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

[turbodish]

Forum Sponsor

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.

Unprovoked? Define unprovoked. Define innocent. It seems this guy started provocations the moment he decided to show up iunwanted at the golf course with his shot gun. It seems that he confirmed a provocative stance when he let off multiple shots fired. That does little to suggest any sort of innocence on his part. From that point he was a serious potential danger to the other people in the community and especially to the police who those people sent to deal with the matter.

Your pro police at any cost stance won't undo the damage after it's been inflicted.

I'm hardly pro-police at any cost. You're the one who seems to be ok with back-alley justice. I'm not. I'm just willing to cut them some slack when it comes to them putting their lives on the line in potentially dangerous situations.

 

[JamieVk]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

Unprovoked? Define unprovoked. Define innocent. It seems this guy started provocations the moment he decided to show up iunwanted at the golf course with his shot gun. It seems that he confirmed a provocative stance when he let off multiple shots fired. That does little to suggest any sort of innocence on his part. From that point he was a serious potential danger to the other people in the community and especially to the police who those people sent to deal with the matter.

Provocative stance when firing shots? Where did you hear/read this? He never pointed the weapon at anyone, was firing blanks and even now the cops say the suspect was there to clear birds. Doesnt sound like he was provoking anyone to assault him in such a manner. But maybe you can shed more light on this provocative stance.

You still cant argue that ALL witnesses are claiming the suspect was following orders and posed no immediate threat at the time. But you know ignore any facts you want to make your point and take blame off the police

 

[FullMotoJacket]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

More news coming out today, making the usual poster(s) look like pro-cop zealots (as usual). The suspect broke his back in the duly reported motorcycle accident 3 months ago, and was getting down on the ground as fast as he possibly could.

 

[inreb]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

I'm hardly pro-police at any cost. You're the one who seems to be ok with back-alley justice. I'm not. I'm just willing to cut them some slack when it comes to them putting their lives on the line in potentially dangerous situations.

Am I supposed to lose sleep because some wife beater gets his bell rung off the cruiser roof? Get a clue, Friendo.

 

[twinn]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

When stuff like this goes down, just like at the G20 etc.. it just makes the public trust police a lot less.

there was no need for the kick to the head, none. period.

The video is out in the open, people will decide for themselves.

What worries me the most when I see these videos is what would have happened if there was no video? Would the "suspect" have been "resisiting arrest"?

 

[inreb]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

What worries me the most when I see these videos is what would have happened if there was no video? Would the "suspect" have been "resisiting arrest"?

yes

 

[dankyyz]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

yes

You seem pretty sure of that.

 

[inreb]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

You seem pretty sure of that.

When they get hurt, they were resisting arrest, he's not gonna say he kicked him in the face for no reason. Should I have said maybe?

 

[turbodish]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

More news coming out today, making the usual poster(s) look like pro-cop zealots (as usual). The suspect broke his back in the duly reported motorcycle accident 3 months ago, and was getting down on the ground as fast as he possibly could.

Hind sight is 20-20. How much of this knowledge was available to the cops on the scene? Nada.

 

[turbodish]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

Am I supposed to lose sleep because some wife beater gets his bell rung off the cruiser roof? Get a clue, Friendo.

Oh, so violence is ok by you in some cases where the situation is already well under control, but not ok in still fluid situations involving weapons offences? That's rather hypocritical.

 

[mxs]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

Originally Posted by turbodish View Post


I'm hardly pro-police at any cost.

Very hard to believe statement like that. Do you have one single evidence of it? One single post will do ...

 

[FiReSTaRT]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

I'm hardly pro-police at any cost.

Thanks for the good laugh

Hind sight is 20-20. How much of this knowledge was available to the cops on the scene? Nada.

Uhmmm no weapons on him, going down on the ground, gets punted... Good 20-20 for an NFL player

 

[turbodish]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

Uhmmm no weapons on him,

And how could you know that with any certainty without having searched him first?

 

[raginduck]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

There was no need for the kick. There as nothing threatening in the suspects actions at the time he was kicked. In my opinion, the kick was either a mean spirited or cowardly action/reaction.

 

[inreb]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

Oh, so violence is ok by you in some cases where the situation is already well under control, but not ok in still fluid situations involving weapons offences? That's rather hypocritical.

Honestly I said (this will be the third time) I'm not gonna lose sleep over it. That doesn't mean I'm going to make a case FOR it.

Hypocritical? Ya, so? This won't be the last time I massage my opinion to suit circumstances. My world isn't black and white, is yours?

 

[dankyyz]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

Honestly I said (this will be the third time) I'm not gonna lose sleep over it. That doesn't mean I'm going to make a case FOR it.

Hypocritical? Ya, so? This won't be the last time I massage my opinion to suit circumstances. My world isn't black and white, is yours?

I thnk you guys are closer to an understanding than you think.

Turbo gets flamed for even SUGGESTING there might be a reason someone acts this way, and that "you" might do the same. I'm pretty sure that is what is going on. A "you were not there" post. And i agree you are not in the process of saying the action wsa not warranted in some way.

These threads are SO heavily anti cop, that it is hard to find a shred of indifference in most of the posts. But that is the way they are moderated, so what can you do. This will likely be deleted as an example.

 

[inreb]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

I thnk you guys are closer to an understanding than you think.

Turbo gets flamed for even SUGGESTING there might be a reason someone acts this way, and that "you" might do the same. I'm pretty sure that is what is going on. A "you were not there" post. And i agree you are not in the process of saying the action wsa not warranted in some way.

These threads are SO heavily anti cop, that it is hard to find a shred of indifference in most of the posts. But that is the way they are moderated, so what can you do. This will likely be deleted as an example.

It's about pushing back. If the police action in this video creeps into the norm we're the lesser society for it.

The frothing at the mouth anti police stance should'nt be the norm either.

I won't speak for Turbo but if he's pushing back against that, then that's understandable.

I don't think these types of incidents are good for that because they're over the top. They're not defendable imho.

 

[FiReSTaRT]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

And how could you know that with any certainty without having searched him first?

Of course.. The new procedure for any interactions with the public, including traffic stops:

1) Instruct the suspect to lie down on the ground
2) Take a running start and punt his head
3) Cuff him
4) Search him
Remember, you never know if the civvy scum has a weapon

Thanks for improving our community policing procedures, turbo

 

[turbodish]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

Of course.. The new procedure for any interactions with the public, including traffic stops:

This wasn't just "any interaction" with a member of the general public. This involved an identified person who was fleeing the scene of a shooting incident to which police were called. That changes the dynamics quite a bit. The police would have been fools to treat him as anything but a potentially-armed suspect.

 

[fastar1]

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?

Actually, the cop claimed that to his supervisor on the scene, we don't know what the call was that came in.

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

You don't know that either. He may have been on disability from another job but under the employment of the golf course.

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.

Yes, more info we don't have. How does that help you reach a conclusion?

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?

Still, more questions.

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.

No one has suggested that.

Are you suggesting the opposite, every call that comes in for an alleged gun crime gives the cops the authority to use whatever force they wish to use regardless of the situation they encounter?

Forum Sponsor