CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
 Montreal Canadiens
Profile
Posts: 56
PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:56 pm
 


EyeBrock EyeBrock:
It might not seem fair to you but police receive a lot of unfounded complaints. Now we have the OIPRD who’s mandate is to also look at ‘third party complaints’ there will be even more spurious allegations made against officers, 99% of that are found to be groundless once investigated.

If police were suspended without pay for every allegation as you suggest it would be an unfair burden.
Police deal with conflict and not everybody is their friend. Believe it or not guilty people don’t like the police and the guilty will do anything to attack police credibility.
Dealing with unfounded allegations are a part of doing business.
These are all investigated by 3 levels of independent oversight. No other profession in Ontario has such oversight.

A little research into this may open your eyes a tad instead of leaping on the anti-cop bandwagon drummed up by an annoyed media.

I'm talking about cases where it's caught on video(Robert Davis) and causes a media sensation. I don't mean minor complaints and what have you.It should be up to a board or committee do assess everything on a individual basis.Desk restricted assignment or something.But not a paid holiday.


Last edited by BigBri on Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 2:02 pm
 


@Dayseed:

Wow - you want me to quote the whole inquiry for you? Go look it up yourself if you don't believe the media reports of it.

Ian Bush also showed injuries. One bruise on the inner thigh consistent with being kicked in the nuts, three wounds to the head consistent with being pistol whipped. Police themselves admitted during the inquiry that it would take a contortionist to do what Koester claimed he did. And apparently, fearing for his life, he first hit Bush three times in the head with his gun before discharging it.

While Paul Kennedy also exonerated Koester, here's some of what came out of that inquiry:

$1:
The 28-year-old Koester, who had been stationed in the small Interior town and on the job for barely five months, says Bush sucker-punched him while being booked in an interview room.

Koester, who stands 6-4 and weighs 180 pounds, insisted the six-foot, 187-pound laborer was atop his back choking the life out of him when he managed to free his gun.

In a physical feat even RCMP investigators conceded was worthy of a contortionist, the Constable got the gun behind his own back, up to the back of Bush's head and shot him.

He refused to reenact what happened for investigators and the coroner's inquest that was held earlier this year.

The Bush family believes it happened the other way around — with Koester atop Bush pistol-whipping him when his service pistol discharged.

They feel the RCMP investigation into the killing was little more than a coverup and that other agencies such as the coroner's office have shown no enthusiasm for truly trying to find out what happened.

They have raised numerous concerns with the police-work — for instance, it took investigators three months before detectives conducted a face-to-face interview with Koester and even then, they provided him with a copy of their questions in advance.

Linda Bush said the complaint commissioner sounded like an apologist for the RCMP.

Kennedy conceded Staff Sgt. Rod Holland, the senior Mountie on the scene, failed to make adequate notes and needed "appropriate operational guidance."

And he criticized Constable Darren Woroshelo, who was Koester's mentor, for talking with his protégé in private immediately after the shooting.

$1:
Kennedy said such conduct "is directly related to the issue of impartiality of the police investigating the police, an issue that is at the forefront of public concern." Woroshelo was directly involved in the decision to arrest Bush and take him to the station, Kennedy said, so he had "an obvious vested interest in the outcome....
"Regardless of actual impropriety, this type of situation invites dangerous speculation about whether or not Constable Woroshelo conspired with Constable Koester in regards to what occurred."



[url]http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=25e1f698-16e9-4fca-987b-fb7c7308c340&k=33215
[/url]

Cops investigating themselves is never a good thing. And contorting yourself to create a scenario that is much easier explained by another just stinks.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 50938
PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 2:04 pm
 


EyeBrock EyeBrock:
It might not seem fair to you but police receive a lot of unfounded complaints. Now we have the OIPRD who’s mandate is to also look at ‘third party complaints’ there will be even more spurious allegations made against officers, 99% of that are found to be groundless once investigated.

If police were suspended without pay for every allegation as you suggest it would be an unfair burden.
Police deal with conflict and not everybody is their friend. Believe it or not guilty people don’t like the police and the guilty will do anything to attack police credibility.
Dealing with unfounded allegations are a part of doing business.
These are all investigated by 3 levels of independent oversight. No other profession in Ontario has such oversight.

A little research into this may open your eyes a tad instead of leaping on the anti-cop bandwagon drummed up by an annoyed media.

Do cops have to pay it back when they are convicted?


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3196
PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:28 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Dayseed brought his A game to this topic. PDT_Armataz_01_37


Thanks. But all I did was read the actual final report from the Commission. I'm guessing neither Andy nor Hyperion did, ESPECIALLY since Andy's quoting from websites like mostlywater.org that live to chronicle police wrong-doing.

Currently, mostlywater is canvassing the public for anything that will allow them to file complaints against the Toronto cops in the G20. Agenda pushing at its finest.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3196
PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:40 pm
 


andyt andyt:
@Dayseed:

Wow - you want me to quote the whole inquiry for you? Go look it up yourself if you don't believe the media reports of it.


Straw man argument. I wanted you to back-up your claim that the cop declined to recreate the scenario for the inquiry, not quote the whole inquiry.

Oh, and I have read the Commission's report. That's why I'm kicking your ass.

$1:
Ian Bush also showed injuries. One bruise on the inner thigh consistent with being kicked in the nuts, three wounds to the head consistent with being pistol whipped. Police themselves admitted during the inquiry that it would take a contortionist to do what Koester claimed he did. And apparently, fearing for his life, he first hit Bush three times in the head with his gun before discharging it.


The police admitted that it would take a contortionist to do what Koester claimed happened at the inquiry? Because that doesn't appear in the report at all. And Ian Bush had injuries from a life-or-death struggle? Where are you going with that?

Here's a free biology tip: Your nuts aren't on your thighs. If you had some, you'd know where they were so you wouldn't make asinine statements like bruising on the leg being consistent with kicked in the nuts.

Oh, and here's your so-called contradictory blood spatter evidence (Note to Andy: This is FROM the actual inquiry report!)

$1:
Mr. Slemko utilized a photograph of Mr. Bush lying on the couch after he had been shot and superimposed a circle on the photograph above Mr. Bush's head meant to represent the approximate height of Mr. Bush's head if he were lying on top of Constable Koester (using Mr. Bush's body in the photograph as a reference point for where Constable Koester would have been when being choked by Mr. Bush). Mr. Slemko testified that the modified photograph was an "illustration of [his] observations" and not a "scientific fact."


Oh. So Mr. Slemko just drew on a photograph and made some guesses? And admitted it was an illustration and not scientific fact? I wonder why the Commission didn't believe his interpretation. What's even more curious is why you hold that up as evidence of a cover-up. Did you even read the damn report or did you just cruise anti-cop websites?

$1:
While Paul Kennedy also exonerated Koester, here's some of what came out of that inquiry:

The 28-year-old Koester, who had been stationed in the small Interior town and on the job for barely five months, says Bush sucker-punched him while being booked in an interview room.

Koester, who stands 6-4 and weighs 180 pounds, insisted the six-foot, 187-pound laborer was atop his back choking the life out of him when he managed to free his gun.

In a physical feat even RCMP investigators conceded was worthy of a contortionist, the Constable got the gun behind his own back, up to the back of Bush's head and shot him.

He refused to reenact what happened for investigators and the coroner's inquest that was held earlier this year.

The Bush family believes it happened the other way around — with Koester atop Bush pistol-whipping him when his service pistol discharged.

They feel the RCMP investigation into the killing was little more than a coverup and that other agencies such as the coroner's office have shown no enthusiasm for truly trying to find out what happened.

They have raised numerous concerns with the police-work — for instance, it took investigators three months before detectives conducted a face-to-face interview with Koester and even then, they provided him with a copy of their questions in advance.

Linda Bush said the complaint commissioner sounded like an apologist for the RCMP.

Kennedy conceded Staff Sgt. Rod Holland, the senior Mountie on the scene, failed to make adequate notes and needed "appropriate operational guidance."

And he criticized Constable Darren Woroshelo, who was Koester's mentor, for talking with his protégé in private immediately after the shooting.

$1:
Kennedy said such conduct "is directly related to the issue of impartiality of the police investigating the police, an issue that is at the forefront of public concern." Woroshelo was directly involved in the decision to arrest Bush and take him to the station, Kennedy said, so he had "an obvious vested interest in the outcome....
"Regardless of actual impropriety, this type of situation invites dangerous speculation about whether or not Constable Woroshelo conspired with Constable Koester in regards to what occurred."


[url]http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=25e1f698-16e9-4fca-987b-fb7c7308c340&k=33215
[/url]

Cops investigating themselves is never a good thing. And contorting yourself to create a scenario that is much easier explained by another just stinks.


I agree that cops investigating themselves doesn't have the appropriate optics and their vested interest in maintaining their good name can muddy people's acceptance of their conclusions.

But you've got a whole inquiry, which you haven't read, which shot down your whole cover-up theory. Actually, it mangled it.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:46 pm
 


Actual picture of Dayseed:

Image

Actual picture of the team arguing him in this thread:

Image

(Guys, take the hint and quit while you're behind.)


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3196
PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:57 pm
 


andyt andyt:
And contorting yourself to create a scenario that is much easier explained by another just stinks.


I wanted this point in a whole separate post so it didn't get lost when you edit your way out of your missteps:

What is the scenario that more easily explains the evidence?


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2218
PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 6:37 pm
 


$1:
Right off the hop, you've got a board of people who are given a mandate to investigate the police, yet, an immediate disqualification are those who are or were law enforcement. How is this board going to receive instruction on how to investigate? Who is going to teach them? Do you just suppose that investigating is an innate skill? How does one judge if a permanent board member is qualified?

This proves to be an ongoing problem in your solution, so we'll revisit it later in greater detail when it rears its ugly head.


First of all i laid out that citizens themselves and civil rights lawyers would be on this board. The reason i laid out that current or former law enforcement would not be allowed on this board is that history has shown that Police cannot be safely trusted ti investigate themselves. How would investigate the police, it maybe complicated for you. But we do have laws in place , and police are required to follow them, and they also have internal regulations within police forces. It's a matter of common sense and following the rule of law


$1:
You've opened a can of worms here. What is going to be included in your grab of police records are: National security files for which Top Secret clearance is required, confidential informant information will be disclosed unvetted (who gets sued for the breach of confidentiality? Is your board going to simply defy Supreme Court decisions governing this confidentiality like R v. Leipart? Interesting proposal...) not to mention all of the sexual assault files which would be disclosed to third-parties (Take that rape victims! Somebody is going to read your file willy-nilly and make with it what he will, so, come on forward with your complaints now!) plus any other information kept confidential, like the locations of battered women, witness names and if and where they've been relocated.


And what is the problem with getting a a security clearance? UIf peopel are willing to serve on this board then it is entirely reasonable that they can get this clearance. In the Navy , even Able Seaman are given a "Secret" security clearance. It's entirely reasonable and do-able to get clearances for these members

As for privacy i value it, which is why i specifically said that potential law enforcement candidates would sign waivers allowing this board access to their records, If candidates don't want to sign it, they can go work elsewhere.

These "Third Parties" would be part the police force and would these parties would be held to the same classifications as other forces. However the point is not to investigate police committing crimes
$1:
You also run smack-dab into the problem of ongoing investigations. Sensitive murder investigations in which the police have either hold-back information (which has just been disclosed en masse to this board) or large-scale drug investigations in which the police are patiently waiting on a deal to go down are exposed.

And what about on-going wiretaps? They're mandated in the Criminal Code NOT to be disclosed unless further ordered by a Judge! Shall we just break laws left, right and centre? I guess so.


It's only a problem if the police make it so, they should be more than happy to cooperate with the board in their own investigations. With the civilian board held to the same security clearances that information is perfectly safe.

If wiretaps are revealed they are revealed to a board which is already part of the police force , so no conflict is occuring



$1:
You're grossly misinformed about the nature and purpose of police notes. They're not a ledger of a cop's daily activities, but rather, notes personalized to refresh his memory at court or during his investigations. When you take the actual notebook from a cop, you've rendered that notebook practically inadmissible at each and every trial for which the cop would use it. Judges routinely ask cops "Have there been any alterations, changes or additions since you made these notes?" as part of qualifying the notes. Thanks to you and your board, the cop must say "Nope. They were taken out of my possession and handled by I don't know how many people. I can't say that there were any alterations, changes or additions."



As i said the notes, information, tapes would be open to call by this board. The board as i have said is already part of said police force so the chain is not broken

$1:
Let's not forget all of the above problems from seizing all police records too. That same data is held in a police notebook. Congrats, you've made yourself doubly liable for each transgression.


It's not siezing 'all' records as you falsely allege but this board would have access to these materials without notie and without delay, to prevent police from altering such records in the case of a police member being investigated


$1:
And now your board operates in complete disdain for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and general Canadian jurisprudence. Gone is a cop's right to remain silent as covered in S.11(.c.) of the Charter. Also, your wording presumes guilt which flies in the face of innocent until proven guilty. Is the complaint ever examined to determine its validity? You’ve stacked the deck such that any Tom, Dick and Harry can walk in off the street, file a complaint and jam up the cops with immediate trials. Hope the Hell’s Angels and other gangs don’t find out they can do this!


Actually in terms of employment any employer can fire an employee for lack of performance. It's called termination with grounds


$1:
Well, now you’re just exposing complete ignorance about protecting civil rights. Notwithstanding Paul Martin’s grandstanding with the same-sex marriage law, the Charter of Rights doesn’t protect ideas, it protects people. In other words, somebody has to be affected by the law to have standing to protest that it offended their Charter rights. Simply put, you cannot send laws in Canada to have their validity determined (aside from Martin for which the Supreme Court should not have granted certiorari) prior to their enactment because the Constitution is not set up to deal with them that way. Plus, even if the Supreme Court disallows a law, the provinces or the federal government can politely tell them to pound sand and overrule them. I expect your examples would all offend portions of the Charter covered by S. 33.


So we should no be investigating corrupt police, or rather we should let the police investigate police? Because that's worked out so well



$1:
This is another place where your disqualification of police officers proves to be horribly problematic. Simply put, how does one determine the validity of the “any other means” to resolve a situation? You’ve gone and stripped a cop of any sort of context, experience, perception and legal defence because some untrained unaccountable armchair quarterback can imagine something nicer and the cop gets suspended without pay!



Imagine this scenario: A perfectly fine cop is having a tough time getting a drunk into a car, so he puts his knee on the drunk’s back and shoves him in. Your board decides that perhaps if the cop had simply asked for co-operation just one more time the drunk would have capitulated and gotten into the car. Now, no examination is done to find out if the cop’s actions, given the above noted circumstances, were justified is done because there is unexamined conjecture, so he’s suspended without pay pending a trial.



Circumstances play a colossally important role in determining the justification of a cop’s actions. Eyebrock can certainly tell you that his experiences in policing around Toronto are going to be so different from an OPP up in Pickle Lake that the two may as well be working different jobs. However, your board, which consists of anything BUT police officers, is going to vitiate the need for examination of circumstance how?


Context? what context was there in the Starlight Rides made by cops?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatoon_freezing_deaths

$1:

Once again, this just shits all over the Charter of Rights. If a cop charged with a crime exercises his constitutional right to silence, he’s fired. He’s deprived of an operating mind and compelled to be a witness against himself. How noble of your proposal.



As i laid out before an employer can terminate an employee for grounds, i dont see any difference.




$1:
There are two massive, massive problems with this. What happens if a spouse refuses to allow her bank statements to be read by the board? What happens to the cop? Is he fired? How is this within his realm of control? Do you expect spouses to be obedient to waivers signed by others? What happens if the board reads the spouse’s bank accounts and finds a suspicious transaction? Can they compel the spouse to testify against the cop even though this violates the Canada Evidence Act?

What about the children of cops? If a cop’s son has a series of cash deposits in his bank account but refuses to co-operate and explain their origin, what happens to the cop?

The other massive problem is that the banks are given no recourse. Under current legislation, banks are compelled to obey production orders because they are issued by Justices specific to a criminal inquiry. Your proposal has no criminal inquiry, it merely catalogues cop’s (and their family’s) banking activities for unspecified purposes. How nice for the banks to have to do this. How are they compensated for this? Do they have recourse if the burden imposed on them is unreasonable? What if they refuse to co-operate?



No one is forcing them to cooperate, but if someone wants to join the police force then not only they, but their families would have to have to accede. Or said recruit can go train for something else


$1:
This comes back to the punitive ignorance which forms the spirit of your post. It comes down to a thinly veiled anti-cop screed without thought for the consequences of your proposals provided they just bust up cop’s jobs.



I don't think it's punitive, it means that cops would be held to a standard that they themselves hold other people to if not higher. If one is going be a police officer presumably they actually believe in what their doing as a career, If they don't, we don't need them

$1:
Who do you expect is actually going to do the job under the circumstances you’ve proposed, given all of the other routine hell a cop catches each day such as potential for getting shot, stabbed, spit on and abused? Either you’re going to have to jack the salaries up to around $200,000 for a front-line officer to compensate for your ill-thought draconian measures, or you’re going to get the retards willing to put up with such a witch-hunt.


As i said before no one drafted them.If they don't like the job , the get out. just because their chosen profession is hard does not mean they are above the law Seriously. For far too long cops have come up with all sorts of reasons why "They cant do this , and they cant do that". If cops really believe in law ans order, really believe in justice and really believe in protecting the public then they should be more than happy to serve the public.

But if is really only about a paycheck then again, GTFO. We don't need cops who are simply marking time till retirement, we need people who actually believe in serving the public and take that seriously

$1:
At some point, you’re going to have to trust the cops to do their jobs with honour. Trying to manufacture a system where cops operate in the absence of trust just blew up in your face.


Actually no it didn't and considering the number of investigation that have happened to police forces in Canada, blind trust is not the answer.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15681
PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 6:39 pm
 


Wow and yawn.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 12398
PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:03 pm
 


EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Wow and yawn.



zzzz Did something say someone zzzzz :wink:

That was looong pooooost to say "I hate cops"


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
 Montreal Canadiens
Profile
Posts: 56
PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:41 pm
 


I don't hate the police but I have no problem admitting I'm envious of being able to be suspended with pay by screwing up or an act of malice or whatever.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15681
PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:46 pm
 


Well, look at the reasons it is that way. I posted and discussed them on previous pages.

It's our Legislature's decision. For solid reasons.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15102
PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:52 pm
 


BigBri BigBri:
I don't hate the police but I have no problem admitting I'm envious of being able to be suspended with pay by screwing up or an act of malice or whatever.

Imagine your anger if your boss suspended you before you were convicted of any crime. Imagine the lawsuit you could file if you were innocent.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3196
PostPosted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:45 pm
 


$1:
First of all i laid out that citizens themselves and civil rights lawyers would
be on this board.


Hyperion, am I going to be dealing with a selective memory? Here’s your original proposal for the make up of the board:

$1:
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


Did I miss the inclusion of citizens in your description? Because you didn’t mention them.

$1:
The reason i laid out that current or former law enforcement
would not be allowed on this board is that history has shown that Police cannot
be safely trusted ti investigate themselves. How would investigate the police,
it maybe complicated for you. But we do have laws in place , and police are
required to follow them, and they also have internal regulations within police
forces. It's a matter of common sense and following the rule of law


And with a wave of your hand you try to dismiss criticisms of your board. While you give a superficial nod to the difficulty of investigating the police, or rather just conducting thorough investigations in general, with “it maybe complicated for you”, you fail to address qualifications for these citizens recently included on the board, what training they would receive and who would supply it, what instructions they would receive in exercising their mandate and who oversees them?

It’s interesting that you say “we do have laws in place and police are required to follow them” because you make a complete mockery of that later on.


$1:
And what is the problem with getting a a security clearance? UIf peopel are
willing to serve on this board then it is entirely reasonable that they can get
this clearance. In the Navy , even Able Seaman are given a "Secret" security
clearance. It's entirely reasonable and do-able to get clearances for these
members


Getting a security clearance would enable one to be able to view Top Secret files I agree, but how do you know that foreign governments entrusting Canada with intelligence secrets are going to be dandy with it? Have you contrasted your proposed plan of Top Secret cleared citizens being given sensitive state secrets with any sort of intelligence sharing protocols between Canada, whether governed by a treaty or not?

I also directed your attention to confidential informants and the Supreme Court decision in R v. Leipart not as an exercise in name-dropping, but rather as a cogent point.

Which you missed.

Had you read the decision, you’d know that the police cannot waive confidential informant privilege and hand out names and information to citizens. It remains the privilege of the Crown and the informant. This has nothing to do with security clearances, this has to do with Supreme Court decisions. I asked you who would be responsible for the breach of confidentiality and named in the lawsuit? Would it be you personally?

$1:
As for privacy i value it, which is why i specifically said that potential law
enforcement candidates would sign waivers allowing this board access to their
records, If candidates don't want to sign it, they can go work elsewhere.


You pay lip service to the idea of valuing privacy, but your proposal shows nothing but contempt for privacy. By disclosing rape files, assault files, incest files and anything else degrading to the victim, you’re doing nothing to protect their privacy, but rather, you’re wantonly victimizing them again by handing out their files to citizens with no qualifications or reason to read them.

$1:
These "Third Parties" would be part the police force and would these parties
would be held to the same classifications as other forces. However the point is
not to investigate police committing crimes


Alright, I’ll admit it, your tortured grammar here has made your point incomprehensible. These citizens are now part of the police force? Then they’re no longer citizens! Your proposal hinged on eliminating law enforcement from investigating themselves, but now the board has mysteriously merged itself into the police force so you just triggered the destruction of your proposal! Also, you’re going to have a hell of a time reconciling how investigating the police committing crimes with all of your proposals for complete financial disclosure.

$1:
It's only a problem if the police make it so, they should be more than happy to
cooperate with the board in their own investigations. With the civilian board
held to the same security clearances that information is perfectly safe.


Again, you wave your hands as if it will make your problems disappear. The point is not whether the police are co-operating with the board, but rather that you’ve gone and disclosed sensitive information, such as murder hold-back information, to citizens. Your proposal directly jeopardizes investigations.

$1:
If wiretaps are revealed they are revealed to a board which is already part of
the police force , so no conflict is occuring


Ah yes, now that the citizens board is actually the police board with no police but still part of the police operating closely enough to avoid conflict of interest or privacy breaches but with enough distance to maintain the appearance of propriety in investigating the police which is not the point. You’re not doing well Hyperion.

And wiretaps carry their own unique challenges. Because you’ve gone and exposed the board to all of the files, affidavits and records which comprise both the supporting materials and the fruits of the wiretap, you’ve happily made each and every citizen on the board a compellable witness to court! Any notes, comments or records they make regarding what they’ve read now become disclosable to defence; if they don’t comply, defence can make application for remedy for non-disclosure and these investigations are further jeopardized! Who needs to make a Garafoli application, just line up the citizens with no formal training to hack away at trial!

Nice plan!

Also, I haven’t even broached the topic of client-solicitor privilege which exists between the police and Crown. By creating standards in which that could be breached, you’re now jeopardizing the privilege itself. Take that jurisprudence for any accused!

$1:
As i said the notes, information, tapes would be open to call by this board. The
board as i have said is already part of said police force so the chain is not
broken


Who signs your pay-cheque is immaterial to the fact that the cop has not maintained control of his notebook from when he made his notes to when he testified using them to refresh his memory. So, it doesn’t matter if your citizen has mysteriously become a pseudo-cop, the cop is going to get crucified at the voire-dire regarding the custody of his notes. In other words, you haven’t fixed this problem with your pseudo-cop biffle-baffle.

$1:
It's not siezing 'all' records as you falsely allege but this board would have
access to these materials without notie and without delay, to prevent police
from altering such records in the case of a police member being investigated


The point is that the same sensitive materials held in the records are held in the notebook. Cops take an awful burden of responsibility when using a notebook, what with the information recorded in it, but it bails their ass out in court. So, in seizing the notebook, you are seizing “all” of the records. Unless your pseudo-cop citizen board is going to rip pages out of the notebook. Good luck with that!

$1:
Actually in terms of employment any employer can fire an employee for lack of
performance. It's called termination with grounds.


How are you going to equate exercising one’s constitutional rights with a lack of performance? I’d love to see how you would parse THAT one! Also, you since you seem to be grossly unfamiliar with the Canadian Labour Code, you should know that an employer bears some responsibility to assist an employee in lack of performance before termination. Are you going to hold courses for cops on “Flushing your Constitutional Rights Down the Toilet: Hyperion’s Guide to Continued Employment”?

And remember how you typed this?

$1:
But we do have laws in place , and police are required to follow them


Well, the most fundamental law we have IS the constitution, but the police are now required NOT to follow it. You can’t suck and blow at the same time.

$1:
So we should no be investigating corrupt police, or rather we should let the
police investigate police? Because that's worked out so well


This is a complete non-sequitur. Your ignorance concerning the functioning of the Charter was in regards to pre-validating laws the cops are expected to enforce. Instead, you rhetorically appeal to police investigating police.

Your proposal failed miserably on this point and your attempted dodge has not gone un-noticed nor un-remarked upon.





$1:
Context? what context was there in the Starlight Rides made by cops?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatoon_freezing_deaths


Again, another non-sequitur when faced with the sobering reality that your proposal is untenable in actual practice. Your appeal to rhetoric doesn’t avoid the outright failures you proposed.

$1:
As i laid out before an employer can terminate an employee for grounds, i dont
see any difference.


The difference is quite important. I’m glad you’re finally acknowledging the limitations of your own legal knowledge. In this instance, you want to fire a police officer because he refused to be compelled to be a witness against himself. In other words, he exercised his constitutional right to silence, so he got fired for it. He didn’t refuse to do his job, because you can’t make constitutional waivers a mandatory term of employment.

I also drew your attention to how ignoble you were being. You purport to do this for a love of law and justice, but your efforts hinge on attacking the constitution. Why not have a waiver which makes S. 7 of the Charter inadmissable and you can lash the cop with a whip too?

$1:
No one is forcing them to cooperate, but if someone wants to join the police
force then not only they, but their families would have to have to accede. Or
said recruit can go train for something else


Yes, you are forcing them to co-operate under threat of termination of employment. Your proposal is borderline extortion as per S. 346 of the Criminal Code. Now not only is your board operating in disregard of the Charter, you’re now coming close to committing crimes in order to have any efficacy. I bet a crafty Crown could convince a Judge there is no reasonable justification for threatening a child to waive his S. 8 rights for banking records for his parent’s continued employment. Then your board would be going to jail for doing THEIR jobs.

This is a fantastic fucking plan you’ve created!

And, it didn’t go un-noticed nor un-remarked that you failed miserably to address how your proposal would work with compelling banks or other third party record-holders to disclose their records to the pseudo-cop police board of citizens. They do have the Privacy Act hanging over their heads, so you’ve made them liable. What happens if the banks simply refuse to disclose their records?

$1:
I don't think it's punitive, it means that cops would be held to a standard that
they themselves hold other people to if not higher. If one is going be a police
officer presumably they actually believe in what their doing as a career, If
they don't, we don't need them


I notice you didn’t comment on the ignorant part. But, it is punitive in that every measure in your proposal results in the automatic compulsion to waive Charter rights, become suspended without pay or fired. If a child doesn’t acquiesce to these demands, their parent is suspended or fired. How is that not punitive? Why is visiting suspicion on a child holding a cop to a higher standard?

$1:
As i said before no one drafted them.If they don't like the job , the get out.
just because their chosen profession is hard does not mean they are above the
law Seriously. For far too long cops have come up with all sorts of reasons why
"They cant do this , and they cant do that". If cops really believe in law ans
order, really believe in justice and really believe in protecting the public
then they should be more than happy to serve the public.


It’s not that they don’t like the job so they require a higher paycheque to motivate them to keep going, but how are you going to attract recruits, who have other options available to them in other fields of employment, when it’s a mandatory requirement they waive their constitutional rights in addition to their family’s, they can be suspended without pay at the drop of a hat by an unqualified board that is mandated to second-guess him and use speculation to replace his circumstances? This is all in addition to shift-work, getting shot at, high-stress et cetera?

$1:
But if is really only about a paycheck then again, GTFO. We don't need cops who
are simply marking time till retirement, we need people who actually believe in
serving the public and take that seriously


You fail to properly understand human nature. Once can make the same argument for paying doctors $50 a year. Afterall, they get the prestige of being a doctor, helping humanity and saving lives. What? They want more compensation for the high stress and high risk they place themselves in? Get the fuck out you money-grubbing dick! We’ll get our doctors elsewhere! Oh wait, the recruit lines are pretty thin...

$1:
Actually no it didn't and considering the number of investigation that have
happened to police forces in Canada, blind trust is not the answer.


Oh, it blew up in your face. You were forced to make rhetorical non-sequiturs when you were factually stumped by your own unworkable proposal. You took a citizen’s board and made them quasi-police to try and shore up leaks in your plan without regard to what that would actually mean. You actively threw the constitution in the toilet alongside privacy and you mandated a board to expose themselves to criminal convictions. And you make a final straw-man argument by saying blind-trust is not the answer.

That’s a kaboom buddy.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15681
PostPosted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:51 pm
 


Dayseed said:

$1:
It’s not that they don’t like the job so they require a higher paycheque to motivate them to keep going, but how are you going to attract recruits, who have other options available to them in other fields of employment, when it’s a mandatory requirement they waive their constitutional rights in addition to their family’s, they can be suspended without pay at the drop of a hat by an unqualified board that is mandated to second-guess him and use speculation to replace his circumstances? This is all in addition to shift-work, getting shot at, high-stress et cetera?



Oh it sounds like so much fun! Where do I sign up?


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.