Cops

^ not true yet again. when attacking an officer, it is a exercise of judgment as to when lethal force is required or not. in instances such as a riot, officers are attacked, but is it necessary to open fire? in other times, officers are attacked by unwieldy drunks, teenagers, bums, etc but it is not needed to shoot them and non-lethal procedures can be effectively used.

my point was that the use of lethal force is an exercise of judgment based on the safety of the officers involved and the safety of the public (suspects and bystanders). DEATH, let me repeat that again: final, permanent, and irreversible DEATH is an option of LAST choice and should only be used when other options have been exhausted or another life is in immediate risk.

running with his back turned does not qualify as immediate risk. though he may have hit a cop, he did not have to die.

let me quantify this in another way. lets say you had a million dollars, how much experience would you want your investment manager to have? 1 year? 3 years? 5 years? probably quite a bit of experience though correct. most professionals have a 4 year bachelors degree, often s 1-3 years of post-grad, and more experience in the field. now given that the average statistical value of a life ranges between 1 and 3 million dollars depending on how you value things, how do you feel knowing that your life might be in the hands of a person who only needs a high school degree and a 24 week boot camp? those are the bare requirements, though most exceed this minimum (http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/recruiting/basic_e.htm oh, and as an indication of how lax the standards are, you only need to be able to type 18 words per minute, keeping the bar low or what?)
 
If you really want to make a legal argument out of it, it goes like this: parliament has dictated that a right to self defense upon reasonable fear of the possibility of death or serious injury is sufficient to exonerate someone in killing another person in their own defense. That's basic, I'm not even going to bring in provincial and federal statutes relating to the use of force by police officers: it's a simple right to preserve your own life, which is a primary charter value of its own and, you begin to notice once you've read enough cases, will usually trump any other values in cases where they come into conflict. It's sitting right there in the criminal code, a federal statute, and its existence has never and will never be challenged as contra charter rights to a fair trial, due process, or the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, partly because it's not a matter of procedure, it's an action taken by an individual. And I personally think it's absurd to say that because you accept the risks of the job in becoming an officer, you have to accept a padlock to the face as a peril that goes with the uniform. We insist that police not be allowed to abuse the authority they're given, that their rights are the same as ours. Here you're saying they deserve FEWER rights. That's as bad as saying the opposite in my mind.
 
^ i never denied that police had the right to self defense. what i am criticizing is their often rash hurry to use lethal force in that defense. because of the numerous cases of wrongful death (and police moral hazard), i am recommending using lethal force as an option of LAST resort and ONLY when other persons lives are in immediate danger.

assault does not warrant death. paul boyd, fleeing with his back to the officers, should not have been shot as he no longer posed an immediate danger.
 
Imminent danger is no longer part of the self defense test; see R. v. Lavallee, which, conveniently, also posits emotionally charged circumstances and includes a dude getting shot to death in the back. Is it the same situation, no... but it does do away with imminent threat of harm as a necessary condition of the defense.
 
Note the lack of the word "imminent" here.

Defence of Person

Self-defence against unprovoked assault

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

Extent of justification

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.
 
You might also find this useful...

Police Act

USE OF FORCE REGULATION

Definitions

1 In this regulation:

"Act" means the Police Act;

"ammunition" means a projectile intended for use with a firearm;

"chief constable" means

(a) in relation to a municipal police department, the chief constable and includes an acting chief constable, and

(b) in relation to a designated policing or enforcement unit, the chief officer of the unit and includes an acting chief officer;

"director" means the Director of Police Services, Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General;

"firearm" means a firearm as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code (Canada);

"intermediate weapon" means any weapon other than

(a) a firearm used as described, authorized or specified under section 3, or

(b) a weapon that when used in its ordinary and intended manner is as likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to a person as a firearm referred to in paragraph (a)

and includes a firearm used with ammunition designed to be discharged at a muzzle velocity not exceeding 152.4 metres per second whether or not the firearm is described, authorized or specified under section 3;

"police force" includes a designated law enforcement unit established under section 18.1 of the Act;

"supervisor" means a police officer in charge.

[am. B.C. Reg. 211/2000, s. 2.]

Application of this regulation

2 (1) This regulation does not apply to the provincial police force.

(2) Sections 5, 6 (1) and (2), 7 (1) and 12 do not apply to the discharge of a firearm in target practice or in ordinary firearm maintenance, done in accordance with the rules of the police force.

(3) Sections 5, 6 (1) and (2), 7 (1) and 8 do not apply to the discharge of a firearm using bean bag ammunition.

