Allan Chad (The Striaght – Commentary) – Allan Chad claims to be the director of Survival International and a use-of-force expert who has trained army special forces and police SWAT teams around the world.
Reviewing the statements and testimony of RCMP constables Rundel and Bentley during the Braidwood inquiry into the police killing of Robert Dziekanski, I can’t help but be struck by the unapologetic and repeated refrain: “I acted according to my training.” This is offered as an explanation for how four RCMP officers assessed that Mr. Dziekanski was a threat to them and determined the degree of force required to control him.
The other familiar justification was: “I feared for my safety.” I find myself having a flashback to the Coroners Inquest into two VPD officers shooting Gerald Chenery 10 times in the back, or the police explanation for an officer shooting Ian Bush in the back of the head in police custody while the video camera was allegedly turned off. I reviewed the sketches of the police version of the struggle between the RCMP officer and Ian Bush. My conclusion: Not possible. I reviewed the shell casing pattern of the bullets that killed Mr. Chenery and the police account of how it happened. My conclusion: Not possible.
Perhaps in the Dziekanski case we are witnessing the testimony of four bad cops trying to dodge accountability for their callous murder of an innocent man. Alternately, they could be telling the truth that they did as they were trained to do. I am inclined to believe the latter despite my inherent suspicion of police testimony in cases of police violence.
I think it is precisely their training, both in the use of force and the macho, unaccountable mindset of authority and dominance, that they stormed onto the scene and within 35 seconds tasered a distressed and defeated man to death, then handcuffed him, and put a knee to his neck while he turned blue and stopped breathing. It does not take a use-of-force expert to recognize that this is an outrageous abuse of authority and complete mishandling of a relatively straightforward situation.
Having reviewed training videos of the local police Emergency Response Team, I was appalled to see that this elite squad is trained to respond to an assailant with a knife by shooting him. I thought to myself why wouldn’t they block him with a shield and kick his legs out from under him? Why shoot the man? The training is: respond with a weapon and shoot to kill. I guess this makes sense if you have limited hand-to-hand combat skills and as a result are terrified of the person in front of you.
What if the officers in this case had simply shown compassion for Mr. Dziekanski, perhaps offering him some water or sitting down with him, assuming a non-threatening posture within a safe distance of him? What would the outcome have been then? How is it that these officers are so poorly trained that they assessed the situation as imminent threat? How did they view hands raised over head as a combative stance? A distressed man with a stapler? Come on. Just think of all the deaths there would be if security at hockey games or rock concerts were this incompetent and armed with lethal weapons. After all, they handle drunk and combative patrons nightly.
Pathetic and shameful are the words that come to mind when I think of the police actions in this case. Dangerous is the word that comes to mind when I think of police whose training in use of force is completely inadequate, who are pumped up to think they are untouchable, and who are aware that there is no independent oversight into policing.
I personally would like to know what agencies this guy has advised on use of force. A lot of you seem to think his credentials are suspect and I believe that you are right to believe that. The guy might run adds in the back of Soldier of Fortune magazine for all we know.
The purpose of the Braidwood Inquiry is to prevent incidents like this from happening again. The inquiry is ongoing and far from reaching its conclusion. I am sure that real use-of-force experts will be called on to give testimony after the 4 RCMP officers do.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
0
A self-described use of force “expert” asserting that the proper response to a knife-wielding assailant is to ” block him with a shield and kick his legs out from under him?”
There are no words adequate to describe how absurd that is or how impossible it is for this man to truly be an expert in the use of force.
Nevermind his insulting assessment of the Bush incident.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
0
I take issue with the so called “use of force expert” above. Anybody with a sound training in the martial arts will tell you that you do not fight someone with a knife unless you are cornered and unable to do anything else. I guess that is why he “claims” to be one.
Probably when Calvin was a rookie, the upshot of assaulting a police officer was jail time. Now the courts feel assault is part of the job, and they dissect the arrest to see if it is lawful to the nth degree. No lawful arrest begets the “you can do anything to resist” doctrine. Pure claptrap. Once again the courts have diminished the authority of the police to the point where it is meaningless. You want respect? You have to give it as well. Witness the conditional sentence recently given out for murder.
The crusty old sergeant of which Mr. Lawrence speaks was but a check in the system to ensure nobody went astray. To abuse authority was to garner wrath of the supervisors. Perhaps the “me” generation is at fault here for the attitude change. Witness the study where college students thought they should be given a pass because they showed up for class.
Everybody gets a ribbon. Timeouts for bad behaviour. Endless chances in court. Howe laughable when a Vancouver Police Chief suggests a 30 convictions and you’re out plan.
