Man dies after Taser shock by police at Vancouver airport

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
28,041
10,465
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Mounties obstructed efforts to save Dziekanski: firefighter

Prax.....I know where you're coming from, and I agree with you, but Cannuck is
correct on this one. On most Law Enforcement "use of force" tables, a Tazer isn't
listed as the last resort before lethal force. That's a part of the problem.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
It's not that the training standards are lax. It is that the hiring standards are lax. The RCMP are forced to hire people today that would never have been considered 30 years ago. Obviously, training "standards" have to be "standardized". 30 years ago a cop would have pulled out his billy club, ordered the guy down to the ground. If he didn't comply he would get smacked. Today, and because of the legal requirements to hire 90 pound weaklings into the RCMP, cops are taught to get out of control situations under control asap. Police have tasered drunk drivers trying to run away (contradicting Praxius assertion that it is a last resort before shooting).

Just because they use it for that situation, doesn't make it right.... what the hell is wrong with you?

I suppose you think it was acceptable for that officer who tasered someone for jumping the subway entry a few months ago too? Where was the danger in that?

Back to your drunk example, you're going to tell me that these police officers couldn't out run and take down a drunk?

How bad are these cops anyways?

The Recruitment standards are more lax? Me thinks not..... it has everything to do with training, you even said it yourself ffs.

You said they did the right thing and that they were only following what they were trained to do..... which of course was the wrong thing..... and now here you are back peddling, claiming that it's got nothing to do with their training but the people hired....

.... jesus man, you flip flop more then a mexican jumping bean.

I was at a recent Disaster Services table top exercise when an RCMP officer informed everyone that she would taser anybody that refused to leave their home when ordered to evacuate because "they were putting people at risk by staying".

And does that make her right?

*Makes slow head motion* Nooooo..... she's screwed in the head too. It is not supposed to be used like that. It is not supposed to be used as a "Do as I say or I Taz you bro" and the people who think it is.... once again, don't have the proper training and lack the abilities to do their job right, esspecially when they will resort to using a taser so often so situations that do not warrent it.

The bureaucrats have forced the RCMP (as well as others) to lower hiring standards due to human rights concerns.

What human rights concerns?

List them off for me.... by all means, fill me with your vast knowlege, or is this another point where you tell me to "Google" it?

This lower standard has caused the RCMP to alter their training to accommodate these people. Don't blame the officers. Don't blame the RCMP. Blame political correctness.

What a load of sh*t.... if anything, the standards have become more strict because of "Political Correctness" (ie: reduction of sexual harassment in the workforce, equality, etc.)

You're making it sound like they're just letting any random crack head into the forces. You preach on about your first hand experience of being at some disaster service or whatever and heard some RCMP officer brag about using their tazer so often and with little care...... well I know plenty of RCMP officers first hand who I have respect for and are not that stupid.

And that's the thing.... there are smart people and really dumb people in every section of employment in the world..... RCMP officers are not all masterful and perfect, and not all of them are dumb ass high school border-line drop outs, but whenever any of them screw up and make the wrong decisions.... they all should be held accountable.

You can't sit there and tell me it has nothing to do with their training, after you just explained a couple of your examples of officers using the taser in an Inappropriate fashion based on their "Training."
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Prax.....I know where you're coming from, and I agree with you, but Cannuck is
correct on this one. On most Law Enforcement "use of force" tables, a Tazer isn't
listed as the last resort before lethal force. That's a part of the problem.

The problem as I see it, is that there hasn't been any procedures designed in regards to the use of tasers, but that shouldn't give those who abuse the thing a free ticket. Officers should still be held accountable for their decisions and actions, regardless of if they were just following orders or not..... not every situation can be solved simply by following procedure (or lack of) and requires these officers to use their brains..... and if they're just going to act like robots and just simple do everything according to procedure (or lack of) then they should be held accountable.

In the above case of the airport situation, the medics requested that the officers remove the handcuffs so they could perform medical treatment on the patient. They refused to do so, claiming that he was being violent (Which he wasn't).... even though he was no longer breathing, his heart stopped, was clearly no threat to anybody and needed medical treatment right then and there.

Ignoring the tasering details for a second, their actions and decision not to remove the cuffs when requested by the medical team should be enough grounds to hold them accountable for his death, it shows poor judgement on their behalf and are not fit to remain as officers of the law, as they lack the confidence required for that position.

Right or wrong, that's what I believe imo.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
It's not that the training standards are lax. It is that the hiring standards are lax. The RCMP are forced to hire people today that would never have been considered 30 years ago. Obviously, training "standards" have to be "standardized". 30 years ago a cop would have pulled out his billy club, ordered the guy down to the ground. If he didn't comply he would get smacked. Today, and because of the legal requirements to hire 90 pound weaklings into the RCMP, cops are taught to get out of control situations under control asap. Police have tasered drunk drivers trying to run away (contradicting Praxius assertion that it is a last resort before shooting). I was at a recent Disaster Services table top exercise when an RCMP officer informed everyone that she would taser anybody that refused to leave their home when ordered to evacuate because "they were putting people at risk by staying".

The bureaucrats have forced the RCMP (as well as others) to lower hiring standards due to human rights concerns. This lower standard has caused the RCMP to alter their training to accommodate these people. Don't blame the officers. Don't blame the RCMP. Blame political correctness.

The only thing I would add is that the R.C.M.P.s job description includes many things that could be handled by "90 lb. weaklings"- like investigative work or dealing with young juvenile delinquents, but definitely work that could include the use of a taser should be handled by big skookum fellas.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
I guess this comes back to, was this guy beyond the abilities of these four Officers
to control him without Tazering him three times, subsequently killing him? Dziekanski
DID have a stapler in his hand so he was armed and dangerous. I wonder if anyone
has kept statistics as to just how many Law Enforcement Officers are killed in the line
of duty every year with hand staplers? I'd assume it's a very small number....8O

I'll go out on a limb and hazard a guess- ZERO.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
28,041
10,465
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Mounties obstructed efforts to save Dziekanski: firefighter

I think part of what Cannuck was getting at was, so as not to prejudice against
somebody based upon physical size, gender, etc, etc, etc...that hiring standards
had to be modified to be compliant to non-prejudicial hiring standards. If I'm
wrong, I'm pretty sure I'll be corrected shortly.

Forty years ago you could count the number of 5'4" 120lb Law enforcement
Officers on the number of thumbs located on the average persons elbow.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
Just because they use it for that situation, doesn't make it right.... what the hell is wrong with you?

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'm not arguing against the rightness or wrongness of what occurred. I'm simply pointing out that any blame should not be directed at the officers. They followed their training.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
You said they did the right thing and that they were only following what they were trained to do

Sorry, you are mistaken. That is not what I have said. Nowhere have I said they did the right thing. I have said they followed their training. One could argue that following their training is "the right thing to do", however as in other threads, I am simply making an observation and you are reading more into it than you need to. It's probably due to the drugs.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
.

Forty years ago you could count the number of 5'4" 120lb Law enforcement
Officers on the number of thumbs located on the average persons elbow.

But how many of these officers were small or (GASP!) women? It's true, the RCMP used to have stricter physical guidelines which included restrictions on things like height. But, when these taser incidents come up, I rarely see a really small officer. They seem like they were big enough to take down an angry Polish traveller fairly easily, especially considering there were 4 of them. Police are still taught how to take someone down without a taser. My brother finished his training about 5 years ago and has been working since then without ever using one. Do you think he's never dealt with an irate person in those 5 years on the job?

This whole thing is very sad. I think that man was absolutely stupid to lose it like he did, but the price for that shouldn't have been tasering him until he was dead. Those officers are a disgrace.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
28,041
10,465
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Mounties obstructed efforts to save Dziekanski: firefighter

But how many of these officers were small or (GASP!) women? It's true, the RCMP used to have stricter physical guidelines which included restrictions on things like height. But, when these taser incidents come up, I rarely see a really small officer. They seem like they were big enough to take down an angry Polish traveller fairly easily, especially considering there were 4 of them. Police are still taught how to take someone down without a taser. My brother finished his training about 5 years ago and has been working since then without ever using one. Do you think he's never dealt with an irate person in those 5 years on the job?

This whole thing is very sad. I think that man was absolutely stupid to lose it like he did, but the price for that shouldn't have been tasering him until he was dead. Those officers are a disgrace.


