Let's Talk about the Calgary Police Service

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Sounds to me like he wasn't in handcuffs since his parent say he said "you're not putting those handcuffs on me."



No reason to think it's not true? The PARENTS CALLED 911 saying they were afraid he would hurt himself (and others I suspect). This suggests he was acting out, with some degree of violence.

The cops got him outside, he was still belligerent, the cop tried to put him in a bear hug and turn him at which time the boy and/or the cop lost their footing and fell to the ground. Unfortunate accident resulting from an emotionally charged encounter.

The police were called for a reason. I'm sure it was traumatic for the parents to see this but is disingenuous to suggest that the son had no complicity in this situation.

It reminds of some TV reports you see from the US from time to time. A family calls the police to report a family member threatening other family members, often with a weapon. The police are called, the situation escalates and the aggressive family is arrested, injured or worse, then all of a sudden the story becomes Police brutality!

Edited to add information.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4408224/f...cers-injuries/







So not in handcuffs.

If the police weren't needed to control him, why were they called? Why was he LOCKED IN HIS ROOM by the parents?

Again, I understand the parents trauma but they are hardly in a position to be objective.

What I saw on TV was a 12 year old child, who according to the parents, has autism and had what appeared to be a number of injuries. They said that it happened after the police were called.

I said it was awful, if true. In other words, if the 12 year old child with autism was seriously injured when the police were called to help the parents. I never said it was police brutality. It could be that the officer slipped, or even that the child threw himself to the ground. It's still awful.

If the officer threw the child to the ground, because he swore at him, it's even worse.

If the officers just don't have enough training or have the proper procedures in place to deal with a 12 year old child with autism without causing serious injury, it is still awful.

Yes, the parents called 911 because they needed help. If the help they received resulted in their child being seriously injured, there is something wrong. Hopefully the investigation will determine that.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I'm all for waiting until the case is concluded but my god what in the world makes you think crushing a 12 year old's skull is an appropriate level of force in any situation?

Why do you immediately think that that level of force was intentional and/or malicious? I don't know where the 'bear hug' thing mentioned earlier came from but it's certainly a common way to attempt to restrain someone without hurting them. However, one doesn't have a lot of control over the person in the bear hug. And the person being bear hugged generally doesn't care HOW they get out, as long as they DO. Attempting to restrain without injury or with as little injury as possible someone who doesn't care if they get hurt as long as they get away is no easy task, almost regardless of any size difference.

So officer has kid in a bear hug. Kid is flailing around like a slippery eel. Kid tangles feet into officers feet (or officer tangles his feet into the kids, could be either, really), both fall over, officer falls onto child, damage is done. No intention or malice. An investigation needs to happen, and the situation needs to be looked at and examined, without a doubt.

But why do folks instantly go to both extremes: ie, 'skull fractures are an appropriate level of force in defense' and 'this was totally intentional and malicious and can't possibly be anything else' right off the bat without applying a little critical thinking about the situation and what could have happened.

The news outlets almost never get the full story (especially at first blush) but they sure know how to get emotional reactions out of people.

[OMG!WTF!]

I completely disagree that taking someone down with a calculated amount of force is not an easy task. It is very easy to adjust and fire for effect especially when the opponent has his hands behind his back and isn't engaging you. I'm going with what the father said because it sounds true and because generally speaking no unarmed person of any size or shape should be hammered to the ground head first. The second officer was not involved so I don't think the kid put up much of a struggle other than yelling and screaming. So yeah, even though there is no story to back it up, I'll grant you that it is vaguely possible that a careful, well intentioned cop happened to trip and fall while hugging the kid, landed on a kid's head and broke his skull open. Actually no. That's ridiculous. I need a much better story than that.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I completely disagree that taking someone down with a calculated amount of force is not an easy task. It is very easy to adjust and fire for effect especially when the opponent has his hands behind his back and isn't engaging you. I'm going with what the father said because it sounds true and because generally speaking no unarmed person of any size or shape should be hammered to the ground head first. The second officer was not involved so I don't think the kid put up much of a struggle other than yelling and screaming. So yeah, even though there is no story to back it up, I'll grant you that it is vaguely possible that a careful, well intentioned cop happened to trip and fall while hugging the kid, landed on a kid's head and broke his skull open. Actually no. That's ridiculous. I need a much better story than that.

Sounds like you've got it all figured out Perry Mason. You're right about one thing. All you've got is a story.

I think I figured out how you chose your username though.

You hear that reaction from a lot of people, right?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Sounds like you've got it all figured out Perry Mason. You're right about one thing. All you've got is a story.

