Law Enforcement - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly..... | Page 207 | GTAMotorcycle.com

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
Reading the comments to that article makes me want to start drinking.

Sent from the Purple Zone
 
Joe Bass said:
Reading the comments to that article makes me want to start drinking.
Click to expand...

"Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue."

While I stand for a high standard of application of the law and I oppose the concept of forfeiture laws in the manner that they are currently being used, things go a bit sideways when you're a member of a group which has officially been declared a criminal organization.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
"Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue."

While I stand for a high standard of application of the law and I oppose the concept of forfeiture laws in the manner that they are currently being used, things go a bit sideways when you're a member of a group which has officially been declared a criminal organization.
Click to expand...
But is really that far a leap to go from member to suspected member to acquaintance etc? To me, it's still illegal seizure. (I am of course speaking from my lowbrow edumacation)

Sent from the Purple Zone
 
Joe Bass said:
But is really that far a leap to go from member to suspected member to acquaintance etc? To me, it's still illegal seizure. (I am of course speaking from my lowbrow edumacation)

Sent from the Purple Zone
Click to expand...


Not a huge leap, given that police actively track the names of such people.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Not a huge leap, given that police actively track the names of such people.
Click to expand...
True. But I was leaning more towards where it may become " you ride an HD so you may join a MC that may be involved in illegal behaviours so we will seize your property. Oh, you won't do anything illegal? Prove it"


Sent from the Purple Zone
 
Joe Bass said:
True. But I was leaning more towards where it may become " you ride an HD so you may join a MC that may be involved in illegal behaviours so we will seize your property. Oh, you won't do anything illegal? Prove it"
Click to expand...

I could tie that to another comment, but there's already another thread for that ;)
 
 
Last edited:
inreb said:
Why does she need to know the officers name?
Click to expand...

Probably so he/she could be named in legal proceedings and sued. Given certain circumstances employees can be held personally liable for their actions on the job.

inreb said:
That officer was a part of a police unit at the scene. That units activity resulted in her being shot unintentionally.
Click to expand...

"Stray bullets" are not unintentional... They're negligent.



inreb said:
It doesn't matter which cops bullet hit her. It wasn't personal. I can understand wanting to know, to make it personal.
Click to expand...

It does matter... The officer responsible should be held accountable.



inreb said:
It's also understandable that the fuzz needs to stick handle the situation.
Click to expand...

'Some would say "stick handle" others would say "sweep under the rug".




inreb said:
Some people like to make hay out of unfortunate situations. Follow the money.
Click to expand...

If it were me... I'd be making so much hay I'd have to buy some horses.
 
Hack said:
Probably so he/she could be named in legal proceedings and sued. Given certain circumstances employees can be held personally liable for their actions on the job.



"Stray bullets" are not unintentional... They're negligent.





It does matter... The officer responsible should be held accountable.





'Some would say "stick handle" others would say "sweep under the rug".






If it were me... I'd be making so much hay I'd have to buy some horses.
Click to expand...

She tried to press charges against the one that actually shot her... but was snowballed by Peel.. who won't tell her who it was. She did have charges pressed against Jen whyte, but they were dropped...supposedly because ballistics says it wasn't her gun. Jen Whyte is the one the wasn't qualified to be there, shot her training officer in the back... and was only there, and probably a cop, because of who her mother is... A high ranking peel cop (retired since) and Jen Evans good friend.
She's not a cop anymore... still works for PRP though as a civilian.

More disturbing to me... is the initial denial, lack of concern or care (unhurt officers tended to before her) and the cover up.
 
Last edited:
Hack said:
Probably so he/she could be named in legal proceedings and sued. Given certain circumstances employees can be held personally liable for their actions on the job.



"Stray bullets" are not unintentional... They're negligent.





It does matter... The officer responsible should be held accountable.





'Some would say "stick handle" others would say "sweep under the rug".






If it were me... I'd be making so much hay I'd have to buy some horses.
Click to expand...

My opinion is that police can fire their weapons in the course of carrying out certain duties. Stray bullets are going to happen because unpredictability. She can sue the police department. Singling out a particular team member is not appropriate because it was not an intended consequence and nothing personal.
 
inreb said:
My opinion is that police can fire their weapons in the course of carrying out certain duties. Stray bullets are going to happen because unpredictability. She can sue the police department. Singling out a particular team member is not appropriate because it was not an intended consequence and nothing personal.
Click to expand...

That's the thing about negligence; it's not intended. Not saying that this particular situation necessarily is negligence but in a civil suit both the officer AND the department are jointly and severally liable, and so can be named separately.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
That's the thing about negligence; it's not intended. Not saying that this particular situation necessarily is negligence but in a civil suit both the officer AND the department are jointly and severally liable, and so can be named separately.
Click to expand...

$21 million lawsuit brought by the jilted party only after the fact of not getting desired career. Credibility zero.
 
Get paid to be a criminal .
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/suspended-police-officers-ontario-apos-090000925.html

At least 12 police officers in Ontario earned more than $100,000 each in 2016 while sitting at home for most or all of the year, suspended over criminal charges yet collecting their full pay, an exclusive CBC Toronto analysis reveals.

​Their salaries are revealed on Ontario's 2016 Sunshine List of top public sector earners.

Ontario is the only province in Canada where suspended police officers must be paid until and unless they are sentenced to serve time. The Liberal government is currently reconsidering that law as part of a sweeping review of policing in the province.

All four Toronto Police officers charged with perjury and obstruction of justice for allegedly planting heroin on a suspect's dashboard made the 2016 Sunshine List, even though they were suspended in January last year.

- Const. Michael Taylor: $109,148

- Det. Const. Benjamin Elliot: $103,810

- Det. Const. Fraser Douglas: $103,561

- Const. Jeffrey Tout: $101,174

Two other suspended Toronto Police Service members are on the Sunshine List:

- Sgt. Christopher Heard: $119,921 (suspended in May 2016, charged with sexual assault, accused of sexually assaulting a woman in his cruiser).

- Sgt. Robert Goudie: $116,524 (suspended in November 2015, charged with assault in connection with an altercation in a Scarborough parking lot that sent a man to hospital).

Two Ottawa police officers suspended in 2016 appear on the Sunshine List:

- Const. Peter Dawson: $102,330 (suspended in February 2016 over allegations of falsely issuing traffic warnings).

- Const. Christian Nungisa: $102,462 (suspended in May 2016 and later charged with unsafe storage of a firearm). He was also charged with impaired driving in February of this year.

CBC Toronto also asked the province's three other largest police forces, the Ontario Provincial Police, Peel Regional Police and York Regional Police to provide the names and ranks of their officers currently suspended with pay.

The OPP declined to provide a list of its suspended officers and said a Freedom of Information request would be necessary to release the names.

However, by examining information in news reports and searching the Sunshine List, CBC Toronto determined that at least four OPP officers spent all of 2016 on suspension yet earned more than $100,000.

All three members of the OPP Association union executive who were suspended in March 2015 over allegations of fraud and money laundering appear on the Sunshine List for 2016:

- Det.-Sgt. James Christie: $121,795

- Const. Karl Walsh: $106,474

- Const. Martin Bain $106,440

As well, OPP Brockville detachment Const. George Duke, charged with theft over $5,000 and suspended in November 2015, earned $107,857 in 2016, according to the Sunshine List.

In total, 62 officers on the province's five largest police forces are currently suspended with pay.

The issue of suspending police officers with pay has been under "serious discussion" for the past year, said Marie-France Lalonde, minister for community safety and correctional services.

"We have not made any final decision, but certainly this is something that, as we move forward on our strategy for a safer Ontario, it will be part of the modernizing," Lalonde said in an interview with CBC News at Queen's Park on Monday. "I think we are coming around to think that we need to do something and to ensure that we find the right solution."

Lalonde is promising to unveil her strategy for reforms to policing by June.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom