Police officers training

[kodiak_bear3]

Triggered by the police officer beating the hell out of a teen ager, I was wondering if police officers are trained to deal with ordinary people who may, out of character, commit a crime.

Police officers have to deal with gangs, organized crime, hardened criminals that will not hesitate to hurt or kill. To deal with this stuff, they are given by the society a lot of power to "serve and protect".
To make sure that this power is not used improperly, the society has also defined what they can and cannot do, especially with reference to our charter of rights.
All the time that police officers cross those boundaries, they not only breach the mandate that they have received, but they also weaken the trust and confidence that ordinary people should have on them. This is not good for the police, and not good for our society.

I see a similarity between the officer who has beaten the teen ager and those officers who have tasered Robert Dziekanski. In both situation there was an ordinary person who, out of character, may have behaved inappropriately.

My point is that there is huge difference between good guys and bad guys.
Sometimes, a good guy, out of character, may infringe the law and although he still deserves to pay the price, he doesn't deserve to be treated like the worse criminals.
Called in a crime scene, police officers should be able to recognize if they are dealing with ordinary people behaving out of character or with hardened criminals.
Too many times, they can't see the difference.

 

[Bartdude]

I know a lot of police officers, and what's interesting is that the kinds of judgements you talk about require a lot of training about human behaviour, not to mention things like conflict resolution, etc. And while police officers in training receive some education on these things - it seems like they don't receive really intensive education until they decide they want to advance, eg. working with a specialized unit.

 

[Pantherdash]

Time is a major consideration that you may have overlooked KB3. In the Dziekanski case and most cases with aggressive persons, the police don't have time to assess weather a person is ordinary or not, so they think about their own and the public's safety first and deal with or quell the situation as quickly as possible. Once the subject is restrained, safety is usually restored. The fact is that they have very little information to go on initially such as is the guy on serious drugs, intoxicated, insane, violent by nature, a martial arts expert etc. You cannot possibly know all these people and ANY command that is not followed should be considered an act of aggression. We're talking fractions of a second here. Some of these people are extremely strong and violent when on drugs like cocaine and PCP and can run short distances in fractions of a second.

I still do believe that tasers save lives in the VAST majority of cases because they are a better alternative to lethal means but I also believe that some officers overuse them and some of the devices are faulty, eg gives out more electricity than necessary. I also believe however, that people who find themselves in situations where the police are called should be ready for anything if they don't obey the commands given to them. They are given for their safety as well as the police's and the public. It's not a hard thing to ask for, but a difficult concept for type-a personalities like Silky to grasp. Once you're given a chance to say your side in a calm and relaxed environment you're free to go or arrested if there was any wrongdoing.

Police are chosen for their character and the lifestyle they have lead. They are judged on their habits, all past wrongdoing, choices that they have made and balanced with their positive attributes. They always undergo an intensive background investigation by detectives who also contact about 30 or 40 people the subject has known throughout his or her life. This ideally leaves them in a position of knowing exactly who they are hiring and what if any, liability he or she may be in the future. This is a major consideration when hiring officers today as they could cost the department millions in damages paid out in civil suits for any wrongdoing while on their payroll. Does it mean all their officers are inherently good? No. Does it mean they won't ever make mistakes? Not if they continue to hire human beings rather than replacing them with Robocop, which also has its problems. Does it mean they're perfect? Of course not.

All too often the media and the public choose to harshly criticize the police for their actions, when 90% of the time, the public has NO IDEA what they are criticizing them for. Most people wouldn't know what to do with someone who is aggressive and violent or on drugs. Most people will probably faint. Add to that the fact that most of these violent criminals have a sincere hatred for the police and it makes for a pretty difficult situation. I remember some people saying how the RCMP officers at YVR should have tackled Dziekanski. This shows me that they have no idea what they are talking about because doing so will place you in greater danger, usually. As a cop, you need to keep your eyes on their hands at all times and you need to ensure that they won't pull out a sharp object or weapon out of their pockets and use it on you. Plus because of your proximity with the subject when wrestling with him, he may try to take one of your weapons and use it on you. Police see and experience more things in one shift than an ordinary citizen will experience in a lifetime. They have their pressures but most know how to deal with it. But it adds nothing when people try to second-guess their actions, because all too often they don't know jack shit about police work. They only know what they see on TV.

I know, now Smackyo or some other perbert is going to start another poll asking if I'm a cop or not!

