RCMP Officer, drunk, kills motorcyclist, 21 | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

RCMP Officer, drunk, kills motorcyclist, 21

23 said:
I'd lose mine in a split second...

Very sad sorry...

23.
Click to expand...


I'd get a promotion - I work for the OPP.. j/k...
 
I would probably lose my job for committing this kind of criminal act, actually.

And if my job was stopping and arresting drunk drivers to prevent them from killing people, then I would certainly think I would lose my job if I drove drunk and killed someone.

And further, even if I didn't lose my job, if I didn't go to work for a while, I don't think my employer would pay me. Especially if the reason I couldn't go to work was because I was drunk and killed someone, when my job is to prevent people from driving drunk and killing someone.

This logic seems plain, but in this kafka-esque situation, logic won't prevail.

The police pushed for an immediate charge, court date, vehicle impoundment, license suspension, etc. for people "allegedly" stunting according to the observation of a police officer, without any due process. But get drunk and kill someone? Take a paid vacation for a while, and we'll let you know when we've figured out what to do about it...

I hope they add child endangerment to the charge and bring in family services to check on this guy's home life. Driving drunk with kids in the car.

--- D
 
Duster929 said:
The police pushed for an immediate charge, court date, vehicle impoundment, license suspension, etc. for people "allegedly" stunting according to the observation of a police officer, without any due process. But get drunk and kill someone? Take a paid vacation for a while, and we'll let you know when we've figured out what to do about it...

--- D
Click to expand...

Sad thing, the bastard didn't even get charged yet.

The officer was later released without being charged on a promise to appear in Surrey provincial court on Jan. 15, Const. Paul Eisenzimmer told CBC News on Tuesday morning.

An earlier police press release incorrectly stated the officer had been charged with impaired driving causing death and exceeding a blood alcohol level of 0.08.
Click to expand...
 
He is going to say he went home and drank some booze as he did not stay at the scene. so mabey he will just get leaving the scene of an accident?
 
masalma said:
Sad thing, the bastard didn't even get charged yet.
Click to expand...

Yup, by January 15 we (through the police union) will have paid for the best lawyers money can buy to get him off the charge. There are a hundred ways to get off a DUI charge, for a regular person. For an officer with a union to hire high-rent lawyers, there must be a hundred more. This guy will have a few months of paid vacation to spend with his kids. He'll likely get some much-needed therapy to help him with his PTSD and alcohol problems (that many of us can't afford). He'll get plenty of visits from his police buddies who sympathize with the stress he must be under. He'll be back on the job by February.

Orion will still be dead.

--- D
 
GP_RZ said:
He is going to say he went home and drank some booze as he did not stay at the scene. so mabey he will just get leaving the scene of an accident?
Click to expand...

That's one of the ways. "I suffer from PTSD. I'm under a lot of stress. This motorcyclist came out of nowhere and hit me. My kids freaked out. I couldn't stand the stress of watching another person die. I went home and had 3 drinks straight away. I need help to find a better way to cope with stress. Can I get a police counsellor and some sick leave?"

--- D
 
He seems to be getting a fairer shake than someone in Ontario going 151 on the 401 would.

That's so wrong, he killed someone, drove impared and left the scene! How many Ontario drivers have had been overlly punished roadside for speeding without hurting anyone???
 
What was done by the RCMP officer was wrong... I completely agree with that.

No how many of you would cover for a coworker at your job?

Even better question is if one of you closest buddies did something bad (not killing someone)would you help cover up or otherwise make sure your buddy got off easy or scott free?

Damn right you would, we all have.
 
So let me get this straight the officer is obviously over the age of 18 and they won't release his name? He killed someone because he was driving drunk, WITH HIS KIDS IN THE CAR, did not stay at the scene, and he is walking away with a promise to appear? C'mon that **** needs his kids taken away and his *** in the slammer where he'll get slammed by a big ****ing in-mate. People who do 50 over with their kids in the car get reported to child services and the whole deal, this **** was drunk off his *** with his kids in the car.

FTP, just a legal gang.
 
Guest said:
What was done by the RCMP officer was wrong... I completely agree with that.

No how many of you would cover for a coworker at your job?

Even better question is if one of you closest buddies did something bad (not killing someone)would you help cover up or otherwise make sure your buddy got off easy or scott free?

Damn right you would, we all have.
Click to expand...

But he did kill someone, we all cover up for friends if they mess up...but to a degree. This isnt even close to being excusable.

Also I would loose my job in a nanosecond if I did this.

