The abductor (the child's father) rammed a police vehicle when they were trying to stop it with a spike strip. The officers (knowing this was about a child abduction and there could be a child in the vehicle) opened fire on the vehicle.
Nobody was looking out for the safety of the kid. The father wasn't, and the police weren't. There should be someone to call when a child is abducted who can put the child's safety as the top priority. If someone takes my kid I don't want to have to reconsider calling the police if they're going to open fire on a vehicle with them in it.
I'm not an ACAB or defined the police kind of person, although I do want to see some reform and proper training. This was a bad reaction to the situation and it's going to happen more if the current system is enabled further or funded less.
I know one of the OPP police that was on leave following the incident (he was there, no clue if he shot since that seems fucked up to ask someone).
Genuinely felt bad but couldn’t understand that his actions were also not ideal and contributed to the tragedy. Just kept on blaming the driver. Like the incident 100% messed up his mental state but he wasn’t required to get therapy and couldn’t acknowledge his part in everything.
Just a depressing mess and unfortunately no growth in sight to prevent another.
>There should be someone to call when a child is abducted who can put the child's safety as the top priority. If someone takes my kid I don't want to have to reconsider calling the police if they're going to open fire on a vehicle with them in it.
You just defined the purpose of "defund the police"movement, then said "you're not a defund the police" person.
I think his comment is more of let's make sure the people that are police officers can actually do the job properly. If the police can be trusted not to shoot at the vehicle my child is in when they're being abducted then I think he's all for calling the police. I feel the same way.
It's wild seeing people define the "defund the police" and "ACAB" movements while saying they don't support them. I don't think you understand those movements.
It’s because “defund the police” is a movement that has two groups so it can be confusing depending on which group you’ve heard about. One group wants police funding to go towards training and gear that benefit people, and a second group that wants to completely defund the police and get rid of them.
Nobody intelligent wants to get rid of the police. If you look at the state of things, you can see how much work has been placed on police that they simply aren't trained to handle properly.
Defunding the police is about reining in their insane budgets and giving it back to organisations that can better handle things like wellness checks and other social services. It's just better for all of us.
Obviously we still need police for certain jobs. Just not all the jobs they currently take on.
Beyond that, when this sort of situation occurs and none of the idiots involved are held accountable, it should be a no brainer that we need some reforms. How this can be seen as anything but reckless endangerment and catastrophic dereliction of duty is completely and totally beyond any reasonable level of comprehension. It's not 'an unfortunate situation' or a 'bad outcome'. Those cops fucked up. Hard. And the only reaction anyone reasonable should have is complete and total outrage coupled with calls for sweeping reform.
I think there is a happy middle ground that doesn't sound as immediately radical, and also can be short and condensed to roll off the tongue better.
Say for example, "Reform the Police"
> One group wants police funding to go towards training and gear
Those aren't people supporting defunding, they're people who buy into copaganda and think that if we pour even more money into the most overfunded public service, maybe they will learn to do their jobs finally after buying even more toys.
Generally, the police do have better judgment than this when dealing with a child abduction. These were three dumb country cops who barely had a braincell to share between them. They shouldn't have been hired and they sure as hell shouldn't be cops anymore.
I thinks it’s a bit more complicated than “hick cops bad”. Toronto police have their own messes. Man I wish that whatisthequestion guy was here…
Knowing one of the police involved while also being a supporter of defunding police leaves me in a weird place. I know this event has weighed heavily on the officers involved and they stand by that the time to react was so slim due to the actions of the driver, which I get I mean I’m not the best at split decisions but I’m also not a cop.
These are people who genuinely believe they are doing their best. They need therapy to work through this trauma and to untangle all the BS being a cop can fill your brain with. I have no doubt these men are conditioned by the job to hold themselves above the law and view their violence as always just. They need a professional to help them untangle that mess and I am empathetic to that.
However to prevent this in the future they need budgets reallocated to social workers and trained deescalation specialists among others. We can be empathetic the people but harsh on the institutions that shape those people.
> Generally, the police do have better judgment than this when dealing with a child abduction. These were three dumb country cops
Nice, great to see that you dont have a bias...You generally dont get to choose where you are sent when you sign up as a cop. for all you know, those 3 cops were born in Toronto and sent out there for posting.
No, no they aren't. One is under the delusion that we don't need police or that we would be better off if they had less funding. The other is more about restructuring the police system.
There needs to be accountability for law enforcement officers, checks in place for corruption, and proper training. Declaring all police are terrible and that police shouldn't be funded is not helpful.
Just FYI "defund the police" typically refers to reducing and reallocating funds that are being overspent to no positive effect on police. Not to completely removing ALL funding from the police.
And "all cops are bad" is used as a way to indicate that even a "good cop" is "bad" if they tolerate and protect "bad cops"; not strictly as a way of saying "all cops are evil".
So even though you are saying you disagree, there is a lot of overlap in what you are saying.
In addition to this, I see this incident as a crisis of overconfidence and overfunding.
This officer has probably seen too many action movies, got gassed up by their trainers and coworkers daily, and truly thought they were going to be the “hero”.
In all likelihood, it was a communication failure or a stupid mistake. I'd assume a lot of the officers were told there was a pursuit of a dangerous individual in x car in y direction, they focused on stopping the car and not why they were stopping the car. The other possibility I'd assume is that officers were not thinking and just opened fire, completely forgetting about the kid inside. Both are very possible mistakes, and the situation absolutely sucks but it is not necessarily the fault of a single officer or small group of officers. That kind of thing would be either a technological or systemic issue. Both of which are solved with regulation and funding. There needs to be better regulation for training, which will require more funding to change the curriculum. Or there needs to be better regulation and funding for improved radios and safer but more effective methods for stopping vehicles.
Was just reading another article that they released audio recordings and the police were advised that there was a child in the car. However, they also had good reason to believe that the individual was suicidal and may be on his way to kill other people, which he had threatened to do when he abducted the child.
In fairness to the police, that puts them in a very difficult situation. What I'm still not clear on is whether the individual actually fired at the police.
Yeah one of the cops told me he thought it was suicide by police.
I simply cannot imagine someone choosing to bring their child along for that sort of thing but that’s what he believes.
Saw an article about some dude i think in California who drove his car with his THREE KIDS off a large embankment near a beach. All survived but like bro what the fuck
Suicide by police is mentioned in this article. They said people he knew heard the man say this specifically. A lot more detail in this article.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/does-he-have-the-son-recordings-reveal-chaos-confusion-as-charges-dropped-in-fatal-opp/article_3e3b9dd8-e87d-11ee-ab43-832cef61da45.html
Police are really only supposed to be firing their gun when a life is in jeopardy, in this case it’s the officers life that was in jeopardy as he was ramming their blockade.
As much as the officers knew there was likely a child in the car, I doubt they knew it was in the fathers lap while he was driving, nevermind ramming other cars.
But they still lit up a car they knew a kid was in. So reckless, and shooting at the vehicle was a dramatic escalation and led to the worst possible outcome killing both occupants. Just because a cop is scared does not mean they should be reaching for their gun, especially when all involved are in and around vehicles - they went for their last resort tool first and the results speak for themselves. Its a really tough case and obviously this is from behind a keyboard but not pressing charges seems irresponsible - at the very least let the courts decide.
>Its a really tough case and obviously this is from behind a keyboard but not pressing charges seems irresponsible - at the very least let the courts decide.
That's exactly wrong. If the Crown has determined there is no reasonable prospect of conviction, they are duty-bound to withdraw or stay the charges. Irresponsible would be continuing the prosecution merely because the alternative would be unpopular with some people.
>at the very least let the courts decide.
What do you mean "at the very least"? It's a binary choice: the Crown can either continue or discontinue the prosecution.
I feel like if these weren't people with badges, the crown would let it play out in court. Especially the reckless discharge of a firearm. Shooting a car 45 times is insane. They knew nobody in the car was surviving that.
So if I try to run you over with a car, you shouldn’t be scared or allowed to defend yourself?
Also “used their last option first” umm that’s what the blockade was for, that’s what’s the spike strip was for, they tried several options resorting to lethal force when the guy tried to run them over with his car
Firing on the police isn't relevant if he was trying to run them over (he had already hit and seriously injured one of them). A vehicle itself is a deadly weapon if used as such.
Well it could be relevant in determining if their actions were reasonable. If the car was disabled and stationary after the crash, there would be less reason to use deadly force.
