[EyeBrock]

Utter crap Brenda.

He was paid by his local Police authority. Paid for work he did. The tax payer has no more right to take his pay off him than it does a firefighter, paramedic, teacher, doctor, soldier, MP etc. Are you saying anybody in public service has less rights than everybody else?

Have you ever heard of a doctor repaying his/her wages for doing his/her job before doing something that got them 'struck-off'?

This is becoming a lynch-mob mentality.

[Brenda]

Hey, it's not my opinion, I'm just explaining his point.

[EyeBrock]

Leave it to him eh?

[andyt]

Dayseed Dayseed:

andyt andyt:

Absolutely, you can't force a cop to incriminate himself anymore than any other citizen. But as Zipper pointed out to you, being dismissed from the force for not giving a statement is constitutional.

No he didn't. He said that there was no legal compulsion to provide a statement; not being dismissed for refusal to provide one. There's a biiiiiiig difference there.

Are you saying him being dismissed for not providing a statement (part of his job description) is not constitutional?

Dayseed Dayseed:

andyt andyt:

In fact it would seem to be just good workforce policy. The thing is, if the cop didn't do anything wrong, why would he be so reluctant to give a statement? Police should treat an officer as a suspect, just as they would with you or me, until their inquiries prove otherwise.

Are you talking about Koester again? He did provide a statement immediately after. According to the report you never read, his emotional state deteriorated after the shooting. Now, if you want to refute the doctors that testified as to that, feel free.

If you're talking in generalities, then you've got to have a reasonable
suspicion giving consideration to all the specific factors of your inquiry. You're advocating a blanket suspicion to question him; that's a violation of his S.9 rights.

I was talking about generalities. I'm advocating suspicion if the cop is found in suspicious circumstances. He should be treated like any other suspect, until/unless the investigation proves otherwise. Finding a dead body in the cop's custody, with the cops bullets in him would definitely qualify.

Dayseed Dayseed:

andyt andyt:

He can't be forced to testify against himself in court, and can't be questioned without a lawyer present, but don't try to tell me that the cops would not be very suspicious of a civilian suspect who won't answer their questions.

You can most certainly be questioned without a lawyer present. Your ignorance of Canadian law is showing. If a lawyer wants to be present during questioning, then the lawyer-client privilege is shattered during the questioning and the lawyer can become a compellable witness at trial.

As for basing suspicion on not answering questions, you'd have to find out why they won't answer. Is emotional devastation a good answer? Maybe not to you, but it is to me. Maybe they don't want to answer questions because they're attending the funeral of their spouse and you want to question them for murder.

Would you treat all supects that way? If a guy coming out of the bank with the loot say's "I'm just too emotionally devastated to answer questions right now," or, "Love to stay and chat, but I'm on my way to a funeral" would you agree with the cops letting him go?

Dayseed Dayseed:

If a cop were to base suspicion on a person exercising their constitutional rights to silence, a defence lawyer would have a fucking field day with that cop at trial.

So, all the time, in Canada, cops pull in a suspect, but he won't talk. Cop goes "Oh, well, I guess that's it, nothing more we can do?

I just don't understand why you and Brock want to defend bad cops so much? Brock calls what the Ottawa cop did a "screw up" you seem to advocating treating cops more leniently than civilians. Why?

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Utter crap Brenda.

He was paid by his local Police authority. Paid for work he did. The tax payer has no more right to take his pay off him than it does a firefighter, paramedic, teacher, doctor, soldier, MP etc. Are you saying anybody in public service has less rights than everybody else?

Have you ever heard of a doctor repaying his/her wages for doing his/her job before doing something that got them 'struck-off'?

This is becoming a lynch-mob mentality.

A lynch-mob mentality? Seems like an even split between opinions to me. If this was a civilian then the opinion would have been to string this guy up and take everything he has and give it to a victims advocacy group.

Do you oppose the CPC plan to revoke legally obtained pensions from criminals then?

[andyt]

I posted this once already:

$1:

Independent investigation of police incidents is overdue

The Ian Bush police shooting inquest not only put the RCMP under a cloud, it made the coroners service look like lapdogs.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=4593c357-5e9c-4bea-a7b4-63470f33d4fd&k=92020

$1:

I thought warning the jury last week to not consider the police investigation as part of the circumstances surrounding the death of the 22-year-old mill worker flew in the face of precedent.

Worse, it seemed like institutional cowardice -- one branch of government unwilling to poke too deeply into another's troubles.

$1:

The son of Whitecaps soccer player Derek Possee, Danny was playing with a pellet gun in his North Vancouver basement suite when someone opened his unlocked door. He turned to see who was there, the harmless rifle in his hands, and police shot him dead.

The Mountie investigation of that slaying, as in the Bush case, was an apparent whitewash intended to forestall criminal charges against the police officer.

As in the Bush case, the pathology and the forensic work were sloppy and police failed to reconstruct the crime scene to verify the officer's account. Similar to the Bush case, the police version of the killing did not match the forensic science.

Based on their account, the bullet that killed Possee should have been found somewhere in a "shoot line" into the living room, left of his body. Instead, it was found directly across from the doorway where police stood. The coroner found it after listening to the parents' suspicions and revisiting the scene.

An expert said it was impossible for Possee to have been pointing the pellet gun at the officers who suddenly appeared in his suite. Civilian witnesses also testified police gave no warning before shooting.

Sound familiar?

$1:

But at least during the Possee inquiry, the coroner allowed the police investigation to become part and parcel of what the jury considered as part of its job.

During that inquest, the family's lawyer Derek Corrigan (now mayor of Burnaby) raised so many concerns about that investigation the jury's key recommendation was:

That in the absence of an independent investigative agency, another police force be assigned to investigate serious incidents involving police.

That is precisely the kind of recommendation the Bush family desired last week at the end of the inquest into their son's death inside the Houston RCMP detachment.

They were robbed of that by coroner Shane DeMayer who insisted such criticism (as opposed to blame) was beyond the inquest jury's mandate. He saw a "fine line between facts brought forward by an investigation and facts about the investigation."

Da Vinci would never have split those hairs. And didn't.

Former Vancouver mayor, now-Senator Larry Campbell was the coroner in the Possee inquest.

[EyeBrock]

I believe in cops that commit offences should get charged with them. They shouldn't get less rights than any other accused person though, and that's what many of you with nil knowledge are advocating.
Everybody is guaranteed equal rights in law according to our constitution. I believe in that tenet of the Charter and I act upon it daily.

You are advocating a discriminatory approach to a particular profession that regularly draws the ire of leftists and those who break the law.

Even illegal immigrants get their Charter rights, are you saying cops don't rate the same treatment as illegal immigrants?

Your bias is showing again andy.

[EyeBrock]

DerbyX DerbyX:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Utter crap Brenda.

He was paid by his local Police authority. Paid for work he did. The tax payer has no more right to take his pay off him than it does a firefighter, paramedic, teacher, doctor, soldier, MP etc. Are you saying anybody in public service has less rights than everybody else?

Have you ever heard of a doctor repaying his/her wages for doing his/her job before doing something that got them 'struck-off'?

This is becoming a lynch-mob mentality.

A lynch-mob mentality? Seems like an even split between opinions to me. If this was a civilian then the opinion would have been to string this guy up and take everything he has and give it to a victims advocacy group.

Do you oppose the CPC plan to revoke legally obtained pensions from criminals then?

Do you derby? Or are you joining in with the cop-haters?

[Lemmy]

The government can't steal peoples' pensions. That's theft. If they want to fine them, fine, , but they have to pass the law and set the amount of financial punishment. They can't just steal peoples' savings arbitrarily.

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

DerbyX DerbyX:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Utter crap Brenda.

He was paid by his local Police authority. Paid for work he did. The tax payer has no more right to take his pay off him than it does a firefighter, paramedic, teacher, doctor, soldier, MP etc. Are you saying anybody in public service has less rights than everybody else?

Have you ever heard of a doctor repaying his/her wages for doing his/her job before doing something that got them 'struck-off'?

This is becoming a lynch-mob mentality.

A lynch-mob mentality? Seems like an even split between opinions to me. If this was a civilian then the opinion would have been to string this guy up and take everything he has and give it to a victims advocacy group.

Do you oppose the CPC plan to revoke legally obtained pensions from criminals then?

Do you derby? Or are you joining in with the cop-haters?

Don't start trolling. I simply said there was an even split between those wanting harsh vs non-harsh treatment. Oddly enough the people who want harsh treatment aren't asking for anything you haven't demanded for a non-cop/soldier criminal committing a similar offence. Just as you claim they are demanding harsher treatment because he was a cop you are demanding less harsh because he was a cop. The opposite argument.

Its certainly possible for people to lose their pension like say a dishonourable discharge but in those cases they are entitled to all the money paid into it which is fair.

I just wanted to see if you support criminals, even Clifford Olson types getting their legally protected CPP and OAP. As you say, fair is fair.

