Police shooting hits 4 bystanders, more details

[Mr Bean]

Thanks for the context.

That strikes me as a fairly good way to end up with a bloated security apparatus, how many officers are there in total?

It's all population based. In a small Midwestern town under 5000 people (Over 10k of those in America) the Sheriff might have two to six people helping him. Anything smaller will be a township and might just have a single elected Sheriff plus a deputy. Remember American law being state by state as it is there are no one Sheriff towns anywhere on the coasts with local law enforcement being between ten to sixty people. City police are always in the mid twenty to mid hundreds depending on the size of the city. National Park depends on the land area watched over.

To quote West Yellowstone (Montana town population of just over 1,500 people)

What is the size of the West Yellowstone Police Department?
The Police Department is staffed by a Chief of Police, five (5) patrol officers, five (5) dispatchers and one (1) animal control/dispatcher. Officers and dispatchers work 12–hour shifts to provide twenty–four (24) hour law enforcement coverage.


Does the Police Department specialize in any particular areas?
Of the five patrol officers employed by the Town of West Yellowstone, there is one sergeant, a drug enforcement officer, range master, and a school resource officer. Each of these officers has specific duties associated with their specialization.

What other law enforcement agencies does the West Yellowstone Police Department work with?
The West Yellowstone Police Department works daily with the Gallatin County Sheriff’s Office, Yellowstone National Park Service Rangers, Montana Highway Patrol, US Forest Service Law Enforcement, Montana Fish and Game, and the Montana Department of Livestock.

[Norade]

So what about cases where there is clearly an officer doing wrong and not being properly dealt with for it? Go to the following link and tell me if the officer in plain clothes, one Constable Geoff Mantler, was justified in booting the man in the face when he was on his knees already. Now factor in the fact that he's been investigated for excessive force on two previous occasions and tell me why after this incident he was suspended with pay found innocent, and then, after public outcry investigated again and suspended without pay?

He obviously wasn't justified.

He was suspended with pay after the incident because that was their policy. You can't just alter policy because the public is pissed off enough. The process for internal affair investigations is usually laid out. If the allegation is severe enough you'll be suspended with pay pending an investigation. As for the found innocent part. Can you provide a link to that where he was found innocent and then reinvestigated again due to public outcry.

Then why was he originally let off and found to be in the right? The suspension without pay was only done after renewed public outcry after the initial finding that the use of force was justified.

It seems to me that without that video and the public being able to see he'd have hide behind the thin blue line. What do you have to say about the confidence things like that justifiably have on public faith in the police?

I'd say ignorance plays a huge role. You unknowingly expect the police to violate their own procedures regarding internal affairs investigations.

When the police have found this obviously dangerous officer to have used a justifiable amount of force in three separate occasions where people had laid charges against him you have to wonder how this case would have gone without the video being public.

[CaptainChewbacca]

With regards to police coverage, the even US postal service has its' own regulatory and investigative branch. The US Postal Inspectors number about 2500 uniformed (and armed) officers nationwide, with personnel in just about every US city.

[SVPD]

Regardless of whether it is fallacious all of the time, it is a fallacy in this instance. The "blue wall" is an undefinable, unverifiable, unfalsifiable, nebulous allusion to an assumption that a law enforcement officer is taking a certain position or doing a certain thing simply because he is a law enforcement officer. Not only is it Poisoning the Well, it is also a form of appeal to motive. It's also a form of Guilt by Association wherein the misbehaviors of some police officers are attributed to all others for no better reason than that it cannot be positively proven they are not also engaging in misbehavior.

You are simply assuming that KS is "too caught up in defending law enforcement". What exactly is that supposed to mean? How do you know that he is? By what standard? Is KS not allowed to present positions that are too supportive of law enforcement according to certain people's tastes, or what?

No it isn't. In this case, I am suggesting with this that KS is unable or unwilling to consider positions from outside those of law-enforcement officers, because he immediately dismisses potential fear of the police with moronic statistics and the assumption that nobody could possibly be afraid of the police.

First of all, what the fuck is a "moronic statistic" supposed to be? This sounds suspiciously like "A statistic that Bakustra doesn't like."

Second, he does not dimiss potential fear of the police at all. Some people are afraid of the police. However, not all fear of the polcie is justified or reasonable. If it's fear of one particular officer because of his behavior, sure,t hat's understandable. Fear of a particular agency, or subdivision of an agency? Probably understandable. Fear of law enforcement in general? Generally pretty ridiculous. It inevitably relies on nonsense like the "blue wall" which is simply an excuse to extrapolate improper behavior by some law enforcement officers to all law enforcement officers.

There's a few reasons why people fear the police in general: A) they're libertarian whackjobs B) they are not intelligent enough to recognize that not all law enforcement officers are the same, and have bought into media sensationalism C) they're simply bigoted against law enforcement because they have authority issues or D) They're fucking criminals and afraid of getting arrested.

Should I instead have called him an ignorant motherfucker, or a slimy douchebag, or any other array of insults that also are designed, in effect, to poison the well?

What you should have done is not poison the well. Poisoning the well is fallacious. It may be useful to illustrate that an opponent is ignoring certain facts, such as in the armed revolution scenario, but it in no way undermines the actual point; a person advocating armed revolution but being too much of a coward to engage in it does not in any way demonstrate that it is a bad idea, and really, if you need to rely on your opponent's dishonesty to show why armed revolution is problematic, you're not very intelligent.

Very well, then, I will simply call him an unsympathetic sack of shit, etc., and not use the term "blue wall" or imply in any way that police officers may defend other police officers given their shared perspective in law enforcement, because that is clearly prejudicidial and unreasonable to think that just because the two actual police officers in this thread defended other police officers in the past and are doing so now and have indicated that they believe that doing so is the right course of action because many people are ignorant of the specific considerations of law enforcement, that they are defending police officers.

Ah. So in other words, basically your problem is that police officers are pointing out things you don't like. This stupid argument comes up in almost every thread. "Whaa the cops are defending themselves!" Oh shit, I'm sorry you're not just getting an echo chamber of agreement, or slavish apologies and submissivness from KS and I. All you're realy doing here is saying that our arguments can be dismissed out of hand becuase they defend the police, as if all cricticism is automatically valid and no counterargument can possibly have merit.

(PS: The term "blue wall" only means that, that police officers have a tendency to defend or treat less harshly the actions of other police officers. It does not necessarily condemn the police so much as the atmosphere which produces the need for it. But go ahead and categorize me as one of the uncooperative civilians, officer.)

Where's your evidence of this? From everything I see, the polcie on average treat other law enforcement officers more harshly, as do the public and courts. The idea that they get treated less harshly is based entirely on excessively focusing on instances where that does occur, as well as instances where the officer was not actually wrong, hystrionics of some of the public and press to the contrary.

That is not technically a quota, that is a fucking quota! That is what the definition of a quota is- having a specific, numerical target to meet! Not to mention that you didn't even bother addressing the rest of my post, but it is late, or, rather early.

So quotas are bad because they are quotas?

The reason quotas as typically meant are problematic is that they are high enough that officers may be tempted to falsify citations to meet them.

This "quota" is so low that failure to meet it across the entire shift for a whole week is indictive of laziness.

Just because you can technically get the word "quota" to apply to something does not make it a problem. Someone did not just decide that quotas were bad because "quota" is a naughty word; it was because the particular type of quotas in question created ethical issues. I fail to see how 20 citations across an entire shift of officers across an entire week in New York City can be high enough to create an ethical issue. The fact that they weren't already writing enough to make the minimum number superfluous is indictive of laziness on the part of those officers.

[SVPD]

So what about cases where there is clearly an officer doing wrong and not being properly dealt with for it? Go to the following link and tell me if the officer in plain clothes, one Constable Geoff Mantler, was justified in booting the man in the face when he was on his knees already. Now factor in the fact that he's been investigated for excessive force on two previous occasions and tell me why after this incident he was suspended with pay found innocent, and then, after public outcry investigated again and suspended without pay?

He obviously wasn't justified.

He was suspended with pay after the incident because that was their policy. You can't just alter policy because the public is pissed off enough. The process for internal affair investigations is usually laid out. If the allegation is severe enough you'll be suspended with pay pending an investigation. As for the found innocent part. Can you provide a link to that where he was found innocent and then reinvestigated again due to public outcry.

Then why was he originally let off and found to be in the right? The suspension without pay was only done after renewed public outcry after the initial finding that the use of force was justified.

It seems to me that without that video and the public being able to see he'd have hide behind the thin blue line. What do you have to say about the confidence things like that justifiably have on public faith in the police?

I'd say ignorance plays a huge role. You unknowingly expect the police to violate their own procedures regarding internal affairs investigations.

When the police have found this obviously dangerous officer to have used a justifiable amount of force in three separate occasions where people had laid charges against him you have to wonder how this case would have gone without the video being public.

I hate to break this to you, but suspension with pay does not justify public outrage - it is the norm during an investigation. the suspension without pay came afterwards because he was found to have violated policy, not because they said "oh wait the public is mad that we let him off."

Second, the third time he's had a complaint is meaningless. Neither of the first two has been resolved.

[Norade]

So quotas are bad because they are quotas?

The reason quotas as typically meant are problematic is that they are high enough that officers may be tempted to falsify citations to meet them.

This "quota" is so low that failure to meet it across the entire shift for a whole week is indictive of laziness.

Just because you can technically get the word "quota" to apply to something does not make it a problem. Someone did not just decide that quotas were bad because "quota" is a naughty word; it was because the particular type of quotas in question created ethical issues. I fail to see how 20 citations across an entire shift of officers across an entire week in New York City can be high enough to create an ethical issue. The fact that they weren't already writing enough to make the minimum number superfluous is indictive of laziness on the part of those officers.

By setting even a low quota you take choice away from an officer and ensure that they write citations for infractions that would normally get a friendly warning. You also penalize officers who work in lower traffic areas as they have even more incentive to write everybody up.

I hate to break this to you, but suspension with pay does not justify public outrage - it is the norm during an investigation. the suspension without pay came afterwards because he was found to have violated policy, not because they said "oh wait the public is mad that we let him off."

Second, the third time he's had a complaint is meaningless. He was found not to be in the wrong the first two times. Not all complaints against police are justified; indeed the vast majority are frivolous.

I hate to break it to you, but you should learn to read. He was only suspended without pay later, originally he was found not to be in the wrong for his actions on the footage I showed you. The suspension without pay only came after a public outcry which in turn lead to an anti-police rally. I even gave links so you have no excuse to not know what i was talking about.

The other cases involved him pulling a repossession agent through a vehicle window while the agent was trying to get the paperwork proving he wasn't stealing the boat. Following being pulled from the window the officer claims he dropped his weapon and felt that due to this he was justified in beating the man in the back of the head because he could potentially be going for the gun.

Because you seem to lazy to click a link here's a news report about the incident.

The Kelowna Mountie increasingly notorious for acts of brutality in the line of duty won’t see a third assault charge materialize from an allegation of excessive force, but that doesn’t mean he’ll get off scot-free either.

Supt. Bill McKinnon announced Thursday that he believed Const. Geoff Mantler is “51 per cent at fault” in the incident where he allegedly punched repo-man Jeremy Packer in the head, while arresting him for a theft he was never subsequently charged with.

As such, the case is among “three allegations of disgraceful conduct” that McKinnon said should be dealt with at an RCMP disciplinary hearing.

The findings of that hearing could amount to Mantler either losing his job, being demoted, or facing a 10-day suspension, without pay, for each count.

It’s a departure from Crown counsel’s decision not to pursue charges in the Packer complaint, citing there was “no substantial likelihood of conviction.”

But McKinnon explained the two have different mandates.

“You may wonder why I would find the actions of Const. Mantler to be disgraceful in the Jeremy Packer incident when Crown counsel has not approved pressing charges,” McKinnon said.

“The RCMP code of conduct and the Criminal Code of Canada have two very different standards when it comes to finding an outcome.

“The Criminal Code is based on the premise of reasonable doubt, whereas the code of conduct is based on the balance of probability.”

It wasn’t until reviewing all the facts that McKinnon found the majority of fault to lie with Mantler.

That’s when he sent his summary of the information at hand to the province’s top cop, who will ultimately decide if the disciplinary hearing will be held.

“We don’t have control over what happens on the criminal side, but we can hold our employees accountable when they fall short of meeting our service delivery standard,” he said.

Packer, 30, initiated the complaint to the RCMP in November, alleging he had been assaulted by a police officer on the Bennett Bridge Aug.10, 2010, while driving a repossessed boat back to his employer.

In an interview in January, Packer alleged he was arrested at gunpoint by officers who were told the boat had been stolen.

One, he alleged, punched him in the head while he was being pulled out of the truck.

He then claimed he was punched at least two more times in the head while on the ground.

At the time of those two punches, he said his hands were behind his back and he was not resisting. He was never charged with a criminal offence following the incident, and suffered abrasions, road rash and a black eye, in addition to losing a tooth.

Meantime, Mantler is still suspended with pay and awaiting an April 26 court date for two other charges that Crown Counsel approved.

One stems from an August incident involving Manjit Singh Bhatti but the details of that case have not been released.

The other the highly publicized Buddy Tavares case where Mantler was caught on video kicking the man in the head, while he was on the ground submitting to arrest.

It sparked a public outcry that’s continued to follow the Mounties for months.

Victim's Story

Note that this man wasn't charged because he didn't do anything wrong, so why did the police feel it was necessary to kneel on his neck? You can see his injuries. Care to explain how that wasn't called unnecessary force or do you want to do some more backflips to defend the poor innocent police from the people they like to bully.

[SVPD]

By setting even a low quota you take choice away from an officer and ensure that they write citations for infractions that would normally get a friendly warning. You also penalize officers who work in lower traffic areas as they have even more incentive to write everybody up.

This is across an entire shift across a week. There are plenty of opportunities for friendly warnings. If an entire shift cant reach 20 citations over a week across multiple types of offenses that's an indication that everyone is getting a friendly warning and the law is not being enforced.

In the town I used to work in of 5000 people, any given shift easily reached 20 citations a week with no need for anything like this. The fact that there aren't already this many citations in the first place in a place like New York indicates cops not doing their jobs.

I hate to break it to you, but you should learn to read. He was only suspended without pay later, originally he was found not to be in the wrong for his actions on the footage I showed you. The suspension without pay only came after a public outcry which in turn lead to an anti-police rally. I even gave links so you have no excuse to not know what i was talking about.

Your article indicates no such thing. Point out where it says this.

The other cases involved him pulling a repossession agent through a vehicle window while the agent was trying to get the paperwork proving he wasn't stealing the boat. Following being pulled from the window the officer claims he dropped his weapon and felt that due to this he was justified in beating the man in the back of the head because he could potentially be going for the gun. [/quote]

Because you seem to lazy to click a link here's a news report about the incident.

The Kelowna Mountie increasingly notorious for acts of brutality in the line of duty won’t see a third assault charge materialize from an allegation of excessive force, but that doesn’t mean he’ll get off scot-free either.

Supt. Bill McKinnon announced Thursday that he believed Const. Geoff Mantler is “51 per cent at fault” in the incident where he allegedly punched repo-man Jeremy Packer in the head, while arresting him for a theft he was never subsequently charged with.

As such, the case is among “three allegations of disgraceful conduct” that McKinnon said should be dealt with at an RCMP disciplinary hearing.

The findings of that hearing could amount to Mantler either losing his job, being demoted, or facing a 10-day suspension, without pay, for each count.

It’s a departure from Crown counsel’s decision not to pursue charges in the Packer complaint, citing there was “no substantial likelihood of conviction.”

But McKinnon explained the two have different mandates.

“You may wonder why I would find the actions of Const. Mantler to be disgraceful in the Jeremy Packer incident when Crown counsel has not approved pressing charges,” McKinnon said.

“The RCMP code of conduct and the Criminal Code of Canada have two very different standards when it comes to finding an outcome.

“The Criminal Code is based on the premise of reasonable doubt, whereas the code of conduct is based on the balance of probability.”

It wasn’t until reviewing all the facts that McKinnon found the majority of fault to lie with Mantler.

That’s when he sent his summary of the information at hand to the province’s top cop, who will ultimately decide if the disciplinary hearing will be held.

“We don’t have control over what happens on the criminal side, but we can hold our employees accountable when they fall short of meeting our service delivery standard,” he said.

Packer, 30, initiated the complaint to the RCMP in November, alleging he had been assaulted by a police officer on the Bennett Bridge Aug.10, 2010, while driving a repossessed boat back to his employer.

In an interview in January, Packer alleged he was arrested at gunpoint by officers who were told the boat had been stolen.

One, he alleged, punched him in the head while he was being pulled out of the truck.

He then claimed he was punched at least two more times in the head while on the ground.

At the time of those two punches, he said his hands were behind his back and he was not resisting. He was never charged with a criminal offence following the incident, and suffered abrasions, road rash and a black eye, in addition to losing a tooth.

Meantime, Mantler is still suspended with pay and awaiting an April 26 court date for two other charges that Crown Counsel approved.

One stems from an August incident involving Manjit Singh Bhatti but the details of that case have not been released.

The other the highly publicized Buddy Tavares case where Mantler was caught on video kicking the man in the head, while he was on the ground submitting to arrest.

It sparked a public outcry that’s continued to follow the Mounties for months.

Victim's Story

Note that this man wasn't charged because he didn't do anything wrong, so why did the police feel it was necessary to kneel on his neck? You can see his injuries. Care to explain how that wasn't called unnecessary force or do you want to do some more backflips to defend the poor innocent police from the people they like to bully.

[/quote]

Because you seem too stupid to understand what you're talking about, I'll explain.

A) I'll continue to defend "the polcie" ebcause you cannot generalize from this particular RCMP to any other police officer. Ok, this guy did something wrong. ny attempt to generalize from that to any other officer is dishonest.

B) Whether the repo man was subsequently charged with a crime is a completely separate question from whether proper force was used in effecting the arrest. He wasn't charged after the arrest; is the constable supposed to look forward in time and say "well gee, he won't be charged so I can't use technique X"? that's why, you moron, because lawyers can drop charges later on, which does not make an arrest retroactively improper.

[Norade]

By setting even a low quota you take choice away from an officer and ensure that they write citations for infractions that would normally get a friendly warning. You also penalize officers who work in lower traffic areas as they have even more incentive to write everybody up.

This is across an entire shift across a week. There are plenty of opportunities for friendly warnings. If an entire shift cant reach 20 citations over a week across multiple types of offenses that's an indication that everyone is getting a friendly warning and the law is not being enforced.

In the town I used to work in of 5000 people, any given shift easily reached 20 citations a week with no need for anything like this. The fact that there aren't already this many citations in the first place in a place like New York indicates cops not doing their jobs.

So how does a quota do anything that talking to the officers you're having issues with doesn't?

Your article indicates no such thing. Point out where it says this.

The other cases involved him pulling a repossession agent through a vehicle window while the agent was trying to get the paperwork proving he wasn't stealing the boat. Following being pulled from the window the officer claims he dropped his weapon and felt that due to this he was justified in beating the man in the back of the head because he could potentially be going for the gun.

Statement provided by Supt. Bill McKinnon, Officer in Charge of Kelowna RCMP Detachment
May 30, 2011

Good morning and thank you for coming.

I would like to provide you with an update on Cst. Geoff Mantler’s duty status here in Kelowna in relation to the arrest of Mr. Buddy Tavares.

As you are well aware, Cst. Mantler has been suspended with pay since January 10, 2011. The Commanding Officer of the RCMP in BC made a recommendation (to National Headquarters) to suspend him without pay, and I can now confirm that Cst. Mantler has been served with a notice to stoppage of pay effective May 27, 2011.

Stoppage of pay and allowances was approved for Cst. Mantler on the rationale that the allegations of misconduct against him are so serious that they require a greater response than suspension alone.

I must clarify that suspensions, either with or without pay, are not forms of punishment. They are temporary measures to protect the integrity of the RCMP and its processes while we are waiting the outcome of both the criminal investigations and the Internal Codes of Conduct.

I realize that this decision has been a long awaited one for Mr. Tavares and the general public and I appreciate your patience. This incident and these past few months have been difficult and I recognize the impact it has had on this community. Despite this, I want to ensure you that the members and employees of Kelowna Detachment remain very much dedicated to their jobs and performing to the standards that the citizens of Kelowna, the management of the RCMP, and I expect.

I will provide another update once I find out the outcome of the Internal Investigations.

You'll note that he was originally suspended with pay and only later was he suspended without pay. You'll not that this suspension came after an April 3rd rally which was calling for jail time against Mantler.

Also isn't it odd how he gets suspended but any normal citizen caught kicking a kneeling man in the face would be in cells? What if I were to pull somebody from a vehicle as part of a citizens arrest when they were attempting to comply and injured them badly enough that they had facial lacerations and lost teeth? Do you think I would still have a job let alone be a free man? If you answered that you think things would be different explain why the police enjoy these special protections when if anything they should be better equipped to deal with these situations in a non-violent way than a civillian.

Because you seem too stupid to understand what you're talking about, I'll explain.

A) I'll continue to defend "the polcie" ebcause you cannot generalize from this particular RCMP to any other police officer. Ok, this guy did something wrong. ny attempt to generalize from that to any other officer is dishonest.

B) Whether the repo man was subsequently charged with a crime is a completely separate question from whether proper force was used in effecting the arrest. He wasn't charged after the arrest; is the constable supposed to look forward in time and say "well gee, he won't be charged so I can't use technique X"? that's why, you moron, because lawyers can drop charges later on, which does not make an arrest retroactively improper.

A) Good thing you're defending the 'polcie' and not the police force that kept Mantler on with pay after kicking somebody in the face while on duty. This is an example of police enjoying extraordinary protection from the law because of the badge they carry and is something that all officers fall under. So in the case of an officer committing a hit and run he wasn't treated the same as a civillian would have and I can see no reason for it.

B) Any arrest that involves facial lacerations and missing teeth is too much force especially when the man was trying to comply and wasn't at all in the wrong. The police need to be held accountable for arresting the wrong person because frankly a little more research and a little less action in this case and they would have been able to find out that this man was working for a repo company and doing nothing wrong. How would you enjoy being assaulted by police for attempting to do your job?

Try to keep that police cock out of your mouth long enough to preview your post this time.

EDIT: In my city you have a higher chance of meeting a potentially violent or self serving cop than you do of being involved in violent crime. So how is this not a major concern?

[ArmorPierce]

Actually, it looks a lot like he is pointing the gun at something to the video taker's right.

Watch the video again, he's clearly pointing at the video taker. Note, if the video taker is holding the camera to his right, the gun would be pointing to the right of the camera, ie, at the video taker. Really, to deny there is any video of a cop pointing a gun at the video taker is really reaching.

[SVPD]

Actually, it looks a lot like he is pointing the gun at something to the video taker's right.

Watch the video again, he's clearly pointing at the video taker. Note, if the video taker is holding the camera to his right, the gun would be pointing to the right of the camera, ie, at the video taker. Really, to deny there is any video of a cop pointing a gun at the video taker is really reaching.

That would be if the video taker is holing the camera to his left. Why would he be doing that? I don't think it's any more of a reach than the gyrations the cameraman is supposedly going through for no apparent reason.

[ArmorPierce]

I see you meant the right of the the user rather than the cop's right. Same concept, opposite side. Besides, they're in a car, the right is still inside his car, and is actually pointed at the driver (the guy was in the passenger seat). Also, the cop was moving and walking around the back side of the car to come at the guy so his gun was wobbling. Have you watched the video?

Since you need a picture of him pointing the gun directly at the camera:

at 1:58

So regardless of whether it was the right or not, the right would be pointed still inside the car, at the driver, and he shifts targets over the course of the video to the camera holder and then wobbles the gun while backing up on his bike.

[SVPD]

By setting even a low quota you take choice away from an officer and ensure that they write citations for infractions that would normally get a friendly warning. You also penalize officers who work in lower traffic areas as they have even more incentive to write everybody up.

This is across an entire shift across a week. There are plenty of opportunities for friendly warnings. If an entire shift cant reach 20 citations over a week across multiple types of offenses that's an indication that everyone is getting a friendly warning and the law is not being enforced.

In the town I used to work in of 5000 people, any given shift easily reached 20 citations a week with no need for anything like this. The fact that there aren't already this many citations in the first place in a place like New York indicates cops not doing their jobs.

So how does a quota do anything that talking to the officers you're having issues with doesn't?

I don't know. I don't supervise those officers. Again, a quota is not bad just because it is a quota; it is bad when it creates an incentive for unethical behavior and this one doesn't.

You'll note that he was originally suspended with pay and only later was he suspended without pay. You'll not that this suspension came after an April 3rd rally which was calling for jail time against Mantler.

Dumbass, I just got done saying that suspension with pay is the norm during investigation, and suspension without pay is the norm for punishment. Of course it came later. As for the rally, so what? Post hoc ergo propeter hoc fallacy, bucko. Are the plice commanders and judiciar in Canada so spineless and unethical that they mete out punishments based on rallies rahter than due process? I think not; I think you're just a dumbass.

Also isn't it odd how he gets suspended but any normal citizen caught kicking a kneeling man in the face would be in cells? What if I were to pull somebody from a vehicle as part of a citizens arrest when they were attempting to comply and injured them badly enough that they had facial lacerations and lost teeth? Do you think I would still have a job let alone be a free man? If you answered that you think things would be different explain why the police enjoy these special protections when if anything they should be better equipped to deal with these situations in a non-violent way than a civillian.

This has nothing to do with "special protections". The police are allowed to use force to arrest people; you are not. "Excessive force" is not the same thing as assault; excessive force means force could be used, he just used too much. You would be assaulting him because you aren't a police officer and don't have the right to use force to effect arrests. Similarly, if the officer had simply kicked him in the face for no reason at all, it would be assault, but he didn't; he did it in the process of arresting him and so it is excessive force.

Because you seem too stupid to understand what you're talking about, I'll explain.

A) I'll continue to defend "the polcie" ebcause you cannot generalize from this particular RCMP to any other police officer. Ok, this guy did something wrong. ny attempt to generalize from that to any other officer is dishonest.

B) Whether the repo man was subsequently charged with a crime is a completely separate question from whether proper force was used in effecting the arrest. He wasn't charged after the arrest; is the constable supposed to look forward in time and say "well gee, he won't be charged so I can't use technique X"? that's why, you moron, because lawyers can drop charges later on, which does not make an arrest retroactively improper.

A) Good thing you're defending the 'polcie' and not the police force that kept Mantler on with pay after kicking somebody in the face while on duty.

Good thing you're nitpicking minor typos. Like.. "Civillian", see below in your own post, asshole.

This is an example of police enjoying extraordinary protection from the law because of the badge they carry and is something that all officers fall under. So in the case of an officer committing a hit and run he wasn't treated the same as a civillian would have and I can see no reason for it.

It's no such thing. Even if it was, it's "a case" and lots of people get "special" treatment, which really means they just don't get what the uninformed and the press want them to. He did not get special treatment, he was in a fundamentally different position.

B) Any arrest that involves facial lacerations and missing teeth is too much force especially when the man was trying to comply and wasn't at all in the wrong.

Facial lacerations and missing teeth do not automatically indicate too much force. They do in this case, but that was not the debate.

The police need to be held accountable for arresting the wrong person because frankly a little more research and a little less action in this case and they would have been able to find out that this man was working for a repo company and doing nothing wrong. How would you enjoy being assaulted by police for attempting to do your job?

No "the police" don't need to be held accountable; this officer needs to be held accountable for his actions. There is no "they" here, there's one guy. As for "how would I like it", that's a juvenile question. How do I like getting assaulted by criminals for doing my job? It has nothing to do with if he likes it, it has to do with if he had the legal power to do it.
Try to keep that police cock out of your mouth long enough to preview your post this time.

EDIT: In my city you have a higher chance of meeting a potentially violent or self serving cop than you do of being involved in violent crime. So how is this not a major concern?

Oh really? What's a "potentially" violent cop? What's a "self serving" cop? This sounds a lot like your personal invention since your terms are meaningless and you provide neither numbers nor sources.

[SVPD]

I see you meant the right of the the user rather than the cop's right. Same concept, opposite side. Besides, they're in a car, the right is still inside his car, and is actually pointed at the driver (the guy was in the passenger seat). Also, the cop was moving and walking around the back side of the car to come at the guy so his gun was wobbling. Have you watched the video?

Since you need a picture of him pointing the gun directly at the camera
<snip image>

So regardless of whether it was the right or not, the right would be pointed still inside the car, at the driver, and he shifts targets over the course of the video to the camera holder and then wobbles the gun while backing up on his bike.

Umm.. if the cameraman is the passanger, the cop is in front of him, and he's pointing a gun to the passanger's right, whixh he is, he's not pointing it at the driver. He's pointing it to the right side of the car (the cop's left).

In the shot you pointed out it does sort of look like he's pointing it at the cameraman. However, the fact remains that the cameraman was in posession of evidence and had fled inside a car when the police came in his direction. Granted, they were looking pretty aggressive, but on the other hand the cops have just been in a shooting and now this guy, who was perfectly content to stand around when bullets were flying, runs to a car. How do they know what he has in there?

[Norade]

I don't know. I don't supervise those officers. Again, a quota is not bad just because it is a quota; it is bad when it creates an incentive for unethical behavior and this one doesn't.

A quota is always going to be worse than actually dealing with the officers that you're having issues with. If you can't be bothered to actually deal with the people causing issues and instead have to create a blanket policy then you're not doing your job of ensuring the officers under your watch are doing their jobs.

You'll note that he was originally suspended with pay and only later was he suspended without pay. You'll not that this suspension came after an April 3rd rally which was calling for jail time against Mantler.

Dumbass, I just got done saying that suspension with pay is the norm during investigation, and suspension without pay is the norm for punishment. Of course it came later. As for the rally, so what? Post hoc ergo propeter hoc fallacy, bucko. Are the plice commanders and judiciar in Canada so spineless and unethical that they mete out punishments based on rallies rahter than due process? I think not; I think you're just a dumbass.

You'll notice that it's not actually a punishment dumbass, did you even read the article I posted?

Also isn't it odd how he gets suspended but any normal citizen caught kicking a kneeling man in the face would be in cells? What if I were to pull somebody from a vehicle as part of a citizens arrest when they were attempting to comply and injured them badly enough that they had facial lacerations and lost teeth? Do you think I would still have a job let alone be a free man? If you answered that you think things would be different explain why the police enjoy these special protections when if anything they should be better equipped to deal with these situations in a non-violent way than a civilian.

This has nothing to do with "special protections". The police are allowed to use force to arrest people; you are not. "Excessive force" is not the same thing as assault; excessive force means force could be used, he just used too much. You would be assaulting him because you aren't a police officer and don't have the right to use force to effect arrests. Similarly, if the officer had simply kicked him in the face for no reason at all, it would be assault, but he didn't; he did it in the process of arresting him and so it is excessive force.

So it's now a totally different thing to boot people who are attempting to comply just because you were trying to arrest them? Bullshit, assault is assault regardless of the fact that you're a cop or not. The police don't need these protections and should have to show why the use of force was justified in each case instead of it being assumed that they always need it.

A) Good thing you're defending the 'polcie' and not the police force that kept Mantler on with pay after kicking somebody in the face while on duty.

Good thing you're nitpicking minor typos. Like.. "Civillian", see below in your own post, asshole.

From the person who can't use quote tags correctly...

This is an example of police enjoying extraordinary protection from the law because of the badge they carry and is something that all officers fall under. So in the case of an officer committing a hit and run he wasn't treated the same as a civillian would have and I can see no reason for it.

It's no such thing. Even if it was, it's "a case" and lots of people get "special" treatment, which really means they just don't get what the uninformed and the press want them to. He did not get special treatment, he was in a fundamentally different position.

So that explains why a civilian would have been held in cells once he was caught and this asshole was allowed to go free. Wait, no it doesn't.

B) Any arrest that involves facial lacerations and missing teeth is too much force especially when the man was trying to comply and wasn't at all in the wrong.

Facial lacerations and missing teeth do not automatically indicate too much force. They do in this case, but that was not the debate.

They would tend to indicate a level of force that would need to be justified and not something that should be considered as a standard. You'll also note that Mantler has yet to be charged for this and it happened in August 2010 so justice hasn't been done in this case giving yet more reason to doubt the sincerity of the local police when they say they have our interests at heart.

The police need to be held accountable for arresting the wrong person because frankly a little more research and a little less action in this case and they would have been able to find out that this man was working for a repo company and doing nothing wrong. How would you enjoy being assaulted by police for attempting to do your job?

No "the police" don't need to be held accountable; this officer needs to be held accountable for his actions. There is no "they" here, there's one guy. As for "how would I like it", that's a juvenile question. How do I like getting assaulted by criminals for doing my job? It has nothing to do with if he likes it, it has to do with if he had the legal power to do it.

Yes they do, these sorts of situations aren't acceptable and stricter controls on officers would mean that officers would be less likely to commit such acts. You haven't answered the question still. If you were a repo man, would you feel safe when officers can pull you from your vehicle and beat you without being charged?

EDIT: In my city you have a higher chance of meeting a potentially violent or self serving cop than you do of being involved in violent crime. So how is this not a major concern?

Oh really? What's a "potentially" violent cop? What's a "self serving" cop? This sounds a lot like your personal invention since your terms are meaningless and you provide neither numbers nor sources.[/quote]

Mantler is the example of a violent cop and the officer involved in a hit and run is another dangerous officer. Our police force is 156 regular officers and 2 of 156 is 1.2%, our rate of violent crime is less than 1000 for a city with a population of 106,000 which means that I would be violently assaulted 0.9% of the time. I'm also only using cases I know of so the numbers may be even worse for the police.

Kelowna's Wiki Page

Still situated on Doyle Avenue, the Kelowna RCMP Detachment currently comprises:

156 Members/Officers
64 Municipal Employees
48 Auxiliaries
124 Volunteers

Number of active regular police officers.

22 Complaints against Kelowna Police

If even a quarter of those cases are justified that means roughly 3.5% of our officers are complain worthy and at least two of them Const. Geoff Mantler and Const. Steve Conlon (who was given only community service for punching a pregnant woman in the face) are known to be violent.

[SVPD]

A quota is always going to be worse than actually dealing with the officers that you're having issues with. If you can't be bothered to actually deal with the people causing issues and instead have to create a blanket policy then you're not doing your job of ensuring the officers under your watch are doing their jobs.

How do you know that he is not dealing with them? How do you know that it's going to be worse?

You'll notice that it's not actually a punishment dumbass, did you even read the article I posted?

Yes, because the disciplinary process is not yet finished. This calls into question whether it is proper to revoke his pay at all.

So it's now a totally different thing to boot people who are attempting to comply just because you were trying to arrest them? Bullshit, assault is assault regardless of the fact that you're a cop or not. The police don't need these protections and should have to show why the use of force was justified in each case instead of it being assumed that they always need it.

Yes, as a matter of fact it is. Arresting someone is totally different from assaulting them. All you're doing is saying "it's assault because I say it's assault." There are no special protections in place, and it is not "assumed" that force was needed; justification already is always required. What isn't done however, is that we do not instigate a "guilty until proven innocent" witch hunt against officers that use force.

A) Good thing you're defending the 'polcie' and not the police force that kept Mantler on with pay after kicking somebody in the face while on duty.

Good thing you're nitpicking minor typos. Like.. "Civillian", see below in your own post, asshole.

From the person who can't use quote tags correctly...

Yes, clearly the issue here is whether or not I've made errors with quote tags. Could you possibly be a little more desperate to score points?

So that explains why a civilian would have been held in cells once he was caught and this asshole was allowed to go free. Wait, no it doesn't.

I've already explained why. Using excessive force in an arrest is not the same as assaulting them. Had this constable simply gone up to someone and kicked them in the face out of the blue, he would be in jail. All you are doing is trying to dismiss the legal difference between excessive force in an arrest and an outright assault by your own say-so, and since you're not part of any judicial body you don't get to do that.

They would tend to indicate a level of force that would need to be justified and not something that should be considered as a standard.

So what? No one said it should be. All force has to be justified.

You'll also note that Mantler has yet to be charged for this and it happened in August 2010 so justice hasn't been done in this case giving yet more reason to doubt the sincerity of the local police when they say they have our interests at heart.

Because you've just arbitrarily decided it should have been taken care of by now?

Yes they do, these sorts of situations aren't acceptable and stricter controls on officers would mean that officers would be less likely to commit such acts. You haven't answered the question still. If you were a repo man, would you feel safe when officers can pull you from your vehicle and beat you without being charged?

I don't need to answer the question because you cannot generalize from this happening this one time, to it happening to repo men in general from police in general. You'll further note that your own article assigns 49% of the blame to the repo man, so he's anything but blameless. The law already prohibits pulling someone from their vehicle and beating them for no reason. In cases where it is necessary to make a lawful arrest then the repo man's feelings don't matter; he shouldn't have been breaking the law and refusing to be arrested.

Obviously these situations aren't acceptable, but there is no demonstrated need for unspecified "stricter controls", especially when you do not understand that uses of force must already be justified individually, and you're unable to grasp the concept of due process. "Unacceptable situations exist" is not an excuse to implement ever-stricter rules until perfection is achieved in any field. In this field you would quickly find that many police officers tired of having their procedures dictated by the ignorant and the determined-to-be-outraged who think that every impropriety by every officer means unspecified new rules are needed for officers everywhere, and quit. The remainder would be unable to do much of anything.

Mantler is the example of a violent cop and the officer involved in a hit and run is another dangerous officer. Our police force is 156 regular officers and 2 of 156 is 1.2%, our rate of violent crime is less than 1000 for a city with a population of 106,000 which means that I would be violently assaulted 0.9% of the time. I'm also only using cases I know of so the numbers may be even worse for the police.

So you're asserting that these officers both assault every single person they come in contact with? Your thinking is massively flawed, to say the least.

Kelowna's Wiki Page

If even a quarter of those cases are justified that means roughly 3.5% of our officers are complain worthy and at least two of them Const. Geoff Mantler and Const. Steve Conlon (who was given only community service for punching a pregnant woman in the face) are known to be violent.

No, it means no such thing since more than one complaint can be against a single officer.. and more to the point, if 1/4 of the complaints are justified that would be very unusual. Finally, not all complaints are equal. Rudeness is not equal to excessive force, which is not equal to killing someone unjustifiably. Just because an officer has made a mistake that results in a justified complaint does not somehow forever taint him. Some complaints are minor and the officer will learn and not repeat the mistake.

In any case, you still are not justifying extrapolating from the actions of a few individuals to police in general. You are a bigot; you are doing exactly what people who fear blacks in general because some blacks are criminals do.

[Norade]

A quota is always going to be worse than actually dealing with the officers that you're having issues with. If you can't be bothered to actually deal with the people causing issues and instead have to create a blanket policy then you're not doing your job of ensuring the officers under your watch are doing their jobs.

How do you know that he is not dealing with them? How do you know that it's going to be worse?

If he was dealing with them properly and ensuring the job was done correctly the quota wouldn't be needed.

You'll notice that it's not actually a punishment dumbass, did you even read the article I posted?

Yes, because the disciplinary process is not yet finished. This calls into question whether it is proper to revoke his pay at all.

So booting somebody in the face might be something not worth punishing now? Apologize harder and the cops might just like you more.

So it's now a totally different thing to boot people who are attempting to comply just because you were trying to arrest them? Bullshit, assault is assault regardless of the fact that you're a cop or not. The police don't need these protections and should have to show why the use of force was justified in each case instead of it being assumed that they always need it.

Yes, as a matter of fact it is. Arresting someone is totally different from assaulting them. All you're doing is saying "it's assault because I say it's assault." There are no special protections in place, and it is not "assumed" that force was needed; justification already is always required. What isn't done however, is that we do not instigate a "guilty until proven innocent" witch hunt against officers that use force.

Hmm, arresting an innocent person sure sounds like assault to me. It's no different than me kicking a stranger in the teeth, yet more common because police are allowed to use force in situations where it isn't required. Also, that justification can be as weak as 'I dropped my weapon while pulling this innocent dude from his vehicle. I didn't feel safe anymore so I beat him a little.' Frankly that should never be allowed and officers should have a better hold on their weapons and not be running around with their holsters unbuckled.

So that explains why a civilian would have been held in cells once he was caught and this asshole was allowed to go free. Wait, no it doesn't.

I've already explained why. Using excessive force in an arrest is not the same as assaulting them. Had this constable simply gone up to someone and kicked them in the face out of the blue, he would be in jail. All you are doing is trying to dismiss the legal difference between excessive force in an arrest and an outright assault by your own say-so, and since you're not part of any judicial body you don't get to do that.

I was talking about the officer involved in a hit and run. However, kicking anybody in the face isn't going to be the way to subdue them efficiently especially when they're clearly no threat. Any force beyond placing the cuffs on your average person is going to be excessive yet police get a free pass. It should be no force unless you can prove you needed it to the same standards as any other self defense case.

They would tend to indicate a level of force that would need to be justified and not something that should be considered as a standard.

So what? No one said it should be. All force has to be justified.

Clearly not, and the justifications police get to use are pretty damn thin. They should be held to civilian standards for use of force. They would obviously still get away with using force because they face more danger than the average civilian does, but many more cases would see excessive force punishments metted out which helps everybody.

You'll also note that Mantler has yet to be charged for this and it happened in August 2010 so justice hasn't been done in this case giving yet more reason to doubt the sincerity of the local police when they say they have our interests at heart.

Because you've just arbitrarily decided it should have been taken care of by now?

Nearly a year is a bit long for a pretty cut and dry case of physical abuse. Of course this asshole is noted for stalling his cases by not appearing in court.

Yes they do, these sorts of situations aren't acceptable and stricter controls on officers would mean that officers would be less likely to commit such acts. You haven't answered the question still. If you were a repo man, would you feel safe when officers can pull you from your vehicle and beat you without being charged?

I don't need to answer the question because you cannot generalize from this happening this one time, to it happening to repo men in general from police in general. You'll further note that your own article assigns 49% of the blame to the repo man, so he's anything but blameless. The law already prohibits pulling someone from their vehicle and beating them for no reason. In cases where it is necessary to make a lawful arrest then the repo man's feelings don't matter; he shouldn't have been breaking the law and refusing to be arrested.

Obviously these situations aren't acceptable, but there is no demonstrated need for unspecified "stricter controls", especially when you do not understand that uses of force must already be justified individually, and you're unable to grasp the concept of due process. "Unacceptable situations exist" is not an excuse to implement ever-stricter rules until perfection is achieved in any field. In this field you would quickly find that many police officers tired of having their procedures dictated by the ignorant and the determined-to-be-outraged who think that every impropriety by every officer means unspecified new rules are needed for officers everywhere, and quit. The remainder would be unable to do much of anything.

That quote is from the head police officer you moron, not from the article writer. Of course he's going to support his man, that's a major part of his job. The repo man wasn't resisting, did you even watch the video I linked to? Why would an innocent man be resisting arrest? It seems far more likely that the cops were so aggressive that they didn't give him time to properly park his truck and that events happened the way the injured party said they did. Besides, if you're innocent then you have every reason not to want to go to cells for a crime that a simple phone cal would have told you wasn't actually a crime. But hey, why should we expect the police to do that when pulling guys out of trucks is far easier.

Mantler is the example of a violent cop and the officer involved in a hit and run is another dangerous officer. Our police force is 156 regular officers and 2 of 156 is 1.2%, our rate of violent crime is less than 1000 for a city with a population of 106,000 which means that I would be violently assaulted 0.9% of the time. I'm also only using cases I know of so the numbers may be even worse for the police.

So you're asserting that these officers both assault every single person they come in contact with? Your thinking is massively flawed, to say the least.

While the officer might not attack you, there are a greater number of cops percentage wise who might harm you than there are in the general population. Also, in any dealing with police, guilty or not, you have a greater chance of being harmed than in dealing with regular people. Do you feel that these stats are somehow wrong?

If even a quarter of those cases are justified that means roughly 3.5% of our officers are complain worthy and at least two of them Const. Geoff Mantler and Const. Steve Conlon (who was given only community service for punching a pregnant woman in the face) are known to be violent.

No, it means no such thing since more than one complaint can be against a single officer.. and more to the point, if 1/4 of the complaints are justified that would be very unusual. Finally, not all complaints are equal. Rudeness is not equal to excessive force, which is not equal to killing someone unjustifiably. Just because an officer has made a mistake that results in a justified complaint does not somehow forever taint him. Some complaints are minor and the officer will learn and not repeat the mistake.

In any case, you still are not justifying extrapolating from the actions of a few individuals to police in general. You are a bigot; you are doing exactly what people who fear blacks in general because some blacks are criminals do.

So given the fact that at least 3 officers have been involved in either excessive force cases or hit and runs in 2010 that number seems pretty close to accurate. So we know that harm was caused in at least 3 of my 5 and a half supposed cases. So you're going to dispute that 2 more cases might be justified?

[ArmorPierce]

Umm.. if the cameraman is the passanger, the cop is in front of him, and he's pointing a gun to the passanger's right, whixh he is, he's not pointing it at the driver. He's pointing it to the right side of the car (the cop's left).

In the shot you pointed out it does sort of look like he's pointing it at the cameraman. However, the fact remains that the cameraman was in posession of evidence and had fled inside a car when the police came in his direction. Granted, they were looking pretty aggressive, but on the other hand the cops have just been in a shooting and now this guy, who was perfectly content to stand around when bullets were flying, runs to a car. How do they know what he has in there?

There is no question about it, he was pointing at them. As to whether it was justified or not or it can be excused, different issue.

[Meest]

Always seems like the people recording act like morons also, he practically declared I got this on tape as the cops approach. Then complains he needs to go in the direction of the shooting to go home or whatever, and the cops were trying to make them take a detour. Cops handled it badly but his stupid commentary and being an ass doesn't help when everyone is hopped up on adrenaline. He escalated the situation way more than he needed to.

Don't understand when the cops have complete control of the situation why they don't slow things down, the guy could have been reaching for a gun or whatever but why weren't they all in cover, they were buzzing around and approaching the car, why would you approach a car with a potential deadly weapon being shown. Shouldn't they sit back and let it diffuse or get SWAT equivalent to come or a negotiator? Also hate when seemingly professionals unload like mental at the first shot, expect them to have better trigger discipline than the average citizen.

[HMS Sophia]

Also hate when seemingly professionals unload like mental at the first shot, expect them to have better trigger discipline than the average citizen.

I think the problem is, particularly for the average cop on the street, is that when you have a target/perp/whatever reaching for a weapon or posing a threat, you want to put them down, now, and you don't want them getting up again. The best way to do this is to unload into them. It's not just trigger discipline, it's eliminating a threat, and probably a little panic fire for a couple of them (or maybe all. Who knows if they've shot outside a range before).

[Norade]

Also hate when seemingly professionals unload like mental at the first shot, expect them to have better trigger discipline than the average citizen.

I think the problem is, particularly for the average cop on the street, is that when you have a target/perp/whatever reaching for a weapon or posing a threat, you want to put them down, now, and you don't want them getting up again. The best way to do this is to unload into them. It's not just trigger discipline, it's eliminating a threat, and probably a little panic fire for a couple of them (or maybe all. Who knows if they've shot outside a range before).

That speaks to them needing better firearms training. Something like a military style course would be helpful to teach them not to unload in such a way that they injure bystanders.

[HMS Sophia]

That speaks to them needing better firearms training. Something like a military style course would be helpful to teach them not to unload in such a way that they injure bystanders.

That would be preferable. But it's also likely to be very expensive. Can most forces afford to train every man in how to quickly and effectively take down a target in a high stress situation? I don't know.

See why I'm glad we don't give every copper a gun over here? We can afford to give our rapid response teams that sort of training.

[Norade]

That speaks to them needing better firearms training. Something like a military style course would be helpful to teach them not to unload in such a way that they injure bystanders.

That would be preferable. But it's also likely to be very expensive. Can most forces afford to train every man in how to quickly and effectively take down a target in a high stress situation? I don't know.

See why I'm glad we don't give every copper a gun over here? We can afford to give our rapid response teams that sort of training.

They could put them through a week or two of basic with the army boys. The framework already exists so it wouldn't be a huge cost increase.

[Kamakazie Sith]

If he was dealing with them properly and ensuring the job was done correctly the quota wouldn't be needed.

Define dealing with them properly.

So booting somebody in the face might be something not worth punishing now? Apologize harder and the cops might just like you more.

That's not what he is saying you dishonest twat. First thing is I don't care what anyone says but having your pay suspended IS a form of punishment and I challenge you to show otherwise. Second thing is SVPD is correct. If the disciplinary process is not yet finished then selecting a form of punishment even if you consider it not a form of punishment is unethical. Everyone deserves due process.

Hmm, arresting an innocent person sure sounds like assault to me. It's no different than me kicking a stranger in the teeth, yet more common because police are allowed to use force in situations where it isn't required. Also, that justification can be as weak as 'I dropped my weapon while pulling this innocent dude from his vehicle. I didn't feel safe anymore so I beat him a little.' Frankly that should never be allowed and officers should have a better hold on their weapons and not be running around with their holsters unbuckled.

This is all semantics. When police officers use too much force to arrest someone it is called excessive force. When a citizen uses too much force during a citizen arrest it is an assault. However, the criminal charge would be assault for both. Also, when are police officers allowed to use force when it isn't required? Name an example that isn't an example of illegal use of force.

I was talking about the officer involved in a hit and run. However, kicking anybody in the face isn't going to be the way to subdue them efficiently especially when they're clearly no threat. Any force beyond placing the cuffs on your average person is going to be excessive yet police get a free pass. It should be no force unless you can prove you needed it to the same standards as any other self defense case.

Can you be more specific regarding the details of the hit and run and can you also cite an example of a citizen receiving harsher treatment. Why are you phrasing your questions like you think SVPD is supporting the Cst. that kicked that man in the face? As for use of force the job of the police is to arrest criminals which means they have to go on the offensive. Requiring them to be held to defensive standards is retarded. The force used in making an arrest or defending oneself must be reasonable. Kicking a man in the face who is on his hands and knees is not reasonable.

Clearly not, and the justifications police get to use are pretty damn thin. They should be held to civilian standards for use of force. They would obviously still get away with using force because they face more danger than the average civilian does, but many more cases would see excessive force punishments metted out which helps everybody.

Cite an example of a police justification for use of force and why it is damn thin and why it is inadequate?

Nearly a year is a bit long for a pretty cut and dry case of physical abuse. Of course this asshole is noted for stalling his cases by not appearing in court.

When you say he has yet to be charged do you mean he has yet to be convicted? If that is what you mean then welcome to the court system. The frustration felt by this Cst. victim is frustration felt by victims of all crime.

If you meant charged then he was charged back in March. Also, the failuring to appear is also another frustration felt by victims of crimes. Unfortunately, the system doesn't keep anyone locked up for assault for very long at all.

That quote is from the head police officer you moron, not from the article writer. Of course he's going to support his man, that's a major part of his job. The repo man wasn't resisting, did you even watch the video I linked to? Why would an innocent man be resisting arrest? It seems far more likely that the cops were so aggressive that they didn't give him time to properly park his truck and that events happened the way the injured party said they did. Besides, if you're innocent then you have every reason not to want to go to cells for a crime that a simple phone cal would have told you wasn't actually a crime. But hey, why should we expect the police to do that when pulling guys out of trucks is far easier.

According to a third party witness the Repo guy, Parker, was resisting.

None of the other witnesses saw Cst. Mantler strike the complainant, however both the third officer who arrived on the scene and one of the civilian witnesses who observed the event in her rear view mirror state that after being taken to the ground the complainant (Packer) was struggling and was not co-operating.


The police in this case were under the impression that this was a theft in progress involving a high dollar value item and not a civil dispute. What do you mean with "Besides, if you're innocent then you have every reason not to want to go to cells for a crime that a simple phone cal would have told you wasn't actually a crime" Are you saying that we should expect innocent people to resist arrest?

While the officer might not attack you, there are a greater number of cops percentage wise who might harm you than there are in the general population. Also, in any dealing with police, guilty or not, you have a greater chance of being harmed than in dealing with regular people. Do you feel that these stats are somehow wrong?

Yes, you haven't presented any figures.

So given the fact that at least 3 officers have been involved in either excessive force cases or hit and runs in 2010 that number seems pretty close to accurate. So we know that harm was caused in at least 3 of my 5 and a half supposed cases. So you're going to dispute that 2 more cases might be justified?

Yes. Due process, remember?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Also hate when seemingly professionals unload like mental at the first shot, expect them to have better trigger discipline than the average citizen.

I think the problem is, particularly for the average cop on the street, is that when you have a target/perp/whatever reaching for a weapon or posing a threat, you want to put them down, now, and you don't want them getting up again. The best way to do this is to unload into them. It's not just trigger discipline, it's eliminating a threat, and probably a little panic fire for a couple of them (or maybe all. Who knows if they've shot outside a range before).

That speaks to them needing better firearms training. Something like a military style course would be helpful to teach them not to unload in such a way that they injure bystanders.

Police are trained to shoot until the threat is stopped. However, the belief that it was unloading that caused the bystander injuries and not a ricochet, a miss, or over penetration is also flawed. An investigation is necessary to reveal these details. On another note I'm guessing that none of you have been in combat and I'd be willing to bet that none of you have dealt with the threat of being fired on...so maybe you should armchair quarter back something you do not understand.

However, I do agree. Better and more frequent training is needed. I've been calling for the government to raise the local taxes for a long time so this can be accomplished but until then many departments do not have the funding to provide ammunition let alone serious firearms training which can require hundreds of rounds per person. Now is this the fault of the department or the civilian government? Who knows.

[Norade]

If he was dealing with them properly and ensuring the job was done correctly the quota wouldn't be needed.

Define dealing with them properly.

In this case dealing with them properly would mean dealing with your officers in such a way that they understand their job and a quota isn't needed.

So booting somebody in the face might be something not worth punishing now? Apologize harder and the cops might just like you more.

That's not what he is saying you dishonest twat. First thing is I don't care what anyone says but having your pay suspended IS a form of punishment and I challenge you to show otherwise. Second thing is SVPD is correct. If the disciplinary process is not yet finished then selecting a form of punishment even if you consider it not a form of punishment is unethical. Everyone deserves due process.

Except that most businesses can suspend you without pay for less and do so before any disciplinary hearing so you don't have anything resembling a point. Suspension without pay =/= legal action you moron.

Hmm, arresting an innocent person sure sounds like assault to me. It's no different than me kicking a stranger in the teeth, yet more common because police are allowed to use force in situations where it isn't required. Also, that justification can be as weak as 'I dropped my weapon while pulling this innocent dude from his vehicle. I didn't feel safe anymore so I beat him a little.' Frankly that should never be allowed and officers should have a better hold on their weapons and not be running around with their holsters unbuckled.

This is all semantics. When police officers use too much force to arrest someone it is called excessive force. When a citizen uses too much force during a citizen arrest it is an assault. However, the criminal charge would be assault for both. Also, when are police officers allowed to use force when it isn't required? Name an example that isn't an example of illegal use of force.

Are you really trying to tell me that police officers never use excessive amounts of force without anybody doing anything about it? Hell, Mantler has gotten off at least once on something SVPD agreed was excessive force.

I was talking about the officer involved in a hit and run. However, kicking anybody in the face isn't going to be the way to subdue them efficiently especially when they're clearly no threat. Any force beyond placing the cuffs on your average person is going to be excessive yet police get a free pass. It should be no force unless you can prove you needed it to the same standards as any other self defense case.

Can you be more specific regarding the details of the hit and run and can you also cite an example of a citizen receiving harsher treatment. Why are you phrasing your questions like you think SVPD is supporting the Cst. that kicked that man in the face? As for use of force the job of the police is to arrest criminals which means they have to go on the offensive. Requiring them to be held to defensive standards is retarded. The force used in making an arrest or defending oneself must be reasonable. Kicking a man in the face who is on his hands and knees is not reasonable.

We were talking about the hit and run in this block of quotes. Anyway, it'll take a while because the key words police and hit and run bring up a ton of things that aren't what I'm looking for.

Is dragging a man who's doing his job out of a truck and forcing him to the ground hard enough that he has bruises, facial lacerations, and ends up missing teeth excessive? Hell was that arrest even warranted at all given that he followed all his work guidelines and the company truck he was driving was for a company authorized to seize the boat.

Clearly not, and the justifications police get to use are pretty damn thin. They should be held to civilian standards for use of force. They would obviously still get away with using force because they face more danger than the average civilian does, but many more cases would see excessive force punishments metted out which helps everybody.

Cite an example of a police justification for use of force and why it is damn thin and why it is inadequate?

Dragging a man from a truck when he's trying to explain that he works for a repossession agency comes to mind. In this case they had no reason to think he could flee given that he was stuck in traffic on a busy bridge. Would it have caused any great trouble to let him get the paperwork that would have prevented any officer needing to touch him in the first place? Hell you can't even claim that he was a flight risk as he never once made a move to escape.

Nearly a year is a bit long for a pretty cut and dry case of physical abuse. Of course this asshole is noted for stalling his cases by not appearing in court.

When you say he has yet to be charged do you mean he has yet to be convicted? If that is what you mean then welcome to the court system. The frustration felt by this Cst. victim is frustration felt by victims of all crime.

If you meant charged then he was charged back in March. Also, the failuring to appear is also another frustration felt by victims of crimes. Unfortunately, the system doesn't keep anyone locked up for assault for very long at all.

No, I'm pretty sure it took them a long while to even start the investigation on him given that this case happened in August 2010 and his suspension without pay didn't occur until January 2011. So it took them around 5 months to actually get him behind a desk and of the streets and then a further 2 months filled with public outcry to suspend him without pay, you know suspend him the way any other shitty employee would have been.

As for failure to appear, police should be held to a higher standard, they cannot flout the law while still upholding it.

That quote is from the head police officer you moron, not from the article writer. Of course he's going to support his man, that's a major part of his job. The repo man wasn't resisting, did you even watch the video I linked to? Why would an innocent man be resisting arrest? It seems far more likely that the cops were so aggressive that they didn't give him time to properly park his truck and that events happened the way the injured party said they did. Besides, if you're innocent then you have every reason not to want to go to cells for a crime that a simple phone cal would have told you wasn't actually a crime. But hey, why should we expect the police to do that when pulling guys out of trucks is far easier.

According to a third party witness the Repo guy, Parker, was resisting.

None of the other witnesses saw Cst. Mantler strike the complainant, however both the third officer who arrived on the scene and one of the civilian witnesses who observed the event in her rear view mirror state that after being taken to the ground the complainant (Packer) was struggling and was not co-operating.


The police in this case were under the impression that this was a theft in progress involving a high dollar value item and not a civil dispute. What do you mean with "Besides, if you're innocent then you have every reason not to want to go to cells for a crime that a simple phone cal would have told you wasn't actually a crime" Are you saying that we should expect innocent people to resist arrest?

I'm saying that in this, and likely many other cases, the police didn't need to even touch the guy. Had they given him a few seconds to reach into his dash, or had they pulled out the papers for him. Not to mention that had I been dragged out of my vehicle while trying to explain what's going on I doubt I would be playing limp while an officer was manhandling me. In this case they caught the wrong guy and had they just read the side of his truck and talked to him first they wouldn't have needed to touch him. Can you really argue that the truck or the boat were going anywhere on a busy traffic filled bridge?

While the officer might not attack you, there are a greater number of cops percentage wise who might harm you than there are in the general population. Also, in any dealing with police, guilty or not, you have a greater chance of being harmed than in dealing with regular people. Do you feel that these stats are somehow wrong?

Yes, you haven't presented any figures.

Okay, police can use force to arrest you even if you haven't actually committed a crime. Hell, they can actually enter your home, shoot at you, your family and your pet without you ever having done anything criminal. You hear a struggle outside and go to your window with a legally owned weapon in hand and you get shoot. So if your interaction with the police involves you getting arrested you have a good chance of experiencing something that, if a civilian did it, would be considered an assault.

Given that there is a less than 1% chance of being a victim of violent crime in my city, and I've shown that a larger than 1% number of police have been written up on excessive force charges. I would also contend that any force used on a person that is innocent is also excessive so that number is bound to be fair higher than that. Thus even for an innocent person your chances of meeting what they would consider violent force is higher than the risk of being involved with violent crime.

So given the fact that at least 3 officers have been involved in either excessive force cases or hit and runs in 2010 that number seems pretty close to accurate. So we know that harm was caused in at least 3 of my 5 and a half supposed cases. So you're going to dispute that 2 more cases might be justified?

Yes. Due process, remember?

I was saying that SVPD would be retarded for not believing that 5 cases of police behavior of 22 reported could actually be objectionable given that I've already shown the 3 cases were objectionable. Is it not reasonable that 2 more cases might also be objectionable of the 19 remaining reports?