Canada’s national police force wants us to hold off on deciding whether police were too quick to taser an upset immigrant at Vancouver International Airport.
For Canadians, shock was the reaction to seeing the short video released this week of Mounties zapping Robert Dziekanski about 25 seconds after arriving at the international arrivals area. The Polish immigrant spoke no English and had spent 10 hours waiting to meet his mother, who had been trying to get airport staff to help her locate her son.
A plea by the RCMP for people not to make up their minds until they’ve heard from all sides about the incident predictably fell on deaf ears, as the video made the rounds of news agencies and online video sites. The RCMP request was doubly suspect because they delayed returning the video to the Victoria resident who shot the footage.
A better response from the RCMP would have been to emphasize their difficult role in protecting the public and suspects from harm. Asking people not to react to the video is like telling people not to breathe.
Meanwhile, the manufacturer calls it "an unfortunate incident." A look at the Taser International website uses the company’s mantra about "reducing officer and suspect injuries" and reminds us that a Taser is a "non-lethal" containment device. They’re starting to try out the phrase "less-lethal", while also gearing up their "scalable force" options for military use.
The coy use of every possible word except "weapon" to describe a Taser shows you how the company wants to play up the safety angle, while downplaying the danger to life.
This gives a whole new definition to eye witness. After years of training watching the pros do it on TV regular people can now be reporting live.
November 24, 2007
TaZer headlines and commentary TODAY
Why a multidisciplinary TASK FORCE is needed in Canada regarding the RCMP, policing and mental health issues NOW.
The lies are proliferating, people are more confused than ever, the Amnesty Intl. report on their use (1985) is IGNORED, the money to be spent on increasing the number of them coming into Canada is already budgetted.
POLITICS as usual in CANADA and meanwhile the TORTURE continues ...
The article from Hawaii highlights one of the BIG FAILURES - how do you get a person who is carrying a taZer to get up to speed on mental health issues, communication rather than intimidating and Zapping, on the legal issues involved and so on in EIGHT FRIGGIN HOURS?? I ask you ...
Here from Britain FIRST - this is what's a comin - there is BIG MONEY and lots of political advantage in the TaZer torture gun racket ... OBVIOUSLY ...
The governing body of the Metropolitan Police yesterday gave approval for Tasers to be issued to non-firearms-trained police in a pilot scheme beginning next month. Similar trials are already underway with other UK police forces.
"Members [of the Met Police Authority] raised legitimate concerns about broadening the use of Taser to routine policing," said Cindy Butts, MPA deputy chair.
"We remain worried about the message this sends out to London's communities about the escalation of confrontation and need further reassurance that vulnerable people... will not be adversely affected.
"However... Without the Met participating, this authority will be unable to influence a final decision about future use of the Taser.
"Consequently, today we agreed that the Met participates in the trial with the following rider: I will lead an MPA working group, working with the Met to jointly monitor and evaluate the trial...
"We want to move forward and influence the national debate. Our concerns have not gone away, nor have they been answered... We will monitor these areas rigorously and ensure that the experiences of London influence national policy for the good."
The MPA has agreed to let the Met deploy Tasers in the hands of non-firearms police only on the third time of asking. On two previous occasions MPA members were "dissatisfied" with the level of information provided.
The B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police yesterday threw its support behind a provincial review into Tasers in hopes the process will win back public support for the device and the police officers who rely on it.
"It has become obvious, frankly, that many in the public do not share our confidence in the safety and effectiveness of these devices,"
association president Gord Tomlinson said at a news conference at Saanich police headquarters yesterday.
"We hope that any review of the Tasers will lower the temperature of the public outrage surrounding their use."
The police chiefs, who are meeting in Victoria this week, voted unanimously yesterday to keep using the devices.
Tomlinson noted that public interest in Tasers has been at "record-high levels" following the Oct. 14 death of Polish immigrant Roger Dziekanski, who was zapped twice with a Taser stun gun by RCMP officers at Vancouver International Airport.
A recording of the incident, shot by Victoria resident Paul Pritchard, was carried on the Internet and newscasts worldwide, leading to a negative backlash toward the RCMP and Tasers.
Since then, more Tasering incidents have hit the spotlight, including a man who died in a Dartmouth, N.S., jail yesterday after being Tasered about 30 hours before, and a Chilliwack man in serious condition in hospital after being hit with a baton, Tasered and wrestled to the ground by RCMP on Monday.
Yesterday, Tomlinson staunchly defended the Taser's use by police officers across the province, saying
"If we didn't believe completely that they saved lives and prevented injuries ... we wouldn't be using them."
The public reaction to the Dziekanski's death has to be addressed through a provincial public inquiry into the weapon and its effectiveness, said Tomlinson. Among the numerous reviews underway is one by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.
Tomlinson expressed condolences to Dziekanski's mother, Zofia Cisowski.
"No mother should ever have to lose her son under these conditions, with her grief becoming so public and so intertwined with the ensuing controversy," said Tomlinson.
The four RCMP officers involved in Dziekanski's death are "horrified" by the incident, said Tomlinson. They have been reassigned pending the outcome of the investigation.
HALIFAX - A Nova Scotia man with chronic psychiatric problems that at times fuelled a violent streak should have received special treatment for his illness, rather than being placed in a correctional facility where he later died, family and mental health experts said Friday.
Howard Hyde, who was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia in his 20s, died Thursday morning in a Halifax-area jail, about 30 hours after he was shocked with a Taser in a violent struggle with police.
Hyde's widow, Karen Ellet, said she made it clear in a 911 call to police that Hyde suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, was off his medications and was so agitated he assaulted her.
