In each of those media reports you posted I see where each force has stated the officers remain on duty, (some in administrative duties only), WHILE THE INVESTIGATION is beign conducted. So that shows the force is indeed taking the "allegations" seriously, these officers in these cases are alledged to have committed wrong doing they have not been fully investigated nor have charges been laid, so it is indeed 'proper procedure under the collective agreements, (signed by the peoples representatives), City councils, states they should.
Or is it your contention that if an officer pulls you over and you believe they have committed a wrong doing that the force to "appear concerned" should immediately fire that officer without an investigation? Like it or not officers have the SAME rights as every other citizen, under the charter. Then of course the collective agreement has to be followed.
I would take exception to your reference to the 2002 city hall demonstration as an "armed demonstration" Typically the term armed is used when weapons are displayed and involved, (such as an armed robbery), or a shooting. I doubt any of the officers "displayed", (other than it normally is on their uniform), or unholstered, their weapon. You are certainly entitled to your interpretation of the demonstration. But the officers again did not violate any law, if you felt intimidated, did you step forward and indicate so at the time? If not what would you like to be done now 13 years later??? You stated that if i personally could identify any of the G20 officers I needed to speak up now. So the question I challenge you with is have you done so with this incident which appears to have upset you, that 13 years later your still upset by it?
Again I can't comment on the duty status of the officers at the 2002 city hall demonstration, If you were/are that concerned I am sure you have filed complaints and requested the information, so that this terrible wrong can be righted, but I am confused as to why you have "apparently" done nothing in the last 13 years??? If you felt that intimidated did you file a complaint, (which you would have been justified in doing so), immediately so the officers could be identified and disciplined?
I have ignored nothing, as you put it. But again you are trying to vastly exagerate and generalize that the actions of a VERY small percentage of officers wrong doing taints the ENTIRE profession and leads you to the conclusion that there is a culture of "self entitlement and feeling that they are above the law" Does everyone who is in your choosen profession ALWAYS act responsibly and follow every rule and regualtion? Does your profession have at least three layers of oversight? If I recall correctly you stated your in "planning" So if there are say 10,000 "planners" in North America and 50 of them have not followed every rule and reg does that mean you too must have adopted a similar "culture" There are 100's of thousand of law enforcement offciers in North America so if 500 of those (let's use the figure of 250,000 ALL levels of law enforcement officers), haven't followed the rules and regs does that mean the other 249,500 MUST also be bad?
Sorry forgot to address the hydro one case. At the time the person involved was identified and Hydro One stated they had conducted an investigation, and the employee was let go. I haven't followed it that closely but there were labour lawyers who stated at the time once the union grieved he was likely to be reinstated with compensation. i can imagine the uproar if the police service followed this example and had to rehire and compensate officers becasue they were fired as you suggest merely upon an allegation, without investigation.
I have stated categorically, that there are some officers, that have been involved in various levels of wrong doing. Not sure what more your looking for? I contend it is a comparatively small percentage. I alos submit that the vast majority of officers do the job correctly and proudly.
If your looking for a 0% result then may I suggest respectfully, your living a dream and unless you plan to replace human officers with machines which are created and programmed by an entity other than a human one, (so as to not impose human fralties into the process), to enforce our laws and regulations.
I guess you could quit your current job, take the required training and be appointed as the head of the SIU or the head of the civilian Police oversight board. Then you can personally ensure every officer is beyond reproach and only does what you have deemed to be right and correct, (including removing ALL officer discretion, and making everything in this world black and white).
I find it ironic you state people should use critical thinking to question policies and procedures yet you also advocate that same level of thinking by an officer be removed and they simply apply no discretion in doing so, 9in other words no one gets a break or a 15 km/h grace period.
The point about the 2002 armed protest at City Hall is simple. If police are in uniform, therefore on duty and being paid by the taxpayer, they should not be participating in a demonstration. And they most certainly should not be using their roles as police officers to intimidate our public representatives. I was there, and their intention to intimidate was pretty clear. Participation in a demonstration meant to inform, and making deputations to Committee, just like any other citizens affected by the City Budget is the right way to do things.
Hedo, I find it hard to believe that you don't think the behavior of an officer, either on or off duty, affects the image of the police, and that the force should just ignore it or only deal with it as an individual crime, if one has been committed. Respect for the police and credibility of the officers is crucial for them to do their jobs. So if you think police officers falsifying evidence isn't an issue for the force, simply just another crime committed by some "bad apples", I think you need to look at the broader picture?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ce-officers-falsified-evidence/article583588/
http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/32258/judge-finds-police-officer-falsified-evidence/
http://globalnews.ca/news/2059110/hamilton-police-suspend-officers-over-fake-tickets/
If Hydro One was concerned enough about its image to fire one employee who behaved inappropriately (not illegally) in public, you would think that the police would have a similar level of concern. But instead, even when judges rule that the police officers committed these offences (as per the above articles), they remain on duty or are put on paid leave. The fact that these kind of stories come up on a regular basis can't help but hurt the image and credibility of the police. Focusing on the "few bad apples" and ignoring the culture of entitlement, the feeling that they are the law, and therefore above it, the end justifies the means mentality or simply that power corrupts, or what ever you want to call it, will mean that these kinds of things will keep happening.
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/05/12/hydro-one-firing-tfc-fan-after-vulgar-comment
