Helena Guergis Air Rage?

[Guest American Woman]

If what happened to Robert Dziekanski ever becomes accepted as the standard of reasonable behavior by our police officers, it's time to to take up arms and fight.

I don't believe anyone's saying that what happened to Robert Dziekanski was "reasonable;" just pointing out the huge discrepancies between what happens to some in comparison to others, because the fact is, not detaining Guergis, not holding her accountable for her outburst in an airport, isn't reasonable, either.

I will say this, though; if Dziekanski hadn't died, which is hardly the norm with tazing, I'm guessing a lot more people would say it was "reasonable" to taze someone who was out of control in an airport. Nothing like hindsight vision to be able to determine what was, or wasn't, reasonable in a given situation.

Edited February 27, 2010 by American Woman

[Wild Bill]

I don't believe anyone's saying that what happened to Robert Dziekanski was "reasonable;" just pointing out the huge discrepancies between what happens to some in comparison to others, because the fact is, not detaining Guergis, not holding her accountable for her outburst in an airport, isn't reasonable, either.

I will say this, though; if Dziekanski hadn't died, which is hardly the norm with tazing, I'm guessing a lot more people would say it was "reasonable" to taze someone who was out of control in an airport. Nothing like hindsight vision to be able to determine what was, or wasn't, reasonable in a given situation.

The RCMP officers who tazed Robert Dziekanski were not "line officers". They were lower paid "airport cops". They were indeed within the RCMP organization but not subject to the same hiring standards or frankly, expectations of intelligence.

What's MOST important about that incident is that the poor man was tazered at least 5 times! The "bonehead" public perception of the Tazer is that it is a safe alternative. It's thought of as some sort of Star Trek phaser that can be set on stun so that no one is really hurt.

This is unmitigated, unscientific crap! It's a very high voltage jolt of electricity designed to incapacitate the average human body. It hurts like hell and convulses your muscles!

Even if we accept the manufacturer's claims that it is indeed safe, I doubt if that manufacturer ever claimed that someone could take FIVE immediately consecutive Tazer hits with no risk!

No, these "cops" were dumb, ignorant and poorly trained. They were there because they were cheap labour, plain and simple!

This reinforces my point about how our airport security is mostly just smoke and mirrors. It is the very inconvenience itself of the process that is supposed to reassure us!

Me, it just makes me even more frightened. It gives me reason to question their competence.

[Guest American Woman]

The RCMP officers who tazed Robert Dziekanski were not "line officers". They were lower paid "airport cops". They were indeed within the RCMP organization but not subject to the same hiring standards or frankly, expectations of intelligence.

Can you provide me with a link to that information? I never read that they were "airport cops;" from what I read, the RCMP was called to the scene.

What's MOST important about that incident is that the poor man was tazered at least 5 times! The "bonehead" public perception of the Tazer is that it is a safe alternative. It's thought of as some sort of Star Trek phaser that can be set on stun so that no one is really hurt.

This is the first time that I'm hearing that he was tazed at least five times. It seems to me there would never be a call for that.

This is unmitigated, unscientific crap! It's a very high voltage jolt of electricity designed to incapacitate the average human body. It hurts like hell and convulses your muscles!

As I said, I wasn't saying it was "reasonable" to treat him the way he was treated, but to taze someone acting out in outrage at an airport would likely be considered "reasonable" under different circumstances; ie: he hadn't been tazered multiple times and he hadn't died. People should not be acting out in airports, and if anyone should know this, Guergis should have. There's no excuse for her behavior and no excuse for her being allowed to board after banging on the security windows. You can bet you or I wouldn't be able to get away with it, and it's outrageous that she was able to.

Even if we accept the manufacturer's claims that it is indeed safe, I doubt if that manufacturer ever claimed that someone could take FIVE immediately consecutive Tazer hits with no risk!

I repeat, I wasn't advocating that by any means.

No, these "cops" were dumb, ignorant and poorly trained. They were there because they were cheap labour, plain and simple!

Again, I'd appreciate a citation. If that's true, it doesn't speak well for the RCMP, since they were ultimately RCMP officers.

This reinforces my point about how our airport security is mostly just smoke and mirrors. It is the very inconvenience itself of the process that is supposed to reassure us!

If anyone thinks that any organization is perfect, ie: any set of employees is perfect, then they are delusional. More often than not, however, they are capable and competent and the stats would prove that, because if If they weren't, there would be a lot more incidents like Dziekanski, as well as successful terrorist attempts, than there are.

Me, it just makes me even more frightened. It gives me reason to question their competence.

While I in no way place them on a 'totally competent' pedestal, I believe for the most part they are keeping us safer than we would otherwise be.

[Guest American Woman]

Doesn't anyone here think that the this poll by Greenthumb is a little hypocritical?

I don't.

