Man dies after being tasered in Vancouver Airport

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

To an extent, but without any attempt to educate yourself on the subject, you just end up looking like an idiot in the eyes of people that have a background and/or knowledge on the subject. It certainly makes it clear you don't know what you are talking about regardless of whether is a politician, computer tech or police officer.

i have educated myself but don't agree 100% with some of the levels of force that can be used by police in certain situations (authorized or not)
in this case, i don't think the police screwed up. with the information i have, they were probably spot on or at least in the ball park of what was appropriate.

my big beef is people not wanting to question what police do (again, authorized actions or not) or not making police accountable for their actions.

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

i have educated myself but don't agree 100% with some of the levels of force that can be used by police in certain situations (authorized or not)
in this case, i don't think the police screwed up. with the information i have, they were probably spot on or at least in the ball park of what was appropriate.

my big beef is people not wanting to question what police do (again, authorized or not) or making police accountable for their actions.

Well we agree there. My point is that the people that question police and police tactics must first make attempts to understand police tactics/training, the weapons they carry and the psychology behind the use of force. There are some great reads for anyone interested including any by Dave Grossman- 'On Killing' and 'On Combat'. As I stated, without any background knowledge, people attacking police simply b/c of the job they do and an unintended 'outcome' certainly shows a certain amount of bias.

How exactly have you educated yourself? Wikipedia?? RIIGHT.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Ya...that is what I said. What he did led...led ot his death...didn't cause it...it led to his death.

So the guy was screwed when he rolled out of bed, because this was the action that lead him to the slippery slope of getting tased and dying. Interesting logical conclusion. In that same vein of thought, Steve Moore broke his own neck when he hit Marcus Naslund with a clean body check two months earlier.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

So the guy was screwed when he rolled out of bed, because this was the action that lead him to the slippery slope of getting tased and dying. Interesting logical conclusion. In that same vein of thought, Steve Moore broke his own neck when he hit Marcus Naslund with a clean body check two months earlier.

you are so dense.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Well we agree there. My point is that the people that question police and police tactics must first make attempts to understand police tactics/training, the weapons they carry and the psychology behind the use of force. There are some great reads for anyone interested including any by Dave Grossman- 'On Killing' and 'On Combat'. As I stated, without any background knowledge, people attacking police simply b/c of the job they do and an unintended 'outcome' certainly shows a certain amount of bias.

first off - examining police conduct and policy =\= attacking police
heck, examining and discussing it doesn't even necessarily imply disagreement with what they did.

i have not read the two particular books you mentioned but would be more than happy to read them over if you'd be willing to lend me a copy.

as for the rest of your post that i didn't even bother quoting - i really didn't think the level of discussion had dipped quite that low....

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

i have educated myself but don't agree 100% with some of the levels of force that can be used by police in certain situations (authorized or not)
in this case, i don't think the police screwed up. with the information i have, they were probably spot on or at least in the ball park of what was appropriate.

my big beef is people not wanting to question what police do (again, authorized actions or not) or not making police accountable for their actions.

In canada whenever the police pull their gun and use it, there is a inquiry..there are already policies in place to make the police accountable for their actions...and yes some policman are actually found to be in the wrong...so there isnt an old boys club syndrome going on here...

and its funny how somethings are never good enough for some people, 30 years ago this man would of been shot by the cops for not responding...people bitch the cops get tasers instead, people still bitch...what is your solution then? if you are going to question than give me a educated thought out solution to what these cops should of done in this situation?

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

In canada whenever the police pull their gun and use it, there is a inquiry..there are already policies in place to make the police accountable for their actions...and yes some policman are actually found to be in the wrong...so there isnt an old boys clud syndrome going on here...

Yup, in canada it is a lot better than in the states. its not perfect but still pretty decent. overall, cops are pretty good.

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

and its funny how somethings are never good enough for some people, 30 years ago this man would of been shot by the cops for not responding...people bitch the cops get tasers instead, people still bitch...what is your solution then? if you are going to question than give me a educated thought out solution to what these cops should of done in this situation?

if you had read my posts, in this case i think they probably did pretty well from the information we have available.

still doesn't change the fact that police procedures and conduct should be examined (yes, even by people who aren't police)

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Yup, in canada it is a lot better than in the states. its not perfect but still pretty decent. overall, cops are pretty good.


if you had read my posts, in this case i think they probably did pretty well from the information we have available.

sorry that just a general comment....was specifically aimed at you..

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

first off - examining police conduct and policy =\= attacking police
heck, examining and discussing it doesn't even necessarily imply disagreement with what they did.

i have not read the two particular books you mentioned but would be more than happy to read them over if you'd be willing to lend me a copy.

as for the rest of your post that i didn't even bother quoting - i really didn't think the level of discussion had dipped quite that low....

Gawd, I really have to watch my choice of words around here (again, I mentioned this earlier). Please don't pick ONE word as ask how it applies- attacking?? Seriously, that's the best you could come up with. That I claim you are 'attacking'?

So you did read Wikipedia!!!!

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

sorry that just a general comment....was specifically aimed at you..

fair enough - the quote button can sometimes be confusing.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Gawd, I really have to watch my choice of words around here (again, I mentioned this earlier). Please don't pick ONE word as ask how it applies- attacking?? Seriously, that's the best you could come up with. That I claim you are 'attacking'?

So you did read Wikipedia!!!!

oh ffs - so since i didn't read the exact two books you mentioned, wanting to examine what police do is without merit and my only source is wikipedia?

ps: still willing to read those books if you're willing to lend me a copy.

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

still doesn't change the fact that police procedures and conduct should be examined (yes, even by people who aren't police)

That's the crux of my argument here. I do agree that they constantly need to be examined and changed if needed, but to have some joe shmoe do it would be both dangerous and irresponsible.

As far as those books go, the Calgary Public Library (if you live here) is your friend.

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

oh ffs - so since i didn't read the exact two books you mentioned, wanting to examine what police do is without merit and my only source is wikipedia?

ps: still willing to read those books if you're willing to lend me a copy.

Haha... no no... i was just poking fun. I still don't know where your expertise comes from. Please enlighten me. If you don't feel comfortable to do i publicly, by all means, send me a PM.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

and its funny how somethings are never good enough for some people, 30 years ago this man would of been shot by the cops for not responding...people bitch the cops get tasers instead, people still bitch...what is your solution then?

Oh come on. I'm pretty sure the Police motto isn't "Comply or Die". Cops get in physical confrontations with belligerent people all the time and they don't effing shoot everyone who won't listen to them, and they didn't "30 years ago" either.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Steve Moore broke his own neck when he hit Marcus Naslund with a clean body check two months earlier.

yes because getting smoked in the head from behind is sooo like getting tasered by a cop because you are being violent.

[transplant99]

Oh come on. I'm pretty sure the Police motto isn't "Comply or Die". Cops get in physical confrontations with belligerent people all the time and they don't effing shoot everyone who won't listen to them, and they didn't "30 years ago" either .

Nope, but they probably would whack you senseless with the "night sticks".

[CrusaderPi]

Good thing no one ever died from getting beaten with a blunt object.

Stupid tasers.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

http://ogov.newswire.ca/ontario/GONE...=&lang=_e.html

http://ogov.newswire.ca/ontario/GONE...=&lang=_e.html

http://ogov.newswire.ca/ontario/GONE...=&lang=_e.html

Wow, this solves everything. Since you like this link so much you should send it to the Vancouver RCMP so that they won't need to investigate. Case closed!

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

In law, everyone is equal before the law.

Is this remark supposed to make some sort of point, or rebut what I said in any way? Because it really seems to contribute nothing whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Dan02

Yet everytime there is a problem with the taser it gets reported in the news and the same people every time regardless of the circumstances come out and say it was inappropriate use of force because the guy died. Get it through your thick heads that the result of the use of the taser has all to do with whether it was used properly/appropriately.

Well, I don't know if you are referring to me, but I haven't said it was inappropriate use of force. I have said all along that it MIGHT have been. Seems there are a lot of people here however that think it is pretty cut-and-dried that there was no inappropriate use of force, because the police can never do anything wrong and this guy deserved everything he got. Thanks for the thick head comment, btw, adds a lot of value to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Anyway, I won't bother to address all the posts since coming back but I will try to educate.

Tasers are an authorized NON-LETHAL use of force option. Generally, they can be deployed in 2 different fashions- 1) Direction application on the taser itself to the subject 2) Actually firing the taser probes from a distance into the subject.

The first method is simply an attempt to gain compliance through pain. The second method uses both pain compliance and a disruption of the nervous system as 50K volt are arched between the 2 probes. With the first method, the majority of subjects react strongly and either comply or get angrier. The 2nd method, if deployed correctly, causes subjects to 'tense' up and have really no other reaction. Some get the wind knocked out them, others yell, etc etc.

Although I am not clear on all services use of force models, deployment using each method is on different levels. The first method is generally used to gain compliance from people actively resisting arrest, the 2nd method is used on subjects that are generally assaultive. Again, vancouver could be different.

Generally, the taser cycles for 5 seconds with one trigger pull. This can be made longer or shorter by holding down the trigger. I would assume most forces have strict restrictions for the maximum allow time a subject can be tased in addition to the number of cycles. Keep in mind that after the subject is tased, actual physical control must be taken by officers as the subject has no lingering effects such as with deployment of OC spray. There has been incidences where individuals have pulled the leads from the probes AFTER be tased and the police are back to square one.

There have been many instances of subjects dying from taser deployment. But in the vast majority, there were several factors (drug abuse, etc) that were the major contributors to the subjects death.

The bottom line, tasers are an authorized non-lethal use of force option for police. As are pepper spray, physical control, handcuffs and batons. All can cause death if their are preexisting conditions that police simply aren't aware of.

And yes, an investigation must be completed to determine the cause of death (mandatory in police custody deaths) and the appropriate level of force.

From my stand point, and what irks me, is the general lack of understanding of police procedure, training and law that causes threads like this is spiral into police brutality threads. I make attempts to educate and it is either ignored or somehow used to further the agenda- the post about section 26 is a good example (right now icarus is typing- 'who said I had an agenda?' -sigh, which again, isn't the point).

[...]

To an extent, but without any attempt to educate yourself on the subject, one just ends up looking like an idiot in the eyes of people that have a background and/or knowledge on the subject.

[...]

Well we agree there. My point is that the people that question police and police tactics must first make attempts to understand police tactics/training, the weapons they carry and the psychology behind the use of force. There are some great reads for anyone interested including any by Dave Grossman- 'On Killing' and 'On Combat'. As I stated, without any background knowledge, people attacking police simply b/c of the job they do and an unintended 'outcome' certainly shows a certain amount of bias.

How exactly have you educated yourself? Wikipedia?? RIIGHT.

What a great educator you are, Socrates reincarnate.

Unfortunately, despite all your pedagogic prowess you seem to have lost grip on the actual discussion. This is not a police brutality thread. Some of us have discussed the possibility that the reasonable use of force may have been exceeded, subject to the evidence and findings of an investigation. Others seem content to conclude that the police did no wrong, without having all the evidence or investigation results. There are a lot of people who seem to think the police are infallible, that there is no need to inquire about their actions, and that anyone who dares question their actions is anti-cop. The detailed taser description was fascinating, but really has little to do with the matter of whether the cops in this particular instance did right or wrong.

By the way, how did I use section 26 to further an agenda? O great Prometheus who brought the Criminal Code to us mere mortals, since we missed your point about bringing up this section, please tell us what your intentions were!

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Also to the anti-cop movement in this thread, i admire your buttercup and candy cane approach you feel police should take, but i can conclude that non of you have been a cop, been put in to situations that may be life threatening to you and others and tried to deal with it...

Personal responsibility has been thrown out the window in todays liberalization of society...you dont want to get tasered...dont cause a freaking scene in a freaking airport...

Do you consider me to be part of this 'anti-cop movement' you describe? Can I consider you to be part of an 'anti-free-thought movement'? Since you think cops can do no wrong and their actions should be free from censure maybe you would prefer life in a police state like Burma or North Korea? I for one like living in a country where we have Charter-protected rights and values, where there exists the Rule of Law, and where authority is capable of being freely questioned.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Nope, but they probably would whack you senseless with the "night sticks".

Really?

See, here is the thing -- I've seen police deal with pissed off, drunk, belligerent, non-listening people lots of times. On tv and even in reality -- and you know what? They don't club them, zap them or shoot them every time. They do other things -- they knock them down, they tackle them, they use their other training. They don't use weapons every single time someone doesn't do as they say. They'd be reloading guns, cleaning blood off batons and recharging the zapper after every shift.

Going by this thread, a cop is pretty much justified to do whatever he wants if someone won't listen to him.

"If you don't listen to cops, you get shot, simple as that".

"If you don't listen to the cops they'll club you senseless".

"He didn't listen, so it's his fault he is dead".

I know I'm a cop-hater and also anti-cop, but are the cops who don't immediately shoot, bludgeon or electrocute someone who won't listen to them also cop-haters? They don't behave like this.

[transplant99]

On tv and even in reality -- and you know what? They don't club them, zap them or shoot them every time

I never suggested they do.

Going by this thread, a cop is pretty much justified to do whatever he wants if someone won't listen to him.

Didnt suggest that either.

"If you don't listen to cops, you get shot, simple as that".

Well since that isnt the truth....we dont have to worry about it.

"If you don't listen to the cops they'll club you senseless".

Sometimes they will and most times they wont.

"He didn't listen, so it's his fault he is dead".

Should read...

"He didn't listen, so it's his fault he got tasered and something else went wrong which is why he is dead".

Huge difference.