High Ranking Police Folk Allegedly Behaving Badly

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Unions would never protect dead weight... The problem is management doesn't do the right paper work!

I was being entirely sarcastic

Sarcastic away all you want but it's true. The ONLY,.....wait I'll say it again slowly.....O N L Y......power a Union has is a collective agreement, and that document is agreed upon by management and the union.

There are no stormtroopers, guns, poisoned pens, nothing but a piece of paper agreed upon by both sides. I so fail to understand how folks don't get this. The union is nothing but a lawyer for the employee, they represent as they are legally required to do.


Bet you'd grieve if your Assisting Officer walked in with you and went "Hey Sir, I don't like Bloggins either, lets lock him up even though we got nothing"?
Damn Assisting Officers protecting dead weight.....

 

[Good2Golf]

Sarcastic away all you want but it's true. The ONLY,.....wait I'll say it again slowly.....O N L Y......power a Union has is a collective agreement, and that document is agreed upon by management and the union.

There are no stormtroopers, guns, poisoned pens, nothing but a piece of paper agreed upon by both sides. I so fail to understand how folks don't get this. The union is nothing but a lawyer for the employee, they represent as they are legally required to do.


Bet you'd grieve if your Assisting Officer walked in with you and went "Hey Sir, I don't like Bloggins either, lets lock him up even though we got nothing"?
Damn Assisting Officers protecting dead weight.....

Yup, friends in solid union environments told me “if management has documented things properly per the CBA, then the union will very most likely endorse the Adios…”

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Yup, friends in solid union environments told me “if management has documented things properly per the CBA, then the union will very most likely endorse the Adios…”

They still have to represent the person just like a hired lawyer does. I'm sure lots of lawyers are glad when their clients go to jail for a long time because the Crown did their job properly. Doesn't mean he/she didn't provide legal representation.

 

[Good2Golf]

They still have to represent the person just like a hired lawyer does. I'm sure lots of lawyers are glad when their clients go to jail for a long time because the Crown did their job properly. Doesn't mean he/she didn't provide legal representation.

Pretty sure that was the nuance of ‘endorse’ as in ‘when all was said and done’ it wouldn’t be a keep the member at all costs, particularly if the documentation was agreed and evidenced clear contravention by the member of the terms of the CBA. One friend in particular gave an example that seemed out of the twilight zone, and the union had the shop steward and the local counsel, and they provided some statements of clarification with the CBA, but agreed with the dismissal in the end.

 

[mariomike]

Yup, friends in solid union environments told me “if management has documented things properly per the CBA, then the union will very most likely endorse the Adios…”

Not sure how it is in other union environments. Our CA had this to say about management documentation,

20.06 Where an employee has not received a disciplinary notation for a period
of two (2) calendar years, any disciplinary notation(s) recorded on the
employee’s service record shall be null and void, and shall be removed from
the employee’s file.

Being "client-facing" , most of what is in your jacket are "the three C's" : Complaints ie:
"attitude questioned", compliments and commendations from customers.

They carry a lot of weight when it comes to discipline, suspension and discharge.

And, grievances and arbitrations.

 

[Haggis]

Crown is asking for five to seven.

Bumped with the latest. Six years and fired.

OPP officer Jason Redmond sentenced to six years in jail for sex assault, fired

He was found guilty of sexual assault for raping an unconscious woman in 2017

canoe.com

 

[lenaitch]

Finally. He may do some 'interesting' time.

 

[Jarnhamar]

How long is he realistically looking at being behind bars?

 

[brihard]

How long is he realistically looking at being behind bars?

Six year sentence, mandatory parole at 2/3 unless he really frigs up, and potential early parole at 1/3. But his sentence is exemplary, his behaviour egregious, and I bet he doesn’t do a great job of staying out of trouble. I bet he does at least half of it, and it’ll all be in protective custody. He’s in for a rough few years.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Six year sentence, mandatory parole at 2/3 unless he really frigs up, and potential early parole at 1/3. But his sentence is exemplary, his behaviour egregious, and I bet he doesn’t do a great job of staying out of trouble. I bet he does at least half of it, and it’ll all be in protective custody. He’s in for a rough few years.

 

[brihard]

I would hav liked to see a significantly higher sentence, personally, but it is what it is.

He was also recently convicted on a slew of assault charges including causing bodily harm, and with a weapon, and is still pending sentencing. Realistically those sentences will probably run concurrently, but with a bit of luck they’ll tack some on as consecutive to what he’s already serving.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I would hav liked to see a significantly higher sentence, personally, but it is what it is.

He was also recently convicted on a slew of assault charges including causing bodily harm, and with a weapon, and is still pending sentencing. Realistically those sentences will probably run concurrently, but with a bit of luck they’ll tack some on as consecutive to what he’s already serving.

It takes a lot more newsworthy then this clown to get any consecutive.....

 

[Jarnhamar]

Six year sentence, mandatory parole at 2/3 unless he really frigs up, and potential early parole at 1/3. But his sentence is exemplary, his behaviour egregious, and I bet he doesn’t do a great job of staying out of trouble. I bet he does at least half of it, and it’ll all be in protective custody. He’s in for a rough few years.

Thanks!

What's the ideal/justification behind mandatory parole at 2/3? Why give someone a 6 year sentence if they will be out after 4, potentially at 2?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Thanks!

