Police Suicide

[nottyboi]

Let's recap: you LIED, when challenged you offered only your own bigotry as justification.

There is no excuse for you.

You lied out of pure stupidity and ignorance about the SIU process. Nothing you say has any basis in fact. I think the only true thing you have said is you are a slimeball. I am not bigoted I am realistic. The SIU process has been criticized by many as toothless.

 

[fuji]

You lied out of pure stupidity and ignorance about the SIU process. Nothing you say has any basis in fact. I think the only true thing you have said is you are a slimeball. I am not bigoted I am realistic. The SIU process has been criticized by many as toothless.

Again, other than your general anti police bigoted nonsense you have not provided a single reason to believe there was anything amiss with the SIU investigation and conclusion.

"B b b but I hate police" is not an argument.

 

[kugel1]

nonsense the process is nothing like you describe. There was talk of changing the rules, and maybe they have changed. But this incident definitely predated any changes.

Just to illustrate the depth of your ignorence:

Who is a “Subject Officer”?

The subject officer is defined as a police officer whose conduct, in the Director’s opinion, may have caused the death or serious injury under investigation.

Subject officers are invited, but not compelled to present themselves for an interview with the SIU and they do not have to submit their notes to the SIU. Once he/she becomes the focus of an investigation and therefore under criminal jeopardy, the subject officer is granted the same rights as any citizen under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to protect himself/herself from self-incrimination. :caked:

I would call you a liar but here it is clear it is just plain stupidity.

I am trying to reconcile how you pasting and copying the definition of a "subject officer" contradicts anything I have said about the process undertaken by the SIU in their investigations. Are you still asserting that any information and evidence they rely on is given to them by a third party, i.e. the police, after being vetted? If so, please demonstrate it through proof, and not supposition and hyperbole.

 

[nottyboi]

I am trying to reconcile how you pasting and copying the definition of a "subject officer" contradicts anything I have said about the process undertaken by the SIU in their investigations. Are you still asserting that any information and evidence they rely on is given to them by a third party, i.e. the police, after being vetted? If so, please demonstrate it through proof, and not supposition and hyperbole.

In the case of subject officers, of course it is!! Can you not read? In this case all officers who discharged their firearms would be subject officers...geez louise!!

 

[kugel1]

In the case of subject officers, of course it is!! Can you not read? In this case all officers who discharged their firearms would be subject officers...geez louise!!

I'm trying to follow your logic, or lack thereof. First you say that the SIU gleans its investigative information third hand from the police and it is vetted before being turned over to the SIU. This has been demonstrated to you as blatantly untrue. Your response is a description that subject officers retain the right to not give a statement against interest, which of course does not address the assertion that all investigative information is vetted by police lawyers and given to the SIU. If they refuse to give a statement, there is no information to be forwarded, and/or vetted. By the way, if a subject officer does wish to give a statement, it is not submitted by the subject officer after being vetted by a lawyer. The subject officer gives an in person viva voce statement to the SIU.

On a side note....I generally refrain from being a grammar nazi, but I find it ironic if not somewhat telling that you refer to me as demonstrating "ignorence". First of all, name calling is the last bastion of those unable to construct and maintain an intellectual argument. And for the record, it is spelled "ignorance". I won't denigrate you for your error, I will just revel in the humour contained therein.

 

[fuji]

His logic is that he hates the police, and so he automatically assumes anything said by the police is wrong. He doesn't have any actual reasons for the things he says--it's all bile, all the time, with notty.

 

[nottyboi]

I'm trying to follow your logic, or lack thereof. First you say that the SIU gleans its investigative information third hand from the police and it is vetted before being turned over to the SIU. This has been demonstrated to you as blatantly untrue. Your response is a description that subject officers retain the right to not give a statement against interest, which of course does not address the assertion that all investigative information is vetted by police lawyers and given to the SIU. If they refuse to give a statement, there is no information to be forwarded, and/or vetted. By the way, if a subject officer does wish to give a statement, it is not submitted by the subject officer after being vetted by a lawyer. The subject officer gives an in person viva voce statement to the SIU.

On a side note....I generally refrain from being a grammar nazi, but I find it ironic if not somewhat telling that you refer to me as demonstrating "ignorence". First of all, name calling is the last bastion of those unable to construct and maintain an intellectual argument. And for the record, it is spelled "ignorance". I won't denigrate you for your error, I will just revel in the humour contained therein.

You don't think said subject officers cannot retain council, advice etc before they provide a statement? And no they don't use police lawyers they use union lawyers provided by the TPA. The ban on vetting of notes is quite new:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/police-notes-can-t-be-vetted-by-lawyers-supreme-court-says-1.2470015

prior to this, and including the case in question it was common practice.

 

[kugel1]

You don't think said subject officers cannot retain council, advice etc before they provide a statement? And no they don't use police lawyers they use union lawyers provided by the TPA. The ban on vetting of notes is quite new:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/police-notes-can-t-be-vetted-by-lawyers-supreme-court-says-1.2470015

prior to this, and including the case in question it was common practice.

So it appears my comments about the non-vetting of notes etc was correct, as well as my information to you that the SIU does not get 3rd party vetted info from the police as a basis for their investigations. I never said that a subject officer couldn't retain counsel. I guess my "ignorence" isn't so blatant after all. No need to thank me, I'll just say "You're welcome" in advance. Always happy to educate.

 

[nottyboi]

So it appears my comments about the non-vetting of notes etc was correct, as well as my information to you that the SIU does not get 3rd party vetted info from the police as a basis for their investigations. I never said that a subject officer couldn't retain counsel. I guess my "ignorence" isn't so blatant after all. No need to thank me, I'll just say "You're welcome" in advance. Always happy to educate.

Now they aren't. But back during this case the were ...so if in some fantasy world you think you are correct in this case then knock yourself out

 

[kugel1]

Now they aren't. But back during this case the were ...so if in some fantasy world you think you are correct in this case then knock yourself out

Its ok to change the parameters of your statement after the debate is lost. A lot of kids do that. And again, you are most certainly welcome.

 

[fuji]

Now they aren't. But back during this case the were ...so if in some fantasy world you think you are correct in this case then knock yourself out

Still waiting for your to produce ANY evidence that things happened differently than the SIU concluded.

Farting about how you dislike the police isn't evidence.