Let's Talk about the Calgary Police Service

[jgotti]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

We know he was shot while he was crawling on the floor 30+ feet away from anyone. In doing so, obviously unintentional but obviously as a possibility, the officer provoked the man escalating the situation instead of simply following every single de-escalation training that supports time and distance. I don't see how you can disagree with this. It's video.

No. That’s not the video My goodness. The shots. in the video u posted is the non lethal rounds. Maybe watch the actual video of the shooting before you continue to post nonsense. The video were he runs toward the cops and stabs a police dog. You should probably stop posting or having an opinion on something you know nothing about.

[jgotti]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Buddy there's no pole.

Have you seen this video? https://www.tiktok.com/@jijaji1221/v...4jzOBZuaM&_r=1

The lamp posts are not between him and the police ever. He's doing his weird ninja stuff out in the open.

https://youtu.be/tAfdlhKD-54

Here link as posted before. Have a watch

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by jgotti

No. That’s not the video My goodness. The shots. in the video u posted is the non lethal rounds. Maybe watch the actual video of the shooting before you continue to post nonsense. The video were he runs toward the cops and stabs a police dog. You should probably stop posting or having an opinion on something you know nothing about.

I know this. I have little to no issue with anything that happened after the first arwen shot. The actual firearm shootings were an unfortunate necessity. One I believe that was forced by an officer who simply could have waited instead of shooting his fancy new rubber bullet gun at someone.

And it's less-lethal, not non-lethal. So a dude crawling on the floor 30+ feet away from anyone else should not be shot with them.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

Your video is even worse. Clearly looks like he's ninja crawling up and it's certainly not to play a game of monopoly.

Ninja crawling? Yeah I would say that's fair. Probably first time we agree. Dude probably thought he was invisible. But he wasn't. He wasn't a risk crawling on the floor 30 feet away from anyone like he had been for 15 minutes.

[Captain Otto]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Ninja crawling? Yeah I would say that's fair. Probably first time we agree. Dude probably thought he was invisible. But he wasn't. He wasn't a risk crawling on the floor 30 feet away from anyone like he had been for 15 minutes.

Aside from you know, the people filming. Or maybe there's someone in that building that thinks they're gonna go outside and de-escalate things. I mean these are all things that need to be considered.

Where is that information that he was crawling around like that for 15 minutes? Do you have a link?

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

[OptimalTates]

https://youtu.be/RKnxRo7KgSo

3:46 police arrive, 4:02 he was shot. Other video shows him sitting cross legged at points.

Half the reason I’m mad at officer itchy finger is because of the people inside. They were completely safe from Thuel as I’m sure someone had the bright idea to lock the door during the 20 minutes of watching an armed man having a mental crisis right outside. But the escalation put them in the crossfires.

Are you implying they were at risk from Thuel?

Unless he actually was doing some wuxia the dude crawling isn’t going to teleport behind an officer. He isn’t going to slam through a building. At the point he first got shot he was of no risk. But the rubber bullet instead provoked him, escalated the situation, and ultimately a man is dead and several officers will likely have life lasting guilt and mental issues.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

https://youtu.be/RKnxRo7KgSo

3:46 police arrive, 4:02 he was shot. Other video shows him sitting cross legged at points.

Half the reason I’m mad at officer itchy finger is because of the people inside. They were completely safe from Thuel as I’m sure someone had the bright idea to lock the door during the 20 minutes of watching an armed man having a mental crisis right outside. But the escalation put them in the crossfires.

Are you implying they were at risk from Thuel?

Unless he actually was doing some wuxia the dude crawling isn’t going to teleport behind an officer. He isn’t going to slam through a building. At the point he first got shot he was of no risk. But the rubber bullet instead provoked him, escalated the situation, and ultimately a man is dead and several officers will likely have life lasting guilt and mental issues.

I'm mad at you for being mad at officer itchy finger.

[Captain Otto]

[QUOTE=OptimalTates;8188502]https://youtu.be/RKnxRo7KgSo

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

3:46 police arrive, 4:02 he was shot. Other video shows him sitting cross legged at points.

Ya. I am sure he was sleeping in the morning too. The fact he was cross legged at some points is irrelevant. It sure looked to me like it was go time at the point of the first Arwen impact.

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Half the reason I’m mad at officer itchy finger is because of the people inside. They were completely safe from Thuel as I’m sure someone had the bright idea to lock the door during the 20 minutes of watching an armed man having a mental crisis right outside. But the escalation put them in the crossfires.

Ya. Because the people and business in Forest Lawn are notorious for cooperating with the police. Would it change if that wasn't the case or if the police didn't know the doors were locked? Do they just assume like you do? What's the cost if they're wrong?

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Are you implying they were at risk from Thuel?

Unless he actually was doing some wuxia the dude crawling isn’t going to teleport behind an officer. He isn’t going to slam through a building. At the point he first got shot he was of no risk. But the rubber bullet instead provoked him, escalated the situation, and ultimately a man is dead and several officers will likely have life lasting guilt and mental issues.

Seriously. What do you know that we don't know. What makes you know more than then the trained and experienced cops that were there? What makes you know more than the cops in command and control of the call. What extensive experience and training do you have? What have you seen or been involved in that led you to the conclusion that the doors of the business were locked or that bystander was/would do the right thing for example? Do the police know that they're locked? What if one of the businesses is like you, and doesn't trust the police, and they tell the police to beat it. Then what?

In the video I saw there is a large crowd to the northeast with absolutely nothing between them and the guy. Most look to be filming completely oblivious to the situation. I am sure there were other groups scattered around. What if the guy makes a run for them? When do you fire the Arwen? What if it misses or has no effect? Then what? Can you fire your gun now? What kind of distance are we talking? There are now business with people in them behind the guy, he's moving fast.

There are literally hundreds of scenarios to account for many of which police are not in control of.

Fact of the matter is, you've passed judgement based on your own reality and your lack of knowledge, training and understanding. You are also likely influenced by the direction the wind is blowing these days. No explanation will be good enough. While it's unfortunate a man lost his life I, for one, think the police did an excellent job.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

There are literally hundreds of scenarios to account for many of which police are not in control of.

Why do we need to go through 100 when we can just go through 1? Why play with hypotheticals?

Scenario 1: The one where they had been engaging with him for the past 15 minutes and he was not on his two feet. Don't escalate. Wait until he poses a risk.

Sure if in Scenario 2 he's gone to the door, shoot him if they feel the need to with whatever weapon to protect those inside. If in Scenario 3 he was on his two feet and approaching the officers aggressively, shoot him. If in Scenario 4 his relative jumped the barrier and tried to calm him down and the police thought there was substantial risk, shoot him. ####, if in Scenario 5 he was winding up to throw the knife, shoot him.

But in the actual scenario he's not even on his two feet.

If we somehow got to the scenario right before the second shot, when he's on his two feet, staring down the officer, sure use the ARWEN (and absolutely as he's begins to charge) and there's no way to say it wouldn't be justified. I just don't see justification for shooting a person on a knee.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...ful-resolution

Robitaille said an ARWEN deployment is always partnered with “a secondary backup officer” carrying a firearm as officers are “dealing with a high-risk situation” where there is a very real threat of “serious bodily harm or death.”

This is the problem, if the ARWEN fails the backup is the firearm. That's why you wait until he's a threat. Don't use ARWEN to make him a threat.

“The deployment of them, in and of itself, has a considerable deterrent effect and will de-escalate,” Robitaille said. “So we won’t have to use any force for a person to make a decision that it’s probably in their best interest to follow the directions of the police officers who are looking at a peaceful resolution.”

And this is where the clear lack of training is an issue. ARWEN is best used as a deterrent. When someone in a rational mind doesn't want to get shot at in the first place. When someone in a rational mind isn't go to seek revenge on the shooter knowing doing so would be near-certain death. Shooting an irrational man isn't a deterrent, it's a provocation. Instead of de-escalation it was escalation.

And a lot of the stuff you bring up, like maybe the door not being locked, is why officers all over the world are trained to utilize time. Gather that information when they have the ability to.

But I mean know we got the subtle racism popping in? Oh yeah those brown people are going to not lock the door and put themselves at risk because "#### the cops"? What?

[Captain Otto]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Why do we need to go through 100 when we can just go through 1? Why play with hypotheticals?

Scenario 1: The one where they had been engaging with him for the past 15 minutes and he was not on his two feet. Don't escalate. Wait until he poses a risk.

Sure if in Scenario 2 he's gone to the door, shoot him if they feel the need to with whatever weapon to protect those inside. If in Scenario 3 he was on his two feet and approaching the officers aggressively, shoot him. If in Scenario 4 his relative jumped the barrier and tried to calm him down and the police thought there was substantial risk, shoot him. ####, if in Scenario 5 he was winding up to throw the knife, shoot him.

But in the actual scenario he's not even on his two feet.

If we somehow got to the scenario right before the second shot, when he's on his two feet, staring down the officer, sure use the ARWEN (and absolutely as he's begins to charge) and there's no way to say it wouldn't be justified. I just don't see justification for shooting a person on a knee.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...ful-resolution

And this is where the clear lack of training is an issue. ARWEN is best used as a deterrent. When someone in a rational mind doesn't want to get shot at in the first place. When someone in a rational mind isn't go to seek revenge on the shooter knowing doing so would be near-certain death. Shooting an irrational man isn't a deterrent, it's a provocation. Instead of de-escalation it was escalation.

And a lot of the stuff you bring up, like maybe the door not being locked, is why officers all over the world are trained to utilize time. Gather that information when they have the ability to.

But I mean know we got the subtle racism popping in? Oh yeah those brown people are going to not lock the door and put themselves at risk because "#### the cops"? What?

Why play the hypotheticals? You can't be serious.

The quoted part: And this truly shows how little you understand. That quote simply states that an Arwen can't be deployed unless there is cover from a lethal force option. Nothing more.

I won't addresss much more of the post because it's completely ridiculous and definitely shows how ignorant you are. At this point, I think you are just trolling with some of your comments. They are completely non-sensical.

WTF are you talking about? Racism? Seriously, step away. You've lost it.

And ya, people put themselves at risk everyday.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

WTF are you talking about? Racism? Seriously, step away. You've lost it.

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

]Because the people and business in Forest Lawn are notorious for cooperating with the police.

Bud you're insinuating a couple of Indian people in Forest Lawn inside the building would intentionally put themselves at risk because they don't like cops.

You're not saying that if it's two blonde Karens.

[jgotti]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Why do we need to go through 100 when we can just go through 1? Why play with hypotheticals?

Scenario 1: The one where they had been engaging with him for the past 15 minutes and he was not on his two feet. Don't escalate. Wait until he poses a risk.

Sure if in Scenario 2 he's gone to the door, shoot him if they feel the need to with whatever weapon to protect those inside. If in Scenario 3 he was on his two feet and approaching the officers aggressively, shoot him. If in Scenario 4 his relative jumped the barrier and tried to calm him down and the police thought there was substantial risk, shoot him. ####, if in Scenario 5 he was winding up to throw the knife, shoot him.

But in the actual scenario he's not even on his two feet.

If we somehow got to the scenario right before the second shot, when he's on his two feet, staring down the officer, sure use the ARWEN (and absolutely as he's begins to charge) and there's no way to say it wouldn't be justified. I just don't see justification for shooting a person on a knee.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...ful-resolution


This is the problem, if the ARWEN fails the backup is the firearm. That's why you wait until he's a threat. Don't use ARWEN to make him a threat.



And this is where the clear lack of training is an issue. ARWEN is best used as a deterrent. When someone in a rational mind doesn't want to get shot at in the first place. When someone in a rational mind isn't go to seek revenge on the shooter knowing doing so would be near-certain death. Shooting an irrational man isn't a deterrent, it's a provocation. Instead of de-escalation it was escalation.

And a lot of the stuff you bring up, like maybe the door not being locked, is why officers all over the world are trained to utilize time. Gather that information when they have the ability to.

But I mean know we got the subtle racism popping in? Oh yeah those brown people are going to not lock the door and put themselves at risk because "#### the cops"? What?

He posed a threat. He assaulted an innocent by stander before police arrived and there multiple calls to police as the general public was fearful for there safety. Unbelievable how clueless one can be on this situation but continue to pass judgement. Done even trying to reason with you.

[Captain Otto]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Bud you're insinuating a couple of Indian people in Forest Lawn inside the building would intentionally put themselves at risk because they don't like cops.



You're not saying that if it's two blonde Karens.

Again, not your bud.

That's a completely logical leap from what I said. Makes total sense. Somehow you've managed to work in racism. Good work.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by jgotti

He posed a threat. He assaulted an innocent by stander before police arrived and there multiple calls to police as the general public was fearful for there safety. Unbelievable how clueless one can be on this situation but continue to pass judgement. Done even trying to reason with you.

He didn't pose a threat when he's kneeling on the ground.

Sure he posed a threat when he was actively hitting someone. Of course. Had they fired at him then, no issue obviously needed to be done. But that was over 20 minutes prior. Had they fired at him when he's on two feet, circumstances may warrant it.

Firing at him while lurking on the ground when no one is around? Nah. No way.

Sadly funny the person who will most agree with me on this is the actual ARWEN shooter who is certainly wishing he had waited to shoot him.

When do you think he posed a bigger threat. Before the ARWEN shot when he had a knee on the ground and was acting more aloof unconcerned with the police or after the ARWEN shot when he was charging at the officer?

Presumably you will agree with me that it's the latter. If you do something that increases the threat, that's escalation. That's not what cops should be doing.

[powderjunkie]

I'm not going to take one side or another here, but I think it is valid and important to question the deployment/timing of both the ARWEN and K9 unit, even if we can't make definitive judgments from our armchairs.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I'm not going to take one side or another here, but I think it is valid and important to question the deployment/timing of both the ARWEN and K9 unit, even if we can't make definitive judgments from our armchairs.

This is where I come to it as well. I realize there's some charged language leading to people hunkering down in their positions, but in my mind:

- once the man stabbed the dog and then charged at officers with the nice, the shooting became a justified use of force
- what happened before that and the effectiveness of how it was handled should be up for debate

Sure, according to a witness, he hit someone with the stick, so there was the potential of being a threat. But, I also see the argument for why he wasn't an immediate threat to anyone in the surrounding area sitting in the middle of a police-blocked area on his knees.

I'm not going to say it was a right or wrong use of force by the police, but I will say I don't understand why it was the right use of force at that exact moment, and I'm sure others don't either (and I'm sure, despite any protestations and justifications on a keyboard, only the officers involved have a clear picture of why that is). So, I think it's a fair thing to question.

[OptimalTates]

For what it's worth and to reiterate, I have no issue about the officers' actions after the second ARWEN shot. If anything, I think they showed restraint in using their firearms from when I watched that part of the video the only time. Didn't really want to watch it again.

In my mind, although I'm sure a lot of Europeans would disagree, once he slammed the stick to show his aggressive intent and began running at the officer with a knife pretty much anything was justified despite the unfortunate outcome. I know North Americans like myself have that apparently archaic 21 feet rule with knives that apparently doesn't really have a basis, but from the officers point of view, better him than yourself or fellow officer. With all due respect to Mr. Tuel's family.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

only the officers involved have a clear picture of why that is

I would strongly strongly disagree with this though. I can pull a cop-Godwin and say that Chauvin with his cronies thought they had a clear picture of what was necessary too but even without that, usually even ASIRT comes back with "officer was reasonable" and that's that. And I'm not saying they weren't reasonable. But often times there were other methods/actions available beyond just being reasonable.

In the 2016 killing when CPS shot that lady, they were justified based on the Criminal Code, based on policy, based on use of force, based on threat level, based on public perception, and based on training. Probably could make a case they had a clear picture of why it was necessary. Could almost tie this one into a nice little bow where we would all agree with the cops having no choice. And then an expert looks at it and recognizes deficiencies.

After the seemingly frantic woman didn’t respond to three shouted commands to drop the knives she held in each hand, she ran toward the officers, one of whom pulled the trigger. Today, Calgary police officers receive special training to de-escalate similar confrontations — but best practices weren’t used in November 2016 incident, according to University of Alberta psychiatry professor Peter Silverstone.

“I’m not saying for a moment that it would have made any difference,” said Silverstone, who has helped pioneer techniques for officers in such situations.

“Sometimes (the best practices) fail. But it’s well recognized in the literature that simply shouting at disturbed people to stop is not an effective way of dealing with someone in that crisis.”

This week, the province’s police oversight agency, the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) cleared the officers involved in the November 2016 shooting of any wrongdoing. ASIRT executive director Susan D. Hughson found that although the officers didn’t make any attempts to de-escalate the situation beyond the shouted commands, there “wasn’t time” to do more.

It's potentially similar to this one. Of course there's a chance that regardless of being hit by a plastic bullet twice, he eventually charges at the police and the result is the same. And I imagine ASIRT will find this one reasonable too. Armed and recently violent man unresponsive to verbal commands has less-lethal method used on him before lethal forced is used when necessary. There's nothing coming out of this legally.

But I still think it could have been handled better based on the teachings of PERF and other leaders in de-escalation techniques.

Here's two ostensibly similar cases where the ARWEN was used on a knife wielding irrational person before an officer ultimately shoots and kills a knife wielder. I would be less likely to criticize the actions of any officer involved because they tried to use de-escalation mostly through the use of time.

https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/1151...-concludes.pdf

As the presence of police seemed to be a particular source of agitation for the man,
and since he appeared to want a confrontation, one option was for the officers to stand down and
leave the immediate area to de-escalate the situation and give the man time to calm down. They
knew the man’s identity. He could be arrested for the driving-related offences on another day, and
they had diminished the risk to public safety by removing his vehicle. The family was advised to find
another place to stay for the night and not to return to the home. The family was not happy with the
decision.

https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/f141...-save-life.pdf

On May 17, 2018, at 11:12 a.m., CPS received a call from a person who reported that someone had
broken into a secondary basement suite in his bi-level house located on Penbrooke Close SE in
Calgary, and that the perpetrators appeared to still be inside
...
At 12:11 p.m., one of the tactical officers reported that a female voice from
inside the room was calling for help. The officers sought permission from a supervisor to make entry
into the room, which was granted.

The first took place over six hours, where the police simply got up and left instead of risking escalation at one point. Of course in Tuel's case they could not simply leave him as he posed a clear risk if they had but the point is there was no need to force the issue. The other took an hour to get into the room which was prompted by a call for help. In the meantime they secured the area, got backup, got the tactical unit, they acquired information about the house, they didn't go guns a blazing. When the ARWEN was deployed it in these circumstances it was due to real risks. A boy with a knife in close proximity to a woman in distress and an uncontained armed man approaching nescient residences. The man was also coherent so using it as form of pain compliance was a reasonable usage as the officer could have expected a more reasonable response than the non-lucid Tuel, unfortunately as the cops would not know at the time the young man was also suicidal.

[OptimalTates]

Unlike when teachers are late by 15 minutes, there is no law that should allow a cop to shoot a subject if he hasn't complied in 15 minutes. All they had to do was wait for this bad ass mother ####er to show up:
https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/78fe...-justified.pdf

Before resorting to lethal force, the officer attempted both verbal and physical means of ending the
confrontation, attempting to create space and safety, yelling at the man to get back, and striking him
with his pistol in an attempt to stun and disarm him. When the man persisted and swung the knife at
him, the officer discharged a single round from his service pistol. As stated, at this point the man’s
continued possession of the knife, and his actions with that knife, presented a risk of death or
grievous bodily harm.

[Captain Otto]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Unlike when teachers are late by 15 minutes, there is no law that should allow a cop to shoot a subject if he hasn't complied in 15 minutes. All they had to do was wait for this bad ass mother ####er to show up:

https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/78fe...-justified.pdf

What?

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I am disappointed by Gondek. I thought we were getting a sober, moderate, results-based mayor. But she offers only the most simplistic and emotional takes on every issue she wades into. She seems too smart to actually believe the statements she makes, so I assume it’s all just pandering.

She needs to take more time and consideration before responding publicly to Calgary matters.