Panther

 

[ChineseDude]

When it comes to police training, they need to spend some money, goto Hong Kong, and learn from the HONG KONG POLICE FORCE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Police

I was raised in Hong Kong, the police there are not just officers responsible for our public safety. They actually SERVE and protect. In Vancouver, the RCMP and the VPD are just a bunch of arrogant Cacausoid fucks trying to induce fear over new immigrants and criminals.

 

[myselftheother]

When it comes to police training, they need to spend some money, goto Hong Kong, and learn from the HONG KONG POLICE FORCE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Police

I was raised in Hong Kong, the police there are not just officers responsible for our public safety. They actually SERVE and protect. In Vancouver, the RCMP and the VPD are just a bunch of arrogant Cacausoid fucks trying to induce fear over new immigrants and criminals.

No need to be racist.

 

[LightBearer]

It's not a hard thing to ask for, but a difficult concept for type-a personalities like Silky to grasp. Once you're given a chance to say your side in a calm and relaxed environment you're free to go or arrested if there was any wrongdoing.

Panther

And if they violate my rights should I still lobey the "god mans" orders?
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1961.asp
I exit the vehicle]
Officer #1: Let me see your ID.
[I give him my valid Missouri License]
Officer #1: Let me see your insurance card for the vehicle.
Brett: Did I commit a moving violation?
Officer #1: Yeah you did, when you were coming in here.
Brett: Really? What was that?
Officer #1: Yeah, you wanna try me? You wanna try me tonight? You think you've had a bad night? I will ruin your ****ing night.
[Officer starts to get close up to my face]
Officer #1 You want to try me?
[Officer is inches away from my face, screaming as I'm pinned between him and my vehicle]
Officer #1 Do you wanna try me young boy? Do you want to try me tonight young boy?
Brett: No I don't.
Officer #1: Do you want to go to jail for some ****ing reason I come up with?
Brett: No I don't.
Officer #1: Do you wanna see who knows the law better, me or you. My experience compared to your young ass. Huh? Don't ever get smart mouthed with a cop again. I show you what a cop does. Do you understand me?
Brett: Yes sir.
Officer #1: Try and talk back -- Talk back to me again. I bet I could say you resisted arrest or something. You want to come up with something? I come up with nine things. Do you wanna try something?
Brett: No I don't.
Officer #1: Wait here


Heres RCMP saying TASERS ARE LETHAL when used on someone already agitated.
http://www.cbc.ca/clips/mov/milewski-tasers090212.mov

 

[smackyo]

Time is a major consideration that you may have overlooked KB3. In the Dziekanski case and most cases with aggressive persons, the police don't have time to assess weather a person is ordinary or not, so they think about their own and the public's safety first and deal with or quell the situation as quickly as possible. Once the subject is restrained, safety is usually restored. The fact is that they have very little information to go on initially such as is the guy on serious drugs, intoxicated, insane, violent by nature, a martial arts expert etc. You cannot possibly know all these people and ANY command that is not followed should be considered an act of aggression. We're talking fractions of a second here. Some of these people are extremely strong and violent when on drugs like cocaine and PCP and can run short distances in fractions of a second.

I still do believe that tasers save lives in the VAST majority of cases because they are a better alternative to lethal means but I also believe that some officers overuse them and some of the devices are faulty, eg gives out more electricity than necessary. I also believe however, that people who find themselves in situations where the police are called should be ready for anything if they don't obey the commands given to them. They are given for their safety as well as the police's and the public. It's not a hard thing to ask for, but a difficult concept for type-a personalities like Silky to grasp. Once you're given a chance to say your side in a calm and relaxed environment you're free to go or arrested if there was any wrongdoing.

Police are chosen for their character and the lifestyle they have lead. They are judged on their habits, all past wrongdoing, choices that they have made and balanced with their positive attributes. They always undergo an intensive background investigation by detectives who also contact about 30 or 40 people the subject has known throughout his or her life. This ideally leaves them in a position of knowing exactly who they are hiring and what if any, liability he or she may be in the future. This is a major consideration when hiring officers today as they could cost the department millions in damages paid out in civil suits for any wrongdoing while on their payroll. Does it mean all their officers are inherently good? No. Does it mean they won't ever make mistakes? Not if they continue to hire human beings rather than replacing them with Robocop, which also has its problems. Does it mean they're perfect? Of course not.

