High Ranking Police Folk Allegedly Behaving Badly

[Humphrey Bogart]

Define “accusations of misconduct” and serious incident”, please? “Accusations of misconduct” happen constantly, believe it or not there are a lot of people with axes to grind who will make false complaints. Fortunately the introduction of body worn video for police officers should help to improve protection against this- but nonetheless, accusations fly regularly. They are merely accusations until something is proven. As for “serious incident”, what threshold should be met for someone to be suspended without pay?

Serious Incident is pretty straight forward:

• Was a law/rule broken or thought to have been broken in the performance of your duties?
• How serious was the rule violation? Is it in the public interest that you are "held out of service" pending an investigation?

For the purposes of this, lets refer to it as a "Performance Deficiency". Roughing up a suspect and using an inappropriate amount of force would be something I would consider a performance deficiency.

Misconduct implies something different in my mind. It encompasses really any of the following:

• Drugs & Alcohol
• Lying
• Stealing
• Insubordination
• Negligence
• Disputes

We could refer to this as a "Conduct Deficiency". Sound familiar

I’d be alright with suspensions without pay in the case of certain criminal charges being laid - and that does at times happen. But it’s also worth bearing in mind that police work also inherently means a lot of very bad situations and difficult interactions that have potential to go sideways in a way that may look bad but not actually end up being wrongful or misconduct once everything finally shakes out.

At my work at least, insurance is the mechanism used to pay workers if they get "held out of service" due to a performance deficiency. We actually use a demerit system, similar to operating a motor vehicle. Proficiency Testing is conducted monthly and is mandated by Transport Canada.

Failing a proficiency test does not automatically result in demerits being awarded either. It depends on the severity of what you did or repeated infringements.

It's in the Public Interest to ensure that I am doing my job correctly otherwise you end up with situations like Lac Mégantic where trains end up blowing Towns up, due to performance deficiencies, killing dozens of people and injuring hundreds more.

Let me ask you this @brihard - Would you feel safe if you lived beside a railroad track and I parked a train next to your house filled with Anhydrous Ammonia, didn't apply the appropriate amount of brakes and it rolled away, derailed and exploded?

Would you agree that you probably don't want me working until such an incident is sufficiently investigated? Why should I continue to be paid if I am not working? That's why I have insurance, because maybe I was just having a bad day.

I certainly feel that way about Police that can't keep their shit together when dealing with a suspect. They should also have insurance for those reasons which should be what is used to pay them if they do get held out of service.


As for Misconduct or a "Conduct Deficiency" as I have called it. Those are different from a Performance Deficiency in that they are not eligible for coverage by insurance. Performance Deficiencies can turn in to a Conduct Deficiency.

I'll give you an example from my work. You break a rule, line a switch backwards and cause your train to run the switch. Fairly straightforward and happens all the time.

Management and Transport Canada come to investigate. The first thing they do is conduct a drug & alcohol test. Running a switch isn't that serious of a performance deficiency and if you pass the drug test you'll probably get a warning the first time and be right back at work pending the result of your drug & alcohol test.

You fail the Drug Test though:

That's a dismissable offence and your performance deficiency is now a conduct deficiency. You are ineligible for insurance and you will be terminated and not have a chance in hell of getting your job back.

What should have happened to this Officer:

RCMP officer found passed out in a Burger King drive-thru after driving drunk in a police vehicle disciplined

A B.C. Mountie who drove his vehicle drunk – crashing it before being found passed out behind the wheel in a Burger King drive-thru, where he later resisted arrest – will not lose his job.

bc.ctvnews.ca

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

In addition,

I also like the concept of work insurance because it adds an additional layer of self-accountability for ones behaviour.

 

[lenaitch]

The 'income insurance' angle is interesting but, as you say, most everything revolves around the Collective Agreement. If the reason for the suspension was ultimately found to be justified, do you have to pay the money back and the employer retros your pay?

One problem, even with non-criminal discipline matters, is that the process can drag out for years. In years gone by, discipline matters were dealt with fairly quickly, often with a parade before the boss, being yelled at with extremely prejudice then moving on. Transfers were also on the list of options.

There is an amendment for Ontario Police Services Act that would allow for suspensions w/o pay under certain circumstances but it has not yet been enacted. It seems law enforcement is always caught between 'just like everybody else' and 'held to a higher standard'.

 

[brihard]

I

Serious Incident is pretty straight forward:

• Was a law/rule broken or thought to have been broken in the performance of your duties?
• How serious was the rule violation? Is it in the public interest that you are "held out of service" pending an investigation?

For the purposes of this, lets refer to it as a "Performance Deficiency". Roughing up a suspect and using an inappropriate amount of force would be something I would consider a performance deficiency.

Misconduct implies something different in my mind. It encompasses really any of the following:

• Drugs & Alcohol
• Lying
• Stealing
• Insubordination
• Negligence
• Disputes

We could refer to this as a "Conduct Deficiency". Sound familiar


At my work at least, insurance is the mechanism used to pay workers if they get "held out of service" due to a performance deficiency. We actually use a demerit system, similar to operating a motor vehicle. Proficiency Testing is conducted monthly and is mandated by Transport Canada.

Failing a proficiency test does not automatically result in demerits being awarded either. It depends on the severity of what you did or repeated infringements.

It's in the Public Interest to ensure that I am doing my job correctly otherwise you end up with situations like Lac Mégantic where trains end up blowing Towns up, due to performance deficiencies, killing dozens of people and injuring hundreds more.

Let me ask you this @brihard - Would you feel safe if you lived beside a railroad track and I parked a train next to your house filled with Anhydrous Ammonia, didn't apply the appropriate amount of brakes and it rolled away, derailed and exploded?

Would you agree that you probably don't want me working until such an incident is sufficiently investigated? Why should I continue to be paid if I am not working? That's why I have insurance, because maybe I was just having a bad day.

I certainly feel that way about Police that can't keep their shit together when dealing with a suspect. They should also have insurance for those reasons which should be what is used to pay them if they do get held out of service.


As for Misconduct or a "Conduct Deficiency" as I have called it. Those are different from a Performance Deficiency in that they are not eligible for coverage by insurance. Performance Deficiencies can turn in to a Conduct Deficiency.

I'll give you an example from my work. You break a rule, line a switch backwards and cause your train to run the switch. Fairly straightforward and happens all the time.

Management and Transport Canada come to investigate. The first thing they do is conduct a drug & alcohol test. Running a switch isn't that serious of a performance deficiency and if you pass the drug test you'll probably get a warning the first time and be right back at work pending the result of your drug & alcohol test.

You fail the Drug Test though:

That's a dismissable offence and your performance deficiency is now a conduct deficiency. You are ineligible for insurance and you will be terminated and not have a chance in hell of getting your job back.

What should have happened to this Officer:

RCMP officer found passed out in a Burger King drive-thru after driving drunk in a police vehicle disciplined

A B.C. Mountie who drove his vehicle drunk – crashing it before being found passed out behind the wheel in a Burger King drive-thru, where he later resisted arrest – will not lose his job.

bc.ctvnews.ca

I’m not convinced that human interactions in the course of policing duties can be easily or accurately analogized to parking a train full of dangerous goods. Without minimizing the very real risks and hazards of your profession’s work environment, ours is distinct and different in many ways. If we had the control and predictability of literal rails to guide everything, many aspects of our job would be much less prone to things going wildly wrong. A train is a train, answerable to the laws of physics. In our world, the other guy always gets a vote, and sometimes will exercise that franchise dangerously and stupidly.

When you speak to matters like someone being ‘roughed up’, or anything in the context of use of force, you’re into some of the most dynamic and least clear cut situations people can get into. There’s a whole body of statute and case law, regulation, and training and policy around that, specifically because of how messy it can be. It’s not a question easily reduced to “did they apply to brakes correctly?” The process of both reporting and of investigating use of force exists for a reason. Sometimes officers will fuck up, and yes they should be held accountable. Rarely will the ‘ugly’ cases be very clear and straightforward from the outset, and rarely are the spectators on scene, or at
Home watching a screen, in a position to know what they need to know to understand an event. Now, that’s not to excuse situations like the one just ruled on in Calgary- I made my view on that clear. But that’s because an investigation and a determination of the facts, with the law applied, has already happened. If police officers faced suspension merely on the strength of untested allegations, you would very quickly see wholesale flight from doing the shitty, physical work that sometimes comes with the job. The overwhelming majority of police use of force happens in good faith, out of necessity, and in accordance with the law. Mechanisms exist to investigate complaints, and independent review agencies are certainly not reluctant to recommend criminal charges if they think they’re warranted. The batting average of those agencies isn’t stellar, and they will err on the side of over-charging (or over-recommending charges) against police, as exhibited by the frequency of acquittals.

A presumption of good faith and of innocence is necessary for the job to get done. Weakening those protections in the face of not-yet-substantiated allegations would bring considerable risks to public safety. A key difference between your profession and mine is that you don’t have reasonably significant portions of the population metaphorically gunning for you, or trying to weapon use your professional disciplinary or complaints processes against you. We do. There are people who will absolutely lie and fabricate if they think it might mean some ‘fucking pig’ misses his mortgage payment and can’t pay for his kids’ hockey.

There is definitely some fine tuning to be done, but as a whole, the mechanisms by which police are held accountable are generally reasonably well balanced and constructed, in the context of the larger purpose they need to serve. That said, although Police Services Act charges, or their various provincial equivalents, are professional disciplinary charges, I’d be open to there being options to allow meaningful consequences to follow
someone who quits to avoid discipline.

