TASER: The Whole Story

October, 15, 2012
http://re-sergeance.net/2012/10/15/taser-the-whole-story/

Dear Zofia,

In memory of Robert and all those who have lost their lives proximal to a TASER.  A promise not forgotten.

Dr. Mike Webster’s Presentation to:
Special Committee to Inquire into the Use of Conducted Energy Weapons
and to Audit Selected Police Complaints
Monday, October 15, from 10:45 to 11:30 a.m.
Douglas Fir Committee Room, Room 226, Parliament Buildings.

Preamble

I would like to thank the committee for inviting me here today. I am a Registered Psychologist (in private practice) that has worked in the area of police psychology for over 30 years. I completed basic police training at the RCMP Training Academy (Depot Division) in 1988. I specialize in the area of crisis management and have experience in the application of force across a broad array of police tasks including: hostage/barricade incidents; kidnappings; incidents of public disorder; and crisis intervention. I have been instrumental in the creation and delivery of crisis intervention, crisis negotiation, and incident command courses from the Canadian Police College (Ottawa, Ontario) to the B.C. Police Academy (New Westminster, B.C.). I have been an adjunct lecturer at the FBI Training Academy. I have consulted internationally and with several law enforcement agencies including: Colombia, Mexico, Singapore, Brazil, the United Arab Emirates, Hungary, Iceland, Sweden, Australia, and Europol. I have consulted operationally at a variety of incidents including: the old BC Penitentiary (hostage takings); Waco, Texas; Gustafsen Lake, B.C.; Jordan, Montana; Ft. Davis, Texas; the G8; the G20; Apex Alpine; and numerous kidnappings from Iraq to Indonesia, and Kashmir to Colombia. I am familiar with both Use of Force Models; the RCMP’s Integrated Model of Incident Management and the National Use of Force Framework. I provided testimony at both phases of the Braidwood Commission of Inquiries.

I assume that your committee invited me here today to comment on my experience in the implementation of Justice Braidwood’s recommendations in the areas of crisis intervention and training; as I have noted, areas of specialty and experience for me. As I was not invited to be a part of that implementation process, I can only make general comment on what has been done by others. I am more than willing to answer any questions you may have in those areas of police work following my presentation. However, as it appears that electro-shock weapons (ESWs) are here to stay, and in order to assist in an informed discussion, and the formulation of future public policy, I would like to address in the meantime a couple of critical concerns. I believe your committee, and the public should be advised of not only recent TASER-related science but also some of the more pertinent contemporary and historical concerns associated with the TASER’s place in Canadian law enforcement. In providing this information I hope to prevent the next generation technology from being so easily accepted and under such compromised circumstances.

Presentation

The BC Government failed its citizens when TASER technology was introduced to the Province. As someone who is trained to construct, conduct, and be critical of research, I was taken aback last week to hear the Assistant Deputy Minister and Director of Police Services cavalierly gloss over the inadequate and flawed process used to approve the use of TASERs in this Province. Those who appreciate the scientific method prefer to regard that process as amateurish, at best, and replete with misrepresentations provided by what appears to have been a seriously compromised policeman/project manager. I would like to elaborate. There was not enough rigorous science applied by the manufacturer to guarantee the safety of the weapon. TASERs were anecdotally not scientifically developed. Universally, public officials failed to verify the safety claims being made by the company and its spokespersons. TASERs were rushed into service by decision makers and police in B.C. and throughout Canada in 1999. The weapon has caused problems for the public and the manufacturer. For example, TASER International is presently engaged in damage control by offering trade-ins to “recall” older, more powerful weapons. (Are you aware that the M-26 model is powered at 26-Watts, the next generation model the X-26 is lower powered, and the newest model the X2 will be even lower? This begs the question as to why the manufacturer would lower the power of the weapon without alerting law enforcement first and providing some explanation). It appears that with the lack of regular and rigorous peer reviewed independent measurement, no policeperson could be sure of the amount of current being emitted from the weapon at any given deployment; for unlike breathalysers, defibrillators, and radar guns, the police do not routinely measure the output of their TASERs.

The CBC had fifty randomly chosen police TASERs tested independently in a lab in Chicago in 2008. They discovered that not all TASERs perform in the same way, as reflected in their “output variance”. Electro-shock weapons manufacturers readily admit that the output of these devices can vary due to factors beyond their control.

According to the Canadian blog “Truth-Not-Tasers”, that has been tracking the death toll, approximately 750 people have died proximal to TASER use in North America since the higher-powered M-26 was introduced. The lower powered 5-Watt system was what was field tested in Canada, by the Victoria Police Department in 1999, in the “field study” mentioned by Mr. Pecknold. The policeman in charge initially said he had concerns about the new, soon-to-be-available higher powered 26-Watt weapons and that more research was needed before he could recommend them. Yet a few months later this was exactly the model of TASER that his police department purchased. In his final report (“An Independent Evaluation of Conducted Energy Weapons”) there was no evidence that the 26-Watt system had ever been subjected to any controlled research. Yet, the higher powered 26-Watt system is what our police services decided to buy and deploy. The medical safety studies promised by this policeman/project manager were never produced. Contrary to Mr. Pecknold’s statement of last week, the people of BC received no medical evidence assuring them of the safety of TASERs prior to them being brought into service.

Despite the glaring omissions of the 26-Watt system, and safety concerns about it in his final report, this same Victoria policeman wrote in both of his reports that TASERs had been “over-studied”. In fact, this was not true. It is widely known that TASER spent only $14,000 in research and development when it shocked a single pig in 1996 to develop the waveform and then 5 dogs in 1999 to further test the weapon. The results of these tests were not published, or reviewed, by third party peers. These results are not even included in TASER International’s own Medical Compendium.

The higher powered technology was never subjected to independent, impartial, rigorous research prior to being deployed throughout Canada. The policeman who claimed that TASERs were “medically safe”, not being scientifically or medically trained, was not qualified to make such a judgement.

This same policeman claimed that TASERs met electrical safety standards as set by the Underwriters Laboratory (UL) and the International Electro-technical Commission (IEC). (The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) was not mentioned). This policeman’s claim of electrical safety was untrue because the devices have never been tested by these safety standards bodies. You will note that TASERs do not bear certification marks from any of these organizations, as other electrical products sold, and used, in Canada must. The fact is, the Canadian public still has an untested, unregulated electrical device in the hands of police; this, in violation of the Electrical Safety Standards Act, that says no electrical devices are to be sold or used without a proper certification mark. The TASER carries no such mark, even though it emits electrical current into the body. Remarkably this policeman/project manager’s report, replete with what appear to be false claims, was vetted by TASER International and the CPRC; and neither saw fit to make any amendments. Today these claims are no longer made.

Although somewhat technical, it is well to recognize that the dangers lie in the peaks of the current, even though TASER International prefers to use “averages” in its description of the weapon’s electrical characteristics. It is medically uncontroversial that electrical currents between 70 – 100 milliamps can kill. Following TASER International’s original specification sheets, the peak currents of the M-26 and X-26 models are obscured in average calculations. These weapons, at peak current, that is 162 and 151 milliamps respectively, are powerful enough to kill as suggested by Commissioner Braidwood at the conclusion of his Commission of Inquiries. Moreover, according to the IEC-479 standard, shocks of 151 to 162 milliamps over five seconds can stimulate the heart adversely in 50% of the population that receives the shock. Today the electrical output of these weapons does not appear in the manufacturer’s product specification sheets.

This same Victoria Police Department member was then seconded to manage the joint (RCMP and CPRC) “Conducted Energy Weapons Evaluation Project”. It was not a study into health and safety effects, as one may have hoped, but simply a cataloging of the effects of the harsh Canadian winter on the functioning of the weapons.

It was later discovered and reported by the Vancouver Sun, that this policeman had an undisclosed financial relationship with TASER International. This was revealed when he testified at a wrongful death lawsuit in 2005. The family of Robert Bagnell was suing the Vancouver Police Department after Mr. Bagnell was shocked multiple times and died in the downtown east side.

The policeman in question was asked to testify as he had been brought over from Victoria by the Vancouver Police Department as an “independent” investigator into Mr. Bagnell’s death. When pressed by lawyer Cameron Ward, the policeman admitted he had done undisclosed freelance work for TASER International.

On the surface it appears that this policeman, at some point in 2000, tasked with evaluating the technology for BC (and ultimately the rest of Canada), was quietly being given stock in TASER International while he lead Master Taser Trainer Courses for the manufacturer with other police services. TASER International Chairman Tom Smith told a federal all-party subcommittee, looking into TASER stock options, and televised nation-wide on the Parliamentary channel, that stock options were given to this officer for designing a holster. (Ironically, the holster in question was for the M-26 model, the very weapon this officer claimed to be uncertain of). There are those, who understand the objectivity of the scientific method, who would describe the receipt of payment, in whole or in kind, from TASER International, while evaluating the safety of its products for the BC Government as a hopeless conflict of interest. Ujjal Dosanjh, who had given the Victoria Police Department permission to field test the 5-Watt system in 1999, told CTV News that he felt he had been deceived. He was concerned that the policeman, in question, had failed to disclose his relationship with TASER International and, worse still, that false claims were made in the various versions of his so-called “independent evaluation”. This policeman remains on the job today with the Victoria Police Department and has never been held accountable by decision makers for making these misrepresentations. Mr. Dosanjh has said that if he knew then what he knows now, he would never have given TASERs the go-ahead.

