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.

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.

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?