Police Dog Bite (holy #@&!)

[StylinRed]

Originally Posted by taylor192

This has to be the weakess and lamest post yet. You don't swing a skateboard without the intention of damaging something.
Save your weak ass reply for another topic.

actually no, it could very simply be a release of frustration, you can't claim intent at all you can only accuse it... you would need a trial to prove intent (i'm educating you here based on fact)

Originally Posted by zulutango

Speaking of "twisting" things...even Pivot never made that statement. Where are you getting that info from? Dog use their noses to trail suspects from crimes all the time. It's called "Tracking". Handlers don't just release the PSD and let it roam the back streets alone like some urban wolf pack.

.

it was more in follow up to the previous post i made (look at the one i made prior to it bottom paragraph (or look at the bottom of this message as i show you how i came to that conclusion again)
i'm not saying the k9 unit was just roaming the alleyways and attacked a random skateboarder im saying the police didn't know for certain he was their suspect and they let the dog have at him

but you're trying to tell me the dog was tracking this skateboarder....? where are you getting that from?

They stick very close by and are almost always on the other end of the leash. They may let the dog run towards a target when they make visual contact but have to be very close to do so.

based on the allegation the officer was blocks away, the police haven't denied this, they've only said "we didnt do anything wrong"

but i'll say this again, based on what we know, the police weren't on the scene when the incident occurred; so we must assume that they were searching for a suspect based on witness accounts

so when they saw this skateboarder he was merely a citizen fitting the description of a vandal and the officer likely called after him

but as we know, the victim claims he couldn't hear anything as he was rocking his music player, the police don't deny this and the fact that he wasn't charged with evading/resisting arrest we have to assume this is true and the officers/crown believed this

yet the police dog was let go to chase down this guy who fits a description of a vandal

fortunately? (i don't think its appropriate to say this as it would suggest the vandal deserved to be attacked) the police dog wasn't set upon the wrong person by his handler

[7seven]

StylinRed, you need to stop stating your assumptions as factual events in this case

Originally Posted by StylinRed

it was more in follow up to the previous post i made (look at the one i made prior to it bottom paragraph (or look at the bottom of this message as i show you how i came to that conclusion again)
i'm not saying the k9 unit was just roaming the alleyways and attacked a random skateboarder im saying the police didn't know for certain he was their suspect and they let the dog have at him

And how do you know the officers did not know Mr. Evans was their suspect? Nothing in PIVOTs or Mr. Evans' statement to the media indicated the length of time or distance that passed between Mr. Evan's committing a criminal act (which he has admitted to) and being bit by the service dog, you came to the conclusion yourself that the officers were not on scene to witness the incident.

We do know that Mr. Evans' attempted to catch a bus on Hastings, after failing to board a bus he swung his skateboard striking the bus. Mr. Evans and PIVOT's statement to the press said Mr. Evans' only knew of the police presence when the service dog bit down on his leg while he was skateboarding down Hastings because he had headphones on.

I can easily play devils advocate and present another conclusion based on the statement PIVOT and Mr. Evans released, it goes like this:

Mr. Evans' strikes the bus with his skateboard on Hastings, he then proceeds immediately to hop on his skateboard to skate down Hastings with his headphones on. Down the street, the K9 unit witness' this and yells at the subject to freeze. The subject does not respond and keeps skating away at a quicker pace than the officer can run on foot, officer again yells at subject but receives no response so the service dog is deployed.

That could very well be what happened as well. The bottom line is that we do not know the sequence, timing and distances of the events that transpired based on the statement released by PIVOT and Mr. Evans.

Originally Posted by StylinRed

but you're trying to tell me the dog was tracking this skateboarder....? where are you getting that from?

Again, as above, we do not know the sequence of events yet, maybe that is Zulutango's own conclusion or maybe he has some knowledge as he is an officer. It's just as accurate and inaccurate as your statement/conclusion that officers had no line of sight on the service dog and did not witness the incident.

