Let's Talk about the Calgary Police Service

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

1) Yes I meant to say they’re not infallible.

2) I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make bringing up a traffic cop writing a million tickets, that’s they’re job and as long as the ticket is for an offence there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s not misconduct. How many people are shot or rotting in cells at the convenience of the police? I don’t know, you tell me, you seem to have some inside knowledge on this. Please, provide some examples.

Yes, I watched the video, perhaps you missed my post where I called it disgusting. No I do not think that was necessary and I do not condone excessive force, quite frankly it reflects poorly on every police officer.

With regards to his “one year vacation” and reassignment, I’ll have to look into the actual sanctions before making comment. However, there is precedence for offences like that, such as 60 days of pay, a permanent discipline record which is disclosable for criminal trials as well as permanent limitations on duty options in the future. Then on top of that there are the criminal repercussions. If he’s found guilty of aggravated assault that can come with a weapons ban so that can result in him losing his job as he wouldn’t be able to carry a firearm.

With regards to their reaction? It looks like they were kind of shocked to be honest, now the supervisor on scene told the member to stay away from the victim and that it was the worst case of excessive force he’d seen to that member at the scene. He then went on to testify against that subject officer during trial. Did the other members do that? I don’t know, I’d have to read the court transcripts. But you holding this case up as an example on police covering for each other is weak.

Have you ever read the NHL Rulebook?

If the Referees called the game to the 'Letter of the Law' the game simply couldnt happen.

This is the problem. We entrust the Police with integrity and discretion.

That trust is being betrayed.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

You’re right, there shouldn’t be but there will be. Police are human, they’re fallible (thanks Locke). No one has to like or agree with what happened but you have to accept that it will happen. Teachers will have inappropriate relations with students sometimes, doctors will malpractice, lawyers will get investigated for malfeasance, politicians will be corrupt etc etc etc. This things will never cease but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be outraged when it does happen.

What exactly is your point? Police are human so it is acceptable for a small percentage of cops to assault handcuffed women who struggle when a man puts his hands on her?

We all agree that in the course of a 'good' arrest some use of force may be necessary. Most of the examples we are aware of are so far outside the grey zone as to be ludicrous.

Why are we accepting anything above the very bare minimum of 'mistakes'?

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Titan

Do we have 24/7 bodycams yet? If no, why not?

IIRC, they had enough for every front line officer and were working on building up a surplus, then COVID hit and they had to reassign a bunch of people forward and don't have enough for everyone again.

Police cameras are not 24/7 though, nor do I feel they ever will be. There are simply too many situations an officer can get into (yes, good and bad) where an always-on camera wouldn't be appropriate.

Here's the older 'front line officers have them' article I was thinking of: https://globalnews.ca/news/5766999/c...ras-permanent/

Here's a newer one with some numbers: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...cord-1.5610474

Here's the one with some officers complaining about not having body cams: https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...a-distribution

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Locke

Have you ever read the NHL Rulebook?

If the Referees called the game to the 'Letter of the Law' the game simply couldnt happen.

This is the problem. We entrust the Police with integrity and discretion.

That trust is being betrayed.

Lol! Holding up NHL officiating as the model for discretion in policing????

[OMG!WTF!]

It would be fascinating to know what would have happened if there were no cameras. Here is a 100 pound, handcuffed woman with a broken face and likely concussion. Now, can any of you fine officers explain exactly what happened?


As it stands, the defense lawyers in this case are convinced there is no wrong doing because to paraphrase..."real life is different than super slow motion on a video recording". What you don't see is the tactical training the officer has, the aggressive cuff slip the defendant made while shielded from view by the officer, the fear the officer had for his life and the life of other officers. None of that is available on film. They're literally trying to tell you that what you see on camera isn't real and should not be considered prima facie evidence. So we're back to the beginning...can anyone really explain why this woman has a broken face?

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Titan

What exactly is your point? Police are human so it is acceptable for a small percentage of cops to assault handcuffed women who struggle when a man puts his hands on her?

We all agree that in the course of a 'good' arrest some use of force may be necessary. Most of the examples we are aware of are so far outside the grey zone as to be ludicrous.

Why are we accepting anything above the very bare minimum of 'mistakes'?

My point was pretty clear. This things will never cease but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be outraged when it does happen.

What I’m saying is, it’s going to happen. Period. Full stop. There will never be perfection and people need to accept that. “Burning it to the ground” sounds real nice and gives the impression that the new police model will be an improvement but in all likelihood it won’t be much different. People do not need to accept the behaviour though and if there is police misconduct they must be held accountable.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

IIRC, they had enough for every front line officer and were working on building up a surplus, then COVID hit and they had to reassign a bunch of people forward and don't have enough for everyone again.

Police cameras are not 24/7 though, nor do I feel they ever will be. There are simply too many situations an officer can get into (yes, good and bad) where an always-on camera wouldn't be appropriate.

Thanks for that. However, I would argue that there is never an inappropriate time for the camera to be on. Think of it as the eyes of another officer. The footage is a record of the incident, just like the police report. In fact, the report should include the relevant clip. Once the shift is over without the need for reference to the video it goes into the records just like the police report to be referenced if ever needed.

No one that is not authorized to view it should ever see it so whatever it captures is kept private until it is evidence in court.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

It would be fascinating to know what would have happened if there were no cameras. Here is a 100 pound, handcuffed woman with a broken face and likely concussion. Now, can any of you fine officers explain exactly what happened?


As it stands, the defense lawyers in this case are convinced there is no wrong doing because to paraphrase..."real life is different than super slow motion on a video recording". What you don't see is the tactical training the officer has, the aggressive cuff slip the defendant made while shielded from view by the officer, the fear the officer had for his life and the life of other officers. None of that is available on film. They're literally trying to tell you that what you see on camera isn't real and should not be considered prima facie evidence. So we're back to the beginning...can anyone really explain why this woman has a broken face?

That’s their job. Not sure why that is a surprise. As far as explaining why the woman has a broken nose? Because some overzealous a$$hole decided to throw her handcuffed onto her face. I hope he’s convicted of assault and given the appropriate sentence.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Titan

Thanks for that. However, I would argue that there is never an inappropriate time for the camera to be on. Think of it as the eyes of another officer. The footage is a record of the incident, just like the police report. In fact, the report should include the relevant clip. Once the shift is over without the need for reference to the video it goes into the records just like the police report to be referenced if ever needed.

No one that is not authorized to view it should ever see it so whatever it captures is kept private until it is evidence in court.

Well, if someone is using the washroom or eating their lunch I think it’s safe to say we don’t need to see/hear that.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Police cameras are not 24/7 though, nor do I feel they ever will be. There are simply too many situations an officer can get into (yes, good and bad) where an always-on camera wouldn't be appropriate.

Can you give some examples about when it wouldn't be appropriate? I'm having trouble thinking of any. I mean, it's not like the cameras are live-streamed over the internet.

Also, how is it decided when the camera is on and isn't?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

That’s their job. Not sure why that is a surprise. As far as explaining why the woman has a broken nose? Because some overzealous a$$hole decided to throw her handcuffed onto her face. I hope he’s convicted of assault and given the appropriate sentence.

This is the problem though.

You 'Hope' that.

Do you honestly believe it'll happen? I dont.

This is why things never change and why people, largely, are getting fed up and protesting.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Titan

Thanks for that. However, I would argue that there is never an inappropriate time for the camera to be on. Think of it as the eyes of another officer. The footage is a record of the incident, just like the police report.

The first thing that comes to mind anyone someone talks about "always on" police cameras is 'what about when they are in the bathroom?'

[Titan]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Well, if someone is using the washroom or eating their lunch I think it’s safe to say we don’t need to see/hear that.

Fine. Be that way. That is where all the coke is done though!!

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

And it's taking a video of the bathroom stall wall? Who cares.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

The first thing that comes to mind anyone someone talks about "always on" police cameras is 'what about when they are in the bathroom?'

You and Zulu went straight to the bathroom argument. Hmmmm?

KinkyCopCams.com may be the answer to the funding issues?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

It's not like the video is being reviewed by anyone. No one's ever going to see the lunch and bathroom footage, because - again - who cares. The only thing the cameras are for is when there's an incident that someone needs a second look at, they'll go back and review that specific footage. Everything else that happens to be on a memory card that no one will ever look at is totally immaterial.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

And it's taking a video of the bathroom stall wall? Who cares.

All joking aside, no I don’t think it’s appropriate to have a recording of someone taking a deuce or a leak. I dunno maybe that’s just me.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Locke

This is the problem though.

You 'Hope' that.

Do you honestly believe it'll happen? I dont.

This is why things never change and why people, largely, are getting fed up and protesting.

Ok, but that’s a whole other kettle of fish. Your concerns are about the judiciary.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Ok, but that’s a whole other kettle of fish. Your concerns are about the judiciary.

Well...

The judiciary is an important piece but if the evidence is not collected or tendered and he is not charged and the crown chooses not to proceed...

There are lots of cutouts before it gets to the courts and I think that is what we are commenting on.

George Floyd is a very graphic example. Push the bad guy off of him or force him off of him. Or arrest him at the scene. None of that happened? Why? Not to get into the whole Floyd thing but just the element of the arrest and X number of cops stood around and watched a guy kneel on his neck, against policy if nothing else. That is the problem we are talking about.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Titan

Well...

The judiciary is an important piece but if the evidence is not collected or tendered and he is not charged and the crown chooses not to proceed...

There are lots of cutouts before it gets to the courts and I think that is what we are commenting on.

George Floyd is a very graphic example. Push the bad guy off of him or force him off of him. Or arrest him at the scene. None of that happened? Why? Not to get into the whole Floyd thing but just the element of the arrest and X number of cops stood around and watched a guy kneel on his neck, against policy if nothing else. That is the problem we are talking about.

Well, no I disagree. I responded to Lockes post and said I hope he’s convicted and given the appropriate sentence. Locke said he’s doubtful it’ll happen or something to that effect. So, it would appear that he’s doubting the judiciary will convict.

To your point about police standing around watching George Floyd, yeah absolutely someone should have intervened. And given the massive public backlash I do think that police will be acutely aware of future situations like that and intervene.
:edit:
Also with regards to your point about Crown electing not to charge, collecting of evidence, etc. That is the legal framework in which our society operates.