Rue

Can't argue with what you said. I agree with it. Problem is K you know what I can do as a lawyer to argue against what you said. I can stand up and say why don't we ask people to shave their beards then adn take off their turbans-how do you define what constitutes a level playing field? See the problem. The woman in your scenario will say but you can see here eyes. If you want to see her whole face then you will have to apply the same standard to all, i.e., everyone must have a clean unobsructe face. Now me I am on record as stating I have anyone with a beard, man or woman. On a more serious note I agree with you unfortunately its easier said then done. Knowing where to draw the line gets absurd at times. I personally do not believe this is a religious issue simply an issue of freedom of choice and I do think the law has to draw the line and say no there comes a time when the best interests of justice transcends in importance certain individual rights and in this case I just do not see keeping the face covered as a crucial element of preserving individual freedom. I am also serious. I wonder sometimes if we demand an unobstructed face what do we do with someone with a beard? Your thoughts?

Me thinks he is watching to many Law and Order Sex Crime unit reruns.

The man has paranoid schitzophrenia. It is a psychiatric disease. To suggest as Oleg did that he is sane and planned it simply reflects ignorance as to the characteristics and symptoms of the disease. Furthemore in less then 6% of paranoid schizophrenics do they go on to engage in violence to anyone but themselves. It is actually very rare but it does happen. The real question is, why was this man not treated earlier. Chances are had he been on medication none of this would have happened. This man did not create any story. Paranoid schizophrenia is diagnosed using criteria that screen out manipulative personalities. In in fact this man was as Oleg suggests, he would be a psycho-path or socio-path and the last thing he would do is make up stories that he heard God. He would in fact be one of two things-completely unemotional and matter of fact about what he did with no emotion or he would describe himself as a hero or victim. This man asked to be killed. Psychopaths and sociopaths don't ask to be killed they ask to be worshipped and served. I can well understand why the family of this victim are shocked and angered. I would expect nothing else from them. It was a horrible crime. I would feel the same way. All the more reason instead of exploiting their misery instead of screaming revenge we need to be calm and use a rational process to bring understanding to it and prevent it from happening again. It will happen again precisely because politicians find it easier to cut back on funding for mental hospitals and supervised programs for the mentally ill then increase taxes to pay for them. want to put him in jail? Remember this-the same politicians who demand we put more people in jail like Mr. Harper won't commit any funding to build more jail cells and hire more prison guards so there is no place to put them and any prison sentence is automatically slashed in half simply because of the lack of facilities. Then another half of the remaining half sentence is taken off as long as the convict doesn't do anything outrageous while in prison. This is why when you hear a man who makes bombs to engage in terrorism gets a 10 year sentence its more like 5 maybe as long as 2.5. The next time you hear Stephen Harper scream he wants to put more people in jail ask when the last time was he cleared more funding to build more jails. We are good at sounding tough in Canada but no politician wants to pay the price. That is why our politicians send troops to war with lack of proper equipment and manpower and why they scream to put everyone in jail and in the same breath clear the room when someone suggests they need to increase taxes to do that. This man is mentally ill. He belongs in a hospital and on medication. Killing him won't do anything to bring back the poor young man he mutilated. Learning from what he did to prevent other mentally ill people from not being treated and committing the same kind of act surely is the best way to honour this young man's death to make sure he did not die in vain.

It's posturing. Netanyahu is threatening to make this man Foreign Minister in an attempt to pressure Tzipi Levni to take back her post. She is holding off until Netanyahu as a price for her cooperation agrees to rotate the Prime Minister's Office between them. They are staring each other down. This threat to make this guy Foreign Minister is classic gamesmanship. The back and forth of parties trying to form a coalition is going to go on and be extended for another 3 or so weeks. So do me a favour come back with the cut and paste jobs in 3 weeks, If in fact this guy does end up as Foreign Minister then be my guest engage in doom and gloom references. If he does not and someone more moderate ends up in that office, I won't say I told you so. Netanyahu is a tough stubborn sob, not stupid. You are mixing the two up. Most people who do not understand Israelis and Israeli politics have a tendency to do that. What is said and what is actually done in Israeli politics are two different things and your taking things at face value I am suggesting probably is not the best way to forecast Israeli political developments. May I suggest you pay less attention to the words and more to the actual actions of the politicians. Middle East politicians huff and puff whether they be Israeli or Arab. What they actually say behind closed doors when they do not have to appease their masses is another story.

