Whitby Accident Victim Identified

My 2 cents on this...

As picked up on a google search from a Connecticut newspaper... have a look at the 2nd last line...

"Authorities say a Durham officer, in a marked cruiser, was following a motorcycle on Highway 401, where Ioana Bocunescu was a passenger.
They said the officer signaled to the driver to pull over but instead of stopping, he took off.
As the bike accelerated, Bocunescu fell off and was struck by several vehicles.
Authorities say the driver of the motorcycle and none of the vehicles that struck Bocunescu stopped.
She was pronounced dead at the scene.
Authorities are conducting an investigation into whether the officer committed any criminal offenses.
It is believed that the driver of the motorcycle is still at large"

Brian

Yes, that is what SIU does. That is their whole purpose.
 
Last edited:
Hi all, I have been reading this thread and had to put my two cent in. First and foremost, my deepest condolences to the family and friends of Ioana Bocunescu. I'm sure that the last thing she would have thought that night, was that getting on that bike would be the cause of her death. May she rest in peace.

Most of these posts have been opinions and speculation. Opinions I can respect. Speculations I cannot.

Yes, the Police have a job that is suppose to protect the general public based on the laws pass by Legislation. They are also supposed to adhere to the rules, regulations and policies set down by their superiors. The "smart" officers use all the resources that are available to them.
http://www.newsdurhamregion.com/news/article/161117

We as Citizens, motorist and motorcyclists have a duty as well, to conduct ourselves in a manner that is in keeping with the Laws, rules and regulations of our society. If we have a problem with these, we have a process to modify or rectify them. All motorists have a duty to conduct themselves in a manner that does not endanger the lives of themselves or others period!

What happened that night may never come to light and we must trust that the powers that be fulfill their obligation to ensure justice is met.

If the officer was involved in her death I'm sure he/she will carry that fact for the rest of their life. Likewise, the rider involved will also carry the fact for the rest of his or her life. If they have any sort of conscience.

The other motorists that were involved, if they were not aware of hitting her, may find out when they get the next undercarriage inspection done. I hope they or the mechanic reports this fact to the Police.
Considering how close most driver drive to the vehicle in front of them, they probably didn't see anything but may have heard or felt a bump. If we get back to the basic safety practice of the 2-3 second rule, it could avoid situations like this. Getting back to courtesy, respecting other drivers braking distance, and keeping right except to pass, will also go a long way.
I have seen and heard of too many stupid, inconsiderate and irresponsible people operating motor vehicles, endangering their lives and the lives of those around them. I believe it is time for society to say enough is enough.
Respect of life and property was one of the founding principles that made this country great. I believe we should get back to these basic principles.
I hope you do too.
No, I am not a "cop", but yes, I am a public servant. I clean up the messes of "stupid people."

 
Wuts the problem and how do you suggest they fix it??
The problem is as I mentioned before, if you spend 20 years as a police officer, you will have a soft spot for your fellow ex co-workers and that may impair your judgement or make you be more lenient, I wouldn't say conflict of interests but pretty close to it.
Solution? Well, if they can train students to become doctors, I am sure they can train non ex police officers to become members of the SIU.

..Or they can stay the way it is and continue to be a whole big family working together :rolleyes:

I am done with this argument as I don't even remember how did we get here.

In regards to the post above me, please explain what is the process to change the law..let's say I don't agree with Bill 203, please let me know how do I go about changing it as a normal citizen and what are my chances that anyone will ever listen? How do I get the media to listen to me and change the public perception, since every time something happens only the police have the microphone.
 
Last edited:
The problem is as I mentioned before, if you spend 20 years as a police officer, you will have a soft spot for your fellow ex co-workers and that may impair your judgement or make you be more lenient, I wouldn't say conflict of interests but pretty close to it.
Solution? Well, if they can train students to become doctors, I am sure they can train non ex police officers to become members of the SIU.

..Or they can stay the way it is and continue to be a whole big family working together :rolleyes:

I am done with this argument as I don't even remember how did we get here.

In regards to the post above me, please explain what is the process to change the law..let's say I don't agree with Bill 203, please let me know how do I go about changing it as a normal citizen and what are my chances that anyone will ever listen? How do I get the media to listen to me and change the public perception, since every time something happens only the police have the microphone.


With the bickering between outselves, I don't see much hope. IF we could collectively unite and provide solid cases of how the enforcement of Bill 203 creates victims of those charged under it, then we could lobby our elected officials to have the bill amended or changed all together.

But, bikers or bikers and motorist will need to join forces and bring the issues to the spot light.

Even then, it's an uphill battle. Is it the law that is the problem or enforcement of the law? Both?

Good luck.
 
The problem is as I mentioned before, if you spend 20 years as a police officer, you will have a soft spot for your fellow ex co-workers and that may impair your judgement or make you be more lenient, I wouldn't say conflict of interests but pretty close to it.
Solution? Well, if they can train students to become doctors, I am sure they can train non ex police officers to become members of the SIU.

