Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
betsy

What's wrong with this arrest?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, betsy said:

Timer: 6:55

 

The first cop did have things under control.  No matter what other scenarios preceded that - the first cop got this chief under control.

  He had the chief's arm,  and the chief was not really resisting - they were walking together -

Uh... he had just grabbed the chief's arm. The chief said something like "Don't f**ing grab me!" and was pulling away. They weren't walking together. The Chief was pulling away and the cop was coming with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2020 at 10:04 AM, Rue said:

Wow you are psychic.  Look I am the first to challenge excessive force on a subdued man but you clearly can not.

I will say this to Shady directly, no matter what I think I concede the point we need all the info in any such incident. I will be the first to stick my head up my ass if it turns out Floyd had some good read on to do what he did. I am just reacting subjectively go each incident likecwecall do.

This one Eye sorry I see it differently.

It's clear the chief was combative at the beginning of the video but it also seems clear that he was resignedly moving in the direction the 1st cop was steering him in. The 2nd cop is who turned this into a shit show.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2020 at 12:34 PM, scribblet said:

I don't think the second cop should've thrown that punch.  however, the Chief was aggressive,  he took his coat off ready to fight.  All he had to do was stay inthe car, but he chose the aggressive, confrontational route.   T cops could not allow him to drive the truck with expired plates but he thought the law didn't apply to him.

And then he started to calm down and comply.  I've been pulled over with expired plates before and was given a warning.  Interestingly enough I was pulled over by a native cop from the reserve down the road from my place.  We'd worked together in the bush as loggers in the past so maybe that's what made the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the chief was intoxicated - the first cop was most likely taking that into a great deal of consideration thus we see his patience with Allan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Argus said:

Uh... he had just grabbed the chief's arm. The chief said something like "Don't f**ing grab me!" and was pulling away. They weren't walking together. The Chief was pulling away and the cop was coming with him.

No Allan Adam was clearly moving towards the cops car angrily for sure but he was starting to calm down.  There is a certain noisome segment of our society people who demand and expect police to crack down and get tough at the least sign of unwillingness to comply with authoritah immediately or else. This is why I regard much of what is taken to be systemic racism seems more like systemic authoritarianism.  I get that many conservatives are unhappy at being cast as racists when demonstrating a great deal of support for cops in these situations and I doubt the'll be any happier being cast as authoritarians but it just is what it is.

Governments need to up their game with regards to the qualifications required to be a cop.  Cops need to be more like psychologists conditioned to refer to training than simple enforcers motivated by testosterone or steroids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't look like he was calming down to me, and he was busy rummaging through the truck for something - what?   You wouldn't be allowed to do that if you were pulled over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Scribblet. I see no  evidence of the Chief calming down in his physical actions. The assumption he was calming down can not be concluded by the physical movement alone and  since  the Chief did not say anything his intent could not be ascertained that way either. 

 What is clear is that in the final incident the  Chief exited the vehicle after re-entering it on the officer in question's blind side, then suddenly  appearing from the officer's blindside and quickly penetrating the  space around the officer entering his danger zone. Danger zone in police training is a proximity in physical distance to an officer that once entered is considered an immediate life threat in need of immediate neutralization. Officer's are taught once thedanger zone is penetrated the officer must take immediate action  to repel and then  subdue the penetrator and not stop until the invader is immobilized and handcuffed. 

What can be seen is that the Chief upon penetrating the danger zone triggered the officer to then reach for the Chief's  arm to either  initiate physical contact to repel penetration of the danger zone and/or an initial attempt to take the Chief's  arm to facilitate handcuffing. The tape shows the Chief only turning from the officer once he already entered the  danger zone  and once the officer began contact with his arm.

 The officer whose danger zone was penetrated had not patted down the suspect earlier for weapons but saw him re-enter the vehicle twice including from a blind spot o  the other side of the vehicle.This would mean the officer could not conclude the Chief did not have a weapon or re-entered the vehicle to get one after two earlier attempts to demand the officer fight with him were ignored by the officer.

The  second officer off screen answering a call that an officer needed assistance would not know the extent and nature of the need of assistance and would be trained to assume a life threatening situation was imminent until it could be determined otherwise explaining why on seeing the Chief in the danger zone then turning from the other officer trying to hold his arm,  would have been trained to see an imminent threat to life and therefore initiated the swift intervention predicated on the belief the Chief may have had a weapon he was preparing to  use or in the alternative was resisting  and preparing to engage in further physical force.Further The first officer like the second would have been trained to believe the turning from initial contact was resistance and his then walking away could be a preparation to pull out a knife, gun or other weapon.

Police officers are trained to defend their lives one the danger zone is penetrated. They are trained once someone  penetrates the danger space to  bring the invader down and do not stop or get distracted  until the assailant  is immobilized and secured from attacking.

The tape shows the Chief:

1- conducting a public disturbance and engaging in disorderly conduct by swearing at the police officer and uttering numerous threats ;

2- engaging in repeated interference/ obstruction of an officer attempting do his lawful duty;

3-- attempting to coerce police  by threatening to use the  Chief's political powers to sanction  him for doing his job;

3- assault and battery, resisting arrest.

This was a lawful stop on an expired license with the vehicle parked at the angle it was to facilitate maximum camera

My comments are based solely on physical movement and body proximity.

The only reason this is news is because it's a Chief claiming his status allows him to act like an ass. If he was white and a politician  no one would care.

The Chief's status or creed should not be used to justify his bad behaviour.

 

Edited by Rue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Argus said:

Uh... he had just grabbed the chief's arm. The chief said something like "Don't f**ing grab me!" and was pulling away. They weren't walking together. The Chief was pulling away and the cop was coming with him.

It wasn't an actual resistance.  They made the few steps towards the same direction. 

Perhaps, being the chief that he is - Allan didn't want to be held like a criminal - people were watching -  but he seemed to have calmed down and  willing to cooperate,  and the first cop seemed to understand that - there was no visible combative response from the first cop regarding that statement "don't f***ing grab me!"  He seemed to be handling the situation cool-headedly, and quite well.

There was no need for the second cop to slam into him.   All he had to do was be there to assist should there be any problem.    It was the second cop that escalated it.

We have to call out unnecessary brutality when we see it!   It's for everyone's benefit - including the cops!   With so much power in their hands, some can easily get carried away.

Btw, how old was that incident? 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Rue said:

I agree with Scribblet. I see no  evidence of the Chief calming down in his physical actions. The assumption he was calming down can not be concluded by the physical movement alone and  since  the Chief did not say anything his intent could not be ascertained that way either. 

 What is clear is that in the final incident the  Chief exited the vehicle after re-entering it on the officer in question's blind side, then suddenly  appearing from the officer's blindside and quickly penetrating the  space around the officer entering his danger zone. Danger zone in police training is a proximity in physical distance to an officer that once entered is considered an immediate life threat in need of immediate neutralization. Officer's are taught once thedanger zone is penetrated the officer must take immediate action  to repel and then  subdue the penetrator and not stop until the invader is immobilized and handcuffed. 

What can be seen is that the Chief upon penetrating the danger zone triggered the officer to then reach for the Chief's  arm to either  initiate physical contact to repel penetration of the danger zone and/or an initial attempt to take the Chief's  arm to facilitate handcuffing. The tape shows the Chief only turning from the officer once he already entered the  danger zone  and once the officer began contact with his arm.

 The officer whose danger zone was penetrated had not patted down the suspect earlier for weapons but saw him re-enter the vehicle twice including from a blind spot o  the other side of the vehicle.This would mean the officer could not conclude the Chief did not have a weapon or re-entered the vehicle to get one after two earlier attempts to demand the officer fight with him were ignored by the officer.