What's the ideal/justification behind mandatory parole at 2/3? Why give someone a 6 year sentence if they will be out after 4, potentially at 2?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

EDIT:
And Brihard had just one little thing to correct. That 2/3rds is mandatory release, not parole. Parole has conditions, mandatory release does not. I've had 100's of inmates not even apply for parole as they know they either can't, or don't want to, follow conditions. Plus parole means conditions for the whole sentence time.

 

[brihard]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

EDIT:
And Brihard had just one little thing to correct. That 2/3rds is mandatory release, not parole. Parole has conditions, mandatory release does not. I've had 100's of inmates not even apply for parole as they know they either can't, or don't want to, follow conditions. Plus parole means conditions for the whole sentence time.

I was simplifying. You’re part right- federal Statutory Release at 2/3 isn’t the same as parole that an offender applies for, however it does still carry some default conditions, must report to a parole officer periodically, and the parole board can impose more if they feel it’s appropriate. It’s not simply “alright, off you go”. It also allows for a rapid return to custody on the original sentence if the convict reoffends, without having to wait for the whole court system to work its way through.

Thanks!

What's the ideal/justification behind mandatory parole at 2/3? Why give someone a 6 year sentence if they will be out after 4, potentially at 2?

I cynically think Bruce is right that money is part of it. The other part is supervised and gradual reintegration into society. Once a sentence is served, that’s it, done. No control measures can be imposed. The statutory release puts someone back out into society while CSC can still impose some conditions, such hike they can be returned to prison if they commit new offences, and while they can receive some guidance and supports for things like employment, housing, etc. it’s predicated on the assumption that anyone not serving a life sentence will, at some point, be released back out into the wild, so there might as well be some control measures in place for the first part of that.

Something I’m randomly curious about, and maybe @lenaitch can best answer this- dude had about 17 years in, so presumably has a pretty considerable pension entitlement built up. Probably about $40k a year. I assume he has the usual cash out, or wait til ~age 65 and draw his pension options?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I was simplifying. You’re part right- federal Statutory Release at 2/3 isn’t the same as parole that an offender applies for, however it does still carry some default conditions, must report to a parole officer periodically, and the parole board can impose more if they feel it’s appropriate. It’s not simply “alright, off you go”. It also allows for a rapid return to custody on the original sentence if the convict reoffends, without having to wait for the whole court system to work its way through.

Just splitting hairs for sure, but there is not even close to enough parole officers to even see an offender on mandatory release, unless they are newsworthy. 32 years and I haven't even heard of someone getting sent back from a mandatory even with new charges.

Lets just hope this moron has that rough time we all hope he does......

 

[brihard]

Just splitting hairs for sure, but there is not even close to enough parole officers to even see an offender on mandatory release, unless they are newsworthy. 32 years and I haven't even heard of someone getting sent back from a mandatory even with new charges.

Just spitballing here, but might the difference be federal sentence in a CSC pen, versus provincial sentence? Ontario has its own parole board, I believe? I’ve seen a couple of federal offenders screw up and be sent right back, although obviously not for minor stuff.

Since the individual in question here got more than two years, that’s Fed time and he’ll be 100% under Correctional Service Canada’s custody/supervision for the duration.

The more I think about it, he’ll be in protective custody for all of his institutional time. He may not actually have very much opportunity to get in shit that could slow his parole. He’ll definitely be one they’ll want tight supervision on once released.

 

[Booter]

I was in fed corrections. I’ve seen a handful of people returned off statutory release. Incredibly infrequent.

Generally, in the wilds of Canada-
Parole is remotely conducted so it’s not really set up to catch people back up.

Presently we have a good relationship with parole where I am. But they have an astronomical case load that they are remotely trying to manage- and depend on us- which isnt something we’re supposed to be doing so it’s not set up for success.

Generally- you’re done 2/3rds of your sentence unless you’re a complete moron. Like a moron Even amongst morons.

 

[lenaitch]

Something I’m randomly curious about, and maybe @lenaitch can best answer this- dude had about 17 years in, so presumably has a pretty considerable pension entitlement built up. Probably about $40k a year. I assume he has the usual cash out, or wait til ~age 65 and draw his pension options?

I wish I could, but at the best of times when I was active in our Association, pension rules seemed written in Swahili, and now that I'm long gone and older, I'm no smarter. There are different provisions depending on your age + service calculation. By his age and 'service', he would have about 60 points, and since he was involuntarily terminated, I believe there is a provision to start receiving a pension at his "earliest unreduced pension date", but I'm not sure how that would be calculated for him. He could also simply take a commuted value cash out, or wait until he is 65.

His basic pension calculation will 2% x years of service (so, ~34) and be based on the average of his best three years income, but, as mentioned, there might be other factors involved.

Sorry - best I can do.

What is clear is he will get a pension. Employers can't 'take your pension' like some US jurisdictions can.

 

[dapaterson]

Look, if you're going to steal evidence, at least steal decent booze.

LCBO anti-theft device allegedly tracked stolen whisky to veteran Toronto cop’s home

Consts. Brian James and Thomas Victor are facing professional standards charges for allegedly stealing two bottles of Johnnie Walker Black Label whisky that they’d seized during an arrest.

www.thestar.com