..Or they can stay the way it is and continue to be a whole big family working together :rolleyes:

Well for starters, there is somethings called professionalism, intergrity, credibility. Perhaps you don't believe in this kind of thing, but many do.

Secondly, the final decision is not that of the investigators, but of the director, who is not or has not been a cop.

As well SIU investigators are not allowed to work in the areas they policed in.

As far as training people, it would take several years to gain the experience needed.
 
With the bickering between outselves, I don't see much hope. IF we could collectively unite and provide solid cases of how the enforcement of Bill 203 creates victims of those charged under it, then we could lobby our elected officials to have the bill amended or changed all together.

But, bikers or bikers and motorist will need to join forces and bring the issues to the spot light.

Even then, it's an uphill battle. Is it the law that is the problem or enforcement of the law? Both?

Good luck.


The problem you face is that the "general" public, meaning a heck of a lot more people than not, are ok with the law, whether it is legit or not. They have no interest in doing 50 over or doing wheelies or whatever.

The only chance you would have is to see a new governing party that may see it for what it is and overturn it. ie...gun registry.
 
As far as the seizure of property or your licence or suspension of licence, etc etc before a trial, it happens everyday in criminal investigations.
 
Well for starters, there is somethings called professionalism, intergrity, credibility. Perhaps you don't believe in this kind of thing, but many do.

Secondly, the final decision is not that of the investigators, but of the director, who is not or has not been a cop.

As well SIU investigators are not allowed to work in the areas they policed in.

As far as training people, it would take several years to gain the experience needed.
Actually I would have to agree with ZX600 on this one. Working as a police officer then retiring ,receiving a police pension and then joining the SIU where you are asked to investigate your former co-workers(and likely current friends) is a pretty much a conflict of interest.
The police departments are very high profile and should have a completely unbiased organization investigating them. And the director may have the final decision, but I am sure that decision is heavily influenced by the investigators.
And as for the time to train civilians, ok so it takes a couple of years, use consultants through the learning curve process.
 
Actually I would have to agree with ZX600 on this one. Working as a police officer then retiring ,receiving a police pension and then joining the SIU where you are asked to investigate your former co-workers(and likely current friends) is a pretty much a conflict of interest.
The police departments are very high profile and should have a completely unbiased organization investigating them. And the director may have the final decision, but I am sure that decision is heavily influenced by the investigators.
And as for the time to train civilians, ok so it takes a couple of years, use consultants through the learning curve process.

Also the SIU investigators shouldnt have a "quota" per say, but instead an "expected" amount of charges they should lay per month against officers. SIU officers should also charge officers when there isnt enough evidence and just say "Let the courts solve it" or "Show up to court and we'll drop the charges"
 
Well for starters, there is somethings called professionalism, intergrity, credibility.



Professionalism, intergrity (sic), credibility. You're referring to Bill McCormick Jr., right?
 
Also the SIU investigators shouldnt have a "quota" per say, but instead an "expected" amount of charges they should lay per month against officers. SIU officers should also charge officers when there isnt enough evidence and just say "Let the courts solve it" or "Show up to court and we'll drop the charges"

Is this a troll? I honestly can't tell.

Half the reason this thread has gone so long is that it's a tangential debate about the perceived different standards of justice for police officers. Being charged without evidence and a quota for charges (it's "per se" BTW, and a quota is what you described anyway) would just be perverting the system to try and make it appear fair.
 
Well for starters, there is somethings called professionalism, intergrity, credibility. Perhaps you don't believe in this kind of thing, but many do.

Secondly, the final decision is not that of the investigators, but of the director, who is not or has not been a cop.

As well SIU investigators are not allowed to work in the areas they policed in.

As far as training people, it would take several years to gain the experience needed.
1)I believe in all those things, but humans are animals, just in two legs. I have also witnessed lack of all those things from Police Officers.

2)You are right about the final decision is made by the director and he can not have been an ex police officer. However, he goes by the investigation reports and details reported by the investigators, so we are back to square one.

3)It's true, it takes a few years to train doctors as well. Maybe if they start now training people, in a few years there will be no need to hire ex police officers
 
Also the SIU investigators shouldnt have a "quota" per say, but instead an "expected" amount of charges they should lay per month against officers. SIU officers should also charge officers when there isnt enough evidence and just say "Let the courts solve it" or "Show up to court and we'll drop the charges"
I don't know who you are but get off my brain
 
As far as the seizure of property or your licence or suspension of licence, etc etc before a trial, it happens everyday in criminal investigations.

Yes, FOR Criminal ... and usually that doesn't include impound costs just for "punishment" sake, but more for "investigation" purposes.

I think most of us would be OK with the law, as long as you get all the "punishment" after going to court, not before. That is what is wrong.
 
Also the SIU investigators shouldnt have a "quota" per say, but instead an "expected" amount of charges they should lay per month against officers. SIU officers should also charge officers when there isnt enough evidence and just say "Let the courts solve it" or "Show up to court and we'll drop the charges"

That's exactly what Andre Martin did...
 

Back
Top Bottom