Robert Dziekanski

xul · March 3, 2009

Tasers can be an effective tool, but they should never be used as a means to compel compliance with orders. They should only be used to subdue violent people where other means are likely to cause more damage - to them or the officers.

I think the statement I quoted above from your post strikes the right note of the event. Not only a Taser can casually kill a person, even if all policemen were merely armed with staplers they still could kill Robert Dziekanski by the way of throwing the staplers on his head before any tryout of calming down him with other means which "are likely to cause less damage".

There are a lot of posters talking about training and shame. Though I don't know how these officers were trained, but I'm sure most of posters under this discussion are not polic officers and have never been trained anytime, but obviously they know the correct way to deal with the circumstance more than those police officers....or I would say, on the other hand, If your comments about Robert Dziekanski are correct, the IQ of those police officers and the investigators who have concluded that no one needs responsible for the tragedy is not "up" than Mr.Robert Dziekanski's too much---this is really a shame.

Edited March 3, 2009 by xul

Oleg Bach · March 3, 2009

Tazers should only be used on people who say something you don't want to hear - or something that you don't agree with -- so just zap the bastards - and if they scream out for mercy "Don't Tazer Me Bro" Then increase the voltage and keep Tazering him - then if that does not work - pile some rocks on his chest or cops - like they used to smother witches... The Tazer should only be held by those who imagine themselves as all knowing demi-gods...and anyone lesser than a minor god should be classed as an animal - say a pig...and fire that porker up with a billion volts till they are charcoal....Yes - Tazers should only be used on disenters - and those that are compliant to our will - well maybe just a poke with a sharp stick to keep them compliant. :rolleyes:

DrGreenthumb · March 3, 2009

Were it not for the videotape, I think no one would have known the just how inaccurate the police statements were. It is why police in Winnipeg appear to have confiscated both media and civilian recording equipment in recent months. Sometimes the filming have been arrested and the tapes were mysteriously erased.
One egregious case is a TV news videographer being arrested for recording when he was outside the police exclusion zone.

I have no doubt that he was acting out. I have my doubt that he was fighting police though.

This is exactly why we always encourage everyone to bring their video cameras and other recording devices to all Cannabis Legalization Rallies. The cops are less likely to beat people and otherwise abuse them and violate their rights when they know there are hundreds of cameras rolling.

guyser · March 3, 2009

Tazers should only be used on people who say something you don't want to hear - or something that you don't agree with -- so just zap the bastards - and if they scream out for mercy "Don't Tazer Me Bro" Then increase the voltage and keep Tazering him -

Is there, ya know, like an Internet version 2.0 of the Taser......if ya catch my drift?

blueblood · March 3, 2009

Is there, ya know, like an Internet version 2.0 of the Taser......if ya catch my drift?

We sure do it's called the Mods, their taser is the ban function.

jbg · March 4, 2009

I talked about this a little in my blog in a post called No charges in death of Robert Dziekanski Today I heard on CBC that the defense for the RCMP Officers who are blamed for his death is going to cite that the officers were doing what they are trained to do how they are trained to do it and that Dziekanski was a threat when he wielded a stapler.
Personally I think 4 highly trained RCMP officers could control a guy using a stapler as a weapon!

Not when you don't know who someone is, can't understand them and the person's beyond reason. See this thread concerning Travis the chimpanzee for details.

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?

Huh? I thought you speak Canadian there.

That aside, what I find appalling is that these officers have been on paid leave for 16 months! This inquiry should have been over and done with in a week. Nothing will bring Dziekanski back so why 1) waste taxpayers money looking into his death for 16+ months and 2) not put these officers back on the beat? I mean they are being paid, so why not have them work?

Political correctness.

Is this how we manage our money now? Some dude who walks into a Vancouver airport, dies because he's to dumb to get some english under his belt before coming to a dominantly english country and we have to spend millions of tax payer dollars on looking into his death. How wacky!
How much tax has Dziekanski paid to Canada? None? that is what I thought, so why do Canadian taxpayers have to foot the bill because he couldn't learn a little english?

What do you guys think? I think this inquiry is a waste of money, and that the RCMP must be desperate for officers if the guys they can get are scared of staplers.