Your comments remind me of the UN Durban fiasco coming up. I do note the idiots will be trying to suggest any criticism of Islam will constitute a human rights violation-this of course in between no doubt the usual Zionism is racism sing along. Where I agree with you is we have to challenge all fundamentalists and extremists and call them for what they are. The only slight difference we have maybe in that I am a bit more reserved about speaking about Islam because I believe moderate Muslims need our support and alliance against the fundamentalists just as I would not hesitate to call on your support if I had to deal with some fundamentalist wing nuts claiming to do it in the name of kosher chicken. I will admit this Argus. Your disdain of extremism against all groups is consistently equal. I know that. I just don't like the way these conversations always end up lumping all Muslims in one category. In fact the sob's in Durban will make it possible now to crack down on progressive Muslims in their countroes countries and place them in jail for engaging in blasphemy and prevent their jailing from being classified a human rights offence. The progressive Muslims need our support-the last thing they want is us lumping them in with the very people that want them silenced.

Argus my point is when we see these displays of idiocy its tempting to point the finger and say see Muslims are savages. My point is Muslims are not the only people who engage in this idiocy. This kind of tribalism comes in all shapes, sizes, costumes, colours. I see it as an example of the propensity of humans to be extremist. In this case they may be Muslims. The next time it could very well be some other group. The challenge is to identify and criticize the behaviour, not use it as a pretense to engage in the exact same tribalism as the people we are criticizing to then justify inciting hatred against other people in the same group as the idiots.

Read the above. It makes no sense. It reflects your generalized assumptions. As soon as? You know this for a fact? When you start an assumption with a precept where you assume in all cases something must be so, you render it an absurdity. In fact there will be times when people engage in debates about Israeli policies but engage in comments and references that utter negative generalizations about all Jews. That would be anti-semitism. In fact at other times when people engage in debates about Israeli policies they will be just that, debates about Israeli policies and only that because the people making them will not make references that make negative generalizations about all Jews or the Jewish religion or culture. If in fact a debater makes comments that engage in negative generalizations about Israelis then it might be anti-Israeli. Your attempt to suggest people who accuse others of engaging in anti-semitism during debates as to Israel do it simply when people criticize Israel is a negative generalization you now apply to anyone who supports Israel in a debate. That is a stereotype. It is that kind of stereotyping whether it is against, Jews, Israelis, Muslims, anyone, that is challenged. Challenge yourself not to make sweeping generalizations assuming you know what everyone who disagrees with you or says something thinks. It is among other things, intellectually lazy. You want to criticize Israeli policies, knock your self out. Make negative generalizations about all Jews, Muslims, any group someone like me will call you out on it.

Rush is that you? I had no idea you now call yourself Slim Shady. Nice of you totake off time from your busy schedule to share yourself with us. Listen up. 50 days into his reign and you really are screaming bloody murder. The sky is falling in. The sky is falling in. Listen up. We all have to cut back. In your case you will have to go on a diet and that is not such a bad thing Rush. Come on you are morbidly obese. Cutting back on all that medication you pop would not be a bad idea either. Now I hate to burst your bubble Rush, but the doomsday predictions-been there done that. Already heard it from the Bush-Chaney brigade. Yes I know Barak Bam Bam is the anti-Christ. Rush we could solve any concerns over oil just finding a way to refine your hair. You have to admit you put a lot of oil in it. Little too slick. Might want to try Stephen Harper's hair spray. That grease job due, it makes your head look like a suppository. Listen forget about running for office. That little escapade in the Dominican Republic with the suitcase full of Viagra, sort of ended that idea. Americans like their heroes to be real men and not have to rely on Viagra. Then again given the way John Wayne walked and wore that kerchief round his neck I wonder. Rush is it true your mother named you after a hit on a bong and her boyfriend Julio screaming oooh what a rush when she dropped you? Dr. Phil told me. Regards to Mrs. Rush.

