RCMP struggling to turn the corner

May 2, 2009
Tonda MacCharles, Toronto Star

OTTAWA – Bill Elliott, the guy who's never been a cop, has worked hard to connect with the Mounties he's been leading for nearly two years.

He handed out his personal email address to front-line officers. Held town halls. Rode in cruisers on patrol. Travelled the breadth of the country and as far as Afghanistan to visit far-flung posts.

He's done whatever it takes, gestures small and large, to show he's listening.

The 2007 appointment by the Conservative government of a Royal Canadian Mounted Police commissioner who has never worn the uniform was supposed to usher in a new era of transparency, accountability and change.

It hasn't turned out that way.

As the new commissioner has connected with the Mounties, he has lost touch with the civilians he was supposed to represent.

Elliott's tenure has been marked by the same sort of secrecy and efforts to stonewall public attempts to get information – particularly about Tasers – as any of his predecessors faced in earlier crises.

Amid a growing storm over the death of Robert Dziekanski, Elliott has appeared at a handful of parliamentary committees, delivered a few speeches, and conducted hasty scrums on the run, but refused repeated requests from national media to sit down for an interview.

Dziekanski, a unilingual Polish immigrant, died moments after four Mounties took charge of him in the Vancouver airport and zapped him five times with a Taser.

It was October 2007, just three months into Elliott's term.

Elliott and his boss, then-minister of public safety Stockwell Day, immediately set in motion a series of bureaucratic responses to Dziekanski's death: investigations, policy reviews and studies.

Yet after 21 months on the job, Elliott is all but invisible to Canadians.

Elliott did unexpectedly sit down with the Toronto Star recently, on an hour's notice, and declared there has been no real overall loss of confidence in the RCMP.

People he meets tell him the force is doing a great job, and he insists there's no hard polling data to suggest otherwise. Yet he's concerned about a "potential" loss of confidence.

He should be.

Much is riding on Elliott's management: for the Conservatives, the Mounties and the public.

He came to the job after the force was rattled by the deaths of four young officers in Mayerthorpe and revelations of mismanagement of members' pension and benefits funds. It was also amid the fallout from two inquiries into the Mideast detentions of four Muslim Canadians and the ongoing inquiry into the Air India crash.

A lawyer, former Conservative senior staffer in the late 1980s to then-deputy prime minister Don Mazankowski, public servant and a former national security adviser to Liberal and Conservative prime ministers, he was never a high profile, outgoing figure.

With a bureaucratic background at the Privy Council, Public Safety, Transport Canada and Justice, Elliott was an unlikely, but perhaps logical choice for a government looking to dampen controversy.

In the interview, he displays a lawyer's attention to detail – quoting past news conferences verbatim – and a politician's ease of argument.

Elliott suggests he shunned any extensive interview until now because he didn't want it to be just about Tasers. He was waiting until the uproar eased.

"But there is no lull," he admits.

If anything, the storm over Tasers is growing.

Testimony at the inquiry led by Justice Thomas Braidwood in British Columbia is challenging the credibility of the RCMP.

A picture has emerged of a force that released incorrect details about Dziekanski's death – that bolstered its officers' claim the bewildered man was combative – and withheld damning details, including the fact he was hit five times. There was an initial effort to suppress or delay public release of the video that would contradict the force's version of events.

Insiders say Elliott has kept a tight grip on "everything to do with Tasers."

Nevertheless, the RCMP's handling of the tragedy has renewed calls by many opposition MPs for more robust civilian oversight of the RCMP.

Frustrated by Elliott's own ambiguous testimony at a parliamentary committee, the Liberals, Bloc Québécois and New Democrats want the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP to be given more muscle, with independent powers to launch investigations of RCMP activities, including the power to subpoena witnesses and to compel the production of documents. The Security Intelligence Review Committee – the civilian body that reviews CSIS, Canada's spy agency – has such power.

Elliott says he believes more independent civilian oversight is needed. Just not too much more.

He acknowledges a "gap" in oversight of only the RCMP's national security activities. People caught up in terrorism investigations may never even know the Mounties are onto them, and may never be in a position to file a public complaint, he admits.

So a watchdog agency with independent audit powers "makes sense in the context of national security." But that's it.

Elliott disputes any suggestions the RCMP is politically directed. He insists it is entirely independent when it comes to deciding who, and how, to investigate.

However, Elliott adds: "Sometimes I think we tend to overplay the independence card."

He says it is "foolhardy" for the force to think it is independent of political decisions when it comes to budgets and broader law enforcement priorities. He gives examples: it was a "political decision, a cabinet decision" to focus resources on markets fraud enforcement and border security.

If anything, Elliott says, the RCMP needs to be more politically savvy, "more engaged and engaging" when it comes to identifying its needs and priorities.

For that, it seems, the Mounties have got the right man.

"One of the things I bring personally to the job is some understanding and experience with respect to how government works and how government decisions are taken," he says.

He points to the all-important decision on how to enhance independent oversight and review of the force – a decision the current public safety minister, Peter Van Loan, says will be made only after the Conservative government receives the final report from the Air India inquiry.

"Those are clearly not decisions for the RCMP," Elliott acknowledges.

"But surely, we should make our views and our interests known to the decision-makers. Because at the end of the day, the government is going to make a decision. Parliament is going to make a decision. And we are going to have to live with that decision."

The interview is over. His executive assistant has interrupted a couple times to point to the clock.

But the next day, Elliott calls back to elaborate on a couple of answers. Without a policing background, he acknowledges he is at a disadvantage when it comes to doing a job that used to belong to the top cop. But if anything, he says, it has forced him to consult more broadly and listen more carefully to the officers who do have that background. "I think we have a lot more open dialogue now than was the case in the past."

Perhaps so. It's just rarely a dialogue with the public.

EDITORIAL: RCMP's Taser loopholes

April 25, 2009
Toronto Star

Not three months ago, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner William Elliott assured Parliament that the Mounties were curbing the use of Tasers, following a public outcry over Robert Dziekanski, who died after being stunned repeatedly at Vancouver airport.

"We have taken steps to restrict its use," Elliott advised the House of Commons public safety committee on Feb 12. If so, it is hard to see.

In fact the RCMP's new policy, issued on Feb. 3 nine days before Elliott's appearance, had dropped requirements that were designed to curb stun gun use. This week, called back to address the discrepancy, Elliott was hard-pressed to justify the changes as an improvement.

Under the old policy, RCMP officers were required to issue a warning, where feasible: "Police, stop or you will be hit with 50,000 volts of electricity." There's no such obligation under the new policy.

Under the old policy use was sharply limited. "Unless situational factors dictate otherwise, do not cycle the CEW (Conducted Energy Weapon) repeatedly, nor more than 15-20 seconds at a time against a subject." That, too, has been scrapped. The new policy merely advises that multiple or continuous stunning "may be hazardous to a subject."

Finally while the new policy says the guns are "not intended as a restraint device," there's no prohibition on using them to subdue unruly suspects who don't pose a serious threat to the police or public.

Far from "restricting" use, the new approach seems more tolerant.

Elliott still insists that, "overall," RCMP policy is more restrictive. Officers are more aware of risks, are better trained and better supervised. Certainly, they are using stun guns less often, after the beating the force has taken at the Dziekanski inquiry. And the force will tell the inquiry that "there are things that they would do differently," Elliott told the Star's Tonda MacCharles this week. That's good.

But the fact remains that RCMP policy is written in terms broad enough to legitimize stun gun use under almost any circumstances. That in itself is a concern.

Stun guns can put some people "at a high risk of death," as the RCMP now officially acknowledges. Given that risk, the force should require officers to issue a warning, except in dire circumstances. The RCMP should prohibit stun gun use except in cases of severe threat to life and limb. A Canadian Press analysis from 2002 to 2005 found that three in four suspects zapped weren't even armed. There should be a prohibition on using the guns as a restraint. And multiple jolts must be strongly discouraged, along with continuous jolting.

No one suggests Canada's police are out of control. They answered more than 3 million calls for help in 2007 and made 176,000 arrests, using stun guns in only a small fraction of cases. But 25 people have died in Canada after being jolted, Amnesty International reports. And police have reportedly zapped a balky teenage girl in a jail cell, a senior who tried to dodge a parking ticket and a heart patient in hospital.

We need real restrictions on stun gun use, to prevent "usage creep," not empty assurances that all is well. It isn't. And if the police won't adopt tough, common standards, government should impose them.

Multiple Taser strikes left to Mountie's discretion

April 21, 2009
By Janice Tibbetts, Canwest News Service

The RCMP was questioned Tuesday on its new policy that no longer prohibits Mounties from firing multiple Taser shocks at suspects, instead leaving it up to officers to make their own judgment calls.

Commissioner William Elliott was grilled by the House of Commons public safety committee, where several members accused the RCMP of watering down rules governing use of the controversial weapons.

Elliott defended the new directive, saying the force does not want to straitjacket officers into making bad decisions that do not reflect the severity of the circumstances.

"You have to teach officers to make good decisions," said Elliott. They must be free of "overly instructive" rules and be trained to use the weapons only when it is "reasonable and necessary in the circumstances," he said.

The former policy warned against firing Tasers repeatedly, nor for more than 15-20 seconds at a time, "unless situational factors dictate otherwise."

The new policy, adopted in February, says only that: "Multiple deployment or continuous cycling of a CEW (conducted energy weapon) may be hazardous to a subject."

While the new rule may appear more relaxed at first glance, it must be interpreted as part of an overall revamped policy on Taser use that is more restrictive than in the past, said Elliott.

Officers are now cautioned to only use the stun guns in situations that pose a safety risk, rather than to simply restrain a suspect.

Furthermore, officers must be recertified on Taser use annually, instead of every three years.

Elliott said it makes sense that Mounties should have the same discretion in deploying Tasers as they do in using their batons.

"There's no simple or universal prescription of once, twice, three times, or five times," he said.

The revelation of a rule change comes at a time when a public inquiry in British Columbia is probing the death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski, who died in 2007 when he was repeatedly Tasered at the Vancouver airport — including four shots after he fell to the floor.

Opposition members on the committee denounced the multiple-shot policy as too vague and said that officers must be given clearer direction on repeated usage of Tasers.

Elliott suggested that the force, which is more aware than ever of the risks associated with Taser use, is open to making changes to its new policy on multiple use.

"I'm not suggesting that the current language of our policy is perfect and I'm not suggesting we aren't prepared to look at further changes," he said, citing a policy in the United Kingdom that details the risks associated with repeated shocks.

Elliott, who told the public safety committee two months ago that the RCMP had reined in its Taser policy, was called back Tuesday to explain why the force had abandoned its restrictions on multiple firings.

Liberal MP Mark Holland said that, according to RCMP reports, 16 suspects were Tasered five or more times successively.

"I don't see why we can't have policies that say if someone is down on the ground writhing in pain, they shouldn't be hit again with a Taser," he told reporters.

Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan said that new RCMP position on multiple shocks makes sense, when the policy on Tasers is viewed as a whole.

"They have also made the policy much more restrictive with a number of other changes, for example, Tasers are only to be used in a situation where there is a threat and that's something that wasn't there before," he said in the foyer of the House of Commons.

Also, the Mounties now have a heightened awareness of the perils of Taser use, he said.

Remarks for Commissioner Elliott - Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU)

Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Check against delivery

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am happy to be here. I welcome the opportunity to appear again before this committee to talk about the work of the RCMP, and to expand on the information I provided during my last appearance.

The RCMP's use of force, including the use of conducted energy weapons, or CEWs, is an important and complex matter that understandably is of concern to members of this committee and to the public we are all sworn to serve.

We recognize that in a democratic society, public scrutiny is a fundamental aspect of maintaining the accountability of public institutions. This certainly applies to the police, who should be, and are in fact, held to a very high standard given our extraordinary powers and obligations to enforce the law and protect the peace. So the RCMP fully expects--and indeed welcomes--scrutiny by parliamentarians and others.

The RCMP's ability to provide effective policing services depends on the support of the communities we serve. We believe the more the public knows about the work that we do and the challenges that we face, the more likely they are to support us, despite our shortcomings and despite the fact that, try as we might to avoid doing so, sometimes we make mistakes.

The RCMP, and I as commissioner, are dedicated to working as hard as we can, to ensure that we provide quality police services to Canadians, in ways that respect and reflect the values that Canadians and the force hold dear. The RCMP's values include honesty, integrity, professionalism, compassion, respect and accountability. An important aspect of our accountability is our interaction with parliament and parliamentarians. So, as I said, I am happy to be here.

The RCMP is also committed to continuous learning and continuous improvement, including in relation to our policies.

As I outlined during my previous appearance, the RCMP has taken significant steps to improve our policies relating to CEWs, as well as associated training and reporting requirements. An important factor in this work has been this committee's recommendations in its June 2008 report. Last time I was before you, I talked about improvements we have made to our Incident Management Intervention Model, policy amendments that further restrict the use of CEWs, enhanced reporting, and more frequent re-certification requirements for those trained to use CEWs.

I told you that the RCMP's revised policy restricts the use of CEWs and specifically warns of the hazards of multiple deployment or continuous cycling of the CEW.

As a learning organization, the RCMP monitors its policies, procedures and training on an ongoing basis to identify areas for improvement.

Since its inception in 2001, the RCMP's CEW policy has undergone a number of updates and amendments. In June 2008, we directed that the CEW must only be used where there is a threat to public or officer safety. This and other restrictions and enhancements to the policy were subsequently incorporated in the RCMP's current CEW policy which was published on February 3, 2009.

I would like to take a few minutes to highlight a few of the significant changes in the new policy that restrict the use of the CEW beyond what was provided for in the previous version. These changes and the policy itself do not stand alone but rather are linked with and relate to our training, including our certification and re-certification of RCMP officers authorized to use a CEW.

Let me start with section 3.1.1. which provides that "the CEW must only be used in accordance with CEW training, the principles of the Incident Management Intervention Model (IMIM) and in response to a threat to public or officer safety as determined by a member's assessment of the totality of the circumstances being encountered."

This is a fundamental provision that underpins all elements of the policy. It directs that the CEW may only be used where a member has assessed all the factors of the situation and has concluded that there is a threat to public or officer safety.

This section goes further to say that "a member's actions must be reasonable and the force used must be necessary in the circumstances." The section goes on to set out specific reporting requirements when a CEW is deployed.

Language was added to enhance accountability, both for the officer deploying the CEW and for their supervisor. It places responsibility on members to properly report and articulate their actions following CEW deployments. It also makes supervisors accountable for reviewing each deployment and ensuring compliance with policy.

Section 3.1.2 of the new policy adds to this, directing that "all members must recognize that any use of force entails risk."

This is followed by section 3.1.3 which clearly warns that "multiple deployment or continuous cycling of the CEW may be hazardous to a subject." With any prolonged struggle, the potential for injury increases. The objective is to reduce the potential of injury by reducing the exposure to the CEW either through multiple deployments or continuous cycling.

This provision is fortified by the addition of section 3.1.5 which directs members to take control of a suspect as soon as possible during a CEW deployment and clearly indicates that "the CEW is not intended as a restraint device".

Finally, section 3.1.4 cautions that, "acutely agitated or delirious persons may be at a high risk of death. If an individual is in an acutely agitated or delirious state, and whenever possible when responding to reports of violent individuals, request the assistance of emergency medical services. If possible bring medical assistance to the scene."

This section was changed due to lack of consensus within the medical community regarding the term "excited delirium" with the revised wording, the policy is now more encompassing and also eliminates any perception that members are being asked to make a medical diagnosis.

In considering all of this, it is important to note that only appropriately trained RCMP members are authorized to use the CEW, and RCMP policy has been changed to require yearly mandatory re-certification of these officers. Previously the requirement was re-certification every three years.

The RCMP's training standard for CEWs is comprehensive, includes theoretical and practical components and makes use of scenario-based training. It is important to note that before being trained to use a CEW, all RCMP members are taught the Incident Management Intervention Model (or IMIM), which guides them in their decision making process. The IMIM helps police officers choose appropriate intervention options.

We have also developed a new Subject Behaviour Officer Response (SBOR) reporting tool for reporting use of force incidents which is currently being piloted.

SBOR will be used to report on all use-of-force incidents, not just those involving the CEW. This new reporting process will help members record relevant details following incidents and provide useful data for future analysis. It will also aid the articulation of the circumstances that led officers to decide to resort to the use of force.

I would like to stress again, that when properly used in appropriate situations by officers who are well trained, the RCMP believes that the CEW contributes overall to the safety and security of the public and police. It has been used in situations where, in its absence, police officers may have had to resort to greater force.

The RCMP strives to be a learning organization and to improve our services to Canadians on an ongoing basis. In fact, the story of today's RCMP includes a sincere commitment to change, renewal and growth. While fully recognizing that there is more to do, we are proud that our comprehensive transformation initiative is progressing well B as confirmed by two reports to date by the reform implementation council, an independent panel appointed to advise and report on renewal in the RCMP.

Perhaps on another occasion you will invite me to come back before the committee to speak further about our transformation initiative. Today, I know you are interested in learning more about our CEW policy, so I will end here.

My colleague Deputy Commissioner Madill and I would be happy to respond to any questions.

Thank you.

MPs grill top Mountie on tasers

April 21, 2009
BILL CURRY, Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — Opposition MPs accused RCMP Commissioner William Elliott of watering down the police force's restrictions on tasers, challenging the Commissioner to explain why a reference in the RCMP manual warning against repeated use of the stun gun was removed in the latest version of the policy.

Mr. Elliott said the new policy, which was completed in February and distributed to MPs this week, should be taken as a whole and he stressed that it does make the use of tasers more restrictive.

Liberal, Bloc Québécois and NDP MPs all asked Mr. Elliott to explain why a line in the previous policy informing officers not to use a taser repeatedly has been deleted.

Mr. Elliott said that if someone is in a life-or-death situation, he would not want a rule that would prevent an officer from defending him or herself. He also said new policies in place stress the need for officers to assess the risk of using a taser and supervisors are now obliged to take a closer look at each incident where a taser is used.

“It's a more restrictive policy than in the past,” he said. “We do not prescribe in our policies, for example, how many times at minimum or maximum it is permissible or advisable to strike someone with a baton... Yes, officers can use [tasers] repeatedly if it is necessary and reasonable in the circumstances to do so.”

Mr. Elliott made the comments during a one hour appearance before the House of Commons committee on national security and public safety, which is currently studying police use of tasers.

The RCMP's use of stun guns is under heavy scrutiny, particularly in British Columbia, where the Braidwood inquiry is examining the actions of RCMP officers in connection to the death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski.

The widely viewed video of RCMP officers using a taser on Mr. Dziekanski led to concern that the RCMP may have used undue force in the incident.

Mr. Elliott drew considerable criticism himself last month when he addressed the issue of stun guns during a tour of police activities in Afghanistan.

“I think there is a real danger in us making judgments, particularly the judgments about the character of people or organizations, based on our own limited experience,” the Commissioner said last month. “Even in situations where people make mistakes or don't act appropriately, I think there is a requirement to do a sober, sound examination of the facts or the circumstances and I think the expression ‘Walk a mile in my shoes' comes to mind.”

In a report released earlier this month, the RCMP complaints commissioner Paul Kennedy urged Canada's national police force to be more careful about using stun guns, particularly on young people and the mentally ill. The report also called on the RCMP to improve its tracking and analysis of stun gun incidents.

Taser Crusader: a Belleville woman is on a crusade to halt the use of tasers by police

April 13, 2009
Chris Harvey, CKWS Television, Kingston


A BELLEVILLE WOMAN IS ON A CRUSADE TO HALT THE USE OF TASERS BY POLICE.
THE WOMAN'S BROTHER DIED 5 YEARS AGO IN VANCOUVER AFTER BEING TASERED.
AND SHE'S CALLING FOR A MORATORIUM ON THEIR USE -- UNTIL THE ISSUE OF THEIR SAFETY IS SETTLED ONCE AND FOR ALL.
THE STORY FROM NEWSWATCH'S CHRIS HARVEY.

PATTI GILLMAN HAS A LIST OF THE NAMES AND AGES OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE DIED AFTER BEING SHOCKED WITH A TASER.
HER BROTHER BOB BAGNELL IS ON THAT LIST.
HE DIED IN JUNE OF 2004 AFTER BEING TASERED BY POLICE IN VANCOUVER---THE 58TH PERSON IN NORTH AMERICA TO DIE AFTER BEING SHOCKED BY THE STUN GUN.
AND SHE WANTS A HALT TO THEIR USE.

PATTI GILLMAN:
"UNTIL THEY CAN DETERMINE WHAT IT IS THAT'S MAKING, THAT'S CAUSING THESE PEOPLE TO DIE.
WE HAVE 403 DEAD PEOPLE AND THE ONE COMMON DENOMINATOR IN ALL OF THOSE IS THE TASER."

DURING HER 5 YEAR CRUSADE TO HALT THE USE OF TASERS GILLMAN HAS EVEN SPOKEN TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY AND NATIONAL [SECURITY].

PATTI GILLMAN
"BECAUSE I KNOW I'M NOT THE ONLY PERSON WHO FEELS THIS WAY.
I KNOW THAT THERE'S A LARGE CONTINGENT OF CANADIANS WHO FEEL THAT WE'VE GOT QUITE A MESS ON OUR HANDS AND IT'S GOT TO BE SORTED OUT."
GILLMAN SAYS SHE BELIEVES POLICE ARE USING TASERS AS A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE, NOT IN A LIFE AND DEATH SITUATION.

PATTI GILLMAN:
"IT'S BEING USED AS A COME-ALONG TOOL.
IT'S BEING USED IN SITUATIONS WHERE A GUN WOULD NEVER BE CONSIDERED."

BUT THIS DEPUTY CHIEF SAYS THAT IS NOT THE CASE IN BELLEVILLE.

DEPUTY CHIEF BRIAN HARDER:
"THE TASER IS SPECIFIC TO AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR.
AND ONCE SOMEONE IS NO LONGER AGGRESSIVE, THEN WE CERTAINLY DON'T DEPLOY IT."

HARDER SAYS BELLEVILLE POLICE HAVE SIX TASERS WHICH ARE CARRIED BY TACTICAL UNIT MEMBERS AND SUPERVISORS ONLY.

DEPUTY CHIEF BRIAN HARDER:
"AND I CAN TELL YOU FOR INSTANCE LAST YEAR WE ONLY USED IT 18 TIMES, OF WHICH ONLY 9 DID WE HAVE TO DISCHARGE IT.
SO JUST MERELY THE PRESENCE IN MANY CASES, HALTS A SITUATION."

GILLMAN SAYS SHE WON'T STOP PUSHING FOR A MORATORIUM ON TASER USE.
AND SHE SAYS POLITICIANS WILL HAVE TO ACT IF ENOUGH PEOPLE HELP HER GET THAT MESSAGE ACROSS.

CHRIS HARVEY, CKWS NEWSWATCH, BELLEVILLE.

RCMP shocked 16 people five times or more last year

April 8, 2009
Dave McKie, CBC News

Despite a dramatic drop in the RCMP's use of stun guns in 2008, the force is still zapping some suspects five times or more with the controversial weapon.

Mounties shocked at least 16 suspects with a Taser five or more times, according to analysis done by CBC/Radio-Canada and the Canadian Press of RCMP reports released through access to information requests. Ten of the cases topped five stuns.

The most extreme example is an incident in southern B.C., where three officers from the Ridge Meadows RCMP detachment fired a Taser nine times on an unarmed person.

Another report indicated a suspect, who had been drinking heavily and acted aggressively, was jolted eight times. Two other cases involved seven deployments of a stun gun.

"It's obvious that officers in using [stun guns] don't seem to have any serious restraints on multiple use," said NDP MP Jack Harris, the party's public safety critic. "And it has been clearly shown that multiple use leads to a greater danger."

Multiple Taser use has come under increased public scrutiny since the high-profile 2007 death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski in the Vancouver International Airport, which is the subject of a public inquiry. He died after officers deployed a Taser five times in less than a minute.

"As we saw in the case of Mr. Dziekanski, [being stunned five times] was a major contributing factor potentially to his death," said federal Liberal public safety critic Mark Holland.

Holland echoed the concerns of his NDP counterpart, calling such extreme use of stun guns "egregiously wrong."

Independent research conducted by Montreal biomedical engineer Pierre Savard has shown that increased exposure to stun guns is likely to raise the chance of death, a finding that runs contrary to claims made by manufacturer Taser International and many police forces.

Concern in isolated communities

Among the incidents recorded is one in Wuskwi Sipihk First Nation, a Cree community of about 300 people in central Manitoba.

The RCMP report says three officers stunned a suspect six times in the community last year after the individual, who had been drinking, became "actively combative."

Though the RCMP report doesn't reveal names of suspects or exact dates of incidents, there are indications the suspect may have been Pierre Brass.

His friend Daren Mckay said Brass still has the barbs from when he was repeatedly stunned when Mounties arrested him on the reserve in September.

"He wasn't resisting; the cops grabbed him and wrestled him down," Mckay recalled. "They didn't give him no chance or anything."

Grand Chief Ron Evans of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs says there's growing concern about how Tasers are used, especially in isolated native communities often policed by the RCMP.

"When you Taser people, at some point in time, you're crossing beyond the line of cruelty," he said of repeated shocks.

Evans said aboriginal communities are vulnerable because there's a sense "nobody will speak out on their behalf or no one will ever know if you Taser somebody in the remote communities."

MPs call for RCMP to clarify policy

A CBC News investigation recently revealed that the RCMP softened parts of its stun-gun policy by deleting a key sentence ordering officers not to cycle the stun gun repeatedly or for more than 15 to 20 seconds at a time, unless the officer faced special circumstances.

That policy change, made this February, happened despite assurances from RCMP Commissioner William Elliott before a parliamentary committee that the force had adjusted its policy last June to curb multiple use of the stun gun.

The policy did add a warning that stun guns could cause death, particularly for agitated people. The policy also informs officers that multiple or continuous shocks may be hazardous.

RCMP Taser use overall dropped 30 per cent in 2008 compared to the previous year, marking the first decline in years.

But Harris and Holland, who are members of the parliamentary public safety committee studying Taser use, are calling for Elliott to return before the committee to explain the force's policy on multiple stun gun use.

Sgt. Sylvie Tremblay, an RCMP spokeswoman, told CBC News and the Canadian Press in an email that Elliott has informed the committee that he's "happy to reappear to clarify any confusion resulting from his previous statements to the committee." A date has not yet been set.

"What's particularly concerning is that Commissioner Elliott appeared before our committee [and] led us to believe that there were tighter restrictions on … [using] Tasers multiple times against an individual," said Holland.

On Feb. 12, Elliott told the committee that the force had "taken steps to restrict" use of Tasers. The policy deletions were made nine days prior.

Elliott stressed in a letter to CBC News that the policy does include a warning to officers that multiple deployment or continuous cycling of a Taser "may be hazardous to a subject."


RCMP use of Tasers dropped in 2008, after years of increases. (CBC)

Moratorium mulled

The RCMP has not commented on the latest multiple-use findings from the 2008 data.

It's unclear whether the only Taser-related death reported in 2008 involving the RCMP — Frank Frachette, 49, of Langley, B.C., who died on Oct. 30 — was among those jolted multiple times with a stun gun. The force has refused to comment on how many times he was stunned due to a potential inquest.

Holland says he plans to press Elliott for more details about the 16 cases when the RCMP commissioner next appears before the public safety committee.

"Certainly we're going to want to ask him again on this question for the outstanding cases, if he could provide — at the very minimum — the public complaints commissioner with all the details of these cases," said Holland.

And if the committee fails to get action on RCMP multiple Taser use, Harris said the committee may revive its call for a moratorium on use of Tasers until "we can get it under control."

Hilary Homes of Amnesty International Canada says more independent research is needed, since most analysis has been linked to the largest stun gun manufacturer, Taser International Inc., or police forces.

"To hear that we're continuing to see multiple stuns, including as many as five, is certainly of concern," said Homes.

She said many studies, including a 2005 one in B.C., have recommended minimizing the use of multiple stuns due to the increased risk of harming the person.

When it comes to people in vulnerable states, she notes, the effects of a stun gun are still not well understood.

The data was acquired by CBC/Radio-Canada and the Canadian Press as part of an access to information request for RCMP records from 2002 to 2008, which has been compiled into a searchable database.

Locations where RCMP jolted a suspect five times or more:

Nanaimo, B.C.
North Vancouver, B.C.
Ridge Meadows, B.C.
Banff, Alta.
Gift Lake, Alta.
Okotoks, Alta.
Perryvale, Alta.
Slave Lake, Alta.
Strathmore, Alta.
Shamattawa, Man.
Wuskwi Sipihk First Nation, Man.
Hazlet, Sask.
La Ronge, Sask.
Maidstone, Sask.
Milestone, Sask.
Charlottetown, P.E.I.

For more on RCMP Taser incidents, check our database of reports from 2002 to 2008.

RCMP Commissioner misled Canadians on Taser use policy

March 26, 2009
Liberal.ca

OTTAWA – The Commissioner of the RCMP must explain why he misled Canadians on the RCMP’s Taser use policy, said Liberal Public Safety Critic Mark Holland today.

“The Commissioner misled Canadians when he told them that the RCMP had changed their policy to make Taser use more restrictive,” said Mr. Holland. “In fact, the RCMP’s policy has been weakened.”

On February 12th, RCMP Commissioner William Elliott told the Public Safety and National Security Committee that the RCMP had followed recommendations laid out in the committee’s June 2008 report on Tasers, which called for their restricted use.

But in a CBC report last night, it was learned that far from restricting the use of Tasers, the RCMP actually removed specific provisions that prohibit officers from discharging their Tasers more than once on an individual. In addition, a provision was also removed that required officers to issue a warning to suspects before they fire their Tasers.

In the CBC report, the RCMP claims that this revised policy reflects new studies that have shown that it is safe to use Tasers multiple times. However, of the two studies upon which they base their new policy, one did not look into the effects of multiple deployments and the other was commissioned by Taser International, the company that makes the stun guns.

The RCMP chose to ignore a comprehensive report published by the United States Department of Justice revealing that many deaths are associated with repeated discharges of Tasers, the medical risks are unknown, and that caution is urged in using multiple activations, according to the CBC.

Mr. Holland said he will be bringing a motion before the House of Commons to immediately recall Commissioner Elliott before the committee to explain himself.

“We have some disconcerting contradictions of fact here,” he said. “The Commissioner owes it to Canadians to come back to the committee and clear this up immediately. It is a matter of public safety and trust and we deserve the truth.”

RCMP softened Taser-use restrictions - New research suggests more shots raise likelihood of causing death

'If one ping-pong ball hit to the head does not kill you, 1,000 probably cannot either.'
—Taser International

"It is a linear relationship: the more you are exposed — if you double the exposure, you double the risk of death." —Pierre Savard, biomedical engineer at Montreal's École Polytechnique who specializes in effects of electricity on the heart

March 25, 2009
CBC News

In response to national anger at the death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski in the Vancouver airport, the RCMP was urged to curb multiple Taser use by its officers — but instead deleted an existing restriction from its stun-gun policy.

CBC News has learned that on Feb. 3, 2009, two sentences were erased from the main document that guides officers' actions — the first limiting Taser usage to one shot and no more than 20 seconds at a time, and the second requiring officers to warn suspects before deploying a stun gun.

"They have in fact not placed stricter guidelines on the multiple usage of the Taser; they've in fact removed the ban on multiple use in their new guidelines," said Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh, who chaired a parliamentary committee that reviewed RCMP Taser use.

"And that is absolutely reprehensible, it's unacceptable, it's retrogressive — it's actually moving backwards."

The RCMP's policy change comes at a time when new independent research has emerged suggesting that chance of death from stun guns rises with each exposure, contrary to claims by the largest stun-gun manufacturer and police forces using the devices.

"It is a linear relationship: the more you are exposed — if you double the exposure, you double the risk of death," Pierre Savard, a biomedical engineer at Montreal's École Polytechnique who specializes in effects of electricity on the heart, told CBC News.

Savard studied statistics on more than 300 Taser-related deaths compiled by Amnesty International and results from 3,200 RCMP Taser deployments amassed by CBC/Radio-Canada and the Canadian Press.

That electrical current, says Savard, increases the heart rate and can directly affect the cardiac rhythm. "There are plausible mechanisms that can relate the Taser itself to death," said Savard.

A direct link between Tasers and death cannot yet be established, says Savard, until there are enough deaths for such analysis. He notes as an example that it wasn't immediately possible to link lung cancer to smoking when mass cigarette use first began.

Dziekanski hit by stun gun for 31 seconds

The Arizona-based Taser International maintains that its stun guns don't affect the heart and several zaps have no more effect on your health than one.

It points out that thousands of people have survived stun guns and compares the weapon's cycles to hollow ping pong balls: "If one ping-pong ball hit to the head does not kill you, 1,000 probably cannot either."

Based on his findings, however, Savard believes police forces should limit exposure to one or two shocks and not more than 20 seconds in total.

RCMP Corp. Gregg Gillis, a use-of-force trainer in B.C., denies the sentences were removed due to legal concerns. He says the force never had an outright ban on using the weapon more than once and instead allowed the situation dictate the use.

The restriction written in the 2005 policy was based on older research, since proven wrong, about electrical weapons impairing breathing, said Gillis.

"We said be cautious about the use of multiple exposures, because we're not sure what the outcome might be from that, because there wasn't clear medical research that spoke to that issue."

Use of Tasers by the RCMP and other police forces has come under intense scrutiny since Dziekanski's death on Oct. 14, 2007, in the arrivals area of the Vancouver International Airport.

A bystander's amateur video captured Dziekanski's final moments, allowing officials and people around the world to witness the encounter between him and the four RCMP officers.

Committee pushed for restrictions

The video reveals that RCMP Const. Kwesi Millington deployed the Taser on Dziekanski five times, for a total of 31 seconds in the span of a minute. At the Braidwood inquiry, Millington testified he feared for the officers' safety after Dziekanski grabbed a stapler. Dziekanski clearly falls to the floor in the video, taped by Paul Pritchard, but the constable uses the stun gun four more times. After learning that her son had been shocked five times with a Taser, Zofia Cisowski told CBC News that she wondered why police use Tasers at all. "They say they are human being[s] but who was my son? Also a human being," she said.

The House of Commons public safety and national security committee was among a handful of groups to investigate in the months that followed. In a report released in mid-June of 2008, the group, representing politicians of all stripes, called the RCMP's policy too permissive and pointed out weaknesses in officer training.

Most importantly, the committee called for the force to put "clear restrictions" on officers discharging stun guns multiple times and recommended they limit use to cases where the suspect is combative or poses a "risk of death and grievous bodily harm."

And if the Mounties weren't willing to do so by mid-December, the committee threatened to seek a moratorium on their use of the weapons. Eight months after the committee's report, RCMP Commissioner William Elliott told the committee that the force had introduced a revised Taser policy back in June 2008.

"I believe the facts are we have made significant changes in response to the committee's report and to respond to the recommendations," Elliott told the parliamentary committee on Feb. 12, 2009. "We have taken steps to restrict its use."

The policy added recognition that a stun gun could cause death, especially for "acutely agitated" individuals, and still informed officers that multiple or continuous shocks may be hazardous.

But the RCMP eliminated a line prohibiting officers from shocking someone more than once.

The old policy, in place since 2005, had stated: "Multiple deployment or continuous cycling of the [Conducted Energy Weapons] may be hazardous to a subject. Unless situational factors dictate otherwise … do not cycle the CEW repeatedly, nor more than 15-20 seconds at a time against a subject."

RCMP out of touch: Dosanjh

In another section, the policy instructed officers to issue a warning before using a Taser. "Police, stop or you will be hit with 50,000 volts of electricity!"

Dosanjh, the Liberal MP who chaired the parliamentary committee, was outraged by the removal of the two sentences. "The public safety minister has an obligation to call Mr. Elliott into his office and say, 'What are you doing? Why are you not levelling with Canadians?' " said Dosanjh. "'Why are you not levelling with the House of Commons committee that made recommendations?'"

He said the RCMP's upper echelons appear to be out of touch with Canadians' views on Taser use and the force is in need of an overhaul. "They don't understand the depth of the anger that Canadians feel about the Taser."

Some also fear such policy changes could serve to protect the RCMP in future cases of Taser-related deaths.

"It could weaken the case of a victim if indeed the policies of the RCMP are more permissible than they were at the time of Robert Dziekanski's death," said Don Rosenbloom, the lawyer representing the Polish government at the Braidwood inquiry.

RCMP trainer Gillis cited two studies for making the force's policy change: one examining police officers who received one five-second shock; and another paid for by Taser International on the effects of repeated stuns on breathing.

And Gillis insists that officers are hearing the message on how dangerous multiple stun-gun use can be during training.

In fact, three of the officers involved in the Dziekanski case were trained by Gillis three months before the death, but appeared unclear on the policy during testimony at the Braidwood inquiry.

Two of the officers, Millington and Const. Bill Bentley, couldn't recall why the policy on multiple Taser use was adopted.

And in fact, the study cited by Elliott to the parliamentary committee to defend the safety of Tasers, done by a U.S. government agency, the National Institute of Justice, questions multiple stun-gun use.

While it found stun-gun exposure is safe in most cases, it clearly stated that the risk of death following repeated or continuous Taser exposure is still unknown.

"Law enforcement should be aware that the associated risks are unknown. Therefore, caution is urged in using multiple activations of CED as a mean to accomplish subdual."

An analysis of RCMP stun gun reports by CBC and the Canadian Press found that 45 per cent of cases involved an officer firing the stun gun more than once.

As for deleting the verbal warning officers are to give suspects, Gillis said it was taken out due to accuracy.

Tasers don't conduct 50,000 volts of electricity, he says, noting that the weapon's electrical impact is measured in current, the rate of the flow of electrons, rather than voltage, the amount of force driving the flow.

Gillis said officers are generally trained to use appropriate warnings to de-escalate situations, even though the policy no longer requires it.

In Dziekanski's case, no warning was issued by Const. Kwesi Millington before the first of five stun-gun deployments.

For more on this story, watch The National Wednesday at 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET/PT on CBC Newsworld and at 10 p.m. local time on CBC Television and 10:30 p.m. NT.

RCMP operational manual on conducted energy weapons (as amended Feb. 2, 2009)

RCMP operational manual on conducted energy weapons (cached version from before Feb. 2, 2009)

March 25, 2009
CBC News

Sir:

This is to follow up on your request for an interview today with me and your subsequent telephone conversation with Supt. Tim Cogan. We understand you wanted to ask about your perception that there is a discrepancy between the RCMP’s revised policy on Conducted Energy Weapons and statements I made to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU) on February 12, 2009. Unfortunately I am not available to be interviewed.

In your conversation with Supt. Cogan, you referenced my opening remarks to SECU where I addressed the second recommendation of the Standing Committee’s June 2008 Report and indicated “The RCMP’s revised CEW policy restricts the use of CEWs and specifically warns of the hazards of multiple deployment or continuous cycling of the CEW.”

I stand by this statement. It refers to the two aspects of the recommendation in question, relating to usage guidelines more broadly and multiple discharges.

The revised RCMP policy does restrict the use of CEWs. Section 3. 1. 1 of the revised Operational Manual (O.M.) states: “The CEW must only be used in accordance with CEW training, the principles of the Incident Management/Intervention Model (IM/IM) and in response to a threat to officer or public safety as determined by a member’s assessment of the totality of the circumstances being encountered. NOTE: Member’s actions must be reasonable and the force used must be necessary in the circumstances.”

With respect to the second aspect of the recommendation, RCMP policy includes a warning to Members that: “Multiple deployment or continuous cycling of the CEW may be hazardous to a subject.” (O.M. 3. 1. 3).

The new policy further provides that: “Acutely agitated or delirious persons may be at a high risk of death. If an individual is in an acutely agitated or delirious state, and whenever possible when responding to reports of violent individuals, request the assistance of emergency medical services. If possible bring medical assistance to the scene.” (O.M. 3. 1. 4)

The policy also directs members to make every effort to “take control of the subject as soon as possible following deployment of a CEW, and if possible during the CEW deployment”. The new policy also clearly states that “the CEW is not intended as a restraint device” (O.M. 3. 1. 5).

The statements I made to the Standing Committee are completely consistent with the policy.I trust this clarifies any misunderstanding you may have had about the RCMP’s revised CEW policy and my statements to the Standing Committee.

William Elliott

EDITORIAL: Police agencies wrong to shoot the messenger over Taser policies

February 25, 2009
Vancouver Sun

Little more than a week after the RCMP made some welcome changes to its Taser policy, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association had an opportunity to follow suit and show that they, too, are willing to be flexible in light of the public's reasonable concern about the use of conducted energy weapons.

Instead, one representative of the two national police agencies decided not only to stand his ground on Tasers, but to lob a few insults at the media and the public at a press conference announcing the release of a joint document on Taser use.

The agencies maintain that Tasers pose no threat to the public, and that the weapons have helped to save lives. That might be true, but there are legitimate questions about Tasers given the more than 20 people in Canada who have died after being zapped.

Instead of acknowledging as much, the police chiefs chose to attack reporters, saying that "inaccurate and incomplete information is circulating in the media."

Exactly what information that is isn't clear, though Tom Kaye, vice-president of the CACP, did say that the media took a recent statement by RCMP Commissioner William Elliott out of context. Here's his statement in full:

"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 acutely agitated individuals."

Elliott made this comment, which is abundantly clear and which was made without qualification, before the Commons' standing committee on public safety.

Kaye didn't provide any evidence as to how it's been taken out of context, but did suggest, inexplicably, that the statement had been clarified "to us" -- that is, presumably to the police chiefs. But he didn't bother to explain what the clarification was.

Nevertheless, the chiefs continued on the offensive, with Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino suggesting that 150 studies have proven there exists no link between Tasers and death.

Despite not being able to name a single paper when asked for citations, Fantino nevertheless ramped up the rhetoric by telling people to "do your own homework."

And if that weren't enough, he launched into an adolescent attack on Taser critics, saying "So much of the misinformation and miscommunication is driven by people who have never walked in our shoes, have never faced those situations and could never pass recruitment training."

The chiefs' arrogance and unwillingness to consider any opinions but their own extended even to the medical profession, as they defended the use of "excited delirium," a condition dropped by the RCMP because it's not recognized by physicians.

If there are any bright spots in all of this -- and there are precious few -- it's that the chiefs did agree that there needs to be adequate training and guidelines regarding Taser use. And by the end of the press conference, Kaye admitted Tasers may have been used on peaceful subjects and that that shouldn't have happened.

That's a hopeful admission. But given that it came towards the end of an all-out assault on Taser critics, the real lesson from the press conference is that the chiefs will brook no questioning of their methods, even when the questions are fair and reasonable. And even when they come from the people who pay their salaries.

EDITORIAL: Reining in the use of Tasers

February 21, 2009
Vancouver Sun

It was only one sentence in the middle of RCMP Commissioner Doug Elliott's three-page address to the Commons' standing committee on public safety and national security, but it rightly made headlines across the country:

"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 acutely agitated individuals."

This is significant, because it's the first time a Canadian police force has admitted that death is one of the risks of Taser use, even though more than 20 people in Canada have died after being Tasered.

In recognition of this, Elliott also announced that the RCMP has changed its policy on Taser use. Most significantly, all members of the RCMP have been instructed that Tasers "must only be used where it is necessary to do so in the circumstances of threats to officer or public safety."

While an apparent improvement over previous policy, which sanctioned the use of Tasers when, for example, it was deemed necessary to handcuff resistant suspects, this wording is unfortunately vague.

It's not entirely clear what would constitute a threat to the safety of officers and the public, and it's even less clear what the force means by "necessary." This leaves much room for interpretation -- it could, for instance, easily be interpreted as permitting the Tasering of someone in Robert Dziekanski's position -- and hence could have little impact on the practice of using Tasers. That said, the new wording would make it extremely difficult for officers to justify using a Taser on an elderly man in a hospital bed, as has happened.

Elliott also said the RCMP manual would no longer use the term "excited delirium," a good move since excited delirium is not recognized by the medical profession. Instead, police use it to refer to those experiencing extreme agitation, often under the influence of drugs, and a number of people police believe to have been in this state have been Tasered. Yet people in a drug-induced, extremely agitated state are, of course, at greater risk of death.

So the new policy seems a step in the right direction, even if it's not as big a step as many would like.

Among other changes, Elliott noted that while not prohibiting multiple Taser use on one suspect, the new policy will provide "clear guidelines" and "restrictions" for multiple discharges.

It is unfortunate these changes took so long, especially since some tragedies might have been avoided. But the RCMP has at least shown that it is willing to make changes, which should help protect both officers and the public.

Now we need to see other police forces, including the Vancouver Police Department, make similar changes, for the welfare of everyone.

EDITORIAL: Other police should follow RCMP taser policy

KUDOS TO THE CHRONICLE HERALD - YOU NAILED IT!!

... "words like "threat" and "reasonable" can be understood in very different ways by officers in the field ... critics’ fears are legitimate ... unless other police forces across the country move to adapt similar policy measures, the basic problem of inappropriate Taserings – and, at times, subsequent deaths – will continue to exist ... We don’t want a situation where police readiness to Taser a subject depends on which force is packing the weapon, not on what that individual is doing."

See also "What's wrong with this picture? And who's keeping track?"

February 16, 2009
Chronicle Herald

THE MOUNTIES have finally admitted what has been obvious to almost everyone else for years: Tasering a person increases the risk that they may die.

The surprising climbdown from the RCMP’s prior insistence that Tasers were appropriate for police use in a wide variety of situations came in testimony by new RCMP Commissioner William Elliot to the Commons committee on public safety in Ottawa last week.

Though the sea change in thinking has been too long in coming, Mr. Elliot’s admission – and the news that RCMP policies and training procedures were changed last June to prohibit Tasers from being used on "resistant" or "non-cooperative" individuals – are to be welcomed.

Under the new rules, Tasers can be fired only if an officer or members of the public are threatened and no "reasonable" alternative exists. Tougher reporting requirements have been introduced for officers after using a Taser to raise accountability. Police carrying Tasers must now undergo annual retraining, instead of every two years under the old policy.

Though critics have generally praised the changes, some claim there’s still too much ambiguity in the wording of the new policy. For example, they say words like "threat" and "reasonable" can be understood in very different ways by officers in the field.

Despite a recommendation from the Commons committee, the RCMP also did not ban multiple uses of the Taser on a single subject, though the new policy warns of the "hazards" of multiple firings on the health of the individual being hit.

Given the many examples of inappropriate use of Tasers by police across Canada in recent years, critics’ fears are legitimate. To that end, public scrutiny of Taser use by the RCMP and other police forces should stay at a heightened level until people are satisfied incidents like what happened to Robert Dziekanski, the Polish immigrant who was repeatedly Tasered by four Mounties at the Vancouver airport in 2007, and who later died, are unlikely to happen again.

In other words, the changes on paper are great, but Canadians will want to see the new tactics reflected in actual police practice. Reviewing RCMP Taser use statistics in a year’s time will be revealing.

The RCMP’s new stance on Tasers is good news, but unless other police forces across the country move to adapt similar policy measures, the basic problem of inappropriate Taserings – and, at times, subsequent deaths – will continue to exist.

The country’s national police force has formally stated that Tasering people, especially when they’re in an "acutely agitated state," increases risk of death. The responsible reaction by all provincial and municipal police forces in Canada should be to immediately, and strongly, consider the Mounties’ conclusions and, at the same time, recognize the urgent need to change their own policies on use of the controversial stun gun.

We don’t want a situation where police readiness to Taser a subject depends on which force is packing the weapon, not on what that individual is doing.

EDITORIAL: RCMP's muddy Taser rules

It's good to know I'm not the only one who noticed this!!

February 17, 2009
Victoria Times Colonist

All you need to know about the RCMP's dysfunction on Tasers -- and perhaps more broadly -- was on display in one nine-hour period last week.

In the morning, RCMP Commissioner William Elliott told a parliamentary committee that the force now recognizes that the stun guns pose a risk of death, something police and the manufacturer have been reluctant to acknowledge despite some 25 deaths in Canada after people have been tasered.

The RCMP changed its policies in June to instruct officers not to use Tasers on people who were "resistant" or unco-operative.

"We no longer allow that," Elliott said.

The new rules say the Taser must be used only when there is a real threat to officers or the public and that its use must be "reasonable" in circumstances where the alternative is to shoot a gun.

That would have been a welcome change, although it is baffling -- and irresponsible -- for the RCMP to make such a change and not announce it for seven months.

Taser use was, through that period, a major public concern. The RCMP reputation had been sullied by the death of Robert Dziekanski and use of the stun guns on jailed teens and elderly hospital patients.

But later in the day, the chairman of the RCMP's officer safety committee said Elliott was wrong.

"The commissioner, with all due respect, is incorrect to say we wouldn't use them again for actively resistant people," Sgt. Scott Warren said.

"I think he's in over his head."

The possible explanations are all alarming: The commissioner misled the parliamentary committee, officers don't accept his authority, or policies are so murky or poorly communicated that front-line officers don't understand them.

Warren left the impression that officers would continue to use Tasers whenever they considered it appropriate, no matter what the RCMP decided the official policy should be.

RCMP complaints commissioner Paul Kennedy noted the policy is still vague and falls short of accepting safety recommendations.

The RCMP has resisted public accountability on its use of Tasers -- and in too many other areas. The delayed announcement of this change and the internal conflicts over its substance undermine any reassurance of greater care offered by the commissioner.

RCMP's Taser policy shockingly unclear

February 16, 2009
Iain Hunter
Special to Times Colonist

The RCMP's commissioner-in-a-suit seems to have had some second thoughts about the use, by his men and women, of Tasers.

William Elliott has revealed that since last June Mounties have been under instructions to use the zappers only when "necessary" in the face of threats to the safety of members of the force or members of the public.

After denying for so long, as other law enforcement agencies in other parts of the world have denied, that Tasers can kill, Elliott has conceded that there have been incidents "where shortly after a Taser was deployed, individuals died."

Yes, and there have been incidents where shortly after a gun was deployed, individuals died. The commissioner could have been a little more forthcoming.

Police and public medical examiners across North America are fond of saying that people suffering "excited delirium" might be harmed more, even die, when hit by the 50,000 volts that the device is supposed to deliver, but sometimes, it's reported, exceeds.

The American Medical Association doesn't recognize the term; a House of Commons committee, the RCMP's public complaints commissioner and others have said it's not acceptable.

Now, Elliott says, Mounties are directed to assess the "potential risks" of jolting people, especially those who are "acutely agitated." There's no question that Robert Dziekanski, whose weapon of choice was a stapler in his fatal confrontation with Mounties at Vancouver International Airport, was acutely agitated.

We may never know whether the cause of his death was his being hit by a Taser five times or being used as a trampoline by those officers who don't seem to have assessed very much. It seems to me more than the use of Tasers deserves review.

And I don't know how much time there is for the assessment that is now required before a Taser is deployed. I don't know how young members of the force are supposed to recognize the symptoms of suspects or nuisances in the heat of the moment, and decide to choose a nightstick or their fists instead.

The symptoms of what police call excited delirium, according to the medical examiner in the case of a man killed after being zapped by a Taser in Tampa Bay, Fla., last year, are agitation, elevated heart rate, incoherence, bizarre behaviour, high pain tolerance and a compulsion to break glass.

Some of those symptoms might be evident, as they were in Dziekanski's case and might have saved his life under the new RCMP policy, but there isn't always time for cops to run through a medical checklist before deciding what action is "necessary" or "reasonable."

Paul Kennedy, the force's complaints commissioner, thinks some of the wording of the policy is still "very, very broad and vague" and might not prevent inappropriate use of the weapon.

And the new policy doesn't seem to sit too well with members of the force who have to follow it. Sgt. Scott Warren, chairman of the RCMP's officer safety committee, has said in a television interview that the commissioner "is incorrect to say we wouldn't use them again for actively resistant people."

I hope Warren's not saying that an 82-year-old heart patient in a hospital bed, a mentally ill teenager in a jail cell or a senior protesting a parking ticket will still be considered "actively resistant" and could still get zapped as they have been in Canada.

Police forces in Britain are distributing Tasers, formerly reserved for specially trained officers, to traffic cops.

The wider these nasty things are spread the likelier it is that they'll be used too often, too easily -- and if they come, so will bean bag guns that fire pouches of lead shot, or devices that send out temporarily blinding laser beams or sticky foam, or substances that cloud people's minds.

A cop's choice used to be between the whistle, the truncheon or the gun. A lot of the people he or she has to confront today aren't petty criminals. Some of them are killers; all of them are unpredictable.

We should credit our police for looking for new ways to deal with these people without killing them. But they must try harder.

EDITORIAL: Holster those stun guns

February 15, 2009
Toronto Star

Stun guns may be less lethal than pistols. But police officers who use them on agitated or delirious people expose them to "the risk of death." That blunt admission from Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner William Elliott to Parliament's public safety committee this past week was welcome and overdue.

It puts police across the nation on notice that they should resist the urge to pull out their Tasers before exhausting other low-risk options.

Stung by the death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski, who was stunned five times at the Vancouver airport, the RCMP has tightened its rules for using the weapons, though perhaps not enough.

The RCMP has no evidence that Tasers themselves are lethal. But any use of force carries risk for highly agitated individuals.

So RCMP officers may now lawfully use the guns only "where it is necessary to do so in circumstances of threats to officer or public safety," Elliott said. They shouldn't be routinely hauled out to incapacitate obnoxious, resistant or erratic people.

Alex Neve of Amnesty International Canada welcomes this as "a huge breakthrough." And RCMP complaints commissioner Paul Kennedy, who has lobbied against stun gun "usage creep," also welcomes the change, though he cautions that the rules are still broad and vague.

There's a case to be made that the RCMP should further tighten its policy to prohibit stun guns except to deal with severe threats to life and limb. That hasn't always been the case. The RCMP used the weapons more than 5,000 times in the past seven years, the Canadian Press reports. And a CP analysis from 2002 to 2005 found that three in four suspects zapped were unarmed. The force promises to monitor use, which should provide the data needed to establish whether the policy is working. Elliott's message needs to get through to the rank and file.

But the RCMP, the Toronto police and the 170 other forces that use stun guns now know that they are not to be hauled out to tame insolent teenagers, annoying drunks or passive resisters. Police also know it is dangerous to repeatedly zap people. And that medical help should be summoned.

It is no longer possible to argue that the risk is minimal. That alone should cut down on use.

Editorial: The taming of the taser

February 14, 2009
Winnipeg Free Press

The revelation this week by RCMP that the force now considers the Taser a potentially deadly weapon shows that police are divorcing themselves, finally, from the manufacturer's stalwart assurances the stun gun is a safe, non-lethal device. It is a useful development that other police forces in Canada should adopt in their training of officers in Taser use.

Since its introduction as a weapon of enforcement, police across Canada have become more comfortable with stun guns, a weapon of choice for subduing non-compliant, potentially violent suspects. Shot from a distance, a stun gun also saves officers from harm they might encounter in close contact with volatile people. But that same comfort with the weapon has triggered tragic results -- more than 20 Canadians have died after being stunned, with some of the deaths being blamed directly on the Tasering.

The allegations have been rejected by police forces and the electronic device's manufacturer. The manufacturer, Taser International, has insisted that the Taser does not disrupt heart function, but animal tests have shown it can. Police forces were undeterred.

Now, however, RCMP commissioner William Elliot has told a House of Commons committee that the national police force has formally curbed the use of the stun gun. A review of the RCMP policy following the tragic death of Robert Dziekanski at the Vancouver airport in 2007 discovered that officers had begun to pull out their stun gun with greater frequency -- usage creep -- to immobilize those who were "actively resistant," which could mean simply refusing to be handcuffed. Mr. Dziekanski was visibly upset when RCMP officers approached him, but he was neither physically violent, nor threatening when he was Tasered, twice, and then physically restrained. He died within minutes of heart failure.

The new RCMP policy classifies the weapon as carrying a risk of death, particularly to people in a heightened, agitated state. It restricts the use of a Taser to cases where there exists danger to the public or the officers.

The RCMP has had long, robust experience with the use of stun guns. The development should inform other forces, including the Winnipeg Police Service, in the training and use of the guns. At present, Winnipeg officers are permitted to use a Taser in situations where force is required, where an individual is resisting arrest and may flee and if the individual is in a state of excited delirium. A suspect need not be combative to elicit a shot from a stun gun.

It has taken some hard, sad lessons to spark a refinement of the RCMP policy, to recognize that contrary to manufacturer claims, stun guns are not quite as safe as originally thought. Instructing officers in the use of the weapon, in that context, and particularly cautioning them against Tasering a suspect in a state of extreme agitation, should lead to a reduction in its use. The Winnipeg force should rewrite its protocol on training and Taser use.

Nova Scotia tracks taser use

February 14, 2009
By PATRICIA BROOKS ARENBURG, Chronicle Herald

The province’s two largest municipal police forces will look at the changes to the RCMP’s national policy on Taser use. But force officials say they’ve already complied with changes Nova Scotia made last year.

"It’s very unlikely there will be any changes to our policy, as it’s virtually the same as ours," said Const. Jeff Carr, spokesman for Halifax Regional Police.

Earlier this week, RCMP Commissioner William Elliott told MPs on the Commons public safety committee that the new rules clearly set out that Mounties can’t zap suspects for simple resistance or refusing to co-operate, The Canadian Press reported.

Instead, officers must only use Tasers in cases involving a threat to officers or public safety and must report and justify each time they use or threaten to use the device, the news agency reported.

The Halifax force’s policy was also "updated last year subsequent to an extensive review by the Nova Scotia Department of Justice," Const. Carr said.

Following that study, provincial Justice Minister Cecil Clarke tightened restrictions surrounding the use of Tasers to "situations of violent or aggressive resistance or active threat" that could injure officers, the public or a suspect.

He accepted a series of recommendations from an advisory panel’s review report, which also pointed to concerns Tasers were "being used as a compliance tool" on those who were not actively resisting."It’s certainly not intended nor is it used as a compliance instrument," Chief Myles Burke of Cape Breton Regional Police said.

Since the provincial review was completed, the Cape Breton force’s senior trainer conducts an internal review each time an officer uses the device. He sends a written report to the chief and that information is forwarded to the provincial Justice Department, Chief Burke said.

"We are accountable," he said.

As with any weapon, "anything we do dealing with force, there’s a risk, and we continue to do training . . . and review our policies," he said.

A provincial fatality inquiry will open next week into the 2007 death of Howard Hyde. The Dartmouth man had a history of schizophrenia and died about 30 hours after Halifax Regional Police used a stun gun on him. The province’s chief medical examiner ruled Mr. Hyde’s death accidental, but the inquiry will look at the circumstances surrounding the death.

Back in 2002, Halifax was the first department in the province to provide officers with Tasers. Last year, the force had 33 Tasers and about 45 per cent of its officers were trained to use them. More are being trained.

Chief Burke didn’t have the exact number of stun guns his force owns, but he said it is continuing to purchase the devices and officer training is ongoing.

"We will continue to use the conductive energy devices and we certainly deploy them where there’s a need to take control, because certainly in a number of cases that we’re reviewed, lethal force would be an option," he said. "Having that (stun gun) option, we see it as being a very valuable, valuable thing for our staff."

TASER REVIEW
Justice Minister Cecil Clarke accepted all 16 recommendations of a ministerial review on Tasers last year.

Some of those include:

•Appoint a panel of scientific experts to annually review Taser safety.
•Create a provincial database of Taser use.
•Establish provincial standards for all use-of-force devices.
•Conduct a full policy review of Taser use in the province, but restrict the use of the device in the meantime.
•Ensure uniform training standards for officers, and instructors should be accredited under provincial standards.
•Establish a provincial commission to investigate complaints about police Taser use and review training and use-of-force policy.

National Post editorial board: RCMP holsters its zappers

February 13, 2009
National Post
Editorial

RCMP Commissioner William Elliott revealed yesterday — and not a moment too soon — that the force has adopted new regulations on the use of Tasers. It is a welcome, if unnecessarily tardy, development that should reduce the abuse of the practical but overused police weapon.

Appearing before the Commons committee on public safety, Mr. Elliott said officers are now being told Tasers can cause death when used on “acutely agitated” suspects, should not be used repeatedly or on “continuous cycling” and should not be used on “resistant” individuals except in extreme circumstances.

Officers must immediately report each time the Taser is drawn, even if it is not used; every case must be reviewed by superiors in Ottawa, and each instance must be sent to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP to produce quarterly and annual reports.

“We’ve now made it very clear that the only time the use of a Taser can be justified is where there is a threat, either to our officers or to members of the public,” he said.

That’s nice to hear, but it has to be asked why it took the force so long to come around to the obvious conclusion. Tasers can fire an electric jolt of up to 50,000 volts. Although the company insists they are not lethal, at least 20 Canadians have died after being zapped, and their use has grown alarmingly among police. Documents obtained by Canwest News Service found RCMP use grew to 1,414 incidents in 2007, up from 1,119 in 2006 and just 597 in 2005.

It may be a coincidence that Mr. Elliott unveiled the changes in RCMP policy as an inquiry continues to reveal disturbing details about the death of Robert Dziekanski, the Polish man who died after being Tasered by RCMP officers at Vancouver International Airport.

The inquiry, under commissioner Thomas Braidwood, has uncovered one miscue after another. Mr. Dziekanski spent 10 hours in the airport after a 24-hour journey from Poland, growing increasingly agitated as he sought to meet up with his mother, until a final confrontation with four RCMP officers in which he was Tasered five times.

Witnesses have testified of numerous opportunities to avert the tragedy, each of which was rejected in turn. An airport employee who spoke Polish and offered to translate was ignored. An emergency response team was just a few metres away, but wasn’t called, and supervisors won’t say why. An airline employee testified that she finally called 911 because Mr. Dziekanski was getting increasingly upset and “no one was coming to help.”

All this goes beyond the use of Tasers, but typifies a situation in which their use was becoming a convenient fallback for police seeking a quick end to unpleasant situations.

Tasers have been deployed against an 82-year-old heart patient lying in his hospital bed, a mentally ill teenager in a northern Ontario jail and a 68-year-old Kelowna man following an argument over a parking ticket.

Mr. Elliott said the RCMP now stresses the weapon should be used only in “reasonable” circumstances, in which the danger is great enough that the only alternative would be the use of a firearm. Police forces across Canada, which have been similarly slow to acknowledge their danger, should take their cue from the Mounties and make the use of Tasers once again a rarity.

Taser guidelines already in place in city: chief (Cornwall, Ontario)

February 13, 2009
TREVOR PRITCHARD, STANDARD-FREEHOLDER, WITH FILES FROM THE CANADIAN PRESS

Most of the RCMP's new guidelines on the use of Tasers have already been implemented by municipal police forces in Ontario, including Cornwall, says the city's chief of police.

Chief Dan Parkinson said much of the RCMP policy announced Thursday - which will prohibit the stun guns from being used to simply subdue suspects - is reflected in an October 2008 report filed by the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP) to the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

"The RCMP are merely changing their training methods to come more in line with the direction that Ontario as a province has gone in," said Parkinson, who is also the OACP's first vice-president.

RCMP commissioner William Elliott told the House of Commons public safety committee that the use of Tasers must be restricted to cases where officers are in danger or where there is a risk to public safety.

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 - which had been derided by critics - no longer appears in RCMP operational manuals, said Elliott.

The revised policy also warns against the hazards of multiple Taser firings.

RCMP officers also must now report each time they fire, or even draw, their Tasers, and the reports must go to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. That paperwork is already required of Cornwall Community Police Service officers, said Parkinson. The reports are then sent on to the province quarterly, the chief added.

Parkinson said the scope of the RCMP's territory and policing responsibilities helped explain why their policies weren't already in line with Ontario municipal forces. "Provinces have the ability to move, perhaps, just a little bit quicker on some things," said Parkinson. "We all seem to be singing off the same hymn sheet, as it were, now."

Last June, the all-party committee called for the 50,000-volt weapons to be reined in and reclassified as "impact weapons" until Taser safety is shown through impartial studies."

At least 20 Canadians have died after being Tasered.

According to CCPS statistics, city police discharged their Tasers 11 times in 2007.

The RCMP rethinks the risks

February 13, 2009
Globe and Mail

The RCMP has taken a brave step by acknowledging that taser use presents a "risk of death" to agitated individuals. Its new taser policy, apparently adopted last June but made public only yesterday by Commissioner William Elliott, is a sharp break with the force's previous thinking, and indeed that of the vast majority of police forces that use the 50,000-volt electric stun gun in North America.

No Canadian police force had ever publicly acknowledged that tasers pose a fatal risk. The admission changes everything, or should. Police have always insisted the taser is low-risk; it followed that it could be used in low-risk situations, justified by the specious argument that sometimes low-risk confrontations escalate to high-risk ones. With the admission of fatal risks, there will have to be a certain threshold of danger before the RCMP can use the weapon.

There is some lack of clarity about where that threshold is set. The RCMP rejected a recommendation from the House of Commons Public Safety Committee that the taser be classed as an "impact weapon" authorized for use only when someone displays "assaultive behaviour" or poses a threat of death or grievous bodily harm. But Mr. Elliott told the committee that the new policy, explained to all RCMP members on June 18, is that the taser "must only be used where it is necessary to do so in circumstances of threats to officer or public safety." This is strange, contradictory wording. "Threats" is a soft word; "necessary" is a strong word. "Necessary" implies that all alternatives need to be considered first; it means, essentially, that there must be no other choice. If the weapon poses what Mr. Elliott called a "high risk of death" on an acutely agitated individual, then it should be used only when that individual presents a severe threat.

The proof of what the RCMP means by its new policy will be found in how it uses the taser. The force's latest statistics, from Jan. 1 to March 31 of last year, show 304 uses, but no reporting on threat levels except for the most extreme category, risk of death or grievous bodily harm, which accounted for just 17.4 per cent of cases. That is the time to use lethal force, not a taser, the report explicitly says. (Mr. Elliott was being disingenuous when he cited an incident where police tasered a man swinging an axe at his father, to explain to the committee how tasers save lives. Used inappropriately, he was saying, it works.)

The policy change is welcome evidence that the Mounties are not impervious to change. Yes, it took the needless taser death of a distressed, unarmed Polish immigrant, Robert Dziekanski, on Oct. 14, 2007, at the Vancouver International Airport; it took a judicial inquiry, still in progress, into that death; it took critical reports from an independent RCMP watchdog; it took pressure from the Commons committee; and it took innumerable editorials across the country and other forms of public protest. But the RCMP deserves credit for making the change.

This is a considerable step forward that is bound, eventually, to be felt at other police forces. It reduces the likelihood that there will be another incident like the one in which Robert Dziekanski was killed.