[am. B.C. Reg. 211/2000, s. 3.]

Use of force coordinator and advisory committee

2.1 (1) The director must appoint a use of force coordinator to coordinate the development of use of force policy under section 11.

(2) The use of force advisory committee is established, consisting of the following:

(a) the director as chair;

(b) representatives from police forces designated by chief constables;

(c) others as designated by the director.

(3) The use of force advisory committee must meet at least twice each year and may make recommendations respecting use of force policy.

[en. B.C. Reg. 211/2000, s. 4.]

Firearms and ammunition

3 (1) Subject to subsection (3), if a chief constable carries a firearm or authorizes a member of his or her police force to carry a firearm, the firearm must be a semi-automatic pistol with the following specifications:

(a) double/single or double action-only trigger mechanism;

(b) single action trigger force of not less than 1.36 kg;

(c) hammer/firing pin block safety mechanism;

(d) barrel of not less than 76 mm and not more than 127 mm in length.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), the ammunition used in a firearm described under subsection (1) must be 0.40 calibre Smith and Wesson factory loaded cartridges with the following specifications:

(a) hollow point bullet design;

(b) bullet weight no less than 9.523 grams (147 grain);

(c) muzzle velocity between 290 m/second to 396 m/second, when fired in a firearm referred to in subsection (1).

(3) The chief constable or a police officer designated in writing by the chief constable may authorize a member of his or her police force to carry, for a special purpose, a firearm and ammunition of a type other than that referred to in this section.

(4) If an authorization is made under subsection (3), the chief constable must, on the request of the director, submit a report on all special firearms and ammunition issued and the reason for issuing them.

(5) Before a firearm or ammunition is issued under this section, the chief constable or a police officer designated by the chief constable must be satisfied that the officer to whom it is issued has completed a training course and been qualified or requalified on its use under section 10 (1).

(6) A member of a police force must not carry a firearm or ammunition other than the firearm and ammunition issued by the chief constable or police officer designated by the chief constable.

(7) Despite subsections (1) and (2), in relation to a designated policing or law enforcement unit, the director may specify the type of firearm and ammunition that is to be used.

[am. B.C. Reg. 211/2000, s. 5.]

Maintenance and inspection of firearms

4 (1) A chief constable must ensure that each firearm in the inventory of the chief constable's police force is maintained and in good working order.

(2) Repealed. [B.C. Reg. 211/2000, s. 6.]

[am. B.C. Reg. 211/2000, s. 6.]

Use of firearms

5 A member of a police force who is authorized to use a firearm under section 3, may discharge that firearm if it is reasonable and necessary to do so and in accordance with the protections and authorizations provided by section 25 of the Criminal Code (Canada).

[en. B.C. Reg. 211/2000, s. 7.]

Discharge of firearm by member

6 (1) If a member of a police force other than the chief constable discharges a firearm while on duty, the member must notify his or her immediate supervisor of the incident.

(2) The supervisor notified under subsection (1) must

(a) investigate the reason for the discharging of the firearm, and

(b) submit a report to the chief constable which may include recommendations.

(3) If a person is killed or injured as a result of the discharge of a firearm or the use of an intermediate weapon by a member of a police force other than the chief constable, the chief constable must promptly initiate an investigation into the incident.

(4) On completion of the investigation under subsection (3), the chief constable must submit a report of that investigation to the chair of the board and notify the director.

(5) On reviewing the report under subsection (4), the chair may make any further inquiries into the incident that the chair considers necessary.

[am. B.C. Reg. 211/2000, s. 8.]

Discharge of firearm by chief constable

7 (1) If a chief constable discharges a firearm while on duty, the chief constable must submit a full report of the incident to the chair of the board.

(2) If a person is killed or injured as a result of the discharge of a firearm or the use of an intermediate weapon by a chief constable,

(a) the chief constable must promptly notify the chair of the board and the director, and

(b) the chair must promptly initiate an investigation into the incident.

(3) If the chair is of the opinion that an independent investigation into an incident under this section is warranted, the chair may request assistance under section 68 of the Act.

(4) The chair may make any inquiries into an incident under this section that the chair considers necessary.

[am. B.C. Reg. 211/2000, s. 9.]

Surrender of discharged firearm

8 If a person is killed or injured as a result of the discharge of a firearm by a member of a police force, including a chief constable, the member must immediately surrender the firearm for ballistic testing to the member's supervisor or an investigating officer.

Intermediate weapons

9 A member of a police force may carry and use an intermediate weapon if

(a) use of the intermediate weapon has been approved by the director and a chief constable, and

(b) the member has completed a training course and been qualified or requalified on its use under section 10 (2).

[en. B.C. Reg. 211/2000, s. 10.]

Training and requalification on the use of force

10 (1) Each member of a police force who is authorized to carry and use a firearm must complete a training course approved by the chief constable and qualify on the firearm and must, thereafter, requalify on the firearm within a period specified by the police force which must not be less that once each year.

(2) Each member of a police force who is authorized to carry and use an intermediate weapon must complete a training course approved by the chief constable and qualify on the use of the intermediate weapon and must, thereafter, requalify on the use of the intermediate weapon within a period specified by the police force.

(3) Each member of a police force must complete a training course approved by the chief constable on the use of force model and techniques and qualify on the use of force model and techniques and must, thereafter, requalify in the use of force techniques within a period specified by the police force.

(4) The police force must maintain written records of the training and requalification courses completed by each member of the police force under this section.

[en. B.C. Reg. 211/2000, s. 10.]

Use of force policy

11 Each police force must develop or adopt a use of force model approved by the director and develop a written use of force policy that includes at least the following force options:

(a) officer presence;

(b) communication;

(c) physical control;

(d) intermediate weapons;

(e) lethal force.

[en. B.C. Reg. 211/2000, s. 10.]

Use of force reporting

12 A police force must submit to the director at the end of each calendar year, and at any time on the request of the director, a statistical report containing the information about use of force by the police force requested by the director.

[en. B.C. Reg. 211/2000, s. 10.]

Note: This regulation repeals B.C. Reg. 602/77, the Police Firearm Regulations

[Provisions of the Police Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 367, relevant to the enactment of this regulation: section 74]

Copyright (c) Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
 
Hahahahaha. Law 12? Yeah, bout that... no.

What exactly is your point with the copy paste thing? I'm providing information that's relevant to the discussion. Considering all of this discussion about how things should be done, it might not be a bad idea to read up on how they actually ARE done...
 
so what? you've proven that the police can't be prosecuted for their actions. Does this justify their actions? maybe in your mind. It still seems their actions were rash, regardless of the legality.
 
No. But you can see there that there's a significant review and investigation structure into every one of these incidents, and you can see they take this stuff very seriously. They don't just go out and shoot people lightly, there's a lot weighing on that action for each individual officer.
 
typical lawyer tactic. bury them in paperwork.

first off, the Lavallee case refers to the inadmissibility of expert testimony and does not remove 'imminent threat of harm as a necessary condition of the defense.' the Lavallee case set precedent allowing for expert testimony to establish an abusive relationship which allowed the circumstances to be reasonably construed as posing an imminent threat to Lavallee's life. imminence of danger IS still required. sorry, but nice try. strike one.

second, the defense of person snippet does not contain the word "imminent", but it does contain "reasonable apprehension of death or grievious" and "he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm." sounds rather synonymous to "imminent" threat of danger if you ask me. more the the point is that "the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself" and nine bullets into a person retreating doesn't quite qualify. furthermore, force is only justified if the force is unprovoked and given the details the boyd encounter, i do not think it would be fair to categorize his behaviour as entirely unprovoked. strike two.

third, the police force use of force regulation is nothing but empty words. it defines what weapons are to be used and what procedure to follow if someone is killed, but it says NOTHING of what circumstances the use of lethal force is allowable. NOTHING. nor does it state anything about when intermediate weapons should be used rather then lethal force. they have intermediate weapons and training so perhaps try using them before two to the head and one to the chest, or nine all over if you are paul boyd. what it does say is that EACH police force is allowed to establish is own practices regarding the use of officers, communication, physical control, intermediate force, and lethal force ([en. B.C. Reg. 211/2000, s. 10.] Use of force policy.) this means there is no procedural uniformity across police jurisdictions and that procedure may largely the reflections of the specific force and the director's beliefs. police officers only need six-month training course before lives are placed in their hands. doctors who are entrusted with lives need the better part of a decade in education. i don't know about you, but i don't trust doctor/cop nick and his mail-order diploma. the police act also says "12 A police force must submit to the director at the end of each calendar year, and at any time on the request of the director, a statistical report containing the information about use of force by the police force requested by the director." i'm assuming this is an annual review of police practices whereby they should remedy their practices so that shooting occur less frequently as presumedly, killing people is something to avoid. all that "significant review and investigation structure" is conveniently post-mortem. strike three.

i have admitted all along that police need to be able to defend themselves. i have been criticizing the quick jump to lethal force (as opposed to intermediate weapons) and i have been advocating procedural reform to ensure that more people are not unnecessarily MURDERED (ya thats right, don't forget ian bush either). this is all consistent with the information you have inundated us with.

next time you try to cite some case law or procedural doctrine, i suggest you read it more thoroughly.
 
Wow, what a shitty umpire. I didn't read all of that, I might later... but bury them in paperwork? Please, I read that legislation in two minutes flat. Here's my response to the first part.

R v. Lavallee [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852

CJC Dickson, Wilson, Lamer, L'hereux-Dube, Gonthier and Cory, JJ.

"... It will be observed that s.34(2)(a) does not actually stipulate that the accused apprehend imminent danger when he or she acts... the law of self defense is designed to ensure that the use of defensive force is really necessary. It justifies the act because the defender reasonably believed that he or she had no alternative but to take the attacker's life... The issue is not, however, what an outsider would have reasonably perceived, but what the accused reasonably perceived, given her situation and experience."

"How can one feel endangered to the point of firing a gun at an unarmed man who utters a death threat, then turns his back and walks out of the room [as the victim did in this case]?..." and despite this, "I would accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Court of Appeal, and restore the acquittal."

Do the math.
 
well, me and jd clearly are not going to agree.

anyways, here's the latest news story of police delinquency:

-------------

Police officers' drunken rampage needs suitable punishment

Headshot of Gary Mason

GARY MASON

* E-mail Gary Mason

* | Read Bio

* | Latest Columns

September 22, 2007

VANCOUVER -- The federal task force looking into our national police force needs to examine the 20-year-old RCMP Act as part of its mandate. A recent incident in B.C. has illustrated just how urgently sections of the act need to be overhauled.

For those not familiar with the case, here's what happened.

Two RCMP officers from suburban Maple Ridge went out drinking one spring night last year and proceeded to get seriously hammered. At 3 a.m., the pair got out of a pickup truck being driven by a friend and started beating up some guy who was walking down the street.

One of the officers, Pat Hughson, felled the man with a punch to the face. When he got up, Constable Hughson and his fellow off-duty officer, Constable Steve Frazer, threw him up against a glass door. When a security guard approached the two to see what was going on, the two officers lied and said they were from a neighbouring police detachment.

They weren't finished.

They continued on, approaching a man who was riding a bicycle without a helmet. One of the Mounties, identifying himself as an undercover police officer, pushed the man to the ground. The other then grabbed the bike and tossed it several metres down the street.

Responding to the initial assault, a Maple Ridge RCMP officer stopped the two and told them to report to the station. They didn't.

Constable Hughson was eventually charged with two counts of assault and Constable Frazer one. Constable Hughson pleaded guilty and received a conditional discharge, which means he doesn't have a criminal record. Constable Frazer had his charge diverted to an alternative-measures program. He will not have a criminal record either.

The two men then faced an internal RCMP disciplinary hearing. In its report, the board of three senior Mounties referred to the officers' actions as "intentional, serial abuse of innocent passersby." It called their conduct "disgraceful." The board asked the two what they felt was a suitable punishment; they said 10 days without pay.

The board agreed.

Ten days without pay for a night of random drunken assaults? And the Mounties wonder why the public's confidence in them is continually being eroded.
 
Reasonable people and all that... but I do respect your perspective and I'm glad there are people who get upset about these things so that actual bad behaviour, when it happens, as it did in that story you just posted, is brought to everyone's attention. That's absolutely ludicrous. Our justice system is too lenient in general, I will say, though; not just towards corrupt, idiot police officers.

Case in point: that asshole who killed a New Zealand doctor in his car, drove away (hit&run), evaded arrest, then later skipped bail and fled to toronto where officials found him trying to start a new life and brought him back for trial. Then when he was eventually sent to prison he complained incessantly, so they gave him his own separate quarters. He kept bitching so they let him out. He served three months. Since being released he has since been arrested for stealing wallets. What exactly the fuck is wrong with putting this guy and others like him away for ten years? He killed a guy and doesn't give a shit. No wonder we have gang shootings and stabbings on the rise this decade, there's no backbone in the repercussions when you get caught.
 
Well, it pleases me to know that while the police force may hold a self-righteous ego, that they are not beyond the rule of law and torts. Law enforcement spokespersons complained that the threat of litigation will prevent them from doing their jobs. Utter nonsense. Does a surgeon not practice for fear of malpractice? Do airplane pilots refuse to fly of being sued for their mistakes? No. By holding police officers to the same standards of duty of care required of all professionals, the Supreme Court of Canada has created an incentive scheme to ensure that police conduct themselves in the manners of a professional worthy of trust. The police themselves are not above the law is the effective message and let us hope that officers across the country take heed to this ruling.



Police liable for inadequate work, Supreme Court rules

Hamilton man's suit loses but sets precedent for negligence in police investigations









































KIRK MAKIN





Globe and Mail Update























October 4, 2007 at 10:53 AM EDT











Police investigators can be sued if they conduct an investigation

negligently, the Supreme Court of Canada said Thursday in a ruling that

will send shudders through police ranks.

”Police officers owe a duty of care to suspects,” Chief Justice

Beverley McLachlin said for a 6-3 majority. ”Their conduct during an

investigation should be measured against the standard of how a

reasonable officer in like circumstances would have acted.

”Police officers may be accountable for harm resulting to a suspect if

they fail to meet this standard,” she said, writing on behalf of Mr.

Justice Ian Binnie, Mr. Justice Louis LeBel, Madam Justice Marie

Deschamps, Mr. Justice Morris Fish and Madam Justice Rosalie Abella.

The court nonetheless dealt a personal loss to a Hamilton man – Jason

George Hill – who had argued that he was negligently arrested,

resulting in his spending 20 months in jail for a string of robberies

that he did not commit.









































Mr. Hill was ultimately exonerated when the real robber was found and

convicted. He sued investigators, specifically citing an inept police

lineup procedure, but the court ruled against his suit.

Mr. Hill's lawyers – Sean Dewart and Louis Sokolov – were exultant

about the legal implications of Thursday's ruling but disappointed that

Mr. Hill's lawsuit was thrown out.

"This is a bitter day for Jason Hill," Mr. Sokolov said. "The court

acknowledges that he was wronged by the justice system, and yet excused

the police from liability because their conduct in this case met the

very low standards that prevailed more than a decade ago.

"On a happier note, this is a very good day for police

accountability in Canada. The Supreme Court stated in resounding

language that police are no different from the rest of us, and can be

sued if they do their jobs negligently."

Mr. Dewart said that a couple of provinces – notably, Quebec – have

permitted lawsuits for negligent investigation for several years.

Others, such as Alberta and New Brunswick, have been adamantly opposed

to allowing them, lest they compromise police investigations.

Mr. Dewart said that this is an empty argument. Police are far from

the only professionals who have to meet an acceptable set of standards,

he said, yet the others do not cease doing their jobs for fear of

litigation.

"Is there a slippery slope for neurosurgeons, who don't do surgery because they might be sued?" he said.

The lawyers said that as a result of the decision, municipalities

and their insurers will likely begin to press for higher police

training standards, which will benefit society as a whole.

Notwithstanding Mr. Hill's loss, the ruling constitutes a major

victory for the wrongful conviction movement. The court majority said

that police owe a duty of care to the people they investigate, given

the consequences that can result from faulty techniques.

”The relationship is clearly personal, close and direct,” the majority

said. ”A suspect has a critical personal interest in the conduct of an

investigation. No other tort provides an adequate remedy for negligent

police investigations.”

The dissenting judges took issue on this point, insisting that opening

police up to civil liability for their investigations is both unfair

and harmful to the public interest.

”A private duty of care owed by the police to suspects would

necessarily conflict with an officer's overarching public duty to

investigate crime and apprehend offenders,” Madam Justice Louise

Charron wrote in dissent. ”The recognition of this tort would have

significant consequences for other legal obligations and would

detrimentally affect the legal system and society more generally.”

She said that individuals who are acquitted may actually have committed

the crime but that police and prosecutors simply could not prove it

beyond a reasonable doubt.

”A person who committed an offence may benefit from a botched-up

investigation because a negligent investigation will often be the

effective cause of an acquittal,” Judge Charron wrote on behalf of Mr.

Justice Michel Bastarache and Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein.

”Whichever approach is adopted, there may be unforeseen and undesirable

ramifications in the criminal context.

The majority, however, scoffed at the idea that recognizing a tort of

negligent investigation would make police apprehensive about conducting

a full investigation or charging suspects without an airtight case

against them.

”The record does not establish that recognizing the tort will change

the behaviour of the police, cause officers to become unduly defensive

or lead to a flood of litigation,” Chief Justice McLachlin said.

”Police officers may make minor errors or errors in judgment without

breaching the standard.”

Hamilton police believed they had ended a spate of daring robberies

when they clamped handcuffs on Mr. Hill, the man they believed to be

the Plastic Bag Bandit.

Having had Mr. Hill identified from photo lineups by so many witnesses

that they felt they could make the charges stick, investigators issues

a press releasing boasting of having ”bagged” the Plastic Bag Bandit.

The robberies, however, continued.

Worse still, a man who would eventually turn out to be the real Plastic

Bag Bandit – Francisco Sotomayer – emerged after a tipster contacted

the police. It took two more years before all the charges against Mr.

Hill collapsed, but he was ultimately exonerated.

After two years behind bars and two trials, Mr. Hill sued the police

for conducting a negligent investigation. His lawyers allege that Mr.

Hill had been flattened by a legal bulldozer powered by evidence of the

most thin and unreliable variety.

Mr. Hill's lawsuit was thrown out at trial when the judge ruled that

police had used valid investigative methods and made decisions that

were justifiable. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the existence of

investigative negligence as a civil cause of action, but voted 3-2 to

uphold the trial ruling against Mr. Hill.

Mr. Sokolov and Mr. Dewart claim that the ruling effectively gutted the

usefulness of investigative negligence as a civil cause of action.

Police lawyers – backed by the federal Crown – argued in the Supreme

Court hearing that police cannot make tough investigative judgment

calls if they can easily be found civilly liable for their errors. They

warned the court not to throw open the floodgates of litigation to

everyone who ends up being acquitted of a crime.

”Studies have demonstrated that fear of lawsuits on the part of police

renders them more timid in carrying out their duties,” a police legal

brief said.

Mr. Dewart and Mr. Sokolov countered that police must be held

accountable when, blinded by tunnel vision or ambition, they use

discredited or unreliable investigative techniques.

”It is not the case that the defendants merely overlooked something,

but rather that they obstinately blinkered themselves to a large number

of things,” they said in a brief to the Supreme Court.

The robberies that spawned the case came in quick succession in late

1994 and early 1995. As the case against Mr. Sotomayer strengthened,

the charges against Mr. Hill were dropped one by one.

Besides suing for investigative negligence, Mr. Hill included a far

more conventional cause of action – malicious prosecution, which

requires the plaintiff to prove actual malice by investigators. An

investigative-negligence suit, in contrast, could succeed simply by

showing that police were reckless, employed bad practices or blinded

themselves to exculpatory evidence.

Mr. Dewart and Mr. Sokolov targeted the photo lineups in particular,

noting that the only person depicted who was not Caucasian was Mr.

Hill, an aboriginal. Coupled with widespread publicity stating that the

bandit was of mixed race or Hispanic, they said, there was a strong

chance of Mr. Hill's being erroneously picked out by eyewitnesses.

They also argued that a lead officer in the case ignored information that pointed toward Mr. Sotomayer as the real bandit.



 
look at that, another 3 deaths, just this month, just in BC.

the YVR taser incident, with the subsequent video tape theft. looking good boys, bury that damning evidence in bureaucracy, let it out in a few years when time has numbed the ol memory.

two more adults in a crash at an intersection responding to a call. yes, she was responding solo to an alleged suicide attempt, but just having your lights and siren on do not give you a pass to drive recklessly. perhaps more prudence before zipping at high speed through an intersection?
 
Tazers are just plain dangerous. They really need to exclude their use until their effects are known with some certainty.
 
Police force is like a brotherhood. Many many of the members are extremely good friends, practically like family.

If you saw someone seriously injure your family, say your dad or your brother, and were still coming at you with the exact same intention, is your natural instinct going to kick in to stop that person dead in their tracks? Obviously.

Are adrenaline and and rage going to kick in due to what you just witnessed? Of course.

People make bad choices in situations that call for split second decisions. I don't blame them for shooting to kill, but I do disagree with how many shots it took. Very excessive, but sometimes necessary.
 
The question I would be interested in with this case is not if the cop was LEGALLY justifed in killing a man with a padlock, but MORALLY justified in his actions.

Laws are supposed to reflect and support the ideal moral course of action in a situation but generally fail very badly in many circumstances.

Regardless, that cop must have been a fucking pussy. How long does it take to take a length of chain and whip it at a person's head? Alot fucking longer than it would take to just stick out your baton to stop it before it got any momentum whatsoever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top