Mass'Debater
Posts: 2,039 
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
May 6th, 2008, 10:35 AM
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...ry-monday.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...ry-monday.html
Quote:
A Taser gun doesn't routinely kill people, although the conducted energy weapon delivers electric current up to 85 times what's lethal, an American electrical engineer told a public inquiry in Vancouver Monday.
The Taser sends out a high jolt of electric current, but the charge from the weapon isn't deadly on its own because it's pulsed and not constant, said J. Patrick Reilly, the first person to testify at the two-phase inquiry prompted by the death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski at the Vancouver airport last October.
The Taser is not a "benign device" but it has a "low, small probability" of causing injury or even death, said Reilly, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University in the U.S., who studied the Taser for the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice four years ago.
In a slideshow presentation, Reilly walked the inquiry commissioner, retired B.C. Appeal Court justice Thomas Braidwood, through a lesson in electricity, and explained why the Taser doesn't routinely kill people.
Reilly documented a variety of human and animal studies that demonstrated the Taser's effect on blood chemistry and respiration, but said he was unable to determine why some people die after being stunned.
"I concluded the use of Tasers was … there were hazards, but they were rare," Reilly testified.
"You could not rule out the possibility of affecting the heart and possibly even causing a fatal incident."
He told the inquiry what's needed is a central clearing house for police reports to keep track of fatal Taser incidents.
Lot to learn about Taser: commissioner
Braidwood opened Monday's proceeding by saying that there's still a lot to be learned about the Taser but he expects by the end of the inquiry to be able to conclude whether the shock weapons should continue to stay in the hands of B.C.'s police forces.
The first phase of the inquiry, which focuses on the medical and scientific aspects of the stun gun's use, is scheduled to run until May 23 and Braidwood has until the end of June to file a report. He's already asked for an extension to October, which has not yet been granted.
The second phase of the inquiry will focus on Dziekanski, who died in the arrivals lounge of Vancouver International Airport on Oct. 14, 2007, shortly after RCMP officers used a stun gun on him. But the second phase and a coroner's inquest into Dziekanski's death have been put on hold while B.C.'s Crown prosecutor makes a decision on possible criminal charges.
During his testimony, Reilly said studies commissioned by Taser International have pronounced the weapon as safe, but he pointed out that those studies avoided delivering the Taser's probes to the chest.
"If you were concerned about avoiding a heart incident, that would be one reason why you'd put the Taser darts on the back," he told the inquiry.
Reilly's findings came as no surprise to Walter Kosteckyj, the lawyer for Dziekanski's mother, Zophia Cisowski.
"As far as my client's concerned, if there was no Taser, there would be no death. Her son would still be walking around today," Kosteckyj said Monday.
Dziekanski, 41, died shortly after RCMP officers stunned him twice with a Taser.
Millions of people around the world watched a bystander's video on the internet showing the RCMP confrontation with Dziekanski, prompting a public outcry and more than 10 investigations across Canada into the use of Tasers by police.
The two-phase provincial inquiry may result in restrictions on the use of Tasers by municipal police forces, but not by the RCMP because the inquiry has no jurisdiction over the federally regulated RCMP.
The Taser sends out a high jolt of electric current, but the charge from the weapon isn't deadly on its own because it's pulsed and not constant, said J. Patrick Reilly, the first person to testify at the two-phase inquiry prompted by the death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski at the Vancouver airport last October.
The Taser is not a "benign device" but it has a "low, small probability" of causing injury or even death, said Reilly, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University in the U.S., who studied the Taser for the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice four years ago.
In a slideshow presentation, Reilly walked the inquiry commissioner, retired B.C. Appeal Court justice Thomas Braidwood, through a lesson in electricity, and explained why the Taser doesn't routinely kill people.
Reilly documented a variety of human and animal studies that demonstrated the Taser's effect on blood chemistry and respiration, but said he was unable to determine why some people die after being stunned.
