B.C. judge blames slow Mounties

[goatboy]

Much the same as Monty Robertson these officers knew how to manipulate the system So the law did not apply to them.

And the RCMP old boys club endorses it but wait an internal RCMP investigation might give them a one-day suspension without pay........

The cover-up lie and deny mantra is just a fitting motto for the manipulation of the system

Why should there be an internal investigation? They were off duty and it was a speeding ticket? While they should have just taken the ticket, they did nothing illegal. You can do exactly the same thing they did, it's not against the law, just playing the system. It happens everyday in court.

They actually were doing something illegal, that's why they were pulled over.

No you're right, that was poorly worded. The did do something illegal under the MVA. What I meant was is it wasn't a charge under the criminal code so I didn't see the need for an internal investigation.

[goatboy]

So, why not dangerous driving like you or I would get?????????????

You wouldn't necessarily get a dangerous driving charge for going 40KM'hr over. You would get an excessive speed ticket and then it would depend on the circumstances of the incident whether a dangerous driving charge was laid. Were you racing? We're you weaving in and out of traffic? Did you cause an accident. All of those things are taken into consideration. In this case, the fact that they were given tickets shows that they were treated the same as you and I and were not given a free pass because they were police officers.

[KL3-Something]

Much the same as Monty Robertson these officers knew how to manipulate the system So the law did not apply to them.

And the RCMP old boys club endorses it but wait an internal RCMP investigation might give them a one-day suspension without pay........

The cover-up lie and deny mantra is just a fitting motto for the manipulation of the system

Why should there be an internal investigation? They were off duty and it was a speeding ticket? While they should have just taken the ticket, they did nothing illegal. You can do exactly the same thing they did, it's not against the law, just playing the system. It happens everyday in court.

40km over the posted speed would be a dangerous driving charge and the impounding of vehicles is law for everyone else why not them???????

No....anyone else would have been given a ticket for $368 or $483 [depending on how far over 40km/hr they were] just like these guys. Don't forget this happened in 2009 before the new laws for impounding vehicles for excessive speed came into effect.

Meeting the elements of the offence of dangerous driving takes more than simply going more than 40 over. The cover-up, if there was going to be one, could have happened right there and then on the side of the road as soon as the ticketing member found out they were off-duty members. But that didn't happen did it because he or she decided to write them up just like he or she would have written up any other person and here we are talking about it.

The only ones who are guilty of anything even close to being unethical were the three members who chose to manipulate the system to their advantage instead of taking responsibility for their actions and paying their tickets.

[KL3-Something]

They should have taken their licks and paid their tickets.

Instead they chose to manipulate the system to their advantage.

I don't see where anyone covered anything up, lied or denied anything.

Of course you wouldn't.

OK. Help me see it then.

[Ken7]

So, why not dangerous driving like you or I would get?????????????

__________________________________________________________________


You apparently do not understand the law.

The Criminal Code offence of dangerous driving is made out where viewed objectively, the driving is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place where the driving occurs and the amount of traffic there at the time or that might reasonably be expected.

Speed alone is not dangerous; one must consider of all other possible factors. An example, 100 kms down hwy 97 at 4:00 a.m. may not be considered dangerous. Although at 3:00 p.m on a Wednesday even if there is lack of vehicular or pedestrian traffic present may be considered dangerous as on a normal Wednesday it can be reasonable to see many children coming from school other pedestrian traffic, vehicle traffic at a high etc.

If you understand what I have given as an example the speed alone on the highway was obviously not considered a danger to the public. As for your comment, it has nothing to do with you; the law is applied more fairly than you wish to believe.

[kelofornia]

So, why not dangerous driving like you or I would get?????????????

__________________________________________________________________


You apparently do not understand the law.

The Criminal Code offence of dangerous driving is made out where viewed objectively, the driving is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place where the driving occurs and the amount of traffic there at the time or that might reasonably be expected.

Speed alone is not dangerous; one must consider of all other possible factors. An example, 100 kms down hwy 97 at 4:00 a.m. may not be considered dangerous. Although at 3:00 p.m on a Wednesday even if there is lack of vehicular or pedestrian traffic present may be considered dangerous as on a normal Wednesday it can be reasonable to see many children coming from school other pedestrian traffic, vehicle traffic at a high etc.

If you understand what I have given as an example the speed alone on the highway was obviously not considered a danger to the public. As for your comment, it has nothing to do with you; the law is applied more fairly than you wish to believe.

LOL, this all explains how and why tickets are written.

[grumpydigger]

speed alone on the highway was obviously not considered a danger to the public. ...........

That comment seems a strangely contradict icbc....Even back when this incident happened..... I guess it's just who you know a

[Ken7]

speed alone on the highway was obviously not considered a danger to the public. ...........

That comment seems a strangely contradict icbc....Even back when this incident happened..... I guess it's just who you know a

_________________________________________

Strange as it may be, ICBC do not write the laws.

Dangerous driving is a Criminal Code matter; ICBC may be able to put their two cents in when it comes to the Motor Vehicle Act.

Why do I try, how old are you really?

[rotti]

It is so sad how low the respect for the RCMP has fallen. They were once a force we could all be proud of. All the controversy in the last years including incidents like this where they feel they are above the law shows that there is a lack of discipline in all ranks of the force. Time for them to go and replace them with a provincial force where we would have more authority to set standards.

[goatboy]

It is so sad how low the respect for the RCMP has fallen. They were once a force we could all be proud of. All the controversy in the last years including incidents like this where they feel they are above the law shows that there is a lack of discipline in all ranks of the force. Time for them to go and replace them with a provincial force where we would have more authority to set standards.

Some interesting results from a 2010 RCMP E Division (BC) satisfaction survey.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/surveys-sondages/2010/result-ediv10-eng.htm

[rotti]

It is so sad how low the respect for the RCMP has fallen. They were once a force we could all be proud of. All the controversy in the last years including incidents like this where they feel they are above the law shows that there is a lack of discipline in all ranks of the force. Time for them to go and replace them with a provincial force where we would have more authority to set standards.

Some interesting results from a 2010 RCMP E Division (BC) satisfaction survey.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/surveys-sondages/2010/result-ediv10-eng.htm

Interesting survey. I would like to find out who was surveyed and how many people. Does the "count" column represent the number of people asked? If it does then the "count" on some questions were only 4 - 6 people on some questions. (aunt Sally, uncle Bob. cousin Ernie and mom). I do believe people still respect the RCMP but it is no where near what it was 10- 20 years ago.

[my5cents]

The only ones who are guilty of anything even close to being unethical were the three members who chose to manipulate the system to their advantage instead of taking responsibility for their actions and paying their tickets.

So if you are a mountie and are charged with an offense, it is "close to unethical" to rely on the Charter of Rights regarding your presumption of innocents ?

"instead of taking responsibility......." ?

...and there lies the problem.... as a mountie, you feel that someone who is "obviously guilty" is unethical for pleading not guilty to a charge ???

Disputing a charge and requesting a trial is "manipulating the system" ?????


I expect the average citizen to perhaps not understand that these three motorists, who happen to be employed by the Federal Government as peace officers, have the same right to dispute the allegation that they disobeyed a provincial statute as any other motorist.

"They were close to unethical" ? I expected more from a trained peace officer, than a comment like that.

Laws are not written with proviso's that some segments of the population are more, or less, guilty because of their occupations.

Upon conviction courts may assess more or less punishment to those found guilty because of extenuating circumstances, for and against the accused, but the standard of proof required, and the scope of who may plead not guilty is uniform,,,, everyone - butcher, baker, candlestick maker,,, or yes, and police officer.

[goatboy]

It is so sad how low the respect for the RCMP has fallen. They were once a force we could all be proud of. All the controversy in the last years including incidents like this where they feel they are above the law shows that there is a lack of discipline in all ranks of the force. Time for them to go and replace them with a provincial force where we would have more authority to set standards.

Some interesting results from a 2010 RCMP E Division (BC) satisfaction survey.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/surveys-sondages/2010/result-ediv10-eng.htm

Interesting survey. I would like to find out who was surveyed and how many people. Does the "count" column represent the number of people asked? If it does then the "count" on some questions were only 4 - 6 people on some questions. (aunt Sally, uncle Bob. cousin Ernie and mom). I do believe people still respect the RCMP but it is no where near what it was 10- 20 years ago.

They polled 5700 people and then broke it down by division. The count is how many people were surveyed and this is how it broke down for each "Category" of person surveyed:

Survey of Canadians’ View of RCMP Policing Services

Target population: Random sample of 5700 Canadians from all provinces and territories

Survey of Contract Partners

Target population: Attorneys General, Mayors, and Aboriginal leaders from communities policed by the RCMP
Ontario and Quebec are not included in this survey as the RCMP is not the police force of provincial or local jurisdiction

Survey of Policing Partners

Target population: Chiefs of Canadian police forces and contacts within police services

Survey of Stakeholders and Other Partners

Target population: Assistant Deputy-Ministers (ADMs), ADM-equivalents, regional contacts from federal departments/agencies and other contacts from "non-police" partner organizations such as provincial ministries, and NGOs.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/surveys-sondages/2010/index-eng.htm

[KL3-Something]

The only ones who are guilty of anything even close to being unethical were the three members who chose to manipulate the system to their advantage instead of taking responsibility for their actions and paying their tickets.

So if you are a mountie and are charged with an offense, it is "close to unethical" to rely on the Charter of Rights regarding your presumption of innocents ?

"instead of taking responsibility......." ?

...and there lies the problem.... as a mountie, you feel that someone who is "obviously guilty" is unethical for pleading not guilty to a charge ???

Disputing a charge and requesting a trial is "manipulating the system" ?????

No. That is not what I am saying. If there was any inkling in their mind that they were not guilty of the offence they would have gone to their court date, pled their own case and let the JJP or Judge render a decision. But instead (since they didn't have a defense) knowing how back logged the court system is in Prince George, and that their trial would be given low priority as a Motor Vehicle Act offence, they made unreasonable disclosure requests that needed to be argued in court. And with each court appearance to argue the disclosure requests came further lengthy delays. Then, 3 weeks prior to trial, they demanded a hearing for a Askov argument knowing full well that it would be another lengthy delay before those arguments could be heard.

An Askov argument is not an issue of guilt or innocence.

I expect the average citizen to perhaps not understand that these three motorists, who happen to be employed by the Federal Government as peace officers, have the same right to dispute the allegation that they disobeyed a provincial statute as any other motorist.

"They were close to unethical" ? I expected more from a trained peace officer, than a comment like that.

Where does it say that I have to be impartial. I sit on one side of the law equation. I'm not a judge. And an Askov argument isn't about guilt or innocence.

Laws are not written with proviso's that some segments of the population are more, or less, guilty because of their occupations.

Can I expect you to tow this same line the next time a Mantler thread surfaces?

Upon conviction courts may assess more or less punishment to those found guilty because of extenuating circumstances, for and against the accused, but the standard of proof required, and the scope of who may plead not guilty is uniform,,,, everyone - butcher, baker, candlestick maker,,, or yes, and police officer.

I 100% agree. I just hope that one day an accused who one of these members poured their heart and soul into having charged in a months-long investigation gets gonged in an Askov decision due to the same institutional issues that they benefited from this time. Then maybe they will appreciate the distaste that so many have for their actions here.

[my5cents]

No. That is not what I am saying. If there was any inkling in their mind that they were not guilty of the offence they would have gone to their court date, pled their own case and let the JJP or Judge render a decision. But instead (since they didn't have a defense) knowing how back logged the court system is in Prince George, and that their trial would be given low priority as a Motor Vehicle Act offence, they made unreasonable disclosure requests that needed to be argued in court. And with each court appearance to argue the disclosure requests came further lengthy delays. Then, 3 weeks prior to trial, they demanded a hearing for a Askov argument knowing full well that it would be another lengthy delay before those arguments could be heard

I guess we view the justice system differently. For me, the accused doesn't have to believe he/she is not guilty to dispute an aledged offence. Pleading not guilty in my mind is just the act of the accused saying "I want the crown to prove I'm guilty, I'm not going to plead guilty.

I'm not familiar with an "Askov argument", but as long as everything the accused is asking for is within the law, it fair game.

Unless the crown took too long to respond to the defense request for info, any delay that can be accredited to the defence shouldn't be held against the crown, should it.

Where does it say that I have to be impartial. I sit on one side of the law equation. I'm not a judge

My interpretation of the duty of a police officer is a "gatherer of evidence". To that end, yes, I think a police officer should be impartial, if he/she learns something that is exculpatory during an investigation of an accused it is his/her duty to divulge that fact.

I just hope that one day an accused who one of these members poured their heart and soul into having charged in a months-long investigation gets gonged in an Askov decision due to the same institutional issues that they benefited from this time. Then maybe they will appreciate the distaste that so many have for their actions here.

I think if you look at your job as that of an impartial investigator and do your duty to the best of your abilities and forget the rest. If the crown screw something up, if the judge makes a bad decision, a witness, worse yet, the victim doesn't show up for court that's not something you can prevent. There's an old cop saying, "you never loose in court". That's because you get paid, you do a thorough investigation, give unbiased truthful evidence and let the chips fall where they may.

Give your evidence and leave the courtroom and don't look back (that is after you get your overtime slip signed).