[impulse777]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHyeK4wdYFc




My blood is boiling........I will have more to add later when I can compose my thoughts.

[StylinRed]

yeah, ASIRT is going to do the investigation

Alberta agency to review new video of deadly VPD shooting - News1130 (http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/367668--alberta-agency-to-review-new-video-of-deadly-vpd-shooting)


this happened 5 yrs ago btw we had a thread on it in here too

[impulse777]

I know how long ago this took place but all along I believed the man was actively attacking an injured officer with a chain when he was capped.

[A$AProcky]

damn thats fucked up couldnt they have used the taser once they disarmed him and he was crawling.

[Hondaracer]

the guy hit a cop with a lock on a bike chain, he could have been shot at that point

big deal.

[impulse777]

Your absoutly right hondaracer but the fact is that moment had passed and he was defenseless, injured and on his hands and knees when they pumped a hot one into his head. How many officers does it take to handcuff a injured man who is allready on the ground.

Life & death big deal.......

[StylinRed]

the guy hit a cop with a lock on a bike chain, he could have been shot at that point

big deal.


they already shot him several times and he was already disarmed and was told to crawl forward

[Excelsis]

.................... not one officer is taught self defence? are you fucking kidding me?

[static]

this reminds me of the YVR incident.

Let's see: Both had one man. In both incidents the person was unarmed. In both situations there was more than 1 or 2 police officers. In both situations I think police used excessive force.

I cannot see how 3 male officers are unable to control a man with just their hands if not also their batons.

[Spartacus]

Deadly weapon for real.

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/how-to-repair-a-bicycle-5.jpg
http://image.made-in-china.com/2f0j00OBeTudaJybon/Motorcycle-Parts-Motorcycle-Chain-Bike-Chain.jpg

[falcon]

^^ It can be if weilded in the right way. You can seriously injure someone with a chain (and it had a lock on the end? IIRC)

That being said, this video acutally confirms what they already knew and adds nothing since the last shot is blocked by the car.

[iwantaskyline]

Looks like an execution. Guy was in no shape to do any harm anymore.

[pinn3r]

it doesn't even fucking matter how much of an injury the chain could cause; it's a damn human life. if i were Chipperfield i'd rather get whipped with a bike chain than to kill a person

4-5 cops can't restrain 1 guy? fuckin pussy cops have no judgement

[drunkrussian]

this guy recorded it 5 years ago, went back to manitoba and never showed anyone the tape because he didn't know there were conflictin accounts. onlhy last week he checked online and realized there were conflicting accoutns and released it?

BULLSHIT.

if you saw some shit like this owuld you not check online what happened and any updates, until 5 yeras from the incident?

[The_Situation]

Couldnt they just kick him in the dome while he was crawling?

[van_city23]

this guy recorded it 5 years ago, went back to manitoba and never showed anyone the tape because he didn't know there were conflictin accounts. onlhy last week he checked online and realized there were conflicting accoutns and released it?

BULLSHIT.

if you saw some shit like this owuld you not check online what happened and any updates, until 5 yeras from the incident?

exactly what i'm thinking, why wait 5 years?

[TRDood]

The video evidence doesn't show clearly he was shot in the head. How would it be any help?

Something must be missing here, drunkrussian made a good point. The 5 year excuse doesn't seem to be a reasonable explanation.

Didn't we have a big thread comparing this to the YVR case?

[Manic!]

Deadly weapon for real.

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/how-to-repair-a-bicycle-5.jpg
http://image.made-in-china.com/2f0j00OBeTudaJybon/Motorcycle-Parts-Motorcycle-Chain-Bike-Chain.jpg

In thinking this:
http://bikereviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/kryptonite-new-york-fahgettaboudit-bike-chain-lock.jpg

Or this:
http://i00.i.aliimg.com/photo/v0/204049530/Bicycle_Chain_Lock.jpg

That's what Google shows when you type bike chain with lock.

[Noir]

I wonder if when it comes to cops, their culture has a certain point-of-no-return?

[Hondaracer]

lol i think the point of no return was when he had 5 rounds in him already

and to the guy questioning how much damage a bike chain could do, give most people a chain off a motor cycle, or one that locks a bike like that and im pretty sure most people could kill somone with it

[wstce92]

I've been hit with both a bike chain AND a bike lock. The bike chain got me 16 stitches on my arm, the bike lock got me 5 stitches above my right eye, about 2cm away from taking out said eye.
And both incidents happened well after I became a 2nd degree black belt. Some people can just do damage period.