Also related to the absence of independent, scientific evidence, American authorities allowed TASERs to be deployed despite significant “data gaps”, and other concerns raised in three key US government reports. Canadian law enforcement was unaware of, or worse ignored, these over sights. One of these critical oversights involved not questioning, TASER International for placing a conformity mark on their M-26 brochure. This mark (i.e. CE) is used to indicate conformity with standards necessary for a product to enter the European Economic Area. The European Community did not have, nor even have today, any standard for electrical safety that would apply to the M26 ADVANCED TASER. In sum, there was a glaring lack of due diligence undertaken by authorities when these weapons were first introduced. As a result, approximately eight people have died in British Columbia proximal to their use.

Times Colonist reporter Rob Shaw has said that your Special Committee will be considering “the scientific research into the medical risks to persons against whom conducted energy weapons are deployed”. This is encouraging as there is much that even Commissioner Braidwood did not uncover. Not one Canadian government agency or department including Health Canada, Public Safety Canada or the RCMP bothered to verify TASER International’s medical and safety claims. The RCMP even used photo-copied TASER promotional information in its first TASER report in 2000.Remarkably, law enforcement in Canada is still able to use TASERs in “probe mode”, when there is no electrical safety standard for invasive shocks; that is, electrical current introduced below the skin.

One Vancouver journalist approached the IEC, the UL, and the CSA and learned that the standard they use to measure safety thresholds is for shocks on the skin, not subcutaneous shocks. All these laboratories assert that we know so little about the effects of electricity below the skin they could not, in good faith, certify these weapons with one of their safety marks; like you find on your electric shaver, toaster, or hair dryer.

Contrary to Dr. Lu’s assertion, last week before this committee, there has been important TASER related research since 2008. Regarding cardiac risks, a study published this year, in the Journal of Circulation, by Dr. Douglas P. Zipes, cardiologist and professor emeritus at Indiana University, clearly demonstrates that the electric shock delivered to the chest by a Taser can lead to cardiac arrest and sudden death. “This is no longer arguable”, said Dr. Byron Lee, a cardiologist and director of the electrophysiology laboratory at the University of California, San Francisco. “This is a scientific fact”. With respect, the question before your committee should now focus on whether the risk of sudden death from a TASER shock is low enough to warrant wide spread use of the weapon by police in British Columbia.

It seems at this point governments and/or police decision makers don’t really want to know, or admit, they made grave errors by not adequately verifying TASER International’s safety claims. Presently in the U.S., courts are being asked to consider for the first time, police use of TASERs. No longer are TASER cases based strictly upon product liability; the cases now before the courts are different. These cases challenge the police persons who deployed the weapon. The question, in light of current evidence, is now “when is electrical force excessive force?” Appellate Judge Mary Schroeder has noted, “One could argue that the use of painful, permanently scarring weaponry on non-threatening individuals, who were not trying to escape, should have been known to be excessive by an informed police officer”. This may give you some insight into the “major and consistent decrease” in TASER use mentioned by the Deputy Minister last week before this committee. It is only a matter of time before cases of this nature work their way into the Canadian legal experience.

In contrast to Dr. Lu’s statement that “. . . TASERs are generally shown to be relatively safe”, TASER International’s own Voluntary Exposure and Liability Release Form includes a long list of alarming known and possible side effects that contradict its original safety claims and confirms what critics have been saying for over a decade. Here are only a few of those known and possible side effects. The company cautions that the weapons ”. . . have not been scientifically tested on pregnant women, the infirm, the elderly, small children, and low body mass persons…the use on these individuals could increase the risk of death or serious injury”. The company goes on to admit that the TASER “. . . can produce physiologic or metabolic effects, which include changes in: acidosis, adrenergic states, blood pressure . . . heart rate and rhythm …”. With this statement TASER International confirms experts’ beliefs that the TASER can capture the heart and alter its rhythms in healthy adults. TASER International then goes on to shift the responsibility for their weapons onto the user by recommending that “…all TASER … users conduct their own research, analysis, and evaluation”. Wouldn’t you think a manufacturer would want to be able to assure its customers of its product’s safety before it went to, or even after it was on the market?

A final concern that should be of interest to this committee involves the TASER tester, “Verus One”, being put forward by the B.C. Police Services. Police Services has accepted a test protocol developed by Andy Adler of Carlton University, Ottawa’s MPB Electronics, and Datrends Systems of Richmond, B.C., despite the authors themselves admitting this protocol is far from comprehensive or independent.

The Verus One actually tests to determine whether an ESW is operating within TASER International’s specifications. The Verus One does not determine the electrical energy delivered into a subject. The 600 Ohms resistance value being used in the formula by the B.C. Police Services actually comes from TASER International’s chief engineer Max Nerheim via Adler et.al. According to a study by the American Heart Association (AHA) the resistance for a trans-thoracic shock could be as low as 25 Ohms. So the suggested 600 Ohms indicates a base resistance that would appear to be an artificially high value that does not necessarily reflect the reality of all subjects. When CBC did it’s testing in 2008 and found a 12 percent failure rate, it used a previous test protocol employing 250 Ohms of resistance, which it got from TASER International. The company has since recommended raising the resistance level to 600 Ohms but, I have found no literature from the manufacturer that has offered the scientific references or rationale for doing so.

Several significant considerations should be pointed out concerning the Verus One:

1. It does not determine electrical safety of ESWs

2. It only tests to determine whether ESWs are “in tolerance” or “out of tolerance”.

3. A test result of “in tolerance” does not indicate or imply that injury or death will not result from use of the tested ESW, or that the tested ESW will incapacitate a person against whom the ESW may be deployed.

4. It does not measure the electrical energy delivered into a body (i.e. invasive shocks).

5. It also does not disclose scientific references or rationale as to why 600 Ohms is identified as the measurement base vs. a range of resistances.

In closing it is worth mentioning that the IEC and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the US are presently developing a standardized method of measurement for ESWs. This standard will result in the IEC 62792 ESW measurement method. Moreover, it is my understanding that no Canadian law enforcement agencies have even bothered to investigate, nor has Datrend disclosed the issue of Intellectual Property Rights regarding “Verus One”. This is significant as a lack of Intellectual Property Rights could cost Canadian law enforcement, and the Canadian taxpayer, a significant amount of money due to Intellectual Property and licensing issues. Based upon these concluding statements, I would strongly urge care and caution be exercised before purchasing any ESW analyzer.

A Response to Cassandra

Letter to the Editor of Blue Line magazine, May 2011
Dr. Mike Webster, Police Psychologist

I read Sgt. Fawcett’s article in the May 2011 issue of Blue Line with great interest. I thought his use of the “reverse-Cassandra effect” (i.e. speaking falsehoods and being believed) was clever but somewhat indiscriminately applied in this case. In his article Sgt. Fawcett implies that all (police related) research is good research simply because it exists. With respect, I think Sgt. Fawcett may be guilty of another form of cognitive distortion – overgeneralization.

While it is certainly true that the majority of the work he cited is reputable research, it is not the case for some topics mentioned in his piece. For example, it is universally accepted by those trained to distinguish between reputable and questionable research that the TASER’s health and safety effects have never been subjected to rigorous, independent, and impartial research. It is true that a plethora of research on the weapon exists, and has been completed by an army of M.D.s and Ph.D.s, but it lacks scientific rigour and has been termed “junk science”.

It is never a good sign (or good for business) when a manufacturer contradicts its earlier “scientifically proven” claims. Taser International recently (2010.05.01) issued a new training manual for the X26 TASER. It includes a long list of alarming risks and warnings which constitute an “about face” on original claims based upon their research. Here are only a few of these warnings. The company now cautions that the weapon “has not been scientifically tested on pregnant women, the infirm, the elderly, small children, and low body mass persons” . . . and . . . “the use on these individuals could increase the risk of death or serious injury”. The company goes on to admit “that the TASER can produce physiologic or metabolic effects, which include changes in: acidosis, adrenergic states, blood pressure . . . heart rate and rhythm . . .”. With this statement Taser International directly disputes its own previous research findings and confirms what critics of that research have said for over a decade. Finally, Taser International appears to “throw in the towel” as they abdicate responsibility for their own weapon in the statement recommending that “all TASER . . . users conduct their own research, analysis, and evaluation”. So are we to think anyone who is critical of Taser International’s sloppy research is speaking a falsehood?

With regard to the controversial topic of excited delirium, Sgt. Fawcett implies that it has been the subject of “scientifically sound” research. In fact, it is not something that scientists can study in a controlled (scientifically sound) environment. Moreover, his assertion that there exists “documented descriptions of excited delirium in research dating back to the 1800’s,” is similar to saying that there are documented descriptions of the Yeti (abominable snowman) in research dating back to the same time period; and we are all aware of how those descriptions have failed to increase the credibility of the creature in the minds of the scientific community.

The term excited delirium was contemporarily applied by medical researchers to describe (not diagnose) the extreme end of a continuum of drug abuse behaviours such as “cocaine-induced excited delirium”. Neurologist Deborah Mash’s research on brain biomarkers for the identification of excited delirium seems to support the use of the term as a descriptor of cocaine induced behaviour and its association with cocaine toxicity; not as a diagnosis or its general application to all erratic behaviour.

The agitated and deranged behaviours termed excited delirium and observed by a police person in the community are essentially indistinguishable from those present in agitated schizophrenia, agitated hyper-mania, agitated dementia, true delirium, or a cocaine induced rant; there is nothing to differentiate these conditions, one from the other, save a full medical/psychiatric workup.

Most concerning was Sgt. Fawcett’s implication that because of equivalent early research results the concerns with prone restraint had been discredited. He and I were witnesses at the same Commission of Inquiries where a long line of distinguished medical experts, citing recent research, cautioned against the impairment of respiration as it is associated with prone restraint. Even the Canadian Police Research Centre in 2005 emphasized that respiratory impairment becomes particularly crucial when restraint is applied during or after a prolonged physical struggle. It is uncontroversial that acidosis is cleared primarily by the lungs; therefore during or after a prolonged struggle the body’s natural response is to hyperventilate. However, hyperventilation can be impeded if a subject is lying face down (prone). In this position, prone restraint becomes an obstacle to the subject’s attempts to clear acidosis, thus increasing the risk for cardiac arrhythmias.

So to conclude, are we to understand that when anyone wishes to question or criticize police actions, or methods, they will be viewed as part of the “reverse-Cassandra cry”? Does Sgt. Fawcett really believe that all those who criticize the police are anti-police? Is it not possible that those who are critical of police actions, or methods, also love their communities (and police services) and want the best for them both? And when Sgt. Fawcett muses, “one wonders when there will ever be enough research done to satisfy the critics”, does this reflect an understanding of the scientific method and its place in society? Or when he asserts that, “Credible police trainers stay current with research in a variety of fields . . .” how much faith can we have in his assertion after reading his article? Most importantly, does the tone of his article bring law enforcement any closer to the community it serves, or does it do more to feed the “us versus them” mentality?

The evolution of Mike Webster: Psychologist ... and head of the RCMP?

The third of three parts

By Marty Goldstein
SLAM! Sports, Canoe.ca

After a lifetime of achievement in football, wrestling and as a clinical psychologist, Mike Webster made a startling decision while the third part of this interview was being written. He went public with his application to become the new Commissioner of the RCMP, despite being blackballed by the force for speaking out at a public inquiry about takedown procedures and tactics he found utterly revolting.

"When I am done the organization will have a new face, a new business model, and a new direction; the Canadian public will have renewed confidence in their national police service and the membership will have rekindled their smouldering motivation," he wrote in the cover letter.

Webster, who has been a teacher at the British Columbia Police Academy, the Canadian Police College, Europol, and the FBI Academy at Quantico, Virginia (helping train for hostage situations and providing his expertise in the most tense and dangerous conditions imaginable), promised "... by the time I am done I will have identified a new (and permanent) Commissioner and Senior Executive from within the organization who are committed to 'turn around change.'"

The path from sports to news headlines for Dr. Michael Webster began after earning a Master's Degree and thereafter being awarded a doctorate from Western Washington University in 1981. "I worked occasionally during both -- more so during my Masters. I did guest shots, mystery wrestler, cameos, and filled in for sick and injured masked men while studying full-time -- territories included: B.C., Washington, Oregon, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii," he told SLAM! Wrestling.

Webster began specializing in working with police crisis teams after being involved in negotiations during two penitentiary standoffs in B.C., and built a unique career around the world. In one of those standoffs a female prison staffer was killed by friendly fire which caused a stir across Canada.

The FBI called him to the 51-day Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Texas in 1993. It was arguably the first long-term incident to be driven by the television news cycle and remains controversial because of the 76 fatalities (including women and children) after the assault on the armed compound as authorities sought to arrest cult leader David Koresh. Webster believes that high cost could have been averted.

"The FBI could have withstood (perceived) public pressure and maintained the conciliatory approach they had adopted during the first week (that resulted in 30-35 people walking out of the compound). The FBI suffered from an action imperative -- they needed not only to be doing something, but to be seen to be doing something. Sometimes it's better to do stuff that's effective but not visible."

An armed standoff in 1995 between the Ts'Peten Sundancers and the RCMP at Gustafsen Lake, B.C., resulted in a fundamental shift in his approach, after telling the Vancouver Sun, "The greatest thing I will take away from 100 Mile House with me is the incredible knowledge I have about native spirituality and how effective that can be."

Webster explained, "Prior to our success at Gus Lake, the police dealt with this type of situation using a linear approach. First talk, and if that doesn't work, go right away to 'heavy tactics.' The strategy applied at Gus Lake and afterwards (e.g. the 'Freemen' at Jordan Montana) was a parallel approach. I now advise making it easy for the other party to agree while at the same time making it difficult for them to disagree."

In one of his papers, he described his underlying philosophy:

"The less freedom, rights, or control we allow the opposition the more valuable it becomes to them and the more aggressively they will pursue it. Force now becomes counterproductive as it has driven the opposition into a defensive position where they will resist us with all they can muster. Once the strategy of force is deployed there is no turning back. The opposition will have difficulty accepting your efforts to talk it out after you have tried to take them out ... To paraphrase Mahatma Ghandi, if we continue in the pursuit of an eye for an eye we all end up blind."

One of the more shocking situations Webster worked on was the assault that ended the 1997 occupation of the Japanese Embassy by Tupac Amaru (Marxist-Leninist guerrillas) in Peru, which lasted four months before it was concluded by a surprise raid.

"The great military strategist Sun Tzu stated, 'The best general is the one who never fights.' Restating him to suit our purpose we might say, 'The best crisis manager is the one who never assaults.' ... The whole thing was a 'cock-up' start to finish. On the surface (literally!) there was a negotiation with the subjects, while underground none of us knew President Fijimori was digging his tunnel under the ambassador's residence. It is difficult to manage a conflict when there is a conflict within a conflict." (It ended with the death of one hostage and all 14 revolutionaries, eight of whom were murdered by the military after being captured.)

As a result of Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers using Tasers five times, which resulted in the senseless death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekański at Vancouver Airport in 2007, the name of Dr. Michael Webster came to the forefront of newscasts, online, and among civil liberties groups.

After appearing at the Braidwood Inquiry and insisting the officers' testimony was rehearsed (for which they are now facing a trial), Webster wrote an open letter to Dziekański's mother, Zofia Cisowski. He was relentless in his criticism of use of the unproven devices and the underlying corporate culture of Canada's national police agency, which he likened to "Putin's Russia."

When threatened by the brass with being blackballed, Webster exposed their corruption even more by detailing their lack of due diligence.

"The existing 'science' has variously been termed 'TASER Science' or 'junk science.' The weapon has never been subjected to rigorous, independent, and impartial research. And the buyers (i.e. police persons) are far from sophisticated. When questioned on the weapon they simply regurgitate Taser International's party line ... I have said it is neither humane nor logical to inflict crippling pain on someone who has lost his mental balance, as they did at YVR (airport)."

He continued: "In my continuing criticism of the RCMP's Senior Executive I believe I have given a voice to the oppressed membership. It is uncontroversial that for many street level RCMP policepersons their job is making them sick. I have had no support from my (self-serving) psychological colleagues, and no support from other police services."

When asked how he handled the reduction of income due to being shunned by the Mounties, after establishing such a successful practice, Webster harkened back to his college days.

"One of my heroes is the priest who was the President of Notre Dame when I attended there. His name is Father Ted Hesburgh. He once said, and I never forgot it, 'It is easier to live your morals than it is to teach them.' I try to implement this in my life from day to day. Losing the income was never an issue for me. It's easy to prattle on about your ethics when there is no cost."

After the facts about the Vancouver Airport confrontation became known, Webster was talked about as the best person to lead the RCMP and reform it. Previously he resisted the idea, saying, "The single most effective therapeutic agent for the RCMP would be the establishment of a strong union. Finally, senior managers who are presently accountable to no one would be reigned in." Now he believes he is the man for the job, after experiencing first-hand retaliation for being an advocate for change.

From Notre Dame, to Grey Cup and pro wrestling champion, to consulting on life and death crisis negotiations, Mike Webster, a soft-spoken and gentle giant, has always marched to the beat of his own drum. Now he hears the drums beating across the planet, and foresees a fundamental change coming among those who are not part of the elite now ruling over societies under corrupt political and social systems. And he wants to lead by example, as he has always done.

"Some may be discouraged by the challenge and say, 'but we have no forum' for such a transformational change. I would say the people of Iran have no forum to address the corrupt activities of their government either -- but look at them ... Social media is only half the answer. The other half is the young people whose lives are intertwined with it. My sense is that young people are becoming more politically active (witness our last Canadian Federal election) and less tolerant of 'corruption and willful neglect.' And with the decline of the U.S., as a world power, and the rise of India and China young people will unite East and West in a new political landscape."

Incompetence or Wilful Neglect?

by Dr. Michael Webster, Police Psychologist

Dr. Webster is a Canadian police psychologist with more than 30 years' experience in police crises and training. He has managed hostage-takings and kidnappings and trained or worked with Vancouver police, RCMP, Europol, the FBI and police in Mexico, Colombia and Australia.

Incompetence or Wilful Neglect?

In my opinion, the discussion around whether or not the RCMP should have deployed a TASER on an 11 year old child and under what conditions such an act would be permissible puts the cart before the horse. The fact is that those RCMP members who carry TASERs are carrying question marks on their duty belts. The weapon is uncertified and unregulated. It has never been evaluated by the Canadian Standards Association or any other electrical safety standards body anywhere in the world. Further, its health and safety effects have never been subjected to rigorous, independent and impartial research. I find it remarkable that RCMP decision makers and its insurers have not backed away from this weapon, especially in light of recent admissions by Taser International.

Is this incompetence or just wilful neglect?