I agree. It's not only the lack of English (or Canadian). When I went to Barbados, Portugal, or Canada, I didn't speak a word of the local language and yet I managed to avoid endangering the public. Most people know that airports are these days tense places where you're at risk if not on your best behavior.

jbg · March 4, 2009

I would the results of asphyxiation would have be readily detectable during the autopsy. As it was, there was no clear reason for the man to have died, which leads me to believe that repeated blasts of current probably stopped his heart. The cops simply can't user Taser International's stock answer of "excited delirium" (which, BTW, is a marketing invention and not, in any way, shape or form a medical diagnosis), because Dziekanski was not some drugged-out freek. No one can tell me that 50,000 volts, even at low amperage, could not have potentially catastrophic effects on heart rhythm.

As I posted just above, if someone acts in a risky manner in a place such as an airport that person is taking their life into their hands. If I turn to my wife in the airport and say, "honey, who's got the bomb" or something to that effect I expect to be arrested or even killed. Since 911 turned airports into symbols of slaughter, safety has become paramount. Better one deranged person dead than another tragedy.

I wouldn't even advocate the removal of Tasers. I think they are safer than a gun, but I think that a much clearer understanding of potential physiological effects is needed before we send out every cop in the world with one at his or her side. Quite frankly, I think it's utterly irresponsible and reprehensible that so many police forces are using these weapons based solely on the manufacturer's guidelines. Before a single one of these things was sold, there should have been *independent* studies done, to better understand the potential situations in which this so-called non-lethal weapon can be lethal.

As you correctly point out I'd rather have electric beams than bullets flying around in a crowded airport. It bears repeating that someone that acts the way Robert Dziekanski did risks harm or death in a setting such as an airport.

jbg · March 4, 2009

This is exactly why we always encourage everyone to bring their video cameras and other recording devices to all Cannabis Legalization Rallies. The cops are less likely to beat people and otherwise abuse them and violate their rights when they know there are hundreds of cameras rolling.

Does any post of yours not mention pot, cannabis or marijuana?

DrGreenthumb · March 4, 2009

Does any post of yours not mention pot, cannabis or marijuana?

Do any of yours not kiss the ass of the police, the military or the Conservative gooferment?

ReeferMadness · March 4, 2009

You over estimate the sinisterism - to use the word Gestapo removes your crediblity.

Oleg, you should be the last one to lecture me (or anyone) on credibility. Your postings are so rambling, I rarely read, much less reply to them. The term I used was 'Gestapo mentality' and I borrowed it from an acquaintance who happens to be a former cop. He acknowledged that it's an occupational hazard for police to get carried away and abuse their authority. There is a tendency for them to treat everyone with suspicion.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of the blather in your post - it's too ridiculous.

bush_cheney2004 · March 4, 2009

Oleg, you should be the last one to lecture me (or anyone) on credibility. Your postings are so rambling, I rarely read, much less reply to them....

That's what makes Oleg's posts so great.....magnifico! They are unique works of art.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of the blather in your post - it's too ridiculous.

That's OK...more wine for the rest of us.

Wilber · March 4, 2009

Does any post of yours not mention pot, cannabis or marijuana?

Not that I've seen.

DrGreenthumb · March 4, 2009

Not that I've seen.

Whatever, Wilbur

keep your head in the prohibition trough, then lecture the Cannabis users for supporting the gangsters who you've handed the supply side to. Isn't there a famous pig in a storybook called Wilber? So is your son in the Family business? "Some Pig"--Charlottes Web

Edited March 4, 2009 by DrGreenthumb

Wilber · March 4, 2009

Whatever, Wilbur
keep your head in the prohibition trough, then lecture the Cannabis users for supporting the gangsters who you've handed the supply side to. Isn't there a famous pig in a storybook called Wilber? So is your son in the Family business? "Some Pig"--Charlottes Web

Kind of sad to have your whole life consumed by smoking dope.

Edited March 4, 2009 by Wilber

DrGreenthumb · March 4, 2009

Kind of sad to have your whole life consumed by smoking dope.

Kind of sadder to make a living concerning yourself with other people's potsmoking.

ReeferMadness · March 4, 2009

That's what makes Oleg's posts so great.....magnifico! They are unique works of art.

Oh, yeah. They're just like Picassos - minus the genius, creativity, talent or any sign of coherence.

