|
I nearly vomited when I read this: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/M...0702/story.html quote:VANCOUVER — The Mountie who repeatedly Tasered Robert Dziekanski at the Vancouver International Airport two years ago has filed a libel lawsuit against the CBC. So what did this sack-of-poo poo do exactly when Dziekanski died at the hands of him and his fellow officers?
It's quite apparent that this shithead has the mentality that he was in the right and that nobody should have been questing his motives. God forbid the CBC does its job and tells the truth about this rear end in a top hat. Of course, the Crown is slow to even suggest that they'll charge the officers with manslaughter seeing that they all conspired prior to meeting the Polish immigrant to pull out the taser. To make matters even worse, one of the officers was charged with impaired driving almost two-years ago, killing a motorcyclist in the process--the charges still haven't been laid even though the police suggested so. And then people wonder why nobody trusts the police or the Crown to do their job. It's been two-years now since the taser incident and I highly doubt that at this point the Crown will be able to lay charges against the officers and have them stand up in court.
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 02:34 |
|
|
|
| # ? Nov 21, 2009 11:17 |
|
|
If anyone wants to judge the police conduct for themselves here's the video that was shot by a witness. Tasing starts about 5 minutes in.
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 03:05 |
|
|
Reading that article and then searching a bit more, I learned that Cpl. Benjamin (Monty) Robinson, an officer on the scene during Dziekanski's death, has since gone on to kill a motoryclist while drunk driving. Oh, and he also fled the scene and had children in his car. I'm really glad the RCMP used the Dziekanski incident as a chance to remove "bad apples" from the force.
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 06:25 |
|
|
Well I'm pretty sure that despite being outdated and otherwise ridiculous, Canadian defamation laws require the defamatory statements to be proven false, so gently caress all of the fine officers involved in the murder. They deserve serious embarrassment and distress.
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 06:35 |
|
|
eXXon posted:Well I'm pretty sure that despite being outdated and otherwise ridiculous, Canadian defamation laws require the defamatory statements to be proven false, so gently caress all of the fine officers involved in the murder. They deserve serious embarrassment and distress.
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 07:49 |
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:I'm not really clear on what he's suggesting was libelous though. That's pretty much key before it will be possible to determine the legal merits of this action. However, the moral merits, at least to me, seem obvious. This cop is just digging himself a bigger hole.
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 08:03 |
|
|
Mr_Smashy posted:That's pretty much key before it will be possible to determine the legal merits of this action. However, the moral merits, at least to me, seem obvious. This cop is just digging himself a bigger hole. I think what this all boils down to for this particular RCMP officer is that he believes he is in the right and thus is clear to sue to the CBC. Mainly it's that he knows that he'll never hear anything from the Crown regarding punishment and even though that the media has been reporting what was stated at the inquiry, he feels that it wasn't the CBC's place to discuss it. Another reason why the officers involved are just thugs with legal protection.
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 14:46 |
|
|
as usual the rcmp and its officers serve themselves rather than the citizens its a long tradition in the native communities
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 16:00 |
|
|
A little more informationquote:VANCOUVER, B.C. - The RCMP officer who fired his Taser at Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver's airport the night the Polish immigrant died has filed a libel lawsuit against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. This can't be anything more than grasping at straws. If he was hoping to tap into the Canadian right-wing's distrust of CBC, he's not in any position to do so, since the disgust over the Dziekanski death is nearly universal.
