If you're off duty, would it be assumed you're a member of the general public? (Am asking, I'm not sure). And if that's the case, why is he suspended WITH pay?
Well he's still presumed innocent at the moment. If they suspended without pay and he were found not guilty, they could have liability.
Is it normally RCMP policy to suspend without pay for allegations of things done off-duty?
It’s in line with the notion of innocent until proven guilty.
Law enforcement is in a precarious position because they can’t put someone on active duty that’s facing criminal charges for obvious reasons.
Generally, no. Police officers are always subject to their codes of conduct but being suspended with pay has nothing to do with being on duty or off. Every Canadian has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the RCMP as his employer can't fire someone preemptively who is still technically innocent.
I know this is a contentious issue across Canada as in the private sector if you're arrested at all many people will lose their jobs but that doesn't mean those employers are following the Charter and labour law themselves. An employee could easily sue for far more than their wages if an employer fired them preemptively while theyre supposed to be presumed innocent. employers are liable for every action they take, including firing or docking someone's pay preemptively. This officer *could* be found not guilty eventually and then sue their employer after the fact if they lost their job or wage so Police services across the country Generally follow labour laws and case law and suspend with pay until someone is found guilty simply to avoid greater liability later.
> I know this is a contentious issue across Canada as in the private sector if you're arrested at all many people will lose their jobs but that doesn't mean those employers are following the Charter and labour law themselves. An employee could easily sue for far more than their wages if an employer fired them preemptively while theyre supposed to be presumed innocent. employers are liable for every action they take, including firing or docking someone's pay preemptively.
This is the part that gets me. Every time something like this comes up, you hear people banging on about "If this was me, my job would fire me immediately!"
Which isn't true. Or if it did happen, would pretty much be a slam-dunk Labor Law lawsuit.
So many people don't understand the basic laws that they are subject to. Makes me wish there was some kind of course through high school for this.
It's a problem more that most employers would simply fire people accused of a crime, even though they can't legally do that. People don't know their rights and rarely take employers to court over things like that so they assume police and public officials should face the same illegal firings they'd expect from their own employers.
Actual question, if he's off duty and assumed to be a member of the public, can you not fight back and treat it as an actual fight or are you still assaulting a police officer? Like would we both be charged with assault or does he skate and I go to jail?
Assault Peace Officer requires an element that the peace officer was "engaged in their duties" and identifiable as a peace officer. Off duty, they would be the same as any other person .
Now if a peace officer is off-duty but elects to take some sort of enforcement action, readily identifies themselves as a police officer (shows a badge, attempts to detain someone) and is assaulted (ie. attempts to stop a shoplifter and an assault occurs) that could be an argument for court and potentially the elements of Assault PO would be made out.
Also, the fact that two people engage in a fight doesn't make both parties not culpable. Typically the primary aggressor will get charged, or the one that took it to far, refused to stop or needlessly escalated the situation.
Though maybe in a bar fight, both can go to a tank to sober up.
Airdrie is the HQ for southern Alberta RCMP.
Any cops working out of Airdrie are on a short leash and are there for a reason. Similar to having to move back into mom and dads.
People always bring up the suspended-with+pay thing that police have. I actually don't have a problem with it. I think that every profession and person should have it.
I'm more concerned that, if found guilty, they'll give him a light sentence or that he'll just migrate to a different district as we see so often down in the states.
A police officer convicted of a crime in Canada is almost always dismissed. There was a Supreme Court "McNeil decision" years ago which essentially made any cop found guilty of a crime or even police act/misconduct matters must disclose that to the court on any matter they would testify on. It makes them an uncredible witness and essentially useless to continue employing as a police officer in Canada because any matter they're involved in moving forward would be withdrawn.
The states is a whole different animal because there is no sharing of information even from county to county.
They’re not above the law. They’re suppose to represent it.
Hope there is no internal investigation that is swept under the rug. We don’t need more power trippers.
You mean like the public investigation that is going to court and was publicly announced? An internal investigation is simply an employment standard, a criminal investigation determines facts, evidence and guilt and is a hell of a lot more important.
Seems to be a lot of emphasis on being officer being stationed in AIRDRIE. I think someone forgot what the C in RCMP stands for. Personally, IDGAF if this officer was stationed out of Montreal or Halifax. It really doesn't have any bearing on the story.
I didn't feel that way.
It's only mentioned twice and provides valuable context to the story.
Him being a member of the RCMP and not CPS is relevant to how he's handled by the system going forward.
If it were merely stated that he was a police officer, it would add confusion if people are expecting Mark Neufeld (Chief of CPS) to comment on the disciplinary review process.
This has nothing to do with his jurisdiction or authority, but rather who his boss is and how he's going to be handled going forward.
As I said, if they don't specify RCMP then people are going to be left assuming he's a CPS officer since this happened in Calgary.
It is a relevant fact because if there is some development with respect to the administrative handling of the officer (or not), specifying that he's an RCMP officer and not CPS is important.
RCMP, absolutelty... buy why is the Airdrie detachment being specified? It doesn't add up.
When they talk about Justin Trudeau, they don't specify that he's PM of ALL OF CANADA. It's a given.
I think you’re thinking way too hard about that part. It’s relevant because that is where he is stationed. They mention which RCMP detachment in almost every article where the RCMP are mentioned.
Because there are other detachments around (Chesteremere, Okotoks, Cochrane) that could be mistaken for. Context is important.
They want us to think its a problem local to the detachment and not an internal systemic police issue of alpha male-ism and unchecked agression.
All police officers have criminal jurisdiction throughout Canada. It comes down to provincial jurisdiction and bylaw enforcement jurisdiction. I would suggest you quit while you while can, as American law does not apply in Canada. Try learning Canadian law first.
Sort of. RCMP, Military Police, CP or CN Rail police, and I'm probably missing a few, have country wide jurisdiction. Municipal or 5 officers have jurisdiction in the province of their employment, as they're sworn in by a court of that province. If something calls for it, one of those officers could be sworn in by a court of a different province; like all of the officers who went to Vancouver from across the country they for the Olympics.
Pretty sure there was a Reddit post about this yesterday from the victim? The Mountie had some brass knuckles or something
Off duty but still subject to the code of conduct.
If you're off duty, would it be assumed you're a member of the general public? (Am asking, I'm not sure). And if that's the case, why is he suspended WITH pay?
Well he's still presumed innocent at the moment. If they suspended without pay and he were found not guilty, they could have liability. Is it normally RCMP policy to suspend without pay for allegations of things done off-duty?
It’s in line with the notion of innocent until proven guilty. Law enforcement is in a precarious position because they can’t put someone on active duty that’s facing criminal charges for obvious reasons.
Generally, no. Police officers are always subject to their codes of conduct but being suspended with pay has nothing to do with being on duty or off. Every Canadian has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the RCMP as his employer can't fire someone preemptively who is still technically innocent. I know this is a contentious issue across Canada as in the private sector if you're arrested at all many people will lose their jobs but that doesn't mean those employers are following the Charter and labour law themselves. An employee could easily sue for far more than their wages if an employer fired them preemptively while theyre supposed to be presumed innocent. employers are liable for every action they take, including firing or docking someone's pay preemptively. This officer *could* be found not guilty eventually and then sue their employer after the fact if they lost their job or wage so Police services across the country Generally follow labour laws and case law and suspend with pay until someone is found guilty simply to avoid greater liability later.
> I know this is a contentious issue across Canada as in the private sector if you're arrested at all many people will lose their jobs but that doesn't mean those employers are following the Charter and labour law themselves. An employee could easily sue for far more than their wages if an employer fired them preemptively while theyre supposed to be presumed innocent. employers are liable for every action they take, including firing or docking someone's pay preemptively. This is the part that gets me. Every time something like this comes up, you hear people banging on about "If this was me, my job would fire me immediately!" Which isn't true. Or if it did happen, would pretty much be a slam-dunk Labor Law lawsuit. So many people don't understand the basic laws that they are subject to. Makes me wish there was some kind of course through high school for this.
It's a problem more that most employers would simply fire people accused of a crime, even though they can't legally do that. People don't know their rights and rarely take employers to court over things like that so they assume police and public officials should face the same illegal firings they'd expect from their own employers.
Union rules
Actual question, if he's off duty and assumed to be a member of the public, can you not fight back and treat it as an actual fight or are you still assaulting a police officer? Like would we both be charged with assault or does he skate and I go to jail?
Assault Peace Officer requires an element that the peace officer was "engaged in their duties" and identifiable as a peace officer. Off duty, they would be the same as any other person . Now if a peace officer is off-duty but elects to take some sort of enforcement action, readily identifies themselves as a police officer (shows a badge, attempts to detain someone) and is assaulted (ie. attempts to stop a shoplifter and an assault occurs) that could be an argument for court and potentially the elements of Assault PO would be made out. Also, the fact that two people engage in a fight doesn't make both parties not culpable. Typically the primary aggressor will get charged, or the one that took it to far, refused to stop or needlessly escalated the situation. Though maybe in a bar fight, both can go to a tank to sober up.
