Taser critic calls for third-party electrical testing

January 10, 2010
ctvbc.ca

Last week, Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan promised to develop a set of national rules for police Taser use -- but as Ottawa works to restore Canada's confidence in Tasers, one critic claims the real problem lies in electrical testing.

Emile Therien, past president of the Canada Safety Council and current board member, says the government is leaving itself open to huge liabilities because electrical safety standards for Conducted Energy Weapons are being ignored.

"We need physical standards for these," Therien said. "Product certification is absolutely critical because we're talking about an electrical product, and the minister doesn't seem to be moving in that direction."

Therien believes police are endangering the public, because as an electrical device the Taser has never been tested or certified by either the Canadian Standards Association or the Underwriters Lab to ensure the weapon is as safe as advertised.

CTV News went further by contacting every government agency which might have tested tasers for adverse health effects or electrical safety. Neither Health Canada, Public Safety Canada, The Canadian Police Research Centre or the RCMP have ever independently verified the manufacturer’s safety claims. In an email to CTV News from Ottawa Headquarters, Sgt. Greg Cox confirmed, “The RCMP is not aware of any Canadian agency that has undertaken testing of the health affects of CEW use.”

"I don't think the manufacturer wants standards”, says Therien. We're talking product integrity, consumer confidence, officer safety, public safety -- a lot of issues. It’s absolutely baffling."

While the electrical safety of stun-guns still needs to be determined by third-party testing, Therien says people are continuing to die. Since the weapons were adopted a decade ago, there are over 460 Taser-related deaths in North America—26 in Canada.

Though both a U-S technology firm and another in Richmond, BC are developing Taser-testers for police, there is still no way of regularly measuring electrical output of CEWs in any Canadian police detachment. Therien wonders how public safety can be ensured if regular testing of electrical output of Tasers is not done, like police do for breathalyzers and radar guns.

Therien is confident the Federal and Provincial governments will conform, adding, “There are agreements that can be struck to make sure these standards are in place and that they are actually imposed and respected.”

In the meantime, the Mounties and the manufacturer refuse on-camera interviews with CTV News to discuss the lack of electrical safety standards for Tasers.

With a report from CTV British Columbia's Peter Grainger.

Ottawa, provinces moving on national Taser standards

January 5, 2009
By Janice Tibbetts, Canwest News Service

OTTAWA — The federal government and provincial governments are planning to create national standards to determine when police can zap suspects with Tasers, in an attempt to reduce a patchwork of practices among police forces and restore public confidence in the controversial weapons.

Deputy public safety ministers will begin work this month on the national blueprint, federal Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan told Canwest News Service.

"There's no doubt there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the use of Tasers," Van Loan said. "I think there would be greater public confidence if there was a single consistent national standard or guidelines."

Van Loan said he will leave it to the deputy solicitors general and law enforcement experts to devise the standards, but that he personally would support guidelines similar to those adopted by the RCMP, which dictate that Tasers can only be used when there is a threat of harm to police or the public.

He did not say whether the new standards, which he said he hopes each province will enforce as part of their jurisdiction over policing, will stipulate which officers should be authorized to use the stun guns.

The number of municipal and provincial officers who are armed with and trained to use Tasers varies from force to force, with some banning them among frontline officers and restricting usage to supervisors or tactical team members.

Van Loan said it makes sense to craft national standards in part because RCMP are contracted out to local forces across the country, so the rules they follow vary depending on where they work.

"It's a little bit odd to have different rules for something like that that's fairly technical," he said.

Van Loan said the time has come for national standards because police are now experienced enough in the use of Tasers to share what they've learned.

"If we can share the best practices and come up with a consistent approach, I'm sure it will be one that we would expect would be better able to stand the test of time," he said.

While the Canada Safety Council has called on the federal government to regulate Taser use through its Criminal Code power, Van Loan said he expects that making improper use illegal would be too harsh.

"That might be too severe of a way of enforcing your standards or guidelines, that everything on one side of the line is perfectly OK, and once a police officer makes a mistake or crosses the line a little bit they suddenly become a criminal," he said.

"I'd be interested in people's thoughts on that, but off the top of my head it seems like that would be too much of a challenge to do."

Emile Therien, past president of the Canada Safety Council, said national standards are long overdue.

There should be operational rules, training rules, and even standards regulating the safety of the devices themselves, he said.

"It should be a very high standard because there is a very high credibility issue here," he said.

"Unless you have standards for use, and physical standards for product reliability and integrity, you have a problem," said Therien.

"They don't even have maintenance schedules for these things — how often you use it before you throw it out. There's not one other product that a police department uses that doesn't comply to a national standard, like a bulletproof vest or the helmets they use."

The move to create national standards follows an agreement among federal, provincial, and territorial solicitors general at their annual meeting in October.

The Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police issued guidelines last February on Taser use, which called for all police officers nationwide to be authorized to use the weapon.

The joint position also asserted that Tasers are intended for use "in situations where there is an imminent need for control and other options have been precluded because they were ineffective or would be inappropriate given the totality of circumstances in the situation."

The two groups also said individual police agencies have the responsibility to implement polices and procedures regarding the use of force.

Former RCMP watchdog warns commission heads liable to political sway

January 4, 2010
By Janice Tibbetts, Canwest News Service

OTTAWA — The former RCMP watchdog says the government must change the way it appoints heads of independent commissions so they don't become beholden to their political bosses.

Paul Kennedy, whose four-year stint ended last week, said that chairmen should be named for a fixed term, in order to "remove temptation" from appointees to work as an agent for the governing party, for fear of being sacked.

"Five years and you're out is the way to do it," Kennedy told Canwest News Service. "So you're not sitting here, if you are potentially of weak character, saying 'I need this job, I need this money, I like whatever it is,' and you change your approach for improper purposes."

The government also refused last month to renew the term of Peter Tinsley, the former chairman of the Military Police Complaints Commission, whose stint expired in the middle of a controversial commission inquiry into what the military knew about handing Afghan detainees over to local captives, at the risk of torture.

Kennedy's Dec. 31 departure leaves the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP rudderless, with nobody keeping an independent eye on the embattled national police force.

"Apres moi, le deluge," said Kennedy, invoking a famous quote from King Louis XV, which translates as "after me, the flood."

The Conservative government's failure to name a successor means that there is nobody in charge, since the government has still not replaced his assistant chairman, who left his post in October 2008, said Kennedy.

"I have been alone in the saddle here since that time," said Kennedy. "There's no one to step into my shoes."

Chris McCluskey, a spokesman for Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan, could not confirm Monday when a replacement will be named.

Kennedy, a lawyer and senior bureaucrat who took the post in October 2005, had been reappointed three times to one-year terms.

The former chairman relentlessly campaigned during his tenure to strengthen oversight of the RCMP.

The public complaints panel has been repeatedly decried as a toothless body that depends on the RCMP's voluntary co-operation for its investigations and has no power to probe whether the force is overstepping its power involving national security and organized crime.

"That's a massive amount of federal policing that is beyond the purview of anyone to look at," said Kennedy, whose calls for increased oversight have been echoed in several reports.

For instance, in December 2006, the judge who led the inquiry into the Maher Arar affair recommended that the RCMP public complaints commission be revamped into a new body with the power to review all Mountie national security activities.

Van Loan has said he is awaiting a pending report from an inquiry into the 1985 Air India bombing, but critics have dismissed the reason as a cop out since several reports already have made similar recipes for improvement.

A strengthened review body, said Kennedy, should have access to all RCMP files and be empowered to subpoena documents and compel people to testify.

Kennedy also noted that Van Loan cut the commission's budget by $600,000 last year, which he said reins in the ability of the body to carry out broad investigations, such as the recent probe into the RCMP use of Taser stun guns in the 2007 death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski at the Vancouver airport.

Kennedy's final weeks in office were marked by a public squabble with RCMP commissioner over his release of his Taser report, which was a scathing indictment against a force that Kennedy described as "massively inert."

Editorial: Lawyer leaves public service on a high note

December 14, 2009
Law Times
By Glenn Kauth

At the end of the year, Canada will lose yet another valuable and outspoken civil servant when lawyer Paul Kennedy leaves his post as chairman of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP.

After finishing his law degree in 1972, Kennedy spent 25 years with the Justice Department that included stints as a criminal prosecutor and later senior general counsel for the federal prosecution service. Then, after rising to become a senior assistant deputy minister with two different ministries, the government appointed him to the RCMP watchdog role in 2005.

Since then, Kennedy has established a reputation for pulling no punches against a federal police force that in recent years has come to define government secrecy. He’s been particularly forthright about the need for the RCMP to stop investigating itself in cases of serious allegations against its officers, an issue the 2005 in-custody death of Ian Bush at a B.C. police detachment helped bring to public attention.

This week, we saw Kennedy come out swinging again in his report on the infamous Taser incident involving Robert Dziekanski at the Vancouver airport in 2007. The events that led to the Polish man’s death “represent a defining moment in the history of the RCMP,” Kennedy said.

