This thread is the dumping ground for all of the "I hate cops" posts, rather than posts which have some sort of question of law. The poll was from one of the threads that was merged into this one which is buried among the posts.
|
|
|
Law Enforcement - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly.....
- Thread starter Paul
- Start date
This thread is the dumping ground for all of the "I hate cops" posts, rather than posts which have some sort of question of law. The poll was from one of the threads that was merged into this one which is buried among the posts.
hence the title of the thread.
kwtoxman
Well-known member
Remember the SIU investigation into a Shelburne OPP car collision with a motorcycle, and it was a result of u-turn by the OPP car?
http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum/showthread.php?192131-Police-U-Turn-in-front-on-motorcyclist
https://www.orangeville.com/news-st...ruiser-and-motorcycle-collide-near-shelburne/
Well, the results came in a while ago. See link below. If I'm reading it correctly, the officer was not charged with anything because his moment's inattention, which caused the crash, was not a marked departure from the expected norm of an officer's conduct. So as the SIU literally describes it, "momentary inattentiveness" in officer driving conduct that even results in serious collisions/accidents is not a chargeable offense in any manner.
https://www.siu.on.ca/en/news_template.php?nrid=2806
That's quite a statement. Anyone care to comment?
It was a u-turn by the OPP officer's car that caused the collision. Interestingly, this scenario is very similar to another case that happened recently in the GTA and it was discussed here. http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforu...in-Mississauga-crash-that-killed-motorcyclist
A very different outcome. I wonder how these two very different conclusions from similar circumstances and actions came about. The optics are terrible. Anyone care to comment?
I also happened across another recent example as well! Another u-turn by a police officer resulting in a collision (and death). Charges again here.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-police-isabelle-morin-dangerous-driving-1.3531961
Be careful out there.
http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum/showthread.php?192131-Police-U-Turn-in-front-on-motorcyclist
https://www.orangeville.com/news-st...ruiser-and-motorcycle-collide-near-shelburne/
Well, the results came in a while ago. See link below. If I'm reading it correctly, the officer was not charged with anything because his moment's inattention, which caused the crash, was not a marked departure from the expected norm of an officer's conduct. So as the SIU literally describes it, "momentary inattentiveness" in officer driving conduct that even results in serious collisions/accidents is not a chargeable offense in any manner.
https://www.siu.on.ca/en/news_template.php?nrid=2806
That's quite a statement. Anyone care to comment?
It was a u-turn by the OPP officer's car that caused the collision. Interestingly, this scenario is very similar to another case that happened recently in the GTA and it was discussed here. http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforu...in-Mississauga-crash-that-killed-motorcyclist
A very different outcome. I wonder how these two very different conclusions from similar circumstances and actions came about. The optics are terrible. Anyone care to comment?
I also happened across another recent example as well! Another u-turn by a police officer resulting in a collision (and death). Charges again here.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-police-isabelle-morin-dangerous-driving-1.3531961
Be careful out there.
Last edited:
Not sure if you pasted the wrong links but they're all the same story as far as I can tell. Careless cop pulls out in front a biker and kills them. They get charged with dangerous driving and escape the charge.
What are we contrasting against?
kwtoxman
Well-known member
Do you even realize that this did not happen in any of the links posted?
I don't think I can help.
Roadghost
Well-known member
I think the term "momentary inattentiveness" is a term only an apologist for irresponsible behavior could use. Clearly the SIU has outlived its usefulness. The facts as they state them deliberately steer clear of the officer's action itself, preferring to focus on the irrelevant circumstances prior to the crash. The officer predictably refused to cooperate, therefore only the illegal action of turning left and violating a vehicle's right of way should be considered since we don't know what the officer was doing (if he was doing anything) in his vehicle while he was turning. Fact remains he turned left and violated a vehicle's right of way, damn near killing a man. If that isn't dangerous driving then it certainly must be careless driving. You are supposed to look before you enter a highway, especially one where vehicles travel at 100km/h. I can't imagine a situation where I could turn left doing a U-turn, wipe out the highway and merely dismiss it as "momentary inattentiveness". What a travesty of justice.
Looked them over again and now I can see I misread them, no thanks to you. A little synopsis of the pertinent questions wouldn't have killed you. Maybe next time.
kwtoxman
Well-known member
It's great you're not thanking me for you misreading those links :icon_smile: :angel4: ; it's not like I had anything to do with that:happy7:. Instead of attempting mind-reading to figure out how and where you could get all five links so wrong and doing all sorts of rehashing, it was nice to see after pointing out what was wrong in your limited feedback that it helped, you looked at the links over again and now get it. :read2: . Happy to help.
ccasion5:
Last edited:
If the officer refused to co-operate then the default action should have been the same one that any other citizen would have gotten: a careless driving charge, and an at-fault collision on their driving record. And the cop should have had to defend that careless driving charge the same way any ordinary citizen would have had to, and with no help from their employer/union. If the cop doesn't want to talk ... conviction ... as would happen to an ordinary citizen in the same circumstances.
I still think the legislation is all wrong when it comes to being at-fault in a collision in which someone is killed or seriously injured. My opinion - if your driving kills or injures someone (at-fault in any such collision) then same penalties as stunt-driving PLUS your driver's license gets deleted as if you never had one. No more just paying $150 to re-instate it. Go back to square one, get the driver's handbook, re-read all the rules, pass all of the tests again. Too many people don't know the right-of-way rules.
"Momentary inattentiveness"? Nope. It's your responsibility to not be momentarily inattentive. Hit a vulnerable road user (pedestrian/bicyclist/motorcyclist) and it was your fault? Your responsibility to be more careful around them.
It's great you're not thanking me for you misreading those links :icon_smile: :angel4: ; it's not like I had anything to do with that:happy7:. Instead of attempting mind-reading to figure out how and where you could get all five links so wrong and doing all sorts of rehashing, it was nice to see after pointing out what was wrong in your limited feedback that it helped, you looked at the links over again and now get it. :read2: . Happy to help.
Apology accepted :angel4:
ccasion5:
yodude
Banned
-D-
Banned
Yes, I see your position that this thread falls into the political spectrum.
I agree that it should stay as it is a fellow member posting experiences or information dealing with LEO.
-D-
Banned
Someone can say that 2 of the 3 adjectives in the title equate law enforcement as negative.
-D-
Banned
So you failed to comprehend and entered into a discussion without FACTS then complained that the poster should have given you a synopsis because YOU FAILED TO READ THE LINKS posted???
And you made a thread complaining about people posting threads.
EPIC FAIL!!!!!
You shouldn't bother fastar. KW has a history of editing then replying. He edited that a few mins before replying to you, then re-edited it a day later. You were probably right on the mark. I was going to stay out of it, but in light of his recent complaints and accusations, and the fact that he did it to me today, in said complaint thread, repeatedly, I thought it worth pointing out... not to mention the denigration in his initial response to you... another thing he's so admit elimination of all things political will cure...
sigh.. agian.
yodude
Banned
yea wth mine was +1, prob d also
kwtoxman
Well-known member
Hey look what I found on the side of the road. :happy7:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...-after-asking-for-the-public-s-help-1.4219727
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...-after-asking-for-the-public-s-help-1.4219727
Last edited:
|
|
|
|
|