VPD in the news: aggressive window smash on drug suspicion

[freakshow]

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

All I'm arguing is it's possible that the search and arrest was conducted unlawfully. Even that legal expert in the article says as much.

What you're missing is that, while it's a possibility, based on what we know from the article (ie. the fact that the idiot was charged with possession..), it's not reasonable to keep inferring that possibility, and to do so makes it look like you're defending the guy.

It's possible that the officer was high himself, or that he was a unicorn dressed as a man, which would mean the arrest was conducted unlawfully... but we don't talk about those possibilities, because the rest of the story gives us enough context to most likely rule those out.

[meme405]

This is one of those situations, just like ilvtofu's thread in the police forum about his driving incident, where a bunch of people are coming up with "hypothetical this" and "possibility that".

When in the end it will be just as the majority of us are saying. This kid isn't going to get off, he's going to eat those charges, and hopefully think twice about his lifestyle next time.

Mark my words. Come back to me when this plays out exactly as I stated above. Just as it came out exactly how I stated it should have originally in that thread by ilvtofu.

[InvisibleSoul]

Originally Posted by Noir

*SIGH*

He was pulled over for traffic violation (not arrested), for suspicion of driving under the influence - Legal

When coming up to the window, the officer smelled weed. Asked the driver to step out of the vehicle similar to an officer smelling alcohol and asking a driver to step out and conduct a sobriety test - Legal

Refusing to comply and/or refusing a sobriety test doesn't not make an arrest illegal and the resulting search because of said arrest.

Next time you receive instructions from a police officer, please stand your ground and say "no". Go even as far as yelling "I know my rights!". But when you do, just please, please do us favour and videotape yourself winning. I would really really love to see your logic in practice.

Where the fuck in the video did the officer ever say he wanted to conduct a sobriety test? All he says is "you're under arrest" without giving any reason for the arrest. From what I understand, that is not proper conduct.

[InvisibleSoul]

Originally Posted by freakshow

What you're missing is that, while it's a possibility, based on what we know from the article (ie. the fact that the idiot was charged with possession..), it's not reasonable to keep inferring that possibility, and to do so makes it look like you're defending the guy.

It's possible that the officer was high himself, or that he was a unicorn dressed as a man, which would mean the arrest was conducted unlawfully... but we don't talk about those possibilities, because the rest of the story gives us enough context to most likely rule those out.

The fact he was charged with possession as absolutely NO BEARING on the possibility that his arrest was conducted unlawfully. Zero. Zilch. None.

What part of my argument are you not understanding?

I am not arguing that he is guilty of possessing drugs.

I'm arguing it's possible that his arrest was conducted not in accordance to proper procedure.

They are completely separate things.

[InvisibleSoul]

Originally Posted by meme405

When in the end it will be just as the majority of us are saying. This kid isn't going to get off, he's going to eat those charges, and hopefully think twice about his lifestyle next time.

Cool, I'm all for it. I don't give a shit if they throw the book at him.

I care more that IF the arrest is proven to have been conducted unlawfully, the police officer should get reprimanded.

I don't dispute that there could be more to the situation that isn't portrayed in the video that exonerates the officer and shows he conducted the arrest in accordance of the law.

All I'm saying is based on WHAT'S SHOWN IN THE VIDEO, the POSSIBILITY EXISTS that his arrest was conducted unlawfully.

Why is this so hard for you guys to digest?

[Noir]

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

Where the fuck in the video did the officer ever say he wanted to conduct a sobriety test? All he says is "you're under arrest" without giving any reason for the arrest. From what I understand, that is not proper conduct.

OMG. I guess even a smidge of common sense is a lot to ask for nowadays.

Are you really telling me that neither you nor the individual in the video can't figure out why he is being arrested? Because when the officer said he smells weed and the guy in the video says "no you don't", knowing what we know now after the fact, and you still can't tell which party was lying?

[InvisibleSoul]

Originally Posted by Noir

OMG. I guess even a smidge of common sense is a lot to ask for nowadays.

Are you really telling me that neither you nor the individual in the video can't figure out why he is being arrested? Because when the officer said he smells weed and the guy in the video says "no you don't", knowing what we know now after the fact, and you still can't tell which party was lying?

OMG. Is reading comprehension that difficult nowadays?

I know why he was arrested, and what he was arrested for.

What I DON'T know is whether the arrest was conducted lawfully.

Can you understand the difference?

[InvisibleSoul]

Originally Posted by Noir

*SIGH*

He was pulled over for traffic violation (not arrested), for suspicion of driving under the influence - Legal

When coming up to the window, the officer smelled weed. Asked the driver to step out of the vehicle similar to an officer smelling alcohol and asking a driver to step out and conduct a sobriety test - Legal

Refusing to comply and/or refusing a sobriety test doesn't not make an arrest illegal and the resulting search because of said arrest.


Next time you receive instructions from a police officer, please stand your ground and say "no". Go even as far as yelling "I know my rights!". But when you do, just please, please do us favour and videotape yourself winning. I would really really love to see your logic in practice.

I'm going to reply to this a second time, to address your specific points.

He was pulled over for traffic violation (not arrested), for suspicion of driving under the influence - Legal

That isn't even a fact. We don't know why he was pulled over.
The Province article says "[VPD Const.] Montague could not disclose the initial reason for the driver being pulled over"

When coming up to the window, the officer smelled weed. Asked the driver to step out of the vehicle similar to an officer smelling alcohol and asking a driver to step out and conduct a sobriety test - Legal

The officer certainly didn't give any indication he wanted to do a sobriety test. He just told him he's under arrest without giving him the reason.
The Province article says "The CBC had a legal expert weigh in, who says that within the context of the provided video, the police did not tell the driver exactly why he was pulled over, therefore constituting an unlawful arrest."

Next time you receive instructions from a police officer, please stand your ground and say "no". Go even as far as yelling "I know my rights!". But when you do, just please, please do us favour and videotape yourself winning. I would really really love to see your logic in practice.

Are you seriously this dense or just pretending to be? At no point have I said you should always stand your ground and refuse to comply with an officer. If they are making lawful requests and conducting themselves in accordance to proper procedures, you should absolutely comply with what they ask you to do. The issue is when they make unlawful or unreasonable requests. Even then I'm not saying one SHOULD stand their ground and not comply with unlawful or unreasonable requests... but if they have the balls to, good for them. I'll say it right now that

[ilovebacon]

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/complaint-o...uver-1.3018866

[underscore]

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

I'm arguing it's possible that his arrest was conducted not in accordance to proper procedure.

While it is technically possible, it sits in the camp of very unlikely given that the video was taken and edited by a dumb fuck drug dealer. Where you're running into problems is that you're assuming things that weren't shown in the video definitely didn't happen at all.

[mr_chin]

I definitely wouldn't step out of the car if I know I've done nothing wrong regardless of the fact that I have nothing to hide, unless they give me the reason of arrest.

Complying to a false arrest will eliminate a possibility of a lawsuit if they decide to be aggressive during the arrest.

Everybody always say, just step out and do what you're told and you'll be on your way. This sometimes sounds like a good thing to do, but when your arrest is unknown, you could get dragged out and thrown to the ground when you open your doors. Seen it happened first hand to a friend and later the officer came back and said his car matched a description without even apologizing.

Basically, the officer violated my friend's rights, assaulted him and walked away like nothing happened. What could my friend have done when the incident wasn't recorded and there is no proof other than me being the witness? Most likely the officer will just continue his job had we made a complaint.

Don't just do what police officers tell you to. If they're not following proper procedures, you need stand up for your rights.

[InvisibleSoul]

Originally Posted by underscore

While it is technically possible, it sits in the camp of very unlikely given that the video was taken and edited by a dumb fuck drug dealer. Where you're running into problems is that you're assuming things that weren't shown in the video definitely didn't happen at all.

From what I can tell, the only "editing" that was likely done on this video was trimming the beginning and/or end off. Could there have contained content that would have completely changed the context or understanding of what transpired? Possible. Maybe the cop said before the video started that he was being arrested for driving while impaired. But given the dialogue in the video, it doesn't seem like there would be anything like that. The cop goes from pretty nonchalant to demanding him to open the door and telling him he's under arrest pretty much in a flash.

I don't know how much clearer I need to be. I'm not assuming anything. That's why I keep saying it's POSSIBLE the search and arrest was conducted unlawfully. At no point did I state the search and arrest was conducted unlawfully as a fact.

[Ludepower]

Why are the HE'S GUILTY camp so adamant that hypothetically the cop is correct.

Yes the video is edited. Yes he's been charged with possession.

But the principal still stands. Were his basic human rights violated. Something we should all be united on.

Both sides will get their day in court. The rule of law will decide.

[van_city23]

The chances of the crown actually following through with the charges would depend on the amount of evidence they have to convict him. This means they would look at why he was arrested and if there were any charter issues that would preclude evidence from being used. If they are charging him, i would assume his rights either were not violated or weren't violated to the extent to result exclusion of evidence.

[Noir]

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

OMG. Is reading comprehension that difficult nowadays?

I know why he was arrested, and what he was arrested for.

What I DON'T know is whether the arrest was conducted lawfully.

Can you understand the difference?

Reading comprehension has nothing to do with it when your argument has no merit whatsoever. Can you explain to me what was so unlawful about the the arrest?

1) Is it because neither you nor the video poster knew why he was being arrested because you just explicitly said you KNOW why he's being arrested.


Stop trying to look for technicalities and pretending to be some lupoll grandmaster. You're not, and you're not fooling anyone with your feigned legal saviness.

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

I'm going to reply to this a second time, to address your specific points.
That isn't even a fact. We don't know why he was pulled over.
The Province article says "[VPD Const.] Montague could not disclose the initial reason for the driver being pulled over"

The Province . Watch the video (0:45) and even the guy says it himself why he's pulled over. Nice try bud.

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

The officer certainly didn't give any indication he wanted to do a sobriety test. He just told him he's under arrest without giving him the reason.
The Province article says "The CBC had a legal expert weigh in, who says that within the context of the provided video, the police did not tell the driver exactly why he was pulled over, therefore constituting an unlawful arrest."

1) If an officer suspects a driver is under the influence whether it be controlled substance or alcohol, why do you think an officer wants you to exit the vehicle? Do you think saying "NO" gives you the legal right to refuse?

2) What makes you think that upon exiting the vehicle and when the officer actually physically arrests a person, that he would not follow all proper procedures then?

You know why the officer says "I'm not playing this game" when the guy in the video shuts himself in and refuses to either roll down the window, or exit the vehicle? Because these are the risks that the video uploader is exposing the officer to by prolonging the argument.

YouTube

1) You ever wonder why when they pull you for a driving infraction they never ask you to leave your vehicle, and when an officer is processing your ticket, he does so in the safety of his own vehicle?

2) You ever wonder why if you're asked to exit the vehicle for whatever reason, the first thing they do is escort you to the sidewalk?


But no. You and the video uploader would like to have your day in court. Right there in the side of the road. You're thinking about your rights born out of technicality about lack of verbiage, he's thinking about traffic-side safety.

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

Are you seriously this dense or just pretending to be? At no point have I said you should always stand your ground and refuse to comply with an officer. If they are making lawful requests and conducting themselves in accordance to proper procedures, you should absolutely comply with what they ask you to do. The issue is when they make unlawful or unreasonable requests. Even then I'm not saying one SHOULD stand their ground and not comply with unlawful or unreasonable requests... but if they have the balls to, good for them. I'll say it right now that

Stop being passing aggressive. We know you're defending his right to refuse arrest, and you're argument is clear that you think it was unlawful based on the belief that you believe an officer is required to state the details of your arresting you PRIOR to your arrest.

Don't be a pussy now and say one SHOULDN'T stand their ground. If you clearly think it's unlawful? If you clearly think it's unreasonable only by YOUR standards? Stand your ground dude. Like I said, just please take a video because I really want to see how your logic plays out and how it's in the best interest for everyone.

[underscore]

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

From what I can tell, the only "editing" that was likely done on this video was trimming the beginning and/or end off. Could there have contained content that would have completely changed the context or understanding of what transpired? Possible.

I'm going to say it's highly likely, unless we got video from the moment the officer sees the car to the moment the officer hands him over we're not getting all the information.

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

Maybe the cop said before the video started that he was being arrested for driving while impaired. But given the dialogue in the video, it doesn't seem like there would be anything like that. The cop goes from pretty nonchalant to demanding him to open the door and telling him he's under arrest pretty much in a flash.

As previously stated, there is nothing requiring the officer to tell him why he is under arrest prior to arresting him. Combining that with when the video cuts off I'm going to again say it is *possible* but it is very unlikely that the officer failed to state why he was under arrest.

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

I don't know how much clearer I need to be. I'm not assuming anything. That's why I keep saying it's POSSIBLE the search and arrest was conducted unlawfully. At no point did I state the search and arrest was conducted unlawfully as a fact.

Again yes it is possible, but it's very unlikely.

[ancient_510]

Originally Posted by mr_chin

I definitely wouldn't step out of the car if I know I've done nothing wrong regardless of the fact that I have nothing to hide, unless they give me the reason of arrest.

Complying to a false arrest will eliminate a possibility of a lawsuit if they decide to be aggressive during the arrest.

Please link me to a case where a damages suit was dismissed for some crazy reason where a completly non-resistant suspect was arrested with force.

Originally Posted by mr_chin

Don't just do what police officers tell you to. If they're not following proper procedures, you need stand up for your rights.

Never in the history of ever has a police officer had some evidence towards a person's possible guilt, had the intent to arrest that person, and then because of the extraordinary persuasiveness and eloquence that the person articulated their innocence had changed their mind and decided to let them continue freely.

If the police want to arrest you for any reason at all that they feel is just, they will. You are only going to get your window/face smashed in if you don't. Get arrested, sit in remand, then get a proper fair assessment by an impartial party where they can balance law with facts... injury free and window intact.

Christ, people are just out there to pick a fight some days...

[InvisibleSoul]

Originally Posted by Noir

Reading comprehension has nothing to do with it when your argument has no merit whatsoever. Can you explain to me what was so unlawful about the the arrest?

Already been done about a half dozen times in this thread. You can go find them.

1) Is it because neither you nor the video poster knew why he was being arrested because you just explicitly said you KNOW why he's being arrested.

That guy probably didn't know exactly why he was being arrested, since the officer refused to tell him. I KNOW what he got arrested for because it lists the charges against him in the article.

But go watch the video again. The first time the officer says he's under arrest, there is nothing to indicate why. Nothing about marijuana has been mentioned at that point. The only thing that has transpired thus far is the driver has not complied with the request to open his door.

op trying to look for technicalities and pretending to be some lupoll grandmaster. You're not, and you're not fooling anyone with your feigned legal saviness.

I'm not. I have stated earlier that I am not a lawyer, but neither is anyone here as far as I know. Chako is a law student, but that's about as close as it gets. Again, at no point have I declared for a fact that the arrest was unlawful, only saying it could have been. But you guys seem to be fighting it tooth and nail.

The Province . Watch the video (0:45) and even the guy says it himself why he's pulled over. Nice try bud.

Okay, cool... the driver thinks he got pulled over for a MVA violation. Whether or not that was even the actual reason the officer decided to pull him over is debatable. Maybe it was a broken tail light, and the driver just assumed it was for a MVA violation. Maybe it was for failing to stop at a stop sign.

You said:

He was pulled over for traffic violation (not arrested), for suspicion of driving under the influence - Legal

Where did you get that he was pulled over for suspicion of driving under the influence? Total conjecture on your part, or did I miss something?

In the YouTube video description, the driver says they did end up performing a roadside examination and found that he was NOT IMPAIRED OR UNDER THE INFLUENCE.

1) If an officer suspects a driver is under the influence whether it be controlled substance or alcohol, why do you think an officer wants you to exit the vehicle? Do you think saying "NO" gives you the legal right to refuse?

At no point did he give any indication of why he wanted the driver to open his door as he continuously made the demand. Why was it so hard for him to answer the question? Maybe if the officer actually tells him that he wants to conduct a field sobriety test with him because he suspects him of being under the influence, the whole situation wouldn't have gone down the way it did.

2) What makes you think that upon exiting the vehicle and when the officer actually physically arrests a person, that he would not follow all proper procedures then?

Again, I am not a lawyer, but his rights may have already been violated at this point. Doesn't matter if he follows proper procedure after the person exits the vehicle.

The CBC had a legal expert weigh in, who says that within the context of the provided video, the police did not tell the driver exactly why he was pulled over, therefore constituting an unlawful arrest.

You know why the officer says "I'm not playing this game" when the guy in the video shuts himself in and refuses to either roll down the window, or exit the vehicle? Because these are the risks that the video uploader is exposing the officer to by prolonging the argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN3oqdxa6cs

1) You ever wonder why when they pull you for a driving infraction they never ask you to leave your vehicle, and when an officer is processing your ticket, he does so in the safety of his own vehicle?

2) You ever wonder why if you're asked to exit the vehicle for whatever reason, the first thing they do is escort you to the sidewalk?

Pretty weak argument, and equally weak supporting video.

But no. You and the video uploader would like to have your day in court. Right there in the side of the road. You're thinking about your rights born out of technicality about lack of verbiage, he's thinking about traffic-side safety.

Are you in his head? You know for a fact this is the reason the officer did what he did?

Stop being passing aggressive. We know you're defending his right to refuse arrest, and you're argument is clear that you think it was unlawful based on the belief that you believe an officer is required to state the details of your arresting you PRIOR to your arrest.

Don't be a pussy now and say one SHOULDN'T stand their ground. If you clearly think it's unlawful? If you clearly think it's unreasonable only by YOUR standards? Stand your ground dude. Like I said, just please take a video because I really want to see how your logic plays out and how it's in the best interest for everyone.

I'll say it again. I don't know for sure whether the officer acted appropriately or not and within the confines of the law. The debate here is about that, not whether the driver should have refused arrest or not.

I don't plan on being in any situation where my rights may be potentially violated by the police, but thanks for your concern.

[InvisibleSoul]

Originally Posted by ancient_510

Please link me to a case where a damages suit was dismissed for some crazy reason where a completly non-resistant suspect was arrested with force.

Never in the history of ever has a police officer had some evidence towards a person's possible guilt, had the intent to arrest that person, and then because of the extraordinary persuasiveness and eloquence that the person articulated their innocence had changed their mind and decided to let them continue freely.

If the police want to arrest you for any reason at all that they feel is just, they will. You are only going to get your window/face smashed in if you don't. Get arrested, sit in remand, then get a proper fair assessment by an impartial party where they can balance law with facts... injury free and window intact.

Christ, people are just out there to pick a fight some days...

Cases are not thrown out because an officer conducted the arrest with more force than was necessary, but I'm sure you can find cases where charges are dropped because it was deemed the search and arrest was unlawful.

[Manic!]

We should all just be happy that a drug dealer is off the street.

If this was a edited video from the police people would be screaming but people seem to have no problem with a video edited by a drug dealer.

[InvisibleSoul]

Here's another article that I had previously not read:

Police chief defends officer from window-smashing video | CTV Vancouver News

The Vancouver police officer seen smashing a car window in video viewed more than 250,000 times on YouTube was just doing his job, according to his chief.

The cell phone footage, which was shot in November but only uploaded last Thursday, shows an officer repeatedly ordering a driver to exit his vehicle around 41st Avenue and Maple Street. When the driver doesn’t comply, the officer shatters his window, opens the door and yanks him outside with help from a partner.

The incident has sparked heated debate online about the officer’s actions, and on Tuesday Police Chief Jim Chu spoke out to defend him, stating the vehicle was pulled over due to suspected impaired driving.

“Our officer acted proactively when he saw a car weaving that could at any minute strike another car or pedestrian causing injury or worse,” Chu said in a written statement.
“Marihuana smoke billowing from the car made the cause of impairment obvious.”

A roadside sobriety test was performed, but the driver wasn’t charged with impaired driving.

Pot was allegedly found in the car, however, and the driver, who has not filed an official complaint against police, has since been charged with at least one drug offence. Chu said there were enough drugs to warrant a count of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Multiple requests for comment from the driver have not been returned, but he has defended himself online by insisting he has a prescription for medical pot.

He also argued his constitutional rights were violated.

“I asked him several times why I was being pulled over, he would not tell,” reads a blog post accompanying the video. “I was physically assaulted and it has left me emotionally traumatized. I do not feel safe anymore.”

In the video, the officer can be seen ignoring the driver’s questions about why he was pulled over. He eventually tells the driver he can smell pot coming from the car, shortly before he breaks the window.

Criminal lawyer Paul Doroshenko said police have an obligation to explain why they’re making an arrest under Section 10 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
“It’s a fair and reasonable thing to ask of the police,” he told CTV News over the weekend. “You don’t expect the police to pull you over, yell at you, call you a moron, not answer the question about your one legal right that you’ve got immediately upon detention, smash your window, drag you out of your car and arrest you.”

Chu said no one was injured, but it’s unfortunate the officer had to use force, but that no one was injured.

[meme405]

Holy Fuck. This is just getting annoying now.

I can get expert testimony saying anything I want. Do you know how "experts" are hired?

Allow me to enlighten you:

Call in 20 professionals, present a scenario to them individually, and ask them what they think. If you don't like what they say tell them to fuck off and call in the next one. Eventually one clown is going to tell you what you want. Then you just hire him. An expert opinion has so little bearing on anything it's almost comical.



Your entire argument is based on this post by Chako:

Originally Posted by ChaKo

You may not be as educated as you seem to think. Like others have said, there may be more to the video, but just going on what is available, it seems as though his section 10(a), and arguably 10(b), rights were violated; I say arguably because there is case law that indicates that 10(b) can be given some time after the arrest is made.

10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right

The right to be promptly advised of the reason for one's detention embodied in s. 10(a) is founded most fundamentally on the notion that one is not obliged to submit to an arrest if one does not know the reasons for it.

Once an arrest is made, police are given the common law power to make a search incident to arrest, which extends to the vehicle as well. This could be especially important because if the arrest is found to be unlawful, or that the officer infringed the accused's section 10(a) rights, then the evidence could be excluded.

R. v. Greffe (a Supreme Court ruling):
In fact, even if reasonable and probable grounds existed, support for which was not established by the Crown, there is still the admission by the Crown that the police deliberately failed to provide the appellant with the proper reason for the arrest, thereby infringing his rights under s. 10(a) of the Charter. The Crown refers to this as "foolish" and a "blunder", but in fact it amounts to the police deliberately misleading the appellant and using that deception as an artifice to conduct a highly invasive rectal search. Whatever the motives for this deception, it can only lead to an inference of extreme bad faith on the part of the police in that they wilfully circumvented the Charter, a factor which further supports the exclusion of the evidence in this case.

In the above case, although the rectal search was obviously more invasive, the case is analogous in that the search was also incidental to an arrest. The point is, not providing an individual with his 10(a) rights is a violation of his rights and can result in the case being thrown out. Obviously, there could be more to the story, and there probably is; however, a lot of people seem to think that, based on what we can see, no rights have been violated and that is not necessarily the case.

Again until you prove DEFINITIVELY that the word "Prompt" means prior, in section 10a of the charter, then you can keep spewing off. Sure Chako provided one single example, but for that one example where they deemed it necessary for the reason prior, there are countless arrests upheld everyday where the police likely tell the individual why they are under arrest after the subject is secured. The example Chako provided was actually because the police "Deliberately" misled the individual, in this case the police didn't mislead him to anything, they just wanted to get the individual to a safe place where they could have a proper discussion to explain the situation to him.

Hell maybe they thought that he wouldn't be able to understand the reason clearly given that he wouldn't shut the fuck up, or roll down his window like a civilized individual.

Following your passive same aggressive attitude: You should just go back to finding me deals on free stuff from Walmart, I liked you much better then.

[InvisibleSoul]

I only started getting passive aggressive because the people arguing with me were.

I don't understand why we aren't able to have a civilized debate on this issue. Maybe it's because some people have this mistaken belief that just because I'm on the side that thinks the officer potentially didn't follow procedure, that automatically means I'm on the side of this person that got arrested.

It doesn't.

[InvisibleSoul]

Decided to see what else was in the news about this. Just throwing these out there.

Marni Soupcoff: Cops run$amok | National Post

The annoyed Vancouver police sergeant can be heard saying “Hit the brakes, moron” before he eventually breaks the car window of the motorist he has pulled over for — well, we never do find out what for. The November incident was caught on camera and has now been making the rounds as a YouTube video and the focus of a brief CBC television news report.

In the lead-up to the window-smashing, the driver asks repeatedly and politely why he’s been pulled over. The sergeant ignores the questions, and becomes increasingly angry that the driver won’t open his window more than a crack, until finally, crash. The sergeant makes quick work of the auto glass and roughly arrests the driver.

It’s an extremely disturbing video; not because it’s the worst instance of police wrongdoing one can imagine, or because the driver is necessarily an innocent angel. This incident is obviously nowhere near on par with, say, a fatal police shooting of a civilian; and the police have told the CBC that the driver in this case has been charged with possession of a controlled substance, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and (of course) obstructing a police officer.

What makes the video alarming is the police mindset it conveys: The sergeant’s words and actions all seem to betray a casual conviction that the person he has stopped should be expected do exactly what the sergeant wants exactly when he wants it, legal rights and even basic considerations of civility be damned. Don’t listen to a police officer and give him absolute deference? Then expect your property to be destroyed.

