http://www.thestar.com/news/article/882 ... ve-the-law

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

OR, how about stats on how many incidents have police been involved that a higher use of force could have easily been justified but wasn't used

such as this article today > teen pulls gun on officer

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoa ... 91931.html

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.