All too often the media and the public choose to harshly criticize the police for their actions, when 90% of the time, the public has NO IDEA what they are criticizing them for. Most people wouldn't know what to do with someone who is aggressive and violent or on drugs. Most people will probably faint. Add to that the fact that most of these violent criminals have a sincere hatred for the police and it makes for a pretty difficult situation. I remember some people saying how the RCMP officers at YVR should have tackled Dziekanski. This shows me that they have no idea what they are talking about because doing so will place you in greater danger, usually. As a cop, you need to keep your eyes on their hands at all times and you need to ensure that they won't pull out a sharp object or weapon out of their pockets and use it on you. Plus because of your proximity with the subject when wrestling with him, he may try to take one of your weapons and use it on you. Police see and experience more things in one shift than an ordinary citizen will experience in a lifetime. They have their pressures but most know how to deal with it. But it adds nothing when people try to second-guess their actions, because all too often they don't know jack shit about police work. They only know what they see on TV.

I know, now Smackyo or some other perbert is going to start another poll asking if I'm a cop or not!

Panther

lol, that was a funny poll. if memory serves majority said you were

but i digress, our battle lines have been drawn, i know where you stand and i think you know where i do.

i just think that there is room for police to use a little more common sense then the thuggery we've been seeing. how much have these guys got away with that wasn't on video. 30 seconds is not enough time in the yvr case to ascertain that particular situation. however if police show up on scene and someone is firing a gun at people then 30 seconds is way too long. it all comes down to common sense and to what seems like a lot of cops failure to use it.

i, like you think that tasers are a useful tool, they do save lives and prevent injuries. in my opinion they are best used in situations like "suicide by cop" or on people using violent actions that might be mentally unstable. the flip side to this is that cops seem to be using them as a weapon of compliance for the simplest of things. it is becoming the go to tool before any thing else is tried like talking for one, or conflict resolution, which to me just wreaks of laziness on the part of the officers.

there are numerous cases where tasers have been used effectively and actually saved someones life and awarded them the opportunity to live and seek help after wards. unfortunately there also many cases where they have been used in situations where they shouldn't have been used, like a naked man in the shower in a case of mistaken identity, the yvr incident or a senior citizen double parked. the list goes on and on.

fact is that you and i do agree on some things. i'm not some ultra left neo anarchist. i just think that it is crazy for us to not be critical of people we give the power to do this job. the situations that these people deal with on a daily basis can be trying and perhaps mental assessments throughout the year should be given or something, cause i'd be willing to bet that some of these incidents arose because of burnout or exhustion, but i do believe that some cops are just thugs.

its not so much what you say panther its just that no matter what video shows, your support of police is unflinching. its that kind of complacency that leads to police states, which i have no desire to live in.

we've got cops drinking and driving, involved in hit and runs (same cop involved in yvr incident), assults and corruption and nothing ever happens to them, at most a slap on the wrist. i really think we need to ask ourselves why this is???

 

[Pantherdash]

And if they violate my rights should I still lobey the "god mans" orders?
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1961.asp
I exit the vehicle]
Officer #1: Let me see your ID.
[I give him my valid Missouri License]
Officer #1: Let me see your insurance card for the vehicle.
Brett: Did I commit a moving violation?
Officer #1: Yeah you did, when you were coming in here.
Brett: Really? What was that?
Officer #1: Yeah, you wanna try me? You wanna try me tonight? You think you've had a bad night? I will ruin your ****ing night.
[Officer starts to get close up to my face]
Officer #1 You want to try me?
[Officer is inches away from my face, screaming as I'm pinned between him and my vehicle]
Officer #1 Do you wanna try me young boy? Do you want to try me tonight young boy?
Brett: No I don't.
Officer #1: Do you want to go to jail for some ****ing reason I come up with?
Brett: No I don't.
Officer #1: Do you wanna see who knows the law better, me or you. My experience compared to your young ass. Huh? Don't ever get smart mouthed with a cop again. I show you what a cop does. Do you understand me?
Brett: Yes sir.
Officer #1: Try and talk back -- Talk back to me again. I bet I could say you resisted arrest or something. You want to come up with something? I come up with nine things. Do you wanna try something?
Brett: No I don't.
Officer #1: Wait here


Heres RCMP saying TASERS ARE LETHAL when used on someone already agitated.
http://www.cbc.ca/clips/mov/milewski-tasers090212.mov

lol, that was a funny poll. if memory serves majority said you were

but i digress, our battle lines have been drawn, i know where you stand and i think you know where i do.

i just think that there is room for police to use a little more common sense then the thuggery we've been seeing. how much have these guys got away with that wasn't on video. 30 seconds is not enough time in the yvr case to ascertain that particular situation. however if police show up on scene and someone is firing a gun at people then 30 seconds is way too long. it all comes down to common sense and to what seems like a lot of cops failure to use it.

