Airdrie RCMP Officer Getting Charged

[The Unabomber]

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/...45741-sun.html

Getting suspended with pay? Nice to see our tax dollars are going to something like this, the creep should have been fired rather sitting at home collecting money. No wonder the RCMP have been put into a bad light over the past few years.

[Burninator]

Yeah who cares about innocence until proven guilty anyways?

[Agamemnon]

It doesn't say anywhere in the article that he's guilty... it says there have been allegations they're looking in to. When he's a convicted of a sex crime or assault, then you can call him a creep. For now... who knows what happened?

[The Unabomber]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Yeah who cares about innocence until proven guilty anyways?

I'm sure that fellow RCMP officers would arrest him and bring the media into it if they were simply investigating. Aren't police suppose to protect and lead by example? Why not let them do whatever they want and pay them to sit at home? Luring a minor isn't too serious huh? Those are the type of people i would like my kids running to when they are in trouble..........

[Sylvanfan]

Changed the thread title to make it a bit more specific. It's one officer being charged not the entire RCMP.

I'm not sure how it all works and if he would forfeit pension and the like if he gets dishonorably discharged from the RCMP. But they need to do their due dilligence or paying him a salary for a couple months while suspended will look like chump change compared to any potential civil litigation. Sucks right now, but long term it probably will save the tax payer money.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by The Unabomber

I'm sure that fellow RCMP officers would arrest him and bring the media into it if they were simply investigating. Aren't police suppose to protect and lead by example? Why not let them do whatever they want and pay them to sit at home? Luring a minor isn't too serious huh? Those are the type of people i would like my kids running to when they are in trouble..........

What are you talking about?

Charges have been laid. He hasn't been convicted. You don't just lock someone up in jail because he has been charged with something. There is a thing called the judicial process. Or do you just want to punish him harder because he is a cop? Doesn't work that way. I don't think he'll be going near any kids.

His release conditions prohibit him from having contact with the teen, or any female under the age of 18.
Raes is also restricted from using the Internet or a computer and must not be within 100 metres of the complainant's home. He is to appear in Airdrie provincial court Aug. 16 at 9:30 a.m.

[The Unabomber]

Originally Posted by Burninator

What are you talking about?

Charges have been laid. He hasn't been convicted. You don't just lock someone up in jail because he has been charged with something. There is a thing called the judicial process. Or do you just want to punish him harder because he is a cop? Doesn't work that way. I don't think he'll be going near any kids.

His release conditions prohibit him from having contact with the teen, or any female under the age of 18.
Raes is also restricted from using the Internet or a computer and must not be within 100 metres of the complainant's home. He is to appear in Airdrie provincial court Aug. 16 at 9:30 a.m.

So why is he/was he getting paid? Charges have been laid, most people that have been charged with offences such as these are locked up until a trial is set, not too many people awaiting a court date that are being charged with a federal offence can sit at home, that's my understanding anyway.

And yes, i think that a cop being charged (especially in instances where youth are involved) should be treated differently than the average citizen, these are people that are suppose to be role models and are suppose to uphold the law, not break it.

I'll use this as a comparison, is Pickton going home each night after his trial? He's still innocent isn't he?

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by The Unabomber

So why is he/was he getting paid? Charges have been laid, most people that have been charged with offences such as these are locked up until a trial is set, not too many people awaiting a court date that are being charged with a federal offence can sit at home, that's my understanding anyway.

And yes, i think that a cop being charged (especially in instances where youth are involved) should be treated differently than the average citizen, these are people that are suppose to be role models and are suppose to uphold the law, not break it.

I'll use this as a comparison, is Pickton going home each night after his trial? He's still innocent isn't he?

That's the worst comparison ever, a serial killer to a paedophile? Gimme a break. Are you sure it's a federal offence? Because I don't believe it is. But I could be wrong. Well a court sets a bail. Depending on the crime and other factors, the bail is set at a dollar amount or completely denied. Someone charged with sex charges, who hasn't committed any crimes before and is a police office is going to get a low bail because it poses a smaller risk than someone who chopped up people and buried them in his yard.

Him being locked up before his trail and getting paid are not related. The courts are the ones that decide whether or not he can walk around the streets or not. The RCMP are the ones that choose to pay him or not.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by The Unabomber

So why is he/was he getting paid? Charges have been laid, most people that have been charged with offences such as these are locked up until a trial is set, not too many people awaiting a court date that are being charged with a federal offence can sit at home, that's my understanding anyway.

And yes, i think that a cop being charged (especially in instances where youth are involved) should be treated differently than the average citizen, these are people that are suppose to be role models and are suppose to uphold the law, not break it.

I'll use this as a comparison, is Pickton going home each night after his trial? He's still innocent isn't he?

Pickton has been charged with multiple murders, which I imagine qualifies him as a danger to the public at large. He was denied bail. Apples to Oranges.

I do agree that I don't understand why he is still getting pay. Reduced perhaps, untill proven guilty, but full pay seems a little generous for someone facing charges of this magnitude.

[Bobblehead]

Best way I've heard it put.....

If you were incorrectly charged with a crime, how would you like the legal process to work?

If you demand anything else then you are a hypocrite.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by llama64

Pickton has been charged with multiple murders, which I imagine qualifies him as a danger to the public at large. He was denied bail. Apples to Oranges.

I do agree that I don't understand why he is still getting pay. Reduced perhaps, untill proven guilty, but full pay seems a little generous for someone facing charges of this magnitude.

If they don't pay him though I think he could be inline for a very large civil suit for defamation of character, wrongfull dismissal etc...You need to talk to a labour lawyer to get the full story. But until he is proven as guilty I suspect they can't discharge him from the RCMP and depending on their labour agreement it may not be possible to suspend someone from work without pay.

If he does indeed get proven guilty than I'm probably more concerned that a person like that managed to stay a member of the RCMP for the 21 years before he was suspended with pay.

[The Unabomber]

Originally Posted by Burninator

That's the worst comparison ever, a serial killer to a paedophile? Gimme a break. Are you sure it's a federal offence? Because I don't believe it is. But I could be wrong. Well a court sets a bail. Depending on the crime and other factors, the bail is set at a dollar amount or completely denied. Someone charged with sex charges, who hasn't committed any crimes before and is a police office is going to get a low bail because it poses a smaller risk than someone who chopped up people and buried them in his yard.

Him being locked up before his trail and getting paid are not related. The courts are the ones that decide whether or not he can walk around the streets or not. The RCMP are the ones that choose to pay him or not.

But as you stated earlier, who cares about innocent until proven guilty.

And like i said earlier, the guy is a cop, any cop that gets charged with a serious offence such as this should be treated in a brutal manner.

I understand what Sylvan is saying, and he's probably right. It just makes me upset when i read about junk like this, it's not right that the guy gets paid a cent.

The only bright side to this is that a child molesting cop going to jail might not have too much fun while there.

[BlackArcher101]

Unabomber... I definetely don't think along your line of thought.

Buninator was sarcastic in his first post when he said who cares about innocent until proven guilty.

It comes down to this... why penalize him (no pay) for doing something wrong before he's proven of doing something wrong? What happens if he is innocent... what then? They just say sorry, you missed your paycheque?

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by The Unabomber

And yes, i think that a cop being charged (especially in instances where youth are involved) should be treated differently than the average citizen, these are people that are suppose to be role models and are suppose to uphold the law, not break it.

But you are saying here (inherently or no) that because he's been charged, he's guilty. He's not guilty yet. People in these positions (teachers, police, etc) are often targets for young women who don't like them, or who they denied something else that they wanted. I'm not saying this happens the majority of the time, but I personally have no qualms whatsoever in paying this man's salary for a few months while this is more fully investigated.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by The Unabomber

But as you stated earlier, who cares about innocent until proven guilty.

I was being sarcastic. People are innocent until proven guilty.

And like I said earlier, the guy is a cop, any cop that gets charged with a serious offence such as this should be treated in a brutal manner.

No, no. You don't punish someone because of their job. You punish someone because of their crime, which you have to be convicted of first.

[The Unabomber]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

Unabomber... I definetely don't think along your line of thought.

Buninator was sarcastic in his first post when he said who cares about innocent until proven guilty.

It comes down to this... why penalize him (no pay) for doing something wrong before he's proven of doing something wrong? What happens if he is innocent... what then? They just say sorry, you missed your paycheque?

I can see paying this guy while they were investigating the case, but do you agree with continuing to pay him? He has been charged, obviously there is sufficient evidence for the RCMP to charge a peer. I agree that some of these public figures are targeted, it certainly doesn't seem to be the case here.

If he is found guilty does he have to pay his salary back that he's collecting for doing nothing?

[The Unabomber]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I was being sarcastic. People are innocent until proven guilty.

No, no. You don't punish someone because of their job. You punish someone because of their crime, which you have to be convicted of first.

So the oath that they take before being sworn in is meaningless? Being a cop isn't simply a job, it's a way of life. A cop has the trust of the public, to abuse that trust should hold a more severe punishment than somebody that doesn't necassarily have the trust of the community.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by The Unabomber

If he is found guilty does he have to pay his salary back that he's collecting for doing nothing?

Likely not, but if he's discharged as a member of the RCMP he may forfeit pensions, benefits and some other stuff like that. The RCMP has a somewhat unique compensation package and once you are a member I think you always stay a member type of thing. So even if you retire as a member of the RCMP I think you're still a member and get the medical benefits as well as a pension. Whereas if you get foreced out due to something like this I think you may lose those priveledges. In the end the salary he's paid today will likely end up being a trivial amount vs. the potential losses this member would face if he's forced out.

Unfortunately for tax payers there are a lot of people who face charges and continue to draw a salary, or are incompetant and get a substantial severance package.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by The Unabomber

So the oath that they take before being sworn in is meaningless? Being a cop isn't simply a job, it's a way of life. A cop has the trust of the public, to abuse that trust should hold a more severe punishment than somebody that doesn't necassarily have the trust of the community.

From what I've read it doesn't sound like he used his police powers or abused his police authority as an RCMP to commit this crime. If this happened when he was on duty and he abused his authority then I could see where you are coming from, but as far as I can tell this happened on his off time. So in my mind his punishment and pre-trial treatment is erroneous to the fact that he is a police officer.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Burninator

From what I've read it doesn't sound like he used his police powers or abused his police authority as an RCMP to commit this crime.

The news story on Global this morning painted a different picture. And IIRC the charges he faces cannot normally be brought against a person as this girl was 15 at the time; unless the accused is in a position of trust or authority.

That being said, I agree with the suspension with pay for now. Unlike the Pickton example there aren't any bodies burried; quite possibly it's her word against his; with some evidence of some sort of relationship.