News   Aug 13, 2020
 65     0 
News   Aug 13, 2020
 310     0 
News   Aug 12, 2020
 498     0 

Toronto Police Service Reformation

Voltz

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
1,581
Reaction score
358

Northern Light

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
6,946
Reaction score
7,768
Location
Toronto/EY
An unarmed traffic cop in New Zealand was just shot and killed on a traffic stop,

I don't suppose you would rather that have happened than having to endure the horror of seeing a cop carrying a gun?
Why must you say foolish and inflammatory things?

I have no anti-police bias and no desire to see an officer harmed.

The question is one of balance.

Balancing the harm done by police vs reasonable protection of same.

I support body armour for police (ie bullet-proof vest); I support access to guns for high-risk situations.

But do I support police killing at least a 1/2 dozen people per year in Canada under extremely dubious circumstances (one could argue the number is a lot higher), in order to avoid perhaps one officer death?

The answer to that is 'no'.

Six lives are worth more than one.

One must also consider the cost.


From the above link:

He referenced statistics in the Corporate Risk Management Report before the Board showing Toronto police officers discharged their firearms a total of 23 times in 2019. According to the report, only one of those involved a suspect, and a handful of others involved suspect vehicles. There were two accidental discharges. The rest involved animals. (According to the report, guns were drawn and pointed by police 1,015 times in 2019.)

Sewell noted that the cost of ammunition in 2019, meanwhile, was some $2.4 million. “That means that for every time a gun was discharged,” he told the Board, “it costs about $100,000… a staggering amount.”

***


Of note, according to this study, up to 80% of police deaths involved officers NOT wearing protective vests.

 
Last edited:

Voltz

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
1,581
Reaction score
358
Why must you say foolish and inflammatory things?

I have no anti-police bias and no desire to see an officer harmed.

The question is one of balance.

Balancing the harm done by police vs reasonable protection of same.

I support body armour for police (ie bullet-proof vest); I support access to guns for high-risk situations.

But do I support police killing at least a 1/2 dozen people per year in Canada under extremely dubious circumstances (one could argue the number is a lot higher), in order to avoid perhaps one officer death?

The answer to that is 'no'.

Six lives are worth more than one.

One must also consider the cost.


From the above link:

He referenced statistics in the Corporate Risk Management Report before the Board showing Toronto police officers discharged their firearms a total of 23 times in 2019. According to the report, only one of those involved a suspect, and a handful of others involved suspect vehicles. There were two accidental discharges. The rest involved animals. (According to the report, guns were drawn and pointed by police 1,015 times in 2019.)

Sewell noted that the cost of ammunition in 2019, meanwhile, was some $2.4 million. “That means that for every time a gun was discharged,” he told the Board, “it costs about $100,000… a staggering amount.”

***


Of note, according to this study, up to 80% of police deaths involved officers NOT wearing protective vests.

A traffic stop is not high risk according to you, yet an officer was killed by a gun in a country where you would say they are doing things right, you can't say in advance where the risk is. I know an officer who would be dead right now if not for having a gun in a situation that you would have said there was no need for one.

You can claim those shootings are dubious, doesn't mean they are.

And cops were not wearing vests back in the 60"s
 

lenaitch

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
1,979
Reaction score
1,544
Why must you say foolish and inflammatory things?

I have no anti-police bias and no desire to see an officer harmed.

The question is one of balance.

Balancing the harm done by police vs reasonable protection of same.

I support body armour for police (ie bullet-proof vest); I support access to guns for high-risk situations.

But do I support police killing at least a 1/2 dozen people per year in Canada under extremely dubious circumstances (one could argue the number is a lot higher), in order to avoid perhaps one officer death?

The answer to that is 'no'.

Six lives are worth more than one.

One must also consider the cost.


From the above link:

He referenced statistics in the Corporate Risk Management Report before the Board showing Toronto police officers discharged their firearms a total of 23 times in 2019. According to the report, only one of those involved a suspect, and a handful of others involved suspect vehicles. There were two accidental discharges. The rest involved animals. (According to the report, guns were drawn and pointed by police 1,015 times in 2019.)

Sewell noted that the cost of ammunition in 2019, meanwhile, was some $2.4 million. “That means that for every time a gun was discharged,” he told the Board, “it costs about $100,000… a staggering amount.”

***


Of note, according to this study, up to 80% of police deaths involved officers NOT wearing protective vests.


Soft body armour was not generally issued until the mid-1980s and are ineffective against high-powered rifles. Part of the reduction from the '60s to '80s is also a result of improved equipment, training and the introduction of specialized tactical and containment teams. 'Back in the day' cops would more often just race into a bank robbery in progress and there were few, if any, specialty teams.

Sewell's reduction of the issue to matter of dollars is a tad offensive. There are probably thousands and thousands of dollars of equipment on fire trucks and EMS vehicles that don't often or ever get used, and AEDs at public buildings and life rings at the water front are seldom used. An imperfect equivalency but similar logic.
 

lenaitch

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
1,979
Reaction score
1,544
From today's BLM protests, the release of 27 'demands'.

Side Tangent - I had to look this up myself since not one media outlet I surveyed posted all the demands or a link to them. Argh, sloppy journalism!


WE DEMAND:

DEFUND THE POLICE

  1. Immediately redirect a minimum of 50 percent of the $1.1 billion TPS budget toward the communities they have devastated by investing in secure, long-term housing for street-involved and unhoused communities, food security programs, public transit, public health, public libraries, and community-led anti-violence programs.
DEMILITARIZE THE POLICE
  1. End Emergency Task Force (ETF) and Emergency Response Teams (ERT) (similar to the US-based SWAT teams), tactical squads, military grade weapons, and surveillance equipment.
  2. Remove all weaponry from police and other law enforcement, including tasers, batons, firearms, rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray, and sound canons.
  3. End the mass surveillance of our communities through the use of technologies such as stingray, facial recognition, and predictive policing technologies, drones, robots, and G20 surveillance technology that remained in Toronto.
REMOVE COPS IN SCHOOLS
  1. Remove police and school resource officers (SROs) in all schools (Public, Catholic, Private, and Post-Secondary) in Toronto.
  2. Remove police and school resource officers (SROs) in all schools, at all levels, across Canada.
REDUCE SCOPE OF POLICE
  1. End all special constable programs and all policing on campuses.
  2. End the policing of public transportation.
  3. End the policing of minor bylaw infractions and noise complaints.
  4. End paid-duty policing program (officers for hire by developers, street festivals, etc.).
  5. End police collaboration with the CBSA.
  6. Eliminate all stealth police cars and plainclothes operations.
  7. Eliminate community policing patrols in highly racialized communities.
  8. End Carding
DOCUMENT POLICE VIOLENCE
  1. Mandate the public collection of data regarding police killing, and incidents of police brutality for all local, regional, provincial, and Federal police or law enforcement agency disaggregated by race, gender, age and citizenship.
DECRIMINALIZE POVERTY, DRUGS, HIV & SEX WORK
  1. Release and expunge record for all poverty-related charges (including bylaw infractions, solicitation, sleeping outside, public urination, loitering, solicitation).
  2. Decriminalize drugs, sex work, and HIV status.
  3. Release and expunge records of all drug-related and sex work charges.
CREATE ALTERNATIVES
  1. Create Crisis Intervention and Mad co-lead support teams; work with communities to develop models that work for them.
  2. Create police-free, community-led, trauma-informed emergency service for mental health/psychiatric distress and other forms of crisis.
  3. Invest in community support for shelters, drop-ins, after-school programming in low-income, Black, and Indigenous neighborhoods.
  4. Create restorative services, mental health services, and community-run health centres
  5. Invest in harm reduction, including safe supply, safe injection/inhalation sites, and harm-reduction outreach workers.
  6. Establish a community-based and trauma-informed emergency service for people who have experienced gender-based violence.
  7. Implement of civilian transportation safety service and better/safer road infrastructure for pedestrians, cyclists and public transit
  8. Create a civilian conflict resolution resolution service to replace policing of minor bylaw infractions/noise complaints
  9. Provide permanent, secure housing options for all people who need housing.
I don't follow the background or philosophy of these groups but I'm not sure if these demands are a clever bargaining tactic (demand the sun, moon and stars then settle for less) or they are truly anarchists.
 

Northern Light

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
6,946
Reaction score
7,768
Location
Toronto/EY
A traffic stop is not high risk according to you, yet an officer was killed by a gun in a country where you would say they are doing things right, you can't say in advance where the risk is. I know an officer who would be dead right now if not for having a gun in a situation that you would have said there was no need for one.

You can claim those shootings are dubious, doesn't mean they are.

And cops were not wearing vests back in the 60"s
The majority of police deaths in Canada in the last decade were RCMP, most of whom were not wearing vests.

Notwithstanding that, only 2 police officers were killed as a result of their occupation in 2018, in Canada; according to Stats Can.

More people died while logging.

An officer's life is of value, it merits protection. That cannot be a pretense for unlimited violent potential by officers.

Your proposition seems to be unlimited protection at any cost; screw everyone else, every police shooting is legit, etc.

No amount of evidence will likely persuade you of the obvious, that your position is wrong, immoral and unethical.

So be it, we needn't discuss it further.

If you have something constructive to offer, I'm all ears.
 

