12-04-2020, 07:10 PM
|
#1361
|
Franchise Player
|
The Gov't of Alberta is requesting public input on desired changes to the Police Act and are doing a review on it. This is pretty important stuff (at least, imo) so here's your chance to have a say.
The survey is pretty quick-ish. It's your basic 5 multiple choice style. Each question has some space underneath for elaboration if you want, too. Wasn't too long.
https://www.alberta.ca/police-act-re...G5LyNGU8q1KJ7U
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WhiteTiger For This Useful Post:
|
|
12-04-2020, 08:20 PM
|
#1362
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteTiger
The Gov't of Alberta is requesting public input on desired changes to the Police Act and are doing a review on it. This is pretty important stuff (at least, imo) so here's your chance to have a say.
The survey is pretty quick-ish. It's your basic 5 multiple choice style. Each question has some space underneath for elaboration if you want, too. Wasn't too long.
https://www.alberta.ca/police-act-re...G5LyNGU8q1KJ7U
|
Well, that was surprisingly relevant to current events. I am pretty impressed by the questions asked.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Titan For This Useful Post:
|
|
12-20-2020, 08:40 AM
|
#1364
|
First Line Centre
|
doublepost
|
|
|
12-20-2020, 09:00 AM
|
#1365
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by speede5
|
I've seen the exact opposite - the kid getting roasted. Well, there's a thread about it already.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to malcolmk14 For This Useful Post:
|
|
12-20-2020, 09:49 AM
|
#1366
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by malcolmk14
Well, there's a thread about it already.
|
I expected that but couldn't find one.
|
|
|
12-20-2020, 10:04 AM
|
#1368
|
First Line Centre
|
Thanks was just in there, not sure why I didn't search the Flames forum. lol.
Funny how social media is so much different, the facebook posts and replies I'm seeing are all anti authority. Good to see people here still have objectivity.
|
|
|
12-20-2020, 10:09 AM
|
#1369
|
Celebrated Square Root Day
|
Haha, this is literally the fourth thread featuring this story now. Main Corona, morons of pandemic, stand alone thread in FOI and now this!
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
|
|
12-20-2020, 12:04 PM
|
#1371
|
Craig McTavish' Merkin
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
|
Thanks for the context. #### that kid.
|
|
|
12-20-2020, 12:48 PM
|
#1372
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: I will never cheer for losses
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by speede5
Thanks was just in there, not sure why I didn't search the Flames forum. lol.
Funny how social media is so much different, the facebook posts and replies I'm seeing are all anti authority. Good to see people here still have objectivity.
|
I find Facebook is very anti authority, and leans conservative. (Which I should say I do too) and then Reddit is very pro authority, and leans extremely liberal. Funny how 2 social media platforms can be so opposite
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
I am demolishing this bag of mini Mr. Big bars.
Halloween candy is horrifying.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anduril
"Putting nets on puck."
- Ferland 2016
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to flamesfan1297 For This Useful Post:
|
|
12-20-2020, 06:15 PM
|
#1373
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by flamesfan1297
I find Facebook is very anti authority, and leans conservative. (Which I should say I do too) and then Reddit is very pro authority, and leans extremely liberal. Funny how 2 social media platforms can be so opposite
|
I don't do reddit, maybe I need to start and get some balance in my life.
|
|
|
12-20-2020, 06:30 PM
|
#1374
|
Franchise Player
|
I do think this is interesting in that it shows how non-violent low threat situations can result in people ending up dead. In this case if the officer tases him he falls , hits his head on the ice and dies and this is a different incident. Or during the takedown a skate blade takes out someone’s neck.
I think missed in all of the anti mask / anti lockdown discussion is a question around escalation of force by officers. Should an officer ever escalate it a person is not a danger to the public or to escape?
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
|
|
12-20-2020, 08:11 PM
|
#1375
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
I do think this is interesting in that it shows how non-violent low threat situations can result in people ending up dead. In this case if the officer tases him he falls , hits his head on the ice and dies and this is a different incident. Or during the takedown a skate blade takes out someone’s neck.
I think missed in all of the anti mask / anti lockdown discussion is a question around escalation of force by officers. Should an officer ever escalate it a person is not a danger to the public or to escape?
|
I think we know the answers here. This case likely is seen very differently with a few changes in the circumstances.
|
|
|
12-21-2020, 08:54 AM
|
#1376
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
I do think this is interesting in that it shows how non-violent low threat situations can result in people ending up dead. In this case if the officer tases him he falls , hits his head on the ice and dies and this is a different incident. Or during the takedown a skate blade takes out someone’s neck.
I think missed in all of the anti mask / anti lockdown discussion is a question around escalation of force by officers. Should an officer ever escalate it a person is not a danger to the public or to escape?
|
This is 2020. Clearly the answer is that it depends on how sympathetic we are to the person the police are confronting.
One of the trends the pandemic has accelerated is the abandonment of the universal application of principles. It’s emotion and tribalism all the way down.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
|
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 12-21-2020 at 09:01 AM.
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
|
|
12-21-2020, 09:06 AM
|
#1377
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
This is 2020. Clearly the answer is that it depends on how sympathetic we are to the person the police are confronting.
One of the trends the pandemic has accelerated is the abandonment of the universal application of principles. It’s emotion and tribalism all the way down.
|
That’s not the answer or part of an interesting policy discussion on the use of force.
This case because it lacks racial tension and lacks a severe outcome is an excellent place to start a discussion on what the police should do in these types of situations.
|
|
|
12-21-2020, 09:07 AM
|
#1378
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
I do think this is interesting in that it shows how non-violent low threat situations can result in people ending up dead. In this case if the officer tases him he falls , hits his head on the ice and dies and this is a different incident. Or during the takedown a skate blade takes out someone’s neck.
I think missed in all of the anti mask / anti lockdown discussion is a question around escalation of force by officers. Should an officer ever escalate it a person is not a danger to the public or to escape?
|
Of course the problem is long term consequences of a policy of deference to anyone who might be violent or resisting arrest. If everyone knows the police will back off as soon as someone shows some resistance. There are going to be a lot more people willing to use that tactic. For most of us, knowing the results of not being compliant will make for an unpleasant and worse outcome helps motivate us to follow instructions.
Last edited by Ryan Coke; 12-21-2020 at 01:09 PM.
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ryan Coke For This Useful Post:
|
|
12-21-2020, 09:25 AM
|
#1379
|
Scoring Winger
|
I am not so sure it's possible to enforce the rules of the land if there are no consequences for disobeying those rules.
The consequences of failing to comply with a lawful direction after committing an offense is getting arrested. If that somehow disappears, why would anyone voluntarily comply especially those with a propensity to commit crime.
I guess if society at large wants that - police cannot use force to effect an arrest for a traffic or bylaw offense, then I guess that's likely the direction the police would go. I can't imagine how that would look though.
Last edited by Captain Otto; 12-21-2020 at 09:42 AM.
|
|
|
12-21-2020, 09:43 AM
|
#1380
|
Participant
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Otto
I am not so sure it's possible to enforce the rules of the land if there are no consequences for disobeying those rules.
The consequences of failing to comply with a lawful direction after committing and offense is getting arrested. If that somehow disappears, why would anyone voluntarily comply especially those with a propensity to commit crime.
I guess if society at large wants that - police cannot use force to effect an arrest for a traffic or bylaw offense, then I guess that's likely the direction the police would go. I can't imagine how that would look though.
|
That doesn't seem entirely unreasonable, but that's not really the case at hand, is it?
He was being arrested for obstruction of justice and resisted arrest, so I think force, so long as it isn't excessive, is a reasonable method to gain that arrest.
I'm somewhat dumbfounded by some of the responses to this arrest (not yours, just to be clear). We've spent months seeing example after example of excess force (shootings, pulling lethal weapons for minor offenses, excessive force like slamming heads into pavement or causing serious injury or death otherwise) and for some people in at least some of these cases, it's been a scramble to justify it. Basically the idea that if you resist arrest, bad things happen.
But here we have a case where there was no excessive force despite the person resisting arrest. He was not shot, tased, or even injured. But some of those same people who were comfortable justifying force as a response to resisting arrest now take issue with it. Instead of it being about the application of force, it's more about whether people ideologically agree with the substance of the offence and the motivations of the offender. To me, that's a pretty dangerous precedent to set.
When you've committed an offence and you're being issued a ticket, you need to give your name. If you don't, you're likely to be arrested. If you resist, force will be applied. These seem like simple and acceptable things. We can disagree with police injuring or killing people, but to disagree with police doing their job and causing no harm seems like a desire to just have zero police at all.
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:19 AM.
|
|