[RUEZ]

andyt andyt:

It just goes on and on.

All this proves is that police forces in Canada recruit their officers from the population of Canada, and we all know humans are far from perfect.

[EyeBrock]

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

The problem with law enforcement, is of course that it is overseen by law enforcement and the 'thin blue whatever' protect their own even when they know the have criminal cops on the force.

Police need a permanent, non-law enforcement related people who have oversight to keep them in check. Which means no ex-cops, no ex-crown prosecutors, preferably civil rights lawyers

You mean like the OIPRD and the SIU?

The Director of the OIPRD is a former human rights lawyer. Already in place. Try researching these points before posting.

[ShepherdsDog]

They don't like to muddy their opinions with facts.

[Yogi]

Just the fact that a man is alleged to have murdered his wife is tragic, regardless of his employment. I'm with EB on this. '4 out of 100,000'. That's quite the 'blanket statement andy!

[andyt]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

What's your problem with the cops?

My problem with cops is when they get out of control, and that there's a whole machine to back them up. This actual case doesn't really mean much, since it was done off duty and he has been arrested. Guess it just gave me an excuse to rant.

But the Ian Bush case just drives me up the wall. As does the St Arnaud shooting. And all the bullshit that came out with Dziekanski - deciding not to charge the officers, the bullshit put out by RCMP pr people - outright lies, the chance given the officers to collude on their statements, etc. That kind of thing is truly dangerous, because it points to a systemic problem of cover-up, and you can sing yourself to sleep with the 4 out of 100,000 song, but it doesn't wash.

[jeff744]

andyt andyt:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

What's your problem with the cops?

My problem with cops is when they get out of control, and that there's a whole machine to back them up. This actual case doesn't really mean much, since it was done off duty and he has been arrested. Guess it just gave me an excuse to rant.

But the Ian Bush case just drives me up the wall. As does the St Arnaud shooting. And all the bullshit that came out with Dziekanski - deciding not to charge the officers, the bullshit put out by RCMP pr people - outright lies, the chance given the officers to collude on their statements, etc. That kind of thing is truly dangerous, because it points to a systemic problem of cover-up, and you can sing yourself to sleep with the 4 out of 100,000 song, but it doesn't wash.

I hope you also hate the rich, celebrities, and politicians since they are able to do far more than the police could ever dream of and walk away with little more than a slap on the wrist. Many police are very good at their job and if they did cover for one of their own it would be for small events that occurred when nobody was hurt, I am pretty sure covering for your coworkers is something that anyone who has had a job has done before.

No matter what the police do you will be unhappy, they could arrest a guy for robing a store and you would find something that the police did wrong, not all police are as rotten as the 4/100,000. The Violent crime rate of Canada is almost 250X higher than the RCMP, how are they the rotten ones?

[Dragom]

A lot of cops are jerks, but most don't have dead wives lying around their homes.

[HyperionTheEvil]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

The problem with law enforcement, is of course that it is overseen by law enforcement and the 'thin blue whatever' protect their own even when they know the have criminal cops on the force.

Police need a permanent, non-law enforcement related people who have oversight to keep them in check. Which means no ex-cops, no ex-crown prosecutors, preferably civil rights lawyers

You mean like the OIPRD and the SIU?

The Director of the OIPRD is a former human rights lawyer. Already in place. Try researching these points before posting.

I mean current civil rights lawyers and the proposed group would not be 'reactive' but proactive, it would permanently be watching members of law enforcement and investigating any civilian complaints, including but not limited to racism, corruption and brutality .It would be asking question and those question would have to be answered, not in a day, not in week, but immediately This board would be permanent, powerful and separate from police forces, their role would not be to consult police but rather and investigative body that would deal with police wrong doing and complaints by citizens. As i said other current or former law enforcement individuals would be excluded from this particular group.

The police force, its records (all of them ) would be transparent to this particular board, the records, audio and video tapes, files, police notes. This data could be called without notice, which means if officer "X" finished his/her shift and was notified that his/her notes are required that they would have to produce them immediately, that is before even they think about changing clothes their note books would be gathered, sealed and delivered to this board. This and any other information as to conduct would be required to be produced without delay. Should there be a delay that the persons who originally created the record and or maintains them would be suspended immediately (that is that very day) without pay until the information is provided.

It would also have the right to suspend any member who refused to cooperate with the board in it's investigation. Members of law enforcement would be required - that is required to testify - if a complaint is registered and they would have to justify their actions to this civilian board.

In terms of controversial laws , such as the mythical "5 meter law" that was announced during the G-20 the police force would be required to not only have legislation passed, by a legislature, that legislation would also have yo withstand a constitutional legal test test prior to it's being enforced, to ensure that civil rights are protected beforehand.

For police brutality cases or corruption, the police would be held to a higher standard of the law. In cases of brutality specifically , presumably law enforcement would do what it usually does and say it was' "necessary force" it would be investigated to see that if any - that is any - other means to resolve the situation, if the board decides that the violence used was outside of other option the case would be forwarded only then to crown prosecutors for prosecution, in either case the officer in question would be suspended without pay.


for officers that commit "ordinary" such as speeding,drunk driving, etc etc. This board again would interview such officer and determine if that officer is fit to wear the uniform. If the officer in question is unable or unwilling to explain themselves then their employment would be terminated. For corruption cases anyone who willingly enters into law enforcement would sign a waiver to allow said board to have full , complete and real time access to their financial records at all times. This includes bank statements, investments, business dealings, loans, plus complete and total access their spouses accounts and immediate families.


In essence the point of all this is destroy the 'thin blue line' and to give a powerful reminder of who the police work for, citizens. If you don't like the job then get the hell out, no one drafted you. And the work that police officers are supposed to be doing is protecting society and upholding the laws of the land. If they think that they have somehow become 'special', to one extent they are, they should be held to a much much higher standard that your average citizen.

[HyperionTheEvil]

andyt andyt:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

What's your problem with the cops?

My problem with cops is when they get out of control, and that there's a whole machine to back them up. This actual case doesn't really mean much, since it was done off duty and he has been arrested. Guess it just gave me an excuse to rant.

But the Ian Bush case just drives me up the wall. As does the St Arnaud shooting. And all the bullshit that came out with Dziekanski - deciding not to charge the officers, the bullshit put out by RCMP pr people - outright lies, the chance given the officers to collude on their statements, etc. That kind of thing is truly dangerous, because it points to a systemic problem of cover-up, and you can sing yourself to sleep with the 4 out of 100,000 song, but it doesn't wash.

I don't care if it's 'off duty', he was still a cop. Cops say all the that they're 'never off duty'. It's about time that they were held to a higher standard. Supposedly they're professionals, well it's time to expect more from them.

[EyeBrock]

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

The problem with law enforcement, is of course that it is overseen by law enforcement and the 'thin blue whatever' protect their own even when they know the have criminal cops on the force.

Police need a permanent, non-law enforcement related people who have oversight to keep them in check. Which means no ex-cops, no ex-crown prosecutors, preferably civil rights lawyers

You mean like the OIPRD and the SIU?

The Director of the OIPRD is a former human rights lawyer. Already in place. Try researching these points before posting.

I mean current civil rights lawyers and the proposed group would not be 'reactive' but proactive, it would permanently be watching members of law enforcement and investigating any civilian complaints, including but not limited to racism, corruption and brutality .It would be asking question and those question would have to be answered, not in a day, not in week, but immediately This board would be permanent, powerful and separate from police forces, their role would not be to consult police but rather and investigative body that would deal with police wrong doing and complaints by citizens. As i said other current or former law enforcement individuals would be excluded from this particular group.

The police force, its records (all of them ) would be transparent to this particular board, the records, audio and video tapes, files, police notes. This data could be called without notice, which means if officer "X" finished his/her shift and was notified that his/her notes are required that they would have to produce them immediately, that is before even they think about changing clothes their note books would be gathered, sealed and delivered to this board. This and any other information as to conduct would be required to be produced without delay. Should there be a delay that the persons who originally created the record and or maintains them would be suspended immediately (that is that very day) without pay until the information is provided.

It would also have the right to suspend any member who refused to cooperate with the board in it's investigation. Members of law enforcement would be required - that is required to testify - if a complaint is registered and they would have to justify their actions to this civilian board.

In terms of controversial laws , such as the mythical "5 meter law" that was announced during the G-20 the police force would be required to not only have legislation passed, by a legislature, that legislation would also have yo withstand a constitutional legal test test prior to it's being enforced, to ensure that civil rights are protected beforehand.

For police brutality cases or corruption, the police would be held to a higher standard of the law. In cases of brutality specifically , presumably law enforcement would do what it usually does and say it was' "necessary force" it would be investigated to see that if any - that is any - other means to resolve the situation, if the board decides that the violence used was outside of other option the case would be forwarded only then to crown prosecutors for prosecution, in either case the officer in question would be suspended without pay.


for officers that commit "ordinary" such as speeding,drunk driving, etc etc. This board again would interview such officer and determine if that officer is fit to wear the uniform. If the officer in question is unable or unwilling to explain themselves then their employment would be terminated. For corruption cases anyone who willingly enters into law enforcement would sign a waiver to allow said board to have full , complete and real time access to their financial records at all times. This includes bank statements, investments, business dealings, loans, plus complete and total access their spouses accounts and immediate families.


In essence the point of all this is destroy the 'thin blue line' and to give a powerful reminder of who the police work for, citizens. If you don't like the job then get the hell out, no one drafted you. And the work that police officers are supposed to be doing is protecting society and upholding the laws of the land. If they think that they have somehow become 'special', to one extent they are, they should be held to a much much higher standard that your average citizen.

What are you going on about?

[jeff744]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

What are you going on about?

He basically wants to create a civilian equivalent of Internal Affiars and paralyze the RCMPs ability to protect people while still holding them up to an impossible standard.

[EyeBrock]

In Ontario we all ready have that and it's working fine. He just has no clue what he's talking about.

[andyt]

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

I don't care if it's 'off duty', he was still a cop. Cops say all the that they're 'never off duty'. It's about time that they were held to a higher standard. Supposedly they're professionals, well it's time to expect more from them.

If they commit an illegal act off duty, I want them held to the same standard as other citizens. Too often in sentencing they are given a lighter sentence - they should receive the same as anybody else. Same with judges, who also seem to get favorable treatment. Say the cops in Vancouver who beat up a newspaper deliverer and told him "we don't like brown guys" - why wasn't that prosecuted as a hate crime?

My main concern is what cops do while on duty, and the system that does everything it can to protect them. And then you read about cops who are up again on charges of assault etc, and cops who've killed somebody in very suspicious circumstances are still working.

[EyeBrock]

ok andy, show me when a cop has got a lighter sentence.

Also all cops in Canada are held accountable under various Police Acts where they get double-jeopardy, as in punished twice.

And who are these cops who killed somebody in suspicious circumstances and are still working? Please do show me.

Did your parents beat you as a kid with a Ken-doll dressed as a cop?

Such utter and unfounded tripe.

[andyt]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

ok andy, show me when a cop has got a lighter sentence.

Also all cops in Canada are held accountable under various Police Acts where they get double-jeopardy, as in punished twice.

And who are these cops who killed somebody in suspicious circumstances and are still working? Please do show me.

Did your parents beat you as a kid with a Ken-doll dressed as a cop?

Such utter and unfounded tripe.

You don't read the papers? Cops getting absolute discharges or non-custodial sentences for offenses that would normally call for a jail sentence.

Both the cops that shot Ian Brown and Kevin St Arnaud are still working. The St Arnaud killer in now in the news again for assaulting somebody off duty. The Dziekanski quartet is still working, and were not going to be charged until the Braidwood inquiry raised enough questions to re-evaluate that decision. The crown obviously swallowed the lies of RCMP flacks.