Calgary cops suspended after arrest video released

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Again, alot more to the story than that. Please, inform yourself. Obviously due to the number of trials, it wasn't as simple as you proclaim.

I don't discount that they (the 2 officers involved) could have done something over the top that warrants further action. However, I won't judge them until the whole story is out. And maybe the chief isn't the best source since 90% of frontline officers think he's incompetent.

You inform me. Did everything go according to plan that night, or did something go wrong?

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm kinda interested in hearing this too.

Originally Posted by The Unabomber

Thany you Rougue for seeing some sense in what i was saying.

Although I hate to link news articles, please refresh your memory.
http://http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/Art..._name=&no_ads=
The trial was much more indepth then the article but touches briefly on the when the force became excessive (still open for debate as the difference in time between the first and 2nd shot was so small that expert witnesses testified that it was too short for the human brain to process the outcome of the first shot and make a conscious decision to fire the 2nd). Again read up on some science behind combat and policing. Dave Grossmans book, 'On Killing' is facinating. I certinaly think it would change your tune.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Although I hate to link news articles, please refresh your memory.
http://http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/Art..._name=&no_ads=
The trial was much more indepth then the article but touches briefly on the when the force became excessive (still open for debate as the difference in time between the first and 2nd shot was so small that expert witnesses testified that it was too short for the human brain to process the outcome of the first shot and make a conscious decision to fire the 2nd). Again read up on some science behind combat and policing. Dave Grossmans book, 'On Killing' is facinating. I certinaly think it would change your tune.

Why do you hate linking to news articles? Aren't they a bit more credible (at least at face value on here) then your, or mine, or whoever else's point of view/opinion?

I actually don't know much at all about this case. But no offense wookie, until this post...you just seemed to keep telling rouge and unabomber to "read up" and "things aren't as clear cut as that" etc. Until now you really haven't provided much other information to support your point of view....

[MelBridgeman]

lol thats excessive? Wow the world is going to hell and the left is takin us there. Rodney King was excessive.

We dont have the sound to this video
we dont even know what was happening
heck we dont even know what that guy did to be arrested.

dont be suprised when these 2 cops get off - they deserve to get off, i have seen much worse.

i guess nobody here has been chased down by a couple of police dogs...
________
Mflb

[The Unabomber]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Although I hate to link news articles, please refresh your memory.
http://http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/Art..._name=&no_ads=
The trial was much more indepth then the article but touches briefly on the when the force became excessive (still open for debate as the difference in time between the first and 2nd shot was so small that expert witnesses testified that it was too short for the human brain to process the outcome of the first shot and make a conscious decision to fire the 2nd). Again read up on some science behind combat and policing. Dave Grossmans book, 'On Killing' is facinating. I certinaly think it would change your tune.

You seem to know everything regarding the trial, so why don't you inform us on it? Why don't you tell us about the history between Darren and the cop involved, that might shed some light on this. Seeing as you know so much regarding this then you should be able to also tell us why the cop was in the cell with a loaded gun, that might be interesting.

Just because you have read a book and read what the paper wrote doesn't make you know the ins and outs of the trial and the history, if that was the case then i wouldn't have needed to watch the Flames after game 15 as Francis told me that they weren't going to make the playoffs.

And to go along with the "expert witnesses" that you talk about, a witness is someone who actually viewed the crime, there wasn't any other person in the cell with the two of them. It came down to the charachter of the officer in question and that's why it went to trial 3 times.

Funny how the paper had an article not too long ago about how his wife was having trouble being away from him while he was in BC in a minimum jail, how would you say the Varlee family has felt since losing Darren?

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Why do you hate linking to news articles? Aren't they a bit more credible (at least at face value on here) then your, or mine, or whoever else's point of view/opinion?

I actually don't know much at all about this case. But no offense wookie, until this post...you just seemed to keep telling rouge and unabomber to "read up" and "things aren't as clear cut as that" etc. Until now you really haven't provided much other information to support your point of view....

I guess it was rather vague, but as I am in no position right now to do all the research for them, I thought maybe they could do some research on their own.
All I am getting at is that, as with the Varely/Ferguson case, it is not all so clear. 'Man in jail cell is shot to death by police' is obviously a little different than 'Man, well known to police, was arreted after several drunk altercations at a local bar. He was aggressive and abusive througout the evening. While in cells man attempts to grab cops gun and 2 shots are fired killing the man'. Again, my version is also vague and there are many, many factors that I didn't include. Same story, but conjures up 2 totally different emotions.

Originally Posted by The Unabomber

Just because you have read a book and read what the paper wrote doesn't make you know the ins and outs of the trial and the history

That's the only means I have to educate myself sir. I don't think I need to defend my methods of research. I am only urging you to do some on your own.

[Ayrahb]

Maybe the cops themselves should remember the "innocent until proven guilty" thingy a little more often. If they can't control their tempers after the suspect is subdued, maybe they should look for different work. I heard security firms in Iraq are paying US$8,000 a month.

[The Unabomber]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

I guess it was rather vague, but as I am in no position right now to do all the research for them, I thought maybe they could do some research on their own.
All I am getting at is that, as with the Varely/Ferguson case, it is not all so clear. 'Man in jail cell is shot to death by police' is obviously a little different than 'Man, well known to police, was arreted after several drunk altercations at a local bar. He was aggressive and abusive througout the evening. While in cells man attempts to grab cops gun and 2 shots are fired killing the man'. Again, my version is also vague and there are many, many factors that I didn't include. Same story, but conjures up 2 totally different emotions.

First of all bent wookie, i have enough knowledge of this case to debate some of your "findings". You say that he was well known to police, as i'm sure everyone that grew up in the town was known to police as it's not a big city. He was out drinking with friends the night of the incident, the friends he was with weren't the best people but that's not the point.

He wasn't in town very often as he worked in the oil patch for quite a few years prior to this event, so please enlighten me on what you seem to know. A cop is in a jail cell with a loaded gun and puts two bullets into an unarmed mans head, when the other cop left the holding cell he reported that Darren was fast asleep/ passed out, that sounds like a threatening individual, doesn't it.

Why did the cop decide that he needed to go into the cell? I sure find it hard to beleive that a drunk man can grab a cops gun througfh cell bars...........but you know everything about this case and it was justified, so tell me how it was justified.

You are now using the excuse of "do your own research" as you can't back this up, so please refrain from talking out your dumper.

Originally Posted by The Unabomber

First of all bent wookie, i have enough knowledge of this case to debate some of your "findings". You say that he was well known to police, as i'm sure everyone that grew up in the town was known to police as it's not a big city. He was out drinking with friends the night of the incident, the friends he was with weren't the best people but that's not the point.

He wasn't in town very often as he worked in the oil patch for quite a few years prior to this event, so please enlighten me on what you seem to know. A cop is in a jail cell with a loaded gun and puts two bullets into an unarmed mans head, when the other cop left the holding cell he reported that Darren was fast asleep/ passed out, that sounds like a threatening individual, doesn't it.

Why did the cop decide that he needed to go into the cell? I sure find it hard to beleive that a drunk man can grab a cops gun througfh cell bars...........but you know everything about this case and it was justified, so tell me how it was justified.

You are now using the excuse of "do your own research" as you can't back this up, so please refrain from talking out your dumper.

I can counter most, if not all of your comments. However, I dont see the point in initiating a pissing contest with you. I really don't need to prove anything to you nor can I present you with information on a public message board.

Are you implying that Ferguson entered the cell as Varely slept and shot him twice in the head?

[The Unabomber]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

I can counter most, if not all of your comments. However, I dont see the point in initiating a pissing contest with you. I really don't need to prove anything to you nor can I present you with information on a public message board.

Are you implying that Ferguson entered the cell as Varely slept and shot him twice in the head?

I am saying that he shot an unarmed man that was already in custody in a jail cell twice in the head.

If that's not excessive violence then i really don't know if there could be an example of it. The crappy thing is that the cop gets suspended with pay for nearly 3 years. That money that pays this creep is coming out of the taxpayers pocket, that's just brutal.

Wow, you can't provide details on a public message board, you must have been a lawyer in the case, but that doesn't add up because in a previous post you said that you got all your info from the media..........wow.

[calculoso]

Who video taped it? Was it a police video, a by-stander video, or a setup where the drug gang video taped it?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Who video taped it? Was it a police video, a by-stander video, or a setup where the drug gang video taped it?

What drug gang?

It was sent anonymously to the police and media.

Originally Posted by The Unabomber

I am saying that he shot an unarmed man that was already in custody in a jail cell twice in the head.

If that's not excessive violence then i really don't know if there could be an example of it. The crappy thing is that the cop gets suspended with pay for nearly 3 years. That money that pays this creep is coming out of the taxpayers pocket, that's just brutal.

Wow, you can't provide details on a public message board, you must have been a lawyer in the case, but that doesn't add up because in a previous post you said that you got all your info from the media..........wow.

An unarmed man grabbing a cops side arm IS A LETHAL FORCE ENCOUNTER.

Obviously, you just can't go firing someone for an allegation until that allegation is proven. By suspending him, it shows that the police taking it seriously however, they are still showing him loyalty.

Err... all I said is that I am limited to the same form of information that you are, including the media. Nothing I researched on the topic is 'Top Secret' and is available to you if you are willing.

I am finding your posts quite interesting as you take small of sentences and ideas I put forth and present them as a single entity. Please go back a reread my entire posts.

[The Unabomber]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

An unarmed man grabbing a cops side arm IS A LETHAL FORCE ENCOUNTER.

Obviously, you just can't go firing someone for an allegation until that allegation is proven. By suspending him, it shows that the police taking it seriously however, they are still showing him loyalty.

Err... all I said is that I am limited to the same form of information that you are, including the media. Nothing I researched on the topic is 'Top Secret' and is available to you if you are willing.

I am finding your posts quite interesting as you take small of sentences and ideas I put forth and present them as a single entity. Please go back a reread my entire posts.

The point is that why is the cop in a position to allow himself to be grabbed? Darren was already in custody, locked in a cell. That is the statement that was made by the officer that last seen Darren alive. So either a) The cop went into the cell to provoke Darren, and had a loaded gun, or b) the cop isn't telling the whole truth.

Which is it? Almost everytime a cop is under investigation he/she will be suspended with pay, that's something that i disagree with. In certain circumstances i can see that it is reasonable, but it's rather fishy when it's simply 1 cop and 1 man locked in a jail cell arrested for being drunk in a public place, and the man in the jail cell gets shot twice in the head.

I really don't think that anyone on this board can say that this cop was innocent, simply look at that scenario and that is all that needs to be shown. It's not the history of either individual, it's about the facts of the case.

The cop should be in Drumheller serving a life sentence for 1st degree murder, yet he's out from minimum security in BC. Why, because the courts feared for his safety in a real jail. Makes sense when the safety of his victim never crossed his mind.

Originally Posted by The Unabomber

The point is that why is the cop in a position to allow himself to be grabbed? Darren was already in custody, locked in a cell. That is the statement that was made by the officer that last seen Darren alive. So either a) The cop went into the cell to provoke Darren, and had a loaded gun, or b) the cop isn't telling the whole truth.

Which is it? Almost everytime a cop is under investigation he/she will be suspended with pay, that's something that i disagree with. In certain circumstances i can see that it is reasonable, but it's rather fishy when it's simply 1 cop and 1 man locked in a jail cell arrested for being drunk in a public place, and the man in the jail cell gets shot twice in the head.

I really don't think that anyone on this board can say that this cop was innocent, simply look at that scenario and that is all that needs to be shown. It's not the history of either individual, it's about the facts of the case.

The cop should be in Drumheller serving a life sentence for 1st degree murder, yet he's out from minimum security in BC. Why, because the courts feared for his safety in a real jail. Makes sense when the safety of his victim never crossed his mind.

I respect your opinion.

However, 2 juries didn't believe that it was as clear cut as you think. Were they missing something or are you. It wasn't unitl the crown found a 3rd jury that a guilty sentence was handed down.
Further, and as the the news article stated, Justice Hawko made several comments in his report as it relates to the guilty verdict:
'Varley initiated the struggle... the first shot was fired in self defense, the second shot was unnecessary... that the jury believed Ferguson did not intend to cause Varely death (thus the manslaughter conviction and not 2nd degree murder)... the fatal shot was an instinctive reaction to a life threatening situation'

it's rather fishy when its simply one cop and one man locked in a jail cell arrested for being drunk in a public place, and the man in the jail cell gets shot twice in the head.

That's my point... there is alot more you simply don't want to hear.

And, for the record, Varely was shot once in the abdomen and once in the head.

[rubecube]

[quote=Bent Wookie;880589]Further, and as the the news article stated, Justice Hawko made several comments in his report as it relates to the guilty verdict:
'Varley initiated the struggle... the first shot was fired in self defense, the second shot was unnecessary... that the jury believed Ferguson did not intend to cause Varely death (thus the manslaughter conviction and not 2nd degree murder)... the fatal shot was an instinctive reaction to a life threatening situation'[/quote]

I've dealt and know many people who have dealt with Hawko before and the man isn't exactly a genius, so I wouldn't be taking his word as gospel.

[quote=rubecube;880610]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Further, and as the the news article stated, Justice Hawko made several comments in his report as it relates to the guilty verdict:
'Varley initiated the struggle... the first shot was fired in self defense, the second shot was unnecessary... that the jury believed Ferguson did not intend to cause Varely death (thus the manslaughter conviction and not 2nd degree murder)... the fatal shot was an instinctive reaction to a life threatening situation'[/quote]

I've dealt and know many people who have dealt with Hawko before and the man isn't exactly a genius, so I wouldn't be taking his word as gospel.

Ya. You'll notice I didn't give a 'praise the lord' at the end of quote did you. I was simply repeating what he wrote in his report- from a man, that sat through the entire trial- i am sure he has some insight. To question the report and his findings based on what you think of his intelligence is perhaps a little too judgemental.

If you believe that his rationale is flawed too, I guess there is no convincing you and you will continue to believe what you want. History is riddled with people who believe things despite evidence to the contrary.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

If you believe that his rationale is flawed too, I guess there is no convincing you and you will continue to believe what you want. History is riddled with people who believe things despite evidence to the contrary.

And those who never questioned agents of the state.