Castanet

When you arrive in a foreign country, it is solely UP TO YOU to find your way to the visa counter (if required), present your creds to Immigration, get your luggage, get through Customs and exit to the public area. It is NOT the responsibility of airport personnel to take you by the hand. If you are compromised, as this gentleman obviously was, you attract negative attention.

How many days were the airport workers willing to have him stay in the holding area?


five?

and why would they tell his mother he wasn't in the airport when that wasn't true?

weird

That sounds like a very simple excuse. Used to protect Simple incompetent people.

What I learnt was that this should've never happened If the police officers used straightforward common sense . Instead of fearful Violence And a gang mentality. The arrogance and stupidity of the leader Monty Robertson Was proven out on another occasion.

Even though there's still people that will deny it.

zyzzx wrote:
Do I care if they lied? no.

Well I do. If they lied they have no business being cops. Mistakes happen. People are human. In this case a mistake (a series of them) resulted on a man's death.

Lying however, is not a mistake, it is a conscious effort to deceive. Any person willing to do that, in an attempt to cover up what would otherwise br a forgivable mistake, has no business being a police officer.

^^^ that sums up what we learned from the disaster.


.

Thinktank wrote:^^^ that sums up what we learned from the disaster.


.

http://www.braidwoodinquiry.ca/

Knock yourself out and see what was learned. I don't think there is pictures for you..

Ken7 wrote: I don't think there is pictures for you..

I found a picture.



I decided not to post the airport picture because it was too disturbing.

Ken7 wrote:Knock yourself out and see what was learned.

Helen Roberts, a federal government lawyer representing the RCMP, has quietly resigned from the Braidwood inquiry into the death of Robert Dziekanski. (CBC)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/200 ... taser.html

If Roberts had cried over Dziekanski mother's pain, I would be moved -- but a veteran lawyer wet-eyed over another screw-up in this case? I think they were crocodile tears.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mounties in Tasering should face prosecution
Damning e-mail suggests the four officers committed perjury and that senior officers sat silent while they did

In a press release, RCMP Commissioner William Elliott says the failure to release the evidence 'was simply an oversight.'

The Braidwood Inquiry into the Taser-related death of Robert Dziekanski has been blown up and left in ruins by the revelation a key RCMP e-mail was withheld from the commission.

After months of outrage about the conduct of the four Mounties who responded to Vancouver Airport Oct. 14, 2007, who can believe that at the last minute, a federal lawyer would produce what many would consider a smoking gun -- an e-mail saying the officers decided to use the Taser before confronting the Polish immigrant?

If true, the Nov. 5, 2007, e-mail titled "Media strategy -- release of the YVR video," from RCMP Chief Supt. Dick Bent to assistant commissioner Al McIntyre, establishes the four have been lying through their teeth.

This critical document suggests the four officers committed perjury and that senior officers sat silent while they did so. Worse, it seems there are many other documents that have not been turned over that may be relevant.

This e-mail was one of 260 documents on a CD sent by the RCMP to the justice department last April, yet the federal lawyers didn't open the CD until last week.

Last week? Evidence delivered in April didn't get opened until last week?

What?

Helen Roberts had every reason to be in tears Friday as she apologized to the public inquiry into Dziekanski's death for failing to disclose what appears to be not just germane but also startlingly important evidence.

If Roberts had cried over Dziekanski mother's pain, I would be moved -- but a veteran lawyer wet-eyed over another screw-up in this case? I think they were crocodile tears.

Commissioner William Elliott's carefully parsed press release was equally unbelievable: "This was simply an oversight. Unfortunately in an exercise of this magnitude, such an oversight can occur."

Bollocks. No one but a moron overlooks the import of an e-mail like this.

The officers deny the explosive content is true and Roberts says Bent was wrong in what he said. But their protestations ring hollow after almost 18 months of bluster and denial. So does Elliott's threadbare these-things-happen excuse.

The situation is as bad as the most virulent critics of the Mounties feared. This is no longer about four officers who made mistakes in judgment: It's about an organization that thinks it is above the law.

"I find this delay in disclosing it to the commission appalling," an upset Braidwood said. "The contents of this e-mail goes to the heart of this inquiry's work."

Exactly.

Braidwood says his inquiry will resume on Sept. 22 after commission lawyers have time to review the e-mail, conduct an investigation and perhaps call the senior Mounties to testify about the document.

I think not.

There was a time when I thought Oct. 14, 2007 was the day that would live in the annals of RCMP infamy, but June 19, 2009 has eclipsed the tragedy of Dziekanski's death.

On Friday, a country's faith in a once proud, once revered institution died.

We have left the realm of how to regulate Taser use and the circumstances of Dziekanski's death and entered the world of criminal conduct -- which is beyond Braidwood's provincially rooted authority to investigate.

If we needed any prod to reopen the decision not to prosecute these officers, we now have been given it.

It is time to thank commissioner Braidwood for his excellent work in bringing these unsettling facts to light and it's time to appoint a special prosecutor.

The B.C. Law Society should also begin an investigation into the conduct of Roberts and any other federal lawyer involved in this staggering lack of disclosure.

That was not an "oversight." It was professional incompetence or a cover-up.

http://forum.canucks.com/topic/239436-n ... nski-case/

No matter HOW foolish Mr. Dziekanski's actions were that night, he didn't deserve to die. The fact is that the police did not handle the situation well, and the findings at the subsequent inquiry bear that out.

It is my hope that we have all learned something from this sad story. The airport has hopefully reviewed it's policies and procedures to ensure that International arrivals who are unable to speak either or our official languages are better able to find help when they need it. And the police have hopefully reviewed their policies to avoid the same type of over reaction that happened in this particular case. After all, it wasn't the single use of the Taser that killed Mr. Dziekanski, but the repeated use (which did not even appear to be necessary). So hopefully, police officers have now been trained not to overuse this particular weapon in future. And finally, it is my hope that the general public, while continuing to be supportive of all our police forces, has learned not to always blindly believe every single thing that each and every officer says. Because, being human, there are always a few "bad apples in every barrel". So we need to consider each situation on its own merit, and be willing to listen to everyone involved before coming to a final conclusion.

If these kinds of changes happen, then Mr. Dziekanski's death will not have been in vain, and he may rest in peace.

I also learned how some lawyers do things:

- first they tried to discredit Dziekanski, even using the media to help them say the guy stole stuff
in Poland at age 17, and has a slight drinking problem.

- then the lawyer hid some important information, and cried crocodile tears when she was caught.

-then she quietly resigned.

- finally, when all else failed, they paid Dziekanski's mother to be quiet.
And that was the end.

I learned a lot from that court case, about how justice in the world works.

You can mock justice, and just pay your way out. And all is well.

I think a great deal has been said about the very poor police work and not near enough about how and why the customs people did nothing.Why was this fellow not given better assisstance from the customs and immigration/airport authority people??? thats what i would have like to seen addressed more fully.I feel these people are just as responsible indirectly as the cops are now

You're quite right ticat when you say that there are more people than just the police that need to learn from what happened that night.

The airport needs to review why Mrs. Dziekanski was unable to get any information about her son and was eventually told to return to Kamloops. They also need to ensure they have access to a translator in the event of an emergency (Vancouver is, after all, a very busy INTERNATIONAL airport). The customs people need to review why they did nothing when they noticed a person who could not speak either official language was failing to proceed out of the secure area. The security people also should have noticed that someone was just wandering around aimlessly and gone and investigated as to the reason why. And maybe members of the general public, other travellers who possibly noticed Mr. Dziekanski was looking a little confused, should be more willing to offer assistance to such people (or at the very least alert the authorities that the person needs help).

But, that said, the policemen involved that night are not without blame. They resorted to using the taser prematurely, before waiting to see if Mr. D would calm down on his own following their arrival. And once he was down, they used the taser again, instead of using more tried and true methods to subdue him. Obviously police procedure did not alert them to the possible harm of shooting someone multiple times with a taser, and in that sense the police procedures themselves needed review, but even without that knowledge the individual officer's actions that night were unjustifiable. What possible reason could they have for continuing to shoot a man who was already down? An action that was compounded by delaying the paramedics from providing assistance. And further compounded by not being entirely truthful during the subsequent investigation.

As I said earlier, it is my hope that all of the above "players" have taken the time to reveiw their actions that night and will change their behaviour going forward. We ALL have lessons to learn from this particular incident.

zyzzx wrote:1) I learned that people that travel to an airport where they don't know the language should remain calm, respectful and compliant to any instructions that are given. Not react in a manner by throwing a hissy fit and act out of control, by throwing furniture against a glass wall right when the police arrive. Oh.. and when four guys in bullet-proof vests and guns come in to talk to me I also learned that I should be very sure that every move I make is nothing short of standing there and not moving. Yeah, I learned that acting like Dziekanski that day would ensure at the least, there would be a problem.

2) I learned that from a single incident, public perception has shifted from considering a device that is in most cases non-lethal has now become some kind of weapon that instantly kills all of those it is used on, thus eliminating it from use. I am saddened at how dense some people are to actual statistics that show how safe this device actually is, and how much safer it makes law enforcement personel when confronting non-compliant individuals.

3) I learned that there are still those, five full years later, after many reviews, changes to usage rules, enhanced training and testing of tazers... still are trying to stand on a soap box and try to make some useless point that really has no bearing on anything.

Well done... Best thread ever! Yawn.

exactly right and put perfectly.
How dare you talk common sense here..haha

although I already know how to behave when in foreign countries.

I like to think that all the "lessons" I referred to in my post have been learned, because most of them were simple "common sense". Yet the fact that all those things went wrong that night at the airport suggests that "common sense" isn't always applied in every situation. Hence the need for the public enquiry that determined mistakes were indeed made that night.

On the one hand, I agree with those who say "this is old news" yet, on the other hand, posts by people who continue to deny that the authorities had any culpabilty for what happened that night, despite the findings of the Braidwood Inquiry, bother me. Because those who refuse to admit mistakes, and fix them, are often destined to repeat them.

I think Canadian Customs could learn a few things from the Aussies. They seem to have things pretty well organized and on the ball when dealing with all kinds of problems including travellers that cannot (or chose not to) speak english. If no agents present are able to speak some particular language, they have a network of translators instantly available by telephone.

As far as the public learning anything, the recorded events in the many episodes of this Australian Customs program suggests to me that many people just don't learn much. It's just bizzare what some people still choose to do.