Tazering

[system]

@BigThumb

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? 

I think if you want the public (including me) to trust an investigation, then it can’t be carried out by the same body being investigated.  That’s a pretty basic principle that seems to be missing here in BC.

tinyurl.com/37kxfc

[quote]Public confidence in the official police version of these deaths is often lacking. In some cases, the public is downright hostile to the official version. Ian Bush’s death at the Houston RCMP detachment comes to mind.

This lack of public confidence should be deep cause for concern to everyone, including the police, because it can really undermine successful policing.[/quote]

Also, from a CP (I think) story a few weeks ago:

[quote]
B.C. is in the “dark ages” when it comes to how police shootings and other in-custody deaths are investigated, Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin told a public forum Monday.

From 1996 to 1998, Marin served as director of Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit, an independent civilian agency that investigates all deaths and serious injuries caused by police.

Speaking at a forum on in-custody deaths sponsored by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, Marin said it’s time B.C. adopted a similar system.

“Police should never, under any circumstances, be investigating themselves where there’s a serious injury or death – full stop,” said Marin. “I think that your system of investigating the police is set in the dark ages.”

The current system, he said, gives the public a perception of bias and doubt that the police will investigate themselves fairly.

In some cases, police demonstrate real bias, said Marin, failing to properly investigate witnesses or secure evidence.

The SIU was created in 1990 after a series of controversial police shootings in Ontario.

“This is the kind of debate we were having in the '80s,” Marin said.

By law, the director of the SIU must not be a police officer and, while investigators can be former police officers, they are banned from investigating the force they used to work for.

Police in B.C. have been reluctant to give up the right to investigate themselves.[/quote]

It does matter who does the investigating.  Very much so.

If the RCMP were interested in showing that these officers acted appropriately, they would have immediately called in another force to investigate.  ie: call the Vancouver Police and let them handle it.

[system]

The point being…why did four, strong, able-bodied men need to electrocute a man?

The choice of words from both you and MiG, makes it difficult to continue this debate.  This last sentence, if you allow me the pun, “shocked” me.  Electrocute!!!  Sounds like they brought the chair with them!  The intent was to control the situation with a tool that, up to that point, was seen as being effective. 
I know a lot of RCMP officers.  One of them I know had to draw his firearm to avoid being clubbed by a drunken man.  Of the officers I know, I don’t think many of them would shy away from physical confrontation.  But with a tool like the taser, then there is an alternative to physical combat.  The question is, how does one decide one over the other.  I’m not qualified enough to judge that decision making. 
MiG, Pritchard saying that he didn’t feel threatened by the man is quite disturbing.  Picture this: you’re in an airport (not the Commercial bar!-) and a guy, speaking a foreign language (which means you don’t understand what he needs) and being very agitated attempts to throw a chair through a window and you don’t feel threatened by the situation?  Come on! 

And yes, an independent investigation would certainly be better.  But would you accept a different conclusion than what you seem to post as an opinion? 

[system]

@MiG

It does matter who does the investigating.  Very much so.

If the RCMP were interested in showing that these officers acted appropriately, they would have immediately called in another force to investigate.  ie: call the Vancouver Police and let them handle it.

I believe there is a civilian committee to ‘oversee’ this particular investigation.  I am not sure what their involvement will be, but its better than nothing.

[system]

I would accept any conclusion from a non-RCMP investigation for sure.

I won’t accept a conclusion from the RCMP, which has already outright contradicted facts in the video in its press releases.  They’re already tainted, they’ve already lied, and now you think they should be “trusted” to carry out the investigation? 

[system]

@BigThumb

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?

Agreed.  They did come to deal with a potentially deadly situation.  But, on arrival the four men should have quickly gone into nurture mode.  The man had no observable weapon, he was obviously not a threat to anyone, certainly not to YVR in general, he was  not a terrorist threat.  The RCMP are trained to deal with life-and-death situations.  This was not an emergent situation.
You know what I think?  I think one or two of the officers got pissed off…someone lost their cool.

[system]

[quote=“BigThumb”]
The choice of words from both you and MiG, makes it difficult to continue this debate.  This last sentence, if you allow me the pun, “shocked” me.  Electrocute!!![/quote]

Sorry.  But, that is what a tazer does…it electrocutes you.  The tazer is not concerned if you have high blood pressure or a heart condition.

[system]

The intent was to control the situation with a tool that, up to that point, was seen as being effective. 

The intent was to use the taser.  They didn’t try any other method to control the situation.  They had already decided (rightly or wrongly, let somebody come to that conclusion) to use the Taser even before entering the door.  Two witnesses both state they overheard the Taser officer say “I will use the taser” or “When can I use the taser” BEFORE they entered.

It’s not about the Taser, it’s about the fact that they didn’t try any other method first.  If they tried to arrest the guy and he resisted, sure, use the taser.  He didn’t resist, because they didn’t attempt anything else first.

[quote=“BigThumb”]
The choice of words from both you and MiG, makes it difficult to continue this debate.  This last sentence, if you allow me the pun, “shocked” me.  Electrocute!!!  Sounds like they brought the chair with them!  [/quote]

http://hackingthemainframe.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=25;type=avatar

Come on now, BigThumb, you’re a bit biased here – look at your avatar!  But yeah, look up at your wall and your famous MiG quote.  Some of it applies here, obviously.

I guess I just don’t want to live in a society where the taser is the first thing that police use in any confrontation.  I don’t think that’s right at all.

Maybe that will give me more reason to move back to Newfoundland.  The police there have stopped using tasers.

[system]

@hitest

Sorry.  But, that is what a tazer does…it electrocutes you.  The tazer is not concerned if you have high blood pressure or a heart condition.

Wrong…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrocuted

[quote] can mean either:

    * murder, accidental death, or suicide by electric shock
    * deliberate execution by electric shock, usually involving an electric chair; the word “electrocution” is a portmanteau for “electrical execution”

The term is often used incorrectly to refer to a non-fatal event of electric shock.[/quote]

I should know because, as MiG said, look at my avatar

[system]

I think in this case (and in apparently 17 others in Canada), the taser electrocuted someone in the sense of “accidental death.”

But this is why I love HTMF.  I never realized electrocute was a portmanteau.

[system]

@MiG

I think in this case (and in apparently 17 others in Canada), the taser electrocuted someone in the sense of “accidental death.”

And it is in the wrong sense since an accidental death isn’t, to my knowledge, and execution.

Also,

@MiG

I guess I just don’t want to live in a society where the taser is the first thing that police use in any confrontation.  I don’t think that’s right at all.

Maybe that will give me more reason to move back to Newfoundland.  The police there have stopped using tasers.

I agree with you on this one.  But I can’t  accuse police officers for using a tool that prevents them from being harmed, if, to the best of their knowledge, they are allowed to use it.  If it doesn’t work, change the guidelines or policy and get rid of it.  This situation here is, in my opinion, a grey area.  The ass-covering by the police might have been inappropriate in that case but they are always under scrutiny so they have public relation people.  If the four cops would have jumped on the guy, we would have a debate on excessive force used and people would say “well, two of them would have been enough to handle this situation, four was excessive.”  You see what I meant?

[system]

I think you need to read your own quotes:

[quote]can mean either:

    * murder, accidental death, or suicide by electric shock
    * deliberate execution by electric shock, usually involving an electric chair; the word “electrocution” is a portmanteau for “electrical execution”[/quote]

Anyway,

But I can’t  accuse police officers for using a tool that prevents them from being harmed, if, to the best of their knowledge, they are allowed to use it.

So you’re ok with that being their very first approach?  ie: they shouldn’t have to try something else first?  Just “hello, zap?” 

Some police forces (such as the RNC as I said above) are taking away the Tasers because they are being used as they were in the Vancouver Airport incident – without trying anything else first.

[system]

@MiG

I think you need to read your own quotes:

Zing!  It’s getting late here so I can’t think clear anymore.

Good night.

[system]

@BigThumb

Zing!  It’s getting late here so I can’t think clear anymore.

Good night.

Good night, my friend:-)

[system]

@MiG

So you’re ok with that being their very first approach?  ie: they shouldn’t have to try something else first?  Just “hello, zap?”

No, I’m not ok with that.  I’m saying that if that tool is available and that it may avoid them being hurt in a dangerous situation, then use it.  Like I said, the situation here is a grey area.  Life would be simpler if it was always black or white but it isn’t.  We’re not dealing with a police force made of robocops without pain receptors and  with a computer chip for a brain who make decisions using algorithms.  RCMP officers are human beings who must make fast decisions.  We hope that training helps them in that task.
  I do want the RCMP to be the best police force in the world and from what I see on the news coming from other countries, we still have it pretty good here.  Sure there is lots of room for improvements but I can’t sit here at my computer and openly criticize everything that goes wrong and say that they are all idiots. 
I saw the video, and from where I sit, for that particular situation, I stand by my earlier posts.  That doesn’t mean I condone trigger happy cops in all situations as you suggest in the quote.

I need to go to bed now!  Leave me alone!

[system]

It’s interesting reading people’s comments on this topic. Strangely enough I missed this discussion because I was away on training, and the TASER was part of that training.

For anyone looking to educate themselves, this link is good reading. It’s a report from the Office of the Police Commisioner on TASER and I would suggest that those of you with strong opinions on either side of this read the report.

cprc.org/docs/bcopcc_final.pdf

The optics of that YVR video are indeed terrible. As someone else said already, ANY taser video looks horrible. It’s not a nice thing to go through and it feels worse than it looks.

Mig has said many times in this discussion and others that the Police should not investigate themselves. I believe I’m on record pretty much agreeing with this. I think that it just doesn’t allow for public confidence to have anyone investigating themselves. I honestly believe that we will one day see civilian oversight of policing in BC.

I am amused though that so many people are judging the YVR situation solely on that video. Surely everyone realizes that there is a lot more to any situation than just one person’s point of view. I won’t drag it out but here are a couple of things to think about:

1. The subject is seen moving to our right in that video, away from the officers. Do we know where he’s going? Can we see what’s around him where he’s heading? No we can’t. It’s possible he was heading towards an area with other people there, and could possible hurt them. It’s possible he’s headed towards objects that could then be used against the officers. If we find out that there was a mother and child sitting where he was heading, does that change your perception of the situation? There are just too many “what if’s” that the video doesn’t and can’t address for us to sit in judgment of what happened. This brings me to the second point:

2. All police forces follow a “use of force model” which aids in the decision of what use of force is appropriate in a given situation. A big part of that model is the section called “Officer Perception”. Officer perception is there because to judge an officer’s actions you need to know what he/she perceived was going on at the time and was that perception reasonable. The use of force model is a complex subject to discuss, but I bring up officer perception to make a point. We don’t know what information those officers had when they arrived. Sure it seems to us as outsiders that they reacted very quickly, but could the information they had prior to their arrival have given them the perception that they HAD to react quickly?

Here’s another one of these “what if’s”: You see YVR security on scene before the RCMP arrive. One can assume they did what they are trained to do which is contain the area and call for help. “What if” in their call for help they tell the RCMP that they need to respond to an agitated man with a weapon. We all know the weapon would have been the table or the computer, but if the police didn’t get those details do you think their goal would be to arrive quickly and act quickly? Having those facts, and the subject suddenly turns away from you, might not the officer have feared for his safety? Given those facts, using the TASER might have been considerably less force than the alternative of shooting him.

I’m not saying that any of those examples actually happened in this case. I have no way of knowing if they did or not, which is my point. But COULD they have happened? There’s an infinite number of things that could have happened that the video and the witnesses wouldn’t know about.

[system]

@CrazyMike

I was away on training, and the TASER was part of that training.

Question: does the TASER training include having it used on you?

Should it?

[system]

@Become the change

Question: does the TASER training include having it used on you?

Should it?

I think Mike gets double dosed.

[system]

I recently talked to a Police Officer about this.

He made a few important points.

A: Police officers are tasered during training, cuffed during training, pepper sprayed, and shwaked with a baton. In other words, aside from being shot, the learn what they are doing to other people feels like.

B: Tasering is not harmful. This was an extreme case. In every other case, of thousands, the person is tasered, which lasts 5 seconds. This hurts like a bitch. However, after the taser stops you feel no pain, and the only side effect is that you’re on the ground, subdued, and feel like you’ve just worked out for 60 minutes.

C: Tasering is meant to save you. Without tasers the only other options are being sprayed, beaten, or shot. Both pepper spray and baton-beatings are much more painful than tasers, and being shot is not good.

There were several other officers, yes. However, tasers are in place to save lives and injury on both sides. The farther away from a person the police officer can be, the safer he or she is. The officer tasered the man because he felt it was the safest way to proceed… and it was. The person died, but the officer had NO EVIDENCE suggesting that this tasering would be any different than any tasering that had taken place in the past. The officer had experienced the taser himself, and knew that it was the best way to proceed.

Extenuating factors are what caused this man to die. Had the taser killed him, the autopsy would have shown this conclusively. However, seeing that the autopsy has not determined the cause of death, it is certain that it was not the taser that killed the man, but the taser combined with other circumstances.

[system]

[quote=“eccentric”]
A: Police officers are tasered during training, cuffed during training, pepper sprayed, and shwaked with a baton. In other words, aside from being shot, the learn what they are doing to other people feels like.

B: Tasering is not harmful. This was an extreme case. In every other case, of thousands, the person is tasered, which lasts 5 seconds. This hurts like a bitch. However, after the taser stops you feel no pain, and the only side effect is that you’re on the ground, subdued, and feel like you’ve just worked out for 60 minutes. [/quote]

Point A: It is good to know that officers know what it is like - I think it is important.

Point B: Remember, for a significant portion of society - working out for 60 minutes could cause serious injury.

[system]

@eccentric

I recently talked to a Police Officer about this.

He made a few important points.

A: Police officers are tasered during training, cuffed during training, pepper sprayed, and shwaked with a baton. In other words, aside from being shot, the learn what they are doing to other people feels like.

B: Tasering is not harmful. This was an extreme case. In every other case, of thousands, the person is tasered, which lasts 5 seconds. This hurts like a bitch. However, after the taser stops you feel no pain, and the only side effect is that you’re on the ground, subdued, and feel like you’ve just worked out for 60 minutes.

C: Tasering is meant to save you. Without tasers the only other options are being sprayed, beaten, or shot. Both pepper spray and baton-beatings are much more painful than tasers, and being shot is not good.

There were several other officers, yes. However, tasers are in place to save lives and injury on both sides. The farther away from a person the police officer can be, the safer he or she is. The officer tasered the man because he felt it was the safest way to proceed… and it was. The person died, but the officer had NO EVIDENCE suggesting that this tasering would be any different than any tasering that had taken place in the past. The officer had experienced the taser himself, and knew that it was the best way to proceed.

Extenuating factors are what caused this man to die. Had the taser killed him, the autopsy would have shown this conclusively. However, seeing that the autopsy has not determined the cause of death, it is certain that it was not the taser that killed the man, but the taser combined with other circumstances.

GONG…No…Tasering some one can result in Death…I believe there has been upwards of 18 Taser Deaths in Canada alone.
There is a process to be followed when some one is non-cooperative.  This man seemed uncooperative at the best case.  There were 4 mounties.  The scaiest thing was the one mountie asking colleagues “can I taser him?”  If his training doesnt provide him with the knowledge to know at what stage do you “taze” someone…then the RCMP is in dire straits.
How are 4 mounties going to risk injury by doing a physical take down on an unarmed man.

So you got all this from a mountie?

Hmmm…isnt it ironic that the continue to investigate themselves?