TPS officer killed
- Thread starter unassuming
- Start date
I'll bet you 40 chicken wings and beer at Hooters that the jury outright acquits Ameer and does not convict on any criminal charges.
Deal?
?I think at the least Jury nullification happens. I would think an aquittal would have come down quickly.I'll bet you 40 chicken wings and beer at Hooters that the jury outright acquits Ameer and does not convict on any criminal charges.
Deal?
Holy Shit!
More reports coming out of the Bail Judge saying the evidence did not support a murder charge, and was weak at best for manslaughter.
Then there is the Trial Judge's instructions/comments/terse exchanges almost outright accusing the police officers of colluding at a "Note Making Party" .
You have to read it for yourself. I can't do it justice.
. This poor man out with his family got railroaded. Yes, that Police Constable Northrup lost his life in the line of duty and that is indeed a grave tragedy. And I grieve for his family and friends.
But the subsequent police and Crown Attorney Office's cover up and miscarriage of justice related to Officer Northrup's death is a bigger tragedy and threat to Canadian society than anything that happened in that parking garage at midnight on, of all days,
Canada Day.
toronto.ctvnews.ca
More reports coming out of the Bail Judge saying the evidence did not support a murder charge, and was weak at best for manslaughter.
Then there is the Trial Judge's instructions/comments/terse exchanges almost outright accusing the police officers of colluding at a "Note Making Party" .
You have to read it for yourself. I can't do it justice.
. This poor man out with his family got railroaded. Yes, that Police Constable Northrup lost his life in the line of duty and that is indeed a grave tragedy. And I grieve for his family and friends.But the subsequent police and Crown Attorney Office's cover up and miscarriage of justice related to Officer Northrup's death is a bigger tragedy and threat to Canadian society than anything that happened in that parking garage at midnight on, of all days,
Canada Day.
What the jury didn't hear at the trial of a man accused of killing a Toronto officer
Here are some other things jurors didn’t hear about the case.
Judge says 'no evidence fully supports' murder case against Umar Zameer as jury starts deliberations
The judge presiding over the trial of a man accused of fatally running over a Toronto police officer is telling jurors the possible verdicts they may reach based on the evidence in the case.
toronto.ctvnews.ca
This seems to be a reasonable description of Molloy's charge to the jury.
It outlines the police collusion and highlights the 2 main issues of whether Zameer knew that he had run over the cop and whether the cops ID-ed themselves.
Crim negligence is not a charge the Crown laid or - my law school memory is hazy - it can't be tried with murder. Nor was assault.
If the case turns on whether Zameer knew that he had run over the cop, there is a lot of evidence that he didn't know. The Crown had a tiff with the defence accident reconstruction specialist and questions the defence's reconstruction. But the jury is going to be left with the defence expert's version and that is probably going to create enough reasonable doubt for an acquittal, espec when coupled with an atypical, likeable accused.
That makes the issue of whether the cops ID-ed themselves as irrelevant. Given the amount of collusion, the jury could be skeptical enough of the cop's story as a whole to find reasonable doubt.
Without knowing how your friends were disillusioned, I can't comment.
People often have unreasonable expectations about how their case is going to be handled. I speak to that as a lawyer. I've been fired for reasons that are absolutely ludicrous and nutty by clients with unrealistic expectations of how court would unfold.
Reconstructing the cops' case:
They presented a case at the bail stage that contained no credible allegations of whether Zameer knew that he had driven over the victim. So they decided to "improve" the evidence as a "group project".
Then they were hit by a defence accident reconstruction report that completely contradicted the colluded statements.
The Crown attorney got too emotionally involved and personally attacked the defence accident expert for fabricating evidence and then the lawyer had to back down when she got her shit wrong.
And that, friends, is how you fuck up a major trial and lose your case.
If they said: "Okay, we can't prove murder. We better go with criminal negligence and assault.", they could have given straight statements and preserved their credibility. Then the issue would have been whether the first 2 cops had ID-ed themselves propertly and whether Zameer knew they were cops. But they didn't do that because they were angry and dumb.
They presented a case at the bail stage that contained no credible allegations of whether Zameer knew that he had driven over the victim. So they decided to "improve" the evidence as a "group project".
Then they were hit by a defence accident reconstruction report that completely contradicted the colluded statements.
