Canadian police taser a man to death

by Aragon Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:17

The killing has sparked a huge controversy in Canada

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/11....html

by Aragon Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:23

Provides more background/context. The dead man was Polish and it seems Poles don't have a very good time in Canada:

http://plawiuk.blogspot.com/

by Dave Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:01

Unless you have had to physically restrain a violent person I do not think you are in a position to judge the police officers.

The man was being physically aggressive prior to the arrival of the police.

Even though he appeared to calm down a bit it is not obvious from the video that the police would have been able to arrest him and take him into custody without using violence or without risking injury or worse to themselves.

They didn't know who this guy was and what he might have been capable of if provoked.

The officers had not touched him before they tasered him and it appears he had is hands by his sides but if the police had moved to cuff him would he had begun to throw punches or kicks or not?

I believe that the officers would certainly have overwhelmed the man got him on the floor and cuffed him without using the taser but would they have been able to remove him from the scene without tasing him?

What if he broke free again and they had to subdue him all over again risking injury to themselves?

If a taser was not available these police officers would have had to use batons or grappling holds to overcome the unarmed suspect and these methods can be equally lethal too (there was case in Ireland where a bouncer at a nightclub accidentally killed a man with a chokehold when he tried to restrain him).

by Aragon Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:31

Four strapping policemen could not subdue one unarmed 40-year old man? This was clearcut manslaughter.

by Dave Sat Nov 17, 2007 17:30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcaW6YZZ99I

This demonstrates how hard it is to physically restrain someone.
This guy in this video is drunk of course while the Polish guy in the first video is clearly emotionally upset.

Either drunkness or else powerful emotions can produce a situation where an individual even an individual who is not normally physicaly aggressive can not be restrained even when a number of officers are surrounding that individual.

I'm not a policeman or a bouncer but I have seen similar situations outside nightclubs where an aggressive charachter even a person smaller in size resisted several burly bouncers with considerable success.

Now I'm not happy with the use of tasers but not every police officer recieves the same training in unarmed combat as a MMA champion (because that essentially is what you need if you want to competantly restrain somebody without using a taser or aiming a gun and even all the martial arts training in the world will never be enough if the person who you are are trying to subdue is determined enoughto keep resisting).

by Pressfield Sat Nov 17, 2007 20:34

I think that oversight of police use of force is certainly necessary and desirable. However, I think that unless a balance is struck then there can be long-term unintended consequences which are in no-ones best interest- Not the police, nor the public they serve.

If we accept that a characteristic of policing, even in a democracy, is that individual police officers must sometimes use force in the course of carrying out their duties then we must accept that inevitably injuries and even deaths will occur: And when they do, it is not necessarily the case that a police officer did something wrong or criminally negligent.

Physically restraining someone can never be rendered entirely 'safe', either for the police officer putting himself at risk, or the person being arrested. There are too many unpredictable factors which come into play. Short of knowing someone's entire medical history, and ensuring that police are trained to an unreallistically high level, accidents and mistakes will inevitably occur in uncontrolled, unscripted situations where severe injury and death are always only moments away if something unexpected occurs.

Yes, individual officers and departmental use of force policy should be scrutinised in the wake of tragedies such as this. But a dispassionate analysis should not be a blame-game, and it is important that those tasked with oversight of this area are adequately appraised of the realities of use of force. 'Monday morning quarterbacking' the decisions that police make in split-second confrontations is not the answer to tragedies like this, if it creates a situation whereby in the future police officers err too far on the side of caution for fear of being scapegoated.

To situate this debate locally, I was disturbed by recent events pertaining to the Lusk post-office robbery. The same day as a member of the Gardai was shot in Dublin, a representative of the Garda Siochana ombudsman made a representation in fron of the Coroner's court to have the inquest into the deaths of two post office raiders halted for the purposes of an investigation into whether or not excessive use of force was used by armed Gardai.

One has to wonder: If an armed Garda who uses his weapon in the course of his duties faces trial-by-media and a lengthly investigation even in a situation as clear-cut as an armed post office raid by armed criminals, will other armed members of the force simply decide, when confronted with a similar situation, to not use their weapons? In the current climate we could be faced with a scenario where officers decide that by doing nothing they face less censure than using force and risking criminalisation themselves.

by Aragon Sun Nov 18, 2007 09:16

Pressfield and Dave - your posts are completely spurious. Talk about defying logic and evidence. It is not and never will be OK for a police officer to kill another human being because they want to 'subdue' them. The police should be as accountable as any other public servant for the way they do their jobs - more so given that they regularly use violence in the course of their work.

Besides, we don't need the acres of sepculative justification you supply for this latest example of police brutality. The evidence is in front of our eyes - no mystery to it. A single unarmed man was talking to FOUR big policemen. He was doing nothing to them, he did not raise an arm or make a single threatening gesture to them. The situation was under control. All this 'we don't know what might have been going on' stuff is nonsense. We can see what was going on! In a court of law it will be rock solid evidence. They should be sent to prison for manslaughter. When the police are running around killing and injuring people because they are upset or mentally ill, for speaking in a foreign language - or for asking questions of the wrong politicians - then it is they who come to represent lawlessness. They are supposed to be keeping the peace - not destroying it.

All they achieve by this conduct is to make people hate and mistrust them. When they lie about it or defend it as 'necessary' they quadruple the resentment and antagonism that people justifiably feel towards them.

by Pressfield Sun Nov 18, 2007 14:16

"It is not and never will be OK for a police officer to kill another human being because they want to 'subdue' them."

I think this is a fundamental point that we may disagree on.

In my opinion a police officer is entirely justified in using lethal force in the course of his duties if it is necessary to protect their own life or the lives of members of the general public.

Further, we should be grateful for the personal committment and courage of police officers who are prepared to risk their lives in the course of carrying out hazardous duty where they are more likely to be placed in the unenviable position of having to make life or death decisions of this nature.

by Sceptic Sun Nov 18, 2007 15:31

For the present it is clear only that the man died in the course of this incident. It does not follow that he was a victim of police brutality or was "tasered" to death. If the man had been handcuffed it is also possible he would have collapsed – we don’t know. If it is shown that these things are a threat to life like they can cause heart attacks then they should be withdrawn.

by Dave Mon Nov 19, 2007 09:38

"It is not and never will be OK for a police officer to kill another human being because they want to 'subdue' them."

Why not?

If someone broke into your house and was stealing your belongings you would try to subdue them yourself wouldn't you?
You might well end up killing them in the process and you would have a good chance of being cleared.

by John Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:05

I watched the video. The use of a tazer was a gross over-reaction. I would hate to think that this is the level at which police confront people who are emotionally /mentally upset. This was immaturity and poor training in action.
Shades of Abbeylara.

by chip Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:54

Yes, clearly they shouldn't have used their tasers until one of them had been assaulted by this clearly very mentally unstable gentleman.

by Aragon Mon Nov 19, 2007 13:37

If that was your friend, son, brother or father you'd be yelling a different tune. You'd be wondering why they dint just handcuff him, for instance. There were four of them for God's sake! He was doing nothing to them.

by Seán Ryan Wed Nov 21, 2007 01:01

Here's another tasering video. This time the poor bloke who is tasered is also falsely arrested (officer refuses to read or inform him of his rights).

There'll be hell to pay in court for this one.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fae_1195587967

by Bronterre Wed Nov 21, 2007 02:45

Bernie Kerik was the Police Commissioner of New York City under Giuliani. During his tenure, tasers,-then experimental-were tested on young black males in New York City. Kerik, -and no doubt Guiliani- were well rewarded for helping Taser get started. Guiliani pressed Bush to give Kerik the job of director of Homeland Security. Bush quickly agreed. (see Bush admiring Kerik,-link) As soon as the FBI ran a background check on Kerik the whole thing fell apart.
Kerik has now been indicted on a number of felonies. Guiliani, the leading Republican contender for the presidential nomination, is trying desperately to distance himself from Kerik. Meanwhile Bush has appointed Mukasey to be Attorney General. Mukasey, a close friend and advisor to Giuliani swore him in 2 times as mayor. Mukasey has said its O.K. to torture. Guiliani is surrounded by neocons on his foreign policy team. Last week he gave a speech on how he would continue the 'divine mission' of American. The ancient Chinese curse comes to mind: 'may you live in interesting times' .

The link shows Bush smiling proudly at Kerik and details how Taser rewarded Kerik for allowing them to use young blacks in New York City as guinea pigs.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6684832/

by Bronterre O'Brien Wed Nov 21, 2007 23:22

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jkG3VyyF3Sp3n6vy4Yj...XiLAw
These deadly weapons were authorized for 'safe' use after been tested on defenseless young black men in New York city. Using those with least power as guinea pigs to put these weapons on the market is hardly a recommendation as to their safety-quite the opposite, especially as Giuliani's Police Commissioner, the now indicted Kerik profited to the extent of $6 million from allowing the Taser company do the experiments.