RCMP use Taser on disabled veteran

[Dizzy1]

A criminologist is not a cop either, and also isn't a subject matter expert in use of force.

How is that? Because he has a differing view than yourself? I'm pretty sure a criminologist has a pretty good understanding of police matters.

[Dizzy1]

whats it going take ? a baby being tazered ?

Baby should have complied.

[FreeRights]

How is that? Because he has a differing view than yourself? I'm pretty sure a criminologist has a pretty good understanding of police matters.

No, it really has nothing to do with him being a criminologist. Most are actually very educational and I learn a lot from their vocation.

My issue isn't that he formed an opinion that disagrees with mine. My issue is that he doesn't explain how, within the police use of force model, it isn't justified.

I provided my viewpoint on the matter using applicable policies, and he didn't.

[Dizzy1]

deleted

[Dizzy1]

I provided my viewpoint on the matter using applicable policies, and he didn't.

Your applicable policies seem to be the issue he made a point of addressing.

[FreeRights]

Your applicable policies seem to be the issue he made a point of addressing.

I'm not arguing that their use of force model is correct. I think that actual police that have to apply it on a daily basis are better judges than you, me, or him on that subject.

My point is that based on the existing model, it's very likely that it's justified.

[Dizzy1]

I'm not arguing that their use of force model is correct.

Sure you are - you've questioned his viewpoint and tried to pass it off as him not backing up his view.

I think that actual police that have to apply it on a daily basis are better judges than you, me, or him on that subject.

You and me for sure. The criminologist, we don't know that.

My point is that based on the existing model, it's very likely that it's justified.

In which I disagreed.

[FreeRights]

And that's fair enough.

I'm not at all a blind police supporter; there have definitely been some unlawful actions committed of late. No denying that.

There should also be scrutiny on their actions. I agree with this too.

But with this specific example, what exactly is unjustified? I understand the Taser use is what you have an issue with, however based on their use of force framework, what should they have done instead?

[maryjane48]

called in a mental health expert

[FreeRights]

called in a mental health expert

I also definitely agree that mental health experts are absolutely more qualified to deal with the mentally ill, there are often tons of opportunities for them to address these situations before police do. Do you not think that they have not dealt with this individual? Once the police do become involved, it's not reasonable for them to stand idle and wait for a mental health expert to deal with it.

[maryjane48]

why not ? i can think of atleast 4 other people that might be alive if that was policy . there are crisis interventionists in most cities and large towns

[FreeRights]

why not ? i can think of atleast 4 other people that might be alive if that was policy . there are crisis interventionists in most cities and large towns

So what would you recommend that police do? Respond to a police call, determine that the individual has some psychological issues, and call in a mental health expert? On the absolute rare case, it may work if the subject is not posing a particular threat to the general public or to attending police. At it stands now, we don't have people on call to attend to police calls

[Dizzy1]

So what would you recommend that police do? Respond to a police call, determine that the individual has some psychological issues, and call in a mental health expert? On the absolute rare case, it may work if the subject is not posing a particular threat to the general public or to attending police. At it stands now, we don't have people on call to attend to police calls

This is the way I see it. They were already called there once before that evening. We don't know why or what happened but its safe to assume that not much happened otherwise they wouldn't have had to go there a second time, they would have dealt with it the first time. They must have been aware that he had some sort of mental health concerns, if not by citing that he's under arrest under the Involuntary Psychiatric Act alone but by the previous interaction with him.

He did swing at them when they stormed the door, but he was on the ground for a minute and a half after that before they zapped him. The constant yelling at the suspect simply escalated the situation. There were three officers present with one guy on the ground. There was no danger (that we could see) to themselves nor the public - they had time to diffuse the situation in a more civil manner.

I agree with the criminologist in the article I posted - the officers in this country need more and better training in diffusing situations like that.

[lesliepaul]

FreeRights.......you keep bringing up their "use of force framework".........did you ever think that that in itself may be flawed? How old is this "use of force framework". Just because the police no doubt came up with it does not mean that it could not be improved upon. We have all read about the police investigating themselves.........how has that turned out? To Protect and to Serve was the police motto all over North America and that was meant for all of us. Little did we know that motto is becoming "To Protect and Serve" themselves MORE.

[FreeRights]

FreeRights.......you keep bringing up their "use of force framework".........did you ever think that that in itself may be flawed? How old is this "use of force framework". Just because the police no doubt came up with it does not mean that it could not be improved upon. We have all read about the police investigating themselves.........how has that turned out? To Protect and to Serve was the police motto all over North America and that was meant for all of us. Little did we know that motto is becoming "To Protect and Serve" themselves MORE.

I'd be happy if experts in the application of force in law enforcement duties reviewed the framework. The model currently in use wasn't created by "cops," it was put together by such use of force experts already.

What I absolutely would not be in support for is civilians or others who do not actually use force in law enforcement duties to be responsible for a new framework.

Is there room for improvement? There may well be. I do like the model as it is now, but I'm not arguing here that it's right, I'm arguing that the police in the video followed their training and did not respond contrary to their training.