She restated that when four officers showed up at her apartment late Tuesday to arrest him on the domestic dispute charge.
"He should have been taken to some kind of mental hospital to be medicated, to get him stable and get him rehabilitated," she said Friday.
"He just totally collapsed mentally. He was hardly coherent. That's what bothers me the most - he was so defenceless."
Hyde's sister, Joanna Blair, said officers should have treated Hyde with special care since he had a long history of run-ins with police, had been in and out of mental health institutions and feared police.
"I think that he should have been taken to a psychiatric hospital, and then his charge of abuse should have been dealt with when he was in a calmer state," she said from her home in Shelburne, N.S.
Jean Hughes, a professor at Dalhousie University who specializes in psychiatric nursing, said police officers need specific training on how to approach people with mental-health conditions to ensure such encounters don't turn violent.
She said mental-health patients who are paranoid can become afraid very easily, especially if they have had violent encounters with police in the past.
Hyde was tasered by police during an arrest in 2005.
"Once you've had encounters where people have used violent or corrosive or intrusive means of working with you, then you learn to expect that that's probably going to happen again," said Hughes, a former vice-president of the Canadian Mental Health Association.
She said police could use techniques to defuse a situation, including non-threatening body movements, limiting the number of officers that interact with a suspect and calm language.
Const. Jeff Carr with the Halifax police said there are no firm guidelines governing the treatment of people with mental illness and that officers judge each case individually.
"If we believe that a person is possibly going to harm themselves or someone else we can make an arrest, we can take them to hospital for assessment under the Hospital Act," he said.
"It's an individual call on the part of the officer."
Hyde wasn't taken to hospital for psychiatric evaluation or treatment.
The executive director of the Schizophrenia Society of Nova Scotia said Hyde's case is a grim example of the police failing to respond appropriately to a mental-health patient.
Stephen Ayer said the police should have brought a trained mental-health clinician with them to the scene, or ensured Hyde received medical attention before he was brought to the police station.
"That individual with a mental illness should be taken to hospital as a first step, and if there's going to be any booking, it should be done in a hospital, because clearly a severe mental illness such as Mr. Hyde was suffering from needs to be treated," said Ayer.
"It's a tragedy that it wasn't treated appropriately."
Sgt. Mark Gallagher, a spokesman for the RCMP, which is investigating the death, said the priority is to ensure the safety of those arrested and the people around them.
"When you take charge of someone you have to remove the imminent danger to other people," he said.
"So is it safer to have them at a correctional facility with people who are watching them 24-7 and checking on them every 10 to 15 minutes or can they be left in a hospital when most times we're not asked to go into the examining room?"
Police have said Hyde, an amateur musician who did odd jobs, became violent when he was being booked. He jumped the counter at police headquarters, ran past two officers and a booking agent toward the door before one of the officers stunned him with a Taser.
He was at a correctional facility early Thursday when he got into a scuffle with security guards, Gallagher said. He went into medical distress and died of unspecified causes soon after at a nearby hospital.
After Hyde was shocked a day earlier, he went into medical distress and was sent to hospital, where he was assessed and released back into police custody.
The police have said it is far too early to speculate whether the Taser contributed to Hyde's death, and medical experts say it's unlikely it would have had an impact 30 hours later, but it raised further questions about how the police handled Hyde's arrest.
The case has also widened scrutiny over the use of Tasers and prompted the Nova Scotia government to order a review of the devices.
A number of reviews and inquiries have been set up into the use of Tasers since the death on Oct. 14 of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver International Airport.
Dziekanski's death was captured on video and elicited outrage from viewers around the world.
On Friday, medical experts cast doubt over the effect the Taser had on Hyde.
Dr. John Butt, a forensic pathologist who reviewed Taser use in British Columbia in 2005, said it would be improbable for there to be any lingering physical effects from the electric shock.
He said the fact that Hyde was assessed in hospital and released suggests the Taser was not directly behind his death.
"Most unlikely," said Butt in an interview. "When he was discharged from hospital he was hopefully fit, so that in part answers that question."
Still, Butt said the results of an autopsy will make it easier to determine what part, if any, the Taser played in the death. That report wasn't expected until next week at the earliest.
John Webster, a professor emeritus in biomedical engineering at University of Wisconsin, agreed that the stretch of time between the Taser shock and Hyde's death makes it improbable the two are linked.
"I can't think of any cause and effect there," Webster, who has researched the effects of Tasers on pigs, said in an interview from Madison, Wis. "It seems unlikely to me."
The manufacturer of the Taser says the device has never been conclusively linked to any deaths in Canada.
Arizona-based Taser International said Friday its devices are safe and blamed news reports for fuelling "hysteria" about the stun guns.
"No one has waited for the medical examiner to come back on the cause of death ," said spokesman Steve Tuttle, referring to the deaths of both Hyde and Dziekanski.
"And so the speculation here has now led to multiple investigations - which we support - and yet we have a history of the Tasers not causing death, particularly in Canada."
June
I can't believe what I just read. "It has become obvious, frankly, that many in the public do not share our confidence in the safety and effectiveness of these devices," association president Gord Tomlinson said Safety......., what the hell, there is nothing safe about taser guns. What happened to diplomacy? to community policing? to the RCMP moto "To protect the Right". The cops before taser guns actually had to use communication skills to difuse certain situations. Now they are nothing but thugs and bullies. I used to be proud of the RCMP, no more, they have proven to the public they are liars. Disgusting.
JohnQ
What is really at issue here is the motivation behind police using tasers. The YVR case contains evidence that police were not only over-eager to employ it, but in fact expressed in advance what can only be called a sadistic desire to employ it. The videographer stated to the media shortly after the incident that as the officers arrived, he heard one to state: ' Can I taser him, can I taser him?' This observation must stand as piece of evidence in any investigation.
jack ramani
All chiefs should be tasered at the lowest rate of impact , then we can see if they hange their mind
Anonymous
If the police officers are horrified, imagine how his family feels. I just watched the video on YouTube and while he was disruptive in the airport, when the police arrived he calmed right down and tried to just walk away, then he was hit with the taser. I don't necessarily believe that they should get rid of tasers (it's better than shooting someone), but these police officers did not need to use the taser. There were four officers and the guy didn't as much as throw a punch or approach them aggresively.
tasers are a good tool, but the outcome is due to the man who yields this tool, and its obvious thats its being abused. Tasers are much safer than shooting someone with a pistol, but it doesn't mean they're toys and 100% safe, if a taser is used when the situation didnt call for one, the officers who used it should pay for it. They are suppose to protect and not kill, and they should know that there are risks that come with the job, and if they dont want to accept that, then they shouldn't be doing what they're doing
Anonymous
I find it shocking that the police chiefs have chosen this inopportune moment to support tasers. I hope they remember their job is to serve and protect the public, not themselves! Shame on them.
Anonymous
Aren't police officers entitled to protection too?
adam
Now give them medals bonusses and more power
Glenna
Who are Tasers being tested on to arrive at the conclusion that they are safe - humans or animals. AND, why did the RCMP officers taser the polish gentleman 2 times??? Yeh for the nurse who has organzied a demonstration in BC on Saturday. I live in Ontario, but if I was out there, I would certainly attend. The officers are quite simply, BULLIES - and I hope they are charged.
PragOmatic
"If we didn't believe completely that they saved (police) lives and prevented (police)injuries ... we wouldn't be using them." Exactly. Record high public interest should be used to pressure the government to study these devices, rather than relying on manufacter claims. Then the truth would be known and police would have to start using their brains again and put themselves in closer to the action, as we pay them to do. Then the feds can also dictate policy,and the way these devices are used. To leave this up to the cops backing up unverified vendor claims is scary.
Dad54
I worked in the Penitentiary back in 1970's. Diplomacy and a quick mind and mouth were our most useful tool. Plastic shields to stop the most violent . Most would agree a Prison is a Society in a shell and one must deal with some pretty rough people . Although they might use the Taser today, the average guard handled situations many times worse with only a radio for communications. Of course we had weapons of the day used in extreme cases, and I mean extreme. I do feel perhaps some lengthy time dealing five on one in the prison system should be included in there training before becoming a Police officer. I feel very sorry for the officers, do not believe they should go to Jail, Dismissed, Yes. If all those officers could not defuse a disturbed man like in the Airport killing. and it was a Televised legal killing.. Quit the Police service.
Ren
In response to: AnonymousFri, Nov 23, 07 at 03:51 PM Not only did he not calm down when police arrived and simply "walk away" .. he walked over to the table and picked up a stapler in which he was brandishing in a threatening manner towards the officers ... watch it again
Metro
The point to police forces getting the taser gun was to give officers an alternative to the pistol. Instead, it's being used when in other times, the use of the police baton, or even simple conversation and engagement, might once have defused the situation. It's been used in several situations where the threat of violence from the victim was not only not present, but in fact never existed. Police are using their tasers instead of good judgement. The RCMP told a pack of lies to defend the use of what turned out to be lethal force, and tried to hang onto the video rather than admit they were wrong. 17 people have died from being zapped with tasers in Canada. Until the guidelines are rewritten to exclude their deployment except as a substitute for deadly force, let's do as Newfoundland has done and place a moratorium on their use.
Are they really doing anything
I beleive that the tazer is a useful tool.....but the RCMP that are using, well like someone said earlier....Their just bully's or Thugs I lost all confidence in the police force even before this inncedent, Them strutting around, thinking there better than everyone else, not even being able to say Hi too.Showing up to partys to hit on younger girls, and offer drugs.....that their suppost to be keeping off our streets......in my eye's there a glorified, gang Theres is more i could go on about....but we can leave that for later.....jist of the comment......Cops are just as bad as the criminals they are apparently trying to save us from
Big Island Police are about to start using tasers while on patrols.
Now police are planning informational meetings to answer the your questions about the new non-lethal device.
By the end of the month, 225 police personnel will have completed the eight-hour training sessions required to use the taser.
The goal is for all sworn personnel to eventually be trained and equipped with the devices.
Police will demonstrate the device and answer questions at 6 meetings. All will be held from 6 - 8 p.m.
Aupuni Center Conference room in Hilo
Monday, Nov. 26
Tuesday, Nov. 27
Wednesday, Nov. 28
Kealakehe Intermediate School cafeteria in Kona
Monday, Dec. 3
Tuesday, Dec. 4
Thursday, Dec. 6
More meetings will be planned.
A few facts on Tasers
Meagan Fitzpatrick, CanWest News Service
Published: Friday, November 23, 2007
Taser is the brand name for the conductive energy device, or CED, used by thousands of police departments, military, private security firms and law enforcement agencies across Canada and around the world. The devices are also known as electronic control devices. The handheld weapon is manufactured by Taser International, based in Arizona.
The company makes several Taser models that release volts of electricity through metal probes which penetrate clothing or skin. The impact normally leaves a small puncture in the skin and the pain received is usually equivalent to a bad sunburn.
Depending on the model, a Taser uses compressed nitrogen to project two small probes from as far away as 10 metres, at a speed of more than 160 feet per second. The probes are connected by insulated wire and an electrical signal is transmitted through the wires to where the probes make contact with the body or clothing. The shock overrides the body's nervous system and results in a total loss of muscle control for the duration of the shock. Recovery from the shock is "instantaneous," according to the company.
The technology "temporarily debilitates even the toughest individuals with minimal risk of injury," according to Taser International.
The company recommends a minimum of six hours of training for police officers to learn how to use its device.
It says Taser devices save lives and reduce injury to suspects and police officers compared with other use-of-force options.
Taser International acknowledges the devices are not "risk-free," but says they have undergone extensive scientific testing and are among the safest use-of-force products on the market.
They are currently used by more than 11,000 law enforcement, military and correctional agencies in 44 countries.
IF they subdue, than HOW the hell can the TaZered victim be a RISK to innocent bystanders. Correct me if I have some logic!! How can ANYONE take this company SERIOUSLY ???
Tasers 'obvious' scapegoat, company says
National Post
Published: Thursday, November 22, 2007
Mark Kroll, a biomedical engineering professor and chair of the medical advisory board for Taser International, prepared a safety report to address some of the questions surrounding the weapon. He is also a member of the company's corporate board. "We all want answers and we all want to blame something," he writes. "In the 1990s, in-custody-deaths were blamed on pepper spray. Today, Taser devices are being seen as a simple, 'obvious' scapegoat for these tragic deaths."
Some of the highlights of the report: Q Could a Taser pulse stop the heart? A The brief electrical pulses are too short in duration to affect the heart. No scientifically reliable data exists to find that a Taser causes electrically induced cardiac arrest.
Q Have any deaths been scientifically linked to a Taser application? A Mr. Kroll investigated more than 400 in-custody deaths which occurred within a week of an electronic control device (ECD) being used and found four cases where there may be a scientific link between ECD usage and death. In these cases, a violently resisting subject fell and suffered a traumatic brain injury. There was also a case where the ECD ignited a person covered in gasoline. Q What if the Taser malfunctions? A Taser devices are powered by batteries. If one were to malfunction, the amount of electrical discharge would be reduced and not increased. Q How can the Taser device affect the skeletal muscles but not the heart? A The electrical pulses stimulate the motor nerves which in turn cause the skeletal muscle to contract. The muscles most affected are those nearest to the Taser's electrodes. Computer modeling studies show that very little current goes more than one centimetre below the skin. Q Do longer Taser applications affect the heart?
A Electricity does not build up or linger in the body like poison, the report says. If a person is not electrocuted by an electrical current after five seconds, the person will not be electrocuted by a 60-second exposure. "If one Ping-Pong ball hit to the head does not kill a person, 1,000 probably cannot either," Mr. Kroll writes.
Q Could the Taser cause "lethal fainting?"
A Taser has been subject to a lawsuit based on the theory that the device hurt and this made the person's heart slow to the point that it stopped. But "vasovagal syncope" --a sudden drop in blood pressure which leads to fainting--is not possible with extreme agitation.
Q What about the suggestion that the emotional stress of a Taser application could indirectly cause cardiac arrest?
A This is a legally convenient theory as the police officer cannot add any stress to a violent subject or he will die, the report argues. "This leaves absolutely no options to the police officer except to walk away and increase risks to innocent bystanders and the violent suspect himself." People under significant stress do have an increased incidence of ventricular fibrillation. But most of the increased risk is seen after six months of stress. The idea of someone (without severe existing heart disease) dying from extreme anger or stress is not scientifically supportable and is an urban myth, says the report.
When a man questions why a policeman has pulled him over and refuses to sign the ticket, the policeman electrocutes him to make him comply:
The video shows the Utah Highway Patrolman pull over Jared Massey and his pregnant wife who also had their baby with them in the car and ask for Mr Massey's license.
Mr Massey tells the officer he does not understand why he has been stopped or what he is being charged with, at which point the officer orders Massey to get out of the car. The officer then puts down his clipboard and immediately takes out his Taser and points it at Mr Massey without any provocation whatsoever, yelling "Turn around and put your hands behind your back" as Massey attempts to point out the speed limit sign and engage the officer in conversation.
A shocked Massey asks "what the hell is wrong with you?" and backs away, turning around as the officer had demanded, at which point the officer unleashes 50,000 volts from the Taser into Massey's body, sending him screaming to the ground instantly and causing his wife to jump out of the car and yell hysterically for help.
Lying face down on the ground a shell shocked, Mr Massey says "officer I don't know what you are doing, I don't know why you are doing what you are doing" to which the officer replies "I am placing you under arrest because you did not obey my instruction."
Mr Massey then once again asks the officer several times why he was stopped and what he is being charged with. He then asks for his rights to be read and points out that the officer cannot arrest him without doing this. Instead of reading Massey his rights the officer then addresses another patrolman who arrives on the scene sardonically commenting "Ohhh he took a ride with the Taser" to which the other officer answers "painful isn't it".
The icing on the cake comes at the end of the video when the officer LIES to his own colleague about the encounter, clearly stating that he verbally warned Massey he was going to tase him, as is the law, when there was no warning whatsoever.
Mr Massey is planning to file a lawsuit against the Utah Highway Patrol. He says he was already slowing down as he approached the 40 mile per hour sign in the construction zone outside of vernal. All charges except for the speeding ticket have been dropped.
This amazing video reveals how eroded civil and constitutional rights have now become. The officer had no legal right to make Massey sign any document he did not understand.
Police in the country are now allowed to torture speeders by the side of the highway in order to get them to comply. The only difference between this officer slugging the speeder in the stomach and putting 50,0000 volts of electricity in him is that the latter doesn't leave any marks. The intent, the pain and the goose-stepping authoritarian message are exactly the same.
Word to the wise. Do not ever question the police, no matter whether they are violating your rights, ignoring the constitution or breaking the law. It is perfectly legal for them to torture you on the spot if you do.
I'm feeling so free I can hardly breathe.
Update: many emails on this one.
First, I'm advised, correctly, that "electrocute" means death by electricity. So electrocute is an improper way to describe this incident. (Not this one, however.)
Also, former police officer writes in with this:
I forced myself to watch that clip, and as a retired peace officer, =my opinion is both the trooper and motorist were at fault.
The motorist was obligated to follow instructions, and appeared to be leaving, "resisting arrest. But the trooper's use of escalated force demonstrated a sad lack of training.
I've had similar incidents in my career where the subject refused to cooperate and turned to leave before we were done. In each case, I explained quickly and briefly the options and consequences of their leaving without completing the detention - warrant for arrest, incarceration, huge fines, etc. At worst, I'd have to have a warrant issued for them to be stopped farther down the road, including escalation of force. But in no case was I warranted to use deadly force in preventing them from leaving.
In my opinion, law enforcement has been issued tazers and told by the tazer companies and department leaders they aren't "deadly force", and now their use has become a replacement for good police training.
I think we'll see tazers eventually taken out of general use, but I doubt we'll ever see wide-spread adequate police training.
Carol
THE DEATH OF ROBERT DZIEKANSKI
Tasers used too often, too soon, investigator says
GLORIA GALLOWAY AND IAN BAILEY
November 22, 2007
OTTAWA, VANCOUVER -- The man who will head a review of the RCMP's use of tasers following the death of a Polish visitor in the Vancouver airport says he is concerned they may be deployed too quickly and too often.
Paul Kennedy, chairman of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, said yesterday that there have been instances "where I thought it was being used inappropriately at too early a level of intervention."
Through the review ordered this week by Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, Mr. Kennedy said he wants to get a sense of whether RCMP "policy and their model in terms of recourse to force is appropriate."
And he wants to find out whether officers "have thought about other devices. Have they been told that this is either a last resort or should be used at the higher end in terms of intervention?"
The inappropriate use of tasers is not a new concern for Mr. Kennedy. In his annual report tabled in June, he said one taser-firing incident led him to conclude that a review of the weapons was necessary.
Mr. Kennedy pointed to the case of an intoxicated woman - he didn't name her - who was tasered by an RCMP officer and taken to the police station.
"That was okay in the first instance," he said. But then "she is in the station and the device is used against her again. It's a woman handcuffed in a station when there were other officers there. I said that is inappropriate in my belief. The commissioner agreed with me."
The review, Mr. Kennedy said, will provide an opportunity to look at the full range of cases in which they have been used and determine whether the rules are clear and are being followed.
Even before Mr. Day requested the broad look, Mr. Kennedy launched an investigation into the conduct of the four officers involved in the arrest of Robert Dziekanski.
That probe is in addition to separate reviews being conducted by the Canada Border Services Agency, the B.C. coroner and the Vancouver Airport Authority, as well as a public inquiry that has been promised by the B.C. government.
Mr. Day has requested that Mr. Kennedy's initial report be filed on Dec. 12.
Mr. Kennedy's expressed concerns about taser use prompted the co-founder of the company that manufactures the device used on Mr. Dziekanski to question whether the commissioner might hold some preconceived biases about the devices.
"Is he already developing an opinion without all of the facts?" Tom Smith of Taser International Inc. asked The Globe and Mail from his office in Scottsdale, Ariz. "Because my response would be this device has more accountability features built into it than any other system in the world. It records every time the trigger is pulled, the date and the time."
Mr. Smith also noted that police tend to file reports on taser use. And he said some of his company's devices are equipped with cameras to record incidents in which they are used, leaving a visual record for later examination.
Website:http://www.MoveToAmend.orgMission:We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:
* Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
* Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.
* Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.
Company Overview:
On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, The People rule.
I. Powers and Rights Reserved To We the People, Never Delegated or Violated Without Consent
A. The People are expressly defined as human beings and does not refer to corporations or contractual relationships.
B. No contract, agreement, or promise may ever bind any human to refuse to enforce the law, or prohibit them from speaking on matters of public interest.
C. We the People may believe anything, including the possible belief that this Constitution must be discarded and replaced with a superior document which defends the People and protects their power to enforce this Constitution against the Government.
D. The People are educated to apply the lessons of history to ensure rights are preserved, power asserted, and this Constitution is protected from domestic and foreign enemies.
E. The People have the enforceable right and power to review any public document and access any public official.
F. The People have the enforceable right to engage in any speech, communication, or discussion on issues of war crimes, government incompetence, or allegations of reckless government planning and maladministration.
G. Government officials, agencies, departments may not invoke any power or right they have denied to the People.
H. The People have the right to affordable housing. Where none is available, the government is denied the power to prosecute anyone for not living in a home, or residing in a public park, open forest, or public lands.
I. The People have the enforceable right to freely travel, without questions, and without delay. Any law enforcement officer, agents, or contacted security official who uses any ruse, scheme, or deception to engage in pretextual stops shall be enforced as a violation of this Constitution.
J. The People have the enforceable right to compel govenment officials, contractors, and securty personnel to identify themselves, disclose their policies and procedures, and respond to complaints about violations of this Constitution, the Supreme Law, or laws of war.
K. The People may not be subject to any electronic surveillance except on probable cause and a warrant before a judicial tribunal. The President, Congress and others are expressly denied the power to enact, create, use, or rely on quasi-judicial tribunals to self-certify warrants to conduct surveillance.
L. All denied powers to the US Government in this Constitution are reserved to the People to be used to defend the Constitution.
II. Powers and Rights Reserved to States
A. States shall have authority to enforce any law within their jurisdiction. Failure to enforce the laws of war shall be prosecuted as a war crime.
B. States shall, when the Federal Government refuses to enforce the Constitution or Supreme Law, enforce the national and international law against contractors, legal counsel, state or US government officials.
C. Any state may start impeachment investigations or proceedings against the President, Member of Congress, or US government official on issues of international laws of war, domestic rebellion, or violations of the Supreme Law oath of office, or Geneva Conventions. The States shall, upon receipt of an impeachment investigation or conviction from any other state, shall within 10 days debate that resolution. If convicted by 2/3 of the States, that US government official shall be removed from office. Any effort to thwart State efforts to enforce the US Constitution through impeachment investigations or impeachment proceedings at the State level may be construed as a subsequent violation of this Constitution and laws of war.
D. The States may, without notice, organize themselves to collectively defend this Constitution from the domestic enemies in the United States government. The States Governors have the standing power, right, and authority to use deadly combat force to enforce this Constitution against US government officials.
E. A failure of any State official to enforce the laws of war shall be subject to a war crimes trial within 90 days of discovering that evidence. Where there are credible allegations of war crimes, a failure to investigate shall be construed as a subsequent war crime, punishable by the death penalty.
F. States have the power to enforce contract obligations between contractors and the US government which affect the rights of their State citizens. Failure to enforce these contractual obligations against the contractors or US government could be construed as a subsequent violation under the laws of war and US Constitution against legal counsel, state officials, or court officers.
III. Independent Branch
A. All US government, contractor-provided, and legal counsel data shall be retained in an independent branch.
B. The President, Congress, and Judicial branches have no power, right or claim to not fully fund this Independent Branch.
C. The Independent Branch conducts electronic surveillance of the US government, stores that data, and ensures there are independent, safe, retained records of all US government transaction, including conversations and memos between legal counsel and government officials. Once created for the government or connected with any legal or illegal activity, these records are public records.
D. The data may be seen only upon a showing of reasonable belief or suspicion by the United States Congress, Court, or Executive Branch that the information may be useful in enforcing the Constitution, Supreme Law, or Geneva Conventions.
E. Private citizens may view any data, unless the US government provides sufficient, detailed evidence why that request for information should not be met for bonafide, lawful secrets. Any effort to hide evidence behind a claim of "state secrets," where that claim is linked with an effort to bypass the Constitution, oath of office, Supreme Law, or laws of war may be punishable by the death penalty.
F. All government data belongs to the People. Any legal counsel working for the US government shall ensure that the People's right to reliable information is protected. A failure to protect this information could be construed as a war crime.
IV. Prosecutorial Branch
A. All prosecutorial options are denied of the President.
B. The Prosecutorial branch has the power to raise independent combat power, support them, and may lawfully use that deadly combat force to confront Members of Congress, the Judicial Branch Officers, or the Presidents upon showing of probable cause for war crimes.
C. The prosecutorial power is the exclusive power of the prosecution branch. However, anyone may make a claim of illegal activity, and enforce the laws of the United States and States respectively. Any effort to block anyone from unilaterally attempting to enforce the laws of war through discovery, investigation, and open discussion of those alleged war crimes shall be construed as a possible subsequent offense under the laws of war.
D. Legal counsel are subject to public review, audit, and can be required, with fair notice, of a requirement to demonstrate before any court their compliance with the laws of war.
E. Legal counsel may be denied authority to conduct discovery during any investigation when that discovery is linked with efforts that would thwart war crimes investigation, enforcement of the Supreme law or Geneva Conventions.
V. Judicial Branch
A. The Judicial Branch is above the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch only in order of precedence. The Judicial Branch is a co-equal branch, and closest to the People and Constitution. It is least responsive, and most slow to the People's daily interests to enforce the Constitution and Supreme Law or Geneva Conventions.
B. Where the Judicial Branch does not timely enforce the Constitution, Supreme Law, or laws of war, the States and People retain the power and right to investigate and prosecute allegations of US government illegal activity, war crimes, or violations of the Supreme law.
C. All precedents under the laws of war are binding on the Judicial Branch, US government, and the People through enforcement actions.
D. Any decision by any judicial officer not to fully enforce the laws of war, Supreme Law, or this Constitution may be construed as a war crime, subject to the death penalty.
VI. Legislative Branch
A. The Legislative Branch is listed after the Judicial Branch because it is less responsive to the People.
B. The Members of Congress may be stopped between sessions and held to account for their failure to enforce the laws of war.
C. Refusing to investigate or impeach the President, Judicial Officers, or any current or former US government official for alleged war crimes, maladministration, illegal warfare, or other crimes against the People, States, or US Government shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to not fully assert ones oath of office, and punishable by the death penalty under the laws of war.
D. There are three chambers to the Congress. The Senate and House have a legal duty to fully enforce the laws. Any decision to not timely review evidence of impeachable offenses, or not investigate war crimes or maladministration could be construed as subsequent offenses under the laws of war.
E. The Superior Chamber shall decide, before any debate, whether the proposed bill is or is not Constitutional. This determination is subject to approval, challenge, and rejection by the People, States, and Judicial Branch.
F. The Congress is denied the exclusive power to make rules. Any rule which prohibits any investigation into alleged malfeasance in re the laws of war, Supreme Law, or oath of office is illegal, and may be construed as a subsequent offense under the laws of war.
G. The Congress shall comply with public audits, and timely provide within 45 days of an audit report a statement of remedy, and outline a plan within 90 days to fully comply with all legal obligations under the Statute, Supreme Law, oath of office, and laws of war.
H. The Congress may raise and support an army, and independently order that army only against the President when the President refuses to enforce the laws of war, or comply with his legal obligations under this Constitution.
VII. Executive Branch
A. The Executive Branch is led by three Presidents, co-equal with non-overlapping jurisdictions. The Executive Branch has one power: Executive Power. All actions taken under that one power are lesser authorities not powers. The Executive Branch has no power to create new powers or assign itself broader power.
B. The Executive Branch is listed last because it is the least responsive to the People, and the greatest threat of tyranny to this Constitution. The President is a clerk, not a King or Emperor. The President only manages programs. The President has no power to ignore, rewrite, or refuse to enforce the law. Each of the three Presidents shall have an ongoing requirement to demonstrate to the People and States and Congress and Courts compliance with the Constitution, Supreme Law, oath of office, and laws of war.
C. The Domestic Affairs President is responsive to the States and US Government on internal affairs.
D. The Foreign Affairs President shall have exclusive power to interact with foreign powers. The Foreign Affairs President is denied any power to violate the laws of war, or use covert activity against American citizens.
E. The Executive Branch, Congress, Judiciary, and Foreign Affairs President are denied the power to thwart any lawful State action to organize with foreign powers and agents to defend the US Constitution, enforce the laws of war, or protect the rights and powers of the People and States against domestic encroachments by the US government, legal counsel, or other US government officials.
F. The Commander in Chief shall only have power to lead combat operations during war time. Congress shall conduct ongoing, public reviews whether the Commander in Chief is or is not competent in managing combat operations. The Presidents and Commander in Chief are denied the power to prohibit Congress from using electronic surveillance or use separately raised and supported armies to conduct this oversight during wartime and peacetime.
G. The Executive Branch is denied the power to block anyone from getting access to illegal activity related to the laws of war.
H. During Peacetime, the Commander in Chief shall periodically cooperate with ongoing Oversight of US combat forces to ensure they are combat ready, fully trained on the laws of war, and prepared to lawfully be used to defend the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies.
I. The Executive Branch and Presidents and officers, agents, contractors, and personnel are denied the power, right, or authority to order anyone to ignore any statute, law, legal requirement, or obligation under the Constitution.
J. The Executive Branch has no power or authority to directly contact the Legislative Branch by name. The President may only request, not order other branches of government. All Communications between the Executive and Legislative Branch shall pass through the Prosecutorial Branch, and retained in the National Archives. Those records are available for public inspection at any time. The People have the enforceable right to compel the Executive Branch, Legislature, and Judicial Branch to produce documents.
K. The Executive Branch, Congress, Judicial Branch, and Prosecutorial Branch, and States are denied the power to wage warfare, information warfare, or harass American civilians through his agents, combat troops, or third parties in the United states or from overseas. Any funds used for this illegal purpose belong to the People and States. Contracts used to enforce, compel, or organize this illegal activity are not enforceable, and contrary to public policy.
L. The Presidents are denied a presumption of competence until proven. The President shall always have the burden of proof, and is expressly denied a presumption of good faith until demonstrated with overwhelming evidence in public. An election result is not proof of competence nor does it satisfy a presumption of good faith, only of mastery to win an election through legal or illegal methods and deception.
M. The Executive Branch and Presidents and subordinate agency head, contractor, and employees are expressly denied any assurance any conversation he has related to illegal activity, war crimes, unlawful acts, or other threats to the US Constitution shall remain secret behind any shield, scheme, agreement, or technology. Any order a President or anyone gives to anyone to hide, destroy,not provide, or conceal evidence of illegal activity may be construed as a subsequent war crime, punishable by the death penalty. This restriction against following illegal orders may not be bypassed by claiming the order was from a non-person, electronic device, or other non-Constitutionally recognized entity, database, policy, guide, or other document.
N. The Presidents are denied the power to use any combat force, technology, or other military weapon or plan against American civilians, except in cases of internal rebellion which only the Congress shall approve in writing. When the Congress fails to act, or abuses its authority, the State Governors may lawfully use deadly combat force to detain and enforce the laws of war prohibiting illegal use of force against American civilians.
O. The Presidents are denied the power to induce any civilian to take any action that might deny them on any Geneva protections as a civilian. Any order, ruse, scheme, propaganda, or unreliable information to induce anyone to wage war, information warfare, or any action to harass civilians is punishable by the death penalty, and may be enforced as a violation of the laws of war.
P. The President, when delegating any power to any agency head, agrees that that agency shall be organized as if it were a separate, lesser, and not coequal branch. Those agencies shall fully cooperate with the other branches of government to ensure power within the branch or department is divided. There is no single agency, division, or office in the Executive Branch that is beyond ongoing oversight by the other four branches.
Q. The President shall have no power to block the Congress, States, Judiciary, Prosecutorial, and Independent Branch from a having co-equal status to oversee, manage, and organize that lesser branch. If the President refuses to substantially comply with that requirement, Congress may not lawfully provide funding for that agency, and the funds return to the States and People.
Who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going?
Trying to train the next generation of diplomats what the issues that they will face are, how to survive the coming hard times and how to conduct themselves so that they, unlike most of their role models, DO THE RIGHT THING. They are inheriting a neocon Klusterfuck, are ill prepared and need whatever help they can get.
Big Island Police are about to start using tasers while on patrols.
