This is getting depressing. Another FN shot by Winnipeg "police"
This happened a while ago, but the pigs who shot the unarmed FN in the back (!) are still on the force and fighting the charges. Can you fucking believe this shit?
Officer fights charge of attempted homicide
A Winnipeg police officer is fighting allegations he tried to kill an unarmed man by shooting him in the back -- then allegedly tried to cover up the crime by fabricating evidence with his partner that suggested he acted in self-defence.
Const. Darrel Keith Selley, 36, and Const. Kristopher John Overwater, 30, appeared in court Monday for the start of their preliminary hearing to determine if there is sufficient evidence for their case to proceed to trial. A court-ordered ban prevents specific details of the hearing from being published.
Selley is charged with attempted murder, fabricating evidence, aiding and abetting the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, discharging a firearm with intent to wound, aggravated assault with a weapon, careless use of a weapon and criminal negligence causing bodily harm. Overwater is charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, fabricating evidence, aiding and abetting the discharge of a firearm with intent to wound and aiding and abetting aggravated assault with a weapon.
Police arrested the pair in April 2009 following an extensive internal investigation.
Kristofer Shawn Fournier, who is now 21, escaped serious injury after being hit in the buttocks by one of several police bullets fired at him in July 2007.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/officer-fights-charge-of-attempte...
Still on the force would be normal as they are innocent until convicted.
Once they are convicted, the useless pieces of shit should be tossed asap from the force
with charges like that the only option should be suspension without pay until the trial is resolved.
You cannot do that milo. Everyone has assumption of innocence until convicted. You cannot pick and choose who will lose their livelihood when it comes to charges. If you do that, you know who will suffer the most? Those that cannot afford a good lawyer.
Unless of course, they are held without bail. Then you can not pay them since they cannot do anything.
but i thought for cops it was a bit different? isn't there cases where they can be suspended without pay if criminal charges are pending? I might be wrong, but i thought that was how it worked, that for cops there are situations where they can be suspended without pay.
Bacchus, in Canada, real workers are suspended from work, without pay, all the time while criminal charges are pending. Only cops and such (a few other professional or public sector categories) ever get to sit at home with pay - or just carry on with the job, as is often the case for cops. Here is a very typical example, in the case of a railway worker charged with drug trafficking and gang activities and suspended without pay while on bail awaiting trial:
Well I disagree with that. It should be across the board. No one (released on bail) should be cut off from their liveliehood wihtout any means until their conviction.
The fact that civil service workers have this benefit is good for them (like many public sector workers) but it should be for both private and public sectors
And wb Unionist
I agree - in principle - but I'm going to take a neutral side for a moment to explain the principle as I see it.
If a factory worker is accused of trafficking in drugs apart from the workplace - actually, even if convicted - their employer should have no right to suspend or fire the worker, whether before or after conviction (unless of course they're incarcerated and therefore unavailable for work, but that's another matter). The worker's situation, whether innocent or guilty, doesn't impact on the employer.
If a worker in a small child care outfit is charged with abusing children, the employer would (I hope) likely suspend while awaiting the outcome. Should the individual be paid in the interim? Should the employer - i.e., all the parents who are customers - assume the cost of that employee's presumption of innocence? Why not society as a whole, if someone is to do it?
Grievance arbitrators in the U.S. and Canada have not historically expected employers to pick up the tab for ongoing wages and benefits of employees who are criminally charged (maybe unjustly), who are suspended from work because of the nature of the charges and of the business (they can't just suspend at will, as in my first example above), and who maybe have to wait months or years for the final disposition of the charges.
That's why, in the case of cops, it is particularly offensive to see them suspended with pay - or often just reassigned to other duties - even when there's an obvious and powerful case of serious criminal offences directly related to their jobs and to the high level of trust that they supposedly must maintain. I know workers who have suffered loss of income in similar situations. You can imagine the cynicism of all workers when cops are treated like errant children instead of like the monsters that too many of them are.
I can understand that, even agree. But this protection extends to most if not all civil service workers. Firemen, EMTs, doctors, nurses, Ministry of transport workers etc etc.
Plus I would think its a defense against frivilous accusations for which police, EMTs, firemen etc must get more than average.
Not talking about these scum, just overal.
It's all about the contract you sign or someone signs on your behalf. CLAC et al to sign on behalf of lowly peons and nicely drafted employment contracts for middle management and professionals that must be signed prior to hire. A new "standard" clause for employers, to allow them their rightful place in our Master Servant legal system, is already appearing in contracts since the SCC ruling along with the current "standard" clause limiting a workers "right" to notice for loyal service to the bare minimum of the Employment Standards Act.
Oh well for some it is the law for others it isn't. The rich don't really want to start fighting with their security personnel and the police only think of protecting their own and their fellow "peace officers" backs.
http://www.lecourslessard.com/doc/LABOUR-LAW-Employee-Suspension-With-or-Without-Remuneration.pdf
A bit late on this but thought I would throw my two cents in. I agree with what you said Unionist but what if the system were changed a little so that instead of the employer paying during the suspension it went to unemployment much like parental leave goes to unemployment. You could even do much the same thing for the employer having to leave a position open for the employee until the trial is concluded (then if there is a finding of guilt they can be fired or innocence means they get their job back).
Good to see you, Refuge. I think, however, we're getting very far removed from the OP and the Aboriginal forum - and it's mostly my fault as usual
. I just wanted to show (as I've done on many occasions) that police are treated like royalty - instead of behind held to a higher standard when they are suspected or accused of committing crimes while on the job, the exact opposite is true. I think the "little changes" you suggest are good, but should probably be discussed in the Labour forum.
A Toronto police officer inexplicably floors his gas pedal, speeds into an illegal right turn and runs down a grandmother, severing her brain stem and killing her instantly.
An OPP constable wearing a bulletproof vest and carrying a baton and pepper spray shoots and kills an intellectually challenged 59-year-old man holding a small pocket knife.
During a traffic stop near Canada's Wonderland, York Region officers rough up a small, 50-year-old accountant, breaking his arm and leaving him roadside.
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/882189--are-these-cops-above-the-law?bn=1