Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Cop guilty of G20 assault won’t be fired — but he loses 5 days’ pay


Lockout Casualty

Recommended Posts

Cop guilty of G20 assault won’t be fired — but he loses 5 days’ pay

The only Toronto officer convicted for excessive force at 2010’s G20 summit gets a break because “the officer has already paid too large a price,” according to the retired judge presiding over the hearing.

The sole Toronto Police officer convicted for using excessive force at the G20 summithas been docked five days’ pay at a police disciplinary tribunal, after the retired judge who heard his case ruled Toronto police Const. Babak Andalib-Goortani “has already paid too large a price for his misdeed.”

Andalib-Goortani pleaded guilty last month to misconduct under Ontario’s Police Services Act after he was criminally convicted of assault with a weapon for striking G20 protester Adam Nobody with his baton at the June 2010 G20 Summit. The officer served no jail time.

During sentencing submissions, Nobody’s lawyer Marc Gibson argued Andalib-Goortani’s should immediately be dismissed — a penalty that has been meted out to other Ontario police officers found guilty of assault with a weapon.

Prosecutor Brendan van Niejenhuis asked for a penalty of a one-year demotion in Andalib-Goortani’s rank from first-class constable to fourth-class, which would include a salary cut of approximately $30,000.

But retired justice Lee Ferrier ruled the assault on Nobody was “barely over the line of wrongfulness,” and the fallout from the assault has “wreaked havoc on the life of this officer,” including the loss of his house and a depression diagnosis.

“The officer’s three years of commendable record on the force have been followed by five years of turmoil — living with these proceedings hanging over his head for five years; the strain of a criminal proceeding followed by a criminal conviction, appeal and penalty; his marriage break-up; his limited employment activity in a desk job for a large part of that period; the effect on his health.”

“In my view, a penalty of forfeiture of five days’ pay is the appropriate penalty.”

Ferrier agreed that the officer’s use of force was unnecessary, but the blows were fleeting and physically minor. Ferrier said he received more than 60 letters attesting to Andalib-Goortani’s good character and devotion to his career — “these letters cannot be ignored when considering the question of penalty,” he said.

Ferrier also noted that Andalib-Goortani had three commendations and that he had rescued an elderly man trapped in a flood, “no doubt saving the man from serious injury or death.”

Julian Falconer, who along with Marc Gibson represented Nobody, said Ferrier’s decision is a “stunning result,” considering Andalib-Goortani’s conduct amounted to a criminal assault with a weapon.

“But it becomes a lot less surprising when one reads the decision. Not a single line in the 47-paragraph ruling address the impact of the assault on the victim, Adam Nobody, nor for that matter does the decision consider the impact of the officer’s conduct on public confidence in policing. It is a decision devoted entirely to how Const. Andalib-Goortani is a victim by virtue of the assault he committed on Adam Nobody.”

“Assuming public credibility matters, I am at a loss as to how this police complaint system is sustainable.”

Harry Black, Andalib-Goortani’s lawyer, did not respond to a request for comment Monday.

Andalib-Goortani was the only officer criminally convicted in connection to the G20, a weekend that’s become notorious for prompting the largest mass arrest in Canadian peacetime history.

His disciplinary matters are the final G20-related hearings because they were delayed until his criminal case was completed. The officer successfully appealed a 45-day jail sentence for the assault. He is currently working for the Toronto police performing administrative duties.

Four other officers were involved in Nobody’s violent arrest during a protest on the lawn of Queen’s Park on June 26, 2010. They were charged with disciplinary offences, but all have since been dismissed. That decision has been appealed by Nobody, according to Ferrier’s written decision.

Van Niejenhuis argued that Ferrier should take into consideration that Andalib-Goortani did not wear a badge number or name tag on the day of the assault — and that he was only identified as the officer with the baton six months after the G20, when citizens’ video recordings of the assault surfaced.

But Ferrier said it would be inappropriate to consider that failure to identify himself as an aggravating factor in determining a penalty because Andalib-Goortani has already been “administratively disciplined” for that.

Andalib-Goortani still faces a second G20-related police disciplinary hearing for misconduct, charged with using unnecessary force against blogger Wyndham Bettencourt-McCarthy. Andalib-Goortani was also charged with assault in that case, but acquitted in 2014 because a photo of the alleged attack —the only evidence against him — had been ruled inadmissible.

That hearing scheduled to begin next month, and Ferrier is presiding over the tribunal.

https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2015/11/09/cop-guilty-of-g20-assault-wont-be-fired-but-he-loses-5-days-pay.html

What a ridiculous, if unsurprising, ruling. How are we, as citizens, supposed to have any faith in the system when blatant double standards like this exist? We always hear about how bad the cops are in the US, what with the shootings and all, but things aren't exactly rosy here at home. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Throw him in jail and make him start in Gen pop.  Stop making excuses and bring real consequences for criminal behaviour for these thugs.

Ridiculous overreacting is better? The person he "assaulted" received very minor injuries that did not require medical assistance. He lost his house, his marriage and has been diagnosed with depression since the incident. Hes paid far more than the crime ever caused in every way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ridiculous overreacting is better? The person he "assaulted" received very minor injuries that did not require medical assistance. He lost his house, his marriage and has been diagnosed with depression since the incident. Hes paid far more than the crime ever caused in every way.

Lulz. Then let everyone use this excuse in court. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Throw him in jail and make him start in Gen pop.  Stop making excuses and bring real consequences for criminal behaviour for these thugs.

