Man dies after Taser shock by police at Vancouver airport

[L Gilbert]

I agree, but who? Maybe with all the digital cameras being packed around these days, a lot of the problem cases will get sorted out. Short of the Pope, it would be hard to find anyone suitable, and then that probably wouldn't even work given all the activity going on in the Catholic run schools.

Canada doesn't have any investigators outside the RCMP? Lemme see, there are municipal investigators, private investigators, investigative journalists, etc.

 

[L Gilbert]

Here we digress, Barney, I've dealt with them several times on different issues- always found them to be concerned and understanding even when the problem was beyond their scope.

I agree. On the whole, they are of more help than harm by a long shot. (scuse the pun)

 

[L Gilbert]

RCMP are ( or were) trained to take down suspects wihout the use of deadly force.
1 relatively untrained guy armed with office equipment is a match for 4 trained and relatively heavily armed men? It is inane.

 

[Ron in Regina]

No charges for RCMP in airport Tasering: Report

Good decision. I read the report. Lots of police haters here. The police should not have been charged. The taser was not the cause of death - as usual. But most Canadians are such wimps that when a police officer uses force they whimper and whine and cry police brutality. Very simple. He brought his own death upon himself. The police are in no way to blame. If he was in any other country he would have been shot dead. Stop being such cry babies!

Only the Canadians that live to tell about the force used by a police officer whimper
& whine and cry police brutality. The dead ones tend to 'man up' and keep quiet
about what happened to them. Those that live through something like this really are
such cry babies...and should learn from the example set by the dead, right?

There are many GREAT police officers out there, but it's the ones that aren't that are
causing the outrage. Those officers that assult or murder the non-criminal population
using a weapon like a Taser as a compliance tool for illegal orders should be punished
just like the rest of society...and not investigated and found innocent routinely by the
very police force they're employed by.

I don't hate the police, but I'm bright enough to see that there are some very bad apples
out there wearing badges, protected by very powerfull unions, and a crazy system that
allows them to investigate their own when crimes against the general population are
committed. Look at Montreal recently. Look at Greece right now. This perception of
hatered is really a symptom of frustration with the things I'm pointing out. The system had
better change, and very soon, before this boil on the backside of justice comes to a head,
...and pops.

For perspective. If Revenue Canada suspected you of Income Tax Fraud, would they
ask you to audit yourself, and whatever result you came up with would get their rubber
stamp and be good enough without and further inquiry? I really doubt this would happen,
but that's what is allowed with Law Enforcement, and the rubber stamp being a Public
Complaints Commission. No wonder People are outraged.

 

[Tyr]

The report reflecting the decision said he was armed.....he picked up a stapler!!!!!

Okay, fine.

How many times did they taser him? Was it 5?????

One of the officers alledgedly was heard asking "Can I taser him?" before they were even in sight of the man.

FOUR cops. Gimme a break. I guess being a Nervous Nellie is part of the requirement for the PC RCMP nowadays......

This entire thing is ludicrous........

The RCMP has never been accused of being Mensa material. The cops that pull airport duty are ususually the rookies and the over the hill gang.

It's supposed to keep them out of trouble..... Guess not.

 

[Francis2004]

Shouldn't that be 'regular gun used properly'?
If the electric model is considered non-lethal why can't everybody pack 1 (not concealed, it would have to be visible just so you couldn't provoke somebody to take a swing at you just so you could 'defend' yourself.)?

Sorry, meant it correctly "regular gun misused"..

Gun used as in misused. Gun used to disable someone but kills them instead..

 

[Ron in Regina]

No charges for RCMP in airport Tasering: Report

The RCMP has never been accused of being Mensa material. The cops that pull airport duty are ususually the rookies and the over the hill gang.

It's supposed to keep them out of trouble..... Guess not.

Not so much for the folks on the receiving end of their lack of experience
or the position of last stop on the way out the door, if your statement is
indeed accurate.

 

[Tyr]

Not so much for the folks on the receiving end of their lack of experience
or the position of last stop on the way out the door, if your statement is
indeed accurate.

Next time you go to the airport, look at the cops. Some of them don't even look old enough to shave , while others are basically "napping."

 

[Colpy]

Sorry, meant it correctly "regular gun misused"..

Gun used as in misused. Gun used to disable someone but kills them instead..

Forgive me, but I have to correct a common misconception.......police officers and others that legally carry guns never shoot to wound or to disable someone.

They shoot to stop.

In other words, if you are in a legal position to use lethal force, it is important that you stop your opponent's actions as quickly as possible. Whether they live or die is immaterial, and not the officer's concern.....the only concern to to stop their opponent. The quickest way is to fire carefully and repeatedly at "centre mass", which means the centre of the body mass exposed by the bad guy. If standing straight on, that means the middle of the chest.

Nothing else is acceptable. Period.

 

[shadowshiv]

Forgive me, but I have to correct a common misconception.......police officers and others that legally carry guns never shoot to wound or to disable someone.

They shoot to stop.

In other words, if you are in a legal position to use lethal force, it is important that you stop your opponent's actions as quickly as possible. the quickest way is to fire carefully and repeatedly at "centre mass", which means the centre of the body mass exposed by the bad guy. If standing straight on, that means the middle of the chest.

Nothing else is acceptable. Period.

Exactly, Colpy. Life isn't like the movies where you see someone shoot the weapon from the bad guy's hand. Also, a person can die just as easily from a wound to the leg or arm as they can to a wound in the chest. All you need to do is hit an artery and it's game over.

 

[L Gilbert]

Forgive me, but I have to correct a common misconception.......police officers and others that legally carry guns never shoot to wound or to disable someone.

They shoot to stop.

In other words, if you are in a legal position to use lethal force, it is important that you stop your opponent's actions as quickly as possible. Whether they live or die is immaterial, and not the officer's concern.....the only concern to to stop their opponent. The quickest way is to fire carefully and repeatedly at "centre mass", which means the centre of the body mass exposed by the bad guy. If standing straight on, that means the middle of the chest.

Nothing else is acceptable. Period.

Yeah. And if they are shooting with a firearm, then they are most likely saving everyone including the perp from the inconvenience of silly things like legal wrangling in the courts.

In this fellows instance, the punishment for being justifiably unruly was death. Personally I would have left the airport and sought help elsewhere because there was obviously no help available there. But then I was not the one frustrated and unfamiliar with the language, people, rules, and country as the deceased was.

 

[Tyr]

Forgive me, but I have to correct a common misconception.......police officers and others that legally carry guns never shoot to wound or to disable someone.

They shoot to stop.

In other words, if you are in a legal position to use lethal force, it is important that you stop your opponent's actions as quickly as possible. Whether they live or die is immaterial, and not the officer's concern.....the only concern to to stop their opponent. The quickest way is to fire carefully and repeatedly at "centre mass", which means the centre of the body mass exposed by the bad guy. If standing straight on, that means the middle of the chest.

Nothing else is acceptable. Period.

You watch far too much late night "B" movies. Ask a cop if he agrees with you. I have and showed him your post. He laughed

 

[shadowshiv]

You watch far too much late night "B" movies. Ask a cop if he agrees with you. I have and showed him your post. He laughed

My dad is a retired police officer. He would agree with Colpy.

 

[JLM]

Good decision. I read the report. Lots of police haters here. The police should not have been charged. The taser was not the cause of death - as usual. But most Canadians are such wimps that when a police officer uses force they whimper and whine and cry police brutality. Very simple. He brought his own death upon himself. The police are in no way to blame. If he was in any other country he would have been shot dead. Stop being such cry babies!

I'd beg to differ with you slightly- given the circumstances the cops were at fault BUT if the staff at the airport had been acting responsibly (after all they do have about 14,0l00 employees), the man would have been calmed down and connected with his mother and there would have been no necessity to call the cops.

 

[Francis2004]

Forgive me, but I have to correct a common misconception.......police officers and others that legally carry guns never shoot to wound or to disable someone.

They shoot to stop.

In other words, if you are in a legal position to use lethal force, it is important that you stop your opponent's actions as quickly as possible. Whether they live or die is immaterial, and not the officer's concern.....the only concern to to stop their opponent. The quickest way is to fire carefully and repeatedly at "centre mass", which means the centre of the body mass exposed by the bad guy. If standing straight on, that means the middle of the chest.

Nothing else is acceptable. Period.

Again, one more time.. Where did I ever say the Gun was used to "shoot" ?

"I agree that a Taser ( Stun Gun ) is a lethal as a baton or regular gun misused. "

Using a Gun can be used in many way.. The weapon can be used as a Blunt object.. Regardless of whether you want to accept the fact that it "must be used" as a firing object, it can be used in other means..

Are we making more out of a darn statement then discussing the Stun Gun.. Are you that freaking stubborn as to not be able to see things outside the circumstances..

OK the Darn Gun cannot be used for any other thing then shooting people so NEVER EVER Run out of bullets or try to protect someones life by not shooting him.. :angryfire:

 

[Colpy]

Again, one more time.. Where did I ever say the Gun was used to "shoot" ?

"I agree that a Taser ( Stun Gun ) is a lethal as a baton or regular gun misused. "

Using a Gun can be used in many way.. The weapon can be used as a Blunt object.. Regardless of whether you want to accept the fact that it "must be used" as a firing object, it can be used in other means..

Are we making more out of a darn statement then discussing the Stun Gun.. Are you that freaking stubborn as to not be able to see things outside the circumstances..

OK the Darn Gun cannot be used for any other thing then shooting people so NEVER EVER Run out of bullets or try to protect someones life by not shooting him.. :angryfire:

Sorry Sir Francis....I did not mean to offend....but I used to train armoured car guards in the use of firearms for self-defence. Shooting at arms or legs means misses.....bullets bouncing around God-knows-where.....you are responsible for every round fired, so they damn well better wind up in the target....not going through an arm or missing completely and hitting an innocent.

