One sentence to sum it all up:

"If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough."

And based on what we were told, where exactly did the officer really violate any of them?

The parts that I bolded.

[color=#1C2837][size=2]The cop then takes the suspect back to his car to search him, having discovered only a can of unopened beer he got frustrated at some guy wasting his time and the time of others (the fact that other cops showed up shows he called this in). The suspect then preceeds to give him some cheeky lip, at which point being human and annoyed at the waste of police time he shouts at the suspect to make him shut up.[/quote]
[color=#1C2837][size=2]I'd be absolutely enthusiastic that someone I stopped for being suspicious wasn't doing anything wrong. That's the difference. If they aren't doing anything wrong, he should have stopped right there and apologized instead of continuing down the path with the assumption that something wrong happened.

[color="#1C2837"]I'd be absolutely enthusiastic that someone I stopped for being suspicious wasn't doing anything wrong. That's the difference. If they aren't doing anything wrong, he should have stopped right there and apologized instead of continuing down the path with the assumption that something wrong happened.

You might also get yourself killed, being so happy to assume the best out of suspicious characters.


Punches to the face are a <b>trained tactic</b>. Sure, its nice when you can detain someone via less physical means, but there is no official preference given between it and other means. We had a case here in Seattle just a while back where an officer stopped two girls for jaywalking, tried to detain them verbally, they refused, he tried to physically detain one of them, the other girl tried to pull him off of her friend, and he turned around and punched that girl right square in the face. This got caught on someone's cell phone camera, so there was a huge fuss over it, but after reviewing the incident, even with the footage and even with the public outcry, it was found that the officer had acted precisely in accordance with his training.

And that he was basically told to shut up while they were trying to figure things out is of no consequence -- what cop is going to listen to a suspect's story before seeing if there is further evidence in the area? Every suspect will proclaim innocence and until there's evidence to that effect (eg, a lack of evidence to the contrary) its just noise the officer has to overcome to think. Could nicer words have been chosen, sure, but are we really going to file a complaint over words? Don't be stupid.

Even look at the opinion here -- the majority of posters are siding with the officer. I think its fairly safe to say that Gamedev has a fairly liberal bent to its membership, even our collective, usually-bleeding hearts aren't crying fowl here.

Lets go over these.

[font="Arial"]
2.1 Police officers shall carry out their duties with integrity, fairness and impartiality.
[/quote]

The officer did his job. He saw suspicious behavior, and apprehended the suspect. He was fair and impartial, he did not judge the suspect based on their clothes, but by how they were acting.

2.2 Police officers shall not knowingly make false accusations of any criminal ordinance, traffic or other law violation. This provision shall not prohibit the use of deception during criminal investigations or interrogations as permitted under law.
[/quote]

Again, no false accusations were knowingly made. He saw suspicious behavior and acted on it. Once it was determined they had no evidence of an actual crime, the suspect was promptly released.
(And I think I might write a letter to my MP and MLA to have this kind of thing fixed. Being an idiot should be a criminal offense.)

[/font]

[font="Arial"]
3.1 Police officers shall provide every person in our society with professional, effective and efficient law enforcement services. [/font]
[font="Arial"][/quote][/font]
[font="Arial"]
How exactly is doing one's job being unprofessional? Some of his comments could be viewed as borderline, but police officers are still human, and I don't think anyone is in an overly good mood when they see a suspected pill pusher getting away with a crime.
[/font]

[font="Arial"]

[/font]
[font="Arial"]5.1 Police officers shall exercise reasonable courtesy in their dealings with the public, fellow officers, superiors and subordinates.

5.2 No police officer shall ridicule, mock, deride, taunt, belittle, willfully embarrass, humiliate, or shame any person to do anything reasonably calculated to incite a person to violence.

5.3 Police officers shall promptly advise any inquiring citizen of the Department's complaint procedure, and shall follow the established departmental policy for processing complaints. [/font]
[font="Arial"][/quote][/font]
[font="Arial"] [/font]
'reasonable courtesy' doesn't say 'you must treat everyone as if they were the Queen'. There was no evidence to suggest he was attempting to do anything to incite him to violence. The OP also didn't mention anything about asking the officer about the complaint procedure and not having it provided.


As for "I'd be absolutely enthusiastic that someone I stopped for being suspicious wasn't doing anything wrong." Then you would be a utter failure as a police officer. You mean that I could walk past you, covered in blood, and just say "Oh, don't worry officer. I didn't just brutally murder someone in that alley back there, I'm just a butcher and one of my co-workers played a little prank on me. Nothing illegal going on here."

Like I said before. There are few people who won't claim they're innocent when they have their face pressed on the hood of a cruiser. If you honestly take their word at face value, then you really should have nothing to do with law.

Just so you know, in most states it is actually a misdemeanor to run from the cops. It's called fleeing. In Texas it's a misdemeanor for fleeing on foot and a felony to flee in a vehicle. You can actually be arrested simply for running if they wanted to, even if you didn't actually commit a different crime.

<--based on my 6 years experience in Law Enforcement

I'm sure Canada has the same type of law.

[color=#1C2837][size=2]You might also get yourself killed, being so happy to assume the best out of suspicious characters.

You are supposed to assume the best and expect the worst out of everyone you run into.

I'm not saying he had to get out and suck his dick. If he was frustrated, then he shouldn't have said anything, inspected the area, and upon finding nothing apologized for the inconvenience. If he suspected something that is fine, but he should have kept it to himself until there was something to confirm his suspicions. It's not professional and reflects poorly on the department. The uniform is more than clothes, and when you put it on you are expected to act in a way that reflects the department and position as a whole, and he did not act accordingly.

Even look at the opinion here -- the majority of posters are siding with the officer. I think its fairly safe to say that Gamedev has a fairly liberal bent to its membership, even our collective, usually-bleeding hearts aren't crying fowl here.
[/quote]

I am not siding with anyone. I think they were both wrong. The officer should have been more professional, and deserves to be reprimanded for it, and the OP deserved to get stopped.

[quote name='Ravyne' timestamp='1298134693' post='4776347']
[color="#1C2837"]You might also get yourself killed, being so happy to assume the best out of suspicious characters.

You are supposed to assume the best and expect the worst out of everyone you run into.

I'm not saying he had to get out and suck his dick. If he was frustrated, then he shouldn't have said anything, inspected the area, and upon finding nothing apologized for the inconvenience. If he suspected something that is fine, but he should have kept it to himself until there was something to confirm his suspicions. It's not professional and reflects poorly on the department. The uniform is more than clothes, and when you put it on you are expected to act in a way that reflects the department and position as a whole, and he did not act accordingly.[/quote]

There is a sliding scale to how an officer approaches these things -- If you get stopped because one of your tail-lights is out, then the officer better treat you as well as Barney Fife himself -- if, however, you are loitering in the dark, alone, near an office building, stuff something shiny in your pocket and then run on sight, you're probably going to be treated to much less courtesy.

Did you know, for instance, that if you're speeding more than 90 miles per hour, and don't pull over immediately that its par for the course to treat you as if you are an armed fellon? For example, the officer will call for backup and command you out of the vehicle, guns drawn and pointed at you. (*This, by the way, is not the profile I fit when I was pulled over guns drawn -- that was simply for having license tabs that were expired by more than a year.)

Certain behaviors from a suspect provoke certain assumptions by the officer. These assumptions led to our friend here being treated in a manner which he did not like, but very well should have expected. Any way you slice it, however, it was the OP that instigated and then exacerbated the situation.

Even look at the opinion here -- the majority of posters are siding with the officer. I think its fairly safe to say that Gamedev has a fairly liberal bent to its membership, even our collective, usually-bleeding hearts aren't crying fowl here.
[/quote]

I am not siding with anyone. I think they were both wrong. The officer should have been more professional, and deserves to be reprimanded for it, and the OP deserved to get stopped.
[/quote]


He most certainly does not deserve to be reprimanded. We're talking about an officer who subdued (which, by the way is the standard commandment, not "detain") a fleeing suspect who may or may not have stuffed a weapon in his pocket with a single punch, then detained him until it was clear that the individual was more idiot than threat. It's also the officers prerogative to conduct an interview of the suspect when he sees fit (after Miranda, of course), not to let a suspect drive the conversation -- both for the officer's clarity of mind, and the suspect's legal rights and defense if necessary.

Could this situation have turned out better -- surely, but grounds for repremand? of course not! Shall we also repremand the OP then as well? I think we can agree that he is culpable for at least half (and I would argue significantly more) of this misunderstanding. So the officer gets suspended for a week and our friend here goes to jail for the same time? Maybe he pays a hefty fine? What? If we're going to call for retribution, let it be all the way around.

Did you know, for instance, that if you're speeding more than 90 miles per hour, and don't pull over immediately that its par for the course to treat you as if you are an armed fellon? For example, the officer will call for backup and command you out of the vehicle, guns drawn and pointed at you. (*This, by the way, is not the profile I fit when I was pulled over guns drawn -- that was simply for having license tabs that were expired by more than a year.)

I am totally aware of that, but after the officer has gotten the situation under control he should still be professional.

He most certainly does not deserve to be reprimanded. We're talking about an officer who subdued (which, by the way is the standard commandment, not "detain") a fleeing suspect who may or may not have stuffed a weapon in his pocket with a single punch, then detained him until it was clear that the individual was more idiot than threat. It's also the officers prerogative to conduct an interview of the suspect when he sees fit (after Miranda, of course), not to let a suspect drive the conversation -- both for the officer's clarity of mind, and the suspect's legal rights and defense if necessary.
[/quote]

Yea, so he should have just kept his mouth shut or told the op to be quiet and nothing more. There's no reason for him to say anything other than what is necessary, and snide remarks disgrace the badge.

I mean heaven forbid the guy have to have his boss ask him to be more polite. Surely that would shake the very foundations of the government.

You are of course assuming the OP was being calm when he said what he said; if the OP was being a dick about it (and based on the starting post of this thread that's highly likely) then that reaction is likely.

Fact of the matter is the cop didn't even have to contact the OP to applogise; he could have left it and chances are many would have (I know I certainly wouldn't have done in the same situation).

Honestly, if anything I think the OP should be fined a couple of hundred dollars for wasting police time given that he freely admits to acting in such a way for fun and to get the cop's attention. The fact he got a punch, yelled at and then an applogy should be considered lucky.

[quote name='God Almighty' timestamp='1298040053' post='4775880']
[quote name='Antheus' timestamp='1298039058' post='4775870']
But, the system works. You were not charged of anything and you even got an apology. So what's the big deal? There are places where you could have gotten shot. 14 times. Just for warning.

Wow, fourteen times. You humans sure have mastered the art of overkill. Perhaps there even is a place where he could have gotten shot fifteen times. In that light, he would have been lucky, had he only been shot fourteen times.

God
[/quote]

Two or three soldiers/thugs with automatic weapons and a short burst or two of gun fire from each of them? Yeah, 14 times sounds about right in that case. There are parts of world where you can get killed for less than being a dipstick.
[/quote]
Only on GameDev can a false god be banned.... or have his post deleted....

As much as it sucks for you and it feels like he overstepped his bounds, he pretty much was doing his job. Unfortunately, the fact that you did that to actually provoke the police doesn't help any. File a report, but don't expect anyone: a judge, police, or even IA to side with you.