OPP officer charged with falsifying traffic stops.

[mazdubb]

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_34954.aspx

The OPP have arrested and suspended one of their own, after an officer was accused of laying charges against three different drivers for speeding or violating the new street racing law based on false evidence.

One was accused of exceeding the posted limit, while the other two were alleged to have violated the province's street racing law and had their licences suspended and their cars temporarily seized. The OPP Professional Standards Bureau won't say how they came across the accusations but admits all charges against the trio have since been withdrawn.

Insp. Dave Ross won't say what the motive might have been.

The allegations make other stops Sgt. Dennis Mahoney-Bruer may have been involved with suspect as well and a review of all his past cases is underway. Ross tells CityNews.ca that could keep investigators busy for a while - as many as 200 provincial cases and 50 criminal cases are being given a second look.

The 49-year-old cop has been a member of the force for 12 years and is based in Port Credit. His primary patrol area is the QEW and Highway 403.

The accused has been suspended from duty with pay and will appear in a Brampton court on July 13th. He's charged with three counts of breach of trust and one of obstructing justice.

Commissioner Julian Fantino, often cited as a 'cop's cop,' is disappointed by the outcome but says it's vital the public knows he won't stand for anything untoward in the ranks.

"It was important for the OPP to initiate an immediate investigation and a comprehensive review, with the intent to bolster safeguards, to prevent similar situations in the future," he notes in a statement. "I believe that the public trust is a fundamental cornerstone of the OPP and policing."

If you think you were unfairly stopped by this officer and have a complaint to make, call (905) 278-6131.

This is the exact scenario that people such as myself feared the street racing law was going to allow.

Discuss.

[Sylvestre]

worst part is that by doing this the cop is giving the lawyers ammunition to overturn the law.

[fastlayne]

wort part is that by doing this the cop is giving the lawyers ammunition to overturn the law.

I assume you were trying to type "worst part is that ..." and I would say that I hope that this incident eventually, if not immediately, results in the overturning of the law and its current roadside penalties.

[help_questions]

at least they caught this one.

[mazdubb]

I was lurking on another forum and noticed that someone googled this officers name out of curiosity and came up with this:

http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/274514

Drivers stunned by new speeding law

'When did this happen?' asks driver of Ontario legislation that kicked in more than a month ago

November 08, 2007
MICHAEL OLIVEIRA
THE CANADIAN PRESS

When Jason Stainthorpe was caught speeding on his way to church last Sunday, he figured the worst he was facing was a hefty ticket and some heat from his fiancee for being late.

Instead, he wound up stranded by the side of the highway, desperately trying to figure out how to tell her he'd just lost his licence and her SUV for a week, faced a fine that could run into the thousands and might no longer be able to afford his auto insurance.

He didn't realize it at the time, but doing 50 over the speed limit – 150 km/h on a highway with a posted limit of 100 km/h – meant Stainthorpe had run afoul of a stringent new speeding law in Ontario, billed as a tough measure to combat street racing.

Stainthorpe joined the more than 1,300 drivers who have been nailed since the new law took effect on Sept. 30, all of whom were off the road for a week and faced the possibility of a staggering fine that ranges between $2,000 and $10,000.

The ranks of those caught under the new law are hardly the street-racing type: They run the gamut from teenaged girls to elderly men and just about every demographic in between.

The most common age of offenders has been 21, the average age is 30, and half the charges have been laid against drivers 26 and under. About 13 of the drivers were 65 or older, and 41 were 17 or younger. Almost 84 per cent were male and 16 per cent were female.

When police lobbied for the new law, they expected the province's most aggressive drivers would get caught and hopefully learn a lesson. They didn't anticipate the number of charges would be so high and represent every segment of the driving public.

Stainthorpe, a 33-year-old registered nurse, admitted he was speeding, but was furious that police wouldn't let him off with a warning since he had never heard of the new law.

"I certainly would not have been doing 50 over if I knew this was going to happen to me," he fumed as he waited for police to finish his paperwork on the side of Highway 403 in Mississauga.

"I have three kids, I have to go to work for a week and they just do not give a crap. They have no sympathy for people and it's unfair and they treat people like crap."

About an hour after a shell-shocked Stainthorpe tried to come to grips with his dilemma, police stopped another vehicle going 155 km/h on the same highway – this time a 34-year-old woman with three pre-teen kids in the car.

"Look, I was speeding," said the inconsolable woman, who declined to give her name, as she waited for a taxi.

"I expected a ticket, and then I was like, `Oh, crap.' I did not expect to have my car towed and have them leave my nephews and I no way to get home."

She told the officers on the scene she was driving a brand new car, and didn't feel her speed climbing until she heard the sirens behind her.

Ontario police Sgt. Dennis Mahoney-Bruer has heard that excuse too many times, and after hearing the same thing over and over – he's even watched grown men bawl their eyes out in front of him – his sympathy is wearing thin.

"A little indication (is) if you're going down the highway and you're passing everybody – hello, chances are you're speeding," Mahoney-Bruer said, before adding that some excuses do tug on his heart strings and make him pause before calling a tow truck.

"We're all human, we all have a certain amount of feelings . . . but we have that rule now and we're really sticking to it. We really want to get the message to the people out there that you're not going to talk your way out of this."

The relentless blitz on speeders – dubbed a "shock-and-awe" campaign by provincial police Commissioner Julian Fantino – is likely catching drivers by surprise because people often don't acknowledge that they act dangerously on the road, said Spencer McDonald, the founder of Thinking Driver, a road-safety program designed for people who drive for a living.

"Culturally we all have a higher opinion of our own driving than it actually is, thinking we're better than we really are," McDonald said.

"If you go speeding down the road you can say, `Well, I'm not a bad person, or I'm not an idiot, I'm just simply late for a meeting,' but when the guy speeds past you down the road, he's an idiot."

A forthcoming report from Transport Canada also finds that most drivers don't recognize their own bad habits, and the unfortunate power they have to kill with their car, said Paul Boase of the Canadian Association of Road Safety Professionals.

"For a very long time, speeding – while illegal – was not really treated as a problem," Boase said.

"When people thought about speed and risk, they thought about the risk of getting caught, but the real risk is hitting someone."

And because the new law is classified as a street-racing offence, Boase said many drivers don't believe they're being targeted by police and think they can continue to speed at will.

"There's definitely this perception that street racing is a real serious problem and we ought to hit those people hard, but drivers say, `That's not me, even if I'm doing 50 over that's not me because I'm not racing, I'm just trying to get home."'

There's no doubt some of the offenders are habitual speeders, but it's also likely that some of them were simply unlucky, and were caught using bad judgment that may not reflect their normal driving style, McDonald said.

"Most people are sane, responsible, law-abiding drivers, but they will – when placed under stressful or difficult circumstances – make inappropriate decisions and expose themselves to excessive risk."

While an average of 35 drivers continue to get nabbed every day – and that average has dipped only slightly since the law took effect – many have wised up and are now remaining just below the 150 km/h threshold, Mahoney-Bruer said.

"The last two night shifts when I went out exclusively looking for 50 km/h and above I had none," he said. "The highest speed I had was 48 over, so definitely the knowledge is getting out there."

Brian Lawrie, president of Pointts, which bills itself as Canada's original and most successful traffic court agency, said the new law may bring him more business, but he considers it a bad idea that could cost someone their job because of human error or an equipment malfunction.

"It sounds good to everybody that doing 50 over should be punished right on the spot, but where does the presumption of innocence go when you do that?" Lawrie said.

"When we finally find out that . . . the person is found not guilty, then who gives them their job back?"

Ontario's new transportation minister, Jim Bradley, said he has no qualms about the law and rejects the idea that most people don't know about it.

"I see signs on the highway about it, it's been in the newspaper, it's been on the radio, it's been on television," he said.

"I think people know. It's an excuse that people try to use, and it's never an excuse not to know what the law is."

[B0000rt]

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_34954.aspx

This is the exact scenario that people such as myself feared the street racing law was going to allow.

Discuss.

I bet the accused were driving Honda Civics and realized they can't ever go that fast :razz::razz:

[jedijome]

this is exactly the scenario that i was afraid of when this law came out. :S
thankfully they caught this guy and using him as an example they can overturn all the other cases.

this is a useless law that should never have been passed. give out a 5000 dollar ticket if you want for 50km/h over but someone that's accused should always have their day in court.

[sbobcat]

It is the system that design to screw every regular joe out there. they tie up the cops 's overtime with the tickets they issued, they don't care the citizens get screw by losining their time, paying the fine and facing the jump on their insurances next year. All these cops want is sitting the the court for 2 to 3 hour of their 150 dollar + overtime pay. Those cop has no shame to doing so. The city just want the money to spend them nonsensely like expand the Jarvis bike path to get them more tickets/income.

The police has the man powers sitting in the school zone at the sunday morning to the net someone just over 20km, but no cop want to partrol the jane/finch. No wonder why there isn't many co-operative/trust from the citizens when the police pulling the stunt like that.

vince

[m4gician]

wort part is that by doing this the cop is giving the lawyers ammunition to overturn the law.

it won't overturn the law, it may force policy makers to examine how defendants can defend themselves (giving us the right to speed again and deny deny deny later).

I hope they release HOW this was looked into, so it sets a precedent so in the event I do want to blatantly break the law, I can defend myself.

[Piro21]

I'm betting one or more of this guy's victims had a dashboard cam like cop cars have. The government deserves the trouble this will cause for removing the right to due process. It just sucks that the taxpayers will end up paying for the government's stupidity in the end when the peope wrongly accused get paid.

[Avatar]

The bad apple must be from here...

http://www.hobo-bonobo.co.uk/topten/images/080626132715.jpg

Time to install a video cam or something in your car to catch these guys. Heard so many of the stories these days.

[camber]

We told you so.:lol:

I think that comes to mind;)

It only took a 3 people complaining before someone in the OPP took the charges of falsifying evidence for HTA 172 serious. Makes you wonder how many other people this officer has wronged and how many other officers are doing the same thing and getting away with it. It would suck to be the one guy an officer decides to power trip out on in a year and falsifies evidence to get your car.

I mean.... They did get rid of the whole due process thing and gave all the power to the police with no oversight. Nothing bad comes from that:lol:

This is a prime example of why the power to effectively convict should not be placed in the hands of law enforcement officers.

[Kellster]

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_34954.aspx



This is the exact scenario that people such as myself feared the street racing law was going to allow.

Discuss.

Good on him!!! Now finish the job by CONVICTING him as well. Come on, Fantino, PROVE that everybody is treated equally under the law.

PROVE that just because one of your little Nazi cops says something, it doesn't always mean that it's true.

[Jucius Maximus]

worst part is that by doing this the cop is giving the lawyers ammunition to overturn the law.

I think this is the best part of it. As the OP mentioned, the real problem is that some cops will abuse the law.

I think that police are like everyone else. Some are good, many are average, some are bad.

[Buggy166]

getting your car impounded for 7 days and leaving someone stranded is the most ******** thing about this law. 50 over is big issue on normal streets. 50 over on a highway? not so much when 70% of traffic goes at 120+.

They should leave the law intact (minus the impounding) for regular streets (no one needs to do 100 in a 50 zone) and up it at 70km over for the highway or abolish it completely. left lane drivers constantly move at 135-145 to pass slower cars in the middle lane that drive too slow and also block traffic if driving paralel with the right lane cars at the same speed (80-100)

[Quiggie]

GPS data can be used to fight traffic tickets, if you have logs that show your speed was different than the officer claims at the time he clocked you.

[Shaner]

Good on him!!! Now finish the job by CONVICTING him as well. Come on, Fantino, PROVE that everybody is treated equally under the law.

PROVE that just because one of your little Nazi cops says something, it doesn't always mean that it's true.

He's already been charged, what more do you want Fantino to do? It's now in the hands of the courts. Fantino isn't the judge and juror.

[jedijome]

Funny that he gets a day in court while all the people he gave tickets to didn't.

[camber]

Fantino isn't the judge and juror.

Well, it's not like Fantino isn't trying:lol:

HTA 172 and its police powers is something that Fantino wanted. Now that this power is being abused your barely hearing a peep out of him.

[zero_]

...suspended from duty with pay...

A free paid vacation for this poor officer.

[Kellster]

He's already been charged, what more do you want Fantino to do? It's now in the hands of the courts. Fantino isn't the judge and juror.

Charging is one thing...convicting is another. Fantino has in the past allowed things to be swept under the carpet when it comes to his cops (multiple DIU's for one female OPP officer with little on no consequence...just a slap on the wrist and back to work comes to mind). If he has any integrity at all, he will not stand in the way of this crooked cop actually being CONVICTED of the crimes for which he was charged.

Personally, I hope they make an example of this cop, like they do with any other citizen.

And by the way, it is pronounced "jury", not "juror".

[camber]

Charging is one thing...convicting is another. Fantino has in the past allowed things to be swept under the carpet when it comes to his cops (multiple DIU's for one female OPP officer with little on no consequence...just a slap on the wrist and back to work comes to mind). If he has any integrity at all, he will not stand in the way of this crooked cop actually being CONVICTED of the crimes for which he was charged.

Personally, I hope they make an example of this cop, like they do with any other citizen.

And by the way, it is pronounced "jury", not "juror".

I doubt that will happen.

Look at Fantino's own legal issues. He even trying to wriggle out of his responsibility/legal repercussions after hand picking the judge in a disciplinary hearing.


Anyways, the real question is how prevalent is falsifying evidence for HTA 172 charges?


With no oversight in these HTA 172 charges, hundreds and maybe thousands of people. could have faced an irreversible penalty handed out by a front line officer that had no grounds.

[Kellster]

I doubt that will happen.

Look at Fantino's own legal issues. He even trying to wriggle out of his responsibility/legal repercussions after hand picking the judge in a disciplinary hearing.


Anyways, the real question is how prevalent is falsifying evidence for HTA 172 charges?


With no oversight in these HTA 172 charges, hundreds and maybe thousands of people. could have faced an irreversible penalty handed out by a front line officer that had no grounds.

That's exactly my point. The OPP is crooked from the top down, and they know it...we ALL know it. They have little or no regard for the citizens they claim to serve. The only people they have any interest in serving are themselves. Time to go Fantino.

[m4gician]

GPS data can be used to fight traffic tickets, if you have logs that show your speed was different than the officer claims at the time he clocked you.

please provide information as how to request this?

[urameatball]

A free paid vacation for this poor officer.

Well, it's not fair for the officer to be punished for 'allegedly' doing something wrong. What if he really was innocent and it was the investigator who made a mistake.

Just like how it's not fair for a driver to be punished for 'allegedly' going 50+over the limit.... oh wait.... cops don't make mistakes.



either way, it's sad that even though the charges were reversed for the 3 drivers, they've already lost their license, lost their car, and paid some hefty fee to recover their car, and had their insurance premiums skyrocket because they had their license suspended.

[circumventer]

I think this pig needs to be hit hard, infact all cops that violate the own laws they are ment to uphold should be hit hard.

They get great pension/benefits and i understand that there job entails a certain amount of risk but it should also come with severe penalties if you abuse the many more freedoms they get.

Have you ever seen a cop flash his lights to go though a red light and just to ease his way into a tim hortins, cuz i have.

---

also garbagemen should stop going on strike, and just stfu and pick up the trash.

[camber]

Looks like the accused had a Facebook page that was searchable until early this morning. Looks like he took it down sometime Saturday.

[unleashed]

Funny that he gets a day in court while all the people he gave tickets to didn't.

lol so true.

[camber]

A little odd how information on this story was released late Friday. It's like they almost want this one swept under the rug.

Toronto Star picked this story up late. Also, omitted the fact that this was over HTA 172 charges.

Officer accused of falsely charging drivers

May 30, 2009 10:57 PM
Adrian Morrow
staff Reporter

The Ontario Provincial Police is launching a review of traffic stops and some criminal cases after a sergeant was accused of falsely charging three drivers with speeding in the past month.

The officer, who worked out of the OPP's Port Credit detachment, allegedly used false evidence to lay the charges.

Prosecutors and the OPP will be looking into his past cases to see if any of the others are suspect. So far, they haven't decided exactly how many cases they'll examine, or how far back the review will go.

The officer has been with the OPP for 12 years.

