Police Culture

[Oling_Roachinen]

The police refused to investigate it when it was brought forward. It didn't even pass the review phase to get an investigation.

ASIRT recommended to charge them well after the fact.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Right. Different thresholds. One to lay and charge, one to find guilty.

Fact remains, charges were withdrawn. Should bring some question into the "facts" presented by the Oling and he should be just as upfront about those facts in his original post.

I said the charges were dismissed and quoted everything. The condenscending use of quotes around "facts" is especially humorous given what I had quoted from R. v. Arkinstall, 2011 ABPC 23.

Take a look:
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/do...011abpc23.html

The quote was from the aptly named Facts header. Where the Honourable T.C. Semenuk stated:
" Realizing the gravity of the situation, the Accused told Kaminsky he had enough, and that he was going to exit the vehicle. On opening the door, and raising his arms in submission, Kaminsky grabbed the Accused by the arms and threw him like a rag-doll, face first, on to the hood of the Tahoe. While pulling his arms forcefully behind his back to handcuff him, the Accused complained about a shoulder injury and that he was in pain. Kaminsky responded by striking the Accused forcefully with the baton twice on the back of his neck. This was witnessed by the civilian witness, Amestica, who had just arrived at the scene by taxi, after being phoned by Smitna, to bring the registration and insurance documents for the Tahoe. Amestica, who was standing on the sidewalk 10-15 feet away, shouted at Kaminsky that he should stop hitting his friend, and that he was going to kill him. Kaminsky responded, “#### off and go away or you will go to jail too”."

So it's just "facts" from a "judge" in a "trial" now?

Why try to discredit what I said, instead of taking a look at the issue. You're the reason these guys get away with it. Blue shield.

[Oling_Roachinen]

https://www.thestar.com/calgary/2018...-officers.html

Two years before provincial officials began investigating perjury allegations against two officers, the city’s police chief refused a call from Alberta’s police watchdog to formally report the incident.

But I'm sure those aren't "facts" either.

And of course the police don't investigate a crime the criminal will get off 100% of the time. It's just this time that criminal happened to be a fellow officer.

[Oling_Roachinen]

"We have not investigate ourselves and have found ourselves to be innocent."
- Calgary Police Association

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I said the charges were dismissed and quoted everything. The condenscending use of quotes around "facts" is especially humorous given what I had quoted from R. v. Arkinstall, 2011 ABPC 23.

Take a look:
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/do...011abpc23.html

The quote was from the aptly named Facts header. Where the Honourable T.C. Semenuk stated:
" Realizing the gravity of the situation, the Accused told Kaminsky he had enough, and that he was going to exit the vehicle. On opening the door, and raising his arms in submission, Kaminsky grabbed the Accused by the arms and threw him like a rag-doll, face first, on to the hood of the Tahoe. While pulling his arms forcefully behind his back to handcuff him, the Accused complained about a shoulder injury and that he was in pain. Kaminsky responded by striking the Accused forcefully with the baton twice on the back of his neck. This was witnessed by the civilian witness, Amestica, who had just arrived at the scene by taxi, after being phoned by Smitna, to bring the registration and insurance documents for the Tahoe. Amestica, who was standing on the sidewalk 10-15 feet away, shouted at Kaminsky that he should stop hitting his friend, and that he was going to kill him. Kaminsky responded, “#### off and go away or you will go to jail too”."

So it's just "facts" from a "judge" in a "trial" now?

Why try to discredit what I said, instead of taking a look at the issue. You're the reason these guys get away with it. Blue shield.

All good man.

Apologies if I missed the part about charges being withdrawn and the acquittal.

As far as all the other responses from you, well, I won't engage any further but I will say that the the vast majority of members are good people doing good things every day.

The beauty of this forum is that everyone is entitled to their opinion. You are clearly not going to change yours and that's ok.

Take care.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

As far as all the other responses from you, well, I won't engage any further.

Why not? If you disagree we can at least discuss. But this is one of the biggest issues affecting the perception of police, the blue wall of silence anytime another officer does anything potentially wrong. Shut down discussion, remain silent, protect one another. It's more important than your actual mandate.

Why not just give us your perspective on the facts presented by the Honourable T.C. Semenuk and why it is or is not acceptable that a police officer does this and not only remain with the force but be voted in as president for the police union?

Last response was about discrediting my posts but you've been extremely misleading saying that the police were the ones to charge Kaminski. The Law Enforcement Review Board submitted an inquiry all about how the police failed to investigate the claim. It was a big deal, no one in their right minds thought that there was any due diligence achieved by the CPS. It should have been taken as a huge failure by the police and opportunity to improve, but you seem to be suggesting police did a good job with it?

https://www.solgps.alberta.ca/boards...s/default.aspx

CPS did not diligently investigate the court’s serious concerns, which were clearly stated. Instead, early on, CPS decided without any apparent evidentiary basis that the only issue was that the officers had taken poor notes about the incident and did not prepare for trial.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I think they can be a bit quick on the draw. I've been taken down at gunpoint twice by the CPS, once for shooting a bb gun (they monitored me using it prior to pointing guns at me), the second time was simply their mistake.

I like the idea of the police, but having had them point guns at me and essentially physically attack me, I'm a bit apprehensive of how they approach certain situations.

Being a police officer should be a dangerous profession, kind of like being a soldier. By becoming one, you accept the inherent danger involved. I don't see that they should therefore become very aggressive and defensive in protection of their own lives, at the expense of the public/people's lives.

end mini-rant.

And I'm probably a generation older than you and been in a number of 'encounters' with the CPS for various stupid things I have done and have NEVER had a weapon of any kind pulled on me by the police.

Perhaps I'm naive but based on MY life experience, I can't imagine a CPS interaction where a gun would be pulled on someone whose actions did not warrant it.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

And I'm probably a generation older than you and been in a number of 'encounters' with the CPS for various stupid things I have done and have NEVER had a weapon of any kind pulled on me by the police.

Perhaps I'm naive but based on MY life experience, I can't imagine a CPS interaction where a gun would be pulled on someone whose actions did not warrant it.

Well in one encounter I was in a warehouse with a friend, owned by friends dad, that we opened by key and disabled the alarm with the code. They decided it looked like a burglary and came in hard with guns up yelling angrily.

There's nothing like having someone point a gun at your face and yell at you at the same time. We were not charged and were left at the scene as we had done nothing wrong/illegal. So yeah, I get in your experience these things don't happen, but in my experience they clearly do.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

https://globalnews.ca/news/3952059/p...-les-kaminski/

There wasn't a reasonable likelihood of conviction I guess.

Paging MBates.........

I decline to answer this particular page due to my involvement in matters related to this.

In general terms, I will say that in my experience one Crown’s strong case is another’s withdrawal for lack of likelihood of conviction. The standard is not very ‘standard’ and is open for criticism that police benefit from these decisions to withdraw more readily than the average person.

Again, this is not a comment about the particular decision relating to Sgt Kaminski. I cannot say the Crown’s decision was not genuinely based on the assessment they described. And if a Crown is of the view there is no reasonable likelihood of conviction of an accused (who is presumed innocent) then it would be wrong for them to continue the prosecution.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Well in one encounter I was in a warehouse with a friend, owned by friends dad, that we opened by key and disabled the alarm with the code. They decided it looked like a burglary and came in hard with guns up yelling angrily.

There's nothing like having someone point a gun at your face and yell at you at the same time. We were not charged and were left at the scene as we had done nothing wrong/illegal. So yeah, I get in your experience these things don't happen, but in my experience they clearly do.

This is actually quite funny (for me, not you) and sounds like something from a Simpsons episode. Classic.

“Bake ‘em away toys!”

[Mr.Coffee]

At the end of the day it is common for power to be abused. Police are simply human beings in power positions. You’re definitely going to get some wrongdoing and you’re definitely going to get many great cops. They’re just trained and skilled people at one particular job.

But I would be surprised if the majority of opinion is all for the seeming aggressive nature of police and how they approach situations. The perfect example is to watch how the majority of cops operate after a suspect has been detained. How many videos have you seen where a guy is on the ground being arrested and being essentially beaten and assaulted? Often. But I must say- I’m not sure it’s a new thing.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

At the end of the day it is common for power to be abused. Police are simply human beings in power positions. You’re definitely going to get some wrongdoing and you’re definitely going to get many great cops. They’re just trained and skilled people at one particular job.

I agree. Which is why the CPS and other police organizations have to have stronger oversight, training and internal enforcement. Generally when power is abused in any position it starts off small and increases incrementally each time it isn't held in check.

[PsYcNeT]

I really think that all people are asking is for police to held to the same standard as the general public, rather than have the rules bent because of the "stress" and "danger" involved in their jobs.

If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen (or, barring the self-awareness to realize you chose the incorrect career path, have systems in place to terminate officers that cross the line, and ensure that the line is at a reasonable placement to avoid having 20% of your force consisting of violent #######s).

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I really think that all people are asking is for police to held to the same standard as the general public, rather than have the rules bent because of the "stress" and "danger" involved in their jobs.

I'd be fine with a bit higher standard.

If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen (or, barring the self-awareness to realize you chose the incorrect career path, have systems in place to terminate officers that cross the line, and ensure that the line is at a reasonable placement to avoid having 20% of your force consisting of violent #######s).

Do you have a source for that 20%?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Do you have a source for that 20%?

Meant to type 10%, in relation to the Poynter report posted on the previous page:

https://www.poynter.org/news/njcoms-...k-police-force