|
|
|
But why? What is the justification for not running all the time? Hell, it can make their life a lot easier by catching actions before people get lit up. At the very least I'd hope that cop dashcams are running and capable of storing a few minutes before lights or accelerometer trigger storage.
A variety of reasons. Storage limitations for high quality video, not wanting to risk overwriting data, possible card damage from constant recording, officer privacy...
www.cp24.com
www.cp24.com
Sadly he stays on the payroll until the police disciplinary process plays out. If that finishes this month, he will have been paid $300,600 while suspended. He also added 31 months to his pensionable service which increased his annual pension payout by $6225.FInally a custodial sentence for a dirtbag. Seven years. Arrested 2.5 years ago. Suspended with pay since then. PSA needs to change. There was more than enough evidence to fire him with cause 2.5 years ago. Paying a criminal a quarter million dollars of taxpayer money is repulsive. There was enough evidence that he failed to do the job he was paid to do and they should have been allowed (and required) to terminate once his transgressions were discovered.
Toronto police officer convicted of stealing from dead people sentenced to 7 years in prison
A Toronto police officer convicted of stealing from deceased individuals he was supposed to be investigating has been sentenced to seven years in prison.
With a swipe of the pen, douggie could amend the PSA to cut the fat tomorrow. I have no problem with delaying discipline until after trial if there is insufficient evidence to support it. In the overwhelming majority of cases where cops are charged criminally, there is enough evidence on the day they are charged to terminate with cause. That could increase boots on the street by at least 10% with zero extra budget required.
He's already swiped the pen, it came into effect April 1 2024. Chiefs can suspend without pay if an officer is in custody or on bail with conditions that would interfere with their ability to do their job, or if the officer is charged with any serious off-duty offense that could lead to their firing.
That is a weak weapon. Only if they are in custody or bail conditions that prevent them from sitting on their ***** at home can they be cut from payroll. It needs to be a far bigger hammer where the chief needs to justify why they should remain on law enforcement payroll when there was sufficient evidence to lay criminal charges. Make the chiefs sign their name to paper justifying the expense to keep them on. There are some situations where it makes sense to keep them on payroll. Especially in cases like assaults where it is he said/she said without further evidence, firing them does not makes sense until a competent third party has decided who to believe.
He spelled criminals wrong. When police are criminals, it is apparent to everyone not in blue which one of those should have priority in life. As it is, the blue is a very protective blanket and shields from almost all wrongs. It wasn't anti-police legislation, it was anti-criminal legislation. Sadly, that line is so twisty and fuzzy that it is almost impossible to find. It should be as clear as the blue line on their flags.
I don't need a criminal conviction with jail to be fired from my job and neither should they. I'm not saying fire them all. I'm saying look at the evidence, consider them an employee and make a decision. In some cases, that will follow today's pattern. In the majority of cases, they should be fired very very shortly after their indiscretions are discovered and documented.
If the SIU wasn't dyed blue they could straighten the mess out in 90% of the cases in two weeks. Let the union cover the pay after two weeks. Reimburse the union if the cop is found innocent.
Sure, they don't need to wait until after a finding in court, however, if they do it pretty much makes The Force/City judgment proof. Not a lot of courts are going to rule in favour of someone who has been found guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt', in a civil suit that only requires 'preponderance of the evidence.'
FInally a custodial sentence for a dirtbag. Seven years. Arrested 2.5 years ago. Suspended with pay since then. PSA needs to change. There was more than enough evidence to fire him with cause 2.5 years ago. Paying a criminal a quarter million dollars of taxpayer money is repulsive. There was enough evidence that he failed to do the job he was paid to do and they should have been allowed (and required) to terminate once his transgressions were discovered.
Toronto police officer convicted of stealing from dead people sentenced to 7 years in prison
A Toronto police officer convicted of stealing from deceased individuals he was supposed to be investigating has been sentenced to seven years in prison.
A few hundred thousand times hundreds of officers in Ontario. Even if you just canned the ones that blew miles past "preponderance of evidence" that would save a fortune. If a case is close, leaving them on may make sense.
Given that there were 15 charges involving 5 incidents, and he seems to have been found guilty on all of them, 7 years is actually a bit light in my opinion. While the sentences would typically be served concurrently, as Canadian courts rarely apply consecutive sentences, each crime does increase the severity. The charges of breach of trust by an official would effectively act as an enhancement to the other charges. I think that the maximum penalty would be 10 years for each of the thefts that he committed.
It's always a numbers game and the cost for settling or losing in court is only a part of the total. Someone, somewhere, has surely done the math.
|
|
|
|
|