OPP officer cleared of stunt-driving charge

[kiwi]

>"Personally, it's against my code of ethics to travel at that speed," Tapp testified.

lol! Against *his* ethics? **** mate, its against the farken law!

Cops in this province are gain no respect from me. The longer I have lived here the more I see corruption in the local police force. Even that guy Fantino is up in court for something right now.

I have more respect for the RCMP than the plods of Metro and OPP..

[Bantario]

This surely has to be good news for Const. Michael Deyell !

[AdRath]

The charges against the officer are pretty lame (and I'm glad they didn't go through to set a pressident) but the lamest part is that any normal civilian would get charged and does get found guilty when the word of an officer is the only evidence. If an officer said he/she saw my speedo at over 150 no doubt I'd be found guilty. A humans word as the only evidence is poor evidence. I hope this case could be used to remind judges that an officers word is as meaningless as the rest of us.

[Rob MacLennan]

How can his car be impounded when she came forward 6 days later. If she was so worried, she should have called her supervisor right away. It sounds to me, she was making the story up. you don't wait that long to file a complaint. I think the charge was bogus. It's no double standard. Think about it. If you were driving in my car and I was doing 160 on the 401, 6 days later you file a complaint with the police, what do you think they will do. I believe they will laugh at you, and not bother me, but in this case he was charged, so if anyone is being screwed it's the cop.

This isn't the only occasion that an officer was charged. It isn't the only occasion that the charges were filed much later, after an "investigation." It isn't the only occasion in which the vehicle was not seized. the person charging the cop was another officer, not a civilian.

HTA 172 says nothing about time limits on enforcing seizures, nor suspensions. It states that an officer MUST perform these actions. This indicates the presence of a double standard.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/sto...eetracing.html

[DucDic]

hang on, if they were in a squad car, aren't those things tagged in the system, can't they just pull the gps logs or something...i know i have a tracker device in my car...what gives? i must be missing something?

[ddusseld]

Again, we don't know about calibration. Was this presented as evidence? Was it accepted? The speedo would be the only relevant evidence. A classic case of he said she said with no other evidence. Presumably since they are both cops their words would carry the same weight in court.

The whole how you will be treated is my point. I would expect that something that would cause an officer to cross the "thin blue line" would have to be something they really believed in. Something that they felt very strongly about. Not something that would take 6 days to figure out. 6 days is a lot of soul searching. I'd love to see how the reporting officers career advances over the next couple of years....

It was a OPP cruiser, so presumably so.

Do you know how someone who crosses the 'thin blue line' and reports a fellow officer is treated in the detachment? It would take a few days of soul searching to figure out if she should or not.

[camber]

so even if he "averaged" 134kmh...it's not like he wouldn't of had "absolutely" no traffic to contend with, so the dangerous driving charge would have come into play at some point as he would have to maneuver around cars to keep up his average...and WTF is this cop doing waiting for 6 days to do anything...i hope i ain't lying on the road bleeding when she shows up, don't think i will last 6 minutes...as usual a tonne of info is missing...still, i walk into places and look at the mess other people have made in my line of work and give them ****...it makes me look bad...(yes im just a nerd, but i hate lazy nerd workmanship)...i don't care whot he boss is, so she shouldn't care either, waiting 6 days...geez...maybe if she pulls me over one day, i will ask her to hold on a sec, at least it will take her 6 days to notice that im not there anymore...alright, enough drinking, im going home...lol...

It wouldn't be the first time that police waited a few days to press a HTA 172 charge(but against joe civilians).

[camber]

The whole how you will be treated is my point. I would expect that something that would cause an officer to cross the "thin blue line" would have to be something they really believed in. Something that they felt very strongly about. Not something that would take 6 days to figure out. 6 days is a lot of soul searching. I'd love to see how the reporting officers career advances over the next couple of years....

Or the person took a long time to weigh out the pros and cons, of pontentially ending a career move, that took them years to build and alienate a organization that could make her life(private and job wise) very difficult in the future

[roadtoruin]

Or the person took a long time to weigh out the pros and cons, of pontentially ending a career move, that took them years to build and alienate a organization that could make her life(private and job wise) very difficult in the future

All because someone stepped a little harder on the gas pedal? gimme a break, there's definitely more to this than we know. The officer puts her career on the line to charge a fellow officer with a victimless crime? something doesn't add up.

[camber]

All because someone stepped a little harder on the gas pedal? gimme a break, there's definitely more to this than we know. The officer puts her career on the line to charge a fellow officer with a victimless crime? something doesn't add up.

I'm sorry but for the last few years the OPP has made it quite clear that they don't view this kind of behavoiur as "victimless" and will start through imaginary tombstones at anyone that thinks otherwise. What better way to prove to the public that the OPP(even rank and file members) stand behind this "much needed" law then to enforce it on themselves.

[82Seca750]

something doesn't add up.

all adds up IMO

just a regular day of dysfunction for the OPP.....just like any other day

which is why these twits shouldn't have anything near the power that they do

you have 2 scenarios here

1) Tapp is lynched for being a ******....and nobody in his dept. gives a crap....Officer Whatshername figures she'll put her stamp on it....and it takes 6-days to get all of the ducks in a row....the Dept in flippin Tapp the byrd, and applauding Whatshername

2) Whatshername is estrogen on steriods and won't stop for nothing. Took 6-days of the Dept. trying to sway her decision, all for not. The Dept. is shaking their heads at Whatshername and shrugging their shoulders at Tapp

there you go.....but the bottom line is it's retarded dysfunction that should have been nowhere near the headlines....and the fact that it is....proves that these folks are just clowns in uniform

[KawiZuki]

all adds up IMO

just a regular day of dysfunction for the OPP.....just like any other day

which is why these twits shouldn't have anything near the power that they do

you have 2 scenarios here

1) Tapp is lynched for being a ******....and nobody in his dept. gives a crap....Officer Whatshername figures she'll put her stamp on it....and it takes 6-days to get all of the ducks in a row....the Dept in flippin Tapp the byrd, and applauding Whatshername

2) Whatshername is estrogen on steriods and won't stop for nothing. Took 6-days of the Dept. trying to sway her decision, all for not. The Dept. is shaking their heads at Whatshername and shrugging their shoulders at Tapp

there you go.....but the bottom line is it's retarded dysfunction that should have been nowhere near the headlines....and the fact that it is....proves that these folks are just clowns in uniform

What do you have against clowns?

[KawiZuki]

Nuff said... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjMLZuuXDRQ

You did not say anything

[jarekn]

Couldn't help but to notice this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjXdKEVD440

Nuff said... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjMLZuuXDRQ

[Resurrection]

Oh my bad let me rephrase that for ya.... It's amazing how a cop never gets convicted of a traffic ticket in Canada.

Oh my bad let me rephrase my question for you, You know this how?"

[Resurrection]

This isn't the only occasion that an officer was charged. It isn't the only occasion that the charges were filed much later, after an "investigation." It isn't the only occasion in which the vehicle was not seized. the person charging the cop was another officer, not a civilian.

HTA 172 says nothing about time limits on enforcing seizures, nor suspensions. It states that an officer MUST perform these actions. This indicates the presence of a double standard.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/sto...eetracing.html

Answer my question. If you were in my car and I was speeding, and you called gthe police 6 days later, even 1 day later to file a complaint what do you think they would do?

[Grimmy]

Hmmm... just throwing this out there for food for though,

Could one get pulled over, surrender their license, tell the cop to mail them the summons and then depart in their vehicle regardless of the officers objections? I think the only infraction would be "driving while under suspension". Theft or similar crimes of the CCC would not apply, as the vehicle is the property of the driver. Lastly, the fleeing police bit would not apply either, as the driver did pull over.


Regarding the topic at hand, If I was the judged, I would have ruled against the defendant. Just because the numbers do not add up over a long period of time and clearly show a consistent speed doesnt mean the officer didnt commit the offense. It only takes 1 second of speeds at 50+ the speed limit to commit the offense.

[Rob MacLennan]

Answer my question. If you were in my car and I was speeding, and you called gthe police 6 days later, even 1 day later to file a complaint what do you think they would do?

They would ignore me BECAUSE I'M NOT AN OFFICER OF THE LAW. The situations aren't equivalent.

[Resurrection]

They would ignore me BECAUSE I'M NOT AN OFFICER OF THE LAW. The situations aren't equivalent.

Of course they are. It doesn't matter if you're a cop or not. To have a charge of stunting laid 6 days later is rediculous. Possibly misconduct, but not stunting

[camber]

Of course they are. It doesn't matter if you're a cop or not. To have a charge of stunting laid 6 days later is rediculous. Possibly misconduct, but not stunting

Totally different....

A police officer testimony is considered to be expert evidence and their are no time limitations on HTA 172 offences. Plus, nevermind the other cases where charges were filed days later.