Ron raises many important points: even when graphic physical and visual evidence exists indicating police misconduct and brutality, cops usually only get a slap on the wrist, if that. There are a few reasons for this:

1. The "blue wall of silence" - American TV cop shows often depict zealous "Internal Affairs" officers (a.k.a. "the rat squad") who seem to love nothing more than going after otherwise "good" cops. The only realistic aspect of such depictions is the "wall of silence" that comes crashing down whenever a cop faces the slightest risk of being held accountable for her/his misdeeds. For example, even the RCMP, in the course of an investigation into allegations of brutality and other misconduct brought against the VPD by the Pivot Legal Society, complained how uncooperative many of their Vancouver city counterparts were, in some cases even refusing to answer questions. Apparently, the much-vaunted "inter-agency co-operation" that police departments are always bragging about only happens when the cops aren't investigating themselves.

2. Hierarchy of credibility - We live in a classist, racist and oppressive society where the opinions, views and recollections of some carry more "weight" than others. So not only can cops be secure in the knowledge that their fellow officers will not rat them out, but also that in court their version of events will be considered more "credible" than, say, the poor, homeless drug user who says the cops beat the crap out of him (it is also not uncommon for cops to use violence against a person and then let them go saying "Consider yourself lucky that we're not charging you;" the person then feels "grateful" that they "only" got a beating).

Of course, this principle holds throughout the legal system; for example, in labour relations an arbitrator will generally give the testimony of management more weight than that of the individual worker/union member. The former are viewed as objective professionals, while the latter is the shop floor screw-up who will say anything to save their job.

3. "Police have a difficult job" - Most people who don't live in a bubble are aware that cops often abuse their powers and use excessive force; some are even prepared to admit that cops are generally bullies who seem to enjoy pushing people around. It is often argued that while cops are thugs, the "criminals" they have to deal with are even BIGGER thugs. If we tie the cop's hands with all kinds of constitutional niceities, they won't be able to do their jobs effectively.

This is reflected in the type of rulings that judges make: PIVOT Executive-Director John Richardson was arrested during the Woodward's Squat when he observed some of his clients being arrested during a brutal take-down by the VPD and crossed the street with the intention of speaking to and advising his clients; the charge of "obstruction" was dropped and Richardson was released the next day, after being put in isolation for refusing an illegal strip search. He lost his subsequent lawsuit against the VPD and the cops who arrested him; the judge ruled it was, in fact, "reasonable" for the cops to order Richardson to stay back and arrest him for not doing so.

In a more brutal incident during the "Guns N' Roses riot," where angry, young heavy metal fans smashed a few windows at GM Place after the show got cancelled, a cop was filmed by a news crew literally running at a man, who was actually trying to leave the mayhem at the time, smashing him in the teeth with his steel baton (another man who was taking his young, teenage daughter to the show, also leaving at the time, suffered a similar fate).

So while you and I may believe that taking a full run at a man, who was actually trying to get away from the rioting, cross checking him in the teeth is out of line, the judge hearing the subsequent civil lawsuit against the VPD did not think so. On the contrary, he ruled it a "reasonable" use of force saying the man should have left the scene when the police first arrived, after the rioting started!

4. Practical considerations - Police are considered "officers of the court" just like your lawyer and the lawyer trying to put you in jail. In order for the latter to do their jobs, they must rely on the police for locating witnesses, gathering evidence, testifying, and so on. The need to maintain a good working relationship with the cops thus puts a chilling effect on any possible criminal proceedings the Crown may contemplate.