Originally Posted by StylinRed

based on the allegation the officer was blocks away, the police haven't denied this, they've only said "we didnt do anything wrong"

but i'll say this again, based on what we know, the police weren't on the scene when the incident occurred; so we must assume that they were searching for a suspect based on witness accounts

so when they saw this skateboarder he was merely a citizen fitting the description of a vandal and the officer likely called after him

Again, please see above, this again is the conclusion you came to yourself. I quote from the Vancouver Sun article:

Earlier this week Evans told The Sun the first sign he was being pursued by police came when he was grabbed from behind by a German shepherd while riding his skateboard down East Hastings Street. He had earlier smashed a city bus window with the skateboard after several pass-ups in the Downtown Eastside.

Evans claims he didn’t see or hear police before the dog attacked.

“The first contact I had with the police was with the police dog,” he said. “I didn’t know the police were around.”



Read more: Vancouver police defend dog-handling policies in face of injury lawsuit

Nothing in the above states any of sequences of events, the timing or distances that might have passed between criminal event and service dog deployment or if the officers witnessed the events.

Originally Posted by StylinRed

but as we know, the victim claims he couldn't hear anything as he was rocking his music player, the police don't deny this and the fact that he wasn't charged with evading/resisting arrest we have to assume this is true and the officers/crown believed this

Again, you are twisting the words, VPD did not deny or confirm any of their side of the events, VPD said they could not comment on the lawsuit. It is pretty standard practice in all organizations/businesses/individuals to not comment on pending legal action. Just because a charge of resisting arrest was not forwarded to Crown does not mean Mr. Evans' did not skate away from officers yelling at him to stop. It could very well be that after, when they realized that Mr. Evans' was not intending to evade or resist due to his headphones playing loud music, VPD decided to only forward the mischief charge to Crown. Again this is my assumption and conclusion that one could just as easily arrive at opposite of yours based on what we know of the events.

One key thing that is being overlooked here is that not only was Mr. Evans' compliant reviewed and dismissed by VPD's own professional standards section (which I admit can raise eyebrows with VPD investigating VPD), it was also reviewed and dismissed by the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, an independent civilian body, who the BC Civil Liberties Association themselves praised as a fair and independent way for the public to have their complaints against police looked at.

Mr. Evans' only went to PIVOT after his complaint was already reviewed and dismissed by an independent civilian body who had both Mr. Evans' and the VPDs version of the events, possibly other witnesses as well. Again as I mentioned before PIVOT has a shady track record with a number of their allegations proven false in the past and how they conduct their operations.

With how little information has been released, we all could come up with many plausible sequences of events in this case. However, for me personally, I am satisfied that with the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner having already done their independent reviews of all the facts and have dismissed Mr. Evans' complaint.

[StylinRed]

Originally Posted by 7seven

StylinRed, you need to stop stating your assumptions as factual events in this case

i never said my assumptions were facts.... i specifically said based on what is known to us... (and what is known to us could indicate what i said) didnt read the rest sorry 7seven ill try for an actual reply l8r on but you seem to be confusing my responses as im saying its with an utmost certainty that that is how things have played out

And how do you know the officers did not know Mr. Evans was their suspect? Nothing in PIVOTs or Mr. Evans' statement to the media indicated the length of time or distance that passed between Mr. Evan's committing a criminal act (which he has admitted to) and being bit by the service dog, you came to the conclusion yourself that the officers were not on scene to witness the incident.

again based on what's known to us the suspect had time to get on his skateboard put his music player on (maybe he already had it on?) and skate away and according to other articles he was riding through an alley "a short time after the incident", so its safe to say he got some distance away from the bus and some time had passed

if the police were @ the scene and witnessed the incident, which as ive agreed we don't know but, they would have charged Evans with evading arrest if he was resisting police and or attacked the dog as some suggested earlier he would have been charged with resisting as well

but he wasn't, he was only charged with mischief

We do know that Mr. Evans' attempted to catch a bus on Hastings, after failing to board a bus he swung his skateboard striking the bus. Mr. Evans and PIVOT's statement to the press said Mr. Evans' only knew of the police presence when the service dog bit down on his leg while he was skateboarding down Hastings because he had headphones on.

That is inaccurate Mr. Evans was waiting for a bus and 4 buses had passed him by which frustrated him to the point of striking a bus

Mr. Evans' strikes the bus with his skateboard on Hastings, he then proceeds immediately to hop on his skateboard to skate down Hastings with his headphones on. Down the street, the K9 unit witness' this and yells at the subject to freeze. The subject does not respond and keeps skating away at a quicker pace than the officer can run on foot, officer again yells at subject but receives no response so the service dog is deployed.

That could very well be what happened as well. The bottom line is that we do not know the sequence, timing and distances of the events that transpired based on the statement released by PIVOT and Mr. Evans.

that is a possibility but like ive said based on what we know and since the police havent denied it we can only assume it is true that that Isnt how it played out

Again, as above, we do not know the sequence of events yet, maybe that is Zulutango's own conclusion or maybe he has some knowledge as he is an officer. It's just as accurate and inaccurate as your statement/conclusion that officers had no line of sight on the service dog and did not witness the incident.

my point exactly obviously it was missed by you maybe it was my fault but since it was in context to zulus reply to me on my post its for him to understand/misunderstand

Nothing in the above states any of sequences of events, the timing or distances that might have passed between criminal event and service dog deployment or if the officers witnessed the events.

I don't see how you can quote the article i posted but "miss" this line

The accompanying police officer was about 10 metres down the street and approaching, Evans explained.
The first contact I had with the police was with the police dog,” he said. “I didn’t know the police were around."

and based on the plethora of articles it indicates as ive noted a few paragraphs up some time had passed

Again, you are twisting the words, VPD did not deny or confirm any of their side of the events, VPD said they could not comment on the lawsuit. It is pretty standard practice in all organizations/businesses/individuals to not comment on pending legal action. Just because a charge of resisting arrest was not forwarded to Crown does not mean Mr. Evans' did not skate away from officers yelling at him to stop. It could very well be that after, when they realized that Mr. Evans' was not intending to evade or resist due to his headphones playing loud music, VPD decided to only forward the mischief charge to Crown. Again this is my assumption and conclusion that one could just as easily arrive at opposite of yours based on what we know of the events.

Again?

its not a twisting of words at all a) the fact that it wasn't denied and b) that he wasn't charged with anything other than mischief it allows us to safely assume Mr. Evans didn't know he was being chased

i even use the words "Assume" so many times


I don't get your reaction 7seven at all, maybe its just cuz you hate PIVOT...



let me make it a little easier for everyone? my assumptions based on the events could very well change as more information is released but based on what ive read that's the most reasonable conclusion i see, it may very well be wrong?
Regardless though the dog shouldn't have been sicked on a vandal even if the officer witnessed it, get in his car, radio it in, chase him, whatever which is the bigger issue here and the reason PIVOT is involved

[zulutango]

"Again, as above, we do not know the sequence of events yet, maybe that is Zulutango's own conclusion or maybe he has some knowledge as he is an officer."


My opinion is based on many years of exposure to Police dogs, training sessions with them and being in situations where they were used to apprehend, track and control criminals. What I'm offering is an informed point of view on the way PSD's are used on the job.

Nobody here was there at the time but it seems the official reviews of the incident (including the P.C.C) say that the dog handler and dog did nothing wrong, therefore they must have followed policy and process, which is what I described.

[Great68]

Originally Posted by kuruuze

I don't know how much the VPD paid out for the Robert Dziekański incident, I'm guessing it was a pretty penny. If they took that compensation/money to pay lawyers out from police pay instead of the tax pot I'm sure the "I'm sorry" would have come sooner to save time cost instead of extending it was excuses such as "he (Dziekanski) was brandishing a (imaginary) stapler! I was scared for my life!"

It was the RCMP who was involved in the Dziekansi incident, not the VPD.

[dangonay]

I say the guy got what he deserved.



A bit off-topic.....

I know a several guys from way back who were always getting into shit with the police. However, they never actually committed any crimes - they were usually bystanders to other incidents. Bystanders with bad attitudes.

