Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion - Page 43

Nutterbug · #**841** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 8:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by zivan56

Passive resistance is not to be responded with deadly force. Only active resistance with the person intending to harm the officer is a justified situation.

So according to you, the RCMP killing Robert Dziekanski is justified? People that think like that make me sick...

They didn't have to keep frying him for 10 minutes straight (or however long it was). Just a quick jolt, or whatever little is needed to stun and subdue the subject is all that should be used.

Anyways, do not attempt to flee or fight the officer if they're trying to issue you a ticket or place you under arrest, and you should not have any problem. If they zap you anyways, then yes, there is a problem.

Nutterbug · #**842** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 8:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

If the officer feels they are in danger, they can use force. People running and screaming can be pretty unpredictable. I say it was justified.

Much of the screaming and violent twitching could have been in reaction to getting tased.

With five(?) guys around him, they could have restrained the guy without using any more jolts. They seemed intent on testing their new toy though.

Nutterbug · #**843** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 8:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by zivan56

So if I go with that logic, private police forces are allowed? So ICBC for example, could have it's own police that it controls itself?

If the government passes legislation authorizing it, yes.

WarrenC12 · #**844** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 9:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

Much of the screaming and violent twitching could have been in reaction to getting tased.

With five(?) guys around him, they could have restrained the guy without using any more jolts. They seemed intent on testing their new toy though.

What you say is possible, but its not part of the report linked in this thread. He was yelling and refusing to let go of the railing. The officers warned him to stop "resisting arrest". Those should be magic words that get you to comply.

I would assume there were 2 officers, as they are rarely seen alone (although the other one could have been dealing with somebody else across the station). But five? I doubt it.

zivan56 · #**845** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 9:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

If the officer feels they are in danger, they can use force. People running and screaming can be pretty unpredictable. I say it was justified. You also have to bear in mind this was 2, of what, thousands of cases? Its the exception that proves the rule.

Regarding the airport RCMP, I'm sorry, did they unload 12 rounds into him? No, they tasered him. Its a terrible tragedy that he died, but it's a problem with tasers and their suggested application, not the use of force in general. If you think they were trying to kill him, you are a bigger idiot than I already thought, and that's saying something.

There were like 5 of them against an unarmed person! How the 🞵🞵🞵🞵 is that justified? He never even touched a single one of them.
They probably didn't care if he died or not, they are just pigs after all. I personally believe they all need to be killed in the same way that guy was, to prevent others from being a "hero" next time. Now if he attacked them, then I might have seen *some* justification. However, with 5 officers there, there is not way he could have done anything to them.

zivan56 · #**846** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 9:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

They didn't have to keep frying him for 10 minutes straight (or however long it was). Just a quick jolt, or whatever little is needed to stun and subdue the subject is all that should be used.

Anyways, do not attempt to flee or fight the officer if they're trying to issue you a ticket or place you under arrest, and you should not have any problem. If they zap you anyways, then yes, there is a problem.

Bottom line is, they shouldn't have done anything except point a 🞵🞵🞵 at him and he would have put his hands up. They could have just showed him handcuffs and he would have probably surrendered.

Fleeing and fighting are completely different. They are allowed to defend themselves, not attack first.

WarrenC12 · #**847** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 9:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by zivan56

There were like 5 of them against an unarmed person! How the 🞵🞵🞵🞵 is that justified? He never even touched a single one of them.
They probably didn't care if he died or not, they are just pigs after all. I personally believe they all need to be killed in the same way that guy was, to prevent others from being a "hero" next time. Now if he attacked them, then I might have seen *some* justification. However, with 5 officers there, there is not way he could have done anything to them.

As I said, the problem is with the usage guidelines of the taser. Its not supposed to kill people, obviously. What if they tackled him and snapped his neck by accident? You'd be saying the same thing.

Threatened them, not directly. If I come over to your house, start throwing your furniture through a window, would you be threatened?

The fact that you call them pigs and that they deserve to die proves you aren't worth anyone's time.

zivan56 · #**848** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 9:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

If the government passes legislation authorizing it, yes.

Well they can also pass a law forcing all "unpure" people to be exterminated. Your point being?

WarrenC12 · #**849** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 9:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by zivan56

Bottom line is, they shouldn't have done anything except point a 🞵🞵🞵 at him and he would have put his hands up. They could have just showed him handcuffs and he would have probably surrendered.

Fleeing and fighting are completely different. They are allowed to defend themselves, not attack first.

Again, pointing loaded weapons at anyone in a crowded public place is an extremely bad idea. If you had any knowledge of firearms you'd know this.

Yes, I'm sure some yelling idiot who's already been told to stop resisting arrest will calm right down when you wave handcuffs at him.

zivan56 · #**850** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 9:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Again, pointing loaded weapons at anyone in a crowded public place is an extremely bad idea. If you had any knowledge of firearms you'd know this.

Yes, I'm sure some yelling idiot who's already been told to stop resisting arrest will calm right down when you wave handcuffs at him.

Well good news for you is there is videotape of the incident, which clearly shows no public nearby and walls to 3 sides. I believe officers are trained to use firearms and not fire it accidentally. If you go by that logic, they shouldn't hold it in their holsters, as they might shoot themselves

Where exactly was he told this? There is audio in the video, and he didn't even speak english and tried to ask them for help!

Nutterbug · #**851** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 9:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by zivan56

Bottom line is, they shouldn't have done anything except point a 🞵🞵🞵 at him and he would have put his hands up. They could have just showed him handcuffs and he would have probably surrendered.

Pointing a 🞵🞵🞵 at somebody means you're ready and willing to pull the trigger at a split-second notice. Are you really okay with that, over the much less lethal taser?

Quote:

Originally Posted by zivan56

Fleeing and fighting are completely different. They are allowed to defend themselves, not attack first.

So everybody should just flee when confronted by a police officer.

WarrenC12 · #**852** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 9:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by zivan56

Well good news for you is there is videotape of the incident, which clearly shows no public nearby and walls to 3 sides. I believe officers are trained to use firearms and not fire it accidentally. If you go by that logic, they shouldn't hold it in their holsters, as they might shoot themselves

Where exactly was he told this? There is audio in the video, and he didn't even speak english and tried to ask them for help!

Your ignorance speaks for itself.

I have not seen a video, I'm basing my analysis on the article posted in this thread.

Nutterbug · #**853** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 9:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by zivan56

Well they can also pass a law forcing all "unpure" people to be exterminated. Your point being?

All authority and law enforcement is equivalent to naziism.

zivan56 · #**854** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 9:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

As I said, the problem is with the usage guidelines of the taser. Its not supposed to kill people, obviously. What if they tackled him and snapped his neck by accident? You'd be saying the same thing.

Threatened them, not directly. If I come over to your house, start throwing your furniture through a window, would you be threatened?

The fact that you call them pigs and that they deserve to die proves you aren't worth anyone's time.

That is called breaking and entering, and is a COMPLETELY different situation.
They didn't need to do anything except point a 🞵🞵🞵 or show handcuffs...it's pretty international.

Well those guys are pigs and do in fact deserve to die. Murder is murder. The fact that you don't see this means I shouldn't be wasting my time with your pro-"take it up the 🞵🞵🞵 with a smile" stance.

zivan56 · #**855** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 9:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

All authority and law enforcement is equivalent to naziism.

Well you said it, I just gave an example

zivan56 · #**856** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 9:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Your ignorance speaks for itself.

I have not seen a video, I'm basing my analysis on the article posted in this thread.

No more bs facts left?

I see you are only talking here to argue, and nothing more

Go watch the video, then talk.

WarrenC12 · #**857** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 9:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by zivan56

That is called breaking and entering, and is a COMPLETELY different situation.
They didn't need to do anything except point a 🞵🞵🞵 or show handcuffs...it's pretty international.

Well those guys are pigs and do in fact deserve to die. Murder is murder. The fact that you don't see this means I shouldn't be wasting my time with your pro-"take it up the 🞵🞵🞵 with a smile" stance.

You'd think 5 uniformed officers approaching you and urging calm is international, but I guess not.

Murder is intentional. When a human being kills another under any circumstance, its called homicide.

WarrenC12 · #**858** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 9:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by zivan56

No more bs facts left?

I see you are only talking here to argue, and nothing more

Go watch the video, then talk.

I searched youtube and only found a news report with excerpts from the same article. Feel free to provide a link.

I have plenty to argue about your asinine views without any reference to actual events. Your opinions are so off the wall its easy.

Nutterbug · #**859** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 9:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by zivan56

That is called breaking and entering, and is a COMPLETELY different situation.

So what is so bad about breaking and entering if it's not about being somewhere you're not supposed to be (ie. trespassing)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by zivan56

Well those guys are pigs and do in fact deserve to die. Murder is murder.

If intentional, it's murder. If not, it's at worst manslaughter.

So you're for capital punishment?

zivan56 · #**860** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 9:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I searched youtube and only found a news report with excerpts from the same article. Feel free to provide a link.

I have plenty to argue about your asinine views without any reference to actual events. Your opinions are so off the wall its easy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr4-dld1zWc