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

Who was in the wrong?

  • Cop

    Votes: 23 20.5%
  • Dude who got shot

    Votes: 33 29.5%
  • I like turtles

    Votes: 56 50.0%

  • Total voters
    112
Thought this was against the civil rights of Canadians

Police departments are functionally immune from getting in trouble. How many scandals has the RCMP been a part of and they just swap a staff member or two and continue on? Law enforcement in Canada needs many grenades. Starting from scratch would be far better than trying to fix a system that is rotten to the core (and overpriced and underperforming).
 
Police departments are functionally immune from getting in trouble. How many scandals has the RCMP been a part of and they just promote a staff member or two and continue on? Law enforcement in Canada needs many grenades. Starting from scratch would be far better than trying to fix a system that is rotten to the core (and overpriced and underperforming).
FIFY
 
A little sad the cops couldn't figure out who he was without releasing the images and appalling that he stabs people every few years and remains in public.

 
Looks like an undercover cop having a physical discussion with a rider. Poor bike.

 
I don't know if we've had this linked here before. Ian Runkle (canadian lawyer) with a good video on police discipline and what changes he thinks should happen to clean up the stink.

 
I don't know if we've had this linked here before. Ian Runkle (canadian lawyer) with a good video on police discipline and what changes he thinks should happen to clean up the stink.

If you haven't watched his recent video about being threatened (again) with a lawsuit by a SovCit, it's well worth the time.
 
I don't know if we've had this linked here before. Ian Runkle (canadian lawyer) with a good video on police discipline and what changes he thinks should happen to clean up the stink.

'Suspended with pay' is a slap in the face to any good office, the public, the taxpayer, and goes against everything the badge should stand for.

If I had the power, the officer's pay would be put into a trust, and if they're found guilty then they get zero. If they get found not-guilty...then they get their full pay with any interest earned.

'But how about living without a salary for all that time?'

Well maybe...don't do things at work that end up with you getting suspended, investigated, and potentially charged.

In my job...if they so much as get a whiff of conflict of interest (even if it's just perceived) then I'm getting a call from HR, and very possibly kicked out the door WITH NO PAY.
 
this is criminal

 
this is criminal

If you know there are laws (even dumb ones) and choose to break them, sometimes that costs you. They could have chosen not to travel. They chose to do what they wanted and relied on religion to protect them. Not a whole lot different than sovereign citizens in this instance in my mind.

Now, arrivecan was a dumpster fire. I am not arguing that it was good or should have been required. It was part of the law at the time though. Just because I hate it doesn't mean I get to ignore it.
 
'Suspended with pay' is a slap in the face to any good office, the public, the taxpayer, and goes against everything the badge should stand for.

If I had the power, the officer's pay would be put into a trust, and if they're found guilty then they get zero. If they get found not-guilty...then they get their full pay with any interest earned.

'But how about living without a salary for all that time?'

Well maybe...don't do things at work that end up with you getting suspended, investigated, and potentially charged.

In my job...if they so much as get a whiff of conflict of interest (even if it's just perceived) then I'm getting a call from HR, and very possibly kicked out the door WITH NO PAY.


Here's the thing though... You either have innocent until PROVEN guilty for EVERYONE or no one.
'Seen MANY cases of guys getting suspended (with pay) and in the end it's determined they did nothing wrong.
Add to that the occasional malicious persecution/suspensions launched by shady and corrupt "leadership"
Y'think its right those guys have their pay cut off on the basis of an accusation..?

Recently had a fellow exonorated after a two year suspension over what turned out to be a made up /BS complaint over something that never happened.
 
Here's the thing though... You either have innocent until PROVEN guilty for EVERYONE or no one.
'Seen MANY cases of guys getting suspended (with pay) and in the end it's determined they did nothing wrong.
Add to that the occasional malicious persecution/suspensions launched by shady and corrupt "leadership"
Y'think its right those guys have their pay cut off on the basis of an accusation..?

Recently had a fellow exonorated after a two year suspension over what turned out to be a made up /BS complaint over something that never happened.
While I agree to a point. The flip side of it is that there are officers that go for years, are found guilty, and yet effectively had a paid vacation.

I’ll stick with my recommendation. Freeze pay, then back pay when found not guilty because they’ll NEVER get their money back.

OR…

Keep paying them, but pull the back pay from the retirement fund from the rest of the force.
 
Here's the thing though... You either have innocent until PROVEN guilty for EVERYONE or no one.
'Seen MANY cases of guys getting suspended (with pay) and in the end it's determined they did nothing wrong.
Add to that the occasional malicious persecution/suspensions launched by shady and corrupt "leadership"
Y'think its right those guys have their pay cut off on the basis of an accusation..?

Recently had a fellow exonorated after a two year suspension over what turned out to be a made up /BS complaint over something that never happened.
Innocent until proven guilty is a criminal court concept. It has nothing to do with employment. Every other employer uses balance of probability to determine consequences. If it is more likely than not the offence was committed, fired and feel free to sue if you think we got it wrong. The root of the problem is police do not deal with employment issues until after the entire criminal trial is exhausted. That is insane. I agree that a complaint alone shouldn't result in suspension without pay. It should trigger a rapid investigation and PSB hearing on whether continued employment is reasonable. Many cops are on paid vacation with many witnesses and evidence of them committing actual crimes. As it is now, they just go on vacation for years and resign seconds before the axe drops.
 
Another reality is, wether you like it or not here are often collective agreements in place and contracts to be adhered to.
I'm not saying change it overnight. Psa needs to change first. Then collective agreements need to be modified to comply with the law. As it sits, it is probably the worst possible system for everyone except the criminals in blue.
 
Innocent until proven guilty is a criminal court concept. It has nothing to do with employment. Every other employer uses balance of probability to determine consequences. If it is more likely than not the offence was committed, fired and feel free to sue if you think we got it wrong. The root of the problem is police do not deal with employment issues until after the entire criminal trial is exhausted. That is insane. I agree that a complaint alone shouldn't result in suspension without pay. It should trigger a rapid investigation and PSB hearing on whether continued employment is reasonable. Many cops are on paid vacation with many witnesses and evidence of them committing actual crimes. As it is now, they just go on vacation for years and resign seconds before the axe drops.
Every other employer isn't the government, which has the duty to try someone charged with a crime.
 
Every other employer isn't the government, which has the duty to try someone charged with a crime.
Cops are not much different than metrolinx, Healthcare, teachers and every other person that works for government through a subsidiary. That argument should apply to all or none. Again, I am talking about employment not criminal culpability. The bar for employment is far lower and is not at all affected by who prosecuted criminal charges.
 
this is criminal


If you know there are laws (even dumb ones) and choose to break them, sometimes that costs you. They could have chosen not to travel. They chose to do what they wanted and relied on religion to protect them. Not a whole lot different than sovereign citizens in this instance in my mind.

If the courts will behave the exact same way if the accused were muslims, jews or part of some other 'diverse' ethnic community, I will agree with this.
I dont get why of all people they decided to pass this sort of judgement on a group of people who mind their own business, do not harm other communities and have been maintaining this way of life for generations.
 
Cops are not much different than metrolinx, Healthcare, teachers and every other person that works for government through a subsidiary. That argument should apply to all or none. Again, I am talking about employment not criminal culpability. The bar for employment is far lower and is not at all affected by who prosecuted criminal charges.
I was pretty specific in my qualifier, which doesn't apply to those other groups.
 
Back
Top Bottom