Calgary Cops caught using excessive force?

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

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

So if they used that discretion, why are you challenging it? If in their minds he didn't do anything worthy of charges beyond his traffic offense, why would you speculate about him doing something else in an attempt to justify their behavior? This reads more like a point or argument me or pepsi would make, frankly.

[_Q_]

Weird that three cops would have to beat the crap out of a guy to give him a traffic ticket. Why would he need to be arrested for what was probably a jay walking violation? Couldn't they have just mailed it to him anyways?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

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

How long does it need to be? This is long enough to see a cop kneeling on a guy's neck and punching him in the face. And pulling his hair.

Maybe if we saw the preamble and learned that he had threatened them and they felt they were in danger or something, that would definitely make the violent reaction more palatable, but since they just gave him a traffic ticket and let him go, obviously that didn't happen.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

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.

B) agreed with the beating part, was more meaning if you're a jerk during a traffic stop, expect to get a ticket.

C) from what the news article says (probably sketchy info at best) he was being detained for a traffic offence. If you are detained for a traffic offence you must identify yourself and you must not try and walk away, you are detained. If you do those things you are obstructing a police officer from his duty. You can be arrested. If you resist during that arrest that's another offence. If you grab an officer by the arm or you reach near where his pistol is, you're gonna have to expect some force used against you.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

So if they used that discretion, why are you challenging it? If in their minds he didn't do anything worthy of charges beyond his traffic offense, why would you speculate about him doing something else in an attempt to justify their behavior? This reads more like a point or argument me or pepsi would make, frankly.

I'm confused. How am I challenging their discretion? People get arrested then un-arrested all the time.

[FlamesAddiction]

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.

Yeah, apparently this guy was so violent that they just let him go after.

A guy I went to high school with successful sued the Winnipeg police several years ago for something similar. He was speeding and listening to loud music and didn't notice the police behind at first. When he finally pulled over, they beat him up saying he was uncooperative.

As for him making contact back as they were beating him, it's a completely natural reaction to make contact back if you think someone is killing you (it looked very light and I doubt he even knew where his hands were in relation to all 3 officers at the time). I wonder how many people here could lay flat without kicking a little while someone is kneeling on your neck, pulling your hair and punching you with a closed fist. Police or not, it's an instinctual thing and they should be trained to know that.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Yeah, apparently this guy was so violent that they just let him go after.

A guy I went to high school with successful sued the Winnipeg police several years ago for something similar. He was speeding and listening to loud music and didn't notice the police behind at first. When he finally pulled over, they beat him up saying he was uncooperative.

As for him making contact back as they were beating him, it's a completely natural reaction to make contact back if you think someone is killing you (it looked very light and I doubt he even knew where his hands were in relation to all 3 officers at the time). I wonder how many people here could lay flat without kicking a little while someone is kneeling on your neck, pulling your hair and punching you with a closed fist. Police or not, it's an instinctual thing and they should be trained to know that.

So let me get this straight, police should not use force on someone who is resisting arrest because doing so is human nature? No, the police job is to get that person under arrest with as much force as necessary to do so. You can go to court or your lawyer and explain your instincts there.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

I'm confused. How am I challenging their discretion? People get arrested then un-arrested all the time.

Exactly.

Is it not a possibility that when the video was shot that the police had little to no information of what had occurred outside and that they told the guy to stop and not move until they had determined what was going on? Then he simply refused, at which point he was not obeying the commands of a peace officer and which he then gets physically detained for. Then he physically resists and they apply more force to subdue him. After some investigation and when cooler heads prevail it is determined the guy needed nothing more than a ticket and likely a pretty good lecture on behaving when police tell him to do something and send him on his way.

Maybe the punches were over the top and if so, i suspect the guy will file lawsuit even if internal investigations determine no wrong doing. I suspect though that the officer will explain he believed the suspect was reaching for his firearm and that he was only stopping an escalation in the incident. courts will then decide. You'd have to imagine that cops everywhere are a bit edgy considering the events of the last few days as well...whether that is an excuse or not its reality.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

I'm confused. How am I challenging their discretion? People get arrested then un-arrested all the time.

The defense of the officers actions seems to be "something clearly happened before this video started that explains why they reacted in that way". That's not backed up by the discretion officers used to let this guy walk with a traffic violation.

[Vulcan]

They charged him with Stunting? That can be the catchall traffic charge where they really don't have anything.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

No, the police job is to get that person under arrest with as much force as necessary to do so.

Which is true, which is also why the conversation about "excessive force" is occurring right now.

An extra punch or knee to the face when the suspect has been cowering for several seconds still requires explanation.

[Canuck-Hater]

When you have 3 officers pinning him to the ground the punches to the head are completely unnecessary and unprofessional. Of course the police will claim that everything they did was appropriate and that they did nothing wrong.

[tkflames]

I don't really understand the logic that you are entitled to a soft ride by the cops if you are resisting arrest. If you resist arrest and continue to resist as you are being subdued, I have no issue with the cop using excessive force. If you disagree with the arrest challenge it in court and submit a complaint like a mature member of society. IMO Excessive force only applies to those not resisting arrest and around the use of weapons.

[OMG!WTF!]

If this is the model they use for arresting annoying d bags it's totally unsustainable. They're going to kill someone pretty soon. They need to post a schedule of all ufc events and if you're going to be upset over missing Brock Lesnar's return you get the night off no questions asked.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

The defense of the officers actions seems to be "something clearly happened before this video started that explains why they reacted in that way". That's not backed up by the discretion officers used to let this guy walk with a traffic violation.

That's the thing about officer discretion, it's up to the officer. Transplant did a great job in a few posts above explaining this.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by tkflames

I don't really understand the logic that you are entitled to a soft ride by the cops if you are resisting arrest. If you resist arrest and continue to resist as you are being subdued, I have no issue with the cop using excessive force. If you disagree with the arrest challenge it in court and submit a complaint like a mature member of society. IMO Excessive force only applies to those not resisting arrest and around the use of weapons.

Was the guy resisting arrest though? It honestly doesn't look like it to me. He looks like a guy that said something the cops didn't like and gets subsequently beat up by three police officers.

And yes you do deserve a soft ride by the police while being arrested. The punishment for crime should be doled out in the court, not on the streets by the police.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by tkflames

I don't really understand the logic that you are entitled to a soft ride by the cops if you are resisting arrest. If you resist arrest and continue to resist as you are being subdued, I have no issue with the cop using excessive force. If you disagree with the arrest challenge it in court and submit a complaint like a mature member of society. IMO Excessive force only applies to those not resisting arrest and around the use of weapons.

You don't have a problem with cops arresting innocent people?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

That's the thing about officer discretion, it's up to the officer. Transplant did a great job in a few posts above explaining this.

Officers are not the pope, they are not infallible. Their discretion can be wrong.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

You don't have a problem with cops arresting innocent people?

Not if the police thought them guilty of something...i mean that's how it works.

People are arrested all the time who are never charged (tho this guy was) after further investigation. Thats the system we have.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Which is true, which is also why the conversation about "excessive force" is occurring right now.

An extra punch or knee to the face when the suspect has been cowering for several seconds still requires explanation.

You and I are clearly polar opposites on this. You likely don't like police using force at all, you're entitled to your opinion but that's not the way the real world works. Force always looks ugly, the vast majority of people are made uncomfortable by it. The majority of people have probably never been in a fist fight, never had to subdue anyone. If the guy was protecting his face, and the cop was raining down punches, I'd be on board. But from the clip I saw, the guy got taken to the ground and decided it was a good idea to lay hands on the cop. Instinct or not, you can expect to be on the receiving end of force if you grab/swat at a cop.