Let's Talk about the Calgary Police Service

[Captain Otto]

Originally Posted by Titan

As a middle aged white guy I have also had only positive interactions with the police. However, I also realize my experience is not the same for all interactions with all people. Perhaps if the police viewed BWC differently then their attitude would change as well. If they saw them as providing a defence to spurious allegations then they would be more willing to accept their use.

I most definitely don't care about fashion but my attitudes towards the police in general and CPS in specific have been altered dramatically over the last few years.

What is your perception of their acceptance of BWC? Genuinely curious.

Why has your perception been altered?

[Captain Otto]

Originally Posted by Titan

Agreed as I stated before I saw this. Also, I don't think anyone here is saying that "in general" the police are not doing a good job. What we are saying is the incidences of them not doing a good job are too high and the consequences when that does happen are too low.

But are they though? What are you basing this on?

What consequences are you referring to that are too low? Not being fired outright? Is there a chance there are other motivations at play. Like perhaps the crown felt him being immediately fired would taint the criminal investigation and subsequent trial?

Apologies for the the questions. I guess I am just genuinely interested how and when all these changes took place for the general public.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by GGG

No we don’t,

The humans are fallible argument is only acceptable for decisions that are within the scope of practice that may have not been correct.

Cases like this where there is no discretion should never happen. That is a fundamental failure of the system. These aren’t accidents or bad decisions. They are gross incompetence.

The acceptable number is zero.

The numbers of babies dropped by doctors during delivery is a number that we need to accept will be greater than 0 because that is human error. The number of people getting there head smashed in by police is not.

This Case is fundamentally different Then many mis-use of force cASR’s where you can see a judgement was made by a fallible person. And in those kinds of cases it is reasonable to expect they will occur at a small rate.

It’s almost as if you purposely ignored the rest of my post...

I outlined how there will be criminal acts and misconduct committed by a vast array of professions. That they will happen regardless of any measures we take. Sure, the acceptable number is zero. Which is why I have said that people should be outraged etc when it happens, but it will happen again. You need to wrap your head around that fact as expecting zero misconduct is living in a dream world.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

What is your perception of their acceptance of BWC? Genuinely curious.

Why has your perception been altered?

To be honest I don't really know any cops. The ones that do occasionally post here are not particularly open to discussion, it appears. What I have heard in relation to BWC is that the unions are against them. Perhaps this has changed. To be honest and fair, I am not sure what the current thinking is about them. However, when the topic comes up there seems to be adversarial reactions so I assume people are against them.

If they are overwhelmingly accepted by the officers on the street then that is a good thing in my opinion.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

But are they though? What are you basing this on?

I can add a bit of context, though it's 'taken with a grain of salt' sort of stuff.

CPS had 1256 Professional Standards complaints registered against them in 2019. Unfortunately, I can't find the exact number of calls/officer contacts reported for 2019 (I recall that the number is out there, I just can't find it right now) but do know that CPS attend roughly 1100 calls for service every day. That's just calls, and doesn't include all officer contacts.

So that would be 0.31% of calls result in a formal complaint. But that's just some spitballing (because the contact numbers are higher and not everyone formally complains, of course).

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Titan

To be honest I don't really know any cops. The ones that do occasionally post here are not particularly open to discussion, it appears. What I have heard in relation to BWC is that the unions are against them. Perhaps this has changed. To be honest and fair, I am not sure what the current thinking is about them. However, when the topic comes up there seems to be adversarial reactions so I assume people are against them.

If they are overwhelmingly accepted by the officers on the street then that is a good thing in my opinion.

Did you read any of the three articles I edited into my post way back at the start of the day? The majority seem to want/favor BWC's.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

But are they though? What are you basing this on?

What consequences are you referring to that are too low? Not being fired outright? Is there a chance there are other motivations at play. Like perhaps the crown felt him being immediately fired would taint the criminal investigation and subsequent trial?

Apologies for the the questions. I guess I am just genuinely interested how and when all these changes took place for the general public.

Again, my experience has been tainted by what we have seen over the last year or so as there has been an explosion of videos coming out of the states.

However, the fact that a CPS officer feels he can do what he did to a woman in handcuffs, IN A GODDAMN PRECINCT WITH CAMERAS EVERYWHERE indicates to me there may be a problem when they are in the field and know there are no cameras. Coupled with the anecdotal evidence we hear about interactions with CPS and it paints quite a negative story. Then, when one comes out, we only hear about a 'few bad apples'. Not encouraging.

To answer your first question, innocent until proven guilty is still the norm. I don't like that he got a year 'holiday' but understand they do not want to conduct a disciplinary hearing before the criminal charges play out. I doubt it was the prosecutor's decision as it is probably irrelevant and even if admissible, would make his job easier, not harder. Without doing a study it appears that police misconduct is not dealt with seriously, expeditiously and with sufficient consequences in Canada. To be fair, applying US exposure to Canadian forces is not fair, but it is how perceptions are made.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

To be clear, bodycams are not there to oversee conduct. They are there to collect evidence. I think that's the issue going forward, is that those that are anti-police can't see police in any other light - that they are all dishonest, heavy handed and morally corrupt. Thus, they see bodycams as a way to police the police. Roachmen is a great example of that. He's a self admitted police hater and likes to trot out his "Kaminski Argument" in every anti-police thread. Do we really want a guy like that setting the standard for what police can and can't do?

What do you think I want the police standard to be? Accountability for brutality and not covering for one another. That's it. If that's a concern for the police, then that's on them. And it is a concern for police.

It's funny how you so quickly dismiss the Kaminski argument, but it's the CPS who kept voting and showing support for him knowing what he did. Not all police are corrupt, but everyone who voted for him was.

They en masse (their words) voted for Kaminski to represent them. Let's let Kaminski represent them then. He was a corrupt lying police officer, that's who they picked to represent them, not me or anyone else.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I think the biggest thing is reinvesting a large portion of the budget and putting it towards social services (geared around mental health, addiction) and things that prevent crime in communities, like education. Changing the way police are perceived would also be a big part of that, which I think is more effectively done by essentially "starting over." Removing the militaristic connotations of police, including arming less of them with lethal weapons, significant retraining so that "this person wont remove their scarf so I'm going to put them on the ground" isn't even remotely a thought that crosses any police officer's mind, and even changing the way they look, getting away from dark colourways and aggressive looking vehicles to something that more resembles a healthcare worker. That last part might seem silly, but it's not just about changing the mindset and ensuring the right person responds to the right types of calls, it's about changing the perception of the people police are serving.

And that's another part. Police are here to serve us, and not just those of us who are being protected from crime, but those committing them as well. The officer in that video was meant to serve and protect the person in his custody, not treat them like garbage, and the very fact that there would be confusion there is something that shouldn't exist.

When people say "burn it to the ground," sure, some mean get rid of it entirely. I don't know if that's entirely common, but if it is, I'd agree it's a bad idea. But "burn it down" in the sense that we should do so to rebuild it from the ground up as something better in both mindset, capability, and perception, is something I'm all for.

I agree that most cops are good cops. But there shouldn't be any question. It should not be a professional that attracts mostly good people, and a few rotten ones, because there should be no draw for the rotten ones in the first place. And if there is, it's worth questioning what it is, and how we remove it entirely.

I think the biggest thing is reinvesting a large portion of the budget and putting it towards social services (geared around mental health, addiction) and things that prevent crime in communities, like education.

Yeah absolutely, I think this is a great idea. Now, how it’s put into practice will be interesting but I think it’s a step in the right direction.

Removing the militaristic connotations of police, including arming less of them with lethal weapons, significant retraining so that "this person wont remove their scarf so I'm going to put them on the ground" isn't even remotely a thought that crosses any police officer's mind, and even changing the way they look, getting away from dark colourways and aggressive looking vehicles to something that more resembles a healthcare worker.

So you think only some police officers should be armed? I don’t think this is possible as it would reduce the amount of members available for calls for service. As far as the assault reference, that is the exception. The vast majority of all police/public interactions are routine and mundane. This goes back to my point of accepting that incidents will happen from time to time and those police officers need to be held accountable. With regards to appearance, the RCMP wears light grey shirts and dark pants, Montreal wears baby blue i believe, most municipal departments wear dark. I’m not sure that it makes much of a difference to be honest. Police vehicles should be marked so that they are the most visible in my opinion.

In any event, I agree with most of what you say and certainly think that policing can be improved upon. “Burning it down” just sounds pretty extreme that’s all.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Did you read any of the three articles I edited into my post way back at the start of the day? The majority seem to want/favor BWC's.

Nope.

I missed the edit but will read them. Thanks.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

It’s almost as if you purposely ignored the rest of my post...

I outlined how there will be criminal acts and misconduct committed by a vast array of professions. That they will happen regardless of any measures we take. Sure, the acceptable number is zero. Which is why I have said that people should be outraged etc when it happens, but it will happen again. You need to wrap your head around that fact as expecting zero misconduct is living in a dream world.

This is beyond professional misconduct. I’m not expecting zero misconduct, I’m expecting zero attempted murders and murders.

It would an engineer intentionally designing a bridge to collapse and it making it through all safeguards as opposed to being negligent, or not competent, or just made mistakes.

So no I don’t accept that that they will happen.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

So you think only some police officers should be armed? I don’t think this is possible as it would reduce the amount of members available for calls for service. As far as the assault reference, that is the exception. The vast majority of all police/public interactions are routine and mundane.

The quoted kind of answers itself for why I think it's possible. How often do you answer calls where your weapons or even your handcuffs aren't necessary? How often can you reasonably predict that to be the case?

If lethal weapons aren't required for most calls, I don't think the rare chance that they might be required is a great reason for every officer being armed with a lethal weapon.

I think changing the entire ideology away from "I have this in case I need this" is worthwhile, considering how rarely you actually do. This is especially true in Canada, where an armed public is not near the threat it is in the United States. If police in the UK can do it, why can't we fall somewhere between the two?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

The irony in all this, is that bodycams have actually done more good for the police. Offenders tend to plead out more and acts of misconduct, at least investigations, tend to go down as those with complaints find out there is bodycam footage and rarely follow through with those complaints.

Maybe it means that in general, police are actually doing a good job?

In general, sure. But there will always be some who don't, and some who simply shouldn't be on the force. So... what's the downside of having this monitoring in place to oversee the conduct of people who have the ability to easily abuse their authority? What are the negatives, and do they outweigh the positives?

Remember, there's actually a role here for the cameras beyond the empirical results. Merely having the public know that there's someone watching who is holding the officer they're dealing with accountable decreases wariness and mistrust. I suppose you could argue that some people will be less likely to talk to police knowing that they're being recorded, which is a worthwhile criticism, but I don't think it outweighs the good being done, particularly if we set up a system whereby the officer can truthfully tell them that "no one is allowed to look at this footage without getting a court order".

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is beyond professional misconduct. I’m not expecting zero misconduct, I’m expecting zero attempted murders and murders.

It would an engineer intentionally designing a bridge to collapse and it making it through all safeguards as opposed to being negligent, or not competent, or just made mistakes.

So no I don’t accept that that they will happen.

Please provide me examples of where police have intentionally murdered someone.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Please provide me examples of where police have intentionally murdered someone.

Am I allowed to use US examples?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GGG

Am I allowed to use US examples?

Dont even need to. What are those called? "Moon Walks?"

Canada isnt guiltless in this either.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Locke

Dont even need to. What are those called? "Moon Walks?"

Canada isnt guiltless in this either.

Starlight Tours...

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by GGG

Am I allowed to use US examples?

Well, since the thread is about CPS, Canadian policing is more relevant.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Starlight Tours...

Ugh....that is so disgustingly grim. I've had many very negative encounters with natives. But they're fighting a hard battle too.

But I dont think that has anything to do with the Calgary Police Service so I'll gladly let this get back on topic.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The quoted kind of answers itself for why I think it's possible. How often do you answer calls where your weapons or even your handcuffs aren't necessary? How often can you reasonably predict that to be the case?

If lethal weapons aren't required for most calls, I don't think the rare chance that they might be required is a great reason for every officer being armed with a lethal weapon.

I think changing the entire ideology away from "I have this in case I need this" is worthwhile, considering how rarely you actually do. This is especially true in Canada, where an armed public is not near the threat it is in the United States. If police in the UK can do it, why can't we fall somewhere between the two?

They’re not required for most calls for service, the problem arises when they are required. Police have been armed in Canada since they were formed, it seems as though your position is one of not liking the appearance of armed police rather than a practical one. You just hit the nail on the head with how can you predict when you’ll need tools/weapons. Answer is you don’t. Do you think it’s reasonable for a police officer to get dispatched to a domestic dispute, have to go to the police station to retrieve their handcuffs and firearm then attend the call?

Also, police in the UK are increasing the amount of armed officers they deploy. Traditionally they are the exception to the rule with every other western nation with professional police forces deploying armed officers. Rather than “disarming” police, perhaps providing them with more “less lethal” options would be more appropriate? This is already occurring in most Canadian police forces.