WELCOME to TRUTH ... not TASERS

You may have arrived here via a direct link to a specific post. To see the most recent posts, click HERE.

Showing posts with label julian fantino. Show all posts
Showing posts with label julian fantino. Show all posts

Friday, June 25, 2010

More than 150 visitors arrived here today from around the world. Most arrived from Canada - from the east coast to the west - searching for news of the tragic death of Aron Firman, of Collingwood, Ontario, a man who was tasered to death by the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

They googled along the lines of "man+dies+Collingwood+taser". I hope they left knowing a hell of a lot more than they did when they got here.

Aron Firman will not have died in vain, if we have anything to do with it.

The Braidwood Inquiry into the 2007 death of Robert Dziekanski at the Vancouver Airport concluded that tasers can cause death. The RCMP has come to the same conclusion.

Julian Fantino and his Ontario Provincial Police haven't done their homework.

We're doing it for them.

Patti Gillman (owner of this blog) and http://www.excited-delirium.com/

"Why couldn't they use a TASER?"

Just over a year ago, on June 23, 2009 (five years to the day after my brother was tasered to death in Vancouver, BC), Peter Holran, VP Government and Public Affairs, Taser International, "tweeted" on TWITTER, under his Twitter-name : TASERPeter - as follows:

RT @m2lowe I'm all for tasers if they prevent this: "Police shoot mentally disabled man"
10:27 AM Jun 23rd, 2009 via web
Reply Retweet

When I read Peter Holran's "tweet", I responded on this blog: taser executive tweets on tasering canadians with intellectual disabilities

Pete was referring to the tragic case of a Canadian fellow named Doug Minty, a man in Barrie, Ontario, with intellectual disabilities who had become agitated as the result of a visit from a door-to-door salesman. The Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) were called to his home. Mr. Minty was SHOT FIVE TIMES by the OPP and he died on June 22, 2009.

The OPP were exonerated in Mr. Minty's death.

"Why couldn't they use a Taser?" asked his neighbour.

YESTERDAY, the Ontario Provincial Police USED A TASER on Aron Firman, a 27 year old man with mental illness. Within moments, Mr. Firman "became unresponsive" and he died. Like Doug Minty, Aron Firman was unarmed and posed no credible threat to trained police officers.

To Peter Holran, VP Government and Public Affairs, Taser International, and Julian Fantino, Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police (aka Mr. "I am absolutely convinced that tasers save lives and injuries for both citizens and police officers", aka Mr. "Do your own homework"), I repeat: In Canada, we DO NOT shoot NOR do we taser our most vulnerable citizens. This man had mental illness, for god's sake. He did not deserve this.

This hurts.

I work for a wonderful Community Living organization in southeastern Ontario that supports people with intellectual disabilities. Our staff are trained in CPI, an international training process that specializes in the safe management of disruptive and assaultive behavior. It is seldom required but works beautifully.

A commenter this evening said: You fail to mention that FOUR (4) Ontario Provincial Police officers were involved at the Collingwood Ontario group home when Aron Firman, a 27-year-old resident when "Officers used a conductive energy weapon, a Taser, to subdue" him! FOUR COPS! Ontario Provincial Police sent FOUR cops to subdue one 27-year-old? What's wrong with this picture?

(There were THIRTEEN Vancouver police officers present when my brother, Robert Bagnell, died on June 23, 2004.)

**************

There`s more to this story than meets the eye:

In May 2010, an Ontario Judge was asked to find OPP’s Julian Fantino violated Police Services Act in a landmark court case that will decide whether police officers in Ontario routinely break the law during SIU investigations. Doug Minty's case was highlighted: “In that time, the OPP received statements from the most significant eyewitnesses, had their media officer attend and had (the union involved),” according to court documents. The officers’ lawyers conferred with them at the scene before the SIU arrived on the scene almost four hours later. The officer would later say he saw Minty advancing with a knife. Also in May 2010, Ontario's Ministry of the Attorney-General's Chris Bentley stopped government lawyers from working for the SIU in the high-profile case. Four lawyers, including one of the ministry’s most senior counsel, had been representing SIU director Ian Scott in the proceedings. But, just hours before the hearing was scheduled to begin, the SIU – an arm’s length branch of the ministry – was told to find its own representation. For more information, GOOGLE Doug Minty+Julian Fantino.

Collingwood man dies after being tasered by police

June 25, 2010
Jeff Gray, Globe & Mail

An autopsy is scheduled for Saturday morning on the body of a 27-year-old man who died after Ontario Provincial Police used a Taser to subdue him at a Collingwood, Ont., group home.

The province’s Special Investigations Unit is probing the death, which occurred after OPP were called to intervene after a man assaulted a elderly woman at the home.

At least four OPP officers confronted the man, whom the SIU identified as Aron Firman, around 5:30 p.m. on Thursday. The OPP say he became “combative” and assaulted an officer before police used a Taser to subdue him.

The SIU, which probes incidents involving police that result in death or serious injury, is looking into the death, said the man then became “unresponsive.” The OPP says its officers performed first aid. The man was then taken to hospital and pronounced dead. The assaulted officer was also taken to hospital with minor injuries, OPP said.

OPP Constable Mark Kinney said he could reveal little more about the case, because it was now under investigation by the SIU. He said the group home housed people of varying ages with “a range of disabilities.”

SIU spokeswoman Monica Hudon said the agency had identifed one “subject officer” for investigation and designated the three other officers on the scene as witnesses.

The incident comes just a week after the release of a final report on the 2007 death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver International Airport. He was zapped with a Taser five times after brandishing a stapler at RCMP.

A Toronto Police report from earlier this year said the force had used, or threatened to use tasers 307 times in 2009.

Friday, May 14, 2010

Ontario’s SIU hires prominent lawyer to argue crucial case

May 14, 2010
National Post

TORONTO — The Ontario Special Investigations Unit has hired a prominent Toronto lawyer to argue its case at a crucial court hearing for the independent civilian agency.

Marlys Edwardh was retained just two days after Ontario Attorney-General Chris Bentley stopped government lawyers from working for the SIU in the high-profile case.

The hearing, before Superior Court Justice Wailan Low, is examining police practices when the SIU is called in to investigate. The agency probes any incident involving serious injury or death as a result of police force.

SIU director Ian Scott has formally complained about the practice of “witness officers” speaking to lawyers before writing their official police notes. As well, it is common for several officers to be represented by the same lawyer, leading to the potential for collusion. Mr. Scott has suggested this hampers the ability of the SIU to do its job effectively.

The Ontario Provincial Police and other police groups are asking Judge Low to decline to look at the practices, arguing it is not the role of the courts. The hearing resumes Tuesday.

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Lawyers pulled from hearing into whether officers break laws

May 13, 2010
Robyn Doolittle, Toronto Star

Attorney General Chris Bentley is being accused of bowing to police pressure following a last-minute decision to pull ministry support from a controversial court case, which will rule whether officers routinely break the law when dealing with the Special Investigations Unit.

Four lawyers, including one of the ministry’s most senior counsel, had been representing SIU director Ian Scott in the proceedings. But late Wednesday, just hours before the hearing was scheduled to begin, the SIU – an arm’s length branch of the ministry – was told to find its own representation. The SIU investigates when a civilian is seriously injured or killed by a police officer.