Wilber · March 4, 2009

Kind of sadder to make a living concerning yourself with other people's potsmoking.

I post on lots of things here and I don't know why you think my occupation had anything to do with other peoples pot smoking because it didn't. No matter what the subject of any issue you post on, it is always about smoking dope. Ever thought of doing something useful?

guyser · March 4, 2009

As I posted just above, if someone acts in a risky manner in a place such as an airport that person is taking their life into their hands. If I turn to my wife in the airport and say, "honey, who's got the bomb" or something to that effect I expect to be arrested or even killed. Since 911 turned airports into symbols of slaughter, safety has become paramount. Better one deranged person dead than another tragedy.

LOL...thats pretty funny. Of course it is patently false but it looks good on paper.

It bears repeating that someone that acts the way Robert Dziekanski did risks harm or death in a setting such as an airport.

Naw, it doesnt bear repeating, unless looking foolish counts. Fact is, you know this is not true for the entire worlds major airports.

jbg · March 4, 2009

Do any of yours not kiss the ass of the police, the military or the Conservative gooferment?

Learn to spell.

That being said, I am not a citizen of Canada and thus very few of my posts "kiss the ass of the Conservative gooferment government". Not many of my posts mention the military or the police either, but both seem to be generally doing their jobs. Getting high is not doing a job.

jbg · March 4, 2009

Kind of sadder to make a living concerning yourself with other people's potsmoking.

Wilber doesn't routinely discuss his concerns with other people's use of illegal and/or dangerous substances. Nor do I.

Oleg Bach · March 4, 2009

Wilber doesn't routinely discuss his concerns with other people's use of illegal and/or dangerous substances. Nor do I.

Illegal and or dangerous substances? Substances that cause harm should be illegal - substances that do not cause harm should be legal...but some substances might cause finacial harm to some because certain substances are beyond their field of investment. Law is not aways what is good for the common good but what is good for the few. My favorite quote by a law maker - "It may be immoral but it is legal" - lets turn that around - "It may be legal but it is immoral and harmful...that's alcohol. If harmful substances are legal because they are profitiable to a few - then surely substanced percieved as harmful by those who make a living from the sale of harmful substances....should know what they are talking about - rule one - I get to harm people for money and you are not entitled or licenced too..that seems to be the game. The biggest crook gets to play the good guy...and he doles out the permits...to himself...Booze in it self is a huge conflict of interest.

DrGreenthumb · March 5, 2009

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.

I'm not surprised that you would be afraid of a stapler. You think marijuana is dangerous.

blueblood · March 5, 2009

I'm not surprised that you would be afraid of a stapler. You think marijuana is dangerous.

Are you high right now, or is this batch of tinfoil not picking up beams from the mothership?

Take my stapler test and tell me how it works out for you.

eyeball · March 5, 2009

As I posted just above, if someone acts in a risky manner in a place such as an airport that person is taking their life into their hands. If I turn to my wife in the airport and say, "honey, who's got the bomb" or something to that effect I expect to be arrested or even killed.

When, how long should this take exactly? I mean, what if you turned to your wife and said "honey, I think I'll wander about the airport in an obviously strange and agitated state for 8 hours or so before I detonate my bomb"? This is the least reasonable or sustainable excuse I think I've heard yet for what police did to Mr Dziekanski. I can see the idea that - when someone acts in a risky manner in a place such as an airport that person is taking their life into their hands - might hold water immediately following the incident but not in light of what we know now. Why cling to such a silly argument? Its truly frightening how much fear and loathing has crippled reason and logic, not to mention compassion.

It bears repeating that Robert Dziekanski did wander about the airport in an obviously strange and agitated state for 8 hours or so before anyone responded - the system completely cocked things up here not Robert Dziekanski. You seem to be completely oblivious to this when you should be all the more terrified knowing just how lame the security really is.

"Honey, get the bombs quick, the chances of getting away with blowing something up have probably never been better".

Edited March 5, 2009 by eyeball

DrGreenthumb · March 5, 2009

Are you high right now, or is this batch of tinfoil not picking up beams from the mothership?
Take my stapler test and tell me how it works out for you.

Take a large tablespoon and wack yourself across the knuckles with it, that will probably hurt too, perhaps the cops should have walked into the airport restaurant and tazed everyone with a bowl of soup too?