Let's Talk about the Calgary Police Service

[81MC]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

I'm with iggy on this one. What would the discretion be based on? There aren't many infractions where there is a legit excuse. Speeding while driving a pregnant woman to the hospital, sure. Forgot to put the new sticker on the licence? It is because you are dumb and forgot (I have done it). Being dumb is pretty much the only reason, so either all should get off or no one.

Otherwise, the discretion would be based on the officers mood, or dare I say it, the colour of one's skin?

See, but you’ve ####ed it up.

Why the HELL is it okay to you to speed with a pregnant woman in the vehicle. All things considered, you would hide that a pass but fine the guy going 95 in the parkway?

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Pepsi, if that was for me, sure, no problem. I have revised my post, which I think is still very much accurate and valid to what we are talking about here.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by 81MC

See, but you’ve ####ed it up.

Why the HELL is it okay to you to speed with a pregnant woman in the vehicle. All things considered, you would hide that a pass but fine the guy going 95 in the parkway?

I don't understand what you are saying. I was implying a medical emergency.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by jar_e

I mean if you're pushing for every traffic law to be enforced with no discretion, I just don't think that's a reasonable or commonly agreed upon sentiment.

Again it’s a slippery slope. I don’t think an officer should be allowed to give an obviously drunk driver a pass just because they’re already close to home and it’s the exact same concept. Giving police too much discretion for when they should enforce penalties essentially reduces our laws to guidelines.

There's literally tickets for anything. Our Spec Pens are 50-60 pages long and that's just the provincial one. I don't think you want every cop enforcing every traffic law that's broken.

If the laws aren’t worth enforcing it makes you wonder why we bothered to legislate them in the first place. I think people should also remind themselves that driving is a privilege not a right.

You do realize that being pulled over is a form of enforcement already right? The physical act of being pulled over is a deterrent. Not everything that happens needs to result in tickets.

Which is why our laws should reflect that so it’s not left up to chance.

So the argument is that a cop wrote you a lesser fine and now fighting it, you want to see if you could have gotten a better deal with another cop? I have no idea what other cops give as breaks. Sometimes people who get pulled over for speeding don't get tickets at all. Does that mean I shouldn't give tickets to speeders at all?

No it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t give tickets to speeders at all, but it does mean there’s a problem with the system when two individuals with no priors commit the same exact same offence but receive different punishments.

Cops have a wide range of options of enforcement at every call. There are infinite amount of variables from each call. Whether its traffic, criminal or otherwise.

Yes and I’ve already acknowledged that the police need to be able to use discretion in some situations, I just don’t think a speeding ticket is on of them.

I don't charge someone who stole $8.20 worth of food to feed themselves from Safeway cause how is that in the public interest? Sure some cops will go 100%, some will go 0%, but I think arguing about getting a break is counter productive.

Yet another example of why it’s a problem. You want to be treated fairly by police and that means getting the same treatment as everybody else when you interact with them, for better or worse.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Could we possibly avoid using the very real problem of racism and police brutality to somehow paint a police officer forgiving someone for stealing $10 in food or letting someone go for having the wrong insurance slip as a bad thing?

This isn’t directed at me is it? Because I haven’t brought it up as an argument, but on that point if we want people of all races to be treated the same by police I think ensuring people who break the law get treated the same way regardless of how a cop feels in that moment might be a good place to start.

I have a problem with the system as much as anyone and can't stand a lot of what we hear about, but this is how you turn good police officers against people. We should celebrate the officers who use common sense and discretion for the sake of good. We want more of those people.

No because this is perpetuating the problem as you’re giving officers the green light to pick and choose how and when the law should be enforced. I would have way more respect for a cop who I know is doing things consistently than I ever would for one who gave me a break I didn’t deserve.

[jar_e]

I know I'm not going to convince you otherwise but policing, as much of life, is incredibly grey and never black and white.

I pride myself of being more of a "problem solver" or a "what guarantees the best outcome for the victim/offender/general public in situations" then a blanket charge cop, but each to their own.

I appreciate the uncertainty people have with that in this day and age. Obviously trust in police is presumably at an incredible low. Society expects police to be these jack of all trades and master of none in a variety of criminal and non criminal situations.