In what amounts to an official validation of what most people have likely been thinking, Kennedy said police claims about the threat they felt from the stapler Dziekanski was brandishing didn’t justify using a Taser on him.
“The members demonstrated no meaningful attempt to de-escalate the situation nor did they approach the situation with a measured, co-ordinated, and appropriate response,” he wrote in his report.

Kennedy, in making his 16 recommendations, also criticized the officers involved for inappropriately meeting after the incident before giving their statements. In addition, he deemed that their version of what happened lacked credibility. “Overall, I found that the conduct of the responding members fell short of that expected of members of the RCMP,” he concluded.

In coming out so strongly in one of his final acts as head of the public complaints commission, Kennedy has demonstrated his value to our federal bureaucracy. But the government’s decision last month not to reappoint him raises questions about whether it’s merely pushing aside someone who has been a thorn for highly ranked public officials in recent years.

In fact, while Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan has so far declined to provide details on the reasons for the move, it was only last December that he praised Kennedy for his commitment “to achieving excellence in policing” in announcing a one-year extension of his term.

So far, it’s unclear whether the decision to end Kennedy’s posting has anything to do with his outspokenness. But we’ve seen such scenarios play out already, including in the firing of former Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission president Linda Keen after the agency ordered the shutdown of the Chalk River reactor.

Similar issues arose in the case of Military Police Complaints Commission chairman Peter Tinsley, who also clashed with the government and isn’t getting reappointed.

So, whatever the official reasons the government gives for its moves, they do raise concerns. Given the important role people like Kennedy and Tinsley play in upholding the rule of law, we need to keep them in our public service. Just this week, Kennedy proved his worth once again.

RCMP watchdog won't be reappointed

November 27, 2009
CBC News

The federal government will not be reappointing Paul Kennedy as the chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, CBC News has learned.

Kennedy, whose last day on the job will be Dec. 31, reportedly would have accepted another term. He was interested in seeing through anticipated new legislation to bring in a civilian oversight agency for the RCMP.

Kennedy recently completed an investigation into the death of Robert Dziekanski at the Vancouver International Airport and has investigated in-custody deaths, Taser use and how Mounties investigate themselves.

Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh said the public interest would be better served if Kennedy remained in his post.

"I believe this government is not interested in anyone with any degree of independence. They want servile public servants," he said.

"Whenever someone is doing a tremendous job in the public interest they want to shut them down. They did this with the military police complaints commissioner, Peter Tinsley."

Tinsley, whose term also expires next month and will not be renewed, also wanted to stay on because of his ongoing inquiry into the treatment of Afghan detainees.

A statement from the office of Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan thanked Kennedy for his "distinguished and professional service," adding he has "provided guidance that will be considered as the RCMP continues to make progress on its transformation agenda."

"The government will be moving to reform oversight of the RCMP in the months ahead to strengthen accountability," the statement said. "It will seek to ensure independent investigation of incidents, so that the force does not lead investigations into itself."

EDITORIAL: Sponsorship conflict

Dear John Jones, former ETHICS ADVISOR to the CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE, who resigned earlier this year - in part - over the conflict of interest posed by Taser International's sponsorship of the CACP conference:

Although Taser International has been a PLATINUM (the most generous and prestigious sponsorship level of all) sponsor of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police's annual conference over many years - and, in fact I have highlighted the conflict of interest this poses here on my blog every year since it first came to my attention - I am VERY pleased to advise you that your personal decision to resign may in fact have FINALLY had an impact. As of today, less than a month away from the conference (August 9-12, 2009) Taser International is nowhere to be found on the list of sponsors for the 2009 CACP conference in Charlottetown, PEI. Nor do they show up anywhere on the Exhibitors' List.

Thank you, John Jones - it's still early days, but you were already on my list of heroes and that will never change. This can't have been an easy decision for you, but here's living proof that your decision to resign was the right one.

I repost the Globe and Mail editorial from April (see below), for those who aren't already in the know.

Sincerely,
Reality Chick (owner of this blog)

April 13, 2009
Globe and Mail

The foundation of taser use in this country rests on an obvious conflict of interest, and involves a group that should know better: the police chiefs of Canada. The resignation of an ethics adviser to the chiefs over that conflict speaks volumes about the rotten state of police discourse on the 50,000-volt stun guns.

"Doesn't pass the smell test," John Jones said of the chiefs' corporate sponsorships, including one from Taser International, of their annual conferences. The chiefs' board of directors was so dismissive it wouldn't even hear from the ethics committee when it asked formally for a meeting about the conflict.