The OPP hasn't said what led them to investigate the officer in the first place, or what his alleged motive was.

However, they have said that they launched an investigation as soon as their Professional Standards Bureau was told his traffic stops were suspicious.

"Although I am very disappointed by this outcome, it was important for the OPP to initiate an immediate investigation and a comprehensive review, with the intent to bolster safeguards to prevent similar situations in the future," OPP commissioner Julian Fantino wrote in a statement. "I believe that the public trust is a fundamental cornerstone of the OPP and policing."

Sgt. Dennis Mahoney-Bruer, 49, is charged with three counts of breach of trust and one count of attempting to obstruct justice. He has been suspended from duty.

When contacted by the Star at a Burlington address this evening, Mahoney-Bruer declined to say anything and would not indicate whether he would fight the charges.

"I've got no comment, thank you," he said before hanging up the phone.

Traffic officers also declined to comment. The spokesperson for the case did not return calls, and the police's central media office was closed.

"We've been told to refer all the calls to them, and they don't work weekends," said Sgt. Dave Woodford of the Highway Safety Division.

Anyone who has dealt with Mahoney-Bruer and believes the charges might have been false or improperly laid is asked to call Staff Sgt. Jack Hunjan at 905-278-6131. Anyone with any other information on the case can contact the OPP's Professional Standards Bureau at 705-329-6051.


http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/643161

[Kellster]

A little odd how information on this story was released late Friday. It's like they almost want this one swept under the rug.

Toronto Star picked this story up late. Also, omitted the fact that this was over HTA 172 charges.



http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/643161

And I'm criticized by the die hard cop lovers and supporters (no matter what they do) for daring to suggest (the truth) that Fantino wants to sweep it under the rug as per usual. So much for honesty and integrity in the OPP. Time to get rid of this idiot.

[camber]

A facebook picture of this OPP Sgt. can be found here


http://downwithmcguinty.blogspot.com/

It's under the Fantino Cartoon.

I don't know this guy looks legit:lol:

[Ebola]

I see the lefties have found their latest pariah.

[camber]

I see the lefties have found their latest pariah.

Who are the lefties?

Property rights, limiting police and goverment powers are conservative ideals. In fact the few people that opposed HTA 172 were conservative mpp.

[goddess]

infact all cops that violate the own laws they are ment to uphold should be hit hard.


i totally agree with this, 100%

[Avatar]

The best solution is to install a camera in each of the cop's car like they've done in the south. Why we don't do this?

[Dixon007]

i don;t know why people are so upset, aren;t you glad they got him ? Understand that there is corruption in every type of business or work place, policing is no different, just more serious as it can ruin your life or career. OPP has been stepping up when it comes to charging their own for breaking the law. as for the idea of in car camera, that is already in the works for some police services such as toronto police ,pilot project is what it was called. they had alot of hardware and software problems when it first was tested in 2006 but now all TSV vehiciles have it and the officer has to or suppose to tell you ur being recorded and you can access the information later if you want under the freedom of information act.

[spf1971]

Funny that he gets a day in court while all the people he gave tickets to didn't.

lol so true.

Because nobody on here has ever taken a ticket to court!! :mad:

[camber]

i don;t know why people are so upset, aren;t you glad they got him ? Understand that there is corruption in every type of business or work place, policing is no different, just more serious as it can ruin your life or career.

Well, under the old laws this would have been a non issue. When you make a new law that circumvents an important legal ideals and the police abuse this power. Why wouldn't you expect people to be upset?


OPP has been stepping up when it comes to charging their own for breaking the law.

Maybe they have and maybe they have not.

It took 3 people to come forward from charges in one month to expose this officer. How many other officers are praticing the same behaviour but in a more infrequent or less frequent manner?

We don't know what's going on because HTA 172 took away the check and balances that kept police in line when it came to traffic stops.

[mazdubb]

Because nobody on here has ever taken a ticket to court!! :mad:

They're referring to the roadside suspension and car impounding that a citizen has no way of fighting.

[camber]

Because nobody on here has ever taken a ticket to court!! :mad:

So, you support this officer just plead guilty to his charges and quit the police force?

I mean that is what you tell everyone on here that tries to take a ticket to court:lol:

Imagine how much tax money could be saved, if this officer did the honorable thing and quit and plead guilty.

From your previous comments that is something you can stand behind:lol:

[circumventer]

He should be taken to the gallows, made an example of.

[Kellster]

He should be taken to the gallows, made an example of.

He should be tarred and feathered!!! Fry him!!! :lol:

[circumventer]

He should be tarred and feathered!!! Fry him!!! :lol:

see the difference between me and Kellster is that i'm not joking.

[Nikita]

worst part is that by doing this the cop is giving the lawyers ammunition to overturn the law.

Umm, no, that's the best part...;)

Funny that he gets a day in court while all the people he gave tickets to didn't.

Because nobody on here has ever taken a ticket to court!! :mad:

Not a s.172 ticket! Not allowed to, remember?

So, you support this officer just plead guilty to his charges and quit the police force?

I mean that is what you tell everyone on here that tries to take a ticket to court:lol:

Imagine how much tax money could be saved, if this officer did the honorable thing and quit and plead guilty.

From your previous comments that is something you can stand behind:lol:

Wow, how the tables have turned...lol!

[Piro21]

i don;t know why people are so upset, aren;t you glad they got him ? Understand that there is corruption in every type of business or work place, policing is no different, just more serious as it can ruin your life or career.

He's been suspended with pay, he still has a job, and he gets a day in court. He deliberately lied and illegally confiscated the cars of at least 3 innocent people, which could cost them their jobs. He did it by abusing a stupidly made law that allowed his victims no recourse or defense of any kind against his actions. This is police privilege and unequal treatment at it's best. He should be fired for unprofessional conduct, arrested for perjury (since he was appointed the powers of a judge in the case of HTA 172) and abuse of the law, and have to pay damages to his victims in civil court. Unfortunately, none of these things are happening and the lying scumbag will likely get off with a slap on the wrist once the story is off the headlines.

[Kellster]

He's been suspended with pay, he still has a job, and he gets a day in court. He deliberately lied and illegally confiscated the cars of at least 3 innocent people, which could cost them their jobs. He did it by abusing a stupidly made law that allowed his victims no recourse or defense of any kind against his actions. This is police privilege and unequal treatment at it's best. He should be fired for unprofessional conduct, arrested for perjury (since he was appointed the powers of a judge in the case of HTA 172) and abuse of the law, and have to pay damages to his victims in civil court. Unfortunately, none of these things are happening and the lying scumbag will likely get off with a slap on the wrist once the story is off the headlines.


+++++ I could not have said it any better myself.

This case only proves that it was wrong from every angle to enact this so-called "stunt driving" law the way that it was. Crooked cops have too easy a time of of manipulating and abusing it. YES Fantino was wrong. He was only interested in the money, not the consequences.

Unfortuantely it doesn't matter what you say to all the cops or cop lovers and supporters out there. They may feel it will get them somewhere with the cops or will help them to get a job as a cop some day, but they can't lie to themselves.

The rest of us know that what you say is true. :|

[Kellster]

see the difference between me and Kellster is that i'm not joking.

Who said I was joking?

[Shaner]

He's been suspended with pay, he still has a job, and he gets a day in court. He deliberately lied and illegally confiscated the cars of at least 3 innocent people, which could cost them their jobs. He did it by abusing a stupidly made law that allowed his victims no recourse or defense of any kind against his actions. This is police privilege and unequal treatment at it's best. He should be fired for unprofessional conduct, arrested for perjury (since he was appointed the powers of a judge in the case of HTA 172) and abuse of the law, and have to pay damages to his victims in civil court. Unfortunately, none of these things are happening and the lying scumbag will likely get off with a slap on the wrist once the story is off the headlines.

Perjury because you think he was provided with judge powers at the side of the road?!? That's ridiculous. Look up the charge of perjury, it doesn't include what you're describing. As for civil court, that's up to the people he charged. The OPP can't take civil action against him on behalf of the people he charged.

[circumventer]

Who said I was joking?

!!!!

Nvm

[spf1971]

Not a s.172 ticket! Not allowed to, remember?





Really? So once a ticket is issued it's an automatic guilty finding? I Highly doubt that. There is the roadside suspension prior to court, but of course the officer in question has been suspended as well prior to court. It's almost the same isn't it?

[spf1971]

So, you support this officer just plead guilty to his charges and quit the police force?

I mean that is what you tell everyone on here that tries to take a ticket to court:lol:

Imagine how much tax money could be saved, if this officer did the honorable thing and quit and plead guilty.

From your previous comments that is something you can stand behind:lol:

Actually my disdain is for the people who fight the tickets with no defense. There are people who openly admit to commiting the infraction that they were ticketed for and fight them just to tie up court time.

Should you convince everyone on here to simply accept their own personal responsibility and pay for their deserved tickets, I will support your demand for this officers immediate dismissal (upon finding of guilt).

[camber]

Really? So once a ticket is issued it's an automatic guilty finding? I Highly doubt that. There is the roadside suspension prior to court, but of course the officer in question has been suspended as well prior to court. It's almost the same isn't it?

Nope... Has the officer lost any money yet(impoundment and towing fees), ability to travel by car(or drive any vehicle on a road way) for a week and hasn't had to pay for alternative transportation?

Also, for many of the people this officer has erroneously charged, they might not have alternative transportation or need a clean driving record to keep their jobs.

[circumventer]

Nope... Has the officer lost any money yet or ability to travel by car for a week?

Infact you could call his suspension a paid vacation.

[camber]

Actually my disdain is for the people who fight the tickets with no defense. There are people who openly admit to commiting the infraction that they were ticketed for and fight them just to tie up court time.

What about these times?

http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=632510

http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=651966

http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=650119

http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=692803

http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=696825

etc... a lot etc....

In the above cases no one admitted to guilt and were only looking for help but you still showed your "disdain".

Should you convince everyone on here to simply accept their own personal responsibility and pay for their deserved tickets, I will support your demand for this officers immediate dismissal (upon finding of guilt).

I'll do that when you actual try to help someone instead of condemming them. Just because a person can't articulate a defense on the internet, doesn't mean in reality they're actual guilty or can't get help.

[Piro21]

Perjury because you think he was provided with judge powers at the side of the road?!? That's ridiculous. Look up the charge of perjury, it doesn't include what you're describing. As for civil court, that's up to the people he charged. The OPP can't take civil action against him on behalf of the people he charged.

It may not be because he had judicial powers at the side of the road, but he's still guilty of it. Here's the criminal code definition:

(E)very one commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes before a person who is authorized by law to permit it to be made before him a false statement under oath or solemn affirmation, by affidavit, solemn declaration or deposition or orally, knowing that the statement is false

He lied about how fast they were going and kept up the lie so the people he charged would get punished under HTA 172. Still perjury.

[dasaylay]

I'm actually more interested in the investigation, and the frequency of him calling a specific company to do his towing. A friend of mine was pulled over for 50 over, and when he went to get his car out, it cost him $800 CASH.

If this cop is always approaching one, two, or even three specific towing/impound companies and they all demand cash, then something is definitely up. OPP and Peel police each have contracts with specific companies to do their towing. (source: OPP)

[Justice_Chris]

The accused has been suspended from duty with pay

It's not enough all the stress and problems he has caused for so many people, he is being suspended with PAY. He is gettingan extended paid vacation with the taxpayers' money, the same taxpayers that he was trying to screw???

I still don't understand where a lot of cops find the satisfaction to screw people over with tickets just to make their lives difficult. Bitter bitter people who don't deserve much from life, much less a uniform.

[bembol]

I'm sure he will get off with a slap on the wrist.

This suspension with pay, vexes me so much!

I try not to pay attention to Politics, Cops because they can pretty much do whatever they want.

[ShadowVlican]

I'm actually more interested in the investigation, and the frequency of him calling a specific company to do his towing. A friend of mine was pulled over for 50 over, and when he went to get his car out, it cost him $800 CASH.

If this cop is always approaching one, two, or even three specific towing/impound companies and they all demand cash, then something is definitely up. OPP and Peel police each have contracts with specific companies to do their towing. (source: OPP)
now THIS is interesting...

[Kellster]

It's not enough all the stress and problems he has caused for so many people, he is being suspended with PAY. He is gettingan extended paid vacation with the taxpayers' money, the same taxpayers that he was trying to screw???

I still don't understand where a lot of cops find the satisfaction to screw people over with tickets just to make their lives difficult. Bitter bitter people who don't deserve much from life, much less a uniform.


If you know the typical type who become cops or aspire to become cops, it makes sense. Control freaks with ego problems and deep seated psychological issues. Many are introverts who just get off on others' misfortunes. I say "many" but not all. I am sure there are some will good intentions but if you ask any of them who are willing to be honest, they will tell you that a disproportionate number of them have issues. I have heard this from many other professionals who deal with them daily: fire fighters and ambulance attendants.

[Nikita]

Really? So once a ticket is issued it's an automatic guilty finding? I Highly doubt that. There is the roadside suspension prior to court, but of course the officer in question has been suspended as well prior to court. It's almost the same isn't it?

Once a ticket is issued, it's an automatic penalty, without a guilty finding. So, no, it's not the same at all! This cop will first have his day in court, his opportunity to defend his charges, a chance to be found not guilty, and therefore a possibility of no penalty, in other words he'll get due process. Which is a whole helluva lot more than his victims got. He's suspended with pay (iow a paid vacation, how can I get that??)...you think that's a penalty?? No not the same AT ALL!

[superdeals]

A free paid vacation for this poor officer.

So sad! 'Poor officer' should atleast given a tazer to carry, which he can use on 'fast pedestrians'. It's in his nature!!:evil:

[spf1971]

What about these times?

1. http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=632510

2. http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=651966

3. http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=650119

4. http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=692803

5. http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=696825

etc... a lot etc....

In the above cases no one admitted to guilt and were only looking for help but you still showed your "disdain".



I'll do that when you actual try to help someone instead of condemming them. Just because a person can't articulate a defense on the internet, doesn't mean in reality they're actual guilty or can't get help.

Let's discuss these.

1. I plead guilty. I was indeed speeding because I was late for an appointment and I really regret it. Would there be any chance that my fines will be lessened?

If there is a possibility, what would be the most legit excuse?

.

Clear admission of guilt.

2. The way I had read it was that the Op was admitting to lying to back up his friend. Having reread it, it's possible the OP meant the police officer was accusing him of lying to back up his friend.

No disdain, just a miscommunication based on the way the statement was written.

3. I hope you have something to back up your statement because telling someone to "ignore it and it will go away" is pretty bad advice.

How you equate this with disdain is beyond me.

4. NOOOO. A handicap permit doesn't allow you to park anywhere, it just allows you to park in a handicap spot. If the parking spot was designated "permit only" and you don't have a permit to park there, unfortunately the ticket is justified.

Having read that it is a bit more complicated. If it's a city issued permit only parking then yes he could park there. If it's a private issued permit only parking then no he wouldn't be allowed to park there.

Again, how you equate this with disdain is beyond me. You could have found much better examples, times where I was actually critical of people. These last two examples are really watering down your claim.

5. Definate disdain in this one; but reinforces the reason for my admitted disdain by
I always fight each and every ticket i get (and will continue to do so whether am at fault or not)



Secondly, if u took the time to read my original post, u will see that i never said i was not guilty (especially on the issue of not having my insurance with me, I actually have 2 GSs and mistakenly had the insurance for the other car in the one i was driving)........all i am asking is how to get the tickets withdrawn or dismissed.





All in all, your posts either showed examples where I exhibited no disdain for the OP's or exhibited disdain for the exact reasons I claimed. If you look harder you can find examples where I ripped into someone without an actual admission of guilt.

[spf1971]

Once a ticket is issued, it's an automatic penalty, without a guilty finding. So, no, it's not the same at all! This cop will first have his day in court, his opportunity to defend his charges, a chance to be found not guilty, and therefore a possibility of no penalty, in other words he'll get due process. Which is a whole helluva lot more than his victims got. He's suspended with pay (iow a paid vacation, how can I get that??)...you think that's a penalty?? No not the same AT ALL!

First off, the cop is not on a paid vacation, he is on a suspension. Irregardless of any finding at court, he is and will always be "the cop who falsified tickets"; whether you disagree or not, he is being punished.

