Outrageous

[mcrit]

So, "Don't judge what you don't understand" means "@#$! off" in BN's lexicon. I'm guessing BN gets in a lot of fights.

Quote:

I gave you the benefit of the doubt by an order of magnitude. If you want to readdress the issue get a more precise number and I'll revisit it.

This just shows your weak grasp of this issue. How would we even know when transgressions occur?

Good question, how do you know when they occur? All I'm asking for is a little data. If the problem is as wide spread as you say you should have no trouble finding it. I've had to deal with cops more times than I care to admit. Some were jerks, but I've never personally seen one do anything illegal. If what you are claiming is true I'm sure I'd have run across it myself by now.

Refering to the increase in gangs and crime in general:

Again, not the fault of rank and file cops. See my comments regarding the court system. There may very well be a lack of police presence in rural BC. At worst that is the fault of the RCMP's upper management (not rank and file) and is probably tied to budget limitations.

The RCMP is a law enforcement SYSTEM and when one part of the SYSTEM fails then the entire SYSTEM fails. All of these levels of law enforcement are interdependent. Therefore I see the silence of the rank and file members as complicity in the overall failure of the system. The fact that the rank and file members aren't screaming from the rooftops that they want these four assholes tarred and feathered to me is complicity in the failure of the system. It is reinforced by guys like wrongjeremey who are clearly members of the force who come on here and defend the indefensible.

When one part of a system fails you fix that part of the system. The courts have failed to keep criminals off the street, there is very little the rank and file RCMP guy can do about that (aside from vigilanteism, which I take it you would not condone). Going after the RCMP for the increase in crime is like changing your spark plugs when your brakes start to squeak.

hahaha, this really made me laugh. You hang your argument on one word? Okay, then remove it, my argument should have been made without the word theoretically but since your argument is falling apart I see your willingness to resort to simple semantics as an admission of a failed argument.

Take the word in or out, it matters not. Every system will fail on occassion. The fact that 4 RCMP officers were "liars, criminals, or abusers" does not give license to apply those labels to every RCMP officer. I've met a very few Aboriginal individuals to whom I could have applied a number of unflattering terms. No one on here questions that it would be foolish to apply those same terms to all Aboriginals. Same goes for doctors, Black people, Brown people, Pilots, Dentists, Strippers, Hookers (ask Cat about them.....he seems to have the most experience with them),...........

I don't respect anything........

.....that might be why you've had bad experiences with cops.

[Cat Driver]

Hookers (ask Cat about them.....he seems to have the most experience with them),...........

I find it interesting how you keep harping on this subject of me and my connection with hookers mcrit.

What exactly do you have against hookers?

[Donald]

Hmmm...another drunk driving case, and heres the result:

North Vancouver police officer loses 10 days pay for drunk driving

Cpl. Darren Baker was ordered Thursday to forfeit 10 days pay after he admitted at the hearing to driving under the influence of alcohol in December 2007.The punishment is the most severe Baker could have received without being fired or demoted.

Still, it could have been a lot worse.

The officer was facing a criminal charge of impaired driving last year after he was pulled over for erratic driving in West Vancouver.

The charge was eventually stayed in January because Crown prosecutors overlooked a request by the defence to provide a key piece of evidence — a videotape of the West Vancouver police cellblock where Baker's breathalyzer sample was taken.

By the time the mistake was realized, the tape had been recycled.

Oh gee oops, didn't mean to erase that tape, darn.

[ronjeremy]

..

[ronjeremy]

You're right, I do serve the public. I will put myself in harms way to serve them, and have. Just as I must be accountable to the public, I expect the public to listen to the reasons and try to understand why I do what I do. I don't expect everyone to agree, but I also don't expect to be labelled a liar, criminal or abuser for doing my job. You cannot judge what you don't understand, just as I can't. And if, in the course of my job I break the law, I know I will be held responsible for my actions and I fully agree, there can be no cowboys in a job that has the power police have.

See this is the thing. You are not accountable to the public at all. You are accountable to noone. WHen you do do something wrong you call up your buddy and he comes and makes sure he can't find any wrongdoing. Society is not a part of the process.

How are police not accountable to the public? Laws govern this country and laws are put in place by the government in power which are in turn elected by the public. Police must work within the scope of the law. How is that not accountable?

Are police only found to be accountable if they are found guilty by public outcry? Regardless of the fact that no laws have been broken?

The rest of your post just goes to show that you don't even wish to see my side. You don't even wish to try to get what I'm saying. You cannot make a proper judgement if you don't understand something. I cannot walk into a hangar and tell an AME that he is doing his job incorrectly, that I know a better way, and not be met with "what the @#$! are you talking about?" You can question to learn, you can make an observation, you can even ask why, but when you start to tell people what to do when you are uninformed then you cannot possibly be making a proper argument.

[ronjeremy]

Hmmm...another drunk driving case, and heres the result:

North Vancouver police officer loses 10 days pay for drunk driving

Cpl. Darren Baker was ordered Thursday to forfeit 10 days pay after he admitted at the hearing to driving under the influence of alcohol in December 2007.The punishment is the most severe Baker could have received without being fired or demoted.

Still, it could have been a lot worse.

The officer was facing a criminal charge of impaired driving last year after he was pulled over for erratic driving in West Vancouver.

The charge was eventually stayed in January because Crown prosecutors overlooked a request by the defence to provide a key piece of evidence — a videotape of the West Vancouver police cellblock where Baker's breathalyzer sample was taken.

By the time the mistake was realized, the tape had been recycled.

Oh gee oops, didn't mean to erase that tape, darn.

Mistakes happen daily in every walk of life, but I guess the only mistakes that matter are those that involve a police officer. Yes, something like this should never happen, ever, but it does. Just as planes crash for "human error".

I believe it was Mcrit that asked why the actions of a few RCMP all of a sudden paint every police officer in Canada with the same brush? Pilots have been pulled of planes drunk, I suppose every pilot must fly drunk, its a broken system.

[BoostedNihilist]

I cannot walk into a hangar and tell an AME that he is doing his job incorrectly, that I know a better way, and not be met with "what the @#$! are you talking about?"

herein lies the problem.

YES YOU CAN and YES YOU SHOULD.

If you can't see a hypothetical situation where you see your AME doing something wrong and you don't say anything because you are not qualified, then you should not bring it up as a comparison. It is quite silly to not tell your AME he is doing his job incorrectly if you know for a fact he is. In fact, you are remiss if you do not enlighten him as to his wrongdoings. Come on, you know legal this is kids stuff.. You claim to have a superior legal prowess yet you don't even know negligence when you see it, then you bring negligence up as a comparative defense? You want me to take your word on your superior legal prowess and you support your argument with this bullshit? jesus... it *IS* as bad as I thought. If this is the 'best and brightest' argument then I really believe my point has been proven.

You don't even wish to try to get what I'm saying

Ok back to grade four. I *GET* what you are saying. This is to say I understand your argument. What I am saying is that it is a weak, bullshit like argument which I don't see as based in logic or based on ethics. Get it?

You are quite right. So long as you continue to openly support the actions of these officers we will never agree on this issue. I would also be hard pressed to remove you from the pool of liars, criminals and abusers. Since I doubt highly you are either of those three I might have to expand my generalization and add asshole to the category list. Since the definition of asshole is broad I am quite confident that this category will include a great many more members than the standard subsets of liars, criminals and abusers. It is quite easy to move yourself out of the liar, criminal, abuser categories but it is a great deal harder to climb out of the asshole pit.

[Wilbur]

There are a few different issues at play here.

First, if the cops always lie, cheat and cover for one another, how do any of them get prosecuted? There are many examples of cops, including RCMP, having been prosecuted, convicted, and sometimes sent to prison for crimes they have committed, on and off duty. You rarely here about it because the news media usually has other things they consider more newsworthy that day. The courts are all open to the public, the news media monitors them and reports what they choose to report; the cops can't limit them to prevent bad press. Those prosecutions were successful because other cops investigated, collected evidence, and helped Crown build a case.

Unlike most occupations, anyone in the justice system will also face employer imposed discipline. With the example of the impaired driving cop who got off because the Crown lawyer failed to respond to a defence request, he was still disciplined by his employer with a 10 day suspension. I don't know what RCMP Cpls make, but that likely comes out to loss of about $3500 to $4000 pay as well as his career being sewered.

If you want to know about RCMP who have been charged or disciplined for misconduct, there is a website that tracks and publishes that stuff. The link has been posted by someone in the past.

When incidents occur, there are multiple investigations. This taser incident started with a criminal investigation. Crown determined the evidence did not support a criminal prosecution. That does not mean the cops did nothing wrong or were "cleared" as some say. It means nothing more then that their actions that night did not meet the test for being criminal in nature.

The current inquest is looking at the incident with a much broader perspective and will no doubt generate a thick report containing many recommendations on how the situation could have been handled better. In turn, RCMP and other police forces, as well as other justice system agencies, will incorporate those recommendations into policy, training, etc. I expect the taser will be reclassified as a higher force option and other policies relating to provision of medical aid will be amended/developed. There will no doubt be many findings regarding things that went wrong that night with how many people and agencies did there jobs, and recommendations for how they can do them better in the future. But simply making mistakes in your job or not performing as well as people would like does not make one a punk or a criminal.

Nobody posting here knows the facts of this incident, and won't know them until the final report is published and they read it cover to cover. How many will do that? If you don't know the facts, you don't know what happened. If you don't know the law, regulations, and policies under which law enforcement works, and you haven't been trained in dealing with hostile people, you have no basis on which to pass judgement. In the analogy of challenging an AME on his work, sure, I should do that if I understand the job and methods for what he is doing, the regulations that apply, and recognize he is doing something incorrectly. If I don't, I should ask what he's doing, why he does it that way, and learn. Otherwise, I'm nothing more than opinionated and meddlesome.

I find it somewhat amusing here that so many are so vehemently judgemental of police performance that causes harm to people, but paradoxically have a such high tolerance and empathy for pilots who risk, maim and kill their passengers by willingly flying unservicable, overloaded, and underfuelled airplanes, and in less than legal weather conditions.

[mcrit]

Quote:

Hookers (ask Cat about them.....he seems to have the most experience with them),...........

I find it interesting how you keep harping on this subject of me and my connection with hookers mcrit.

What exactly do you have against hookers?

Cat, I was just trying to hold out an olive branch by deferring to your superior knowledge and vast experience in the area.

I've got nothing against hookers, (well except that they don't pay income tax, but I really don't even mind that 'cos god knows I'd dodge it if I could). If you don't want to talk about hookers, you could always explain (again) how the Hell's Angels are morally superior.....

[Jastapilot]

And the outrage continues:

‘Appalling’ testimony draws guffaws from the gallery

By Ian Mulgrew,
Vancouver Sun columnist
March 2, 2009 11:02 PM

The public gallery now is laughing in disbelief at the RCMP version of events the night Robert Dziekanski was Tasered and died at Vancouver International Airport.

Const. Kwesi Millington, 32, became the third officer Monday to acknowledge his notes, his statements and the report he was required to make after deploying the conducted energy weapon were riddled with errors.

He admitted at the public inquiry into the tragedy that you would have a “distorted view” of the incident if you read his accounts as opposed to viewing an amateur video that captured what happened Oct. 14, 2007.

Millington didn’t even get right the number of times he zapped the 40-year-old Polish immigrant with the conducted energy weapon.

After watching the video of Dziekanski screaming in agony, collapsing to the floor writhing in pain, Millington maintained he was justified in jolting him — again, again, again and again.

In all, the weapon’s internal memory showed the officer deployed the Taser five times. And he said he’d do it again.

After the first blast, Dziekanski ended up on the floor with his feet in the air but Millington said he “perceived” him to be still standing.

“From my training, the effects of the Taser being fired are that the person being applied against is supposed to fall immediately and supposed to immobilize them,” he told the inquiry.

“It didn’t have that effect on Mr. Dziekanski so I fired again.”

Millington said during his third attempted discharge of the Taser he heard a clacking noise that indicated the weapon wasn’t working properly.

He then removed its probe cartridge, applied the Taser directly to Dziekanski’s back and deployed it in what he called “pain compliance” mode.

“He was still kicking and fighting and struggling with members,” Millington explained.

The Mountie, who is six-feet-one inch, 205 pounds — about four inches taller and 30 pounds heavier than Dziekanski — insisted throughout that he was scared for himself and the safety of his colleagues.

This was the first and only time he has ever used the device.

Like the others, he wore a Kevlar vest, carried a firearm, a baton and pepper spray. Nevertheless, he thought Dziekanski was dangerous.

“He had the stapler open, his other fist raised; he was in a combative stance as we call it, and was approaching the officers, I believe with the intent to attack so I deployed the Taser,” Millington said.

“I thought he was going to attack. I acted to stop the threat.”

It was an appalling performance by a professional police officer and sparked chortles and guffaws from some in the audience.

His lawyer was forced to rise.

“There should be some decorum,” Ravi Hira complained. “I’m concerned about noises from the audience.”

Thankfully, Dziekanski’s mother was unable to attend and did not have to endure the constable’s painfully inadequate testimony about why he pulled the trigger again and again and again and again.

Even commission counsel Art Vertlieb seemed incredulous.

He continued his questioning by asking the officer to stand and display the threatening gesture Dziekanski made with the stapler.

“Don’t go there,” warned inquiry commissioner Thomas Braidwood before Vertlieb could ridicule the Mountie.

Millington is the third of the four RCMP officers who confronted Dziekanski to testify and each has recited a near identical story using similar language that has been shown to be misleading on the same key points.

Const. Bill Bentley, Const. Gerry Rundel and Millington, who were all junior cops with little experience, exaggerated the threat posed by Dziekanski and described him as more volatile and menacing than he was.

After the incident, the three were sent to the detachment office where they spent time together without any other officer present before being questioned by investigators looking into Dziekanski’s death.

They also got together for a critical incident debriefing Oct. 27, about a fortnight before the video was made public.

Millington, though, said he and the others have not discussed what happened nor did they compare stories before testifying.

imulgrew@vancouversun.com

© Copyright © The Vancouver Sun

[Jastapilot]

GARY MASON

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

March 2, 2009 at 8:10 PM EST

VANCOUVER — It wasn't the first time the RCMP officer who tasered Robert Dziekanski had watched video of the incident. But this time, Constable Kwesi Millington had to watch it while reconciling the visual evidence with the statements he made immediately after the incident.

Constable Millington took the stand yesterday at the inquiry into Mr. Dziekanski's death at Vancouver International Airport in the early morning hours of Oct. 14, 2007. It was not pretty. Consistently, information he supplied to an RCMP investigating officer shortly after the incident was contradicted by the now-infamous video.

After nearly a week of testimony from three of the four Mounties involved in the confrontation that day, it is clear that if it were not for that video, the version of events supplied by the officers wouldn't have come close to what actually happened.

Draw your own conclusions why.

Mountie says he tasered Dziekanski in response to 'combative stance'
On the stand at the inquiry that former B.C. Supreme Court justice Thomas Braidwood is holding into Mr. Dziekanski's death, Constable Millington said the 40-year-old Polish immigrant was obviously agitated when the officers caught up with him. Yet the video of the encounter showed Mr. Dziekanski was anything but agitated and was standing there quite calmly but obviously confused. Why wouldn't he be, given he couldn't understand a word the officers were saying?

At one point, Mr. Dziekanski put his hands in the air and started walking away. He grabbed a stapler from a counter. According to Constable Millington's statement given at the local detachment a few hours later, and another statement given the following day, Mr. Dziekanski “raised [the stapler] in the air” and assumed a “combative stance” before stepping toward the officers in a “threatening manner.”

But that wasn't true at all. First, it's clear from the video that Mr. Dziekanski never raised the stapler above the level of his belt, or just slightly above, and if he stepped in the direction of the officers, it was a barely perceptible baby step. But this was enough to compel Constable Millington to take out his taser and pump Mr. Dziekanski with 50,000 volts.

I have seen the video of the tasering maybe a hundred times now and it never ceases to shock me. It did again yesterday. The worst part is right after Mr. Dziekanski is tasered for the first time, sending him reeling backward, holding his stomach, like someone who has just been shot. As he staggered backward, he fell on his backside and his legs shot up in the air.

The sight of him on the ground, screaming and writhing in pain, his arms holding his chest, is a terrible thing to watch. It is at this point, unbelievably, that Constable Millington gave the man a second blast from his taser.

So why, with Mr. Dziekanski on the ground, clearly in pain, did the officer taser him again? Just one second after the first hit?

In his original statement, Constable Millington said it was because Mr. Dziekanski hadn't gone down after the first discharge. But he clearly had.

“I was wrong about that,” Constable Millington said on the stand.

He also said in his statement that his fellow officers had to wrestle Mr. Dziekanski to the ground because he wouldn't fall.

“I was wrong,” the officer had to admit again.

Still, Constable Millington defended the second shot because he felt Mr. Dziekanski wasn't completely immobilized and was still “moving and struggling.” Yes, struggling for his life as it would turn out.

It got worse.

After Mr. Dziekanski was on the ground, with three officers on top of him, one with a knee in his back, Constable Millington fired the taser a third time. This time, because the “male was still resisting the officers.” That's right, three RCMP officers, all close to six feet and collectively weighing nearly 600 pounds, couldn't subdue someone the Mounties estimated to be 5'9” and weigh 180.

But Constable Millington wasn't finished.

He said he thought his taser wasn't working properly because it was making a “clacking sound” so he took out the cartridge and put the weapon in push-stun mode, which is when the taser is applied directly to a person's body, causing severe pain.

This, Constable Millington did two times even though he told the RCMP officer who took his statement that he had applied the taser in push-stun mode only once. Another fact refuted by the video evidence. By lunch break, I counted at least six statements that Constable Millington made immediately after the incident that ended up being contradicted by the video.

But Constable Millington did do one thing right.

When Mr. Dziekanski started turning blue, he suggested his fellow officers turn him over on his back, into what police call “recovery position.”

By then it was too late.

[Driving Rain]

But Constable Millington did do one thing right.

When Mr. Dziekanski started turning blue, he suggested his fellow officers turn him over on his back, into what police call “recovery position.”

By then it was too late.

Afraid he struck out on this one too. By moving him to his back he probably hastened his death.
The video below shows how to do it properly


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR4I0Ho6eo8

[Jastapilot]

Ron?

Taser 'a toy' for officer, lawyer argues
Article Comments
IAN BAILEY
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
March 4, 2009 at 4:39 AM EST
VANCOUVER — Poland's lawyer at the inquiry into the death of Robert Dziekanski yesterday accused the Mountie who tasered the immigrant of treating his stun gun as a "toy" he was eager to try out for the first time.

When Constable Kwesi Millington zapped Mr. Dziekanski five times during a confrontation at Vancouver airport on the morning of Oct. 14, 2007, it was the first time the Mountie had used the taser on a person as part of his police work. By then, Constable Millington had been on the force two years.

He zapped Mr. Dziekanski as his three fellow officers struggled to handcuff the Polish

labourer.

"I'm suggesting to you, officer, that this was almost a toy for you," lawyer Don Rosenbloom told Constable Millington, the third of the four Mounties to testify at the inquiry before former B.C. Supreme Court judge Thomas Braidwood.

Constable Millington, the only officer on the scene with a taser, calmly denied the assertion. "No. It's just like anything else on my belt. It's a tool," he replied.

"It's a tool, but it's a new tool for you," Mr. Rosenbloom suggested.

Constable Millington agreed he had been recently trained on the device. "I was not looking forward to using it, but it was my first deployment, yes," he said.

Mr. Dziekanski, who had travelled to Canada to begin a new life with his mother, Zofia Cisowski, in Kamloops, had spent 24 hours travelling to Canada, and then 10 hours lost in the airport. He began acting erratically and threw a table before members of the RCMP's airport detachment were called.

Earlier yesterday, the lawyer for Ms. Cisowski, Walter Kosteckyj, pressed Constable Millington on why he did not warn Mr. Dziekanski before pulling the trigger.

During his training, Constable Millington's had been instructed to tell his targets they should stop their conduct or face 50,000 volts.

But although the constable was about three metres away from Mr. Dziekanski, he told Mr. Kosteckyj he did not see an opportunity to give a warning.

"Well. Do you think that was a mistake now, in retrospect, that you had time to give him a challenge?"

"No. I don't think I had time."

"Why not?"

"As I have said before, it was a fast-moving situation."

The constable reminded Mr. Kosteckyj that Mr. Dziekanski had grabbed a stapler, and he feared Mr. Dziekanski was about to attack one of the officers with it.

"I acted quickly to stop the threat," he said.

Mr. Rosenbloom later told reporters Constable Millington should have tried a warning even though Mr. Dziekanski did not understand English.

"It would be interpreted by anybody, even in a foreign language, that something serious was going on," he said.

Prosecutors in Poland are monitoring the case, although an embassy spokesperson said they are not looking at criminal charges against the four officers.

Prosecutors in B.C. have decided that no charges will be laid against any of the officers.

Mr. Dziekanski went into cardiac arrest and died after being wrestled into submission by the Mounties.

Mr. Kosteckyj noted that the police had numbers on their side - there were "four healthy, in-shape" officers against Mr. Dziekanski. He suggested Constable Millington panicked.

"You panicked over the entire situation."

Constable Millington said he did not.

"I feared for the safety of the other officers so I acted to stop the threat," he said.

Mr. Dziekanski's mother said she is focused on seeing the truth unearthed in the case. She also said she is not interested in apologies from the officers.

"The damage is done," Ms. Cisowski said. "It does not matter if they say sorry or not."

[Dust Devil]

You guys are missing the point. The cameraman caught these cops on video discussing and planning to taser him before they even confronted him.

Pilots discuss and plan for aborted takeoffs daily. Doesn't mean they are going to do it.

[Jastapilot]

"Can I taser him?"

Not the same thing, Dust.