You can now get a citation for making direct eye contact with a cop

Janx said:

Which could take 8 years to get that check.

And you might not be in a position to get a lawyer to fight for you.

There are lots of people who get screwed by governments and by civil suit-worthy issues (aka businesses, people etc) that just lump it because they do not have the means to pursue it.

I myself am out $500 deductible due to a no-insurance, no license idiot who hit my truck because Allstate couldn't squeeze it out of him (they tried to get my deductible and their money back from him via debt collectors). I don't have time, money or energy to hunt that idiot down. Should have claimed his truck when he came back after he ran and somebody chased him down.

So I have no faith in everybody getting the justice they deserve. There's too much "need money to get money" built into the system.

Heck, those pokemon idiots are going to spend at least 4 months in jail before they get their day in court. Which means if they were innocent in some way (remember that innocent before proven guilty concept), they will suffer the ill-effects of not being at work, etc for nothing.

Click to expand...

I agree 100% that the court system is...not good.
Going after businesses or private citizens can cost more than you have and big business can stall the little guy out. Going after government is easier if you have any kind of case though. They have deep pockets, but they have insurance companies that make the call on settling a case or going to court. Most places will settle because it's cost effective.
The people I worked with never referred to the court system as the "justice system", because justice seems to be rare in court. As disgusted as many people are with the courts, there are many officers that feel the same way.

Going after the government is NEVER easy. Not in the USA, at least.

Janx said:

I myself am out $500 deductible due to a no-insurance, no license idiot who hit my truck because Allstate couldn't squeeze it out of him (they tried to get my deductible and their money back from him via debt collectors). I don't have time, money or energy to hunt that idiot down. Should have claimed his truck when he came back after he ran and somebody chased him down.

So I have no faith in everybody getting the justice they deserve. There's too much "need money to get money" built into the system.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean.

A friend of mine was cut-off by a woman in an SUV during icy conditions on an Interstate, which caused him to spin out control, cross the medium and get T-boned by an oncoming truck, which broke his neck and totaled his vehicle, but he survived (almost completely recovered). However, though the woman was at fault, she caused 12 other accidents that day in exactly the same way (cutting people off), before and after causing his. Because there were so many victims, her insurance could only cover so much damage before being spent, thus he never got money from her nor her insurance company for very high medical expenses.

Janx said:

Taking Umbran's point from another thread a while back about the hunt for the boston marathon bombers. When the cops said "stay inside", bostonians kept their butts inside while the cops ran around shooting at the bad guys. As he indicated, it was a good thing folks didn't argue and did what they were told.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is a good example - there are times when you really ought to listen to a cop. I am all for questioning authority when it looks like they are screwing up.

But, you know, that cop directing traffic? I'm going to just let him do his job, without mocking or challenging him. There is no goodness to be found in making his day more difficult.

Lhorgrim said:

I'm not familiar with the details, but Wiki says over 1000 people were arrested and seems to link the arrests to a riot. Excessive force seems to be the main issue in the entry, though some questionable arrests and tactics are mentioned after the initial disturbance.
I don't have much experience with civil disturbance situations. We did have some Black Bloc members at the 2000 Vice Presidential debate, but they didn't try to get through the perimeter to the debate venue. They marched and blocked some streets but didn't engage in any violence, so we didn't respond.
I don't condone the law enforcement tactics at the summit, but I'm not familiar enough with the situation to say how they should have done it instead. I'm not sure how the Canadian system works with criminal charges, but in my area every arrest would be required to have an officer's name attached. It would be easy to hold someone accountable for a bad arrest. In a riot situation where mass arrests are made, the ground supervisor would be responsible. We call it vicarious liability. Ultimately, I feel, the chief/agency head is responsible for civil disturbance response if individual officers can't be identified. The chief should make damn sure that there is a way to secure accountability among the rank and file. I think body cams are part of the solution, but they present their own issues.

Click to expand...

There were certainly Black Bloc situations and several police cruisers were burnt. Against those animals, were I in charge, I'd have authorized the use of "less lethal" means to subdue and capture them. I suppose that's why I'm not a cop.

