@ bleeding hearts
"there are many who need to demonize this poor fellow in an effort to convince themselves that he was a trouble-maker, and not a victim."
He threw a computer on the ground, ostensibly smashing it in the process. That pretty much qualifies a person as being a troublemaker. Now you can argue that it's not his FAULT that he's a troublemaker, but of the fact that is IS a troublemaker, there can be no doubt, and if you're f*cking around in an airport, sh*t like this is gonna happen.
Yes, shame on the RCMPs for not figuring out that "hey, when we pump this guy full of electricity, he convulses, making him hard to cuff."
However, there is a misconception about when to use tazers. You people seem to think that tazers are for when the only other alternative is to shoot them. Not so. Most police departments have a policy to use a tazer when to subdue using a lesser method would either not adequately subdue the target, or when a lesser method would potentially endanger the safety of the officer.
Could the RCMPs have tackled the guy? Sure. Would the guy have kicked, clawed, scratched, and bitten? In all likelihood, yes. And that, in fact, is a life-threatening situation for a cop. Guy bites you. Guy has AIDS. Guy draws blood. Guess what?
In the vast majority of cases, tazers do not cause any long term injury.
So given that a lesser means of subduing the whack-job would be either ineffective (he's thrashing about, going mental) or would endanger the cops (s.o.b. freaking bit me!), AND given that tazers are in general quite effective, and relatively safe, their usage is, in my mind, completely justified.
Maybe you idiots would prefer rubber bullets (which can also kill if they hit the wrong part of the body), tear gas (causing respiratory distress...for everyone in the airport, thanks to the ventilation system), or bean bags (which again, can kill, and at the very least will leave some nasty bruising, and possibly broken bones)???
The fact is that under the circumstances, tazering isn't a half-bad idea. We all have the luxury of hindsight. We can all say "yeah, tazering doesn't usually kill, but it sure did with this guy", but that, frankly, doesn't matter. The intent to kill the man was not there, and though it is regrettable that the man died, the chances of that occuring were quite slim. So yeah, it sucks that this guy died, but that doesn't immediately translate into an excuse to crucify those men and women that will protect your ass, should the need arise. Maybe you should say thank you to them, every now and then...
Just a thought...