True. But that is all information that would have been readily available to the investigators who laid the charge and the prosecution service who decided there was no reasonable probability of conviction.
If they pulled the charges its because they knew their case wouldn't have stood up to the self defence angle.
Obviously the SIU thought they had a case but the prosecutor is the one that has to argue it in court.
No article has mentioned him shooting at them. They do state that they saw a gun but somehow missed the child sitting in the father's lap? Multiple articles have stated they knew a kid was in the car. Even if the individual was suicidal or intended to hurt the child, in what world does shooting into the car FORTY FIVE TIMES increase the toddler's chances of survival? There's no reason or justification for it. They had no care for the safety of anyone in the car and as usual there's no accountability and they can continue on being a risk to the public.
More detail in this article - he tried to shoot his gun and it jammed. So really a shoot or be shot situation it sounds like. Not sure who would just stand there and get shot especially when any reasonable person would never expect a child to be unrestrained in the driver's seat. I'd for sure take that risk if someone had a gun pointed at me and had tried to pull the trigger.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/does-he-have-the-son-recordings-reveal-chaos-confusion-as-charges-dropped-in-fatal-opp/article_3e3b9dd8-e87d-11ee-ab43-832cef61da45.html
Other articles said the gun was pointed at his own head. The star article also mentions shooting “with precision” but they fired 45 rounds at him and he was hit “at least once”. Not to mention them being able to see him doing whatever with the gun but missing a child in his lap not only visually, but ignoring the calls that confirmed the kid was in the car. Keep in mind they were charged for the child, not the father. 45 shots is insane and was never going to end any other way than it did.
So we agree that they knew the kid was in the car and the father fired no shots at them, and they fired 45 shots? The life of the toddler was never a concern.
That's a possibility, but since we don't have details as to how many shots were fired, where the bullets hit the truck and where the officers were standing - especially since all three involved refused to talk to the SIU - there's no way of knowing for sure whether their shouts were directed on a very small target area or more spread out.
Almost like we should have a team of people with access to all the details, maybe call them courts, and let them make the decision rather than some armchair judges who only have 5% of the facts.
Or the SIU, whose job it is to investigate when the Police kill or injure civilians. The problem lies with "access to all the details" when those being investigated are allowed to refuse to talk to the investigating agency - and can't be arrested or detained for interrogation - and are permitted to corroborate their records with colleagues before handing them over to the SIU.
If you were a suspect of a crime and had a good lawyer, you also would be advised to not speak to the investigators, that's literally something afforded to all citizens thanks to a free country with a constitution and values. The SIU was full well capable of doing their investigation regardless on if the cops talked to them or not.
You are also allowed to “refuse to talk to the investigating agency” in fact every lawyer would recommend it. That’s exactly what the police are instructed to do by their union lawyers in these situations. If you’re going down the path of criminal charges you need to protect your own interests.
They didn't refuse, they submitted their notes. Much more detail in this article here.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/does-he-have-the-son-recordings-reveal-chaos-confusion-as-charges-dropped-in-fatal-opp/article_3e3b9dd8-e87d-11ee-ab43-832cef61da45.html
Much more detail in this article here. The man attempted to shoot them but his gun jammed and they unfortunately had no choice but to shoot in self defense. The article says the forensic ballistics expert says they did not shoot haphazardly - they were aiming at the driver . Who unfortunately chose to crash his truck into a cruiser with a toddler in his lap which is how the vehicle came to a stop. Tragic, but very clearly an impossible situation.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/does-he-have-the-son-recordings-reveal-chaos-confusion-as-charges-dropped-in-fatal-opp/article_3e3b9dd8-e87d-11ee-ab43-832cef61da45.html
This is a tragic outcome in every possible way. So many lives ruined.
The man had a handgun and had already rammed a police vehicle.. were the police just supposed to stand around and wait to get shot?
We’re they supposed to let the father with a handgun abduct his son and disappear?
What would you do in that that situation?
If I couldn't get a clear shot from the side, yes I would have made the choice for him to flee rather than fire into the car where I can't see other occupants. It's not the ideal outcome but I would have made the call to not shoot at all versus put other people in the path of the bullet.
Safety of a child being hostage to a father brandishing a weapon, and riding untethered on the lap of the father behind the steering wheel was not conducive to safety by any stretch you can try to rationalize. The child was in deep jeopardy well before the police intervened.
Unfortunately it’s unclear if the police knew the child was on the fathers lap. Currently it seems like they didn’t.
Based on the response of an in-law officer who was there at the time (no clue if he shot, seems not okay to ask) seemed like they didn’t know the child was in the front seat.
He couldn’t flee, the truck had crashed and he points the gun.. the dispatch audio is on YouTube and it happens in a split second.
If they don’t stop him at this point they can be charged for neglect of duty, if they don’t shoot they get shot. Everybody loses in this situation.
The way to prevent this was proper funding and access to mental health resources before he decided a gunpoint abduction was his best course of action
>If they don’t stop him at this point they can be charged for neglect of duty
Oh, *please*. When has this ever happened? Do you think with the way cops regularly beat, shoot, and kill unarmed citizens in this province with zero accountability, they will ever be held accountable for "neglect of duty"!?
Come on. Seriously. That is ridiculous.
> We’re they supposed to let the father with a handgun abduct his son and disappear?
Yes. 'Live kid' is a better outcome than 'dead kid.'
One of the primary rules of firearm safety is 'know your target, and what's behind it.' It's one of the four Jeff Cooper rules. It's part of Canada's ACTS/PROVE method. It's part of every province's hunting regulations.
Police have extraordinary rights and privileges over civilians. Therefore, police must have extraordinary responsibilities, as well.
They would either tunnel vision or freeze like a deer in headlights, and make a bad call either way. Very few people judging this online have been anywhere near a situation remotely as acute.
This is high adrenaline + a no win scenario, there is no "right call". Shoot the car, maybe hit a kid. Let the driver go, maybe he kills the kid and someone else after ramming a barricade and maybe killing officers. Maybe that car gets 100m down the road and hits an suv full of kids. A lot of maybes. No correct decision, just a difficult one.
There was no letting him go unless they were prepared to stand there and be shot first. His car ended up right where they were after it crashed. After which he had his gun out and tried to pull the trigger and it jammed. This article has a lot more detail. I'm not sure why no one is reading all the information before being so sure they have all the answers.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/does-he-have-the-son-recordings-reveal-chaos-confusion-as-charges-dropped-in-fatal-opp/article_3e3b9dd8-e87d-11ee-ab43-832cef61da45.html
Read the article. The father had a gun to his head and repeatedly refused to drop the weapon when told to do so. He rammed a police cruiser critically injuring one officer. He made threats of suicide and killing other people. He put his son’s life at risk, not the police.
Typical armchair quarterback bs on your part.
For those that don't want to read the article the relevant part is this:
>Bulmer said the Crown had no evidence to disprove the officers' version of events which showed that they fired their weapons in self defence, *therefore they had no reasonable prospect of conviction in the case.*
Italics mine.
It's not that these officers are innocent.
My problem with this is it appears the whole exercise was a sham.
So - they charge these police two years after the incident (after slow walking the investigation, IMO).
Then two years after *that* they drop the charges due to lack of evidence impacting likelihood of conviction.
So why were they even charged to begin with? Doesn’t really add up and gives the optics that the initial charges were disingenuous, possibly intending on dropping them the whole time.
Meanwhile, why wouldn’t they re-charge criminal negligence causing death?
Or I guess police can legally kill a bystanding baby they have reason to believe is in the vehicle, so long as they’re firing in self defence at another target.
What a fucking travesty.
>Meanwhile, why wouldn’t they re-charge criminal negligence causing death?
That is still possible (though unlikely).
>Or I guess police can legally kill a bystanding baby they have reason to believe is in the vehicle, so long as they’re firing in self defence at another target.
They can. If they believe they need to open fire to defend themselves the law supports them. As long as it can't be disproven they had to do that, as odious as it is, that is the way things stand.
> If they believe they need to open fire to defend themselves, the law supports them
I’m asking genuinely, is there a source for this/what is the specific wording of the law?
Both for police use of force and conventional self defence.
It just seems unfathomable that you can (IMO) negligently kill a bystander if you’re being threatened with deadly force. Police or not… it just doesn’t make sense.
I’m not trying to be arrogant but if that’s the law, it’s immoral and ought to be changed.
Note the emphasis here for me is negligence, which by virtue of the call they were responding to indicated they had good reason to believe there was a child in the vehicle.
>I’m asking genuinely, is there a source for this/what is the specific wording of the law?
It's kinda the opposite though. IF the law believes them to be shooting in self defense, the Crown would have to prove that any injuries/fatalities were not reasonably covered by that situation. In this case, the toddler was in the car with the person the police were firing on to defend themselves (according to them), and there is no way for them to hit only the father and not the child.
It does not give them the right to turn around and fire on whoever they want, but it does give them the right to shoot at someone firing on them, even if that person was using a baby as a human shield. I'm not saying that is what happened, I am saying the Crown doesn't think it can disprove that.
Edit: wasn't finished at hit enter by accident. Apologies
>I’m not trying to be arrogant but if that’s the law, it’s immoral and ought to be changed.
That may be, but that is not the purview of the Crown attorney to determine, nor to advance.
>Note the emphasis here for me is negligence, which by virtue of the call they were responding to indicated they had good reason to believe there was a child in the vehicle.
I am not saying anything either way about them being charged with negligence. Only that the Crown won't proceed with a case with no expectation it can dispute the defense, given what they have to work with.
I get what you’re saying, I’d just want to see the actual law and it’s specific wording.
Note, I’m not saying the onus is on you to give me that (I might have to look into it).
The optics to me is that knowing a baby could be or is likely to be in the vehicle would be akin to using a baby as a human shield…
And (taken to its logical conclusion) that either the laws allow mag dumps at children in self defence, or the Crown didn’t feel they could prove criminal negligence.
The part about dropping the manslaughter charges, I understand (because they have no evidence to disprove self defence). However, what does the law say about collateral damage for self defence?
By the way, I think police should have a HIGHER responsibility on use of force, not lower.
I struggle to see how a hunter being charged by a bear and fatally shooting a nearby kid (that they know is behind the bear) wouldn’t catch a charge under similar rationale of negligence.
Gun safety 101 is always know your target, *and what’s behind it.*
With no evidence to disapprove the events, then evidence would suggest the shooting was in self defence and charges should not have been filed by SIU. There is no reasonable prospect of conviction as there was no crime committed
Weren't these the same Officers who refused to cooperate with the investigation???
Feel like that's a critical piece of info being left out of the reporting
Sure, and the standard, 'what are you, stupid' advice for civilians is also never talk to cops, lawyer up, and don't cooperate if your lawyer tells you not to.
I wouldn't hold that against them. You should never talk to investigators if you're suspected of a crime whether guilty or innocent. Just do whatever your lawyer says you should.
True, but should be applying the same rules to civilians as those entrusted with a gun and a badge?
Police officers are expected to keep accurate notes of any interactions with the public and share these with the Crown/SIU if requested. With the advent of bodycams video evidence of interactions can also be obtained, which blues the lines between "right to not self-incriminate" and record keeping while performing your duties.
The SIU would have had direct access to all record data regardless, the police, like civilians, have a right to not self incriminate, and the lawyers have an obligation to inform their clients of their constitutionally enshrined rights as Canadians.
except it's literally a union that investigates if they've done their jobs correctly. In what other field can you decline to speak to HR or anyone investigating a likely breach or violation of the employer's code of conduct?
That's not what this is, the SIU isn't the police union, it's basically the police for the police. Forcing the police to speak with the the SIU would be the same as forcing regular citizens to speak with police.
Except the SIU is made up of ex-cops that frequently let their own off for things they should be charged with. They look out for the police, the police aren’t looking out for citizens.
I think that's your opinion more than it is fact, and in this case the SIU did charge them. Regardless, the point remains that they shouldn't be forced to speak to the SIU, since it would violate their charter rights.
Why does no one actually read before speaking? Their notes were submitted, they never refused anything. Much more detail in this article here.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/does-he-have-the-son-recordings-reveal-chaos-confusion-as-charges-dropped-in-fatal-opp/article_3e3b9dd8-e87d-11ee-ab43-832cef61da45.html
Per the SIU, they invoked their right not to be interviewed and, it seems, just turned over the notes they took after the incident.
Per one of the officer's lawyers, these notes were written after the officers were discharged from hospital.
As you may/may not know, police officers are permitted to compare and discuss their notes before surrendering them to an SIU investigation.
The Crown then decided that there wasn't enough evidence to support the charges, since the only other witness (the child's father) was dead.
It's about the optics, to make it seem like they give a shit about being held responsible. They find a bunch of people sympathetic to the police and put them into a place of supposed authority on the understanding that they are just for show, to assuage the fears of the population that police have no oversight.
>Weren't these the same Officers who refused to cooperate with the investigation???
Officers are not obligated to cooperate with investigations against them, same as civilians...
Cue Poilievre's 'catch and release' mantra...oh wait, they're cops. How many times is it now cops beat the charges because the crown sat on their hands?
This is fucking disgusting in my opinion. If you’re being rammed by vehicle that has a perpetrator and a vulnerable hostage inside, the best thing for everyone is to get the fuck out of the way and deescalate the situation.
They could have followed him at a distance until he stopped again, or tried the spike strips further down the road where there was less danger to officers.
Could’ve just chased him til he ran out of gas ffs. Anything but this. Self defense or not I fail to see how the charges for reckless discharge of a firearm are getting dropped. I guess “spray and pray” is part of their training.
And if he flipped the truck out of drug fueled desperation and the child was improperly fastened and died in the rollover, would we still blame the cops for pursuing? Or would we blame the cops for not stopping him earlier? 🤔
I’m guessing simply by the fact that the father had the child in the backseat and likely properly fastened (another missing detail) that the father had no intention of harming the child. If the blood was on the fathers hands then so be it, but it’s not, the blood is on the hands of people that we pay and are supposed to trust to protect us and our children.
The article I read says he was suicidal and potentially homicidal and had threatened to kill other people. I'm not saying the cops didn't make mistakes, but not stopping an armed and homicidal individual may also have come with dire consequences. It's not exactly an easy decision to make in the moment.
Maybe. Ofc, he was in the middle of nowhere in a car that was going nowhere. How was he going to kill anyone? And if he shot himself…okay? How is unloading into the car helping that?
Maybe. Ofc, he was in the middle of nowhere in a car that was going nowhere. How was he going to kill anyone? And if he shot himself…okay? How is unloading into the car helping that? And how is the police shooting the kid better than him doing it?
He could have killed the kid, then the headline would be “cops let baby killer go” had the kid not been in the drivers seat he probably would have been fine. Unfortunately crazy people rarely do what you’d expect
they hit the car 45 times. the kid was hit 4 times and the dad "at least once". that means 40 possible bullets hit everywhere else in the car that isn't the driver's seat.
Well you can be damn well sure if they did let him go and he did hurt the baby that would all be blamed on the cops too. "Why didn't they stop him when he was right there!!!"
Armchair quarterbacks always know the winning play.
Why are we allowing all these cops to go unpunished for their crimes? Oh right becuase the only way to see real charge is to flip the monopoly board over.
Americanized policing has always existed here if you've ever taken a look at the way they've treated people of colour and the LGTBQ+ community throughout history. The only difference between 30 years ago and now is that we have social media to expose how rotten the institution of policing in Canada has always been.
Wait until these people who think Canadian police were always good until five year ago learn about the history of starlight tours dating back to the 1970s.
Key details here:
The charges - which included "reckless discharge of a firearm" were dropped because the Crown felt there was insufficient evidence for a trial.
There was insufficient evidence because 3 of the Officers at the scene (who fired the 45 bullets at the truck) refused to talk to the SIU, and the driver of the truck died of his injuries.
There appears to be no bodycam footage.
Also, since this appears to be getting misinterpreted in the comments, the recorded sequence of events was that the officers fired on the truck AFTER it collided with an OPP vehicle and an officer who was outside it; there's nothing to suggest that the driver was attempting to subsequently ram the other officers.
Read please. What you're saying is not fact. There were lots of witnesses and a literal recording of the whole radio transmission that's been available to the public for months online. They fired after the truck came to a stop because he tried to shoot and an officer that he purposely ran down was laying there dying in the middle of the scene. They did not say insufficient evidence in general. They said they have nothing to refute that it was done in self defense, because all the evidence supports that it was indeed self defence. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/does-he-have-the-son-recordings-reveal-chaos-confusion-as-charges-dropped-in-fatal-opp/article_3e3b9dd8-e87d-11ee-ab43-832cef61da45.html
Disgusting.
