Last week the long aftermath to the tasering and death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver airport in 2007 saw an acquittal in the first of four perjury charges against the police involved. The judge commented that the famous video of the incident “may not hold the full story.” Maybe not, but when the video emerged a month afterwards it sure told a lot more than anyone had gotten from the initial police reports.
Also last week the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) held two Edmonton police officers were justified in shooting a bank robber dead in 2012. The robber, who had previous firearms offence convictions, drew a handgun when police arrived. He did not drop it when ordered to do so. Police opened fire. ASIRT’s track record is for generally upholding police conduct; on this occasion they certainly got it right. When someone draws a gun in response to police arriving, the officers should not have to allow the person a chance to use it.
In a fresh incident last week, a knife-wielding individual on a Toronto streetcar was gunned with nine police bullets. That’s only one less than an army firing squad execution, allowing for the two traditional blank rounds. He was then tasered in the bargain. Video recording is available in the Toronto case, and I don’t have difficulty hearing the “not the full story” mantra. A basic explanation for the differing decisions of judges in boxing matches is that, positioned on three different sides of the ring, they see three different fights.
As a practising lawyer I handled cases involving crimes of violence, including murder. I was struck by the considerable time spent scrutinizing actions in a timeframe of minutes, even seconds. Where a claim of self-defence is advanced, it is common to hear the prosecutor cross-examine by putting to the accused a series of alternative responses to which the accused could have resorted. In my address to the jury I would point out that it is all very well to weigh things in the calm, deliberate atmosphere of the courtroom where one is not pressed to come up with a response. It is entirely different when one does not have time to deliberate, and must act immediately or perhaps suffer severe consequences. Police decisions to open fire should be accorded the same consideration.
But there is another issue. Police nowadays are taught to fire repeatedly in order to make sure their use of a firearm is effective. As was noted in the Second World War, sub-machineguns have a higher impact because of an increased shock effect from the fast repetitive nature of their hits. Better police training may be needed on making the decision to open fire. It certainly is as to the need for repeated firing, and for zapping a bullet-stopped person with a taser, since either of these aspects enhances the prospect of death.
Writer David Haas is a long term St. Albert resident.
