Tasering of Eleven Year Old Warranted

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 03:45 AM

It is easy to jump to conclusions and in many instances, regardless of what is said, an opinion is formed that can’t be swayed.

Opinion250, in breaking the latest information about the case of the 11year old being tasered, has put the issue into a much clearer light.

That is the case of the 11 year old boy who was tasered by a police officer, as we now learn, to prevent the young boy from doing harm to himself.

That can be labelled as one of the prime reasons why a taser should be employed, in this case it made just plain good sense.

Preventing someone from injuring themselves, perhaps even doing serious harm to themselves, is always a concern to police officers who show up at a scene. In many instances officers are drawn into an assisted suicide without realizing they were taken in.

While the investigation should go on to ensure that the officers in question are cleared of any wrong doing, at the same time the story released by Opinion250 in an” Exclusive” to its readers goes a long way to explaining to the public the "why" behind the events of that Thursday night nearly two weeks ago.

From the beginning it was hard to believe that a police officer would taser an 11 year old without some consideration of the age and size of the person on the receiving end of the jolt.

Trying to possibly save a very young boy, who at the time was undergoing some very serious issues on his own, was, in my world, a very good call.

I'm Meisner, and that's One Man's Opinion

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2011 03:45 AM in Views by Ben Meisner

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: lmorge on April 20 2011 11:01 AM

Usually the simplest answer to explain the whys of this event, is correct.

Posted by: bohemian on April 20 2011 1:50 PM

If it's so simple, why didn't they interview the officer in question during the first phase of their investigation? Not even a brief interview?

Posted by: NoSeverance on April 20 2011 6:18 PM

Because they didn't need to interview him.
He was doing his job. The kid was going to try and harm himself. This isn't about the tasering at all. It's about an 11 yr old who stabbed someone who was in government care or uncare if that's what you want to call it. This whole story is way bigger than the kid getting tasered.

Posted by: jales4 on April 20 2011 9:16 PM

No problem if it turns out the tasering was justified - but once again, police investigating police has failed.

Why hasn't the officer been interviewed? How can they have reached a decision that the tasering was justified without hearing all evidence?

Why are the RCMP investigating the officer's training, and the condidtion of the taser used?

Again - how would this scenario played out if RCMP were not involved?

Sure, you can say that the RCMP are trying to preserve their reputations..... but I will answer you with - just like they did when they lied during the Bush shooting, and the shooting in Vanderhoof, and the Diezinski tasering.

How can we believe that what they say happened, really happened?

If what they say happened, really did - then this was justified..... but is it what really happened?

Posted by: my2bits on April 20 2011 10:16 PM

I think this is a hard one to call. If he was indeed suicidal, how can tasering be considered to save a life, when it has caused death in other instances?

Posted by: BCRacer on April 21 2011 9:02 AM

I would think better to be tazered than shot... and of course the press are crucifying the police and will continue to do so, why? I think because people with some power have convinced them that to so so is in their best interest...who would these people be? people who want to start their own police force in BC without competion from the RCMP...my thought

Posted by: interceptor on April 21 2011 9:09 AM

Jales4 says "Why hasn't the officer been interviewed?"
Then he says "How can we believe that what they say happened, really happened?"

You cant have it both ways - you are complaining that the officer wasnt interviewed and then saying you wouldnt believe him anyway... Maybe thats why he wasnt interviewed - they conducted the investigation without any "slant" from the person at the bottom of the dog pile. In the end the people who think it was justified still do and the cop bashers will still not believe the story. Same ole same ole

Posted by: lmorge on April 21 2011 10:07 AM

Hello people wake up: This is Meisner's commentary on information he has received from whatever source, whether it is correct or not.

The police dept. doing the investigation has to look at it from arms length so it will be impartial. The west van police chief is fairly new, having retired as the officer in charge at coquitlam rcmp detachment so you can bake up some theories there..heh heh.

I get a kick out of you Jales4. Who else do you expect has the expertise to investigate? A bunch of civilians who have probably never stuck their heads out from underneath a book and claim to be experts? hahaha.

As for the member giving a statement, his report is on the database and they can use that. Butterworth Carr ordered a criminal investigation (so supportive of her members) so under canadian law, this member has the right NOT to say squat to any investigators. Under the rcmp act he can be ordered to give a statement but if it goes that way, it can't be used in any criminal, civil or administrative proceedings against him. And before you all go off half cocked about that, just think if it was you in the hot seat..you'd exercise your rights too.

However, its my opinion that he will provide a structured written statement to investigators after conferring with his legal counsel and SRR representatives but the main crux of this issue is that he has the right to do so, like any canadian citizen does.

You all are talking like the investigation is over....the report from west van is not even on paper yet.