Calgary Cops caught using excessive force?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

It's easy for us to say that but when someone is kneeing you in the face and body and punching you in the face the natural instinct is to cover up those areas.

I'd like someone to explain how he even had the chance to surrender. There was no "get your hands behind your back", he was thrown to the ground and punched and kneed immediately.

Yeah, if moving your limbs while getting beaten by 3 men means resisting arrest, then everyone ever beaten by cops was resisting.

[underGRADFlame]

My thoughts on this thread...

Spoiler!

Edit.. Sorry didn't realize how big the surround was.

[RougeUnderoos]

And for my next amazing act, I'll pretend that what people see is not real.

[MrMastodonFarm]

I'd glad that stupid imagine was three times the length it needed to be.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

I'd glad that stupid imagine was three times the length it needed to be.

Yeah, I love what the empty black space around it adds to the discussion

[White Out 403]

I think you have to be some sort of jack ass to think you should have no say or reaction to how police interact with citizens. The police force is there to protect us and serve us.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

I'd glad that stupid imagine was three times the length it needed to be.

Letterbox denotes superiority of opinion.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

I think you have to be some sort of jack ass to think you should have no say or reaction to how police interact with citizens. The police force is there to protect us and serve us.

Exactly. They are a government body that enforces our laws on our behalf, they should be highly scrutinized. The fact that not every citizen isn't a trained police officer doesn't mean they get no say on how the police should operate.

[calgaryblood]

edit: probably too much.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

And for my next amazing act, I'll pretend that what people see is not real.

In some ways, it kind of isn't, though. First of all, eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable. But more importantly, the way each person sees the world is so completely determined by that person's world view and biases that it's wholly possible, likely even, that two people can look at the same event and come to totally incompatible conclusions about what, factually, happened.

And that's even in a case where you have some knowledge, background and context for the event. Look at the Wideman suspension this year - presumably all of us have watched a ton of hockey in our lifetimes, and most of us have played it for years. Yet many presumably intelligent, thoughtful people looked at an event for which there were multiple high-quality camera angles and had entirely different accounts of how that event took place.

Now take a civilian who has, very likely, no experience in situations where police force is being applied, and ask him or her to judge who was culpable after looking at a short, low quality video.

This isn't to say that civilians can't respond to police incidents because we lack the required training and experience to understand what it's like to be a cop in that situation - we obviously can and should. But in doing so, we should recognize what we don't know - to say nothing of taking account of the fact that hindsight is 20/20. There are a number of people in this thread (as there always are when these sorts of events happen) who not only don't know the first thing about what it's like to be in that kind of a scenario, but are absolutely certain that their take on the event is clearly and unequivocally correct. That sort of position is facile.

[monkeyman]

I think it's BS justify this by saying a cops job is physical. I think a much, much larger part of being a cop is to show restraint and having the ability to read and deescalate a situation. This cop clearly showed he lacked those skills. I don't want a cop with such little self control and poor judgement out there dealing with my mother, sister, father, grandfather.

[Methanolic]

Saw an ex cop (who is also a psychologist) on the National last week describing how (in his professional observations and opinion) Police forces across our continent are more often escalating violence during confrontations instead of using (what he called) more traditional methods with the intent of calming the situation.

It was interesting to listen to this man but I can't say if I agree as this is completely out of my realm.

Maybe a bit off topic but I will say that the black and white CPS cars are ridiculous and I see them as very intimidating looking. Those cars (IMO) send a message, "Fear Us".

[RinkRat]

One officer In this situation is probably going for a disciplinary hearing in short order. Which will then be sent to the law enforcement review board which is generally headed by anti police types. It all balances out but most people don't see the info beyond the initial reporting and shock of an incident.



Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[Jiggy]

Originally Posted by Methanolic

Saw an ex cop (who is also a psychologist) on the National last week describing how (in his professional observations and opinion) Police forces across our continent are more often escalating violence during confrontations instead of using (what he called) more traditional methods with the intent of calming the situation.

It was interesting to listen to this man but I can't say if I agree as this is completely out of my realm.

Maybe a bit off topic but I will say that the black and white CPS cars are ridiculous and I see them as very intimidating looking. Those cars (IMO) send a message, "Fear Us".

Good post. One of the first things I thought about was the police telling the man to "Get the f*** back in your truck" is not calming the situation.

[underGRADFlame]

Originally Posted by RinkRat

One officer In this situation is probably going for a disciplinary hearing in short order. Which will then be sent to the law enforcement review board which is generally headed by anti police types. It all balances out but most people don't see the info beyond the initial reporting and shock of an incident.

I doubt it. As I said earlier the officer was pulling his strikes. These were no where near full force strikes and were meant for compliance, not injury, to facilitate taking the individual into custody... easily articulated by the officer, regardless of if there was a criminal arrest.

What is clear in this thread is there clear misconception of the actual use of force that is required to gain compliance from a resisting individual.

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.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

I doubt it. As I said earlier the officer was pulling his strikes. These were no where near full force strikes and were meant for compliance, not injury, to facilitate taking the individual into custody... easily articulated by the officer, regardless of if there was a criminal arrest.

What is clear in this thread is there clear misconception of the actual use of force that is required to gain compliance from a resisting individual.

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.

Spoiler!

[monkeyman]

I’d like to point out to all the people saying we can’t judge based on a 21 second video, and now “unreliable” eye witness testimony, just how thrilled the cops would be to have such evidence in a case.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

In some ways, it kind of isn't, though. First of all, eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable. But more importantly, the way each person sees the world is so completely determined by that person's world view and biases that it's wholly possible, likely even, that two people can look at the same event and come to totally incompatible conclusions about what, factually, happened.

And that's even in a case where you have some knowledge, background and context for the event. Look at the Wideman suspension this year - presumably all of us have watched a ton of hockey in our lifetimes, and most of us have played it for years. Yet many presumably intelligent, thoughtful people looked at an event for which there were multiple high-quality camera angles and had entirely different accounts of how that event took place.

Now take a civilian who has, very likely, no experience in situations where police force is being applied, and ask him or her to judge who was culpable after looking at a short, low quality video.

This isn't to say that civilians can't respond to police incidents because we lack the required training and experience to understand what it's like to be a cop in that situation - we obviously can and should. But in doing so, we should recognize what we don't know - to say nothing of taking account of the fact that hindsight is 20/20. There are a number of people in this thread (as there always are when these sorts of events happen) who not only don't know the first thing about what it's like to be in that kind of a scenario, but are absolutely certain that their take on the event is clearly and unequivocally correct. That sort of position is facile.

There's a big difference between being an eyewitness to something that happens over just a few seconds, and having a recording that you can watch as many times as you want.

I don't need to be a cop or an expert in police tactics to see that this guy was not threatening these guys when that one cop took extremely aggressive action, and punched him in the face while he was lying on the ground. And pulled his hair, for whatever reason.

But on the other hand, I am not an expert and I don't know all the rules. Maybe punching a prone person in the the face and pulling his hair while you have your knee on his neck is a perfectly acceptable. Could be in the rulebook for all I know.

If it is, it probably shouldn't be.

[RinkRat]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

I doubt it. As I said earlier the officer was pulling his strikes. These were no where near full force strikes and were meant for compliance, not injury, to facilitate taking the individual into custody... easily articulated by the officer, regardless of if there was a criminal arrest.

What is clear in this thread is there clear misconception of the actual use of force that is required to gain compliance from a resisting individual.

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.

What I'm saying is I've seen situations of far less force go to hearing internally. All it takes is a complaint to professional standards. Not that I agree it was a case of excessive force, I just have knowledge of the process and how it unfolds for minor to severe cases.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

I doubt it. As I said earlier the officer was pulling his strikes. These were no where near full force strikes and were meant for compliance, not injury, to facilitate taking the individual into custody... easily articulated by the officer, regardless of if there was a criminal arrest.

What is clear in this thread is there clear misconception of the actual use of force that is required to gain compliance from a resisting individual.

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.

So what evidence, from this thread, can you provide proving that there is a clear misconception about force required?

You must mean in general since it is impossible to clearly determine that the individual in the video required force and was resisting. Unless of course you know more about the video than the rest of us.