Stupid, Dumb and Just Plain Ignorant Cop Thread
- Thread starter Cannuck
- Start date
Just a few days ago my friend woke up at 3 am, showered, got dressed, ate breakfast, and headed out of town for a CBSA appeal hearing scheduled for 9am. She arrives at 8.40 am, speaks to her lawyer, they head to the hearing room, and learn that the Minister's counsel called in sick that very morning! It might take another month to be rescheduled.
She had been accused of working in Canada without a visa over a year ago. She'd won the admissibility hearing with the judge even rebuking the CBSA for all of its errors. The CBSA illegally delayed returning her passport for about a week. Then when she went to pick it up a third time, the officer said they refused to return it because they intended to appeal the ruling. Her husband explained it made no sense. She was allowed in Canada for only six months and had only a few months left to go before she'd have to legally leave Canada. To appeal it could keep her in Canada for up to a year longer. Even in the hypothetical scenario that the CBSA won, it could exclude her from Canada for only a year anyway.
The officer burst out in anger that she did not want my friend to leave Canada voluntarily. She wanted her to be forcefully removed even if it means keeping her in Canada longer!
Her husband emailed her lawyer, her lawyer faxed the CBSA warning of legal consequences for denying her passport, and the CBSA returned it two days later when she returned, saying they hadn't received the message of the ruling until then.
Her husband called BS on that. The judge had given him a copy of the signed ruling, he'd given that copy to the CBSA the next day, and the agent returned it to him refusing to accept it.
My friend had to return to Canada to attend the CBSA appeal hearing under threat of arrest if she should not show up, an appeal to decide whether she should be excluded from Canada for a year.
Again, she was legally obligated to buy a flight ticket back to Canada to obligatorily attend a CBSA appeal hearing to decide whether the CBSA should remove her from Canada. She had to come to Canada to have a judge determine whether to have her removed from Canada?!
And over a year later, case still not closed, the Minister's counsel calls in sick that morning and as a result my friend will probably be stuck in Canada for another month. She could go back but would still be legally obligated to return for the hearing to determine whether to have her removed.
Even her counsel thinks the appeal was vindictive, but she can't privé that.
What a stupid system to waste taxpayer dollars.
I can only imagine the cost of this to the taxpayer so far.
Bones, I'm curious. Does the US immigration system have laws as stupid as the above?
She had been accused of working in Canada without a visa over a year ago. She'd won the admissibility hearing with the judge even rebuking the CBSA for all of its errors. The CBSA illegally delayed returning her passport for about a week. Then when she went to pick it up a third time, the officer said they refused to return it because they intended to appeal the ruling. Her husband explained it made no sense. She was allowed in Canada for only six months and had only a few months left to go before she'd have to legally leave Canada. To appeal it could keep her in Canada for up to a year longer. Even in the hypothetical scenario that the CBSA won, it could exclude her from Canada for only a year anyway.
The officer burst out in anger that she did not want my friend to leave Canada voluntarily. She wanted her to be forcefully removed even if it means keeping her in Canada longer!
Her husband emailed her lawyer, her lawyer faxed the CBSA warning of legal consequences for denying her passport, and the CBSA returned it two days later when she returned, saying they hadn't received the message of the ruling until then.
Her husband called BS on that. The judge had given him a copy of the signed ruling, he'd given that copy to the CBSA the next day, and the agent returned it to him refusing to accept it.
My friend had to return to Canada to attend the CBSA appeal hearing under threat of arrest if she should not show up, an appeal to decide whether she should be excluded from Canada for a year.
Again, she was legally obligated to buy a flight ticket back to Canada to obligatorily attend a CBSA appeal hearing to decide whether the CBSA should remove her from Canada. She had to come to Canada to have a judge determine whether to have her removed from Canada?!
And over a year later, case still not closed, the Minister's counsel calls in sick that morning and as a result my friend will probably be stuck in Canada for another month. She could go back but would still be legally obligated to return for the hearing to determine whether to have her removed.
Even her counsel thinks the appeal was vindictive, but she can't privé that.
What a stupid system to waste taxpayer dollars.
I can only imagine the cost of this to the taxpayer so far.
Bones, I'm curious. Does the US immigration system have laws as stupid as the above?
Last edited:
We do. Worse, we have equally stupid, ill-trained, undisciplined people in the system that see their tiny little shred of authority as a way to impose their personal opinions on others.
You can't get good help any more.
You can't get good help any more.
No wonder taxes are so high and the court system is so backed up.
I can imagine a judge in some cases thinking in the back of his mind: why the hell is the Minister's counsel wasting my time appealing this when the officer never should have arrested the person in the first place?!
I take it the judge, supposed to be impartial, is denied that option and must still bear the pain of hearing the Minister's counsel out I suppose.
My friend actually gave me the transcript of the original hearing to read. It would have made for a comedy skit if it hadn't cost her so much in lawyer fees.
At the first hearing, the judge had decided to not even bother to listen to a witness in my friend's favour and her lawyer's final submission. The Minister's counsel presented her final submission and then the judge made his ruling.
I don't know how common it is for the judge to just skip the witnesses and a final submission and just jump to the ruling.
I am curious though Bones. Is it common for a judge to just skip all of the witnesses and the defendant's counsel's final submission and just jump to his ruling?
I imagine such a thing would be rare, but I could be wrong.
Yeah, don't worry about it. I was just pointing out to JLM that given the choice of a thoughtful post and a Trumpian bray of ignorance, we'd really prefer the former.
It's called "summary judgment," or in Canada "summary judgement." Technically, it means the court has heard enough evidence to conclude that one side or the other does not have any legal claim to make. Therefore, there's no point in hearing any more.
Typically, lawyers ask for summary judgment at three points: at the beginning of the trial or hearing, after the plaintiff has presented its case, and after the defendant has presented its case. You always ask (matter of professional duty), and 99.9% of the time it's denied. There is always that 0.01%, though, where the case, as here, is so stupid that it actually goes to summ. j., as we call it.
And of course, the judge can make a summary judgment whenever she chooses.
Interesting. In the hearing transcript, my friend's counsel never asked for it.
The judge commented that he might surprise some people, but he won't need to hear witnesses (the Minister's counsel had resisted the presentation of witnesses, both friendly and especially hostile, to the accused, at the beginning of the hearing), and that he was now ready to hear the Minister's counsel's submission.
After the Minister's counsel presented her final submission, the judge just commented that he might surprise some people again, but that he will not need to hear my friend's counsel's submission and that he was ready to render his judgement.
Since he's skipped witnesses before hearing the Minister's counsel's submission, I get the impression he was just being polite to hear her submission but his mind was already made up? If if mind hasn't already been made up, I imagine he would have heard the witness (who was a friendly witness, since the Minister's counsel had even denied access to the names of the arresting officers).
Even in the ruling, the judge commented that he had to decide between 'pieces of paper' written by officers whose names he doesn't even know and a live statements of an accused sitting in front of him.
Last edited:
If the judge had already determined he/she would rule in your friends favour then there was no need to waste more time on witnesses or lawyer's arguments. It is not uncommon or out of order for a judge to deliver a verdict for the defendant based solely upon the plaintiff's inability to prove their case. I believe in fact most US lawyers will ask for this ruling every time when the plaintiff rests. About all she could do at that point if she truly wanted her side heard was file a claim against CBSA and present her evidence as the plaintiff.
Oops...didn't read the entire thread. I see TB already said some of this.
That's what I find so strange. If the judge skipped witnesses and my friend's lawyer's final submission, that suggests that the CBSA's claims were flimsy indeed, so why would it even bother to waste tax dollars on an appeal?
Worse yet, the 'evidence' presented for the appeal hearing could even strengthen her case! Last time, they'd presented the text of an online ad as evidence. This time, they've included the pictures that had accompanied the ad of the supposed workers, not one of which is my friend!?
Even her lawyer couldn't figure out how that was supposed to help the CBSA's case!?
All her lawyer could guess was that this could create a bad precedent for the CBSA and so the CBSA appealed hoping against all hope, but even that was just her guess.
And that's your tax dollars at work for you protecting Canada's borders.
Last edited:
These guys don't seem to grasp the fact they are wasting their own tax dollars too.
Interesting fact for this thread...I have a good friend (known him since Jr High) who works as a trainer fro CBSA and other agencies including RCMP. He teaches hand-to-hand and small arms. They are taught to ignore the subject and not engage in any conversation unless they are 100% sure they have total control of the situation.
He might be a good trainer. But the trainers in evidence collection and corroboration, I don't know if it's that they don't teach well or the trainees don't pay attention in class.
The local police arrested her, so it should have collected evidence for or against her.
The CBSA then accepted her into its custody. The officer who accepted her into her custody should have verified that the police officers had collected evidence to corroborate any claim they made.
