Robert Dziekanski

[Argus]

It sure looked to me like he was complying and in the process of putting his hands up when they Tasered him. I get a definite sense of resignation in Dziekanski's body language, especially in the way he threw his arms up moments before they let him have it. He's clearly throwing his arms up and flinging his head down in a classic "okay, I'll give up" gesture. Those cops were supposed to be proffesionals that are trained to recognize exactly these sorts of things. They not only missed that they just let him die without so much as lifting a finger to take a pulse or check his breathing. According to testimony given at the inquiry the cops wouldn't let anyone else do this either until it was too late.

They'd been told the taser was safe. IMHO, clearly not true. I agree as well that tasers have been used far too often as though they were safe, and used in order to force obedience to orders, as opposed to subduing dangerous subjects. Tasering someone because they won't shut up, or won't lay down, or won't sign a ticket or won't get out of a car, or whatever, comes perilously close to torturing people in order to force obedience, and that's not what they were designed for. They ought to be used to subdue violent individuals who are armed, or otherwise uncontrollable. If this had been a large man on PCP, or there was only one cop availale, for example. I personally can't imagine I would have been much concerned for my safety had I been one of those four cops. At the same time, people need to remember that death can result due to almost any kind of violence. People have died because cops have wrestled with them, cause cops have hit them, cause cops have sat on them, whatever. A guy is on trial in Ottawa because he punched another guy once, in the back of the head. Somehow that ruptured an artery in the guy's brain and he died.

There is no excusing the behaviour of these police. They f^*ked up in every way possible

As men, perhaps, but probably not as cops. They probably followed established procedure for dealing with non-compliant individuals who are "resistant".

and I think the reflex to defend them reflects a generalized desire to see police being seen as cracking down and getting tough on 'perps'

I disagree. The reflexive defense is based, first, on the acknowledgement that cops' have a shitty job, and it's the only job where you're legally required to physically attack and restrain people. That comes with risks given the inherently unpredictable nature of the human body and the many hidden fault ines which run through it. Punch one guy forty two times and he still keeps coming at you. Punch another guy once and he dies. Whoops. So there is that understanding, combined with the general belief that, to some extent, this guy is author of his own misfortune. Most of us, upon being confronted by uniformed people in a public place - clearly police or security - would have done as they required, not shouted at them and walked away. Guy was an idiot. That doesn't mean he deserved to die, but - the guy WAS an idiot.

. This is reminiscent of the sort of excited support I recall some kids would demonstrate whenever someone was getting a beating in a school-yard. There were always a few who would cheer and throw in a couple of good old fashioned 'hit em again' comments for good measure

I have not seen any of that.

I acknowledge that you're cutting Dzeikanski a little slack here Argus but I'm alarmed at just how quick many are to suggest that police be given even freer reign to wield their authority. Its downright chilling and depressing to see so many people willingly frog-marching our society towards a state that's characterized by fear and an unquestioning uncritical faith in the infallibility of police and state authority. We're going to see the same thing happen in response to the "gang wars" in BC, an over-the-top-reaction that contributes to the further development of what sociologists call a risk society. A society that is characterized by unreasoning fear and preoccupation with safety. The loss of civil liberties in response to 9/11 is a good example of where this will lead us.

Sometimes small things build up in society. The fact that, as many know, violent, vicious, brutal thugs can harm people with relative impunity, shrug off minor punishments, and be back on the street weeks or months later gives people a feeling of helplessness, and that breeds anger. The police don't need more power to deal with such people. What society needs is just punishments which are SEEN and acknowledged to be just given the nature of their crimes and their personalities and histories. If we were to get such a system then you would be less likely to see people clamouring for harsher laws overall and more policing powers.

Shooting a gun at someone ought to be a serious crime in this country, and it just isn't. In other contries, if you shoot at someone that is de facto considered attempted murder. Not here. Here you pretty much need a signed confession before you can convict anyone of attempted murder. So we definitely do need to rewrite laws to some extent, but always in the interest of fundamental justice.