The  second officer off screen answering a call that an officer needed assistance would not know the extent and nature of the need of assistance and would be trained to assume a life threatening situation was imminent until it could be determined otherwise explaining why on seeing the Chief in the danger zone then turning from the other officer trying to hold his arm,  would have been trained to see an imminent threat to life and therefore initiated the swift intervention predicated on the belief the Chief may have had a weapon he was preparing to  use or in the alternative was resisting  and preparing to engage in further physical force.Further The first officer like the second would have been trained to believe the turning from initial contact was resistance and his then walking away could be a preparation to pull out a knife, gun or other weapon.

Police officers are trained to defend their lives one the danger zone is penetrated. They are trained once someone  penetrates the danger space to  bring the invader down and do not stop or get distracted  until the assailant  is immobilized and secured from attacking.

The tape shows the Chief:

1- conducting a public disturbance and engaging in disorderly conduct by swearing at the police officer and uttering numerous threats ;

2- engaging in repeated interference/ obstruction of an officer attempting do his lawful duty;

3-- attempting to coerce police  by threatening to use the  Chief's political powers to sanction  him for doing his job;

3- assault and battery, resisting arrest.

This was a lawful stop on an expired license with the vehicle parked at the angle it was to facilitate maximum camera

My comments are based solely on physical movement and body proximity.

The only reason this is news is because it's a Chief claiming his status allows him to act like an ass. If he was white and a politician  no one would care.

The Chief's status or creed should not be used to justify his bad behaviour.

 

 

I'm not in any way suggesting this was an unlawful stop.   And, I'm not saying the chief was right in his defiant stance - lol, that karate stance was even laughable!

I'm saying........................... the brutality by the second cop was unnecessary.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, eyeball said:

No Allan Adam was clearly moving towards the cops car angrily for sure but he was starting to calm down.  There is a certain noisome segment of our society people who demand and expect police to crack down and get tough at the least sign of unwillingness to comply with authoritah immediately or else. This is why I regard much of what is taken to be systemic racism seems more like systemic authoritarianism.  I get that many conservatives are unhappy at being cast as racists when demonstrating a great deal of support for cops in these situations and I doubt the'll be any happier being cast as authoritarians but it just is what it is.

Governments need to up their game with regards to the qualifications required to be a cop.  Cops need to be more like psychologists conditioned to refer to training than simple enforcers motivated by testosterone or steroids.

 

Some people want to serve, to uphold the law.   Some people want to be cops for the power of that uniform.   And sometimes, being on the job too long can corrupt a cop. 

Man, dealing with what they deal with every day, has got to have a toll for them at some point.

I suppose, they really ought to screen the applicants, and maybe do some psychological evaluations every 3  years or so.  Like, maybe - after 5 years on the streets - give them a "time-out," and have them do administrative duties, or refresher courses.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2020 at 11:52 AM, eyeball said:

It's clear the chief was combative at the beginning of the video but it also seems clear that he was resignedly moving in the direction the 1st cop was steering him in. The 2nd cop is who turned this into a shit show.

Why is it clear?  It also appears he was pulling  away from the officer trying to subdue him as he swore at the officer after police penetrating the officer's danger zone.  How is swearing reluctant resignation and not a sign of resistance? Was he pulling away or pushed?  Officers do not push to arrest or subdue in fact the exact opposite. They have been taught to pull in the assailant body and bend the first limb they can get to use leverage of their own body to use  their weight and gravity to pull the suspect down.

As well your scapegoating the second officer selectively ignores that officer's training and the behaviour of the assailant as if that officer acted in a vacuum. 

That officer received an officer needs assistance call and was taught to not assume  or remain dettached but upon seeing a fellow officer's danger zone penetrated move as quickly as possible to immobilize the assailant. He had an impaired view. He could not see if the Chief had a weapon but he would have heard the Chief  swearing and an impaired view of the Chief  turning away from the officer. It would take a split second after turning for the Chief to  pull out a knife or gun and kill the officer in his danger zone.  That second officer could not assume otherwise. The second officer is not trained to wait because that could be a fatal mistake. He was following his training.

If you penetrate an officer's danger space they are taught to subdue, immobilize and handcuff and not stop until the suspect is rendered fully cuffed.

With due respect Eye you do not understand what a danger zone is and  what happens to if you penetrate it and why police are trained to react as they do when you penetrate it. I myself was forced to take down an elderly person in a crowded market. She pulled out a pair of scissors leaning towards another medic next to me. No I had no time to assume or ask.  Uniforms trigger behaviour. The danger zone was penetrated. No I did not as you  selectively suggest  ignore someone in a danger zone. No the scissors were not meant for a haircut. No I did not ask the lady why she did what she did. She was quickly taken away. The entire incident was like 5 seconds. You do not have time to stand as you suggested. You immobilize then ask questions.  When working in a mental insitution as an orderly I was not allowed to have patients penetrate the danger zone either. Its basic training. 

Edited by Rue
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2020 at 1:26 PM, betsy said:

If the chief was intoxicated - the first cop was most likely taking that into a great deal of consideration thus we see his patience with Allan.

No you assume that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2020 at 10:14 AM, betsy said:

 

Some people want to serve, to uphold the law.   Some people want to be cops for the power of that uniform.   And sometimes, being on the job too long can corrupt a cop. 

Man, dealing with what they deal with every day, has got to have a toll for them at some point.

I suppose, they really ought to screen the applicants, and maybe do some psychological evaluations every 3  years or so.  Like, maybe - after 5 years on the streets - give them a "time-out," and have them do administrative duties, or refresher courses.

We  suppose a lot of things about front line responders..but thatvis the point...we assume without all the facts or expertise to comment on the behaviour we see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2020 at 10:06 AM, betsy said:

 

I'm not in any way suggesting this was an unlawful stop.   And, I'm not saying the chief was right in his defiant stance - lol, that karate stance was even laughable!

I'm saying........................... the brutality by the second cop was unnecessary.

You call it brutality because you see brutality.  You can not conceive  what you saw could be anything else.  What you saw was a takedown something the officer was trained to do under the circumstance that arose. Any hesitation could have resulted in the other officer being killed. You assume things that police officer could not know, such as the assailant did not have a weapon or what the assailant's motives were.

The last thing one does is get in and out of a vehicle continuously after being told not to. That in itself means you could have obtained a weapon.

There was a lot of stupid things the Chief did that night because he lost it over a routine expired license stop and decided to try interfere.

We are lucky no one was killed.  The fact is his own family could not control him. Did you hear one pedestrian say to him to calm down? Everyone today grabs a cell phone as nd acts like a passive zombie. Not one person said to him calm down.

Do any of us today do anything but live by the cell phone leading us by our nose? Why is that arrest even in the news?

Edited by Rue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no doubt the Chief behaved poorly and stupidly, but then the second officer's reaction was heavy-handed and the punch from above to the side of the chief's head, after he was down and being held by TWO much larger men was excessive.  This appears to be a case of the officers getting frustrated and taking it out on the man, rather than being an appropriate response.  

If the training supports that use of force - for tackling a man to the ground and then punching him in the face because he's acting upset and not calmly accepting have his arms twisted behind his back, then that needs to be changed.  The punch while the guy was down seals is what really frames the whole interaction.  You could even argue that the tackle wasn't that bad, and they tripped up with each other when they went down.  The punch is what makes it look like the second cop was out for trouble.  

Edited by Moonbox
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The  first officer called for backup. I'm assuming when dispatch sent the message there's a code as to what's going on and how to handle it. 

For example if the suspect seems willing to or is resisting arrest the message might say something like "Blah blah blah, number and street. See Adam 12. Handle code 2." That's the way it's done on the TV show I watch anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the dispatch instructed the officer to tackle the suspect and punch him in the head while he was being held down by two much larger, stronger men.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2020 at 3:55 PM, Infidel Dog said:

You know who "Chief" Chucky Adam reminds me of? This guy:

phillips-profile2.jpg

Here's a link if you don't recognize him:

https://militaryphony.com/2019/01/27/nathan-phillips-aka-nathan-stanard-u-s-marine-corps-vietnam-vet-blog-of-shame/

Wait...this one should do it:

nathan-phillips-confrontation.jpg

Nathan and Chief Chuck both know it doesn't matter what you say or how big the lie is. It's all in the production.

His real name is Chief azz hole. And Chief ahole could not even intimidate a young white Trump supporting young lad. The lad stood his ground. Good for the lad. It is getting to the point that if a white cop arrests some "people of color" it will probably be seen as racism now. With all of this BLM hate all white cops nonsense going on these days white cops can only expect to be seen more and more as white racists these days. There have been plenty of white people that have been roughed up and arrested by white cops but yet for some unknown reason the leftist liberal lying media only want to show and try to provoke more racial tension by only showing white cops on black folk incidents. Aw well. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2020 at 2:18 AM, betsy said:

It was about expired plates?

I guess that the chief forgot that he was not driving his truck on Indian land, eh? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2020 at 3:07 PM, WestCanMan said:

Worth noting that when CTV first tweeted this, the whole angry confrontation at the front was edited out. 

Those snakes did everything they could to make this look worse than it was. 

Here's the official version of the details from the world's foremost expert on climate change, race relations in America, Coronavirus and now Canadian law:

https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/very-disturbing-to-see-greta-thunberg-speaks-out-on-video-of-chief-allan-adam-s-rcmp-arrest-1.4982917

There ya have it ya frickin' buncha idjits! NONE OF YOU HAD THE RIGHT ANSWER! It was "shameful abuse".

Book 'em Danno. 

Hold it, stop everything. How dare anyone question anything that little commie brat has to say these days. When she speaks we all must listen with adoring and loving ears and hearts. Climate Barbie has all the answer to all of the world's problems. We must all now bend the knee to miss climate Barbie highness. Lol. I would like to book her, Danno. Lol. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2020 at 3:25 AM, betsy said:

Yeah, the video was edited at CBC too.  Good thing I saw this longer version.

If it is an incident involving a white on a people of color incident, well then, that has to become front page news with the Communist Broadcasting Corporation. The CBC can never get enough of anything that may appear to have a tone of racism in an incident. The world must hear and know about it right now. Shocking indeed. 

So, does this mean that the 2nd cop will get fired now? Just wondering. 

Edited by taxme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2020 at 7:12 AM, betsy said:

 

 

 

 

I watched the video again.  I'll have to agree with Eyeball.

Timer: 6:55

 

The first cop did have things under control.  No matter what other scenarios preceded that - the first cop got this chief under control.

  He had the chief's arm,  and the chief was not really resisting - they were walking together - when the second cop came running and slammed into the chief. 

There was no need for the second cop to react in that violent way.   The very presence of the second cop would establish that control even more.  All he had to do was be there, to see to it that there wouldn't be any problems, and be ready to assist as necessary.

 

Deleted. 

Edited by taxme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, taxme said:

I guess that the chief forgot that he was not driving his truck on Indian land, eh? ;)

Expired plate . . . . expired insurance?  How would you like the chief plowing into your vehicle full of family members?  There ain't no 'healing circle' gonna fix that . . . the 'chief' is a dickhead.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, taxme said:

I guess that the chief forgot that he was not driving his truck on Indian land, eh? ;)

I was just curious.  What it was all about doesn't really matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, betsy said:

I was just curious.  What it was all about doesn't really matter.

It's just more of an excuse for the likes of comrade Pravda CBC or CTV to promote more anti-white racism and hatred. The globalist communists are rubbing their gleeful hands and enjoying the mass mayhem and confusion that they have been allowed to create. Unless you can convince and show me otherwise than this is what I believe is going on today. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...