Two RCMP Constables Die in Saskatchewan

[Wilber]

Easy for you to say Geoffrey but no police officer wants to shoot people and they are grateful for such things as pepper spray and Tazers because they give them options when before they had none, other than putting themselves at severe risk or using a firearm. These days they are just as likely to be used on out of control meth addicts who are more of a threat to themselves and innocent bystanders than the police.

Of course no police officer wants to shoot anyone. The situations I fear is when someone pulls a gun and the officer needs to take time wondering if the fatality inquiry will question his use of his sidearm when he has a tazer. Remember, cops always have the whole nation looking over their shoulder ever move, more options they have, the more people expect for them to unduly risk their lives to save a criminal's.

It's problems like this that create potential for disaster.

I have no idea what happened in Saskatchewan but I can't imagine any police officer having to consciously make a decision between his Tazer and the biggest nastiest gun he had if someone pulled a gun on him.

Hopefully something can be learned from this that will prevent it from happening again. I have little interest in the conjecture of amateurs which includes me. The only good that can come out of this is from professionals finding out what actually happened and by professionals making any necessary changes to prevent it from reoccurring.

Tazers were not something foisted on the police by a politically correct public or politicians, they are used by police forces world wide because they want them and believe they need them. The police are required to use reasonable force. Only they have the background and training that qualifies them to use that kind of judgment on the scene. That is not you or I. As things change, that training will be found lacking at times and will also need to be changed. Besides having their actions critiqued by their peers, they will always be second guessed by those who think they know better but do not. It's just part of their job that they have to live with.

By taking away things like Tazers, you are telling a police officer he has two options. He can either physically grapple with that berserk addict who may have some sort of weapon like a knife or club, may be unarmed but have AIDS, Hep C or some other nasty affliction, or shoot him. My son has told me of incidents where they have had some berserker who's brain is so fried by crystal meth that four cops pointing their guns at him makes no impression at all. It's the fifth cop with the Tazer who finally gets his attention. They can either put themselves in harms way by wrestling with anyone who is violent because they are under extreme emotional distress, or shoot them. The police encounter situations where they need to use force on a daily basis. Because they have several options available to them, the actual use of a firearm other than as a threat is very rarely needed. Around here when you hear of a police officer using his gun in anger, it is usually defending himself from a big nasty dog protecting a grow op or meth lab.

[geoffrey]

I have no idea what happened in Saskatchewan but I can't imagine any police officer having to consciously make a decision between his Tazer and the biggest nastiest gun he had if someone pulled a gun on him.

Hopefully something can be learned from this that will prevent it from happening again. I have little interest in the conjecture of amateurs which includes me. The only good that can come out of this is from professionals finding out what actually happened and by professionals making any necessary changes to prevent it from reoccurring.

Tazers were not something foisted on the police by a politically correct public or politicians, they are used by police forces world wide because they want them and believe they need them. The police are required to use reasonable force. Only they have the background and training that qualifies them to use that kind of judgment on the scene. That is not you or I. As things change, that training will be found lacking at times and will also need to be changed. Besides having their actions critiqued by their peers, they will always be second guessed by those who think they know better but do not. It's just part of their job that they have to live with.

By taking away things like Tazers, you are telling a police officer he has two options. He can either physically grapple with that berserk addict who may have some sort of weapon like a knife or club, may be unarmed but have AIDS, Hep C or some other nasty affliction, or shoot him. My son has told me of incidents where they have had some berserker who's brain is so fried by crystal meth that four cops pointing their guns at him makes no impression at all. It's the fifth cop with the Tazer who finally gets his attention. They can either put themselves in harms way by wrestling with anyone who is violent because they are under extreme emotional distress, or shoot them. The police encounter situations where they need to use force on a daily basis. Because they have several options available to them, the actual use of a firearm other than as a threat is very rarely needed. Around here when you hear of a police officer using his gun in anger, it is usually defending himself from a big nasty dog protecting a grow op or meth lab.

You don't think it causes any second guessing, having those tazers? If the police officers want them, then I'd cede to the experts on the situation. I just can tell you from my personal outlook, if I knew I faced a fatality inquiry that wants to find fault in every officers action, I'd definitely think of going for the tazer even when I should shoot the guy...

It shouldn't come down to protecting oneself from the law your defending or from the criminal. Maybe it's not the tazers that I have a problem with, maybe it's the nature of the fatality inquiries that follow an officer shooting a criminal.

[FTA Lawyer]

That being said, I maintain my position that police in Canada generally need to re-assess the manner in which they approach high-risk scenarios...in particular, they need to start appreciating high-risk where it might not have traditionally presented itself in Canada.

My point proven yet again this weekend. Thankfully, we are only looking at a situation of attempted murder this time around.

Youth shoots at Hobbema RCMP

FTA

[Wilber]

You don't think it causes any second guessing, having those tazers? If the police officers want them, then I'd cede to the experts on the situation. I just can tell you from my personal outlook, if I knew I faced a fatality inquiry that wants to find fault in every officers action, I'd definitely think of going for the tazer even when I should shoot the guy...

It shouldn't come down to protecting oneself from the law your defending or from the criminal. Maybe it's not the tazers that I have a problem with, maybe it's the nature of the fatality inquiries that follow an officer shooting a criminal.

I'm the father of a police officer. You don't think I am concerned about this stuff or ever talk to him about it? I don't pretend to speak for him but I have a pretty good idea of how he feels about this and I know he wants to carry a Tazer in spite of the fact he has other options up to and including an assault rifle.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Best choice would be to simply double up. Never less than a pair of officers. Backup called for every incident with convicted felons. All domestic disputes responded to with multiple officers.

[watching&waiting]

I will say first, that I am not a fan of the RCMP and I do not like the police force or their tactics. I find their action many times border criminal behaviour. That being said I also must say that the last two officers killed were killed in the line of duty chasing a suspect for a domestic call. I can say I am not happy these two were killed, but they were doing what they were paid to do and that sometimes means facing life and death situations. It still puzzles me how the fact that 3 officers were present and the lone offender managed to shoot two and still get away. Something about that just says that something is not right, but yes with the hipowered rifles and todays ammo, bullet proof vests are not much help. I do hope they hunt down the offender and take him into custody. What bothers me most is that a high sped chase developed in this situation when really the officers should have backed off and let the guy cool off. But proabably arrogance was part of the problem and that is sad, that two deaths were needlessly done. Since it was known that the fleeing man, who he was and that so far it was not a major crime, they should have let him flee and get him later. Domestic disputes are so easily blown out of proportion that if a person is fleeing that but he is known, the officers should have just let him go and cool down. Hindsight is easy after the fact.

The RCMP break the law pretty much with every arrest they make, because they insist in overpowering you even if unarmed and not resisting. They hand cuff you to cause agony and then wonder why you are not wanting to help them. Their answer to this is sue us, as they know that to do so costs about $60,000.00 in legal costs. If they took a more humane position and like I said let the runners run to get them at a later time, it would be best for all, and would mean less carnage.

The deaths of the other six officers last year was one of bad training and a person who felt he had nothing to lose. That kind of thing is always hard to handle. The RCMP used to be a force to look at for being professional, and straight forward. It seems that today it is called on to do way too many tasks, and maybe that is why it has become what it has. As I said earlier I will never respect them again, and now know just how to push back and enforce my rights, within the boundary of the laws. But I do feel bad about the deaths of the two in what I see as a unnecessary pursuit.

[Wilber]

Best choice would be to simply double up. Never less than a pair of officers. Backup called for every incident with convicted felons. All domestic disputes responded to with multiple officers.

How do you know a person is a convicted felon until you find out who he is and run a check on him? Canada is one of the most under policed countries in the developed world. They just don't have the people. Up until last year the size of the Vancouver police force hadn't increased since 1992. They call for backup in just about every case and it is usually there very quickly but if Canadians want their police to double up they will have to be prepared to pay for it.