The cops also should be either charged with a crime or reinstated to active duty ASAP, not kept on the payroll forever while some prosecutor try's to make up their mind. Not fair to the cop nor the taxpayer.
The problem is if it were you or I we would be sent to jail forced to a bail hearing and then
the other problems would start for us, criminal record, the court system likely fired from our
job. I a democratic society where people are treated equally before the law, why are these
people not formally charged imprisoned and forced the the bail process and be off the job
at their own expense? I guess the equal mean some are more equal than others
JLM wants the cops to be treated as guilty before they are proven so....he has said it many times.
He is a cop hater and a proven racist,
Once the cop is charged all pay should be suspended till conclusion of trial. If innocent they get all back pay, if guilty hang them. Just my thought: Police should be held to a higher punishment if they
Once the cop is charged all pay should be suspended till conclusion of trial. If innocent they get all back pay, if guilty hang them. Just my thought: Police should be held to a higher punishment if they violate their trust to the people they are sworn to protect..
Nothing worse than to violate their trust.
Yes, Canada should have a national police force responsible to all the people of Canada.
So if I understand you correctly, you believe we shouldn't waste time on a trial before punishing someone, when we all know they are guilty.
Why not replace the entire criminal justice system with citizen action groups?
The self appointed citizen action group just accuses someone of something, ie Nazi, terrorist, communist, witch... and they show up outside the criminal's house at night, kick in the doors, drag the person out into the street and just hang 'em. I can see many benefits such as community involvement, immediacy and low cost.... no need for police, lawyers, judges, courts or prisons.
I didn't claim that you have a right to drive. You do, however, have the right to a trial for a criminal charge. Imposing the sentence when you are charged (ie, seizing your car and suspending your license) with a CRIMINAL offense is just the tiniest bit in conflict with our Charter.
But don't let that stop you.
One of the reasons we have such piss poor policing now is that very few competent people want the job. If you have your way, even the incompetents might think twice about the career. Who do you suggest we hire then to be police officers? The RCMP is already having a difficult time attracting people.
Innocence until proven guilty.
It's when he's proven guilty that the hammer should fall and in the case of abuse of authority, it should fall the hardest.
I'm not talking about convicting I'm talking about being paid. If the work is to be suspended it only follows the pay should be suspended. If the final outcome shows him to be innocent then he should be paid for the time missed.
Exactly what Unf said. It's not like this is unique with Law Enforcement. Pretty much any public service job is the same(Firefighter, Paramedic, teacher, etc.).
This is more to protect the innocent officers(it's not like no one has ever thrown false accusations at them, right?) than it is to reward the guilty officers.
So the officer(and by extension, his family) should not be paid during this time? Say they finally figure out that the accuser was simply someone with an axe to grind, but not for months(as it finally comes out during the trial)! I don't know about you, but I certainly can't afford to not have a paycheque for months as I have bills to pay.
If the officer is guilty, then perhaps he should have to pay back some of that money he earned while under suspension.
You know, you seem to be painting police officers with a pretty broad brush. Just because some are guilty, does NOT mean they are all guilty. So, to spite the guilty ones let the innocent ones suffer. That is not justice, that is just assinine.
Sorry I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one. I listed some examples for Karrie the other day, four or five examples of extreme brutality. This latest is a case where there are several witness and footage on camera and the victim was mentally disabled. I would never advocate suspending an officer without pay for unsubstantiated whining from one complainant. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I never did. I was going by what you said in your post. Your description was towards police in general. It wasn't until later posts that you mentioned the specific case.
Even though dirty cops disgust me to no end, they are entitled to the same processes as anyone else.
Video can be altered, witnesses can be unreliable(ask 20 people what they saw, and generally you'll get 20 different answers), people can lie. That is why they can't rush through this. I am not saying this to be the case in the incident you mentioned earlier, I am just making it a general example. Civilians who are charged with a crime can generally still be allowed to work(all dependent on the severity of the crime and their job, of course) so why should the officer not be allowed the same provisions? It's not like he is allowed to roam the streets or anything, he is confined to his desk while everything is sorted out.
You know, Eric Nagler is a pretty good example of why JLM's position is wrong.
For those who don't know, Eric was a children's entertainer on track for some pretty big things. Already had a few shows on tv, a live act as well as numerous appearances on children's television programming. One day some young girl through her parents lawyer, announced that Eric sexually molested her. They files suit and a criminal investigation was launched. In the end it was found that the girl, prompted by her parents, lied and there never was any sort of impropriety by Eric.
He was totally innocent, but his career never returned to where it was. All because people think the worst and that sticks.
Even when it's the worst in human behaviour, we have to stick to due process. Because if we don't it is very easy to slide that level of proof from eye witness and video evidence, to lesser forms until we end up with as EAO mentioned, lynch mobs hanging people without trial.
JLM isn't going to understand this but I hope the rest of you do.
We are talking about two totally different things. There are always going to be false accusations made. I NEVER had any problem with the cop being paid. I just had a problem with him being on "holiday" while he rec'd it. It seems to me the sensible posters on here understand what I'm talking about.
I think some of you are deliberately missing JLMs point. If the cop was put on desk duty he can be paid. He was suspended therefore he should not be on the payroll. He can apply for EI just like anyone else. Even in a union workplace if one gets suspended for wrongdoing they are not paid while waiting for a grievance to be processed. If they win the grievance they get backpay. If they loose , no cash.
In this case I don't think he has to wait for a trial, just an internal inquiry which does not take long. Doesn't mean he won't face a civil or even criminal trial later though.
I understand exactly what you're talking about. You want to bypass Charter rights for something as stupid as money.Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
What this cop makes in a year, amounts to an expense account for a cabinet minister. You don't understand that for any sort of judgement to be made and investigation has to happen first. The results compiled and then reviewed by someone who is judged competent in this sort of matters.
Once that's done then he can be charged if warranted and at that point he can be terminated from his employment.
Sure you could do it in a couple days since your sitting around doing nothing all day and have only the one this that you read in the paper pissing your off to deal with. Unfortunately, most other people have a job and those who's job it is to investigate this kind of thing when it happens have many demands on their time. There are union rules to navigate, and procedure so that the case isn't bungled because the officer's rights have been violated. Because when that happens, the case gets tossed out of court regardless of evidence.
What you are suggesting would be inside of a week tied up in so much red tape and appeals it would take years in the courts and more often than not fail at trial which then means the officer who has committed the crime now has a civil case against you and the justice system that has to be heard and since you never proved that he was guilty all the things you did, fired him, caused him...