Calgary cops suspended after arrest video released

[The Unabomber]

[quote=Bent Wookie;880617]

Originally Posted by rubecube

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.

This is the problem that you are overlooking and why the Varley family finally got it to go to the grand jury. The law involving cops is different from the law involving the average citizen, cops tend to know judges and have a good relationship with them.

I am pretty sure that Darrens family sat through the entire trial 3 times only to realise that the system that they were dealing with was flawed. Then it goes before a different system where the cop in question is not know and tada.....he's found guilty, that's interesting.

Again, what exactly is the evidence? When i worked with Darren over the course of 12-16 months, he wasn't much of a drinker and i never seen him be agressive, i tend to beleive that the cop was/is power hungry.

This leads me to a question that i have asked you several times without an answer, why would a cop put himself in a situation which he feels could be harmful to the man in jail. The man is already in a cell, he was drunk and asleep, why does the cop need to do anything? Now lets say that Darren reached for his arm through the bars on the cell, is this cop to weak to remove the arm or hit him? Does he need to shoot him in the head? If i walk downtown and brush up against a cop does that give him the right to shoot me twice? That is exactly what this sets us up in the future for.

[RedHot25]

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?

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What drug gang?

It was sent anonymously to the police and media.

Huh? I'm with Rouge, Calculoso, what the heck are you talking about at the tail end there?

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that it was sent in by someone on his patio/deck?

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Huh? I'm with Rouge, Calculoso, what the heck are you talking about at the tail end there?

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that it was sent in by someone on his patio/deck?

I saw some vid captures in the Calgary Sun today...looks like it was off a security tape? I'm not sure, works been too busy to actually read the article

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by jar_e

I saw some vid captures in the Calgary Sun today...looks like it was off a security tape? I'm not sure, works been too busy to actually read the article

All it says is this:

The incident took place in April, but video shot from a nearby balcony was sent to police and media only recently.

[quote=The Unabomber;880629]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

This is the problem that you are overlooking and why the Varley family finally got it to go to the grand jury. The law involving cops is different from the law involving the average citizen, cops tend to know judges and have a good relationship with them.

I am pretty sure that Darrens family sat through the entire trial 3 times only to realise that the system that they were dealing with was flawed. Then it goes before a different system where the cop in question is not know and tada.....he's found guilty, that's interesting.

Again, what exactly is the evidence? When i worked with Darren over the course of 12-16 months, he wasn't much of a drinker and i never seen him be agressive, i tend to beleive that the cop was/is power hungry.

This leads me to a question that i have asked you several times without an answer, why would a cop put himself in a situation which he feels could be harmful to the man in jail. The man is already in a cell, he was drunk and asleep, why does the cop need to do anything? Now lets say that Darren reached for his arm through the bars on the cell, is this cop to weak to remove the arm or hit him? Does he need to shoot him in the head? If i walk downtown and brush up against a cop does that give him the right to shoot me twice? That is exactly what this sets us up in the future for.

This will be the last I post on the topic as it is clear that you don't really know how the Canadian Justice system works and you are too personally involved to understand anything I say.

This case went to trial 3 times- it never went to the Supreme Court (not sure where your grand jury statement came from). The first 2 were hung juries, the 3rd was a guilty verdict for manslaughter- in essence, he was convicted of an accidental death (I won't go any further on the differences between manslaughter and murder). This was a trial by JURY. I am also not sure what you meant by a 'different system'. If you mean your 'grand jury' theory (which, as I stated, doesn't exist), I will assume you mean supreme court- all are part of the same system.

I don't really understand the power hungry comment either. Don't bother explaining it though.

What Ferguson was doing in the cell with Varley neither of us will know. I do not believe it was a bone of contention in the trial- meaning he had a logical reason for being in there. Further, your theory about reach through the bars is also flawed as Ferguson was clearly in the cell. Ferguson contends that Varely had pulled his vest up over his head, then attempted to grab his gun. Again, this is a lethal force encounter based on Ferguson version of events. However, as Hawko and obviously the jury felt, the 2nd shot was excessive.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Huh? I'm with Rouge, Calculoso, what the heck are you talking about at the tail end there?

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that it was sent in by someone on his patio/deck?

I hadn't yet read the article, but heard that it was on a "drug bust" when the incident happened. As such, I made a leap that I shouldn't have.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

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

I had the unfortunate experience of reading this thread when I wasn't logged in, therefore my ignore list was not in effect. If it had been, I would not have seen "The Unabomber" claim not once, not twice, but at least SIX times that Varley took two in the head. And as you have indicated, this is incorrect.

Other claims by that poster were that Varley was:

• Handcuffed
• Asleep/passed out
• Locked in a cell
• Drunk

OK, drunk is a given. BOC was 0.20 apparently.

Handcuffed? Did anyone see him lying on the floor handcuffed? Testimony indicates that Varley was taken to the booking area, shoes removed, handcuffs removed and taken to the last cell available. Standard ops there... been there, done that.

Asleep/passed out? Since this occurred right after the booking, and according to what I am reading, there is zero chance in my mind that Varley walked into cell, fell asleep and was shot twice in the manner described. That leads to him being locked in a cell.

This all happened as he was going into the cell, not later. The door hadn't even been closed from what I can surmount.

So to Unabomber (nice handle by the way... pick that one yourself?) You have been incorrect on several points, many significant. Now you did say that he was drunk, but that "he wasn't much of a drinker." OK, well other than several reports indicating otherwise, he was in fact drunk as you have stated. You also indicated "you had never seen him be aggressive (sp)". Let's look at what happened that night.

• He has an argument with his bride-to-be where she walks out and stays at a friends house
• He gets into an altercation with a woman, who's husband takes exception and beats up his friend to the point they have to take him to the hospital
• At the hospital, he insists on calling the RCMP about an apparent abduction of his fiancee, cop comes, and ultimately a physical confrontation ensues
• He is arrested, put in the cop car and while the cop goes back into the hospital, proceeds to kick out a window in the car.

Certainly looks like a spiralling increase in violent behaviour to me. Lord only knows what then happened on the way to jail let alone within the cell itself.

You also asked "Why don't you tell us about the history between Darren and the cop involved, that might shed some light on this." OK, I give, what history? As far as I can find out, there was none, other than that fateful night.

Bottom line for me? I feel bad that you lost someone you knew. Isn't going to stop me from keeping you on my ignore list where you belong though. Man I have to stop surfing this site when I am not logged in.

BTW, of all the articles I read, these two (same site/page) provide the most detailed looked at events and the aftermath.

http://www.scottwriting.com/feature2.htm#Pcreek1

http://www.scottwriting.com/feature2.htm#Tragedy2

[CaptainCrunch]

If I remember correctly, and I think I read it earlier in the thread as well.

the judge's in all of the trials had no legal problem with the initial reaction by the police officer where he shot the victim in response to a perceived or real threat by Varley.

Where the actual criminal act came was when the police officer fired the second shot, but it was deemed to be manslaughter and not the more severe charge of murder.

So any debates about past history's or about the police officer shooting an innocent or blameless helpless individual (sorry I can't think of a better term) are incorrect.

There was an incident where the prisoner physically threatened the police officer, the first shot was appropriate, the second shot wasn't appropriate but was not a malicious action.

thats how I remember it.

[Mightyfire89]

All I'm going to say is this: You cannot truly judge these guys' actions unless you've been a cop.

To paraphrase an old expression, walk a mile in their shoes...

It's not an easy job folks.

Originally Posted by Shawnski

I had the unfortunate experience of reading this thread when I wasn't logged in, therefore my ignore list was not in effect. If it had been, I would not have seen "The Unabomber" claim not once, not twice, but at least SIX times that Varley took two in the head. And as you have indicated, this is incorrect.

Other claims by that poster were that Varley was:

• Handcuffed
• Asleep/passed out
• Locked in a cell
• Drunk

OK, drunk is a given. BOC was 0.20 apparently.

Handcuffed? Did anyone see him lying on the floor handcuffed? Testimony indicates that Varley was taken to the booking area, shoes removed, handcuffs removed and taken to the last cell available. Standard ops there... been there, done that.

Asleep/passed out? Since this occurred right after the booking, and according to what I am reading, there is zero chance in my mind that Varley walked into cell, fell asleep and was shot twice in the manner described. That leads to him being locked in a cell.

This all happened as he was going into the cell, not later. The door hadn't even been closed from what I can surmount.

So to Unabomber (nice handle by the way... pick that one yourself?) You have been incorrect on several points, many significant. Now you did say that he was drunk, but that "he wasn't much of a drinker." OK, well other than several reports indicating otherwise, he was in fact drunk as you have stated. You also indicated "you had never seen him be aggressive (sp)". Let's look at what happened that night.

• He has an argument with his bride-to-be where she walks out and stays at a friends house
• He gets into an altercation with a woman, who's husband takes exception and beats up his friend to the point they have to take him to the hospital
• At the hospital, he insists on calling the RCMP about an apparent abduction of his fiancee, cop comes, and ultimately a physical confrontation ensues
• He is arrested, put in the cop car and while the cop goes back into the hospital, proceeds to kick out a window in the car.

Certainly looks like a spiralling increase in violent behaviour to me. Lord only knows what then happened on the way to jail let alone within the cell itself.

You also asked "Why don't you tell us about the history between Darren and the cop involved, that might shed some light on this." OK, I give, what history? As far as I can find out, there was none, other than that fateful night.

Bottom line for me? I feel bad that you lost someone you knew. Isn't going to stop me from keeping you on my ignore list where you belong though. Man I have to stop surfing this site when I am not logged in.

BTW, of all the articles I read, these two (same site/page) provide the most detailed looked at events and the aftermath.

http://www.scottwriting.com/feature2.htm#Pcreek1

http://www.scottwriting.com/feature2.htm#Tragedy2

Thanks Shawnski, those were the links I was urging Unabomber to find for himself. I am not sure why I continued the debate as it was obvious he had no interest in the truth.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by The Unabomber

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.

Because police officers carry guns. I have talked to a former staff sergeant regarding this case in the past and I will say that he was quite adimant that the officer in question did nothing wrong. The individual who was intoxicated made a play for his weapon and while it is unfortunate he paid the price for that mistake. If you or I do the same in a situation the end result would likely be the same given what is known about police training tactics, the big question at the trial was the two shots but that is how the police are trained, two shots to stop an individual.

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, 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.

There is a significant difference from one's personal opinion and the opinion of an expert witness who has been approved by the courts.

Originally Posted by The Unabomber

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.

Sorry but do you know anything about the legal system and the use of expert witnesses? It isn't just a bunch of random people giving their opinion on the matter, the people in question are those who have been educated (often extensively) in the subject matter at hand. Plus I would trust an expert witnesses opinion moreso than that of a first hand witness, given what is known about the reliability of witness reports in a stressful situation.

Originally Posted by The Unabomber

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?

Funny how if Darren had gotten the officers gun then there would be a dead police officer. The guy was drunk and even from what I saw last night people act differently when they have had to much to drink. He could be the nicest person when sober but alcohol is known to change a persons demeanor.

Plus where is this that he was handcuffed, all reports I have read indicated that the handcuffs were removed.

[urban1]

No ones saying its an easy job.

But actions like what is on that video dont make their job any easier. A lot of regular people who arent criminals hate cops.

Id love to see these 2 cops get fired, lose their careers, lose their pensions, and go work security at the mall.

No matter what those drug dealers said or did prior to the start of the video, the tough guy cops assaulted the men when they were defenseless. If there was no video, the cops would skate free if their was a complaint. Likely, there wasnt even a complaint from the victims because everyone knows cops lie and no one would believe the criminal.

Originally Posted by Jimmy Krack Korn

All I'm going to say is this: You cannot truly judge these guys' actions unless you've been a cop.

To paraphrase an old expression, walk a mile in their shoes...

It's not an easy job folks.

[metallicat]

Put urban down for another guilty before proven innocent vote.

I wouldn't be surprised if it came out through the investigation that the cops were spit it at by this guy. Why else would the office put his hand over the guys mouth?

[urban1]

Yeah that punch to the head stopped him from spitting.

And the knee to the back, what was that for? Did the dealer fart in the cops face and need to be stopped from letting more gas out?

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

Put urban down for another guilty before proven innocent vote.

I wouldn't be surprised if it came out through the investigation that the cops were spit it at by this guy. Why else would the office put his hand over the guys mouth?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by urban1

And the knee to the back, what was that for? Did the dealer fart in the cops face and need to be stopped from letting more gas out?

It looked like the guy was trying to get up after being cuffed. When someone is trying to get up after a cop tells him to remain on the ground (lets assume that was what the cop told him, after handcuffing him), and the cop sees him getting up, what do you suppose happens?

Is the guy trying to escape? Why is he getting up?

You'll notice how he was now on his stomach, not his back, trying to get up, where the officer probably told him to stay. Because of the video we don't know if this was the first time the guy tried to get up or what the reaction of the cop was to the previous times the guy tried to escape. And we don't have audio either for that matter.

Got side track with Unabomber there... back on track.

I don't think the video is as bad as the media, and some on this board are making it out to be. It appears, from the suspects hand movements and his attempts to get up that he was actively resisting commands.

Did those officers go to far? Tough to say without more information but I certainly don't see it as a Rodney King event as the media is portraying it.

Urban's comments give me a chuckle. Keep it up.

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by urban1

No ones saying its an easy job.

That's because it's not - and you can't take your experiences in your job sitting at a desk or whatever it is that you do and apply it to the police.

Originally Posted by urban1

But actions like what is on that video dont make their job any easier. A lot of regular people who arent criminals hate cops.

Right - because even if this was a true blue, no questions asked, unquestionable example of police brutality, it is a completely reasonable response to "hate cops" - and by this, you must mean all police officers - based on the reaction of a statistically insignificant number of their force.

Originally Posted by urban1

Id love to see these 2 cops get fired, lose their careers, lose their pensions, and go work security at the mall.

