Calgary Cops caught using excessive force?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by MBates

It is commonplace for video and audio and GPS evidence to inexplicably disappear. Surprisingly it seems to happen on cases where the accused is saying he or she was mistreated by the police. It is just like a low budget movie only it is real.

The CPS and other police forces get the benefit of charges being withdrawn before the truth comes out in court. Even if the truth comes out in court, the number of times the media are actually there to cover it are very few and far between.

Originally Posted by MBates

This is plainly not true. All police internal discipline matters are not public record. If you know as much as you claim to know about these things then you must know any internal discipline matter can be declared closed to the public by the Chief. Furthermore, numerous police internal discipline matters are dismissed by the Chief of Police without any hearing at all.

And while lawyers and the Crown (I assume you mean defence lawyers and the Crown lawyers) are undoubtedly the reason these things take forever in some cases, it is just false to suggest that accused officers and professional standards or ASIRT investigators (all active police, seconded police or retired police officers) are not sometimes the ones who drag things out for whatever reasons they may wish to do so.

Wait, aren't you a Calgary lawyer? These two posts seem pretty damning. Are you saying it isn't uncommon for police recordings to go "missing" or not work when they are accused of inappropriate behavior?

I mean I thanked 4X4's post that you quoted because I literally thought of corny TV dramas when someone mentioned video and recordings "going missing" could actually be a thing in Calgary.

[underGRADFlame]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Also this:

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...n-a-year-later

From your article...

He’s alleged to have swung a pipe and injuring the officer who pulled the trigger, though more than a year later he has yet to have any charges laid against him.

He’s not willing to speak about what happened in the alley at this point, just that it shouldn’t have happened — he shouldn’t have gone down there.

“Bad day,” he said.

“In all likelihood, the police investigation into the actions and the situation leading up to the shooting, although it is wrapping up, they would likely leave that until the ASIRT investigation is completed, so that there is no influence on that and so that the outcome of that is independent,” police spokesman Kevin Brookwell said.

Calgary’s police union boss Howard Burns said waiting really just made sense.

“Obviously, it would be bad form to charge somebody with, say, assaulting a police officer and then find out that police officer himself has been charged with an offence,” Burns said.

“I think ASIRT is quite right — there is nothing to prevent the police from laying a charge, they’ve just chosen not to at this point in time.”

So basically the CPS is waiting for the ASIRT investigation to be concluded, and clear them of any wrong doing prior to laying the charge... But keep on thinking the guy didn't do anything wrong.

It's real easy not to get shot by the police!

[8 Ball]

The CPS in my own expience is very professional. This was unacceptable. The problem is the police union. They can't get rid of the bad cops. Much like the fire fighters, can't get rid of thier dead weight.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

From your article...



So basically the CPS is waiting for the ASIRT investigation to be concluded, and clear them of any wrong doing prior to laying the charge... But keep on thinking the guy didn't do anything wrong.

It's real easy not to get shot by the police!

What are you talking about?

I literally didn't say anything...

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

What are you talking about?



I literally didn't say anything...

Much like the video that started this thread, underGRAD isn't so much concerned with the content of your post, but rather the story behind it he's created that makes it definitely ok/not ok.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Also this:

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...n-a-year-later

And what about that are you getting at? Are you insinuating that police needlessly shot a man, and got away with it? Kinda seems like that's what you're getting at. I admit that I know nothing about the incident except what I just read in that article, and there are a couple of things that stand out, that make your insinuation look like complete trash... First of all, he was deliberately causing s***, and then running from police, but secondly, and more tellingly, no mention of him suing the police. I think I'd be calling all lawyers if I got shot by the cops for no reason, not just chilling at the farmers market, not being pissed.

If you're gonna jump on the bandwagon, at least read your article first.

[underGRADFlame]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Much like the video that started this thread, underGRAD isn't so much concerned with the content of your post, but rather the story behind it he's created that makes it definitely ok/not ok.

Yes that's exactly what I'm doing. If only we could all be as unbiased as you Pepsi.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

Yes that's exactly what I'm doing. If only we could all be as unbiased as you Pepsi.

Give me your all seeing eye. I want to be like you, seeing and reading all the things that don't appear to us regular folk. Show me the wayyyy.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Much like the video that started this thread, underGRAD isn't so much concerned with the content of your post, but rather the story behind it he's created that makes it definitely ok/not ok.

Just seemed like another interesting article about Calgary police in the news. I didn't add any commentary.

Relevant to the discussion about evidence, cop vs civilian word against word and justifiable force discussions.

[8 Ball]

So, don't run from police, conform or be shot lol

[underGRADFlame]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Give me your all seeing eye. I want to be like you, seeing and reading all the things that don't appear to us regular folk. Show me the wayyyy.

This whole thread you've made assumptions of the officers actions based on a 21 second video. Making judgements and declarations, saying he is guilty of excessive force with nothing to back it up but your opinion, but yet I need to prove something to you?

If the officer is found guilty of an offence after an investigation and a trial, then so be it. But judging and convicting him from behind a keyboard without knowing more than a snip it of information from the Internet is profoundly unfair, to the officer and to the Calgary Police Service, and police in general.

Regardless of what i do or do not know it doesn't change the fact I trust the justice system and the legal system to work. If there is a corrupt cop, they get charged, a bogus criminal charge, it gets dropped a legal search warrant executed based on a bad tip, the victim gets compensated.

I trust that if there is a bad cop, I'm less likely to be a victim of said cop than say, get attacked by a bear. And that that bad cop will be caught be the 99.9% of the cops that are good.

But maybe I just have my head in the clouds.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

This whole thread you've made assumptions of the officers actions based on a 21 second video. Making judgements and declarations, saying he is guilty of excessive force with nothing to back it up but your opinion, but yet I need to prove something to you?



If the officer is found guilty of an offence after an investigation and a trial, then so be it. But judging and convicting him from behind a keyboard without knowing more than a snip it of information from the Internet is profoundly unfair, to the officer and to the Calgary Police Service, and police in general.

I've simply commented that the multiple punches to the head look excessive. I've admitted multiple times that it's hard to know what led to the interaction. I'm judging based on what I'm seeing.

It is funny though, you're preaching the benefit of the doubt and reserving judgement, but you've had absolutely zero issue being quite sure about the man who the cops took down:

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

And yes he was resisting that is perfectly clear. Why? Because had he been this would not have been a issues, he would have been placed in handcuffs or maybe not even that, but a complying individual is calm and doesn't run from the police.

Interesting that you seem make your judgement based on what might have happened before the video started, based solely on the word of the police and that video we aren't supposed to make any judgements from. That seems like a snippet of information to me.

You hold your judgements to a lower standard than everyone else's. You have an extremely evident bias in favour of police, you have defended them and condemned any critics in multiple threads now, even when the force is lethal. You've admitted in this thread that you think the man was resisting based on the video, but nobody else is allowed to believe the force looks excessive based on the video?

A bias is fine but you ought to recognise when you have one.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Wait, aren't you a Calgary lawyer? These two posts seem pretty damning. Are you saying it isn't uncommon for police recordings to go "missing" or not work when they are accused of inappropriate behavior?

I mean I thanked 4X4's post that you quoted because I literally thought of corny TV dramas when someone mentioned video and recordings "going missing" could actually be a thing in Calgary.

I'm going to go with somewhere between an actual lawyer annnnnnd Burger King employee. Probably closer to lawyer though. I mean the way he posts is usually amongst the most articulate and thoughtful posters on this website. He readily posts case law he is fully familiar with citing specific sections that properly align with his compelling opinions. Anyone who debates with him gets massacred so. Like underGrad. Speaking of...

Undergrad why on earth are you even debating the notion that you should consent to search? It literally makes no sense. Hey let's increase the risk of incriminating myself! Why though? Because I have nothing to hide! You know what? I have nothing to hide either but I still live in a house with non-see through walls and blinds on windows. Privacy is a right, thankfully.

As for the actual topic, to me it is clear this is excessive use of force. There's no way you can convince me that the situation couldn't have been resolved verbally. Wearing a badge means you should uphold the law, not that you are above the law. These men should be charged with assault, and if I were the gentleman that endured the bad end of a weird street brawl like that, I'd be meeting lawyers and seeking damages or exploring my options at law.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

A bias is fine but you ought to recognise when you have one.

He could just be extremely naive also. It's difficult for some people to believe the CPS has a faction of their officers who patrol this city like vigilantes.

A lot more of this stuff is coming to light, and many are starting to question the ASIRT process as well.

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/crim...manent-secrecy

[MBates]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Wait, aren't you a Calgary lawyer? These two posts seem pretty damning. Are you saying it isn't uncommon for police recordings to go "missing" or not work when they are accused of inappropriate behavior?

I mean I thanked 4X4's post that you quoted because I literally thought of corny TV dramas when someone mentioned video and recordings "going missing" could actually be a thing in Calgary.

It is not easy to produce a list of written decisions establishing the frequency with which recorded evidence goes missing because, as I said, cases often get pulled before any such decision gets published (once the fact of the missing evidence gets discovered). As a result, the proof of what happened often never becomes public record.

I may be able to post some additional filed material from cases I have handled but that might take a while. This one, however, is a good example where my client referred to how he learned that the arresting officer he accused of assault during a traffic stop had admitted during a disciplinary investigation to having deliberately deleted the recording my client made of the incident:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc...14abqb211.html

It is a common enough occurrence that on files where my client says he or she was assaulted by police, I take extraordinary steps as defence counsel to secure the recording before it can suffer from an 'accident'.

[jayswin]

Wow, fascinating. Honestly had no idea that would even happen once in Calgary, let alone be a thing.

[underGRADFlame]

Yes I am pro police. I have a great tendency to believe the word of an officer over average person, because they are held to a higher standard. They are accountable to make the right decision and tell the truth about it, when no one else is held to that same standard.

There is no accountability for a witness that tells a story to a news outlet or worse fabricates or embellishes a story to a news outlet, but an officer is required to articulate and document his actions. The difference is the newsreports are instantaneous now, where the officers account won't come out for months or years, but that first story no matter how accurate or inaccurate it is, is judged in court of public opinion immediately, without the benefit of all sides.

I admit it is possible the man in the video did nothing, in which case yes the officers actions are not justified. I just find it very unlikely that that is true. And you said it your self, I made a judgement from the statement the police released about the video, because silly me, I trust the police (in Canada... Definitely not in Manitowoc County��)

Anyway enough of this silliness tonight.

[zamler]

Explain what this man could have done to justify the actions of the police. Serious question not being sarcastic.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Wow, fascinating. Honestly had no idea that would even happen once in Calgary, let alone be a thing.

Let me preface the following comments by first acknowledging, that in my experience the majority of police officers are good people trying their best to do the right thing in a very difficult job. That said, they are just as fallible as the rest of us, and just as capable of committing noble cause corruption or plain criminality.

Recorded evidence going missing is a new version of an old problem. Before video and audio, the problem would manifest as officers writing false notes or not keeping notes at all about witness interviews and statements.

For example many people do not know that, while the David Milgaard Inquiry never was able to make any finding of police misconduct, (and specifically stopped short of making any finding of coercion of witnesses) it was Calgary Police Detective Art Roberts who was implicated in obtaining two pivotal false witness statements.

http://www.justice.gov.sk.ca/milgaard/DMfinal.shtml

From Chapter 3 of the report:

The period of May 21 to 24, 1969, was critical to the investigation and charging of Milgaard, and it is critical to this Inquiry because it produced evidence which was instrumental in Milgaard’s conviction. Both John and Wilson abandoned their earlier assertions that Milgaard had not been away from them long enough to commit the crime, and fleshed out their earlier statements with details which gave the police reasonable and probable grounds to believe that Milgaard was the culprit. Just what caused Wilson and John to turn on their friend is one of the abiding mysteries in this seemingly interminable case...

But in terms of the investigation, if Wilson and John had not said what they said to Roberts, police would have been left without a case against Milgaard to bring to court...

...Whatever Roberts did, it led to Milgaard being charged with murder and then wrongfully convicted for that crime.

So what contributed to this big mystery about "whatever Roberts did" when he interviewed the witnesses?

What concerns people to this day, including the Commission, is that Roberts made no written report to the Saskatoon Police, kept no notes (if he made any) and did not preserve the polygraph tracings. When Tallis tried to interview him before trial, he was uncooperative to the point that Tallis thought it would be a grave error to call him.

Saskatoon Police kept written records of their handling of these witnesses up to the time of delivering them to Roberts, and they made written reports of what transpired after the witnesses were returned to their custody (except for Mackie’s taking of John’s statement). But there is nothing in between, and in the view of the Milgaard group, this goes beyond suspicion and invites the inference that undue influence was used.

That inference does not necessarily follow. Roberts is dead. He swore before five judges of the Supreme Court of Canada that he had done nothing wrong. Wolch had the opportunity which is denied to us, of cross-examining him at the Supreme Court but got nowhere, even though a close reading of the
transcript invites the conclusion that Roberts’ memory of the event, some 23 years before, was unreliable.

So to put this back to the context of the video in this thread...did these officers use excessive force? Maybe. My instinct tells me they did as an overreaction to a situation that was not violent. But that is really me just having a hunch based on the video we can see and some of the stuff that makes no sense to me about what the force is claiming occurred before the video.

The law is clear that police are not to be unduly micromanaged and expected to meet a standard of perfection when we are reviewing their use of force decisions after the fact. It is possible in all of the circumstances this individual did or said something that warranted a swift takedown followed by pain compliance techniques...which can include strikes to the head if the situation warrants it.

But it is equally possible they just decided to rough a guy up - out of frustration or anger or a dozen other possible reasons. Why people think that because they are wearing a police uniform they are to be put to no scrutiny for what was an obvious escalation of force in the interaction with a seemingly non-violent citizen seems rooted in the fact people do not realize the kind of bad things that our own local real-life police officers sometimes do. Like this one that I will leave you all with tonight for some reading about one of Calgary's finest kneeing a man in the groin and exploding his testicle and then leaving him there...for no apparent reason:

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/do...?resultIndex=1

[AltaGuy]

These were actual Calgary officers taking bribes and such... stuff happens! (I posted it earlier)

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/c...lton-1.3636873

Several current and former Calgary police officers are facing charges after a months-long investigation related to corruption, harassment and breach of trust allegations.

Retired officer Steve Walton, who was with the CPS from 1978 to 2003, is one of the people facing charges. He started a private investigation firm and was contracting other current and former officers for jobs like surveillance or as guards.