The Shotgun Blog
Monday, June 30, 2008
Mandatory arrest claims yet another victim
The over-use of tasers by police appears to be the least of your worries, if you are male and have ever had a girlfriend.
Due to the moral panic over allegations of domestic violence -- most of which are either minor or false -- police now consider it de rigour to make an arrest before bothering to conduct an investigation. And if the male accused doesn't immediately turn himself in for finger-printing, he is liable to be followed into his home without a warrant, pepper-sprayed, and shot dead, as happened here.
Mr. LeClair might not be a saint -- who among us is? -- but the fact that he had custody of his 9-year-old daughter, and many supportive relatives and friends, suggests that he wasn't the most hardened criminal, either. Imagine the outrage if police shot dead a mother under similar circumstances. (Hard to do, I know, because it is hard to imagine the police taking any step whatsoever to pursue an allegation of domestic violence against a woman.)
The only questions that remain are which police force is going to determine that appropriate use of force was employed by the arresting officer, and which judges are going to find him not civilly or criminally responsible for taking this little girl's daddy away from her forever.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mandatory arrest claims yet another victim:
It would have been perfect irony if the ' arresting officer ' had been female .
Come to think of it , what ever happened to the old fashioned arm bar ,hammer lock or even hair grab to restrain someone . Oh I forgot we are in an enlightened era where 110 lb officers are exoected to make these arrests , so if someone gets shot in the process , too bad. We must not have any discrimination here. Those 230 lb guerilla cops are too intimidating anyways .
Posted by: daveh | 2008-07-01 5:41:49 AM
"Mr. LeClair might not be a saint -- who among us is? -- but the fact that he had custody of his 9-year-old daughter, and many supportive relatives and friends, suggests that he wasn't the most hardened criminal, either."
Yeah. Right. Because "hardened criminals" NEVER have supportive relatives and friends and never have custody of children, right? Riiiiight....
The simple truth is there is nothing in the article to suggest that this guy was some innocent persecuted by Grant's imaginary man-hating world. We do know that he "had had previous run-ins with police", which could mean nothing or it could mean he was a thug. We do know he was terminally stupid, as we are told this: "Ms. Hunter said the officer had drawn his gun and was threatening to shoot, but Mr. Leclair did not appear to believe him." Pure genius!
So is he an innocent done wrong by a man-hating system out of control or is he a bulling thug who got what he deserved? Clearly there is not enough information to decide. But the fact that Grant wants to make him a poster boy for his cause based on as flimsy evidence as this confirms, once again, the poverty his paranoid delusions.
You're batting 1.000, Grant. Keep up the good work!
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-07-01 7:29:44 AM
So, Logic Chopper thinks it plausible that Mr. LeClair "got what he deserved" by being summarily executed by the police, without even an investigation, much less a trial. Is he angling for a job on the police conduct review board?...
My post had nothing to do with Mr. LeClair being a "poster boy" for anything. It was all about trigger-happy police brutality and the kind of ideological moral panic over domestic violence that fosters to it.
Question: What the hell is a police officer doing drawing a gun and threatening to shoot someone in these circumstances, in the first place? He was inside a private residence on a Saturday around lunchtime, with little children present. If the cop honestly (though without any evidence) thought that a shoot-out with Mr. LeClair might have taken place, he should have retreated and called for back-up, so that no innocents would be caught in the cross-fire. A little boy was present and witnessed the whole thing; given the erratic behaviour of this idiot cop, it's lucky he was only "traumatized" and not shot, too.
Anyone experienced with police procedure might consider the cop's absurdly over-the-top approach a joke, as Mr. LeClair did. How could any reasonable person take this nut-job cop seriously? One witness, a neighbour, said that Mr. LeClair was merely raising his arms to wipe his eyes after being pepper-sprayed, when he was shot dead. Since when was threatening and then shooting an incapacitated man THREE TIMES accepted police procedure?
Check some facts, and get back to me on this one.
Chopper, you have to get over your fetish for deductive logic. Your attitude that whatever can't be established by deductive reasoning isn't a worthy conclusion to draw leads to an awful lot of very bad judgment. Your logic is impecable; it's your judgment (knowledge plus wisdom) that is atrocious, abysmal, and unreal.
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-07-01 9:46:11 AM
Anyone stupid enough to believe that being logical is simply to indulge in a "fetish", as you put it, is an idiot. But we already knew that about you, Grant.
"Check some facts, and get back to me on this one."
Sure thing. You deny making LeClair a poster boy for anything. Well there is one of two possibilities. Either things like what happened to LeClair are very rare, thus you picked his case to highlight because there were no other choices. But if that is true then your claim of widespread misandry is false. Or, on the other hand, things like what happened to LeClair are very common, but in that case you could have picked one of many other cases to tell us about, perhaps one where the "victim" (as you call him) is clearly not a lout. By selecting him with many options you ARE making him a poster boy. So either you are making a mountain of a molehill or your claim not to make him a poster boy is a lie. QED. Sorry to use something as silly as "logic" on you, but for some of us it is preferable to being illogical, as you seem to champion.
You conveniently fill in the mammoth-sized gaps in the details in the story as you wish to paint the picture most congenial to your bias, but the facts, as presented, offer no such obvious conclusions. Maybe the cops disobeyed procedure and were gun happy because they hate men they assume are guilty of domestic assault based on a mere accusation. Sure, that is possible. But it is also possible that the police did not expect LeClair to become violent with them and when that turned out to be wrong and he attacked the cop, it was necessary to subdue him right away.
The evidence of the story is ambiguous, at best. But we do know that the police have had to deal with him many times before because we are told that "police had searched the home in the past" and that "at least two officers USUALLY [emphasis added] showed up at the house to calm Mr. Leclair down and defuse the situation if necessary". So if you cannot find a better poster boy than this guy, then you are very hard up for being able to make any case at all for your delusions.
Is the system perfect? Of course not! Do cops make mistakes sometimes? Of course they do! Is this story any reason to believe paranoid ravings that their is a conspiracy against men? Of course not! But thanks for the entertainment, Grant. You're always good for a laugh.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-07-01 11:42:24 AM
Chopper, your second post shows no better judgment than your first, on all counts that matter. If you STILL think it possible that this man "got what he deserved," I feel sorry for you. If you STILL think the cop followed appropriate police procedure, I feel sorry for Canadian civil liberties with people like you in defence of them.
In fact, your second post doesn't even measure up to your usual standards for deductive reasoning. In your haste to find fault with everything I post, you present a false dichotomy and then pretend to impale me on its horns. But if I may be permitted to restate my point for those like you who missed it in their rush to judgment:
Over-zealous apprehensions of innocent men on the mere allegation of domestic assault happen many times every day in Canada. (As a former lawyer, and a researcher on the subject, I know this from personal contact with many cases.) Most of the time, the victim is merely embarrassed by being served a summons or being frog-marched in cuffs out the front door, in front of co-workers or neighbours. Most of the time they merely spend a weekend in jail, have to pay a lawyer a few thousand bucks to get their names cleared in court, lose "exclusive possession" of their homes to their estranged partners, or like indignities. But every once in a while, things really go sideways and someone ends up brutalized or dead, for absolutely no good reason -- no good reason EVEN IF he was guilty of the offense as alleged. I picked the LeClair incident to comment on because it is a particularly jarring and clear case -- clear to all reasonable people, at least. It was meant to be kind of a slap in the face to the ignorant or complacent or politically correct.
It is important to observe that Mr. LeClair was no saint, as I said, because many educated people are so reflexively hostile and unsympathetic to men with imperfections that they find it exceedingly easy to dismiss them with, "he probably got what he deserved." (A B.C. man cheats on his mistress; she kills him in a fit of jealous rage; and the judge basically says he got what he deserved and let's the woman go with house arrest...) Chopper, your glib response illustrates perfectly why vulnerable men cannot count on this country's politically correct elites to defend their civil liberties. Police brutality -- in this case, causing death -- is no more acceptable just because the victim is male and "known to police." It is no more acceptable than pulling someone over for "driving while black."
Finally, I'm not so silly as to believe that deductive logic is worthless, and that is not what I said, implied, or even suggested. Learn to read. What I said is that you have a fetish for deductive logic, in that you seem to think that if a conclusion does not follow apodictically from the premises stated in a weblog, then it is worthless. The problem with this fetish is that NO conclusions worth stating follow deductively from ANY set of premises, no matter how detailed they may be. There are always many logically POSSIBLE theories to explain any given set of facts. It is always a matter of JUDGMENT which conclusion or which hypothesis is the best at explaining a given set of facts.
Plato's ideal of basing all knowledge on the model of mathematical reasoning was given up as hopeless long ago -- at least since David Hume's devastating critique of the project. Show some maturity and recognize the limits of deductive logic, or your fetish will continue to make a fool of you.
(This is why "Logic Chopper" is a better fit than your gross misnomer, "Fact Check.")
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-07-01 1:51:18 PM
"The simple truth is there is nothing in the article to suggest that this guy was some innocent persecuted by Grant's imaginary man-hating world. "
Yet Grant doesn't go around shooting people. I think you should re-check the article because
"The simple truth is there is nothing in the article to reasonably suggest that this guy was a threat and deserved to be shot."
Now, why don't you write a blog post complaining about that much more serious matter?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-01 5:52:10 PM
The effects of this are going to have far reaching consequences, over a wide spectrum. The tramatized family members, the officer, and the public(both interested & un-interested) will be impacted by these events. Wouldn't the best course to take here be the one of caution, and measure? Once the police have investigated and determined a finding, put forward the events to be scruntinized, I think then a clearer picture can be realized.
From the initial reports, it looks quite damning for the police, but possibly things could change. Except for the fact that one man is dead, and slew of people are now suffering.
Fact Check, ahh forget it...
Posted by: prairie dog | 2008-07-01 6:12:24 PM
And what about the kid in Alberta(?) a couple of years ago that got a cop bullet in the BACK of the head upon leaving jail. The evidence showed the cop was lieing. Of course that one was hushed up pretty fast.heh
Posted by: reg dunlop | 2008-07-01 7:40:53 PM
dunlop is referring to a case in the interior of B.C., where a young man was shot in the back of the head while in police custody. They were in an interview room or retaining cell, with the video off, so it is impossible to know for sure what happened. The cop claimed the young man (who was arrested for drinking in public or J-walking or something trivial like that) jumped him and was choking him for some completely mysterious reason. An independent Edmonton police detective, who specializes in blood-splatter evidence, testified that the cop's version couldn't have been correct, but his testimony was not accepted by the tribunal. (I think Logic Chopper was on that panel, and he found another logically possible theory to explain the physical evidence.)
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-07-01 11:57:06 PM
"Due to the moral panic over allegations of domestic violence -- most of which are either minor or false"
"if the male accused doesn't immediately turn himself in for finger-printing, he is liable to be followed into his home without a warrant, pepper-sprayed, and shot dead, as happened here."
Um, basis for these hilariously over-the-top generalizations? Seriously, man, do you spend all day trolling the internet looking for incidents you can try to use in support for victimization theories? There's a whole wide world out there to experience and enjoy if you can get your head out of the sand and look around. Why are you so unhappy as to fixate on this subject all the time?
BTW, making fun of names, or as it is here, internet handles? What are you, 7 years old? Doesn't really help you when you are trying to sound smart.
PS - it's "de rigueur," not "de rigour." Unless you were attempting a vague pun.
Posted by: Researcher | 2008-07-02 6:08:21 AM
"Um, basis for these hilariously over-the-top generalizations? Seriously, man, do you spend all day trolling the internet looking for incidents you can try to use in support for victimization theories? There's a whole wide world out there to experience and enjoy if you can get your head out of the sand and look around. Why are you so unhappy as to fixate on this subject all the time?"
Seriously, there's a whole wide world out there for you to experience and look around. Why are you so unhappy that you come here to bother posters attempting serious debate.
Would you show up a blog for women's issues and chastise the author for being "fixated" on the subject?
Thought not. Get a life. A more sensitive and empathic one.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-02 7:07:47 AM
You aren't much of a "researcher" if you think I have to "spend all day trolling the internet looking for incidents you can try to use in support for victimization theories." Pretty much everything I report originates from the mainstream media, and falls into my lap without any effort at all. Actually, you have to live with your head firmly planted in the sand NOT to have come across the stories I comment on.
Someone who is so willfully blind to obvious truths shouldn't use the moniker "Researcher," except in irony. (Yes, I believe in truth in advertising.)
Now, to the comments of a REAL researcher -- Canada's foremost expert on intimate partner violence, UBC Psychology Professor Donald Dutton:
July 1, 2008
There have been 5 suspicious police shootings of citizens in BC in the past 2 years (Including Ian Bush who was shot for carrying a beer at a hockey game by a plice officer who shot him in th back of the head while claiming Bush was attacking him from behind!).
The typical song and dance is to call in an "independent" police force to investigate, who invariably find the police acted in self defense. There is no credibility in these cases.
The head of the RCMP, Guiliano Zaccardelli was found to have re-written citizen complaints aginst the RCMP where the independent investigator found against the police. Its' a national disgrace.
Dr Don Dutton
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-07-02 9:57:23 AM
Ok, Grant. You and your buddy Don think cops are evil man-hunters and the evidence is so overwhelming that its in the news all the time. What about soldiers? Are they a different breed or the same? When you read stories about our soldies who murder, do you think it's just a few bad apples or do you think there is a systematic bias at work? In short, do you "support the troops", Grant?
Maybe we should set up a steel-cage match between you and Adam Yoshida to sort this one out.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-07-02 10:10:55 AM
Chopper has now officially gone "BATSHIT CRAZY," to borrow a phrase.
In his logically dichotomous world, police are either completely unbiased and neutral, or they are "evil man-haters." Couldn't the truth be slightly more subtle? Couldn't the police, like many institutions in the modern Western world, have become rather politically correct on the sexist-feminist side? Would this be the first instance in which a societal pendulum has swung rather too far to correct an historic injustice?
You don't have to take my word for it. I entreat you to attend conferences on intimate partner violence where police and Crown representatives make presentations. I entreat you to read the training manuals on intimate partner violence the police use. Open your ears and listen to the public pronouncements of the police chiefs in London (Ont.), Ottawa, and Calgary, for instance. They ALL use gender specific language and state quite openly that "men are the problem" -- despite what hundreds of academic, peer-reviewed surveys (including Statistics Canada) report.
This anti-male agenda on intimate partner violence is not an idiosyncratic inference I draw from selected cases; it's official police / Crown / judicial / government policy.
Check some facts and get back to me on this one.
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-07-02 10:31:22 AM
P.S.: I don't know what soldiers have to do with this. They don't deal with intimate partner violence, and their training doesn't have to go down politically correct lines. Still, I dare say the evidence from deaths by enemy fire supports an inference that female combat troops are not as likely to be placed in harm's way. Almost 100% of those deaths are male soldiers, even though women comprise a non-neglible proportion of combat troops today. Why is death in combat not an employment opportunity anyone is eager to equalize? I suggest it has something to do with the same pro-female sexism that leads to the current moral panic over "domestic violence against women." Women's lives and suffering are perceived by society at large to be more important than men's lives and suffering.
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-07-02 10:43:50 AM
"Almost 100% of those deaths are male soldiers, even though women comprise a non-neglible proportion of combat troops today."
Actually 1.9% of Canadian Forces combat troops are women. That seems pretty negligible to me. However I realize you never let the facts get in the way of your grandstanding.
h2o - why should I be more sensitive and empathic? I don't see you advocating others to do that. Maybe It's a bias of your own coming through
Posted by: Researcher | 2008-07-02 12:21:47 PM
When Sandra Day-O'Connor faced the Senate Judiciary Committee to vet her nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States, she was asked if she supported the Equal Rights Amendment, if that would entail conscripting women equally with men to fight the war in Viet Nam. She replied, "I would hate to see American women brought back in body bags." No similar sentiments for male conscripts. That's pretty much the universal sentiment.
Consequently, only 8 of 60,000 American soldiers who died in Viet Nam were women, and only 2 of them by enemy fire. 'nuff said.
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-07-02 1:17:34 PM
"I would hate to see American women brought back in body bags." No similar sentiments for male conscripts. That's pretty much the universal sentiment.
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2-Jul-08 1:17:34 PM
Universal sentiment? Stalin had no qualms about using women as frontline troops during WW2. Would you consider Stalin to be your ideal libertarian?
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-07-02 1:29:19 PM
So what percentage of American soldiers in Vietnam were female? In order for your "stats" to have any meaning you would have to provide this info. If there were only 10 women and two died by enemy fire, that would be 20% of female combat troops dead.
However, if you have to go back 40 years to Vietnam to try and shore up your argument, you're on pretty thin ice.
Posted by: Researcher | 2008-07-02 1:34:22 PM
"h2o - why should I be more sensitive and empathic? I don't see you advocating others to do that. Maybe It's a bias of your own coming through "
Please be more sensitive and empathic as well.
How'd I do?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-02 3:01:12 PM
I say it is "pretty much" a universal sentiment that we don't want to see women brought back from combat zones in body bags, and all stig can do is mention Stalin as a counter-argument??? You and Logic Chopper need to get together.
So far, nobody has stepped forward to say they favour a world in which women suffer just as many combat (or other workplace) deaths as men.
When you folks have something relevant to say about the initial post on this thread, let me know.
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-07-02 3:22:02 PM
I say it is "pretty much" a universal sentiment that we don't want to see women brought back from combat zones in body bags, and all stig can do is mention Stalin as a counter-argument??? You and Logic Chopper need to get together.
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2-Jul-08 3:22:02 PM
How about Israel that has female conscription and female frontline soldiers and does get female soldiers brought home in body bags. That's 2 examples that don't fit your "universal" model. I say if women want to fight and die for their country they should be able to. Have you been able to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin yet?
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-07-02 3:37:20 PM
Stig, you are debating a phantom. I wish you would keep your finger off the trigger long enough to understand what the issue is.
I agree with you that "if women want to fight and die for their country they should be able to." The issue is: how many people feel that women should be *forced* to die for their country *in numbers equal to men*? Very, very few, don't you agree?
Even in Israel (whose daily existence depends on its army) the proportion of male to female deaths in combat is very far from parity, for reasons of deliberate policy. That's not a counter-example.
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-07-02 4:30:27 PM
Israel hasn't used women in front-line combat for decades. They ceased to do so because the male instinct to protect females was disrupting discipline AND because the death of women in unpleasant ways was devastating to male morale.
Posted by: Zog | 2008-07-02 9:11:02 PM
Israel hasn't used women in front-line combat for decades.
Posted by: Zog | 2-Jul-08 9:11:02 PM
Though the Israeli Supreme Court decided in 1995 that women conscripts could be used for front-line combat if needed. And from what I understand they are trained for front-line combat (if they are in that part of the service)duty and military commanders would be expected to use them.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-07-02 9:23:07 PM
Please be more sensitive and empathic as well.
How'd I do?"
LOL, you did great.
Posted by: Researcher | 2008-07-03 4:10:59 AM
"they favour a world in which women suffer just as many combat (or other workplace) deaths as men."
Is this what you are advocating?? You are one twisted corkscrew. How about favouring a world where the number of combat/workplace deaths of men are reduced to the same level of women's - or ideally, the numbers for both sexes to zero.
Best of luck buddy. You need it just to get through each day if you talk in real life like you do on here.
Posted by: Researcher | 2008-07-03 8:45:59 AM
One way to make combat / workplace deaths equal between men and women would be to reduce them both to zero. I'm not opposed to that; I just think it is absurdly unrealistic and impractical -- something only a lawyer or an academic would propose. Maybe one day engineers will give us robots to achieve the desired result. The question is what we are going to do in the meanwhile.
Now, one possibility would be to impose quotas to assure that men and women face the same risks in combat and at work. Quotas are the favourite means of equalizing employment opportunities by leftists and feminists, so consistency would require these zealots for equality of outcome -- you know, the Supremes' concept of "substantive equality" -- to be gong-ho in favour of this policy. Ironically, no.
Since I have always opposed quotas of all kinds, I am not in favour of quotas to equalize the opportunity for death and injury between men and women, either. My position is principled, whereas the leftist-feminist gang are opportunists and special-pleaders.
(Where I learned logic, 'equality' was defined by its formal properties: transitivity, symmetry, and reflexivity. Somehow, our academic and legal elites have re-invented the concept so that "equality for me is not equality for thee.")
To repeat a refrain from an earlier discussion thread: My posts are all about consciousness raising in the interests of real gender equality. What I suggest is that we all become more aware of the particular risks and vulnerabilities that men and boys are socialized to accept as a part of life, so that we can all be more free of undue social pressures. Then we will all be able to do what we truly want to do, rather than what of society says our sex dictates.
If it turns out that men, while facing the same socialization pressures and incentive structures as women, still prefer risky activities (as they would, although probably not as much as at present), so be it. What I detest is all the griping feminists do about how hard life is for women, without exhibiting an iota of appreciation for the difficulties men are saddled with because of their sex. Look at the discussion threads my posts initiate, and you will inevitably see some commentator saying or implying that I'm just a whiner. Men are supposed to "take it like a man."
Is that really so "twisted"? Or are you the pampered and twisted one?
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-07-03 10:15:45 AM
To the editor [National Post],
Re. "A bogus refugee," editorial, July 5:
When I read about the infractions of the Geveva Convention this American soldier had assisted in during his service in Iraq -- "doors got smashed in; children got scared; women, caught without a veil or even a full set of clothing, felt humiliated. Sometimes, people even got hurt" -- I couldn't help comparing how the police handle alleged "domestic disturbances" in Canada.
A few days ago, a "peace" officer confronted David Leclair, an Aylmer father, over an assault allegation made by his estranged girlfriend. Mr. Leclair had just come home from a roofing job, and went inside to change his clothes. The officer followed him inside, pepper sprayed him, and then shot him dead in full view of family members and neighbours, including small children.
This is an extreme case; but every day, Canadian men are brutalized or humiliated in lesser ways by police acting on allegations of domestic abuse -- frequently minor, false, and ill-motivated allegations. They have their doors smashed in, and their bedrooms invaded while naked; they are served a summons or an ex parte restraining order, or they are cuffed and frog-marched out the door, in view of coworkers or neighbours. They spend weekends in jail, or are evicted from their own homes.
Canadian men do not enjoy the same protections from police pursuing stale-dated allegations of "domestic disturbances" as civilians in a war zone are supposed to have from soldiers searching for terrorists and weapons caches. Maybe our Chiefs of Police, and our Justices in criminal and family courts across the land, should give that discrepancy some thought.
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-07-05 11:42:29 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.