Vancouver Police shoot a guy then seize then news cameraman's camera

[st7860]

http://www.theprovince.com/Cops+shoot+East+Vancouver+then+confiscate+Province +camera/1467479/story.html

Vancouver police shot a man Sunday — and seized a Province photographer’s camera as he took pictures at the scene.

The man was driving a large black pick up truck when police boxed him in at the 700-block Jackson Street near the Georgia Street viaduct at about 5:15 p.m.

The man was taken away by ambulance.

When Province photographer Jason Payne arrived at the scene just moments later, the man was lying on the street as more police arrived. As he was taking photographs, “a constable pushed me away. Another officer ran up and pushed me back into the street,” said the veteran photographer.

Payne said he identified himself as a news photographer, but the police demanded his camera.

“They said I was obstructing justice and they were going to confiscate my camera as evidence. They ended up taking my camera from me. It was either that or be arrested,” he said.

“They were manhandling me,” he said.

Payne was shocked. “I understand they have work to do, but I also have work to do. It’s highly unprofessional for them to start seizing items.”

A movie film crew was working nearby and best boy nicholas-kandie: said he saw the police take Payne’s camera.

“He was assaulted by the police. They had him in a lockhold and [Payne] had his foot on his camera,” trying to stop it from being taken, said nicholas-kandie:.

Police gave Payne his camera back just over an hour after they seized it.

Province Editor-in-chief Wayne Moriarty said he would look into the matter.

“We will insist on knowing why the camera was taken and why our photographer had to endure what looks like police bully tactics.” Last month, a witness to a Vancouver police shooting claimed an officer had seized his cell phone and erased pictures of the shooting. The camera is with a technician who is attempting to retrieve the images

[cheapmeister]

Police over there seem like turds. I was watching vancouver news one night and it showed a police officer who was charged with beating up a pedrestrian! The pedrestrian was standing too close to the policemans car as he made a right turn, so the cop (off duty) jumped out of his car and gave the guy a beat down! Too crazy!
Also a crazy man was chasing his wife and kid out of their home with a gun when a car just happened to drive by on their side street which has no traffic. She jumped into the car with her husband pointing a gun at her but she was saved as the driver sped off! The husband later shot himself and died.

[flexwong]

not saying what the police did was right but with what's been happening in vancouver recently with all the gang violence, it's not surprising to see the police acting more brutal.

[st7860]

guess the cop who took the camera way didn't stop to THINK what would happen when everyone found out.

[IntegrationByParts]

Not surprised at all. I had the same thing happen to me. I am happy that it is being publicized because it's ridiculous.

[GunnerX]

Surprised they didn't taser him.

[bokep]

Incidents like this is why people have no respect for police officers

[st7860]

http://www.vancouversun.com/Police+shoot+stolen+truck+east+Vancouver/1467547/story.html
VANCOUVER — For the second time in three weeks, Vancouver police have shot a suspect during a routine investigation.

A 38-year-old man in hospital with non-life-threatening injuries after police shot him while investigating a stolen pickup truck in Strathcona Sunday night.

Vancouver Police Const. Jana McGuinness said four undercover police officers in an unmarked car were in the area at 5:20 p.m. after reports the black pickup truck was seen in the neighbourhood.

They spotted the truck in a parking lot in the 700-block of Jackson Avenue, at the corner of Union Street, near the Georgia Viaduct.

As they approached, they saw a man getting into the driver’s seat, McGuinness said.

The officers drove their car into the truck’s right bumper, pinning it in the parking lot.

Three of the officers then got out and commanded the man to stop.

“He disobeyed all their commands and accelerated fully to the point where the tires were spinning and smoking in the parking lot,” McGuinness said.

At that point, one of the officers fired a single shot through the passenger window, smashing the glass and striking the driver.

McGuinness wouldn’t say where the man was hit but said he would survive.

The police officer who shot the man was a six-year veteran of the force, she added. No officers were injured.

“The decision to use force is never made lightly; the officers would make that decision if they felt their lives were in danger,” McGuinness said.

A male and female witness were escorted to the police station for interviews.

Neighbours said they didn't hear any gunshots and were only made aware of the shooting when police came knocking at their door and asked whether they saw what happened.

Vancouver police expected to have the area Jackson from Union to Keefer cordoned off until the early hours Monday.

The shooting comes less than three weeks after Vancouver police shot and killed Michael Vann Hubbard, 58, of no fixed address.

Hubbard was walking on a downtown street March 20 when he was approached by two officers. He was shot after he pulled out a small X-Acto knife, and died from a single gunshot wound.

The officers were investigating a report that someone had broken into a vehicle nearby.

Police said later that Hubbard was not the person involved in the break-in, but was stopped because he resembled the suspect.

ksinoski@vancouversun.com

[fakishan]

When people of authority commit an abuse, it angers me more than if it were a criminal.

I think it comes down to what type of people bother to become police officers. With the high turnover rate, the entrance bar is very low.

[corrupt123]

Well, everyone bitched about them using tasers so now they have to use their guns.

I bet you fools are real happy now. No more tasers!

[kurtblak]

Well, everyone bitched about them using tasers so now they have to use their guns.

I bet you fools are real happy now. No more tasers!

So you are saying cops are too stupid to use anything but a gun and a taser.

You better hope they never pull you over.

[spookie149]

So you are saying cops are too stupid to use anything but a gun and a taser.

You better hope they never pull you over.

That's not the point. Often times members of the police are placed in situations that require them to act quickly with little time to use reasoning or other non-violent behaviour. It doesn't matter how rational a person you are : if your instincts tell you someone is about to shoot,stab, etc you, you will immediately respond to protect yourself. The police are trained how to recognize a life-threatening situation apart from others. Having a taser would keep officers from resorting to use their guns.

[bokep]

That's not the point. Often times members of the police are placed in situations that require them to act quickly with little time to use reasoning or other non-violent behaviour. It doesn't matter how rational a person you are : if your instincts tell you someone is about to shoot,stab, etc you, you will immediately respond to protect yourself. The police are trained how to recognize a life-threatening situation apart from others. Having a taser would keep officers from resorting to use their guns.

If they were acting purely in self-defence there would be no need to assault a bystander to seize his camera.

[WontonTiger]

That's not the point. Often times members of the police are placed in situations that require them to act quickly with little time to use reasoning or other non-violent behaviour. It doesn't matter how rational a person you are : if your instincts tell you someone is about to shoot,stab, etc you, you will immediately respond to protect yourself. The police are trained how to recognize a life-threatening situation apart from others. Having a taser would keep officers from resorting to use their guns.

Isn't that the main reason that we TRAIN our police officers. Nobody is perfect, but these guys shouldn't be reacting with irrational instincts. What's the point of a TRAINED police force if they can't reason in the moment, and restrict their basic urges/instincts.

There is a reason that we are considered smarter than animals. We have a brain that can override instinct in many cases. These officers need better training, or they aren't fit to be police.

[Cr0at1a]

1. They confiscated the camera to eliminate any evidence of wrong-doing (like the taser video at the airport)

2. If the guy was in his vehicle and boxed in with nowhere to go then there was NO REASON to shoot him.

The police are getting stupider and stupider with their guns and tasers.

I wonder if the if the news photographer will get his pictures back.

[st7860]

1. They confiscated the camera to eliminate any evidence of wrong-doing (like the taser video at the airport)

2. If the guy was in his vehicle and boxed in with nowhere to go then there was NO REASON to shoot him.

The police are getting stupider and stupider with their guns and tasers.

I wonder if the if the news photographer will get his pictures back.

maybe the officer thought that the truck driver spinning his wheels creating smoke was a carcinogen

[kurtblak]

Isn't that the main reason that we TRAIN our police officers. Nobody is perfect, but these guys shouldn't be reacting with irrational instincts. What's the point of a TRAINED police force if they can't reason in the moment, and restrict their basic urges/instincts.

There is a reason that we are considered smarter than animals. We have a brain that can override instinct in many cases. These officers need better training, or they aren't fit to be police.

Pepper spray. Rubber bullets. Even in Europe the police have a rifle that shoots an immobilizing net.

But that's too complex to operate for canadian police.

Guns or Tasers: the new motto.

Check out the new police uniform below lol...

http://dallasvintageshop.com/wp-content/uploads/Image/ancient/cave-MAN.jpg

[bobbings]

If they were acting purely in self-defence there would be no need to assault a bystander to seize his camera.

Well, both the camera and gun are for shooting something... Maybe the officer got confused at that moment...

[spf1971]

Pepper spray. Rubber bullets. Even in Europe the police have a rifle that shoots an immobilizing net.

But that's too complex to operate for canadian police.

Guns or Tasers: the new motto.



Because no one has ever died from pepper spray or rubber bullets.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=pepper+spray+death&meta=&aq=f&oq=

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=rubber+bullet+death&meta=

[dealcatcher]

http://www.theprovince.com/Cops+shoot+East+Vancouver+then+confiscate+Province +camera/1467479/story.html

Vancouver police shot a man Sunday — and seized a Province photographer’s camera as he took pictures at the scene.

The man was driving a large black pick up truck when police boxed him in at the 700-block Jackson Street near the Georgia Street viaduct at about 5:15 p.m.

The man was taken away by ambulance.