Northern Light

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
6,946
Reaction score
7,768
Location
Toronto/EY
Soft body armour was not generally issued until the mid-1980s and are ineffective against high-powered rifles. Part of the reduction from the '60s to '80s is also a result of improved equipment, training and the introduction of specialized tactical and containment teams. 'Back in the day' cops would more often just race into a bank robbery in progress and there were few, if any, specialty teams.

Sewell's reduction of the issue to matter of dollars is a tad offensive. There are probably thousands and thousands of dollars of equipment on fire trucks and EMS vehicles that don't often or ever get used, and AEDs at public buildings and life rings at the water front are seldom used. An imperfect equivalency but similar logic.
I agree that the cost item can be a gross oversimplification.

Just as an empty lane on a road or an empty bike lane or bus doesn't mean we should rip up the road, erase the bike lane or cancel the bus.

That said; looking at the rate of legitimate, justified use, of any piece of equipment is an important criteria of what should be standard-issue on a police uniform, a fire truck, or an ambulance.

Not all fire trucks have hirise ladder capability or hazmat capability. Not all ambulances have an on-board ct scanner (yes, that's a thing now).

One must consider at some level how often something is likely to be needed; and apportion its availability accordingly.

I think its entirely reasonable to discuss when and how that is for police.

We can all agree that ETF/Tactical teams should have the use of guns.

We can all agree there are high-risk calls where access to one would be prudent; but access doesn't have to mean body worn.

Not every officer needs to be equipped to respond to every type of call.

We could reasonably differ on how easy access should be to a firearm; or how many officers should receive body-worn guns.

But I think there's little evidence to support the current model as having arrived at the right place.
 

Northern Light

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
6,946
Reaction score
7,768
Location
Toronto/EY
As to traffic stops; most, are low-risk.

But that said; what if we considered that technology makes (could) make a majority of traffic stops moot.

Its feasible now (at low cost) to put speed limiters on every car sold.

Its feasible now, to have on-board computers, which are present in pretty much every car sold, cap driving speed to the prescribed limit or close.

Toyota already has a built-in feature that assesses driver alertness and can safely take a car to the side of the road and shut it down.

Most on-board computers can remotely turn the ignition off on a car.

(and disable re-start) so that a stopped motorist can't restart/escape w/o police authorization.

We don't use that tech normally, but its there.

Its even been deployed successfully in the field on a limited basis.


How about we manage risk with non-lethal choices wherever possible?
 
Last edited:

BubbleTea

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 5, 2020
Messages
129
Reaction score
96
Location
Toronto
Technology could absolutely solve a lot of the problems with traffic stops, however, there will always be those few people that don't trust technology and will keep their old Crown Victoria and refuse any retrofit.

Until the last of the older generation cars are off the road, it's not reasonable to just rely on technology for traffic stops.

Instead, there should be reforms to the culture in general so that officers aren't tasering someone with hard of hearing because they weren't given the oppurtunity to inform the officer of their unique situation.
 

Admiral Beez

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
8,643
Reaction score
2,505

Jasmine18

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 21, 2016
Messages
1,530
Reaction score
445

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
17,242
Reaction score
5,939
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
Yeah i dont blame the police here but govt more for not funding social and mental services.
MENTAL HEALTH ROUNDUP: Major Mental Health Reports, Analysis, Backgrounders, Fact Sheets, Briefing Notes & Media Releases

See link.

On this page you can find a roundup of Ontario Health Coalition Mental Health:

  1. Reports & Analysis
  2. Backgrounders, Facts Sheets & Briefing Notes
  3. Media Releases


Reports/Analysis

February 10, 2020: Analysis of the North Bay Mayor’s Roundtable Report

February 6, 2020: Review of the Plan to Close More than Half of the Existing Residential Addiction Treatment Beds and Hospital Crisis/Safe Beds from North Bay Regional Health Centre

December 19, 2005: “If we had to walk in each other’s shoes” Thunder Bay

December 13, 2005: “If we had to walk in each other’s shoes” North Bay

November 3, 2004: From Building Links for Better Mental Health



Backgrounders/Fact Sheets/Briefing Notes

June 21, 2019: Ontario Health Coalition Briefing Note on Ontario Cabinet Shuffle: Deep Concerns about Ideological Positions of New Minister of Long-Term Care & Associate Minister of Mental Health & Addictions



Media Releases

March 11, 2020: Residents Plan to Step Up Pressure to Ask MPP Fedeli to Save the North Bay Hospital’s Residential Addictions Treatment Program

May 6, 2020: Ontario Health Coalition Statement on Today’s Mental Health Funding Announcement by Ford Government

February 11, 2019: Warning that Leaked Health Care Omnibus Bill Would Create Health Care Chaos: Longstanding Leaders of Organizations Representing Patients, Care Workers, Doctors

June 4, 2018: Ontario Election 2018 Health Care Resources

June 3, 2018: $22 billion in cuts to funding for public services planned by Mr. Ford, worse than Harris, we are “extremely worried”

March 10, 2017: Health Care Advocates Dismayed with Ottawa’s Divide and Conquer Tactics: Hopes for a Canadian Health Accord Dashed as Provinces Signs Deal

September 9, 2003: Coalition says private operator not appropriate for mental health and addictions facility on Queen
 

Northern Light

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
6,946
Reaction score
7,768
Location
Toronto/EY
Yeah i dont blame the police here but govt more for not funding social and mental services.
From the article:


"They kicked the door open and they said, 'Drop it.' As soon as they said drop it, they started shooting. What conversation is that," he asked.

"That is how you deal with mentally ill patients... We called these guys to help us. This is what they do?"



Could you explain to me why you don't fault them?

My read, the man was contained, alone, in the apartment.

He was no risk to anyone but himself.

There was no need for them to breech.

They were there for quite awhile.

They had ample time to bring a mental health professional to the scene.

They had number of non-lethal force options (none of which needed to be deployed if they hadn't entered the unit).

Yelling at someone who is a diagnosed schizophrenic, having a mental health breakdown is not wise or useful.

The man would be alive if they had stayed out.

There's a good chance he would be alive if they had not been aggressive.

There's a better chance he'd be alive if they'd chosen virtually option of force except a gun.

I get they chose a taser w/o effect.

But their presence in the unit, and mishandling of that confrontation created the problem.

They also had other options.

I don't lack sympathy for the cops who surely didn't respond to that call intending to kill someone.

But I have greater sympathy for a victim who is now dead; and the family who called for help, and got none.
 

lenaitch

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
1,979
Reaction score
1,544
As to traffic stops; most, are low-risk.

But that said; what if we considered that technology makes (could) make a majority of traffic stops moot.

Its feasible now (at low cost) to put speed limiters on every car sold.

Its feasible now, to have on-board computers, which are present in pretty much every car sold, cap driving speed to the prescribed limit or close.

Toyota already has a built-in feature that assesses driver alertness and can safely take a car to the side of the road and shut it down.

Most on-board computers can remotely turn the ignition off on a car.

(and disable re-start) so that a stopped motorist can't restart/escape w/o police authorization.

We don't use that tech normally, but its there.

Its even been deployed successfully in the field on a limited basis.


How about we manage risk with non-lethal choices wherever possible?
The tech is pretty much there, if imperfect (the 'driver assist' tech on my new truck being Exhibit 1), but much would boil down to either networking or State involvement. Some will say autonomous vehicles will solve all. It is fairly easy to set a maximum speed of, say 110kmp, which might be great for the 401 but not so much for Dupont. To have it geo-specific requires the networking. I choose to have neither mobile data nor interactive manufacturer-provided vehicle monitoring, primarily because they are costs I don't need. Should it be mandatory? On-board 'breathalyzer'? Perhaps, but standards and calibration could be a problem (i.e.; using mouthwash or having diabetes). Remember that vehicle standards are federal and many follow the US since we are comparatively a small market.
From the article:


"They kicked the door open and they said, 'Drop it.' As soon as they said drop it, they started shooting. What conversation is that," he asked.

"That is how you deal with mentally ill patients... We called these guys to help us. This is what they do?"



Could you explain to me why you don't fault them?

My read, the man was contained, alone, in the apartment.

He was no risk to anyone but himself.

There was no need for them to breech.

They were there for quite awhile.

They had ample time to bring a mental health professional to the scene.

They had number of non-lethal force options (none of which needed to be deployed if they hadn't entered the unit).

Yelling at someone who is a diagnosed schizophrenic, having a mental health breakdown is not wise or useful.

The man would be alive if they had stayed out.

There's a good chance he would be alive if they had not been aggressive.

There's a better chance he'd be alive if they'd chosen virtually option of force except a gun.

I get they chose a taser w/o effect.

But their presence in the unit, and mishandling of that confrontation created the problem.

They also had other options.

I don't lack sympathy for the cops who surely didn't respond to that call intending to kill someone.

But I have greater sympathy for a victim who is now dead; and the family who called for help, and got none.
We don't know all of the details of this current incident, but the mindset to 'solve the problem NOW' needs to change. If it takes an hour to talk someone down, so be it. The prime example of this was the Sami Yatim shooting. I could never, for the live of me, figure out what the urgency in that incident was.

The 24/7 availability of mental health responders would be great, but unless it is intended that they respond by themselves, I can't see how it will eliminate the police from the equation. It might result in better outcomes but I can't see how it will have much impact on policing costs.
 

Top