Maybe police policy and training resulted in no charges. Cops are trained that once they start shooting, they keep shooting until the threat has been stopped.

Shooting Boyd when he's crawling on all fours and doesn't appear to be a threat definitely looks bad and brings the cop's judgment into question. I wonder if the cop was lucky and got away on a technicality.

So where is the line drawn? Anyone who has had a violent position to the police COULD have all of those things. The amount of time before the kill shot and THE FACT HE WAS TOLD TO CEASE FIRE BY ANOTHER OFFICER is a pretty good indication that that shot shouldn't have been fired.
And don't paint me with the "armchair quarterback" card or I'll paint you with the "blind follower of authority figure" card. So by all means follow away.

You should know better, since you state that you have family members in that wear the blue. Police are not permitted to match the type of force used. If this were true, we would have the cop and the suspect beating each other with their fists, to no avail. Police are permitted to use AS MUCH FORCE as necessary to stop the suspect (whether from continuation of an offence or to take into custody).

Are you saying that if someone swung a bike lock at your face, you would not possibly face grievous bodily harm? It doesn't necessarily have to mean death, but if i saw someone with what he had and was swinging it like a weapon, I would draw my sidearm, and not my baton. A bike chain can also be used to strangle someone too. Depending on the size difference, and how motivated this guy was (drugs and/or mental illness), are also factors when assessing risk. You also have to remember, it isn't just other Police officers the cops have to think about. There could be 4,5,6 cops there, and all have their guns out protecting themselves, but what if the guy runs off to the side where there are nosey bystanders (because there always are), and starts swinging at them? It's a lot more simple than just him and you... or him and your colleagues. It isn't a closed environment.

Again, I am not saying whether the outcome of the incident was right or wrong. But I can honestly say, if I attended, and a guy was swinging around a bike chain/lock or whatever it was, I would have had my gun out.

maybe. But you have to realize that you can have all the training in the world, but when it happens in real life it will all go to muscle memory and instinct because no 2 situations are alike. There are too many variables. You can deal with one guy that is tripping big time from drugs and is hallucinating but is cooperative... and the next time he can be violent and uncooperative. You can be trained to deal with violent people, but sometimes verbal judo works, sometimes it doesn't. When do you draw the line. After how long do you try to verbally negotiate with someone before you have to use force? Even with training, and Police do have this training, you never know what you are going to get out of a situation in real life.

I am not going to comment about this one incident because I was not there, and am not going to make a judgement over a small video clip.

Also, Police deal with so many mentally ill people now adays, maybe the problem lies with the mental health system in BC. Personally, more money/resources should be available for people who are mentally ill. Then again, it is nearly impossible to force someone to take their medication. Most if not all meds out there will allow someone to function in society, but the side effects of those meds are horrible. Imagine being a zombie with no feelings or anything because you are on drugs.

The dudes crawling on all fours with seven bullets in him, better assume he's got an HIV tainted needle down his pants and he's just baiting them in before he goes on a AIDS stabbing spree. If this is how things are going to happen from now on then there's going to be a lot of senseless deaths in our future.

Guys waving a gun around? Sure shoot to kill. Crawling on all fours with no visible weapons, get real.

That's like saying I should know how an engine works because my cousin is a mechanic...

But your statement is simply not true. An officer is not allowed to use as much force to prevent any offence or take into custody any person. It's as much force needed under REASONABLE grounds (edited from as much reasonable force.) Based on your theory, a peace officer could shoot a person in the back after they run away from a bank robbery in attempt to stop the suspect from getting away.

But regardless of what I (THINK) the law is, the R.S.C. does dictate the grounds for an officer to use deadly force.

This section of the R.S.C. under C-46 (25) sets forth the grounds where the law will protect a person who has the authority to either administer or enforce the law in a situation where physical conflict may arise.

I'd like to avert your attention to 4(D) which states than officer IS protected under this statute, WHEN "the peace officer or other person using the force believes on reasonable grounds that the force is necessary for the purpose of protecting the peace officer, the person lawfully assisting the peace officer or any other person from imminent or future death or grievous bodily harm..."

Addressing your point made that police are allowed to use "as much force necessary" to take a person into custody...the law clearly states that the police cannot use deadly force on a suspect when there are less-violent manners available at their disposal to prevent the flight of the suspect.

That being said, I will not speculate on an issue that I was not present for. I will not speculate what I would do in that situation because I'm NOT or was not in that situation. All I've done and will continue to do is apply the facts provided to the law as it stands.

I'll leave it at that.

Unfortunately, the part that saves the officer in this situation is that he believed that the suspect still had the weapon in his hand. Corroboration from other witnesses, although it ended up being false observations, the victim was believed to have had the weapon in his hand still. Whether it was reasonable for the officer to feel that that was a threat that needed deadly force is a whole different question and I believe that is where the officer's case should've been lost.

25. (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

CCC does not state "reasonable". Although I do agree when articulating your actions, the use of force should be reasonable, but under CCC what I initially stated was not wrong.

So you're ignoring the actual part of the code where it states exactly when an officer is protected and making Section 1 a stand-alone act that has no other parts to it...

An act is stated, and the sub-sections of the act further define and set forth when an officer is protected under the law, but we're ignoring that and pretending like it's not there?

Perhaps I was unclear in my last paragraph when I stated reasonable force when I meant force under reasonable grounds. At the end of the day, those two should end up meaning the same thing as force under reasonable grounds would be force that is reasonable and vice versa.

Anyways, there is no point in going back and forth about it. You must've read the entire Act and came to the decision that only Section 1 applies and I respectfully disagree as I chose not to ignore the rest of the act. The Criminal Code is up for everyone to view, anyone that wants to make an informed decision and interpretation can do so themselves.

Section (3) and Section (4) are the expansions and exceptions laid forth by Parliament.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...age-8.html#h-6

I am not ignoring it. 4(d) specifically states when an officer or anyone lawfully assisting a PO is protected from using force that may cause death or grievous bodily harm. 25(1) just states is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose, which I was referring to initially. It could be for common assault, aggravated assault etc. Ultimately, whether or not a PO is protected under s.25, is how they articulate their actions.

Even then, it's a chain. The biggest threat at that point is the officer getting a bruised ankle if he's dumb enough to stand there and do nothing but watch him. Oh and AIDS.

Swinging a chain with a padlock on it at me? Screw you, you're dead. Don't go trying to kill people with a chain. Yeah the guy was mental, yes society probably failed him - but that's not the problem of the cop who responds to the call of a crazy guy beating people with a chain and padlock.

I can easily think of the damage I could do to a living human being with a padlock on a chain, even with one swing. It does not take much to smash someones skull and instantly turn their head into mush. Try taking a hockey stick and swing it as hard as you can into the a piece of wood, how would you like if that wood was your face? You're throat or neck? No thanks!

Once again, was the dude standing up swinging a chain violently at that point? It's just like assholes who kick a guy in his head after he's already down and out. The point of him being a serious threat was over by then.
Posted via RS Mobile

Those mentally ill people are dangerous as fuck yet they are allowed to remained in society without any preventive/protective measures. I was once pushed in front of a car by one of those people and I was just walking down Burrard....

That being said, I think it's reasonable to say the officer who delivered the killing shot was likely trigger-happy or was just scared shitless. He was told to stand down but didn't. To me, the first 7 shots fired consecutively are justified as a mean to stop the threat. If you choose to unleash on the same target again after, you better have a damn good reason to. Bet he got away from being charged based on technicalities.

EVERYBODY commenting here is a fucking armchair quarterback. NONE of us were there, NONE of us know what actually went down, EVERYTHING said here is speculation based on various media reports, usually those that jive with already-formed opinions (if CiC found a PressTV item on this story, sure as shit he'd be posting that as fact as well).

Blind follower of authority? Hardly. Sick to death of wild speculation and automatic blaming and finger pointing at those who put their lives on the line on a daily basis? Damn straight. Hell, I'd be the first to cast stones if the cop was proven to be in the wrong... the simple fact is, other authorities with FULL ACCESS to the case data have decided otherwise, so who am I to second-guess them based on limited, probably biased info?

Others in this thread decided from day one that they knew exactly how everything went down and where all the blame had to be placed, and will refuse to give up those beliefs no matter what evidence presented to the contrary. They're not the ones standing hip-deep in the shit when it's going down, but they still think they know best how everyone involved SHOULD have performed.

It's worth noting that the ultimate "always-assume-the-cops-must-be-in-the-wrong" watchdog, the BC Civil Liberties Assn., has declined to further pursue this case. I'd think if they could let it go, maybe the collective braintrust here should consider that as well. (Note that the word "brain" automatically excludes CiC...)

I started this thread I think I'll add something here.

I have completed a varitey of courses offered through the JIBC and I have been employed in law enforcement not police(no union scapegoating for me), Understanding the use of force protocol is of major importance here. You are allowed to escalate force up to the point of what you are facing no more. You can't use a knife(gun) on someone who does not posess knife(gun). You can not use deadly force against someone unless they are using deadly force against you. Use of force protocol dictates reactive not proactive force. You can not just shoot someone becuse you think there is a possability that they are armed, You have to evalute the force being used against you. Paul was shot 7 times in the body(1 missed) he was ordered to the ground and was unarmed, He was on all fours as instructed and the kill shot indicated he was either on all fours or in a forward leaning direction(coroner report). The kill shot (to the head)didn't enter his face it went directly into the top of his head wich is consistant with the coroners assement.

When was the last time you attacked somone with your eyes pointing at the ground not looking at your target. Paul was shot in the top of his head wile in a very vulnerable position on his hands and knees. This outcome is outrageous from an outsiders perspective, I have been in the industry and my heart is cold as ice now so just cover your ass and keep on keeping on. $$$$$$>lawsuit. Awaiting fails from spidy,soundy and hondaracer...Tell me how many people you have had to fight, Arrest, Charge and testify against before chirping.....:)

When is the last time that one of these charges has actually stuck against a police officer charged with brutal force? When you look at the number of charges to guilty verdicts, doesn't that make you consider that maybe the watchdog/the courts/the police aren't really going to let guilty verdicts be reached for the powers that be? Damage control is the likely the priority before justice. A picture is worth 1000 words, a video is worth 1000000. As stated above. The bullet entered through the top of the head based on speculation of still having weapons. Wether there was malicious intent from the police officer none of us will ever know other than him, but in hindsight it was the wrong decision and that is pretty much quantifiable by the evidence. People pay for their poor decisions all the time in heat of the moment incidents, this should be no different just because he's a cop, but it is. I could be wrong, but the court has proved itself to be COMPLETELY corrupt when it comes to police cases in the past (think Monty Robinson) so how can we trust their verdict is based on the same process as the public. Just because someone was found not guilty doesn't mean they aren't.

.

What field are you in, if you don't mind me asking? Sheriff? ... So does that mean all the things you have learned are from a textbook? Have you had hands on experience with real life situations; robbery in progress, stolen vehicle, mental ill people, people tripping on drugs? If not, all the points you made are fine, but you are basically spewing out what you read/learned.

If I am responding to a robbery/break and enter in progress, I am damn sure I will have my sidearm out. Break in tool can and are often used as weapons.. deadly ones at that. Just because my sidearm is out, it does not mean I am going to shoot them. Heck it doesn't even mean I will point it at the suspect. But it will be out, and I will be ready to use it if buddy decides to swing at me with a crowbar, screwdriver, or hammer. So the first point you made that I bolded is not true. It may be your opinion, but I do not agree with it. If someone is able to cause death or grievous bodily harm, it is the perception of the Police, or victim. If someone is on top of another person and just laying haymakers at the skull of an unconscious individual, I can articulate why I believe shooting the suspect was the proper response.

So, like I have said before, it isn't yes or no. gun or no gun. I could give thousands of more examples. The real world offers even more.


Second bolded part. When was the last time anyone HERE, who for the most part, isn't a burden to society has gotten into situations like that. I can't imagine many, or any people on this forum who regularly has negative encounters with the Police, let alone other citizens. So to ask people on this forum that question does not accurately backup your theory. Mentally ill people are unpredictable. I would never let my guard down when dealing with drunk, mentally ill, or people influenced by drugs. Because they are unpredictable. As I mentioned before, I am not commenting on this incident for respective thread, because I was not there.

Regarding the last bolded sentence. As you may have already realized from my post(s), I am in Law Enforcement (Police). I am not about to list all the arrests I have made.. But I will keep "chirping".

Didn't you make up your mind from Day 1 too? From what I recall, you had come to the conclusion that the deceased, who happened to be mentally ill, was a bitch and got what was coming to him...

It's refreshing getting insight from an actual member of law enforcement and not some rent-a-cop like someone else I know in this thread. If it isn't an intrusion, do you mind elaborating on your occupation in law enforcement? I always hear of people referring to "Spidey" in the police thread and never knew who he was until now lol.

In before we find out he's a mall cop :troll:

As you recall... or as you hear in your imagination?

By all means, find the place I said this in the thread and share it with the class.

Your understanding of the use of force is not quite consistent with the National Use-of-Force Model.

Anyhow, I get your point. What Cst. Chipperfield failed to do was the continuous assessment of the threat when the threat (ie: the bike chain) had already been taken away. We can argue all day of whether the constable really believed Boyd still had a weapon on him or whether he deliberately/mistakenly killed Boyd; but we will never find out. After all, they were not able to charge Cst. Chipperfield as they don't really have a solid case without a reasonable doubt.

Hindsight is 20-20, and it is always unfortunate when mental health issues that were neglected by the government escalated to the point that needed police intervention (and the use of deadly force). I don't believe any sane police officer goes to work wanting to empty a clip in someone he/she does not know.

'nuff said.

PM me. :)

:troll:

ImpactX and spidy I appreciate your informed responses...spidy and mark delving like that is unbecoming.

:accepted:

Oh you really got me now, Real singer there mark, A quick glance at my post history mentioned cctv at metro 7-8 years ago good sleuthing you might like my job...

I am pondering if I should even indulge your pandering in greater detail then this: not a mall cop...but there isn't anything wrong with that job. I have worked in asset protection/recovery in the past. I have had to ''deal'' with drunks,drugs users and the mentally unstable to the perfectly coherent who go bat shit crazy facing the loss of their liberty. I get that what you learn in the books and during combat training goes out the window some what when facing a suspect twice your size who would like nothing more then to beat you within a inch of your life I've been there a few times and proper training really helps in these situations.

Just to partially indulge you. What I do now helps to keep your premiums in check depending on who you are insured by and depending on what I come up with you could be facing civil and criminal penalties.

cst, chipperfield's response that night was more likely then not a mistake rather then malicious but that only leads us to this, Due to provocation "loss of control" is a partial defence to a charge of murder which acts by converting what would otherwise have been murder into manslaughter. Taking into account mens rea and other mitigating factors the absolute minimum here should be involuntary manslaughter if not voluntary manslaughter.....

If it makes you feel better you can write me off as just another arm chair cowboy with no knowledge on the proper application of the law because as you now know I don't ride around in a patrol car all day but then neither does the crown or defence or you know the judge. Of course all our ideas will remain less then informed here simply because police are clearing police on what would otherwise be serious investigations leading to tangable outcomes decided by impartial independant parties. Whatever floats your boat.:thumbs:

wth. I didn't even say anything.