In this case, none. You pulled ONE sentence out of a string of posts by several
people...and the context is missing. I'll sum it up. The context was about training
now being different than it was in the past with different hiring policies currently
that do not discriminate based on ethnic origin, gender, physical size, etc...That
was the train of the conversation that you pulled ONE sentence from. Of these
four officers, none of them was physically small or (GASP!) women. The
discussion was the Use of Force table and where a Taser fit into it, and why.

Police are still taught how to take down a person without a Taser, and they are
also taught a Use Of Force Continuum. Talking to a person, and then physical
intimidation and empty hands wrist&arm locks come before any use of a baton
or Taser or pepper spray or even a physical take down, let along lethal force. Ask
your brother about this. Factors to also be taken into account on a Use Of Force
Continuum are the age, sex, size, skill, relative strength of the officer(s) and their
subject(s), as well as the accounting for multiple subjects and officers.

I think what happened to Robert Dziekanski is utterly despicable, with no excuse
what so ever for these four large, armoured, intimidating thugs to have assaulted
and ultimately executed this man to satisfy a power trip and a need to play with
their toys. Common sense, pointing to the chairs in the background as a universal
indication to sit, and sending one of the officers to get this confused man a cup of
coffee would have diffused this situation. I agree with you in that these officers are
a disgrace.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
___Agree ,let,s start......
________The "pathetic" describes the silence and in action of the public .
That's a pathetic comment, China, the public have been squawking about this since it happened. What else would you expect the public to do .... go buy tasers and zap the cops till they, too, are dead? Or perhaps raise Dziekanski from the dead?
You definitely have a point about the cowardice of these policemen, though. 4 "trained" RCMP with firearms and tasers seem to be barely a match for an untrained guy armed with a computer monitor.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'm not arguing against the rightness or wrongness of what occurred. I'm simply pointing out that any blame should not be directed at the officers. They followed their training.

I have never seen training or attitudes like that around the officers I know, and if the medic who told his case said they acted unprofessionally and hinder his ability to help the patient..... someone who I imagine has worked with other officers in the past, I'd have to believe him.

CBC News In Depth: Tasers

When do police officers use Tasers? What are the rules of engagement?

Police follow the standard use-of-force framework, which outlines when certain approaches are warranted. But, an RCMP officer can use his or her own discretion to decide when to deploy a Taser, according to Cpl. Gillis.

"What we generally suggest is if it's a situation where O.C. spray, or pepper spray, would be appropriate for use, and that usually means I'm demonstrating some sort of combative or assault-like behaviour … that might be an appropriate choice for a Taser."

Const. George Schuurman, of the Toronto Police Service's public information department, also said there were no blanket guidelines. An officer would assess the situation based on their training, and use their judgment, he said.

Officers would also look at the environment, and if using pepper spray could possibly injure people nearby, or, for example, be sucked into the ventilation system and hurt innocent bystanders, Gillis said.

And, he added, there are three groups of people that pepper spray may fail to subdue: 1) people suffering from a mental health crisis; 2) people determined to charge/inflict harm; and 3) people under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The main mechanism of pepper spray, pain, may not stop these types of individuals from continuing combative behaviours, Gillis said. Since a Taser immobilizes them, it's the better option, he said.

"A general rule of thumb is maybe three times. But, it's like any other tool. If I spray you with [pepper] spray and it doesn't work, try a second application … but if you're confident that, 'Yup, I'm getting [pepper] spray all over,' and he's somebody that's working through it, then transition to something else. Go to a different technique."

As well, RCMP officers are required to report every time the Taser is used and must justify its application, Gillis said. Officers must also report an incident if the mention of a Taser — such as an officer saying, "I'm going to use a Taser" — causes an individual to calm down their behaviour, Gillis said.

^ So they're supposed to use their own judgement of the situation where using a taser is warrented. They suggest that is someone is being combative or assault-like behavior.

He did not attack anybody, he was not threatening anybody, he did not oppose the officers and had his hands up most of the time. He had a stapler in his hand at a period of time, but are you going to tell me he was going to attack a police officer with a stapler and actually do any real harm? He didn't attack anybody period before during or after the officers arrived..... there was no warrent for the use of the taser and the officer made a very poor judgement call and should be held accountable for it because it resulted in the death of this man.

As it states above, they are supposed to rely on their judgement and their training.... therefore both are directly involved in this situation.

It also states that the officer must justify their reasons for deploying a taser.....

did this happen?

Sorry, you are mistaken. That is not what I have said. Nowhere have I said they did the right thing. I have said they followed their training. One could argue that following their training is "the right thing to do", however as in other threads, I am simply making an observation and you are reading more into it than you need to. It's probably due to the drugs.

Keep up with the personal attacks you fukin troll, see what happens.

You claimed they were following their training, which I just clearly laid out to you that you were wrong. Whether or not you openly say they did the right thing or not, or your simply playing devil's advocate, through this whole time you have been implying that they were following their training, therefore they shouldn't be charged and should get away with manslaughter.... therefore to avoid legal action, they did the right thing.... word it any other way you want, that's what you are implying.

It's obviously not the right thing, that's what I have been saying, and regardless of their training or lack there of, regardless if you feel they were justified in their use of the taser which killed him.... they should be charged and real justice should be applied.

If they are guilty, so be it.

If they are not, so be it..... but these officers should have no right to avoid any form of investigation apon their own actions and answers should be sought.

This isn't a case of someone getting a bloody nose while being arrested, this is somebody who died at the hands of the RCMP and the airport and the only people it would seem who actually took time to try to help were other civilians at the airport who actually walked up to him and tried to talk.

The Security tried to talk for about 3 seconds and walked away, then the officers came along and lingered around for a few seconds and then surrounded him, tasered him, jumped him, handcuffed him, and then he was dead.

Does this seem like a situation that has all the answers given?

No.

Do you think we're ever going to get any of the answers if these cops never face any legal questioning and simply just get to walk away from the whole mess?

Why do I care?

Because if this ever happens to you, or me, or anybody else in a similar situation, wouldn't you want people to make sure the truth got out and proper justice was served on those who did it to you?

This isn't the wild west anymore.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
Police are still taught how to take down a person without a Taser, and they are
also taught a Use Of Force Continuum. Talking to a person, and then physical
intimidation and empty hands wrist&arm locks come before any use of a baton
or Taser or pepper spray or even a physical take down, let along lethal force. Ask
your brother about this. Factors to also be taken into account on a Use Of Force
Continuum are the age, sex, size, skill, relative strength of the officer(s) and their
subject(s), as well as the accounting for multiple subjects and officers.

That was my point. The training isn't all that different. My dad did his in the 60s and he and my brother talk all the time of all the same things they learned (trust me, it's EXTREMELY boring for me or anyone else at the dinner table). The only difference seems to be in my dad's time you could hit someone for being a jackass without worrying about getting sued and tasers didn't exist. Although they now exist, most officers don't carry one. Like I said, my brother doesn't. No one in their detachment does.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
I have never seen training or attitudes like that around the officers I know, and if the medic who told his case said they acted unprofessionally and hinder his ability to help the patient..... someone who I imagine has worked with other officers in the past, I'd have to believe him.

Of course you would. I'm not surprised you would accept someones opinion that validates yours as the truth.

quote=Praxius;1044740]CBC News In Depth: Tasers[/quote]

I don't care what the police say publicly on this matter. What they say behind closed doors is far more important. Do you actually expect the police leadership to come out and say "We can only work with what we are given"? They have to cover their own asses without appearing to be too critical of their members.

Keep up with the personal attacks you fukin troll, see what happens.

Well, well, well...it would appear that you would be "the pot"

You claimed they were following their training, which I just clearly laid out to you that you were wrong.

No! You only believe you have clearly laid out that I was wrong.

therefore they shouldn't be charged and should get away with manslaughter.... therefore to avoid legal action,

Yes

they did the right thing

No

.... word it any other way you want, that's what you are implying.

If you say so but, you are a self professed druggie so obviously, I (for one) wouldn't put a lot of stock in your skills of comprehension.

but these officers should have no right to avoid any form of investigation apon their own actions and answers should be sought.

That is what has been happening. So what is your problem.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
I always like to point out that this is a weapon which is considered so brutal, so useful only for subjugating other people to pain, that the everyday citizen of Canada is prohibited from possessing one. Police know this.

You would think that this would send the message that it should only be used in the most dire of situation. If a bouncer can't use one when he has to kick out an unruly drunk, if a woman can't carry one around when she has to work late at night in a darkly lit neighbourhood, if it is not ok to carry one around to protect yourself from getting mugged, maybe it should really only be used in the most dire of situations.

They know this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
I don't care what the police say publicly on this matter. What they say behind closed doors is far more important. Do you actually expect the police leadership to come out and say "We can only work with what we are given"? They have to cover their own asses without appearing to be too critical of their members.

Which is wrong and people like that should be hung by their balls.

Well, well, well...it would appear that you would be "the pot"

Oh yeah, cuz those jokes have been funny the first time around, let alone the 12th time around.... keep it up then..... making jokes over something you're completely ignorant and have no clue about seems to be a common reaction of yours to some how sound smart within your own level of stupidity.

So long as you're happy in your little bubble of ignorance, who am I to argue..... but continually trying to make jokes at my expense in reference to one form of narcotic having some serious reaction to my ability to understand things a hell of a lot better then you over another such as alcohol (Which kills more brain cells when compared..... oh, but you wouldn't remember that because you already killed most of them off you fk'n lush.)

There.... wow... see how funny it is? It's not... it sounds stupid..... thus, maybe you should figure out how stupid you sound when you do it.

then again, perhaps your age handicaps your ability to deal with such things in a mature manner. Don't worry, once all the hair grows down there, life only gets worse.

No! You only believe you have clearly laid out that I was wrong.

OOOooooooHhhhhhhhh...... ok..... I only believe that you're wrong..... when in fact you're not?

Oh that must be because you have flip flopped your positions so many damn times already to cover your ass in just about every position of argument, and perhaps the reason why you're not wrong, is because you don't know how to stick to one position or another when things get tough, so you try and twist your words around and rephrase what you actually meant, as if you tried to put everything into a neat little riddle as if you done something smart.

I'd lay it all out for you, but like the above information, you'll avoid it all together and throw out some other pot joke to cover your ass and deny, deny away that perhaps for once you don't know wtf you're talking about.... even though you try to make yourself sound like you do.

It ain't working. It didn't work in the other thread about the basketball team, it ain't working here.

But then again, maybe you're just here for your own entertainment of argument.


There, see that wasn't so hard to do was it?

You just completely countered what you claimed above about saying you had no position on if they did the right or wrong thing, but just followed training.

Thanks for proving my point and wasting my time.


Sorry, you can't have it both ways.... did they do the right thing to avoid legal action or not? Yes or no?

You can't fragment a sentence to suit what you want it to mean and exclude what the entire meaning was about.... it makes you look foolish.

If you say so but, you are a self professed druggie so obviously, I (for one) wouldn't put a lot of stock in your skills of comprehension.

I'm not the dumbass who just above tried to take one sentence and re-word it into two different meanings to suit what I wanted it to suit like the idiot you are.

I wouldn't expect you to put a lot of stock in anybody's skills of comprehension, since you have your own problems of comprehension which is showing through with full color. Clearly your level of ignorance and petty mentality has no bounds since you'll stick to the same stupid side track personal insults a typical troll clings onto when they're losing in a debate.

Like I said, keep it up, your petty crap isn't going to make a difference to me, you're not going to affect me, I've dealt with bigger idiots then you, and if you want to keep going down the personal insult path, I'll shove it all right back in your face until you're willing to grow the hell up.

Until that time, you can shove your stupidity square up your ass sideways and twist in a counter-clockwise motion.

That is what has been happening. So what is your problem.

:roll: My god you're an idiot.

There is no proper investigation and no answers in regards to their actions will ever be found unless they are charged and investigated for their actions the way they should be.

This is not what is happening, that is the problem.

2 + 2 = 4.... it isn't that difficult to understand wiz-brain..... oh wait I forgot... you have problems with simple things, lash out with corney pot jokes and only seem to listen to a conversation that degrades to petty insults.

My mistake, here's a cookie and a tootsie pop..... go play in the corner with your circle of paper and crayon..... make a big pretty balloon, I'm sure your mommy will be proud.

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

There.... happy? Got all that crap out of your system yet and able to continue with a grown up discussion or are you wanting to continue this pile of crap?