# Militarization of Police.



## Kirkhill

I hear a lot of talk about Militarization of the Police these days.

Simple really.

The politicians created the situation.  Aided and abetted by the Army.  

Trump and Cotton are getting beat up about implementing something called the Insurrection Act.  In Canada we refer to it as Aid to the Civil Power.

When things get out of hand then the government needs to be able to put a disciplined body of fit individuals into the streets to quell the crowds.  They are also necessary to guard Vital Points so as to free up police for policing.

Policing.  Polishing.  Polite.  Polity. People.  People of the community interacting with people of the community.  A policeman is a citizen with exactly the same powers as any other citizen, including the power of arrest and detention.  Only they get paid to do nothing else than police the streets.

The problem is that every now and then situations arise. The Canadiens lose. The Canadiens win. Vancouver cancels a smoke-in. Or somebody gets murdered on TV and mayhem ensues.  Or somebody takes it upon themselves to launch an armed insurrection of one and starts shooting everybody in sight.  

Those insurrections should not be the responsibility of the police.  The police need to be seen as part of the community.  Not separate from the community.

They need back up.  Back up by somebody that isn't the police.

They also need that back up to be available, trained and effective.  The need that type of back up the same way that infantry needs artillery.  

The primary problem is that nobody wants to be the bad guys.  The politicians don't want to be seen as the bad guys that put soldiers in the streets.  The soldiers don't want to be the bad guys going into the streets.  But somebody has to go into the streets.  And best that it be the "army" - or in the words of Kipling - single men in barracks who aren't plaster saints.

I hear that in the US some National Guardsmen have been turned out, like some of the police riot squads, without their riot gear.  Because that looks too militaristic.

Screw that.  That is too ridiculous.

I want the Riot Troops in the field to look impervious to rocks, hammers, spikes, clubs and molotov cocktails.  I want them to look like the original Immovable Object, capable of resisting any force.  More important than just looking impervious I want those troops to know that their kit and discipline makes them impervious.  I don't want them armed with guns because I don't want them having to worry about protecting their guns.  They should be able to know that there are people with guns deployed to their flanks and rear with guns to remove any gun armed threats they may face.

I want the Riot Troops to be unafraid.  To know that they are going home tonight.  That means that the need to be well protected and well supported.

I also want them well whipped in.  Like a good pack of dogs. They do what they are told when told at the command of their Commissioned Officers - those servants of Her Majesty in whom she has reposed especial trust and confidence to command, exercise and discipline such troops as may be prescribed on occasion.  Those people who are charged with deciding, when the police ask for it, when and how force will be used by the troops under the officer's command.  The Officer is the responsible party for the consequences.  Not the troops.  That is why Officers requested, and were selected for, a commission. 

I also want them readily available. On Call.  As readily available as a local SWAT/ERT.  Which means a lot less bureaucracy associated with the call out.

Meanwhile the Army doesn't want the job.  Even though historically that has been one of the primary roles of the army even under the British system.  The Militia doesn't want the job.  Even though since Confederation managing insurrection (Riel 1, Riel 2, BC Miners, General Strikes) has been one of the tasks they have been called out for.  And trade discussions demonstrate that we apparently still have rioters in peace-loving Canada.

Politicians - they just don't want to be seen making that kind of decision - so they would sooner have that kind of capability hidden within their police departments and then leave it as a policy decision for the local Chief of Police - who can be safely fired when things go pear-shaped.

It is easy to de-militarize the police.  All that is necessary is that Other Government Departments step up and do their jobs.  And that politicians recognize that sometimes somebody has to be available to put the kiddies on the naughty step.  And that the kiddies won't like it when that happens.

Or there is the French solution

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/09/france-riot-police-george-floyd-protests/


----------



## mariomike

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I hear a lot of talk about Militarization of the Police these days.



For reference to the discussion,

Militarization of the police?
https://army.ca/forums/threads/116026.0.html
7 pages.
LOCKED.


----------



## blacktriangle

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I also want them well whipped in.  Like a good pack of dogs. They do what they are told when told at the command of their Commissioned Officers - those servants of Her Majesty in whom she has reposed especial trust and confidence to command, exercise and discipline such troops as may be prescribed on occasion.



It's great that you hold non-commissioned/enlisted types in such high esteem.


----------



## Kirkhill

I knew that would get a response.

I do, in fact, hold ORs and NCOs in great esteem.  If anything my problem is with the Commissioned ranks.  They are the ones hired by the Crown to manage situations with what ever resources the Crown sees fit to allocate to them.

My point is that the troops should not have to worry about following orders in the heat of the moment.  The biggest crime that came out of the Nuremberg Trials was deciding that "I was following orders" is not a defence.  It is the only correct defence.  Anything less puts the blame in the wrong place and results in silly bugger investigations of individuals when the fault is with the orders and the person issuing the orders.

The crimes of people under orders need to be managed. No doubt.  People that acted against orders or on their own volition, like Derek Chauvin and his associates, obviously need to be punished.  As do his supervisors for failing to adequately supervise, train and discipline him.

But the case of the two coppers being chargesd in Buffalo, who pushed a man out of their way when he was obstructing them, after their team leader told them to move him, after their unit had been deployed, under orders, explicitly to move people out of the the way, that is another situation entirely.

So, sorry if my language offends. My sentiments are unchanged.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I hear a lot of talk about Militarization of the Police these days.
> 
> Simple really.
> 
> The politicians created the situation.  Aided and abetted by the Army.
> 
> Trump and Cotton are getting beat up about implementing something called the Insurrection Act.  In Canada we refer to it as Aid to the Civil Power.
> 
> When things get out of hand then the government needs to be able to put a disciplined body of fit individuals into the streets to quell the crowds.  They are also necessary to guard Vital Points so as to free up police for policing.
> 
> Policing.  Polishing.  Polite.  Polity. People.  People of the community interacting with people of the community.  A policeman is a citizen with exactly the same powers as any other citizen, including the power of arrest and detention.  Only they get paid to do nothing else than police the streets.
> 
> The problem is that every now and then situations arise. The Canadiens lose. The Canadiens win. Vancouver cancels a smoke-in. Or somebody gets murdered on TV and mayhem ensues.  Or somebody takes it upon themselves to launch an armed insurrection of one and starts shooting everybody in sight.
> 
> Those insurrections should not be the responsibility of the police.  The police need to be seen as part of the community.  Not separate from the community.
> 
> They need back up.  Back up by somebody that isn't the police.
> 
> They also need that back up to be available, trained and effective.  The need that type of back up the same way that infantry needs artillery.
> 
> The primary problem is that nobody wants to be the bad guys.  The politicians don't want to be seen as the bad guys that put soldiers in the streets.  The soldiers don't want to be the bad guys going into the streets.  But somebody has to go into the streets.  And best that it be the "army" - or in the words of Kipling - single men in barracks who aren't plaster saints.
> 
> I hear that in the US some National Guardsmen have been turned out, like some of the police riot squads, without their riot gear.  Because that looks too militaristic.
> 
> Screw that.  That is too ridiculous.
> 
> I want the Riot Troops in the field to look impervious to rocks, hammers, spikes, clubs and molotov cocktails.  I want them to look like the original Immovable Object, capable of resisting any force.  More important than just looking impervious I want those troops to know that their kit and discipline makes them impervious.  I don't want them armed with guns because I don't want them having to worry about protecting their guns.  They should be able to know that there are people with guns deployed to their flanks and rear with guns to remove any gun armed threats they may face.
> 
> I want the Riot Troops to be unafraid.  To know that they are going home tonight.  That means that the need to be well protected and well supported.
> 
> I also want them well whipped in.  Like a good pack of dogs. They do what they are told when told at the command of their Commissioned Officers - those servants of Her Majesty in whom she has reposed especial trust and confidence to command, exercise and discipline such troops as may be prescribed on occasion.  Those people who are charged with deciding, when the police ask for it, when and how force will be used by the troops under the officer's command.  The Officer is the responsible party for the consequences.  Not the troops.  That is why Officers requested, and were selected for, a commission.
> 
> I also want them readily available. On Call.  As readily available as a local SWAT/ERT.  Which means a lot less bureaucracy associated with the call out.
> 
> Meanwhile the Army doesn't want the job.  Even though historically that has been one of the primary roles of the army even under the British system.  The Militia doesn't want the job.  Even though since Confederation managing insurrection (Riel 1, Riel 2, BC Miners, General Strikes) has been one of the tasks they have been called out for.  And trade discussions demonstrate that we apparently still have rioters in peace-loving Canada.
> 
> Politicians - they just don't want to be seen making that kind of decision - so they would sooner have that kind of capability hidden within their police departments and then leave it as a policy decision for the local Chief of Police - who can be safely fired when things go pear-shaped.
> 
> It is easy to de-militarize the police.  All that is necessary is that Other Government Departments step up and do their jobs.  And that politicians recognize that sometimes somebody has to be available to put the kiddies on the naughty step.  And that the kiddies won't like it when that happens.
> 
> Or there is the French solution
> 
> https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/09/france-riot-police-george-floyd-protests/



I've often felt the French and Italians do a very good job with respect to Policing as their principal National Police Forces are also Military Forces.  The French system makes a lot of sense as the Gendarmerie is officially a Military Force under the command and control of the Armed Forces.  The French still have the National Police who look after the matters you speak about Chris but Crowd Control and Civil Disturbances are the responsibility of the Gendarmerie.  

It is the French Military who protects critical infrastructure in France, which is why when you go to Paris, you will see Legionnaires and other Elite Forces patrolling and guarding places like the Arc de Triomphe or Charles de Gaulle Airport.  It is the Gendarmerie who is responsible for protecting the Borders of France and also dealing with Crowd Control Issues.

I completely agree with you Chris that the politicians have put Police Forces in a very precarious situation.



			
				reverse_engineer said:
			
		

> It's great that you hold non-commissioned/enlisted types in such high esteem.



You took his comments the wrong way.


----------



## mariomike

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Those insurrections should not be the responsibility of the police.



Not sure the Toronto unions ( police and paramedic ) would be on board with that idea.

Toronto has had a "Riot Squad" ( as it was then known ) at least as far back as 1961.


----------



## Kirkhill

OK 

You want the responsibility of the Riot Squad and SWAT in the police force?  Then fine, protect your fellow uniformed personnel by putting the Active Reserve (if you will) in different, highly visible and distinctive uniforms that differentiate them from the Patrol Force and place them under a separate command structure.   Occupying separate buildings.

Here's a question:  How many shootings are a result of a police officer leading with a drawn weapon because that is the easiest way to ensure that he can defend the weapon he is carrying as he enters into a melee?

If you have a gun the first concern has to be that you control that gun.  That it is not taken from you.  That it is not used against you.  Or your partner.  Or a civilian.  The easiest way to do that is to remove the gun from its holster and hold it in your hands.  If your gun is drawn then it needs to be aimed, at a target, with intent.

So.  In an armed population armed police are necessary.  Particularly if police are sent out on patrol individually and lacking mutual support or a timely Quick Reaction Force.  

But there is a risk that the officer's weapon can be used in the manner that some were in Nova Scotia recently.


----------



## brihard

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> ...
> Here's a question:  How many shootings are a result of a police officer leading with a drawn weapon because that is the easiest way to ensure that he can defend the weapon he is carrying as he enters into a melee?
> 
> If you have a gun the first concern has to be that you control that gun.  That it is not taken from you.  That it is not used against you.  Or your partner.  Or a civilian.  The easiest way to do that is to remove the gun from its holster and hold it in your hands.  If your gun is drawn then it needs to be aimed, at a target, with intent.
> 
> So.  In an armed population armed police are necessary.  Particularly if police are sent out on patrol individually and lacking mutual support or a timely Quick Reaction Force.
> 
> But there is a risk that the officer's weapon can be used in the manner that some were in Nova Scotia recently.



With respect Chris, you're fairly far off on some stuff here, and I think missing some considerations.

Let's start right at the top. Constitutionally, the provinces are responsible for the administration of justice. While the federal government has the constitutional authority to craft criminal law, it's to the provinces to enforce and uphold it. They decide what resources they need. The enforcement of law, as well as stemming from a provincial head of constitutional power, is also in western society generally accepted to be a _civil_ responsibility.  It is not generally a matter of _national defence_, as it's extremely difficult for criminal matters - even significant public disorder - to hit that threshold. I don't agree with your characterization of what we're seeing as 'insurrection'. I'm not suggesting there may not be a small few within the larger popular movements we're seeing who have insurrectionist intent, but not many actually want to see our system of government forcefully tossed. Most just want some reforms, and that's fine. These protests may be a threat to the funding and stable functioning of some police services; they may be a threat to small swaths of businesses in looting-prone areas. They may be a threat to the careers of some politicians. They are not a threat to our courts. They are not a threat to the states ability to levy or spend taxes. They aren't a threat to our systems of healthcare, education, or municipal government. The state is not at risk. It is wrong, in my mind, therefore, to suggest that it's appropriate to take a military whose primary role is to kill people and break stuff in the defense of the national interest under the lawful direction of the civil authority, and put them up against crowds that are essentially just pissed off and that, after a long hot summer, will probably simmer right down.



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> You want the responsibility of the Riot Squad and SWAT in the police force?  Then fine, protect your fellow uniformed personnel by putting the Active Reserve (if you will) in different, highly visible and distinctive uniforms that differentiate them from the Patrol Force and place them under a separate command structure.   Occupying separate buildings.



Cops are expensive. Tough to justify having them sitting around waiting. ERT/SWAT are a very rare exception to that- a few parts of the country have enough demand for their services to justify full time teams that are always ready to go (or at least are within certain hours, and on call the rest). Even at that they generally have a lot of bodies out backing up patrol, assisting with VIP protection, things like that. As for riot cops, I'm not aware of a police service in Canada (nor offhand of any in the US) who have a full time public order unit who solely do that job. I know that for ours (I'm on it) we all have real jobs, and get orders to assemble when needed. Usually we end up on standby and don't have to deploy into the crowd, but we're all set to go with our kit and buses and a staging area. And when it's done, we go back to our patrol or investigative or administrative or bureaucratic duties. When we're deployed, we DO look very different. You aren't going to mistake 'riot cops' for anything else. And likewise, the SWAT/ERT guys look very different. I am not convinced that there is any organizational, ethical, or legal reason to make these capabilities separate from other police services. Even when a riot squad goes out,t he mission is *Still* to protect the rights of citizens including to preserve he right to peaceful protest. I wish the public could have seen the motivational brief we got at the start of our last callout- a bit, thick set Sgt with many years of public order duties reminding us that the eyes of Canada were on us,a nd that whatever we do, we ave better be prepared to do it in front of, or justidy it to, our friends, family, and kindly 70 year old neighbour. But, also, that if and when it became necessary to act to protect ours or others' safety, we would do so and every member of the team would keep each other safe. Ethics and the 'why we're there' pervade the ethos on the team I'm on, at least.



> Here's a question:  How many shootings are a result of a police officer leading with a drawn weapon because that is the easiest way to ensure that he can defend the weapon he is carrying as he enters into a melee?
> 
> If you have a gun the first concern has to be that you control that gun.  That it is not taken from you.  That it is not used against you.  Or your partner.  Or a civilian.  The easiest way to do that is to remove the gun from its holster and hold it in your hands.  If your gun is drawn then it needs to be aimed, at a target, with intent.



I'm going to call you flatly wrong on this. I won't say it's never happened, but I haven't heard of it. If your gun is out you're looking to create space, not close it. If you're moving into a melee, no you aren't drawing your gun to protect it. My gun is at much greater risk of being taken forcefully from my hands than from my holster. Modern duty holsters are designed with retention in mind, and we're trained to defend our guns. Go for my holster while standing and I'll keep it, and destroy certain parts of your body. Go for it in a ground fight and I'll keep it and destroy different parts of your body. And then you get to meet my friends. They will remove you without grace from the vicinity of my holster.

If we're having to wade into a physical confrontation - be it in a riotous crowd, or simply in a crowded bar - it's because we've determined we need to, and our risk assessment tells us we can achieve it without compromising the underlying need or putting ourselves or others in more danger. 



> I want the Riot Troops in the field to look impervious to rocks, hammers, spikes, clubs and molotov cocktails.  I want them to look like the original Immovable Object, capable of resisting any force.  More important than just looking impervious I want those troops to know that their kit and discipline makes them impervious.  I don't want them armed with guns because I don't want them having to worry about protecting their guns.  They should be able to know that there are people with guns deployed to their flanks and rear with guns to remove any gun armed threats they may face.



