"regrettably certain"

I'm pro-cop.

Make of that (or of me, in light of that) what you will, but my instinct is always to give the police the benefit of the doubt.  I like to think I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but when two benefits of the doubt conflict, and one runs in favour of the police, I'll err on their side, until evidence is tendered to the contrary.  I've had a few different preconceived notions challenged in the last few days.

Hvaing watched the long version of the Robert Dziekanski video (that's a six-minute version - there's also an approximately nine-minute version here), I'm not sure how anyone can come to a conclusion other than that the police conduct on there is utterly ... appalling.  That's the most docile "violent" person I think I've ever seen - how it is that what he was doing warranted two Taser shots is beyond me.  What you see on that video is homicide - and now it'll be up to the courts to decide what type of homicide, and the punishment (if any) to be handed down for it.

Those four officers aren't solely to blame, of course.  That the staff at an international airport in Canada were apparently befuddled by a traveller who didn't speak English shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone who has travelled extensively, but it is no less absurd for that.  That the security personnel evidently weren't quite up to handling a non-violent, frustrated man who was acting erratically is unlikely to qualify as breaking news either.  Finally, that the bureaucrats have conducted their own review of their own conduct and found ... wait for it ... nothing culpable about it whatsoever, is also about par for the course (my favourite quote is that "airport staff are not responsible for that area" - meaning, as near as I can tell, that there is a no-man's land inside the airport where the writ of the airport does not run - or something).

But I have to admit that, for me, coming a close second to the infuriating manner in which Robert Dziekanski died, is this meme:

Somehow, despite his total lack of knowledge of English, Mr. Dziekanski was cleared to enter Canada at a Border Services inspection point before straying into baggage claim, within the secure area of the airport, and remaining in various places, unable to communicate with anyone, for 10 hours or more.

Catch that?  Let's try it again.

Somehow, despite his total lack of knowledge of English, Mr. Dziekanski was cleared to enter Canada at a Border Services inspection point before straying into baggage claim, within the secure area of the airport, and remaining in various places, unable to communicate with anyone, for 10 hours or more.

People who don't speak English!  In our country!  Crossing the border!

I'm beggared by the sentiment.

That sentence is taken from a National Post editorial.  And that's not even the bad part.  This is:

The attitude that an immigrant to Canada is under no obligation to learn the rudiments of either official language before arriving may even have played a role (a fact that will no doubt feature prominently on overheated talk-radio commentary).

Forgive the lapse, but are you fucking kidding me?  I almost want to let that sentence fester on its own, wilting in its utter repugnance.  That the editors evidently felt the need to attempt to ameliorate its fetidness by sotto voce opining that only the lower kind of "talk radio" rhetoricians would even raise the matter, despite the fact that they just did so themselves, says most of what you need to know about it.  It's like a warped inversion of the Seinfeld "not that there's anything wrong with that" joke, except that this is neither intended to nor actually results in humour.  Presumably the writers realize that even if Dziekanski had been just, say, a tourist, he would likely have ended up in the same position (i.e., dying while staring at the floor, with four RCMP officers pinning him to the ground, presumably trying to figure out why he had just had 50,000 volts of electricity channeled through his body), since tourists also go through the baggage claim area?  Or are we just planning on keeping out everybody who doesn't pass a TOEFL test?  You want to see Niagara Falls/the CN Tower/the Rockies, you gotta tell me a story in English or else you can go the f*** back where you came from!  Is there some new movement afoot that argues for making even temporary visitors to the country pass some sort of fluency test, else they run the risk of being killed and, in an off-hand, kinda-sorta, we're-just-asking-questions, just-a-few-percentage-points-of-responsibility manner partly blamed for it in the pages of one of the country's national newspapers?  If so, is there some kind of membership I can take out to voice my disgust at said movement?

In what conceivable moral order is not speaking the language a justifiable building block in making the case that someone deserves to be killed or at least measurably contributed to their own death?  At least two of the Post writers who contributed to that editorial have taken the opportunity to publicy opine that it constituted an excellent example of editorial writing at its best.  That they failed to notice the gaping fault line that runs through it and which hinges on, I don't know, bizarre adolescent xenophobia, is, at best, distressing.

I hope and trust that Robert Dziekanski's mother will use the mechanisms available to her to obtain compensation from the incompetent government and its agents who contributed to this man's death.  In short, I hope she sues the pants off of everybody and wins.  Regardless of the cold comfort that will provide to her.  And the rest of us.

Comments

[Jay Jardine]

Bob,
I certainly hovered over those excerpts of the editorial myself (and I have actually heard alot of that sort of blame the victim nonsense on the talk shows here in Van), before concluding that their intent in the context of the article was not to imply that Dz's lack of english warranted any sort of extra containment, aggressive intervention or even culpability, rather they may have been the 1% or 2% otherwise marginal contribution to a series of terrible events involving the immigration bureaucracy, airport security and management, and assorted other people with badges displaying appalling levels of professionalism.

The writers can speak for themselves, but that was just my interpretation - that his inability to communicate (there is a point in the first video clip where a woman is attempting to speak with him through the glass) may have been that final tragic tipping point where things went from bad to completely unsalvageable.

[owl]

Every question in the ensuing 314 months of investigation into this quintessential example of Canadian bureaucracy should be asked ONLY after the witness has been tasered. From behind.

Airport manager, border guards, information kiosk staff, RCMP dispatcher, RMCP shift supervisor -- ah, heck -- everybody in that detachment.

Taser them from behind, and if they live, ask them what happened that day and what their part in it was. Taser the local MP, for that matter, and the MLAs. And everybody in the opposition who wants to comment in the media on the death.

Wouldn't change anything. But it would make me feel better about The System killing a guy just because he was having a nicotine fit in the totalitarian state of Canada (the real cause of this, I believe).

[Pacze Moj]

I also wonder...

The Polish words for "mother" are "mama" or "matka".

In French, it's "mere". In Spanish, it's "madre". In Farsi, "maadar" or "maamaan".

And the Polish for police is "policja", which is pronounced something like "paul-eats-yeah".

Even for someone who doesn't know Polish, I don't think these words are impossible to understand (assuming Dziekanski used them).

But I guess it was all Russian to them...

[Thomas F.]

Heckuva post Bob, thanks for writing it.

[Manuel]

wow jardine, you seriously don't know the chance of dieing by taser if your saying something like "if they live" by the way I'll tell you right now that any cop useing a taser, or pepperspray for that matter, has been tasered or sprayed himself it's part of the "training" to understand what kind of feeling it gives. I think the best part is the before and after pictures of my training class pre pepperspraying....

[dmorris]

This episode is a good example of the ruination a once damned good police force. Those four officers needed weapons to subdue one guy? What about the vaunted art of "negotiation"?

These aren't the RCMP I knew as a kid in a small, violent town in northern Manitoba, who weren't afraid to mix it up with anybody, bare hands!

There is NO excuse for this. We heard on the video, a security guard say, at least three times, "he's speaking Russian or something". If they knew that, why the hell didn't they call the airport brass to see if there was a Russian speaking person among the thousand or so people who work there.

Even though the guy was Polish, Russian was mandatory in all Soviet satellite Countries, and SOME communication would have occurred.

This whole situation was a colossal blunder by so many people, security personnel, airport staff, immigration personnel, and finally, the thugs who were disguised as RCMP officers!

Lots of heads should roll after this one.

[DCardno]

Exactly, Bob.
Manuel - you might notice that the suggestion to taser witnesses was made by owl -a commenter- not Bob.

[old white guy]

lets see, the mental giants at customs checked his passport but failed to notice he was polish. duh.

[Dr.Dawg]

Bob:

A simply great post. I really can't say much more. The long version of the video, which I watched almost as soon as it was posted in three segments by the Van Sun, made me sick, as it did millions of others since.

The RCMP needs to be disbanded, and a new federal police force built from the ground up. As noted a few months ago, the force is "horribly broken," and I believe it is beyond repair: this disgusting act of homicide is a symptom of a general, incurable rot.

[Dr.Dawg]

Bob:

A simply great post. I really can't say much more. The long version of the video, which I watched almost as soon as it was posted in three segments by the Van Sun, made me sick, as it did millions of others since.

The RCMP needs to be disbanded, and a new federal police force built from the ground up. As noted a few months ago, the force is "horribly broken," and I believe it is beyond repair: this disgusting act of homicide is a symptom of a general, incurable rot.

[DaninVan]

The 'Punish the f**ker' attitude is exactly the same as that displayed earlier this year in Sechelt, B.C. It also was captured on (cellphone)video. The most damning scene was of the cop deliberately spraying the face of their handcuffed and non-combative detainee.
His offence? Driving in a parade with a group of kids standing in the back of his pick-up... no seatbelts.
In both case the RCMP 'spokesperson' has offered flagrantly offensive lies as justification. In the airport incident the spokesperson, a commissioned officer, opined that the victim had been placed in a sitting position, after being tasered, so as to have unrestricted breathing...this BEFORE the video surfaced...oops.
As an aside, they seem to be playing musical chairs up here in Sechelt, with their postings, following the incident. Yup that'll make the smell go away.

[The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist]

Must say I enjoyed the post, Bob.

Though, to Mr. Dawg's point, don't know how feasible it would to simply "disband" the RCMP. Remember, it's not like you're going to fire the entire police force and replace it with a completely new group from scratch. It'll be the same people, just wearing a different logo on their uniform. The institutional mindset within the organization needs to be changed. That is more important than changing the logo that appears on their police cruisers.

[Robert]

Hi Bob,

The death of Robert Dziekanski is infuriating on so many levels. Couldn't airport staff have recruited someone from Polish or Ukrainian background (the two languages are similar -- I'm a Uke, and my wife is a Pole) to say a few words to the poor man to calm him down?

The whole issues of tasers will not die down. I remember working on a story at Maclean's where the manufacturer keopt denying deaths at the hands of cops armed with these wicked things. But what troubles me is that cops are so willing to use these! Are police no longer trained in martial arts? Can't they execute a simple takedown without having to resort to zapping someone to death? Pathetic.

I am pro-cop, but not pro-laziness. That's what the cops were in this instance. And it tragically cost the man his life.

[The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist]

Although I agree with a lot of the comments here, I do wonder why people need to specify that they are "pro-cop"? If I don't necessarily take the word of the police at face value, does that mean I am "anti-cop"? For my part, I had family relations who worked as civilian employees at both the Toronto Police (back when it was Metro) and the RCMP. I've also known a few cops from Peel and TPS casually. Some of them are good people with strong principles, who want to help people. Others, and I say this in all sincerety, are probably sociopaths. I knew a guy who was a plainclothes cop who was one of the nicest people I'd ever met. I knew a uniform guy who once bragged to me about throwing a homeless guy's stuff in a garbage bin, and referred to black's as "monkeys".

All this is to say, that cops are just as complicated as any other segment of society. When they are accused of violating the law, one ought to be able to take an opinion on their guilt or innocence without having to subscribe to a "pro-cop" or "anti-cop" label.

[Dr.Dawg]

Here in brief are my suggestions:

1) Disband the RCMP. Pension off senior management.

2) Offer first refusal to existing administrative staff, and to front-line officers. The latter would have their training and records re-assessed. Appropriate re-training to be given if required.

3) Break up the cliques. Reassign people all over, so that we can start from scratch building a new corporate culture.

4) Establish an independent complaints review board with teeth--including a tribunal that is empowered to mete out appropriate discipline. Assistance to both parties during the complaints process.

5) Zero tolerance for any officer who gets out of line.

[The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist]

"1) Disband the RCMP. Pension off senior management."

As a stark-raving socialist, firing managers has a certain instinctive appeal to me. However, if we consider senior management to be all officers above the rank of Superintendent, that's 93 officers (http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/about/organi_e.htm). I don't think they can be replaced as easy as one might think. Also, providing severance packages will be a bit expensive.

"2) Offer first refusal to existing administrative staff, and to front-line officers. The latter would have their training and records re-assessed. Appropriate re-training to be given if required."

Again, you're dealing with a lot of people who's only experience has been law enforcement. You don't have to be a student of the Iraq War to speculate that firing a bunch of people who's only skill-set is hurting people and using guns might be a bit of a problem.

"3) Break up the cliques. Reassign people all over, so that we can start from scratch building a new corporate culture."

Hard thing to quantify. How do you measure whether or not you have broken up a "clique"?

"4) Establish an independent complaints review board with teeth--including a tribunal that is empowered to mete out appropriate discipline. Assistance to both parties during the complaints process."

I like this idea. Though even in supposedly leftist cities like Toronto, the best we can do is get civilian investigations units (staffed by ex-cops) to investigate police shootings. It sounds great, but harder to implement then you describe.

"5) Zero tolerance for any officer who gets out of line."

I do like your suggestions overall. However, they would be quite difficult to implement.

Also, when trying to do comprehensive reforms of any institution, one must not confuse optics with results.

I would prefer keep the existing name, rank, insignia, etc., and try to reform the institutional mindset through better training, different metrics for promoting management, and (where applicable) changes to the criminal code. Perhaps changes to the roles and responsibilities of the RCMP (perhaps bringing CSIS back into the fold and become a strictly investigative organization like the FBI/DEA).

Not saying your ideas don't have merit. Just that when people talk about disbanding organizations, they tend to confuse comsetic changes with actual, institutional changes.

[Mike H]

"The whole issues of tasers will not die down. I remember working on a story at Maclean's where the manufacturer keopt denying deaths at the hands of cops armed with these wicked things. But what troubles me is that cops are so willing to use these! Are police no longer trained in martial arts? Can't they execute a simple takedown without having to resort to zapping someone to death? Pathetic."

Robert, for someone who allegedly "worked on" a story about tasers for a major publication, your knowledge of taser use and the challenges facing police in use of force situations is both limited and biased.

I suggest you read some coverage of the inquest relating to the death of Peter Lamonday in London, before spouting off about police inability to execute "simple takedowns." Seven police officers were unable to restrain Lamonday, a relatively small man. Get to know some experienced police officers. Ask them to relate their stories about large, powerfully built officers getting their asses kicked by coked out druggies or mentally individuals half their size. Ask them if they know officers who've pepper sprayed people under the influence of the aforementioned conditions, without effect, or know officers who have flailed away with their batons on these folks, again with no effect, only to have them taken away and used on them.

As has been commonly noted in the media since Mr. Dziekanski's death, 17 people have died in taser related deaths in Canada in the last 4 1/2 years. Setting aside the deaths last month of Mr Dziekanski and Quilem Registre, for whom limited autopsy information is available yet, 11 of the remaining 15 deceased were under the influence of cocaine when they were tasered. 2 of the remaining 4 were diagnosed with serious mental disorders at the time of their deaths, while the last 2 were behaving erratically at the time of their deaths, but insufficient information has been released to determine whether they were under the influence of illicit drugs or diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder.

No one bats an eye when someone drops dead from cardiac arrest due to cocaine intoxication, in the privacy of their own home, with no police involvement. Bad lifestyle choice, shouldn't shovel coke up your nose. No controversy there. But put someone with the same level of cocaine in their blood out on the street, in a confrontation with the police, and suddenly, it's the taser that killed him.

The same dishonest double standard is in play with mentally ill individuals who die after being tasered. This past week, CBC Radio has been pushing the meme that it's the police who "speculate" that excited delirium is responsible for these deaths. The "journalists" at the CBC conveniently ignore the fact that numerous pathologists and coroners believe excited delirium accurately describes a rare physiological condition where highly paranoid, agitated persons develop fatal heart arythmia when placed in "fight or flight" situations with the police.

Before tasers were issued to Canadian police officers, leftist anti-cop activists lobbied against pepper spray (still do), saying it was killing people. Before pepper spray and tasers, physically confrontational people were also occasionally dying immediately after fighting with the police. We called it "positional asphyxia," or "restraint asphyxia," (still do) but usually, the deceased were high or mentally ill. The point being, the mode of force applied isn't what causes the death. It's the condition of the suspect.

Canadian police officers have been tasered thousands of times in training, without any serious injury, let alone fatalities. And that's just Canada. I'm not aware of any instance where a police officer on this planet has died after being tasered during training.

So don't kid yourself Multi, this controversy is very much about "pro-cop, anti-cop."

[Dr.Dawg]

Mike, "excited delirium" is an invention. An alibi. It's not recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

S-LM: I don't understand. My proposals are too difficult to implement, you claim, and then you say you want real institutional changes, not cosmetic ones. Which is it?

I know something about organizational structure, and what I propose is entirely do-able. We need the time, investment and will, but it can be done.

[The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist]

"S-LM: I don't understand. My proposals are too difficult to implement, you claim, and then you say you want real institutional changes, not cosmetic ones. Which is it?"

It just seems to me, that firing and replacing senior management of the RCMP, reconstituting the entire organizational structure, packaging out current cops and trying to identify and break up cliques sounds like a lot of work, with a lot of risk. Not saying it couldn't be done, but just seems very high risk.

If I had my own bit of recommendations:

(1) Change the minimum hiring requirements. 21 years of age, plus a minimum number of University credits.

(2) Implement the aforementioned civilian oversight and complaints process that you spoke about.

(3) Full review of training and procedures. Not just for tasers, but armed confrontations such as Mayerthorpe.

[Dr.Dawg]

Further thoughts here:

http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com/2007/11/reconstruction-new-national-police.html

[Robert]

Mike,

With regard to your comment about my comment, here goes...

First of all, I am not "spouting off" about "simple takedowns." I'm not talking about Peter Lamonday, we're talking about Dziekanski here. Kindly stick to this case, not some other case.

If you know any police officers and it sounds as if you do not -- many old-timers were able to actually access a situation, then react with the force deemed necessary. And please, let's not get into the obvious instances like "man with machette racing down staircase at officer," OK? We all know that police are trained to shoot if necessary at the largest target area, that being the torso.

Police, through training and being on the job, used to be able to recognize how strung out a suspect was based on his/her behaviour (eg. eye movement, twitches, etc.) I agree with you that someone does NOT need to be "powerfully built" or, for that matter, male, to pose an enormous threat to officers. I am a 280 lb. former weightlifter and martial artist, and have met much smaller individuals than myself (including my former Muay Thai instructor) who could get me on the floor in three seconds.

The issue here is NOT pro-cop vs. anti-cop. I am execptionally proud of the relatives I have who served as members of the RCMP, OPP, and now, Toronto Police. I certainly don't want my relative who is now with Metro to lose his life in a dangerous situation, but I also don't expect an individual like Dziekanski to lose his. There have been far too many cases of innocents being killed by police. Does anyone remember Edmund Yu ten years ago? He suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, and was shot and killed by police on a Toronto bus. For more info, see http://www.cpc-cpp.gc.ca/DefaultSite/Reppub/index_e.aspx?articleid=494

[DCardno]

Dawg: "'excited delirium' is an invention. An alibi. It's not recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders"
Isn't the real issue whether the condition exists, Dawg, not whether it has been written into the manual? IIRC at one time the DSM listed homosexuality as a diagnosible illness: I don't believe that inclusion or exclusion is necessarily disposative.

Mike: "I'm not aware of any instance where a police officer on this planet has died after being tasered during training."
So a device that is safe when used in controlled situations on young, healthy, physically fit men and women is safe when used on a random sample that (probably) skews towards the unfit, in situations that are known in advance to be confrontational and high stress? I have some doubts about that chain of logic.

[Mike H]

"Mike, "excited delirium" is an invention. An alibi. It's not recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders."

An invention? An alibi? By whom, and for whom? I'll repeat what I said earlier. It is pathologists and coroners who make the medical case for the existence of excited delirium, not the police.

[MarkCh]

Immigration staff are getting off way too lightly here. From the Post story, we know that Immigration left a phone message for Dziekanski's mother at about 11:30 PM. This means that some communication took place between Dziekanski and officials. Then, at 12:30 AM, Dziekanski exited into the public area. After a while, he got back into the controlled area, by following someone through a door, where he was eventually killed.

So, what happened? I suspect that Immigration had a Polish-speaking officer or interpreter talking to Dziekanski. I also suspect that Immigration staff went off shift for the night, either at midnight or 12:30 am. So, rather than helping this frustrated, probably already agitated man, knowing full well that he spoke no English, Immigration staff probably just chucked him out and went home.

I believe that the RCMP officers botched this, although I am not an expert in police procedures. However, I believe that the Immigration officers involved botched as badly. When do we hear from them?

[Dr.Dawg]

Actually, MikeH and DCardno, "excited delirium" is an excuse. This is a decent article:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7608386

The term was originally coined in the 1980s to describe psychotic episodes by chronic drug users (cocaine and methamphetamines). [See, for example, "Excited Delirium: Does It Exist?" Mary Paquette, Perspectives In Psychiatric Care: Official Journal of the Adult and Geropsychiatric-Mental Health Nurses (AGPN) July 2003 - Vol. 39 Issue 3 Page 93-94]

Now it means "died in police custody after being Tasered." Taser International puts out reams of stuff on this fancy new disorder. Most of the victims, however, have not had drugs in their system. The term as it is used today is just an alibi for fatal police brutality.

[Mike H]

"First of all, I am not "spouting off" about "simple takedowns." I'm not talking about Peter Lamonday, we're talking about Dziekanski here. Kindly stick to this case, not some other case."

You must be a blog neophyte, Robert. You do realize, don't you, that everyone can actually read what you posted earlier in this thread? Your previous comment, opposing "these wicked things," was as generalized a statement as one could possibly make on the subject of tasers, so kindly stuff your sanctimonious directive that I "stick to" the Dziekanski matter.

"If you know any police officers and it sounds as if you do not -- many old-timers were able to actually access a situation, then react with the force deemed necessary."

Thanks for confirming one thing. You are absolutely clueless. I wouldn't have said what I did when replying to your comment, if I didn't know a lot about the subject of policing. I'll let you read between the lines, assuming you're capable of that.

As for the rest of your comment, you're simply missing the point. Utilising another use of force option other than a taser does not mean that these people won't die. Persons under the influence of cocaine, or in a heightened state of paranoid agitation due to mental illness are at risk of dying regardless of the techniques used by police to gain control of that. We know that, because they were dying in the same manner before police were equipped with tasers.

[Mike H]

"So a device that is safe when used in controlled situations on young, healthy, physically fit men and women is safe when used on a random sample that (probably) skews towards the unfit, in situations that are known in advance to be confrontational and high stress? I have some doubts about that chain of logic."

I'm not sure where you're trying to go with that line of reasoning, D. It's abundantly clear that the death rate from taser use in North America is miniscule in the extreme. It's equally clear that those who have died almost always fall into two categories: cocaine intoxication or suffering from a serious mental disorder. As I've said before, people in these categories were dying in the same manner before tasers were deployed by police agencies. Their deaths were blamed on other use of force options, before there was a taser to be blamed.

The fact that literally thousands of taser applications on police officers have never resulted in a fatality is about as powerful and definitive of a control sample as one can get, in the context of establishing whether it is the taser that kills people, rather than their physical states. If the taser critics are right, logical probability suggests we should have seen police officer deaths as a result of taser training by now. We haven't

[Mike H]

"The term was originally coined in the 1980s to describe psychotic episodes by chronic drug users (cocaine and methamphetamines). [See, for example, "Excited Delirium: Does It Exist?" Mary Paquette, Perspectives In Psychiatric Care: Official Journal of the Adult and Geropsychiatric-Mental Health Nurses (AGPN) July 2003 - Vol. 39 Issue 3 Page 93-94]"

Dawg, there are many in the medical community who disagree. Here are a couple citations:

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/112-06032007-1356995.html

"Dr. Greg Davis, a professor of forensic pathology and laboratory medicine at the University of Kentucky College of Medicine, said the forensic science community is in agreement that the condition is real and appropriately used as a cause of death.

“There's no disagreement among the forensic pathology community. We all agree excited delirium exists. In fact, we've been dealing with it for years,” Davis said in an interview arranged by the Illinois-based College of American Pathologists.

The college is among the largest medical association of pathologists and medical examiners in the world. Davis is a member of the college and has written articles about excited delirium cases."

Here is the B.C. Coroner's annual report for 2004. Scroll down, and you'll find
several deaths attributed to excited delirium:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:PybTXarqGFcJ:www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/coroners/publications/docs/annualreport2004.pdf+excited+delirium+%2B+canadian+pathologist+testifies&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=12&gl=ca

"Now it means "died in police custody after being Tasered." Taser International puts out reams of stuff on this fancy new disorder. Most of the victims, however, have not had drugs in their system. The term as it is used today is just an alibi for fatal police brutality."

Not had drugs in their system? I'll refer you back to my first post, Dawg. In those deaths where sufficient information is available to the public, we know that 11 of the 15 Canadian deaths involved individuals under the influence of cocaine.

Your statement that this is a "fancy new disorder," originating with Taser International is simply false. Not true. Deaths from excited delirium were occurring before tasers were deployed. That's how the deaths were categorized, and the same contributing factors back then (restraint asphyxia, positional asphyxia) are still being cited today, when the deaths involve tasers.

[DCardno]

The fact that literally thousands of taser applications on police officers have never resulted in a fatality is about as powerful and definitive of a control sample as one can get
No - because your control sample is not drawn from the same population that you are trying to extrapolate to. I agree that it is a much better data point than if officers were dying in Taser training - but it is not conclusive that the device is safe for use on the target population.

[Mike H]

I could argue that the "target population" is no different than the purported subgroup represented by tasered police officers; in both cases, we're talking about homo sapiens, but I think your point has some merit.

On the larger issue you raised earlier, where you seemed to be questioning whether the taser is "safe" to use on that tiny subgroup of people who are at risk, I don't know that there are really any alternatives. As I've said several times in this thread, it isn't the choice made by the officers in the way of use of force options (be it taser, pepper spray, open handed restraint techniques, or in the old days, baton restraints) that is relevant when these deaths occurred, it's the fact that force was applied at all. That clearly indicates an underlying medical condition is responsible for these deaths.

So, if you come to the conclusion that tasers are too dangerous to use because they occasionally kill cocaine intoxicated individuals and people suffering from mental disorders, then by default you must adopt the position that these people shouldn't be confronted by police at all. Obviously, that isn't an option.

One other point that doesn't get made enough, and it goes without saying that it is one the "Ban the Taser" crowd studiously avoids, is the fact that the taser is the only use of force option available that can bridge the gap between lethal and non-lethal use of force options for police.

If a police officer(s) is confronted with a suspect wielding a knife, bat, axe, etc, and a taser isn't available, that officer has no use of force option other than his firearm. If the offender makes an aggressive move toward the officer in such a situation, the officer will probably have to discharge his firearm. The availability of a taser changes that dynamic in many cases, especially if a cover officer(s) is present in addition to the officer deploying the taser.

[DCardno]

Mike - I'm not in the "ban the Taser" camp; I think the more response options there are, the better; particularly when they are (likely to be) non-lethal. I am concerned about the training police officers recieve in the use of the weapon: it should not be perceived and deployed as a "more effective and convenient form of pepper spray" but as a "less likely to be lethal firearm."

In this case (leaving aside confrontation with a suspect wielding a knife, bat, axe, etc), it seems that the officers involved escalated their response too rapidly, bearing in mind that they may also have been responding to factors that are not known to us. If that is the case, that leaves some alternatives:
> their training in general was inadequate - if they hadn't had a Taser they would have selected a firearm as the appropriate response in accordance with their training.
> their training in general was adequate, but their training or understanding of the potential lethality of the Taser was inadequate; they selected a response without understanding that it was potentially lethal in a situation where lethal force was not justified.
> their training in response escalation was adequate, but they abandoned procedure and skipped a couple of levels due to panic, inexperience, or some other factor.
> the RCMP's reponse escalation protocol is too rapid.
I think any of those alternatives is cause for justifiable public concern.

The availability of a taser changes that dynamic in many cases...
Yeah - I think that's what I'm worried about: does it change the dynamic appropriately, and in the right cases?

it isn't the choice made by the officers in the way of use of force options (be it taser, pepper spray, open handed restraint techniques, or in the old days, baton restraints) that is relevant when these deaths occurred, it's the fact that force was applied at all. That clearly indicates an underlying medical condition is responsible for these deaths
I don't think you can make that claim, unless the rate of death from each use of force option is the same, from open handed restraint through use of firearm, which I don't believe to be the case. Confounding this comparison is the fact that the individuals most likely to be subjected to higher levels of force are the most belligerent and aggressive (which may correlate with drug intoxication) - aggression in the face of legitimate (force-wielding) authority is a risk factor in itself.

[Mike H]

"...it should not be perceived and deployed as a "more effective and convenient form of pepper spray" but as a "less likely to be lethal firearm."

That may be the way you think it should be, D, but at least some major Canadian police forces (I can only speak from my personal knowledge. I don't know what every individual force policy dictates, but I suspect there are very few significant differences across the board) are authorized to use the taser and pepper spray as interchangeable use of force options.

"In this case (leaving aside confrontation with a suspect wielding a knife, bat, axe, etc), it seems that the officers involved escalated their response too rapidly, bearing in mind that they may also have been responding to factors that are not known to us."

The training shortcoming theories you raise are moot points. Unless there are some crucial circumstances the video failed to capture (and I think that's highly unlikely), the officers were not justified in using ANY use of force options at the time Mr Dziekanski was tasered. I wouldn't hold my breath for any inquiries happening in the forseeable future. I suspect we'll see criminal charges laid, which will postpone any inquiries, and probably for a considerable period of time.

" I don't think you can make that claim, unless the rate of death from each use of force option is the same, from open handed restraint through use of firearm, which I don't believe to be the case. Confounding this comparison is the fact that the individuals most likely to be subjected to higher levels of force are the most belligerent and aggressive (which may correlate with drug intoxication) - aggression in the face of legitimate (force-wielding) authority is a risk factor in itself."

First off, it isn't really "my claim," but rather the claim of many coroners and pathologists.

Dr Deborah Mash is a professor of neurolgy at the University of Miami, and a recognized expert in the field of excited delirium and police custody deaths. I saw her interviewed last week on The National, and an Internet search reveals numerous interviews with high profile media outlets. Here's what she has to say on the point you've just raised:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/tasers/excited-delirium.html

"This is not due to a Taser," says Deborah Mash, a neurology professor at the University of Miami who has been studying excited delirium for 20 years. "This is in the brain and they die because the mechanisms that control the heart and the lungs fail."

[....]

While the underlying mechanism of this disease is still unclear, this brain-based illness can lead to sudden death, Mash notes.

"The reason people question it is because law enforcement is involved," she argues. "When Dr. Bell described these conditions in the mid-1800s, law enforcement was not involved. These people died in the institutions where they were being housed."

At the time, because these patients were difficult to reason with, they were restrained. The difference today, she says, is the method.

"Over the years, they've used various forms of restraints. Some have been hog-tied, some have been in hobble restraints, some have had baton strikes, some have had pepper spray, and more recently now the Taser," Mash says. "What I've seen is that there's no difference from pre-Taser times to the present when Tasers are used."

You say you aren't in the "ban the taser" camp, but it seems to me you've got one foot in it. What restrictions would you place on taser use, restrictions that are not in place now? I have no doubt there are many people alive today who would not be, had a police officer been forced to shoot them with a firearm rather than a taser. I am equally certain that the net gain in lives saved versus lives lost in taser incidents is a high positive number, rather than a negative number.

[Dr.Dawg]

Mike:

I shall have to withdraw my comments that "most" victims of Taser deaths have not had drugs in their system. One for you.

But I am suspicious of the coining of new syndromes, nonetheless. It's another thread, but "diseases" are being invented all the time--and cures for them in tandem. To some extent, at least, diseases, conditions and syndromes are social constructs. "Heartburn" becomes "acid reflux disease." Whoever heard of "restless leg syndrome" until a medicine for it appeared? As I say, a topic in itself.

But I find that I've been sidetracked, in any case. Dziekanski died, I suspect, of asphyxiation, after being weakened by repeated Taser shocks. I think that the full-body knee on his neck may have been the coup de grace.

