Well isn't that special....

[VTEC_Inside]

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2008/06/28/6011586-sun.html

This isn't exactly going to contribute to a positive attitude towards LEOs.

[Cookie Monster]

wat


So the judge took the cop's word that he only had 5 beers instead of the the police equipment?

He goes 65 km/h over the limit and has had 2x the legal amount of alcohol and still gets off free... cops do get special treatment.

Stupid fucking judge.

[NomisR]

If this was anyone else, they would've been sentenced to life in jail.. 

(before you guys nit pick, this is only an exaggeration and I know nobody would be sentenced to life in jail for a speeding ticket and drunk driving, but I know you assholes would still nit pick on this anyways)

[Cookie Monster]

(before you guys nit pick, this is only an exaggeration and I know nobody would be sentenced to life in jail for a speeding ticket and drunk driving, but I know you assholes would still nit pick on this anyways)

[James Young]

And then the LE apologists continue to wonder why the public hates and distrusts them.

[Eye of the Tiger]

If I say anything, I'll get banned again.

[NomisR]

If I say anything, I'll get banned again.

Certain song lyric in mind?

[Eye of the Tiger]

Certain song lyric in mind?

Nope. Nothing at all comes to mind.

[VTEC_Inside]

On a lighter note, while you are there reading, be sure and check out the link to the Sunshine girls down on the left...

[S204STi]

" In court, Justice Harpur found that five beers did not match the toxicology test and that he would have had to drink several more than five beers to have a reading of 180 -- which, he said, casts doubt on the reliability of the equipment.

"Your honour, we're not talking about a piece of crap from Radio Shack," argued Crown attorney Ray Williams. "

Well, it does in fact sound like special treatment.

[hotrodalex]

Hey judge, ever stop and think maybe he had more drinks? DURRRRRRRR....

[dsred]

Hey judge, ever stop and think maybe he had more drinks? DURRRRRRRR....

UHHHH, cops don't lie, duhhhh....

[Champ]

Swish.

[Rupert]

That's a load of shit, is what that is. I hardly think we need to say much of anything, it's so ridiculous.

[rohan]

And then the LE apologists continue to wonder why the public hates and distrusts them.

Well remember this is Canada not the US and I've got to think there's more going on here that what'll ever get printed or even let out of the bag.  My best guess is the judge owed the detective a favor- debt paid- if you're going to bitch about someone why is the JUDGE  not the one getting bitched about?  All the cop did was what every other person I've ever seen on the stand do- stretch the truth- it's the judge (read stinking worthless piece of crap no good dirty bottomfeeding lawyer)  that's to blame here.  At least put the blame where the blame belongs.  And yes the detective should be put back in the bag and put back on the street for what he did at the very least.

[Soup DeVille]

Isn't the department free to pursue any disciplinary route they deem approriate whether or not the detective is found guilty of anything?

[James Young]

Well remember this is Canada not the US and I've got to think there's more going on here that what'll ever get printed or even let out of the bag.  My best guess is the judge owed the detective a favor- debt paid- if you're going to bitch about someone why is the JUDGE  not the one getting bitched about?  All the cop did was what every other person I've ever seen on the stand do- stretch the truth- it's the judge (read stinking worthless piece of crap no good dirty bottomfeeding lawyer)  that's to blame here.  At least put the blame where the blame belongs.  And yes the detective should be put back in the bag and put back on the street for what he did at the very least.

I had not thought about a ?favor? but that Ofcr. Ross had some compromising material about Judge Harpur  and the absurd decision was made out of fear.  In either case, justice and with it trust in the judicial system, takes a backseat to expediency and political influence.  Both men should be tried, found guilty and sent to prison.  Neither should ever serve in a position of public trust again.

[rohan]

Isn't the department free to pursue any disciplinary route they deem approriate whether or not the detective is found guilty of anything?

Yes --and no.  They should go after him for operating city/municipal vehicle after using alcohol- possibly a using departmental equipment for personal use but that one depends on past history/policy and normal practices- they could probably even be able to slip a conduct unbecoming by but you can't discipline for a criminal offense that he was aquitted of - well you probably can but you'll lose in court or with an arbitrator but at least until it goes to hearing you can keep him from doing his job problem is if you fire him and he wins he gets his old job back (maybe) and back pay including any OT he can show he would have normally earned. 

[rohan]

I had not thought about a ?favor? but that Ofcr. Ross had some compromising material about Judge Harpur  and the absurd decision was made out of fear.  In either case, justice and with it trust in the judicial system, takes a backseat to expediency and political influence.  Both men should be tried, found guilty and sent to prison.  Neither should ever serve in a position of public trust again.

That's all well and good but you're missing one crucial thing- evidence to convict them of wrong doing outside of drunk driving and outright stupidity on both parts.  I'm still going with favor it just looks like a favor trade to me-

[Catman]

Not sure what the big deal is here.  First, if cops got off as easy as some here claim he would have never been arrested in the first place.  Second, getting out of an OUI is commonplace.  His acquittal is far from being unique police officer or not. Could it be that he was taken care of?  Maybe, but again, getting out of an OUI isn't something unique.

[hotrodalex]

Not sure what the big deal is here.  First, if cops got off as easy as some here claim he would have never been arrested in the first place.  Second, getting out of an OUI is commonplace.  His acquittal is far from being unique police officer or not. Could it be that he was taken care of?  Maybe, but again, getting out of an OUI isn't something unique.

Thing is, the evidence is there and the judge ignores it, saying the machine must be wrong. O rly? So the machine is wrong just because a person says something contradicting it?

[dazzleman]

Thing is, the evidence is there and the judge ignores it, saying the machine must be wrong. O rly? So the machine is wrong just because a person says something contradicting it?

Guilty people should be punished.

But I think Greg's point is that lots of guilty people who aren't cops get off the hook for stupid reasons, so why is this so much different?

If you look at each case in isolation, this surely is an outrage, but there are so many others that don't involve LEOs.  Our legal system is a long, dreary series of gross miscarriages of justice, most of which go against the police and the victims of crime that they are sworn to protect.

[hotrodalex]

Guilty people should be punished.

But I think Greg's point is that lots of guilty people who aren't cops get off the hook for stupid reasons, so why is this so much different?

If you look at each case in isolation, this surely is an outrage, but there are so many others that don't involve LEOs.  Our legal system is a long, dreary series of gross miscarriages of justice, most of which go against the police and the victims of crime that they are sworn to protect.

Good point. They should all be punished. In my opinion, we let people get off with things too much. That just leads to them continuing to do it.

[Catman]

Thing is, the evidence is there and the judge ignores it, saying the machine must be wrong. O rly? So the machine is wrong just because a person says something contradicting it?

I don't want to add blood to the water here but I've been at trials with judges that do not have a solid grasp of case law.  They throw stuff out for stupid reasons all the time, reasons that have no bearing on the case at all.  We had one that threw out an OUI case because we failed to read miranda to the victim that got hit.  Has anyone ever seen a requirement that police read miranda to a victim?  The same judge let a woman off if she could recite the pledge of allegiance.  She couldn't even do it but he let her off anyway, saying it was, "good enough".  Oh and he's still there making decisions.....life time appointment. 

Again, the stupid judge aside, I can look at the positive here.  The arresting officer did his job and brought the guy in.  Years ago that would not have happened.  Things have changed and the Law Enforcement is far more professional now then it was.  Anyone can find examples to counter that assertion but it shouldn't imply that things have not improved. 

The courts are a mess and they have zero accountability to the public.

[dsred]

Great! I live in the same jurisdiction and the precedent's been set. If I ever get pinched for DUI, I'm going with the "I only had two beers so the machine must be defective" Defense.

Even though a law was passed making that defense illegal...

[dazzleman]

I don't want to add blood to the water here but I've been at trials with judges that do not have a solid grasp of case law.  They throw stuff out for stupid reasons all the time, reasons that have no bearing on the case at all.  We had one that threw out an OUI case because we failed to read miranda to the victim that got hit.  Has anyone ever seen a requirement that police read miranda to a victim?  The same judge let a woman off if she could recite the pledge of allegiance.  She couldn't even do it but he let her off anyway, saying it was, "good enough".  Oh and he's still there making decisions.....life time appointment. 

Again, the stupid judge aside, I can look at the positive here.  The arresting officer did his job and brought the guy in.  Years ago that would not have happened.  Things have changed and the Law Enforcement is far more professional now then it was.  Anyone can find examples to counter that assertion but it shouldn't imply that things have not improved. 

The courts are a mess and they have zero accountability to the public.

The courts have zero accountability because the public doesn't demand it, particularly in a state with little political competition.  The public must hold politicians accountable for the judges they appoint, and until that happens, we can expect to see more of this.

It's also a great point that in the past, the cop who was driving drunk wouldn't have been arrested or charged at all.

[Catman]

The courts have zero accountability because the public doesn't demand it, particularly in a state with little political competition.  The public must hold politicians accountable for the judges they appoint, and until that happens, we can expect to see more of this.

It's also a great point that in the past, the cop who was driving drunk wouldn't have been arrested or charged at all.

It's hard to hold the politicians accountable because they are often out of office when their appointees start this crap.  I think electing judges might work but then you'll have even worse politics but at least the public would have a chance to have a say.

[rohan]

Guilty people should be punished.

But I think Greg's point is that lots of guilty people who aren't cops get off the hook for stupid reasons, so why is this so much different?

If you look at each case in isolation, this surely is an outrage, but there are so many others that don't involve LEOs.  Our legal system is a long, dreary series of gross miscarriages of justice, most of which go against the police and the victims of crime that they are sworn to protect.

But it's not our system- it's the little leftist country to our north.

[rohan]

It's hard to hold the politicians accountable because they are often out of office when their appointees start this crap.  I think electing judges might work but then you'll have even worse politics but at least the public would have a chance to have a say.

We elect judges here- about the same effectiveness as your system is of appointments- their still scumbag lawyers with no morals ethics or backbones.

[NomisR]

The problem with the accountability of the judges is that what they do on the bench has little to no direct effect to the general public.  Majority of the public do not know who the judges are and what the judges do doesn't have anything to do with the public unless someone actually makes a big stink about it and gets on the news.  Otherwise, they almost have free reign on what they do.  There's really no real check or balance in this.  I don't really think free election is the key because that would definitely lead to other problems such of bias and other factors in order to win votes.