Firefighters not guilty in melee with police
- Thread starter petros
- Start date
I don't think Bear was making a stereotype at all. What he said was that he didn't know any firefighters who weren't boozers or druggies or both. That may very well be true.
Um, One thing Bear said that I disagree with, though is that a judge dismissing a case between cops and who they think are perps is any kind of precedent. A precedent means a particular judgement is a first.
According to Oxford, the definition of precedent is "
Um, One thing Bear said that I disagree with, though is that a judge dismissing a case between cops and who they think are perps is any kind of precedent. A precedent means a particular judgement is a first.
According to Oxford, the definition of precedent is "
a previous case or legal decision that may be or (
binding precedent) must be followed in subsequent similar cases". I am pretty sure that a judge making a decision against cops has been done many times before this incident.
Each case has to be judged on its own merits and if the merits are valid, the precedent is good (and will save time later)
That's because you can read.
It isn't that he found against the police in this case, it's that he found that there was no lawful execution of their duty, in that there was no initial criminal act. That of course was based solely on the testimony that the fire fighters who 'told the officers they were friends just playing'.
The implication is, that police officers must act or not, based on the excited utterances of witnesses, even when they contradict what the officers perceive to be a criminal act.
Apparently you didn't quite understand the legal definition of precedent. Each and every case is entirely unique, true, but essential similarities between cases is what "precedent" is all about.
If you got a speeding ticket and won, the case is unique to you, but as many other people have also won against speeding tickets, there is no precedent set in your case.
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/P/Precedent.aspx
Judges have found cops making mistakes in their performances before. And judges have made decisions against cops based upon testimony before, too.
Yes, cops should rely on witness observation to a point. That's been done before, too.
Yep, but if my house was on fire and I was speeding to get home because I thought my wife and kids were asleep inside, it might set a precedent for someone else with the same reason.
Those aren't the points that set a new standard.
The Judges ruling sets the stage for a whole lot of officer second guessing, and civil litigation, when he ruled that the officers were not lawfully executing their duty. Citing that there was no initial criminal act, based on the fact that the other fire fighters told the officers they were friends, play fighting.
Hence my analogies.
This whole story smells like the story of the reported disturbance by a neighbour and the woman next door is found by the cops with a black eye and bruises, and when the husband is brought to court, the wife says she fell down...:roll:
Case dismissed.....just like the OP
Case dismissed.....just like the OP
Three out'a the four firefighters where admittedly alcohol lubricated (one was
sober) leaving a bar in '80's costumes from a friends birthday party....& one
of those guys was in a karate uniform. These guys are on foot in costume
in the middle of the night crossing one of Saskatoon's many bridges. Not
exactly blending in. Drunks bored with little change of scenery while
crossing a bridge.
Of the two officers, one was on the job (& a big guy) less than two years, &
the other (a woman) was on her second day on the job. Make your own
inferences here I guess, as anything is just a guess.
This was the perfect storm for stupidity to occur, and it did.
sober) leaving a bar in '80's costumes from a friends birthday party....& one
of those guys was in a karate uniform. These guys are on foot in costume
in the middle of the night crossing one of Saskatoon's many bridges. Not
exactly blending in. Drunks bored with little change of scenery while
crossing a bridge.
Of the two officers, one was on the job (& a big guy) less than two years, &
the other (a woman) was on her second day on the job. Make your own
inferences here I guess, as anything is just a guess.
This was the perfect storm for stupidity to occur, and it did.