Calgary police begin mandatory alcohol screening at Checkstops

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

Rise of the SWAT team: Routine police work in Canada is now militarized

https://theconversation.com/rise-of-...itarized-90073

If SWAT team deployments were limited to only those situations requiring their equipment and skills, such as hostage-takings and terror threats, there would perhaps be less cause for concern. But similar to previous research conducted in the U.S., we have found this isn’t the reality of Canadian SWAT teams. Instead, routine policing represented the majority of SWAT team use.

Despite the overall decline in the Calgary tactical unit’s deployments by 2016, almost one third of them were for warrants, which remained steady at around 200-250 instances per year

SWAT teams regularly engage in routine policing, including responding to minor offences or even non-criminal incidents. The Calgary tactical unit deployed almost 300 times in response to various “dispatch codes” in 2007, as well as approximately 200 times each to “disturbances” and “suspicious” incidents.

Deployments in these three categories accounted for nearly 45 per cent of the unit’s total deployments during that year, and continued to represent as much as 30 per cent by 2016.

Deployments for other minor offences, including noise complaints, drug offences, property crimes, traffic violations and motor vehicle collisions represented almost one third of all deployments in 2007, and almost 15 per cent even at their lowest point in 2016.


yeah, I doubt the tactical team really needs that armoured vehicle 500 times a year.

What does the author consider to be routine policing though? I don't think many people would consider serving high risk arrest or search warrants to be normal police work. Or conducting drug raids.

It would also be good to know what they considered a "deployment", because it sounds like a lot of things get lumped in. Was it a call from already dispatched police units or dispatch specifically requesting the Tac Team or was it a case of a tactical officer being the closest unit to a call that a patrol unit could have handled if they were the closer unit. Since the Tac Team does patrol, seeing responses to low risk incidents isn't really surprising and wouldn't be any different than a regular officer responding, they aren't any more likely to bring out the C8s for a routine traffic stop than any other cop.

[Mccree]

Originally Posted by Rando

If the fire budget deserves criticisms, then by all means start a thread and critic it.

https://twitter.com/660NEWS/status/1148714508837249024

660 NEWS Calgary
‏
Verified account

@660NEWS
10m10 minutes ago
More
Delayed times for N.W. water rescues due to budget cuts: CFA: https://www.660citynews.com/2019/07/...dget-cuts-cfa/ …

2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
Reply 2 Retweet 1 Like Direct message

[Nage Waza]

I am involved in emergency response, sometimes with the police. That vehicle is used for several purposes, including being used as a mobile operations centre. The vehicle is used frequently, not to justify its purpose, but to actually normalize its use and ensure that those that need it are aware of how it operates, especially as a mobile operations centre that may require the use of multiple agencies, including municipal, provincial and federal.

The tactical unit shouldn't wait around for an escalation that requires SWAT, they support existing police and have the ability to respond to serious escalations. We all hope they aren't constantly responding to these escalations, as those are serious issues. We still need them just in case. Cops aren't engaging in gun fights like on tv, they call the tactical unit.

Some of you who seriously hate the police and constantly berate them will eventually be involved with them, one way or another, and realize they are normal people doing their jobs. A very difficult job that may require very assertive people that won't always coddle you. The vast vast majority of interactions with police are what we would all call very reasonable police behaviour. There are bad cops out there, and I am confident there is increasing pressure to deal with that.

The same groups that wanted body cameras are now the same group wanting them removed. Complaints against officers decreased when a camera was worn, yet use of force remained the same. The conclusion I draw from that is lawyers or 'victims' realize the camera caught it all and possibly justified force. Basically, footage sided with the police in pretty much the bulk of cases.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The effects of second-hand smoke have been vastly exaggerated, with the only link to increased cancer rates being found in people who shared a home with a heavy smoker for 30+ years. Vaping has even less impact on non-smokers, and yet it's just as maligned. Does anyone really think if studies found no significant health risk from second-hand exposure to vaping, it would become socially acceptable?

Health advocates push the empirically dubious risks of exposure to second-hand smoke because their goal is to stop all people from smoking, period. Given the serious health consequences of drinking, they'll do the same with alcohol.

From yesterday's Guardian:

How secondhand drinking ruins lives: 'Every family has been touched by this'

I'm sure my wife, who has never smoked once in her life but has a smoker's cough from living with her chain smoking mother for 25 years, will be happy to hear that she won't get cancer from it. All the other fun that comes from second-hand smoke shouldn't be discounted, though.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

There are bad cops out there, and I am confident there is increasing pressure to deal with that.

Yeah, it was nice to see all the police criticize one of their own when a judge said that the officer was "not a credible or reliable witness" after watching video of police roughing up a citizen.

Oh wait, no they didn't do that. They voted that non-credible officer in as their president of the union.

That's the issue with the saying "a bad apple" it doesn't end with "a bad apple ruins the reputation of those around them but the other apples stay good." It's "a bad apple spoils the bunch" because once you let that rot in, it becomes part of the culture and the CPS have not done enough to get rid of the rot.

We'll see if the new police chief can change the culture, but the CPS is nothing to aspire to.

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

What don't the rest of us know that makes that new vehicle a very sound purchase? What tangible facts do you have to contribute to the discussion that puts the accusations leveled to rest? What are we missing?

I absolutely have facts, its not my information to share, nor were the details given to me with the intention to share

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

How can I be wrong when my intent is having the CPS better communicate? Especially when your argument is that I don't understand. Cool, we agree I don't understand because the CPS has done a poor job trying to explain and rationalize their budget spending.

Read what I wrote. Then read it two more times. Did I say that the equipment wasn't needed? Go ahead and reread it once more. Because I didn't. I said that it's on them if people don't believe their purchases have been justified, that the police should do a better job at communicating why the purchases are justified. Not just the "It's needed end of discussion" type crap you're spewing. If it's so obviously needed, you won't have a hard time explaining and providing facts. Should take less effort than being an arrogant twat.

Name calling seems to be a good turn. I don't know why you can't accept that sometimes you don't get and won't get all of the information because you're not entitled to it

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

I guess we found the cop (which is fine, don’t be mad).

But, as for your fire dept review.... it’s just plain wrong. And THAT statement is accurate.

I'm not a cop, at all actually. And if you'd like I can gladly post a thread with MANY instances of exactly that happening. Perhaps consider I'm exposed to it every single day. Maybe I can live thread a play by play throughout a day.

Originally Posted by btimbit

Armoured car argument aside, this is an interesting and good point. Why doesn't the Fire Department ever get criticised? They waste JUST as much money yet people love them. Is it just because they don't have guns?

They waste more money, actually. Look at 34 station, 42 station, 7 station, 5 station, 11 station, etc. Look at their vehicle costs, their staffing costs, their per response costs. I could really go on all day about specific vehicles (because this is in response to a discussion about a single police vehicle) that are supremely overkill.

Originally Posted by stone hands

turns out there is a lot of goodwill towards people who risk their lives to save your house from burning down vs a bunch of power tripping high school bullies trying to fulfil quotas

Yeah, so much life risking . The PR machine grinds out compliance

[FireGilbert]

There are a few bootlickers in this thread.

My experiences with the CPS include having a gun pointed at me after my own house was broken in to and having a partially deaf friend being searched and dragged into a car solely because his white shirt matched a description from a hit and run even though he had no car, no license, and a solid alibi. Instead of trusting and respecting the police I now distrust and fear the police.

The public needs to be vigilant in stopping the erosion of our rights and slide into a police state. Here in NSW you now lose you license automatically if over 0.05. They just made police judges and no one cares because safety! Also, a recent meta data retention law which was justified to stop terrorism is being used by the federal police against the general public including journalists who have reported against government and police corruption. I really fear for the future. We have moving closer to dystopia every day.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

There are a few bootlickers in this thread.

My experiences with the CPS include having a gun pointed at me after my own house was broken in to and having a partially deaf friend being searched and dragged into a car solely because his white shirt matched a description from a hit and run even though he had no car, no license, and a solid alibi. Instead of trusting and respecting the police I now distrust and fear the police.

The public needs to be vigilant in stopping the erosion of our rights and slide into a police state. Here in NSW you now lose you license automatically if over 0.05. They just made police judges and no one cares because safety! Also, a recent meta data retention law which was justified to stop terrorism is being used by the federal police against the general public including journalists who have reported against government and police corruption. I really fear for the future. We have moving closer to dystopia every day.

Everyone has their own experiences with the police, and I'm not discounting yours one bit, but mine have been extremely positive. Including getting mugged as a teenager and the cops being their within 30 seconds, seeing a cop get smacked across the face with a skateboard, and him and his peers still arrested the guy without using too much force.

The laws that they're being allowed to operate within are definitely terrifying though, I'm 100% with you there

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

yeah, I doubt the tactical team really needs that armoured vehicle 500 times a year.

So what's your magic number for where it would be necessary?

Maybe there's 5-10 times a year it's absolutely, positively necessary (I'd be willing to bet it's more, but of course it's all subjective)? Maybe 50-100 times where it's a little bit overkill, but a couple of squad cars also weren't going to cut it...would you rather just use a dozen squad cars, or is it possible that deploying the AV might actually be a more efficient use of resources? The other 400 times where a squad car would actually suffice...they'd still be deploying a couple squad cars, which aren't free...

Is it possible that there are instances where it's presence alone has helped mitigate conflicts? Maybe it's just fantasy action-movie stuff (though the youtube video posted above shows that 'Grand Theft Auto' situations are certainly possible in this city), but I have no doubt there are times when criminals look out the window and what they see influences their fight/flight/surrender decision.


Now go yell at the Peace Bridge...it cost way more than it needed to if the only thing that matters is getting people across the river with dry boots.

[Rando]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

So what's your magic number for where it would be necessary?

Maybe there's 5-10 times a year it's absolutely, positively necessary (I'd be willing to bet it's more, but of course it's all subjective)? Maybe 50-100 times where it's a little bit overkill, but a couple of squad cars also weren't going to cut it...would you rather just use a dozen squad cars, or is it possible that deploying the AV might actually be a more efficient use of resources? The other 400 times where a squad car would actually suffice...they'd still be deploying a couple squad cars, which aren't free...

Is it possible that there are instances where it's presence alone has helped mitigate conflicts? Maybe it's just fantasy action-movie stuff (though the youtube video posted above shows that 'Grand Theft Auto' situations are certainly possible in this city), but I have no doubt there are times when criminals look out the window and what they see influences their fight/flight/surrender decision.

That's part of the problem, the public isn't even close to fully aware what's going on with parts of the police budget. We get vague answers. What kind of dangerous warrants are they going after with that tank? Thanos?

Now go yell at the Peace Bridge...it cost way more than it needed to if the only thing that matters is getting people across the river with dry boots.

haha!

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I am involved in emergency response, sometimes with the police. That vehicle is used for several purposes, including being used as a mobile operations centre. The vehicle is used frequently, not to justify its purpose, but to actually normalize its use and ensure that those that need it are aware of how it operates, especially as a mobile operations centre that may require the use of multiple agencies, including municipal, provincial and federal.

The tactical unit shouldn't wait around for an escalation that requires SWAT, they support existing police and have the ability to respond to serious escalations. We all hope they aren't constantly responding to these escalations, as those are serious issues. We still need them just in case. Cops aren't engaging in gun fights like on tv, they call the tactical unit.

Some of you who seriously hate the police and constantly berate them will eventually be involved with them, one way or another, and realize they are normal people doing their jobs. A very difficult job that may require very assertive people that won't always coddle you. The vast vast majority of interactions with police are what we would all call very reasonable police behaviour. There are bad cops out there, and I am confident there is increasing pressure to deal with that.

The same groups that wanted body cameras are now the same group wanting them removed. Complaints against officers decreased when a camera was worn, yet use of force remained the same. The conclusion I draw from that is lawyers or 'victims' realize the camera caught it all and possibly justified force. Basically, footage sided with the police in pretty much the bulk of cases.

OKay, so just a couple things that jumped out as red flags in there.

"Complaints against officers decreased when a camera was worn, yet use of force remained the same."


You're suggesting this goes one way - People were making **** up until they knew police were filming the incident. And seemed to specifically mention conclusively that force remained the same between cops wearing and not wearing body cams, which is bonkers.

I would suggest the opposite is not only also true, but likley more prevalent - Police know every interaction is filmed so they cut all the hardcore, aggressive and questionable actions that they have been both known for and caught doing many, many, many, many times in recent years leading up to the trial of body cameras.