"I concluded the use of Tasers was … there were hazards, but they were rare," Reilly testified.
"You could not rule out the possibility of affecting the heart and possibly even causing a fatal incident."
He told the inquiry what's needed is a central clearing house for police reports to keep track of fatal Taser incidents.
Lot to learn about Taser: commissioner
Braidwood opened Monday's proceeding by saying that there's still a lot to be learned about the Taser but he expects by the end of the inquiry to be able to conclude whether the shock weapons should continue to stay in the hands of B.C.'s police forces.
The first phase of the inquiry, which focuses on the medical and scientific aspects of the stun gun's use, is scheduled to run until May 23 and Braidwood has until the end of June to file a report. He's already asked for an extension to October, which has not yet been granted.
The second phase of the inquiry will focus on Dziekanski, who died in the arrivals lounge of Vancouver International Airport on Oct. 14, 2007, shortly after RCMP officers used a stun gun on him. But the second phase and a coroner's inquest into Dziekanski's death have been put on hold while B.C.'s Crown prosecutor makes a decision on possible criminal charges.
During his testimony, Reilly said studies commissioned by Taser International have pronounced the weapon as safe, but he pointed out that those studies avoided delivering the Taser's probes to the chest.
"If you were concerned about avoiding a heart incident, that would be one reason why you'd put the Taser darts on the back," he told the inquiry.
Reilly's findings came as no surprise to Walter Kosteckyj, the lawyer for Dziekanski's mother, Zophia Cisowski.
"As far as my client's concerned, if there was no Taser, there would be no death. Her son would still be walking around today," Kosteckyj said Monday.
Dziekanski, 41, died shortly after RCMP officers stunned him twice with a Taser.
Millions of people around the world watched a bystander's video on the internet showing the RCMP confrontation with Dziekanski, prompting a public outcry and more than 10 investigations across Canada into the use of Tasers by police.
The two-phase provincial inquiry may result in restrictions on the use of Tasers by municipal police forces, but not by the RCMP because the inquiry has no jurisdiction over the federally regulated RCMP.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,589
Location: Saint John, N.B.
Location: Saint John, N.B.
May 6th, 2008, 10:39 AM
It is real simple.
The Taser should be classified as "lethal force", therefore it can ONLY be used when the officer or another is in "Immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm".........in other words, the Taser should only be deployed in the same situation where one could legally use the firearm...........
Problem solved.
It is real simple.
The Taser should be classified as "lethal force", therefore it can ONLY be used when the officer or another is in "Immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm".........in other words, the Taser should only be deployed in the same situation where one could legally use the firearm...........
Problem solved.
Mass'Debater
Posts: 2,039
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
May 6th, 2008, 10:43 AM
Your option also works, so meh.
Quoting Colpy
Then just remove it completely and resort back to the firearm, clubs and pepper spray and the problem is still solved.
It is real simple.
The Taser should be classified as "lethal force", therefore it can ONLY be used when the officer or another is in "Immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm".........in other words, the Taser should only be deployed in the same situation where one could legally use the firearm...........
Problem solved.
The Taser should be classified as "lethal force", therefore it can ONLY be used when the officer or another is in "Immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm".........in other words, the Taser should only be deployed in the same situation where one could legally use the firearm...........
Problem solved.
Your option also works, so meh.
Genius
Posts: 785
Location: Red Deer AB
Location: Red Deer AB
May 6th, 2008, 10:43 AM
Not to worry, that is being taken care of.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Judge_...aser_0504.html
Not to worry, that is being taken care of.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Judge_...aser_0504.html
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,589
Location: Saint John, N.B.
Location: Saint John, N.B.
May 6th, 2008, 10:53 AM
Pepper spray is problematic inside, or when the wind is not blowing in the right direction, and it does not incapacitate, only blind and distract.
I have a good friend on the Halifax Police Dep't that was faced with a nut case (excuse my political incorrectness....it won't happen again
) with a sword inside a mall. They could legitimately have shot him. They could NOT approach him. They cornered him, and waited for the guy with the Taser to show up, ZAP problem solved.
Textbook case for the use of a Taser.
Quoting Praxius
Clubs kill as well. And you have to be real close to use them, which might not be a good idea.
Then just remove it completely and resort back to the firearm, clubs and pepper spray and the problem is still solved.
Your option also works, so meh.
Your option also works, so meh.
Pepper spray is problematic inside, or when the wind is not blowing in the right direction, and it does not incapacitate, only blind and distract.
I have a good friend on the Halifax Police Dep't that was faced with a nut case (excuse my political incorrectness....it won't happen again
) with a sword inside a mall. They could legitimately have shot him. They could NOT approach him. They cornered him, and waited for the guy with the Taser to show up, ZAP problem solved.Textbook case for the use of a Taser.
Mass'Debater
Posts: 2,039
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
May 6th, 2008, 11:14 AM
Yeah I heard about him.... I never understood why that knife/sword kiosk was right smack dab near the main entrance of the mall / middle of the hallway.
But of course, they could have just shot the guy in the arm or leg and then the problem's solve too.... and he's got a nice scar for memory-sake.... perhaps some tissue and muscle damage too.... that'll teach him to not be so stupid next time.
Yeah I heard about him.... I never understood why that knife/sword kiosk was right smack dab near the main entrance of the mall / middle of the hallway.
But of course, they could have just shot the guy in the arm or leg and then the problem's solve too.... and he's got a nice scar for memory-sake.... perhaps some tissue and muscle damage too.... that'll teach him to not be so stupid next time.
World Police
Posts: 4,391
Videos: 1
Location: toranna
Videos: 1
Location: toranna
May 6th, 2008, 11:21 AM
I am one of a dozen people or so in the world who have a Taser fetish. Specifically, I enjoy having voltage applied to my genitals for short periods of time.
I am one of a dozen people or so in the world who have a Taser fetish. Specifically, I enjoy having voltage applied to my genitals for short periods of time.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,589
Location: Saint John, N.B.
Location: Saint John, N.B.
May 6th, 2008, 11:40 AM
Open fire in a mall, especially trying to hit an arm or leg?.........NOT a good idea......as well as the fact that shooting someone in the upper leg would be more apt to kill them than a tasering.....the femoral artery you know.
You ONLY fire centre mass with a firearm......which means you always shoot at the centre of what you can see.......in this case, the entire man, so you shoot for the middle of is chest....or you don't shoot. Too much chance of missing or over-penetration.
Quoting Praxius
I am consistently amazed at the number of people that think shooting someone in the arm or leg is easy..........it isn't, not by a long shot. AND you are responsible for the bouncing, ricocheting bullets that miss or pass through...........
Yeah I heard about him.... I never understood why that knife/sword kiosk was right smack dab near the main entrance of the mall / middle of the hallway.
But of course, they could have just shot the guy in the arm or leg and then the problem's solve too.... and he's got a nice scar for memory-sake.... perhaps some tissue and muscle damage too.... that'll teach him to not be so stupid next time.
But of course, they could have just shot the guy in the arm or leg and then the problem's solve too.... and he's got a nice scar for memory-sake.... perhaps some tissue and muscle damage too.... that'll teach him to not be so stupid next time.
Open fire in a mall, especially trying to hit an arm or leg?.........NOT a good idea......as well as the fact that shooting someone in the upper leg would be more apt to kill them than a tasering.....the femoral artery you know.
You ONLY fire centre mass with a firearm......which means you always shoot at the centre of what you can see.......in this case, the entire man, so you shoot for the middle of is chest....or you don't shoot. Too much chance of missing or over-penetration.
Mass'Debater
Posts: 2,039
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
May 6th, 2008, 12:30 PM
http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/police/r203_98.htm
"......A member of a police force must not draw a firearm in the performance of his or her duty unless the member has reasonable grounds for believing it necessary for:
(a) protecting his or her life or the life of another person, or
(b) apprehending or detaining a person whom the member believes to be dangerous.
......A member of a police force must not discharge a firearm in the performance of his or her duty unless the member has reasonable grounds for believing it necessary for one or more of the following purposes:
(a) defending his or her life or the life of another person;
(b) effecting the apprehension of a person whom the member has reasonable grounds to believe is dangerous;
(c) destroying a potentially dangerous animal or one that is so badly injured that humanity requires its release from further suffering;
(d) giving an alarm or calling for assistance for an important purpose;
(e) warning a person in order to gain control of a situation that the member reasonably believes may result, if allowed to continue, in death or serious bodily harm to any person when there is no reasonably foreseeable likelihood of injury or death to an innocent person resulting from the warning shot."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.....Didn't see much on where an officer is supposed to be aiming all the time... and when there is justification for a warning shot in some cases, I think centre-mass aiming isn't the logical choice for this course of action as you seem to imply.
Quoting Colpy
Never said shooting someone in the arm or leg was easier then shooting them in the chest and/or head.... and obviously you don't take a shot at the guy unless it's a clear shot or if he's more so in a corner area of the mall then right in the middle of the hallway surrounded by everybody else..... frig I wasn't saying to get Soviet on their ass.
I am consistently amazed at the number of people that think shooting someone in the arm or leg is easy..........it isn't, not by a long shot. AND you are responsible for the bouncing, ricocheting bullets that miss or pass through...........
Quote:
I'm aware of the arteries in the human body, and if the guys swinging a sword, a deadly weapon, posing a risk to those around him, then his safety and personal desire to live is not any of my concern. You want to swing swords at uniforms pointing guns at you, be my guest.
Open fire in a mall, especially trying to hit an arm or leg?.........NOT a good idea......as well as the fact that shooting someone in the upper leg would be more apt to kill them than a tasering.....the femoral artery you know.
Quote:
Sez who? I have seen countless cases over the years where suspects were shot elsewhere besides the chest area (Or other fatal areas) to disable the threat, but not kill.... usually in cases where the suspect is attempting to suicide by cop.
You ONLY fire centre mass with a firearm......
Quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
which means you always shoot at the centre of what you can see.......in this case, the entire man, so you shoot for the middle of is chest....or you don't shoot. Too much chance of missing or over-penetration.
http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/police/r203_98.htm
"......A member of a police force must not draw a firearm in the performance of his or her duty unless the member has reasonable grounds for believing it necessary for:
(a) protecting his or her life or the life of another person, or
(b) apprehending or detaining a person whom the member believes to be dangerous.
......A member of a police force must not discharge a firearm in the performance of his or her duty unless the member has reasonable grounds for believing it necessary for one or more of the following purposes:
(a) defending his or her life or the life of another person;
(b) effecting the apprehension of a person whom the member has reasonable grounds to believe is dangerous;
(c) destroying a potentially dangerous animal or one that is so badly injured that humanity requires its release from further suffering;
(d) giving an alarm or calling for assistance for an important purpose;
(e) warning a person in order to gain control of a situation that the member reasonably believes may result, if allowed to continue, in death or serious bodily harm to any person when there is no reasonably foreseeable likelihood of injury or death to an innocent person resulting from the warning shot."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.....Didn't see much on where an officer is supposed to be aiming all the time... and when there is justification for a warning shot in some cases, I think centre-mass aiming isn't the logical choice for this course of action as you seem to imply.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,589
Location: Saint John, N.B.
Location: Saint John, N.B.
May 6th, 2008, 02:03 PM
No argument about their right to shoot at the point this guy started waving a sword around......and had he attempted in any serious way to escape the corner they had him in, she was quite willing to shoot him.....as a last resort.
I was branch training officer in NB for Brinks....I taught armed self-defense to armoured car guards......I carried a handgun every working day for 11 years.....and I saw how poorly people shoot on a range at a stationary target. How much less so on the street, at a moving target, when you are under stress. Centre mass is how it is taught, and done........everywhere.
BTW, I haven't heard of police using warning shots in 35 years at least....it is simply not done today, trust me on this one.
No argument about their right to shoot at the point this guy started waving a sword around......and had he attempted in any serious way to escape the corner they had him in, she was quite willing to shoot him.....as a last resort.
I was branch training officer in NB for Brinks....I taught armed self-defense to armoured car guards......I carried a handgun every working day for 11 years.....and I saw how poorly people shoot on a range at a stationary target. How much less so on the street, at a moving target, when you are under stress. Centre mass is how it is taught, and done........everywhere.
BTW, I haven't heard of police using warning shots in 35 years at least....it is simply not done today, trust me on this one.
Mass'Debater
Posts: 2,039
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
May 6th, 2008, 02:51 PM
But it would also seem that the training is different depending on where you go for that training, as your Brinks training doesn't exactly mesh with my own, nor what I've learned through my father via his firearms instructing at CFB Gagetown, New Brunswick when he was teaching new recruits.... then again, my own personal training was limited when it comes to handguns and focused more on long distance/rifles, etc.
I have seen and heard plenty of stories from my father and 1st hand myself of people who just shouldn't be in the possesion of a firearm period..... some people just don't have the proper co-ordination for it. Until they can actually hit a stationary target and then a moving one once that is mastered, then they shouldn't be given any sort of firearm until they can.
But this has kinda gone farther off spectrum then I was planning.... as shooting the guy was more so a joke then serious. I have no issues with Tasers being used as a last resort prior to shooting the guy dead, but not when it comes to people who won't pay a ticket or the toll for the subway, etc.
Then again on a side subject, what does an officer do when the taser doesn't make full contact or if they miss their shot completely? Reloading those things isn't exactly a one second job.
Quoting Colpy
The article I quickly searched for was dated back in 98 I believe and was not an official copy (Changes over time etc.)
No argument about their right to shoot at the point this guy started waving a sword around......and had he attempted in any serious way to escape the corner they had him in, she was quite willing to shoot him.....as a last resort.
I was branch training officer in NB for Brinks....I taught armed self-defense to armoured car guards......I carried a handgun every working day for 11 years.....and I saw how poorly people shoot on a range at a stationary target. How much less so on the street, at a moving target, when you are under stress. Centre mass is how it is taught, and done........everywhere.
BTW, I haven't heard of police using warning shots in 35 years at least....it is simply not done today, trust me on this one.
I was branch training officer in NB for Brinks....I taught armed self-defense to armoured car guards......I carried a handgun every working day for 11 years.....and I saw how poorly people shoot on a range at a stationary target. How much less so on the street, at a moving target, when you are under stress. Centre mass is how it is taught, and done........everywhere.
BTW, I haven't heard of police using warning shots in 35 years at least....it is simply not done today, trust me on this one.
But it would also seem that the training is different depending on where you go for that training, as your Brinks training doesn't exactly mesh with my own, nor what I've learned through my father via his firearms instructing at CFB Gagetown, New Brunswick when he was teaching new recruits.... then again, my own personal training was limited when it comes to handguns and focused more on long distance/rifles, etc.
I have seen and heard plenty of stories from my father and 1st hand myself of people who just shouldn't be in the possesion of a firearm period..... some people just don't have the proper co-ordination for it. Until they can actually hit a stationary target and then a moving one once that is mastered, then they shouldn't be given any sort of firearm until they can.
But this has kinda gone farther off spectrum then I was planning.... as shooting the guy was more so a joke then serious. I have no issues with Tasers being used as a last resort prior to shooting the guy dead, but not when it comes to people who won't pay a ticket or the toll for the subway, etc.
Then again on a side subject, what does an officer do when the taser doesn't make full contact or if they miss their shot completely? Reloading those things isn't exactly a one second job.
Mass'Debater
Posts: 2,039
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
May 7th, 2008, 10:27 AM
Update:
U.S. court ruling on Tasers worries Canadian doctors
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/...ser-court.html
Update:
U.S. court ruling on Tasers worries Canadian doctors
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/...ser-court.html
Quote:
Oh gee..... sue doctors in order to make sure your company and product don't get a bad rep.... good job.
A court ruling in the United States about Tasers is causing concern in Canada's medical community.
The U.S.-based manufacturer of the controversial stun guns, Taser International, has won a court order in Ohio that forces a medical examiner to change autopsy reports.
Dr. Lisa Kohler had found that electrical shocks from Tasers were partially to blame for the deaths of three men in separate confrontations with police.
Taser International launched and won a civil suit, forcing Kohler to delete any reference to the deaths being related to electric shocks, and to term them "accidental deaths."
Dr. Matthew Stanbrook of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) says the decision doesn't take into account the difficult of determining an exact cause of death in almost every case.
"If we were required to have at the level of scientific and medical certainty that something was the cause of death, before we were permitted to declare it, most of the people who died in North America would have died of unknown causes," Stanbrook said.
"It is a physician making their best judgment given all the facts available."
Stanbrook is deputy editor of the CMA Journal, which last week carried an editorial that expressed discontent with the current research into the effects of Taser use on suspects. The editorial said most of that work was done at the behest of Taser International and needed to be verified by independent researchers.
"New and independent research, both epidemiologic and biological, into whether Tasers can kill is essential to settle this issue," the editorial said.
Doctors and medical examiners in the United States have also expressed unease over the Ohio court decision.
Dr. Jeff Jentzen of the National Association of Medical Examiners said the case could affect other autopsy results.
"The physician shouldn't be threatened by individual companies attempting to preserve the reputation of their project," Jentzen said.
Taser International CEO Rick Smith told CBC News in January that medical examiners had to be sure of their facts because if they made what he called a careless opinion, they will be held accountable in court.
In submissions to the court in Ohio, Taser International said 68 wrongful-death or injury lawsuits involving Taser use have been dismissed or found in favour of the company.
The U.S.-based manufacturer of the controversial stun guns, Taser International, has won a court order in Ohio that forces a medical examiner to change autopsy reports.
Dr. Lisa Kohler had found that electrical shocks from Tasers were partially to blame for the deaths of three men in separate confrontations with police.
Taser International launched and won a civil suit, forcing Kohler to delete any reference to the deaths being related to electric shocks, and to term them "accidental deaths."
Dr. Matthew Stanbrook of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) says the decision doesn't take into account the difficult of determining an exact cause of death in almost every case.
"If we were required to have at the level of scientific and medical certainty that something was the cause of death, before we were permitted to declare it, most of the people who died in North America would have died of unknown causes," Stanbrook said.
"It is a physician making their best judgment given all the facts available."
Stanbrook is deputy editor of the CMA Journal, which last week carried an editorial that expressed discontent with the current research into the effects of Taser use on suspects. The editorial said most of that work was done at the behest of Taser International and needed to be verified by independent researchers.
"New and independent research, both epidemiologic and biological, into whether Tasers can kill is essential to settle this issue," the editorial said.
Doctors and medical examiners in the United States have also expressed unease over the Ohio court decision.
Dr. Jeff Jentzen of the National Association of Medical Examiners said the case could affect other autopsy results.
"The physician shouldn't be threatened by individual companies attempting to preserve the reputation of their project," Jentzen said.
Taser International CEO Rick Smith told CBC News in January that medical examiners had to be sure of their facts because if they made what he called a careless opinion, they will be held accountable in court.
In submissions to the court in Ohio, Taser International said 68 wrongful-death or injury lawsuits involving Taser use have been dismissed or found in favour of the company.
