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, April 18, 2009

"What matters is the officers' perception."

I wonder if Judge Braidwood keeps his bench top clear of heavy items, such as staplers, that he might otherwise be tempted to throw at some witnesses...


Sgt. Brad Fawcett, a Vancouver police expert on the Use of Force (noun), came to the conclusion that the four RCMP officers involved had used "appropriate force" while killing Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver Airport on 14th October 2007.

Sgt Fawcett came to this conclusion while:
  • not interviewing any of the officers involved
  • not interviewing any of the airport staff
  • not interviewing any of the bystanders who witnessed the incident
  • relying on written statements provided by the four officers
  • ignoring that they changed their accounts
  • ignoring the contradictory video evidence
  • characterizing bald false statements as "minor discrepancies"

QUOTE OF THE WEEK:
"
What really matters is the officers' perception." - Sgt. Brad Fawcett [LINK]


Here is the complete list, in order, of what matters:
1. The officers' perception
2. The Blue Brotherhood
3. Sheer Laziness
4. The Facts (a.k.a. "minor discrepancies")


My perception is that Sgt. Fawcett is, perhaps unintentionally, a key part of the Brotherhood of Blue whitewashing process that is perfectly inherent when one police officer reviews the actions of their fraternal brothers.


Keep in mind that the RCMP tried to withhold the all-important video and Mr. Pritchard actually had to hire a lawyer to get his video back. Keep in mind that the RCMP spokesman made several statements later shown to be false. Keep in mind that all four police officers' reports contained the same factual errors about Mr. Dziekanski's actions. [LINK] Etc.

Innocent here, innocent there - but it makes a large steaming pile when viewed together.


There are two possible solutions to this mess:

1) Separate the police review and oversight function from the police
...OR...
2) Mandatory 5-year sentence for any unintentional involvement in whitewashing police actions. And make it 20-years if the whitewashing can be proven to be intentional.

Option 2 would certainly force such reviews to be taken more seriously. Right now there are, apparently, zero penalties and much benefit for being involved in the Blue Brotherhood.

Here is another recent example from Orange County, CA, USA: [LINK] [LINK]


By the way, I've heard a story about one case where the investigating officer would like to 'hang' (criminally charge) the offending police officers involved in the incident-in-question, but is prevented from doing so by circumstances and/or his chain of command.


The whole system needs an major overhaul.

And some of those involved need a keelhaul.

No comments: