Scrounger,

What a man does by way of occupation does not define the man. The man is defined by how he does it. This is reflected in all things in his life, his dedication to the truth, his family, his God and not just his occupation.

You certainly seem to be a cynic. Perhaps negativity and pessimism have worked for you in the past?

I haven't had any direct experience with 'bad apples.' Perhaps they have not been there, or have escaped my notice. This is not willful blindness, but is a testament to not being psychotic. I don't envision what's not there. There are those assigned to investigate legitimate complaints against a police officer. That wasn't however my particular assignment.

I don't think much of any cop who would run to the officer-in-charge because Constable X left his keys in the cruiser. I would take the keys and give them to the officer concerned. I dislike brown nosers because these actions don't strengthen a team, rather they sew discontent.

As to the RCMP, I have not been a member of this Department. I've worked drugs at their O Division office in Toronto. Other than the officers there not having the same level of experience in the field (some are transferred to plain clothes directly from Depot; where other departments require 5-10 years of experience and a proven level of competence), I've found them good to work with.

Police Officers are a different breed than they once were. Men seem to be more effeminate than they once were. Women are in higher numbers and this has both positive and negative aspects to the job. Things change...

Simple yes or no Wayne. Would you have the balls to arrest to arrest the dui cop as the rookie did?

...I mean who wants to be this guy right. Would you have had the balls to tattle?

It's interesting that I answer questions you ask, but you avoid answering mine... When I was in uniform, I didn't arrest many people for impaired driving. I stopped them, told them that I would impound their vehicle until noon the next day and would either call someone to pick them up, or if they were local, I'd drive them home. I told them if I caught them again, they would be charged. I never caught anyone again.

In our lifetime, how many of us have had a few drinks and driven? I don't condone the practice, but would be a liar if I said that this wasn't the case with me. Maybe because of this, I've always been reluctant to lay an impaired driving charge. I've done it, but this was a result of either opening the door to the vehicle and the person fell-out onto my feet, was involved in a motor vehicle collision (where I would have no choice) or if they assaulted me. This happened on two occasions. They were only charged with impaired and not assault, as they were too drunk to realize what they were doing.

To answer your question: I would have the balls to charge the off-duty cop, but the brains not to do so. I don't believe that blowing over 80 mgs per 100 ml is enough to ruin someone's career and give them a criminal record for the rest of their life. It's always been important to me to treat anyone how I would like to be treated. To me this is common sense.

A policeman's life is difficult to understand unless you've lived it. There's something about a person who runs toward the danger that everyone else is running from. The average cop saves lives and helps people in need every day. Because a guy had too much to drink and made a mistake, I wouldn't end his career. There's a value to what he will contribute the next day. The life he saves may be my own.

Before you get carried away, I realise the value everyone has. Each makes their own contribution to society that I respect. You elude to the fact that the police department is a brotherhood. It is. I've risked my life for a brother officer numerous times. I've repeatedly done the same for a member of the public. I don't expect a member of the public to come to my assistance. I do expect this of the police officer. Trust is a key component in this relationship. As I've suggested, this can be eroded.

Criminal intent on the part of a police officer is one thing. A momentary breech of judgement is something else.

Wayne,

That may have been how things were back in the day but do you honestly believe that's how it should remain. Maybe tell that to someone who has lost a family member to a drunk driver. Times have changed. There are certainly times when discretion can be used in the laying of charges. But in this day and age, impaired driving isn't one of them. Here is a great quote for you to think about. It is excerpted from the linked article below. Keep in mind the article is from 2015, not the olden days. so these guys should certainly know better.

“If you’re caught for an impaired driving offence, you should no longer be a police officer,” OPP Commissioner Vince Hawkes told the Star.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/09/20/to-swerve-and-protect.html

Scrounger,

I know Vince. Like you've said, the police are politically corrupt. As Commissioner, he has to deal with this. What else is he going to say?

The time for discretion to be used is always. Section 495(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada states that a Peace Officer may arrest a person who has committed an indictable offence. It does not say that he has to.

Section 139 deals with Obstruct Justice. No one may interfere with a Peace Officer in the performance of his duties (including the Commissioner). A Police Officer has the discretion to charge or not to charge anyone for an offence. In the same way, the Crown has the right to prosecute (or not prosecute) any charge at his discretion.

Back in the day is not an issue. It is the law. Certainly there are remedies open to police management. This too is a matter of discretion.

I agree things are not what they once were. I can only speak to how I did my job and how I observed others to do theirs. I have to agree however that what was once common sense is no longer common.

... Maybe tell that to someone who has lost a family member to a drunk driver.

Actually, I have had to notify family that their loved one's had been killed by a drunk driver. A police officer who stops a vehicle, impounds the car and gets the person home safely has stopped the commission of the offense. No one gets hurt. He has done his job. Obviously if the Officer felt that there was a possibility that the Driver would continue to drive under the influence, he would be locked-up.

A Police Officer has to use his discretion. If I shot someone every time I felt that my life was in jeopardy, I'd have left a trail of body bags. You have to use your best judgement. Police Officers are fallible and make mistakes. The fact that they're human also allows them to have compassion and apply their best judgement. Personally, I wouldn't be too comfortable in a Society where the police were robotic. Perhaps you would be.

So was Vince lying when he made that statement? Should we not be able to trust what the OPP Commissioner says?

If the officer stopped a robbery, would he impound the suspects gun and give him a ride home. Whats the difference between knowingly getting behind the wheel drunk and robbing a store. Both are crimes where consequences can be fatal. Sorry but your argument doesn't hold water these days. And the only robot would be the officer that gives his "brother" a pass.

So was Vince lying when he made that statement? Should we not be able to trust what the OPP Commissioner says?

Perhaps you should ask Vince. The answer he gives you may not be the answer he gives to me. You're a shit disturber. I don't think whatever answer you received would be sufficient, as you would twist your reply to meet some need of personal ego.

If the officer stopped a robbery, would he impound the suspects gun and give him a ride home. Whats the difference between knowingly getting behind the wheel drunk and robbing a store. Both are crimes where consequences can be fatal. Sorry but your argument doesn't hold water these days. And the only robot would be the officer that gives his "brother" a pass.

If you really don't know the difference, you're in much more need of counselling than I can provide. Perhaps you need professional help?

How many drinks do you think you can have, over what period of time, before you have over 80 mgs of alcohol per 100 ml? Do you know? Have you ever had one drink (just one) and driven your car? A business luncheon perhaps? If you have, did you have criminal intent, or did you believe you were safe to drive? Were you aware that if your blood alcohol level was below 80 mgs that you could still be impaired? Can you say that you have never in your life had one drink and later drove a motor vehicle? If so do you consider this the same as robbing a bank? Raping? or slitting someone's throat?

I've had enough of your foolishness. You obviously don't want to answer the questions posed. Perhaps you still wish to post more articles about what others think, but refrain from stating your own opinions...

That's disappointing Wayne. I'm trying to have what I'd hope would be a somewhat civil discussion. Instead you devolve to personal attacks and name calling. It must be very galling to you that my responses were not more accommodating. I will post no further in this thread lest I cause you some type of stroke or cardiac event.

p.s. If you can still squeeze into your old tac uni you should hit up the pride parade this year. Sure the boys would love to see a real macho man strut his stuff. Not those effeminate cops we have now right?

...I'm trying to have what I'd hope would be a somewhat civil discussion.

Unfortunately there wasn't a discussion. For your information, a discussion is an exchange of ideas. Criticism of one point of view is meaningless without the presentation of another's ideas (not the ideas of other people). You're excellent of quoting the ideas of others, but have yet to present an original opinion.

If you ever have the need to call the police, I hope you get the response you deserve... Have a nice day.

I'm waiting for the part where it starts to pertain to preparedness... even just remotely.

Helicopilot,

The original question was about whether people believed that the police department had their best interests at heart. I felt that this was a legitimate question for the Security and Defence thread. No doubt that the police's attitude toward the public and the public's attitude towards the police are relevant to any disaster scenario.

Fair enough, it just had to get beyond the bath house point...

Unfair enforcement vs preparedness? As a responsible gun owner, i certainly have concerns when it comes to policing and biases, those concerns having been reinforced with the high river floods. I would really hate to be singled out by local LEOs for a "welfare check" of my residence because I own firearms.

Fair enough, it just had to get beyond the bath house point...

Unfair enforcement vs preparedness? As a responsible gun owner, i certainly have concerns when it comes to policing and biases, those concerns having been reinforced with the high river floods. I would really hate to be singled out by local LEOs for a "welfare check" of my residence because I own firearms.

I understand your position. In times of disaster, the police don't have the experience in dealing with this type of situation (how could they possibly?) They can find themselves in a situation where they receive instructions from a Supervisor (who is equally inexperienced) to secure weapons, search homes for the dead/injured, etc. In times like these mistakes will be made. For the most part, these are made in good faith.

This underlines the importance of a good disaster plan. Hopefully, there is a comprehensive one in-place that addresses the particular circumstances present.

In 1979 I was stationed at Port Credit Detachment. A train derailed and a hazardous gas situation became apparent. 200,000 people were subsequently evacuated in what was the largest peacetime evacuation in North America until the New Orleans evacuation of 2005. We were largely operating in the dark. There was a disaster plan, but it only addressed some of the problems that ensued.

There's no playbook for 90% of what the police have to deal with in day-to-day situations. Often trying to do what seemed to be the right thing is the yardstick used. You try to apply your experience and common sense. Sometimes all you can do is try to help and hope you don't screw-up... 🙂

...I'm trying to have what I'd hope would be a somewhat civil discussion.

Unfortunately there wasn't a discussion. For your information, a discussion is an exchange of ideas. Criticism of one point of view is meaningless without the presentation of another's ideas (not the ideas of other people). You're excellent of quoting the ideas of others, but have yet to present an original opinion.

If you ever have the need to call the police, I hope you get the response you deserve... Have a nice day.

Thanks for holding your ground, scrounger. How much can you trust someone saying, I'm one of the good guys because I was fairly following orders... especially when their call image is a Fucking SNIPER RIFFLE. Your welcome