Luckyorwhat said;
I must point out, in a foreigner mindset, that I find some aspects disconcerting. The assertion that police officers are always right, even when wrong; that civilians' place is in a court-room, is a foreign concept.
So Canada has no law against
Resisting Arrest? If you are stopped for speeding in Canada and you assert that you weren't actually speeding, you settle the dispute out there on the side of the road? How exactly do you do that?
That the police officer is always right
out on the street is not some vague concept that goes back to the wild west. It's codified into law.
This is the law where I live and work:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...0&SeqEnd=15180&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.
(720 ILCS 5/7‑7) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑7)
Sec. 7‑7. Private person's use of force in resisting arrest. A person is not authorized to use force to resist an arrest which he knows is being made either by a peace officer or by a private person summoned and directed by a peace officer to make the arrest, even if he believes that the arrest is unlawful and the arrest in fact is unlawful.
(Source: P.A. 86‑1475.)
Note that it says you can't resist even if you believe the arrest to be unlawful or if in fact the arrest actually is unlawful. The law provides a remedy in court iif the arrest is unlawful. I don't see how it can be any other way. I'd be very interested to know how this works in Canada. If I read your meaning right, a person can just ignore a Canadian peace officer at will and there is nothing that the Canadian officer can do to compel the violator to obey?
Are violators on the honor system in Canada? Do they just feel a lot of remorse after committing a crime and turn themselves in?
Where I am force is used as seldom as possible. Some-times police don't even chase a fleeing car, because it reduces the likelihood of people dieing. Talking is used as much as possible.
What makes you think it's any different down here? You seem to be implying in your earlier statement that force is never used, because you have the right to disobey the police in Canada. Now you're telling me that force is
seldom used. Which is it? You can't have it both ways my friend. Either you can ignore police officers in Canada with impunity or you can't.
This is what Illinois law says about a peace officer's use of forece to effect an arrest:
(720 ILCS 5/7‑5) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑5)
Sec. 7‑5. Peace officer's use of force in making arrest. (a) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or such other person, or when he reasonably believes both that:
(1) Such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and
(2) The person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony which involves the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm or is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.
(b) A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless he knows that the warrant is invalid.
(Source: P.A. 84‑1426.)
As you can see, the legislature has empowered the peoples agents to use whatever force is necessary. Now here is something you may not be aware of, private citizens have essentially the same power:
(720 ILCS 5/7‑6) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑6)
Sec. 7‑6. Private person's use of force in making arrest.
(a) A private person who makes, or assists another private person in making a lawful arrest is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if he were summoned or directed by a peace officer to make such arrest, except that he is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another.
(b) A private person who is summoned or directed by a peace officer to assist in making an arrest which is unlawful, is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the arrest were lawful, unless he knows that the arrest is unlawful.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)
The legislature has seen fit to give society the legal means to keep order. How is it you keep those of us in the states from hearing about the anarchy North of the border? I'm sure it would really cut into tourism if we brutal Americans knew what havoc there was in Canadian cities where you can ignore the law and the police.
I'd like to know what makes you think that we use force in almost every encounter with the public? Do you watch a lot of our television? The fact is that every police department I'm aware of has a use of force policy that supplements what the legislature has written into law. The policy pretty much defines what the legislature means by
reasonable in the statute. If you want to keep your job, you follow department policy to the letter. Contrary to what you might believe from our television and what you see on the news, most arrests are effected with absolutley zero use of force. Most departments now have pretty restrictive pursuit polices for the same reasons you say they don't often pursue cars in Canada.
Another example of small culture differences I find interesting is the girl killed at the Boston World Series party. Apparantly there was an outdoor party, and (suprise surprise) some 20-something young men were drunk and rowdy! Police on-scene noticed a bottle land somewhat near them, and an officer spun around and opened fire on the crowd.
So when does an outdoor party become a riot??
How many bottles does it take? How much broken glass, overturned cars and other property damage? Please give us the benefit of all your experience and training with mob psychology and proper police response.
No-worries, it was a 'Non-lethal' or 'Less than lethal' weapon. These weapons are weapons, put any prefix you like on them, they serve the purpose of weapons. A PKM machine-gun can be a 'Less than lethal' weapon. It perturbs me when phraseology replaces rational thought.
The term you're looking for is
less-lethal. Not Non-lethal or less then lethal. The American law enforcement community recognizes that there is no such thing as a less then lethal weapon. Anything can kill. And a PKM could never be a less then lethal weapon. Even with no ammunition and used as a club, it could kill. I don't know what phraseology replaced rational thought. I haven't paid much attention to what the investigation discovered. Was it a negligent discharge? Was the weapon employed in accordance with Boston PD's use of force policy? There is a long contentious thread over in the legal and political forum you can dig up if you want to involve yourself in those issues. I don't think we'll revisit them here. I believe several posts ago we were talking about the use of a taser to effect a DUI arrest.
Jeff
