Path: utzoo!attcan!lsuc!ncrcan!ontenv!soley From: soley@ontenv.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) Newsgroups: tor.general Subject: Re: Toronto Police Message-ID: <383@ontenv.UUCP> Date: 25 Jan 89 15:02:10 GMT References: <157@aimed.UUCP> <4674@hcr.UUCP> <1841@maccs.McMaster.CA> Distribution: tor Organization: Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Toronto Lines: 74 In article <1841@maccs.McMaster.CA> nusip@maccs.McMaster.CA (Mike Borza) writes: > > 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? You've raised some very good questions, it's not been publically established as yet that "illegal" bullets were used, although I believe it is the case. If it turns out to be true then in the very least he should receive the maximum penalty provided for in the police act (which would be dismissal). As far as other criminal charges go there are several possiblities: 1) The officer (except for the use of banned bullets) acted correctly and within the line of duty - No further charges or Criminal Negligence causing death. 2) The officer acted incorrectly, but without malice and was not shooting to kill (unlikely) - Manslaughter 3) The officer acted incorrectly but without malice and was shooting to kill - 2nd Degree Murder 4) The officer acted incorrectly with malice, and intent to kill - 1st Degree Murder It is my contention that #1 applies to the officer who fired the killer shot, the other officer on the other hand is probably guilty of the charge of aggrevated assault which has been layed against him. outside of any legal consideration there are moral questions here, I think the moral boundry represented by hollow point bullets has already been crossed. Until a few years ago, police in Ontario could only use copper jacketed bullets, small hole going in, small hole going out, tumble resistant and ricochets somewhat predicably, however they had little change of actually stopping a criminal from doing anything unless aimed very accurately. Then they were allowed their current load, the lead semi-wadcutter, small to medium hole going in, larger hole going out, flat nosed so they tumble easier, thus ripping an even larger hole or bouncing unpredicably, impact is frequently sufficient to put the shootee into immediate shock. The "banned" hollow point bullet is very similar to the current load, sure it does a little more damage but it's of the same type and effect of the current load. This doesn't change the fact that the officer should be punished under the police act. But to me at any rate it suggests that any consideration of the criminal nature of the officers acts should not be affected by the load he had in his gun. -- Norman Soley - Data Communications Analyst - Ontario Ministry of the Environment UUCP: uunet!attcan!lsuc!ncrcan!ontenv!soley VOICE: +1 416 323 2623 OR: soley@ontenv.UUCP " Stay smart, go cool, be happy, it's the only way to get what you want"