- Reaction score
- 13,053
- Points
- 1,160
Police Folk Allegedly Behaving Badly
- Thread starter Bruce Monkhouse
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 41,998
- Points
- 1,210
If you get arrested and charged with "assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm" and get released with conditions - after prior 2023 charges for "obstructing or resisting peace officers" and "uttering threats to cause bodily harm or death" when officers brought your drunk ass home, you should probably not breach conditions.
www.gatineau.ca
www.fm1047.ca
ici.radio-canada.ca
Accusations portées à l'encontre d'un policier
Gatineau, le 1er septembre 2023. – La Direction du Service de police de la Ville de Gatineau (SPVG) a été informée que deux accusations criminelles ont été autorisées par le Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales (DPCP) à l'encontre de l'un de ses policiers.
www.gatineau.ca
SPVG | Un policier du SPVG arrêté pour la deuxième fois
Un agent du Service de police de la Ville de Gatineau fait face à des accusations d'agression armée ou infliction de lésions corporelles.
Un policier de Gatineau arrêté deux fois en un mois
Stéphane Lizotte a été arrêté jeudi en raison de la violation des conditions imposées par le tribunal.
ici.radio-canada.ca
- Reaction score
- 13,053
- Points
- 1,160
Not necessarily a bad thing, RCMP had a new spin on "fire fighting".
RCMP officers ‘intentionally’ set home ablaze during tense standoff, court documents reveal
www.ctvnews.ca
RCMP officers ‘intentionally’ set home ablaze during tense standoff, court documents reveal
RCMP officers ‘intentionally’ set home ablaze during tense standoff, court documents reveal
A house fire that erupted during an armed standoff in B.C.’s Lower Mainland three years ago was “intentionally” ignited by RCMP officers on scene, court documents have revealed.
www.ctvnews.ca
- Reaction score
- 1,959
- Points
- 1,040
That's as dumb as when the RCMP planted an IED, blew up a truck, and shot a dog in Gustavsen Lake.
Of course both sides are dumb. Some one should tell the defense lawyer that bullets mostly melt in a fire.
Of course both sides are dumb. Some one should tell the defense lawyer that bullets mostly melt in a fire.
- Reaction score
- 41,998
- Points
- 1,210
Not novel. The RCMP has committed arson before.Not necessarily a bad thing, RCMP had a new spin on "fire fighting".
RCMP officers ‘intentionally’ set home ablaze during tense standoff, court documents reveal
RCMP officers ‘intentionally’ set home ablaze during tense standoff, court documents reveal
A house fire that erupted during an armed standoff in B.C.’s Lower Mainland three years ago was “intentionally” ignited by RCMP officers on scene, court documents have revealed.
The story of how Canadian police committed arson to stop a Black Panther meeting
The story of the RCMP’s barn burning episode explains a lot about Canada’s modern national security system
www.vice.com
Booter
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,345
- Points
- 1,010
Literally an acceptable use of force- not done like this before- sure. Unprecedented no. Don’t expect the rcmp to correct anything on this because it’s just one step farther on a series of techniques that’s used that has the potential to start a fire- and often does. In the case the fire was the intent and not just a bonus. There was a lethal force order given that the individual had become so dangerous- they used hot gas canisters to force the individual out the exit that they wanted him to- and if he didn’t it was his choice. Cooking off the rounds and denying him access to a multi day shootout is a hell of a lot better than him lobbing them out of the house wherever he wanted for a week.
The false equivalent “similar” “arsons” in here show the level of understanding between the types of events and events from several decades ago
The false equivalent “similar” “arsons” in here show the level of understanding between the types of events and events from several decades ago
Not necessarily a bad thing, RCMP had a new spin on "fire fighting".
RCMP officers ‘intentionally’ set home ablaze during tense standoff, court documents reveal
RCMP officers ‘intentionally’ set home ablaze during tense standoff, court documents reveal
A house fire that erupted during an armed standoff in B.C.’s Lower Mainland three years ago was “intentionally” ignited by RCMP officers on scene, court documents have revealed.
So, he had already shot at police and was continuing to do so. Sounds like it was assessed he was equipped for an ongoing standoff. Orders had already been given that he could be shot and killed.
The lawyer going on about bullets in a fire is obviously ignorant of what bullets actually do in a fire.
The talk about the fear of fire spreading… Well, maybe. But from Google Maps and Street View it looks like they had some buffer around the property to work with: Street View · Google Maps
There was clearly an urgent imperative to stop a threat of death or grievous bodily harm to both police and the broader public. All other reasonable options seem to have been tried and exhausted.
While shocking and unprecedented, looks like it worked and everyone including the suspect made it out safe. He was at great risk of being taken out by a police sniper; would that have been preferable?
Parliament has created laws that constrain police use of force considerably and appropriately, but that, once thresholds are met necessitating it, are largely mute as the the exact ‘what and how’.
It’s easy to Monday morning quarterback tactics from the outside looking in and with the benefit of hindsight, but in an absolutely shit situation everyone came out alive, and this seems to have been a last resort before waiting him to appear at a window and killing him, or alternatively trying to forcibly breach and send a team in. His odds of coming out of those alive would have been much lower, and the risk to police and the public much greater.
- Reaction score
- 24,481
- Points
- 1,010
To all the monday morning quarterbacks out here:
How would you have done it differently?
How would you have done it differently?
- Reaction score
- 1,959
- Points
- 1,040
CS? There are CS delivery systems that don't start fire. OC? Because they don't have the tools doesn't mean you get to burn someone. It's a hard job but that doesn't justify setting someone on fire. Letting it sit would inconvenience a bunch of people but so what.
A lot of police service have serve and protect as their motto, not BBQ and serve.
If the police are willing to burn someone to death, because lethal force has been authorized, I would consider that cruel and unusual and unnecessary.
Maybe they knew exactly how the fire would behave, and how the gunman would behave and therefore knew exactly what the outcome would be. I doubt it.
They got lucky, it could have been a one person Waco or MOVE.
A lot of police service have serve and protect as their motto, not BBQ and serve.
If the police are willing to burn someone to death, because lethal force has been authorized, I would consider that cruel and unusual and unnecessary.
Maybe they knew exactly how the fire would behave, and how the gunman would behave and therefore knew exactly what the outcome would be. I doubt it.
To being burnt alive, yes. They chose a very unpredictable course of action that could have resulted in a very painful death rather than having patience, causing an inconvenience, and maybe using the lethal force that was authorized.
They got lucky, it could have been a one person Waco or MOVE.
Booter
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,345
- Points
- 1,010
Guy. The tactic was approved and the outcome desired was obtained. Shooting them in an exchange is not more humane than them walking out the front door into custody.
I don’t know if you’re doing it on
Purpose- but no one was authorized to be set on fire. A side of the house to force the suspect to make a decision was made- that decision is a) give up or b) force a lethal confrontation in a place of the police’s choice on their terms. As he has already shot a police officer in the shield and shot at others
“Cold gas” was tried for hours prior- so your options are out. So again. What method would you use that would only place the suspect in danger that they could opt out of at any time? Knowing that allowing them to lob hundreds of rounds into the air for days isn’t an option.
“They got lucky” you’re entirely out of your lane.
I don’t know if you’re doing it on
Purpose- but no one was authorized to be set on fire. A side of the house to force the suspect to make a decision was made- that decision is a) give up or b) force a lethal confrontation in a place of the police’s choice on their terms. As he has already shot a police officer in the shield and shot at others
“Cold gas” was tried for hours prior- so your options are out. So again. What method would you use that would only place the suspect in danger that they could opt out of at any time? Knowing that allowing them to lob hundreds of rounds into the air for days isn’t an option.
“They got lucky” you’re entirely out of your lane.
Doesn’t sound like the intent was to set him on fire, but to start a fire in the house and to present him with a much more limited set of choices to work with. He was already shooting and trying to kill people. In that extreme set of circumstances - ongoing attempted murder with a firearm goes well beyond mere ‘inconvenience’ - sounds like that was the next available option to try to forcibly flush him out. He still had and chose to take the opportunity to safely leave the residence from which he had been shooting at people.
He could of course have chosen to stay inside and burn, and that would have been tragic. It would have been more tragic had he kept shooting at people and succesfully murdered one. The situation was already unpredictable and not fully within control. It was already a death and grievous bodily harm situation. Other options had already been exhausted and other alternatively seemed more likely to kill the suspect at a minimum as well as exposing others to extreme and unnecessary risk.
The decision was taken by a trained and legally empowered critical incident commander, it was within what the law allows, it worked, and everyone was safe. Similar in nature to ‘any landing you walk away from is a good landing’.
Yeah, shitty circumstances and decidedly distasteful… But so would be a sniper taking a deliberate shot that would be highly likely to be fatal. Police had to deal with the choices the other guy made, and play the cards dealt.
- Reaction score
- 13,053
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 13,053
- Points
- 1,160
Setting the house on fire gave him some added incentive to get the hell out, plus it put the RCMP in a more advantageous position to deal with someone armed and willing to shoot at police. Two thumbs up.
Not to sound mental (can I say that?) but chlorine gas would work too. Having been accidentally poisoned and almost killed by chlorine gas myself (funny story) that shit is crazy. Shrinks your lungs up and basically turns your mucus membranes acidic. I spent a week laying down feeling like I was breathing through a straw because my lungs couldn't properly inflate. It would definitely make someone not think about shooting police.
- Reaction score
- 41,998
- Points
- 1,210
Other than chlorine gas being entirely illegal...
- Reaction score
- 13,053
- Points
- 1,160
Seems like CS gas. Illegal to use on soldiers, fan favorite against civilian protestors.
maybe we can be first!Chlorine gas is uh… Pretty different from CS. This would be a major no no under the Chemical Weapons Convention.
- Reaction score
- 41,998
- Points
- 1,210
If I understand this scenario, the incident commander is reliant on CCC 25(1) for his authority to order an act that otherwise would be prohibited under 434.
But does this scenario meet all the criteria under 25(4)? Specifically, the use of force likely to cause death, where the person has not taken flight?
But does this scenario meet all the criteria under 25(4)? Specifically, the use of force likely to cause death, where the person has not taken flight?
- Reaction score
- 4,147
- Points
- 1,160
Chlorine gas is commonly used. Had a drink of water or a swim in a public pool lately? You've likely ingested trace amounts.
Chlorine
What are other names or identifying information for chlorine? CAS Registry No.
Chemical Weapons: Frequently Asked Questions | Arms Control Association
25(4) is an alternative to 25(3), not an addition to it. 25(3) in and of itself allows for deadly force in the execution of duties if necessary in the ‘right now’ to protect any person from death or grievous bodily harm. This can absolute include an attempt to arrest someone who is resisting using deadly force.
25(4) is a provision that allows an officer to use force likely to cause D/GBH to stop an escape from arreat if that danger to others is likely to occur in an indeterminate future if that arrest is not effected now. This is the provision I would rely on, for instance, if I shot a fleeing active shooter in the back.
Similar threads
