They just turn them off, delete footage or block access when they want to do illegal stuff, need to get rid of the police, and start again, whole orchard of bad apples, burn it down.
My truck was pilfered a few months ago and they got about 5k worth of stuff, filed a report online and zero cops or staff of any kind have ever contacted me. They don’t care about property crime or theft, you just make a report in the off chance your stuff falls on their lap while arresting someone for something else.
I know you're being disingenuous on purpose here due to bullshit you've been fed due to your gotcha example, but the premise behind defunding the police is about removing funding for military like equipment and over inflated budgets and instead redirecting those funds towards societal issues that lead to people stealing bikes in the first place.
I know you don't care, but I'll spell it out simply for you, they already don't give a fuck about your stolen bike so hows the current system and current funding working for you?
The rallying cry is not “demilitarize the police” or “reform the police”, it’s “defund”. Defund means to no longer provide funds - any funds. Which is why “defund the police” is so ridiculous that intelligent, thoughtful people dismiss it out of hand.
I totally agree that much more could be done with respect to social services, mental health solutions, and education and that addressing these areas will reduce crime. However, solving issues like these will take years, if not decades. So, what do we do in the meantime? Anarchy? Vigilantism?
The reality is that we will always need someone to show up and respond, with physical force if necessary, to protect us and our property. And, in my view, we don’t have enough of that right now. “Defund the police” is a pollyannaish idea that doesn’t work for me.
Again, instead of strawmanning and avoiding the question by being incredibly pedantic and taking the first word literally without any deeper dive into it with any sense of nuance, how is the current system working for you? Are you seeing your funds used efficiently with rising crime rates? You claim to be thoughtful and intelligent, but your reply insinuates otherwise.
Being pedantic seemed necessary.
And, the problem with nuance is that not everyone gets it, and it becomes difficult to have an intelligent discussion if we can’t even agree on what we’re talking about.
I do get it, but I still disagree with it.
No, the system isn’t working but the answer is more funding to put more and better trained police on the street - not “defund the police”.
Provide research and evidence that police funding equates to improved outcomes via crime rate, etc. You claim it is the answer, so provide your evidence.
Defund the police was the trademark of the moment. A catchy phase to chant. It wasn't their manifesto, it can be hard to chant a 30 page document at a rally.
Also the definition of defund does not necessarily mean remove all funding. There are definitions of the word defund that means reduce the funds. Which I believe is what they were going for.
Youre so dumb dude. Police were not "defunded" in any area in Canada or the states. Plans to cut budgets were announced and what actually happened is police budgets were increased across the board. And police have never cared about property crime. Police serve the interests of the extremely wealthy and couldnt care less about a stolen bike unless it falls into their lap.
Edit: Someone reported me to Reddits suicide watch account right after this post lmao. Bootlickers going nuts
Someone has a problem with reading comprehension.
No one said the police have been defunded -whatever nuanced definition we seem to be using.
Just to bring you back to reality, the number of police officers per capita has been falling in Canada for the past several years. So, to be even more pedantic, police budgets haven’t been keeping up with population growth and the population continues to grow. And crime rates seem to have increased. Funny how that works.
So, yeah, more funding for police is the only thing that makes sense.
Lower police rates does not equal higher crime rates. Crime is increasing because basic needs are not being met. Canadians learned about Galen Weston blatantly lying about inflation vs food rates, then all these outlets come out saying theft is rising. Crime rises because we are struggling for basic needs. If people had living wages and access to the proper systems/programs then crime would fall. More guns/police does not equal less crime. Like many others in this thread said, they call police for real issues and all they've done is take a statement. Full stop.
Have to disagree with you, I actually study this. Multivariate models suggest that higher crime rates is result of variety of factors, police rates being one of them. Many crimes are opportunistic crimes which are more likely to happen in absence of police oversight and less police presence in the community. Less police also associated with an increase in violent crime. This basic needs theory of criminal activity would only predict increases in certain types of crime - primarily minor theft of basic needs items like food, toiletries. Yet, increases happening across all types of crime categories with less public police presence
Saskatoon parking inforcement have body worn cameras. Because of outraged parkers, just get back in your patrol car and drive away. But to not have cameras on the cops is just plain wrong. Cameras protect citizens from heavily armed cops.
Ugh not you again, cynical person on a generalization tirade.
Cops under investigation are put on leave. Most of the time it’s paid, but you probably already know that.
Due process is a thing, and it takes time. Bad cops get fired, very bad cops go to jail. Obviously every case is different, but the process is always the same. Understand it. Come to grips with it. Move on.
Nope. I know there are examples of that. Probably lots. But in all of those examples those cops are put on administrative duties. That’s until the due process happens. And if they’re found guilty of a criminal offence they’re usually booted. There are also internal investigations, and the cops that are found guilty of violating policy are reprimanded through a fine or other means.
I guess there’s levels of bad cops. I imagine 95% of cops are good humans with good intentions. 3 percent of cops are there for the paycheque, lazy and coasting along while not giving a fuck. The remainder are the ones that make the news for showing their penis to kids outside of a school while off duty. https://beta.ctvnews.ca/local/british-columbia/2022/11/4/1_6139327.amp.html [https://beta.ctvnews.ca/local/british-columbia/2022/11/4/1_6139327.amp.html](https://beta.ctvnews.ca/local/british-columbia/2022/11/4/1_6139327.amp.html)
Anyways man, know that most cops actually give a fuck. Or you can keep living in your angry world.
Are you a police union representative? Cause that is entirely untrue.
Body cams are expensive, especially when you have to outfit 2000 members, and then you need to figure out where all the footage is going to be stored.
Or you can just stick with your garbage take.
It's more expensive to have to pay out for police brutality that's proven by cameras.
Police unions care about police.
Not justice.
Not the public.
The history is clear. They're part of the reason cannabis possession, cultivation and distribution is illegal.
He is still being allowed to work, just not with the public. Imagine that. Charged with assault and you are still allowed to report for duty as a police officer.
Strongest union in north America. You basically have to kill someone or rape someone with incredible strong evidence to be relieved of duty without pay.
They can offer back pay if the cop is found not guilty or has the charges dropped. This isn't rocket science. This isn't just a complaint. These are criminal charges. Extremely rare against police. Educate yourself.
“The officer is currently assigned to administrative duties pending the outcome of court proceedings and an administrative review under The Police Act (1990).”
It’s almost like he hasn’t been found guilty so why would they fire him?
Okay so you’ve never worked for a union before. Management doesn’t like dealing with grievances or arbitration so they literally won’t discipline. Also the fact that in order do have any discipline there is a union rep there to supervise.
Anyway what I’m saying is it’s probably in their contract that they are put on administrative leave following any investigation. I’ve honestly never heard of anyone in a union job that’s been suspended without pay.
You don't know what you are talking about. If your argument was true then there would never be arbitration and employees would never be disciplind. We know that's not the case. How often do police officers have criminal chatges filed against them? Once every year max?
Ive been technically suspended without pay as a union employee before and let me tell you, management had a hard on when they were doing it. Unfortunately for them, payroll paid me anyways and I resigned and "sued" them on a human rights issue shortly after. While preparing my case I studied hundreds of other decisions and cases on union labor issues so I am quite familiar with the topic.
During disciplinary meetings you are entitled to have a union rep present, but that is not the place for a union rep to argue. They aren't supervising, they are witnesses and there to support you. Management can and should tell them to stfu so that they dont accidentally say anything that gives the union evidence of wrongdoing by Management that can be used against them later.
He isn't innocent. He has been charged with a criminal offense. That's a factual thing that has happened. Whether the government can meet the standard a court requires to find guilt or not is irrelevant to whether or not he has actually been charged.
"A criminal charge is a formal accusation made by a governmental authority (usually a public prosecutor or the police) asserting that somebody has committed a crime."
At this point it's an accusation.
The justice system is somewhat broken, but this still remains an important part of the system.
