News   Apr 24, 2024
 200     0 
News   Apr 24, 2024
 513     0 
News   Apr 23, 2024
 3.1K     7 

Black Lives Matter Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
Especially when there are many stories last year where police officer's body cam "fails". Better to have citizens record the incident, in case the police body cameras also "fail" in the future.

Mandatory, always-on bodycams for every officer are a no-brainer in my opinion. It's crucial evidence (including for police!) and provides another perspective when most of these cases are "he said she said". I also think both police and others will act more responsibly knowing that there is an "eye witness".

Citizens filming is also great because it provides yet another perspective. If you film, stay out of the cops' way and let them do their job. I'm glad that in this case a citizen came to the aid of the female police officer who was being viciously assaulted by a violent male. Some folks would just whip out their phone and film in that scenario which is ridiculous. We all need to contribute to the safety of our communities.

Most cops are good people and they do a pretty good job as evidenced the small handful of incidents a year out of thousands of arrests.
 
If you bite an officer's hand and refuse to let go, yes, you may get tased. How would Officer Salsa handle this situation? Please walk us through it.

For starters, how about not harassing the witness who was recording. How could you possibly defend this?

The officer holding the Taser hollers at Khan to “move back” and instructs another officer to “Get that guy out of my face.”

“He’s going to spit in your face, you’re going to get AIDS. Stop recording or I’m going to seize your phone as evidence,” one of the officers says.
 
I didn't and neither did the police if you read the article.

Pugash did admit, however, that police appeared to be intimidating witness Waseem Khan, who captured part of the dramatic arrest on his cellphone.
Khan says he was shocked to see police using such aggression when the suspect seemed to be immobile.
“The police officer starts stomping on him,” he said. “I’m thinking … that this guy is going to die. He was laid out. He was not moving whatsoever. I don’t even know if this guy was conscious.”
But it’s what happened next in the video that Pugash says crossed the line.
The officer holding the Taser hollers at Khan to “move back” and instructs another officer to “Get that guy out of my face.”
“I am not obstructing your arrest,” Khan replies.
Another officer approaches Khan and tells him to move back, to which Khan replies, “I’m a witness. I’m a witness.”
Two of the officers then say if he is a witness, they will have to seize his phone as evidence.
....
“He’s going to spit in your face, you’re going to get AIDS. Stop recording or I’m going to seize your phone as evidence,” one of the officers says.
Pugash said Khan was within his rights to film the takedown from a reasonable distance.
“The man taking the video was clearly some considerable distance away,” Pugash said. “He was not interfering in any way, and the officers have no legal authority to seize the phone and they shouldn’t have said that was a possibility. It isn’t a possibility.”

http://www.citynews.ca/2017/01/24/s...icer-sparking-violent-arrest-caught-on-video/

We get that sometimes you have to use force, and it isn't necessarily pretty (though you still have to justify it) - but clearly this is above and beyond that. If what was said wasn't harassment or intimidation, what is it?

AoD
 
Who are you debating here? Everybody is in agreement, including the police, that the interaction with the videotaper was inappropriate.

Not inappropriate... illegal. But then again, the finer points of our current Canadian laws seem to elude you.
 
Not inappropriate... illegal. But then again, the finer points of current Canadian law seems to elude you.

Why don't you file a criminal complaint instead of being an armchair lawyer then? You're delusional if you think something that minor would end up in front of a judge.
 
Alabama Passes A Bill That Considers An Attack On An Officer A Hate Crime.

See link. "Hate" can go both directions it seems.

Alabama is taking new measures to protect law enforcement from becoming the victims of violent and potentially deadly attacks.

This week Rep. John Rogers (D. Birmingham) urged his fellow lawmakers to pass new legislation identifying police officers as a protected group in order to prosecute criminals who attack them more severely.

Speaking to WBRC Fox6 in Birmingham, Rogers said “It is a hate crime because it attacks a certain class of individuals: police officers.”

Rogers says he plans to introduce the measure when the next legislative session begins in february, “It is a hate crime, so therefore I support it. I will have that bill drawn up tomorrow.”

This most recent proposal is the next step beyond the 2015 “Thin Blue Line” bill (HB 953) presented in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jeff Sessions (R. Alabama), and will follow on the heels of many state-level laws designed to provide greater protection for police and other first responders.

This recent trend has been spurred on by a perception of an increase nationally in the number of attacks against law enforcement, although the data suggest otherwise. According to statistics from the Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, a national organization dedicated to honoring and remembering the service and sacrifice of law enforcement officers in the United States, 2015 actually demonstrated a 21 percent decrease on the average 57 fatalities per year, 2000-2009.

Some reasons for the increased public concern for First Responder safety may include a general focus on gun-related crime, attention being brought to officer-related shootings by the Black Lives Matter movement, and a quantifiable, but slight, spike in violence against law enforcement officers this year.

Statistically, however, violence against law enforcement is down from an historic high during the mid-1970’s, when the average number of police officers killed in the line of duty reached around 280 a year. In fact, current numbers are even down significantly from 2010, when more than 175 officers were killed in action, including 61 gun-related fatalities and 6 assaults.

And, According to the FBI, there was an almost 20 percent decrease in the number of felonious deaths of police officers between 2014 to 215.

Hate crimes are usually defined as violent or destructive crimes targeting a person or group of people based on ethnicity, national origin, sexuality, gender, disability, or religion. It is usually granted to groups who have suffered significant systemic and historical bias. While the status of protected classes of people are, at the federal level, fairly limited, each state may create other protected classes in accordance with their laws.

The “Thin Blue Line” proposal of Sessions at the Federal level, and Rogers’ will seek to add an occupation to the list of protected groups.

So, we all know, love, and need our first responders. They are the heroes that walk among us every day and keep society running in an orderly fashion. They make us proud of their selfless service to community and nation. But is a job a protected class, akin to race and gender? Is the media overhyping recent events and thereby fanning the flames on both sides?
 
  • A suspect who has followed all police commands is likely considered subdued as soon as they are hand-cuffed, or possibly even if they assume a position from which they can not inflict harm. A suspect that has resisted previously is likely not considered subdued until the police have 100% control of the suspect.
  • One of the first rules of policing is probably to prevent contamination of evidence. It a by-stander declares himself a witness, I would expect the police would want to ensure that evidence if acquired before is it tampered with. Thus, the sooner they get the video, with a chance for it to be altered, the more credible it would be in court. Also, they would want to get a statement before the witness reads news stories that may alter his recollection of what he saw.
  • The by-stander looked far enough way for me, but the police need to consider a multitude of hazards that are not readily apparent to a civilian by-stander. I would guess that being spat on and communicable diseases are one of the concerns and reminding the public of such is not unreasonable.
 
One of the first rules of policing is probably to prevent contamination of evidence. It a by-stander declares himself a witness, I would expect the police would want to ensure that evidence if acquired before is it tampered with. Thus, the sooner they get the video, with a chance for it to be altered, the more credible it would be in court. Also, they would want to get a statement before the witness reads news stories that may alter his recollection of what he saw.

Except that the individual was told to stop recording or the phone will be seized as evidence. So it's less about using it as evidence and more about preventing documentation of the event.

AoD
 
  • The by-stander looked far enough way for me, but the police need to consider a multitude of hazards that are not readily apparent to a civilian by-stander. I would guess that being spat on and communicable diseases are one of the concerns and reminding the public of such is not unreasonable.

Hey, it's 2017--please get educated regarding transmission of HIV.

Toronto PoliceVerified account‏@TorontoPolice
1st step in righting a wrong: @TPS51Div officer's comment simply wrong. You cannot get HIV/AIDS from spit. We're #sorry. ^vk
 
Last edited:
Not sure what the year has to do with expecting people to be knowledgeable about a specific virus, when people are not educated on a number of other vastly more important issues.

Are you kidding? HIV is not some obscure virus. It's one of the largest pandemics to hit the world in centuries. If someone doesn't know how it's transmitted by now they've either been living under a rock for the past 30 years, or they're being purposefully ignorant because they still falsely believe that it's a "gay" disease.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top