Excessive police force in victoria

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

He could have helped out by grabbing his arm, not kicking, kneeing and pinning him to the ground in a manner which prevented the suspect from putting his left hand behind his back.

It's interesting that you have so vast and detailed a knowledge of how this could have been handled, not having actually been there, let alone ever in a similar position.

[SumAznGuy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Hmm.. let's see... potentially damaging his spinal cord by kneeing him in the back or grabbing his arm and letting him fall slowly to the soft grass below...

The man is resisting arrest. How are you going to grab his arms and let him down slowly so he doesn't eat dirt and grass?

He is on all 4's and not letting the first office cuff him. That is why the second officer came in with the boot to the ribs. Prior to Oct 2008, this would probably warrented a shock with the tazer. Even with the yellow jacket officer's knee in his back, he is still fighting off the first officer not allowing the officer to cuff him.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by SumAznGuy

The man is resisting arrest. How are you going to grab his arms and let him down slowly so he doesn't eat dirt and grass?

He is on all 4's and not letting the first office cuff him. That is why the second officer came in with the boot to the ribs. Prior to Oct 2008, this would probably warrented a shock with the tazer. Even with the yellow jacket officer's knee in his back, he is still fighting off the first officer not allowing the officer to cuff him.

The guy could run in front of a cop car doing the speed limit on the highway, and sebberry would still blame the cop for hitting him.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Soundy

The guy could run in front of a cop car doing the speed limit on the highway, and sebberry would still blame the cop for hitting him.

Wrong.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by netfreak

Surely you can let us know which physics books you referenced wherein heavy solids fall slowly.

The impact of him hitting the grass from that height, with the officer holding his arms to ensure he didn't hit the ground with heavy force would have been far less than the boot to the ribs and knee to the spine.

Originally Posted by SumAznGuy

The man is resisting arrest. How are you going to grab his arms and let him down slowly so he doesn't eat dirt and grass?

He is on all 4's and not letting the first office cuff him. That is why the second officer came in with the boot to the ribs. Prior to Oct 2008, this would probably warrented a shock with the tazer. Even with the yellow jacket officer's knee in his back, he is still fighting off the first officer not allowing the officer to cuff him.

He wasn't resisting. He complied with orders to get on the ground. The first officer immediately charged at him and pushed him over. He barely had time to react and place his hands behind his back before the second officer kicked him and pinned him down. If you have someone pinning you down on your left side and your left hand is in front of you, how do you get your left hand behind your back?

As for fighting the first officer, it almost looks as if the first officer pulled the victim's hand away so the second one could get in another hit with his knee.

[SumAznGuy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

The impact of him hitting the grass from that height, with the officer holding his arms to ensure he didn't hit the ground with heavy force would have been far less than the boot to the ribs and knee to the spine.

And you know this based on what experience? I can only hope that the force from the knee and kick is not lethal since a) the guy doesn't have any broken ribs b) has killed or caused anyone to become paralyzed because if it had, this action would have been banned. ie) rubber bullets to the head of a rioter in 1994. Oh wait, are you even old enough to remember what happened in 1994?
Also, how do you know from such a low height, the guy won't get a concussion from hitting his head on the ground, or even brain damage?

Originally Posted by sebberry

He wasn't resisting. He complied with orders to get on the ground. The first officer immediately charged at him and pushed him over. He barely had time to react and place his hands behind his back before the second officer kicked him and pinned him down. If you have someone pinning you down on your left side and your left hand is in front of you, how do you get your left hand behind your back?

As for fighting the first officer, it almost looks as if the first officer pulled the victim's hand away so the second one could get in another hit with his knee.

Sure he was. He was ordered onto the ground and the idiot decided that order meant to sit on his fat ass. I've been ordered to the ground before, and even without being explained to what that meant, I knew enough that it meant "eat dirt" get on the ground.

You have your opinion and I have my opinion based on what I perceived as happened in the video. Let's leave it at that because obcviously there are some people here with the same opinions as me as well some people have the same opinion as you and we can argue till the cows come home. But in the end, it's not up to us to decide the fate of the cop in question.

[sahota_187]

deleted..profanity

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by SumAznGuy

And you know this based on what experience? I can only hope that the force from the knee and kick is not lethal since a) the guy doesn't have any broken ribs b) has killed or caused anyone to become paralyzed because if it had, this action would have been banned. ie) rubber bullets to the head of a rioter in 1994. Oh wait, are you even old enough to remember what happened in 1994?
Also, how do you know from such a low height, the guy won't get a concussion from hitting his head on the ground, or even brain damage?

I'm sure the officer knew precicely where to deliver the kick and knee attacks and how exactly how much force to use. It doesn't take much to cause a spinal cord injury, especially if the body is already twisted and the back is under strain.

While I'm not an expert on takedown tactics, It appeared that officer yellowjacket had full unobstructed access to the suspect's arm and entire left side. One hand goes under the armpit, the other takes the wrist and bends it around his back. Officer has control over how fast the suspect falls and control over placing the hand behind his back. He made no attempt to gain compliance before kicking and kneeing.

Originally Posted by SumAznGuy

Sure he was. He was ordered onto the ground and the idiot decided that order meant to sit on his fat ass. I've been ordered to the ground before, and even without being explained to what that meant, I knew enough that it meant "eat dirt" get on the ground.

"Get on the ground" means just that, get on the ground. The suspect got on the ground. If he wanted the suspect's hands behind his back, he should have ordered that.

[stevo911_]

^it doesnt take much common sense to figure out what they mean when they say "get on the ground" (granted common sense seems to be becoming something of a commodity)

[Graeme S]

This is a sadly necessary picture.




Sebberry, you are making defences based on this one minute video, and people are simply saying "This video lacks context and is based on the stories of people involved." Who's to say that the video did or did not depict what completely happened? We'll find out in the inquest, so just sit back, relax, and try not to speculate too much.

[Soundy]

^He has to speculate - he's starting from the assumption that the cops are always the bad guy, and the person on the other end of a righteous ass-whupping never did anything wrong. The only way to make that fit the situation every time is to speculate on information not in evidence.

[underscore]

from that brief video, I'd say the cop in yellow was about fine. the first guy being dealt with already had two guys on him, and it looked like they were having a bit of difficulty getting him to comply, but after a hit they got him no problem. the second guy looked like an idiot, he wouldn't get down properly and then tried to resist the officers trying to get him down to cuff him. once his hands were free and they could cuff him the officer in the yellow jacket. I'm not entirely sure what else they should have done to get his other arm free when he was resisting them.

Originally Posted by sebberry

Kneeing someone in the spine could easily cause spinal cord injury. You just don't do it.

yeah, and 6 guys kicking a guy in the head can cause brain damage. adding that to the video, and I would've called giving those 6 a baton the the head reasonable.

[stevo911_]

Originally Posted by sebberry

It doesn't take much to cause a spinal cord injury, especially if the body is already twisted and the back is under strain.

Generally it takes alot more than a knee to the back.
I used to get kneed/elbowed/hit in the back alot harder than that all the time when I used to play football. I've landed on it plenty of times (on ice) hitting jumps snowboarding. The human body is alot more resilient than you'd think (and a lacrosse player is going to be accustomed to taking a thrashing)

just found out I know the cop in the short sleeves! (went to highschool and rowed with him) I had thought it looked like him!

[Zatara240sx]

Some of these replies defending the second suspect are kinda halarious. I can tell just by reading them none of you were ever in many confrontations with other guys/police men. Or not to mention a 6foot something 250pound drunken man.

Now don't get me wrong, I do not aproove a lot of times how police officers deal with drunken suspects, and usually would not be on their side. But clubbing in Van, I learned one thing..... When in that drunken, party atmosphere. You DO NOT and I repeat. DO NOT dissobey a bouncers orders or especially the police officers orders that are directed towards you. Simply cause there are more of them then you, you are most of the time drunk, and 99.9% of the time they will try to control the situation piecfully first. If you resist, violence is the next answer.

Now to the 250 pound drunken man. First of all, as most of the officers stated on here. You clearly do not know what happened prior to this incident. So anything you say outside the timeline of the video is mearly speculations. Thus you have to make your conclusions from the video evidence at hand. Conclusion number 1, his shirt is ripped, and he clearly seems intoxicated. So therefore placing him in the fight that happened.(ps: Correct me if i'm wrong but when officers arrive to a scene of an altercation, is it not their first responce to arrest all induviduals victims or attackers, and then figure out the situation. That way keeping everyone, including themselfes safe) Conclusion 2, I heard the command, "Get down on the ground", he complied = no reprocution. Then he got rushed by the second officer, who tried to place his hands behind his back. Its understandable being drunk he got confused and started somewhat resisting(and yes he does resist, watch the video again). Although not the smartest move on his part. Then he gets the next command: "Put your hands behind your back" Instead of doing so, he begins to crawl away. Therefore the use of force in my eyes was valid.

