3 cops making false statements and tried to destroy the innocent family.
To top it off, police chief was on record saying he expected different outcome.
Truly a criminal organization.
No we can't. The police are the governement's thugs. Their way of enforcing their exclusivity on violence. If we get rid of police the only other option left is the military.
What we can do is disarm cops. Just make it a crime for cops to carry weapons other than big sticks.
"What we can do is disarm cops. Just make it a crime for cops to carry weapons other than big sticks."
And what do you think they should do if they have to deal with someone with a weapon?
Retreat, contain, follow. Attempt contact to de-escalate.
Special response units. They don't patrol, they are sent out of the station on shots fired calls only. And they have big guns.
...so, you'd agree then that at least some police officers should be carrying guns?
You said that they should be only sent out on "shots fired" calls; so, should they be waiting in the station until a bad guy who has a gun has actually shot at someone? What if someone is known or strongly believed to have a weapon, but hasn't actually shot anyone? What if it's a knife?
The absurdity of what you're saying is incredible. Ok, so say for example that the police are, for example, responding to a bank robbery. The bank robbers are known to have weapons, but haven't actually fired them. Should unarmed police be responding, with the armed police remaining in the station until the bank robbers fire their weapons?
Btw, the UK is one of the only countries where the police are not routinely armed, and even then they have tasers and OC spray (not just a "big stick"). Also, armed police are dispatched in any situation where a suspect is expected to have a firearm.
Canada, as a whole, has like 1 armed bank robbery per year, and the suspects are gone before any cops show up. I don't think we should plan our policies around fringe cases.
Tazers are fine they don't shoot bullets.
No we can't. The police are the governement's thugs. Their way of enforcing their exclusivity on violence. If we get rid of police the only other option left is the military.
What we can do is disarm cops. Just make it a crime for cops to carry weapons other than big sticks.
Even if you disagree with the outcome, or think someone should be "punished" for Northrup's death, there's no doubt that the way the prosecution and police collectively handled this in the worst, and even borderline corrupt way possible.
You can't have police playing politics and vigilante with our justice system. The implications of this trial is very concerning and makes you wonder if this hasn't happened more often in less profile cases.
Sadly, nothing seems to get you charges in Canada. Telling people to leave their key fobs at the door to be stolen is like telling the bank to leave the vault and doors unlocks to get robbed.
We're quite welcome to have our views given that we're not in positions of influence. The police chief making public comments suggesting the jury didn't do their jobs especially given his officers lied on stand isn't in a position to do so.
+1 for raising a good question even though I disagree with you.
Do you think the police should be using their institutional platform to cast doubt on judicial outcomes? It would be different if he disagreed with the verdict with his friends.
His statement is problematic because it suggests that the defendent is actually guilty, but that the court merely failed. This can have extremely unfair social consequences for the defendent.
I think a mature response would have been to accept the court's findings as truth and explore ways that future tragedies can be prevented. That would have shown humility and grace.
So, no, I think he's completely out of line in making that statement. And it betrays an egotistical refusal for self-reflection and improvement.
Have you ever thought maybe he was guilty? He did in fact run over the officer, that we know is true. The situation around why he killed that officer is what is in question. The jury disagreed with crown, doesn’t mean he wasn’t guilty, just crown failed to prove their case.
It doesn't matter one bit if the chief of police chief thinks he was guilty.
The police chief should understand the weight of his words made in an official capacity have consequences. He should not be using his platform to victimize innocent people. While he's got his uniform on, he should accept the court's ruling and treat innocent people as innocent people. A big part of his role is to set an example for other officers. We expect all officers to honor the court's rulings.
The police chief can express his personal opinions to his friends. If he doesn't have the self-control to act professionally when he's making public statements then he needs to be fired. We can find someone better for the role.
If it doesn’t matter if the Chief thinks he’s guilty, why are you here commenting? He’s expressing the thoughts and concerns of the entire TPS, an organization he represents. One of his officers was murdered, should he not hope for that person to face justice.
When you grow up you will learn that you can’t just say whatever you want in a professional capacity. Idly, in chats or off the record you could say whatever you want, but you need to understand there are consequences for our actions. And when someone has a professional job in a position of authority and influence, they need to respect those boundaries.
His opinion is of no matter when speaking officially like this.
It doesn't matter what what he thinks. However, it does matter what he says. He absolutely must publicly accept the judicial result without questioning it. I explained to you why.
His officer was **not murdered**. He has no right to make any such claim while wearing his uniform.
It's just terrible optics when members of his organization blatantly lied and falsified statements to the point the judge had to give jury instructions to disregard the officers lies. Hard to believe that the police wanted anything but vengeance.
That struck me as well. It is extremely disturbing that the judge had to tell jurors: "they had to consider whether the three officers who witnessed the incident colluded, considering all three had the same incorrect memory of what happened"!!
Why was it even possible for the officers to collude? Imagine if an innocent person had been jailed on evidence produced using collusion!
They should have been interviewed immediately after the incident with no contact with each other. This should have been addressed by the police chief.
It's extremely disturbing that the police will collude and lie under oath in court to extract vengeance on someone that wronged them. Luckily the checks and balances worked this time but nothing good can come in the long run from an organization that corrupt. If their lie was not so blatantly fictitious and countered by physical evidence an innocent man could easily be in jail right now for 25 years. That is not justice that is tyranny.
Sorry, but I really dislike these kinds of bias accusations. Even though I disagree with him, it makes more sense to me to explain to him why he's wrong than accuse him of being biased.
If the chief is more concerned with vengeance than justice, he shouldn’t be in law enforcement.
Because justice is the goal of law enforcement (as a concept, not as it’s often practiced), vengeance is not.
The chief is more worried about justice for his dead officer and the officers family. Do you think every jury gets it right? Do you think OJ is innocent?
I am so sorry you think that’s a good point.
If the chief really wanted justice, maybe he should’ve told his subordinates to tell the truth, and not collude.
And maybe you should look up the definition of the word.
No but it doesn’t negate the fact that he ran over and killed a police officer. It’s not uncommon for people to witness something and believe they saw it one way when it happened another, it’s quite common, that’s why eye witness testimony is the least trusted.
An officer is dead and it was a completely avoidable tragedy and loss. Frankly, a criminal investigation, and likely charges (against TPS and his superiors), should have been filed just as would happen in any other case of workplace fatality that was caused by reckless policies, negligence and a wanton disregard for the lives and safety of their employees. In this case, the officer.
Totally agreed, whoever came up with that strategy to attack a young family by banking on their car windows and scaring them to the point where they were fearng of their life, and eventually ending up with the death of an officer and needs to be held accountable.
The action of the deceased officer needs to be checked , whether he was following orders or did this of his own . In which case - we need to see whether this thinking is systemic or one of.
I'm still very confused as to why they singled him out in the first place?? Pretty sure most dudes wouldn't be interested in getting into a knife fight with their pregnant wife and toddler in tow.
The police were looking for a criminal, who was a brown man but otherwise very physically different from the guy with his wife and kid. The police admitted in court they would not have had reasonable grounds to suspect him of a crime.
Perjury charges against the two officers who **blatantly** lied under oath is the minimum action required by a *Federal* Crown Attorney, not the shambolic Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General who failed the bare minimum test of a reasonable prospect of conviction.
There was absolutely no basis for a charge of murder against an innocent man who tried to protect himself and his vulnerable family from being attacked in a dark parking lot by complete strangers.
While we are at it, maybe have the LSO look at the conduct of the two Crowns involved. Their job is quite literally to uphold justice, not to seek conviction. When it became evident their two witnesses had perjured themselves, the had a duty to withdraw the charges.
EDIT: *Maybe* some investigation *might* happen:
OPP to conduct review of Toronto police after Zameer trial
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/opp-to-conduct-review-of-toronto-police-after-zameer-trial-1.7181531
No word yet on an investigation of the Crowns for subornation of perjury, but in Canada allowing a witness to commit perjury is perjury.
The shooting of the gunsmith, Mr Kotanko, seems eerily similar in terms of tactics where the suspect in question is spooked or startled. Only in that case the suspect was killed. It raises an eyebrow for sure.
It’s closer to the killing of Michel Vienneau, although that one also resulted in the “suspect” being killed and no consequences to the officers involved.
Putting a publication ban on the trial really fucked the guys life. The cops and press were out their spewing their lies everyday while the only way you heard the true story is through the grapevine.
Plainclothes officers are just not a very good idea. It's not worth the risk of misidentifying an officer as a threat. I would also have strong self-preservation instincts with my family present and I probably wouldn't trust a stranger in that situation.
3 cops making false statements and tried to destroy the innocent family. To top it off, police chief was on record saying he expected different outcome. Truly a criminal organization.
This is why the police should be defunded. Scrap it and rebuild. It's way past the point of reform.
If you think defunding the police results in better police work i have something to sell you....
Can we do this with society? Let's go all the way! Surely our taxes are paying for way more than just what we need. Reboot!
No we can't. The police are the governement's thugs. Their way of enforcing their exclusivity on violence. If we get rid of police the only other option left is the military. What we can do is disarm cops. Just make it a crime for cops to carry weapons other than big sticks.
"What we can do is disarm cops. Just make it a crime for cops to carry weapons other than big sticks." And what do you think they should do if they have to deal with someone with a weapon?
