Tasered Polish Man

[mikedavid00]

Cravings to smoke

Irritable, cranky

Insomnia

Fatigue

Inability to Concentrate

Headache

Cough

Sore throat

Constipation, gas, stomach pain

Dry mouth

Sore tongue and/or gums

Postnasal drip

Tightness in the chest

Lol!!

Wow I thought I've seen it all. It was an accident on behalf of the police and no ones fault. If it was anyones fault, it was that of the person who was threatening to assult police.

The left are controlling the media in Canada right now. Ask a tax payer at a private company what they think of his actions and we all have the same opinion.

See, at work, we are held responsible for our actions everyday: something unheard of in a gov't union or to social leech.

The whole thing could have been avoided if we had a functioning immigration policy but we don't. The fact he could not speak English is perfect evidence of that.

[White Doors]

My first funny...thanks friend...sometimes I get on a roll...other times I can be real long winded and irritating....The Tim Hortons plug could become a dagger if you let me off my leash - but to destroy such a fine Canadian company that hates to get sued by employee manager types that are disposed of as soon as the franchise is up and running and a new and cheaper manager is hired ----I won't get into that - just don't like their whole front - as if they are real nice guys...maybe they should set up a Timmies in China to provide high powered caffene to the workers that are dulled out by breathing lead...now that would be helpful...then all would be well......or maybe a drive though organ transplant operation for rich drunks from Russia.

Wow. What rants! Just lost your job at timmies did ya? poor fella. Voting NDP will fix that all up.

;/

[White Doors]

I have to say, I find the responses in this thread both amazing-- and scary. It's unbelievable the conclusions some have come to, stating "facts" that are not facts at all along the way-- while the actual facts seem to mean little. It truly reminds me of the lynch mob mentality that I thought we had left behind. But most amazing of all, these people think that they are the 'reasonable,' enlightened thinkers. Scary indeed.

This is what passes for Canadian left wing 'enlightened thought' these days..

[White Doors]

Again.. any thought to a quick 5 question sanity test for new members?

[Guest American Woman]

His hands are empty when he first walks away from the police. After he was tasered he had something in his hand. That means he must of picked up something while he standing behind that counter. The act of picking up a potential weapon could have easily be what triggered the taser but we don't know because the video does not show that. His facial expressions would also be very significant when assessing any threat and we don't see those in the camera either. That I why I think the video evidence does not support the conclusion that the man was passive and not a threat.

Thanks. I hadn't noticed that. I did a search after reading your post, and wittnesses say he had picked up a metal stapler and was holding it in a threatening manner.

Mr. Dziekanski was not empty-handed in the seconds before police shot him with a "conducted energy device," also known by the common brand name Taser. He grips something shiny in his right hand. Some eyewitnesses described the object as a stapler. It is worth noting. It may have changed everything.

This, I believe, is an accurate description of him, what was happening at the time:

....Mr. Dziekanski is seen pacing back and forth, and shouting at passersby and airport security personnel. He picks up a small folding table and holds it in front of him like a shield, legs sticking out. He takes hold of a chair; according to one passerby, his startled voice caught on Mr. Pritchard's videotape, "he almost threw the chair through the window" separating the arrivals area from the rest of the airport. He grabs what looks like a laptop computer and hurls it to the ground. He throws another object at a window.

I think this is a really good article (another excerpt):

Robert Dziekanski's death at Vancouver International Airport was a terrible tragedy that need not have happened. But the incident has been made worse by casual assumptions and baseless accusations, most of them directed at members of the RCMP.

Using force to subdue Mr. Dziekanski, who was acting erratically, police accidentally killed the man. In some versions, picked from the media dog pile, it was not an accident. In some versions, it was an execution. In some versions, certain facts are ignored.

Everyone should check out the rest of the story. It's amazing the way this is being spun by some.

Edited November 19, 2007 by American Woman

[Carinthia]

It was just announced on CKNW radio from Vancouver, that BC Premier Gordon Campbell is trying to reach the polish man's Mother to offer her an official apology.

Gee, guess that means that even he thinks the cops done wrong.

[luvacuppajoe]

I think this is a really good article (another excerpt):

Everyone should check out the rest of the story. It's amazing the way this is being spun by some.

That article is a hoot. The author takes the Globe and Mail to task for spinning the story with a bias, then does the very same thing himself.

"Tellingly, no one approaches him." Wrong. A woman walked up and tried to converse with him.

