Philosophically, you may be right that western society may pay for our more passive approach, but I think it would first have to signal to individual law enforcement members that it will stand behind them as they are dragged through the mud for their actions. 'Society' isn't the entity that has to answer for its action and consequences.
Good point, but to me the biggest issue was the actions of those protesters where creating an atmosphere where the rest of the mall goers where not feeling safe, and as such, public action was required
Perhaps not responding to events such as this by charging with horses, using water cannons, firearms or stroking them with truncheons is what separates us from other countries we see on the news.
I can think of a number of circumstances where crowds aren't cowed in the face of law enforcement; admittedly likely by emboldened by the knowledge that they won't die. FN blockades and protests, even university homecomings come to mind. Even if they had the organization and leadership in the early stages (which they didn't), ending the 'truckers's protest' in Ottawa couldn't have been done with the bodies they had available in the early days. Yes, the small handful of coppers could have taken Loud Mouth #1 down in the mall, but it would likely consume all three of them, with no capacity to deal with the fallout should it not magically deescalate.
I’m a big Judge Dredd fan, thought I know that won’t go over in North America.
I still don’t think that it’s unreasonable for one officer to approach LM#1 and ask him to step over to the side, then have him up against the wall.
I’ve been involved in a few incidents with LAPD when with 3 of their patrol officers (one Sgt) and me, they’ve taken to putting 30+ folks up against a wall, anyone who resists, well they reap what they sow.
I’ve also been the lone backup for a solo officer who has arrived at a 3 on 4 gunfight - most gang bangers are posture only and if you ventilate one or two of them, the rest tend to throw out their guns and raise their hands. Very few even hardcore criminals want to die, and when confronted with a force that has no qualms about killing them, they 99.9% time chose more jail time.
For LE to truly be effective one not just needs to enforce the laws, just as importantly the miscreants need to understand the penalty for resistance is severe.
Some of the FN issues are a lose lose situation, you’re going to be damned if you do, or damned if you don’t.
If that use of force can be justified in a lawful performance of their duty, perhaps. Stroking people just to get them to STFU would probably be a hard sell.
Fear is the mind killer. I’m a big fan of firm fair friendly, up till it’s time not to be friendly.
I don’t see any point in using force when a word can be used instead, if one can separate the trouble maker(s) it makes it easier to deal with, if they refuse to be separated from the rest, then they chose that route, and any resultant issues that come from it.
Yes I realize that I’m armchair quarterbacking, but I just don’t think that the best results for the long run came about from the more passive approach to this incident.
criminallawyerregina.ca