Hey I'm just saying that people who go around preaching "tough on crime" when it comes to drugs use better be friggin clean themselves.

I agree with you completely.

Limbaugh, of course, has the same double standards. He was always preaching about how drug users should be arrested and put away --- until he became one of them, of course.

"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up," Limbaugh said on his short-lived television show on Oct. 5, 1995.

[Oleg Bach]

IF the powers that be want to be tough on crime they had better clean themselves up--It used to be that drunken judges were a problem. Now we don't know what compound is coarsing through the brain of cops and judges..it could be some anti-depressant or trank that emboldens and impairs good judgement..no one knows the side effects of these compounds..and it is kept hush hush on what chemical is pickiling the heads of our poiticals as well..this is a very insidious problem.

[Oleg Bach]

Remember when Shelia Copps would leap across the stands in parliment and physically start beating on the opposition? She should have been removed at that moment but was not forced to resign. AND the incident when a former Liberal Prime Minister grabbed an irritating protestor by the throat in public--he should have stepped down immediately- We can not have controllers of government who can not control themselves runnning the show. There is no excuse for behaving like a hooligan.

[Alta4ever]

I don't.

I agree with you completely.

Limbaugh, of course, has the same double standards. He was always preaching about how drug users should be arrested and put away --- until he became one of them, of course.

"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up," Limbaugh said on his short-lived television show on Oct. 5, 1995.

What evidence of drugs being involved in this incident none nada zero it is a none factor. It was completely greens manufacture and it is BULLSH__. How about green take pee test before he can post his mind numbing garbage on the forum.

She was grumpy because she had to take her shoes off for a domestic flight that she was late for. It doesn't excuse her behaviour, but it does not give Green the right for slandering her name and accusing her of coke use.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Alta4ever

[Oleg Bach]

What evidence of drugs being involved in this incident none nada zero it is a none factor. It was completely greens manufacture and it is BULLSH__. How about green take pee test before he can post his mind numbing garbage on the forum.

She was grumpy because she had to take her shoes off for a domestic flight that she was late for. It doesn't excuse her behaviour, but it does not give Green the right for slandering her name and accusing her of coke use.

Coke use is impossible to spot..unless you look up her nose with a flash light or give a blood test...it is very unfair to say someone is drunk or drugged..people are more than willing to believe the worst first..BUT - it sounds like she slandered herself...Being grumpy is not becoming if you are in public life..an old trumpet player from Boston said to me "The sign of a professional is to do a good job even if he does not feel like it" Being a political figure or great artist or entertainer demands control....Those that attempt to be overly controlling of others are usually troubled by lack of self control.

[Alta4ever]

Coke use is impossible to spot..unless you look up her nose with a flash light or give a blood test...it is very unfair to say someone is drunk or drugged..people are more than willing to believe the worst first..BUT - it sounds like she slandered herself...Being grumpy is not becoming if you are in public life..an old trumpet player from Boston said to me "The sign of a professional is to do a good job even if he does not feel like it" Being a political figure or great artist or entertainer demands control....Those that attempt to be overly controlling of others are usually troubled by lack of self control.

her being grumpy does not give Drgreenthumb the right to accuse her for drug use.

[Oleg Bach]

her being grumpy does not give Drgreenthumb the right to accuse her for drug use.

It's easy and a low blow to deseminate a lie that is baseless. Judging by the sequence of events and following comments..the slanderer should apologize..unless you have total and absolute proof of drug use then you should never insinuate it..I would say that the slanderous behaviour deminishes the importance of the grumpy behaviour...Nothing more preturbing then someone painting a black picture that blots out the real evidence..which seems to be a short temper combined with a graceless sense of self importance.

[Wild Bill]

Can you provide me with a link to that information? I never read that they were "airport cops;" from what I read, the RCMP was called to the scene.

This is the first time that I'm hearing that he was tazed at least five times. It seems to me there would never be a call for that.

Again, I'd appreciate a citation. If that's true, it doesn't speak well for the RCMP, since they were ultimately RCMP officers.

If anyone thinks that any organization is perfect, ie: any set of employees is perfect, then they are delusional. More often than not, however, they are capable and competent and the stats would prove that, because if If they weren't, there would be a lot more incidents like Dziekanski, as well as successful terrorist attempts, than there are.

While I in no way place them on a 'totally competent' pedestal, I believe for the most part they are keeping us safer than we would otherwise be.

I'm a bit rushed for time and I'm not finding the reports about the officers. Please note that I am not saying they weren't RCMP. They were indeed. I'm going by memory of newspaper reports telling that the RCMP makes a hiring distinction between an officer whose duties are only for airport security and a "regular" mountie. While both types of officers are mounties the sense is that you don't need the same level of officer at an airport - that a "regular" mountie would be a more expensive waste.