As far as due process, as you have always stated, not guilty until a court finds you guilty. Upon a trial, the person stopped for a traffic offense will either be found guilty or not guilty. If found guilty, there will be fines and a conviction. None of these things have happened to anyone stopped in this case as of yet, so they will still receive their due process.

You have always seemed to be fair minded, why start pandering to the mob mentality now?

[camber]

Let's discuss these.[QUOTE=spf1971;8839092]

Yes, Let's...


[QUOTE=spf1971;8839092]1.

Clear admission of guilt.[QUOTE=spf1971;8839092]


Original post unedited

[QUOTE=don_lee103]Long story short, I was on my way to UBC and apparently I was going at 123km/hr on the 80km zone.

I did not *feel that I was going at even over 120 but I did according to what my cop said.Despite that this is my first ticket, I politely asked him for a lesser fine but he did not budge and fined me the full amount --$363.

Should I dispute this? I plead guilty. I was indeed speeding because I was late for an appointment and I really regret it. Would there be any chance that my fines will be lessened?

If there is a possibility, what would be the most legit excuse?

Also, I would like to know if this ticket is going to affect my insurance.

1.

In this instance the OP said they believed they were speeding but not at the speed the officer said they caught them at. However, instead of trying to help this person you told them to just pay the ticket.

Do we even know the speed the officer clocked the OP at was their correct speed?

No but you want the OP to pay a ticket that might not be accurate.

2.

No disdain, just a miscommunication based on the way the statement was written.

2.

A miscommunication only you misunderstood. After you claimed the OP was lying you never apologized or offered any help.

3.

How you equate this with disdain is beyond me.

3.

The third one is my mistake. Another post should have went in there. You've got a lot these types of post:cheesygri



4.



Again, how you equate this with disdain is beyond me. You could have found much better examples, times where I was actually critical of people. These last two examples are really watering down your claim.

4.

It's perfect example.

You did not understand the situation and you intial reaction was to jump down the OP's throat.

Would you like me to remind you?

NOOOO. A handicap permit doesn't allow you to park anywhere, it just allows you to park in a handicap spot. If the parking spot was designated "permit only" and you don't have a permit to park there, unfortunately the ticket is justified.

but as in the link(note by camber a link that was available in OP first post:D*) he showed us:

disabled person parking permit is exempt from:
signed on-street permit parking areas. Vehicles displaying a valid parking permit are permitted to park without a designated on-street parking permit

So seems like the disable parking permit does override to park there


Having read that it is a bit more complicated. If it's a city issued permit only parking then yes he could park there. If it's a private issued permit only parking then no he wouldn't be allowed to park there.

It's almost like the second example. You come into a thread, don't read what's there, accuse someone of being guilty, someone corrects you, you never apolize or offer any semblance of help when you realize your guilty accusation was wrong.

5. Definate disdain in this one; but reinforces the reason for my admitted disdain by


All in all, your posts either showed examples where I exhibited no disdain for the OP's or exhibited disdain for the exact reasons I claimed. If you look harder you can find examples where I ripped into someone without an actual admission of guilt.

5.

Actually...

All in all, your defence of your posts here, is a perfect example of your problem. You aren't reading the threads and you like to claim that people are guilty before understanding the situation.

I'm not going to wade through all of your posts to paint you in a negative light but thanks for admitting it anyways.

If you look harder you can find examples where I ripped into someone without an actual admission of guilt.


This gets back to your original post in this thread.

You get angry for people fighting tickets, rip into them without them admitting to guilt and freely admit it. What about this situation?

Aren't you going to rip into the police officer?

Aren't you angry he hasn't admitted fault. Three different people, on three separate occasions in a month were found to have falsified evidence used against about according to the OPP. That's usually way more information then you normally have before you start using the guilty brush.

[mazdubb]

First off, the cop is not on a paid vacation, he is on a suspension. Irregardless of any finding at court, he is and will always be "the cop who falsified tickets"; whether you disagree or not, he is being punished.

As far as due process, as you have always stated, not guilty until a court finds you guilty. Upon a trial, the person stopped for a traffic offense will either be found guilty or not guilty. If found guilty, there will be fines and a conviction. None of these things have happened to anyone stopped in this case as of yet, so they will still receive their due process.

You have always seemed to be fair minded, why start pandering to the mob mentality now?

I like how you completely ignore the fact that this cop could have cost these people their livelihoods. Whether your twisted mind believes it or not, a roadside suspension and car impound IS a punishment.

Sure you can argue that the officers paid suspension is a punishment of sorts. However that argument would be ridiculous. He's being paid in full while the case works its way through the courts. The people he and others may have charged under HTA 172 may have just lost their jobs as a result of losing their license and vehicle for a week.

Pull your head out of the sand.

[Kellster]

I like how you completely ignore the fact that this cop could have cost these people their livelihoods. Whether your twisted mind believes it or not, a roadside suspension and car impound IS a punishment.

Sure you can argue that the officers paid suspension is a punishment of sorts. However that argument would be ridiculous. He's being paid in full while the case works its way through the courts. The people he and others may have charged under HTA 172 may have just lost their jobs as a result of losing their license and vehicle for a week.

Pull your head out of the sand.

Very well said! I might add that I wish some of these posters would just stop sucking up to the cops...it wont get them anything.

[camber]

Someone close to the situation has said that there is more then one officer involved and it was scheme that a group of officers and a towing company set up to make money.

In some instances, the people were never officially charged but had their cars towed and the police gave them the impression it was a HTA 172 charge. The police then implied they could go to their impound lot and pay cash to get their cars back and get out of the charge.

Sgt. Dennis Mahoney-Bruer, was the contact between the group of police officers and several towing companies.

Hopefully, this information comes out from an official source in the next few weeks.

[Shaner]

Someone close to the situation has said that there is more then one officer involved and it was scheme that a group of officers and a towing company set up to make money.

In some instances, the people were never officially charged but had their cars towed and the police gave them the impression it was a HTA 172 charge. The police then implied they could go to their impound lot and pay cash to get their cars back and get out of the charge.

Sgt. Dennis Mahoney-Bruer, was the contact between the group of police officers and several towing companies.

Hopefully, this information comes out from an official source in the next few weeks.

Yeah hopefully it does, because until that happens, I don't believe your inside information. It seems anytime there's a story somebody pops up who has "inside information."

[camber]

Yeah hopefully it does, because until that happens, I don't believe your inside information. It seems anytime there's a story somebody pops up who has "inside information."


I wouldn't expect you too.

It certainly doesn't match up with what the officer has been charged with. However, from the press release and how the OPP has handle media inquiries, it seems that this case seem is more complicated then what is officially being told.

Being that OPP isn't commenting about this case and has given few details, maybe having rumors run rampant will get them to be more forthcoming?

[Kellster]

Yeah hopefully it does, because until that happens, I don't believe your inside information. It seems anytime there's a story somebody pops up who has "inside information."

Ever hear of the saying "Where there's smoke, there's fire"? Newsflash: it applies to cops too.

This case only kills it for anybody who ever supported the rediculous "stunt driving" cash grab law and how it allows cops to be both judge and jury at the side of the road. It has only served to show the flaw of such a foolish set up and prove that it can and will be manipulted by crooked cops on the take from greedy towing companies.

I sincerely hope this is what brings this so-called law (and Fantino) down.

[Nikita]

First off, the cop is not on a paid vacation, he is on a suspension. Irregardless of any finding at court, he is and will always be "the cop who falsified tickets"; whether you disagree or not, he is being punished.

As far as due process, as you have always stated, not guilty until a court finds you guilty. Upon a trial, the person stopped for a traffic offense will either be found guilty or not guilty. If found guilty, there will be fines and a conviction. None of these things have happened to anyone stopped in this case as of yet, so they will still receive their due process.

A fine and conviction has not been had in these cases you're correct on that. However, they have been punished without due process, unlike this officer, which you'd know if you'd read the article:

One was accused of exceeding the posted limit, while the other two were alleged to have violated the province's street racing law and had their licences suspended and their cars temporarily seized.

To use your words "Irregardless of any finding at court..." (like perhaps, an acquittal?) they can't get that penalty retracted. And to again use your words "whether you disagree or not, [they have already been] punished".

You have always seemed to be fair minded, why start pandering to the mob mentality now?

And as you know, I've always been against the lack of due process in this legislation, for reasons of my own. When do you propose I started 'pandering to the mob mentality'? Good try, but every post about this law that I've made has been consistent and independant....i.e. a result of my own knowledge, experience and thought processes, nobody else's.


I like how you completely ignore the fact that this cop could have cost these people their livelihoods. Whether your twisted mind believes it or not, a roadside suspension and car impound IS a punishment.
Sure you can argue that the officers paid suspension is a punishment of sorts. However that argument would be ridiculous. He's being paid in full while the case works its way through the courts. The people he and others may have charged under HTA 172 may have just lost their jobs as a result of losing their license and vehicle for a week.

Pull your head out of the sand.

+1

[camber]

OPP asks tow-truck firms: Did you pay off policeman?

Kenyon Wallace
Staff Reporter

The OPP is investigating whether a senior officer at the force's Port Credit detachment received kickbacks from tow-truck drivers after motorists had their vehicles impounded, according to towing companies interviewed by police.

Sgt. Dennis Mahoney-Bruer, 49, was arrested and charged last week with three counts of breach of trust and one count of attempting to obstruct justice after an investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police Professional Standards Bureau.

The OPP says Mahoney-Bruer, a 12-year member of the force, allegedly used false evidence to lay charges last month against three drivers, two of whom had their cars impounded.

He has not been charged with accepting kickbacks. However, owners and managers of Mississauga towing companies say OPP detectives have been asking them if they had ever paid Mahoney-Bruer to use their services or heard about Mahoney-Bruer allegedly receiving kickbacks from other towing companies.

The officer has been suspended from duty with pay.

Mahoney-Bruer's lawyer, Harry Black, declined to comment to the Star about the case. Several phone calls to Mahoney-Bruer's Burlington home were not returned. Attempts to speak to Mahoney-Bruer in person at his home were unsuccessful.

The charges against Mahoney-Bruer stem from three incidents in May in which one driver was charged with speeding and two drivers were charged with "stunt" driving – travelling 50 kilometres an hour over the speed limit.

Under the Highway Traffic Act, motorists caught travelling 50 kilometres over the speed limit face a mandatory seven-day licence suspension and roadside vehicle seizure, in addition to fines between $2,000 and $10,000. Add to that the cost of towing and storage, and a potential increase to insurance rates.

Introduced in October 2007, the law was hailed by OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino as a tough measure to combat dangerous driving.

Critics say the legislation gives police too much power, allowing them to find drivers guilty before they have a chance to fight the charge in court.

In court documents, Mahoney-Bruer has been told not to communicate with six people, including Mark Bell and Doug Polus.

Bell owns Atlantic Towing and Polus runs Elite Towing, both in Mississauga.

When contacted yesterday, Bell said he didn't know why his name was on the court documents, but suggested it was because he owns "one of the biggest towing companies in Mississauga."

He said he had been interviewed by police, but was not asked about whether money changed hands.

"They asked me how many tows I did for that guy (Mahoney-Bruer) in a certain amount of time," Bell said. "But let me just make something very clear to you. All of it's rumour and there's no facts. I know nothing about it and it doesn't involve our company."

Polus said he has "no clue" why his name appears in Mahoney-Bruer's court documents, and said he had not been interviewed by police.

Other tow truck companies in Mississauga say they too were visited by detectives prior to the charges being laid against Mahoney-Bruer.

"Investigators came to my shop from the OPP asking about him (Mahoney-Bruer)," said Joe Mghraye, owner of Affordable Towing. "They asked me if I ever gave Mahoney cash. It never happened. They asked me, `Have you ever seen other companies doing that?' I said no."

Lisa Goncalves, a manager at Abrams Towing Services, said OPP detectives interviewed her last week and asked her if the company had ever paid money to Mahoney-Bruer for using the company's towing services. She said no.

According to the OPP, Mahoney-Bruer's full name is Leslie Dennis Mahoney-Bruer.

A Toronto Police Service spokesperson said yesterday that Leslie Mahoney-Bruer worked for the force as a traffic services officer but resigned in October 1997.

OPP spokesperson Insp. Dave Ross said police are working with the Crown to withdraw charges laid against the three drivers by Mahoney-Bruer.

Ross said the force is also reviewing other charges where Mahoney-Bruer was involved as an investigator, but "we haven't yet determined the scope of that review."

In a statement released last week, Fantino said he was "very disappointed" by the outcome of the OPP Professional Standards Bureau investigation.

"It was important for the OPP to initiate an immediate investigation and a comprehensive review, with the intent to bolster safeguards, to prevent similar situations in the future," Fantino said. "I believe that the public trust is a fundamental cornerstone of the OPP and policing."

Mahoney-Bruer will appear in a Brampton court on July 13.


http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/645345

[camber]

I'd just like to say the problem isn't the police or the tow truck companies. People that actually understood this law, accurately predicted that something like this would happen. This current problem is exact reason why we had due process. If had had due process, the tow truck companies and police wouldn't be able to abuse the law so easily and in a hard to detect manner.

When you create an obvious route for exploitation, someone will exploit them.

Now we're going to have an expensive witch hunt on police officers and tow truck companies. All this funded by tax payer's.

Great!

[jedijome]

I'd just like to say the problem isn't the police or the tow truck companies. People that actually understood this law, accurately predicted that something like this would happen. This current problem is exact reason why we had due process. If had had due process, the tow truck companies and police wouldn't be able to abuse the law so easily and in a hard to detect manner.

When you create an obvious route for exploitation, someone will exploit them.

Now we're going to have an expensive witch hunt on police officers and tow truck companies. All this funded by tax payer's.

Great!

i certainly didn't predict something this ridiculous occurring when i voiced my opposition to this law earlier but this is playing out to be worse than i thought.

hta 172 needs to be struck down and they need to go back to the way it was before.

they also need to get rid of mcguinty, after this fiasco and the new HST it's more clear than ever in my mind that he's not fit to govern.

[fastlayne]

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/645345

As per the article,

"Investigators came to my shop from the OPP asking about him (Mahoney-Bruer)," said Joe Mghraye, owner of Affordable Towing. "They asked me if I ever gave Mahoney cash. It never happened. They asked me, `Have you ever seen other companies doing that?' I said no."



This certainly satisfies me. These are obviously crack investigators. I have no doubt that the OPP are completely unbiased and are the appropriate bureau to perform this investigation.

The clincher, certainly, was when they were told that no other companies had been seen giving money to Mahoney-Bruer. Cased closed!

[Justice_Chris]

This certainly satisfies me. These are obviously crack investigators. I have no doubt that the OPP are completely unbiased and are the appropriate bureau to perform this investigation.

The clincher, certainly, was when they were told that no other companies had been seen giving money to Mahoney-Bruer. Cased closed!


:cheesygri

Isn't this always the case though? No matter what scandal happens with our government, they always cover each other and nothing happens to them?
Had it been a regular person doing the same unlawful actions, he/she would have ended in jail and without a job by now, their face plastered everywhere!

Scandal after scandal after scandal we have been reading about, other than a resignation after having made billions ... has there been any other measures taken?

This is when you feel powerless and wish you had a magic wand. :lol:

[Dog5]

:cheesygri

Isn't this always the case though? No matter what scandal happens with our government, they always cover each other and nothing happens to them?
Had it been a regular person doing the same unlawful actions, he/she would have ended in jail and without a job by now, their face plastered everywhere!

Scandal after scandal after scandal we have been reading about, other than a resignation after having made billions ... has there been any other measures taken?

This is when you feel powerless and wish you had a magic wand. :lol:

This is one key difference I've noticed between the US and Canada. The United States is quite corrupt as well but the politicians seem to be of the opinion that it is a good idea to occasionally prosecute some crooked government worker - possibly even a politician - or prominent white collar fraud artist so as to keep up the appearance that the system is not completely corrupt. It's mostly for show of course - remember Martha Stewart saw jail time for Obstruction of Justice while nobody in a position of real authority is even mildly concerned about being prosecuted after the actions which precipitated the recent US economic collapse.

In good ol' Canada the authorities don't even bother with these token gestures! They'd seriously have us believe that there are no corrupt public figures, no instances of white-collar fraud, etc. in Canada, ever. It's incredibly easy to see who the people are in this thread who are 'in' on it; watching them circle the wagons as they can always be counted on to do is, at least to me, absolutely hilarious!

Public parasites, sorry Figures in Canada know that they can just ignore the problem - for them of course it is anything but a problem - knowing that Canadians in general are so mindlessly naive and apathetic - not to mention divided - that they will forget about it whilst continuing to delude themselves that this country does not operate at Banana-Republic levels of corruption in government.

In other words, they think we're idiots. For good reason too; for the most part, they're right! :lol:

[Shaner]

As per the article,

"Investigators came to my shop from the OPP asking about him (Mahoney-Bruer)," said Joe Mghraye, owner of Affordable Towing. "They asked me if I ever gave Mahoney cash. It never happened. They asked me, `Have you ever seen other companies doing that?' I said no."



This certainly satisfies me. These are obviously crack investigators. I have no doubt that the OPP are completely unbiased and are the appropriate bureau to perform this investigation.

The clincher, certainly, was when they were told that no other companies had been seen giving money to Mahoney-Bruer. Cased closed!



They are crack investigators because they are asking questions which need to be asked? You do know that investigators ask questions, that's what they do, among other things. Sometimes they already know the answers to their questions, sometimes they don't, either way, they still ask the questions. Just because the towing companies have answered the question doesn't mean the case is closed.

If the OPP wanted to sweep this under the rug like so many are claiming, they would have never charged the cop in the first place. They could have easily turned a blind eye, but they chose to file charges.

Geez people, it's only been like a week since charges were laid, let the system do it's job. Investigations aren't completed overnight, especially when involving kickback schemes, whether it's a cop or not.

I'm sure they'll attempt to follow any money that exchanged hands, but in the meantime they are asking questions that need to be asked.

[Shaner]

Idiots? lol....
When you have the police/military standing between the people and the government, what exactly can you do? Go to the polls? Sure... we tried that...and did it work?

You're talking about an election because one rogue cop broke the law? Holy overreaction.

Let the investigators do their job and wait for the result of the court case. These things take time, like always. It has nothing to do with this guy being a cop.

[ispiratica]

getting your car impounded for 7 days and leaving someone stranded is the most ******** thing about this law. 50 over is big issue on normal streets. 50 over on a highway? not so much when 70% of traffic goes at 120+.

They should leave the law intact (minus the impounding) for regular streets (no one needs to do 100 in a 50 zone) and up it at 70km over for the highway or abolish it completely. left lane drivers constantly move at 135-145 to pass slower cars in the middle lane that drive too slow and also block traffic if driving paralel with the right lane cars at the same speed (80-100)

Absolutely right. They need 2 lane speed limits or increase the speed to 120 minimum. Its nuts that cars can go faster within reasonable speeds and not have an accident daily and Ontario law doesn't acknowledge and adapt to that.

I got pulled over for the first time by an OPP brute that just wanted to impound my rental car for doing 160 when I did 120. Thankfully he gave up because I had witneses with me and gave me a 130km ticket. His name Const. Huanees. Anyone have him too?

I think the OPP in recent months are more hypocritical than other forces in and around the GTA. They break their own laws (especially speeding) and seem hell bent on catching speeders mostly in open stretches of the 401 than say finding a missing girl. Just look at Cobourg OPP and how many times people get pulled over there.

WASP cops with too much power in their hands.

[ispiratica]

This is one key difference I've noticed between the US and Canada. The United States is quite corrupt as well but the politicians seem to be of the opinion that it is a good idea to occasionally prosecute some crooked government worker - possibly even a politician - or prominent white collar fraud artist so as to keep up the appearance that the system is not completely corrupt. It's mostly for show of course - remember Martha Stewart saw jail time for Obstruction of Justice while nobody in a position of real authority is even mildly concerned about being prosecuted after the actions which precipitated the recent US economic collapse.

In good ol' Canada the authorities don't even bother with these token gestures! They'd seriously have us believe that there are no corrupt public figures, no instances of white-collar fraud, etc. in Canada, ever. It's incredibly easy to see who the people are in this thread who are 'in' on it; watching them circle the wagons as they can always be counted on to do is, at least to me, absolutely hilarious!

Public parasites, sorry Figures in Canada know that they can just ignore the problem - for them of course it is anything but a problem - knowing that Canadians in general are so mindlessly naive and apathetic - not to mention divided - that they will forget about it whilst continuing to delude themselves that this country does not operate at Banana-Republic levels of corruption in government.

In other words, they think we're idiots. For good reason too; for the most part, they're right! :lol:

They probably hope that Molson can keep Canadians drunk long enough to watch CBC Hockey and not the current local news. Seems patriotism for us Canadians comes from alcohol, sports and ignorance of the greater world.

[Kellster]

Absolutely right. They need 2 lane speed limits or increase the speed to 120 minimum. Its nuts that cars can go faster within reasonable speeds and not have an accident daily and Ontario law doesn't acknowledge and adapt to that.

I got pulled over for the first time by an OPP brute that just wanted to impound my rental car for doing 160 when I did 120. Thankfully he gave up because I had witneses with me and gave me a 130km ticket. His name Const. Huanees. Anyone have him too?

I think the OPP in recent months are more hypocritical than other forces in and around the GTA. They break their own laws (especially speeding) and seem hell bent on catching speeders mostly in open stretches of the 401 than say finding a missing girl. Just look at Cobourg OPP and how many times people get pulled over there.

WASP cops with too much power in their hands.

You can thank Fantino for for them being hell bent on catching so-called speeders (even if they have to out and out lie to do it) to make it appear as if he is earning his fat paycheque. The guy is an attention seeking grandstander and in my humble opinion much of a cop and hardly worth what he is costing. He's just not doing a very good job.

[camber]

If the OPP wanted to sweep this under the rug like so many are claiming, they would have never charged the cop in the first place. They could have easily turned a blind eye, but they chose to file charges.

Well, the problem seems to be this time, they couldn't sweep it under the rug because it was happening to too many people in too short of time. Apparently, all of the on going HTA 172 charges this officer laid are being withdrawn from court.

Maybe the OPP don't want it swept under the rug but they have an odd way of showing it. They released news of this event on a Friday afternoon, which is a way to minimize media exposure. Also, for a week no one from the OPP would comment on this story. From the details comming out of the wood work, it seems that a lot more people could be involved but we'll wait.

Geez people, it's only been like a week since charges were laid, let the system do it's job. Investigations aren't completed overnight, especially when involving kickback schemes, whether it's a cop or not.

Well, quite obviously in case like this we need immediate sanctions.

It seems Fantino was eager to upfront penalties for civilians when their is no guilt found. Maybe, he should support up front penalties for his officers when they are suspected of wrong doing?;)

[Shaner]

Well, quite obviously in case like this we need immediate sanctions;)

It seems Fantino was eager to upfront penalties for civilians when their is no guilt found. Maybe, he should support up front penalties for his officers when they are suspected of wrong doing?;)

To his credit, Fantino doesn't make the laws, he just enforces them. You want the law off the books, look to your MPP, not a police chief. While I admit he has a lot of pull with politicians, he still wasn't the one to make this law.

[Nikita]

Well, the problem seems to be this time, they couldn't sweep it under the rug because it was happening to too many people in too short of time. Apparently, all of the on going HTA 172 charges this officer laid are being withdrawn from court.

Maybe the OPP don't want it swept under the rug but they have an odd way of showing it. They released news of this event on a Friday afternoon, which is a way to minimize media exposure. Also, for a week no one from the OPP would comment on this story. From the details comming out of the wood work, it seems that a lot more people could be involved but we'll wait.



Well, quite obviously in case like this we need immediate sanctions.

It seems Fantino was eager to upfront penalties for civilians when their is no guilt found. Maybe, he should support up front penalties for his officers when they are suspected of wrong doing?;)

I believe the few cops that have been caught under s.172 had the same upfront penalties as everyone else. Besides I think it's disingenious to be against upfront penalties for a class of offenses yet in favour of them for a class of people. Upfront penalties (or penalties w/o due process) are wrong, period, for the integrity of the system, I don't care who's involved, a cop or a civilian driver.

[camber]

To his credit, Fantino doesn't make the laws, he just enforces them. You want the law off the books, look to your MPP, not a police chief. While I admit he has a lot of pull with politicians, he still wasn't the one to make this law.

Actually, Fantino had a lot of input into bill 203(HTA 172) and was the person that sold it to politicians.

I'll have to go back and read the debates of bill 203 but I'm pretty sure that the police had their say in this bill during the debates.

[camber]

I believe the few cops that have been caught under s.172 had the same upfront penalties as everyone else.

No police, out of the cases we know, have had the exact written penalties of HTA 172 applied to them or their vehicles.

Besides I think it's disingenious to be against upfront penalties for a class of offenses yet in favour of them for a class of people. Upfront penalties (or penalties w/o due process) are wrong, period, for the integrity of the system, I don't care who's involved, a cop or a civilian driver.

My comment was tongue and cheek.

Back when this law was past their were a few vocal people that say something to the effect that you only have to worry about this if you break the law, if you oppose this law you're a whiner and a speeder. Unfortunately, most of those people aren't sticking their heads into this thread:lol:

[Kellster]

I believe the few cops that have been caught under s.172 had the same upfront penalties as everyone else. Besides I think it's disingenious to be against upfront penalties for a class of offenses yet in favour of them for a class of people. Upfront penalties (or penalties w/o due process) are wrong, period, for the integrity of the system, I don't care who's involved, a cop or a civilian driver.

+1

If Fantino is as concerned with the integrity of the system as he says, then he will do everything he can to get rid of this cash grab sham of a law, since it has been proven to be so easily manipulated by crooked cops.

Personally, I do not think that integrity has anything to do with his agenda though.

[camber]

Halloween nightmare among 250 cases in OPP officer probe

Jun 05, 2009 04:30 AM
Kenyon Wallace
Staff Reporter

Last Halloween is a night Farzooq Sayed won't soon forget.

The 23-year-old Centennial College student was driving home with his girlfriend in his silver Porsche Carrera 4S westbound along Highway 403.

Just before Matheson Blvd., Sayed was pulled over by OPP Sgt. Dennis Mahoney-Bruer and ticketed for travelling 156 km/h – more than 50 kilometres over the speed limit.

"I was totally shocked," recalls Sayed, who admits he was speeding, but not 50 kilometres over the limit.

"The police officer came up to my window and the first thing he asked me was, `Whose car is this?' and I said, `It's my car.' He then asked me how old I was and told me he was suspending my licence for seven days and impounding my car."

In what may turn out to be a case of sweet vindication for hundreds of Ontario motorists, Sayed learned yesterday that his ticket is one of 200 provincial charges under review by the Crown and OPP in which Mahoney-Bruer was involved as an investigator.

Mahoney-Bruer, 49, was arrested and charged last week with three counts of breach of trust and one count of attempting to obstruct justice after an investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police Professional Standards Bureau. The 12-year member of the force is accused of using false evidence to lay charges against three drivers last month. He has been suspended with pay.

An additional 50 criminal charges – including impaired driving, dangerous driving and non-traffic related charges – in which Mahoney-Bruer was involved as an investigator, are also under review. Police say it's unclear how old some of the charges under review could be. The OPP says a "small number" of charges have already been stayed by the Crown.

But Sayed says even if his ticket is cleared, nothing can make up for the $950 he had to pay the tow truck company and the hundreds of dollars he spent on taxis for the week his car was impounded, not to mention legal fees he paid to initially fight his ticket.

The review of charges in which Mahoney-Bruer was involved as an investigator brings into question the reliability of traffic tickets he issued, say paralegals who specialize in fighting traffic charges.

"I plan on reviewing my clients' files going back three years," said Maurizio Tassone, a Woodbridge paralegal. He says he has about 30 clients who were issued tickets by Mahoney-Bruer, some of which have already been settled. But that's not going to stop him from offering his clients a chance to appeal previous convictions.

"(The review) calls into question all the speeding and stunt driving tickets issued by Mahoney-Bruer in the last year and a half. And we still don't know how far back this review is going to go. It could go back three or four years. I wouldn't be surprised," he said.

Woodbridge resident Ismet Breznica was happy to learn from detectives earlier this week that two charges Mahoney-Bruer laid against him have been stayed. Breznica says Mahoney-Bruer pulled him over while he was driving west on Highway 401 in Mississauga on May 10 – the same day Mahoney-Bruer is alleged to have used false evidence to issue tickets to two other drivers.

"I asked him why he pulled me over and he said, `Today I'm only picking white cars,'" recalls Breznica, who owns a white 2008 Mercedes-Benz and had his two young children in the back seat at the time. "I asked him if I was the only one driving around here with a white car, and he said yes. Honest to God, that's what he told me."

Mahoney-Bruer handed Breznica two tickets: one for speeding and one for driving without a booster seat for his 7-year-old son. Breznica maintains that his son is heavy enough not to require a booster seat.

"Sometimes it makes me wonder if I want to live my whole life in this country. Don't treat me like a criminal. I'm not a criminal. I'm a family person," he says.


http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/645979

[Nikita]

No police, out of the cases we know, have had the exact written penalties of HTA 172 applied to them or their vehicles.



My comment was tongue and cheek.

Back when this law was past their were a few vocal people that say something to the effect that you only have to worry about this if you break the law, if you oppose this law you're a whiner and a speeder. Unfortunately, most of those people aren't sticking their heads into this thread:lol:

Perhaps you could explain your first sentence. Except for the one cop who didn't have his vehicle impounded or face charges until after an investigation was conducted, I'm not aware of any special treatment given to cops.

[Frankie3s]

"I asked him why he pulled me over and he said, `Today I'm only picking white cars,'" recalls Breznica, who owns a white 2008 Mercedes-Benz and had his two young children in the back seat at the time. "I asked him if I was the only one driving around here with a white car, and he said yes. Honest to God, that's what he told me."

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/645979

[mazdubb]

Perhaps you could explain your first sentence. Except for the one cop who didn't have his vehicle impounded or face charges until after an investigation was conducted, I'm not aware of any special treatment given to cops.

That is special treatment really. Nobody else gets the benefit of driving their car home while police investigate. I seem to remember the vehicle wasn't towed from the side of the road as well. They just left it at the police station it was parked in when the investigation was complete.

Also, I've read some interesting (but not surprising) material on police forums. I recall one poster talking about the policy at their station where if one of their own is caught going 50+ over the limit, they have to buy lunch for everyone at the station.

[Nikita]

That is special treatment really. Nobody else gets the benefit of driving their car home while police investigate. I seem to remember the vehicle wasn't towed from the side of the road as well. They just left it at the police station it was parked in when the investigation was complete.

Also, I've read some interesting (but not surprising) material on police forums. I recall one poster talking about the policy at their station where if one of their own is caught going 50+ over the limit, they have to buy lunch for everyone at the station.

Nobody else that we know of. In any event, since it was a police vehicle and not his own, I don't think it made any difference to him whether or when the vehicle was impounded. And yes, it was impounded but left in a police impound rather than a public impound for security reasons. Again, I see no benefit or special treatment to the cop charged however. And though we aren't aware of any cases where an investigation was done prior to any penalty under s.172, that doesn't mean it hasn't been done. I really think people are reading too much into that little fact. It's not that uncommon for investigations to precede charges. If this wasn't a cop and if this wasn't a s.172 case, it wouldn't be any big deal. And that's a cute little story you relate from another forum, but I don't know what it has to do with this case or any other case, or even how true it is.

In any event, my question remains....besides that one incident, what other cases support camber's statements, i.e. "No police, out of the cases we know, have had the exact written penalties of HTA 172 applied to them or their vehicles.
?" Because once doesn't mean much to me, even if I were to accept that that case was 'special treatment', which I don't necessarily believe.

[Justice_Chris]

Public parasites, sorry Figures in Canada know that they can just ignore the problem - for them of course it is anything but a problem In other words, they think we're idiots. For good reason too; for the most part, they're right! :lol:

I have to agree with you, unfortunately. But I also have to agree with Bobby5 ... there doesn't seem like there is much we the simple people can do. Whether this is reality or just a story we are made to believe, I don't know. Does emailing your MP make a difference, really?

Besides I think it's disingenious to be against upfront penalties for a class of offenses yet in favour of them for a class of people. Upfront penalties (or penalties w/o due process) are wrong, period, for the integrity of the system, I don't care who's involved, a cop or a civilian driver.

If I abused my job as the police officer did, would I be suspended without pay until the employer got all the facts? YES. Would I be fired, afterwards, when it was proven that I had abused my duties? YES.

So, there certainly is a double standard when it comes to the cop don't you think? There is good and bad in police force as everywhere else, the difference in this case being that his unlawful actions are being downplayed, kept silent, and he is still getting paid for STAYING AT HOME.

[Nikita]

I have to agree with you, unfortunately. But I also have to agree with Bobby5 ... there doesn't seem like there is much we the simple people can do. Whether this is reality or just a story we are made to believe, I don't know. Does emailing your MP make a difference, really?



If I abused my job as the police officer did, would I be suspended without pay until the employer got all the facts? YES. Would I be fired, afterwards, when it was proven that I had abused my duties? YES.
So, there certainly is a double standard when it comes to the cop don't you think? There is good and bad in police force as everywhere else, the difference in this case being that his unlawful actions are being downplayed, kept silent, and he is still getting paid for STAYING AT HOME.

'IF you abused your job' being the operative phrase. This is still only an allegation that hasn't been proven yet. And if you were charged with a criminal offense but not yet convicted, you would NOT lose your job because the Charter, the Employment Standards Act and case law make it illegal to fire someone for a mere allegation of wrongdoing.

[camber]

Nobody else that we know of. In any event, since it was a police vehicle and not his own, I don't think it made any difference to him whether or when the vehicle was impounded. And yes, it was impounded but left in a police impound rather than a public impound for security reasons.

That was the closest incident where the police came to apply HTA 172 to letter. However, the undercover police car was "impounded" at the OPP HQ for "security reasons".

Unfortunately, there are no impound lots at the OPP HQ in Orilla, where the car was kept and if you were worried about the secuirty of unmarked car or undercover car. Why would keep the car for the week at OPP HQ?

Talk about blowing your cover:D

[camber]

?" Because once doesn't mean much to me, even if I were to accept that that case was 'special treatment', which I don't necessarily believe.

How about these two cases?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/09/03/opp-streetracing.html

Also, how often do police pull each other over for HTA 172 type violations in the first place?

[camber]

I can't remember if one of the above officers was the one that killed those two horses. I'll look it up when I get the time.

[Justice_Chris]

'IF you abused your job' being the operative phrase. This is still only an allegation that hasn't been proven yet.

It's an IF exactly because the court hasn't charged the person yet, proved that they did abuse. That's why you get suspended WITHOUT pay and not fired.

[scamper_22]

There is no way a police officer should have this kind of power. It is a recipe for abuse.

Not all officers of course.

All this speed racing law has done is give police officers more money to get in on the business. They're in on the drug trade. They're now in on the towing trade.

This is especially true in Canada where videotaping is not done as often. Every time an officer pulls you over, it should be recorded so they have a tape of you speeding.

Power corrupts. Absolutely power corrupts absolutely.

[Dog5]

Idiots? lol....
When you have the police/military standing between the people and the government, what exactly can you do? Go to the polls? Sure... we tried that...and did it work?

No. They all play for the same team.

I have to agree with you, unfortunately. But I also have to agree with Bobby5 ... there doesn't seem like there is much we the simple people can do. Whether this is reality or just a story we are made to believe, I don't know. Does emailing your MP make a difference, really?

They don't take their orders from you and me so....no.

Nothing to do except watch the parasites suck more and more from fewer and fewer hosts with the means to pay - and reward themselves with more power as the same old solution for the inevitable degeneration of society that they helped foster.

It can't be stopped, you see. But it is at least fun to watch sometimes.

[Mayoo]

"Sometimes it makes me wonder if I want to live my whole life in this country. Don't treat me like a criminal. I'm not a criminal. I'm a family person," he says.

I love this line ..

CA and US share the same border and complain they dont have enough security to monitor that . but freak en OPP in 403 picking car colors and giving tickets ..

[Justice_Chris]

It can't be stopped, you see. But it is at least fun to watch sometimes.

Actually, not really fun when all this impacts us, the simple taxpayers.

[conspiracy]

Idiots? lol....
When you have the police/military standing between the people and the government, what exactly can you do? Go to the polls? Sure... we tried that...and did it work?

Next thing to try is stop voting. An election with 1% turn out will send a strong message to politicians.

[Nikita]

How about these two cases?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/09/03/opp-streetracing.html

Also, how often do police pull each other over for HTA 172 type violations in the first place?

I have no idea, do you? Probably not, only when it makes news.

And thanks for the link, interesting. In case you missed it though, I am and have always been against this law. But that's based on principles of due process, not because I have a beef with Julian Fantino, which you obviously do and which colors everything you say on this topic.

It's an IF exactly because the court hasn't charged the person yet, proved that they did abuse. That's why you get suspended WITHOUT pay and not fired.

That's why who gets suspended WITHOUT pay? :confused:

I think the first sentence is exactly what I said, so I'm not sure what your point is in repeating it. However, your last sentence is incorrect. You cannot be fired for being only charged with an offense. You could probably even fight a suspension w/o pay as a constructive dismissal based on charges or allegations alone.

[spf1971]

I like how you completely ignore the fact that this cop could have cost these people their livelihoods. Whether your twisted mind believes it or not, a roadside suspension and car impound IS a punishment.

Sure you can argue that the officers paid suspension is a punishment of sorts. However that argument would be ridiculous. He's being paid in full while the case works its way through the courts. The people he and others may have charged under HTA 172 may have just lost their jobs as a result of losing their license and vehicle for a week.

Pull your head out of the sand.

Very well said! I might add that I wish some of these posters would just stop sucking up to the cops...it wont get them anything.




+1


That would be true if this officer has done something. As of right now, this officer has done nothing, is guilty of nothing and has been proven guilty of nothing. Everyone wants to extend the benefit of doubt to posters on here but as soon as a police officer is involved, it becomes guilty upon charge.

I love how people claim that innocence until proven guilty is the backbone of the system but change their stance when it pleases them. You cannot claim that roadside suspensions are wrong while at the same time claim that this officer should be fired/suspended without pay prior to any finding of guilt.

[spf1971]

And as you know, I've always been against the lack of due process in this legislation, for reasons of my own. When do you propose I started 'pandering to the mob mentality'? Good try, but every post about this law that I've made has been consistent and independant....i.e. a result of my own knowledge, experience and thought processes, nobody else's.



I think you were pandering when you stated this.

He's suspended with pay (iow a paid vacation, how can I get that??)...you think that's a penalty?? No not the same AT ALL!

You posts have always been against this legislation and while I might not agree 100%, I don't disagree 100% either. Working in the legal profession, you must know that an accusation, whether true or not, can have impact. If found not guilty, this suspension will still be on the officers record. It will affect his promotions, postings; it will cast a shadow of doubt upon any and all procedures he is involved in for as long as he is a police officer. If he's guilty it won't matter but if he's innocent, it will have a very huge impact.

To try and paint it as an immaterial occurrence, to call it "a paid vacation" is pandering to mob mentality. I could argue there are a lot of people who don't like driving so therefore a suspended license isn't a punishment, it's a relief from the day to day hassle of driving. Anyone could and should see my statement as flippant, the same goes for calling a suspension "a paid vacation".

[camber]

I have no idea, do you? Probably not, only when it makes news.

And thanks for the link, interesting. In case you missed it though, I am and have always been against this law. But that's based on principles of due process, not because I have a beef with Julian Fantino, which you obviously do and which colors everything you say on this topic.


In case you missed it... I'm against people who are against due process as well. I've been posting bill 203 stories here for a long time and named all the key figures that were involved in this law. If being critical of the ideas, of the major proponent of a bad law makes you think that I have a personal issue with that person. You must think that all critics have that same issue.

To be honest, I've been pretty hard on Frank Klees(the MPP that proposed Bill 203 and made a Impaired driving death into a "street racing" death to sell this law) but he is not the one that continues to try to sell this law. Since, Fantino is currently the law's biggest vocal supporter, he will continue to recieve the bulk of criticism. It's impossible to seperate this law and Fantino, he is the face of this law.

[camber]

Not really related to this particular story but Shaner was saying that police had no input into this law. Which was not the case. Police were consulted during the deliberation process. The first officer by name referenced in these debates was Julian Fantino.

Here we see Hon. Donna H. Cansfield (Minister of Transportation), getting specific police endorsements to sell the proposed bill to other politicians in the house in one of the first debates:

Bill 203 will build on what we’ve already achieved, advancing this government’s commitment to improve road safety. I’m pleased to report that many from across Ontario are very supportive of our proposed legislation. From OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino: “I’m pleased to see the government is strengthening the laws and increasing fines and suspensions for those convicted of driving offences.”

Chatham–Kent police officer Carl Herder says, “I welcome any legislation that will provide police with new tools that will make our streets safer.”


http://www.ontla.on.ca/house-proceedings/transcripts/files_html/19-APR-2007_L160.htm#PARA774

[camber]

Fantino, talking again about his influence in the creation of this law.

"I didn't think we'd get this many to begin with, I really thought people would heed the warning," Fantino said, adding that he now wishes the law was even tougher.

"The only regret I have now in hindsight is that I didn't go after 30 over as opposed to 50 over."


http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2007/10/29/fantino-racing.html

[Shaner]

Not really related to this particular story but Shaner was saying that police had no input into this law.

I never said any such thing! Feel free to quote my message next time instead of accusing me of saying something I never said.
Here's my exact message...

To his credit, Fantino doesn't make the laws, he just enforces them. You want the law off the books, look to your MPP, not a police chief. While I admit he has a lot of pull with politicians, he still wasn't the one to make this law.

I stand by what I said. Of course the chief of the OPP had input into the law, I pretty much stated exactly that already. My point is that regardless of his influence, he isn't the one that makes the laws. You can fight all you want against Fantino, but he's not a politician and isn't accountable to you. If you want to have this law repealed, then take your fight up with the Premier and the various MPP's. They are the ones with the power to do something about it and they are accountable to you.

I really don't like being misquoted though! Next time don't attribute something to me without double checking what I actually said.

[camber]

To his credit, Fantino doesn't make the laws, he just enforces them. You want the law off the books, look to your MPP, not a police chief. While I admit he has a lot of pull with politicians, he still wasn't the one to make this law.

I'm sorry but if you have input on the specifics of a law(ie. speed thresholds, see above previous messages) you had a hand in creating it. Fantino stated multiple times that he had a hand into creation of this law.

It is disingenious to say that Fantino, in the instance of HTA 172, just enforces it and had no hand in its creation or making the law. Some of the worst bits of HTA 172 were his ideas.


I stand by what I said. Of course the chief of the OPP had input into the law, I pretty much stated exactly that already. My point is that regardless of his influence, he isn't the one that makes the laws. You can fight all you want against Fantino, but he's not a politician and isn't accountable to you.

Fantino is a public servant, making him my employee;) His actions as OPP Commisioner are very accountable to me and all the citizens of Ontario. IMO, he has no business in law creation or suggesting laws that give police the power to skirt due process. His job is simply to make sure the law get enforced properly.

In the instance of HTA 172 it was a Private Bill. Meaning that it only needs to be sponsored by a Member of the Legislative Assembly(MLA). This means that politicians could potential have no input in creating or writing the proposed law. MLAs or politicians could potentially only vote on the Private Bill and have no hands in its creation.

Anyways....

Fantino had a big hand in the creation of this law and continues to vigorously support it. Those facts make it appropriate to critique Fantino and involvement in this law. I don't think anyone here is asking Julian Fantino to repeal this law.

[Shaner]

Anyways....

Fantino had a big hand in the creation of this law and continues to vigorously support it. Those facts make it appropriate to critique Fantino and involvement in this law. I don't think anyone here is asking Julian Fantino to repeal this law.

I agree completely with this part of your post. Me saying he doesn't make the laws isn't the same as him having no input. It seems we're saying the same thing, but you attributed my comment to mean that he had absolutely no input, which I never stated.

[camber]

I agree completely with this part of your post. Me saying he doesn't make the laws isn't the same as him having no input. It seems we're saying the same thing, but you attributed my comment to mean that he had absolutely no input, which I never stated.

Well, IMO you were giving an impression that he just enforces the law. Which gives the impression that he had no hand in the wording or specifics of HTA 172. That is not the case at all.

[oppcopper]

The opp officer is most likely going to lose his job. He is entitled to a fair trial and is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Now he is facing three charges of breach of trust. If just convicted on one of these charges. I can see him serving jail time, most likely 30 days served on weekends. With all due respects I think the law should be changed. I think if you are going 50 over you should get you licence suspended for 7 days. However you car should not be impounded for a week. However if you are going 60 over the speed limit then you lose your licence and car for the week. I highly suggest if you ever are caught speeding that you kindly ask the officer to see the radar/laser reading. The dont have to show it to you under the provincial offences act. However some officers will show you the reading. The law has worked in some sense as the number of people killed on 400 series highways are substantially down. I still dont know why car makers dont govern the speeds of cars to go about 135. Anyways just my two cents.

[camber]

The law has worked in some sense as the number of people killed on 400 series highways are substantially down. I still dont know why car makers dont govern the speeds of cars to go about 135. Anyways just my two cents.

Gas prices, one of the rainy summers in history and a economic downturn to brought traffic fatalities down. That is one of the biggest myths that Fantino/OPP has perpetrated. Unless, of coure you believe that HTA 172 applies to the rest of North America.

They has been studies around that are based off of decades of data that accurately predicted the exact drop in fatalities due to the rise in gas prices.

[camber]

From July 11, 2008....

In the US Michael Morrisey of the University of Alabama and David Grabowski of Harvard Medical School accurately predicted that traffic fatalities in the US would fall about a third (roughly 33.3%) based on data they looked back between 1985 - 2006. Also, the majority of US states do not have "HTA 172" type laws.

The study looked at fatalities from 1985 to 2006, when gas prices reached about $2.50 a U.S. gallon. With gas now averaging more than $4 a gallon, Morrisey said he expects to see a drop of about 1,000 deaths a month.

With annual auto deaths typically ranging from about 38,000 to 40,000 a year, a drop of 12,000 deaths would cut the total by nearly a third, Morrisey said.


http://www.wheels.ca/reviews/article/300494


Now move forward to August 2008(a month after that study above), when the OPP tried to prove under a year's statistics equals a trend:lol:


"To date in 2008, fatalities are down by 32.4% (190 this year vs. 281 in 2007) and the number of fatal collisions are down 32.1% to 165 from 243 last year," says an OPP press release.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2008/08/21/6521886-sun.html

Weird conicidence! Also, other juristdiction in North America saw a similar drop in traffic fatalties as Ontario.

So quite obviously if you want less traffic deaths, make people drive less. In the case of above stats have a province face sky gas prices, record unemployment and one of the soggiest summers in history.

[camber]

Another interest article that shows that drop fatalities might not be HTA 172 related and more to do with gasoline prices

'Disturbing' increase in accidents fuelled by alcohol: OPP
Canwest News Service
Published: Sunday, February 08, 2009
Ontario Provincial police saw a "disturbing increase" in motor vehicle accidents in December and January, particularly during winter storms, OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino said in a news release.


OPP officers investigated 17,368 collisions over those two months, compared with 15,047 over the same time period last year, and 14,510 in 2007.


OPP look for impared drivers.
Chris Bolin/National Post

"The majority of these crashes are preventable if drivers would slow down and drive to the weather and road conditions," he said. "Taking a little extra time in bad weather is far superior to sustaining a loss of life or personal injury."


Fantino also said snowmobilers and people driving all terrain vehicles need to to exercise more caution on roads and trails.


"I am still shocked at how many of these crashes have alcohol consumption as a contributing factor," he said.


While the number of accidents went up, the OPP report that the number of fatalities and injuries went down slightly.


Their statistics show there were 47 deaths on OPP-patrolled roads this past December and January, compared to 48 last year and 65 fatalities two years ago.


The number of injuries caused by motor vehicle crashes also went down to 1,985 over the same period, compared to 2,216 last year and 2,435 two years ago.


http://www2.canada.com/news/alcohol+fuels+disturbing+increase+accidents/1267011/story.html?id=1267011

So, why were fatalities for for 2008 December and 2009 January one less then a year ago(remember 2007-2008 was actually a much more severe winter then the 2008-2009 winter in Ontario). I'm sure it didn't have anything to do with $0.60-70 a liter gasoline we had during those two months;)

[Shaner]

I'm not a supporter of that law by any means, but I wouldn't be surprised if it also contributed to the reduced number of traffic fatalities. While I have no doubt that gas prices, weather, recession, etc. probably affected the numbers more, I'm not willing to completely dismiss this law as a factor.

I know in the past i have gone over 150, but not since that new law. Now, I make sure never to go over 140 because I don't want to risk losing my car and my license. I highly doubt I'm the only person in the province that feels that way and has adjusted my driving habits accordingly. With that said, then it comes back to whether or not speed kills, which many people emphatically deny and I'm not going to bother even getting into that.

[oppcopper]

just dont speed over 50 thats the only advice i can give you

[camber]

I'm not a supporter of that law by any means, but I wouldn't be surprised if it also contributed to the reduced number of traffic fatalities. While I have no doubt that gas prices, weather, recession, etc. probably affected the numbers more, I'm not willing to completely dismiss this law as a factor.


Can you explain why other places in North America saw similar fatality drops?

What is the common factor between Ontario and other North American jurisdictions?

It's not HTA 172 or similar type laws.

The fatalities caused by driving over 50 km/h over the posted limit are neglible. I remember a retired insurance adjuster wrote into the The Star and said in his 20-30 career, accidents involving that kind of speed were very rare to the point of being non existent.

Also, John Newell has been using the freedom of information act to get more detailed records from the MTO. I believe he has records up until 2004 or 2005. In 2004, there were no fatalities where speed in of excess 50 km/h over the posted limit was a factor in Ontario!

If you read the debates of this bill you will see that no studies were done to justify the thresholds or behaviours being penalize by HTA 172 type power. Actually, in the debates you will see that most MPP's talk about street racing issues in BC and stats they did quote were wrong or not even from Ontario. Also, they misrepresent an impaired driving incident as a street racing case.

[oppcopper]

I think there are a number of factors to consider. Some are fuel costs, weather, and current laws. Majority of fatals are contributed to speed, alcohol, no seat belts, careless driving and unsafe lane changes. With 172 and now increased penalties for impaired driving they surely will help with the decrease of fatals. There is no real justification with anyone should be going over the speed limit of 50 over. I am sure there are some valid excuses. Just bring back photo radar and set it to 140 and above. Usually speed kills and so does drinking and driving. Of course every law is a great law untill it affects you. I am sure you have seen someone speeding away at 50 or 60 over the limit and you wish there was a cop there to stop him. The whole reason for this law was to get people so slow down. Of course some officers have taken to abusing their power and fail in the sense of protecting the citizens of Ontario.
Again I still believe 50 over automatic suspension of licence for seven days. 60 over licence suspension and losing your motor vehicle.

[mazdubb]

I think there are a number of factors to consider. Some are fuel costs, weather, and current laws. Majority of fatals are contributed to speed, alcohol, no seat belts, careless driving and unsafe lane changes. With 172 and now increased penalties for impaired driving they surely will help with the decrease of fatals. There is no real justification with anyone should be going over the speed limit of 50 over. I am sure there are some valid excuses. Just bring back photo radar and set it to 140 and above. Usually speed kills and so does drinking and driving. Of course every law is a great law untill it affects you. I am sure you have seen someone speeding away at 50 or 60 over the limit and you wish there was a cop there to stop him. The whole reason for this law was to get people so slow down. Of course some officers have taken to abusing their power and fail in the sense of protecting the citizens of Ontario.
Again I still believe 50 over automatic suspension of licence for seven days. 60 over licence suspension and losing your motor vehicle.

The very fact that HTA172 and the new impaired warning level law gives officers the ability to be abusive with up front penalties is too much. There isn't any evidence to suggest that it improves public safety. Just more taxes for the already overtaxed Ontario citizens.

Take away the up front penalty and I'd be happy to show my support for HTA172. In it's current form it's unconstitutional at best and criminal at worst.

[oppcopper]

well dont drink and drive and dont go over 50 the limit, pretty simple to do. Don't know how tax dollars are being spent for these two laws. If you dont like these laws dont speed and dont drink and drive. Its about time Ontario got tuff on motorists who disregarded the speed limit and thought it was okay to drink and drive.

[oppcopper]

I do believe the vehicle impoundment for a week is too much. The licence suspension should take effect for seven days. Vehicle impoundment is a little to much.

[oppcopper]

Sgt. Dennis Mahoney-Bruer
Constable Issam Azzouggagh
Richard Wills

[mazdubb]

well dont drink and drive and dont go over 50 the limit, pretty simple to do. Don't know how tax dollars are being spent for these two laws. If you dont like these laws dont speed and dont drink and drive. Its about time Ontario got tuff on motorists who disregarded the speed limit and thought it was okay to drink and drive.

The fines and impound fees are the 'taxes' I'm referring to. Getting tough on enforcing speed limits laughable. If Ontario really wanted to be effective with the enforcing of speed limits and other road rules they wouldn't do it on sunny and dry days. If they really wanted to be effective and 'save lives' (:lol: as if :lol:) they would go after lane hogs and drivers that don't adjust to changing road conditions. That's what's effective in Europe.

Alas, all we get in this joke of a province is a bunch of traffic cops sitting on the side of a large, open road on nice sunny days. Pulling over anyone and everyone that are driving at comfortable speeds or fit some sort of profile.

I don't drink and drive. I don't exceed comfortable speeds. However, whats stopping a drop out with a badge from pulling me over while I'm on a Sunday ride because he just feels like screwing with people on yellow bikes that day?

At one point in time police in this province were well respected for having excellent discretion and judgment. Now it seems the orders they've been given is to fill the provinces coffers by any means necessary.

[mazdubb]

Sgt. Dennis Mahoney-Bruer
Constable Issam Azzouggagh
Richard Wills

They aren't the only ones abusing the powers that we the people have given them. Time to reign in these powers before it goes any further. I've seen some rather extreme anger growing towards police forces across the province.

[oppcopper]

Did not know that impound fees are taxes. In regards to lane hogs, nothing we can really do when they are going the speed limit. As for you being profiled cause you drive a yellow bike and follow all traffic laws. You can always get a badge number and file a complaint of why you were stopped or felt that you were profiled. Just bring back photo radar.

[mazdubb]

Did not know that impound fees are taxes. In regards to lane hogs, nothing we can really do when they are going the speed limit. As for you being profiled cause you drive a yellow bike and follow all traffic laws. You can always get a badge number and file a complaint of why you were stopped or felt that you were profiled. Just bring back photo radar.

Impound fees are coming out of the pocket of taxpayers at the discretion of a government employee. The money might not be going directly to the province or municipality but it's still required to be paid.

My example with the bike is purely hypothetical. It just serves to push the point that the extra power given to officers is unnecessary and borderline criminal.

Enough about photo radar, it's lazy and prone to malfunction. If you want real results, raise or remove the speed limits and go after aggressive and indecisive drivers. Enforce proper lane use and general road manners. THAT would save lives.

[Triad]

Has anyone explained this?

GPS data can be used to fight traffic tickets, if you have logs that show your speed was different than the officer claims at the time he clocked you.

[camber]

contributed to speed[/B], alcohol, no seat belts, careless driving and unsafe lane changes. With 172 and now increased penalties for impaired driving they surely will help with the decrease of fatals.

Nope. According to the MTO roughly about 14% of collisions, is speed above or below the speed limit a factor.

[camber]

just dont speed over 50 thats the only advice i can give you

Well, it didn't help the people in this case.

The government removed the checks and balances(due process). Who is making sure the police don't abuse the law?

[camber]

As for you being profiled cause you drive a yellow bike and follow all traffic laws. You can always get a badge number and file a complaint of why you were stopped or felt that you were profiled. Just bring back photo radar.

In the case of HTA 172 this doesn't help much, if the police officer did not abuse the system in an obvious way. They're are more subjective charges that an officer can use then just speed(50 km/h over) under HTA 172.

Also, this won't get your car back immediately, tow money, job, costs to and from work etc...

[camber]

I think there are a number of factors to consider. Some are fuel costs, weather, and current laws. Majority of fatals are contributed to speed, alcohol, no seat belts, careless driving and unsafe lane changes.

Ok... but what are similar factors between Ontario and the other North American jurisdictions that saw a similar drop in fatalities?

It wasn't HTA 172.

[Emancipated]

getting your car impounded for 7 days and leaving someone stranded is the most ******** thing about this law. 50 over is big issue on normal streets. 50 over on a highway? not so much when 70% of traffic goes at 120+.

They should leave the law intact (minus the impounding) for regular streets (no one needs to do 100 in a 50 zone) and up it at 70km over for the highway or abolish it completely. left lane drivers constantly move at 135-145 to pass slower cars in the middle lane that drive too slow and also block traffic if driving paralel with the right lane cars at the same speed (80-100)

Seems like common sense yet these law makers never had the foresight to implement it.

[Nikita]

I'm sorry but if you have input on the specifics of a law(ie. speed thresholds, see above previous messages) you had a hand in creating it. Fantino stated multiple times that he had a hand into creation of this law.

It is disingenious to say that Fantino, in the instance of HTA 172, just enforces it and had no hand in its creation or making the law. Some of the worst bits of HTA 172 were his ideas.




Fantino is a public servant, making him my employee;) His actions as OPP Commisioner are very accountable to me and all the citizens of Ontario. IMO, he has no business in law creation or suggesting laws that give police the power to skirt due process. His job is simply to make sure the law get enforced properly.
In the instance of HTA 172 it was a Private Bill. Meaning that it only needs to be sponsored by a Member of the Legislative Assembly(MLA). This means that politicians could potential have no input in creating or writing the proposed law. MLAs or politicians could potentially only vote on the Private Bill and have no hands in its creation.

Anyways....

Fantino had a big hand in the creation of this law and continues to vigorously support it. Those facts make it appropriate to critique Fantino and involvement in this law. I don't think anyone here is asking Julian Fantino to repeal this law.

If he had no business in 'suggesting laws', the legislature wouldn't have given him standing to do so. It's extremely common, when proposing new legislation, to consult with interested parties. Surely, as Commissioner of the OPP, Fantino is an interested party and was therefore granted standing, appropriately IMO.

In case you missed it... I'm against people who are against due process as well. I've been posting bill 203 stories here for a long time and named all the key figures that were involved in this law. If being critical of the ideas, of the major proponent of a bad law makes you think that I have a personal issue with that person. You must think that all critics have that same issue.

To be honest, I've been pretty hard on Frank Klees(the MPP that proposed Bill 203 and made a Impaired driving death into a "street racing" death to sell this law) but he is not the one that continues to try to sell this law. Since, Fantino is currently the law's biggest vocal supporter, he will continue to recieve the bulk of criticism. It's impossible to seperate this law and Fantino, he is the face of this law.

If I missed it it's because your posts are so replete with comments about Fantino that just about anything else you've said has been lost in that. As I said earlier, you palpable beef with Fantino colors every one of your posts.

well dont drink and drive and dont go over 50 the limit, pretty simple to do. Don't know how tax dollars are being spent for these two laws. If you dont like these laws dont speed and dont drink and drive. Its about time Ontario got tuff on motorists who disregarded the speed limit and thought it was okay to drink and drive.

It IS okay to drink and drive, there is no law against that, only against driving while being impaired or over .08. Not everyone drinks to impairment or to over .08. Not everyone who drinks and drives is disregarding the law.

[camber]

If he had no business in 'suggesting laws', the legislature wouldn't have given him standing to do so. It's extremely common, when proposing new legislation, to consult with interested parties. Surely, as Commissioner of the OPP, Fantino is an interested party and was therefore granted standing, appropriately IMO.

Well, there is a bit of conflict of interest when your OPP chief and your guilding legislation to give police the power to skirt due process. Therefore, IMO its grossly inappropriate for Fantino to have input or sell politicians and the public on that type of idea.

If I missed it it's because your posts are so replete with comments about Fantino that just about anything else you've said has been lost in that.

Majority of my comments(even in this thread) about HTA 172 have nothing to do with Fantino. Also, It's impossible to seperate Fantino from HTA 172. He is the figurehead for this law and continues to sell this law as a good idea.

As I said earlier, you palpable beef with Fantino colors every one of your posts.

That's kind of hard when the majority of my HTA 172 posts have nothing to do with Fantino!

I've never said anything personal against Fantino. I've always made comments that were related to his job performance and his endorsement of this law. It's no different then critiquing any other figurehead.

[Nikita]

Well, there is a bit of conflict of interest when your OPP chief and your guilding legislation to give police the power to skirt due process. Therefore, IMO its grossly inappropriate for Fantino to have input or sell politicians and the public on that type of idea.

Majority of my comments(even in this thread) about HTA 172 have nothing to do with Fantino. Also, It's impossible to seperate Fantino from HTA 172. He is the figurehead for this law and continues to sell this law as a good idea.


That is not a conflict of interest at all. As I said, it is extremely common practice to get input from 'interested' parties, or parties that have special knowledge or involvement in whatever law is being proposed. Fantino wasn't the only LE person or agency consulted, yet once again, he's the only person you see as having a conflict.

And yes, it is possible to separate Fantino from this law, because he didn't make the law, he may be very vocal in his support for it, but he doesn't pass laws, the legislature does that after consulting with interested parties. That you can't make that separation in your own head, doesn't mean anything except that you can't make that separation in your own head. Other than that, I have no idea what you mean by him being 'the figurehead for this law'??

[Kellster]

That is not a conflict of interest at all. As I said, it is extremely common practice to get input from 'interested' parties, or parties that have special knowledge or involvement in whatever law is being proposed. Fantino wasn't the only LE person or agency consulted, yet once again, he's the only person you see as having a conflict.

And yes, it is possible to separate Fantino from this law, because he didn't make the law, he may be very vocal in his support for it, but he doesn't pass laws, the legislature does that after consulting with interested parties. That you can't make that separation in your own head, doesn't mean anything except that you can't make that separation in your own head. Other than that, I have no idea what you mean by him being 'the figurehead for this law'??

But Fantino DOES push his cops to lay as many charges as they can under this SCAM of a law to the point of some of them completely falsifying them and lying about it. Kind of makes you wonder about the prospect of an honest and fair day in court when most judges blindly accept the word of one of "their" cops over any defendant.

Fantino is an attention seeking grandstander who is trying to give his bosses and the public the impression that he is some kind of hero and he is going about it the wrong way. A little honesty and integrity would go a long way, but then again , they are not really a part of his agenda.
Simply put...he is a terrible cop....useless.

[camber]

That is not a conflict of interest at all. As I said, it is extremely common practice to get input from 'interested' parties, or parties that have special knowledge or involvement in whatever law is being proposed. Fantino wasn't the only LE person or agency consulted, yet once again, he's the only person you see as having a conflict.

So, you think it ok for police to sell(using their power in the media) and push politicians for laws that skirt due process?

You don't see a problem in that?

Also, it is my fault your not informed enough to understand that Fantino was one of the main players behind this law?

If you took the time to read my earlier posts on this subject you would see that I've critized Dalton Mcguinty, Donna Cansfield, Frank Klees and Micheal Byrant. However, since Fantino has made himself the figurehead of HTA 172 and chooses to continually justify this law, he will receive the bulk of on going criticism. It's not that difficult of a concept to understand.

And yes, it is possible to separate Fantino from this law, because he didn't make the law, he may be very vocal in his support for it, but he doesn't pass laws, the legislature does that after consulting with interested parties.

This was a private bill. The legislature didn't and doesn't have consult with interested parties on a private bill. All they have to do is vote on it. While the legislature may enact a private bill to law, it doesn't mean that any MLA had a hand in writing the bill or that interested parties were truly contacted. Also, writing a bill is an integral part of the law making process.