Your belief that when the civilized American man leaves the cannibals will eat themselves repeated by Busch Chaney is also the kind of simplistic black and white rigid thought process I challenge as much as the genius claiming the Canadian mission in Afghanistan mission is stupid. As for your armageddon, unoriginal. Every preacher warns of the coming apocolypse let alone how without the noble white man, the world will end up a rubble of chaos. Antiquated, simplistic, based on cultural bias and the assumption that the invaders are enlightened and superior and bring advancement to those they conquer, not to mention a completely ignorant take on history based on cultural chauvenism. In history the conquerors have at times brought with them new ways of doing things, but often have also brought with them destructive ways of doing things. In the case of U.S. operations in Iraq if you want to continue the belief that the invasion brought with it civilization and without that civilization the Iraqi society will revert back to savagery that is quaint and romantic and most certainly reflects your John Wayne upbringing but some of us would suggest its defective. Its based on blatant selective bias for what you think makes you and your American way of life superior and is precisely the kind of chauvenistic attitude that causes many of us, including Americans to have no time of day for people like you and explain why the US became such an outcast because of this kind of attitude of the loud American barging there way in and assuming their MacDonald-Coca Cola universe would enlighten the savages. What did it bring? It brought a monopoly of Chaney connected corporations with contracts to rebuild the nation without allowing the participation or involvement of the Iraqi people. It brought in a society where American multi-nationals secured corupt billion dollar government contracts and then wasted and embezzled billions supposedly ear-marked for rebuilding Iraqi society. What it brought was a country over-run with private security mercenaries operating outside the law and running the country no differently then the mafia or the Taliban does. It created a situation where the conventional US Armed Forces were reduced to secondary participants and sitting ducks to die to serve as cover for these mercenaries. It brought with it a system where there were thousands more private security thugs then conventional soldiers. It brought with it corupt businesses who had zero respect for the US Armed Forces and ridiculed them and deliberately put them in harm's way. The US went in under the lie of chasing Osama Ben Laden and weapons of destruction. That was exposed as a complete and utter lie. The reality is it was a war created by Bush Chaney to appease corupt multi-corporations and serve as a pretext to award them billion dollar contracts which bankrupt the US economy. Just where is that civilization you think Haliburton brought? Do you think Haliburton's executives and their body guards met with the people and worked with them? Grow up. Iraq was blown away into stone age. You call that civilization? Zero electricity. Zero water. Zero infrastructure. Zero jobs. Private mercanaries driving around killing and raping and operating exactly as what they were, terriorist thugs. They made a mockery of what the US stands for and what the US Armed Forces codes of honour stand for. Everyone should agree-getting ride of Hussein was a noble thing. The US Armed Forces commanders however made it clear they warned Chaney and Bush do not use them as a police force and have them stranded with poor logistics fighting civilians. Chaney Bush ignored them. Donald Duck Rumsfeld ignored them. Chaney and Rumsfeld did what politicians do, ignore soldiers and do whatever they thought in their financial best interests and the results are a bankrupt nation. You do not win the hearts and minds of people and claim to bring them civility and democracy by blowing them back to the stoneage and then refusing to allow them to participate in the rebuilding of their nation and allowing them to control their destinies. How do you bring democracy by controlling people with private security thugs operating without any laws and a system that keeps the masses confined to their rubble? It failed precisely because this John Wayne cowboy shoot em up approach which the Bush Chaneys of the world believe in is based on ignorance of how the world operates outside Dick Chaney's back yard and assumes if its in Haliburton's interest, it is in the world's interest. There was a time the US inspired through the peace corps. The US Armed Forces has created and demonstrated a successful precedent in Djibouti of how the conventional US armed forces can be used to develop solid relations with the communities overseas it interacts with. Your antiquated notion of John Wayne coming in and blowing people up belongs in comic books. It is no accident your country voted in a B-rate actor to advocate such comic book fiction. Some of you can't tell the difference between a 2 bit Hollywood script and real life.

I never stated anyone who disagrees with me is stupid nor did I state I assume anyone who thinks the Afghan conflict is stupid must think in the manner I have challenged. You have deliberately taken what I have stated out of context to try simplify what I have raised and render the debate a black and white-you are for or against it proposition. Save your assumptions and simplifactions for your own thought processes. What I challenged is anyone who thinks the Canadian mission is stupid because it can not bring about a conventional war victory. However now that you have raised your response, I also challenge people like you who turn such complex issues into black and white for or against phenomena. Some of us can not stand the conflict, do not like Canadian soldiers being exposed to danger, think all armed conflicts are stupid, but also are able to understand it is not that simple and that if the world was that simple and we could just define it as right and wrong smart of stupid I would suggest to you-someone like you would be very unhappy and be the first to complain believing the world can be reduced to such rigid assumptions is stupid. You want to try stupid on? Try it in this context as over simplifying what the mission is, why it has challenges, why it is imperfect, why at best it might obtain some but not all the things it was intended to help bring about and why it is being done precisely because people like you want to live in a certain lifestyle, but are not willing to compromise on certain commodities or engage in providing constructive alternative solutions. Anyone can call something stupid. That is a lazy man's game. What is your alternative?