Well no. Where did this bear hug story even come from? That's not a part of the story I read. Anyway your task here is to explain why this was reasonable force when thousands of people get taken down by cops every year in this city and do not wind up with caved in skulls. I'm not sure I could "accidentally" fall on someone and break their skull. I think I would have to try for that effect. I certainly could not do it if I had that person's safety in mind.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I completely disagree that taking someone down with a calculated amount of force is not an easy task. It is very easy to adjust and fire for effect especially when the opponent has his hands behind his back and isn't engaging you. I'm going with what the father said because it sounds true and because generally speaking no unarmed person of any size or shape should be hammered to the ground head first. The second officer was not involved so I don't think the kid put up much of a struggle other than yelling and screaming. So yeah, even though there is no story to back it up, I'll grant you that it is vaguely possible that a careful, well intentioned cop happened to trip and fall while hugging the kid, landed on a kid's head and broke his skull open. Actually no. That's ridiculous. I need a much better story than that.

You are completely out to lunch. A colleague of mine just had their leg completely fractured because a prisoner fell on them during a struggle. Another several years ago had his ankle shattered as a suspect fell on him during a struggle as well. No situation is the same and all it takes is a person resisting arrest to bring about a number of injuries that could be sustained by an officer or suspect.

Are you able to corroborate the fact that the person in question had their arms behind their backs and “weren’t engaging police” or is that you making assumptions? How about let ASIRT decide what happened?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Why are we comparing this autistic 12 year old to a prisoner at all?

If it was intentional, he should be charged. If it was accidental, unfortunate but clearly he's not up to the task of being a police officer. They have a duty to protect. Instead, there's a 12 year old, with a mental health issue, who's currently deaf because this person sucks at being a cop, one way or another.

Blueshield will protect him, and if it wasn't intentional he'll not face anything at all, but every other job where a child ends up in the hospital with a fractured skull due to malicious or negligence ends with a firing.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Anyway your task here is to explain why this was reasonable force when thousands of people get taken down by cops every year in this city and do not wind up with caved in skulls.

Has anyone (aside from some fanatic nutters on FB) said that the fractured skull is a result of reasonable force? Not that I'm aware of. Folks are saying that there are ways it could happen that do not include malicious intent on the part of the cop so that to immediately jump to the "the cop did it on purpose to try and mash the kids head through the concrete. Roid rage! RWAR!" narrative is disingenuous at best. It could have been an accident. It could have been intentional. We don't know, and stating that it MUST be one or the other, with the info that as been released, is, frankly, rather stupid.

I'm not sure I could "accidentally" fall on someone and break their skull. I think I would have to try for that effect. I certainly could not do it if I had that person's safety in mind.

The cop may not have even had to fall on the child. The child could have fallen and hit his head on concrete and fractured his own skull, without being touched by the cop. When I was around that age, I fell and broke my arm. Bones are not unbreakable and when they meet with something harder, something has to give.

Also, if I am not mistaken, aren't kids bones softer and easier to break when they are younger? Isn't it something like bones don't start to really harden up until early 20's? It's not as difficult as you seem to be making it out to be.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Also, if I am not mistaken, aren't kids bones softer and easier to break when they are younger? Isn't it something like bones don't start to really harden up until early 20's? It's not as difficult as you seem to be making it out to be.

Yeah, a kid going deaf happens all the time. It's not the cops fault actually, kid should have just had more milk. I blame Coca-Cola myself.

[OMG!WTF!]

You are completely out to lunch. A colleague of mine just had their leg completely fractured because a prisoner fell on them during a struggle. Another several years ago had his ankle shattered as a suspect fell on him during a struggle as well. No situation is the same and all it takes is a person resisting arrest to bring about a number of injuries that could be sustained by an officer or suspect.

Are you able to corroborate the fact that the person in question had their arms behind their backs and “weren’t engaging police” or is that you making assumptions? How about let ASIRT decide what happened?

Yeah I'm all over that. Just don't post stupid theories out of no where that contradict the witness accounts in the news story. What's the point of that? I'll be the first to admit that I think a psycho cop mangled the kid on purpose. But at least the initial story points directly that way.



I'd be more willing to give the benefit of the doubt if police had a history of acting honorably in these sort of cases. There also seems to be a lot of cases that disappear never to be seen again in the public eye. So I think it's ok to take advantage of posting these as they come up and then remember to ask for a conclusion later.



We never did find out any conclusion in this case even though we were promised there was a very important investigation going on...


https://globalnews.ca/news/3407779/c...during-arrest/

[Zulu29]

[QUOTE=OMG!WTF!;6771618]Yeah I'm all over that. Just don't post stupid theories out of no where that contradict the witness accounts in the news story. What's the point of that? I'll be the first to admit that I think a psycho cop mangled the kid on purpose. But at least the initial story points directly that way.

