Toronto police officer gets paid vacation for shooting teen 9 times

This is an extension of the previous thread on the subject...

Toronto Police Kill 18 Year Old Alone On Streetcar. Caught on Video. I Am Speechless

This officer clearly used excessive force when dealing with this boy... I mean really? Nine bullets and a taser blast for a teenager with a knife?

And now this officer was suspended "WITH PAY"?

Why is he still getting paid?!?

Is that how it works in this country now? Cops kill a young boy, and they get a paid vacation?

www.cbc.ca...

:shk:

reply to post by Akragon


It's a union thing.....

reply to post by Akragon

Is that how it works in this country now? Cops kill a young boy, and they get a paid vacation?

I do not agree with your above assessment. Additionally, I find it rather in poor taste that you make the connection that someone is rewarded with a "vacation" for the death of an individual. Especially when the title of the article you have linked is as follows:

Streetcar shooting: Toronto police officer suspended

Suspensions serve many purposes, such as excluding bias or prejudice during an investigation, just like a shooting death of an individual. I believe until found guilty of excessive force, the officers removal from the investigation with pay makes sense and is part of his union contract.

Here is a brief Wiki description of a "Suspension" and the reasons for doing so.

Suspension on full pay can also be used when an employee needs to be removed from the workplace to avoid prejudicing an investigation. This is used not as a punishment, but in the employer's best interest. For example, a police officer who shoots a person while on duty will be given a suspension with pay during the investigation, not to punish, but to enable the department to carry out its investigation.

I am not saying the officers involved are not guilty of excessive force or not, but to claim that they will simply be relaxing on vacation is ridiculous to me.

You know, there are good cops out there, who joined for the right reasons and under certain circumstances it forces them to react in ways they didnt think possible.

reply to post by Akragon


I'm inclined to agree that excessive force was used here. One well placed non-lethal shot should have ended this. There was a young soldier killed in Britain 2 months ago, when the armed response unit arrived they took down the suspected killers, but they were brought in ALIVE to answer for their awful crime.
Seems like too many LEO's have the mantra "The Government is not the law, I am the law!!!"

reply to post by Akragon


He is not getting paid...so my source tells me.There was a tidbit about it and it disappeared.I will bet my life on it.
I think we should hang weasels again....sorry kippers.

reply to post by MDDoxs

do not agree with your above assessment. Additionally, I find it rather in poor taste that you make the connection that someone is rewarded with a "vacation" for the death of an individual. Especially when the title of the article you have linked is as follows:

There were I think around a dozen cops there that night. Only one fired. And yes, I think the OPs characterization is correct.

Cop shoots teen, gets suspended with pay. We know he shot him, criminality is yet to be established. Zimmerman in the states (founded of the same principals of law -commonwealth-) was just held in prison until his trial. So to does Canada.

But,... police officers, they are not held on bond often, they are merely suspended with pay. Like the Toronto 8 who were later found guilty (of less crimes than they were probably guilty of) and some even racked up more charges during this time.

reply to post by boncho


I thought we were a country where everyone is innocent until proven guilty yes?

Furthermore, at present we are society of rules and regulations, are you suggesting we disregard them because we are so certain of ones guilt or innocence?

Again, my position is staying away from the matter of the killing itself and whether or not is was justifiable, but the suspension as discussed by the OP. In our country under the current guidelines and procedures, the officers suspension with pay makes sense and to compare it to a "vacation" is an inappropriate euphemism.

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by boncho

 

I thought we were a country where everyone is innocent until proven guilty yes?

Furthermore, at present we are society of rules and regulations, are you suggesting we disregard them because we are so certain of ones guilt or innocence?

Again, my position is staying away from the matter of the killing itself and whether or not is was justifiable, but the suspension as discussed by the OP. In our country under the current guidelines and procedures, the officers suspension with pay makes sense and to compare it to a "vacation" is an inappropriate euphemism.

edit on 2-8-2013 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)

So why are people held in detention then? Innocent until proven guilty does not mean they retain all the liberties that someone gains back after their trial. It means guilt is not automatically assumed. And that they receive a fair trial. But for the average person charged with a crime, they are held with detention and lose their jobs (in many cases) so I don't see why an LEO should not be held to the same or stricter standard.

After all, they are entrusted in enforcing the law, not breaking it.

There was a Toronto cop found guilty of sexually assaulting just recently and another about a year ago. If they get paid suspension and are found guilty, IMO, they should pay it back if their guilt is established.

As a 2010 Star investigation found, at that time, SIU probes had resulted in only 16 criminal convictions in the previous 20 years. Just three officers had served jail time.
“Police sentences are notoriously below the norm. This one was above the norm,” said Toronto criminal defence lawyer Reid Rusonik, who was not involved in the case. “This is a true deterrent sentence. The cops will all hear about it.”

www.thestar.com...

reply to post by boncho

So why are people held in detention then? Innocent until proven guilty does not mean they retain all the liberties that someone gains back after their trial. It means guilt is not automatically assumed.

The officer is not in detention because he has not been formally charged with a crime... That makes sense right? His suspension is the result of standard procedure to remove him from the investigation to prevent any prejudice that may result in his or her own guilt/innocence.

If guilt is established or enough evidence against the individual is gathered, then said individual will be detained and granted the opportunity to defend ones innocence. Its called due process and as it currently stands I am not aware of any formal charges being laid, thus no reason to detain the individual. Perhaps you a referring to some other legal system I am not familiar with, where everyone is guilty until proven innocent?

After all, they are entrusted in enforcing the law, not breaking it.

Which has not been established yet. If the individual is guilty or formally charged then by all means detain him, but until then he is free. To be honest, this is besides the point. We all fall under the purview of our legal system.

There was a Toronto cop found guilty of sexually assaulting just recently and another about a year ago. If they get paid suspension and are found guilty, IMO, they should pay it back if their guilt is established.

Yea that would make sense, but I think that is a topic for another discussion. However, I would agree that if suspended with pay and eventually found guilty of a crime, all moneys should be repaid or donated or something

IMO police should be suspended WITHOUT PAY, and even be held in JAIL, JUST as if THEY WERE ANYONE ELSE. many companies for example if you are CHARGED with something or even being INVESTIGATED, you are "OUT OF WORK" until it has been resolved and you are found NOT GUILTY. (and guess what they will NOT receive any "back pay" even if and when they are found not guilty). why should COPS be any different? why does a cop deserve any better treatment? perhaps if a cop KNEW he was gonna be broke for awhile it just might cause some restraint and reflection before doing something irreversible like shooting someone. if anything police should be held to a higher standard.

reply to post by generik

IMO police should be suspended WITHOUT PAY, and even be held in JAIL, JUST as if THEY WERE ANYONE ELSE.

That would imply the individuals guilt, what if the officer was innocent and worked within the codes and guidelines of his job and was suspended for the reasons I have listed above?

We would probably have a lot of innocent cops in Jail. I am not saying this to be true or false in this instance, but it seems strange to me that a common procedure which is intended to allow for a thorough and uninfluenced investigation is despised..?

Originally posted by Akragon
This is an extension of the previous thread on the subject...

Toronto Police Kill 18 Year Old Alone On Streetcar. Caught on Video. I Am Speechless

This officer clearly used excessive force when dealing with this boy... I mean really? Nine bullets and a taser blast for a teenager with a knife?

And now this officer was suspended "WITH PAY"?

Why is he still getting paid?!?

Is that how it works in this country now? Cops kill a young boy, and they get a paid vacation?

www.cbc.ca...

:shk:

edit on 2-8-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

you have to realize there's a lot of cops on this board who fancy their innocence, as if them saying nothing about their crooked amigo's is actually doing no harm.

yeah there is good cops, the few that come into the force who wish to do good, but then they get widdled down and either made to comply, or forced to say nothing, therefore there are no good cops left.

reply to post by MDDoxs

I thought we were a country where everyone is innocent until proven guilty yes?

Innocent people shouldn't sit in jail until they are proven innocent though.... So that's not really all that true of a statement anymore...Now they treat you like you are a god damn german shepherd from the time they put the cuffs on you, until you go to court, and the judge who is paid by the same people who paid the cops to arrest you, then finds you guilty of all charges...

Gotta love a 'free' country, right?

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

Innocent people shouldn't sit in jail until they are proven innocent though

I wasn't implying that at all. In any case, I agree, innocent people should not have to sit in jail, however if sufficient evidence is gathered that indicate guilt of wrong doing, then they are obliged to be detained and perhaps released on bail.

So that's not really all that true of a statement anymore...Now they treat you like you are a god damn german shepherd from the time they put the cuffs on you, until you go to court, and the judge who is paid by the same people who paid the cops to arrest you, then finds you guilty of all charges...

Gotta love a 'free' country, right?

I would argue that we still do operate under the conception and belief that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The issue stems from when public interest gets involved and emotions run high. That is why the officer involved in the shooting was suspended in the first place to prevent any influence on the investigation brought about by personal interest or emotion.

To be honest, I am sort of confused by your post. You have commented on a single line of my post and seemed to disregard the context in which it was made. Can you please clarify?

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by generik

 

IMO police should be suspended WITHOUT PAY, and even be held in JAIL, JUST as if THEY WERE ANYONE ELSE.

That would imply the individuals guilt, what if the officer was innocent and worked within the codes and guidelines of his job and was suspended for the reasons I have listed above?

We would probably have a lot of innocent cops in Jail. I am not saying this to be true or false in this instance, but it seems strange to me that a common procedure which is intended to allow for a thorough and uninfluenced investigation is despised..?

like i said just as if they were anyone else. how many "innocent average citizens" end up in jail awaiting both investigations and trials? how many of THEM don't receive PAY during the same? even if they followed "laws and regulations" in the course of events leading up to said investigations and trials. what is "good for the goose should be just as good for the gander". the police SHOULD NOT BE either ABOVE THE LAW or GIVEN EXCEPTION because of their job.

in this case the claim seems to have been "self defense" for the shooting, as the suspect was "coming towards the officer(s)". an old co-worker needed to use "self defense" one night. he was held in jail for at least part of the investigation, and he was not allowed back to work (NO PAY), until the whole issue was resolved in court and he was pronounced "not guilty". so why should a cop just because of his job get the benefit of ANY DIFFERENT TREATMENT? of course i would be all for an officer getting "back pay" for any time off IF he was found "not guilty", JUST AS LONG AS the SAME HELD TRUE FOR ANY PRIVATE CITIZEN, under the same circumstances.

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by VeritasAequitas

 

Innocent people shouldn't sit in jail until they are proven innocent though

I wasn't implying that at all. In any case, I agree, innocent people should not have to sit in jail, however if sufficient evidence is gathered that indicate guilt of wrong doing, then they are obliged to be detained and perhaps released on bail.

So that's not really all that true of a statement anymore...Now they treat you like you are a god damn german shepherd from the time they put the cuffs on you, until you go to court, and the judge who is paid by the same people who paid the cops to arrest you, then finds you guilty of all charges...

Gotta love a 'free' country, right?

I would argue that we still do operate under the conception and belief that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The issue stems from when public interest gets involved and emotions run high. That is why the officer involved in the shooting was suspended in the first place to prevent any influence on the investigation brought about by personal interest or emotion.

To be honest, I am sort of confused by your post. You have commented on a single line of my post and seemed to disregard the context in which it was made. Can you please clarify?

we don't operate under any of those things, or haven't you looked out the window lately? i think the video, more than adequately, shows sufficient evidence gathered that indicate guilt of wrong doing eyt the "cop" is off with pay.

cops should have "ZERO" more benefits awarded any common citizen. perhaps if they were actually held accountable there would be far less govt. crimes committed.

reply to post by generik

police SHOULD NOT BE either ABOVE THE LAW or GIVEN EXCEPTION because of their job.

I agree 100%

However you seem a bit confused, the officer as per the OP has not been formally charged with a crime, he is merely suspended to allow for an unimpeded and uninfluenced investigation. He is still being compensating for his time. This suspension is not a punishment, but a means to prevent bias and prejudice in the investigation.

You wouldn't want the person who was involved in someone's death being involved with the investigation.

Therefore, at this time, he is just removed from active duty, still being paid as per his union agreement until the investigation is complete. If found guilty, then by all means cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war over the compensation he received, to be honest I consider the individuals guilt or innocence more important then the fact if he was paid or not.

reply to post by LittleBlackEagle

we don't operate under any of those things, or haven't you looked out the window lately? i think the video, more than adequately, shows sufficient evidence gathered that indicate guilt of wrong doing eyt the "cop" is off with pay.

Haha Really, you want me to consider your perception of our legal system as how things actually run. I am not sure what the view is like from your window, but I advise you not to let your opinion be formed from such a narrow sighted aspect.

I am not arguing about the innocent or guilt of the individuals involved..How many times must I reiterate that. I am trying to address the suspension of the officer and to argue against the OP's position that a "vacation" was gifted to the individuals involved for a death.

My opinion on the justifiability of the murder, is that excessive force WAS used. That is not the topic of discussion however.

Originally posted by MDDoxs

However you seem a bit confused, the officer as per the OP has not been formally charged with a crime, he is merely suspended to allow for an unimpeded and uninfluenced investigation. He is still being compensating for his time. This suspension is not a punishment, but a means to prevent bias and prejudice in the investigation.

and therein is part of the problem. because HE is a COP he has not been charged. and he is still receiving pay. UNTIL they think he is guilty and charge him and put him on suspension WITHOUT PAY.

lets "strip off" his uniform. take the SAME situation but this person is NOT a COP. do you not think it rather likely he would have been CHARGED with "assault with a deadly weapon". but NOT ONLY THAT, but "using EXCESSIVE force". and assault. which of course would tend to make him UNABLE to work and get pay till it is all sorted out.

Every one who is authorized by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess thereof according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess.

yourlaws.ca...

Self Defense If a person is being assaulted, he may respond with force to protect himself, according to Section 35 of Canada's Criminal Code. However, the use of force is only justified if the person being assaulted attempts to retreat from the situation before responding with force and, in being unable to retreat, fears "death or grievous bodily harm."

Reasonable Force
Force is only justified when it is "reasonable." Reasonable force is limited to the force necessary to protect oneself from harm, but cannot rise to the level of revenge or punishment. For example, a person cannot shoot someone for simply punching her.

Excessive Force
Section 26 states that if the use of force is deemed excessive, a person (law enforcement or civilian) will be held criminally liable for any conduct considered beyond reasonable force.

Read more: www.ehow.com...

it even seems COPS ARE covered by this. so why UNLIKE a civilian has he not being held and still getting paid?

Defence of Person Self-defence against unprovoked assault 34
. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
Extent of justification
(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if (a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and (b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F).
Self-defence in case of aggression
35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if (a) he uses the force (i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and (ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm; (b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and (c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose.

i also found this cute little "use of force framework"


it seems to show that the amount of force used is inappropriate. so WHY is he just suspended WITH PAY, while they investigate?

You wouldn't want the person who was involved in someone's death being involved with the investigation.

that goes without needing to be said. in fact no one he works with/over/under, or is "friends" with etc, should be involved as well which is why there is the SIU.

Originally posted by MDDoxs

Therefore, at this time, he is just removed from active duty, still being paid as per his union agreement until the investigation is complete. If found guilty, then by all means cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war over the compensation he received, to be honest I consider the individuals guilt or innocence more important then the fact if he was paid or not.

this says quite a lot, "he is just removed from active duty, still being paid". but if he was not a cop don't you think he would probably be in jail while they investigate at least until such a time the "believe" he was in the right? or perhaps made BAIL? and that because of the types of charges he would be facing that he would not be able to work and so not getting pay until either they cleared him or he was found "not guilty".

so because he is a "cop" he has his freedom, and his paycheck for however long the "investigation" takes. while a "civilian would likely be in jail, possibly out on "bail" (which he would have to come up with the money for), and because of the type of "crime(s)" involved even if not actually CHARGED at the moment just the fact that such charges are even pending would more than likely cause his inability to work, thus be without pay, during the same time. yup that seems to be fair (NOT). so while a "civilian" would not only be worrying about the charges he would be facing, but the fact that he doesn't have income to pay for things like his bills, rent, lawyer fees, etc, while the "cop" just has to worry about the situation secure in the knowledge that he is still receiving pay and that bills, rent and such are covered.

i agree his guilt or innocence IS more important in the end. but that does NOT lessen the fact that because he is a cop he receives better treatment than if he was a civilian.