Sorry, reached the character limit, had about 8,000 characters too many.
So your assurances that the guilty if any will be found so and punished are, with respect, not the worth the virtual paper they're written on. As much can be said for both the many provincial governments that approved the use of tasers without public discussion of their use and without any public issuance of the results of adequate independent testing, and independent certification training.
Taking the opposite extreme and choosing to consider so many folks incapable of doing their jobs is also "not worth the virtual paper it's written on". Taser use, if the public considers it something worthy of discussion, will likely be brought up during the next provincial election. If not, then it won't. Yes, there have been abhorent things in the past in just about all countries, using them as grounds to discredit all further forms of government and the people who lead after them does nothing more than cause a stain on a reputation that those people themselves did not rightly earn.
Ah, the appeal to experience-as-perfection argument! After all, there are no incompetent, corrupt, or power-on-the-brain politicians, judges, police, etc, who have 10, 20, 30 years or more of august experience. It only takes timeserving to create the perfect public servant, as you so astutely note.
Actually, I was referring to the quotee saying that s/he was talking to a police officer who had served years ago about today's, when these guys are not necessarily new with what they are doing either with 18 years of service on average.
This paragraph deserves to be taken seriously, since you neither adopt a condescending tone nor try to make me believe you speak for the government in it.
I recommend not adding tone to my posts in the future then. :laugh: I thought my post sounded quite friendly, complete with a joke or two at Canadian's expense.
I did honestly feel miffed coming in here, because there was a thread of thought going through your posts which just didn't make sense. Specifically, speaking of allegations of something which may have happened as if a conclusion to what happened had been reached. If anything in my posts sounded condescending or like I was acting like I knew what was going on behind the scenes, I would consider it no worse than your own comments essentially declaring this section of the Canadian police force guilty of these actions when all the articles I read called them allegations yet to be proven. If I am wrong in this, I apologize, but when I read my own post I seriously consider them to be fine in that regard.
Had I known you disagreed so heavily with the competence of the Canadian government, I would have responded more in the form of "they have yet to be tried so I'd rather not comment" rather than the way I did.
![Big Grin :D](./images/smilies/)
If you want, I'll make more use of the smilies to get my thoughts across a lot more easily. Generally, I'd've hoped my other responses in the forum so far have more cemented the fact that I'm a pretty moderate guy who doesn't like to take the center spot in any discussion.
The mention of those in the Edmonton police force are deserved and it's an instance I agree with you in, for example. I do not feel a similar response is yet required in regards to the folks in Vancouver.
As such, I can only respond that tasers are more complex than batons as weapons go, and that different conditions (both in the atmosphere, and in individual humans, themselves) can drastically alter the effects of electrical shocks when administered to the human body--even the same body, over a period of time. I am not utterly opposed to the use of tasers, if they can be thoroughly tested in a range of conditions and the results released to and discussed in the public forum--before the taser is ever used.
I agree. While they have been tested fairly throughly in the past most of the time they have been in fairly neutral conditions -- this testing which may have been done might not have been extended to any newer models.
As for the public bit, I'm not sure I agree on that one. I feel the need for public opinion on this isn't strictly necessary, even though it would be appreciated. Changing weapons and policies towards what is considered a non-lethal substitute for guns seems to be something which Canadians honestly don't have much of an opinion on. During the last few elections, taser use didn't come up in any debate for any riding or for any level of government I watched. That doesn't mean it should't be brought up, but it just has never reached being a serious center of contention for Canadians, which is unfortunate.
(It would be nice, too, if police representatives providing classes in the use and usefulness of tasers to other officers weren't first paid in stock options by taser manufacturers, as was discovered in Arizona, a short while back.)
Haha, that actually reminds me of some French taser happenings a while back. One guy who was a support for tasers and instructed taser use said he'd been shocked over 50 times to allow someone to demonstrate proper taser use. A government official agreed, and went to have a taser used on him. I heard that the officer ahead of time heard that the official had decided to wear a vest underneath his shirt in the hopes of making the shock less painful. So the officer shot him in the shoulder, outside of the vests range.
I think the fact the guy came expecting to get away with protection sort of shows some government's opinions on taser use.
![Big Grin :D](./images/smilies/)
(almost forgot to put the smilie in)
So after Robert Dziekanski was tasered to death, these unavailable "studies" by "people much smarter than any of us" would have concluded...that he died from a multitude of mild scrapes that got infected? Come on, now: we both know tasers don't simply lead to people acquiring scrapes as they fall to the ground. Administering any deliberate level of electrical shock to the human nervous system is fraught with potential danger. You're reference to nebulous, unnamed experts by saying they're smarter than we are--with the implicit understanding that the shepherds know best, and should never be questioned by the sheep--is a dodge that's worn very, very thin over the years.
The study also indicated that multiple use of tasers on an individual target can and will lead to the target's death. As much of the section from that section of my post you referred to, "In most of the cases resulting in deaths, the fault rested in police officers using the weapon multiple times more than what was needed for the situation to be brought under control." This was directly addressed in the article I linked directly assosiated with that section you quoted, Fable, as well as in both the paragraph preceeding it and in the paragraph before the next quote. I do not understand why you specifically took that one line where I stated what injuries occured and did not take into account the additional information provided, or the other arguments posted nearby, where both source and myself say quite clearly stated similar thoughts that the amount of times a taser is shot affects chances of survival.
Robert Dziekanski took two shots within the space of a second. Accounts also said that he was shocked at least twice, implying he might have been hit more. This is in line with thoughts and evidence provided in my post.
I was being facetious when I said the people smarter than us comment, Fable, and again, I did not expect you to take it to the level which you have done so. Viewing everything I said in the worst possible light also grinds very thin, Fable. So is taking my comments out of both tone and context to turn them into something they are not. I am sorry if I sound bitter, but I really am getting to a point of frustration here which I rarely let boards take me, so I apologize for it. The article listed names, such as William Bozeman who lead the independant research team. Here are additional names: J. Tripp Winslow, M.D., M.P.H.; Derrel Graham, M.D.; Brian Martin, M.D.; Joseph J. Heck, D.O.; all of the Department of Emergency Medicine at Wake Forest University; Louisiana State University, Inova Fairfax Hospital (Va.), and University Medical Center (Nev.).
Either way, Fable, making a remark about Shepards know best aside, these people do know more than we do about this topic, unless you happen to have an MD or degree in a medical field. Why would you choose to disregard findings completed using correct methodology? I have known people to have used them out of context before when discussing something with them but this is something which directly relates to taser use and its impacts on deaths done by people who are knowledgeable in the field, so I do not see why it should be disregarded.
Especially since I didn't write that. You really should consider context.
I said that in jest, but since you asked, what possible context could change "a fresh new northern Bush, after seeing what our Yale-educated oil brat achieved" from what I translated it as?