At present, most riot cops at least in Canada aren't carrying their guns on them, they have lethal overwatch from others. I think we're going to see a shift away from that towards riot cops still having access to their firearms. If you think about what a brawl looks like, odds are the ERT guy fifteen or twenty feet behind you with a carbine cannot see what you see and will not see the knife or the gun that presents two or three feet to your front. The threat picture has, I believe, changed. The vast majority of protesters are still out there with no intent beyond exercising their rights to assemble and to express themselves.  A very small subset might be out there with a generally riotous or disruptive intent, but will limit their stupidity to throwing things from a difference. We must, however, be prepared for the risk that _that one guy_ will use the cover of the crowd to specifically try to attack police with the intent of causing us serious harm.

Overall I cannot agree that the roles of emergency response or public order can or should be removed from the larger organizations that police our communities. I see there as being considerable risk particularly in taking a group of police, making them primarily a public order unit, and separating them from he rest of the policing profession in that role. Public order is a capability, it does require its own mindset and attitude, BUT the members doing it must be able to engage and disengage that mindset at will when the situation or mandate changes. They need to be able to not lose sight of what the reason for their role is. Yes, occasionally there will be a need to wade in to a riot with shields and batons. Much more frequently we'll be out there (or on standby very close by) in case a sizable protest goes sideways- but hoping, hoping, hoping that it doesn't. You want that job done by members whose mentality is still respectful and responsible dealings with people.

- Staff edit to fix quote box


----------



## daftandbarmy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> But the case of the two coppers being chargesd in Buffalo, who pushed a man out of their way when he was obstructing them, after their team leader told them to move him, after their unit had been deployed, under orders, explicitly to move people out of the the way, that is another situation entirely.
> 
> So, sorry if my language offends. My sentiments are unchanged.



No one is above the law. Everyone in these situations, security forces included, must be able to answer for their actions, or inactions.

The cop that pushed the old man did not demonstrate the proper use of force, and unnecessarily used a disproportionate level of force to the threat posed. This resulted in a critically injured senior citizen. Arrest the guy, cuff him safely and move him out of the area? Sure. That would have been appropriate I’m guessing 

He should be charged. There should be an investigation. No question in my mind. 

Within the context of similar situations I’ve been faced with in the past I would also probably call him out as a cowardly piece of sh@t, but that’s just me.


----------



## Haggis

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> If you have a gun the first concern has to be that you control that gun.  That it is not taken from you.  That it is not used against you.  Or your partner.  Or a civilian.  The easiest way to do that is to remove the gun from its holster and hold it in your hands.


Really?  Not even close.  The safest place for my gun is in my holster.  it is mechanically restrained by the holster's retention features and securely fastened to my body. If you try to remove it without disabling me first, you will get hurt.



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> If your gun is drawn then it needs to be aimed, at a target, with intent.


An officer may draw their firearm as a tactical consideration.  For example, you hear a violent commotion in an adjacent room or around a corner.  You have no idea what's going on but you believe it's serious enough to possibly warrant the use of lethal force as a response.  You can draw, but you do not yet have something/someone to point at.


----------



## Remius

I am concerned with some militarization of the police but to be honest I’d rather have those that serve and protect occupy the role of controlled violence against our own citizens than those that are tasked with closing and destroying our enemies.


----------



## mariomike

Brihard said:
			
		

> ERT/SWAT are a very rare exception to that- a few parts of the country have enough demand for their services to justify full time teams that are always ready to go (or at least are within certain hours, and on call the rest).



Only familiar with the one jurisdiction. But, our Emergency Task Force ( ETF ) paramedics were dedicated ETF. 
They received a $1000.00 annual premium, pro-rated monthly. 

ETF (Swing) received a $250.00 annual premium, pro-rated monthly.

Public Safety Unit ( PSU ) were Callout. They received $500.00 annual premium, pro-rated monthly.

These were pensionable earnings. These were the rates prior to 2015. 

They were employed by us. But, under the control of Metro Police when on ETF / PSU training or Operations.

Personally, I have never been in favour of "defunding" "contracting out" ( or whatever they want to call it ) our emergency services. 

You get what you pay for. Especially when SHTF.


----------



## Haggis

Remius said:
			
		

> I am concerned with some militarization of the police but to be honest I’d rather have those that serve and protect occupy the role of controlled violence against our own citizens than those that are tasked with closing and destroying our enemies.



When speaking about the recent gun ban on May 6, 2020, Minister Blair linked the militarization of police being in response to the militarization of society as a whole.  I suspect, given the intent of the ban to eliminate lawfully owned firearms, that he wasn't concerned with the militarization of criminals.


----------



## Kirkhill

OK D&B first

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFeewU0HhNE

My version of events

Police drawn up in ranks in riot gear under command.
Unit moves forwards under command
Civilian approaches moving front rank.
Civilian blocks movement of two officers
Officers halt.
Front rank halts.
Civilian within arms-length of officers waves device around their waists (Haggis and Brihard - does that constitute a threat to their personal weapons?)
Officers hold in place
Officer from the next rank steps up and pushes one of the two front rank officers.  Someone is heard to say "Move"
The entire unit moves forwards.
The front rank officer pushed by the officer in the rear cross-checks the civilian with his baton gripped in a defensive position
The accompanying front rank officer reaches out simultaneously with his right hand and pushes the civilian with an open hand
The civilian staggers three or four paces to the rear and falls to the sidewalk 
The front rank officer that originally cross-checked the civilian pauses to check on the condition of the civilian.
The rear rank officer grabs the front rank officer by his tactical vest and forcefully lifts him out of the crouch and back into line to continue the advance.
The rear rank officer then halts and immediately activates his radio
The advance halts momentarily and there is some milling around
The left flank front rank advances and secures another civilian with a placard while the centre and right flank stand fast
The officer on the radio stays with the victim and other personnel (including one in a camouflaged uniform) attend the scene and take a knee beside the civilian on the sidewalk.

To my untutored eye I am having difficulty seeing anything other than people following orders and reacting to developing situations.

Just me though.


----------



## Haggis

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Civilian within arms-length of officers waves device around their waists (Haggis and Brihard - does that constitute a threat to their personal weapons?)



That's a pretty loaded question, so I'm going to ask you for an opinion, based on your earlier assertion that the safest place for an officer's pistol is in their hands.  The civilian's hand closest to the officer had an object (smartphone?) in it. The officer's pistol is holstered (and remember what Brihard said about modern police holster design features) You're a reasonable person.  What do you think?


----------



## OldSolduer

When the criminals are disarmed, when the criminals no longer possess high power automatic weapons, when the criminals no longer have body armor or access to it then we can discuss the militarization of police.

A semi automatic rifle will out gun a pistol every day and many police officers don't have access at short notice to semi automatic rifles.

Common sense seems to be in short supply on many city councils these days.


----------



## Kirkhill

> In 2010, David Swedler set out to better understand police officer homicides. How and why were cops dying on the job? A doctoral candidate in the Bloomberg School of Public Health, Swedler wanted to go beyond the figures recorded in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries. He wanted the stories behind the numbers. In pursuit of those stories, Swedler and his research team discovered a valuable and previously untapped resource: a U.S. Department of Justice database called Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted. The database includes not only basic statistics about police homicides but narrative descriptions of each violent encounter.
> 
> ...an overwhelming number of the officers—93 percent—died from gunshots. "We expected guns to be commonly used," Swedler says, "but we thought that homicides would be perpetrated by other means as well. We were really surprised by that 93 percent." *In 10 percent of cases, officers were shot with their own guns*. *In 43 percent of the homicides, the victims were working alone*, often responding to domestic disturbance calls. "They would arrive on the scene and they would be ambushed and they weren't prepared,"



Brihard and Haggis, I would prefer that you guys continue to go home at night.

With respect to the discussion about funding people to stand around - I suggest that there is a cost to repairing broken people and broken infrastructure.  There is a cost resulting from lost business.  There is a cost from people moving out of unstable jurisdictions.  There is also a cost from looking after bereaved spouses and children and trying to recruit replacement officers - and those costs are considerably greater than the cost of two-officer cars and roving QRFs.

Finally, with respect to the level of responsibility - I understand that Canada is not a federal state.  It is an association of independent states that agreed to pool resources for certain activities - the monopoly on force being one of them.  Each province controls what happens on its own turf.  Therefore .... What?   

Some of the parsimonious Scots that signed the original terms of association were eventually convinced of the need to supply a part time force.  Then they were convinced to hire 300 bodies in red coats and smart little pill box caps to ride out to Lethbridge to stop the sale of substandard whiskey to the locals. When the locals got out of hand in Manitoba, a federally administered territory, then the politicians hired a bunch of civilians for temporary duty to manage the situation. Again in l885.  Again when dealing with miners....

Some cities started building police forces / private armies.
Some provinces started building police forces / private armies.
Some provinces and cities just hired the national force.

(By the way - the difference between an army and a police force is that one faces out while the other faces in - a clear enough distinction until Saskatchewan and Alberta start doing things differently- for example manage possession of "assault rifles" and find it necessary to police their mutual border - with a federal force - an interesting conundrum - but less of a conundrum than the SQ and the OPP managing the border in Ottawa - But that is to digress)

The use of the militia fell out of favour.

I get that.

But in Canada that is a big part of our problem.  There is no national strategy for managing challenges to public order (if you dislike insurrection).

In France (a federal state), as Humphrey Bogart pointed out.  There is the National Police and there is the Gendarmerie.  The National Police looks inwards the Gendarmerie manages the borders and also is on hand to manage public disorder.  But the National Police also has its own reaction forces - the CRS or Compagnies Republicaines de Security 



> "The Compagnies républicaines de sécurité (French: [kɔ̃paɲi ʁepyblikɛn də sekyʁite], Republican Security Companies), abbreviated CRS, are the general reserve of the French National Police. They are primarily involved in general security missions but the task for which they are best known is crowd and riot control.
> 
> There are 60 "general service" CRS companies, specialized in public order and crowd control, nine "motorway" companies (French: Compagnies autoroutières) specialized in highway patrol in urban areas and six "zonal" motorcycle units (one per Defense zone.[1]) Two additional companies and several mountain detachments administratively attached to local companies specialize in Mountain Rescue. One company (CRS n°1) specializes in VIP escort. The National Police band is also a CRS unit.[2]
> 
> Some of the CRS officers from the "general service" compagnies are cross trained and serve as lifeguards on the beaches during the summer vacations.



Now, in Canada, perhaps the CRS wouldn't be a Federal force.  Perhaps each province would have its own, if it wanted.

The only problem with the French system is that they have got Riot management down to such a science that Rioting has become a national sport.  Better that Saturday at the football.


----------



## Haggis

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> When the criminals law abiding firearms owners are disarmed, when the criminals no longer  still possess high power automatic weapons, when the criminals no longer and the police are the only ones to have body armor or access to it then we can discuss the militarization of police success of the socialist agenda.


  FTFY



			
				Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Common sense seems to be in short supply on many city councils these days.


 Common sense doesn't get votes, but emotion does.


----------



## Kirkhill

Haggis said:
			
		

> That's a pretty loaded question, so I'm going to ask you for an opinion, based on your earlier assertion that the safest place for an officer's pistol is in their hands.  The civilian's hand closest to the officer had an object (smartphone?) in it. The officer's pistol is holstered (and remember what Brihard said about modern police holster design features) You're a reasonable person.  What do you think?



Loaded question it is.  And under the circumstances.  One individual with a device in his hand facing an officer with his flank and rear protected by other team members then the risk is low.  On the other hand do you want any individual to be that close to you under any circumstances?  On the other hand the unit was being expressly ordered to advance - ie to close with the civilians in the area.

Not even going to begin to parse the details of what's right and wrong beyond saying that my initial point with respect to this incident was in counter point to the Floyd-Chauvin incident.  It is right that Chauvin be arrested.  I question whether it was right to arrest the officers who pushed the civilian as they were clearly acting under orders, and I can understand why their entire unit quit in solidarity.


----------



## Kirkhill

Another point i was making was about the need for Other Government Departments to step up.

Where is the Department of Social Work Flying Squad to manage Domestic Disputes on which the local police can call?

Where are the men in White Jackets that used to be available to remove the mentally unstable to a secure location where they could receive treatment?


----------



## Brad Sallows

With respect to Gugino's injuries and the use of force debate, the use of force has to be evaluated independently of the injury.  Otherwise an officer gambles with his career and freedom any time he uses force.

(Use of force) * (chance factors) = (degree of injury)

A shove is unreasonable if and only if it is unreasonable for an officer to shove someone out of the way.


----------



## lenaitch

The weapons carried by police in Canada is an arms race they didn't start.  For most of my patrol career I carried a .38 revolver which, over time, left the police disadvantaged, in terms of stopping power, round capacity and reload, so they moved to semi-auto pistols.  Similarly, there were many incidents where the police - particularly rural - were confronted with higher powered weapons at longer range; hence, the move to patrol carbines.  Large urban departments have somewhat of an advantage where dedicated specialty teams are close at hand and most often already on duty and available to respond.  Not so with deployed or smaller departments where this type of assistance can be hours away.

Even in the UK, that everyone wants to hold up as the gold standard of unarmed policing, there are currently discussions whether to generally arm-up.  The Police Service of Northern Ireland, and a couple of others, are already fully armed.  I don't know if these discussions will lead to any change but at least it is being debated.

With regard to the 'Buffalo incident', it was clear to me on a video that the victim was holding a smartphone.  No doubt it was even more clear to the officers.  I am reminded of TPS Cst. Lam during the Yonge St. van attack incident.  He was similarly confronted with a smartphone, being pointed to mimic a weapon, at a close but longer range than in Buffalo, but was clearly able to determine that it was not a lethal threat.

I rarely comment on police action that I see on the news.   Short answer is 'I wasn't there', but it strikes me that what took place in Buffalo was not only wrong but ineffective.  Assuming the goal was to enforce a curfew or clear an area under a lawful order, at first contact with the public (the injured victim) the line stalled.  Actually, the group of officers walking on the sidewalk wasn't even really a line, more or a group.  I never was a public order/crowd control member, but would think the proper procedure would be for the line to quickly pass any detainee to an arrest team following behind.


----------



## mariomike

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Where are the men in White Jackets that used to be available to remove the mentally unstable to a secure location where they could receive treatment?



We carried straitjackets ( that is the correct spelling ) and full-body padded leather restraints.

Our shirts, pants and jackets were Navy blue.


----------



## daftandbarmy

lenaitch said:
			
		

> I never was a public order/crowd control member, but would think the proper procedure would be for the line to quickly pass any detainee to an arrest team following behind.



That's exactly the right drill. Just need to ensure continuity of arrest/ evidence  :nod:


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> That's exactly the right drill. Just need to ensure continuity of arrest/ evidence  :nod:




Good point about the "right drill".  A drill is something that is trained for and which is executed when necessary.  Is that what you are going to get if you don't have an established and current response team that has recently practiced those drills.

In Northern Ireland your Toms spent a lot of hours practicing those drills and had ample opportunity to exercise them in the real world on a daily basis.


----------



## lenaitch

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Another point i was making was about the need for Other Government Departments to step up.
> 
> Where is the Department of Social Work Flying Squad to manage Domestic Disputes on which the local police can call?
> 
> Where are the men in White Jackets that used to be available to remove the mentally unstable to a secure location where they could receive treatment?



Many communities of any size have resources available to assist the police when called.  Most are for follow-up or referral services.  The police don't attend a domestic incident to solve the relationship; they are there to solve the situation.  As for on-duty roving social or mental health workers, some large municipalities have piloted teams of police and mental health worker (perhaps social workers - I am not aware).  Most that I am aware of restrict the team to an assist rather than first response out of safety concerns for the worker.  I believe Hamilton ON does have team(s) that take first response calls.  As for rural or remote areas, the logistics simply are there and nobody would be willing to pay for a level of staffing that would make it effective.  A response might be 'well, they should', but you would now be paying for police, plus social workers plus mental health workers plus Lord knows what else, and all the infrastructure to support them.  If the intent is to have them instead of the police, as mentioned either earlier in this thread or in another, great - the police would generally rather not do these types of calls, but don't expect them to be idling around the corner if things go south.

As for 'men in white coats that took people away', you'll have to help me out here - I have never heard of or experienced that in Ontario.  Involuntary mental health assessment/admission has always been a doctor or police authority, depending on the circumstances


----------



## mariomike

Unless they are going to jail, if they go anywhere, it will likely be in an ambulance.


----------



## Kirkhill

lenaitch said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> As for 'men in white coats that took people away', you'll have to help me out here - I have never heard of or experienced that in Ontario.  Involuntary mental health assessment/admission has always been a doctor or police authority, depending on the circumstances



Lenaitch - I suspect that I might have a decade or so on you.  Up until the 1970s the country was equipped with Provincial Psychiatric Institutions to which individuals that were acting aberrantly could be directed.  Those institutions had their own ambulance teams.  The institutions were "deinstitutionalized" from the 1960s due to a call to deal with instances of criminal mistreatment of inmates and the inmates were released into community care.  Unfortunately many of those individuals were rapidly reinstitutionalized by their local constabulary and rehoused in the provincial jails.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332114380_The_History_of_Mental_Health_Services_in_Canada


----------



## mariomike

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Those institutions had their own ambulance teams.



News to me. Where was this?

I worked for the largest municipal land ambulance service in Canada, and the sole emergency ambulance service in Toronto.

I can assure you, it never happened here. If they go anywhere, other than jail, it was in the back of one of our heaps. 

Unless, are you talking about routine non-emergency inter-facility transfers? In that case, anyone can take them. We don't do those jobs.

But, if it comes through the 9-1-1 system, we do it.


----------



## Kirkhill

Prior to the institution of OHIP in 1966 hospitals were independent entities, some privately financed, some financed by churches, some by local municipalities.  In addition there was a variety of ambulance options including private ambulance companies.  This pre-dated EMS and paramedics by at least a decade or so.

And for the record - I can remember when the 911 system was instituted in Ontario in 1972.  Ontario caught up to Britain which had been using a 999 system since 1938.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Anyone remember when Riverview Psychiatric Hospital opened it's doors and kicked all the inmates into the streets? Good times.


----------



## Kat Stevens

lenaitch said:
			
		

> The weapons carried by police in Canada is an arms race they didn't start.  For most of my patrol career I carried a .38 revolver which, over time, left the police disadvantaged, in terms of stopping power, round capacity and reload, so they moved to semi-auto pistols.  Similarly, there were many incidents where the police - particularly rural - were confronted with higher powered weapons at longer range; hence, the move to patrol carbines.  Large urban departments have somewhat of an advantage where dedicated specialty teams are close at hand and most often already on duty and available to respond.  Not so with deployed or smaller departments where this type of assistance can be hours away.
> 
> Even in the UK, that everyone wants to hold up as the gold standard of unarmed policing, there are currently discussions whether to generally arm-up.  The Police Service of Northern Ireland, and a couple of others, are already fully armed.  I don't know if these discussions will lead to any change but at least it is being debated.
> 
> With regard to the 'Buffalo incident', it was clear to me on a video that the victim was holding a smartphone.  No doubt it was even more clear to the officers.  I am reminded of TPS Cst. Lam during the Yonge St. van attack incident.  He was similarly confronted with a smartphone, being pointed to mimic a weapon, at a close but longer range than in Buffalo, but was clearly able to determine that it was not a lethal threat.
> 
> I rarely comment on police action that I see on the news.   Short answer is 'I wasn't there', but it strikes me that what took place in Buffalo was not only wrong but ineffective.  Assuming the goal was to enforce a curfew or clear an area under a lawful order, at first contact with the public (the injured victim) the line stalled.  Actually, the group of officers walking on the sidewalk wasn't even really a line, more or a group.  I never was a public order/crowd control member, but would think the proper procedure would be for the line to quickly pass any detainee to an arrest team following behind.



Welcome to life in rural Alberta, where, when seconds count, the police are an hour away.


----------



## mariomike

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I can remember when the 911 system was instituted in Ontario in 1972.



We didn't get it until 10 years later.


----------



## FSTO

Here is the crisis response team in Eugene Oregon who seem to have a good relationship with both the public and the police.

https://whitebirdclinic.org/services/cahoots/


Here is a CAHOOTS member who transferred to the police department after gaining de-escalation skills and a need to address issues that CAHOOTS cannot solve.

https://nbc16.com/news/local/from-cahoots-to-eugene-police-skills-that-i-acquired-are-very-applicable


Jose Alvarez (pictured in 2016) traded in his stethoscope at CAHOOTS for a police badge to address some of the more serious crimes he saw. "We often find ourselves dealing with issues around mental illness, drug addiction, homelessness - and that's not classically police work," he said. "De-escalation skills that I acquired in my many years of counseling are very applicable here and very useful here.” (SBG){/p}


----------



## Kirkhill

mariomike said:
			
		

> We didn't get it until 10 years later.





> In Canada, 911 service was adopted in 1972, and the first 911 call occurred after 1974 roll-out in London, Ontario.[8]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-1-1


----------



## Kirkhill

FSTO said:
			
		

> Here is the crisis response team in Eugene Oregon who seem to have a good relationship with both the public and the police.
> 
> https://whitebirdclinic.org/services/cahoots/
> 
> 
> Here is a CAHOOTS member who transferred to the police department after gaining de-escalation skills and a need to address issues that CAHOOTS cannot solve.
> 
> https://nbc16.com/news/local/from-cahoots-to-eugene-police-skills-that-i-acquired-are-very-applicable
> 
> 
> Jose Alvarez (pictured in 2016) traded in his stethoscope at CAHOOTS for a police badge to address some of the more serious crimes he saw. "We often find ourselves dealing with issues around mental illness, drug addiction, homelessness - and that's not classically police work," he said. "De-escalation skills that I acquired in my many years of counseling are very applicable here and very useful here.” (SBG){/p}



Good part of the plan but as I was reading the article on Alvarez there was this from May 30.

https://nbc16.com/news/local/police-forced-to-use-gas-as-crowd-builds-bonfire-in-downtown-eugene

Police: SWAT team deployed in downtown Eugene after businesses 'destroyed'


----------



## mariomike

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-1-1



Look, I only had to concern myself with 243 square miles of this lovely country. 

Whatever Wikipedia says was going on in London, ON was not my concern.

I was on the job almost 10 years before 9-1-1 came in. You think I don't remember?



> On Monday, March 22, 1982, at about 0430 hours, a new emergency telephone number for the Metropolitan Toronto police came into being. The new number, "Nine-one-one", replaced the City's twenty-five year old emergency number, 361-1111.
> http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/communications/e911.php


----------



## Jarnhamar

mariomike said:
			
		

> Look, I only had to concern myself with 243 square miles of this lovely country.
> 
> Whatever Wikipedia says was going on in London, ON was not my concern.
> 
> I was on the job almost 10 years before 9-1-1 came in. You think I don't remember?



Are you _really_ from Toronto?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Target Up said:
			
		

> Anyone remember when Riverview Psychiatric Hospital opened it's doors and kicked all the inmates into the streets? Good times.



I sure do. My sister worked there as a Care Aide back when it was called Essondale. 

After they closed, the number of incidents in the downtown east side of Vancouver skyrocketed as all the inmates gravitated there, and stayed.

The Reserves used the empty facility as a FIBUA training site a few times, and it's too bad we weren't able to retain it for that purpose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverview_Hospital_(Coquitlam)


----------



## Kat Stevens

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I sure do. My sister worked there as a Care Aide back when it was called Essondale.
> 
> After they closed, the number of incidents in the downtown east side of Vancouver skyrocketed as all the inmates gravitated there, and stayed.
> 
> The Reserves used the empty facility as a FIBUA training site a few times, and it's too bad we weren't able to retain it for that purpose.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverview_Hospital_(Coquitlam)



One incredibly creepy old building, all up on that hill and broody (cue the thunder and lightning strike).


----------



## Kirkhill

Sorry Mario. I was living in a foreign land .... Up in the Kawarthas


----------



## lenaitch

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Lenaitch - I suspect that I might have a decade or so on you.  Up until the 1970s the country was equipped with Provincial Psychiatric Institutions to which individuals that were acting aberrantly could be directed.  Those institutions had their own ambulance teams.  The institutions were "deinstitutionalized" from the 1960s due to a call to deal with instances of criminal mistreatment of inmates and the inmates were released into community care.  Unfortunately many of those individuals were rapidly reinstitutionalized by their local constabulary and rehoused in the provincial jails.
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332114380_The_History_of_Mental_Health_Services_in_Canada



I well remember the institutions but not the teams - I started in '73.  Any committals we did ourselves or through physician's orders.  I live down the road from an institution that is still operating and about an hour from one of the more infamous ones, now closed.  This thing that always struck me about those 'provincial institutions' is the minister of the day or whoever must have been a real estate agent in a former life; they are all prime real estate, mostly waterfront.



> Welcome to life in rural Alberta, where, when seconds count, the police are an hour away.



Same in northern Ontario.  We had a member shot in '82 around 2230.  I was second car in - just under an hour.  Canine was 3 hours once called out.  Tactical was just getting on a plane in Toronto when we got the bad guys - about 0800 the next morning.

Re:911 - it took a long time to roll out across the province.  I did not see it until I was moved back to the GTA in '85.


----------



## Kat Stevens

lenaitch said:
			
		

> I well remember the institutions but not the teams - I started in '73.  Any committals we did ourselves or through physician's orders.  I live down the road from an institution that is still operating and about an hour from one of the more infamous ones, now closed.  This thing that always struck me about those 'provincial institutions' is the minister of the day or whoever must have been a real estate agent in a former life; they are all prime real estate, mostly waterfront.
> 
> Same in northern Ontario.  We had a member shot in '82 around 2230.  I was second car in - just under an hour.  Canine was 3 hours once called out.  Tactical was just getting on a plane in Toronto when we got the bad guys - about 0800 the next morning.
> 
> Re:911 - it took a long time to roll out across the province.  I did not see it until I was moved back to the GTA in '85.



It's just a good thing all the bad guys will be turning in their guns or it could get bad.


----------



## Kirkhill

First of all - thanks to all the usual suspects for bearing with me.   :cheers:

Lenaitch - I gladly stand aside.

In amongst all the yowping there were a couple of points I was trying to make.  

Police officers need to be seen as agents of the community.  Not of the government.  They may represent, and be employed by, the government but they have to be of the community first.  That is the only way that they will feel safe - when the community they are policing is their first line of support and wants them to be there.

For that to happen the police officer doesn't need to be tackling all problems herself.  She does, however, need to know how to find resources, and connect to them in a hurry, to solve problems that arise.  And that assumes the presence of relevant resources.

One of those resources is the Fire Service.  EMS is another.  Tying EMS into a Social Worker / Mental Health specialist / Reworked Psychiatric Care Facility may be another. 

Still another could be something like the French CRS - training and specializing in managing violence

And they don't have to be sitting around barracks all the time (or even the old RCMP stations scattered around the prairie landscape that seem to be under utilized).  There is no reason they can't be idle in full view of the public.  They are still a presence sauntering around a neighbourhood keeping their eyes open and reporting to the local police officer.  The police officer has extra eyes.  The community and the police office knows that he has back up.  But the police officer controls the ground, the pace and events.

There is some consultant name of Eaton posting on LinkedIn today referencing Gen Petraeus's experience in Iraq and talking about the need to live with the people to win the people-space or some such buzzword.  He, this consultant, also talked about Peel's view of policing and of police being of the community.  I can't agree more.

I note that D&B finds room to critique the public disorder management skills of the Buffalo Police  Department.  I gather from our long association on this site that he has had considerable personal experience in the field.  I would just note that that experience appears to have been earned as a military QRF offering armed support (suitably armed for the occasion) to the local constabulary as Aid of the Civil Power.  The local police, or at least civilian management, controlled the ground, the pace and events.  Generally.

As to the issue of taking a personal weapon into a melee.  That still wouldn't be me.  I would prefer to go in with a large number of bodies protecting my flanks and rear and the knowledge that I have got armed friends on overwatch. But I joined the infantry rather than the blackhats because I preferred the idea of keeping a hill between me and the bullets rather than a bit of armour plate, even if it meant sacrificing some wear and tear on the joints.

So, thanks again to all for letting me get some stuff off my chest.

Cheers.


----------



## mariomike

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> One of those resources is the Fire Service.





> As one of this union's most fundamental responsibilities, our involvement in EMS has helped us create and save jobs for our members.
> 
> International Association of Firefighters ( IAFF ) General President Harold A. Schaitberger
> June 12, 2003
> 
> http://www.iaff.org/03News/061203has.html



Perhaps a little less enthusiastic since Clovid-19, and as I recall during SARS.

If "Defunding" translates to police layoffs, and not replacing members lost to attrition, just wait until it impacts the fire departments.



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Tying EMS into a Social Worker / Mental Health specialist / Reworked Psychiatric Care Facility may be another.



Been doing that for years.

Community Referrals by EMS (CREMS)
https://www.google.com/search?bih=641&biw=1280&hl=en&sxsrf=ALeKk01Ayro-OCj4Cl59jkeNWsm9OLIATw%3A1591977693989&ei=3abjXs_0O4qkytMP-aOFmAU&q=%22Community+Referrals+by+EMS%22&oq=%22Community+Referrals+by+EMS%22&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQDFAAWABg4UdoAHAAeACAAQCIAQCSAQCYAQCqAQdnd3Mtd2l6&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwiP18KH0_zpAhUKknIEHflRAVMQ4dUDCAs#spf=1591977738295



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> There is no reason they can't be idle in full view of the public.



Being mobile eliminates "chute time". ie: Responding from station. Just drop it into low gear and go.

Sometimes referred as System Status Management ( SSM ), among other names for it.

That's why we see taxis and tow trucks mobile as well. 

We used to get "flagged" a lot. 



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Police officers need to be seen as agents of the community.



My favorite example of that was "Car 54". The old TV show. Not the film remake. Yes, I know it was comedy, and a long time ago. But, as little kid, I loved those guys.


----------



## Kirkhill

In case I haven't made it clear Mario - I am not in favour of "defunding"  - These are the types of services that I would expect city taxes to pay for.  Along with sewers, roads, power plants and lights.  

I am in favour of redistribution of taxes from city residents towards those services - and a lot less emphasis on social experiments.

Oh. And by the way, as a resident of the Centre of the Universe, you might not want to count on a lot of tax support from people living with generators, septic tanks and a two hour emergency response time.   ;D


----------



## dapaterson

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Oh. And by the way, as a resident of the Centre of the Universe, you might not want to count on a lot of tax support from people living with generators, septic tanks and a two hour emergency response time.   ;D



Mostly, those folks get tax support from the Centre of the Universe, not the other way around.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Mostly, those folks are being supported by the Centre of the Universe because the Centre of the Universe needs those "colonies" to provide the materials and products (energy, food) to stave off collapse into a concrete jungle of howling cannibals.


----------



## mariomike

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Oh. And by the way, as a resident of the Centre of the Universe, you might not want to count on a lot of tax support from people living with generators, septic tanks and a two hour emergency response time.



I've been a free man since 31 May, 2009. I can "bug out" to any place in Canada any time I want to. Even to the US or the EU. 
I'm here because I like my neighbourhood.

I won't play "house porn" on here. But, I think it would get a pretty good price.

Are you trying to steer our emergency services into another of those lovely urban versus rural "discussions"? 

City-state provinces in Canada? Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/124115.0
7 pages.

Or, the ever popular,

Toronto: Love it or hate it? 
https://army.ca/forums/threads/119520.0
12 pages.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Mostly, those folks get tax support from the Centre of the Universe, not the other way around.



Michael Gravelle, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, said "I look at it from the perspective of would this be good for Northern Ontario . . . and I don‘t think it would be".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposal_for_the_Province_of_Toronto#History

Regarding our emergency services.

The only real sure thing in this town is our emergency services. 

As for the question, is rural Ontario entitled to the same emergency response as downtown? I remember that one. It was not pretty. Can look it up if you want.

Possibly worth mentioning, our funding from the province ( for paramedics ) was based on the people who actually live here.

ie: The numbers of Canadians, Americans and people from around the world who come here on business, or pleasure, or just passing through on the 401, airport, Union Station etc. are all entitled to, and demand, the very same level of service as we provide our own city taxpayers. 

That is something like 27.5 million visitors a year. All demanding the same level of emergency service as we provide our own residential taxpayers.

When the call 9-1-1, we don't ask where they pay their property taxes.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Mostly, those folks are being supported by the Centre of the Universe because the Centre of the Universe needs those "colonies" to provide the materials and products (energy, food) to stave off collapse into a concrete jungle of howling cannibals.