The shocking part is that the local police claimed it was a human trafficking investigation, yet they did not even bother to collect the most basic of evidence to have at least an inkling of an idea of who was doing what?!
In fact, the first week after my friend's arrest, she couldn't understand why she was arrested but felt reassured that the evidence would clear her. She was devastated when she's learnt the police had collected not ashread of evidence. She was then shocked to learn that she had been arrested in the course of a claimed human trafficking investigation.
She couldn't believe that the police had collected no witness statement, no video, audio, any physical evidence, nothing. For a human trafficking investigation. She was just visiting a acquaintance, and it appears the acquaintance was working in Canada without a visa.
However, my friend and her husband starting thinking. The police had accused her of working in Canada without a visa, but how did it know that she wasn't a human trafficker herself, or a victim of human trafficking, or a money launderer, or a witness to a crime, or something else? Not that she was guilty of any of this, but just that based on the available evidence (i.e. nothing), any of these could have been possible.
She's even provided her husband's name and phone number. That should have made him at least a person of interest. The CBSA officer never called him to have him either confirm or refute her claims or even just to prevent them from colluding to fabricate a common story at a later date had they been partners in crime for example.
Worse yet, the interview officer recorded the interview by hand and claimed my friend could not answer the questions.
At her bond hearing, she's answered them all!
None of us could believe that that shoddy piece of work was what the local police called a human trafficking investigation.
To be clear, I believe in her innocence, just playing devil's advocate here.
No wonder the judge ruled in her favour.
She was also able to prove some of the police statements to have been false!
Ex-officer accused of sexually assaulting woman on way to jail
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
First posted: Thursday, September 08, 2016 12:04 PM EDT | Updated: Thursday, September 08, 2016 12:07 PM EDT
RIVERDALE, Ga. — An Atlanta area police officer has been fired after being accused of sexually assaulting a woman he was taking to jail.
News outlets report that officials with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation said Wednesday that Riverdale officer James Larry Robinson Jr. was arrested Tuesday and charged with sexual assault against a person in custody and rape.
Authorities began investigating the allegations after the victim said the incident happened last month as she was being taken from Riverdale Police Department to the Clayton County jail.
The woman said Robinson pulled over to an empty building and sexual assaulted her instead of taking her straight to the jail.
He was fired from the police force Tuesday. It’s unclear if he has an attorney. The investigation is ongoing.
Ex-officer accused of sexually assaulting woman on way to jail | World | News |
Teen sues off-duty cop who allegedly threw her to the ground and shocked her with a stun gun
Martha Bellisle, The Associated Press
First posted: Thursday, September 08, 2016 01:45 PM EDT | Updated: Thursday, September 08, 2016 02:13 PM EDT
SEATTLE — A teenager rode her bicycle through a mall parking lot when an off-duty officer working for a private security company pulled her down, threw her to the ground and shocked her with a stun gun.
Caught on surveillance video, the 2014 encounter with the girl, who is black, drew outrage. She initially was charged with assaulting an officer before the case was dropped. Now, she’s targeting his Washington state police department in a newly expanded lawsuit.
It claims the Tacoma department’s policies lead officers to attack residents, including minors such Monique Tillman, then 15, and violate their civil rights. Police supervisors routinely approve “abusive, excessive and unnecessary uses of force” and retain abusive officers, according to the expanded suit filed last week.
The original claim targeted Officer Jared Williams, who is white; the mall’s owner; and the security company. It grew to include the department after it acknowledged that the officer acted within the scope of his police duties despite being paid by a private employer, said Tillman’s lawyer, Vito de la Cruz.
The lawsuit has not affected the department’s policy of allowing officers to work for outside companies, a police spokeswoman said Tuesday. Off-duty officers wear their uniforms on those jobs and are officially police while they work private security or an event, she said.
Police agencies across the country have different policies for off-duty work, experts say.
Editor's note: The following video contains graphic content.
The suit comes as law enforcement agencies nationwide are under fire for their treatment of minorities and as officers face increasing threats. Police shootings have sparked protests, recently from 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, and retaliation from a man who killed five Dallas officers in a July sniper attack.
In the Washington case, the girl’s attorney said they believe the officer’s actions were racially motivated that she now fears law enforcement. Tillman declined an interview Wednesday, de la Cruz said.
Officer Williams still works for the department, but it does not comment on pending litigation, said Officer Loretta Cool, a spokeswoman. The Associated Press’ attempts to reach Williams were unsuccessful.
Tillman, then a 10th-grader, and her brother, Eric Branch, 16, were heading home from a fast food restaurant and cut across the Tacoma Mall parking lot on their bicycles on May 24, 2014.
Williams, who was working for mall security, pulled up behind them in his police cruiser with lights flashing and an air horn blasting. Another security officer pulled up.
Tillman asked Williams why they were being stopped, and he said they were “causing a disturbance” and trespassing, the complaint said. Police have since declined to clarify what that disturbance entailed.
As Williams took out a pad of paper, Tillman started to pedal away.
“Williams erupted and began brutalizing this 15-year-old girl,” the complaint said.
The video shows Williams grabbing the girl off the bike and pushing her against a car. He then grabbed her hair and threw her to the ground.
He used his stun gun on her, “sending painful electric shocks” through her body, the lawsuit says.
Tillman’s brother tried to help his sister, and Williams threatened him with the device, the complaint said. The other security officer grabbed or shoved the boy to the ground and handcuffed him. Both siblings were booked into a juvenile facility.
Tillman was charged with assaulting an officer, resisting arrest and obstruction, but the counts were later dismissed, her lawyer said.
Her lawsuit alleges that the department fails to train, investigate or discipline its officers who use force, so it’s become a common practice to the point that it’s encouraged.
Geoffrey Alpert, a professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina, said an officer’s decision to use force should depend on how much the suspect resists and whether the suspect is a threat.
Police departments should keep track of how officers assess those factors by looking at the number of complaints they receive, he said.
“He needs to explain what threat she posed to him to justify the use of force,” Alpert said. “The question becomes what are they doing to manage the use of force? If they’re doing nothing, it may appear they are encouraging excessive force.”
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and asks the court to order the department to limit the use of reasonable force and discipline officers who use excessive force.
A 2014 encounter between Monique Tillman, then 15, and an off-duty officer was caught on surveillance video. (YouTube screen grab)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgMaidFegy4
Teen sues off-duty cop who allegedly threw her to the ground and shocked her wit
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
First posted: Thursday, September 08, 2016 12:04 PM EDT | Updated: Thursday, September 08, 2016 12:07 PM EDT
RIVERDALE, Ga. — An Atlanta area police officer has been fired after being accused of sexually assaulting a woman he was taking to jail.
News outlets report that officials with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation said Wednesday that Riverdale officer James Larry Robinson Jr. was arrested Tuesday and charged with sexual assault against a person in custody and rape.
Authorities began investigating the allegations after the victim said the incident happened last month as she was being taken from Riverdale Police Department to the Clayton County jail.
The woman said Robinson pulled over to an empty building and sexual assaulted her instead of taking her straight to the jail.
He was fired from the police force Tuesday. It’s unclear if he has an attorney. The investigation is ongoing.
Ex-officer accused of sexually assaulting woman on way to jail | World | News |
Teen sues off-duty cop who allegedly threw her to the ground and shocked her with a stun gun
Martha Bellisle, The Associated Press
First posted: Thursday, September 08, 2016 01:45 PM EDT | Updated: Thursday, September 08, 2016 02:13 PM EDT
SEATTLE — A teenager rode her bicycle through a mall parking lot when an off-duty officer working for a private security company pulled her down, threw her to the ground and shocked her with a stun gun.
Caught on surveillance video, the 2014 encounter with the girl, who is black, drew outrage. She initially was charged with assaulting an officer before the case was dropped. Now, she’s targeting his Washington state police department in a newly expanded lawsuit.
It claims the Tacoma department’s policies lead officers to attack residents, including minors such Monique Tillman, then 15, and violate their civil rights. Police supervisors routinely approve “abusive, excessive and unnecessary uses of force” and retain abusive officers, according to the expanded suit filed last week.
The original claim targeted Officer Jared Williams, who is white; the mall’s owner; and the security company. It grew to include the department after it acknowledged that the officer acted within the scope of his police duties despite being paid by a private employer, said Tillman’s lawyer, Vito de la Cruz.
The lawsuit has not affected the department’s policy of allowing officers to work for outside companies, a police spokeswoman said Tuesday. Off-duty officers wear their uniforms on those jobs and are officially police while they work private security or an event, she said.
Police agencies across the country have different policies for off-duty work, experts say.
Editor's note: The following video contains graphic content.
