Three Calgary police officers charged

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Well the article says the victim didnt report anything so thats one person ruled out. From what I understand it had to do with someone watching the dash cam based on someone else's complaint. Not the victim, or the 4 officers. It also mentioned something like 'witness officers' implying there were more officers on site - or maybe it was one of those civilians that travel around with the cops wearing the witness vests. I cant say Ive read anything that implies officer 4 put his career on the line to report the criminal behavior of the first 3 officers.

Your post really just makes me think of how effed up everything is in these kinds of work environments. I cant believe people still consider it a few bad apples when (if true) an honest officer was threatened for reporting a crime. Even if it isnt true in this case - it happens all the time. Especially in the military where there is even less transparency and no dash cams. Where footage of soldiers mowing 3rd world civilians down while they chuckle will simply be classified.

I also cant stand how the 'defend the cops, support our troops, im a patriot' types stifle discussion on these things because they think people are saying this because they hate cops or tickets or something like that. I love cops. Even when I get a ticket I make sure to shake the cops hand and thank them for what they do. I just think they need more transparency, oversight and accountability. A whole different cop culture is needed where we dont cover up for cops or explain their mistakes away.

There should be an additional charge for cops who do things like this while in uniform. It ruins the public perception of cops, makes people afraid, defames the badge etc. There should be a charge for that imo. The whole paid leave thing is a joke as well. If I totally screw up at my job and hurt someone - I dont get paid leave. Not to mention they usually undercharge the officers - giving them a lesser charge than a civilian would get for the same crime - or they overcharge the officer to ensure its more difficult to prosecute. In this case it looks like they undercharged these 3 knuckle dragging bastards

[Crumpy-Gunt]

“There’s video, there’s audio from another police car, there’s video from another police car and there’s a significant amount of eye-witness evidence from witness officers, so all those pieces are fundamentally important.”

Thats the bit I was referring to.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Who is a “Witness Officer”?
A witness officer is a police officer who, in the opinion of the SIU Director, is involved in the incident under investigation but is not a subject officer.

I guess going off this definition of a witness officer - it was another CPS officer who simply wasnt involved.

[calgaryblood]

Will the video ever be released? Can the video be requested under the freedom of information act?

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

I love cops. Even when I get a ticket I make sure to shake the cops hand and thank them for what they do.

You sure aren't the type of person I assumed you to be from your username.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

I get the part about them being able to take a poop and have a private discussion or lunch without being on camera...but if these people are allowed to be in the middle of a call or responding to something / apprehending someone - they shouldnt be able to turn it off at all.

I hear you, but police do end up in very sensitive situations though. Victims of domestic violence, suicides, people in duress, all manner of incidents involving innocent people who are going through terrible things. They need the ability to turn the camera off then.

We trust them with guns and an awful lot of authority. Ideally we should be able to trust them to know when to turn the camera off and when to leave it on.

There should be some guidelines, but I don't have a clue what they would be beyond "Don't turn the camera off when you are chasing or arresting a suspected criminal, but do turn it off when dealing with someone who just lost a loved one in a car wreck."

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I hear you, but police do end up in very sensitive situations though. Victims of domestic violence, suicides, people in duress, all manner of incidents involving innocent people who are going through terrible things. They need the ability to turn the camera off then.

We trust them with guns and an awful lot of authority. Ideally we should be able to trust them to know when to turn the camera off and when to leave it on.

There should be some guidelines, but I don't have a clue what they would be beyond "Don't turn the camera off when you are chasing or arresting a suspected criminal, but do turn it off when dealing with someone who just lost a loved one in a car wreck."

Wait, what? I'm pretty sure they're meant to be on all the time and capture all the things you mentioned. All video is kept private unless they're instructed to release it.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Wait, what? I'm pretty sure they're meant to be on all the time and capture all the things you mentioned. All video is kept private unless they're instructed to release it.

People will be rightly concerned about the worst moments of their lives recorded, and when those things happen, cops are often around.

Say something bad happens. Your husband assaults you or you've had a terrible accident or you found your mom dead of an aneurysm. Could be anything. You phone 911.

Five cops show up to help you, they call an ambulance, you are falling apart, your kids are wailing and your whole world has gone to hell, and five cameras are recording the whole thing.

The city police now have five different recordings of this. Nobody needs that. So I think a cop can turn off his camera in that kind of situation.

I don't think anyone really believes "all video is kept private", and nobody wants those moments recorded for posterity.

[Wiggum_PI]

Calgary police accused of beating up Clayton Prince face lighter maximum sentences, if convicted

The Crown has proceeded by summary conviction against three Calgary cops accused of beating up a traffic stop suspect, meaning they'll face lesser maximum sentences if convicted.

Prosecutor Steven Johnston appeared in provincial court Wednesday on behalf of Edmonton Crown lawyer Jim Stewart and told Judge Harry Van Harten the case would proceed summarily.

On some charges, such as assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon and public mischief, the Crown can elect to proceed either summarily, or by indictment.

The maximum penalties for the assault charges is 10 years by indictment and 18 months for a summary conviction, while public mischief carries maximums of five years and six months.

[Northendzone]

The optics of this are terrible. The crown should provide more info as to why this decion was made

[underGRADFlame]

This is more common then you would ever want to believe. The crown generally goes for the path of least resistance (likelihood of conviction or plea). Doesn't matter if its a gang banger, joe citizen or a cop. Just ask our resident defence attorney Mbates.

Everyone says that they (the cops) should be treated like everyone else, no preferential treatment, now they are and people aren't satisfied. This is how the courts work.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

Everyone says that they (the cops) should be treated like everyone else, no preferential treatment, now they are and people aren't satisfied. This is how the courts work.

I think they should be treated much harsher. It's worse for cops to do these crimes.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I think they should be treated much harsher. It's worse for cops to do these crimes.

They haven't been convicted.

This is super common in assault cases.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

They haven't been convicted.

This is super common in assault cases.

I just think it should be a different charge all together. Like how if you kill a cop or firefighter it's automatically first degree. Something like that. I don't see it as being the same crime as a civilian. If they're innocent then great.