3334 replies to this topic

[Nparker]

What happens if Surrey continues to reject the province's demand? Will Farnworth personally come and deal with crime in the "city of parks"?

[Victoria Watcher]

The B.C. government has put up $150 million to help the city with the transition to the SPS, funding the city has rejected. Despite this, Farnworth has said the money will be applied directly to the transition process.

 

 

 

 

 

Odd.  

[Matt R.]

In this case either weapon aimed where the officer aimed it would have (did) prove equally fatal.
Which is not to say it was obviously an accident.

You can’t point a weapon at someone you can’t clearly see, pull the trigger and say “oops it was an accident”.

[Blair M.]

You can’t point a weapon at someone you can’t clearly see, pull the trigger and say “oops it was an accident”.

That's the crux of the entire issue though, isn't it?

As well, we would have to more broadly define "accident", as it is all too apparent that the Officer didn't intend to kill her.

He did however, make a fatal error in judgement.

 

My original point though, was that the ARWEN might be treated no differently than a side-arm ... which tends to make your point that you never shoot at anything (with any weapon) when you can't clearly see the intended target.

In this case, the ARWEN resulted in the death of the victim, as would the Officers side-arm if pointed (it wasn't aimed) at the same target.

[max.bravo]

Blair, do you know what kind of training / what beliefs police officers have around the use of "less lethal" tools like that ARWEN? 

 

If I'm putting myself into the officer's shoes -- he may have been confronted with a psychotic woman lighting herself on fire on a couch in an occupied apartment building. I can imagine how his mental risk calculation might've made it seem like a good idea to incapacitate her with the ARWEN in order to safely extricate her from the situation, *if* he was taught / believed it was truly non-lethal. 

[Matt R.]

That's the crux of the entire issue though, isn't it?
As well, we would have to more broadly define "accident", as it is all too apparent that the Officer didn't intend to kill her.
He did however, make a fatal error in judgement.

My original point though, was that the ARWEN might be treated no differently than a side-arm ... which tends to make your point that you never shoot at anything (with any weapon) when you can't clearly see the intended target.
In this case, the ARWEN resulted in the death of the victim, as would the Officers side-arm if pointed (it wasn't aimed) at the same target.

So which is it. It was so smoky he couldn’t see so decided to pull the trigger at what he couldn’t see OR he could see and aimed for the head.

[Victoria Watcher]

I think it was very smoky and he thought he probably saw a back of a person but didn't feel he had the time to more properly ascertain if that was what he was seeing.  And he thought he was firing a "less lethal" weapon and was less concerned about being wrong, than say if he had fired his gun.

 

Nobody has yet convinced me anyone was a confirmed threat that required the use of any weapon.

 

And nothing has conviced me of "billowing" smoke here.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 23 April 2024 - 03:49 PM.

[max.bravo]

We know there was a fire of some size. I would imagine something like that could quickly get out of hand in an apartment building. 

 

I tend to default to the side of the guy who woke up and went to work that day, putting his life on the line for public safety, rather than the drug-addict living in public housing who is posing a danger to everyone around them. But that's just me. 

 

It's easy to armchair quarterback these things. I would imagine the chances of the cop being a bloodthirsty guy looking for an excuse to murder someone is very low. Maybe not perfect judgment in hindsight, but at least nobody else got burnt to death in an apartment fire.

 

I can't imagine how it feels to be a cop, dedicated to risking your life for others, to then be vilified when a life-threatening situation goes slightly wrong. 

[Victoria Watcher]

We know there was a fire of some size. I would imagine something like that could quickly get out of hand in an apartment building. 

 

I tend to default to the side of the guy who woke up and went to work that day, putting his life on the line for public safety, rather than the drug-addict living in public housing who is posing a danger to everyone around them. But that's just me. 

 

It's easy to armchair quarterback these things. I would imagine the chances of the cop being a bloodthirsty guy looking for an excuse to murder someone is very low. Maybe not perfect judgment in hindsight, but at least nobody else got burnt to death in an apartment fire.

 

I can't imagine how it feels to be a cop, dedicated to risking your life for others, to then be vilified when a life-threatening situation goes slightly wrong. 

 

I sort of agree.  

 

If he had been more cautious she might have just died by smoke inhalation, same result, same dead person.

 

I don't think anyone suggests he tried to murder anyone.

[Gipper]

B.C. prosecutors decline to lay charges against Mounties who shot Jared Lowndes

https://www.timescol...lowndes-8644104

This is the incident from Campbell River a few years ago where the police dog was killed.

[Mike K.]

Thank you, Gipper.

[Victoria Watcher]

After a statement from the Greater Victoria School District over the weekend reaffirming its stance to not allow school liaison officers in its schools, the Victoria Police chief has reiterated his calls to reinstate the program.

 

The Greater Victoria School District (SD61) released a letter stating it made its decision in 2023 after two-and-a-half years of engagement with local school trustees, police liaison officers, union members, the Victoria Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, local First Nations, SD61 students and more.

 

“The board of education’s decision means that police will not be used to provide student services that should be provided by appropriately trained, qualified and regulated professionals such as district leadership, principals, teachers, educational assistants, counsellors, youth and family counsellors, social workers or health care professionals,” said the school district in a release Friday.

 

Now, Del Manak, Victoria’s police chief, has reiterated his calls for the program to be reinstated and says rather than ending the program the school district should work with police to make it better.

 

“I continue to request that the SD61 Board listens to the concerns raised by the community and reinstate the SPLO program immediately, and request that we work together to find a path forward by creating a small sub-committee to revise the program in a way that addresses the concerns raised by the SD61 Board about those who don’t feel comfortable with officers in schools,” Manak said in a statement.

 

“Keeping students safe requires having trust and a relationship, and that relationship is built through regular, positive interactions, which is the basis of the SPLO program.”

 

 

 

https://www.cheknews...ficers-1200791/

[Blair M.]

Blair, do you know what kind of training / what beliefs police officers have around the use of "less lethal" tools like that ARWEN? 

 

If I'm putting myself into the officer's shoes -- he may have been confronted with a psychotic woman lighting herself on fire on a couch in an occupied apartment building. I can imagine how his mental risk calculation might've made it seem like a good idea to incapacitate her with the ARWEN in order to safely extricate her from the situation, *if* he was taught / believed it was truly non-lethal. 

No max, I'm uneducated on the details of officer training procedures.

 

I think there are many different approaches to discussing this event, but I personally find that there are two observations from which the conversation need be started from:

1) The police officer had absolutely no intent to kill the victim (or he would have used his service weapon).

2) The police officer believed the ARWEN weapon to be non-lethal, either through previous training or through personal experience to date.

 

I myself don't have the training, knowledge, or factual details to make any additional observations or statements as to the to the decisions the officer made, and which led to the death of the victim.

Logic and available facts would seem to indicate that the officer proceeded to make a series of rapid decisions in good faith, and in that process a fatal event occurred resulting from the now known fact that the ARWEN is most definitely not 100% non-lethal.

[Victoria Watcher]

 

1) The police officer had absolutely no intent to kill the victim (or he would have used his service weapon).  < we all agree with this

2) The police officer believed the ARWEN weapon to be non-lethal, either through previous training or through personal experience to date. < no, he is trained to know it is "less lethal", just as every officer knows that a single fist punch can be lethal.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 25 April 2024 - 05:22 AM.

[Blair M.]

Less lethal vs. lethal, I really don't know what went on in the officers head in the instant the event took place, but logic would seem to indicate that if a person agrees with point #1, then point #2 automatically indicates that in the officers head at the exact time he pulled the trigger, he believed the ARWEN would only incapacitate the woman, not end her life.

 

But again, how the officer training on the ARWEN is undertaken is beyond my knowledge base, so whether that assumption made on the officers part was appropriate or not is simply beyond me.