Thanks. I had given up on ever seeing this published, but now I can give it a read through.
|
|
|
What ever happened to Sgt. Dennis Mahoney-Bruer?
- Thread starter CruisnGrrl
- Start date
Thanks. I had given up on ever seeing this published, but now I can give it a read through.
They rely on the politicians WE elect and fail to harass into doing the right thing.
One huge investigative mistake was made. If you're going to monitor someone's use of a device, first make sure that he doesn't have an alternate device. They should have disabled the in-car RADAR, forcing him to use the LASER unit that had the data recorder installed.
How would they explain to him why the radar in his car was disabled?
Would they disable it without telling him? If so, would not he not simply return the car for service and take out another car with a working radar unit, in which case you are now back at square one?
Do they then disable the radar on the replacement car?
Do they also disable the speedometer so he can't obtain speed by pacing, which he apparently used to obtain the speed of one of the drivers noted in the judge's ruling?
Last edited:
I'm reading the reasons for judgment now.
What a crap investigation ... and the interviewer lied during the interview to try to get a confession.
It's quite apparent that this was an attempted sting operation, no doubt in response to complaints. Usually, where there's smoke, there's fire ... Just not at the time of the sting operation.
Paragraph [120] has scary implications.
What a crap investigation ... and the interviewer lied during the interview to try to get a confession.
It's quite apparent that this was an attempted sting operation, no doubt in response to complaints. Usually, where there's smoke, there's fire ... Just not at the time of the sting operation.
Paragraph [120] has scary implications.
Second part of that paragraph [120] works to diminish the motive implied by the first part:
The difficulty I have with the Crown’s argument is that this motive fails to offer any explanation of the Breznica Notice where a speed of 45 kilometers over the limit is noted (i.e. not meeting the threshold speed for racing). If I were to accept the Crown theory on motivation then surely the Breznica offence would be one where the accused would raise the speed slightly to obtain another racing offence charge. This contradiction substantially diminishes any weight I would assign to motive.
oh mama....
" Specifically, the Crown suggests that Mahoney-Bruer was at the time of these allegations in competition with a fellow O.P.P. Sergeant, Bill Harrington for the most racing offence charges. Mahoney-Bruer acknowledged his competitiveness; particularly his desire to have the most racing charges but denied he would falsify documents to achieve that end. "
I know we all talk about it and speculate, but when you see it in official transcripts..... what then?
Yeah I get that, and that's just trying to back pedal and justify that 'well, we didn't really mean it...so..umm...here's 1 example where we could have done something but didn't. see? we're innocent'
That's how it sounds.
I have nothing against incentives to perform well or criteria to be measured against. Heck every job worth having out there has some form of KPI's associated with it. But this is some SuperTroopers kinda stuff that has a lasting affect on the people they interact with.
What if the smoke is really just haze in the air? Then there is no fire.
I'm reading this thing and seeing how events could be read either way. Just as there is no sure indication of innocence, there is also no sure indication of guilt. That brings to mind the saying, don't automatically attribute to malice that which can be laid at the feet of simple error.
Perhaps, but complaints against cops whether justified or not are common and need to be investigated. A speeder called Breznica lodged a complaint but he was clocked at only 45 over. Why was he not bumped up over the 50 mark? Multiple sting attempts were tried without success. That cannot be ignored.
Where did the "multiple sting attempts" come from? (There is only one in the court documents - it wouldn't surprise me if there were others but this phrase suggests that you are privy to something that the rest of us are not)
Why was this specific officer subject to "multiple sting attempts", if that was the case?
Stuff like this doesn't just happen. Only plausible explanation is that there were a lot of complaints about that specific officer. Why complaints about that specific officer relative to others?
If you're going to present hypothetical arguments then I'll present hypothetical counter-arguments. The speeder who didn't get the speed bumped beyond 50 over, didn't get it bumped because it would look suspicious if that officer bumped all of his speeding tickets to more than 50 over.
There's no way to prove or disprove anything now.
With the sketchiness of what was outlined in that court document, I'm surprised he was charged at all.
Why was this specific officer subject to "multiple sting attempts", if that was the case?
Stuff like this doesn't just happen. Only plausible explanation is that there were a lot of complaints about that specific officer. Why complaints about that specific officer relative to others?
If you're going to present hypothetical arguments then I'll present hypothetical counter-arguments. The speeder who didn't get the speed bumped beyond 50 over, didn't get it bumped because it would look suspicious if that officer bumped all of his speeding tickets to more than 50 over.
There's no way to prove or disprove anything now.
With the sketchiness of what was outlined in that court document, I'm surprised he was charged at all.
"undercover officers in multiple cars" suggests that more than one attempt was made, unless you assume that the undercover officers were travelling in convoy. If at first you don't succeed, try try again.
[46]As part of the investigation, Graham testified that undercover officers in unmarked cars drove through Mahoney-Bruer’s enforcement area while he was on duty at calibrated speeds of 147 kilometers per hour to see whether the accused would issue a notice/summons with a raised speed. Graham confirmed that none of the police vehicles were stopped by Mahoney-Bruer.
Many complaints about this officer could be attributed to his ranking as one of the most prolific writers of speeding tickets. Remember that allusion to a competition between him and another cop to be number one in street racing charges? Maybe this cop's personality was such that he ****** off the people he wrote up more than the other cop did.
Who knows? In the end, all you have are sketchy allegations that could not be proven, and a defence that while it had holes in it was not totally implausible.
Since we're all talking hyperbole's here, what if he was tipped off that there was a sting happening? Maybe he got wind of it or just conveniently decided to stop his alleged practice of apply street racing charges.
Weren't they after the tow trucks for kickbacks as well? did all of them disappear too?
Weren't they after the tow trucks for kickbacks as well? did all of them disappear too?
The problem that I have with this, and it would seem the judge also had issues with, was that a long serving officer would make a series of such rookie mistakes. His closing remarks at trial, as reported by The Star, clearly indicated the belief that Mahoney-Bruer was guilty, but that he could not be found so under law.
This is why you choose trial by judge, when it's going to come down to a pointy-headed question of law.
|
|
|
|
|