I seriously would love to see some posters in here try to be a cop for ONE day.
No justification? The suspect had previously shown violent tendencies, destroying equipment. Period, stop, end of statement. The operative words in that statement are "Shown violent tendencies". No debating that, nobody can argue it.
The subject had barricaded himself in a room and was acting agitated and not responding to overtures to talk. Again, Period, stop, end of statement. Language barriers don't matter. He wasn't even attempting to communicate according to what was said, previous to the RCMP showing up.
The two facts, unarguable, put together in a high-profile target area like an airport will of course cause a high-level of concern. And the death was a tragedy, but in almost under any civilized country, guess what... Read the laws and the definitions when use of deadly force is permissible. I.E. when the individual can reasonably be suspected of being a danger to others or self. Hey, I believe he could fit those criteria, with the two facts above. Plus the already established mental illness fact.
As for tazers being so deadly, it's time to drop a little knowledge for the unenlightened. Anyone care to guess the death rate of tazers in the US, where in truth they're more prevalent than anywhere else. .00018, yep that small a percentage. Research does a mind well. Linked from http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=520&issue_id=22005
Tazers are, and continue to be, the safest current weapon in the police arsenal for violent tendencies. And there is 0 chance of breaking bones or causing other physical harm, unless the person falls in that .00018 of people in such poor health.
Can anyone in here tell me with a 100% chance that the suspect was not on LSD? LSD of course negates the effect of pain. Previous to tazers, guess the only solution to LSD users, lethal force or beating them until they literally can't move. Many mental defectives fall under the same category.
My question is, when these people are protecting YOU, for a pitiful salary, putting themselves in the line of fire, would you rather them go into a potentially dangerous situation, and not use every tool in their arsenal. I really pity the people nowadays who go along with the "anarchist" idea without a real clue what anarchism is really all about, put down the police and military. But let them get raped or mugged, and all of a sudden everything changes. It's really really pitiful. As my father says "A liberal is just a person who hasn't been beaten, mugged, or assaulted yet. Then they instantly become a conservative".
Hmm, that should be an idea. Police keep track of everyone who rallies against them, spits on them, etc. Then, since they obviously don't want police protection, don't give it. That simple. Bet you'd see a big change in attitude then from people.
"Yes, ma'am. You were raped? Well, I'm sorry, according to our list, you were at a rally last week saying all cops were pigs, corrupt, and should all be fired. You clearly stated you don't need or want our help. Have a good day."
As for the guy who claimed the cops were becoming pussified, you really want to know what happened? That answer is so simple. It's called the general public and stupidity of the courts, at least in the US. 20 years ago, if a policeman grabbed you and pushed you 10 feet to get you out of the line of fire in a shooting situation, you'd get up, maybe get a sprained ankle taken care of, and that was it. Nowadays, you get up, get the sprained ankle, sue the police and the individual police officer for medical bills, pain & suffering, loss of work, and anything else you can think of; end result, a fired/suspended officer and loss of $1 million or more... And with criminals it's even more ridiculous. A policeman goes to arrest a subject who is clearly armed with a firearm, breaks the arm to make him release the weapon, and is brought up on charges criminally and civilly sued? Guess what, in their place, you bet your ass I'm gonna use a tazer. Either that or do the smart thing, empty my weapon, and make certain the criminal can't sue because he's dead.
Pertaining to this case in particular though, the RCMP could not guarantee the person wasn't on drugs or dangerous because of mental illness. I don't see where it says anywhere in the article that the woman stated what TYPE of mental illness. There's a biiiiig difference between depression and sociopathy under control with medication. Hell, even retardism can be dangerous, especially as they're most often stronger and more resistant to pain than the general population. 4 shots to bring down a person who is still resisting, sounds reasonable to me if that's what it takes.
As for holding them responsible for the death, have you ever heard of IAB? It stands for Internal Affairs Bureau. They monitor the police, and every police officer in the US is required to have a hearing with them after any discharge of a firearm, death or no. And the officer is automatically put on leave with pay until the investigation is finished. The RCMP has their version, as I'm sure do the British. And yes, tazer's do fall under firearms. Granted, in the case of very obvious cut and dried, the investigation might only be an hour "The suspect shot a hostage while robbing a bank and had his gun aimed at another hostage", every single time it's investigated. Ok, the conspiracy theorists can now rant that cops always stand up for each other although it's obviously not true.
As for the definition of humane, you might try looking at most statements when talking about tazers. It usually says "more humane". The word "more" makes a big difference. Of course, getting the right statements wouldn't make as much of an impact or allow a rant.
As for "Sigh . . . another approved death in the Democratic States of Totalitariansim", so much for reading comprehension... Since when have the RCMP worked in the US?
This is besides the simple fact of nobody here knows what happened really. The person who made the tape even admitted he'd cut if off to save storage space. It shows the suspect barricading himself in, smashing the computer, then it cuts out until the RCMP shows up. Oh, and might I point out one other thing EVERYONE here seemed to miss...
"He then "picks up a small table, which he holds, while a woman in the arrivals lounge calmly speaks to him in apparent effort to calm him down".
So much for the argument of language barrier in trying to calm him down. Someone had been trying for minutes and it hadn't work, thus reinforcing the idea of him being a danger.
And as for the idio... i mean person who says police should have to explain why they'd use a firearm when they use a tazer... Tazer's are non-lethal deterrents. Nothing near the same as a firearm. Firearms are designed to be lethal. Yes, deaths happen. It's called an accident. The 4 RCMP officers take him down physically, he has a heart attack. Should they have to explain that as well? .00018% death rate. That's probably a better chance than from a baton strike. Chance of hitting a vital spot because suspect moved (throat or temple for example), chance of a bruise clotting and moving to brain, etc. Add it all up, and I'll bet there's a higher death rate for batons. Almost the only medical condition that will cause a death with tazer is seriously defective heart or brain condition.
Bah, why am I trying. People will still post just to be the "cool anarchist" and show how much they disdain authority figures.