MPP Peter Kormos, NDP critic for Community Safety and Correctional Services, said it looks as though the Attorney General is succumbing to police pressure.

“Something is seriously amiss here and it should be disturbing to everyone. The police seem to be able to call the shots with respect to the ministry of the attorney general,” he said.

The ministry did not respond to an interview request.

Scott has asked a judge to find that OPP officers and Commissioner Julian Fantino violated a section of the police act pertaining to SIU probes.

In court filings, he has called for an end to the longstanding practice of officers having their notes and comments vetted by a police union lawyer before being interviewed by the SIU. He has also taken issue with the fact that often one lawyer represents all the officers involved, including witnesses. Because lawyers are legally obligated to share information, Scott has argued police officers are not properly being segregated.

The case, which was launched by the families of two mentally-ill men killed by OPP officers last summer, is significant because although it is focusing on these two incidents, the practice of note vetting is common across the province. If the judge agrees with Scott, it will have widespread ramifications for Ontario’s police community.

Early Wednesday, just hours before the lawyers were removed, OPP union president Karl Walsh sent out an internal memo blasting the SIU and “assistance of the Ministry of the Attorney General.”

“We will not be treated as second-class citizens and demand that the established protections already in place not are tampered with,” Walsh wrote. “I ask that you pay particular attention to this issue and encourage you to let your elected representatives know about this unwarranted challenge to our rights and our integrity.”

The memo also revealed that the OPP union, Toronto police union, Police Association of Ontario and the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police have pooled legal resources to fight the application.

Earlier this week, Bentley said that the ministry had not taken a position on the issue, but behind-closed doors, the police community had expressed anger over the legal support of the SIU.

Toronto Police Association President Mike McCormack said the move has nothing to do with police pressure. Ministry of the Attorney General lawyers were representing both the SIU and Fantino in the case.

“So there’s an obvious conflict there, this is the right move,” he said.

Kormos countered that the OPP and Fantino are actually part of the solicitor general’s ministry, so if anything, the conflict is with the commissioner.

“It’s very peculiar. The SIU is a part of the Attorney General’s office. It seems to me that the Ministry of the Attorney General should be representing its own body,” he said.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

SIU calls OPP, Fantino conduct illegal

May 11, 2010
Dave Seglins, CBC News

Ontario's top police watchdog is accusing Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino and a number of his officers of breaking the law by failing to properly co-operate with probes into two separate fatal OPP shootings last summer.

Ian Scott, director of the Special Investigations Unit, accuses Fantino of failing to ensure officers promptly notified the SIU of one case last June. In a second incident, Scott accuses Fantino of failing to ensure officers were properly segregated by allowing them to consult the same lawyer and to prepare two sets of notes — only submitting a final version of events vetted by their lawyer.

In an unprecedented step, Scott, with the signed backing of four lawyers from Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General, is siding with the two grieving families.

They together head to court on Thursday to ask a judge to rule that Fantino and his officer broke regulations and the Ontario Police Services Act in their interaction with the SIU.

Family decries OPP delay in calling SIU

Douglas Minty, 59, who was mentally disabled, was shot five times by an OPP officer in Elmvale, Ont., on June 22, 2009. (CBC)Diane Pinder's mentally disabled brother, 59-year-old Douglas Minty, was shot five times by an OPP officer in Elmvale, Ont., on June 22, 2009.

Minty had become agitated as the result of a visit from a door-to-door salesman, and police were called to the house.

"My brother was very loved. He did not deserve this tragic end to his life," Pinder told CBC News. "We are looking for answers as to why this had to happen … and the answers that we've got … some of them have been unbelievable."

The SIU report on the incident concluded a single officer shot Minty five times after he wielded a small utility knife with a 2.5-inch blade. His family is suspicious of this account because the knife found at the scene had its blade retracted in a closed position.

More importantly, the Minty family questions why the OPP took one hour and 23 minutes to alert the SIU. During that time, however, OPP did call in supervisors, a media relations spokesperson and a lawyer from the Ontario Provincial Police Association. The OPP even took two key eyewitnesses away for a debriefing before alerting the SIU to take charge of the scene around the police shooting.

"The scene is in essence tainted. That is not the way it's supposed to work," said the Minty family's lawyer, Julian Falconer. He filed the application that has won support from the SIU and the ministry lawyers asking for a ruling on the conduct of the OPP.

"The commissioner has a personal responsibility to ensure immediate notification so that investigators can do their job," Falconer told CBC News. "How could the family in the Minty shooting have any confidence in what these police officers have done when these kinds of shenanigans happen after the shooting?"

Questions about OPP notes in 2nd shooting

Levi Schaeffer, 30, pictured with an unidentified friend, was camping near Osnaburgh Lake, Ont., in June 2009 when he got into an altercation with the OPP, which resulted in an officer shooting twice and killing him. (CBC)Ruth Schaeffer is a grieving mother who is also part of the court fight against the OPP commissioner. Her son, Levi Schaeffer, 30, who suffered from schizoaffective panic and personality disorder, set off last spring on a bicycle trip from Peterborough, Ont., to Pickle Lake in northwestern Ontario.

On June 24, 2009, he was camping near Osnaburgh Lake when he got into an altercation with the OPP, which resulted in an officer shooting twice and killing Schaeffer.

His mother told CBC News she has been denied "any proper or believable answers" about what happened.

The only two witnesses were the two OPP officers, who, after the SIU began investigating, despite rules demanding they be segregated, both hired the same lawyer. They both prepared two sets of notes. The first set was supplied to their lawyer for review and were never disclosed to the SIU. Based on those, the two officers then prepared a second set of notes as their official "police memo book" record of events which they did hand over to SIU investigators.

"The idea that an officer would maintain two sets of notes … one that his lawyer sees and provides input on and a second that is provided to investigators simply is unacceptable," said Falconer, who is also representing Schaeffer's family. "This does nothing but fosters suspicions."

In September 2009, the SIU director concluded that in this case, "this note-writing process flies in the face of two main indicators of reliability of notes: independence and contemporaneity." As a result, Scott concluded he could not reach any reasonable conclusions about what actually happened the day Schaeffer was shot and killed.

Scott has written a number of times to complain to Fantino about the use of a single lawyer to represent numerous officers during SIU probes, given that police chiefs and the commissioner are duty bound by the Police Services Act to ensure officers are segregated when identified by the SIU as either subject or witness officers in a serious incident.

Fantino refused comment to the CBC while the case is before the courts. But in a Sept. 30, 2009, letter to Scott now included in the court record, Fantino denied any dereliction of his duties.

"Your position as director of the SIU grants you no authority over how police notes are prepared," Fantino scolded. "Direction in that regard comes from a complex interaction of the police service's policies and procedures, legislative requirements and the charter rights of all citizens."

NDP calls on Fantino to resign

Controversy over police co-operation has dogged the SIU since the agency's inception in 1990. Two reports by former judge George Adams identified the need for reviews.

In 2008, Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin (a former SIU director himself) called for a ban on the use of a single lawyer representing multiple officers "avoiding any potential for witness information to be tainted or tailored, intentional or otherwise."

But the court case this week marks a new point in the fierce fight over police accountability, said NDP justice critic Peter Kormos.

"We have a very peculiar, unprecedented scenario where Ministry of the Attorney General's lawyers say the OPP commissioner Fantino broke the law in the course of an SIU investigation," Kormos told CBC News. "It is remarkable and it cries out for Fantino’s resignation."

Lawyers who represent police officers involved in SIU investigations say the practice of representing multiple officers and the use of two sets of officers' notes is a long-standing one.

"It's a tempest in a bad teapot and a waste of judicial resources," said Gary Clewley, a Toronto-based lawyer who has defended police officers for decades.

Last summer, he published an advice article in the Hamilton police union's newsletter, writing, "I was tempted to have a pencil manufactured with the slogan 'shut the F up' embossed on it so that when police officers began to write their notes they would pause and first give me or their association a call."

Clewley categorically rejects ever coaching officers to change or invent stories in their official notes.

The case goes before a judge in a Toronto court on Thursday.

Lawyer-approved police notes illegal, SIU says

May 11, 2010
Robyn Doolittle, Toronto Star

Judge asked to find OPP’s Julian Fantino violated Police Services Act

The director of the Special Investigations Unit has intervened in a landmark court case that will decide whether police officers routinely break the law during SIU investigations.

Ian Scott has asked a judge to rule it is illegal for officers to have their notes and comments “approved” by a police union lawyer before being interviewed by the agency, which investigates cases of serious injury or death involving officers.

Critics of this longstanding practice say it provides an opportunity for collusion. Police counter that officers are simply being granted the same rights as a civilian under the Charter of Rights.

Scott has also raised concerns about officers being properly segregated from each other after an incident. In a move that has set off a firestorm in the policing world, Scott has asked the Superior Court judge to find that OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino violated the Police Services Act for allowing this practice to continue.

If the judge agrees, this would open the door for police chiefs across Ontario, including Toronto’s Bill Blair, to face police act charges.

“This is a very significant development in attempting to ensure some level of accountability in SIU investigations. The absence of leadership has been a major problem in this area and frankly it accounts for why it has festered and continued for so long,” said lawyer Julian Falconer.

Falconer represents the families of two mentally disabled men fatally shot by OPP officers. Their families believe the OPP violated the police act during the SIU investigation. The case will be heard in Superior Court beginning Thursday.

In both deaths, officers who witnessed the shooting, as well as the officer who pulled the trigger, were instructed to delay writing their notes until after an association lawyer, Andrew McKay, reviewed them.

On June 22, 2009, Douglas Minty was shot five times outside his mother’s Elmvale home. The 59-year-old became distraught over an altercation with a door salesman. The officer would later say he saw Minty advancing with a knife. The SIU was not contacted until an hour and a half after the incident.

“In that time, the OPP received statements from the most significant eyewitnesses, had their media officer attend and had (the union involved),” according to court documents.

Two days after the Minty shooting, 30-year-old Levi Schaeffer was shot dead on the shore of Pickle Lake in northern Ontario. Officers were investigating reports of a stolen boat. In this case, all five officers involved shared the same lawyer and had a draft set of notes approved before submitting a final version to the SIU.

After a three-month probe, Scott announced that because officers in the Schaeffer case were not segregated and that because their comments were vetted by a lawyer, he had no reliable evidence to make a judgment. The officer was cleared.

“In this most serious case, I have no informational base I can rely upon,” Scott said at the time. “The first drafts have been ‘approved’ by a (union) lawyer who represented all of the involved officers in this matter, a lawyer who has a professional obligation to share information among his clients when jointly retained by them.”

In contrast, when police investigate civilian incidents, it is routine practice to immediately separate witnesses and suspects. Investigators do this to make sure witnesses’ memories aren’t tainted and to prevent suspects from fixing their story.

But unlike civilians, police officers are bound by a set of rules under the Police Services Act to cooperate with an investigation. For one, all witness officers must give an interview to the SIU. The subject officer may refuse. Everyone involved must write notes, but only the witness officers must hand them over. Herein lies the heart of the dispute between Falconer and the SIU versus Ontario’s police community.

The act states that police chiefs shall, whenever “practicable” segregate police officers involved in an SIU incident. “A police officer . . . shall not communicate with any other police officer involved . . . until after the SIU has completed its interviews.”

Falconer said police associations are using the Charter issue as a red herring. Police officers can have a lawyer without it being the same lawyer as the others involved.

“Furthermore, you will not find a credible constitutional lawyer who would argue that the Charter gives a right to counsel to a witness in a criminal investigation. That is completely absurd,” said Falconer.

Alok Mukherjee, chair of the Toronto Police Services Board, said Falconer and the SIU are just plain wrong.

“Falconer and Scott’s opinion on whether the Charter protects police officers in an SIU investigation, I have seen nothing either in the act or the Charter that supports their opinion,” said Mukherjee. “If anyone is raising a red herring, it is Falconer, Scott and their advocates in the media.”

Cornwall Police Chief Daniel Parkinson, president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, noted that if every officer involved in an SIU investigation had a different lawyer it would become “prohibitively” expensive.

McKay, who acted for the OPP in both shootings, said an important issue is being lost in the whole argument.

“We as lawyers have professional obligations. When I go in and speak to officer A, and he tells me what happened, and then I go speak to officer B, I don’t . . . say: ‘I just spoke to officer A, this is what he told me, what do you say?’ If there’s any conflict in the stories, I would leave and call another lawyer. That happens all the time.”

Attorney General Chris Bentley said Monday the ministry has not taken a position on the issue as it is before the courts.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

taser executive tweets on tasering canadians with intellectual disabilities

A prominent Taser International executive "tweeted" the following statement on Twitter earlier today: "I'm all for tasers if they prevent this: "Police shoot mentally disabled man""

So, as it turns out, Doug Minty, a 59 year old man with intellectual disabilities, died on Monday night after he was shot with a gun an as-yet undisclosed number of times by an Ontario Provincial Police officer. The Toronto Star report above says neighbours heard "multiple gunshots." The Barrie Examiner says police discharged a weapon "at least once" and are "searching for witnesses." (Did anyone get VIDEO?????) When the officer arrived there was an "interaction" between him and an occupant of the home. The involved officer was not injured. The North Bay Nugget says "Police were called to 21 Lawson Ave. shortly after 8 p.m. in response to an altercation between a door-to-door salesman and a resident of the home ... Several neighbours said they heard four shots go off."

To the tweeting Taser International executive mentioned above, who holds this news up as a fine example in FAVOUR of tasers, I say: In Canada, we DO NOT shoot NOR do we taser our most vulnerable citizens. This man had INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES, for god's sake. He did not need to be shot with a taser any more than he needed to be shot with a gun!!!

And, in fact the last time a taser was used on a person with intellectual disabilities in Canada, it was used by the same outfit - Julian Fantino's Ontario Provincial Police - when they tasered a 14 year old girl with intellectual disabilities to bring her to compliance with officers’ orders to stop scratching paint off the walls of the holding cell where she was being held. A $500,000 lawsuit against the OPP is in the works.

And, in October 2008, the Toronto Police tasered an intellectually disabled man multiple times. A $9 million dollar lawsuit is in the works.

I'm sickened by today's news and by Taser International's use of this tragedy as a pathetic attempt to sell more tasers.

Wednesday, April 08, 2009

Police ethics adviser quits over sponsors

April 8, 2009
CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD, Globe and Mail

The technical adviser to the ethics committee of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has resigned over corporate sponsorship - including that of Taser International - of the group's annual conference.

John Jones, an expert on police ethics who has advised the committee for three years, quit Thursday after the committee's efforts to stop the practice was rebuffed by the board of directors.

"I said in that case, I can't remain a member," a saddened Dr. Jones, the author of Reputable Conduct: Ethical Issues in Policing and Corrections, told The Globe and Mail in a phone interview yesterday from his Ottawa home. "[Such sponsorship] doesn't pass the smell test."

The CACP is composed of police chiefs and senior police executives from across Canada and represents most of the country's 220-plus forces.

Dr. Jones and the members of the ethics committee were in Montreal in August for two days of meetings around the CACP's annual conference when they learned about Taser's sponsorship and that of others, including a joint Bell Mobility-CGI-Group Techna donation of $115,000, which went toward the purchase of 1,000 tickets at $215 each to a Celine Dion concert on Aug. 25.

Each registered CACP delegate received one ticket as part of his $595 registration package; if his spouse was also registered for the spouses' program, she or he received another. Virtually all meals were also sponsored.

The ethics members raised the sponsorship issue with the CACP executive committee in mid-conference - "expressed our surprise and dismay" is how the genteel Dr. Jones put it - but later followed up with a formal request for the committee co-chairs to speak to the full board of directors.

That meeting happened in November, and by December the CACP's executive director, Peter Cuthbert, replied by memo on behalf of the board, basically thanking the committee members for their concerns, but repeating that the board was satisfied the association was abiding by its sponsorship guidelines.

It was at the committee's first meeting of the new year last week in Ottawa that Mr. Cuthbert's memo was read aloud, prompting Dr. Jones to walk away from his voluntary position.

While he said he was told by senior members of the committee that Taser gave $200,000 to the 2008 conference, Mr. Cuthbert is adamant the manufacturers of the controversial "conducted energy weapons," as the CACP prefers to call them, contributed only $25,000.

But he also said that over the past three years, Taser has kicked in a total of $75,000 for conference sponsorship.

Mr. Cuthbert was insistent there is nothing wrong with the sponsorship practice, and said that part of the association's job is to bring to the attention of the chiefs "the products and tools that are available to a police service." He then suggested that Taser was only one maker of "conducted energy weapons," but, when pressed, admitted he knew of no other and said, "I guess Taser is the only name out there."

According to Mr. Cuthbert, the total corporate sponsorship of last year's conference - by, among others, Power Corporation, the Canadian Bankers Association, Loto-Québec, Microsoft, Motorola and the RCMP, ironic given that it means the Mounties shared the platform with the very product whose use has brought the force into such disrepute in the Robert Dziekanski incident - topped $500,000.

The RCMP sponsors only the professional development part of the conference program.

One of Mr. Cuthbert's defences for the association accepting sponsorships is the CACP does "no buying, no endorsement, no promotion" of any products, including sponsors', and makes no "binding recommendations."

But in fact, just six weeks ago the CACP held a press conference in Ottawa with the Canadian Police Association to announce what they called "the police position on Conducted Energy Weapons (CEWs)" and issued both a position document and a press release.

The groups said they were acting out of concern that "inaccurate and incomplete" media reporting about the weapons may have led to public misunderstanding and in effect gave CEWs their blessing.

In January, Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino, a CACP member, spoke at an association workshop on CEWs and gave the weapon an even more ringing endorsement, and denounced the "irresponsible journalism" surrounding the issue.

Mr. Fantino was at least more direct: he called a spade a spade and used both terms, CEWs and tasers, to describe the weapon.

When Mr. Cuthbert was asked if it wouldn't have been better for the CACP to have publicly praised tasers with clean hands, he disagreed, and said, "Other than that, I tell you, with the board, it was not an issue ... the board was very, very comfortable with this."

But Dr. Jones told The Globe that most of the ethics committee members had concerns about the sponsorships, not just Taser's, which is why it sent committee co-chairs, RCMP Assistant Commissioner Sandra Conlin, her force's ethics adviser, and Edmonton Deputy Chief Norm Lipinski, to the board meeting. That, he said, was a measure of the committee's concern.

Mr. Conlin referred The Globe to Mr. Lipinski, saying he was the ethics committee spokesman. He was out of town and didn't return The Globe's call.

Dr. Jones, who at 66 has spent several decades of his career lecturing and consulting about ethical conduct, particularly in policing, also recently resigned as an adviser to the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

He rued how the CACP conferences have become increasingly "gaudy" affairs, with each host city trying to outdo the other, with members expecting bigger and better freebies. Indeed, Mr. Cuthbert's own figures - he said it now costs between $800,000 and $1-million to hold such conferences - back up Dr. Jones' perception.

Asked why the chiefs and senior police executives don't just finance their own conferences, Dr. Jones replied, "That's what we'd like."

He said there was "a shocking disconnect" between the lavish conferences for senior police and their increasing demands upon their rank-and-file that they refuse even a free coffee from the local doughnut store. "People now want their leaders to walk the talk," he said.

- 30 -

See also the 2009 Sponsor and Exhibitor Prospectus, which promises sponsors "prominent recognition during the conference and unmatched opportunity to reach out to conference delegates from the outset of the conference and inform them of your commitment to CACP."

Taser International has been a Platinum Level Sponsor for at least the past two years. Here's what they get:

PLATINUMLEVEL - $25,000+

Conference Banner and Signage
• Your company name and logo on a banner and signs prominently displayed at the conference.
Promotional Opportunities
• Providing one promotional item to be included in the delegates’ registration kit.
Marketing Profile
• Your company name and logo will appear prominently in the Conference Program and the Exhibitor Show Guide;
• Your company logo and level of sponsorship will be included on the conference website’s front page and sponsor page (www.cacpconference.ca);
• Sponsor recognition on name badges;
• Opening and Closing Plenary acknowledgement with logo;
• A complimentary 1/4 page black and white advertisement (premium location) in the Program (must be received by July 17, 2009);
• Daily on-site newsletter recognition.

Other Benefits
• Three (3) complimentary conference registrations for selected members of your staff;
• Reserved seating at the Gala Evening;
• Invitation to the VIP Reception, Sunday August 9, 2009;
• Two (2) complimentary booth personnel with the purchase of a booth;NEW!
• One-time access to the early bird Delegate List in advance of the conference.

See also: August 15, 2008 Globe and Mail Editorial - More than a perception

See also: August 12, 2008 - Taser International a major sponsor of the 2008 Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police Conference

See also: November 2, 2007 - Taser International a major sponsor of the 2007 Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police conference

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Setting Commissioner Fantino Straight

I wanted to post a comment I received here this evening (see below). Thank you, David, for your kind words. Losing Robert is something that my family will never quite get over. Especially since the outcome could have been so different with just a little compassion and common sense.

I'm glad you recognize Commissioner Fantino's remarks for what they are. He, like so many others in similar positions, has bought the taser line lock, stock and barrel. I look forward to watching your new blog grow - there are a few Fantino-related posts here as well, which may be useful to you. You keep up the good fight too, David. You're not alone.


It was Commissioner Fantino's inappropriate statements and remarks reported in the press on Feb 25 2009 that prompted me to begin a blog entitled "Setting Commissioner Fantino Straight" Although I am not specifically anti-Taser, I consider myself against the inappropriate use of any type of police force, and I am certainly offended by rather glib statements such as those proffered by Fantino, and parrotted by others in the law enforcement profession.

I wish I could say I understand your loss, but I cannot, It must be devastating. I have witnessed tragic deaths far too often myself, but not the passing of someone I love in such a manner.

Keep up the good fight!

Friday, March 06, 2009

EDITORIAL: RCMP attempts to deflect blame hurt all officers

March 6, 2009
The Star Phoenix

In a 1970s satire, the Monty Python group demonstrated how one goes about protecting oneself when attacked by someone wielding a banana.

John Cleese, playing the role of the sergeant major, orders Graham Chapman to attack him with a banana, only to shoot the assailant with a revolver before he is struck by the fruit. "That was self-defence," Mr. Cleese insists when challenged for his excessive response.

It is funny because it is ridiculous. Unfortunately, it appears the RCMP in British Columbia didn't get the joke.

This week, the inquiry being conducted by B.C. Supreme Court justice Thomas Braidwood into the death of Robert Dziekanski was told on more than one occasion that the Polish immigrant had to be shot by a police officer repeatedly with a conducted energy weapon for fear that an office stapler Mr. Dziekanski was holding could be a dangerous weapon.

It's safe to say Mr. Dziekanski, who died after being shot five times with a Taser and then was pounced upon by four large RCMP officers, also didn't get the joke.

But many in the audience who openly scoffed at Const. Kwesi Millington when he attempted to brandish the office tool in a threatening manner, had no difficulty seeing how ridiculous was his and other officers' testimony that a stapler would frighten four large, well-armed and trained men wearing bullet-proof vests.

The tragedy isn't so much that Const. Millington was trying to justify his actions of Oct. 14, 2007. It would only be natural that he would look for some reasonable explanation as to why Mr. Dziekanski, who was confused and angry after being left alone in a reception area of the Vancouver airport for more than 10 hours following a 24-hour flight from Poland, should be left dead only seconds after RCMP arrived to calm him down.

What isn't natural -- and is a much greater insult to those police officers who diligently put themselves in harm's way almost daily to protect the public -- is that it took lawyers representing Mr. Dziekanski and the Polish government to push Const. Millington toward the truth while government solicitors ignored the obvious.

Almost from the moment the public heard about Mr. Dziekanski's death, the RCMP establishment went into high gear to justify the actions of its officers rather than strive to find out how such a seemingly innocent situation turned so deadly.

Until bystander Paul Pritchard went public with his concerns that the RCMP had confiscated a video he had shot of the event, the police service stuck to a story that was impossible to reconcile either with what witnesses alleged happened, or what was clearly seen on the video.

RCMP Sgt. Pierre Lemaitre initially suggested there were only three officers involved, that Mr. Dziekanski was "pounding on the glass windows that were there," and that the jolts from the Taser "didn't seem to have any kind of effect on him."

The police force then tried to prevent the release of the tapes, and later tried unsuccessfully to shift its story in an effort to reconcile its version of events with what's seen in the video.

This didn't do any favours for those officers involved in the incident. Time and again Const. Millington was caught out during his testimony.

What is most distressing, however, is that not one government lawyer or one member of the RCMP saw fit to hold the officers to account.

The opposite was the case.

The RCMP investigated itself over this incident and found, to no great surprise, that there was not enough evidence to pursue charges.

Similarly the B.C. attorney general's office examined the RCMP evidence and found no reason for charges.

One shouldn't be surprised by this lack of ability to recognize the difference. In the midst of the controversy over the death and the subsequent release of the tape, RCMP Commissioner William Elliott e-mailed the four officers involved, offering his personal support.

It isn't just the RCMP that's unwilling or unable to vigorously examine the evidence.

Last month, both the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association put out a position paper to suggest there is no evidence of any deaths being linked to use of a Taser.

Ontario Provincial Police commissioner Julian Fantino took it one step further, suggesting all of the deaths that have occurred in the wake of the stun guns being used on persons reflect nothing more than the poor work by journalists and a public who "just don't get it" and who couldn't even pass recruitment training.

It is no wonder that frontline officers are left exposed, as Const. Millington was this week.

The RCMP is staffed primarily by brave and dedicated officers concerned about the well-being of the public they serve. As we have seen in Saskatoon this week, with the trial over the deaths of Constables Robin Cameron and Marc Bourdages, these officers put their lives on the line for us every day.

They deserve to be treated like professionals and the public deserves to have a national police service it can trust -- not one whose attempts to deflect blame simply mock the good efforts of the majority.

Monday, March 02, 2009

Letter to the editor from Julian Fantino: Police have right to speak out about Tasers

What a silly letter, Mr. Fantino! Next you'll be sticking out your tongue, with your hands on your hips, yelling "I KNOW YOU ARE...BUT WHAT AM I?" Isn't this conduct unbecoming of Ontario's top police officer?

If YOU and the rest of your old-boy's club at the CACP/CPA were to have taken the trouble to DO YOUR HOMEWORK before the recent news conference to which you refer, then you and they might have in fact been able to, as you say, "articulate well researched, factually based and reasonable conclusions", for example, about the # of times tasers have proven to be NOT so less-lethal.

It's time for you, as the Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, to stop wasting dwindling Ontario taxpayer dollars on such drivel and get started on your HOMEWORK because this just may come up again. And, just as you refused to do the media's homework, I'm not going to do yours, but I WILL give you a "hint" - Robert Dziekanski, Robert C. Heston, Henry O. Bryant, Kevin Piskura, and the list goes on ... if you spend even just a few moments either browsing through this website or Googling taser+cause of death and/or taser+contributing factor, you will be amazed to see that the taser has been identified as the CAUSE of death or a CONTRIBUTING FACTOR of death in many cases.

Once you have all completed your homework, then the next time you open your mouth on this subject intending to sound intelligent, you *might* actually be accused of conduct more becoming of someone in your position.

Oh, and my fellow blogger Excited-Delirium had this to add:

Fantino needs to pull the Taser Spokespuppet arm out of his ass. He's spounting obsolete nonsense.

Even Taser International has been forced to limit the geographical scope of these outrageous claims - they used to claim worldwide coverage until the inevitable leakage of escaped statistics caught up with them. Recently they claimed Canada, until the Dziekanski autopsy report listed the taser as a cause of death.

Tasers have been linked (by coroners) to about 69 deaths so far (including Mr. Dziekanski's). And this is just in the cases studied, where the researchers were able to obtain the autopsy reports. It's running 37% of the taser-death cases studied.

Tasers have been identified as a contributing CAUSE of death in many autopsy reports. Not to mention that most people would agree that "contributed to" means exactly the same thing as "partially caused".

Taser International has been found partially liable for at least one death. It won't be the last.

Even the RCMP now has acknowledged that tasers carry a "risk of death" ESPECIALLY if the subject is agitated. And there is nothing taken out of context about that clear admission.

This attitude is clear and compelling evidence that a moratorium is REQUIRED to allow time for such misleading rubbish propaganda to be removed from Police Leadership - one way or the other.



Julian Fantino responds to FANTINO'S ACT GROWS TIRESOME

Editor:

At the outset I wish to express my sense of personal pride to have Mr. Den Tandt compare me to Don Cherry, who I regard as a modern day Canadian icon.

I suppose that in the views of the author, those of us who have come to this country as immigrants, who have honourably served the apprentice of becoming Canadian citizens and who in my case have dedicated some 40 years to public service should be unceremoniously dismissed as an increasing embarrassment simply because it appears that I don't happen to fit the stereotypical views held by some that I am not entitled to express my views and do so about a subject I have intimate knowledge and experience.

Unlike the author, I am not confused, lost in the weeds or otherwise puffed up about a minute quantity of instantly acquired knowledge regarding the relevance and true value of Conducted Energy Weapons (Tasers) in modern-day policing. Nor would I ever attack the author on a personal level asking that his employer fire him for being devoid of journalistic integrity about a profession he seems to know very little about. I am, however very comfortable knowing as I do that I happen to have all the right enemies! I am also not deterred about standing up for what I believe and feel that as a Canadian citizen I am well entitled to express my views, speak the truth, state facts and dispel the kind of misinformation to which the public has been exposed about the Tasers, now further amplified by the author.

If the author were to have taken the trouble to be present at the recent news conference at which representatives of both the Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association articulated well researched, factually based and reasonable conclusions about the importance of Tasers as a less lethal force option available to police officers in the execution of their mandated duties, he might have understood far better the context and the relevance of the position taken by two professional associations that are truly representative of most police officers working in police agencies across the country.

Regardless of the uninformed views of some, including the author, and no matter the personal cheap shots on his part, the irrefutable bottom line is that there have been no studies, no research, no factual evidence to date that prove that the use of a Taser by a police officers in the lawful execution of their duty has ever been found to have been the direct cause of a fatality. Admittedly, the use of any force option by a police officer including the Taser as with all other use of force equipment; must be lawful, there must be proper policies in place along with appropriate training and accountability. We said all that and want to move forward towards a national model for the use of Tasers.

As much as public debate about significant public and officer safety issues is helpful, what is not helpful is personal attacks and the ssemination of misinformation, mischaracterization and uninformed rhetoric about the police use of Tasers that seems to be masqueraded as the legitimate freedom of the press. If the writer can, as he should, feel that he has the constitutional entitlement to free speech, he also needs to realize that my rights and those of police officers in this country are no less and he needs to come to terms with the fact that when we picked up our badge to serve the citizens of Canada, we did not at the same time surrender our rights to speak and be heard about issues that not only impact on our safety as police officers, but equally so on the safety of all Canadians.

Julian Fantino Commissioner Ontario Provincial Police

Saturday, February 28, 2009

Mounties looking like Keystone Cops

February 28, 2009
By Don Martin, Calgary Herald

Police officers have three primary serve-and-protect obligations--investigate threats to civilian safety immediately, use their weapons responsibly and tell the truth faithfully under oath.

While the vast majority do their dangerous duty professionally, elements of the RCMP struck out on all three fronts this week to create the unfortunate optics of Dudley Do-Right joining the Keystone Cops.

In a strange series of random events, RCMP failed to perform due diligence in investigating reports of two SOS-signalling skiers lost for 10 days in the Rockies, police representatives staged a bizarre defence of Taser safety while refusing to produce the studies to bolster their case and several RCMP officers were clearly nose-stretching, if not engaging in a conspiracy of fabrication, while testifying at the Robert Dziekanski fatality inquiry.

The force's public relations hell dawned Tuesday when a parade of police association representatives arrived in Ottawa to "demystify" the Taser for national media, arguing it's a weapon that deserves a spot on every police belt.

The timing was awful. Three hours away, the Dziekanski inquiry was watching slow-motion footage of the Polish immigrant's multiple Taser-zapping and sudden death.

Yet the officers in Ottawa were adamant. Pay no attention to the video of that man twitching behind the glass, they basically argued. The Taser is an essential enforcement tool and totally safe--and they've got 150 studies to support that. Ontario Provincial Police commissioner Julian Fantino spun the purpose of their publicity campaign this way: "We decided it was time to set the record straight to give you and the public accurate information as best as we can and to demystify and bring some honesty and integrity into reporting."

But with respect, one reporter wondered, what studies have the RCMP used to prove the Taser poses all the takedown risk of a knuckle-wrapping? "Do your own homework," Chief Fantino fumed. "We've looked at them, consulted and validated them."

(This denied request for information is apparently part of RCMP culture. The federal information commissioner this week gave the force failing grades in meeting its information access obligations, listing it as one of the worst federal offenders for denying requests.) The only greater mystification than those alleged studies was the date they picked for their campaign kickoff.

To be hailing the Taser miracle at the precise moment an RCMP officer was squirming under Dziekanski inquiry fire in Vancouver was a publicity juxtaposition only a fiendish enemy of the technology could've arranged. Police testimony started changing on the fly as amateur video put the fib to facts which clearly seemed to have been negotiated in secret by responding officers seeking cover from their actions.

Add this discomfort to the RCMP's admitted failure to order a search for a missing couple in the B. C. backcountry last week, which resulted in a woman's tragic death, and you have a humiliating one-week triple whammy of lousy news for an RCMP that supposedly cleaned up its act after changing commissioners in 2006.

The lousy optics didn't have to gush forth this way.

There are a number of studies clearing the Taser of killer capabilities, which police representatives should've produced on demand, and police do support national rules governing Taser use to reduce risks to police or public safety.

And while the infamous Taser video suggests the inquiry will eventually find Dziekanski was the victim of aggressive police deploying Tasers excessively, contrite admissions of this ugly reality would've salvaged police reputations better than their apparent falsehoods of desperation.

RCMP might also want to update mountain rescue manuals to insist multiple SOS signals in snow-covered backcountry are reasonable signs of somebody in distress and thus search-worthy. After all, the force should be with us, not putting Canadians at risk of injury or neglect.

EDITORIAL: Show us that tasers save lives

February 28, 2009
The Province

The canadian association of chiefs of police and the canadian police association called on all officers nationwide to be authorized and trained in the use of this weapon, calling tasers "A valuable use-of-force option available to police to reduce the risk of injury or death."

Julian Fantino, the Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, told reporters that "Tasers save lives," and that 150 studies worldwide prove "there is no direct link in any case" between the use of a Taser and a death. When asked to reveal the studies, Chief Fantino offered the glib response that he had no intention of doing the media's homework.

Here are some questions for the nation's police departments to consider: If Tasers save lives and if Tasers are safe, then why are they so controversial? What evidence is there to support the argument that Tasering someone saves lives? And finally, why would the two largest police organizations in this country come out with guns blazing on the Taser issue at the same time as the Braidwood Inquiry is looking into the weapons's safety?

There probably is a place for Tasers in the law-enforcement arsenal, but more study has to be done to determine what that place might be.

The Braidwood inquiry is a big part of that study.

For the police to come out now and boldly suggest more Tasers are needed is, at once, bullying, egregious and insensitive.

Friday, February 27, 2009

Fantino's act grows tiresome

February 27, 2009
MICHAEL DEN TANDT, The Standard (St. Catherines)

Julian Fantino is a big man with big ambitions. For the past 40 years he has trod the thin blue line with firmness and resolve. It's time he stopped doing that. He should be -- what's the word? Fired.

The Canadian media has always had a love-hate relationship with Fantino. Mainly it's love. Why? He's brash, tough-talking and unafraid to speak his mind. Among senior public servants he stands out like a neon sign. He's Don Cherry in a much more tasteful suit.

He is also, increasingly, an embarrassment.

Does Canada have a pressing national problem with the use of Tasers by police? Not so much. Indeed, as Tom Kaye, vice-president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, said in Ottawa this week, most police forces now agree about how the devices should be used.

THIS NATION

It's simple: In cases where a suspect actively resists arrest, and it looks as though an innocent citizen or a police officer could be hurt, the Taser is a good option. In such situations it can and has saved lives, no question.

What Canadians do not wish to see (and this no doubt includes the vast majority of police officers) is cases in which suspects are tasered when they are not fighting and pose no apparent threat to anyone. That's what happened in the case of Polish immigrant Robert Dzienkanski.

As we all know he was surrounded by four Mounties at Vancouver airport in October of 2007 and tasered repeatedly. It was caught on video. There was no preamble and there were no apparent efforts to calm him with speech or body language before he was zapped. Afterwards he died. At last count there have been more than 20 similar deaths in Canada.

Proponents of the Taser, Fantino and Kaye among them, cite numerous studies -- 150 is the number they posited this week -- that prove the device has never directly caused anyone to die. There is no reason to disbelieve this. The voltage and amperage of these devices are not sufficient to kill a person.

The cases in which people have died following tasering, in other words, involved other factors -- a weak heart perhaps, a heart murmur, a stroke brought on by intense anger, fear or stress. People can die suddenly for any number of reasons, as Fantino said this week. Hit someone hard enough with your bare hand and there is a possibility their heart will stop.

But all that misses the point -- deliberately so, it seems to me. Few reasonable people would argue that Tasers should be banned outright, any more than they would argue that police should not carry firearms. It's a question of establishing clear guidelines for their use. The RCMP, in the wake of the Dzienkanski case, has done so. And so have most other Canadian police forces.

The upshot? There is no crisis. Nationwide, we're getting to a common-sense solution. But rather than acknowledge this (as Tom Kaye did Tuesday, to his credit) Fantino spent much of his national news time picking fights with and belittling anyone who dares to disagree with him.

Critics of Tasers, Fantino said, have never walked a beat and could not even pass basic police training. Gasp! Really? And is that the new standard for public criticism of the administration of justice in Canada? That we all be police officers or retired police officers?

True, a basic fitness requirement would rule out most journalists, because we tend to be reedy, unhealthy and flabby. Too much computer time. But what about everyone else? What about shopkeepers, bus drivers and gas station attendants? What about waitresses and university professors?

Is Uncle Julian going to make us all do pushups and crunches and run laps so that we may earn the right to disagree with his eminence? Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty is no Charles Atlas, let's be honest. Is that why the Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police regularly tells his boss which laws he should write?

Enough already. Fantino clearly loves politics. It's time he pursued that full-time.

Thursday, February 26, 2009

EDITORIAL: Tighten rules on stun gun use

February 26, 2009
THE WATERLOO RECORD

We Canadians ask a great deal of our police officers. We expect them to be cool-headed, rational thinkers capable of calming a chaotic situation, and while we understand that they are capable of showing their negative emotions just like the rest of us, we do expect more of them. We expect them to quickly size up any difficult situation and, acting on the best information available, quickly restore order.

In addition, we accept that our police officers need to carry weapons -- notably guns, nightsticks and, only just recently, stun guns manufactured under the brand name Taser. And no reasonable person would suggest that our officers not use those weapons to protect their own lives or the lives of other citizens.

Lately, however, one of those weapons -- the stun gun -- has taken on a sinister reputation. Its use by Canadian police officers has been linked to more than 20 deaths, including that of a Polish citizen at the Vancouver airport in 2007. That death is currently the subject of a British Columbia justice department inquiry.

It is to be hoped that the police forces across this country learn from this inquiry, and accept whatever judgment is passed on the use of stun guns. The RCMP has already acknowledged that the use of stun guns could potentially kill, and has announced that Tasers will only be used on people who display a clear threat to the public or the police. Good for them.

In light of this, it is especially disturbing to read of the positions taken by the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police who have launched a vigorous defence of the use of Tasers. Spokesmen for the two organizations spent much of a Tuesday news conference in Ottawa defending the use of the devices, and lashing out at critics' claims that the conducted-energy devices can be deadly.

Especially troubling, in light of evidence to the contrary, are comments made at the news conference by Ontario Provincial Police Chief Julian Fantino. "Tasers save lives and that's the bottom line." he said. "We decided to set the record straight.''

Yet officers at the news conference could not produce a single research document endorsing their point of view.

The facts are these. In most cases, when a stun gun is used on a young, healthy man, it acts to temporarily disable him without any long-term damage. But in some cases, perhaps if someone is weakened by disease or suffering from a pre-existing heart condition, the use of stun guns can and has been followed by death. There is almost no way a police officer responding to an emergency situation can know the medical history of an unruly citizen.

Guns, without question, can kill. Officers' nightsticks, depending on the nature of the altercation, can also deliver a fatal blow. And it's not inconceivable that an officer simply tackling a suspect could cause a fatal injury. While each of these scenarios is regrettable, the public understands that police need to be able to protect themselves and the community, and that the use of force is sometimes necessary to meet this goal.

What we now need from our police community is the acknowledgment that the use of stun guns can potentially be lethal, and that they should be used only in extreme circumstances.

Our police officers also have to understand that the public's criticism and concern about the use of Tasers is not an attack on the police officers themselves. It is a heartfelt plea for public safety.

EDITORIAL: Show us that Tasers save lives

February 26, 2009
The Province

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association issued a joint position at a Parliament Hill news conference Tuesday on the use of Tasers.

The groups' position called on all officers nationwide to be authorized and trained in the use of this weapon, calling Tasers "a valuable use-of-force option available to police to reduce the risk of injury or death."

Julian Fantino, the Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, told reporters that "Tasers save lives," and that 150 studies worldwide prove "there is no direct link in any case" between the use of a Taser and a death.

When asked to reveal the studies, Chief Fantino offered the glib response that he had no intention of doing the media's homework.

Sounds a lot like the tobacco industry in the 1970s, doesn't it?

Here are some questions for the nation's police departments to consider:

If Tasers save lives and if Tasers are safe, then why are they so controversial?

What evidence is there to support the argument that Tasering someone saves lives?

And finally, why would the two largest police organizations in this country come out with guns blazing on the Taser issue at the same time as the Braidwood Inquiry is looking into the safety of these weapons?

There probably is a place for Tasers in the law-enforcement arsenal, but more study has to be done to determine what that place might be.

The Braidwood inquiry is a big part of that study.

For the police to come out now and boldly suggest more Tasers are needed is, at once, bullying, egregious and insensitive.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

EDITORIAL: Dangerously blank slates

February 25, 2009
Globe and Mail

He backed away, flipped his hands in the air, picked up a stapler. For these actions - as four Mounties advanced on him in the Vancouver International Airport - Robert Dziekanski was tasered, as was allowed under RCMP policy at the time, Constable Gerry Rundel testified at an inquiry this week. Mr. Dziekanski, a 40-year-old Polish immigrant who had been waiting 10 hours for his mother, died after being tasered five times.

If anyone still wonders why police forces across Canada need to toss their taser-use policies in the garbage and start again, Constable Rundel's testimony is instructive. Many of those policies say "combative" or "resistant" people can be tasered. But these words are merely a blank slate on which police may write almost any self-justification they wish. They give police a licence for the use of massive force, even where, as in this case, it is unjustifiable.

Mr. Dziekanski was deemed combative and "non-compliant" (a close cousin of "resistant"), Constable Rundel explained, because he stepped back and threw his hands in the air as if to say, "To hell with you." He did not raise the stapler over his head, as Constable Rundel had said in a formal statement earlier; this was an ex post facto justification shown to be false on a bystander's videotape.

The Mounties announced two weeks ago that they had changed their taser policy to reflect a "risk of death" to agitated individuals. The weapon is to be used only "where it is necessary to do so in circumstances of threats to officer or public safety." "Threats to safety" is, like "resistant" and "combative," a term that means everything and nothing, although the word "necessary" suggests a high hurdle. But other police forces in Canada haven't followed suit.

Instead, they have demonstrated how deeply they can thrust their heads into the sand. Yesterday, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Canadian Police Association, representing chiefs and police officers across the country, offered a defence of the taser as rote and mindless as that offered by Constable Rundel himself. Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino even chastised the public for making "Monday morning quarterback decisions." Mr. Fantino was egregiously insulting; criticisms of the taser, he said, were coming from people who "could never pass recruitment training." Only police can judge the police, a view that would fit nicely into a dictatorship.

It should now be clear that those in charge of most police forces in Canada are incapable of examining the lessons of Mr. Dziekanski's death on Oct. 14, 2007. The taser is being used as a weapon of convenience; its risks, its power and its painfulness cry out for limiting its uses to situations of real danger. Civilian authorities need to follow the lead of the RCMP and write narrower rules for taser use.

EDITORIAL: Police agencies wrong to shoot the messenger over Taser policies

February 25, 2009
Vancouver Sun

Little more than a week after the RCMP made some welcome changes to its Taser policy, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association had an opportunity to follow suit and show that they, too, are willing to be flexible in light of the public's reasonable concern about the use of conducted energy weapons.

Instead, one representative of the two national police agencies decided not only to stand his ground on Tasers, but to lob a few insults at the media and the public at a press conference announcing the release of a joint document on Taser use.

The agencies maintain that Tasers pose no threat to the public, and that the weapons have helped to save lives. That might be true, but there are legitimate questions about Tasers given the more than 20 people in Canada who have died after being zapped.

Instead of acknowledging as much, the police chiefs chose to attack reporters, saying that "inaccurate and incomplete information is circulating in the media."

Exactly what information that is isn't clear, though Tom Kaye, vice-president of the CACP, did say that the media took a recent statement by RCMP Commissioner William Elliott out of context. Here's his statement in full:

"The RCMP's revised [Taser] policy underscores that there are risks associated with the deployment of the device and emphasizes that those risks include the risk of death, particularly for acutely agitated individuals."

Elliott made this comment, which is abundantly clear and which was made without qualification, before the Commons' standing committee on public safety.

Kaye didn't provide any evidence as to how it's been taken out of context, but did suggest, inexplicably, that the statement had been clarified "to us" -- that is, presumably to the police chiefs. But he didn't bother to explain what the clarification was.

Nevertheless, the chiefs continued on the offensive, with Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino suggesting that 150 studies have proven there exists no link between Tasers and death.

Despite not being able to name a single paper when asked for citations, Fantino nevertheless ramped up the rhetoric by telling people to "do your own homework."

And if that weren't enough, he launched into an adolescent attack on Taser critics, saying "So much of the misinformation and miscommunication is driven by people who have never walked in our shoes, have never faced those situations and could never pass recruitment training."

The chiefs' arrogance and unwillingness to consider any opinions but their own extended even to the medical profession, as they defended the use of "excited delirium," a condition dropped by the RCMP because it's not recognized by physicians.

If there are any bright spots in all of this -- and there are precious few -- it's that the chiefs did agree that there needs to be adequate training and guidelines regarding Taser use. And by the end of the press conference, Kaye admitted Tasers may have been used on peaceful subjects and that that shouldn't have happened.

That's a hopeful admission. But given that it came towards the end of an all-out assault on Taser critics, the real lesson from the press conference is that the chiefs will brook no questioning of their methods, even when the questions are fair and reasonable. And even when they come from the people who pay their salaries.

Tasers are an essential tool that saves lives, police say

February 25, 2009
GLORIA GALLOWAY, Globe and Mail

OTTAWA -- Canadian police lashed back yesterday at those who would curtail the use of tasers, saying the weapons are an essential tool for front-line officers and pose no threat to the public.

Julian Fantino, the Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, engaged in a testy back-and-forth with reporters at an Ottawa news conference where he and representatives of two national police organizations insisted that tasers do not kill.

"Tasers save lives, and that's the bottom line," said Chief Fantino. "Yes, there has to be adequate training, there has to be policies and procedures and accountability. But to deprive our police officers of what is, in fact, a very essential tool to do their jobs is counterproductive."

The weapons have been blamed for more than 20 deaths in Canada, including that of Polish immigrant Robert Dzienkanski, who was tasered by RCMP officers at Vancouver International Airport in October, 2007. A public inquiry into his death is being held in Vancouver.

Chief Fantino said it was time to bring "honesty" into reporting about tasers. There are 150 studies worldwide, he said, that show "there is no direct link in any case where a taser has been deployed ... to the demise of any individual."

When reporters demanded to know which studies he was referring to, Chief Fantino replied that he was not going to do homework for the media.

In fact, much research substantiates the safety of taser use.

A 2000 study conducted at Wake Forest University in North Carolina by Dr. William Bozeman showed that out of "nearly 1,000 cases, 99.7 per cent of those subjected to a taser had mild injuries, such as scrapes and bruises, or none at all." But even Dr. Bozeman, whose research is often cited as evidence that the weapons are safe, found that they can "clearly cause injuries and even deaths in some cases."

A paper released last month by the University of California, San Francisco, noted that the rate of sudden death in California increased six-fold in the first year that law-enforcement agencies in the state began using tasers. A 2008 study by Amnesty International, which included 98 autopsies, concluded that tasers can kill and called for them to be used only as a weapon of last resort.

Officials of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which represents police chiefs across Canada, and the Canadian Police Association, which represents rank-and-file officers, appeared with Chief Fantino to underline their assertion that tasers, also known as conducted-energy weapons, or CEWs, are safe.

Tasers "certainly enhance public safety and officer safety," said Charles Momy, president of the Canadian Police Association. "It is our position that all police officers should be authorized to carry CEWs."