Actually, it reflects the TPS and the TPA quite accurately because cops are "inaccurately"" testifying in court all the time.
TPS officer killed
- Thread starter unassuming
- Start date
And this is point I'm also trying to make.
Why do other Officers and law enforcement people like Crowns rally around to protect fellow members who briing the entire law enforcement team into disrepute and distrust?
Ameer has a chance to beat an assault with a weapon conviction if the jury believes that the cops didn't ID themselves - although I'm not sure what the cases say about that fact situation.
I think the murder rap will turn into a criminal negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle conviction because Ameer didn't see the cop when he ran him over.
But it's a jury. If they like Ameer and think the cops are assholes, they can acquit or deadlock.
If the jury accepts that the cops ID-ed themselves, there's no legit path to an acquittal on at least an assault with a weapon rap.
I get it that you don't think much of cops, but.... your scenario is that 2 experienced police officers failed to follow normal, automatic procedures and they just assumed that a guy with a wife and kid was the perp just because there was a slight physical resemblance and that they simply tried to grab him out of the car without ID-ing themselves as cops. The difficulty that I have is that experienced officers should - and probably DID - know better than to do that.
But we'll see.
Even the judge isnt buying the Crown's story
www.cp24.com
Judge at trial of man accused of killing cop was concerned over Crown changing theory
The judge overseeing the trial of a man accused of fatally running over a Toronto police officer repeatedly raised concerns over the prosecution’s changing theory of what happened that night and at one point indicated she did not see how a jury could reach a guilty verdict on murder based on...
www.cp24.com
It should be illegal for a cop to be dressed in plainclothes and approach random civilians. Unless it is a designated operation targeted at someone.
You spoke my mind. Unless it is a designated op directed at an individual, approaching civilians should be dropped as a practice when in plainclothes. Just call it in.
Us vs Them. It is always the police vs "others" aka the civvies. Its their mentality and how they operate. Michael A Wood, a former Baltimore police officer, who is very critical of the policing system, speaks about this mentality a lot.
Last edited:
manus manum lavat - 'one hand washes the other'.
It's not as if the people with the highest standards of morality become cops or prosecutors.
Thank you Mandriller
It's my Aunt's basement, and I never said I was a millionaire however, I think I like your version of me better than the real one after all it gets so much attention from you. I'm flattered by your infatuation, you are my first Terb groupie
64×64 png
I think the main problem here is that, as a lawyer, you have only had relatively positive interactions with police officers. And I get that. I can't count the number of people that hero worship them without ever having actually interacted with them, and all based on what they perceive as the benefit that they provide to society.
However, those same individuals have changed their view upon having actually interacted with them. I know one girl who was a victim of a rape. Her parents, and her, used to think that the police could do no wrong. After the trial, no respect for the police remained. (No, I'm not going to go into detail.) This is just one example but I'm sure many others can share their own stories of being victims of various crimes and their experiences as victims and dealing with the police. I would put money on there being more negative than positive experiences.
I'm not saying they are all bad but, until you have dealt with them when they view you as a suspect or a victim, you can't begin to understand the despicable way that they treat the populace, counselor.
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.
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.”
