Justice At Last ~ Remix

It was one week ago today that I wrote about my horror on hearing of Penny Bourdreau's confession.

One week ago today that I found that I could only barely ask myself how a mother could possibly do that to her own child. And noted that if I was suppose to be feeling some sort of pity or compassion for this woman, was suppose to consider that there must have been horror in her background or some uncontrollable mental illness that caused her to do what she did, I was unable.

A commentor wondered why I would even care if there was some horror in the mother's past and questioned whether I would ask the same question if the boyfriend had killed Karissa. They went on to note that "when men kill they are demonized, when women kill they are analyzed".

So. First let me restate that what I said was that I couldn't even ask myself such questions, that I couldn't get past what this so-called mother had done to her child to even care about any supposed "why".

But, in a sense, I do think Anonymous made a valid point. As Tam pointed out, also in comments, "it is always more shocking when a mother kills a child". I might extend that sentiment to "when a parent kills a child" and yet, yes, I suppose in some way, it does seem even more horrendous when it is the mother.

Perhaps it's because it's beyond what we can fathom; that as mothers, we quite simply can not imagine ever doing such harm to our children - children we carried in my own bodies - therefore, there must be some reason for it, no matter how far we, as a society, have to stretch to find one. This despite the fact that the argument could be made that anybody who intentionally kills any child must be operating with some serious mental health difficulties.

But speaking of "the boyfriend", I caught most of the televised interview with Vernon McCumber on CTV earlier this week. And was admittedly surprised to find him coming across as very sincere and genuine. How many "boyfriends" do you know of in similar situations who have come forward to the speak to the press? Although there may well be some, this is the first situation I am aware of where this happened.

The first news article I read concerning Boudreau's guilty plea referred MacCumber having "no way of knowing Boudreau would take Karissa's life when he told her shortly before the murder that Boudreau had to choose between keeping Karissa or him". I also heard and read different takes from various news services, everything from a statement that McCumber issued "an ultimatum" to Boudreau to his having commented that their place was cramped since Karissa had moved in. Quite a big difference from a comment that the residence was cramped to the issuance of an ultimatum, implying that it's either me or the kid.

On the CTV interview McCumber set out yet a different version, that Karissa and her mother were fighting so much that he told Penny that this wasn't constructive, they had to get some counseling. This, incidentally, is in agreement with the original news story that broke when Karissa first went missing.

As I wrote at the time that Karissa's body was first found:

On Sunday, January 27, 2008, 12 year old Karissa Paige Boudreau went for a drive with her mother. Mother and daughter weren't getting along so well (no real surprises there as any parent of a daughter that age will tell you) and apparently mom was applying some of that parenting advice that talking in the car, when you don't have to actually "face each other", sometimes works better. Eventually they stop at a local grocery store and mom goes in while Karissa waits in the car. When she returns about 15 minutes later, Karissa is gone.

MacCumber said that although he had some suspicions, he didn't know what Penny had done until she confessed to the police. That also dovetails, in some ways, with the Agreed Statement of Facts entered into court on the guilty plea wherein Penny stated that she drove Karissa to a Sobey's parking lot, "where she phoned her boyfriend to say Karissa had gone missing".

He spoke of loving Karissa, of being in agony over what had happened. Of being wracked with guilt and regret since finding out the truth. Of realizing that if he "had just insisted to go, she would have been okay".

Apparently MacCumber gave a similar interview to the Chronicle Herald, shortly after which paramedics and police were called to a north-end Halifax apartment building where a man who was thought to be Vernon MacCumber was threatening to commit suicide.

Look, I don't know the truth here. Quite frankly, probably none of us ever really will.

All I can say is this:

• That in the televised interview, MacCumber did seem surprisingly remorseful and sincere.


• That nothing will ever bring back Karissa.


• That it would be just fine by me if Penny Boudreau were to rot in hell.


• And that it seems highly unlikely that the police will be able to use their "standard" mob sting when they suspect parental killers as much as they use to given that they've now told the whole world how it works.

Justice At Last?

While it may bring some sense of closure and justice to many of the followers of this story, I'm not sure it can do much for 12 year old Karissa Boudreau.

"Mommy, don't," were the last words Karissa Boudreau spoke as her mother strangled her to death in the woods outside of Hebbville, N.S.

Her mother, Penny Boudreau, pled guilty to first degree murder in her child's death. As I read these words, my stomach clenches and turns. How can it not?

Tensions between the mother and daughter had ran high ever since Karissa had moved father's house inShelburne County in November, 2007.

MacCumber, according to the statement of facts, had told Boudreau that living in their apartment felt cramped with her daughter around.

Boudreau then decided to kill her daughter, court heard.

She drove her daughter to a Sobey's parking lot, where she phoned her boyfriend to say Karissa had gone missing.

Boudreau then drove to nearby Hebbville, where she chased her daughter of the red Dodge Neon, forced her to the ground, and choked her with a piece of twine.

Court heard she could feel her daughter struggling beneath her.

With her daughter's body slumped over in the front seat of her car, Boudreau drove to a Tim Horton's and threw out the twine in a coffee cup. She then drove to the LeHave River and disposed of Karissa's body, court heard.

At Lex's, the questions if often asked and re-asked," Where do we find such men?", after reading of the heroic actions of so many in the military. People who respond, in the heat of combat, to protect their comrades, often at the risk (or even loss) of their own lives.

Last February, I asked for people to show some compassion for a woman whose child had just died and in honour of Karissa and her family, not to immediately accept and repeat the horrific rumours which swirled around her.

Today my mind can only barely form the questions, "How could a mother possibly do this to her own child?", "How do such people manage to live with themselves, to even allow themselves to draw their next breath?", "Where, indeed, do we find such scum who mascarade as human?'.

Perhaps I am suppose to feel some sort of pity or compassion for this so-called mother. To grieve for Karissa while thinking that there must have been horror in Penny Boudreau's background or some uncontrollable mental illness that caused her to do what she did. Perhaps there was. But at this moment I can pull up no emotion for this woman other than repulsion, disgust and horror.

My youngest daughter is 12 years old. I would, without a second thought, give my life for her. As I would for her older sister. As would their father. As difficult as life can be, as much as having two teenagers in your home can, at times, cause you to wonder if one of these days they are going to push you over the edge ... I could never even imagine actually harming either one of them.

I'm sorry, Karissa. So, so sorry for so many things.

One of them being for the fact that you never actually had a mother. That woman, who gave birth to you and partially raised you, who I am sure you loved as a child loves their mother. That woman. Was. Not. A. Mother.

The 'Big Story' Returns

Charges have now been laid in last month's 'big' story from Digby.

Both an off-duty Halifax officer and the black youth that was tasered and arrested have been charged with creating a disturbance.

And, alas, it appears that numerous independent witnesses have now stepped forward to say that they did not hear any racial slurs uttered that fateful night. Kind of makes you wonder why we hadn't heard from them at the time, doesn't it?

Personally, I would be real interested in sitting in the front row watching both of these charges being tried. Assuming they ever will be, of course. What do you think are the chances that the officer might just decide to plead guilty in an attempt to lessen any more adverse publicity from the event?

Dusting For Prints in Digby

Every Big Story needs a "big picture", don't you think?

Bruce MacKinnon cartoon in today's Chronicle Herald

The Big Story

The big story locally is the fight between a group of off-duty police officers and two black teens in Digby. At least, I assume it's the big story, given that I have heard it repeatedly in various forms for the past three days on our two local radio stations. And it doesn't seem to be anywhere near petering out, either. Even though there doesn't appear to be anything new to report.

Digby is a small fishing community along the Bay of Fundy. But what Wikipedia doesn't tell you is that Digby is "Home of the World Famous Scallop & nominated Canada's Most Romantic Town". Seriously though, Digby is a pretty little town (of course, in my view, just about any city or town with a harbour is pretty) and a great place to go for seafood. But it's a little on the ... um, shall we say, quiet side. As in not much to do if you're a young person hanging out, whether during the day or at night.

Of course there always is Club 98, which is, I think, about the only "night spot" in town. Fitting somehow that the street in front of the Club was the scene of this latest incident. Now, before we get started, let's get one thing clear - I really don't believe for one moment that this latest incident had much, if anything, to do with bored youth hanging around town in the middle of the night, getting into trouble. Oh sure, that's easy enough to find anywhere. And easy enough to pin the blame on any time there is an incident between the police and youth. But not this time.

This story goes a little something like this.

There was a group of off-duty police officers in town. For some sort of charity event, apparently. And as our two villains protagonists victims heroes young men walked down the street in front of Club 98, it is said that one of these "drunk" officers "directed a racial taunt" at one of them. The youth responded verbally, resulting in five or six officers getting out of their van and one of the group throwing a punch at one of the youth. Unfortunately for the officer, I suppose, he missed. The youth swung back and the officer spent the night in the hospital.

But wait, it gets better. Apparently two on-duty Digby RCMP officers were in the right place at the right time. Go figure this, according to the youth, they simply sat in their vehicle and watched, not responding at all until the off-duty officer was punched. By the way, the youth that delivered that punch (after being swung at first, you will recall) was tasered four times and then arrested. But not charged with anything. According to him, he was never told, prior to being tasered, that he was under arrest and had made no aggressive moves towards these officers, he was only backing away from them when he was tasered.

A little skeptical of believing everything a person engaged in a street fight has to say? Especially when their 'victims' were members of the law enforcement community?

That's okay. Because apparently we have it all on video. Video from a town street camera, that is. Unfortunately the Digby RCMP vehicle surveillance cameras weren't rolling at the time. The cameras, you see, only come with one disc, that is only good for a set number of hours. New CDs were on order at the time of the incident. And because the cameras weren't rolling, neither were the microphones worn on officers' lapels running. A pity, that.

So, what's next?

Although this past Tuesday, the Halifax Regional Police stated that they weren’t planning to investigate their members’ actions from that night, as

"We have no public complaint in relation to the incident and, at this point, from our investigation of what happened, no HRP member acted in an inappropriate manner",

they apparently have changed their mind and are now investigating the conduct of the off-duty officers involved in the incident. Off-duty officers who were from various areas of the Province, including Halifax.

And what a coincidence that the very officer who was captured on camera as taking the first swing and later ended up in hospital is a member of the Halifax force. Which has to make one wonder a bit, considering that it's been my experience at least, that investigations into such matters are always farmed out to other forces so that officers are never investigating the conduct of their colleagues that they work most directly with. That pesky little matter of justice not only being done, but being seen to be done, don't ya know.

As for those Digby RCMP officers, although Staff Sgt. Phil Barrett, the commander of the Digby RCMP detachment, had asked for a full investigation by the RCMP’s major crime unit on Tuesday, he now, apparently, is satisfied that his officers acted professionally and properly throughout. That they did what they could under the circumstances. However, he neglects to mention the fact that while those officers tasered one youth and chased down another, they failed to ask any of the other individuals involved (the off-duty officers) their names or detain them in any fashion. Funny that, too.

That RCMP investigation is underway, however, with the New Minas detachment conducting the probe with help from the RCMP's major crime unit in Yarmouth. So it's good to see that at least the Digby detachment isn't in the business of investigating its own officers actions.

Now, I am most definitely not a cop-basher. As I've said before, they have a tough job, one not many of us would want to do. One you have to respect. At least, I do. And it's one we demand expect them to do well, to do right. All the time. Every time. Which, given that there are actual human beings behind those badges, is no doubt a little unreasonable.

But it is unreasonable to expect law enforcement officers, even when off-duty, not to engage in the very conduct that they have sworn to impede? Not to break the very laws that they have sworn to enforce?

On camera, remember.

Oh yeah, one more little thing. Digby, the black community and the RCMP have a bit of a history, you see. It was a mere six months ago that the RCMP brass apologized to the Digby-area black community for the racist and sexist behaviour of a former detachment commander who has since retired.

Now apparently some very reasonable local residents have questioned why there was such a problem on the same weekend that several off-duty police officers from other parts of the province were in town. Good question, no?

Justice

They say justice is blind. Or at least she is suppose to be. But I'm pretty sure if you took a poll, you would find that the majority of people believe otherwise.

Back in February, I wrote about Karissa Paige Bourdreau, a 12 year old girl from Bridgewater, Nova Scotia whose body was found outside of town, by the side of the river. At the time, the police were tight-lipped on the details, only saying it was murder.

I was astounded at the quick spread of rumours as to what, exactly, might have happened to Karissa. Many were sure that her mother, Penny, was to blame. Even with no objective evidence from any credible source to that effect. People seemed to think that they just "knew". I reluctantly admitted that perhaps, unthinkably, we might eventually find out there was some truth to these rumours but that without one iota of credible evidence, I refused to even consider such a thing.

Fast forward four months. Karissa's mother has been charged with the first degree murder of her daughter.

The latest rumour? That Mom's live-in boyfriend, Vernon Macumber, will also be charged. This despite the fact that the police are saying that they aren't looking at any more suspects and that both the boyfriend and Karissa's father will be key Crown witnesses.

They say that a mother killing a child as old as 12 is almost unheard of in Canada. Martin Daly is a professor at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont. He said he and his wife, fellow psychologist and professor Margo Wilson, were taken aback when they heard Penny Boudreau had been arrested and charged with killing her daughter Karissa.

There are just a handful of murders of children by their mothers in Canada each year, he said. About half of those involve infants killed in their first year of life, "and these are perpetrated primarily by poor, young, single women who have no social supports and didn’t want to be pregnant."

Most of the remaining murders involve preschool-aged children.

Mr. Daly said those are mainly carried out by severely depressed or even delusional women and often as part of a suicide in which the mother may think she is rescuing her child.

"The incidence of homicides by genetic parents of either sex, but especially by mothers, diminishes steadily with the child’s age, such that cases involving victims over about six or eight years of age are almost vanishingly rare," he said.

Mr. Daly said it is also unusual, though not unheard of, for a killer to try to cover up a murder and pretend to be distraught. And when that happens, he said, it tends to be in cases where either the father killed the child or both parents acted together.

Well, if nothing else, Penny can certainly put on a good show. She was publicly and openly heartbroken when Karissa first went missing. As any parent would be. And equally distraught, apparently, at her recent court appearance.

So what happened?

I recently heard someone question why, if Penny hadn't "wanted the kid", she hadn't just given her to her father? As I understand it, Karissa's parents were divorced and she had been living with her father. It was only within the past year that she had moved in with her mother.

Mr. Daly and Ms. Wilson wrote that "psychological studies of murderers have repeatedly found a much higher proportion of insane killers among those who murder kin than among those who kill non-relatives" and that "it does appear that identifiable psychiatric syndromes are relatively prevalent among killers of kin."

It strikes me that we may never know the whole story as to what really happened, why Karissa's life was ended so tragically at such a young age. But I do know that if and when this matter ever proceeds to trial, there won't just be a family or a community closely watching. There will be an entire province, even a large part of the country trying to figure out what really happened.

In the meantime, I can only repeat my earlier thoughts.

Sleep peacefully, Karissa. And to your family, friends and schoolmates, my deepest sympathies. And my sympathies to all of us who live in a world where we could possibly think, even for a moment, that Karissa might have met her death at the hands of her parents.

For Whom These Rights Toll

Our neighbours to the south have been struggling mightily for quite a few years now with the issue of what protections, if any, detained members of the Taleban and Al-Qaeda should be afforded, both under international and US law. And in many ways they seem no closer to answers today than they were in 2002.

Don't believe me? Just witness the current crop of hopeful would-be presidential nominees:

[Republican John] McCain does not believe the detainees are entitled to the "full constitutional protections that are afforded to US citizens," he said.

- - - - - -

Obama [Democrat] now says that, as president, he would stop the military commissions and try the remaining Guantanamo Bay detainees in military courts-martial or in federal courts, which have successfully tried some terrorist cases.

- - - - - -

Now Clinton [Democrat] says, if she becomes president, she would ask the Justice Department to evaluate the cases of the detainees and decide whether they should be tried in federal courts or courts-martial.

So what about Canada? Have we done any better of a job in figuring it all out?

Ask Canadian-born Khadr. He was only 15 years old when he was captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan in a firefight in 2002 and he’s spent over five years in detention at the American naval base in Guantanamo, Cuba. After already having made headlines and been the subject of much political and legal debate, he is expected to go on trial this summer before a special military tribunal, charged with murder, conspiracy and other terror-related offences.

In 2003, Khadr was questioned at Guantanamo by officials from Foreign Affairs and CSIS (the Canadian Security Intelligence Service), both of whom shared the results of their interrogations with U.S. authorities. The most recent issue surrounding Khadr has been whether the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which among other things, guarantees full disclosure of Crown evidence to defendants in Canadian criminal cases) could be stretched to cover his situation.

Although the federal government contended that it couldn't, taking the position that the right to receive pre-trial disclosure is a right protected by the Charter only for persons accused of crimes in Canada and is not engaged in a foreign-prosecution, it would appear that the Supreme Court of Canada begs to differ.

In a 9-0 ruling that has broad implications for cases involving Canadians abroad, the court said Mr. Khadr is entitled to any records of the interrogations, as well as any information that Canadian authorities gave to their U.S. counterparts as a direct consequence.

The court reasoned that Mr. Khadr would have been entitled to the material were his trial set to take place in Canada - and he should have no less because he is in foreign hands.

The court firmly hitched its ruling to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that found that detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison have suffered serious violations of legal and human rights.

"The effect of the United States Supreme Court's holdings is that the conditions nder which Mr. Khadr was held and was liable for prosecution were illegal under both U.S. and international law at the time that Canadian officials interviewed Mr. Khadr and gave the information to U.S. authorities," the court said.

Although Khadr's defence counsel were less than enthused by the practical effect of the ruling for their client (it still won't give Khadr the one report he most needs - a military report detailing the 2002 Afghan gun battle during which Khadr is alleged to have thrown a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier, which, although a copy was given to Canada, the Americans claim to have lost their only copy of, making the Canadian copy the only one whose location is known), they were quick to note the "symbolic significance" of the ruling. That, apparently, being a sign that Canada has "washed its hands of complicity in an abusive U.S. military process".

The SCC judges were careful in their portrayal of Guantanamo as illegal, relying on U.S. Supreme Court decisions from 2004 and 2006 that found various aspects of the system to be in violation of the law. It was under this system that CSIS agents interrogated Khadr in Guantanamo in 2003, and the documents pertaining to those interrogations were the subject of yesterday's ruling. And although the American laws dealing with the military commissions system have since been revamped, there are those who consider the process today to be essentially no different than the one that has now been deemed illegal.

Okay. Whatever.

Among the cheerleading crowd are those who feel that the judgment nudges the federal government toward demanding that Khadr either be tried in the domestic U.S. court system or sent back to Canada. My only comment on that being, whether or not one considers it to be the proper thing for us to do, the idea of Canada "demanding" anything from the US concerning Khadr or any other prisoner in in Guantanamo appears rather laughable to me.

And then are those who believe (and this is much more interesting to me, from a legal standpoint) that the ruling has great significance for future cases involving foreign jurisdictions.

Joe Arvay, a lawyer for the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, applauded the court for extending the Charter to "the conduct of Canadian officials acting outside of Canada when they participate in the processes of a foreign government that is in violation of international law.

"This is an extremely important and welcome decision, as it had been argued by the federal government that the Charter did not apply outside of Canada's territorial borders in such circumstances," Mr. Arvay said.

Personally, however, I'm not quite sure the decision actually goes that far. From the headnote to the SCC decision:

[Khadr] is entitled to disclosure from the appellants of the records of the interviews, and of information given to U.S. authorities as a direct consequence of conducting the interviews. The principles of international law and comity of nations, which normally require that Canadian officials operating abroad comply with local law and which might otherwise preclude application of the Charter to Canadian officials acting abroad, do not extend to participation in processes that violate Canada’s binding international human rights obligations. The process in place at Guantanamo Bay at the time Canadian officials interviewed K and passed on the fruits of the interviews to U.S. officials has been found by the U.S. Supreme Court, with the benefit of a full factual record, to violate U.S. domestic law and international human rights obligations to which Canada subscribes. The comity concerns that would normally justify deference to foreign law do not apply in this case. Consequently, the Charter applies.

With [Khadr’s] present and future liberty at stake, Canada is bound by the principles of fundamental justice and is under a duty of disclosure pursuant to s. 7 of the Charter. The content of this duty is defined by the nature of Canada’s participation in the process that violated its international human rights obligations.

And from the text of the decision itself:

If the Guantanamo Bay process under which Mr. Khadr was being held was in conformity with Canada’s international obligations, the Charter has no application and Mr. Khadr’s application for disclosure cannot succeed: Hape. However, if Canada was participating in a process that was violative of Canada’s binding obligations under international law, the Charter applies to the extent of that participation.
[Emphasis added]

All of which, to my reading, severely limits the scope of the decision. The Court clearly approved previous law to the effect that Canadian officials are not bound by Charter constraints but rather can accept foreign laws and procedures when operating abroad. The only exception to this is where "clear violations of international law and fundamental human rights" have occurred as Canadian participation in activities of a foreign state or its agents that are contrary to Canada’s international obligations will not be allowed.

And given that the the US Supreme Court had already found that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay had illegally been denied access to habeas corpus and that the procedures under which they were to be prosecuted violated the Geneva Convention, it could be argued that the SCC had an 'easy out'. After all, the Court was able to rely on the fact that those American findings were "based on principles consistent with the Charter and Canada’s international law obligations" and were sufficient to establish violations of these international law obligations, to which Canada subscribes.

So ... far-reaching repercussions, broad implications for cases involving Canadians abroad and important precedent?? Maybe not so much.

Realizing that I may have put many of you to sleep, for anyone suitably legally attuned, the SCC decision, itself, can be found here.

Truth, Justice and the Canadian Way, Part II

The second story contains the results of one of those long-awaited reports on taser use. This time in Nova Scotia. .

Apparently the amount of training "differs significantly among law enforcement agencies", with RCMP and corrections officers receiving 16 hours of training to become a Taser operator while municipal police officers and sheriff’s deputies get half that. Some enforcement agencies require a supervisor’s approval whenever possible before using the stun gun, while others are told to give notification "as soon as practical" afterward. Some guidelines say the only time a Taser should be fired more than once is when a subject continues to resist, while others don’t mention it. All enforcement agencies are told to issue a verbal warning before using the Taser, but only some are directed to give an arc demonstration before firing it.

So there you go, now you know. Anything surprising there? Not really, I can't say I expected consistency in either training or rules of engagement. However, as Justice Minister Cecil Clarke noted, "differences are hard to justify".

Incidentally, the report found that there was no "causal connection" between Taser use and last November's death of Howard Hyde, a 45-year old schizophrenic from Dartmouth who died about 30 hours after Halifax Regional Police subdued him with a Taser. Which doesn't much surprise me, either. Given that only a little digging will show that despite the number of people who have died after being shot with a Taser, it is very difficult to find more than one or two cases where the Taser itself is believed to have caused the death. Unfortunately, the media's favourite play seems to be to link the two events (being tasered and death) as being causal just because they both occurred.

And, as a final twist, the Halifax Police Department reports that their numbers show that there are more arrest injuries when tasers aren't used they when they are.

Condolences

On Sunday, January 27, 2008, 12 year old Karissa Paige Boudreau went for a drive with her mother. Mother and daughter weren't getting along so well (no real surprises there as any parent of a daughter that age will tell you) and apparently mom was applying some of that parenting advice that talking in the car, when you don't have to actually "face each other", sometimes works better. Eventually they stop at a local grocery store and mom goes in while Karissa waits in the car. When she returns about 15 minutes later, Karissa is gone.

Fastforward two weeks, a young girl's body has been outside of town, by the side of the river. And was eventually identified as Karissa Boudreau. The police are tight-lipped on the details but are saying it's murder.

Unfortunately, that's a story you might hear repeated numerous times a day around both Canada and the US. But there's something a little different about this one; mainly, its location - the idyllyic South Shore town of Bridgewater, Nova Scotia. It's a beautiful little town, split by the LaHave River. It always seems so peaceful to me, as do most places along the South Shore. It's part of Nova Scotia at its best. And now it's the scene of a murder investigation of a young girl who died much too soon.

It's a tragic story, no matter how you look at it. And it strikes even closer to home when the victim is the same as your youngest daughter. But what, in some ways, strikes me even harder, that in some way seems to make it even more tragic, is the quick spread of rumours as to what, exactly, might have happened. Perhaps in some strange way it is easier for us to think the horrific thought that somehow the parents were involved than to think that a stranger did this. Than to think that you can't safely leave your 12 year old child alone in the car while you run into the store for a few minutes. In a town like Bridgewater, of all places.

And as my much as it hurts to think of Karissa's death, my stomach clenches even more, when I hear someone repeat those rumours. Perhaps, unthinkably, we will find out there is some truth to them. Heaven knows that we have heard such horrific stories before. But for now, quite frankly, for now, we don't know. I have yet to see one iota of credible evidence to make me even consider such a thing. And unless and until I do, in honour of this half child - half woman who never had the chance to live her life and in honour of her family, I refuse to even consider such a thing. As I asked my husband last night, if Karissa was your child and people were repeating these sorts of things, how would you feel?

Sleep peacefully, Karissa. And to your family, friends and schoolmates, my deepest sympathies. And my sympathies to all of us who live in a world where we could possibly think, even for a moment, that Karissa might have met her death at the hands of her parents.

Update: I just heard that the police have two people in custody in regard to Karissa's murder and are looking for a third. Perhaps soon we will all have at least some of the answers we crave.

Deeply Distressing

We have some evidence now of how al Qaida treats the disabled. But have we checked in our own backyards lately?

The following video, caught on a Tampa, Florida, police station surveillance camera, depicts the events that occurred after Brian Sterner, a quadriplegic, was stopped on a traffic violation on January 29, 2008 and taken to the station for booking. Apparently Deputy Charlotte Marshall Jones didn't believe he was really paralyzed, so she dumped his wheelchair forwards, reulting in Mr. Sterner falling to the floor.



The Deputy has been suspended without pay and three supervisors in the booking area at the time were suspended with pay. Mr.Sterner, as it turns out, is the director of the Florida Spinal Cord Injury Resource Center, based in Tampa. He plays wheelchair rugby with the Tampa Generals, and he's working on a PhD.

I will give you that there might be little more to this story than appears at first blush.

Sterner was arrested at his Riverview home and taken to the Orient Road Jail on a charge of fleeing and attempting to elude a police officer, according to records. He posted $2,000 bond and was released Feb 3.

A warrant for Sterner's arrest was issued after an Oct. 25 incident, in which police stopped him while driving a car fitted with hand pedals and cited him for blocking an
intersection.

"My client was stopped that night and was given a traffic citation, so how could he be fleeing and eluding?" Sterner's lawyer John Trevena said. "We're very skeptical about the basis for the charge itself."

In addition, the video appears to show that Mr. Sterner did have some abiltiy to move his arms and legs and might have been somewhat combative. Prior to being dumped on the floor, I mean. After that, I suppose he might have had the right to be. I would love to be able to hear the sound on that video, I tell ya.

But none of that justifies the actions of the officers in the video. Personally, watching the video, I found myself fantasizing about getting my hands around the Deputy's neck. Although I suppose some form of education concerning disabilities might be more useful and relevant.

After all, if she wanted him on the floor, she could have just tasered him, right? [/sarcasm off]


H/T to Pipecleaner Dreams

Move Over Tupperware, It's Taser Time

Okay. Seriously. This is just too weird.

Do you remember those Tupperware parties your mom used to attend when you were a kid? And then she would come home all excited about her new plastic products? Or maybe she even hosted a few?

Well, Move Over Tupperware. Bring Out The Tasers.

Apparently, concerns about the newest form of Russian Roulette doesn't bother this lady any. Dana Shafman, an 'independent entrepreneur', purchases tasers from Taser International at a discounted dealer rate. She's then invites other women into her home and uses their fear of home invasions to sell them Tasers.

The worst nightmare for me is, while I'm sleeping, someone coming in my home," Shafman says, drawing a few solemn nods from the gathered women. Shafman, 34, of Phoenix, says she knows how they feel. She says she used to stash knives under her pillow for protection.

Welcome, she says, to the Taser party.

On the coffee table, Shafman spreads out Taser's C2 "personal protector" weapons that the company is marketing to the public. It doesn't take long before the women are lined up in the hallway, whooping as they take turns blasting at a metallic target.

"C'mon!" she says. "Give it a shot."

That's right, folks. She is selling, totally legally I might add, the same weapons to, presumably, everyone from housewives to computer analysts, as those whose use in the hands of trained police officers has resulted in eighteen deaths in Canada alone, a lot of public outrage and various public enquiries. No training, no warnings, no permits required. But rest easy, the company does require a criminal background check before the code is provided to turn the weapon on. Because they're, like, a responsible corporate citizen, dontchya know.

Company officials say they're now selling Tasers in 43 countries and more than 12,500 police agencies in North America are either using or testing their weapons. With its weapons dominant in law enforcement, Taser is turning its attention back to the civilian market.

It launched the C2 in August. Though it packs the same electric punch, the C2 is smaller than the bulky personal stun guns Taser developed years ago, and its sleek exterior makes it look more like an electric razor than a weapon. They're legal in every U.S. state but New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Michigan, Wisconsin, Hawaii, and Washington D.C.

Shafman says many of her women customers love that the C2 is small enough to fit in their purses, and that it comes in a variety of colours. When it comes to choosing weapons, she says, a lot of women want them in pink.

"It's a girl power kind of thing," Shafman says. "You're kind of making a statement: I know I'm a woman. I know I'm the most sought after victim in regards to sexual assault, sexual abuse. So please stay away from me. If in the event you do come after me, I'm going to use my pink Taser to put you on the ground."

Oh yeah, dude. Watch out for me. My taser is pink. And if I accidentally hit someone else with it and they happen to die, well, hey, you gotta admit ... it is a totally cool fashion accessory.

That's Certainly One Way To Find A Suspect

Shamelessly borrowed from R. Enrochs, Esq
Thanks for the best chuckle I've had in a while.

Baby Steps

Its been said that the greatest journey begins with the smallest step.

And thus it was that the Chairman of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP (CPC) issued an interim report finding that the RCMP should only use tasers as an alternative to lethal force, not as an "intermediate" device such as pepper spray. This is significant as it means that the taser should only be used in situations where a person is being “combative” or poses a risk of “death or grievous bodily harm” to the officer, themselves or the general public.

Paul Kennedy, the author of the report, was asked to advise on the use of the electric stun gun after the death of Polish citizen Robert Dziekanski at the Vancouver airport on Oct. 14. Although the report does not recommend an outright moratorium on Taser use by the RCMP, it calls for more accurate and meaningful data to be collected on Taser use, finding that current policy has evolved without "adequate, if any, reference to the realities of the weapon's use by the RCMP."

"The change would mean it would only be used when an individual is being combative" or posing a risk of "death or grievous bodily harm" to the officer, themselves or the general public, says the report.

Currently, RCMP policy classifies Tasers as an "intermediate" device, placing it in the same category as pepper spray.

That classification allows Mounties to use the weapon when someone is deemed "resistant."

As a result, the Commission feels the weapon can be used "earlier than reasonable."

What? Is taser use a problem or something?

Although the largest, the RCMP is just one police force operating in Canada. And yet, some 2,800 tasers are being used by the its more than 9,100 members across the country; the RCMP alone have wielded the electronic guns over 3,000 times since their introduction in December, 2001. Yet no annual report has ever been produced, nor has the force thoroughly examined its statistical information on taser use in developing related policy. Gee, anybody else see a potential problem here?

Other recommendations included in the interim report include:
• changing the RCMP's taser training program to reflect its status as an impact weapon
• requiring recertification in taser use every two years
• requiring and enforcing stricter reporting requirements every time a taser is used and
• creating an RCMP national “use-of-force” co-ordinator to oversee policies, techniques and equipment

Although some are already taking issue with the recommendations (RCMP Commissioner William Elliott has expressed concern that barring the use of tasers might force officers to use guns, batons, or other methods to apprehend people in some cases), personally, I think its a great start. I don't think that tasers should necessarily be outlawed. But I do think we need to be very careful to ensure that they are used responsibly.

The biggest potential pitfall is, as always, political.

“I will review this interim report before commenting further,” Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said Wednesday. “Our government takes this matter seriously and recognizes that Canadians must have full confidence in their national police force.”

The Executive Summary on Tasers by the Chair, Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP can be found here. For any so inclined.

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Taser?

As a follow up to the Russian Roulette post, from the serious to the absurd.

From Not A Lawyer:

Donnell Williams was in his own home, and had been bathing. He is a hearing impaired man.

So, there Mr. Williams was, in a towel and without his hearing aid when police barged into his home and Tased him. /p>

Someone had falsely reported a shooting at his residence, so the cops forced their way into his home. When they began shouting orders at him, without his hearing aid he couldn’t hear them. As a result they shot him with the Taser gun.

When they realized their mistake, they apologized to Mr. Williams.

For once, I'm about as close to speechless as you will probably ever find me.

Okay, I think I've recovered...
As nutty as this is, I can only partially blame the individual officers. It goes back to what I have said before, namely, that the police need better training. I mentioned mental health issues previously and apparently I'm not the only who feels that way.

Although the executive director of the Schizophrenia Society of Nova Scotia welcomes the recently-called "ministerial review of conductive energy devise (Taser) use and policies" in this jurisdiction [fancy government-speak for a review of the police use of tasers] which was called following the death of a 45-year-old man 30 hours after officers used a stun gun to subdue him, he is encouraging demanding that the panel include expert representatives with mental illness.

And the sister of this latest victim might be forgiven for being somewhat skeptical of the investigation. She refers to it as "a diversion from the real question."

"I'm wondering if the Department of Justice is trying to get attention onto the Tasers to take away from attention on the judge, who made the decision to return my brother to the correctional centre (rather than sending him to a hospital)," she said.

As an aside, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are also conducting a formal review of this same incident, which they won't release until medical examiners finalize their report. That report could take between four to six months.

Because you see, that's one thing us Canadians are good at ... reviews, enquiries, studies and reports. Nero fiddles while Rome burns perhaps?

In addition to issues surrounding mental illness, as the story of the deaf scantily-clad Mr. Williams and this tale of a taser being used on a mentally handicapped young woman only too well point out, the fact is that the police in many jurisdictions need training around recognizing and dealing with individuals with all types of disabilities.

Back to the deaf Mr. Williams. Even though we don’t know how hectic and chaotic things were at the moment that the decision was made to use the taser, you would think that the police at least would have heard the poor man screaming that he couldn't hear them.

Then again, on the other hand, deaf or not, Mr. Williams might have had the sense to put his hands up in that type of situation, no? Even if it meant losing his towel ...

Its moments like this that I have to remind myself about what I really think ...

• we have to sit back and let those enquiries do their work
• what needs to be happen is a weighing and balancing exercise which can only occur after all the evidence is gathered and all the stakeholders heard from and
• we really need to be wary of jumping to quick, relatively 'easy' conclusions.

Other than that, don't ask me, I only work here.

H/T to Not A Lawyer and the SSNS


Update: When you're right, you're right...

The New Russian Roulette

Hit or miss. Lucky or not so lucky, you just never know.
And it appears to bes growing. Almost every single day. Getting bigger and bigger. More and more of an issue.

Playing Russian Roulette with somebody else's life?

But don't worry. A solution has been found.
Its called the ever-prevalent, also-growing ... enquiry.

• How many people have died from the police use of tasers?
• Should they really be considered 'non-lethal'?
• How many jurisdicitons have now ordered enquiries into their use?
• Are many people just overreacting, not understanding the realities and complexities of police work?

Quite frankly, I don't know the answers. But here's what I do know.

From Not A Lawyer:

In Ohio, a pregnant woman who was on the ground was shot with a Taser gun by a police officer because she refused to answer his questions and resisted being handcuffed.

The woman had arrived at the police station with her 1-year-old son in tow and asked the police to take custody of the child because she was tired of dealing with his father. When questioned, she refused to answer and just tried to leave with her child. The officer decided to detain her because he says that he feared that letting her leave with the child could have put the boy in danger.

So, as the officer grabbed her, she resisted him and ended up on the floor and resisted being handcuffed. She was wearing a winter coat, so the cop didn’t realize she was pregnant and pulled out his trusty Taser and shot her with it.
This officer remains on duty as the FBI investigates the case to determine if excessive police force was used. The police department says that they are also investigating the incident.

Meanwhile, the condition of the woman and her unborn child are unknown.

Apparently, according to a copy of Trotwood Police Department General Orders, police officers are encouraged to "greatly evaluate each situation with discretion" before using a Taser on a child, elderly person or pregnant woman.

But unfortunately this isn't the only pregnant woman who has been tasered.

Tianesha Robinson, 33, was pregnant in 2006 when she was jolted by a stun gun in Kansas after she allegedly resisted arrest during a traffic stop. Robinson ultimately had a miscarriage, according to The Associated Press, but doctors could not conclusively link the Taser to the woman losing the baby.

Another woman, Cindy Grippi, delivered a stillborn girl in December 2001 after California police hit her with a Taser. A medical examiner never determined the cause of the child's death, which could have been traced to the woman's methamphetamine usage. Still, the city of Chula Vista settled a lawsuit with the woman for $675,000, according to the AP.

But wait, there's more.

Authorities in Utah are probing a recent Taser incident in which motorist Jared Massey was struck by the device after allegedly disobeying an officer's requests. Massey, who filed a complaint with Utah authorities about the trooper's use of force, posted the dashboard camera video of the confrontation on YouTube last week. The incident sparked a new round debate.

We've had our share of incidents in Canada too.

Canadian officials continue to investigate the case of Robert Dziekanski, a Polish immigrant who died after he was hit by a Taser at the Vancouver International Airport in October. The four police officers involved in that incident, which also was caught on surveillance tape, have since been reassigned to different posts. Eighteen people have died in Canada after being hit with a Taser in the last four years, according to the Canadian federal police.

More on that last one here. Which resulted in the federal government ordering a review of the RCMP taser policy. You can even watch the video. If you're so moved.

That review, however, will not include other police forces.

In Montreal, Quilem Registre died in mid-October after being shocked by a Taser at a police station where he had been brought for questioning. He had been stopped as a result of a traffic violation, and officers said he appeared to be intoxicated.

And more local to me.

A man has died in a Dartmouth jail about 30 hours after he was jolted by a Taser, prompting Nova Scotia's justice minister to order a review of police use of the weapon.

But Halifax Regional Police said Thursday that it's too early to speculate about whether the Taser hit killed the man.

There's a bit of a catch with this one, you see. The 45-year-old man died about 30 hours after officers used a stun gun to subdue him. That was 30 hours after he received medical attention and was cleared medically follwoing the use of the taser.

So where is this all going?

Well, it would appear that there are more lawsuits outstanding. Some have already been dismissed by the courts. And obviously with good reason.

U.S. District Judge Andre Davis dismissed Sparks resident Brian Nero’s lawsuit against officers Seung Pak and Jai Song, who responded to Nero’s home shortly after midnight July 6, 2003, for a 911 call of a disturbance.

“In light of the information that was available to the officers when they arrived on the scene, their action in entering the Nero home was objectively reasonable ... ” Davis wrote in a Sept. 27 decision. “ ... The decision to ‘detain’ [Nero] was also plainly objectively reasonable.”

Pak and Song were greeted at the door by Nero’s wife, Maria, and entered the home, where they found Brian Nero naked in the bathroom ­— inside an “attic-like storage area” — with a handgun, according to the judge’s decision. The officers requested the help of a tactical unit and used their weapons, including a Taser gun, to detain Nero until other units arrived.

This is the first lawsuit that I am aware of in Nova Scotia.

When an agitated Mr. Saulnier decided to leave the police station through a back door, two Mounties followed him outside and ordered him back inside, the statement of claim alleges. One officer went back inside to grab a Taser, then returned and fired the darts into Mr. Saulnier’s back.

"According to the RCMP, (Mr. Saulnier) was in an altercation with one officer and the other one got him from behind," Mr. MacGillivray said. Mr. Saulnier fell to the ground and both officers jumped on him, the statement of claim says. A third officer came outside to help. Two officers repeatedly Tasered Mr. Saulnier in "drive-stun mode" by applying the weapon directly to his lower back and other parts of his body, the suit alleges.

A Taser used in this fashion inflicts pain but does not immobilize, Mr. MacGillivray said last month.

And people in a state of so-called "excited delirium" cannot be immobilized by pain, he said.

And as always, there are what appears to be valid arguments on both sides of the issue.

But here's another piece of the problem, you see. It appears that a fair number of the individuals who have turned into 'unfortunate statistics' after being tasered suffer from some form of mental illness. And there's no denying that the legal system in general, including the police, tend not to do such a good job with these people. Its a system that quite frankly is not equipped to handle these situations.

More interesting facts.

The human rights organization Amnesty International, which urges more restraint by law enforcement when choosing to discharge the devices, cited 250 cases in the United States in the last six years in which a suspect died after being hit with a Taser. Those statistics, however, do not track whether the shock actually caused the deaths.

Taser International Inc., the company that manufactures Tasers, claims that the device can only be tied to 12 deaths but does recognize that pregnant women are at more risk of danger if hit by one of the devices.

Possible solutions?

Some, of course, argue for the complete banning of tasers, protesting that drawing a weapon of deadly force to protect one's self or citizens might be preferable, as at least then both the police and the subject threatened would have the prospect of making an informed judgment about the consequences of their conduct.

Apparently, the UN has gone so far as to call their use "torture". Apparently the UN has been known to be a little wacky on occasion. I mean if even stunning someone with a taser is torture, wouldn't the majority of the member nations of the security council be considered torturers? And if stunning someone with a taser is torture, what do you call it when the police actually have to shoot someone with a real gun? Sometimes dead. Sometimes 'only' wounded. But maybe better dead then alive, no? I mean when you're wounded you feel pain, right?

Perhaps we need to shift the lens here. Is the question really whether we should outlaw it as being torture? Because if it is, we best tell the cops they can't carry guns or batons any more either. Batons can hurt too, you know.

Or is the real question closer to when and how their use might be justified? Much like we have guidelines for police use of firearms.

Its almost cliche to state that law enforcement is not an easy job. I won't go on to say that I don't envy the police their job, that I wouldn't want to to it, because at one time, many years ago, I actually considered just such a vocation. But I will say that I respect what they do (even if that's hard to remember sometimes during a motor vehicle stop) and realize that its very easy to second guess their judgment from the comfort of our own computer chairs and lazy boys. We weren't there. We don't know. And only truly informed hindsight is 100%.

What would I suggest?

Better education and training for the police, both concerning mental health issues and the use of tasers in general. As an interim measure.

For the rest of it, I really think we have to sit back and let those enquiries do their work. Because the larger question is whether or not (even with increased education and training on the part of the police) tasers are something that we want to see included in the police arnsenal. Are they safe enough with proper training and guidelines? Does the safety they bring as another police tool justify their use?

Anything can (and often will) have unintended consequences. We will always have some individuals who suffer damages way out of porportion to anything we would expect from a given incident. Usually due to pre-existing suseptibilities. We simply can't wrap everybody up in protective bubble wrap. And, even if we could, would we really want to?

What needs to be happen is a weighing and balancing exercise. After all the evidence is gathered. And all the stakeholders heard from. Only then can we reach a reasonable decision. The issue is important and shouldn't be ignored. It needs to be seriously examined. But at the same time I think we really need to be wary of jumping to quick, relatively 'easy' conclusions. Which, there's nothing new there, is there?