Rue

Why would you think a police officer should not stop someone with an expired plate and because they do that you would bd entitled you to carry on screaming, swearing, threatening? What do you think the Chief was doing? Get real man.

You will all be happy to know another tape was released. This one last night shows a take down of an aboriginal where a cop ran and slid in with his knee to the suspect's neck after the slide. That one looked pretty bad.

The code refers only how quickly to respond not force to be used. The e dispatcher is not trained on how much force to use nor could they see anything to be able to be able to make such a call. Your lack of basic intelligence to understand the above speaks for itself. Then you claim your police expertise comes from watching tv but demonstrate you can not even understand what you think you see on tv. Oh I bet it all sounds .."Something like blah blah blah" to you. Genius.

Look again at the punch. You have it all figured out. When subduing a man resisting do you kiss him? You are the expert on close in force, what should he have done? What were you trained to do? Have you ever been bitten? You have any idea what it is like to hold someone down resisting? Of course not. You assume you know. What is your training?

With due respect delegating traffic functions will still require someone with a uniform and authority to enforce those laws, furthermore very few large cities require traffic police unless there is a power outage in which case police are used because of the strong likelihood of people getting angry in power outages. That is not what the defunding issue is about. It is about weapons and police tactics and an illogical belief that restricting police budgets will stop questionable police tactics. Ironically it started with the same people who loot and burn their neighbourhoods. Have you spoken with high crime neighborhood residents? The last thing people in those neighbourhoods want are taking the police out of their neighbourhoods. Ask them. That is a recipe for turf war and gangs controlling the streets and selling drugs. Most criminologists, sociologists and behaviouralists as well as urban planners agree and will tell you that you lower crime in high crime neighbourhoods with a combination of police walking the streets and being given living incentives to live in these neighbourhoods, better stree lighting and less dark space, store cameras, building parks and recreational facilities, promoting strong community services for sports, arts, culture where police off duty can engage with youth and encouragement of strong stable family relationships and education. Much of that was never a police issue and is wrongfully displaced on police no different than we do with teachers. We expect them both to be multi-function social workers and blame them for all social issues. With due respect defunding police is a trendy buzz word reaction to Floyd. It is the latest Me Too trend to jump on to appear like one cares. It is a guilt reaction exercise. Defund what? I challengevpeople caught up in this latest buzz trend to give more thought to what people do to assure the freedoms we have. If you think people don't need police you sure as hell need to give that a thought because those of you thinking you do not need them will and when you call 911, you may have defunded them from responding. Oh I get.. defund them except if you need them...but tell me how that works...we want the police to be a little bit of police but not too much police..yah yah...we want to go on a diet...good luck on our list of restrictions. Could any 9f us last a day on restricted piolice use any more than Oprah can go a day without stuffing her face? Regards A. Fatface

If she said that I share your contempt.

What you suggest is already being done. The issue is also the behaviour of the civilians. We seem to completely detach their behavior from the response it triggers and live at a time when we ignore the behaviour of the individual who gets into trouble that may have contributed to the reaction they triggered. This shooting will be questioned. Whether the civilian had his back fully turned or not when he was shot remains to be determined. This is not a Floyd case where the civilian was cuffed and subdued. There was a crime in progress. In the heat of that moment reflex behaviour from adrenaline kicks in. Without knowing more the choice to shoot may have been premature but the tape shown is not clear as to the angle of the civilian. I am not excusing the choice of force just saying it requires more analysis because unlike Floyd this was not an immobilized cuffed man. The Floyd incident has everyone seeing Floyd in all police actions now.

You call it brutality because you see brutality. You can not conceive what you saw could be anything else. What you saw was a takedown something the officer was trained to do under the circumstance that arose. Any hesitation could have resulted in the other officer being killed. You assume things that police officer could not know, such as the assailant did not have a weapon or what the assailant's motives were. The last thing one does is get in and out of a vehicle continuously after being told not to. That in itself means you could have obtained a weapon. There was a lot of stupid things the Chief did that night because he lost it over a routine expired license stop and decided to try interfere. We are lucky no one was killed. The fact is his own family could not control him. Did you hear one pedestrian say to him to calm down? Everyone today grabs a cell phone as nd acts like a passive zombie. Not one person said to him calm down. Do any of us today do anything but live by the cell phone leading us by our nose? Why is that arrest even in the news?

We suppose a lot of things about front line responders..but thatvis the point...we assume without all the facts or expertise to comment on the behaviour we see.

No you assume that.

Why is it clear? It also appears he was pulling away from the officer trying to subdue him as he swore at the officer after police penetrating the officer's danger zone. How is swearing reluctant resignation and not a sign of resistance? Was he pulling away or pushed? Officers do not push to arrest or subdue in fact the exact opposite. They have been taught to pull in the assailant body and bend the first limb they can get to use leverage of their own body to use their weight and gravity to pull the suspect down. As well your scapegoating the second officer selectively ignores that officer's training and the behaviour of the assailant as if that officer acted in a vacuum. That officer received an officer needs assistance call and was taught to not assume or remain dettached but upon seeing a fellow officer's danger zone penetrated move as quickly as possible to immobilize the assailant. He had an impaired view. He could not see if the Chief had a weapon but he would have heard the Chief swearing and an impaired view of the Chief turning away from the officer. It would take a split second after turning for the Chief to pull out a knife or gun and kill the officer in his danger zone. That second officer could not assume otherwise. The second officer is not trained to wait because that could be a fatal mistake. He was following his training. If you penetrate an officer's danger space they are taught to subdue, immobilize and handcuff and not stop until the suspect is rendered fully cuffed. With due respect Eye you do not understand what a danger zone is and what happens to if you penetrate it and why police are trained to react as they do when you penetrate it. I myself was forced to take down an elderly person in a crowded market. She pulled out a pair of scissors leaning towards another medic next to me. No I had no time to assume or ask. Uniforms trigger behaviour. The danger zone was penetrated. No I did not as you selectively suggest ignore someone in a danger zone. No the scissors were not meant for a haircut. No I did not ask the lady why she did what she did. She was quickly taken away. The entire incident was like 5 seconds. You do not have time to stand as you suggested. You immobilize then ask questions. When working in a mental insitution as an orderly I was not allowed to have patients penetrate the danger zone either. Its basic training.

Of course they do, and the second comment is false. Military gear is now used in many non lethal scenarios and in manh US jurisdictions standard uniform .The issue is how weapons are used. Denying they exist us pointless Armoured tank vehicles with water cannons are used in crowd control and every Swat unit today has armoured tank vehicles.

Yes we most certainly do have our law and order people engaging in the same rhetoric as your beloved Chinese communist party. Your point is well taken.

In this case yes there appearscto be aggravating behaviour by the civilian escalating the matter but the shooting appears not required at the time it was engaged in as the civilian was not in a physical danger zone or approaching the officers at quick speed or from a danger acceleration point from slow to rapid. So The use of the gun they will review. Had he turned facing them with the taser and made a move towards their safety zone then the issue changes requiring split second decisions as to use of firearm. They would be trained to move back each step the civilian took towards them but shoot if it was a run or jump towards them. The tape can be interpreted in different ways. Deadly force always is reviewed and questioned by internal affairs of the police department in question in the US. In Canad we have a civilian Special Investigation Unit, a police Internal Affairs unit, the police union, and when requested thd Coroner's office that investigate any death during a police action and the SIU and Internal Affairs can review any discharge of a weapon.

I agree with Scribblet. I see no evidence of the Chief calming down in his physical actions. The assumption he was calming down can not be concluded by the physical movement alone and since the Chief did not say anything his intent could not be ascertained that way either. What is clear is that in the final incident the Chief exited the vehicle after re-entering it on the officer in question's blind side, then suddenly appearing from the officer's blindside and quickly penetrating the space around the officer entering his danger zone. Danger zone in police training is a proximity in physical distance to an officer that once entered is considered an immediate life threat in need of immediate neutralization. Officer's are taught once thedanger zone is penetrated the officer must take immediate action to repel and then subdue the penetrator and not stop until the invader is immobilized and handcuffed. What can be seen is that the Chief upon penetrating the danger zone triggered the officer to then reach for the Chief's arm to either initiate physical contact to repel penetration of the danger zone and/or an initial attempt to take the Chief's arm to facilitate handcuffing. The tape shows the Chief only turning from the officer once he already entered the danger zone and once the officer began contact with his arm. The officer whose danger zone was penetrated had not patted down the suspect earlier for weapons but saw him re-enter the vehicle twice including from a blind spot o the other side of the vehicle.This would mean the officer could not conclude the Chief did not have a weapon or re-entered the vehicle to get one after two earlier attempts to demand the officer fight with him were ignored by the officer. The second officer off screen answering a call that an officer needed assistance would not know the extent and nature of the need of assistance and would be trained to assume a life threatening situation was imminent until it could be determined otherwise explaining why on seeing the Chief in the danger zone then turning from the other officer trying to hold his arm, would have been trained to see an imminent threat to life and therefore initiated the swift intervention predicated on the belief the Chief may have had a weapon he was preparing to use or in the alternative was resisting and preparing to engage in further physical force.Further The first officer like the second would have been trained to believe the turning from initial contact was resistance and his then walking away could be a preparation to pull out a knife, gun or other weapon. Police officers are trained to defend their lives one the danger zone is penetrated. They are trained once someone penetrates the danger space to bring the invader down and do not stop or get distracted until the assailant is immobilized and secured from attacking. The tape shows the Chief: 1- conducting a public disturbance and engaging in disorderly conduct by swearing at the police officer and uttering numerous threats ; 2- engaging in repeated interference/ obstruction of an officer attempting do his lawful duty; 3-- attempting to coerce police by threatening to use the Chief's political powers to sanction him for doing his job; 3- assault and battery, resisting arrest. This was a lawful stop on an expired license with the vehicle parked at the angle it was to facilitate maximum camera My comments are based solely on physical movement and body proximity. The only reason this is news is because it's a Chief claiming his status allows him to act like an ass. If he was white and a politician no one would care. The Chief's status or creed should not be used to justify his bad behaviour.

Me now get it. Me went back and deleted some quotes. Lol. Give me a sec Indy..... you know the Canada I live in and admire was and is as defined by the sacrifice of its soldiers as well as the Montreal Canadiens and both are a mix of every damn suspect imaginable. So this shit today when I see someone questioning immigrants as being suspects leads me to say then ut me on all the suspect lists. As for China it's policies hurt its people as much as it does us. Its version of communism is the issue. It doesn't need to recruit Chinese immigrants . It recruits Canadians of all types. It recruits us openly with jobs or buying out our businesses or selling us cheap goods they can yank up the profit margin on after destroying its competitors. The biggest recruits are we consumers buying its products. We chose as consumers to buy the cheaper Chinese versions eradicating ur own products and businesses. We the consumers are the recruited..not some friggin Chinese immigrant... So we now decide. If we do not like Chinese policies will we do without their products?

Charles I went back and edited three responses. I edited out certain personal references . I could have done a far better job at responding. I am challenging opinions and words. I did not intend to inflamme just strongly respond to words. By making your comment public I am compelled to acknowledge publically what you said and take full responsibility for my words. Folks means me in this case of course. I stand corrected at becoming too personal in responses. No excuses. Thank you. This was edited June 14

In regards to your suspect lists if you are not raising fear about immigrants why do you raise them? Read the above Argus. It's a classic example of your cognitive dissonance. As for your reference to me and Taxme Lol he is supporting your views Argus not mine. China's government policies impact negatively on its citizens much as they do Canadians. You want to start a thread on immigrants being the majority of murders and criminal suspects and being recruited as spies start one. Go on. People come here to get away from tyranical governments. They do not need your smeers. You want use a thread on China to work in anti immigrant fear mongering I will challenge it. Suspect lists.....in your world we fear immigrants for being murderers and criminal suspects and crackdown on them. It's got every thing to do with your take on immigrants or do you want to explain that Chinese don't use any other way but to sph of using Chinese immigrants in Canada. China hacks into fire walls Argus. It breaks codes and uses satellites . What world do you live in? Most spying today is electronic. Edited June 14 .

I argue You turned this thread into a pretense to fear monger about immigrants and the potential beliefs of immigrants. The theme is repeated in your responses and I argue you use whatever political cause of the day you think you have to serve as the excuse. Then when you are called out on it you backpedal trying to hide from the comments you made and deflect back to the pretext you introduced them on. The RCMP did not ask for nor does it need you to tell it, its job orcgo tell or to crack down on anyone. Yourcreferencd to crackdown is not to agents and that us precisely shybyou refer go suspect lists of immigrants not agents or fabricated murder rates of immigrants. The thread was about China as a country and how its trade practices and policies impact on its own citizens and the world and you now focus it on itsspying in Canada with the connection to Chinese immigrants. You switched it to recruiting Chinese immigrants in Canada. Now you try cover your miserable agenda acting as if you only meant Chinese agents give you a concern? Your anti-immigration rants about immigrants being the most violent criminals in Canada and being the most suspect in Canada preceded this thread and procedes this thread and tryi got detach this thread from anti immigrant comments in other threads will not removdcshat you said. I am calling you out on entire responses as to immigrants including in this thread. Go on tell everyone. Finish it. You already stated Muslims need to be surveilled. How about Chinese now? What you want to pretend you only meant you are concerned with Chinese agents after claiming immigrants have the highest murder rates in Canada and are the most suspected of crimes? You are only concerned about Chinese agents? That is all you meant? You accused without proof violent murderers and the majority of people being suspected of crime. Now you try paint me as politically correct for calling you out as an anti immigrant blow hard using this thread as yet another of many to couch your hatred and fear mongering. Enough is enough. Edited June 14

Free trade, cooperatives for farmers, insurance, unemployment insurance, worker's compensation insurance system.

Yes. Argus you made an allegation immigrant Canadians have the highest crime rates for violence then when I asked for the statistics admitted you have none and blamed the lack of statistics being caused by leftists. You were caught red handed fabricating. Now you raise in an issue as to how to deal with Chinese policies a claim that Chinese agents are blackmailing and pressuring Chinese immigrants and call for a crackdown. So I contend that necessarily raises an issue of fearing Chinese Canadians. You chose to raise it as a fear when discussing the Chinese government. In the past on this forum you have also questioned the loyalty of immigrants repeatedly claiming they do not have the same values you want for this country. You appear now to repeat it every chance you can work it in a thread or issue. Your preoccupation with immigrants dominates your responses now. So I now argue your words words smeer immigrants claiming the majority of people on wanted lists are immigrants. Yah I knew you just threw that in because it what Argus? Because what? Because it justifies your negative stereotyping of immigrants? So.. who keeps raising the immigrant issue Argus? You think the deflection and allegation I did to suggest works any better than that other attempt to blame leftists when you got caught fabricating an allegation of immigrants having the highest violent crimes in Canada? Now twice you have repeated that immigrants are the majority of suspects of crimes in Canada and argue I should not derive from your words that you find immigrants suspect? Of course I challenge your call for a crackdown. So you have lists of immigrant suspects Argus. .finish it? Isvthis about Chinese agents in Canada or is 8t about Chinese immigrants and all immigrants you do not want in Canada? Wanted list my ass..do you mean deportation list? Edited on June 14 to delete specific comments.

You not I dragged Chinese immigrants into this topic. Have the integrity to admit why you did and why. Your words deliberately switch the issue from problematic Chinese government policies to raising the spectre of disloyal Chinese Canadians. Who you. Yah you.

I did not quote...that one can be patriotic without being blind. Yes. Ihave many, but I do not suffer. Already answered. Anything else?

This is not left or right. The fact is every human has biases intentional and unintentional which can lead to selective treatment perceived as unfair. I think the videos are far too subjective to be effective. I hate the word systemic. It is a meaningless word. Anything with more than 1 is systemic. I cringe when I hear it. I have to go back to anyone who claims discrimination to identify it and then explain what they would do to address it. That would be helpful.

I defer to your expertise on the subject.