Toronto police officer faces drinking-driving charge

[RED WHITE]

A Toronto Police officer has been charged with drinking and driving.

The accused was involved in an accident on the Don Valley Pkwy., south of Eglinton Ave., yesterday around 5 p.m. She was off-duty at the time.

Const. Tamara Rodin, 42, a 21-year veteran, is charged with impaired driving and a charge of failing to comply with the conditions of recognizance. She was scheduled to appear in court today.

In December 2007, a person with a gun walked into a drug store in the area of 16th Ave. and Main St. and demanded narcotics.

Shortly after, a police officer identified as Tamara Rodin was charged with robbery while armed with a firearm and disguise with intent to commit an offence.




http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/630108

 

[squash500]

How was she even allowed to still be a police officer after being charged with that previous robbery ?

She'll probably get off this latest charge with just a warning as she'll probably be all lawyered up.

I'm sure her strong union won't let anything bad happen to her?

 

[james t kirk]

I gotta believe that even the cops would want to cut this one loose.

She's a liability and while cops may protect those who cross the line in carrying out their work, I find it hard to believe that they would protect a fuck-up like her.

 

[GotGusto]

How was she even allowed to still be a police officer after being charged with that previous robbery ?

Really fucked up. Thugs and criminals allowed to 'protect' the rest of us. Unreal. Sickening. There should be an investigation into how she got her job back after her armed robbery. But, that won't happen.

 

[Worf]

If she was charged and found guilty, then she has to go. But like it or not, she gets the same rights as you and me. It is something we both would want if we got charged. That said, after drinking and driving, something isn't right and she should be gone (at least until all charges are settled).

 

[The LoLRus]

Does anybody have a pic of this cop??

 

[DistantVoyeur]

Really fucked up. Thugs and criminals allowed to 'protect' the rest of us. Unreal. Sickening. There should be an investigation into how she got her job back after her armed robbery. But, that won't happen.

Most likely she has been charged but it has not gone to court yet. Cops are put on paid leave when this happens until they are found guilty.

You'd think in a case like that they'd fire her right out the door, but the police union protects them until they are found guilty.

 

[thompo69]

Most likely she has been charged but it has not gone to court yet. Cops are put on paid leave when this happens until they are found guilty.

You'd think in a case like that they'd fire her right out the door, but the police union protects them until they are found guilty.

Actually, the constitution protects all of us until we are found guilty. I know, it would be so much easier if we didn't have to bother with trials, and actually proving allegations, but seeing as with them we still manage to send people away for things they didn't do, I guess we might as well keep them.

 

[DistantVoyeur]

Actually, the constitution protects all of us until we are found guilty. I know, it would be so much easier if we didn't have to bother with trials, and actually proving allegations, but seeing as with them we still manage to send people away for things they didn't do, I guess we might as well keep them.

I don't disagree. Also, police are subjected to so many false accusations because of the nature of some of the people they are dealing with.

But if they have enough evidence to charge her with armed robbery and she is getting paid time off, that I call into question.

It's not a trumped up brutality charge, it's an investigation of a significant crime that showed her to be the person of interest. Not a member of the public complaining.

 

[fernie]

December 2007 offence and it's still working its way through system? Puhleeze. Now she can cry undue delay and have it tossed for the case moving at "glacial pace".

Fernie

 

[thompo69]

I don't disagree. Also, police are subjected to so many false accusations because of the nature of some of the people they are dealing with.

But if they have enough evidence to charge her with armed robbery and she is getting paid time off, that I call into question.

It's not a trumped up brutality charge, it's an investigation of a significant crime that showed her to be the person of interest. Not a member of the public complaining.

And that's exactly the point. They have enough evidence to charge her. Whether or not it is sufficient to convict her remains to be seen. Until she is convicted, she is innocent. Period.

 

[daty]

Probably would have been taken more seriously if she robbed a Timmies drive through while drinking

 

[The Cunning Linguist]

Actually, the constitution protects all of us until we are found guilty. I know, it would be so much easier if we didn't have to bother with trials, and actually proving allegations, but seeing as with them we still manage to send people away for things they didn't do, I guess we might as well keep them.

Spoken like a true defense lawyer.

 

[Cobster]

Good.

I lost a ton of respect for the police over the course of 2 years, Peel in particular, power trip mofos.

 

[DistantVoyeur]

And that's exactly the point. They have enough evidence to charge her. Whether or not it is sufficient to convict her remains to be seen. Until she is convicted, she is innocent. Period.

In most situations we would be 100% in agreement, despite the reality of things.

If a police officer has been charged, you can be 99.9999% certain the evidence will convict them.

The publicity and repercussions alone would make that the case. The only question is whether they will get off on a technicality or mistake.

 

[thompo69]

In most situations we would be 100% in agreement, despite the reality of things.

If a police officer has been charged, you can be 99.9999% certain the evidence will convict them.

The publicity and repercussions alone would make that the case. The only question is whether they will get off on a technicality or mistake.

And it's that 0.0001% that we have to be worried about. If and when she is convicted, hang her. Until then, take away her badge and gun and keep her off the street until it's resolved. Not much else you can or should do.

 

[Mr. Lucky]

She's got some issues

 

[DistantVoyeur]

And it's that 0.0001% that we have to be worried about. If and when she is convicted, hang her. Until then, take away her badge and gun and keep her off the street until it's resolved. Not much else you can or should do.

Apparently we can add "take away her car keys" to that list.

 

[69suds]

The Police police themselves. There is no transparency.

 

[destillat]

Actually, the constitution protects all of us until we are found guilty. I know, it would be so much easier if we didn't have to bother with trials, and actually proving allegations, but seeing as with them we still manage to send people away for things they didn't do, I guess we might as well keep them.

Really?
Hmm... so someone wearing a mask and pointing a gun is innocent until proven guilty... but someone who blows too much alcohol into a battery powered road-side device is guilty with no opportunity to be proven innocent?
Canada has no constitution that protects it's people. This 'constitution' you speak of ebbs and flows at the whim of politicans and lobbyists.