Man dies after being tasered in Vancouver Airport

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I'm not saying it was acceptable or it was the norm. What I was saying was that your "logic" that the guy was obviously on drugs was flawed, and gave several reasons why he may have been worked up to the point he started acting irrationally. No where did I say that what the guy was right, all I did was defend the position of him being on drugs, which makes little sense.

I would take my logic over your logic that he would act the way he did becuase his luggage was lost.

[4X4]

Maybe the reason he lost it was because his drugs were in the lost luggage. He was coming down and needed his fix... DON'T TASE ME, BRO!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Yeah its all the police fault.... this is getting old....

This man was acting erractically, it was HIS fault he got tasered, we can debate without any first hand knowledge of the situation whether he should have got tasered or not, but the fact of the matter is his actions and his actions alone resulted in him getting tasered.

That doesn't even make sense. We can argue about whether he should have been tasered or not, but we can't argue that he should have been tasered? Kind of hard to "argue" that.

Originally Posted by Dan02

I am getting sick and tired of the, everyone can do no wrong act and its always police abusing their power. People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions, anyone who doesn't realize this needs to pull their head out of the sand.

Cops are human beings -- they can make mistakes. When a guy who has a temper tantrum ends up in the morgue, I think it's pretty clear that someone made a mistake. Or do you think this all went down pretty well, and the whole incident was a textbook display of police work? Speaking of, do you think this incident should become a "case study" for police-in-training? Like a "how to" guide on how to deal with a guy who is acting crazy?

One time, Westjet lost my luggage... I was sooooooooooo mad... thank god they didn't have tasers then... oh wait, no, I went up to the westjet window like a rational human and asked them where it was. Ohhhh but thats right, I was not in a foreign country after a 10 hour flight.... good thing, who knows what i would done.... RIIIIGHT.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Lanny, the logic is NOT flawed. Drug toxicity is very real. Normal people do not act the way this guy was acting. Is it really such a jump to think, based on the articles and observations by others, that this guys behavior was so out of whack with the norm, that there COULD have been something else on board?

It is indeed a possibility. There is no denying that. I don't think its likely, considering the guy was coming off an international flight though. I would think his behavior, and the symptoms you're claim are indicative of drug toxicity, would have been observed on the flight, or at worst, identified at customs. You do remember that he got through customs clean?

[icarus]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Why do you always back the criminal?

Who is the criminal?

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

That doesn't even make sense. We can argue about whether he should have been tasered or not, but we can't argue that he should have been tasered? Kind of hard to "argue" that.



Cops are human beings -- they can make mistakes. When a guy who has a temper tantrum ends up in the morgue, I think it's pretty clear that someone made a mistake. Or do you think this all went down pretty well, and the whole incident was a textbook display of police work? Speaking of, do you think this incident should become a "case study" for police-in-training? Like a "how to" guide on how to deal with a guy who is acting crazy?

Those statements are ridiculous. The whole incident from a police stand point, could have been 'textbook'. From a use of force perspective, all factors for deploying a taser could have been present and all other forms of control had been exhausted or simply weren't practicable. A taser was those used to gain compliance. Thus, its was 'textbook'. Could it be a case study? Possibly.

Please read up on the Canadian Crim Code (sections 25 and 26 specifically) and maybe check out some Use of Force models before making comments like the above.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

It is indeed a possibility. There is no denying that. I don't think its likely, considering the guy was coming off an international flight though. I would think his behavior, and the symptoms you're claim are indicative of drug toxicity, would have been observed on the flight, or at worst, identified at customs. You do remember that he got through customs clean?

Thats completely untrue. Who knows when and where he COULD have used drugs. On the flight? Maybe. After the flight? Possibly. Bottom line is, drugs do make it on flights and beyond and one certainly doesn't get searched going through customs.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by icarus

Who is the criminal?

I was going to ask the same thing.

Why do you guys always pick out one sentence or word to discredit someones post.

You ALL know what he means....

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Thats completely untrue. Who knows when and where he COULD have used drugs. On the flight? Maybe. After the flight? Possibly. Bottom line is, drugs do make it on flights and beyond and one certainly doesn't get searched going through customs.

Ah, gotcha. So the guy now managed to get drugs on the plane, getting through airport security to do so, take them during the flight or in the secure customs area, without anyone noticing, got past customs, who are trained to look for people displaying odd behavior and detain them, and then some how started to display drug toxicity when he went to the lost baggage counter and wigged out? Seems everyone else some how failed in the execution of their duties, except the cops, who were textbook in the execustion of their duties.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Ah, gotcha. So the guy now managed to get drugs on the plane, getting through airport security to do so, take them during the flight or in the secure customs area, without anyone noticing, got past customs, who are trained to look for people displaying odd behavior and detain them, and then some how started to display drug toxicity when he went to the lost baggage counter and wigged out? Seems everyone else some how failed in the execution of their duties, except the cops, who were textbook in the execustion of their duties.

Not sure why I bother really.

