Calgary Cops caught using excessive force? - Page 2 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

gargamel · 07-10-2016, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Ya I am not reacting to a video that shows the second half of the altercation and with no audio. What was said in the exchange that got things ramped up so quick? Maybe nothing, maybe something violent.

Funny I have never been punched in the face by a cop before, or even hand cuffed. Then again in all my encounters with police I don't act like a d-bag.

Acting like a dbag and/or mouthing off to cops doesn't justify them punching him in the face if he wasn't a threat, as appears to be the case from the video.

JiriHrdina · 07-10-2016, 08:14 AM

I'm surprised how many people think they can judge this from such a short video

PepsiFree · 07-10-2016, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I'm surprised how many people think they can judge this from such a short video

What, potentially, isn't contained in the video that justifies the level of force seen in the video? What would do it for you?

I think people are judging it because the level of force is excessive, period, regardless of what we don't see or hear.

OldDutch · 07-10-2016, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gargamel

Acting like a dbag and/or mouthing off to cops doesn't justify them punching him in the face if he wasn't a threat, as appears to be the case from the video.

Fair enough, but if dude wants my sympathy he ain't gonna get it. I'll save that for cases where people were totally innocent, not for this.

Zulu29 · 07-10-2016, 08:22 AM

I don't see anything wrong with that at all. The force used was quick, efficient and resulted in the controlling of the male. When on the ground the male initially grabs the officers arm, then he moves his hand towards the officers right hip where it just so happens is his service pistol. That's going to raise the officers perception of threat substantially. I'm not saying that's what the guy was trying to do, but i can understand the response. Sorry, once you are under arrest that's it, you stop what you're doing and comply. The time to argue your case is not resisiting physically while being arrested, it's in court or a civil suit if you feel the arrest was egregious.

Zulu29 · 07-10-2016, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What, potentially, isn't contained in the video that justifies the level of force seen in the video? What would do it for you?

[B]I think people are judging it because the level of force is excessive, period, regardless of what we don't see or hear.[B]

Oh, Pepsi declared its excessive, case closed.

PepsiFree · 07-10-2016, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Oh, Pepsi declared its excessive, case closed.

Jiri was referring to the people who see fit to judge the situation based on what we see in the video, I too was referring to those same people (not the opinions of everyone).

Don't lose your ability to use logic on the way to being catty, Zulu.

Zulu29 · 07-10-2016, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Jiri was referring to the people who see fit to judge the situation based on what we see in the video, I too was referring to those same people (not the opinions of everyone).

Don't lose your ability to use logic on the way to being catty, Zulu.

When you said the level of force was excessive, period, it seemed that it was your opinion. I didn't realize you were authorized to speak on behalf of others.

Zulu29 · 07-10-2016, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peter12

I thought the police weren't allowed to hit with a closed fist?

What would make you think that?

White Out 403 · 07-10-2016, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Fair enough, but if dude wants my sympathy he ain't gonna get it. I'll save that for cases where people were totally innocent, not for this.

Ya, that's not how this should work. even a total jerk whos a rude scumbag isn't fair game for a beating from the police. The police are held a higher standard (or should be) because they can take away anyones freedom at a drop of a hat and put you in cuffs. They're armed with deadly weapons and can fire on people the feel justified to. This is a lot of responsibility and we trust them to exercise it judiciously and properly.

If some guy is being a total D bag and the cops overreact with a beating, it should be met with public scrutiny and outrage. Not expressing sympathy because you don't like someone is the wrong way to approach it.

Zulu29 · 07-10-2016, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Ya, that's not how this should work. even a total jerk whos a rude scumbag isn't fair game for a beating from the police. The police are held a higher standard (or should be) because they can take away anyones freedom at a drop of a hat and put you in cuffs. They're armed with deadly weapons and can fire on people the feel justified to. This is a lot of responsibility and we trust them to exercise it judiciously and properly.

If some guy is being a total D bag and the cops overreact with a beating, it should be met with public scrutiny and outrage. Not expressing sympathy because you don't like someone is the wrong way to approach it.

If he's just a lippy d-bag, then sure the cops gotta bite their tongue, not against the law to be an idiot. But this guy appeared to be a d-bag, plus committing an offence which appears to have led to his arrest which also appears he was resisting.

CalgaryFan1988 · 07-10-2016, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zulu29

If he's just a lippy d-bag, then sure the cops gotta bite their tongue, not against the law to be an idiot. But this guy appeared to be a d-bag, plus committing an offence which appears to have led to his arrest which also appears he was resisting.

In such a short video, it's up for interpretation. To me it looked more like he was trying to protect himself, than resisting.

White Out 403 · 07-10-2016, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zulu29

If he's just a lippy d-bag, then sure the cops gotta bite their tongue, not against the law to be an idiot. But this guy appeared to be a d-bag, plus committing an offence which appears to have led to his arrest which also appears he was resisting.

A) Yes he was likely guilty of something. Presumption of innocence though.
B) Being a D bag isn't a criminal offence. This has no bearing on how the police should react to him, with means to force
C) He appears to be resisting in so far as to try and defend himself from a beating. You know, like a person would normally do. The police have an obligation, legally, to only use necessary force to restrain him. Brock Lesnar style closed fist punches to the face with him laying on his back doesn't meet that standard.

Zulu29 · 07-10-2016, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

In such a short video, it's up for interpretation. To me it looked more like he was trying to protect himself, than resisting.

Fair enough if that's your interpretation, but had the guy not grabbed the cop I can pretty much guarantee he wouldn't have got five in the eye.

transplant99 · 07-10-2016, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What, potentially, isn't contained in the video that justifies the level of force seen in the video? What would do it for you?

I think people are judging it because the level of force is excessive, period, regardless of what we don't see or hear.

So in your world, there is absolutely nothing that could have been said or that occurred, that would justify the police using the tactics they did on this guy?

Zulu29 · 07-10-2016, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resurrection

A) Yes he was likely guilty of something. Presumption of innocence though.
B) Being a D bag isn't a criminal offence. This has no bearing on how the police should react to him, with means to force
C) He appears to be resisting in so far as to try and defend himself from a beating. You know, like a person would normally do. The police have an obligation, legally, to only use necessary force to restrain him. Brock Lesnar style closed fist punches to the face with him laying on his back doesn't meet that standard.

A) wrong. presumption of innocence is in a court room. Police only need reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed.

B) like I said, being a jerk isn't against the law, but if you're being jerk while committing an offence, I would t expect any favours.

C) had he not resisted initially, he wouldn't have been taken to the ground. The Officer hits him when the guy grabs his arm, which is called resisting arrest, which is also an offence.

PepsiFree · 07-10-2016, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transplant99

So in your world, there is absolutely nothing that could have been said or that occurred, that would justify the police using the tactics they did on this guy?

Correct.

The guy could've said "I'll rape and murder your whole family."

The guy could've said "I've got a shotgun in my truck and I'm going to get you guys."

(Both of which we know are not true, as he was let go with just a traffic violation)

If you have to take him down, you do it, and if you have to deliver a punch, you do it. But as I said, I'm open to some logical justification for the last two punches. I don't see any.

The cop was jacked up, I get it. But he's a professional being paid like a professional, so act like it. The force didn't begin excessive but definitely became excessive.

White Out 403 · 07-10-2016, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transplant99

So in your world, there is absolutely nothing that could have been said or that occurred, that would justify the police using the tactics they did on this guy?

Considering that they left him go afterwards with a ticket, we already know he didn't do anything too crazy. Otherwise he would be in the klink and charged with something else. So clearly he didn't threaten the cops or say something insane.

So we know he didn't assault the police, didn't threaten him, and wasn't considered enough of a threat that even after they beat him on the sidewalk... they let him go.

White Out 403 · 07-10-2016, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zulu29

A) wrong. presumption of innocence is in a court room. Police only need reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed.

B) like I said, being a jerk isn't against the law, but if you're being jerk while committing an offence, I would t expect any favours.

C) had he not resisted initially, he wouldn't have been taken to the ground. The Officer hits him when the guy grabs his arm, which is called resisting arrest, which is also an offence.

a) Ya I misread what you said originally, early start today and I thought you wrote something more about him being guilty.
b) NOT being beaten by the police isn't a favour.
c) First, was he even under arrest? Do we know the police declared that they intended to detain him, or, was he simply not cooperating by providing information. Secondly, what you are describing as resisting others would describe as defending yourself from being beaten by 3 people.

Zulu29 · 07-10-2016, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Considering that they left him go afterwards with a ticket, we already know he didn't do anything too crazy. Otherwise he would be in the klink and charged with something else. So clearly he didn't threaten the cops or say something insane.

So we know he didn't assault the police, didn't threaten him, and wasn't considered enough of a threat that even after they beat him on the sidewalk... they let him go.

Or the police used discretion and elected to not charge him with resisting arrest?