whats odd is that there has been 2 instances in my life where a crazed person has been talked out of doing hwatever there doing by my dad. one time a coworker of his came to our house, claiming he killed a cop, then started acting very agresive and dangerous, about 4 of our neighbours called the cops, my dad negotiated, and got him calm. cops came, and said he didnt take his meds, he was wanted due to a conection to something htey wouldnt tell us, and said it was nearly imposible that he was calmed down without his meds and they were quite glad because they believed they would have had to use the tazers. another time some lady freaked out at a mcdonalds, started trashing stuff because she couldnt fit a coffee lid on a pop cup, and said the man is screwing us over and wants us all dead. talks to her, cops come and forcibly took her away in cuffs and said my dad handled it very well. manager of mcdonalds said thanks, gave us our meal free.... only things is none of this hit the news. we need cops who can negotiate with their words, not tons of volts of electricity.

They did not have a translator. The person there said "He speaks Russian or something" (or something close to that) when in fact he was Polish.

He did not attempt to approach the police. He put up his hands and tried to walk away. He was a noncompliant suspect, but he was not actively resisting them in any way. Rather than the four of them moving in and tackling him they immediately escalated to the highest less-lethal option on their use of force continuum.

When he went down, he wasn't resisting- he was actually suffering an extremely painful heart attack, which is what killed him. A heart attack can cause massive pain, which is why morphine is one of the first line medical treatments; he wasn't fighting the cops, he was in fact in extreme agony as he died.

What I see here in looking at the video is four officers arriving on scene, spending exactly twenty five seconds assessing it, making no effort to determine the nature of the situation or the cause of the man's distress, followed by an inappropriate escalation of force on a noncompliant but not actively resistant or threatening suspect. This had the nunintended consequence in the officer's death.

Some of the things I'm seeing here are an inapprorpiately extreme aversion to risk by the officers, poor judgement, and inadequate use of force training (or a poor grasp of what training the did receive). The cops screwed up, and now an innocent man is dead. I'm not gonna say I hope they fry or any such nonsense- indeed, this will weigh heavily on their conscience - but this is indicative of potentially huge problems in the way cops are being trained these days. A taser is your last resort before a bullet.

We talked about it today in school

Everyone pretended to know what they where talking about

I don't think the police shoud've given the guy(who filmed it) the video back 

scrumsguy wrote: We talked about it today in school Everyone pretended to know what they where talking about I don't think the police shoud've given the guy(who filmed it) the video back

Why not? The tape is his property, and moreover, police transparency is in the public interest.

Carl: I would have established a cordon to keep people from entering or exiting the scene. I'd have had three of the officers step back, approached a bit closer (not risky close, but close enough to establish a personal rapport and appear at ease) in a nonthreatening manner and attempted to calm him down, while trying to get a good guess what language he spoke- get a map, for instance (easy enough to find at an airport) and gesturing on the map and at him to try to get him to point out what country he's from. Then I'd have sought out someone speaking his language and talked to him through the interpreter, however long this took. From that point it's all communication.

I'm glad you've no desire to be a cop. A bit more reasoning and situational discretion will serve you well if you intend to be a military officer.

carl_the_sniper wrote: Hypothetical Problem 1: You can't communicate with the guy at all to find out what language he speaks. Proceed with what you would now do. Who says I don't desire to be a cop? What was wrong with my reasoning, I called it like I saw it. Oh and I'd also like to add that there WAS a translator.

I already covered that- the person there was saying "He can't speak, english, he's speaking Russian or something" (when he was actually speaking Polish). So the person correctly identified him as being Eastern European, but that's all.

I already gaves some possibilities, too- show him a map of the world, point at him, then gesture to the map as long as it takes to get him to point out his country, while having another officer go around asking "Does anyone know any eastern European languages?". In an airport someone would be bound to step out and help.

I would not taser him without provocation and a perceived violent threat. The cop intended to taser him well before they actually reached the guy, so don't give me crap about 'threateneing gestures'.

carl_the_sniper wrote: brihard wrote: carl_the_sniper wrote: Hypothetical Problem 1: You can't communicate with the guy at all to find out what language he speaks. Proceed with what you would now do. Who says I don't desire to be a cop? What was wrong with my reasoning, I called it like I saw it. Oh and I'd also like to add that there WAS a translator.   I already covered that- the person there was saying "He can't speak, english, he's speaking Russian or something" (when he was actually speaking Polish). So the person correctly identified him as being Eastern European, but that's all. I already gaves some possibilities, too- show him a map of the world, point at him, then gesture to the map as long as it takes to get him to point out his country, while having another officer go around asking "Does anyone know any eastern European languages?". In an airport someone would be bound to step out and help. I would not taser him without provocation and a perceived violent threat. The cop intended to taser him well before they actually reached the guy, so don't give me crap about 'threateneing gestures'. If he had gave up when they came up to him, he would not have been tasered. From what I saw, he made gestures that could have been interpreted as potentionally violent. You have to imagine your situation as a police officer on the scene, not with knowing what you do now. Continuing the situation: What if you are unable to establish any contact at all even just pointing at a map? What is your next move? By the way, the lady translating did know eastern european languages. Even after she realized that they couldn't communicate verbally, she still tried to communicate through other methods.

He did give up. He put his hands up, turned and attempted to walk away from the chairs he'd been tossing around; that's a pretty clear sign of submission.

You're not getting the point here. You don't taser someone because they're not instantly compliant; you taser them when they present a threat. They made no real effort to establish communications or dialogue.

I'm not going to indluge your constant 'what ifs'. I already presented my alternative solution; anyone can 'what if' until they're blue in the face.

You're awfully keen to use dangerous force on people just because they don't speak English and thus can't instantly understand the cops. The police officer asking 'Can I taser him?' is an extremely damning look into the officer's point of mind.

Also, just as a note, in the vast majority of cases, four officers can definitely subdue a single person. Especially one who's attempting to walk away from you with his head bowed and his hands out away from his body.

The cops screwed up. You try to communicate with a person; you don't try for an instant takedown.

Yes I watched the clip, paying close attention to the minute leading up to the actual tasering.

They pointed a taser at him, which for all intents and purposes looks like a gun. He was likely scared and confused, and so tried to walk away from the chairs with his hands up.

There were only 25 seconds of time in which the police decided that it escalated, but the video makes it crystal clear that they had ALREADY DECIDED TO TASER HIM before they were anywhere close to him, becfore they even attempted to speak to him. They ignored the civilian who thought that she could help. That is utterly indisputable fact and is inexcusable.

Cops wrote: "Can I taser him?" "Yes."

Then about fifteen to twenty seconds later they blast him. He didn't start freaking out until he had what looked like a gun aimed at him for no reason that made any sense to him. They didn't try to talk him down. They were told on arriving that he didn't speak English. They made no effort to find a translator.

If, as the guy in charge, you can't exercise your discretion to attempt to deescalate a situation before you resort to force, then you suck at your job. This could have been an opportunity for some very good policing, and instead they made an incompetent, negligent mistake that led to a man's death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dzieka%C5%84ski_Taser_incident - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dzieka%C5%84ski_Taser_in cident

Some highlights from the Wiki coverage of this incident:

Wikipedia wrote: "Bystanders and airport security guards were unable to communicate with him because he could only speak Polish and they did not use the airport's telephone translation service." "Four RCMP officers arrived and entered the customs room where Dziekanski was waiting. They apparently directed him to stand against a wall, to which Dziekanski complied but apparently picked up a stapler while doing so.[3][2] Shortly thereafter, about 25 seconds after arriving at the scene, police tasered Dziekanski, even though he had calmed down and was standing with his hands at his side." "Dziekanski did not receive CPR until paramedics arrived on the scene approximately 15 minutes later." (Police officers are most definitely trained to do CPR) "A retired Vancouver Police superintendent commented after viewing the video that Dziekanski did not appear to be making “any threatening gestures” towards the police and he did not see why it became a police incident" "Particularly contentious is that the RCMP officers made no attempt to defuse or gain control of the situation before resorting to the taser."

If I had continued wsith your what-ifs, I still would not have tasered a man who was not presenting a physical threat.

carl_the_sniper wrote: I have also said many times that it was the fault of both sides, and if either side had responded properly, he WOULD NOT have died.

So, you admit that the police did not 'respond properly', yet you maintain that they were justified in their escalation of force?

What 'sudden lunges'? The ones that a retired police officer doesn't accept as a possible threat? And you're still utterly ignoring the oft-raised point that a police officer asked 'Can I taser him?' well before they even got close to the man, and another officer told him 'yes', all this before any threat could possibly have been made to the officers. Their mind was made up when they walked into that terminal that they were gonna tase the guy.

I don't care if he did the wrong thing. He's not the one being criticized here. The police are the ones with the duty to protect the public and to do their job in line with their own policies and discretion. You can dance around it all you want, but the argument that I'm making and defending is that the incompetence of the police is what led to this man's death. The cop was the one who pulled the trigger on that taser, not him.

He commited acts that day that justified police prescence and intervention. He did NOT do anything justifying a tasering while the police were present on scene. The police did not exercise sound judgement, and made no attempt to deescalate the situation with words, nor to get a translator despite the airport having a translation service available in house. It's clearly stated that at the time he was shocked he was 'standing calmly with his hands at his side'. What part of this don't you get? You don't taser a man until he is physically violent. The police did not exercise lawful use of force. They are in the wrong. The used a taser in lieu of their common sense, patience, and judgement, and now a man who wanted to immigrate here is dead. Welcome to Canada.

Carl, you asked me why I hadn't answered the question- and yet you quoted my reply to it in your own post. Way to go. See the last paragraph you quoted. That's my reply. It's not a simple yes or no.

You're not being 'forced to answer' anything. WE're merely asking you a lot of things that you're ignoring. Oh, and I must point out that while the retired police officer wasn't there, neither were you nor I. But the retired police officer and I both have training in use and escalation of force, as well as assessing threats, albeit in different (police vs military) contexts.

You try to posit that something was done, but with only 25 seconds on scene (and ten seconds in the same room as him) they clearly didn't even attempt to exhaust all alternatives before greatly escalating force.

You're still ignoring that the police had already decided to taser him when they walked in there, according to interviews with the man who made the tape.

You're still ignoring that the police made no effort to get a translator.

I suggest you go back and watch the video a few more times- I just watched it another half dozen times at the time of the actual tasering to see if I can see any of these sudden movements you're talking about, but no. They walk in, surround him against a wall, and blast him.

carl_the_sniper wrote: I could point out many places where brihard has dodged my questions.

Please do so. I tend to answer posts, not individual questions- but if you want to play that game, give me a list of the many places where I've dodged your questions, and I'll answer in a nice numbered list for you.

brihard wrote: No no, if you're gonna make a statement like that, best not try to roll over when you're called out on it. I want to see those questions.

carl_the_sniper wrote: Continuing the situation: What if you are unable to establish any contact at all even just pointing at a map? What is your next move?

Wait. Canvas bystanders for anyone who speaks eastern European languages. Ask airport security to get someone from their translation service their to help out.

carl_the_sniper wrote: Who says I don't desire to be a cop? What was wrong with my reasoning, I called it like I saw it.

Rhetorical question is rhetorical

carl_the_sniper wrote: Continuing the situation: What if you are unable to establish any contact at all even just pointing at a map? What is your next move?

carl_the_sniper wrote: See reply above So do you not belive that it was at all his fault?

Paraphrasing myself here- his actions justified a police involvement, not an escalation of force to the level that was reached. I do not beleive his death is at all his fault, as it is utterly unreasonable to expect the police to respond the way he did to his actions when they were on scene. He did nothing threatening in the time they were there, and they were only in the same room as him for ten seconds, so no, I do not believe that it was at all his fault. The police responded completely inappropriately to the situation, using grosssly inappropriate levels of force.

carl_the_sniper wrote: I have said it MANY times that they did have a translator who coundn't establish communication.

The airport has a translation serice. The police at no point had anyone on scene who could act as a translator. One person thought he was speaking russian, and said they needed to get a russian speaker, though he was actually speaking polish. Yes, you have said many times that they did have a translator that couldn't establish communication, and in all thsoe instances you were incorrect. They had a helpful bystander who was able to tell the language was eastern European, and told them they needed someone who spoke Russian.

carl_the_sniper wrote: I have also said many times that it was the fault of both sides, and if either side had responded properly, he WOULD NOT have died. Do you agree with this? If not, please directly answer the question, why.

C&Ping myself here: "

He commited acts that day that justified police prescence and intervention. He did NOT do anything justifying a tasering while the police were present on scene. The police did not exercise sound judgement, and made no attempt to deescalate the situation with words, nor to get a translator despite the airport having a translation service available in house. It's clearly stated that at the time he was shocked he was 'standing calmly with his hands at his side'. What part of this don't you get? You don't taser a man until he is physically violent. The police did not exercise lawful use of force. They are in the wrong. The used a taser in lieu of their common sense, patience, and judgement, and now a man who wanted to immigrate here is dead. Welcome to Canada."

carl_the_sniper wrote: On the physicat threat/what if's: To see my answer, just look to my previous posts where I have been typing the same thing over and over again.

That's a statement, not a question. 'What ifs' are irrelevant to a situation already occured that has been captured on tape.

carl_the_sniper wrote: Sure, in the end it was the wrong decision, but from their pespective, and with the obvious confustion on both ends,

That's not a question, that's a sentence cut in half. But in anticipation of what the remainder may be, confusion is not a justificiation for escalation of force. The fact that it was taken as such is indivcative of a need for more training in what constitutes adequate provocation for a use of force escalation, as well as highlighting the officers; complete lack of effort to find out what the actual problem was.

carl_the_sniper wrote: So brihard, I ask you this for the last time: Do you think that both sides did the wrong thing, or was it all the police doing the wrong thing that caused him to be tasered?

Already answered three times in this post. You get the idea.

So...?

Gatyr wrote: ...Rebuttal...

LOL that's what she said.

carl_the_sniper wrote: The question i asked the most was never answered directly. The answer I was looking for contained a yes or a no. All points were countered. So what more you you want of me brihard?

I've still not seen you justify why it's acceptable for the police to have escalated force in that situation, other than the 'stress of the moment' argument. You've also not clarified your 'it was wrong, but right in this particular instance' stance. You've not defended their complete lack of effort to establish communications or to seek a translator, yet you still maintain that the police did the right thing in the situation they were in. You won't accept my arguments that what they did constitutes negligence on their part, yet you don't offer any reasonable or factual counter to anything I say... I really don't know what else to tell you except that this is like trying to debate a particularly stubborn brick wall.

carl_the_sniper wrote: brihard wrote: carl_the_sniper wrote: The question i asked the most was never answered directly. The answer I was looking for contained a yes or a no. All points were countered. So what more you you want of me brihard? I've still not seen you justify why it's acceptable for the police to have escalated force in that situation, other than the 'stress of the moment' argument. You've also not clarified your 'it was wrong, but right in this particular instance' stance. You've not defended their complete lack of effort to establish communications or to seek a translator, yet you still maintain that the police did the right thing in the situation they were in. You won't accept my arguments that what they did constitutes negligence on their part, yet you don't offer any reasonable or factual counter to anything I say... I really don't know what else to tell you except that this is like trying to debate a particularly stubborn brick wall. How the hell am I being stubborn? I openly came out and said that I was wrong.

My bad dude, sorry. Somehow I missed that in the copypasta.

brihard wrote: scrumsguy wrote: We talked about it today in school Everyone pretended to know what they where talking about I don't think the police shoud've given the guy(who filmed it) the video back    Why not? The tape is his property, and moreover, police transparency is in the public interest.

Because its evidence to a death/murder(however you call it) do the police give back evidence? not That i've heard of

scrumsguy wrote: brihard wrote: scrumsguy wrote: We talked about it today in school Everyone pretended to know what they where talking about I don't think the police shoud've given the guy(who filmed it) the video back    Why not? The tape is his property, and moreover, police transparency is in the public interest. Because its evidence to a death/murder(however you call it) do the police give back evidence? not That i've heard of

They don't need the original when a copy is more than sufficient. In fact, they have no right to seize the tape- he volunteered it on the understanding that it would be returned to him as his property.

I wish the police were videotaped more often. It encourages accountability.

carl_the_sniper wrote: Da Hui wrote: carl_the_sniper wrote: evillepaintball wrote: High Voltage wrote: So please, someone explain to me how a broken arm, kick in the groin, or maybe a cut would have been worse than this man losing his life? hindsight is always 20/20edit:  after watching the video, i didnt see any reason why he should have been tazerd.  he didnt make any threatening gestures, he was just standing there, clearly unarmed, with his hands visible, and his back to the glass.  they could have easily just tackled him.  however, the original post about it being murder...no.  murder requires premeditation.  im sure if the cops knew the guy would die from it, they wouldnt have chosen that course of action. What video were you watching? It was definately provoked. Watch the 5 seconds just before they tazer him. It was not just a non-responding suspect that they tazered, he definately made threatening gestures and movements right seconds they tasered him. He was picking things up and throwing/breaking things. They had a translator trying to talk to him. The tasering was not unprovoked. Exactly. I have to laugh at the first two pages of this thread, at all the people who didn't bother to watch the whole video or find a decent story on it and decided to post generic replies on the subject.

carl_the_sniper wrote: Edit: I just rewatched the video with the sound all the way up. It turns out I was wrong about the threatening gestures. What I previously thought of as the threatening gestures, were actually the reaction from the taser. I was under the impression that he was tasered and then immediately fell to the ground. The secret is in turning up the volume to pinpoint the tasers. I still have the same basic idea, that the police officers would be thinking of the worst possiblility, and make decisions based on that. In the world we live in, there is still large fear of bombs and attacks and this is elevated especially at airports. There we go: I have been a man and admitted to being wrong. Not many forumers here would do that, you must admit.

Not epic, but many lulz were had.

Hell, I didn't even have to watch the video a second time...