[eyeball]

As men, perhaps, but probably not as cops. They probably followed established procedure for dealing with non-compliant individuals who are "resistant".

"Resistant"? Dziekanski was as compliant as it gets, they didn't send cops they sent pigs (spit). These bastards had it in for him before they even laid eyes on him.

Canada should be in for a real wake-up call if Harper decides to listen to police chiefs who want to arm every cop with a Taser and then sends them out to start crackin' down and gettin' tough.

Edited February 27, 2009 by eyeball

[roof_top_eagle]

"Resistant"? Dziekanski was as compliant as it gets, they didn't send cops they sent pigs (spit). These bastards had it in for him before they even laid eyes on him.

Canada should be in for a real wake-up call if Harper decides to listen to police chiefs who want to arm every cop with a Taser and then sends them out to start crackin' down and gettin' tough.

I think every cop should have a taser, just like every cop has a baton, handcuffs, a two way radio and a gun. What I think is lacking is the proper procedure for using a taser. Right now cops use them all willy nilly when ever they feel like it and don't get down and dirty anymore. Clearly if you take four guys from this forum with average intelligence we'd come out with a different outcome if we took on Dziekanski and all we had were a set of handcuffs. What is a problem is the fact that these four officers couldn't handle a lone man. They had plenty of chances to wrestle him to the ground and cuff him and used a taser instead because it's easier and safer for them.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the taser is a good and useful tool. It just needs a place on the use of force continuum. As I understand it, the taser isn't on there or just isn't in the right spot. If there is clear when, why and hows on using a taser then it can be valuable to every police officer.

I do think it is used way to liberally right now.

[85RZ500]

Good one r-t-e.

The Vancouver debacle shows the world how badly a situation can be handled. One of those four LEOs should have had the intelligence to assess the situation and quickly come up with a plan of action.

Something simple like an announcement on the P/A looking for someone to speak Polish, before they went in there.

Hell, they more than likely would have come up with the poor guy's mother.

[Avro]

The only reason that this has become a big issue is because the poor guy is dead. This situation begs the question of how many times do police use this course of action when the cameras aren't on.

I'll bet dollars to donuts that all four coppers walk with zero punishment.

They shouldn't be but they are above the law. :angry:

[Argus]

"Resistant"? Dziekanski was as compliant as it gets, they didn't send cops they sent pigs (spit). These bastards had it in for him before they even laid eyes on him.

Canada should be in for a real wake-up call if Harper decides to listen to police chiefs who want to arm every cop with a Taser and then sends them out to start crackin' down and gettin' tough.

I don't agree that he was compliant. I do agree with the cops that the taser can be extremely useful. However, it is being used in situations - like this one - where it ought not to be used. Using a taser on someone who is not in a violent situation - as in holding a knife or something - is akin to commiting an assault. If Dziekanski had been standing there as he was, exactly as he was, would it have been appropriate to have punched him in the face just then? I think everyone would conclude - no. Therefore it was not appropriate to taser him either. I think the standard pretty much ought to be that if it's innapropriate to punch someone then it's innapropriate to taser them either. The taser is simply a safer version of a punch - a punch from a distance, as when the guy has a knife or something. It should not be used to force obedience on someone who is simply refusing to put his hands up or get on his knees or whatever - unless they pose a quite distinct threat. And "he might have something in his pocket" is not distinct enough.

[blueblood]

I don't agree that he was compliant. I do agree with the cops that the taser can be extremely useful. However, it is being used in situations - like this one - where it ought not to be used. Using a taser on someone who is not in a violent situation - as in holding a knife or something - is akin to commiting an assault. If Dziekanski had been standing there as he was, exactly as he was, would it have been appropriate to have punched him in the face just then? I think everyone would conclude - no. Therefore it was not appropriate to taser him either. I think the standard pretty much ought to be that if it's innapropriate to punch someone then it's innapropriate to taser them either. The taser is simply a safer version of a punch - a punch from a distance, as when the guy has a knife or something. It should not be used to force obedience on someone who is simply refusing to put his hands up or get on his knees or whatever - unless they pose a quite distinct threat. And "he might have something in his pocket" is not distinct enough.

If you think a blunt object doesn't cause harm you are mistaken.

I challenge you to place your hand on your desk and hit it as hard as you can with a stapler. One or more of those mounties would have gotten the business end of that. Why is it acceptable to cause bodily harm to police officers and not perpetrators?

[guyser]

If you think a blunt object doesn't cause harm you are mistaken.

No one is making that assertion.

I challenge you to place your hand on your desk and hit it as hard as you can with a stapler. One or more of those mounties would have gotten the business end of that.

True, but they could also be shot on duty , get in a traffic accident or anything else. Should they just taser people , all people , just to avoid some discomfort?

If a stapler scares them, they should have signed up at McDonald's

Why is it acceptable to cause bodily harm to police officers and not perpetrators?

Please show all of us who and when twe thought it was.

You keep on this stapler thing , and frankly O get reminded of Austin Powers, ..."really now, who throws a shoe (stapler) anymore...really "

[Riverwind]

True, but they could also be shot on duty , get in a traffic accident or anything else. Should they just taser people , all people , just to avoid some discomfort?

Sure. If it was known that tasers were 100% harmless (e.g. set your phasors on stun...).

The problem is too many people are judging the police based on their perceptions of the safety of tasers. And many people now conclude that they are potentially lethal weapons that should only be used in situations where the only other option is a gun. However, this is not what the officers in question believed when they used the taser and that means their actions cannot be judged by those standards.

I personally think the use of tasers needs to be strictly controller because they are potentially lethal. But I do not think it is reasonable to crucify officiers who made a reasonable decision based on what they were told about the safety of tasers.

[roof_top_eagle]

You keep on this stapler thing , and frankly O get reminded of Austin Powers, ..."really now, who throws a shoe (stapler) anymore...really "

[blueblood]

No one is making that assertion.

Fooled me.

True, but they could also be shot on duty , get in a traffic accident or anything else. Should they just taser people , all people , just to avoid some discomfort?

If a stapler scares them, they should have signed up at McDonald's

This wasn't about avoiding discomfort, this is avoiding getting themselves and the public hurt.

I think any reasonable person would be nervous if a 200+ pound person came at them brandishing a 1-2 pound blunt object, fist clenched in other hand, and was yelling who knows what.

Would you rather they have a duel with the nightstick?

They made the right call, it looks bad, but all those members made it home safely and nobody else got hurt. The death was a straight up accident.

Please show all of us who and when twe thought it was.

You keep on this stapler thing , and frankly O get reminded of Austin Powers, ..."really now, who throws a shoe (stapler) anymore...really "

If your saying that the cops shouldn't have tasered him because it was "unfair" then your saying its all right for the cops to get smacked around. An arrest isn't a hockey fight, it isn't fair and shouldn't be, the cop is supposed to win all the time. The only thing that's fair should be the trial, the victim can fight it out there. If the judge thinks the cop screwed up, the case gets tossed out.

I'll keep on the stapler thing, it is a one to two pound blunt object with metal. I and any other reasonable person wouldn't want to be hit with one when the person hitting me is swinging for the fences.

[xul]

However I stand by the side of the RCMP officers, I mean if you don't speak english do you think it could be handy to learn some before coming to CANADA! I mean what do you think we speak here, German?

Not all foreigners going into a international airport are immigrants....

[eyeball]

This wasn't about avoiding discomfort, this is avoiding getting themselves and the public hurt.

Hooey. This is about covering up the fact these assholes went in itching to Taser someone and they got caught.

I think any reasonable person would be nervous if a 200+ pound person came at them brandishing a 1-2 pound blunt object, fist clenched in other hand, and was yelling who knows what.

No, only obsequious sycophants and apologists for progressive authoritarianism like you would keep brandishing this pathetic attempt to deny the obvious.