Obviously you have some deap-seated issues with the police. What you're saying is ridiculous. I see this situation and understand that in police work, you don't hold out the handcuffs and politely ask the suspect to put the cuffs on themselves and walk themselves to the police car. There's no sound - you have no idea what the guy is saying - and thus have no appropriate context to make the leap that the police are 100% in the wrong here. Remember - the suspect in this video obviously did something to gather the attention of the police - so he can't be some completely innocent poor hard-done-by citizen.

Originally Posted by urban1

No matter what those drug dealers said or did prior to the start of the video, the tough guy cops assaulted the men when they were defenseless. If there was no video, the cops would skate free if their was a complaint. Likely, there wasnt even a complaint from the victims because everyone knows cops lie and no one would believe the criminal.

No one would believe the criminal ... because ... you know ... they are criminals? And police officers take extensive - EXTENSIVE personality and morality testing - done with lie detectors and all - to even get the opportunity to go into training. You're saying it yourself - these are not the most upstanding individuals (drug dealers) ... which begs the question, why you are so willing to take their side over that of the police? We're not taking about the most upstanding of citizens here.

You have no context to make the judgments you have here - which doesn't lend a lot of credibility to your argument especially when it is as strong opinion as it is. I'm sorry you have experienced what you interpreted as unfair treatment from police officers in the past, but whatever experience it was has obviously colored your point of view in this matter.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

Cops shouldn't have to face an investigation, they should be painted guilty and FIRED!

Edit- When is the last time there was outrage on CP about assaults against police officers? More people were mad their route home was closed down, than were worried about the officer who was struck by a car.

Proof please.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

No one would believe the criminal ... because ... you know ... they are criminals? And police officers take extensive - EXTENSIVE personality and morality testing - done with lie detectors and all - to even get the opportunity to go into training. You're saying it yourself - these are not the most upstanding individuals (drug dealers) ... which begs the question, why you are so willing to take their side over that of the police? We're not taking about the most upstanding of citizens here.

You have no context to make the judgments you have here - which doesn't lend a lot of credibility to your argument especially when it is as strong opinion as it is. I'm sorry you have experienced what you interpreted as unfair treatment from police officers in the past, but whatever experience it was has obviously colored your point of view in this matter.

How do you know the guy is a criminal, cops make mistakes lots of times. It says they suspected him of having drugs, he could be innocent.

And you have no context to make the judgements you have either. In the video I never saw the guy trying to escape. At one point he is slowly trying to sit up, but that's a pretty natural reaction. It looks to me and most people the cops overreacted and are overdue for a vacation. Another lesson for the cops, video surveillance goes both ways. Welcome to the 21st century.

In defence of the Calgary Police, they're not known for beating on suspects or people they just don't like, like in Vancouver or driving them out of town and leaving them to freeze to death like in Saskatoon. This was fairly mild but I'm glad there is an investigation.

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

How do you know the guy is a criminal, cops make mistakes lots of times. It says they suspected him of having drugs, he could be innocent.

And you have no context to make the judgements you have either. In the video I never saw the guy trying to escape. At one point he is slowly trying to sit up, but that's a pretty natural reaction. It looks to me and most people the cops overreacted and are overdue for a vacation. Another lesson for the cops, video surveillance goes both ways. Welcome to the 21st century.

In defence of the Calgary Police, they're not known for beating on suspects or people they just don't like, like in Vancouver or driving them out of town and leaving them to freeze to death like in Saskatoon. This was fairly mild but I'm glad there is an investigation.

First of all, I'm glad (being completely serious) you're not one of these "OMG DOWN WITH THA COPZ12!$@$" idiots ... they have a difficult job - not many of us have jobs that put our lives into danger on a daily basis.

This is what forms the basis of my next point - you say that trying to sit up is a natural reaction, but to me, it is not. Argue whether the police acted appropriately here or not - the police officers almost certainly told him to stay down, so my natural reaction would be to follow his instructions.

In addition, it's easy for us to say "he was just trying to sit up, poor guy" but we were not there. The police would have had no idea whether the guy was 'just trying to sit up' or if he was looking for trouble in some other way. All the police officer would have known is that the guy - for whatever reason - was not following instructions.

All that being said, I think this is much ado about nothing. The video iteself says that the guy wasn't hurt ... he got slapped across the back of the head, pushed to the ground, and got a knee to the back - certainly not the knee drop from the top rope that some people are trying to make this out to be.

And besides - if questioned about who to trust - or who is in the right - in a situation where there is a police officer and a guy in handcuffs ... I will almost always side with the police officer. The fact that this guy didn't file a complaint himself is very telling ... it suggests he either acknowledges the situation is his fault or that he was guilty.