Rodger is sadly discussed in at least one gtam thread. The unusual spelling of his name makes it easy to find.
|
|
|
Bobcaygeon OPP
- Thread starter justride
- Start date
The problem IMO is not the cop on the beat but with the cop weasel that worked his / her way up the ladder. Who hired Forcillo and why? etc.
If the cop on the beat breathes a word about the upper management screw ups his career is toast.
I agree. Problems with the system are far far larger than problems with individual officers. The system says they are allowed to avoid talking to SIU and there are no downsides for doing so. Given that framework, what idiot would give a statement? It can only hurt you. The whole system is setup to provide protection and isolation from any external interference so they can do as they wish. That needs to be blown up and started with a base of exposure, transparency and public trust.
Nope, PSA cleanup would work. You would never be required to speak to SIU as that could infringe on your charter rights however, failure to speak to SIU should have the possibility (and preferably probability) of termination. You can't shoot people, not provide any help to the investigation (which may help avoid that situation in the future) and then go back to carrying a gun. If you want a softer approach, don't terminate but remove their ability to carry a gun and adjust their salary to the commensurate civilian position within the force.
Of all the people I know that would understand it’s never in your best interest to talk to cops it would be cops.
... so a cop has to give up rights as a Canadian as a condition of employment?
Every cop in the country will quit, and rightly so.
If YOU shoot someone, as a Canadian, YOU don't have to answer any questions either.
Every cop in the country will quit, and rightly so.
If YOU shoot someone, as a Canadian, YOU don't have to answer any questions either.
Yes, yes you can... kinda a cornerstone of western jurisprudence, the right to NOT be a witness against yourself and the only way to change that is to change the Candian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to EXCLUDE peace officers. Ain't gonna happen.
You're focussing on the wrong part of my argument. I am not advocating for self-incrimination, I am basically advocating for revoking their right to carry a gun after shooting someone if they chose not to be involved with the investigation. I would expect the same consequences for a private citizen.
No just no. No one is advocating self incrimination. But if you don't want to talk about what happened...then you aren't a police officer anymore....even worse are the partners who wont say anything. The penalty for not submitting notes in the required amount of time is loss of your job....not a slap on the wrist.
If something happens at work for anyone else where a serious injury or death was involved. I am sure they have the right not to say anything in the investigation, the employer has the right to terminate them..... Charter is not violated IMO.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
I don't think you can hang this on the charter. If you shot someone or committed a criminal offense, the charter would protect you from having to incriminate yourself.
But is that really the thorny issue here? Would the charter force your employer to provide you full paid leave, benefits and seniority for 3 years? Then pay for your criminal defense?
The charter protects one from forcing someone into incriminating themselves, that's not really the issue that raises concerns.
Are the criminal defense costs a taxable benefit? The government doesn't hire cheap lawyers. A civilian pays his / her own way. Are those a tax deduction?
I suspect but dont know for sure that it would be dealt with like insurance. Pay a couple bucks into the pool with after tax dollars but if you are one of the unlucky sods that needs six figure help, it is not a taxable benefit.
Three officers charged:
Officers were told toddler was in truck:
Officers were told toddler was in truck:
boyoboy
Well-known member
damned if they do, damned if they don't?? I do not see the damn when there is a kid in the car. wtf I CALL TOTAL BS
Truck was stopped and not going anywhere when they decided to shoot the baby.
Sent from the future
The cops were likely 50-70 ft. away from the back of the truck. Statistically, 10-15% of cops go to ranges to practice more than the minimum to keep their certification. So, you have 3 cops 60ish ft. away firing under duress at an 8'x4' target with an innocent person in the target zone and a 50% chance none of them have fired their weapon in a year. There was no available shot.
True, but that doesn't absolve the cops on the scene from making the wrong decision.
There were no cognitive people in the truck. One was on the edge mentally.
The police here deal with this sort of thing on average less than one time in their careers. Practice more often.
IMO the charges are to shut up the press and public under the "Before the courts" comment. In a few years the trials / hearings begin. Recollections and anger will have faded.
I am totally untrained in this field but have to ask why ONE cop wasn't assigned to fire the shot. The one with the best target score.
Play a round of baseball. What happens when everyone goes after the ball? Fumbles.
The police here deal with this sort of thing on average less than one time in their careers. Practice more often.
IMO the charges are to shut up the press and public under the "Before the courts" comment. In a few years the trials / hearings begin. Recollections and anger will have faded.
I am totally untrained in this field but have to ask why ONE cop wasn't assigned to fire the shot. The one with the best target score.
Play a round of baseball. What happens when everyone goes after the ball? Fumbles.
...maybe because it was a very dynamic situation and there wasn't time to compare shooting scores.
When confronted with a deadly threat, police are trained to shot at the center mass of the threat, and to shoot till the threat is eliminated.
... and in this case, it seems the threat was sitting next to an infant.
|
|
|
|
|