Why do police in Canada - with the notable exception of the RCMP Commissioner William Elliott - have the chutzpah to insist that the taser is safe, even though more than 20 people have died in the past five years after being tasered? Because the Canadian Police Research Centre, an arm of the chiefs' association, says that research indicates it is safe. The chiefs do not directly set policy for the 170 forces across Canada that use the taser, but the association's research is in practice the basis for many of the country's taser policies.

Taking sponsorship money from a weapons manufacturer is a direct, not merely a perceived, conflict. The chiefs have received $75,000 over the past three years from Taser International, according to the chiefs' executive director, Peter Cuthbert. Everything the chiefs say about the taser is tainted by their acceptance of that money. More than that, the policies of all the police forces that rely on the chiefs' research are tainted.

The truth about the taser's potential harm is far from settled, except in the minds of the chiefs. Yet most police policies allow for taser use where no serious risk of physical harm to anyone is involved. (It is emphatically not used instead of guns, as many people think, including Canada's Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan.) Only the RCMP acknowledges a risk of death, especially for agitated individuals.

Six weeks ago, as a judicial review in British Columbia probed the death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski, a distressed, unarmed man who had been waiting 10 hours at the Vancouver International Airport for his mother, the police chiefs and the Canadian Police Association released a position statement on tasers: Not one of the 13 points raised a safety concern. Nothing about multiple taserings. Nothing about uses on the mentally ill or youth or people with heart problems or taking drugs. Then the chiefs called for a vast expansion of taser use.

John Jones is right. Something stinks about the chiefs' coziness with Taser International.

Multiple Taser strikes left to Mountie's discretion

April 21, 2009
By Janice Tibbetts, Canwest News Service

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funding cut threatens RCMP watchdog

March 18, 2009
KATHERINE O'NEILL, Globe and Mail

The chairman of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission is warning that a looming deep funding cut by the federal government may hamper the agency's ability to properly police the Mounties.

Since late 2007, the independent RCMP watchdog has been receiving an extra $3.5-million on top of its annual base budget of $5.1-million. But that temporary top-up is due to run out on March 31 and no decisions have been made on whether it will be extended.

Paul Kennedy, the commission chairman, said in an interview yesterday that the extra cash was used to build up the agency's public profile across the country and research pressing policy issues, including taser use by the RCMP.

"I would think most Canadians I've come across say that's good work, it's good value work and we are glad you do it," he said.

Mr. Kennedy said this particular work is essential during a time "which is sort of abounding with cynicism in terms of some police activities."

The commission, which has 55-full-time employees, is charged with handling public complaints made against the RCMP, a multibillion organization with thousands of members.

Chris McCluskey, a spokesman for Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan, confirmed the temporary funding will expire on March 31, but added a "process" is currently under way to consider extending it.

"There is no decision made on that whatsoever," he said.

Mr. McCluskey said the temporary funding boost in 2007 "coincided" with then-public safety minister Stockwell Day's request that the complaints commission conduct a study on RCMP taser use.

The call was made shortly after Robert Dziekanski, a Polish citizen, was killed during a confrontation at Vancouver airport where Mounties used a taser.

The commission's report on taser use by the RCMP, which cost about $100,000 to research, was released last June.

In the meantime, Mr. McCluskey, said the government is currently developing a proposal to revamp and strengthen the RCMP review and complaints body.

RCMP review is disgraceful indictment

March 14, 2009
By BILL KAUFMANN, Edmonton Sun

I thought we'd hear something mitigating from those Richmond, B.C., Mounties, at least a few words to cast a shred of doubt on the damning video.

Naivete springs eternal.

As an indictment, their words almost equal Paul Pritchard's video, which would capture an Oscar if such a category as "honest non-fiction" existed.

Three of the officers seem allergic to truth, peddling make-believe tales suitable for some parallel universe.

It's clear from Pritchard's handiwork the four burly Mounties were not threatened by Polish arrival Robert Dziekanski.

On point after point, the Mounties either lied or were grossly mistaken. Const. Kwesi Millington can't even recall how many times he shocked Dziekanski with the Taser, as if it was too casual an act to count.

One cop suggested Dziekanski raising his hands - a universal sign of surrender - constituted a threat.

The stapler has now taken its place in crime-busting lore with Millington's description of the one wielded by Dziekanski as menacing him in "the open position."

One can only wonder if the stapler's safety was off.

When initially hit with the Taser, Dziekanski crumpled in writhing agony, but Millington insists he shocked the doomed man several more times, fearing the device wasn't working.

He also recalls being "scared" by the outnumbered, unarmed and non-lunging Pole. Earlier that night, an apparently unfrightened woman approached Dziekanski - even as he brandished a piece of furniture.

