Kip Powick Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 VANCOUVER — The death of a middle-aged man at Vancouver airport after being stunned twice by an electric shock from a taser gun sparked new appeals yesterday for a moratorium on police use of the high-powered weapon. The dead man, who was believed to be travelling by himself, had arrived in Vancouver shortly before the incident. He had a passport and luggage, but police would not release his name until they confirmed his identity with Interpol, an international law enforcement agency. The man in his 40s began behaving wildly in the international arrivals lounge of the Vancouver airport. He was sweating profusely, yelling, tipping his luggage cart over and throwing chairs about, RCMP spokesman Sgt. Pierre Lemaitre said. He grabbed a computer off a desk at an arrival gate and was pounding on windows. Witnesses did not recognize the language he was speaking, although some believed he was speaking an Eastern European language. Private security personnel were unable to deal with the man and contacted the RCMP office at the airport. RCMP officers tried to calm him down, repeatedly telling him to put his hands on the counter, police said, as he continued to pick up objects from the counter. They interpreted his level of violence as escalating," Sgt. Lemaitre said. "He failed to recognize any demands he was asked. ... It was obvious to officers - he was sweating profusely - this was going to escalate." After being tasered, the man fell to the ground but was still combative. "It took three officers to handcuff him; he was still struggling," Sgt. Lemaitre said. He then lapsed into unconsciousness. A RCMP member monitored his vital signs until emergency medical personnel arrived. Moments later, the man died. It was not clear yesterday why the man was so agitated, but Sgt. Lemaitre quickly dismissed the possibility of terrorism. "Nothing led us to believe that it was an act of terrorism," he said. "At this point ... we believe it was related to the emotions of one individual." Vancouver lawyer Cameron Ward, who has been following the issue closely for several years, said the gun, which generates a 50,000-volt electrical charge, was introduced in Canada without any independent safety testing. Sixteen people have died in Canada and almost 300 in North America in recent years after they were stunned by a taser, Mr. Ward said. North American police and manufacturers would have the public believe that tasers are not responsible for any deaths, "but that is simply not true," he said. "I'm not convinced these devices are safe. I feel their use should be discontinued until there has been independent testing done of them." Patti Gillman, whose brother, Robert Bagnell, died after being tasered by Vancouver police, said police often resort to using tasers without knowing what the outcome will be. "When a guy is going berserk, that seems to be when the taser is at its deadliest," Ms. Gillman. "Every time they use it, they are playing Russian roulette," she added. "I do not know the answer in those cases. But it is definitely not a taser." However, Sgt. Lemaitre dismissed concerns about the use of the taser guns. Police have done reviews of several deaths following the use of tasers, he said. Official results of the reviews show the deaths are usually as a result of drugs in the system, not the use of a taser gun, he said. Canadian cases Sixteen Canadians have died in the past 4½ years after being tasered, according to Vancouver lawyer Cameron Ward. April 19, 2003: Terrance Hanna, 51, Burnaby, B.C. July 22, 2003: Clay Willey, 33, Prince George, B.C. Sept. 28, 2003: Clark Whitehouse, 34, Whitehorse, Yukon March 23, 2004: Perry Ronald, 28, Edmonton May 1, 2004: Roman Andreichikov, 25, Vancouver May 13, 2004: Peter Lamonday, 38, London, Ont. June 23, 2004: Robert Bagnell, 44, Vancouver July 17, 2004: Jerry Knight, 29, Mississauga Aug. 8, 2004: Samuel Truscott, 43, Kingston, Ont. May 5, 2005: Kevin Geldart, 34, Moncton, N.B. June 30, 2005: Gurmeet Sandhu, 41, Surrey, B.C. July 1, 2005: James Foldi, 39, Beamsville, Ont. July 15, 2005: Paul Sheldon Saulnier, 42, Digby, N.S. Dec. 24, 2005: Alesandro Fiacco, 33, Edmonton Aug. 30, 2006: Jason Doan, 28, Red Deer, Alta. Oct. 14, 2007: Unidentified male, Vancouver airport Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Hmmmm a guy is going nuts and you have a choice: 1. Shoot him dead with a 9mm pistol. 2. Shoot him with a Tazer and he will likely live and go free. I pick #1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AME Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 #1 is a lot more cost effective Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinnaker Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 No Sympathy here. If someone is going nuts and causing enough disturbance to have any type of weapon pointed at them; then they also have to accept the consequence for that behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 No Sympathy here. If someone is going nuts and causing enough disturbance to have any type of weapon pointed at them; then they also have to accept the consequence for that behavior. Just a question; if someone had a heart attack while driving and caused an accident would you support a charge of dangerous driving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AME Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Just a question; if someone had a heart attack while driving and caused an accident would you support a charge of dangerous driving? If they were driving with a known heart condition my answer would be, yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Ha! Half the people over 60 have a known heart condition. Besides you have to define 'Known." Doctor says,"you have high blood pressure." After the accident, "I didn't know that meant I had a heart condition." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AME Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Ha! Half the people over 60 have a known heart condition. Besides you have to define 'Known." Doctor says,"you have high blood pressure." After the accident, "I didn't know that meant I had a heart condition." and 99.9% of the people who drive over .08 or speed never have an accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Just a question; if someone had a heart attack while driving and caused an accident would you support a charge of dangerous driving? No I would not. There is so little that is similar in those two scenarios that a reasonable comparison can't be made. Even if the now deceased man had a chemical imbalance or something similar that caused his behaviour he still had to be stopped. Maybe they could have had 9 large cops tackle him and the outcome would have been different but what happens if a police officer is seriously injured or killed while attempting it? It's a sad story but probably unavoidable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 No I would not. There is so little that is similar in those two scenarios that a reasonable comparison can't be made. Even if the now deceased man had a chemical imbalance or something similar that caused his behaviour he still had to be stopped. Maybe they could have had 9 large cops tackle him and the outcome would have been different but what happens if a police officer is seriously injured or killed while attempting it? It's a sad story but probably unavoidable... Agree. Taser em first - ask questions later - if you're able to!! Of the 16 killed how many were fine upstanding people lawfully going about their business? I feel sympathy not for the "victims", but for the officer that was forced to take the action that resulted in another persons death. An unfortunate result but had the "victims" not placed themselves in a position that required forceful intervention they would still be around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 I don't know the specifics of this case but I do know that mental health issues are commonly misunderstood and often those suffering from it receive little or no sympathy. I agree that a Taser is less lethal than a 9 MM pistol but I disagree with the "no sympathy" sentiment as these people quite often have mental health problems that are every bit as real as the old guy who has a heart attack and crashes his car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cargo Agent Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 16 deaths out of how many taser uses? Was it 16 out of 20, or 100 or 1000? No matter what type of force the police use there is always going to be some sort of risk to the suspect and themselves. Tasers in Canada have probably saved more lives than they have taken but we will never know those numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 This report might answer your question. If I read the numbers correctly, out of 1090 deaths attributed to law enforcement officers in the US over a period of 3 years, only three deaths were caused by an officer’s use of a nightstick, baton, or conducted-energy device such as a taser or stun gun. I guess the others were the result of guns. http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ardus05.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canus Chinookus Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I recommend use pepper spray first, if that doesn't work, then the billy club, and if that doesn't work, taser, then 9mm, in that order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steam Driven Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 In an incident in which I am acquainted, a knife wielding drug addict in the downtown eastside of Vancouver attempted to rob a butcher shop on Hastings St.. When the counter lady was too slow handing over the money, the drug addict grabbed a butcher knife and threatened to slash the woman's throat unless he was delivered some Heroin. As he came out the door, using the woman as a shield to collect his drugs, he made an aggressive move with the knife at her throat. The Vancouver Police fired at him and hit him. All that did was pi$$ him off and he stabbed her several times. It took brute force with "Billy Clubs" to his head to get him to stop. The woman survived. I relate this story to illustrate that it is never black and white. Those charged with our safety make the best decision in a fraction of time. Deadly force or no? If a bullet from a .38 wouldn't do the job, do you think pepper spray or a taser, much less "discussion", or "understanding the complexities of the problems associated with drug abuse/metal health" would work? (The Vancouver Police no longer carry .38's...) Do we let offenders harm others so that we might be seen as "Compassionate" and "Sensitive to their plight"? What about the rights of those of us who would live a law abiding existence? Should we not expect Law Enforcement to come to our aid and remove us from peril? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canus Chinookus Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I would say it would depend on the situation, and we're talking about a specific one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steam Driven Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 None of them are specific, they are all subjective aren't they? Much like S.O.P.'s they provide guidance, but can not by their very nature, cover every conceivable situation. To second guess the Officer who was dealing with the situation as it unfolded does him a disservice. Much the way administrators would "critique" our actions in an emergency situation... Like our operation, I'm sure that it is critiqued and studied "in house" in an effort to adjust training and S.O.P.'s to ensure a better outcome should the situation arise in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IFG Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 .... I relate this story to illustrate that it is never black and white. Those charged with our safety make the best decision in a fraction of time. Deadly force or no? If a bullet from a .38 wouldn't do the job, do you think pepper spray or a taser, much less "discussion", or "understanding the complexities of the problems associated with drug