Robert Dziekanski

Oleg Bach · March 8, 2009

This is a very good observation, because if they wait for China or America to solve their problems for them, they may regret doing so for a very, very long time. And so it goes......

The biggest farce in the world is the legalist term "process" - it is never ending- the peace "process" for instance is a sure sign that no one wants the conflicts to end. China's long term agenda is to eat us...America has eaten itself. When I posted the thread that the whole world has sucumbed to the powers of orgainized crime and all of you were shocked that I would say a such a a thing - I was wrong in one prime respect - that it has ALWAYS been this way and is not a new phneomena - It's just getting harder to hide these days as economies emplode on the heads of the rats - who still sit like talking heads and attempt to continued to dellude and dupe..

. For instance today on CNN there was an finacial advisor speaking to some poor guy about to lose his house - He gave this redundant advice ---- " Do not declare yourself bankrupt and keep up you payments even if there is an iminent forclosure - because if you do- you will taint your credit" - what a joke - If they young home owner did this and followed instructions like a good boy - It would be to no avail because there is no credit.. Talk about the banks holding on for dear live and continueing to con to the bitter end.

bush_cheney2004 · March 8, 2009

....I was wrong in one prime respect - that it has ALWAYS been this way and is not a new phneomena - It's just getting harder to hide these days as economies emplode on the heads of the rats - who still sit like talking heads and attempt to continued to dellude and dupe..

That's why I say just let it all hang out.....anybody still espousing American "principles" never understood them in the first place.

...Talk about the banks holding on for dear live and continueing to con to the bitter end.

Banks will come back, but only as their former selves before they became casinos.

Oleg Bach · March 8, 2009

That's why I say just let it all hang out.....anybody still espousing American "principles" never understood them in the first place.
Banks will come back, but only as their former selves before they became casinos.

Gambling with the money of little old ladies and trusting employess...Working about 15 years ago with a young lawyer associate of mine - who worked in government handling pension funds - he said - back then - once you guys need to collect there will be no money there. BC - tell me what the original "principles" were and are - put it in a nut shell and explain it to us little lambs. :rolleyes:

bush_cheney2004 · March 8, 2009

.... BC - tell me what the original "principles" were and are - put it in a nut shell and explain it to us little lambs.

Original principles (abridged version):

1) Kick your monarchy squarely in the ass until they hollar "uncle"

2) Champion the rights of property owners and republicanism

3) Expand the entire gig to the west coast, regardless of who gets stepped on

4) Rinse and repeat around the planet

Edited March 8, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

Oleg Bach · March 8, 2009

Original principles (abridged version):
1) Kick your monarchy squarely in the ass until they hollar "uncle"

2) Champion the rights of property owners and republicanism

3) Expand the entire gig to the west coast, regardless of who gets stepped on

4) Rinse and repeat around the planet

Well done ---- kick her in the ass until she hollars "uncle" sam? - so who's our uncle?

Chanpion the rights of property owners...we can't do that - our bankers and some of the old guys have QC after their names ( Queens Council) - still run the place like a feudal farm...a nice estate but I suspect it's all figureheadish as Canadains like to say - but SHE still owns BP oil...and tons of concerns all over the world...our "figurehead" queen is no softy....I don't care what you say - or what naive Candians - I bet my bottom dollar that the old bankers still file reports to Britain.

As far as the good old fashioned empiral rince and repeat planetary - Britain really does not have a military queendom - it's finacial - and they lay low and are not supposed to spill the beans - like silly Lord Napoleon Black did - for that he was tossed to the guys in Chicago....we do spread it around the planet like you do - but we are more polite about it ....As a kid I asked one of their lawyers "what are you going to do now - kill me" as they hauled off for insulting the new boy friend of my first love...He looked me in the eye - and said "We don't do that sort of thing"..

That sums up the difference between the Canado-brit empire and yours - you kill em quick - up here they kill you very slowly - it does not matter if it takes thirty years - once you offend them - you get no where...to conclude - we are the polite barbarians that suffocate an advesary slowly while you bludgeon them quick.. :lol: We are not that dis-similar.

kimmy · June 19, 2010

Judge Thomas Braidwood released his report today.