It might sound like I’m drawing too broad a conclusion based on the behaviour of a single sergeant, who could theoretically be one bad apple who was just having a particularly bad day. There are a few reasons I don’t think that’s the case.

For one thing, we’re seeing more and more incidents of police using excessive force and behaving like soldiers rather than officers of the law whose duty is to protect all of us. This isn’t all police officers’ fault — they no doubt feel embattled and they genuinely fear for their own safety. But the attitude and behaviour that has resulted is unacceptable and incompatible with a free society.

For another thing, CBC reported that when asked about the November incident, the Vancouver police department said that if drivers didn’t want their windows smashed, they should co-operate with police. Simple as that. So, obviously the Vancouver force is standing completely behind what the sergeant did and suggesting that any other drivers out there who want to know why they were pulled over for a traffic stop should just shut up and do everything and anything they are asked, or expect to have their property destroyed.

It used to be that one of the differences between free countries and totalitarian countries was that in free countries, children were taught to seek out police for help when there was trouble, whereas in totalitarian countries children were taught to avoid and fear police. Sadly, if we continue down the road we are on, we will eventually become more like one of the latter countries, where we must teach our kids that the police are an authoritarian force to be averted whenever possible, and to be placated for fear of retaliation whenever not.

Perhaps the Vancouver police force has forgotten that to do its job effectively and well it needs the trust and respect of the citizens it is policing. At this juncture, I’m starting to wonder if the only way it can be reminded of that truth is to be told so by a court of law.

Marni Soupcoff is executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation (theccf.ca)
msoupcoff@theccf.ca.

[InvisibleSoul]

And Police Chief's Jim Chu's response to that article:

Police chief Jim Chu defends window-breaking officer in arrest

Police Chief Jim Chu has come to the defence of one of his officers who was captured on video last November breaking the window of a motorist’s vehicle during an arrest.

Chu issued a written statement Tuesday after the National Post published an opinion piece Monday by Marni Soupcoff titled “Cops run amok” that criticized the officer’s actions. Soupcoff is the executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

“This was not a traffic stop, it was a drug arrest,” Chu wrote. “Impaired driving alerted the officer to the danger the driver posed to public safety and marijuana smoke billowing from the car made the cause of that impairment obvious. In order to make the arrest, force became necessary when the person refused to exit the vehicle, which is understandable since he allegedly knew what would be found in his car if he did.”

The article is posted on the Post’s website with a video of the incident that was taken by the driver, who was repeatedly told by the officer to open his door and that he smelled marijuana.

The driver refused, saying the police didn’t smell marijuana in his vehicle. The driver also told the officer he didn’t have his consent to break the window and that he wanted to call his lawyer.

The video captures the window being smashed and officers telling the driver he is under arrest. The driver says something undecipherable about being “exempted” and complains that officers are hurting his shoulder during the arrest.

“What makes the video alarming is the police mindset it conveys: The sergeant’s words and actions all seem to betray a casual conviction that the person he has stopped should be expected to do exactly what the sergeant wants exactly when he wants it, legal rights and even basic considerations of civility be damned,” Soupcoff wrote. “Don’t listen to a police officer and give him absolute deference? Then expect your property to be destroyed.”

Soupcoff ended her article by writing that “perhaps the Vancouver police force has forgotten that to do its job effectively and well, it needs the trust and respect of the citizens it is policing. At this juncture, I’m starting to wonder if the only way it can be reminded of that truth is to be told so by a court of law.”

Chu said the officer “acted proactively” when he saw the car weaving that could “at any minute strike another car or pedestrian causing injury or worse.”

The chief said the video shows the driver was evasive and lying about not having drugs in the car. There was enough marijuana in the car for Crown counsel to approve a charge of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

“While it was necessary to use some force to extract the driver, it is also important to remember that no one was injured and no complaint was made,” Chu said. “Patrol officers know that every arrest they make and practically every move they make will be scrutinized, analyzed and occasionally criticized. Through it all, they routinely prove that preserving life and public safety trumps whatever slings and arrows they may endure.”

Added Chu: “It would be ideal if force of any kind was never necessary to make an arrest. But for those who are trying desperately to avoid apprehension, it is not always the option they choose.”