Canadian Police Officer Accused of Series of Assaults On Citizens

In Canada, Const. Geoff Mantler has racked up quite a record of assaulting citizens. The officer now stands accused of three separate assaults on citizens, including one assault caught on camera. The government, however, has decided not to press charges in the third case.

In January, Mantler was caught on camera kicking a man in the face during an arrest. This latest alleged assault occurred on Aug. 10, 2010 when Jeremy Packer, 30, said he was ordered at gunpoint to get out of his car after being pulled over by Mantler and another officer. He said that his seatbelt became stuck and he was trying to unbuckle it when punched repeatedly in the face. The officers suspected him of stealing a boat that he was towing when he was actually repossessing the boat.

What is curious is that the prosecutor decided not to charge Mantler in the Packer matter because, according to one article, it was not convinced that the use of force was excessive because Packer failed to notify the police of the repossession. Yet, that is the basis of the suspicion for the stop. It does not excuse the degree of force used by the officer. Packer was not only innocent but unarmed. The government, however, insisted “Const. Mantler’s recollection is that he struck the complainant several times, possibly two or three times, on the back right side of the head because the complainant was resisting [arrest] but did not strike him again after he presented his hands.”

That is a pretty odd standard. You are allowed to beat a citizen for failure to show his hands?

Source: CBC

69 thoughts on “Canadian Police Officer Accused of Series of Assaults On Citizens”

  1. I was just thinking about my last post and I realized I didn’t mention the big down side risk of recording of police encounters: sometimes the police sell them or publish them for retaliation.

    Can you imagine how much worse it could get from here when that is combined with universal strip and cavity searches?

    What happened to the right to reasonable bail and to a summons not an arrest unless there is real and present danger to the community?

  2. I’m interested in Color of Law litigation based on facts such as the police beating discussed in this article.

    Did you know that when you sue a government under Color of Law it is classified as “complex litigation”?

    That’s strange because Color of Law is a frequent cause of action for pro se litigants.

    Apparently the reason why Color of Law litigation is considered “complex” is because of the poorly defined boundaries of the immunity defense.

    Believe me I have read a lot on this issue.

    Just recently I was trying to think through the issues of the federal government immunity defense. As part of this I went to the Cornell University Legal Institute website. It reported that federal immunity law is contradictory and confusing. Not good!

    It is better for our government to set a good example of accepting responsibility for its actions by allowing itself to be sued so that then it can suggest that other foreign nations do the same. This will reduce the potential advantage of unconstitutional behavior by making it less profitable and it will encourage overall systems improvement by comparative analysis of the underlying facts.

    Anyway, to hurry along, I think they should amend the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by at least narrowing down some of the parameters in a public forum.

    In the case of police assaults I personally think that liability should be shared by the officer and the employer so that both take seriously their responsibilities to prevent assaults.

    I think police assaults can be reduced by mandatory voice and audio recording of contacts and that that is probably the most immediate cost effective action. There are a lot of training videos and role playing programs too.

    Another issue with police has to do with how they are hired and build a police resume as they change employers.

  3. “Why don’t you go back to the subject of police assaults on citizens?”

    Because that wouldn’t deter you from continuing to try to derail this topic like every other thread you post upon. Now I have a question for you.

    Why don’t you just leave?

    Before people start asking that you be shown the door.

  4. Did you realize that it has been 20 years since the riots over the Rodney King beating?

    King was awarded $3.8 million in a civil case.

  5. I would be worse off filing for bankruptcy.

    Why don’t you go back to the subject of police assaults on citizens?

  6. That’s what you get for thinking, kay.

    Being wrong yet again.

    Someone else advised suggested you file bankruptcy.

    I agreed with them in the context of telling you to get a life and move on. That’s not legal advice. That’s concurrence with someone else’s financial opinion. Financially speaking, you would be better filing for bankruptcy and legally speaking in that regard I advise you to hire an attorney.

  7. Just look over our interactions and you will see that you, or someone else I think it was you, advised me to file bankruptcy. I was also advised on this blog not to pursue my Privacy Act claims unless I could find a lawyer even though very few lawyers are willing to sue the federal government, very few lawyers have Privacy Act expertise, and delay would cause statute or limitations issues, which you failed to advise me of.

  8. You didn’t say discuss the law. You said “give legal advice”. These words have specific legal operative meaning. If you were trained, you’d know the difference. I’ve discussed the law with lots of laypersons. The only legal advice I ever give them is “hire an attorney”. Which is the only legal advice I’ve ever given you too aside from seek professional psychological help and that isn’t legal advice. That’s simply the humane advice to give when dealing with a crazy person.

  9. The rules say legal advice to a client. The result of having ONLY lawyers discuss law is that the results are skewed to the needs of the legal profession for more jobs and more income.

  10. The attorney-client relationship is not solely predicated upon the exchange of money, “in a larger sense it includes legal advice and counsel”.

    You wrongly said you could give legal advice, kay.

    End of story.

  11. How are lawsuits irrelevant to police brutality?

    The Rodney King lawsuit facts were similar to the facts discussed in the article.

    Companies that insure local governments for employee errors sometimes have training videos on how to avoid lawsuits through good practice.

    Lawsuits caused the medical profession to change its procedures.

  12. Kay asks: “Do you want to discuss section 1983 lawsuits and the immunity defense?”

    Me: No. Irrelevant.

  13. OS

    Then go back to discussing police brutality– use of steroids, inadequate training, perception of protection from consequences etc.

    Do you want to discuss section 1983 lawsuits and the immunity defense?

  14. Unauthorized practice of law: (A) holding oneself out as an attorney or lawyer authorized to practice law; (B) rendering legal consultation or advice to a client;

    Never ever did that.

  15. AY, I just wish the hole she is digging did not swallow up the good Perfesser’s Blawg like one of those Florida sinkholes that devour whole neighborhoods.

  16. OS,

    Don’t forget that kay once claimed she could give legal advice.

    “kay sieverding 1, November 26, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    [. . . ] I have the right to voluntarily for free go on websites and give legal advice but I don’t have the right to sell legal advice, for the supposed reason that I might hurt someone, same as people are hurt by prostitution.”

    “Buddha Is Laughing 1, November 26, 2010 at 3:00 pm


    “I have the right to voluntarily for free go on websites and give legal advice but I don’t have the right to sell legal advice”

    Actually, you don’t have the right to give legal advice – free or not. You aren’t being supervised by an attorney nor do you have a law degree. You have a right to your opinions – uninformed or otherwise, but the instant you start “giving advice” beyond “seek out an attorney”, you are breaking both the Cannons and the laws of most states. Just because you do so for free only means you’re likely to get a slap on the wrist rather than a fine and/or jail time if charged.

    It’s this kind of legal ignorance that causes you trouble, kay. Law and being expert in it isn’t just reading and regurgitating words. It’s understanding based on context and history, both of which you’ve demonstrated time and again you lack.”

    “kay sieverding 1, November 26, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    Dear BIL

    Be specific about the laws you think I have misunderstood since you claim to know that I am ignorant about law.

    According to Wikipedia,”In its most general sense, the practice of law involves giving legal advice to clients, drafting legal documents for clients, and representing clients in legal negotiations and court proceedings such as lawsuits”.

    [cite omitted to avoid filter on repost]

    According to the S.Carolina Bar
    What is considered the “practice of law”?
    The practice of law is more than just appearing in court on behalf of a client. Though no concise definition of practice of law exists, certain characteristics make it more likely that the Court will view certain conduct as the practice of law. An early South Carolina case, cited by other jurisdictions as well, stated that the practice of law includes “the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and in general all advice to clients and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law.” In re Duncan, 65 S.E. 210 (S.C. 1909). The practice of law “extends to activities in other fields which entail specialized legal knowledge.” South Carolina v. Buyers Serv. Co., 357 S.E.2d 15 (S.C. 1987).

    Lawyers don’t own the law.”

    “Buddha Is Laughing 1, November 26, 2010 at 4:45 pm


    What part of “giving legal advice” don’t you understand?

    Apparently all of it.

    As to South Carolina v. Buyers Serv. Co.? Guess what? Paralegals and real estate agents aren’t allowed to give legal advice either except as narrowly defined by their jobs – and both professions are licensed.

    This is also the very last time I’m going to humor you by giving you three examples of where you are wrong: Alabama, California and Arizona.


    Rule 15. Grounds For Discipline.
    . . .
    (b) Unauthorized Practice of Law. (1) For purposes of the practice of law prohibition for disbarred and suspended attorneys in subparagraph (a)(6) of this rule, except for attorneys suspended solely for non-payment of bar fees, “practice of law” is defined as: (A) holding oneself out as an attorney or lawyer authorized to practice law; (B) rendering legal consultation or advice to a client;

    People v. Merchants Protective Corp., 209 P.363, 365 (1922)
    ‘As the term is generally understood, the practice of the law is the doing or performing services in a court of justice, in any matter depending therein, throughout its various stages, and in conformity to the adopted rules of procedure. But in a larger sense it includes legal advice and counsel,

    Arizona (Adopted January 15, 2003, effective July 1, 2003)
    (a) Supreme Court Jurisdiction Over the Practice of Law
    1.Jurisdiction. Any person or entity engaged in the practice of law or unauthorized practice of law in this state, as defined by these rules, is subject to this court’s jurisdiction.
    2.Definition: Practice of Law. The “practice of law” means providing legal
    advice or services to or for another by:
    (A)Preparing any document in any medium intended to affect or secure legal rights for a specific person or entity;
    (B)Preparing or expressing legal opinions;
    (C)Representing another in a judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative proceeding, or other formal dispute resolution process such as arbitrations and mediations;
    (D)Preparing any document through any medium for filing in any court, administrative agency or tribunal for a specific person or entity; or
    (E)Negotiating legal rights or responsibilities for a specific person or entity.
    3.Definition: Unauthorized Practice of Law. “Unauthorized practice of law” includes but is not limited to:
    (A)Engaging in the practice of law by persons or entities not authorized to practice pursuant to paragraphs (b) or (c) or specially admitted to practice pursuant to Rule 33(d);

    Every state has something similar on the books.

    Here’s a link to the ABA abstract appendix that summarized what qualifies as practicing law in every state and most of the penalties for doing so without license.

    [cite omitted to avoid filter on repost]

    Better yet, call your state bar association on Monday and ask if it’s okay for you to render legal advice without proper credentials or license. They’ll get a real kick out of that.

    Lawyers may not own the law, but there are legal requirements to dispense legal advice whether you like it or not. It’s to protect clients from the kind of malpractice that, oh, I don’t know, gets them thrown in jail or something because their lawyer doesn’t know what the Hell they are doing.”

    In her delusional mind, Kay is lawyer simply because she says she is, OS. There is even more of kay’s inane and insane babbling on this topic to be found on the thread where these quotes came from:

  17. OS,

    And neither was John Jay or Marshall….but they stuck the people with some shitty decisions….and we are stuck for life…..with the unintended consequence….

    You know if Kay could contribute to the Blawg rather than take and take and take and then take over the thread….I’d have absolutely no problem with her or her occasional requests… but everyone that she is on has been hijacked for her own personal selfishness….and if it were a gain to her I could see….but as she keeps digging the hole…she does it to herself….

Comments are closed.