Cops are SPECIAL and circle the wagons.

[Guest Peeves]

Watching the morning news I heard the police spokesman in TO say they couldn't solve the crime(s) if witnesses didn't come forth and give evidence. That was on the recent rapper murder. There was a female heard on the scene ordering a cab with a shot heard in the background. They have a video of her from an on site camera. He, the spokesman, said that since she was there, if she didn't come in and give a statement they would have to consider her as an accomplice since she is there and not turning herself in to give testimony.

Now, there was a police beating during the G20 of a guy named Mr. Nobody, (real name.)

He was pretty badly beaten up and there is an internal investigation.

HOWEVER!

The police, several on the scene, are NOT obliged to give evidence or testify and are declining to do so.

Police are not required to testify in Mr Nobody Beating

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/siu-wont-reopen-g20-arrest-probe-after-report-of-excessive-force/article2319665/?service=mobile

Five Toronto police officers accused of roughing up a G20 protester will not face a further criminal investigation, a provincial agency announced Monday.

The Special Investigations Unit has twice probed the case of Adam Nobody, who suffered a broken nose and shattered cheekbone after he says several officers beat him on the lawn of Queen’s Park during the summit in June of 2010. The SIU charged Constable Babak Andalib-Goortani in the case, but ruled there was not enough evidence to prosecute any other officers.

Watchdog accuses officers of excessive force at G20

But earlier this month, a second provincial body, the Office of the Independent Police Review Director, ruled that five officers had used excessive force in Mr. Nobody’s arrest. Unlike the SIU, the OIPRD does not have the power to lay criminal charges, but can refers officers for disciplinary proceedings.

In a statement, SIU director Ian Scott said the OIPRD’s evidence does not meet a high enough standard to hold up in a criminal court.

Much of the OIPRD’s case against the five officers – Constables Andalib-Goortani, Michael Adams, David Donaldson, Geoffrey Fardell and Oliver Simpson – hinges on the findings of acting Detective-Sergeant Chris Kirkpatrick, an investigator with the Toronto Police Service’s professional standards unit. Using videos, photographs and deployment sheets, he picked out the five men in the group of officers that swarmed Mr. Nobody at the protest.

The SIU said Det.-Sgt. Kirkpatrick’s identifications were “circumstantial” and that the investigator said he would not be confident testifying to them in court.

The OIPRD’s findings also were based in part on several officers who admitted they were involved in Mr. Nobody’s arrest. Unlike the OIPRD, the SIU does not have the power to compel officers under investigation to give them statements; the officers at the centre of the Nobody case refused to speak with the SIU.

All five officers face disciplinary proceedings in the case.

Published on Monday, Jan. 30, 2012 2:48PM EST

Emphasis mine.

Now using the same criterion to wit, "that since THEY were there, if THEY didn't come in and give a statement they would have to consider

THEM as an accomplice.

Wouldn't that be a fair application of what the cops are asking civilian witnesses to do in the way of co operation!!!!

[Guest Peeves]

I Googled " Cops refuse to testify" and got a fair number of responses. Apparently cops want YOU to come forth with evidence, but decline themselves. I thought 'they' worked for justice and....us?

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2011/09/city_officers_refuse_to_testif.html

[jacee]

Excellent point. Right on.

Cops consult their lawyers before even writing their incident notes now ...

Police groups appeal new law

The decision was a result of an nvestigation into the case of Elmvale’s Doug Minty, who was shot five times and killed by a Huronia West OPP officer June 22, 2009.

The Special Investigations Unit (SIU) nvestigated, but questions arose about the timing of officers’ notes and how they were compiled.

The Minty family, along with the family of Levi

Schaeffer – killed by a Pickle Lake area OPP officer June 24, 2009 – launched a lawsuit after lawyers advised officers as they made their notes.

Suggested changes to the law now include that a lawyer can’t help prepare an officer’s notes if they are accused in a crime, notes must be completed by the end of the shift, and a police officer can’t chat with or email any other officer nvolved in an SIU investigation.

Christie said if the new changes went unchallenged, it would have implications for police forces across Canada.

“It tells officers that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms sort-of applies to you, but not really,” said Christie. He said the OPPA is appealing the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada to ensure officers have equal rights.

“In basic terms, the court of appeal’s decision has really confused the issue in terms of an officer’s right to counsel,” said Christie.“

(What they’re saying is) an officer can speak to counsel, but they can’t give advice on notes. That is a lesser standard under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms than is given to a citizen.”

According to Christie, after an officer is nvolved in a traumatic situation where someone is killed, his or her recollection might not be accurate.

“You don’t remember everything right away. You play (the scenario) over and over again in your mind. Something mportant may be laid into a notebook a day later.“

As a former Detective Sergeant, there were times I remembered something down the road and wrote it onto the back of napkins. They were recopied and stapled into my notebook.”

But if an officer only has a day to complete his notes and later is called to court for the situation, he will be challenged on his memory, said Christie.

“A lawyer’s job isn’t to tell me what to write into my notebook. A lawyer’s job is to provide calm, third-party legal advice on how this may effect you.” A lawyer will tell you to be clear about what you're writing down, said Christie.

While the OPPA is taking the lead in appealing the courts’ decision, Christie said the Police Association of Ontario and the Canadian Police Association are also watching to see what happens Members of the Barrie Police Association said the new law would cost more money for taxpayers.

"It’s now automatic for every subject officer to have one lawyer,” said Barrie Police Association president Chris Alton.

“Whereas in days gone by, we’d have one awyer for a number of officers.” That means co-ordinating court time with potentially six different lawyers.

[Guest Peeves]

Cops lawyering up in the investigation of a crime is appalling.

Why they have special privileges on testifying is beyond me. Then, to have the chutzpa!!! :angry: to ask the public to put their lives at stake and to be labeled a squealer with a death sentence.

[Wild Bill]

Cops lawyering up in the investigation of a crime is appalling.

Why they have special privileges on testifying is beyond me. Then, to have the chutzpa!!! :angry: to ask the public to put their lives at stake and to be labeled a squealer with a death sentence.

Not all, but most cops have always had more of an "us against them" or a "We're more equal than others!" attitude.

To keep to the OP, I think the reason they jump all over witnesses for not coming forward is because they want to force them to make their jobs easier! They can then solve their cases and look positive about fulfilling their job.

They seem blissfully unconcerned with the real-world situation in which witnesses often find themselves. They may be at risk of bodily harm or even death if they cooperate with the police!

After all, citizens today have very limited ability to protect themselves from harm. Nowadays we rely almost entirely on the police. The most we can do for ourselves is to lock our doors and windows and curtail our own freedoms to go where we please by avoiding any areas where we could be targeted.

Anybody who would take that risk either to themselves or their family is a fool! The risk is real and the police CAN'T protect you!

Worse yet, if you try to protect yourself you are likely to be charged and face a stiffer sentence than any possible assailant! This is now so common an occurrence as to be self-evident.

I MIGHT choose to be the dutiful citizen and take such risk on for myself, knowing full well that I could be dead before any police could get involved! However, there is absolutely no way I would put my daughters at risk!

Although as for my ex I would have to think about it!

Cop spokespeople NEVER admit to the reality of these situations! To them, it is an admission of an inability to perform their job of protecting the public - even though it's true!

I'm 59 years old and have had a heart bypass operation. In any violent conflict with a younger and more fit thug wanting to deter me from testifying against him, I would last about 30 seconds! If I used a gun as an equalizer, it would be a difficult choice. Save my life now or be dragged through the courts and spend my last days in prison!

Of course, I hope no one, myself included, ever has to face such a choice but sadly, its a real world, after all.

In this case, cops are more concerned with keeping up appearances than with admitting their limitations. In effect, at such times they expect witnesses to commit suicide by inviting criminal retribution.

One would have to be either stupid or incredibly naive to go along with them!

[Guest Peeves]

Not all, but most cops have always had more of an "us against them" or a "We're more equal than others!" attitude.

Truncated for brevity.

Of course, I hope no one, myself included, ever has to face such a choice but sadly, its a real world, after all.

In this case, cops are more concerned with keeping up appearances than with admitting their limitations. In effect, at such times they expect witnesses to commit suicide by inviting criminal retribution.

One would have to be either stupid or incredibly naive to go along with them!

I own a gun and deem it reasonable to keep handy since I know the cops cannot protect us.

Very few places with clients in them get robbed where guns are allowed by 'the people.'

Who would chance robbing a restaurant when 20 people there have guns?

Canada must come in to the times. Cops are not capable of preventing or responding to a crime in due time. The courts and the laws have to come to that conclusion and allow 'castle rights.'

[guyser]

Very few places with clients in them get robbed where guns are allowed by 'the people.'

Who would chance robbing a restaurant when 20 people there have guns?

In America , maybe a few, but hopefully not.

In Canada? Tons, since none of the poeple in the restaurant are carrying.

Canada must come in to the times. Cops are not capable of preventing or responding to a crime in due time. The courts and the laws have to come to that conclusion and allow 'castle rights.'

Some castle doctrine laws , a mild version I am ok with , but not the Florida version. Shooting someone for stealing a car seems dumb

[Guest American Woman]

Some castle doctrine laws , a mild version I am ok with , but not the Florida version. Shooting someone for stealing a car seems dumb

You can only shoot them if the car is occupied - the presumption is that anyone entering your occupied car has the intent to harm you.

[guyser]

You can only shoot them if the car is occupied - the presumption is that anyone entering your occupied car has the intent to harm you.

YUes but there is a huge grey area.

You have no duty to retreat in Texas and FLorida under CD laws.

Yes you are correct if you are in the car then you may use deadly force, but part two of those laws says no 'duty to retreat' and thus if a car thieves looks your way...... 'say hello to my little fr..BANG!"

Witness the old man and his dismissal of charges for a simple B+E on his neighbours house.Pretty sure he shot them (one?) in the back (Texas)

[Guest American Woman]

YUes but there is a huge grey area.

You have no duty to retreat in Texas and FLorida under CD laws.

Yes you are correct if you are in the car then you may use deadly force, but part two of those laws says no 'duty to retreat' and thus if a car thieves looks your way...... 'say hello to my little fr..BANG!"

The law refers to "forcible entry," so a car thief has to do more than "look your way" - there has to be "forcible entry" of the vehicle.

Witness the old man and his dismissal of charges for a simple B+E on his neighbours house.Pretty sure he shot them (one?) in the back (Texas)

How do you know it was "a simple B&E?" Or that even if that was the intention, it wouldn't have ended up being more? People do end up being killed during B&E's - even when that wasn't the intention.

Edited February 7, 2012 by American Woman

[guyser]

The law refers to "forcible entry," so a car thief has to do more than "look your way" - there has to be "forcible entry" of the vehicle.

I should have been more specific.

The threat I mentioned (look your way)must accompany an overt act by the same person who you feel will carry it out. Deadly force can be used yet no forcible entry has occurred.

How do you know it was "a simple B&E?" Or that even if that was the intention, it wouldn't have ended up being more? People do end up being killed during B&E's - even when that wasn't the intention.

Because it was a simple B+E and the man who shot them lived next door.(Joe Horn is the name-Texas)

No one was home next door, Joe saw them climbing out the window.

Apart from that, the point was I would not want laws enacted that allow someone to shot someone else for simple B+E when they themselves are not in harms way.

Defence of family/house is a whole 'nother ballgame.

[Guest Peeves]

I should have been more specific.

The threat I mentioned (look your way)must accompany an overt act by the same person who you feel will carry it out. Deadly force can be used yet no forcible entry has occurred.

Because it was a simple B+E and the man who shot them lived next door.(Joe Horn is the name-Texas)

No one was home next door, Joe saw them climbing out the window.

Apart from that, the point was I would not want laws enacted that allow someone to shot someone else for simple B+E when they themselves are not in harms way.

Defence of family/house is a whole 'nother ballgame.

I could live with that. Then, how would we know no one's at home next door?

Say it was on fire, I'd have to assume there was potentially victims.

Same if I saw my neighbors home being broken into. Had I a shot gun handy, I might fire a warning shot at the ass I saw entering the window.

[guyser]

Say it was on fire, I'd have to assume there was potentially victims.

Same if I saw my neighbors home being broken into. Had I a shot gun handy, I might fire a warning shot at the ass I saw entering the window.

I shall assume you are joking, if not, enjoy prison

[Guest Peeves]

I shall assume you are joking, if not, enjoy prison

Don't have a shot gun, got rid of it when the 'hunter' ahead of me threw his over his shoulder nearly blowing my handsome face off.

[guyser]

Don't have a shot gun, got rid of it when the 'hunter' ahead of me threw his over his shoulder nearly blowing my handsome face off.

LOL, ok then. Ya sure your handsome face wasnt improved by your buds handling abilities?

Heres a lil story about cops. Last night I found a wallet on the ground after paying for gas. Pick it up and there is more than $500 in it,5 fresh plastic $100s and a ten and five. His credit cards, OHIP, Costa Rican birth cert,drivers licence all there. So I try and call a number for the kid. Out of service, try calling other numbers found on business cards, no luck. Continue on to shop and when parked , 4 cops walk by my car. Look at them and think...."meh,the kid will get everything back' only if I hand it to him personally.

The birth date on his licence said he was 19 so I figured some poor kid is freaking out and I want him to get it all back. Took a couple of hours but I found him . Met with him and man, nice kid, overjoyed to get it all back. Felt good.

Kinda sucks I dont have enough faith in anyone else to ensure the wallet and the money made its way to the proper owner.

Edited February 9, 2012 by guyser

[Guest Peeves]

LOL, ok then. Ya sure your handsome face wasnt improved by your buds handling abilities?

Heres a lil story about cops. Last night I found a wallet on the ground after paying for gas. Pick it up and there is more than $500 in it,5 fresh plastic $100s and a ten and five. His credit cards, OHIP, Costa Rican birth cert,drivers licence all there. So I try and call a number for the kid. Out of service, try calling other numbers found on business cards, no luck. Continue on to shop and when parked , 4 cops walk by my car. Look at them and think...."meh,the kid will get everything back' only if I hand it to him personally.

The birth date on his licence said he was 19 so I figured some poor kid is freaking out and I want him to get it all back. Took a couple of hours but I found him . Met with him and man, nice kid, overjoyed to get it all back. Felt good.

Kinda sucks I dont have enough faith in anyone else to ensure the wallet and the money made its way to the proper owner.

Good story,,,, except, NEVER Please NEVAIRE add a bud to my post I had to disinfect the entire keyboard and monitor face.

[guyser]

Good story,,,, except, NEVER Please NEVAIRE add a bud to my post I had to disinfect the entire keyboard and monitor face.

Sorry...huh?

[Wild Bill]

In Canada? Tons, since none of the poeple in the restaurant are carrying.

So in that hypothetical restaurant, the criminal with the gun is unopposed. There is nothing to stop him.

There have been cases where such criminals decided to leave no witnesses.

You don't make me feel any better, Guyser!

[guyser]

So in that hypothetical restaurant, the criminal with the gun is unopposed. There is nothing to stop him.

There have been cases where such criminals decided to leave no witnesses.

You don't make me feel any better, Guyser!

It truly is such a rarity that one should never worry about it.

Stay out of IHOPs and all should be good

Seriously though, I doubt very much if CCW comes to Canada.

[Guest Peeves]

Sorry...huh?

Just budding you.

[cybercoma]

There's actually a commentary in the Toronto Star on this today.

DiManno: A-whinging-we-go, once again

February 24, 2012 00:02:00

Rosie DiManno Star Columnist

A barefoot man in a hospital gown, perhaps brandishing two pairs of scissors.

Shot dead by cops.

A man variously reportedly running away from pursuing officers or crouching in a laneway and possibly armed with a knife.

Shot dead by cops.

A man confronted by Emergency Task Force personnel in the third-floor unit of an upscale apartment tower.

Shot dead by cops — allegedly taking a bullet in his back. Thursday, a year and a half later, manslaughter charges against the officer who killed him are elevated to second-degree murder.

Five former drug squad officers now on trial in what has been described as the largest corruption scandal in the history of Toronto police.

A cop charged with assault causing bodily harm in the aggressive take-down arrest of a G20 protester.

A constable sentenced this month to 30 days for slugging a motorist and squeezing his testicles.

A RIDE program’s senior officer in charge sent home after subordinates smell alcohol on his breath.

And the police union boss is making noises that sound an awful lot like intimidation threats?

Mike McCormack is, well, Mike McCormack. The police association is, for its sins, the police association, a histrionic and historically bullying outfit that countenances no opposition or imputation of its members.

They uphold the law, cops, but turn it inside-out when leveled in their direction.

They hire expensive defence lawyers up the yin-yang because what else is a union’s treasure chest for?

They couldn’t give a rat’s ass about civilian accused running the gauntlet of media hounds outside a courthouse but take extraordinary eluding measures — not available to regular folks — in shielding one of their own from microphones and TV cameras, arm-around escorted as was Const. David Cavanagh this week, discreetly removed from the premises via back door and parking garage.

They demand respect but have never shown it to the Special Investigations Unit.

Read the rest here: http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/article/1136701--dimanno-a-whinging-we-go-once-again?bn=1

[guyser]

There's actually a commentary in the Toronto Star on this today.

Not a big fan of her writing, however in this case she is spot on.

The continual and increasing lack of respect for the police in this city is getting worse, and the blame squarely and only lies with the police force itself .

The police ass'n head is a criminal , his brother is a criminal and his actions as union chief cost this city a ton of money.

He throws an annual boxing night between cops every year for charity against the brass' opinion.

The whole group of them collectively are pretty disgusting. They hold themselves above the law and frankly when any of them are hurt on the job I truly could not care less. Their over the top funerals are a shame and this glorification of a bunch of criminal is horrible.

[cybercoma]

Where's the Right on this forum to talk about unreproted crime now, when it's actually relevant.

[Argus]

Where's the Right on this forum to talk about unreproted crime now, when it's actually relevant.

Crime is always relevant, whether reported or not. I'm not sure what particular relevance you had in mind, though. I agree that police seem to be increasingly undisciplined, poorly led, and poorly trained, and that they seem to be resorting to force almost as a first response in any situation where instant disobedience isn't offered up. The poster boy for that is that moronic imbecile mountie in BC who kicked a guy in the face - hard = while said guy was on his knees with his hands raised and with cameras rolling. What a genius.

I have precious little sympathy for crooked cops, and even less for those who use force levels not required.

[cybercoma]

Crime is always relevant, whether reported or not. I'm not sure what particular relevance you had in mind, though. I agree that police seem to be increasingly undisciplined, poorly led, and poorly trained, and that they seem to be resorting to force almost as a first response in any situation where instant disobedience isn't offered up. The poster boy for that is that moronic imbecile mountie in BC who kicked a guy in the face - hard = while said guy was on his knees with his hands raised and with cameras rolling. What a genius.

I have precious little sympathy for crooked cops, and even less for those who use force levels not required.

What I meant by relevance is that people are probably going to be more reluctant reporting crime to a police force that they believe is crooked.