Mantler trial

[crookedmember]

It was reported in the Capital News today that Buddy was on his way to the courthouse to deal with documents related to his marital separation.

[KL3-Something]

I doubt what buddy was up to earlier in the day have anything to do with the charges against mantler even though his buddies here would like us to believe they have something to do with it.

mantler is charged with assault causing bodily harm, not exessive force. two very different charges.


http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/courts/court-li ... t_List.pdf

Well show us all where the charge for "excessive force" is found then. I'll save you some time. No charge for "excessive force" exists, and as such he couldn't have been charged with that. Section 25 CCC allows Peace Officers to use force in the execution of their duties.

If you read S. 25 in it's entirety then you will know what this whole trial is going to be judged on.

[Roadster]

Well show us all where the charge for "excessive force" is found then. I'll save you some time. No charge for "excessive force" exists, and as such he couldn't have been charged with that. Section 25 CCC allows Peace Officers to use force in the execution of their duties.

If you read S. 25 in it's entirety then you will know what this whole trial is going to be judged on.

i have a feeling it will be judged on "Was it needed at that time" and thats it. The trial wont have much to do with what Buddy was doing or any doccuments because up till just before the chase was on there was no call to 911 I am sure. Unless people were calling all day,,, because Buddy was running all over town all day.
If I remember right the call came from the golf course by another employee as he was leaving? Would sure like to hear more about that.

[KL3-Something]

Well show us all where the charge for "excessive force" is found then. I'll save you some time. No charge for "excessive force" exists, and as such he couldn't have been charged with that. Section 25 CCC allows Peace Officers to use force in the execution of their duties.

If you read S. 25 in it's entirety then you will know what this whole trial is going to be judged on.

i have a feeling it will be judged on "Was it needed at that time" and thats it. The trial wont have much to do with what Buddy was doing or any doccuments because up till just before the chase was on there was no call to 911 I am sure. Unless people were calling all day,,, because Buddy was running all over town all day.
If I remember right the call came from the golf course by another employee as he was leaving? Would sure like to hear more about that.

You will hear more. And what was told to police that day about what Tavares was doing, what had already happened that day and what was the great unknown at the time all led into the state of mind of the attending police officers.

You say "what was needed at the time". But that is a loaded statement based on all of the above and boils down to S. 25 CCC in combination with the use of force guidelines. Remember, he judge doesn't get to look at it with hindsight. Only what was known to the attending police officers, Mantler specifically, at the time.

[cutter7]

It would be interesting if we had a lawyer give his/her opinion..

[Roadster]

You will hear more. And what was told to police that day about what Tavares was doing, what had already happened that day and what was the great unknown at the time all led into the state of mind of the attending police officers.

You say "what was needed at the time". But that is a loaded statement based on all of the above and boils down to S. 25 CCC in combination with the use of force guidelines. Remember, he judge doesn't get to look at it with hindsight. Only what was known to the attending police officers, Mantler specifically, at the time.

So what you are saying is we will hear a judge say it was ok or not ok due to what Buddy was doing that day?
Seems like you are saying the judge might say it was ok to start punishements right on the street on take down. Hopefully the kick has nothing to do with what happened that day but has more to do with needs during the take down cos what you are saying or so it sounds, is it mighta had nothing to do with force needed during the take down but more to do with what Buddy did before that moment. Or am I reading that wrong? I am really hoping this had nothing to do with a cop being a judge over Buddy's events on the day of.

[my5cents]

So we've heard the "I'm am a trained police officer and you can't be expected to understand how Mantler's kick was completely justified, but it was."

Take a close look at the video, just like they did in court. In court, apparently, attention was focused on Buddy's hands. Were they on the pavement or near the pavement, or being lifted.

I don't care what Buddy's hands were doing at that moment,,, read on.

If we have such a potentially dangerous person,,, reports of discharging of a firearm, likely in possession of a firearm. Forget that the weapon is a shotgun, which generally are quite difficult to conceal. Others have said "Oh yes, but maybe he had another weapon", yes maybe he did.

So we have a real dangerous person, VERY DANGEROUS.

Let’s look at the video before the kick. Obviously directions are being given to Buddy. What should a trained police officer be doing while the subject is in the process of obeying those directions ? Keeping his/her distance with some type of barrier, like the engine compartment of a motor vehicle between themselves and the subject.

After the subject has been given the time to comply, it might take a few minutes, then, and only then, once the subject has fully understood and complied, then the subject is approached.

If, after the subject was laying face down, arms outstretched, the police officer is approaching this person, and THEN the person goes to get up, KICK HIM and kick him hard. But that’s not what happened.

Note the female constable is to the rear of Buddy's truck, she is in a position where she can protect herself if Buddy does something overt, she can duck behind the vehicle. What is Mantler doing ? He’s approaching Buddy before Buddy has fully complied with (I assume) the instructions to lay fully down on the pavement on his stomach with his arms outstretched.

Is there a time limit on getting the cuffs on ? Of course not.

Isn't this very similar to the Robert Dziekanski taser incident ? The RCMP acted too quickly.

In an incident like this, time is on side of the police. Lots of units are attending and on the way. Secure the area, keep back behind cover while the subject is given time to comply.

Also watch the balance of the video, Mantler is walking around doing nothing, walks one way, then the other, takes out a notebook then puts it away, doesn't do anything. This guy can't think while on adrenaline.

If you want to talk about “proper procedures”, Mantler jumped the gun approaching Buddy, does that then justify Mantler in kicking Buddy in the head ? That is the real question.

I keep thinking that this incident could have involved a case of mistaken identity. Pick whatever scenario you want. For example shots are fired, but someone thinks the suspect left in one vehicle , but the vehicle they believe had the suspect is just a second vehicle that is passing the incident and the driver of this wrong vehicle and that wrong vehicle is being driven by my aging father.
I could see my father being pulled over, not knowing why, then being ordered out of his vehicle, being slow to comply.

It is just plain wrong that a trained police officer could take such action because someone doesn’t lay on the roadway fast enough. I don’t care what type of crime the person is SUSPECTED of.

Mantler is a loose cannon when his adrenalin flows and should seek more suitable employment.

[Symbonite]

i just finished watching "End of Watch"

All I know is if I was a police officer then i would be kicking everyone in the head before handcuffing them cause you never know when you next stop is your last stop..

kick to the head elevated cause of a shots fired and armed.

Nothing that I can see was done excessively.. especially when everything is based on a very shaky crappy Apply Iphone camera.

[my5cents]

i just finished watching "End of Watch"

All I know is if I was a police officer then i would be kicking everyone in the head before handcuffing them cause you never know when you next stop is your last stop..

kick to the head elevated cause of a shots fired and armed.

Nothing that I can see was done excessively.. especially when everything is based on a very shaky crappy Apply Iphone camera.

…and that, ladies and gentlemen is why we don't train our police by showing them a fictional accounts of police in action.

[Roadster]

i just finished watching "End of Watch"

All I know is if I was a police officer then i would be kicking everyone in the head before handcuffing them cause you never know when you next stop is your last stop..

kick to the head elevated cause of a shots fired and armed.

Nothing that I can see was done excessively.. especially when everything is based on a very shaky crappy Apply Iphone camera.

That is definately a part of our problem, its an Iphone but still the kick cones tbrough and I wonder if a grab and a pile on woulda done the same as a kick, or a kick to some other part of the body, or a tazer, or, see really if the events of the day were what told this cop there was threat then why wasnt there more cops on scene before the take down instead of one going it alone where a kick is all he's got?
The female cop as on the other side of the truck. So lets say they pinned his vehicle, stand back as they usually do, order him out on the ground and let him lay there till the rest arrived,,, Back up,,, ya thats it!
3 or 4 cops piling on him would be better then one standing as a target, right? The video shows all that. One man standing, and all he has is a kick to control,,, not hat I would expect but then I am not a cop.

[LoneWolf_53]

Nothing that I can see was done excessively.. especially when everything is based on a very shaky crappy Apply Iphone camera.

If you're blind perhaps an issue, for most though I think that video adequately displayed enough. Enough to where Mantler was concerned at least, as evidenced by his remark to Hayes.

I think you're grasping if a shaky phone is the defense.

[WhatThe]

A couple of members have said to the effect of that mantler was operating under the assumption of extreme peril. Fair enough. So why did he attempt to extricate Tavares by himself without backup which was just seconds away.

KL3, can you shed light on this?

[MAPearce]

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more to this story than that,hope the real truth comes out

17 mounties as defense witnesses......

Yeah , the truth will come out all right ...

THEIR version of it ..

[grammafreddy]

17 mounties as defense witnesses......

That can't be true because there wasn't 17 mounties there who saw what happened. I don't even think the female cop who was there actually saw what happened.

However, there may be some other people who were in offices, stores, or on the street who saw what happened. And maybe people who saw what happened at the Harvest, too.

[MAPearce]

I read in the local rag today that the defence had 17 Mounties as witnesses ...

Here's the "cut and paste " from the Courier....

The witnesses they've called, I find it a little odd that people weren't even there. Seventeen police officers; there were three (there). They might as well call my neighbour up; he wasn't there either," he said.