Cop gets off

[Resolute 14]

No need for the apology, you couldnt have known.

I've no love for Canada's legal system as a whole, and your story fits well into it. I can understand your attitude, as I know full well how my experiences shape my attitude. I dont blame you for having a poor image of the police after such an incident.

This country needs an overhaul in many more aspects than just political. Our justice system is a joke, which your story proves once again. Hopefully someday our politicans can get past giving money to their political friends, or belittling AISH recipients to do some actual good for the people they are supposed to represent.

[Patek23]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Dec 11 2004, 07:24 PM
No need for the apology, you couldnt have known.

I've no love for Canada's legal system as a whole, and your story fits well into it. I can understand your attitude, as I know full well how my experiences shape my attitude. I dont blame you for having a poor image of the police after such an incident.

This country needs an overhaul in many more aspects than just political. Our justice system is a joke, which your story proves once again. Hopefully someday our politicans can get past giving money to their political friends, or belittling AISH recipients to do some actual good for the people they are supposed to represent.

Well finally we agree on something!

[Reaper]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Dec 11 2004, 12:39 PM
If he can call me a crook, turnabout is fair play.

Call me crazy but I don't see where he called you a crook.

[Kjesse]

Originally posted by Reaper+Dec 11 2004, 02:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Reaper @ Dec 11 2004, 02:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Snakeeye@Dec 11 2004, 12:39 PM
If he can call me a crook, turnabout is fair play.

Call me crazy but I don't see where he called you a crook. [/b][/quote]
No, I certainly didn't, and I'm not going to respond to the other personal attacks.

I should have chosen my original words more carefully. Rather than saying he was talking out of his ass, I should have just berated his argument for being flat wrong -- which it is.

Can't say I've flipped off on someone on CP before, I just found his original point/ counter-punch ludicrous and I can't stand seeing such obvious injustice going on in our legal system.

Notice how Snakeeye didn't try to back up his original assertion? He just attacked the person instead. If you're mad that I attacked your position, defend it. If you're mad that I said you were talking out of your ass, I'm sorry.

This guy absolutely got off (to the extent he won't serve further time) because of his position as a cop.

Two hung juries -- which most likely means some jurors wouldn't go for less than murder, while others were holding out for manslaughter or nothing.

So the third jury makes a compromise and agrees on manslaughter. Then Hawco -- not having any information as to why the jury did that (he could only guess, like me) finds as "fact" that the first shot was justified as self-defence, but the second was not.

Cops are trained to shoot two bullets-- every time -- so that finding was bizarre in and of itself.

Now Hawco says "the public" wouldn't stand for a cop to be jailed for this incident.

That is garbage -- there is no need whatsoever for a cop to shoot a handcuffed drunk guy. All he had to do was back out of the cell and close the door.

I hope this gets appealed.

[moon]

If it gets appealled lets hope the punishment is less or nothing at all.

[Resolute 14]

Fair enough. I definitely misinterpreted some of Delgar's comments. The way I initially read it certantly put me off (obviously), but re-reading them, I realize I was wrong. I offer my apologies, Delgar.

You were incorrect on one thing though - the lowest of the low isnt just a simple "skinner", but a child-rapist or child killer.

That said, the comparison between a rapist and a cop in jail is not relevent.
Depending on what kind of prison Fergeson ended up in, he could very well have encountered violent people with a serious hate-on for cops. What do you think would happen there? I would suggest that he is more likely to encounter such a person than a rapist would be of encountering a violent persion with a serious hate-on for rapists.

If the argument is without basis, why would Fergeson and his defense team be so afraid of such a term? Why would they be so afraid that they feared he would have to be put into solitary confinement 23 hours a day just to be protected? Why did every cop interviewed on it share those fears? Why did the judge agree and come down with an unprecedented sentence?

You state that my initial opinion is without basis, yet the very sentence itself suggests that the fear is very real.

The irony here is that in trying to argue that Fergeson got off easy for being a cop you are also arguing that he deserves to be treated much more harshly for being the same. Potentially far more harshly than the Charter of Rights allows.

[Kjesse]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Dec 11 2004, 05:14 PM
Fair enough. I definitely misinterpreted some of Delgar's comments. The way I initially read it certantly put me off (obviously), but re-reading them, I realize I was wrong. I offer my apologies, Delgar.

You were incorrect on one thing though - the lowest of the low isnt just a simple "skinner", but a child-rapist or child killer.

No problem, I flipped off first.

I'll have to re-check my jargon, but I think that's what a skinner is -- someone in jail for raping kids.

I certainly don't think Ferguson deserves to be treated worse than other inmates, but that 's just the reality he'd face. Though, he seems to have gotten throught time he did serve without as much as a scratch. Just because he'd do hard time doesn't mean he shouldn't have to do time at all.

If the argument is without basis, why would Fergeson and his defense team be so afraid of such a term? Why would they be so afraid that they feared he would have to be put into solitary confinement 23 hours a day just to be protected? Why did every cop interviewed on it share those fears? Why did the judge agree and come down with an unprecedented sentence?

OK, you've appealed to those "in the know", a fair comment.

First, his defence team has a job to do, of course they're going make any arguments they can -- and this is certainly a unique situation. This is a one-of-a-kind result. Earl Wilson, Ferguson's lawyer, is probably the best criminal lawyer in the province.

Why does every cop share those views? They view themselves as in a brotherhood. They circle the wagons and defend their own in almost every instance.

Why did Justice Hawco? Well, I think he made a mistake. He had a hard decision to make, granted. Of the 30 or so QB Justices in Calgary, there could have been many different results here. The judge you draw will always make a difference. But only the Court of Appeal's opinion will matter, certainly not mine. We'll see if it gets that far.

I should add that some of my opinion comes from what I've heard about this particular officer. I was told he was prone to twisting off on those he has in custody. I was also told he had been reprimanded for doing so before. Of course, I can't say if that's true or not. As well, that kind of information would not have gone before the jury anyway.

And, I could tell you several stories of cops delivering a beating to someone in custody when they think its deserved... and the stories I've heard come from the cops' mouths, not from the victims.

[Patek23]

There are three possible scenarios and one just for comparison


#1) Inmate attacks Cop shoots, Inmate continues cop shoots again.

Time Served:
Should: 2 month suspension Would: Nothing

#2) Inmate attacks Cop shoots, Inmate stops cop shoots again.
Time Served:
Should: 5 years Would: Exactly what were seeing here (a slap on the wrist)

#3) Cop comes in shoots inmate unwarranted (believe me it's happened before. (Not that I know of in CGY, but I've heard of it happening elsewhere in Canada)
Time Served:
Should: 10 years Would: 5 years


and to compare

#4) Inmate harbours gun and when cop comes in he shoots him tiwce and kills him.
Should: 10 years Would: Either A) Be shot down by another gaurd/cop or B0 get as many years as they could pile on the guy.

[Resolute 14]

I'll have to re-check my jargon, but I think that's what a skinner is -- someone in jail for raping kids.

When I googled it, the site I pulled listed it simply as a rapist. For some stupid reason that I cannot fathom anymore, my mind initially read that comment as you accusing me of being one. I can't imagine how incredibly stupid (moreso) I would have come off if I had misinterpreted your comments as accusing me of being a child rapist... :boh:

I should add that some of my opinion comes from what I've heard about this particular officer. I was told he was prone to twisting off on those he has in custody. I was also told he had been reprimanded for doing so before. Of course, I can't say if that's true or not. As well, that kind of information would not have gone before the jury anyway.

While I didn't know that, I dont see why it should matter in the outcome of Fergeson's sentencing. Definitely should have gone before the jury in the criminal trial, however.

I suppose, while I do criticize the justice system most times, I am mainly going on giving the judge the benifit of the doubt. A sentence such as this is evidently unprecidented in Canadian legal history, and I would think for a judge (outside of the SCoC that is) to make such a decision indicates that there are some very real fears that the defense argument's are likely to be with basis.

That said, if the minimum as required by law is 4 years, I dont see why it should not have been four years house arrest. Or maybe there are other options that could have been considered. I suppose that could all be changed under appeal.

And, I could tell you several stories of cops delivering a beating to someone in custody when they think its deserved... and the stories I've heard come from the cops' mouths, not from the victims.

Oh, I'd believe it. That said, I'd have to know the full story before I could make a judgement. While my dealings with the police are limited, and mostly innocous - two speeding tickets, one accident and a funeral with police presence - I have found that if you treat the cops with respect, they will respond with same. From my friends and family that have had contact with them the same is also generally true.

From my dealings, it is hard to imagine a cop going over the edge for little or no reason, but evidently your perspective is different. I think it is a shame that a cop can get off entirely in a situation like that Flaming Homer described, but surely there does have to be some recognition in a case like this that sending a cop to prison can have some very dire consequences.

[Patek23]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Dec 12 2004, 01:28 AM

When I googled it, the site I pulled listed it simply as a rapist. For some stupid reason that I cannot fathom anymore, my mind initially read that comment as you accusing me of being one. I can't imagine how incredibly stupid (moreso) I would have come off if I had misinterpreted your comments as accusing me of being a child rapist... :boh:

While I didn't know that, I dont see why it should matter in the outcome of Fergeson's sentencing. Definitely should have gone before the jury in the criminal trial, however.

I suppose, while I do criticize the justice system most times, I am mainly going on giving the judge the benifit of the doubt. A sentence such as this is evidently unprecidented in Canadian legal history, and I would think for a judge (outside of the SCoC that is) to make such a decision indicates that there are some very real fears that the defense argument's are likely to be with basis.

That said, if the minimum as required by law is 4 years, I dont see why it should not have been four years house arrest. Or maybe there are other options that could have been considered. I suppose that could all be changed under appeal.

Oh, I'd believe it. That said, I'd have to know the full story before I could make a judgement. While my dealings with the police are limited, and mostly innocous - two speeding tickets, one accident and a funeral with police presence - I have found that if you treat the cops with respect, they will respond with same. From my friends and family that have had contact with them the same is also generally true.

From my dealings, it is hard to imagine a cop going over the edge for little or no reason, but evidently your perspective is different. I think it is a shame that a cop can get off entirely in a situation like that Flaming Homer described, but surely there does have to be some recognition in a case like this that sending a cop to prison can have some very dire consequences.

Than maybe it's possible that my encounters are of the opposite. You know what the sad thing is though is that normally a white person (I'm assuming your white and so am I) can be respectful and get off without any problems, its not always the same with some of my friends.

The one that I've seen myself was when a brown friend of mine was repeadly called a "paki" by the cops and was eventually taken down to the station for a questioning of all the crimes that had happened in the area until finnaly they dropped him off at a Bus Station on the other side of town and he had to walk home since buses were no longer in service at that time of night and he did not have any money for a cab or a phone call.

[Kjesse]

While I didn't know that, I dont see why it should matter in the outcome of Fergeson's sentencing. Definitely should have gone before the jury in the criminal trial, however.

Nope, you get tried based on what you did, not what your character may have been like in the past. Makes sense -- otherwise people would get convicted just for being a bad person generally.

From my dealings, it is hard to imagine a cop going over the edge for little or no reason, but evidently your perspective is different.

No, I like cops actually... at least most of the time. The crap Flaming Homer just described makes me angry, but that's the exception. Those cops need to be weeded out -- like Ferguson has. Unfortunately, somebody had to die first. My own dealings with them have been good -- except one occasion (stag party shenanigans).

And let's face it -- people in custody often deserve an ass kicking -- but that doesn't mean the cops should deliver it. If they deserve to be in custody, they'll get their due.

This is the last thing I'm going to say about the Ferguson matter -- I find it very convenient that the only person who could have challenged his assertions that he acted in self defence was the person who died from the second shot. While he was trained to fire two shots in every situation, the first hit the guy in the stomach, the second in the head. It was only the second shot that killed the guy. Given how far apart they were on the body, those two shots might not have been in rapid enough succession to demonstrate that he was just acting as he had been trained. (ie. two shots as quickly as the gun allows whenever you're going to shoot -- its two shots, re-aim, then more if necessary)

Originally posted by Delgar+Dec 11 2004, 10:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Delgar @ Dec 11 2004, 10:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Call me crazy but I don't see where he called you a crook.

No, I certainly didn't, and I'm not going to respond to the other personal attacks.

I should have chosen my original words more carefully. Rather than saying he was talking out of his ass, I should have just berated his argument for being flat wrong -- which it is.

Can't say I've flipped off on someone on CP before, I just found his original point/ counter-punch ludicrous and I can't stand seeing such obvious injustice going on in our legal system.

Notice how Snakeeye didn't try to back up his original assertion? He just attacked the person instead. If you're mad that I attacked your position, defend it. If you're mad that I said you were talking out of your ass, I'm sorry.

This guy absolutely got off (to the extent he won't serve further time) because of his position as a cop.

Two hung juries -- which most likely means some jurors wouldn't go for less than murder, while others were holding out for manslaughter or nothing.

So the third jury makes a compromise and agrees on manslaughter. Then Hawco -- not having any information as to why the jury did that (he could only guess, like me) finds as "fact" that the first shot was justified as self-defence, but the second was not.

Cops are trained to shoot two bullets-- every time -- so that finding was bizarre in and of itself.

Now Hawco says "the public" wouldn't stand for a cop to be jailed for this incident.

That is garbage -- there is no need whatsoever for a cop to shoot a handcuffed drunk guy. All he had to do was back out of the cell and close the door.

I hope this gets appealed. [/b][/quote]
Ok time a chime in on this....
First of, the 2 hung juries were both 11 to 1 to acquit... that is a fact.
Second, if the jury did decide the second shot was intentional, that IS NOT manslaughter... however they found him guilty of that.
Third, the shots were fired less then a second apart. Police are trained to shoot 2 shots everytime. In this case he 'double tapped'.
Fourth, the judge had some serious words for the jury after the sentence was read. Implying he did not believe the crown had proven their case sufficiently.
Fifth, the Varley had been in 3 fights that night. One with Ferguson for which he was arrested. Apparently, he was a 'nice' guy while not drinking, but after a few drinks, thats what he liked to do. He was violent and aggressive with everyone.
Sixth, the 'guard' at cells in Pincher Creek (not an RCMP officer), testified that Varley was the 'worst' he had ever seen in cells in terms of being beligerant and aggressive and he wanted nothing to do with him.
Seventh, Varley was 20 years Ferguson's senior. All alone in a cell with a drunk, violent offender who pulled Ferguson's vest over his head and then reached for his gun. For you guys that are approaching your fifties, you know your body isnt quite the same as it was when you were 26- would you fear for your life or greivous bodily harm?


More to come....