andyt andyt:
Are you saying him being dismissed for not providing a statement (part of his job description) is not constitutional?
Who was dismissed for not providing a statement?
$1:
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.
In your example, according to what was in the report you never read, that cop would have to provide a duty to account statement. Otherwise, what's your point? An investigation would be launched into the circumstances of the shooting. If you're advocating that the cop immediately be suspected of murder, then any statement you take from him, even a duty to account, needs to have all of the informed consent attached that would a normal civilian. If you suspect him of murder and take a duty to account statement, that statement was compelled and wouldn't be admissible at trial,
even if he confessed to shooting a man in cold blood for looking at him cock-eyed!A man's rights are triggered when the state questions him in a way likely to be met with an incriminating response. You suspect him of murder, you've triggered that.
$1:
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?
Why would they let him go? He's got the evidence of theft/robbery in his hands. They need only establish that he's got no right to the money and/or he took it with violence. Him answering questions is simply another avenue to adduce further evidence of guilt at trial.
Do you think that one has to agree with the cop's suspicions to make arrest legal? Holiest of shit!
$1:
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?
To start, "pulling in a suspect" sounds an awful lot like "arrested him". In Canada, that cop is going to have to have reasonable grounds on which to believe that a crime has been committed and this person has committed it.
What gave rise to those grounds and why wouldn't those grounds provide additional avenues to which to pursue the investigation? Were there witnesses? If they're credible enough, a charge can be laid on the basis of the witness' anticipated testimony.
You seem to be equating a suspect talking with viability of charges at court. The legal system in Canada is set up such that a suspect needn't ever say a word and the onus is on the police to prove their case
without compelling the accused as a witness.
$1:
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?
Firstly, you ought to go back and read this thread again more closely, although that's not a practice you usually avail yourself of. Had you read, you would have seen I advocated charging this cop with obstruction at worst or a whole raft of charges at best.
Secondly, go and show where I'm advocating leniency for the police as a practice. You can't do it. When you realize you've failed, I want you to admit it.
Thirdly, Eyebrock is advocating that you can't strip the man of the fruits of his past labours because you don't like ultimately what he did presently. He laboured in exchange for a wage. Had this cop worked at Rogers instead and did the exact same thing by divulging a production order to the bad guys, you wouldn't be advocating stripping his RRSP's, but you would want him charged so much the legal fees alone would drown him.
You're being punitive because he's a cop.
CKA Uber 
