 |
|
|
PHOTO & SLIDESHOW GALLERIES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Last updated at 8:56 AM on 13/02/09 |
New RCMP policy says Tasers can kill, restricts use 
Justice/Politics
OTTAWA
SUE BAILEY
The Canadian Press
|
 |
| New RCMP policy recognizes that Taser stun guns cause death — especially in "acutely agitated" suspects — and restricts their use to defuse threats. RCMP Commissioner William Elliott outlined the policy shift as he spoke to the Commons public-safety committee Thursday. - Photo by The Canadian Press |
|
RCMP policy has acknowledged that Taser stun guns can kill - especially "acutely agitated" suspects - and will now restrict their use to cases involving threats to officers or public safety.
RCMP Commissioner William Elliott says the new rules clearly set out that Mounties can't zap suspects for simple resistance or refusing to co-operate.
Tasers "hurt like hell," he said Thursday of his own reaction to a trial firing. And their use must be justified as a necessary and reasonable use of force, he told MPs on the Commons public safety committee.
"The RCMP's revised (Taser) policy underscores that there are risks associated with the deployment of the device and emphasizes that those risks include the risk of death, particularly for agitated individuals."
Taser International Inc., the U.S.-based maker of the stun guns, has steadfastly defended the safety of its devices. It is appealing a ruling by a U.S. federal judge earlier this month ordering it to pay more than $1.4 million in fees to the lawyers for the family of a man who died in 2005. He had been Tasered dozens of times by police in Salinas, Calif.
In June, a jury awarded the man's family more than $5 million in damages after finding that Taser failed to warn police of the potential dangers of multiple shocks. The case marks the first time the company has been found negligent in a death related to the use of its stun guns.
For its part, Arizona-based Taser International has said: "Specifically in Canada, while previous incidents were widely reported in the media as 'Taser deaths,' the role of the Taser device has been cleared in every case to date."
On Parliament Hill, opposition Liberal and New Democrat MPs pressed Elliott to clarify how the national force defines a threat to public safety.
"I don't get comfort from that wording," said New Democrat Jack Harris. "The notion of public safety is a very broad one."
Acceptable Taser use includes cases of "lethal overwatch," Elliott said - those serious enough that a second officer is prepared to shoot his actual gun if the electronic version doesn't fell the suspect.
Elliott was later asked how the policy would affect officers in rural areas who must sometimes work alone.
"If an officer responded without another officer as sometimes does happen, and they were facing a threat of grievous bodily harm or death, our policy would preclude them from using a Taser."
In other words, the officer would draw their gun.
But the commissioner stressed that Mounties are urged to wait for back-up if possible before answering potentially violent calls.
Officers had previously been instructed that Tasers are a good way to control suspects in a state of so-called "excited delirium" and get them medical treatment.
That phrase - derided by critics as a medically unrecognized, catch-all descriptor for sudden death after being Tasered - no longer appears in RCMP operational manuals, Elliott said.
It has been removed "because we are of the view that it is not reasonable for us to expect police officers ... to diagnose conditions. They're highly trained, but they're not medical experts and we don't think it's fair or reasonable to have policy based on a medical condition or diagnosis.
"We've tried to craft the policy in language that is understandable by our officers. And we do talk about people who are in an agitated or delirious state."
|
13/02/09
© 2009 
|
Comments: |
|
This Conversation is Moderated. What is moderation?
|
| What does moderation mean? |
 |
The Telegram is committed to encouraging intelligent discourse among our readers and to creating a forum where diverse views and opinions on a wide range of topics can be aired. The forum you are in now is a result of our continuing efforts to facilitate a dynamic online conversation among our readers.
This is a moderated conversation. Once a reader follows the steps to register and submit his or her comment it goes to a moderator for the website. Once it has been approved, your comment will be displayed on the website. A comment may be edited or deleted for reasons of content or language.
All readers wishing to join a conversation must first sign in and agree to the Terms of Usage, which explain the rules of acceptable content.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joey from NL writes: Finally, lets face reality. Tasers can kill, or at least contribute to the death of people who for some reason need to be detained or arrested by police. And I love that all those bleeding hearts who wanted Tasers banned now have to face the reality that the police may have to consider shooting their gun instead at some of those same individuals that perhaps could have been tasered. Hmmmm! Be tasered? Be shot? I know what my choice would be if I were an idiot or unstable and the police had to intervene!!!
|
| Posted 13/02/2009 at 9:55 AM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
L00kie L00kie from Silly Town, Newfoundland writes: Gee, good after thought here people. Now all we need to do is remove all the guns in this country and have the billy-clubs brought in.
No need to zap or shoot anyone since a good swift slap upside the head should be more then enough. Would be for me anyway :)
Joey, you really can not say who should or should not be tasered or shot. Would you shoot or zap an 80 year old grandma with a walker just because she was yelling at the moon? Seems some people think that is the quick and dirty way to end an unpleasant situation that they do not want to spend the time and effort to difuse. More training might be needed to prevent police from pulling either out to aid in ending situations that they are not trained well enough to deal with.
Some people are just not that people friendly, and maybe they need desk jobs with little interaction with the public in the future if they can not control the situation without the aid of a device other then a brain.
Just a thought.
|
| Posted 13/02/2009 at 12:18 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
|
Harvey from Bay Roberts, Newfoundland writes: I'm sorry, but if I'm a police officer with a partner and the suspect has a knife or gun, forget the lethal overwatch, both of us will be forced to deploy our firearms. Tasers are a less than lethal tool and given the proper environment and risk factors, they have a very high success rate. It is unfortunate that like anything when used/misused there are reprecautions however we need to hear more about the hundreds , if not thousands, of lives that were saved due to the deployment of a taser rather than a firearm. This new policy is only going to confuse officers on the front lines and will have grave consequences for them when they begin to hisistate over whether or not the situation warrants the use of a taser. That split second is the difference between going home to your family at the end of a shift or becoming a statistic. My heart goes out to the families who have lost loved ones due to the apparent taser use/misuse however it is just a tool officers use based on their risk assessment to not only themselves, but also the general public. All police tools have the potential to cause death, and some have. We have to protect the men and woman who keep the rest of us safe, first and foremost. Anything less would be a shame on society.
|
| Posted 13/02/2009 at 1:09 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
A Little out spoken from NL writes: and will now restrict their use to cases involving threats to officers or public safety.
My first thought was What else would they need to use them for? They should have already know that! Well let us hope so for a family safety's sake...I mean this is the RCMP! They are supposed to be police protection system.
|
| Posted 13/02/2009 at 7:16 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
Graham from NL writes: I don't know what a so-called reprecaution is as a previous commenter wrote, but most people miss what the real problem with tazers
is. Ever since they've become popular with police, they were almost immediately misused.
How ?
Police have been using them as crutches to avoid getting physical.
You can't be a police officer and expect not to get your hands dirty. Policing, by nature, always has and always will be a dirty job. If you're not prepared to get into it then go find a nice comfy desk job and stink up a chair.
|
| Posted 13/02/2009 at 11:46 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
NOTE
The management of this site emphasizes that it is in no way liable for persons, physical or legal, who are hosted here. Moreover, the managers of this site may not be held liable for errors and omissions that may slip into the information displayed in these reader comments. Everyone who submits a comment should read, understand and agree to the Terms of Usage for this section.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
