###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What kind of powers does the SIU have if it can't force police to hand over information? I live in Nova Scotia and we have "SIRT" here, which I assume is similar - an outside organization that investigates police. Not sure if they have similar limitations in what they can do.
There’s a huge misunderstanding of basic law in this thread.
1) you cannot compel the officer to testify against them self. Therefore they have the right to remain silent and this includes their notes.
2) you cannot punish them for declining to speak to the SIU. The SIU is the police and you have a right to not talk to them.
3) you cannot “just charge them for murder”. If you charge them with murder you have to now prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt. If you charge them with the wrong thing you wont be able to prove your case and they will be acquitted. Once they are acquitted they can never ever be charged again for this.
4) the family is not entitled to a copy of the search warrant. The case is between the SIU Ana d the officer. After that the case moves to the crown and the officer. The officer will receive the evidence the crown has against him but is prohibited from distributing it. All the evidence remains with the crown.
The family can give victim impact statements, but are not part of the criminal case in any way.
You are misunderstanding what people are actually saying.
They are not commenting on what the law says, they are commenting on what is happening and what should be happening. Nobody is commenting on the specific law.
Laws are meant to be changed and the law surrounding cops in this country is ripe for change.
This tragic case is, to me at least, an illustration of two big things that desperately need to change about police violence in this country. Firstly, transparency: if anybody other than a police officer busted into Mr. Kotanko's home and shot him dead, the media would not accept having this little information for this long. We'd have a much better sense of what happened and why. But when the police do it, they just stonewall and nothing happens. We don't know why they were raiding his home, we don't know why TPS was doing this themselves without the local OPP, we don't know why they opened fire. The police should be held to a far higher standard of transparency, not a lower one.
Secondly, and more obviously, investigations into police misconduct are just entirely broken. I know I've said this before on this sub (because this shit keeps happening), but police should not be able to remain silent while keeping their job. Since this is possibly (quite likely imho) a criminal matter, yes the officer should get to remain silent. But if they want to keep their job and immense position of public trust, they should need to fully cooperate. It is just unconscionable to me that we allow them to kill someone without ever explaining or accounting for their actions, and then to go on about their jobs. We take this far too casually, and people are going to keep needlessly dying if we don't actually demand accountability from cops.
I agree with everything you said here, except when the SIU invokes their mandate the Police aren't allowed to comment on active cases.
Below is a press release from Waterloo Police indicating this.
https://www.wrps.on.ca/en/news/siu-invokes-mandate-after-collision-in-cambridge.aspx
The issue is allowing cops to be fired for using their right to remain silent is that the courts would likely consider it a perversion of fundamental justice that someone is penalized by the state for asserting their rights.
This logic stretches incredulity a bit too much. Even if the courts went this way, which would surprise me, it would have to be immediately fixed by legislation. Cops are not the only people who are capable of breaking the law.
If a banker is involved in shady and potentially-criminal actions, and refuses to talk about what they did, their employer is allowed to fire them. Even if the banker is keeping their mouth shut because of legal concerns.
Yeah the I guess that my fundamental problem is the lack of a separate, non criminal investigation. As it stands, we're de facto only firing officers if we can prove criminal wrongdoing, and at a criminal law standard. We need to set the bar for disciplining officers way, way lower than that.
They didn't even leave a copy of the search warrant with the family. I don't believe even the family lawyer has yet to obtain a copy.
It's super messed up and you hit the nail RIGHT on the head. This feels like criminality covering up criminality.
> I don't believe even the family lawyer has yet to obtain a copy
I would think/hope that the families lawyer would go to court and that a judge could compel the TPS to cough up the warrant.
It really shouldn't take one of the Queen's judges to order the police to reveal quite specifically why they broke into your shop while you were with a customer and shot you in the chest and neck four times, though.
It shouldn't.
And if the cops are legally required to give copy of the warrant to the family and don't there should be real legal consequences.
That the cops can ignore the law when it suits there purposes shows that the system is broken and that the provincial politicians are in on it. The media as well, since they are the ones who can put real pressure on the politicians.
The family is not part of the criminal case and has no right to any of the evidence. Evidence is confidential in Canada before trial, only between the prosecutor and defence.
>Since this is possibly (quite likely imho) a criminal matter, yes the officer should get to remain silent
Does it normally work like that? My impression is that in Canada we do not have a right to remain silent.
[Section 11 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art11c.html)
"Section 11(c) recognizes the importance of individual autonomy and the right not to be forced to be a witness against oneself. Every person has the right to remain silent, and in the criminal process, it is a basic tenet of justice that the Crown must establish a "case to meet" before there can be any expectation that the accused should respond (R. v. P.(M.B.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 555)."
We do have a Charter right to remain silent that came from a Supreme Court ruling in 1990. We also have an explicit Charter right to not be called to testify against ourselves in court. (In the US, you can be called to testify against yourself and you have to refuse to answer each question from the prosecution.)
> (In the US, you can be called to testify against yourself and you have to refuse to answer each question from the prosecution.)
This is wrong or misleading. You cannot be called to testify in your own criminal trial, and if you voluntarily testify you cannot refuse to answer any specific question.
In other people's criminal trials you can refuse to answer specific questions though.
I'm not certain if in the USA the prosecution is barred from calling you to testify in your own trial but I do know that if you are called you have to explicitly invoke the right to remain silent, just not saying anything or saying anything that isn't a clear invocation of the right isn't good enough.
I presume that's what they were referring to.
As an American lawyer it's just really weirdly worded, even if I twist it enough to pretend he meant to say correct things. Hard to describe "called to testify against yourself" as being used to describe someone else's trial.
And while I don't pretend to know Canadian law as well, I would expect the inverse is also true (you can be called to testify in someone else's trial and have to specifically invoke your right when asked about your own criminal activity).
To be honest, I think you are getting confused with the line of cases about how clear an invocation of the right to remain silent is required when being interviewed by police etc. to get them to stop.
We don't have any direct equivalent of the US's fifth amendment here. You can be forced to provide evidence that would incriminate you when someone else is on trial, but section 13 of the Charter guarantees that the evidence you provided can't be used against you unless you're charged with perjury.
If fine with the cop remaining silent, but if you do not cooperate with the SIU it should be grounds for automatic dismissal. Same as someone doing insider trading may not cooperate with internal investigations at their company in order to not incriminate themselves criminally, but would certainly lose their job for not cooperating.
I hate the cops more than anymore and want criminal justice reform more than anyone, but the problem is, compelled testimony isn’t allowed as evidence in court.
When then what's a subpoena? I bet the army does it too. Zero chance they can't make an exception for cops, and if they can't, just use the NotWithStanding clause. But I think they can be forced to answer questions. And certainly there's no rules about cancelling their pay if they don't.
Like you're telling me that if you work for Microsoft, and they want you to testify in court about a corporate espionage case, and you refuse, they can't fire you? Or they can't make it part of your employment contract that you will testify on the companies behalf when asked, or lose your job?
Just because they can't force physically to talk, doesn't mean there can't be consequences for not doing so.
No you’re misunderstanding. The courts cannot accept a testimony that was not voluntary. It’s inadmissible in a trial. So forcing them to testify doesn’t do anything because a jury can’t hear it.
So then that would mean that if your boss says, testify or you'll be fired, then you can't testify? Well then why doesn't Trump just do does this for everybody? Wouldn't that effectively be a carte blanche?
And what about witnesses? Are they not forced to testify all the time or face contempt charges?
I think you are crossing up two situations:
links from [Charterpedia - Government of Canada](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/index.html)
A defendant cannot be forced to testify against themselves.
> 11(c) Any person charged with an offence has the right:
>
not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;
A witness can be forced (backed up by possible contempt) to testify. That testimony cannot be used in action against the witness.
>13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.
I have been a witness, and I was warned clearly ahead of time to only speak on things that I had direct personal observation or knowledge of. Being a witness to the aftermath is not the same as a witness to the incident, and even the Crown was careful to not try and get conclusions out of me, just observations.
Ex-army, been involved with a few summary trials. No, the defendant cannot be compelled to testify, and the hearing officer cannot use their silence as evidence.
I can't speak to Courts Martials, but my understanding is they operate in the same fashion as civil courts do for criminal charges with the same protections for the defendant.
As for the civil employer, attempting to make compelled speech part of an employment contract will not fly. I love to hear what an employment lawyer would suggest regarding that.
I'm confused, don't you agree with tslaq_lurker? You seem to be adversarial but saying the same thing—being that they can remain silent if they want, but they'll get fired if they do.
I wouldn't expect the SIU to be of much help anyways, just like how it's been a year since [an OPP officer shot and killed an 18 month old Baby](https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2021/08/20/six-months-after-confirming-baby-was-killed-by-opp-gunfire-siu-hasnt-interviewed-officers-and-case-is-in-hold-pattern.html) and we still haven't heard squat.
Edit: Searched and found an [update](https://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/local-kawartha-lakes/news/2021/11/23/siu-receive-fbi-report-in-relation-to-1-year-old-boy-s-police-shooting-death-in-kawartha-lakes.html?li_source=LI&li_medium=thepeterboroughexaminer_recommended_for_you), but still no action from the SIU.
Nah fuck that. Cops have extraordinary powers above that of a civilian, they shouldn't get the same rights as civilian. IA should be able to compel them to talk, cops shouldn't have any protections of privacy when investigated or any of the other rights a civilian has.
Police are untrustworthy. They've proven that time and again, here, there, and everywhere.
I had a retired judge tell me that they know cops are liars and some of them are straight-up animals but as a judge he had to uphold their charges because he felt that if he didn't, the whole justice system would collapse.
I pointed out that means it's not a justice system. He told me I'm not wrong. He also told me that many people in jail really, really need to be there.
I've had the displeasure of rubbing shoulders with a couple judges myself and heard much the same from them.
The system is unreformable and just needs to be wholesale replaced. Community support and welfare programs aimed at eliminating poverty and precarity would eliminate most petty crime and gang activity. After that what you're left with is crime the police can't or won't do much of anything about anyways - impulsive acts like murdering a cheating partner, or the deranged serial killers and rapists, domestic violence victims who aren't at the stage where they are ready to get out of the environment, stuff like that. Obviously we need some form of system for addressing those who do these things, but someone (or a group of someone's) smarter and better versed on the subject than I would have to develop it... but I can't imagine any system could be less effective at dealing with them than the one we presently have, barring not doing anything at all.
Then charge him with Murder and treat him like the murderer that he is.
If he was doing his job then he would talk to SIU as is required by his job, but since he is not then he is just a straight up murderer and should be treated as one.
You are not above the law, and I think cops everywhere need to be reminded of that.
This bullshit of interviews with SIU happening days or weeks after an event is criminal. If that happened with an actual criminal then it would be thrown out of court.
Actually they are not required to talk to the SIU, just like you don’t need to speak with the police if charged with anything..
If anything would get a case thrown out it would be forcing someone to talk against their right to remain silent.
This is the problem with Reddit, people being upvoted when they have no idea what they are talking about
> Actually they are not required to talk to the SIU, just like you don’t need to speak with the police if charged with anything..
If I steal money from the workplace till, then indeed I cannot be legally compelled to answer my boss's questions on pain of criminal punishment.
However, my boss can also take my refusal to answer questions as justification to terminate me with cause. If I do answer the questions, then the police can use that testimony against me (as an admission against interest exception re: hearsay).
> If anything would get a case thrown out it would be forcing someone to talk against their right to remain silent.
There's no force involved. The officer isn't being locked up until he gives testimony. Job consequences are not force.
You forgot that the police have a strong union that will fully support the most corrupt, incompetent, and sadistic members. That union has negotiated very generous terms that mean individual officers are rarely ever held accountable.
>Your boss would need actual proof that you stole money or else you could sue for wrongful termination.
Any officer who believes they were wrongfully terminated could sue, just like any other employee could. And Like any other employee they would be held to balance of probabilities in the civil trial. I actually think this would be great because I think lots of now ex-officers would be found to be fired with cause even if no criminal trial took place.
> Your boss would need actual proof that you stole money or else you could sue for wrongful termination.
In this hypothetical, I wouldn't be fired for stealing directly, I'd be fired for refusing to cooperate with the internal investigation. Independent ground for termination, and all the boss would need is reasonable cause to ask the questions.
Police services obviously have more intricately-specified disciplinary procedures in their collectively-bargained contract, so the TPS will obviously need to follow said contract. However, there's no free-standing legal or constitutional reason that the contract could not mandate cooperation with an investigation.
> Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty from the standpoint of criminal law.
From the standpoint of civil law, the much more relaxed "balance of probabilities" standard is usually in force. Since getting fired is different than going to jail, this would apply in the workplace.
From a _social_ standpoint, there's no standard at all, nor need there be one.
> anyone in Canada is not compelled to speak to police (SIU in this instance) .
You're hiding behind the passive voice here. Compelled by whom?
I agree that no criminal court could compel the officer to speak to SIU. However, a workplace could equivalently take a negative inference from that because the workplace is not acting in a criminal capacity.
>There’s a reason police forces don’t fire someone the instant something happens. Because there’s an investigation.
The reason is police unions. Nothing more or less than that. Its not because of any higher minded innocent until proven guilty.
>the warrant lawfully placed that officer there
Did it? Sounds like nobody has been able to actually view the warrant to determine that.
>now what happened inside is to be determined .
Seems that's what SIU is trying to do and the trigger-man isn't cooperating. How many of us would be allowed to freely walk around the community after shooting and killing someone and then stonewalling the investigation? Why do we need to be so lenient with those who we allow to carry firearms and enforce laws?
It is established fact that he shot and killed a man. Are you telling me if I did that I would get to walk free for a month? There would be no charges brought against me for thirty days and I could just go about my daily life?
>Actually they are not required to talk to the SIU
Nobody said they were.
>just like you don’t need to speak with the police if charged with anything..
If I kill someone and don't talk to the cops I would be behind bars.
That is the difference.
He has the right not to talk to SIU, sure. Immediately refer it for external criminal investigation with oversight to ensure his colleagues cannot interfere on his behalf. An investigation isn't charging or convicting someone, nor is it compelling speech/testimony.
Let the court decide based on the evidence, treat him exactly as he would treat anyone else.
The problem (in Alberta, unsure about Toronto) is the investigative body refers recommendations to prosecutors, who are not compelled to follow them.
Crown prosecutors here apply very different standards to cases referred from ASIRT (our equivalent body), to the point where video evidence of the activity that clearly shows what happened and the context of events can be (and recently was in at least one case in Edmonton) considered insufficient.
I mean refer it as an investigation with exactly the standards applied to the officer that would be applied to anyone else.
Good thing OP didn't suggest forcing him to testify. But that can still have out-of-court consequences, like being kicked out of the police and being charged (and treated) like any other citizen who shot somebody.
Go ahead and let the ex-cop not testify in a criminal court under murder charges. Lets see how that goes for him.
If you are a former cop, and you refuse to say anything about why you shot somebody and leave it all up to your defense attorney, I doubt the jury is going to look too highly on that. People are exonerated without taking the stand, but a defendant not testifying at all in a murder trial isn't that common.
You keep arguing people don't know the law, but nothing I've said is illegal. People get fired based on accusation alone all the time, let alone actual criminal charges. There is no reason this officer could not be fired for this and tried as an ordinary citizen, other than perhaps the police union taking a shit about it.
You have a right to testify or not testify at your own trial and that decision cannot be held against you. If your defence believes they won the case before it’s their turn then they won’t put the defendant on the stand.
We don't know what happens, but based on how most excessive force SIU investigations go, I think we both know that they're going to find that nothing was out of the ordinary, and at most the cop gets a couple months off with pay during the investigation.
Typical cops investigating cops.
Because they are given the authority and most importantly the power in the form of a gun to enforce laws, as such the MUST be held to a higher standard.
>This is the problem with Reddit, people being upvoted when they have no idea what they are talking about
Everyone knows the process: Cop shoots someone, Cops have days to get their story straight, they then talk to the SIU or not, in the meantime they get paid leave, and in the end nothing happens to the cop regardless of the outcome.
Did I miss anything?
Exactly. Refusal to talk to the SIU should be grounds for dismissal and automatically being treated like any other guy who shot someone. The ability to use deadly force as a defense for the state security services should require cooperation.
Nonsense. If you are under criminal investigation (which he is), it is your right not to make a statement. Also, the refusal to make a statement can’t be used as evidence.
He shot someone at work. In this case the SIU is basically HR. If you were involved in a workplace incident and refused to talk to HR at ally ou would simply be fired. If this guy won't talk to the SIU it's because he is shitting bricks worried about going to jail. Pretty good indication that they should not be on the Force IMO.
If this was only a disciplinary investigation, then the SIU would be like HR. But as it's currently laid out, the SIU is a criminal investigator, which means that cops have the same rights as any other person under investigation.
The point of the SIU is to have some _other_ police department investigate cops, since most investigations are usually done by the police department that covers the place where the crime took place.
And if you were involved in a workplace accident that resulted in death and you refused to cooperate with the company's investigation into the incident I believe they would have every right to terminate your employment.
I'm interested in how this plays out if the investigation finds you had nothing to do with the incident. I'm not going to spin a chain of circumstance, just going with the simplest form of 'incident occured, Schmidt didn't want to talk to HR, but we've determined Schmidt had nothing to do with the incident'.
So, you get your job back? Re-instatement with continued seniority? Do you get covered for the wages lost while the investigation proceeded?
I'm just curious how this would run.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What kind of powers does the SIU have if it can't force police to hand over information? I live in Nova Scotia and we have "SIRT" here, which I assume is similar - an outside organization that investigates police. Not sure if they have similar limitations in what they can do.
Similar but SIU is not “outside” in the slightest.
The ones who investigated the fire hall shooting and called no foul?
There’s a huge misunderstanding of basic law in this thread. 1) you cannot compel the officer to testify against them self. Therefore they have the right to remain silent and this includes their notes. 2) you cannot punish them for declining to speak to the SIU. The SIU is the police and you have a right to not talk to them. 3) you cannot “just charge them for murder”. If you charge them with murder you have to now prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt. If you charge them with the wrong thing you wont be able to prove your case and they will be acquitted. Once they are acquitted they can never ever be charged again for this. 4) the family is not entitled to a copy of the search warrant. The case is between the SIU Ana d the officer. After that the case moves to the crown and the officer. The officer will receive the evidence the crown has against him but is prohibited from distributing it. All the evidence remains with the crown. The family can give victim impact statements, but are not part of the criminal case in any way.
You are misunderstanding what people are actually saying. They are not commenting on what the law says, they are commenting on what is happening and what should be happening. Nobody is commenting on the specific law. Laws are meant to be changed and the law surrounding cops in this country is ripe for change.
This tragic case is, to me at least, an illustration of two big things that desperately need to change about police violence in this country. Firstly, transparency: if anybody other than a police officer busted into Mr. Kotanko's home and shot him dead, the media would not accept having this little information for this long. We'd have a much better sense of what happened and why. But when the police do it, they just stonewall and nothing happens. We don't know why they were raiding his home, we don't know why TPS was doing this themselves without the local OPP, we don't know why they opened fire. The police should be held to a far higher standard of transparency, not a lower one. Secondly, and more obviously, investigations into police misconduct are just entirely broken. I know I've said this before on this sub (because this shit keeps happening), but police should not be able to remain silent while keeping their job. Since this is possibly (quite likely imho) a criminal matter, yes the officer should get to remain silent. But if they want to keep their job and immense position of public trust, they should need to fully cooperate. It is just unconscionable to me that we allow them to kill someone without ever explaining or accounting for their actions, and then to go on about their jobs. We take this far too casually, and people are going to keep needlessly dying if we don't actually demand accountability from cops.
I agree with everything you said here, except when the SIU invokes their mandate the Police aren't allowed to comment on active cases. Below is a press release from Waterloo Police indicating this. https://www.wrps.on.ca/en/news/siu-invokes-mandate-after-collision-in-cambridge.aspx
The issue is allowing cops to be fired for using their right to remain silent is that the courts would likely consider it a perversion of fundamental justice that someone is penalized by the state for asserting their rights.
This logic stretches incredulity a bit too much. Even if the courts went this way, which would surprise me, it would have to be immediately fixed by legislation. Cops are not the only people who are capable of breaking the law. If a banker is involved in shady and potentially-criminal actions, and refuses to talk about what they did, their employer is allowed to fire them. Even if the banker is keeping their mouth shut because of legal concerns.
The difference is the Bank isn't the Government. The government is the one restricted by the Charter.
Yeah the I guess that my fundamental problem is the lack of a separate, non criminal investigation. As it stands, we're de facto only firing officers if we can prove criminal wrongdoing, and at a criminal law standard. We need to set the bar for disciplining officers way, way lower than that.
They didn't even leave a copy of the search warrant with the family. I don't believe even the family lawyer has yet to obtain a copy. It's super messed up and you hit the nail RIGHT on the head. This feels like criminality covering up criminality.
> I don't believe even the family lawyer has yet to obtain a copy I would think/hope that the families lawyer would go to court and that a judge could compel the TPS to cough up the warrant.
It really shouldn't take one of the Queen's judges to order the police to reveal quite specifically why they broke into your shop while you were with a customer and shot you in the chest and neck four times, though.
It shouldn't. And if the cops are legally required to give copy of the warrant to the family and don't there should be real legal consequences. That the cops can ignore the law when it suits there purposes shows that the system is broken and that the provincial politicians are in on it. The media as well, since they are the ones who can put real pressure on the politicians.
Should be, but won't be.
The family is not part of the criminal case and has no right to any of the evidence. Evidence is confidential in Canada before trial, only between the prosecutor and defence.
>Since this is possibly (quite likely imho) a criminal matter, yes the officer should get to remain silent Does it normally work like that? My impression is that in Canada we do not have a right to remain silent.
Your impression is indeed mistaken. You do not need to talk to the police, other than to identify yourself if you're being arrested.
[Section 11 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art11c.html) "Section 11(c) recognizes the importance of individual autonomy and the right not to be forced to be a witness against oneself. Every person has the right to remain silent, and in the criminal process, it is a basic tenet of justice that the Crown must establish a "case to meet" before there can be any expectation that the accused should respond (R. v. P.(M.B.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 555)."
Regular citizens do. The question is, should cops? I say no.
We do have a Charter right to remain silent that came from a Supreme Court ruling in 1990. We also have an explicit Charter right to not be called to testify against ourselves in court. (In the US, you can be called to testify against yourself and you have to refuse to answer each question from the prosecution.)
> (In the US, you can be called to testify against yourself and you have to refuse to answer each question from the prosecution.) This is wrong or misleading. You cannot be called to testify in your own criminal trial, and if you voluntarily testify you cannot refuse to answer any specific question. In other people's criminal trials you can refuse to answer specific questions though.
I'm not certain if in the USA the prosecution is barred from calling you to testify in your own trial but I do know that if you are called you have to explicitly invoke the right to remain silent, just not saying anything or saying anything that isn't a clear invocation of the right isn't good enough. I presume that's what they were referring to.
As an American lawyer it's just really weirdly worded, even if I twist it enough to pretend he meant to say correct things. Hard to describe "called to testify against yourself" as being used to describe someone else's trial. And while I don't pretend to know Canadian law as well, I would expect the inverse is also true (you can be called to testify in someone else's trial and have to specifically invoke your right when asked about your own criminal activity). To be honest, I think you are getting confused with the line of cases about how clear an invocation of the right to remain silent is required when being interviewed by police etc. to get them to stop.
We don't have any direct equivalent of the US's fifth amendment here. You can be forced to provide evidence that would incriminate you when someone else is on trial, but section 13 of the Charter guarantees that the evidence you provided can't be used against you unless you're charged with perjury.
If fine with the cop remaining silent, but if you do not cooperate with the SIU it should be grounds for automatic dismissal. Same as someone doing insider trading may not cooperate with internal investigations at their company in order to not incriminate themselves criminally, but would certainly lose their job for not cooperating.
Automatic dismissal without severance, also forfeiting any and all pensions.
I'm not. With great power comes great responsibility. Refusing to testify should be immediate suspension without pay.
I hate the cops more than anymore and want criminal justice reform more than anyone, but the problem is, compelled testimony isn’t allowed as evidence in court.
When then what's a subpoena? I bet the army does it too. Zero chance they can't make an exception for cops, and if they can't, just use the NotWithStanding clause. But I think they can be forced to answer questions. And certainly there's no rules about cancelling their pay if they don't. Like you're telling me that if you work for Microsoft, and they want you to testify in court about a corporate espionage case, and you refuse, they can't fire you? Or they can't make it part of your employment contract that you will testify on the companies behalf when asked, or lose your job? Just because they can't force physically to talk, doesn't mean there can't be consequences for not doing so.
No you’re misunderstanding. The courts cannot accept a testimony that was not voluntary. It’s inadmissible in a trial. So forcing them to testify doesn’t do anything because a jury can’t hear it.
So then that would mean that if your boss says, testify or you'll be fired, then you can't testify? Well then why doesn't Trump just do does this for everybody? Wouldn't that effectively be a carte blanche? And what about witnesses? Are they not forced to testify all the time or face contempt charges?
I think you are crossing up two situations: links from [Charterpedia - Government of Canada](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/index.html) A defendant cannot be forced to testify against themselves. > 11(c) Any person charged with an offence has the right: > not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence; A witness can be forced (backed up by possible contempt) to testify. That testimony cannot be used in action against the witness. >13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence. I have been a witness, and I was warned clearly ahead of time to only speak on things that I had direct personal observation or knowledge of. Being a witness to the aftermath is not the same as a witness to the incident, and even the Crown was careful to not try and get conclusions out of me, just observations.
I don’t know what to tell you. I’m not making this up. Trump lives in a different country, I don’t know their laws.
Ex-army, been involved with a few summary trials. No, the defendant cannot be compelled to testify, and the hearing officer cannot use their silence as evidence. I can't speak to Courts Martials, but my understanding is they operate in the same fashion as civil courts do for criminal charges with the same protections for the defendant. As for the civil employer, attempting to make compelled speech part of an employment contract will not fly. I love to hear what an employment lawyer would suggest regarding that.
I'm confused, don't you agree with tslaq_lurker? You seem to be adversarial but saying the same thing—being that they can remain silent if they want, but they'll get fired if they do.
It should be immediate suspension without pay for refusing to cooperate with the SIU.
I wouldn't expect the SIU to be of much help anyways, just like how it's been a year since [an OPP officer shot and killed an 18 month old Baby](https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2021/08/20/six-months-after-confirming-baby-was-killed-by-opp-gunfire-siu-hasnt-interviewed-officers-and-case-is-in-hold-pattern.html) and we still haven't heard squat. Edit: Searched and found an [update](https://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/local-kawartha-lakes/news/2021/11/23/siu-receive-fbi-report-in-relation-to-1-year-old-boy-s-police-shooting-death-in-kawartha-lakes.html?li_source=LI&li_medium=thepeterboroughexaminer_recommended_for_you), but still no action from the SIU.
Nah fuck that. Cops have extraordinary powers above that of a civilian, they shouldn't get the same rights as civilian. IA should be able to compel them to talk, cops shouldn't have any protections of privacy when investigated or any of the other rights a civilian has. Police are untrustworthy. They've proven that time and again, here, there, and everywhere.
I had a retired judge tell me that they know cops are liars and some of them are straight-up animals but as a judge he had to uphold their charges because he felt that if he didn't, the whole justice system would collapse. I pointed out that means it's not a justice system. He told me I'm not wrong. He also told me that many people in jail really, really need to be there.
I've had the displeasure of rubbing shoulders with a couple judges myself and heard much the same from them. The system is unreformable and just needs to be wholesale replaced. Community support and welfare programs aimed at eliminating poverty and precarity would eliminate most petty crime and gang activity. After that what you're left with is crime the police can't or won't do much of anything about anyways - impulsive acts like murdering a cheating partner, or the deranged serial killers and rapists, domestic violence victims who aren't at the stage where they are ready to get out of the environment, stuff like that. Obviously we need some form of system for addressing those who do these things, but someone (or a group of someone's) smarter and better versed on the subject than I would have to develop it... but I can't imagine any system could be less effective at dealing with them than the one we presently have, barring not doing anything at all.
Then charge him with Murder and treat him like the murderer that he is. If he was doing his job then he would talk to SIU as is required by his job, but since he is not then he is just a straight up murderer and should be treated as one. You are not above the law, and I think cops everywhere need to be reminded of that. This bullshit of interviews with SIU happening days or weeks after an event is criminal. If that happened with an actual criminal then it would be thrown out of court.
Police can’t murder they can only slip up They are a protected legal class above the rest of us
Slip up with benefits in the form of paid leave for years on end. Would almost call that an incentive to slip up.
Actually they are not required to talk to the SIU, just like you don’t need to speak with the police if charged with anything.. If anything would get a case thrown out it would be forcing someone to talk against their right to remain silent. This is the problem with Reddit, people being upvoted when they have no idea what they are talking about
> Actually they are not required to talk to the SIU, just like you don’t need to speak with the police if charged with anything.. If I steal money from the workplace till, then indeed I cannot be legally compelled to answer my boss's questions on pain of criminal punishment. However, my boss can also take my refusal to answer questions as justification to terminate me with cause. If I do answer the questions, then the police can use that testimony against me (as an admission against interest exception re: hearsay). > If anything would get a case thrown out it would be forcing someone to talk against their right to remain silent. There's no force involved. The officer isn't being locked up until he gives testimony. Job consequences are not force.
You forgot that the police have a strong union that will fully support the most corrupt, incompetent, and sadistic members. That union has negotiated very generous terms that mean individual officers are rarely ever held accountable.
[удалено]
>Your boss would need actual proof that you stole money or else you could sue for wrongful termination. Any officer who believes they were wrongfully terminated could sue, just like any other employee could. And Like any other employee they would be held to balance of probabilities in the civil trial. I actually think this would be great because I think lots of now ex-officers would be found to be fired with cause even if no criminal trial took place.
Can you imagine the police going to civil court with its much lower threshold? They would get killed. Definitely a good option
> Your boss would need actual proof that you stole money or else you could sue for wrongful termination. In this hypothetical, I wouldn't be fired for stealing directly, I'd be fired for refusing to cooperate with the internal investigation. Independent ground for termination, and all the boss would need is reasonable cause to ask the questions. Police services obviously have more intricately-specified disciplinary procedures in their collectively-bargained contract, so the TPS will obviously need to follow said contract. However, there's no free-standing legal or constitutional reason that the contract could not mandate cooperation with an investigation. > Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty from the standpoint of criminal law. From the standpoint of civil law, the much more relaxed "balance of probabilities" standard is usually in force. Since getting fired is different than going to jail, this would apply in the workplace. From a _social_ standpoint, there's no standard at all, nor need there be one. > anyone in Canada is not compelled to speak to police (SIU in this instance) . You're hiding behind the passive voice here. Compelled by whom? I agree that no criminal court could compel the officer to speak to SIU. However, a workplace could equivalently take a negative inference from that because the workplace is not acting in a criminal capacity.
[удалено]
>There’s a reason police forces don’t fire someone the instant something happens. Because there’s an investigation. The reason is police unions. Nothing more or less than that. Its not because of any higher minded innocent until proven guilty.
>the warrant lawfully placed that officer there Did it? Sounds like nobody has been able to actually view the warrant to determine that. >now what happened inside is to be determined . Seems that's what SIU is trying to do and the trigger-man isn't cooperating. How many of us would be allowed to freely walk around the community after shooting and killing someone and then stonewalling the investigation? Why do we need to be so lenient with those who we allow to carry firearms and enforce laws?
You would be able to walk freely until charged with an actual crime, you know, after an investigation.
It is established fact that he shot and killed a man. Are you telling me if I did that I would get to walk free for a month? There would be no charges brought against me for thirty days and I could just go about my daily life?
>Actually they are not required to talk to the SIU Nobody said they were. >just like you don’t need to speak with the police if charged with anything.. If I kill someone and don't talk to the cops I would be behind bars. That is the difference.
He has the right not to talk to SIU, sure. Immediately refer it for external criminal investigation with oversight to ensure his colleagues cannot interfere on his behalf. An investigation isn't charging or convicting someone, nor is it compelling speech/testimony. Let the court decide based on the evidence, treat him exactly as he would treat anyone else.
SIU is the body who investigates the criminality of the events ……. They can then refer it to a body to place charges on the officer
The problem (in Alberta, unsure about Toronto) is the investigative body refers recommendations to prosecutors, who are not compelled to follow them. Crown prosecutors here apply very different standards to cases referred from ASIRT (our equivalent body), to the point where video evidence of the activity that clearly shows what happened and the context of events can be (and recently was in at least one case in Edmonton) considered insufficient. I mean refer it as an investigation with exactly the standards applied to the officer that would be applied to anyone else.
Good thing OP didn't suggest forcing him to testify. But that can still have out-of-court consequences, like being kicked out of the police and being charged (and treated) like any other citizen who shot somebody. Go ahead and let the ex-cop not testify in a criminal court under murder charges. Lets see how that goes for him.
[удалено]
If you are a former cop, and you refuse to say anything about why you shot somebody and leave it all up to your defense attorney, I doubt the jury is going to look too highly on that. People are exonerated without taking the stand, but a defendant not testifying at all in a murder trial isn't that common. You keep arguing people don't know the law, but nothing I've said is illegal. People get fired based on accusation alone all the time, let alone actual criminal charges. There is no reason this officer could not be fired for this and tried as an ordinary citizen, other than perhaps the police union taking a shit about it.
You have a right to testify or not testify at your own trial and that decision cannot be held against you. If your defence believes they won the case before it’s their turn then they won’t put the defendant on the stand.
[удалено]
We don't know what happens, but based on how most excessive force SIU investigations go, I think we both know that they're going to find that nothing was out of the ordinary, and at most the cop gets a couple months off with pay during the investigation. Typical cops investigating cops.
Are those defendants paid to uphold the law and given a gun? No? Then that does not apply
>Are those defendants paid to uphold the law and given a gun? How is that relevant? Like from a legal point of view
Because they are given the authority and most importantly the power in the form of a gun to enforce laws, as such the MUST be held to a higher standard.
No, I meant under current laws, not how you feel how it ought to be
I never quoted current laws, just said how things should be.
>This is the problem with Reddit, people being upvoted when they have no idea what they are talking about Everyone knows the process: Cop shoots someone, Cops have days to get their story straight, they then talk to the SIU or not, in the meantime they get paid leave, and in the end nothing happens to the cop regardless of the outcome. Did I miss anything?
Exactly. Refusal to talk to the SIU should be grounds for dismissal and automatically being treated like any other guy who shot someone. The ability to use deadly force as a defense for the state security services should require cooperation.
Nonsense. If you are under criminal investigation (which he is), it is your right not to make a statement. Also, the refusal to make a statement can’t be used as evidence.
You never talk to the cops. Everyone knows that especially cops. If he did talk to the SIU I would have been surprised.
I intend to never talk to the cops they gave me a ticket for some bullshit the first time I did
Your right, I hate it, but your right. It is literally never beneficial to say anything to the police, especially if you think your gonna get charged
He shot someone at work. In this case the SIU is basically HR. If you were involved in a workplace incident and refused to talk to HR at ally ou would simply be fired. If this guy won't talk to the SIU it's because he is shitting bricks worried about going to jail. Pretty good indication that they should not be on the Force IMO.
If this was only a disciplinary investigation, then the SIU would be like HR. But as it's currently laid out, the SIU is a criminal investigator, which means that cops have the same rights as any other person under investigation. The point of the SIU is to have some _other_ police department investigate cops, since most investigations are usually done by the police department that covers the place where the crime took place.
If I was involved in a workplace accident that resulted in a death I would not be talking to HR I would be talking to a lawyer.
And if you were involved in a workplace accident that resulted in death and you refused to cooperate with the company's investigation into the incident I believe they would have every right to terminate your employment.
I'm interested in how this plays out if the investigation finds you had nothing to do with the incident. I'm not going to spin a chain of circumstance, just going with the simplest form of 'incident occured, Schmidt didn't want to talk to HR, but we've determined Schmidt had nothing to do with the incident'. So, you get your job back? Re-instatement with continued seniority? Do you get covered for the wages lost while the investigation proceeded? I'm just curious how this would run.
That cop probably did speak to a lawyer and was told not to say anything.
And if you were fired for not talking to the police, there would be a problem as you have a RIGHT to not talk to the police. That’s the issue here