Law Enforcement - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly.....

[AGAVE]

Forum Sponsor

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

The kick to the face was just too much.
He had a gun pointed at the guys head, i think he was well protected.
At no time did the guy look like he was going to brandish a weapon, or attack, he had his hands in the air, and went to the ground, even the 91 year old lady could see that.

And yes, he had brain injury, maybe he forgot he didn't have to go to work anymore and went to do his job, maybe he just hates geese, he does have a permit afterall.

Even if the guy had shot someone and deserved to go to jail for life, the procedure for arresting him does not involve any kicks to the face.

 

[inreb]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

The kick to the face was just too much.
He had a gun pointed at the guys head, i think he was well protected.
At no time did the guy look like he was going to brandish a weapon, or attack, he had his hands in the air, and went to the ground, even the 91 year old lady could see that.

And yes, he had brain injury, maybe he forgot he didn't have to go to work anymore and went to do his job, maybe he just hates geese, he does have a permit afterall.

Even if the guy had shot someone and deserved to go to jail for life, the procedure for arresting him does not involve any kicks to the face.

+1

Why do normal functioning adults struggle with this concept?

 

[mat2312]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

"the call that came in was that he was basically a disgruntled employee who went to Harvest Golf Course with a shotgun, he may have pointed it at somebody, and I believe that I heard on the way here that there were shots fired."

Why the high risk takedown? There was no evidence he assaulted anyone or made threats. Only a 'maybe, possibly'. The man was legally allowed to possess and use a firearm on that property.

Sounds to me like the police are the ones getting far to 'excited' whenever a firearm is involved, and it's costing people their human rights and dignity.

 

[turbodish]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

Why the high risk takedown? There was no evidence he assaulted anyone or made threats. Only a 'maybe, possibly'. The man was legally allowed to possess and use a firearm on that property.

Someone on that property called in a complaint about a disgruntled who fired off shots and may have pointed the shotgun at someone. How much "evidence" do you think the cops need to have before they take such a call seriously?

Yes, he had a permit to use of a firearm on that property in the course of his employment on that property.

However, he had been on disability leave since the summer because of brain injuries arising from an accident, so that puts a big question mark on whether he was still authorized by the golf course management to fire off a shotgun on the property just the other day.

And if he was authorized, then why did the golf course call police to complain about a "disgruntled employee" firing a weapon and possibly pointing it at people?

Sounds to me like the police are the ones getting far to 'excited' whenever a firearm is involved, and it's costing people their human rights and dignity.

Yes, the cops should treat every called-in weapons incident as being totally benign and nothing to get excited about, and assume everything is perfectly ok so long as the shooting suspect has not yet fired off that first shot at them. What have they got to lose by taking such an approach, other than maybe their lives if they assume wrong.

 

[inreb]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

Someone on that property called in a complaint about a disgruntled who fired off shots and may have pointed the shotgun at someone. How much "evidence" do you think the cops need to have before they take such a call seriously?

Yes, he had a permit to use of a firearm on that property in the course of his employment on that property.

However, he had been on disability leave since the summer because of brain injuries arising from an accident, so that puts a big question mark on whether he was still authorized by the golf course management to fire off a shotgun on the property just the other day.

And if he was authorized, then why did the golf course call police to complain about a "disgruntled employee" firing a weapon and possibly pointing it at people?




Yes, the cops should treat every called-in weapons incident as being totally benign and nothing to get excited about, and assume everything is perfectly ok so long as the shooting suspect has not yet fired off that first shot at them. What have they got to lose by taking such an approach, other than maybe their lives if they assume wrong.

None of this addresses the kick to the head. Why use smoke and mirrors? It doesn't add anything.

 

[eastcoast_gsx]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

However, he had been on disability leave since the summer because of brain injuries arising from an accident, so that puts a big question mark on whether he was still authorized by the golf course management to fire off a shotgun on the property just the other day.

You know just as well as I do that it is likely a case of being on disability but also being the only one with the licensing to perform such as task. So even though, he was on leave, he was likely still performing that task.

 

[FullMotoJacket]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

Someone on that property called in a complaint about a disgruntled who fired off shots and may have pointed the shotgun at someone.

BS. Nowhere in that article did it say that. It said someone called the police. It didn't say who. For all anyone knows, it could have been a resident adjacent to the golf course, but you have free reign to make up any quotes you want now that the body of the article has been removed. And quoting the arresting officer's after the fact statement? Yeah, we all know cops never make false statements to cover their butts.

 

[turbodish]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

You know just as well as I do that it is likely a case of being on disability but also being the only one with the licensing to perform such as task. So even though, he was on leave, he was likely still performing that task.

If, by your reasoning he was just doing his job, then why did the golf course call the police with this complaint about "an ex-employee who had been seen at the Harvest Golf Course in Kelowna in possession of a shotgun. A male was reported to be suffering from a brain injury and may have mental issues."

Police were sent to the golf course. Moments later, cops got another call about "shots fired and a male fled in his vehicle". That really doesn't sound like someone just going in to do their job.

The call over the radio would have been "shots fired by person with possible mental issues". The background info on the guy that is now common knowledge would not have been part of the information available in the first few minutes following the shooting call.

Think about that. How keen would you be to go after an armed person with possible mental issues?

 

[JamieVk]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

Someone on that property called in a complaint about a disgruntled who fired off shots and may have pointed the shotgun at someone. How much "evidence" do you think the cops need to have before they take such a call seriously?

Yes, he had a permit to use of a firearm on that property in the course of his employment on that property.

However, he had been on disability leave since the summer because of brain injuries arising from an accident, so that puts a big question mark on whether he was still authorized by the golf course management to fire off a shotgun on the property just the other day.

And if he was authorized, then why did the golf course call police to complain about a "disgruntled employee" firing a weapon and possibly pointing it at people?




Yes, the cops should treat every called-in weapons incident as being totally benign and nothing to get excited about, and assume everything is perfectly ok so long as the shooting suspect has not yet fired off that first shot at them. What have they got to lose by taking such an approach, other than maybe their lives if they assume wrong.

You gotta stop loving the police and look at things with some logic. Yes he may not have been allowed to use a firearm at the course at the time. However the person who called the police doesnt have enough information to say he was disgruntled unless threats where made. The employee probably jumped to that conclusion seeing a employee on leave for brain injuries, with a shotgun when its not even required at this time of year. Makes sense no?

As for the cop. He was completely out of line and should be fired and charged. The suspect was compliant (hands up, went to the ground). There was no need for the kick to the face. And to make matters worse another cop was just coming up which would have yielded greater control of the situation. But nope, cop had to kick the guy in the face instead of kicking him from behind to the ground taking even more control of the situation (remember that other cop was there). The cop failed to do his job properly and deserves to be punished. Even look when the cop was holding the shot gun, it had a trigger lock on it.

 

[inreb]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

Why argue the finer points of what MAY or MAY not have been said?
Is the kick to the head part of arresting protocol? Why is the force investigating their own if it is?
Speculate all you want, it doesn't change the fact that the vid shows a man on all fours kicked in the head while having a gun pointed at him.

 

[turbodish]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

BS. Nowhere in that article did it say that. It said someone called the police. It didn't say who. For all anyone knows, it could have been a resident adjacent to the golf course, but you have free reign to make up any quotes you want now that the body of the article has been removed. And quoting the arresting officer's after the fact statement? Yeah, we all know cops never make false statements to cover their butts.

There are other articles but you'll have to do your own digging to find them. Employees AT the golf course called in twice. Once when the shooter arrived with the shotgun, and again after he fired off a few rounds and fled.

The arresting cop was commenting on the radio dispatch call. Those are all taped. Subsequent statements by RCMP higher-ups (including the one who put the arresting cop on desk duty and forwarded the brutality complaint for further investigation) confirm the gist of the dispatch calls.

 

[turbodish]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

Why argue the finer points of what MAY or MAY not have been said?
Is the kick to the head part of arresting protocol? Why is the force investigating their own if it is?
Speculate all you want, it doesn't change the fact that the vid shows a man on all fours kicked in the head while having a gun pointed at him.

Force can be part of the protocol. What was said on the radio does matter because it sets the scene for what the cops expect to be facing. This wasn't a kid wanted for shoplifting. Multiple shots fired. Possibly mentally ill. That strongly suggests a volatile and unpredictable suspect who may or may not have additional weapons on his person, and who may or may not care about any cop's weapons being pointed at him. A cop would be stupid to take any chances in such a situation.

 

[JamieVk]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

Think about that. How keen would you be to go after an armed person with possible mental issues?

Not very but I'd try to approach the situation, with caution, control, and back up instead of how he did.

There are other articles but you'll have to do your own digging to find them. Employees AT the golf course called in twice. Once when the shooter arrived with the shotgun, and again after he fired off a few rounds and fled.

The arresting cop was commenting on the radio dispatch call. Those are all taped. Subsequent statements by RCMP higher-ups (including the one who put the arresting cop on desk duty and forwarded the brutality complaint for further investigation) confirm the gist of the dispatch calls.

Fled is a strong word. He left the scene of where he fired a few shots. There are no reports of threats or property damage.

 

[inreb]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

Force can be part of the protocol. What was said on the radio does matter because it sets the scene for what the cops expect to be facing. This wasn't a kid wanted for shoplifting. Multiple shots fired. Possibly mentally ill. That strongly suggests a volatile and unpredictable suspect who may or may not have additional weapons on his person, and who may or may not care about any cop's weapons being pointed at him. A cop would be stupid to take any chances in such a situation.

