The CPC [Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP] analysis discovered that in over half of the reports of RCMP taser use, members claimed they avoided the use of deadly force by instead using the taser. Having reviewed the narratives associated with each taser report, the CPC seriously questions this finding and believes that RCMP members are incorrectly completing the CEW reporting form. [LINK]
In other words, the RCMP officially claim (official figures from official reports) that they would have had to shoot-to-kill about 280 to 550 people (I'm not sure half of which total) during 2008 if it weren't for the blessed taser. And 2007 would have been 30 to 50% higher than 2008.
What a load of utter BS!
These many hundreds are the totally fictional 'lives saved' that they use to try to balance off the obvious evil of tasers.
Theses numbers are way above any historical rates of the RCMP killing people in Canada. One or two dozen per year are the rates that I've heard. And these rates which are almost certainly unchanged in any case...
Their day-to-day justification for tasers is circling around in the toilet bowl.
And this is just the RCMP!!
Extrapolate these outlandish claims to include all the other taser-wielding provincial and municipal police forces in Canada, and in total they would have killed as many as a thousand people per year, making them the worst serial killers since Pol Pot.
This sort of obviously-false taser-use reporting is FRAUD on a massive scale. It's such a huge numerical inconsistency that there is no defensible position to claim that it was an innocent mistake. Known or should_have_known.
I'll assume that the RCMP leadership didn't even notice.
PS: This same thing certainly applies in many jurisdictions all around the world. Police claiming to save lives while tasering at rates about 100x the historical rate of police gun-play. The lives saved argument is a huge lie. And an obvious one if you simply stop to think about the numbers for a few seconds.
Update (new info from CPC report):
Is the following question the slightest bit confusing?
"Did the threat or use of CEW avoid use of lethal force?"
The result of this misunderstanding is that members tend to answer "yes," when "no" or "not applicable" would be a more appropriate answer given the circumstances. [LINK]
Sorry - the question appears to be perfectly clear to me.
'Yes' obviously means, 'Yes, the CEW helped the officer avoid the use of lethal force.'
I simply do not buy this ridiculous attempt to wriggle free from the obvious false-reporting.
CPC Chair Kennedy said, "There were at most two cases where the subject could be considered so dangerous that lethal force might have been used to prevent escape." [LINK]
If you arrived here on direct link to a specific post, then you may click here if you wish to view all the latest posts on the Excited-Delirium blog.