Man dies after being tasered in Vancouver Airport

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

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.

No I didn't know exactly what he meant.

When he said criminal I thought he was labelling the taser victim as a criminal. But in light of previous comments he has made, he indicated that no, he doesn't label people criminals unless they have been charged with a violent offence at which time it is safe to assume they have a prior criminal history.

Thus, I am asking him to clarify his usage of the label as I am confused.

You seem to be his spokesperson, so maybe you can clarify what justifies the use of the label.

[Flames_Gimp]

better read the article again, lanny...even witnesses back up the police, and the fact that the guy was out of control.

it is likely the guy was either drugged up, or just a whacko.

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by icarus

No I didn't know exactly what he meant.

When he said criminal I thought he was labelling the taser victim as a criminal. But in light of previous comments he has made, he indicated that no, he doesn't label people criminals unless they have been charged with a violent offence at which time it is safe to assume they have a prior criminal history.

Thus, I am asking him to clarify his usage of the label as I am confused.

You seem to be his spokesperson, so maybe you can clarify what justifies the use of the label.

smashing computers isn't a criminal offence? its wrong to assume a man, who was resisting law enforcement, and destroying public property is a criminal?

Originally Posted by icarus

No I didn't know exactly what he meant.

When he said criminal I thought he was labelling the taser victim as a criminal. But in light of previous comments he has made, he indicated that no, he doesn't label people criminals unless they have been charged with a violent offence at which time it is safe to assume they have a prior criminal history.

Thus, I am asking him to clarify his usage of the label as I am confused.

You seem to be his spokesperson, so maybe you can clarify what justifies the use of the label.

Go Flames Go?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

better read the article again, lanny...even witnesses back up the police, and the fact that the guy was out of control.

it is likely the guy was either drugged up, or just a whacko.

You better read the article again. The only person quoted was RCMP Sgt. Pierre Lemaitre. They are asking for witnesses to come forward and "contact the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team Tipline at 1-877-543-9217 with any information they can provide."

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Go Flames Go?

Oh jeez, now all Flames fans are criminals!!!

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

You better read the article again. The only person quoted was RCMP Sgt. Pierre Lemaitre. They are asking for witnesses to come forward and "contact the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team Tipline at 1-877-543-9217 with any information they can provide."

you took a line out of that quote i see... they are asking for witnesses who have not yet spoken to come forward.

and...there were several witnesses backing up the police report.

"Police, said Lemaitre, spoke to several witnesses that were at the international arrival gate, and "the story so far is very consistent that this guy was just out of control.""

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Oh jeez, now all Flames fans are criminals!!!

Go Oilers Go?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Go Oilers Go?

Muuuuuuuuuuuch better!

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

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.

Bullcrap. I've been involved with the law in other countries where the language spoken is not English. I think "pissed-off police" officer is understood pretty by everyone everywhere. You know when to comply and when to ask questions.

EDIT: WHOA, not even speaking another language. He just had an accent. He should have known exactly what was going on.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

you took a line out of that quote i see... they are asking for witnesses who have not yet spoken to come forward.

and...there were several witnesses backing up the police report.

"Police, said Lemaitre, spoke to several witnesses that were at the international arrival gate, and "the story so far is very consistent that this guy was just out of control.""

And I reiterate, the only person quoted was RCMP Sgt. Pierre Lemaitre.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

Bullcrap. I've been involved with the law in other countries where the language spoken is not English. I think "pissed-off police" officer is understood pretty by everyone everywhere. You know when to comply and when to ask questions.

Bullcrap back at you. I can only speak for what I know down here, but police agencies in the metro-Phoenix (and Los Angeles) area have Spanish interpreters on call at all times, because communication is such a huge problem down here. In fact, the officers have available to them 24x7 interpreter services in almost ANY language, thanks to an inter-agency system that has the speakers available by pager and cellphone at any time of the day. And no, you don't know when to comply without completely understanding the language. There have been instances where individuals have been shot because of honest miscommunication.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Bullcrap back at you. I can only speak for what I know down here, but police agencies in the metro-Phoenix (and Los Angeles) area have Spanish interpreters on call at all times, because communication is such a huge problem down here. In fact, the officers have available to them 24x7 interpreter services in almost ANY language, thanks to an inter-agency system that has the speakers available by pager and cellphone at any time of the day. And no, you don't know when to comply without completely understanding the language. There have been instances where individuals have been shot because of honest miscommunication.

I will guarantee you that a huge proportion of interpreter's time is used on domestic calls. In a situation like this where the safety of the officers, bystanders and the perpetrator at risk, it's a whole different set of rules. As I said, if I'm acting out of control and a police officer points a weapon at me, I know exactly what I have to do.

EDIT: Not even mentioning the fact that the guy was speaking English.

[jolinar of malkshor]

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.

Ok this here is just one possibility. The guy was a drug mule...swallowed 1 or more condom packed cocaine packs. One burst while in flight causing massive coacine oversdose causing the behavoir.

As for the your comment about the customs picking up on his behavior....maybe they did, he hadn't cleared the controlled area yet, he was waiting for his luggage. Maybe he was sent for a secondary exam but he needs his luggage first before that could happen.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Ok this here is just one possibility. The guy was a drug mule...swallowed 1 more more condom packed cocaine packs. One burst while in flight causing massive coacine oversdose causing the behavoir.

As for the your comment about the customs picking up on his behavior....maybe they did, he hadn't cleared the controlled area yet, he was waiting for his luggage. Maybe he was sent for a secondary exam but he needs his luggage first before that could happen.

That's an interesting premise, one that I had not considered. Interesting theory, that I actually like quite a bit. Just to poke a smll hole in that theory, I'm not sure how it works in Vancouver, but you have to claim your luggage before you hit an inspection agent. If the guy was a mule, I would think he would have been happy his luggage didn't show though, and it would be an excuse to not be held or searched, and he would be on his way. It will definitely be interesting to see what the autopsy produces, and whether that gets any media coverage.

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

And I reiterate, the only person quoted was RCMP Sgt. Pierre Lemaitre.

Ya so he is probably lying..you know those dirty cops

[4X4]

Lanny, you must be kidding. You don't know when to comply without completely understanding the language? Please.
Anybody throwing a fit in an airport had better expect the cops to come-a-running, not looking to fool around.
It's a freaking airport. Not a warm, fuzzy social worker's office.

When I was in Italy, I was out pretty late one night. Walking home by myself, I was suddenly confronted by some cops who were obviously looking for someone whose description I must have matched.

I didn't need a firm grasp on Italian to know that they wanted me to stop where I was and don't make quick movements.

I really can't believe you're trying to rationalize for someone who was throwing computers and chairs in an airport by saying that maybe he didn't understand what the cops wanted him to do (or stop doing). Maybe in a McDonalds, but not an airport.

And whoever made the point earlier about the wife and kids was bang on.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

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.

What statements exactly are ridiculous? That police officers are human beings? Or that they can make mistakes?

Both sides of this discussion are doing the same thing -- drawing conclusions based on the information we have. Some of us believe the cops could have made a mistake (based on the dead body) and some of us believe that they couldn't have made a mistake, based on the fact that they are cops.

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

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.

I'll get right on that.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

smashing computers isn't a criminal offence? its wrong to assume a man, who was resisting law enforcement, and destroying public property is a criminal?

Using unlawful force resulting in death is also a criminal offence. So maybe the label 'criminal' should be used in reference to the police officer? Or better yet, let's just not call anyone a criminal just yet because we don't have all the evidence and no one has been convicted of anything.

The point is that we should regard everybody and every story with a critical eye, whilst not jumping to conclusions. Let's not think the authorities are infallible, and let's not decide who was right and who was wrong on the basis of what we imagined happened.

It may be the case that the cop did everything by the book and the guy had an unfortunate response to the taser. Maybe tasers should be avoided where pepper spray might do the trick, who knows.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Lanny, you must be kidding. You don't know when to comply without completely understanding the language? Please.

Not kidding at all. Civilians have been killed, and officers careers ended because the communication channel was blocked by a language barrier. When someone is ordered to do something, and they don't do it, the officer becomes just as prone to a mistake as the suspect. The individual can make a move for his identification, or something else, and the officer can make an error because the suspect was not following orders and the officer viewed himself at risk. There have been several instances of that very thing happening in Phoenix over the past four years. Communcation failures are a bg problem.