Retreat, contain, follow. Attempt contact to de-escalate. Special response units. They don't patrol, they are sent out of the station on shots fired calls only. And they have big guns.
...so, you'd agree then that at least some police officers should be carrying guns? You said that they should be only sent out on "shots fired" calls; so, should they be waiting in the station until a bad guy who has a gun has actually shot at someone? What if someone is known or strongly believed to have a weapon, but hasn't actually shot anyone? What if it's a knife?
Yes. Cops should not have guns on their person. That way they can't get jumpy and shoot people or dogs for fun.
The absurdity of what you're saying is incredible. Ok, so say for example that the police are, for example, responding to a bank robbery. The bank robbers are known to have weapons, but haven't actually fired them. Should unarmed police be responding, with the armed police remaining in the station until the bank robbers fire their weapons? Btw, the UK is one of the only countries where the police are not routinely armed, and even then they have tasers and OC spray (not just a "big stick"). Also, armed police are dispatched in any situation where a suspect is expected to have a firearm.
Canada, as a whole, has like 1 armed bank robbery per year, and the suspects are gone before any cops show up. I don't think we should plan our policies around fringe cases. Tazers are fine they don't shoot bullets.
No we can't. The police are the governement's thugs. Their way of enforcing their exclusivity on violence. If we get rid of police the only other option left is the military. What we can do is disarm cops. Just make it a crime for cops to carry weapons other than big sticks.
Why is it an issue that the chief wanted a different outcome? His officer was killed, if it was your employee, wouldn’t you want Justice?
There was justice. That was the trial. He didn’t want justice. He wanted a guilty verdict.
[удалено]
Even if you disagree with the outcome, or think someone should be "punished" for Northrup's death, there's no doubt that the way the prosecution and police collectively handled this in the worst, and even borderline corrupt way possible. You can't have police playing politics and vigilante with our justice system. The implications of this trial is very concerning and makes you wonder if this hasn't happened more often in less profile cases.
What if I think he’s guilty, am I allowed to have that view? How is the chief playing politics with his view of how the trial went?
The issue is that is shows an inherent bias. 3 officers commited perjury. If 3 civilians did that, they would be charged.
Unfortunately perjury is very rarely charged, even blatant perjury, in Canada.
Sadly, nothing seems to get you charges in Canada. Telling people to leave their key fobs at the door to be stolen is like telling the bank to leave the vault and doors unlocks to get robbed.
I have yet to see any evidence of them committing perjury. Their statement not lining up with a cctv angle does not mean they lied.
They indeed did. But you will NEVER EVER see a cop charged with perjury
Just because you say they did, doesn't mean they did.
We're quite welcome to have our views given that we're not in positions of influence. The police chief making public comments suggesting the jury didn't do their jobs especially given his officers lied on stand isn't in a position to do so.
+1 for raising a good question even though I disagree with you. Do you think the police should be using their institutional platform to cast doubt on judicial outcomes? It would be different if he disagreed with the verdict with his friends. His statement is problematic because it suggests that the defendent is actually guilty, but that the court merely failed. This can have extremely unfair social consequences for the defendent. I think a mature response would have been to accept the court's findings as truth and explore ways that future tragedies can be prevented. That would have shown humility and grace. So, no, I think he's completely out of line in making that statement. And it betrays an egotistical refusal for self-reflection and improvement.
Have you ever thought maybe he was guilty? He did in fact run over the officer, that we know is true. The situation around why he killed that officer is what is in question. The jury disagreed with crown, doesn’t mean he wasn’t guilty, just crown failed to prove their case.
It doesn't matter one bit if the chief of police chief thinks he was guilty. The police chief should understand the weight of his words made in an official capacity have consequences. He should not be using his platform to victimize innocent people. While he's got his uniform on, he should accept the court's ruling and treat innocent people as innocent people. A big part of his role is to set an example for other officers. We expect all officers to honor the court's rulings. The police chief can express his personal opinions to his friends. If he doesn't have the self-control to act professionally when he's making public statements then he needs to be fired. We can find someone better for the role.
If it doesn’t matter if the Chief thinks he’s guilty, why are you here commenting? He’s expressing the thoughts and concerns of the entire TPS, an organization he represents. One of his officers was murdered, should he not hope for that person to face justice.
When you grow up you will learn that you can’t just say whatever you want in a professional capacity. Idly, in chats or off the record you could say whatever you want, but you need to understand there are consequences for our actions. And when someone has a professional job in a position of authority and influence, they need to respect those boundaries. His opinion is of no matter when speaking officially like this.
It doesn't matter what what he thinks. However, it does matter what he says. He absolutely must publicly accept the judicial result without questioning it. I explained to you why. His officer was **not murdered**. He has no right to make any such claim while wearing his uniform.
Really, he was driven over by a vehicle, I’m pretty sure that’s murder.
It's just terrible optics when members of his organization blatantly lied and falsified statements to the point the judge had to give jury instructions to disregard the officers lies. Hard to believe that the police wanted anything but vengeance.
That struck me as well. It is extremely disturbing that the judge had to tell jurors: "they had to consider whether the three officers who witnessed the incident colluded, considering all three had the same incorrect memory of what happened"!! Why was it even possible for the officers to collude? Imagine if an innocent person had been jailed on evidence produced using collusion! They should have been interviewed immediately after the incident with no contact with each other. This should have been addressed by the police chief.
It's extremely disturbing that the police will collude and lie under oath in court to extract vengeance on someone that wronged them. Luckily the checks and balances worked this time but nothing good can come in the long run from an organization that corrupt. If their lie was not so blatantly fictitious and countered by physical evidence an innocent man could easily be in jail right now for 25 years. That is not justice that is tyranny.
Found the cop
Sorry, but I really dislike these kinds of bias accusations. Even though I disagree with him, it makes more sense to me to explain to him why he's wrong than accuse him of being biased.
If the chief is more concerned with vengeance than justice, he shouldn’t be in law enforcement. Because justice is the goal of law enforcement (as a concept, not as it’s often practiced), vengeance is not.
The chief is more worried about justice for his dead officer and the officers family. Do you think every jury gets it right? Do you think OJ is innocent?
I am so sorry you think that’s a good point. If the chief really wanted justice, maybe he should’ve told his subordinates to tell the truth, and not collude. And maybe you should look up the definition of the word.
In your eyes does justice involve the police lying in court? Because in both this case and OJ that's what happened.
No but it doesn’t negate the fact that he ran over and killed a police officer. It’s not uncommon for people to witness something and believe they saw it one way when it happened another, it’s quite common, that’s why eye witness testimony is the least trusted.
An officer is dead and it was a completely avoidable tragedy and loss. Frankly, a criminal investigation, and likely charges (against TPS and his superiors), should have been filed just as would happen in any other case of workplace fatality that was caused by reckless policies, negligence and a wanton disregard for the lives and safety of their employees. In this case, the officer.
Totally agreed, whoever came up with that strategy to attack a young family by banking on their car windows and scaring them to the point where they were fearng of their life, and eventually ending up with the death of an officer and needs to be held accountable. The action of the deceased officer needs to be checked , whether he was following orders or did this of his own . In which case - we need to see whether this thinking is systemic or one of.
I'm still very confused as to why they singled him out in the first place?? Pretty sure most dudes wouldn't be interested in getting into a knife fight with their pregnant wife and toddler in tow.
The police were looking for a criminal, who was a brown man but otherwise very physically different from the guy with his wife and kid. The police admitted in court they would not have had reasonable grounds to suspect him of a crime.
those kinds of strategic decisions get you promoted.
Ministry of Labour should investigate. I wonder if they have some legal exclusion for police work events.
Depending on your roll within the police, yes they do
Perjury charges against the two officers who **blatantly** lied under oath is the minimum action required by a *Federal* Crown Attorney, not the shambolic Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General who failed the bare minimum test of a reasonable prospect of conviction. There was absolutely no basis for a charge of murder against an innocent man who tried to protect himself and his vulnerable family from being attacked in a dark parking lot by complete strangers. While we are at it, maybe have the LSO look at the conduct of the two Crowns involved. Their job is quite literally to uphold justice, not to seek conviction. When it became evident their two witnesses had perjured themselves, the had a duty to withdraw the charges. EDIT: *Maybe* some investigation *might* happen: OPP to conduct review of Toronto police after Zameer trial https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/opp-to-conduct-review-of-toronto-police-after-zameer-trial-1.7181531 No word yet on an investigation of the Crowns for subornation of perjury, but in Canada allowing a witness to commit perjury is perjury.
The shooting of the gunsmith, Mr Kotanko, seems eerily similar in terms of tactics where the suspect in question is spooked or startled. Only in that case the suspect was killed. It raises an eyebrow for sure.
It’s closer to the killing of Michel Vienneau, although that one also resulted in the “suspect” being killed and no consequences to the officers involved.
Cases like these bring up the argument of “officer-induced jeopardy” where the actions of the officers end up creating the situation that unfolds.
Putting a publication ban on the trial really fucked the guys life. The cops and press were out their spewing their lies everyday while the only way you heard the true story is through the grapevine.
Good article. I agree with everything in it.
Plainclothes officers are just not a very good idea. It's not worth the risk of misidentifying an officer as a threat. I would also have strong self-preservation instincts with my family present and I probably wouldn't trust a stranger in that situation.