Peel police tasering of 80-year-old woman

[Ekiqa]

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/09 ... woman.html

SIU investigates Peel police tasering of 80-year-old woman
A Peel Regional Police officer is under investigation by Ontario’s Special Investigation’s Unit after allegedly tasering an 80-year-old woman.

A day after the Ontario government announced it would permit all frontline officers to wield stun guns, an 80-year-old Mississauga woman was sent to the hospital with a fractured hip after she was allegedly tasered by Peel Regional Police.

The Special Investigation’s Unit, the province’s police watchdog, is looking into the incident.

At around 3:30 a.m. on Aug. 28, police were called to Thomas St. and Erin Mills Pkwy responding to reports of a woman walking along the road.

Three officers spoke with the woman on scene. According to the SIU, the woman was hit with a stun gun by one of the officers and fell to the ground. She was rushed to Credit Valley Hospital and treated for a fractured hip as well as other injuries.

The incident happened a day after the Ontario government announced that all frontline officers would be permitted to carry stun guns. The decision came in the wake of the death of 18-year-old Sammy Yatim, who was shot eight times and then tasered during a confrontation with Toronto police.

The Ontario government says the changes have been in the works for months and denies they were prompted by Yatim’s death.

Both the Toronto police and Ontario’s ombudsman André Marin have launched probes into the Yatim shooting, which will examine how police use force when dealing with emotionally disturbed people.

Police chiefs in Ontario have long argued that Tasers provide an effective non-lethal alternative to firearms. Until now, only frontline supervisors and tactical officers have been allowed to carry Tasers.

Opponents however contend that Tasers are often used irresponsibly, pointing to the 2007 death of Robert Dziekanski, a Polish man who died after being hit five times by a Taser by the RCMP at Vancouver International Airport.

According to Michael Federico, Toronto’s deputy police chief, Tasers were used more than 270 times in the city last year.

The SIU investigates incidents involving police that result in death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault.

I have to question the need to taser an 80 year old woman, who then has her hip fractured. How dangerous can she have been?
Plus, this comes just weeks after police tasered a man after he had been shot 8 times.

[Zaune]

That said, if he hadn't had a taser he might have decided to use his sidearm.

[Kitsune]

Damn whippersnapper cops. . .I will throw my cane at you

[Agent Fisher]

There is a huge amount of info missing. No idea what her status was, if she was agressive or not, stuff like that.

That being said, having just sat through a taser recert course, one of the slides from the Taser made powerpoint says to avoid tasering the elderly if possible.

[Korto]

Unless she was armed (which is possible), arguing you tasered an 80 year old woman because she was "aggressive" is pathetic. She could be mad as a meat axe, she's still an 80 year old woman with fragile bones against an adult in something like their prime.

It could be that she was hit by accident, of course, which is a more acceptable matter (although still raises questions).

[Lagmonster]

Leaving aside that only a retarded person would declare an otherwise mobile person to be zero threat just because they're old (I'll also point out that suffering a fracture from an unchecked fall doesn't mean she was physically weak), I think that regardless of how MUCH damage they can do to themselves or others, if an elderly person is violent there may not be a hell of a lot you can do to subdue them without hurting them.

Arguably, a 100kg man in body armour tackling her to the pavement could have done more damage to her bones and joints than she suffered by accident from the fall. I don't know very much about the tech itself, but surely it can't be unthinkable that an electric stun was the least violent option, and that the hip breaking was an unfortunate accident.

[Knife]

Indeed. I work with the geriatric population, and the notion that 'just because their old that they are feeble and automatically not a threat' is silly. There is always that one patient that you have to have special instructions with nurses and CNA's because someone came out of their with bruises or bit marks.

[PainRack]

Shouldn't there be a guideline on when tasers are contraindicated?

I remember hearing that tasers were prohibited to be used on kids due to safety concerns and we have similar safety guidelines for the use of AED(not above 65 and not a child, sorry, can't remember the specific number at the moment)

[TheFeniX]

There's a couple of points that aren't being discussed. The woman, while frail, was armed with a "bread-knife." Now, unless were talking about something different, bread knives are sharp and serrated, but can't be used to stab. However, officers shouldn't be required to use physical force against anyone armed (or unarmed) and risk injury to themselves or the suspect, when there are other options available.

I have to wonder if they would have been better off just waiting the old lady out, but there's no further information on the circumstances. That's been my only issue with tasers being issued: it seems to be a preemptive tool used to end any disagreement with police. Beforehand, you'd have to negotiate or wait out a combative suspect or risk injury/death with a firearm or physical force.

Now if someone doesn't do exactly what you want them to do, tasers seem to be an effective way to end any and all problems with only a few deaths here and there.

That said, the lady had no excuse living alone, aside from money being an issue:

Angela said her mother has been a widow living on her own for 12 years and was diagnosed three years ago with dementia — for which she stopped taking medication a year ago.

The elderly woman is on a waiting list for long-term-care nursing homes. In the meantime, she was managing with help from her two adult children, who would do chores and care for her, Angela said.

After receiving a call from police at 3:30 a.m., she raced to her mother's Mississauga house. Police told her that her mother, whose first language is Italian, wouldn't "relinquish" a knife she was holding, and an officer Tasered her.

Coming out with a broken hip at her age is pretty much a win.

[Meest]

What other alternatives are there for a non-lethal takedown, pepperspray or mace her? People would still complain if they went back to the good ol' baton or nightstick. Though I do think a ranged taser does make police lazy in terms of close in encounters, why physically handle someone if they can just taser them down and barely have to touch them. Outside of the safety issues I really think they do it because they don't want to deal with physically having to get close to people, there's keeping yourself safe then there's avoiding doing your job.

[TheFeniX]

Netguns? Mwahaha!

But I have to wonder why police couldn't just wait the old lady out and only react if she tries to enter private property or lunges at an officer. There's seems to be this idea of "do something now" WRT police work, even when maybe just taking a few steps back to slow things down would be a better bet.

I enjoyed reading this pdf on the topic:

Salt Lake City Chief Chris Burbank:
Cases of Simple Noncompliance are Difficult We run into problems when dealing with persons who simply refuse to comply with a police officer’s order. The situations in which an officer uses force because someone charged at him, struck him, or attacked him are relatively rare. Most of those cases are not the problematic ones in terms of excessive force. Our problems come with the simple noncompliance incidents. I don’t think that pepper spray or a Taser is the proper response to noncompliance. There have got to be other skills that we teach our officers, some other avenue, before they make that jump.

Talking to someone doesn't results in injuries or lawsuits (well, mostly). If there's 3 officers on scene, you have more than enough backup to intervene (in whatever way) if things go south suddenly. Obviously, a single officer is going to need to be much more cautious doing this, but there's no reason to force a confrontation if the potential harm is low.

[Simon_Jester]

What other alternatives are there for a non-lethal takedown, pepperspray or mace her? People would still complain if they went back to the good ol' baton or nightstick. Though I do think a ranged taser does make police lazy in terms of close in encounters, why physically handle someone if they can just taser them down and barely have to touch them. Outside of the safety issues I really think they do it because they don't want to deal with physically having to get close to people, there's keeping yourself safe then there's avoiding doing your job.

Getting close to people is unsafe, because you never know if they'll manage to trip you up and bounce your head off the floor. Very few people have jobs that revolve around voluntarily getting into unarmed combat with hostile strangers. Sure it's less dangerous than picking fights with guys who have knives, but it's not safe.

Netguns? Mwahaha!

But I have to wonder why police couldn't just wait the old lady out and only react if she tries to enter private property or lunges at an officer. There's seems to be this idea of "do something now" WRT police work, even when maybe just taking a few steps back to slow things down would be a better bet.

The potential for standoffs does have some problems.

For one, ultimately the officer will have to use force, sooner or later, if the person they're dealing with does not comply. There's really no way around it, if you want a functioning police force, you can't have random people just walking away from them and ignoring them. While a little patience, being willing to back up five paces and repeat a command like "put down the knife" would disarm some situations, it might be a disastrously bad idea in others, and training police to default to that attitude has to be done carefully.

Part of the reason that we should monitor police conduct so closely is that we do not accept the idea that private citizens are allowed to choose on their own initiative to ignore the police or resist them.

[TheFeniX]

For one, ultimately the officer will have to use force, sooner or later, if the person they're dealing with does not comply. There's really no way around it, if you want a functioning police force, you can't have random people just walking away from them and ignoring them. While a little patience, being willing to back up five paces and repeat a command like "put down the knife" would disarm some situations, it might be a disastrously bad idea in others, and training police to default to that attitude has to be done carefully.

Training police to default to doing what they can to calm a situation down is a bad thing? From my previous link:

New York City Deputy Commissioner
James O’Keefe: Focus on Tactics to Buy Officers Time in a Crisis
We are talking about the importance of being able to make split-second decisions. But what we need to talk about more are the tactical decisions we could make to buy us more time. Sometimes we won’t have to make split-second decisions if we make better decisions before that point.

Cambridge, MA Commissioner Robert Haas:
Tactical Disengagement is an Essential Tool
Traditionally, we haven’t trained our officers to walk away from a situation. We haven’t trained them to think, “If I make a decision to walk away and nothing happens, I’ve resolved the situation.” We have spent a lot of time talking about this idea inside our department. Today, our officers are trained to think about finding a way of disengaging from a situation and not escalating it. This goes back to what Chuck Ramsey was talking about in terms of how easy it is to ramp things up, but much harder to bring them back down. We need to be thoughtful about how officers can de-escalate a situation to get it to a peaceful resolution.

I think the concept of “tactical disengagement” is working remarkably well for us. It initially caused a bit of consternation in the department, but we generally find that when the officer is thoughtful about a situation, it slows things down. The officer can then assess whether nothing will happen if he or she walks away, and whether the situation may be resolved that way. We need to train our officers to understand that calming a situation down and getting out of it can often be better than winding up with an arrest.

We're not talking about cops letting an armed robber go because otherwise they'd have to shoot him or just ignoring a deranged woman stumbling off into the darkness. But saying "whelp, she had a knife" or "old people can still be dangerous" isn't an excuse for the use of force. I'm not talking about Demolition Man levels of "OR! ELSE!" I'm talking about doing everything an officer can to buy him/herself as much time as possible to get as much information as possible before acting. Who knows, maybe that's what happened in the case of the OP and the taser was the best solution to the problem.

Obviously, "I got out of my cruiser and the suspect pulled a gun on me" is a situation that can't apply to. But we talked about a story here a while back where an agitated older man wouldn't let police into his apartment and he ended up dead. There was no imminent threat and, even though the police had cause to enter, the situation could have been resolved if they had just walked away and mailed him a bill/fine.

[Kamakazie Sith]

agitated older man wouldn't let police into his apartment and he ended up dead. There was no imminent threat and, even though the police had cause to enter, the situation could have been resolved if they had just walked away and mailed him a bill/fine.

Actually, in that situation the police thought someone else was inside his apartment and possibly in danger.

"Public Safety Commissioner David Chong said the department received a call about a person in distress from Lifeline, an emergency medical alert system, at 5:08 a.m. Saturday. Officers heard screams and incoherent voices behind the 135 S. Lexington Ave. first floor apartment and attempted to negotiate with the occupant. The man refused to open the metal apartment door, said Chong, forcing police to work on prying it open.

“In fear of people being trapped inside the apartment or somebody inside the apartment harming themselves, the officers immediately called for backup and attempted to breach the apartment door,” said Chong."

[TheFeniX]

Yea well, when you get caught on audiotape using racial slurs, you have to CYA one way or another. But entry aside, they helped whatever non-existent person inside by shooting the resident because he attacked them with a knife. Except, you know, for the fact that the medical examiner didn't agree:

The Chamberlain family's position was bolstered with the release of a 14-page autopsy report from the Westchester Medical Examiner's Office. Dr. Kunjlata Ashar prepared the report. In it, he wrote, "The path of the bullet through Mr. Chamberlain's arm and into his lungs tells me that his arm had to be by his side and not raised in a motion consistent with trying to stab someone."

I'll reiterate: the cops should have walked the fuck away or at least withdrawn and had a family member (those people they told to fuck off when they volunteered to help) coerce him to open the door. Whatever their made-up reasons after the fact were, they didn't help a single person and merely terrorized a community and set public relations back even further by covering their asses.

But hey, gotta giterdun. Walking away makes cops look like whimps. Killing retired veterans? That's tough mans work.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Yea well, when you get caught on audiotape using racial slurs, you have to CYA one way or another.

Perhaps. It certainly does damage their credibility.

But entry aside, they helped whatever non-existent person inside by shooting the resident because he attacked them with a knife. Except, you know, for the fact that the medical examiner didn't agree:

The Chamberlain family's position was bolstered with the release of a 14-page autopsy report from the Westchester Medical Examiner's Office. Dr. Kunjlata Ashar prepared the report. In it, he wrote, "The path of the bullet through Mr. Chamberlain's arm and into his lungs tells me that his arm had to be by his side and not raised in a motion consistent with trying to stab someone."

Your source has misquoted the Medical Examiner. That statement was made by the family attorney and not the medical examiner. The claim "Dr. Kunjlata Ashar prepared the report. In it, he wrote "The path of the bullet through Mr. Chamberlain's arm and into his lungs tells me that his arm had to be by his side and not raised in a motion consistent with trying to stab someone." that quote does not appear in the actual medical examiners report

Here's a different source which properly quotes the person who made that statement "McLaughlin told the Journal News that the autopsy report shows that “the path of the bullet through Mr. Chamberlain’s arm and into his lungs tells me that his arm had to be by his side and not raised in a motion consistent with trying to stab someone.”

Regardless Chamberlain could have lowered his arm at the moment the round was fired due to the bean bag deployment and kept coming at them with a knife. The knife doesn't have to be raised in a stabbing position for lethal force to be justified. Possession, proximity, and movement towards them is more than enough.

I'll reiterate: the cops should have walked the fuck away or at least withdrawn and had a family member (those people they told to fuck off when they volunteered to help) coerce him to open the door. Whatever their made-up reasons after the fact were, they didn't help a single person and merely terrorized a community and set public relations back even further by covering their asses.

That would not be an option if they actually did have a reasonable belief that Chamberlain was going to hurt himself or another person.

[Simon_Jester]

For one, ultimately the officer will have to use force, sooner or later, if the person they're dealing with does not comply. There's really no way around it, if you want a functioning police force, you can't have random people just walking away from them and ignoring them. While a little patience, being willing to back up five paces and repeat a command like "put down the knife" would disarm some situations, it might be a disastrously bad idea in others, and training police to default to that attitude has to be done carefully.

Training police to default to doing what they can to calm a situation down is a bad thing?

Teaching officers that it is sometimes good to walk away, or at least back up a bit, is a GOOD thing. I do think this is one area where the adversarial relationship between many police departments and the parts of the populace they spend most of their time policing can hurt them.

However, there are a lot of cases where we do not want policemen to back up, and I honestly have no idea how to reliably draw that line.

There is probably someone out there who could devise such a training program, I'm in favor of it, if it's executed competently. I guess my brain just flashed to all the ways it could backfire.

[Examples elided because I don't want to be THAT much of a naysayer]

I mean, I remember the thread about the old man who got killed when the police stormed his apartment over some nonsense, too. You're right, I just... eh. Like I said, my brain flashed to the backfire part of it.

[Mr. Coffee]

I have to question the need to taser an 80 year old woman, who then has her hip fractured. How dangerous can she have been?

Just like what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, we also don't talk about it when Grandma hits the scotch.

Just sayin'.

[Forgothrax]

The woman had dementia. If she was badly confused as a result of that, calming her down would be quite difficult without intervention from family and friends that she might remember, or pharmaceuticals. Depending on how severe her case was, trying to reason with her could have been an exercise in futility, and if she was threatening passers-by, I can see why the officer might have reacted as he did.

I've spent the last two years working with dementia patients. They might be frail elderly people... but nobody's told them that. In a moment of agitation, some of my patients were stronger than I-- and I'm a reasonably fit guy in his 20s.

[TheFeniX]

Here's a different source which properly quotes the person who made that statement "McLaughlin told the Journal News that the autopsy report shows that “the path of the bullet through Mr. Chamberlain’s arm and into his lungs tells me that his arm had to be by his side and not raised in a motion consistent with trying to stab someone.”

Wrong guy, same quote.

Regardless Chamberlain could have lowered his arm at the moment the round was fired due to the bean bag deployment and kept coming at them with a knife. The knife doesn't have to be raised in a stabbing position for lethal force to be justified. Possession, proximity, and movement towards them is more than enough.

I know the law behind weapons and self-defense. And I'll give you that your version is possible. I'll also give you that, if the officer's version of events is true, then kudos to them for escalating the situation to the point where deadly force was justified.

That would not be an option if they actually did have a reasonable belief that Chamberlain was going to hurt himself or another person.

A reasonable belief if they ignored the Lifeaid operator and friends and family who offered to diffuse the situation. If your solution to "man with heart problem may hurt himself" is "beat on his door, verbally harass him, then break down the door and taser him" your thought process is shit and you should probably walk away before you kill someone.

The "someone else was there" line is bullshit. I can't see any reason for the cops bringing it up besides CYA. Shit like that is why cops who claim "probable cause" and turn out to be wrong (esp WRT people's homes) need to be spanked. Like us normals are.

However, there are a lot of cases where we do not want policemen to back up, and I honestly have no idea how to reliably draw that line.

I don't disagree with you. But it's not such a line as it is a mentality where cops need to think about how much benefit would be had when letting someone get away for the time being or at least mill about while other options are considered vs the mentality of escalating the situation to force a solution. And doing everything possible to keep a situation from escalating doesn't mean you have to let the suspect go.

[Kamakazie Sith]

]Wrong guy, same quote.

Yup but the quote loses its value tremendously.

I know the law behind weapons and self-defense. And I'll give you that your version is possible. I'll also give you that, if the officer's version of events is true, then kudos to them for escalating the situation to the point where deadly force was justified.

A reasonable belief if they ignored the Lifeaid operator and friends and family who offered to diffuse the situation. If your solution to "man with heart problem may hurt himself" is "beat on his door, verbally harass him, then break down the door and taser him" your thought process is shit and you should probably walk away before you kill someone.

Now we're getting somewhere. Every police department I am aware of has a specific but relatively similar policy for dealing with a barricaded man or hostage situation. They involving containment and negotiation. Not forced entry at least until all avenues have been exhausted and not by regular patrol officers but by a tactical team with access to many other tools to bring about a non-death resolution. Even if the police were absolutely right about there being hostage in there their way of handling it was absolutely rash and it goes to your point about not rushing in and ending the situation.

However, instead of focusing on the demonstrable fuck up the family attorney, his family, and the media itself are focusing on conclusions they believe are made by the medical examiners report and that Chamberlain wasn't a threat. Others focus on the credibility of the officers stories saying well I don't believe them and they are only saying that to CYA instead of just walking away.

The "someone else was there" line is bullshit. I can't see any reason for the cops bringing it up besides CYA. Shit like that is why cops who claim "probable cause" and turn out to be wrong (esp WRT people's homes) need to be spanked. Like us normals are.

It may be bullshit, I think that's a possibility. However, it's also completely irrelevant.