How very Hunger Games...stay tuned.


----------



## Kirkhill

mariomike said:
			
		

> I've been a free man since 31 May, 2009. I can "bug out" to any place in Canada any time I want to. Even to the US or the EU.
> I'm here because I like my neighbourhood.
> 
> I won't play "house porn" on here. But, I think it would get a pretty good price.
> 
> Are you trying to steer our emergency services into another of those lovely urban versus rural "discussions"?
> 
> City-state provinces in Canada? Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver
> https://army.ca/forums/threads/124115.0
> 7 pages.
> 
> Or, the ever popular,
> 
> Toronto: Love it or hate it?
> https://army.ca/forums/threads/119520.0
> 12 pages.
> 
> Michael Gravelle, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, said "I look at it from the perspective of would this be good for Northern Ontario . . . and I don‘t think it would be".
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposal_for_the_Province_of_Toronto#History
> 
> Regarding our emergency services.
> 
> The only real sure thing in this town is our emergency services.
> 
> As for the question, is rural Ontario entitled to the same emergency response as downtown? I remember that one. It was not pretty. Can look it up if you want.
> 
> Possibly worth mentioning, our funding from the province ( for paramedics ) was based on the people who actually live here.
> 
> ie: The numbers of Canadians, Americans and people from around the world who come here on business, or pleasure, or just passing through on the 401, airport, Union Station etc. are all entitled to, and demand, the very same level of service as we provide our own city taxpayers.
> 
> That is something like 27.5 million visitors a year. All demanding the same level of emergency service as we provide our own residential taxpayers.
> 
> When the call 9-1-1, we don't ask where they pay their property taxes.



Mea Culpa. Mea Culpa.  Mea Maxima Culpa.  I should have known better.   ;D ;D ;D

Just a friendly dig.  Not trying to pick a fight.  

My apologies.  :cheers:

Back to Policing (if you like).


----------



## blacktriangle

mariomike said:
			
		

> I've been a free man since 31 May, 2009. I can "bug out" to any place in Canada any time I want to. Even to the US or the EU.



Do you hold a US passport?


----------



## mariomike

reverse_engineer said:
			
		

> Do you hold a US passport?



My wife does. 



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Mea Culpa. Mea Culpa.  Mea Maxima Culpa.  I should have known better.   ;D ;D ;D
> 
> Just a friendly dig.  Not trying to pick a fight.
> 
> My apologies.  :cheers:
> 
> Back to Policing (if you like).


----------



## blacktriangle

mariomike said:
			
		

> My wife does.



So does my mom, so you're saying we're good to go?


----------



## mariomike

reverse_engineer said:
			
		

> So does my mom, so you're saying we're good to go?



No. I did not say that. Look it up for you and your mom.


----------



## lenaitch

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> First of all - thanks to all the usual suspects for bearing with me.   :cheers:
> 
> Lenaitch - I gladly stand aside.
> 
> In amongst all the yowping there were a couple of points I was trying to make.
> 
> Police officers need to be seen as agents of the community.  Not of the government.  They may represent, and be employed by, the government but they have to be of the community first.  That is the only way that they will feel safe - when the community they are policing is their first line of support and wants them to be there.
> 
> For that to happen the police officer doesn't need to be tackling all problems herself.  She does, however, need to know how to find resources, and connect to them in a hurry, to solve problems that arise.  And that assumes the presence of relevant resources.
> 
> One of those resources is the Fire Service.  EMS is another.  Tying EMS into a Social Worker / Mental Health specialist / Reworked Psychiatric Care Facility may be another.
> 
> Still another could be something like the French CRS - training and specializing in managing violence
> 
> And they don't have to be sitting around barracks all the time (or even the old RCMP stations scattered around the prairie landscape that seem to be under utilized).  There is no reason they can't be idle in full view of the public.  They are still a presence sauntering around a neighbourhood keeping their eyes open and reporting to the local police officer.  The police officer has extra eyes.  The community and the police office knows that he has back up.  But the police officer controls the ground, the pace and events.
> 
> There is some consultant name of Eaton posting on LinkedIn today referencing Gen Petraeus's experience in Iraq and talking about the need to live with the people to win the people-space or some such buzzword.  He, this consultant, also talked about Peel's view of policing and of police being of the community.  I can't agree more.
> 
> I note that D&B finds room to critique the public disorder management skills of the Buffalo Police  Department.  I gather from our long association on this site that he has had considerable personal experience in the field.  I would just note that that experience appears to have been earned as a military QRF offering armed support (suitably armed for the occasion) to the local constabulary as Aid of the Civil Power.  The local police, or at least civilian management, controlled the ground, the pace and events.  Generally.
> 
> As to the issue of taking a personal weapon into a melee.  That still wouldn't be me.  I would prefer to go in with a large number of bodies protecting my flanks and rear and the knowledge that I have got armed friends on overwatch. But I joined the infantry rather than the blackhats because I preferred the idea of keeping a hill between me and the bullets rather than a bit of armour plate, even if it meant sacrificing some wear and tear on the joints.
> 
> So, thanks again to all for letting me get some stuff off my chest.
> 
> Cheers.



Not wanting to sound pedantic but police are agents of the Crown (law), but I get what you are trying to say.  A lot of what you are describing flows from connections to the community.  They are much easier in smaller communities than large cities but it is still possible.  Back in the day, we have to live in our detachment area.  You got to know the community on a personal level; who was a truly bad actor and who was just having a bad day.  In the days before portables, we ate in restaurants, did foot patrol, etc.  These are very rare now.  Most of this 'informal' community policing was much more effective than the more formal programs, but somebody got to design a big-P program at Headquarters so good for them.

Extra community eyes and ears flow from that, plus initiatives such as Neighbourhood Watch.  Some communities have tried 'citizen patrols' but it never seemed to stick (some defence lawyers have argued that there can be 'agents of the State' issued in terms of evidence they might observe).  Some communities have tried security guards but it isn't cheap and most don't seem to be content to just observe and call in.  None of these even come close to some sort of public order back-up.  Public order events, even in large cities, are numerically insignificant.

I'm not sure what fire departments can bring to the table beyond what they do now (assuming full-time professional departments, not volunteer).  As for EMS, they already do a lot of that.  Authorities for involuntary patients remains an issue.  Expanded mental facilities, at least in Ontario, would be a complete reversal of government policy.  The Province was covered in psychiatric facilities that were closed in favour of community residency and outreach, which has actually been part of the problem.

As for the 'rural vs. urban' question, every resident deserves the same quality of emergency services but not necessarily the same level, and rural residents for the most part recognize (urban cottagers perhaps not so much). meaning a quality of service that the community can realistically support.  Policing density generally follows population density; a full time fire department is simply not supportable, neither are the higher levels of EMS (some areas still have 'first responders', which is pretty basic).  If the guano hits the fan, more and better stuff shows up, it just takes longer.


----------



## Halifax Tar

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/defund-police-social-workers_n_5ee12d80c5b6d1ad2bd82777?utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=main_fb&utm_campaign=hp_fb_pages&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063&fbclid=IwAR3jO9S8sqoD2Q_Zk844eduqbFoluF4XsQ-H68-Zodzm2bxnYrQuWiJUeGE

Interesting article.


----------



## Kirkhill

Ottawa Police Service 

Peel's Principles of Policing - Metropolitan London 1829

The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.

Police must secure the willing cooperation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

The degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to the public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

I knew I had seen what I was trying to say somewhere.  ;D

Lenaitch - When I mentioned about the Fire Department and EMS I was thinking, in a round about way, that in an emergency, when a member of the public is panicked and confused, there used to be (at least in my homeland) an ingrained tendency to reach out to the local police to raise the alarm.  That may go back to the local bobby and his TARDIS - those blue patrol boxes - Those were free phones operated by the police at which any member of the public could reach out for assistance.   

The police were the community's first point of contact.  Not a reaction force.  (Something like that, anyway).


----------



## Ostrozac

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The police were the community's first point of contact.  Not a reaction force.  (Something like that, anyway).


Yes, but we in the Commonwealth have two traditions of policing -- the 'London Model' which was embodied in Peel's 'Policing Through Consent' and the Metropolitan Police, as well as the second tradition of the 'Irish Model' of imposing the rule of law on outlying regions, embodied first in the Royal Irish Constabulary and then in the forces that were modeled on the RIC, including the North West Mounted Police. The RCMP (as well as the OPP and the Surete Quebec) still owe much structurally to 'Irish Model' of top-down imposition of law on areas that are unable or unwilling to police themselves.

Comparing and contrasting the impact of these two models is a part of the discussion of the history of Canadian policing. The RCMP aren't a direct descendant of Peel's bobbies on the beat -- they have a lineage to men in red coats armed with carbines enforcing the will of Parliament.


----------



## Kirkhill

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Yes, but we in the Commonwealth have two traditions of policing -- the 'London Model' which was embodied in Peel's 'Policing Through Consent' and the Metropolitan Police, as well as the second tradition of the 'Irish Model' of imposing the rule of law on outlying regions, embodied first in the Royal Irish Constabulary and then in the forces that were modeled on the RIC, including the North West Mounted Police. The RCMP (as well as the OPP and the Surete Quebec) still owe much structurally to 'Irish Model' of top-down imposition of law on areas that are unable or unwilling to police themselves.
> 
> Comparing and contrasting the impact of these two models is a part of the discussion of the history of Canadian policing. The RCMP aren't a direct descendant of Peel's bobbies on the beat -- they have a lineage to men in red coats armed with carbines enforcing the will of Parliament.



Good Point - And that dichotomy is perhaps one that could be better exploited.  

Local "Bobby Peelers" drawn from the community - controlling the engagements
And the national Imperial Constabulary more actively associated with Investigations and "CRS" or "Redcoat Dragoons with Carbines" type engagements.

Do we already have the pieces in place so that all we have to do is put the em-PHA-sis on a different syl-LAB-le?

In the past I have been drawn to make the distinction between controlling "Places" and "Spaces".  Places are where people exist.  And perhaps should be best policed by locals according to Peel's principles.  Perhaps the RCMP is better to focus on the Spaces where people aren't to maintain law and order, secure lines of communication and provide a ready civilian reserve for crisis management.


----------



## Ostrozac

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Perhaps the RCMP is better to focus on the Spaces where people aren't to maintain law and order, secure lines of communication and provide a ready civilian reserve for crisis management.


I fully agree. A good, long look at contract policing, particularly in B.C., might be a good place to start. Surrey is the 12th largest municipality in Canada — of course it should have its own police force, that shouldn’t even be controversial. And there should be a clear path for municipalities, as they grow and develop, to wean themselves off contract policing. The trend, however, has been more often the opposite, where municipalities give up their forces for financial reasons — Moncton comes to mind. Yes, the ‘Irish Model’ of policing brings economies of scale and is probably cheaper for the taxpayer, but is that a good enough reason to abandon the ‘London Model’?


----------



## lenaitch

I'm not sure I understand the discussion.  Outside of Quebec, which is quite prescriptive on municipal vs. SQ, municipalities seem free to choose how they are policed.  Surrey, through their elected representative, have chosen to form their own.  There are arguments for a single regional service for the lower mainland.  Many municipalities in Ontario have chosen the opposite.  There used to be approximately 200 municipal police services, now there are fifty.  Some of that reduction was a result of amalgamation, some due to municipalities choosing the disband in favour of the OPP or another service.  Outside of a municipal restructuring, cost is always the driving factor.  No matter who provides the service, if there is a municipal government, there is a civilian police services board.

The UK used to have hundreds of small, often very small, constabularies.  Over time they were amalgamated along county lines which have since been further amalgamated, with ongoing discussions to amalgamate even further.  The entire nation of Australia has a grand total seven police services in addition to the federal, military and border police and wildlife enforcement services.  On the other hand, there are almost 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the US.  Which model is better?

Since law enforcement and public safety is about people, if there are no people, generally, there are no police (although everywhere is captured by somebodies area of responsibility).  The issue of 'local folk providing local law enforcement' is confusing.  Generally, members of a police service live in or near their place of employment for obvious practical reasons.  if a small community is expected to be policed by its own sons and daughters, but can't, is it expected to go without?  If an 'outsider' wants to join, should they be refused?  The Charter might have something to say about that.

I'm still not getting the focus on some kind of reserve force for crisis management.  What is considered a 'crisis'?  Depending on the definition, it would be difficult to have them readily available and proficient across a wide range without a lot of training, equipment and money - which sounds a whole lot like the police.  Folks that are suited for mental health intervention aren't necessarily suitable for crowd management or stomping through the bush looking for a lost hunter.  If it is desirable that law enforcement be local, how is it okay that crisis response not be?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> https://www.huffpost.com/entry/defund-police-social-workers_n_5ee12d80c5b6d1ad2bd82777?utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=main_fb&utm_campaign=hp_fb_pages&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063&fbclid=IwAR3jO9S8sqoD2Q_Zk844eduqbFoluF4XsQ-H68-Zodzm2bxnYrQuWiJUeGE
> 
> Interesting article.



I've done alot of work with social workers, improving provincial programs etc. They can't do much of their work unless they are accompanied by the police.


----------



## Halifax Tar

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I've done alot of work with social workers, improving provincial programs etc. They can't do much of their work unless they are accompanied by the police.



Thank you for your input.  I don’t not have much experience with social workers but reading the article I was wondering that exact same thing. 

There has to be a balance for this problem.  I firmly believe both police and correctional workers have been thrust into the mental health crisis business wholly unprepared or trained, and I think that is what has led us down this path.


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Thank you for your input.  I don’t not have much experience with social workers but reading the article I was wondering that exact same thing.
> 
> There has to be a balance for this problem.  I firmly believe both police and correctional workers have been thrust into the mental health crisis business wholly unprepared or trained, and I think that is what has led us down this path.



We were in the process of dedicating one wing of our gaol to mental health inmates. Once Pallister won the election here in Manitoba it was quickly dropped. A missed opportunity.


----------



## Ironman118

Another example of why you should be wary of 10 second video clips without context...notice the knife coming loose after the second kick..

https://globalnews.ca/news/7059283/winnipeg-police-to-address-video-showing-officer-kicking-man-on-the-ground/

The "expert" at the end had me chuckling.


----------



## brihard

Ironman118 said:
			
		

> Another example of why you should be wary of 10 second video clips without context...notice the knife coming loose after the second kick..
> 
> https://globalnews.ca/news/7059283/winnipeg-police-to-address-video-showing-officer-kicking-man-on-the-ground/
> 
> The "expert" at the end had me chuckling.



WPS did an absolutely bang up breakdown of what you see in the video in a press conference. This is worth the watch.

https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1976627&binId=1.1164782&playlistPageNum=1

EDIT TO ADD: Try this link instead

https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=2636873739965633


----------



## Kat Stevens

Brihard said:
			
		

> WPS did an absolutely bang up breakdown of what you see in the video in a press conference. This is worth the watch.
> 
> https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1976627&binId=1.1164782&playlistPageNum=1



Video either taken down or a tech glitch, All I see is a black rectangle.


----------



## brihard

Target Up said:
			
		

> Video either taken down or a tech glitch, All I see is a black rectangle.



Weird. I added another link to where they streamed it on Facebook. Basically it's a guy who's well versed in use of force, he goes through the video bit by bit and points out a lot of what's going on, and relating things that were seen, happening, or perceived to the elements of force used. Very professionally done.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Brihard said:
			
		

> Weird. I added another link to where they streamed it on Facebook. Basically it's a guy who's well versed in use of force, he goes through the video bit by bit and points out a lot of what's going on, and relating things that were seen, happening, or perceived to the elements of force used. Very professionally done.



Thanks for that. Great job by a cool headed young officer, even dealing with the leading questions from the press.


----------



## Furniture

Likely a dumb question, but why don't Canadian police have a "tier" of police officer who is uniformed, in the community, not armed, and not necessarily trained to the same degree as our current officers?  I suppose similar to Auxiliary constables, but paid fulltime police officers. 

It would increase the community interaction, while not being as costly as hiring officers trained/educated to the standard we have now. While I'm clearly not an expert on our police hiring processes, I'm quite confident we have some of the worlds most well trained, and paid police. Perhaps we don't need to have all of our police in the Premier League, maybe we should have a EFL Champions tier as well for some of the policing duties. 

To my mind much of the "militarization" perception comes down to people never seeing police officers apart from traffic stops, check stops, or driving by in their cars. Perhaps having more, less expensive police available for patrol duties would help alleviate the perception of militarization, and give people more positive interactions with police.


