Man dies after Taser shock by police at Vancouver airport

[Praxius]

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.

Indeed, just because a manufacturer claims their product is safe, our police forces or government should have had their own independant studies made long before they made it into the hands of officers.

they too should be held accountable for the current situation.

There is a clear distinction between when there is warrant to use a taser and when other approaches should be taken beforehand. Regardless of technical issues of them not laying out proper procedures based on proper studies, justice should be served for what was an obviously questionable situation and answers sought in order to prevent this sort of thing from continuing on.

Just letting these guys walk away from the situation and then looking into what happened to prevent it from happening again won't work as it should, since a good chunk of information for this investigation just walked away.

 

[Cannuck]

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

You are catching on.

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

They thought they did. If the RCMP will do like they should, they will avoid legal action. If the RCMP hangs them out to dry, they won't.

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

I can do whatever I want....unless it's illegal.

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,

While I take issue with the term "petty", it is quite clear it does and I will.

:roll: My god you're an idiot.

...and you smoke pot. One statement is your opinion and one is fact.

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.

You can't charge them for doing what they were "supposed" to do. They acted within the law. All you can do is change the law.

There.... happy?

I'm always happy....and I don't need drugs to feel this way.

 

[Zzarchov]

I'm always happy....and I don't need drugs to feel this way.

You never drink?

You don't eat "Comfort foods"

You don't have a cup of coffee in the morning?

 

[china]

LGilbert

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?

That's the problem LG ,.....the public has been "squawking" ; the government is used to it ,complaining will not bring any effect .We have to DEMAND that justice will be done ,and now ,not in 2-3 yrs.Government(s) have to learn that they exist in order to listen to us and the Constitution .But first thing first :stop Squawking .....that's pathetic.

 

[Cannuck]

You never drink?

You don't eat "Comfort foods"

You don't have a cup of coffee in the morning?

I'm always happy....and I don't need drugs to feel this way.

 

[Praxius]

I'm always happy....and I don't need drugs to feel this way.

You should check your tap water.

 

[Cannuck]

You should check your tap water.

I don't drink tap water

 

[VanIsle]

My husband and myself watched a little of this on TV - where the lawyer questioned the fireman. The fireman was trying to pass blame onto the police for not removing the cuffs. The lawyer asked if they had tried to turn the man over on his back with cuffs on so they could apply CPR and they admitted that they had not done that. He asked then if they had ever turned a person over onto their back with cuffs on and the fireman begrudingly admitted that they had. The police made mistakes but assigning blame is not going to change a thing.

 

[JLM]

The drunk driving incident has to be kept separate from the rest of it, it's only an indication of the character of ONE cop and not an indication of his performance at the airport.

 

[Praxius]

My husband and myself watched a little of this on TV - where the lawyer questioned the fireman. The fireman was trying to pass blame onto the police for not removing the cuffs. The lawyer asked if they had tried to turn the man over on his back with cuffs on so they could apply CPR and they admitted that they had not done that. He asked then if they had ever turned a person over onto their back with cuffs on and the fireman begrudingly admitted that they had. The police made mistakes but assigning blame is not going to change a thing.

In situations where you have no option to take the cuffs off, such as the officer or whoever put them on is no longer around or dead, one would have no choice but to perform CPR while the patient is cuffed.... however it doesn't work very well because their back isn't flat on the ground. The officer who cuffed him was standing right there, he asked him to uncuff him and they refused..... they could have had a much better chance at saving him if they uncuffed him sooner then they did, rather then arguing about it.

All of their jobs are to protect and save lives in one fashion or another.... saving his life should have had more priority over keeping him subdued.

The Lawyer did a good job at attempting to pass the blame back on the medic, as the way he worded his questions suited such an attempt..... but it doesn't remove the fact that these RCMP officers showed piss poor critical thinking skills and should still be held accountable for their actions.

 

[Praxius]

The drunk driving incident has to be kept separate from the rest of it, it's only an indication of the character of ONE cop and not an indication of his performance at the airport.

Well I guess that would depend on if it was the same guy who tasered him or if it was one of the other officers.... if it was one guy in both cases, then yes, you'd be right.... since it would show that he can't even follow the basic rules and laws he should be upholding, how could one expect him to follow the procedures as an officer correctly?

If it was another one of the officers, then that may show a problem with that paticular force, or the entire RCMP, depending on what information comes about.

Legal procedures or technicalities matter little when it comes to public perception of your police force.

 

[Zzarchov]

I'm always happy....and I don't need drugs to feel this way.

I call shenannigans, you literally can't be always happy. Your brain would become numb to the drugs your body produces to induce happiness. Physically you cannot ALWAYS be happy.

 

[Cannuck]

All of their jobs are to protect and save lives in one fashion or another

Sorry, it is not the police officers job to save lives though you could easily argue that it should be.

 

[Zzarchov]

LGilbert


That's the problem LG ,.....the public has been "squawking" ; the government is used to it ,complaining will not bring any effect .We have to DEMAND that justice will be done ,and now ,not in 2-3 yrs.Government(s) have to learn that they exist in order to listen to us and the Constitution .But first thing first :stop Squawking .....that's pathetic.

Ida know, what if they just run us over with a tank and then start censoring our internet and sending us to re-education camps?

 

[JLM]

Well I guess that would depend on if it was the same guy who tasered him or if it was one of the other officers.... if it was one guy in both cases, then yes, you'd be right.... since it would show that he can't even follow the basic rules and laws he should be upholding, how could one expect him to follow the procedures as an officer correctly?

If it was another one of the officers, then that may show a problem with that paticular force, or the entire RCMP, depending on what information comes about.

Legal procedures or technicalities matter little when it comes to public perception of your police force.

I suppose it could be argued that his actions when sober are more competent than his actions when drunk. :lol:

 

[Zzarchov]

I suppose it could be argued that his actions when sober are more competent than his actions when drunk. :lol:

Or that felons shouldn't be in the police force? Are you seriously defending this?

If you kill someone while driving drunk, you get locked up for years. You do not go around locking up other people for driving drunk and killing people.

Likewise, I also don't want a convicted sex offender as a police officer.

Its indefensible to be a Felon cop.

 

[JLM]

Or that felons shouldn't be in the police force? Are you seriously defending this?

If you kill someone while driving drunk, you get locked up for years. You do not go around locking up other people for driving drunk and killing people.

Likewise, I also don't want a convicted sex offender as a police officer.

Its indefensible to be a Felon cop.

When I'm serious I don't paste smileys to my messages. All I was trying to get across here is that other issues can't be brought up to determine how the police dealt with this specific incident. One exception I would make is once the one cop has been convicted on the impaired charge, it may be appropriate to question his credibility.

 

[VanIsle]

When I'm serious I don't paste smileys to my messages. All I was trying to get across here is that other issues can't be brought up to determine how the police dealt with this specific incident. One exception I would make is once the one cop has been convicted on the impaired charge, it may be appropriate to question his credibility.

What people don't seem to understand is that whether or not this officer was present at the tasering, we are dealing with two separate issues. One may have had a bearing on the other for the officer himself but that won't count in court. No matter what happens, if an impaired police officer killed someone through driving impaired, they are never going to be a police officer again.

 

[Francis2004]

New RCMP policy says Tasers potentially lethal, limits use

More controvercy on this subject. Is it a surprise ?

I think like most other items used by anyone, these will need more limits..

New RCMP policy recognizes that stun guns can cause death — especially in "acutely agitated" suspects — and restricts their use to defuse threats, the head of the force said Thursday.


RCMP Commissioner William Elliott outlined the policy shift as he spoke to the House of Commons public safety committee.


Elliott said the Mounties will no longer use Tasers or other stun guns against suspects who are merely resistant.


Stun gun use must be reported with each firing or threat to fire, and must be justified as a reasonable and necessary response to a threat to an officer or public safety.

New RCMP policy says Tasers potentially lethal, limits use

 

[petros]

Potentially? How many are potentially dead already now?