Riot in Montreal last night?

[metoo4]

Eastender is right: 3 year of college (CEGEP) in "techniques policières" (police technics?) and then I think it's 3-4 month at the Québec Police Institute in Nicolette (small Québec town). Nobody can become a cop in Québec without going down that road, unless they were a cop elsewhere with equivalent experience.

The facts requirements for size and all were lowered doesn't change much to the situation. Now the idea is to diffuse problems as much as possible instead of jumping into the battle and beating everybody who disagree. I deal with cops at various levels and heard stories who turned great without any violence but that would have turned ugly if the cops would have used only muscles. At that, womens often have an advantage for negotiations as they appear less threatening. But, no matter if it's a 7' beef or a 5' cutie, some morons will try their luck when they are in a group or even alone. Oliver, you had the perfect reaction. Even if the guy's gun was in the holster, we're not in a third world country so, talking with the cop is the best way to go, while complying to all his requests.

In this situation, where the cops were rushed, no negotiation were possible. If the cops wouldn't have shooted, chances are they would not be alive now or would have been seriously beaten. They did have something to worry about since other cops were beaten in the same area not long before.

30 years ago, the 6'4 cop jumping on a "black" without any provocation happened often but it wasn't making the news. Now, a cop only have to look at somebody sideways to have his ass kicked by political correctness.

IMHO, and other seems to agree, no matter who you are, if you decide to rush at anybody, it's not acceptable. If that person happen to be a cop, chances are you will get shot and it's too bad for you, you desserved it.

As of why the cops intercepted these guys, it's totally irrelevant. The proper response from these guys would have been to lodge a formal complaint for harrassement, not rushing the cops in a threathening manner as they did.

If we take into account the reason why these guys were intercepted, we might as well accept that peoples beat the hell of beggars who try to get cigarettes ! Why waste time asking the beggar to stop? After you beat him, he'll definetly stop! Of course, that's not acceptable.

 

[seymourhass]

Hopefully people can put their personal opinions aside until we have all of the facts

Some suggest the police are quick to jump the gun before assessing the true nature of a situation.

I get the sense this is an over reaction to a similar incident in Parc Lafontaine where an officer suffered injuries while attempting to clear the area.

A greater proportion of immigrants hold university-degrees compared to people born in Quebec, yet the opportunities available to them are low paying dead end jobs.

A client of mine (brown skin) schools his university educated teenagers on how to speak to police. They live in an affluent suburb of Montreal, and have been pulled over, interrogated and ticketed on a regular basis.

Sometimes he get the sense whether you have a criminal record or a university degree, in the eyes of police, you are suspect…..you are profiled.

Walk a mile in their shoes

The ones that are saying to go back to your country need to look in the mirror

This land belonged to the natives and they are the ones being treated worse than any other ethnic background.

 

[AllOverHer]

Eastender is right: 3 year of college (CEGEP) in "techniques policières" (police technics?) and then I think it's 3-4 month at the Québec Police Institute in Nicolette (small Québec town). Nobody can become a cop in Québec without going down that road, unless they were a cop elsewhere with equivalent experience.

You can become a cop with a university degree. Any degree. then 3-4 month police school. Unless the rules changed recently that was the other option.

 

[Doc Holliday]

You can become a cop with a university degree. Any degree. then 3-4 month police school. Unless the rules changed recently that was the other option.

I was under the impression that this is how it works. In some of the other provinces outside of Quebec, of course you can decide to be a cop right after highschool & go to the Police Foundation for a couple of years, then off to the Police Academy for 3-4 months once you've been through the interview & other entry processes.

I also know of many others who decided to be cops once they had a degree in some other discipline & simply went directly to the Police Academy for that 3-4 months period...once they passed the interview & the other requirements, of course. Others that i know who wanted to be cops from the start chose to go to college or university & get a degree in some other profession, knowing full well they'd be able to achieve their goal once they graduated & if they didn't like being cops (most i know hate it these days) they could simply fall back to something related to what they had orginally studied in.

As for what happened in that particular incident, i'll reserve judgement until all the facts are in. However, my gut-feeling is that the cop likely didn't pull the trigger unless he had a good reason to. If i'm in a neighbourhood known to be a hangout for hoodlums & gangbangers, you can bet that i won't hesitate to use my gun if i see one of them charging at me with any weapon....these hoodlums are no angels & we've seen several cops being shot all over Canada this past year or so.

 

[eastender]

Clarification II

You can become a cop with a university degree. Any degree. then 3-4 month police school. Unless the rules changed recently that was the other option.

This is true for those that go into forensic sciences, financial crimes, high tech, and other areas that are not part of what we generally view as police work. Chances are these police officers would never be on patrol.

 

[Jonn Darque]

As for what happened in that particular incident, i'll reserve judgement until all the facts are in. However, my gut-feeling is that the cop likely didn't pull the trigger unless he had a good reason to. If i'm in a neighbourhood known to be a hangout for hoodlums & gangbangers, you can bet that i won't hesitate to use my gun if i see one of them charging at me with any weapon....these hoodlums are no angels & we've seen several cops being shot all over Canada this past year or so.[/QUOTE]

You are right Doc. Unfortunately we will never know the real facts. To serve and protect each others ass.

 

[eastender]

Update II

Some more information for you to consider:

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=37a85204-98c7-4a15-906e-d92aec6ef1df

Shortly will have an interesting statistical breakdown.

 

[eastender]

Update III

The following study covering the last twenty years clearly shows that visible minorities form a distinct minority of victims involved in police shootings:

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=b954aa3d-0de4-46f1-8fd8-5686996e4783

The study would be more informative if it was balanced against a report on who commits acts of violence against police officers.

 

[eastender]

Update IV

Comparables to other cities:

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=87b9b174-3963-458e-aadf-9907f60c31ab&p=1

 

[metoo4]

How come these "minorities" who are involved in shootings are in majority "blacks"? There's an Amish community in Montréal and no violence or shooting. Quite an Asian community too! Same thing, no shooting. What about Sikh community? All these groups are visibly different from "whites" so could be subjected to racial discrimination by the big bad cops and they could react violently!

Whoever is causing trouble will get the attention. I am in no way racist, an asshole is an asshole, no matter the color. Some "Whites" qualify in the same pack as these idiots who rushed the cops and only aimed at doing their own rules and justice.

Now, the paper this morning reported that, at Fredy Villanueva'a funeral, they released doves, baloons and peoples were wearing t-shirts with Fredy's face. What a "mise-en-scène"! Come on, when somebody is getting shot, it's never funny but turning the funeral into a spectacle, that's not the thing to do. The goal was to attract more attention and raise sympathy while playing the racism card of a "poor innocent boy" who got shot by the bad white cop. No word as of why he was shot! Of course, he was just standing there while reading the bible and the cop aimed at him and shot! Right...

And now, there's a guy from this community who's saying more violence is planned for this coming Sunday, stating both bad and good boys were revolted by the shooting... Well sorry! If anybody preach or do violence, they ain't good boys and expose themself to problems.

Some other members of the community are even saying they hope the cop who shot the kid is suffering from remorses. Of course he's probably suffering from remorses! He shot a kid! But, as far as we know, that was the only option to keep himself and his partner safe. With a gun in my possession and a gang rushing towards me, knowing they won't just kiss me, I would have reacted the same!

 

[EagerBeaver]

Deadly vs. Non-Deadly Force

I don't have an issue at all with police officers defending themselves when they are rushed. The issue I think is deadly force with a firearm vs. non-deadly force with other weapons.

I understand that the cops here probably did not have riot gear, tasers, pepper spray or other means by which to defend themselves. They were armed with guns, and nothing else to defend themselves. But we have to ask ourselves: can we as a society move past guns to other, less deadly weapons? Probably the gun manufacturers don't want to see this happen, but as a society I think new weapons of non lethal force should be developed for use by police officers.

Does anyone remember the old Star Trek TV series, where William Shatner and his boys would use their "phasers", set on "stun", to disable any person or creature that menaced them or got in their way? I realize this was science fiction, but it is now 2008, and is it that much of a fantasy to think that we can't develop taser guns that can safely do the same thing? I know some police departments have started to use such weapons.

I think we should focus on developing weapons that enable the stunning and disabling rather than the killing of victims, understanding that some will probably still end up getting killed if they have a heart condition or whatever. It just seems to me as a society we should be closer to what we saw in the Star Trek TV series than we are to Wyatt Earp and the OK Corrall with wild gun shootouts, which is where we still seem to be.

I don't dispute the officers had to defend themselves, but if we keep putting them in situations where they must defend themselves with deadly weaponry, the result is going to be these kinds of fatal shootings, protests, riots, more injuries, bad community relations, and possibly lawsuits in jurisdictions that allow it for use of excessive force or violation of civil rights (it's probably more a problem here than in Canada).

I also think that maybe there is some money to be made here for someone or some company which can successfully develop a weapon similar in effectiveness to the "phasers" used on the Star Trek TV series. We can't be that far away technologically, can we?

 

[eastender]

Certain Assumptions

I don't have an issue at all with police officers defending themselves when they are rushed. The issue I think is deadly force with a firearm vs. non-deadly force with other weapons.

I understand that the cops here probably did not have riot gear, tasers, pepper spray or other means by which to defend themselves. They were armed with guns, and nothing else to defend themselves. But we have to ask ourselves: can we as a society move past guns to other, less deadly weapons? Probably the gun manufacturers don't want to see this happen, but as a society I think new weapons of non lethal force should be developed for use by police officers.

EB

You make certain assumptions that are idealistic but shaky. In the old "Star Trek" series the villains never had the stun option with their weapons. Likewise it would not be wise to assume that the villains on our streets would settle for less lethal weapons. One of the lessons of history is that certain elements always look for more lethal weapons.

Also it is doubtful that should less lethal forms of defense become available that the guns that are presently on the streets would somehow disappear.

 

[seymourhass]

On one of the radio call in shows an ex-officer said police procedure in situations where they are outnumbered is to sit back and wait for back-up. They are not to enter into a potential violent situation.

He said, “It is a sad fact, but, known criminals continue to associate with criminals, it is safe to say the others were not bible thumping, law abiding citizens.”

“The youth in question has a criminal background and was known to associate with gang members. They suspected him of violating conditions of probation/parole. It was not imperative he be arrested on the spot.”

 

[master_bates]

I'm not picking sides because both parties are at fault here.

When a cop tells you to approach them you dont put your hands in your

pockets.

My only complaint is why did the cops shoot a fatal shot when they could

have shot him in the leg or arm to immoblize him instead.

 

[EagerBeaver]

You make certain assumptions that are idealistic but shaky. In the old "Star Trek" series the villains never had the stun option with their weapons. Likewise it would not be wise to assume that the villains on our streets would settle for less lethal weapons. One of the lessons of history is that certain elements always look for more lethal weapons.

Also it is doubtful that should less lethal forms of defense become available that the guns that are presently on the streets would somehow disappear.

Eastender,

I am not sure I follow you here. If the villain is effectively disabled, what difference does it make whether he has lethal or nonlethal weaponry, as he will not be able to shoot back with either? It seems to me that the only issue is the issue of the amount of force needed to disable the villain, not the force at the villain's disposal. If the villain shoots first with a lethal weapon, then the cop is dead whether he has a gun or a nonlethal weapon. The focus should be on the force necessary to quickly and immediately disable the villain, regardless of his weaponry.

The gun manufacturers may not go out of business right away, but it seems that we should as a society be moving away from guns and towards other types of weapons.

 

[voyageur11]

Eastender,

I am not sure I follow you here. If the villain is effectively disabled, what difference does it make whether he has lethal or nonlethal weaponry, as he will not be able to shoot back with either? It seems to me that the only issue is the issue of the amount of force needed to disable the villain, not the force at the villain's disposal. If the villain shoots first with a lethal weapon, then the cop is dead whether he has a gun or a nonlethal weapon. The focus should be on the force necessary to quickly and immediately disable the villain, regardless of his weaponry.

The gun manufacturers may not go out of business right away, but it seems that we should as a society be moving away from guns and towards other types of weapons.

I dont see the U.S.society moving away from gun anytime soon. Cops are now using a non lethal weapon (the taser) with the same result it kills peoples.In my mind Bill Cosby was right many parents are not doing their job

 

[EagerBeaver]

In the old "Star Trek" series the villains never had the stun option with their weapons.

I don't know how much Star Trek you watched, but some of the villains had guns (the Chicago gangster episode), some had far more sophisticated weapons, some had phaser type weapons, and some were impervious to phasers set on "stun". The whole point was a society that had gotten past being able to rely exclusively on lethal force as a means of self defense.

This is to be contrasted with the Charles Bronson type self defense approach, as creatively advocated in the "Death Wish" films and "The Evil That Men Do", which is as effective, but far more violent. That's a good approach for the private citizen who is threatened, but perhaps not for a police officer due to the societal factors/costs previously mentioned.

 

[eastender]

Ability to Survive

Eastender,

I am not sure I follow you here. If the villain is effectively disabled, what difference does it make whether he has lethal or nonlethal weaponry, as he will not be able to shoot back with either? It seems to me that the only issue is the issue of the amount of force needed to disable the villain, not the force at the villain's disposal. If the villain shoots first with a lethal weapon, then the cop is dead whether he has a gun or a nonlethal weapon. The focus should be on the force necessary to quickly and immediately disable the villain, regardless of his weaponry.

The gun manufacturers may not go out of business right away, but it seems that we should as a society be moving away from guns and towards other types of weapons.

EB,

In any confrontation the most important element is the ability to survive the first blow especially if it is unexpected. In such circumstances the less lethal the criminal's weapon the greater the chances of survival and returning fire with appropriate disabling force.

Your scenario assumes that the first shot is the only shot. Not very realistic in many circumstances.

Since your typical criminal is far from an expert shooter they have to rely on raw firepower or the element of surprise as opposed to skill. Likewise your typical police officer is not an expert shooter and be it a gun, a taser or an improved weapon they may miss.

Your last paragraph stops short of the objective which should be moving away from weapons period.

 

[eastender]

Most Espisodes

I don't know how much Star Trek you watched, but some of the villains had guns (the Chicago gangster episode), some had far more sophisticated weapons, some had phaser type weapons, and some were impervious to phasers set on "stun". The whole point was a society that had gotten past being able to rely exclusively on lethal force as a means of self defense.

This is to be contrasted with the Charles Bronson type self defense approach, as creatively advocated in the "Death Wish" films and "The Evil That Men Do", which is as effective, but far more violent. That's a good approach for the private citizen who is threatened, but perhaps not for a police officer due to the societal factors/costs previously mentioned.

EB,

A number of the original Star Trek episodes had a common link. A few of the lead characters and a "yeoman" would beam down to a planet where there would be a confrontation. The "yeoman" would be killed - never stunned, but killed. Hence my previous comment.

The private citizen issue is a different topic.

 

[AllOverHer]

I don't have an issue at all with police officers defending themselves when they are rushed. The issue I think is deadly force with a firearm vs. non-deadly force with other weapons.

Good point EB but we don't know what really happened that night in the park. If one of the cop was arresting the kid brother and got jumped by I don't know how many in the dark. You have no idea if they have knifes or anything else.

Kids should wake up and realize that there's a difference with the world of fantasy and the real world. This is not a video game they playing and should realize that the gangsta rap mentality that kids embrace can lead to trouble. Like Oliver said if you have some kind of street smarts, you don't rush a policeman, especially if he's got a gun.

to me it looks like self defence. It's easy to critic but when everything happened in maybe 5 seconds, you don't have time to relaize what's going on.