And just hours later, BC's attorney general named a special prosecutor to re-examine the possibility of laying charges against the four officers who killed Dziekanski.

There will also be a civilian body to investigate police misconduct allegations in BC.

Highlights of the report:

-Braidwood rejects the officers' claims that they believed they were under attack.

-Braidwood believes the officers made deliberate representations to justify their actions.

-Braidwood doubts their claims that they didn't discuss the incident before talking to investigators, but stopped short of alleging they conspired to fabricate their story.

Personally, I am very thankful for the work Judge Braidwood has done. I am glad the RCMP were not allowed to sweep this under the rug.

-k

Argus · June 19, 2010

Personally, I am very thankful for the work Judge Braidwood has done. I am glad the RCMP were not allowed to sweep this under the rug.

Don't be. The only reason they couldn't sweep it under the rug was the video shot by an onlooker. Were it not for that there never would have been any commission.

The RCMP needs new leadership and a major shakeup in its culture, values and training.

kimmy · June 19, 2010

Don't be. The only reason they couldn't sweep it under the rug was the video shot by an onlooker. Were it not for that there never would have been any commission.

I agree completely, and for me that is probably the most troubling aspect of this case. If that guy had not gone to court to get the video back from the RCMP, none of this would have been possible. The RCMP could have (and intended to) simply make the video disappear. Instead it became a matter of public record that opened the whole country's eyes and launched the whole inquiry.

If it had just been a case of an overenthusiastic officer accidentally killing someone because he didn't realize that Tazers were dangerous, this story would have been a tragic accident. Dziekanski's death was an unfortunate tragedy, but for me the real story is the length to which the RCMP went to try cover it up afterward. And I think this is the real accomplishment of the Braidwood inquiry: he tore into not just the officers on the scene, but also into the RCMP's communications with the media, their efforts to suppress information that portrayed them in a bad light, their shoddy internal investigation of the incident, their training, their leadership, and their culture.

The RCMP needs new leadership and a major shakeup in its culture, values and training.

And I think the recommendations to reexamine charges against these mooks and to establish civilian oversight of investigations of police misconduct are important steps in getting there.

-k

eyeball · June 19, 2010

Braidwood's conclusions about the events in the video don't seem too different than the conclusions most people came to within moments of seeing the video. Those who bleat about the context that's lost on the public in these things should pause to consider their own inabilities to perceive what's happening.

I'd still like to see a policy of making wearable cameras mandatory equipment for police, like I did long before poor Mr Dziekanski proved with his life why.

Edited June 19, 2010 by eyeball

DrGreenthumb · June 19, 2010

Some cops will yell...."put the crayon down...step away from the crayon..." He raises the red wax cylinder and suddenly -----boom - shot dead....Because of equity in hiring law enforcement - we have tiny little men with no physical power who must resort to either tazering or shooting for center mass.. Cops have to have authority..naturally - no artifically.

I think this is about the best post I've ever read from you Oleg, you've nailed it squarely on the head.

dre · June 19, 2010

The problem for the police isnt that they used a Tazer its that they abused it. They lit the guy up 5 times, 4 of them after he was already subdued on the ground.

eyeball · June 19, 2010

The problem for the police isnt that they used a Tazer its that they abused it. They lit the guy up 5 times, 4 of them after he was already subdued on the ground.

The problem's for us are many and run deep. The cops and their bosses tried to cover it up/play it down/shift the blame etc etc. It's also quite troubling to me that it should take this long and absorb so many resources to resolve this case. The loss of public faith in the police and what it will cost to restore it will likewise be expensive but probably more so in terms of time. I fear most of the financial price of this will be spent on avoiding accountability not enhancing it.

The lack of adequate police oversight can cost people like Robert Dziekanski their lives. The costs to our society from not having adequate oversight over our institutions is perhaps incalculable and potentially even more dangerous should we lose all faith in them all together.

Argus · June 19, 2010

The problem for the police isnt that they used a Tazer its that they abused it. They lit the guy up 5 times, 4 of them after he was already subdued on the ground.

I disagree. You know, I remember reading that the idiot RCMP sergeant in charge of training people in the use of the Tazer said they had done exactly the right thing, and thinking "You need to find another job, idiot".

The policy towards use of the tazer shoud be simple. If it's not appropriate to punch someone in the face, it's not appropriate to shock them with a tazer. The device was not designed or approved - by the public - for use as a torture device, or to compel obedience. I've seen cases, not specifically with just the RCMP, of cops tazering people because they won't sign a traffic ticket, cause they won't get out of a car, cause they were yelling, cause they weren't quick enough to put their arms behind their backs, or get on the ground.

I've read of ninety pound teenage girls tazered for shouting. Hell, some wack job cop tazered a nine year old in the states. That's not the way the tazer was presented to the public when the cops initially started asking to be able to use them. They were presented as an alternative to the billy club. Well, ever heard of a cop pounding someone in the head with a billy club because he wouldn't sign a traffic ticket?

The attached link perfectly describes how cops can see this as nothing more than a tool to compel obedience.

ucumcari Police Chief Roger Hatcher in New Mexico shoot a 14-year-old girl in the head with a Taser dart after she ran from her mother and police. Hatcher insists that it was the right thing to do since (I kid you not) he was afraid she might be injured if she ran into traffic. It falls into the rule that it is sometimes necessary to shoot a child to save a child.

Cop tasers 14yr old epileptic girl

Wild Bill · June 20, 2010

I disagree. You know, I remember reading that the idiot RCMP sergeant in charge of training people in the use of the Tazer said they had done exactly the right thing, and thinking "You need to find another job, idiot".

I think you're wrong on this point, Argus! I would agree with Dre. The pertinent point IS that they tasered the poor man 5 times!

I raised this point months ago. Most people, including cops, are not that technical. Putting a new plug on a lamp can be a stretch for them. Many if not MOST of the people issued tazers seem to believe that they are like the Star Trek phaser, where if you set them on 'stun' no one is ever really hurt.

This is absolute balderdash! We can argue about one tazer shot being dangerous to some individuals but really, 5? I'd be more surprised if many people DID survive 5 simultaneous tazer shots!

I don't know if this 'phaser" idea comes from their training or if cops just make the assumption on their own but SOMEBODY should be hammering it into their heads the way things REALLY work!

kimmy · June 20, 2010

The policy towards use of the tazer shoud be simple. If it's not appropriate to punch someone in the face, it's not appropriate to shock them with a tazer. The device was not designed or approved - by the public - for use as a torture device, or to compel obedience.

Well said. I agree completely.

-k

ToadBrother · June 20, 2010

Braidwood's conclusions about the events in the video don't seem too different than the conclusions most people came to within moments of seeing the video. Those who bleat about the context that's lost on the public in these things should pause to consider their own inabilities to perceive what's happening.

I'd still like to see a policy of making wearable cameras mandatory equipment for police, like I did long before poor Mr Dziekanski proved with his life why.

The video certainly showed part of the story, but, in a way, the most terrible aspects were what happened before and after Dziekanski's fatal encounter with those four officers. The fact that the officers discussed using the Taser before even seeing him. The collusion on their part after the fact to fabricate an explanation. The misinformation about what had happened, in particular the slandering of Dziekanski's character to essentially make it look like somehow he was a low-life that had it coming.

The four officers may have been gung-ho thugs, and for that they should be drummed out of the force (one is already likely on his way out after getting caught DUI), but what was really on trial was the RCMP itself, it's self-serving culture. What sadly was not part of Braidwood's mandate was to go even higher up the chain, to the Crown Attorney's office that decided despite clear evidence and before even a full investigation had been carried out to basically let the officers' off the hook, of the politicians like Premier Gordon Campbell and then Minister of Public Safety gave unequivocal support to the officers and to the RCMP in general, again, with few facts in hand. It's very clear that the RCMP's problems extend beyond even its leadership, into the halls of government, where politicians form the top tier of a self-serving good ol' boys club.

