Recommended Posts

  • Replies 704
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

She asked him, 'How much are you selling the eggs for?' The old seller replied, '$.25 an egg, Madam.' She said to him, 'I will take 6 eggs for $1.25 or I will leave.' The old seller replied, 'Co

Posted Images

Yup...captured and released to ruin somebody else’s day and possibly kill someone. How do you change people’s behaviour to obey the law? And who carries a machete in the car?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

So they should have just shot him,

Don’t be ridiculous...just pointing out what police are dealing with these days and the threat to individuals, going about their daily routine, and the minority that think they don’t have to abide by law and security that should exist in a civil society.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, st27 said:

 

Don’t be ridiculous...just pointing out what police are dealing with these days and the threat to individuals, going about their daily routine, and the minority that think they don’t have to abide by law and security that should exist in a civil society.

So which way do you wish to see it played out?  I prefer the way it happened, and you can't complain about the outcome and 'point things out' without wanting it done another way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, deicer said:

So, some drunk guy causes an accident, then threatens the innocent female victim with a machete, leaves the accident, crashes into two other police cars in his attempt to flee and you're more concerned with his welfare than the police officers dealing with the mess - how very Liberal of you.  By my count, something like 5 criminal acts.  Do I care about the welfare of the "accused"?  I have to answer honestly and say; not much.  If some lowlife scummy **bleep** was to crash into my wife's car and then threaten her with a machete, well, I care exactly zero for his welfare.  Of course he has rights but if some police officer was to feel the need to tackle him while he was resisting arrest and inflict 3rd degree road rash - even better.  Altogether too much sympathy for the criminals these days. 

Edited by seeker
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Or to put a personal perspective on it.......if it was your wife, son or daughter whose life was being threatened by a guy with a machete....would you want the police to use lethal force to neutralize the situation?? 
 

Or would you rather have  a social worker TRY to de-escalate the situation through conflict resolution dialogue, which may or may not have the desired result?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are confused.  

What you are complaining about is the justice system that allows criminals to get back on the streets quickly.

This is about how the police handled the 'live' situation.

They did their job, and they did it properly.  The suspect was arrested without the police having to use deadly force.  That is the difference in my opinion between the training levels in Canada and the U.S.  If they have to use someone to come and de-escalate the situation, good.  It's just another tool in their inventory just like the baton, pepper spray, taser and gun.

Once the suspect in in custody, then should they be held without bail?  Certainly.

Should sentences be stricter for violent crimes?  Absolutely.

Saying that the police should engage in some form of 'street justice' in doing their jobs?  Plain wrong.  They should, and as they demonstrate, only use what is necessary to apprehend.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, deicer said:

They should, and as they demonstrate, only use what is necessary to apprehend.

deicer, that's a good post. 

I highlighted part of your last sentence - not because I disagree but because the the most common problem is the public and/or media will take what happened in a dark alley in seconds and look at it on a sunny afternoon and conclude that what the officer did wasn't necessary.

Yes, the police should use the minimum force necessary - deciding later what that is and second-guessing their actions is the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, seeker said:

deicer, that's a good post. 

I highlighted part of your last sentence - not because I disagree but because the the most common problem is the public and/or media will take what happened in a dark alley in seconds and look at it on a sunny afternoon and conclude that what the officer did wasn't necessary.

Yes, the police should use the minimum force necessary - deciding later what that is and second-guessing their actions is the problem.

Thank you.

To look at the other side of the coin, let's bring up the Sammy Yatim case.

Again, in my opinion, maybe using a gun to subdue the suspect was necessary.  Pausing and then firing six more shots was excessive.  Again, my opinion, the way I watched the video was that the situation was contained on the streetcar and the public was no longer in danger.  It could have been handled differently.

What makes the difference for me is that the video from the streetcar was telling.

I believe that the use of police cameras is vital.  I believe that the use of cameras on every street corner to record public interactions is also vital.

What it will do for us is show how not only how the police interact with the public, but how the public interact with the police.  

Europe and the rest of the world is way ahead of us on this one, but then again, we are affected by the elephant in the room south of us where 'freedom' is more important.  Yet isn't it funny how nobody complains about the number of cameras in a casino where they aren't there to protect the public, only the profits of the casino?

I also believe that home security cameras and dash cams help immensely when any incident happens and that they should be made mandatory on all new construction/car builds.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, boestar said:

shooting someone in the back is rarely, if ever necessary

 

It all comes down to the particular situation and the assumptions being made.  The permutations are endless.  Some dude proclaims; "I'm going to kill you" and then turns around and commences to load a firearm - shooting them, even in the back, might be warranted.  There are millions of possible scenarios - some justified and others maybe not.  The simple fact that someone is shot in the back does not preclude the possibility that it was the right choice.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The notion of the use of deadly force only when life is in imminent danger has been totally lost over the last several years.

