Police Folk Allegedly Behaving Badly

[Halifax Tar]

Imagine if a CAF member illegally brought their personal weapon into a secure zone at work. Certainly that would warrant significant punishment - especially if they were, say, a MWO in the military police, NCIU, aircraft security officer. Right?

Anderson J.A.J. (Master Warrant Officer), R. v. - Chief Military Judge

Get quick, easy access to all Government of Canada services and information.

decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca

Thats and interesting one.

For these reasons, the court:

[38] Directs that MWO Anderson be discharged absolutely from the offence.

[39] orderS, pursuant to section 147.1 of the NDA that MWO Anderson is prohibited from possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance for a period beginning on the day this order his made and ending on 31 May 2029.

[40] IN ACCORDANCE with section 147.3 of the NDA, every item prohibited by this order in the possession of the offender, on the commencement of the order, is forfeited to His Majesty to be disposed of or otherwise dealt with, as the Minister directs. The offender is ordered, within seven days to deliver to an officer or non-commissioned member appointed under the regulations for the purpose of section 156 of the NDA, all things that the possession of which is prohibited by the order, together with every authorization, licence and registration certificates relating thereto and held by the offender on the commencement of the order.

[41] IN ACCORDANCE with subsection 147.1(3) of the NDA, this order does not prohibit the offender from processing any things, including firearm necessary for his duties as member of the CAF.

Does this mean the MWO had to surrender his personal firearms or bow weapons to the CAF ?

 

[brihard]

Thats and interesting one.



Does this mean the MWO had to surrender his personal firearms or bow weapons to the CAF ?

Basically yeah. The military justice system can issue functionally the same firearms prohibition orders on conviction as a civilian court, including an order of forfeiture.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Basically yeah. The military justice system can issue functionally the same firearms prohibition orders on conviction as a civilian court, including an order of forfeiture.

I honestly didn't know the CAF could do that. I appreciate the learning!

Will the member get them back after 31 May '29 ?

 

[brihard]

I honestly didn't know the CAF could do that. I appreciate the learning!

Will the member get them back after 31 May '29 ?

I believe no. The equivalent crim code sections applicable in sentencing are 114 and 115. As a result of a conviction for which there’s a weapons prohibition, basically too bad, your stuff’s gone. Now that said I’m not a SME on this and I cannot say if there’s any provision for transfer of lawful ownership.

 

[Haggis]

I believe no. The equivalent crim code sections applicable in sentencing are 114 and 115. As a result of a conviction for which there’s a weapons prohibition, basically too bad, your stuff’s gone. Now that said I’m not a SME on this and I cannot say if there’s any provision for transfer of lawful ownership.

You are correct. The items are forfeit to the Crown and would be ordered destroyed. (115(2)). In the case of his handgun, transfer of ownership to another individual would already be prohibited unless the receiving person meets one of the exemptions of the Firearms Act 97.1.

 

[brihard]

You are correct. The items are forfeit to the Crown and would be ordered destroyed. (115(2)). In the case of his handgun, transfer of ownership to another individual would already be prohibited unless the receiving person meets one of the exemptions of the Firearms Act 97.1.

There might also be a distinction there between the handgun as offence related property, and other firearms that are not offence related.

I did a search warrant not too long ago where we simultaneously did a criminal code 487 search for a couple specific offence related firearms as criminal evidence, but also a 117.04 public safety warrant for the remainder of the subject’s firearms that are not criminal evidence but that we have grounds to believe he should not have for safety reasons. There’s different subsequent handling and administration for both categories.

Any offence related firearms are almost certainly gone gone with no way to recoup value. There are mechanisms for the disposition of firearms seized for public safety that can include transfer of ownership- but that’s not a product of sentencing, so I’m straying a bit.

 

[Haggis]

There might also be a distinction there between the handgun as offence related property, and other firearms that are not offence related.

I did a search warrant not too long ago where we simultaneously did a criminal code 487 search for a couple specific offence related firearms as criminal evidence, but also a 117.04 public safety warrant for the remainder of the subject’s firearms that are not criminal evidence but that we have grounds to believe he should not have for safety reasons. There’s different subsequent handling and administration for both categories.

Any offence related firearms are almost certainly gone gone with no way to recoup value. There are mechanisms for the disposition of firearms seized for public safety that can include transfer of ownership- but that’s not a product of sentencing, so I’m straying a bit.

That's a valid distinction. I know of two folks who have had their firearms temporarily removed for mental health concerns and transferred to a PAL holder relative until their issues were resolved at which time they got them back. You can still do that now rather than surrendering them to police.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Thats and interesting one.

Does this mean the MWO had to surrender his personal firearms or bow weapons to the CAF ?

At least $1000 in property destroyed. Potentially thousands more.

Vey stupid move but he seemed make a big effort on safety, and brought the gun to try and help someone out. Makes you wonder what his punishment would have been if he put a round in the chamber and started pointing it at coworkers in anger.

 

[Halifax Tar]

At least $1000 in property destroyed. Potentially thousands more.

Vey stupid move but he seemed make a big effort on safety, and brought the gun to try and help someone out. Makes you wonder what his punishment would have been if he put a round in the chamber and started pointing it at coworkers in anger.

I dunno the coppers can shoot each other any get away with it... Who knows...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/donovan-perjury-acquittal-1.7272601

 

[Jarnhamar]

That's a valid distinction. I know of two folks who have had their firearms temporarily removed for mental health concerns and transferred to a PAL holder relative until their issues were resolved at which time they got them back. You can still do that now rather than surrendering them to police.

I've facilitated this a few times for soldiers and the police have always been incredible.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I dunno the coppers can shoot each other any get away with it... Who knows...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/donovan-perjury-acquittal-1.7272601

That's a good one. Buddy somehow got a hold of a USB from the initial SIU investigation with all kinds of key evidence, lied about seeing it, and blamed PTSD when he was caught. And he wasn't even the "bad cop".

 

[Halifax Tar]

That's a good one. Buddy somehow got a hold of a USB from the initial SIU investigation with all kinds of key evidence, lied about seeing it, and blamed PTSD when he was caught. And he wasn't even the "bad cop".

Its a pretty crazy world.

 

[daftandbarmy]

That's a good one. Buddy somehow got a hold of a USB from the initial SIU investigation with all kinds of key evidence, lied about seeing it, and blamed PTSD when he was caught. And he wasn't even the "bad cop".

 

[Halifax Tar]

My wife loves that show.

 

[brihard]

That's a good one. Buddy somehow got a hold of a USB from the initial SIU investigation with all kinds of key evidence, lied about seeing it, and blamed PTSD when he was caught. And he wasn't even the "bad cop".

Just to clarify, Parker didn't 'somehow' get possession of the USB. After the other officer (Donovan) assaulted him, pulled his baton, and then went for his gun, Parker drew his own gun and shot Donovan. Parker was then initially charged with attempted murder. Crown was obligated to provide disclosure to Parker to defend himself against those charges, and he was provided with the SIU investigative materials as required by Stinchcombe.

After Parker's charges were dropped, and Donovan was going to trial on his charges of assault a peace officer, well, Parker still had his copy of his SIU disclosure. When that came out as a surprise during Donovan's trial, that trial was derailed by it. It definitely should have been disclosed early on so crown could be aware of it and gauge how to handle it.

The issue was not him legitimately receiving that disclosure in the first place, it was subsequent dishonesty when it became a trial issue for the other guy.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Just to clarify, Parker didn't 'somehow' get possession of the USB. After the other officer (Donovan) assaulted him, pulled his baton, and then went for his gun, Parker drew his own gun and shot Donovan. Parker was then initially charged with attempted murder. Crown was obligated to provide disclosure to Parker to defend himself against those charges, and he was provided with the SIU investigative materials as required by Stinchcombe.

After Parker's charges were dropped, and Donovan was going to trial on his charges of assault a peace officer, well, Parker still had his copy of his SIU disclosure. When that came out as a surprise during Donovan's trial, that trial was derailed by it. It definitely should have been disclosed early on so crown could be aware of it and gauge how to handle it.

The issue was not him legitimately receiving that disclosure in the first place, it was subsequent dishonesty when it became a trial issue for the other guy.

And they all lived happily ever after.

 

[Eaglelord17]

My club is primarly handgun users. I know a lot of LEOs who hunt who aren't club members. Long gun laws are pretty simple once you take the time to understand the nuances of storage and transportation. Restricted are not.

I got stopped about 6 or so years ago during my birth month right after pulling out of the gun club. Cop asked if I had any firearms in the car. I said "You saw me pull out of the range." "So, yes" he says. "Properly secured, unloaded and in the trunks" says I. "Good" he says,"I'm not worried about those, just the people with them under the front seat." I'd been stopped to ensure my registration was up to date as I hadn't yet put my new sticker on the plate. We had an amicable chat and a few months later he was sitting in a new member class.

The other side of it is the completely ignorant cops who try to pretend they know firearms law and proceed to hassle and harass you insisting on incorrect answers being the law.

I got pulled over after shooting on crown land at a known gun pit. Safe backstop, non-restricted firearm (in this case a bolt action 91/30 about as clear cut non-restricted as it gets), cleaned up my brass and targets, etc..

Basically there is a guy who bought land for dirt cheap nearby this area who always calls on people shooting there because he wants his property value to go up.

I pack up, put the rifle away with a trigger lock on it, and go to leave to be lit up by lights.

Cops get out, give me the 5th degree over whose land am I shooting on (crown land), is there handguns in the vehicle (starts patting down parts of the trunk without permission), demands to be shown the rifle which I do. Says the bolt must be removed as well, even though legally the trigger lock isn’t even required for transportation.

After realizing that everything I am doing is legal tried arguing over littering (which is a legitimate issue at the site, however I had a small trash bag with my waste).

Ultimately wasted a hour of my time over absolutely nothing.

Ignorance of the law isn’t a excuse until your the officer expected to enforce it. I was very mad after that. I complied nicely, had everything legal, and still given the 5th degree by some ignorant cop who ultimately just wasted my and their time over their ignorance.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The other side of it is the completely ignorant cops who try to pretend they know firearms law and proceed to hassle and harass you insisting on incorrect answers being the law.

I got pulled over after shooting on crown land at a known gun pit. Safe backstop, non-restricted firearm (in this case a bolt action 91/30 about as clear cut non-restricted as it gets), cleaned up my brass and targets, etc..

Basically there is a guy who bought land for dirt cheap nearby this area who always calls on people shooting there because he wants his property value to go up.

I pack up, put the rifle away with a trigger lock on it, and go to leave to be lit up by lights.

Cops get out, give me the 5th degree over whose land am I shooting on (crown land), is there handguns in the vehicle (starts patting down parts of the trunk without permission), demands to be shown the rifle which I do. Says the bolt must be removed as well, even though legally the trigger lock isn’t even required for transportation.

After realizing that everything I am doing is legal tried arguing over littering (which is a legitimate issue at the site, however I had a small trash bag with my waste).

Ultimately wasted a hour of my time over absolutely nothing.

Ignorance of the law isn’t a excuse until your the officer expected to enforce it. I was very mad after that. I complied nicely, had everything legal, and still given the 5th degree by some ignorant cop who ultimately just wasted my and their time over their ignorance.

Keep this with you.

You're lucky you got away with just some lost time. I find these people get rather touchy and angry when they are wrong.

 

[Halifax Tar]

A more readable version:

 

[Jarnhamar]

Just to clarify, Parker didn't 'somehow' get possession of the USB. After the other officer (Donovan) assaulted him, pulled his baton, and then went for his gun, Parker drew his own gun and shot Donovan. Parker was then initially charged with attempted murder. Crown was obligated to provide disclosure to Parker to defend himself against those charges, and he was provided with the SIU investigative materials as required by Stinchcombe.

After Parker's charges were dropped, and Donovan was going to trial on his charges of assault a peace officer, well, Parker still had his copy of his SIU disclosure. When that came out as a surprise during Donovan's trial, that trial was derailed by it. It definitely should have been disclosed early on so crown could be aware of it and gauge how to handle it.

The issue was not him legitimately receiving that disclosure in the first place, it was subsequent dishonesty when it became a trial issue for the other guy.

Nice thanks for the added context. That explains why he had the USB (not slid to him by a buddy like I was suggesting).

OPP forensic dudes discovered Donovan lied about not accessing the USB and he was charged for perjury. The perjury charges against him were dropped because the judge didn't think he meant to lie on the stand. Goofy but at least the judge didn't buy the PTSD attempt.

If Donovan is still working would he have to include the perjury charges in a McNeil report since he did lie about it even though it was dropped? Because it speaks to credibility?