Adventures With Mar - Calgary Cops Are Jerks

[The_Rural_Juror]

Continuity errors.

If you went to the Sunridge Starbucks by Chapters, then down is East, why would the cops pull a u turn when the easy exit is straight through South?

Subject title suggests that are adventures to come. More please!

Originally posted by Mar

[btimbit]

Have to say though, I get a kick out of the visual aid and how much work must have gone into this thread

[Feruk]

Originally posted by phil98z24
You seem pretty ticked that the video doesn't show you being struck, and doesn't match your recollection of events. Sadly, the video and audio record don't lie.

I didn't get the impression that he's even seen the video.

Originally posted by phil98z24
Based on your account of things, you already had it in your head that something was going to happen to you.

100% agreed. I've lived in Calgary 20 years and had a decent amount of interaction with cops. Never once did I think a cop was gonna "beat me down" or go out of my way to avoid cops. Quite the opposite.

[Nismorphed]

The police should have beat you for being Mar

[Mar]

Originally posted by The_Rural_Juror
Continuity errors.

If you went to the Sunridge Starbucks by Chapters, then down is East, why would the cops pull a u turn when the easy exit is straight through South?

Subject title suggests that are adventures to come. More please!

I was actually surprised they did go that way, there was an exit around the concrete below their vehicles and also below my vehicles. They made a point to drive through the parking spaces, then come around and drive through the crosswalk I was headed towards. I initially thought they did it on purpose but I didn't want to think that.

Originally posted by Feruk

I didn't get the impression that he's even seen the video.

100% agreed. I've lived in Calgary 20 years and had a decent amount of interaction with cops. Never once did I think a cop was gonna "beat me down" or go out of my way to avoid cops. Quite the opposite.

I haven't seen it, it wasn't provided to me.
I've seen cops do some stupid things.

[16hypen3sp]

Hey Mar, is that an online program that you used to create those diagrams?

[gwill]

Originally posted by phil98z24

If you think this is some coverup scheme, let me assure you our PSS will charge members for any reason, and especially if there was a hit and run involved (or of it was deliberate, that's assault with a weapon), as that would be incredibly serious. They err on the side of caution even if the evidence is light because if it favours one side and supports an allegation, they must lawfully proceed with the complaint.

You realize ASIRT recently commented on many issues with CPS investigating themselves? They are actively providing officers everything from the complaint before the officers have provided their statements.

In other words the police force is helping their officers cover up their mistakes. They are actively ruining the investigative process for no other reason then to protect their members. Why taint the investigation before it even begins?

I suppose you'll say ASIRT has their findings all wrong?

[Mar]

Originally posted by 16hypen3sp
Hey Mar, is that an online program that you used to create those diagrams?

http://accidentsketch.com/

[revelations]

Originally posted by Feruk

I didn't get the impression that he's even seen the video.

Originally posted by Mar

I haven't seen it, it wasn't provided to me.
I've seen cops do some stupid things.

Phil, the complainant was never shown the video - a (PSS?) investigation team member just commented/opined on what they saw and then relayed it to the com.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by gwill



You realize ASIRT recently commented on many issues with CPS investigating themselves? They are actively providing officers everything from the complaint before the officers have provided their statements.

In other words the police force is helping their officers cover up their mistakes. They are actively ruining the investigative process for no other reason then to protect their members. Why taint the investigation before it even begins?

I suppose you'll say ASIRT has their findings all wrong?

She said there are problems with the investigative process, that's it. You are the one drawing conclusions from it.

I can assure you that on this side of things, they can and will charge us for anything and everything if it's warranted. In fact, if you'll set aside your bias for awhile you'll see a number of members have been charged by PSS and anti-corruption for various things, so in spite of their valiant efforts to protect the members, they are still charging them. Or is that just to look good every one in a while to placate the public?

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by revelations





Phil, the complainant was never shown the video - a (PSS?) investigation team member just commented/opined on what they saw and then relayed it to the com.

I'm aware of that. What I'm saying is he isn't happy about what he is being told that it doesn't show what he wants it to, or simply doesn't believe his recollection doesn't match what's there.

[Hallowed_point]

Originally posted by btimbit
Have to say though, I get a kick out of the visual aid and how much work must have gone into this thread

[revelations]

Originally posted by phil98z24


I'm aware of that. What I'm saying is he isn't happy about what he is being told that it doesn't show what he wants it to, or simply doesn't believe his recollection doesn't match what's there.

My impression was that the OP was unhappy with the members' opinion of the video.

Can a complainant request disclosure of the dash cam video without a formal court proceeding pending? (ie. he hasnt laywered up yet)

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by revelations


My impression was that the OP was unhappy with the members' opinion of the video.

Can a complainant request disclosure of the dash cam video without a formal court proceeding pending? (ie. he hasnt laywered up yet)

That's my sentiment as well, maybe I've not worded it properly. He doesn't like what he is being told.

I don't know what happens with that stuff, so I can't comment. I know it can eventually be accessed but I'm just not sure when and how.

[speedog]

Originally posted by Mar



http://accidentsketch.com/

What, no pickups? Useless for Alberta then.

[chkolny541]

Originally posted by phil98z24


She said there are problems with the investigative process, that's it. You are the one drawing conclusions from it.

I can assure you that on this side of things, they can and will charge us for anything and everything if it's warranted. In fact, if you'll set aside your bias for awhile you'll see a number of members have been charged by PSS and anti-corruption for various things, so in spite of their valiant efforts to protect the members, they are still charging them. Or is that just to look good every one in a while to placate the public?

» Click image for larger version

[gwill]

Originally posted by phil98z24


She said there are problems with the investigative process, that's it. You are the one drawing conclusions from it.

I can assure you that on this side of things, they can and will charge us for anything and everything if it's warranted. In fact, if you'll set aside your bias for awhile you'll see a number of members have been charged by PSS and anti-corruption for various things, so in spite of their valiant efforts to protect the members, they are still charging them. Or is that just to look good every one in a while to placate the public?

From the cbc article;

Asirt mentioned there are concerns with calgary police protecting officers who are under criminal investigation with "murky" and "unprincipled" practices.

CPS accepting proffered statements - given on the condition it wont be held against the subject of an investigation - from officers who are under criminal investigation

and

CPS disclosing evidence gathered against the subject officer to his or her lawyer while the investigation is still underway and before the crown has decided to recommend charges.

This isn't just ASIRT having some random issue with the investigations.

As a police officer when your investigating someone for a crime do you willingly disclose all of your evidence to them before you've laid any charges? Why would the police intentionally release this info to other police officers lawyers before charges are recommended? Why do police get this info before hand but anyone else who's not a cop gets treated differently?

CPS is on record for regularly releasing statements, evidence and everything related to the investigation to the CPS officer's lawyer well before any statements are provided to the investigators. By doing this are they not helping their officers cover up their mistakes or crimes?

Perhaps in Mars case there's no cover up but its rather hilarious you'd take that stand with him when there is a very real issue with how CPS investigates itself.

[Epididymitis]

This is where my zuchini practice all pays off.
Cop gets testy with you, suck his dick. Do or dont, you get shot in both situations though.

[OTown]

Originally posted by gwill


From the cbc article;

Asirt mentioned there are concerns with calgary police protecting officers who are under criminal investigation with "murky" and "unprincipled" practices.

CPS accepting proffered statements - given on the condition it wont be held against the subject of an investigation - from officers who are under criminal investigation

and

CPS disclosing evidence gathered against the subject officer to his or her lawyer while the investigation is still underway and before the crown has decided to recommend charges.

This isn't just ASIRT having some random issue with the investigations.

As a police officer when your investigating someone for a crime do you willingly disclose all of your evidence to them before you've laid any charges? Why would the police intentionally release this info to other police officers lawyers before charges are recommended? Why do police get this info before hand but anyone else who's not a cop gets treated differently?

CPS is on record for regularly releasing statements, evidence and everything related to the investigation to the CPS officer's lawyer well before any statements are provided to the investigators. By doing this are they not helping their officers cover up their mistakes or crimes?

Perhaps in Mars case there's no cover up but its rather hilarious you'd take that stand with him when there is a very real issue with how CPS investigates itself.

My understanding is that every single person (civilian or police) is told what charges they are facing before they are questioned and given a chance for a defense. Its set out in law and in the the charter of rights and freedoms. They also get full disclosure for court.

So why shouldn't Phil get those same rights should he be investigated?

[Gart]

Originally posted by speedog


What, no pickups? Useless for Alberta then.

ha. I laughed.

Hmm no minivan either. They do have 6 different types of cars though, not too shabby..


edit:
someone already mentioned it here, but I do appreciate the amount of effort the OP went into in his original post in generating the pictures. Especially when you compare it to some of the other "accident" style threads we've seen on here over the years. (Even the MS paint ones we see are awesome!)

Now 'just need some excel plots and maybe a flow chart or two and I'd be hooked.