Calgary Cops caught using excessive force?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Maybe so; the video sure makes it look that way. Wouldn't be too surprised if he just got lippy with them and the officer decided to teach him a lesson. But it's hard to know for sure what exactly happened that led them to go hands-on. Once that situation has materialized, though, the risk is there and has to be dealt with whether the initial takedown was justifiable or not.

I'm not sure if we want to expect the LCD reaction from our police officers.

That said, I agree. Once it started, hard to argue that it shouldn't finish the same way. The real issue is why the police let a situation that they controlled from the start get so out of hand.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Are you also suggesting their training teaches them to unnecessarily escalate situations by violently apprehending traffic violators?

No. I'm suggesting that I don't know what happened that precipitated the takedown, so I don't know that they "unnecessarily escalated" the situation, though the video certainly makes it look that way. I also don't know if they knew he was a traffic violator, or they thought he was dangerous for some reason, or what the deal was - an officer's use of force needs to be judged on the basis of his knowledge at the time, not what ended up being the case. I don't have that information.

Does it really need to be explained that their training needs context?

What context are you referring to? I'm just wondering if their training tells them to do what they did there - e.g., if you're taking down a suspect, you do it in that manner, and if the suspect attempts to get away, punching them is one way that you should subdue them. I kind of expect it's not part of the training but I don't actually know. Similarly, my amateur viewing suggests that the takedown itself, the way he did that, was pretty effective... but again, don't know how they're taught to do it.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by peter12

I'm not sure if we want to expect the LCD reaction from our police officers.

We absolutely don't, I'm just saying I wouldn't be too surprised if that's what happened.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I'd guess the average cop in Canada and the U.S. is 20 pounds heavier than the average cop in the UK, Netherlands, or Germany. They also carry themselves in a much more intimidating way, in their walk and the way they approach people. Is there something about the job in North American that requires police to be massive and project physical intimidation? Or does the job here just attract those sorts of people?

Maybe its yet another negative byproduct of gun culture (obviously more in the US than Canada). Cops know anyone they deal with could be carrying, while in Europe the probability of a civilian with a gun is way lower. Police in the US must be really paranoid even at routine traffic stops.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Maybe its yet another negative byproduct of gun culture (obviously more in the US than Canada). Cops know anyone they deal with could be carrying, while in Europe the probability of a civilian with a gun is way lower. Police in the US must be really paranoid even at routine traffic stops.

I'd think they have to be, even in Canada... there's more than 30 guns per 100 residents here, so I'd be inclined to act similarly. Most people don't have interactions with police often, so if an officer is approaching a car it probably isn't surprising that you can't see the person's hands - they might be digging through their car looking for their registration, or they might have a weapon. Better to be prepared for the worst, seems to me.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The whole intimidation thing does seem to be North American. Police in the UK and the rest of Europe look and act pretty much like normal people. North American police tend to be jacked up, and carry themselves with a deliberate swagger. It seems the job attracts a different type of person here than in Europe.

#######s who are too cowardly to join the military, too stupid to run their Dada business

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'd think they have to be, even in Canada... there's more than 30 guns per 100 residents here, so I'd be inclined to act similarly. Most people don't have interactions with police often, so if an officer is approaching a car it probably isn't surprising that you can't see the person's hands - they might be digging through their car looking for their registration, or they might have a weapon. Better to be prepared for the worst, seems to me.

Serbia (2nd)
Switzerland (4th)
Cyprus (5th)
Sweden (9th)
Norway (10th)

All have more guns per capita than Canada (11th). USA is of course #1 by a long shot.

[Flash Walken]

Maybe European cops are just screened and trained better?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

All have more guns per capita than Canada (11th). USA is of course #1 by a long shot.

Yeah, but still, there's a reasonable chance that there's a weapon in the car. Eventually, you're probably going to pull someone over who has a gun. It seems to me that every cop has heard of some guy being pulled over because his turn signal wasn't working, and happens to have a bunch of drugs and a handgun in there, thinks he's being pulled over for some other reason, and decides he's not going down without a fight. Would you want to take that chance when there's no real downside to being careful, other than you seem like a bit of a jerk to the average person? Seems to me that best practice is to be paranoid, at least off the bat.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah, but still, there's a reasonable chance that there's a weapon in the car. Eventually, you're probably going to pull someone over who has a gun. It seems to me that every cop has heard of some guy being pulled over because his turn signal wasn't working, and happens to have a bunch of drugs and a handgun in there, thinks he's being pulled over for some other reason, and decides he's not going down without a fight. Would you want to take that chance when there's no real downside to being careful, other than you seem like a bit of a jerk to the average person? Seems to me that best practice is to be paranoid, at least off the bat.

But that wasn't the case here. They told him to get back in his car. If they were afraid he was armed, that wouldn't seem wise at all. Besides, these types of altercations are still pretty rare. Are these guys better trained than most other officers?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Actually, police generally don't want you to exit the vehicle. If they can see your hands are empty, and you're seated behind a car door, you're not in much position to pose a threat. I made that mistake one time when I was still in high school, and got a stern explanation.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Actually, police generally don't want you to exit the vehicle. If they can see your hands are empty, and you're seated behind a car door, you're not in much position to pose a threat. I made that mistake one time when I was still in high school, and got a stern explanation.

So you are suggesting that after speeding in New Mexico to get to an air pump with a rapidly deflating tire and getting pulled over, the best solution is not to jump out of the vehicle and run towards the cop, flailing arms and babbling? Something like that might result in a gun being pulled on you? Huh. That would have be useful information to give to my buddy 18 years ago...

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Actually, police generally don't want you to exit the vehicle. If they can see your hands are empty, and you're seated behind a car door, you're not in much position to pose a threat. I made that mistake one time when I was still in high school, and got a stern explanation.

Maybe my reading of the situation here is wrong, but from what I read, the police were inside the bar strutting around when they were alerted to an altercation outside and the man was already outside of his vehicle. They told him to get back into his vehicle and on the way back he stopped, said something, and was then pummeled.

As a side note, I was pulled over just outside of Strathmore a few years ago for no reason and was never charged. They just said that they wanted to search my vehicle for drugs. I had the vehicle full of boxes (my mother's belongings because she just passed), and had BC plates. That is the only reason I could think of that I looked "suspicious". I had nothing to hide so I said they could look at everything, but the funny thing was is that they asked me if I wanted to get out and stretch while they looked. The one officer (female) was really apologetic, but the male officer was really trying to push my buttons (suggested I was a drag queen for having women's clothing). I called the RCMP to file a complaint and they basically just hung up on me.

[Wiggum_PI]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

The body worn cameras can't come soon enough.

I guess we'll see if another one of these officers gets suspended with pay.

Even with the body cams, I wonder how many times they will supposedly "malfunction" at just the right moment, or if a case actually proceeds to court the footage will have been "accidentally deleted" by the precinct that stores it.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

Even with the body cams, I wonder how many times they will supposedly "malfunction" at just the right moment, or if a case actually proceeds to court the footage will have been "accidentally deleted" by the precinct that stores it.

I bet it will happen all the time. Because CPS is known for this type of corruption. Like the NYPD from a low budget movie.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

I can't believe how many people think Canadian cops are even remotely similar to U.S cops.

Educate yourselves people.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

As a side note, I was pulled over just outside of Strathmore a few years ago for no reason and was never charged. They just said that they wanted to search my vehicle for drugs. I had the vehicle full of boxes (my mother's belongings because she just passed), and had BC plates. That is the only reason I could think of that I looked "suspicious". I had nothing to hide so I said they could look at everything, but the funny thing was is that they asked me if I wanted to get out and stretch while they looked. The one officer (female) was really apologetic, but the male officer was really trying to push my buttons (suggested I was a drag queen for having women's clothing). I called the RCMP to file a complaint and they basically just hung up on me.

never consent to a search, ever.

ever.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I bet it will happen all the time. Because CPS is known for this type of corruption. Like the NYPD from a low budget movie.

At least with functional cameras it will eliminate the boilerplate "we don't know the whole story" statement.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

At least with functional cameras it will eliminate the boilerplate "we don't know the whole story" statement.

Probably won't help.

From one of CorsiHockeyLeague's posts earlier in the thread:

But more importantly, the way each person sees the world is so completely determined by that person's world view and biases that it's wholly possible, likely even, that two people can look at the same event and come to totally incompatible conclusions about what, factually, happened.

And that's even in a case where you have some knowledge, background and context for the event. Look at the Wideman suspension this year - presumably all of us have watched a ton of hockey in our lifetimes, and most of us have played it for years. Yet many presumably intelligent, thoughtful people looked at an event for which there were multiple high-quality camera angles and had entirely different accounts of how that event took place.

This is SO TRUE. What you see depends on what you want to see.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I bet it will happen all the time. Because CPS is known for this type of corruption. Like the NYPD from a low budget movie.

It is commonplace for video and audio and GPS evidence to inexplicably disappear. Surprisingly it seems to happen on cases where the accused is saying he or she was mistreated by the police. It is just like a low budget movie only it is real.

The CPS and other police forces get the benefit of charges being withdrawn before the truth comes out in court. Even if the truth comes out in court, the number of times the media are actually there to cover it are very few and far between.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by RinkRat

When things do get excessive I know for a fact the extent In which those cases are pursued internally which are all public record. On an added note, lawyers and the crown are always the reason these things take forever.

This is plainly not true. All police internal discipline matters are not public record. If you know as much as you claim to know about these things then you must know any internal discipline matter can be declared closed to the public by the Chief. Furthermore, numerous police internal discipline matters are dismissed by the Chief of Police without any hearing at all.

And while lawyers and the Crown (I assume you mean defence lawyers and the Crown lawyers) are undoubtedly the reason these things take forever in some cases, it is just false to suggest that accused officers and professional standards or ASIRT investigators (all active police, seconded police or retired police officers) are not sometimes the ones who drag things out for whatever reasons they may wish to do so.