You must identify yourself to the satisfaction of the police with arrest or detention.
Just so I understand, if you are detained or arrested then you must identify yourself to the satisfaction of the officer? That may mean they seize your wallet and look at the ID? Of course, they have to have a reasonable reason to detain/arrest and refusal to provide ID is not one of them?
That does make sense to me as the detention/arrest instigates other rights.
My point is it appears that some posters seem to gain some sort of perverse sense of satisfaction from negative stories about the police, I guess to be fair this also occurs in the media as well.
Do you actually think it's a due to a perverse sense of satisfaction, or is it more likely that it's a perceived sense of wide-scale injustice?
Quote:
When a thread was started to speak about positive experiences, it only took till post #14 for someone to take a negative slant.
I actually think this is pretty sad.
I think that's just an internet thing. People like to slag anything they can.
Quote:
I have dealt with police in other nations, first world, second world and third world. The police that populate our streets are light years ahead of those in some other parts of the world.
I kind of would hope that the standards we set for our police officers are higher than just being better than the corrupt forces in economically disadvantaged countries. I'm interested in how Canadian police officers measure up to Canadian standards. It's completely irrelevant how they compare to other countries. Our health care system is much better than many other countries, that doesn't make it above reproach or criticism.
I will agree that it's probably a little unfair to lump Canadian police and American police together, but it gets tiring when we see completely inexcusable actions perpetrated by American police defended by some of their Canadian counterparts on this board.
There are a number of things the various police forces in Canada could do to restore their image and credibility, but instead of getting out in front and being proactive, they resort to defensive and stand-offish tactics, and then wonder why the public reacts in the manner they do.
Do you actually think it's a due to a perverse sense of satisfaction, or is it more likely that it's a perceived sense of wide-scale injustice?
Sadly, I do think it is a perverse sense of statisfaction.
There was one that jumped to my in the Ferguson shooting thread. I believe it was Driveway(?) that posted his derogatory opinion of police. I look for it, and can't find it, perhaps it has been removed.
Quote:
I think that's just an internet thing. People like to slag anything they can.
No it is a dick head thing.
Quote:
I kind of would hope that the standards we set for our police officers are higher than just being better than the corrupt forces in economically disadvantaged countries. I'm interested in how Canadian police officers measure up to Canadian standards. It's completely irrelevant how they compare to other countries. Our health care system is much better than many other countries, that doesn't make it above reproach or criticism.
I will agree that it's probably a little unfair to lump Canadian police and American police together, but it gets tiring when we see completely inexcusable actions perpetrated by American police defended by some of their Canadian counterparts on this board.
There are a number of things the various police forces in Canada could do to restore their image and credibility, but instead of getting out in front and being proactive, they resort to defensive and stand-offish tactics, and then wonder why the public reacts in the manner they do.
I agree, we need to hold our police to a high standard. Which I think more often than not, they attain.
Is there a significant void between the police and the general populace in Canada?
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
I agree, we need to hold our police to a high standard. Which I think more often than not, they attain.
Is there a significant void between the police and the general populace in Canada?
Probably depends a lot on the region people live in, age, race, gender, etc. I know in BC both the Victoria and Vancouver PD are not held in very high-esteem by most of the public, something they've earned through years of being overly-aggressive, and somehow incompetent at the same time.
EDIT: I'd also argue that the RCMP's negative reputation amongst the various First Nations bands is probably well-earned, too.
Probably depends a lot on the region people live in, age, race, gender, etc. I know in BC both the Victoria and Vancouver PD are not held in very high-esteem by most of the public, something they've earned through years of being overly-aggressive, and somehow incompetent at the same time.
EDIT: I'd also argue that the RCMP's negative reputation amongst the various First Nations bands is probably well-earned, too.
Yup, Victoria police do not have a good track record. That is for sure.
Correct, and you and Oling made it clear that rather than cooperate with an officer who has given a reason that may be to keep the public safe or to find a missing person you would refuse because it is your Charter right. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, my opinion is that makes you a pretty crappy person.
Police officers are not and should not be absolute authorities, which is why these charter rights exist. The government and the citizens of Canada believe it is important to protect yourself from the apprehension aspect of the justice system until such a time as you are able to defend yourself through the court system.
The entire notion that you and wookie are going off of here is that if a police officer asks you for identification, they automatically, without question, have substantive, logical reasons for doing so. That they are beyond reproach, infallible and incapable of making an error in judgement. By their very decree, asking for identification is warranted simply because they are police officers.
Sorry, but that's bogus.
This is so patently false the charter protects you from these overzealous applications of 'justice' in a multitude of ways.
The entire notion that you and wookie are going off of here is that if a police officer asks you for identification, they automatically, without question, have substantive, logical reasons for doing so. That they are beyond reproach, infallible and incapable of making an error in judgement. By their very decree, asking for identification is warranted simply because they are police officers.
I think there's two points that need to be highlighted. A large portion of the identification comes down to the officer's belief that there is reason you need to be identified. Your walking down the street, cop pulls up, and says you match the description of a robbery suspect. Are you going to give your ID, even if you weren't the offender in the robbery? The officer has belief that you match the description, however you have done nothing wrong. I don't think either of those posters are saying they are "beyond reproach, infallible and incapable of making an error in judgement" as you described.
Secondly, I think people (not necessarily you in particular, but the general public) severely underestimate the powers police legally have to ask for your ID. Any infraction, from municipal bylaw to criminal offense, requires you to identify yourself. Driving in a vehicle, you may be pulled over for to simply ensure compliance with insurance, license, registration, sobriety. Flick that cigarette butt to the ground? That's an offense as per the municipal bylaw and your required to show your ID. Spit in public? Also a bylaw. There are so many bylaws/provincial acts/criminal charges on the books that a cop can identify you for thousands (?) of infractions beyond just the belief part that I talked about before.
I get that people hate/dislike/question/critique the cops and CP has this incredibly cyclical nature to it in these threads. I know that no one is going to be able to change your opinion and obviously vice versa. However, its worth noting, that speaking locally, CPS has some of the highest approval ratings in Canada and North America from the public. These surveys are conducted by a third party company and are unbiased. I believe the past 10 years they have been > 90%. CPS has been incredibly pro-active in the community whether it be online through social media, through school groups with now having officers assigned to pretty much every school from elementary to high school. CPS are regularly in various community fairs and meetings, diverse groups, and other things. People have this opinion that all cops do is sit in an office 24/7 and wait for stuff to happen. That's not true at all and just because individuals don't see this, doesn't mean it isn't happening.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jar_e For This Useful Post:
I think there's two points that need to be highlighted. A large portion of the identification comes down to the officer's belief that there is reason you need to be identified. Your walking down the street, cop pulls up, and says you match the description of a robbery suspect. Are you going to give your ID, even if you weren't the offender in the robbery? The officer has belief that you match the description, however you have done nothing wrong. I don't think either of those posters are saying they are "beyond reproach, infallible and incapable of making an error in judgement" as you described.
Secondly, I think people (not necessarily you in particular, but the general public) severely underestimate the powers police legally have to ask for your ID. Any infraction, from municipal bylaw to criminal offense, requires you to identify yourself. Driving in a vehicle, you may be pulled over for to simply ensure compliance with insurance, license, registration, sobriety. Flick that cigarette butt to the ground? That's an offense as per the municipal bylaw and your required to show your ID. Spit in public? Also a bylaw. There are so many bylaws/provincial acts/criminal charges on the books that a cop can identify you for thousands (?) of infractions beyond just the belief part that I talked about before.
I get that people hate/dislike/question/critique the cops and CP has this incredibly cyclical nature to it in these threads. I know that no one is going to be able to change your opinion and obviously vice versa. However, its worth noting, that speaking locally, CPS has some of the highest approval ratings in Canada and North America from the public. These surveys are conducted by a third party company and are unbiased. I believe the past 10 years they have been > 90%. CPS has been incredibly pro-active in the community whether it be online through social media, through school groups with now having officers assigned to pretty much every school from elementary to high school. CPS are regularly in various community fairs and meetings, diverse groups, and other things. People have this opinion that all cops do is sit in an office 24/7 and wait for stuff to happen. That's not true at all and just because individuals don't see this, doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Thanks for the response.
Maybe it's just because the police departments I deal with the most are some of the worst, VPD, Seattle PD. I've never had anything but positive experiences with Calgary PD.
It's not the officers in question, it's the expectation of compulsive compliance with directives from strangers because they have a badge on. It's taking offense to using my charter rights to protect myself. The attitude is visible in this thread from a self-described officer.
I don't think dissentowner is a bad dude or a dirty cop or whatever, but calling someone a crappy person because they exercise their rights and freedoms is an alarming position for a police officer to take publicly, considering they are charged with an authority to preserve those rights and freedoms and up hold them for others.
That it's a pervasive attitude amongst police officers, local and federal, is disconcerting to say the least.
The "Django Unchained" actress who claimed she was harassed and hurt by cops after making out with her boyfriend was actually having sex in her car according to witnesses ... then went on a rant with cops accusing them of racism and not knowing who she was ... according to police audio obtained by TMZ.
Daniele Watts had just left CBS studios in the San Fernando Valley around 2 PM Thursday. She says she was making out with her BF, but we've learned witnesses from the nearby Art Directors Guild office building told cops they were watching her and her BF have full-on sex in the passenger seat WITH THE DOOR OPEN!
The eyewitnesses said the guy was sitting in the seat, she was straddling him and it was for everyone to see. One eyewitness told cops they cleaned themselves up afterward with a tissue.
There's police audio with the interaction of Watts and her husband available through the link. So before we jump on the racist, presumptuous, cops are wrong angle, lets consider the facts as a whole as they become available.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to jar_e For This Useful Post:
Maybe it's just because the police departments I deal with the most are some of the worst, VPD, Seattle PD. I've never had anything but positive experiences with Calgary PD.
It's not the officers in question, it's the expectation of compulsive compliance with directives from strangers because they have a badge on. It's taking offense to using my charter rights to protect myself. The attitude is visible in this thread from a self-described officer.
I don't think dissentowner is a bad dude or a dirty cop or whatever, but calling someone a crappy person because they exercise their rights and freedoms is an alarming position for a police officer to take publicly, considering they are charged with an authority to preserve those rights and freedoms and up hold them for others.
That it's a pervasive attitude amongst police officers, local and federal, is disconcerting to say the least.
I can't speak in regards to other agencies simply cause I am uninformed when it comes to both of them other than what I see in the media about them. However, that being said, after growing up in BC, the media's take on police seems to be vastly different than what it is here. So like the link I just posted regarding the Watts matter, the media should never be the end-all when it comes to forming an opinion. Obviously personal incidents and anecdotes would trump that.
There's police audio with the interaction of Watts and her husband available through the link. So before we jump on the racist, presumptuous, cops are wrong angle, lets consider the facts as a whole as they become available.
There's police audio with the interaction of Watts and her husband available through the link. So before we jump on the racist, presumptuous, cops are wrong angle, lets consider the facts as a whole as they become available.
I still do kind of wonder if the cops would've been called had they both been white, but yeah, this definitely explains things a bit more.
Police officers are not and should not be absolute authorities, which is why these charter rights exist. The government and the citizens of Canada believe it is important to protect yourself from the apprehension aspect of the justice system until such a time as you are able to defend yourself through the court system.
The entire notion that you and wookie are going off of here is that if a police officer asks you for identification, they automatically, without question, have substantive, logical reasons for doing so. That they are beyond reproach, infallible and incapable of making an error in judgement. By their very decree, asking for identification is warranted simply because they are police officers.
Sorry, but that's bogus.
This is so patently false the charter protects you from these overzealous applications of 'justice' in a multitude of ways.
Absolutely not. At no time did I say they were infallible or incapable of an error in judgement. It happens all the time in fact.
What I said was that if you are provided an explanation as to why a request to identify yourself was made, refusing to do so simply won't help the situation because you believe you have done nothing wrong.
In fact, I even said that there is recourse if you believe your charter rights were violated. I went on to say however that discussing this violation at the roadside or wherever your interaction occurs simply isn't the time and place.
It's obvious that we are at the opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of our view of police. From reading your posts, your of the view that police need to be challenged and questioned because, simply put, they are prone to errors in judgement and abuse their authority. I would assume you base that opinion on a combination of media stories and the fact that you have some sort of business relationship with VPD, etc.
I don't think your view will ever change. The real unfortunate thing is all police interaction by persons with that attitude would be tainted from the start. That biased opinion would present itself and change the dynamics of the encounter immediately thus perpetuating that anti-cop attitude.
The Following User Says Thank You to For This Useful Post:
To be fair to Wookie, his assumption in this discussion has been that the officer has a valid reason to request ID from someone. As soon as dissentowner's position was made clearer Wookie was pretty quick to dismiss it.
The Following User Says Thank You to V For This Useful Post:
I still do kind of wonder if the cops would've been called had they both been white, but yeah, this definitely explains things a bit more.
The answer is most likely no. But then that is the problem with the caller, not the cops.
I hope that cameras become standard issue for cops. I think a lot of police brutality cases would suddenly become police appreciation cases for the scumbags that they have to deal with.
Not that it would really change people's mind. Highly doubt even with this much evidence, the people that have been ranting and hating on cops for the last 6 pages would change their mind even about this one specific case, much less take away the notion that cops are somehow always out to get you and violate all your rights.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Regorium For This Useful Post:
The answer is most likely no. But then that is the problem with the caller, not the cops.
I hope that cameras become standard issue for cops. I think a lot of police brutality cases would suddenly become police appreciation cases for the scumbags that they have to deal with.
Not that it would really change people's mind. Highly doubt even with this much evidence, the people that have been ranting and hating on cops for the last 6 pages would change their mind even about this one specific case, much less take away the notion that cops are somehow always out to get you and violate all your rights.
For the record I am totally in favour of officers carrying cameras on their person.
Just released footage of a SC State Trooper shooting an unarmed man.
The victim was already outside of his vehicle when approached by the trooper. He was asked to produce his license, and when he reached back into his vehicle to grab his license, he was shot.
The trooper has been fired. He was then arrested and charged with assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature.
Quote:
Department of Public Safety Director Leroy Smith fired Groubert September 19th after observing the video and reviewing a report from the State Law Enforcement Division.
A warrant states that audio and visual recordings, as well as written statements, indicate the shooting was without justification.
In dismissing Groubert, Smith called the facts of the case "disturbing."
Just released footage of a SC State Trooper shooting an unarmed man.
Wow. What a lunatic. And a crack shot to boot! Hopefully that fool goes to prison.
The googles tell me that to become a SC State Trooper, you need a high school diploma (or GED) and driving record that doesn't include any boozy/druggy convictions in the last five years. They start at ~27 grand a year, which is like what, 13 bucks an hour?
Now this isn't meant to be a shot at people who have a GED (or don't make a lot of money), but if you are going to be trusted with that kind of power, and a gun, the qualifications should be a lot more stringent than that.
Because there's little sound, it makes it hard to tell when and how often the police shot Crawford. But the footage shows definitively that Crawford wasn't brandishing the toy gun when he was shot — and that he dropped it, ran, and came back before he died.
The video, which tracks Crawford as he made his way throughout the store, first shows him walking around while talking on his cell phone and picking up the toy gun from the sporting goods aisle. The video then shows Crawford standing calmly at the end of an aisle, holding the toy gun — pointed at the floor — in his right hand. Occasionally, he swings the gun gently back and forth, but there's no point at which the gun's pointed at anything — let alone at any person.