The incident in Prince George recalls a number of historic issues around the TASER that have, never been addressed by RCMP management. In the 1990’s the RCMP considered using the TASER, and conducted pilot projects focused on gathering the requisite data upon which to make an informed decision. Looking back, the assistance of qualified specialists should have been sought. The resulting report was plagued by several major limitations including an incomplete review of the pertinent literature, an over-reliance on information supplied by Taser International, too much emphasis placed upon anecdotal information from police persons, and limited outside consultation. There was no consultation with national medical or mental health associations, or government agencies like Health Canada, which has a product safety lab.

Moreover, the Canadian public and its law enforcement community were misled by the Victoria police officer who wrote the “Independent Evaluation of Conducted Energy Weapons” in 2000. That report for the Canadian Police Research Centre (CPRC), was not independent. This officer accepted stock options from Taser International and was moonlighting as a TASER trainer, while tasked with what was supposed to be an impartial evaluation. He told the public that an abundance of medical research proved the safety of the weapon, and that it met safety standards set by the International Electrotechnical Commission and the Underwriters Laboratory. Neither of these statements was true. So the weapon entered Canada on the basis of a CPRC study best described as “amateurish”, and with misrepresentations supplied by a seriously compromised police officer. This same man, with his ongoing undisclosed financial relationship with the manufacturer, became manager of the joint CPRC/RCMP TASER Evaluation Project in 2002. It evaluated the effectiveness of TASERs in Canadian weather, but not their safety on human health. This now restricted report was used to justify the wider deployment of TASERs to police forces across Canada.

Is it incompetence or just wilful neglect that leads the RCMP to ignore this?

Taser International recently (2010.05.01) issued a new training manual for the X26 TASER. It includes a long list of alarming risks and warnings which contradicts its original safety claims and confirms what critics have been saying for over a decade. Here are only a few of these warnings. The company cautions that the weapon “has not been scientifically tested on pregnant women, the infirm, the elderly, small children, and low body mass persons . . . the use on these individuals could increase the risk of death or serious injury”. The company goes on to admit that the TASER “can produce physiologic or metabolic effects, which include changes in: acidosis, adrenergic states, blood pressure . . . heart rate and rhythm . . .” With this statement Taser International confirms experts’ belief that the TASER can capture the heart and alter it’s rhythms in healthy adults. Obviously the risk is even higher when a Taser is used on a child.

Taser International abdicates responsibility for its own weapon by recommending that “all TASER . . . users conduct their own research, analysis, and evaluation”. Wouldn’t you think a manufacturer would want to be able to assure the public of its product’s safety before it went to market? Are you conducting research, analysis, and evaluation on the medications you use, or was this done by the drug company before they brought their product to the marketplace?

Is the RCMP’s lack of response to these unsettling admissions from Taser International incompetence or just wilful neglect?

If flawed pilot projects, huge data gaps, increasing deaths proximal to use, and warnings and risks attended the use of a particular drug, do you think the government would step in to protect its citizens? We are fast approaching the time when an autonomous federal government, free from RCMP influence (the Commissioner was appointed by the Prime Minister and holds Deputy Minister status), will need to step in and protect the welfare of its citizens from their own misguided and misinformed national police force. The inclusion of intermediate weapons like sound cannons, laser beams, and TASERs in the police tool box is a public policy issue. These decisions cannot be left to the police or the (so-called) public safety experts like Taser International. The police are scientifically unsophisticated and companies like Taser International are in the business of aggressively marketing their products. A public advisory board, set up by the federal government, complete with all the requisite experts is necessary to assess both the costs and the benefits of the latest technological offerings.

And if the government fails to protect its citizens in this manner is it incompetence or just wilful neglect?

Howard Hyde Inquiry - Proposed Witness List

February 1-2 - Dr. Christine Hall
February 3-4 - Dr. Joseph Noone
February 8 - Dr. J. Kinlay
February 9-10 - Dr. Charles Kerr
February 11 - Dr. Theriault and a psychiatric nurse from QEII
February 15-16 - Dr. Stephen Hucker
February 17-18 - Dr. Michael Howlett
February 19 - Dr. Sarban Singh
February 22 - Cst. Delton MacDonald (Cape Breton Regiobnal Police Liaison Officer)
February 23 - Steve Lurie, CBMHA, Ontario
February 24-25 - Dr. Michael Webster
February 26 - Paul Kennedy, Training Officer, Department of Justice

Alberta powers up new stun-gun guidelines

July 28, 2009
By Darcy Henton, Edmonton Journal

Alberta's Solicitor General is expected to amend provincial Taser guidelines later this week, but an official says the changes are not in response to recommendations from British Columbia's inquiry into a controversial Taser related death involving RCMP.

Department spokeswoman Michelle Davio said Monday the rules governing when police in Alberta can deploy the devices and rules regarding training of officers and testing of the devices are being changed as a result of an internal review that began in December 2008.

"We have been reviewing our guidelines for a few months and we expect to have new ones coming out later this week," she said.

Davio said the department is also studying the 19 recommendations of the first phase of the B. C. inquiry--which came out last week--but doesn't expect to have to make major changes to address the issues raised by inquiry commissioner Thomas Braidwood.

"It would appear our guidelines meet or exceed what is in Braidwood," she said.

That comes as a surprise to city lawyer Tom Engel, who said the current Alberta regulations don't even appear to be legal.

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."

The Edmonton police force Taser instructor Const. Joe Tassone said he teaches recruits to deploy the device only when it can be justified under Section 25 of the Criminal code, which allows police officers to employ reasonable force.

"The bottom line is when we use that weapon system we want to make sure it's within the parameters of the law," he said.

B. C. launched the inquiry into police Taser use in February 2008 following the death of Robert Dziekanski, a Polish immigrant who died within minutes of being shocked by RCMP in October 2007 at the Vancouver airport.

RCMP in Alberta have said they don't intend to make any immediate changes in their Taser practices as a result of Braidwood's recommendations.

Police psychologist Michael Webster, who testified at the inquiry, doesn't think all the recommendations will be implemented.

"I am quite certain they won't be implemented, and when they are not it will be yet another demonstration of how ineffective our model of policing is. We have this federal police force that answers to Ottawa and municipal police forces that answer to their own police commissions."

He said there should have been a moratorium on Taser use until studies determine whether in fact they do kill people. Without a moratorium, Webster is convinced Taser use will continue with few restrictions.

"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."

He said the RCMP lost credibility as a result of the Taser incident at the Vancouver airport, and if the national police force was smart, it would take the lead on the issue and curtail the use of the devices on its own.

"This force, the RCMP, is at a crossroads in its relationship with the Canadian public," he said. "It needs to be reinvented to get the faith and trust of the Canadian public restored in it again. If they took the bull by the horns and said they are declaring a moratorium, they could do that, but it will never happen."

A Response to the Braidwood Report

It is with great pleasure that I post the following message I received today from Dr. Mike Webster. His observations mirror my own thoughts on THE BRAIDWOOD REPORT. I watched last week`s news conference on the release of the report on television last week with avid interest and devoured every word. But, I have had ZERO time to sit down and put my thoughts on this report into words. Mike Webster and I are of one mind and I cannot tell you how glad I am to be able to share this message with my readers. Thank you, Mike, for putting it into pretty much the same words that have been stuck inside my head since Thursday.

A Response to the Braidwood Report

It's been two days since the Commissioner released his first report. This one dealing with the Taser itself. I note through observing the media coverage that I appear to be one of the few Taser critics that is not entirely satified with it's recommendations. I have mixed feelings.

I would like to begin this brief response by complimenting the Commissioner. I have the greatest respect for him and find him to be a very thoughtful and considerate man.

To honour my promise of brevity,I will note in sum the positive aspects of the Report and deal more at length with those aspects that cause me concern. I applaud the Commissioner's recommendations in those areas that include: subject self harm; paramedic assistance; AED's; provincial regulations; training; certification; testing; reporting; research; review; and RCMP compliance.

I am disappointed that a moratorium on neuromuscular incapacitation devices ( i.e. the Taser among others ) was not declared. The Commissioner's recommendations largely address the use of the weapon and not the significant questions that still exist with regard to the weapon itself. A Human Effects Center of Excellence study ( 2006 ) told us:

" The peer reviewed and open literature ( on Tasers ) contains very limited objective scientific research data on the mechanism of action, efficacy, safety, and acute and long term effects of these devices."

These questions remain unanswered. My fear is that without a moratorium,and only the Commissioner's recommendation for further research,the community will become complacent,fall back to sleep,and it won't happen.

Short of a moratorium the threshold for deployment should be " the threat of death". That is,the weapon should only be used in those situations that would otherwise require a firearm. The Commissioner has recommended the threshold be moved up to the potential for " bodily harm'. This recommendation impacts upon and weakens his other recommendations involving emotionally disturbed persons and multiple cycling of the weapon.

Setting the threshold at the potential for " bodily harm " leaves too much room for police perception. I believe it's much easier to reach concensus on what is life threatening than what may constitute " bodily harm ". The four RCMP members involved in the death of Robert Dziekanski have already told us that they perceived him and/or the stapler as having a potential for " bodily harm". Moreover,we have heard several use of force experts go on at length about how police perception is the most critical factor in the use of force. It seems to me that if the Commissioner's recommendations had been in place on October 14 2007 Robert Dziekanski would still be dead.

In closing,I would like to thank the Commissioner for assisting the community in getting it's foot in the door in our attempt to regain confidence and trust in Canadian policing.

Sincerely,
Mike Webster

RCMP Corruption

I was given permission to post this letter here. The "original" is posted on the Canadian Civil Rights Movement website.

June 25, 2009

Dear Mr. Riddle,

In my letter to Zofia Cisowski, I promised her that I would continue to shine a critical light on those that I believe are ultimately responsible for her son’s death. Moreover, I closed my letter by stating that I thought someone needed to stand up and assert that “the emperor wears no clothes”. It is in that spirit and in light of recent events that I pick up my pen once more.

As you are well aware on June 19, 2009, a federal lawyer (representing the RCMP) produced an e-mail that suggests the four RCMP members committed perjury while senior executives stood by and said nothing. This revelation has placed in the spotlight a group of RCMP executives (that reach across the country) who seem to believe that they can not only make the rules but break them. Tragically, Robert Dziekanski’s role in this national tragedy has been to expose the corruption that exists in the upper echelon of the RCMP.

There are very few corrupt police organizations, however most of them have members who commit corrupt acts from time to time. This may sound shocking to the average person who until recently likely never thought much about the internal workings of law enforcement agencies. The term “police corruption” has been used to describe many activities including: bribery; violence and brutality; racism, favouritism or nepotism; and the fabrication and destruction of evidence. Any definition of police corruption must address both “financial” and “process” corruption. When we hear of police corruption most of us think of a policeman perhaps receiving a “kickback” (for referral services) or being part of a “shakedown” (receiving a bribe for not following through on a criminal act). These are examples of financial corruption. We don’t often think of “the fix” (the undermining of a criminal investigation or some other proceeding) as being an example of police corruption; however, it is and RCMP executives appear to be guilty of it.

It is generally accepted that police corruption necessarily involves an abuse of position or authority. What is really corrupted then is the “special trust” that is invested in the occupation. Am I surprised that, it appears as if, the RCMP executive attempted to interfere with the outcome of a public process? No I am not, as they do it to their own on a frequent basis.

It is a fact that approximately half of the RCMP’s frontline employees do not trust their employer. They are afraid for their safety and well being. Where do you suppose this mistrust originates? The RCMP executive routinely breaks the “special trust” it should have with its’ own employees.

After more than 30 years working as a clinician for the RCMP I could relate dozens of horror stories illustrating management’s corrupt treatment of its’ own employees. I won’t though, as I must honour the confidentiality of my patients. However, you can get a taste of what I’m talking about by re-visiting the Gatehouse and Gillis article in the November 14, 2007 MacLeans magazine. In each of the cases cited, by the authors, there is either evidence of, or strong suggestion of, corrupt activity on the part of RCMP management including; racism; favouritism or nepotism; harassment; misuse of resources; unwarranted or frivolous investigations; interference; and, the fabrication or destruction of evidence. Am I surprised that four RCMP members may have perjured themselves with executive approval? Not at all.

How could this apparent descent into corruption possibly occur within such a once revered institution? One explanation is often termed “The Dirty Harry Problem” (or just cause corruption). At the heart of this problem is the question of whether “a morally good end” ever justifies the use of ethically, politically, or legally dangerous means to its’ achievement. Once inside the RCMP it doesn’t take long before one learns that in the culture of the RCMP nothing is more important than the image of the organization. Culpable (corrupt) behaviour actually becomes honourable when carried out under a moral justification to preserve the image of the Force.

The answer to the above posed “ends-means” question is that “dirty means” must always be regarded and punished as dirty – even though their use can be justified under the extreme circumstance of saving the reputation of a Canadian icon. We must always be cognizant of the “slippery slope”. This phenomenon has two facets: the logical and the psychological. The logical version suggests that although the gap between major and minor transgressions may be significant, there are many other transgressions in the gap which makes the setting of some logical boundary impossible. Have they gone as far as interfering in criminal investigations?

The psychological facet points to the process of self labeling that occurs as an individual (or organization) moves from minor to major forms of corruption. There is a continuum of steps, at each of which a moral decision is required. Each step involves a gradual redefining of self as someone who can execute ever more serious forms of corruption. The journey is long but the steps are small between minor and major transgressions – so small it becomes progressively easier to justify the next one based upon the acceptance of the last one. So what transgressions will we find along the RCMP’s apparent journey into corruption?

I am sending this letter to you for a couple of reasons. First, because someone needs to use the word….corruption. We seem to be hesitant to use it in relation to our once beloved national police service. In this regard, don’t forget there are very few entirely corrupt police organizations, but we should not be surprised that there may be corrupt elements with the RCMP.

Secondly, the surfacing of this e-mail should serve to both catalyze and galvanize the Canadian public. If what we now suspect is true, this will constitute an oppression of our civil liberty; it is the public’s right to know. We must get behind a complete re-invention of the RCMP or it will only get sicker and sicker. The causes of police corruption include: factors that are intrinsic to the job; the nature of police organizations; the nature of “police culture”; the opportunities that exist for corruption inherent in the “political” and “task” environments; and the nature and extent of the effort put into controlling corruption.

Some may be discouraged by the challenge and say “but we have no forum” for such a transformational change. I would say the people of Iran have no forum to address the corrupt activities of their government either – but look at them.

Sincerely,

Dr. Mike Webster
Police Psychologist

Psychologist says RCMP's black gloves meant to bully the public

May 24, 2009
By Terri Theodore, Canadian Press

VANCOUVER, B.C. — Inside a cathartic letter to the mother of the man who died on the floor of Vancouver's airport is a symbol of what the author says is the failing relationship between the RCMP and the public.

All four officers who confronted Robert Dziekanski the night he died were wearing black leather gloves - what Mounties call slash gloves.

They're supposed to protect officers from having their hands pricked or cut by sharp objects, but Mike Webster, a police psychologist for three decades, explained in the letter to Zofia Cisowski that the gloves are worn by some to intimidate.

Webster testified recently at the inquiry into Dziekanski's death.

Bystander video released after Dziekanski died shows the officers wearing the gloves and leaping over an airport railing. Within seconds one officer shocked the Polish immigrant with a Taser and Dziekanski fell to the floor screaming in pain.

In an interview, Webster said the gloves have become much more than protection from sharp objects.

"They've become another tool now, by the looks of things, in the members' armoury. But they (RCMP members) don't think very much about the effect they have on the public."

Webster said police often fail to recognize how intimidating the gloves, or just their presence, can be for a member of the public.

"The first time you speak to a general-duty police person who's got body armour on outside their shirt, it can take people's breath away."

While he said he understands the use for body armour, he doesn't believe the gloves are necessary. "I think that the idea behind using the gloves for a psychological effect is misplaced and just not part of good policing."

Webster knows officers who wouldn't walk through a bar without putting on the slash gloves because of the psychological effect it has on patrons and he has been told by other officers that they use the gloves to intimidate.

The gloves have a very thin layer of Kevlar under the leather, and RCMP spokesman Sgt. Tim Shields said they're meant to prevent needle pricks or knife slashes. "In front-line, uniform policing we encounter many, many people who, as we search them, we find they had sharp objects that could have cut our hands," he said. "It's just an officer safety thing."

RCMP training does include the use of the gloves "where appropriate," Shields said. He said there have been dozens and dozens of incidents where police officers have been cut or pricked by a needle, including some where the needle contained HIV-positive body fluid.

Shields said it's just wise and prudent if a police officer expects to put their hands on someone that they put the gloves on first.

It's an argument Webster doesn't buy, and in his business it's called "catastroph-izing" an event. Contrary to what others believe, he said, policing isn't one of the most dangerous jobs in the community. He said most organizations that gather such statistics rank policing around 15th, well behind taxi drivers, construction workers, fishermen and loggers.

Instead, he said in his open letter, the gloves are a symbol of the RCMP executives' relationship with the public. "So in a perverse way we can understand the climate in which the Taser was so warmly embraced by the RCMP decision makers and is so enthusiastically deployed by its loyal members," his letter states.

Shields said RCMP officers aren't trained to see the gloves as intimidating, but added if they prevent violence then that's a victory. "Because our goal is to save lives, it's to prevent violence. There are many times we have to arrest somebody," he said. "If we can do that without resorting to violence through having a greater show of force, then that's a win-win for everybody."

Webster said up until Dziekanski's death, he and many in the RCMP were asleep to the failing relationship between the force and the public.

"I think the RCMP is at a crossroads in its history," he said. "It's time for somebody to say something and see if we can't salvage this relationship between a Canadian icon and its public."

EDITORIAL: Rethink police training

May 22, 2009
Richmond News

Mike Webster may be bitter towards the RCMP. He claims a lot of the contract work he did with the force dried up after he criticized the force in the Dziekanski affair. But before that, Webster spent 30 years training police agencies, and has some pretty impressive credentials. He is a police psychologist who worked with the RCMP during the Gustafson Lake standoff and has been a consultant for the FBI.

So, sour grapes aside, when he says there is something seriously wrong with the way the RCMP are trained, we should pay attention. During testimony this week at the Braidwood inquiry into the death of Robert Dziekanski, Webster lent credence to the gut reaction that so many ordinary people have when they watch the amateur video shot of four Richmond Mounties involved in Tasering Dzeikanski.

"They panicked," Webster said. "They abandoned their basic training and they embraced their more recent and questionable Taser training, provided for them by their misguided employer."

Webster characterized the repeated Tasering of the distraught Polish immigrant as "excessive force," and he blamed RCMP brass for what he described as an outdated approach to policing that relies too heavily on intimidation and use of force.

Webster gave a credible voice to those ordinary citizens -- including retired police officers -- who feel police are now trained to use excessive levels of force. Hence, the headlines in recent years about a senior citizen being Tasered for refusing to get out of his car and, of course, that tragic and now infamous incident at YVR. When police become a danger to the very public they are sworn to protect, it is time for a major overhaul in the heirarchy.

Mounties angered by letter to victim's mother

May 22, 2009
IRWIN LOY, SUN MEDIA

RCMP in B. C. are defending themselves against allegations made in a letter written by a police psychologist and given to the mother of Robert Dziekanski.

The letter, written by Dr. Mike Webster, calls RCMP leadership an inept, insular and archaic group," whose attitudes were indirectly responsible for the death of Dziekanski at Vancouver International Airport.

The way your son was treated on October 14, 2007 was in my opinion, the absolute worst of Canadian policing," Webster writes in an almost 2,000-word letter, according to The Globe and Mail newspaper.

We have become the 'enemy' and they go to 'war' with us each day, rather than collaborating with us," writes Webster, a psychologist who the Mounties have previously hired as a consultant on critical incident debriefings.

But RCMP spokesman Tim Shields said the claims were dated" at best. These allegations are over-the-top exaggerations and do not reflect the RCMP of 2009," Shields said.

The highly charged letter continues a string of criticism levelled on the RCMP since Dziekanski's death.

There's no question things could have been done differently," Shields said.

And we are very sorry for Mr. Dziekanski's death. But we have to put this in perspective. The RCMP handles about one million calls for service in B. C. every year . . . In 99.99% of those cases, we have a positive result."

One man's quest to give grieving mother the truth

May 16, 2009
GARY MASON, Globe and Mail

It started out as an apology for the role Canada's national police force played in the death of her son, Robert. But in its writing, police psychologist Mike Webster's open letter to Zofia Cisowski became a scathing indictment of the force's leadership.

"So how could this happen?" Mr. Webster writes in his letter to Ms. Cisowski. "The short answer is an inept, insular and archaic group of RCMP executives has let the Force fall out of step with 21st Century policing."

Mr. Webster has a perspective on the RCMP that few do.

He's been associated with the force for more than 30 years. He's been a consultant on undercover operations, hostage-takings and kidnappings. He is recognized as a leader in his field. And this past week, he took the stand at the Braidwood inquiry into the death of Robert Dziekanski and suggested the four RCMP officers involved in the incident panicked and abandoned their basic training.

Mr. Webster was in the news in the spring of last year when it became public that the RCMP had cut off all his contract work over the fairly mild criticisms he had levelled at the force over the Dziekanski affair. He told me that the letter to Ms. Cisowski is not about sour grapes, but rather an attempt to educate a grieving mother, and an angry public, about how something like this could happen.

It is written by someone who has had an insider's perspective on the cultural evolution that has occurred over the past few decades within the RCMP.

"I thought this would be the closest she would get to a genuine apology from anyone associated with the RCMP," Mr. Webster said in an interview this week. "I mean a genuine apology. If I didn't say anything nobody would. But I also thought she needed to hear someone speak the truth about what's really going on inside the force.

"I thought that might help her explain how things ever got to the point they did on that night at the airport."

In his letter, made available exclusively to The Globe and Mail, Mr. Webster said he holds RCMP management responsible for the decision making by the four officers in the short minutes leading to Mr. Dziekanski's death.

"Unfortunately," Mr. Webster writes in his letter, "the idea of intimidating people is entirely consistent with the RCMP management's way of managing conflict, not only with the public, but also with its own membership.

"The idea of protection is reflective of the RCMP executive's view of the public they police. We have become the 'enemy' and they go to 'war' with us each day, rather than collaborating with us to form a cohesive and consistent approach to policing our communities."

Mr. Webster, who holds a doctorate in psychology, also takes aim at the Criminal Justice Branch's decision not to press charges in connection with Mr. Dziekanski's death. A decision based on an investigation of the incident conducted by the RCMP itself.

"It is a psychologically unsophisticated idea to believe that the RCMP can investigate itself," writes Mr. Webster. "When I say this, I'm not questioning anyone's integrity. I am stating a fundamental principle of human behaviour. Human beings are highly subjective organisms ... we don't like to see things that make us look bad.

"This is why medical doctors shouldn't be diagnosing themselves, researchers should be at arm's length from their own research and I make a lousy psychologist for my own family."

Mr. Webster concludes his letter by saying that he's "deeply sorry for the RCMP's behaviour that contributed to Robert's death."

"I wish I could tell you that the issues ... that are rotting the RCMP from the top down will soon be changing. I won't do that as the RCMP is in need of significant transformational change in order to genuinely re-connect with the public and its own membership."

While he admits to having little faith that anything much will change until the current leadership group in charge of the RCMP is changed, Mr. Webster promises Ms. Cisowski he will continue to "shine a critical light" on the role played by management of the Mounties in her son's death.

That, he says, is the least he can do.

Open Letter to Zofia Cisowski

The following is the full text of a letter police psychologist wrote to Zofia Cisowski, mother of Robert Dziekanski, who died after an altercation with RCMP officers at Vancouver's airport in 2007.

May 15, 2009
Globe and Mail

Dear Zofia,

This is probably as close as you will come to a genuine apology from the RCMP. Unfortunately, the long history and rich tradition of the Force manifests itself today as arrogance and defensiveness. As you may know, I am the psychologist who was associated with the RCMP for over 30 years and testified at the Braidwood Commission. I have tried several times over the last few months to put what I want to say to you, about Robert's death, in the form of a letter. I want to strike the right balance and have my remarks reflect my displeasure with the RCMP executive and not the generally well meaning and hard working members. I think I have it right this time.

The way your son was treated on October 14, 2007 was in my opinion, the absolute worst of Canadian policing. Then to compound this, the British Columbia Criminal Justice Branch rendered its charge assessment (December 12, 2008) of the 4 RCM policemen who were involved in Robert's death. The Branch stated that it would not be “approving any charges” and that the force the policemen used was “reasonable and necessary in all the circumstances”. This statement reflects a profound misunderstanding and lack of respect for the application of force to vulnerable groups and those in crisis. How could this happen in Canada?

I want to assure you that it shouldn't be happening in a country like Canada and that there are mechanisms in place to prevent such travesties. Please be patient with me as I first provide some context to our search for answers.

As in all democratic societies, the police in Canada are given the authority to use force to ensure that the laws of the country are upheld and public safety and security are maintained. This, of course, carries the expectation that police persons and their organizations will be accountable to the public for any use of force. However, even though the community provides the police with the ability to employ legitimate force, several questions arise:

i. What is a reasonable use of force?

ii. Why and under what circumstances is one type of force chosen over another?; and,

iii. What standards are in place to ensure that there is consistency in addressing use of force situations?

The police, in Canada, have attempted to address these questions by developing use of force models. No matter whether it is the RCMP's Incident Management Intervention Model (IMIM) or the more widely used National Use of Force Framework (NUFF), these are attempts to integrate force options (e.g. presence, communication…etc.) with a generic decision making model (e.g. assess-plan-act). There are some key principles underlying these models:

i. The primary responsibility of a police person is to preserve and protect life;

ii. The primary objective of any use of force is to ensure public safety;

iii. The safety of the police person is essential to public safety; and,

iv. The use of force model does not replace the law

So far, so good. It sounds like the RCMP has ethical (and legal) guidelines that it must follow. So how could such a tragedy happen? The short answer is, an inept, insular, and archaic group of RCMP executives has let the Force fall out of step with 21st Century policing. Let me try to explain, using what many of us may only have been minimally aware of.

You may have noticed that all four of the RCMP members who confronted Robert were wearing black leather gloves. These are not part of the regulation RCMP working uniform. Why were they wearing them? They are called “slash” gloves and are designed to protect the wearer from sharp objects. In my considerable interactions with general duty (patrol) personnel I have come to understand there are two answers to the question. Yes, they are worn for protection but they are also worn for psychological effect. They are worn, by some, to intimidate (without giving much thought to how they could be perceived by the general public). Unfortunately the idea of intimidating people is entirely consistent with the RCMP management's way of managing conflict not only with the public but also with its own membership. The idea of protection is reflective of the RCMP executive's view of the public they police. We have become the “enemy” and they go to “war” with us each day, rather than collaborating with us to form a cohesive and consistent approach to policing our communities. The gloves are a symbol of the RCMP executive's relationship with the public. So in a perverse way we can understand the climate in which the Taser was so warmly embraced by the RCMP decision makers and is so enthusiastically deployed by its loyal members. What better way to terrify or stay at arm's length from the “great unwashed” than at the end of two 35 foot electrical wires?

Let me be clear, I hold the RCMP executive responsible for this attitude and indirectly responsible for Robert's death. Tragically, the four policemen were doing what they had been trained to do. They actually believed the incredible testimony they gave at the Inquiry. (Some law enforcement training materials actually suggest the use of a conducted energy weapon for people in an agitated state!). The RCMP executive is out of touch with their constituency and their own membership, content to pad around in their various national and regional headquarters. They have forgotten what Sir Robert Peel told us 180 years ago as he began the first professional police service (i.e. London's “Bobbies”). Among a list of principles fundamental to democratic policing he noted that the relationship of the police to the community must always reflect the historic tradition that “we are them and they are us”. To be specific, the RCMP must accept that they are not an elite group above and separate from the community. They are quite simply paid to do a job full-time that we should all be doing in our various neighbourhoods. They are only in uniform so that we can identify them when we need them. Unfortunately, the RCMP executive has forgotten this and become more interested in positive impression management than in maintaining public approval. (And if they knew their Peel they would realize that it is that approval that allows them to function at all). They view themselves as somehow apart from the rest of us, an elite group whose safety is more important than that of the most unfortunate among us, whose decisions are the preserve of only themselves and so called public safety “experts” (e.g. Taser International), and who devalue force options like “presence” and “communication” as naive and ineffective in today's world.

The RCMP decision makers made a fundamental and far reaching error when they based their decision to bring the Taser into Canada upon anecdotal reports from their own members and information from Taser International. They refused then and continue to refuse to recognize that this issue and issues like this are public policy. They live too close to the forest to see the trees and would benefit from public input. They don't have all the requisite expertise to make these kinds of decisions. A public advisory board comprised of policy analysts, those trained in research, scientific specialists, retired lawyers, judges, and police persons could add much to the decision making process regarding such important issues.

Finally, I would like to attempt to shed some light on the disappointing British Columbia Criminal Justice Department's recommendation regarding charges in Robert's case. In our system the Justice Department relies on the police to provide it with evidence upon which it offers a legal opinion. To be more specific, in this case the Justice Department was dependent upon the RCMP's IHIT to provide it with comprehensive evidence so that it could make the best decision.

It is a psychologically unsophisticated idea to believe that the RCMP can investigate itself. When I say this I am not questioning anyone's integrity. I am stating a fundamental principle of human behaviour. Human beings are highly subjective organisms; we see (hear, smell etc.) what we want to see, and we don't like to see things that make us look bad. (Recall the RCMP's original explanation of the incident, for which not a shred of evidence was found, or the meticulous unraveling of the IHIT's case). This is why medical doctors shouldn't be diagnosing themselves, researchers should be at arm's length from their own research, and I make a lousy psychologist for my own family. Didn't you find it interesting that one of the (supposed) finest police forces in the world reported that “no information was available to investigators regarding Mr. Dziekanski's emotional state during his flight to Vancouver from Frankfurt”? Then those intrepid sleuths from the Braidwood Commission (lawyers Art Vertlieb and Pat McGowan) without ever flying off to Poland, invited some of Robert's co-passengers and flight attendants to the hearing and found out that he was just fine. This is sometimes called selective perception; we look for and find only those things that would confirm our own perspective. I believe it was this faulty notion that the RCMP is the best judge of its own behaviour that resulted in the incredible ruling of the Criminal Justice Branch.

As someone who worked inside the organization for several decades I am deeply sorry for the RCMP's behaviour that contributed to Robert's death. I wish I could tell you that the issues I raised here, and many others, that are rotting the RCMP from the top down, will soon be changing. I won't do that as the RCMP is in need of significant transformational change in order to genuinely re-connect with the public and its own membership. Changing bits and pieces of its infrastructure, as outlined by its “change management team” will not suffice. The changes required need to go much deeper and challenge the Force's archaic self image and corporate culture. These kinds of changes focus on the outdated core values and culture that are most resistant to change; and most of the resistance comes from the top…the very people who make up the “change management team”. Massive organizational changes like this usually involve sweeping changes in senior management. Very few at the executive level who have had anything to do with shaping the recent history of the RCMP should be allowed anywhere near the room where genuine, and painful, transformation is being undertaken. I have little faith that anything of significance will change until the cabal in charge is gone; however, I want to assure you that I will continue to do everything in my power to shine a critical light on the role played by RCMP decision makers in Robert's death.

In closing, you may be aware that my testimony at the Braidwood Commission was challenged as “biased” by the RCMP members' lawyers. (And I'm sure they will try again in their final submissions). I am not biased, in a negative direction toward the RCMP. I have the deepest respect for the institution of the RCMP but very little respect for most members of the RCMP responsible for its present position and course. The executive level of the RCMP from one end of the country to the other is out of touch with both the public and its' own membership. It's time for someone to say “the emperor wears no clothes”.

Sincerely,

Dr. Mike Webster
Police Psychologist

Psychologist defends claim Mounties panicked in airport Taser incident

May 13, 2009
CBC News

A police psychologist, who testified four RCMP panicked when they stunned Robert Dziekanski with a Taser, defended himself against accusations of bias at the Braidwood inquiry on Wednesday.

Dziekanski died minutes after he was stunned up to five times with a Taser by four RCMP officers in the arrivals lounge of Vancouver International airport in October 2007.

At the inquiry into Dziekanski's death currently under way in Vancouver, psychologist Mike Webster testified that after analyzing what happened, he believes the Mounties who confronted the Polish immigrant used excessive force.

But Webster's critical assessment did not sit well with Ravi Hira, the lawyer for the officer who fired the Taser. Hira suggested Webster did something wrong at the first phase of the inquiry last year, when Webster said he was embarrassed to be associated with a police force that uses a Taser on people like Dziekanski.

Hira seized on that past comment as evidence that Webster's opinion was too tainted for him to give expert testimony at the inquiry on Wednesday. "He should not have been retained, given the bias," said Hira.

But the inquiry's commissioner, Thomas Braidwood, interrupted Hira, saying, "It's totally unfair to make those allegations without putting it to the doctor."

Webster defended his reputation, saying the College of Psychologists of B.C. was aware of what he had said in the past, and what he was telling the inquiry on Wednesday.

"If you think I'm misrepresenting myself, I suggest you make a complaint to the College and they'll turf me in an instant if they agree with you," he shot back.

Use of Taser 'excessive force'
Webster said it pained him to make the criticisms, as he makes his living advising police forces, and he's been close to the RCMP for more than 30 years. But he maintained he was not the only one that believed what happened at the airport in October 2007 wasn't good police work.

"I don't think I'm the only one that holds that opinion. Conservatively, three-quarters of the country holds the same opinion, Mr. Hira," he said.

Webster, whose expertise in crisis situations such as hostage-takings and kidnappings has been sought by the FBI and law enforcement agencies from Colombia to Iraq, said his critical opinion of the officers' conduct has made him a pariah at the RCMP, and his previously regular work with the force had since dried up to next to nothing.

The expert in police psychology testified on Tuesday that all four RCMP officers panicked when they resorted to using a Taser to subdue Robert Dziekanski.

"They panicked. They abandoned their basic training and they embraced their more recent and questionable Taser training, provided for them by their misguided employer," he testified.

Webster said he believed the officers rushed into the situation, contrary to what they're taught, making things worse by surrounding Dziekanski, then bombarding him with conflicting commands as their hands hovered over their tool belts.

Furthermore, the decision to fire the Taser on a man with a stapler was a level-nine response to a level-two threat, he testified, adding, "This arguably makes the second, third, fourth and fifth cycles of the Taser an excessive use of force."

Psychologist defends claim Mounties panicked in airport Taser incident

May 13, 2009
CBC News

A police psychologist, who testified four RCMP panicked when they stunned Robert Dziekanski with a Taser, defended himself against accusations of bias at the Braidwood inquiry on Wednesday.

Dziekanski died minutes after he was stunned up to five times with a Taser by four RCMP officers in the arrivals lounge of Vancouver International airport in October 2007.

At the inquiry into Dziekanski's death currently under way in Vancouver, psychologist Mike Webster testified that after analyzing what happened, he believes the Mounties who confronted the Polish immigrant used excessive force.

But Webster's critical assessment did not sit well with Ravi Hira, the lawyer for the officer who fired the Taser. Hira suggested Webster did something wrong at the first phase of the inquiry last year, when Webster said he was embarrassed to be associated with a police force that uses a Taser on people like Dziekanski.

Hira seized on that past comment as evidence that Webster's opinion was too tainted for him to give expert testimony at the inquiry on Wednesday. "He should not have been retained, given the bias," said Hira.

But the inquiry's commissioner, Thomas Braidwood, interrupted Hira, saying, "It's totally unfair to make those allegations without putting it to the doctor."

Webster defended his reputation, saying the College of Psychologists of B.C. was aware of what he had said in the past, and what he was telling the inquiry on Wednesday.

"If you think I'm misrepresenting myself, I suggest you make a complaint to the College and they'll turf me in an instant if they agree with you," he shot back.

Use of Taser 'excessive force'
Webster said it pained him to make the criticisms, as he makes his living advising police forces, and he's been close to the RCMP for more than 30 years. But he maintained he was not the only one that believed what happened at the airport in October 2007 wasn't good police work.

"I don't think I'm the only one that holds that opinion. Conservatively, three-quarters of the country holds the same opinion, Mr. Hira," he said.

Webster, whose expertise in crisis situations such as hostage-takings and kidnappings has been sought by the FBI and law enforcement agencies from Colombia to Iraq, said his critical opinion of the officers' conduct has made him a pariah at the RCMP, and his previously regular work with the force had since dried up to next to nothing.

The expert in police psychology testified on Tuesday that all four RCMP officers panicked when they resorted to using a Taser to subdue Robert Dziekanski.

"They panicked. They abandoned their basic training and they embraced their more recent and questionable Taser training, provided for them by their misguided employer," he testified.

Webster said he believed the officers rushed into the situation, contrary to what they're taught, making things worse by surrounding Dziekanski, then bombarding him with conflicting commands as their hands hovered over their tool belts.

Furthermore, the decision to fire the Taser on a man with a stapler was a level-nine response to a level-two threat, he testified, adding, "This arguably makes the second, third, fourth and fifth cycles of the Taser an excessive use of force."

RCMP 'dinosaurs' in 'dark ages' of police work: Psychologist

May 13, 2009
By Suzanne Fournier, Vancouver Province

VANCOUVER — A police psychologist who told the Braidwood inquiry Wednesday that four RCMP officers "panicked" and used "excessive force" when they Tasered Robert Dziekanski said he blames RCMP management for the "tragedy."

Mike Webster, who helped train police agencies for more than 30 years, said that although he respects the challenge faced by frontline officers, he said he would "diagnose" the RCMP as an organization as "sick."

