New RCMP policy says Tasers potentially lethal, restricts use

Deank wrote:the whole point of taZers being made available for use in the first place was to be ONLY for situations where they would use them instead of a gun. I remember quite well all the arguements for taZers being deployed in our country and the line that was used many times was... we will use them instead of guns..

that may be true, that may be what people were saying and the way it was spun to us, i honestly dont know how it was presented in the news or press conferences or whatever.

But i do know, for a fact, that whoever was writing the policy for these things did not intend for them to be at that level because in my instructors manual it is listed as an intermediary device, which is right on par with OC spray. Since i got this manual tasers have been moved up several times to the point they are now, but they definitely did not start as an alternative to guns, and thats not how officers were trained to use them.

Pavolo wrote:Adam X don't argue with this group they will not change there minds . The police are always wrong in there view. The criminal is okay as he was only doing what he had to do . Trust me it ain't going to change.

What a bullshit statement!! Who is in this "group" you are referring to? I find most posters on this forum to be quite strong against crime, not as you suggest. This subject has hit a nerve with some posters and they get to post thier opinions, regardless how wrong they might be. But don't suggest that as a "group" there is a complacency towards crime and criminals.

if you become belligerent and aggressive towards police, if you fail to comply with what they order you to do, whatever comes afterwards is probably because you made it happen.

Now that's just bullshit, Cat...

Belligerent? No, that should never be cause for an ambitiously-aggressive response by the police IMO.

Aggressive? Abso-friken-lutely. The police should not be threatened under any circumstances. In fact, nobody should threaten another. If someone makes a move that threatens a cop - smack him upside his head. Not working? OC him right in the eyes. Still not working? Tazer the bejesus outta him. If all else fails, Blow him a way.

Freeman wrote:What a bullshit statement!! Who is in this "group" you are referring to? I find most posters on this forum to be quite strong against crime, not as you suggest. This subject has hit a nerve with some posters and they get to post thier opinions, regardless how wrong they might be. But don't suggest that as a "group" there is a complacency towards crime and criminals.

Perhaps one opinion is right and everybody else is wrong? That is a possibility no?

Deank wrote:the whole point of taZers being made available for use in the first place was to be ONLY for situations where they would use them instead of a gun. I remember quite well all the arguements for taZers being deployed in our country and the line that was used many times was... we will use them instead of guns..

and then what happens... they are being used for everyday occourances... YES its usually on BAD guys no doubt..but when cops start loaning them to friends to pretend to light cigarettes with, it quite clearly shows the police have lost all respect for them as the restricted weapons that they are.

I too, recall the initial debate concerning the use of tazers and agree that they were to be an alternative to lethal force (guns).

Now they have become a weapon of convenience.

Usage has grown exponentially.

Most certainly, that was not the intended direction that we wanted to see imo.

grumpy old man wrote:

Freeman wrote:What a bullshit statement!! Who is in this "group" you are referring to? I find most posters on this forum to be quite strong against crime, not as you suggest. This subject has hit a nerve with some posters and they get to post thier opinions, regardless how wrong they might be. But don't suggest that as a "group" there is a complacency towards crime and criminals.

Perhaps one opinion is right and everybody else is wrong? That is a possibility no?

Thats defnitely a possibility. I'm right, so that must make everyone else wrong.

Oh yes... aggressive... then you get it >.<... didn't see that... >.<

You could drop the rest of the items though...

IE. 'if you become aggressive towards police, whatever comes afterwards is probably because you made it happen.'

hey thats just how i was raised.
don't try the cops cause you won't win.

Freeman wrote:

Pavolo wrote:Adam X don't argue with this group they will not change there minds . The police are always wrong in there view. The criminal is okay as he was only doing what he had to do . Trust me it ain't going to change.

What a bullshit statement!! Who is in this "group" you are referring to? I find most posters on this forum to be quite strong against crime, not as you suggest. This subject has hit a nerve with some posters and they get to post thier opinions, regardless how wrong they might be. But don't suggest that as a "group" there is a complacency towards crime and criminals.

And the fact is that some on here do condemn before the facts are in , course that is okay . And the fact that most have condemned by the paper and its facts is okay .
All I say is that there is a defiant lean towards the police being wrong more then right on here . And you or anyone else can't deny it . You condemn people before all facts are in .
It is like the Postil affair you all tell me there is no way value added is done, funny purchase people I know told me of this practise years ago .

If what you mean is bribery then you are right it is wrong and doe.s not belong in it , but no one has been accused of accepting it . The money that has been talked of least till now has not been proven to have gone into Postils hands and in to his account till it is I will accept that it is not wrong . If you want to sell me something and after the bid is opened there is a cash donation to our new x ray machine then what the hell is the problem . I refuse to think the worst till it is proven
Also if you want to make snide referral's about me grumpy be a man and come out and say it , No i don,t think I know it all and yes you do raise good points along with all on here but so do I , without joining the stage out of dodge .

If someone has been offended by a post I have made then Iam sorry but I refuse to join the lynch mob some days , This whole bs started cause I thanked the police for the job they do and have had my ass ripped apart since . Did not realize that you had to be in agreement about all on here . Maybe I arque to strongly for my position sometimes but I have that right without being told that I don't know what I speak of too .

Pavolo wrote:And the fact is that some on here do condemn before the facts are in , course that is okay .

So what if they do Pavolo? This is an exchange of beliefs and ideas. Why must you personalize it?

As strongly as you believe what you believe others here have equally strong opinions. That does not make you right and them wrong or them right and you wrong.

I also believe that most here "know" me well enough to know that if I want to make a snide comment I will. You really do need to decipher between a snide comment and a playful jab. Hint: if there is a smilie face involved it is likely not a snide comment.

Grow a thicker skin pavolo. If you are not happy in the sandbox then find someplace else to play.

All this bickering amongst you very nice posters is tearing me apart!
In future if there is any divisive post amongst you, I will decide who is right!!

The Globe and mail report regarding the RCMP's testimony is certainly not complete!
I think tht they testified that after 2 shocks they had him down on the ground and handcuffed, but that does not make any sense to me, as they said they tasered him a total of 5 times.
If they hit him 3 times with after being handcuffed that doesn't seem right, but who knows?
I hate the bureaucracy, when "an expert, the Crown said, concluded Mr. Dziekanski was in a state of delirium caused by possible alcohol withfrawal, dehydration and a lack of sleep."
The delirium defense is bullcrap, started by the taser company and has no founding in medecine. There was no alcohol in his blood, the autopsy showed..What are signs of chronic alcoholism got to do with anything, but slagging Mr. Dziekanski when there was no alcohol in his blood?
Very incomplete reporting! maybe the question wasn't asked, but I bet you Mrs. Dziekanski's lawyer asked!
5 tasers, and a dead visitor!
At least our RCMP commissioner has the guts to say that tasering can cause death. That is a big bold statement, since I bet you the taser company is probably going to sue the RCMP for telling the truth!

According to Const. Rundel, Mr. Dziekanski "made a point of bending and pointing at his luggage." This alarmed the four officers, said the constable, without explaining why.

What a crock!!

Boo! (I wonder how many Mounties peed their panties with that.)

But Const. Rundel suggested Mr. Dziekanski then disobeyed the command, at least "indirectly," by moving away. He suddenly became "combative," evident with "a very quick flip of his hands and arms in a motion that said ‘to hell with you guys, I'm out of here.'"

Ane we give these fcukheads weapons???

Be scared. Be very scared.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1321394

There's stuff in the testimony that should make you sick. The fcuken lying commie bastards.

ahhh look out... he pointed at his luggage!!!

you know... to tell them he was a traveller and a visitor to this country since he could not speak the language. sheesh


combative means... walking away?

Heh...I bet the other cops will start to forget what happened eh. Isn't that their regular response to when they are caught-up in bullshit? Dah...I don't recall...I don't remember....FCB!!!

nah.. they get to recall everything in this case... they have been given a compelete pass on any charges being brought against them and their testimony wont impact thier job in anyway.

Well, at least Bakema will have a few more people in his club after this.

From today's court proceedings- Most of what the RCMP reported has been proven to be false testimony, and the person who did the tasering is up next week.
One of the lawyers went through the RCMP testimony and had the nerve to go through the video frame by frame, so the report that Dziekanski did not follow instructions to move , were false, the RCMP report that Dziekanski threatened them with the stapler was false, that he raised his hands in a threatening position was false.
I retract my retraction earlier!
It was brought out in court that the RCMP knew in the instructions, that multiple tasering was dangerous.
Dziekanski was tasered 5 times in short order, and I am thinking that after the 1st one, he was no threat because he was writhing in pain and on the floor.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090303.BCTASER03//TPStory/Front

Very disappointing testimony by the officer who tasered Dzienkaski1 this , 4 year veteran, applied 5 tasers, and after the 1st one Dz was on the ground with 3 other officers on him.
What is upsetting is the officers written report as compared to what we can see on the video.
I do not think we see Dz in a threatening position, but even if holding an open stapler, the RCMP out numbered him 4-1 and probably 700 pounds to 200 pounds, the RCMP had bullet proof vests on.
Dz was on the ground and thrashing around , probably from the pain, and the officers reaction was excessive.I think the officers had said that they know multiple tasers can cause dangerous reactions.
But this was the 1st time that the officer had used the taser, so maybe the training was too lax?
We know that there was no way that this was intentional! The RCMP are very good people!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPe_hf7aBXM
I see the U tube replay and I do not see Dz as a threat, especially with 4 RCMP officers there. Even if they testified that he was seen as a threat, he went down on the floor after the 1st taser.
4 more tasers was not justified, and they killed him, and when he wasn't breathing the para medics weren't called in and there was no attempt at resussitation!
other than that everything was well looked after!

What a great letter to the editor in the Globe & Mail. Honesty is the best policy!
Be afraid, be very afraid




JOHN WEINGUS

March 4, 2009


Toronto -- The RCMP could have avoided a commission hearing on the death of Robert Dziekanski, a pending lawsuit for compensation and the condemnation by what appears to be a majority of Canadians by simply acknowledging the following: "We deeply regret the death of Mr. Dziekanski, and the officers involved ought not to have tasered him under the circumstances. However, we cannot hold them responsible for their actions as they were following the policy we adopted, which we believe must now be changed. As well, we acknowledge that an instrument (in this case, a stapler) is not a "weapon" until it is in fact being used as a weapon. We apologize to the bereaved family of Mr. Dziekanski and proper compensation will be paid for their loss. We trust that such incidents will never happen again."

Said acknowledgment would have avoided the present proceedings, together with not only saving taxpayers' dollars but earning back the trust of the RCMP in Canada.

QC

...and the cop that tasered DZ would not have had to LIE SIX TIMES in his report...the report incidently, that was written immediately after the killing, and without the knowledge that a video was taken of the killing.

Sorry Rosen, I believe that this incident goes a lot deeper than a fucken "oops". This, imho, is criminal conduct.

I keep wanting a lawyer to ask the scum-sucker cop if he continued to taze DZ because "he wasn't dead yet and was still moving".

It was a black cop. I demand a second inquiry to determine if racism was a factor.