Re: Gang warfare in Vancouver?
 

I wasn't comparing anything, just commenting initially.

I'll bow out of this conversation

Re: Gang warfare in Vancouver?
 

Ok one last thing :p

A person breaking the law and giving the police a reason to use force has also signed up to this risk.

Ok, now i'm bowing out.

Re: Gang warfare in Vancouver?
 

Don't flounce. This is a perfectly legitimate conversation.

Re: Gang warfare in Vancouver?
 

Oooooh, a last jibe from beyond the flounce. Wrong of course, otherwise we wouldn't bother with all that nonsense about judges and juries.

Re: Gang warfare in Vancouver?
 

I never meant to compare the Menezes incident, simply to illustrate how quick you have to act as a cop and how terribly wrong things can go when you misread things.

Re: Gang warfare in Vancouver?
 

The RCMP is in a deep hole. I suggest you stop digging.

Specifically on the point of the Crown clearing the officers concerned from any wrongdoing, I would be unsurprised if that decision were overturned after the current inquiry. It seems increasingly plain that the (untested) evidence upon which the Crown based its decision is seriously flawed.

I don't think anyone here is attacking you personally to make themselves feel better, but you seem to be repeating the mantra that it's all too complicated for us poor civilians to understand. It is not; unless, that it, the justification for use of force is so wrapped up in doublespeak, obfuscation and outright deception that it is impossible to believe.

Re: Gang warfare in Vancouver?
 

I actually said too it was difficult to explain, not understand. As for crown basing their decision on flawed evidence, you, nor i for that matter have no idea what evidence they assessed. Charge approval is a very, very high burden and there has to be a ' substantial likelihood of conviction.'

The RCMP is as you sayin a big hole. I'm not about to let the earth bury me, so yes i shall keep digging> I owe it to not only myself but to my profession. I too am troubled about was happened, but I have too much invested in a vocation I care deeply about.

Re: Gang warfare in Vancouver?
 

So looking at these stats why would anyone legalize drugs such as cocaine, ecstasy, heroine etc?

There is clearly a huge problem with smoking and alcahol. By legalizing drugs you will certainly escalate the amount of deaths by them as normal law obiding people start over abusing and getting behind the car wheel.

Re: Gang warfare in Vancouver?
 

It's good that you use a newspaper not reknowned for sensationalism and twisting news and statistics.

Re: Gang warfare in Vancouver?
 

Under the charter all members of society enjoy certain freedoms and protections. Section 7 provides protections that relate to the right of silence. Under certain conditions one may be compelled to give evidence in a hearing or a trial. Remedy under the law is protection against self incrimination. In short, anything said during Braidwood can not be used in criminal proceedings.

Further for a finding of murder or negligence. Actions of the members would have to have been found to have been either intentional or willfully blind. I don't think anyone believes the members intended to kill Robert. The taser, we were told, is 100 percent safe, in fact it's touted as being the safest way of taking control. It would be impossible to prove the members ought to have known that the taser would have caused a person's death, and thus were acting without regard for a person's safety. Further, while the members rushed to action, they technically were operating within use of force guidelines, however flawed they may have been.

Then there is the matter of pathology. There has been no finding as to the precise cause of death. You cannot charge someone with causing another's death if you can't even prove how the person died. These are all factors that crown would have looked at. This is what i mean by saying you have to be a cop to see it from a different perspective. These comments are based on my professional opinion, having investigated numerous homicides and suspicious deaths. As an investigator you have to be methodical and you have to try and keep emotions out of it. At best there may be an assault with weapon charge, but because of the reasons already stated, i think this too would be difficult to prove.

I think the real problem we are left with is the failure of the force and the members to be accountable. The public demands answers and the force, as predictably as ever remains silent. I too demand answers and action on the part of the force, speaking both as a member of the public and a member of the force.

The second issue is the tasers themselves. I think there has been a tendency for the police to become over reliant on the devices. They have in a way completely changed how police use force, since they are the only means we have of completely immbolizing someone. However, i feel that we need more data on them. The RCMP have now shifted the devices to much higher on the use of force scale, - sadly too late for Robert.

Re: Gang warfare in Vancouver?
 

Is it not the case, then? The fact (belief) that The Sun is not renowned for those three items doesn't necessarily make the statement untrue. However as you live in the UK I will concede your knowledge on the matter to be greater than mine.

Re: Gang warfare in Vancouver?
 

I just want to add my support to the posts that dboy has made. He writes clearly and intelligently, and I agree with much of what he says (but then I would, wouldn't I ? :sneaky: ).

People have their own thoughts on the police service, ranging from blind hatred or contempt, to utmost respect and understanding- with most people having a healthy suspicious regard somewhere in between. This is brought about by their own experiences of what they see and who they meet. There are some fantastic officers out there, and there are some crap ones too.

I have direct experience from the police side of things and I am not out excuse any bad behaviour or wrongdoing. But I am allowed to understand how things work.

I think many of the issues in this particular tragedy will eventualy come down to training issues and the reliance on a piece of equipment that has been sold as something that it is perhaps not. I suspect a major overhaul of training has already commenced behind the scenes. Taser, to this day, insist their equipment is totally safe, they fudge answers to direct questions about it's safety record - but too many people around the world are dead after it's use. We, or they, may not know exactly why the person has died, or the exact effects it can have on individual bodies - and there have certainly been enough uses of this particular item to be making independent assessments of it's suitability. Too many questions have already been raised and I don't rely on Taser to tell me the truth. Management in police services across the world have been too slow to question it's suitability.

Those calling for a murder charge - do you really think officers grab their morning coffee and sit around chatting "Right lads, let's see who we can kill today then, eh? " (and although not part of this particular thread, but has been mentioned, same goes for the Menezes officers - did they set out that day with the absolute intention of killing someone? No.)

Were there failings at Vancouver? Yes, I say so. Did the officers over-react? Yes, it seems most likely, and to me, they have been coached well when providing their answers. Are they criminal murderers? I don't think so. Were they negligent in some regard? Yes, probably, IMO.

The RCMP must take responsibility for how they trained these men and the equipment they gave them to use. Is using the taser better than using a gun? It's supposed to be, and the person is not supposed to die. However, in the UK, officers are trained in the use of "less lethal" options - including Taser - ie, it's not "non lethal" There is a difference. I don't know if Canadian officers have this opinion. (If the taser option had not been available, would those officers have shot him with a firearm - I think that is not likely at all - but that would divert me onto a whole other subject of a general ability to "talk" to people, not something I see as a honed skill on this side of the ocean). The same could probably be said of many methods used nowadays to control erratic or dangerous people - tear gas, baton rounds, etc. People are not supposed to die - but they could, and they do, and that's the danger/skill/responsibility of making the decision to fire. That's not that same as intentionally killing them, ie, the requirement needed to prove murder.

I decided not to join the police in Canada because I would never carry a firearm, and could not take the responsibility that goes with that. I know my limitations. I am concerned with the level of training that my local officers receive (or don't receive) with regards to firearms training; and how they don't shoot each other, let alone any armed criminal, I don't know!

Selecting good candidates, and ongoing quality training are issues and challenges that all police services face. Not sure that they will ever get it right, to be honest - so is that a risk that the public are willing to take in order to achieve a service that meets most of their needs?

Re: Gang warfare in Vancouver?
 

[QUOTE=dboy;7371658] a
I think the real problem we are left with is the failure of the force and the members to be accountable. The public demands answers and the force, as predictably as ever remains silent.

And some of its officers less than truthful. Does wonders for the trust element.

Re: Gang warfare in Vancouver?
 

Thanks, Ann - a thoughtful and well considered post.

I think the part I've highlighted above pretty much sums up what I've been trying to say. It seems there are systemic failings in the training and guidelines for use of tasers, and possibly individual failings in the way those guidelines are interpreted and applied in practice. The officers certainly (I hope and trust) didn't intend any harm to Mr Dziekanski; but, while we await the resumption of the Braidwood enquiry, it seems pretty plain from what we've heard so far that there has been at least an element of deliberately mis-stating facts in the statements given by officers involved. They ought to be held accountable for that, imho.

I think Taser International has some serious questions to answer. While they have only ever lost one product liability lawsuit, they have settled several others out-of-court without admitting liability, and the one they lost was to do with not warning police that multiple shocks from a taser device could be fatal. I gather police forces across Canada have changed the operating procedures for taser deployment since - that's a good thing, but the company's continued insistence that the weapon is some sort of panacaea doesn't help anyone.

The RCMP also has some questions to answer - to my mind, the fundamental issue here is one of trust and trustworthiness. If the officers concerned were, as you suggest, coached well on their answers before giving evidence to Braidwood, the RCMP ought to be examining how it balances its priorities. To a lay observer, all those concerned, individually and collectively, seem to have been more concerned with protecting their own reputation than with pursuing truth or justice or any other noble ideal.

Re: Gang warfare in Vancouver?
 

Couldn't agree more and what is interesting is the contrast between this incident and the apology issued Tuesday in Golden by the officer responsible for the none search for the Quebec couple.

http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/lo...b=MontrealHome