James Keller, Vancouver, B.C. (Canadian Press) – Although he hadn’t been drinking, RCMP officers were told Robert Dziekanski was intoxicated and tossing furniture through glass windows as they raced to Vancouver’s airport.
Audio recordings between dispatchers and police the night Dziekanski died in October 2007 were played Thursday at a public inquiry into his death, offering a glimpse into what officers were told before arriving and how they responded.
As Dziekanski started acting erratically and throwing furniture in the airport’s international arrivals lounge, witnesses and airport staff called 911.
“Member for an intoxicated male throwing luggage around, Level 2,” a dispatcher said on a Richmond RCMP radio channel.
As the four officers went to the scene, they received a second update.
“The male is now throwing chairs through glass windows in the same area.”
By that point, Dziekanski had thrown a small table against a glass wall, although the glass didn’t break. He also threw a computer to the floor.
Toxicology tests later concluded Dziekanski hadn’t been drinking, but he was repeatedly described as drunk by witnesses and then emergency dispatchers. When a police dispatcher called for an ambulance, Dziekanski was referred to as “extremely intoxicated.”
The four officers arrived at the airport, walked over to Dziekanski and within seconds stunned him several times with a Taser as they fought to bring him to the ground.
During that struggle, one of the officer’s radios is turned on and a dispatcher asks what is happening.
A minute and a half after the first Taser shock, as Dziekanski is lying face down with his hands behind his back, Const. Kwesi Millington replies.
“We’ve got one male in custody,” says Millington. “We’ve got four members here, everything is 10-4.”
From there, Dziekanski’s condition quickly deteriorates.
Twenty-three seconds after everything was declared OK, another officer, Const. Bill Bentley, asks for a routine ambulance call.
And then just 12 seconds later, an unidentified officer upgrades the request to a high-priority emergency requiring lights and sirens.
“Code 3,” says the officer. “He’s unconscious, looks like he’s breathing.”
The officers’ broadcasts end 15 minutes later, after the arrival of firefighters and paramedics, who were unable to revive Dziekanski.
All four officers are scheduled to testify beginning Monday, and they’ll be asked to explain why they stunned Dziekanski so soon after arriving and whether they sought any more information before using the Taser.
They’ll also testify about who was monitoring Dziekanski’s condition, how often, and why they upgraded the call for an ambulance.
A security guard supervisor has told the inquiry he was checking Dziekanski’s pulse and breathing, and he was alive until at least two minutes before firefighters arrived.
Members of the Richmond Fire Department have testified that when they reached Dziekanski, he wasn’t breathing, had no pulse and was likely already dead.
Walter Kosteckyj, the lawyer for Dziekanski’s mother, said the officers should have taken more time to assess the situation when they arrived, regardless of what they were told over the radio.
“This is something that police officers deal with all the time,” Walter Kosteckyj, a former RCMP officer, said outside the inquiry.
“They have to be able to sift through and analyze the situation they encounter not what they’re told on the radio, because you could even see the embellishment.”
The officers’ testimony will also include a review of their training and policies they must follow, as well as whether any substantiated allegations of misconduct have been made against any of them.
Good grief, the Crown examined the evidence and came to the conclusion that there was no likelihood of conviction on any criminal charges because they did not abridge the statute. That is far different than being “given immunity”. Had the Crown decided there was criminal intent, they would have been charged and you would not see them voluntarily appear at the inquiry because the law provides that you do not have to incriminate yourself ergo if they went to the inquiry and admitted to some type of criminal action under oath it could be used against them in a criminal trial, which would be self incrimination. Every Canadian is protected the same way.
The decision has been made as to the criminal aspect, so move on. Turn your attention to whether or not they were negligent by act or omission. Everything said at the inquiry is admissible in subsequent hearings or trials. Thus the leading and speculative questioning of the lawyer for his mother. The more he can establish negligence, incompetence, disregard etc., on anyone’s part, the more the settlement figure goes up. The more the procedural issues get examined.
As far as punishment, you are not going to see anything but the Federal government paying big dollars out and the degree of negligence (if any) will determine if the 4 get fired by internal mechanism.
When acting at the behest of the Crown (government) its employees liabilities are paid by the Crown when they are in the execution of their proscribed duties. There is precedent that the Crown goes after its own employee for reimbursement in some extreme cases, but rarely in ones such as these.
The Crown used to go after individuals for partial payment for damages to government property if the employee was at fault, until case law severely restricted that ability. The old acting within the scope of there duties realm.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
0
Deepthroat: I don’t think Alcan gave any indication that he or she was from Canada or not. All you’ve succeeded in doing is to sound very pedantic in your lecture of how things are done around here.
This enquiry, like many others will help to bring out the truth. The one problem I have with this particular enquiry is that the Crown gave the four RCMP officers virtual immunity. They were told at the beginning of the proceedings that they would not face any criminal charges.
I would hope there is some way to find out if they are indeed guilty of criminal behaviour; and if so, ensure they are punished according to the laws of the land.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
0
In case you are not from Canada Alcan, this has been going on for decades. They are called public inquiries, coroners inquests, Royal Commissions, et al. When all the facts are in and the inquiries concluded, the truth is there for all to read and heed.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
0
I think this is a great example of why, when someone dies and there’s questions of miscounduct that arises that everyone should be called to the carpet to see if it’s true.
From this we could expect the best policing and policies to be created and the safety of both police officers and public to be expected…..
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
0