|
|
|
Law Enforcement - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly.....
- Thread starter Paul
- Start date
Dirty Frank
Well-known member
Criminal Code DNA Provisions - DNA Data Bank Legislation - Consultation Paper 2002
Department of Justice Canada's Internet site
That's why. Thanks.Criminal Code DNA Provisions - DNA Data Bank Legislation - Consultation Paper 2002
Department of Justice Canada's Internet sitewww.justice.gc.ca
Also we have some hilarious laws. If you get convicted of "339(1) Take possession of drift timber, etc." you need to submit a DNA sample.
HarleyHare
Well-known member
It's costing the government $100K per year to hotel her. No question cronic alcoholism and drug use is often tied to a history of abuse or some kind of trauma (ie. drinking to forget). (I'm not talking about the party drinker who deserve no sympathy at all.) My guess she will get out in 18 months if there is good behaviour and rehabilitation found. Living with this will be even harder and the drinking will likely resume. Feel empathy but also ban her for life from ever driving again.
Seems reasonable. If you drinking is directly related to someone dying, just cut up the license and you are permanently ineligible (in Ontario). Driving is a privilege (so they like to say anyway), removing the possibility of driving again seems entirely measured and reasonable.
justride
Well-known member
SIU clears Toronto police in shooting death of Ontario gunsmith Roger Kotanko
According Ontario’s police watchdog, the 70-year-old gunsmith was shot after he pointed a weapon at Toronto police officers. Officers had entered his Simcoe, Ont., workshop with their guns drawn.
www.thestar.com
Not in Canada but a cool idea will shortly be law in Tennessee. If you kill a parent and get convicted of DUI, you are responsible for childcare payments for their minor children. Nothing like a monthly court-ordered bill to remind you what an idiot you were.
Basing compensation on the standard the kid was used to seems unwise. If a poor person kills a rich person, they can never keep up. If a rich person kills a poor person, the penalty barely matters to them. I understand why they did it, but imo, it probably makes more sense to base it on the impaired drivers income. Take something painful (20 or 30%?) based on their average income over the past three years. That avoids them working underground to dodge liability. If they can't afford to retire, too bad so sad, keep working to pay for your bad decisions.
scoop.upworthy.com
A new law passed in Tennessee will require drunk drivers to pay child support in cases where the parent is killed in the accident they caused. The bill was unanimously passed in the Tennessee House. It states that a person convicted of killing a parent, as a result of intoxication or aggravated vehicular homicide, will be required to pay child support for the surviving children until they’re 18 and graduate from high school.
This bill requires the court to determine an amount that is reasonable and necessary for the maintenance of the victim's child after considering all relevant factors, including, but not limited to:
(1) The financial needs and resources of the child;
(2) The financial resources and needs of the surviving parent or guardian of the child, including the state if the child is in the custody of the department of children's services; and
(3) The standard of living to which the child is accustomed.
If a defendant who is ordered to pay child maintenance pursuant to this bill is incarcerated and unable to pay the required maintenance, then the defendant will have up to one year after release from incarceration to begin payment. If a defendant's child maintenance payments are set to terminate but the defendant's obligation is not paid in full, the payments will continue until paid in full.
This bill requires that no child maintenance be ordered if the surviving parent or guardian brings a civil suit and obtains a judgment prior to the sentencing court ordering child maintenance payments. If the surviving parent or guardian brings a civil suit and obtains a judgment after child maintenance payments have been ordered, then the child maintenance order will be offset by the amount of the judgment awarded in the civil action.
Basing compensation on the standard the kid was used to seems unwise. If a poor person kills a rich person, they can never keep up. If a rich person kills a poor person, the penalty barely matters to them. I understand why they did it, but imo, it probably makes more sense to base it on the impaired drivers income. Take something painful (20 or 30%?) based on their average income over the past three years. That avoids them working underground to dodge liability. If they can't afford to retire, too bad so sad, keep working to pay for your bad decisions.
New law requiring drunk drivers to pay child support if a parent is killed passes in Tennessee
Cecilia Williams, who came up with the idea, lost her son, daughter-in-law-to-be and 4-month-old grandson to drunken driving.
scoop.upworthy.com
A new law passed in Tennessee will require drunk drivers to pay child support in cases where the parent is killed in the accident they caused. The bill was unanimously passed in the Tennessee House. It states that a person convicted of killing a parent, as a result of intoxication or aggravated vehicular homicide, will be required to pay child support for the surviving children until they’re 18 and graduate from high school.
This bill requires the court to determine an amount that is reasonable and necessary for the maintenance of the victim's child after considering all relevant factors, including, but not limited to:
(1) The financial needs and resources of the child;
(2) The financial resources and needs of the surviving parent or guardian of the child, including the state if the child is in the custody of the department of children's services; and
(3) The standard of living to which the child is accustomed.
If a defendant who is ordered to pay child maintenance pursuant to this bill is incarcerated and unable to pay the required maintenance, then the defendant will have up to one year after release from incarceration to begin payment. If a defendant's child maintenance payments are set to terminate but the defendant's obligation is not paid in full, the payments will continue until paid in full.
This bill requires that no child maintenance be ordered if the surviving parent or guardian brings a civil suit and obtains a judgment prior to the sentencing court ordering child maintenance payments. If the surviving parent or guardian brings a civil suit and obtains a judgment after child maintenance payments have been ordered, then the child maintenance order will be offset by the amount of the judgment awarded in the civil action.
Last edited:
I've often wondered if proportional road fines might not be the best way to go. At least then it would be about equitable punishment under the law rather than ruinous to the poor, and just a road tax to the rich.Not in Canada but a cool idea will shortly be law in Tennessee. If you kill a parent and get convicted of DUI, you are responsible for childcare payments for their minor children. Nothing like a monthly court-ordered bill to remind you what an idiot you were.
Basing compensation on the standard the kid was used to seems unwise. If a poor person kills a rich person, they can never keep up. If a rich person kills a poor person, the penalty barely matters to them. I understand why they did it, but imo, it probably makes more sense to base it on the impaired drivers income. Take something painful (20 or 30%?) based on their average income over the past three years. That avoids them working underground to dodge liability. If they can't afford to retire, too bad so sad, keep working to pay for your bad decisions.
New law requiring drunk drivers to pay child support if a parent is killed passes in Tennessee
Cecilia Williams, who came up with the idea, lost her son, daughter-in-law-to-be and 4-month-old grandson to drunken driving.
A new law passed in Tennessee will require drunk drivers to pay child support in cases where the parent is killed in the accident they caused. The bill was unanimously passed in the Tennessee House. It states that a person convicted of killing a parent, as a result of intoxication or aggravated vehicular homicide, will be required to pay child support for the surviving children until they’re 18 and graduate from high school.
This bill requires the court to determine an amount that is reasonable and necessary for the maintenance of the victim's child after considering all relevant factors, including, but not limited to:
(1) The financial needs and resources of the child;
(2) The financial resources and needs of the surviving parent or guardian of the child, including the state if the child is in the custody of the department of children's services; and
(3) The standard of living to which the child is accustomed.
If a defendant who is ordered to pay child maintenance pursuant to this bill is incarcerated and unable to pay the required maintenance, then the defendant will have up to one year after release from incarceration to begin payment. If a defendant's child maintenance payments are set to terminate but the defendant's obligation is not paid in full, the payments will continue until paid in full.
This bill requires that no child maintenance be ordered if the surviving parent or guardian brings a civil suit and obtains a judgment prior to the sentencing court ordering child maintenance payments. If the surviving parent or guardian brings a civil suit and obtains a judgment after child maintenance payments have been ordered, then the child maintenance order will be offset by the amount of the judgment awarded in the civil action.
Finland, Home of the $103,000 Speeding Ticket
Most of Scandinavia determines fines based on income. Could such a system work in the U.S.?
www.theatlantic.com
That they watched walk into the shop with a customer prior to launching a raid. I struggle to understand police tactics/training when they choose to force dangerous situations and then assassinate people. There were 100 ways to do this that were far safer and it's hard to think of a single way that is more dangerous.
Last edited:
If it's true that he pointed the gun in their direction and refused to put it down, then the use of lethal force was justified. The statement of the customer in question supported the police reports. There isn't much to be said after that.
Yes but again police have intentionally triggered a very dangerous situation that could have been avoided. Probably entirely justifiable for subject officer but should cost the planning officer dearly for such a dangerous and crap plan.
I dont see it as a bad plan. Im guessing it was opportunity. Customer comes (not expected?), distraction and perfect time to go in. If he is alone he has the opportunity to see you coming, arm himself accordingly (no idea who is approaching?)
Traffic stop? Walking from his car to his house/shop? They literally attacked him in a store full of guns.
If the "store full of guns" was the purpose of the action, then nothing else would really suffice.
