Do you give unconditional trust and support to the RCMP?

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by MBates

Bad thread title. Check. Got it. Already admitted it.

Trying to open some eyes to the side of policing I know all too well. Not inherently biased against them at all. Just making an argument.

Here's a question. How many here have written a formal letter of compliment to a chief of police which goes to assisting good officers getting promoted? I have.

It's fine to be pro police anonymously on a discussion forum (and I mean that, I don't like debating people who think the same way I do on everything) but I "back the blue" officially - for those who deserve it.

If I am biased it is in favour of ethical and law abiding community policing. I have no problem with owning that.

I'm simply going off your post history which at least seems to me, seems awfully critical of law enforcement in general. Obviously a time and a place for it, but I haven't seen you starting threads about exemplary officers that you've written a formal letter of compliment. And with that, I don't think its a stretch for posters to think you're biased a particular way with your posts the past week or so.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by jar_e

I'm simply going off your post history which at least seems to me, seems awfully critical of law enforcement in general. Obviously a time and a place for it, but I haven't seen you starting threads about exemplary officers that you've written a formal letter of compliment. And with that, I don't think its a stretch for posters to think you're biased a particular way with your posts the past week or so.

I don't get this line of thinking. The general attitude towards law enforcement for the vast majority of Canadians is one of reverence, so there really isn't a need to balance criticism of law enforcement with compliments. It comes across as a #NotAllMen type thing.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by AcGold

The only people you should support unconditionally is your family and closest friends. People are sneaky bastards, trust no one.

The worst thing that can happen is someone can break your trust. That is not as bad as never trusting anyone to begin with. I couldn't imagine a life where I didn't trust my wife or parents. My kids are still too young for that, but when they are old enough, I will trust them too unless they give me reason not to. Life's too short to worry about those closest to you potentially screwing you over.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I don't get this line of thinking. The general attitude towards law enforcement for the vast majority of Canadians is one of reverence, so there really isn't a need to balance criticism of law enforcement with compliments. It comes across as a #NotAllMen type thing.

I'm not saying don't be critical. Hell, I support society being critical of all things as I feel that's how we grow and improve as a society.

However, don't tell me that given MBates posting history that people aren't going to presume (rightly or wrongly) that he's biased towards one viewpoint. That isn't a huge stretch.

[Kjesse]

Consider what MBates has personally seen, proven in court, and linked to some of his posts in this thread. I don't take it as him being biased but that he has a certain point of view having stuck up for his clients who experienced it first hand.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Consider what MBates has personally seen, proven in court, and linked to some of his posts in this thread. I don't take it as him being biased but that he has a certain point of view having stuck up for his clients who experienced it first hand.

I wouldn't even say MBates is anti-LE. It sounds like he, like many of us, is sick of the fraternal aspect of policing that leads to the lack of cops speaking out against abuse of power and brutality, and the cover-ups and lenient penalties that appear unjust in many instances.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I wouldn't even say MBates is anti-LE. It sounds like he, like many of us, is sick of the fraternal aspect of policing that leads to the lack of cops speaking out against abuse of power and brutality, and the cover-ups and lenient penalties that appear unjust in many instances.

The vast vast majority of RCMP officers are sick of that crap too. They want members who commit misconduct dealt with and fired if it's bad enough. There is an issue with RCMP leadership, there's been numerous reports supporting this viewpoint. Unfortunately, until the RCMP members have an association to allow them to "fight back" so to speak against certain managers nothing will change. Even the Senate committee spoke about how management has free reign to do as they please and they make the rules and that if members speak out they will be punished.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

MBates didn't start a thread about police corruption though. He just started a whiny "I'm a cop hater and I hate cops" thread. Not exactly the same thing.

I chose bad wording for the title. If you can show me the part where I said I am a cop hater and I hate cops that would be super.

Though, I am pretty hidden behind my actual name all over the web so I can spread my cop hate and not have to back it up...or, the opposite of that:

http://calgarycriminallawyer.blogspo...hollywood.html

http://calgarycriminallawyer.blogspo...good-turn.html

http://calgarycriminallawyer.blogspo...h-my-life.html

But carry on with the cop-hater narrative if you like. It certainly helps avoid addressing the outrageous police misconduct I criticized in the original post.

Wait...come to think of it, since it was cops who spent years bullying and sexually harassing and assaulting the officers they were in charge of instead of training them in police stuff - maybe I AM a cop hater!! Who knew?

By the way, at work today I wore clothes all day and never sexually molested any of my coworkers.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by jar_e

I'm simply going off your post history which at least seems to me, seems awfully critical of law enforcement in general. Obviously a time and a place for it, but I haven't seen you starting threads about exemplary officers that you've written a formal letter of compliment. And with that, I don't think its a stretch for posters to think you're biased a particular way with your posts the past week or so.

I accept that...happened to be the topics I was interested in and was posting my views. I wasn't attacking you in the post you quoted, I was just explaining that I am not actually biased against police and that I have written formal compliments. I have also had multiple law enforcement members as clients, and in spite of handling some seriously acrimonious matters against the CPS and RCMP I still have positive working relationships with most officers.

Some may believe me some may not. It doesn't matter too much to me either way. I would not post here if I expected everyone to blindly pat me on the back and say how brilliant I am. I can handle criticism.

[rubecube]

Well then...

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-n...were-entrapped

Earlier Friday, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Catherine Bruce overturned the couple’s convictions for planting inert pressure cooker bombs on the B.C. legislature grounds in 2013, ordering them freed.

Bruce agreed with defence arguments that the pair were entrapped by a sophisticated, five-month RCMP undercover operation involving more than 240 officers.

Bruce said the sting was an abuse of process and overturned last year’s guilty verdicts delivered by a jury.

[MBates]

It is completely outrageous conduct. I would recommend everyone actually read the ruling, but since many will not (not really blaming anyone it is massively long) here are some choice bits:

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/...16BCSC1404.htm

[787] During the four-month undercover operation the defendants demonstrated that they lacked focus and sufficient motivation to take their jihadist beliefs any further than mere talk and bravado. The defendants also demonstrated that they lacked the skills, the expertise and the financial resources to formulate and carry out a realistic terrorist plan. There was no evidence that the defendants were connected to any third party, apart from the undercover officers, who was prepared to participate in a plan with them or had the skills and expertise necessary to craft or carry out a terrorist plan. The investigative team consistently reported to senior officers that there was no imminent danger to the public. The police never uncovered ongoing preparations in support of a plan that had to be disrupted.

[788] The police became frustrated with the slow progress of the operation due to the defendants’ lack of motivation, and manufactured a crime for the defendants to commit. It is not an abuse of process for the police to make repeated and even persistent and importuning offers to commit an offence. However, when the police manipulate marginalized persons and exploit their vulnerabilities on several levels in order to push them into doing criminal acts that they would be incapable of doing without overwhelming assistance from the police, their conduct is an abuse of process. The defendants expressed a desire to commit an act of terrorism to redress wrongs against Muslims and they were convicted by the jury of terrorism offences. However, it was the police who motivated them to act on these beliefs and made them capable of playing a small role in the execution of a terrorist plot.

...

I find that the RCMP knowingly facilitated a terrorist activity by providing money and other services to the defendants that helped and made easier the terrorist activity.

...

...the manner in which Sgt. Kalkat directed Project Souvenir was both dictatorial and designed to eliminate dissenting views.

...

[822] In my view, Sgt. Kalkat’s decision to push ahead with the operation despite the lack of motivation shown by the defendants, his concerted efforts to eliminate any dissenters from his team, and his desire to bring the project to a speedy conclusion without due regard for the criminal nature of the acts committed by the undercover officers, cannot be regarded as good faith.

[823] There were a great many frustrations and problems that plagued Project Souvenir. The undercover shop and the investigative team had many disagreements about the pace and direction of the operation; however, most of the problems were caused by the defendants’ lack of focus and motivation to do anything beyond talk about jihad. The RCMP’s pre-occupation with motivating the defendants to commit an act of terrorism appears to have distracted them from more important considerations such as the legality of their actions.

[824] All of these circumstances render the illegal acts committed by the police more egregious and, in combination with the overall conduct of the police, an abuse of process. One must not forget that there was little risk to the public to justify illegal acts by the police. The RCMP did not act to break up a pre-existing plan to carry out a terrorist plot. There was no evidence that the defendants had taken steps to formulate a terrorist plot; were in communication with known terrorists or terrorist organizations; or possessed any expertise that would have been of value to a terrorist organization. The police were not infiltrating a sophisticated terrorist organization. The illegal acts committed by the police were not directed at the defendants or designed to frighten them into committing the offence. However, it is equally offensive for the police to commit illegal acts that enable an offence in circumstances where they knew the defendants could not have committed the offence absent police assistance.

...

There are really a lot more but this one has got to be my favorite:

[836] There are no remedies less drastic than a stay of proceedings that will address the abuse of process. The spectre of the defendants serving a life sentence for a crime that the police manufactured by exploiting their vulnerabilities, by instilling fear that they would be killed if they backed out, and by quashing all doubts they had in the religious justifications for the crime, is offensive to our concept of fundamental justice. Simply put, the world has enough terrorists. We do not need the police to create more out of marginalized people who have neither the capacity nor sufficient motivation to do it themselves.

[pseudoreality]

The RCMP always complain how they don't have enough money or resources, but this how they spend what they have. What a joke.

[Oling_Roachinen]

I don't take a ton of issue with the verdict itself. We can't allow the police to manipulate and entrap like what was done, even if it means disguisting individuals like those #######s get released. However, I take quite the issue with this statement:

"it was the police who motivated them to act on these beliefs and made them capable of playing a small role in the execution of a terrorist plot."

They planted (what they thought were) bombs to cause the most amount of damage to Canada day celebrators. They literally thought they were going to slaughter Canadian children and families. That's not a small part.