Tasers make cops lazy. They should only be used when, in the past, a situation called for the use of a firearm. They are, instead, being routinely used as a pain compliance tool--a hi-tech cattle-prod.

And, finally, perhaps we can agree that having these cops, one of whom was trained in defibrillator use, standing around with their thumbs in their bums when D. stopped breathing, was simply inexcusable.

[DCardno]

The training shortcoming theories you raise are moot points... the officers were not justified in using ANY use of force options at the time Mr Dziekanski was tasered
Then that indicates either a failure in training or a failure to follow their training, doesn't it?

Thanks for the link to Deborah Mash - I will have to look into that further.

[Mike H]

"Then that indicates either a failure in training or a failure to follow their training, doesn't it?"

I think you missed the intent of my comment (and I didn't articulate it very well, in hindsight). I was responding to your theory that, through training shortcomings, the officers made a poor choice in terms of their selection of the force they applied to Mr Dziekanski. I replied that this was "moot," because the officers didn't have justification to resort to any use of force options at the time Mr Dziekanski was tasered.

Naturally, that could have changed in seconds, had Mr Dziekanski suddenly became aggressive and combative. We know that didn't happen. In my view, the actions of the officers move this into a question of "suitability," rather than the adequacy of their training. By suitability, I mean the officers' suitability for the profession. If you can't get it right when it comes to knowing when you can and can't use force, then you shouldn't be out on the street, among the public, deciding what use of force tool to use.

I had a better link for Mash, unfortunately, I can't find it now, no matter what search criteria I use. It was another CBC interview, from 2004.

[Mike H]

"But I am suspicious of the coining of new syndromes, nonetheless. It's another thread, but "diseases" are being invented all the time--and cures for them in tandem. To some extent, at least, diseases, conditions and syndromes are social constructs. "Heartburn" becomes "acid reflux disease." Whoever heard of "restless leg syndrome" until a medicine for it appeared? As I say, a topic in itself."

Dawg, I'd like to think I've established excited delirium is not a "new" syndrome, and not one born with the advent of the taser.

I realize there isn't a consensus in the medical community on the subject, but I haven't seen a Canadian pathologist or coroner yet who has gone on record with the claim that excited delirium doesn't exist. Given the fact that these are the medical professionals we entrust with the task of determining causes of death, I think their position carries far more weight than that of psychiatrists.

"But I find that I've been sidetracked, in any case. Dziekanski died, I suspect, of asphyxiation, after being weakened by repeated Taser shocks. I think that the full-body knee on his neck may have been the coup de grace."

Could be, although this isn't "asphyxiation" in the commonly understood sense. As Dr Mash indicates in the quote above, the asphyxiation reaults from a physiological mechanism shutting down the heart and lungs of certain individuals, rather than someone's airway being cut off for an extended period of time.

"Tasers make cops lazy. They should only be used when, in the past, a situation called for the use of a firearm. They are, instead, being routinely used as a pain compliance tool--a hi-tech cattle-prod."

I can assure you Dawg, that for the vast majority of police officers, "laziness" doesn't enter into the equation when you're faced with a violent confrontation, or a potentially violent confrontation. All the officer is concerned about is not getting hurt, and making sure no innocent person involved in the incident gets hurt.

There have been several officers charged under the Criminal Code in Canada with excesses related to taser use. But the same can be said of pepper spray, batons, empty handed strikes and restraints, and firearms. Police officers who shouldn't be police officers will commit criminal acts while using force, regardless of the use of force equipment issued to them.

I couldn't disagree more with your assertion that the taser should only be deployed in situations where the only other option would be to resort to the officer's firearm.

I have several reasons, some of which I've already mentioned, but the most obvious one relates to confrontations with drug intoxicated or mentally ill individuals who possess super human strength while under the influence of their conditions. Pepper spray often has no effect on these people. Those experiencing ED also have a rather problematic, complementary effect to superhuman strength; they don't feel pain. That makes baton strikes useless in many cases. What you're left with, then, is a brutal, no holds barred free-for-all, and if there are only one or two officers involved, they're probably going to lose. And "losing" may mean losing your firearm to the suspect. I shouldn't have to tell you where that will lead. The more violent the confrontation, the more likely the suspect is to go into cardiac arrest, which entirely defeats your motivation for restricting the taser's use.

"And, finally, perhaps we can agree that having these cops, one of whom was trained in defibrillator use, standing around with their thumbs in their bums when D. stopped breathing, was simply inexcusable."

It's hard to imagine this incident could have gotten any worse than it did once Mr Dziekanski was tasered (in all likelihood, illegally). However, it did get much worse, when the officers failed to initiate CPR, or attempt to defibrillate.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I expect these officers are likely going to be charged criminally.