RCMP head-on crash

[Mr. Personality]

I was responding your your claim that they're more worried about one than the other. Since those are the two outcomes once an incident occurs, I'd say they're 50/50 on the two options.

With that said, I have to say this whole Mantler ordeal seems to have gone as such
1 - incident happens, footage makes the news.
2 - RCMP try first to justify the action, then smear the name of the victim.
3 - Crown decides to pursue court action.
4 - Mantler is thrown under the bus for the "greater good" of the RCMP as it is now.

[goatboy]

I was responding your your claim that they're more worried about one than the other. Since those are the two outcomes once an incident occurs, I'd say they're 50/50 on the two options.

With that said, I have to say this whole Mantler ordeal seems to have gone as such
1 - incident happens, footage makes the news.
2 - RCMP try first to justify the action, then smear the name of the victim.
3 - Crown decides to pursue court action.
4 - Mantler is thrown under the bus for the "greater good" of the RCMP as it is now.

The kick happened on a Friday, he was suspended on the Monday. What did they say to justify the action?

[Mr. Personality]

Pay him.

[goatboy]

Pay him.

That's no answer. You said they first tried to justify Mantlers action and I'm asking you what they said to support your claim.

[Mr. Personality]

Pay him.

That's no answer. You said they first tried to justify Mantlers action and I'm asking you what they said to support your claim.

Actually, it's a perfectly valid answer. Right or wrong, it's an answer.
However, because you need a roadmap, I'll go further.
They said, "Here, Mr. Mantler, we'll continue to pay you for now because we can hopefully sweep this one under the rug and you can be back on the street. Have some paid time off."

[goatboy]

Pay him.

That's no answer. You said they first tried to justify Mantlers action and I'm asking you what they said to support your claim.

Actually, it's a perfectly valid answer. Right or wrong, it's an answer.
However, because you need a roadmap, I'll go further.
They said, "Here, Mr. Mantler, we'll continue to pay you for now because we can hopefully sweep this one under the rug and you can be back on the street. Have some paid time off."

OK, so you're sticking with making stuff up. You just showed that you're as biased as GD and anything you post is invalid.
Paying him in no way shows they were trying to justify Mantlers actions, instead, it shows they were following the RCMP act which REQUIRES them to pay him.
I love it when people post things that they can't back up. It really helps make their point.

[silivren]

I was responding your your claim that they're more worried about one than the other. Since those are the two outcomes once an incident occurs, I'd say they're 50/50 on the two options.

With that said, I have to say this whole Mantler ordeal seems to have gone as such
1 - incident happens, footage makes the news.
2 - RCMP try first to justify the action, then smear the name of the victim.
3 - Crown decides to pursue court action.
4 - Mantler is thrown under the bus for the "greater good" of the RCMP as it is now.

The kick happened on a Friday, he was suspended on the Monday. What did they say to justify the action?

Sorry to jump in here - but I actually kind of agree with this - as I recall, the first press reports that the rcmp released were stating that Tavares had been charged with "careless use of a firearm in connection with a violent domestic dispute." The RCMP had also made allegations that Tavares did not have permission to be on the golf course nor did he have permits to uses the firearms.

So yeah - first reaction of the RCMP was to justify and slander. They took it all back once the charges were laid against Mantler and issued an apology to Tavares.

[goatboy]

I was responding your your claim that they're more worried about one than the other. Since those are the two outcomes once an incident occurs, I'd say they're 50/50 on the two options.

With that said, I have to say this whole Mantler ordeal seems to have gone as such
1 - incident happens, footage makes the news.
2 - RCMP try first to justify the action, then smear the name of the victim.
3 - Crown decides to pursue court action.
4 - Mantler is thrown under the bus for the "greater good" of the RCMP as it is now.

The kick happened on a Friday, he was suspended on the Monday. What did they say to justify the action?

Sorry to jump in here - but I actually kind of agree with this - as I recall, the first press reports that the rcmp released were stating that Tavares had been charged with "careless use of a firearm in connection with a violent domestic dispute." The RCMP had also made allegations that Tavares did not have permission to be on the golf course nor did he have permits to uses the firearms.

So yeah - first reaction of the RCMP was to justify and slander. They took it all back once the charges were laid against Mantler and issued an apology to Tavares.

