NationStates Jolt Archive

link (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/01/22/bc-tethering.html)

A B.C. teenager alleges Victoria police assaulted and unlawfully confined her when she was just 15.

Police surveillance videotape shows Willow Kinloch detained in a padded cell, where police officers are seen holding her down, handcuffing her, tying her feet and leaving her tethered to the cell door, where she stayed for four hours.

Four officers were involved in holding her down for several minutes while they tied her legs together, dragged her to a door and left her there for four hours. At one point she kicked off a shoe, and the female officer felt 'threatened', grabbing the 15 year old by the throat. The officer in question actually laid charges of assault against the girl, which were dropped when the Crown saw the tape of the incident.

I think the girl makes an excellent point when she says that without the tape, she'd have absolutely no case. The fact that the cops KNEW they were being taped, and still did this is disconcerting, to put it mildly.

It's hard to strike a balance between the need for our police forces to have certain powers of coercision, and not letting them get away with just beating on people...but frankly I think Canada needs to do a better job of assuring the latter. Especially in the wake (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=ba9a23cf-30e9-4ee8-9751-634ee7355f0c&k=80533) of fatal taserings, and damning inquiries into abuse and shootings (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070522/man_shot_070522?s_name=&no_ads=) by police officers.

Thoughts?

ooooh.
I don't think words can describe it.
:(

Where are all the people who normally scream 'she was drunk, obviously the treatement she received was reasonable!'?

Where are all the people who normally scream 'she was drunk, obviously the treatement she received was reasonable!'?

Going back to serve the rest their prison sentances?

Tasers are no better than guns and police are not automatically exempt from assholery simply because they have a badge. There has to be a level of accountability. If they have to be filmed and prosecuted to get the point across then it has to happen. How are people going to trust police when this kind of asinine shit happens?

On a side note on the topic of trusting law enforcement officers, police in Toronto wonder why they can't gain the trust of the black communities here in order to find out who is behind certain gun-related crimes. People just don't trust the police and hence a 'no-snitching' culture has sprung up.

This part seems to stand out:

Kinloch said the two male officers refused to let her out of the car to yell to the second-floor window to her parents and refused to let her call her sister, who, she said, had a cellphone.

Because they couldn't legally release a 15-year-old onto the street, Hamilton said, the officers took her back to the station as "a child in need of protection."

"At this point, I'm not drunk anymore," said Kinloch. "I've done nothing wrong. I'm not a threat, and my parents are at home and are going to be worrying about me. I just wanted to go home."

Back at the police station, Kinloch refused to get out of the police car, Hamilton said, so the two officers pulled her out by force. They walked her back to the padded cell, which is the point at which the surveillance videotape begins.

"I was really upset. I was crying," said Kinloch. "I just don't see how they found me in any way a threat."

Not even letting her out while they sit nearby? That seems fairly unreasonable especially if she had been sobered up at this point. Why couldn't one of them had gone out with her instead of making her sit in the car? I don't understand. She was 15 years old, not 5 years old.

The surveillance tape shows a female guard coming in and gesturing to Kinloch to remove her jacket and her bra. Kinloch complies. When the guard tells her to take off her shoes, the tape shows Kinloch kicking one of them off, and it lands in the corner of the cell. There is no audio on the tape.

The guard, later identified as Special Const. Merle Edmonds, then grabs Kinloch by the throat and pushes her into the back wall. The two officers who had tried to take Kinloch home earlier, Const. Ryan O'Neill and Const. Brian Asmussen, rush in and use force to put Kinloch face down on the floor. They hold her down by her legs, body and head for several minutes while they handcuff her.

She's crying! This sounds like an excessive use of force. Too bad they haven't trained these fuckwits to understand that little annoyance called "human emotion" and that crying is not a threat to national security. Who wouldn't have cried if they had been in Kinloch's shoes? Crying is hardly the worse thing she could have done in reaction to this.

Emotional distress is what this sounds like. They claimed to have bound her for her earlier outburst. But to me, this sounds like she had been in emotional distress because she couldn't contact her parents.

She made a stupid mistake and drank. Everyone makes stupid mistakes. If this was the only thing she had done before her arrest and not actually hit an officer, and I don't count kicking a shoe across the room since it doesn't appear to be have been directed at anyone, then they really did bully an innocent teenager who made an error in judgement.

She was also influenced by what happened to Robert Dziekanski, the Polish immigrant who died after RCMP used a Taser gun to subdue him at the Vancouver airport. In that case, as in hers, Kinloch said, the videotape made all the difference.

For those of you who are unaware of this incident, let's just say it involved 5 full grown male officers using a taser gun to subdue a man in distress after 12 hours of being unable to acquire a translator or even speak to his mother, and had got his hands on a stapler apparently. The officers couldn't exercise restraint and had opted for the old west mentality of shoot first ask questions later.

It's good that people are speaking out against corrupt, abusive law enforcement fuckwits.

Where are all the people who normally scream 'she was drunk, obviously the treatement she received was reasonable!'?Since it happened in Canada, allegations of "See, Canada is all high and mighty when it's actually teh suck" are more likely.

Since it happened in Canada, allegations of "See, Canada is all high and mighty when it's actually teh suck" are more likely.

And there was no pot, so no biggie. Just a little booze. :)

Where are all the people who normally scream 'she was drunk, obviously the treatement she received was reasonable!'?

Junii, you know you want to defend the coppers! Come out, come out, wherever you are.


:p

I think that those Cops were a bit too harsh. It's not my country however so it is not my concern, maybe that is just how canucks do thing's.

Since it happened in Canada, allegations of "See, Canada is all high and mighty when it's actually teh suck" are more likely.

Bah even when I start threads under that premise, people don't jump on the bandwagon. We're like the teflon country.

Junii, you know you want to defend the coppers! Come out, come out, wherever you are.


:p

hahahaha, exactly who I was thinking of.

We're like the teflon country.
Canada's production involved extremely toxic and foul-smelling chemicals? :eek:

Bah even when I start threads under that premise, people don't jump on the bandwagon. We're like the teflon country.Ha! If you were to start a thread about how Canada was "teh best" whose premise would be entirely hypocritical, I would most certainly drag your precious maple leaf banner through the mud! :D

Ha! If you were to start a thread about how Canada was "teh best" whose premise would be entirely hypocritical, I would most certainly drag your precious maple leaf banner through the mud! :D

Oh true...no I mean I've started many threads slamming Canada, and not many people came in to agree that it sucks. This would never happen in a 'the US sucks' thread. But still, I guess I'm doing it wrong...I have to first declare superiority...I'll keep that in mind :D

And this is why police officers need to be videotaped whenever they are on duty.

Oh true...no I mean I've started many threads slamming Canada, and not many people came in to agree that it sucks. This would never happen in a 'the US sucks' thread. But still, I guess I'm doing it wrong...I have to first declare superiority...I'll keep that in mind :DYeah. You could always try and defend the premise that 1:2 is an acceptable ratio for a flag (which it isn't). That would be a fun debate... :D

I tend to side with the police in instances like this. While this particular case seems bizzare and unnecassary, things like this will eventually result in the police being restricted in such a way that the actual criminals will have more loop holes to wiggle through thus rendering the police ineffective.

On the other hand, if she hadn't given them cause to arrest her to begin with... *shrug*

And this is why police officers need to be videotaped whenever they are on duty.

I agree. I'd call for closed circuit cameras in the holding areas, with the feed going to a central location, not to the cops in that particular building. Also, cop cams on the cop cars (with a cop motor, cop tires, cop suspension, cop shocks...) would be good. Not just for the protection of the public, but also for the cops themselves.

I tend to side with the police in instances like this. While this particular case seems bizzare and unnecassary, things like this will eventually result in the police being restricted in such a way that the actual criminals will have more loop holes to wiggle through thus rendering the police ineffective.

On the other hand, if she hadn't given them cause to arrest her to begin with... *shrug*

I agreed with the police up until they wouldn't let her out of the car or use her cellphone to make a phone call. After that, they lost their case because there was no reason to return her to the cell. There are other things they could have done, and that was not one of them.

I tend to side with the police in instances like this. While this particular case seems bizzare and unnecassary, things like this will eventually result in the police being restricted in such a way that the actual criminals will have more loop holes to wiggle through thus rendering the police ineffective. Oh bullshit. They are already restricted from using unnecessary force. If they are found guilty of using unnecessary force in this case, there will not suddenly be a new class of restriction. The cops quite clearly NEED to be reined in via lawsuits. You've admitted you believe the force was probably unecessary. Defending it on the basis of some slippery slope argument leading to complete ineffectiveness of policing is frankly a little scary.


On the other hand, if she hadn't given them cause to arrest her to begin with... *shrug*
Oh well then they should have raped her to REALLY teach her a lesson. I mean, if you've done something warranting arrest, obviously after that, you deserve what you get.

Huh?

I agreed with the police up until they wouldn't let her out of the car or use her cellphone to make a phone call. After that, they lost their case because there was no reason to return her to the cell. There are other things they could have done, and that was not one of them.

I'm glad they didn't dump her out on the street, not knowing if she'd be okay...that's fine. But completely ignoring the information she had about contacting family members seems vindictive. The treatment after that is just shocking.

I'm glad they didn't dump her out on the street, not knowing if she'd be okay...that's fine. But completely ignoring the information she had about contacting family members seems vindictive. The treatment after that is just shocking.

Precisely. If it had just stopped her her being taken back to the station because she couldn't reach anyone in her family and told to wait in the reception area or whatever kind of waiting area they have there (that wasn't a cell) until morning there would have been no case. This just seems to me like they're being total dickholes. Abuse of power.

Ah, the Bluesmobile (just in case you were worried that nobody sussed the reference).

I agree with the "reasonable" tack that I'm reading here. Let the girl sober up and call her parents. What's she guilty of, MIP? Do they even jail you for that on a first offense in Canada? She had contact information, it seems simple to just let her wait it out and summon her parents to the police station (which, to the average 15-year-old, is heinous enough without being unnecessarily worked over).

You can be arrested and confined if you are 'drunk and disorderly', but often they'll let you sober up and won't press charges, unless you get physical with them.

I can't fathom why they got so irate with a 15 year old. Even if she was cussing up a blue streak. Most cops I've seen are able to let that shit slide off them...being cussed at as a cop is hardly something new.

Would'nt it be funny if Cops in Canada stopped doing their jobs because if they even tried they would get sued by the Criminals. Think of the crime sprees then! HAHAHA.

I agree. I'd call for closed circuit cameras in the holding areas, with the feed going to a central location, not to the cops in that particular building. Also, cop cams on the cop cars (with a cop motor, cop tires, cop suspension, cop shocks...) would be good. Not just for the protection of the public, but also for the cops themselves.

Ah, the Bluesmobile (just in case you were worried that nobody sussed the reference).

I agree with the "reasonable" tack that I'm reading here. Let the girl sober up and call her parents. What's she guilty of, MIP? Do they even jail you for that on a first offense in Canada? She had contact information, it seems simple to just let her wait it out and summon her parents to the police station (which, to the average 15-year-old, is heinous enough without being unnecessarily worked over).

Would'nt it be funny if Cops in Canada stopped doing their jobs because if they even tried they would get sued by the Criminals. Think of the crime sprees then! HAHAHA.

If cops can't beat up 15 year old girls, then they can't do their jobs?

If cops can't beat up 15 year old girls, then they can't do their jobs?

It is not that way now, and I actually sympathyse with the girl, but in a lot of cases now adays, the type of thing I mentioned is happening.

It is not that way now, and I actually sympathyse with the girl, but in a lot of cases now adays, the type of thing I mentioned is happening.

No, it isn't. The only thing that's happening is that cops are getting caught being assholes more often because more and more of us carry around little cameras that can record movies.

It is not that way now, and I actually sympathyse with the girl, but in a lot of cases now adays, the type of thing I mentioned is happening.

Bullshit.

The police have extensive defenses as law enforcement. This situation you imagine where their hands are tied is just that...imaginary. In many cases, the powers that Canadian cops by far exceed those of their US brethren, and Canadian cops can quite often avoid civil liability even when there has been an inquiry and a finding of wrongdoing.

Your suppositions to the contrary.

No, it isn't. The only thing that's happening is that cops are getting caught being assholes more often because more and more of us carry around little cameras that can record movies.

Exactly.

I am under no illusions that this sort of abuse of power is a new phenomenon. What is new is the kinds of evidence now available to complainants.

No, it isn't. The only thing that's happening is that cops are getting caught being assholes more often because more and more of us carry around little cameras that can record movies.

Cop's (In the U.S at least) have cameras on their cars. Are violent abuses that common in Canada?

Cop's (In the U.S at least) have cameras on their cars. Are violent abuses that common in Canada?

And they should have cameras in the police stations as well. By keeping the cops under constant surveillance, we could finally determine which cops are commiting violent abuses. And it doesn't matter if the cops are in Canada or anywhere else. They should all be held accountable for their actions.

And they should have cameras in the police stations as well. By keeping the cops under constant surveillance, we could finally determine which cops are commiting violent abuses. And it doesn't matter if the cops are in Canada or anywhere else. They should all be held accountable for their actions.

Agreed.

The second link I provided in the OP discusses a wider pattern of corruption and abuse within the ranks of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Numerous offical reports have been released slamming the police for their racist policing, and abuse of authority. The problem is, many of these cases are inconclusive because of lack of evidence. Now that more people have means to record their interactions with the police, these cases are easier to prove. We have known for a long time that there is a problem, but some people remained unconvinced. If we really want to know one way or another, then yes, keeping tabs on what the cops are doing is in everyone's interests.

The oddness is the fact that the police were "not legally allowed to release her onto the street" seems to be the point around which this entire story hinges.

The oddness is the fact that the police were "not legally allowed to release her onto the street" seems to be the point around which this entire story hinges.

I'm not sure I understand. She was a minor...the cops are required to release her into the custody of her parents, a guardian, or an adult family member. That part seems consistant with normal practices.

All I know is that from my experiance, in the US, those cops would be fired right off the bat, no questions asked.

However, I think police abuse is a more common thing here, despite what many people say. They just dont get caught often. So when they do, theyre toast.

I'm not sure I understand. She was a minor...the cops are required to release her into the custody of her parents, a guardian, or an adult family member. That part seems consistant with normal practices.

Except they started to consider her as a child in danger, a not unreasonable assumption, in my opinion. She was, after all, quite drunk in close proximity to her parent's home. Thus (from the point of view of many police officers I know) begging questions that a social worker should be looking into.

But still, there seems to have been a substantial amount of abuse of the system on the part of the constables involved, and I'm glad that the video tape exists.

Except they started to consider her as a child in danger, a not unreasonable assumption, in my opinion. She was, after all, quite drunk in close proximity to her parent's home. Thus (from the point of view of many police officers I know) begging questions that a social worker should be looking into. Ah, gotcha. Interesting take on it...if they refused to take further steps to return her to her family because they felt her situation was in part due to the situation in the home. I think that is a rather tenuous position however if the entire basis of it was the inability to reach the parents.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/01/23/bc-victoria-police-tether-inquiry.html

Two different investigations are taking place right now because of this. One is an internal investigation by the Victoria police. The other, justice be praised, is an external investigation. That's right, baby. Someone's finally watching the watchmen.

Victoria police's interim chief Bill Naughton announced Wednesday morning that his force was launching an internal investigation. He also reminded the public that there are two sides to every story.

Victoria police's interim chief Bill Naughton says results of the internal investigation will be released to the public.

"It is important to recognize the video currently being circulated by the young woman's lawyer is a snapshot of a much longer period of time in which she's in our custody," Naughton said.

"Events are more accurately assessed when some context for that snapshot is provided and we are confident that will be fully explored during the upcoming civil trial," he said.

Richard Neary, the lawyer for Kinloch, said he's ready to release more information in the case if police give him permission.

"There is no allegation that my client ever touched, threatened or attempted to touch anyone with the Victoria Police Department outside of what's seen on that tape," Neary said.

Richard Neary, the lawyer for Willow Kinloch, says he would be happy to release more information on the case if police give him permission.

"There indeed is other information that put context into everything. They [Victoria police] control access to that. I would be happy to release all of it," he said.

It is incredibly awesome that the police are being held accountable by others outside of the law enforcement services. A full public trial FTW.

Unfortunately this kind of stuff happens all the time. Its rediculous that external investigations seem to be the exception, rather than the rule. I live in Victoria and this is not unique. I know some one who's currently suing the police, and suffice it to say it is not a frivalos suit. Then there was the case of the cops being called to a fight or something. My memory of the details is fuzzy, but I think they started harasing the people who called them:headbang:. A teenager who witnessed it started complaining, and the cops threw her against a car, if I remember correctly:mad:. Of course this sort of stuff happens whenever you give certain people a uniform a wepon, and a lisence to use force. To all you pigs who abuse your power, and cover for your buddies when they do it::upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours:

"We had been dealing with her for four hours prior to that where she was combative," said Hamilton. "She was trying to break out of the cell. She was kicking the cell. She was punching the cell. And that moment in time [when Kinloch was restrained] is after we had to forcibly remove her from the vehicle to put her into that padded cell."


Sure they used excessive power but I'm not so certain it was completely unjustified - A drunken girl not immediately getting what she wishes for can be persistent and dangerous clawing and biting thing....Drunken boys usually only resort to kicking, punching and rowdy behaviour which isn't nearly as dirty fighting. ;)

In anycase, the keyword here is: Allege - Innocent until proven guilty, an' all that.

Unfortunately this kind of stuff happens all the time. Its rediculous that external investigations seem to be the exception, rather than the rule. I live in Victoria and this is not unique. I know some one who's currently suing the police, and suffice it to say it is not a frivalos suit. Then there was the case of the cops being called to a fight or something. My memory of the details is fuzzy, but I think they started harasing the people who called them:headbang:. A teenager who witnessed it started complaining, and the cops threw her against a car, if I remember correctly:mad:. Of course this sort of stuff happens whenever you give certain people a uniform a wepon, and a lisence to use force. To all you pigs who abuse your power, and cover for your buddies when they do it::upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours:

Too many fucking smilies.

Junii, you know you want to defend the coppers! Come out, come out, wherever you are.
:p reading the article... as well as the thread.

hahahaha, exactly who I was thinking of. aww... nice to be remembered. :p

I agree. I'd call for closed circuit cameras in the holding areas, with the feed going to a central location, not to the cops in that particular building. Also, cop cams on the cop cars (with a cop motor, cop tires, cop suspension, cop shocks...) would be good. Not just for the protection of the public, but also for the cops themselves.

Watchers for the watchers, eh?

ok, going by the two articles (haven't hunted up the video and the link in the second article isn't working for me.)

now it seems that the teathering was done the next day.

does anyone know if the video shows her actions that night? or is it only showing the time where she was teathered?

so...
Victoria police said when she was left alone in the cell, Kinloch began yelling and bashing the door loudly, wanting to get out.

"She was trying to break out of the cell; she was kicking the cell; she was punching the cell," said Victoria police spokesperson Grant Hamilton.


now, on a side note, I find this interesting...
After four hours, Kinloch said, she calmed down and sobered up. At 4:30 in the morning, police released her and tried to take her home. Once there, Hamilton said, they found that neither the buzzer nor the phone at the Kinloch family apartment was working.

yet according to the mother...
"My husband went looking for her," said Kinloch's mother, Tammy-Marie Kinloch. "We called her friends and called the hospital. I was terrified that something really bad happened to her."
so why didn't she (Willow) not give them the sister's cell number for the police to call. the article said the officers refused HER to call the sister's cell.

So they go back to the station...
Back at the police station, Kinloch refused to get out of the police car, Hamilton said, so the two officers pulled her out by force. They walked her back to the padded cell, which is the point at which the surveillance videotape begins.
already she's showing aggression.

The surveillance tape shows a female guard coming in and gesturing to Kinloch to remove her jacket and her bra. Kinloch complies. When the guard tells her to take off her shoes, the tape shows Kinloch kicking one of them off, and it lands in the corner of the cell. There is no audio on the tape.

why did Willow 'Kick' off her shoes with enough force to cause it to land in the corner of the cell?

When Kinloch kicked off her shoe, the police spokesman said, Edmonds felt threatened. At one point during their interaction, Kinloch grabbed the guard's arm, Hamilton said. and here's where the assault charge comes in.
Here's the Justification.
"We had been dealing with her for four hours prior to that where she was combative," said Hamilton. "She was trying to break out of the cell. She was kicking the cell. She was punching the cell. And that moment in time [when Kinloch was restrained] is after we had to forcibly remove her from the vehicle to put her into that padded cell."

After four hours, another police officer who had started his morning shift untied Kinloch and told her she was going to be charged with assaulting Edmonds. She was released and went home to her frantic mother, who was at first relieved to see her, then outraged over what Kinloch told her the police had done. Now I would agree that 4 hours is alot of time to be tied up.

"If you get assaulted by the police, who are you going to tell? Who is going to believe you? Because it's the police," Kinloch said. "They [the officers involved] are still working and still out there. Who is to say something like this isn't going to happen to one of my kids or [it] could happen to anybody."
and her assaulting the officers?

Second article.
"It is important to recognize the video currently being circulated by the young woman's lawyer is a snapshot of a much longer period of time in which she's in our custody," Naughton said. and the police cannot taint evidence by showing it to the public.

so with that being said...
B.C. Attorney General Wally Oppal said Wednesday he needs to hear all sides of the story before deciding if what happened to Kinloch was wrong.

"I found the tape to be somewhat disturbing but, having said that, it's important to hear the other side of it," Oppal said. "You can't come to any conclusion based on watching a video alone." I agree with this.

without any other evidence, tho, I would say tethering her for four hours is a bit excessive.

I agree. I'd call for closed circuit cameras in the holding areas, with the feed going to a central location, not to the cops in that particular building. Also, cop cams on the cop cars (with a cop motor, cop tires, cop suspension, cop shocks...) would be good. Not just for the protection of the public, but also for the cops themselves.

I would also call for video of the Suspects and anyone they bring in for questioning. both audio and video. so that we could also see if Willow did struggle as they tried to bring her out of the car, as well as audio of the entire incident including her overnight stay.

I would also call for video of the Suspects and anyone they bring in for questioning. both audio and video. so that we could also see if Willow did struggle as they tried to bring her out of the car, as well as audio of the entire incident including her overnight stay.

Agreed...as I mentioned, this wouldn't only be for the protection of suspects, but also for the cops themselves.

She was drunk, obviously the treatment recieved was reasonable.

The trout I had to smack you with got eaten.

Where are all the people who normally scream 'she was drunk, obviously the treatement she received was reasonable!'?

She was drunk, obviously the treatment recieved was reasonable.

The trout I had to smack you with got eaten.

I coudln't help myself.:P

In all seriousness, I generally give the benefit of the doubt to law enforcement. I've been on that side and I know how perception doesn't always equal reality. In this case, however, I do believe the cops were wrong. Was she combative and non-compliant? Probably. Does her level of combativeness give the cops the right to do what they did? No.

The cops would have had the right to use a reasonable amount of force (for lack of a better word) to get her out of the police car. The cops did not have a right to shove her against a wall by her throat for kicking her shoe across the room. People generally don't like being arrested, they sometimes make that clear. It's part of the job. The cops had no right to use physical force. She was complying, it doesn't matter if she was being a brat. That can go in the report for her court date.

She shouldn't have been restrained in her cell unless she was a very obvious threat to herself. She shouldn't have been tethered to the door regardless. So what if she "was trying to break out of the cell?" If a cell can't hold a rowdy teenager (if she even was, haven't seen the video), then that's a different problem entirely. They are safely confined, leave them be. How is a 15 year old in a padded cell going to hurt herself unless she was actively trying to hurt herself? Clearly she wasn't. Presumably they have a padded cell because people sometimes get rowdy.

Yelling up to the second floor window might have been bad given the time of morning, but there's no reason the cell phone number shouldn't have been tried. The cops could have called the number themselves. They presumably called the home phone, I don't see why they coudn't try the cell phone.

It seems from what we know that they were too harsh. But what we have to remember is there are tens of thousands of police officers out there, keeping us safe and putting their lives on the line for us every day. We have to remember that people make mistakes, and nobody is perfect.. not even the police. While they may have bunged up here, they may well be good officers overall, and that disciplinary action may be in order but we should also be forgiving.

We've all made mistakes at our jobs. Hell, I recall working at McD's I accidentally gave salted fries to someone who was deathly allergic to salt (I hope they figured that one out). So, while I don't think she deserved that treatment (based on what I know right now), I also don't think it's reasonable to use this incident to paint a picture of our police force as a whole, nor even of the officers involved.

The trout I had to smack you with got eaten.
here you go.
http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/9666/smileytroutsmack28cg.gif

while I agree with you Snafturi, for the most part, there seems to be some missing information.
In all seriousness, I generally give the benefit of the doubt to law enforcement. I've been on that side and I know how perception doesn't always equal reality. In this case, however, I do believe the cops were wrong. Was she combative and non-compliant? Probably. Does her level of combativeness give the cops the right to do what they did? No. we don't know her level of combativeness from the night before all the way to the beginning of the video.

The cops would have had the right to use a reasonable amount of force (for lack of a better word) to get her out of the police car. The cops did not have a right to shove her against a wall by her throat for kicking her shoe across the room. except if you add to the fact that there had to be two of them to take her out of the car, and I can't see her suddenly being all calm and complacent once out of the car, and her previous night's antics, kicking her shoe towards the officers can be seen as an agressive act.
People generally don't like being arrested, they sometimes make that clear. except untill the shoe incident, it didn't seem like she was arrested. held yes, but not arrested.
The cops had no right to use physical force. She was complying, it doesn't matter if she was being a brat. That can go in the report for her court date. Unknown. if she was struggling to the point where two officers needed to pull her out of the car, it's hard to assume that she would be calmly complying once out of the car (she could be agressively complying, which makes sense that the only 'charge' was assaulting the officer she "kicked her shoe towards" and not resisting arrest. we don't know what happened between the car and the padded cell.

She shouldn't have been restrained in her cell unless she was a very obvious threat to herself. She shouldn't have been tethered to the door regardless. So what if she "was trying to break out of the cell?" If a cell can't hold a rowdy teenager (if she even was, haven't seen the video), then that's a different problem entirely. it was reported that the night before she was pounding on the door and screaming. I have a feeling that if she hadn't calmed down afterwards, she would've been restrained then.
They are safely confined, leave them be. How is a 15 year old in a padded cell going to hurt herself unless she was actively trying to hurt herself? Clearly she wasn't. we don't know that. like everything else, we can only assume.
Presumably they have a padded cell because people sometimes get rowdy. padded cells are usually for patients with psychotic episodes. she was put in the padded cell because the normal holding cells were full.

Yelling up to the second floor window might have been bad given the time of morning, but there's no reason the cell phone number shouldn't have been tried. The cops could have called the number themselves.assuming she would give them the cell number. she could've been withholding the number demanding that she be the one to call her sister. she only said they wouldn't let HER call her sister's cell. not that they wouldn't call her sister's cell.
They presumably called the home phone, I don't see why they coudn't try the cell phone.the apartment buzzer and phone were not working. normally that state is when the apartment is unoccupied.

now the question. why was the phone not working when the mother herself said she called friends and the hospital the night before? could it be that the apartment she took the cops to was not her apartment because she didn't want her parents to know she spent the night in jail and thought the cops would just 'drop her off'?

if her parents were worried about her, someone would've been home waiting for word. which would make the idea of the phone being out of order rather suspicious.

if the buzzer wasn't working, why wasn't someone there at the window to see if she came home but forgot her key?

too many assumptions and suppositions and too little information.

here you go.
http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/9666/smileytroutsmack28cg.gif

while I agree with you Snafturi, for the most part, there seems to be some missing information.
we don't know her level of combativeness from the night before all the way to the beginning of the video.
Which is absolutely irrelevant. There's very specific guidelines for use of force. Belligerence doesn't warrent use of force.

except if you add to the fact that there had to be two of them to take her out of the car, and I can't see her suddenly being all calm and complacent once out of the car, and her previous night's antics, kicking her shoe towards the officers can be seen as an agressive act.
Across the cell, not at an officer. Yes, she was being belligerant. That's no excuse. As a federal cop, I wasn't allowed to put any sort of pressure on a subject's throat period.


except untill the shoe incident, it didn't seem like she was arrested. held yes, but not arrested.
Maybe not charged, but yes arrested. You are under arrest the second you are not free to go.

Unknown. if she was struggling to the point where two officers needed to pull her out of the car, it's hard to assume that she would be calmly complying once out of the car (she could be agressively complying, which makes sense that the only 'charge' was assaulting the officer she "kicked her shoe towards" and not resisting arrest. we don't know what happened between the car and the padded cell.
Again, irrelevant. If force was needed [which it sounds like it was at that point] to move her out of the car, then the cops were justified. It doesn't mean the cops can continue to use the same level of force because they had to previously. And it's not up for debate what she did in the cell. That part is on tape.

http://www.lockergnome.com/forsythe/2008/01/27/1215/

There's the video. Does that shoe kicking look threatening to you?

it was reported that the night before she was pounding on the door and screaming. I have a feeling that if she hadn't calmed down afterwards, she would've been restrained then.
That's what holding sells are for. People bang on doors all the time wanting to be let out. They aren't restrained. Why should she be an exception?

we don't know that. like everything else, we can only assume.
. padded cells are usually for patients with psychotic episodes. she was put in the padded cell because the normal holding cells were full.
Again, irrelevant. It is relevant to note that if a padded cell can hold someone violently psychotic, it should be sufficent to hold a 15 year old girl.

assuming she would give them the cell number. she could've been withholding the number demanding that she be the one to call her sister. she only said they wouldn't let HER call her sister's cell. not that they wouldn't call her sister's cell.
Any reason BCPD wouldn't mention this fact when they made their public statement about this case. Because it totally invalidates that part of her claim.

the apartment buzzer and phone were not working. normally that state is when the apartment is unoccupied.

now the question. why was the phone not working when the mother herself said she called friends and the hospital the night before? could it be that the apartment she took the cops to was not her apartment because she didn't want her parents to know she spent the night in jail and thought the cops would just 'drop her off'?

Again, easly proven. And if she did give them the wrong apartment number/phone number don't you think they would ahve made that part of their public statement? Again, that kind of behaviour massively discredits her.

if her parents were worried about her, someone would've been home waiting for word. which would make the idea of the phone being out of order rather suspicious.
Her parents didn't realize she was gone until much later. But that's irrelevant to her treatment at the station

if the buzzer wasn't working, why wasn't someone there at the window to see if she came home but forgot her key?
Again, irrelevant.

too many assumptions and suppositions and too little information.
No, there's plenty of information. The video speaks loud and clear.

Which is absolutely irrelevant. There's very specific guidelines for use of force. Belligerence doesn't warrent use of force. I didn't say Belligerence, but combativeness. I can be belligerent but not combative.

Across the cell, not at an officer. Yes, she was being belligerant. That's no excuse. As a federal cop, I wasn't allowed to put any sort of pressure on a subject's throat period. actually, across the cell and AT the officer. it looks like she's taking off her right shoe and it ends up in the left corner behind the officer. so the shoe had to pass inclose proximity to the officer. this is at the 0:39 second mark. and please indicate in the video you linked to at what time frame is Edmond's hand definately on her throat.

from this angle, it can be throat, or it can be shoulder close to the throat.
actually

actually, second 42 shows the officers left arm (since the right was definately on Willow's shoulder) in an area that could either be the shoulder or throat. but on second 43, when Willow is pushed or moved to the corner and the other officers come in, one is between Edmonds and Willow and Edmond's hand is clearly near the shoulder and not the throat.

and the action really starts after the shoe lands in the corner which indicates the 'kicking off the shoe into the corner" was the starting point.

