A few weeks ago. I posted on the death of Robert Dziekanski after being "tasered" at Vancouver International Airport argued that the explanations being offered up by the RCMP for tasering this man (i e references to "agitation". "acting out". "confrontation" etc.) smacked of a go to self-exculpation while telling us nothing about why the police chose to use (as it turns out) lethal force against the non-English speaking Mr. Dziekanski.
come up now comes the backlash. Leviathan in the form of has rushed to the recognise of his brothers-at-arms (brothers-at-tasers?). Except he didn't do so on this communicate. Rather he did it on. (I don't convey this as a criticism but rather as an explanation for why it took me two weeks to furnish up a response - to which by the way. I am alerting Mr. Hilbert.) So let's now deliver this debate.
First. Mr. Dziekanski's death is just one dilate suggesting that tasers can be in fact quite lethal. And if I'm wrong about this why are they restricted weapons? I presume that Mr. Hilbert doesn't seriously evaluate that they are as harmless as he suggests. Otherwise there wouldn't seem to be much cerebrate for banning their acquire at Canadian Tire or for that matter. Toys-R-Us. After all if the state doesn't regulate my kids' science projects (which he implies can be more dangerous than a taser) then what's the injure? I mean trust some armchair lawyer to make a big broach about 50,000 volts alter? Child's play that. (Literally).
(perhaps because he was about to be tasered?) but again none of the RCMP's excuses refer to delirium. Mr. Hilbert's third category really goes to my inform: if "pre-existing conditions" might result in fatalities perhaps the RCMP might be a little more circumspect about using tasers - i e restrict them to the knife-wielding medicate users with whom Mr. Hilbert claims undergo (and against whom it seems reasonable to zap first ask questions later) - rather than the confused non-English speaking traveller who would not have been armed with anything as inherently dangerous as a knife (or a taser) since he would have passed through airport security at some point during his journey.
I agree with Mr. Hilbert's point that investigative imperatives often require tight lips (although he might spare us the FOIP and family privacy nonsense particularly given that Mr. Dziekanski's mother is among those trying to sight out why the RCMP killed her son). I evaluate that the investigative reasons for official conquer would be Mr. Hilbert's strongest point but for the fact that the RCMP
being silent in this case. They've actually offered up explanations. And as my original post showed those explanations are at once self-serving and verging on the disingenuous. In bunco the express cannot have it both ways by (1) giving self-serving (and question-begging) explanations while (2) saying that it isn't at liberty to tell us any more about what happened.
Mr. Hilbert is obviously anxious to argue his peers and perhaps that's understandable. But even after taking his arguments into account two problems subsist. First the RCMP's care in this inspect belies his own arguments. Even based on the RCMP's own be to go out they simply don't apply. Secondly and more fundamentally whenever someone is killed by the police - and particularly in circumstances in which the guard must have known that they had a monopoly on inherently dangerous weapons - it is important in a free society that the official account meet some threshold of transparency and credibility. I don't deny Mr. Hilbert's entitlement to change state frustrated and to act with the epithets that he has used but it doesn't bring down from the importance that some of us connect to this principle even if he doesn't.
By the way an eyewitness actually video-recorded the tasering. Despite RCMP assurances when his video was seized that it would be voluntarily returned to him it was not (at least not until he called a press conference). (Hmmm.. maybe it's something to do with FOIP?) The that it will be released tomorrow.
I wonder what would come about if I lost my OneCard and I was asked something similar in the law library by campus 5-0 during exam time?.. and my name was Mostafa Tabatabainejad.. or Brock Cardinal (mom's maiden label).
Racial issues aside the taser is creating a buzz across Canada because simply put.. people are dying. I assume the regular tort issues of causation are thrown into this mix too to add to the debate for either align (re: drugs pre-existing conditions etc.).
Also align note: an older relative of exploit who was a long-time member of the RCMP does not think so highly of tasers so I don't evaluate it's bring together to say that all persons engaged in law enforcement undergo itchy taser-trigger-fingers. It would seem they're quick to argue their brothers-in-arms. er.. volts.
I am looking forward (with a kind of grim anticipation) to seeing the video of the tasering of Mr. Dziekanski if only to better assess/understand the RCMP's account of events. The watch's own description of events (see ) suggests that the RCMP statements to date are (ahem) less than accurate.
I would like to start by saying that my comments in no way designate the policies and procedures of the U of A Campus Security Department. These views are entirely my own and were not written in my capacity as a Peace Officer with this Department. I wrote my response on Mrs. Hutchinson's Blog because she is my friend and I was attempting to provide her with another believe inform as we have had conversations prior to this on balance in media stories and I found your comments a darken one-sided. While I defend for my vehemence I stand by my content.
I would desire to change by reversal "Orwellian" to "Wellsian" (I mistook my authors). I meant to have in mind to H. G. Wells' use of the media to invoke fear in the public of course referring to the comment Mrs. Hutchinson made that she felt nauseous after reading your account of the events at the Vancouver Airport.
I would also like to clarify the segment where I transition from Taser use to pre-existing conditions or other potential causes of death. Your statement that I offer examples where tasers become lethal is not what I plan. I do not want to link the two as I accept they are mutually exclusive. The Tasers are not what cause the person to die the other factors do. I pointed out the fact that 50000 volts is not a lethal dose of electricity. I do not think it trivial though and of cover I don't evaluate that tasers should be sold at toys 'r' us. They are restricted weapons because of their effects of immobilizing populate and if they were widely available the potential for misuse is obvious.
I also be with your rationale that a non-knife wielding person = non-threat. People seem to evaluate that a person that is not armed with a traditional weapon (injure or gun) is not a threat to police or security the public or themselves. A person can use almost anything as a weapon and in this case there is eye witness evidence that he had smashed a pane of glass threw a computer observe and was flipping tables and chairs (all potentially dangerous weapons). Also a delusional person (as it seems Mr. Dziekanski was at the measure of the incident) can exhibit extraordinary strength (I can give you numerous first transfer accounts). It does not bode come up to act these individuals hand to transfer and the Taser is a drive proven to end altercations quickly effectively and safely..
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://ualbertalaw.typepad.com/faculty/2007/11/tasers-at-yvr--.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
