Quote:
Originally Posted by fatso
BentWookie, it's ok to disagree without being a smug nubbin about it.
On point: things do get a little more interesting... especially since no one was advocating the big elbow smash to the face in lieu of getting tased.
Coachella was in the U.S., but I'll play along with the Criminal Code. In a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice - R. v. Magiksan (2003), 19 C.R. (6th) 330 - the judge said the following about s. 26:
I take the decision to be saying a few things.
First, police have the right to restrain lawbreakers.
Second, and however, that right is restrained in a number of important ways:
(a) that force must be proportional and reasonable - i.e. must not be out of whack with the offence they are trying to prosecute.
(b) and, contrary to what you were saying earlier, police are in fact encouraged to use their discretion in assessing the appropriate force. Discretion, imo, is crucial and is what makes most police excellent and great at their job.
(c) and, last, the exercise of police force in such instances may be subject to scrutiny. Doesn't mean it will be punished, but it must be explained. Police cannot do what they like simply because you've broken the law (as suggested by another poster).
I don't think anyone really feels too bad for Wizard-dink. I think those of us questioning the tasing are wondering if it was really the most reasonable and proportional response to the situation. Maybe it's sanctioned by their operating manual... I have no idea. But it's certainly a right to be question their actions, even if they end up being justified.
|
Not sure how you got I was being smug (and I would respond to Nubbin but I have no idea what that means) from a post on the interweb, but whatever you want to think is fine with me. I was simply giving another perspective. And the comment about the elbow smash is an obviously (poor) attempt at humour.
As far as the decision goes, it's not exactly recent and I will try to find some more recent decisions if you care. Fact remains, the trier of fact, needs to make the decision whether force was excessive and yes, all that is taken into account- and must be taken into account by police. Exemplifies my point perfectly. However, I believe what you are getting at is the if the arrest is for something minor, the use of force must be proportional to that. So, in this case nudity or an indecent act is a relatively minor offense and thus police must temper there use of force. Definitely true. But once you start resisting arrest, I would suggest you enter into a different area of offenses of force.
P.S. Fatso is a smug nubbin.