Too many cops on leave WITH pay?
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
Here's the original post, Einstein, which I amended in post 92. I think you can probably take a Reading 5 course at a night school near you.
"When cops are being investigated for criminal activity eg. assault, impaired driving and corrupt activities, I think the onus should be on them to justify being paid. This would apply especially to cases where their activities have been caught on camera. Presently a thug (cop) in Kelowna is being paid after kicking a disabled man (who was complying with orders) in the face. The victim went to jail for the weekend, while the thug is being paid."
So what?????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
People get fired from jobs every day without being convicted of anything.
I vaguely remember the Rodney King case, but I think unlike this case two cops went to jail if memory serves me correctly.
If you happen to pay a officer who is found guilty 2-5 years down the road, what happens to the money? Does he have to return it, I don't think so, suspend the pay once charges have been filed. Take care of his rights after the trial. Do not want the family and officer to wait to long, give them a speedy trial. his has nothing to do with presuming anything.
The problem with the Kelowna story is that the version and there are a few never add up.
First there was no domestic dispute either with his current relationship or his ex wife.
Some say he was told he could continue to scare the geese even though the course is
closed for the winter. Now I have worked close to the golf course in question and I tell you,
the geese are in large numbers and crap everywhere on the greens snows even in winter.
Even though laid off, if he was told he could shoot at them then how did this happen.
Watch the video, he was out of the truck with his hands up, and no weapon therefore there
was no need to boot him in the face. Add that to the fact that he was injured in a motor
cycle accident, he had physical and mental issues that prevented him from responding
quickly. There was no need to kick him in the face and even the Police Chief Bill McKinnon
was most upset by what he saw. The guy who shot the Mounties in Mayerthorpe is another
issue, Here the police did not take precautions when dealing with a man who clearly had
his own vision of the law. When you corner a nut case the nut case will respond with
hostility and that is what happened. When dealing with the suspect in question, the police
knew what he was about and should have expected the unexpected. Also there was no
senior personnel on site and a couple of rookies as I recall.
The problem is the senior brass hides behind incompetence, and is not held accountable.
The police who commit questionable acts and in some cases outright criminal acts they
get away with it, even if they are reprimanded, they get no jail time, no incarceration like any
other suspect. They are not required to post bail, or be off the job without pay.
If the police and politicians want others to respect the law, then those enforcing it, must also
be respectful and subject to the same outcomes as anyone else confronted with legal issues.
First there was no domestic dispute either with his current relationship or his ex wife.
Some say he was told he could continue to scare the geese even though the course is
closed for the winter. Now I have worked close to the golf course in question and I tell you,
the geese are in large numbers and crap everywhere on the greens snows even in winter.
Even though laid off, if he was told he could shoot at them then how did this happen.
Watch the video, he was out of the truck with his hands up, and no weapon therefore there
was no need to boot him in the face. Add that to the fact that he was injured in a motor
cycle accident, he had physical and mental issues that prevented him from responding
quickly. There was no need to kick him in the face and even the Police Chief Bill McKinnon
was most upset by what he saw. The guy who shot the Mounties in Mayerthorpe is another
issue, Here the police did not take precautions when dealing with a man who clearly had
his own vision of the law. When you corner a nut case the nut case will respond with
hostility and that is what happened. When dealing with the suspect in question, the police
knew what he was about and should have expected the unexpected. Also there was no
senior personnel on site and a couple of rookies as I recall.
The problem is the senior brass hides behind incompetence, and is not held accountable.
The police who commit questionable acts and in some cases outright criminal acts they
get away with it, even if they are reprimanded, they get no jail time, no incarceration like any
other suspect. They are not required to post bail, or be off the job without pay.
If the police and politicians want others to respect the law, then those enforcing it, must also
be respectful and subject to the same outcomes as anyone else confronted with legal issues.
I don't actually question the guilt of the officer, as I feel he is guilty and going down for this. What I balk at is this business of guilty before charges are laid. Lay the charges and fire the guy, but the charges come first. That after an fair and proper investigation only.
Charged and tried before guilt. He looks guilty to me to, but I wasn't there and won't assume anything.
No not tried, just charged. If the Crown feels he is guilty enough to stand trial, then he has been given enough benefit of the doubt. Some people as a precaution are held without bail and I understand and approve of that when the need calls for it. I feel this would be the same as having an independent body investigating and laying charges under the criminal code. In this case, the public safety is threatened by allowing the officer to continue with that authority until a trial. Knowing himself to be guilty there is no reason he wouldn't frustrate the case and draw it out as long as he could. He benefits by gaining all that pay and benefits that he would not be returning to public coffers when he is convicted.
Unforgiven, I agree with part of what you say, he should be arrested and formally charged.
From there he should have to be kept in jail until he gets a bail hearing and should have to
come up with the bail money like anyone else. From there he should be ousted from his job,
and become part of the court system like anyone else. I don't agree with some long and
tiresome investigation that is little more than stalling tactics and then they come out in favour
of the officer. There are all kinds of cases like this. I am saying he gets the same treatment
as any other suspected person for allegedly criminal activity.
Everyone else gets to lose their home and spend time in jail and subjected to the judgement
of the general public, and experience how the others live after they have been subjected to
the justice system. Should he not be found guilty, and gets his job back, he will learn how
the great unwashed live and maybe just maybe he will become a better person for it. Is that
not the object of the justice system? First, we determine guilt or innocence, we punish the
guilty with the hope of curbing bad behaviour, and making them a better person to re-enter
society. At least that is the premise of the law, and frankly at present its not working
From there he should have to be kept in jail until he gets a bail hearing and should have to
come up with the bail money like anyone else. From there he should be ousted from his job,
and become part of the court system like anyone else. I don't agree with some long and
tiresome investigation that is little more than stalling tactics and then they come out in favour
of the officer. There are all kinds of cases like this. I am saying he gets the same treatment
as any other suspected person for allegedly criminal activity.
Everyone else gets to lose their home and spend time in jail and subjected to the judgement
of the general public, and experience how the others live after they have been subjected to
the justice system. Should he not be found guilty, and gets his job back, he will learn how
the great unwashed live and maybe just maybe he will become a better person for it. Is that
not the object of the justice system? First, we determine guilt or innocence, we punish the
guilty with the hope of curbing bad behaviour, and making them a better person to re-enter
society. At least that is the premise of the law, and frankly at present its not working
Don't even try and compare our court systems with yours. Your court system is so antiquated a real hold over from King George.
I'd say it's about 6 of one and half a dozen of the other- you guys f*****d up the O.J. trial and we f*****d up the Air India trial.:lol:
Can you expand on that?
It represents all Canadians, and covers everything from the Gov'ts ability to legislate all the way down to how you interact with people at work.
All one has to do to see that, is look through CANLI and see case law in which the Charter has been used to protect peoples rights. Including Police Officers, who I might add, are also Canadian Citizens.
Gladly, in BC we've had several incidents where cops have been guilty of things ranging from impaired driving to use of excessive force causing serious injury and even death. Yet nothing or very little ever happens to them. If John Citizen had done the same in his job he'd have been termnated at the very least in most cases.
Without benefit of specific examples, I won't rush to judgment. But...
Let me play devils advocate for one second...
A persons service to the nation can be used to meter the sentence handed down. I know this, because it was cited in my first two convictions. Then all bets were off for my third and the full weight of the law was brought to bear. Pun intended.
Your complaint then would be with the Justice system, not the Police force and their policies.
. I don't think legal aid includes lawyers of the calibre of say F. Lee Bailey. Another difference would be the difference in sentencing between rich and poor and prestigious and obscure.