Path: utzoo!utgpu!lsuc!maccs!nusip From: nusip@maccs.McMaster.CA (Mike Borza) Newsgroups: tor.general Subject: Re: Toronto Police Message-ID: <1841@maccs.McMaster.CA> Date: 24 Jan 89 21:58:47 GMT References: <157@aimed.UUCP> <4674@hcr.UUCP> <89Jan23.093655est.38021@neat.ai.toronto.edu> <4742@hcr.UUCP> Reply-To: nusip@maccs.UUCP (Mike Borza) Distribution: tor Organization: McMaster U., Hamilton, Ont., Can. Lines: 58 In article <4742@hcr.UUCP> paulg@hcrvax.UUCP (Paul Gooderham) writes: >In my understanding, the police shot at the *tires* of the stolen car >and that a ricocheted bullet struck the young driver. In spite of the overwhelming odds against this possibility, it could be true. >If it is police procedure to stop a stolen car fleeing from the scene >of a crime by shooting at its tires and if someone is killed by >accident, then no charges should be laid. [....] >In any case, an *investigation* should lead to charges. Not a >politician's fear of losing the ethnic vote. In all of this discussion, I note that the allegation that the officer involved was using ammunition which is prohibited for general use under the Police Act has been conveniently ignored or forgotten. I believe that Canadian law holds that a death which occurs during the commission of a crime is considered a crime in itself. If the investigation of the incident in question in fact determined that the officer was using illegal ammunition, then there is no question that charges must be laid. Not being a lawyer myself, I don't know how the Police Act relates to the Criminal Code of Canada; therefore I don't know what charge is appropriate. Knowing a few police officers myself, I am hard pressed to come to a blanket defence of an entire force. Some are exemplary citizens; others would be in jail themselves were it not for the fact that they are officers of the law, I suspect. If the report that banned ammunition was used is true, I would ask myself, "Do I believe an officer who purposely loaded his/her service revolver with banned ammunition which served only to magnify the gravity of a wound inflicted with it be predisposed to use it?". For me the answer is probably. Now I ask myself, "Do I want an individual who knowingly violates the law to uphold the law?". My answer is no. You may well disagree with my position, but I'd have to ask how much latitude you give police in their own obeyance of the law. Would an automatic pistol have been acceptable? An automatic rifle? I expect officers of the law to uphold the law themselves. This morning driving in on the highway, I travelled behind an OPP cruiser at 130 km/h for a distance of about 10 km. He was chatting amiably with his companion in the front seat, making unsignaled lane changes and an occasional lane change across two lanes. All of these are offences under the Highway Traffic Act. How does this officer enforce the HTA with a clear conscience? How does the OPP maintain its credibility in its enforcement of the HTA? What does this say about the current "Speeding Slows You Down" crusade? (It doesn't if you're behind a cop is the right answer, I believe:-) Similarly, I have watched officers who couldn't be bothered sitting through a red light go through with their lights on. It was painfully obvious that they simply couldn't be bothered waiting. I don't recall anything about officers obeying the law at their own discretion, but then it's been a while since high school Law. mike borza