----------



## Remius

Yes.  Get them out of their cars. In urban areas in particular.  I rarely see foot patrols here.  Bikes yes which is just as good.

If it means hiring more then hire more.  But get them walking some beats.


----------



## Kirkhill

Furniture, I would turn it round the other way.

I would be putting the youngsters under close discipline and supervision while putting seasoned personnel on patrol.  For exactly the same reasons that we put long-service personnel, regardless of rank, into recce.  Those people are relied on to use their experience to observe and evaluate situations and determine how they can be managed.  That is not a job for the inexperienced.

As for money - there are no cheap solutions - we, as taxpayers, need to pay for the services we want and those cost money.


----------



## Furniture

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Furniture, I would turn it round the other way.
> 
> I would be putting the youngsters under close discipline and supervision while putting seasoned personnel on patrol.  For exactly the same reasons that we put long-service personnel, regardless of rank, into recce.  Those people are relied on to use their experience to observe and evaluate situations and determine how they can be managed.  That is not a job for the inexperienced.
> 
> As for money - there are no cheap solutions - we, as taxpayers, need to pay for the services we want and those cost money.



While in theory I agree that is the best practice, the reality is that there is a finite amount of money Canadian's are happy with spending on policing. We are in the situation we are in now because we(Canadian tax payers) don't want to pay ~$100K yearly salary per officer for more police.

Canada has great police, who do great work, but most Canadian's only see them when getting a ticket... not the best way to develop relationships with the local community.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Furniture said:
			
		

> Likely a dumb question, but why don't Canadian police have a "tier" of police officer who is uniformed, in the community, not armed, and not necessarily trained to the same degree as our current officers?  I suppose similar to Auxiliary constables, but paid fulltime police officers.
> 
> It would increase the community interaction, while not being as costly as hiring officers trained/educated to the standard we have now. While I'm clearly not an expert on our police hiring processes, I'm quite confident we have some of the worlds most well trained, and paid police. Perhaps we don't need to have all of our police in the Premier League, maybe we should have a EFL Champions tier as well for some of the policing duties.
> 
> To my mind much of the "militarization" perception comes down to people never seeing police officers apart from traffic stops, check stops, or driving by in their cars. Perhaps having more, less expensive police available for patrol duties would help alleviate the perception of militarization, and give people more positive interactions with police.



AFAIK that is the basis of British policing. The 'Bobby' on the beat is unarmed, and knows the locals best. The 'Armed Police' units back them up as required.

There are problems with that in the modern era, of course. For example, one of my NCOs left the Army - briefly - and joined the London Met. 

He soon came back. They were doing things like hiding around the corner, watching the armed burglars leaving businesses, because they didn't have any weapons and the armed units were not available.  :


----------



## mariomike

Remius said:
			
		

> Get them out of their cars. In urban areas in particular.



Cars are more visible to the public. And mobile.

I remember the foot patrol guys spending a lot of time watching TV with us in the station.


----------



## lenaitch

Furniture said:
			
		

> Likely a dumb question, but why don't Canadian police have a "tier" of police officer who is uniformed, in the community, not armed, and not necessarily trained to the same degree as our current officers?  I suppose similar to Auxiliary constables, but paid fulltime police officers.
> 
> It would increase the community interaction, while not being as costly as hiring officers trained/educated to the standard we have now. While I'm clearly not an expert on our police hiring processes, I'm quite confident we have some of the worlds most well trained, and paid police. Perhaps we don't need to have all of our police in the Premier League, maybe we should have a EFL Champions tier as well for some of the policing duties.
> 
> To my mind much of the "militarization" perception comes down to people never seeing police officers apart from traffic stops, check stops, or driving by in their cars. Perhaps having more, less expensive police available for patrol duties would help alleviate the perception of militarization, and give people more positive interactions with police.



It might have some merit in urban areas.  The UK - or at least the Met - has Police Community Support Officers who, the way I understand it, have essentially citizens power of arrest.  The translation might be imperfect because the laws are different.  Some also argue for some sort of 'traffic warden' service and cite NYPD as an example.  The problem is, the way I understand it, they only enforcement non-moving violations and do traffic control.  I'm not convinced different 'types' of police is the solution, but certainly, as population density decreases, these 'silos' of services and capabilities become less viable.


----------



## Remius

mariomike said:
			
		

> Cars are more visible to the public. And mobile.
> 
> I remember the foot patrol guys spending a lot of time watching TV with us in the station.



I get the mobility.  But visible?  Sure for the 30 seconds they drive by.

If foot patrol types spent that much time watching TV then that’s a reflection of their work ethos not of the effectiveness of visible presence patrols where they can actually interact with the community.


----------



## Furniture

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> AFAIK that is the basis of British policing. The 'Bobby' on the beat is unarmed, and knows the locals best. The 'Armed Police' units back them up as required.
> 
> There are problems with that in the modern era, of course. For example, one of my NCOs left the Army - briefly - and joined the London Met.
> 
> He soon came back. They were doing things like hiding around the corner, watching the armed burglars leaving businesses, because they didn't have any weapons and the armed units were not available.  :



That's a fair point, and not being an expert I'm not sure I can offer anything as a solution, apart from ensuring there is always a relatively large number of armed police.



			
				lenaitch said:
			
		

> It might have some merit in urban areas.  The UK - or at least the Met - has Police Community Support Officers who, the way I understand it, have essentially citizens power of arrest.  The translation might be imperfect because the laws are different.  Some also argue for some sort of 'traffic warden' service and cite NYPD as an example.  The problem is, the way I understand it, they only enforcement non-moving violations and do traffic control.  I'm not convinced different 'types' of police is the solution, but certainly, as population density decreases, these 'silos' of services and capabilities become less viable.



As someone that grew up in rural Canada, I never met a police officer outside of the one hour a year the RCMP came to school to talk about drugs, and the odd parade. The police were all outsiders who flew past our house once every few weeks on their way to an accident scene. At that time 80s-90s the RCMP were pretty highly regarded by the general public where I lived, so it worked. In the age of police brutality(alleged or real) on your social media and all over the nightly news every day, historic goodwill may not be enough. 

What happens when the majority of the public view the police as little more government thugs, rather than people there to help? 

Anyway, I appreciate the feedback. I was just musing as a complete outsider to the LE world.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Remius said:
			
		

> Yes.  Get them out of their cars. In urban areas in particular.  I rarely see foot patrols here.  Bikes yes which is just as good.
> 
> If it means hiring more then hire more.  But get them walking some beats.



Speaking of which. When I first came to Kingston in 2004 you used to see officers walking the beat all the time. Then the got rid of them for some reason and the only time you saw them was them cruising along in their SUVs. But now they seem to have brought them back - saw two officers walking down Princess Street yesterday.


----------



## Kirkhill

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Speaking of which. When I first came to Kingston in 2004 you used to see officers walking the beat all the time. Then the got rid of them for some reason and the only time you saw them was them cruising along in their SUVs. But now they seem to have brought them back - saw two officers walking down Princess Street yesterday.



Could you say, in the interest of fashion and in the immortal words of Sonny and Cher - "The Beat Goes On!"







Leading Change.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Interesting article that isn't about the militarization of police forces in the United States, but how the creator of "killology", David Grossman and how he has influenced policing in the United States:



> “Are You Prepared to Kill Somebody?” A Day With One of America’s Most Popular Police Trainers
> 
> The dark vision of “killology” expert Dave Grossman.
> 
> Mar/Apr 2017 Issue
> 
> Bryan Schatz
> 
> Marching around the stage in a theater in Lakeport, California, Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman tells his audience that they shouldn’t go out looking for people to kill, because those who need killing—the “gangbangers,” terrorists, and mass murderers—will come to them. All they need to do is be ready. “Are you prepared to kill somebody?” he asks me and the small group of “armed citizens” who’ve paid $90 or more to see him. “If you cannot answer that question, you should not be carrying a gun.”
> 
> Two hours into his high-octane, six-hour seminar, the self-described top police trainer in the nation is just getting warmed up. Grossman, a 60-year-old former Army Ranger, wears low-slung blue jeans, an ornate Western belt buckle, and a black button-up emblazoned with the words “Grossman Academy,” the “O” stitched like a bull’s-eye. He sports a military haircut. Onstage are two giant easel pads, their legs taped to the floor so that they don’t go crashing down whenever he hits them to punctuate his points. “We fight violence. What do we fight it with? Superior violence. Righteous violence.” Like a preacher, he doesn’t bother with notes.
> In the era of Black Lives Matter, Grossman insists that cops must be more, not less, prepared to use force.
> 
> Over the past two decades, Grossman has achieved semi-celebrity status as an authority on aggression, close combat, and the psychology of violence. He literally wrote the book on killing, On Killing. His books have been translated into several languages and he says they are required reading at the FBI Academy and many law enforcement academies. He’s lectured at West Point and claims to have conducted trainings for every federal law enforcement agency, every branch of the armed forces, and cops in all 50 states. For more than 19 years, he’s been on the road, leading seminars and trainings nearly 300 days a year. He has a black belt in Hojutsu, the Japanese art of shooting. (Grossman did not grant my request to attend one of his police trainings, nor did he agree to be interviewed.)
> 
> Grossman’s philosophy grew out of the two decades he says he spent training soldiers to kill more efficiently. The military has long taught its troops to kill through a process of conditioned response—aim, shoot, aim, shoot—that’s meant to override the part of the brain that asks, “Should I be doing this?”
> 
> By refining this approach, Grossman and others claim, the US military boosted its kill ratio—the percentage of frontline soldiers who actually shoot to kill—from between 15 and 25 percent during World War II to as much as 100 percent during the Vietnam War. (These figures and the scholarship behind them have been fiercely debated.) Grossman takes this a step further. Rather than simply conditioning soldiers and police officers to shoot without hesitation, he teaches them to embrace their responsibility to kill. “Killing’s not the goal,” he cautioned in a 2004 interview with Frontline. “But we all understand that killing is the likely outcome.”
> 
> Grossman calls his discipline “killology“—”the scholarly study of the destructive act.” Though he spent years as a soldier, he has never killed anyone in combat. And while he is a luminary to many in law enforcement, the “warrior” mentality he espouses is under fire. As Black Lives Matter has exposed the prevalence of police abuses and the confrontational attitude that often sparks them, Grossman continues to insist that cops are the ones under siege and that they must be more, not less, prepared to use force. “The number of dead cops has exploded like nothing we have ever seen,” he tells the armed citizens in Lakeport. (That is not true: The average annual number of police officers intentionally killed while on duty in the past decade is 40 percent lower than it was in the 1980s.) If emergency medicine and body armor hadn’t improved since the 1970s, Grossman claims, “the number of dead cops would be eight times what it is” today. It’s not clear how he arrived at these figures.
> 
> Grossman says, “The number of dead cops has exploded like nothing we have ever seen.” That is not true.
> 
> Last summer, after a black man named Philando Castile was shot and killed during a traffic stop outside Minneapolis, it was revealed that two years earlier the officer, Jeronimo Yanez, had attended “The Bulletproof Warrior,” a two-day training taught by Grossman and his colleague Jim Glennon. Shortly after this came out, the sheriff of Santa Clara County, California, which includes San Jose, canceled an upcoming Grossman training, saying her officers were meant to be “peacemakers first and warriors second.”
> 
> Grossman’s trainings are “fear porn,” says Craig Atkinson, a filmmaker who attended one for his documentary on police militarization, Do Not Resist. He wonders how the Castile incident might have played out if Officer Yanez hadn’t heard “Dave Grossman tell him that every single traffic stop could be, might be, the last stop you ever make in your life.” Grossman is “more of a motivational speaker than a trainer,” says Seth Stoughton, a former cop and law professor at the University of South Carolina who studies the regulation of police. In Grossman’s worldview, Stoughton says, “the officer is the hero, the warrior, the noble figure who steps into dark situations where others fear to tread and brings order to a chaotic world, and who does so by imposing their will on the civilians they deal with.” This approach to policing is outdated and ineffective, says Stoughton, and, “some of it is dangerously wrong.” Samuel Walker, a criminal-justice professor and expert on police accountability, says the “Bulletproof Warrior” approach is “okay for Green Berets but unacceptable for domestic policing. The best police chiefs in the country don’t want anything to do with this.”
> 
> Glennon has said that the reporting on his and Grossman’s police seminars is inaccurate. “The word ‘warrior’ has been hijacked by people in order to prove their false thesis, that law enforcement officers are training like military warriors, which is to shoot first, ask questions later; that everybody’s out to kill you, so you better kill them first. And there is absolutely zero truth to that in our course, none,” he told a Minnesota newspaper after the Castile shooting.
> 
> The booklet Grossman hands out at his civilian training contains some of the same content that cops receive. There are charts and tables on “perceptual distortions in combat” and “combat efficiency.” A section titled “Thou Shalt Not Kill?” lists Bible verses that distinguish between justified killing and murder. Grossman does tell us that “oftentimes in police training, the right answer is not to shoot.” But he quickly pivots back to his message that right behind the police, gun owners are the “front-line troops” in his war. (The fact that there hasn’t been a homicide in rural Lakeport since 2002 doesn’t slow him down.)
> 
> “Hacking and stabbing little kids! When you hear about a day care massacre, tell them Grossman said it was coming!”
> 
> Onstage, Grossman comes off as both unglued and also quite sincere. He emphasizes the need for firearms training, and his voice cracks when he talks about the “slaughtered children” in school shootings. “This is not right. These are just kids,” he says. “Never lose your sense of outrage over this.”
> 
> But he also views the world as almost unrecognizably dangerous: a place where gang members seek to set records for killing cops, where a kid “in every school” is thinking about racking up “a body count.” His latest book, Assassination Generation, insists that violent video games are turning the nation’s youth into mass murderers. The recent wave of “massacres” is just the beginning. (“Please stop calling them mass shootings!”) He smacks the easels: “These [thump] crimes [thump] are [thump] everywhere!” He foresees attacks on school buses and day care centers. “Kindergartners run about point-five miles an hour and get a burst of about 20 yards and then they’re done.” It won’t just happen with guns, but with hammers, axes, hatchets, knives, and swords. His voice jumps an octave: “Hacking and stabbing little kids! You don’t think they’ll attack day cares? It’s already happening in China. When you hear about a day care massacre,” he shouts, “tell them Grossman said it was coming!”
> 
> That’s not the end of it. “More people are signing up with ISIS than we can count,” Grossman says. He predicts a terrorist organization will soon detonate a nuclear bomb off the West Coast. “We have never been more likely to be nuked, and we have never been less prepared!” Terrorists will send “suicide bio-bombers” across the border to spread deadly diseases. “The day will come,” Grossman insists. “Folks, it is very, very bad out there!”
> Grossman is already prepared for the worst—even in the quietest of moments. He tells us a story: One night he was walking with his three-year-old granddaughter and his German Shepard around a lake near where they live. He was armed, “of course,” with a gun and a knife. The sky darkened, and his granddaughter looked up. “There are scary things in the dark,” she said. Grossman chuckled. “Yeah,” he said. “It’s us.”



Link


----------



## dapaterson

Grossman has dons more damage to policing than any other "intellectual", bar none, turning policing from a community engagement mindset into a kill or be killed mindset.


----------



## Kat Stevens

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Grossman has dons more damage to policing than any other "intellectual", bar none, turning policing from a community engagement mindset into a kill or be killed mindset.



Maybe he just read a little too much Richard Marcinko as a lad and thought that was the real shit.


----------



## Remius

Really enjoying this thread.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I am enjoying it, too. It has been really thought provoking and I really appreciate the candid input from the serving LEOs.


----------



## Underway

I saw Grossman once.  I was the lone sailor with all the army.  It was like going to an Amway convention or seeing an Evangelist.  Being prepared to pull the trigger and worshiping at the altar of battle are two very different things.  Some of the other more intellectual army folks I was with were a bit concerned by it as well. 
That being said his book "On Combat" was quite good, though much of it was just reiterating Gwynne Dyers book "War".


That's why ROE is so important, and at the time (circa 2009) there was so much emphasis on the "Strategic Corporal" (no idea if that's a thing anymore).


----------



## brihard

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Grossman has dons more damage to policing than any other "intellectual", bar none, turning policing from a community engagement mindset into a kill or be killed mindset.



