Disabled man dead after confrontation with OPP

[Frankie3s]

ELMVALE – A woman who last night witnessed an OPP officer shoot a mentally disabled man to death in his driveway in this quiet farming community northwest of Barrie, says she didn't see anything in the man's hands during the confrontation.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/655356

http://media.thestar.topscms.com/images/c0/ab/1428f9984a599099c3c97c4229d7.jpeg

If the preliminary facts are true, then everyone should be worried that this could happen to them (disabled or not). People shouldn't have to be afraid of police. Who can you trust?

[Chr1s]

This is really sad. I was disappointed to hear the results of this, especially considering that Doug Minty was disabled. :(

Somehow I don't think we will get the full story. >:(

[spintheblackcircle]

If the preliminary facts are true, then everyone should be worried that this could happen to them (disabled or not). People shouldn't have to be afraid of police. Who can you trust?

:rolleyes:

What "facts" are those? The witnesses from x distance away who are second guessing themselves or generally unsure?

Just curious...

[luca_pacioli]

This is really sad. I was disappointed to hear the results of this, especially considering that Doug Minty was disabled. :(

Somehow I don't think we will get the full story. >:(
From that article there are no details that can be confirmed, just vague assumptions from the supposed "eye witnesses" that the media needed in order to get a sensational news store. The person who is disable may have had nothing in his hands, but it sounds like the media printed whatever they could find because the police most likely told them "no comment".

:rolleyes:

What "facts" are those? The witnesses from x distance away who are second guessing themselves or generally unsure?

Just curious...

Exactly.:arrowu:

Fyi ~ Interesting Read:
Eyewitness identification evidence is the leading cause of wrongful conviction in the United States. Of the more than 200 people exonerated by way of DNA evidence in the US, over 75% were wrongfully convicted on the basis of erroneous eyewitness identification evidence. In England, the Criminal Law Review Committee, writing in 1971, stated that cases of mistaken identification "constitute by far the greatest cause of actual or possible wrong convictions". Yet despite substantial anecdotal and scientific support for the proposition that eyewitness testimony is often unreliable, it is held in high regard by jurors in criminal trials, even when "far outweighed by evidence of innocence." In the words of former US Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, there is "nothing more convincing [to a jury] than a live human being who takes the stand, points a finger at the defendant, and says 'That's the one!'"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification

[Frankie3s]

:rolleyes:

What "facts" are those? The witnesses from x distance away who are second guessing themselves or generally unsure?

Just curious...

Note the word preliminary was used. But I have a feeling that the police may have overreacted. It will be interesting to see how this story unfolds.

[mtbmxrider]

I'm from Elmvale, and was pretty shocked to hear about Doug...I can tell you that the woman who saw it all happen is fairly traumatized about it considering the cops literally "opened up" on him; I'm talking about multiple shots. Doug was mentally challenged, and wouldn't harm anyone. He was just upset about a certain salesman who wouldn't stop pestering him. Doug had no weapons on him, but reportedly began moving closer to the police officers to confront them about the salesman and then that's when they opened fire.

We don't have a police station here, so it was out-of-town cops who did it.

[Ojam]

Note the word preliminary was used. But I have a feeling that the police may have overreacted. It will be interesting to see how this story unfolds.

Preliminary does not modify the word facts to mean "not facts".

[Frankie3s]

Preliminary does not modify the word facts to mean "not facts".

No it means early findings until proven otherwise.

[spintheblackcircle]

Note the word preliminary was used. But I have a feeling that the police may have overreacted. It will be interesting to see how this story unfolds.

Ok...based on what knowledge/experience?

Do you work as a police officer or are you in emergency services in general?
Do you work in a capacity where you have to deal with people with this man's specific disability (not noted) and/or work where you deal with issues that you figure are likely (again no way of knowing) to have been presented in this case?
Are you an MD specializing in mental health/disability issues?
Are you a PhD who has done his/her doctorate in mental health/disability issues and can present some likely assumed presentation of this individual?

Or are you a lay person, who has no idea what happened, that has some sort of issue with cops/authority/entitlement issue whatever and decides to stick his 2 cents in on an issue where you have NO IDEA what exactly went on or remote frame of reference...

[monty613]

But I have a feeling that the police may have overreacted.

Ok...based on what knowledge/experience?


based on it being a mentally handicapped person who apparently wasn't armed?

[Ojam]

No it means early findings until proven otherwise.

No it means Early evidence that is actual, and verifiably true. Which there is none. You have a women saying he might, or might not have had something in his hands and a bunch of random people saying "He never bothered anybody"

The woman, a next-door neighbour of Doug Minty, 59, of Lawson Ave., said it's possible he was holding something that she couldn't see. Another witness, who was across the street, thinks she saw something fly out of Minty's hands when he fell but it may have just been his glasses

I'm not saying if the OPP were justified or not, nobody here can.

[watungga]

based on it being a mentally handicapped person who apparently wasn't armed?

+1

Simple math, spintheblackcircle dude!

Either 1 or 0. Acted or over-reacted. Under-acted means they could just pissed off ad leave the mentally handi-capped alone.

[spintheblackcircle]

based on it being a mentally handicapped person who apparently wasn't armed?

So from the sounds of it you are giving the deceased the benefit and not the police in this situation based on a newspaper article and the enclosed written accounts of 2 people who are unsure/renegging on what they might have seen.

Again, if you have experience in the fields that I have outlined, and can comment from best extensive knowledge on similar situations or assumed patients, then go ahead.

I work in emergency services (not police), and I can assure you based on thousands of calls with police, that they hold the utmost restraint (certainly with deadly force) in the vast majority of occasions where warranted.

Watungga, you may find this hard to believe, but all situations in life and especially in conflict aren't as simply as the binary 1 or 0, black or white. I'm sure I could enter in situations where you have had conflict in your life (not as escalated as this, but we don't know) and show you other options other than a 1 or 0.

[watungga]

Watungga, you may find this hard to believe, but all situations in life and especially in conflict aren't as simply as the binary 1 or 0, black or white. I'm sure I could enter in situations where you have had conflict in your life (not as escalated as this, but we don't know) and show you other options other than a 1 or 0.

Well the police gets to the first instance of deciding what to use, gun or no gun. In vast majority of occasion, the outmost restraint is always based on not to use this deadly weapon. What about tasers and batons, or their skills in close combat .... seems like they (police) don't know your options other than 1 or 0.

[dragon_drift]

What happened to using a baton or taser. Gunshots against an harmless man? That's weak.

[BornRuff]

Ok...based on what knowledge/experience?

Do you work as a police officer or are you in emergency services in general?
Do you work in a capacity where you have to deal with people with this man's specific disability (not noted) and/or work where you deal with issues that you figure are likely (again no way of knowing) to have been presented in this case?
Are you an MD specializing in mental health/disability issues?
Are you a PhD who has done his/her doctorate in mental health/disability issues and can present some likely assumed presentation of this individual?

Or are you a lay person, who has no idea what happened, that has some sort of issue with cops/authority/entitlement issue whatever and decides to stick his 2 cents in on an issue where you have NO IDEA what exactly went on or remote frame of reference...

If your looking to only talk with PHD's and MD's, this isn't the place you should be.

[spintheblackcircle]

In Toronto, your average street cop does not carry a taser. Only Sergeants (I believe and above) do. I will make the assumption that with the OPP, your average constable does not carry a taser, and probably falls to more senior/ranking staff. If I am wrong, and the average oficer does carry a taser, and those on scene did have that option prior to using deadly force, then yes, I agree that perhaps other options should have been looked into. Sergeants are not always readily available.

I also don't recall the last time I saw a Toronto cop with a baton. I generally only deal with OPP on highway calls, they may carry them regularly on their person, but I can't recall noticing it.

Again, your making the assumption that when dealing with the individual it is either "OK, stop right there, co-operate, or I'll shoot", or actually shoot. I can tell you FROM MANY EXPERIENCE'S WITH POLICE ON 911 CALLS, that they generally use minimal force. I can count on 1 hand the number of times I have seen them draw their gun, let alone put a hand on it.

I think people see this patient/deceased as a down syndrome person, and stereotype them as seen on TV as generally smiling,happy, and benign. None of you know the extent of the "mental disability" or what other problems this gentleman faced in his life, that lead him to confrontation with police and his subsequent death.

[mazdubb]

One shot at close range? I can see a legitimate case for self defense based on a fear for personal safety.

Two shots at close range? A little trigger happy but still shows a decent amount of restraint I suppose.

Three or more shots at close range? That officer shouldn't be carrying a gun.

[felixdd]

One shot at close range? I can see a legitimate case for self defense based on a fear for personal safety.

Two shots at close range? A little trigger happy but still shows a decent amount of restraint I suppose.

Three or more shots at close range? That officer shouldn't be carrying a gun.

This isn't the movies.

Rule 1 of opening fire: aim for the center of mass (the chest and abdomen). You don't take out a leg or an arm -- you can miss and hit other people, and it won't be effective.

Rule 2 of opening fire: shoot until the person drops. One bullet doesn't stop someone dead in his/her tracks.

[BornRuff]

I think people see this patient/deceased as a down syndrome person, and stereotype them as seen on TV as generally smiling,happy, and benign. None of you know the extent of the "mental disability" or what other problems this gentleman faced in his life, that lead him to confrontation with police and his subsequent death.

Are you implying that it is more ok to shoot people with disabilities other than down syndrome?

[spintheblackcircle]

Are you implying that it is more ok to shoot people with disabilities other than down syndrome?

Grasping aren't we...

Of course not, but when people see the phrase "mental disabilities" and then hear (paraphrase) "wouldn't hurt anyone" or "didn't have anything in his hands", etc... they probably think of the more "benign" handicaps and (at least for me, and I'm sure for many) think down syndrome. Down syndrome being the most generally recognizable (even in text) disability, so people auto equate it to that. Please don't tell me that people here (myself included) thought that when reading the article.

If "mental disability" was replaced with X mental euphemism like "illness" or "disorder", there would likely be a different reaction based on text (which is all we have). Disability = harmless person in peoples eyes. Something tells me the news isn't privy to the deceased entire medical history.

Cops don't shoot people without extreme cause folks.

[monty613]

Cops don't shoot people without extreme cause folks.

"oh no! he approached me!"

[Chr1s]

Grasping aren't we...

Of course not, but when people see the phrase "mental disabilities" and then hear (paraphrase) "wouldn't hurt anyone" or "didn't have anything in his hands", etc... they probably think of the more "benign" handicaps and (at least for me, and I'm sure for many) think down syndrome. Down syndrome being the most generally recognizable (even in text) disability, so people auto equate it to that. Please don't tell me that people here (myself included) thought that when reading the article.

If "mental disability" was replaced with X mental euphemism like "illness" or "disorder", there would likely be a different reaction based on text (which is all we have). Disability = harmless person in peoples eyes. Something tells me the news isn't privy to the deceased entire medical history.

Cops don't shoot people without extreme cause folks.

I can hear the bias dripping from your posts, so I'll keep my post brief. Mental illness is not only Downs syndrome, and is all encompassing from everything else in the DSM-IV. I like how you mention that medical records are private, (as they are) and it is you who fill in the blanks with Downs syndrome assuming that is what everyone assumes.

"Cops don't shoot people without extreme cause." In a perfect world that may be true. Not now, in our day and age. How about the man in BC? Why was he killed? A stapler, not knowing English? Oh and as an added bonus, those officers commited perjury! Would it have been different if there was NO video available to be a witness?

Take a look at videos on how police behave towards people, and take a long hard look at how people are getting beat up, tasered and killed for no real good reason.

Never forget that Police Officers are PEACE officers first. They took an oath to be a PEACE officer. This incident was about keeping the peace, and it went very, very wrong.

If you think that this outcome is 'normal' then I really feel sad for you, and hope that no one in your family has to go through this kind of ordeal.

[bigcortex]

It seems that every week we hear some story about a police mess.

Every ***** who can't make it at school ends up being a policemen. The police is a concentrate of ***** and idiots and we are supposed to trust those pigs?

[custy]

It seems that every week we hear some story about a police mess.

Every ***** who can't make it at school ends up being a policemen. The police is a concentrate of ***** and idiots and we are supposed to trust those pigs?

On thin ice there...

[BornRuff]

Grasping aren't we...

Of course not, but when people see the phrase "mental disabilities" and then hear (paraphrase) "wouldn't hurt anyone" or "didn't have anything in his hands", etc... they probably think of the more "benign" handicaps and (at least for me, and I'm sure for many) think down syndrome. Down syndrome being the most generally recognizable (even in text) disability, so people auto equate it to that. Please don't tell me that people here (myself included) thought that when reading the article.

If "mental disability" was replaced with X mental euphemism like "illness" or "disorder", there would likely be a different reaction based on text (which is all we have). Disability = harmless person in peoples eyes. Something tells me the news isn't privy to the deceased entire medical history.

Cops don't shoot people without extreme cause folks.

Why are you trying to act so knowledgeable when you don't seem to have a clue about this situation?

What exactly is a more of less "benign" disability? If you think people with downs are always happy and wouldn't hurt anyone, you probably haven't actually spent any time with many people with downs. They have normal moods just like you and me, and a common trend I've seen is many boys with downs are very indifferent to authority(They are very good at ignoring you and doing whatever the hell they want.)

From the sounds of the article(fully able but "slow"), the man probably didn't have a specific diagnosis. More than likely he was just diagnosed as developmentally delayed(******** in the old days), and that was that. A huge number of people with mental disabilities fall under that heading.

[thomsonst780]

On thin ice there...


lol...is that threat oinky? just don't tase me bro'

the pigs need to be taken care of like the way they seem to enjoy taking care of anyone who seems to disagree with them; that cop in ottawa just got charged with assault BUT STILL KEEPS HIS DESK JOB. Hopefully they will start being treated like the everyone without the special treatment they have always gotten.

Ottawa police officer charged with assaulting cabbie

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/06/23/ottawa-police-cabbie-assault.html#socialcomments

An Ottawa police officer has been charged after a taxi driver was assaulted at the Ottawa International Airport last month.

The officer, Const. Shyldon Safruk, 35, was off-duty when the alleged assault took place, but he'll be given a desk job with police until the case has gone to court.


http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/topstories/2009/05/14/ottawa-090514-cab-driver-assault.jpg

[BornRuff]

lol...is that threat oinky? just don't tase me bro'

the pigs need to be taken care of like the way they seem to enjoy taking care of anyone who seems to disagree with them; that cop in ottawa just got charged with assault BUT STILL KEEPS HIS DESK JOB. Hopefully they will start being treated like the everyone without the special treatment they have always gotten.

Ottawa police officer charged with assaulting cabbie

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/06/23/ottawa-police-cabbie-assault.html#socialcomments




http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/topstories/2009/05/14/ottawa-090514-cab-driver-assault.jpg

Would you get fired from your job for an assault charge unrelated to your employment?

This alleged assault took place while he was off duty. Moving this guy to a job away from the public is about as far as they should go. If he is in fact dangerous, he shouldn't be alone with the public, but remember, he has only been charged, nothing has been proven yet, so there is no reason to take drastic action until everything is proven.

[mazdubb]

Would you get fired from your job for an assault charge unrelated to your employment?

This alleged assault took place while he was off duty. Moving this guy to a job away from the public is about as far as they should go. If he is in fact dangerous, he shouldn't be alone with the public, but remember, he has only been charged, nothing has been proven yet, so there is no reason to take drastic action until everything is proven.

If I beat somebody up and then flashed my company security pass at all of the witnesses I'll probably be in a lot of hot water at work. That's what this officer did. He flashed his police I.D.

Also, the main argument in another recent thread in the Motor Vehicles forum was that police are police all the time. Whether they are off duty or on they are responsible for upholding the law.

[BornRuff]

If I beat somebody up and then flashed my company security pass at all of the witnesses I'll probably be in a lot of hot water at work. That's what this officer did. He flashed his police I.D.

Also, the main argument in another recent thread in the Motor Vehicles forum was that police are police all the time. Whether they are off duty or on they are responsible for upholding the law.

The article says he showed his badge to the other police officers when they arrived. That is different.

Police officers are generally held to a higher standard than civilians, that is why this man is at risk of loosing his job on top of his criminal punishment, and he is not able to preform his normal job until the matter is solved in court.

[mazdubb]

The article says he showed his badge to the other police officers when they arrived. That is different.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Police+chief+reaches+stays+duty+officer+accused+at tack/1597688/story.html

Aldoboni and several witnesses said when the man got out of his vehicle — a grey-coloured Nissan Xterra SUV — he shouted racial insults at Aldoboni, shoved him to the ground and proceeded to beat him before other drivers intervened.

Aldoboni suffered two broken bones in his left wrist and a broken index finger.

Mo Atiya, 24, the first driver to intervene, said he saw the man apply a “tactical arm lock,” which appeared to break Aldoboni’s wrist.

Atiya also said when he confronted Aldoboni’s attacker, the man showed him his police identification card.

...

[BornRuff]

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Police+chief+reaches+stays+duty+officer+accused+at tack/1597688/story.html



...

Interesting, I guess well have to wait to see what SIU uncovers. Any word on why the officer stopped the guy in the first place?

[Dash]

This isn't the movies.

Rule 1 of opening fire: aim for the center of mass (the chest and abdomen). You don't take out a leg or an arm -- you can miss and hit other people, and it won't be effective.

Rule 2 of opening fire: shoot until the person drops. One bullet doesn't stop someone dead in his/her tracks.

seriously? I think 1 shot should be pretty sufficient in stopping a man who's unarmed no less. 1 bullet might not stop a person in their tracks, but I'm sure it'll **** them up enough.