Cop in America doing a bad job, again

Looks like they do have jurisdiction:

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/plcng/brgnl-plcng/index-en.aspx

There are two main types of policing agreements:

  • Self-administered Police Service Agreements, where a First Nation or Inuit community manages its own police service under provincial policing legislation and regulations; and
  • Community Tripartite Agreements, where a dedicated contingent of officers from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police provides policing services to a First Nation or Inuit community.
 
Grinner said:
I'd like to know the details before deciding.
Click to expand...

Naturally, although from reading the AJC article it seems like lack of detail (i.e. poor record keeping) is one of the control failures:

An incident involving the discharge of a firearm in 2015 did not have a conclusion listed in his documents.
Click to expand...
 
Fridge chutney said:
Looks like they do have jurisdiction:

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/plcng/brgnl-plcng/index-en.aspx

There are two main types of policing agreements:

  • Self-administered Police Service Agreements, where a First Nation or Inuit community manages its own police service under provincial policing legislation and regulations; and
  • Community Tripartite Agreements, where a dedicated contingent of officers from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police provides policing services to a First Nation or Inuit community.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's not in question...just that on many reserves they are not welcome and know this so they only show up for serious stuff.

Tobacco sales are an issue of taxation and typically the tax benefits are only available to those with an indian status card (same with gasoline). Fireworks aren't terribly regulated here.
 
Grinner said:
What's the difference of posting this and posting that a victim of a police shooting has a long rap sheet to make them look bad?
Click to expand...
Because being murdered isn't a choice or a crime. Your history doesn't justify people smothering you to death.
Shooting someone in the back is a choice and your character will be questioned and judged.
Its like asking whats the difference between being punched in the face and punching someone in the face. Theres a pretty big difference.
 
Very informative videos @Suedesi

People in this thread need to watch them. There was one that you posted but its gone now I think? The time, distance, etc one? That's a good one too...
 
Last edited:
caid said:
Because being murdered isn't a choice or a crime. Your history doesn't justify people smothering you to death.
Shooting someone in the back is a choice and your character will be questioned and judged.
Its like asking whats the difference between being punched in the face and punching someone in the face. Theres a pretty big difference.
Click to expand...

None of what you posted makes any sense. Justice is supposed to blind. Think about what that means.
 
Grinner said:
What's the difference of posting this and posting that a victim of a police shooting has a long rap sheet to make them look bad?
Click to expand...

So you are equating the history of the accused with the history of the victim?

By this logic in a rape trial:

A) Past attempted sexual assaults by the accused could not be mentioned
Or
B) It would be ok to go after the victims sexual history

Edit. Removed some nonconstructive content
 
Last edited:
Grinner said:
None of what you posted makes any sense. Justice is supposed to blind. Think about what that means.
Click to expand...

I don't think it means what you think it means.

"Justice is blind" refers to all accused being treated the same the courts, not that the victim and accused are the same.

The accused and the victim are not equal parties in a trial. One side is on trial while the other is the aggrieved party. You can't have "contributing factors" to being a victim, while past actions can speak to motive or likelihood of guilt.
 
Grinner said:
What does that have to do with my question?
Click to expand...

The difference is a cop probably deserves to be shamed if he has a long record of abusing his power. He should be held to a higher standard since he is supposed to enforce the law. Also he is alive and can defend himself. A shooting victim has already been killed and listing previous unrelated crimes to somehow justify it is wrong imo.
 
No because that's not how it works in a trial. You don't give the jury a list of previous offences as it could be prejudicial. Each case is judged on the evidence and then a verdict rendered.
 
Grinner said:
No because that's not how it works in a trial. You don't give the jury a list of previous offences as it could be prejudicial. Each case is judged on the evidence and then a verdict rendered.
Click to expand...

If someone is known to have a history of violent acts, or is known to cross the line in the past, it makes it more likely they they'll do it in the future again. How the hell can you disregard the history of a police officer when it comes to the issue of a man being killed? Judging by your posts I can tell you believe in coddling the police, but this is ridiculous. They quite rightly should be held to a higher standard than the average person on the street.
 
Grinner said:
No because that's not how it works in a trial. You don't give the jury a list of previous offences as it could be prejudicial. Each case is judged on the evidence and then a verdict rendered.
Click to expand...
Something like that would actually come up in a trail. If its specifically relevant to the case
 
Grinner said:
No because that's not how it works in a trial. You don't give the jury a list of previous offences as it could be prejudicial. Each case is judged on the evidence and then a verdict rendered.
Click to expand...

But this isn't a trial, it's his job and past behaviour is definitely a part of performance review and the like. He probably shouldn't have been armed and working with the public.
 
Grinner said:
No because that's not how it works in a trial. You don't give the jury a list of previous offences as it could be prejudicial. Each case is judged on the evidence and then a verdict rendered.
Click to expand...
But this is not a trial and we're not a jury. What has been said is that a cop with such a record of complaints shouldn't have been on the beat anymore.
 
Grinner said:
No because that's not how it works in a trial. You don't give the jury a list of previous offences as it could be prejudicial. Each case is judged on the evidence and then a verdict rendered.
Click to expand...

Why are you insisting on comparing the irrelevant history of a VICTIM with the behavioural patterns of a PERPETRATOR?

This is mind blowing.
 
Grinner said:
How do you know unless you've seen the details of the complaints?
Click to expand...

Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
I know it's the Mail but it doesn't seem like an assumption. Here is the original piece:

https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law...imanded-for-use-force/dOTu99Lym4SjkmXmkt0P8M/

Seems that the Atlanta Police released the disciplinary record information so your assertion that this is an assumption is bogus. Controls and oversight that are supposed to keep citizens safe clearly failed here.
Click to expand...

... read it. He was previously reprimanded for use of force involving a firearm.
 
Grinner said:
Are you sure? Do you know what the law says on that? I don't, which is why I'm asking.
Click to expand...
You dont hand the jury a list. But prosecution can make reference to past offence when attesting to your character in certain circumstances as far as I know.
 
Maybe, and here's an idea, could just one or two people suggest the same issues to him or otherwise it looks like what it is, a pile on in the CE?
 
Grinner said:
"The documents provided by police do not go into further detail, so the circumstances of the incident and reprimand remain unclear. "
Click to expand...

Police forces aren't in the habit of reprimanding their own so it's a safe assumption that it must have been pretty bad. He also had a dozen other complaints against him. Again, safe to say letting him interact with the public while armed was not a good decision.
 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
Police forces aren't in the habit of reprimanding their own so it's a safe assumption that it must have been pretty bad. He also had a dozen other complaints against him.
Click to expand...

" His file showed 12 other incidents, varying from vehicle accidents to citizens’ complaints. He was exonerated in nine of those internal investigations. "
 
Grinner said:
What's the difference of posting this and posting that a victim of a police shooting has a long rap sheet to make them look bad?
Click to expand...
A victim's priors has exactly zero relevance as the cops are never supposed to be the ones deciding the punishment for alleged crimes.
Furthermore, it's often used nefariously to muddy the waters surrounding crimes committed by the police.

A cops history with complaints and reprimands should show whether he should be in the job in the first place, which tasks to undertake and ultimately whether his department is doing a good job.

Honestly, I'm pretty surprised at this question.
 
Grinner said:
" His file showed 12 other incidents, varying from vehicle accidents to citizens’ complaints. He was exonerated in nine of those internal investigations. "
Click to expand...

So? He's clearly a problem officer with that many complaints in seven years. Not to mention the four where he wasn't exonerated.
 
Grinner said:
So basically it's just what you reckon then?
Click to expand...
No I already answered you. You don’t need to be a lawyer to know how a trial works.

It is in certain circumstance only and the defendant has to take the stand for the prosecutor to have a chance of using it
 
Maagge said:
A victim's priors has exactly zero relevance as the cops are never supposed to be the ones deciding the punishment for alleged crimes.
Furthermore, it's often used nefariously to muddy the waters surrounding crimes committed by the police.

A cops history with complaints and reprimands should show whether he should be in the job in the first place, which tasks to undertake and ultimately whether his department is doing a good job.

Honestly, I'm pretty surprised at this question.
Click to expand...


You didn't read my question very carefully, did you?
 
Grinner said:
You didn't read my question very carefully, did you?
Click to expand...
Then what was I supposed to make of it if not that? By the looks of it you've been misunderstood by quite a few people so it'd be great if you could take some time to explain what you meant instead of posting one-liners to the detriment of the thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.