# Alleged police attack may nix soldier's Afghan tour



## George Wallace (23 Jul 2009)

Not really an Afghanistan related story, as much as a Fredericton NB story:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.


Alleged police attack may nix soldier's Afghan tour, he says

LINK

CBC  News      23/07/2009 4:53:41 PM



*
A Quebec soldier says his tour of duty in Afghanistan may be in jeopardy after he was roughed up by Fredericton police officers outside a downtown night club.
*

Luc Begin, who was in Fredericton celebrating his engagement, has filed a complaint over the incident with the local police and the New Brunswick Police Commission, alleging that he was assaulted.

Begin, normally based at CFB Valcartier in Quebec, told CBC News in an interview on Thursday that he is supposed to go to Afghanistan in October 2010. But the infantry officer said he suffered a broken vertebra in his back during the altercation and that could cost him his tour of duty.

"I feel bad because [going to Afghanistan] is part of my job," he said. "Serving my country just like those police - it's part of their job to protect people, not to beat them up."

Witnesses, including one with video footage, support Begin's story.

Just before 1 a.m. on Saturday, Charles LeBlanc, a local blogger, was walking in Fredericton's downtown bar district when he saw several police officers with Begin in front of Sweetwaters.

LeBlanc captured part of the incident with his video camera.

"He didn't resist. They walked him about 15 feet and they forced him on the ground," LeBlanc said.

In LeBlanc's video, a police officer is heard yelling, "Stop resisting," and Begin replies, "I'm not resisting."

The video shows two officers holding Begin while a third drives his knee into him at least four times.

Barry MacKnight, the chief of the Fredericton police, said on Thursday afternoon that the RCMP will conduct a criminal investigation into Begin's complaint.

MacKnight said it is important that the Begin probe be seen as impartial and "as open as possible."

A Fredericton city spokesman said one of the officers involved in the complaint has been suspended with pay.

Complaint filed

In a written complaint, Begin says he did nothing to provoke the reaction.

Begin, who is teaching at the infantry school at CFB Gagetown and is normally posted at CFB Valcartier in Quebec, said he was mistakenly identified by bar staff as a customer who had caused problems two weeks earlier.

As he was leaving the club, he said a police officer asked to speak with him. Begin said he tried to explain that he was not the person they were looking for, saying he was not in Fredericton when the previous incident happened.

He said he was thrown to the ground and police officers started to hit him and knee him.

Andrew Bedford, another witness of the incident, said he read Begin's complaint on CBCNews.ca.

"What he was saying matched up with what I saw, and that what happened wasn't justified," he said.

"They said he was resisting arrest. I didn't see any resisting arrest."


----------



## gaspasser (23 Jul 2009)

Sorry to hear about this and hope that his back heals properly and that he does get his chance to serve his country in the manner he wishes.
I think the only thing he resisted was an overpowering urge to kick the feces out of three asshat cops with his unarmed combat skills   :warstory:


----------



## chris_log (24 Jul 2009)

There's two sides to every story. I'm sure both will come out in good time.

On a completely unrelated note....Sweetwaters, ahh the memories.


----------



## 1feral1 (24 Jul 2009)

Prior to a deployment you got to be squeaky clean.

Your not going until you're on the plane, and that aint good enough until you're actually in theatre.

Booze can ruin lots of things including a $$ rewarding tour.

OWDU


----------



## VIChris (24 Jul 2009)

I've never understood the whole 'suspended with pay' as a punishment. I wish I could screw up at work and take a paid vacation while my bosses unscrew the situation. 

Here's to a speedy recovery for Begin, and a thorough investigation into the event.


----------



## Roy Harding (24 Jul 2009)

VIChris said:
			
		

> I've never understood the whole 'suspended with pay' as a punishment. I wish I could screw up at work and take a paid vacation while my bosses unscrew the situation.
> 
> Here's to a speedy recovery for Begin, and a thorough investigation into the event.



Police have many complaints filed against them.  MOST of them are unfounded.  In a case like this - it would decrease public confidence in, and respect for, the Police Service in question if the officer were to continue his public duties.  At the same time - the officer hasn't been proved Guilty of anything - he's only under investigation.  Thus - "suspension with pay".

If police officers were "suspended WITHOUT pay" every time there was a complaint against them - they'd be at the food bank just to keep their families fed.

IFF the officer is found to be at fault in this case - action will be taken at that time, not before.

Like someone else said earlier - I'll wait for the investigation to be finalized before I form an opinion.  Although my personal inclination is to believe the young CF officer involved - I've seen the police unfairly pilloried in the MSM far too often to believe anything regarding them when a story is initially published.

Roy


----------



## VIChris (24 Jul 2009)

I understand the many complaints, but I don't see why a person can't continue to work while under investigation. I mean really, if someone knows people are looking over their shoulder, they're likely to keep clean in their day to day duties. If you're going to be paying someone, get some work out of them. Call me old fashioned, but that's how I see it.

Edited to add:

As far as who should be under investigation, how about the bar staff who involve police when they aren't sure whom they're dealing with? It sounds like the problem started there, and may have been exacerbated by overzealous police.


----------



## SupersonicMax (24 Jul 2009)

Here's the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwejxZ0VzTA


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Jul 2009)

Looks good to me......you refuse to place/submit your arms out to the side while on your stomach and the SOP is to treat you like you are armed.



			
				VIChris said:
			
		

> I've never understood the whole 'suspended with pay' as a punishment. I wish I could screw up at work and take a paid vacation while my bosses unscrew the situation.
> 
> Here's to a speedy recovery for Begin, and a thorough investigation into the event.



..and here's to you being an idiot with that "punishment" statement.


----------



## medaid (25 Jul 2009)

Keep in mind that Police officers make mistakes. However, once they're engaged, their safety comes in first and foremost. Until you are restrained, you are a safety concern. 

Anyways... wasn't there won't comment anymore.


----------



## Armymedic (25 Jul 2009)

I have never been in law enforcement of any type, so this here is my question:

How does multiple knees strikes to the back, or any other strike to the body like that (other than to the back of the head) subdue someone whom you want to lay still?

My though is that is I were in the receiver position I would be doing my best to dodge, block or repel those repeated body blows and not be submissive.


----------



## VIChris (25 Jul 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Looks good to me......you refuse to place/submit your arms out to the side while on your stomach and the SOP is to treat you like you are armed.
> 
> ..and here's to you being an idiot with that "punishment" statement.



I fail to see how my comment earned me the idiot comment. It's a fair question. He's not being suspended because his superiors think he did a good job. It's happening because there is concern he acted inapropriately during the arrest. It's a disciplinary action. 

As was pointed out above, however, it's not done so much to punish the officer, but to appease public perception during the investigation. I can see the intent as being sound, though I personally disagree with the means. I think he should still be allowed to work while under investigation. And I do think an investigation is warranted in this case.


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Jul 2009)

There is no disciplinary action warranted until the investigation is completed and charges laid, or not.  The suspension is an administrative action pending the outcome of that investigation.  Innocent until proved guilty and all that other weak kneed democratic bullcrap.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jul 2009)

SFB said:
			
		

> I have never been in law enforcement of any type, so this here is my question:
> 
> How does multiple knees strikes to the back, or any other strike to the body like that (other than to the back of the head) subdue someone whom you want to lay still?



Actually, *done correctly*, a quick knee strike just above the shoulder blades will involuntarilly make the shoulders rise and the arms swing out slightly making a grab possible and *thats* what they want, control of the arms, then he can lie still all night if he wishes.................


----------



## the_girlfirend (25 Jul 2009)

The guy is lying on the ground... with 3-4 police officers over him... I believe that the kneeing part was wrong... the guy was not submitting yet, but he seemed to be dominated enough.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (25 Jul 2009)

SFB said:
			
		

> I have never been in law enforcement of any type, so this here is my question:
> 
> How does multiple knees strikes to the back, or any other strike to the body like that (other than to the back of the head) subdue someone whom you want to lay still?
> 
> My though is that is I were in the receiver position I would be doing my best to dodge, block or repel those repeated body blows and not be submissive.



Agreed.I watched the video and cringed when he started MMA style knee's.As said before there are two sides to every story,but I don't understand how 3 people couldn't detain him without doing that much damage.Two people holding me down while one beat on me... I agree SFB I would be doing the same.

Not to mention if they ruined my career with medical release not to mention the missed tour. I would defiantly get legal advice.

Alas I hope the legal system get's all the answers to this unfortunate event.


----------



## PMedMoe (25 Jul 2009)

The video is sort of useless.  We only see what happened _after_ he's on the ground.  Although, I agree the 3-4 shots in the back were excessive, what was the situation _before_ he was laying down?


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jul 2009)

I have zero remorse for people who resist the police. They tell you to stop and get on the ground, you listen.

That said having been on both sides of the "Stop resisting! youtube cover your ass" shouting I can tell you that even when you are on your back trying to do what you're told, having 3 or 4 cops on top of you pulling you pushing you grabbing you kicking you it's very hard to just go completely limp and do what their saying.
It's unnatural.
Your bodies natural reaction to someone kicking you in the guts is to tense up and curl up in a ball or atleast protect yourself.   I have bad shoulders,if a cop is going to grab my arms I'm going to subconsciously resist a little and try and lessen the force their using because the alternative is having them pop my shoulder out of socket, again. 
Your first reaction is to protect yourself, your second is to follow instructions.

If the soldier was being a douche bag then I hope he loses his tour and the cop gets put back on the job, if the cops were out of line (and seeing the video I'm inclined to feel they were) I hope the cop gets punished and the department made to pay the amount of money the soldier  is missing out on serving overseas.


----------



## muskrat89 (25 Jul 2009)

We all cringe when members of the public judge actions (out of context) by trained soldiers, under stressful conditions. It always fascinates me that these kinds of threads get as much traffic as they do, on here. Just sayin


----------



## X-mo-1979 (25 Jul 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> The video is sort of useless.  We only see what happened _after_ he's on the ground.  Although, I agree the 3-4 shots in the back were excessive, what was the situation _before_ he was laying down?



They explain the situation on that blog.Don't say nothing about him doing anything.However I have to say after seeing media reports coming out of Afghanistan, I have little to no time for their false information,lack of rebuttals.

As SFB said I aint a cop,but does beating someone usually usually calm the situation down?Or should three appearing larger men be able to subdue 1 unarmed person?

One nice thing (which can be the downfall too)of having people with cheap compact video,is these things are documented.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jul 2009)

3-4 HARD knee strikes?  I've done MMA and fuck, those looked pretty harsh to me.  Glad I wasn't on the other end of them.  I'd say the cops are lucky a bunch of army guys didn't see that and pouond them all into the pavement.  

This one isn't black and white.  Sweets does have trouble with army guys from time to time.  Add to that, university students too.  Some doorman IDd the Sir wrongfully as a troublemaker from a few weeks ago (meaning to me, they thought he was barred).  The whole incident is central to a wrong call by the doorman.  Add some booze to the equation.  You have an Army Officer, probably half a jag on, being wrongfully IDd (and knows he is right), probably thrown out of the bar.  Heated discussion happens, cops are called and told "we have some army guy giving us shit".  Cops in Freddy are used to this (I am remembeing the summer in the mid-90s or so when the Army basically cleaned The Hilltop one Tuesday night after some doormen thru a soldier down the stairs.).  Now everyone's adrenalin is pumpin'.  The bouncers made the call on the wrong guy though, which caused it all.

It is a messy one, but I think the cop who delivered the MULTIPLE knee strikes is going to be the one left without a chair when the music stops on this one.  If it were me on the ground in similar circumstances, I be asking my lawyer about assault charges on the cop.


----------



## chris_log (25 Jul 2009)

Video's don't always tell the whole story. That being said, having been on the 'other' side (albeit not as a cop) I can tell you that it ain't easy to subdue someone (even with 2-3 people doing it) who is ticked off, a bit drunk and aggressive. Knee strikes are a very effective way of getting someone out of the fight. 

The only reason this received any media attention at all (soldiers are good at making trouble in bars, and get tossed around regularily) is because this guy went to a reporter about it. 

Edit: I watched the video again and caught on to something, if you notice in the first few seconds the cops are grabbing his arm and he keeps yanking it back underneath him. If you feel you are being unjustly arrested and want to fight back...well, give 'er (this guy obviously did). But be prepared for the results, the police will ALWAYS win the initial fight. Always. 

I understand the desire to 'circle the wagons' to protect one of our own. But, had this been a non-military guy we would all be saying that 'he should have just done what he was told' and 'he probably deserved it'. It's only because he's one of ours that we now questions the police actions. The Freddie police have lots of experience dealing with army guys, and to be honest, we are terrible at bars. As a rule soldiers (yes, even today) like to get into trouble at bars. I'm sure the MP's here can attest to that. 

The guy was resisiting arrest and, frankly, deserved the knees (although straight to the back...thats brutal). 

And if it makes anyone feel better, I took down an off-duty cop one night at work...hard. So we're even now.


----------



## J.J (25 Jul 2009)

> We all cringe when members of the public judge actions (out of context) by trained soldiers, under stressful conditions. It always fascinates me that these kinds of threads get as much traffic as they do, on here. Just sayin


You know Muskrat you are cannot be more right. I hear bitching and moaning on here about the public judging your actions while you do your job. Nothing is more infuriating or amateur to Monday morning quarterback someones else's action when you don't know the job or when you do not have the complete story. 


> "I'd say the cops are lucky a bunch of army guys didn't see that and pouond them all into the pavement".


 Some people are seeming to advocate the next time you the see an member of the military getting arrested other members should swarm the cops. The next thing you would read is several army guys getting shot/tased etc because of their actions. 
Knee strikes are taught universally in all aspects of Law Enforcement Defensive Tactics training. It can be used as a distraction technique or as a form of pain compliance.
The moral of the story is if you are given a command by an Law Enforcement Officer you comply and when things have calmed down you explain your side. If the soldier was innocent and had done nothing as he claimed, he would be released and minus a few injuries.

Piper, 


> And if it makes anyone feel better, I took down an off-duty cop one night at work...hard. So we're even now.


  
Did it make you feel like a man or what? In this thread you were sounding reasonable and responsible then you fall back to your regular ole self and say this asinine statement. It was good to see the same Piper we know come out...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jul 2009)

WR said:
			
		

> Some people are seeming to advocate the next time you the see an member of the military getting arrested other members should swarm the cops. The next thing you would read is several army guys getting shot/tased etc because of their actions.



I am not advocating it, but soldiers are loyal, right?  If you see a superior (that you respect and have alot of time for) being what you percieve (especially while on the piss) as being attacked, someone is likely to "act".  Soldiers usually travel in groups in F-town, from my time there.  Do the math.  I am not advocating, if thats the way it came across.



> Knee strikes are taught universally in all aspects of *Law Enforcement Defensive Tactics training*. It can be used as a distraction technique or as a form of pain compliance.  The moral of the story is if you are given a command by an Law Enforcement Officer you comply and when things have calmed down you explain your side. If the soldier was innocent and had done nothing as he claimed, he would be released and minus a few injuries.



I don't think there is any indication, and it wasn't obvious on the video, that the accused/CF Officer was "struggling".  

My moral of the story...if you are going to knee people repeatedly when it isn't warranted (say, like when there is one suspect on the ground and several officers on top of him), be prepared to be called on it and yes, be prepared for someone to haul out a "gadget" and film you.  

This all started with a mistaken ID by a bouncer, yet I don't see you pointing the finger that way, you just want to defend the actions of the cops.  Isn't that being alittle selective?  The CF Officer who was kicked out and then arrested was NOT the guy they said he was.  

Now, I am not and never was a LEO, but I don't think you have to be to have an opinion, do you?   8)

The bouncers screwed up by fingering the wrong guy, the CF Officer probably should have just left Sweets and went for a pint at Dolans or something, and the cop shouldn't have knee'd him multiple times.  But...in the end, the CF Officer was wrongly ID'd by the bar staff, and thats what started it all.


----------



## J.J (25 Jul 2009)

What I do see is someone who is not complying with what he is being told. If you look at the very beginning of the tape what you do see is someone on his back reaching up for the cop. The cop then is giving him commands, for which he is not complying with in the least. The knee's I believe were necessary. If the knee's were placed in the centre of the back along the spine, that is unnecessary, but with the struggle and someone twisting it is very very difficult to have surgical precision.


> I am not advocating it, but soldiers are loyal, right?  If you see a superior (that you respect and have alot of time for) being what you perceive (especially while on the piss) as being attacked, someone is likely to "act".  Soldiers usually travel in groups in F-town, from my time there.  Do the math.  I am not advocating, if thats the way it came across


If they act like that, maybe they have issues while drinking and should abstain from it. If you cannot act in a responsible adult manner when drinking, you shouldn't drink....just sayin


> This all started with a mistaken ID by a bouncer, yet I don't see you pointing the finger that way, you just want to defend the actions of the cops.  Isn't that being alittle selective?  The CF Officer who was kicked out and then arrested was NOT the guy they said he was.


What do you expect in the heat of the moment? A sworn statement taken by a notary? A makeshift courtroom in the street? We get incorrect information or out right lies on a regular basis. What a responsible person does is listen to what they are being asked of and comply with what you are told.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jul 2009)

WR said:
			
		

> What I do see is someone who is not complying with what he is being told. If you look at the very beginning of the tape what you do see is someone on his back reaching up for the cop. The cop then is giving him commands, for which he is not complying with in the least. The knee's I believe were necessary. If the knee's were placed in the centre of the back along the spine, that is unnecessary, but with the struggle and someone twisting it is very very difficult to have surgical precision.



See, now I thought it looked like he was putting his left arm "arm and back" ie. complying, offering the arm to be cuffed.  *shrugs*  



> If they act like that, maybe they have issues while drinking and should abstain from it. If you cannot act in a responsible adult manner when drinking, you shouldn't drink....just sayin



I've seen similar things like that before, and at the bar in question...thats what made me think of it.  Troops out on the piss, more booze than brain...



> What do you expect in the heat of the moment? A sworn statement taken by a notary? A makeshift courtroom in the street? We get incorrect information or out right lies on a regular basis. What a responsible person does is listen to what they are being asked of and comply with what you are told.



Either I wrote the point poorly in my post, or you mis-read it...I wasn't saying anything about the cops at all, just pointing out the fact that the whole thing stems from a mistake on the bar staff's part.

Having been a bouncer before, I know the drill when another doorman comes up to you and says  "hey that guy is barred".  You might not have two clues who he is, if he is barred, you take the word of the other guy.

I've also tossed people out who tried to smash the doors, etc after, being all full of liquid-stupid, had a go with them until the cops arrived and all that stuff.  I've seen people resisting and struggling before and, from my experience, it was always pretty obvious.

I also admit NONE of that makes me an expert, just another guy who wasn't there with an opinion.


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Jul 2009)

Ever been falsely accused of something?  What was your reaction?  Ever been swarmed by three guys all yelling at you to stop resisting, even when you really aren't?  What was your reaction?  Fight or flight is an automatic response, and once the situation escalates, you're just along for the ride.  And drinking responsibly is easy enough, but one of the first things booze effects is your decision making ability, whether you're arsefaced or not.  I'm not making excuses for the guy, but until you've got three goons piled on in the real world, not a training exercise, you'll never know what was going on in his head.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jul 2009)

WTF didn't people understand about my post where I said the moment he pulled his arms under him he is to be treated like he's armed? 

Next time any of you do an IED course ask if pushing on the little button is an acceptable way to test if the device is explosive or not..................clowns.


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Jul 2009)

Fell better, butthead?


----------



## Haggis (25 Jul 2009)

Just to set the record straight a bit.  This soldier is a Van Doo Pte, not an officer, and is on incremental staff at the Infantry School.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jul 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Fell better, butthead?





Nope,................I also explained why we knee in the back when the arms are tucked under, did Piper [and others] read that before his "brutal" comment?
Of course not.

Circle the wagons I guess,.....police intruders into our world. :


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jul 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Nope,................I also explained why we knee in the back when the arms are tucked under, did Piper [and others] read that before his "brutal" comment?
> Of course not.
> 
> Circle the wagons I guess,.....police intruders into our world. :



Not circling the wagons, but...if he had his arms "under" him, would you have to knee "down" and not "right to left"?  I can't see it clearly, but I had thought the guy was on his side and being knee'd in the back.  If his arms were under him, he'd of had to of been on his stomach, meaning his back would be facing up(ish).

(Its a serious question)


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jul 2009)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Not circling the wagons, but...if he had his arms "under" him, would you have to knee "down" and not "right to left"?  I can't see it clearly, but I had thought the guy was on his side and being knee'd in the back.  If his arms were under him, he'd of had to of been on his stomach, meaning his back would be facing up(ish).
> 
> (Its a serious question)





Agreed,
And that is why I did this, 


			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> *done correctly*



However once stuff hits the fan *correctly* gives way a lot of the times to *whatever might work*.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jul 2009)

seen


----------



## Garett (25 Jul 2009)

Having lived in Fredericton pretty much all my life and having been in the CF since 1998 in the Fredericton/Gagetown area, there is a bit of tension between the Fredericton City Police and the Army. There have been soldiers garrisoned in Fredericton for a very long time, British and Canadian. When base Gagetown was built, the city council refused to allow officer PMQs to be built within the Fredericton city limits. 

Every week there are soldiers in court in Fredericton and Burton for doing stupid shit.  I've seen soldiers act like spoiled, naughty children in downtown Fredericton. Many of them demand to be treated like they are Victoria Cross winners when they have a year or less in the army. If soldiers want to be treated better in Fredericton then they should police themselves better because many of their peers are ruining it for them by getting charged with DUI, assault, drug use, rape, etc..... Too many times I've seen soldiers behaving badly to the point where they are a liability to their unit and their peers don't give a shit. 

I've seen police officers intentionally looking for a fight in the downtown bar area. If they find one its usually with someone who is drunk and we all know who comes out on top. Both organizations have their ass-clowns. Overall I still respect them because every day they're on duty they're in danger, we can't say that as soldiers.


----------



## Occam (25 Jul 2009)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Not circling the wagons, but...if he had his arms "under" him, would you have to knee "down" and not "right to left"?  I can't see it clearly, but I had thought the guy was on his side and being knee'd in the back.  If his arms were under him, he'd of had to of been on his stomach, meaning his back would be facing up(ish).
> 
> (Its a serious question)



+1.

He was clearly on his side, with his left arm on the bottom and to the front (across his face).  The officer who later delivers the knee shots was holding his right arm, preventing him from rolling onto his stomach.  There is no way in hell anyone could have had reason to believe he was armed.  There was also no way in hell, being on his side, that he'd be able to get his left arm behind him to allow them to cuff him.  The officer delivering the knee blows was clearly doing it in a sideways motion to an individual laying on his side.  If he was trying to push him onto his stomach, he'd never have been able to get knee shots in.  To me, it looks like the cops got him into a position where there was no way that he could comply with their directions, whether he wanted to or not.  The witnesses said the Pte and the constable were talking, and then all of a sudden he's thrown to the ground.

Where I come from, that's assault.  I'll be very surprised, when all is said and done, if there is any evidence that the officer had grounds to go physical with him - based on the witness statements.

I'm usually extremely supportive of the police, but something stinks in this incident.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jul 2009)

I guess you must have got the high definition video?




			
				Occam said:
			
		

> There is no way in hell anyone could have had reason to believe he was armed.



I'm glad the folks I work with would never be so complacent........


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Jul 2009)

Circle the wagons I guess,.....police people who dare to question LEO/CO conduct intruders into our world. :


See what I did there?


ADDED*  Ultimately, I have no dog in this fight.  I wasn't there, this guy, nor the cops in question are friends of mine.  I have seen first hand the overzealous use of force by cops, in fact our little town is famous for it.  I'll just bow out now.


----------



## Occam (25 Jul 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I guess you must have got the high definition video?



It looks clear enough on the video to me.  If he was on his stomach, then he's got the most flexible shoulder joint I've ever seen, to be waving that arm around _upwards_ in the air like he was.



> I'm glad the folks I work with would never be so complacent........



He's on his side.  His left shoulder is to the ground, with his arm in front of his face.  Nobody is making any attempt to restrain it, but it's obvious he can't do anything with it either.  His right arm is being held by the cop who later delivers the knee blows.  Where is the threat from some sort of weapon supposed to come from?

If the cop was trying to _*push*_ him onto his stomach to get him cuffed, please explain how one can be pushing against something and cranking off knee shots at the same time?  The laws of physics say you'd fall flat on your face after the first shot.  To deliver the knee shots and retain balance, you either have to hold him stationary or be pulling him towards you - which would have been trying to pull him onto his back.


----------



## Roy Harding (25 Jul 2009)

CSI has got nothing on us, does it?

This will all come out in the investigation.  As I said earlier, my inclination (as a former soldier) is to support the soldier in question - at the same time, I have a long and abiding respect for Canadian law officers, not mention a long experience (personal and otherwise) with soldiers on the piss interacting with the local constabulary.

I haven't and won't form an opinion until I _*know*_ more.


Roy


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jul 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Circle the wagons I guess,.....police people who dare to question LEO/CO conduct intruders into our world. :
> 
> 
> See what I did there?



Made a fool of yourself?        Oh,......you _meant_ the other thing.

Yup, I see it and yes, probably a little. However just as I have NEVER armchair quarterbacked something that happened over there, I am a bit touchy when the same is not recipricated I guess.

Bottom line is that video is exactly what I would expect, and want, to see happen outside a bar, late at night with drunken people mulling around,.....swift and, if required, brutal.  The only thing I  would have done *different [in 20/20 hind vision] is got his ass in the back of the car and away from the scene a lot of faster in order to keep things quiet.

* Bearing in mind that I am not a Cop nor play one on TV.


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Jul 2009)

So far in one thread I'm a fool and a clown.  Guess you win, 2-1 in overtime at the name calling game.  I intentionally withheld any opinions in this thread.


----------



## chris_log (25 Jul 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Nope,................I also explained why we knee in the back when the arms are tucked under, did Piper [and others] read that before his "brutal" comment?
> Of course not.



Oh come on. 

Did you not read my post? I agree with the officer's actions one hundred percent. All I was saying was that getting kneed in the back in brutal, it hurts like hell and can really mess you up (it's happened to me, I was walking odd for a week). And again, had you read my post you'd see that I said that the officer was in the right doing what he did. The guy was continually yanking his hands back underneath his body each time the officer tried to restrain him, so the police officer did what he was trained to do. I doubt we'll see much else come out of this as far as the cops getting charged. 



> Did it make you feel like a man or what? In this thread you were sounding reasonable and responsible then you fall back to your regular ole self and say this asinine statement. It was good to see the same Piper we know come out...



Did you not notice the smiley thingy? Trying to inject some humour in a thread where people's posts are rapidly heading downhill. 

And for the record, the guy punched me in the face, so ya, I did feel good doing it. And even better when the local police dragged him off. 



> Bottom line is that video is exactly what I would expect, and want, to see happen outside a bar, late at night with drunken people mulling around,.....swift and, if required, brutal.  The only thing I would have done *different [in 20/20 hind vision] is got his *** in the back of the car and away from the scene a lot of faster in order to keep things quiet.



Again, agreed (try not to be such a dick to me this time, when I agree with you). The police's job, late at night in the bar district, surrounded by hundreds or thousands of drunk idiots whose cap-hating side seems to come out is extremely hard. This guy was fighting back, causing a scene and people were gathering and getting aggressive. They took him down quickly and got him into a car. I'd say they handled it exactly how they should have. Quickly, professionally, and safely.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jul 2009)

Actually Kat the "clown" was general and the "fool" had a smiley so...........


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Jul 2009)

The biggest problem with the video is that it starts AFTER the Officers' Decision Point to take the action they did.  

No matter people's inclination to side one way or another (prior to completion of an investigation), there is no way we know what actions the soldier took that resulted in the Officers' actions.  Based on that alone, I'm making no judgments one way or the other.  That said, I note Bruce's point about "treat as armed"...it is plausible that, soldier or not, the individual could have had a concealed weapon (remember those knife belt buckles anyone?) and until the subject was under full control (meaning hands secured, behind the back) he could have posed a threat.  Having had the opportunity to go on many ride-alongs with LE friends and seen some ass-hattery by people who normally would be considered upstanding citizens, while not judging, I am finding myself a bit more sympathetic to the LE in this situation, such as we can see.  If the videographer had earlier coverage, am sure we would all like to see it to have a better understanding of how the situation escalated as it did.

Mein zwei centen
G2G


----------



## Occam (25 Jul 2009)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The biggest problem with the video is that it starts AFTER the Officers' Decision Point to take the action they did.



There's no issue with that.  I'll even play devil's advocate and say for argument's sake that the officers had reason to go physical with him.



> No matter people's inclination to side one way or another (prior to completion of an investigation), there is no way we know what actions the soldier took that resulted in the Officers' actions.  Based on that alone, I'm making no judgments one way or the other.  That said, I note Bruce's point about "treat as armed"...it is plausible that, soldier or not, the individual could have had a concealed weapon (remember those knife belt buckles anyone?) and until the subject was under full control (meaning hands secured, behind the back) he could have posed a threat.  Having had the opportunity to go on many ride-alongs with LE friends and seen some ass-hattery by people who normally would be considered upstanding citizens, while not judging, I am finding myself a bit more sympathetic to the LE in this situation, such as we can see.  If the videographer had earlier coverage, am sure we would all like to see it to have a better understanding of how the situation escalated as it did.
> 
> Mein zwei centen
> G2G



Earlier coverage would be irrelevant.  Even if there were reason to take him to the ground, there's enough on the video to make one question why knee shots were necessary.  Try putting the video into full screen mode.

For the first 10 seconds of the video, there are two officers on him.  One, in front of him (as he's laying on his left side), not being particularly helpful at all, and one behind him, restraining his right arm and trying to push him onto his stomach.  Another officer (bald) appears to be looking around nonchalantly before entering the fray and taking up position at his head.  At that point, the officer behind the victim starts delivering the knee shots.

The guy is on his side, being pushed by the cop behind him.  He can't roll forward onto his belly, because his left arm is in the way and there's a cop immediately in front of him.  So why the knee shots, when it's impossible for the guy to comply?

When he's finally cuffed, he's still on his left side, as you can see when the officer picks him up by his right arm before shoving him into the car.

The problem wasn't the fact that he was arrested.  The problem was the fact that it appears that the cops put him into a position where he couldn't comply, and he got a bunch of knee shots for nothing.

Sorry, the video is pretty compelling and if you look hard enough, you can see the position of everyone's hands, the orientation of the shoulders, head and arms of the Pte, and the direction the knee shots came from.  I'll wait for the investigation, but it sure looks like there was a lot left to be desired in the methods they used to bring him into custody.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jul 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> Earlier coverage would be irrelevant.  Even if there were reason to take him to the ground, there's enough on the video to make one question why knee shots were necessary.  Try putting the video into full screen mode.



HolyBat ManF%$k....the knee shots have been explained over and friggin' over again.  Try reading.

Let me guess, you would rather have the next continuum and taken the chance of having either his arm or leg shattered by an ASP strike?


----------



## mariomike (25 Jul 2009)

I just know what I read in the papers ( in this case, The Daily Gleaner ). 
This caught my attention: "When he awoke again, Begin said he was in the back of an ambulance where he had been intubated.
He said when the breathing tube was taken out, he asked the paramedic to help him because police had assaulted him.
"He just opened the door and called the cops on me that 'he was faking; take him back to jail,' " Begin said.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Jul 2009)

Intubated?   ???  At what point did he get bagged...or loaded into a bus?


----------



## chris_log (25 Jul 2009)

Well, judging by what I see on the video, what this guy has said to the press and what I know about soldier's conduct in bars and police use of force....I suspect that this guy is trying to avoid something (perhaps some internal disciplinary action) by taking his story to the press (he wouldn't be the first person, or soldier, to do that). 

Just my suspicion, and I doubt I'll get confirmation one way or the other. 

It's funny, if one goes through threads in the 'Security and Emergency Services Forum' (or whatever its called) and read posts in other similar 'police beatdown' threads most of the posts are in favour of the police, including those made by people here who are crying foul at the police. And this case there's pretty clear cut evidence (video) as to why the police did what they did. 

Being a soldier isn't carte blanch to do what you want or get off the hook for things civvy-side. There is no reason for us to consider the police's actions here any differently then we would if the 'suspect' was non-military. We in the CF should be the most sympathetic to police use of force incidents as we too find ourselves on the receiving end of armchair quarterbacking from our detractors. And the police have enough of those, as we can see by the posts by some people here we're all good and happy with the cops until they do something against 'us', and then the floodgates open.


----------



## Roy Harding (25 Jul 2009)

I agree with Piper here.

Well articulated, Piper - I take back what I was thinking about you in another thread.   


Roy


----------



## mariomike (25 Jul 2009)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Intubated?   ???  At what point did he get bagged...or loaded into a bus?



http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/front/article/739053
"bus"?  :rofl:


----------



## Occam (25 Jul 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> HolyBat ManF%$k....the knee shots have been explained over and friggin' over again.  Try reading.
> 
> Let me guess, you would rather have the next continuum and taken the chance of having either his arm or leg shattered by an ASP strike?



Yeah, I did read it.  WR said "It can be used as a distraction technique or as a form of pain compliance".

My question to you, or anyone else watching the video for that matter, is this:  Distract him to what end, or force him to comply with _what_, precisely?

Looking at the video and putting myself in the Pte's shoes, my first thoughts would be "I'm not resisting" and "If you're trying to roll me onto my stomach so you can cuff me, then tell your eggheaded partner who has his knees in my midsection and is doing absolutely nothing to get the hell out of the way so I can continue rolling".

I mean, really - one officer is pushing him one way, while the other is sitting around like a bump on a log preventing him from moving in the direction he's being pushed.  How in God's name is he supposed to comply??


----------



## chris_log (25 Jul 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> Yeah, I did read it.  WR said "It can be used as a distraction technique or as a form of pain compliance".
> 
> My question to you, or anyone else watching the video for that matter, is this:  Distract him to what end, or force him to comply with _what_, precisely?
> 
> ...



Did I miss something? I thought he was an officer teaching at the infantry school.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jul 2009)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Just to set the record straight a bit.  This soldier is a Van Doo Pte, not an officer, and is on incremental staff at the Infantry School.



       +
http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/front/article/739053


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Jul 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/front/article/739053
> "bus"?  :rofl:



Thanks Mario.  Yeah, I figured you'd get a laugh out of that.   ;D

Cheers
G2G


----------



## mariomike (25 Jul 2009)

Thanks for taking it in the spirit intended, G2G! :cheers:


----------



## chris_log (25 Jul 2009)

I know I'm going to catch flak for this, but regardless;

I watched the video again just now and am starting to draw some more conclusions (keep in mind, these are only my own). I first thought this guy was an instructor at the inf school (regardless of him being an officer or MCpl and up, although I could have sworn the article said he was a Captain) which said to me that he would have been older, much more eperienced and hopefully more mature. Now I find out he's incremental staff at the school as a Pte (I'm going to assume in a job like enemy force, driver etc) which means (to me) that he is younger, less experienced, less mature and right in that demographic of the army that likes to stir up shyte at bars.

I then noticed, after the 'incident' in the video the people that were gathered/gathering around to confront the police. Their style of dress and demeanor immediately raised red flags (to me). Are these his buddies (again, I would assume so, why else would they get so involved)? Notice the guy right from the beginning yelling at the cops (tall white dude), dressed in that pseudo-thug look (which happens to be quite popular in Quebec, which means to me he would be one of his buddies). The other people who gathered around also were dressed 'urban' (a demographic known for 'cop-hating'). Same goes for his girlfriend/fiance...she just has 'that look' about her which tells me she was NOT trying to diffuse to situation. 

Am I jumping to some unfair conclusions? Maybe. But I have a funny feeling there is WAY more to this then our friend  is letting on and that this was probably his fault. Am I being unfair here, or is anyone else seeing what I'm seeing?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jul 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> For the first 10 seconds of the video, there are two officers on him.  One, in front of him (as he's laying on his left side), not being particularly helpful at all, and one behind him, restraining his right arm and trying to push him onto his stomach.  Another officer (bald) appears to be looking around nonchalantly before entering the fray and taking up position at his head.  At that point, the officer behind the victim starts delivering the knee shots.
> 
> The guy is on his side, being pushed by the cop behind him.  He can't roll forward onto his belly, because his left arm is in the way and there's a cop immediately in front of him.  So why the knee shots, when it's impossible for the guy to comply?



Are you sure you're watching the same video?

The "bald guy" left him as a greater threat appears to be coming from behind them........if you had any clue whatsoever you would know what a "rearguard" is. 

The other Policeman is not "in the way", he is allowing the first Officer to assume control, again if you had a clue about restrainment you would know the fastest way to hurt someone bad is for too many hands to be pulling in too many directions. Once it became obvious one officer was not going to restrain this guy and the bouncers [if thats who they are] appear to have the Policemen's back then they returned to the task at hand,

The more I watch the more I think "textbook".


----------



## Strike (25 Jul 2009)

All blame aside (whether it belongs to the police or to the soldier), if the soldier does indeed have back injuries in the form of broken bones and/or soft tissue damage (but more wrt the fractures), it would probably be in the best interest of the Freddie Police to review the technique or knee strikes with their members.  The last thing they need is to have a bunch of their own people being charged with aggravated assault.

Knee strikes can be very useful but can be very dangerous when done improperly.  They have to be practiced (like every other self-defense/submission) endlessly in every position imaginable to ensure the best results with the least amount of damage.


----------



## Burrows (25 Jul 2009)

Just food for thought and civil discussion:

- Everyone can interpret things differently, including officers and the arrested at the scene.
- Age is one of the worst stereotypers.
- The video only shows part of the story, and articles have been biased.
- From what I've seen, nothing has been released from the bar/PD countering the witnesses/victim statement.  While the PD may be investigating, the bar doesn't necessarily have the control or requirement to remain silent.

Now, let's stop calling each other pissheads, taking personal digs, and the like and be civil.

Army.ca Staff


----------



## Occam (26 Jul 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Are you sure you're watching the same video?
> 
> The "bald guy" left him as a greater threat appears to be coming from behind them........if you had any clue whatsoever you would know what a "rearguard" is.



Are _you_ watching the same video?

There are two uniformed officers and three bouncers in white shirts performing "rearguard" - to protect them against two civilians (one in jean shorts/white shirt and one shorter guy in black pants/green shirt.  If those five can't handle the threat of two guys who weren't even being aggressive, I don't know that the bald cop was going to make much of a difference to the situation.  To me, it looked like he was looking to get physical with someone, and when it became clear there wasn't going to be a confrontation behind him, he went looking for it with the subject on the ground - who was caught between a rock and a hard place being unable to offer up hands to get cuffed because of the position he got shoved into.



> The other Policeman is not "in the way", he is allowing the first Officer to assume control, again if you had a clue about restrainment you would know the fastest way to hurt someone bad is for too many hands to be pulling in too many directions.



Which is precisely what happened.  The officer to the left of the subject isn't doing a whole hell of a lot to restrain him, and isn't even looking at the subject half of the time.  The cop on the right (the one that later delivers the knee shots) is clearly pushing the subject away from his body, trying to get him on his stomach - which ain't gonna happen if there is someone on the other side preventing him from rolling over.  Then the bald cop moves to the subject's head to allow the other cop to deliver knee blows because he got the subject into a position where he couldn't comply even if he wanted to.



> Once it became obvious one officer was not going to restrain this guy and the bouncers [if thats who they are] appear to have the Policemen's back then they returned to the task at hand,
> 
> The more I watch the more I think "textbook".



The more I watch, the more I think "Keystone Kops".  We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, Bruce.  Like I said, I normally back the police 110%, but the way I see it there's just a little too much gratuitous violence being laid down on the lad.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Jul 2009)

So now everyone, that wasn't there, has given their expert, life experienced answer on how a situation that they know, personally, nothing about should have been handled, we'll take a breather.

Threads here are based on facts, not conjecture, nor half videos of a situation. They are not here for conjecture, or for chest thumping adolescents to rant how they took down the Man.

No more Monday morning quarterbacks. No more barrack room lawyers. If you weren't there, you have no reason to comment.

So we'll lock this until someone can give a Mod enough solid evidence to allow their post to be made, which will likely be confined to transcripts coming out of the trial proceedings.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jul 2009)

I am posting this to give some professional perspective to this thread. zipperhead cop writes:

Wow, coming late into this thread I am struck by what a disappointing showing of idle conjecture and speculation I am reading.  I guess "Don't question the boots on the ground" isn't universal.  

Points to consider.
A LEO goes out, every shift, and knows in his heart that he could die.  We know this because of the great many of us who get killed by idiots for no particularly good reason.  Criminals make a choice to be criminals and it is their life.  We have a job.  Other than the military, where can your job have people wanting to kill you? (Call takers are not part of this) Criminals TRAIN in ways to kill a police officer.  Their sad, useless lives are somehow made better if they get the "street cred" of ending one of our lives.  One of the tried and true ways to do that is to pull your hands in tight and as the officer is trying to gain control of your arms, come up with a knife or a gun and try to take him out.  We don't know if the drunken jackass we are dealing with is a wanted serial killer.  Hell, Charles Ng was arrested by The Bay floor walkers in Calgary.  I'm sure they didn't know who they were dealing with either.  It is my job to make sure my partner and I make it home at the end of our shift.  Full stop.  

There is a critical time period between the moment a bad guy knows he is going to be arrested to the time he is under physical control.  During that time frame, while he knows the gig is up and he is not actually restrained is one of the most dangerous times for us.  The bad guy is still thinking, plotting, looking at escape routes, deciding if he can take us or not.  So at such time as we need to put the grab on anyone, until they are under physical control they are a threat to us.  

Another point to consider.
At such time as someone is not being compliant we are entitled to use as much force is necessary to affect the arrest.  In this case, it would have been perfectly justifiable to step back and pepper spray this guy.  I promise you, I would rather have broken ribs than be sprayed again.  

Yet another point to consider.
The video conveniently starts when force is being used on the guy.  Nothing leading up to it.  Nothing with regards to what was said, who got warned, how many chances the guy had to comply.  Rather suspicious to me.  We also don't put people on the ground just for fun, and someone has to be doing something threatening or resistive for that to even occur. So the editted out dynamics that happened before the guy got grounded are pretty pertinent.  

Over and above this incident, I really do not get the odd subculture that exists in the military that seems to think that in order to be hard as fuck you have to be against the police.  Maybe it's some sort of alpha wolf thing.  Maybe too many dudes have been locked up when they were jacked in big cities and would have been fine in their small towns.  Who knows?  But I can assure you it is tedious and lame.  Police could care less how you draw a pay cheque and are concerned only with how you are and were behaving.  I can also state without reservation that police would be inclined to give someone in the military a break (I know countless dudes that have been sprung just because they played the Army card) until such time as they have talked themselves out of one.  This we can do, for that special someone who comes up and says "I truly will not be happy with my service until I am introduced to the sidewalk and put in jail".  We can also un-arrest people. ***POOF*** You're free!!  Cop magic!  So if you know in your heart of hearts that you didn't do anything and you are being fingered incorrectly, just go with the flow and trust that it will be sorted out.  We want to get the proper bad guy, so if we have the wrong one you'll get cut lose and we will continue to track down the real one.  Unless your actions suggest you would not be satisfied with that outcome (see above)

All in all, that video does not show anything that would suggest gross misconduct.  As for the knee strikes, I believe Chris Rock has some helpful suggestions on YouTube about that. 
That's it.  Just wanted to explain some inside-the-LEO's-head stuff that might help.  Hope you are all enjoying a safe and arrest free summer.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jul 2009)

Referenced Chris Rock video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8&feature=related


----------



## Roy Harding (21 Aug 2009)

Unlocked at mariomike's request.  He has some further links on the subject.


Roy Harding
Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## mariomike (21 Aug 2009)

Thank you, Roy. 
These are two recent updates in regards to the emergency care aspect of the subject:
Ambulance NB drafts policy in wake of complaint":
http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/search/article/766326
http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/search/article/766195


----------



## mariomike (25 Nov 2009)

"RCMP ready report on alleged Fredericton police beating: Begin, normally based at CFB Valcartier in Quebec, said in a July interview that he was supposed to be deployed to Afghanistan in October 2010.
But the infantry private said he suffered a broken vertebra during the altercation and it could cost him his tour of duty.":
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2009/09/25/nb-begin-rcmp-524.html


----------



## jeepsport (27 Nov 2009)

This isn't the first time that something like this happened between Fredericton Police and members of the military. Imagine what's not making the news though ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Nov 2009)

jeepsport said:
			
		

> This isn't the first time that something like this happened between Fredericton Police and members of the military. Imagine what's not making the news though ...



If you have nothing substantial to add to the thread, stay away from the keyboard.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Occam (20 Jan 2010)

Update:

Article link
Soldier charged with resisting arrest
Published Friday January 8th, 2010 

A soldier who accused Fredericton police officers of brutality during his arrest last summer has been charged with resisting arrest during the incident.

The Daily Gleaner has learned that the RCMP filed charges against Luc Begin in Fredericton provincial court Thursday.

Begin, a private in the Canadian Armed Forces, faces two charges of obstruction stemming from the July 18 incident.

That's the day he said city police officers used excessive force and injured him.

The obstruction charges allege Begin resisted arrest and failed to identify himself to a police officer.

He faces four other charges: two of mischief and two of obstruction - again accusing him of resisting arrest and failing to identify himself. They stem from a separate incident alleged to have occurred a week earlier on July 10.

Const. Chantal Farrah, spokeswoman for the RCMP in New Brunswick, confirmed the charges were filed against Begin.

She said he will appear in court at a later date to enter a plea.

There was no word Thursday on whether any Fredericton police officer will face charges.

"That is a separate investigation which is still ongoing," Farrah said.

One police officer was suspended July 23 after a video of the arrest surfaced on the Internet. He was assigned to administrative duties in mid-September.

Begin complained of police brutality after the July 18 arrest in front of Sweetwaters bar on King Street.

Fredericton police Chief Barry MacKnight asked the Mounties to conduct an arm's-length investigation not only into the allegations against members of his department, but also to investigate Begin's conduct.

Begin has said he received back injuries, cuts and bruises and blacked out as a result of excessive police force during the July 18 arrest.

The Quebec-based soldier was celebrating his engagement to a Fredericton woman that night. He and a group of friends were refused entrance to the bar.

Begin has said that bar staff incorrectly fingered him as a problem customer from a prior visit to the club.

On July 10, there was a disturbance reported to Fredericton police. In that case, a man ran across the top of a cruiser parked in front of Sweetwaters and escaped arrest.

Begin said that on July 18 he was thrown to the ground by members of the police force after one of the officers said he recognized Begin from the July 10 incident.

"The only thing I remember is that I got thrown on the ground, getting the knee and kicked ... and an open-hand hit to the face and I lost consciousness. I've got broken vertebrae in my back," Begin told The Daily Gleaner in an interview several days after the incident.

Downtown resident Charles LeBlanc posted a video recording of Begin's arrest on YouTube.

The video appears to show one of the arresting officers using his knee to strike Begin's back at least three times before he was handcuffed and placed in the backseat of a police cruiser.

Begin has also filed a complaint against Ambulance New Brunswick.

He alleged that after the July 18 incident, a paramedic dismissed his health complaints and refused to transport him from the Queen Street police station to the Dr. Everett Chalmers Regional Hospital for medical assessment. Ambulance New Brunswick has created a policy to help guide paramedics who are treating a patient who's in police custody.

The Daily Gleaner attempted to contact Begin through his fiancée's family Thursday evening, but no family members could be reached.

But wait - there's more.....

Article link
City police officer charged with assault
Published Thursday January 14th, 2010 

A Fredericton police officer has been charged with assault following an investigation into an allegation of police brutality during an arrest in the downtown last summer.

The Fredericton Police Force released a statement Wednesday, announcing that the RCMP filed the charge against Const. Stephen Stafford earlier in the day.

The city police department isn't commenting on the matter while it remains before the courts and inquiries were referred to the RCMP.

Const. Chantal Farrah, spokeswoman for the RCMP in New Brunswick, confirmed that investigations into the July 18 incident have now concluded.

"A charge of assault was filed today in Fredericton provincial court," she said.

Luc Begin, a private in the Canadian Armed Forces who levelled the accusations, faces two charges of obstruction of justice related to the incident.

Stafford didn't appear in court Wednesday. He's expected to attend at a later date to enter a plea.

The charge stems from the July 18 incident outside Sweetwaters bar on King Street.

Begin was celebrating his engagement to a city woman that night when he was arrested by police.

Begin accused officers of roughing him up and injuring him.

Fredericton police Chief Barry MacKnight asked the Mounties to conduct an investigation into the allegations against members of his department and into Begin's conduct.

The Mounties filed the charges against Begin on Jan. 7. The July 18 obstruction charges allege Begin resisted arrest and failed to identify himself to a police officer.

He faces four other charges - two of mischief and two of obstruction - stemming from a separate incident alleged to have occurred July 10.

In an interview with The Daily Gleaner last summer, Begin said he sustained back injuries, cuts and bruises and blacked out as a result of excessive police force during the arrest.

On July 10, there was a disturbance reported to Fredericton police. In that case, a man allegedly ran across the top of a cruiser parked in front of Sweetwaters and escaped arrest.

Begin said that on July 18 he was thrown to the ground by members of the police force after one of the officers said he recognized Begin from the July 10 incident.

Stafford was on duty at the time of the incident.

He was suspended July 23, two days after a public complaint was received by the force.

The complaint was filed after a video was posted online that appears to show an officer using his knee to strike Begin's back during the arrest.

On Sept. 14, he was reinstated and assigned to administrative duties. He remains on office duty.


----------



## Nauticus (22 Jan 2010)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Here's the video
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwejxZ0VzTA


I don't remember being told that knee strikes to the back were "good to go" in my Use of Force training...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Jan 2010)

They are.........and if you read the thread you will see were ZC and myself explained this.


----------



## Occam (23 Jan 2010)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> They are.........and if you read the thread you will see were ZC and myself explained this.



Obviously, in the RCMP's opinion, this wasn't one of those occasions.

Unfortunately, the RCMP took the "let's throw a pile of crap against the wall and see how much of it sticks" method of laying charges.  It will be very interesting to see the outcome of the trials, and hear about the testimony of the various witnesses offering alibis, etc.


----------



## bdave (30 Jan 2010)

WR said:
			
		

> Enforcement Defensive Tactics training. It can be used as a distraction technique or as a form of pain compliance.
> The moral of the story is if you are given a command by an Law Enforcement Officer you comply and when things have calmed down you explain your side. If the soldier was innocent and had done nothing as he claimed, he would be released and minus a few injuries.



Yes, minus a few debilitating injuries. Potentially tour ending injuries. And taking 4 hard knee blows to the spine is no joke.

Those 4 knee strikes were bullshit, plain and simple.


----------



## J.J (30 Jan 2010)

bdave said:
			
		

> Yes, minus a few debilitating injuries. Potentially tour ending injuries. And taking 4 hard knee blows to the spine is no joke.
> 
> Those 4 knee strikes were bullshit, plain and simple.



bdave,
Here I will give you a summary of the last 5 pages from people who do this for a living...

-do not resist when given direction from a LEO
-if you do resist expect force to be used
-knee strikes are a universally taught technique for defensive tactics 

Do you think maybe the officer should have asked please several times for him to comply?? 
Maybe a "care bear stare"? How about a severe finger wagging?

When you grow up you will realize there are a lot of bad people in the world that train, try and do hurt LEO's. The officers on the scene have to win the fight and do what is necessary to make the subject comply.


----------



## Occam (30 Jan 2010)

WR said:
			
		

> -do not resist when given direction from a LEO
> -if you do resist expect force to be used
> -knee strikes are a universally taught technique for defensive tactics



Sounds like these measures worked out really well for Mr. Wu.

Again, for the record, I'm normally very supportive of the police, and have members of my family in law enforcement.  However, the fact that the RCMP laid a charge against the Fredericton Police officer leads me to believe that excessive force is suspected of being used.


----------



## mariomike (30 Jan 2010)

There has been a loss of productive time for not only the CF ( as mentioned in the Subject Line ), but also for the City of Fredericton. The Constable has been off regular duty since five days after the incident:
http://www.fredericton.ca/en/publicsafety/2010jan13assaultchargelaidagainstofficer.asp


----------



## J.J (30 Jan 2010)

Occam said:
			
		

> Sounds like these measures worked out really well for Mr. Wu.
> 
> Again, for the record, I'm normally very supportive of the police, and have members of my family in law enforcement.  However, the fact that the RCMP laid a charge against the Fredericton Police officer leads me to believe that excessive force is suspected of being used.



Occam,
What an unbelievable correlation you made. I do not know the true story of what happened to Mr Wu, but the media's account cannot always be believed. This may be shocking to you, but _sometimes_ the media have an agenda and do not report accurately. I am not saying the VPD officers were right or justified, but don't believe the initial accounts on everything you read.

Here is a link to show assaults against LEO's are on the rise and there are smaller sentances associated with the assualt

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2009004/article/10930-eng.htm#a2

Here is a link for you to read to see why LEO's don't like to lose a fight.

http://www.odmp.org/





			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> There has been a loss of productive time for not only the CF ( as mentioned in the Subject Line ), but also for the City of Fredericton. The Constable has been off regular duty since five days after the incident:
> http://www.fredericton.ca/en/publicsafety/2010jan13assaultchargelaidagainstofficer.asp



Let the courts decide if the officers actions were correct, but with investigations against LEO's the investigation will always err on the side of caution and lay charges so the courts can decide innocence or guilt.  This will shut up  the "anti-law enforcement" special intrest groups and their supporters.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2003/11/05/to_vassdecision20031105.html


----------



## Occam (30 Jan 2010)

WR said:
			
		

> Occam,
> What an unbelievable correlation you made. I do not know the true story of what happened to Mr Wu, but the media's account cannot always be believed. This may be shocking to you, but _sometimes_ the media have an agenda and do not report accurately. I am not saying the VPD officers were right or justified, but don't believe the initial accounts on everything you read.



What are you talking about?  What media reports?  Did you even read the story? 

Here...this spells it out a bit better for you.

_Vancouver Police Friday announced that a 44-year-old man who suffered injuries to his face did not resist arrest, contradicting earlier reports that he did.

"It was premature in a media release to say the individual was resisting arrest and that's a statement we're not standing by," said Vancouver Police Chief Jim Chu._


----------



## Occam (30 Jan 2010)

WR said:
			
		

> Let the courts decide if the officers actions were correct, but with investigations against LEO's the investigation will always err on the side of caution and lay charges so the courts can decide innocence or guilt.  This will shut up  the "anti-law enforcement" special intrest groups and their supporters.



I don't know how much clearer I can make it for you.  I usually support the police, and I have members of my family in law enforcement.

I am not a member of any "anti-law enforcement" special interest group.

I am, however, a member of "Canadians against LEOs who think they're above the law" special interest groups.  

I, too, await the outcome of the court trial.  This incident was under a microscope;  I have serious doubts that charges would be laid if there were no realistic prospect of conviction, but we'll see.


----------



## mariomike (30 Jan 2010)

WR said:
			
		

> Let the courts decide if the officers actions were correct, but with investigations against LEO's the investigation will always err on the side of caution and lay charges so the courts can decide innocence or guilt.  This will shut up  the "anti-law enforcement" special intrest groups and their supporters.
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2003/11/05/to_vassdecision20031105.html



I agree with you, WR. For what it's worth, a complaint was also filed against Ambulance New Brunswick over its handling of this call. We got sent into violence all the time. Especially the "MHA's", or as we call them "possible 211's". Sometimes they have to be restrained. Positional Asphyxia is a concern:
http://www.charlydmiller.com/LIB02/2002jems.html

re: Positional Asphyxia:
http://www.charlydmiller.com/LIB02/2003jemsrestrainttricks.html#straight

Thanks for the link to the Otto Vass death at College and Lansdowne. I remember reading about it in the news. The four Metro officers were taken off regular duty for over three years. And even then, quoted from the link you posted, "While the four officers are now cleared of all criminal charges, their legal problems are not over. Vass's family has filed a multi-million dollar civil lawsuit against the officers and the police force."
Some other lawsuits against the City of Toronto, if interested:
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/190767
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/185690
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/07/06/police-lawsuit.html


[Edits at request of poster (in yellow):]


----------



## zipperhead_cop (30 Jan 2010)

bdave said:
			
		

> Yes, minus a few debilitating injuries. Potentially tour ending injuries. And taking 4 hard knee blows to the spine is no joke.
> 
> Those 4 knee strikes were bullshit, plain and simple.



That a soldier can't do what he is told when a person in authority is giving him direction strikes _me_ as bullshit.  I think Chris Rock sums it up best.  

The part of the new story that is missing is why it took this long to lay charges.  The facts have stood since July, yet _now_ they are laying charges?  That smells more political and less judicial.


----------



## Occam (30 Jan 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> That a soldier can't do what he is told when a person in authority is giving him direction strikes _me_ as bullshit.



We don't know what the soldier was told by the police.  We don't know if he was told if he was under arrest, we don't know if he was told why he was being detained.  You're merely speculating.  What we do know is that there were more than a couple of independent, uninvolved witnesses who said they didn't see anything to indicate that the soldier was resisting, or taking any aggressive action.  We'll see how well the witnesses stand up in court, as well as the witnesses who offered alibis for the alleged incident the week before.



> The part of the new story that is missing is why it took this long to lay charges.  The facts have stood since July, yet _now_ they are laying charges?  That smells more political and less judicial.



What raised my eyebrow was the order in which the charges were laid.  Why wouldn't they have laid all of the charges related to the incident on the same day?  I have my own suspicions on that, but I'll keep them to myself.


----------



## SupersonicMax (30 Jan 2010)

WR said:
			
		

> -knee strikes are a universally taught technique for defensive tactics



How is a 4v1 fight, the 4 being on top of the guy, a defensive position?

Defensive tactics should be used in defensive positions.  Not offensive.


----------



## medaid (30 Jan 2010)

WR, ZC and Bruce,

We should stop trying to defend and educate the sheeple to the actions/inactions of our LEO brethren.

Especially when the attempts fall on def ears and closed minded know it alls. I sipimly love the duality of it all. When people speak against the CF we band together and accuse them of ignorance, get pissed because of thei closed mindedness, and then act like we know it all. We then become indignant when the same idiots tell us how to do our jobs and criticize us for our incompetence.

I just find it all very entertaining when those of us who tell people to "STFU" about things they don't know, can't seem to follow their own advice. It happens all the time on here. Right or wrong is not your place to say. Having friends or family members does not equate to personal experience.

4v1 is nothing. I've been in on 6v1 because the person's fighting so much and so hard. 

Please people... Take your own advice if you've just got an opinion and no background. You're sounding like an uneducated civilian.


----------



## SupersonicMax (30 Jan 2010)

If your team has an advantage over the other team, then, in my mind, you are offensive.  Judging from the video, the cops were in an obvious offensive position.  

According to WR, the knees in the back is a defensive "tactic".  Why use a defensive tactic in an offensive situation?


----------



## medaid (30 Jan 2010)

Why ask a rhetorical question?


----------



## Occam (30 Jan 2010)

MedTech said:
			
		

> WR, ZC and Bruce,
> 
> We should stop trying to defend and educate the sheeple to the actions/inactions of our LEO brethren.
> 
> ...



I hate to burst your bubble, but pay attention:

I haven't speculated on anything of which I don't have first hand knowledge.  I offered the fact that I have family members who are LEOs to counter the ludicrous claims that I'm anti-police.

It was put forward that:



> -do not resist when given direction from a LEO
> -if you do resist expect force to be used



I posted information about a recent incident where the individual did not resist, and still had the living crap beat out of him and a news release was issued stating that the individual resisted arrest (a blatant lie) - and to top it off, they didn't even have the right guy.  I don't need to be a LEO to be able to tell you that WR's summary was of absolutely no use to the young soldier.  Compliance does not guarantee you're not going to end up looking like this.

I have nothing but respect for the vast majority of LEOs who do their job in demanding circumstances.  I have no respect for the dirty cops who can't keep from running afoul of the very law they're supposed to uphold.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Jan 2010)

All the arm chair quarterbacks can just kick back and chill. Save it for the big game tomorrow.

The LEOs here have tried to explain the whys and wherefores. Most people get it, but some just can't help slagging LEOs without cause or justification, especially in the absence of first hand experience, in the matter at hand, or a judgement by the court.

Until such time as the court has made clear what happened, and who, if anyone, may be guilty, you can all go practice second guessing something, or someone, else.

If anything official comes out and needs to be posted, send it to a Mod.

Locked

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## George Wallace (10 Dec 2010)

From another member:

Update:

Article link
Paramedic testifies at officer's assault trial

New evidence introduced


Last Updated: Thursday, November 4, 2010 | 5:26 PM AT 
CBC News 

A paramedic testifying at the assault trial of a Fredericton police officer says he saw a Quebec soldier get kneed by a police officer outside a nightclub in July 2009.

Edward Johnson was testifying at the trial of Const. Stephen Stafford, who is accused of using excessive force while arresting Luc Begin outside the Sweetwaters nightclub on July 18, 2009.

Begin, a soldier from Valcartier, Que., was teaching at the infantry school at CFB Gagetown when he was arrested while off duty outside the downtown Fredericton nightclub.

Johnson told the court he and his partner were parked outside Sweetwaters in the early morning hours of July 18 when he saw police officers escorting a man towards the sidewalk. There was a commotion, Johnson said, and when he looked back the officers and the man were on the ground.

Johnson said he saw Begin get hit by knee strikes two or three times.

He also testified he and his partner were later called to police headquarters to treat an unresponsive man in a cell who turned out to be Begin.

He told the court Begin woke up in the back of the ambulance and refused treatment. When Begin was told he would not be allowed to leave, Johnson said, he laid back down and closed his eyes.

Johnson said Begin was then returned to custody.

Trial faced delays

The trial was adjourned for several hours on Thursday morning after new videos were introduced into evidence.

Begin is facing two counts of obstructing justice stemming from an incident on July 10, 2009 — eight days before the alleged assault — for allegedly jumping on a police car outside the Sweetwaters nightclub.

On Thursday, the lawyer representing Begin in that case came forward to the Crown, saying he had video footage of the incident. The Crown said the video may be relevant to this case.

The trial was adjourned while the Crown and defence reviewed the video, but resumed with the video being introduced into evidence and played in the courtroom.

The Crown consented to having the video played, but reserved the right to dispute their authenticity if questions arise later in the trial.

The Crown had expressed concerns the videos had been editited and their authenticity had not been verified.

The video, a black and white interior camera view of the inside of the Sweetwater's, shows Begin exiting the bar while holding hands with his girlfriend. The timestamp on the video indicated it was taken just after 2 a.m. MT in the early morning hours of July 10.

2 fractured vertebrae

On Wednesday, Begin testified two police officers approached him when he was refused entry to Sweetwaters nightclub on July 18.

Officers said a bouncer recognized Begin from the incident the week before when someone had jumped on a police cruiser, something Begin denied doing or having knowledge of.

Begin said two officers then led him toward a police cruiser, when a third came up behind him and kicked him in the calf. Begin said he fell to the ground and all he remembers is being beaten and his head hitting the pavement.

Begin told the court he went to hospital after being released from jail and found he had two fractured vertebrae.

Part of the incident was captured on video and posted to YouTube by local blogger Charles LeBlanc.

*This story is now closed to commenting*

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2010/11/04/nb-officer-soldier-assault-trial.html#ixzz17jVNK8EC


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Feb 2011)

From another member
----------------------------------------

Officer says he feared for his safety

Michael Staples, The Daily Gleaner
Friday February 18th, 2011
Article link



> A Fredericton police officer says he feared for his safety the night he arrested Luc Begin in front of a downtown nightclub.
> 
> "It was very scary, very stressful - just a very intense situation," Const. Stephen Stafford testified Thursday at his assault trial in Fredericton.
> 
> ...


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Feb 2011)

and another recent article passed from another member
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Officer's assault trial adjourned until April

Michael Staples, The Daily Gleaner
Saturday February 19th, 2011 
Article link



> The assault trial of a Fredericton police constable has been adjourned until April.
> 
> Judge Geri Mahoney granted the postponement Friday in the case of Stephen Stafford following 10 days of testimony.
> 
> ...


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Jun 2011)

From a forum member:

_________________________

*Former soldier claiming assault by Fredericton police officer pleads guilty to mischief*
The Canadian Press: Wednesday, May 25, 2011
(article link)



> FREDERICTON - A former soldier whose arrest led to an assault charge against a Fredericton police officer has pleaded guilty to two charges.
> 
> Luc Begin, who was a private in the Canadian Forces at the time, has been given a conditional discharge and 12 months of probation for an incident July 11, 2009.
> 
> ...


----------



## Scott (6 Jun 2011)

From a forum member:



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2011/06/06/nb-stafford-verdict-1033.html

June 6, 2011 
Fredericton officer found not guilty of assault 
By CBC News

Fredericton Police officer Stephen Stafford found not guilty on assault charge involving arrest of soldier Luc Begin in the summer of 2009.

Stafford was accused of using excessive force against Luc Begin, an off-duty soldier, during an arrest outside a Fredericton nightclub

A bystander filmed Stafford kneeing Begin in the back several times.

Begin was being arrested and Stafford told the court in February 2011 he was trying to help other officers in a dangerous situation.

Stafford testified he had been driving by Sweetwaters club when he noticed another patrol car parked at an unusual angle over the curb. He stopped his car and walked toward the crowd, which he described as agitated.

During his trial, an expert from the Atlantic Police Academy said Stafford used the amount of force that is consistent with national training guidelines and local guidelines.

Begin, a soldier from Valcartier, Que., was in the Fredericton area in July 2009 to teach at the infantry school at CFB Gagetown.

He testified in the fall that he had two fractured vertebrae after the incident.

Begin pleaded guilty last month two two charges of obstruction of justice related to a previous night.

He was given a conditional discharge and 12 months probation.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Jun 2011)

Now that the trials are over I've unlocked this........................




			
				Scott said:
			
		

> During his trial, an expert from the Atlantic Police Academy said Stafford used the amount of force that is consistent with national training guidelines and local guidelines.



.......................and, of course to say I [we] told you so.

Bruce


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Jun 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Now that the trials are over I've unlocked this........................
> 
> 
> .......................and, of course to say I [we] told you so.
> ...



Oh, I so wanted to do that first 8)


----------



## Occam (6 Jun 2011)

So, this officer wasn't credible?

_Earlier in the day, Judge Geri Mahoney ruled that testimony given in a voir dire by Sgt. Rick Walkinshaw, an RCMP use of force training officer, was admissible.

The expert acknowledged that Stafford may not have realized he was kneeing the back during the heat of the moment.

But he said the idea is for police officers to be as accurate as they can with a view to causing the least amount of injury.

He said he found the three knee strikes to Begin's back troubling._

I can't say I'm surprised at the verdict.  It would appear that I have a lot of company.


----------



## Container (6 Jun 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> So, this officer wasn't credible?
> 
> _Earlier in the day, Judge Geri Mahoney ruled that testimony given in a voir dire by Sgt. Rick Walkinshaw, an RCMP use of force training officer, was admissible.
> 
> ...



Expert evidence is opinion evidence  and is weighed by the judge. A resume is entered and questions and answers from defense and crown, that can sometimes last for hours, are all used before someone is determined to be an expert. Often two experts will testify and the judge will decide which opinion is MORE credible since all expert opinion is based on training and experience. Training and experience above and beyond what the lay person would have.

It is not unusual for experts to disagree and to testify for hours or even days. It is completely impossible for you based off this little blurb, or the media since they are comepletly out of the loop on the subject matter, to determine which use of force expert had the more complete opinion. The usage of "troubling" in the article does not give us context as most police officers will tell you any use of force looks bad and never seems as smooth as the movies.

Expert evidence is a tricky area and alot of times, like the OJ trial, the judge will make decisions that demonstrate that they didn't really understand the opinion. Or that, which seems to be more likely, they fancy themselves experts on everything under the sun.

*edited to be more polite- it was impolite by accident*


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Jun 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> So, this officer wasn't credible?
> 
> _Earlier in the day, Judge Geri Mahoney ruled that testimony given in a voir dire by Sgt. Rick Walkinshaw, an RCMP use of force training officer, was admissible.
> 
> ...



I can't say I'm suprised by your disbelief either. You're just like those liberals that can't believe they lost and nothing will convince them they screwed themselves while they try convince themselves they're still right and the NGP. :facepalm:


----------



## Occam (6 Jun 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I can't say I'm suprised by your disbelief either. You're just like those liberals that can't believe they lost and nothing will convince them they screwed themselves while they try convince themselves they're still right and the NGP. :facepalm:



After careful consideration, the most appropriate response I can find to that is:

 :rofl:

You're not worth it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Jun 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> He said he found the three knee strikes to Begin's back troubling.[/i]




As he should be and as would my Use of Force instructors.

Personally, I would be VERY dissapointed with myself, and any of my team members, if we couldn't cause enough pain with ONE strike [ and some "tenderizing"] to dislodge a combattant's arm from under them.

Having said that, if it took three, then it would take three.....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Jun 2011)

Occam, you can deduct all the milpoints ya want, [I don't even know why we have 'em] but you can hoop your forehead if you wish to accuse me of bringing disrespect to the law enforcement community.

I noticed that the officer you quoted even had fellow instructors IN HIS SECTION disagree with his testimony in court and that your article somehow left those lines out.
Maybe that is why they went all the way to Calgary for an unbiased opinion.

Bottom line,....sometimes one is just on the wrong side of an arguement and one must always remember that
the beaks and claws are easier to swallow if you use the "puree" button.


----------



## Occam (7 Jun 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I noticed that the officer you quoted even had fellow instructors IN HIS SECTION disagree with his testimony in court and that your article somehow left those lines out.
> Maybe that is why they went all the way to Calgary for an unbiased opinion.



They went to Calgary police force Staff Sgt. Chris Butler (Stafford was trained in Calgary) for an unbiased opinion?

They went to J Division (New Brunswick) Cpl. Rick Turnbull for an unbiased opinion?  (J Division conducted the investigation and laid the charge against Stafford)

From where I sit, the unbiased opinion they had was Sgt Rick Walkinshaw from Nova Scotia, who had no ties to the case whatsoever.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Jun 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> From where I sit,



...Which is not where the judge was sitting.

I suppose you're a judge now too.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Jun 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> After careful consideration, the most appropriate response I can find to that is:
> 
> :rofl:
> 
> You're not worth it.



...........and then you ding B Monkhouse -300 milpoints and accuse him... him, of 'and bringing disrespect on the LE community.' by his comments? What do you know of the LE community that makes YOU think your even worth spouting bilge like that. Your sense of entitlement seems to know no bounds. Not sure whether I'm talking to Iggy or Occam. :

Either way, you're the one that's not worth it.

HAGO


----------



## Container (7 Jun 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> They went to J Division (New Brunswick) Cpl. Rick Turnbull for an unbiased opinion?  (J Division conducted the investigation and laid the charge against Stafford)



Turnbulls testimony would be the most important testimony-

The police officer in this situation would have been trained at the Atlantic police academy. And taught by instructors like Turnbull. A police officer is covered in using force that they believe is necessary- if he was taught by trainers like Turnbull that this was the appropriate response, and I was taught the same by RCMP instructors- resisting guy with arms under his body, the judge could have found that he acted as he believed appropriate and he would be protected by the criminal code from being found guilty. He, in his decision, could also tell the atlantic police academy that they are mistaken and they should adjust their standards. But he didn't.

So it would appear that at the end of the trial he was not concerned with the police officers action or his training.


----------



## Container (7 Jun 2011)

I recieved a PM indicating that I was contributing "erroneous information". I did make a mistake and I'll recognize it and post my response to clarify. As a further point- where I say "this is a legal requirement", I mean if the training is reasonable. Obviously If the police trained him to shoot everyone who resists it wouldnt be reasonable. I do apologize for getting the names wrong. Expert testiony is part of my job now- I am in the middle of learning the ins and outs of the requirements for my job. And have been kicked around several times now as part of the learning process. 

My PM:

"An overlooked detail. Hardly "contribuitng erroneous information"

That is the most minor point of my entire post and I aplogize- I didnt realize he was a lateral. But my point on expert testimony stands. Replace Turnbull with the name of his instructor in Calgary- it isnt about bias. It is about the judge determining the training the constable received. If he acted in accordance with his training then he is not guilty. That is a legal requirement.

Im not getting in to a pissing match with you. I provide expert testimony in court on ******* and I am aware of the process and the issues surrounding conflicting expert testimony. I can tell you, from experience and from knowledge, that it is impossible for you to make any conclusions from those articles. "


----------



## Nauticus (8 Jun 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> So, this officer wasn't credible?
> 
> _Earlier in the day, Judge Geri Mahoney ruled that testimony given in a voir dire by Sgt. Rick Walkinshaw, an RCMP use of force training officer, was admissible.
> 
> ...


A person speaking as an expert of Use of Force would be providing that information regardless who is being charged. If the accused police officer followed accurate Use of Force, then that's it.


----------