Having seen one of Grossman’s presentations, and read both On Combat and On Killing, I don’t take away much at all of what’s presented in that opinion piece. He doesn’t go out and advocate using force where not appropriate; he doesn’t advocate that people consider force in lieu of other more appropriate options. His training and theory focuses mostly on the psychological factors that stand between a properly socialized human being, and being able to perform effectively in a fight for their life. Absolutely he cultivates a ‘warrior’ mindset (within the ‘sheepdog’ context that he’s helped popularize), but it’s generally about being able to win and survive if a fight of that degree of seriousness takes place. From what I’ve seen and read and where I sit, his perspectives have a very valid place in cultivating a survivor mentality in people who likely will face serious dangers in their profession. His observations on the psychology of use of force are valid and useful in the context of training to win a fight when one should find you. That’s definitely still a reality police face.

Yes, Grossman must be understood, like most such speakers, to be somewhat of a ‘brand’, and there’s a bit of sensationalization in his pitch- but it doesn’t make the bulk of what he says on the training and preparation psychology front out to lunch.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Underway said:
			
		

> I saw Grossman once.  I was the lone sailor with all the army.  It was like going to an Amway convention or seeing an Evangelist.  Being prepared to pull the trigger and worshiping at the altar of battle are two very different things.  Some of the other more intellectual army folks I was with were a bit concerned by it as well.
> That being said his book "On Combat" was quite good, though much of it was just reiterating Gwynne Dyers book "War".
> 
> 
> That's why ROE is so important, and at the time (circa 2009) there was so much emphasis on the "Strategic Corporal" (no idea if that's a thing anymore).



I turned down an offer to attend one of his presentations, to the surprise of the very senior officer who made me the offer who seemed just a bit too smitten in that ‘teenage girl with a ticket to the concert’ kind of way.

Anyone who sets themselves up as a missionary of ‘killology’ is clearly either not of sound mind, or a ruthless peddler of gun porn fantasies to those occupying the ranks of a disadvantaged underclass.

And I read his book, which just might be another reason why I discovered that my dance card was full.


----------



## PuckChaser

Underway said:
			
		

> I saw Grossman once.  I was the lone sailor with all the army.  It was like going to an Amway convention or seeing an Evangelist.  Being prepared to pull the trigger and worshiping at the altar of battle are two very different things.  Some of the other more intellectual army folks I was with were a bit concerned by it as well.
> That being said his book "On Combat" was quite good, though much of it was just reiterating Gwynne Dyers book "War".
> 
> 
> That's why ROE is so important, and at the time (circa 2009) there was so much emphasis on the "Strategic Corporal" (no idea if that's a thing anymore).


You think maybe your job colours your perspective? Those Army folks might actually have to take a human life at ranges close enough to hear that individual's final breath instead of firing armaments at a faceless steel box. I've read both of his books and not once got the feeling I was being preached at to encourage contravention of ROE.


----------



## Kat Stevens

I think there's a world of difference between trying to psychologically motivate, or manipulate depending on your views, young soldiers to fix bayonets, close with the enemy and stick him in the guts, and pumping a cop up to go do his job. If a member of LE feels that everyone not him is the enemy to be dealt with, there's a problem. Even I as a run of the mill, a bit larger than average, white dude would not enjoy being viewed automatically as someone who needs to be controlled and dominated. Let's talk, if I escalate then feel free to escalate right the fuck back, Grossman seems to want cops to view me as a threat just for not being him. That's ungood.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I've read his books and heard him speak.

One big take away that I continue to use is the mindset that you're never out of the fight. None of that oh I'm shot with a blank I'm dead, I'm going to lay down BS. It's always someone being wounded and continuing to fight (plus first aid). 

Lots of other stuff, not so much.

My father was a corrections officer. He retired a while ago but he still acts like the general public are inmates and has this huge us vs them complex. I've seen the same mindset in some of his friends.

We can't have our police promulgate this us vs them, police vs the public mindset.

When the public laments about militarization of the police I think they get fixated on cops using military looking rifles, military looking uniforms, armored vehicles. That may be some of the equation but I think there's more; specifically that close with and destroy the enemy mindset I talked about.

Maybe the way the military handled investigations during Afghanistan could be an example. 
The few times I've had ROE with people hurt on the other end I was immediately investigated. Called in for questioning, witnesses got questioned, whole 9 yards. 

Stories like this are part the problem.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/transit-police-officer-still-employed-9-years-after-brutal-beating-caught-on-camera/ar-BB15tkTe



> internal probe on Aug. 22, 2011, and despite a six month time limit for Police Act investigations to be completed, the process continues to drag on.



Acting like infantry bad / completing investigations closer to 9 days rather than 9 years good.


----------



## quadrapiper

Brihard said:
			
		

> Absolutely he cultivates a ‘warrior’ mindset (within the ‘sheepdog’ context that he’s helped popularize), but it’s generally about being able to win and survive if a fight of that degree of seriousness takes place.


How worrisome does everyone find the "sheepdog" thing? Taken on its face, it's concerning both in a military and a policing context, given the sheepdog both protects and herds the sheep, but certainly doesn't take direction from them.

Incidentally, I'm struck by FJAG's (I think) comment re: Custer's opponents, and similarities with the National Guard's totemic Minuteman: both turning out to see to enemies as required.

Will take a moment to put the boot to "warfighter:" nothing _deep_ to add, but despise it and just about every other US mil coinage, plus their dire capitalization of Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, etc. Oh, and adding a plural "s" to training; don't know who's to blame for that one, but it really grates. Not sure why.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Interesting article that isn't about the militarization of police forces in the United States, but how the creator of "killology", David Grossman and how he has influenced policing in the United States:
> 
> Link



Interesting sure, but pretty much what I expect to see in an opinion piece coming from a motherjones.com writer.  I would imagine Mr. Schatz entered the talk with a preconceived finish and as expected confirmed his own bias. 

Other articles by Mr. Schatz 
https://www.motherjones.com/author/bryan-schatz/

I have read "On Killing".  It’s not radical, in fact I found it dry and I think I figured out the sumation in much less time than was required to read the book. Not saying Mr. Grossman is perfect but I doubt a well-educated man like himself is the snake oil peddling devil Mr. Schatz seems to think he is.


----------



## Underway

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You think maybe your job colours your perspective? Those Army folks might actually have to take a human life at ranges close enough to hear that individual's final breath instead of firing armaments at a faceless steel box. I've read both of his books and not once got the feeling I was being preached at to encourage contravention of ROE.



Fair question.  At the time I was deploying with C Coy 2nd Battalion PPCLI, so my job at the time was full-on army. I read the mans books and tried to mentally prepare myself for the inevitable time when I needed to pull the trigger. Or beat someone to death.  Or stab them. Or bite their throat out. There was no way in hell I wasn't coming home to my kids if I had anything to say about it. I tried to understand the various psychological aspects of tunnel vision and the biological responses to violence etc...  

What coloured my perspective perhaps was the fact that I wasn't "brought up" so to speak in the army/regimental culture.  I found their glorification of violence distasteful.  And Grossman (in person) played to that glorification.  He knew his audience was all military.  It spoke entirely of Evangelism and selling a brand, and less about professionalism.  Or perhaps its because I'm naturally a questioner/devils advocate and don't trust salespeople.


----------



## PuckChaser

Underway said:
			
		

> What coloured my perspective perhaps was the fact that I wasn't "brought up" so to speak in the army/regimental culture.  I found their glorification of violence distasteful.  And Grossman (in person) played to that glorification.  He knew his audience was all military.  It spoke entirely of Evangelism and selling a brand, and less about professionalism.  Or perhaps its because I'm naturally a questioner/devils advocate and don't trust salespeople.



I haven't heard him speak before so maybe he does have a little showman in him. It also might be more of a national military culture difference as well. I've found our infantry folks are a little more focused in their ability to control/channel their aggressiveness to solely military tasks/missions where the US culture tends to create the same aggressiveness but in a less socially calm way. We've all seen/heard the anecdotes of Marines getting into brawls all the time where for us its either kept real quiet or those brawls are the exception not the rule.


----------



## Underway

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I haven't heard him speak before so maybe he does have a little showman in him. It also might be more of a national military culture difference as well. I've found our infantry folks are a little more focused in their ability to control/channel their aggressiveness to solely military tasks/missions where the US culture tends to create the same aggressiveness but in a less socially calm way. We've all seen/heard the anecdotes of Marines getting into brawls all the time where for us its either kept real quiet or those brawls are the exception not the rule.



I would say as well that "Killology" is considered a pseudo-science by many on par with anti-vaccine activism.  For the most part its a bunch of confirmation bias, unprovable hypothesis and generally incompatable with the scientific method.  Not sayings some of the things he advocates are not useful, of course, they are.  But much papered over or ignored.  His video game stance for example has been disproven dozens of times, but he still clings to it.


----------



## Haggis

I've seen Grossman speak and read his books.  They were, to a degree, enlightening ("On Combat" more than "On Killing").  Of the seven tactical principles taught to LE in Canada, the one I struggle with the most is the so-called  "Survival Mentality". One can survive a gunfight and end up permanently disabled because the aggressor was unable or chose not to finish you off.  I prefer "Winning Mentality" or "The Will to Win".

A better book for LE is "Deadly Force Encounters" by Alexis Artwohl, PhD and Loren Christensen.  This one goes into detail about the psychological effects an officer may undergo during a deadly force encounter (no, not an original idea from Grossman).  Equally, it also addresses the organizational/institutional response to those encounters.  That section was enlightening and shocking at the same time. Read in conjunction with my own agency's SOPs on critical incident response, it helps one better understand why the SOP is what it is and how it could be applied to me in a given situation.


----------



## mariomike

Remius said:
			
		

> I get the mobility.  But visible?  Sure for the 30 seconds they drive by.



Pretty hard to miss a marked car. Whether parked conspicuously at Walk / Don't Walk, or doing a slow patrol.

It can be more difficult for busy departments with high call volumes to clear calls. Officers on foot patrol may not necessarily be available for 9-1-1 calls requiring a quick response time. Also, a car can carry equipment that a foot patrol cannot. 

Not to say foot patrols are of not use. They are. But, they have limitations.  


I think you have a better chance of "bugging out" in a car. This happened to NYPD the other day,
https://twitter.com/NYC911/status/1272338966818193409

Imagine if they had been on foot!



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> If foot patrol types spent that much time watching TV then that’s a reflection of their work ethos not of the effectiveness of visible presence patrols where they can actually interact with the community.



Hey! Down  ready time is sacred! Just kidding. Sort of. 

We hosted many foot patrols. I imagine the firemen did too. Never seemed in any particular rush to get back on the street from what I recall. Far from it.

Maybe a good compromise would be to mandate the officers get out of their cars for a half hour each day for foot patrol. That way, they can run back to the car if they get a call.


----------



## Remius

So when the untrained eye looks at a picture like the one from this article.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/16/us/protest-wrap-tuesday/index.html

It’s hard for someone not to think that the police are not being militarized in the US.


----------



## brihard

Remius said:
			
		

> So when the untrained eye looks at a picture like the one from this article.
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/16/us/protest-wrap-tuesday/index.html
> 
> It’s hard for someone not to think that the police are not being militarized in the US.



Indeed, whereas the trained eye recognizes that it's a tactical team responding shortly after a shooting, and having to deal with a number of armed individuals and an unruly crowd that has already been violent.

The 'untrained eye' is causing a lot of the problems in the US right now...


----------



## Jarnhamar

Remius said:
			
		

> So when the untrained eye looks at a picture like the one from this article.
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/16/us/protest-wrap-tuesday/index.html
> 
> It’s hard for someone not to think that the police are not being militarized in the US.



Only thing they're missing is bloused boots. 

Good example though. 

Does militarization of the police encompass more than appearance? 

I wonder if gear like that actually gives the police the impression (themselves) that the'ye combat forces or they don't notice it.


----------



## brihard

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Only thing they're missing is bloused boots.
> 
> Good example though.
> 
> Does militarization of the police encompass more than appearance?
> 
> I wonder if gear like that actually gives the police the impression (themselves) that the'ye combat forces or they don't notice it.



My experience around our tactical guys, at least, suggests that they don't at all view themselves with any sort of 'combat soldier' mindset. They are prepared to enter into the ugliest of _policing_ situations, to dominate the threat and win whatever fight comes up. I've never been struck by anything other than maturity and professionalism from them. Contexts I've worked with them in include active shooter training, a few high risk warrant executions, and when they've been on standby in support of public order operations or major public events. I've also worked with a number who were either part time tactical members on top of their normal duties on the road or in investigative units, or who were previously in that role and now doing something else.

So yeah, I don't think the kit has fundamentally shaped how they see themselves. They're appropriately equipped for the dangers they face.


----------



## mariomike

Brihard said:
			
		

> My experience around our tactical guys, at least, suggests that they don't at all view themselves with any sort of 'combat soldier' mindset.



All I needed to know about our ETF paramedics ( our tactical guys ) is they had to wear 77 pounds of extra weight that I didn't.


----------



## lenaitch

mariomike said:
			
		

> Pretty hard to miss a marked car. Whether parked conspicuously at Walk / Don't Walk, or doing a slow patrol.
> 
> It can be more difficult for busy departments with high call volumes to clear calls. Officers on foot patrol may not necessarily be available for 9-1-1 calls requiring a quick response time. Also, a car can carry equipment that a foot patrol cannot.
> 
> Not to say foot patrols are of not use. They are. But, they have limitations.
> 
> Maybe a good compromise would be to mandate the officers get out of their cars for a half hour each day for foot patrol. That way, they can run back to the car if they get a call.



And that should be a viable option.  A few blocks either side of a parked cruiser, or through a park, should not be all that limiting with today's communications.  I suppose it's 'dismounted patrol' in army-speak.  I did a brief stint at TPS 14 Division (before I came to my senses  ) and there were regular 'post' assignments, but the comms of the day were limited and it put an extra burden on the vehicular patrols.  Although I was rural and started in a kindler, gentler time, we would get out and wander a town, eat and take coffee in restaurants, maybe pick up something at the grocery store on the way home, drop in the arena; all in the days before portable radios.  These informal 'exposures' can be just as or more effective than formal programs.  One of the things that drives me nuts is to see a marked cruiser in the drive-thru at Tim's.

Two of the most effective public contact tools are horses and motorcycles.  Show up on one and people appear.  Both limited in their overall usefulness and quite expensive; however.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Brihard said:
			
		

> My experience around our tactical guys, at least, suggests that they don't at all view themselves with any sort of 'combat soldier' mindset. They are prepared to enter into the ugliest of _policing_ situations, to dominate the threat and win whatever fight comes up. I've never been struck by anything other than maturity and professionalism from them. Contexts I've worked with them in include active shooter training, a few high risk warrant executions, and when they've been on standby in support of public order operations or major public events. I've also worked with a number who were either part time tactical members on top of their normal duties on the road or in investigative units, or who were previously in that role and now doing something else.
> 
> So yeah, I don't think the kit has fundamentally shaped how they see themselves. They're appropriately equipped for the dangers they face.



Good points. I haven't worked with tactical teams very much (just some shooting stuff, enemy force scenarios, and E&E training) they seemed just like you described, really professional. Considering what they do  I personally don't think there is anything wrong with their kit and equipment.

In Canada there seems to be a pretty clear division between patrol police (not sure the proper term) and tactical teams. Up here someone sees an armored vehicle and starts screaming about militarization. I think in the US the distinction between the two is more muddled.


----------



## mariomike

lenaitch said:
			
		

> I did a brief stint at TPS 14 Division (before I came to my senses  )



We used to go there on calls when it was on Harrison St., before it moved to the new place. 

I was stationed in 14 Division my first 8 years on the job. 

A small, but busy, Division. Do you remember Vanaully Walk, Kensington, 999, Chinatown, Little Italy, The Waterfront, the Island ferry, Parkdale? All those and many more interesting places with interesting people.  

Foot patrols dropping in to our stations was routine, and we welcomed them. 

674 Markham St. in the Annex area of 14 Division was one of the places I was remembering, among others. ( After it switched from a Metro Police station to a Metro Ambulance station in 1975.  ) 

I have a lot of pleasant memories of foot patrols in our stations, and on jobs. Happier days than now. Our police were well respected. 

We never imagined anything like this. I don't know what the Hell happened.


----------



## OldSolduer

mariomike said:
			
		

> We never imagined anything like this. I don't know what the Hell happened.



Just have a look at the portrayal of police in some movies and TV shows.