Attacked?
I don't think that would be how Toronto Police services want to "frame" this.
They DID attack his store, but they want to call it a "soft entry"
What I see is a clash of ideologies
On one side we have the Toronto Police services Gun and Gang Task Force. Very dedicated officers trying to clear the streets of dangerous illegal guns. They deal with DANGEROUS gang bangers every day. These guys think they're saving us all from certain death. GUNS ARE A SCOURGE ON SOCIETY. GUNS = BAD.
You see for the most part police think they have a VERY dangerous job. THEY DO NOT. Collecting garbage or farming is a more dangerous job. When I google "most dangerous jobs in Canada" I cannot even find police on ANY of the lists. Here's a list from STATS CANADA
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/75-001-x/1996002/article/2889-eng.pdf?st=wQfZQmCX
The police want to represent their job as dangerous to justify their paycheck. Notice how when the police contract is coming up, all the news reports is crime. (Crime stats have been falling for years. We are safer NOW than we have ever been and it probably has more to do with sociology than police)
There WAS a time when policing was more dangerous than it is, but then the police seemed to have adopted a shoot first policy... where it has made interactions with the police VERY dangerous.
... and the Guns and Gangs task force is the one of largest ingesters of this koolade. They're cowboys that think they are going to save us all... from ALL these illegal guns.
All this talk about arresting Kotanko at the grocery store or in his car is NOT how the Guns and Gangs Taskforce Operate. Guns and Gangs Taskforce KICK ASS AND TAKE NAMES.
... and this "John Wayne" attitude got Mr. Kotanko dead.
On the other side we have a gunsmith, that works with guns all day, everyday. Probably the only time he has ever shot a hand gun was at a paper target (Yes he was a hunter, but you don't use a hand gun for hunting game, hand guns are only good for hunting people at close range).
To Mr. Kotanko: guns are NOT evil, guns are a tool, like a hammer or screwdriver. Having a gun in his hand was a VERY normal thing
I think that difference in "mind set" is what got Mr. Kotanko shot.
Police are VERY " US OR THEM"... and you and me are NOT "US"
Nor was Lester Donaldson, Michael Lawson, Vincent Gardner, Dominic Sabitino... I can go on if you want....
On one side we have the Toronto Police services Gun and Gang Task Force. Very dedicated officers trying to clear the streets of dangerous illegal guns. They deal with DANGEROUS gang bangers every day. These guys think they're saving us all from certain death. GUNS ARE A SCOURGE ON SOCIETY. GUNS = BAD.
You see for the most part police think they have a VERY dangerous job. THEY DO NOT. Collecting garbage or farming is a more dangerous job. When I google "most dangerous jobs in Canada" I cannot even find police on ANY of the lists. Here's a list from STATS CANADA
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/75-001-x/1996002/article/2889-eng.pdf?st=wQfZQmCX
The police want to represent their job as dangerous to justify their paycheck. Notice how when the police contract is coming up, all the news reports is crime. (Crime stats have been falling for years. We are safer NOW than we have ever been and it probably has more to do with sociology than police)
There WAS a time when policing was more dangerous than it is, but then the police seemed to have adopted a shoot first policy... where it has made interactions with the police VERY dangerous.
... and the Guns and Gangs task force is the one of largest ingesters of this koolade. They're cowboys that think they are going to save us all... from ALL these illegal guns.
All this talk about arresting Kotanko at the grocery store or in his car is NOT how the Guns and Gangs Taskforce Operate. Guns and Gangs Taskforce KICK ASS AND TAKE NAMES.
... and this "John Wayne" attitude got Mr. Kotanko dead.
On the other side we have a gunsmith, that works with guns all day, everyday. Probably the only time he has ever shot a hand gun was at a paper target (Yes he was a hunter, but you don't use a hand gun for hunting game, hand guns are only good for hunting people at close range).
To Mr. Kotanko: guns are NOT evil, guns are a tool, like a hammer or screwdriver. Having a gun in his hand was a VERY normal thing
I think that difference in "mind set" is what got Mr. Kotanko shot.
Police are VERY " US OR THEM"... and you and me are NOT "US"
Nor was Lester Donaldson, Michael Lawson, Vincent Gardner, Dominic Sabitino... I can go on if you want....
Can't say one way or another in this specific case but steroid use is a big issue and IMO a blood sample should be required in any case like this....
Your "plan" puts an innocent customer in danger.
|
|
|
|
|