|
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 19:56 |
|
|
Wow. The writ doesn't specify the most basic element of a defamation suit: the defamatory comment. I don't see a lawyer mentioned in the articles...I guess they could amend it later (presuming a "Writ of Summons" under the B.C. rules functions like a SOC), but this seems like a good way to get costs assessed against you for at least a motion to get it knocked out of court. edit: spelling of writ Mr_Smashy fucked around with this message at Nov 05, 2009 around 19:46 |
| # ? Nov 04, 2009 23:13 |
|
|
I feel i should mention i have friends who are RCMP officers and they've all kept on being decent people, and i'd like to think that there are a fair amount of RCMP officers out there who are also decent good people who actually do their job as it should be done, but these four guys and especially this waste of space in particular, disgust me completely. I just dont know how else to put it. The RC's have always had a history of extending their reach beyond what it was intended, but these guys have flat out conspired to assault a confused lost man with a potentially leathal weapon and ended up killing him, when there where so many other potential avenues they could have explored, and then lied about it and furthermore lied about lying about it. And now this disgrace of a man has the audacity to sue a reporter for reporting the facts because it makes him look bad?!? Just when i thought these idiots couldnt hit a new low, way to contineu to disgrace a canadian instituiton and make things harder for decent officers who are actually trying to make a positive difference. In a perfect wourld the Poles and EU would have made such a big stink about this that these fuckers would have been extradited and faced a real trial without the benefit of a blue shield effect.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 05:01 |
|
|
Prince_Philionel posted:I feel i should mention i have friends who are RCMP officers and they've all kept on being decent people, and i'd like to think that there are a fair amount of RCMP officers out there who are also decent good people who actually do their job as it should be done, but these four guys and especially this waste of space in particular, disgust me completely. I just dont know how else to put it. Somehow I get the impression that typical RCMP recruits have the mentality that they can do no wrong.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 17:30 |
|
|
Model M posted:I had dinner with an RCMP officer (of the same detachment as these guys) a few weeks ago and his mentality is that tasers don't kill people--even though they aim for the chest and the drat thing punctures the skin, thus negating any insulation. He even feels that the RCMP officers involved made the right decision. I'm sure there are some good RCMP but they have a long history of doing whatever they want, acting beyond the law, and thinking they can get away with it.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 19:13 |
|
|
Binary Logic posted:That's what the manufacturer claims too, that when people die after being tased, it's not because of being tased. That delusion is probably part of the training and it makes cops really trigger happy when they have been told that the weapon they have been given is non-lethal. This post is full of lies and slander, and Taser International will be seeing you in court. They sure do get defensive whenever this comes up, I've heard them blasting the Braidwood Inquiry a number of times on CBC as being full of false information and flat-out lies. Edit: I'm not exactly clear on the entirety of their position (since they sure do have a lot of expert testimony and commissioned studies as evidence,) but it seems like they hover between a position of "Tasers can not kill at all," which is the claim they held to throughout the case, and "Tasers can not kill unless improperly utilized, which is more recent. I'm not sure exactly how they expect the lawsuit to play out if they've been forced to acknowledge that their "safe" stun gun isn't entirely safe if aimed at the "central mass." Eyeball88 fucked around with this message at Nov 06, 2009 around 22:58 |
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 22:49 |
|
|
Model M posted:I had dinner with an RCMP officer (of the same detachment as these guys) a few weeks ago and his mentality is that tasers don't kill people--even though they aim for the chest and the drat thing punctures the skin, thus negating any insulation. He even feels that the RCMP officers involved made the right decision. Tasers don't often (ever? rarely?) kill people, actions like restraining a person in an awkward position after tasering them repeatedly, preventing them from being able to move or breathe all kill people. Actions like tasering a naked man on a slanted awning 10 feet above concrete kill people. This is why Taser International can get away with saying "tasers don't kill people" and go so far as to taser their own employees and volunteers in a public mall to demonstrate the fact. It's joked that "guns don't kill people, people do", but with tasers, barring some very rare cases (has there ever been a death legally attributed to a taser?), they don't actually kill people, people do. This is also why its such a sticking point to police officers, because the majority of them seem to think that "if the taser doesn't kill them, I can do whatever I want!" So combine an object that is in test, completely non-lethal, give it to someone with the attitude that they can do no wrong and don't train them on how not to kill people who are unable to fight back and you get dead people.
|
| # ? Nov 07, 2009 07:03 |
|
|
Verviticus posted:It's joked that "guns don't kill people, people do", but with tasers, barring some very rare cases (has there ever been a death legally attributed to a taser?), they don't actually kill people, people do. Taser International has recently changed their position to state that tasers can cause cardiac episodes if improperly used, which is still short of stating they can kill, but apparently can contribute. So, you're technically correct that it's police officers lack of training that would be responsible, but advertising that your tool can not kill ever is a huge part of the problem if it turns out that it actually can. "Why do I need to train to use it if the box says it can't kill?"
|
| # ? Nov 07, 2009 12:01 |
|
|
Eyeball88 posted:Taser International has recently changed their position to state that tasers can cause cardiac episodes if improperly used, which is still short of stating they can kill, but apparently can contribute. So, you're technically correct that it's police officers lack of training that would be responsible, but advertising that your tool can not kill ever is a huge part of the problem if it turns out that it actually can. While they are on it, Taser International is behind the RCMP on the blame list - at the end of the day, they should know that restraining a man in a position where he cannot breathe will kill him.
|
| # ? Nov 07, 2009 23:30 |
|
|
Prince_Philionel posted:The RC's have always had a history of extending their reach beyond what it was intended, but these guys have flat out conspired to assault a confused lost man with a potentially leathal weapon and ended up killing him, when there where so many other potential avenues they could have explored, and then lied about it and furthermore lied about lying about it. And now this disgrace of a man has the audacity to sue a reporter for reporting the facts because it makes him look bad?!? That's been my take on the RCMP for awhile now. There are no doubt good officers within the organization but the organization has never truly been taken to task for its endless counts of misconduct for over, say, the last 60 years. Our federal police service is a joke and I have no idea how it functions as well as it does.
|
| # ? Nov 08, 2009 20:59 |
|
|
Eyeball88 posted:Taser International has recently changed their position to state that tasers can cause cardiac episodes if improperly used, which is still short of stating they can kill, but apparently can contribute. So, you're technically correct that it's police officers lack of training that would be responsible, but advertising that your tool can not kill ever is a huge part of the problem if it turns out that it actually can. Which is comical considering their cross of a cardiologist at the braidwood inquiry regarding. Hell, I think in their closing submission, TASER Int'l claims that there is not an association of sudden death and tasers. Oh, also to the above, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_Commission
|
| # ? Nov 09, 2009 06:22 |
|
|
pfizerman posted:Which is comical considering their cross of a cardiologist at the braidwood inquiry regarding. Hey now, don't forget they also spent several decades spying on the most dangerous of people, the NDP. Including spying on the guy that started universal health care in Canada. "Markings indicate Douglas's file is one of more than 650 secret dossiers the RCMP kept on Canadian politicians and bureaucrats as part of a project known as the "VIP program." Fantastic.
|
| # ? Nov 09, 2009 13:35 |
|
|
Verviticus posted:It's joked that "guns don't kill people, people do", but with tasers, barring some very rare cases (has there ever been a death legally attributed to a taser?), they don't actually kill people, people do. This is also why its such a sticking point to police officers, because the majority of them seem to think that "if the taser doesn't kill them, I can do whatever I want!" I will point out that billy clubs are intended to be non-lethal and in most cases, they are. However, we all know, and no club manufacturer will every deny this, that enough force with the device will cause serious harm to an individual and could end up in death. Taser is just in denial here because in most cases, one will not die from a taser shock, but in cases where police officers are overzealous, the taser will play a role or be the primary reason for an individual's death. It's akin to a gun shooting a bullet in the leg and then the person having to lose the leg because it gets an infection in the process. Was it the gun's fault or the infection's fault that he lost his leg?
|
| # ? Nov 09, 2009 15:50 |
|
|
Model M posted:I had dinner with an RCMP officer (of the same detachment as these guys) a few weeks ago and his mentality is that tasers don't kill people--even though they aim for the chest and the drat thing punctures the skin, thus negating any insulation. He even feels that the RCMP officers involved made the right decision. This is almost the exact same thing my RCMP friend said to me when I asked him about this incident. Everyone acted the way they were supposed to. I asked him *why* they needed to tase a tired Polish guy with a stapler 5 times and he said something like, "It is safer for the officers".
|
| # ? Nov 09, 2009 18:52 |
|
|
Changes won't start happening until the mentality changes from Officer > Citizen to Citizen > Officer
|
| # ? Nov 09, 2009 19:59 |
|
|
the posted:Changes won't start happening until the mentality changes from Well, I can kinda see what he's saying. At the end of the day an Officer is just like you or I; they want to get home to their wife/family/whomever uninjured. From the explanations I've heard, the reason tasers are "good" is because they don't leave lasting injuries - opposed to something like being shot, whacked with a club or just being physically restrained. In that case, tasers are better for both the officer and the perp in that the officer won't get shot/stabbed/whatever, and the perp won't get shot/stabbed/beaten/etc, one tase and Bob's your uncle (5 though, seems overkill). I realize there is a cynical way of interpreting that last paragraph, but I won't be doing that here.
|
| # ? Nov 09, 2009 21:46 |
|
|
the posted:Changes won't start happening until the mentality changes from I fully agree with this; somewhere along the way "To Serve and Protect" gained an "Ourselves," and the results have been nothing short of disastrous in many cases. The Dziekanski case was just one case in a long string of similar events in which officers of the RCMP have committed what many would consider "murder," but face no penalties. Cases like that of Ian Bush, who was arrested with an open beer bottle outside of a hockey rink, and just hours later was dead from a shot to the back of the head. Or the case of Frank Paul, a native man who was dumped in an alley by an officer in the middle of winter, and died of exposure. The self-investigations always find no wrong, and the inquiry that follows always stops short of laying charges. Obviously the end goal of the RCMP conduct is to be similar American police mentality that protects them as a higher class citizen than the people they are arguably sworn to protect; allowing them to conduct no-knock, no-announce raids with guns in hands and then arresting and convicting the people who shoot back, rather than the officers that kill innocents? You only have to dig through the various "Cops on the Beat" threads to see how dangerous an ungoverned police force can be.
|
| # ? Nov 09, 2009 23:03 |
|
|
the amazing thing is how much political power RCMP police commissioners have had in the past. it wasn't until the MacDonald commission that the government dared to touch the RCMP.
|
| # ? Nov 10, 2009 01:28 |
|
|
Vasler posted:Well, I can kinda see what he's saying. At the end of the day an Officer is just like you or I; they want to get home to their wife/family/whomever uninjured. Yes but that would be like a fireman not going into a burning building because he "didn't want to take the chance that he'd get injured." When someone signs up to be a police officer, they should agree that they are putting their lives on the line to protect and serve the citizens of the city. They should be willing to give their lives for that. If they don't want to, ---> there's the door.
|
| # ? Nov 10, 2009 04:32 |
|
|
This guy is probably a legitimate rear end in a top hat after the drunken driving incident, but: It's easy to sit in your loving chair and take hours to type out a long list of reasons criticizing what he did. Police carry tasers because they're a good alternative: a dangerous suspect doesn't have to be shot to be subdued, and at the same time officers have a leg up on them that 99/100 doesn't leave injuries. I'd imagine that having a drunken man screaming at you in a foreign language would be an acceptable situation to use one it, the fact that he died hours later doesn't change that it might have been the right choice at the time. cliffs: arm chair critics can suck a bag of dicks.
|
| # ? Nov 10, 2009 06:22 |
|
|
derp_derp posted:This guy is probably a legitimate rear end in a top hat after the drunken driving incident, but: It's also remarkably easy for RCMP officers to kill a man and get away with it! This is literally the dumbest poo poo I've read in D&D in weeks, you should be ashamed of yourself. Have you even watched the Dziekanski video or read anything at all about the incident?
|
| # ? Nov 10, 2009 06:37 |
|
|
derp_derp posted:This guy is probably a legitimate rear end in a top hat after the drunken driving incident, but: It wasn't the right choice at the time. The guy was having a panic attack and these guys reacted by closing in on him and being intimidating. They need to be trained to recognize and respond to such a situation (i believe they already are, although I'm not 100% - i haven't heard anyone blaming lack of training...) Yes this is difficult, yes this is extremely demanding of one's judgement and self control but that in no way makes it ok to gently caress up if you bit off more then you can chew. Police are given permission to BEAT and KILL other human beings and the tools to do it with. The kind of tremendous responsibility this requires translates into equally tremendous demands on the officers. Certainly such officers exist and they deserve all our praise and admiration but taking this responsibility lightly (as these guys did) is, quite rightly, offensive to society at a very fundamental level.
|
| # ? Nov 10, 2009 06:52 |
|
|
I tend to take a less cynical approach towards the police than most people on the forums, but the fact that this idiot thinks there is something to gain from suing the CBC says a lot about the culture he works in and identifies with.
|
| # ? Nov 10, 2009 06:59 |
|
|
derp_derp posted:It's easy to sit in your loving chair and take hours to type out a long list of reasons criticizing what he did. Police carry tasers because they're a good alternative: a dangerous suspect doesn't have to be shot to be subdued, and at the same time officers have a leg up on them that 99/100 doesn't leave injuries. I'd imagine that having a drunken man screaming at you in a foreign language would be an acceptable situation to use one it, the fact that he died hours later doesn't change that it might have been the right choice at the time. The Braidwood Inquiry heard testimony that the officers in question had decided to tase him before even confronting him, so they went in with the intent to use excessive force. So, to recount, we have four fit police officers against a man they claim was holding a stapler. (Eye-witness testimony have all stated that his hands were empty at the time of the tasering.) And to clarify, he wasn't drunk. But you are correct that he was screaming in a foreign language; obviously instead of trying to find an interpreter to help translate and diffuse the situation, shooting with a taser and then piling on top of him and applying multiple body-weights onto his chest is what the non-armchair-critics expect their professional police to do. So, do you believe that if a police officer feels threatened, he deserves a license to kill without recourse? Like the fatal shooting of Ian Bush, which was claimed to be in self defense but with a gunshot to the back of the head? Or the case in question, in which four fit men felt "threatened" by a single 40 year old man in tears? The world you envision already exists south of our border. It has raids in which police officers can feel threatened by grandmothers, dogs, children, pregnant women and retaliate in force, but if they barge into your house without announcing themselves and you shoot, you're guilty of a Federal offense. Let's not go that way with our own law enforcement. quote:cliffs: arm chair critics can suck a bag of dicks. Cliffs: arm chair white knights crusading for police; actually paying attention to the details of the case is too much work, let's just yell at some assumed liberals. if we're loud enough, people might not realize we don't have any foundation for our beliefs!
|
| # ? Nov 10, 2009 08:24 |
|
|
Vasler posted:Well, I can kinda see what he's saying. At the end of the day an Officer is just like you or I; they want to get home to their wife/family/whomever uninjured. I have a friend on the Metro Toronto Police ETF who absolutely despises Tasers because they run a serious risk of death to the target, the risk of which the police officer has no way to judge properly before use. When a police officer judges he needs to use force to restrain a subject, he has a range of physical tools up to a baton and beyond; when you hand him a Taser and tell him it's safe, he grabs that right off and uses it a LOT. My friend's opinion is basically that he'd rather be hit by a baton than Tasered, and he's had both. While the baton will leave bruises (or even break a bone), it's less likely to *kill* you.
|
| # ? Nov 10, 2009 16:50 |
|
|
the posted:Yes but that would be like a fireman not going into a burning building because he "didn't want to take the chance that he'd get injured." Rust Martialis posted:I have a friend on the Metro Toronto Police ETF who absolutely despises Tasers because they run a serious risk of death to the target, the risk of which the police officer has no way to judge properly before use. Those comments were based on what my friend has said - I don't agree with them but I wanted to provide perspective from a different angle. I mean, the taser is obviously safer for the officer than physically restraining someone, but it isn't necessarily safer for the person on the receiving end. Also, in many cases (such as this one), simply restraining the guy would have been much easier and would have had far fewer consequences; the most obvious being the guy would probably be alive today. Seems to me that the taser should be more of a "last resort" than a "first resort". Like Rust Martialis says, it is way too easy to just tase someone as the first response to something. Having said that though, I don't know what was running through these cops heads when they decided to nail the guy 5 times. Perhaps the taser creates a sense of detachment in a way that a gun or baton does not? You're told the taser is safe and it won't break bones (therefore better than guns/batons) so you're more likely to use it?
|
| # ? Nov 10, 2009 19:09 |
|
|
If you're threatened for your life by a stapler you're the biggest pussy on the force.
|
| # ? Nov 10, 2009 19:11 |
|
|
Tasers are less-lethal force, but they're still lethal. The idea that 4 officers need to use lethal force on a guy who's waving his arms and yelling in a foreign language is so absurd that I can't even begin to understand people who defend it.
|
| # ? Nov 10, 2009 19:18 |
|
|
To what extent are tasers lethal without further abuse by the officer using them? Does anyone actually know, or are the only statistics we have the ones where right after the taser, overwhelming force was used to restrain the suspect?
|
| # ? Nov 10, 2009 20:19 |
|
|
Verviticus posted:To what extent are tasers lethal without further abuse by the officer using them? Does anyone actually know, or are the only statistics we have the ones where right after the taser, overwhelming force was used to restrain the suspect? There isn't much hard science on the subject, aside from a few animal studies. Everything else is through the filter of police involvement.
|
| # ? Nov 10, 2009 21:35 |
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:It wasn't the right choice at the time. The guy was having a panic attack and these guys reacted by closing in on him and being intimidating. They need to be trained to recognize and respond to such a situation (i believe they already are, although I'm not 100% - i haven't heard anyone blaming lack of training...) They do recieve training as in the course of their jobs they can and do deal with all manner of interpersonal conflicts and domestic deisputesand crazy people who argue loudly with their imaginary parrot, so im really not sure why they didnt just apply that training here. After all you have an unarmed out of shape man who has essentailly been through at least 2 sets of airport security and is only armed with a common house hold stapler vs 4 physically fit highly trained officers, i dont know why they could just talk him down or if need be wrestle him down without zapping him repeatedly.
|
| # ? Nov 11, 2009 00:42 |
|
|
All I can say is that RCMP corruption is overlooked far too frequently and I hope this goddamn cop gets 20 years in maximum security. But hey it's Canada and we don't prosecute internal corruption nor do we give out sentences beyond an actual slap on the wrist. I'm normally not in favour of long sentences as a punitive measure but if anybody deserves to be locked up with a bunch of convicts for many years it is this bastard.
|
| # ? Nov 11, 2009 13:28 |
|
Rate Thread:
