Airdrie RCMP Officer Getting Charged - Page 2 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Burninator · 07-17-2007, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ken0042

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.

I would like to more about this. What is trust and authority in referance to? Trust of the public? Authority of a police officer. Or a position of trust and authority to the victim directly?

RedHot25 · 07-17-2007, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burninator

Or a position of trust and authority to the victim directly?

This one....obvious examples are police officers, teachers, etc.

The Unabomber · 07-17-2007, 04:02 PM

Quote:

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. 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.

But even when a cop is off duty he/she still needs to realize that they are a trusted member of society, especially around kids.

I understand what Sylvan is saying as well, the problem for me is more the principal. If he is found guilty it seems like a dirty society that we live in to try and rationalize paying someone like this.

I guess i will wait to here the facts when the court date comes along, just doesn't seem right in my mind. Imagine if that's your kid?

ken0042 · 07-17-2007, 04:03 PM

I think the wording is left open for a bit of interpretation. Probably meant to include teachers, babysitters, etc, but also could be extended to police officers. I didn't pay very close attention to the news this morning, but I'm fairly certain that they said the two met in his official role as an officer. I also seem to recall hearing something about the internet as well; maybe she went online for some help and he possibly took advantage of the situation?

As I said I don't know for sure.

RedHot25 · 07-17-2007, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unabomber

I guess i will wait to here the facts when the court date comes along, just doesn't seem right in my mind. Imagine if that's your kid?

that's true, but you also have to look at the possibility of "imagine you are the police officer". Could he be guilty? You bet ya. Could he not be guilty? You bet ya. Until officially decided then (i.e. a court convicts him let's say), I think this is the appropriate course of action.

FireFly · 07-17-2007, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burninator

I would like to more about this. What is trust and authority in referance to? Trust of the public? Authority of a police officer. Or a position of trust and authority to the victim directly?

It's in reference to anyone in contact with the victim directly. Could be a family member, or something else. Any adult friend of the family would get the same charges, regardless of what they do for a living.

RedHot25 · 07-17-2007, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ken0042

I think the wording is left open for a bit of interpretation. Probably meant to include teachers, babysitters, etc, but also could be extended to police officers. I didn't pay very close attention to the news this morning, but I'm fairly certain that they said the two met in his official role as an officer.

Definately police officer - it entails if you are in a position of power and trust with the person in question. An obvious example would be say a teacher - student. Huge power differential there.

The Unabomber · 07-17-2007, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ken0042

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.

I know that i went overboard to prove a point with Pickton, but i'll use a different example that might be a bit closer.

The 2 guys that the RCMP charged in Mayerthorpe for assisting Roszko (sp) are locked up right now, the RCMP have come out and said that Roszko was the only person on the farm at the time the RCMP got killed yet these two are getting charged with 1st degree murder.

Now, these two guys are in jail, they can't work or collect any pay and they are still innocent as they haven't gone through the court system yet. Does this seem right? Seems like some get better treatment than other because of their status.

Burninator · 07-17-2007, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ken0042

I think the wording is left open for a bit of interpretation. Probably meant to include teachers, babysitters, etc, but also could be extended to police officers. I didn't pay very close attention to the news this morning, but I'm fairly certain that they said the two met in his official role as an officer. I also seem to recall hearing something about the internet as well; maybe she went online for some help and he possibly took advantage of the situation?

As I said I don't know for sure.

Yeah it looks like they did meet when he was on duty. But is this abusing his authority as an officer? Obvisouly it looks like he might have taken it too far. Of course it's bad that he met her on duty, but he could just have easily met her somewhere else. It's tough to argue about this as the details are not all out yet.

Burninator · 07-17-2007, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unabomber

I know that i went overboard to prove a point with Pickton, but i'll use a different example that might be a bit closer.

The 2 guys that the RCMP charged in Mayerthorpe for assisting Roszko (sp) are locked up right now, the RCMP have come out and said that Roszko was the only person on the farm at the time the RCMP got killed yet these two are getting charged with 1st degree murder.

Now, these two guys are in jail, they can't work or collect any pay and they are still innocent as they haven't gone through the court system yet. Does this seem right? Seems like some get better treatment than other because of their status.

These examples are not proving your point. I would not classify murder on the same scale as what this guy is getting charged with. Plus if you murder a police officer the charge is automatically bumped up to first degree murder.

ken0042 · 07-17-2007, 04:18 PM

And IIRC in Canada 1st degree murder is an automatic "no bail."

There was likely a bail hearing, the judge heard some evidence and made a decision based on what he heard.

The Unabomber · 07-17-2007, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burninator

These examples are not proving your point. I would not classify murder on the same scale as what this guy is getting charged with. Plus if you murder a police officer the charge is automatically bumped up to first degree murder.

The RCMP have admitted that Roszko acted alone on that farm. Why is it 1st degree automatically if you kill a police officer? I wasn't aware of that.

Murder may not be comparable, yet sexual assaults on minors tend to leave the victim a mess. Not saying that this is the case here but it could be. Cops get treated differently in the eye of the law, that's the point that i'm trying to make. Fergusen in Pincher Creek is a good example of this, but there are many more. It shouldn't be like that, my opinion anyway.

RedHot25 · 07-17-2007, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burninator

Yeah it looks like they did meet when he was on duty. But is this abusing his authority as an officer? Obvisouly it looks like he might have taken it too far. Of course it's bad that he met her on duty, but he could just have easily met her somewhere else. It's tough to argue about this as the details are not all out yet.

Yeah...the point is he met her while on duty/in the course of his official actions. There is an obvious power differential there. The concern is that someone can use that differential - either directly, explicitly, indirectly, subtly, whatever - to exploit the other person.

Resolute 14 · 07-17-2007, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireFly

It's in reference to anyone in contact with the victim directly. Could be a family member, or something else. Any adult friend of the family would get the same charges, regardless of what they do for a living.

Yup, my understanding is that it includes anyone who is in a position of authority. Even if a relationship would otherwise be considered consensual, that level of authority undermines it.