abuse/metal health" would work? (The Vancouver Police no longer carry .38's...) Do we let offenders harm others so that we might be seen as "Compassionate" and "Sensitive to their plight"? What about the rights of those of us who would live a law abiding existence? Should we not expect Law Enforcement to come to our aid and remove us from peril? Hi, Steam' - With you up to that point, but then .... .... To second guess the Officer who was dealing with the situation as it unfolded does him a disservice. Much the way administrators would "critique" our actions in an emergency situation... Like our operation, I'm sure that it is critiqued and studied "in house" in an effort to adjust training and S.O.P.'s to ensure a better outcome should the situation arise in the future. Your analogy to our line of work fails on two counts. First, pilots' actions are often scrutinized by outside regulators - after any reportable incident, let alone a homicide (however justified it may be). Second, more to the point, the Police are granted the authority to abridge our freedoms from time to time, up to and including using deadly force, which must be tempered by equivalent scrutiny and responsibility. However traumatic the episode may be for the particular officer, his actions must be thoroughly investigated, and by authorities completely independent of the subject individual or employer, as any other homicide would be. I guess you could call it another, unfortunate but absolutely necessary element of a tragedy. That is not to advocate a witch hunt, but your suggestion that some sort of internal inquiry will suffice doesn't wash. A police homicide remains just that, a homicide, which warrants every bit as much independent scrutiny as one committed by you or me; a tidy in-house review does not come close to filling that bill. Cheers, IFG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Hi, Steam' - With you up to that point, but then .... Your analogy to our line of work fails on two counts. First, pilots' actions are often scrutinized by outside regulators - after any reportable incident, let alone a homicide (however justified it may be). Second, more to the point, the Police are granted the authority to abridge our freedoms from time to time, up to and including using deadly force, which must be tempered by equivalent scrutiny and responsibility. However traumatic the episode may be for the particular officer, his actions must be thoroughly investigated, and by authorities completely independent of the subject individual or employer, as any other homicide would be. I guess you could call it another, unfortunate but absolutely necessary element of a tragedy. That is not to advocate a witch hunt, but your suggestion that some sort of internal inquiry will suffice doesn't wash. A police homicide remains just that, a homicide, which warrants every bit as much independent scrutiny as one committed by you or me; a tidy in-house review does not come close to filling that bill. Cheers, IFG Spot on, IFG. This is the society in which I want to live. In the same breath, my heart goes to those in law enforcement who give the benefit of the doubt to the perp, and pay the ultimate price. BOTTOM LINE, a worn-out tirade: This, and other western countries don't have enough cops on the street. Pigs, take heed!!!!!!! (See thread about Stephen Harper) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steam Driven Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 I think you and I are on the same page, just reading it differently. I never said that the actions should not come under scrutiny. I don't think a civil body with no training in from/by a Justice Dept. would be qualified to determine if an outcome was justified. I don't think you or I would be qualified to investigate and deem a "shoot, Good or Bad". I guess we disagree on the term "in-house". Police investigating Police? Some find this untenable. The Police themselves find their Internal Affairs Bureau to be a major Pain in the Arse. Should an R.C.M.P. Unit investigate a Vancouver Police Dept. shooting? Perhaps. Should another Law Enforcement Agency come in to look at an R.C.M.P. shooting? Perhaps. Second, more to the point, the Police are granted the authority to abridge our freedoms from time to time, up to and including using deadly force, which must be tempered by equivalent scrutiny and responsibility. I grant them that right by being a contributing member of Society. I trust the programmes and institutions that train and create the members of the Police Forces that patrol our cities. To protect my rights and freedoms, to free me from harm and or peril, I trust them to "abridge" someone's rights who would see harm come to me and my family. It is a huge responsibility which I do not think is taken lightly by any member. In fact I would go so far as to say that it would be a terrible burden for all who take a life. Hollywood Shoot 'em up types need not apply... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IFG Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 .... I trust the programmes and institutions that train and create the members of the Police Forces that patrol our cities. To protect my rights and freedoms, to free me from harm and or peril, I trust them to "abridge" someone's rights who would see harm come to me and my family .... Trust, but verify - Ronald Reagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 High quality police work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 What a sad and tragic story. But not all of the blame can go to the police. I'd have some pointed questions for the airport staff, both at the airline and the airport itself, who could have helped prevent this situation from spiralling out of control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conehead Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 What a sad and tragic story. An undersatement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canus Chinookus Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 man, that surely looks bad now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.