They made the right call, it looks bad, but all those members made it home safely and nobody else got hurt. The death was a straight up accident.

They got caught in a lie and this was manslaughter at the very least. A whole lot of people got hurt by this actually, like the plans of police chiefs across Canada to oufit every dick in the land with one of these fucking Tasers. Taser International of course is taking a hit and as for the RCMP piss on them. They've proven once and for all time to be one of the greatest threats to Canadian civil liberties this country has ever seen. I actually don't see why having an RCMP on every street corner would be any different than having a soldier on every corner.

I'll keep on the stapler thing, it is a one to two pound blunt object with metal. I and any other reasonable person wouldn't want to be hit with one when the person hitting me is swinging for the fences.

Keep on it all you want, it still won't look any better than a pig flogging a dead Pole though.

Edited February 27, 2009 by eyeball

[blueblood]

Toaster comment of the day. Time to buy shares in Alcan.

[eyeball]

No doubt a toaster attack would warrant a hail of bullets in your universe.

[blueblood]

No doubt a toaster attack would warrant a hail of bullets in your universe.

Nope just a taser shot, zap zap.

But in your universe you'd like to see cops shot and have the hells angels run the show.

[Riverwind]

No doubt a toaster attack would warrant a hail of bullets in your universe.

In some universes that would be an appropriate response... Edited February 27, 2009 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

Concerns have surfaced that officers involved in the death of Robert Dziekanski may have tainted their own testimony when they shared their versions of events during an RCMP critical incident debriefing session.

Source

If these were Hell's Angels they'd be charged with conspiracy, but of course these brave stalwarts, this thin blue line, were simply attempting to get in touch with their feelings...reaching out to one another...letting the healing begin...

...oh the humanity.

[guyser]

Fooled me.

The show me where they are?

This wasn't about avoiding discomfort, this is avoiding getting themselves and the public hurt.

The public was removed from the immediate area. If there is one thing we both know, its that the public will move away from a situation like this, thus no one gets hurt.

There were four of them, and they are trained in containment. No one was going anywhere, but for some unseen reason, these four decided to taser away.

200 people have died from taser deaths prior to Dziekanski. They would have to live under a rock not to know 'some' problems exist and not to stop and think...'maybe we can just do X instead'.

I think any reasonable person would be nervous if a 200+ pound person came at them brandishing a 1-2 pound blunt object, fist clenched in other hand, and was yelling who knows what.

My stapler weighs less than a pound, 347g to be precise (0.76 lbs) It is an unwieldy piece of equipment.

Would I be nervous, of course. Would I fear for my life? No, I save that for driving on the 401 on my way home.

I am not trained for hand to hand (only hand to gland) but the RCMP are.

Would you rather they have a duel with the nightstick?

No that hurts , and I know that because I have been hit with one by a cop friend of mine. I told him that I didnt think they would hurt that bad. He said 'really?" ....and when I wasnt looking he nailed me on the arm,softly, and damn that hurt like a mofo.

But to answer your question, I will bet Dziekanski would have. He would be alive today if they had...and they should have.

They made the right call, it looks bad, but all those members made it home safely and nobody else got hurt. The death was a straight up accident.

An accident is described as an event of out of the control of the people in play. There are almost no accidents anytime anywhere (and auto 'accidents' is a misnomer)

They had choices, many choices, and they took the easists route they could, unfortunately they choose the one with the second highest risk and ignored all the warning signs in their heads that said 'I know this could potentially kill someone'

What they know, or should have known, weighed against what they did, only means they were negligent.

If your saying that the cops shouldn't have tasered him because it was "unfair" then your saying its all right for the cops to get smacked around.

Why introduce emotions into this discussion. No one has even suggested that its ok for cops to get smacked around. I surely haven't.

Where these cops getting smacked around? NO

Where these cops under direct threat of life or limb? NO

I'll keep on the stapler thing, it is a one to two pound blunt object with metal. I and any other reasonable person wouldn't want to be hit with one when the person hitting me is swinging for the fences.