With all due respect to the re-enactment of the so called expert above, a couple of colleagues and myself performed the very situation in the Bush shooting and showed it was not only possible, but easy.
As far as security officers performing against drunks, if the police acted in the same manner as bouncers and private security, the civil cases would be loud and long as well as the police complaint commissioners increase in work load.
One reason Chad is outraged is the fact that someone died. Tragic yes, but a situation conducted thousands of times per year in Canada and the US without a death.
Is a stapler a weapon? Anything brandished is a weapon. Poor observation by a so called “expert”. Can a stapler take out an eye? Certainly. I think Chad has watched too much of the TV referred to by Mr. Lawrence and thinks a quick move and a karate chop can subdue the toughest hombre.
It is quite apparent that Chad and his ilk have no stomach for, or faith in the various inquiries afoot in this matter. Their suppositions and would be actions are exactly why we have the inquiries. Chambers of fact finding. Not hysteria and hyperbole. We are past the days of taking matters to the local oak tree and throwing a rope over it.
No independent oversight? Puleese. Coroners inquest, public inquiry, complaints commissioner, the Courts, the Crown etc. Perhaps another layer of committees would satisfy Chad. No probably not unless they reacted the same way as him.
Yellow journalism is of no help.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
1
Calvin Lawrence – Amen.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
0
I would like to respond to Mr. Chad’s commentary in general terms. Since I did not witness the incident nor did I have access to reports I will not comment on it.
I will however make general comments based on my observations and experiences as a police officer for 36 Years. Twenty eight years with the RCMP. Eight and1/2 years with the Halifax City Police.
Society- There is a different mind set today among our young police recruits. I will take you back to the days of the TV programs of Dragnet and Adam 12 where the police officers were depicted as showing respect to the public and their supervisors. But then came along the Dirty Harry Movies and Die Hard movers where Mr. Eastwood and Mr. Willis were the lone cops who made up their own rules and the police officers who went by the rules were portrayed stupid and out of touch with reality. These types of portrayals found their way into the TV police programs as well. A number of police recruits have no idea what police officers do. They watch these programs and say, “I want to be a cop”! They emulate what they see.
Youth plugged in- Youth today are plugged into ipods, cell phones, and computers. They have no idea how to talk to people. In policing the goal should be to obtain Voluntary Compliance by Verbal Intervention (VCBVI). Force may have to be used but if the police officer is not seeking VCBVI in the officer/violator contact the question; “why not” has to be asked. We then expect recruits to be able to talk to a people. Some of these citizens are frightened, angry or afraid. That makes the communication even more difficult.
Police Force vs. Police Service. – In most of my time in policing, the police agencies were referred to as Police Forces. We had to have on our official police cap, we wore a tie, we did not wear sun glasses except when absolutely necessary, we were clean shaven except for a neatly trimmed mustache, our sideburns could no go below our ear lobs, we did not wear soft body armor, we did not wear gloves except when it was cold, we wore pants and police boots. Now the dress of the day is baseball caps, beards, sideburns, sunglasses, sometime worn on their foreheads, turtle neck, combat pants and boots.
I am well aware that equipment such as vests and gloves are required to save lives. My point is, that police offices must learn how to communicate even better because of these dress barriers. Do we look like a service?
The Supervisor – Supervisors today are becoming victims of the above examples that I just gave. They cannot communicate well to the people that they supervise or the public. Most of us as new police officers had that crusty old Sgt. to keep us in line when we became power hungry or spoke to the public in a negative manner. Police officers now are supervised by computers in the police vehicles.
RCMP Training – I spent five years as instructor/facilitator at RCMP Depot Division, Regina Sask. There was a tradition that the troop upon graduating would design a T shirt and wear it to their demonstrations. The T shirt was mounted and framed in the Cadet’s Stand Easy Lounge as well.
I observed T shirts that depicted Buffalo with an RCMP member mounted on its back breaking down a brick wall; a Mountie sitting on a horse holding his gun with the caption “Unforgiven”. What the message here?
I encouraged my troop to have a different message and they did. Their T shirt stated:
“Only the Hard Can Afford the Luxury of Appearing Soft.”
Conclusion – Ninety-nine percent of what police officers do is talk to people. Even if force has to be used; once the person is under control we must revert back to verbal communication to avoid excessive use of force. We spend very little time teaching recruits how to communicate with difficult, scared, and angry people.
In 2009 we have the best equipped, educated, and trained recruits that we can find. What’s going wrong? I suggest the above is part of the problem.
Calvin Lawrence
CGL Consulting
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
0
Finally someone who sees these messes as it really is…
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
0