|
|
|
Umar Zameer
- Thread starter raginduck
- Start date
Relax
Well-known member
Police mentality: Instead of identifying the need to improve officer training, let's just frame an innocent person.
I'd be curious to see how either of those 2 would react if 3 strangers surrounded their car with their family inside.
Cops would probably shoot at the person in front of their car. Widow is just grieving and shouldn't have been led down the path of blaming an innocent for the failures of her husband's employer.
What a total nightmare for this guy and his family. Zameer has been put through hell and likely has hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses as a result of this fiasco. Hopefully he sues.
TPS protects its own and 3 officers apparently lied on the stand, contradicting their own experts. This could happen to anyone. DoFo takes the usual "support the police" stand he always does. The police can do no wrong.
Zameer was very lucky cops did not have time to empty their guns shooting at his car, killing him and his family.
TPS protects its own and 3 officers apparently lied on the stand, contradicting their own experts. This could happen to anyone. DoFo takes the usual "support the police" stand he always does. The police can do no wrong.
Zameer was very lucky cops did not have time to empty their guns shooting at his car, killing him and his family.
Relax
Well-known member
I agree she was led down the path at first, but if she paid any attention to the trial (which I imagine she did), she would have heard all of the evidence pointing to witness collusion and lying, and if she isn't outraged that TPS should have done a better job at training, then I have no sympathy for her.
While she presumably heard what happened at trial, I also expect she had constant updates (brainwashing) from police sources reinforcing that they will make sure her husbands death is avenged and the defense is just twisting things.
I hope that the thick blue line doesn't use his freedom as an opportunity to harass Mr Zameer. I suspect he'd be well served by registering vehicles under a numbered company so he doesn't easily pop up on ALPR for special attention.
If the cops did their job and were proactive re: carjackings instead of telling victims after the fact to call your insurance company people wouldn't assume the worst when and if plainclothes cops confront them while they're in their vehicles. Double that if it's a high end one on the ''shopping list''.
Musicians can pull off costume changes in a second. Maybe plain clothes cops should consider something similar. Grab the sweater and pull and that exposes a hi-viz police vest within a second. Not perfect but should be plausible as they are transitioning from under-cover to intervention.
I can remember when officers drove and dressed like police . Now it’s a paramilitary look , stealth styled cars and swat team outfits for everyone. It’s designed to be intimidating. It’s a failure on many fronts why very few trust the police .
It used to immigrants coming from socialist state homes where the police disappeared your friends , now old white stock Canadians are scared of the police .
Sent from my iPhone using GTAMotorcycle.com
It used to immigrants coming from socialist state homes where the police disappeared your friends , now old white stock Canadians are scared of the police .
Sent from my iPhone using GTAMotorcycle.com
Do you mean that 1 or all of the cops that testified are going to be formally charged by the Crown with perjury? Your perjury is coming from the police statement is vague/misleading.
I was interested by that statement too. Couldn't quickly find anything with more info.
I suspect they can beat that charge if it happens. It sounds like Cop A prepared a story (which didn't match reality) and then cops B and C were able to review that story prior to writing their notes. At this point, after repeating the false story so many times, they probably truly believe that it is reality. Can you be convicted of perjury if you truly believe in your testimony?
They should all be fired but won't be. It sounds like Demkiw wants to reward them for sticking up for colleagues regardless of truth or law.
Last edited:
Zameer's defense attorney was interviewed today.
toronto.citynews.ca
'The police need to take a hard look at how they behave in court': Lawyer of Umar Zameer
The lawyer representing Umar Zameer talks to CityNews after Zameer was found not guilty of first degree murder.
toronto.citynews.ca
If that's the case then a perjury conviction is a slam dunk case. They all testified under oath on the stand that they didn't discuss their stories with each other prior to coming to court. I made a post in this thread during the trial about just how ludicrous that part of their testimony was and the likelihood of them colluding with each other was 99.9∞%
Last edited:
They didn't "discuss". They were provided an opportunity to review with no discussion. I think that should be a hard no and is an epic fail in police procedure and politics. Like normal witnesses, they need to be separated immediately and not allowed to communicate between themselves in any fashion until a recount of events is on the record. Given the earned level of distrust, these statements probably can't be taken by any police force as it is easy enough for union reps or lawyers to pass info between them. If statements are overseen by the crown in important cases, that makes it much harder to pull off this crap.
That's the problem with perjury.. you don't just have to prove they perjured themselves.. you have to prove they did it intentionally. Kim Schofield was on CP24 yesterday and gave a good explanation of why she doesn't think they will go after the cops for perjury.
The comment cycling said in their post... is far off from what the judge actually said. The judge mentioned collusion and the cops testimony not matching the physical evidence to the jury... and you read what she said, without the jury present, in the articles about 'what the jury didn't hear'
Demkiw should resign or be fired for his comments after the trial.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
Some changes are in effect as of April 1st - the law was passed years ago, union issues have delayed enacting all the new provisions. In place now:
New rules that allow police chiefs to suspend officers without pay. Chiefs can suspend without pay if an officer is in custody or on bail with conditions that would interfere with their ability to do their job, or if the officer is charged with a serious off-duty offense that could lead to their firing. Under the old Police Services Act, police officers were suspended with pay until they were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. Something they have been asking for, lets see if they use the law or their years of crying were public pandering.
So far, the Toronto, London and Ottawa chiefs seem to have missed the April 1ST memo:
- Ottawa police officer charged with impaired driving after crash
- Toronto police officer charged with assault, suspended
- London police officer charged with impaired driving
The police chiefs. I expect there will be some hesitation to be the first chief to enforce the new rules..
I suspect the first application will require something ten steps beyond egregious. An off-duty cop stinking drunk dragged out of a fatal wreck or similar. Once the gates are opened, hopefully over time, this will expand in scope greatly. Paid vacations for criminals is not sustainable.
|
|
|
|
|