Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Enter Search Term. Use arrows to navigate between autocomplete results. If no results appear, use Enter to do a full site search.
Forum Closure ×
Canucks Community
Forum Closure

The RCMP Beat (ing) Goes On - Mantler Trial - 18 Months suspended sentence (post #144)

Wetcoaster

By Wetcoaster
in Off-Topic General

Recommended Posts

JAH Abbotsford Regular

JAH

Posted
Posted

There are provisions in most departmental budgets for such contingencies and if it is over a certain amount a request for funding would be made to Treasury Board usually with a legal opinion from DOJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr.DirtyDangles Canucks Franchise Player

Mr.DirtyDangles

Posted
Posted

At first glance, it appears as if the grey haired officer is the one who 'crossed the line'. He kicks the guy, stands on his hand, and presses his boot against what looks like his ear. The second officer walks across his legs to get to the other guy. IMHO, the grey haired officer was doing his job. The guy was not obeying commands, and was consistantly adjusting himself into a position that would enable him to get up and fight or grab something concealed. The grey haired officer wanted him in a very specific position and he didn't listen. His force was justified IMHO.

The other officer walked across his legs for what appears to be the sole purpose of causing pain, and that's not right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JAH Abbotsford Regular

JAH

Posted
Posted

Jah my friend you have no clue as to what probable cause is or use of just force is . If you think that piece of human trash was within his rights to repeatedly kick the guy in the HEAD as he was laying down prone not RESISTING .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wetcoaster Canucks First-Line

Wetcoaster

Posted
  • Author
Posted

No, I asked you for a specific person/department, and you replied with a comment about how things generally work in the Fed Gov. My question was not general, and I can only summize that you are either unaware of such a person (and are therefore out on a limb with your contention that it exists) or you are aware that it doesn't exist.

I can tell you that this person/ability does not exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JAH Abbotsford Regular

JAH

Posted
Posted

And I told you how it works.

Your first claim was that the RCMP was not affiliated with DOJ.

Check out departmental budgets, there will usually be line items for legal contingencies and if the amount exceeds the limit then applications are made directly to Treasury Board.

All I can gather is that you do not have the slightest clue about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JAH Abbotsford Regular

JAH

Posted
Posted

I got that from your post condoning the officers use of excessive force because you believe he was not complying with the officers commands. As for showing you the proof look at RCMP and respective police case law regarding officer misconduct and tell me what you find . If you were such an organization would you not have funds insurance if you will to keep your employees on the street rather than on light duty or suspension ? How could the RCMP not have a contingency(which includes money for the lawyers and settlements for victims) plan to clear their officers of wrong doing ? To dismiss this simple fact is pure ignorance IMO . Do you really think the DOJ is going to let people know that they have their own policies for governing such procedural screw ups ? Cmon the worlds is not all that rosey , crime and corruption have no prejudice when it comes to not getting caught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wetcoaster Canucks First-Line

Wetcoaster

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Nice strawman.

I asked if the RCMP has the line item, and you continually state the DOJ does. That wasn't the question.

The RCMP's 'Boss' has the authourity to divy out hush money, and that's all fine and dandy, I have not argued to the contrary. But the RCMP does not have autonomy in giving money to abuse victims, which was the ONLY point I made, that you continue to refute yet support in each and every one of your posts.

'Can the RCMP give this guy the Money?'

'Yes! They can! The DOJ can do that!'

'Uhhhhhh....'

It is YOU that fails to comprehend, not I. I will not go so far as to say that you have no clue, for I think you are being intentionaly dismissive and evasive. You KNOW the RCMP cannot autonomously do this. You KNOW they don;t have this in their budget, otherwise you would have shown us where it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JAH Abbotsford Regular

JAH

Posted
Posted

Dont kid yourself the TB allows more allocation of funds for victim payouts than you can shake a stick at . These amounts may not be all that grand but the intentions behind their payouts are what is the most disgusting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JAH Abbotsford Regular

JAH

Posted
Posted

The RCMP has such funds in their budget but before a payment would be authorized it would be reviewed by legal counsel. In this case legal counsel for the RCMP is the DOJ. The payment would come out of the RCMP budget (or a special warrant from Treasury Board if it exceeded whatever internal limit the RCMP has established internally).

I will say you do not have a clue about this as that is readily apparent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...