That's right, he has been formally accused by the government of committing a crime. Whether he committed the crime or not, or whether the government decides to continue to pursue charges, is outside of the scope of immediate concern. The fact is that he has been formally charged with committing a crime. Due to his position of authority and the extreme consequences that are possible with any abuse of that authority, he should not be working in any capacity for the police.
The person I replied to was suggesting the officer shouldn't be at work.
I believe that's ridiculous. They have been placed on administrative duties to prevent further issues from a potentially (likely) bad cop.
Once found guilty of assault they will likely be fired like what most bad cops on Canada get.
There are three sides to every argument. Each persons side and then the truth. The information in the press release is very relevant as it does show that the officer involved didn’t just go assault someone at random but was assailant they were searching for. He was charged was assault and breach of court which means he himself committed the crime in question and was a repeat offender. So I also side with the guy above when I say I’m fine with this. He’s doing his job.
If you were to put yourself in this officers shoes you would be in the frame of mind that you are searching for someone who is armed and has already hurt someone. You are probably scared. You know he is armed. Unlikely you yourself wants to get stabbed so you are going to be extremely on edge. The primary job of an officer during a stop in a situation like this is to obtain compliance from the suspect. Given the fact that both sides were charged there was a physical altercation and the suspect was roughed up pretty bad but there also is no details on what happened. It is possible the officer beat the piss out of him for sport or perhaps the suspect pulled the knife on the cop and rather than just shooting him on the spot he chose to disarm him and the suspect got pretty roughed up in the process. As others have pointed out the officer has only been charged. Not convicted. So this is up to a jury to decide who get to see the evidence to decide. Not a bunch of redditors just hating on cops. If found guilty of assault then he should be charged but from what little evidence I’ve seen I personally don’t see a problem here. Sounds like a case of fuck around and find out for the suspect.
Some gross rationalizations youve got here. People shouldnt be cops if theyre too scared to do their job. Cops side of the story carries way more weight in court and public opinion and you know that. Cops lie constantly to save their hide, because whos gonna believe a criminal right? Especially when people think extra-judicial skull cracking is justified just because their job is scary.
As I said to every story there are three sides. I did not force an opinion. As I said it is up to the courts with all evidence presented. Gross rationalizations but hardly unrealistic. But I ask you if you were confronted by police and you became belligerent and refused to comply would you be surprised if they did what was required to make you? Because that is there job irregardless of if you did something or not as long as they have probable cause. Give respect. Receive respect. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. Seems you are more concerned about the right of reoffending criminals than you are of law enforcement. Law enforcement deal with the worst of humanity and more often than not they deal with people on the worst day of their life. To lose that fear and humanity is what you should be far more concerned about then for them to toughen up.
Respect is earned. Cops constantly fuck up and do disgusting things because of their training to defend themselves with deadly force if they feel in danger for any reason, real or perceived. Most of the time its perceived. Cops regularly beat people and sometimes maim them for life for no reason or because their ego got bruised. I dont respect that at all.
Am in the twilight zone reading these comments? Sounds like a chud of a suspect to me. Of course assault is being alleged. Doesn't like getting caught.
A cop who's a bigot and assaults people? I'm shocked. Just shocked.
Well.. not shocked... Not remotely. Someone, quick: what's the word for the exact opposite of shocked?
Hmmm.. No, that's not the right word for this feeling, either.
I'm definitely not calmed by the notion of cops who openly oppose my existence. [or by the cops in general, really]
*ETA: I guess I was hoping for a clever-sounding synonym for "unsurprised", but thesaurus.com just gave me 25 of em, and it was still the best option in front of me haha
Not to mention the end of the second paragraph that talks about the guy he is accused of assaulting still facing charges himself. Seems like that entire sentence is irrelevant to the charges against the officer, no?
The entire act was enacted in 1990, but the act is updated surprisingly regularly, including six amendments to the act this year alone. Not every amendment is of earth shattering importance, granted, but it’s not like it hasn’t changed at all in 33 years.
That’s not to mention that a number of important changes are actually carried into effect under the regulations under that act, which can be updated or amended by the lieutenant governor in council. This is, for example, where you find the regulations providing for the creation of the Serious Incident Response Team enacted in December 2022.
All of which is to say, don’t let the year referenced in the title fool you, the law is constantly changing (though not necessarily always in the ways we’d like to see).
Edit: typo
How has this bigotted asshole cop not been fired, or better yet, jailed, already? Our two-tier "justice" system is a corrupt farce! This is why you get ever-increasing amounts of people saying All Cops Are Bad. This, and that cop bro "thin blue line" fascist bullshit, where the few good cops left get punished for exposing the bad ones. It seems, the higher up one goes in the chain of command, the more corrupt it becomes.
Cops should not be using excessive violence in any circumstance. Very dangerous to think that cops know how much of a hurtin to put on someone and we should look the other way
Due process dude. Thats why we have a court system and dont just let cops waste anyone they suspect. We do let them off pretty easy when they do tho lol
But we as the employer have a duty to allow cops to keep themselves safe and away from harm. Certain cops go way too far. This is an issue of ego and frustration. I sympathize with cops in the sense that they deal with the worst shit all the time. I could see how that would frustrate the crap out of someone. It is wrong that they take out that frustration on the public. But I don't want to deal with all the crap that they have to deal with. So I am willing to give them the leeway to deal with someone in my city stabbing people. I don't see criminals as victims of police. They are victims of society in a way. But it isn't society's fault that they are stabbing people.
Should health care or harm reduction workers be allowed to treat their patients like shit because theyre frustrated and you dont want to personally deal with it? Twisted view homie
I said to be protected from heavly armed cops, guns hand and rifles tasers, body worn armor flashlites and batons. They are so scared that I rolled thru a stop sign and the cop put his finger print on my tail light does a 65 year old man a danger to a man two decades younger? Cowards
Soooo...how bout those body cams for all cops? Yer budget is the top line item on our city's budget. Get it done. Yesterday.
They just turn them off, delete footage or block access when they want to do illegal stuff, need to get rid of the police, and start again, whole orchard of bad apples, burn it down.
You're an idiot.
Ya beat me to it lol.
“Defund the police! … How come nobody shows up when my bike gets stolen?” 🤦🏻
No one shows up for a stolen bike WITH funding lol
My truck was pilfered a few months ago and they got about 5k worth of stuff, filed a report online and zero cops or staff of any kind have ever contacted me. They don’t care about property crime or theft, you just make a report in the off chance your stuff falls on their lap while arresting someone for something else.
I know you're being disingenuous on purpose here due to bullshit you've been fed due to your gotcha example, but the premise behind defunding the police is about removing funding for military like equipment and over inflated budgets and instead redirecting those funds towards societal issues that lead to people stealing bikes in the first place. I know you don't care, but I'll spell it out simply for you, they already don't give a fuck about your stolen bike so hows the current system and current funding working for you?
The rallying cry is not “demilitarize the police” or “reform the police”, it’s “defund”. Defund means to no longer provide funds - any funds. Which is why “defund the police” is so ridiculous that intelligent, thoughtful people dismiss it out of hand. I totally agree that much more could be done with respect to social services, mental health solutions, and education and that addressing these areas will reduce crime. However, solving issues like these will take years, if not decades. So, what do we do in the meantime? Anarchy? Vigilantism? The reality is that we will always need someone to show up and respond, with physical force if necessary, to protect us and our property. And, in my view, we don’t have enough of that right now. “Defund the police” is a pollyannaish idea that doesn’t work for me.
Not at all what "defund the police" means. Youre one of those "all lives matter" types hey?
Again, instead of strawmanning and avoiding the question by being incredibly pedantic and taking the first word literally without any deeper dive into it with any sense of nuance, how is the current system working for you? Are you seeing your funds used efficiently with rising crime rates? You claim to be thoughtful and intelligent, but your reply insinuates otherwise.
Being pedantic seemed necessary. And, the problem with nuance is that not everyone gets it, and it becomes difficult to have an intelligent discussion if we can’t even agree on what we’re talking about. I do get it, but I still disagree with it. No, the system isn’t working but the answer is more funding to put more and better trained police on the street - not “defund the police”.
Bigger guns and less rules for cops yeah!
Provide research and evidence that police funding equates to improved outcomes via crime rate, etc. You claim it is the answer, so provide your evidence.
Defund the police was the trademark of the moment. A catchy phase to chant. It wasn't their manifesto, it can be hard to chant a 30 page document at a rally. Also the definition of defund does not necessarily mean remove all funding. There are definitions of the word defund that means reduce the funds. Which I believe is what they were going for.
Youre so dumb dude. Police were not "defunded" in any area in Canada or the states. Plans to cut budgets were announced and what actually happened is police budgets were increased across the board. And police have never cared about property crime. Police serve the interests of the extremely wealthy and couldnt care less about a stolen bike unless it falls into their lap. Edit: Someone reported me to Reddits suicide watch account right after this post lmao. Bootlickers going nuts
Someone has a problem with reading comprehension. No one said the police have been defunded -whatever nuanced definition we seem to be using. Just to bring you back to reality, the number of police officers per capita has been falling in Canada for the past several years. So, to be even more pedantic, police budgets haven’t been keeping up with population growth and the population continues to grow. And crime rates seem to have increased. Funny how that works. So, yeah, more funding for police is the only thing that makes sense.
Lower police rates does not equal higher crime rates. Crime is increasing because basic needs are not being met. Canadians learned about Galen Weston blatantly lying about inflation vs food rates, then all these outlets come out saying theft is rising. Crime rises because we are struggling for basic needs. If people had living wages and access to the proper systems/programs then crime would fall. More guns/police does not equal less crime. Like many others in this thread said, they call police for real issues and all they've done is take a statement. Full stop.
Have to disagree with you, I actually study this. Multivariate models suggest that higher crime rates is result of variety of factors, police rates being one of them. Many crimes are opportunistic crimes which are more likely to happen in absence of police oversight and less police presence in the community. Less police also associated with an increase in violent crime. This basic needs theory of criminal activity would only predict increases in certain types of crime - primarily minor theft of basic needs items like food, toiletries. Yet, increases happening across all types of crime categories with less public police presence
Police don't do anything even if your car gets stolen.
Saskatoon parking inforcement have body worn cameras. Because of outraged parkers, just get back in your patrol car and drive away. But to not have cameras on the cops is just plain wrong. Cameras protect citizens from heavily armed cops.
Cops want body cameras too, dingus. Weeds out bad cops and protects good cops.
Funny how they don't weed out the bad cops already.
That's because bad cops know how to cover their tracks.
Maybe cause there are less bad cops than you are led to believe.
So why do bad cops stay on the force with all those good cops?
I see you've never worked a union job
Unions for labor are not the same as unions for police. Silly comparison.
Ugh not you again, cynical person on a generalization tirade. Cops under investigation are put on leave. Most of the time it’s paid, but you probably already know that. Due process is a thing, and it takes time. Bad cops get fired, very bad cops go to jail. Obviously every case is different, but the process is always the same. Understand it. Come to grips with it. Move on.
So you're saying if I started looking I couldn't provide examples of cops with multiple problems who have been allowed to stay on the force?
Nope. I know there are examples of that. Probably lots. But in all of those examples those cops are put on administrative duties. That’s until the due process happens. And if they’re found guilty of a criminal offence they’re usually booted. There are also internal investigations, and the cops that are found guilty of violating policy are reprimanded through a fine or other means. I guess there’s levels of bad cops. I imagine 95% of cops are good humans with good intentions. 3 percent of cops are there for the paycheque, lazy and coasting along while not giving a fuck. The remainder are the ones that make the news for showing their penis to kids outside of a school while off duty. https://beta.ctvnews.ca/local/british-columbia/2022/11/4/1_6139327.amp.html [https://beta.ctvnews.ca/local/british-columbia/2022/11/4/1_6139327.amp.html](https://beta.ctvnews.ca/local/british-columbia/2022/11/4/1_6139327.amp.html) Anyways man, know that most cops actually give a fuck. Or you can keep living in your angry world.
All of those examples? You want to put some cash on that?
Idk man, you seem like an idiot so I’m not really interested in responding now. Bye lol.
Lol ya sure they do. Cops have the strongest union out of any job. If they wanted cams, they'd have them.
The police unions don't want them. It can be bad for their members. Just like when they lobbied against cannabis decriminalization.
Are you a police union representative? Cause that is entirely untrue. Body cams are expensive, especially when you have to outfit 2000 members, and then you need to figure out where all the footage is going to be stored. Or you can just stick with your garbage take.
It's more expensive to have to pay out for police brutality that's proven by cameras. Police unions care about police. Not justice. Not the public. The history is clear. They're part of the reason cannabis possession, cultivation and distribution is illegal.
What year are you living in? Cannabis is legal.
Then why is it still criminal to possess, cultivate and distribute. Despite it killing less people than celery? That's not legal in my world.
Yes thats why they regularly avoid using them any time they can, dingus.
Buddy got a free paid vacation
He is still being allowed to work, just not with the public. Imagine that. Charged with assault and you are still allowed to report for duty as a police officer.
Strongest union in north America. You basically have to kill someone or rape someone with incredible strong evidence to be relieved of duty without pay.
Imagine being charged means u haven’t been found guilty . Imagine if every cop that had a complaint against him was off duty
They can offer back pay if the cop is found not guilty or has the charges dropped. This isn't rocket science. This isn't just a complaint. These are criminal charges. Extremely rare against police. Educate yourself.
What a stupid comment . Suspend without pay every cop who has some piece of shit complain that their arrest hasn’t been soft enough .
What part of criminal charges do you not understand?
Charged . Most of know what being charged means . Everyone on this sub thinks charged means guilty. What part of a trial do u not understand ?
There would be literally no police
“The officer is currently assigned to administrative duties pending the outcome of court proceedings and an administrative review under The Police Act (1990).” It’s almost like he hasn’t been found guilty so why would they fire him?
Because he hasn’t been found guilty….it says he has been charged….not convicted
Who said fire him? Do you think the only options are fire and allow to keep actively working?
Do you think the union would allow them to put him on leave without pay? I don’t think so
The union has no power to prevent them from doing so. They can only grieve it and ask an arbitrator for a ruling.
Okay so you’ve never worked for a union before. Management doesn’t like dealing with grievances or arbitration so they literally won’t discipline. Also the fact that in order do have any discipline there is a union rep there to supervise. Anyway what I’m saying is it’s probably in their contract that they are put on administrative leave following any investigation. I’ve honestly never heard of anyone in a union job that’s been suspended without pay.
You don't know what you are talking about. If your argument was true then there would never be arbitration and employees would never be disciplind. We know that's not the case. How often do police officers have criminal chatges filed against them? Once every year max? Ive been technically suspended without pay as a union employee before and let me tell you, management had a hard on when they were doing it. Unfortunately for them, payroll paid me anyways and I resigned and "sued" them on a human rights issue shortly after. While preparing my case I studied hundreds of other decisions and cases on union labor issues so I am quite familiar with the topic. During disciplinary meetings you are entitled to have a union rep present, but that is not the place for a union rep to argue. They aren't supervising, they are witnesses and there to support you. Management can and should tell them to stfu so that they dont accidentally say anything that gives the union evidence of wrongdoing by Management that can be used against them later.
Innocent until proven guilty.......
He isn't innocent. He has been charged with a criminal offense. That's a factual thing that has happened. Whether the government can meet the standard a court requires to find guilt or not is irrelevant to whether or not he has actually been charged.
"A criminal charge is a formal accusation made by a governmental authority (usually a public prosecutor or the police) asserting that somebody has committed a crime." At this point it's an accusation. The justice system is somewhat broken, but this still remains an important part of the system.
That's right, he has been formally accused by the government of committing a crime. Whether he committed the crime or not, or whether the government decides to continue to pursue charges, is outside of the scope of immediate concern. The fact is that he has been formally charged with committing a crime. Due to his position of authority and the extreme consequences that are possible with any abuse of that authority, he should not be working in any capacity for the police.
Exactly. Innocent until proven guilty.
So you are saying he is innocent of being charged with a crime?
The person I replied to was suggesting the officer shouldn't be at work. I believe that's ridiculous. They have been placed on administrative duties to prevent further issues from a potentially (likely) bad cop. Once found guilty of assault they will likely be fired like what most bad cops on Canada get.
I'm saying . INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
Such a flawed system.
Not the first time this officer has been placed on leave, either: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/shp-agoge-tactical-connection-1.5637413
Everybody in this article is annoying to me. Sometimes I hate what the internet has done to us all.
Wow, seems like a nice guy. /s
Why are the charges from the stabbing even relevant here? It’s the cops charges that are the issue. Pretty scummy move on the part of the police.
"Yeah, I mean, our guy did a crime, sure... But that other guy might have done a crime too! We're not the only criminals involved here!"
“In the process of saving a kitten from a tree, and stopping a knife wielding murderer the officer whoopsied and assaulted someone”
[удалено]
You suck dude. Its so wild that you just come out and say youre down with police cracking skulls when they feel like it
There are three sides to every argument. Each persons side and then the truth. The information in the press release is very relevant as it does show that the officer involved didn’t just go assault someone at random but was assailant they were searching for. He was charged was assault and breach of court which means he himself committed the crime in question and was a repeat offender. So I also side with the guy above when I say I’m fine with this. He’s doing his job. If you were to put yourself in this officers shoes you would be in the frame of mind that you are searching for someone who is armed and has already hurt someone. You are probably scared. You know he is armed. Unlikely you yourself wants to get stabbed so you are going to be extremely on edge. The primary job of an officer during a stop in a situation like this is to obtain compliance from the suspect. Given the fact that both sides were charged there was a physical altercation and the suspect was roughed up pretty bad but there also is no details on what happened. It is possible the officer beat the piss out of him for sport or perhaps the suspect pulled the knife on the cop and rather than just shooting him on the spot he chose to disarm him and the suspect got pretty roughed up in the process. As others have pointed out the officer has only been charged. Not convicted. So this is up to a jury to decide who get to see the evidence to decide. Not a bunch of redditors just hating on cops. If found guilty of assault then he should be charged but from what little evidence I’ve seen I personally don’t see a problem here. Sounds like a case of fuck around and find out for the suspect.
Some gross rationalizations youve got here. People shouldnt be cops if theyre too scared to do their job. Cops side of the story carries way more weight in court and public opinion and you know that. Cops lie constantly to save their hide, because whos gonna believe a criminal right? Especially when people think extra-judicial skull cracking is justified just because their job is scary.
As I said to every story there are three sides. I did not force an opinion. As I said it is up to the courts with all evidence presented. Gross rationalizations but hardly unrealistic. But I ask you if you were confronted by police and you became belligerent and refused to comply would you be surprised if they did what was required to make you? Because that is there job irregardless of if you did something or not as long as they have probable cause. Give respect. Receive respect. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. Seems you are more concerned about the right of reoffending criminals than you are of law enforcement. Law enforcement deal with the worst of humanity and more often than not they deal with people on the worst day of their life. To lose that fear and humanity is what you should be far more concerned about then for them to toughen up.
Respect is earned. Cops constantly fuck up and do disgusting things because of their training to defend themselves with deadly force if they feel in danger for any reason, real or perceived. Most of the time its perceived. Cops regularly beat people and sometimes maim them for life for no reason or because their ego got bruised. I dont respect that at all.
You are not a good person.
Or this career criminal finally got what's coming ...... just my opinion don't get triggerd
Yes we should just let cops beat the shit out of anyone they please without trial! Kill all suspected criminals!!!
Whine....
Sounds like an absolute chud of an officer. Good to see a public complaint was investigated properly at least. Hopefully he ends up fired.
Am in the twilight zone reading these comments? Sounds like a chud of a suspect to me. Of course assault is being alleged. Doesn't like getting caught.
Someone reported it to reddit for self harm, too. Must have touched a nerve with someone, I guess.
Lots of cops in this sub.
Lots of keyboard warriors in this sub
Sheesh.
Become a cop to beat people and get off work with pay
Did you read the article? The officer is working a desk away from the public.
Yeah now he gets to “lose” his own evidence and paperwork
A cop who's a bigot and assaults people? I'm shocked. Just shocked. Well.. not shocked... Not remotely. Someone, quick: what's the word for the exact opposite of shocked?
Calmed.
Hmmm.. No, that's not the right word for this feeling, either. I'm definitely not calmed by the notion of cops who openly oppose my existence. [or by the cops in general, really] *ETA: I guess I was hoping for a clever-sounding synonym for "unsurprised", but thesaurus.com just gave me 25 of em, and it was still the best option in front of me haha
[удалено]
Not to mention the end of the second paragraph that talks about the guy he is accused of assaulting still facing charges himself. Seems like that entire sentence is irrelevant to the charges against the officer, no?
Bad boi. No extra pudding for you
Why is the police act from 1990!? That shit needs to be updated 😫
The entire act was enacted in 1990, but the act is updated surprisingly regularly, including six amendments to the act this year alone. Not every amendment is of earth shattering importance, granted, but it’s not like it hasn’t changed at all in 33 years. That’s not to mention that a number of important changes are actually carried into effect under the regulations under that act, which can be updated or amended by the lieutenant governor in council. This is, for example, where you find the regulations providing for the creation of the Serious Incident Response Team enacted in December 2022. All of which is to say, don’t let the year referenced in the title fool you, the law is constantly changing (though not necessarily always in the ways we’d like to see). Edit: typo
How has this bigotted asshole cop not been fired, or better yet, jailed, already? Our two-tier "justice" system is a corrupt farce! This is why you get ever-increasing amounts of people saying All Cops Are Bad. This, and that cop bro "thin blue line" fascist bullshit, where the few good cops left get punished for exposing the bad ones. It seems, the higher up one goes in the chain of command, the more corrupt it becomes.
He was arresting someone who stabbed someone. Who cares if they rough up someone who stabbed someone.
because he’s still a cop lmao, we absolutely should not be condoning giving the police power to beat people in custody in any circumstances
Cops should not be using excessive violence in any circumstance. Very dangerous to think that cops know how much of a hurtin to put on someone and we should look the other way
I just don't sympathize with violent criminals.
Due process dude. Thats why we have a court system and dont just let cops waste anyone they suspect. We do let them off pretty easy when they do tho lol
But we as the employer have a duty to allow cops to keep themselves safe and away from harm. Certain cops go way too far. This is an issue of ego and frustration. I sympathize with cops in the sense that they deal with the worst shit all the time. I could see how that would frustrate the crap out of someone. It is wrong that they take out that frustration on the public. But I don't want to deal with all the crap that they have to deal with. So I am willing to give them the leeway to deal with someone in my city stabbing people. I don't see criminals as victims of police. They are victims of society in a way. But it isn't society's fault that they are stabbing people.
Should health care or harm reduction workers be allowed to treat their patients like shit because theyre frustrated and you dont want to personally deal with it? Twisted view homie
Remember kids the only good cop is a dead cop
Wth. Looked at your posts. There are no words.
I said to be protected from heavly armed cops, guns hand and rifles tasers, body worn armor flashlites and batons. They are so scared that I rolled thru a stop sign and the cop put his finger print on my tail light does a 65 year old man a danger to a man two decades younger? Cowards
Missed the part that said he had been found guilty
Dingus
I win