Richard Warnica & Ben Gelinas (Edmonton Journal) – RCMP in Alberta have no immediate plans to adopt strict new Taser-use guidelines being imposed on police in British Columbia.
A public commission in B. C. this week recommended significant changes to the rules governing police use of the controversial conductive energy weapons.
But a spokesman for the RCMP in this province said any changes here would only come after consultation with the provincial solicitor general.
“We’re always open to discussion,” said Cpl. Wayne Oakes. The B. C. recommendations relate to that province alone, he said.
Oakes said RCMP Taser use in Alberta is governed by national guidelines set by the RCMP and provincial guidelines set by the solicitor general.
Officers are required to follow “whichever has the most onerous guidelines,” he said.
The Alberta NDP has called for an outright ban on Taser use among officers. But leader Brian Mason said Saturday that implementing the B. C. recommendations here would go a long way toward cutting down on what Mason calls “inappropriate” Taser use, namely the deployment of Tasers when there is no obvious threat to public safety or the safety of an officer.
“The other problem is there are multiple deployments of Tasers, which is very dangerous,” Mason said. “If the RCMP don’t adopt these recommendations, then I think that (Solicitor General) Fred Lindsay should insist that they follow them in Alberta.”
Tom Engel, who chairs the Criminal Trial Lawyers policing committee, said police rules regarding Taser use in Alberta are generally unclear about when deployment is legal. An officer legally can only cause serious pain, injury or death to a suspect if that suspect’s actions could result in harm to others, he said. “We all know that the Taser will at least cause serious pain.”
Engel argues that many officers believe a Taser can be deployed when a suspect is resisting physical control, an act that could be as slight as pulling away. Explicitly stating that the Taser only be used when there is a threat to public safety or the safety of an officer would likely lead to a reduction in Taser deployments in Alberta, Engel said.
For now it is unclear what impact the B. C. report will have on the national RCMP standards.
British Columbia’s solicitor general ordered all municipal police forces to adopt the new, stricter guidelines and he has said he expects the RCMP to do the same. But the organization has yet to commit to doing so.
RCMP in B. C. said Friday they welcomed the report and would be reviewing and analyzing its recommendations.
In a directive issued from RCMP’s B. C. headquarters, officers were advised that “current RCMP standards continue to apply.”
Members were asked to “note the direction of the B. C. Solicitor General and to treat this direction as being complementary to existing policy.”
B. C. launched an inquiry into police Taser use in February 2008 in the aftermath of the death of Robert Dziekanski, a Polish immigrant who died minutes after being Tasered in the Vancouver airport in October 2007.
The inquiry’s commissioner, Thomas Braidwood, released his first of two reports Thursday. Among his 19 recommendations were: – That Tasers only be deployed to enforce federal criminal offences. – That officers be prohibited from deploying Tasers unless the subject is causing bodily harm or the officer is satisfied the subject’s behaviour will imminently cause bodily harm. – That Taser use on the emotionally disturbed be used as a last resort. – That provincial standards be adopted for rigorous and regular train-ing of officers, testing of devices and reporting on use.
In the last 12 months, investigations have been launched into two deaths involving Tasers in Alberta.
In May, Grant William Prentice, 40, was Tasered by police in Brooks and later died in hospital.
The incident is still under investigation by the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team, the provincial body that investigates use of force by police.
ASIRT also continues to investigate the circumstances that led to the death of Trevor Grimolfson, 38, after he was Tasered by Edmonton Police while allegedly running amok on Stony Plain Road last October.
RCMP are also facing a $2.5-million lawsuit filed by an Exshaw man claiming physical and mental injury after he was allegedly Tasered five times by RCMP in Banff in July 2007.
You are basically correct in the eyes of the law. Unless it could be substantially proven that your interaction, “knock him over”, with the individual was directly the cause of the blood clot the next day, legally you would be off the hook for the death. Your nonsensical points notwithstanding, previous medical history, actions of the individual, positioning, would all figure prominently in the defense factum.
It is not my logic Norm, it is the way of the law. You may wish to avail yourself of this site for more information before you mock a messenger:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/search_judgments.aspx
You still ignore your own stated dichotomy with respect to accountability criteria in the two provinces in your previous post. No response?
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
1
Suppose I drive my car down the road and knock over a person standing at the side of the pavement and that person dies the next day of a blood clot. By the logic of Deep Throat, I would not be accountable for my actions because the victim:
- should have been off the road;
- could have dodged my car;
- might have been drinking the day before;
- may have had behavior issues as a child;
- might have had other health problems or
– might have had a blood clot for another reason.
You see, it would not be a simple traffic death. Other factors might have been involved. And, many people don’t die after being hit by a car. So therefore, it’s no my fault!
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
1
Until there is irrefutable proof that the taser alone causes death, neither side will be satisfied. The best you have is as you state a part of “various factors” working together, and “potentially” in adjective states. No study can claim total credibility for their arguments. Therefore, until there is such, it will be used. Some persons may die. Deal with it.
You ignore your own stated dichotomy with respect to accountability criteria in the two provinces. No response?
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
1
Credible science that describes how Taser use is a potential cause of death will not be ignored in any court. It is part of the public record and stands as the most thorough and independent review of CEWs ever done. You ignore it to avoid a sense of moral culpability when targeted individuals die.
The manufacturer is and has been aware of the danger. Examine the video in which Taser displays use of the multi-shot X3 weapon. Subjects are young, apparently healthy, relaxed and supported by a person on each arm who gently lower them to an upholstered floor pad. Most importantly, they are turned away from the weapon and probes are shot into the lower back. Not exactly replication of field use.
Examine the evidence about how various factors work together to create a potentially fatal situation. How these weapons are used on the streets is significant. How they are used in PR stunts is quite another thing.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
0
But this Braidwood inquiry can’t possibly apply to the RCMP, can it?
Don’t they have a history of ignoring recommendations?
And don’t they make their own rules and are the first ones to break them?
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
0
It is a Provincial Inquiry, and as such has limitations. If you examine case law as set out in various provinces you will note that one province does not necessarily follow others even from the Appeal Courts. Ditto provincial inquiries. Only the SCC holds sway country wide.
You would like local accountability for the RCMP in this Province but obviously do not want the Government of Alberta to retain the same right. Make up your mind.
The courts in Alberta will treat any future litigation case on its merits and even perhaps refer to the Braidwood Inquiry ( a sure thing by the defense bar), but will be independent in its process.
Do not forget that the RCMP are dependent on the DOJ for legal guidance and get same under the auspices of solicitor client privilege which much to your dismay I am sure, is confidential.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
0
Nice to see they sent out a senior official to make the announcement. I guess all the ranks above Corporal were busy.
Perhaps the Alberta RCMP will wait until they are sued successfully by the survivors of a future dead citizen. Braidwood conducted the most credible study of CEW use anywhere. The courts will not treat lightly anyone who ignores Braidwood and considers that its business as usual.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
1