[Dayseed]

andyt andyt:

Put your thinking cap on. Did you not read the part where the woman found guilty with driving drunk causing death could face a life sentence? Dangerous driving causing death has a lower penalty.

Alright, I see where you're going with that. I forgot the Conservatives amended the Criminal Code. It used to be Dangerous or Impaired driving causing death was indictable with a max of 14 years. Still, I doubt she'd get a life sentence, nor the cop. Life sentences are usually accorded with deliberately causing death.

$1:

How exactly do they have him on the death of the kid? All they have charged Robinson with is obstruction of justice.

http://www.thedrunkdrivingmasses.com/2009/12/mountie-escapes-impaired-driving-charge.html

I haven't read up on this case at all. You're the one in your post who said that they had knowledge of him killing the kid and fleeing home. I trusted you, although I don't know why I would have done that.

[digerdick]

Monty the killer Mountie knew That just about every cop has driven drunk at sometime ....Even the self righteous ....EyeBrock.... knows that...... It is common knowledge how to manipulate their fellow cops during the investigation.... The woman who was convicted of killing the young girl simply did not have the training to lie and the backing of system behind her to lessen her charges......

[andyt]

Dayseed Dayseed:

andyt andyt:

Put your thinking cap on. Did you not read the part where the woman found guilty with driving drunk causing death could face a life sentence? Dangerous driving causing death has a lower penalty.

Alright, I see where you're going with that. I forgot the Conservatives amended the Criminal Code. It used to be Dangerous or Impaired driving causing death was indictable with a max of 14 years. Still, I doubt she'd get a life sentence, nor the cop. Life sentences are usually accorded with deliberately causing death.

Besides the point. The point is that she was charged with serious offenses even tho the evidence of impairment was thin, in part because of the undercover operation. Same should apply to Robinson. Yes he'd be wiser to it, but they could try a different approach, and it's worth a try.

Dayseed Dayseed:

$1:

How exactly do they have him on the death of the kid? All they have charged Robinson with is obstruction of justice.

http://www.thedrunkdrivingmasses.com/2009/12/mountie-escapes-impaired-driving-charge.html

I haven't read up on this case at all. You're the one in your post who said that they had knowledge of him killing the kid and fleeing home. I trusted you, although I don't know why I would have done that.

And my lie is? He ran into the kid killing him. He then ran home, leaving the scene of the accident, and returned some time later. His claim was that he had drunk vodka at home to steady his nerves, rather than having consumed alcohol before the accident. Does this make sense, especially for a cop, to drink in the interval, knowing the suspicion would be that he had been drinking beforehand? If cops have to run home and drink every time they get into a stressful situation, we're in really big trouble.

My only hope is that the province reconsiders and charges him in the Dziekanski killing. Not because I think the cops should be necessarily charged for that, (if anybody it should be their superiors) but this slimy guy deserves all the grief he can get.

[Dayseed]

andyt andyt:

Besides the point. The point is that she was charged with serious offenses even tho the evidence of impairment was thin, in part because of the undercover operation. Same should apply to Robinson. Yes he'd be wiser to it, but they could try a different approach, and it's worth a try.

What different approach? Wiretapping him is out. Unless you think the RCMP could flip a pal of his and make him wear a wire, you're hooped.

$1:

And my lie is?

You posted that he ran into the kid killing him, twice now. I repeated that and then you challenged me on it saying they didn't. I never said you lied, but you certainly have left things confusing for somebody unread on the case.

$1:

He ran into the kid killing him. He then ran home, leaving the scene of the accident, and returned some time later. His claim was that he had drunk vodka at home to steady his nerves, rather than having consumed alcohol before the accident. Does this make sense, especially for a cop, to drink in the interval, knowing the suspicion would be that he had been drinking beforehand? If cops have to run home and drink every time they get into a stressful situation, we're in really big trouble.

My only hope is that the province reconsiders and charges him in the Dziekanski killing. Not because I think the cops should be necessarily charged for that, (if anybody it should be their superiors) but this slimy guy deserves all the grief he can get.

I don't know the details, but, much like the Bush case, you're assuming that those in stressful situations, such as running down a kid, are completely cognizant of all of the ramifications of their actions. Sitting down and weighing out the pros and cons of your actions when you don't have much time to genuflect on it will sink you regardless.

I don't know if this cop intentionally gamed the system, but if he did then yes, I agree he is deserving of a greater sentence because he used the knowledge he gained from exercising the public's trust to his own advantage.

However, his simply being a cop doesn't mean he should automatically be treated more harshly than his citizen counterpart charged with the same.

[andyt]

Dayseed Dayseed:

andyt andyt:

And my lie is?

You posted that he ran into the kid killing him, twice now. I repeated that and then you challenged me on it saying they didn't. I never said you lied, but you certainly have left things confusing for somebody unread on the case.

WTF????

Dayseed Dayseed:

I don't know the details, but, much like the Bush case, you're assuming that those in stressful situations, such as running down a kid, are completely cognizant of all of the ramifications of their actions. Sitting down and weighing out the pros and cons of your actions when you don't have much time to genuflect on it will sink you regardless.

I don't know if this cop intentionally gamed the system, but if he did then yes, I agree he is deserving of a greater sentence because he used the knowledge he gained from exercising the public's trust to his own advantage.

However, his simply being a cop doesn't mean he should automatically be treated more harshly than his citizen counterpart charged with the same.

Wow, you're willing to cut cops all kinds of slack, aren't you. Do you feel the same about civilians who drive drunk? I haven't called for him to be treated more harshly than a civilian in this case, but many people, including myself think being treated the same would be a nice start.

If he's convicted of obstruction of justice, he should definitely be fired. That goes to the core of his job. And change the law to what it is in Britain, that if cops are fired for cause they lose their pension.

Meanwhile that Ontario guy gets to keep the $200,000 he "earned" while on paid suspension, and his pension too. I guess he'll be able to invest that in his gangster buddies next drug deal and really clean up.

[EyeBrock]

So you think somebody who has paid 12% of their wage for x number of years into a pension plan should lose it all on a criminal conviction?

I'm all for it if it's applied to everybody else.

[andyt]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

So you think somebody who has paid 12% of their wage for x number of years into a pension plan should lose it all on a criminal conviction?

I'm all for it if it's applied to everybody else.

Whatever it is your home country is doing sounds good to me. Even more so, I would like to see them have to pay back the money they got while on suspension.

[EyeBrock]

This is Canada. Are you saying everybody convicted of a criminal offence should lose all the pension they have paid in to?

[andyt]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

This is Canada. Are you saying everybody convicted of a criminal offence should lose all the pension they have paid in to?

Nope. And it doesn't sound like that's the case in Britain, either, is it? You should know better than me what the case is there. I'm willing to follow the mother country on this one.

But as I say, even more so make em pay back the money they got while on suspension. Since cops are subject to being falsely accused, keeping them on the payroll while the case is investigated makes sense. But if it's founded, then make em pay back the money.

And none of this you've got 7 days to quit bullshit. Fire his ass and charge him. He was helping gangsters for God's sake. Endangering fellow officers. How low can you go?

[EyeBrock]

Again this is Canada and CKA.

Are you saying all people convicted of a criminal offence in Canada should lose their pension that they have paid in to?

A simple yes or no without all the stuff that's going on in the UK.

[andyt]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Again this is Canada and CKA.

Are you saying all people convicted of a criminal offence in Canada should lose their pension that they have paid in to?

A simple yes or no without all the stuff that's going on in the UK.

No. As I say, let's do here what they do there. I've said it three times now, that should be able to penetrate, no?

Since there's no link given with the comment, I can only go by what it says "in certain cases." This case would meet that standard for me, since it goes to the heart of the organization. Anything done on behalf of organized crime would qualify. Just roughing up a prisoner would not. Committing murder, on or off the job, should tho. They don't need their pension in jail anyway.

[EyeBrock]

And we should mirror the UK in only the ways that they penalise cops or other ways?

Maybe North Korea has a better way than the UK to deal with errant cops?

[andyt]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

And we should mirror the UK in only the ways that they penalise cops or other ways?

Doubtless there are other ways that the UK does things better than us. Maybe at some point we'll be looking to them for guidance at how to cut govt spending, since they seem to be really going for it. Maybe not, if the burden just falls on the lower income groups. That's the nice thing about looking at how other countries do things, you can cherry pick. Same with our healthcare system - lots to learn from Europe there too.

[EyeBrock]

And sorry andy, you never did tell us all what you do for a living. I'm just wondering if your pension would be gone if you were convicted of an offence.

What do you do that puts you in such a position to judge? Pray tell.

[EyeBrock]

andy?