[van-discuss] Re: police unlawful arrest

[Mark Bussanich]

I agree with you, Lani, but I would add a couple of commetns.

First, just because the cops *claim* that a person was resisting arrest does
not give them the green light to act abusively.  There are situations where
cops make such claims but are still found to be using excessive force.  This
generally is discovered when witnesses come forward and state that the
victim was not resisting or was otherwise acting reasonably.  Furthermore,
the courts and the PCC (including the initial complaints process) view
excessive force on a scale.  The more a person is thought to have resisted,
the more justified the force.  There are limits, however.  For example, it
would be a rare case that a police officer would not be disciplined for
shooting someone in the back where the evidence shows they were running
away.

My other comment is that these Regulations do act as de facto standing
orders as you describe when they are raised in discipline procedures.
However, where the victim is charged with a crime, violation of the
Regulations is often good evidence for a defence.  It can be used to
negotiate with the Crown for a stay of proceedings or it can be used as
evidence in a trial.  In addition, it makes for good evidence in abuse of
powers civil law suits.  In those settings, they can be powerful tools.
That said, I agree that does little good when the victim cannot afford to
sue.  I also agree that, while it is a benefit to avoid a criminal record
(or another conviction on one's record), this result does little to deter
police abuse and it does not give the victim the satisfaction of knowing the
officer was disciplined.

Mark

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lani Russwurm" <laniwurm at netscape.net>
To: <van-discuss at resist.ca>
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: [van-discuss] Re: police unlawful arrest


> Such regulations however, do not amount to much more than a standing order
as both are up to the discretion of the "discipline authority" to act upon
violations, in which case the police are unlikely to take seriously unless
it would serve their interests to do so (i.e., inaction would look bad in
the public's eye). Also, the regulations explicitly allow the police to be
abusive and oppressive if it is necessary to perform their job. Virtually
every case of brutality that I've heard of in this city, the cops claim the
victim was "resisting arrest" (as in Chris' case), which gives them the
green light to be abusive assholes, and justify dismissing the complaint in
the PCC process.  The only thing I can see that would compel them to be
accountable is if the public's high regard for the police would change
(i.e., public awareness of regular police abuse) were to change, which is
the best argument for bothering to file a complaint. The law is clearly on
their side unless some critical mass were reached to change that, and high
numbers of complaints could contribute to this.
> -lani.
>
>
> "Mark Bussanich" <markb at tao.ca> wrote:
>
> >Pete:
> >
> >The law I referred to is s. 8(1) of the Police (Uniforms) Regulation BC
Reg.
> >315/97:
> >
> >Identification
> >8 (1) A badge, metal, plastic or cloth, bearing an identification number
or
> >name, shall be worn above the right breast pocket of all uniform
officers,
> >but the wearing of an identification badge by executive and senior
officers
> >shall be at the discretion of the chief constable.
> >
> >There is nothing (that I know of) saying they have to reveal their
identity
> >to you, just that their identity must be displayed on the uniform.  Also,
it
> >should be noted that this Regulation is part of the BC Police Act which
is
> >only applicable to municipal forces - i.e. excludes the RCMP.
> >
> >Hope that helps.
> >
> >Mark
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Pete Lypkie" <pete at linux-geek.net>
> >To: <van-discuss at resist.ca>
> >Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 1:56 PM
> >Subject: Re: [van-discuss] Re: police unlawful arrest
> >
> >
> >> On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 10:29:26AM -0700, Mark Bussanich wrote:
> >> > All that said, officers are required by law to have a visible ID
number
> >on
> >> > their uniform (usually on the left chest).
> >> >
> >>
> >> do you have any specifics at hand?  Is this part of the Police Act, or
is
> >it
> >> some sort of standing order?  Does it apply to both RCMP and Vancouver
> >> Police, or just one?
> >>
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >van-discuss mailing list
> >van-discuss at resist.ca
> >http://resist.ca/mailman/listinfo/van-discuss
> >
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> The NEW Netscape 7.0 browser is now available. Upgrade now!
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp
>
> Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com/
> ½©ÝSÇ.²ÉsSX§,X¬¶ö§v+
ºË+zȬµÆ¡¶Úþ·¬SË\kùsSYsYùb²Ø§~ïjwb±Ë¬