Law Enforcement - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly.....

Who was in the wrong?

  • Cop

    Votes: 23 20.7%

  • Dude who got shot

    Votes: 33 29.7%

  • I like turtles

    Votes: 55 49.5%
  • Total voters
    111
there's a small lane closure at my workplace in markham.

A police officer in his car has the lane blocked and has himself surrounded by orange pylons...there is no construction in that specific area. The guy just camps there ALL DAY, my coworker and I came back from lunch and noticed him asleep.

I feel like I should report this specific officer for 'malpractice' or whatever. After all, our taxes fund these guys. I understand that cops can't be assigned to do productive things all the time, but its a little ridiculous that this guy has been camping there for the last few days and it gives people the impression he's avoiding work.

On a side note, I've noticed an increasing amt of police attending to construction sites, is this really necessary? These cops station themselves at the site ALL DAY. The behaviour is akin to a squirrel looking for shelter.
 
Last edited:
TomC said:
I've noticed an increasing amt of police attending to construction sites, is this really necessary? These cops station themselves at the site ALL DAY. The behaviour is akin to a sea lion lying on a rock sunning himself.
Click to expand...

ftfy
 
I presume by police attending "construction sites" you are referring to construction sites that affect traffic - not one on private property where someone is building a house.

They serve a purpose on construction sites that have an affect on traffic patterns because if the construction site has to momentarily block traffic for whatever reason (to maneuver a crane, etc) people will pay attention to a police officer directing traffic and (because?) they are legally obligated to do so and can be charged by that police officer if they don't. If the construction company tries to do it themselves, it's risky, because people often won't pay attention to them and will do dangerous things as a result.

I've never seen them on your ordinary average construction site that doesn't affect traffic. Ministry of Labour, on the other hand ...
 
mxs said:
I am trying to figure out this one and I simply cannot ....

How is someone who has been committed to stand trial on a charge of second-degree murder out on bail working and being paid???? What's going on here for Christ sake???

http://metronews.ca/news/canada/1069060/cop-committed-to-trial-in-streetcar-death/
Click to expand...

Simplified, it's called R.I.C.E and the four P's;

The acronym "R.I.C.E." represents:
R =Repetition (of the offence)
I =Identity (of the accused)
C =Court (likelihood of appearing for)
E =Evidence (protection of).

The four P's are;
Protection of the public interest
Protection of the accused
Protection of property, and
Prevent a breach of the peace.

If all 8 of these elements are met, then the accused must be granted bail. This is the same for anyone accused of a crime in Canada.

This guy was on the job at the time of the shooting. Did he commit a criminal act resulting in a death? That will be determined at trial. In the meantime there's absolutely no reasonable belief that the accused is going to go out and shoot someone else (and his firearm has been seized) R and the 1st P are satisfied. I, C, E and the remaining P's are not at issue. The result is bail.
 
Of course, I am not disputing his right to a bail and I hope that this sort of set process would be applicable to any ordinary Joe (somehow I personally don't, purely judged from the number of cases Leo's have been investigated, charged and convicted in this province/country) ... the problem is that there's not a job similar to his (where you could shoot someone and be found out on a bail working for your old employer) where you could draw a correlation. Most people who shoot someone in this country don't have legally paying jobs anyway ...

Shouldn't at least a contact with his old work environment be kept to minimum, rather than him being administratively involved with Crime stoppers unit? Again, I am purely speaking from public picture stand point (I know the police and their union is not overly concerned about that). It just simply looks like he's getting a preferential treatment, something the ordinary Joe naturally hates to hear so much about.

I am tempted to ask an HR department of a private corporation whether they would keep me on a paying gig if I was to stand a trial for this type of charge. Just to see how this would play out.

To take it one step further .... we know about the BS when I, ordinary Joe, ask for a police check. All kinds of things come up which have nothing to do with a conviction or even a charge in many cases. He surely wouldn't pass an ordinary police check now, or would he? ..... I guess he could, couldn't he?
 
Short answer to all your questions was already answered by Rob; innocent until proven guilty. Until a conviction is registered any actions taken against him would be unlawful.

Something to keep in mind re; the SIU and their charge rate is that they are mandated to investigate ANY incident where police are involved and a member of the public is seriously injured, killed, or the victim of a sex assault, whether there is an allegation of wrong-doing or not. In most police investigations, there is an allegation or suspicion of wrong-doing that commences the investigation, or else it wouldn't have started.

On a side note; funny how if he was suspended with pay, people would be crying foul, that he's working in a modified position and people are still crying foul. That being said, there is definitely something wrong with drawn out paid suspensions that are regulated by the Police Services Act such as the recent David Dole case in Hamilton.

mxs said:
Of course, I am not disputing his right to a bail and I hope that this sort of set process would be applicable to any ordinary Joe (somehow I personally don't, purely judged from the number of cases Leo's have been investigated, charged and convicted in this province/country) ... the problem is that there's not a job similar to his (where you could shoot someone and be found out on a bail working for your old employer) where you could draw a correlation. Most people who shoot someone in this country don't have legally paying jobs anyway ...

Shouldn't at least a contact with his old work environment be kept to minimum, rather than him being administratively involved with Crime stoppers unit? Again, I am purely speaking from public picture stand point (I know the police and their union is not overly concerned about that). It just simply looks like he's getting a preferential treatment, something the ordinary Joe naturally hates to hear so much about.

I am tempted to ask an HR department of a private corporation whether they would keep me on a paying gig if I was to stand a trial for this type of charge. Just to see how this would play out.

To take it one step further .... we know about the BS when I, ordinary Joe, ask for a police check. All kinds of things come up which have nothing to do with a conviction or even a charge in many cases. He surely wouldn't pass an ordinary police check now, or would he? ..... I guess he could, couldn't he?
Click to expand...
 
Correct he was suspended without a pay, then quietly was eased back into the force .... OK, that's reasonable and I understand why they were not exactly vocal and public about it. But now that it's been decided that he's criminally charged and will stand trial, you are saying that changes nothing on his original status and he can keep working his current gig ... until proven guilty.

Don't read more into my comments than just a simple surprise of an ordinary citizen to what happens to a leo when criminally charged. It did surprise me that there's no problem to combine a high bail release and paid duty gig ... until he has his day in court (now that it is confirmed that there will be a court day).

I guess I learn every day about application of Ontario/Canadian law.
 
His status hasn't changed; he was criminally charged on August 20th and remains charged today. The preliminary hearing just determined that there's enough evidence to proceed to a trial (police / SIU lay the charge, a prelim is the 1st time a Justice can review the evidence and is the right of the accused to exercise that option if trial by jury is elected by him).

There is no combination of a "charge and paid duty gig"; his employer and the court are two separate entities. Although you're right in that optically it appears strange and there are very few similar instances where this set of circumstances can occur. But if last nights armoured car robbery ended up with the guard not being seriously injured and one of the suspects dead under suspicious circumstances that allowed for the guard to be charged (and R.I.C.E. and the 4 P's satisfied), he'd still be paid and as there's no legislation that would force his employer to pay him while suspended, he'd be back at work but not on the road with a gun.

I don't know where you work / what you do but if you were in the same situation you could not be terminated at work based on the laying of the charge. Now once convicted, well you wouldn't be available for work anyway.

mxs said:
Correct he was suspended without a pay, then quietly was eased back into the force .... OK, that's reasonable and I understand why they were not exactly vocal and public about it. But now that it's been decided that he's criminally charged and will stand trial, you are saying that changes nothing on his original status and he can keep working his current gig ... until proven guilty.

Don't read more into my comments than just a simple surprise of an ordinary citizen to what happens to a leo when criminally charged. It did surprise me that there's no problem to combine a high bail release and paid duty gig ... until he has his day in court (now that it is confirmed that there will be a court day).

I guess I learn every day about application of Ontario/Canadian law.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I will look into it what would have been happened to me as a private citizen working for a private company. I am just curious. I am pretty certain they would not allow me to be present at my work, not with that kind a criminal charge. Would they terminate me? Pretty sure ... they could do it without cause and get rid of me for a small settlement fee and deal with litigation later should I decide to do so. In that particular case I wouldn't blame them ... can you imagine my co-workers be comfortable around someone who is criminally charged with second degree murder? Guilty or not at the time, you never know .... the company could not take the risk.

BTW, you said originally that he was suspended without a pay, but that doesn't seem to be correct, because originally he was suspended with pay as per the provincial law (based on articles I was able to find). Why and when was it changed to suspension without a pay?
 
mxs said:
I will look into it what would have been happened to me as a private citizen working for a private company. I am just curious. I am pretty certain they would not allow me to be present at my work, not with that kind a criminal charge. Would they terminate me? Pretty sure ... they could do it without cause and get rid of me for a small settlement fee and deal with litigation later should I decide to do so. In that particular case I wouldn't blame them ... can you imagine my co-workers be comfortable around someone who is criminally charged with second degree murder? Guilty or not at the time, you never know .... the company could not take the risk.

BTW, you said originally that he was suspended without a pay, but that doesn't seem to be correct, because originally he was suspended with pay as per the provincial law (based on articles I was able to find). Why and when was it changed to suspension without a pay?
Click to expand...

That could get into a hell of a lot of money for the employer in a wrongful dismissal suit, fines through Ministry of Labour, and who knows what else. That's assuming no union representation.

Unless Hudak had gotten in, of course, since he likes "right to work" legislation.
 
mxs said:
BTW, you said originally that he was suspended without a pay, but that doesn't seem to be correct, because originally he was suspended with pay as per the provincial law (based on articles I was able to find). Why and when was it changed to suspension without a pay?
Click to expand...

I don't see where I said that. He was, as is mandated, suspended WITH pay.

Rob MacLennan said:
That could get into a hell of a lot of money for the employer in a wrongful dismissal suit, fines through Ministry of Labour, and who knows what else. That's assuming no union representation.

Unless Hudak had gotten in, of course, since he likes "right to work" legislation.
Click to expand...

^ This.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
That could get into a hell of a lot of money for the employer in a wrongful dismissal suit, fines through Ministry of Labour, and who knows what else. That's assuming no union representation.

Unless Hudak had gotten in, of course, since he likes "right to work" legislation.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that, but again the comparison to someone ordinary .... wrongful dismissal law suit is a long shot as most ordinary people would not have time nor money to litigate. Thus private companies would pull a pin on the person as a termination with cause and take chances if an individual decides to take them to court. They have nothing or very little to lose ...
 
coyo said:
I don't see where I said that. He was, as is mandated, suspended WITH pay.
Click to expand...

I guess I misunderstood your previous post. Sorry my bad.


coyo said:
On a side note; funny how if he was suspended with pay, people would be crying foul, that he's working in a modified position and people are still crying foul. That being said, there is definitely something wrong with drawn out paid suspensions that are regulated by the Police Services Act such as the recent David Dole case in Hamilton.
Click to expand...
 
Rob MacLennan said:
That could get into a hell of a lot of money for the employer in a wrongful dismissal suit, fines through Ministry of Labour, and who knows what else. That's assuming no union representation.

Unless Hudak had gotten in, of course, since he likes "right to work" legislation.
Click to expand...

I beleive an employer can get rid off an employee for any reason as long as tgey pay severance and pay in leui of notice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom