Man dies after being tasered in Vancouver Airport

[flamesfever]

In watching the video it appeared to me that the police overeacted. It was tough to watch.

The big question is what are the factors that may have caused the police to act as they did. Did someone exagerate the situation to the police before they arrived on the scene? Do RCMP officers, that do airport duty, have sufficient training and expertise to handle such a situation? Did the police follow the standard protocol?

Its also seems obvious that the whole scene could have been prevented if the airport personnel had been much more helpful in getting the mother and son together before things started going wrong.

All in all it's a terrible tragedy and I hope the mother is given the help she needs to get through it. Also I hope enough is learned so the situation never happens again.

[ken0042]

My take after seeing the video:

- Video begins and you can see the man walking away from a monitor rolling away from him on the ground.
- Man is approached by the 4 cops.
- Man stands there not doing anything.
- Police take that opportunity to take him into custody.

So as we see it there's about 10 or 15 seconds from the last monitor being thrown to the first jolt of electricity. And just judging by seeing tasers being used on "COPS", once you shoot the probes at the suspect you really don't get a second chance to reload and fire again. So they acted when the window presented itself.

Could this be a "lessons learned" exercise? Sure. There were a few things that could have been handled better; like as mentioned getting medical help sooner; etc.

[HelloHockeyFans]

Something that's being lost in the whole tragedy is the role of the Customs Officers.

Was the victim in a restricted area policed by these officers and/or agents? If so, what did they do to try and defuse this situation? What's their protocol in handling these types of situations?

Now, if it was these very custom officers who called in the RCMP to handle the situation because they felt it had already gone past the point of control, what, exactly, did they say to the RCMP when they called them?

If the RCMP were told by the custom agents that this man was clearly beyond control and possibly dangerous, then I suspect they went in with one goal and that was to control the situation immediately, by taking the person down quickly. Remember, their only knowledge of the environment at that time would have been relayed to them by airport security/customs officers. What they said, to me, is clearly very important here because it establishes the RCMP's mindset going into the situation.

From what I saw, it seems that airport security/customs officials did not do enough to try and defuse the situation or properly evaluate the threat level of this man, so what they said to the RCMP and more specifically, how they described the situation and the person, is critical in identifying who exactly is at fault here.

[return to the red]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

I read in the paper a few days ago that one of the witnesses overheard the four police officers saying they were going to taser the guy BEFORE they even arrived on scene. If that testimony is true, it was a premeditated decision and trying to talk to the guy or use other options wasn't even on the their agenda.

Ok I feel compelled to respond to this after speaking with one of my close friends who is an RCMP Officer. Yes, the RCMP probably were talking about tasering the guy but that's what they do!

The police have to have a plan of attack before they confront the individual. It really doesn't surprise me that someone overheard them talking about it.

RCMP have protocol that they follow and like it or not tasering is part of that protocol. Tasering is deemed by the RCMP as the least likely to result in fatality

[HelloHockeyFans]

Originally Posted by return to the red

Ok I feel compelled to respond to this after speaking with one of my close friends who is an RCMP Officer. Yes, the RCMP probably were talking about tasering the guy but that's what they do!

The police have to have a plan of attack before they confront the individual. It really doesn't surprise me that someone overheard them talking about it.

RCMP have protocol that they follow and like it or not tasering is part of that protocol. Tasering is deemed by the RCMP as the least likely to result in fatality

Exactly my point in my post earlier.

They MUST analyze the situation before responding, which is why, as I said, what they were told is critical here.

From their actions on the video, it seems obvious to me that they were under the impression that this man was very dangerous. How they came to that determination is critical.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by return to the red

Ok I feel compelled to respond to this after speaking with one of my close friends who is an RCMP Officer. Yes, the RCMP probably were talking about tasering the guy but that's what they do!

The police have to have a plan of attack before they confront the individual. It really doesn't surprise me that someone overheard them talking about it.

RCMP have protocol that they follow and like it or not tasering is part of that protocol. Tasering is deemed by the RCMP as the least likely to result in fatality

I have no problem with the officers discussing their plans for action prior to arriving on scene. Obviously they are going to do this ... I wouldn't expect them to arrive on scene without a plan. What I have a problem with is the allegations by the witness that they had predetermined that they were going to taser the guy before they even arrived and assessed the scene. I realize that it is only an allegation at this point, and that doesn't necessarily make it true. It also doesn't necessarily make it false. And since it only took 25 seconds upon arrival on scene to taser the guy, the allegation that it was the predetermined course of action seems quite plausible.