Maybe not charged, but yes arrested. You are under arrest the second you are not free to go. detained is not arrested. remember, they couldn't 'release her onto the street'. so she was held. but not under arrest.

Again, irrelevant. If force was needed [which it sounds like it was at that point] to move her out of the car, then the cops were justified. It doesn't mean the cops can continue to use the same level of force because they had to previously. And it's not up for debate what she did in the cell. That part is on tape. except if force was needed and justified to remove her from the car, that fact is still part of her history and behavior of her continuous interaction of the police starting the night before. so it is relevant. again, we have no idea what happened between the car and the cell.

http://www.lockergnome.com/forsythe/2008/01/27/1215/

There's the video. Does that shoe kicking look threatening to you? yes. considering that there was a good chance she was aiming it at the cop. right shoe to left corner has a number of flight paths that would show that she aimed the shoe at the officer.

That's what holding sells are for. People bang on doors all the time wanting to be let out. They aren't restrained. Why should she be an exception? yep, and everyone in the holding cells are banging on the doors all the time. thus that should excuse any action and should never be taken into account when assessing anyone the police has to interact with.

Again, irrelevant. It is relevant to note that if a padded cell can hold someone violently psychotic, it should be sufficent to hold a 15 year old girl. and it did, except the fact that I've seen people beat themselves on the plexiglass part of the door... you know, that little window behind the officer. yet she didn't need the restraints (and none were used) untill she kicked her shoe into the direction of the officer.

Any reason BCPD wouldn't mention this fact when they made their public statement about this case. Because it totally invalidates that part of her claim. the claim about not being able to call her sister on the phone is minor considering the claim of an officer holding her by the throat and the claim of being restrained for 4 hours.

Again, easly proven. And if she did give them the wrong apartment number/phone number don't you think they would ahve made that part of their public statement? Again, that kind of behaviour massively discredits her. the point isn't to discredit her (since it's still the investigation) but to find out what really happened. as you said, things may not be as they seem.

Her parents didn't realize she was gone until much later. But that's irrelevant to her treatment at the station much later being... since I believe the father went out to look for her. and funny that the parents didn't release any statement about their phone being out of order after they made claims they called around...

No, there's plenty of information. The video speaks loud and clear. nope. it doesn't.

please show me where Officer Edmond's hand was, without a doubt, on willow's throat and not just 'appears' to be on Willow's throat.

without sound, you don't hear anything being said. while belligerence isn't reason in and by itself. it does factor in with other events, like her needing to be pulled out of the car, her actions the night before (which they probably would've chalked up to being drunk had she not been 'belligerant' in the car and possibly other areas.) so no, the video does not speak loud and clear, unless all you want to hear is ONE side to the story.

I didn't say Belligerence, but combativeness. I can be belligerent but not combative.
And she was compliant for the most part in the cell.

actually, across the cell and AT the officer. it looks like she's taking off her right shoe and it ends up in the left corner behind the officer. so the shoe had to pass inclose proximity to the officer. this is at the 0:39 second mark. and please indicate in the video you linked to at what time frame is Edmond's hand definately on her throat.
And how many shoe to shin deaths have happened in the past 5 years? How many serious shoe to shin injuries have occured?

from this angle, it can be throat, or it can be shoulder close to the throat.
actually

actually, second 42 shows the officers left arm (since the right was definately on Willow's shoulder) in an area that could either be the shoulder or throat. but on second 43, when Willow is pushed or moved to the corner and the other officers come in, one is between Edmonds and Willow and Edmond's hand is clearly near the shoulder and not the throat.

and the action really starts after the shoe lands in the corner which indicates the 'kicking off the shoe into the corner" was the starting point.
You can clearly see the angle of the officer's right arm. His hand is on her neck

detained is not arrested. remember, they couldn't 'release her onto the street'. so she was held. but not under arrest.
You have your definition wrong:
arrest
A situation in which the police detain a person in a manner that, to any reasonable person, makes it clear she is not free to leave. A person can be "under arrest" even though the police have not announced it; nor are handcuffs or physical restraint necessary.
http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/BF66BAAC-BB8A-4D02-86C220B01EAA9F37

So the only way she wasn't under arrest was if she was free to go.

except if force was needed and justified to remove her from the car, that fact is still part of her history and behavior of her continuous interaction of the police starting the night before. so it is relevant. again, we have no idea what happened between the car and the cell.
It's not relevant. Because she refused to get out of the car- notice the wording- doesn't give the cops the authority to continue to use a heightened level of force.

yes. considering that there was a good chance she was aiming it at the cop. right shoe to left corner has a number of flight paths that would show that she aimed the shoe at the officer.
And a sneaker that clearly didn't bounce off the officer's shin is going to threaten his physical safety how exactly?

yep, and everyone in the holding cells are banging on the doors all the time. thus that should excuse any action and should never be taken into account when assessing anyone the police has to interact with.
It proves it isn't standard protocol. It proves that they have had similar situations that didn't require the same amount of restraint.

and it did, except the fact that I've seen people beat themselves on the plexiglass part of the door... you know, that little window behind the officer. yet she didn't need the restraints (and none were used) untill she kicked her shoe into the direction of the officer.
And where in the video does she do that? You can't preemptively restrain someone. Jus

the claim about not being able to call her sister on the phone is minor considering the claim of an officer holding her by the throat and the claim of being restrained for 4 hours.
If she had lied about that, then it would lend more credibility to the police department.

the point isn't to discredit her (since it's still the investigation) but to find out what really happened. as you said, things may not be as they seem.
Actually that kind of is the point. This is a civil matter. She needs to prove her side, BCPD must show they were justified. Any mitigating circumstances would help.

much later being... since I believe the father went out to look for her. and funny that the parents didn't release any statement about their phone being out of order after they made claims they called around...
And again, this is entirely irrelevant. A phone being out of order means the cops have the right to use exessive force and unneccesary restraints?


nope. it doesn't.

please show me where Officer Edmond's hand was, without a doubt, on willow's throat and not just 'appears' to be on Willow's throat.
Unless he's inhuman, the angle of his elbow clearly shows it.

without sound, you don't hear anything being said. while belligerence isn't reason in and by itself. it does factor in with other events, like her needing to be pulled out of the car, her actions the night before (which they probably would've chalked up to being drunk had she not been 'belligerant' in the car and possibly other areas.) so no, the video does not speak loud and clear, unless all you want to hear is ONE side to the story.
Doesn't matter what was being said. She wasn't even given a chance to comply before the cops put her in restraints. If she was so combative, funny how she's not kicking the door or struggling to get free. You can see her on the wall and on the ground. No signs of struggle. No indication she isn't compliant.

And she was compliant for the most part in the cell. and also why the officer was also polite and courtious at the beginning also.

And how many shoe to shin deaths have happened in the past 5 years? How many serious shoe to shin injuries have occured? ah, so for you threat and assault on an officer can only be called that if the officer suffers from death and serious injury?


You can clearly see the angle of the officer's right arm. His hand is on her neck which officer are you talking about. Edmond (the woman in blue who was receiving things like Willow's Bra, Jacket and shoes)? or one of the two officers who entered the room. Willows stated it was Edmond who put her hand on Willow's throat.

You have your definition wrong:

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/BF66BAAC-BB8A-4D02-86C220B01EAA9F37

So the only way she wasn't under arrest was if she was free to go. Ok, I'll concede that.

It's not relevant. Because she refused to get out of the car- notice the wording- doesn't give the cops the authority to continue to use a heightened level of force. however it does show a pattern of behavior, especially when at her apartment, she wanted out but they wouldn't let her.

And a sneaker that clearly didn't bounce off the officer's shin is going to threaten his physical safety how exactly?
http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/22542B6F-FEDB-450A-889A82A49EA50CEB/alpha/A/

Physical contact is not necessary for assault.

It proves it isn't standard protocol. It proves that they have had similar situations that didn't require the same amount of restraint. assumption on your part. or can you show every video of all others being processed/arrested that show the same level of actions not being restrained?

And where in the video does she do that? You can't preemptively restrain someone. restraints are used when they (the person being restrained) are in danger of hurting others or themselves.

If she had lied about that, then it would lend more credibility to the police department. which is still not the point. it's not about destroying Willow's credibility, but finding out what happened.

Actually that kind of is the point. This is a civil matter. She needs to prove her side, BCPD must show they were justified. Any mitigating circumstances would help. hence the investigation to gather the evidence and a court where the evidence is presented.

And again, this is entirely irrelevant. A phone being out of order means the cops have the right to use exessive force and unneccesary restraints? a phone out of order means someone is lying. either the mother didn't call around, or that wasn't willow's home.

Unless he's inhuman, the angle of his elbow clearly shows it.

please indicate then the angle of the arm?
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/7657/39ys2.jpg
see the shoe in the left corner, that came from Willow's right foot. now if Willow was kicking the shoe into a corner and not at the officer, why didn't the shoe end up in the left corner and not the right?

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/2300/40dt6.jpg
you can't see where Edmond's hand is. following the angle of the arm, you see Edmond's hand could be either shoulder or neck.

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/8640/41lb1.jpg
Frame 41 shows Edmond holding willow against the wall as the door is flung open. makes sense. Don't want anyone bolting now. but it still doesn't define Edmond's hand on Willow's throat or shoulder.

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/9228/42nu9.jpg
now willow is pushed into the corner as the two other officers rush in.

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/802/42aqn2.jpg
now notice in the 42nd second frame. I've circled willow's face/chin in red. that pretty much also shows the location of her neck.
notice where edmond's hand is? closer to willow's shoulder, not neck.


Doesn't matter what was being said. She wasn't even given a chance to comply before the cops put her in restraints. If she was so combative, funny how she's not kicking the door or struggling to get free. You can see her on the wall and on the ground. No signs of struggle. No indication she isn't compliant.but, you just said she was complying in the beginning of the video. add to that half a minute of footage showed the cops giving her a chance to comply. Add to that the chance to comply when she was asked out of the car, the chance to comply when she was told repeatedly to stay in the car, the chance to comply when they first put her in the padded cell to 'sleep it off', the chance to comply when they first asked her where she lived...

lotsa chances there... too bad they do show a behavior pattern even if you take each chance as a seperate incident.

Too bad she decided to kick the shoe in the officers direction. if there was audio, we may hear Willow say 'sorry' as the shoe flies, indicating an accident. or we may hear Willow say something like "fucking pig" which would show that she was aiming at the officer.

so knowing what's said would also help peice together what happened.

I think that those Cops were a bit too harsh. It's not my country however so it is not my concern, maybe that is just how canucks do thing's.

We need to get a wall up. Obviously the violence in Canada will spread to our good people.