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.

Friday, October 10, 2008

Memo to police that skipped 'Civics' in Grade 6

Memo:

You're not allowed to beat civilians. You're not allowed to taser someone a dozen times. These acts are assault and torture respectively and if you commit these acts you really should be fired, charged, convicted, and put in jail.

See [LINK] for some unproven accusations against the Toronto police.

You're allowed to apply legally justifiable force to the subject. The word 'force' in this context is a noun. You can apply lawful force, such as lifting the subject into the paddy wagon or applying handcuffs.

Force is not a verb. You're not allowed to torture the subject to 'force' (verb) them to place themselves into or out of the back of the police car (for example). Torture is a criminal act and is clearly defined in s. 269.1 in case you wish to review it first hand. It's been discussed endlessly on this blog.

If someone resists your application of legal force, then you're perfectly entitled to apply more force (noun). And then you can charge them with resisting. Provided your force was lawful, then they should be convicted for such resistance. Another 30-days would seem appropriate for resisting arrest or similar crimes.

But if your application of force was not lawful, then victims are permitted to resist. Thus it is critical for you to act correctly and not make legal mistakes (such as going into a wrong bedroom after the wrong person).

If someone attacks you while you are applying legal force, then you are entitled to defend yourself. And then you can charge them with assaulting a police officer and they, if convicted, should spend six-months to a couple of years in jail for such a crime.

If someone aims a gun at you, no reasonable person would object if you shot them dead.

If someone has a knife, then clear the area and wait them out. There is no time limit. They'll eventually give up. You do not need to be proactive and attack in many cases. There may be some cases where the SWAT Team needs to attack, but there should be a reason why waiting was not an option.

At no time are you permitted to boot someone in the face (unless, perhaps, the subject is attempting to bite your foot). Leave the punishment to the courts.

This isn't rocket science. The basics of these society ground rules were taught in Grade 6 in Civics class. And they all fit together logically.

Bringing violence into police work when not perfectly justifiable is extremely evil and leads to a direct negative impact on society.

Why do I have to explain this to the police? Where is the leadership?

No comments: