Off Topic

Our glorious protectors are at it again! 3 TO cops arrested for gang sexual assault

  • Last Updated:
  • Aug 12th, 2017 12:26 am
Tags:
None
Deal Fanatic
Apr 24, 2006
6636 posts
472 upvotes
Toronto
There's a lot of people posting in this thread who really don't understand laws, unions, policies and regulations.

"I THINK IT SHOULD BE THIS WAY THEREFORE THE POLICE ARE TERRIBLE PEOPLE"

Ugh.
I Declare - The official guide to your Customs exemptions and item restrictions when returning to Canada from abroad.
Banned
User avatar
Nov 1, 2014
4317 posts
545 upvotes
Toronto, ON
At least the gangbangers didn't shoot her after they gangraped her

like these fine officers
Prosecutors: Not Enough Evidence Cops Who Shot Unarmed Man 16 Times As He Lay In Bed Acted With ‘Malice’
http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/22/prose ... e-cops-who

Four years ago cops from the King's County Sheriff's Office and the state Department of Corrections (DOC) in Washington busted into the home of Dustin Theoharis and shot the unarmed man 16 times as he lay in bed. Theoharis had at least a dozen surgeries but survived. He sued the county, settling for $3 million, and has also sued the DOC.

Both the county and the department have ruled the shootings justified, despite the lack of a firearm and the fact that the two cops shot a man 16 times as he lay in bed. Earlier this month a judge ruled Theoharis' excessive force lawsuit against the DOC could move forward, citing the cops' questionable testimony (they didn't provide a statement for weeks after the shooting).

But that's not enough for county prosecutors, who when they declined three years ago to charge the two officers, in part because they said the officers wouldn't give them statements, said they would review the decision if new information came out. Via The Seattle Times:

On Friday, the Prosecutor's Office released this statement:

"We have reviewed the depositions and other documents from the civil case, including the recent ruling from the Federal court presiding over the civil lawsuit. We did not find any new information that would change our legal analysis.

"There remains insufficient evidence that the officers were acting with malice or in bad faith when they used deadly force," the statement added. "The State would not be able to disprove the justifiable use of deadly force beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we are unable to file criminal charges. "

Both officers appear to remain employed with their respective agencies, while according to his attorney Theoharis, a mechanic, is still recovering from his injuries and unable to work
Banned
Feb 12, 2015
138 posts
16 upvotes
GTA, ON
So that makes it alright then? Wow
LandKing wrote:
Feb 23rd, 2015 3:19 pm
At least the gangbangers didn't shoot her after they gangraped her

like these fine officers
Prosecutors: Not Enough Evidence Cops Who Shot Unarmed Man 16 Times As He Lay In Bed Acted With ‘Malice’
http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/22/prose ... e-cops-who

Four years ago cops from the King's County Sheriff's Office and the state Department of Corrections (DOC) in Washington busted into the home of Dustin Theoharis and shot the unarmed man 16 times as he lay in bed. Theoharis had at least a dozen surgeries but survived. He sued the county, settling for $3 million, and has also sued the DOC.

Both the county and the department have ruled the shootings justified, despite the lack of a firearm and the fact that the two cops shot a man 16 times as he lay in bed. Earlier this month a judge ruled Theoharis' excessive force lawsuit against the DOC could move forward, citing the cops' questionable testimony (they didn't provide a statement for weeks after the shooting).

But that's not enough for county prosecutors, who when they declined three years ago to charge the two officers, in part because they said the officers wouldn't give them statements, said they would review the decision if new information came out. Via The Seattle Times:

On Friday, the Prosecutor's Office released this statement:

"We have reviewed the depositions and other documents from the civil case, including the recent ruling from the Federal court presiding over the civil lawsuit. We did not find any new information that would change our legal analysis.

"There remains insufficient evidence that the officers were acting with malice or in bad faith when they used deadly force," the statement added. "The State would not be able to disprove the justifiable use of deadly force beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we are unable to file criminal charges. "

Both officers appear to remain employed with their respective agencies, while according to his attorney Theoharis, a mechanic, is still recovering from his injuries and unable to work
Deal Fanatic
Dec 27, 2013
5911 posts
2021 upvotes
Toronto
olek86 wrote:
Feb 20th, 2015 1:08 pm
Level of crime should be at focus when deciding to suspend with or without pay.
What crime did I do when my BAC level is .05 and they tow my car and suspend my licence?

What crime did I do when the officer charges me with speeding, impounds my car, and then when I go to court I win and found not guilty?

These aren't even crimes, and yet I have to bare an economic burden?
Banned
Apr 27, 2014
652 posts
12 upvotes
lol at the OP. Probably got in trouble with the law before and like most criminals, they tend to hate cops.

But one thing this brings up though is this: Cops and law enforcement and other government agencies are populated by human beings. Human beings can make mistakes. Human beings can also do immoral or unlawful acts. Human beings are biased. Human beings are quick to judge and are judgmental. This is a fact of life.

Which is why we always need checks and balances to keep things in check to make sure there is an adversarial relationship between difference agencies that keeps each other in check. E.g. internal affairs vs cops. Our ultimate goal should be to make a better society and a better working system.

This relates to the recent law being proposed to expand our policing and security powers. I think any increase needs to be tempered with an increase in oversight. We really can't afford to make the same mistakes of the past. i.e. We don't want to have what is our own version of nazi Gestapo officers that are free to do whatever they want with no checks and balances.
Banned
Feb 12, 2015
138 posts
16 upvotes
GTA, ON
Ironic then don't you think that cops don't think this way, and when they do despicable acts, they expect to get away with it and get paid. One of the only occupations that rewards bad behavior....In the Military, these cops will be arrested pending an investigation
poopipoopi1 wrote:
Feb 24th, 2015 6:59 am
lol at the OP. Probably got in trouble with the law before and like most criminals, they tend to hate cops.

But one thing this brings up though is this: Cops and law enforcement and other government agencies are populated by human beings. Human beings can make mistakes. Human beings can also do immoral or unlawful acts. Human beings are biased. Human beings are quick to judge and are judgmental. This is a fact of life.

Which is why we always need checks and balances to keep things in check to make sure there is an adversarial relationship between difference agencies that keeps each other in check. E.g. internal affairs vs cops. Our ultimate goal should be to make a better society and a better working system.

This relates to the recent law being proposed to expand our policing and security powers. I think any increase needs to be tempered with an increase in oversight. We really can't afford to make the same mistakes of the past. i.e. We don't want to have what is our own version of nazi Gestapo officers that are free to do whatever they want with no checks and balances.
Banned
Apr 27, 2014
652 posts
12 upvotes
jetsetr wrote:
Feb 24th, 2015 7:20 am
Ironic then don't you think that cops don't think this way, and when they do despicable acts, they expect to get away with it and get paid. One of the only occupations that rewards bad behavior....In the Military, these cops will be arrested pending an investigation
I am fully aware people of authority abuse authority. What else can you do? Up standing people are hard to find, depending on how one is raised up, their intelligence and their morals. Its inevitable that some bad personality makes it into a position of power.

Which is why I agree that there always needs to be checks and balances. This is how we create a system that works. Just giving authorities more and more power doesn't make our society safer, because now we are at the mercy of these individuals who can abuse their power, breaks laws, and get away with it. This is not what we want. We don't want anyone who is above the law. The law needs to be above everyone, including those assigned to enforce it. Which is why with every increase in policing powers, we need to increase oversight and increase the powers of those adversarial agencies that overlook their activities also. Its all to keep things in check.

Otherwise its just a gong show where people in existing positions of authority basically have totalitarian control and unbalanced power. They are also often the only guys with guns too. Ultimately, we will end up with our own version of the nazi Gestapo officers that are like a bunch of fratboys who can do anything in society without impunity as they are way above the law, have no oversight, don't report details of their activities and have guns.

I think the biggest problem is people never like to admit they are wrong. There is too much covering your ass and deflecting going on in general. As for people who always admit fault, then get flooded by over-reacting stupid public who generalizes things and lynches people. This is the problem. Both sides of the spectrum. Dumb, low intelligence, non-understanding and over-reacting public. And CYA policies of these agencies.

For example, its well known cops always cover for other cops. Most of them actually have this attitude because of a sense of comradery or because they feel the public will generalize and broad stroke all cops. Often this leads to cops wanting to protect the bad cops. In an ideal society, cops will not protect bad cops and is transparent. And the public won't broad stroke all cops as evil. Unfortunately this ain't the case because cops like to protect their status quo and have compradery, while the public is stupid and dumb and not understanding and broad stroke all cops. Take a look at the OP. lol. Which is why cops will always do CYA. And the public will always broad stroke everything.
Banned
Feb 12, 2015
138 posts
16 upvotes
GTA, ON
Sad really that the only time a cop is more likely to go down for something, is when it's to do with domestic violence i.e. beating up a spouse, or in the extreme killing them. This is the only time a group demands changes and the people in authority listen and instantly get rid of the bad apple to avoid bad press.

Perhaps changing the requirement of the job i.e. becoming a cop, might help weed out the less than intelligent types to a point? Simply doing some police foundation course and having a high school diploma that might not even be above average isn't a good pre-req
poopipoopi1 wrote:
Feb 24th, 2015 7:30 am
I am fully aware people of authority abuse authority. What else can you do? Up standing people are hard to find, depending on how one is raised up, their intelligence and their morals. Its inevitable that some bad personality makes it into a position of power.

Which is why I agree that there always needs to be checks and balances. This is how we create a system that works. Just giving authorities more and more power doesn't make our society safer, because now we are at the mercy of these individuals who can abuse their power, breaks laws, and get away with it. This is not what we want. We don't want anyone who is above the law. The law needs to be above everyone, including those assigned to enforce it. Which is why with every increase in policing powers, we need to increase oversight and increase the powers of those adversarial agencies that overlook their activities also. Its all to keep things in check.

Otherwise its just a gong show where people in existing positions of authority basically have totalitarian control and unbalanced power. They are also often the only guys with guns too. Ultimately, we will end up with our own version of the nazi Gestapo officers that are like a bunch of fratboys who can do anything in society without impunity as they are way above the law, have no oversight, don't report details of their activities and have guns.

I think the biggest problem is people never like to admit they are wrong. There is too much covering your ass and deflecting going on in general. As for people who always admit fault, then get flooded by over-reacting stupid public who generalizes things and lynches people. This is the problem. Both sides of the spectrum. Dumb, low intelligence, non-understanding and over-reacting public. And CYA policies of these agencies.

For example, its well known cops always cover for other cops. Most of them actually have this attitude because of a sense of comradery or because they feel the public will generalize and broad stroke all cops. Often this leads to cops wanting to protect the bad cops. In an ideal society, cops will not protect bad cops and is transparent. And the public won't broad stroke all cops as evil. Unfortunately this ain't the case because cops like to protect their status quo and have compradery, while the public is stupid and dumb and not understanding and broad stroke all cops. Take a look at the OP. lol. Which is why cops will always do CYA. And the public will always broad stroke everything.
[OP]
Sr. Member
User avatar
Feb 9, 2013
819 posts
436 upvotes
Ottawa
poopipoopi1 wrote:
Feb 24th, 2015 6:59 am
lol at the OP. Probably got in trouble with the law before and like most criminals, they tend to hate cops.

But one thing this brings up though is this: Cops and law enforcement and other government agencies are populated by human beings. Human beings can make mistakes. Human beings can also do immoral or unlawful acts. Human beings are biased. Human beings are quick to judge and are judgmental. This is a fact of life.

Which is why we always need checks and balances to keep things in check to make sure there is an adversarial relationship between difference agencies that keeps each other in check. E.g. internal affairs vs cops. Our ultimate goal should be to make a better society and a better working system.

This relates to the recent law being proposed to expand our policing and security powers. I think any increase needs to be tempered with an increase in oversight. We really can't afford to make the same mistakes of the past. i.e. We don't want to have what is our own version of nazi Gestapo officers that are free to do whatever they want with no checks and balances.
No, I haven't had any trouble with the law. And to correct you, I do not hate cops. What I do hate though, is waste and corruption in the organizations that we, as taxpayers are paying for.

If I used your own logic against you, I'd assume you're a cop or are related to or friends with one.
Banned
Apr 27, 2014
652 posts
12 upvotes
iflyplanes wrote:
Feb 24th, 2015 9:24 am
If I used your own logic against you, I'd assume you're a cop or are related to or friends with one.
Well, then that will be terrible logic and a clear demonstration for a lack of comprehension skills, because I clearly stated that I am also against corrupted organizations also.

I believe in checks and balances. e.g. Even though the conservatives passed the security law today, I still would have liked to see more oversight written in because I know the reality of these situations versus the theory that they are basing their decisions on. In theory authorities don't abuse power and dont show bias. In reality people do and authorities are people.
Deal Fanatic
Apr 8, 2013
7023 posts
219 upvotes
t3359 wrote:
Feb 23rd, 2015 9:10 am
Oh there you are again KD - I thought we dealt with that last time we talked about it in the other thread. We asked you to PROVE that the white paper was wrong, and you couldn't. As far as we are concerned, you are wrong.

bjl
Please prove that the politician is responsible for this. Using a white paper that contains a discussion within the police force isnt proof.

Thank you.
Deal Fanatic
Apr 8, 2013
7023 posts
219 upvotes
Shaner wrote:
Feb 23rd, 2015 9:28 am
The only proof of what? The Police Services Act is law, not policy. Law can only be passed or changed by politicians. There's no disputing that, it's a fact. The only people who can change provincial law are provincial politicians.
Are you saying that the Police Union have no influence at all?. :lol:

Are you saying that the politicians act on their own when they pass laws?. :lol:

Is that what you are really saying here?.
Moderator
User avatar
Jul 5, 2004
22140 posts
2058 upvotes
kevindurant1 wrote:
Feb 24th, 2015 4:06 pm
Are you saying that the Police Union have no influence at all?. :lol:

Are you saying that the politicians act on their own when they pass laws?. :lol:

Is that what you are really saying here?.
No, if I said that then you'd be able to quote where I said it, but you can't. Of course the police union wants full pay during an investigation. Maybe the union has even pressured the government to keep the law as is, who knows. I would absolutely expect nothing less from the union executives considering that is what they get paid to do. That's completely irrelevant though. The police union does not pass laws no matter how much influence they have, politicians do. If you have an issue with a law, you take it up with politicians, not those who may or may not be influencing the politicians.

By the way, police chiefs also influence politicians (as they are borderline politcians themselves) and they would love nothing more than to be able to suspend without pay. It would save their departments money.
Toronto Maple Leafs tickets for sale. PM me for details
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 16, 2012
3012 posts
289 upvotes
Mississauga
Lets be real cops have vested interest in not having to much oversight, hence why you see the Union always defending its members to the till when charges come about. There is a long history of officers refusing to deal with oversight organizations like the SIU when one of there own is being investigated, seems to be the nature of the culture of the ' blue wall ' which has infected many police based organizations. They are no different then any governmental agency which has a fundamental responsibility to its citizens in a democratic system.

Top