The inappropriate use of tasers is not a new concern for Mr. Kennedy. In his annual report tabled in June, he said one taser-firing incident led him to conclude that a review of the weapons was necessary.
Police informed of tasered man's psychiatric illness - widow
HALIFAX - A Nova Scotia man with chronic psychiatric problems that at times fuelled a violent streak should have received special treatment for his illness, rather than being placed in a correctional facility where he later died, family and mental health experts said Friday.Howard Hyde, who was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia in his 20s, died Thursday morning in a Halifax-area jail, about 30 hours after he was shocked with a Taser in a violent struggle with police.
Hyde's widow, Karen Ellet, said she made it clear in a 911 call to police that Hyde suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, was off his medications and was so agitated he assaulted her.
She restated that when four officers showed up at her apartment late Tuesday to arrest him on the domestic dispute charge.
"He should have been taken to some kind of mental hospital to be medicated, to get him stable and get him rehabilitated," she said Friday.
"He just totally collapsed mentally. He was hardly coherent. That's what bothers me the most - he was so defenceless."
Hyde's sister, Joanna Blair, said officers should have treated Hyde with special care since he had a long history of run-ins with police, had been in and out of mental health institutions and feared police.
"I think that he should have been taken to a psychiatric hospital, and then his charge of abuse should have been dealt with when he was in a calmer state," she said from her home in Shelburne, N.S.
Jean Hughes, a professor at Dalhousie University who specializes in psychiatric nursing, said police officers need specific training on how to approach people with mental-health conditions to ensure such encounters don't turn violent.
She said mental-health patients who are paranoid can become afraid very easily, especially if they have had violent encounters with police in the past.
Hyde was tasered by police during an arrest in 2005.
"Once you've had encounters where people have used violent or corrosive or intrusive means of working with you, then you learn to expect that that's probably going to happen again," said Hughes, a former vice-president of the Canadian Mental Health Association.
She said police could use techniques to defuse a situation, including non-threatening body movements, limiting the number of officers that interact with a suspect and calm language.
Const. Jeff Carr with the Halifax police said there are no firm guidelines governing the treatment of people with mental illness and that officers judge each case individually.
"If we believe that a person is possibly going to harm themselves or someone else we can make an arrest, we can take them to hospital for assessment under the Hospital Act," he said.
"It's an individual call on the part of the officer."
Hyde wasn't taken to hospital for psychiatric evaluation or treatment.
The executive director of the Schizophrenia Society of Nova Scotia said Hyde's case is a grim example of the police failing to respond appropriately to a mental-health patient.
Stephen Ayer said the police should have brought a trained mental-health clinician with them to the scene, or ensured Hyde received medical attention before he was brought to the police station.
"That individual with a mental illness should be taken to hospital as a first step, and if there's going to be any booking, it should be done in a hospital, because clearly a severe mental illness such as Mr. Hyde was suffering from needs to be treated," said Ayer.
"It's a tragedy that it wasn't treated appropriately."
Sgt. Mark Gallagher, a spokesman for the RCMP, which is investigating the death, said the priority is to ensure the safety of those arrested and the people around them.
"When you take charge of someone you have to remove the imminent danger to other people," he said.
"So is it safer to have them at a correctional facility with people who are watching them 24-7 and checking on them every 10 to 15 minutes or can they be left in a hospital when most times we're not asked to go into the examining room?"
Police have said Hyde, an amateur musician who did odd jobs, became violent when he was being booked. He jumped the counter at police headquarters, ran past two officers and a booking agent toward the door before one of the officers stunned him with a Taser.
He was at a correctional facility early Thursday when he got into a scuffle with security guards, Gallagher said. He went into medical distress and died of unspecified causes soon after at a nearby hospital.
After Hyde was shocked a day earlier, he went into medical distress and was sent to hospital, where he was assessed and released back into police custody.
The police have said it is far too early to speculate whether the Taser contributed to Hyde's death, and medical experts say it's unlikely it would have had an impact 30 hours later, but it raised further questions about how the police handled Hyde's arrest.
The case has also widened scrutiny over the use of Tasers and prompted the Nova Scotia government to order a review of the devices.
A number of reviews and inquiries have been set up into the use of Tasers since the death on Oct. 14 of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver International Airport.
Dziekanski's death was captured on video and elicited outrage from viewers around the world.
On Friday, medical experts cast doubt over the effect the Taser had on Hyde.
Dr. John Butt, a forensic pathologist who reviewed Taser use in British Columbia in 2005, said it would be improbable for there to be any lingering physical effects from the electric shock.
He said the fact that Hyde was assessed in hospital and released suggests the Taser was not directly behind his death.
"Most unlikely," said Butt in an interview. "When he was discharged from hospital he was hopefully fit, so that in part answers that question."
Still, Butt said the results of an autopsy will make it easier to determine what part, if any, the Taser played in the death. That report wasn't expected until next week at the earliest.
John Webster, a professor emeritus in biomedical engineering at University of Wisconsin, agreed that the stretch of time between the Taser shock and Hyde's death makes it improbable the two are linked.
"I can't think of any cause and effect there," Webster, who has researched the effects of Tasers on pigs, said in an interview from Madison, Wis. "It seems unlikely to me."
The manufacturer of the Taser says the device has never been conclusively linked to any deaths in Canada.
Arizona-based Taser International said Friday its devices are safe and blamed news reports for fuelling "hysteria" about the stun guns.
"No one has waited for the medical examiner to come back on the cause of death ," said spokesman Steve Tuttle, referring to the deaths of both Hyde and Dziekanski.
"And so the speculation here has now led to multiple investigations - which we support - and yet we have a history of the Tasers not causing death, particularly in Canada."