Let's Talk about the Calgary Police Service

[Weitz]

One has to think the prosecutors looked at the body cam footage prior to laying charges. If you are just going to assume the prosecutors and cops are in cahoots then there isn't much to discuss I guess.

[Oling_Roachinen]

And yet that's exactly what happened with the Kaminski and Arkinstall situation.

I mean the whole "I'm going to arrest somebody" and not being able to answer who or why should be a big ####ing red flag here guys.

[GrrlGoalie33]

I've known a few CPS members outside of their job. One was our next door neighbour like an uncle to my brother and I. He is a fallen officer and his loss still has an effect on our family.

The other was a neighbour and total DB. That house was on a cul-de-sac and there were a lot of kids of roughly the same age. We were often all out playing street hockey.

My brother had pretty bad ADHD and this officer took exception to the way my brother acted, despite my parents explaining about the ADHD and that none of the kids or parents had issue with my brother.

One day there was a game on and one net was at this guys driveway, but not on it or fully blocking it, his wife came home and demanded that my brother(who was by no means the closest to the net) come and move it. One of the kids who was closer went to move the net, but she wanted my brother to move it anyway. She started screaming at him, then went inside and got her husband (the cop) who then chased after my brother (who still had his hockey stick) and bear hugged him from behind. in the process of this, the guy got hit in the head with the stick and suffered a cut. He then phoned his on-duty buddies who came and arrested my under 14 year old brother for assault with a weapon.

The charges were dismissed (or never brought)

[Scroopy Noopers]

Just a quick story as I’m spiralling in anger today about this subject.

I rear ended someone in the winter when I was 18. Snails pace, no injuries, no damage to me, $1400 to his bumper. He was super weird about it and called the cop immediately and also had a police report filed by 8 am the next morning.

Anyway, I went into the station as requested where he filed the report. The senior officer who dealt with me has always stuck with me. Not because he accused me of “probably kissing your girlfriend” when I hit the guy, which was super weird. But because as he had me waiting he was shooting the #### with another officer over his cell phone. He said the following: “you down in Forest Lawn?.... *laughs* I knew you would love it there once I took you”. It’s always bothered me. I’ve thought about different contexts that may have applied to that conversation, and none of them excuse belly laughing and talking about policing Forest Lawn out loud in the middle of a police station. Whatever the context, I don’t like it.

[Fuzz]

Maybe he just knew the guy was a connoisseur of parking lot oil puddles?

[Mayo]

Overall I can’t complain about my experience with CPS. A few have been dinks...it irks me when they’re giving away tickets clearly for revenue. The worst is floating the bow in late summer...those life jacket tickets are the biggest cash grab

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mayo

Overall I can’t complain about my experience with CPS. A few have been dinks...it irks me when they’re giving away tickets clearly for revenue. The worst is floating the bow in late summer...those life jacket tickets are the biggest cash grab

You should be wearing a life jacket on the bow river. That’s a real river. Requiring them on the elbow is a joke.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GGG

You should be wearing a life jacket on the bow river. That’s a real river. Requiring them on the elbow is a joke.

Its kind of funny. That this is what our Police Officers take super seriously.

Busting people on the river (that you can stand in) is a high priority.

And I dont mean to demean the Police, they are a big reason this City is as safe as it is.

[Blankcanvas]

I don’t post much on here but feel the need to add my opinion to this debate.

I was a police officer in the UK and immigrated to Calgary in 2002. I quickly formed the opinion that policing in Calgary was at least 20 to 30 years behind the UK. I don’t mean the technology, equipment, training or processes. I mean the culture and what is acceptable by society and the Courts in relation to police use of force and to a certain extent, discrimination. How the public, the politicians and media feel about the police. Rightly or wrongly it is all taking shape here now as I believed it would….. Calgary is now catching up.

Take the murder of Stephen Lawrence in London April 1993 as an example. The botched police investigation resulted in the MacPherson Report which concluded the UK Police was institutionally racist. A lot changed in the UK as a result but similar allegations are now being made against Canadian Police agencies.