R.I.P to Homey who went out way to early
 
I think most people missed CBRJohn's point about losing your job. Most of us would lose our jobs AFTER being CONVICTED, not without due process. I am not making any excuses for the actions of the officer, if that's how it went down his behaviour is reprehensible and disgusting.

But, some of you are suggesting that we skip due process in this case, that is the same thing that many of you argue against in regards to Bill 203. So, which side of the fence are you on? Just something to think about.
 
Guest said:
What was done by the RCMP officer was wrong... I completely agree with that.

No how many of you would cover for a coworker at your job?

Even better question is if one of you closest buddies did something bad (not killing someone)would you help cover up or otherwise make sure your buddy got off easy or scott free?

Damn right you would, we all have.
Click to expand...



There's a HUGE difference when you are blessed with having the public trust and best interests as your first and utmost responsibility. We aren't talking about a coworker speeding here. If I seen my coworker do anything seriously criminal, I'd be the first one to pick up the phone.
 
GentleWeapon said:
I think most people missed CBRJohn's point about losing your job. Most of us would lose our jobs AFTER being CONVICTED, not without due process. I am not making any excuses for the actions of the officer, if that's how it went down his behaviour is reprehensible and disgusting.

But, some of you are suggesting that we skip due process in this case, that is the same thing that many of you argue against in regards to Bill 203. So, which side of the fence are you on? Just something to think about.
Click to expand...

Thanks you for emphasizing the right words, some people GET it so wrong. How many threads are there for this? I enjoyed the one in Romper Room earlier... and this is here too.
 
GentleWeapon said:
I think most people missed CBRJohn's point about losing your job. Most of us would lose our jobs AFTER being CONVICTED, not without due process. I am not making any excuses for the actions of the officer, if that's how it went down his behaviour is reprehensible and disgusting.

But, some of you are suggesting that we skip due process in this case, that is the same thing that many of you argue against in regards to Bill 203. So, which side of the fence are you on? Just something to think about.
Click to expand...

I don't think the officer should lose his job pre-conviction OR he should lose his pay while being suspended. But they shouldn't be paying him for doing nothing. Hell, he can wash the police cars or pick up the Horse crap ...something.
 
Remember this one?

The Death of Crystal Taman: What really happened
A cop has a few with his buddies. Hours later, Crystal Taman's dead. Free Press reporter Bruce Owen sheds light on the events of that tragic morning and the Crown's weak case

Bruce Owen

Updated: October 29 at 01:54 PM CDT

ON the night before Crystal Taman died, the man who killed her went out for a couple of drinks with his buddies.

Taman, as was her habit, went to bed fairly early. She had to be up early to be at work at Dr. Jerry Weiss' dental office on Regent Avenue. She was a dental assistant, and one of the first people in the door before 8 a.m.

Crystal Taman was killed as she was driving to work at a dental office in Winnipeg.

She was killed almost instantly when a black 1995 Dodge Dakota pickup truck rear-ended her bright yellow 1991 Chevrolet Sprint convertible. She was stopped for a red light on Highway 59 at the north Perimeter.

The truck, heading south on Highway 59, was driven by a 31-year-old off-duty Winnipeg Police Service officer, Const. Derek Harvey-Zenk.

Today, Harvey-Zenk -- who resigned as a police officer more than a year ago -- was sentenced on charges of dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing bodily harm. (The second charge is in connection to injuries suffered by a woman in another car. She is the wife of a city police inspector).

He was originally charged with impaired driving causing death, refusing a breathalyser test, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and criminal negligence causing death.

Although Harvey-Zenk admitted he'd been out with fellow officers in the hours before the crash, any evidence of his alleged impairment was dismissed at an earlier court hearing.

Harvey-Zenk’s Dodge Dakota rear-ended Taman’s Chevy Sprint, killing her almost instantly. (Ken Gigliotti / Winnipeg Free Press Archives )
Instead, Harvey-Zenk agreed to plead guilty to the lesser charges.

Taman's family is outraged that prosecutor Marty Minuk agreed to the plea deal. So far, he has offered no explanation to them.

"It's brick walls all around me," Taman's husband Robert said. "The most important people in this are hiding."

Minuk's decision also removed any evidence of where Harvey-Zenk was, who he was with and what he was doing before the crash.

As Judge Ray Wyant has already said, there is a seven-hour gap in the case -- a gap no one wants to fill.

A request under the Manitoba Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to Winnipeg police for notes, statements and reports on their involvement in the Harvey-Zenk case was refused.

