I realize that I’m just a potty-mouthed, conspiracy-theorist, left wing moonbat, but something about this just sets off my Big Daddy control freak spidey senses (emphasis all mine).
The RCMP is standing by its decision to pull crucial details from reports on Taser use, saying the police force is handcuffed by federal information law.
Sgt. Sylvie Tremblay says the Mounties released "all the information that could be provided" under the Access to Information Act.
A joint investigation by The Canadian Press and CBC found the Mounties are now refusing to disclose key information that must be recorded each time officers draw their electronic weapons. As a result, Canadians know much less about who is being hit with the 50,000-volt guns - whether they were armed, why they were fired on, and whether they were injured.
I wonder why I feel that way. It couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the RCMP Commissioner, and career bureaucrat, William Elliott is rather cozy with Big Daddy? Nah, couldn’t be. But wait — it gets better.
Liberal and Bloc Quebecois MPs on a Commons committee studying Tasers have accused the RCMP of being too secretive. The Mounties say they correctly withheld information on the forms under provisions of the information law related to personal privacy and police investigations.
Information stripped from the forms includes details of several Taser cases the Mounties previously made public under the access law. Tremblay did not immediately address the question of whether the RCMP violated the information law in the past by revealing too much about Taser incidents.
A Canadian Press analysis last November of 563 cases between 2002 and 2005 found three in four suspects Tasered by the RCMP were unarmed. Several of those reports suggested a pattern of stun-gun use as a convenient means of keeping drunk or rowdy people in line, rather than to defuse major clashes.
It’s Big Daddy’s new motto ... transparency from thee but never from me.
1 comment:
Several of those reports suggested a pattern of stun-gun use as a convenient means of keeping drunk or rowdy people in line, rather than to defuse major clashes.
Disgusting. It was sold as the alternative to shooting to kill with a firearm. You can't reliably "shoot only to injure" with a firearm, you may not actually stop the person, so police are trained to shoot in the chest, i.e. to kill.
The taser does reliably incapacitate, and was sold as the humane alternative to killing a berserk individual, when overpowering by the usual strong arms and billy clubs, or isolating the person from harming others would be obviously ineffective.
Now, instead of a humane alternative to shooting someone dead, it is the convenient alternative to the buggy whip for crowd control. Wasn't pepper spray supposed to do that?
Post a Comment