Let's Talk about the Calgary Police Service

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by MBates

The Police Commission is not 'allowing' them to wear the symbol. The CPC has issued a direction that it must no longer be worn as of April 1, 2022 and that has in no way been rescinded. Since the decision was announced (after a year-long consultation including the two police associations representing CPS members) the CPC has reiterated it was the correct decision and that it is expected to be followed.

The Chief announced that for the purpose of implementing the CPC directive (which he described as lawful, and acknowledged he had a legal duty to implement and enforce) he would not actively enforce the directive through disciplinary measures until attempting to obtain voluntary compliance during a 2 week period.

While you’re correct that they have not formally rescinded the order, I think you’d agree that the fact that the chief has publicly stated its implementation will be delayed and he has faced no disciplinary action from the commission nor has the commission given any indication that they will be taking steps to do so would be considered as them being in agreement with or at the very least not opposed to this course of action.

But, make no mistake about it, any officer wearing the symbol since April 1, 2022 is breaking the law. And not some made up law, the Alberta Police Act Section 31(2) is unequivocal:

Unfortunately due to how the chains of command are structured it puts the CPS in tricky position. While any officer could technically be found guilty of violating the police act they likely couldn’t be terminated if they are following the directions of the chief so right or wrong I’m not sure how much the police act is really going to deter them in this case.

The incomprehensible thing is that if the Thin Blue Line did not symbolize police treating themselves as above the law before, then officers quickly made it symbolize that very thing by openly and publicly declaring they would disobey the direction of the CPC by continuing to wear the Thin Blue Line symbol. Such police officers have in essence drawn a line between police officers and the civilians who legally control the police using the Thin Blue Line. It is an astounding own-goal.

Not disagreeing at all, from a PR perspective this has been handled about as poorly as it could have been. The police association will have to deal with the fallout.

For those who belatedly wish to challenge the merits of the decision - fine. Carry on the off-duty public debate forever if you think it is that important. Maybe one day you will succeed in making it an election issue and through lawful channels available in a free and democratic society, you will get a reversal of the decision. But until then, the on-duty debate is not a thing. There is no debating a lawful direction of the Commission. The Chain of command and the rule of law established by the legislature on behalf of Albertans has said the symbol is prohibited on the uniform.

Are the individual officers not following the chain of command though? The chief gets directions from the commission but the officers get their direction from the chief.

Don't like being legally obligated (secured by your own sworn oath) to follow the lawful orders of your superiors in a paramilitary police organization? You have full rights to resign and move on.

Agreed, but again the individual officers haven’t defied the orders of their superior when their direct superior is telling them it’s ok to temporarily keep wearing it.

The rule of law is non-negotiable. Some laws may be 'better' or more 'necessary' than others depending on one's perspective. But sworn officers of the law do not get to select the ones they would like to follow and ignore the others. And it really is irrelevant how good of a reason you have for your personal views to the contrary.

Also, the Police Act does not give exclusive enforcement jurisdiction to the Chief of Police. So while it is possible he can adequately justify his decision to not instigate any Chief of Police initiated disciplinary proceedings for the two week period, an individual civilian does not need to permit same and can file a complaint for violation of section 31(2) of the Act against any officer defying the CPC direction. Civilians can commence enforcement themselves by submitting a complaint within the criteria of section 42.1 of the Act.

What would happen with the investigation and proceedings after that might get complicated - but it would not be because CPS officers have permission to continue wearing the symbol. They have no such permission.

Given all the current facts, in your opinion do you believe any charges would actually be pursued and upheld against an officer who a complaint was filed against during the 2 week grace period?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

While you’re correct that they have not formally rescinded the order, I think you’d agree that the fact that the chief has publicly stated its implementation will be delayed and he has faced no disciplinary action from the commission nor has the commission given any indication that they will be taking steps to do so would be considered as them being in agreement with or at the very least not opposed to this course of action.

Sometimes you just have to let toddlers cry through their tantrum, stomp their feet so they think they 'got ya', then firmly reaffirm your will to have them do what you want. I think you'd agree that's what the commission is doing here.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by timun

On the contrary, the vast majority of big police departments don't have black-and-white cars. The 10 biggest departments in the US are New York, Chicago, LA, Philly, Houston, DC Metro, Dallas, Miami-Dade, Phoenix and Las Vegas Metro, and of those 10:

• New York, Chicago, Philly, DC Metro, Miami-Dade and Phoenix are white,
• LA, Houston, Dallas and Las Vegas Metro are black-and-white, and
• of those four who run black-and-white, only LA and Vegas Metro had them immediately prior to the demise of the Ford Crown Vic. Dallas switched in 2009, Houston in 2012.

In Canada the largest police forces are RCMP, OPP and Toronto, and they have white, black-and-white, and grey-and-white respectively. OPP switched to black-and-white in 2009.

Fleet size, not total #'s, and NYPD and most departments in the Eastern US are misleading because they include stuff like parking enforcement, transit enforcement, and housing enforcement, within the police not separate departments all of which just use normal vehicles, not police models.

Trust me, RCMP pays handsomely for the privilege, but they are Federal after all, money isn't an issue. As shown by the fact they have more Tahoes than Explorers (Chevy doesn't charge extra for white like Ford does, although the vehicle itself is much more $)

For example, out west here;

Alberta:

Spoiler!

White:

RCMP
Sheriffs
Taber

Black:

Calgary
Camrose
Edmonton
Lacombe
Lethbridge
Medicine Hat

BC:

Spoiler!

White:
RCMP
Delta


Black:
Abbotsford
Central Saanich
Nelson
New Westminster
Port Moody
Saanich
Vancouver
Victoria
West Vancouver

Then the BC Sheriff's use a mix of both

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Sometimes you just have to let toddlers cry through their tantrum, stomp their feet so they think they 'got ya', then firmly reaffirm your will to have them do what you want. I think you'd agree that's what the commission is doing here.

I’ve said it before that I think the commission is handling this appropriately but I also don’t think the police association at any point thought that they “got” the commission by any stretch. They’re doing what they can to try to get their point across, whether they’re going about it the best way can probably be debated but to be clear I also don’t think they’ve handled it very well at all.

[timun]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Fleet size, not total #'s, and NYPD and most departments in the Eastern US are misleading because they include stuff like parking enforcement, transit enforcement, and housing enforcement, within the police not separate departments all of which just use normal vehicles, not police models.

I went looking for the fleet sizes and couldn't find the exact numbers, but I figured it's likely to correlate to the overall size of the departments. It's not as though LAPD don't have parking enforcement, transit enforcement, etc. too.

I don't doubt that the CPS are getting a better deal on the black cars now, and that's nominally one of the reasons why they switched the paint/decals, but the idea that Ford built the newer Taurus and Explorer police vehicles in black because "Ford's biggest customers, the biggest departments, had black vehicles" is a little misleading. In reality it's not the big departments that made the switch, it's the smaller departments across the continent that have moved to black-and-white schemes. The little American PDs get a lot of their funding for their fleets from the US Department of Homeland Security, and it's DHS who made the recommendation about 15 years ago that all US police departments across their country adopt a "unified look"...

[btimbit]

Ah gotcha. I could have been clearer in my original post that the pricing is mostly a Ford thing, out east they use a lot more Dodge's and Chevs. New York loved the last two generations of Impala that wasn't even available in Canada

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I think you’re proving his point.

What point is that, about drive-by postings? CliffFletcher might not like snarky posts but he's the king of drive-by posts. The majority off-topic threads have Cliff jumping in with some absurd take, being called out, then vanishing like a ghost. That's a drive-by post. It happens all the time. The fact he ignores the plethora of posts aimed at him civilly (including mine) speaks volumes.

And CPS has black vehicles because they think it makes them look mean, full stop. I've seen saving money and historical arguments from them and it's a joke, they think it makes them look bad-ass.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by FormerPresJamesTaylor

And CPS has black vehicles because they think it makes them look mean, full stop. I've seen saving money and historical arguments from them and it's a joke, they think it makes them look bad-ass.

Or do they simply do it for the same reason everyone else does? We really think they got together with the majority of police organizations across the continent and they all agreed to just look mean?

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Or do they simply do it for the same reason everyone else does? We really think they got together with the majority of police organizations across the continent and they all agreed to just look mean?

Calgary police officers don't have a monopoly on wanting to look as tough as possible. The militerization of cops all over north america isn't a local thing for example.

[Krovikan]

The original justification I remember for the change they were touting was to stand out more. Though IMO, they stand out less with the black colour.

[btimbit]

So they all, at the same time, decided to switch to black to look tough? Nothing to do with the Homeland directive in the states for commonality and recognition, nothing to do with Ford charging more for colours other than black, nope, it's simply because they want to be dickheads?

I don't see it


I don't like the black personally, but I don't have an issue with it either

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Krovikan

The original justification I remember for the change they were touting was to stand out more. Though IMO, they stand out less with the black colour.

'stand out' in a sense that the idea is, no matter where you go on the continent, you recognize black and white as a police vehicle right away. that was the original directive from the US at least, and since we buy our vehicles from US manufactures, well, here we are

[Captain Otto]

Originally Posted by FormerPresJamesTaylor

What point is that, about drive-by postings? CliffFletcher might not like snarky posts but he's the king of drive-by posts. The majority off-topic threads have Cliff jumping in with some absurd take, being called out, then vanishing like a ghost. That's a drive-by post. It happens all the time. The fact he ignores the plethora of posts aimed at him civilly (including mine) speaks volumes.



And CPS has black vehicles because they think it makes them look mean, full stop. I've seen saving money and historical arguments from them and it's a joke, they think it makes them look bad-ass.

Lol. You, of all people talking about drive-by posts. Hilarious.

Back to ignore for you.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Do you think employees should have to accept whatever their bosses tell them to wear or not wear?

It’s a simple question. Because that’s the assertion I was responding to.

There seems to be pretty reasonable limits established around dress codes and religious symbolism. I'm fine with that.

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

Lol. You, of all people talking about drive-by posts. Hilarious.

Back to ignore for you.

Next time just keep me there?

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by FormerPresJamesTaylor

What point is that, about drive-by postings? CliffFletcher might not like snarky posts but he's the king of drive-by posts. The majority off-topic threads have Cliff jumping in with some absurd take, being called out, then vanishing like a ghost. That's a drive-by post. It happens all the time. The fact he ignores the plethora of posts aimed at him civilly (including mine) speaks volumes.

And CPS has black vehicles because they think it makes them look mean, full stop. I've seen saving money and historical arguments from them and it's a joke, they think it makes them look bad-ass.

No. The freedom convoy is an example of what cliff was talking about.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

No. The freedom convoy is an example of what

cliff was talking about.

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

That has always been a characteristic of this board. There is a vocal minority who support an opinion, generally based on virtue signally and they pound their chests and insult anyone who disagrees. I think it generally just makes them feel better. That they're some woke representative of the people.

I mean look at the last response by tinum. There's literally zero acknowledgment of anything contrary to his own opinion. None. Zero. That maybe his experience or belief is may not reality.

Cliff was responding directly to this, where he attempt to moralize about the "obnoxious" opinions he doesn't agree with, bemoaning how they have gotten out of hand. I posted a Freedom Convoy picture, because it's the exact type of thing that fits his description, but was not the target he was aiming for. He fired a shot at the "libs", and scored an own goal. I understand you have completely missed the point on it though, which is not unexpected.

[Captain Otto]

I actually wasn't confused by what you posted.

I'm guessing you just wanted to throw an insult and simply disguised it in a post.

That's cool. I can certainly concede that these last few days in this thread have not been my best, but I'm working on a few related things to help me understand.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

[Fuzz]

I wasn't referring to you at all, it's Corporatejay who is missing the point. I quoted you for context. And it wasn't an "insult", it was "yes, well, the problem isn't limited to what Cliffletcher was attempting to point out."

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Cliff was responding directly to this, where he attempt to moralize about the "obnoxious" opinions he doesn't agree with,

I don’t call opinions obnoxious. I call low-effort posts insulting other people obnoxious. Because they are. And a great many people don’t post in these threads anymore because the mods have allowed them to run unchecked.