RCMP officer faces charges

[Fancy]

No it should read Officer is charged because he never slowed down when told to do so

quite the leap when there has been nothing to suggest that. You might read the link I just reposted.

[rvrepairnut]

="Fancy"]

No it should read Officer is charged because he never slowed down when told to do so

quite the leap when there has been nothing to suggest that. You might read the link I just reposted.[/quote]



Fancy????what I really said and u neglected to copy my whole reply??

rvrepairnut wrote:
[[/No it should read Officer is charged because he never slowed down when told to do so and crashed his car putting him at risk and anyone in his way


soooooo? if your so so smart why was he charged ?

[Fancy]

It explains it in the link

[rvrepairnut]

It explains it in the link

explains he was told to stand down,he did not and crashed his car hence the charges

[goatboy]

explains he was told to stand down,he did not and crashed his car hence the charges

Would you care to cut and paste from the official statement Fancy posted where it said this, or even anything remotely close to this, because I couldn't find it.

Cue some excuse why he shouldn't or couldn't do this.

[rvrepairnut]

After a brief pursuit, the pursuit was ordered terminated. Shortly thereafter, the RCMP officer reported being off-road near Auto Road and 50th Ave."

At the time of the crash witnesses told Castanet the only reason the police gave up pursuit was because the police car involved in the chase had crashed

[Walking Wounded]

After a brief pursuit, the pursuit was ordered terminated. Shortly thereafter, the RCMP officer reported being off-road near Auto Road and 50th Ave."

At the time of the crash witnesses told Castanet the only reason the police gave up pursuit was because the police car involved in the chase had crashed

And these witnesses know exactly when the officer was told to break off the pursuit? But I suppose when their speculation supports your speculation it must be true.

[Bsuds]

But I suppose when their speculation supports your speculation it must be true.

That's just your speculation.

[rvrepairnut]

A reasonable smart person whom witnessed the whole deal could easly conclude once he heard that the Cop was told to stand down that the cop obviously had not and kept the chase going and thus resulting in the police car crashing(of which he witnessed)
Its how I choose to view things.You can view it however U see fit however as I have said at least 100 times when their own people(law enforcement) decide to charge themselves one has to conclude they feel there was wrong doing
the wrong doing in my opinion which I have also said 100 times is the fact he did not quit chase when directed to do so which resulted on the cop crashing the police car
For you people to keep yapping about how do u know?? why was he charged with dangerous driving???

[Treblehook]

The truth is, you can't fix stupid.... right rvrepairnut? In respect to your last posted comment though, you now have someone who actually witnessed the police car crashing? As for your conclusion that the officer is guilty because he was charged... well that is pretty much preposterous. A lot of people are charged with crimes and some are ultimately found not guilty. Innocence until proven guilty [beyond a reasonable doubt] is the basis upon which our system of justice works.. or did you not realize that? Again, the fact that someone is charged does not mean they are guilty!!!!! Maybe if I repeated that 100 times, you would come to understand the premise.

[KL3-Something]

explains he was told to stand down,he did not and crashed his car hence the charges

Incorrect. Disobeying an order does not constitute a criminal offence. The charge would have had to have been approved purely based on the manner in which he was operating the motor vehicle at the time. This aspect of him "disobeying an order" has NOTHING to do with the charge approval.

Now, before you start stomping your feet and saying it does, have a read of the section in the Criminal Code pertaining to Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle and look for where it refers to someone disobeying an order from a superior (if it was even a superios who even told him not to pursue).

Let us all know what you find will you?

[Fancy]

explains he was told to stand down,he did not and crashed his car hence the charges

No, that's not true. That is not what was stated by the Branch.
Looking forward to your response to above as well. Just wondering if you've read the applicable law.

[Treblehook]

Obviously, the truth, and the absence of verifiable facts and [above all] evidence are of no consequence to some people. Like everyone else, they are entitled to their opinions. It is unfortunate, that in expressing those opinions, they feel comfortable in manufacturing or twisting facts and circumstance to suit their purposes.

[Elroth]

when their own people(law enforcement) decide to charge themselves one has to conclude they feel there was wrong doing
the wrong doing in my opinion which I have also said 100 times is the fact he did not quit chase when directed to do so which resulted on the cop crashing the police car
For you people to keep yapping about how do u know?? why was he charged with dangerous driving???

It wasn't "his own people". It was Crown Counsel. My personal theory is that this charge is baseless and political.

I also don't think he was "chasing" her at all. Yes, I realize the IIO called it a "pursuit". They call everything a "pursuit", whether it's a high speed chase, or simply trying to get a speeder to pull over. From the information available, it seems more plausible that he was trying to close the distance, or else maybe keep an eye on her to radio her direction of travel. If he was actually chasing, he would not have been a "significant distance" behind her. Police vehicles aren't slow.

You don't seem to understand that what he was told to do or not told to do doesn't make a non-criminal act become criminal. He was speeding, slammed on the brakes, and went in the ditch in an industrial park at night. This is not a criminal act, no matter who does it. Read the criminal code.

[gordon_as]

After a brief pursuit, the pursuit was ordered terminated. Shortly thereafter, the RCMP officer reported being off-road near Auto Road and 50th Ave."

At the time of the crash witnesses told Castanet the only reason the police gave up pursuit was because the police car involved in the chase had crashed

Conveniently , you forgot to mention that these so called "witnesses" did not actually witness either of the crashes , although they did say that they heard a crash. Also , what they told castanet , and what they said in their statement under oath ( which apparently you have obtained a copy of ) may be two different things.

This unverified information , from unidentified sources , to an unofficial body (castanet) is the basis of your entire arguement for the past 37 pages. Oh right I forgot , the officer did not stop the persuit when ordered to. So , when exactly was he ordered to ? I mean , you were there and saw the whole thing , and were privy to the radio transmissions so why don't you tell us when exactly he was ordered to stop ?

Statements attributed to bona fida "witnesses" aparently stated that the officer was "some distance behind the other car"

I for one fully admit that the fantasy that you have cooked up in your mind may infact turn out to be close to the truth , however , untill the facts are made public , I will sitck to my " you don't know what you're talking about " position.