Isn't it interesting. You, I and Leafless agree on something. That must be a first. Excellent effort at stating the legal issue involved. I commend you for dettaching your personal opinions or feelings from your response and stating the legal issues susinctly. Bang on. I think we shall see a lot more of this approach before things are done not just in France but other countries. Where the politics will end due legal process will begin in resolving such issues is anyone's guess. I would suspect there is a pendulum effect as to how much a society is willing to tolerate influenced by the economic and social conditions of the day.

Sorry I just got around to your comment. No. It is a political opinion. To constitute a hate crime it would have to be directed specifically at a targetted group of people, i.e., Jews, gays, Christians, women, and then not just the actual words but the context of the words would have to lead the state to believe the person or persons uttering them are asking or urging people to engage in a crime against those targetted people, i.e., kill them, attack them. Criticizing Israel or Israeli politics is not a hate crime. If the paper had went on to stay based on the above that Canadians should attack Israelis or hurt them or kill them then it might be. Again one would have to look at the context of the words, their potential impact and what the words are intended to incite or encourage or promote. Hope that clarifies it.

I appreciate the intent of your response but unfortunately I fear it is inevitable in such discussions the responses turn into a Who Is On Second, Abbot and Costello routine and everyone leaves in a state of confusion but no one ever leaves laughing.

They were and did. They called it Jordan.

Ironically you proved a point I did not think you intended to make -that every people have their history of barbarism. Some of us are just more subtle about how we fling our poo.

Ouch. I am not sure why you are pouring gasoline on to the fire but watch it, you may burn yourself.

Exactly and susinctly put and the point I hope Oleg and others understands you were making.

Nothing to do with the post or the point the poster was making which he then clarified. Oleg sometimes you miss the point entirely. Slow down to consider it before you respond.

I have found all your comments including the above very interesting and insightful and for me present a new series of considerations to refer to in discussions as to peaceful and fair resolution to these issues. Thanks.

