Just one of the tools available to him....sure it's not right...it shouldn't be there for him to use...but it is...and if you had that tool...you'd use it as well...
|
|
|
RCMP Officer, drunk, kills motorcyclist, 21
- Thread starter Duster929
- Start date
Just one of the tools available to him....sure it's not right...it shouldn't be there for him to use...but it is...and if you had that tool...you'd use it as well...
Just one of the tools available to him....sure it's not right...it shouldn't be there for him to use...but it is...and if you had that tool...you'd use it as well...
For sure... but I am dead on the inside anyway
For sure... but I am dead on the inside anyway
Bubba will make you feel all better!! LOL
Persian-Rice
Active member
He obviously tried to cover it up, as many of us probably would have as well, but he didn't even make an attempt to save this kid's life, the only thing he was thinking about was running from the crime he committed. I guess if you deal with criminals all the time, you and up being just like one yourself.
What pathetic person he is, having the blood of two people on his hands who never deserved to die in the first place.
What pathetic person he is, having the blood of two people on his hands who never deserved to die in the first place.
Right, like paul said get yourself a union
You are taking away his job and his pay on the assumption that he might be guilty (because right now he isn't). Based on the accusations/perception it would be considered reasonable to suspend him from his job due to his profession. His profession being to save lives/enforce the system. If the accusations were true, then he is not capable of doing his job, so for public interest he has been suspended. That is understandable.
But if you try to take away his pay which is only means of living then you're basically taking away his right to live normally. You're saying he's guilty before even giving him a chance to present himself in court. You're ostracizing him, which is not reasonable.
A lot of people in who are accused of things and fired on the spot without pay (in a company) are done so for other reasons other than criminal. This is a criminal matter, not civil. The others are civil since there has been no criminal charges laid. If that happens then you can take the matter into civil litigation or through human rights commission etc...
Is this fair? probably not. Is it a hypocritical system? Yes.
It's the only system we have.
If you want everything to be equal and fair try to adopt communism because our system isn't.
I'm not defending his actions or saying that everyone here is blah blah blah. All I want to say is that don't brand him guilty and take away his means to live until it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. That is the principle of our system.
Edit: street racing law does not conform with that principle since it brands you guilty until proven innocent. Until someone take the initiative and goes to court challenging it based on charter violations it'll remain in force.
If you don't like it then fight it, and if you don't want to fight then don't complain. You have to stand up for your rights and defend them when the state fails to do so.
Last edited:
Let's not turn this into another communism thread. We've been there.
I'm actually ok with him receving pay during his leave, as long as the deal is that he has to give all the money back if he's found guilty. That way he's innocent until proven guilty, but he doesn't earn any money from us IF he committed the crime.
--- D
I'm actually ok with him receving pay during his leave, as long as the deal is that he has to give all the money back if he's found guilty. That way he's innocent until proven guilty, but he doesn't earn any money from us IF he committed the crime.
--- D
You belittle the victims in this situation by your complete indifference to the "game".
That may be your view but its not the truth.
You just have to look at the efforts of Bill 203/HTA 172 on this board.
Not once did I say it was okay for the police to get preferential treatment.
Right... You demostrate a complete apathy for situation. Up until I called you in my post, you never mentioned that you thought this preferential treatment wasn't a good thing. It's just part of the "game".
You claim to be calling out people for hypocrisy but being hypocritical to expose their hypocrisy
He should have no problem with that as long as the state gives him back the time he had to wait to get to trial etc... remember he's sitting at home doing nothing, but if he were in jail he would've been carrying out his sentence, if not jail then he'd be working else where.
You claim to be calling out people for hypocrisy but being hypocritical to expose their hypocrisy
If you view it from a third person's eye it does look like a game. hypocrisy is part of human life. All humans are hypocrites intentionally or unintentionally. If you aren't then you're not human.
If he would rather spend the time between now and his trial in jail, and have that time credited against his sentence later, I would be ok with that.
So you think that letting him live free (not even under house arrest) is wasted time that should be given back to him in the case that he is guilty? Give your head a shake.
--- D
no kidding. If getting paid for doing nothing is 'time wasted' then I wish my company would 'waste my time' more often.
I'm not sure this is the case, but try this one out.
When you have a job that might require you, in the line of duty, to take a life, your union negotiates (probably in the 50's) that you cant be fired (on or off duty) untill due process is served.
Might make sense. Or be what is happening anyway.
Just a guess.
Oh I have no doubt something like that happened. I know its the union protecting him and he should count his lucky stars I guess.
My rant was more on how much of a sick joke this must seem to the victim's family. They suffered the loss of a loved one yet the police are protecting and watching their own. They should be comforting the victims not the guy who drives drunk with his kids in the car and killed a kid. I feel for the Victims family big time.
Well, that nice an all but that doesn't explain this instance.
You may have adequate justification for the ideals for which you advocate. However, the fact that you don't believe those ideals, serverly diminishes the moral authority to advocate for them. Which raises questions about your motivation and sincerity. Also, either this person is being irrational(failure to accept the conclusion of a sound argument) or we doubt the soundness of the argument in the first place.
Last edited:
Not exactly what I meant. Let's say he doesn't get paid and gets suspended and 1.5yrs later he's proven not guilty. Now, the state has to pay him for all the missed wages (it's not his fault). They also have to compensate him for the hardship this might've put him through (low on money, legal fees) emotional trauma. Basically he can rack up a lot of things and it can end up being expensive for the state to compensate him.
Remember he's innocent until proven guilty so you have no right to take away his means of living. They could've put him at a desk, but then everyone would b*tch "why didn't get suspended" etc...
What if I accuse you of something horrific at your work. Since I don't know what you do... let's say I go to the boss and say "This guy is stealing money and is selling company secrets to blahblah"
You being completely innocent which would be proven after the investigation/inquiry/trial.
But, the boss decides to suspend you without pay. Now you have a mortgage to pay, bills, legal fees which rack up. You can only get so much credit to help you from the bank etc... possibly facing jail time who would lend you the money? During this down time you go into depression because you can't do anything and you might go to jail for xx years; the stress piles up.
To be safe they need to get you out of that place so the environment is safe hence the suspension which anyone can understand to be reasonable. But then to take away your pay is branding you guilty. By taking away your pay the boss is basically saying "why should i pay you cuz you're guilty."
The investigation might take a year... two years... the boss is taking that long to investigate thoroughly. It's not your fault all this has happened so why should be held responsible. Heck the boss might say "screw this guy" and tells the investigators to slow the investigation down for another two or three years.
I totally understand that it doesn't look to be fair that he gets paid with suspension. But, it is necessary for the system to be fair. This could happen to you or me.
camber: ROFLOCOPTER ok you win I give up. I was generalizing. Btw, it doesn't matter if I believe in what I advocate or not as long as I am not bais'd. If there is bais and pre-judice then there is a reason to question the moral obligation.
Heck, if this was true then 99% of criminal lawyers shouldn't be defend their clients. There could be a chance their client has committed those grave sins (killing someone etc..) and might go out to commit more sins if free with your help. It might even be someone you know who gets attacked.
But! Lawyers, judges, juries have to set all of that aside and try to make decisions which are not Bias.
btw, when I say that our system isn't fair. I'm not being blind in thinking it's perfect. If it was perfect then it would be fair. But what is perfection? There is no such thing as perfection because perfection is impossible to attain, on a societal level anyways. You, me and 5 other people make up society x. In society x; you + 2 people might think something is perfect, but me and 3 others think it isn't.
Do I believe in our system? Yes, I do. Do I believe it to be "fair"? No, because that fair can depend on the person who's viewing what is fair is. I believe our system tries to be as fair and tries to make sure people are treated in a reasonable way trying to ensure their rights. Tries to be fair and being fair are two different things.
All I'm saying is our system isn't perfect and not 100% completely fair. Also, a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt until proven otherwise in a court of law. We have no right to take actions that might interfere with that person's life because he could be innocent or guilty. I don't really care what he is, all I care is that he is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
If that makes me a hypocrit then I say thank you. Thank you for calling me human
I mean no offense to anyone. Just don't lynch the guy, let the system do it. It will happen, if it doesn't and the system screws you. Then viva la revolution. If the system doesn't work for you why should you work for the system. By that I mean you do what you're expected of society/law, but then the system of law takes away your rights which it's suppose to ensure. You have no obligation to follow that system.
I could go on forever, but w/e. If you think I'm wrong, I have no way to convince you otherwise. So you win. I have no desire to carry this debate on.
Metastable
Well-known member
Well the RCMP in BC have a good track record of how they deal with this sort of thing. It seems the result is always the same. The cop walks and the families feel like they are ignored.... the FACTS, never come out.
http://www.bcnorth.ca/magazine/pages/Debi/ian/ian3.htm
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...29/bush_ruling_071129/20071129?hub=TopStories
This is an interesting little blurb:
"A blood-splatter expert hired by Bush's family said at the inquiry that the incident could not have occurred the way Koester said it had. "
So if there is 1 cop and Bush, you'd think they'd still have him in handcuffs no?
http://www.bcnorth.ca/magazine/pages/Debi/ian/ian3.htm
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...29/bush_ruling_071129/20071129?hub=TopStories
This is an interesting little blurb:
"A blood-splatter expert hired by Bush's family said at the inquiry that the incident could not have occurred the way Koester said it had. "
So if there is 1 cop and Bush, you'd think they'd still have him in handcuffs no?
Last edited:
WTF!He'll get away with "Fleeing the scene" by claiming he was protecting his kids.
If I'd done that I'd be behind bars. Well, I might be out on bail, but charged still the same.
:snorting:
However, people in the private sector that have criminal charges get fired all the time or loose their licences before a conviction. In fact, your more likely to get fired then be suspended with pay.
Law enforcement is the only employer that has the practice of paying an employee while under criminal investigation. Also, In the instance of the police. They are usually in direct conflict with carrying out a case that is "fair", when they have to investigate one of their own.
Well, if your don't believe in your argument. Then I must question why your making it, which would suggest some sort of bias, prejudice, or logical fallacy.
Bad example.... Lawyers have the right not to represent a person but once they take a case, they are professionally obligated to defend that person to the best of their ability. That's part of their professional conduct. It is the only way to ensure that the legal system is as "fair" as possible.
The statement you quoted was general as well
Last edited:
When a lot of people on this site get a speeding ticket, or any other ticket, for anything, they complain about the police. Seems they are always innocent, hard done by. As soon as a police officer is "allegedly" guilty of any offence whatsoever, he is immediately "guilty."
Pretty clear that a lot of you are not objective, and also, know very little of how the law works, and the Justice System.
Pretty clear that a lot of you are not objective, and also, know very little of how the law works, and the Justice System.
|
|
|
|
|