Tweet
Originally posted by bc1871
View Post
The officers dropped the subject to the ground, and proceeded to subdue him. Now according to current policies in Canada, an officer may use force against a subject so long as he is resisting. Now obviously if any incident were to come to trial, the officer would then have to defend his actions and the general rule is so long as the officer is acting in defense of himself, the public or his comrades then he can use a reasonable amount of force to subdue a subject.
You are presuming the arrest was lawful.
Adam Nobody was attacked without provocation or cause.
Also, given that numerous officers were involved in the takedown, it creates a good group of witnesses, who if brought to trial, can attest to whether or not their fellow officer had used excessive force or not.
You do realize that NONE of the officers have come forward to say they were in the video and apparently NO OTHER OFFICERS on the force are able to identify their colleagues either. What "witnesses" bc1871? The difficulty in identifying the involved officers stems in part from their removal of their identification in direct violation of their regulations.
Now some anti-police advocates will simply say that they will lie to protect their brother in arms, but I firmly believe that a majority of law enforcement officers truly support the laws which they are sworn to uphold, and not lie on the stand.
Yes, a very honourable bunch of cops we have here. See the above comment.
Adam Nobody has a history of engaging in political protest (during the Second Iraq War), and no doubt the he was either a person of interest or an individual who had popped up on the police radar, so no doubt they would have numerous resources spent to observe his actions more carefully.
Cite please. I think you are making **** up. You do realise they didn't even know his name when they arrested him? Nice use of resources there.
Also he claims that two plainclothes “roughed him up”, though there exists NO EVIDENCE at all!
Aside from the additional injuries not apparent in the video but present after his arrest? Debatable but not the basis of the charge laid against the officer.
Also if you observe the video, you’ll notice that it’s edited, and that the SIU has determined that the video was doctored. Apparently the film was off between 3-5 seconds...which proves that there was tampering.
I dealt with this stinking turd in my previous post.
Adam Nobody also allegedly is known as a violent offender who has carried arms to protests in the past(no firearms), which puts any officer on the alert. Now if the subject is known to be violent, and was clearly carrying a bag(which as an officer safety issue is evident), the officers would no doubt be suspicious of the subject in question.
Comment