Exactly. Or in otherwords their exposure to danger will not chang. They will still be sitting ducks if the Taliban want to engage in attacks against them using hidden ordinances on the road, suicide bombers, etc. Canadian troops will still be placed in situations of having to search out and take out Taliban. They just won't do certain patrols they do now. If I may put my two cents in. No Canadian soldier let alone their superior officers ever went into this conflict with the impression it was a conventional war they would win. That is a civilian notion. It is how civilians talk about war based on watching t.v. and movies where they think there are good and bad guys and a visible enemy with buck teeth that yells Banzai or silly looking caucasian guy yelling achtung and then dying and they dying as he flies in the air but never bleeds or messes his hair let alone damage his capped teeth. The Canadian military knew this was a conflict that will not end and at best is a conflict of atttrition, i.e.,a series of exchanges between soldiers in uniform and Taliban in civilian outfits who would avoid direct conventional exchanges as much as possible and instead rely on passsive aggressive sabotage designed to try make Canadian soldiers and Afghani civilians fear normal day to day movement or public exposure anywhere. Canadian soldiers went into this knowing exactly what they were getting into. The bottom line is this. No one has ever won a war on the ground in Afghanistan and never will. The physical geography of the nation makes that impossible. NATO went into Afghanistan to secure the ground in an attempt to pave the way for the building and securing of oil pipelines from the Black and Caspian Seas to the West to service energy needs. The countries that would benefit from these pipelines the most, Western European nations with the exception of Britain, Denmark, Poland, and Holland, have avoided the conflict. Canada, Britain, Holland, Poland and the U.S. have taken the full brunt of deaths precisely because other nations politically did not wish to expose themselves to domestic political news stories of their soldiers dying. Many think the West should not use NATO and instead accept and work with the Taliban. This is a ridiculously naive concept based on typical human nature-wishful thinking. It is how some of us deal with phenomena we may not be able to find a way to peacefully deal with. Some humans cope with evil by telling themselves the demon is not evil, just misunderstood. Charlie Manson isn't evil, he's just misunderstood. He's a product of his environment. It is just a simple cultural misunderstanding. The government in Sudan? They are simply fighting colonialism in Darfur. The Taliban? Misunderstood. Just people of a different culture resisting Western coruption and imperialism. Yes the Taliban are huggable. They simply want to be understood and respected. Just a bunch of guys with beards who mean well for their people. We need to reach out and touch. I think the vast majority of Canadian soldiers are not stupid and naive neither are those of us who are realists and understand the energy implications of this exercise. Some of us who are realistic about the energy agenda behind the conflict are also equally as realistic in our belief that also believe that what the Taliban represents and wishes to promulgate in its Islamic fundamentalist version of society is not just about what society there should be in Afghanistan, but the globe and their beliefs are just as expansionist and imperilaist or colonialist as ours. So some of us believe conflict with Islamic extemism is inevitable and if it is not in Aghanistan it will be elsewhere. Some of us believe such extremists cannot be appeased and in fact appeasement fuels them and empowers them to expand outword past their borders. So as much as I hate this war and the intense number of deaths I understand why our soldiers believe in what they are doing and I also believe this is not just about energy but a genuine conflict between Islamic fundamentalism and Western style democracies. I personally am critical of our politicians for sending our troops in on the ground without proper equipment. The vehicles we put our soldiers in exposed them to danger. Most importantly they came in on the ground after Taliban in loud, slow moving convoys precisely because we did not give them helicopters to move in and out with lightening speed to prevent the Taliban from preparing positions as they can do waiting for slow moving covoys to get to them. Our politicians embraced politically popular policies that reduced military spending to strip out armed forces to an inoperable and crippled shell which then forced our troops to unecessary deaths having to engage in slow covoy movement which is the exact opposite strategy you need to effectively fight guerillas. To fight guerillas you need to have small, light, elite commando units with the latest in equipment moving in and out unpredictably with helicopters. Our forces are extremely well trained to fight despite their crappy weapons and lack of air mobility. It is a testament to how good they are even more have not died as they have had to move in sitting duck convous telecasting every punch they will make. The Canadian military knew they could not fight the Taliban the way they should with quick and lightening speed mobile to ground precision attacks. They knew the politicians crritically impaired their operational abilities forcing them to engage in tactics they knew would get them killed. They accepted this. They knew what they were getting into and how the politicians crippled and compromised their ability to properly fight. Had our politicians obtained the helicopters now moving Canadian soldiers we could have reduce deaths and been more efficient but it took this long to get them. Of course the Taliban will constantly adjust their tactics in response to ours even now that we can move in faster. It is what conflicts of attrition are about-now clear cut win-constant tit for tats. The question is will standing up to the Taliban cause average every day Afghanis to want to take a change on something other than fundamentalist extremism. Are we simply trying to give them that chance to make them willing slaves to get their oil or are we doing it for genuine reasons of idealism. I think we are doing it for both reasons. I think the soldiers are doing it based on genuine idealism and the belief in democratic values and their mission is to try present them as an alternative to fundamentalist extremism but I also do not doubt that some of the politicians behind the conflict could care less about our soldiers or Afghanis and to them it is all about business. To those of you who see evil business behind it I simply ask this question-if they are so evil are you willing to give up your car? More to the point, would you prefer to live in a world of fundamentalist extremism or the world those evil business people and their activities finance. The choice is yours. Me I hate people with beards. I also don't trust people that tell me they are holy. Don't trust certain business executives either. Either way, I try keep a healthy perspective.

Absolutely. But I would not imprison them. The Air Canada Centre already serves that purpose. Actually since my beloved Canadiens have not exactly set the world on fire this year I should shut the f..up before they start Cory Price again,

