Violent arrest of student at University of Western Ontario

I would think that the sooner you can get him to stop thrashing, the less likely that either he's going to harm himself doing so, or the less likely that having burly fellows sitting on him patiently is going to cause compression or breathing issues for him. 

Perhaps some (maybe even all) of the blows that you see on the video are gratuitous "for fun" blows, but when he's being hit, for example, on the back of his leg, the cop is targeting his hamstring, in the hope that he'll be unable to keep propping himself up on that leg. 

Quote:

I didn't mean they should literally sit on the guy - sorry if I was unclear.)

Hopefully they're not sitting cross-legged, for laughs, or pretending he's furniture. But if he's adamant about getting up then really, nothing short of weight that he cannot lift is going to prevent that. And if I'm not mistaken, there have been deaths from chest compression and suffocation in instances where cops do that. 

Now if someone could invent some kind of device that would administer a high voltage, low amperage shock to the perp's CNS, sufficient to override their voluntary muscle control, then the "hitting & sitting" wouldn't be necessary.

Snert wrote, "if someone could invent some kind of device that would administer a high voltage, low amperage shock to the perp's CNS, sufficient to override their voluntary muscle control, then the "hitting & sitting" wouldn't be necessary."

Someone has, and a good friend of Harper's lobbied successfully to bring it to Canada.

One result has been seen around the world:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/11/14/bc-taservideo...

"Exhibited delirium" is a bogus syndrome invented to blame Taser victims for their own deaths. 

P.S.  Tigana, I am quite sure that Snert is well aware of the existence of Tasers.  His comment was funny.

This is a complete violation of human rights, by the police.....no matter what B.S. they sell the media. I would love to help the beat student get all five police removed from the police force and charged with assault, police do not have the right to enforce statutes if they themselves can not follow them. No police officer/politician has any authority over anyone, and have the no right to infringe on a persons rights, give to them from there creator, not the government. Canada must stand against what has become a defective system that day by day starts to resemble the US and its "Patriot Act". We the People have right on our side......stand for your rights and the rights of your fellow Canadians before this happens to you.

Tigana wrote:

Pie, can you please direct us to the source material where this judgment on EXCITED DELIRIUM and its status in law has been determined?

It's not a legal matter; it's a medical one.  So how about you direct us to some source material showing that "excited delirium" is a genuine, documented medical condition?  There's certainly room for skepticism when a disorder is primarily invoked to reduce police liability. 

ETA:  From the document you linked:

Quote:

Critics, disputing the legitimacy of the term, claim that it is being used as a 'catch-all' that masks contributions to in-custody deaths from factors such as dangerous restraint procedures or inappropriate use of force by law enforcement officers.

I guess I'm one of these critics.

And ETA:

And how many taxpayer dollars did these asshole "experts" spend to come up with this non-conclusion?

Quote:

The panel has concerns about the quality of some of the research that has been conducted regarding the impact of restraint mechanisms. To our knowledge, no systematic analysis has been undertaken that applies a critical evaluative methodology to these studies. In the absence of a critical synthesis of available research regarding the individual or combined impact of the various forms of restraint, it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions regarding the safety of these restraint mechanisms (including the conducted energy device) for individuals experiencing AHS.

M. Spector and G. Pie, it looks as if you are both trying to deflect the issue away from taser deaths. And that is disgraceful.

Quote:

It was sarcasm designed to support Snert's disgraceful thesis that police are entitled to punch and kick people into submission, by raising as the only alternative the use of potentially lethal tasers.

No, I'm not by any means convinced that there are only two options, however I can't really say what the other options are (excluding trite nonsense like "just [i]talk[/i] to him" or "abolish the police state!!!")

I am, however, very confident that if you were one of those officers you'd have known exactly what to do to subdue a violent asshole without having to lay a finger on him. Feel free to share.

Quote:

Q.E.D.

Latin for "I don't have any other ideas either".

Well, first of all, 'force' doesn't have to mean 'kneeing someone repeatedly in the leg and batonning him in the head'. There are other ways to physically restrain someone, even someone very big.

Secondly, how long do we have to wait before police officer get real training on mental health? There's been mention of 'excited delerium'. I've lately been reading 19th-century texts on hysteria and I have to say, there's not much light between 'hysteria' as a medical affliction an whatever 'excited delerium' is supposed to be. Even if 'excited delerium' is an actual medical condition (which, I am nearly positive, it is not), why are police trained to deal with it by pummelling the subject into submission?

I also wonder, if there is no potential for the subject to injure bystanders or himself, once he has been isolated, what is the urgency to restrain him? It seems like the officers had isolated the individual, but for some reason, really needed to beat him up in a hurry. I suggest that it's part of a police's job to keep everything else calm, including his or her person, even while someone in front of them is freaking out.

Here is a very good article about the term and its history and usage.  I personally side with the people who say it is just an excuse for deaths caused by excessive force. I especially liked the line that only police officers seem to find people sufering from it.

But nearly all reported cases of excited delirium involve people who are fighting with police. And that's extremely problematic, says Eric Balaban of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"I know of no reputable medical organization — certainly not the AMA [American Medical Association] or the APA [American Psychological Association] — that recognizes excited delirium as a medical or mental-health condition," Balaban says.

He's right. Excited delirium is not recognized by professional medical associations, and you won't find it listed in the chief psychiatric reference book.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7608386

Tommy_Paine wrote:

The officer went to take Campbell down to the ground, and they both fell-- and Campbell broke his neck on the curb.

An elderly man?  For a bicycling violation? 

martin dufresne wrote:

Today,  Canadian cops have become licenced murderers, probably under explicit orders from their chiefs...and we are further and further from being able to do anything about it. (Silencing their shameless apologists here would be a start, however.)

Well,  at risk of being labelled a supporter of state-sponsored murder, I think there are two sides to any incident and sometimes grey areas between right and wrong. Cops are people. There are good ones and bad ones. The stories my sister and uncles told me about the dirty jobs they do, like domestic dispute calls, I think would have the most understanding of us siding with cops. The good cops that is. Everybody's heard the stories about bad plumbers, bad doctors and nurses, and dirty politicians. There are bad cops, too, just like any other worker. People are rarely perfect in what they do, and when they are we rarely hear or read about it.

You win again, Martin. And if ever a neighbor catches his wife or vice versa screwing around and decides to murder their spouse with a shotgun or hunting knife, be sure not to call the cops. Because I think someone like you will be able to handle it all by yourself without any backup. And mind the kids and neighbors in the line of fire.

Martin, how could you be sure this guy didnt have a pistol on him and wasn't bent on taking out a dozen females for whatever reason?

Where did I say these particular cops did the right thing? Otoh, I think sometimes it's possible that cops don't have a lot of time to ponder whether someone running around university grounds erratically is real danger to other students and innocent bystanders. They can be heroes or shits in a heartbeat. It looks to me like these cops weren't giving the guy a lot of time or room to decide on his next move. And I don't agree with kicking or punching anyone. Bad move on the part of the cops, and apparently they didn't give two shits about the camera recording their actions.

martin dufresne wrote:

Today,  Canadian cops have become licenced murderers, probably under explicit orders from their chiefs...and we are further and further from being able to do anything about it. (Silencing their shameless apologists here would be a start, however.)

I'm not sure if the problem is actually getting worse or if we're beginning to acknowledge it. There is a reason that police agencies were originally referred to as the police force. That's how they dealt with people, and it was expected. Certainly the assumption that "the coops won't bother you if you don't do anything wrong" is not the case and people are just coming around to seeing that, whereas before people would just take it for granted that anybody on the wrong end of a police baton had it coming. Most agencies have changed their names to police services, and there's talk about more training, more education (a cop once told me that even without the formal requirement, that most police agencies are unlikely to take someone without post-secondary education) community policing and all sorts of things. Officially, the PR is that police agencies need to do better in serving their communities. The extent to which this actually happens is a fair question.

So we're clear, I'm in no way arguing that good cops or good work done by cops excuses brutality.

There are bad cops, too, just like any other worker. People are rarely perfect in what they do, and when they are we rarely hear or read about it.

Exactly.  And there's good cops too.  I've met a few from both examples, as I'm sure all  of us have.

The issue is what to do when cops-- or other professionals for that matter-- are "bad".  Right now, there's no accountability.  Period. We can all point to some pretty egregious examples of that. 

As it is, the cops are above the law, and what's worse, they act like they know it. They take it for granted.

Most of the focus on this issue is on the individual officers, but as long as it is, this will continue.  The focus should be on our Chief's of Police, Crown's Attourney, Judges and Attourney's General.  They are the ones extending a blank cheque to bad cops.  They are the ones protecting bad cops. They are the ones guilty of violating  everyone's charter rights by putting some people above the law, while others are crushed by it.

Thanks for taking it in good humour. Let's just say I considered asking the mods to verify whether your account had been hacked...