Anyhow, when I get home I'll dig deeper to confirm that point. Meanwhile, there's no trouble confirming the multiple taser hits. A simple google brings up pages of confirmations. Even Wiki covers this extensively and confirms at least 5 hits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dzieka%C5%84ski_Taser_incident

As for no organization being perfect, that's not the point. Rather, are we getting true benefit for the incredible amount of inconvenience being added to airport security? Nobody sensible minds if the benefits are real. However, to be put through the motions just to make appearances is a different story. I compare our security to that of Israel. People move through airport terminals VERY quickly, especially when compared to our systems. The plainclothes officers standing around with Uzis are highly trained and educated professionals, NOT minimum wage "warm bodies"!

Our success record stems more from being outside the main arena and perhaps simply lucky, at least so far! We are not a large target for most terrorist organizations. We are on their list but it would seem that they leave operations to local "amateurs", such as the Toronto 18. The big money and resources are used for Middle East targets. That leads one to believe that our security has not really been tested by professionals. Let's pray it never will!

Post Script: This link proves what I had read in the papers about the officers is wrong! Here it is:

http://www.cpc-cpp.gc.ca/prr/rep/rev/chair-pre/dziekanski/robert_2-eng.aspx#toc3

The link plainly shows they were regular RCMP officers. Still, that's even more reason they should have known better!

Edited February 27, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Guest American Woman]

What evidence of drugs being involved in this incident none nada zero it is a none factor. It was completely greens manufacture and it is BULLSH__. How about green take pee test before he can post his mind numbing garbage on the forum.

She was grumpy because she had to take her shoes off for a domestic flight that she was late for. It doesn't excuse her behaviour, but it does not give Green the right for slandering her name and accusing her of coke use.

We all have to take our shoes off before getting onto an airplane, and she is well aware of that fact. If she was late, she has no one to blame but herself. Evidently she wasn't too late to still get on the flight, so I'm not sure what relevance her being late was, and really, her being late would be more of an imposition on the airline.

So in light of the fact that we all have to take our shoes off, and many (if not the majority of) air travelers are tired and grumpy, yet not once in my travels, out of all the people I've seen going through security, has anyone had the kind of outburst Guergis had, there's no reason for her behavior. In other words, her reaction was out of the norm.

But I wasn't responding to his claim that she might be on drugs or whether or not I thought she was on drugs or whether or not I thought she should have a drug test; I was simply responding to the issue of whether or not DrGreenthumb's question was hypocritical along with his comments regarding her husband having been caught with Cocaine.

So my answer to the question of whether or not she should be tested for cocaine is 'no,' and as to whether or not the question was hypocritical, my answer remains 'no' also.

Edited February 27, 2010 by American Woman

[msj]

She was grumpy because she had to take her shoes off for a domestic flight that she was late for. It doesn't excuse her behaviour, but it does not give Green the right for slandering her name and accusing her of coke use.

I agree.

Guilt by association, leading to libel (not slander), is a poor argument technique.

Given that the poll indicates that she should not have been tested for drug use, it appears that most reasonable people agree that what she did is dumb but this nonsense about drugs is best left to a separate thread.

[Alta4ever]

We all have to take our shoes off before getting onto an airplane, and she is well aware of that fact. If she was late, she has no one to blame but herself. Evidently she wasn't too late to still get on the flight, so I'm not sure what relevance her being late was, and really, her being late would be more of an imposition on the airline.

So in light of the fact that we all have to take our shoes off, and many (if not the majority of) air travelers are tired and grumpy, yet not once in my travels, out of all the people I've seen going through security, has anyone had the kind of outburst Guergis had, there's no reason for her behavior that I can see other than she thought she should get special treatment.

But I wasn't responding to his claim that she might be on drugs or whether or not I thought she was on drugs or whether or not I thought she should have a drug test; I was simply responding to the issue of whether or not DrGreenthumb's question was hypocritical along with his comments regarding her husband having been caught with Cocaine.

So my answer to the question of whether or not she should be tested for cocaine is 'no,' and as to whether or not the question was hypocritical, my answer remains 'no' also.

Just to correct the record you are not required to remove your shoes on Canadian domestic flights, just on flights going to the US. Although I am not defending her behaviour it is abhorrent to think you should get special treatment because you are an MP.

It was Hypocritical of DrGreenthumb because is a supporter of illicit drug legalization.

[Alta4ever]

I agree.

Guilt by association, leading to libel (not slander), is a poor argument technique.

Given that the poll indicates that she should not have been tested for drug use, it appears that most reasonable people agree that what she did is dumb but this nonsense about drugs is best left to a separate thread.

Since he is accusing in the title of this thread it does matter and I will continue until he he removes it and apologizes. Considering the poll I am surprised more of us on the board aren't demanding it.

[msj]

Since he is accusing in the title of this thread it does matter and I will continue until he he removes it and apologizes. Considering the poll I am surprised more of us on the board aren't demanding it.

That's fair.

But, really, anyone who reads this thread will likely come to the conclusion that most of us have come to:

Helena did a stupid thing, her husband's case is irrelevant to this issue, the Dr. is testing his own credibility by applying such libelous "thinking."

[Guest American Woman]

Just to correct the record you are not required to remove your shoes on Canadian domestic flights, just on flights going to the US.

Well, I learned something new today. Removal of shoes is required on domestic flights in the U.S., so I just assumed it was in Canada, too.

Still, I'm sure she wasn't singled out as the only passenger on that flight to have to do so, and evidently none of the other passengers had a fit, so it wasn't a normal reaction. Most likely she did think she's above the other passengers, which doesn't speak well for her.

It was Hypocritical of DrGreenthumb because is a supporter of illicit drug legalization.

I realize that, but he wasn't being hypocritical, as his post explains.

[Oleg Bach]

Your job as an MP is to lead by example..you are a public servant..If you expect the public to take off their shoes then you must take off yours.

[Alta4ever]

I realize that, but he wasn't being hypocritical, as his post explains.

His post doesn't explain anything it just shows his vitriol.

As for the Her reaction to the the request, it was unwarrented and wrong. I have posted this several times in the thread. It has been addressed, now I am demanding that Green thumb retract the accusation and apologize.

[Oleg Bach]

His post doesn't explain anything it just shows his vitriol.

As for the Her reaction to the the request, it was unwarrented and wrong. I have posted this several times in the thread. It has been addressed, now I am demanding that Green thumb retract the accusation and apologize.

I agree. Green thumb has acted without warrant in these regards. - maybe his point was that some MPs behave like coked up white trash...to use an analogy is exceptable but to state something is fact when one is simply speculating is wrong..speculation is like seeing ghosts..they do not exist.

[Shakeyhands]

Just to correct the record you are not required to remove your shoes on Canadian domestic flights, just on flights going to the US. Although I am not defending her behaviour it is abhorrent to think you should get special treatment because you are an MP.

It was Hypocritical of DrGreenthumb because is a supporter of illicit drug legalization.

According to the GTAA website (not sure if it applies to airports in the "hell hole") the following is stated:

Security Requirements

All passengers departing on flights from Toronto Pearson must proceed through pre-board security screening. The following tips will help to expedite your screening process:

Footwear may need to be removed; please be prepared to do so if required.

Avoid metal items that may trigger metal detector alarms (e.g., belts, buttons, body piercings, and steel toe shoes).

All carry-on items will need to be placed in a tray for screening; please remove jackets, purses, and carry-ons before you get to the front of the screening line.

Electronic equipment may need to be switched on when going through screening. Have cameras, laptops, and other devices out of luggage and ready for inspection.

Boarding passes and personal identification (e.g., passport, and/or birth certificate) must be shown to screening personnel and carried through the metal detector.

So it would seem that it may very well be requireD, There doesn't seem to be any distinction between domestic or International flights as far as I could see.

http://www.gtaa.com/en/travellers/departing/checkin__security/

Edited February 27, 2010 by Shakeyhands

[Oleg Bach]

According to the GTAA website (not sure if it applies to airports in the "hell hole") the following is stated:

So it would seem that it may very well be required.

http://www.gtaa.com/en/travellers/departing/checkin__security/

Even if it was not required it would have been good PR to assist in any request regarding security.

[Oleg Bach]

Even if it was not required it would have been good PR to assist in any request regarding security.

Perhaps this MP's skill level need some improvement..seem that we have lots of unskilled labour in government these days---just can't get good and experienced help--being a servant demands submission and a clear sense of public duty. Some do not see clearly yet they have a lust to rule..It is not about rule..it is about order and compliance to the demands of the public--who seem to want enhanced security at air ports..personally I don't agree with screening those that are clearly not a threat...It is actually redundant to grill an MP --- whats the real point other than PR- which seems not to be important to this MP - which may show a certain devil may care eletist attitude that is not useful..MPs have to be of use as all servant must be--or go work else where.

[Alta4ever]

According to the GTAA website (not sure if it applies to airports in the "hell hole") the following is stated:

So it would seem that it may very well be requireD, There doesn't seem to be any distinction between domestic or International flights as far as I could see.

http://www.gtaa.com/en/travellers/departing/checkin__security/

Your quotes says you maybe ask and your are required to comply when you are. Flying in the US it is automatic everyone takes off their shoes at security

[Shakeyhands]

Your quotes says you maybe ask and your are required to comply when you are. Flying in the US it is automatic everyone takes off their shoes at security

I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you, but merely pointing out that if you are asked to remove them, you must, even if you are a big time MP.