Fuck that little bitch. That video reams him.
Problem, PIVOT??

Well Im glad the VPD decided on releasing this information

The video of him smashing the bus made him look downright maniacal, Im glad they caught him.


However,(you knew it was coming :P) I still do not agree with the deployment of the dog and as admitted by the officer,

"Constable Lee observed Mr. Evans, who matched the suspect description, run westbound in the south lane of East Hastings.

The officer set his dog on an everyday citizen who matched the description of a mischief suspect; which is what I've been pointing out as likely possibility all along.

What if that's all he was? a guy matching a description...

I'll admit the suspect likely knew there was a squad car nearby, behind him for that matter, after all those lights are penetrating however even the police gave him the benefit of doubt.


But did the officer need to unleash his dog? the answer should be no; after all the officer had his squad car but he chose to give Fido a bit of exercise, even though there was that possibility that this wasn't the vandal.

And that's what PIVOT is saying here, their concern is the liberal use of K9 units in Vancouver (they compare it to other municipalities) their concern isn't whether Mr. Evans is guilty or not, after all Evans admitted to breaking the window, their concern is the liberal use of dogs isn't justified, be it this case or another, given the possible damage.

Some seem to think that PIVOT is defending this guys actions, which they aren't.

& Those saying he deserved the dog bites are saying it from a point of anger and forgetting that there is a justice system to deal with this guy; if you want officers to be judge/jury/executioner go live in Somalia (even then officers understand that's not their role)

I don't really understand why you're so hung up on the "matched the suspect description" part. If you're looking for someone that matches the description, you go after them, right? It's not like he went after someone that didn't match the description...

because someone who matches a description isn't guaranteed to be the suspect

and so how can you go so far as to send a dog after them which has the potential of killing this supposed suspect ? (this guy has nerve damage that'll effect him for life)

sure you go after them... but since you dont know if thats your suspect how can you go full force? especially a vandal suspect, how do you justify the force?


its like in the states where they see a black guy walking on the street and the police go and abuse him and say "well he matches a description" (of a black guy) :seriously:

Basically a DNA test should have been done before the dog was released
Posted via RS Mobile

no the dog shouldnt have been released at all... the officer should have gone after him and he shouldn't go after him with force either unless that guy resists...

or if the officer knew with certainty that that was the suspect (like he witnessed the vandalism) then send the dog...

the dog isnt meant to go after everyday citizens simply because they're carrying a skateboard that some vandal carried elsewhere...

hell maybe the police should be sicking their dogs on every wannabe gangster because the match the description of one of the shooters from a murder...


what you guys seem to be missing here is this is to protect everyday normal citizens and not to protect criminals...

He matched the description. He went into the alley with lights on. He called out to the suspect. He warned the suspect he'd release the dog. He released the dog.


Sure, it might not have been everything that was possibly humanly doable...but if he kept driving and tried to chase the guy down, he might have ducked off and had to release the dog on him anyways.

For all we know, the officer stopped his cruiser almost immediately behind the suspect, who continued to run at which point the officer did all these things.

But that's the point we don't know. Sure, the guy is scarred and has issues. I'm not unsympathetic...but there are risks to everything. Crime tends to be more risky than obedience.

Everyday citizen will stop the fuck up when they see a cruiser with sirens and lights following them. This fuck isn't everyday citizen. I'm willing to bet the dog would never have been released if this monkey have followed order to stop. Wearing earphone is a weak excuse. This is not your "black guy in the states" case, that's a weak analogy.

Stop fucking putting this motherfucker in the everyday citizen class. I am insulted.

I can see how people would be fine with what occurred, I can't though.

I don't doubt the officer called out a warning either its sop and they rarely forget to (ive dealt with some cases in which they have though) but IMO with a suspect who clearly didn't express they heard you and the possibility that they aren't your vandal suspect you shouldn't be releasing the dog.

Its obviously a view that isn't shared by many on here and I feel its because in retrospect we know the officer got the right guy

Im asking though if the officer got the wrong guy would the reaction be the same? The answer would be no we can see that with the case of "mistaken identity" when the officers beat Mr. Yao Wei Wu up
http://www.news1130.com/news/local/a...taken-identity
http://www.news1130.com/news/local/a...t-city-and-vpd
http://www.news1130.com/news/local/a...a-beating-case
http://www.news1130.com/news/local/a...ken-id-beating

And what happens in a case like that? police say "oh we're sorry, that's too bad" and nothing happens, nothing.

What PIVOT is trying to do is to curb cases like that so there wouldn't even be a simple apology given as the incident would never have happened




fixed. &

this goes back to my point... you guys feel PIVOT and I are defending the vandal, Mr. Evans, but we're not....

No. But since we're playing the 'what if' game...
If we play the what if game, we'll end up coming up with a quintrillion possibilities. Yes, when there are people like this who are hit with problems they are victims. Yet they are not only victims of a mistake, but victims of their own mistake as well. There have been many cases of the VPD and the RCMP being blamed both for acting too quickly and not quickly enough. Waiting for more information for too long, or moving before they had it and making a mistake.


No matter what mistake they make they will be criticized. If it is the right action at the wrong time, they get shat on. If it is the wrong action at the right time, they are shat on. If it is the wrong action at the wrong time, again...shit is blown (often out of proportion).

While you are trying to apply the worst case scenario in the case of 'what if it was someone like me caught in that situation', I would ask you the opposite: what if it had been your mother standing on that bus and this attack had triggered her asthma or similar trigger-able health ailment? What if she had gone to hospital because of this guy and were out of commission just because he had three busses pass him? Wouldn't you be just as pissed and chasing after him and the cops (especially if the cops hadn't deployed the dogs and he'd escaped).




I am not beyond defending defendants when they have done the wrong things for the right reasons, or even the wrong things for questionable reasons, or questionable things for questionable reasons.

This, in my mind, is none of those.

it's not a simple "what if" game though as when that term is used people feel its a rare possibility for "if" to occur

but it isnt.


And since you said "No." then wouldn't you be for advocating measures that prevent that from occurring? especially when "If" happens rather often and the Risks of damage is so great?


As for your quote of a "what if" incident...
No one is telling the police to sit on their laurels and ignore the incident here.. no one is saying the police should have let a suspect just continue on his way....


again you're looking at it from the point of view where this guy running on the street = the vandal 100% without a shadow of doubt; At that time that wasn't the case

Ive said it a few times now... but i am not defending Mr. Evans... AT ALL; would you be fine with knowing that the police had crippled an innocent guy because he matched the description of the vandal?


As for saying the suspect would have gotten away if it hadn't been for the dog, I seriously doubt that, but let's say that really happened, I'd be fine with it if the circumstances painted the proper scenario.

Yes, that is how it's used and it's your choice to say that it isn't. My opinion differs and we'll just have to leave it at that. I very much doubt that there is anything that could be done to convince me.
Advocating measures? Absolutely. Within reason? Even more absolutely. (Yes, I know that's impossible).


Ever seen "Demolition Man"? If you haven't, it's about a namby-pamby ridiculous impossible future in which everyone is sweet and soft spoken and cops are useless and don't know what to do when a criminal appears.

(From 6:55 - whenever you feel like stopping watching. Also: Wesley, :yuno: choose better movie?!

Now, I'm not saying that the police force here will turn into that. I am saying that we can't judge police actions NOW knowing what we do. This is why I always try and emphasize putting yourself in their shoes knowing what they know then. Humans are imperfect. Cops are humans. Ergo, regardless of what we would like, Cops are imperfect.

When I read you responses, StylinRed, I can't help but find myself like this: :fulloffuck: (with a bald, scarred, putrid head, though)

That's why i agree with PIVOT and am trying to get people to support that by painting the picture of the risks but it doesnt seem to be working :okay: :P

I love demolition man! and I thought Wesley was great in it :P
but i think its silly to suggest that the restrictions PIVOT and others are hoping for would lead to a society like that side note their society/crime prevention was working great until a 20th century guy showed up :P

Because nobody here who is not on your side would take any kind of action even remotely close to anything near what this guy did.

lol again im not defending That guy; nobody seems to get that point in


look @ the case i linked of Yao Wei Wu the police were after a guy who was beating his wife, surely a guy beating his wife deserves a beating, and what happened some guy matching the description got beat luckily they didnt permanently damage his eye (exactly my point)

Then clarify what you are trying to say. And express it without using that douche as an example.

lol i have been about a billion times in here but people dont care they just want to think about that guy ('blind with rage' comes to mind)

StylinRed. Just man up and admit you were wrong.

Stop dancing with the half measure "you understand the contrary POV now" yet you still disagree in principle "out-card". There's a point where you don't even have an agenda anymore and you're just arguing for your pride's sake. I think that point was around pg 4 or something.

no actually i wasnt wrong... in fact the officer proved i was right (they went after a guy who simply fit a description) i was never denying Evans wasn't the vandal... as from the get go when we got this story Evans had admitted guilt

from the beginning my argument was based on the facts we had and assumed that the police didnt witness the incident and they let their dogs out on a guy who simply fit the description; and that is something too dangerous/wrong to do due to the risks

over the pages ive simply had to repeat it over and over again to various people (maybe because i was unclear or misunderstood or people didnt want to understand or a combination of all)

I think Graeme and my chat should have cleared everything up though (edit: i guess not ;)) but now it looks like its your turn?

:awwyeah::lawl::thumbs:

Just to clarify, PIVOT already recently lost a battle with the VPD and the Police Board (Chaired by Gregor Robertson, who is pretty left wing or as I call it hippie) challenging dog-training methods and the criteria under which dog squads are deployed. This report I believe was provided again to the media during this mornings VPD press conference.

The new lawsuit filed last week is seeking monetary damages from VPD and the City of Vancouver on behalf of Mr. Evans' as he felt his injuries were too severe and the VPD were too aggressive resulting in his injuries and his lost of job and apartment. This is a civil claim with Mr. Evans' seeking money and PIVOT using the media attention of the lawsuit to try to force the VPD to rethink their dog training and deployment policies again (which they already lost a battle on).

On Mr. Evans' trying to gain monetary damages, I feel he should not get anything and my personal opinion is that he should have to pay VPDs and the City's legal costs. His damages and injuries I feel where solely brought upon himself by committing the offence, fleeing from the police and struggling with the police dog. I am of the opinion that proper warnings, protocol and procedures where followed and Mr. Evans' is lying about not realizing he was being pursued by a peace officer.

Although it is no secret my dislike for PIVOT, they are free to use this lawsuit to try and force VPD's hand again, personally I don't believe there needs to be another review, but that's my opinion and others like Stylinred are free to disagree. There are already a set of protocol when service dogs should be deployed on a subject. I kind of understand what Stylinred is trying to say "what if" this wasn't the correct subject, but if this was an innocent civilian, they wouldn't have kept fleeing and ignoring police commands (I think most will now agree that they feel Evans' was lying about not knowing he was being chased by police). Even if one did not understand english, they would respond by not fleeing a uniformed officer with emergency lights and sirens on. It's not like the officer just saw someone who fit the description and released the dog without verbal warnings and trying to stop them with verbal commands, emergency sirens and lights. At least thats my opinion.

Wonder how Mr. Evans feel about being used by PIVOT.
:fuckthatshit:

hopefully he's all for it :)

Looks like the same injuries a crackhead that stole my car had (long ago). how i fucking laughed when they police dogs grabbed him.