Use of Taser's Above Reproach?

It really does seem that maintaining public confidence in anything is for government agencies to say they are going to abide by some kind of regulated standard, without the need to tell the public what the standard is. For example, since the release of the Braidwood report in the Dziekanski inquiry, Calgary Police now openly laud new regulations allegedly creating uniformity in the use of tasers in this province. What those uniform measures are, however, remains largely a mystery.

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2009/08/01/10333931-sun.html

Despite some claims that stun guns are only used pursuant to s. 25 of the Criminal Code of Canada,

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Alberta+powers+stun+guidelines/1835464/story.html

recent decisions, such as R. v. Dianocky suggest otherwise. Of course, when speaking of taser use, spokespersons for the various police agencies neglect to advise of situations where the instrument was used improperly. Interestingly, though these situations exist, this writer cannot think of a single criminal charge arising in this province from the misuse of these instruments.

Edmonton defence lawyer, Tom Engel’s comments are noteworthy:

He noted that Braidwood recommended restricting the use of Tasers to situations in which a suspect is causing someone bodily harm or about to cause someone bodily harm, which would conform to the Criminal Code of Canada. But Engel said the Alberta rules allow police to deploy the Taser on someone who is threatening to resist arrest or resisting arrest merely by hanging onto a stationary object or pulling away from a police officer.

"In my view, their policy is illegal," he said. "It's counselling officers to break the law. It's telling them they can use the Taser without any regard to whether serious pain will be caused if they don't use it. That's what British Columbia is saying: You can't use this Taser unless it is necessary to prevent serious harm."

Indeed, police have extensive training and are able to employ a number of other tactics besides using a Taser. In this writer’s view, we should not forget that police in this country performed their job exceedingly well before the Taser. Canada is not a country plagued by officer deaths in the line of duty, and it never has been. So why the Taser? How many citizens were shot with firearms by police before the Taser? I suggest not too many.

The public needs to be vigilant not to forget about the situations that are brought into the spotlight of attention. It is short memory, apathy and fear that allows cases like Robert Dziekanski to fade into the shadows. In the words of psychologist Michael Webster: "The community will get complacent. They will go back to sleep and this research that's required won't take place. There won't be any urgency to get any good solid data."

When looking at how police employed the taser in Dziekansi, there is no question they did so notwithstanding there was no real threat to anybody, let alone the officers. Also, the police LIED in their justification.

"The Wrong Way of Worldmaking Making: One Lawyer's Opinion about the Dziekanski Inquiry": http://ccdlaforum.blogspot.com/2009/03/wrong-way-of-worldmaking-one-lawyers.html

As citizens, we must keep in mind that people get charged everyday because police have the discretion and opportunity to do so, be we almost NEVER hear about the troubling things they do in the line of duty (or outside the line of duty, as the case may be). How often are video cameras present to expose the lies and inappropriate conduct of officers such as Millington in the Dziekanski inquiry? ALMOST NEVER! It is rare to have this behavior exposed. That exposure is rare, however, does not mean the behavior is not relatively common place.

To know whether the rules governing the use of tasers are reasonable, we have to know what they are. To understand whether law enforcement is acting outside the rules, requires knowing the rules they are to act within. With this in mind, citizens must begin to police the police. The use of force must have limits, and must always be used reasonably in the circumstances of the case.

As I have always maintained, though the vast majority of police officers are hard working folk, interacting politely and cooperatively with members of the public, there are some who do not. As our police forces grow in number, the numbers of those who act outside expectations grows. When they protect themselves by lying, like Millington did in Mr. Dziekanski’s case, the only way to expose them is for the public to step forward in a vigilant crusade to ensure law enforcement acts in a manner consistent with the values of Canadian society.

As citizens, we have a responsibility. Public confidence in the administration of justice demands police behavior be above reproach. When mistakes are made, they must own up to them. A Millington-esque fabrication is never acceptable.

David G. Chow
Criminal Defence Lawyer

www.calgarydefence.com