You do not hit people with your handgun, I don;t care what you see in the movies.......

There is only one reason to shoot someone.....if you or another is in danger of death or grievous bodily harm from that person......so when you shoot, mean it, shoot to stop.....or don't shoot. There is no middle ground.

 

[Francis2004]

Sorry Sir Francis....I did not mean to offend....but I used to train armoured car guards in the use of firearms for self-defence. Shooting at arms or legs means misses.....bullets bouncing around God-knows-where.....you are responsible for every round fired, so they damn well better wind up in the target....not going through an arm or missing completely and hitting an innocent.

You do not hit people with your handgun, I don;t care what you see in the movies.......

There is only one reason to shoot someone.....if you or another is in danger of death or grievous bodily harm from that person......so when you shoot, mean it, shoot to stop.....or don't shoot. There is no middle ground.

Movies you say................ Fact I say........

RCMP’s Bush investigation requires impartial inquiry

The case of Ian Bush, who died while in police custody, should lead us all to one inescapable conclusion: The RCMP cannot be allowed to investigate themselves.
The inquest into Bush’s death has given us a glimpse into the unique process the RCMP uses to investigate one of its own. The fact that Mr. Bush was killed is tragic. The way the RCMP conducted their investigation into his death is cause for alarm.

Ian Bush was just 22 in 2005 when he was shot in the back of the head by a rookie RCMP officer in Houston, B.C.


The officer stopped Bush outside the local hockey arena because he had an open beer. When the cop asked his name, the young millworker jokingly gave a fake one.
Bush hadn’t had any serious brushes with the law. He lived with his mom, helped her pay the mortgage and paid part of his sister’s college tuition too.
He wasn’t pleased when Const. Paul Koester arrested him for his small transgressions that night. According to witnesses, the two exchanged words, but there was no hint of violence. Unfortunately, there are no witnesses to what happened next. The two were alone at the station when 20 minutes after they arrived, Bush was killed.


Const. Koester tells it this way: He was releasing the young man when Bush attacked. He wrestled Koester face down onto the couch, lay on top of him and started strangling him.


Koester says he was on the verge of passing out when he managed to reach around to his holster and grab his gun.

He somehow got his arm behind Bush’s head, before slamming his gun into the back of his head three times and shooting him dead.


An independent blood-spatter expert, who is also an Edmonton police officer, told the inquest it would have been “physically impossible” to create the blood stains found at the scene if Koester had been underneath Bush.


He says it’s more likely that Koester was on top, holding Bush down, when the gun went off. That testimony isn’t the only thing that will undermine public confidence in the investigation.


The RCMP gave Const. Koester 18 days to consult his lawyers about his version of events before they got his carefully-prepared statement.
Then, they gave him a further three months before interviewing him about it. And before that, they supplied Koester with a list of the questions they intended to ask. So there weren’t too many surprises.


It’s not exactly the kind of interrogation you’d expect in a case where a man took a deadly bullet in the back of the head. But it is exactly the kind of investigation that the RCMP have become well known for when it comes to one of their own.
Ian Bush is dead. His family deserves the answers that can only come from an independent inquiry into how the investigation was handled. That at least might give them some peace.


The rest of us deserve the peace of mind that can only come from knowing the RCMP is no longer accorded the privilege of investigating itself.

Christy Clark - The Official Website » RCMP’s Bush investigation requires impartial inquiry

I have heard of other similar stories, but none that have made news such as this.. Of course the police usually do not discuss using their guns in this fashion..

It may not be policy, but hey, since when do people follow all rules when fighting for their lives ?

 

[Colpy]

Movies you say................ Fact I say........



Christy Clark - The Official Website » RCMP’s Bush investigation requires impartial inquiry

I have heard of other similar stories, but none that have made news such as this.. Of course the police usually do not discuss using their guns in this fashion..

It may not be policy, but hey, since when do people follow all rules when fighting for their lives ?

True enough.....

 

[MHz]

Sorry Sir Francis....I did not mean to offend....but I used to train armoured car guards in the use of firearms for self-defence. Shooting at arms or legs means misses.....bullets bouncing around God-knows-where.....you are responsible for every round fired, so they damn well better wind up in the target....not going through an arm or missing completely and hitting an innocent.

You do not hit people with your handgun, I don;t care what you see in the movies.......

There is only one reason to shoot someone.....if you or another is in danger of death or grievous bodily harm from that person......so when you shoot, mean it, shoot to stop.....or don't shoot. There is no middle ground.

And remember boys and girls, killing someone because 'they needed killing' was taken off the books as far as civilians are concerned some time back.

 

[VanIsle]

The RCMP has never been accused of being Mensa material. The cops that pull airport duty are ususually the rookies and the over the hill gang.

It's supposed to keep them out of trouble..... Guess not.

Like some damn fool like you would know! People never know how stupid a person is until they open their mouth. You should refrain from speaking on yet another topic you know nothing about.:roll: