Mantler trial

[MenzieMech]

I have this thing where once convicted or taking a plea of guilty of such an offence a person should not be allowed to take a job of law enforcement or law authority as in police, security and such where they could be dealing with people in such a manner.
Kinda like how when someone is convicted of hurting animals they can have their rights to own animals removed for years or a life time.

Lets say he did get a security job, I doubt it would pay more then he made as a cop,,, they dont pay well and lets say he did get a job like that and did hurt someone really bad,,, looking at past history,,, wouldnt that company be held liable for having hired him knowing he has hurt someone in his past?

Doesn't matter if he was take a position as a "trainer" of others.

[dogspoiler]

Soccer Coach ?

[MAPearce]

But he still has to look himself in the mirror every morning

Everyday for the rest of his life knowing what sort of a screwup he really is.

That's if he's got a conscience or any moral value.

I don't think he does......

[Bsuds]

Soccer Coach ?

Kicker on a Football team

[Treblehook]

It seems to be a bone of contention for some people... the amount of time that Tavares was held in custody. This shouldn't be too difficult for most people to get their head around... well especially if they are not simply advancing an "agenda" or encumbered by pre-conceived conclusion based on scant knowledge of the judicial system and the policies of the Attorney General of BC. If one considers the circumstances of this incident, based on information derived from the various media reports at the time of the incident; and, subsequently from reports of the evidence presented at Mantler's trial, it's not hard to understand what may have caused the hold up in releasing Mr. Tavares. To begin with, the initial complaint seems to have been from the golf course where someone reported that there was a man shooting a gun at that location; also, that this man was extremely angry at his estranged wife [an employee at the golf course] as a result of having just been served papers relating to his marriage breakup, and there seems to have been some reference to Tavares' brain injury. So the police are dealing with an extremely angry man, who has apparently suffered a brain injury; who is in the midst of a marriage breakdown; who has just been served divorce related papers; and who was armed and who had discharged a firearm on the golf course property where his estranged spouse is employed. Wow... when you look at it this way, seems the police may have had a dicey situation on their hands, with an apparent potential for very tragic consequences. (As a matter of interest, even rudimentary research into the realm of domestic violence/spousal homicides will soon reveal that the risk factor is very high for extreme violence/homicide immediately following the service of such papers.) So, Buddy Tavares was arrested and his possession and discharge of a firearm has to be investigated; the police would also have to complete a significant investigation into what [if any] influence the marriage breakup had in Tavares' actions that morning, prior to considering his release. And, their investigation sure as hell could not be limited to obtaining only the Buddy Tavares version of events. Besides the obvious obligations on the police to determine what happened and why, they are also obligated to follow policies and procedures set out by the BC Attorney General, instituted following a domestic related, multiple homicide a few years back. Those policies put a very much elevated onus on the police when intervening and investigating domestic violence cases. So, the cops had to do an indepth investigation and an assessment of what [if any] risk might exist to his spouse should Tavares be released. Most would agree that a mistake or carelessness here could be deadly! Like every one else here, I have no personal knowledge of this case or of the specifics of the investigation. I do have some understanding of the arrest and release procedures in Canadian courts. After arrest, a person must be either released or brought before a court for remand within 24 hours. The Justice will decide whether an accused should be held in custody or released unconditionally or with conditions. The Crown Attorney represents the police and provides the court with any concerns that may exist respecting the release of the suspect. The court considers the Crown concerns and representation by defense council and releases or orders the suspect held in custody. In this case, the Justice decided to keep him in jail. You can be damned sure of one thing in this incident. Mr. McKinnon would have wanted to get Buddy Tavares out of his cells as quickly as humanly possible. I don't think he got to his position because he is an idiot, and any idiot could figure out that holding Tavares in custody [under the circumstances made so public via the video] would fall somewhat short of being world class damage control. So, it follows that Tavares remained in custody because the police and the courts had no other option. It is also a fact that when the reason ceases to exist for keeping a suspect in custody, their release is normally ordered without delay. I trust these remarks might help in understanding what dynamics or influences might have been in play respecting Buddy Tavares being held for a few days. And then again, I might be all wet on this because I don't have specific and detailed knowledge of the case, but it might be considered food for thought.

[Wheels1]

I can't believe the press have paid so much attention sympathising with the victim and his relatives. I don't agree with what Mantler did and in hindsight he probably regrets it as well.

Here is the side from a former police officer who did not carry a sidearm.

You hear about a domestic dispute, you hear the offender is armed at the Harvest Golf Course shooting something. You hear the ex-partner works at the golf course.
You always assume the worst. You check the computer and establish he owns a side arm.
You find the suspect's vehicle, you order him out of the car.....YOU ASSUME he is armed because of the bits of imformation fed to you. The offender gets out of the car and listens to your commands to get on the ground. Then says stuff, you can't exactly decipher this because your andrenaline is peaking. Remember you do don't know the alleged offender, you have a partial history...he starts arguing and challenging you and makes a move with his hand. Yup I would have bolted behind the patrol car and called out commands.
The risk: A raving lunatic with a side arm on foot around the public OR nothing, just a person in the wrong place at the right time.

So all you do gooders and anti-police people out there, put yourself in the same position...what would you do?
Remember MOST homicides are committed during domestic disputes, and usually involve angry men, intoxicated men with alot of uncontrollable pent up action.

So before you give your inexperienced opinion to the press put yourself in that situation. "Damned if you do, damned if you don't."
I hope he remains in the RCMP. Out of 30,000 members, the proportion of complaints is very low, blown out of proportion by the media with very little to report. Publish or perish.

[dogspoiler]

Did you miss the part where he plead guilty ?

[diggerdick]

So exactly how blatant does misconduct have to be

Before a cop should be held accountable for being violent and not in control
it sounds like an old boys club mentality to me

[Roadster]

I have heard a cop hates most to go into a house with a domestic complaint, so I agree its not easy to decide what to do in a situation like this, meanwhile we all know there is a thing such as back up and in a domestic situation where the guy has a gun and is on the road like this I still dont believe he should have acted as he did, you might say he did right but even the court speciallists and other cops agreed with us Inexperienced ones that in this case it did not look right so,,, maybe it was a low grade complaint, maybe he didnt do as bad as another might have so to you its blown out of proportion.
A chef, caught spitting on your food but another somewhere poisoned someone, should this chef be cooking still because he didnt do as bad as someone else might have?
You have to remember what is feared most is whats next,,, and again next time an officer goes off, as anyone in any job can lets see him/her being taken care of rather then placed on paid time out. They need help as anyone who has come to a point of anxiety or anger to get past it and carry on. Dissagree with me? Fine, then place em on a time out and back in and see if they improve, likely not. Usually the mind and body reacts like this when there is trouble brewing and it has to be worked out.
I woulda been quite happy if he paid his price as a cop, was dealt with and offered some help while being monitored so he could continue work, seems an earlier complaint was maybe swept under a carpet? Maybe two earlier complaints? If this is so then his system failed him and he got to a point he likely didnt want to be in and we saw it on video, if not for the video would this have been swept under too? What would happen next time?
I dont know the man and now I would be afraid if I did get to know him while he was working I hate to say because he has control, he has a gun and its law for me to not resist so if he gets really mad I am screwed. Is it his fault? Maybe, quite possibly he coulda asked for help when the other complaint(s) came in, maybe his bosses shoulda ordered it up. Had him assessed,,, offered him some support because cops are no different from the rest of us except that their job might be more intense then many of our jobs in split second happenings and that can be very hard on a body.
So,,, if its law for me not to resist, or even make a move that even looks like I am resisting then the system had better make sure these members are all in top shape, happy to be where they are and can do the job responsibly so those who are criminals can be dealt with so the public understands and can see justice for all.
Video has caught many bad acts by the police, the disabled woman pushed over by I believe a Vancouver police officer, some jail abuse in Kamloops?,,,, many in Canada and the US and it has to be recognised and dealt with because this level of authority shouldnt be handed out to just anyone and it should be monitored so there is at least a lot less chance of this stuff happening. Last thing we need is the general public fearing our law enforcers, they are actually here to protect us. And us law obiders willingly pay for that as do the rest willing or not, but the majority of us care that this protection is here to help us when we need it.

[blackpowder]

I can't believe the press have paid so much attention sympathising with the victim and his relatives. I don't agree with what Mantler did and in hindsight he probably regrets it as well.

Here is the side from a former police officer who did not carry a sidearm.

You hear about a domestic dispute, you hear the offender is armed at the Harvest Golf Course shooting something. You hear the ex-partner works at the golf course.
You always assume the worst. You check the computer and establish he owns a side arm.
You find the suspect's vehicle, you order him out of the car.....YOU ASSUME he is armed because of the bits of imformation fed to you. The offender gets out of the car and listens to your commands to get on the ground. Then says stuff, you can't exactly decipher this because your andrenaline is peaking. Remember you do don't know the alleged offender, you have a partial history...he starts arguing and challenging you and makes a move with his hand. Yup I would have bolted behind the patrol car and called out commands.
The risk: A raving lunatic with a side arm on foot around the public OR nothing, just a person in the wrong place at the right time.

So all you do gooders and anti-police people out there, put yourself in the same position...what would you do?
Remember MOST homicides are committed during domestic disputes, and usually involve angry men, intoxicated men with alot of uncontrollable pent up action.

So before you give your inexperienced opinion to the press put yourself in that situation. "Damned if you do, damned if you don't."
I hope he remains in the RCMP. Out of 30,000 members, the proportion of complaints is very low, blown out of proportion by the media with very little to report. Publish or perish.

Well said.

[60-YEARS-in-Ktown]

Treble , paragraphs are our friend..

[797hauler]

I can't believe the press have paid so much attention sympathising with the victim and his relatives. I don't agree with what Mantler did and in hindsight he probably regrets it as well.

Here is the side from a former police officer who did not carry a sidearm.

You hear about a domestic dispute, you hear the offender is armed at the Harvest Golf Course shooting something. You hear the ex-partner works at the golf course.
You always assume the worst. You check the computer and establish he owns a side arm.
You find the suspect's vehicle, you order him out of the car.....YOU ASSUME he is armed because of the bits of imformation fed to you. The offender gets out of the car and listens to your commands to get on the ground. Then says stuff, you can't exactly decipher this because your andrenaline is peaking. Remember you do don't know the alleged offender, you have a partial history...he starts arguing and challenging you and makes a move with his hand. Yup I would have bolted behind the patrol car and called out commands.
The risk: A raving lunatic with a side arm on foot around the public OR nothing, just a person in the wrong place at the right time.

So all you do gooders and anti-police people out there, put yourself in the same position...what would you do?
Remember MOST homicides are committed during domestic disputes, and usually involve angry men, intoxicated men with alot of uncontrollable pent up action.

So before you give your inexperienced opinion to the press put yourself in that situation. "Damned if you do, damned if you don't."
I hope he remains in the RCMP. Out of 30,000 members, the proportion of complaints is very low, blown out of proportion by the media with very little to report. Publish or perish.

How was this well said, blackpowder? I also want to know at which point you were on active duty, where you did not carry a gun. Also we dont need to have any training or experience in the force to know a thing or two, we are even entitled to have an un-educated biased opinion of what it is we would do. And where did this stat come from that most homicides are commited during domestic disputes, and usually involve men, drunk men non the less.

And to answer your question of what I would have done. I would have NOT kicked a man while he was on all fours, with no weapon in his hands. regardless of adrenilane or not, or what he even said that you couldnt hear. You did point out he was on the ground. So you should make the arrest, dont kick him in the face (or any other part of his body) especailly if you have back up. which Mantler did. Police are trained to control their adrenilane, to a point. so iregardless of what he was saying buddy didnt derserve the kick. It proves more so now that Mantler pleaded guilty. I hope he gets the boot from the force so no one else gets a boot to the face. and police have a stagering number of complaints against them.

[ukcanuck]

I can't believe the press have paid so much attention sympathising with the victim and his relatives. I don't agree with what Mantler did and in hindsight he probably regrets it as well.

Here is the side from a former police officer who did not carry a sidearm.

You hear about a domestic dispute, you hear the offender is armed at the Harvest Golf Course shooting something. You hear the ex-partner works at the golf course.
You always assume the worst. You check the computer and establish he owns a side arm.
You find the suspect's vehicle, you order him out of the car.....YOU ASSUME he is armed because of the bits of imformation fed to you. The offender gets out of the car and listens to your commands to get on the ground. Then says stuff, you can't exactly decipher this because your andrenaline is peaking. Remember you do don't know the alleged offender, you have a partial history...he starts arguing and challenging you and makes a move with his hand.

Are you flipping kidding me???

Yup I would have bolted behind the patrol car and called out commands.
The risk: A raving lunatic with a side arm on foot around the public OR nothing, just a person in the wrong place at the right time.

So all you do gooders and anti-police people out there, put yourself in the same position...what would you do?
Remember MOST homicides are committed during domestic disputes, and usually involve angry men, intoxicated men with alot of uncontrollable pent up action.

So before you give your inexperienced opinion to the press put yourself in that situation. "Damned if you do, damned if you don't."
I hope he remains in the RCMP. Out of 30,000 members, the proportion of complaints is very low, blown out of proportion by the media with very little to report. Publish or perish.

Well I hope you really weren't a cop with such powers of observation...I wonder how many times you stood in front of the judge and worded testimony against some poor schmuck like this???

And you want the public to trust Bobby the Friendly Policeman...

[mexi cali]

I'v said it before and I'll say it again. It seems that police responding to calls, any calls have a tendency toward over reaction.

Protocol apparently is to assume the worst and they should; that's what keeps them alive but when the worst is over, do your job. Command, contain and carry on.

I can't believe that this thread has resulted in as many posts as it has. Way over thinking. How many ways can you dissect the fact that this officer effed up big time. That he has a history should have been enough to get all of this done without costing the system so much financially and in wasted time.

Sometimes it is as simple as "oh yeah, he did it. It's been recorded. Move on". But no, even with the video evidence there are those who would try to excuse the inexcusable.

KL-3 I think it was basically said that we should wait until the trial and for Mantler to tell his side which is fair I guess because it went to trial but in the end, the best thing Mantler could have done he did. He changed his plea to the truth.

I don't care if he says after the fact that he did it for some noble reason because it is simply the truth. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sometimes the bad guy is simply the bad guy. Not every situation needs to be put under a microscope and IMHO, this was one of them.

[Roadster]

by mexicalidreamer » Today, 10:05 am

I'v said it before and I'll say it again. It seems that police responding to calls, any calls have a tendency toward over reaction.

I dont believe at all that Cops tend to over react to "any calls", as you put it, yes there might be a few but in general they are quite professional and they do handle most situations with care, or we would be seeing events like this more often, like daily. And this is why so many pages here, people say things like this that need to be argued.

Having one cop react in a wrong way should not taint the whole system by people like you, it should be dealt with and the public should know it is being dealt with, this is why people say things like this, you think its the norm and it isnt. Its just not good to leave us thinking its not handled when one does have an issue.

If I were you I would rethink that anyway cos it isnt unreal to expect someone, anyone to have a bad day no matter where they work, the bosses have to see it and make sure its checked over.