Millington insisted he acted according to training, which is terrifying enough. And a B.C. Crown report, explaining why no charges would be laid against the four, concludes the "actions of the officers were consistent with RCMP policy and training."

Granted, there is nonchalance in Pritchard's video, as police arrive and unhesitatingly fell their bewildered quarry. As Pritchard told reporters: "They all look like they should be having a coffee or a cigarette."

The B.C. attorney general's office concluded their conduct was "reasonable and necessary in all circumstances." That those who came to these conclusions apparently watched the same video is shocking.

We can only surmise virtually any circumstance would justify a multiple 50,000-volt onslaught.

The report tellingly notes the officers attempted to use hand signals for a whopping "several seconds" before turning on the juice.

It falls back on witness descriptions of Dziekanski's earlier belligerent demeanour, notably absent once the Mounties had arrived.

Ironically, Dziekanski's actions alone are described as "bizarre and aggressive." Absent the video, Canadians would have to accept the curiously consistent, bogus word of these Mounties.

If part of the Crown's intention was to reassure Canadians and newcomers to this country, they've failed.

The honesty of police officers throughout the country - most of whom serve admirably - has now been thrown into question. Whenever currently serving cops defend the actions of the Richmond four, it's yet more reason for alarm. No one's interests would be better served by harshly condemning these Mounties' actions than other police forces.

Predictably, a tone-deaf RCMP is doing nothing to help its image, keeping the officers on its payroll while hiding behind a laughable B.C. Crown report.

The silence from our law-and-order, get-tough federal politicians has been just as deafening.

‘RCMP has been terribly damaged’: former police officer

By Suzanne Fournier, Canwest News Service

The stark contradictions between the videotape of Robert Dziekanski’s death in RCMP custody — after he was repeatedly Tasered at Vancouver International Airport — and key parts of RCMP officers’ evidence at the Braidwood inquiry could have serious repercussions once the inquiry ends.

The four officers may have gone into the inquiry believing they would never face criminal charges — as decided by the B.C. Criminal Justice Branch last Dec. 12 — but that decision could change, “especially given the public outcry at evidence from the inquiry,” notes Robert Gordon, head of Simon Fraser University’s criminology department.

“I don’t think anyone in my network, or in most comments I hear, is convinced the officers are telling the truth.”

Gordon says the officers could still face criminal charges, “and it looks increasingly like the RCMP should proceed with internal discipline. Does the RCMP have the stomach for that? It looks now like they don’t have a choice.”

But Gordon says it would be “much easier and quicker to proceed with civil litigation” against the RCMP, or even other government or corporate agencies that harmed Dziekanski, failed to assist him, or failed to act to save his life.

“As in the O.J. Simpson case, the burden of proof is far less, and a civil suit could provide Mr. Dziekanski’s mother with more comfort and compensation,” said Gordon.

Gordon says “the public may call for its pound of flesh” but said he doesn’t think, “with all due respect to the Dziekanski family, that there is much to be gained by dragging the four officers through the criminal courts.”

The RCMP have been “terribly damaged” by the inquiry, said Gordon, but “they’ve already dug their own grave by insisting their officers acted appropriately. They refused to acknowledge problems in how their officers responded and handled Mr. Dziekanski. As a former police officer myself, I can confidently say it was atrocious police work.”

Walter Kosteckyj, lawyer for Dziekanski’s mother, Zofia Cisowski, has confirmed that his client will consider civil litigation, but said the federal government, which is responsible for the RCMP, the airport, and the Canada Border Services Agency, has rebuffed a bid to get Cisowski an apology and compensation, in lieu of a painful civil trial.

Kosteckyj notes Dziekanski’s mother, a Kamloops janitor, “has suffered terribly and is enduring a significant loss; he was her only son and would have been the mainstay of her life. . . . She’s unable to work.

“The people of Canada expect that it is time for sanity to prevail. Our national government did not treat this man in a fair manner at all, nor have they been fair to Zofia Cisowski.”

Kosteckyj said compensation and an apology by Ottawa is preferable to “dragging my client through a civil trial.”

The Braidwood inquiry is to resume March 23 for two more weeks, with testimony from pathology and medical witnesses, Cisowski herself, and the fourth officer, RCMP Cpl. Benjamin Monty Robinson.

Commissioner Tom Braidwood, a former judge, is to report to B.C. Attorney General Wally Oppal by June 30.

Neil MacKenzie, Crown counsel spokesman, said the decision last Dec. 12 not to charge the officers was based on the police investigation by the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team (IHIT).

“It’s always open to us to have the matter reviewed and resubmitted,” said MacKenzie, noting, “It’s not uncommon for us to return a file to police.”

