Who is doing the investigation?
Methad: Was the use of a TASER justified in this situation? Perhaps according to the current RCMP doctrine (you’d know better than I would). I’m gonna go ahead and do exactly what the RCMP asked me not to do, and jump to conclusions: I do not feel it was justified.
I said in a separate discussion here (months ago, before this particular event) that I have no problem with using a TASER as an alternative to lethal force. It fills a void between subduing a person with your hands, or shooting them with a firearm.
My problem with TASERs is how they are increasingly used as a first-resort weapon, rather than as a second-to-last resort one.
Is that really how it works? The officers would discuss their gameplan on the way to the scene, and someone would say something like “Alright, we’ll head in there and tase him, then find out what’s going on after we have him restrained.”?
I agree, it’s not TASER International Inc.'s fault. They didn’t kill that guy. The RCMP did.
See, that’s a real problem.
You’re basically saying that you’d rather zap someone than tackle him.
Is that how you were trainged? Most Canadians would disagree with you, and disagree with your training.
We’d be ok with Tasers as an alternative to the pistol, but not as an alternative to using physical force. Since you posted that, is that how it works? Do you use the taser instead of just grabbing someone?
Yeah, I’d be curious to know as well.
If I was walking down the street, and you told me to stop, and I just kept walking, is the next step to use the TASER?
Yeah…apparently. 
Well, knowing Methad and MrT, I’m sure they wouldn’t just zap you for that, but it would be interesting to know where the line is – what determines the use of a Taser versus just old-fashioned manhandling?
It’s disturbing that you think it’s better to use a Taser than to use physical force.
Did RCMP training change when the Taser was introduced? How did the RCMP deal with people for the 100 years before the Taser?
I’ve watched RCMP officers (even small female officers) demonstrate awesome manhandling skills. I was seriously impressed. But if what you’re saying is true, then the policy is not to do that anymore? Just zap people instead?
Also, I think it’s funny that a guy with an avatar like this:
http://hackingthemainframe.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=2156;type=avatar
uses the word “trainged.” I suck.
The taser was only a part of this. Why is everybody concentrating on the taser?
Without the taser, he would still be alive.
I am not so sure of that, what about the way the arresting officers where applying pressure on his neck, ribs etc?
Was there an autopsy done? Is there something supporting your statement that the taser was the cause of his death? In the video, he was sweating profusely before the RCMP ever arrived. There may have been an underlying medical condition.(I am not aware of an autopsy report) We assume that the cause of his death was the taser.
For the record, I think the RCMP jumped the gun (so to speak 
) and used the taser without real provocation. I mean, there were 4 officers, and one distraught man with a stapler!
Do I think that this caused his death…I’m not sure. I think it was a combination of the taser, 6 hr wait without food or water, extreme frustration/high level of anxiety, knee to the neck…there were several factors that may have caused his death.
Until there is an actual coroners report with a factual cause of death, we can only assume that the taser was the cause of death.
Hoser I agree with you, we don’t know what the cause of death was. I feel for his mother, whata tragic loss for her.
I also must say I would not want to be a RCMP officer, seems like a losing battle nowadays.
In the video that I viewed I didn’t see the RCMP manhandling the man a lot. He was zapped…and died as a result of either the physical trauma by the attending officers or as a result of the electrical shock.
I would not at all be surprised if the autopsy determines that the poor man died of heart failure brought on by electrical shock. I worry about a white wash by the powers that be during the investigation.
Alright! This is a long post. It took me awhile to write it too and I don’t blame you if you don’t want to read it. Also, you can throw the fallacies book at me and I don’t care. But since everyone here is an “expert” anyway, here’s my two cents on this:
I watched the video for the first time today. What I saw is this:(with my own observations in brackets)
- A man, in an airport ( post 9-11) is being filmed. It seems he was allegedly agitated as we can hear a bystander say “he almost threw the chair through the window”.
-He picks up a small table and appears to keep some security doors open. (It could be seen by some as a threat but to me, it doesn’t appear like that at that point.) - Police officers arrive on the scene. An attempt to communicate is done but the language problem arises.
- As the officers approach him, the man lifts his hands in the air and steps away swiftly. ( At this point, in my opinion, the man goes from being cooperative to being uncooperative and this, I believe triggers a different reaction in the officers as it can be seen as threat to them and to anyone around them.)
-The man stops and faces the officers who now seem to be trying to surround him. (He seems agitated and, remember that he isn’t seen as a cooperative person anymore, this can mean that there will be an altercation.)
-One police officer shoots the man with his TAZER/CEW. (I’m assuming that the member recognized the situation as potentially harmful for him and his crew so he decided to use it. I’m also assuming that this decision was made based on his training with the device.)
-The man, who is obviously in pain, falls to the ground and is then subdued by the officers.
I can’t tell if he died at that moment but it seems that he became unconscious since there was no struggle anymore. Since he died, we must assume that it happened right there.
If, as MiG suggests, I could be part of a citizen-based group that would investigate this event, I would at least do the following:
-I would review the CEW training for RCMP officer to see if this situation fell within the guidelines proposed by the enforcement agencies.
-I would ask the RCMP to provide me with all the literature concerning the safety of the device. I would also seek other opinions from people who have experimented with this ( I found some stuff by googling safety of TASER)
-I would interview the people present prior to the start of the video to get an idea of what caused this man to be so agitated.
-I would research the antecedent of the man in Poland to gain a better understanding of his mind set.
-I would obviously review each police officer’s record to look for the way they reacted in other incidents.
I probably forgot a few things but these are what I would try to base my decision as to whether or not this was acceptable use of the Taser.
I would also discriminate between the officers’ actions and the guidelines for Taser use. I don’t think it would be my job to make recommendations but someone else could use my decision as a base for reviewing the use of Tasers if I found out that the guidelines were inappropriate.
But I can’t do that and all I have is what I observed on that video.
And from that, I don’t think that the police crew pictured in the film is an “Airport Death Squad”.
I do think that tackling the guy could have spared his life but I also understand that, when a police officer engages in hand to hand combat, he has to overpower his opponent quickly because he doesn’t want the assailant to gain a handle of his weapon. This means that the strike has to be accurate and very strong. This doesn’t look good on youtube either and may also cause death.
Tasers, it seems, have been used many times before where it was deemed effective.
So from what I see, the split second decision to subdue an uncooperative man who may have looked menacing had to be made. And it was either jumping on the guy ( 4 on 1 !!! ) and risk some injuries, or use the Taser.
I think the decision was made with the “best intentions”, if I may say so, but, like in other life situations, things turned out for the worst for this man.
Now, lets put the job in context: ( I know… fallacies !!!)
http://tinyurl.com/38rhjf
and
http://tinyurl.com/3bzqgf
and let’s not forget
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/rcmp/victims.html
or what about these quotes from Methad:
[quote]
I myself have been tasered in training and let me assure you it hurts like hell…
And let me assure you I would rather be tasered before ever being pepper sprayed again. [/quote]
I don’t know about you guys but my job doesn’t seem as dangerous as theirs. So my decision making abilities are not generally influenced on the possibility of me getting hurt.
A very well-written post, my friend:-)
However, let us not forget one fact. There were four armed officers and one upset, confused man. Surely four men could have easily overpowered one unarmed man…they did not need to zap him.
The attending officers made a poor decision imo.
All this trying to legitimize the use of the Taser ignores the very fact that a few years ago it didn’t exist. Yet the RCMP were able to do a very good job without it.
It doesn’t say much for the training and competence of police officers if they ‘need’ to zap people in order to feel safe.
What would have 4 cops done in the same situation without a Taser?
Perhaps ask the unarmed civilian woman who was able to calm down and sort of have a conversation with the guy. She might shed some light on how to confront people without having to zap them to feel safe.
Sorry, the Taser is a crutch, and it makes for sloppy policing. The fact that a large majority of people who are zapped aren’t killed makes it more likely to be used.
And you guys gotta know I’m talking out of my ass when I say “death squad.” Jees. A real death squad wouldn’t have let somebody videotape them 
They’re certainly not murderers, but they did apparently cause an unnecessary death.
Some questions:
- why did the guy have to sue the RCMP to get his video back?
- why did the RCMP claim the victim assaulted them, before the video was released?
- who is carrying out the investigation?
Exactly! The attending officers could have entered the room and tried to communicate with the man using gestures in a non-threatening manner. What was the rush? He was not armed. One would think that peace officers would be trained to defuse a situation first then if necessary go in and subdue a citizen.
Here’s a news story from a couple of weeks ago: tinyurl.com/258u48
[quote]**But upon their arrival, it was clear that the police had decided to use a Taser gun before they even got near Dziekanski, said Pritchard.
“I heard ‘Can I or should I Taser him?’ before they even got to Mr. Dziekanski,” says Pritchard. “Right away they Tasered him.”**
Three police officers then struggled to handcuff Dziekanski, who by now was on the floor. Dziekanski was unconscious about a minute later, said Pritchard.
Police immediately called “Code Red” and medics arrived about five to eight minutes later - a time period that Pritchard believes was too long.
Pritchard said that in the 25 minutes prior to security and RCMP officers arriving on scene, at least five people - including women - went up to Dziekanski to offer help.
Although he was clearly distressed and behaving strangely “none of us felt threatened at any time. We weren’t scared, women were going right up to him,” said Pritchard.
Pritchard’s account is in stark contrast to that given by the RCMP, who said Dziekanski had been behaving violently and erratically in the international arrivals area and they were unable to calm him.[/quote]
If the video hadn’t been released, then we would have had to accept the initial story.
Here’s a nice article that contrasts what the RCMP said officially versus what the video shows.
Very disturbing that the RCMP immediately goes into damage control and outright lying mode after an incident like this. It makes people distrust the RCMP when the leadership is contradicted by the video.
I’m surprised they get away with it. Here’s hoping some political boss has the guts to fire the people who tried to sweep this under the rug.
I don’t think I’m legitimizing the use of Tasers. I’m saying that if that tool is available and recommended to use in certain situations, then the officer had to decide to use it or not. They did in that case. Maybe that case will be a watershed moment in reviewing it’s use or maybe not
But don’t pin all the blame on the officers who were there as if, as it was said in earlier posts, they are all trigger happy goons. And don’t say that all the others are protecting them because they are waiting for the investigation to be done and that they, like many of us, might have to follow a certain code of ethics.
Now, MiG, from reading your posts, I have to ask you if it really matters who’s doing the investigation? Would it change your opinion in anyways if a truly independent group investigated the incident and found out that there was no wrong doing from the RCMP? Would you accept that conclusion or would you think something is fishy? (Fallacies, fallacies!)
Hitest, it’s true that it appears as if an unarmed man could have been dealt with in a different manner. However, remember the setting: it’s an aiport, a place where you can’t even joke about guns. Remember that someone called the RCMP which means that someone felt a threat at one time or another. The RCMP didn’t come on the scene to give out flowers. They came to deal with a potentially dangerous situation. If the called made to them described a man holding a chair and trying to put it through a window, as the bystander is saying, wouldn’t that be a potentially harmful situation? Wouldn’t you factor that in your decision making?
Here’s a quote from your article, MiG which echoes my concerns:
**The concerns raised: Michael Lyman, a policing expert at Columbia College in Missouri, said the four officers on the scene should have been able to physically restrain Mr. Dziekanski without resorting to the Taser.
“I don’t even think batons or Mace would have been necessary, given that there were four officers on the scene,” said Mr. Lyman.**
The point being…why did four, strong, able-bodied men need to electrocute a man?