining if outrage is warranted...
There you go, making sense and using logic again, Chris. Undoubtedly, I can see it being kicked aside in favor of spinning a situation into something else to fit an agenda. Jumping to conclusions is certainly not one of the prerequisites for admission to any police academy that I am aware of.

There is an investigation every time, that's every time, force is used by the police for those of you may not know. In some instances, the inquiry is made by an outside agency. Unworthy officers are removed from the force, and sometimes criminally charged as they should be. I agree that abuse of power should never be tolerated, but the facts need to surface before saying that heads should roll.

[BillEllis]

Was I being clever? No, you were not clever.



At any rate it seems to have hit a nerve.
Yes you did. I get that way when people spit at me, and apparently you felt the need to do it again. I will not be polite with you if you do it again.

[Dr. Mike]

Man, I'm gone for a few days, and you guys go running hog wild with this discussion without me! No fair.
I probably won't contribute much to this, but I am one of those who always likes to get his $.02 in.
There should be an investigation into this man's death, and as I pointed out in an earlier post specifically about the San Diego PD, there always is when there is a police-related death. That is as it should be. Anybody who has the authority to legally take another's life should be more heavily scrutinized. Let the investigation run its course. The mistake that has been made here is to think that those of us on this side of the issue are blindly accepting that the cops are good and the other guy was bad. All we have been saying is don't jump to conclusions about these cops. Wait for the investigation to determine if there was wrong doing. Innocent until proven guilty. That does not make us sheep to authority. It just means we want to give these guys a fair chance to defend themselves. We're not talking about 4 Ted Bundys here.
Second, this incident should not be investigated in light of other taser-related deaths. That is unfair. It should be investigated in light of what the standard procedure is for the officers, and whether their actions were withing proscribed limits. In other words, were they following the rules, or breaking them. If you want to then conduct an investigation into whether tasers should be used, be my guest. But don't use these guys as scapegoats when they were just using a tool that they were given. You can't prosecute a person for an imaginary crime that you wish were real.
Following authority does not make us sheep. Just because it is the status quo does not make it wrong. I know there is a lot of vaunted talk about this concept of freedom. But listen, people, the price of living in a large society that provides us with all the things that ours does is that we have to give up some "freedom." Sorry, it may sound bad, but it is true. In exchange for having all that we have, we allow the government certain powers. They have the power to enact and enforce laws, in particular. We agree, as a society, to obey those laws. In exchange, we get some measure of stability. We are able to travel across this whole country and use the same currency wherever we go to obtain goods and services, instead of having to barter with each and every individual. We are protected from others, both foreign and domestic. Does government sometimes overstep its bounds? Absolutely. But this idea that we are guaranteed limitless freedom and that nobody has the right to demand anything of us is untrue. If you want that, you need to go find a place where there is no society whatsoever, where everybody lives only for themselves, and anything goes. You talk about freedom to do whatever you want so long as it does not infringe on the next guys' freedom. But who enforces that? Blindly accepting authority is not good. We should be constantly vigilant and make sure that authorities stay within the boundaries proscribed for them. But knee-jerk reacting to authority is equally idiotic. You should question authority wherever it has over-stepped its bounds, but abide by it where it is working within the guidelines society has laid out for it.

[ScottS]

I assure you in 1959 most people in America thought Dr. King was wrong and basically was "flipping off" authority.

Take a gander through "Letter from Birmingham Jail". Paraphrasing King, accepting the punishment for civil disobedience is an important part of civil disobedience.

[BillEllis]

I think that if anyone dies from a weapon that's supposed to be "non-lethal" an investigation is called for. Handcuffed or flailing wildly really doesn't matter; a taser is supposed to subdue a person without killing them and when it fails to do that they (the makers/users) had damn well better fix it.Absolutely, and in a perfect world it would be nice if none of these things that can cause harm had to be used to begin with. Unfortunately, many of our fellow beings warrant their use.


The question before the Canadian authorities is whether the police acted appropriately. Please note that the investigation into the Vancouver situation is taking place in the context of other deaths by electrocution at the hands of our police, including a woman who was in handcuffs who was killed by a taser at a police station.

Now, all discussions about authority, legitimate or otherwise aside, I think everyone will agree that when a woman in handcuffs, in a police station is killed by electrocution, at the hands of the police, then an investigation is called for, and public outrage is to be expected.Let me say a couple of things. Are you sure it was the taser that ended her life? I can understand your verbage, and even the kneejerk reaction, but I feel it is laced with unwarranted bias. "Killed by electrocution", to me anyway, implies a clear intent to end someone's life. Do you really believe that? I hope not. Let me be clear... an investigation into every single account of force should be implimented. On the surface, hearing she was handcuffed and then tased sounds appalling to those who only see things on the surface. But none of you were there as far as I know. Neither was I. But what about these two scenerios?


A woman was brought to jail for domestic violence and had to be forcefully removed from the patrol car to be brought into the booking vestibule. Let's say she was clearly under the influence of a controlled subsance. Maybe the woman attemted to strike and kick custodial officers as they began the process of her incarceration. The woman was clearly, by anyone's standards, a danger to everyone around her. Let's say the cuffs were left in place until she could be examined by medical staff. Let us further say she was placed by herself in a holding cell until she calmed down enough for a nurse to look at her. Then let's say she was to have no part of being subdued and subsequently placed in a cell by law enforcement personnel. To protest, she starts pounding the safety glass of the door to the holding cell in an effort to break it and also spitting regurgitated phlegm on all the observation windows. Since breaking the glass probably wouldn't work, she begins to pound the top of the 4 foot tall privacy wall that is in the cell in her fit of anger with the cuffs still on her wrists. Let's further say that needle tracks are clearly visible on her arms, a pretty good indication that she at least has hepatitus C. Let's say she has clearly fractured or broken her arms from striking the cinder block wall and shows no sign of letting up. Now... you gonna go in there, up close and peronal with this person who most likely will spit hepatitus or aids virus into your eyes or near your mouth? Or do you think maybe hitting her with a taser might just be the way to go? Think maybe people like this may just possibly die because of an overload of drugs and adrenailin?
How about this one? Another woman is arrested and brought to jail for prostitution and being under the influence of a controlled substance. What if this person has made frequent visits to the jail for a variety of charges, including attempted murder. Let's say she has always been violent when in custody if she has drugs in her system. Let's further say she had to be cuffed until she could be put into the safety cell for her own protection. Let's say that it is known by custodial staff that this woman has aids and spits at officers when she is high, especially PCP. Let's say that as the woman is placed on the wall to be pat searched, she starts smashing her face on the wall to cause bleeding so she can gather the fluid in her mouth to start spitting at anyone in uniform. Think maybe a taser would be justified in this instance? She still has cuffs on, remember...Now, I'm not saying that is what happened to the lady that has been referred to in this thread, but I am saying that there could be instances where a taser would protect the person from further harm and is a better choice than overpowering them and taking a chance that many people could get injured in the process. Talking to people under the influence of some drugs doesn't work... don't care who you are.








Oh... those scenerios are true, by the way. And it's not heresay truth, it's first hand witnessed truth. Neither of those ladies was tasered in my scenerio because the jail didn't have them yet. But I think a taser's use sure would have been justified if they had been available.

[Haiku]

Absolutely, and in a perfect world it would be nice if none of these things that can cause harm had to be used to begin with. Unfortunately, many of our fellow beings warrant their use.

Let me say a couple of things. Are you sure it was the taser that ended her life? I can understand your verbage, and even the kneejerk reaction, but I feel it is laced with unwarranted bias. "Killed by electrocution", to me anyway, implies a clear intent to end someone's life. Do you really believe that? I hope not. Let me be clear... an investigation into every single account of force should be implimented. On the surface, hearing she was handcuffed and then tased sounds appalling to those who only see things on the surface. But none of you were there as far as I know. Neither was I. But what about these two scenerios?


A woman was brought to jail for domestic violence and had to be forcefully removed from the patrol car to be brought into the booking vestibule. Let's say she was clearly under the influence of a controlled subsance. Maybe the woman attemted to strike and kick custodial officers as they began the process of her incarceration. The woman was clearly, by anyone's standards, a danger to everyone around her. Let's say the cuffs were left in place until she could be examined by medical staff. Let us further say she was placed by herself in a holding cell until she calmed down enough for a nurse to look at her. Then let's say she was to have no part of being subdued and subsequently placed in a cell by law enforcement personnel. To protest, she starts pounding the safety glass of the door to the holding cell in an effort to break it and also spitting regurgitated phlegm on all the observation windows. Since breaking the glass probably wouldn't work, she begins to pound the top of the 4 foot tall privacy wall that is in the cell in her fit of anger with the cuffs still on her wrists. Let's further say that needle tracks are clearly visible on her arms, a pretty good indication that she at least has hepatitus C. Let's say she has clearly fractured or broken her arms from striking the cinder block wall and shows no sign of letting up. Now... you gonna go in there, up close and peronal with this person who most likely will spit hepatitus or aids virus into your eyes or near your mouth? Or do you think maybe hitting her with a taser might just be the way to go? Think maybe people like this may just possibly die because of an overload of drugs and adrenailin?
How about this one? Another woman is arrested and brought to jail for prostitution and being under the influence of a controlled substance. What if this person has made frequent visits to the jail for a variety of charges, including attempted murder. Let's say she has always been violent when in custody if she has drugs in her system. Let's further say she had to be cuffed until she could be put into the safety cell for her own protection. Let's say that it is known by custodial staff that this woman has aids and spits at officers when she is high, especially PCP. Let's say that as the woman is placed on the wall to be pat searched, she starts smashing her face on the wall to cause bleeding so she can gather the fluid in her mouth to start spitting at anyone in uniform. Think maybe a taser would be justified in this instance? She still has cuffs on, remember...Now, I'm not saying that is what happened to the lady that has been referred to in this thread, but I am saying that there could be instances where a taser would protect the person from further harm and is a better choice than overpowering them and taking a chance that many people could get injured in the process. Talking to people under the influence of some drugs doesn't work... don't care who you are.








Oh... those scenerios are true, by the way. And it's not heresay truth, it's first hand witnessed truth. Neither of those ladies was tasered in my scenerio because the jail didn't have them yet. But I think a taser's use sure would have been justified if they had been available.



You and I are actually in agreement. I have no difficulty with the police using force when necessary. I have no difficulty with the police using lethal force when it is necessary. With respect to your examples: I would not hesitate to support the use of a billy club or a taser.

I have a great deal of difficulty in the police being provided with a weapon and being told or trained on the basis that it is essentially harmless when in fact the thing is potentially lethal.

Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that the police did not intend to end anyone's life. I have no doubt that the police in fact never intended to cause harm, but rather that they intended to prevent harm.

I have not addressed intention. Intention is not in issue in these cases. No one has alleged that the police intended to cause harm of any kind. What is at issue is the result, and what the police have done since the events in question.

My reaction is neither knee-jerk or unconsidered. I chose my words carefully. I believe in using words accurately and honestly and there is no question, but that death by taser is death by electrocution. To call it anything else is to whitewash it. And we have plenty of politicians in this country who have been doing just that. We have had people die after being tasered and we have politicians who have said they died of heart attacks after the taser but not because of the taser. That's like saying that a person did not die from being shot, but rather they died by bleeding to death after being shot. And that is the kind of thing that erodes public confidence and support for the police and for our politicians.

I also have no doubt that the police are using these weapons the way they've been told to or trained to use them. And it is crystal clear to me that these things are potentially lethal and that they should be considered to be so.

Here we have situations where use of the taser is highly questionable to say the least and clearly the police appear to have been misled mis-trained as to the proper use of the weapon.

The manufacturer either today or yesterday changed their written materials and the manufacturer is now warning police that tasers are potentially lethal. This is the first time they've provided police with that warning.

With respect to the case of the woman in custody who died after being tasered, the police have provided a statement that she was "resisting". They have said nothing more. In the case of the Vanouver airport, after the video was posted, the police came under investigation for having lied about what happened and what they did.

None of this sits well with Canadians who, like me, look up to the RCMP and consider the RCMP to be the best of our police forces. Yesterday the RCMP complaints commissioner, Paul Kennedy, observed that the bond of trust between the public and the RCMP is being eroded. He's right. It is. And it is being eroded because of what the RCMP did, in particular, by not telling the public what they did, and now, we have the allegation that they engaged in a cover up or that they lied about what they did. And it also doesn't sit well with Canadians that they held onto the video and refused to return it until its owner hired a lawyer who demanded the return of the tape. So here we have a situation where the police appear to be illegally holding on to a man's private property, and the only reason seems to be that they didnt' want the public to see what they did. And that too doesn't sit well with Canadians.

The RCMP complaints commissioner Paul Kennedy is right: the public trust in the RCMP is being eroded. And I am very unhappy about the RCMP acting in a manner that erodes my trust in them.

[BillEllis]

Ontario...

I agree with a lot of what you offered. Choosing words carefully, as you take pride in (which is a good thing) doesn't mean that they wind up always being completely accurate.

As far as I know, every officer who carries a taser has been given manditory training in its use, and many times, they have been on the sparky end of one. Does that not maybe raise a few questions for you that you don't hear of officers dying after being tased from the training excercises they go through? I would submit that there is a distinct possibility many instances of death surrounding a person who had to be tased were caused by other stimuli brought on by the intensity of their physical exertion in the struggle and the amount of drugs in their system.

I offer that ponderance (new word) because there were at least two separate deaths at the jail where I was, in which, each offender had acquired drugs (PCP) and had to be extracted from their cell. No electronic immobilization devices were used. No strikes from batons were made. Both men were just manhandled to the floor to gain control of them. Both were only in their 30's as I remember. Haven't you ever heard of a race horse that died on the track because he was illegally injected with just a little too much stimulant? Basically, their heart just exploded. Of course, these two men's families (the ones that never visited - even once) promptly filed a police brutality lawsuit over the loss of their little angels.

I also think that intent means more to me than it may to you. If somone hit one of my dogs with their car because it ran into the road, I would be heartbroken, but would not assign blame to the driver. On the other hand, if someone came on my property and clubbed one of my dogs to death for entertainment, they would be digging up that persons body parts in 5 different states. (that illustration is only meant to show the broad spectrum for the word "intent" - I'd burn the body parts)

I would agree with you fully about a loss of confidence in your mounties if, indeed, they did lie and try to cover anything up. That would be much more of a problem to me than an unintentional death of a violent person. Yes, I think the airport guy was showing an outburst of violence... he certainly could never be on the hire list as a Walmart greeter, anyway.

As far as politicians, I don't much care for any of them these days. I only said "kneejerk" because of the comment rendered about not allowing any evidence to come forth before a judgement appeared to be made. It wasn't "intended" to be an insult.

All of these tools (batons, pepper spray, 37mm beanbags, EID's, tasers, flashbangs, yada yada) have the potential to be lethal. Unfortunately, they need to be used on some people.

[Groundhog]

As far as I know, every officer who carries a taser has been given manditory training in its use, and many times, they have been on the sparky end of one.

True. I can't speak for everyone else, but every agency in my state that issues tasers requires officers to "take the ride." Every agency in the US that is CALEA-certified (or seeking CALEA certification would require it.)


Does that not maybe raise a few questions for you that you don't hear of officers dying after being tased from the training excercises they go through?

Also true. Not one single documented case of a training death due to a Taser hit.



I would submit that there is a distinct possibility many instances of death surrounding a person who had to be tased were caused by other stimuli brought on by the intensity of their physical exertion in the struggle and the amount of drugs in their system.

3 for 3. It's a theory, admittedly a controversial one, called. "excited delirium."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_delirium

Interesting note re. the RCMP's new policy as of August.... possibly the incident that started this thread is not the result of bad officers, but bad policy.

[denmason]

True. I can't speak for everyone else, but every agency in my state that issues tasers requires officers to "take the ride." Every agency in the US that is CALEA-certified (or seeking CALEA certification would require it.)



Also true. Not one single documented case of a training death due to a Taser hit.




3 for 3. It's a theory, admittedly a controversial one, called. "excited delirium."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_delirium

Interesting note re. the RCMP's new policy as of August.... possibly the incident that started this thread is not the result of bad officers, but bad policy.

Very disturbing video. Questions need to be answered. Doesn't look good from this view. What was the cop with the baton striking near the end of the video?

[BillEllis]

What was the cop with the baton striking near the end of the video?The floor... he was collapsing his baton. If you don't hit the end just right, they won't collapse.

[ScottS]

The floor... he was collapsing his baton. If you don't hit the end just right, they won't collapse.

That won't keep the floor from suing!

[Haiku]

Interesting note re. the RCMP's new policy as of August.... possibly the incident that started this thread is not the result of bad officers, but bad policy.



That I think will prove to be right on the money: bad policy, inadequate or inappropriate training and abject stupidity of the RCMP to have (1) kept the video tape from its rightful owner until his lawyer threatened them with legal action; which (2) has led the population to wonder if they were trying to cover up; and (3) their failure to even express any regret whatsoever for what happened until long long long after the fact which has led the average Canadian to view them in a very dim light.

And because the way that the RCMP dealt with this so far, if the investigation clears the individual officers, many people in this country will see that as a whitewash because they no longer trusts the RCMP.