(CBC News) - A parliamentary committee is threatening to call for a moratorium on the use of stun guns if the RCMP doesn’t begin restricting use of the weapons by the end of the year.
The House of Commons public safety and national security committee made its report on Taser use public in the hours following the release Wednesday of a high-profile final report from an RCMP watchdog.
In that report, Paul Kennedy, head of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, called for Mounties with less than five years experience in the field to be banned from using Taser stun guns and for individuals zapped to get immediate medical treatment.
Kennedy also asked that the stun gun be reclassified as an “impact weapon,” meaning it should only be used in situations where an individual is combative or poses a risk of “death or grievous bodily harm.”
That recommendation and many others are echoed in the committee’s report, but MPs went one step further — threatening to introduce a motion in the House of Commons calling for a stun gun moratorium if the RCMP doesn’t restrict use of the weapon by Dec. 15. The report received the unanimous support of its 12 members.
The two studies of Taser use are among at least five probes of the weapon undertaken following the Oct. 14, 2007, death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski after he was zapped with a stun gun.
RCMP officers were called to the Vancouver International Airport after Dziekanski, 40, who spoke no English, became agitated and destructive, damaging a computer and throwing a small table.
The incident was captured on amateur video and covered by media around the world.
The committee’s report says the video “seriously shook public confidence in the RCMP.”
“To prevent confidence in the RCMP from eroding further,” the committee calls for the force to “react immediately” by reclassifying the weapons for restricted use.
“We want them to change for the better — to restrict the use, have better training, better reporting, better data collection so Canadians are safe and protected and the RCMP and other police forces have the tools they need,” said Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh, a committee member.
Also among the recommendations are training officers on the potential risk of death and injury from Tasers, as well as teaching them about mental health and addiction issues.
It also suggests the RCMP be required to submit detailed information about Taser use in their annual reports to Parliament.
The RCMP complaints commissioner blasted the Mounties for failing to comprehensively track use of the weapons, which incapacitate people with their 50,000-volt electric shock.
The report also recommended that:
* Health Canada look into a lack of psychiatric programs and drug addiction programs.
* Three federally-subsidized research councils study stun gun technology.
* The government commission an independent study on stun gun safety.
* Statistics Canada be given the mandate to create a national database on in-custody deaths and the use of Tasers and other restraint methods.
An RCMP civilian watchdog with “broad powers” must also be established as soon as possible, the committee says.
14 responses so far ↓
1 tracker07 // Jun 21, 2008 at 00:09
EXCERPT:
“Failure to properly collect, collate or analyze its own data means that the RCMP is unable, by its own inaction, to relate any external research to RCMP use of the CEW. Six years after the introduction of the CEW to the RCMP arsenal, there exists neither
comprehensive nor even more cursory analyses readily available to the Commission to assist in conducting this review. This neglect means that the RCMP has been unable to implement systemic accountability processes, such as public reporting, and cannot
evaluate what effects its policy changes have had on CEW use, training or officer and public safety.”
For review and consideration link to Report
Recommendations 1-17
http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/committee/392/secu/reports/rp3582906/392_SECU_Rpt04_PDF/392_SECU_Rpt04-e.pdf
2 CstBentonFraser // Jun 23, 2008 at 00:30
I can guarantee that many of you are in for a large disappointment. The reality of the type of government you are living with hasn’t sunk in.
TO CLARIFY; four government employees anonymously and brutally killed a person in the most inhuman, despicable and unconscionable manner this country has ever witnessed and these men have not spent one day in jail for it.
““To prevent confidence in the RCMP from eroding further,” the committee calls for the force to “react immediately” by reclassifying the weapons for restricted use.
That’s a humorous and very funny statement from a Monty Python or Saturday Night Live point of view.
Four grown men, in full view of the public, with unlimited resources at their disposal, taser and choke a man to death and leave him to die with absolutely no disclosure on who these individuals are and the country still has confidence in the RCMP.
LOL…Ponty Python and Saturday Night Live would always do wonders with a news story like that yet when we see reports like the one above Canadians do
nothing. Canadians have become a very untrustworthy lot when it comes to morals.
Almost anywhere else in the world, with the possible
exception of China, Russia and some middle-eastern
countries, the culprits would be behind bars. At the very least the public would know who they are.
When the RCMP found out there was actual film footage
of what had happened they attempted to prevent any of the public from seeing it until they had doctored the truth and only after the most intense pressure from lawyers did they finally and begrudgingly allow the public to see what had actually happened AFTER THEY LIED about the actual events.
The reports and panels mean nothing because until we know who these men were and their names all Canadians have been attacked,and what a vicious and brutal attack it was.
As long as employees can anonymously attack and kill people with no disclosure on who they are or what their names are, you are living in the worst possible police state you have ever witnessed.
It has nothing to do with the taser, we all know it has a purpose and use under the right conditions. What it has to do with is anonymous squads of men killing people without the public knowing who these men are. They have been protected, they can kill and be protected and the public never knows who they are, that is the worst possible scenario Canada could ever face, and it’s here today, that’s why so many Canadians are in for a big disappointment, so many Canadians have sunk to such a new low because they have not stood up and been counted.
3 Deepthroat // Jun 23, 2008 at 15:47
Maybe you should just avoid confrontation with the cops and do as you are told. If you don’t like, sue them afterwards. Unless of course drugs, hysteria, booze, or mental problems keep you from rational thought.
4 tracker07 // Jun 23, 2008 at 16:35
Focusing attention to these tragedies, propagates, accountability. Some of us are tracking CBF
“STUDY OF THE CONDUCTIVE
ENERGY WEAPON–TASER”
The Taser weapon can serve as an intervention IMPACT WEAPON with conditions as exposed by the “STUDY OF THE CONDUCTIVE ENERGY WEAPON–TASER” report.
With conditions stated within the report, additional medical studies must include; Synergetic effects phenomenon via “CEW” Taser Weapon Deployment.
5 Deepthroat // Jun 24, 2008 at 02:02
Blah blah blah. The baton is an impact weapon and somebody just died from that and pepper spray in the Lower Mainland. Where is your definitive study on the use of batons? On the use of pepper spray? Run the math, how many people die after tasering? And I don’t mean 2 days later. How many have been tasered world wide? Those that die are a very small percentage. Probably on a par with the batons and nightsticks used worldwide. There is no perfectly safe reliable method of controlling somebody out of control. All the arm chair quarterbacking won’t change a thing.
6 tracker07 // Jun 25, 2008 at 02:37
The Taser Weapon “CEW” has brought forth some opposition with respect to deployment. The IMIM allows for subjective and varying degrees of compliance aids. Having said that, strict adherence to the proposed policy reported in the “STUDY OF THE CONDUCTIVE ENERGY WEAPON–TASER report require immediate attention. I fully support the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security report as is; unedited or culled.
Basis
• Public safety
• Synergetic effects phenomenon
• Accountability and reporting
Some posters are lamenting over any change to existing C.E.Weapon deployment policy.
It leaves one considering the prospect of an ulterior motive.
By the way for the layman, when is it appropriate to use force all things considered? When, would you with out hesitation, first use a baton to bludgeon a suspect to submission, what would trigger that response? When with out hesitation would you Taser a suspect, what would trigger that response. How many cycles do you advocate with the taser weapon per incident.
I await your insight.
7 Deepthroat // Jun 25, 2008 at 14:21
You have to examine the reason that people disobey cops when they are trying to do their job. Simply there is no reason to comply, as there is no deterrent if you don’t. Most courts think that getting manhandled, punched, or assaulted in various ways comes with the cops job.
You want to have a picture perfect arrest situation where dudly dooright carefully navigates thru the IMIM and complies with any restrictive policy for any step of the way. Then when something bad happens he can spend the next several weeks articulating in court that all the parameters were met. Will that satisfy everyone? In a movie perhaps, but in real life you can go from zero to serious physical harm in seconds. The idea is to take control of the situation immediately before any harm takes place. It would be nice to have a crystal ball to predict that a mere laying on of hands will make somebody compliant with the cops direction. That very act could spark violence.
If the courts automatically sent people to jail for punching or assaulting the cops you would see a far different attitude on the part of the public. If the cops are wrong, plenty of remedy in the complaints and civil processes to hold them to account.
You have small female cops trying to arrest belligerent and violent people. Your hiring practices do not allow for minimum size anymore, so they need some advantage. When can they use a baton? When the words and the hands don’t work. Spray? Same thing. Taser? cleaner, requires no physical grappling with bad guys, HIV, Hep C, etc, notwithstanding. How many times? As many as needed for compliance.
Why is it too much to ask for people to just do what they are told? Most of the bad situations revolve around some form of drug / alcohol abuse. Nobody listens when they are drunk and violent. So suffer the consequences. Why not put the onus on the people causing the disturbances?
No matter what system you put into use, somebody will get hurt or die. Face up to that fact. No amount of procedures or policy will prevent that.
Ulterior motive? You sound like you think some grand conspiracy is a work. All the cops want to do is get the job done and go home to their families in one piece without any communicable diseases. They have kids and relatives in the population as well.
8 CstBentonFraser // Jun 26, 2008 at 19:56
DEEPTHROAT: “Blah blah blah. The baton is an impact weapon and somebody just died”
Have you ever seen this news video (below) Deepthroat? I have.
“Videotapes of the attack showed a Constable Forester running towards Mr. Parent and striking him in the mouth with his baton, knocking out six teeth. Another
video showed Constable Forester and another officer
kicking and striking a prone Mr. Schroeder with their batons, breaking one of his ribs.”
You said this DEEPTHROAT: “”Why is it too much to ask for people to just do what they are told? ”
Deepthroat you also said, and I quote “Blah blah blah”
You know what is striking about those words? They are the same words Robert Dziekanski heard before he died.
He didn’t understand much English and his first language was Polish.
“Why is it too much to ask for people to just do what they are told? ”
When somone doesn’t speak English, only Polish, and if that is the case do they deserve to be tasered and choked to death for not being able to translate “Blah blah blah”. That is your logic this far.
9 Deepthroat // Jun 27, 2008 at 16:36
All you see is the video clip and have no background on the situation. Rock concert, disturbance, idiots drinking, bottles thrown, failure to clear the area when told. Maybe a bit much to loose a few teeth for acting like a moron? Maybe, but one thing is for sure. If he was doing what he was told he would not have lost his teeth.
Everybody speaks uniform and guns. If I was in Bejing throwing chairs and yelling, and saw 4 uniforms with guns coming my way, I do not need a translator to tell me to appear cooperative or to grab a piece of the floor.
There was obviously something else going on in his mind and body which is the real cause of the death.
Choked to death? Thank Mr. Coroner for your findings.
That last line was sarcasm by the way.
10 CstBentonFraser // Jun 29, 2008 at 13:25
It looks like I have become the default for the voice of logic here, but it comes fairly easy when you follow the line of reasoning.
“Have you ever seen this news video (below) Deepthroat? I have.”
It was a simple question. Your answer exhibited some interesting logic. As most judges and lawyers say, a simple yes or no would suffice.
Here’s why I asked, the news film clip of this incident starts off with a cameraman following a few feet behind a running officer, who was out of view from any crowds. As the camera followed the officer it showed the officer running with his baton out and up to a group of men who were leaving the area and were cooperating with police.
As the camera followed the officer who was running it was clear the officer had absolutlely no reason to use his baton on anyone because he had not encountered any uncooperative individuals or even spoken to anyone. The officer was nowhere near any altercations between crowds or police and the group of men he assaulted were leaving peacefully.
He simply ran out from his hiding spot with his baton raised and smashed in the face the very first person he saw.
” Maybe, but one thing is for sure. If he was doing what he was told he would not have lost his teeth.”
It is beyond me what would cause you to defame Mr. Parent, an innocent concert goer who was simply minding his own business and causing no harm to anyone .
You have accused an innocent person of behaving in public in an illegal and abusive manner, you accuse Mr. Parent by saying his actions were so detrimental to the public and his actions were illegal to such an extent Mr. Parents’s behavior warranted police interevention.
That is completley false and an accusation made by you. Mr. Parent was not breaking the law and his actions did not warrant police intervention.
BTW, get your facts straight about police using their knees on a persons neck to restrain them, it was clearly documented. You don’t even have to ask a police officer about the hold that was being used, any corrections officer can be called as witness over that hold.
11 Deepthroat // Jun 30, 2008 at 02:46
Sure voice of reason and logic based on a couple of feet of video footage. OK Mr logic, exactly how did I defame this individual personally? By pointing out it was a rock concert with rowdy patrons?
“You have accused an innocent person of behaving in public in an illegal and abusive manner, you accuse Mr. Parent by saying his actions were so detrimental to the public and his actions were illegal to such an extent Mr. Parents’s behavior warranted police interevention.”
Any line that says this guy particularly was being rowdy or did I say “If he was doing what he was told he would not have lost his teeth.” Or perhaps you made the quantum leap that somehow being a moron is illegal in Canada?
So give us the whole story default voice of reason, what was the outcome of the investigation and all of the facts so we can make up our own mind. Or is it just the parts you want out there given highlight?
As for the choking you said: “….tasered and choked to death…..” It has not been established that he was “tasered and choked to death” Yes we saw the knee on the neck, yes people use that for restraint, done it myself. My facts are straight, you choose to see different words than are written. I never wrote they did not use their knee on his neck, I took issue with your words “tasered and choked to death”. That is why I wrote my comment on you being the coroner was sarcasm.
You should not believe everything you see. I watched an in car police video showing the end of a police chase where the cop ran after the bad guy after the crash and shot him down. That little clip was quite horrendous. No provocation or nothing. Until you view the video from another chase car from a 90 degree angle on the same incident. The bad guy actually shot at the other cop as he arrived on the scene, seconds before the first one shot him. Video is nice but only one piece of a larger puzzle. Logically speaking.
12 tracker07 // Jun 30, 2008 at 12:10
Is this the Video you’re referring to?
“Guns and Roses riot Vancouver” YouTube search
“Catherine Urquhart. Reporter Global BC”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bjnFk2_zZ4
About 2 min: 30 seconds into the clip you see an unarmed man attempting to move through a gauntlet of several people; being kicked and pushed before receiving a cross handed blow to the mouth.
I still don’t see the crime here. Try listening to the back ground voices of the news clip.
I hear the words “let him go” (several) times
13 CstBentonFraser // Jul 2, 2008 at 13:40
“So give us the whole story default voice of reason, what was the outcome of the investigation and all of the facts so we can make up our own mind. Or is it just the parts you want out there given highlight?”
The outcome of the investigation showed that Mr. Parent was innocent of any crime, was wrongfully assaulted by a police officer which proves your accusation is baseless, is false and was meant to defame Mr. Parent by indicating he was acting in a illegal manner and should have been “doing what he was told “.
Your accusation was malicious and was meant to support the outright use of illegal force, the purpose of your accusation was meant to defend the unwarranted actions of a police officer and place the officers actions in a positive light while making Mr. Parent look like he was the criminal and offender because as you put it “If he was doing what he was told he would not have lost his teeth”.
The only conclusion the reading audience can reach here is that Mr. Parent was engaging in illegal activity that warranted police intervention and if he had stopped his illegal activity he would not have been assaulted by the police officer. Your accusations against Mr. Parent are false and baseless.
tracker07, yes that is Mr. Parent bleeding and holding his teeth in his hand but different camera operator. .
Deepthroats are dangerous to all of us because you have witnessed for yourselves when confronted with the truth and all the facts they insist on defending illegal acts and criminal behavior and their purpose is not to defend our freedoms but to beat them down.
When the Coroner did an autopsy on Robert Dziekanski he was under the impression it was a straightforward death due to Mr. Dziekanski illegal actions. No matter who the Coroner is if you bring them dead bodies out of a plane crash they won’t be looking for murder by cyanide on any of the burnt bodies even if that was how one of them may have died.
In the case of Robert Dziekanski the Coroner wasn’t looking for the cyanide either, why should he, it was a clear case of the RCMP being right. His body has long been cremated and disposed of, the RCMP are in the clear. Isn’t that right Deepthroat?
There is absolutely no evidence, physical, anecdotal or visual that Robert Dziekanski was choked to death with a knee while he lay unconscious on the floor of the airport. There is absolutely no evidence that when the RCMP arrived he was being cooperative. There is plenty of evidence when the RCMP realized he was unconscious they performed classic and well executed CPR, or not.
“Mr. Logic” is an excellent nickname for me when you examine Raven test scores. Ordinarily
I would not pursue a discussion with a person who is so obviously wrong as you but there is something for people to learn here. You only want to support a viewpoint, your viewpoint that police officers are in the right 100% of the time and have the right to use any amount of force anytime they feel like with zero repercussions.
I am here to tell you Mr. Deepthroat that many oppose that illegal viewpoint.
14 Deepthroat // Jul 2, 2008 at 23:45
The expression of, and holding of, viewpoints has not nor, probably will be, illegal.
So if: “There is absolutely no evidence, physical, anecdotal or visual that Robert Dziekanski was choked to death with a knee while he lay unconscious on the floor of the airport.”; how can you support your statement that he was “tasered and choked to death”?
If in fact your claims are true then we now have facts in hand about the individuals situation outcome. Not just your first post on it which had no substance. If in fact the cop was found at fault, it will be recorded somewhere officially. Perhaps you should reference those as you did with the video before you carry on. Sorry but I would not take your word for it.
You may wish to consult the criminal code, however even if not doing what you are told is a criminal offense, it must be a new section, without which it is not an illegal activity one can be accused of. My assertion was based on the same limited information you initially presented and had to be coaxed to further amplify.
I’m not sure where you get the 100% reference, but if hyperbole was an offense, you have multiple counts.
The ability to store and reproduce information is the second component according to Raven, and I think you need some work there.
You must log in to post a comment.