Once upon a time the police would be charged if they shot someone in the back when life was not  in danger (anyones life) now it's brushed off like nothing.  That is a very slippery slope especially when private citizens start doing it.

shooting someone in the back is almost universally a cowards move.  fatally shooting someone that is fleeing is murder.

we used to have a judge and jury that would prove guilt or innocence now we have the "police"

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, boestar said:

The notion of the use of deadly force only when life is in imminent danger has been totally lost over the last several years.

Once upon a time the police would be charged if they shot someone in the back when life was not  in danger (anyones life) now it's brushed off like nothing.  That is a very slippery slope especially when private citizens start doing it.

shooting someone in the back is almost universally a cowards move.  fatally shooting someone that is fleeing is murder.

we used to have a judge and jury that would prove guilt or innocence now we have the "police"

 

I mostly agree but I think you are simplifying a little too much.  Take this fictional example; someone has been threatening people with a knife or even has already attacked someone and they turn to run away - do you assume they are simply fleeing and pose no threat or do you assume they are looking for another target (maybe they are running toward a group of people)?  You have about 2 seconds to decide.  I don't think it's unreasonable to think they might be a threat and a police officer shooting them is a pre-emptive act to prevent them from inflicting more violence on another person.

My point is that there are many variables and you just can't make a blanket statement that shooting someone who is running away is murder - if you think their intent is further violence then shooting them, even in the back, might be the right decision.  It comes down to what a "reasonable" person would assume and what your definition of "imminent" is.  Remember, you have 2 seconds to decide.

Edited by seeker
Link to post
Share on other sites

So using your fictional scenario, let's say that the use of a firearm is needed.  So you shoot the suspect once.  Once.  If they don't drop, or stop, then shoot them again.  Rinse and repeat.

As seen in Wisconsin, and in Toronto with the Yatim case, seven shots point blank in the back, or six shots after the perp was already down, is the point of being excessive.

To address that, what is needed?  Better screening of police candidates?  Better training?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, deicer said:

So using your fictional scenario, let's say that the use of a firearm is needed.  So you shoot the suspect once.  Once.  If they don't drop, or stop, then shoot them again.  Rinse and repeat.

As seen in Wisconsin, and in Toronto with the Yatim case, seven shots point blank in the back, or six shots after the perp was already down, is the point of being excessive.

To address that, what is needed?  Better screening of police candidates?  Better training?

Yes, again, I'm 90% in agreement.  The Yatim case is hard to justify and that officer was convicted.  Police officers are human and humans are imperfect.  We are all subject to the same biology.  Better screening and better training will reduce these occurrences but never eliminate them. 

As for your plan of shoot once and wait to see if the threat is gone - the obvious problem is that you might miss or only slightly injure and thereby give the assailant time to continue their attack.  This falls into the category as is sometimes suggested that the police should attempt a non-lethal shot; shoot them in the leg or shoot the gun out of their hand.  This is hollywood fiction.

It's wishful thinking to believe that a police officer should take one shot, and that shot should be aimed so that it's enough to stop the assailant but not lethal.  Besides that, there are many accounts of criminals taking multiple shots, being tasered, pepper-sprayed and it still taking 3 or 4 officers to wrestle them into submission.  No, if the correct course of action is to use a firearm in self defence or defence of another person then you keep pulling the trigger until there's no fight left.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One can only ask....WHY ? :head:
That's like letting a pitbull loose in the community and hoping he doesn't bite anybody.

High-risk offender released from custody, will reside in Kitchener

 

KITCHENER -- The Waterloo Regional Police Service has issued a public alert after a high-risk offender was released into the community.

In 2011, 34-year-old Hayan Yassin was convicted of sexual assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, sexual assault causing bodily harm and kidnapping. He was 25 at the time.

In a news release issued Wednesday afternoon, police say he was released on parole in 2018 with conditions and monitoring. Police said that, four months later, his parole was revoked after he violated several of the terms, and he was placed back in custody.

 

Yassin was released again on Sept. 14, and will reside in Kitchener.

Police believe that he poses a high risk to reoffend or breach his terms, and are asking the community for help to reduce the risk. They're also working with Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) to monitor his terms of release, including electronic monitoring.

Yassin’s current terms of release include:

  •  Abide by a curfew from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., except for work
  •  Not allowed to consume alcohol or drugs
  •  Not allowed to attend drinking establishments
  •  Not to be in, near or around the university campuses in Waterloo without written permission
  •  Must reside in a specific place approved by CSC
  •  Not allowed to buy, acquire, possess or access pornography or sexually-explicit material
  •  Must report attempts to initiate sexual and non-sexual friendships with females
  •  Must request permission from parole supervisor to use online dating websites, services or mobile apps

If you see Yassin breaking any of these terms, police ask that you not approach him, but instead call 911.

The victims involved in the prior incidents have been notified of his release, police say.

 

 

 

BD1D3D91-640E-4BA3-AE4C-F370F423B8D6.jpeg

Edited by Jaydee
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.