[jayswin]

Some of you who seriously hate the police and constantly berate them will eventually be involved with them, one way or another, and realize they are normal people doing their jobs.

This is a fair assessment of what cops unfortunately have to deal with, however it should never be used as a reason to dismiss criticism of law enforcement.

Law enforcement requires some of the highest criticism and scrutiny a society can muster as they have some of the highest power a society offers. And any good cop would agree with this statement.

[Rando]

"Use of force remained the same" by whose judgment? The officers report vs video footage now?

Have little doubt many incidents were downplayed in regard to use of force.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Yeah, it was nice to see all the police criticize one of their own when a judge said that the officer was "not a credible or reliable witness" after watching video of police roughing up a citizen.

Oh wait, no they didn't do that. They voted that non-credible officer in as their president of the union.

That's the issue with the saying "a bad apple" it doesn't end with "a bad apple ruins the reputation of those around them but the other apples stay good." It's "a bad apple spoils the bunch" because once you let that rot in, it becomes part of the culture and the CPS have not done enough to get rid of the rot.

We'll see if the new police chief can change the culture, but the CPS is nothing to aspire to.

Yeah, I try my hardest to support CPS (and almost always do when possible) but their issues in the past decade extend far beyond "a few bad apples".

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Rando

"Use of force remained the same" by whose judgment? The officers report vs video footage now?

Have little doubt many incidents were downplayed in regard to use of force.

That was one of the more bizarre statements of fact I've read in a long time. And I used to read all LannyMacDonald's posts.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Rando

That's part of the problem, the public isn't even close to fully aware what's going on with parts of the police budget. We get vague answers. What kind of dangerous warrants are they going after with that tank? Thanos?

I just love how people closer to the info like Aleks throw it in our faces that their privy to more info while simultaneously scolding us peons for wanting to know more as if that's supposed to calm our questions and concerns about public spending on their profession.

It's that kind of arrogance that helps to turn societies against the people put in place to protect them, just a huge friggen fyi, Aleks (not that you'll take anything from that based on past posting).

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Rando

"Use of force remained the same" by whose judgment? The officers report vs video footage now?

Have little doubt many incidents were downplayed in regard to use of force.

They track use of force. With and without cameras, the study suggested, the use of force remained similar. The difference was that the cameras were tied to a decrease in complaints against officers.

Let's pretend now that the reason there were less complaints was because the officer's behavior changed...that is a good thing, if true. On the other hand, the cameras likely acted on the officer's behalf by documenting the truth and preventing the allegations against them.

This has all lead to the some communities most vocal against the police now the same group most vocal against the cameras.

If you don't like the results of the assorted studies, go do a ride along with the police.

[Rando]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

This has all lead to the some communities most vocal against the police now the same group most vocal against the cameras.

Can you expand on this? Which communities are those?



@Aleks

I absolutely have facts, its not my information to share, nor were the details given to me with the intention to share

Then with all respect, who cares?

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I am involved in emergency response, sometimes with the police. That vehicle is used for several purposes, including being used as a mobile operations centre. The vehicle is used frequently, not to justify its purpose, but to actually normalize its use and ensure that those that need it are aware of how it operates, especially as a mobile operations centre that may require the use of multiple agencies, including municipal, provincial and federal.

The tactical unit shouldn't wait around for an escalation that requires SWAT, they support existing police and have the ability to respond to serious escalations. We all hope they aren't constantly responding to these escalations, as those are serious issues. We still need them just in case. Cops aren't engaging in gun fights like on tv, they call the tactical unit.

see at least this is bringing something to the table we can discuss.
the 500 times thing makes more sense when bring up training.

but to say it's used 500 times with no context doesn't help the public understand.
nor does it help to have people say things like Aleks did when he
says things like
"There's more information behind that decision that that you're just not privy to, so let the people who are in charge of making those decisions make them "Suffice to say, the new vehicle was a very sound purchase."

then he deflects by attacking the fire department.

Originally Posted by Rando

Can you expand on this? Which communities are those?



@Aleks

Then with all respect, who cares?

I believe he's referring to the "anti-police at all costs" crowd. There are a few in this thread.