[SupraTTturbo2jz]

these types of cops need to be lined up and shot and feel what the people they murder feel.

[StylinRed]

you guys realize that the chain/lock was already seized by an officer right? (you see it in the video) and he has several rounds of bullets already in him and he's on his hands and knees crawling right?

all that was left to do was to handcuff him...

[Soundy]

you guys realize that the chain/lock was already seized by an officer right? (you see it in the video)
And what other weapons does he have? Any? None? Another chain? A knife? A gun?

You don't know at that point what he may or may not be concealing, and neither do the cops, but they have to proceed on the assumption that he's still armed. If they assume the chain was all he had, an officer moved in to cuff him, and ends up with a knife in his belly, or worse, in a major artery in his leg...

and he has several rounds of bullets already in him and he's on his hands and knees crawling right?
Bitch doesn't know enough to stay down.

He's been violent, he's been belligerent, he's been armed with a dangerous weapon... you've put him down and he's still coming toward you and may STILL be armed with another dangerous or even deadly weapon... what do you do?

all that was left to do was to handcuff him...
Be great if it was really that easy, right?

[StylinRed]

actually it is that easy....

not as easy as a bullet to the head though apparently which you obviously approve of... (he was even told not to fire by officers around him... which the pcc noted)

[BABU]

Once again VPD, they are experts on speed ticket and killing people.

[Soundy]

actually it is that easy....
So you're saying you were there are the time and you KNEW for a fact AT THAT TIME that he didn't have any other kind of weapon, right?

Pretty easy for an armchair constable to look at it after the fact and say, "of course there was no further danger".

[StylinRed]

they're trained to take down suspects and they do it almost everyday far dangerous suspects in the dtes who actually do have multiple weapons on them

there were several officers there the suspect was all but subdued his only known weapon (his bicycle lock) was taken he was also severely injured and the other officers called for the trigger happy officer to hold his fire (he was the only one who fired several times).... you just have to open your eyes and see the obvious

[GGnoRE]

That cop lost his shit in the heat of the moment and used excessive force. Coup de' grace to the head was not needed. Remember how the man with a huge sword in downtown was tackled down by the cops? Thats how it should've went down after he was crawling from several gunshot wounds.

[BillyBishop]

this guy recorded it 5 years ago, went back to manitoba and never showed anyone the tape because he didn't know there were conflictin accounts. onlhy last week he checked online and realized there were conflicting accoutns and released it?

BULLSHIT.

if you saw some shit like this owuld you not check online what happened and any updates, until 5 yeras from the incident?

Keep in mind that the PCC's final report only came out in March this year, two months ago, detailing the fact that there was a lack of evidence/conflicting accounts etc.
The fellow with the video could have easily come across an article about it while browsing whatever news website he was on.

[NSX]

No point on arguing if the cop was right or wrong. The video is just too unclear. All that matters is how the officer / officers articulate the situation and how they write the crown.

Under the Use of Force continuum, it is an officer's job and duty to continually re-assess the situation and tactically reposition themselves. As soon as the threat is over, the officer should switch to another intervention option. So it really depends how the officer visualized the "threat." (on all fours, crawling...) KO 'ing an officer seconds before played a huge factor in the officers articulation for sure.

SOUNDY is right. Officer safety is paramount. You don't just charge in hands on and tackle the guy, even if hes been shot 7 times. There are protocols in place. What if you tackle the guy and he has needles on him or in his pocket stickint out? If you've ever been trained in searching individuals, you would be surprised where weapons can be concealed after a "THOROUGH" search. Tactical principle: 1+1 rule. No knife = 1 knife. 1 knife = 2 knives. Thats how officers are trained. Unknown risk. At the end of the day, Officer goes home to family.

[bballguy]

SOUNDY is right. Officer safety is paramount. You don't just charge in hands on and tackle the guy, even if hes been shot 7 times. There are protocols in place. What if you tackle the guy and he has needles on him or in his pocket stickint out? If you've ever been trained in searching individuals, you would be surprised where weapons can be concealed after a "THOROUGH" search. Tactical principle: 1+1 rule. No knife = 1 knife. 1 knife = 2 knives. Thats how officers are trained. Unknown risk. At the end of the day, Officer goes home to family.

So basically you are saying that an officer is trained to not arrest an individual prior to being able to do a ''THOROUGH'' search first....because who knows if "he has needles on him or in his pocket stickin out"....and so if someone is resisting arrest, and therefore a search, you shoot them in the head. Okay, deal.:thumbs:

[NSX]

So basically you are saying that an officer is trained to not arrest an individual prior to being able to do a ''THOROUGH'' search first....because who knows if "he has needles on him or in his pocket stickin out"....and so if someone is resisting arrest, and therefore a search, you shoot them in the head. Okay, deal.:thumbs:


No. What I am saying is a officer is trained to assess situations before going hands on. That subject is ALREADY under arrest for assault and KOing a officer. He was shot 7 times and still moving. Does he look cooperative to you? If he was told to keep crawling then sure. Cooperative is belly down, feet apart, hands to side, ready to be cuffed. He has already shown that he has a weapon. How do you know he doesn't have another? I agree with the caution the Officers are taking. No where in my post did i AGREE with the shooting in the head. Read the first line of my post :rukidding:

If anything, I think they should have switched to a intermediate weapon.

[parm104]

Bitch doesn't know enough to stay down.

He's been violent, he's been belligerent, he's been armed with a dangerous weapon... you've put him down and he's still coming toward you and may STILL be armed with another dangerous or even deadly weapon... what do you do?

Be great if it was really that easy, right?

The guy was mentally unstable and you're calling him a bitch after he lost his life due to actions that were caused by an illness???

Geeze, you really need to get out of your Peace Officer bubble and look at the bigger picture. Your perspective is skewed and narrow-minded and you fail to realize that it isn't always as simple as playing the victim card always as officers.

This isn't a volunteer job, officers get paid to do what they do. With that money that we pay them, they also get training to conduct themselves in a responsible and reasonable manner. I have never seen you once say a negative thing about an officer...Not once! They must all be perfect, I suppose.

"WHAT DO YOU DO?"

He's ON THE FLOOR ON HANDS AND KNEES SURROUNDED BY A DOZEN OFFICERS WITH THEIR GUNS DRAWN OUT AT HIM....WHAT DO U DO? If you can't figure out a plan to subdue him at that point, you definitely should NOT be a cop. There needs to be a higher expectation of education, logic skills and reasoning for police officers. Too many people think like you and fail to provide any service to our community.

Check my post history, you'll soon realize that I have just under a dozen friends and family who are active members. VPD, RCMP, King County Sheriff and Delta Police...Obviously the safety of these people is a priority to me. Obviously my perspective isn't skewed as I have a stake in the success of our police. I've stuck of for officers when people are blatantly wrong and I will stand against them when they have done something wrong. It's not as simple and clear cut as "the officer is always right."

[Hondaracer]

you guys who are all bitching about the outcome

what would you say if he simply died of his wounds in hospital before getting shot in the head?

[StylinRed]

you guys who are all bitching about the outcome

what would you say if he simply died of his wounds in hospital before getting shot in the head?

kind of like putting an injured animal out of its misery is that what you're saying? :seriously:

[A$AProcky]

you guys who are all bitching about the outcome

what would you say if he simply died of his wounds in hospital before getting shot in the head?

holy fuck you're an idiot I was going to explain the difference to you but if you already don't know its not worth it so i'll just call you an idiot once again

[Great68]

It's really hard to imagine someone who has been shot 7 times being in any physical shape to mount an attack on anyone, let alone a police officer.

What IS easy to imagine is a bit of anger, frustration, and vindictiveness which may have been running through the mind of the officer that shot the guy in the head because the guy wasn't completely complying with orders.

[ajax]

Why didn't they just taser him?

[nickmak]

fuuuck my ex gf lives in the area, why couldn't it have been her who got shot? the guy was bipolar, that bitch was straight psycho crazy

so close, so close...

[bing]

No point on arguing if the cop was right or wrong. The video is just too unclear. All that matters is how the officer / officers articulate the situation and how they write the crown.

Under the Use of Force continuum, it is an officer's job and duty to continually re-assess the situation and tactically reposition themselves. As soon as the threat is over, the officer should switch to another intervention option. So it really depends how the officer visualized the "threat." (on all fours, crawling...) KO 'ing an officer seconds before played a huge factor in the officers articulation for sure.

SOUNDY is right. Officer safety is paramount. You don't just charge in hands on and tackle the guy, even if hes been shot 7 times. There are protocols in place. What if you tackle the guy and he has needles on him or in his pocket stickint out? If you've ever been trained in searching individuals, you would be surprised where weapons can be concealed after a "THOROUGH" search. Tactical principle: 1+1 rule. No knife = 1 knife. 1 knife = 2 knives. Thats how officers are trained. Unknown risk. At the end of the day, Officer goes home to family.