Here is what the Free Press has learned through sources close to the case:

Harvey-Zenk and other officers stationed in District 3 in north Winnipeg left work some time late Thursday night or early Friday morning.

They had finished a week of shifts and had a few days off before going back on patrol.

They met at the former Branigan's lounge on Leila Avenue in Garden City to have a few drinks.

By the time all the officers got there it was near closing, and the officers agreed to go to Const. Sean Black's house northeast of the city to continue what's commonly known in police circles as a "shifter", a get-together to blow off some steam. (Black is now a patrol sergeant).

The "shifter" continued into the early morning hours and at about 7 a.m., Harvey-Zenk, a police officer of three years, headed home alone to see his family.

At 7:10 a.m. he crashed into Taman.

In the hours after the crash, East St. Paul police asked Winnipeg police for help in the investigation. Specifically, they wanted the professional standards unit to interview each of the officers who were with Harvey-Zenk at Black's residence.

The focus of the questions to each of the officers was simple: How much did you see Harvey-Zenk drink and did he appear intoxicated?

East St. Paul police were already investigating the deadly collision as one caused by impairment; Harvey-Zenk had declined to provide a breath sample after the crash.

It was at this point -- long before the case got into Minuk's hands -- when things started to fall apart, sources said.

First, each of the officers interviewed by investigators said essentially the same thing: yes, they were with Harvey-Zenk; yes, they think he may have had a couple of drinks; no, he did not appear intoxicated.

Second, any evidence the East St. Paul police collected to back up their charges against Harvey-Zenk for impairment was woefully inadequate for courtroom purposes.

"There was nothing in the notes," a source said. "Nothing."

Soon after the plea deal, there was criticism against former East St. Paul police chief Harry Bakema for how he led the investigation. There was also an allegation Bakema had instructed his subordinates not to refer in their notes to Harvey-Zenk's alcohol consumption following the crash.

Bakema, through his lawyer, said the allegation is false and that he had left Harvey-Zenk to be processed by Norm Carter, the current chief.

Ultimately, Harvey-Zenk was still charged by East St. Paul police with impaired driving causing death and refusing a breathalyser test. However, no evidence was given to the Crown to back that up.

There was nothing in the officers' notes on whether his speech was slurred, whether he smelled of liquor or had blurry eyes.

Such police notes are not only routine in these cases, they are vital for the prosecution. To not document these indicators of impairment makes no sense, even beyond the allegation made against Bakema, one source said.

Taken all together, the file handed to Minuk was weak from the start.

Minuk could have risked putting the entire case in front of the judge at Harvey-Zenk's 2006 preliminary hearing.

But without evidence from East St. Paul police supporting the charges, and the Winnipeg police officers each stating Harvey-Zenk was not intoxicated, going in front of a judge was pointless. The case could have been thrown out and all the charges dismissed.

Instead, Harvey-Zenk agreed to a plea deal with the recommendation he serve no time in jail.

His lawyer, Richard Wolson, said his client took full responsibility for the accident.

Sources say the evidence points to what it was all along -- a tragic accident.

There were no skid marks at the scene, an indication Harvey-Zenk fell asleep behind the wheel, only to wake up when Taman was dead.
Click to expand...

http://winnipegfreepress.com/local/story/4066781p-4669337c.html

Also, IIRC this case was the one where none of his drinking buddy police friends, could not remember anything about that night when questioned.
 
camber said:
Remember this one?



http://winnipegfreepress.com/local/story/4066781p-4669337c.html

Also, IIRC this case was the one where none of his drinking buddy police friends, could not remember anything about that night when questioned.
Click to expand...

And people wonder why there is a general distrust of police. Isn't it a problem when the general public doesn't trust the people that are supposed to 'serve and protect' them. shameful but not surprising. The worst part is that many officer see nothing wrong with lying to protect their own from criminal charges. There are many good officers but until they weed out the bad ones the whole bunch smells rotten.
 
Guest said:
What was done by the RCMP officer was wrong... I completely agree with that.

No how many of you would cover for a coworker at your job?

Even better question is if one of you closest buddies did something bad (not killing someone)would you help cover up or otherwise make sure your buddy got off easy or scott free?

Damn right you would, we all have.
Click to expand...

Would I cover for a coworker, if he killed someone while drunk, when part of our job, as coworkers, is to stop drunk driving so that people don't get killed?

Would I, hell. If that's how we expect the people we pay to serve and protect us to think... we've got big problems. No, I would not cover up the murder of an innocent boy on a motorcycle so that my buddy could get off easy or scot free. I'd rather be a bad friend than an evil person.

--- D
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom