Anyone with even iota of intelligence knows that an airport among other establishments are considered high security establishments. Financial Institutions, Parliamentary Buildings, high value museums to name a few.

Anyone with even the slightest common sense knows, there are some places where you just don't fuck around (no matter how pissed off you are). Unfortunately, common sense in not so common a commodity nowadays.

Why don't people try throwing a fit at Kim Jong Il's government building because you're pissed off. See if they greet you with anything less than a tazer. I mean, if our cops are the worst in the world, then whatever the North Korean's throw at you shouldn't be so bad.

Wow. You are so smart. How did I miss such a logical argument.

How do you know he was unarmed? I'm pretty sure everyone was pretty sure those terrorist on 9-11 were unarmed too.

Heck, what about that douch who had a bomb in his shoe post 9-11. In the end, I know better than to go to an airport and say things like "Hi" and "Jack" in sucession, and i wonder why.

I'll never walk into a bank and pretend to have a gun in my pocket.

There is always a time and place for everything, but having a temper tantrum at an airport is not.
For pete's sake, after 30 minutes, I would go ask someone to help me find out where I should be going, but alas I guess me missed the lineup when they were handing out brains and common sense.

I hope you get your ass tazered to death. Dipshit.

Good point, wow some people are just so stupidly ignorant.

why are people even trying to defend the cops here

they could have handled the situation better than storming in 10 on 1 and tase him no questions asked

that is a fucking fact and end of discussion, if you think they couldn't have handled it any better than ur a fucking idiot

They could have handled it better but that is not what happened.

Anyone that thinks that the cops "[stormed] in 10 on 1 and [tazed] him no questions asked" is a fucking idiot.

Braidwood can find Mounties guilty of misconduct in Dziekanski death: B.C. top court
 

VANCOUVER - The B.C. Supreme Court has upheld the right of a public inquiry to find four Mounties were guilty of misconduct in the Taser-related death of Robert Dziekanski.


Justice Arne Silverman said Monday the provincially ordered inquiry could hold the officers accountable even though they worked for a federal agency.


The officers had asked the court to prohibit commissioner Thomas Braidwood from making findings they said were tantamount to criminal charges of assault, obstruction of justice and perjury.


But Silverman said the Public Inquiry Act envisioned a commissioner drawing such conclusions and what mattered was procedural fairness.


He said the commission had acted not only reasonably but legally correct in dealing with the officers.

The justice rejected the officers' claim that Braidwood was treading on federal jurisdiction for the criminal law and the RCMP.


"In my view the petitioners (the Mounties) are wrong," he concluded.

Justice Silverman said the conduct of the four Mounties was vital to the inquiry's mandate to investigate the circumstances surrounding Dziekanski's death.


Braidwood plans to hear final arguments Friday and to begin writing his report by month's end on the tragedy involving the 40-year-old Polish immigrant.

If those officers believed they did the right thing and acted appropriately for the situation, then they should be confident that there won't be any rulings of misconduct...

So then why were they pulling this latest stunt?

Because they KNOW they fucked up. Plain and simple.

Way to go Supreme Court.

Not when public opinion has already been long since determined; And moreover "that" public opinion is often skewered by many factors.

This inquiry really is more of another effort to dig and dig until one finally gets to hit something, rather than being objective.

We all know he freaked out, but is that enough reason to kill someone?

Ok, lets get something straight.

The cops did not intend to fucking kill him. That is why they used a TAZER instead of pulling out their sidearm and popping a few shots off at him. They used a TAZER to retrain him and as a mean of non-lethal force.

The tazer although useful does not always act as a non-lethal force due to many variables. It is unfortunate that in this case, multiple of factors pushed the victim to die from the tazer. It could have been heart issues, the stress on the heart and a malfunction in tazer itself.

But don't go off saying the cops rushed in there like rambo and just blew the fucking brains out of Dziekanski because that was NOT the case.

Tazers are not non-lethal. They are simply LESS lethal.

What's worse is that that outcome can be completely unpredictable.

Say someone DOES have a heart condition. Why should it just be shitty luck for them if they die because they had a heart condition and they got tazed?

I say since the victim's mom only wanted justice. We should take this to court and have a fair trail but the victim's mom won't be getting any sort of compensation (as in no money will be awarded). I bet you 100% she won't be taking this to court. All she wanted is the money.

Would you rather be shot by a beretta or a glock?

Tazers were designed to stun and not to kill. It is still a better alternative to actual firearm to subdue a suspect.

How the hell can anyone come to THAT conclusion?

If MY family member was unjustly killed by the RCMPosse I'd sure as hell make sure they got any disciplinary action coming to them. No amount of money can replace a loved one.

The issue here is that they are proving themselves to NOT be better than the alternative, due to their unpredictive nature.

I'd rather be shot in the leg or arm and know that it's going to hurt but it'll probably heal, than get tazed and not know if I'm going to have a heart attack and die or not.

Tazers are like a lottery, except that you only win when you loose.

Skycops use tasers, and have used them on people for simple fare evasion. Should those fare evaders have to be put to the risk of loosing their life just because they didn't pay $3.00?

You can't be serious. Do you know how I know that you have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about? Because ANYONE who is trained to use side arms are trained to aim for the chest of the target.

The same goes with the tazer and side arm. The chest is the largest target and when hit will TAKE DOWN the target. It will neutralize the threat immediately.

Taking out your side arm and aim for the leg/arm is just fucking stupid. No one in their right mind or training would do this. If you have the chest exposed, that is what you are aiming for. Why aim at a limb that is constantly moving and shifting (not to mention extremely smaller), the chances of missing and having the bullet deflect and hit something else is HUGE.

Could you imagine the press the cops would get if that shit happened? Yeah, I'd rather get shot and heal from it. You clearly have never had to study how bullets work nor had any biology class. The bullet as it enters your body will rip and tare the shit of anything it comes in contact with. As it passes, it will burn the muscle as well. If it hits a major vein or artery, you're dead too. If it hits a bone, it explodes and acts as shrapnel that fucks more things up.

So, would you like to rethink your position?

Maybe if they use it once.

Maybe twice.

But getting tazed FIVE FUCKING TIMES (even after he was ALREADY ON THE GROUND) like Dziekanski is lethal force to me.

Up to 5 times.

But I'm so glad you made a rebuttal about your "I'd rather got shot" stance. Because that proved to be oh so clever.

Let's face the truth. The cops did not come into the situation thinking "hey, wouldn't it be funny if we killed this mofo?" Did the cops fuck up? Hell yes they did. But Dziekanski fucked up too. Hell, YVR fucked up. The blame shouldn't go solely on the RCMP. The blame should be placed all around.

It just seems stupid that they had to resort to tasering him in the first place. From watching the video it didnt look like he was going to attack the officers or anything, i really dont see how 5 trained police officers couldnt just tackle him, restrain him and cuff him

BING-FUCKING-O

You, me, and a lot of the general public think the EXACT same thing. It's pretty much the basis for this whole inquiry.

Video doesn't lie.

I feel bad for all the good cops that have to suffer the outfall of all this. There are some cops out there that think with their brains first and not with their egos or authority moustaches.

Video doesn't like, but it doesn't tell the absolute truth.

At no point in time is 5 officers charging at the guy and tacking him a good idea. What if in the struggle, one of the officer's gun's go off? What if the gun was snatched by the guy being tackled?

If you have taken any security type course, or police training, they will teach you that that is a bad idea.

Not to mention, the guy was upset before the police arrived. If they police tried to restrain him by attacking him, do you think the guy would curl up into a ball to be arrested or would he fight back? How do you know the guy was unarmed? What if he had a knife or a metal stapler?

They have these things you have to go through before you get on a plane, they're called security checks and they have these things called metal detectors...

I went to Singapore 2 weeks ago, when I was waiting at the customs hall at the Singapore Airport, a customs officer fucked up and opened a lane when not supposed to. People (visitors) including me rushed to that lane just to have the officer closed that lane again. Was I pissed? Hell yea.

The people, including me, then pondered for a while and went back to their previous lanes because they were smart enough to not do anything stupid in an airport like acting uncooperative, throwing stuff (computers) around, wielding a stolen stapler and resisting arrest.

And I am pretty sure that all my loved ones are smart enough not to do anything stupid when confronted by authorities in airports regardless of location and language barrier.

I dunno bout you but ive watched cops...and they always restrain a victim by tackling him.

The gun cannot go off because there is a safety, and when 5 officers are taking down 1 person, i don't think hed have a chance to unbutton the holster then pull the gun out.