The suit comes as law enforcement agencies nationwide are under fire for their treatment of minorities and as officers face increasing threats. Police shootings have sparked protests, recently from 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, and retaliation from a man who killed five Dallas officers in a July sniper attack.
In the Washington case, the girl’s attorney said they believe the officer’s actions were racially motivated that she now fears law enforcement. Tillman declined an interview Wednesday, de la Cruz said.
Officer Williams still works for the department, but it does not comment on pending litigation, said Officer Loretta Cool, a spokeswoman. The Associated Press’ attempts to reach Williams were unsuccessful.
Tillman, then a 10th-grader, and her brother, Eric Branch, 16, were heading home from a fast food restaurant and cut across the Tacoma Mall parking lot on their bicycles on May 24, 2014.
Williams, who was working for mall security, pulled up behind them in his police cruiser with lights flashing and an air horn blasting. Another security officer pulled up.
Tillman asked Williams why they were being stopped, and he said they were “causing a disturbance” and trespassing, the complaint said. Police have since declined to clarify what that disturbance entailed.
As Williams took out a pad of paper, Tillman started to pedal away.
“Williams erupted and began brutalizing this 15-year-old girl,” the complaint said.
The video shows Williams grabbing the girl off the bike and pushing her against a car. He then grabbed her hair and threw her to the ground.
He used his stun gun on her, “sending painful electric shocks” through her body, the lawsuit says.
Tillman’s brother tried to help his sister, and Williams threatened him with the device, the complaint said. The other security officer grabbed or shoved the boy to the ground and handcuffed him. Both siblings were booked into a juvenile facility.
Tillman was charged with assaulting an officer, resisting arrest and obstruction, but the counts were later dismissed, her lawyer said.
Her lawsuit alleges that the department fails to train, investigate or discipline its officers who use force, so it’s become a common practice to the point that it’s encouraged.
Geoffrey Alpert, a professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina, said an officer’s decision to use force should depend on how much the suspect resists and whether the suspect is a threat.
Police departments should keep track of how officers assess those factors by looking at the number of complaints they receive, he said.
“He needs to explain what threat she posed to him to justify the use of force,” Alpert said. “The question becomes what are they doing to manage the use of force? If they’re doing nothing, it may appear they are encouraging excessive force.”
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and asks the court to order the department to limit the use of reasonable force and discipline officers who use excessive force.
A 2014 encounter between Monique Tillman, then 15, and an off-duty officer was caught on surveillance video. (YouTube screen grab)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgMaidFegy4
Teen sues off-duty cop who allegedly threw her to the ground and shocked her wit
There would be no lawsuit if that was my teenage daughter. That pig would just disappear one day and they wouldn't ever find him. C^nts like that deserve a slow, painful death.
Surveillance video from a gas station shows a Florida cop fabricated a felony charge against a woman when he falsely accused her of battery on an officer.
In fact, the video shows Pinellas County sheriff’s deputy Wayne Wagner committed battery on Paige Taylor, a 26-year-old woman whom he grabs, throws to the ground, then piles on top of after ordering her out of her car.
The video also shows the officer exaggerating to another deputy about what had taken place to justify his aggressive arrest, claiming as he did in his report, that she had shoved him after stepping out of the car, which was not the case.
Taylor’s father is a federal law enforcement agent and she has no prior record. The St. Petersburg woman said she wants to see Wagner disciplined for taking her down to the ground and for what he wrote in the police report.
“He slammed me to the ground pretty bad and I actually went face first,” she said. “I really don’t want this to happen to anyone else. Especially, someone who’s innocent like myself.”
video
Exclusive: 'Battery on law enforcement officer' charge dropped after surveillance video surfaces
In fact, the video shows Pinellas County sheriff’s deputy Wayne Wagner committed battery on Paige Taylor, a 26-year-old woman whom he grabs, throws to the ground, then piles on top of after ordering her out of her car.
The video also shows the officer exaggerating to another deputy about what had taken place to justify his aggressive arrest, claiming as he did in his report, that she had shoved him after stepping out of the car, which was not the case.
Taylor’s father is a federal law enforcement agent and she has no prior record. The St. Petersburg woman said she wants to see Wagner disciplined for taking her down to the ground and for what he wrote in the police report.
“He slammed me to the ground pretty bad and I actually went face first,” she said. “I really don’t want this to happen to anyone else. Especially, someone who’s innocent like myself.”
video
Exclusive: 'Battery on law enforcement officer' charge dropped after surveillance video surfaces