In the case of CPP/OAP there is no reason ever they should be denied. That doesn't mean victims can't garnish that income and the justice system recoup costs. In the cases of a private pension you pay into such as you describe for police then I can agree it can be taken away under certain conditions however the money they paid into it (plus interest) should be refunded.

Companies lay people off and do just this all the time. My parents neighbour was laid off 1 day before fully vesting in the pension and had a choice. 1/2 pension or money paid in refund.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

[All cops in Ontario have 12% deducted at source from their wages to their pension PA9.

I'm not defending this POS but you can't just lynch people anymore. He paid into it. If you take his pension you take every other convicted criminals pension.

No EB, he didn't pay into it..WE (or at least the ppl of Ottawa) paid into it FOR him. That 12% deducted for pension contributions came from the 100% of his salary the taxpayers pay.
You can say he was paid by the police services all you want but where do they get their money again??
Let's say I work for GM. If I commit a crime that doesn't affect GM in any way shape or form, why should I lose my pension? If however, I was caught stealing from them, and had been doing so for a while now, what would make me think I'm entitled to my full pension? At best, I should be lucky to get back the portion I contributed, providing of course I return all the stolen equipment and tools.

In this case, police are supposed to prevent or act in response TO crime, not be part of it or put other's lives at great risk over racial ties.
He directly interfered in a police operation he had ZERO part of, in an area he has NO jurisdcition in. He gets his pension for being a COP, not a fucking informant to gangsters.
This motherfucker needs to be investigated FULLY to see just how deep his ties to that group go.

[Lemmy]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

No EB, he didn't pay into it..WE (or at least the ppl of Ottawa) paid into it FOR him. That 12% deducted for pension contributions came from the 100% of his salary the taxpayers pay.
You can say he was paid by the police services all you want but where do they get their money again?? Let's say I work for GM. If I commit a crime that doesn't affect GM in any way shape or form, why should I lose my pension? If however, I was caught stealing from them, and had been doing so for a while now, what would make me think I'm entitled to my full pension? At best, I should be lucky to get back the portion I contributed, providing of course I return all the stolen equipment and tools.

No way! The Charter is very clear about "unusual punishment". You can't make up penalties against people. Victims don't get to make up the punishment. If I steal from GM, the Criminal Code tells me what my punishiment is, not GM. This isn't Hondruras or some other banana republic where the corporations dictate the law.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Fine Lemmy, so what's so unusual about not giving a TAXPAYER paid public servant their pension when their actions are totally against what the organization is all about. We are talking about public money here. And yer right, this isn't some banana republc were corporations make the laws, we are a free society were WE are SUPPOSED to have SOME say in the law making process. A banana republic also don't listen to it's ppl, are you saying Canada should do the same??

[EyeBrock]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

[All cops in Ontario have 12% deducted at source from their wages to their pension PA9.

I'm not defending this POS but you can't just lynch people anymore. He paid into it. If you take his pension you take every other convicted criminals pension.

No EB, he didn't pay into it..WE (or at least the ppl of Ottawa) paid into it FOR him. That 12% deducted for pension contributions came from the 100% of his salary the taxpayers pay.
You can say he was paid by the police services all you want but where do they get their money again??
Let's say I work for GM. If I commit a crime that doesn't affect GM in any way shape or form, why should I lose my pension? If however, I was caught stealing from them, and had been doing so for a while now, what would make me think I'm entitled to my full pension? At best, I should be lucky to get back the portion I contributed, providing of course I return all the stolen equipment and tools.

In this case, police are supposed to prevent or act in response TO crime, not be part of it or put other's lives at great risk over racial ties.
He directly interfered in a police operation he had ZERO part of, in an area he has NO jurisdcition in. He gets his pension for being a COP, not a fucking informant to gangsters.
This motherfucker needs to be investigated FULLY to see just how deep his ties to that group go.

That's just too silly a concept to believe PA9.

Are you saying EVERY public servant, company or person who EVER receives ANY pay from municipal, provincial or federal coffers is liable to have their pension, savings, or any other assets seized if they are found guilty of a criminal offence, any criminal offence?

Or just cops?

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

That's just too silly a concept to believe PA9.

Are you saying EVERY public servant, company or person who EVER receives ANY pay from municipal, provincial or federal coffers is liable to have their pension, savings, or any other assets seized if they are found guilty of a criminal offence, any criminal offence?

Or just cops?

Its not just that. If public sectors can lose their pensions then so to can private sector employees. The company just fires them for some made up dereliction of job excuse and voila.

CPP/OAP are sacrosanct. Paying into a pension out of your wages means they used your money to build up a fund. If you aren't entitled to benefit from that fund then your money should be returned regardless of circumstances.