Tasers at YVR - U of A Campus Security officer responds

A few weeks ago, I posted on the death of Robert Dziekanski after being "tasered" at Vancouver International Airport.  My post argued that the explanations being offered up by the RCMP for tasering this man (i.e. references to "agitation", "acting out", "confrontation", etc.) smacked of a rush to self-exculpation while telling us nothing about why the police chose to use (as it turns out) lethal force against the non-English speaking Mr. Dziekanski.

Well, now comes the backlash.  Leviathan, in the form of one of our own University of Alberta campus security officers, has rushed to the honour of his brothers-at-arms (brothers-at-tasers?).  Except he didn't do so on this blog. Rather, he did it on another blog which linked to my post.  (I don't mean this as a criticism, but rather as an explanation for why it took me two weeks to offer up a response - to which, by the way, I am alerting Mr. Hilbert.)   So let's now repatriate this debate.

(Leaving to one side Mr. Clay Hilbert's ironic use of the term "Orwellian"), his concerns appear to boil down to the following:

(1) Tasers aren't lethal.  In fact, they're much safer than certain equipment used in children's science experiments.

(2) In the alternative, if tasers are lethal, it is probably because the ... target ... is either (a) on drugs, (b) excited to the point of delirium, or (c) suffers from a pre-existing condition.

(3) Tasers are useful in dealing with knife-wielding druggies.

(4) There are legitimate reasons why police officers are tight-lipped about the death of Mr. Dziekanski (i.e. FOIP, privacy concerns, ongoing investigations).

Most of this is, of course, inapplicable to the killing of Mr. Dziekanski.

First, we are a long way from consensus on the lethality of tasers.  Mr. Dziekanski's death is just one instance suggesting that tasers can be, in fact, quite lethal.  And, if I'm wrong about this, why are they restricted weapons?  I presume that Mr. Hilbert doesn't seriously think that they are as harmless as he suggests.  Otherwise, there wouldn't seem to be much reason for banning their purchase at Canadian Tire or, for that matter, Toys-R-Us.  After all, if the state doesn't regulate my kids' science projects (which, he implies, can be more dangerous than a taser), then what's the harm?  I mean, trust some armchair lawyer to make a big deal about 50,000 volts, right?  Child's play, that.  (Literally).

In fact, in fairness to Mr. Hilbert, he then goes on to acknowledge several instances where tasers can be lethal.  As to the first category, it really needs to be said that there is no evidence that Mr. Dziekanski was on drugs, and in fact drug use isn't included in the litany of the RCMP's excuses.  As for "excited delirium", well, yes, I suppose Mr. Dziekanski may well have been excited (perhaps because he was about to be tasered?) but again, none of the RCMP's excuses refer to delirium.  Mr. Hilbert's third category really goes to my point:  if "pre-existing conditions" might result in fatalities, perhaps the RCMP might be a little more circumspect about using tasers - i.e. restrict them to the knife-wielding drug users with whom Mr. Hilbert claims experience (and against whom it seems reasonable to zap first, ask questions later) - rather than the confused, non-English speaking traveller who would not have been armed with anything as inherently dangerous as a knife (or a taser) since he would have passed through airport security at some point during his voyage.

I agree with Mr. Hilbert's point that investigative imperatives often require tight lips (although he might spare us the FOIP and family privacy nonsense, particularly given that Mr. Dziekanski's mother is among those trying to find out why the RCMP killed her son).  I think that the investigative reasons for official silence would be Mr. Hilbert's strongest point, but for the fact that the RCMP aren't being silent in this case.  They've actually offered up explanations.  And, as my original post showed, those explanations are at once self-serving and verging on the disingenuous.  In short, the state cannot have it both ways by (1) giving self-serving (and question-begging) explanations while (2) saying that it isn't at liberty to tell us any more about what happened. 

Mr. Hilbert is obviously anxious to defend his peers, and perhaps that's understandable.  But even after taking his arguments into account, two problems subsist.  First, the RCMP's conduct in this case belies his own arguments.  Even based on the RCMP's own account to date, they simply don't apply. Secondly, and more fundamentally, whenever someone is killed by the police - and particularly in circumstances in which the police must have known that they had a monopoly on inherently dangerous weapons - it is important in a free society that the official account meet some threshold of transparency and credibility.  I don't deny Mr. Hilbert's entitlement to become frustrated and to respond with the epithets that he has used, but it doesn't detract from the importance that some of us attach to this principle, even if he doesn't. 

By the way, an eyewitness actually video-recorded the tasering.  Despite RCMP assurances when his video was seized that it would be voluntarily returned to him, it was not (at least not until he called a press conference).  (Hmmm ... maybe it's something to do with FOIP?)   The Vancouver Sun is reporting today that it will be released tomorrow. 

Comments

[John Kerry Debate Student]

Don't scathe me bro!

[Brock]

Here's a good video of how tasers can hurt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyvrqcxNIFs

In the video is a UCLA student who is tasered repeatedly during a late night at a campus library. He didn't provide ID upon request to security officers. His name is Mostafa Tabatabainejad (you do the math). Granted, he probably told them to scram, but um....two officers and one student...and a taser gun? Did it really need to get to that?

The officers taser him repeatedly to get him to stand up (you can hear the verbal commands in this vid). Interesting logic.

I wonder what would happen if I lost my OneCard and I was asked something similar in the law library by campus 5-0 during exam time?...and my name was Mostafa Tabatabainejad...or Brock Cardinal (mom's maiden name).

Racial issues aside, the taser is creating a buzz across Canada because simply put...people are dying. I assume the regular tort issues of causation are thrown into this mix too to add to the debate for either side (re: drugs, pre-existing conditions, etc.).

Also, side note: an older relative of mine who was a long-time member of the RCMP does not think so highly of tasers so I don't think it's fair to say that all persons engaged in law enforcement have itchy taser-trigger-fingers. It would seem they're quick to defend their brothers-in-arms..er...volts.

I'm interested to see if the footage released from YVR is similar to our friend Mostafa's situation at UCLA.

[Russ Brown]

That is a disturbing bit of video. No apparent threat posed to police officers. No reference to a weapon. And yet - zap.

I am looking forward (with a kind of grim anticipation) to seeing the video of the tasering of Mr. Dziekanski, if only to better assess/understand the RCMP's account of events. The witness's own description of events (see http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=2d6e49b5-f637-4d39-a414-d5cb00833010&k=91863 ) suggests that the RCMP statements to date are (ahem) less than accurate.

I get (and agree with) your point, Brock, about the racial undertones to the use of tasers. Of course, tasers are peanuts compared to some of the more odious stuff like Saskatoon "starlight tours" - see http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/aboriginals/starlighttours.html

[Clay Hilbert]

Hello Dr. Brown:

I would like to start by saying that my comments in no way reflect the policies and procedures of the U of A Campus Security Department. These views are entirely my own and were not written in my capacity as a Peace Officer with this Department. I wrote my response on Mrs. Hutchinson's Blog because she is my friend and I was attempting to provide her with another view point as we have had conversations prior to this on balance in media stories and I found your comments a shade one-sided. While I apologise for my vehemence I stand by my content.

I would like to correct "Orwellian" to "Wellsian" (I mistook my authors). I meant to refer to H.G. Wells' use of the media to invoke fear in the public of course referring to the comment Mrs. Hutchinson made that she felt nauseous after reading your account of the events at the Vancouver Airport.

I would also like to clarify the segment where I transition from Taser use to pre-existing conditions or other potential causes of death. Your statement that I offer examples where tasers become lethal is not what I intend. I do not want to link the two as I believe they are mutually exclusive. The Tasers are not what cause the person to die, the other factors do. I pointed out the fact that 50000 volts is not a lethal dose of electricity. I do not think it trivial though and of course I don't think that tasers should be sold at toys 'r' us. They are restricted weapons because of their effects of immobilizing people and if they were widely available the potential for misuse is obvious.

I also disagree with your rationale that a non-knife wielding person = non-threat. People seem to think that a person that is not armed with a traditional weapon (knife or gun) is not a threat to police or security, the public or themselves. A person can use almost anything as a weapon and in this case there is eye witness evidence that he had smashed a pane of glass, threw a computer monitor, and was flipping tables and chairs (all potentially dangerous weapons). Also a delusional person (as it seems Mr. Dziekanski was at the time of the incident) can exhibit extraordinary strength (I can give you numerous first hand accounts). It does not bode well to engage these individuals hand to hand and the Taser is a tool proven to end altercations quickly, effectively and safely. This is good for the officers and the subject as they are not caught in a long drawn out fight in which both parties could sustain extensive damage. In a case of excited delirium there is research to suggest that there is two possible positive outcomes:
1. The person is talked down from their excited state. In this case unfortunately this was not a possibility due to the language barrier.
2. The subject is taken down quickly either by multiple officers or a taser and receives medical attention as soon as possible. Excited Delerium patients essentially die from an adrenaline overdose. This is an oversimplification of the condition but there is research to support that a person in this state can die regardless of the type of force used to take custody of them.

I was referring to FOIP because it is my understanding that medical history which can perhaps shed light on a potential cause of death would not be readily available to the public or media. Perhaps I am mistaken in this.

Your point that this investigation needs to be transparent is valid. I have heard a call lately for agencies to be investigated by another source when they are involved incidents such as in custody deaths. This would be a positive move that would lead to the transparency required in these situations.
I may be a bit more idealistic than you in that I have confidence that a proper investigation will be conducted. I believe that the police will be watched very closely on this and they are held accountable by the government the courts and of course the public.

I look forward to future dialogue on this subject.

[Russ Brown]

Mr. Hilbert,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I think there is more common ground here than either of us might have initially thought. That said, let me focus on our outstanding areas of disagreement.

(1) It is not realistic to say that when a person with, say, a pre-existing heart problem, is tasered, it is the heart problem that killed the person, not the taser. Nor does the law support that position, as a civil matter, at least. The law asks in these circumstances: "but for the tasering, would this person have died?" The answer, of course, is (on a balance of probabilities) no. Therefore, the tasering would be found to be the cause of death. Had Mr. Dziekanski not been tasered, he would be alive. This does not necessarily mean he shouldn't have been tasered (more about that below), but to say that the tasering is distinct from the cause of death is to ignore the fact that it triggered it. It's kind of like saying that the death of someone with a thin skull who was hit on the head with a baseball bat wasn't the strike on the head, but rather the thin skull.

(2) I didn't mean to suggest that a non-knife wielding person poses no threat. What I said is that he would have had no inherently dangerous weapon because he had passed through airport security. He could still, I agree, have what you describe as potentially dangerous seapons. In those circumstances, I accept that tasering MIGHT be justified. It depends on a lot of things - what degree of risk is posed by the person and their weapon, allowing of course for the rough on-the-spot good faith judgment of officers. Moreover, I would hope that that judgment, even where exercised in a split second (and thus naturally imperfect) would account for the possibility that this person is in an agitated state and thus is vulnerable, as you point out, to dying from being tasered.

The difficulty in this case seems to be that, at the time of tasering, Mr. Dziekanski was not posing any threat. See - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071114.BCTASER14/TPStory/National

Hence the title of the original post - casual taser use. It seems from this case (and this is just one of many identified by Amnesty International) that no weapon at all - inherently dangerous or otherwise - was being wielded by Mr. Dziekanski at the time he was tasered.

And this goes to the third point, although I don't think it is one where you and I disagree.

(3) It is not the RCMP's place to be offering up self-serving explanations for what happened. We are fortunate in this case to have an eyewitness who is able to contradict the official version of events. I don't wish to be taken as suggesting that tasering is never warranted. But I think supporters of retaining tasers would be trying to distance themselves from the RCMP's conduct in this case.

[Brock]

Alright, last comment from me for regarding this topic (I swear Prof. Brown).

CBC.ca has posted 10 mins of footage from the YVR Taser Incident on their website. It's horrible to watch. At the same time I am glad Mr. Pritchard captured this on camera with some remarkable clarity to provide a different source of information rather than being reliant on non-civilian and civilian testimony (I seem to recall a lecture from Prof. Penney on the “truthiness” of witness testimony...basically, it’s not as reliable as one would think).

http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/bc/ondemand/video/YVRTASERVIDEO.wmv

In the footage it looked like Mr. Dziekanski was trying to get some attention from someone in authority (as other people on various news outlets have commented on). I can only assume this was why he was trying to barricade the doors...to keep them open and wait for a reaction. He had access to an interpreter while in the CBSA's jurisdiction (within YVR...which apparently is a no-go zone for airport security), so why was there no help offered outside of the CBSA's zone? 30% of international flights arrive after the volunteer booth's closing hours (where Mr. Dziekanski would have been able to access an interpreter...this was information on the news last night). YVR needs to do "something" to prevent a situation like this from happening again in regards to providing assistance to late-night arrivals. Just a suggestion. Perhaps could have saved Mr. Dziekanski’s life. Hindsight is 20-20.

Oh yeah, he also had the smell of alcohol on his breath. This is cause for some alarm ‘cause I’m sure the alcohol didn’t help with his agitated state. I have at least two pints of beer (or a glass of wine...I do not suggest the red-wine-vinegar offered onboard WestJet flights) before taking any flight because I have a massive fear of flying. And guess what, so do a lot of other air travelers (I see them at Montana's in the Edmonton International Airport too). Perhaps he had the same fear. Who knows.

Final note. A spokesperson for the RCMP is saying the footage is, "one small piece of evidence that is going to be presented in a big investigation." Hmm. I haven't taken evidence yet, but I assume the footage shot by Mr. Pritchard will play a large role in this investigation. Way to play that one down RCMP. Here's the link to those comments:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071113/airport_taser_071114/20071114?hub=TopStories

Mr. Dziekanski is dead. Mrs. Cisowski has lost her son. The members of the RCMP involved in this incident are probably feeling a mixed bag of emotions and are likely nervous about what’s going to happen to them and their careers.

Recommendations need to be made and implemented. Sooner rather than later would be preferable.

[Russ Brown]

I must say that Ms. Hutchison's instinct (to be nauseous) when she merely read about the incident was probably about right. Having seen the video, I'm a bit queazy.

I will think about this a little more and probably post on it in the next day or so. In the meantime, I have five observations:

(1) Mr. Dziekanski was not, at the time of the tasering, posing a threat to anyone. In fact, he seems resigned to having to bring an end to his tantrum.

(2) While I appreciate Mr. Hilbert's comment that non-inherently dangerous weapons can be dangerous, at his worst this man was not posing a threat of death or serious injury to anyone. (And if I'm wrong, we'd better arm bar bouncers with tasers, because this is pretty innocent when compared to the antics of Friday evening rowdies on Whyte Ave.).

(3) this video demonstrates that the RCMP's description of his conduct at the time of tasering is simply not tenable. Moreover, the RCMP's own conduct - to attempt to withhold this video after assuring its creator that it would be released - and then to downplay it by describing what is probably the most important single piece of evidence in this case as "small" - is unworthy of credit.

(4) This incident just happened to be filmed. What does it tell us about self-serving exculpatory accounts offered by the RCMP in other instances when they kill someone in more clandestine circumstances? (I have in mind the recent case of Ian Bush - see http://ualbertalaw.typepad.com/faculty/2007/10/more-on-dziekan.html )

(5) If this is a typical tasering incident, then I think our use of tasers has in fact become (as the title of the post suggets) casual. Specifically, we've gone far past the point of using tasers as an alternative to shooting someone. Unless, of course, the only alternative to tasering someone throwing chairs is to shoot him (even after he has stopped).

[Ryan Owens]

Mr. Brown, How is law enforcement supposed to respond to individuals who will not comply with their orders? Is the Taser a better choice, less harmfull, than other options?

[Russ Brown]

Well, it depends on the "order" (and, needless to say - or perhaps you need to have it said - it also depends on that "other options" you have in mind).

If the order is to "put down your weapon", then fine: a taser is obviously a sensible choice to deal with someone who isn't obeying. If the order is "sign this ticket", then a taser is obviously an unreasonable option.

And, of course, if there is no order - if the police just storm in and taser some Polish guy who looks ... well ... tall ... or something ... well, then, maybe I'll ask you to offer up some (to use your words) "less harmful options". (Hint: it shouldn't be very tough to come up with a few.)

Am I missing your point?