A few years back my good friend and his cousin were assaulted by a drunk off duty officer in Banff( actually broke his orbital bone while punching him the face, he wears glasses btw. luckily doctors saved his eye)   Went to court with several witnesses and he walked Scott free ? NO fines, no reprimand, no suspension, nada.

Largest organized gang in the world backed by our Governments.  When it comes to our words against theirs we might as well be mutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ridiculous overreacting is better? The person he "assaulted" received very minor injuries that did not require medical assistance. He lost his house, his marriage and has been diagnosed with depression since the incident. Hes paid far more than the crime ever caused in every way.

I wish I could pay for my crimes with depression as a private citizen.

Under-reacting isn't much better than overreacting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this is why people saying "most cops are good, it's just a few bad apples that cause trouble" are missing the point.  While it's true that most cops don't beat up people, that's not the problem.  The problem is that the "bad cops" rarely face accountability for their actions because even the good cops are reluctant to punish their own.  Many police forces have systemic problems that encourage more bad cops to do bad things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ridiculous overreacting is better? The person he "assaulted" received very minor injuries that did not require medical assistance. He lost his house, his marriage and has been diagnosed with depression since the incident. Hes paid far more than the crime ever caused in every way.

"Assault"?  He was criminally convicted for the crime.  If he didn't have a badge to hide behind, he'd be in jail without any second thought to his personal life.  Not my fault his ex-wife doesn't want to be with a convicted criminal; I'm sure he'd find someone new in jail.  It's an absolute joke that he's allowed back on the job, with a weapon where he can abuse his power yet again.

 

Stop coddling cops who break the law and make them face real consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Assault"?  He was criminally convicted for the crime.  If he didn't have a badge to hide behind, he'd be in jail without any second thought to his personal life.  Not my fault his ex-wife doesn't want to be with a convicted criminal; I'm sure he'd find someone new in jail.  It's an absolute joke that he's allowed back on the job, with a weapon where he can abuse his power yet again.

 

Stop coddling cops who break the law and make them face real consequences.

Yep, to me it's not so much about his level of suffering, it's the fact that an ordinary citizen convicted of assault would be far less likely to get the benefit of the doubt like this guy did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  If he didn't have a badge to hide behind, he'd be in jail without any second thought to his personal life. 

Do you actually believe that any first time offender of a minor assault like this would actually get jail time in Canada? Hed be convicted sure but he would probably get 3 months probation or something. This isnt the US and its industrial prison complex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this is why people saying "most cops are good, it's just a few bad apples that cause trouble" are missing the point.  While it's true that most cops don't beat up people, that's not the problem.  The problem is that the "bad cops" rarely face accountability for their actions because even the good cops are reluctant to punish their own.  Many police forces have systemic problems that encourage more bad cops to do bad things.

and the next time you need help I'm sure you will yell, "help! Criminal!  Help!  Heroes are people who knowingly put themselves in harms way to help others.  Cops do that everyday. Knowing the potential consequences to their person, they still put themselves in harms way to protect us.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and the next time you need help I'm sure you will yell, "help! Criminal!  Help!  Heroes are people who knowingly put themselves in harms way to help others.  Cops do that everyday. Knowing the potential consequences to their person, they still put themselves in harms way to protect us.  

You do realize you didn't address anything in the post you quoted, right? Hilarity of calling cops "heroes" aside, etsen took issue with the police that protect their own. It's about accountability for the police, not whether having police is good for society at large.

Most cops never fire their gun in the line of duty, and the job isn't in top ten most dangerous. We're not exactly a war zone, nor a third world banana republic with cartel problems. Heroes. Haha.. ha.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realize you didn't address anything in the post you quoted, right? Hilarity of calling cops "heroes" aside, etsen took issue with the police that protect their own. It's about accountability for the police, not whether having police is good for society at large.

Most cops never fire their gun in the line of duty, and the job isn't in top ten most dangerous. We're not exactly a war zone, nor a third world banana republic with cartel problems. Heroes. Haha.. ha.. 

so firing a gun makes you a hero?

Simply put if police officers break the law they should be treated just as any other individual breaking the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and the next time you need help I'm sure you will yell, "help! Criminal!  Help!  Heroes are people who knowingly put themselves in harms way to help others.  Cops do that everyday. Knowing the potential consequences to their person, they still put themselves in harms way to protect us.  

Dude you didn't even make any proper arguments against my post.  I didn't realize that having a dangerous job excuses beating up innocent and/or nonviolent citizens.  That doesn't sound like protecting anyone from criminal offenses, that sounds like committing criminal offenses.  Your post is not even an argument, it's reductive and it's exactly the type of statement I was talking about the first place.  

Again, what the good cops do is irrelevant.  This is not about whether cops are generally good at their jobs or not.  I''m not attacking the concept of police as a whole (Although your view of the heroism of police as a whole may be different if you were an inner city black man in the south, for example.  But regardless, in general no one wants to get rid of the entire police force).  But when a cop does unreasonably search a suspect, fabricates a police report, kills an unarmed citizen, beats up a subdued suspect for such heinous crimes such as "jaywalking" they should face the same penalties as anyone else would, and the truth is that most of the time they don't.  In fact, even so-called good cops often defend/condone/allow the behaviour of bad cops.

All we want is for cops who break the law to receive the same punishment as anyone else, but you people always get offended and turn the debate into one about whether cops in general are good or bad.  This prevents progress and discussion of real problems.  It's about the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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