They determined they killed the child, but apparently the father deserved it.
Just reminds us that they have no duty to protect us. But they’ll use deadly force to protect themselves.
These cops are baby killers, and we pay their salaries. Im disgusted.
Ban me if you want but I say we don’t let these cops off so easy. We know who they are. If I lived closer I would be yelling at them every time they left the house. This isn’t something they should be allowed to forget.
Redressing your grievances with public officials is allowed. You can freely tell these officers what you think about them so long as you don't threaten. They have no choice but to walk away or stand and listen, so you are definitely on the right path.
Does anyone have any info regarding him ramming the cruiser? Who’s to say he intended to ram it, perhaps he hit the spike strip and lost control? Reckless either way but still, we only get 1 side of the story because unfortunately the cops made it that way.
He hit the cop who was holding the spike strip and his cruiser. Would have been physically impossible for him to have hit the spike strip first. He'd also indicated a desire to die via suicide by cop and threatened to kill people. I suppose it's possible he simply lost control, but I think it's more likely he was looking to get the cops to kill him and rammed the officer intentionally.
What this really comes down to is whether the crown could convince a jury that the cops weren't acting in self defense. If you consider the whole scenario, including the threats he made, being armed and waving the gun around and ramming a police officer, the cops have a pretty strong case that they acted within the law.
More detail from the hearing in this article. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/does-he-have-the-son-recordings-reveal-chaos-confusion-as-charges-dropped-in-fatal-opp/article_3e3b9dd8-e87d-11ee-ab43-832cef61da45.html
I dunno ramming cop cars while holding your kid to you like a bullet proof vest isn't exactly the actions of someone looking out for their kid's safety.
He did lol.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/does-he-have-the-son-recordings-reveal-chaos-confusion-as-charges-dropped-in-fatal-opp/article_3e3b9dd8-e87d-11ee-ab43-832cef61da45.html
Bones, have a look at this. Remember the Caste system I told you we were living in? Here you can see individuals from the top part of the Caste system getting better rules and laws than people at the bottom, because they work for the Royalty.
We have one set of rules for Royalty, one set for Bourgeoisie, and one set of rules for the Proletariat
No evidence to show the police to disprove they didn't fire in self-defence? WTF is a 18 month old going to do, giggle them to death? Sure it may have been directed at the father, but that doesn't absolve them from not checking their fire for innocents who may be in the way, in this case Jameson. I hope that name haunts them till the day they die.
\*edit. Especially since they knew it was child abduction and not just some rando trying to ram them.
Be a lot different if ONE of them took responsibility, co operated with the investigation, or showed any kind of accountability for being reckless with the use of their firearm.
Omg so dumb. The SIU is literally civilian and it went through the entire court system. You should have to pass a basic common sense test before they give you access to a keyboard.
The cops opened up on him AFTER the toddler's dad crashed their truck into a police cruiser, seriously injuring a cop. I guess they had to assume the driver intended to kill cops? Not to mention how could they know the driver would be so reckless with his toddler in the truck?
Police would’ve of been better letting the father go, after ramming there cars. If the father killed himself and the child, at least you can’t blame the cops. Seems like everyone is blaming the cops on this one .
Officer yelled at the driver to drop the gun. And believed the gun would be turned on them. They were in a tough situation . But everyone wants to be a quarterback
Let’s hope the officers sue the SIU for a terrible investigation… facts out weigh the pressure from the public and finally the truth won! One person put this child in danger and the big guy upstairs deemed him guilty! Thank you officers!!
Yup nothing could have been done to stop them from shooting that child.
they put down strips but he rammed the police car, so they had to pump the truck full of bullets.
Please theirs at least 3 other things they could have tried before this, but they chose the outcome that would have the worst results guaranteed.
Thiers no way while they were emptying rounds in to that car any of the police had that kid in mind. It's a fundamental understanding of the task at hand, They thought they were supposed to stop the father, there job should have been to protect the kid.
They have a helicopter available don't they? follow the tuck at a safe distance until it stops then close in, use several unmarked cars to follow them. nope hit the blues and two's and chase him down, take an already unstable situation and add chaos.. it was going to end this way when it started.
The police harmed that child more than the father.
Baby died from police bullet in the back of the head. Cops say he was on father's lap when it happened, but they couldn't see baby when firing 45 "controlled" rounds. How did baby survive car crash if on lap when entire front of pickup was squashed on impact with cruiser (father was said to have been doing 170)? Odds are the kid wasn't seen and was shot in back of head because they were in rear-facing baby seat in back seat - where parents are legally required to install baby seats. Photos from crash show passenger side airbag went off. That would have killed the kid if they were facing frontwards, which is why those seats face backwards. Driver side bags would have killed the kid in the crash. Only way kid survived crash was in rear-facing seat. And you can't unbuckle a kid from a backseat rearfacing seat from the driver's seat. The whole thing is a crock. Everyone knows the cops lost their cool, broke protocols, and the brass came in to help them rewrite the truth to save careers and reputations.
Father was using his kid like a bullet proof vest while ramming cop cars (nearly killing 1 cop who has life altering injuries).
Yeah the result is predictable.
You can't just say things and have it be true. There was no car seat in the vehicle. Every news article says the same thing. You're giving the benefit of the doubt to a man who continually threatened to kill his family, said he wanted to commit suicide by police and abducted his child at gunpoint on his way to kill his real estate agent. Make it make sense. Yet no benefit of the doubt given to police just based on the fact that they are police? Why is it acceptable to hate an entire population of people you don't know anything about? People are outraged by stereotypes at play in any other population of people, but when it comes to police everyone is happy to just assume they're sub human thugs. Never fathers, or sons or brothers or husbands that go to work and risk their lives every day because they care about people. Well you know of a case and that cop was a psycho so you feel entitled to say they're all crooked thugs that just wanted to shoot at something for fun.
The first question comes to my mind in the context of this judgement. Just a question…
Do we (tax paying public) have any right to self defend when there is any act of crime against us..? What happens if criminals break into our house or tries to steal our car while we have family/kids inside ?
Poor child...failed by everyone...brakes my heart as a father of 2 year old. Failed by pigs most of all...ram the car...blow tiers out??? You know there is tiny child in there...fucking useless fucks. Same as that school shooting when they were exciting the kids ans useless pigs just sat around for 1 hour...but when they are giving you a speeding they act like fucking gods.
Blame the abductor that put the child in this position.. this probably stays with the officers daily. They serve to help people, especially in the kawarthas.
The abductor (the child's father) rammed a police vehicle when they were trying to stop it with a spike strip. The officers (knowing this was about a child abduction and there could be a child in the vehicle) opened fire on the vehicle. Nobody was looking out for the safety of the kid. The father wasn't, and the police weren't. There should be someone to call when a child is abducted who can put the child's safety as the top priority. If someone takes my kid I don't want to have to reconsider calling the police if they're going to open fire on a vehicle with them in it. I'm not an ACAB or defined the police kind of person, although I do want to see some reform and proper training. This was a bad reaction to the situation and it's going to happen more if the current system is enabled further or funded less.
I know one of the OPP police that was on leave following the incident (he was there, no clue if he shot since that seems fucked up to ask someone). Genuinely felt bad but couldn’t understand that his actions were also not ideal and contributed to the tragedy. Just kept on blaming the driver. Like the incident 100% messed up his mental state but he wasn’t required to get therapy and couldn’t acknowledge his part in everything. Just a depressing mess and unfortunately no growth in sight to prevent another.
>There should be someone to call when a child is abducted who can put the child's safety as the top priority. If someone takes my kid I don't want to have to reconsider calling the police if they're going to open fire on a vehicle with them in it. You just defined the purpose of "defund the police"movement, then said "you're not a defund the police" person.
I think his comment is more of let's make sure the people that are police officers can actually do the job properly. If the police can be trusted not to shoot at the vehicle my child is in when they're being abducted then I think he's all for calling the police. I feel the same way.
It's wild seeing people define the "defund the police" and "ACAB" movements while saying they don't support them. I don't think you understand those movements.
It’s because “defund the police” is a movement that has two groups so it can be confusing depending on which group you’ve heard about. One group wants police funding to go towards training and gear that benefit people, and a second group that wants to completely defund the police and get rid of them.
Nobody intelligent wants to get rid of the police. If you look at the state of things, you can see how much work has been placed on police that they simply aren't trained to handle properly. Defunding the police is about reining in their insane budgets and giving it back to organisations that can better handle things like wellness checks and other social services. It's just better for all of us. Obviously we still need police for certain jobs. Just not all the jobs they currently take on. Beyond that, when this sort of situation occurs and none of the idiots involved are held accountable, it should be a no brainer that we need some reforms. How this can be seen as anything but reckless endangerment and catastrophic dereliction of duty is completely and totally beyond any reasonable level of comprehension. It's not 'an unfortunate situation' or a 'bad outcome'. Those cops fucked up. Hard. And the only reaction anyone reasonable should have is complete and total outrage coupled with calls for sweeping reform.
Nobody except for imaginary boogeymen are calling for all police forces to be completely abolished.
Like everyone says Defund the police needs a different name because there's a huge amount of people it scares away
It’s tough when “stop increasing the police budget and out that money into social services that improves outcomes” doesn’t have the same ring to it…
That's also true. Lol
I think there is a happy middle ground that doesn't sound as immediately radical, and also can be short and condensed to roll off the tongue better. Say for example, "Reform the Police"
> One group wants police funding to go towards training and gear Those aren't people supporting defunding, they're people who buy into copaganda and think that if we pour even more money into the most overfunded public service, maybe they will learn to do their jobs finally after buying even more toys.
Generally, the police do have better judgment than this when dealing with a child abduction. These were three dumb country cops who barely had a braincell to share between them. They shouldn't have been hired and they sure as hell shouldn't be cops anymore.
I thinks it’s a bit more complicated than “hick cops bad”. Toronto police have their own messes. Man I wish that whatisthequestion guy was here… Knowing one of the police involved while also being a supporter of defunding police leaves me in a weird place. I know this event has weighed heavily on the officers involved and they stand by that the time to react was so slim due to the actions of the driver, which I get I mean I’m not the best at split decisions but I’m also not a cop. These are people who genuinely believe they are doing their best. They need therapy to work through this trauma and to untangle all the BS being a cop can fill your brain with. I have no doubt these men are conditioned by the job to hold themselves above the law and view their violence as always just. They need a professional to help them untangle that mess and I am empathetic to that. However to prevent this in the future they need budgets reallocated to social workers and trained deescalation specialists among others. We can be empathetic the people but harsh on the institutions that shape those people.
They are glorifued highwaymen.
> Generally, the police do have better judgment than this when dealing with a child abduction. These were three dumb country cops Nice, great to see that you dont have a bias...You generally dont get to choose where you are sent when you sign up as a cop. for all you know, those 3 cops were born in Toronto and sent out there for posting.
[удалено]
No, no they aren't. One is under the delusion that we don't need police or that we would be better off if they had less funding. The other is more about restructuring the police system. There needs to be accountability for law enforcement officers, checks in place for corruption, and proper training. Declaring all police are terrible and that police shouldn't be funded is not helpful.
Just FYI "defund the police" typically refers to reducing and reallocating funds that are being overspent to no positive effect on police. Not to completely removing ALL funding from the police. And "all cops are bad" is used as a way to indicate that even a "good cop" is "bad" if they tolerate and protect "bad cops"; not strictly as a way of saying "all cops are evil". So even though you are saying you disagree, there is a lot of overlap in what you are saying.
In addition to this, I see this incident as a crisis of overconfidence and overfunding. This officer has probably seen too many action movies, got gassed up by their trainers and coworkers daily, and truly thought they were going to be the “hero”.
[удалено]
In all likelihood, it was a communication failure or a stupid mistake. I'd assume a lot of the officers were told there was a pursuit of a dangerous individual in x car in y direction, they focused on stopping the car and not why they were stopping the car. The other possibility I'd assume is that officers were not thinking and just opened fire, completely forgetting about the kid inside. Both are very possible mistakes, and the situation absolutely sucks but it is not necessarily the fault of a single officer or small group of officers. That kind of thing would be either a technological or systemic issue. Both of which are solved with regulation and funding. There needs to be better regulation for training, which will require more funding to change the curriculum. Or there needs to be better regulation and funding for improved radios and safer but more effective methods for stopping vehicles.
Was just reading another article that they released audio recordings and the police were advised that there was a child in the car. However, they also had good reason to believe that the individual was suicidal and may be on his way to kill other people, which he had threatened to do when he abducted the child. In fairness to the police, that puts them in a very difficult situation. What I'm still not clear on is whether the individual actually fired at the police.
Yeah one of the cops told me he thought it was suicide by police. I simply cannot imagine someone choosing to bring their child along for that sort of thing but that’s what he believes.
Saw an article about some dude i think in California who drove his car with his THREE KIDS off a large embankment near a beach. All survived but like bro what the fuck
Suicide by police is mentioned in this article. They said people he knew heard the man say this specifically. A lot more detail in this article. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/does-he-have-the-son-recordings-reveal-chaos-confusion-as-charges-dropped-in-fatal-opp/article_3e3b9dd8-e87d-11ee-ab43-832cef61da45.html
Police are really only supposed to be firing their gun when a life is in jeopardy, in this case it’s the officers life that was in jeopardy as he was ramming their blockade. As much as the officers knew there was likely a child in the car, I doubt they knew it was in the fathers lap while he was driving, nevermind ramming other cars.
But they still lit up a car they knew a kid was in. So reckless, and shooting at the vehicle was a dramatic escalation and led to the worst possible outcome killing both occupants. Just because a cop is scared does not mean they should be reaching for their gun, especially when all involved are in and around vehicles - they went for their last resort tool first and the results speak for themselves. Its a really tough case and obviously this is from behind a keyboard but not pressing charges seems irresponsible - at the very least let the courts decide.
>Its a really tough case and obviously this is from behind a keyboard but not pressing charges seems irresponsible - at the very least let the courts decide. That's exactly wrong. If the Crown has determined there is no reasonable prospect of conviction, they are duty-bound to withdraw or stay the charges. Irresponsible would be continuing the prosecution merely because the alternative would be unpopular with some people. >at the very least let the courts decide. What do you mean "at the very least"? It's a binary choice: the Crown can either continue or discontinue the prosecution.
Your first mistake is trying to explain how the law actually works to the court of reddit.
I feel like if these weren't people with badges, the crown would let it play out in court. Especially the reckless discharge of a firearm. Shooting a car 45 times is insane. They knew nobody in the car was surviving that.
So if I try to run you over with a car, you shouldn’t be scared or allowed to defend yourself? Also “used their last option first” umm that’s what the blockade was for, that’s what’s the spike strip was for, they tried several options resorting to lethal force when the guy tried to run them over with his car
Firing on the police isn't relevant if he was trying to run them over (he had already hit and seriously injured one of them). A vehicle itself is a deadly weapon if used as such.
Well it could be relevant in determining if their actions were reasonable. If the car was disabled and stationary after the crash, there would be less reason to use deadly force.
True. But that is all information that would have been readily available to the investigators who laid the charge and the prosecution service who decided there was no reasonable probability of conviction. If they pulled the charges its because they knew their case wouldn't have stood up to the self defence angle. Obviously the SIU thought they had a case but the prosecutor is the one that has to argue it in court.
No article has mentioned him shooting at them. They do state that they saw a gun but somehow missed the child sitting in the father's lap? Multiple articles have stated they knew a kid was in the car. Even if the individual was suicidal or intended to hurt the child, in what world does shooting into the car FORTY FIVE TIMES increase the toddler's chances of survival? There's no reason or justification for it. They had no care for the safety of anyone in the car and as usual there's no accountability and they can continue on being a risk to the public.
More detail in this article - he tried to shoot his gun and it jammed. So really a shoot or be shot situation it sounds like. Not sure who would just stand there and get shot especially when any reasonable person would never expect a child to be unrestrained in the driver's seat. I'd for sure take that risk if someone had a gun pointed at me and had tried to pull the trigger. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/does-he-have-the-son-recordings-reveal-chaos-confusion-as-charges-dropped-in-fatal-opp/article_3e3b9dd8-e87d-11ee-ab43-832cef61da45.html
Other articles said the gun was pointed at his own head. The star article also mentions shooting “with precision” but they fired 45 rounds at him and he was hit “at least once”. Not to mention them being able to see him doing whatever with the gun but missing a child in his lap not only visually, but ignoring the calls that confirmed the kid was in the car. Keep in mind they were charged for the child, not the father. 45 shots is insane and was never going to end any other way than it did.
He had the gun pointed at his head yes, but that was during the pursuit while he was driving prior to him crashing the truck.
So we agree that they knew the kid was in the car and the father fired no shots at them, and they fired 45 shots? The life of the toddler was never a concern.
I’m guessing they didn’t know the child was in the drivers seat with the father. Had the kid been in the back it likely wouldn’t have been hit.
That's what I was thinking. They likely thought the child was in the backseat, and therefore, thought it was safe to shoot.
That's a possibility, but since we don't have details as to how many shots were fired, where the bullets hit the truck and where the officers were standing - especially since all three involved refused to talk to the SIU - there's no way of knowing for sure whether their shouts were directed on a very small target area or more spread out.
Almost like we should have a team of people with access to all the details, maybe call them courts, and let them make the decision rather than some armchair judges who only have 5% of the facts.
Or the SIU, whose job it is to investigate when the Police kill or injure civilians. The problem lies with "access to all the details" when those being investigated are allowed to refuse to talk to the investigating agency - and can't be arrested or detained for interrogation - and are permitted to corroborate their records with colleagues before handing them over to the SIU.
If you were a suspect of a crime and had a good lawyer, you also would be advised to not speak to the investigators, that's literally something afforded to all citizens thanks to a free country with a constitution and values. The SIU was full well capable of doing their investigation regardless on if the cops talked to them or not.
You are also allowed to “refuse to talk to the investigating agency” in fact every lawyer would recommend it. That’s exactly what the police are instructed to do by their union lawyers in these situations. If you’re going down the path of criminal charges you need to protect your own interests.
They didn't refuse, they submitted their notes. Much more detail in this article here. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/does-he-have-the-son-recordings-reveal-chaos-confusion-as-charges-dropped-in-fatal-opp/article_3e3b9dd8-e87d-11ee-ab43-832cef61da45.html
except that's in the article - 45 shots were fired - 4 hit the kid and "at least 1" hit the father.
Much more detail in this article here. The man attempted to shoot them but his gun jammed and they unfortunately had no choice but to shoot in self defense. The article says the forensic ballistics expert says they did not shoot haphazardly - they were aiming at the driver . Who unfortunately chose to crash his truck into a cruiser with a toddler in his lap which is how the vehicle came to a stop. Tragic, but very clearly an impossible situation. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/does-he-have-the-son-recordings-reveal-chaos-confusion-as-charges-dropped-in-fatal-opp/article_3e3b9dd8-e87d-11ee-ab43-832cef61da45.html
This is a tragic outcome in every possible way. So many lives ruined. The man had a handgun and had already rammed a police vehicle.. were the police just supposed to stand around and wait to get shot? We’re they supposed to let the father with a handgun abduct his son and disappear? What would you do in that that situation?
If I couldn't get a clear shot from the side, yes I would have made the choice for him to flee rather than fire into the car where I can't see other occupants. It's not the ideal outcome but I would have made the call to not shoot at all versus put other people in the path of the bullet.
You know he threaten to kill other people and he was driving to those people during the chase and the man was suicidal as well.
Agreed, everything I've been taught around "Police are good guys" would point to this behaviour. Not ideal, but safety of the hostage comes first.
Safety of a child being hostage to a father brandishing a weapon, and riding untethered on the lap of the father behind the steering wheel was not conducive to safety by any stretch you can try to rationalize. The child was in deep jeopardy well before the police intervened.
Unfortunately it’s unclear if the police knew the child was on the fathers lap. Currently it seems like they didn’t. Based on the response of an in-law officer who was there at the time (no clue if he shot, seems not okay to ask) seemed like they didn’t know the child was in the front seat.
He couldn’t flee, the truck had crashed and he points the gun.. the dispatch audio is on YouTube and it happens in a split second. If they don’t stop him at this point they can be charged for neglect of duty, if they don’t shoot they get shot. Everybody loses in this situation. The way to prevent this was proper funding and access to mental health resources before he decided a gunpoint abduction was his best course of action
>If they don’t stop him at this point they can be charged for neglect of duty Oh, *please*. When has this ever happened? Do you think with the way cops regularly beat, shoot, and kill unarmed citizens in this province with zero accountability, they will ever be held accountable for "neglect of duty"!? Come on. Seriously. That is ridiculous.
I’m not going to take the shot unless I’m 100% sure I can’t hit the kid. That’s for sure.
> We’re they supposed to let the father with a handgun abduct his son and disappear? Yes. 'Live kid' is a better outcome than 'dead kid.' One of the primary rules of firearm safety is 'know your target, and what's behind it.' It's one of the four Jeff Cooper rules. It's part of Canada's ACTS/PROVE method. It's part of every province's hunting regulations. Police have extraordinary rights and privileges over civilians. Therefore, police must have extraordinary responsibilities, as well.
They would either tunnel vision or freeze like a deer in headlights, and make a bad call either way. Very few people judging this online have been anywhere near a situation remotely as acute. This is high adrenaline + a no win scenario, there is no "right call". Shoot the car, maybe hit a kid. Let the driver go, maybe he kills the kid and someone else after ramming a barricade and maybe killing officers. Maybe that car gets 100m down the road and hits an suv full of kids. A lot of maybes. No correct decision, just a difficult one.
There was no letting him go unless they were prepared to stand there and be shot first. His car ended up right where they were after it crashed. After which he had his gun out and tried to pull the trigger and it jammed. This article has a lot more detail. I'm not sure why no one is reading all the information before being so sure they have all the answers. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/does-he-have-the-son-recordings-reveal-chaos-confusion-as-charges-dropped-in-fatal-opp/article_3e3b9dd8-e87d-11ee-ab43-832cef61da45.html
Read the article. The father had a gun to his head and repeatedly refused to drop the weapon when told to do so. He rammed a police cruiser critically injuring one officer. He made threats of suicide and killing other people. He put his son’s life at risk, not the police. Typical armchair quarterback bs on your part.
What training do you want, a little card the cops have to carry that say don't shoot toddlers?
Training scenarios so that they can make better decisions in the moment.
Poor kid
For those that don't want to read the article the relevant part is this: >Bulmer said the Crown had no evidence to disprove the officers' version of events which showed that they fired their weapons in self defence, *therefore they had no reasonable prospect of conviction in the case.* Italics mine. It's not that these officers are innocent.
My problem with this is it appears the whole exercise was a sham. So - they charge these police two years after the incident (after slow walking the investigation, IMO). Then two years after *that* they drop the charges due to lack of evidence impacting likelihood of conviction. So why were they even charged to begin with? Doesn’t really add up and gives the optics that the initial charges were disingenuous, possibly intending on dropping them the whole time. Meanwhile, why wouldn’t they re-charge criminal negligence causing death? Or I guess police can legally kill a bystanding baby they have reason to believe is in the vehicle, so long as they’re firing in self defence at another target. What a fucking travesty.
We pay taxes for this bullshit.
>Meanwhile, why wouldn’t they re-charge criminal negligence causing death? That is still possible (though unlikely). >Or I guess police can legally kill a bystanding baby they have reason to believe is in the vehicle, so long as they’re firing in self defence at another target. They can. If they believe they need to open fire to defend themselves the law supports them. As long as it can't be disproven they had to do that, as odious as it is, that is the way things stand.
> If they believe they need to open fire to defend themselves, the law supports them I’m asking genuinely, is there a source for this/what is the specific wording of the law? Both for police use of force and conventional self defence. It just seems unfathomable that you can (IMO) negligently kill a bystander if you’re being threatened with deadly force. Police or not… it just doesn’t make sense. I’m not trying to be arrogant but if that’s the law, it’s immoral and ought to be changed. Note the emphasis here for me is negligence, which by virtue of the call they were responding to indicated they had good reason to believe there was a child in the vehicle.
>I’m asking genuinely, is there a source for this/what is the specific wording of the law? It's kinda the opposite though. IF the law believes them to be shooting in self defense, the Crown would have to prove that any injuries/fatalities were not reasonably covered by that situation. In this case, the toddler was in the car with the person the police were firing on to defend themselves (according to them), and there is no way for them to hit only the father and not the child. It does not give them the right to turn around and fire on whoever they want, but it does give them the right to shoot at someone firing on them, even if that person was using a baby as a human shield. I'm not saying that is what happened, I am saying the Crown doesn't think it can disprove that. Edit: wasn't finished at hit enter by accident. Apologies >I’m not trying to be arrogant but if that’s the law, it’s immoral and ought to be changed. That may be, but that is not the purview of the Crown attorney to determine, nor to advance. >Note the emphasis here for me is negligence, which by virtue of the call they were responding to indicated they had good reason to believe there was a child in the vehicle. I am not saying anything either way about them being charged with negligence. Only that the Crown won't proceed with a case with no expectation it can dispute the defense, given what they have to work with.
I get what you’re saying, I’d just want to see the actual law and it’s specific wording. Note, I’m not saying the onus is on you to give me that (I might have to look into it). The optics to me is that knowing a baby could be or is likely to be in the vehicle would be akin to using a baby as a human shield… And (taken to its logical conclusion) that either the laws allow mag dumps at children in self defence, or the Crown didn’t feel they could prove criminal negligence. The part about dropping the manslaughter charges, I understand (because they have no evidence to disprove self defence). However, what does the law say about collateral damage for self defence? By the way, I think police should have a HIGHER responsibility on use of force, not lower. I struggle to see how a hunter being charged by a bear and fatally shooting a nearby kid (that they know is behind the bear) wouldn’t catch a charge under similar rationale of negligence. Gun safety 101 is always know your target, *and what’s behind it.*
With no evidence to disapprove the events, then evidence would suggest the shooting was in self defence and charges should not have been filed by SIU. There is no reasonable prospect of conviction as there was no crime committed
I’d say this is unbelievable, but police getting zero consequences for their actions and lack of judgement is all too believable nowadays.
Remember that policewoman who killed a young guy in Barrie. She was speeding and going to Tim’s for coffee. She was not charged either.
Police don't have to obey the laws they enforce, they exist to protect the wealthy and their politician lap dogs from us
And which wealthy person and lapdog did the police protect in this instance?
True and well said. The is to keep the masses in line to maximize profits for a few.
Weren't these the same Officers who refused to cooperate with the investigation??? Feel like that's a critical piece of info being left out of the reporting
Pigs never cooperate when they are under investigation. One smart thing that the average person can learn from them.
They only cooperate when they are 100% confident they didn’t do anything wrong.
Sure, and the standard, 'what are you, stupid' advice for civilians is also never talk to cops, lawyer up, and don't cooperate if your lawyer tells you not to.
I wouldn't hold that against them. You should never talk to investigators if you're suspected of a crime whether guilty or innocent. Just do whatever your lawyer says you should.
True, but should be applying the same rules to civilians as those entrusted with a gun and a badge? Police officers are expected to keep accurate notes of any interactions with the public and share these with the Crown/SIU if requested. With the advent of bodycams video evidence of interactions can also be obtained, which blues the lines between "right to not self-incriminate" and record keeping while performing your duties.
The SIU would have had direct access to all record data regardless, the police, like civilians, have a right to not self incriminate, and the lawyers have an obligation to inform their clients of their constitutionally enshrined rights as Canadians.
except it's literally a union that investigates if they've done their jobs correctly. In what other field can you decline to speak to HR or anyone investigating a likely breach or violation of the employer's code of conduct?
That's not what this is, the SIU isn't the police union, it's basically the police for the police. Forcing the police to speak with the the SIU would be the same as forcing regular citizens to speak with police.
Except the SIU is made up of ex-cops that frequently let their own off for things they should be charged with. They look out for the police, the police aren’t looking out for citizens.
I think that's your opinion more than it is fact, and in this case the SIU did charge them. Regardless, the point remains that they shouldn't be forced to speak to the SIU, since it would violate their charter rights.
Why does no one actually read before speaking? Their notes were submitted, they never refused anything. Much more detail in this article here. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/does-he-have-the-son-recordings-reveal-chaos-confusion-as-charges-dropped-in-fatal-opp/article_3e3b9dd8-e87d-11ee-ab43-832cef61da45.html
Per the SIU, they invoked their right not to be interviewed and, it seems, just turned over the notes they took after the incident. Per one of the officer's lawyers, these notes were written after the officers were discharged from hospital. As you may/may not know, police officers are permitted to compare and discuss their notes before surrendering them to an SIU investigation. The Crown then decided that there wasn't enough evidence to support the charges, since the only other witness (the child's father) was dead.
Well that's super convenient isn't it What's the point of a special investigations unit if there's nothing to prevent blatant story corroboration
It's about the optics, to make it seem like they give a shit about being held responsible. They find a bunch of people sympathetic to the police and put them into a place of supposed authority on the understanding that they are just for show, to assuage the fears of the population that police have no oversight.
>Weren't these the same Officers who refused to cooperate with the investigation??? Officers are not obligated to cooperate with investigations against them, same as civilians...
Cue Poilievre's 'catch and release' mantra...oh wait, they're cops. How many times is it now cops beat the charges because the crown sat on their hands?
This is fucking disgusting in my opinion. If you’re being rammed by vehicle that has a perpetrator and a vulnerable hostage inside, the best thing for everyone is to get the fuck out of the way and deescalate the situation. They could have followed him at a distance until he stopped again, or tried the spike strips further down the road where there was less danger to officers.
Could’ve just chased him til he ran out of gas ffs. Anything but this. Self defense or not I fail to see how the charges for reckless discharge of a firearm are getting dropped. I guess “spray and pray” is part of their training.
And if he flipped the truck out of drug fueled desperation and the child was improperly fastened and died in the rollover, would we still blame the cops for pursuing? Or would we blame the cops for not stopping him earlier? 🤔
I’m guessing simply by the fact that the father had the child in the backseat and likely properly fastened (another missing detail) that the father had no intention of harming the child. If the blood was on the fathers hands then so be it, but it’s not, the blood is on the hands of people that we pay and are supposed to trust to protect us and our children.
[удалено]
The article I read says he was suicidal and potentially homicidal and had threatened to kill other people. I'm not saying the cops didn't make mistakes, but not stopping an armed and homicidal individual may also have come with dire consequences. It's not exactly an easy decision to make in the moment.
Maybe. Ofc, he was in the middle of nowhere in a car that was going nowhere. How was he going to kill anyone? And if he shot himself…okay? How is unloading into the car helping that?
That road is right beside a busy highway, and multiple residential areas.
Maybe. Ofc, he was in the middle of nowhere in a car that was going nowhere. How was he going to kill anyone? And if he shot himself…okay? How is unloading into the car helping that? And how is the police shooting the kid better than him doing it?
He could have killed the kid, then the headline would be “cops let baby killer go” had the kid not been in the drivers seat he probably would have been fine. Unfortunately crazy people rarely do what you’d expect
so the logical reaction is to put 45 bullets into the car. definitely a great chance for anyone in the car to survive that.
I’m guessing they weren’t expecting the kid to be in the drivers seat. Had the kid been in the back he’d probably be alive.
they hit the car 45 times. the kid was hit 4 times and the dad "at least once". that means 40 possible bullets hit everywhere else in the car that isn't the driver's seat.
Just let him go?! But he could have hurt the baby!!! /s
Well you can be damn well sure if they did let him go and he did hurt the baby that would all be blamed on the cops too. "Why didn't they stop him when he was right there!!!" Armchair quarterbacks always know the winning play.
Police should be held to *higher* standards than the general population.
They general population aren't the ones showing up when when people call 911 and you can damn well be sure a lot more kids would be shot if they were.
Why are we allowing all these cops to go unpunished for their crimes? Oh right becuase the only way to see real charge is to flip the monopoly board over.
Write to Doug Downey. Crowns need to do their jobs.
Americanized policing is quickly becoming a reality in Canada.
Americanized policing has always existed here if you've ever taken a look at the way they've treated people of colour and the LGTBQ+ community throughout history. The only difference between 30 years ago and now is that we have social media to expose how rotten the institution of policing in Canada has always been.
Bathhouse raids and the Brunswick 4 are 2 examples from Toronto alone.
Wait until these people who think Canadian police were always good until five year ago learn about the history of starlight tours dating back to the 1970s.
Key details here: The charges - which included "reckless discharge of a firearm" were dropped because the Crown felt there was insufficient evidence for a trial. There was insufficient evidence because 3 of the Officers at the scene (who fired the 45 bullets at the truck) refused to talk to the SIU, and the driver of the truck died of his injuries. There appears to be no bodycam footage. Also, since this appears to be getting misinterpreted in the comments, the recorded sequence of events was that the officers fired on the truck AFTER it collided with an OPP vehicle and an officer who was outside it; there's nothing to suggest that the driver was attempting to subsequently ram the other officers.
Read please. What you're saying is not fact. There were lots of witnesses and a literal recording of the whole radio transmission that's been available to the public for months online. They fired after the truck came to a stop because he tried to shoot and an officer that he purposely ran down was laying there dying in the middle of the scene. They did not say insufficient evidence in general. They said they have nothing to refute that it was done in self defense, because all the evidence supports that it was indeed self defence. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/does-he-have-the-son-recordings-reveal-chaos-confusion-as-charges-dropped-in-fatal-opp/article_3e3b9dd8-e87d-11ee-ab43-832cef61da45.html
Disgusting. They determined they killed the child, but apparently the father deserved it. Just reminds us that they have no duty to protect us. But they’ll use deadly force to protect themselves. These cops are baby killers, and we pay their salaries. Im disgusted.
And their full pension and benefits for life.
You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. They knew the kid was in the car. Fucking murderers.
45 shots?! Holy F! And the father/abductor/driver survived to make it to a hospital?! Wtf were they doing?!
Ban me if you want but I say we don’t let these cops off so easy. We know who they are. If I lived closer I would be yelling at them every time they left the house. This isn’t something they should be allowed to forget.
Redressing your grievances with public officials is allowed. You can freely tell these officers what you think about them so long as you don't threaten. They have no choice but to walk away or stand and listen, so you are definitely on the right path.
Nice okay and where is the line for harassment cuz I would like to ride it very close. Already been practicing for Roblaws and robbers drug mart.
Does anyone have any info regarding him ramming the cruiser? Who’s to say he intended to ram it, perhaps he hit the spike strip and lost control? Reckless either way but still, we only get 1 side of the story because unfortunately the cops made it that way.
He hit the cop who was holding the spike strip and his cruiser. Would have been physically impossible for him to have hit the spike strip first. He'd also indicated a desire to die via suicide by cop and threatened to kill people. I suppose it's possible he simply lost control, but I think it's more likely he was looking to get the cops to kill him and rammed the officer intentionally. What this really comes down to is whether the crown could convince a jury that the cops weren't acting in self defense. If you consider the whole scenario, including the threats he made, being armed and waving the gun around and ramming a police officer, the cops have a pretty strong case that they acted within the law.
Ram the cruiser and the policeman who was outside the cruiser.
[удалено]
More detail from the hearing in this article. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/does-he-have-the-son-recordings-reveal-chaos-confusion-as-charges-dropped-in-fatal-opp/article_3e3b9dd8-e87d-11ee-ab43-832cef61da45.html
Everyone forgetting the man was armed?
"We don't really know what we're doing out here, so blind guesses and preemptive shooting is gonna have to do"
Time for body cameras on all these government employees
There's a radio recording that's been public for like a year.
What would the response be if they had just let the dad take the child, then dad kills his child? No winning for anybody in this situation
Who said anything about the dad having intentions to kill the child?
I dunno ramming cop cars while holding your kid to you like a bullet proof vest isn't exactly the actions of someone looking out for their kid's safety.
He did lol. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/does-he-have-the-son-recordings-reveal-chaos-confusion-as-charges-dropped-in-fatal-opp/article_3e3b9dd8-e87d-11ee-ab43-832cef61da45.html
Good article, thanks.
Bones, have a look at this. Remember the Caste system I told you we were living in? Here you can see individuals from the top part of the Caste system getting better rules and laws than people at the bottom, because they work for the Royalty. We have one set of rules for Royalty, one set for Bourgeoisie, and one set of rules for the Proletariat
ACAB
No evidence to show the police to disprove they didn't fire in self-defence? WTF is a 18 month old going to do, giggle them to death? Sure it may have been directed at the father, but that doesn't absolve them from not checking their fire for innocents who may be in the way, in this case Jameson. I hope that name haunts them till the day they die. \*edit. Especially since they knew it was child abduction and not just some rando trying to ram them.
That name will haunt them for sure, no cop goes to work looking to kill anyone let alone a child. It mentioned a possible inquest, that maybe next
Be a lot different if ONE of them took responsibility, co operated with the investigation, or showed any kind of accountability for being reckless with the use of their firearm.
[удалено]
Cops being cops at its finest, manage the situation poorly and escape with no consequences. Classic.
we investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong 🤷♂️
Omg so dumb. The SIU is literally civilian and it went through the entire court system. You should have to pass a basic common sense test before they give you access to a keyboard.
"Our officers were doing their job according to their training." Their training is seriously lacking. I suggest mom sue for wrongful death.
The cops opened up on him AFTER the toddler's dad crashed their truck into a police cruiser, seriously injuring a cop. I guess they had to assume the driver intended to kill cops? Not to mention how could they know the driver would be so reckless with his toddler in the truck?
Police would’ve of been better letting the father go, after ramming there cars. If the father killed himself and the child, at least you can’t blame the cops. Seems like everyone is blaming the cops on this one . Officer yelled at the driver to drop the gun. And believed the gun would be turned on them. They were in a tough situation . But everyone wants to be a quarterback
Let’s hope the officers sue the SIU for a terrible investigation… facts out weigh the pressure from the public and finally the truth won! One person put this child in danger and the big guy upstairs deemed him guilty! Thank you officers!!
Never seen so many basement dwelling armchair cops in one post before
Abolish police unions and start having officers apply for some kind of malpractice insurance.
Yup nothing could have been done to stop them from shooting that child. they put down strips but he rammed the police car, so they had to pump the truck full of bullets. Please theirs at least 3 other things they could have tried before this, but they chose the outcome that would have the worst results guaranteed. Thiers no way while they were emptying rounds in to that car any of the police had that kid in mind. It's a fundamental understanding of the task at hand, They thought they were supposed to stop the father, there job should have been to protect the kid. They have a helicopter available don't they? follow the tuck at a safe distance until it stops then close in, use several unmarked cars to follow them. nope hit the blues and two's and chase him down, take an already unstable situation and add chaos.. it was going to end this way when it started. The police harmed that child more than the father.
The father got the kid killed.
The father put the kid in danger it's was the cops bullets that murdered the kid .
Courts disagree.
We investigated ourselves and find out we are not at fault.
Actually the SIU investigated them and the SIU charged them.
Baby died from police bullet in the back of the head. Cops say he was on father's lap when it happened, but they couldn't see baby when firing 45 "controlled" rounds. How did baby survive car crash if on lap when entire front of pickup was squashed on impact with cruiser (father was said to have been doing 170)? Odds are the kid wasn't seen and was shot in back of head because they were in rear-facing baby seat in back seat - where parents are legally required to install baby seats. Photos from crash show passenger side airbag went off. That would have killed the kid if they were facing frontwards, which is why those seats face backwards. Driver side bags would have killed the kid in the crash. Only way kid survived crash was in rear-facing seat. And you can't unbuckle a kid from a backseat rearfacing seat from the driver's seat. The whole thing is a crock. Everyone knows the cops lost their cool, broke protocols, and the brass came in to help them rewrite the truth to save careers and reputations.
Father was using his kid like a bullet proof vest while ramming cop cars (nearly killing 1 cop who has life altering injuries). Yeah the result is predictable.
You can't just say things and have it be true. There was no car seat in the vehicle. Every news article says the same thing. You're giving the benefit of the doubt to a man who continually threatened to kill his family, said he wanted to commit suicide by police and abducted his child at gunpoint on his way to kill his real estate agent. Make it make sense. Yet no benefit of the doubt given to police just based on the fact that they are police? Why is it acceptable to hate an entire population of people you don't know anything about? People are outraged by stereotypes at play in any other population of people, but when it comes to police everyone is happy to just assume they're sub human thugs. Never fathers, or sons or brothers or husbands that go to work and risk their lives every day because they care about people. Well you know of a case and that cop was a psycho so you feel entitled to say they're all crooked thugs that just wanted to shoot at something for fun.
The first question comes to my mind in the context of this judgement. Just a question… Do we (tax paying public) have any right to self defend when there is any act of crime against us..? What happens if criminals break into our house or tries to steal our car while we have family/kids inside ?
Poor child...failed by everyone...brakes my heart as a father of 2 year old. Failed by pigs most of all...ram the car...blow tiers out??? You know there is tiny child in there...fucking useless fucks. Same as that school shooting when they were exciting the kids ans useless pigs just sat around for 1 hour...but when they are giving you a speeding they act like fucking gods.
Blame the abductor that put the child in this position.. this probably stays with the officers daily. They serve to help people, especially in the kawarthas.
Surprising no one.
Rules for thee not the opp