Cops beat innocent guy to a pulp

[James M]

This is friggin' brutal.

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/play...l=17758009&ch=

[IR_mike]

For being such a multicultural city it looks like the vancouver police sure have trouble dealing with people who dont speak english.

At least they didn't use the "death ray" this time.

[honda450]

Has to be more to the story. Wonder why too just bad stuff gets into the media as well regarding police. Yup because it sells. Take a look at the good things they do. Your in trouble who ya gonna call ghostbusters?

[Da Jimmer]

... ghost busters are cooler though.... ...

[Okotokian]

I'll withhold judgement until I hear the police side of the story. But apart from mistaken identityt, I wouldn't have thought police would start out with their fists even if they did have the right guy. Wouldn't they come in and find out what was actually happening first? This story smells funny. Not just a simple mistake. SOMEONE is lying. Just don't know who yet.

[1899b]

Originally Posted by honda450

Has to be more to the story. Wonder why too just bad stuff gets into the media as well regarding police. Yup because it sells. Take a look at the good things they do. Your in trouble who ya gonna call ghostbusters?

I wouldn't say that. It was only a couple weeks ago that one of Canada's finest shot a cougar that had the family dog in its mouth and he saved the dog. Mind you some asshats on this forum were saying how the RCMP should have been a better shot and went for the head instead of its rear quarter even when the cat's yap had the family pet in it. The police get criticized no matter what.

[mtylerb]

Originally Posted by 1899b

I wouldn't say that. It was only a couple weeks ago that one of Canada's finest shot a cougar that had the family dog in its mouth and he saved the dog. Mind you some asshats on this forum were saying how the RCMP should have been a better shot and went for the head instead of its rear quarter even when the cat's yap had the family pet in it. The police get criticized no matter what.

Agreed, but they are also human and make some pretty dumb moves. Who knows what the cops were thinking, they already screwed up and got the wrong room. Maybe they were planning on teaching the male what it was like to get beaten. Maybe they saw something and it was a self-defense move.

We won't know the circumstances, even if the media claims they get the whole story. Police brutality sells newspapers and that's what they'll run with. Which is why I don't subscribe to newspapers and I don't have cable. No media sensationalism for me.

[elkhunter11]

If you were beaten like the man in the video,would you be willing to let it die after a simple apology?I would be calling my lawyer and taking legal action against the offices involved.

[Clgy_Dave2.0]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

If you were beaten like the man in the video,would you be willing to let it die after a simple apology?I would be calling my lawyer and taking legal action against the offices involved.

Me too!!
Cha-ching!! $$$$$ I could handle a good ass-kicking if it meant a nice juicy 'settlement'! Hell, I've looked worse than that after a hockey game...and I PAY to play!

[AxeMan]

Wow, same thing happened to my buddy whom I bought his house from and am still living in it here in Edmonton. A cruiser rolls up to said house and two officers come to the door pounding loudly one Saturday morning. My buddy answers the door in his night robe and they begin screaming get on the ground at him and then instantly grab him and try to wrestle him from the front step. Well, my buddy is a pretty thick guy and had both cops flat on their backs when another cruiser comes roaring up and the officer is yelling "wrong address, wrong address!" The cops brushed theselves off and drove away without so much as an apology. True story.

[Whiskey Wish]

I dunno...it's all based on forms of restraint and failure to comply.

1. Officer gives verbal order (form of restraint). Suspect complies. End of story.

2. Officer gives verbal order. Suspect fails to comply or escalates. Officer either reiterates verbal order or escalates depending on his judgement of personal safety, other officers safety, public safety and suspects safety.

3. Officer exerts physical force (form of restraint). Suspect complies. End of story.

4. Officer exerts physical force. Suspect fails to comply or escalates. Officer escalates.

5. Officer employs damaging physical force (form of restraint). Suspect complies. End of story.

6. Officer employs damaging physical force. Suspect fails to comply or escalates.

7. Officer employs less lethal weapon (form of restraint). Suspect complies. End of story.

8. Officer employs less lethal weapon. Suspect fails to comply or escalates.

9. Officer employs less lethal weapon with damaging results (form of restraint). Suspect complies. End of story.

10. Officer employs less lethal weapon with damaging results. Suspect fails to comply or escalates.

11. Officer choses to continue application of less lethal weapon OR , depending on his judgement of personal safety, safety of other officer(s) or safety of the public escalates to employ lethal force (form of restraint) dependent on how much the suspect escalates. Suspects safety is now forfeit depending on immediate compliance to orders.

That may not be the EXACT formula but it is pretty damn close. I am not an officer of any kind. All I know is that even in the case of a mistaken identity if an officer of the law commands me to lay down and put my hands behind my back I'm going to do just that right away. His job becomes easy, my position becomes safe and we can discuss the details later. What's the big deal??
My guess is this guy is a dirtbag hanging out with dirtbags that got mistaken for a different dirtbag that reacted like a dirtbag to the officers then got treated like a dirtbag. Now for a little while he will be a rich dirtbag that will end up right where he started being a broke dirtbag because that's where all dirtbags end up.
Just my opinion mind you.

Keep Your Powder Dry,
Dave.

[Walleyes]

I don't know the details of the incident in question but I do know it can happen.

Had a similar thing happen to a friend couple years back.. Thing is he is a diabetic and had a seizure while driving and hit a street light pole in traffic in down town Fort Sask. When the cops roll up they mistake him for a local known drug dealer and while my buddy is bleeding in his vehicle from the accident they start whaling on him and dragging him out of his truck. They ended up dislocating his shoulder and some other minor injuries from the police and their dog. When he started to look into it after first they tried denying what happened but then admitted their mistake in private to him. When he talked to a lawyer the lawyer basically told him that a trial would drain him of his funds and probably never stick.. They got away with a doozy that time. Now this is of course the shortened version you really should hear the long one its quite the story of what went down..

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Whiskey Wish

My guess is this guy is a dirtbag hanging out with dirtbags that got mistaken for a different dirtbag that reacted like a dirtbag to the officers then got treated like a dirtbag. Now for a little while he will be a rich dirtbag that will end up right where he started being a broke dirtbag because that's where all dirtbags end up.
Just my opinion mind you.

Dave, the guy in question was renting a suite to the guy they were looking for. How does that make him a dirtbag? Have you been making your whiskey wish come true a little early today?

[mtylerb]

Originally Posted by Whiskey Wish

I dunno...it's all based on forms of restraint and failure to comply.

1. Officer gives verbal order (form of restraint). Suspect complies. End of story.

2. Officer gives verbal order. Suspect fails to comply or escalates. Officer either reiterates verbal order or escalates depending on his judgement of personal safety, other officers safety, public safety and suspects safety.

3. Officer exerts physical force (form of restraint). Suspect complies. End of story.

4. Officer exerts physical force. Suspect fails to comply or escalates. Officer escalates.

5. Officer employs damaging physical force (form of restraint). Suspect complies. End of story.

6. Officer employs damaging physical force. Suspect fails to comply or escalates.

7. Officer employs less lethal weapon (form of restraint). Suspect complies. End of story.

8. Officer employs less lethal weapon. Suspect fails to comply or escalates.

9. Officer employs less lethal weapon with damaging results (form of restraint). Suspect complies. End of story.

10. Officer employs less lethal weapon with damaging results. Suspect fails to comply or escalates.

11. Officer choses to continue application of less lethal weapon OR , depending on his judgement of personal safety, safety of other officer(s) or safety of the public escalates to employ lethal force (form of restraint) dependent on how much the suspect escalates. Suspects safety is now forfeit depending on immediate compliance to orders.

That may not be the EXACT formula but it is pretty damn close. I am not an officer of any kind. All I know is that even in the case of a mistaken identity if an officer of the law commands me to lay down and put my hands behind my back I'm going to do just that right away. His job becomes easy, my position becomes safe and we can discuss the details later. What's the big deal??
My guess is this guy is a dirtbag hanging out with dirtbags that got mistaken for a different dirtbag that reacted like a dirtbag to the officers then got treated like a dirtbag. Now for a little while he will be a rich dirtbag that will end up right where he started being a broke dirtbag because that's where all dirtbags end up.
Just my opinion mind you.

Keep Your Powder Dry,
Dave.

Dave,

I think you mean this:



This is the RCMP's model for use of force and is very similar to what I use as an armed guard. There's a few small differences that have to do with the nature of the job, but you get the idea.

[jacob1202]

i bet the officers were giving him commands... he wasnt listening cuz he doesnt speak a lick of english... so they used force... maybe now this fellow will go take an english class or two... it sucks he got beat down but if he was following the officers orders this wouldnt have happened

[elkhunter11]

This is the RCMP's model for use of force and is very similar to what I use as an armed guard. There's a few small differences that have to do with the nature of the job, but you get the idea.

And in theory,all RCMP officers should act in accordance with the model,however,theory and fact aren't always one and the same.How the officers should have acted,and how they really did act in this situation,might vary greatly.I am inclined to share the opinion,that you previously posted:

Maybe they were planning on teaching the male what it was like to get beaten.

it sucks he got beat down but if he was following the officers orders this wouldnt have happened

If the officers hadn't bungled by going to the wrong address,this wouldn't have happened.

[mtylerb]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

And in theory,all RCMP officers should act in accordance with the model,however,theory and fact aren't always one and the same.How the officers should have acted,and how they really did act in this situation,might vary greatly.I am inclined to share the opinion,that you previously posted:

Oh, I'm inclined to believe it, too. It probably never would have been reported, either, if they'd gotten the right person. Being that there are tens of thousands of cops across the country, I'd expect a few stories a year of cops going overboard and beyond their boundaries. It's not the majority of the members that are the problem, but .5% of 100,000 officers is still 500 bad apples. The rest may be good and do their best, but the bad apples and the media attention they garner tarnish the image for the rest.

[jacob1202]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

And in theory,all RCMP officers should act in accordance with the model,however,theory and fact aren't always one and the same.How the officers should have acted,and how they really did act in this situation,might vary greatly.I am inclined to share the opinion,that you previously posted:





If the officers hadn't bungled by going to the wrong address,this wouldn't have happened.

good point!!!

[Whiskey Wish]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Dave, the guy in question was renting a suite to the guy they were looking for. How does that make him a dirtbag? Have you been making your whiskey wish come true a little early today?

Perhaps but.....I still think there is some truth in this verse from the Quoran:

"If thou lay with dogs do not be surprised if thou arise with fleas."

Funny how they always seem to have an "innocent" reason for being in the company of wanted felons or their ilk. Does it honestly happen.... no doubt. Does it happen as often as they would like us to think? I'm thinkin' not.

No whiskey yet...it's not five o'clock Mr Buffet.

Keep Your Powder Dry,
Dave.

[elkhunter11]

It's not the majority of the members that are the problem, but .5% of 100,000 officers is still 500 bad apples. The rest may be good and do their best, but the bad apples and the media attention they garner tarnish the image for the rest.

I agree that a few bad apples can spoil the reputation of the force.But if the force was to show the public that they don't tolerate such behavior from their officers by dealing very harshly with the bad apples,instead of protecting them and covering up such incidents,they would greatly improve their image in the eyes of the public.Cover ups only hurt the reputation of the force even more.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Whiskey Wish

Perhaps but.....I still think there is some truth in this verse from the Quoran:
.

Quoting the Qur'an on the AO board? My, you are feeling brave today. I think I'll just stand over here out of the line of fire.

[Walleyes]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Quoting the Qur'an on the AO board? My, you are feeling brave today. I think I'll just stand over here out of the line of fire.

[Paul C]

Originally Posted by Whiskey Wish

I dunno...it's all based on forms of restraint and failure to comply.

1. Officer gives verbal order (form of restraint). Suspect complies. End of story.

2. Officer gives verbal order. Suspect fails to comply or escalates. Officer either reiterates verbal order or escalates depending on his judgement of personal safety, other officers safety, public safety and suspects safety.

3. Officer exerts physical force (form of restraint). Suspect complies. End of story.

4. Officer exerts physical force. Suspect fails to comply or escalates. Officer escalates.

5. Officer employs damaging physical force (form of restraint). Suspect complies. End of story.

6. Officer employs damaging physical force. Suspect fails to comply or escalates.

7. Officer employs less lethal weapon (form of restraint). Suspect complies. End of story.

8. Officer employs less lethal weapon. Suspect fails to comply or escalates.

9. Officer employs less lethal weapon with damaging results (form of restraint). Suspect complies. End of story.

10. Officer employs less lethal weapon with damaging results. Suspect fails to comply or escalates.

11. Officer choses to continue application of less lethal weapon OR , depending on his judgement of personal safety, safety of other officer(s) or safety of the public escalates to employ lethal force (form of restraint) dependent on how much the suspect escalates. Suspects safety is now forfeit depending on immediate compliance to orders.

That may not be the EXACT formula but it is pretty damn close. I am not an officer of any kind. All I know is that even in the case of a mistaken identity if an officer of the law commands me to lay down and put my hands behind my back I'm going to do just that right away. His job becomes easy, my position becomes safe and we can discuss the details later. What's the big deal??
My guess is this guy is a dirtbag hanging out with dirtbags that got mistaken for a different dirtbag that reacted like a dirtbag to the officers then got treated like a dirtbag. Now for a little while he will be a rich dirtbag that will end up right where he started being a broke dirtbag because that's where all dirtbags end up.
Just my opinion mind you.

Keep Your Powder Dry,

Dave.

This also applies to the man who held a paper stapler to the police at an airport. The way your talking the ends justifies the means. Pull you head out of the sand and wake up. The police acted like they had done anything wrong during the enquiry. Look at the black minority in the L.A, it is quite common for police to get out of control. :tong ue2:

[Paul C]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I agree that a few bad apples can spoil the reputation of the force.But if the force was to show the public that they don't tolerate such behavior from their officers by dealing very harshly with the bad apples,instead of protecting them and covering up such incidents,they would greatly improve their image in the eyes of the public.Cover ups only hurt the reputation of the force even more.

X2

[blackpheasant]

Originally Posted by jacob1202

i bet the officers were giving him commands... he wasnt listening cuz he doesnt speak a lick of english... so they used force... maybe now this fellow will go take an english class or two... it sucks he got beat down but if he was following the officers orders this wouldnt have happened

Sort of like the gentleman from Poland who got Tasered to death at the Van airport except he's not around to take any english classes....

[Whiskey Wish]

Originally Posted by Paul C

This also applies to the man who held a paper stapler to the police at an airport. The way your talking the ends justifies the means. Pull you head out of the sand and wake up. The police acted like they had done anything wrong during the enquiry. Look at the black minority in the L.A, it is quite common for police to get out of control. :tong ue2:

I didn't say anything about right or wrong, whether it is applied fairly or not, whether there are bad officers or not. I simply said this is very basically how officers will apply their training to you if the need arises. You can argue the rights and wrongs until you are blue in the face but they will STILL apply this basic method to anyone they feel they need to arrest. Period.
If you wish to debate the merits of this system take it up with the Justice Minister because this is what they have approved for law enforcement use.
(or something similar)

My PERSONAL belief is the paragraph about "dirtbags". Nothing you can say or do will change my opinion on that topic as it has been created by 55 years of seeing "stuff happen" repeatedly.

Keep Your Powder Dry,
Dave.

[Paul C]

Lots of people complain about the in justice of major crimes. The crimes are harder to get conviction because the police use excessive force that violates there rights causing more more crimmals to be let go. I know of lots people who cannot get service from police due to the legal web that the police have made for themselves. Excessive force is not required unless somebodies life is in danger. I can can see why people are arming themselves to take care of property and life.

[Elko]

Maybe the big bad rcmp are not to blame for this one, considering it was Vancouver Police.

[TreeGuy]

It's not like they went to the wrong house. They went to the wrong DOOR. 2am, woman calls 911 saying her husband was beating her. The officers did their best to get there asap to potentially save a life. In their haste, they hit door A instead of door B. It was a mistake, and I am sure there is probably quite a bit more to this story, but time will tell.

I do have a question though. Would we even be having this conversation right now if they had picked the correct door? I suspect most would be applauding their actions. I know I would be.

Tree

Just an update....


"He said the department no longer stands by a police statement that alleged Wu was injured after he resisted arrest.

"We said Mr. Wu resisted arrest and was injured in the process. I want to make it perfectly clear this morning that we do not stand by that statement. This was information that was premature and released as fact when only an investigation can determine what happened," he said."