There are changes, BC is getting a fully civilian oversight body for all police forces working in BC, with a good restriction that it cannot be occupied by anyone who has served as a police officer. Whether it's enough, I don't know. There's a certain cowboy aspect to policing that has been around probably as long as police forces have existed, and I think it will be difficult, if not impossible, to have cops not to a certain extent see themselves as a world apart.

dre · June 20, 2010

I disagree. You know, I remember reading that the idiot RCMP sergeant in charge of training people in the use of the Tazer said they had done exactly the right thing, and thinking "You need to find another job, idiot".

The policy towards use of the tazer shoud be simple. If it's not appropriate to punch someone in the face, it's not appropriate to shock them with a tazer. The device was not designed or approved - by the public - for use as a torture device, or to compel obedience. I've seen cases, not specifically with just the RCMP, of cops tazering people because they won't sign a traffic ticket, cause they won't get out of a car, cause they were yelling, cause they weren't quick enough to put their arms behind their backs, or get on the ground.

I've read of ninety pound teenage girls tazered for shouting. Hell, some wack job cop tazered a nine year old in the states. That's not the way the tazer was presented to the public when the cops initially started asking to be able to use them. They were presented as an alternative to the billy club. Well, ever heard of a cop pounding someone in the head with a billy club because he wouldn't sign a traffic ticket?

The attached link perfectly describes how cops can see this as nothing more than a tool to compel obedience.

ucumcari Police Chief Roger Hatcher in New Mexico shoot a 14-year-old girl in the head with a Taser dart after she ran from her mother and police. Hatcher insists that it was the right thing to do since (I kid you not) he was afraid she might be injured if she ran into traffic. It falls into the rule that it is sometimes necessary to shoot a child to save a child.

Cop tasers 14yr old epileptic girl

Im well on the way to agreeing with you about Tazers in general.

Still though my point stands. If hey had stopped lighting this guy up once he posed no threat the discussion probably isnt taking place. Many of the other contraversial incidents have similar attributes... the cops(s) tazer a suspect once, then just keep zapping him over and over.

eyeball · June 21, 2010

The policy towards use of the tazer shoud be simple. If it's not appropriate to punch someone in the face, it's not appropriate to shock them with a tazer. The device was not designed or approved - by the public - for use as a torture device, or to compel obedience.

The four officers may have been gung-ho thugs, and for that they should be drummed out of the force (one is already likely on his way out after getting caught DUI), but what was really on trial was the RCMP itself, it's self-serving culture. What sadly was not part of Braidwood's mandate was to go even higher up the chain, to the Crown Attorney's office that decided despite clear evidence and before even a full investigation had been carried out to basically let the officers' off the hook, of the politicians like Premier Gordon Campbell and then Minister of Public Safety gave unequivocal support to the officers and to the RCMP in general, again, with few facts in hand. It's very clear that the RCMP's problems extend beyond even its leadership, into the halls of government, where politicians form the top tier of a self-serving good ol' boys club.

I can't help but think the capacity to use excessive force is fed by the belief that excessive force is what much of the public wants to see these days. It stems from the same place to create a harsher justice system comes from - crackin' down and gettin' tough and all that. This is fed directly by a political/electoral system in which appearing as tough or tougher than anyone else when it comes to being tough on bad guys is paramount. I can't believe at least some of this sentiment isn't trickling down from above and down through to the ranks below. Some is clearly also welling up from the public. This forum and many others throughout the land are filled to overflowing at times with sentiments towards criminals that sometimes borders on outright savagery.

There are changes, BC is getting a fully civilian oversight body for all police forces working in BC, with a good restriction that it cannot be occupied by anyone who has served as a police officer. Whether it's enough, I don't know. There's a certain cowboy aspect to policing that has been around probably as long as police forces have existed, and I think it will be difficult, if not impossible, to have cops not to a certain extent see themselves as a world apart.