When Province photographer Jason Payne arrived at the scene just moments later, the man was lying on the street as more police arrived. As he was taking photographs, “a constable pushed me away. Another officer ran up and pushed me back into the street,” said the veteran photographer.

Payne said he identified himself as a news photographer, but the police demanded his camera.

“They said I was obstructing justice and they were going to confiscate my camera as evidence. They ended up taking my camera from me. It was either that or be arrested,” he said.

“They were manhandling me,” he said.

Payne was shocked. “I understand they have work to do, but I also have work to do. It’s highly unprofessional for them to start seizing items.”

A movie film crew was working nearby and best boy nicholas-kandie: said he saw the police take Payne’s camera.

“He was assaulted by the police. They had him in a lockhold and [Payne] had his foot on his camera,” trying to stop it from being taken, said nicholas-kandie:.

Police gave Payne his camera back just over an hour after they seized it.

Province Editor-in-chief Wayne Moriarty said he would look into the matter.

“We will insist on knowing why the camera was taken and why our photographer had to endure what looks like police bully tactics.” Last month, a witness to a Vancouver police shooting claimed an officer had seized his cell phone and erased pictures of the shooting. The camera is with a technician who is attempting to retrieve the images

i thought this only happens in china, not canada... oh well... things have been changed.

[warnabrotha]

wow, nice shot. die hard john maclean in the house.

lessons...don't try to run over police & get your pics from far away. lol

[abu_sme]

http://www.vancouversun.com/Police+shoot+stolen+truck+east+Vancouver/1467547/story.html
VANCOUVER — For the second time in three weeks, Vancouver police have shot a suspect during a routine investigation.

A 38-year-old man in hospital with non-life-threatening injuries after police shot him while investigating a stolen pickup truck in Strathcona Sunday night.

Vancouver Police Const. Jana McGuinness said four undercover police officers in an unmarked car were in the area at 5:20 p.m. after reports the black pickup truck was seen in the neighbourhood.

They spotted the truck in a parking lot in the 700-block of Jackson Avenue, at the corner of Union Street, near the Georgia Viaduct.

As they approached, they saw a man getting into the driver’s seat, McGuinness said.

The officers drove their car into the truck’s right bumper, pinning it in the parking lot.

Three of the officers then got out and commanded the man to stop.

“He disobeyed all their commands and accelerated fully to the point where the tires were spinning and smoking in the parking lot,” McGuinness said.

At that point, one of the officers fired a single shot through the passenger window, smashing the glass and striking the driver.

McGuinness wouldn’t say where the man was hit but said he would survive.

The police officer who shot the man was a six-year veteran of the force, she added. No officers were injured.

“The decision to use force is never made lightly; the officers would make that decision if they felt their lives were in danger,” McGuinness said.

A male and female witness were escorted to the police station for interviews.

Neighbours said they didn't hear any gunshots and were only made aware of the shooting when police came knocking at their door and asked whether they saw what happened.

Vancouver police expected to have the area Jackson from Union to Keefer cordoned off until the early hours Monday.

The shooting comes less than three weeks after Vancouver police shot and killed Michael Vann Hubbard, 58, of no fixed address.

Hubbard was walking on a downtown street March 20 when he was approached by two officers. He was shot after he pulled out a small X-Acto knife, and died from a single gunshot wound.

The officers were investigating a report that someone had broken into a vehicle nearby.

Police said later that Hubbard was not the person involved in the break-in, but was stopped because he resembled the suspect.

ksinoski@vancouversun.com


I wasn't a witness to the event so I can't really comment, but this actually sounds like a justified use of force to me. They may have had him boxed in but that doesn't mean that he couldn't slip away or hurt someone while skidding out.

[Cr0at1a]

I am of the belief the police should shoot anyone, including babies in strollers- preferably in the face. They should also shoot innocent people in the stomach and shoot out the tires on the ambulance so they can't be taken to hospital. While they're at it, they should use their tasers on families on picnics, until their bodies combust and end up charred like Cajun BBQ. .

Good idea! You could call it CRIME PREVENTION. Shoot anyone that looks like they might be a criminal and then the would-be criminal will not be able to commit crimes.

[spf1971]

And while we're at it, let's get rid of that pesky legal system. If people on an online forum can determine guilt with the slimmest of evidence, why do we waste time with evidence gathering and trials. Hang em all I say. Hang em high!

[GunnerX]

They can always shoot the tires. But I guess that doesn't make any sense.

[Cr0at1a]

And while we're at it, let's get rid of that pesky legal system. If people on an online forum can determine guilt with the slimmest of evidence, why do we waste time with evidence gathering and trials. Hang em all I say. Hang em high!

Like in ancient Rome in the Collesseum. We could have a Thumbs Up and Thumbs Down button. After 24 hours of vote and debate we see what the score is.

If there is more Thumbs Down then 7 people get to press a "Pull the Trigger" button which would pull the trigger on a gun pointed at the guilty b*stards head. Why spend lots of money on jails.

[hagbard]

Get used to it. There's going to be a lot more of it.

[Cr0at1a]

I wonder if it is now Police "Standard Operating Procedure" to confiscate any cameras which may have recorded potential police wrong-doing.... they could say they are collecting evidence....

... while in fact they are collecting evidence (that could be used against them) and "losing it".

[ES_Revenge]

The police are getting stupider and stupider ....
:lol:

Sorry I had to laugh at that one.

As for the police taking the camera, no surprise there. This exact same thing happened mere weeks ago in the other police shooting.

Still I think the shooting of the driver could well have been justified (again, like the other shooting mentioned, there are just not enough details). What I don't get though is what ever happened to warnings? :confused: Like could they not have fired a bullet to the [presumably unoccupied] passenger seat first? Then if the nonsense continued, then shoot the guy? I mean only a single shot was fired, and that shot hit the driver.


They can always shoot the tires. But I guess that doesn't make any sense.
Shooting tyres will usually cause a vehicle already travelling to lose control or eventually have to come to a stop but it won't really stop a vehicle that isn't moving from moving at all. You could still drive forward or backwards on a vehicle with flat tyres, it just wouldn't be a good idea for the vehicle or for your safety. If you're trying to run down cops, then those things are probably not your concern anyway.

However again, as above, a shot like that may have warned the driver that the next shot would be him. Instead, they just chose the "shoot-once-to-kill" routine instead :rolleyes: While the crazed driver did not die, I seriously doubt the officer was discharging their weapon knowing the guy would not die in the end.

[kurtblak]

Because no one has ever died from pepper spray or rubber bullets.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=pepper+spray+death&meta=&aq=f&oq=

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=rubber+bullet+death&meta=


And the gentleman from the east coast rightly points out that people have died from pepper spray and rubber bullets.

as have people from forks and hockey pucks.

of course he does not comment on the percentage of people or the number. just an assortment of links decades old.

what does that show?

that the gentleman from east coast sees no difference between 100 people killed by taser or gun in 2 years by cops and 2 killed by pepper spray in 10 years. they are somehow the same evil in his mind.

fortunately the east coast gentleman's argument is as weak in numbers as the cod on the oceans surrounding his lovely province.

http://www.stanford.edu/%7Ebhackett/monterey-2006-04-30/images/ling-cod.jpg

[Cr0at1a]

:lol:

Sorry I had to laugh at that one..

Context buddy ... context.
If you quote then quote the whole thing and not cut out words

The quote was "The police are getting stupider and stupider with their guns and tasers."

[warnabrotha]

What I don't get though is what ever happened to warnings? :confused: Like could they not have fired a bullet to the [presumably unoccupied] passenger seat first? Then if the nonsense continued, then shoot the guy? I mean only a single shot was fired, and that shot hit the driver.



isn't pointing the gun at the guy warning enough? and no i don't think they should fire "warning" shots...they have no skill to do that, the stray bullet would ricochet and hit me in the ass. him hitting that guy in 1 shot was total fluke.

[bigcortex]

It's like when a police woman shot a kid in Montreal. She fired 4 shots FFS!

[spf1971]

And the gentleman from the east coast rightly points out that people have died from pepper spray and rubber bullets.

as have people from forks and hockey pucks.

of course he does not comment on the percentage of people or the number. just an assortment of links decades old.

what does that show?

that the gentleman from east coast sees no difference between 100 people killed by taser or gun in 2 years by cops and 2 killed by pepper spray in 10 years. they are somehow the same evil in his mind.

fortunately the east coast gentleman's argument is as weak in numbers as the cod on the oceans surrounding his lovely province.



100 people in 2 year? Where did you get this information from? My guess would be your ass because here is what I had already found and posted which shows your "stats" to be BS.


There have been 245 documented deaths as a result of taser use http://ubyssey.bc.ca/2007/10/23/current-police-behaviour-shocking/ out of an estimated 680,000 uses http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/dec07/5731. The probability of death as a result of a taser is very small.


You want to claim that rubber bullets and pepper spray is so much safer than tasers when in reality, it's not.

"As of 1995, the American Civil Liberties Union documented 26 individuals subject to police action who died following exposure to pepper spray, equivalent to one fatality for every 600 police uses."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_spray

Between 1970 and 1975, over 55 000 rubber bullets were fired in Northern Ireland, with an estimated death rate of one in 18 000 rounds used,

http://www.mindfully.org/Health/2002/Rubber-Bullets-Israeli-Arab25may02.htm

Let's compare numbers for our intellectually challenged friend.

Taser: 245 deaths out of 680,000 = 0.003%

Pepper Spray: 1 death out of 600 = 0.16%

Rubber Bullet: 1 death out of 18,000 = 0.005%

WOW I guess your logic really proved me wrong. Don't worry, I won't ask for an apology for your stupidity. I just hope you learned something and will from now on actually research before you try and prove someone wrong.

[corrupt123]

Pepper spray. Rubber bullets. Even in Europe the police have a rifle that shoots an immobilizing net.

But that's too complex to operate for canadian police.

Guns or Tasers: the new motto.

Check out the new police uniform below lol...
<snip>


Are you on drugs? You would rather the police kept the primary magazine in their firearm loaded with rubber bullets and fired it instead of using a taser anytime they arrived at confrontation? I can guarentee a lot more people would die that way.

Pepper spray is good, and they do use it. One problem though is that you've got to be pretty close to the person to use it, and anything between you will make it innefective. Windows of a car, for example.

Or the net-firing bazooka. Yeah, thats a great solution. We'll just add it to the standard issue 7kg belt that police already carry. Criminal injuries will drop significantly - because they'll be able to turn around and run away without being caught. Problem solved!

The fact of the matter is that the police are trained to difuse a situation as fast and safely as possible. Further, they're trained to hit their targets and nothing else. Once an officer discharges his/her firearm, you can bet they're on the hook for miles of paperwork and public scrutiny. If you're going to shoot - shoot to solve the problem.

This isn't a matter of the police shooting a guy who tried to take off from the McDonalds drivethu after he pulled over. It's a criminal who was driving a truck - and obviously had no intention of stopping or any regard for the safety of those around him. Could they have fired a warning shot into the air, then into the passenger seat, then shot our all 4 tires, then waited for the suspect to finally realise it's over? Sure. They could have also popped the hood and disconnected the battery. There are lots of solutions, but the fact is this: It's happening, and it's happening now. You're responsible for the lives of everyone here, make your decision and make it fast.

[st7860]

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Stolen+truck+involved+police+shooting+dragged+trad e+worker+Vancouver+police/1470104/story.html

The stolen pickup truck involved in a police shooting in Strathcona on Sunday night had dragged a prostitute about 100 metres down East Hastings Street one week earlier, Vancouver police said Monday.

The driver of the F-350 pickup had approached a sex-trade worker on March 29 in the 400 block of East Hastings Street, according to police.

"She offered to sell him drugs, which he took without paying," police said in a statement. " As he drove off, the woman's jacket was caught in the passenger door and she was dragged about 100 meters. The driver stopped the truck, opened the door and the woman fell to the ground."

The woman, who suffered scrapes and bruises, managed to get the truck's licence plate number, and a police check revealed the truck had been stolen in Coquitlam earlier that day.

Police said four plainclothes VPD officers spotted the truck on Sunday in an open parking lot at the corner of Jackson and Union streets and the saw a man get into it.

"Three of the officers got out and the fourth officer remained at the wheel of the police car," police said in the statement. " Two of the officers moved up to confront the driver. The driver of the stolen truck began to fully accelerate, with the officer driving the police car doing the same to avoid being pushed out of the way. Tires were smoking, as the driver repeatedly refused commands from the officers.

"One of the officers who confronted the driver was standing between the truck and an adjacent parking car and a second officer was close by. The driver door of the truck was open and it was smashing into the car parked beside it. The officer caught between the two vehicles fired a single shot, striking the driver."

The 38-year-old driver is in hospital with non-life-threatening injuries.

He is facing possible charges of assaulting a peace officer, dangerous driving, possession of stolen property over $5000 and breach of an undertaking, police said.

The Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner has been notified. The officer involved in the shooting is a six-year member.

"The decision to use deadly force is not taken lightly," said Vancouver police Const. Jana McGuinness. "The officer has to believe they or the public are in immediate danger of serious harm or death."

It was the second time in three weeks that Vancouver police have shot a suspect during a routine investigation. Police shot and killed Michael Vann Hubbard, 58, of no fixed address. Hubbard was walking on a downtown street March 20 when he was approached by two officers. He was shot after he pulled out a small X-Acto knife, and died from a single gunshot wound. The officers were investigating a report that someone had broken into a vehicle nearby. Police said later that Hubbard was not the person involved in the break-in, but was stopped because he resembled the suspect.

[b166er1337]

The police are getting stupider and stupider with their guns and tasers.

.

Wrong, people are getting stupider when you are surrounding by cops and DISOBEYED all their commands, then be prepared to be beaten up/shot.

[jedijome]

i don't think this should be an issue of the amount of force they used.
i think the issue here is they destroyed evidence and took the photographers camera away.

whether they were justified in using the force is not the point and i dont know why people are getting side tracked on that. actually im going to go ahead and say that they probably were but by deleting photos and video now it looks like they are guilty of not having just cause or something.

heck if i was accused of a crime and deleted surveillance video you know they'd slap me with charges of impeding justice and what not.

it's actually pretty ridiculous when you think about it. what protection do we have against the police abusing their powers, if every time someone tries to document it, the evidence is confiscated and destroyed without any consequences for the officer.

[spf1971]

i don't think this should be an issue of the amount of force they used.
i think the issue here is they destroyed evidence and took the photographers camera away.



Where did you get that they destroyed evidence? They seized the camera, they didn't destroy it. The issue is that people read things that aren't there and use that as a basis for opinions.

[jedijome]

Where did you get that they destroyed evidence? They seized the camera, they didn't destroy it. The issue is that people read things that aren't there and use that as a basis for opinions.


so you're perfectly fine with

"“He was assaulted by the police. They had him in a lockhold and [Payne] had his foot on his camera,” trying to stop it from being taken, said nicholas-kandie:.

Police gave Payne his camera back just over an hour after they seized it."

i'm perfectly aware of what the issue is, you seem to be the one who has problems picking up on it. try to address the issue instead of attacking people who have different opinions.

[Coolers]

You want to claim that rubber bullets and pepper spray is so much safer than tasers when in reality, it's not.

"As of 1995, the American Civil Liberties Union documented 26 individuals subject to police action who died following exposure to pepper spray, equivalent to one fatality for every 600 police uses."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_spray

Between 1970 and 1975, over 55 000 rubber bullets were fired in Northern Ireland, with an estimated death rate of one in 18 000 rounds used,

http://www.mindfully.org/Health/2002/Rubber-Bullets-Israeli-Arab25may02.htm

Let's compare numbers for our intellectually challenged friend.

Taser: 245 deaths out of 680,000 = 0.003%

Pepper Spray: 1 death out of 600 = 0.16%

Rubber Bullet: 1 death out of 18,000 = 0.005%

WOW I guess your logic really proved me wrong. Don't worry, I won't ask for an apology for your stupidity. I just hope you learned something and will from now on actually research before you try and prove someone wrong.

The point is, rubber bullets and pepper spray are much less lethal than bullets. The problem is that cops don't use either frequently enough (and discharge their firearms instead), though this is likely due to immediate availability of their weapon on their body.

[spf1971]

The point is, rubber bullets and pepper spray are much less lethal than bullets. The problem is that cops don't use either frequently enough (and discharge their firearms instead), though this is likely due to immediate availability of their weapon on their body.

And tasers are less lethal than any of them, but nobody wants police to use tasers anymore. What's the magic solution? No matter what option they choose, people will find fault with it.

[spf1971]

i don't think this should be an issue of the amount of force they used.
i think the issue here is they destroyed evidence and took the photographers camera away.




so you're perfectly fine with

"“He was assaulted by the police. They had him in a lockhold and [Payne] had his foot on his camera,” trying to stop it from being taken, said nicholas-kandie:.

Police gave Payne his camera back just over an hour after they seized it."

i'm perfectly aware of what the issue is, you seem to be the one who has problems picking up on it. try to address the issue instead of attacking people who have different opinions.

1. They didn't assault him. They seized evidence and he tried to resist, there is a difference.

2. You claimed that they "Destroyed" evidence. Now you state that they didn't destroy it and in fact returned it but I'm the one having a problem picking up on things? You tried to make a sensationalist statement and when I asked you about it, you changed the issue.

For clarification, what is your issue? Is it that they destroyed evidence (which we know they didn't), that they assaulted him (which they didn't) or are you now going to change it to option 3?

[jedijome]

1. They didn't assault him. They seized evidence and he tried to resist, there is a difference.

2. You claimed that they "Destroyed" evidence. Now you state that they didn't destroy it and in fact returned it but I'm the one having a problem picking up on things? You tried to make a sensationalist statement and when I asked you about it, you changed the issue.

For clarification, what is your issue? Is it that they destroyed evidence (which we know they didn't), that they assaulted him (which they didn't) or are you now going to change it to option 3?

nope my issue still is

"“He was assaulted by the police. They had him in a lockhold and [Payne] had his foot on his camera,” trying to stop it from being taken, said nicholas-kandie:.


i'm pretty sure any reasonable person, especially someone who is an professional photographer would be fine if the police reasonably asked or went through proper channels instead of just trying to grab at his equipment while he was trying to take pictures. whatever happened to courtesy, due process, legal channels, instead of a smash and grab. 'you're not giving me what i want,i'll put you in a choke hold and take it, because i'm the police!"

you flat out dismiss that he was assaulted even though an eyewitness says he was, and then you make the assumption that they seized evidence. Well i'm pretty sure there's a proper procedure to go about collecting evidence. i don't think it woudl fly if a cop beat up a city tv crew to take their video camera while they were filming a piece.

anyways this is pointless, we'll never see eye to eye.

[warnabrotha]

i'm pretty sure any reasonable person, especially someone who is an professional photographer would be fine if the police reasonably asked or went through proper channels instead of just trying to grab at his equipment while he was trying to take pictures. whatever happened to courtesy, due process, legal channels, instead of a smash and grab. 'you're not giving me what i want,i'll put you in a choke hold and take it, because i'm the police!"

you flat out dismiss that he was assaulted even though an eyewitness says he was, and then you make the assumption that they seized evidence. Well i'm pretty sure there's a proper procedure to go about collecting evidence. i don't think it woudl fly if a cop beat up a city tv crew to take their video camera while they were filming a piece.

anyways this is pointless, we'll never see eye to eye.

what procedures. when i have my joint and a cop asks for it can i tell him to go through legal channels first? i'm positive i'll get the ass kicking procedure.

i'd like to beat up Michael Kuss for this crappy weather.

[jedijome]

what procedures. when i have my joint and a cop asks for it can i tell him to go through legal channels first? i'm positive i'll get the ass kicking procedure.

i'd like to beat up Michael Kuss for this crappy weather.

The situation you're setting up here isn't the same, mainly because the photographer was an innocent bystander/victim . While you in the strictest sense were actually breaking the law and so you were the one being arrested and labeled as a criminal. In that case if the officer asked for your joint as evidence and you said no, then he could actually take it from you, using force if required.

While i hope he wouldn't beat you into a bloody pulp he'd have the right to use the necessary force required to ticket you/gather evidence and/or arrest you. I doubt he'd go all Rodney king on your ass for having one joint but if he did i hope there's someone videotaping the incident. And if there was i bet you'd be glad that they managed to keep the video safe.

Fact is, there's legal ways to go about getting evidence and illegal ways. What the cops did was illegal and he should be disciplined. That they shot the guy in the truck or jeep is irrelevant to my argument, if they had just case and they probably did, what's there to hide? Heck that's justification the authorities use all the time to promote camera surveillance in public and some private places. i'm just saying that we apply the same principle to the police to make sure that they stay within the bounds of the law while they're trying to uphold it.

If the photographer wasn't going to delete his pictures and he said he'd turn over any pictures at a later date then what's the big deal? Why did the officer have to see them that instant? what was he trying to hide or delete? Not saying it's likely but were they afraid that new evidence would turn up like it did in the Dziekanski taser trial?

I understand the police have a tough job to do, and it's a very dangerous one at that but a lot of other people also have very dangerous jobs to do too. The more dangerous and important the job, the greater the imperative that the group performing that job operate within the rules. Even more so for the police , how do they expect us to give them the power to enforce laws when they seem unable to root out and discipline the bad apples that abuse that power within their midst. why do they protect the bad apples instead of expunging them for tarnishing their reputation?

[spf1971]

What the cops did was illegal and he should be disciplined.



As was pointed out to me many times on here; "Until a court rules what happened to be illegal, the person didn't do anything wrong."

Right now all we have is a police officer attempting to seize an item and the reporter resisting. An officer has every right to seize an item and until a court rules it an illegal seizure, it was the reporter who did something wrong.

[jedijome]

As was pointed out to me many times on here; "Until a court rules what happened to be illegal, the person didn't do anything wrong."

Right now all we have is a police officer attempting to seize an item and the reporter resisting. An officer has every right to seize an item and until a court rules it an illegal seizure, it was the reporter who did something wrong.

are you being facetious? if a police officer walked up to you and grabbed your cellphone and walked off with it, would you then say "oh well the police officer attempted to seize an item no point in resisting, the officer has every right to seize my belongings without just cause until a court rules it an illegal seizure, if i don't give it to him then I've done something wrong." What you're saying opens the door to that kind of scenario. There's no accountability at all and police officers could do whatever, whenever. their defense would just be, "he took a picture that we think was of critical importance on his cellphone, it was evidence." Even if the picture you just took was of your dog.

police officer's should know the law that they're meant to uphold and in any case even if the officer was guilty of stealing and assault (in the extreme sense) how likely is it even to go to court. we'll have another internal investigation and he will be cleared. meanwhile our rights, well they stop mattering a little more that day.


In any case the globe and mail had an article about this the other day. Take a look at it if you want. I think it makes a fair argument.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090407.wpolicecomplaint0407/BNStory/National/home

[spf1971]

are you being facetious? if a police officer walked up to you and grabbed your cellphone and walked off with it, would you then say "oh well the police officer attempted to seize an item no point in resisting, the officer has every right to seize my belongings without just cause until a court rules it an illegal seizure, if i don't give it to him then I've done something wrong." What you're saying opens the door to that kind of scenario. There's no accountability at all and police officers could do whatever, whenever. their defense would just be, "he took a picture that we think was of critical importance on his cellphone, it was evidence." Even if the picture you just took was of your dog.

police officer's should know the law that they're meant to uphold and in any case even if the officer was guilty of stealing and assault (in the extreme sense) how likely is it even to go to court. we'll have another internal investigation and he will be cleared. meanwhile our rights, well they stop mattering a little more that day.


In any case the globe and mail had an article about this the other day. Take a look at it if you want. I think it makes a fair argument.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090407.wpolicecomplaint0407/BNStory/National/home

Are you being facetious? Of course I would resist, but that doesn't mean that the officer was doing something illegal. The important thing is the motivation behind the officer seizing the item. There are circumstances in which it would be legal and illegal for a police officer to seize an item. Until a court rules on the matter, neither you nor anyone else knows if the seizure is illegal.

That is about as simple an explanation as I can possibly make. If you don't understand it, there is nothing more I can explain to you.

Edit: Considering you find the article so informative, maybe you'll want to read these little gems that are in it.

"Mr. Eby said police only have the right to take a camera under limited circumstances, including if the person consents or if police have a warrant."

"Mr. Eby said currently police believe they can seize cameras that might give evidence of a crime, but the courts have dramatically limited the scope of that law. "

Even your own article admits that there are circumstances in which the seizure is legal.

[st7860]

the vancouver police issued a bulletin to their officers regarding when they may or may not seize cameras and so on.
http://www.theprovince.com/pdf/policebulletin.pdf

and a letter from the chief of police, Jim Chu
http://www.theprovince.com/pdf/policeletter.pdf

[Nikita]

As was pointed out to me many times on here; "Until a court rules what happened to be illegal, the person didn't do anything wrong."

Right now all we have is a police officer attempting to seize an item and the reporter resisting. An officer has every right to seize an item and until a court rules it an illegal seizure, it was the reporter who did something wrong.


Are you being facetious? Of course I would resist, but that doesn't mean that the officer was doing something illegal. The important thing is the motivation behind the officer seizing the item. There are circumstances in which it would be legal and illegal for a police officer to seize an item. Until a court rules on the matter, neither you nor anyone else knows if the seizure is illegal.

That is about as simple an explanation as I can possibly make. If you don't understand it, there is nothing more I can explain to you.

Edit: Considering you find the article so informative, maybe you'll want to read these little gems that are in it.

"Mr. Eby said police only have the right to take a camera under limited circumstances, including if the person consents or if police have a warrant."

"Mr. Eby said currently police believe they can seize cameras that might give evidence of a crime, but the courts have dramatically limited the scope of that law. "

Even your own article admits that there are circumstances in which the seizure is legal.

Well your first post and the bolded part of the second post seem to be contradictory, but meh, no biggie. The police do not "every right to seize an item and until a court rules it an illegal seizure, it was the reporter who did something wrong". They either have to have reasonable cause or a warrant. It has something to do with our Charter rights against "unreasonable" search and seizure.

Yes, "There are circumstances in which it would be legal and illegal for a police officer to seize an item" (which is contradictory to your first post). And officers are expected to know when it's legal or not and what they have to do to make it legal, like get a warrant.

[grant]

“He was assaulted by the police. They had him in a lockhold and [Payne] had his foot on his camera,” trying to stop it from being taken, said nicholas-kandie:.
That's standard for the police in this province... if they don't like you arguing with them, they can teach you a lesson by roughing you up a little bit.

[skeletor]

There's only one cop that can cleanup the streets of Det...err Vancouver.
http://media.filmschoolrejects.com/images/robocop01.jpg

[sheilab]

It is clear what the police were doing by "confiscating cameras".
They were trying to seize eveidence that could be used against them.

From the article

The Canadian Press April 7, 2009 at 4:53 PM EDT

VANCOUVER — The B.C. Civil Liberties Association wants Vancouver police reminded that they can't just seize photos and videos from witnesses.The association said there have been three incidents where police have tried to seize cameras and video cameras — all three in cases of police-involved shootings.

“What's particularly troubling to us is that the three high-profile allegations ... all involve police using lethal force against citizens,” he said.

Last month, a man who claimed he recorded the police shooting of a homeless man on his cellphone said an officer asked for his phone and when it was returned the video had been erased. The allegation is being investigated by an outside police force.