You are drawing conclusions that have not been stated:
i didn't express frustration with members of a community that won't identify wrong doers and accept it is ok for officers not to identify. I DID state that it is fair to accept that both groups should be placed upon a level field, and may have their differing reasons for not identifying. If members of one group won't identify for whatever reason, (your example was that you didn't do it for fear of retribution), all I am suggesting is that officers be afforded the same level of understanding. I can recognize that there are times when it would be in the best interest of a citizen not to step forward, and I can also acknowledge that there are similiar situations why an officer may not step forward. I don't accept that officers simply do it because they can. Clearly those that wrote the legislation governing the SIU also recognized this because they wrote it so that an officer can't be "compelled" to step up just as there is no legislation that "compels" a citizen to step up. Level playing field.
I didn't say police can't be responsible for the withdrawal of charges, (the media report on these when they happen), but I did say that if a Crown, (DA is a US term), decides not to pursue charges against an officer then that has nothing to do with the police as it is normally not the result of an internal investigation but rather an investigation cinducted by the SIU. Hence it is not as a result of a police action. As for recognizing that a problem exists. I have never said there are issues with the system including the SIU, Crowns, and civilian jurors, I have also stated categorically that there are officers who commit wrong doings. So I am neither dillusuional nor do I have a problem recognizing a problem exists. The various Police Chiefs recently have acknowledged issues and even the police union has acknowledged issues both within their own service as well as serious flaws with the SIU.
As for the level of force used would I have arrested a civilian, for assault? Not in either case. I would have conducted and investigation, and if warranted laid charges. A police officer rarely "arrests" someone for assault, we may file charges but rarely arrest. In order to effect an arrest you must meet specific criteria, one of which is it likely the offence will continue if the accused is not arrested, if it isn't then no arrest is required.
These officers were treated in exactly the same manner as I would have with a civilian. I filed a complaint, (as is standard procedure), because I was the witness I can not also be the investigating authority. The officers faced and investigation and were then dealt with via police service act charges, (because the offence didn't raise to a level of criminality, as determined by the investing authority). So in essence a civilian wouldn't have faced charges either. The officers were in essenece held to a higher standard, and were given penalties which were deemed sufficent to the offence. Just as you wouldn't lose your job if you were charged with assault, (unless it was a condition of your employment contract. The police actually have more rules that govern their conduct than does a citizen. A citizen has the HTA or Criminal code or other various statues, but they only face ONE penalty. An officer can face Police Services Act charges and be given a second penalty for the same offence, so in essence if the offence warrants it the officers are held to a higher standard, then your average citizen is.
If an accountant steals $50,000 from their employer we generally don't hear about it, because the media deems it not "news worthy", but if an officer were to steal $50 we hear about about it because the media deems it news worthy. If a civic employee gets in a fight, (on or off duty), we don't normally hear about it, but we do when an officer is involved. So yes officers are held, (at least by the media to a higher standard. I am not saying it is a bad thing, just pointing it out.
Also police have a unique job. I doubt people walk into the planning department and start cussing you out, calling you names or spitting or assaulting you simply because of your job. This happens to officers, daily, just as it occasionally happens to a TTC operator. If someone punches a TTC operator it makes the news, if someone puches a cop, not so much, unless of course the cop punches them back..lol
I didn't say the an employee discount is equivalent to not facing an HTA charge. I merely pointed out that humans generally tend to give a break to others in a group they identify with.
But let's examine your example carefully. The officer who stopped the car didn't actually give a break in strict technical terms to the officer in the vehicle he gave the break to the driver who was not an officer. Prior to knowing that an officer was in the car did the officer conducting the stop state that a ticket was going to be issued? Unless you questioned the officer conducting the stop how do you know that he wasn't already predisposed to giving the driver a break? I ususally had made the decision as to how I was going to proceed, (ticket or break) before I even approached the driver. Now if i am made aware that an officer was in the vehicle, that may or may not have an effect on my applying my discretion, as I have said officers are human. But merely the existence of an officer didn't trigger an automated response of a break. Did the driver or anyone in the vehicle object, that a warning was issued, (or was the driver and yourself pleased that no ticket was issued? Surely if it is improper then someone should have stepped up?
So I guess we're both hypocrites, or realists, depending on your perspective. You express frustration that members of a community won't identify thugs within their own community (Musik shooting for example) but you accept why members of the police community won't identify their own thugs (the 11 unidentified officers in the Adam Nobody beating). And I don't wish to draw attention to myself and face possible retribution for filing a complaint against police officers, but I would like to see the system improved so that officers are held more accountable. But in both cases, there's an acknowledgement of problems within the police system, or do you think the risk of retribution is acceptable.
Yes there are also problems in certain communities, but if the police want to play a roll in improving those situations, there needs to be trust in the system, which includes the police. The police investigate crimes and uncover the evidence DA's use to convict the accused. If insufficient evidence isn't there for a conviction, or if the evidence is tainted because of actions by the police, or constitutional rights have been violated in obtaining the evidence, it isn't the DA's fault. I find it naive or delusional that you think there are problems within the rest of the system, but not the police component of it. If the majority of police officers and brass feel the same way, then its understandable why change happens so slowly. Like they say in AA, the first step to managing the problem is to recognize that you have one.
Regarding the use of force complaints you filed, if you witnessed that level of force being used by one civilian against another, would you have arrested the perpetrator for assault? Were either officers charged with assault? Based on what you said, both kept their police jobs (one modified) and I assume neither faced a criminal trail or jail time. So yes, there may be 3 levels of accountability for police, but the end result is generally that police are not held to the same standard that the public is held. Yes you can say the police are often put into difficult situations, but there are rules to govern their behavior in those situations. If the rules allow the police to break the law in order to enforce it, or prescribe lesser penalties than the public would face, then I believe that undermines the laws themselves and the credibility of those who enforce them.
I'm glad to see that you have never expected (or asked for) a break on a ticket from another officer, and you have never given a break to an officer, that you would not have given to any citizen behaving reasonably. You truly were a unique cop. But if that's the case, I don't see how you can equate not filing a charge under the HTA with an employee discount. Is exemption from lesser infractions under the HTA really an appropriate employee discount for members of the police force, and if so, how can that not be part of a culture of entitlement?