Should every person be shot at because we "think" they have weapons on them? What the fuck are we paying these people if they can't even exercise proper judgment and give them this much authority. Threat looks pretty much over when a man is on his hands and knees, shot 7 times, there are at least half a dozen officers around, and the bicycle chain was removed.

[Harvey Specter]

fuuuck my ex gf lives in the area, why couldn't it have been her who got shot? the guy was bipolar, that bitch was straight psycho crazy

so close, so close...

WTF...

[LiquidTurbo]

fuuuck my ex gf lives in the area, why couldn't it have been her who got shot? the guy was bipolar, that bitch was straight psycho crazy

so close, so close...

Go see a doctor.

[pinn3r]

you guys who are all bitching about the outcome

what would you say if he simply died of his wounds in hospital before getting shot in the head?

you're already concluding his death?
sorry I didn't want to call you a dumbass but you're a dumbass

[Noir]

Should every person be shot at because we "think" they have weapons on them? What the fuck are we paying these people if they can't even exercise proper judgment and give them this much authority. Threat looks pretty much over when a man is on his hands and knees, shot 7 times, there are at least half a dozen officers around, and the bicycle chain was removed.

This isn't a Treyvon Martin case where "we think" someone has weapons, or that someone has intentions to harm.

This particular case: Someone does have a weapon, and someone has already caused harm to someone.

What's the conjecture:

1. Oh he's probably under control.
2. He's probably subdued.
3. He probably won't lunge anymore.
4. He probably won't have any more weapons.

And everyone's gambling that #1 - 4 is true because it's really easy to gamble with someone else' life.


At this point, because the final shot was obscured by a vehicle in the video, I'll reserve my judgement based on what is actual fact rather than what our conjecture is.

[NSX]

This isn't a Treyvon Martin case where "we think" someone has weapons, or that someone has intentions to harm.

This particular case: Someone does have a weapon, and someone has already caused harm to someone.

What's the conjecture:

1. Oh he's probably under control.
2. He's probably subdued.
3. He probably won't lunge anymore.
4. He probably won't have any more weapons.

And everyone's gambling that #1 - 4 is true because it's really easy to gamble with someone else' life.


At this point, because the final shot was obscured by a vehicle in the video, I'll reserve my judgement based on what is actual fact rather than what our conjecture is.

Exactly. Finally someone that understands the concept of risk. No such thing as low risk. Only unknown and high risk. That is the principle that police go by and trained by. I only emphasized CAUTION.You can sit in front of you computer all you want and BLAH BLAH BLAh say that the "situation is contained! SO OBVIOUS! THERES NO WEAPONS! Fact of the matter is, up until the Cst. shot the guy in the head, their extreme caution in not running up and tackling him is correct. Not to mention hes been shot 7 times. 12 officers jumping on top of him and cuffing him is just gonna kill him faster.

BING: and NO. you dont just shoot someone for "thinking" they have weapons. Read my posts again PROPERLY, then post.

[Hondaracer]

you're already concluding his death?
sorry I didn't want to call you a dumbass but you're a dumbass

The guy was shot seven fucking times before the lethal shot, most people don't survive 7 gun shots, especially when police protocol calls for the first shot to the chest..

Lol @ being called a dumb ass for thinking somone might be OK after taking 7 rounds..

[El Bastardo]

Failstorm incoming because I'm not saying "FUK THA POLIZINAZIS" but any reasonable person who has failed to comply with police instructions up to the point where they've already been hit with multiple rounds is someone the police probably have to assume means to do them harm, armed or unarmed.

The police probably couldn't determine if the person was simply mentally ill, or high as everloving fuck, as his actions certainly didn't demonstrate those of a person who is simply bipolar. A simple Google search gives me stats on the amount of bipolar people who have violent incidents (around 15%) but they don't mention if these manic episodes include a complete disregard for the law, and for their own personal safety.

I'm not saying everyone needs to comply with every order from every authority figure ever, but its reasonable to assume that after swinging a chain with a lock on it at a police officer, and being shot, the VPD isn't going to give you a hug and cup of cocoa if you keep moving toward them after being told to stop your aggressive actions. Isn't it reasonable to assume the police are going to be suspicious of you continually coming after them especially if you've already attacked one of them?

The blame isn't entirely on the police here. And with that, failstorm me for not joining the anti-police circlejerk.

[StylinRed]

^^^^ except even the other officers was telling that trigger happy officer to hold his fire but he was like :fuckthatshit:


even the police chief is like wtf

Jim Chu says he normally doesn't speak out about these kinds of things, given the number of reviews underway into Boyd's death. But Chu tells us a new video of his death is so disturbing to him
http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/368417--police-chief-speaks-out-about-paul-boyd-s-death

in an environment where they're normally tight lipped

[parm104]

The guy was shot seven fucking times before the lethal shot, most people don't survive 7 gun shots, especially when police protocol calls for the first shot to the chest..

Lol @ being called a dumb ass for thinking somone might be OK after taking 7 rounds..

OH YEAH!?

50 Cent got shot 9 times video! - YouTube

By the way, I don't think people were calling you a dumbass because you implied that he was unlikely to survive after being shot 7x. I think they were calling YOU A DUMBASS because you insist that the outcome here is justified simply because he was probably going to die anyways. That's hardly a justification for killing someone and as far as I'm concerned, the point you tried to make isn't even relevant to discussion. Regardless of whether the man died or not, we the public, the police as a force and the government as a ruling body needs to make sure the appropriate steps were taken place and that adequate training is in place. I don't think we'll get anywhere in society with people saying "oh he was going to die anyways, so it's okay if there was one last lethal shot to the head..."

[Hondaracer]

*yawn

There's too many bleeding hearts in this world, a guy who attacked a cop with a weapon didn't deserve to die, he should have been infact given a nice rehab stint in a
Flowered garden full of naked women and the finest fruits and wines this world has to offer

Being a cop is a fucking shitty job, and alot of you people bitching about how this was wrong are probably the same ones who demanded more force be used during the Stanley cup riots, cops can't catch a break in a world of camera phones and social media, in the past when a story came out about a mentally
Unstable man attacking a cop with a chain and being subsequently killed for it people would think nothing of it, now people get their panties in a not when a grainy ass video tape shows the events unfold

Maybe..just maybe...you don't attack a cop with a bike chain and bad things won't happen?

Although we live in a world where you can behead a stranger on a bus and get out of jail a year later so who's to say what is right anymore anyways, just kill everyone IMO

[Z3guy]

^ dude, the guy was on all fours with 7 bullets in his torso....and he was a threat to the police officers? they couldn't have tackled him and arrested him? so...let's shoot and kill the guy?....how would you feel if this was your brother or father?

If the MB tourist didn't send this video in, the cops would have gotten away with murder! Cops have way to much power right now and no minimal accountability.

How would you feel if your son was partying and bumped into a cop the wrong way on Granville Street...I guess it is OK for the cops to shot him.

[Hondaracer]

Rational, normal people dont end up in those situations.

[parm104]

*yawn

There's too many bleeding hearts in this world, a guy who attacked a cop with a weapon didn't deserve to die, he should have been infact given a nice rehab stint in a
Flowered garden full of naked women and the finest fruits and wines this world has to offer

Being a cop is a fucking shitty job, and alot of you people bitching about how this was wrong are probably the same ones who demanded more force be used during the Stanley cup riots, cops can't catch a break in a world of camera phones and social media, in the past when a story came out about a mentally


Being a cop is a shitty job? Since when!? Great benefits, automatic respect, opportunities to advance positions, great salaries and great schedules...In most cases, no advanced education required so you're not spending $100,000's in tuition just to make a decent living...Cops have shitty jobs?? LOL!

I can't respond to your comments anymore, they're ludicrous.

[bballguy]

Rational, normal people dont end up in those situations.

Right.....He wasn't rational or normal....He was bipolar....WTF are you trying to say??

[El Bastardo]

I don't think we'll get anywhere in society with people saying "oh he was going to die anyways, so it's okay if there was one last lethal shot to the head..."

Agreed. VGH is a short amberlamps ride away. Hes a person, not an animal. He didn't need to be "put out of his misery". If that was the officer's motivation (not saying it was) then thats extremely flawed logic and tantamount to murder. The "victims" of Jack Kevorkian willingly consented to die at someone else's hand, not this guy.


Right.....He wasn't rational or normal....He was bipolar....WTF are you trying to say??


The majority of bipolar people don't hit people with bike chains. The VAST majority of them.




Did they find out if this guy was on drugs or not?

[CharlesInCharge]

It was a clear execution... civilization is breaking down in the America's.
http://i.imgur.com/lg6MF.jpg

[Hondaracer]

Right.....He wasn't rational or normal....He was bipolar....WTF are you trying to say??

He hit a cop with a lock on a chain..

[bballguy]

The majority of bipolar people don't hit people with bike chains. The VAST majority of them.

Okay, true....however, when a bipolar individual is experiencing a manic episode, he is MORE LIKELY to become aggressive and/or violent towards others, especially if he is also under the influence of drugs or alcohol and isn't taking his meds....

[bballguy]

He hit a cop with a lock on a chain..

^This guy has to be trolling

[highfive]

Whether the police officer acted correctly or not, he doesn't represent the entire force.

VPD is out there to serve and protect the city of Vancouver. Whether the shooting was result of a person snapping or the lack of training by VPD, nobody knows.

If the Paul Boyd attacked the police officer and end up killing him. What would people say here? Would anyone say we need to protect our police officers more? Or would people just say RIP.

[ilovebacon]

Well.. I guess its 1 shot each from each officer.

[StylinRed]

Well.. I guess its 1 shot each from each officer.

no it was only the 1 officer who fired all the shots (total of 8 including the killing shot)



If the Paul Boyd attacked the police officer and end up killing him. What would people say here? Would anyone say we need to protect our police officers more? Or would people just say RIP.

just say RIP... they've got ample protection and their role is to put their lives on the line... to serve and protect the community... but time and again we're shown they don't seem to believe in that anymore


people are always mentioning how bad the police in eastern europe are but remember those videos we've seen of police going hand to hand to take down an aggressive citizen who was fist fighting with the police and using wooden posts and metal bars to attack the cops and they got hit but didnt take their guns out and just fought it out because they actually value life

[Great68]

So watching the news today, they said the testimony of the cop that shot Boyd was that Boyd was swinging the chain and wouldn't stop.

This video pretty much proves he lied, and that's fucked up.

[Noir]

So watching the news today, they said the testimony of the cop that shot Boyd was that Boyd was swinging the chain and wouldn't stop.

This video pretty much proves he lied, and that's fucked up.

Who's "they"?

Because "they" also said the reason he was shot was because despite being shot multiple times already, he was still trying to crawl towards the police officers (and the obscured portion of the video), he was attempting to get up.

Seems like which story of "they" just depends on which news source you want to listen to.

[StylinRed]

Who's "they"?

Because "they" also said the reason he was shot was because despite being shot multiple times already, he was still trying to crawl towards the police officers (and the obscured portion of the video), he was attempting to get up.

Seems like which story of "they" just depends on which news source you want to listen to.


it was portrayed in a way to indicate that by Jim Chu himself


VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) - Vancouver's new Police Chief Jim Chu is spending his first day on the job investigating a police shooting which took the life of a 39-year old Vancouver man. Chief Chu did the briefing this morning, on an incident last night where police shot and killed a suspect near Granville Street and 16th Avenue.

Chu says officers responded to an assault call to find a man with a claw hammer at a bus stop on Granville. He says the man obeyed police orders to drop the hammer, but refused to drop to the ground. Chu says the man then came at officers, swinging a large chain. One officer was knocked out, another received a head injury. "He then turned his attention to three other officers who arrived at the scene. He advanced at these officers, swinging his chain. These officers backed up about half a block and at that point he was shot by the police officers."

the article doesn't seem to exist anymore on news1130 but 7seven quoted it which can be found in the original thread about this incident here

http://www.revscene.net/forums/486925-vpd-shoot-guy-dead-granville-st.html

and another site using the news1130 article http://www.vancouverprofile.com/news/content.php/id/22773

[Harvey Specter]

You basically know the cop fucked up when the police chief says he's "disturbed" by the video.

I can almost bet anything that this guy will be charged based on this video, there is no reason whatsoever for this cop to shot this guy in the head when he was crawling on the ground after been shot 7 times. I don't know how this cop has the balls to say that he shot him because he was trying to get up and some how he felt threatened by a guy who was basically dying. I usually defend cops but this guy needs to be charged and put behind bars, there is nothing in the video that justified this victim been executed.

[Harvey Specter]

Wow didn't know I had the last post but here's an update for this case, disappointing news for the family.

A Vancouver police officer who was involved in a fatal shooting that was captured on a cellphone video won't face charges because he could reasonably argue self-defence, a special prosecutor announced Monday.

Paul Boyd was shot multiple times after police responded to a 911 call about a disturbance in August 2007. He was bipolar and was not taking his medication at the time.

Various investigations and reviews by police and Crown prosecutors had cleared Const. Lee Chipperfield, but the case was placed under renewed scrutiny last year when a cellphone video emerged in the media.

Chipperfield had told a coroner's inquest he believed Boyd was armed with a bicycle chain when he fired the fatal shot. He also said he believed Boyd may have been wearing body armour because it appeared as though he wasn't affected by the initial shots.

But the shaky video showed Boyd crawling along the ground, no longer holding the chain, in the seconds before the ninth and final shot.

An outside agency was brought in from Alberta to conduct yet another review of the case and a special prosecutor was appointed to review the evidence.

The B.C. Criminal Justice Branch released a seven-page statement Monday explaining special prosecutor Mark Jette's decision to not charge the officer.

"If Const. Chipperfield was prosecuted for an offence alleging culpable homicide, a reasonable doubt on the issue of self-defence would require an acquittal," the statement said.

"The evidence made available to the special prosecutor in this case was that Const. Chipperfield personally believed resort to lethal force was necessary to preserve himself and others from death or grievous bodily harm."

Police were called to a report about an assault at a bus stop, though Monday's statement notes the call turned out to be inaccurate.

At first, Boyd was co-operative, according to the prosecutor's statement, dropping a hammer when police officers asked him to. However, when the officers attempted to handcuff Boyd, the situation deteriorated and Boyd swung the bike chain, hitting one of the officers.

During the confrontation, Chipperfield fired nine shots, eight of which struck Boyd.

Midway through the gunfire, the video shows Boyd had dropped the bike chain and another officer pushed it aside, the prosecutor's statement says. That officer later said he had told Chipperfield to "hold your fire," though Chipperfield and other officers at the scene said they didn't hear it.

The prosecutor's statement said the video does not tell the whole story about what happened that night.

The video starts after six shots had already been fired and doesn't show the confrontation that prompted the shooting, the statement says. The entire incident lasted less than three minutes.

While Boyd is seen on the video crawling on the ground, he moves behind a car, blocking the camera's view, before the final shot. An autopsy concluded the angle of the fatal shot indicated Boyd may have been either on his hands and knees or leaning forward while on his feet.

As for Chipperfield's belief that Boyd was still armed when the fatal shot was fired, the statement notes other civilian witnesses had the same, albeit inaccurate, recollection.

"A number of the civilian witnesses who viewed the incident involving Mr. Boyd also failed to observe a police officer remove the chain and padlock prior to the fatal shot," said the statement.

"The special prosecutor concluded that Const. Chipperfield's evidence that he failed to note Mr. Boyd being disarmed may reflect the fact that sometimes people do not see what is there to be seen."

Vancouver police Chief Jim Chu said in a statement the case was "difficult and sad for everyone involved."

"As I have said from the beginning of this tragic incident, I would like to once again extend our sincere regrets and condolences to the Boyd family for their loss," Chu said in the statement.

"No police officer ever comes to work with the intent of taking a life."

Read more: New video prompts external review of Paul Boyd's 2007 shooting by police (with video) (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/video+prompts+external+review+Paul+Boyd+2007+shoot ing+police+with+video/6692231/story.html#ixzz2j6WIoAKP)

[CharlesInCharge]

More then a handful have been involved in this cover up.... you cant mistake a man crawling on his knees to someone swinging a bike chain.

Why No Jury Trial for Police
Why No Jury Trial for Police - YouTube

[impactX]

It's crappy when police is called in to deal with an emergency caused by mental health issues.

[murd0c]

I really think the police need to be trained better for situation's like this, it's really said this has happened cause it truly could of been avoided with proper training.

[GabAlmighty]

Self defence on a guy who's crawling towards you with 7 bulletes in him? Guess it was too much to ask to just jump on his back and cuff him.... And the cops wonder why they have a bad image.

[westopher]

I'm no cop hater, and know that sometimes people will die when they are a PERCEIVED threat to the police. There is no rational person who could believe the threat hadn't ended when Boyd was on his knees full of 7 bullets with no weapon in his hand. This is an execution. The extra step, and extra bullets need to stop. This isn't zombieland.