i, like you think that tasers are a useful tool, they do save lives and prevent injuries. in my opinion they are best used in situations like "suicide by cop" or on people using violent actions that might be mentally unstable. the flip side to this is that cops seem to be using them as a weapon of compliance for the simplest of things. it is becoming the go to tool before any thing else is tried like talking for one, or conflict resolution, which to me just wreaks of laziness on the part of the officers.

there are numerous cases where tasers have been used effectively and actually saved someones life and awarded them the opportunity to live and seek help after wards. unfortunately there also many cases where they have been used in situations where they shouldn't have been used, like a naked man in the shower in a case of mistaken identity, the yvr incident or a senior citizen double parked. the list goes on and on.

fact is that you and i do agree on some things. i'm not some ultra left neo anarchist. i just think that it is crazy for us to not be critical of people we give the power to do this job. the situations that these people deal with on a daily basis can be trying and perhaps mental assessments throughout the year should be given or something, cause i'd be willing to bet that some of these incidents arose because of burnout or exhustion, but i do believe that some cops are just thugs.

its not so much what you say panther its just that no matter what video shows, your support of police is unflinching. its that kind of complacency that leads to police states, which i have no desire to live in.

we've got cops drinking and driving, involved in hit and runs (same cop involved in yvr incident), assults and corruption and nothing ever happens to them, at most a slap on the wrist. i really think we need to ask ourselves why this is???

Same response for both posts in most of these cases. These are a few in a million cases where mistakes were made, cop was experiencing burnout, fatigue, stress, etc. How many mistakes go unnoticed in your workplace? A police workplace has very little room for errors and their mistakes are closely monitored and scrutinized to the point that just one error makes them all look bad. Granted there should be a monitoring system in place and a yearly assessment of their mental health is an excellent idea Smackyo. They have to qualify their shooting once a year why not their mental health? But so much is distorted especially by the media and the public when things like this come up that it sickens me.

Those 3 constables who beat up that brown dude outside of the Hyatt however, deserve all the attention they got since they knew better and acted like complete imbeciles while they were drunk. Same as all the officers who have been caught drunk driving one of which killed a 21 year old and tried to leave the scene with his two young kids in tow...he was also one of the YVR 4! Some of these actions are just plain stupid, perpetrated by people proven to be upstanding members of society. But in the end they are human like all of us and they certainly do a tough job that would leave most of us alcoholics for life. I think there is a little room for a few errors in judgement, no? If it appears to you as if they get off with a slap on the wrist for most of their wrongdoing, ANYONE with little or no criminal history gets off with a slap on the wrist for ANY wrongdoing in Canada. Does that make you feel better? Extraordinary people in extraordinary situations. It happens one in a million. Cut them some slack.

Panther

 

[Pantherdash]

Heres RCMP saying TASERS ARE LETHAL when used on someone already agitated.
http://www.cbc.ca/clips/mov/milewski-tasers090212.mov

You do know that Commissioner Elliot is a civil servant and NEVER has been a cop, so he has no right to open his stupid horse's ass-mouth about that kind of thing because he has never experienced quelling an agitated person.

Even if the taser does kill (as I acknowledged above) when the person is in an agitated state, that is HIS problem and not the officer's. Most of the time this agitation is caused by high levels of LETHAL drugs in the system like cocaine, PCP, crystal meth-amphetamines that the little donkey has willfully taken himself. Other times it is caused by alcohol and still other times it is caused by the person just being a plain IDIOT. I place Dziekanski in the latter category because he should've known the reaction he would get for throwing furniture around and destroying property, in fact I think he would have been shot by police in his own home country. So don't tell me he was innocent. A grown man does not do things like that. There was some speculation that he may have been experiencing alcohol withdrawal that yes, would leave him in an agitated state. The safety of the public and the officers was foremost in this case before the moron's and he was tasered, not for doing nothing, but for the threat he posed with the display of violence, his size, his aggression, his non-compliance to commands given by police. Those are all things that should justify the use of the taser, but which Elliot has now foolishly re-written as a standard for RCMP taser deployment. If he died as a result of something triggering his own agitation, that is HIS problem, not anyone else's. Would you prefer it if they had shot him?

Panther

 

[Pantherdash]

I know, now Smackyo or some other perbert is going to start another poll asking if I'm a cop or not!

lol, that was a funny poll. if memory serves majority said you were

Panther's coming to a mall near you!

