Canadian Taser death caught on camera

Common sense?

Down where I live, a cop who fires his/her firearm WILL be immediately pulled from active duty until the events are scrutinised as to whether the shooting was appropriate or not. Makes the cops think a bit more before pulling their weapons out.

I respectfully suggest that Capsicum sprays and Tasers should fall under that same rule - don't pull your out unless you mean to use it, and expect to have to provide a good reason for your actions.

@ Rick Brasche

whats an "archist" then...

@ Aubry Thonon

"I respectfully suggest that Capsicum sprays and Tasers should fall under that same rule - don't pull your out unless you mean to use it, and expect to have to provide a good reason for your actions."

Just a quick note on the use of pepper sprays. In the area I live in the US, most police agencies carry decontamination wipes for use after using pepper sprays. The wipes, and occasionally sprays, make the pepper spray inert. The burning stops, and after the administration of oxygen, most of the breathing difficulties clear up. No, I'm not a cop, I'm actually a firefighter, and I've had to deal with people who have been hit with pepper spray. I was one of them.

Personally, I think pepper sprays are the safest "less than lethal" weapons on the market. I've not had the experience of dealing with a tasered person, mainly because it's never happened in my neck of the woods. 99% of the police officers in my area are level headed enough to not use excessive force.

One more tip for dealing with the police; if you're an arse, they're going to be the same way. I've actually been released with a warning for 40 over the speed limit because I was polite and treated the officer with dignity and respect. Yeah, I was warned, and I don't doubt he would have cut my license up on the spot if he caught me again.

I understand everyone's point about language barriers and all, as well as mental illness, but I've dealt with people with mental illnesses and people who can't speak english. I at least make an attempt to speak to them in their own language, even if it's mixed with english. It typically helps calm people down if you try to understand what they're going through.

Let's be REALLY clear...

Lots of people in this thread have accused the deceased of being a "nutjob". No, he was distressed and certainly suffering from a mental ILLNESS. Mental ILLNESSES are usually treatable, just like cancer, just like heart problems, just like skin rashes. People with mental illnesses can usually be treated and live full, active and productive lives, usually with the help of medications to help them balance their brain chemistry (we are all just big chemical factories after all - and what factory doesn't have SOMETHING that needs adjusting?)

A "nutjob" is someone who drives a truck full of fertilizer into a federal building and kills hundreds of people, including children inside the nursery - of his own country, just to "priotest".

This guy was murdered by incompetence at worst, lack of training at best. Someone called the RCMP, when they should have called men with white coats - backed up by the RCMP if necessary, but they should have gone in first...

Robert

Jumping The Gun

... No pun intended. But I'm marvelling at the sheer conviction in some of these comments - the absolute declarations of right and wrong from people who, at best, have watched a video of the incident. And from that - not to mention their preexisting opinions of other, vaguely related incidents - they apparently know enough to determine who was innocent, who was guilty, and draw extensive, sweeping conclusions about the state of Canadian policing or about policing in general.

It may well be that these officers acted wrongly - indeed, since the person involved is dead, it's a given that they did. But was this as a result of their lack of understanding? Their misinterpretation of the situation? Or was it malice? Were they simply playing god, as some are keen to suggest police always do, there not being a decent, honest, freedom-loving individual amongst them? Or should we listen to those who soundly condemn the 'suspect', whose behaviour forced the entirely innocent officers' hands?

Or should we consider that every comment here so far - including this one - has been made by someone with at best a remote knowledge of the incident? What a lot of those comments have in common (though not all - some seem pretty balanced) is that they're kneejerk responses, made in the pursuit of a specific political agenda: the police are either the brutal blunt instrument of an increasingly totalitarian regime (or at least they're all criminally negligent); or the suspect obviously asked for it, just look at him, I mean the hair alone proves it... Everyone knows better, would have known better, would have acted differently and ensured a happy ending - except of course that none of those people were there, and ALL now enjoy the benefit of that famously perfect hindsight.

We had precisely the same arguments following the Menezes shooting in London. It's a wonder anyone bothers with inquiries and inquests at all, since the truth is so readily available to everyone with an opinion. Or perhaps it's just that too many people are happy to settle for 'truthiness': the 'facts' that they think seem to confirm the opinions they already hold. After all, once you've got a 'truth' you're happy with, why bother looking for another one?

The only thing that can be said with certainly about this incident - as with the Menezes shooting - is that someone is dead who certainly shouldn't be. Why that is, who if anyone is to blame, and what if anything should be done to them, is something that can only be decided by those in *full possession of the facts*. And that's going to take a full investigation. It certainly can't be determined convincingly on the comments page of a Reg article. And even when it's been investigated, it's unlikely that the conclusion reached could then be extended to include whole wide groups of people, like police, or Canadians, or immigrants, or the mentally ill.

You're intelligent people. And intelligent people shouldn't be leaping to conclusions based on what they'd LIKE to be true.

Hm...

If four civilians would do that to a simply agitated man, they would be charged with murder.

Mr. Bright, hopefully you will never lose your temper at the wrong place and time and suffer from an overreaction to tasering, as judging from your vile language here you are a person that frequently loses his temper.

yes

"Tasers would be useful in situations where the police would genuinely have no choice otherwise but to kill, but in reality I think they would only be a good idea if the majority of cops weren't bullied at school for being fat spotty virgins."

^^^

RCMP and Vancouver City Police

I mentioned the Vancouver Police negetively in a previous comment but I must say that one of the problems here is that it was NOT the city police. I beleive that the Vancouver airport is not under city police jurisdiction and that is why the RCMP was called. That was a bad thing. The Vancouver police (despite their occational atrocities as I mentioned earlier) have experience with things like family violence and mentally challanged individuals. In fact they have a special unit to deal with those things and I can vouch for their professional skills because I have seen them in action. The RCMP, on the other hand, do not normally deal with this kind of thing and are prone to take a heavy handed approach. In fact, they have a bad reputation when it comes to non civil problems.

I would also like to say, that after watching the video and seeing the gentleman in question. He looks (looked) like a pretty "normal" stressed person with some serious issues. He did not look at all like a dangerous person. I would have had no fear in dealing with him in that situation. Perhaps wrongly, but I have dealt with many people like that before, and it is not a big deal, and it is not a time for violence.

It should also be mentioned, that Vancouver is an unusually multicultural city. If you need more that one phone call to find someone who speaks Polish, you are not from there.

Notification?

My question is, does anyone know what the RCMP were told when they were called in?

If they got the call that simply said there was a man, seemingly with mental problems, destroying property and acting dangerous at the airport, I could certainly understand the taser'ing. And 3 or 4 times might seem excessive, but as someone previously pointed out, those particular tazer's were only 50k, not the larger guaranteed to drop a man in one shot. At 50k, a man on drugs, mentally unstable, or for other reasons, can withstand a couple shots and still be fighting.

I'm not saying this particular case, it was right or wrong. But I can see both sides, and what the RCMP *might* have been thinking, especially when they called for a 3rd and/or 4th shot.

Yes, police batons are another solution as some pointed out. But they're hardly less lethal than tazers, and are MUCH more likely to cause serious damage. Same for wrestling him to the ground, there's a good chance of seperated shoulders, broken arms, and other upper body damage. The likelihood of someone dying is waaaay less using a tazer. And in today's age of people suing for any little bruise, calling it police brutality, I think you'll only see more and more use of tazer's. Don't blame the cops, blame the idiots who want to fight arrests and assault cops, then sue when they're arrested.

Someone else pointed out teaching police Aikido or similar (personally I'd choose one of the stick fighting arts like Escrima). But how many here are going to be pissed when their taxes get raised to pay for it. Same for the one who said they should know some medical training. Police are some of the lowest funded and lowest paid people in most countries, US and Canada included. Their budgets are almost always pitiful, and they quite often have trouble paying for decent gear, much less advanced training. Sure, advanced training sounds good, but I'd be willing to bet that 99% of people would scream to hear their taxes were being raised even 1% to pay for it.

Comment

I live in Canada. Born here, been here all my life.

There is in Canada a culture amongst security people - police and rent-a-cops - that if they are called by a company employee (pick your company) complaining about a customer/client/etc, then the company is right.

In this country, pretty much the worst thing you can see walking in the door if you are debating even a completely reasonable point with a staff person is a cop. This is because Canadian police: (1) think it is their job to resolve every disagreement they see; (2) have an exagerated, even pavlovian, respect for authority; (3) are not fundamentally interested in what or why an arguement is happening.

The easiest way to stop an arguement is to grab the guy that can be most easily removed - the customer/client/etc. And, in Canadian police doctrine, if same objects to being reomved, that is obstruction or restistance.

I've seen this happen dozens of times, simply living here. I've been on the recieving end of it twice. One of the times I was violently shove from behind by one cop, while the cop infront of me watched to see if I would evince some anger. In neither case was I in the wrong: I was owned a refund for defective goods, the vendor refused, we argued, next thing I knew a cop was strong arming me.

Most rent-a-cops are worse than the real variety.

FWIW, I think this results from a species of unthinkingness that Canadians are prey to: the belief that as long as things are calm and nobody rocks the boat then things must be fine. This is almost the defining characteristic of politics and human resources management in Canada. Cop's highest value here, not surprisingly, is often not identifying the culprit, but identifying the person most easily controlled in order to re-establish peace and quiet.

Another death

Sigh . . . another approved death in the Democratic States of Totalitariansim.

TazerTasicFryingFun

1) Four officiers can detrain a man and handcuff him. He was not acting violently towards the men nor public, but towards inanimate objects.

2) The punishment (death in this case) was disproportionate to the crime (being rowdy in a public place).

3) The role of the police is to arrest criminals, not to deliver punishment.

Tazers: If you give people a toy to use then they will use it. Its a toy gun that won't cause any suffering, and its humane (so long as one wants an exit from humanity.)

@Coward

Humane: "marked or motivated by concern with the alleviation of suffering" (WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.)

You're telling me a device deviced purely to cause incapacitation via sensory overload by electric shock is "motivated by concern with the alleviation of suffering"?

I suppose it's better than a billy-club, but 4 police officers shouldn't need any assistance in taking down a single person. If they do, they're in the wrong job.

Mental Illness & Taser Guns

Broadcast on BBC Radio 4 Tuesday November 13 2008

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/allinthemind.shtml

This Canadian is pretty ashamed

I tired and confused visitor to our country was tased to death for no more reason then to amuse a bunch of RCMP thugs... disgusting.

The witness who took the video also reported that the cops were discussing whether they could tase the guy while they were rushing to the scene.

I see a headline in the future though.... "RCMP cleared of all responsibility".

@Notification - Police pay in Canada

"Police are some of the lowest funded and lowest paid people in most countries, US and Canada included."

RCMP officers earn above Cdn$60k (roughly the same as US$) per year within a very few years of graduation. Even fresh recruits are firmly in the middle class. They are absolutely not underpaid.

Martial arts

I have to agree that while martial arts are usefull in a real world situation its a bit more chaotic and using perfect technique taught in a class is not often possible.

However hwat training in martial arts should do, and what training in confrontation situations should do. Is teach people to asses and react accordingly, not lose their cool or go over the top.

This sort of training should be concentrating on having a calmness and clarity of thought in potentially hostile situations.

1 tazering is possibly acceptable, although I have my doubts, but the repeated tazering certainly was not.

No justification?

I seriously would love to see some posters in here try to be a cop for ONE day.

No justification? The suspect had previously shown violent tendencies, destroying equipment. Period, stop, end of statement. The operative words in that statement are "Shown violent tendencies". No debating that, nobody can argue it.

The subject had barricaded himself in a room and was acting agitated and not responding to overtures to talk. Again, Period, stop, end of statement. Language barriers don't matter. He wasn't even attempting to communicate according to what was said, previous to the RCMP showing up.

The two facts, unarguable, put together in a high-profile target area like an airport will of course cause a high-level of concern. And the death was a tragedy, but in almost under any civilized country, guess what... Read the laws and the definitions when use of deadly force is permissible. I.E. when the individual can reasonably be suspected of being a danger to others or self. Hey, I believe he could fit those criteria, with the two facts above. Plus the already established mental illness fact.

As for tazers being so deadly, it's time to drop a little knowledge for the unenlightened. Anyone care to guess the death rate of tazers in the US, where in truth they're more prevalent than anywhere else. .00018, yep that small a percentage. Research does a mind well. Linked from http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=520&issue_id=22005

Tazers are, and continue to be, the safest current weapon in the police arsenal for violent tendencies. And there is 0 chance of breaking bones or causing other physical harm, unless the person falls in that .00018 of people in such poor health.

Can anyone in here tell me with a 100% chance that the suspect was not on LSD? LSD of course negates the effect of pain. Previous to tazers, guess the only solution to LSD users, lethal force or beating them until they literally can't move. Many mental defectives fall under the same category.

My question is, when these people are protecting YOU, for a pitiful salary, putting themselves in the line of fire, would you rather them go into a potentially dangerous situation, and not use every tool in their arsenal. I really pity the people nowadays who go along with the "anarchist" idea without a real clue what anarchism is really all about, put down the police and military. But let them get raped or mugged, and all of a sudden everything changes. It's really really pitiful. As my father says "A liberal is just a person who hasn't been beaten, mugged, or assaulted yet. Then they instantly become a conservative".

Hmm, that should be an idea. Police keep track of everyone who rallies against them, spits on them, etc. Then, since they obviously don't want police protection, don't give it. That simple. Bet you'd see a big change in attitude then from people.

"Yes, ma'am. You were raped? Well, I'm sorry, according to our list, you were at a rally last week saying all cops were pigs, corrupt, and should all be fired. You clearly stated you don't need or want our help. Have a good day."

As for the guy who claimed the cops were becoming pussified, you really want to know what happened? That answer is so simple. It's called the general public and stupidity of the courts, at least in the US. 20 years ago, if a policeman grabbed you and pushed you 10 feet to get you out of the line of fire in a shooting situation, you'd get up, maybe get a sprained ankle taken care of, and that was it. Nowadays, you get up, get the sprained ankle, sue the police and the individual police officer for medical bills, pain & suffering, loss of work, and anything else you can think of; end result, a fired/suspended officer and loss of $1 million or more... And with criminals it's even more ridiculous. A policeman goes to arrest a subject who is clearly armed with a firearm, breaks the arm to make him release the weapon, and is brought up on charges criminally and civilly sued? Guess what, in their place, you bet your ass I'm gonna use a tazer. Either that or do the smart thing, empty my weapon, and make certain the criminal can't sue because he's dead.

Pertaining to this case in particular though, the RCMP could not guarantee the person wasn't on drugs or dangerous because of mental illness. I don't see where it says anywhere in the article that the woman stated what TYPE of mental illness. There's a biiiiig difference between depression and sociopathy under control with medication. Hell, even retardism can be dangerous, especially as they're most often stronger and more resistant to pain than the general population. 4 shots to bring down a person who is still resisting, sounds reasonable to me if that's what it takes.

As for holding them responsible for the death, have you ever heard of IAB? It stands for Internal Affairs Bureau. They monitor the police, and every police officer in the US is required to have a hearing with them after any discharge of a firearm, death or no. And the officer is automatically put on leave with pay until the investigation is finished. The RCMP has their version, as I'm sure do the British. And yes, tazer's do fall under firearms. Granted, in the case of very obvious cut and dried, the investigation might only be an hour "The suspect shot a hostage while robbing a bank and had his gun aimed at another hostage", every single time it's investigated. Ok, the conspiracy theorists can now rant that cops always stand up for each other although it's obviously not true.

As for the definition of humane, you might try looking at most statements when talking about tazers. It usually says "more humane". The word "more" makes a big difference. Of course, getting the right statements wouldn't make as much of an impact or allow a rant.

As for "Sigh . . . another approved death in the Democratic States of Totalitariansim", so much for reading comprehension... Since when have the RCMP worked in the US?

This is besides the simple fact of nobody here knows what happened really. The person who made the tape even admitted he'd cut if off to save storage space. It shows the suspect barricading himself in, smashing the computer, then it cuts out until the RCMP shows up. Oh, and might I point out one other thing EVERYONE here seemed to miss...

"He then "picks up a small table, which he holds, while a woman in the arrivals lounge calmly speaks to him in apparent effort to calm him down".

So much for the argument of language barrier in trying to calm him down. Someone had been trying for minutes and it hadn't work, thus reinforcing the idea of him being a danger.

And as for the idio... i mean person who says police should have to explain why they'd use a firearm when they use a tazer... Tazer's are non-lethal deterrents. Nothing near the same as a firearm. Firearms are designed to be lethal. Yes, deaths happen. It's called an accident. The 4 RCMP officers take him down physically, he has a heart attack. Should they have to explain that as well? .00018% death rate. That's probably a better chance than from a baton strike. Chance of hitting a vital spot because suspect moved (throat or temple for example), chance of a bruise clotting and moving to brain, etc. Add it all up, and I'll bet there's a higher death rate for batons. Almost the only medical condition that will cause a death with tazer is seriously defective heart or brain condition.

Bah, why am I trying. People will still post just to be the "cool anarchist" and show how much they disdain authority figures.

Blood sugar levels?

I only watched half way, but if I saw somebody acting like that I'd assume he was a diabetic going hypo. My instinct would be to try to help him rather than attack him. This is a sad reflection of modern city society: we'll ignore people when they need help but attack them if they become an inconvenience.

Get more evidence!

Why not give the police Hat/Helmet Cameras like bikecops have started using (smaller, probably)? They way we can see from (pretty much) their POV what was happenning, record what they said and have a record of what went on. And with 4 police in the room- or even in a more standard pair of officers- if one camera "happenned" to 'fail' at just the right moment, there'd be another officers' camera that hadn't failed; cameras are reliable enough that 4 wouldn't be failing at once!

Or even mount small cameras on the Tazer, so when it's armed (or safety's off or whatever the equivalent is for Ready To Shoot) it's recording what it shoots at.

And the best point- they could recycle older ("mere" 3 or so MP, i.e. ones shops won't even sell anymore but that are perfectly suitable for the job at hand) cameras, lowering their costs, reducing our waste and helping save the world!

Judge Dread

Judge, Jury and Executioner....

Fantasy? Or are we already very close to this distopian nightmare.....

@Adam - Just to reinforce your comment

Good comment. Any force used against a suspect, be it spray, baton or manual restraint, can be lethal in some circumstances, but the Taser is a weapon of last resort. In other words it is meant to be used instead of a firearm in a situation when the use of deadly force is justified. It has a significant risk of injury and death and this is well known to all police forces using it.

It is not, repeat not a disabling or containment device and should never be used as such. So the question of when a Taser should be used is simple: is deadly force justified or not? From the evidence of its almost routine use in North Amerca (evidence the current incident) I would say that there is a lot of police and security training still needed there.

@No Justification?

I recommend you read a slim volume called "Flaws and Fallacies in Statistical Thinking" by Stephen K. Campbell so that you may understand just how ridiculous your claims about the the safety of "non-lethal" Tasers are.

