Law Enforcement - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly..... | Page 288 | 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
nobbie48 said:
No. Question 1 is common sense. If someone offers you a job at $120 K a year plus benefits and company Mercedes don't think you're going to have $10 K a month for mortgage and groceries. Once I clarified the claims code I could tell him if he needed $XX,XXX in his hand He has to make XX% more to cover what the government expects as their share.

All I wanted was confirmation of the CRA claims code and I would go to the tax tables and advise him of some rough numbers. Does he need to work more than 40 hours a week or raise his rates?
Click to expand...
If you're just spitballing with your friend then that might be common-sense.

If you stated some version of this in your conversation with the CRA agent, it difficulty for them not to interpret it as some kind of attempt at soliciting tax-planning advice. Not much of what you've stated has to do with claim codes.

The CRA agent cannot confirm for you whether your friend's TD1 is correct/factual, it's up to your friend to check off the boxes that are relevant to them and add up the sum, and then find the claim code on the tax tables that fits that sum. The CRA agent may be able to advise you on whether a specific circumstance can fit one of the boxes, even then that would be hearsay as the CRA agent does not have access to your B & Rs to verify the veracity of the stated circumstance. Also, if you thought the CRA has a copy of your TD1, then you're mistaken. The form is to be submitted by an employee to their employer for the purposes of determining income tax deductions from remuneration only, and is not filed to the CRA, so there is no record of your "claim code" on file.

If you asked the CRA agent some version of "what claim code does my friend need to use on $xxxxx income in order to have $yyyyy after tax income", then it's a question they cannot answer, as that is a value that only your friend can determine. They cannot "approve" a claim code for your friend to use achieve a certain net income level. I think the agent was being kind to you to refer you to your accountant to have a discussion about your financial planning, as questions on "how much money do I need to make to have XYZ" is not within the scope of the CRA agent.
 
raginduck said:
Click to expand...
Several instances of committing the crime of "contempt of cop", it would seem. In the video the accused impaired driver is first Tasered and then kicked, while he is very likely still under the effects of the Taser, by several officers. Clearly unnecessary. I expect that several of the incidents involved under-charging for the infractions. The one who was charged with trespass, for instance, when there was clearly a lot more going on at the time.
 
High Flya said:
If you're just spitballing with your friend then that might be common-sense.
Click to expand...
Basically that is what it was. No numbers were mentioned. I asked what the claim code was for a person with one wife and three kids, all living at home and none working. Maybe the question was so simple the agent thought it was a trick and read more into it than was required.
 
raginduck said:
Click to expand...
I often reminisce about a friend, 60 ish years ago and his encounter with a Toronto police officer.

Police walked the beat back then and one snowy day an officer walked past a couple of early teens on the street. One kid, Ron, thought it would be funny to throw a snowball past the officer, deliberately missing him.

Ron was such a lousy aim he couldn't hit the vast space around the officer and the officer got hit in the back. Ron was frozen in panic, probably wetting his pants.

The officer turned around and knew it was Ron by the puddle of urine forming at his feet. He came back, picked up a handful of snow and washed Ron's face with it, saying don't you ever do that again.

The officer left probably chuckling and then later recounting the story to family and friends, having a good laugh.

Ron went home to change his underwear and if he spoke of the event it was as an "I can't believe I did something so stupid".

End of story.

Today the kid gets charged with assaulting an officer. The cop is suspended with pay for a year for unnecessary roughness. Lawyers buy new BMWs. Grief councillors book overtime. Media has a frenzy. YouTube goes viral. The taxpayer pays the bills.

I have a problem with excessive force but if the courts would beat the crap out of the guilty party maybe the cops wouldn't be as inclined to do it for them.

HTA 172 is similar. Let the charged party face a trial and the court kicks the crap out of them.

Our legal system is over a half century out of date.
 
Mad Mike said:
They are, to a certain extent. If you are found impaired or your substance abuse (hangovers, missed time) is impacting your job performance your employer needs to accommodate your rehab. That rehab can include a performance agreement that gives the right to terminate you if you relapse.

If you do something that is cause for termination, substance abuse is not necessarily a free pass, you could be fired with cause.

For example, your employee cass in and says I got a DUI last night, I won't be able to drive the delivery van for a while. As an employer you must accommodate that employee till she gets well and back on track. Even if her job is 'driver'. If that employess was driving your company vehicle and got into an accident + DUI, you would have grounds for termination.

Anything can be challenged in court, but it's pretty clear in case law that courts do as noted above.
Click to expand...

That legislation kicks the crap out of small businesses.

A friend is a small contractor with a couple of employees. He had to let one go because the guy drank like a fish. Van insurance was killing him.

What about client relations, particularly the ones that object to workers with booze on their breath?

Who stands up for Joe Whiteguy, a small contractor that gets stuck between civil rights legislation and a racist client that would drop Whiteguy as a supplier if he sent a gay, visible minority worker to the site?

It's easy to say Joe Whiteguy shouldn't have taken the client on in the first place but the people saying that didn't mortgage their house to the hilt to start a business.
 
nobbie48 said:
That legislation kicks the crap out of small businesses.

A friend is a small contractor with a couple of employees. He had to let one go because the guy drank like a fish. Van insurance was killing him.

What about client relations, particularly the ones that object to workers with booze on their breath?

Who stands up for Joe Whiteguy, a small contractor that gets stuck between civil rights legislation and a racist client that would drop Whiteguy as a supplier if he sent a gay, visible minority worker to the site?

It's easy to say Joe Whiteguy shouldn't have taken the client on in the first place but the people saying that didn't mortgage their house to the hilt to start a business.
Click to expand...

A small business with only a couple employees.. wouldn't be expected to accommodate someone's addiction.
The threshold for "undue hardship" would be low for a business like you described..
The increased insurance cost and the company's reputation.. would probably be enough in that case.
Proper employment contracts are very important.
 
raginduck said:
A small business with only a couple employees.. wouldn't be expected to accommodate someone's addiction.
The threshold for "undue hardship" would be low for a business like you described..
The increased insurance cost and the company's reputation.. would probably be enough in that case.
Proper employment contracts are very important.
Click to expand...
Agreed but one can't shoot from the hip anymore. Bring in the lawyer$ to make sure you CYA.
 
raginduck said:
An SCC ruling regarding breathalyzer demands.
Officer must have the approved device on them when demand for sample is made.

globalnews.ca

Quebec man who refused breathalyzer test has acquittal upheld by Canada’s top court | Globalnews.ca

The Supreme Court of Canada says the demand was invalid because police did not have in their possession an approved screening device to test for alcohol.
globalnews.ca globalnews.ca
Click to expand...
I was worried when I read the title, but it makes sense.

1) He wasn't in the presence of the vehicle, so they would first have to tie him to it.

2) You can't really arrest someone for refusing to perform a test that you are not in any position to perform, at the time.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
I was worried when I read the title, but it makes sense.

1) He wasn't in the presence of the vehicle, so they would first have to tie him to it.

2) You can't really arrest someone for refusing to perform a test that you are not in any position to perform, at the time.
Click to expand...
How much was spent in legal fees to get the SCC ruling. Was the driver compensated for his time and costs?

Did the individual who made the stupid decision to pursue this lose a cent?
 
nobbie48 said:
How much was spent in legal fees to get the SCC ruling. Was the driver compensated for his time and costs?

Did the individual who made the stupid decision to pursue this lose a cent?
Click to expand...
As a follow up to that are police departments across the country going to get timely and effective training to avoid future tickets with no chance of conviction.
 
nobbie48 said:
How much was spent in legal fees to get the SCC ruling. Was the driver compensated for his time and costs?

Did the individual who made the stupid decision to pursue this lose a cent?
Click to expand...
It's unlikely that the person will be compensated for their legal costs, unless they file a civil suit, and I expect that the officer(s) who arrested him will be scot-free. They wouldn't have pursued this issue as far as they did, if they were going to throw them under the bus. As to the cost to us, as taxpayers, that's how we keep checks on the system.
 
GreyGhost said:
As a follow up to that are police departments across the country going to get timely and effective training to avoid future tickets with no chance of conviction.
Click to expand...
What does it cost them if they don't?

Court duty is paid regardless of outcome.

Re the original case I assume the driver paid a ton of money to get this to the SCC. That is money that could have been used to renovate a house, buy stuff and put money into the pockets of working Canadian businesses. Instead it went to the legal system. Taxpayers spent as much or more to defend a ridiculous position. Money that could have put a kid through med school, paved some potholes, put a water treatment plant on a reservation...

How did this idiocy even get to the SCC without someone calling an offside.

About the only thing I like about the USA system is the idiots can be held accountable when they run for re-election as town fool.
 
nobbie48 said:
What does it cost them if they don't?

Court duty is paid regardless of outcome.

Re the original case I assume the driver paid a ton of money to get this to the SCC. That is money that could have been used to renovate a house, buy stuff and put money into the pockets of working Canadian businesses. Instead it went to the legal system. Taxpayers spent as much or more to defend a ridiculous position. Money that could have put a kid through med school, paved some potholes, put a water treatment plant on a reservation...

How did this idiocy even get to the SCC without someone calling an offside.

About the only thing I like about the USA system is the idiots can be held accountable when they run for re-election as town fool.
Click to expand...
This sort of thing gets to the Supreme Court because police and Crown Attorneys don't want to give up a single step of their perceived legal power. The "slippery slope" argument is often used, despite largely being a logical fallacy.
 
So jail staff are not searched when they enter? That may be the dumbest thing I have heard today. I know people that went to university for a year as it was far more profitable for their procurement business. I am sure jail will be an order of magnitude better. My guess is they dont look because they dont want to know the answer.

www.cp24.com

Ontario jail staff exempt from contraband scanning as inmate overdose deaths rise: report

Acute drug toxicity is currently the major contributing factor in the deaths of Ontario inmates, yet provincial correctional employees are exempt from regular scannings for contraband – a policy researchers said they were 'shocked' to discover while crafting a January coroner's report.
www.cp24.com www.cp24.com
 
nobbie48 said:
What does it cost them if they don't?

Court duty is paid regardless of outcome.

Re the original case I assume the driver paid a ton of money to get this to the SCC. That is money that could have been used to renovate a house, buy stuff and put money into the pockets of working Canadian businesses. Instead it went to the legal system. Taxpayers spent as much or more to defend a ridiculous position. Money that could have put a kid through med school, paved some potholes, put a water treatment plant on a reservation...

How did this idiocy even get to the SCC without someone calling an offside.

About the only thing I like about the USA system is the idiots can be held accountable when they run for re-election as town fool.
Click to expand...
Back to accountability for government employees. If they issue tickets that go against a sc decision and they have had training so they knew about the decision, that should be a black mark in their file. Departments always complain they dont have enough money, kicking out cops that dont lay legitimate charges seems like a good place to free up budget for competent employees.
 
GreyGhost said:
So jail staff are not searched when they enter? That may be the dumbest thing I have heard today. I know people that went to university for a year as it was far more profitable for their procurement business. I am sure jail will be an order of magnitude better. My guess is they dont look because they dont want to know the answer.

www.cp24.com

Ontario jail staff exempt from contraband scanning as inmate overdose deaths rise: report

Acute drug toxicity is currently the major contributing factor in the deaths of Ontario inmates, yet provincial correctional employees are exempt from regular scannings for contraband – a policy researchers said they were 'shocked' to discover while crafting a January coroner's report.
www.cp24.com www.cp24.com
Click to expand...
I'm shocked that the researchers were shocked. Wasn't it common knowledge?
 
Rob MacLennan said:
This sort of thing gets to the Supreme Court because police and Crown Attorneys don't want to give up a single step of their perceived legal power. The "slippery slope" argument is often used, despite largely being a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...
Doesn't that imply that if you go against a bogus charge they will lose on paper but you will be hammered to death with legal costs. That's why most agree that we have a legal system, not a justice one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom