Toronto Police Officer keeps her job after pleading guilty to impaired driving.

[st7860]

http://www.vancouversun.com/Toronto+keeps+despite+drunk+driving+crash/1262308/story.html
TORONTO — A Toronto police constable and firearms instructor has managed to save her job after an impaired driving conviction where she was nearly three times over the legal limit and crashed into a median and two other vehicles before being boxed in and arrested.


Police prosecutors were seeking the dismissal of Const. Gail Shields, 41, who has been an officer with the Toronto force since 1989.


She previously was found guilty in provincial court of one count of impaired driving and received a $2,000 fine and one-year probation as a result of the February 2006 incident.


Toronto police Supt. Jane Wilcox ruled at a disciplinary hearing Friday that an appropriate punishment was a demotion of one rank to second-class constable for two years.


The "pristine employment history" of the officer was cited by Supt. Wilcox as one of the reasons for refusing to order the dismissal of Shields. Two other impaired driving cases where Toronto police officers were demoted, were also factors in determining an appropriate punishment, the superintendent explained.


The day of the incident, Shields was permitted to leave her shift early at the C.O. Bick College in Scarborough, Ont., a suburb of Toronto, where she was a training officer.


She met several colleagues that afternoon at a nearby restaurant. Shields testified that she does not remember anything after consuming her third beer. Staff at the restaurant tried to arrange for a taxi because Shields had difficulty walking.


Instead, she left in her car at about 6:15 p.m. and drove up onto a centre median, knocking down a road sign, briefly heading into oncoming traffic.


Shields then clipped one car and drove into the back of another vehicle. Three citizens tried to block her in and at one point, Shields tried to ram one of the cars to get away, before police arrived. Two breathalyzer tests produced readings of .230 and .220. There was moderate property damage to the other vehicles, although no one was seriously hurt.


Her lawyer Peter Brauti argued that the alcohol consumption was out of character for Shields and blamed restaurant staff for over-serving his client.


The demotion will reduce the annual salary of Shields by about $7,000 for the next two years, although the hearing was told she has been permitted to work extra paid duty and overtime shifts to compensate for the costs of her legal difficulties.

[MrBurns]

Surprised?

[spf1971]

Is it any different from someone else who "beat the system".

Personally I think if you can't abide by the law, you can't exactly enforce it either. She had her day in court and the court didn't see it that way.

[kingsley]

Personally I think if you can't abide by the law, you can't exactly enforce it either.

Stupid argument. That's like saying a NHL ref can't be a ref if he can't play hockey.

If you know the rules of the game you can ref. If you know the laws you can enforce. Whether you can follow the rules or laws has nothing to do with it.

[spf1971]

Stupid argument. That's like saying a NHL ref can't be a ref if he can't play hockey.

If you know the rules of the game you can ref. If you know the laws you can enforce. Whether you can follow the rules or laws has nothing to do with it.

That's not even close to being similar. Police aren't simply supposed to know the laws, they are supposed to enforce them. If you are breaking them, how can you then enforce them?

[iplom]

Stupid argument. That's like saying a NHL ref can't be a ref if he can't play hockey.

If you know the rules of the game you can ref. If you know the laws you can enforce. Whether you can follow the rules or laws has nothing to do with it.

Wow, you're first two words sum up your post very well.

[deltone]

Typical of what goes on in society today when her lawyer said the drinking was out of character for his client and that it was the bars fault for over serving her. Give me a break!! Why is it always someone else's fault when someone over drinks?

[Hunter316]

I think if it were just a drunk driving charge (which is serious in itself) were the only issue then the officer should keep her job but from what I read she also tried to evade arrest by attempting to leave the scene of the accident. Those actions compounded ontop of a drunk driving charge would be very damaging to a civilian.

[GangStarr]

yet another story of cops driving drunk while off duty... not the least bit surprising.

[Capt.]

I'm more surprised that they actually charged a cop with this. She was obviously a total idiot and trashed out of her mind. Cops get away with drinking & driving regularly. They're not going to charge each other.

[Magoo]

Very simple... the police protect their own.

Not only do they get off scott free on drunk driving... in the past you've heard of cops getting off on assault charges, even with video evidence.

it's a fact, just accept it.

[Reign]

She should loose her job. Police officers are the ones that are suppose to keep me from messing up.

[george benjamin]

Where is Shaner who loves to defend the criminal acts of these dicks ?

[ndrew029]

Stupid argument. That's like saying a NHL ref can't be a ref if he can't play hockey.

If you know the rules of the game you can ref. If you know the laws you can enforce. Whether you can follow the rules or laws has nothing to do with it.

An NHL referee shouldn't be able to referee the game if he went around punching players and cracking them on the head with sticks during the game.

[65505201]

Where is Shaner who loves to defend the criminal acts of these dicks ?

In another thread, Shaner has already stated he's fine w/ cops convicted of DUIs.

[cheapmeister]

I don't think she should be allowed to drive a patrol car, I say give her foot patrol.

[Kuurgen]

I'm more surprised that they actually charged a cop with this. She was obviously a total idiot and trashed out of her mind. Cops get away with drinking & driving regularly. They're not going to charge each other.

I think the policewoman was charged because there would have been no way to cover up what she had done.

I'll agree with Capt. that this goes on a lot more than the public realizes.

Way back when my father-in-law was rammed by a drunk OPP Sgt. on the Trent Canal. This is a long long time ago and my father-in-law decided he didn't want to see the police officer lose his job.

To this day he s says his knee occasionally bothers him and he attributes it to his knee slamming into the ashtray when he got hit by the police cruiser.

IMHO I don't think she should be allowed to keep her job, her being a police officer of all people should know that drinking and driving is wrong and sets a horrible example as to what standards we hold police officers up to.

There are tons of law and security graduates would love the opportunity to become police officers, I say turf her and give them the opportunity that she obviously does not value.

[deltone]

What would be rather interesting is if at some point she charges someone else with a DUI and then it goes to court and she's there as the cop witness and the defendant's lawyer knows she's the one who was involved in this. Almost makes you wonder what credibility she would have.

[Shaner]

Where is Shaner who loves to defend the criminal acts of these dicks ?

God some people on this site are unintelligent. Quote one post of mine where I defended a cop who was convicted of any criminal charge. I guarantee that you can't find such a post. I do NOT condone criminal behaviour from cops nor have I ever condoned such behaviour. As for your choice of words, there is no "dicks" in this story, there is simply one person (a cop) that committed a criminal act. If you want to refer to that person as a "dick" that's fine by me, but I don't see why you are pluralizing that word, unless you are referring to all cops as dicks, in which case your opinion has nothing to do with this article.

In another thread, Shaner has already stated he's fine w/ cops convicted of DUIs.

Thank you. At least someone pays attention. Of course I'm fine with cops being charged with DUI. I'm fine with cops being charged with anything. If they committed the crime, they must suffer the consequences. The only thing I have ever argued for is equal treatment. It seems when a cop commits a crime RFD calls for that officers head, but when someone else commits a crime, RFD'ers try and help that person find a technicality to beat the charge with.

[Rishi]

Stupid argument. That's like saying a NHL ref can't be a ref if he can't play hockey.

If you know the rules of the game you can ref. If you know the laws you can enforce. Whether you can follow the rules or laws has nothing to do with it.
When did we start issuing firearms to hockey refs? Being a police officer is a much greater responsibility, hence it requires more than just knowledge of the law. It requires personal integrity.

Being a cop is not just another job. There are many jobs which require one to have no criminal record - I see no reason why policing should not be one of them. Surely a person with a DUI charge would never survive the screening process to be hired as a police officer in the first place, so why should they keep their job just because they committed the crime afterward? A private sector employee who holds an ATC would have it revoked for any criminal offence. It shouldn't be any different just because you have a badge.

DUI doesn't mean you're a bad person. But it does mean you have poor judgment, and that's not a trait I want to see in someone whose job gives them considerable latitude in how they address dynamic and often dangerous confrontations. Cops need to use their judgment on a daily basis to determine the appropriate level of force to use against suspects. When they make the wrong decision, people can die. So FFS, err on the side of caution.