The .00018 percent you quote (see above why this is a meaningless figure) has so far resulted in the deaths of over 70 people in the US alone.(Just one story http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/12/earlyshow/main648859.shtml)

If used correctly, Tasers are a good tool and can actually save lives. If used correctly!

foreigners

Just a thought to add to my previous point - Do we know if these officers perhaps served in another country before RCMP? As I say, Just a thought!

My perception of RCMP still holds.

Title

I do not understand fellow human beings who say they have no problem with what is shown on the film. Sure it is better to avoid using conventional firearms, but the point is that the situation clearly called for neither. However hard the job of policing is, if you can not control the situation without resorting to excess violence, then it is clearly not the job for you.

I don't think the law officers involved should have "a leg to stand on", but I have little doubt any subsequent investigation will find in their favour, will claim the situation was bad enough to use deadly force, and it is just an unfortunate accident. How many will believe it though, is another matter.

Airport suffering

Just a quick clarification to some of the comments by Andy Bright...

Unless they've radically changed the Vancouver international terminal in the past 8 months, they don't let people wander aimlessly or sit around for 10 hours. Generally the only way you end up there that long is if customs/immigration has some issue or question with your documentation or goods. In those situations YOU are detained, no one else is permitted to stay with you, and if any asks for you or an announcement put over the speakers, the only answer given is "We are not allowed to comment". You are also (in that situation) not allowed to have anyone in the airport contact you or receive messages.

So if the translator phone lines were down, what would have happened is this chap would have been separated from his family, stuck in an office for 10 hours without food, only allowed to the bathroom with an escort, babbled at in a language he doesn't know and can't get translated, not allowed to communicate with his family and undergoing endless frustration while they investigate and sort out any visa or customs questions. Even with nothing else, it's a rather a frustrating experience.

And before you point out that a customs check doesn't take that long, in Canada if you are selected for a full inspection this can include them examining EVERY file on your computer, palm and any discs you may have. The last time I had this happen to me, it took 4 hours for me to clear customs.

@Curtis W. Rendon

<<Clear case of a nut job vandalizing furniture>>

Yeah.

He's ceo if Microsoft. If that fat bastard lobs a chair in my general direction, I'll surely Taser the fucker.

The problem

While I agree that using excessive force is bad, the problem is that the only credible argument that excessive force was used in this case is that is resulted in the death of the man. Constantly people on these comments have said things like "did the man deserve to die?" and no, of course not. In that same regard, the officers weren't trying to kill him. The force used, tazing, was plenty warranted.

The problem is that too many posters here can't divorce the justification (or lack thereof) of the polices' actions from the outcome. Too many people here use the argument "the man died, therefore excessive force was used" completely ignoring the fact that the force used is in the vast majority of cases, NON-LETHAL. I agree that lethal force is excessive in this case. However, police didn't use lethal force. Because a man dies from "non-lethal force" does not make it the police's fault.

I could be one concussion away from a coma and you wouldn't know that, and if i resist arrest and get my head whacked by a police baton, putting me into a coma that I ultimately die from, is that also excessive force??? Clearly not.

You see, to properly evaluate whether the appropriate amount of force was used, one must ignore events transpiring AFTER the force was applied. In the same way that a cop must justify firing his sidearm -- "the suspect wasn't killed" doesn't get the officer out of jusitfying opening fire. Nor should "the man ended up dying" be damning to the officers' whose level of force was entirely appropriate, given the information available to them at the time.

dangerous

I don't quite get how - as some people seem to think - that the cops might have suspected this guy was on drugs or had a 'dangerous needle' in his pocket. He was coming off an international flight. Generally speaking even a nail file isn't going to make it onto the plane. If someone in an international arrivals area is going to be automatically considered 'armed and dangerous' by the police, then, frankly anyone on the planet at any time should be so considered.

This is one of the side effects of 'airport security' - those charged with protecting us manage it to such good effect that people can get so angry and frustrated that they become a danger to themselves and others. I've been stuck in airport queues for literally hours, and made to stand through it all with a bad hip. Somehow those 'its for your own good and we apologize for the inconvenience' signs become less relevant after 60 min or so.