Canadian Cops, a thread for policing in Canada

[Gurn]

David Milgard-victim of Canadian Justice system passes at age 69

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/justice-advocate-david-milgaard-imprisoned-on-wrongful-conviction-dead-at-69/ar-AAXiH7L?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=16f4fdc5d4344c56a407cde8aa5f37b2

David Milgaard, the victim of one of Canada's most notorious miscarriages of justice, has died after a short illness. He was 69.

James Lockyer, a Toronto-based lawyer who worked closely on the case and helped found the organization Innocence Canada, confirmed the death after speaking with Milgaard's sister on Sunday.

 

His loss is "devastating for the family," Lockyer told The Canadian Press.

Milgaard was only 16 when he was charged in the murder of Saskatoon nursing aide Gail Miller, who was raped, stabbed and left to die in the snow in the early morning of Jan. 31, 1969.

Milgaard would spend 23 years in prison on a wrongful conviction until his release in 1992.

In his later years, he helped to raise awareness about wrongful convictions and demanded action on the way Canadian courts review convictions.

"I think it's important for everybody, not just lawyers, but for the public itself to be aware that wrongful convictions are taking place and that these people are sitting right now, behind bars and they're trying to get out," Milgaard said in 2015.

"The policies that are keeping them there need to be changed. The wrongful conviction review process is failing all of us miserably."

Milgaard and two friends had been passing through Saskatoon on a 

road trip when Miller was killed. 

A year later, he was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.

One of the youngest inmates, the 17-year-old was raped and tried to commit suicide. He was also shot by police during an attempted prison break.

"It was a nightmare," Milgaard said in 2014. "People do not have much love and care inside those walls."

Milgaard was released from prison in 1992 after his mother, who fought tirelessly to clear her son's name, pushed to get the case heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. The high court threw out Milgaard's conviction and he was finally exonerated in July 1997 after DNA tests proved that semen found at the crime scene didn't match his.

A man named Larry Fisher was convicted in December 1999 of first-degree murder in Miller's death and sentenced to life in prison.

The Saskatchewan government issued Milgaard a formal apology and awarded him a $10-million compensation package.

The province also spent $11.2 million on a public inquiry into Milgaard's wrongful conviction.

The final report was released in 2008 with 13 recommendations to reform prosecution and policing in Canada. Among them was a suggestion that the federal government establish an independent review commission to examine claims of wrongful conviction.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 15, 2022.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

[Gurn]

 

[Gurn]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/12-year-old-handcuffed-by-montreal-police-says-he-felt-terrified-father-plans-to-sue/ar-AAXrSoB?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=bde371736a9a47d4ac100b8ca3ba0463

hen Ammaar Kashif's father asked him to hop in an exotic car, flip on the ignition and roll up the window during his uncle's wedding in Montreal, he didn't have to be asked twice.

But about 30 seconds after he turned the car on, a police cruiser, light bar ablaze, flew onto the scene. Kashif's arm was twisted behind his back, he was handcuffed and then locked in the rear of the officer's car.

Kashif is only 12 years old. He said the officer didn't tell him what was going on.

"It hurt," he said. "I felt terrified. And the handcuffs really hurt my hands."

The incident occurred on May 9 at around 8:30 p.m., and Kashif said his dreams of one day becoming a police officer were dashed that day. Now he hates them, he said, and the incident "still terrifies me."

The boy's father, Kashif Inayat, said he is going to sue.

Recounting the story, emotion crept into Inayat's voice. He said his family was dressed in traditional Pakistani attire for the wedding.

To spice things up, they had rented a couple of Lamborghinis and an Audi R8 for the event, Inayat said.

The cars were parked in front of the reception hall, and the family was posing for photos when "I noticed one of the car's windows was down. So I asked my son to take the keys and put the window up."

Inayat said that's when a police officer rolled up, hopped out of his cruiser and told the family, about 25 people, to stay back, Inayat said.

The officer approached the vehicle, and the concerned father tried to intervene.

The officer told him there had been complaints of somebody doing doughnuts and driving recklessly, Inayat recounted.

"I told him, 'Sir, he's my son. He's 12 years old, and I can identify him on my behalf,'" he said.

"He doesn't listen. He twists my son's arm, puts him in handcuffs, calls for reinforcements and brings my son to his car."

In a video captured of the arrest, a baby can be heard crying as Kashif, silent and compliant, is cuffed and led to the cruiser.

Pleading with officer to release boy

The boy was placed in the cruiser's backseat, still restrained. Kashif said he was asked his name and date of birth.

Inayat said he pleaded with the officer, explaining to him that his son is too young to drive and doesn't even know how. Other family members got involved, trying to reason with the officer, he said.

"But I could see in his eyes that he doesn't want to listen," Inayat said. "He is ignoring everything that is being said."

Other officers showed up and asked for identification, but Inayat was unable to easily produce it because he had no pockets in his traditional attire. His wallet was in his wife's purse, he told police, but he could get it.

The incident dragged on and on, while his son was alone in the car, Inayat said.

Finally, he was allowed to sit with his son in the cruiser, and after some time, Inayat said the arresting officer made an effort to explain what happened. The officer said he too was a father, he was responding to a complaint and mistakes happen, Inayat said.

The officer offered to visit the family's home the next day and formally apologize, Inayat said. He offered to have the boy visit the police station as well to try to make up for the incident and help him understand what happened, he said.

But Inayat said he refused the offers, saying instead he will get his lawyer involved.

Montreal police spokesperson Const. Gabriella Youakim said police won't comment on the interaction because Inayat is threatening legal action.

However, she did say there was a 911 call at around 8:20 p.m. on May 9 about car engines being revved in that parking lot. She said the caller reported someone was driving recklessly and doing stunts.

Both Inayat and his son said nobody was revving engines or driving recklessly in the parking lot that night.

Feels like racial profiling, father says

Inayat said it feels like a case of racial profiling. The officer approached the traditionally dressed Pakistani family with hatred in his eyes, Inayat said. 

"His eyes were popping out," he said. "Nobody wants this to happen to their son."

Inayat's son, Kashif, said the wedding party continued after the police left, but it was not nearly as fun because nobody was happy.

Inayat would like to see the officer involved disciplined, and for all police to be better trained, he said.

"I felt my son was bullied by the police officer."

He said he will sue because he was raised to fight against wrongs, and he raises his own children the same way.

"Stand for your rights," he said. 

[Gurn]

News about the Nova Scotia shooting inquiry:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/rcmp-seeking-accommodations-for-officers-testifying-at-n-s-mass-shooting-inquiry/ar-AAXulu3?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=643a970febcc4eaeb1feb28e43dc297c

HALIFAX — The RCMP say the commission of inquiry into the 2020 mass shooting in Nova Scotia will be violating its own rules if Mounties who endured trauma are called to testify without some form of accommodation.

The Nova Scotia RCMP issued a statement Thursday saying witnesses who have been interviewed by the commission during its ongoing investigation should not have to testify at public hearings and relive the events of April 18-19, 2020, unless their trauma is mitigated as much as possible.

 

The RCMP's statement does not say what kind of mitigation measures the Mounties are seeking.

"The RCMP respects the (commission's) desire to call witnesses to testify," the statement says. "We believe, however, that calling witnesses to testify when they have already provided fulsome information to the commission through interviews ... appears contrary to the commission's rules and procedures."

The inquiry's mandate calls for it to conduct its work through a trauma-informed lens.

Last week, CTV News reported the inquiry had been asked to allow several senior RCMP officers to testify via video. The inquiry's three commissioners followed up with a statement saying witnesses with "wellness issues" could request special arrangements, including testimony via closed-circuit TV or "from another room."

Participating lawyer Robert Pineo, whose firm represents the relatives of 14 victims, said if the inquiry is to make “proper findings of fact,” RCMP decision-makers must testify under oath and have their evidence tested under cross-examination.

Most of the evidence gathered by the inquiry so far has come in the form of transcripts of unsworn interviews with police and civilian witnesses. Lawyers for the families, however, have complained the interviews sometimes offer little insight because witnesses are rarely challenged about their assertions.

That's why in-person witness testimony is so important, Pineo said.

On April 27, the commissioner leading the inquiry, Michael MacDonald, issued a decision saying RCMP Const. Vicki Colford would not have to testify in person. Instead, she was given permission to provide a written affidavit.

MacDonald, the former chief justice of Nova Scotia, gave no indication why the request was granted. He said any personal information from potential witnesses is considered confidential.

On the night of April 18, 2020, Colford was one of the first officers on the scene in Portapique, N.S., where 13 people were shot to death and several homes and buildings were set on fire. The gunman, disguised as a Mountie and driving a car that looked exactly like an RCMP cruiser, killed another nine people the following day.

He was fatally shot by two Mounties on April 19, 2020, when he stopped at a gas station north of Halifax to refuel a stolen vehicle.

As the inquiry's public hearings were getting underway in early March, the union representing front-line RCMP officers argued that its members should not have to provide in-person, sworn testimony. The National Police Federation told the commission there was a risk the officers could be re-traumatized.

The commission did not offer a blanket exemption. Instead, MacDonald issued a decision March 9 that listed an initial round of 27 witnesses who would be compelled to testify under oath.

“A trauma-informed approach doesn't automatically excuse someone from testifying, but rather seeks to create conditions in which testifying will be less traumatic,” MacDonald said at the time.

“This is accomplished by giving clear direction about what is being asked, a respectful environment, the possibility of taking break, etc. It may also mean seeking accommodations such as … written questions, sworn affidavits, appearing by video.”

He said that the inquiry will hear from the top RCMP commissioned officers involved: Chief Supt. Chris Leather, Supt. Darren Campbell, Assistant Commissioner Lee Bergerman and Commissioner Brenda Lucki.

As well, he said the inquiry would hear from five of the RCMP staff sergeants who were making most of the decisions while the killer was at large for 13 hours.

This week, it heard from Staff Sgt. Steve Halliday, the senior decision-maker from 11:38 p.m. April 18, 2020, until 1:24 a.m. the next day, and from Staff Sgt. Jeff West, who took command after Halliday.

On Tuesday, Halliday provided important new information during cross-examination about how he ordered a public warning about the killer's replica police vehicle to be issued at around 8 a.m. on April 19, 2020. He said that he couldn’t explain why the alert wasn't sent for another two hours. During that time period, seven people were killed.

The commission has said it also plans to hear from Staff Sgt. Brian Rehill, who was the first officer to lead the response from the Operational Communications Centre in Truro, and another two key officers: Sgt. Andy O’Brien and Staff Sgt. Addie MacCallum.

[JM_]

20 minutes ago, gurn said:

News about the Nova Scotia shooting inquiry:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/rcmp-seeking-accommodations-for-officers-testifying-at-n-s-mass-shooting-inquiry/ar-AAXulu3?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=643a970febcc4eaeb1feb28e43dc297c

HALIFAX — The RCMP say the commission of inquiry into the 2020 mass shooting in Nova Scotia will be violating its own rules if Mounties who endured trauma are called to testify without some form of accommodation.

The Nova Scotia RCMP issued a statement Thursday saying witnesses who have been interviewed by the commission during its ongoing investigation should not have to testify at public hearings and relive the events of April 18-19, 2020, unless their trauma is mitigated as much as possible.

 

The RCMP's statement does not say what kind of mitigation measures the Mounties are seeking.

"The RCMP respects the (commission's) desire to call witnesses to testify," the statement says. "We believe, however, that calling witnesses to testify when they have already provided fulsome information to the commission through interviews ... appears contrary to the commission's rules and procedures."

The inquiry's mandate calls for it to conduct its work through a trauma-informed lens.

Last week, CTV News reported the inquiry had been asked to allow several senior RCMP officers to testify via video. The inquiry's three commissioners followed up with a statement saying witnesses with "wellness issues" could request special arrangements, including testimony via closed-circuit TV or "from another room."

Participating lawyer Robert Pineo, whose firm represents the relatives of 14 victims, said if the inquiry is to make “proper findings of fact,” RCMP decision-makers must testify under oath and have their evidence tested under cross-examination.

Most of the evidence gathered by the inquiry so far has come in the form of transcripts of unsworn interviews with police and civilian witnesses. Lawyers for the families, however, have complained the interviews sometimes offer little insight because witnesses are rarely challenged about their assertions.

That's why in-person witness testimony is so important, Pineo said.

On April 27, the commissioner leading the inquiry, Michael MacDonald, issued a decision saying RCMP Const. Vicki Colford would not have to testify in person. Instead, she was given permission to provide a written affidavit.

MacDonald, the former chief justice of Nova Scotia, gave no indication why the request was granted. He said any personal information from potential witnesses is considered confidential.

On the night of April 18, 2020, Colford was one of the first officers on the scene in Portapique, N.S., where 13 people were shot to death and several homes and buildings were set on fire. The gunman, disguised as a Mountie and driving a car that looked exactly like an RCMP cruiser, killed another nine people the following day.

He was fatally shot by two Mounties on April 19, 2020, when he stopped at a gas station north of Halifax to refuel a stolen vehicle.

As the inquiry's public hearings were getting underway in early March, the union representing front-line RCMP officers argued that its members should not have to provide in-person, sworn testimony. The National Police Federation told the commission there was a risk the officers could be re-traumatized.

The commission did not offer a blanket exemption. Instead, MacDonald issued a decision March 9 that listed an initial round of 27 witnesses who would be compelled to testify under oath.

“A trauma-informed approach doesn't automatically excuse someone from testifying, but rather seeks to create conditions in which testifying will be less traumatic,” MacDonald said at the time.

“This is accomplished by giving clear direction about what is being asked, a respectful environment, the possibility of taking break, etc. It may also mean seeking accommodations such as … written questions, sworn affidavits, appearing by video.”

He said that the inquiry will hear from the top RCMP commissioned officers involved: Chief Supt. Chris Leather, Supt. Darren Campbell, Assistant Commissioner Lee Bergerman and Commissioner Brenda Lucki.

As well, he said the inquiry would hear from five of the RCMP staff sergeants who were making most of the decisions while the killer was at large for 13 hours.

This week, it heard from Staff Sgt. Steve Halliday, the senior decision-maker from 11:38 p.m. April 18, 2020, until 1:24 a.m. the next day, and from Staff Sgt. Jeff West, who took command after Halliday.

On Tuesday, Halliday provided important new information during cross-examination about how he ordered a public warning about the killer's replica police vehicle to be issued at around 8 a.m. on April 19, 2020. He said that he couldn’t explain why the alert wasn't sent for another two hours. During that time period, seven people were killed.

The commission has said it also plans to hear from Staff Sgt. Brian Rehill, who was the first officer to lead the response from the Operational Communications Centre in Truro, and another two key officers: Sgt. Andy O’Brien and Staff Sgt. Addie MacCallum.

when this first happened, I couldn't understand how the RCMP ignored credible people who warned them about the shooter. I still can't. We had former military folks, one of them a former shooting instructor and his partner, ignored by the RCMP. 

 

I really can't understand how our laws don't allow for a legal search for weapons when credible people give first hand accounts. How about we close that loophole?

 

[Gurn]

8 minutes ago, JM_ said:

I couldn't understand how the RCMP ignored credible people who warned them about the shooter

People, be they cops or not, will often ignore what credible people say.

Cops even more so- If you are not a cop, the best you can be, in some of their eyes is "not a threat."

[JM_]

1 hour ago, gurn said:

People, be they cops or not, will often ignore what credible people say.

Cops even more so- If you are not a cop, the best you can be, in some of their eyes is "not a threat."

isn't that a big problem with our system? 

[Gurn]

15 minutes ago, JM_ said:

isn't that a big problem with our system? 

Cliques have been a problem since  before high school.

Jocks don't listen to nerds

Nerds think all jocks are dumb so don't listen to them

The metal heads don't respect the rockers

rockers can't stand the vegans

and so on.

 

We group up and respond best to our group, at the same time reducing the attention we pay to the other groups.

Little things and words matter.

One thing I never did, as a former union guy, was refer to anyone as my brother or sister. They weren't my family, they were co workers.

using that language makes it easier for some people to feel animosity against management, as they weren't my brother.

 

Cops believe they are members of a brotherhood.

[JM_]

12 hours ago, gurn said:

Cliques have been a problem since  before high school.

Jocks don't listen to nerds

Nerds think all jocks are dumb so don't listen to them

The metal heads don't respect the rockers

rockers can't stand the vegans

and so on.

 

We group up and respond best to our group, at the same time reducing the attention we pay to the other groups.

Little things and words matter.

One thing I never did, as a former union guy, was refer to anyone as my brother or sister. They weren't my family, they were co workers.

using that language makes it easier for some people to feel animosity against management, as they weren't my brother.

 

Cops believe they are members of a brotherhood.

OK I get the thin blue line part, but to just ignore credible people? that needs to be fixed. Policing culture can't be that operationally stupid. 

[Gurn]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/family-of-black-man-injured-in-violent-arrest-sues-quebec-city-police-force-for-180k/ar-AAXzcEk?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=19a9fcca86f846f2a431de7a4e3c31ed

The family of Pacifique Niyokwizera is suing the City of Quebec and its police force for $180,000 after the young Black man was injured during a police intervention last fall. 

On Nov. 27, Service de police de la ville de Québec (SPVQ) officers were filmed striking and kicking snow in the face of then 18-year-old Niyokwizara while he was being restrained on the ground outside the Dagobert night club. 

His family alleges the officers held Niyokwizera down and "beat him until he suffered a concussion and significant swelling in the face, including a bloody and swollen eye," according to the statement of claim obtained by Radio-Canada. 

Niyokwizera's mother and two sisters are claiming a total of $180,000 from Quebec City and the SPVQ for injuries, troubles, stress and inconveniences thar resulted from the arrest, according to the statement of claim.

The video of the altercation was shared widely on social media at the time, reigniting discussions of racial profiling and the use of force during police interventions.

After the incident, Public Security Minister Geneviève Guilbault asked

Quebec Police Ethics Commissioner Marc-André Dowd to investigate the police officers involved in the arrest. 

In December, the five officers were suspended with pay as part of an "evolving investigation." All have since returned to work.

[Gurn]

Seems the Canadian supreme Court has been out drinking, while making a ruling:

https://globalnews.ca/news/8842628/supreme-court-of-canada-extreme-intoxication-explained/

Justice Minister David Lametti is facing calls to act after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled defendants in violent criminal cases can use a defence known as extreme intoxication to the point of automatism.

During question period on Monday, Lametti had said the government is “studying” its options to respond following the court’s ruling that a law prohibiting that defence from being used in case of self-induced extreme intoxication was unconstitutional.

But there remain questions about what the availability of the defence will mean for victims of violent crimes, and how the law defines extreme intoxication to the point of automatism.

Here’s what we know.

What did the Supreme Court do?

In a decision issued May 13, the court declared unconstitutional a federal law prohibiting the use of the defence known as non-insane automatism, which refers to a state of self-induced extreme intoxication, by those accused of violent crimes such as sexual assault and homicide.

Automatism in Canadian law is defined as “a state of unconsciousness that renders a person incapable of consciously controlling their behaviour while in that state.”

The same definition is used to support the defence of “insane automatism,” which is what is used in criminal cases where the accused is found to be not criminally responsible.

The federal government had added the provision to the Criminal Code in 1995 specifically in recognition of concern “that self-induced intoxication may be used socially and legally to excuse violence, particularly violence against women and children.”

But in three separate cases involving men who were prosecuted for committing violent crimes in what they claimed was a state of automatism after consuming intoxicating substances, the court ruled that they should be allowed to use the defence of self-induced extreme intoxication.

“To deprive a person of their liberty for that involuntary conduct committed in a state akin to automatism — conduct that cannot be criminal — violates the principles of fundamental justice in a system of criminal justice based on personal responsibility for one’s actions,” wrote Justice Nicholas Kasirer in a unanimous nine-judge decision.

In the ruling, Kasirer noted that the court’s decision striking down the provision “has no impact on the rule that intoxication short of automatism is not a defence to violent crimes of general intent, such as assault or sexual assault.”

What will this mean for victims?

The question now is what that will mean for victims of violent crimes.

When the original rule was put in place in 1995, it was done in recognition of the concern “that self-induced intoxication may be used socially and legally to excuse violence, particularly violence against women and children.”

The law itself followed public outcry over a 1994 Supreme Court case that effectively established the criminal defence of extreme intoxication akin to automatism, when hearing the case of a man who had been originally acquitted and then convicted on appeal of sexually assaulting a woman after drinking.

In the original trial, the defence had argued the man suffered a “blackout.”

“In such a state the individual loses contact with reality and the brain is temporarily dissociated from normal functioning,” the Supreme Court’s 1994 ruling summarized. “The individual has no awareness of his actions when he is in such a state and will likely have no memory of them the next day.”

The Supreme Court’s 1994 overturning of the conviction led to public outcry that prompted the federal government to introduce Section 33.1, prohibiting the extreme intoxication defence from being used in violent crimes where the state of intoxication was self-induced.

 

According to Sean Fagan, who represented one of the three men whose cases the Supreme Court reviewed in the Friday decision, Canadians should not expect an increase in uses of the defence.

His client, Matthew Winston Brown, had been acquitted of violently attacking a woman inside a house that he had broken into after consuming alcohol and magic mushrooms at a party in 2018.

Brown’s legal team had sought to use the defence of extreme intoxication, which the Crown argued they should not be able to because of the law banning its use in such cases. However, Brown’s defence argued in an Alberta court that law was unconstitutional, and the presiding judge agreed.

He was permitted to use the defence, and was acquitted.

 

The Crown appealed, and Alberta’s appellate court overturned Brown’s acquittal and set aside the trial judge’s ruling that the law barring the use of the defence was unconstitutional.

With the Friday ruling, the Supreme Court restored Brown’s acquittal.

Fagan said the defence is “exceedingly rare and exceedingly difficult to establish.”

“We’re not talking about the general level of intoxication. Most people will go their entire life without ever having experienced or witnessed this level of intoxication, even at the most unruly of frat parties or NHL games,” Fagan said.

“We’re talking about a level of intoxication that … brings about psychosis.”

Kerri Froc, associate professor of law at the University of New Brunswick, offered a different perspective.

She studies how Canadian constitutional law is applied in cases involving gender equality issues.

She told Global News it is accurate that Kasirer’s ruling indicates the court believes the defence should be used “quite rarely,” and that the court is sending a signal to lower courts that they should insist on “pretty compelling expert evidence if an accused wants to rely on this defence.”

The problem is, Froc said, that it’s unclear what that will actually mean.

For example, she cited court case data from 1994 until the present to illustrate dozens of criminal defendants have still tried to use the defence — including 35 cases involving sexual assault.

In 80 of the 86 cases that she and research co-author Elizabeth Sheehy tracked, the defendants were male while the victims were overwhelmingly female.

“It really is a gendered defence to claim extreme intoxication as a defence for crimes of violence. It’s a defence that’s mainly brought forward by men to excuse violence against women,” Froc said.

And while the trilogy of cases the court ruled on involved the use of drugs, Froc said the door is not closed for defendants in cases of intoxication by alcohol could try to use it as well.

“They say that the evidence before Parliament at the time that the provision was entrenched said that alcohol isn’t going to lead to a state of extreme intoxication. They said that there’ll have to be expert evidence brought, no matter what the intoxicant is,” Froc said.

But if you read the decision carefully, the court is not ruling out any kind of intoxicant being used to ground in extreme intoxication defence. They left that door open.”

What happens next?

With the law prohibiting the use of the defence now deemed unconstitutional, the ball is in the hands of Parliament to decide if it will legislate to try to address the concerns.

The Supreme Court laid out two possible options the government could explore in its ruling.

One option could be “if Parliament legislated an offence of dangerous intoxication or intoxication causing harm that incorporates voluntary intoxication as an essential element,” Kasirer wrote.

“Parliament may also wish to study and regulate according to the nature and properties of the intoxicant,” he added in the decision.

“The common effects of the intoxicant, its legality, and the circumstances in which it was obtained and consumed may be relevant to a marked departure standard.”

Lametti so far hasn’t said what the next steps will be.

But he said the government is looking at how to respond.

“We’re carefully reviewing this decision,” he said in question period.

“It does propose a few ways forward. We are studying those ways forward in a responsible manner in order to get to a response that protect victims and eliminates gaps in our criminal law.”

[Gurn]

AS one young lady said, at this protest regarding the Court's ruling- paraphrase "Why is it ok to use being drunk as a reason for assaulting or raping someone, but not for drunk driving?

 

-the video clip I was looking for vanished, but here is the protest:

https://www.kingstonist.com/news/kingston-students-rally-against-supreme-court-extreme-intoxication-decision/

........

excerpt

"

Event organizer, Miriam Read, explained the motives behind the demonstration.

“We are protesting the new law that the Canadian Supreme Court has created that basically states that self-induced extreme intoxication can now be used as a defence against a violent crime, which includes rape and sexual assault,” she said. “We’re mostly representing students, young students, who feel moved by this because it’s obviously not what we want for the future, to happen to our kids.”

She said the event was as much to raise awareness of the newly-altered defence under the Criminal Code as it her and her fellow students expressing themselves.

“My goal is to definitely give the Supreme Court a piece of all of our minds, because we are the new generation, and we want what’s right, and obviously what they’ve done is not right,” she said, standing on the corner of Sir John A Macdonald Boulevard and Bath Road, armed with a sign."

 

--------------------------------------------------------

The video showed some young ladies with palm prints painted on, from previous times they had been assaulted, by drunks.

[Gurn]

Even in Canada, the cops will arrest the black guy:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/a-united-airlines-worker-picked-a-fight-with-a-cfl-player-and-it-did-not-go-well/ar-AAXD9O5?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=942fd3faf1714971bf8f9adc8140e544

(Warning: Article contains video with violent subject matter)

Calgary Stampeders wide receiver Brendan Langley was arrested and charged with simple assault Thursday after getting into a fight with a United Airlines employee.

The employee slapped Langley in the face, prompting Langley to look around and ensure that everyone saw that he wasn’t the instigator, before landing several punches that sent the employee over the airline counter. The employee then got up, with the right side of his face bloodied, and tried to engage Langley to fight him once again. 

It's certainly a good thing for the airline worker that Langley decided not to re-engage. This was a beat down.

The airline employee was not arrested for his role in the scrap.

"He works at the airport and he assaulted me," Langley said.

The conflict reportedly started when Langley tried to transport his luggage by using a wheelchair, instead of the designated luggage carts.

Langley was a third-round pick of the Denver Broncos in 2017 but played sparingly, primarily on special teams. During his tenure with the Broncos, Langley was involved in the second of two infamous brawls between Aqib Talib and Michael Crabtree in a November 2017 game between the Broncos and then-Oakland Raiders.

The 27-year-old, who was initially drafted as a cornerback, converted to wide receiver and signed with the Stampeders in February.

 

[Russ]

On 5/23/2022 at 9:03 AM, gurn said:

AS one young lady said, at this protest regarding the Court's ruling- paraphrase "Why is it ok to use being drunk as a reason for assaulting or raping someone, but not for drunk driving?

 

-the video clip I was looking for vanished, but here is the protest:

https://www.kingstonist.com/news/kingston-students-rally-against-supreme-court-extreme-intoxication-decision/

........

excerpt

"

Event organizer, Miriam Read, explained the motives behind the demonstration.

“We are protesting the new law that the Canadian Supreme Court has created that basically states that self-induced extreme intoxication can now be used as a defence against a violent crime, which includes rape and sexual assault,” she said. “We’re mostly representing students, young students, who feel moved by this because it’s obviously not what we want for the future, to happen to our kids.”

She said the event was as much to raise awareness of the newly-altered defence under the Criminal Code as it her and her fellow students expressing themselves.

“My goal is to definitely give the Supreme Court a piece of all of our minds, because we are the new generation, and we want what’s right, and obviously what they’ve done is not right,” she said, standing on the corner of Sir John A Macdonald Boulevard and Bath Road, armed with a sign."

 

--------------------------------------------------------

The video showed some young ladies with palm prints painted on, from previous times they had been assaulted, by drunks.

When I saw the Supreme Court make that ruling a couple weeks ago I was blown away.  Like absolutely mind blown.  Pretty much they said go out and get completely ****ed up and because you are so intoxicated we won't do anything and you're protected......

[Smashian Kassian]

On 5/23/2022 at 2:40 PM, gurn said:

Even in Canada, the cops will arrest the black guy:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/a-united-airlines-worker-picked-a-fight-with-a-cfl-player-and-it-did-not-go-well/ar-AAXD9O5?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=942fd3faf1714971bf8f9adc8140e544

(Warning: Article contains video with violent subject matter)

Calgary Stampeders wide receiver Brendan Langley was arrested and charged with simple assault Thursday after getting into a fight with a United Airlines employee.

The employee slapped Langley in the face, prompting Langley to look around and ensure that everyone saw that he wasn’t the instigator, before landing several punches that sent the employee over the airline counter. The employee then got up, with the right side of his face bloodied, and tried to engage Langley to fight him once again. 

It's certainly a good thing for the airline worker that Langley decided not to re-engage. This was a beat down.

The airline employee was not arrested for his role in the scrap.

"He works at the airport and he assaulted me," Langley said.

The conflict reportedly started when Langley tried to transport his luggage by using a wheelchair, instead of the designated luggage carts.

Langley was a third-round pick of the Denver Broncos in 2017 but played sparingly, primarily on special teams. During his tenure with the Broncos, Langley was involved in the second of two infamous brawls between Aqib Talib and Michael Crabtree in a November 2017 game between the Broncos and then-Oakland Raiders.

The 27-year-old, who was initially drafted as a cornerback, converted to wide receiver and signed with the Stampeders in February.

 

 

Holy crap he got ****ed up

[Gurn]

Improper use of taser, results in no charges to the civilian:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/deployed-out-of-frustration-charges-stayed-after-judge-rules-edmonton-police-broke-own-taser-policy/ar-AAXPT7o?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=c01d15c87d46417e88ec68b507d7db52

Charges against a man have been stayed after a judge ruled an Edmonton city police officer broke policy and used excessive force when he deployed a stun gun.

Cory Badger of Edmonton was charged with being unlawfully in a dwelling house and obstructing a peace officer after a June 11, 2021, incident at a house near Whyte Avenue and 110 Street.

Police were called before 7:30 a.m. that morning when the woman renting the house found a man on her back deck and told police he was refusing to leave.

Two officers arrived, and a foot chase ensued that ended when the unarmed man was zapped with a Taser multiple times before his arrest.

Alberta Provincial Court Judge Olugbenga Shoyele ordered the charges be stayed and ruled the officer broke city police policy by using the Taser five times against the fleeing Badger, calling it “unnecessary and unreasonable.”

“The constable’s use of the Taser, in the circumstances here, where there was no clear or real risk to officer safety, was a blatant contravention of the EPS (Edmonton Police Service) Procedure,” he wrote in the May 6 ruling.

“It appears to me that the Taser was deployed out of frustration.”

‘Wasn’t sure what it was’

Two officers responded to the home after Badger was found sitting on the back deck, where told the complainant his  “feet hurt.”

The chase began when officers arrived to the call and Badger fled.

Const. Carson, one of the two officers, testified that Badger appeared to be reaching for something as he was being pursued.

“[He] turned and started reaching down to his waist or rotating by his waist and holding some sort of object. I wasn’t sure what it was.”

The object was later determined by a plastic sports drink bottle.

Carson eventually closed to within four metres of Badger and warned him that he would use his Taser as Badger began to climb a nearby fence.

When Badger continued to climb, Carson deployed the Taser, eventually cycling the device five times and sending Badger to the ground from his position near the top of the fence.

‘Could result in death’

Crown prosecutors noted the Criminal Code grants police the authority to use “an allowable degree of force” and that EMS personnel found no significant injuries to Badger after his arrest.

But Badger’s lawyer argued that he could not have been a threat to Carson as he was climbing the fence with his back turned to the officer at the time he was hit with the stun gun.

He also argued the use of force was disproportionate and violated EPS policy, given Badger was not accused of any violent conduct.

Shoyele sided with Badger and challenged Carson’s assertion that he was at risk.

“How is it feasible for someone to simultaneously rotate as if to pull a firearm and climb a fence?”

Shoyele also cited the five times the Taser was used and how it struck a fleeing Badger’s rear torso and head, noting both actions are against EPS policy.

“The EPS Procedure unequivocally discourages multiple deployments … particularly when a suspect is fleeing from an officer, given the possibility that multiple activations … could result in death,” he wrote.

The stay means Badger is found neither guilty or not guilty.

Shoyele wrote the stay was necessary to preserve confidence in the justice system.

“The state conduct here, as described, risks undermining the integrity of the judicial process.”

[Gurn]

No charges against Mounties in regards to a fatal shooting in Nunavut

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/ottawa-police-decide-no-charges-in-deadly-nunavut-rcmp-shooting/ar-AAXO2af?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=c01d15c87d46417e88ec68b507d7db52

The Ottawa Police Service was tasked with reviewing the shooting last November of a 21-year-old man.

Ottawa police say the man was armed with a rifle and a shotgun when he was shot by an RCMP officer after a prolonged interaction. 

Mounties have said officers responded to reports of a disturbance after a man obtained a rifle, took a truck at gunpoint and drove outside the town's limits.

The following day, investigators travelled from Ottawa to Rankin Inlet, where they interviewed seven civilian witnesses and 10 police officers. 

Ottawa police say investigators concluded there were no reasonable grounds to believe any of the Mounties committed a criminal offence. 

The man who was killed was identified as Trey Angootealuk.

The Ottawa force has a deal with the Nunavut government and RCMP to conduct independent external investigations of major police actions. 

There have been significant concerns about police accountability in the territory and over the lack of information being shared from investigations. The Ottawa Police Service does not release its reports about Nunavut shootings to the public.

Nunavut is working to develop a civilian oversight body. 

There were two police shootings in Nunavut last year.  

[Chris12345]

I have the best cop story....

 

A few years ago it's St Paddy's Day and I'm coming home from a late night- you guessed it I just wrote an exam and I am waiting for the bus. A full on knife fight breaks out.

 

Bus finally arrives and I get on in the back as they have those big bench seats. Wouldn't you know it, knife fighter sits next to me. Now I'm no slouch and knife fighter is the smallest skid you've seen in 25 years. In other words if you had to stereotype, I have the knife.

 

About 1 minute later there's a million cop cars blocking in the bus and a 5'1 hot female cop jumps on the bus gun drawn. Me full well knowing knife fighter is beside me and the cop probably thinks I'm the guy I decide to get off the bus.

 

Cop screams with her gun pointed at me as I am walking towards her"get out of the way, on the ground "

 

Me being a dumb a$$ I'm thinking she's 5'1 I got this and continue to walk towards her/the door to get off the bus. She full on hip tosses me into the next seat as if I weigh 6 pounds (I'm 250) and moves on to cuff the loser in the knife fight.

 

To this day I have never talked to her but I am so thankful she made the right choice.

[Gurn]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/racial-profiling-trial-begins-into-power-of-quebec-police-to-make-random-car-stops/ar-AAXTxnE?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=d27c348960b5436b9f96ba2a99e6dc6f

 

"MONTREAL — A Black Montreal man and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association are in court today challenging the power of Quebec police to make random traffic stops outside of drunk driving checkpoints.

 

Joseph-Christopher Luamba is suing the Canadian and Quebec governments after he was stopped by police four times in the 14 months after he got his driver's licence. None of those stops resulted in charges. 

Opening arguments in the case began today in a Montreal courtroom.

Lawyers for Luamba and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which has intervener status in the case, argued that the power of police to randomly stop drivers is unconstitutional and enables racial profiling. 

Bruce W. Johnston, lawyer for the civil rights group, told the judge the facts and the jurisprudence have changed since the Supreme Court of Canada upheld that police power in a 1990 decision.

Government lawyers argued that the power to stop motorists is necessary to ensure road safety and that it's up to governments to work with police to fight racial profiling.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 30, 2022.

[Gurn]

More about the mass shooting back east.

Rodney Peterson should have been booted or retrained years ago. His negligence may have resulted in multiple deaths.

Guy wouldn't log on to a computer, so never got pictures of the suspect's car-and the locator function for his car won't work without the computer logged in.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/webcontent/cst-rodney-peterson-is-not-tactically-sound-and-puts-us-at-risk-says-fellow-cop-nick-dorrington/wc-388202D79748C0EFD732C917E45920DC?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=d3659b1133054c97881a7d5c4a9ce9b0