[spf1971]

I'm more surprised that they actually charged a cop with this. She was obviously a total idiot and trashed out of her mind. Cops get away with drinking & driving regularly. They're not going to charge each other.

Considering that she and many other police have been charged with crimes simply shows your unintelligent and obvious bias against police.

[spf1971]

I think the policewoman was charged because there would have been no way to cover up what she had done.

I'll agree with Capt. that this goes on a lot more than the public realizes.

Way back when my father-in-law was rammed by a drunk OPP Sgt. on the Trent Canal. This is a long long time ago and my father-in-law decided he didn't want to see the police officer lose his job.

To this day he s says his knee occasionally bothers him and he attributes it to his knee slamming into the ashtray when he got hit by the police cruiser.

IMHO I don't think she should be allowed to keep her job, her being a police officer of all people should know that drinking and driving is wrong and sets a horrible example as to what standards we hold police officers up to.

There are tons of law and security graduates would love the opportunity to become police officers, I say turf her and give them the opportunity that she obviously does not value.

I'm sure that it does happen occasionally , but using one case from "long long time ago" as proof it happens " a lot more than the public realizes." isn't exactly a strong point.

Keep in mind, that I am saying that having already stated she should be dismissed because of the seriousness of her actions.

[r0binh00d]

This made me laugh

"Shields testified that she does not remember anything after consuming her third beer."

Three beers get her that F-ed up?
That is one cheap date.

[kingsley]

An NHL referee shouldn't be able to referee the game if he went around punching players and cracking them on the head with sticks during the game.

Please explain your reasoning. Explain why they shouldn't.

I'll explain why they should. Because there is no correlation between how well a referee can enforce the rules and how well he can break the rules (or how often he breaks the rules).

I will argue that you are in a different headspace when you are asked to ref than when you are asked to play. Unless you can prove that the ref cannot ref properly when he is on the job then you can say he is a bad ref.

[Snicla]

Will she get her license suspended? It seems to me that the courts are being far more lenient towards this woman than they ever would be for a civilian. I agree with you Shaner, equal treatment, but that would mean that she would lose her drivers license, be charged with reckless driving, driving under the influence, trying to leave a crime scene, and probably some more that I can't think of. If and when she gets out of jail for all that stuff, she can be a bike cop with the lowest rank, as I'm sure the police wouldn't install a breathalyzer start thing in cop car.

[kingsley]

When did we start issuing firearms to hockey refs? Being a police officer is a much greater responsibility, hence it requires more than just knowledge of the law. It requires personal integrity.

Being a cop is not just another job. There are many jobs which require one to have no criminal record - I see no reason why policing should not be one of them. Surely a person with a DUI charge would never survive the screening process to be hired as a police officer in the first place, so why should they keep their job just because they committed the crime afterward? A private sector employee who holds an ATC would have it revoked for any criminal offence. It shouldn't be any different just because you have a badge.

DUI doesn't mean you're a bad person. But it does mean you have poor judgment, and that's not a trait I want to see in someone whose job gives them considerable latitude in how they address dynamic and often dangerous confrontations. Cops need to use their judgment on a daily basis to determine the appropriate level of force to use against suspects. When they make the wrong decision, people can die. So FFS, err on the side of caution.

I'm not going to get into a semantical argument with you about the cop hiring process. I will argue with you only why the cop was allowed to keep his job.

There is no correlation between how well a cop can enforce the law and how well or how often a cop can break the law. Well, there can be, depending on why they did it, but in this case you cannot prove it.

Just because a cop has poor judgment with his own life does not mean he will have poor judgment on his job. Just because he got a DUI while off the job doesn't mean he can't enforce a DUI while on duty.

Infact this is an easier argument for me because the cop was intoxicated while he was attempting to make a "good judgment" call. Unless he was accused of drinking on the job, you CANNOT assume he will make a bad judgment call on duty un-intoxicated.

I will admit that it is possible to argue that a cop is unfit for duty because they got a DUI. And that reason could be the cop is depressed and can't make good judgment calls. And since that depression can seep it's way into his on-duty life then it would make sense to take him off the job. Or another reason could be that he simply doesn't remember that you can't drink and drive. If he is stupid and can't remember the laws, then yes he should be taken off the job.

See, you must make a logical, correlating argument between what the cop has done and why he would be unfit for duty. If you cannot make that argument then he should be allowed to keep his job.

Anyways, my conclusion is you people jump to conclusions WAY TOO EARLY. You guys see correlation where none exist. It's not really your fault since we are hard-wired to learn by pattern recognition so we like to see patterns so things will make sense.

I'm just asking for you people to think things more carefully before you go off and spout baseless conclusions. It's because of your thinking is what made really stupid things happen in our history like witch hunting (oh no, she has a headless chicken in her kitchen, she's a witch! - see, no correlation between having witchcraft ingredients and actually practicing witchcraft. Now in this argument I'm actually assuming witchcraft exists, but whatever I'm tired of arguing, you get my point.)

[Snicla]

I'm just asking for you people to think things more carefully before you go off and spout baseless conclusions. It's because of your thinking is what made really stupid things happen in our history like witch hunting (oh no, she has a headless chicken in her kitchen, she's a witch! - see, no correlation between having witchcraft ingredients and actually practicing witchcraft. Now in this argument I'm actually assuming witchcraft exists, but whatever I'm tired of arguing, you get my point.)

How can you expect someone to uphold the laws if they can't abide by them? It makes no sense. Let's say instead of drunk driving she was selling drugs, or raping kids, or murdering kittens. Do you think she should be allowed to keep her job then?

[stealth]

That's not even close to being similar. Police aren't simply supposed to know the laws, they are supposed to enforce them. If you are breaking them, how can you then enforce them?

As long as the cop isnt breaking the laws WHILE on duty as a cop, I dont see the disconnect.
I dont expect cops to be perfect angels, when out of their uniform I expect them to go through the same things the average person does, and should be treated in the same way in the eye of the law.
I think she should be punished legally for the DUI charge as anyone else would be, through the courts. and it is up to the employer to decide if they can utilize the employee in other ways while they do not have their license.

I've known to guys who's jobs revolved around driving, who got into DUI accidents and lost their licenses. In both cases, the employer re-deployed them to do other things at work that didnt involve driving. Same thing should apply to cops. Maybe with an additional requirement to attend AA or something prior to resuming full PAID duty.

[ndrew029]

Please explain your reasoning. Explain why they shouldn't.

I'll explain why they should. Because there is no correlation between how well a referee can enforce the rules and how well he can break the rules (or how often he breaks the rules).

I will argue that you are in a different headspace when you are asked to ref than when you are asked to play. Unless you can prove that the ref cannot ref properly when he is on the job then you can say he is a bad ref.

Shouldn't isn't the proper word. Wouldn't is more like it. It simply wouldn't be tolerated by the league.

You're expecting someone to objectively uphold the rules of a game. Look what happened to that NBA ref who was fixing games to make good on his bets. He got serious jail time, plus he will never ref again. How could anyone trust his judgement after the fact? And due to the authority involved in the job, judgement is a large part of what you might call ability.

Now back to the police, I think this is the real debatable area. I'm not saying that the ability to enforce the law disappears as soon as it is broken. Sure, a police officer with a previous DUI can tell me that I'm driving under the influence. It's a "do as I say, not as I do" thing. Police officers uphold the law as it is written, but we're not measured against the standards that their individual employees demonstrate. Should she keep her job? Certainly not without punishment. What constitutes the loss of the privilege in being a police officer, I simply couldn't tell you.

[Rishi]

Infact this is an easier argument for me because the cop was intoxicated while he was attempting to make a "good judgment" call. Unless he was accused of drinking on the job, you CANNOT assume he will make a bad judgment call on duty un-intoxicated.
This is silly. Have you ever consumed alcohol? You aren't sober one minute and totally hammered (she claimed she couldn't remember anything) the next. She's 41, so she knows what her limit is. Under Canadian law, intoxication is a defence only to specific-intent offences. None of the offences we are talking about here fall into that category. The decision to become totally inebriated is a conscious decision made while still sober.

[Ojam]

Wow look another thread on RFD where cops are being bashed... what a surprise!

She should be charged just like anybody else would. If her lawyer is able to get her off then good for her.

She shouldn't loose her job though. Her job is separate from the conviction and she shouldn't loose it based on something she did during her personal time.

[spf1971]

As long as the cop isnt breaking the laws WHILE on duty as a cop, I dont see the disconnect.
I dont expect cops to be perfect angels, when out of their uniform I expect them to go through the same things the average person does, and should be treated in the same way in the eye of the law.
I think she should be punished legally for the DUI charge as anyone else would be, through the courts. and it is up to the employer to decide if they can utilize the employee in other ways while they do not have their license.

I've known to guys who's jobs revolved around driving, who got into DUI accidents and lost their licenses. In both cases, the employer re-deployed them to do other things at work that didnt involve driving. Same thing should apply to cops. Maybe with an additional requirement to attend AA or something prior to resuming full PAID duty.

I don't expect cops to be perfect angels either, however the requirements and power afforded to some people by way of their job does sometimes require them to act in a certain fashion. Not only do the laws have to be fair, but they also have to appear to be fair. Having someone who is convicted of a serious offense in a position to police others, casts doubt on the fairness of the law.

As a member of the military, I am issued a military drivers license. If I lose my civilian license, I also lose my military license. Should my job require that I hold a military license (and it does), loss of that license will result in career implication up to and including dismissal from the forces. What you do after hours is separate from what you do during work hours, however I don't know anyone who can simply throw a switch and 100% separate the two.

There are certain job requirements needed to hold a position. Can a police officer be convicted of an offense and still remain a police officer? I believe so, however the offenses that this officer was convicted of, are serious enough to warrant dismissal (In my opinion). I'm not suggesting that any conviction or any offense would necessitate dismissal, I'm just saying that I believe in this case it's warranted.

[KorruptioN]

Where is Shaner who loves to defend the criminal acts of these dicks ?

That's a pretty low-blow call-out...

[65505201]

She shouldn't loose her job though. Her job is separate from the conviction and she shouldn't loose it based on something she did during her personal time.

When you apply for a job, do they not ask if you have been convicted of a criminal offense before? You think you'd get the job because it was done on "personal time" :lol:

If it's a burger flipping job, yes, she should get to keep her job.

Thank you. At least someone pays attention. Of course I'm fine with cops being charged with DUI. I'm fine with cops being charged with anything. If they committed the crime, they must suffer the consequences. The only thing I have ever argued for is equal treatment. It seems when a cop commits a crime RFD calls for that officers head, but when someone else commits a crime, RFD'ers try and help that person find a technicality to beat the charge with.

Uh, apparently you weren't paying attention to my post. I said convicted, not charged. I think you'd find little RFD support for serious crimes such as this. All the debate has been on the validity of speeding.

As was mentioned in another thread, part of the an officer's duty is to enforce the public trust. How do you expect one of blemished history to do so? Would you retain the services of an accountant who was convicted of fraud "on his personal time"?

[kingsley]

How can you expect someone to uphold the laws if they can't abide by them? It makes no sense. Let's say instead of drunk driving she was selling drugs, or raping kids, or murdering kittens. Do you think she should be allowed to keep her job then?

It makes sense if you consider upholding the law and abiding by the law two different things. Why must you consider them to be the same?

I don't want to argue with you with all the different scenarios that you are presenting. Just stay with the topic.

Why shouldn't she be allowed to keep her job because she got a DUI? I already presented my arguments. Please use logical statements to counter them.

[kingsley]

Shouldn't isn't the proper word. Wouldn't is more like it. It simply wouldn't be tolerated by the league.

You're expecting someone to objectively uphold the rules of a game. Look what happened to that NBA ref who was fixing games to make good on his bets. He got serious jail time, plus he will never ref again. How could anyone trust his judgement after the fact? And due to the authority involved in the job, judgement is a large part of what you might call ability.

Now back to the police, I think this is the real debatable area. I'm not saying that the ability to enforce the law disappears as soon as it is broken. Sure, a police officer with a previous DUI can tell me that I'm driving under the influence. It's a "do as I say, not as I do" thing. Police officers uphold the law as it is written, but we're not measured against the standards that their individual employees demonstrate. Should she keep her job? Certainly not without punishment. What constitutes the loss of the privilege in being a police officer, I simply couldn't tell you.

Yes, I'm expecting them to objectively uphold the rules of the game. In your case I agree the NBA ref should be fired and never be allowed to ref again. Why would you even present that example? With what statements did I write insinuate that I would argue against that example? In this case the NBA ref did not objectively uphold the rules of the game. So his dismissal was right.

So you agree with me with the police point. I'm not making a statement on whether or not her punishment was enough. I just wanted to point out that just because she broke the law doesn't mean she has to lose her job as a cop.

[Shaner]

Uh, apparently you weren't paying attention to my post. I said convicted, not charged. I think you'd find little RFD support for serious crimes such as this. All the debate has been on the validity of speeding.



Apparently I did misread your post. I really don't care if there's not much support on RFD for cops who are convicted of DUI. That is of no concern to me, especially considering I'm not a cop. Yes, I believe cops should be able to keep their jobs if convicted of DUI. I have my reasons for my opinion but I'm not going to waste my time arguing this point. It's been argued by me and others in the past so I really don't see the point in going down that road again.

But thinking they should get to keep their jobs is a far cry from me defending cops who are convicted of criminal charges. I think cops convicted of criminal charges have seriously tarnished the reputation of the uniform they should be proud to wear and they should suffer the same consequences anyone else would.

[Whitedart]

Wow look another thread on RFD where cops are being bashed... what a surprise!

She should be charged just like anybody else would. If her lawyer is able to get her off then good for her.

Agreed on both parts above. Like any other person charged with an offence, she is innocent until proven guilty.

A higher standard is imposed on her, but the OP indicates she was an instructor at the local police college, and not working as a uniformed officer while on duty.



She shouldn't loose her job though. Her job is separate from the conviction and she shouldn't loose it based on something she did during her personal time.

As an officer, she still receives a harsher penalty from a police disciplinary tribunal than any regular citizen would receive: demoted for 2 years, loss of about $15,000 pay.
This is in addition to any lawyers fees for the tribunal plus any court trial lawyer fees, or any other court assigned penalties such as suspended license, or fine.

[kingsley]

This is silly. Have you ever consumed alcohol? You aren't sober one minute and totally hammered (she claimed she couldn't remember anything) the next. She's 41, so she knows what her limit is. Under Canadian law, intoxication is a defence only to specific-intent offences. None of the offences we are talking about here fall into that category. The decision to become totally inebriated is a conscious decision made while still sober.

I didn't read her statement. Doesn't matter, I'm certain she isn't very good at concocting a good statement/story anyways that would help her.

Her defense is (or what it should be) is that she made a bad judgment call while intoxicated. Now, that doesn't mean she will make a bad judgement call while on the job because she doesn't drink on the job. That's the argument.

Now, what peeves me is another stupid way that I find how people argue. You state some law fact about intoxication only being a defense to specific-intent offense. Fine. Assuming that's true, I would like to ask you how does that have anything to do with considering if she should keep her job or not? Does law have anything to do with considering someone's employment. Is the law somehow the new standard in considering anything? Should I use the law to consider if I should buy a Big Mac or a Quarter Pounder?

The only reason you think there is a correlation is because she broke the LAW and her job is to enforce the LAW. You somehow think because of these two facts there is a correlation between the two decision making processes. And because of that, you start making true factual statements and try to pass them off to prove a point that has nothing to do with the initial statement.

Stop using some seemingly "oh-so-important-fact" to try to back up another completely unrelated point.

[ndrew029]

So you agree with me with the police point. I'm not making a statement on whether or not her punishment was enough. I just wanted to point out that just because she broke the law doesn't mean she has to lose her job as a cop.

Yes, I agree with you to an extent. She doesn't have to lose her job. As long as you're not saying she is absolutely entitled to keep her job, because it all depends on how the police (as an employer, and not as the law) usually deal with this type of situation. If it doesn't include termination, then so be it.

[65505201]

Why shouldn't she be allowed to keep her job because she got a DUI? I already presented my arguments. Please use logical statements to counter them.

Because you are held to a higher level for certain jobs. ANY type of fraud would preclude one from the a job in the financial industry. ANY type of criminal conviction would seriously jeopardize your P.Eng designation and I'm guessing your JD designation as well. ANY type of sexual criminal conviction would preclude one from the teaching profession.

It doesn't matter of the act was done off the clock.

If you're fine with a criminal patrolling the streets, whose job it is to uphold ALL laws...then all the power to ya.

My gut feel...is that DUI doesn't seem like sufficient reason to expel the woman from the force because the majority of supporters drink and drive themselves (though under the limit). Shaner's already admitted to it (in Jon Lai's 0 BAC thread). Other supporters care to make a stand and say they never drink and drive?

[beerbaron105]

Where is Shaner who loves to defend the criminal acts of these dicks ?

are you stating all cops are dicks?

[beerbaron105]

Because you are held to a higher level for certain jobs. ANY type of fraud would preclude one from the a job in the financial industry. ANY type of criminal conviction would seriously jeopardize your P.Eng designation and I'm guessing your JD designation as well. ANY type of sexual criminal conviction would preclude one from the teaching profession.

It doesn't matter of the act was done off the clock.

If you're fine with a criminal patrolling the streets, whose job it is to uphold ALL laws...then all the power to ya.

My gut feel...is that DUI doesn't seem like sufficient reason to expel the woman because the majority of supporters drink and drive themselves (though under the limit).

there really is nothing to do to really defend her, however keep in mind she is a 20 year veteran (at least i believe so) I am sure they kept that in mind for her final ruling as well.

Alot of good was probably done in those 20 years, no wait, all cops only write tickets and eat donuts...Doy!

[65505201]

are you stating all cops are dicks?

Or useless. The only reason to keep them around is because criminals are worse. But to the average law abiding citizen, they're useless or dicks. To me, they're only good as an "impartial" note taker.

Let's see:

-you get robbed, they'll be there in 5
-you get shot/stabbed, they'll be there in 5
-your house gets broken into, they'll be there in 60...to take a report

-you see dangerous behavior on the roads, nothing...they're too busy hiding behind signs and bushes
-you're driving 20-30 over the limit on a wide empty highway...BAM, I guess you were a major threat to the safety of others

Of course, if you're living in a drug filled neighborhood, they (somewhat) serve as a deterrent. But it goes back to my original point - the only reason to keep them around is because criminals are worse.

I'd rather pay for more paramedics or firefights than cops.

[65505201]

there really is nothing to do to really defend her, however keep in mind she is a 20 year veteran (at least i believe so) I am sure they kept that in mind for her final ruling as well.

Alot of good was probably done in those 20 years, no wait, all cops only write tickets and eat donuts...Doy!

So...someone who worked at a bank for 20 years is given one freebie to steal money? We're not talking about a .85 or .9 BAC. She blew triple the limit and destroyed property.

Actually, she already had a freebie from a 2006 incident.

[iplom]

let's see:

-you get robbed, they'll be there in 5
-you get shot/stabbed, they'll be there in 5
-your house gets broken into, they'll be there in 60...to take a report

-you see dangerous behavior on the roads, nothing...they're too busy hiding behind signs and bushes
-you're driving 20-30 over the limit on a wide empty highway...bam, i guess you were a major threat to the safety of others

i'd rather pay for more paramedics or firefights than cops.

+1

[Rishi]

I didn't read her statement. Doesn't matter, I'm certain she isn't very good at concocting a good statement/story anyways that would help her.

Her defense is (or what it should be) is that she made a bad judgment call while intoxicated. Now, that doesn't mean she will make a bad judgement call while on the job because she doesn't drink on the job. That's the argument.

Now, what peeves me is another stupid way that I find how people argue. You state some law fact about intoxication only being a defense to specific-intent offense. Fine. Assuming that's true, I would like to ask you how does that have anything to do with considering if she should keep her job or not? Does law have anything to do with considering someone's employment. Is the law somehow the new standard in considering anything? Should I use the law to consider if I should buy a Big Mac or a Quarter Pounder?

The only reason you think there is a correlation is because she broke the LAW and her job is to enforce the LAW. You somehow think because of these two facts there is a correlation between the two decision making processes. And because of that, you start making true factual statements and try to pass them off to prove a point that has nothing to do with the initial statement.

Stop using some seemingly "oh-so-important-fact" to try to back up another completely unrelated point.
Good job writing 2 paragraphs simply restating your previous post and 3 containing thinly veiled personal attacks without responding to my new point. I'm sorry that the Grade 12 law course I took has trigged your inferiority complex. In the future I'll be careful to avoid mentioning any facts you aren't aware of to avoid hurting your feelings, ok?

Feel free to respond to my point anytime you like - I'll put it in bold for you, if that helps.

[Snicla]

It makes sense if you consider upholding the law and abiding by the law two different things. Why must you consider them to be the same?

I don't want to argue with you with all the different scenarios that you are presenting. Just stay with the topic.

Why shouldn't she be allowed to keep her job because she got a DUI? I already presented my arguments. Please use logical statements to counter them.

Because it was much more than a DUI. Using your car to ram another car in order to escape the scene of a crime is much more than a DUI. In fact it could probably be called attempted murder. Killing someone while intoxicated with a car is called vehicular homicide. This should be attempted vehicular homicide, or at least blatant disregard for the safety of others, or some such ****.

You don't want to argue with me because you realize that crime is a crime. My points are perfectly on topic, she committed a criminal act, and not just a small one either. She endangered the lives of others. If you believe that she should be allowed to keep her job you are wrong. It is because she is entrusted to uphold our laws that we should hold her to an even higher standard. This is a person who we've put our trust in and given the authority and the responsibility to protect us. If she violates that trust then why should she still be able to serve the public? She is nothing more than a criminal, but because of her connections she is exempted from the rules that us regular folk have to follow. Where is the justice in that?

[Snicla]

It makes sense if you consider upholding the law and abiding by the law two different things. Why must you consider them to be the same?

Because it's her job to uphold the law, and if she's not abiding by the law then she is not upholding the law. It's hypocrisy for her to want others to follow the law if she herself breaks it.

[kingsley]

My gut feel...is that DUI doesn't seem like sufficient reason to expel the woman from the force because the majority of supporters drink and drive themselves (though under the limit). Shaner's already admitted to it (in Jon Lai's 0 BAC thread). Other supporters care to make a stand and say they never drink and drive?

Lol, listen I'm not going to bother addressing anything else you said. Just as long as I swayed your opinion is all that really matters.

In fact, it's not that I changed your opinion that I like it's the fact that you are able to look at the case in individual parts instead of a lumping it into one huge case/conclusion.

[beerbaron105]

Or useless. The only reason to keep them around is because criminals are worse. But to the average law abiding citizen, they're useless or dicks. To me, they're only good as an "impartial" note taker.

Let's see:

-you get robbed, they'll be there in 5
-you get shot/stabbed, they'll be there in 5
-your house gets broken into, they'll be there in 60...to take a report

-you see dangerous behavior on the roads, nothing...they're too busy hiding behind signs and bushes
-you're driving 20-30 over the limit on a wide empty highway...BAM, I guess you were a major threat to the safety of others

Of course, if you're living in a drug filled neighborhood, they (somewhat) serve as a deterrent. But it goes back to my original point - the only reason to keep them around is because criminals are worse.

I'd rather pay for more paramedics or firefights than cops.

It's not even worth a rebuttal, because you are completely ignorant to what police officers do - and just goes to show why the regular public will never understand, because for one, they don't have what it takes to be one.

[beerbaron105]

So...someone who worked at a bank for 20 years is given one freebie to steal money? We're not talking about a .85 or .9 BAC. She blew triple the limit and destroyed property.

Actually, she already had a freebie from a 2006 incident.

I was not defending her, I am saying they probably kept her service in mind during final judgement.

[kingsley]

Good job writing 2 paragraphs simply restating your previous post and 3 containing thinly veiled personal attacks without responding to my new point. I'm sorry that the Grade 12 law course I took has trigged your inferiority complex. In the future I'll be careful to avoid mentioning any facts you aren't aware of to avoid hurting your feelings, ok?

Feel free to respond to my point anytime you like - I'll put it in bold for you, if that helps.

lol, personal attacks? Listen, you didn't make a good argument. You took one fact to prove another completely unrelated fact. Your argument sucked what else do you want me to say? You are welcome to try again when you argue logically.

[kingsley]

Because it was much more than a DUI. Using your car to ram another car in order to escape the scene of a crime is much more than a DUI. In fact it could probably be called attempted murder. Killing someone while intoxicated with a car is called vehicular homicide. This should be attempted vehicular homicide, or at least blatant disregard for the safety of others, or some such ****.

You don't want to argue with me because you realize that crime is a crime. My points are perfectly on topic, she committed a criminal act, and not just a small one either. She endangered the lives of others. If you believe that she should be allowed to keep her job you are wrong. It is because she is entrusted to uphold our laws that we should hold her to an even higher standard. This is a person who we've put our trust in and given the authority and the responsibility to protect us. If she violates that trust then why should she still be able to serve the public? She is nothing more than a criminal, but because of her connections she is exempted from the rules that us regular folk have to follow. Where is the justice in that?

What rules is she exempted from that we have to follow? She should get whatever criminal charges is associated with her crime. I never said she gets off scot free.

Why am I wrong that she should be allowed to keep her job? You're saying because she is entrusted to uphold our laws we should hold her to a higher standard. How does that make sense? What exactly does that stop? Hypocrisy? So if a cop stops you for speeding you make him look you in the eye and tell you he never sped in his life before you let him write you a ticket? Are you seriously for real? Does it change the fact that you are speeding?

Back to this case specifically, the cop gets a DUI. She goes back to work the next day and pulls you over for drunk driving. Just because she got a DUI yesterday does it change the fact that you broke the law today and she enforced it? Getting a DUI doesn't change the fact that she can do her job.

So why should she lose her job? Because you don't think it's fair? Because you want to be stopped by a cop that has never broken a law in their life? That will make you feel better somehow for being caught?

You know what, your whole argument is based on the fact that you don't think it's fair to be stopped by a cop that may have broken the same law that you are being stopped for.

[kingsley]

Because it's her job to uphold the law, and if she's not abiding by the law then she is not upholding the law. It's hypocrisy for her to want others to follow the law if she herself breaks it.

haha man, I'm so right. You're argument is based on the fact that YOU FEEL WRONGED. You have no logical argument.

You feel you got the short end of the stick. Hey, if cops are allowed to DUI then I should be able to as well. hahaha. Sorry, man, if you break the law you gotta suffer the consequences.

If a cop breaks the law, they got to suffer the consequences as well. However, they don't automatically get dismissed from their job just because their job is to enforce the law. It's gotta be looked in terms of if their crime doesn't affect how they perform their job then they shouldn't be dismissed from it.

[65505201]

Lol, listen I'm not going to bother addressing anything else you said. Just as long as I swayed your opinion is all that really matters.

In fact, it's not that I changed your opinion that I like it's the fact that you are able to look at the case in individual parts instead of a lumping it into one huge case/conclusion.

Uh...you may want to re-read my post again. I'm saying she should be canned. I'm saying supporters feel that keeping her on the force after a DUI is ok because they drink and drive themselves.

Where have you changed my mind?

It's not even worth a rebuttal, because you are completely ignorant to what police officers do - and just goes to show why the regular public will never understand, because for one, they don't have what it takes to be one.

:lol: Care to enlighten us of the "right stuff" it takes to be an officer? I am well aware that officers do much more than hand out tickets, but that comprises the vast majority of LEO/civilian interactions. Perhaps if the motivations weren't so nakedly motivated by money, we'd have a little more respect.

We'd probably have even more respect if it weren't for the blue wall.


If a cop breaks the law, they got to suffer the consequences as well. However, they don't automatically get dismissed from their job just because their job is to enforce the law. It's gotta be looked in terms of if their crime doesn't affect how they perform their job then they shouldn't be dismissed from it.


What about domestic violence then? Kiddie porn? Smoking pot? He keeps that stuff to his private time and won't affect how they perform their job. :rolleyes:

Again, it astounds me that people are fine with having convicted criminals as law enforcement officers.

[felixdd]

Police prosecutors were seeking the dismissal of Const. Gail Shields, 41, who has been an officer with the Toronto force since 1989.
...

Toronto police Supt. Jane Wilcox ruled at a disciplinary hearing Friday that an appropriate punishment was a demotion of one rank to second-class constable for two years.

The "pristine employment history" of the officer was cited by Supt. Wilcox as one of the reasons for refusing to order the dismissal of Shields. Two other impaired driving cases where Toronto police officers were demoted, were also factors in determining an appropriate punishment, the superintendent explained.

Before the cop bashing continues, might I remind everyone that
a) the police did want her canned
b) the superintendent showed leniency because of a) her pristine record, and b) precedence.

Last I check, precedence is one of the cornerstones of our justice system. Before we continue using this as an example to support our arguments that cops are crooked, are we blaming the police for following due justice?

[Snicla]

It's gotta be looked in terms of if their crime doesn't affect how they perform their job then they shouldn't be dismissed from it.

What crime would affect her job? She can commit all sorts of crimes without them affecting her ability to hand out tickets.

[Snicla]

Before the cop bashing continues, might I remind everyone that
a) the police did want her canned
b) the superintendent showed leniency because of a) her pristine record, and b) precedence.

Last I check, precedence is one of the cornerstones of our justice system. Before we continue using this as an example to support our arguments that cops are crooked, are we blaming the police for following due justice?

Who is bashing all cops?

a) good for them
b) Precedence? You mean like this one?

She previously was found guilty in provincial court of one count of impaired driving and received a $2,000 fine and one-year probation as a result of the February 2006 incident.

How long until she kills someone while behind the wheel? Clearly she's got no regard for human lives if she's willing to use her car as a battering ram to evade being capture. Which would make her an unfit officer.

[Whitedart]

So...someone who worked at a bank for 20 years is given one freebie to steal money? We're not talking about a .85 or .9 BAC. She blew triple the limit and destroyed property.

Actually, she already had a freebie from a 2006 incident.

Go back and re-read the original post, but I doubt your reading comprehension would still understand it with your police bashing attitude, so to spell it out more clearly:

The incident occurred on Feb 2006.

She previously was found guilty in provincial court of one count of impaired driving and received a $2,000 fine and one-year probation
For this impaired incident.

Toronto police Supt. Jane Wilcox ruled at a disciplinary hearing Friday that an appropriate punishment was a demotion of one rank to second-class constable for two years.
This is the second part of the punishment an officer receives that no regular citizen receives for the same incident.

There was not 2 impaired incidents but only one. There was however, both a court proceeding, and a disciplinary tribunal hearing.

[felixdd]

b) Precedence? You mean like this one?
She previously was found guilty in provincial court of one count of impaired driving and received a $2,000 fine and one-year probation as a result of the February 2006 incident.
How long until she kills someone while behind the wheel? Clearly she's got no regard for human lives if she's willing to use her car as a battering ram to evade being capture. Which would make her an unfit officer.

Hmm i missed that :|. That does change things....

Nonetheless, the superintendent did say there was precedence...it'd be interesting to see what cases she used as precedence in deciding on the ruling for this one.

[commie]

W

Back to this case specifically, the cop gets a DUI. She goes back to work the next day and pulls you over for drunk driving. Just because she got a DUI yesterday does it change the fact that you broke the law today and she enforced it? Getting a DUI doesn't change the fact that she can do her job.
.

If you as a citizen gets a DUI, you loose your license....If you as a citizen smashes into another person's car, in an attempt to get away from a scene of a crime, you are charged..

However, this 'COP' and i use this term loosely, as she does not qualify to be one...did not loose her license to drive.
If she lost her driving license, then she is in no capacity to charge you with DUI, as she won't be able to drive.

Not very fair treatment is it?

A cop getting a DUI, should have their driver's license taken away just like any citizen...Thus, she won't be able to do her job.

[commie]

Toronto police Supt. Jane Wilcox ruled at a disciplinary hearing Friday that an appropriate punishment was a demotion of one rank to second-class constable for two years.
This is the second part of the punishment an officer receives that no regular citizen receives for the same incident.

.

A regular citizen convicted of DUI would loose their driver's license for a period of time. Which this sad excuse of an 'officer' never was given.

[random1315]

Is this any surprise? Government workers in general have it made. They have jobs for life and can't be fired unless they are physically caught in the act of murder or rape (and even then, I wouldn't be surprised).

Not to mention, they get far superior pay and benefits:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0216/078.html

"In public-sector America things just get better and better. The common presumption is that public servants forgo high wages in exchange for safe jobs and benefits. The reality is they get all three. State and local government workers get paid an average of $25.30 an hour, which is 33% higher than the private sector's $19, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Throw in pensions and other benefits and the gap widens to 42%."

Hilarious! If you are like most people, who have some ambition, but not enough willingness to take risk like the successful small business owners/entrepreneurs, your best bet is to work for the government.

Extortionist groups like the ATU and CUPE have incredible power, and the gutless left wing politicians will never go after them. Why bust your ass in the private sector trying to climb the corporate ladder when you can fleece the taxpayers for never ending pay raises with little productivity?

ROFL!

[Whitedart]

A regular citizen convicted of DUI would loose their driver's license for a period of time. Which this sad excuse of an 'officer' never was given.

Does it need to spelled out that a DL suspension is included upon a DUI conviction, the same way that demerit points are attached to a speeding conviction.

[commie]

Does it need to spelled out that a DL suspension is included upon a DUI conviction, the same way that demerit points are attached to a speeding conviction.

Then how can this 2nd class Constable be able to fulfill her job duties without the ability to drive? Is she going to walk to Timmy's for her donuts?

No where in the article does it say, this 'officer' received a DL suspension for this offense. Just like she did not receive one from her first offense.

[Whitedart]

Then how can this 2nd class Constable be able to fulfill her job duties without the ability to drive? Is she going to walk to Timmy's for her donuts?

She does not need to drive, being an instructor at the police college. But would likely be given a desk job elsewhere. Given her age and years of service is also unlikely working in a uniform patrol car giving out tickets as some describe here.

No where in the article does it say, this 'officer' received a DL suspension for this offense.

The article does not have to say that, the Criminal Code of Canada does.

Just like she did not receive one from her first offense.

This was the first DUI offence. As you may have noticed in other threads of RFD, court takes usually a year or more to go to a trial date, 2006 offence to 2007 court date.

Then Police tribunal and police discreditable conduct offence will take another 6 months to a year to process take it from 2007 to 2008. She can not be charged with misconduct until she is convicted of a criminal offence in a regular criminal court.

[Whitedart]

What rules is she exempted from that we have to follow? She should get whatever criminal charges is associated with her crime. I never said she gets off scot free.

She is not exempted. She committed the offence, and should receive the same penalty as any other DUI driver, which she did - $2000 fine, 1 year probation, implied DL suspension.

Why am I wrong that she should be allowed to keep her job?

That is a decision for her employer to make. Police management decided to reduce her rank with financial penalty, in line with what the same management had done in two previous cases with two other officers.


Back to this case specifically, the cop gets a DUI. She goes back to work the next day and pulls you over for drunk driving. Just because she got a DUI yesterday does it change the fact that you broke the law today and she enforced it? Getting a DUI doesn't change the fact that she can do her job.


There are many areas of policing that RFD members have no clue about. Not every officer drives around in a marked cruiser and giving these guys speeding tickets.

[Shaner]

If you believe that she should be allowed to keep her job you are wrong.

Wow, didn't realize an opinion could be wrong. I guess I learned something new today.

She is nothing more than a criminal, but because of her connections she is exempted from the rules that us regular folk have to follow. Where is the justice in that?

What rules is she exempt from? She was charged just like "us regular folk" would be and she was punished even more severely then "us regular folk" would be. She lost approx. $15,000 in pay and this incident will also jeopardize her chances for a promotion later on in her career. Very few others can say they received such punishment for a DUI. So tell me again how she is exempt from rules that "us regular folk" have to follow.

[Rishi]

lol, personal attacks? Listen, you didn't make a good argument. You took one fact to prove another completely unrelated fact. Your argument sucked what else do you want me to say? You are welcome to try again when you argue logically.
You still haven't figured out what my argument even is, probably you skim posts instead of actually reading them, just like you admitted to skimming the original article.

[Nikita]

Where is Shaner who loves to defend the criminal acts of these dicks ?

If that's all you have to contribute, don't bother k?

In another thread, Shaner has already stated he's fine w/ cops convicted of DUIs.

Actually, he didn't say he was 'fine' with cops being convicted of DUIs. I remember that thread and what he said was he didn't think they should lose their job over it.



DUI doesn't mean you're a bad person. But it does mean you have poor judgment, and that's not a trait I want to see in someone whose job gives them considerable latitude in how they address dynamic and often dangerous confrontations. Cops need to use their judgment on a daily basis to determine the appropriate level of force to use against suspects. When they make the wrong decision, people can die. So FFS, err on the side of caution.

Or sometimes it just means someone made a really bad mistake. Some day you will too, we all will or have. It shouldn't define us and I support the disciplinary board's decision to look at her entire career and not just this one bad mistake she made.

This made me laugh

"Shields testified that she does not remember anything after consuming her third beer."

Three beers get her that F-ed up?
That is one cheap date.

I'm a non-drinker and 100 lbs, 3 beers would probably mess me up pretty bad too.

Will she get her license suspended? It seems to me that the courts are being far more lenient towards this woman than they ever would be for a civilian. I agree with you Shaner, equal treatment, but that would mean that she would lose her drivers license, be charged with reckless driving, driving under the influence, trying to leave a crime scene, and probably some more that I can't think of. If and when she gets out of jail for all that stuff, she can be a bike cop with the lowest rank, as I'm sure the police wouldn't install a breathalyzer start thing in cop car.

I can assure you her license was suspended. A Judge has no discretion regarding licence suspensions for DUI's. And why are you talking about 'when she gets out of jail...'? She's already been convicted and sentenced and she didn't get any jail time. Neither do most first time DUI offenders.

People seem to be confusing this article, which is about her disciplinary hearing, with her criminal charge, which happened in 2006. There's no 'will she get this, will she get charged with that'. She pled guilty, she got sentenced, the criminal proceedings are over. Now she got disciplined....and this article is about her disciplinary hearing.

How can you expect someone to uphold the laws if they can't abide by them? It makes no sense. Let's say instead of drunk driving she was selling drugs, or raping kids, or murdering kittens. Do you think she should be allowed to keep her job then?

Probably not, that's why all crimes and all criminals are treated differently and every case is dealt with according to it's own unique set of facts and circumstances. One of those facts in this case was a stellar 20-year reputation and one bad mistake. Another of those facts was that this was a DUI and NOT selling drugs or raping kids. Let's say (as you insist on playing the 'what if' game') she was charged with jaywalking instead of drunk driving, selling drugs, raping kids or murdering kittens. Do you think she should have to lose her job then?



As an officer, she still receives a harsher penalty from a police disciplinary tribunal than any regular citizen would receive: demoted for 2 years, loss of about $15,000 pay. This is in addition to any lawyers fees for the tribunal plus any court trial lawyer fees, or any other court assigned penalties such as suspended license, or fine.

And there's the extra kick for being held to a higher standard. She is not treated like everyone else, she is not treated better than everyone else, she actually had to go through something most people in their jobs will never have to face if they get a DUI...another hearing, possible job loss or demotion, loss of pay etc etc....it's basically a second sentencing. How many of you 'regular joe 6-packs' will ever have to face that if charged with DUI?

Because you are held to a higher level for certain jobs. ANY type of fraud would preclude one from the a job in the financial industry. ANY type of criminal conviction would seriously jeopardize your P.Eng designation and I'm guessing your JD designation as well. ANY type of sexual criminal conviction would preclude one from the teaching profession.

It doesn't matter of the act was done off the clock.

If you're fine with a criminal patrolling the streets, whose job it is to uphold ALL laws...then all the power to ya.

My gut feel...is that DUI doesn't seem like sufficient reason to expel the woman from the force because the majority of supporters drink and drive themselves (though under the limit). Shaner's already admitted to it (in Jon Lai's 0 BAC thread). Other supporters care to make a stand and say they never drink and drive?

I wouldn't call it making a stand...:confused:...but since I'm a non-drinker, I can say I've never driven drunk.

Because it was much more than a DUI. Using your car to ram another car in order to escape the scene of a crime is much more than a DUI. In fact it could probably be called attempted murder. Killing someone while intoxicated with a car is called vehicular homicide. This should be attempted vehicular homicide, or at least blatant disregard for the safety of others, or some such ****.



Yeah some such **** indeed...sorry but I just have to LOL at 'attempted vehicular homicide'...fyi, there is no such charge.

Uh...you may want to re-read my post again. I'm saying she should be canned. I'm saying supporters feel that keeping her on the force after a DUI is ok because they drink and drive themselves.

And I'm saying that your gross generalization is just simply wrong. I support her not losing her job and I don't drink and drive...I don't drink at all. So what evil motivations are at work in my mind??

What about domestic violence then? Kiddie porn? Smoking pot? He keeps that stuff to his private time and won't affect how they perform their job. :rolleyes:

Again, it astounds me that people are fine with having convicted criminals as law enforcement officers.

What about those crimes? Those crimes will affect anybody differently. There's a reason we have different sentences, different consequences for different offenses....and for different offenders. Why does everyone keep throwing out different offenses here? And why are they all worse ones? If you want to play that game, I'll ask you as I asked someone else using your logic....what if she were ticketed for jaywalking? Hell, we wouldn't even be having this discussion...yet she still broke a law didn't she??

[Nikita]

Go back and re-read the original post, but I doubt your reading comprehension would still understand it with your police bashing attitude, so to spell it out more clearly:

The incident occurred on Feb 2006.

She previously was found guilty in provincial court of one count of impaired driving and received a $2,000 fine and one-year probation
For this impaired incident.

Toronto police Supt. Jane Wilcox ruled at a disciplinary hearing Friday that an appropriate punishment was a demotion of one rank to second-class constable for two years.
This is the second part of the punishment an officer receives that no regular citizen receives for the same incident.

There was not 2 impaired incidents but only one. There was however, both a court proceeding, and a disciplinary tribunal hearing.

Wow, I can't believe it took this many posts for someone to point out that there was only ever this ONE DUI! I don't know if reading comprehension is the problem or if it's the way the story was written but the following sentence makes things very clear:

She previously was found guilty in provincial court of one count of impaired driving and received a $2,000 fine and one-year probation as a result of the February 2006 incident.

...previous to the disciplinary hearing that is the subject of this article!

If you as a citizen gets a DUI, you loose your license....If you as a citizen smashes into another person's car, in an attempt to get away from a scene of a crime, you are charged..

However, this 'COP' and i use this term loosely, as she does not qualify to be one...did not loose her license to drive.
If she lost her driving license, then she is in no capacity to charge you with DUI, as she won't be able to drive.

Not very fair treatment is it?

A cop getting a DUI, should have their driver's license taken away just like any citizen...Thus, she won't be able to do her job.

Ugghh...yes she did lose her license and no not all cops' work is done in a car. Ever been inside a police station? See who sits behind the desks? Cops. In uniform. Doing jobs. Not in a car. Get it?

Then how can this 2nd class Constable be able to fulfill her job duties without the ability to drive? Is she going to walk to Timmy's for her donuts?

No where in the article does it say, this 'officer' received a DL suspension for this offense. Just like she did not receive one from her first offense.

Oh man oh man oh man....she DID get her license suspended and this WAS her first offence.

Wow, didn't realize an opinion could be wrong. I guess I learned something new today.

What rules is she exempt from? She was charged just like "us regular folk" would be and she was punished even more severely then "us regular folk" would be. She lost approx. $15,000 in pay and this incident will also jeopardize her chances for a promotion later on in her career. Very few others can say they received such punishment for a DUI. So tell me again how she is exempt from rules that "us regular folk" have to follow.

Oh I can answer that...lol. She's 'exempt' in that she gets two trials instead of one and two sets of punishment instead of one....like 'us regular folk' would get...mmm hmm.

[65505201]

Go back and re-read the original post, but I doubt your reading comprehension would still understand it with your police bashing attitude, so to spell it out more clearly:

The incident occurred on Feb 2006.

She previously was found guilty in provincial court of one count of impaired driving and received a $2,000 fine and one-year probation
For this impaired incident.

Toronto police Supt. Jane Wilcox ruled at a disciplinary hearing Friday that an appropriate punishment was a demotion of one rank to second-class constable for two years.
This is the second part of the punishment an officer receives that no regular citizen receives for the same incident.

There was not 2 impaired incidents but only one. There was however, both a court proceeding, and a disciplinary tribunal hearing.

Whoops. I will concede I read the OP incorrectly. However, it still doesn't change my sentiment. Work for 20 years and get a freebie? I'd get canned at work if I was busted for pot at home (arguably a lesser crime than ramming vehicles and endangering lives, Nikita). There won't be a second hearing, where I could argue my case. I would be...walking into my boss's office, be given the pink slip, then try to explain my criminal background to my next employer at an interview. Why should this be any different?

Regarding precedence...so if we make one questionable ruling (article cited two earlier rulings), it becomes gold for every subsequent case?

Again, I think this gets back to what I think is the major divide between the "can her ass" crowd and the "let her keep her job" crowd. One side expects LE to maintain a pristine (criminal) record. The other doesn't.

(Jaywalking isn't a criminal offense btw, tho it certainly does nothing for PR for a chronically jaywalking cop to ticket others, just as we chronically see cop cars speed and change lanes without signaling for "non-emergency" calls :rolleyes:)

[Whitedart]

Whoops. I'd get canned at work if I was busted for pot at home (arguably a lesser crime than ramming vehicles and endangering lives, Nikita). There won't be a second hearing, where I could argue my case. I would be...walking into my boss's office, be given the pink slip, then try to explain my criminal background to my next employer at an interview. Why should this be any different?

Do you have a 20 year "pristine employment history" with the same employer?

[Snicla]

So Nikita, you being the RFD resident lawyer, tell me, if I were to drive drunk, get in an accident, attempt to leave the scene of the crime, and ram my car in to another car in order to get away, how much jail time would I be looking at?

What would I be charged with if I had used my car as a ram and drove in to other people's car?

[CanadianMike]

So Nikita, you being the RFD resident lawyer, tell me, if I were to drive drunk, get in an accident, attempt to leave the scene of the crime, and ram my car in to another car in order to get away, how much jail time would I be looking at?

What would I be charged with if I had used my car as a ram and drove in to other people's car?
i guess it was easier to reply with more questions....rather than responding to the critiques of your questionable claims--'attempted vehicular homicide'? :confused:

[FerrisB]

Stupid argument. That's like saying a NHL ref can't be a ref if he can't play hockey.

If you know the rules of the game you can ref. If you know the laws you can enforce. Whether you can follow the rules or laws has nothing to do with it.

That makes no sense. How about this. Someone can't be a ref and hand out penalties if they skate around punching players in the face and kicking people with their skates.

[Snicla]

i guess it was easier to reply with more questions....rather than responding to the critiques of your questionable claims--'attempted vehicular homicide'? :confused:

Yes it was. Seeing as how I don't know the term for what she did. If I used a gun to shoot people in a crowd so that I could make my escape that would be called attempted murder. Using a different object to achieve the same goal you would be charged with the same offense would you not?

[ndrew029]

That makes no sense. How about this. Someone can't be a ref and hand out penalties if they skate around punching players in the face and kicking people with their skates.

We went through this one already.

Sure they can still be employed in the role (they still know the rules and those rules apply to the players), but it simply wouldn't be tolerated by the employer. Flipping back to the police officer, she probably still has the ability to enforce the law, but whether she should be doing so is at the discretion of her employer.

[Nikita]

So Nikita, you being the RFD resident lawyer, tell me, if I were to drive drunk, get in an accident, attempt to leave the scene of the crime, and ram my car in to another car in order to get away, how much jail time would I be looking at?

What would I be charged with if I had used my car as a ram and drove in to other people's car?

You'd be looking at the same time she was looking at, which is a range of sentencing options. What you'd get would depend on a whole whack of factors, both mitigating and agravating. I have a feeling however, that you'd have more of the latter than the former. This cop, in the disciplinary body's opinion (opinion informed by evidence and law), had plenty of the former and only one of the latter...a bad mistake.

As for your last question, if you get nothing out of my posts please get this...there are reasons different crimes are treated differently, and why same crimes are treated differently, and even different accuseds are treated differently...because no two fact situations are ever the same. Thus discretion based on enumerated factors, unique to a particular case. What would you get? It would depend on what the police have learned, other than just the newspaper saying so. I would depend on what evidence they have, and if they have evidence sufficient to prove any particular offense beyond what they did. It always seems so cut and dry in a newspaper article, but believe me it takes mountains of paper to actually build a winnable case. What goes on behind the scenes in cops & Crowns determining what charges they will lay and why....ooh believe me, you get only driblets of that in the newspapers. You only get driblets of the evidence and how the process has proceeded, sometimes, as here, over years.


And BTW, please stop calling me the RFD resident lawyer.

[65505201]

Do you have a 20 year "pristine employment history" with the same employer?

So you're saying it's ok? That a 20 year "pristine employment history" with the same employer (as if it matters) is sufficient to save your position after a criminal offense? If so, I'd consider attending my 20th anniversary party with the company high and drunk.

If I get fired, I'll sue using this case as precedence :rolleyes:

EDIT: Actually, to make the comparison accurate, I'll go do that *after* work when I'm off the clock.

[Whitedart]

So you're saying it's ok? That a 20 year "pristine employment history" with the same employer (as if it matters) is sufficient to save your position after a criminal offense? If so, I'd consider attending my 20th anniversary party with the company high and drunk.

If I get fired, I'll sue using this case as precedence :rolleyes:

In your earlier message you indicated you would be fired if charged with a criminal offence for pot possession.
Depending on your type of employment, that is very possible. That's a decision for the management of your employer to make.
I was only asking if you had a similar employment history to this officer, where your employer may give you a break under similar DUI circumstances. I know mine would. But given that I don't drink, so that's really a moot point.

I will concede I read the OP incorrectly. However, it still doesn't change my sentiment. Work for 20 years and get a freebie? I'd get canned at work if I was busted for pot at home (arguably a lesser crime than ramming vehicles and endangering lives, Nikita). There won't be a second hearing, where I could argue my case. I would be...walking into my boss's office, be given the pink slip, then try to explain my criminal background to my next employer at an interview. Why should this be any different?

If you are asking me if I think it is ok that this officer kept her job, the answer would be as I indicated earlier, and copied below.

She is not exempted. She committed the offence, and should receive the same penalty as any other DUI driver, which she did - $2000 fine, 1 year probation, implied DL suspension.

That is a decision for her employer to make. Police management decided to reduce her rank with financial penalty, in line with what the same management had done in two previous cases with two other officers.

Neither you nor I, nor anyone else from RFD was present at that disciplinary tribunal to hear any of the facts or information presented. And none of us have any input into the decision, so the outcome does not really matter.

If it was any regular citizen that had been charged with DUI and suspended or let go by their employer, would the outcome of the matter be published in the newspaper, and posted on RFD be some bored 15 year old from BC? No, it wouldn't.

[Capt.]

Considering that she and many other police have been charged with crimes simply shows your unintelligent and obvious bias against police.

Many other police? Do you realize how often they get away with drinking and driving?

Accepting this is to not be ignorant and instead be realistic. Maybe things are different in Newfoundland, I don't know. But I know for a fact that police officers get away with many things here. If you truly believe that the police charge their fellow peers with a criminal offence every time they commit one, to me that would be unintelligent.

You really can't compare an off duty police officer to a regular person who is off work. They have to be held at a higher standard as they have a fiduciary duty to society that most people don't have.

[spf1971]

Many other police? Do you realize how often they get away with drinking and driving?

Accepting this is to not be ignorant and instead be realistic. Maybe things are different in Newfoundland, I don't know. But I know for a fact that police officers get away with many things here. If you truly believe that the police charge their fellow peers with a criminal offence every time they commit one, to me that would be unintelligent.

You really can't compare an off duty police officer to a regular person who is off work. They have to be held at a higher standard as they have a fiduciary duty to society that most people don't have.

Maybe I don't realize how often they get away with it. I'm sure you have some sort of statistic to back up your claim.

The fact is that people get away with things everyday. Your initial statement was Cops get away with drinking & driving regularly. They're not going to charge each other.

She and many others have been charged so that makes half of your statement false. Unless you can provide some sort of proof that "Cops get away with drinking & driving regularly", I'll stick with my assessment that your statement is nothing more than a biased rant.

As for "If you truly believe that the police charge their fellow peers with a criminal offense every time they commit one", do you think that the average person is charged every time they commit a crime? If you meant "every time that they were caught" the same thing applies.

As to whether I believe they should be held to a higher standard or not: I don't expect cops to be perfect angels either, however the requirements and power afforded to some people by way of their job does sometimes require them to act in a certain fashion. Not only do the laws have to be fair, but they also have to appear to be fair. Having someone who is convicted of a serious offense in a position to police others, casts doubt on the fairness of the law.



The difference between your position and mine, I don't think all cops are crooked.

[Nikita]

Many other police? Do you realize how often they get away with drinking and driving?

Accepting this is to not be ignorant and instead be realistic. Maybe things are different in Newfoundland, I don't know. But I know for a fact that police officers get away with many things here. If you truly believe that the police charge their fellow peers with a criminal offence every time they commit one, to me that would be unintelligent.

You really can't compare an off duty police officer to a regular person who is off work. They have to be held at a higher standard as they have a fiduciary duty to society that most people don't have.

Gawd, must people use legal terms they so obviously don't understand and that simply have nothing to do with the topic? There is no 'fiduciary relationship' between cops and the public. Nor is what she did a 'breach of the public's trust', another term a few people have thrown around in this thread. She simply broke a law, just because she's a cop doesn't change a DUI into anything more serious than just that..a DUI...and certainly doesn't elevate it to the level of a 'fiduciary duty' or a 'breach of trust'. Would it really kill people to at least consult a legal dictionary or even google before they going throwing out legal terms that don't even come close to appyling to the situation being discussed? Hell, as much as I would never rely on wiki for anything, I'm sure even that site would have more accurate use of the language than what I'm reading here.

/rant

[Capt.]

–noun 1. Law. a person to whom property or power is entrusted for the benefit of another.

n. pl. fi·du·ci·ar·ies
One, such as an agent of a principal or a company director, that stands in a special relation of trust, confidence, or responsibility in certain obligations to others

Please tell me how fiduciary doesn't apply. Are police officers not people who are entrusted with power to benefit society? That sounds like exactly what they are to me.

Maybe I don't realize how often they get away with it. I'm sure you have some sort of statistic to back up your claim.

Do you know any police officers personally? Or are you just going off what you've read in the news? Let's just say I've got my stories direct from the source.

I never said all police are crooked. I said police officers get away with similar offences as this on a regular basis. If you refuse to believe this that's fine, but try not to be too naive about it.

[Psubs]

I am accused of driving 76 km / hr in a 50 zone for a $200+ fine. I'll probably be reduced to $50 with no points.

I met my friend that works at a courthouse and while filing paperwork, she asks to see who the officer (who was such a nice guy) was. She says it's her friend. We meet up later and she says that she joked with him about pulling over another one of her friends. He says, not again. :lol:

Anyways, he says that when (if) I get a courtdate, to talk to him the day of and he will say that he is not ready to proceed that day and my case should be dismissed. :twisted:

I was late for a Baptism and was driving over 50 km /hr, but seriously go put more forces on getting handguns out of this city.