The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The police have a very tough job to perform, and we should respect their efforts in maintaining a civil society, but the police should not be the first line responder to situations where criminality is not the first intent. For the mentally ill, the vulnerable, the panhandlers, vagrants and the homeless, there should be a rapid response social work team instead, who could work with police back-up in potentially threatening or hostile situations. This would be far more appropriate, and would save lives.

Interesting to note that back home, the approach to this problem - everyone everywhere seems to agree is a problem - is the opposite one: we're thinking about making some social working qualifications mandatory for police officers (it might have been implemented already in some PDs). I've been hearing this idea floated for years now, in reaction to way too many incidents of police not handling mentally ill people correctly at all (and them ending up dead).

The police is already the most rapid response team available; they're there 24/7; they can handle it if it escalates; it does make sense to suggest we could simply add this new social work specialization to the team we already have in place.

They don't need to be as fully qualified as actual professional social workers, just somewhat more than they currently are (which is frankly pretty much zero, AFAIK) would do the trick.

The police academies could have a (greater) part of the curriculum that's about social work from now on, and we'd see the fruits of this in a few years. Meanwhile all the current cops could be retro-trained a bit.

Seems the easiest way to address this issue, IMO.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by niwell

Wow! A Medium article! Damn you must feel good about yourself! Maybe actually try to listen to activists. Oh, wait, you won't. You're just gonna 🞵🞵🞵🞵 🞵🞵🞵 here to feel good about yourself. 🞵🞵🞵🞵 right off. I don't give a 🞵🞵🞵🞵 if I get banned - this place is garbage now.

LOL, you're most definitely NOT going to get banned for so little, no worries. I've had people say much worse than that to me and they didn't get into any trouble with the mods here.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

Interesting to note that back home, the approach to this problem - everyone everywhere seems to agree is a problem - is the opposite one: we're thinking about making some social working qualifications mandatory for police officers (it might have been implemented already in some PDs). I've been hearing this idea floated for years now, in reaction to way too many incidents of police not handling mentally ill people correctly at all (and them ending up dead).

It is also possible for social workers to handle wellness checks wrong and for them to end up dead.

The situations that don't add up to me are the ones where the police don't seem to have control of the situation when they should. Is it not possible to handle the scenario of a paranoid woman with a knife as a police officer?

Many of the killings by police seem worse than that because they are situations where police will talk to somebody for a long period of time and then eventually end up shooting them.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by whatnext

This assessment is spot on. I couldn't for the life of me think why the RCMP thought doing a wellness check in the middle of the night on someone worried about a stalker was a good idea.

Might be a joke in bad taste, but the thought that comes to mind is "they did their wellness check, and after their intervention, were able to report a crystal clear answer as to the current wellness status of the person they were tasked to report on".

[logan5]

It's a hypocritical world we live in. People are calling for equality, but if you are a police officer, they want to lynch you, so I question the motives of some of these protesters.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If they really are showing affinity for historical American Confederacy than I guess we do have a problem with anti-black racism in Canada after all. Imagine showing sympathy for a pro-slavery rebellion, in 2020.

Is this Confederate flag part of a significant pattern in Canada, population 37 million, or did it end up in the news precisely because it is unusual and the media thought it would attract attention?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

The situations that don't add up to me are the ones where the police don't seem to have control of the situation when they should. Is it not possible to handle the scenario of a paranoid woman with a knife as a police officer?

Many of the killings by police seem worse than that because they are situations where police will talk to somebody for a long period of time and then eventually end up shooting them who has about 1/100 the firepower they do.

Same here.

It's far from a career to me but I've been in the military for a few years (handling all kinds of firearms), and have handled hunting weapons too; if you gave me body armor and a 🞵🞵🞵 and had me handle a disorganized loser wielding a kitchen knife whose intentions are unknown, I definitely wouldn't feel I have to kill them first and ask questions later. And if I were going to shoot them it would be in the leg, not chest.

Maybe that's easy to say and I'd change my mind after years of being a cop... can't know for sure... but they DO seem very trigger-happy, from an outsider's POV.

[someone123]

I suspect part of what's happening is these scenarios are so rare that they might be the first time those specific officers have ever encountered such a thing.

For example, you're a police officer in Edmundston. You do 500 wellness checks that are all completely boring and non-confrontational. Then one day the person opens their door with a kitchen knife (not sure what state she was in). This is wildly different from your expectation so you freak out.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by lio45

; if you gave me body armor and a 🞵🞵🞵 and had me handle a disorganized loser wielding a kitchen knife whose intentions are unknown, I definitely wouldn't feel I have to kill them first and ask questions later. And if I were going to shoot them it would be in the leg, not chest.

Even if he did have a 🞵🞵🞵, you would just dodge the bullets Matrix style. I swear you live in a fantasy world.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

I suspect part of what's happening is these scenarios are so rare that they might be the first time those specific officers have ever encountered such a thing.

For example, you're a police officer in Edmundston. You do 500 wellness checks that are all completely boring and non-confrontational. Then one day the person opens their door with a kitchen knife (not sure what state she was in). This is wildly different from your expectation so you freak out.

It's clear to me that you're right with your description, and it's also clear to me that the "... so you freak out" part is absolutely unacceptable and totally unprofessional, and that it's exactly where the problem is.

Small town cop, you're not used to excitement, sure, I get that, but you're STILL supposed to be able to refrain from shooting on sight someone with a knife, FFS.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by logan5

Even if he did have a 🞵🞵🞵, you would just dodge the bullets Matrix style. I swear you live in a fantasy world.

You think I wouldn't be able to shoot someone coming at me with a knife in the legs, given enough distance? Okay, I guess you have the right to your opinion.

BTW, I clearly never said anything about them having a 🞵🞵🞵. It would be an entirely different scenario. Note that I've been panned on this forum for being TOO sympathetic to American cops who kill armed suspects apparently too easily; I disagree there. If I happen to have a 🞵🞵🞵 in my hands and cops show up, it's incredibly obvious to me that unless I drop my 🞵🞵🞵 right away, I might get shot by them any second.

Montreal cops not that long ago shot and killed a mentally ill homeless guy who had a hammer as his weapon (don't recall exactly how aggressive he was). Again, HUGE difference between someone who has a 🞵🞵🞵 like you, and someone who only has a hammer. Completely different situation.

There's a reason the expression "bringing a knife to a 🞵🞵🞵 fight" exists.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by lio45

It's far from a career to me but I've been in the military for a few years (handling all kinds of firearms), and have handled hunting weapons too; if you gave me body armor and a 🞵🞵🞵 and had me handle a disorganized loser wielding a kitchen knife whose intentions are unknown, I definitely wouldn't feel I have to kill them first and ask questions later. And if I were going to shoot them it would be in the leg, not chest.

Maybe that's easy to say and I'd change my mind after years of being a cop... can't know for sure... but they DO seem very trigger-happy, from an outsider's POV.

The current police training seems to be that if you are in a violent confrontation, you fear for your life and that you feel you must use your firearm, then you must employ deadly force.

1) - you aim for the centre of mass (central part of your lower chest where you heart is), not necessarily because you're aiming for the heart, it's just the part of the body where you are least likely to miss.
2) - you shoot more than once. This is because a single shot is unlikely to bring down an aggressor instantaneously. Unlike in the movies, it will often take a person a few minutes to die. While they are still conscious, they remain a threat.

The net result is that once a decision is made to shoot, this usually means 4-6 bullets to the chest and the victim is almost certain to die.

Is this right? Is this the proper thing to do? In my own mind, the answer is no, but the people doing the tactical training for these cops obviously think otherwise........

[Rollerstud98]

Anecdotal but years ago was told by a police officer here in Calgary that they are trained to shoot people of they go for their tasers. Reasoning being once they’ve subdued the officer with a taser now they have their 🞵🞵🞵 as well.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

Anecdotal but years ago was told by a police officer here in Calgary that they are trained to shoot people of they go for their tasers. Reasoning being once they’ve subdued the officer with a taser now they have their 🞵🞵🞵 as well.

It can definitely be messy and there will be times when police can't tell what is going on or are in a lot of danger and have to react quickly.

However many police-involved killings don't look like this. For example, Sammy Yatim was by himself on a streetcar with a knife when police went into the streetcar and ultimately shot him. Robert Dziekanski was wielding a stapler and got tasered by multiple police officers at once, then they left him on the ground for 15 minutes until paramedics came and by that time he had died.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The current police training seems to be that if you are in a violent confrontation, you fear for your life and that you feel you must use your firearm, then you must employ deadly force.

1) - you aim for the centre of mass (central part of your lower chest where you heart is), not necessarily because you're aiming for the heart, it's just the part of the body where you are least likely to miss.
2) - you shoot more than once. This is because a single shot is unlikely to bring down an aggressor instantaneously. Unlike in the movies, it will often take a person a few minutes to die. While they are still conscious, they remain a threat.

The net result is that once a decision is made to shoot, this usually means 4-6 bullets to the chest and the victim is almost certain to die.

Is this right? Is this the proper thing to do? In my own mind, the answer is no, but the people doing the tactical training for these cops obviously think otherwise........

Exactly. And that's the correct procedure when you actually have to employ deadly force. The chest is the easiest area to hit. At that point (when you've made that decision) the life of the suspect doesn't matter anymore.

My point with the post you replied to was that I don't see why there shouldn't be a slightly less deadly level of force as part of the official procedure. Mentally homeless guy coming at you with a hammer with unknown intentions? Won't stop? 4-6 bullets in the legs area is already a more reasonable response than just killing him.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by lio45

You think I wouldn't be able to shoot someone coming at me with a knife in the legs, given enough distance? Okay, I guess you have the right to your opinion.

Ok Officer Lio. Only somebody whose only police training consists of watching Commando 5 times would think to try something like that.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by someone123

It is also possible for social workers to handle wellness checks wrong and for them to end up dead.

The younger sister of someone I know was shot and killed while volunteering as a social worker in Ohio during such a visit. Happened way back in the 1980s. You can, uh, probably guess the racial components involved.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by logan5

Ok Officer Lio. Only somebody whose only police training consists of watching Commando 5 times would think to try something like that.

If you think the appropriate response to a woman with a knife is immediately 4-6 bullets to the chest, I think the courts of New Brunswick will prove you wrong and me right at some point in the medium-near future.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lio45

Same here.

It's far from a career to me but I've been in the military for a few years (handling all kinds of firearms), and have handled hunting weapons too; if you gave me body armor and a 🞵🞵🞵 and had me handle a disorganized loser wielding a kitchen knife whose intentions are unknown, I definitely wouldn't feel I have to kill them first and ask questions later. And if I were going to shoot them it would be in the leg, not chest.

Maybe that's easy to say and I'd change my mind after years of being a cop... can't know for sure... but they DO seem very trigger-happy, from an outsider's POV.

You were in the military and you think shooting a leg is easy? WTF?

Center of mass. You aim for the biggest target. Beat cops aren't Rambo ninja snipers. And because they are aiming centre of mass, is exactly why the emphasis should be on avoiding the use of force and maximizing the use of non-lethal tools when force is necessary.

[rousseau]

Out of the blue here, but:

Study says Western New York is one of the most racist places in the country

Could Western New York be one of the most racist places in America? A new study out says “yes”. The information is based on what people search on the internet. This study measures “racist” attitudes through Google search data. The researchers say it’s a way to get accurate information without people censoring themselves.



https://www.wivb.com/news/local-news/stu...f-the-most-racist-places-in-the-country/

The next time anyone suggests that Canada's individual regional identities are more closely affiliated vertically with the US states under/next to them than with other places in Canada, can we just point to my post here to save time?

People outside of southern Ontario seem to like to suggest that Ontario is more like Michigan and New York than Saskatchewan, but...no. I would presume that those people have never actually been to Detroit, Buffalo and Toronto to make the comparison.