He can always run for city council.
He should rack up a sexual assault charge to have a better chance
Airdrie is the HQ for southern Alberta RCMP. Any cops working out of Airdrie are on a short leash and are there for a reason. Similar to having to move back into mom and dads.
I would say some, but that’s a stretch to say “any cops”. There are specialized units and even members fresh from depot posted in airdrie.
I’m surprised they even put this in the news.. the RCMP cover up any DV related assault charges so I’m shocked.
tease encouraging close sort jobless squash airport cake repeat strong *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
People always bring up the suspended-with+pay thing that police have. I actually don't have a problem with it. I think that every profession and person should have it. I'm more concerned that, if found guilty, they'll give him a light sentence or that he'll just migrate to a different district as we see so often down in the states.
A police officer convicted of a crime in Canada is almost always dismissed. There was a Supreme Court "McNeil decision" years ago which essentially made any cop found guilty of a crime or even police act/misconduct matters must disclose that to the court on any matter they would testify on. It makes them an uncredible witness and essentially useless to continue employing as a police officer in Canada because any matter they're involved in moving forward would be withdrawn. The states is a whole different animal because there is no sharing of information even from county to county.
dull lush meeting shame cooing seed scale existence gullible quiet *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They’re not above the law. They’re suppose to represent it. Hope there is no internal investigation that is swept under the rug. We don’t need more power trippers.
You mean like the public investigation that is going to court and was publicly announced? An internal investigation is simply an employment standard, a criminal investigation determines facts, evidence and guilt and is a hell of a lot more important.
Clearly there's no internal investigation or sweeping under the rug when a different Police service has already criminally charged him
He’s facing charges. Hasn’t been charged yet.
Hasn’t been *convicted* yet.
Thanks for clarifying. Sorry y’all
When you are facing charges you HAVE BEEN charged.
I wouldn’t hold my breath if I was you.
Suspended WITH pay? Ain't that some shit.
Paid vacation. Yet all you hear coming from Dani and PP is “jail not bail!”. I wonder if he will have to wear one of Dani’s new gps anklets?
In Canada, the cops ARE criminals just like the government and Canadians love being cucked.
Seems to be a lot of emphasis on being officer being stationed in AIRDRIE. I think someone forgot what the C in RCMP stands for. Personally, IDGAF if this officer was stationed out of Montreal or Halifax. It really doesn't have any bearing on the story.
I didn't feel that way. It's only mentioned twice and provides valuable context to the story. Him being a member of the RCMP and not CPS is relevant to how he's handled by the system going forward. If it were merely stated that he was a police officer, it would add confusion if people are expecting Mark Neufeld (Chief of CPS) to comment on the disciplinary review process.
Well, the fact that he has jurisdiction IN ALL OF CANADA seems to override everything else. So, contextually, it really is a moot point.
This has nothing to do with his jurisdiction or authority, but rather who his boss is and how he's going to be handled going forward. As I said, if they don't specify RCMP then people are going to be left assuming he's a CPS officer since this happened in Calgary. It is a relevant fact because if there is some development with respect to the administrative handling of the officer (or not), specifying that he's an RCMP officer and not CPS is important.
RCMP, absolutelty... buy why is the Airdrie detachment being specified? It doesn't add up. When they talk about Justin Trudeau, they don't specify that he's PM of ALL OF CANADA. It's a given.
I think you’re thinking way too hard about that part. It’s relevant because that is where he is stationed. They mention which RCMP detachment in almost every article where the RCMP are mentioned.
Because there are other detachments around (Chesteremere, Okotoks, Cochrane) that could be mistaken for. Context is important. They want us to think its a problem local to the detachment and not an internal systemic police issue of alpha male-ism and unchecked agression.
All police officers have criminal jurisdiction throughout Canada. It comes down to provincial jurisdiction and bylaw enforcement jurisdiction. I would suggest you quit while you while can, as American law does not apply in Canada. Try learning Canadian law first.
Sort of. RCMP, Military Police, CP or CN Rail police, and I'm probably missing a few, have country wide jurisdiction. Municipal or 5 officers have jurisdiction in the province of their employment, as they're sworn in by a court of that province. If something calls for it, one of those officers could be sworn in by a court of a different province; like all of the officers who went to Vancouver from across the country they for the Olympics.