Police showing solidarity for a charged cop

[Argus]

This is a subject which has drawn heavy commentary locally, from all levels of media, from local government and local community groups, not to mention citizens. An Ottawa police officer has been charged with manslaughter and assault with a weapon in the death of a suspect he arrested. In response, Ottawa police are wearing wristbands which are seen as supporting the officer. 

The case is complicated by the suspect killed in the arrest being Black, which brings the race baiters out,  and that the officer was wearing gloves with knuckle protectors. The gloves were issued to him, though, and with no guidelines or restrictions on their use.

I'm jaundiced when it comes to violent confrontations between police and criminals, and tend to side with the cops. In this case, since I see the cop involved as having merely done his job, I can understand the resentment of the rest of the police service, since they can easily see themselves being charged under the same circumstances. The cause of death of the guy involved has not been released to the public.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/more-controversial-police-wristbands-ordered-due-to-demand

[Michael Hardner]

Ok but what about "the" public ?

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok but what about "the" public ?

That's me. I think the guy is innocent until proven guilty, and I default to supporting cops until I find out otherwise. 

[Michael Hardner]

So, as we have seen in other domains, people see the police as a 'group'.  And there are other 'groups' that don't like the idea of supporting someone who is charged as such.

What about that ?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

So, as we have seen in other domains, people see the police as a 'group'.  And there are other 'groups' that don't like the idea of supporting someone who is charged as such.

What about that ?

That's up to them, I guess. Freedom of association, and all that.  They have no right to tell others who they can and cannot support. They can certainly have and express an opinion on it though. 

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, bcsapper said:

 Freedom of association, and all that.  They have no right to tell others who they can and cannot support. They can certainly have and express an opinion on it though. 

Actually, you don't have freedom of expression on the job.  I don't accept that.

Now, should they allow the officers to express support ?  

[Guest]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Actually, you don't have freedom of expression on the job.  I don't accept that.

Now, should they allow the officers to express support ?  

We were talking about the groups who don't like it, weren't we?

The Chief of Police can make whatever decision he or she wants with regard to dress code. 

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, bcsapper said:

We were talking about the groups who don't like it, weren't we?

The Chief of Police can make whatever decision he or she wants with regard to dress code. 

Absolutely, I agree that it's the Chief's call and that position is highly political.  So he/she has to balance community reaction with union reaction.  That's the negotiation - all politics.  Agreed ?

[Guest]

I suppose so.  It's really up to the individual.  I would wear it. An off duty cop can wear it. There's no reason for the Chief to allow an on duty cop to wear it. Anyone who doesn't want to wear it should not have to, nor should they have any say in whether or not anyone else does.  

Should put me in charge.  Voice of reason. 

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

1) There's no reason for the Chief to allow an on duty cop to wear it.

2) Should put me in charge.  Voice of reason. 

1) As I said - politics.  Labour peace vs. Social peace

2) You are HIRED.

[blackbird]

I don't think the police union should be involved in taking a side.

[H10]

His job is to kill people?

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok but what about "the" public ?

What about them?

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Argus said:

What about them?

They see the police as a group, for good or bad, as a tribe.  They will see this act of solidarity with the charged officer and the perception will be that they're on his side.  Maybe.

[Argus]

11 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I don't think the police union should be involved in taking a side.

The job of being a police officer is an odd one in that you're not allowed to make mistakes. Note, I'm not saying he did in this case, but he may have. We all make mistakes at work, we all do things which turn out wrong, and which, on occasion, might cause our bosses to question our judgement.

The difference with police is that your mistakes can get you charged under the police act, or even arrested and charged under the criminal code. There is little room for misjudgement when your job involves using physical force on people, even lethal force at times. They have to use their judgement, in an instant of high adrenaline, as to whether something is justified under the terms they've been given by society.

As far as I can see from the reports on this he didn't act much differently than any other cop in the same situation. That's probably what all the other cops are thinking, too. Police are tasked to bring order by using physical force. Human beings respond differently to that. Just as most of us can take a given drug with no consequences, while for others, there are bad side effects, so too can a blow from a closed fist sometimes cause a lot more damage than expected.

Yet we task police to use physical violence to enforce their orders, in the pursuit of an orderly society.

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

They see the police as a group, for good or bad, as a tribe.  They will see this act of solidarity with the charged officer and the perception will be that they're on his side.  Maybe.

In a lot of ways the police ARE a group, a tribe. They have a unique job which sets them apart from society. Has anyone punched you lately, Michael? Have you punched anyone lately? Have you grabbed them and forced them against a wall or down onto the ground? Probably not. How do people who do that as part of their job relate to a peaceful society in which, for many people, a slap in the face would be remembered for a lifetime because of the shock of violence?

How many dead bodies have you seen? How many bodies maimed in traffic accidents, or suicides? How often do you encounter people angrily screaming at one another at the top of their lungs?

Edited April 1, 2017 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, Argus said:

1) Has anyone punched you lately, Michael? Have you punched anyone lately? Have you grabbed them and forced them against a wall or down onto the ground? Probably not. How do people who do that as part of their job relate to a peaceful society in which, for many people, a slap in the face would be remembered for a lifetime because of the shock of violence?

2) How many dead bodies have you seen? How many bodies maimed in traffic accidents, or suicides? How often do you encounter people angrily screaming at one another at the top of their lungs?

1) Hasn't happened to me.  Yes, it's a tough job.

2) None really.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have the right to express solidarity but as I said it's a negotiation.