"He did not proceed through customs." Not a major inaccuracy but one nonetheless. The same article later mentions he cleared customs at 4:00 pm, just an hour after his plane arrived.

"Is it so unthinkable that Mr. Dziekanski suffered an illness, one that removed from him the capacity to think clearly?" A rather pointless insinuation that never gets backed up with even the faintest of supporting evidence.

"...(he) did not seem to welcome assistance". Purely subjective opinion. When he saw the cops approaching he yelled out for them twice. I hold the opinion that he very much welcomed assistance there was just none to be had, at least any that he understood.

"He waves his arms at the police dismissively, and marches away." Purely subjective opinion once again. He did not wave his arms, put them up in the air, once. What the author calls marching I call walking.

Yeah, great article.

[Moxie]

Again.. any thought to a quick 5 question sanity test for new members?

LOL sure I think it's a great idea, make sure you use the words Socialist and utopia alot. They love those words and Chavez, oh they dearly love that Skank.

[Moxie]

Well as I am not in the group you describe not by a long shot.

As a cop ,something I joined Canada's Armed Forces to be and as a previous Federal Revenue Canada Tax Cop I can tell you all that I would have raised my own hands and lowered them in a calming way ,,,diffused the situation and removed the risk ,,don't forget I have 3 drooling neanderthals hiding behind me in case this guy was able to produce a weapon when I know he is in a place that even lighters are confiscated anyhooo had he some how managed to produce a so called weapon like a ""stapler"",,well I am smarter than that and still would not taser him.

Some of you say it doesn't kill yet it has killed over 286 i think

17 in Canada

Lazy ill trained cowards that only because of a video are now reassigned and examined.

Stupid cowards tried to hide the truth,,,,""""In custody death syndrome ""???

give me a fcking break !!!!

how stupid do you think even these red necks are?

Leave this new member Oleg Bach alone.

He is worth more than you long time stupid ones.

So he doesn't have lying eye's like some of you and is new superior DNA of the smarter human,,quit just being jealous as you are irrelevant and soon will be in real life based on your ignorance.

I cant see any point to any more here as we have the same spin doctors and the sane side voicing remorse.

I don't plan on going in circles

My prayers go out to this country and this poor mother and as I said I am ashamed of people like stockwell day who I believe is a pompous asshole.

I thank all of you smart people and curse you stupid ones.

I am going to be pressing for a law just like in the states that allows average citizens to carry tasers and then we will soon see better mannered police and less mouthy white trash.

What job or trade haven't you claimed to have done? Honestly how stupid do you think the posters are here, a cop in the Military isn't a "Real Cop". The Military has it's own law, Called Military Law. It has nothing to do with Canadian Criminal Laws or British Common Law. Chasing a DUI on a base is hardly a "Real" cop. In fact you would have to call the "Real" cops to have him charged under the Motor Vehicle Act. How does one jump from being a "Private one hook" to being a Revenue Canada Cop? Dah a degree in Accounting is needed or at the very least a Practicing Certified Accountant. Of course you would not tazer him, the MPs are lucky if they get a car to drive and a billy club. A tazer won't show up as MP hardware before 2050.

[Oleg Bach]

LOL sure I think it's a great idea, make sure you use the words Socialist and utopia alot. They love those words and Chavez, oh they dearly love that Skank.

It would be a good idea to have a 5 second mental evaluation of everybody. Seems it has become trend in the country. Maybe big pharma was not doing it's job in Poland? Put some dirty clothes on and go to a medical walk in clinic - seeing most don't have a family doctor that knows them..walk into one of these places and say your stomach is bothing you...what will take place is a 5 second mental evalutation by some miserable doctor who dreams of leaving to join the circus called "Doctors Without Borders" - with in 5 seconds and I am not kidding - They offer you a mind altering chemical brain wash in the form of so-called anti-depressants.

Quote "They have some very nice compounds" what the heck is that...? So if this is how quickly the common MD is ready to make you nuts and fulfill some strange agenda that some even stranger person has some where - well how quickly do common cops make the call - on who is nuts and who is not? I would say - less than a second then it's taser the "man waving his arms about" - You see there is a certian style of sovietasation going on..

- anything that is odd to the conditioned secualist mainstream is deemed mentally ill - will we ever find out if the man from Poland was crazy or dangerously crazy ? Never - like I said...welcome to the brave new world of reactionary fear...look like if my mother was alive she would have been pegged as a terrorist..for singing to loud in public - but I doubt it - she voted conservative...and it's always the left hand that is sinister.