Drug toxicity does not necessarily mean he did some drug and this was his reaction to it. It can also include reactions from chronic use (general build up and its effects and long term effects) in addition to withdrawal.

But yes, drugs do make it through costums and yes there are places to even do them.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

And again, everyone else failed in the execution of their duties except the Vancouver cops.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Why do you guys always pick out one sentence or word to discredit someones post.

You ALL know what he means....

Why do you assume you this sentence is taken out of context to discredit his post?

He has already used the label 'criminal' before on this board, and in defence wrote the following:

"Yes, that doesn't show that I said or think that people who are charged with an offence are automatically guilty. I said that most people who commit violent crimes, have already been found guilty of a different offence....hence....they are convicted criminals."

This dead, tasered guy was not charged nor seemed to have committed any violent crime, so I was just curious as to why jolinar is pulling out the 'criminal' label again when he says he reserves it only for those assumed to have prior criminal records.

I am not taking the sentence out of context to discredit his post, I am trying to reconcile his choice of words in light of an earlier comment he made. Thank you for being so presumptuous though, and also thank you for bringing up CC s. 26:

"26. Every one who is authorized by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess thereof according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess."

I guess if it can be proven that the use of force was excessive to the act, that would make the cop the criminal. But I can't suggest this was the case, because, like you, I don't know the full story, and, unlike you, I don't like to be presumptuous.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by icarus

Why do you assume you this sentence is taken out of context to discredit his post?

He has already used the label 'criminal' before on this board, and in defence wrote the following:

"Yes, that doesn't show that I said or think that people who are charged with an offence are automatically guilty. I said that most people who commit violent crimes, have already been found guilty of a different offence....hence....they are convicted criminals."

This dead, tasered guy was not charged nor seemed to have committed any violent crime, so I was just curious as to why jolinar is pulling out the 'criminal' label again when he says he reserves it only for those assumed to have prior criminal records.

I am not taking the sentence out of context to discredit his post, I am trying to reconcile his choice of words in light of an earlier comment he made. Thank you for being so presumptuous though, and also thank you for bringing up CC s. 26:

"26. Every one who is authorized by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess thereof according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess."

I guess if it can be proven that the use of force was excessive to the act, that would make the cop the criminal. But I can't suggest this was the case, because, like you, I don't know the full story, and, unlike you, I don't like to be presumptuous.

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Now what is most likely? A guy has just come off an international flight, likely a multi-hour flight, and is missing his luggage. What is most likely?

obviously he was not just mad about missing luggage, as he was tasered. I'm sure the police gave him plenty of warning, and asked him to leave/stop freaking out. They don't just taser everyone right away.

Originally Posted by icarus

Why do you assume you this sentence is taken out of context to discredit his post?

He has already used the label 'criminal' before on this board, and in defence wrote the following:

"Yes, that doesn't show that I said or think that people who are charged with an offence are automatically guilty. I said that most people who commit violent crimes, have already been found guilty of a different offence....hence....they are convicted criminals."

This dead, tasered guy was not charged nor seemed to have committed any violent crime, so I was just curious as to why jolinar is pulling out the 'criminal' label again when he says he reserves it only for those assumed to have prior criminal records.

I am not taking the sentence out of context to discredit his post, I am trying to reconcile his choice of words in light of an earlier comment he made. Thank you for being so presumptuous though, and also thank you for bringing up CC s. 26:

"26. Every one who is authorized by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess thereof according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess."

I guess if it can be proven that the use of force was excessive to the act, that would make the cop the criminal. But I can't suggest this was the case, because, like you, I don't know the full story, and, unlike you, I don't like to be presumptuous.

I said, you pick up one word, quote it, then ask where did I say that or why did you say this.

You all knew exactly what he meant. Maybe it was a poor choice of words but it certainly doesn't downplay the essence of his post. See what I am getting at now.

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The man, a Caucasian in his 40s, was yelling, sweating profusely, throwing chairs and pounding on windows, according to police.

At one point the man grabbed a computer from a desk and threw it down.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...014?hub=Canada

Yup, tasered for no reason.

there you go, Lanny, you are completely owned. it's over, you are wrong. Be a man and admit it.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

obviously he was not just mad about missing luggage, as he was tasered. I'm sure the police gave him plenty of warning, and asked him to leave/stop freaking out. They don't just taser everyone right away.

Did you miss the point where he was speaking an unidentified eastern european language? That is a circumstance that I am very familiar with in this part of the United States, so I completely understand the challenges that both the law enforcement agents and the individual engaged in any interaction face. This was obviously a mitigating circumstance that helped exacerbate the situation. It is very hard to follow orders when you do not understand the commands.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

there you go, Lanny, you are completely owned. it's over, you are wrong. Be a man and admit it.

Wrong about what, exactly? That is a rehash of the firstv story and is completely inconclusive of anything. Is there anything in that story that states the guy was certainly on drugs, or that the police were correct in the execution of their duties? In fact, their internal investigation team appears to be conducting an investigation by that report. They are not cleared of anything at this time, and the potential for criminal charges againstb the officers still exists.