Masses of people were detained without cause. In many cases people were detained who just happened to be in the area, but were not taking part in any protest activities. This has been confirmed through multiple sources.

There were also the infamous "kettling" incidents in which large numbers of people were swept up and detained for hours, in the sort of conditions you might expect in a backwater Mexican jail. Unsanitary conditions. No food or water for perhaps 24 hours. Overcrowded. It was for this that the Superintendent was convicted.

Additionally, accountability was virtually non existent because many officers removed their name tags. Given how they were dressed and that they were drawn from departments across the Province, that made identification virtually impossible without the co-operation of brother officers. That, obviously, was not forthcoming.

I'm generally very pro law enforcement. I think that officers should be given great latitude until they breach the public trust, at which point such officers should be landed upon with jack-booted feet. This series of incidents gave Canadian policing a black eye that it may never recover from.

goldomark said:

The 8 years? Rather standard.

Click to expand...

Eight years is far from 'standard.' Criminal cases are generally resolved in 5 years or less. Cases that take longer, like this one or the Toronto police corruption case that took 15 years to run to completion are of note precisely because they are so far beyond the pale. Generally speaking simple criminal cases go to trial within 2-3 years and are resolved rather quickly, once they do.

Lhorgrim said:

[MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION], 8 years is incredibly long for a criminal case here. Almost unheard of. I could see a civil case dragging on that long maybe. Here a judge decides bond, and if you make it you're out until trial date. A prosecutor can review the charges and drop them before court if they don't feel it's a good case.
Generally officers have immunity if they make a bad arrest, as long as they acted in good faith. I take you in for DUI because you were weaving and had balance issues. I don't smell alcohol but believe you are on prescription meds. You bring a doctor's statement to the prosecutor or to court and show that you have a medical condition that mimics intoxication. Charges are dropped, but the officer isn't charged because the arrest met a reasonableness standard. However, if I stop you and you exhibit no indicators of impaired driving and I arrest you anyway, then I could be charged with false arrest. More likely you would go for a civil payout and try to get the city's insurance to write you a check.

Click to expand...

The good faith exception also applies here. It takes willful misconduct or negligence to breach the exception. in general. Even then it's a tough row to hoe. I was trying to follow a case involving an officer who occasionally acted as a spokesman for the Ontario Provincial Police, who had falsified charges under our Provincial racing and stunting legislation (immediate loss of license and impoundment of vehicle for 7 days, accused pays storage fees, no recourse nor recovery). I even took time off work to try and attend. Multiple continuances. Unannounced venue changes. In the end I never managed to attend a single hearing, though I knew in advance where they were supposed to be. The officer went for trial by judge (usually a good indicator of someone who is hoping for a technical acquittal, rather than someone who is innocent). In the judge's summation he essentially said 'we both know that you did it, but I cannot make a finding in law that you did.'

Umbran said:

Yes, that is a good example - there are times when you really ought to listen to a cop. I am all for questioning authority when it looks like they are screwing up.

But, you know, that cop directing traffic? I'm going to just let him do his job, without mocking or challenging him. There is no goodness to be found in making his day more difficult.

Click to expand...

I want to thank you for this.

Some of the worst treatment I ever got as an officer was while directing traffic. People who are ordinarily nice can get pretty mean in traffic, and the mean people can achieve new heights of vitriol. You expect somebody you're taking to jail to be angry, but parades and 5K runs were almost as bad.

Lhorgrim said:

I want to thank you for this.

Some of the worst treatment I ever got as an officer was while directing traffic. People who are ordinarily nice can get pretty mean in traffic, and the mean people can achieve new heights of vitriol. You expect somebody you're taking to jail to be angry, but parades and 5K runs were almost as bad.

Click to expand...

I can believe it! I worked my way through college working in the parking lots of Pearson International Airport, starting out as a parking attendant. The number of times that I was purposely bumped by a car, had my feet run over, or had someone actually charge at me with their vehicle were beyond count.

Lhorgrim said:

[MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION], 8 years is incredibly long for a criminal case here.

Click to expand...

The 8 years was civil. Why he couldn't be in a protest was criminal. I wasn't clear.