For the people that think its so easy to take a 250lbs guys arm and twist it behind his back. Try it first then say something. Even two of them, wouldn't be that easy. None the less also unessesary if he would have listened to them from the get-go. Also if you look closely the knees to the back both landed on his right mid back, not spine. Above his kidneys and right of the spine. Where the only dmg they would do is cause a sharp pain and if delivered hard enough, would rapidly deflate his lungs causing panic.

The 3rd and final conclusion (a slight speculation you might even say). When he is being kneed and handcuffed while taxi guy honking and everyone on here hatting on the "bad police officers". Pay close attention to the back, by the wall. You will notice a scronny 150lbs if even guy being piecefully escorted by a female officer, while holding on to his nose/eye. Which would bring me to a thought of that possible being the victim in this fight. And brings you to another conclusion...."Hey. They aren't just beating him for no reason.....must be something the other guy did..."

The only thing I see wrong there, and I underline In My Opinion. That the kick was delivered to hard. He could have gave him one at 50% of that and see if he complied first, then escalate it from there.

As to everyone bad mouthing police. You think about that one if one day some rapist kidnaps your 10year old daughter(I greatly do not ever wish anyone to go through something like that ever). Then you tell me how much you will hate the police. When you know that every single officer, especially the ones with kids will be on the prowl looking for your kid probably pushing overtime.

And that concludes this miss-spelled, late-night rant.

[LiquidTurbo]

According to the news article (not always best source of course)

"The nine-year Victoria officer who inflicted the kicks has been placed on administrative leave and is the subject of an internal investigation by Victoria police and a criminal investigation by the Vancouver police."

If the cop in yellow wasn't doing anything wrong, why was he placed on leave and under a criminal investigation?

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by LiquidTurbo

"The nine-year Victoria officer who inflicted the kicks has been placed on administrative leave and is the subject of an internal investigation by Victoria police and a criminal investigation by the Vancouver police."

I'm trying to be as objective as possible here, but I've been trying to find more context about the second guy. He was the one that called for help, been hit on the head a few times already by being attacked (ie. dazed and confused), then he was handcuffed?

According to the news article, (I know, not always the most reliable, unbiased source)
"After being handcuffed, Archer was left face down on the ground for about 40 minutes, said Neary. He was treated by paramedics and allowed to go home."

Unless I'm missing something, how is this not seen as unreasonable? If the cop in yellow wasn't doing anything wrong, why was he placed on leave and under a criminal investigation?

And if this is perfectly acceptable police conduct, why has it generated so much discussion and criticism on various internet forums? Why have the majority of the people I have spoken to been upset by this?

Why are people walking around the streets of Victoria with video cameras taunting the police?

[underscore]

^ Why have none of the 6 original assailants pressed any kind of charges? The only people speaking out and pissed off, weren't even there. The people walking around taunting police are idiots, they would be the first to call 911 if something bad happened to them.

And again, the guys that were arrested WERE KICKING A GUY IN THE HEAD. The actual victim is said to be the guy lying on the sidewalk in the background of the video, the idiots being cuffed were the ones attacking him.

Seriously sebberry, do you actually think before you post? Or do you just attack the police force every chance you get?

Originally Posted by LiquidTurbo

According to the news article (not always best source of course)

"The nine-year Victoria officer who inflicted the kicks has been placed on administrative leave and is the subject of an internal investigation by Victoria police and a criminal investigation by the Vancouver police."

If the cop in yellow wasn't doing anything wrong, why was he placed on leave and under a criminal investigation?

As I recall, this is standard procedure for any officer being investigated.

[scoughty]

Originally Posted by Dragon-88

If he was sober maybe, but these guys were drunk and were not cooperating properly.

I can't believe you can make that type a judgement, what evidence if any, can you draw the conclusion that this guy was drunk? Were you there?.

[wing_woo]

Originally Posted by LiquidTurbo

According to the news article (not always best source of course)

"The nine-year Victoria officer who inflicted the kicks has been placed on administrative leave and is the subject of an internal investigation by Victoria police and a criminal investigation by the Vancouver police."

If the cop in yellow wasn't doing anything wrong, why was he placed on leave and under a criminal investigation?

As I said in a previous post, any officer under investigation gets relegated to administrative duties or suspended with pay (administrative leave). Even if a police officer fires his weapon, they will be put on desk duty until the full investigation to the shooting (and of course, ensuring there is no ill effects like post traumatic stress, etc. due to the shooting.) You can't read anything into the fact that he was placed on administrative leave. It's just a standard procedure the police do. Look at past police incidents and you'll see that is always (if not, almost always) the case. As for the criminal investigation, it's done to see if the crown has any grounds to charge him criminally, again, standard procedure for any police complaints.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

And if this is perfectly acceptable police conduct, why has it generated so much discussion and criticism on various internet forums? Why have the majority of the people I have spoken to been upset by this?

Because they, like you, are basing their entire opinion of the event on this one short clip, with no context, no knowledge of what led to these events, and certainly never having been in such a situation, on either side of the events.

I wouldn't be surprised that most of them, also like you, are starting from a police-are-all-bullies position and merely using this video to "prove" their opinions.

Why are people walking around the streets of Victoria with video cameras taunting the police?

Because they're cop-hating morons with nothing better to do than seek out (read: invent) any evidence they can the The Man is out to get us all?

Keep in mind with this video, we have no idea if other footage that might show the cops were in the right, had been edited out. There may have been footage of the "victim" pulling a gun, for all we know, that was edited out by someone wanting to show cops being bullies.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Because they, like you, are basing their entire opinion of the event on this one short clip, with no context, no knowledge of what led to these events, and certainly never having been in such a situation, on either side of the events.

I wouldn't be surprised that most of them, also like you, are starting from a police-are-all-bullies position and merely using this video to "prove" their opinions.



Because they're cop-hating morons with nothing better to do than seek out (read: invent) any evidence they can the The Man is out to get us all?

Keep in mind with this video, we have no idea if other footage that might show the cops were in the right, had been edited out. There may have been footage of the "victim" pulling a gun, for all we know, that was edited out by someone wanting to show cops being bullies.

I'll form my opinion on officers being bullies based on what I see. I don't need any more context. It all went downhill after the officer kicked a compliant suspect, after kicking another suspect who was restrained on the ground by two other officers.

If the guy had pulled a gun, the officers would have their weapons drawn. This wasn't the case.

[underscore]

Again, neither of those guys were being compliant nor fully restrained yet. The first one is obviously struggling against the officers, the second did not comply (ok he sat on the ground but that was about it) and required some force to the back in order to cuff him properly.

As far as what you see, context is EVERYTHING. I would love to hear you comment on the fact that these two being arrested were (allegedly) part of the six that were kicking a man in the head. Seriously, if you see a short clip of an officer shooting a suspect, but prior to the clip the suspect had say, shot a few people and then pulled out a detonator to threaten to blow up a schoolbus, would you still get mad at the cops?

as a side note, I would love to know what drugs you're on because they sound fantastic.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by underscore

Seriously, if you see a short clip of an officer shooting a suspect, but prior to the clip the suspect had say, shot a few people and then pulled out a detonator to threaten to blow up a schoolbus, would you still get mad at the cops?
.

If in that clip he was no longer holding a detonator nor pointing a gun at someone, I would say the police shooting is excessive.

It's not up to the police to deal the punishment. Just because the suspect was (allegedly) violent before the filming took place doesn't give the officer the right to kick him if it wasn't absolutely necessary to gain compliance. Remember, this was a "suspect" who thought the officer was coming to help him, not beat him up.

If it was a civilian doing the kicking he'd have had his first court appearance already.

The question here is not what happened before but if the kick was absolutely necessary to gain compliance after all other attempts failed?

And soundy, before you go about accusing me of cop-bashing, remember that law enforcement was my first career of choice, but due to circumstances beyond my control, that cannot happen.

[underscore]

You don't see the hand with the detonator, just the edited clip of an officer firing on someone.

Think from this angle. Watch the video again, very, very closely. Now think for a moment, do you think the officers would have been able to cuff those two men (let alone how easily and effectively) without the actions of the officer in the yellow jacket?

A civilian is not in charge of arresting suspects and such...and again, these two were part of the group allegedly kicking a man in the head. Why do you keep ignoring that fact?

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

I'll form my opinion on officers being bullies based on what I see. I don't need any more context.

Really? Are you really that thick?

Scenario: you're coming out of a club, minding your own business, and some guy comes out of nowhere and starts thumping you. After he gets about a dozen shots in, you turn around and lay him out with one good shot to the button. He's out, you win, you go on your merry way. I just happen to have been there videotaping the entire incident, from the moment you walked out the door.

Now buddy discovers you've broken his jaw, thus ending his career as a professional yodeler, so he decides to sue. He tracks me down for the video, and I being a good upstanding citizen provide it to him... except I also think you're a narrow-minded twit, so in order to teach you a lesson, all I give him is the clip of you punching him and laying him out, then walking away.

In court, you argue that he was beating on you for no reason and you were just defending yourself. He argues that HE was just minding his own business until you punched him for no reason. It's a he-said/he-said deadlock.

All the video shows is you breaking his jaw.

Still think context isn't important?

If the guy had pulled a gun, the officers would have their weapons drawn. This wasn't the case.