It's not just the police, we live in a fearful post 9/11 world in which our society is incresingly preoccupied with security - with governments that seem to be concentrating power, like it was wealth, into fewer and fewer hands around the promise of cracking down and getting tougher and tougher and tougher...

I hope your right but it seems obvious to me some very powerful social/political forces have been feeding back on each other for some time now and working like a push-me pull-you mechanism with each turn of an election cycle, straight into the path of a developing police state. Madness it seems to me this way lies so why are we not running in the opposite direction?

ToadBrother · June 21, 2010

It's not just the police, we live in a fearful post 9/11 world in which our society is incresingly preoccupied with security - with governments that seem to be concentrating power, like it was wealth, into fewer and fewer hands around the promise of cracking down and getting tougher and tougher and tougher...

I hope your right but it seems obvious to me some very powerful social/political forces have been feeding back on each other for some time now and working like a push-me pull-you mechanism with each turn of an election cycle, straight into the path of a developing police state. Madness it seems to me this way lies so why are we not running in the opposite direction?

Cops covering for cops, Crown Prosecutors covering for cops, judges covering cops, the politicians, who are supposed to be the civilian oversight, and more importantly the bosses of the cops, covering for them as well, this all predates 9-11. To be sure the heightened desire for security feeds into it, but cops have been getting off easy for a long time. It's the culture, the us-versus-them. Told that they have the perfect weapon in the taser, well, the cops just can't contain themselves. Now they can enforce compliance at a distance and without the trouble of putting a bullet in them.

Wilber · June 21, 2010

I think you will find a lot of variety in opinion regarding TAZER use among police officers and departments. Some officers seem all too ready to use it. Some officers are very reluctant to use it and some will not even carry one because of the controversy and red tape involved if they do use it. Unfortunately that often means they put themselves at more risk than they should have to. The TAZER is just another tool of the trade like a baton, firearm, gas or a fist. The issue is not whether they are good or bad because it can be either depending on how and when they are used.

Wilber · June 21, 2010

Now they can enforce compliance at a distance and without the trouble of putting a bullet in them.

You would prefer they put a bullet in them? Perhaps you would like to grapple with a berserker meth head with HIV or some other nasty things you would like to take home. There is a time and place for everything. YVR that night was neither the time or place.

jbg · June 21, 2010

I think you will find a lot of variety in opinion regarding TAZER use among police officers and departments. Some officers seem all too ready to use it. Some officers are very reluctant to use it and some will not even carry one because of the controversy and red tape involved if they do use it. Unfortunately that often means they put themselves at more risk than they should have to. The TAZER is just another tool of the trade like a baton, firearm, gas or a fist. The issue is not whether they are good or bad because it can be either depending on how and when they are used.

I would think Tazers would be quite useful if someone's exotic pet chimpanzee or timber wolf goes rogue.

Molly · June 21, 2010

Speaking of YVR, have they cleaned up their proceedures enough that a repeat performance is unlikely?

They've managed to fly under the sanction radar for the most part, but only because, incredibly, police screwed up even worse, but there's plenty of blame to go round.

ToadBrother · June 21, 2010

Speaking of YVR, have they cleaned up their proceedures enough that a repeat performance is unlikely?

They've managed to fly under the sanction radar for the most part, but only because, incredibly, police screwed up even worse, but there's plenty of blame to go round.

My understanding is that YVR has made considerable changes. I only skimmed through the report, but as I recall Braidwood actually praised YVR for the actions they have taken since.

ToadBrother · June 21, 2010

You would prefer they put a bullet in them? Perhaps you would like to grapple with a berserker meth head with HIV or some other nasty things you would like to take home. There is a time and place for everything. YVR that night was neither the time or place.

I never said there were no appropriate uses for stun weapons. What I said, or at least meant to say, is that police forces throughout North America (and apparently elsewhere like Australia) have been using them far more widely than at moments of threat, and have in fact been using these devices as compliance devices.