Let's say you're walking down a street and a brawl is taking place and officers are trying to get control of the situation. A cop looks at you and tells you to stand against the wall and wait. Most people would think "I never did anything, so I'll do what the officer says and in a few minutes they'll get things sorted out". Others will say "Fuck that - I didn't do shit and I'm not standing around and wasting my time" and proceed to disobey the officer, probably after saying something like "I'm just walking by - I'm not involved".

What is the officer going to do in a situation like that? Probably going to think you're doing something wrong since you're not doing what he asked and next thing you know you're on the ground getting cuffed for resisting. An officer doesn't have time to play 20 questions with you in the middle of an altercation, so why would you be stupid enough to start an argument with them when something's going down?

Officers can and do make mistakes, but in my experience most people who have this kind of stuff happen to them brought it on themselves because of their attitude, dislike of police or dislike of authority figures in general. Another group of people that act similarly are protestors. Always trying to push the buttons of the police while getting as close to the line (without crossing it) as they possibly can.


I'd bet this Mr. Evans is just like those guys I knew who, because of their attitudes and actions, tend to escalate situations far beyond where they would normally go. Which is what I think happened here.

I have zero sympathy for Mr. Evans.

[Gridlock]

Pivot is involved because Pivot needs to continually prove that they are doing "something" to justify their existence.

Don't get me wrong, some of these agencies and watch dogs and community groups bring things to light that would otherwise go unknown. I truly believe that the police in general need a well informed public that can oversee their actions. That's not anti-police in anyway, but when you have a force of people that are armed, and have the ability to injure, or detain citizens at large, the whole thing that makes it work is the public watching them at the same time they watch the public.

They also happen to run way left and be staffed by the hippie type people.

One of my favorite things in the news is community groups. They all run the same basic plot, and follow a similar script.

1. Injustice. Group forms to fight it.
2. Empire Strikes Back. Whatever group has caused the injustice defends their actions
3. Public outcry. It goes from a small group to public support for the cause
4. Victory. Injustice solved.
5. My favorite-someone gets on the news after the resolution and continues the fight with words like, "they should have done it sooner", or "this wouldn't have been a problem in the first place if they had just done x to begin with"

They don't know how to disband. They also don't know how to apologize when they are wrong.

I really disagree with the people that take the stance of "he had it coming". That may be, but its not the role of the police to hand out punishment of any kind. A few whallops to the head while putting someone in the back seat of the squad car is not cool. You see it in videos all the time, those few extra whacks with the baton just cause.

I also disagree with the people that are making this guy out to be a saint. You want to be that guy that does something stupid like breaking a window with your skateboard, then you open yourself up to having the hounds released upon your scrawny window breaking ass. It's not the job of the police to determine that you have ear phones in. It's their job to catch you. That's why we pay them the big bucks! Yeah, it would be great to have the officer run up to him and tap him on the shoulder.

Ultimately, this whole thing runs a real grey area for me. Is it a little overkill to send the dog after him? We don't know, we weren't there. Is it proper for Pivot to be defending this guy because of excessive force? I don't know. An officer can't sit there and take 20 minutes to think out every scenario with every punk he deals with. He arrives on scene, sees a dude skateboarding away and a broken window. Go.

I think it is important for someone to be asking those questions though. My problem is going to be when the answer to those questions is "let's give him money"

[SpuGen]

I like how this thread is a polar opposite to the Carls JR shooting.
Posted via RS Mobile

[Fi2e]

why didnt the cops tase and beat him after he was down? he broke a window!! wtf!!

[7seven]

Originally Posted by StylinRed

again based on what's known to us the suspect had time to get on his skateboard put his music player on (maybe he already had it on?) and skate away and according to other articles he was riding through an alley "a short time after the incident", so its safe to say he got some distance away from the bus and some time had passed

if the police were @ the scene and witnessed the incident, which as ive agreed we don't know but, they would have charged Evans with evading arrest if he was resisting police and or attacked the dog as some suggested earlier he would have been charged with resisting as well

but he wasn't, he was only charged with mischief

Yes he was only charged with mischief but with Mr. Evans' complaint already reviewed and dismissed by the Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner (an independent and civilian police oversight body), common sense says that the VPD officer and service dog acted correctly, meaning that Mr. Evans' must have been given warnings before the service dog was released. Likely Mr. Evans' didn't hear the warnings or instructions from the officer to stop due to the headphones, proper protocol and procedures were followed. The Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner had all the facts from both sides and ruled in favor of the VPD.

Originally Posted by StylinRed

that is a possibility but like ive said based on what we know and since the police havent denied it we can only assume it is true that that Isnt how it played out

That's a dangerous thing to do, I understand how people would make a judgement since they only have one side of the story here, however VPD again has not denied or confirmed anything because they cannot comment. Not sure if you have ever had any experience dealing with attorneys and civil proceedings, but any attorney would usually instruct the individual/organization/corporation not to comment at all on any pending civil proceedings. Mr. Evans' statement could have claimed that the VPD deployed a laser shooting dinosaur on him and the VPD's comment would have still been "we cannot comment", thus in your eyes, not denying the use of a laser shooting dinosaur. Again with Mr. Evans' complaint already been dismissed by the OPCC, that tells me Mr. Evans' and PIVOTs statement of his side of the story is missing a lot of key points.

Originally Posted by StylinRed

I don't see how you can quote the article i posted but "miss" this line

Correct, I did miss that line, but this actually supports mine and Zulutango's conclusion of the events. Mr. Evans' says the officer was about 10 meters behind the service dog, 10 meters is right within line of sight and pretty close. For reference purposes, 10 meters is approx 10 yards on a football field, just a bit longer than the length of a SUV. So this shows that the service dog was not blocks away or away from its handler roaming looking for Mr. Evans.

Originally Posted by StylinRed

Again?
its not a twisting of words at all a) the fact that it wasn't denied and b) that he wasn't charged with anything other than mischief it allows us to safely assume Mr. Evans didn't know he was being chased

a) as above, wasn't denied or confirmed because all VPD will say is that they comment on any pending civil proceedings as instructed by their attorneys. VPD only found out about the civil lawsuit on Thursday, their attorneys will likely file a statement of defence with the courts and at that time then they might be able to comment, when the formally file their defence.

b) my conclusion on this is that VPD did Mr. Evans' a "favor" by only forwarding mischief charges based on the unfortunate result of the injuries he sustained. OPCC already cleared the officer and service dog here in how they handled themselves, so that tells us proper procedures were followed that would include warning the subject the service dog would be deployed and that the subject was not responding to the officer's instructions

Originally Posted by StylinRed

I don't get your reaction 7seven at all, maybe its just cuz you hate PIVOT...

My reaction in siding with the VPD in this situation is because Mr. Evans' complaint and claims have already been investigated by a civilian independent body, the Office of the Police Compliants Commissioner which is supported by the BC Civil Liberties Association, and found to have no merit, so they dismissed Mr. Evans' complaint already and found the VPD in this situation, acted properly.

[Lowered_Klass]

Anyone else more angry with some of the replies here, then the actual story itself?

Jesus.

[bengy]

Originally Posted by G-spec

I don't think anybody is really defending the guys actions, the problem is the varying use of unnecessary force, and what I mean by that is why does it vary from officer to officer so differently to the point where at times it's literally a life and death situation... the problem is almost always in the individual police officer and not the police unit as a whole...
I doubt their training manual says to release the hounds on some junkie looking skateboarder because he's a block too far from you

like I said earlier in my other post, why is it that I can tell one officer to basically go fuck himself right to his face, then walk away and all I get is a pep talk, while this idiot gets mauled by a dog for what actually is if you really think about it, a lesser incident.. yea smashing the glass happened, but he didn't literally knowingly and willingly defy and not co-operate with an officers demands like I did...

Telling a cop to go fuck himself is not a crime. Smashing a bus window is.

[Graeme S]

Originally Posted by G-spec

like I said earlier in my other post, why is it that I can tell one officer to basically go fuck himself right to his face, then walk away and all I get is a pep talk, while this idiot gets mauled by a dog for what actually is if you really think about it, a lesser incident.. yea smashing the glass happened, but he didn't literally knowingly and willingly defy and not co-operate with an officers demands like I did...

Originally Posted by Graeme S

Let's imagine, however, that you're on that bus. That some guy with a skateboard and covered in tattoos starts banging on the door (with his fists) and yelling at the driver. If you were the driver (or a passenger), would you feel safe in letting that person on to an already crowded bus? And then that guy picks up his skateboard and smashes it against a window, cracking or breaking it? Windows on busses are double-glazed (I think that's the correct term), but the sound of a shattering window near my head if I were sitting would freak me the fuck out.


There was one time I was at commercial and a group of guys were standing near where the back doors would open. The driver asked a woman who wanted to get off to get off at the front so that those people couldn't get on without paying. When she got off, the driver immediately began to drive away, and the group of guys got angry, kicked the door (as the bus was moving) and cracked the door glass enough that there were small pieces of glass on the floor of the bus.

Everyone had to get off, even though it was just the door glass that was cracked a bit. The bus was driven by that driver back to the depot and everyone had to wait in the cold for the next bus.


I can imagine that whatever happened that night was probably longer. Attending officers probably showed up at the scene and were given reports by the people who were on the bus of "a crazed man smashing the window in for no apparent reason, and then skating off".

I realize my post came after yours, but I hope my little blurb helps to explain some of the differences in the situations.

[JD¹³]

Originally Posted by taylor192

The police wouldn't use it as a tactic to apprehend people if the risk was as high as you're making it out to be. Nice try though.

No? Think Police would release dogs on juvenile's? You know they wouldn't (or shouldn't) because the risk of serious injury is high. Police officers are assigned to serve and protect the public and as such are held to a higher moral, ethical, and intelligence standard. The officer that released the dog failed to uphold those standards and demonstrated poor judgement. There must be just cause to use your weapon whether it's a taser, firearm, or dog. They are use of (potentially) deadly force. In some departments officers have to write reports anytime they even draw one let alone use it. Minor vandalism does not justify the use of deadly force by it's definition no matter how stupid the suspect may be.

In this particular case the dog ripped multiple solid chunks out of the suspects leg, which to me show that the dog was on him for at least 20-30 seconds before an officer was able to intervene. That is beyond a takedown and is an attack. The difference with a dog versus a taser or firearm is it has a mind of it's own, and no matter how well it's trained it does not have the same judgement as a human being. FWIW in some military units dogs ARE trained to kill. The VPD KNOW this situation was excessive use of force which is why they dropped the charges against the suspect as a result of the injuries he sustained. I'm not going to get into PIVOT or the lawsuit, but the fact is even the Police know this was bad judgement by the officer to use the dog and have responded as such. Accept it.

[spyker]

Originally Posted by JD¹³

No? Think Police would release dogs on juvenile's? You know they wouldn't (or shouldn't) because the risk of serious injury is high. Police officers are assigned to serve and protect the public and as such are held to a higher moral, ethical, and intelligence standard.

I guess the K9 cop had poor judgement when my friend and I got arrested when we were kids,I still have the scares on my ass to prove it,the cop released the dog on us without any warning,I got bit on the ass,my friend got bit on his head,when we were caught,and cuffed,the fucking cop was mocking us and making jokes & laughing right in front of us to his fellow cop pals.

The fucked up thing was,when we got to the youth detention center,we both did not recieve any medical attention till the next day.

I was 16 & my friend was 15 at the time.

[StylinRed]

Originally Posted by 7seven

Yes he was only charged with mischief but with Mr. Evans' complaint already reviewed and dismissed by the Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner ...

yes but that Office isn't as sufficient as we would like hence why we have the new police watch dog (IIO) in place and experience has shown me that they are not perfectly impartial

That's a dangerous thing to do, I understand how people would make a judgement since they only have one side of the story here, however VPD again has not denied or confirmed anything because they cannot comment.

Spoiler!

Not sure if you have ever had any experience dealing with attorneys and civil proceedings, but any attorney would usually instruct the individual/organization/corporation not to comment at all on any pending civil proceedings. Mr. Evans' statement could have claimed that the VPD deployed a laser shooting dinosaur on him and the VPD's comment would have still been "we cannot comment", thus in your eyes, not denying the use of a laser shooting dinosaur. Again with Mr. Evans' complaint already been dismissed by the OPCC, that tells me Mr. Evans' and PIVOTs statement of his side of the story is missing a lot of key points.

as said we can only go by what we know and what we know indicates, to me, what ive previously noted; what i noted isn't based solely on the fact that police didn't deny the allegations it was in conjunction with the charges placed (or not placed)

Correct, I did miss that line, but this actually supports mine and Zulutango's conclusion of the events. Mr. Evans' says the officer was about 10 meters behind the service dog, 10 meters is right within line of sight and pretty close. For reference purposes, 10 meters is approx 10 yards on a football field, just a bit longer than the length of a SUV. So this shows that the service dog was not blocks away or away from its handler roaming looking for Mr. Evans.

perhaps my comment was misunderstood? or wasn't read? As i never stated that the police were out of sight, my point was that the officer let his dog loose on a "citizen fitting the description of a vandal" my comment is based (if it was read) that we are assuming the officers didn't witness the event in question and was simply searching for the vandal based on witness accounts

which as i said originally is an assumption based on what is known, the fact that a period of time had passed since the incident occurred and the charges placed; the officer may very well have witnessed the event in question but again based on what is known

a) as above, wasn't denied or confirmed because all VPD will say is that they comment on any pending civil proceedings as instructed by their attorneys. VPD only found out about the civil lawsuit on Thursday, their attorneys will likely file a statement of defence with the courts and at that time then they might be able to comment, when the formally file their defence.

again we are basing our comments on what is known to us, we all know, and we (at least I have) stated that many many times "based on what is known"

you cant sit here and ridicule and say that "when the truth comes out then we'll see!!" as what we're doing now is commenting on what is known to us

b) my conclusion on this is that VPD did Mr. Evans' a "favor" by only forwarding mischief charges based on the unfortunate result of the injuries he sustained. OPCC already cleared the officer and service dog here in how they handled themselves, so that tells us proper procedures were followed that would include warning the subject the service dog would be deployed and that the subject was not responding to the officer's instructions

you can't say you've properly warned someone if that person didn't hear it or was aware of it; many trials get dismissed due to improper warning by police or judges will give leeway on the reaction of the defendants based on whether or not they heard the warnings

as for giving credit to the police by assuming they did More than what is known to us i don't feel you can properly make that argument as you could then say "well at least the police didnt kill him"

My reaction in siding with the VPD in this situation is because Mr. Evans' complaint and claims have already been investigated by a civilian independent body, the Office of the Police Compliants Commissioner which is supported by the BC Civil Liberties Association, and found to have no merit, so they dismissed Mr. Evans' complaint already and found the VPD in this situation, acted properly.

your reaction is based on a dislike of PIVOT and giving the officers the benefit of doubt, believing that they did more in support for the victim than what is known, the OPCC side of supporting your argument didn't arise until afterwards (when it was revealed) but again if OPCC was sufficient we wouldnt need the new watchdog

so you're clearly biased, not that there's anything wrong with it as how this particular incident played out may turn out to align exactly with your viewpoint

my pov is its too dangerous to unleash K9 units so liberally especially for a case like this and I am biased too as I regularly see the brutal nature of the police when it comes to dealing with the "undesirables" "underdogs" what have you

but imo whatever the circumstances of this case K9 use needs to be curbed

tracking, sniffing for drugs, sure apprehending vandal/minor crime suspects? no fucking way

[nns]

Oh my god, talk about beating a dead horse. Just give it up.

[Shead]

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp

The way I see it, if you don't commit crimes, you will have roughly a zero percent chance of being bit, shot, tazed, handcuffed, and anything else.

funny you say that, because im reminded of that story about a foreigner at the yvr that did not speak english and was unwilling to cooperate then he got tazed by the cops, turns out he had a heart piece(he died).

[Graeme S]

Originally Posted by Shead

funny you say that, because im reminded of that story about a foreigner at the yvr that did not speak english and was unwilling to cooperate then he got tazed by the cops, turns out he had a heart piece(he died).

Roughly zero. There's always exceptions.

[zulutango]

perhaps my comment was misunderstood? or wasn't read? As i never stated that the police were out of sight, my point was that the officer let his dog loose on a "citizen fitting the description of a vandal" my comment is based (if it was read) that we are assuming the officers didn't witness the event in question and was simply searching for the vandal based on witness accounts

so we must assume that the police weren't on the scene @ the time of the incident and since the officer being blocks away @ the time of the dog attack isn't being disputed (yet)


I see that you are contradicting yourself...kinda like playing "whack-a-mole"

[StylinRed]

Originally Posted by zulutango

perhaps my comment was misunderstood? or wasn't read? As i never stated that the police were out of sight, my point was that the officer let his dog loose on a "citizen fitting the description of a vandal" my comment is based (if it was read) that we are assuming the officers didn't witness the event in question and was simply searching for the vandal based on witness accounts

so we must assume that the police weren't on the scene @ the time of the incident and since the officer being blocks away @ the time of the dog attack isn't being disputed (yet)


I see that you are contradicting yourself...kinda like playing "whack-a-mole"

i dont see how that's a contradiction, it seems more like you're not understanding what im saying, perhaps i was unclear? but ive repeated it so many times.....


so we must assume that the police weren't on the scene @ the time of the incident << im speaking of the breaking of the bus window

and since the officer being blocks away @ the time of the dog attack isn't being disputed (yet) and? perhaps i was incorrect in using "blocks away" but based on the articles out there (province, sun, globe & mail) we get reports of the officer being 10m-40ft-"few blocks down the street" but by saying "blocks away" i had no intention of implying the officer was "out of sight" and I had never said such...


instead of taking your pov and accuse you of twisting words; i'll simply reiterate that either you misunderstood or i was unclear

[dangonay]

The one thing that pisses me off the most about PIVOT is they make sure their side of the story gets heard in the media. They know damn well the VPD will refuse to comment on any on-going legal actions. Which also means that all of the evidence the VPD has in this case will remain a secret until they get to court.

This is why we don't know what witnesses reported to the police or the interactions the police had with Mr. Evans. We don't even know the actual timeline of events or how far Mr. Evans was from the bus when he was taken down.

All we have is one side of the story. Mr. Evans side (as reported by PIVOT).

One has to wonder why PIVOT wouldn't simply wait until the trial (and the outcome) before going public. Well, no, we don't have to wonder. It's quite clear PIVOT wants to put the VPD, their dogs and handlers in a poor light. And it's really easy to do that when you can talk all you want knowing the other side will keep quiet until the actual trial.

Which is why I can't stand PIVOT. Using a case to further their own agenda, instead of doing what they were founded to - defend injustices.

[zulutango]

[
and since the officer being blocks away @ the time of the dog attack isn't being disputed (yet) and? perhaps i was incorrect in using "blocks away" but based on the articles out there (province, sun, globe & mail) we get reports of the officer being 10m-40ft-"few blocks down the street" but by saying "blocks away" i had no intention of implying the officer was "out of sight" and I had never said such...

So you are using the media reports to support your argument? The ones you just quoted to say..."few blocks down the street"....yet you say you never said the Police were not out of sight? Are you saying they now have Superman vision that can see "blocks down the street"? The report that found the Police were not at fault put them at 10m away....the length of the average tracking leash. You can't have it both ways. "whack"

[drunkrussian]

hooooly shit!!!

overall this guy got caught acting like a douchebag out of frustration and instead of a fine is gonna get a nice payday...win!
Posted via RS Mobile

[Soundy]

The 33-year-old hopped on his skateboard and headed home along East Hastings Street, only realized he was being pursued by police when a German shepherd sank its teeth into his right calf.

OR SO HE CLAIMS.

Headphones in his ears, Evans fell to ground with the dog tearing at his right calf and thigh.

I don't know the details of police dog training, but it seems to me NOT instantly shredding a suspect would be a big part of it. How much you wanna bet this guy was beating the dog with his skateboard?