I'd be more willing to give the benefit of the doubt if police had a history of acting honorably in these sort of cases. There also seems to be a lot of cases that disappear never to be seen again in the public eye. So I think it's ok to take advantage of posting these as they come up and then remember to ask for a conclusion later.

Stupid theories or anecdotal evidence? Let’s not get facts get in the way of your crusade. Witness accounts are great, but they are accounts that need to be corroborated or disproved.

There’s no benfit of doubt. There’s facts and evidence. ASIRT is a highly reputable agency that will get to the bottom of this. Every other voice including yours is just noise.
https://globalnews.ca/news/3407779/c...during-arrest/[/

Stupid theories or anecdotal evidence? Let’s not get facts get in the way of your crusade. Witness accounts are great, but they are accounts that need to be corroborated or disproved.

There’s no benfit of doubt. There’s facts and evidence. ASIRT is a highly reputable agency that will get to the bottom of this. Every other voice including yours is just noise.

[OMG!WTF!]

There’s no benfit of doubt. There’s facts and evidence. ASIRT is a highly reputable agency that will get to the bottom of this. Every other voice including yours is just noise.

It probably won't matter if they get to the bottom of it or not. The crown is more likely to ignore ASIRT recommendations as are municipal police forces and the rcmp. I think in 10 years there have been 32 charges laid by the Crown in 750 investigations. About half of ASIRT investigators are active cops too. ASIRT helps but it is by no means the last word here.

[underGRADFlame]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

It probably won't matter if they get to the bottom of it or not. The crown is more likely to ignore ASIRT recommendations as are municipal police forces and the rcmp. I think in 10 years there have been 32 charges laid by the Crown in 750 investigations. About half of ASIRT investigators are active cops too. ASIRT helps but it is by no means the last word here.

So what you are basically saying is the cops are guilty regardless of what the results of the investigation are, because all cops are bad, and they are investigated by more bad cops.

That about sum it up? What would satisfy you in this situation?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

So what you are basically saying is the cops are guilty regardless of what the results of the investigation are, because all cops are bad, and they are investigated by more bad cops.

That about sum it up? What would satisfy you in this situation?

You know what? Yes. That's actually exactly what I'm saying. CPS and all of its officers are guilty of not training properly and this is nothing but an expected outcome. A report last year on use of force said CPS needed special training on how to deal with people in mental crisis. They were offered the same training forces all over the country have taken and the same training the Calgary Fire Department received last year and CPS flat out refused and even said they only deal with the behavior, not the reason behind the behavior. They chose to remain ignorant and so this is what you get.


https://globalnews.ca/video/4409068/...oy-with-autism


As far as ASIRT goes, this is what typically happens...


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...-eps-1.4731229



A guys lays down on the ground with his hands behind his back and then gets kicked into oblivion and that's ok because he had a gun in the car. If that makes sense to you, you're certainly not going to last long in your career of running up on people who have guns.



This cop treated a 12 year old with autism just like a 20 year old violent drunk on a high speed rampage. That's what refusing training will get you. If it turns out the kid tripped and broke his skull then I will fully admit I'm wrong. Until then, chances are good we'll never hear another word about this case and they're even better not a single charge will amount from it even if ASIRT recommends them.

OMG! WTF! couldn't be a more fitting name. I find myself saying that all the time while I read your posts.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

OMG! WTF! couldn't be a more fitting name. I find myself saying that all the time while I read your posts.

Acknowledging someone's trolls are trolling you only encourages further trolling by the troll. Like a bully, just ignore them and they'll tone it down

[PepsiFree]

Just because you disagree with someone, doesn’t make them a troll, nor does it mean they’re “trolling” you.

That’s just how conversation works. Sometimes you agree with people, other times (get ready for a shocker) you don’t.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

People also just have weird biases. It's possible that they're actually just nuts, and not pulling your leg. I honestly don't think I've ever seen anyone do the nakedly hyperbolic "so what you're saying is", and then have the person respond with "you know what? That IS what I'm saying". That's a first.

It seems that OMG!WTF! is to cops as Sliver is to teachers.

[Wiggum_PI]

Update on this incident.

Calgary police chief responds to allegations that officers assaulted boy with autism

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

Update on this incident.

Calgary police chief responds to allegations that officers assaulted boy with autism

Jesus Christ the comments:

Darrell Stoltz
I bet it was a “new” Canadian recruit.
That’s why the chief says they need more “sensitivity training”.
Homegrown Canadians are more likely to have a little more empathy.
Like · Reply · 1 · 3h