Mission Statement - De-Spinning the Pro-Taser Propaganda

Yeah right, 'Excited Delirium' my ass...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The primary purpose of this blog is to provide an outlet for my observations and analysis about tasers, taser "associated" deaths, and the behaviour exhibited by the management, employees and minions of Taser International. In general, everything is linked back to external sources, often via previous posts on the same topic, so that readers can fact-check to their heart's content. This blog was started in late-2007 when Canadians were enraged by the taser death of Robert Dziekanski and four others in a short three month period. The cocky attitude exhibited by the Taser International spokespuppet, and his preposterous proposal that Mr. Dziekanski coincidentally died of "excited delirium" at the time of his taser-death, led me to choose the blog name I did and provides my motivation. I have zero financial ties to this issue.

Saturday, May 17, 2008

Victoria Police Taser Policy fails the sanity check

I recently posted [LINK] about how the Victoria Police Board passed an amended Taser Use Policy that apparently includes (or allows) defining 'active resistance' as any situation where a subject is refusing to comply with demands, including turning away or saying 'No.'

It's my firm belief that tasering someone for refusing to comply with demands, or for turning away, or for saying "No", is not only a criminal act (CC 269.1), it would also be EVIL.

If such non-violent acts of resistance are illegal, then simply add those charges to the list. But non-compliance doesn't excuse applying on-the-spot punishment or using severe pain to induce compliance.

Police Boards that accept such bad advice from their taser-happy brainwashed senior officers should be held accountable.


2 comments:

Anonymous said...

[Corrections to comment by]

Reality Chick:

These police boards give the police tasers and set the policy and then try to remove themselves from any type of accountability.

Case in point: See Vancouver Police Board fails to block lawsuit over taser-related death...

http://tinyurl.com/6xutu9

(Shortcut to Canadian Press story)

Doc. Rhino said...

Pain compliance should not even be a possible answer for non-violent protest. Pain compliance should only be allowed when physical harm or loss of life are an eminent threat. This definition leaves enough room for interpretation, let alone allowing pain compliance for non-violent actions. Fascism uses pain compliance and similar tactics. I must link the UN's universal declaration of human rights:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/