Mantler trial

[Trunk-Monkey]

Maybe you could explain why you think that if it's administrative that you feel someone's rights should be any different?

Edit to add: Maybe you could also explain why you only think evidence is important if it's criminal and not administrative.

Civil and criminal processes are different. Rights of an individual are different with each process. Levels of evidence are different in each process. For example in order for a person to be convicted in a CRIMINAL court the accused has to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt...the level of doubt is lesser in a civil trial. You should look the definitions up and see how each differs when it concerns evidence and rights.

[ukcanuck]

Civil and criminal processes are different. Rights of an individual are different with each process. Levels of evidence are different in each process. For example in order for a person to be convicted in a CRIMINAL court the accused has to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt...the level of doubt is lesser in a civil trial. You should look the definitions up and see how each differs when it concerns evidence and rights.

So if this was a criminal court you would be guilty of sitting on the fence with Mantler's actions, but if it were civil court you would be guilty of waiting to see what the verdict was ?

[Trunk-Monkey]

We have TM spouting off that "you can't judge a situation from watching a video". But you can judge it from statements of witnesses, such as police, who have a major stake in suggesting that Buddy was a threat and needed a kick ?

Spouting off? I think you should reread my post. I simply said in this CRIMINAL PROCEDING lets let all of the evidence presented be judged. The video albeit damaging was not the only piece of evidence and it should not be judged as so.

Yes, a video can be interpreted different ways, but everyone knows, even us bumpkins (love that word) that statements from witnesses can be even less reliable. Especially if those witnesses are trying to justify that their or their co-workers assault was justified.

Not sure if you can say this. All of the evidence in this CRIMINAL PROCESS should be looked at.

Isn't it funny how video is so reliable when it's a bank surveillance camera or a bait car camera, but when it's a video of cop wrong doing, it turns very suspect.

Dash cameras etc are used and are treated as PARTIAL evidence along with all the other pieces of evidence. The are not treated as the only thing that matters.

and, some think it's OK for these same RCMP to convict motorist at the roadside for drinking and driving. Ya, Ya,,, it's administrative. My *bleep*.

There is no CONVICTION with the administrative process...period.

[Trunk-Monkey]

So if this was a criminal court you would be guilty of sitting on the fence with Mantler's actions, but if it were civil court you would be guilty of waiting to see what the verdict was ?

I guess if you think waiting until a judge looks at all of the evidence presented in a Criminal Court and not passing judgement myself on something I did not see or was not present for...sitting on the fence..then yea.

[ukcanuck]

*try again without the off-topic personal attacks/Jo*

[LANDM]

And if he would have offered his opinion, which you are fishing for above, then he would have been lambasted no matter which way he went on this one. What is wrong isn't that he could be wrong but, rather, that to some here the RCMP on this forum cannot be right, no matter what they say.
There is nothing wrong with TM not offering up an opinion on this prior to the verdict and I don't see any hedging of bets or not manning up entering in that decision.
Sometimes being the straight man isn't a role and it is just the way someone is. And he didn't have to learn it at depot. He probably learned it during life.

[crookedmember]

I guess if you think waiting until a judge looks at all of the evidence presented in a Criminal Court and not passing judgement myself on something I did not see or was not present for...sitting on the fence..then yea.

I wonder who it was that advised the member to plead not guilty? Because it's really a stretch to believe that any amount of additional evidence would pardon those two steps back, boot to the face and blood gushing out of ol' Buddy. It was just too brutal. And, you know, the video was about 90% of the evidence.

It's hard to imagine a lawyer advising a client to put himself through that. Something so hopeless.

[dogspoiler]

Well Crooked, I would argue that point. I don't think the lawyer could care less what his client went through. He would make his plans regarding how he could recieve the largest paycheque.

[ukcanuck]

*try again without the off-topic personal attacks/Jo*

There is no point in trying again, I can't say it without going off topic or more nicely. But slap on the hand noted

My apologies TM hope you aren't too offended

[MAPearce]

There's something in it for Mantler...

I won't believe for a minute that he'd just roll over for nothing...

He's either out of money OR , he's getting a payoff to just "go away"...

[Whyme2]

There's something in it for Mantler...

I won't believe for a minute that he'd just roll over for nothing...

He's either out of money OR , he's getting a payoff to just "go away"...

Oh there's something in it for him! He's going to Inuvik as a Commissioner.

[MAPearce]

ummmm yeah... There's a reason.

[MenzieMech]

Don't kid yourself. Mantler will be just fine, and it won't be in Inuvik. There are plenty of private security companies that would offer more $$$ than what he was making with the RCMP to have him with his training anywhere in Canada or in his country of choice.
When life hands you lemons, make lemon-aid. I bet he has had more than 6 very lucrative job offers over the last few years. He will never see 1 day in jail and will be just fine.
Good luck Mr. Mantler.

[Roadster]

I have this thing where once convicted or taking a plea of guilty of such an offence a person should not be allowed to take a job of law enforcement or law authority as in police, security and such where they could be dealing with people in such a manner.
Kinda like how when someone is convicted of hurting animals they can have their rights to own animals removed for years or a life time.

Lets say he did get a security job, I doubt it would pay more then he made as a cop,,, they dont pay well and lets say he did get a job like that and did hurt someone really bad,,, looking at past history,,, wouldnt that company be held liable for having hired him knowing he has hurt someone in his past?

[diggerdick]

But he still has to look himself in the mirror every morning

Everyday for the rest of his life knowing what sort of a screwup he really is.

That's if he's got a conscience or any moral value.