• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Drunk B.C. RCMP officer who passed out in drive-thru keeps job

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
818
Points
1,040
I never understand the resisting arrest. What you think is going to happen. Oh he fought back we should let him go now? Like that's going to work. But I guess he was out of his mind.

Everyone here has made good points. The whole things stinks. Things like this look bad to the general public. "its more of the old boys protecting the boys" feel to it. This erodes public confidence in the police.

Then would a better solution be ok you keep a job but you are no longer in commission as a constable? No uniform no gun etc. There is always tons of work at the station. Maybe not destroying his pension?

In the end nothing here looks good.

I wish we could have solutions to fix our deep problems. More government programs are not the answer either.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,950
Points
1,160
I wish we could have solutions to fix our deep problems. More government programs are not the answer either.
Wanna see people get serious fast and knock off the but he's a good guy mantra?

Take everyone whose house he visited and didn't stop him, and doc them 30 days pay+15 days vacation.
Double it for the supervisor.
 

lenaitch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,318
Points
1,040
I don't know about the BC courts but I'm not surprised that the Impaired charge was dropped. A conviction was registered against a name on the docket; the Court got to move on. He was smart enough to plead to the charge that didn't have a mandatory d/l suspension attached to it.

Assuming the RCMP like every other civilian employer, it's pretty tough these days to summarily cut loose an employee who presents a recognized medical condition as a defence (assuming it was actually tendered as a medically diagnosed condition), particularly when it is a 'first offence' and particularly when the employment itself is a contributor to the condition (apparently he had a prior discipline hearing but no indication whether it was related or similar).

The days of both sweeping things under the rug or summarily unloading a problem child are hopefully behind us. I am surprised that hearing officer did not order some kind of treatment plan for his condition. Even if not ordered, the RCMP would be well advised to sit down with him a mutually agree to one, both to help recover an employee and for its own protection.

I don't know the terms of the National Police Association, but in the OPP, he would have little chance of legal indemnification as he was neither on duty or acting in his capacity.
 

Booter

Sr. Member
Reaction score
820
Points
810
Wanna see people get serious fast and knock off the but he's a good guy mantra?

Take everyone whose house he visited and didn't stop him, and doc them 30 days pay+15 days vacation.
Double it for the supervisor.
Super funny you say that. I recently chased an NCO chain demanding flesh on some stuff- people are NOT used to it.

It was a use of force thing. Had slipped by three NCOs then I was in meeting where everyone was talking about how we were going to get the kid on conduct.

I was happy to see a room ready to get some blood- because I wanted some answers on the NCO slip ups that allowed it to happen. Then the officer that made that decision overlooking them. Asking what our responsibility was for what we were looking at…

No appetite, because it’s not about accountibility. It’s because we have to do something. Not because we believe it’s the right thing to do.

Systems busted. Bunch of uniforms taking hero shots for the ‘gram while crying and whining they shouldn’t be Held to a higher standard than the public because that’s not fair.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
12,990
Points
1,160
Super funny you say that. I recently chased an NCO chain demanding flesh on some stuff- people are NOT used to it.

It was a use of force thing. Had slipped by three NCOs then I was in meeting where everyone was talking about how we were going to get the kid on conduct.

I was happy to see a room ready to get some blood- because I wanted some answers on the NCO slip ups that allowed it to happen. Then the officer that made that decision overlooking them. Asking what our responsibility was for what we were looking at…

No appetite, because it’s not about accountibility. It’s because we have to do something. Not because we believe it’s the right thing to do.

Systems busted. Bunch of uniforms taking hero shots for the ‘gram while crying and whining they shouldn’t be Held to a higher standard than the public because that’s not fair.

Sounds like #7 ;)

Sir Robert Peel's Policing Principles
  1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
  2. To recognize always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
  3. To recognize always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing cooperation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
  4. To recognize always that the extent to which the cooperation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
  5. To seek and preserve public favor, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humor, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
  6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public cooperation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
  7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
  8. To recognize always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
  9. To recognize always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
 

lenaitch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,318
Points
1,040
Super funny you say that. I recently chased an NCO chain demanding flesh on some stuff- people are NOT used to it.

It was a use of force thing. Had slipped by three NCOs then I was in meeting where everyone was talking about how we were going to get the kid on conduct.

I was happy to see a room ready to get some blood- because I wanted some answers on the NCO slip ups that allowed it to happen. Then the officer that made that decision overlooking them. Asking what our responsibility was for what we were looking at…

No appetite, because it’s not about accountibility. It’s because we have to do something. Not because we believe it’s the right thing to do.

Systems busted. Bunch of uniforms taking hero shots for the ‘gram while crying and whining they shouldn’t be Held to a higher standard than the public because that’s not fair.
Seen it as well. Everybody's keen for a constable's head on a pike but the room gets real silent when talk shifts to the NCO or higher that either allowed it to happen or created a situation where it was inevitable.
 

Booter

Sr. Member
Reaction score
820
Points
810
Seen it as well. Everybody's keen for a constable's head on a pike but the room gets real silent when talk shifts to the NCO or higher that either allowed it to happen or created a situation where it was inevitable.
You’re incompetent or culpable. Choose which one.

Like not you. lol but the supervisors are responsible so choose which way you failed- you know?
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
5,510
Points
1,360
Super funny you say that. I recently chased an NCO chain demanding flesh on some stuff- people are NOT used to it.

It was a use of force thing. Had slipped by three NCOs then I was in meeting where everyone was talking about how we were going to get the kid on conduct.

I was happy to see a room ready to get some blood- because I wanted some answers on the NCO slip ups that allowed it to happen. Then the officer that made that decision overlooking them. Asking what our responsibility was for what we were looking at…

No appetite, because it’s not about accountibility. It’s because we have to do something. Not because we believe it’s the right thing to do.

Systems busted. Bunch of uniforms taking hero shots for the ‘gram while crying and whining they shouldn’t be Held to a higher standard than the public because that’s not fair.
Do you need me to write my MP to have you nominated when the Commish role comes up again?

If I was this guy's boss, I would have been gunning to hang him, but not for the DUI.

It would have been for all the other shit he chose to do when he was sober, like use a government vehicle to go buy booze and party at his buddy's place.

There are some questionable ethics at play here that can't really be explained away by "I'm all broken and screwed up, woah is me".
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,950
Points
1,160
The case pits the wishes of the local division against Commissioner Brenda Lucki, who — while promising publicly that sexual assault would not be tolerated under her watch — agreed to let the member keep his job.

Blue version of Jon Vance eh?
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
5,510
Points
1,360
How would you describe the forces “coast to coast”?

Also- you’ll note that it’s Commissioner Lucki on that decision making sure he kept his job.
Lots of good Police Officers out there. I am friend's with three RCMP Officers myself and they are all good people. One is a super intelligent/highly educated guy whose CV would probably put most of the Senior Leadership to shame.

That being said, it seems certain institutions, particularly ones at the Federal level, have issues dealing with their bad apples.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
12,990
Points
1,160
Do you need me to write my MP to have you nominated when the Commish role comes up again?

If I was this guy's boss, I would have been gunning to hang him, but not for the DUI.

It would have been for all the other shit he chose to do when he was sober, like use a government vehicle to go buy booze and party at his buddy's place.

There are some questionable ethics at play here that can't really be explained away by "I'm all broken and screwed up, woah is me".

It makes for great movies though:

 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,116
Points
1,110
How would you describe the forces “coast to coast”?

Also- you’ll note that it’s Commissioner Lucki on that decision making sure he kept his job.
🤦‍♂️ Honestly I don’t know if there is a solution to cases like these.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,359
Points
1,110
Yes. I agree. We’ve - society- given in to people who don’t like harsh language.
To be fair, no need to use “harsh” language to be strict. I find people may be scared of a person using “harsh” language but don’t respect the person, and if that person is a figure of authority, will lose respect in the institution. There are very effective ways to be polite and respectful while being strict.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,950
Points
1,160
To be fair, no need to use “harsh” language to be strict. I find people may be scared of a person using “harsh” language but don’t respect the person, and if that person is a figure of authority, will lose respect in the institution. There are very effective ways to be polite and respectful while being strict.
This hasn't been my experience with certain types of personalities, especially those found in trades like the infantry (which I think a lot of junior police may have the same type of mentality).
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,359
Points
1,110
This hasn't been my experience with certain types of personalities, especially those found in trades like the infantry (which I think a lot of junior police may have the same type of mentality).
Perhaps when they are junior and impressionable but that perspective generally changes when people mature. By that point, the damage to the institution’s reputation has already been done. Strict but respectful is what I preach.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
12,990
Points
1,160
Perhaps when they are junior and impressionable but that perspective generally changes when people mature. By that point, the damage to the institution’s reputation has already been done. Strict but respectful is what I preach.

So a CO yelling at a junior person, in front of everyone, for a very minor issue wouldn't count as 'respectful' I'm guessing? ;)
 
Top