- cross-posted to:
- ontario
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- ontario
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
- More than one-third of the allegations against suspended officers involved gender-based violence including sexual assault, intimate partner violence and sexual harassment.
- The majority (87 per cent) of suspensions were accompanied by a criminal charge.
- Nearly half of all officers suspended and convicted of a crime returned to work. Just under one in 10 were fired.
- The vast majority were constables, but all ranks were represented including chiefs and deputy chiefs.
- Eleven officers were suspended multiple times during the past decade.
This is all incredibly embarrassing and infuriating.
And your list of allegations points out another problem.
I can understand insulating police officers to some extent from criminal charges incurred in the line of duty while the court process is taking place, because the nature of their job is going to mean that they get hit with more than the average number of charges for things like assault that end up not panning out . . . but there’s no way intimate partner violence should be occurring in the line of duty for police, and they should not be protected from it. (Given extra mental health supports in a bid to avoid it, sure, but once it happens they need to be treated like everyone else.)
These are the things that really bother me. Not that they’re not left without income while under being tried/reviewed. If it’s easier to fire the bad apples, the money spent on them doing nothing would be less as well.
It is incredible how powerful the police union is. No other job is as well protected. I’m in a union and there are dozens of things that are instant dismissals. Assault, sexual harassment, and theft are all things that will get you walked out the door without warning. It’s amazing a police officer can assault someone while working, be convicted of criminal charges, and then keep their job.
It is incredible how powerful the police union is.
That’s because it’s the only union that employers can’t send the cops to harass
This also makes it baffling that the cops seem shocked when the public don’t trust them.
Under 10 percent of officers convicted of sexual assault, intimate partner violence, and sexual harassment were fired. How on earth could they possibly defend this?
It is insane that somehow we managed to import the toxic police union culture from America.
It makes sense to make sure police officers aren’t forced into bankruptcy while charges are pending but ideally we’d rely on EI and social insurance for that.
It makes sense to make sure police officers aren’t forced into bankruptcy while charges are pending but ideally we’d rely on EI and social insurance for that.
Better yet, would be to leave it up to the union to provide suspension pay in the same way that many unions have strike funds to help their members survive strikes and lockouts.
I bet it wouldn’t take long for the unions to drop their support of these criminals. That, in turn, would make it easier to fire them.
Note they suspend a cop pending investigation, but the paper didn’t include that. The alternative to suspension is keeping a potential offender on the job, but they can’t have someone lose their house on an accusation that turns out to be unfounded, so suspension is the ugly middle-ground.
And, cops are paid by taxes. Duh. So it’s “taxpayers” footing the bill that’s artificially blown up by an arbitrary time period to push a story.
Report on the fact that cops are getting in trouble and too many of them are kept on in the same spots where they offended. Don’t make it a taxation and pay issue to suck in the hillbilly con-lovers when it’s really a disciplinary thing. Pick a fucking dog whistle and stick with it.