I wish we had a further shift to common sense, reasonable policing and courts but, alas, that's a culture and legal change way above my pay grade.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So to be clear we are complaining that officers aren't automatons ??

No, just pointing out how police discretion even if well intentioned creates an unfair justice system.

Originally Posted by you&me

fyp.

Which of your accounts’ feelings have I hurt the most?

[81MC]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

I don't understand what you are saying. I was implying a medical emergency.

If the argument is that a fineable offence is a fineable offence, then there is no exception based on a perceived emergency.

If the argument is that speeding is a danger, thus should be punished according to the law, putting a vulnerable life in harms way should probably face an even stricter penalty.

The driver mildly speeding through the parkway is less likely emotionally charged and navigating through city traffic with the distraction of a medical emergency on board. That’s what ambulances are for.

If the argument is that the situation in which speeding might be acceptable is at the discretion of the driver and the police officer, well you’re right back to where you started.

*Im not saying I believe this, just pointing out that ‘discretion’ is a thing for a reason.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by 81MC

Why the HELL is it okay to you to speed with a pregnant woman in the vehicle.

Because she's got her hand around your testicles screaming "DRIVE, IT'S COMING, F--KING DRIIIIIIVE!"

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by 81MC

If the argument is that a fineable offence is a fineable offence, then there is no exception based on a perceived emergency.

If the argument is that speeding is a danger, thus should be punished according to the law, putting a vulnerable life in harms way should probably face an even stricter penalty.

The driver mildly speeding through the parkway is less likely emotionally charged and navigating through city traffic with the distraction of a medical emergency on board. That’s what ambulances are for.

If the argument is that the situation in which speeding might be acceptable is at the discretion of the driver and the police officer, well you’re right back to where you started.

*Im not saying I believe this, just pointing out that ‘discretion’ is a thing for a reason.

I'm saying there shouldn't be discretion, but I would concede the medical emergency situation, which would be so exceptionally rare that it would hardly be a factor..

What I don't get, is if a car is pulled over, it is presumably for an infraction witnessed by the police officer. He already made the call. Why then provide the discretion after the stop has been made? What would be reasonable to base that discretion? The person seems nice? Seems like a bad guy? If it was 1 km over the limit, don't bother pulling someone over. I get that form of discretion.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by jar_e

I know I'm not going to convince you otherwise but policing, as much of life, is incredibly grey and never black and white.

I pride myself of being more of a "problem solver" or a "what guarantees the best outcome for the victim/offender/general public in situations" then a blanket charge cop, but each to their own.

I don’t fault you for the approach you take in your work, I don’t think your intentions are bad and I completely understand that this is a norm that has been around for a long time and probably predates your time on the force. I’m also not one to crap on police officers where it’s not warranted as I believe it’s an incredibly important and difficult job to do effectively. With that being said I still don’t agree with not having consistent repercussions for infractions like speeding. I just see anything else as being unfair. I’ll leave it at that.

I appreciate the uncertainty people have with that in this day and age. Obviously trust in police is presumably at an incredible low. Society expects police to be these jack of all trades and master of none in a variety of criminal and non criminal situations.

I completely agree with you on police being expected to do way too much and I think it makes changing the status quo all the more difficult. My position isn’t coming from a place of uncertainty, it’s more an issue of consistently equal and fair applications of the law.

I wish we had a further shift to common sense, reasonable policing and courts but, alas, that's a culture and legal change way above my pay grade.

I wish for the same and I still think these are important conversations to have. I for one would rather get the same ticket as anyone else every time I chose to break the law instead of getting a ticket for something someone else got a warning for, even if it eliminates the possibility of ever getting just a warning myself. Not everyone is going to hold the same opinion and that’s fine.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

^ since you opened the door, you may as well tell more of the story.

deleted due to strongly worded advice from someone.

[jayswin]

Lol, jar_e states that he's policing in the absolute best possible way that every officer and police service should strive for

I pride myself of being more of a "problem solver" or a "what guarantees the best outcome for the victim/offender/general public in situations" then a blanket charge cop, but each to their own.

And he gets a pat on the head of a child style "I don't think your intentions are bad" response from IggyOi. That is hilarious.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Lol, jar_e states that he's policing in the absolute best possible way that every officer and police service should strive for

And he gets a pat on the head of a child style "I don't think your intentions are bad" response from IggyOi. That is hilarious.