What is now being called ‘police brutality’ was once accepted by the majority. If you broke the law and offered any kind of resistance to the police you got ‘what you deserved’. To spend the night in the 'drunk tank' if you were drunk and disorderly was acceptable, now there aren’t any drunk tanks. The majority of people, including the ‘bad guys’, had a healthy respect for the police. Typically, the Court’s believed the testimony of a police officer over the accused and most members were proud to be police officers. Not any more. Despite joining the police for the same reasons, to serve the community, they are now questioning what their role is and will they be in trouble for doing the job they were trained to do.

Support for the ‘boys in blue’ is diminishing. Trust and faith in the police is being eroded across North America. The way the police do business and use of force hasn’t changed much. What has changed is what society and the public view as acceptable. The police will evolve and change to catch up to these new views but police cultural doesn’t change over night.

I always find Sir Robert Peels 9 principles of policing to be relevant, especially at this time:

1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

These principles are 200 years old…… please don’t forget that the majority of police officers are good people, with good intentions wanting to help the public and serve the community. Calgary is still a very safe place to live with relatively low crime rates and the Calgary Police Service has played a significant role in this.

[Mayo]

Originally Posted by GGG

You should be wearing a life jacket on the bow river. That’s a real river. Requiring them on the elbow is a joke.

Late summer? It’s hardly moving...

June is a different story. It all comes down to discretion, which they don’t use if they’re just trying to generate revenue.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Blankcanvas

I don’t post much on here but feel the need to add my opinion to this debate.

I was a police officer in the UK and immigrated to Calgary in 2002. I quickly formed the opinion that policing in Calgary was at least 20 to 30 years behind the UK. I don’t mean the technology, equipment, training or processes. I mean the culture and what is acceptable by society and the Courts in relation to police use of force and to a certain extent, discrimination. How the public, the politicians and media feel about the police. Rightly or wrongly it is all taking shape here now as I believed it would….. Calgary is now catching up.

Take the murder of Stephen Lawrence in London April 1993 as an example. The botched police investigation resulted in the MacPherson Report which concluded the UK Police was institutionally racist. A lot changed in the UK as a result but similar allegations are now being made against Canadian Police agencies.

What is now being called ‘police brutality’ was once accepted by the majority. If you broke the law and offered any kind of resistance to the police you got ‘what you deserved’. To spend the night in the 'drunk tank' if you were drunk and disorderly was acceptable, now there aren’t any drunk tanks. The majority of people, including the ‘bad guys’, had a healthy respect for the police. Typically, the Court’s believed the testimony of a police officer over the accused and most members were proud to be police officers. Not any more. Despite joining the police for the same reasons, to serve the community, they are now questioning what their role is and will they be in trouble for doing the job they were trained to do.

Support for the ‘boys in blue’ is diminishing. Trust and faith in the police is being eroded across North America. The way the police do business and use of force hasn’t changed much. What has changed is what society and the public view as acceptable. The police will evolve and change to catch up to these new views but police cultural doesn’t change over night.

I always find Sir Robert Peels 9 principles of policing to be relevant, especially at this time:

1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

These principles are 200 years old…… please don’t forget that the majority of police officers are good people, with good intentions wanting to help the public and serve the community. Calgary is still a very safe place to live with relatively low crime rates and the Calgary Police Service has played a significant role in this.

I thanked your post...but Thank You.

Very well said.

[Itse]

Meanwhile back in Finland the police have yesterday detained a man with a gun by shooting them once in the leg, just to remind everyone that yes, it IS a consistently viable and effective option, regardless of what internet forum "experts" will tell you.

Also, use of firearm has, as always, triggered an automatic investigation, as it should. In fact, let me explain this further by another example.

In 2017 a motorcycle police officer in Finland noticed a car stopped on the green between highway lanes and pulled over to investigate. He noticed a woman on the ground and a man apparently about to attack the woman with a knife. The policeman shouts "drop the knife" but the man refused, so the officer shot him on the leg. This didn't stop the man, who did in fact start stabbing the woman. The police officer then shot the man in the knife hand and hits, which I think is fairly impressive, but not enough to make him drop the knife. Then the officer shoots the man in the the chest. Then he immediately runs over and starts trying to save the man's life. The man however dies. (The woman survived. I haven't found any info on how badly she was injured. Likely pretty bad, but apparently not in a life threatening way.)

There was a criminal investigation into the officers actions to determine whether he was quilty of manslaughter (roughly speaking, the laws aren't exact duplicates). The central question of the investigation was, WHETHER IT WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE FOR THE OFFICER TO RESOLVE THE SITUATION WITHOUT KILLING THE MAN.

The investigation ended in the officers favor, which I assume everyone can agree is fair and just.

But what I want to highlight is the attitude the Finnish legal system takes to anyone, even a police officer, killing anyone, even a person who is literally at that moment trying to murder someone.

In Finland, it's not enough that a killing is justifiable. It has to be literally the only viable option in a situation where another life is immediately threatened. Otherwise you have to try something else. Notice that the motorcycle officer only shot the man once in the chest, not multiple times. Even that shot was still primarily meant to STOP him. Death was at that point a somewhat inevitable side effect, but still not the goal.

This saves lives, every year. The man the police shot in the leg yesterday was mentally in pain and wanted to die. (He literally said this to the arresting officers.) In the US he very likely would have died, and based on what I've read about police procedure in Canada, there's a good chance he would have died there too. In Finland he is now in a hospital and getting help.

I think our system is, in this regard, just flat out better, and I don't see a reason why you couldn't adopt the same logic to policing.

Links here https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11403338

and here https://www.iltalehti.fi/kotimaa/a/201710032200433891.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Itse

Meanwhile back in Finland the police have yesterday detained a man with a gun by shooting them once in the leg, just to remind everyone that yes, it IS a consistently viable and effective option, regardless of what internet forum "experts" will tell you.

Also, use of firearm has, as always, triggered an automatic investigation, as it should. In fact, let me explain this further by another example.

In 2017 a motorcycle police officer in Finland noticed a car stopped on the green between highway lanes and pulled over to investigate. He noticed a woman on the ground and a man apparently about to attack the woman with a knife. The policeman shouts "drop the knife" but the man refused, so the officer shot him on the leg. This didn't stop the man, who did in fact start stabbing the woman. The police officer then shot the man in the knife hand and hits, which I think is fairly impressive, but not enough to make him drop the knife. Then the officer shoots the man in the the chest. Then he immediately runs over and starts trying to save the man's life. The man however dies. (The woman survived. I haven't found any info on how badly she was injured. Likely pretty bad, but apparently not in a life threatening way.)

There was a criminal investigation into the officers actions to determine whether he was quilty of manslaughter (roughly speaking, the laws aren't exact duplicates). The central question of the investigation was, WHETHER IT WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE FOR THE OFFICER TO RESOLVE THE SITUATION WITHOUT KILLING THE MAN.

The investigation ended in the officers favor, which I assume everyone can agree is fair and just.

But what I want to highlight is the attitude the Finnish legal system takes to anyone, even a police officer, killing anyone, even a person who is literally at that moment trying to murder someone.

In Finland, it's not enough that a killing is justifiable. It has to be literally the only viable option in a situation where another life is immediately threatened. Otherwise you have to try something else. Notice that the motorcycle officer only shot the man once in the chest, not multiple times. Even that shot was still primarily meant to STOP him. Death was at that point a somewhat inevitable side effect, but still not the goal.

This saves lives, every year. The man the police shot in the leg yesterday was mentally in pain and wanted to die. (He literally said this to the arresting officers.) In the US he very likely would have died, and based on what I've read about police procedure in Canada, there's a good chance he would have died there too. In Finland he is now in a hospital and getting help.

I think our system is, in this regard, just flat out better, and I don't see a reason why you couldn't adopt the same logic to policing.

Links here https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11403338

and here https://www.iltalehti.fi/kotimaa/a/201710032200433891.

Yes , I wish it was like that here or anywhere else in North America but thats what is severely lacking here in N.A. Our police are trained that if your going to discharge your gun its not a warning shot. They are trained to fire a tight cluster perferably mid chest. There is no shoot to wound mentality. Its if you fire make sure he goes down. Theres been many unions preach "It's better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six” which is a common phrase started by police and military. Ironically they don't see that bikers like the H.A also follow this mantra ,probably because tjwy were born out of the military. The police have been the largest legal gang that essentially went unchecked for legal liability. Now it's coming to a head and the public is putting them in check. They have been acting like a street gang with their tatics for some time and I for one am happy change may actually be coming foreward.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

Yes , I wish it was like that here or anywhere else in North America but thats what is severely lacking here in N.A. Our police are trained that if your going to discharge your gun its not a warning shot. They are trained to fire a tight cluster perferably mid chest. There is no shoot to wound mentality. Its if you fire make sure he goes down. Theres been many unions preach "It's better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six” which is a common phrase started by police and military. Ironically they don't see that bikers like the H.A also follow this mantra ,probably because tjwy were born out of the military. The police have been the largest legal gang that essentially went unchecked for legal liability. Now it's coming to a head and the public is putting them in check. They have been acting like a street gang with their tatics for some time and I for one am happy change may actually be coming foreward.

I also think it's a real issue that people in the US can't imagine how else would things be. They can't imagine a different kind of police, because they've never seen it.

There's also countless people arguing that shooting to wound would be an unrealistic policy, because they genuinely think that's the case. They're clearly wrong, but it's not a stupid belief. To a civilian it's not at all obvious what is realistic and what is not, when it comes to guns.

Of course American exceptionalism is one major problem. There's no end to people saying "but it's so different here, you can't compare x or Y to us because reasons". Quite often you can, and you should.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

I’ve thought about different contexts that may have applied to that conversation, and none of them excuse belly laughing and talking about policing Forest Lawn out loud in the middle of a police station. Whatever the context, I don’t like it.

Trust me, every single person or department that works outdoors in/for the city, be it cops, firefighters, pothole fillers, street sweepers, crosswalk painters, water guys, enmax, etc, ALL say the same #### about working in Forest Lawn.

There's something interesting about a neighborhood where every 7th person that walks by either yells at you, throws #### at you, pulls a knife on you, spits at you, etc. Nothing you can do about it, so just laugh

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Trust me, every single person or department that works outdoors in/for the city, be it cops, firefighters, pothole fillers, street sweepers, crosswalk painters, water guys, enmax, etc, ALL say the same #### about working in Forest Lawn.

There's something interesting about a neighborhood where every 7th person that walks by either yells at you, throws #### at you, pulls a knife on you, spits at you, etc. Nothing you can do about it, so just laugh

I get it.

I guess my point is: if I was bad mouthing clients in my office, boisterously, while other similar clients are in our office, I would be reprimanded immediately. Openly #### talking the public, in front of the public, as an authority figure, is unacceptable.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

I get it.

I guess my point is: if I was bad mouthing clients in my office, boisterously, while other similar clients are in our office, I would be reprimanded immediately. Openly #### talking the public, in front of the public, as an authority figure, is unacceptable.

OH I absolutely don't disagree with you, just saying I get where he's coming from. Working in Forest Lawn sucks absolute balls.

Back when I worked for the city I literally got spat on, had a full coffee thrown at me, had guys threaten to kill me, all in one night just for trying to measure and chalk out a bike lane.

Meanwhile, all I got from the crazies downtown was some weird yet interesting conversations.

Night shifts were fun.

But back to your point, no, I'd never start yelling that in front of random members of the public. Just bitch about it online years later, lol

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Weitz

One has to think the prosecutors looked at the body cam footage prior to laying charges. If you are just going to assume the prosecutors and cops are in cahoots then there isn't much to discuss I guess.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7144577/c...n-woman-video/

Lol. Of course charges dropped after the video is released to public. Realistically if it doesn't make news, she's likely found guilty of arresting arrest (since she admitted it while being assaulted...).

The next time someone brings up the prosecutors and cops working together as though it doesn't happen, this is just one of many examples.

https://www.citynews1130.com/2020/06...t-is-released/

Here's a 16 year old who was charged and convicted of assaulting a CPS pig when's he grabbed from behind by some thug and reacts as you would expect someone to. He literally has his hands in his pockets when he's surprised attack. He was unfortunate to have the video released after he was convicted.

[GGG]

Why do you use dehumanizing language to talk about police officers. Saying CPS pig paints the entire CPS with that brush. But even if it were true that the entire force behaved in this manner using dehumanizing language to describe them only enhances the divide between the public and officers

It is not productive. Humans, regardless of actions, deserve to be treated with dignity for the mere fact that they are human.

[OMG!WTF!]

Pig seems about right to me. Beating up a 16 year old then calling him a p'ssy, then charging him with a made up crime deserves nothing more dignified than pig. CPS aren't all pigs but that guy was.