“Weird local news item this morning (May 26th): a bear wandered into the Northhills shopping centre last night, smashed a plate-glass window at a clothing store and went inside. I’m not sure what it thought it would find in there. Anyway, the Ministry of Environment dispatched their death squad and killed the poor beast. Their excuse was that they: ‘couldn’t use the tranquilizer gun because the bear was inside the store’??? Apparently blowing the unfortunate creature’s blood and brains all over the merchandise is ok, but drugging it so it can be safely removed is bad for business??

I’m coming to think the “Authorities” have quietly published a handbook of excuses for enforcement agencies to use whenever they employ violence against man or animal. Lately that seems to be every time they encounter either.

You may have heard that a week or two ago the RCMP tasered that 82-year-old heart patient in the Kamloops hospital? A local police spokesman assured the media the Officers “had no choice”. One begins to wonder how far this will go? Well, let’s try a couple of possible scenarios.

Example one: a baby in a stroller sits outside a phone booth while its mother calls for a taxi. A policeman sees the unattended stroller and child. The thought crosses his mind that this may in fact be a baby suicide-bomber. He swiftly tasers the child three times (it ignores his repeated orders to stop screaming) and, because the woman in the phone booth seems to display hostile behaviour toward his actions and could be the suicide-child’s accomplice, he empties his 9 mm Glock into her. Later, as his superiors hold a press conference to praise his quick response to a perceived public safety threat, he tells reporters he regrets the error, but felt at the time he “had no choice”.

Example two: a boy is out walking his dog. The dog falls into an abandoned well. The boy calls the fire department. They come, assess the situation and decide to send a man down on a rope to rescue the dog. However, since the boy can’t produce a written record of a rabies shot for his pet, an Animal Control Officer is called. To ensure the dog will not attack his rescuer, the Officer drops two fragmentation grenades down the well. Though the dog is killed, it can now be safely removed and whatever parts can be recovered, returned to the boy.

Animal Control management defends the Officer’s actions, saying it was necessary to use fragmentation grenades because ‘tranquilizer darts contain drugs and an environmental assessment would have to be made before they could be released where they might contaminate the water table’. Authorities and editorialists laud the quick-thinking Officer’s decision.

Ok. That all sounds deeply crazy, but hey. If someone had suggested even a year ago that three armed policemen in Kevlar vests would storm a hospital room, electrocute a delusional octogenarian recovering from heart surgery, and then announce to the media that they “had no choice”, what would your reaction have been?”

Where I come from, “tazer parties” is where you get drunk and take turns shocking each other with low-voltage tazers.

Totally what I thought I was going to see when I first clicked that headline.

The RCMP here were impatient, and acted improperly.

Without comment.
Where I come from, “tazer parties” is where you get drunk and take turns shocking each other with low-voltage tazers.