Yup, jar_e (who I am literally judging based only on what he's said in the last few hours) presents as pretty much the gold standard for policing. Using good judgement, thinking about what's best for the person he's dealing with, focusing on the outcome and not the piece of paper. That's the bar, that's where you want every officer to get to.

The response? "I don't fault you for your approach/I don't think your intentions are bad." Really? That's the lightest way you could possibly say "thank you for having a great approach and having great intentions." Because that's the appropriate response here.

Laws should act as guidelines, that's what we should be striving for. Not some archaic "so it is written, so it shall be done" mentality. I understand the thinking that if you leave some things up to discretion it allows for people to be treated unequally based on pretty dubious conditions, but if you leave nothing up to discretion, all you're left with is a bunch of laws that might not really make sense and police officers who have no choice but to enforce them. You want a $78 ticket for going 81 in an 80? Congrats, that's your new reality. You want a ticket every time you jaywalk, even if it's perfectly safe? Congrats, you got it.

What it does is set up a system where more time and resources is poured into petty crime and minor offenses, and less time spent on education and building positive experiences with the communities they serve to protect. That's the goal of everything happening, that outcome. If you want to further destroy the relationships between police and the communities they serve, having them become objective penalty machines is a fast way to do it. So, good luck with that.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Lol, jar_e states that he's policing in the absolute best possible way that every officer and police service should strive for

And he gets a pat on the head of a child style "I don't think your intentions are bad" response from IggyOi. That is hilarious.

The fact that that’s what you got out of my post is hilarious. Clarifying to someone who’s probably been in the receiving end of a lot of extra scrutiny lately that you’re not criticizing their intentions(when the other party obviously must have felt that was the case to some extent otherwise they wouldn’t have posted what I responded to) seems like a pretty reasonable thing to do to. But good contribution jayswin, I’m sorry we don’t all live up to your standards.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yup, jar_e (who I am literally judging based only on what he's said in the last few hours) presents as pretty much the gold standard for policing. Using good judgement, thinking about what's best for the person he's dealing with, focusing on the outcome and not the piece of paper. That's the bar, that's where you want every officer to get to.

Knowing him in real life he's the gold standard of 911 dispatch and now policing, while adhering to a much lower, punchy standard in rec hockey. Sorry, had to. And to be fair my view of his penalty box stints was usually from the penalty box.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by jar_e

I mean if you're pushing for every traffic law to be enforced with no discretion, I just don't think that's a reasonable or commonly agreed upon sentiment. There's literally tickets for anything. Our Spec Pens are 50-60 pages long and that's just the provincial one. I don't think you want every cop enforcing every traffic law that's broken.

You do realize that being pulled over is a form of enforcement already right? The physical act of being pulled over is a deterrent. Not everything that happens needs to result in tickets.

So the argument is that a cop wrote you a lesser fine and now fighting it, you want to see if you could have gotten a better deal with another cop? I have no idea what other cops give as breaks. Sometimes people who get pulled over for speeding don't get tickets at all. Does that mean I shouldn't give tickets to speeders at all?

Cops have a wide range of options of enforcement at every call. There are infinite amount of variables from each call. Whether its traffic, criminal or otherwise.

I don't charge someone who stole $8.20 worth of food to feed themselves from Safeway cause how is that in the public interest? Sure some cops will go 100%, some will go 0%, but I think arguing about getting a break is counter productive.

Of all the posts about discretion I quoted this one because the bolded part seems to best explain why it is vital to a proper functioning system.

iggy_oi is not wrong to raise concerns about discretion potentially being abused or creating unintended injustices (it most certainly can), but he is very wrong suggesting it is improper or not inherently part of a police officer's sworn job description.

Police officers purportedly exercising 'discretion' to give favours to a friend or colleague or because they are trying to pick up a good-looking driver are very likely committing criminal obstruction of justice.

Police officers subjectively and objectively acting in the public interest to not charge someone with an offence (or charge a lesser version of the offence) even though they have a basis to lay a charge - are exactly what we need more of in my view. The key is, as jar_e said earlier, the legitimate reasons for the discretion must be documented and objectively be able to withstand scrutiny.

