High Ranking Police Folk Allegedly Behaving Badly

[brihard]

Looks like he quit the same day he pled; likely part of the deal.

At any time in the past several years, the Ontario government could have enacted the necessary regulation to allow for unpaid suspension of police officers criminally charged with serious offences. They have still chosen not to.

 

[lenaitch]

Looks like he quit the same day he pled; likely part of the deal.

At any time in the past several years, the Ontario government could have enacted the necessary regulation to allow for unpaid suspension of police officers criminally charged with serious offences. They have still chosen not to.

They're still "developing the regulations" (apparently in consultation with police associations and chiefs). Seeing as it was the previous government that brought in the new Act, it seems the development has been going rather slowly.

Maybe they should get the Minister of Housing's Chief of Staff to jump on board.

 

[TCM621]

Looks like he quit the same day he pled; likely part of the deal.

At any time in the past several years, the Ontario government could have enacted the necessary regulation to allow for unpaid suspension of police officers criminally charged with serious offences. They have still chosen not to.

The reason they are suspended with pay is that they are innocent until proven guilty. Police officers get accused of pretty heinous crimes on a regular basis. It turns out criminals lie a lot, who knew? In some cases, the department has to suspend the officer either because the crime is serious enough that the person, if guilty, should not be acting in a police capacity. In other cases, officers are suspended because departments want the heat to go away (becoming more and more common). A lot of these suspensions are little more than "we know you are innocent, take a couple days off while we sort this out". It covers there ass a bit if they are wrong and doesn't punish the officer much. Suspending someone without pay for something they didn't do is lawsuit territory. Even if they are guilty, they could still sue. In a lot of cases, paying the salary of a police officer for a year or so is less than they would spend on legal fees. You could write legislation that enabled police departments to fire a guilty officer effective the day they went on suspension and go after the individual for any money that was paid out. However, you run into the problem of spending $200,000 to get back $100,00.

I understand that it feels wrong that someone who violated the trust given to police officers should still get paid as one. The issue is that for every suspension that turns out justified there are probably 10 or more that aren't. Even the one that turns out to be justified is rarely as cut and dried as the ones that show up on social media or the news. Policies have to be written in away that cover the most common scenarios rather than focus on the rare cases to the detriment of the rest. It's honestly a very difficult problem. Most cops do the best they can. Some of them screw up from time to time and need to be punished but for the most part they do the job to the best of their abilities. Very rarely is there an officer who does something so heinous it ends up on the news for us to judge. Those rare cases are what get people fired up and demanding change thinking this is the norm when it is very clearly not. I don't have an answer but suspending potentially innocent people without pay isn't it.

 

[brihard]

The reason they are suspended with pay is that they are innocent until proven guilty. Police officers get accused of pretty heinous crimes on a regular basis. It turns out criminals lie a lot, who knew? In some cases, the department has to suspend the officer either because the crime is serious enough that the person, if guilty, should not be acting in a police capacity. In other cases, officers are suspended because departments want the heat to go away (becoming more and more common). A lot of these suspensions are little more than "we know you are innocent, take a couple days off while we sort this out". It covers there ass a bit if they are wrong and doesn't punish the officer much. Suspending someone without pay for something they didn't do is lawsuit territory. Even if they are guilty, they could still sue. In a lot of cases, paying the salary of a police officer for a year or so is less than they would spend on legal fees. You could write legislation that enabled police departments to fire a guilty officer effective the day they went on suspension and go after the individual for any money that was paid out. However, you run into the problem of spending $200,000 to get back $100,00.

I understand that it feels wrong that someone who violated the trust given to police officers should still get paid as one. The issue is that for every suspension that turns out justified there are probably 10 or more that aren't. Even the one that turns out to be justified is rarely as cut and dried as the ones that show up on social media or the news. Policies have to be written in away that cover the most common scenarios rather than focus on the rare cases to the detriment of the rest. It's honestly a very difficult problem. Most cops do the best they can. Some of them screw up from time to time and need to be punished but for the most part they do the job to the best of their abilities. Very rarely is there an officer who does something so heinous it ends up on the news for us to judge. Those rare cases are what get people fired up and demanding change thinking this is the norm when it is very clearly not. I don't have an answer but suspending potentially innocent people without pay isn't it.

Yup, I’m on side with the majority of that. I’ve been a police officer for about a decade and have provided assistance and representation to other officers in conduct matters as a union rep, including a case where one was suspended with pay and facing potentially serious conduct measures (he was completely cleared, and I was proud to play a small role in that).

I’m not talking about unpaid suspensions based purely on allegations that are going entirely through internal or Police Services Act conduct processes. I’m talking about cases where serious criminality has been alleged and where criminal charges have actually be laid.

A majority of conduct allegations against police are bullshit. Been there, been accused, been sued… It comes with the job. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m referring to cases where there have been serious persons or professional integrity offences, and where the higher bar of laying charges is met. Cases like this recent former OPS member, or that OPP guy who was in the news not long ago, etc. I think my thinking is aligned with much of the public on this, and actually within the profession we having seeing total pieces of shit charged with heinous offences and sitting there making pay for years while it winds through court and conduct hearings. I believe a ‘serious criminality’ threshold would be appropriate and would absolutely be legally defensible.

 

[mariomike]

Seeing as it was the previous government that brought in the new Act, it seems the development has been going rather slowly.

Perhaps the current government is "slow walking" development? < dunno emoji

 

[dapaterson]

Perhaps the current government is "slow walking" development? < dunno emoji

Depends on the type of development...

 

[Haggis]

Cases like this recent former OPS member, or that OPP guy who was in the news not long ago, etc.

This guy , who had three more years tacked on to his six on Thursday. Fire by the O.P.P. the day he was charged, too.

 

[brihard]

This guy , who had three more years tacked on to his six on Thursday. Fire by the O.P.P. the day he was charged, too.

Oh good. Screw that guy.

 

[TCM621]

I believe a ‘serious criminality’ threshold would be appropriate and would absolutely be legally defensible.

How do you deal with the people who are cleared? Saying you can't act as an officer until we sort this out is one thing, saying you can't pay your bills until this finally gets through the court system is another thing entirely. Maybe a hearing or something needs to be held where one considers the totality of the situation like crime alleged, officer history, strength of the evidence etc. It could be a committee filled with senior pers, union pers and maybe civilian representatives. At least that would be easier to defend than a unilateral decision from management.

I totally understand the issue. Cops have so much power they need to be held to the highest standard and any appearance of leniency erodes the public trust. It is a very fine line to walk. If you go to far to one side you have cops quitting en masse like you are seeing in the US right now but if you go too far the other side, you end up with a public that fears rather than trust cops. My only solution in cases like this one is transparency. If you can show you dotted every i and crossed every t, both the public and the officers can feel confident the process was fair.

 

[OldSolduer]

This guy , who had three more years tacked on to his six on Thursday. Fire by the O.P.P. the day he was charged, too.

He’s gonna be a real popular guy in the pen.
I foresee PC in his future.

 

[brihard]

How do you deal with the people who are cleared? Saying you can't act as an officer until we sort this out is one thing, saying you can't pay your bills until this finally gets through the court system is another thing entirely. Maybe a hearing or something needs to be held where one considers the totality of the situation like crime alleged, officer history, strength of the evidence etc. It could be a committee filled with senior pers, union pers and maybe civilian representatives. At least that would be easier to defend than a unilateral decision from management.

I totally understand the issue. Cops have so much power they need to be held to the highest standard and any appearance of leniency erodes the public trust. It is a very fine line to walk. If you go to far to one side you have cops quitting en masse like you are seeing in the US right now but if you go too far the other side, you end up with a public that fears rather than trust cops. My only solution in cases like this one is transparency. If you can show you dotted every i and crossed every t, both the public and the officers can feel confident the process was fair.

It will be exceptionally rare for a police officer to be charged with serious criminal offences (let’s say sexual assault and forcible confinement), not related to their duties (which rules out potentially lawful but contentious use of force), where they are not only criminally acquitted but also fully cleared in an internal conduct probe. If that were to happen, reinstatement with back pay could easily be accomplished, and compensatory damages awarded, probably in a fast settlement. Remember that a criminal conviction is not required to terminate a police officer’s employment for serious misconduct.

This is pretty straightforward to build a formula for. Presumptive auspension without pay when:

- A police officer is criminally charged with serious criminality that calls into question their suitability to do the job (definition of this to be refined, but most serious crimes against persons; breach of trust/corruption; trafficking controlled substances);

- The alleged criminality is not directly tied to their duties (so you don’t have a suspension without pay for someone charged in a use of force incident that looks bad but ends up with them being cleared);

- The chief of police believes on reasonable grounds that it is in the best interest of the public’s confidence in the police service that the accused be suspended without pay.

There could be an expedited review process out in place to challenge such a suspension’s reasonableness, and other procedural protections out in place, but I think this would be very reasonable. The threshold of serious criminal charges all but guarantees you’ll filter out pretty much any misconduct cases that are dubious, given that conduct matters have a balance of probabilities threshold that’s much lower than the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

This could be applied to many of the cases we’ve seen and discussed throughout this thread, and ai think would be pretty much batting a thousand.

 

[lenaitch]

How do you deal with the people who are cleared? Saying you can't act as an officer until we sort this out is one thing, saying you can't pay your bills until this finally gets through the court system is another thing entirely. Maybe a hearing or something needs to be held where one considers the totality of the situation like crime alleged, officer history, strength of the evidence etc. It could be a committee filled with senior pers, union pers and maybe civilian representatives. At least that would be easier to defend than a unilateral decision from management.

I totally understand the issue. Cops have so much power they need to be held to the highest standard and any appearance of leniency erodes the public trust. It is a very fine line to walk. If you go to far to one side you have cops quitting en masse like you are seeing in the US right now but if you go too far the other side, you end up with a public that fears rather than trust cops. My only solution in cases like this one is transparency. If you can show you dotted every i and crossed every t, both the public and the officers can feel confident the process was fair.

In Ontario, that's what the regulations under that Act are meant to deal with, and which we still await. Discussions involving the government, 'management' (Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police) and 'labour' (Ontario Police Association et al) have been ongoing for some time and I understand they are very close. I can only imagine that back pay or pay banking will be addressed.

With representative from all sides on board, successful application of unpaid suspensions has greater likelihood of legal success. Speeding up the process would certainly help. Speeding up the criminal justice system is a huge issue, but there needs to be streamlining in the discipline process as well, and I'm not sure how much progress they could make on the that front. It's a quasi-judicial process now; disclosure, motions, everybody lawyers up, etc. I can only imagine the regulations, whenever they emerge, will include some kind of appeal or review hearing process to a 'unpaid application'.

There are (very) roughly 120 cops under suspension in Ontario. Like Brihard, I don't think those 'eligible' for unpaid suspension would be be very large. Those cases; however, are the ones that catch the media and public's attention.

 

[mariomike]

In Canada we still have a ways to go to figure this out. Body cams are new here and few police have them yet. It will take years for legal departments to figure out acceptable standards for public interest disclosure.

City of Baltimore police body cam, released today, showing an individual transported face down on stretcher to hospital by ambulance.

You know how it ends. $

 

[Haggis]

This guy , who had three more years tacked on to his six on Thursday. Fire by the O.P.P. the day he was charged, too.

And, he's back in the news again. This time charged with forgery.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

He’s gonna be a real popular guy in the pen.
I foresee PC in his future.

 

[BrianWL]

and this is something the mainstream media ignore. we do "well being" checks and mental health apprehensions and criminal arrests 24/7/365. out of all of these thousands of contacts, were going to hurt or kill people. thats the cost of doing business and in Canada, almost never happens. yet we still get shit on. it is not easy being the societal illness whipping girls and boys. and for you CAF folks giving us the gears. fucking calm down. you use force once in a while. we use it every single day. mistakes will be made

Ottawa Police (several months ago, but not previously mentioned on this thread). Once again, it appears that there's some sort of Police Discount with the Crown for misconduct; a non-police officer would never have been permitted to plead out and get such minimal sanction after fifteen charges and eleven breaches of orders.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-police-officer-guilty-plea-hinterberger-1.6813734

want to back that observation up with some cases. courts are extremely lenient these days....cop or not.

 

[lenaitch]

courts are extremely lenient these days

A relatively recent example:

Man charged with murdering officer allegedly went on violent crime spree while out on bail

It appears no one was actively searching for Randall McKenzie before he allegedly killed an OPP officer — despite facing new charges while on bail, Susan Clairmont writes.

www.thespec.com

 

[daftandbarmy]

A relatively recent example:

Man charged with murdering officer allegedly went on violent crime spree while out on bail

It appears no one was actively searching for Randall McKenzie before he allegedly killed an OPP officer — despite facing new charges while on bail, Susan Clairmont writes.

www.thespec.com

OTOH, if you're crazy enough to destroy the neighbour's shrubbery


Over the six months in 2021, Khatkar trespassed on the plaintiff’s property and cut off up to 3.3 metres of 75 4.5-metre-tall mature cedar trees on the property line between the two properties, ultimately causing the cedar hedge to be destroyed, Francis wrote.

The hedge, which was clearly on plaintiff’s side of a chain-link fence, which also belonged to the plaintiff, provided a “complete privacy screen,” which the two people who lived there valued, she wrote.

Surrey woman destroys neighbour's cedar hedge, court hits her for $150K in damages

Dozens of cedar shrubs were cut down.

www.timescolonist.com

 

[OldSolduer]

OTOH, if you're crazy enough to destroy the neighbour's shrubbery

That is when you call Roger the Shrubber.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The honourable thing to do, of course...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1698703967658852415