Three Calgary police officers charged - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

calgaryblood · 10-05-2016, 02:37 PM

Good to see some accountability from our police force.

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/mobile/thr...tion-1.3103092

The 34-year-old man was arrested after a foot chase and taken to hospital to be treated for several broken ribs and a collapsed lung.
The incident between the suspect and the group of four police officers was captured on one of the dashboard cameras of the CPS cruisers.
An investigation was launched shortly after administrators saw the recorded video in August.

The CPS then passed the details onto the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team which conducted its own investigation.
Four officers were involved in the original investigation but only three face charges.

Constables James Othen and Kevin Humphrey each face one count of assault causing bodily harm and two counts of public mischief.
Othen is also facing a charge of assault with a weapon.
The third officer, Constable Michael Sandalack, has been charged with a single count of assault causing bodily harm.

Jimmy Stang · 10-05-2016, 02:59 PM

I'm generally supportive of the police, and appreciate the work that they do. But I also found this incident to be excessive at first glance, and I am glad that they are being held accountable.

iggy_oi · 10-05-2016, 06:34 PM

See America, that wasn't very hard.

Scoopdogg · 10-05-2016, 08:01 PM

I'm a friend of a friend for one of the officers arrested. He's a ######bag and I have no doubt he would do something like this.

Not the first time he's been on some sort of paid leave either. I hope he loses his job and never polices again

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Swift · 10-06-2016, 12:21 AM

Presumably, that would be this guy? - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...rges-1.3793362

Huntingwhale · 10-06-2016, 09:13 AM

It's a shame a couple bad apples make all cops look bad now. But it really does make me wonder how much goes on behind the scenes that we don't know about. I agree with the article that fabricating lies and trying to press false charges on the suspect was the worst crime out of everything they did. I can only imagine how many times something like that may have happened here and it's the word of multiple cops vs one guy who is labelled a criminal. Scary stuff. I'm scared to think what would have happened if that dash cam wasn't running. Body cams can't get here soon enough.

I also heard on the radio that the 4th cop who was released and will be back on the job, that he possibly was the one who brought this all to the forefront. I was kind of half asleep when l heard it on the radio this morning. But the father of the guy who killed by police in the hotel room a while back was interviewed, and said that he's now worried that cop will be shunned by his police colleagues since he ''ratted out'' the 3 cops and that cops are supposed to have each others' backs and that his career might effectively be over now.

Just a disappointing story all around. Especially at a time when the city's faith in the CPS seems pretty low. I had one bad run in with a cop a couple years ago. But even after that incident I still supported our CPS members. Big shoutout to ASIRT for their work in this. I don't even want to think what be happening without them here to hold the CPS accountable.

calgaryblood · 10-06-2016, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

Presumably, that would be this guy? - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...rges-1.3793362

That is simply disturbing. Stalking,, posting intimate pictures of his ex gf who is also a police offer to his social media accounts...this man has problems. And he wasn't even charged in that case.

Mickey76 · 10-06-2016, 09:37 AM

The problem to me is that it is more than a few bad apples. When all the supposed good apples won't stop, testify, or report the bad apples then in my mind we have more than a few bad apples.

CaptainCrunch · 10-06-2016, 09:42 AM

There's an institutional group thought with cops and firefighters and others that they take care of their own. They won't turn them in or testify against them when they can because it means that their work environment becomes hostile and they're looked at as snitches.

That has to change, at some point the police need to police the police.

I also think that there needs to be way more stringent regular testing both in terms of procedures and in terms of mental health because frankly that job will break a lot of people.

I read a story where one cop was being investigated for corruption here in Calgary, and just before the internal inquiry he decided to retire and take his pension and run so the inquiry was canceled. Personally I think that's garbage.

Red · 10-06-2016, 09:46 AM

Doesn't look good on the new Police Chief at all. Was there a change of direction from when Hanson retired?

Frank MetaMusil · 10-06-2016, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

Doesn't look good on the new Police Chief at all. Was there a change of direction from when Hanson retired?

Hanson was just better at covering things up, like the speeding tickets he never paid.

Red · 10-06-2016, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Hanson was just better at covering things up, like the speeding tickets he never paid.

Really? Never heard that but that's funny none the less. I know a cop and his wife got off a ticket by just mentioning she was a cop wife...Not surprised though,

AcGold · 10-06-2016, 10:07 AM

It's good to see the checks and balances actually work. I'm starting to think a lot of the media reports are skewing a minor issue to look much worse than it is.

Jimmy Stang · 10-06-2016, 10:16 AM

Cases like this are exactly why the scrutiny of police does not equate to being anti-police. Quite often, whenever police are criticized, there is a knee-jerk reaction that scrutinizing means that you dislike the police. That couldn't be further from the truth. They have a high standard, which most of them have no problem staying above. As for the bad apples - they can have their day in court.

I also welcome the increase of video evidence, whether it be from witnesses, dash cams, body cams, etc. The good cops should welcome these measures as it will only prove that their actions are lawful. And, as in the case, they can provide great evidence to weed out the bad ones.

Crumpy-Gunt · 10-06-2016, 10:35 AM

I've always been annoyed by the bad apples analogy. I think its a systematic problem. Most officers are not bad people. The problem for me is they can do something illegal and get away with it because of their job or connections. It isnt just cops but a lot of jobs allow a long leash for people and kind of assume the person will be virtuous and honest. There is this unwritten rule of cops covering each others asses no matter what. I dont think anything happens about this if there is no dash cam. No cop comes forward and the victim's complaint will be outweighed by the corroborating reports of 3 respected officers. The sad bit is that 4 cops were involved and present...3 are charged - and it wasn't the 4th cop that said anything or reported his 3 co-workers. That speaks volumes.

The way I see it; its police/military culture. Globally. They can get away with a lot and they know it. Nobody rats anybody out for crossing a line or breaking a law.

Some of the nicest and best people I've known have been cops. Its sad to see peoples view of cops nowadays but there is a reason for it.

I think cops should wear body cams that they cant or are not allowed to turn off. It would be great for a number of reasons. A lot of stores/banks have cameras specifically to watch their employees and they are unarmed people only dealing with money.

There is no way these cops would have #### kicked this dude if they all had body cameras on. I hope they go to jail like any other 3 citizens would if they broke someones ribs and collapsed their lung! Two of these officers were on the force for 9 years each! Are we to assume that its the first time theyve ever done something like that?

worth · 10-06-2016, 10:45 AM

They will be able to turn the body cameras off once they are deployed:

Quote:

Why are the cameras not recording all the time?
We have a duty to ensure the privacy rights of the public are considered at all times and therefore require the ability to turn off the cameras in sensitive situations. Cameras that can never be turned off would not allow police officers the ability to balance the privacy rights of individuals with the benefits of collecting evidence for law enforcement purposes.

We also have to be mindful of the privacy rights for members wearing the cameras. For example, officers must still be able to take washroom and lunch breaks, have a private conversation, or discuss confidential police tactics without being recorded. One of the main goals of the cameras are to assist the officers in collecting the best evidence possible during an investigative contact. Recording activities that are not required for a law enforcement purpose does not fit within the mandate of the program, or the Service’s expectations as described in the Privacy Impact Assessment.

As well as privacy concerns, the current technology (the life of the battery and the costs associated to data storage) currently prohibit the possibility of recording a full 12 hour shift.

https://www.calgary.ca/cps/Pages/Body-Worn-Camera.aspx

Crumpy-Gunt · 10-06-2016, 10:57 AM

I get the part about them being able to take a poop and have a private discussion or lunch without being on camera...but if these people are allowed to be in the middle of a call or responding to something / apprehending someone - they shouldnt be able to turn it off at all. Can you imagine a group of cops chasing someone down for fleeing and then catching them in an alley - only to turn their bodycam off just before they get their hands on the person. Seriously what is the point of a bodycam you can turn off when you choose to. Why do they list collecting evidence for law enforcement purposes as the only reason for the bodycam? What about public safety, reviewing conduct, monitoring new officers, accountability, transparency, officer safety etc.

OMG!WTF! · 10-06-2016, 11:06 AM

Quote:

I hope they go to jail like any other 3 citizens would if they broke someones ribs and collapsed their lung!

I actually hope they get a harder penalty if convicted. In the same way there are stiffer penalties for crimes against cops there should be similar consequences vice versa. It is actually a worse crime for a cop to do this than a regular citizen. The trust required by citizens for policing to work is more important to protect.

Frank MetaMusil · 10-06-2016, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

I get the part about them being able to take a poop and have a private discussion or lunch without being on camera...but if these people are allowed to be in the middle of a call or responding to something / apprehending someone - they shouldnt be able to turn it off at all. Can you imagine a group of cops chasing someone down for fleeing and then catching them in an alley - only to turn their bodycam off just before they get their hands on the person. Seriously what is the point of a bodycam you can turn off when you choose to. Why do they list collecting evidence for law enforcement purposes as the only reason for the bodycam? What about public safety, reviewing conduct, monitoring new officers, accountability, transparency, officer safety etc.

The best line in that article is "confidential police tactics" WTF does that even mean? Aren't people allowed to take ride-alongs with the police?

Huntingwhale · 10-06-2016, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

The sad bit is that 4 cops were involved and present...3 are charged - and it wasn't the 4th cop that said anything or reported his 3 co-workers. That speaks volumes.

As I said in my post earlier, I swear I heard an interview on the radio this morning that said differently. That cop #4's career was at risk because he was the one who went against the ''brotherhood'' mentality and he could expect his colleagues to turn their backs on him now that he 'snitched' on them.

I very well might have misheard it. I'm just wondering where you heard this?