RCMP Officer, drunk, kills motorcyclist, 21

[Duster929]

Forum Sponsor

I was refering to the civil liberties nuts with the tinfoil yamakas there Dusty one. Some moron gets clipped doing 245kph on a bike, it gets taken away, and waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.....no day in court........popo is judge and jury.....waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

But somehow this guy should be canned or cut off from pay so YOU can feel all happyhappy that they are not being shown favoritizim.

Give some thought to the fact that the "pay while awaiting trial" clause in their collective agreement is probably due to the number of cops being litigated against by just such nimrods trying to get out of being responsible for their deeds. As in....." he pulled me over for NOTHING and the fight broke out. He should be suspended without pay till the trial...."

Again. Mememememememe....

I understand your point, but I also think it's just deflecting conversation from the issue at hand. We're not talking about stunting laws here. We're talking about drunk-driving laws, which have been in effect for a long time and have been applied to civilians in a certain way for a long time. In this particular case the law is being applied differently. Yes, people whine about "getting caught" committing other offenses, and claim they're being treated unfairly when that happens. But I don't see how that changes this particular situation. Unless you're saying that, because people whine about getting caught speeding, they should be ok with a cop getting treated more leniently on a drunk driving charge?

I guess I'm having a hard time making a connection between the two things. I complain (whine?) that our tax system is unfair in that I pay too much taxes and I think our politicians spend that money unwisely. Does that mean I lose my right to criticize a system where a cop gets a different standard of treatment on a drunk driving charge?

--- D

 

[dankyyz]

I understand your point, but I also think it's just deflecting conversation from the issue at hand. We're not talking about stunting laws here. We're talking about drunk-driving laws, which have been in effect for a long time and have been applied to civilians in a certain way for a long time. In this particular case the law is being applied differently. Yes, people whine about "getting caught" committing other offenses, and claim they're being treated unfairly when that happens. But I don't see how that changes this particular situation. Unless you're saying that, because people whine about getting caught speeding, they should be ok with a cop getting treated more leniently on a drunk driving charge?

I guess I'm having a hard time making a connection between the two things. I complain (whine?) that our tax system is unfair in that I pay too much taxes and I think our politicians spend that money unwisely. Does that mean I lose my right to criticize a system where a cop gets a different standard of treatment on a drunk driving charge?

--- D

I get it. Perhaps its more of a sidebar, and i'm throwing it in where it is salient to the conditions, not the actual situation.

It was more highliting an example of when someone is not convicted of something, peopel are crying for a stoning. If it were a stunter who had their bike grabbed at roadside for an offence, it would be "unfair".

Back to the subject at hand directly, i think that there has to be some kind of way to avoid cops from being continually tied up in litigation (worse in the states but getting more so here every year) and taken out of the service completely while awaiting trial. the opposite would be taht the cop would then take their force to task if found innocent, get back pay, and the maybe damages.

The story about the two guys getting 1.5 years paid to then quit is disturbing, but i think also not a "problem" that occures all the time.

Again, it's hard to come up with rules that will be "good and fair" to everyone. I think there are 10k cops in TPS?

So while those stories do piss me off, i'm not sure chaning the entire paradigim the other way is the solution. I'm sure there are plenty of cops whose conduct or service in the line of duty could be litigated against unduly, and so you have to protect your cops to some degree. Like anything, it iwll be abused, and also like most things, those few cases are the only ones you'll hear about in the media.

 

[VFRider]

not even out on bail... just a promis to appear... organized crime at its best... this is unbelivable... but i belive its true. and yeah, id be fired in a second too...

 

[DUPPY]

Back to the subject at hand directly, i think that there has to be some kind of way to avoid cops from being continually tied up in litigation (worse in the states but getting more so here every year) and taken out of the service completely while awaiting trial. the opposite would be taht the cop would then take their force to task if found innocent, get back pay, and the maybe damages.

There is already something in the law to prevent that type of situation. Although the law is written "innnocent until proven guilty", no one is 100% innocent. That's why we have bail and ROR's. It's more interpreted as..."potential risk to the public safety and interests". No one who is remanded to custody, then later found innocent of their accused crimes has the right to sue the police or government for their lost time behind bars because it is accepted that the judges decision to incarcerate them was in the best interest of the public (same goes for curfews,logistical restrictions, association limitations and house arrest). The police force is a goverment body and all it takes is one judges decision that having a cop (accused of whatever the crime be) receive paid leave is a conflict of public interest or not in the publics best interest. A ruling like that would negate any deal the cops currently have with the province for paid leave, and at the same time take away any right for a cop to sue his employers (THE PUBLIC). A ruling like that would have to come from the Supreme court of justice and any one of us on this site could start the ball rolling for that judgement.

 

[dankyyz]

There is already something in the law to prevent that type of situation. Although the law is written "innocent until proven guilty", no one is 100% innocent. That's why we have bail and ROR's. It's more interpreted as..."potential risk to the public safety and interests". No one who is remanded to custody, then later found innocent of their accused crimes has the right to sue the police or government for their lost time behind bars because it is accepted that the judges decision to incarcerate them was in the best interest of the public (same goes for curfews,logistical restrictions, association limitations and house arrest). The police force is a government body and all it takes is one judges decision that having a cop (accused of whatever the crime be) receive paid leave is a conflict of public interest or not in the public's best interest. A ruling like that would negate any deal the cops currently have with the province for paid leave, and at the same time take away any right for a cop to sue his employers (THE PUBLIC). A ruling like that would have to come from the Supreme court of justice and any one of us on this site could start the ball rolling for that judgment.

To be clear. I'm not pretending to have independent knowledge of the TPS collective agreement. Nor, do i think, is anyone here.

My post was more speaking to the idea that this community has a "not till proven guilty" mandate against riders, but when you are a cop the opposite should be true.

I"m also not pretending that i know all the elements which constitute a conflict of interests, or "public's best interest. Nor, imho, should anyone here.

 

[Metastable]

I think you are comparing apples to hub caps.

No one is saying he shouldn't have his day in court. What we are saying is that he should get it like anyone of us would. If he has a contract with his employer saying that he gets full pay, that's fine. However, it shouldn't take 60 days for him to go to trial since it is PUBLIC money that is paying for his vacation. I don't see why it should take more that a few days to get things sorted. It took forever to charge the guy, and then they go and charge him with a charge that will not stick. They charged him with DUI when they know very well he left the scene, so it won't stick. They COULD HAVE charged him with vehicular manslaughter, leaving the scene of a crime and dangerous driving. Those have a much better chance. I can't help to think that they DELAY things so much so that the public kinda forgets.


It shouldn't take 1.5 years so that 2 cops get to a "better" retirement age and have their hearing delayed until they can retire before the hearing.

 

[dankyyz]

I think you are comparing apples to hub caps.

No one is saying he shouldn't have his day in court. What we are saying is that he should get it like anyone of us would. If he has a contract with his employer saying that he gets full pay, that's fine. However, it shouldn't take 60 days for him to go to trial since it is PUBLIC money that is paying for his vacation. I don't see why it should take more that a few days to get things sorted. It took forever to charge the guy, and then they go and charge him with a charge that will not stick. They charged him with DUI when they know very well he left the scene, so it won't stick. They COULD HAVE charged him with vehicular manslaughter, leaving the scene of a crime and dangerous driving. Those have a much better chance. I can't help to think that they DELAY things so much so that the public kinda forgets.


It shouldn't take 1.5 years so that 2 cops get to a "better" retirement age and have their hearing delayed until they can retire before the hearing.

Well if it were you, i think it would be easy to say that you'd feel justified if they dropped the leaving the scene thing, if you went around the corner to drop your kids off. Leaving your credentials behind so no one on a message board would think you were "evading". (which is what the law was created for).

I'm sorry that not everyone is happy with how he was charged, and how quicky he went to court for his crimes.

He does have a contract that says he gets paid while awaiting trial. Period.

 

[eastcoast_gsx]

Well if it were you, i think it would be easy to say that you'd feel justified if they dropped the leaving the scene thing, if you went around the corner to drop your kids off.

LMFAO... you make him sound so noble...

How about checking to see if the poor SOB you just flatened on motorcycle has a pulse first.

Something along the lines of [Kids... DON'T MOVE, DADDY WILL BE BACK IN A MINUTE.]

 

[Duster929]

Well if it were you, i think it would be easy to say that you'd feel justified if they dropped the leaving the scene thing, if you went around the corner to drop your kids off. Leaving your credentials behind so no one on a message board would think you were "evading". (which is what the law was created for).

I'm sorry that not everyone is happy with how he was charged, and how quicky he went to court for his crimes.

He does have a contract that says he gets paid while awaiting trial. Period.

I'm glad you're sorry, but that isn't really the point. Unless you're the cop in question, and I don't think you are.

I'm sure he feels justified they dropped the "leaving the scene thing". Maybe even relieved...? I don't think he was evading, at all. Like I said before, this is a textbook manoevre for someone trying to beat a drinking/driving charge. Nothing justified about it.

--- D

 

[dankyyz]

LMFAO... you make him sound so noble...

How about checking to see if the poor SOB you just flatened on motorcycle has a pulse first.

Something along the lines of [Kids... DON'T MOVE, DADDY WILL BE BACK IN A MINUTE.]

I am not trying to make anyone sound noble. Just reminding the anti-popo brigade that cops are people. They screw up just like you and me (more you than me... and react the same way any shmoe might in a given situation. Training can only teach you so much, and some cops are better at knowing what is right and wrong than others. Is that fair?

Well you were not there dude. Nor was i. It could have been VERY difficult to deny the rider was deceased, and I can believe that a father would do exactly what he did. I would have.

You wouldn't....fine. But you are not him. Nor were you there. Nor was I. Nor can you accurately speculate what ACTUALLY happened. Did the age of the kids come up? Do you CARE about the practicality of the situation? It seems that you like to sidestep such things. Like...hmmm...maybe one of his kids was 1, and the other 3? Not saying I know, but to deny the possibility of that being the case would be rather naive. So lets leave the 1 year old with the 3 year old, or better yet, in the bashed up car/van.....ya dig?

And i would be TOTALLY RELIEVED that they dropped the leaving the scene charge. Who wouldnt? Is there some retarded argument against that being how he felt? Cant WAIT to hear that one.

Ever hear that a cop should NEVER touch a body at a scene? That they are told to leave the body alone as there is NOTHING they can do, nor should they attempt to render assistance unless some situation exists which might grossly aggravate the victims current situation? Like trying to put out a car fire or the like? That the fire medic or ambulance people have a job, and that is it? l

So...duly noted. Another anti cop rant has been logged. Well put. Pat on back.

ps. I like the word nor. I'm gonna work that into my routine more.

 

[eastcoast_gsx]

Just reminding the anti-popo brigade that cops are people. They screw up just like you and me (more you than me... and react the same way any shmoe might in a given situation. Training can only teach you so much, and some cops are better at knowing what is right and wrong than others. Is that fair?

I agree, that is why strict oversight is needed. As from your previous posts it is a stance you don't seem to share, unless of course it works in your favor.

And I will say again, I am not anti-cop at all.

 

[Duster929]

I am not trying to make anyone sound noble. Just reminding the anti-popo brigade that cops are people. They screw up just like you and me (more you than me... and react the same way any shmoe might in a given situation. Training can only teach you so much, and some cops are better at knowing what is right and wrong than others. Is that fair?

Well you were not there dude. Nor was i. It could have been VERY difficult to deny the rider was deceased, and I can believe that a father would do exactly what he did. I would have.