Do you have links to these? I'm asking as sometimes things get taken as being what was reported when it was actually someone else posting what they "thought" was said.

[silivren]

Yes I do because I googled it. I remember the reports coming out and I had to go back and make sure I was correct.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... s-eby.html

http://www.chbcnews.ca/Kelowna+kicked+R ... story.html

[goatboy]

Yes I do because I googled it. I remember the reports coming out and I had to go back and make sure I was correct.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... s-eby.html

http://www.chbcnews.ca/Kelowna+kicked+R ... story.html

Thank you for at least finding some evidence to support your claim. I would argue though, that I don't believe they have taken anything back from what they initially said. I may be wrong, but I think they still maintain he didn't have permission to be on the golf course, didn't have any permits to fire the shotgun and haven't recanted the claim that it was connected to a domestic violence report. The BC Civil Liberties society didn't think they should have released that information, butIi don't think they changed what they said. The charges against Tavares were dropped by Crown because of "lack of evidence" though.

This is getting off topic form the OP though so I think if we want to continue we should switch over to the "Mantler Frustrated" thread in the Kelowna forum.

[fvkasm2x]

Sorry to jump in here - but I actually kind of agree with this - as I recall, the first press reports that the rcmp released were stating that Tavares had been charged with "careless use of a firearm in connection with a violent domestic dispute." The RCMP had also made allegations that Tavares did not have permission to be on the golf course nor did he have permits to uses the firearms.

So yeah - first reaction of the RCMP was to justify and slander. They took it all back once the charges were laid against Mantler and issued an apology to Tavares.

He didn't have permission to be there. He was off work due to his head injury. He wasn't supposed to be there that day. That's not really an allegation, it's a fact.

But I agree with goatboy... this is way off topic.

As for the topic at hand...

How many crashes in BC are there a year involving cop cars? 4 or 5 at most?

How many of those are linked to the computer system in the car and driver inattention? Perhaps one, maybe two?

How many lives are saved by RCMP being able to have those computers in the car? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

Cost/gain analysis IMO

[grumpydigger]

Cost/gain analysis

So desperate to protect your Hero at any cost. I'm sure the family of the dead boy and the other person in the hospital Would be Physically sick to hear someone say that.

It's all about protecting the RCMP name

And protecting the RCMP member who caused the death

[fvkasm2x]

Cost/gain analysis

So desperate to protect your Hero at any cost. I'm sure the family of the dead boy and the other person in the hospital Would be Physically sick to hear someone say that.

It's all about protecting the RCMP name

And protecting the RCMP member who caused the death

For the 23rd time Grumpy, I'm not a worshipper or a cheerleader. I said previously I have little faith in the RCMP as a whole and have had several negative experiences with them. A large number of them are either incompetent or lazy and the vast majority are poorly trained IMO.

I'm not really worried about one boy. It sucks, it must be heartbreaking for all that knew him and it's a shame to be sure, but I look at the bigger picture. Distracted RCMP driving kills a couple people a year, while the computers they use help save hundreds of thousands.

[grumpydigger]

Cheerleader or not

You always have an excuse to protect them.

the life of one boy means nothing in your eyes as long as your heroes can be protected....a very sick attitude to say the least

[Mr. Personality]

Pay him.

That's no answer. You said they first tried to justify Mantlers action and I'm asking you what they said to support your claim.

Actually, it's a perfectly valid answer. Right or wrong, it's an answer.
However, because you need a roadmap, I'll go further.
They said, "Here, Mr. Mantler, we'll continue to pay you for now because we can hopefully sweep this one under the rug and you can be back on the street. Have some paid time off."

OK, so you're sticking with making stuff up. You just showed that you're as biased as GD and anything you post is invalid.
Paying him in no way shows they were trying to justify Mantlers actions, instead, it shows they were following the RCMP act which REQUIRES them to pay him.
I love it when people post things that they can't back up. It really helps make their point.

Ok, if you don't like that (Mantler should have been fired, but a paid vacation for all RCMP officers is fine, I guess. How about trying to tack on "domestic dispute" where there was none? Sounds like trying to justify it to me.

And for the record, you're as biased as GD just in the opposite direction so anything you say is invalid. You can say you aren't all you want, but you are, and you're a hypocrite.
But I digress.