Chief Wiggums


----------



## Underway

The tactical teams don't seem to be the problem.  The tactical teams are highly trained, and called in generally knowing what the situation is, and that it requires the strongest of responses.  They also have all the tools and training to deal with those situations.  It's the street cops that have all the issues. The tactical teams are the ones on top of the building looking for the people in the riot/protest with weapons, the riot cops are the ones pushing over 70-year-olds and pepper-spraying.


----------



## Furniture

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Just have a look at the portrayal of police in some movies and TV shows.
> 
> Chief Wiggums



Made worse by the fact most people never actually meet police officers, so their only "exposure" is through TV and movies. 

In entertainment police are either inept, or corrupt/dirty. It makes for great entertainment, but does the perception of police no favours. 

How many of us in the CAF have had people with no exposure to the military make dumb assumptions about us, and our character based on TV and movies? Now imagine, rather than just being a CAF member in a uniform at Tims, you're the dude with a badge handing them a speeding ticket for driving 70 in a 50. Those people aren't likely to change their perception of you, and your profession in a positive way.


----------



## OldSolduer

Furniture said:
			
		

> Made worse by the fact most people never actually meet police officers, so their only "exposure" is through TV and movies.
> 
> In entertainment police are either inept, or corrupt/dirty. It makes for great entertainment, but does the perception of police no favours.
> 
> How many of us in the CAF have had people with no exposure to the military make dumb assumptions about us, and our character based on TV and movies? Now imagine, rather than just being a CAF member in a uniform at Tims, you're the dude with a badge handing them a speeding ticket for driving 70 in a 50. Those people aren't likely to change their perception of you, and your profession in a positive way.



Ever get asked "how many people have you killed?" I've had that asked a number of times.


----------



## Furniture

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Ever get asked "how many people have you killed?" I've had that asked a number of times.



Only once, but I'm sure it's been assumed a few times.


----------



## lenaitch

mariomike said:
			
		

> We used to go there on calls when it was on Harrison St., before it moved to the new place.
> 
> I was stationed in 14 Division my first 8 years on the job.
> 
> A small, but busy, Division. Do you remember Vanaully Walk, Kensington, 999, Chinatown, Little Italy, The Waterfront, the Island ferry, Parkdale? All those and many more interesting places with interesting people.
> 
> Foot patrols dropping in to our stations was routine, and we welcomed them.
> 
> 674 Markham St. in the Annex area of 14 Division was one of the places I was remembering, among others. ( After it switched from a Metro Police station to a Metro Ambulance station in 1975.  )
> 
> I have a lot of pleasant memories of foot patrols in our stations, and on jobs. Happier days than now. Our police were well respected.
> 
> We never imagined anything like this. I don't know what the Hell happened.



It was a college summer placement for parking enforcement (green hornet) but we paraded with the platoons.  I must have walked that entire division many times over.  For a kid from suburbia, places like Kensington, Little Italy and Little Poland were little enclaves unto themselves.  The one memory that sticks with me is the intoxication smell from the Cadbury plant on Gladstone on a hot summer night.  I don't remember many of the people; gruff, no nonsense but fairly decent NCOs.  The only Cst. I remember was a guy name Jimmy Robb, a mountain of Scot or Englishman who liked carrying prisoners over his shoulder.  I later worked downtown for Eatons in loss prevention/fraud and got to know the legendary detective office at 52 Division.

Very little street drugs or guns; organized crime gangs were the 'traditional' sort that kept to their 'specialties'.  That's what changed.


----------



## Ironman118

Underway said:
			
		

> the riot cops are the ones pushing over 70-year-olds and pepper-spraying.



The riot police stopping a 70 year old man from interfering with their duties is the same as them stopping a 20 something year old man doing the same thing. The difference is the 70 year old man hit his head on the ground, so that's newsworthy. Imagine walking towards a riot squad, whose main purpose is to maintain public order, trying to stop them from passing you, and thinking that's going to end well.

Here's an idea: Don't get in the way of the police doing their jobs and you won't have any issues.

I guess age doesn't necessarily correlate to wisdom.


----------



## mariomike

lenaitch said:
			
		

> I must have walked that entire division many times over.  For a kid from suburbia, places like Kensington, Little Italy and Little Poland were little enclaves unto themselves.



I grew up in a neighbourhood where nothing ever happened. At least nothing that kids like us knew about.

But, there was this one time - I must have been nine or ten years old - something did happen. Biggest crowd I had ever seen, up to that point. I couldn't see. I asked what was going on, but no one seemed to know. A big mystery. But, there were these guys in blue. 

For a kid of my age, other than some had guns, and some didn't, it was pretty hard to differentiate between the police and the emergency services. ( As you can see from the pic. )

They were the only ones who really knew what was going on. 

Which is why, when they show these modern telephone videos, I have to wonder how people who were not involved, really know what is going on?



			
				lenaitch said:
			
		

> Very little street drugs or guns; organized crime gangs were the 'traditional' sort that kept to their 'specialties'.  That's what changed.



It was fun. But, looks like we knew when it was time move on!


----------



## daftandbarmy

Ironman118 said:
			
		

> The riot police stopping a 70 year old man from interfering with their duties is the same as them stopping a 20 something year old man doing the same thing. The difference is the 70 year old man hit his head on the ground, so that's newsworthy. Imagine walking towards a riot squad, whose main purpose is to maintain public order, trying to stop them from passing you, and thinking that's going to end well.
> 
> Here's an idea: Don't get in the way of the police doing their jobs and you won't have any issues.
> 
> I guess age doesn't necessarily correlate to wisdom.



I am sure that the Judge will see it differently...


----------



## mariomike

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I am sure that the Judge will see it differently...



And the Buffalo taxpayers when it comes time to pay the lawsuit...


----------



## daftandbarmy

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Ever get asked "how many people have you killed?" I've had that asked a number of times.



The right answer?

Fixing stupid civvy with steely glaze: 'Not enough, apparently.'


----------



## Ironman118

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I am sure that the Judge will see it differently...



That sets a difficult precedent. You'll have more than that PS's riot squad quitting their duties, it'll be country wide. The unit responsible for maintaining public order can't maintain public order, or they'll get fired.  :


----------



## OldSolduer

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The right answer?
> 
> Fixing stupid civvy with steely glaze: 'Not enough, apparently.'



I’ll remember that 👍


----------



## Remius

Ironman118 said:
			
		

> That sets a difficult precedent. You'll have more than that PS's riot squad quitting their duties, it'll be country wide. The unit responsible for maintaining public order can't maintain public order, or they'll get fired.  :



Question for you.  I know there is no shortage of police applicants here but can the same be said about the US? 

Would a bunch of people quitting (I assume they have plans in their back pockets or retirement) not present an opportunity to clean house and bring in new people?  Would the quitting actually achieve what some municipalities are trying to do with renewal?  Some experience might leave but I bet it isn't all experience.  

FYI, I'm not advocating for that but it seems that some municipalities or defund groups would welcome wholesale quitting despite the consequences of that action.

I'm not familiar with what retention is like there.  I know the RCMP here has a bit of a retention issue over pay and work conditions but I don't know what it is over all in Canada.  RCMP seems like a bit of a unique police force  compared to anything else here or in the US though.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Ironman118 said:
			
		

> That sets a difficult precedent. You'll have more than that PS's riot squad quitting their duties, it'll be country wide. The unit responsible for maintaining public order can't maintain public order, or they'll get fired.  :



Not really, people will still do their jobs when properly led. And most of the legal precedents I've seen would back the 70 year old (or 20 year old) protester in this situation, at least in the clip I watched on TV.

Most cops are better at knowing the right level of force to use in most circumstances, than most soldiers, in a one on one situation. 

What some cops are less good at is knowing how to apply the right level of force in a large group, a.k.a. military style, scenario like a riot squad. You're still accountable for your individual actions despite the fact that you're immersed in a large, ostensibly faceless, group. It's also futile, and somewhat negligent, to hide behind the 'I was all hyped up and feared for my life' defence unless the situation warranted that; you know, like incoming rifle fire.

That's why it's a good idea to train properly for these kinds of things while making sure that your leaders, above all, know how to lead and manage people through chaotic situations like these. What I think we've seen recently is a range of 'readiness' in this regard from not so good, to very good.

Out of interest, here's a (very old) clip of some soldiers doing a good job at managing a riot where they demonstrate controlled aggression, care for uninvolved civilians, good prisoner handling, and generally good overall command and control in a crummy situation. Point to note - I am a big believer in the magical powers of the maroon beret, but you wouldn't catch me in this shot without a proper helmet and face-shield!:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdHF_Vjjr1o


----------



## mariomike

Ironman118 said:
			
		

> You'll have more than that PS's riot squad quitting their duties, it'll be country wide.





			
				Remius said:
			
		

> Would a bunch of people quitting (I assume they have plans in their back pockets or retirement) not present an opportunity to clean house and bring in new people?



They wouldn't be quitting the job / department. Just that program / team. The only possible financial loss would be if a premium is paid to team members.


----------



## Remius

That still brings up the point of playing into defund proponents’ hands.  

Great no more swat team.  Send them all to community policing or airport duty. 

Not sure the swat guys really want to do those jobs after being swat or ERT. 

I read that in Florida, one town’s swat team resigned en masse and the municipality didn’t even blink given that they had a 10 man team for 38,000 residents, low calls for them and an arrangement with the county to provide that service as needed.  They said they would redirect the funding for that to other services. 

Will that work for them? Maybe, maybe not but it seems that quitting teams or the police will just accelerate defunding.  

I don’t think that is realistic for all areas or regions though.

I think reform might be needed instead of defunding.  And yes, it likely means more money for police.  But that’s just me and my couch observation post.


----------



## mariomike

I think I see your point, Remius.

For example, TPS has "over 180 uniform and over 300 different civilian job opportunities."

"Uniform" would include all sworn officers, including detectives and plainclothes. 

If cities ever start look to seriously "defund", or whatever they call it, the three emergency services could be in for a rude awakening. ie: layoffs, and not replacing members lost to attrition.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Remius said:
			
		

> Great no more swat team.  Send them all to community policing or airport duty.
> Not sure the swat guys really want to do those jobs after being swat or ERT.



Not sure everyone calls it a career after taking down some coloured berets, why would cops be different?


----------



## Remius

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Not sure everyone calls it a career after taking down some coloured berets, why would cops be different?



Not sure.  That’s why I ask.  The few tactical team guys I do know weren’t too Keen on going back to anything but Tactical even in the face of getting promoted.  

But my point wasn’t about that.  

More about playing into the defund camp’s hand.


----------



## Ironman118

mariomike said:
			
		

> They wouldn't be quitting the job / department. Just that program / team. The only possible financial loss would be if a premium is paid to team members.



I am aware of that, I meant that there would be no riot squads anywhere. Why do the job when you get fired for doing it? First riot, then your other specialist teams who will now have to step up and perform those duties..

Now what happens when those units are already resigning from their positions for something other than not being able to do their job?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/13/us/florida-hallandale-beach-swat-resignations/index.html

Tick tock.


----------



## Ironman118

Remius said:
			
		

> Question for you.  I know there is no shortage of police applicants here but can the same be said about the US?
> 
> Would a bunch of people quitting (I assume they have plans in their back pockets or retirement) not present an opportunity to clean house and bring in new people?  Would the quitting actually achieve what some municipalities are trying to do with renewal?  Some experience might leave but I bet it isn't all experience.
> 
> FYI, I'm not advocating for that but it seems that some municipalities or defund groups would welcome wholesale quitting despite the consequences of that action.
> 
> I'm not familiar with what retention is like there.  I know the RCMP here has a bit of a retention issue over pay and work conditions but I don't know what it is over all in Canada.  RCMP seems like a bit of a unique police force  compared to anything else here or in the US though.



I've posted this before and I'll post it again, my replies are basically the same as his.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymznwY2kbEU


----------



## Remius

Ironman118 said:
			
		

> I've posted this before and I'll post it again, my replies are basically the same as his.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymznwY2kbEU



Ok, thanks.  I’ll give it a watch.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Getting rid of swat teams or riot control teams is such a ridiculous idea. There's professional rioters and shit disturbers in the US and Canada. Police who are more social worker than fighter are great until a heavily armed person or persons want to go on a rampage. Police need to be prepared for the worst case scenario.


If 50% of the police (or whatever) quit then new applicants will fill those spots. Will those new applicants be good guys and girls who herald in a new era of happy policing? Or will they be people who didn't make the previous cut for fitness/personality issues/MH etc.. who are now in uniform and cut loose.

Big gamble.


----------



## Remius

Remius said:
			
		

> Ok, thanks.  I’ll give it a watch.



Good perspective.  It didn’t answer some questions but I am in agreement with more training.  Not keen on defunding.  Reform costs money. Like it or not. 

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article243555202.html

More on the SWAT resignations.  A city with 38,000 people, only 8 swat calls in 3 years.  10% of the force on the swat team.  

Regardless of the value of the team, it looks like city council and the police chief are already moving the money somewhere else. 

This is what I am getting at in some areas.  Seems the Resignations are just accelerating the defunding.

 :dunno:


----------



## Remius

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Getting rid of swat teams or riot control teams is such a ridiculous idea. There's professional rioters and crap disturbers in the US and Canada. Police who are more social worker than fighter are great until a heavily armed person or persons want to go on a rampage. Police need to be prepared for the worst case scenario.
> 
> 
> If 50% of the police (or whatever) quit then new applicants will fill those spots. Will those new applicants be good guys and girls who herald in a new era of happy policing? Or will they be people who didn't make the previous cut for fitness/personality issues/MH etc.. who are now in uniform and cut loose.
> 
> Big gamble.



This is exactly it.  It is a gamble.  But resignations and quitting will only empower the defenders and abolitionists.  That’s what I am trying to get at.


----------



## mariomike

Remius said:
			
		

> More on the SWAT resignations.  A city with 38,000 people, only 8 swat calls in 3 years.  10% of the force on the swat team.
> 
> Regardless of the value of the team, it looks like city council and the police chief are already moving the money somewhere else.



We had SWAT paramedics where I worked. For $1,000 pensionable premium a year, ( that was years ago. Must have increased since then ) they got to wear 77 pounds of extra weight. 

On the other hand, they had the coolest tune to get pumped up with when responding,  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHDg96-ZN_U



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> Seems the Resignations are just accelerating the defunding.



BINGO 

At lot of Special Ops programs took some selling by the Dept. and the unions to the city. Give them up, might be a long time getting them back.

Also, how much solidarity is there in the union? Will members with less seniority fill those vacancies when the others stand down?


----------



## mariomike

> The NYPD will disband its controversial “anti-crime” units in an effort to make policing more relevant to the communities officers serve. The units have around 600 plainclothes officers working in unmarked cars across the city.
> https://www.bkreader.com/2020/06/17/nypd-disbanding-anti-crime-units-involved-in-a-number-of-fatal-shootings/



Doubt if something like the now disbanded LAPD Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums ( CRASH ) unit is what they have in mind,

"We want a uniform presence out on the street. They're flying their colors, we're going to fly ours!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZvatzKVM2g


----------



## Ironman118

Remius said:
			
		

> Good perspective.  It didn’t answer some questions but I am in agreement with more training.  Not keen on defunding.  Reform costs money. Like it or not.
> 
> https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article243555202.html
> 
> More on the SWAT resignations.  A city with 38,000 people, only 8 swat calls in 3 years.  10% of the force on the swat team.
> 
> Regardless of the value of the team, it looks like city council and the police chief are already moving the money somewhere else.
> 
> This is what I am getting at in some areas.  Seems the Resignations are just accelerating the defunding.
> 
> :dunno:



8 calls in 3 years is not bad, for that population..that's a lot. Imagine if uniformed officers turned up for those tactical calls, you'd probably have 8 dead people due to lack of training. You're obviously in favor of defunding, that much is clear. I just hope if specialist units are defunded, you never have need of them.  



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> This is exactly it.  It is a gamble.  But resignations and quitting will only empower the defenders and abolitionists.  That’s what I am trying to get at.



I mean, it empowers the people quitting the specialist units - because now they arent going to get fired for doing their job. They'll just go back on the road and continue to do patrol  :2c:


----------



## Remius

Ironman118 said:
			
		

> 8 calls in 3 years is not bad, for that population..that's a lot. Imagine if uniformed officers turned up for those tactical calls, you'd probably have 8 dead people due to lack of training. You're obviously in favor of defunding, that much is clear. I just hope if specialist units are defunded, you never have need of them.




