Tasered Polish Man

[sideshow]

s

Edited March 19, 2008 by sideshow

[Wilber]

There was an interesting spot on the news contrasting YVR and SEATAC. SEATAC has phones all over the place that are clearly marked for translation purposes with printed instructions in many languages including Polish.

YVR has very few phones offering that service, they are not clearly marked and when you pick them up you get that typical and infuriating Canadian response. For service in English, press 1. For service in French, press 2. In other words, unless you can get an English or French person to get you into the thing, you are SOL. I would be surprised if our other international airports were much different. The whole system needs a good shake.

[Carinthia]

A 45 year old prison inmate in Nova Scotia has just been reportedly tasered to death.

Lovely, it's now a daily occurance! Didn't hear much about the other 18 that have been killed at the time they were killed. Glad the media is finally all over this.

[Riverwind]

If these tasers have the capacity to kill people who have had a few drinks, now or 2 days ago, then they damn well shouldn't be using them at all.

Death from alcohol withdrawal does not happen to people who had few drinks - you would have to consume the equivalent of a bottle of vodka daily for quite a period of time. That said, the more news comes out the more I think that tasers need to treated as like firearms. I don't think we really understand what effect they might have on people in different physical conditions.

That said, our growing knowledge of how dangerous tasers are does not automatically mean the officers were negligent.

[sideshow]

s

Edited March 19, 2008 by sideshow

[Riverwind]

Well said. So why does the government (regardless of these latest incidents) simply have studies conducted (again-wasn't there extensive testing done in the states?) and if they are found to be more harmful then beneficial, then scrap em.

All of the studies I have looked at seem to claim that tasers are harmless because the cannot electrocute a person death (For example, the taser manufacturer claims that the taser was not responsible for the death because he was still alive after the taser jolt). I think this is a simplistic way to look at it because the jolt could have altered the body processes in a way that leads to death by a cause other than electrocution.

[sideshow]

s

Edited March 19, 2008 by sideshow

[Carinthia]

And this could very well be the case. But we cannot blame the officers who are given this tool, whos training tells them that there are no lasting effects, for a death caused by its use (unless its proven that they missused it).

And given the option of taser vs. gun, a taser May kill someone, a gun probably will kill someone. So (not in this recent incident) the taser may still have its uses regardless of the findings.

If I were a cop right now, I'd be thinking twice before using my taser on anybody.

[Wilber]

If I were a cop right now, I'd be thinking twice before using my taser on anybody.

Yup, shoot em instead because thinking twice about something at the wrong time could get you killed or badly hurt. Ask yourself what do we need more of, coddled creeps or police officers in the hospital or on disability?

Considering the lynch mob mentality surrounding this, my guess is that a lot of cops are reconsidering their career choice and others who were thinking of becoming cops are deciding otherwise. There are lots of jobs for ex cops. Be even more if we can't find anyone to replace the ones we have.

[capricorn]

The whole system needs a good shake.

Rather than explore feasible solution to the problems you point out, most people are more concerned with calling for murder charges against any officer involved in a taser death.

I would like to see a moratorium on tasers pending the multitude of inquiries/probes/investigations/reviews on the use of tasers. I would then wait for the first fatal shooting of a perp during the commission of a crime or an out of control nutjob. The same people objecting to the taser would be condemning responding officers for using their side arm. Such an incident too would result in umpteen inquiries. But then again, he perp might just wrestle the side arm from the officer and kill him with it. Then who would receive compassion?

[Wilber]

The same people objecting to the taser would be condemning responding officers for using their side arm.

That's the thing, police use Tazers because they don't like to shoot people, nor should they have to if there is an alternative.

But then again, he perp might just wrestle the side arm from the officer and kill him with it. Then who would receive compassion?

Considering some of the posts, you really wonder.

[Carinthia]

Why would the cops be shooting unarmed people? If a person doesn't have a knife, a gun or some other weapon, where would be the justification in shooting them? How can anybody compare the taser deaths we have seen lately, to the fact that without these tasers, cops might have to use guns? If it was ever reported that a perp with a gun or a knife was killed by being tasered in order for the tasering cop to defend himself, I really doubt there would be much outcry for the perp. Ridiculous!

If the cops WERE restricting taser use to life and death situations, nobody would be that upset would they? But this has not been the case. Simple. One unarmed, confused man, four cops with tasers. I don't see much of a life threatening scenario to cops here.

Edited November 23, 2007 by Carinthia

[Wilber]

If the cops WERE restricting taser use to life and death situations, nobody would be that upset would they? But this has not been the case. Simple. One unarmed, confused man, four cops with tasers. I don't see much of a life threatening scenario to cops here.

It can't be a simple matter of life and death situations. If it is life threatening they should probably be using a gun. You have to ask at what point do police officers have the right to put their own physical well being ahead of the person they are trying to arrest. A large number of arrests that wouldn't be considered life threatening still present real physical risks for the officers involved. The thing is you are doing exactly what you are accusing the police of. Jumping to conclusions before you have seen and considered all the information.

[Moxie]

It can't be a simple matter of life and death situations. If it is life threatening they should probably be using a gun. You have to ask at what point do police officers have the right to put their own physical well being ahead of the person they are trying to arrest. A large number of arrests that wouldn't be considered life threatening still present real physical risks for the officers involved. The thing is you are doing exactly what you are accusing the police of. Jumping to conclusions before you have seen and considered all the information.

Bang on Wilber, police officers put their life on the line daily to protect the public should they not consider their lives just as important. If someone is out of control, should they allow that person to get close enough to possibly take their "Side Arm"? No, the tazer's purpose is to protect the police officer and the public from someone resisting arrest or acting in a violent manner. So some people think the officer should put his personal saftey at risk-- lest he harm or shock possibly kill-- to disarm a criminal who is committing a crime. It's easy to judge when one's life and personal safty isn't at risk, I'll wait for the facts.

[jbg]

Maybe we should abolish all Police Agencies Country wide and all you armchair warriors can fend for yourselves when the the shite hits the fan. Police State? Please! The pathetic whining of those that are first to dial 911 when their neighbour steps on their lawn, let alone all the other frivolous calls are making me sick.

After 911, in the City near where I live, the police and fire fighters were rushing into buildings rather than out of them. Need I say more.

[Wilber]

After 911, in the City near where I live, the police and fire fighters were rushing into buildings rather than out of them. Need I say more.

You really don't.

[Carinthia]

It can't be a simple matter of life and death situations. If it is life threatening they should probably be using a gun. You have to ask at what point do police officers have the right to put their own physical well being ahead of the person they are trying to arrest. A large number of arrests that wouldn't be considered life threatening still present real physical risks for the officers involved. The thing is you are doing exactly what you are accusing the police of. Jumping to conclusions before you have seen and considered all the information.

I reiterate...one man...4 cops who are trained in take downs, or so we assume. The risk of personal injury was minimal. Simple logic. That's the profession they chose to undertake and there are risks to it. If all of us who are critical of how this was handled are jumping to conclusions, then I guess the Premier and all the other powers that be are too.

[Riverwind]

That's the profession they chose to undertake and there are risks to it.

This has got to be lamest excuse I have ever heard. Police are doing a necessary job and nobody has any right to tell them to take anymore risks than absolutely necessary. Tackling a 6 foot+ man is a risky proposition no matter how many people try. Edited November 23, 2007 by Riverwind

[Carinthia]

This has got to be lamest excuse I have ever heard.

Excuse for what? If they can't do the job properly then they should go ice the donuts at Tim Hortons.

[jbg]

You really don't.

Sarcasm perhaps?

[Drea]

to disarm a criminal who is committing a crime. It's easy to judge when one's life and personal safty isn't at risk, I'll wait for the facts.

The Polish man was unarmed... and he wasn't freaking out THAT badly. If the cops would've not acted with a "swat team" mentality and sent in a cop with a calming presence, this tragic death could have been avoided. I don't blame the individual officers in this case, I blame their lack of training. Rather than being trained how to deal with an out-of-control individual, they have been trained in the "swat" mentality.

On the other hand -- the other BC man that was tasered and is now in the hospital in intensive care -- he was completely out of control. The cops first tried pepper spray and he kept coming. Then they tried the taser (twice) and he kept coming. Then they beat him with their batons. Deservedly so as there was nothing but brute force that was going to get this guy to cooperate.

Edited November 23, 2007 by Drea

[Riverwind]

Excuse for what? If they can't do the job properly then they should go ice the donuts at Tim Hortons.

Doing the job properly requires that they minimize the risk of injury to bystanders, themselves and the perpertrators. The police officers were told that tasers are safe. In fact they were told that using a taser is actually *safer* than other forms of restraint (RCMP Chief Elliot said this). That means the officers felt that using the taser was the best way to minimize the risk of injury to themselves *and* the person being arrested.

You may disagree and the inquiries that are now underway may declare tasers as unsafe. However, that does not change the fact that using the taser was a reasonable choice among restraint options given the information they had at the time.

That said, the officers will likely be disciplined for letting the situation get to the point where they needed to restrain the guy. However, that is a completely different issue.

Edited November 23, 2007 by Riverwind

[Wilber]

Sarcasm perhaps?

Not at all.

[Wilber]

I reiterate...one man...4 cops who are trained in take downs, or so we assume. The risk of personal injury was minimal. Simple logic. That's the profession they chose to undertake and there are risks to it. If all of us who are critical of how this was handled are jumping to conclusions, then I guess the Premier and all the other powers that be are too.

How the hell would you know what risk was minimal? How many six foot 200 lb+ men in a frenzy have you been involved in taking down? You watch too much TV methinks. Yes there are risks to their profession but you have no right to expect them to take any more risks on your behalf than are necessary to do their job. Most of them become police officers to serve their community and help people, not to get beat up, maimed or get infected with some unspeakable disease. My you have a low opinion of the only people there are between you and the scum of this world.

The Premier and the powers that be have initiated investigations and a public inquiry. They aren't convicting them out of hand like you.

[no queenslave]

Not at all.

What happened to the PA system when the mother was looking for her son? No airport worker knew how to locate someone in the terminal? Why did it take 4 cops to talk to someone; nothing else to do?All that was necessary is for some staff interpreter to do their job.

what would of been the outcome if the cops had done their job and assisted the person? All they had to do is say , your mother is waiting for you , follow me and i will show you where she is waiting for you. All the cops wanted to do is practice tasering someone.

Edited November 23, 2007 by no queenslave