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, hernanday said:

His job is to kill people?

Only if absolutely necessary, to keep you safe.

Awful, the things we ask them to do, eh?

[dialamah]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

I'm jaundiced when it comes to violent confrontations between police and criminals, and tend to side with the cops. In this case, since I see the cop involved as having merely done his job,

 

 

 

Funny, me too.  My partner does not; he sees the cops as being too authoritarian and too willing to abuse their power.  So we have these arguments pretty regularly - but at least they're good-natured.

 

1 hour ago, Argus said:

They have a unique job which sets them apart from society. Has anyone punched you lately, Michael? Have you punched anyone lately? Have you grabbed them and forced them against a wall or down onto the ground? Probably not. How do people who do that as part of their job relate to a peaceful society in which, for many people, a slap in the face would be remembered for a lifetime because of the shock of violence?

How many dead bodies have you seen? How many bodies maimed in traffic accidents, or suicides? How often do you encounter people angrily screaming at one another at the top of their lungs?

 

 

 

Yeah, this is what I point out to the BF too.  But he feels that cops have a moral imperative to be better than we are, that they should have the training and wherewithal to avoid, through good management, situations that result in someone being killed, especially someone who isn't even doing anything wrong.   I see his point, but still think that they are deserving of the benefit of the doubt, since they are only human.  I do agree with him that too often it seems that cops aren't properly prosecuted when they do commit crimes.

It really bugs me that we put all these expectations on cops - life on the line, media scrutiny, lots of criticism - but we don't really pay them very much.   

Edited April 1, 2017 by dialamah

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

The job of being a police officer is an odd one in that you're not allowed to make mistakes. Note, I'm not saying he did in this case, but he may have. We all make mistakes at work, we all do things which turn out wrong, and which, on occasion, might cause our bosses to question our judgement.

The difference with police is that your mistakes can get you charged under the police act, or even arrested and charged under the criminal code. There is little room for misjudgement when your job involves using physical force on people, even lethal force at times. They have to use their judgement, in an instant of high adrenaline, as to whether something is justified under the terms they've been given by society.

As far as I can see from the reports on this he didn't act much differently than any other cop in the same situation. That's probably what all the other cops are thinking, too. Police are tasked to bring order by using physical force. Human beings respond differently to that. Just as most of us can take a given drug with no consequences, while for others, there are bad side effects, so too can a blow from a closed fist sometimes cause a lot more damage than expected.

Yet we task police to use physical violence to enforce their orders, in the pursuit of an orderly society.

1 hour ago, Argus said:

The job of being a police officer is an odd one in that you're not allowed to make mistakes. Note, I'm not saying he did in this case, but he may have. We all make mistakes at work, we all do things which turn out wrong, and which, on occasion, might cause our bosses to question our judgement.

The difference with police is that your mistakes can get you charged under the police act, or even arrested and charged under the criminal code. There is little room for misjudgement when your job involves using physical force on people, even lethal force at times. They have to use their judgement, in an instant of high adrenaline, as to whether something is justified under the terms they've been given by society.

As far as I can see from the reports on this he didn't act much differently than any other cop in the same situation. That's probably what all the other cops are thinking, too. Police are tasked to bring order by using physical force. Human beings respond differently to that. Just as most of us can take a given drug with no consequences, while for others, there are bad side effects, so too can a blow from a closed fist sometimes cause a lot more damage than expected.

Yet we task police to use physical violence to enforce their orders, in the pursuit of an orderly society.

There are many jobs where you not allowed to make mistakes.  Doctors, surgeons, nurses, etc.  Some jobs by their nature have serious consequences if you make a mistake.  I guess that's part of the reason they are fairly well paid and have lots of benefits in their contracts.

Still I think the union would be better to keep a low profile in these cases.  It would project a better public image.  The union should be unbiased and neutral until they see what the outcome is.  Then if they feel the decision is wrong or too harsh, they can appeal it. 

[hot enough]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

I'm jaundiced when it comes to violent confrontations between police and criminals, and tend to side with the cops. In this case, since I see the cop involved as having merely done his job, I can understand the resentment of the rest of the police service, since they can easily see themselves being charged under the same circumstances. The cause of death of the guy involved has not been released to the public.

And that tells it all. You are in a perpetual state of jaundice even when you have no facts.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Hasn't happened to me.  Yes, it's a tough job.

2) None really.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have the right to express solidarity but as I said it's a negotiation.

My point isn't to suggest it's a tough job. It can be, but that's not what I mean. I'm pointing out it is a unique job which inevitably changes those who do it for very long so that they feel more comfortable around their own, and less comfortable around "civilians". I imagine it's the same for military people.

[Argus]

30 minutes ago, hot enough said:

And that tells it all. You are in a perpetual state of jaundice even when you have no facts.

How would you know? I am always, after all, in possession of the facts, at least here.

[hot enough]

17 minutes ago, Argus said:

How would you know? I am always, after all, in possession of the facts, at least here.

Argus wrote: "The cause of death of the guy involved has not been released to the public."

You use as your source a newspaper report and then you say, "I am always, after all, in possession of the facts".

Edited April 1, 2017 by hot enough

[Argus]

Just now, hot enough said:

Argus wrote: "The cause of death of the guy involved has not been released to the public."

I didn't say I was in possession of ALL facts. But when I make an opinion it is an informed opinion and I post cites to back it up.

You, on the other hand, have fringe opinions derived from places most people would want to bathe after briefly exploring.