Toronto Star's SIU report

Moderators: Reflections, admin, hwybear, Radar Identified, Decatur, bend

User avatar
BelSlySTi
Member
Member
Posts: 222
Joined:

Toronto Star's SIU report

Unread post by BelSlySTi on

[img]http://i328.photobucket.com/albums/l352/toastedwhitebread/Untitled-TrueColor-03.jpg[/img]


User avatar
hwybear
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2933
Joined:
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Moderator

Unread post by hwybear on

In its 20-year history, the SIU has conducted at least 3,400 investigations and laid criminal charges after only 95 of them, according to a Star analysis. The SIU does not track what happens to those it charges. But the Star has, and found only 16 officers have been convicted of a crime
3400/20 = 170 investigations per yr
95/20 = 4.75 charged per year
16/20 = 0.8 per year found guilty of the alledge offence
And this is news how??
Same as any other investigation, if there is no evidence to support the charge, you can not just lay a charge. Further, as every citizen police still have their right to a trial and then a judge determines the outcome.

This article does not touch on:
1) Normal investigations and charges against officers
2) Internal Investigations/Professional Standards investigations by individual police services and charges against officers
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


User avatar
hwybear
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2933
Joined:
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Moderator

Unread post by hwybear on

Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


User avatar
Radar Identified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2881
Joined:
Location: Toronto

Moderator

Unread post by Radar Identified on

Lots of stuff missing from the Toronto Star's report(s). I would like to know just why that officer accelerated into an illegal turn and hit the grandmother - but would like the FULL story. (Visibility, proximity to crosswalk, what was "illegal" about said turn, speeds.) I'd want the officer's side of the story before making a judgment call. The statement that the officer wasn't "responding" to an emergency call, while truthful, is also misleading. The officer could've spotted a traffic violation, a stolen vehicle, a wanted suspect, etc - all would've justified quickly making an "illegal turn," certainly not running over a pedestrian. Drivers do make mistakes. And, for the record, I know of plenty of instances where drivers have run down pedestrians and received a $110 fine - less than what the officer received. Again, there's not enough info in the Star's report for an objective observer to really decide.

Truthfully, the Star did a brutal hack job when it tried to report on "safety" in my line of work. These series of reports on the SIU is about as fair and balanced as Fox News. Internal investigations have resulted in officers being charged and/or terminated, yet the Star paints these as rosy, pat-on-the-wrist type situations.

Maybe the SIU is too weak. Or maybe it is actually doing its job, and the police are not the horrible monsters the Toronto Star likes to make them out to be. There is far too much information missing for me to say what it is.




* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca


Post Reply

Return to “General Talk”