"I have the utmost respect for (RCMP) operational members on the street, who are generally well-meaning, their hearts are in the right place and they want to serve the community," said Webster.

But Webster said the RCMP senior management are "dinosaurs" that are still in the "dark ages" of police work.

He said the four officers who Tasered Dziekanski within seconds of meeting him at the Vancouver International Airport on Oct. 14, 2007, "abandoned their good solid basic training" and instead reached for the Taser.

Webster said that Dziekanski was frightened but calmed down and called out to police when they arrived.

"The situation was solved the minute he saw the yellow stripe on dark-blue pants — it could have been easily resolved by police presence and communication, but then police gave conflicting commands and became antagonistic, the Taser was used multiple times and the event deteriorated into a tragedy," said Webster.

"I do not think it was good police work and I think three-quarters of the Canadian public agrees with me." Webster admitted that his consulting work to the RCMP has "dried up" in the wake of his public criticism. "Unfortunately the RCMP is not a healthy organization and is unable to take criticism," he said. "I've become something of a pariah," said Webster noting he still works with a couple of RCMP managers who he said still have the "courage" to hire him, as well as many municipal police agencies.

Webster said he understands that the four officers "perceived" that Dziekanski picked up a stapler to use against them

But he said, "I don't think it was a weapon. He was frightened, he picked up a stapler to defend himself, but he could have picked up an ashtray . . . or a ruler . . . or a bundle of paper.

"I don't think it was a credible threat."

Dziekanski died within minutes of being Tasered and could not be revived by paramedics, who found him lying lifeless and unattended on the airport floor when they arrived at 1:42 a.m., about 12 minutes after he'd been Tasered.

The inquiry, originally slated to finish hearing evidence this Thursday, now will carry over to at least two days next week before hearing closing arguments at the end of May.

Officers who Tasered Polish immigrant 'panicked,' inquiry hears

May 12, 2009
By Suzanne Fournier, Vancouver Province

VANCOUVER — A police psychologist testifying Tuesday at the inquiry into the death of a Polish immigrant in the Vancouver airport provided a devastating critique of the "excessive use of force" by four RCMP members who Tasered Robert Dziekanski less than a minute after meeting him.

"Fools rush in" was the scathing assessment of the RCMP's handling of Dziekanski delivered by Mike Webster, an RCMP training graduate with a doctorate in psychology who has consulted in crisis management, hostage-takings and kidnappings.

Webster, who has instructed police officers in Canada and the U.S., fired back after gruelling cross-examination by Reg Harris, the lawyer for Cpl. Benjamin Robinson.

Agreeing with Harris that the RCMP did need to get Dziekanski under control, Webster said the officers "failed to distinguish" between an upset, distraught man who needed help and a crisis to which they responded with force.

"They panicked," said Webster. "They panicked and they abandoned their basic training and they embraced their more recent and questionable Taser training provided for them by their misguided employer."

Webster's April 17, 2009, report released by the inquiry Tuesday said "It is difficult to believe that Cpl. Robinson, nor any of his members, had a plan," noting that a well-trained officer-in-charge "would remember to take a moment to formulate a plan.

"In their basic training these members would have heard the old adage 'if you fail to plan, you plan to fail,' many times from their instructors."

Webster did not agree with Harris that it was good planning by Robinson to let the three other "rookies" approach the unhappy Dziekanski, without giving them any instructions at all.

Robinson and the other officers all testified earlier there was no discussion at all before they drove in four cars to the airport and vaulted over a railing to greet Dziekanski.

Seconds later, Const. Kwesi Millington deployed the Taser twice in probe mode, and after Dziekanski lay howling and writhing on the floor, deployed the weapon three more times in "drive-stun" mode directly on the man's skin.

The "repeated cycling" of the Taser was "an excessive use of force" contrary to the officers' training, Webster said.

Dziekanski then was restrained with Robinson's knee forcefully placed on his upper back, handcuffed behind his back and seconds later, he lapsed into unconsciousness.

Richmond Fire Capt. Kirby Graeme has testified that by the time paramedics got to the scene, Dziekanski was not breathing, deeply "cyanotic" or blue and likely was already dead. None of the officers gave him oxygen or first aid.

"Mr. Dziekanski wasn't going anywhere and none of the public was in immediate danger," Webster pointed out, saying the RCMP officers could have easily contained the man and sorted out his problems without hurting him.

Webster said that Dziekanski was clearly upset, after his "gruelling journey" of more than 30 hours from Poland to Vancouver without meeting his mother, and that he actually was glad to see the RCMP arrive to help him, calling out "Polizia, polizia," and dropping his hands to his side in a release of tension.

But then, Webster said, RCMP gave him conflicting commands to get his passport and when he turned to his suitcase to get it, told him to move away from his luggage and put his hands on the counter.

"Following the contrary commands came the pointing of at least one black leather-clad finger," said Webster, noting Dziekanski then threw up his hands in exasperation. Then came what Webster called the "circling of the wagons," as the officer surrounded him with their hands on their duty belts in a menacing fashion.

Said Webster: "Mr. Dziekanski was their client and it was their responsibility, not his, to take control and calm him down."

Webster will be back on the stand Wednesday.

The inquiry is slated to finish hearing evidence this Thursday.

RCMP were poorly prepared to deal with riled Dziekanski: psychologist

May 12, 2009
CBC News

An expert report written by a police psychologist says an inappropriate level of force was used on Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski the night he was stunned by a Taser at Vancouver airport in 2007.

Mike Webster, who was hired by the inquiry looking into Dziekanski's death, testified Tuesday that the four RCMP officers called to the airport's international arrivals lounge did not have an adequate plan to deal with the agitated man.

Dziekanski died on the airport floor after police discharged a Taser stun gun on him five times. The four Mounties had been sent to the scene in response to reports Dziekanski was throwing furniture and acting out. Within seconds of their arrival, they used the Taser.

Webster argued that a plan could have been devised by the Mounties to dispatch an officer to the customs hall, where Dziekanski had been throwing furniture, while another officer could have evacuated the public from the area.

Were such a plan implemented, Webster said, "the 'contact' member could take his time to communicate with a hyper-aroused subject."

Webster also contested police testimony that Dziekanski posed a significant danger to the officers. The officers should have known that the Polish man's unresponsiveness to their orders was due to his disrupted cognition, Webster said.

"They would have been told that a highly aroused person does not process instructions well, doesn't use good judgment and is not a good problem solver," he told the inquiry.

Police testified earlier that Dziekanski — who spoke no English — was initially peaceful, but after being ordered to a nearby counter, he picked up a stapler and turned to face the officers, squeezing staples onto the floor.

According to Webster, it would have been difficult for Dziekanski to respond to their instructions to drop the stapler in the state he was in.

The provincial inquiry was called in the wake of Dziekanski's death and is being overseen by Thomas Braidwood, a retired B.C. Court of Appeal justice. Braidwood will make recommendations to prevent similar incidents, and he could make findings of misconduct against the officers or anyone else involved.

'Excited delirium' killed Tasered man

March 27, 2009
By Ben Gelinas, with files from Laura Drake
The Edmonton Journal

A crazed man brought down by a police Taser last October died from what the medical examiner calls excited delirium caused by drugs.

Trevor Grimolfson, 38, was hit twice by the Taser after he attacked a man who came into his Stony Plain Road tattoo parlour and then smashed up a nearby pawnshop. Witnesses said Grimolfson was combative, violent and couldn't be calmed. After he was hit with the Taser, police handcuffed him. He soon lost consciousness and was declared dead in hospital.

"The cause of death was excited delirium brought on by drugs he'd taken," Alberta Justice spokesman David Dear said.

No further details on the ruling were released.

A representative from the medical examiner's office could not be reached for comment.

Asked about excited delirium, Michael Webster, a police psychologist who gave testimony at the inquiry into the death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver's airport, said that "it's a fantasy.

"Police and medical examiners have taken something that was initially descriptive and have made it into something prescriptive. And that's where the controversy comes from, because it's just not a diagnosis, nor is it a cause of death."

Webster said the vast majority of physicians, psychologists and psychiatrists do not recognize that excited delirium exists.

"I would challenge your medical examiner to show me excited delirium in that corpse."

It is Webster's opinion that the continuing diagnosis of excited delirium as a legitimate cause of death further drives a wedge between law enforcement and the majority of the medical community.

Alberta's chief medical examiner has been outspoken in his belief that excited delirium is a legitimate condition. Someone in the state could die without being touched or even when alone. It seems to have nothing to do with the method of restraint, Dr. Graeme Dowling told the Canadian National Committee for Police in November.

"They may die in spite of what we do."

Dowling said that it wouldn't be uncommon to need six to eight police officers to restrain someone in an excited delirium, as it is characterized by abnormal strength.

Following Grimolfson's death, the use of a Taser promptly became the public focus.

The medical examiner's ruling "once again shows that when these arrest-related deaths occur, jumping to conclusions is the wrong way to go," Taser International spokesman Steve Tuttle said. "We have seen this time and time again repeatedly, and it has sadly affected public opinion."

The Arizona company has been under intense public scrutiny in Canada since Dziekanski's death was captured on amateur video.

Tuttle said that incident ignited something that borders on hysteria in this country.

"We call it a crisis in Canada."

A fatality review board will determine whether a fatality inquiry will be recommended in Grimolfson's case.

The Alberta Serious Incident Response Team which looks into deaths involving police is still investigating.

Alberta Solicitor General spokesman Andy Weiler said no one from the response team will comment on the medical examiner's report until the investigation is complete.