As for tasering being "deemed by the RCMP as the (action) least likely to result in fatality", I question that. There have been 17 taser fatalities in Canada since 2003. If you don't believe me I invite you to Google "17 Canadian taser fatalities". You will find multiple supporting links for this stat. Maybe my perception is wrong, but 17 taser deaths within a four year period doesn't sound like tasering is a very safe practice, and I suggest that the protocols for using a taser need to be reevaluated. I wasn't able to find any stats on the causes of other homicides by police, but it would be interesting to know how many people have been shot or beaten to death by police during that time. My hunch is that gunshot and beating deaths caused by police during that time would be considerably less than 17. If any one has those stats please post a link to them ... I'm interested in seeing them.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Maybe my perception is wrong, but 17 taser deaths within a four year period doesn't sound like tasering is a very safe practice, and I suggest that the protocols for using a taser need to be reevaluated.

Just to quantify that figure a bit, on Global last night they said that the city of Calgary police use their tasers 12 times per month.

So, seeing as Calgary has 1/30 the population- let's multiply that by 15 instead seeing as Calgary is more urban and more likely to see taser use. So that would be 17 out of 8640 uses by those numbers, or 0.197%. Yes, seems a little high still, but I wonder how many other suspects have died either in police custody or in the process of being taken in.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by return to the red

Ok I feel compelled to respond to this after speaking with one of my close friends who is an RCMP Officer. Yes, the RCMP probably were talking about tasering the guy but that's what they do!

The police have to have a plan of attack before they confront the individual. It really doesn't surprise me that someone overheard them talking about it.

RCMP have protocol that they follow and like it or not tasering is part of that protocol. Tasering is deemed by the RCMP as the least likely to result in fatality

I have a better plan...

How about:
- Let's talk to the guy or figure out what language he is speaking.
- Get an interpreter who speaks Eastern European languages.
- Try to calm the guy down and take him peacefully into custody.
- If all that fails, taser him.

[Dion]

What happenened in the hours leading up to Robert Dziekanski's confrontation with the RCMP?

http://www.cbc.ca/video/popup.html?h...aser071114.wmv#

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

I have no problem with the officers discussing their plans for action prior to arriving on scene. Obviously they are going to do this ... I wouldn't expect them to arrive on scene without a plan. What I have a problem with is the allegations by the witness that they had predetermined that they were going to taser the guy before they even arrived and assessed the scene. I realize that it is only an allegation at this point, and that doesn't necessarily make it true. It also doesn't necessarily make it false. And since it only took 25 seconds upon arrival on scene to taser the guy, the allegation that it was the predetermined course of action seems quite plausible.

As for tasering being "deemed by the RCMP as the (action) least likely to result in fatality", I question that. There have been 17 taser fatalities in Canada since 2003. If you don't believe me I invite you to Google "17 Canadian taser fatalities". You will find multiple supporting links for this stat. Maybe my perception is wrong, but 17 taser deaths within a four year period doesn't sound like tasering is a very safe practice, and I suggest that the protocols for using a taser need to be reevaluated. I wasn't able to find any stats on the causes of other homicides by police, but it would be interesting to know how many people have been shot or beaten to death by police during that time. My hunch is that gunshot and beating deaths caused by police during that time would be considerably less than 17. If any one has those stats please post a link to them ... I'm interested in seeing them.

Define taser fatality. You mean, someone who was shot with a taser subsequently died I assume. Do you know how they died?


People can have complications from OC spray as well. Google that. You will see another staggering number.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

True, I wasn't there, but neither were the members of the jury in any criminal trial that goes on in this country. We don't ignore their opinion with the old "you weren't there" defense.

As for the "it doesn't matter what you saw" thing, that sounds like a pretty raw deal.

And I'm a regular, sighted Canadian citizen, so while it's well established that I'm no expert on the matter, I don't agree with the sentiment that I have "no clue" when police can use a certain level of force.

When a guy ends up dead on the floor of the airport because he had a temper tantrum I don't think I'm out of line if I question the level of force that was used.

Ya, there is a BIG difference between evidence presented at a trial and you judging another's behavior based solely on a snippet of video. If you can't figure that out, I certainly am not going to spell it out.

Unfortunately, whether you think it's a raw deal or not, it is the truth. You were not placed in that position. You don't know what they saw and you certainly can't tell them that their perception was wrong- thus, "it doesn't matter what you saw".

To say that you don't have to be an expert I will agree with. What I don't agree with (nor did I ever say you had to be an expert btw) is that again, you are judging another's behavior based on your own set of values and ideals without even attempting to gain any sort of insight as why this person did what they did. If you could come up with a valid reason that you think it was excessive force, I would be much more willing to understand your perspective. But, you just say, 'I think it was excessive because this guy died, and they didn't talk to him for long enough, and they didn't get an interpreter, blah, blah, blah.' All that does NOT address the concern that it was excessive force. You can't seem to see passed the outcome. You see, non-lethal force being used and the outcome was lethal, thus there must be an error. It's not that simple.

[Dion]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/ta...ett-taser1.mp3

[Dion]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/ta...lett-taser.mp3

[Winsor_Pilates]

Hard to Watch Video. I was expecting a much more aggresive individual. The police Definately used excessive force here, despite what certain "experts" say.

The airport needs to be helf accountable too. The guy was there for 10 hours without getting any help. Just a ridiculous situation which can hopefully be learned from.

[jonesy]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Hard to Watch Video. I was expecting a much more aggresive individual. The police Definately used excessive force here, despite what certain "experts" say.

The airport needs to be helf accountable too. The guy was there for 10 hours without getting any help. Just a ridiculous situation which can hopefully be learned from.

Yes, this is what I was talking about. I think that the Vancouver airport staff is brutal. I bet they contributed mightily to that poor guys stress.

[Dion]

Rules broken in deadly Taser incident


A 2005 report by the B.C. police complaint commissioner listed a number of key safety recommendations for the use of a Taser.

Officers should avoid shocking a subject multiple times.

Dziekanski was shocked twice within a matter of seconds.

Following a Taser shock, a subject should be restrained in a way that allows him to breathe easily.

At one point four officers were on top of Dziekanski. Two officers knelt with their full weight on his neck and back.

The Taser Technology Review Final Report states "subjects who struggle with police are almost always restrained in a face-down position. If subjects are pinned down with a great deal of weight placed on their shoulders and back for a long period of time, it may hamper their ability to breathe rapidly enough."

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/st...9-ba70257fae0b

Originally Posted by Dion

Rules broken in deadly Taser incident


A 2005 report by the B.C. police complaint commissioner listed a number of key safety recommendations for the use of a Taser.

Officers should avoid shocking a subject multiple times.

Dziekanski was shocked twice within a matter of seconds.

Following a Taser shock, a subject should be restrained in a way that allows him to breathe easily.

At one point four officers were on top of Dziekanski. Two officers knelt with their full weight on his neck and back.

The Taser Technology Review Final Report states "subjects who struggle with police are almost always restrained in a face-down position. If subjects are pinned down with a great deal of weight placed on their shoulders and back for a long period of time, it may hamper their ability to breathe rapidly enough."

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/st...9-ba70257fae0b

Is there a point to all your links?

Look, people can die in police custody- this isn't the first and most certainly won't be the last. BUT, the vast majority are not harmed at all including those that are tasered, sprayed, hit with batons, and all other physical forms of restraint.

Maybe link some stories where the taser was used successfully- those would outweigh all the negative ones 1000 times over.

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Is there a point to all your links?

Look, people can die in police custody- this isn't the first and most certainly won't be the last. BUT, the vast majority are not harmed at all including those that are tasered, sprayed, hit with batons, and all other physical forms of restraint.

Maybe link some stories where the taser was used successfully- those would outweigh all the negative ones 1000 times over.

It looks to me like he is presenting an expert opinion. That was one of your requirements.

The thousands of taser 'success stories' make this an extraordinary occurrence, and that will attract extraordinary public scrutiny.

My inexpert eye has me wondering why a man baracading himself in a room by himself was deemed an imminent threat that necessitated this kind of response in the first place. He was there for 10 hours? What was the sudden hurry? Why could the police not simply remain at the doors until real attempts to communicate with the man be attempted?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Ya, there is a BIG difference between evidence presented at a trial and you judging another's behavior based solely on a snippet of video. If you can't figure that out, I certainly am not going to spell it out.

Hmm. Well, you are the one that started with the "you weren't there" talk. I just expanded on it. We can do without the melodrama or feigned exasperation.

As for the rest of it, the fact that he died isn't the only reason this episode bothers me. If he got up 5 minutes later and walked to the police station I still wouldn't agree with what they did.

And no, I wasn't there, and I'm not an expert.

[return to the red]

I find it sick that a story about a man dieing because of potential Police brutality garnishes more media attention then the numerous murders of RCMP in the last few years. It really tells you the state that society is in when they are more concerned about protecting a person's rights then actually protecting others safety