# Const. Chris Garrett Medal Thread- Merged



## zipperhead_cop (23 Feb 2007)

Thank God common sense prevailed and this POS didn't get to plead down to anything:

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_8120.aspx

Cop Killer Found Guilty Of First Degree Murder

Thursday February 22, 2007
It was a crime that infuriated a town and cost those who lived there one of their most cherished residents and protectors. 

And now the former teenager responsible has been found guilty of the brutal crime. 

P.C. Chris Garrett was on patrol in Cobourg, Ontario on May 15, 2004, when he volunteered to investigate a report of a robbery near an abandoned hospital. 

That's where he crossed paths with a troublemaker named Troy Davey. 

As the unsuspecting cop took notes from the man who claimed to be a 'victim' of a hold-up, the suspect pulled a knife and cut the officer's throat. It was over in seconds and Garrett succumbed to his wounds. 

But the former Peel Region officer fired several bullets at his attacker before he lost consciousness. Investigators would later find all but one of them on the ground and in the wall at the scene. The missing projectile hit Davey. 

He limped off with a bullet wound in his leg, but police found him soon after and charged him with the officer's murder. The accused killer was just 18 years old. 

The community was shocked by the death, but became incensed when they learned that Davey had apparently been waiting for his victim. 

It was revealed that the killer had been the one that called the cops with the false robbery report, sending the officer to his death in a dark parking lot at 3 in the morning. 

Now, almost three long years later, a jury has found Davey guilty of the brutal crime, convicting him of first degree murder. He was also found culpable of possessing explosives. The murder verdict carries an automatic life sentence. 

The six man-six woman jury deliberated just under 12 hours in the case. 

Victim impact statements from friends and family of the popular cop were read in court. 

Garrett opted for the slower small town policing life in Cobourg after leaving the Peel force. It was a decision that ultimately cost him his life. 

   

Rest easy now, brother.


----------



## CrazyCanuk4536056919 (5 Mar 2007)

Sat in on the trial for 2 days. That guy was so unemotional. THe OPP forensic guy was giving testimoney regarding blood splatter, and the accused did not even blink. Very Cold. Bye Bye Troy. Your gonna love 25 years in Kingston.


----------



## MikeM (6 Mar 2007)

Saw the news coverage and saw the same thing, unemotional and cold. Another one sent to rot, and I couldn't be more pleased.


----------



## Yrys (6 Mar 2007)

Did he said why he did it ? Any comment by anyone on that subject ?

Calling the cops, then murdering the one that answer your call
is just plain crazy, even if you want to have a residence paid by
the crown for the next 25 years !


----------



## Rice0031 (6 Mar 2007)

The loss of such an officer in such an event brings me to a frustration and anger that produces thoughts not appropriate for this forum. Suffice it to say, I am more than pleased that this POS spends the rest of his life in prison.

RIP.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Mar 2007)

Rice0031 said:
			
		

> Suffice it to say, I am more than pleased that this POS spends the rest of his life in prison.



And by "rest of his life" you of course mean about 15 years, when he of course will inevitably qualify under the "Faint Hope Clause" because he has been _SUCH_ a well behaved little man and now has such a sunshiny future  :rage:


----------



## Rice0031 (7 Mar 2007)

Which brings me back to my first thought:


			
				Rice0031 said:
			
		

> The loss of such an officer in such an event brings me to a frustration and anger that produces thoughts not appropriate for this forum.


----------



## Staff Weenie (7 Mar 2007)

Wouldn't be surprised if the defence appealed that their client is a paranoid schizophrenic and should therefore only do five years in a looney bin......

Don't we have shark-proof suits made of lead that need testing in the north Atlantic?


----------



## career_radio-checker (7 Mar 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> And by "rest of his life" you of course mean about 15 years, when he of course will inevitably qualify under the "Faint Hope Clause" because he has been _SUCH_ a well behaved little man and now has such a sunshiny future  :rage:



That's why I think we should bring back branding with hot iron. He might get out, but everyone will know. 


Pleeeease Mr. Harper, make me a supreme court judge.


----------



## imjustsomeguy (7 Mar 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> And by "rest of his life" you of course mean about 15 years, when he of course will inevitably qualify under the "Faint Hope Clause" because he has been _SUCH_ a well behaved little man and now has such a sunshiny future  :rage:



It angers me to know that you are absolutely correct.  I only hope he has an "accident" during his 15 year stay.

That's one of the reasons I didn't become a cop. I was gung-ho for it when I first went to college and studied for it. It's too disheartening to see criminals going through the revolving door...especially the young ones. No punishment = no deterrent. Our justice system has to change. Where to begin.... 

Sorry about the rant.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Mar 2007)

imjustsomeguy said:
			
		

> That's one of the reasons I didn't become a cop.



You shouldn't take it that way.  People who can step up and make a difference should.  Sure, it's a revolving door, but someone has to make it spin.  
Try to think of policing as being similar to being a paramedic.  If you went to a house and picked up some guy that was having a heart attack, you would use all of your professional ablilities and get him to the hospital alive.  If you later found out that the guy died a couple of weeks later, would you be all chewed up about it?  Probably not.  You did your job and got the guy to a place that was supposed to take care of him.  
That is what police do.  We get them to court, then what happens after that really has nothing to do with us.  The donkey show that ensues has nothing to do with being a law enforcement professional.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Nov 2007)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

*Editorial:  Silly rule stops honour for hero Cobourg cop*
Owen Sound Sun Times, 27 Nov 07
Article link

Co-workers, friends and family of former Cobourg police constable Chris Garrett played true to the rules. They knew that until the trial of a young man charged with murdering Const. Garrett was over they could not apply for a bravery award on Const. Garrett's behalf.

A public description of the constable's heroic actions on the night he was killed in May 2004 could have undermined the accused's right to a fair hearing.

But murder trials take time. More than two years passed before Troy Davey was convicted of first-degree murder. Const. Garrett was then nominated posthumously for the Cross of Valour, the highest of three non-military bravery awards in Canada.

Then the rules got in the way. A single rule, actually. It states: Nominations must be made within two years of the incident.

Those 10 words should not have caused more than the briefest delay in Const. Garrett's nomination. The rational response is obvious - make an exception for a case where the deadline was missed only because a much more fundamental rule got in the way.

Gov.-Gen. Michaelle Jean was the one to make that call. Her office is responsible for decorations for bravery. It processes the nominations and hands out the awards.

Bizarrely, Jean is sticking by that 10-word rule. She says it is unfortunate, that Const. Garrett was certainly a brave and deserving man, but there is nothing she can do. It would not be fair to other deserving recipients who did not get an exception.

There is no the logic, fairness or humanity in that response.

Const. Garrett's case deserves an exception, so make it. If others deserve exceptions, grant them, too.

For those obsessed with rules - and the governor general and her department obviously qualify - there are two logical, rational and undeniable reasons to make an exception.

The first, as we have said, is the necessity to guarantee a fair trial. An application on Const. Garrett's behalf would have been made immediately after his death if not for that legal constraint, which trumps the award procedure.

Secondly, eligibility criteria for the Cross of Valour indicate only one reason for the two-year limit. It is intended to ensure facts, records and witness accounts are accurate and haven't been lost, purged or eroded by time. To make certain that is the case, "The Police Services investigate eligible cases to ensure that information is accurate."

Police have already investigated the facts thoroughly enough to satisfy a murder trial. Const. Garrett was deliberately ambushed by Troy Davey, a disturbed man who had plans for an all-out assault on several Cobourg buildings. His throat was cut wide open from behind. In the few moments before he bled to death he managed to chase Davey, get his gun out and wound Davey with a shot to the leg.

More than 9,000 people who have signed an electronic petition in support of Const. Garrett's nomination expect Jean to make an exception. So does Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, who has publicly supported the cause.

None of the logical arguments or public support should be necessary. The two-year limit is an administrative rule. Const. Garrett is a hero. The choice of which to honour couldn't be more plain.


----------



## Reccesoldier (26 Nov 2007)

Realistically there was no reason to withhold the nomination till the trial was complete.  The nomination of persons for valour decorations is according to orders in council to be held in the strictest confidence.  The individual nor his family nor his friends should EVER know that he was nominated in the first place.

Had this nomination been submitted on time as per the regulations, nothing would have precluded Government House from sitting on that nomination until the man charged in this offices death had received a fair trial.

Sorry.  Wrong dog barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (26 Nov 2007)

So why should there be any time limit on this?  If it happened that there was a fallen member from 50 years ago whose story had unfortunately fall by the wayside, why couldn't the family try to get recognition for it?


----------



## medaid (27 Nov 2007)

Time restriction is some what ridiculous in this case. I say go forth and process the application, and approve it. Award it posthumously to the Constable and present it to the family. It is only right.


----------



## Roy Harding (27 Nov 2007)

Reccesoldier:

I disagree with you.  It may be obvious to you and I and others who have an inkling of how the awards process works, but most civilians (and I'd imagine most folks in Couburg) aren't aware of the process.  I think they, in good faith, held off on the nomination for very good reasons. 

I think that the system, including the GG should, in reciprocal good faith, accept the nomination now - send it through the usual mill, and then either award it, award a lesser decoration, or deny it, as the case may be.


----------



## 1feral1 (27 Nov 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Time restriction is some what ridiculous in this case. I say go forth and process the application, and approve it. Award it posthumously to the Constable and present it to the family. It is only right.



I agree 100%!

Regards,

Wes


----------



## Reccesoldier (27 Nov 2007)

It's a matter of precedence.  If this instance is allowed to go, then there is nothing stopping anyone from submitting a nomination from 7, 20 or 50 years ago.  

Now on the surface this might not strike some of you as such a bad thing and in truth this one case is probably good to go, but let me tell you, as one of the guys that has seen some of the shenanigans pulled by CF members and families, the number of people I referred to as "Medal Detectors" would skyrocket.

We would all like to believe that anyone who is deserving gets nominated, and persons who do not qualify would not fraudulently wear or seek medals and honours to which they are not entitled.  But the fact is that some people who deserve to be, do not get nominated and there are some real disgusting scumbags that have worn the CF uniform who would think nothing of stealing recognition if some avenue like this were opened.

In my time in DH&R I personally saw:
Members who wore medals fraudulently.
Members who had used their friendship with higher ranking members to obtain unwarranted medals (before the Medals section reorganization and tightening of procedures)
Members who tried to play the system to achieve the most unique collection of long service medals possible. (I personally worked one file like this for the entire 7 months I was with DH&R)
Honest to goodness War veterans who tried to obtain Long service medals to which they were not entitled.

The list goes on and on.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Nov 2007)

And now, Commissioner Fantino is quoted saying he'll bring this up with the GG's boss - shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

*OPP czar vows to see slain cop honoured with the Cross of Valour, even if it means making a trip to beseech the Queen*
Joe Warmington, Toronto Sun, 27 Nov 07
Article link

 If Governor General Michaelle Jean is unable to reverse a decision to not award slain Cobourg cop Chris Garrett the Cross of Valour, Ontario's top cop says the case should be taken to a higher power.

And it could require an airplane trip to Buckingham Palace to do it.

"If it's not in the governor general's authority to change this, perhaps it should be taken to Her Majesty," OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino said yesterday. "Perhaps a Canadian police delegation should be going to see the Queen herself. It is that important to us."

It's the latest development in a campaign to ensure Garrett, murdered May 15, 2004, gets Canada's highest non-military honour for bravery. It seems there is a bureaucratic hitch and some rigid rules and regulations at play here.

Acting Cobourg Police Chief Paul Sweet and York Region Chief Armand La Barge have let their feelings known to the governor general, as has Premier Dalton McGuinty. Fantino has now added his two cents. "It's just not right," said Fantino, who says people are coming up to him at his book signings for Duty: The Life of a Cop, and expressing their concern and outrage.

This column was slated to be about Fantino's book today but the veteran cop asked that it be used to right a wrong and to help properly decorate a police officer who was heinously murdered as he helped protect others. Fantino also is using this space to announce it might be time for a new bravery medal to be established "from the policing community" that would complement other medals but would not need to go through the bureaucratic hands of Ottawa.

This Garrett case is one amazing set of circumstances and it's difficult to believe there is even any debate at all. The application for Garrett's medal has not been processed since it seems such consideration is given to only those forms submitted within two years of the actual incident -- a ridiculous notion since the case against his killer was before the courts and, to ensure the suspect was given a fair trial, the application was submitted after the verdict.

It should not be like filling out a contest to win tickets to a Raptors game. But those who filled it out are being treated as if it is. The application was submited eight months after the expiry date but just weeks after a conviction was gained in the first-degree murder case against Troy Davey.

It was revealed in court that Davey had a list of crimes he was going to commit, including create a "prank call" to 911, "take out officer(s)," then "rob" a gas station "take out cashier" then "pick up bomb bags" and then spread "more napalm in streets or buildings" and then "rob bank."

He ended his notes by saying "chaos is coming."

The facts show Garrett stopped that chaos. As Sun freelance reporter Pete Fisher says, thanks to Const. Garrett the bad guy only got to do four things on that list. Even with this throat slashed, Garrett still managed to fire off shots -- hitting the suspect and forcing him to go to hospital where he was arrested.

Garrett is a hero, plain and simple, says Fantino.

"It's just bureaucracy that is blocking this," he said. "At the end of the day, you know it's going to get changed and he will be given his medal."

He is right. Why even have the dance? How do they look in the mirror? Just give him the damned medal. Posthumously.

Fantino is ultra sensitive about police officers killed in the line of duty. In his captivating Key Porter-published book he details the pain of the murder of Toronto cop Michael Sweet in 1980, where he and fellow former Toronto Police chief David Boothby led the investigation. 30-year-old Sweet was shot twice after a bungled robbery.

"I felt sick," wrote Fantino. "Michael Sweet was a father of three little girls."

He feels the same way about this one since it was a similar act -- a wife lost her husband and two kids lost their dad. If anyone ever deserved this medal, it is the 39-year-old Garrett, said Fantino.

On Nov. 22 this statement from Rideau Hall was issued:

"The Office of the Secretary to the Governor General is examining, in consultation with the government, options for recognition of Constable Garrett's distinguished service to his community.

"The Chancellery of Honours of the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General and members of the Canadian Decorations Advisory Committee (Bravery) are aware of the strong interest Canadians have shown in the case of the late Constable Christopher Garrett and understand their desire to honour this fallen police officer."

Hopefully those carefully crafted words were not an attempt to finesse and discourage a bunch of police officers who spend their lives working around red tape. It's beyond the pale to even consider doing this to a cop who died in the line of duty.

Surely they have the time to deal with whatever rules need to be bent to properly honour a murdered peace officer who saved lives? Isn't that what they are there for?

Gabrielle D. Lappa, director of honours for the Governor General, was not available yesterday. If you want to call her directly, her number is 1-800-465-6890 and her e-mail is glappa@gg.ca.

Fantino's strong message should show them this is not going to go away. Many officers are threatening to turn in their 20-year service medals should this not be overturned.

Although he understands and appreciates the anger, Fantino said he does not feel handing in the medals is the way to go. "It shouldn't be necessary," he said. "I suspect the Queen will reverse this."

Sounds like some Canadian cops are thinking about a trip to London. If it happens and the Queen honours Garrett, a good cop will be awarded the medal he lost his life to get and Fantino may have to add another chapter to the next run of his new book.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (27 Nov 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> In my time in DH&R I personally saw:
> Members who wore medals fraudulently.
> Members who had used their friendship with higher ranking members to obtain unwarranted medals (before the Medals section reorganization and tightening of procedures)
> Members who tried to play the system to achieve the most unique collection of long service medals possible. (I personally worked one file like this for the entire 7 months I was with DH&R)
> Honest to goodness War veterans who tried to obtain Long service medals to which they were not entitled.



Okay, that speaks to discreditability.  But to be honest, the military has far more chances at medals than a police officer.  The number of on-duty deaths is pretty low, and there is no indication that this family are being "medal detectors".  They felt that creating any attention towards this situation would harm the case, and they were trying to "play the game" as they were told.  Most civilians would not be aware that such a nomination could or would be held in confidence if submitted.  Certainly, more education on our side is needed, but that is no reason to deny this on a calendar technicality.


----------



## Reccesoldier (27 Nov 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Okay, that speaks to discreditability.  But to be honest, the military has far more chances at medals than a police officer.  The number of on-duty deaths is pretty low, and there is no indication that this family are being "medal detectors".  They felt that creating any attention towards this situation would harm the case, and they were trying to "play the game" as they were told.  Most civilians would not be aware that such a nomination could or would be held in confidence if submitted.  Certainly, more education on our side is needed, but that is no reason to deny this on a calendar technicality.



<sigh>
This isn't a competition.  The fact that Police officers do not have the same opportunity as Soldier to win valour awards is probably the lamest excuse I've heard yet.

No this family is not acting as "medal detectors", but just as our laws are not created for those who naturaly follow a moral and peaceful course in their lives, these regulations are not designed to protect the system against people like this family but from exploitation by those who would if the could.

Everyone here realizes that if this nomination is permitted to procede it is not a done deal that the nomination will amount to anything right?

I'm not going to change my mind on this.  I think that it is a precedent that would cause much more harm than good for the whole honours system.  To quote Churchill...



> "The object of giving medals, stars and ribbons is to give pride and pleasure to those who have deserved them. At the same time, a distinction is something which everybody does not possess.
> 
> If all have it, it is less value.
> 
> There must therefore be heart burnings and disappointments on the borderline. A medal glitters, but it also casts a shadow. The task of drawing up regulations for such awards is one that does not admit of a perfect solution. It is not possible to satisfy everybody without running the risk of satisfying nobody."


----------



## Roy Harding (27 Nov 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> <sigh>
> ...
> 
> Everyone here realizes that if this nomination is permitted to procede it is not a done deal that the nomination will amount to anything right?
> ...



See my post above - I certainly understand that point and believe the process should proceed as per normal.

Policy is set to assist in the accomplishment of a goal - it can be set aside in justified circumstances, by authorized persons.  I would submit that setting aside the time limit for nominations is THIS case is justified.  Those folks who waited to submit the nomination felt they were in compliance with the spirit of the policies - why should the officer's family be denied this boon simply because of a bureaucratic policy - no matter how well intentioned that policy is?


----------



## Reccesoldier (27 Nov 2007)

Consider this administrative terrorism if you wish that is your perogative.  The policy is not ambiguous, there are no caveats attached.  Police services *should* have been helping these people from the get go, and they aught to have known better.

Some light reading...
http://www.gg.ca/honours/decorations/bra/bd-info_e.asp



> The Chancellery of Honours keeps all nominations confidential to respect privacy and to avoid disappointment if the nominee is not selected. We ask that nominators and others involved respect this policy.
> 
> *Nominations must be made within two years of the incident.*
> 
> The Police Services investigate eligible cases to ensure that information is accurate.


----------



## Roy Harding (27 Nov 2007)

I understand how the policy reads.  You miss my point - WE (the great corporate WE) set policy to serve OUR needs.  When, due to unforeseen circumstances, that policy no longer meets our needs, WE can set it aside for a specific case, or amend it to better suit our needs in future (amendments can even be backdated, should that be desirable).

Policy is just that - policy.  It is not analogous to a natural law which is impossible to ignore.


----------



## medaid (27 Nov 2007)

IMHO, if this occurred to one of *ours* we would be in an uproar as well, and we would do all that we can in our power to help the family, including petitions, online letter writing and so forth.

So, why are *we* treating him any different? HE was one of US. HE IS one of US. We all wear a uniform, and we ALL serve. Applications could be backdated, administrative burden or terrorism or not, it could be fixed. With the dedication and willingness to help others, WE CAN do it. Precedence? I don't think so. Righting a wrong caused by an HONEST mistake out of good will is COMPLETELY acceptable. 

He was a brother, just like any of you are to me and others.


----------



## Reccesoldier (27 Nov 2007)

Roy, and you are missing mine.  *I* do not think that it suits *our* (the big hand, small map _our_) interests to allow the policy to be set aside for reasons I've already explained.

If you think that the genie of policy manipulation is so easily put back in its bottle once an exception is made you are sadly mistaken.  Sticking with the medals theme take a look at the SSM NATO.  It had to be suspended in 2004 because way back somewhere someone interpreted the Order in council in such a way that any guy sitting in Europe pollishing the seat of his CF pants in some cushy CDA position was awarded the bar for "operational service' ... Hence the derision of that medal as the "beer and brocky medal"  "4 year vacation medal"  etc.


----------



## Reccesoldier (27 Nov 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> IMHO, if this occurred to one of *ours* we would be in an uproar as well, and we would do all that we can in our power to help the family, including petitions, online letter writing and so forth.



No.  You are wrong.  You would never even know that it happened.  There are a bucketload of guys that shoulda, coulda, woulda been nominated.  They were and are ours too.  

Some gentlemen in Somalia did some pretty impressive stuff,  but we all know what happened there...

Where does it stop?


----------



## medaid (27 Nov 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> No.  You are wrong.  You would never even know that it happened.  There are a bucketload of guys that shoulda, coulda, woulda been nominated.  They were and are ours too.
> 
> Some gentlemen in Somalia did some pretty impressive stuff,  but we all know what happened there...
> 
> Where does it stop?



I don't think I'm wrong. Yes, I more then likely would never have heard about it. Yes there are a huge load of guys who have done what they have done. This is due to the nature of our jobs. There are quite a many who don't receive recognition everyday as members of LEAs, but that's not the point here. I understand where you're coming from Reccesoldier, I really do! I also agree with you that this isn't a competition for medals. However, when a soldier goes forth for a valour nomination, there usually isn't a trial and a criminal investigation that goes along with it. 

I think, we agree on the moral part of the picture, but not the ethical part of it?


----------



## MPIKE (27 Nov 2007)

I do see a side to reccesoldier's argument of maintaining the integrity of the awards system.  Fair.  But in this case, the decision to maintain the integrity of the case out weighed the compliance with a regulation. The Charter issues with this case were absolute.   To overlook this issue could have cost the Crown's case and had a killer walk  and even more importantly set a dire precedent in case law for the Defence .    Unfortunately, "honours in confidence" doesn't sound like its worth the paper its written on and would have opened some very scary doors should this have been submitted during the court proceeding.

My opinion everyone in this example were acting in good faith, therefore, an exemption should be allowed.   In this LEO context, I am not aware that is was a case of supervisor inaction??

There are over 13000 others who feel that this issue should be redressed. Should you agree.....

http://www.petitiononline.com/05142004/petition.html


----------



## George Wallace (27 Nov 2007)

PIKER said:
			
		

> My opinion everyone in this example weres acting in good faith, therefore, an exemption should be allowed.
> 
> There are over 13000 others who feel that this issue should be redressed. Should you agree.....



So, following your logic and counter to Reccesoldier's warning, you would have several thousands of other cases or more also put in claims for other acts in the past, that have so far not filled the criteria required for such an award.  Once you set one precedence, in this case as in the Legal System, others will use it to justify their claims.  If you make an exception for one, all others will feel that they are also entitled and the can of worms is open.


----------



## MPIKE (27 Nov 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So, following your logic and Reccesoldiers warning, you would have several thousands of other cases or more also put in claims for other acts in the past, that have so far not filled the criteria required for such an award.  Once you set one prescedence, in this case as in the Legal System, others will use it to justify their claims.  If you make an exception for one, all others will feel that they are also entitled and the can of worms is open.



Pretty broad statement that others will submit based on this case? What is wrong with the exemption specifically to deal with matters involving cases currently before the courts?.  

I do not think the Garrett file would put the system into disrepute but enlighten me.  Will the system that scrutinizes criteria not continue to document their decisions?


----------



## Roy Harding (27 Nov 2007)

I follow and acknowledge the point regarding the integrity of the Honours system, made by reccesoldier, CSA 105, and George Wallace amongst others.  I also understand the concern regarding "opening the floodgates"; however, based on what I know about this specific case (which knowledge is limited to the news article and the contents of this thread), I believe an extraordinary exception should be made for SUBMISSION (not necessarily AWARDING) of an award for this LEO.

I believe everyone involved acted in good faith - those who did NOT submit the application for award felt they were doing so in order to not prejudice a criminal case before the courts, those refusing to accept that submission now are doing so in order to protect the integrity of the Honours and Awards system.  As for CSA 105's point regarding supervisor's doing their job - you are 100% correct, what your post did not mention, however, is that while military supervisors are familiar with, or have access to others familiar with, the Honours and Awards system, it would be my uninformed conjecture that our civilian and LEO counterparts are LESS familiar with the system - thus perhaps entitled to more leniency regarding compliance with them - as long as their non-compliance is a result of honourable intentions, as seems to be the case here.

Based on what I have read here, and despite the valid concerns for the integrity of the system, I think an exception to the submission timeline should be made in _this_ case.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Nov 2007)

PIKER said:
			
		

> Cheers champ. you make this place special. You've demonstrated you've missed the spirit of this thread..



No I didn't.  I feel for the family and friends of this brave man, and even though an injustice has been done; making an exception of the rules for him will be just as big an injustice to many others.  A "double slap in the face" if you may, to others who have also found themselves under the same or similar circumstances.

So Cheers yourself champ.


----------



## 22B (27 Nov 2007)

...this is a civil matter, not a military one, so why the discussion?


----------



## Roy Harding (27 Nov 2007)

22B said:
			
		

> ...this is a civil matter, not a military one, so why the discussion?



Because we're interested.  AND - it's in the "Security and Emergency Services" forum, appropriately enough.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (28 Nov 2007)

Governor General proposes two new options to recognize Constable Garrett
http://www.gg.ca/media/doc.asp?lang=e&DocID=5236


> November 27, 2007
> 
> OTTAWA—Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada, is very aware of and empathizes with the public’s desire to honour the late Constable Christopher Garrett of the Cobourg Police Service in Ontario for his exceptional actions in the line of duty and for service to his community. From the first moment this case was brought to her attention, the Governor General, through the Chancellery of Honours, has been working with the government to examine options to recognize the actions of the late Constable Garrett.
> 
> ...


----------



## Blackadder1916 (28 Nov 2007)

I count myself among those like reccesoldier et al who believe that maintaining the current criteria for the bravery decorations is the proper course.  If those who wished to recognize Cst Garrett's commendable action only withheld nominating him due to not wanting to prejudice his murderer's trial, how do they reconcile the constable's nomination and posthumous award in 2005 of the Ontario Medal for Police Bravery.

http://ogov.newswire.ca/ontario/GPOE/2005/02/25/c8412.html?lmatch=&lang=_e.html


> 2004 Ontario Medal for Police Bravery Recipients:
> 
> Constable Christopher Garrett (Posthumous Award)
> Cobourg Police Service
> ...


----------



## bdog (28 Nov 2007)

There is one other possable option the GG and the PM could ask the Queen to award a George Cross. I know it outside the normal Canadain honour system however it would still be a high award and mark of valour. Of couse they could also pass an OIC to allow for this one award. Personally I don't see the harm the American awarded Teddy R his Medal of Honor almost a 100 year after the fact.


----------



## Reccesoldier (28 Nov 2007)

Seems to me that recognition has already been awarded.  In addition the timing of this police award seems to blow a big freaking hole in the claim that the family or the police service was worried about prejudicing the court case.

I'm beginning to reassess my initial reaction to this entire story.

As far as the issue of our interest the answer is simple.  There is only one national Honours system.  Compromises made for this police officer affect every single serving retired and deceased member of all LE agencies and the CF


----------



## geo (28 Nov 2007)

All in all, the basic rules and regulations are written so that it works well for the majority of instances.
The two year rule is a reasonnable one & senior management should be held to follow the guidelines as best they can

THAT HAVING BEEN SAID, YOU DON'T BLINDLY FOLLOW RULES.

So they missed a two year deadline for whatever reason.... BIG DEAL!
Time to take off the blinders and do your job and evaluate the submission on it's own merit!
Artificial timelines are.... artificial.  The administrators who refuse to lift their nose from the paper's edge should have their weewee slapped hard and told to look after JOB ONE.


----------



## Thompson_JM (28 Nov 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> All in all, the basic rules and regulations are written so that it works well for the majority of instances.
> The two year rule is a reasonnable one & senior management should be held to follow the guidelines as best they can
> 
> THAT HAVING BEEN SAID, YOU DON'T BLINDLY FOLLOW RULES.
> ...



Thats Pretty much how I feel on this one as well...

hard and fast rules have their time and place. but this burecratic jug-flug isnt one of them...


----------



## c_canuk (28 Nov 2007)

reading this thread remindes me why I hate uncreative administrators... the fix is very simple

change the policy from:

Nominations must be made within two years of the incident.

to

Nominations must be made within two years of the incident, unless details must be withheld for court proceedings where nominations in that case must be made within two years after the final ruling.



Policy is not set in stone, it must be flexible and able to evolve or it ends up doing more harm than good. http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20071120.html


----------



## Reccesoldier (28 Nov 2007)

This isn't a matter of uncreative administrators.  This is a result of an order in council (read law) which has existed since the creation of this honour and others.

It's not an administrative wave of the red pen to change this, it is a legaly binding act and function of parliament.

The thing that is becomming clear here is that there is a groundswell, a popular emotive response has been kindled and fed by the hype around what is supposed to be an honours in confidence matter.  

*I think* that now, if this matter is allowed to procede and the council refuses to grant the honour there is going to be an equal or greater hue and cry that Officer Garrett has been done a diservice.  Or worse yet, there will be such pressure to grant the medal that it will be granted for the sake of optics and not for the sake of true merit.

Now before you all jump down my throat take a long hard look at the action in question.  Examine all those deaths in Afghanistan and every other death of a LEO KIA (227 to date) and tell me honestly and truthfully that THIS case and THIS officers death is more worthy and more deserving than the rest.

I can damn well guarantee that every other mother, brother, sister, wife and father of every soldier, sailor, airman or LEO who died selflessly in the line of duty is going to draw the _undenyable conclusion _ that he or she deserves the same.


----------



## MPIKE (28 Nov 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> This isn't a matter of uncreative administrators.  This is a result of an order in council (read law) which has existed since the creation of this honour and others.
> 
> It's not an administrative wave of the red pen to change this, it is a legaly binding act and function of parliament.
> 
> ...



Reccesoldier,

As you had mentioned earlier you are in know in DH&R.  So that I may be better informed regarding this can you provide some source regarding the Act/order in council involving Honours/Awards. Is there Regs/procedures for this Privy Council committee that oversees the selection criteria?  I haven't had much luck looking via the net. 

Secondly,  can you clarify your position for me.  Is your issue that that the event in question does not meet the criteria for the award?  My interpretation that it was the time limit imposed was the core issue here?.  As noted in the original article here; *(is this not accurate?)*


> For those obsessed with rules - and the governor general and her department obviously qualify - there are two logical, rational and undeniable reasons to make an exception.
> 
> The first, as we have said, is the necessity to guarantee a fair trial. An application on Const. Garrett's behalf would have been made immediately after his death if not for that legal constraint, which trumps the award procedure.
> 
> Secondly*, eligibility criteria for the Cross of Valour indicate only one reason for the two-year limit. It is intended to ensure facts, records and witness accounts are accurate and haven't been lost, purged or eroded by time.* To make certain that is the case, "The Police Services investigate eligible cases to ensure that information is accurate."



You mention "the others" that may be slighted or affected by this motion for change.  Won't the eligibility on the deed speak for itself ?  There seems to two underlying trains of thought in this thread.  Garrett's eligibility for valour with his act and the adminstrative timeline imposed on valour awards.  I'm concerned with the latter as I feel the first is up to the review committee and not open for discussion by us.   

Thanks for your time


----------



## Reccesoldier (28 Nov 2007)

PIKER said:
			
		

> Reccesoldier,
> 
> As you had mentioned earlier you are in know in DH&R.  So that I may be better informed regarding this can you provide some source regarding the Act/order in council involving Honours/Awards. Is there Regs/procedures for this Privy Council committee that oversees the selection criteria?  I haven't had much luck looking via the net.



Open source:
http://www.gg.ca/honours/index_e.asp - GG's Honours page. (GG is responsible for the administration of Valour Medals and Orders)
http://www.dnd.ca/dhh/honours_awards/engraph/home_e.asp - (CF site, operational service medals including War medals)
http://canadagazette.gc.ca/index-e.html - Parliament's online record (Can search for Orders in Council for each and every medal.  Is hard to find the info sometimes but it is there)

DIN:
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/Downloads/cfp200.pdf - The Bible...



> Secondly,  can you clarify your position for me.  Is your issue that that the event in question does not meet the criteria for the award?  My interpretation that it was the time limit imposed was the core issue here?.  As noted in the original article here; *(is this not accurate?)*
> You mention "the others" that may be slighted or affected by this motion for change.  Won't the eligibility on the deed speak for itself ?  There seems to two underlying trains of thought in this thread.  Garrett's eligibility for valour with his act and the administrative timeline imposed on valour awards.  I'm concerned with the latter as I feel the first is up to the review committee and not open for discussion by us.
> 
> Thanks for your time



My position is and has always been that this would set a bad precedent.  If you read my comment reference the possible award of the honour I am quite clear in that I fear that the hype being created around this issue will detrimentally affect the proper functioning of the process. That, more than any other reason is why these nominations are supposed to be kept in confidence.  It's not just a suggestion by the way...



> 11. Except for the Order of Canada, which uses an
> independent procedure (see Annex C), the
> recommendations shall be:
> 
> ...



The same procedure is in place for LEO's

As you say, the decision is up to the Committee, which is exactly why this whole sorted mess NEVER should have been made public.  The fact is as I said before, although all the "support" for this officer is ostensibly for him to be successfully _nominated_ for the award it is being interpreted by most if not all of the ignorant masses as support for the actual *award* of the medal.


----------



## geo (28 Nov 2007)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Nominations must be made within two years of the incident, unless details must be withheld for court proceedings where nominations in that case must be made within two years after the final ruling.



Just because an incident is going through a court proceeding has absolutely no bearing on the submission of a recommendation for an Honour or Award.

ALL nominations are confidential and are never to be divulged to the intended recipient (or his / her family) prior to the official announcement of it's approval.

Too many times I have seen a grievance from someone that says that he has not received such and such a gong/device/doodad, whatever & they file a grievance over it.  A nomination is NOT an honour in of itself.... 

While the law says something .... courts make rulings and decide / modify laws all the time... that's the thing about our legal system.  The legislators enact a law and the courts adjudicate runlings on things that don't line up with "da law"....

It doesn't line up with the law..... so what... fix it & move on.


----------



## c_canuk (28 Nov 2007)

> Just because an incident is going through a court proceeding has absolutely no bearing on the submission of a recommendation for an Honour or Award.
> 
> ALL nominations are confidential and are never to be divulged to the intended recipient (or his / her family) prior to the official announcement of it's approval.



And if a judge ruled that no details would be divulged outside the court room what then? or what if there is a simple error/mis filing and the medal is issued with details before the ruling is made, thus allowing the perp off on a technicality?

the problem was the police said they didn't file because they couldn't jeopardize the case, this is a legitimate concern and the spirit of the policy is to stop people from filing beyond the capacity of the organization to review the details which is not a problem in this case. A simple modification to allow for court proceedings is not going to change the spirit of the policy.

when you start overriding people and the spirit of the law and/or policy for the word of the law/policy you are perverting the original intent of the law/policy. When you refuse to modify policy to fit the situation you are making yourself obsolete.

I'm sure the person who came up with "no nominations after two years" did not mean even when the details need to be temporally kept confidential in order to follow the spirit of another law.

Just because a committee hasn't divulged information in the past does not mean a mistake or oversight might not be made in the future, thus confidentiality must be maintained. 

It is asinine to disqualify all nominations that involve court proceedings over 2 years because those administrating it are too busy trying to prevent "bad precident" to the point that they will not review policy.

Inflexible policy over people is one of the greatest evils this world has faced. The policies of Stalin are one example of this.


----------



## geo (28 Nov 2007)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> And if a judge ruled that no details would be divulged outside the court room what then? or what if there is a simple error/mis filing and the medal is issued with details before the ruling is made, thus allowing the perp off on a technicality?
> 
> the problem was the police said they didn't file because they couldn't jeopardize the case, this is a legitimate concern and the spirit of the policy is to stop people from filing beyond the capacity of the organization to review the details which is not a problem in this case. A simple modification to allow for court proceedings is not going to change the spirit of the policy.
> 
> ...



There have been decorations bestowed on people from CSIS in Canada and the CIA in the USA who'se acts of bravery will never be known.  The argument that some pencil pusher might accidently slip up and give up the goods to the press or the public is a hollow argument.


----------



## Roy Harding (28 Nov 2007)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Inflexible policy over people is one of the greatest evils this world has faced. The policies of Stalin are one example of this.



You've got to be kidding me.  Your "Stalin" comment is just a little hyperbolic, don't you think?

Just to repeat myself, I think the _submission_ should go forward in this case.  After the submission is accepted, the normal vetting takes place - I'm not advocating an automatic award to this particular police officer.  I'm aware that this would probably set a precedent that no one wants to deal with - and I'm NOT suggesting that the requirements for awarding this particular honour be set aside because of public pressure.

Having said (and repeated) all that - I'm done with this thread.  When someone can compare a simple, generally amicable, dispute about the application of policies regarding Honours and Awards to the policies and actions of Stalin; well, I just know that I'm no longer conversing with my peers.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Nov 2007)

If you want to zero in on Orders in Council, here's another place to search:
http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/oic-ddc/oic-ddc.asp?lang=EN


----------



## c_canuk (28 Nov 2007)

> There have been decorations bestowed on people from CSIS in Canada and the CIA in the USA who'se acts of bravery will never be known.  The argument that some pencil pusher might accidental slip up and give up the goods to the press or the public is a hollow argument.




CSIS has in the past accidentally released information that shouldn't have been.

We are all human and mistakes can and will be made, that is a constant. I fail to see why making a minor amendment to accommodate court orders is such a big deal. 

I can imagine a Judge would be very upset if they issued an order not to discuss details outside the court and the police went ahead and did exactly that



> Having said (and repeated) all that - I'm done with this thread.  When someone can compare a simple, generally amicable, dispute about the application of policies regarding Honours and Awards to the policies and actions of Stalin; well, I just know that I'm no longer conversing with my peers.



My point that the application of policy regardless of circumstance being the primary reason that Communism, a system of government that was supposed to be best for the people in theory, turned out to be one of the worst in history and thus following that same path probably is not a good way to conduct business, I wasn't implying the people taking an opposing view were stalinists  :

let me make a less grand point if you prefer.

By law littering is illegal, however do you think it reasonable to charge someone who lives within a zone where littering is a $25 000 finable offence if a storm blows roof shingles off their house onto the street? I don't think there are any storm clauses in the littering laws and they are there to protect the majority aren't they? Should the court in this case follow policy to the letter, or follow the spirit of the policy?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (29 Nov 2007)

I think what is being offered on the pro side of this discussion is a simple application of common sense.  Why is the number set at two years anyway?  The provision was set as a way to ensure proper records keeping, but given how long cases take to come up and get settled I could see this becoming an issue.  So why not just change the time limit to five years?  This should be adequate for any cases that come up, and also avoid the "piling on" that some seem to be concerned with.  
However, even if "the floodgate"  : was opened, so what if every family applied?  Okay, some admin burden for someone somewhere.  Big deal.  A bottle neck occurs, the cases get sorted out and then it is done with.  This isn't the same administrative nightmare as it would be if this were applied to a military setting and it was involving members involved in wars.  Worst case scenario, you're looking at several hundred files to get through every officer killed in the line of duty in Canadian history.  And that is a pretty unlikely situation.  I know there are quite a few on-duty deaths that were medical or accidental.  I don't see those getting too far in the process.  
This file would still have to be reviewed and judged on its merit.  There is no reasonable cause for it not to be able to be submitted, other than a pedantic "but that's what the thing says-two years".


----------



## Old Ranger (6 Dec 2007)

There is a web petion available.
I've signed and was in the 29000 range.

I will try and posty the link here before shift end.....depending on the Moon of course

Here's the link

Dear Friends,

I have just read and signed the online petition:

   "Cross of Valour for Const. Chris Garrett"

hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petition
service, at:

   http://www.PetitionOnline.com/05142004/

I personally agree with what this petition says, and I think you might
agree, too.  If you can spare a moment, please take a look, and consider
signing yourself.

Best wishes,

Ben Valentine



Ben


----------



## geo (6 Dec 2007)

35037   Done


----------



## Reccesoldier (6 Dec 2007)

> However, even if "the floodgate"   : was opened, so what if every family applied?  Okay, some admin burden for someone somewhere.  Big deal.  A bottle neck occurs, the cases get sorted out and then it is done with.  This isn't the same administrative nightmare as it would be if this were applied to a military setting and it was involving members involved in wars.



You should preface you comment by telling us all just how much you know about the Medals section at DH&R and the Honours folks in Rideau Hall because apparently you have the idea that there are separate honours systems in Canada, one for Cops and one for Military.  You are dead wrong.  Any change to the Honours system affects everyone from Pte Bloggins to Constable Smith.  Oh, it also includes Joe or Jill Six-pack.

Or are you trying to say that only LEO's should be given such preferential treatment?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (6 Dec 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> You should preface you comment by telling us all just how much you know about the Medals section at DH&R and the Honours folks in Rideau Hall because apparently you have the idea that there are separate honours systems in Canada, one for Cops and one for Military.  You are dead wrong.  Any change to the Honours system affects everyone from Pte Bloggins to Constable Smith.  Oh, it also includes Joe or Jill Six-pack.



As a matter of fact I really know sweet dick all about the process, Recceinsider.  And that is news to me.  I was of the impression that police and military would have different systems.  Go figure.  But I still maintain that it shouldn't be that difficult to deal with.  So would this cause you _personally_ more work?  



			
				Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Or are you trying to say that only LEO's should be given such preferential treatment?



Nope.  Not even close.  However, I think I'm getting a pretty good pulse for where we rank in your world.


----------



## Cheshire (7 Dec 2007)

Just a few details that some of you may not know...........

.....after Chris had his throat slashed, the accused ran off, away from Garrett and the cruiser, Garrett tried to pursue. With one hand to his throat, bleeding to death, he had the sense to draw down on the kid, and fire off his entire magazine, the spread ran from one end of the hospital, to the other, following Troy's path. One round clipped Troy in the lower leg. After Garrett fell to the ground dying, Troy ran into the woods beside the hospital to retrieve a bag with a rifle and shotgun, went back to the officers body, tried to locate the keys to the cruiser but was unsuccessful. He is actually thought to have taken cover behind the officers body, for a brief period, with his rifle and shotgun at the ready, prepared to take out the next officers arriving on scene. He was then spooked by people coming out of their houses, and ran from the hospital grounds, to the bushes in front of homes on the west side of the Hospital. He then lay in wait as backup officers began arriving on scene. It is known, that as officers were roping off the scene, Troy was in the bushes, taking aim at officers putting up the police tape, with his loaded shotgun. His leg was bothering him so much, that he made his escape from the area, only to turn up at the Cobourg Hospital some ours later where he was arrested.

Now I am pretty sure that exceptions can be made in exceptional circumstances to place honor upon those people who do extraordinary things and save lives in the process. Many lives. Garrett not only saved the lives of his fellow officers that night, but of countless people in the community he was charged to protect. The GG can and should place this honour upon Chris.


Edited to add:
Afterall, rules are for the guidance of the wise men, and for the obedience of fools.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Dec 2007)

Thanks for that, brother.  Sounds like you get it.
Although, the merit of Chris getting the medal isn't being debated here.  It is the actual ability to submit an application for him to be considered.  There is an arbitrary two year time limit on submissions, and because they did the right thing and held off putting out critical details of the incident for fear of the case being jeopardized, Chris is paying yet again.


----------



## Reccesoldier (7 Dec 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> As a matter of fact I really know sweet dick all about the process, Recceinsider.  And that is news to me.  I was of the impression that police and military would have different systems.


 

Well now you know.  



> Go figure.  But I still maintain that it shouldn't be that difficult to deal with.  So would this cause you _personally_ more work?



Nope, it wouldn't cost me a thing (anymore) but I at least have some knowledge about what your plan could entail.



> Nope.  Not even close.  However, I think I'm getting a pretty good pulse for where we rank in your world.



Well you'd most likely be wrong.  

Don't bother getting on a high horse and assuming that because I disagree with your uninformed assessment of a system you admit very limited knowledge of, that I harbour some sort of infantile Cop envy or am anti-LEO because once again you would be wrong.

Nice infantile bastardisation of my user name by the way.  :


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Dec 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Nice infantile bastardisation of my user name by the way.  :



Really?  I thought it was rather clever.

I guess what this boils down to is the issue of _discretion_.  To police, that is a huge principle that we deal with every day, and it governs most of the aspects of our job.  If one were to apply discretion to this case, it would not be an issue.  However, manically throwing out  :rules: is a bit of a tough pill to swallow, especially since the dead line was missed in good faith.  
Ultimately, someone else will decide and it will be done with.  I hope what is right and fair eventually prevails.


----------



## Cheshire (8 Dec 2007)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2007/12/08/garrett-medal.html

Finally, clear thinking on this issue. Looks like he might just get it.


----------



## geo (9 Dec 2007)

Oik.... is it possible that some gov't rep has been trolling the forum & has read our words of wisdom (for and against) and they have seen the light?


----------



## George Wallace (9 Dec 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Oik.... is it possible that some gov't rep has been trolling the forum & has read our words of wisdom (for and against) and they have seen the light?



Let's just say that is isn't a possibility, but a fact and leave it at that.       That was almost poetic.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Dec 2007)

Can we now call it a day on this one?


----------



## Petard (9 Dec 2007)

I sure hope so
Up until now I kept on being reminded of the saying "the law is an ass", and I'm talking about the order in council that set this arbitrary timeline of 2 years, its absurd, because in a sense what it was indirectly doing is saying that if someones actions were not brought properly to attention then the act was no longer worthy of recognition, and the process was going before the principle. The process should evaluate wether or not the act warrants such recognition, I do not see anything so far in this thread that justifies the 2 year time limit and why that should be a factor in wether or not someone should be considered "worthy", the only purpose this time limit seems to have is to possibly discourage would be pretenders.
Takes this to the extreme, such as the case of those soldiers taken prisoner in the defence of Hong Kong, what if such a similar time limit existed then, anyone involved with brave acts, such as CSM Osborn V.C., would have to go unrecognized simply because no one would have been able to report it within the 2 year time limit. Is it not possible that a similar event could occur where we might not know of someones brave acts while in captivity until they or other survivors are released?   
But the exception does prove the rule, looks to me like Officer Garrets actions on that night might well do this, perhaps in more ways then one his actions that night will of had a positive effect. Should this "precedent" then result in a flood of would be gong hunters, then their individual cases would have to be weighed carefully on the evidence presented, IMO, one of the factors should not be the time at which the evidence arrived, but on its own merit and credibility.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Dec 2007)

Petard

If there is no limit, then the process will become too combersum to administer.  Should, for example (A very extreme, but not unthinkable example.), someone now decide that their Great Great Great Uncle performed an extreme act of heroism during the War of 1812 and should be recognized for it, how long would it take to conduct the research and verification of the actions of said Great Great Great Uncle?  Where would we find witnesses and collaboration of the facts?   Would we have to create a new award for the researchers who would spend a lifetime verifying such claims?  

As is, there seems to have been a decision made, and all our arguments are mot.


----------



## Navy_Blue (13 Jan 2008)

First I have to say Mark Critch Rocks 

Second watch the YouTube Video here

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=rGi7Ns3fMhw

Third fill out petition

http://www.petitiononline.com/05142004/petition.html

Cop, Fire Fighter or One of any of us.  Its nice there are people out there who will get on prime time TV and say what needs to be said.


----------



## Armymedic (13 Jan 2008)

While I understand the need to limit the time frame for application to the CoV, this case should be an exception to that rule as application was delayed in pursuit for justice.


----------



## Cheshire (14 Jan 2008)

Can we please get the title of this thread changed ASAP. Troy Davey was the accused who murdered Constable Chris Garrett. Not the other way around. Thanks.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Jan 2008)

Cheshire said:
			
		

> Can we please get the title of this thread changed ASAP. Troy Davey was the accused who murdered Constable Chris Garrett. Not the other way around. Thanks.



F%@#, no thank you for pointing that out......many apologies, I'll blame it on middle of the nightshift merging,...but still punch myself in the groin for plain stupidity.
Bruce


----------



## Cheshire (14 Jan 2008)

No worries Bruce. We all make mistakes. As for your groin........ :crybaby:


----------



## geo (15 Jan 2008)

Cheshire.... let's not go there!


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Mar 2008)

According to the petition site (.pdf screen capture as of 151019E Mar 08 attached):  


> "The first hurdle has been passed! In an Order of Council, the Rt. Hon. Steven Harper has Changed the rules of Eligibility. The new rules Include 2 yrs. from the Event OR the end of the Trial/Inquirey. Now, we just need to convince the Governal General, that Chris's actions merit the award. Please send your emails to : info@gg.ca"



Nothing I could find on PCO's OIC search page, nothing in Canada Gazette, nothing I could find in MSM - has anyone seen any independent verification of this?

Also, I stand to be corrected, but IF an OIC is passed by Cabinet, even if it's not been "Gazetted", GG would have to follow its direction nonetheless?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (18 Mar 2008)

This link may be on the older side, but it is still well done:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGi7Ns3fMhw


----------



## Occam (11 Dec 2008)

I'm glad to see this officer finally get formally recognized for his sacrifice.


Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

*Star of Courage for Constable Chris Garrett*
Kingston Whig Standard, 10 December 2008
Article link

It’s not what was demanded by the people of Canada, but the Governor General’s office has announced a slain Cobourg Police officer will be posthumously awarded the second highest bravery medal in the land.

Constable Chris Garrett was the only recipient of the Star of Courage announced by the Governor General’s office on Wednesday.

Fourteen other people will receive the Medal of Bravery.

The Cross of Valour is "awarded for acts of the most conspicuous courage in circumstance."

Constable Garrett was murdered in the line of duty after responding to an alleged robbery call in the early hours of May 15, 2004.

Troy Davey had an elaborate plan to murder numerous officers and civilians in Cobourg. After suffering a fatal knife wound to the throat, Constable Garrett ran after his attacker firing his service weapon. Constable Garrett struck Mr. Davey was his last shot from his weapon before succumbing to his wound. Mr. Davey was later arrested at Northumberland Hills Hospital in Cobourg where he was being treated for his wound.

"Through his final act of courage, Constable Garrett prevented his assailant from carrying out a plan to harm his fellow police officers and civilians," states the announcement on the Governor General’s website.

Initially the Governor General’s office refused the application for Constable Garrett referring to a two year deadline for nominations. Constable Garrett’s application for the Cross of Valour was not submitted because the trial did not finish till after the two-year deadline.

Because of support from thousands of people across Canada who signed a petition, the federal government amended the Canadian Decorations Regulations allowing Constable Garrett’s name to be permitted.

Port Hope Police Sgt. Darren Strongman was one of the people who nominated his longtime friend for the Cross of Valour.

Speaking from Sudbury, Sgt. Strongman, although Constable Garrett is being recognized, maintains, "In our hearts we know what Chris did and, in our minds, he will always be our hero."

Speaking from their home in Odessa, Constable Garrett’s parents Gord and Evelyn said they were notified by Secretary to the Governor General Emmanulle Sajous on Wednesday morning.

"She wanted us to be the first to know that Chris would be awarded the Star of Courage," Ms. Garrett said.

"If that’s all they can give him, we’re happy with that, but it won’t bring him back."

Ms. Garrett said the family wanted to thank all the people across Canada for the "tremendous support" in honouring their son.

"As many years as it’s been, it’s still terrible. It will never be over," a shaken Ms. Garrett said.

"We’re very proud of him and he gave his life for something he believed in. We know he’s a hero no matter what."

The Governor General’s office said the medal would be presented to the Garrett’s. The family has decided it will go to Constable Garrett’s son, Ben, 18.

"I’m proud he’s finally getting recognized for what he deserves," Ben said from his home in Burlington.

"It’s fantastic, but I really believe he deserves the Cross of Valour."

Ben said the bottom line is "my dad is a hero, medal or no medal.

"I’m glad it’s over."

Mr. and Mrs. Garrett, along with Constable Garrett’s son, will be attending the ceremony at Rideau Hall in 2009 along with other members of the Garrett family.

NOTE: Since 1972 there have been 20 Cross of Valour’s presented, 415 Star of Courage, and 2,432 Medal of Bravery.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also see the Governor General's website for announcement.


----------



## geo (14 Dec 2008)

BZ to Constable Garrett
It only sucks that he won't be present to receive it from a grateful country.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Jun 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> BZ to Constable Garrett
> It only sucks that he won't be present to receive it from a grateful country.



Nor will be his friends and some of his family it seems.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/06/16/9811551-sun.html

Cop's widow denied hero's honour
Bureaucracy again denies slain officer a proper ceremony -- this time his wife can't go
By JOE WARMINGTON
The Toronto Sun


When the governor general awards the prestigious Star of Courage medal to slain Const. Chris Garrett posthumously Friday, none of his fellow Cobourg Police brethren will be in attendance.
Nor will two of the people waiting for him to come home that May 15, 2004 night -- his wife, Denise Leblanc, or stepdaughter, Brittany -- unless Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean decides to send out some extra invitations in the next 72 hours.

This is the goal of a group of police and media personalities who have been fighting for Garrett to receive the respect he rightfully deserves since he was murdered in the line of duty foiling a wicked plan of an 18-year-old killer who had written a murder victim list, starting with a police officer.

The first victim was 19-year veteran Garrett, who happened to respond to a phantom robbery call and was ambushed with a military-style knife that slit his throat and nearly decapitated him.
While holding his throat to slow the spraying blood with one hand, Garrett, 39, heroically managed to pull out his revolver and fire at the suspect with his other -- striking him once and landing him in hospital and away from that prepared mayhem list and the Molotov cocktails ready and waiting at his home.

That was quite a sacrifice! And now we can't see to it the rules are bent a little to let his widow get a glimpse of the medal that he died to receive?
"Disgraceful," is the word OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino uses to describe what many people in policing feel is a petty snub. "What an embarrassment."

It does make one wonder if the parole board one day will be as complicated and difficult for Troy Davey, now 23, when he seeks freedom from his life sentence.
"We will never know how many lives Chris saved," says Garrett's close friend of 20 years Sgt. Darren Strongman of the neighbouring Port Hope Police. "But we do know he gave up his life to save them."

The hope is to get Rideau Hall to budge a little. It won't be easy since their rules and protocol are rigid.
Remember the original application was not accepted because of ridiculous red tape -- with staff saying there was a time limit on entries even though the trial for Garrett's killer was still ongoing.

They insisted there was nothing they could do, so a powerful group of police and celebrities in Fantino, York Region Police Chief Armand La Barge, Cobourg Chief Paul Sweet and Don Cherry expressed their displeasure -- and other cops prepared to hand in their service medals in protest.

That lead to the original applicants in Strongman and Sun Media reporter/photographer Pete Fisher meeting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper who had the rule changed so that it no longer has a time frame. We may need the prime minister again -- this time to encourage the governor general to add three extra chairs to the ceremony room at Rideau Hall.
One would be for Denise Leblanc, one for stepdaughter, Brittany, and one for Chief Sweet -- who after all, represents a police service still shaken from the loss of one of its most popular officers.

It may not happen this time since the GG's office says each recipient is offered a chair at the event and permitted three guests of choice. It is "up to them to work it out," says spokesman Lucie Caron, who is sympathetic to the concerns but cites the normal structure of such events.
"We have to be fair to everyone," she says. "Every other family is in the same situation."

Well, not exactly. While it is true there are 40 recipients, the list I have seen shows Garrett as one of two Star of Courage recipient and the only getting it posthumously.
It's a different kind of day for the family who has to have someone stand in for the slain award winner.
The Star will be presented to Garrett's 18-year-old son, Ben, who takes the recipient's chair in his dad's place and the remaining three seats will be appropriately filled by Garrett's mother and father and a sister.

With only three seats, it is difficult for a family who lost a loved one to decide who is left out and they should not be put in that situation at all. And no matter how huffy and puffy Rideau Hall wants to be about their protocol certainly a widow should not be denied. We are better than that.

Strongman said Denise "didn't even know when it was" and still had not "received a return call from the governor general's office" despite putting in three calls.
"My life is forever changed," Leblanc said at the trial. "I lost my best friend, my lover, the person I had trusted the most."

They can bend the rules here -- use the same kind of guts and out-of-the box thinking like Jean did when she ate that seal heart. It will be difficult to believe somewhere inside that giant, taxpayer-funded complex there is not room for three more people.

Another wild card in this story is the mysterious invitation to Chief La Barge. Citing "privacy", Caron would not explain how that is happening while the outspoken-on-this-issue chief of Cobourg police is not on the list. How there is a chair for a chief from a different force is especially mystifying since the GG's office went to great lengths to explain there was no possible way to fit in extra people and that all those in attendance had to be selected by family.

"I can tell you if someone were able to ask Chris who he would want there I can tell you the answer," says Strongman. "Chris would certainly want his wife and stepdaughter to be there sitting along with his courageous son, sister, mom and dad."
Just like when he was trying to get the GG to take the application for the award he is looking for some creative thinking. "After all it's not your everyday situation," said Strongman.

"It's bigger than just your average ceremony and you would think with all of the university degrees in that GG's office, we could find a way to make this work."
Of course, many are wondering is if all of this is payback for being able to get around Rideau Hall's original insistence that Garrett was not eligible for the award.

After that hurdle was cleared, it turned around and awarded Garrett with the Star of Courage instead of the more appropriate Cross of Valour, the highest honour possible. Even son Ben commented then, "it is an honour for him to receive the Star of Courage but there is no doubt he deserves the Cross of Valour."
Either way, his dad will finally get a prestigious medal Friday and if anybody out there has any pull maybe that ceremony could end up including his widow and his chief.

Perhaps this time the governor general will step in and correct this. She recently proved she can eat heart, perhaps she can show some!

JOE.WARMINGTON@SUNMEDIA.CA


----------



## zipperhead_cop (16 Jun 2009)

> if all of this is payback for being able to get around Rideau Hall's original insistence that Garrett was not eligible for the award.



You can be assured that is exactly what this is.  Don't you _dare_ force a bureaucrat to do anything or they will bring their passive/aggressive behind-your-back force to bear and find ways to make your life miserable.  Revenge from the cubicle.  How sweet indeed!  
If Denise does get to go, look to see someone from Revenue Canada taking a hard look at her finances.  (Which will be totally random and not directed by anyone  :)


----------



## Loachman (16 Jun 2009)

Unbelievable.

Well, sadly, not really.

Most people would bend over backwards to do the right thing. It takes a particularly petty or stupid twit to treat the survivors of somebody who died in their service and for their protection so shabbily.

I can only hope that Her Excellency becomes aware of this and sorts her minions out in sufficient time.

"Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men." 
- Douglas Bader.


----------



## bradlupa (16 Jun 2009)

As a resident of the Port Hope, Cobourg area and on the local fire department it makes me extremely dissapointed in the government, what would happen if i lost my life trying to save a life in a fire. Now i know that i would not expect to be presented with a medal for saving a life, that is not why i do it, as our motto goes risk little to save little, risk alot to save alot.  As Const. Garrett did he risk alot (after the fact) to save alot.

I think that the government should just suck it up and give the medal to the family, quit the BS that seems to keep coming back and just go to the higher powers.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jun 2009)

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/06/25/9918531-sun.html

Cop's kin angered at appeal
By ROB TRIPP, SUN MEDIA
Last Updated: 25th June 2009, 4:21am

Revulsion may be too gentle a word for what Gordon Garrett feels about the man who murdered his police officer son five years ago. 

"He should have been hung, or shot, or electrocuted or something, for what he did," said Garrett, 79. 
Troy Davey was just 18 when he slashed open the throat of Const. Chris Garrett, a 39-year-old Cobourg police officer lured to a dark parking lot by a phoney robbery call. 

In February 2007, Davey was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison, with no chance of parole for 25 years. 
His appeal of the conviction is now winding its way toward a hearing. 

The elder Garrett and his wife are angry they'll have to relive their son's murder so long after they buried him. 
"I think (Davey's) awfully lucky (we) don't have the death penalty anymore," he said. "That's what he would have got." 

Transcripts of the month-long trial have now been completed and Davey's lawyer is finalizing key documents, an appeal book and a factum that will be filed with the Court of Appeal for Ontario. 
Once those documents are submitted, a date will be set for a hearing. 

"We should be able to file sometime this summer, I hope in July," said Christopher Hicks, the Toronto lawyer representing Davey.


----------



## mariomike (25 Jun 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> "He should have been hung, or shot, or electrocuted or something, for what he did," said Garrett, 79.



By not executing him, we place our Correctional Officers at ( increased ) risk. As if they don't have enough already. And ourselves, if he ever escapes or gets parole.


----------



## bradlupa (25 Jun 2009)

Here is an update as of today.

COBOURG -- After years of lobbying, murdered Cobourg Police Constable Chris Garrett’s family accepted the Star of Courage on his behalf, in an Ottawa ceremony, on June 19.

Full story Here


----------