[jbg]

Am I allowed to ask what a mentally ill person who cannot speak English was doing wandering into Canada out of an air port?

Correcton - couldn't speak English or French. Remember, you have two languages.

[Riverwind]

What the author calls marching I call walking.

But that is the entire point. Everyone who looks at the video will automatically use their prejudices to interpret the images. This leads to a situation where multiple valid interpretations of the images exist. That is why I say the video is proof of nothing on its own. It is simply one piece of evidence that much be weighed against other evidence. Anyone who claims that the video *proves* their interpretation of events is completely wrong. In other words, it is quite possible that an unbiased public inquiry will conclude that the officers acted appropriately when they look at all of the evidence. Unfortunately, the lynch mob mentality that has come out in the last few days will make it very difficult for an inquiry to come to that conclusion even if it is justified. Frankly, I found the public reaction to the event more disturbing than the event itself.

[capricorn]

Frankly, I found the public reaction to the event more disturbing than the event itself.

My sentiment exactly. I suppose the mother will sue the Canadian government, that is, us.

[mikedavid00]

It was just announced on CKNW radio from Vancouver, that BC Premier Gordon Campbell is trying to reach the polish man's Mother to offer her an official apology.

Gee, guess that means that even he thinks the cops done wrong.

I agree.

Sorry for the accident.

Just like I'm sorry for the time I dropped the ice cream in McDonalads when I was 3 years old and someone had to clean it up.

Sorry about that.

It was an accident. Obviously I wanted the ice cream and had no previous mal content on dropping it.

Same thing with the police. The officer was using the taser because the man was physically big and was holding what the court consideres an 'object' to do harm.

It was a damn accident and he was the rare, rare type that goes under cardiac arrets from a taser and it just happens to be on camera.

[luvacuppajoe]

But that is the entire point. Everyone who looks at the video will automatically use their prejudices to interpret the images. This leads to a situation where multiple valid interpretations of the images exist. That is why I say the video is proof of nothing on its own. It is simply one piece of evidence that much be weighed against other evidence. Anyone who claims that the video *proves* their interpretation of events is completely wrong. In other words, it is quite possible that an unbiased public inquiry will conclude that the officers acted appropriately when they look at all of the evidence. Unfortunately, the lynch mob mentality that has come out in the last few days will make it very difficult for an inquiry to come to that conclusion even if it is justified. Frankly, I found the public reaction to the event more disturbing than the event itself.

And my point was that is laughable to say so-and-so spun the story, read this one that spins it a better way.

Before I ever saw that video I was under the prejudiced opinion that the man was probably out of his gourd on drugs, like many who die after being tased, and I practically dismissed the story from there.

But after learning that his toxology report came back clean I was curious, so I watched the video, more than once.

Maybe I still have prejudices at work in forming an opinion, but I do not need a handful of government reviews and inquiries to tell me what is right and wrong when I see it for myself. The coroners inquests are consistently sound, I've found, and I give them a great deal of respect in their recommendations. The RCMP Complaints Commisssion reviews are worth little more than the paper they're written on, as is any agency's review of itself.

I too welcome the tabling of these inquests and reviews, I want to see that so many people dropping the ball wasn't all for nothing. If that opinion disgusts you, so be it.

[Oleg Bach]

And my point was that is laughable to say so-and-so spun the story, read this one that spins it a better way.

Before I ever saw that video I was under the prejudiced opinion that the man was probably out of his gourd on drugs, like many who die after being tased, and I practically dismissed the story from there.

But after learning that his toxology report came back clean I was curious, so I watched the video, more than once.

Maybe I still have prejudices at work in forming an opinion, but I do not need a handful of government reviews and inquiries to tell me what is right and wrong when I see it for myself. The coroners inquests are consistently sound, I've found, and I give them a great deal of respect in their recommendations. The RCMP Complaints Commisssion reviews are worth little more than the paper they're written on, as is any agency's review of itself.

I too welcome the tabling of these inquests and reviews, I want to see that so many people dropping the ball wasn't all for nothing. If that opinion disgusts you, so be it.

Repeat after me...It was a mistake... all the bantering and absurd justifications will not remove the mistake. I have never seen a nation so embarassed...get over it and don't let it happen again...heard today that more tazers are being ordered for tiny little cops that should not be enforcers..the smaller the cop the more likely they are to resort to a pack mentality and deadly convenient force..we need a re-formation of hiring practice for law enforcement officers.

.face it..the cops are like little people who will resort to using a knife in a fight - where as the stronger smarter person only has to speak and on occassion "risk personal injury" and wrestle a bit...Yesterday I heard on of your members comment that a cop should not "risk personal injury" - that's silly'''' they are cops - the nations standing army - there job is to exert and enforce via force...hence "police force" - you don't hand out BB guns to 3 year olds and not expect them to take out an eye. Tasers are not the answer anymore that kiddy cocaine (Ritalin) is to contain the naturaly energetic and mischievious young infant male human.

[luvacuppajoe]

Yesterday I heard on of your members ...

One of my members, of what?

[Riverwind]

but I do not need a handful of government reviews and inquiries to tell me what is right and wrong when I see it for myself.

The problem is you did NOT see it yourself. You saw a 10 minute video that only provides a narrow view of the incident. You don't have enough information to form a final opinion. You are deluding yourself if you think you do.

I share your opinion of inquiries where the police investigate themselves. For what it's worth I think the RCMP have lied to public about what happened to Ian Bush. However, I judge each case seperately and I am not convinced that the RCMP actions were completely unjustified based on all the information available today. Unfortunately, any public inquiry at this point will be a kangaroo court that will likely lynch the officers involved no matter what the facts are. In my opinion, any inquiry with a presumed outcome simply makes the tragedy worse.

Edited November 20, 2007 by Riverwind

[capricorn]

Unfortunately, any public inquiry at this point will be a kangaroo court that will likely lynch the officers involved no matter what the facts are.

The word scapegoats come to mind.

[jbg]

.face it..the cops are like little people who will resort to using a knife in a fight - where as the stronger smarter person only has to speak and on occassion "risk personal injury" and wrestle a bit...Yesterday I heard on of your members comment that a cop should not "risk personal injury" - that's silly'''' they are cops - the nations standing army - there job is to exert and enforce via force...hence "police force" - you don't hand out BB guns to 3 year olds and not expect them to take out an eye. Tasers are not the answer anymore that kiddy cocaine (Ritalin) is to contain the naturaly energetic and mischievious young infant male human.

I don't know what you're saying. Are you saying that cops should be left with no alternatives but to blow someone's brains out if they're acting erratically? I don't think that's what you want. As for your Ritalin example, would you rather than children with ADHD or, in the case of my son mildly autistic¹, be rendered not able to function at all because of their disabilities.

¹Actually he's on Strattera, which is somewhat similar to Ritalin in its function though not chemistry.

[Guest American Woman]

That article is a hoot. The author takes the Globe and Mail to task for spinning the story with a bias, then does the very same thing himself.

"Tellingly, no one approaches him." Wrong. A woman walked up and tried to converse with him.

You left out the part leading up to that quote. He grabs what looks like a laptop computer and hurls it to the ground. He throws another object at a window. No one did approach him as he was doing that. That's the point. There were times when he was unapproachable.

"He did not proceed through customs." Not a major inaccuracy but one nonetheless. The same article later mentions he cleared customs at 4:00 pm, just an hour after his plane arrived.

He didn't proceed through customs. The timetable is in error. He didn't clear customs for hours.

"Is it so unthinkable that Mr. Dziekanski suffered an illness, one that removed from him the capacity to think clearly?" A rather pointless insinuation that never gets backed up with even the faintest of supporting evidence.

Evidence isn't required to back up that statement because it's not a statement of fact by any means. The article is simply raising a possiblity because we don't know the facts; the article is pointing out that this is a possiblity, yet no one is even considering it. No one even questions if there may have been extenuating circumstances. I've pointed out that one of the symptoms of nicotine withdrawl is "tightness in the chest." He was obviously breathing heavily. Nicotine withdrawl could have been a factor in his behavior and his reaction to the taser.

"...(he) did not seem to welcome assistance". Purely subjective opinion. When he saw the cops approaching he yelled out for them twice. I hold the opinion that he very much welcomed assistance there was just none to be had, at least any that he understood.

He yelled out for the cops? You speak Polish? Please tell me what he said as he was 'yelling out for the police.' He may have wanted assistance, seems to me that would be an obvious observaton/conclusion to come to, but he very well may not have seen the cops in that light. He may not have interpreted four police officers approaching him as "assistance."

"He waves his arms at the police dismissively, and marches away." Purely subjective opinion once again. He did not wave his arms, put them up in the air, once. What the author calls marching I call walking.

Talk about nitpicking. "Marching," "walking." That has no bearing on anything. The article is about how people have tried and convicted the RCMP based on very sketchy 'evidence.' It's not about whether he "walked" or "marched."

The fact that you chose to overlook the point of the article and instead focus and nitpick on something totally meanlingless really shows that you're not open to any line of thought other than your 'conviction.'

Yeah, great article.

Yes, it is. To those who are open to what it is actually saying. To those who have already tried and convicted the RCMP I guess it wouldn't be so great since those people are what the article is about.

Edited November 20, 2007 by American Woman

[luvacuppajoe]

The problem is you did NOT see it yourself. You saw a 10 minute video that only provides a narrow view of the incident. You don't have enough information to form a final opinion. You are deluding yourself if you think you do.

I share your opinion of inquiries where the police investigate themselves. For what it's worth I think the RCMP have lied to public about what happened to Ian Bush. However, I judge each case seperately and I am not convinced that the RCMP actions were completely unjustified based on all the information available today. Unfortunately, any public inquiry at this point will be a kangaroo court that will likely lynch the officers involved no matter what the facts are. In my opinion, any inquiry with a presumed outcome simply makes the tragedy worse.

At this point we'll have to agree to disagree. You may feel that you would be deluding yourself by forming an opinion with the information at hand, I don't share your sentiment, so we can leave it there and revisit the issue down the road as the various inquiry recommendations roll in.

Just announced today by the BC gov't is a full public inquiry with three objectivesof investigation: "the appropriate use and policies around stun guns, the actions of the RCMP, Canada Border Services, immigration officials and officials at the Vancouver Airport and recommendations on how to improve the way foreign passengers are handled when they arrive at YVR".

This will be the one really worth looking at imo.

[luvacuppajoe]

American Woman -- I can't seem to get the quote function to work seamlessly so I'm bolding your statements and replying to them below.

You left out the part leading up to that quote. He grabs what looks like a laptop computer and hurls it to the ground. He throws another object at a window. No one did approach him as he was doing that. That's the point. There were times when he was unapproachable.

Please don't try to rewrite the article. The author simply said "no one approached him" when in fact, at two minutes into the tape, a woman did approach him while he was holding the small wooden table in his hands and continued to engage him after he let the doors close and retreated back into the room on the other side of the glass.

He didn't proceed through customs. The timetable is in error. He didn't clear customs for hours.

So you're saying that his great article that we should all read got it wrong? What else might it have gotten wrong? Actually if you had bothered to read the article it states that he cleared customs at 4:00 and then at 10:30 he found his luggage (with assistance) and proceeded through the second inspection and on to Immigration. As I said, it's a minor inaccuracy but one nonetheless.

Evidence isn't required to back up that statement because it's not a statement of fact by any means. The article is simply raising a possiblity because we don't know the facts; the article is pointing out that this is a possiblity, yet no one is even considering it. No one even questions if there may have been extenuating circumstances. I've pointed out that one of the symptoms of nicotine withdrawl is "tightness in the chest." He was obviously breathing heavily. Nicotine withdrawl could have been a factor in his behavior and his reaction to the taser.

I didn't say it was a statement of fact, I said it was a pointless insinuation . You are condemning those who have formed an opinion such as myself but think it's fine for a journalist to espouse on his possible state of mental health without providing any background information whatsoever? You can't have it both ways, and frankly I don't understand the point of even bringing it up any more than I understand the point about nicotine withdrawl.

Yes, whether he was was having a panic attack, nicotine withdrawl or a psychotic break with reality could very well have contributed to his fatal reaction to the taser jolt. Judging by his rapid and shallow breathing, heavy sweating and nervous behavior, he was obviously in physical distress and there's no doubt his heart was working in overdrive. If we could see that from our limited point of view, surely the cops saw that and possibly even more from theirs.

My point all along here is that the cops are trained to recognize and diffuse confrontational situations where someone is agitated and in a panic. They did not appear to do that when they fanned out around him as he stood at the desk, speaking English to him when they were told before they engaged him that he did not speak English -- we can hear more than one person say that to them on the tape. On the contrary it appears their actions ramped up the tension by the fact that the man picked up a potential weapon as they were surrounding him. People do that when they feel threatened. The cops are supposed to be professionals who have proper training in calming situations down, not escalating them further. They're also (at least I thought) trained in using a taser when the situation presents a risk of physical harm to themselves or others, which I don't believe it did but which the many inquiries will attempt to answer. You may disagree, and that's fine.

Also, the author's point of that insinuation appears to be that if indeed he did have a mental illness of some kind "he needed more help than airport security could provide". What help they offered, if any, is unclear because all we can see is the security crew standing at a distance talking into their radios and waiting for the police to arrive. Perhaps if they'd located a translator...

He yelled out for the cops? You speak Polish? Please tell me what he said as he was 'yelling out for the police.' He may have wanted assistance, seems to me that would be an obvious observaton/conclusion to come to, but he very well may not have seen the cops in that light. He may not have interpreted four police officers approaching him as "assistance."

Just before the cops are in our view he can twice be heard yelling out "Polizia" (which I think is how it's spelled) which means Police. This has been confirmed by Polish speaking citizens who've stepped up to translate what he was saying, some of which you might have seen on the nightly news or read in the papers. The tone of his voice is rather obvious that he was glad (perhaps relieved) to see them, indicating that he thought they were there to assist him.

This contradicts the author's opinion that "he did not seem to welcome assistance".

Talk about nitpicking. "Marching," "walking." That has no bearing on anything. The article is about how people have tried and convicted the RCMP based on very sketchy 'evidence.' It's not about whether he "walked" or "marched."

The author said "He waves his arms at the police dismissively, and marches away" and if you can find that on the video, kindly point it out to me because all I saw was him raise his arms in the air once as he put his head down and then walk over to the desk where the cop pointed to. There was no waving of arms or marching. The author is clearly injecting his own bias by using terms like dismissively and marching because that's not the impression that many of us got from viewing the footage. What I saw was compliance and walking.

Talk about trying and convicting people based on sketchy 'evidence'.

The fact that you chose to overlook the point of the article and instead focus and nitpick on something totally meanlingless really shows that you're not open to any line of thought other than your 'conviction.'

The point of the article appears to be in the opening paragraph, "Robert Dziekanski's death at Vancouver International Airport was a terrible tragedy that need not have happened. But the incident has been made worse by casual assumptions and baseless accusations...".

Hey, don't shoot the messenger, I'm merely pointing out the irony in that the point seems lost on the author himself when he goes on to do the very thing he accuses others of doing by using subjective opinion and omitting facts to suit his own POV, not to mention using erroneous information as you yourself pointed out.

Yes, it is. To those who are open to what it is actually saying. To those who have already tried and convicted the RCMP I guess it wouldn't be so great since those people are what the article is about.

And I have said before, and will repeat again, the RCMP don't have to take the full weight of what went on there. The airport authority can shoulder some of that as well, as can Dziekanski and probably his own mother.

The RCMP might have a pristine reputation in your eyes that makes any criticism of them distasteful to you, but that would only be your own biased POV at work. C'est la vie.

As I said to Riverwind, we can agree to disagree and revisit this after the inquiries are in if you like. This seems to be bordering on pointless to go much further.

[Guest American Woman]

He didn't proceed through customs. The timetable is in error. He didn't clear customs for hours.

Actually if you had bothered to read the article it states that he cleared customs at 4:00 and then at 10:30 he found his luggage (with assistance) and proceeded through the second inspection and on to Immigration. As I said, it's a minor inaccuracy but one nonetheless.

And as *I* already said, the timetable, which you are quoting from, is in error. So obviously I read the article. It's snide, ignorant remarks like yours that tell me when it's not worth my time to contiue in a discussion, so I read as far as what I quoted above and knew it wasn't worth my time to read any more and/or continue this discussion with you.

Edited November 20, 2007 by American Woman

[Oleg Bach]

Actually if you had bothered to read the article it states that he cleared customs at 4:00 and then at 10:30 he found his luggage (with assistance) and proceeded through the second inspection and on to Immigration. As I said, it's a minor inaccuracy but one nonetheless.

And as *I* already said, the timetable, which you are quoting from, is in error. So obviously I read the article. It's snide, ignorant remarks like yours that tell me when it's not worth my time to contiue in a discussion, so I read as far as what I quoted above and knew it wasn't worth my time to read any more and/or continue this discussion with you.

Don't give up and retract your service Ameican woman. Sometimes you have to spoon feed stubborn born. Be patient and do not anger or sense disappointment..things take time - and to come to an honest understanding is not like making instant pudding - keep the dialogue goining or you HAVE wasted your time - the job is not done yet. I found when dealing with Americans - You have to show committment - and win their trust, making them know for certain that you are a friend - then and only then will you come to agreement. Walking away from the table is an error - give more - more time...all come to their senses in time.