Winnipeg Cops lying through their teeth again...

Deank wrote:"If the cop's hadn't got caught on video, this would all be moot. "

And doesn't that terrify the crap out of you to think that IF there was no video...
How many times is there no video? Why aren't our cops wearing cameras yet?

Yes, but as it's been stated to me many times, only pussies think like that. I keep hearing how "back in the good'ol days" they'd hire thugs to be cops...they'd "take care" of the riff raff....maybe with a bat, maybe with a fist or a boot....maybe they take you for a little drive to a quarry for a little while....whatever...it was "taken care of" and THAT's what we need to have more of.

To those who think like that...you got your wish, and we all got to see what that looks like.

Did that make things any better?

No.

What happened in the aftermath?

The perp was let off - due to misconduct - not because he comitted a crime and got away with it. He was BUSTED and the chance to convict him was lost the very second that video was released...

Had the video not been rolling, this woudn't be a problem, and the aformention crowd would be satisfied that "justice" was handed out.

And bleeding heart panzies who respect due process and the rule of law (like me) wouldn't have anything to complain about.

JT Estoban wrote:The perp was let off - due to misconduct - not because he comitted a crime and got away with it. He was BUSTED and the chance to convict him was lost the very second that video was released...

Was he let off because of police misconduct or because the police lied? If I was that judge I'd have a very difficult time believing the testifying cops that lied.

what i don't understand, is why he would be let off for police misconduct anyway?

what the judge SHOULD be looking at is:
did the guy commit the crime he's charged with?
is there real proof, witness, statement, confession?

Guilty...go to jail...the beating is a bonus.

THEN...look at the video, and the beating, and charge the cops IF REQUIRED for their misconduct as a separate incident.
What the cops did AFTER the guy committed a crime has nothing to do with the guy committing the crime. It has nothing to do with whether he's guilty or not.

That would be akin to someone breaking into my house, and I shoot him between the eyes.
Did my shooting him make him break into my house? No...he broke in first. My shooting him was secondary to the fact that he broke in...and has nothing to do with his crime...he's just not around anymore to say otherwise.

"what i don't understand, is why he would be let off for police misconduct anyway?

what the judge SHOULD be looking at is:
did the guy commit the crime he's charged with?
is there real proof, witness, statement, confession?"

Basically we are giving him a break for already being punished.

Deank wrote:"what i don't understand, is why he would be let off for police misconduct anyway?

what the judge SHOULD be looking at is:
did the guy commit the crime he's charged with?
is there real proof, witness, statement, confession?"

Basically we are giving him a break for already being punished.

wow...is it that easy?
a guy robs a store...cops beat him up a little bit...and he's paid his debt to society?
We could save the courts a lot of time by just hiring bouncers.

what about that guy who recently chased down some car thieves and got shot with a shotgun?
should they go beatup the car thieves and call it "even"?

We're not giving him a "break" for already being punished.
It's a political bullsh1t game to keep the criminals from declaring war...

nope.. thats exactly why we are doing it.. Is it right? I dont know, most times not, but that is the way the law in Canada and many other countries works. If a criminals rights are violated by law enforcement ( judge, cops, lawyers, whatever) the resulting punishment is usually less and often wiped out altogether.

AGEsAces wrote:
what the judge SHOULD be looking at is:
did the guy commit the crime he's charged with?
is there real proof, witness, statement, confession?

Guilty...go to jail...the beating is a bonus.

THEN...look at the video, and the beating, and charge the cops IF REQUIRED for their misconduct as a separate incident.
What the cops did AFTER the guy committed a crime has nothing to do with the guy committing the crime. It has nothing to do with whether he's guilty or not.

I couldn't agree with you more!

Long overdue...Check this out in today's papers...GGF

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/winnipeg/2010/03/24/13345181.html

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/Winnipeg-cops-face-perjury-trial-89037967.html

http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/surreyleader/news/86765307.html

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2724745

and on and on....

I knew a trades person who lie,s through his teeth too , so it must be spreading and he is a roofer.

Roofers have never been good at lieing, they always get nailed.

None of the roofers that I know would kick a person when they're down.

Cops on the other hand appear to be nothing more than fcuken bullies....and criminals!!!

Can you prove that statement or the other about them about all being liars, just a point .

Deank wrote:Roofers have never been good at lieing, they always get nailed.

Hookers the same could be said for .

There is a new video making the rounds where an Edmonton Victoria cop was caught kicking a couple "perps" when they were prone and responding as instructed.

Yeah for phone cams and you tube. Maybe these jerks will be more prudent?

Did you guys see the video about the cops trying to break up a fight outside a watering hole in Victoria BC and how the one cop in particular was kneeing and kicking etc the one person after he had gone down on his knees etc?...and...

And this was on the all the national news on Monday this week...GGF

Ya. That was in Victoria.

http://www.vancouversun.com/sympathy+Victoria+caught+video+kicking+suspects/2724154/story.html



https://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=/watch%3Fv%3Dmnwi6wO03As

Isn't everyone in Victoria over the age of 65?

grumpy old man wrote: Maybe these jerks will be more prudent?

More prudent?? ...as in not getting caught?

I would hope that this will allow some police services to weed out the fcuken bad cops...the bullies and fcukwads that should be in jail, never mind wearing a badge....like the ones at the Vancouver airport or these bastards in the latest video making the rounds.

JTF you said:

More prudent?? ...as in not getting caught?

I would hope that this will allow some police services to weed out the fcuken bad cops...the bullies and fcukwads that should be in jail, never mind wearing a badge....like the ones at the Vancouver airport or these bastards in the latest video making the rounds.

I 100% agree with you...and...

And for me I have stories of mine own unfolding with cops...and...

And one way or the other...How on earth can a society continue to allow cops to do this stuff and get away with it?...and...

And I just don't get it already...and...

And have we as a society come to a point in our history where "Cops Are Above The Law Now?...GGF

Here's a thought for all to ponder...in these videos, we never really seem to hear what is going on...so quick to judge without all the facts...yes maybe the pictures of what the cops are doing is wrong, but without audio we truly don't know the whole story do we???
Not saying this will ultimately justify why these cops did what they did, but it will fill in a lot of the blanks in a story that is without audio to accompany it.

Yes there are lots of things we do not hear or see before we make judgement . Thank You for pointing it out too

It's just that those images require no audio to show what is going on. Assume there was audio, what could we hear that would change the context?

and...
quite honestly...not knowing the whole story is the biggest problem.
Taking images out of context, no matter how disturbing, can make things much worse than they actually are.

There are hundreds of assumptions that can be made on both sides of the story, both to condemn the officers, and also to exonerate or even accommodate them.

The one factor which is often forgotten is the "adrenaline" of the situation. Going from 0-100 in a situation can often make people (even cops) make heated and aggressive decisions. MOST times, this does not cause any permanent harm, nor do anything other than to put a little fear into a criminal who probably deserves it anyway.

There are always exceptions, and ALWAYS will be (with or without cameras Dean).

Yet again though, the criminals may have leniency from the courts for a crime they committed, rather than having the book thrown at them, and then look for an apology or action against overzealous cops later.

By persecuting otherwise responsible cops because some idiot has a camera on, the cops are going to be LESS likely to act on criminal suspects, and more criminals are going to go free or not get caught at all.

Watching the video, it looked as though the cop was telling the guy on the ground to comply with an order, the guy was refusing. There's no asking twice....it's do it, or get hit till you comply. As soon as he put his other arm behind his back, the cuffs went on and the beating stopped. What's the cop supposed to do? say "pretty please"?

GOM you said:

It's just that those images require no audio to show what is going on. Assume there was audio, what could we hear that would change the context?

Nothing as far as I am concerned...and...

And my take on it all is simple...What if it was just a bunch of "still photos" etc instead?...and...

And would it then really matter if there was sound or not?...GGF

AcesAces which one of the videos are you referring to because the one I saw on TV in Victoria is where one of the cops had a person on his knees and the second one came from the other side and tackled the person down and started to kick and knee that person etc...GGF