What ever happened to Sgt. Dennis Mahoney-Bruer?

[Rob MacLennan]

epic gay, it's in his best interest to delay this till the end of time I guess.

When isn't it?

[FiReSTaRT]

When isn't it?

When the suspect is innocent and able to quickly and easily prove his innocence... Of course, this does not appear to be applicable to the case in question

[LiNK666]

When the suspect is innocent and able to quickly and easily prove his innocence... Of course, this does not appear to be applicable to the case in question

I thought the precedent in ontario was: Guilty till proven innocent and the burden to prove your innocence is on your wallet.

[Rob MacLennan]

When the suspect is innocent and able to quickly and easily prove his innocence... Of course, this does not appear to be applicable to the case in question

How many people here go for 11b; innocent OR guilty?

[FiReSTaRT]

How many people here go for 11b; innocent OR guilty?

That's because it's very difficult for a common citizen to have the evidence necessary for proving his/her innocence.. In any case, Charter motions go before the plea. Speaking of which, I'll have to get around to getting a video setup for both the car and the bike. Would have made at least one cop look like a lyin' piece of scum that he was/is

[AdRath]

I thought the precedent in ontario was: Guilty till proven innocent and the burden to prove your innocence is on your wallet.

I find this the most ironic part (maybe irony is the wrong word). That this entire thing revolves around a law that allows you to be punished and damages paid pre-trial with no recourse once proven not guilty. Yet the officer involved collects pay until proven guilty and even will get full salary during the appeals process which he could drag on for years.

I think there is a growing minority (hopefully someday a majority) that want to see a change to the way officer pay is handled when on trial for illegal activity.

[Rob MacLennan]

I find this the most ironic part (maybe irony is the wrong word). That this entire thing revolves around a law that allows you to be punished and damages paid pre-trial with no recourse once proven not guilty. Yet the officer involved collects pay until proven guilty and even will get full salary during the appeals process which he could drag on for years.

I think there is a growing minority (hopefully someday a majority) that want to see a change to the way officer pay is handled when on trial for illegal activity.

You don't improve the quality justice for all by reducing it for any group, ever. To say that justice should be denied a police officer, because some regular citizens have had justice denied, is hubris. It may rankle, but it's right.

[nobbie48]

He hasn't yet been convicted of anything, so there are no grounds for dismissal. The money that he 'earns', while on suspension, remains his.

Somewhere in my foggy mind is a recollection of a recent event where the person was ordered to repay their wages from the limbo period. Anyone with a better memory / research skill?
It was one of those "Aha justice!" moments.

[Rob MacLennan]

RCMP officer named Turcotte, who was ordered to pay back 5 days' pay, during a suspension resulting from an assault charge? He was finally convicted, last year, for an off-duty assault that occurred in 2007.

*EDIT* News article: http://www.chbcnews.ca/world/RCMP+of...557/story.html

[FiReSTaRT]

There should be a system that is more fair under those circumstances.. Let's say a cop is charged with a criminal offense and put on suspension.. Their pay should go into an escrow. If found not guilty, they get all of it upon verdict and if found guilty, it goes back to us (the taxpayers). Typically, a cop charged with a criminal offense is able to work elsewhere, while on suspension and their union is big enough to provide employment assistance.

[Rob MacLennan]

There should be a system that is more fair under those circumstances.. Let's say a cop is charged with a criminal offense and put on suspension.. Their pay should go into an escrow. If found not guilty, they get all of it upon verdict and if found guilty, it goes back to us (the taxpayers). Typically, a cop charged with a criminal offense is able to work elsewhere, while on suspension and their union is big enough to provide employment assistance.

And such an officer should lose his car and home, because all the money that he should be getting is in escrow, instead of his account, potentially on the lies of a citizen? I wouldn't stand for that, for a police officer, any more than I would stand for it, for a regular citizen. He shouldn't have to "work elsewhere." Innocent until proved guilty.

[LiNK666]

And such an officer should lose his car and home, because all the money that he should be getting is in escrow, instead of his account, potentially on the lies of a citizen? I wouldn't stand for that, for a police officer, any more than I would stand for it, for a regular citizen. He shouldn't have to "work elsewhere." Innocent until proved guilty.

I agree, it would be a huge burden on the family. Instead, they should be ordered to pay back the wages.

[FiReSTaRT]

You are making some good points Rob. However, it's not like the constable in question is unable to work while waiting for trial. Therefore, he can find other sorts of work and the union can also set up a fund to keep them afloat in such eventualities. If a bank employee got charged with financial improprieties, chances are they wouldn't get suspended with pay.
Making that money repayable under conviction is most likely a viable solution as long as there are safeguards against sheltering.

[Rob MacLennan]

You are making some good points Rob. However, it's not like the constable in question is unable to work while waiting for trial. Therefore, he can find other sorts of work and the union can also set up a fund to keep them afloat in such eventualities. If a bank employee got charged with financial improprieties, chances are they wouldn't get suspended with pay.
Making that money repayable under conviction is most likely a viable solution as long as there are safeguards against sheltering.

No, if a bank employee was caught that person would be given the opportunity to resign, rather than being put through the wringer, but would likely ultimately be parcelled out.

Police are in a unique position, in our society; they 'protect and serve.' They are simultaneously our employees, and our keepers. We should stand behind them, as such, giving them every benefit of the doubt. If found guilty of abusing their position, however, they should be held to a higher standard than are other citizens. You can't have the latter, without the former.

[FiReSTaRT]

Still a bitter pill to swallow... To give a criminal $200,000 for doing nothing while waiting to get convicted.

[AdRath]

Still a bitter pill to swallow... To give a criminal $200,000 for doing nothing while waiting to get convicted.

The private sector should be used to the public sector having it better on the taxpayers dime.

Did you see that TPS is being asked to reduce costs and possibly lay off officers? About time we get these costs under control.

[Rob MacLennan]

Still a bitter pill to swallow... To give a criminal $200,000 for doing nothing while waiting to get convicted.

Consider it a corollary to William Blackstone's, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”

[FiReSTaRT]

Consider it a corollary to William Blackstone's, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”

I didn't say I wasn't gonna swallow the pill.. But it sure tastes like what comes out of Mirko Bibic's mouth

[nobbie48]

Consider it a corollary to William Blackstone's, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”

In the USA a lot of court officials are elected instead of appointed. One of their platforms is usually their succcess rate, sometimes blatently at the expense of an innocent person.

[Rob MacLennan]

In the USA a lot of court officials are elected instead of appointed. One of their platforms is usually their succcess rate, sometimes blatently at the expense of an innocent person.

It's a good thing that I quoted an Englishman then.

(We aren't Americans )