[parm104]

Whatever happened to appropriate force? In self-defence, generally you are permitted to use the same force back as the one that is threatening you. If it be deadly force, you're allowed to respond back with deadly force, if it's non-deadly, you must respond with non-deadly.

Yes it can be argued that a Kinder Surprise may be used with deadly force but REASONABLE perspective would tell us that a kinder surprise, like a chain or a belt, even as a weapon, is generally not deadly force; although it can cause bodily harm. So then why, is a gun shooting real bullets, permitted to be a response to non-deadly threat? Here lies the problem. It's what the officer reasonably perceived the situation to be not what it actually was.

Either way, I don't see how you can spin that deadly force was justified here because generally it's only allowed when there is an apparent threat of deadly force or grievous bodily harm. Being hit by a bicycle chain once will unlikely cause grievous bodily harm and certainly wouldn't cause death.

[Soundy]

There is no rational person who could believe the threat hadn't ended when Boyd was on his knees full of 7 bullets with no weapon in his hand.
And I'll repeat what I said before: they had no way of knowing whether he may have had other weapons ON HIS PERSON. He could have had a knife, a gun, an HIV-tainted needle...

I also wouldn't expect they had any way of knowing that seven of their bullets actually found him. It MAY have been obvious he was hit, but not how many times, and not how much that was actually slowing him down.

What WAS surely obvious was that this person was bent on harming someone; that he had been armed with one dangerous weapon and may have more; and that despite being shot, hs was still intent on advancing and causing more harm.

But you know, all the armchair quarterbacks here have the benefit of everyone else's hindsight and don't have to actually live in the heat of the moment, with a screaming maniac making it pretty clear that he's about to do you in no matter what you do to stop him... so by all means, judge away.

[jaguar604]

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.

[westopher]

And I'll repeat what I said before: they had no way of knowing whether he may have had other weapons ON HIS PERSON. He could have had a knife, a gun, an HIV-tainted needle...


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.

[Spidey]

Whatever happened to appropriate force? In self-defence, generally you are permitted to use the same force back as the one that is threatening you. If it be deadly force, you're allowed to respond back with deadly force, if it's non-deadly, you must respond with non-deadly.

Yes it can be argued that a Kinder Surprise may be used with deadly force but REASONABLE perspective would tell us that a kinder surprise, like a chain or a belt, even as a weapon, is generally not deadly force; although it can cause bodily harm. So then why, is a gun shooting real bullets, permitted to be a response to non-deadly threat? Here lies the problem. It's what the officer reasonably perceived the situation to be not what it actually was.

Either way, I don't see how you can spin that deadly force was justified here because generally it's only allowed when there is an apparent threat of deadly force or grievous bodily harm. Being hit by a bicycle chain once will unlikely cause grievous bodily harm and certainly wouldn't cause death.

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.

I really think the police need to be trained better for situation's like this, it's really said this has happened cause it truly could of been avoided with proper training.

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.

[MarkyMark]

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.

[parm104]

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)..

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.

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.

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.

[Spidey]

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 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.

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.

[parm104]

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/acts/C-46/page-8.html#h-6

[Spidey]

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?

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.

[MarkyMark]

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.

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.

[ninjatune]

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!

[MarkyMark]

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

[Nlkko]

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.

[Soundy]

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.
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...)

[impulse777]

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.....:)

[westopher]

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?


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...)
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.

[sideways]

.

[Spidey]

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.....:)

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".

[parm104]

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.)

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...

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".

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.

[MarkyMark]

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

[Soundy]

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...
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.

[impactX]

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.....:)

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.

[parm104]

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.


Bitch doesn't know enough to stay down.

He's been violent, he's been belligerent, he's been armed with a dangerous weapon... you've put him down and he's still coming toward you and may STILL be armed with another dangerous or even deadly weapon... what do you do?

Be great if it was really that easy, right?

'nuff said.

[Spidey]

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.

PM me. :)

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

:troll:

[impulse777]

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:

[Spidey]

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.

[parm104]

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.

LOL .... all quiet on the Soundy front...

[Soundy]

LOL .... all quiet on the Soundy front...

Still waiting for something that's not a wild extrapolation.

[BillyBishop]

impulse777, I think you misread a post or two on the last page. MarkyMark was joking that Spidey was a mall cop, not you.

[impulse777]

impulse777, I think you misread a post or two on the last page. MarkyMark was joking that Spidey was a mall cop, not you.

Oops I got that wrong then. My apologies for that "unbecoming" remark, Thanks for clearing that up BB.