To get good insightful answers, how the question is framed matters. I missed an opportunity on Thursday
File this under brutality, but not the police kind.
A young male who admits on video to dealing “fake cocaine” alleges police brutality from a few minor scrapes and alleged marks from handcuffs after police tackled him for attempting to deal “fake cocaine” in Hamilton’s downtown core.
In a video posted to Youtube, the individual complains the police tackled him “for no reason” and alleges brutality by two members of the Hamilton Police Service’s well-known ACTION Team 4.
The person admits to engaging in a hand-off of what he himself refers to as “fake cocaine” – it was candle wax – and then complains about scrapes from being tackled
Police, having reasonable grounds to believe he has committed an indictable offence, tackled the individual and proceeded to search him and the other individual involved. The initial tackle is not shown in the video, but the search and eventual release of both individuals is.
What we do see is an officer using his body to control the individual, a search of the person’s body, and the moving of the person out of pedestrian traffic. There is no excessive force or weight applied by the arresting officer and no use of knees or elbows. It all appears by the book.
The decision to tackle, instead of talking to the individual, is reasonable in the circumstances. Crack cocaine dealers have a bad habit of carrying weapons and have been known to use force against police officers. Taking immediate physical control of the situation is a reasonable justified action.
It’s not every day a video of police doing exactly what they should in a difficult situation surfaces on YouTube. This is one.
Police brutality? Not even close. Brutal stupidity – dealing fake crack cocaine at King and James in the middle of the day.