Path: utzoo!utgpu!lsuc!ecicrl!clewis
From: clewis@ecicrl.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: tor.general
Subject: Re: Toronto Police
Keywords: Presumption of Innocence & "Criminals"
Message-ID: <193@ecicrl.UUCP>
Date: 21 Jan 89 21:46:07 GMT
References: <157@aimed.UUCP> <4674@hcr.UUCP> <1989Jan20.201648.20385@lsuc.uucp>
Reply-To: clewis@ecicrl.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Distribution: tor
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc. (CRL Division)
Lines: 66

In article <1989Jan20.201648.20385@lsuc.uucp> sean@lsuc.UUCP (Sean Doran the Younger) writes:

>(Nota bene: I am not a Lawyer of any sort and have no plans to be one.)

Thank heavens for that...  Some of your legal comments are right on the mark
and some of them are completely off...

Paul may be a little hasty in calling the two men who died "criminals",
but since the facts in at least one of these are fairly clear and undisputed,
chastising him for stating what's obvious is at least pompous and a little
silly no?

>It is my understanding of the Police Act and departmental and ministerial
>directives that police guns may not be removed from the holster or
>belt unless a person is threatening the PC or another person with
>a brandished gun, or unless the PC has reasonable grounds to believe
>that a person is carrying a concealed gun.   Police revolvers and other
>guns are not to be displayed in order to threaten any person, nor
>to restrain an arrested person who is unarmed.   
>
>Moreover, the police are not to discharge firearms unless acting
>in self defence and in accordance with the other regulations concerning
>police guns.   They are certainly not allowed to shoot at someone
>brandishing a knife (Police Constables are well trained in the use
>of truncheons and are all taught how to disarm an opponent who is
>using a knife or other weapon), nor are they allowed to fatally
>wound any person for any reason with impunity from the courts.  

I'm afraid your understanding is somewhat off.  The "halt or I'll fire"
doctrine is well understood and widespread in Canada.  Secondly, I find
it extremely hard to believe that they would blanket disallow the use
of police guns except in self (or other person) -defence against a gun.
There are many occasions where a policeman could have no other recourse
than the use of his gun even if the opponent was completely unarmed.
*EVEN IF* such a police doctrine existed, it would have no bearing on
a possible conviction in the courts - the legal system at least *attempts*
to treat everyone the same - citizen, suspect/"criminal" or police.

The legal concept of "justifiable" force is a lot more complicated than simply 
balancing weaponry or probable injury.  

Frankly, we know almost completely *nothing* about either of these
cases.  The media is inadvertantly whipping the whole city into a frenzy
with one unsubstantiated rumor after another.  One is unable to separate
fact from fiction in the media reports.

Come on guys, let's *COOL* it.  Discussing the *supposed* facts of the case
can only make things worse.  Let's wait and see what the trial goes like.

Charging the officers involved with manslaughter was the best possible thing
for the AG to do.  I personally don't think that the charges have a chance
of sticking, but a trial:

	- gives the officers a chance to defend themselves in a forum
	  where unsubstantiated rumor shouldn't get much attention,
	- and deflates any validity to a charge of "coverup".

I support our cops to the hilt, BUT this trial is absolutely necessary.

Okay?  Let's not prejudice the trial or start a race war by spewing nonsense -
we all should just simply shut up and wait.
-- 
Chris Lewis, Markham, Ontario, Canada
{uunet!attcan,utgpu,yunexus,utzoo}!lsuc!ecicrl!clewis
Ferret Mailing list: ...!lsuc!gate!eci386!ferret-request
(or lsuc!gate!eci386!clewis or lsuc!clewis)