The Crown attorney got too emotionally involved and personally attacked the defence accident expert for fabricating evidence and then the lawyer had to back down when she got her shit wrong.
And that, friends, is how you fuck up a major trial and lose your case.
If they said: "Okay, we can't prove murder. We better go with criminal negligence and assault.", they could have given straight statements and preserved their credibility. Then the issue would have been whether the first 2 cops had ID-ed themselves propertly and whether Zameer knew they were cops. But they didn't do that because they were angry and dumb.
That is an incomplete version and is misleading.
The Crown's own Forensic accident reconstructionist, Toronto Police Sargeant Jeff Bassingthwaite had already reported this completely contradictory information to the Crown!
Yet the Crown, knowing that the Sargeant's analysis, the physical damage and lack of damage to the vehicle, as well as the video evidence, would be obviously contradicted by the notes and anticipated testimony of the 3 witness officers, continued with the prosecution of Mr. Zameer.
Then the Crown put those witness officers on the stand. Already being advised by two Judges, that it would be reasonable to infer that at least the the testimony and notes of two officers were likely the product of collusion. I am only a Sea Lawyer, but whomever put them on the stand would seem to be deliberated suborning perjury.
"A collision reconstructionist is telling jurors he believes a Toronto police officer was knocked to the ground before he was fatally run over.
Toronto Police Sargeant Jeff Bassingthwaite is testifying at the trial of Umar Zameer, who has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in the death of Det. Const. Jeffrey Northrup.
Bassingthwaite says he concluded Northrup was knocked down by the car's front left fender as it was backing up out of a parking space, then rolled under the vehicle as it accelerated forward down the laneway."
Again, incomplete and misleading.
The Crown "had a tiff" when "the Crown accused him of having been criticized for his testimony in another case, which turned out not to be true, and did not give him the opportunity to respond."
She (the Crown) started out her cross examination by specifically accusing this Expert Witness of being criticized in another court on another case for his testimony, thereby impugning his integrity. And either incompetently misapprehending the case, or deliberately misleading, or in plain speak, LYING, and trying sneakily to introduce this as evidence by Tucker Carlsonesque making an accusation in the form of a question.
Both Crown Attorney's bring the entire administration of justice of their profession into disrepute.
The expert’s outburst
What the jury didn't hear at the trial of a man accused of killing a Toronto officer
Here are some other things jurors didn’t hear about the case.
"The Crown at one point considered suggesting to jurors that a crash reconstruction expert called by the defence may have been biased in his opinion after he lashed out during cross-examination.
Barry Raftery aggressively accused the Crown of misleading the jury and was reprimanded by the judge for his tone. Molloy later told the jury that prosecutors had not been misleading.
During legal arguments in the absence of the jury, Molloy acknowledged Raftery was "angry and hostile" during the exchange, and said that if prosecutors were planning to raise the possibility of bias, she would give jurors instructions on that issue.
However, the judge said she would also have to include the broader context of the outburst. She noted Raftery’s testimony "started out on such a bad foot" after the Crown accused him of having been criticized for his testimony in another case, which turned out not to be true, and did not give him the opportunity to respond. The judge told the jury at the time that it was a mistake and that Raftery had not been criticized by the court in that case.
In the end, Simone said she would highlight areas of Raftery’s evidence that the Crown believes are “problematic” in her closing submissions to the jury without suggesting the expert was biased or referring to what she called his “very inappropriate and unprofessional outburst in court.”
I didn't realize that the Crown's own expert had contradicted the cops' testimony.That is an incomplete version and is misleading.
The Crown's own Forensic accident reconstructionist, Toronto Police Sargeant Jeff Bassingthwaite had already reported this completely contradictory information to the Crown!
Yet the Crown, knowing that the Sargeant's analysis, the physical damage and lack of damage to the vehicle, as well as the video evidence, would be obviously contradicted by the notes and anticipated testimony of the 3 witness officers, continued with the prosecution of Mr. Zameer.
Then the Crown put those witness officers on the stand. Already being advised by two Judges, that it would be reasonable to infer that at least the the testimony and notes of two officers were likely the product of collusion. I am only a Sea Lawyer, but whomever put them on the stand would seem to be deliberated suborning perjury.
"A collision reconstructionist is telling jurors he believes a Toronto police officer was knocked to the ground before he was fatally run over.
Toronto Police Sargeant Jeff Bassingthwaite is testifying at the trial of Umar Zameer, who has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in the death of Det. Const. Jeffrey Northrup.
Bassingthwaite says he concluded Northrup was knocked down by the car's front left fender as it was backing up out of a parking space, then rolled under the vehicle as it accelerated forward down the laneway."
Again, incomplete and misleading.
The Crown "had a tiff" when "the Crown accused him of having been criticized for his testimony in another case, which turned out not to be true, and did not give him the opportunity to respond."
She (the Crown) started out her cross examination by specifically accusing this Expert Witness of being criticized in another court on another case for his testimony, thereby impugning his integrity. And either incompetently misapprehending the case, or deliberately misleading, or in plain speak, LYING, and trying sneakily to introduce this as evidence by Tucker Carlsonesque making an accusation in the form of a question.
Both Crown Attorney's bring the entire administration of justice of their profession into disrepute.
The expert’s outburst
What the jury didn't hear at the trial of a man accused of killing a Toronto officer
Here are some other things jurors didn’t hear about the case.
"The Crown at one point considered suggesting to jurors that a crash reconstruction expert called by the defence may have been biased in his opinion after he lashed out during cross-examination.
Barry Raftery aggressively accused the Crown of misleading the jury and was reprimanded by the judge for his tone. Molloy later told the jury that prosecutors had not been misleading.
During legal arguments in the absence of the jury, Molloy acknowledged Raftery was "angry and hostile" during the exchange, and said that if prosecutors were planning to raise the possibility of bias, she would give jurors instructions on that issue.
However, the judge said she would also have to include the broader context of the outburst. She noted Raftery’s testimony "started out on such a bad foot" after the Crown accused him of having been criticized for his testimony in another case, which turned out not to be true, and did not give him the opportunity to respond. The judge told the jury at the time that it was a mistake and that Raftery had not been criticized by the court in that case.
In the end, Simone said she would highlight areas of Raftery’s evidence that the Crown believes are “problematic” in her closing submissions to the jury without suggesting the expert was biased or referring to what she called his “very inappropriate and unprofessional outburst in court.”
It's a fine line between "letting your witnesses tell their story, even if not that convincing" and leading evidence that couldn't possibly be believed - and that may be where this goes if BOTH accident experts contradicted the cops' verbal evidence.
We'll see where this goes.
So in other words you havent been following this case very closely, because its been all over the news
Because "protecting the profession/institution" is a very common thing in human society.
Police are hardly alone in this.
"Knew better" is "Did it anyway" aren't at all mutually exclusive.
The whole point of having power for too many people is that you can get away with shit other people can't.
Not taking a side in the bet, but I kind of love the specific terms.I'll bet you 40 chicken wings and beer at Hooters that the jury outright acquits Ameer and does not convict on any criminal charges.
Deal?
But.... put yourself in the officers' clunky boots. All you have to do is yank out your badge and yell "Police! Get out of the car..... Now!"
That's easy, right? And kind of fun. Why wouldn't they do it?
Because they could do more and get away with it.
You seem to forget that some people are assholes and like being assholes so much they look for social license to be assholes.
Why would they do that?
They're investigating a shooting and they see a guy who might be the shooter, but who is in the car with a woman and small kid - which suggests he's just an uninvolved random. What does pretending not to be cops possibly get them?
Presumably they have to check out other cars and it's a busy night for them. Isn't this just a routine 5 minute interaction for them?
You keep assuming these people aren't complete assholes.
Yes, if they just did a routine 5 minute interaction, things are probably fine.
But why should they have to identify themselves as cops to some scumbag civilian who doesn't appreciate him?
Just because he has a woman and kid in the car?
He's supposed to not be a scumbag civilian who doesn't know his place and maybe did a crime because of that?
You find the behavior irrational - that speaks well of you - you aren't a giant asshole.
But you've seen threads here about cops when things go wrong. There is a large segment of the population (and it includes some cops) that because of what they do, no one should be allowed to question a cop or speak back to them or not let the cop do whatever they want to do. That appears to be what went on here. After all, why else would they just make evidence up unless the idea that the rules apply to them is an affront to their self-image?
Can someone start a poll (i dont know how) will Umar Zameer be found guilty or walk away a free man.
My opinion he will walk away.
My opinion he will walk away.
