Too many cops on leave WITH pay?
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
The police take on a very unique, often admired, often reviled job. They are expected to use force, but only 'this' amount of force. What 'this' amount of force is varies from situation to situation, and from viewer to viewer. They tread a very fine line, and, being human and working with humans, they run the risk of crossing it or having people percieve that they have crossed it. Everything from people starting to pay attention, to video cameras being switched on, often only happens once instigating factors have already occurred and a response is taking place, skewing eye witness reports. Knowing that they put themselves in this kind of risk, part of the saving grace for officers is knowing that they won't lose their livelihood while it all gets sorted out. Take that away and you leave a large portion of good cops who will simply not take on the increased risk. Why should they? Innocent until proven guilty is the right of every other citizen in this country, why should officers have to give it up for the 'honour' of taking on the risk of keeping the law?
Last edited:
Trials properly run, I have no problem with. In the Milgaard case the one credible witness for the defense was disallowed. Too many trials are derailed by corrupt lawyers. Actually the entire system needs changing, why should a person with money have a better defense than those without money? How many charity cases does F. Lee Bailey take on?
I like her version better than yours, though!
I'm partial to 'innocent until proven guilty.'
True enough, but I would point out that there are very specific rules to the use of force that all officers are taught and tested on. Steel toe boot to the face is all the way at the end. In this case, it was not a mistake, a little over doing it. Far too often we see police simply assuming the worst without benefit of reason and closed ranks when they are found wrong and in this case abusive of the authority vested in them.
Once it has pass this bench mark, in my opinion the officer is done working in the police force where there is any contact with civilians. I can understand how it can happen, but it can't be tolerated.
Once it has pass this bench mark, in my opinion the officer is done working in the police force where there is any contact with civilians. I can understand how it can happen, but it can't be tolerated.
Good point you are raising TenPenny. In B.C. conventional trials are proving to be unworkable- not enough judges, too many remands and most cases don't go to trial for 18 months due to a back log. So what the Gov't here is trying to do is use workable alternatives (like informal hearings for young offenders where the crime is fairly mild and giving the police more discretion in cases of speeding and drinking while driving by equipping them electronically, to substantiate their conclusions). We the taxpayer simply can't afford $thousands of dollars to prosecute people driving 5 km over the speed limit or the guy who blows 0.07.
I mostly agree Karrie but one thing we are arguing here is a case where a guy's face was kicked in, he was bleeding like a stuck pig, people saw and photographed the incident. What is there that needs further proving? Oh yeah and furthermore the victim was suffering brain damage from a recent accident. How cruel can a person be?
That becomes an issue of creating a set of termination criteria, set rules that, if crossed, result in job loss, not suspension and investigation. Every employer has those criteria set.
Actually, no, you were arguing the policy of suspension with pay for 'too many cops', not just those involved in one case.
Generally the police do too, but the commission of a crime must first be investigated and then if charges are brought, there is often an automatic dismissal through another procedure. Police do have unions and so the right steps need to be taken. I think just because of the nature of the job, police have extended powers over the rest of us, it's a different thing altogether. Not like firing a wal mart stock jockey for being late too often.
You're right- what I have a problem with is these guys being on suspension with pay for months (sometimes years) due to bureaucratic bumbling. Why can't there be a mobile panel (consisting of reps for the victim and the cop) and the case heard within a week? The tasering case at Vancouver airport went on for 3 years, while 4 cops were drawing full wages. What did that cost the taxpayer? $600,000?
Well, actually no, this case is what prompted me to write at which point I decided there were too many, but hey, there was the tasering incident at Vancouver airport, the tasering of the 80 year old in Kamloops hospital confined to bed, the tasering of a senior in Kelowna for a traffic violation, the David Milgaard case, the 6 cops in Vancouver who beat a druggie unconscious. Need I go on? :lol:
The same thing happens here in the States also, but the cop is either charged with a crime or charges are dismissed very quickly. (2-4 weeks is a average). Once they are officially charged, the paychecks stop. If they are found not guilty after a trial they will get all back pay due them.
Which is all good as once they are charged things change. They stand accused formally and can be incarcerated until the trial, but again, that would have to go before a judge or JP here so due process is followed. To act before that would be in violation of both our Charter of rights and your bill of rights.
Which isn't what you were asking for.
It's exactly what I was asking for.
" To act before that would be in violation of both our Charter of rights and your bill of rights."
That's one of the problems with our Charter of rights that would protect a thug who boots a disabled man in the face for no valid reason- the guy was ordered down on the ground which he was complying with to the best of his disabled condition. That f*****g Trudeau should have had that Charter jammed where the sun don't shine.
It's not up to me to interpret it, that is up to the courts.
How many of us assume the four cops that beat up Rodney King were guilty?
All four walked...you know why? The rest of the story came out, not just the bit on video.
If they are convicted then they should be punished, fired, sued, etc etc etc.....
This comes down to hate for police, seen it before, will see it again.