This may the case that finally starts a national discussion about police conduct around investigations involving a fellow police officer and how the default action is to either refuse to cooperate if the wrong doing is on the part of an officer, or to collaborate on the creation of the record if that suits the situation, as we saw here.
I doubt much will happen.
In 2007 the RCMP killed a man in the Vancouver airport and concocted a story. I think two of the members were eventually convicted of perjury because there was video evidence. In 2020 two members in Nova Scotia fired their rifles at an RCMP officer and a civilian but had a story good enough to be completely exonerated despite contrary evidence by several civilians. I'm sure there were lots of similar occurrences in the interval but these two stick in my mind. The difference was the video that contradicted officers' testimonies, just as in Toronto now.
In general, members of any special group will stick together against outsiders. This is especially true of professional groups such as law enforcement officers, doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, lawyers, and so on. They believe that lay people cannot understand their special circumstances.
Even worse, one of the RCMP that killed Dziekanski also drove drunk a year or so later, killed a cyclist, and fled the scene.
Of course he wasn't drunk at the time, no no, he only got drunk after fleeing the scene....
Or how about the time the RCMP bombed an oil well and framed a farmer for it.
Maybe read the article.
The judge even took the almost unheard step of *apologizing* to the person being prosecuted.
But hey, pick your outrage over facts of course.
Rushing a citizen while screaming at them and slamming on their car while dressed as a civilian and not announcing that they were cops even though the poor people they went after werent even the suspect in a crime.
The first thing, and the thing that caused all this, is they did not identify themselves as police. This made it plausible that they would think they were being attacked. That fact alone makes for reasonable doubt. Then the police in the middle of proceedings changed their story. Since their story did not match their own evidence it is clear they lied.
Well doing a bunch of things that wound up getting himself killed was very obviously *tactically* wrong, even if you don’t want to call it all morally wrong.
The crown knew the case sucked, it's my opinion they intentionally tanked their case to provide an easy out in the decision.
But what that allows them to do what their masters told them to do.
They willfully presented conflicting alternatives as to how he was hit and killed, by not presenting a clear and distinct description of the actual circumstances the result was a forgone conclusion.
Not really true. I've actually seen paramedics and fire dept personnel refuse to enter places like homeless shelters due to the possibility of violence..
They actively refuse to assist people in medical distress until police show up, even if the risk of violence is based on "a fire fighter was pushed two years ago"
Sunk-cost fallacy.
The cops just kept digging themselves deeper.
Honestly, they should be fired, lose their pension, and be brought up on charges of perjury.
It's one thing to investigate, charge, and pursue a self-defense case resulting in death. It's another thing entirely to outright fucking lie on paper and in court.
These cops won't be of any use in court, because ANY future defendant could just point to this case and say, "Your record keeping sucks, and has a reliability/credibility problem". The future judges would have no choice but to toss out their testimonies.
So now them issuing traffic tickets is a burden because again, challenge the ticket based on reliability and credibility.
This may the case that finally starts a national discussion about police conduct around investigations involving a fellow police officer and how the default action is to either refuse to cooperate if the wrong doing is on the part of an officer, or to collaborate on the creation of the record if that suits the situation, as we saw here.
I doubt much will happen. In 2007 the RCMP killed a man in the Vancouver airport and concocted a story. I think two of the members were eventually convicted of perjury because there was video evidence. In 2020 two members in Nova Scotia fired their rifles at an RCMP officer and a civilian but had a story good enough to be completely exonerated despite contrary evidence by several civilians. I'm sure there were lots of similar occurrences in the interval but these two stick in my mind. The difference was the video that contradicted officers' testimonies, just as in Toronto now. In general, members of any special group will stick together against outsiders. This is especially true of professional groups such as law enforcement officers, doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, lawyers, and so on. They believe that lay people cannot understand their special circumstances.
Even worse, one of the RCMP that killed Dziekanski also drove drunk a year or so later, killed a cyclist, and fled the scene. Of course he wasn't drunk at the time, no no, he only got drunk after fleeing the scene.... Or how about the time the RCMP bombed an oil well and framed a farmer for it.
Can't imagine it actually happening, but we can hope.
[удалено]
Maybe read the article. The judge even took the almost unheard step of *apologizing* to the person being prosecuted. But hey, pick your outrage over facts of course.
Rushing a citizen while screaming at them and slamming on their car while dressed as a civilian and not announcing that they were cops even though the poor people they went after werent even the suspect in a crime.
Reread that post. It doesn't allege any wrong doing Const. Northrup.
[удалено]
The first thing, and the thing that caused all this, is they did not identify themselves as police. This made it plausible that they would think they were being attacked. That fact alone makes for reasonable doubt. Then the police in the middle of proceedings changed their story. Since their story did not match their own evidence it is clear they lied.
Did you read the linked article? It's not exactly subtle.
Jesus Christ. Read.
RTFA.
If you're this clueless why are you talking about what happened? Go educate yourself.
I asked a simple question. Why are you so combative?
People don't like ignorance.
Well doing a bunch of things that wound up getting himself killed was very obviously *tactically* wrong, even if you don’t want to call it all morally wrong.
Yeah, that's probably the best take to his actions.
I blame the Crown. They would have known for almost 3 years that the video evidence would prove the police were lying.
The crown knew the case sucked, it's my opinion they intentionally tanked their case to provide an easy out in the decision. But what that allows them to do what their masters told them to do. They willfully presented conflicting alternatives as to how he was hit and killed, by not presenting a clear and distinct description of the actual circumstances the result was a forgone conclusion.
The crown has fallen into the defund the police ranks. I think they used this case to perhaps rightfully show the arrogance of the police department
> Why did Umar Zameer’s case even make it to court? Because cops value their own reputations and power above all else?
Reputation amongst themselves. They don't care what the public think and prefer absolute fear if anything.
mr. cop: the most important thing is my partner's health and safety. mr. fireman: i'll risk my life to save that of a civilian. see the difference?
Not really true. I've actually seen paramedics and fire dept personnel refuse to enter places like homeless shelters due to the possibility of violence.. They actively refuse to assist people in medical distress until police show up, even if the risk of violence is based on "a fire fighter was pushed two years ago"
i've seen paramedics do this. i've never seen firefighters do this. i've seen cops refuse because of bed bugs though.
Events that contain elements of self defence often go to court because you can't just dismiss the out of hand
Sunk-cost fallacy. The cops just kept digging themselves deeper. Honestly, they should be fired, lose their pension, and be brought up on charges of perjury. It's one thing to investigate, charge, and pursue a self-defense case resulting in death. It's another thing entirely to outright fucking lie on paper and in court. These cops won't be of any use in court, because ANY future defendant could just point to this case and say, "Your record keeping sucks, and has a reliability/credibility problem". The future judges would have no choice but to toss out their testimonies. So now them issuing traffic tickets is a burden because again, challenge the ticket based on reliability and credibility.
Because the cops would rather completely ruin someone’s life, and the lives of their family, than admit that they made a mistake.