Neither would the cops want to get hit. Thats why they stayed well away from this guy. They were not about to get hit either.

My stapler = .75 of a pound.

[roof_top_eagle]

Not all foreigners going into a international airport are immigrants....

That's true I misspoke on that one.

[blueblood]

The public was removed from the immediate area. If there is one thing we both know, its that the public will move away from a situation like this, thus no one gets hurt.

I can't comment on the public, they were close enough to shoot video however. I don't have a crystal ball, so I will assume there could have been some risk.

There were four of them, and they are trained in containment. No one was going anywhere, but for some unseen reason, these four decided to taser away.

Reason being they didn't want a stapler upside the head. Seems fair to me, and was fair to the crown. The risk of dying from a taser is very very small, based on deaths vs. amt. of time deployed. I'm assuming they busted out the taser because they themselves didn't want to get injured in arresting a rather large and unruly suspect and at the same time not injure the suspect with baton strikes/butt kicking.

All he had to do was hit the floor and lay still, why should people get hurt because of somebody's idiocy?

200 people have died from taser deaths prior to Dziekanski. They would have to live under a rock not to know 'some' problems exist and not to stop and think...'maybe we can just do X instead'.

And based on amt. of times deployed a large amt. of people lived. I'm not too certain, but didn't a report say he was a gonner regardless of the taser or not? That and they have no time. In a post 9-11 world, somebody screwing around at an international airport needs to be dealt with ASAP. The taser in theory is the most efficient and safest method out there.

My stapler weighs less than a pound, 347g to be precise (0.76 lbs) It is an unwieldy piece of equipment.

Would I be nervous, of course. Would I fear for my life? No, I save that for driving on the 401 on my way home.

I am not trained for hand to hand (only hand to gland) but the RCMP are.

I guess I need a new stapler then. It is unwieldy, yet works in a bind as a makeshift club. The members were well within protocol and within the rules of engagement. They acted responsibly, if you don't like tasers being used, lobby the gov't to review their use (which is being done anyway, which means back to perps getting beaten with nightsticks)

Just because somebody is trained in hand to hand doesn't mean that they should unnecessarily risk themselves if they don't have to. Being in the insurance industry you should understand that point. Why should they risk themselves to getting whacked in the head when they had a tool at their disposal to safely (in their mind at the time) detain the suspect. That has obviously changed now however.

But to answer your question, I will bet Dziekanski would have. He would be alive today if they had...and they should have.

I bet anybody would not want to be tasered/physically restrained. Nobody wants. It's not about what the perp wants, it's about safety, which in the members mind, the taser fit the bill. Then there is the picture of that guy getting the beat down with batons at the airport, that would be on the video, and I bet you'd be slamming the cops for using nightsticks/physical force to restrain the suspect even if that means the likely event that both the perp and the members sustain injuries.

An accident is described as an event of out of the control of the people in play. There are almost no accidents anytime anywhere (and auto 'accidents' is a misnomer)

They didn't plan on killing him, they planned on restraining him as effeciently as possible with nobody getting hurt, since he was being crazy, he took the ride for five.

By saying that they shouldn't have tasered him, you are suggesting that the cops should take unnecessary risks and saying it's perfectly all right for members to sustain injuries. I don't think anybody should be sustaining injuries in an arrest.

Why do you think any one of them should have went up there and get whacked when he doesn't have to. And you can bet your ass the perp would have tried to injure as many members as possible should they have decided to not taser him. Don't police officers deserve to enable themselves a safer working environment provided it's in the rules?

They had choices, many choices, and they took the easists route they could, unfortunately they choose the one with the second highest risk and ignored all the warning signs in their heads that said 'I know this could potentially kill someone'

What they know, or should have known, weighed against what they did, only means they were negligent

What choice, "gee I'm going to go in head first and risk getting my teeth knocked out so we can have a fair fight" Their job is to remove problems and bring them before a judge as efficiently and within the rules as possible. Break the rules and bye bye case. Taser deaths are freak accidents, so is a random punch in the head. They have to look out for their safety, the public's safety, and the safety of the perp, at this point in time the taser was the proper tool for the job. Had he not picked up a blunt object, he probably would have been wrestled.

Why introduce emotions into this discussion. No one has even suggested that its ok for cops to get smacked around. I surely haven't.

Where these cops getting smacked around? NO

Where these cops under direct threat of life or limb? NO

Had the cops gone and used physical force they do risk getting smacked around, and they do risk their lives if the perp decides to reach for their sidearms. By risking getting up close and personal they open another can of worms, they have no idea what the perp is capable of. The perp could have been ex military for all they known and could have been a handful. They had time and space to deploy the taser as the situation warranted, if it gets into a wrestling match, that means things have gone to hell and a hand basket. Their use of the taser was spot on in this situation.

Your equating a taser with their sidearm. It is not a sidearm. With the taser there is a chance you might die, with the sidearm, there is a chance you might live. In Winnipeg, it was deemed lawful to blast a perp who was brandishing a knife. I'd say the taser is in the same league as the stapler.

Neither would the cops want to get hit. Thats why they stayed well away from this guy. They were not about to get hit either.

My stapler = .75 of a pound.

How do you know they would not get hit, can you read the perp's mind? The members can't read minds either, it is safer to assume that he is capable of anything and take the appropriate precautions. This guy was mentally unstable, had snapped and was throwing crap around. He was not willing to reason, it's basic animal psychology, when something goes loco, it's best to keep the distance.

That .75 pound stapler would still hurt like a bastard if you got hit upside the head with it.

[Oleg Bach]

After seeing a still pic of the Pollish tazer victims face...this was not a typical man...one look and I do read the face and eyes well - this guy was genetically predisposed violence - nature creates these types and most make fine soldiers but fail to assimulate into civil society...anciet warriors should not travel alone..no wonder the dumb little RCMP cops were striken with fear - as a young man myself spending time taking part of the night life - and being a tad wild...I was picked up by a cop and because of genetics he looked at the high natural developement of the veins in my arms and the muscle...

I was the type of young man how had a natural gift...bursts of great emotional, spiritual and physical power...The cop looked me over and said - I have seen your kind before - If I were to run into you in a dark alley - I would shoot you first and ask questions latter ...This slavonic at the Van air port was no kitten. Also to continue bragging about my God given body as a young man ...after I was picked up and tossed into the drunk tank - I heard the officer quietly mention to the others -- " be careful of this one - is more than equivelant to a black belt...some human beings were bred for war - Now that my Scythian blood is aging - I am now just a very fast wrinkled aging man..

[ToadBrother]

This wasn't about avoiding discomfort, this is avoiding getting themselves and the public hurt.

At which point precisely was the public in any danger? They were sitting on the other side of the glass for hours watching the guy. So I'll ask again, when was the public in any danger?

[blueblood]

At which point precisely was the public in any danger? They were sitting on the other side of the glass for hours watching the guy. So I'll ask again, when was the public in any danger?

had he decided to come onto the other side of the glass, when he was throwing items, the time walking around agitated...

People like that should not be in airports.

[Argus]

If you think a blunt object doesn't cause harm you are mistaken.

I challenge you to place your hand on your desk and hit it as hard as you can with a stapler. One or more of those mounties would have gotten the business end of that. Why is it acceptable to cause bodily harm to police officers and not perpetrators?

If the guy swung the stapler at someone then it would have justified punching him - or tazering him. He didn't swing it at anyone. And frankly, if I had three buddies I would feel fairly confident I would be able to stop this guy from hitting me with a stapler. It's not too hard for four guys to swarm one and take his stapler away. If you think otherwise I'll give you a stapler, and then you can try and hit me and my three buddies. As soon as you swing, though, we'll jump on you and beat the crap out of you. I don't think you'll even land one blow with your stapler.