Gordon noted that, because the IHIT had the benefit of the Pritchard video to compare with the officers’ statements, yet didn’t recommend charges, it might be necessary to get a special prosecutor or independent police investigation, all of which would be time-consuming and costly.

“Certainly, if the Criminal Justice Branch felt criminal offences were committed and they lacked confidence that IHIT was able to do a thorough investigation, they are able (after the Braidwood inquiry) to request another investigation,” said Gordon.

“A special prosecutor could be appointed if it’s decided that an independent decision is required . . . and that’s always the prerogative of the attorney general.”

RCMP need government oversight

March 8, 2009
By Barbara Yaffe, Vancouver Sun

The jarring testimony that has been presented at the Braidwood inquiry suggests it's time for greater government oversight of the RCMP.

The inquiry, currently on a two-week break, isn't just a test of the four officers whose actions led to the death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver International Airport in October 2007. The reputation of the 136-year-old national police force hangs in the balance.

It had been hoped the RCMP turned a corner in 2007 when the Harper government named William Elliott as the force's first civilian commissioner.

A turnaround certainly was in order after the Maher Arar debacle and tales of RCMP pension fund abuse. Controversies involving the RCMP in B. C. alone were enough to cause consternation.

Former justice Ted Hughes, following a 2001 probe of RCMP actions during a 1997 meeting of Asia-Pacific leaders in Vancouver, criticized unnecessary pepper-spraying of demonstrators, unwarranted arrests, improper removal of protest signs and intrusive strip searches.

The spotlight was back on the RCMP in B. C. in 2005 when Ian Bush, a 22-year-old Houston, B. C., mill worker, was shot -- in the back of the head.

He'd been arrested for having an open beer outside a hockey game and giving a false name. Const. Paul Koester -- five months out of RCMP training -- never faced charges; he was deemed to have acted in self-defence.

Now, testimony before former Supreme Court judge Thomas Braidwood is revealing that armed RCMP officers in bulletproof vests were so fearful of a guy with a stapler that, within 30 seconds of arriving on the scene, they Tasered Dziekanski five times in 31 seconds. He died of cardiac arrest.

They watched him drop, cry out in agony and go blue in the face -- but they didn't offer him CPR.

And in their oral recollection of events and written recordings, the officers got it all wrong.

Without a bystander's video, the public never would have come within a country mile of the truth. How in future can courts be expected to rely on RCMP testimony and incident reports?

To date, none of the officers has admitted to serious misjudgment.

Nor has the RCMP made any gesture to atone for the tragedy.

The RCMP, on its web-site, still maintains Tasers -- implicated in 20 Canadian deaths -- are "another means to obtain compliance from resistant or combative subjects when police must arrest them. The tool allows police at such times to protect the public, and the subjects themselves, from harm."

But Tasers also allow police to get lazy. Four RCMP officers should have better means of subduing a lone suspect than to immediately Taser him.

Consider: if the officers were freaked out by the appearance of an exhausted traveller wielding a stapler, imagine the message they sent Dziekanski by barrelling on to the scene, four-strong and with hands on their weapons.

The Harper government has been mostly silent on the Dziekanski incident. In 2007, then-public safety minister Stockwell Day requested a review of protocols on Taser use. More recently, Peter Van Loan, his successor, insisted Tasers are a useful alternative to deadlier options.

However, Commissioner Elliott revealed last month that officers now are advised Tasers can cause death and should be used more restrictively, only in circumstances involving danger to the public or the officer.

That said, the assortment of inquiries into police conduct in B. C. should give pause.

The Braidwood testimony comes as a $900-million security budget for the 2010 Olympics is about to be handed over to the RCMP for management.

The RCMP story, of course, is not one-sided. Mounties often get cited for heroism and do plenty of good work. But they aren't the source of national pride they once were.

Beyond the scarlet serge and shiny boots lurk obvious problems that call for greater scrutiny. One good option would be a permanent parliamentary oversight committee.

Mountie stun gun tests reveal Taser anomalies

March 7, 2009
The CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA - A civil liberties group wants the federal Public Safety minister to conduct independent tests of RCMP stun guns.

In a letter to Peter Van Loan, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association says recent testing of Tasers by the national police force raises serious questions.

The RCMP began scrutinizing its stun guns in response to an analysis by the CBC and French-language Radio-Canada that found some Tasers pack more of a shock than the manufacturer promises.

The scientific review commissioned by the public broadcaster concluded that four out of 41 guns tested actually discharged more electrical current than Taser International says is possible.

In December, the RCMP said initial results of its own tests, carried out by an independent lab, showed all 30 Tasers pulled randomly from service for scrutiny were within the manufacturer's specifications.

This week the police force issued an update that said two of the stun guns tested "were found to be outside" Taser International's 2005 testing protocol standard for open circuit voltage.

Voltage is the amount of force driving a flow of electrons, while current is the rate of flow of those electrons.

In January, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association first raised concerns with the Public Safety minister about the manner in which the RCMP was testing its Tasers.

"We call on you again to test these devices comprehensively, and independently, so that the public can have confidence in the results, and to investigate immediately why and how the RCMP has so mishandled the public communication of the results of their Taser testing," says the association's latest letter to Van Loan.

A spokesman for Van Loan was not immediately available Friday.

RCMP complaints commission chairman Paul Kennedy has called on the police force to restrict Taser use to major threats where a person is combative or risks serious harm to themselves or others.

The RCMP says it has limited Taser use to situations involving a threat to officer or public safety.

A B.C. inquiry is probing an October 2007 incident in which Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski died after being stunned with a Taser and pinned to the floor by RCMP.

Decision not to charge in taser case stands on ever more shaky ground

March 7, 2009
GARY MASON, Globe and Mail

Recent allegations of fraudulent statements and a planned cover-up are leading to loud calls for a new look at the December decision by the B.C. Crown counsel's office to clear the four RCMP officers involved in the tragic encounter with Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski.

Citizens who were outraged when the decision was made not to press charges against any of the officers are even more incensed after hearing three of them testify at a hearing into Mr. Dziekanski's death. They learned that notes and verbal statements the officers gave to investigators weren't an accurate reflection of what happened that night.

At the inquiry, a lawyer acting for Mr. Dziekanski's mother, Zofia Cisowski, and another representing the government of Poland, suggested the officers lied to cover up actions they knew were excessive and inexcusable. A charge the officers deny.

Attorney-General Wally Oppal has been deluged with letters and e-mails urging him to reopen this case. Canadians have also written to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Public Safety Minister Peter van Loan asking them to intervene.

We now know the information upon which B.C.'s Criminal Justice Branch based its decision to clear the officers was erroneous. Just consider this one sentence in the statement issued by the branch in announcing its decision on Dec. 12:

"At this juncture, the evidence of independent witnesses, police officers and digital video were materially consistent in relation to the events which followed."

This is a fairly important aspect of the Crown's rationale for not proceeding with charges - everyone agreed as to what happened. One problem though: it's completely false. Many of the details the officers provided to justify their actions were not true, we have recently learned. In fact, the litany of inaccurate or misleading statements the officers gave RCMP investigators is long and disturbing.

They didn't have to taser Mr. Dziekanski a number of times because he refused to go down, as they told investigators. The victim wasn't tackled to the ground by officers because the taser wasn't working on him. The man collapsed in a writhing, yelping heap after he was blasted the first time - and before he was jolted four more times.

Mr. Dziekanski wasn't yelling and wielding a stapler above his head as he moved towards the officers - as they suggested in notes and interviews. He held a garden-variety stapler in his hand at waist height, while not yelling or advancing in a menacing manner.

And those are just a few of the inconsistencies in the officers' statements that have come to light. But they are important because they go to the heart of the central question in this case: did their actions constitute excessive force under Section 26 of the Criminal Code? And crucial to answering that question is determining the circumstances leading up to any confrontation between a police officer and a civilian in the first place.

I tried to find out whether the Criminal Justice Branch was aware of the problems in the officers' statements when it made its decision to clear them. A spokesman for the branch said: "The evidence was the evidence available to the Crown at the time. I don't want to engage in a disagreement with any element of it."

Whatever that means. In other words, the branch doesn't want to say. Why? It might be because the Crown based its decision on the investigative work of the RCMP. What is the likelihood that the RCMP pointed out the enormous problems inherent in the verbal statements and written reports given by its own officers? Did the RCMP report to the Crown mention that many of the officers' statements simply did not jibe with the video evidence? Did that raise alarm bells anywhere?

I also asked the branch spokesperson what it would take for the Justice Department to take another look at this case in light of the testimony given by the officers in the past two weeks. He said it would take the original investigative agency - the RCMP - coming forward with new information that changes the complexion of the case and warrants the Crown taking another look.

What are the chances of that happening?

I'm afraid this case is just another example, number 7,340, of why the police should not investigate themselves. The public doesn't trust the police, and especially the RCMP, to do a proper job. And the information that has recently come to light in the Robert Dziekanski case is precisely why.

"At this point, the decision is the decision," the Criminal Justice Branch spokesman told me.

My guess is that could change. The provincial government has been embarrassed by this matter, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Attorney-General did something about it once the Braidwood inquiry wraps up.

Safety minister rejects calls for a moratorium on Taser stun guns

See Excited-Delirium.com's challenge to Peter Van Loan, Canada's PUBLIC SAFETY MINISTER.

February 27, 2009
Janice Tibbetts, Canwest News Service

OTTAWA -- Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan on Friday rejected calls for a moratorium on Taser stun guns saying they are a relatively safe use of force compared to more deadly options.

While acknowledging the controversial shock guns are a weapon and therefore carry a risk, he said police should have access to them nonetheless.

"If officers are properly trained and if the Taser is properly used in the proper circumstances, it can be safe, it can be safer than the alternative," Mr. Van Loan said in an interview with Canwest News Service and Global National. "I believe that obviously shooting someone with a gun is going to be far more lethal than the use of a Taser and as an alternative I think it's something that should be available to the police."

Earlier this week, the opposition Liberals called on the government to impose a moratorium pending the outcome of a public inquiry in British Columbia into an October, 2007 death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski after RCMP officers zapped him several times at the Vancouver airport.

RCMP Commissioner William Elliott, acknowledging this month Tasers carry a risk of death, said the Mounties have reined in their policy so the shock guns can only be used to subdue suspects who pose a safety risk to the public or police.

Mr. Van Loan agreed Tasers, like other weapons, are not risk free.

"You can kill someone with a night stick, you can kill someone with the butt of a gun, you can kill someone with your fist, so any of these things can represent obviously some kind of risk and I think the commissioner in his evaluation of it was simply stating the obvious," the minister said.

He also acknowledged police are human beings capable of mistakes and "the right decision will not be made every time" when judging whether a Taser should be fired.

There are no common standards for Taser use among police forces across Canada and Van Loan said it is not up to the federal government to tread on provincial jurisdiction over municipal and provincial policing by insisting on common practices.

Earlier this week, the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police held a joint news conference to defend the use of Tasers amid mounting criticism. The two police groups said there is no clear evidence that Tasers kill, and police need them to enhance public safety.

Police acknowledged, however, that Tasers, like other methods of force such as pepper spray, have been blamed for triggering a pre-existing medical condition called "excited delirium," which carries the risk of death.

The federal Liberals disputed the contention that Tasers don't kill and urged the federal government to impose a moratorium on RCMP use of the shock guns until the B.C. inquiry issues its findings.

Amnesty International has also called for a moratorium, pending further study on the safety of Tasers, which the group charges "are simply being used too often and too fast, when too little is known about them."

The guns have been blamed for being a factor in more than 20 deaths in Canada.

Access to Tasers should be 'expanded': report

February 23, 2009
ctvbc.ca With a report by CTV British Columbia's Leah Hendry

As the Braidwood inquiry continues, a new report on Tasers from Canada's police chiefs is about to be made public. CTV News has learned it will recommend police across the country have "expanded" access to Tasers, and establish new guidelines on when they should be used.

Earlier in February, the RCMP set out new rules for Tasers, stating they can only be used against suspects who are a clear threat.

While the RCMP appears to be stepping back, Canada's police chiefs appear to be encouraging their use.

One Vancouver city councillor says changing the way Tasers are deployed should wait until after Braidwood is done.

"This is not something we want to use like a toy," said George Chow. "I think we really should be careful. I don't see us rushing into training everyone for a weapon that's not that useful, or if it is useful, should be used in limited circumstances."

Right now, the number of municipal and provincial officers who are armed with and trained in the usage of Tasers varies from force to force.

Some provinces ban them among frontline officers and restrict usage to supervisors or tactical team members.

In B.C., where most of the policing is done by the RCMP, our solicitor general says all police forces need a similar policy.

"Our effort is to ensure that they have the tools but they have specific conduct in the deployment of those tools," said John van Dongen.

The worry is that the police chiefs recommendations are just a guideline.

It's actually up to the individual police forces to set Taser policy.

"I'm going to let the RCMP and I'm going to let each police force make their rules for their own practices. Policing is really a local, municipal question," said Peter Van Loan, the federal public safety minister.

Which means Canada could end up with a mish-mash of different policies.

Police psychologist and former RCMP officer Mike Webster says if Taser use is expanded training needs to be entirely revamped.

"If expanding their training means it includes crisis intervention training and having a greater understanding of populations at risk and includes people in crisis, then it would be a good thing. But if it simply means getting more Tasers and using them in more situations and lowering the bar, that would be ridiculous," he said.

The report is expected to be released tomorrow. {February 24, 2009}