Don't be rude. You forget one phone call and Celine Dion does a Us cross country tour. We have weapons of mass destruction. Anyone who wants to point the finger at the US and say it only does what it does for oil should shut the f..ck up unless they intend to walk and stop using their cars. Plenty of countries benefit from what the US does and then hide behind their righteousness at the same time. They can all shut the f..ck up. Back to the original topic. I note some posters just can't resist banging the drum for a war between Israel and Iran and keep suggesting Israel will attack Iran blah blah blah. Amazing how many arm chair geniuses there are who know what Israel is going to do. The same geniuses who also know Iran is no threat to Israel or anyone else in the Middle East. This pretention that Israel is the only nation in the Middle East that fears Iran getting nuclear weapons is idiotic. Does anyone think Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, the UAE, all the other Gulf Oil States are not also concerned? More to the point China is completely energy dependent on Iran. You think they want all their energy supplies going up in smoke? There is a lot of behind the scenes below the surface crap that goes on making what would appear to be enemies in fact allies when it comes to Iran. In fact right now China directly benefits from its treaty with Iran that gives it access to its oil and natural gas at below market prices. Then we have the two faced Putin who sells as much crap as he can to Iran as well as North Korea. Here is the point. Any fool can make a dirty bomb today. You just have to go onto the internet. More to the point Iran has the technology to send missiles with germs to its enemies. Why everyone assumes its a nuclear weapon Israel or anyone else is concerned about is beyond me. It could be they are more concerned about germ warfare or dirty bombs-for all any of you know that concerns them far more. The point is none of you know. You can speculate all you want but no one really knows what is of concern and why. What I would say to those of you who sit far from the nuclear zone or germ zone and are arm chair experts, watch your big mouths. It is easy to be smug about terrorism when it is overseas. What makes you so sure it isn't already in your back yard? Would those of you so quick to assure the world Iran is benevolent maintain the same calm and decorum fi some idiot commits a terrorist act in your back yard? Amazing what geographic distance does to distort some experts views on what a threat is.

I read an interesting article where an Israeli pilot who tested a MIG Foxbat said he would not be caught dead flying one of them or would be caught dead if he flew one of them. They don't seem to be held in high esteem. A former fighter pilot friend of mine from Israel said the Tom Cat was the favourite and of course the Phantom before that. Skyhawks and Harrier Jets they have respect for too but I guess the Harrier Jets are not something they like because of the sand problems. They like the Warthog. The Tornado and Mirage generation of fighters is not something that seems to have impressed. I suspect it is the Israeli bias to their close industrial affiliation and research and development function for US air fighter makers.. The F-16's and F-18's and Kfir Jets all have their supporters but from what I gather is everyone agrees on the TomCat F-14. Its interesting. I was told the Kfir jet had too sophisticated a compuer system and the pilots didn't trust the over computerized functions and asked it to go back to giving more control to the pilot to make the decisions. From what I gather the F fighters and Tornadoes of today have sophisticated jamming and cloaking devices they once did not have. Friggin expensive is all I know.

Getting back to the topic it was a transparent photo media op and everyone knows that. The op was generated while Peter Mac was visiting the Norad Commander. This is not nor will it be the last time Stevie boy uses F18's as a back drop for photo ops as he did earlier in the year. Russian Bears are ancient turbo prop bombers. They have been prodding and timing air responses since they were originally built. The plane is not going to attack anyone but it will poke and prod to tiem reaction time and take photoes. There is nothing new about it. Harper is posing. On a more serious note, control over our Artic waters and air corridor is a serious matter not just because of renewed and aggressive Russian claims to the North but also because of equally as problematic challenges to our sovereignty by the US, Britain, France, Denmark and Norway to name a few. Now mind you I doubt any of those nations will attack us and I am sure eventually we will come up with a mutual agreement with them over how to best use the North but with Russia unlike the others, Vladimir Putin is a wild card. Personally I would not trust him any more than Paris Hilton telling me its only a pimple.

The information that has come out indicates a police offer tasered this man 5 times. That speaks for itself. This case clearly shows why tasers should not be used. There are two alternative restraint tools a police officer can use other then their basic non verbal language training and their baton training and that is: 1-a gun that shoots out a foam that encases the body and solidifies preventing the arms and legs from being able to be used; 2-a gun that shouts out a restraining net. In the above case the police officers jumped to the use of the taser without exhausting their non verbal language training. They did so not intentionally but precisely because the option was there and its human nature to use it if you have it available. These officers were trained to approach an agitated man and use the universal sign language to calm someone down which is to stand with palms open to the side-somehow that was skipped over. I am the first to defend police officers when they make mistakes but I think in this case police training officers who reviewed the incident were very upfront about the mistakes and failure to follow approved guidelines that happened. There is no way a man should be tasered 5 times in such a short period of time and it appears it was used to early and not as a last resort. The key here is no one bothering to find out what his language was and using a cell phone operator to speak with him. That is inexcusable.