Ian Bailey, Vancouver, B.C. (Globe and Mail) – The four Mounties who tackled and tasered Polish traveller Robert Dziekanski on the night he died at Vancouver International Airport walked into the confrontation without a word of discussion about how to handle the situation.
In testimony yesterday at the Braidwood inquiry into Mr. Dziekanski’s death, RCMP Constable Gerry Rundel also said he recalled “fearing for my safety to a certain degree” when Mr. Dziekanski began acting in a “to hell with you guys” manner to the officers.
Constable Rundel’s comments marked the first time the public has heard from any of the four officers involved in the confrontation on Oct. 14, 2007, which was recorded on a bystander’s video camera. The footage was aired around the world and prompted a debate across Canada on police use of stun guns.
The Crown has ruled out charges against the officers following the incident.
Constable Rundel had two years’ experience with the force when he confronted Mr. Dziekanski.
He left the RCMP’s airport detachment and headed to the terminal after a dispatcher reported an intoxicated male was throwing luggage around, and then throwing chairs through glass.
He told the inquiry the officers headed to the international arrivals terminal in their own vehicles, pulling up one behind the other, before making their way into the area where 40-year-old Mr. Dziekanski was.
Mr. Dziekanski had travelled to Canada on his first-ever flight to start a new life with his mother, Zofia Cisowski, who lived in Kamloops.
By the time the confrontation occurred, he had been inexplicably lost for about 10 hours as his mother waited in the arrivals area to greet him.
Responding to questions from commission counsel, Constable Rundel said he did not discuss any game plan with his fellow officers – Constables Bill Bentley, Kwesi Millington and Corporal Benjamin Robinson on how to deal with Mr. Dziekanski.
“I don’t recall anything being said,” he told the inquiry, but did not elaborate on whether the lack of communication was standard police procedure.
One bystander pointed Mr. Dziekanski out to the constable, and another told him that the man did not speak English. Constable Rundel said he did not discuss these insights with the other officers.
He described Mr. Dziekanski as unkempt, sweaty, “perhaps disoriented,” and in a state consistent with intoxicated males he had seen in his policing experience.
“I recall Constable Bentley asked Mr. Dziekanski a question to the effect of ‘Hi. How are you doing?’ ”
Mr. Dziekanski said some words “in a language I did not understand,” and gestured to his luggage, prompting Cpl. Robinson to say “No” sharply and gesture to Mr. Dziekanski to stay away from the items, Constable Rundel said.
The officer said he assumed Mr. Dziekanski’s response suggested he understood basic gestures, adding he did not think Mr. Dziekanski’s lack of English was a barrier to communication.
Mr. Dziekanski stood up and moved away, but he had a “to hell with you guys manner,” Constable Rundel said.
He said Mr. Dziekanski flipped his hands up and moved away from the officers in what was deemed to be “non-compliant” way.
“I recall his combative behaviour. I recall fearing for my safety to a certain degree.”
He said this was a situation in which his training had taught him a taser could be used.
That wasn’t Constable Rundel’s call, but rather that of Corporal Benjamin Robinson, the senior officer among the four who were there. Mr. Dziekanski was first blasted after grabbing a stapler.
“Within split seconds, the taser was deployed. I don’t recall seeing the probes lodge [in Mr. Dziekanski]. I recall hearing the bang, the snap, the noise the taser made. I recall Mr. Dziekanski responding to that in a way that I understood that the tasers, the probes had lodged and he was receiving current. He was yelling and screaming,” Constable Rundel said.
“So indications were that the taser was making contact. He remained standing with his fists clenched, stapler in hand, in that posture.”
He added: “He almost appeared to be fighting through it.”
Cpl. Robinson, he said, told Constable Millington to fire the taser again, “something to the effect of ‘Hit him again.’ ”
Mr. Dziekanski, who fell to the ground and was handcuffed, was eventually subjected to a total of five taser blasts.
In announcing the decision not to charge the officers, the Crown said Mr. Dziekanski subsequently died from “sudden death following restraint.”
An expert, the Crown said, concluded Mr. Dziekanski was in a state of delirium caused by possible alcohol withdrawal, dehydration and a lack of sleep. An autopsy also found signs of chronic alcoholism, although there were no alcohol or drugs in his system at the time of his death.
He referred to the movement as “I am out of here” motion by his reckoning.
Review the information they were getting. This was predicating their actions. As it turns out the dispatch information was inaccurate because they were also given inaccurate information.
Memories are not always totally accurate immediately after a traumatic event, common knowledge.
Whatever they gave in a statement earlier on will be examined. This is not a normal court proceeding. It is a two fold public inquiry. I have already given you the link for it maybe you should avail yourself of the mandate and procedures again.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0
0
The details of the event is quite impressive but why did he forget to say when Robert was signalled to go to the glass wall that he emedietly obeyed walked there turned around and allowed the four officers to circle him and taser him, standing there in fear of his predicament and in an none combative way.
Also someone would have been in charge and was calling the shots. If they did not talk there then the plan must of been already in place to deal with this situation from past experiences and someone there has to be responsible for this occurance.
Maybe the police reports and their statements could shed some light on this whole thing instead of eliminating the documents and wigging it all with their stories after all this time gone by.
One should look at what they reported back that day or when they got around to doing so and see if the details were as clear back then to them as they are now.
I think this would be how a normal court proceeding would be done, isn’t it?
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0
0