You wouldn't....fine. But you are not him. Nor were you there. Nor was I. Nor can you accurately speculate what ACTUALLY happened. Did the age of the kids come up? Do you CARE about the practicality of the situation? It seems that you like to sidestep such things. Like...hmmm...maybe one of his kids was 1, and the other 3? Not saying I know, but to deny the possibility of that being the case would be rather naive. So lets leave the 1 year old with the 3 year old, or better yet, in the bashed up car/van.....ya dig?

And i would be TOTALLY RELIEVED that they dropped the leaving the scene charge. Who wouldnt? Is there some retarded argument against that being how he felt? Cant WAIT to hear that one.

Ever hear that a cop should NEVER touch a body at a scene? That they are told to leave the body alone as there is NOTHING they can do, nor should they attempt to render assistance unless some situation exists which might grossly aggravate the victims current situation? Like trying to put out a car fire or the like? That the fire medic or ambulance people have a job, and that is it? l

So...duly noted. Another anti cop rant has been logged. Well put. Pat on back.

ps. I like the word nor. I'm gonna work that into my routine more.

If you knew me, you would know that "anti-cop" is the furthest possible description you could apply to me. But you don't know me, so I can understand how you would make such a mis-judgement.

I am, however, "anti-drunk-driver-who-kills-motorcyclists". Quite strongly. I'm especially anti- that behaviour when the driver is a police officer and a more lenient form of justice is applied against him. I'd feel the same if it was a judge or politician, or wealthy businessperson. Nothing to do with cops at all.

And don't be calling others naive. You're going a long way around to find excuses for someone you don't even know, taking guesses at the ages of his kids, etc. I'm all for giving the benefit of the doubt, but at the same time I think it's naive to put the blinders on.

--- D

 

[dankyyz]

If you knew me, you would know that "anti-cop" is the furthest possible description you could apply to me. But you don't know me, so I can understand how you would make such a mis-judgement.

I am, however, "anti-drunk-driver-who-kills-motorcyclists". Quite strongly. I'm especially anti- that behaviour when the driver is a police officer and a more lenient form of justice is applied against him. I'd feel the same if it was a judge or politician, or wealthy businessperson. Nothing to do with cops at all.

And don't be calling others naive. You're going a long way around to find excuses for someone you don't even know, taking guesses at the ages of his kids, etc. I'm all for giving the benefit of the doubt, but at the same time I think it's naive to put the blinders on.

--- D

Dont take it so personally man. I don't know you, and am not taking my opinions to your family BBQ.

I'm anti drinking and smoking and driving. Period. Cars/bikes whatever. So in that regard we share the same opinion.

I'm not suggesting blinders at all. I'm just not into listening to strangers pretending to know what happened from something they read in The Sun, and prescribing their own form of posse-mentality remedy.

The things I'm suggesting are just as far fetched as YOU having the skinny on what happened. Until that stops you from talking like you know more than you do, or until the court transcripts are released, my supposition is just as valad as yours. Which is the real message.

D
ps. You used the word naive after suggesting i not.

 

[dankyyz]

I agree, that is why strict oversight is needed. As from your previous posts it is a stance you don't seem to share, unless of course it works in your favor.

And I will say again, I am not anti-cop at all.

I'm into oversight. As long as it's not to satisfy the armchair civil libertarians in here that due diligence is being done. And not at the cost of millions of dollars just so YOU can have your moment of dissent. We just don't have the resources for that.

You actually think that YOU should have a report dropped into your mailbox every day from world leaders, so you can "help them out" with the "simple" task of making everyone happy. It's kinda funny. Makes for good reading anyway.

I dont think you get to vote on every law that comes into play. That may sting to someone who feels as entitled as you seem to.

One day you wont be as paranoid as you seem to be, about popo trying to take away all the fun in the world. You'll find out that there is more to the world than just you and your needs.

Meantime your putting a smile on my face daily.

 

[Pocket Sprocket]

I'm into oversight. As long as it's not to satisfy the armchair civil libertarians in here that due diligence is being done. And not at the cost of millions of dollars just so YOU can have your moment of dissent. We just don't have the resources for that.

You actually think that YOU should have a report dropped into your mailbox every day from world leaders, so you can "help them out" with the "simple" task of making everyone happy. It's kinda funny. Makes for good reading anyway.

I dont think you get to vote on every law that comes into play. That may sting to someone who feels as entitled as you seem to.

One day you wont be as paranoid as you seem to be, about popo trying to take away all the fun in the world. You'll find out that there is more to the world than just you and your needs.

Meantime your putting a smile on my face daily.

As a general feeling, not having compiled any statistics, usually you seem to swing your post/opinion in and out of personal attack to sidebars with the occasional on track comment. These last 2 or 3 posts have included accusations (which have since been refuted by the 'defendents'; as you seem to put people on trial) with absolutely over the top implications which hold no bearing. If you want to argue a topic then do it. I don't care if you keep it up, nor do I expect you to stop, maybe de-sensitized is appropriate to what I experience with your type of feedback. nor. nor. nor. (bite sized bits of food for troll? lol nor.)...
irony, this topic has nothing to do with the topic, sorry.

 

[Duster929]

As a general feeling, not having compiled any statistics, usually you seem to swing your post/opinion in and out of personal attack to sidebars with the occasional on track comment. These last 2 or 3 posts have included accusations (which have since been refuted by the 'defendents'; as you seem to put people on trial) with absolutely over the top implications which hold no bearing. If you want to argue a topic then do it. I don't care if you keep it up, nor do I expect you to stop, maybe de-sensitized is appropriate to what I experience with your type of feedback. nor. nor. nor. (bite sized bits of food for troll? lol nor.)...
irony, this topic has nothing to do with the topic, sorry.

You hit it on the head, Pocket Sprocket.

This is the kind of passive-aggressive, word-twisting, evasive, projecting nonsense that drives people crazy, and it's what trolls excel at. Throwing out accusations, taking them back when they're addressed, changing the topic, being impossible to pin down to an opinion, and generally avoiding robust, critical logic in their posts.

It's an impossible conversation.

--- D

 

[Metastable]

BTW - I'm not anti-officer. I'm anti-"how they always seem to charge them with stuff that won't stick/or brush things off like at the Van Airport, or that lady that died getting rear ended by another police boozer who fell asleep.... or that other one that crashed her polce car into a pole... we could go on for ever".... yet if it was the opposite and a cop died..... HOOOLY cow....good luck.... they'd lie to make sure you got convicted even if it wasn't you who did it. Don't tell me it doesn't happen because it does. That's how innocent men go do jail.

I'm also very anti-"Oh crap I screwed up, how can I save my own bacon even though there is some poor sod fighting for life on the ground." He had two choice, get busted for a DUI, or try to help a person who he just injured. He decided to save his own butt. IMO, not very cool.

OR - do you REALLY think that he went home and had a few drinks knowing that would give him an elevated alcohol reading when he came back?

 

[dankyyz]

Hay guys. If you merely want a paranoid, underinformed circlejerk, and sell it off as "keeping an eye on the man". Fill ur boots up.

I just get a little sick of weekend warriors talking about civil liberties while not manning up to the barrel and asking what THEY can do to change the perception of the general public on anyone who takes riding/driving seriously.

And thanks for the unsolicited book report, straight from first year Engrish Lit. Your superior (?) understanding of the human condition is duly noted.

There is a difference between trolls and people with opinions contrary to your own. don't take it so personally. Or do, but STFU while you do.

 

[eastcoast_gsx]

I just get a little sick of weekend warriors talking about civil liberties while not manning up to the barrel and asking what THEY can do to change the perception of the general public on anyone who takes riding/driving seriously.

I say again... you have NO IDEA what is being done... or at least what we are trying to do.

Not specifically on this issue though.

 

[dankyyz]

I say again... you have NO IDEA what is being done... or at least what we are trying to do.

Not specifically on this issue though.

Enlighten me then.

Forum Sponsor