• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

All things Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,178
Points
1,010
So lots of common people could stand to look up what "tolerance" really means. It's not a synonym for "celebration". A lot of people who think of themselves as tolerant and forgiving come up short.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,299
Points
1,360
Perhaps I’m in the very small minority, don’t know, but while I normally look to your posts Brad, as being thought provoking in a critical thinking kind of way, your recent trend doubling, tripling and quadrupling down on “roundabout execution” is disappointing and demonstrates un unfortunately biased and uncritical line of thought, IMO. Probably means nothing to you for me or anyone else to say that, but I think your assertion is misplaced and gives negative credit to LE that you posit should be more understanding of the unfortunate mental health outliers. $0.02
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,178
Points
1,010
I've mellowed with age. Twenty years ago I was where many people seem to be now - people get what they deserve for not making the right choices, bad situations are entirely of their own making and the rest of us are only responding to their provocations, etc. However, I never believed the notion that what people are is entirely a result of "nurture" and choice. Biology and particularly "brain chemistry" isn't a single setting, and birth is a lottery, not a choice. Some people start with shitty lives and sometimes things never really get better for them, and it's not entirely of their doing. Escalation generally only happens if all parties involved participate.

With the trend to restorative justice, lighter sentences, letting frustrated protestors and even mobs work out their anger, etc, allowing situations with mentally ill or merely temporarily very angry people (ie. a protest or mob of "one") to escalate to the point of use of deadly force is an aberration which is due for correction. Probably our "best practices" right now are not the absolute "best practices". Yes, there are risks to having unbalanced people living freely among us, ranging from mere curmudgeons to genuine pyschopaths and sociopaths. We chose that risk. I express my criticism harshly because while harshness puts people on the defensive and is not generally persuasive, it also forces confrontation. Some will choose to defend status quo; some will re-examine the problem.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
5,047
Points
1,110
I've mellowed with age. Twenty years ago I was where many people seem to be now - people get what they deserve for not making the right choices, bad situations are entirely of their own making and the rest of us are only responding to their provocations, etc. However, I never believed the notion that what people are is entirely a result of "nurture" and choice. Biology and particularly "brain chemistry" isn't a single setting, and birth is a lottery, not a choice. Some people start with shitty lives and sometimes things never really get better for them, and it's not entirely of their doing. Escalation generally only happens if all parties involved participate.

With the trend to restorative justice, lighter sentences, letting frustrated protestors and even mobs work out their anger, etc, allowing situations with mentally ill or merely temporarily very angry people (ie. a protest or mob of "one") to escalate to the point of use of deadly force is an aberration which is due for correction. Probably our "best practices" right now are not the absolute "best practices". Yes, there are risks to having unbalanced people living freely among us, ranging from mere curmudgeons to genuine pyschopaths and sociopaths. We chose that risk. I express my criticism harshly because while harshness puts people on the defensive and is not generally persuasive, it also forces confrontation. Some will choose to defend status quo; some will re-examine the problem.
You're completely missing it. It's not a matter of 'get what you deserve'. That's what courts are for. It's a matter of if you threaten us with death or serious harm, we're allowed to defend ourselves, and we will do so, ideally fast enough and decisively enough for it to work.

Deescalation, trading space for time, and letting things simmer down happens constantly. I can't count the number of times I've personally been involved in situations where we allowed exactly that rather than moving in immediately and using lawful force. Deescalation, space for time, and and communication and foundational parts of our entire use of force model. That is simply not always an option the other person gives you, however.

There are several millions - probably tens of millions - of interactions between Canadians and police any year. Many of these are confrontational. An overwhelming majority result in no injury, no physical harm to anyone. The majority of those that do still land well short of serious injury or death. It is normal and constant for less force to be used than legally could be.

Genuine question, and I'm not at all asking this snarkily, but because I really don't know much about you. Have you ever had to carry a weapon in the course of duties where there was a realistic chance that you may end up in a confrontation with someone who could do you harm, with or without good reason, and where you expect to need to defend yourself or others? I'm really struggling to reconcile some of what you're saying with what I would expect from even modest lived experience.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,178
Points
1,010
You're completely missing it. It's not a matter of 'get what you deserve'. That's what courts are for. It's a matter of if you threaten us with death or serious harm, we're allowed to defend ourselves, and we will do so, ideally fast enough and decisively enough for it to work.

I'm not missing it. What I'm interested in happens before the courts get involved. I read and hear plenty of sentiments expressed as "well, he got what he deserved" about lives that ended before the matter got to a court. I know you're allowed to defend yourselves, but I also know that sometimes the situation does not immediately go from "zero" to "threat of death or serious harm" (those are the terrorist, active shooter, etc scenarios which are not the same thing at all); there is a sequence of A does, B does, A does... which produces the result.

Have you ever had to carry a weapon in the course of duties where there was a realistic chance that you may end up in a confrontation with someone who could do you harm, with or without good reason, and where you expect to need to defend yourself or others?

No. But ultimately all police authority (in Canada) is delegated from "the people". I understand de-escalation occurs. I'd like it to happen more often. I am not alone in this.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,299
Points
1,360
But ultimately all police authority (in Canada) is delegated from "the people". I understand de-escalation occurs. I'd like it to happen more often. I am not alone in this.

Then pressure your local MP to influence the government to up fund mental health support so LE doesn't have to be the default scapegoat for lack of societal direct or indirect support for mental health of its citizens. Bagging on LE for not de-esacalating enough for your tastes is not constructive.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,178
Points
1,010
Then pressure your local MP to influence the government to up fund mental health support so LE doesn't have to be the default scapegoat for lack of societal direct or indirect support for mental health of its citizens.

Doesn't fix the problem. If the sane sub-faction of "Defund the Police" (the people who want more social services, not necessarily at the expense of police services) succeeds, there should be fewer situations which escalate to deadly response. But for every situation on the ground - and those situations will still happen - bagging on LE is all that there is.
 

Booter

Full Member
Reaction score
685
Points
810
The secret no one will talk about is that social services and mental health teams won’t work with those people without an armed officer there either though. Because whether people want to admit it or not- the potential to need that response is there.

I managed those teams. And no one got shot, but they still needed the police and they were still involved in the de-escalation.

A few years ago, across millions of interactions in Canada there was 119 (or 109 I don’t recall exactly but I’ll go to the upper) firearms uses by Canadian police officers, enforcement wise, across all levels in Canada.

It was an incredibly low number when you factored in the spectrum of calls that was including.

It’s a 119 places we maybe could identify a place we could do better in some way. But it’s a number that most countries, per capita, would have as a goal.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
666
Points
1,260
Have you ever had to carry a weapon in the course of duties where there was a realistic chance that you may end up in a confrontation with someone who could do you harm, with or without good reason, and where you expect to need to defend yourself or others?
You weren't asking me. But, I worked part-time for Brinks. I had a CZ licence, so most of my time was spent behind the wheel, with a .38 and a shotgun in the cab.

I remember a Messenger who had permanently taped back the safety strap on his holster. ( The Boss Rogers type that had replaced the old flap style. )

Not knowing any better, I said that looks like a good idea. Lets you get a quicker draw.

No, he said. It's so when I put my hands up, the robber(s) can remove it easier. :)

The secret no one will talk about is that social services and mental health teams won’t work with those people without an armed officer there either though

Social workers have the right to refuse. Our Delay Service S.O.P. was pretty simple.

"Paramedics are reminded of their responsibility under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Section 43, (1) and (2).2 These sections exclude paramedics from the right to refuse work where the circumstances are inherent in their work and/or if the work refusal would directly endanger the health and safety of another person."

"Not enter a scene until the appropriate agency has arrived in circumstances involving;
• the use of weapons at the scene;
continuing violence at the scene;
• fire / hazardous materials"

"The decision to delay paramedic service must include recognizing and evaluating the reasons for problematic patient behaviour—such as metabolic causes of combative behaviour—to ensure staff are not jeopardizing the patient’s life, health or safety.

4. wait for police assistance if,
a. there is an active shooter scenario, or
b. there is direct evidence of ongoing violence;

5. if electing to delay service as per paragraph 4 above, immediately notify CACC/ACS;

On 9-1-1 calls, no matter what the Call Originator(s) say, you really don't know what to expect on a scene until you check it out.

Usually the call originator was a third party. They just wanted the problem gone. Didn't care if paramedics took the individual to a hospital, or by police to the jail house.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,299
Points
1,360
Doesn't fix the problem.
It will, but will take years, decades. Defunding MH support happened over decades, so probably it'll take the same to help societal MH to previously more stable levels.

If the sane sub-faction of "Defund the Police" (the people who want more social services, not necessarily at the expense of police services) succeeds, there should be fewer situations which escalate to deadly response. But for every situation on the ground - and those situations will still happen - bagging on LE is all that there is.
I hope that the progressive (and supposedly compassionate) elements in our society actually do improve MH across the board. I am skeptical that it will, but quite confident, as you point out, that the easy way out will be to complain that LE is falling society by not being compassionate enough. Say what you will, but I still think that's unconstructive...if not actually a cowardly attitude. Belief that wider and more extensive disengagement by LE will lead to a peaceful nirvana is...well...an unwise use of 'hope.'
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,178
Points
1,010
I seek fewer, not none. In particular, a bit more leeway for misfits to survive their worst episodes.
 

Booter

Full Member
Reaction score
685
Points
810
We very regularly, contain houses with lone, violent aggressive people for dozens of hours while they shoot out their windows, fire rounds into the sky, and do general havoc until they give up- so they are surviving their bad day.

And we set the containment at distances so we aren’t just shooting people, layers of less lethal options. Disengagement plans.

Your wide swath statements are complete nonsense. As an institution we want less shootings too. Individually there are bad people.

Im unsubscribing from this thread so you guys can have your conversation- my pm’s are open.

I am missing something here!
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,672
Points
1,060
No, it looks like the sentence is being upheld. The appeal has been dismissed and that Guy is facing the consequences. Unless I’m reading that wrong?
No, you're right thankfully. A 30 day sentence for kicking a handcuffed person laying face down then lying about it multiple times is still a joke. Not sure now that's not an automatic dismissal.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
5,047
Points
1,110
No, you're right thankfully. A 30 day sentence for kicking a handcuffed person laying face down then lying about it multiple times is still a joke. Not sure now that's not an automatic dismissal.
No such thing as automatic dismissal for anything, the process has to happen to that the dismissal can be legally upheld- but with that sentence it’s a pretty foregone conclusion.

Which is good. He’s unfit to be a police officer, or to be entrusted with that responsibility or power. Get rid of him.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,622
Points
1,090
No, you're right thankfully. A 30 day sentence for kicking a handcuffed person laying face down then lying about it multiple times is still a joke. Not sure now that's not an automatic dismissal.
It’s the main reason it was being appealed as it will inevitably lead to his dismissal.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,672
Points
1,060
He’ll do thirty days in jail
Is it because of covid or is it normal for it to take 2 years to carry out a sentence?

and will definitely lose his job- something I’m sure the judge was live to in sentencing.

Hopefully, and hopefully he wasn't getting paid this whole time.
 
Top