RCMP shoots man; court rules cops f**ked up

[shitdisturber]

OK let me take a full swing at you with a baseball bat to the head, then (if your not dead...and after you heal) let me do the same with a police "stick"...we'll judge the difference in your injuries. Me I'd rather be hit with stick....my point is a baseball bat is a weapon.

No you wouldn't. The "stick", riot control baton, call them what you will start out as a hardwood which I believe is then kiln dried to make them harder. During my military days while on a training exercise, the guy next to me accidentally clipped me with a glancing blow from the butt end of his baton just behind my ear. I ended up on the ground seeing stars and bleeding from a baton that probably only moved a foot or so before it got me. Maybe I was just unlucky and it got me in the wrong place, but it definitely left a mark.

[shitdisturber]

Judges get days, if not weeks to listen to witnesses, defendants, lawyers and the like spin their version of the story before he/she has to make a call one way or the other. The cop often gets seconds to the make the call.

Great. So let's forget about incompetent and poorly trained cops, and just shoot anyone where there's a reasonable suspicion of their intentions. The courts will sort it out later. That ought to work just great.

If the cops start doing that, you'd better watch your ass because you'll be one of the first ones they go after.

[ronjeremy]

They also consider 50,000 volt death-inducing tasers in the same class as batons and pepper spray, so forgive me if I don't pay much attention to how they classify weapons. They classify them according to their own double-standards, when it suits them to do so.

You just showed how little you actually know about police use of force. The Taser is not in the same "class" as batons and pepper spray. The RCMP addressed concerns raised by the public, the medical community and the RCMP's own studies and raised the Taser up the use of force continuum, it was in the news but did you not read it because it was a positive step by police?

And a firearm may be used when there is fear of death or grievous bodily harm, if you are trying to tell me someone being threatened with a baseball bat does not fear grievous then apparently you haven't seen the damage that can be done with one, I have, but hey, next time the police should give the man with the bat the benefit of the doubt, right? Maybe allow him to take at least 2 shots at the other person just to be sure?

[Wilbur]

There is nothing you can tell Corporal ATC about law enforcement. Other then the fact he has no education, training or experience in the law and its enforcement, he's an expert don't you know.

[Nark]

He is better educated than both of us Wilbur. He went to YouTube University.

[BoostedNihilist]

It's funny to watch warriors become pacifists.

[ronjeremy]

For one, I'm a police officer and well trained in use of force.

Police do not release details of an ongoing investigation because it is just that, an ongoing investigation. Often, by the time the investigation is done and all is finished the media has moved on, the drama is gone. Details are not given to the public because this is the first step in tainting any evidence that will be provided by police, witnesses and the victim. If the police release a piece of information that nobody else could possibly know unless they were there then you have just given up maybe the only thing that proves someone saw actually something. You also risk tainting people's memory by providing information, people begin to second guess what they saw or heard if they start to hear conflicting details. Also under the Privacy Act information can not be released in a lot of cases because it may identify the victim. This is not decided by police most of the time, but by courts if it goes that far.

Investigations are not black and white occurrences. There are always 3 stories, mine, yours and the truth. It's always going to be that way.

An allegation made in the media of taser misuse does not necessarily mean it has been misused. Has it happened? Sure it has. Will it happen again, regretfully it will. Does this mean all police are out to shock the hell out of someone, no. Do I think that those who do it maliciously should be out of a job, maybe, that's not for me to decide until I see the evidence and understand the specific situation for myself.

[Slats]

I can't believe it but I actually agree with cpl-atc on this one in that it sounds like this guy was defending his family and was well within his rights in doing so. He did not deserve to be shot.

That being said, the frustrating thing about these topics is that if the guy with the bat had been a cop, I'm sure cpl and his followers would have a different take on it: "RCMP threatens to assault group of men with baseball bat."

[BoostedNihilist]

Investigations are not black and white occurrences. There are always 3 stories, mine, yours and the truth. It's always going to be that way.

lol, this statement is hilarious, a black and white statement about how something cannot be black and white.

There are not always three stories. Sometimes, when everyone agrees (example a guilty plea) there is simply one story, sometimes, when someone is lying, and someone is telling the truth, there are two stories, because the truth and one of the stories are the same. I can only think of one instance where your statement would hold true and that would be if the police and the perp are lieing and the truth stands on it's own.. so maybe you are right.. perhaps there are always three stories... or at least there always are when the police are involved.. (read into that one if you want)

[Nark]

Boosted,

You ever take anthropology classes in university? Psychology even touches on it.

Two people can witness the same incident and give two different accounts. This is why eye witness evidence doesn't hold that much weight in court.

Ronjeremy is correct in the 3 version to every truth.

[BoostedNihilist]

You ever take anthropology classes in university? Psychology even touches on it.

Two people can witness the same incident and give two different accounts. This is why eye witness evidence doesn't hold that much weight in court.

Ronjeremy is correct in the 3 version to every truth.

Yes actually, I have heard of that... THEORY

I don't believe it, I have another theory which is equally as valid, if there are three versions of the truth there is no truth. The truth is the truth, there is no 'version' only truth. That theory is just fluffy nonsense designed to grey the line of acceptable evidence.

One more time. If two people see something happen and see it differently and neither of what they witnessed is what actually happened, then there is one version of the truth, what actually happened. If one of them witnessed it as it happened, there is still only one version of the truth.. what actually happened.

Your logic is faulty because it assumes that everyone is telling the truth simply because they say something.

My logic is correct because what actually happened is always the truth.

[Slats]

You should change your name to Boosted Narcissist.

Your logic is faulty because it assumes that everyone is telling the truth simply because they say something.

You posting arbitrary nonsense like this and then calling someone else's reasoning faulty is amusing.

Keep up the good work, you and your egomania are keeping me constantly entertained.

[BoostedNihilist]

I'm glad you find me amusing.. certainly better than the norm of 'amusing' yourself.

p.s. calling me an egomaniac is a very egomaniacal thing to do hypocrite.

I would expect nothing else from you, I tooled on your last ignorant rant pretty good, if you want I can ship you some vaseline with applicator and you can soothe your hurting parts.



If you need to call me names to make your point so be it, but I'm rubber you're glue.. and I know you are but what am I... oh yeah.. I fucked your mom..

lol

avcanadians are simply hilarious.

[Wilbur]

Sorry Boosted, but your very simplistic notion of "truth" applies only the simplest of situations. Interactions between people, which is usually what police are involved in, are much more complicated. For example, if considering interpersonal communication, 7-10% of the message a person gives is through the words they speak, 33-40% is through tone of voice, and 50-60% is non-verbal. People often don't have their words, tone and NV's all perfectly in sync so that they all convey the same message. Therefore, people rarely say exactly what they mean. The listener has to interpret the words, tone and NV's, which is a subjective exercise, and will rarely understand the message as it was intended, or the same as others would.

Tone and NV's often convey a person's underlying emotions, of which they may not even be aware. For example, a person becomming frustrated with another can easily, and unintentionally, have a sarcastic tone creep into their voice. The other person hears the saracasim as an insult. If you asked each what was said, you would get two very different accounts. The speaker perhaps saying they were doing their best to deal with other, the other saying the speaker was insulting and putting them down. Who would be telling the truth?

[BoostedNihilist]

Sorry Boosted, but your very simplistic notion of "truth" applies only the simplest of situations. Interactions between people, which is usually what police are involved in, are much more complicated. For example, if considering interpersonal communication, 7-10% of the message a person gives is through the words they speak, 33-40% is through tone of voice, and 50-60% is non-verbal. People often don't have their words, tone and NV's all perfectly in sync so that they all convey the same message. Therefore, people rarely say exactly what they mean. The listener has to interpret the words, tone and NV's, which is a subjective exercise, and will rarely understand the message as it was intended, or the same as others would.

And what does that have to do with the truth? There is still only one truth, what actually happened.. simply because humans are not the best at interpreting what actually happened does not change the fact that what actually happened is the truth. Simply because somebody believes they are telling the truth means nothing if they are not actually relaying accurately what happened. You can fully intend to tell the truth but end up not telling the truth, I'm not saying people are bad because of this, but it does not change the fact that there is only one truth.. truth is DEFINITIVE, not SUBJECTIVE... you can continue to argue that though if you wish.

Tone and NV's often convey a person's underlying emotions, of which they may not even be aware. For example, a person becoming frustrated with another can easily, and unintentionally, have a sarcastic tone creep into their voice. The other person hears the saracasim as an insult. If you asked each what was said, you would get two very different accounts. The speaker perhaps saying they were doing their best to deal with other, the other saying the speaker was insulting and putting them down. Who would be telling the truth?

The one who would be telling the truth would be the one who described the situation as it actually happened.

[Northern Rockies]

As I understand the Criminal Code of Canada applies to police the same as civilians (I could be wrong) worth a read for those who think were not allowed to defend ourselves with deadly force.


Criminal Code, Sections 34-37


34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.
35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if
(a) he uses the force
(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and
(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;
( b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and
(c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose.

36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures.

37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.

[Wilbur]

How a person interprets tone of voice and body language is very much affected by their personality type and communication style. A strong, "director" type personality (values facts, logic, and decisiveness) and a "relating" type personality (values feelings, caring, and harmony) can both be part of the same conversation with a third person, and hear very different messages. What a "director" might hear as a concise, to the point statement, will often come across as rude, blunt or confrontational to a "relater" person. So, if the person talking was a cop with a complaint against him, which witness would be telling the truth? The one who says the cop was being concise, to the point and professional, or the witness who says he was being rude and confrontational? I suggest they are both telling the truth.

[Slats]

Is that really the best you can come up with Boosted? Vaseline? A mom joke? How do you expect the rest of us to join you in your belief that you are some hyper-intelligent logic wiz when that's all you've got?

[the_professor]

How a person interprets tone of voice and body language is very much affected by their personality type and communication style. A strong, "director" type personality (values facts, logic, and decisiveness) and a "relating" type personality (values feelings, caring, and harmony) can both be part of the same conversation with a third person, and hear very different messages. What a "director" might hear as a concise, to the point statement, will often come across as rude, blunt or confrontational to a "relater" person. So, if the person talking was a cop with a complaint against him, which witness would be telling the truth? The one who says the cop was being concise, to the point and professional, or the witness who says he was being rude and confrontational? I suggest they are both telling the truth.

Boosted is correct, and what you say is BS double-speak. Are you in politics?

There is one truth, period.

[CD]