Teen shot and killed by Edmonton police officer.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Pinner

They investigate each other in these matters You know that

Actually they don't but thanks for being informed.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

The Edmonton Police probably planted that stuff on the teen after they shot him.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Pinner

Somehow I'm a dirtbag for asking a question ? And not blindly justifying every police shooting like you.

All I want to know is how far away the kid was, we'll probably never know the truth. It wouldn't surprise me if the kid was no threat at all, similar to many recent police "incidents".

Please show me where the bolded part is true. That's right you can't.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by jar_e

I hate reposting the same question, but it may have gotten lost above...I'm curious on what you believe is too far or the "line" to start shooting?

Unless I have mis-understood his posts, he thinks if he was x meters away while charging a cop with a knife and baseball bat then it was fine, but if he was x+y meters away then it wasn't.

Which is a reasonable stance, especially if the "y" you are thinking about is 20 meters or something. Does it change anything? Not really, unless the 3-4 seconds it takes to cover that 20 m would make all the difference in the world. I don't recall it saying the distance, but I highly doubt the cop shot a kid from any further than 5-10m, just because of the extreme difficulty of such a feat.

Originally Posted by Pinner

Somehow I'm a dirtbag for asking a question ? And not blindly justifying every police shooting like you.

All I want to know is how far away the kid was, we'll probably never know the truth. It wouldn't surprise me if the kid was no threat at all, similar to many recent police "incidents".

Do you mean the recent "incidents" like the one you linked that took place in 2005?

OK, I'll ask.. you haven't been convicted, but what have you been arrested for?

[Pinner]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

I see what you did there.... convicted (wink, wink)... very smart.

I got off an impaired charge many, many years ago. Two of us got charged for driving the same vehicle at the same time...The cop ruffed me up while handcuffed, he had a history of abuse, and once my lawyer started going down that road, it was over.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Do you mean the recent "incident" you linked that took place in 2005?

OK, I'll ask.. you haven't been convicted, but what have you been arrested for?

Being arrested doesn't mean a lot in the big scheme of things. You can get arrested on such a wide variety of evidence that it really isn't a valid indicator of anything.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Unless I have mis-understood his posts, he thinks if he was x meters away while charging a cop with a knife and baseball bat then it was fine, but if he was x+y meters away then it wasn't.

Which is a reasonable stance, especially if the "y" you are thinking about is 20 meters or something. Does it change anything? Not really, unless the 3-4 seconds it takes to cover that 20 m would make all the difference in the world. I don't recall it saying the distance, but I highly doubt the cop shot a kid from any further than 5-10m, just because of the extreme difficulty of such a feat.

There use to be a somewhat "older" rule regarding edged weapons, called the 21 foot rule, which essentially stated that an average person, running at a cop with an edged weapon, would mean that the cop would need 21 feet of distance between himself and the subject to assess the threat, draw his firearm, fire shots, and stop the threat. Anything closer than that 21 feet would mean that the offender could possibly land a slash/stab at the officer.

That being said, the 21 foot rule has definitely been discussed a lot in law enforcement circles and whether or not it still applies, due to many factors. The most recent article I could find was here, which is from ForceScience.org, a really good website based on law enforcement use of force and the science behind it.

Originally Posted by jar_e

There use to be a somewhat "older" rule regarding edged weapons, called the 21 foot rule, which essentially stated that an average person, running at a cop with an edged weapon, would mean that the cop would need 21 feet of distance between himself and the subject to assess the threat, draw his firearm, fire shots, and stop the threat. Anything closer than that 21 feet would mean that the offender could possibly land a slash/stab at the officer.

That being said, the 21 foot rule has definitely been discussed a lot in law enforcement circles and whether or not it still applies, due to many factors. The most recent article I could find was here, which is from ForceScience.org, a really good website based on law enforcement use of force and the science behind it.

Post #25

[Pinner]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Actually they don't but thanks for being informed.

Ya they are, they're trying to make it look more transparent these days.

RCMPs investigating RCMPs started to look, a little bit, ah biased .

Now police services investigate each other, so the truth comes out

Originally Posted by Rathji

Being arrested doesn't mean a lot in the big scheme of things. You can get arrested on such a wide variety of evidence that it really isn't a valid indicator of anything.

I guess I should have clarified by saying "charged" as you can be arrested but not charged.

Anyway, he answered my question and his anti-police position at least has a foundation.

Originally Posted by Pinner

Ya they are, they're trying to make it look more transparent these days.

RCMPs investigating RCMPs started to look, a little bit, ah biased .

Now police services investigate each other, so the truth comes out

That's right, it's a big conspiracy to cover up all the blood thirstiness. I have also heard there are mass graves somewhere from all the death and carnage.

What is your understanding of how serious incidences are investigated?

[Pinner]

I'm not anti police, I like, and fully respect good cops. It's just I've noticed a trend of over reaction, over kill.

[Red Potato Standing By]

So a good cop in this situation would of done what?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Zethrynn

So a good cop in this situation would of done what?

Shoot the guy trying to gut him like a fish.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by Pinner

I'm not anti police, I like, and fully respect good cops. It's just I've noticed a trend of over reaction, over kill.

Over kill? cops will only keep shooting if the threat is still mobile and still a threat.

It's not like they shoot the suspect in the chest and then head shot them while they are on the ground.

Incidentally, Pinner has resorted to sending inappropriate images to me in PM's.

Hopefully the mods will take care of it.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Pinner

Ya they are, they're trying to make it look more transparent these days.

RCMPs investigating RCMPs started to look, a little bit, ah biased .

Now police services investigate each other, so the truth comes out

You're right...

Alberta Serious Incident Response Team


The Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (“ASIRT”) ensures excellence and independence in the investigation of matters referred by the Director of Law Enforcement.
ASIRT has jurisdiction over all sworn police officers in the Province of Alberta. Their mandate is to investigate incidents or complaints involving serious injury* or death of any person, and matters of a serious or sensitive nature, that may have resulted from the actions of a police officer. They are governed by Section 46.1 of the Police Act, and currently have two offices located in Edmonton and Calgary.
ASIRT does not take complaints from the public, rather files are forwarded to ASIRT by the Solicitor General. The public should forward any complaints to the police agency in question.

ASIRT is lead by a civilian director, Clifton G Purvis, who is a lawyer and Crown Prosecutor. Reporting to him are:

• A civilian assistant director
• Two civilian criminal analysts
• Four civilian investigators
• Ten sworn police officers (from the Calgary Police Service, Edmonton Police Service, and the RCMP)

The director may also engage public overseers from the community to ensure independence in the investigative process.
Once an investigation has been completed, the ASIRT director reviews the results of investigations to ensure completeness and fairness. A report can be forwarded to the office of the Crown Prosecutor requesting an opinion on charges. The director will decide what charges if any will result from the investigation.


https://www.solgps.alberta.ca/progra...s/default.aspx

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Incidentally, Pinner has resorted to sending inappropriate images to me in PM's.

Hopefully the mods will take care of it.

I hope he didn't "Brett Favre" you....

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I hope he didn't "Brett Favre" you....

I would think he would have tried to flatter himself a little more and not include a REAL photo of IT... but I just feel sorry for him now.