BTW - The government actively sped through the consultation process to keep key critics or interested parties out of that process. This is even after the government has promised to speak with those parties. Which is something that I have commented on in that past but there is no point going back in history to that point.

That you can't make that separation in your own head, doesn't mean anything except that you can't make that separation in your own head. Other than that, I have no idea what you mean by him being 'the figurehead for this law'??

Again, it's not my fault you aren't informed enough to understand Fantino's involvement in this law. Just because you ignorant of those facts does not give you the right to say I have a "beef" with Fantino for critizing his on going public support of this law. If your ignorant of Fantino's involvement, it is easy to see why you would make such comments.

[mazdubb]

Now we have more scandals involving the OPP coming to light:

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/648347

Lawyers demand action as mistrial shows practice isn't unique to Barrie
Jun 10, 2009 04:30 AM
PETER SMALL
COURTS BUREAU
WINDSOR – A judge here has declared a mistrial in a murder case because the Crown had police do secret background checks on jurors – a development that has lawyers predicting a flood of defence challenges.

The ruling shows that the secret screening of potential jurors isn't confined to Barrie, which saw a recent mistrial and the dismissal of two jury panels last week.

Attorney General Chris Bentley said yesterday he still does not believe the practice is widespread.

But Greg Goulin, one of the defence counsel in the Windsor trial, predicted a rush of inquiries by members of the defence bar.

"There is no question that for every case under appeal, perhaps for every case where a jury sat, there's going to be probably letters going from the counsel that appeared in those cases to Crowns and prosecutors in those cases saying, `Did you vet the jury in this case?'" he told reporters.

Frank Addario, president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association, urged Bentley to address the issue head on.

"In our view, the attorney general should not let this fester," said Addario. "That just creates suspicion and uncertainty."

Peter Kormos, the provincial NDP justice critic, said that Bentley has not been straightforward about the extent to which "these highly inappropriate background checks have been taking place."

Kormos said Bentley has created a scenario where a large number of convictions are now in doubt.

He said it's imperative that Ontarians know how long this "illegal" conduct has been going on, and who has been doing it.

Bentley said yesterday that the province's chief prosecutor, John Ayre, has issued a directive to stop wide-ranging background checks and is phoning all Crowns' offices as a follow-up.

Where pre-existing lists of such broadly screened jurors do exist, Crowns are instructed to disclose them to the defence and "take whatever steps are necessary, including starting with a new panel," Bentley said in an interview.

In Windsor's Superior courthouse yesterday, after two months of hearing evidence in the first-degree murder trial of Richard Zoldi and Shane Huard, Ontario Superior Court Justice Bruce Thomas dismissed the jurors, informing them that he had declared a mistrial because of jury vetting. Thomas told jurors that he found the process in their case "to be offensive."

Under Canadian law, background checks on jurors are supposed to be conducted only for the most serious convictions. But among the comments written beside prospective jurors' names, provided to the Crown by a Windsor police detective, were "dislikes police."

Other jury candidates were cited as having criminal associates.

There were references to marijuana and other criminal charges (but not convictions), young offender records, provincial offence tickets, and people with conditional discharges or pardons for criminal offences.

The judge said he doubted that citizens who had dealings with the Windsor police contemplated that the Crown would be using their information when they were called up for jury duty.

Jury vetting beyond serious criminal checks has been condemned by critics as an invasion of privacy and, if not illegal, incorrect.

Under Canadian law, all Crown or defence counsel are supposed to know are the name, address and occupation of prospective jurors.

Under the Juries Act, the local court Sheriff must keep lists of jurors under "lock and key" until 10 days before jury selection.

But in three cases in Barrie challenged by defence counsel in recent weeks, the Crown has had the lists several weeks before jury selection and has been asking Ontario Provincial Police detachments and some local police forces in Simcoe County to conduct background checks on candidates.

The controversy led OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino to make a statement Monday stressing that the force has stopped the practice since the story first broke on May 25 and has been reviewing its policies "to ensure that OPP policy reflects the privacy rights of individuals."

In the Windsor case, Huard, 27, a former amateur boxing sensation, and Zoldi, 31, are accused in the 2006 shooting death of Windsor drug dealer Troy Hutchinson, 28.

Goulin, who represented Huard, and Kirk Munroe, acting for Zoldi, challenged the fairness of the jury selection after the issue came to light.

The background information, obtained from Windsor police databases, was not disclosed to the defence and was used by prosecutors in rejecting prospective jurors, the judge found.

Jury selection with new panels resumes in the murder trial July 6.

"What was done here just went overboard," Goulin told reporters, adding that it breached their rights to privacy, freedom of association and expression.

Munroe said that juries are supposed to be a buffer between the state and citizens.

The whole process of police vetting juries attacks this principle, he told reporters. "It's frightening what they did."

It appears the practice has been going on in Barrie for at least four years.

It was cited by Toronto lawyer Greg Lafontaine as a new ground of appeal over the 2005 jury selection in the first-degree murder trial that led to the conviction of his client, Ibrahim Yumnu.

The appeal is being watched closely by the attorney general's ministry and Ontario's information and privacy commissioner.

James Morton, a defence lawyer and past president of the Ontario Bar Association, said he believes that defence lawyers will now focus on this case more intensely and several will seek to re-examine old cases.

But he too said he does not believe the broad Crown-initiated jury screening is widespread. "It's not proper," he said.

From the comments made by Fantino it appears he was aware of this practice all along.

[Kellster]

Now we have more scandals involving the OPP coming to light:

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/648347



From the comments made by Fantino it appears he was aware of this practice all along.


Of course he knew...and he just does not care. Time to get rid of this bum.

[Nikita]

So, you think it ok for police to sell(using their power in the media) and push politicians for laws that skirt due process? You don't see a problem in that?

Gotta love the spin, that's one of those 'when did you stop beating your wife' kind of questions, meaning when the premise is wrong the question can't be properly answered. Nice try, but no cigar. I think it is entirely appropriate for police to have input (my words as opposed to your inflammatory 'sell') in passing or amending any and all laws. You already know how I feel about due process, so I won't dignify that with an answer, except to say they can use their input in any way they wish (you know that little thing we have called free speech) because it's only input, it's only free speech. It's not my fault that you are not informed enough to understand that neither Fantino or any other police agency pass the laws, no matter if it's a private bill or public...the legislature still has the last word, the legislature makes the decision after whatever input they choose to hear and the legislature alone is accountable for the laws they pass.

And thanks for the civics lesson, but having a BA and MA in political science, having worked with very high profile politicians, governmental agencies and judges, I'm as about as informed on the political process as it gets, short of actually being a politician. You seem to think you know more than you actually do, but meh... that's not my problem.



Also, it is my fault your not informed enough to understand that Fantino was one of the main players behind this law?

Is it my fault that you assume to know what I know or not? I'm fully, fully aware of Fantino's input into this legislation. Is it my fault that you're not informed enough to tell the difference between 'giving input' (no matter how strongly) and actually 'passing laws'? Is it my fault that your not informed enough to know who's accountable for passing this legislation, any legislation for that matter? Well, let me inform you once again, that would be the legislature, not Julian Fantino.

If you took the time to read my earlier posts on this subject you would see that I've critized Dalton Mcguinty, Donna Cansfield, Frank Klees and Micheal Byrant. However, since Fantino has made himself the figurehead of HTA 172 and chooses to continually justify this law, he will receive the bulk of on going criticism. It's not that difficult of a concept to understand.

There's that word again...and still w/o explaining what exactly you mean by that. If you mean he strongly pushed for it, fine, he strongly pushed for it. But that's not what a figurehead is...you might want to consult a dictionary before continuing to repeat that line.



This was a private bill. The legislature didn't and doesn't have consult with interested parties on a private bill. All they have to do is vote on it. While the legislature may enact a private bill to law, it doesn't mean that any MLA had a hand in writing the bill or that interested parties were truly contacted. Also, writing a bill is an integral part of the law making process.

Again, thanks for the civics lesson, but you really should save it for someone who needs a civic lesson, not waster your time on someone who's extremely familiar with the political process...cuz you're just wasting your time and the white space on me.

BTW - The government actively sped through the consultation process to keep key critics or interested parties out of that process. This is even after the government has promised to speak with those parties. Which is something that I have commented on in that past but there is no point going back in history to that point.



Again, it's not my fault you aren't informed enough to understand Fantino's involvement in this law. Just because you ignorant of those facts does not give you the right to say I have a "beef" with Fantino for critizing his on going public support of this law. If your ignorant of Fantino's involvement, it is easy to see why you would make such comments.

My reasons for saying that you have a beef with Fantino have nothing to do with what I know about Fantino's involvement, it's as I said, because you can't seem to make a post on this topic without carrying on about Fantino. Personally, I prefer to focus on the legislation alone, not the players involved, because that IS irrelevant as long as it was done legally....and it was.

Now we have more scandals involving the OPP coming to light:

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/648347



From the comments made by Fantino it appears he was aware of this practice all along.

Uggh...my city! When I read this in the paper this morning I literally felt sick! I know the Crowns involved and I'm shocked at their role and their justifications in this. I'm even more sick that a murder trial was called to an end because of this. All the evidence isn't in yet, but the evidence given by the Crowns in the 4 day hearing on this issue (in the middle of the murder trial, which is when this all came to light) is an admission of wrongdoing at the very least. I really am floored by this and so saddened that two Crowns I've known, worked with and respected for so long, became involved in this...which, yes, legally is still only an allegation. The admissions alone, made by the Crowns are just so offensive to my sensibilities, I'm at a total loss as to why they would engage in such practices.

[camber]

Gotta love the spin, that's one of those 'when did you stop beating your wife' kind of questions, meaning when the premise is wrong the question can't be properly answered. Nice try, but no cigar. I think it is entirely appropriate for police to have input (my words as opposed to your inflammatory 'sell') in passing or amending any and all laws. You already know how I feel about due process, so I won't dignify that with an answer, except to say they can use their input in any way they wish (you know that little thing we have called free speech) because it's only input, it's only free speech. It's not my fault that you are not informed enough to understand that neither Fantino or any other police agency pass the laws, no matter if it's a private bill or public...the legislature still has the last word, the legislature makes the decision after whatever input they choose to hear and the legislature alone is accountable for the laws they pass.

It's pointless to argue with you because you’re ignorant of specific how this law came to pass.

It's not my fault that you don't understand that writing a bill is part of the law making process. I just think it is funny that you seem to be implying that only voting on a bill is part of the law making process.


And thanks for the civics lesson, but having a BA and MA in political science, having worked with very high profile politicians, governmental agencies and judges, I'm as about as informed on the political process as it gets, short of actually being a politician. You seem to think you know more than you actually do, but meh... that's not my problem.

Surprisingly, this isn't the first time even in this thread you demonstrated you weren't informed. Remember, the multiple OPP getting off on HTA 172 charges?


Is it my fault that you assume to know what I know or not? I'm fully, fully aware of Fantino's input into this legislation. Is it my fault that you're not informed enough to tell the difference between 'giving input' (no matter how strongly) and actually 'passing laws'? Is it my fault that your not informed enough to know who's accountable for passing this legislation, any legislation for that matter? Well, let me inform you once again, that would be the legislature, not Julian Fantino.

I've never claimed that Fantino enacts law.

However, he did have a role in writing of the bill and selling the law to the MLA by skewing legal cases in the media to sell the bill.


There's that word again...and still w/o explaining what exactly you mean by that. If you mean he strongly pushed for it, fine, he strongly pushed for it. But that's not what a figurehead is...you might want to consult a dictionary before continuing to repeat that line.

Again, figurehead is the correct term. Maybe you might want to consult a dictionary?

metaphorical extension.

Again, thanks for the civics lesson, but you really should save it for someone who needs a civic lesson, not waster your time on someone who's extremely familiar with the political process...cuz you're just wasting your time and the white space on me.

Again, it seems you are unaware of how this particular bill came about and how it got enacted into law. You didn’t seem aware that some of the steps were skipped or sped up.

My reasons for saying that you have a beef with Fantino have nothing to do with what I know about Fantino's involvement, it's as I said, because you can't seem to make a post on this topic without carrying on about Fantino.
I previously mentioned the majority of my posts have nothing to do with Fantino!

Also, the majority of my posts about Fantino in this thread were in response to someone else that brought him up. So, I don't understand how think I'm "carrying on about Fantino". Anyways, if you knew Fantino's involvement in this law and on going support. You would see that the few comments I about him are on the mark and relevant to this law.


Personally, I prefer to focus on the legislation alone, not the players involved, because that IS irrelevant as long as it was done legally....and it was.

Why is it irrelevant?

The mindset of Fantino and how that mindset affects the officers beneath him to apply and interpret the law is just as important as the law itself. Especially, considering the power it gives police. Since, Fantino sets the tone for how this law is applied by officers, he is fair game for criticism.

[adamtheman]

We need more cops like this.

The people were probably driving 145 in lowered POS cars and tey woulda killed someone eventually.

GOOD COP!

[orangetea]

Discuss.

+1

Discuss.

[Kellster]

We need more cops like this.

The people were probably driving 145 in lowered POS cars and tey woulda killed someone eventually.

GOOD COP!

Whatever you say, Fantino!

[Nikita]

It's pointless to argue with you because you’re ignorant of specific how this law came to pass.

Umm, no, it's pointless to argue with me because I know more about how legislation is passed and, more importantly, why it is passed the way it is, than you ever will. So, just don't bother trying...:) Besides, we're both against this law, just for different reasons. Me, lack of due process, you, Fantino. Why can't you just get over it now and let me one day read one post of yours without having to read about your apparent nemesis...just once??;) Because I generally enjoy reading you, and whatever reason you keep harping on Fantino, whether it's in response or not, it's just getting tiresome.

[Kellster]

Umm, no, it's pointless to argue with me because I know more about how legislation is passed and, more importantly, why it is passed the way it is, than you ever will. So, just don't bother trying...:) Besides, we're both against this law, just for different reasons. Me, lack of due process, you, Fantino. Why can't you just get over it now and let me one day read one post of yours without having to read about your apparent nemesis...just once??;) Because I generally enjoy reading you, and whatever reason you keep harping on Fantino, whether it's in response or not, it's just getting tiresome.

LOL!!! Why does Fantino hide behind the screen name "Camber"???

You know, I know....we ALL know this SCAM of a "law" is just plain wrong.

Fantino's legacy: Encouraging, backing, and covering up for crooked cops (and being one himself).

[jedijome]

any updates on this? A co-worker of mine actually got ticketed by this guy going 156km/h when he swears he wasn't doing more than 130. He has a court case in november and he's really interested to find out what's going on.

I was checking out this thread at work when he saw it and asked me what i was reading and when i told him, his eyes almost fell out of his head. he had no idea about any of this till the day before yesterday. once he checked and confirmed that it was the same sergeant he was extremely annoyed that he got put through such an ordeal for nothing but he's hopeful now that his charges will get dropped and he can put this business behind him.

[Kellster]

any updates on this? A co-worker of mine actually got ticketed by this guy going 156km/h when he swears he wasn't doing more than 130. He has a court case in november and he's really interested to find out what's going on.

I was checking out this thread at work when he saw it and asked me what i was reading and when i told him, his eyes almost fell out of his head. he had no idea about any of this till the day before yesterday. once he checked and confirmed that it was the same sergeant he was extremely annoyed that he got put through such an ordeal for nothing but he's hopeful now that his charges will get dropped and he can put this business behind him.

Except that your friend will never be repaid the expense or inconvenience that he had to endure. The A-hole cop gets a paid vacation out of it.

Cops just do whatever they hell they want and the judges always side with them. There is no such thing as a fair day in court and this law only proves it. Thanks FAT-ino.

[camber]

Umm, no, it's pointless to argue with me because I know more about how legislation is passed and, more importantly, why it is passed the way it is, than you ever will.

Well, except in the instance of Bill 203, you didn't know the specifics of why it was passed that way.

So, just don't bother trying...:) Besides, we're both against this law, just for different reasons. Me, lack of due process, you, Fantino. Why can't you just get over it now and let me one day read one post of yours without having to read about your apparent nemesis...just once??;) Because I generally enjoy reading you, and whatever reason you keep harping on Fantino, whether it's in response or not, it's just getting tiresome.

I've actually been pretty even handed with Fantino and kept all my criticisms to his career and how that pertains to this law. I just don't your point in how you can seperate the person that had a hand in writing the bill that became law, promoting the bill and law by telling half truths and setting the tone for how it is enforced to the largest police operation in the province. Anyways, when I bring up Fantino, besides the obvious jokes:lol:, you can bet it is relevant to Bill 203, HTA 172 and its application.

[camber]

any updates on this? A co-worker of mine actually got ticketed by this guy going 156km/h when he swears he wasn't doing more than 130. He has a court case in november and he's really interested to find out what's going on.

I was checking out this thread at work when he saw it and asked me what i was reading and when i told him, his eyes almost fell out of his head. he had no idea about any of this till the day before yesterday. once he checked and confirmed that it was the same sergeant he was extremely annoyed that he got put through such an ordeal for nothing but he's hopeful now that his charges will get dropped and he can put this business behind him.

Tell him to contact his lawyer and them him this information about Sgt. Dennis Mahoney-Bruer. Many(if not most or all) of Sgt. Dennis Mahoney-Bruer traffic cases are being dropped by prosecution. Also, he might have a shot of recovering his money he lost but he should talk to his lawyer about that.

Although, you friend might be happy that these charges will probably get dropped. He has to remember that this could very easily happen again to him. The law hasn't changed and still has all the same problems it has since being enacted.

[jedijome]

Tell him to contact his lawyer and them him this information about Sgt. Dennis Mahoney-Bruer. Many(if not most or all) of Sgt. Dennis Mahoney-Bruer traffic cases are being dropped by prosecution. Also, he might have a shot of recovering his money he lost but he should talk to his lawyer about that.

Although, you friend might be happy that these charges will probably get dropped. He has to remember that this could very easily happen again to him. The law hasn't changed and still has all the same problems it has since being enacted.

hahaha i'm pretty sure he's going to watch his speed like a hawk from now on.
anyways yeah i figured they would be dropped against him and he said he'd talk to his lawyer and see if he could get back legal costs/towing/impound fees.

hopefully stuff like this can be used to repeal this law

[camber]

hahaha i'm pretty sure he's going to watch his speed like a hawk from now on.


That's was the problem with this incident. The officer was making up evidence to charge people and tow their cars. Therefore, it doesn't matter if you friend obeys the law to the letter. The potential is still there for this to happen again!

[Kellster]

That's was the problem with this incident. The officer was making up evidence to charge people and tow their cars. Therefore, it doesn't matter if you friend obeys the law to the letter. The potential is still there for this to happen again!

That's the problem with this law. Cops love it because they can lie (as they always do) and get away with it with nothing more than a paid vacation as a consequence. You can be driving at the speed limit and they can just lie and say you were "stunt driving".

This case only proves that this is exactly what they do. This jerk is the only one they caught doing it. There could be more. It would be nice if they required that one has to have an I.Q. of more than just 7 to become a cop.

[Nikita]

It's pointless to argue with you because you’re ignorant of specific how this law came to pass.

Wrong, I'm fully aware of how this law came to pass. Problem is, you're not aware that many many laws are passed the exact same way...you think this is an entirely unique legislative process...well guess what? It's not, at all!

It's not my fault that you don't understand that writing a bill is part of the law making process. I just think it is funny that you seem to be implying that only voting on a bill is part of the law making process.

And I find it funny that you think 'writing' a bill is the ONLY part of the law making process. Voting is more important that the writing, because without a written bill, what's there to vote on? Without a vote, there are no laws. What is so difficult about that??




Surprisingly, this isn't the first time even in this thread you demonstrated you weren't informed. Remember, the multiple OPP getting off on HTA 172 charges?

No I don't remember, perhaps you can refresh my memory, since it is obviously so fresh in yours that I have to wonder why you care so much? What is your point even if you are correct (which I won't know till you refer me to whatever it is your talking about)...that I make mistakes? Thank you...that only proves I'm human. Thank gawd I make mistakes, I never wanted to be a bot...;) So feel free to post where I was 'uninformed' or 'wrong' and if I was, as usual, I'll be the first to admit it. See, I don't have a problem with being wrong on occassion. So...bring it on.





However, he did have a role in writing of the bill and selling the law to the MLA by skewing legal cases in the media to sell the bill.

Huh? How exactly did he 'skew the legal cases in the media to sell the bill'?? You do know (I'm sure you must) that the media didn't pass this law anymore than Fantino did. But seriously, I'd be really interested in an answer to my question cuz now you're disdain for Fantino seems to be bringing you into the realm of conspiracy theories.




Again, it seems you are unaware of how this particular bill came about and how it got enacted into law. You didn’t seem aware that some of the steps were skipped or sped up.

Wrong again. I fully aware of how this particular bill got enacted. I'm also fully aware that it is far from the only bill that got fastracked. It happens, more than you know...write your MP about that one if you think it'll change anything.


The mindset of Fantino and how that mindset affects the officers beneath him to apply and interpret the law is just as important as the law itself. Especially, considering the power it gives police. Since, Fantino sets the tone for how this law is applied by officers, he is fair game for criticism.

Well, all that is just your opinion, unless you have some evidence to support the notion that the 'officers beneath him' are nothing but bots aping their leader and his wishes....:rolleyes:. No matter how many times you talk Fantino, when it comes to the passing of legislation, the buck stops with the legislators. Whether Fantino put in a private thumbs up or talked to the committees and legislature till he was blue in the face, the buck always stops with the legislature. And on that note, I really am through arguing about Fantino...he had input, appropriately so in our system, he used it to skirt due process and you know how I feel about due process, but he had every right to use his time to say whatever he wanted about this law when it was still just a bill. That's the beauty of freedom of expression, I may hate his message, but I'll defend his right to communicate it, no matter how much his message offends me or anybody else. Nobody, not even Fantino, forced the legislatue to pass this law.


Well, except in the instance of Bill 203, you didn't know the specifics of why it was passed that way.

Just as wrong as the first three times you said that...:rolleyes:. You do know, don't you, that repeating something over and over doesn't make it true?

[mazdubb]

I've never claimed that Fantino enacts law.

However, he did have a role in writing of the bill and selling the law to the MLA by skewing legal cases in the media to sell the bill.

They didn't actually skew legal cases. Various police services just made off the cuff remarks about possible fatal collisions being related to street racing to the media. Media sensationalized those remarks and prodded people like Fantino to get their opinions on the matter of street racing. The sheep get outraged and demand the government protect them from this evil.

Next thing you know it's a law. Fantino was just a loud mouth that scared the the sheep through the media with personal opinion and unqualified statistics. He definitely played a key role. Not in the actual building of the legislation though.

It's much the same process for any fast tracked law.

[camber]

Wrong, I'm fully aware of how this law came to pass.

Nope.. you aren't. I can tell by your previous posts

Problem is, you're not aware that many many laws are passed the exact same way...you think this is an entirely unique legislative process...well guess what? It's not, at all!

Can you tell me how many bills in 2007 were enacted where an MPP/police service misrepresented a legal case to garner public support?

Promised interested parties in the debates they would have their say and then reneged?

Used the OPP's/police service media presence to create a need for a law?

And I find it funny that you think 'writing' a bill is the ONLY part of the law making process. Voting is more important that the writing, because without a written bill, what's there to vote on? Without a vote, there are no laws. What is so difficult about that??

Chicken/egg much?

The fact is you can't have one with out the other. Is this a concept that is difficult to understand?


No I don't remember, perhaps you can refresh my memory, since it is obviously so fresh in yours that I have to wonder why you care so much? What is your point even if you are correct (which I won't know till you refer me to whatever it is your talking about)...that I make mistakes? Thank you...that only proves I'm human. Thank gawd I make mistakes, I never wanted to be a bot...;) So feel free to post where I was 'uninformed' or 'wrong' and if I was, as usual, I'll be the first to admit it. See, I don't have a problem with being wrong on occassion. So...bring it on.

Just check you previous posts in this thread. I unaware of any bill enacted into law in 2007 that the government played in the grey area ethically.


Huh? How exactly did he 'skew the legal cases in the media to sell the bill'?? You do know (I'm sure you must) that the media didn't pass this law anymore than Fantino did. But seriously, I'd be really interested in an answer to my question cuz now you're disdain for Fantino seems to be bringing you into the realm of conspiracy theories

Again just because you ignorant of the issues that surround this law, gives you no right to say I have something against Fantino.

I have said multiple times that Fantino did not enact this law.

Did have a hand in making the law?

Yes.

Did he create an environment, where people that had the power to enact a law thought it was necessary?

Yes. This can easilly be seen from his comments on traffic safety between 2006 - present and how the OPP put out traffic collisions in the media during this time period.

Wrong again. I fully aware of how this particular bill got enacted. I'm also fully aware that it is far from the only bill that got fastracked. It happens, more than you know...write your MP about that one if you think it'll change anything.

No you aren't... It's glaring apparent that you don't know how this bill came about or you wouldn't be saying the things you said.

Well, all that is just your opinion, unless you have some evidence to support the notion that the 'officers beneath him' are nothing but bots aping their leader and his wishes....:rolleyes:.

:rolleyes::lol:

So your saying that the Comissioner of the OPP has no sway over the people beneath them and how a particular law gets enforced?

No matter how many times you talk Fantino, when it comes to the passing of legislation, the buck stops with the legislators. Whether Fantino put in a private thumbs up or talked to the committees and legislature till he was blue in the face, the buck always stops with the legislature. And on that note, I really am through arguing about Fantino...he had input, appropriately so in our system, he used it to skirt due process and you know how I feel about due process, but he had every right to use his time to say whatever he wanted about this law when it was still just a bill. That's the beauty of freedom of expression, I may hate his message, but I'll defend his right to communicate it, no matter how much his message offends me or anybody else. Nobody, not even Fantino, forced the legislatue to pass this law.

Legislature can't enact something, if they don't have a bill. You usually don't write a bill to address a non issue. The MLA won't enact a law unless they think its needed. Anyway you slice it, Fantino had his hand in the process.

Actually, do this.....

Remember when Fantino started to roll out numbers to show that HTA 172 was needed/working and OPP were doing such a great job?

Try to a Freedom of Information request for those raw statistics from the MTO. For some odd reason this is only information that Fantino has and the MTO won't repeat and is withholding. Actually, the MTO is withholding all newer statistics.

Just as wrong as the first three times you said that...:rolleyes:.

Nope... Still right.

You do know, don't you, that repeating something over and over doesn't make it true?

Maybe you should try following that sentiement?;)

Anyways, instead if you want to find out out how this law came to be there is a good book I can recommend. It seems like your missing many important pieces of the puzzle.

[camber]

They didn't actually skew legal cases. Various police services just made off the cuff remarks about possible fatal collisions being related to street racing to the media. Media sensationalized those remarks and prodded people like Fantino to get their opinions on the matter of street racing. The sheep get outraged and demand the government protect them from this evil.


Incorrect.

Look back at the Machester "street racing" case. This case played prominent position in the debate through MPP Frank Klees and the media at that time. York Police made no mention that Rob Manchester was impaired and some some other key information(Their own speed estimates put the cars at 20-30 km above the 80 km/h limit. However, they happily let the media print the car were travelling in excess of 140 km/h) . This information did not make it to the media or MLA until it the case was heard in court on August 22, 2007.

Bill 203 was passed in April of 2007.

[Nikita]

<snip>



Uggh...do you not know when it's time to stop repeating yourself...:rolleyes: You are contributing absolutely nothing of value, nothing new to this discussion...it would really behoove you to give it up now, seriously. You can tell me I know nothing about X, Y, or Z a hundred times and that you know everything..it changes nothing. I can repeat myself about your ignorance of the legislative process AND of your putting words in my mouth once again, but that contributes nothing of value and nothing new, so I'm not going to bother. The only thing I will say is that your 2 or 3 repetitions of my showing that I don't understand in some previous thread (?) is obviously crap since you've just shown you can't back that up, despite my asking you to prove yourself.

So, like I said, unless you have something new or different or useful to offer, please stop wasting the bandwidth with your boring repititous nonsense...;), because it's become so very droll.

[camber]

Anyways, heard through the grapevine that when lawyers contact the OPP for a client, the OPP ask which tow company towed their cars and which one of three officers gave them a ticket.

I really hope this is localized just to one officer and that last tidbit is wrong.

[camber]

Uggh...do you not know when it's time to stop repeating yourself...:rolleyes: You are contributing absolutely nothing of value, nothing new to this discussion...it would really behoove you to give it up now, seriously. You can tell me I know nothing about X, Y, or Z a hundred times and that you know everything..it changes nothing. I can repeat myself about your ignorance of the legislative process AND of your putting words in my mouth once again, but that contributes nothing of value and nothing new, so I'm not going to bother.

I could make the same accusation about you and just repeat myself over and over again. Like you have...

Anyways..


The only thing I will say is that your 2 or 3 repetitions of my showing that I don't understand in some previous thread (?) is obviously crap since you've just shown you can't back that up, despite my asking you to prove yourself.

Already did.. see previous post but it seems easier for you to ignore or to be ignorant and claim baseless biases.

So, like I said, unless you have something new or different or useful to offer, please stop wasting the bandwidth with your boring repititous nonsense...;), because it's become so very droll.

Good job of glossing over the Manchester case and its roll in bill 203/ HTA 172 but then again you knew about that already;)

I mean... Why would, I have to mention something to someone that claims to know all the issues on why this legislation got passed?

Like I mentioned before.... I have a good book you can read, if you want to know more. Otherwise, continuously rehashing baseless claims against me is getting this topic off thread and that currently seems to be your only interest in this thread.

[Nikita]

Anyways, heard through the grapevine that when lawyers contact the OPP for a client, the OPP ask which tow company towed their cars and which one of three officers gave them a ticket.

I really hope this is localized just to one officer and that last tidbit is wrong.

Heard it through the grapevine...uh huh...that's reliable...:rolleyes: Sure hope you have enough sense to realize this isn't evidence of anything since you obviously don't have enough knowledge to to wait for evidence, charges, allegations etc before passing judgment. Gotta give you credit though...you left Fantino's name out of this one....so far anyway.

[Nikita]

Quote:
Originally Posted by camber
Surprisingly, this isn't the first time even in this thread you demonstrated you weren't informed. Remember, the multiple OPP getting off on HTA 172 charges?


No I don't remember, perhaps you can refresh my memory, since it is obviously so fresh in yours that I have to wonder why you care so much? What is your point even if you are correct (which I won't know till you refer me to whatever it is your talking about)...that I make mistakes? Thank you...that only proves I'm human. Thank gawd I make mistakes, I never wanted to be a bot...;) So feel free to post where I was 'uninformed' or 'wrong' and if I was, as usual, I'll be the first to admit it. See, I don't have a problem with being wrong on occassion. So...bring it on.





Just check you previous posts in this thread.



Originally Posted by Nikita
The only thing I will say is that your 2 or 3 repetitions of my showing that I don't understand in some previous thread (?) is obviously crap since you've just shown you can't back that up, despite my asking you to prove yourself.



Already did.. see previous post but it seems easier for you to ignore or to be ignorant and claim baseless biases.


Hmm, already did? Really? Where?

No. No. Nowhere

Pwnd.

Give it up. You've become nothing but an annoying bot. 'Ignore' button is sounding better than you are right about now.

[camber]

Hmm, already did? Really? Where?

No. No. Nowhere

Pwnd.

Give it up. You've become nothing but an annoying bot. 'Ignore' button is sounding better than you are right about now.

Nope... Look at the Manchester case(beyond the other things I mentioned) and how it relates to bill 203. There is no better example to prove what I have mentioned or continue to be ignorant. I'm guessing by your previous comments, you'll choose the latter.

[camber]

Heard it through the grapevine...uh huh...that's reliable...:rolleyes: Sure hope you have enough sense to realize this isn't evidence of anything since you obviously don't have enough knowledge to to wait for evidence, charges, allegations etc before passing judgment.

I done the same thing in the past in this very thread! The gist was accurate.

Anways, there is a reason why I qualified my statement as hearing it through the grapevine and there is not a need to point that out. Since, I have already have done that..


Gotta give you credit though...you left Fantino's name out of this one....so far anyway.

I know its like most of my posts! Where you don't continuously bring him up;)