MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

That’s kind of the odd part here(no not the fact that felonies aren’t actually a thing in Canada ), why did she not press criminal charges against this officer?

Victims pressing charges is also not a thing in Canada.

That's up to the Crown, so the question should be why they haven't charged him.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

Call it a crime then...

It was low hanging fruit

I'm no fancy 'Big-City Lawyer' or nuthin' but I still think passing around naked photos of someone that were supposed to be private is a crime.

Why didn't she press charges? I dont know. Why does she have to though? If you have sufficient evidence of a crime isn't The Crown compelled to press charges?

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

Victims pressing charges is also not a thing in Canada.

That's up to the Crown, so the question should be why they haven't charged him.

I’m not sure that the crown has to charge people just because they have evidence for certain crimes if the victim isn’t wanting to press charges. Aren’t charges for things like assault or theft generally not pursued unless the victim asks to press charges?

Paging MBates to municipal politics thread. Mbates to the municipal politics thread for layman poster assistance.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

It was low hanging fruit

I’m not sure that the crown has to charge people just because they have evidence for certain crimes if the victim isn’t wanting to press charges. Aren’t charges for things like assault or theft generally not pursued unless the victim asks to press charges?

Paging MBates to municipal politics thread. Mbates to the municipal politics thread for layman poster assistance.

Fair enough.

But yeah, other than that you need someone who knows a lot more about the Law than I do.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

It was low hanging fruit



I’m not sure that the crown has to charge people just because they have evidence for certain crimes if the victim isn’t wanting to press charges. Aren’t charges for things like assault or theft generally not pursued unless the victim asks to press charges?

Paging MBates to municipal politics thread. Mbates to the municipal politics thread for layman poster assistance.

Hilarious that you nitpick someone misapplying a US legal term and then do it yourself within the same post* (technically 'press charges' isn't an official legal term, but its colloquially understood in the US)

The short answer is: it depends. A case is less likely to proceed without cooperation from the victim, but it absolutely can. This is also true in most (all?) states

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Hilarious that you nitpick someone misapplying a US legal term and then do it yourself within the same post* (technically 'press charges' isn't an official legal term, but its colloquially understood in the US)

I guess you’ll have to share this with all of the police here who ask people if they want to press charges?

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

It was low hanging fruit





I’m not sure that the crown has to charge people just because they have evidence for certain crimes if the victim isn’t wanting to press charges. Aren’t charges for things like assault or theft generally not pursued unless the victim asks to press charges?

Paging MBates to municipal politics thread. Mbates to the municipal politics thread for layman poster assistance.

Good idea to get a real lawyer to verify this. The crown can charge someone if the victim doesn't want them to, but I'd guess it's less likely because prosecution wouldn't be as successful without their cooperation.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

Good idea to get a real lawyer to verify this. The crown can charge someone if the victim doesn't want them to, but I'd guess it's less likely because prosecution wouldn't be as successful without their cooperation.

I think is how it works, but having never been charged of a Crime I cant say for certain.

But I think if the Crown charged me a of Crime I'd demand King Chuckles to come here and serve me himself.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Locke

I think is how it works, but having never been charged of a Crime I cant say for certain.

But I think if the Crown charged me a of Crime I'd demand King Chuckles to come here and serve me himself.

I should add....wearing a Burger King Crown.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

Good idea to get a real lawyer to verify this. The crown can charge someone if the victim doesn't want them to, but I'd guess it's less likely because prosecution wouldn't be as successful without their cooperation.

My (not a lawyer) guess is that the victim probably just wanted the person fired but didn’t want to have them criminally charged?

[para transit fellow]

seems like we went down this discussion path before with the investigation of Sean chu

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

CPS thread here: https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=157717

Curious, for the rest of of us in our employment how would this have played out? I'm guessing we're all getting fired.

Absolutely at mine at least and rightly so. She didn’t even give consent to film. That is a whole layer of ethics further that a cop should not struggle with.

Why is it so hard for cops to get fired? Is it the union? This crosses so many ethical and moral lines and this is a guy who has position of power by nature of job. Appalling he is still a cop.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Why is it so hard for cops to get fired? Is it the union? This crosses so many ethical and moral lines and this is a guy who has position of power by nature of job. Appalling he is still a cop.

Hard to blame it on their Union when the CPS voluntarily opted to not terminate their officer even though they likely have just cause to do so in this case.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Hard to blame it on their Union when the CPS voluntarily opted to not terminate their officer even though they likely have just cause to do so in this case.

Except no matter what, its going to cause a fight with the Union. One of the strongest Unions around.

My wonder is why they picked him over her.

They're both equal members right?

One committed a crime and one is a victim and they chose to protect the criminal.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Locke

Except no matter what, its going to cause a fight with the Union. One of the strongest Unions around.

My wonder is why they picked him over her.

They're both equal members right?

One committed a crime and one is a victim and they chose to protect the criminal.

I think the union would have to protect both. A union representative would ensure that the collective bargaining agreement for discipline is correctly applied to the officer. The Union should also help with the grievance process of the employer creating an unsafe work environment.

A union does not have to pick a side. It has to ensure the enter a of the collective bargaining agreement are followed.

This appears like a management problem.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

Except no matter what, its going to cause a fight with the Union. One of the strongest Unions around.

Ok, hypothetically let’s say you’re right.

In which case, so what? Unions don’t have magical powers to change the laws, if an arbitrator rules that the employer has just cause to terminate an employee there’s not going to be a whole lot the Union can do to get that employee reinstated.

You’re essentially advocating for allowing the inmates run the asylum because the employer shouldn’t want to risk being challenged and winning anyways. (And no the irony of using the term inmates in that analogy to describe police officers isn’t lost on me)

My wonder is why they picked him over her.

They're both equal members right?

One committed a crime and one is a victim and they chose to protect the criminal.

What do you mean picked him over her? Grievances aren’t filed against other coworkers they’re filed against your employer. It’s the employer’s responsibility to discipline their employees. In any case that the Union takes on what they are defending their member on is whether the actions of the employer violated the law and/or collective agreement, not their actions against another employee.

[Bigtime]

Looks like Jeff Davison is about to announce his run for mayor.

[Canadianman]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Looks like Jeff Davison is about to announce his run for mayor.

betcha he's still a ######nozzle.

[Bigtime]

Hey now, he gave us the "Jeff Davison Innovation Parking Lot" on 10th avenue...

[topfiverecords]

Sure this time will be Larry Heather's time.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Sure this time will be Larry Heather's time.

No, we are finally ready as a city for Stan "The Man".