Again with the unpredictable huh? That covers everybody, all day long. The guy was down on all fours. How much more compliant do you need? Are you making a case that anybody can get a kick in the head when in contact with law enforcement? Why are you like this? Seriously?

 

[JamieVk]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

Force can be part of the protocol. What was said on the radio does matter because it sets the scene for what the cops expect to be facing. This wasn't a kid wanted for shoplifting. Multiple shots fired. Possibly mentally ill. That strongly suggests a volatile and unpredictable suspect who may or may not have additional weapons on his person, and who may or may not care about any cop's weapons being pointed at him. A cop would be stupid to take any chances in such a situation.

Force CAN be used but it was not required in this situation. The cop wanted to be a cowboy kicking renegade instead of waiting for back up and approaching the situation better. He failed to use the best tool in his arsnal, his brain. The suspect posed no threat at the time and if the cop kept him at gun point until more officers showed this whole situation would have turned out better.

 

[turbodish]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

Again with the unpredictable huh? That covers everybody, all day long. The guy was down on all fours. How much more compliant do you need? Are you making a case that anybody can get a kick in the head when in contact with law enforcement? Why are you like this? Seriously?

If you're the subject of a weapons incident, then yes, you should expect the possibility of harsh handling until the cops are able to get the cuffs on you. Why would you not?

The guy was not flat on the ground. Until he was flat with arms outstretched he was a risk. The kick may not have been pretty but it got him flat.

And why am I like this? Give me a ****ing break.

We send cops to deal with dangerous situations on our behalf, and where they may be injured or killed by the people that WE don't want to confront ourselves. Then we piss and moan when they don't always do it in the most genteel manner. Worse, when they do get hurt or injured while doing a job that we won't do, the ******** here jump up and cheer for the bad guy and celebrate the cop "getting his". It seems that the cops can do no right by the usual characters here.

 

[inreb]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

And why am I like this? Give me a ****ing break.

We send cops to deal with dangerous situations on our behalf, and where they may be injured or killed by the people that WE don't want to confront ourselves. Then we piss and moan when they don't always do it in the most genteel manner. Worse, when they do get hurt or injured while doing a job that we won't do, the ******** here jump up and cheer for the bad guy and celebrate the cop "getting his". It seems that the cops can do no right by the usual characters here.

No, give me a ******* break! When we discuss these matters we're discussing specific incidents. Like the biker shot in the back and this case. Let's stick to what we're talking about. Don't tell me about daily police business.

So that was a kick in the head because he wasn't yet completely flat. Is that it? What about breaking his fingers? Is that an option? Like I said, they're investigating their own because it's warranted.

Make no mistake, I don't lose sleep over a little back ally police justice. It's not all black and white to me, I understand what's up with police work.

We're discussing a particular incident here, try to focus on that. The scattershot approach doesn't do it justice.

 

[JamieVk]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

If you're the subject of a weapons incident, then yes, you should expect the possibility of harsh handling until the cops are able to get the cuffs on you. Why would you not?

The guy was not flat on the ground. Until he was flat with arms outstretched he was a risk. The kick may not have been pretty but it got him flat.

And why am I like this? Give me a ****ing break.

We send cops to deal with dangerous situations on our behalf, and where they may be injured or killed by the people that WE don't want to confront ourselves. Then we piss and moan when they don't always do it in the most genteel manner. Worse, when they do get hurt or injured while doing a job that we won't do, the ******** here jump up and cheer for the bad guy and celebrate the cop "getting his". It seems that the cops can do no right by the usual characters here.

Yes you can expect some harsh handling if the situation requires it but this one clearly did not. The guy was on the ground not making any motions to a weapon, or posing anything immediate threat to the cop. The cop had more than enough control til back up arrived (which looked like mere seconds after the punt to the head), at which time the suspect could be subdued, but the cop FAILED to do so. He took actions upon him self and used way too much force for the situation. The kick wasnt required for him to be on the ground at the time, thats why you have back up.

Even many witnesses say he was following orders. Wake up buddy and pay attention to details.

 

[turbodish]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

So that was a kick in the head because he wasn't yet completely flat. Is that it? What about breaking his fingers? Is that an option? Like I said, they're investigating their own because it's warranted.

One kick to get him flat. One kick to neutralize as much as possible any chance that the guy might instead decide to tuck and roll off to the side from that all-fours position and then pull who knows what other weapon he may have had. Once that was done, you see zero further violence.

That cop did not go on to break his fingers or his ribs or do any other "back-alley justice" that you hypocritically seem to be fine with (and which I do not agree with at all). It ended once the shooter was under control and in cuffs.

 

[inreb]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

An innocent, co-operating person could be blinded in one or both eyes for life because of this type unprovoked brutality. What other long term damage has been inflicted on innocent people?
To attempt to justify this type of police work speaks volumes about the person doing it. Just pray you're not on the wrong end of a misunderstanding. Your pro police at any cost stance won't undo the damage after it's been inflicted.

Forum Sponsor