No. I never said I was in favour of defunding.  I’ve said as much.  I’m trying to understand all of the elements.  I am in favour of reform and also I think on a case by case basis as all forces likely have their challenges and differences though and in fact I am in favour of more funding to make it happen. 

Militarisation is a concern but it isn’t a kit thing, I think it’s a perception and failure to communicate.  And influenced by the US view either by bad television or what we see on the news. 

My point in the last few posts is that resignations are accelerating the defunding as opposed to reforming.  

I’m getting a lot from what you and others are posting to get a more informed opinion.  If you feel I’m not I’m sorry and I’ll try and get my info elsewhere.

Thanks.


----------



## Ironman118

Officer who shot Rayshard Brooks charged with felony murder after suspect resisted arrest during a DUI stop, fought with both officers, stole a tazer, and firing said tazer at the officer.

https://theprovince.com/pmn/news-pmn/politics-news-pmn/atlanta-police-officer-charged-with-murder-in-shooting-death-of-rayshard-brooks/wcm/0357ab2c-bdaa-409c-883b-5a4e67f3a8cc


----------



## Remius

Ironman118 said:
			
		

> Officer who shot Rayshard Brooks convicted with felony murder after suspect resisted arrest during a DUI stop, fought with both officers, stole a tazer, and firing said tazer at the officer.
> 
> https://theprovince.com/pmn/news-pmn/politics-news-pmn/atlanta-police-officer-charged-with-murder-in-shooting-death-of-rayshard-brooks/wcm/0357ab2c-bdaa-409c-883b-5a4e67f3a8cc



 Also charged with 11 other counts.  A lot charges related to his oath office.   I watched the briefing and a lot of new info came out.  He kicked him in the head after he shot him and two rounds hit a bystander’s car with a driver and passenger.  Part of the charges.  That last part (the head kicking) is what seems to have triggered another protest there. 

Facing life to the death penalty.

Initially they said the other officer was going to be a state’s witness but that has changed recently.

The officer’s attorney has released a statement about the taser being pointed at him.  States that he reason to believe ve he was trying to disable and injure or something to that effect.


----------



## mariomike

Ironman118 said:
			
		

> Officer who shot Rayshard Brooks convicted



"Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law".


----------



## mariomike

Remius said:
			
		

> Facing life to the death penalty.



Doubt that will happen. I'm only aware of one American police officer ever to be executed.

For, "Murder by proxy, twice removed."


----------



## Jarnhamar

Remius said:
			
		

> No. I never said I was in favour of defunding.  I’ve said as much.  I’m trying to understand all of the elements.  I am in favour of reform and also I think on a case by case basis as all forces likely have their challenges and differences though and in fact I am in favour of more funding to make it happen.
> 
> Militarisation is a concern but it isn’t a kit thing, I think it’s a perception and failure to communicate.  And influenced by the US view either by bad television or what we see on the news.
> 
> My point in the last few posts is that resignations are accelerating the defunding as opposed to reforming.
> 
> I’m getting a lot from what you and others are posting to get a more informed opinion.  If you feel I’m not I’m sorry and I’ll try and get my info elsewhere.
> 
> Thanks.



Not police of course but the majority of experienced soldiers I've seen VR from the CAF due to CoC mistreatment/lack of respect have been "good dudes" who knew their self worth. They lost faith and moved on. For the most part, the crappy ones aren't the ones quitting, or if they do its because they got threatened under the table.

It's conjecture but I bet the police quitting aren't the bad guy abusers which means bad ones may be over representated of the ones trying to pick up the slack. If that makes sense. 

I still think all this could avoided if there was more transparency and an oversight body that can actually deal with issues. Militarization of the police would mean, much like our CAF Court martials, disciplinary accusations and outcomes would be public. Not a bad thing.


----------



## Remius

mariomike said:
			
		

> Doubt that will happen. I'm only aware of one American police officer ever to be executed.
> 
> For, "Murder by proxy, twice removed."



I doubt it as well.  But the fact that the DA mentioned it probably had an effect.  Probably won’t be sought either.


----------



## mariomike

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It's conjecture but I bet the police quitting aren't the bad guy abusers which means bad ones may be over representated of the ones trying to pick up the slack. If that makes sense.



Most of what I have read is leaving special teams, to return to regular patrol duty.


----------



## Remius

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Not police of course but the majority of experienced soldiers I've seen VR from the CAF due to CoC mistreatment/lack of respect have been "good dudes" who knew their self worth. They lost faith and moved on. For the most part, the crappy ones aren't the ones quitting, or if they do its because they got threatened under the table.
> 
> It's conjecture but I bet the police quitting aren't the bad guy abusers which means bad ones may be over representated of the ones trying to pick up the slack. If that makes sense.
> 
> I still think all this could avoided if there was more transparency and an oversight body that can actually deal with issues. Militarization of the police would mean, much like our CAF Court martials, disciplinary accusations and outcomes would be public. Not a bad thing.



Quite likely.  I know some dejected police officers frustrated with their COC.  Good cops, but none is quitting their jobs.  Some asking for reassignments though. 

Transparency would be a good place to start I think as well.  As I mentioned, communication seems to be an issue.  Some have mentioned unions being an obstacle.  Not sure if that is really the case or not.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Ironman118 said:
			
		

> Officer who shot Rayshard Brooks convicted with felony murder after suspect resisted arrest during a DUI stop, fought with both officers, stole a tazer, and firing said tazer at the officer.
> 
> https://theprovince.com/pmn/news-pmn/politics-news-pmn/atlanta-police-officer-charged-with-murder-in-shooting-death-of-rayshard-brooks/wcm/0357ab2c-bdaa-409c-883b-5a4e67f3a8cc



So he's being charged with murder. I think an important question is would he facing these charges if this happened 6 months ago?

If the answer is no then why not? Racism/biased from the police? Or because he doesn't deserve to be charged with murder BUT because of the protests now he's getting thrown under the boss?

If our justice system is changing/behaving differently because of these protests then we need to look at what was going on with the justice system before it started. Not fair for police to be hung out to dry to please the crowd.


----------



## Remius

Or if it wasn’t caught on camera?

Seems that video seems to a driving force behind these things.


----------



## Ironman118

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> So he's being charged with murder. I think an important question is would he facing these charges if this happened 6 months ago?



I think most of us know the answer to this.  :2c:

Anyone remember this shooting? Where they shot a guy in the subway for "walking between train cars"? Any of you actually see any of this in the news; if so was it for more than a day? Did those officers lose their jobs for attempted murder? Something to think about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjY9WKbMB6c


----------



## mariomike

I have no source to support this theory, but I can't help wonder if private security contractors might be  behind some of this defunding initiative.


----------



## brihard

It’s gonna be a long night in Atlanta. It looks like the entire PD has either walked off the job or are staying office bound. Nobody’s taking calls, scanner are just static. Neighbouring county sheriffs have declined requests for assistance. It looks like a genuine ‘blue flu’ tonight in the city.


----------



## Ironman118

Brihard said:
			
		

> It’s gonna be a long night in Atlanta. It looks like the entire PD has either walked off the job or are staying office bound. Nobody’s taking calls, scanner are just static. Neighbouring county sheriffs have declined requests for assistance. It looks like a genuine ‘blue flu’ tonight in the city.



Other cities in the US should strap themselves in, because I think we're going to see a lot of this.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Brihard said:
			
		

> It’s gonna be a long night in Atlanta. It looks like the entire PD has either walked off the job or are staying office bound. Nobody’s taking calls, scanner are just static. Neighbouring county sheriffs have declined requests for assistance. It looks like a genuine ‘blue flu’ tonight in the city.



Should be an interesting litmus test for those preaching defund the police.


----------



## OldSolduer

Brihard said:
			
		

> It’s gonna be a long night in Atlanta. It looks like the entire PD has either walked off the job or are staying office bound. Nobody’s taking calls, scanner are just static. Neighbouring county sheriffs have declined requests for assistance. It looks like a genuine ‘blue flu’ tonight in the city.


Is this what it has come to? How did it come to this?

How very sad for a nation that led the world for decades.  :facepalm:


----------



## mariomike

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Is this what it has come to? How did it come to this?


----------



## Kat Stevens

Brihard said:
			
		

> It’s gonna be a long night in Atlanta. It looks like the entire PD has either walked off the job or are staying office bound. Nobody’s taking calls, scanner are just static. Neighbouring county sheriffs have declined requests for assistance. It looks like a genuine ‘blue flu’ tonight in the city.


This is eerie.
https://www.facebook.com/ConservativeDaily/videos/2608937309423992/UzpfSTEwMDAwMDcyNzM2NDY2NzozNjQwNTYyMDI5MzExMzQw/


----------



## Underway

Brihard said:
			
		

> It’s gonna be a long night in Atlanta. It looks like the entire PD has either walked off the job or are staying office bound. Nobody’s taking calls, scanner are just static. Neighbouring county sheriffs have declined requests for assistance. It looks like a genuine ‘blue flu’ tonight in the city.



It's ok.  Everyone has a gun in Atlanta. You don't need police when everyone is packing.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Lots of talk about "defunding the police" and using the extra money to hire social workers for wellness checks rather than police: what could go wrong. 



> Paramedics stabbed in Wolverhampton 'recovering well'
> 
> BBC
> 
> The ambulance crew were on a call at a property in Stephens Close, Wolverhampton
> 
> Two paramedics who were stabbed while attending a call to check on the welfare of a man are "recovering well".
> 
> Michael Hipgrave and Deena Evans were hurt at a property in Stephens Close, Wolverhampton, on Monday.
> 
> West Midlands Ambulance Service said Mr Hipgrave was discharged from the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham on Monday night and is recovering at home.
> 
> Ms Evans remains at the hospital where she is receiving further treatment and remains in a stable condition.
> 
> Assistant Chief Ambulance Officer Nathan Hudson said: "Thankfully, both Michael and Deena are recovering well after yesterday's ordeal.
> Image caption Police have arrested a man over the attack
> 
> "I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone at the hospital for their assistance and for looking after my members of staff in such a professional and caring manner."
> 
> A 52-year-old man who was arrested at the scene on suspicion of wounding remains in custody. He was Tasered by police and treated for his injuries before his arrest.
> 
> The paramedics were conducting "a safe and well check" at about 12:30 BST when they were attacked.
> 
> West Midlands Police said an officer who had accompanied the crew arrested a man at the scene.



Link-


----------



## mariomike

I don't know what the drill is in England, or even the rest of Canada, for that matter.

This was / is our SOP,

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


----------



## brihard

mariomike said:
			
		

> I don't know what the drill is in England, or even the rest of Canada, for that matter.
> 
> This was / is our SOP,
> 
> 4. wait for police assistance if,
> a. there is an active shooter scenario, or
> b. there is direct evidence of ongoing violence;



If the call comes in as a check well being for mental health without indication of medical emergency, I typically see it go to police, not EMS.


----------



## Ironman118

Brihard said:
			
		

> If the call comes in as a check well being for mental health without indication of medical emergency, I typically see it go to police, not EMS.



Same here, paramedics in our region seem to err more on the side of caution and request police more often than not, they won't even go to welfare checks unless Police are already on scene and there is a patient, otherwise they wont even be dispatched.


----------



## Old Sweat

Here's another point of view, or at least an observation. The militarization was a result of the proliferation of automatic weapons in the hands of the bad guys, certainly in the US but also in Canada. In the days of the Bob Rae government in Ontario, there was considerable opposition to requests by the various police services to exchange their venerable S&W .38 revolvers for semi-automatic handguns. Bob and his gang were loathe to do this, as they feared setting off an "arms race" between the police and the bad guys, but eventually the police prevailed, whether after the PCs took over or not, I can not recall.

It also seems to me that the RCMP, at least, were issued C1 rifles, and I recall members doing "annual classification" on the Shilo rifle ranges. An upgrade to C7s/C8s seemed to be a natural progression.


----------



## mariomike

Regarding Delay of Service aka Staging. 

I don't know about other jurisdictions. This is the SOP in Toronto,
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2012/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-49038.pdf


----------



## daftandbarmy

FWIW, I don't think I have ever seen the police operate like the military at  least from the "we're all one team, with one mission, one commander, and have each others' back" point of view. 

IIRC that this is a result of the important role of the Peace Officer within the rule of law and our prevailing justice system, which is fine by me.

A more accurate thread title might therefore be "The Up-Gunning of the Police".

Just sayin'


----------



## ModlrMike

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Here's another point of view, or at least an observation. The militarization was a result of the proliferation of automatic weapons in the hands of the bad guys, certainly in the US but also in Canada. In the days of the Bob Rae government in Ontario, there was considerable opposition to requests by the various police services to exchange their venerable S&W .38 revolvers for semi-automatic handguns. Bob and his gang were loathe to do this, as they feared setting off an "arms race" between the police and the bad guys, but eventually the police prevailed, whether after the PCs took over or not, I can not recall.
> 
> It also seems to me that the RCMP, at least, were issued C1 rifles, and I recall members doing "annual classification" on the Shilo rifle ranges. An upgrade to C7s/C8s seemed to be a natural progression.



I think the arms race is less between the bad guys and the police, and more between the bad guys and the other bad guys. The police are left playing catch up.


----------



## RedFive

Remius said:
			
		

> Also charged with 11 other counts.  A lot charges related to his oath office.   I watched the briefing and a lot of new info came out.  He kicked him in the head after he shot him and two rounds hit a bystander’s car with a driver and passenger.  Part of the charges.  That last part (the head kicking) is what seems to have triggered another protest there.
> 
> Facing life to the death penalty.
> 
> Initially they said the other officer was going to be a state’s witness but that has changed recently.
> 
> The officer’s attorney has released a statement about the taser being pointed at him.  States that he reason to believe ve he was trying to disable and injure or something to that effect.



I'm limited as to what exactly I can say as the matter is still under investigation, however I was involved in a similar circumstance not so long ago. A suspect managed to unholster a taser from a Member, and deployed it twice, successfully, against two Members. The only reason that suspect is still breathing is there was no clean shot to stop the threat, at the time the threat of grievous bodily harm and/or death presented itself. We managed to retrieve the taser from the suspect with a large amount of persuasion.

A civilian oversight agency is currently investigating all involved Members due to the level of injury to the suspect as a result of all the persuasion.

All that to say, my level of patience for members of the public screaming about brutality, accountability and transparency is zero. We could have justifiably shot this man, but did not. We are being held accountable, by way of civilian, independent investigation. If that investigation clears us a long and detailed report will be made public. If charges are warranted, they will be laid. And all that hangs over my head, each and every day, as I continue to do the job for an increasingly hostile public, who are not educated or aware of the differences between Canada and the United States.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=RedFive] 

All that to say, my level of patience for members of the public screaming about brutality, accountability and transparency is zero. 
[/quote]

Well too bad. 

Police, like the military, need to be transparent, accountable for their actions and taken to task when they're guilty of brutality against citizens. 

Yea some citizens are going to unfairly scream police brutality anytime a cop looks at them sideways. That sucks, genuinely sorry you guys and girls have to deal with that bs.

There's plenty examples of police going too far and breaking the rules along with some pretty shoddy looking accountability and transparency.


----------



## OldSolduer

WHEN the criminals no longer can carry semi auto or fully automatic weapons, or have armor piercing ammunition or ballistic vests then the police can scale back the "militarization" thing.


----------



## RedFive

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Well too bad.
> 
> Police, like the military, need to be transparent, accountable for their actions and taken to task when they're guilty of brutality against citizens.
> 
> Yea some citizens are going to unfairly scream police brutality anytime a cop looks at them sideways. That sucks, genuinely sorry you guys and girls have to deal with that bs.
> 
> There's plenty examples of police going too far and breaking the rules along with some pretty shoddy looking accountability and transparency.



I should clarify that my patience for screams of additional layers of those things is zero. As is my tolerance for people who know literally nothing about it, and scream for what we already have because they're willfully ignorant.

I fully embrace and trust the system of accountability as it exists. It is there to keep us honest, and weed out those who do not deserve to stand in our ranks.


----------



## Jarnhamar

That's fair. Looks like I took your comment out of context sorry RedFive. 

I personally don't think additional layers are needed, I think we need to tighten up the ones we have now.


----------



## RedFive

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> That's fair. Looks like I took your comment out of context sorry RedFive.
> 
> I personally don't think additional layers are needed, I think we need to tighten up the ones we have now.



I would agree with you. A read through "Blamed and Broken" by Curt Petrovich will shake anybody's faith in the "system" as it were.


----------