In 2007 the SCC had a split decision in a case where a police officer was convicted of obstruction and attempted to invoke legitimate discretion as his defence for not proceeding to get breath samples from an apparently intoxicated driver who was a police colleague. The majority said this about police discretion:

Applying the letter of the law to the practical, real‑life situations faced by police officers in performing their everyday duties requires that certain adjustments be made. Although these adjustments may sometimes appear to deviate from the letter of the law, they are crucial and are part of the very essence of the proper administration of the criminal justice system, or to use the words of s. 139(2) , are perfectly consistent with the “course of justice”. The ability — indeed the duty — to use one’s judgment to adapt the process of law enforcement to individual circumstances and to the real‑life demands of justice is in fact the basis of police discretion. What La Forest J. said in R. v. Beare, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387, at p. 410, is directly on point here:

Discretion is an essential feature of the criminal justice system. A system that attempted to eliminate discretion would be unworkably complex and rigid.

Thus, a police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed, or that a more thorough investigation might produce evidence that could form the basis of a criminal charge, may exercise his or her discretion to decide not to engage the judicial process. But this discretion is not absolute. Far from having carte blanche, police officers must justify their decisions rationally.

The required justification is essentially twofold. First, the exercise of the discretion must be justified subjectively, that is, the discretion must have been exercised honestly and transparently, and on the basis of valid and reasonable grounds (reasons of Chamberland J.A., at para. 41). Thus, a decision based on favouritism, or on cultural, social or racial stereotypes, cannot constitute a proper exercise of police discretion. However, the officer’s sincere belief that he properly exercised his discretion is not sufficient to justify his decision.

Hence, the exercise of police discretion must also be justified on the basis of objective factors. I agree with Doyon J.A. that in determining whether a decision resulting from an exercise of police discretion is proper, it is important to consider the material circumstances in which the discretion was exercised...

The facts of the case led to a conviction at trial and ultimately that was upheld as a reasonable conclusion. But it was in no way doubted that police officers are expected to exercise legitimate discretion as part of their duties.

jar_e has essentially described exactly how and why the law expects (and requires) discretion to work on a daily basis. If police charged every offence no matter what, it would take probably a couple of weeks to bring the entire system to its knees.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Yeah most people support policies that #### over other people because of classism, not racism.

Of course, classism and racism are often tied together, but motivation is likely more selfish than hateful. People are just self-absorbed dicks.

I would somewhat agree with the selfish narrative, but I think its an unconscious selfeshness, I would moreso go with ignorance than selfishness or racism.

Weather class, race, age, sex, religion, lexicon, most descriminition is rooted in a lack of context and empathy (not knowingly being un empathetic, but lacking the experince to understand where others will have different prospective and feelings towards situations than you). That is why spending time with other groups is the most effective way to change peoples bias'

There is a little voice in the back of everyones head saying, this works for me, why the hell can't it work for you. But when there are litteraly 10,000s of thousands of people in the streets screaming that they need some empathy, people (the police in this instance) need to understand that this is the time to start listening, maybe stop shooting people in the back. It might not be racismism per se, but at this point in time any of these incidents are at best ignorance.

Sometimes I do hear the liberal mouthpieces scream F##K all white men, or if you are doing XYZ you are making a direct racist attack, and I do think those ideas are rooted in a very similar ignorance. They are so centered in their own world and experience that they can't empathize with someone who has their own life to live. I think its really easy to see why this rehtoric does little more make the speaker feel great about themselves and create pushback from those being attacked.

[Fuzz]

I do wonder if the reason we have so many horrible drivers with terrible habits is because laws aren't being enforced, though. I get that ya, if you follow someone for 5 minutes, you will see 20 infractions, and you can't ticket everyone who does something wrong. But at what point are our laws of the road no longer obeyed because it is inconvenient for police? Have we gone to far on the leniency?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I do wonder if the reason we have so many horrible drivers with terrible habits is because laws aren't being enforced, though. I get that ya, if you follow someone for 5 minutes, you will see 20 infractions, and you can't ticket everyone who does something wrong. But at what point are our laws of the road no longer obeyed because it is inconvenient for police? Have we gone to far on the leniency?

Until driving in Canada becomes the hellscape that is Asian or South American driving, I think we can still comfortably drop a few feet on the slippery slope.