 

[kodiak_bear3]

Time

...the police don't have time to assess weather a person is ordinary or not, so they think about their own and the public's safety first and deal with or quell the situation as quickly as possible...

Why does it have to be "as quickly as possible"?
I don't see any good reason for this.
If this is true, then we have found the problem and the solution: Police should not deal with the situation "as quickly as possible", but instead "as safe as possible" (including the safety of distressed people).

The fact is that too often police act without thinking, and this is source for major mistakes.
If a police officer is called in the secure area of YVR to deal with some crazy guy who is throwing furniture, how can they reasonably think that he has weapons or is under drug influence?
But this question has an unfortunate easy answer: police officers are not required to think.

And maybe this is a requirement for joining the police. If police officers think too much they may start questioning why some rules really exist. Definitely not good! Rules are there to be complied with and police officers are there to make sure that everybody abide by them, not to question if the rules are good or stupid.

I read somewhere, long time ago, that when they hire police officers they require them to be within a certain IQ range. They don't want them too stupid, but not too smart either.

 

[kalel]

they don't have a problem with officers being "too smart". what they have a problem with is smart asses who question everything and get nothing done.

the whole YVR situation, it's clear that nobody handled it well, including the staff at the fucking airport. yet they are ducking and hiding and won't face much simply cuz they can pass the buck and in the end they weren't actually causing the death of the polish guy.

i've met alot of police officers and the vast majority of them do their job to the best they can. alot of times it does come down to quick decisions and when you aren't given all the facts what are you supposed to do?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Triggered by the police officer beating the hell out of a teen ager, I was wondering if police officers are trained to deal with ordinary people who may, out of character, commit a crime.

Police officers have to deal with gangs, organized crime, hardened criminals that will not hesitate to hurt or kill. To deal with this stuff, they are given by the society a lot of power to "serve and protect".
To make sure that this power is not used improperly, the society has also defined what they can and cannot do, especially with reference to our charter of rights.
All the time that police officers cross those boundaries, they not only breach the mandate that they have received, but they also weaken the trust and confidence that ordinary people should have on them. This is not good for the police, and not good for our society.

I see a similarity between the officer who has beaten the teen ager and those officers who have tasered Robert Dziekanski. In both situation there was an ordinary person who, out of character, may have behaved inappropriately.

My point is that there is huge difference between good guys and bad guys.
Sometimes, a good guy, out of character, may infringe the law and although he still deserves to pay the price, he doesn't deserve to be treated like the worse criminals.
Called in a crime scene, police officers should be able to recognize if they are dealing with ordinary people behaving out of character or with hardened criminals.
Too many times, they can't see the difference.

I agree 100%.
While they do have to be careful because one wrong move could jeopardize their and other's lives, that's no excuse to treat everyone they arrest like a hardened criminal.
I had an experience about 20 years ago. A bunch of us were at a bar watching a hockey game. Now, we're all 20 something professionals, good jobs, families, maybe few speeding tickets between us all.
Well one thing leads to another and about 14 of us end up out in the parkinglot playing a game of road hockey. Sure we were drunk and playing where we shouldn't have been but the cops roll up and start yelling, grabbing people, throwing guys around on the ground and up against cars. Fucking ridiculous! Anyway, long story short we all get dragged doown to the station, sit there for a few hours then are released without any charges.
That's a perfect example of what you're talking about.

 

[LightBearer]

You do know that Commissioner Elliot is a civil servant and NEVER has been a cop, so he has no right to open his stupid horse's ass-mouth about that kind of thing because he has never experienced quelling an agitated person.

Even if the taser does kill (as I acknowledged above) when the person is in an agitated state, that is HIS problem and not the officer's. Most of the time this agitation is caused by high levels of LETHAL drugs in the system like cocaine, PCP, crystal meth-amphetamines that the little donkey has willfully taken himself. Other times it is caused by alcohol and still other times it is caused by the person just being a plain IDIOT. I place Dziekanski in the latter category because he should've known the reaction he would get for throwing furniture around and destroying property, in fact I think he would have been shot by police in his own home country. So don't tell me he was innocent. A grown man does not do things like that. There was some speculation that he may have been experiencing alcohol withdrawal that yes, would leave him in an agitated state. The safety of the public and the officers was foremost in this case before the moron's and he was tasered, not for doing nothing, but for the threat he posed with the display of violence, his size, his aggression, his non-compliance to commands given by police. Those are all things that should justify the use of the taser, but which Elliot has now foolishly re-written as a standard for RCMP taser deployment. If he died as a result of something triggering his own agitation, that is HIS problem, not anyone else's. Would you prefer it if they had shot him?

Panther

He knows what he is talking about. Studies show tasers dont help the situation. How about some doctors?
http://www.infowars.net/articles/may2008/220508Tasers.htm
The fact Dzanski was agitated was because no one in a so called international airport could even translate a single word he said. While he was looking for his mother for 14 hours. Now what would you do in that situation, sit and meditate? Maybe if the "god men" had known why instead of jumping on him within 30 seconds, 200lb knee to the back of the neck plus tasering is obviosuly a bad desicion that a retard should know, let alone a "god man". Pepper spray plus a baton to the leg would have put him down pretty fast. But I guess they had to show him the iron fist under the velvet glove. How does a 47 year old polish man pose a threat to 4 ARMED police I mean "god men"? One of them said "I felt threatened to some degree". There are some low standards for the RCMP.

 

[Unpossible]

so he has no right to open his stupid horse's ass-mouth about that kind of thing because he has never experienced quelling an agitated person.

Kind of like you.

his non-compliance to commands given by police.

The next level on the use of force continuum is empty hands. Pepper spray, batons, and tasers are only to be used after active physical resistance or if the suspect assumes an offensive posture.

Yes, Panther. Cops are expected to attempt physically restraining unarmed suspects. If they are unsuccessful they then use non-lethal weapons.

 

[littlejimbigher]

I agree 100%.
While they do have to be careful because one wrong move could jeopardize their and other's lives, that's no excuse to treat everyone they arrest like a hardened criminal.
I had an experience about 20 years ago. A bunch of us were at a bar watching a hockey game. Now, we're all 20 something professionals, good jobs, families, maybe few speeding tickets between us all.
Well one thing leads to another and about 14 of us end up out in the parkinglot playing a game of road hockey. Sure we were drunk and playing where we shouldn't have been but the cops roll up and start yelling, grabbing people, throwing guys around on the ground and up against cars. Fucking ridiculous! Anyway, long story short we all get dragged doown to the station, sit there for a few hours then are released without any charges.
That's a perfect example of what you're talking about.

That actually sounds a reasonable action. Keeping you untill you sobered up and no charges laid.

 

[smackyo]

If it appears to you as if they get off with a slap on the wrist for most of their wrongdoing, ANYONE with little or no criminal history gets off with a slap on the wrist for ANY wrongdoing in Canada. Does that make you feel better? Extraordinary people in extraordinary situations. It happens one in a million. Cut them some slack.

Panther

i can hear this sentiment but to me its different. i'll explain it like this.

you have two friends, one of them is very dependable, and the other not so much.

you've asked both of them for favors on two separate occasions both of equal importance.

if the guy that you know isn't dependable doesn't come through for you its not as big a deal (for some weird reason) compared to the friend that is normally very dependable.

all these career criminals and gangsters that just get a slap on the wrist, while pissing me off is not the same compared to a cop acting like a thug. the difference is that we have put trust in these people and we give them a certain amount of power over the public to keep order. we hold them to a high standard and to the best of their ability not only enforce the laws that we deem fit for the public good but to sure as hell not break them.

see what i'm saying. there is a certain amount of trust there and when that trust is broken, it cuts deep. a lot deeper then if some career criminal does the same thing.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

That actually sounds a reasonable action. Keeping you untill you sobered up and no charges laid.

Yes, just without the assault.

 

[wess]

When it comes to police training, they need to spend some money, goto Hong Kong, and learn from the HONG KONG POLICE FORCE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Police

I was raised in Hong Kong, the police there are not just officers responsible for our public safety. They actually SERVE and protect. In Vancouver, the RCMP and the VPD are just a bunch of arrogant Cacausoid fucks trying to induce fear over new immigrants and criminals.

Cacausoid fucks ? thats a new one. What about all of the immigrant cops ? It seems to be the new thing for immigrants.

 

[myselftheother]

Cacausoid fucks ? thats a new one. What about all of the immigrant cops ? It seems to be the new thing for immigrants.

Damn. You posted something that I agree with. Well, sorta. I thought that the Cacausoid fucks comment extremely racist and uncalled for. What about that? I was actually serious about that. Why the hell did CD think that's it's ok suddenly to be able to sling racial slurs when if it happened to him it's a heinous crime? Nice double standard.

Sorry, to change the subject...just needed to raise that issue as it really rubbed me the wrong way. Hypocriticism is not a real word, but it seems to fit what is called reverse racism....which is just another bullshit term.