Every so often someone does volunteer. IIRC, a local TV reporter got the treatment during a police demonstration of what it would do; with two guys holding him up. He was OK a few minutes later, but said it “hurt”. I bet!
I don’t have a problem with taser use, except - it is NOT a nonlethal weapon. If it was people being whacked in the head with a billy club to render them unconscious, would we be so cavalier about its use? Would we accept “Only a few people die from the clubbing, and thousands are whacked every year across the country…” It’s use should be considered only in circumstance where it is really necessary - ie. the perp has a knife or other seriously dangerous weapon, not a stapler or a fist.
The police should be sure the perp has heard and understood and ignored the commands to stop and drop first. A taser CAN and has killed. Maybe it should be limited to the SWAT team; maybewe should make police use bullets instead so that we can be sure they understand the gravity of the force they are about to use.
Regarding Medical Examiners attributing deaths specifically to tasers, here is an instance where Taser International Inc. appealed such a cause of death determination and a judge “ordered [Medical Examiner] Kohler to rule McCullaugh’s death undetermined and to delete any references to homicide. The judge also said references to stun guns contributing to the deaths of two other men must be deleted from autopsy findings.”
Jasonik
All very good cases of police brutality, but if it wasn’t a stun gun it would have been something else. It’s like saying that if we banned all firearms it would reduce the amount of fire arm related suicides, sure it would, but you’d still have plenty dead people.
Well of all the people at the Braidwood Inquiry that took the stand and towed the BS line for the RCMP and Taser Intl. at least one man had the sack to tell the truth of the matter…
If you ask me, this story is more important then the rcmp inquiry, I’m glad to see that they are doing something to stop this type of situation from developing again.
Actually, no, reading between the lines - this is mostly bureaucratic fluff and nothing has really changed. I do wonder - if a guy can linger 9 hours in the immigration zone - what if he slipped out an unsecured door or window? Would the airport have ever noticed “our count is off by one - where did he go?”
Some minor things have been addressed; police now realize a taser is a serious weapon, not a harmless toy for torturing suspects. It has been raised (and hopefully addressed) that some tasers were not operating within the specified power. This and the Taman inquiry in Winnipeg (drunk officer after all-night party gets away with killing a motorist with his vehicle - not one of the dozen officers with him all night will testify they noticed him drinking or unsober) have demonstrated that police on the stand will LIE LIE LIE to cover their own butts, even in the face of direct contradictory evidence. Odds are they won’t be charged.
Which is sad, because so many police are otherwise good and helpful people; a few bad apples ruin it for everyone and then expect the rest to cover for them.
Yeah, I heard the exchange on the radio news today. When the Taser company lawyer asked the expert about a study, he started looking at something. The lawyer asked what he was looking at, and the expert said “my notes on the article”. The lawyer said “No, just look at the article please.” At that point the judge runing the enquiry stepped in and told the expert “you can refer to any material you want to.” Apparently the judge had to do that several times. Sounds pretty testy.
Meanwhile, the RCMP is having their own digital video analyst expert testify (former police officer, quelle surprise!). He will say that despite video evidence that shows the man did not move, he will testify that his analysis shows the man took 3 threatening steps toward the officers as they claim he did.
The moral of the story - expert witnesses, especially those you pay, can prove anything you want them to prove.