 

[QV]

I’m aware of a Canadian police service where dismissal for misconduct, or conviction for an indictable offense committed while serving, can result in a loss of pension benefits and only a return of contributions. And it has happened.

This is usually the case because the employee is not eligible for an immediate annuity at the time of dismissal and therefore a return of contributions is the only option. For the CAF "you'll lose your pension" really means you'll be kicked out before eligible.

Maybe somewhere some employer has that written into the pension terms, but that would seem unnecessarily punitive.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The 'income insurance' angle is interesting but, as you say, most everything revolves around the Collective Agreement. If the reason for the suspension was ultimately found to be justified, do you have to pay the money back and the employer retros your pay?

It depends on what it is. If it turns out it was a conduct deficiency, you will have to pay the money back.

If it was a performance deficiency, you will not have to pay the money back. Our Insurance was started by fellow railroaders, for fellow railroaders.

Eligibility & Exclusions - Brotherhood's Relief And Compensation Fund

www.brcf.org

One problem, even with non-criminal discipline matters, is that the process can drag out for years. In years gone by, discipline matters were dealt with fairly quickly, often with a parade before the boss, being yelled at with extremely prejudice then moving on. Transfers were also on the list of options.

There is an amendment for Ontario Police Services Act that would allow for suspensions w/o pay under certain circumstances but it has not yet been enacted. It seems law enforcement is always caught between 'just like everybody else' and 'held to a higher standard'.

Same with ours. Investigations can take year(s) in some cases on the railroad.

I’m not convinced that human interactions in the course of policing duties can be easily or accurately analogized to parking a train full of dangerous goods. Without minimizing the very real risks and hazards of your profession’s work environment, ours is distinct and different in many ways. If we had the control and predictability of literal rails to guide everything, many aspects of our job would be much less prone to things going wildly wrong. A train is a train, answerable to the laws of physics. In our world, the other guy always gets a vote, and sometimes will exercise that franchise dangerously and stupidly.

That's a misconception. Come out and work as a switchman for an afternoon and see how predictable everything is, particularly in adverse weather conditions, with multiple trains and other crews working simultaneously. Add in people walking around the tracks, not following rules, breaking laws, etc.

The human factor is what causes 99% of incidents on the railway, just like in Policing. People are stupid, some railroad workers are also bad at their jobs, just like some police are bad at their jobs. They should be held accountable for poor performance.

This wreaks of the Thin Blue Line "you don't know how hard our job is". In other words, it sounds like an excuse.

Your job is hard and you're compensated well for it, better than most in fact. I'm also compensated very well for my job (which surprises people when they find out how much it is). With high levels of compensation comes high expectations.

When expectations are not met, there should be real consequences for that. I'd like to believe there are consequences for Police Officers not meeting expectations but given some recent cases, I remain unconvinced that is the case:

Like these two clowns:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/nathan-parker-shane-donovan-niagara-police-shot-perjury-1.6653905

https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/longform/police-oversight-nathan-parker-allegations

 

[mariomike]

Misconduct implies something different in my mind. It encompasses really any of the following:

• Drugs & Alcohol

Is that the one they called "Rule G"? I overheard a lot of conversations about that.

The municipal dept. I worked for got sued. A lot.

The collective agreement went into detail about "Legal Expenses".

The City also paid for, "MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LIABILITY INSURANCE" through its Insurance and Risk Management (IRM) Section.

If you were "charged with an offence under The Criminal Code, The Highway Traffic Act or other Statute(s) or is charged or has a complaint laid against them which may result in discipline by their professional regulating organization arising out of an act done in the performance of their duties" - I never heard of anyone being suspended without pay - unless they were in jail.

For sure they wouldn't be sent into anyone's homes.
If they liked you, they would find you clean, warm, inside office work with no heavy lifting.
If they didn't, you might find yourself literaly shoveling sh^t while waiting for your case to be decided - one way, or the other.

Transfers were also on the list of options.

Next to getting kicked out, worst they could do was transfer you to Scarborough.

I would hope we never get to the point where an employer can withhold pension entitlements like they can in the US under some circumstances.

I've been an OMERS member for 50 years. It does not include OPP. But, does include all ( I believe ) municipal police, firefighters and paramedics in Ontario.

If you get fired, this is how OMERS handles your pension.

Employment Changes: Understanding Your Options and Changes in Employment | OMERS Members | myOMERS

Gain insights on the options available for your OMERS pension plan when you leave an OMERS employer. Learn about early retirement, commuted value, combining OMERS pensions, transferring benefits, and more.

www.omers.com

 

[Halifax Tar]

If you're caught on video knocking a guy out of wheel chair and then giving him the boots, you should lose your job and pay as a LEO.

LEOs should want these guys and gals gone as they don't do your profession any justice.

 

[brihard]

This is usually the case because the employee is not eligible for an immediate annuity at the time of dismissal and therefore a return of contributions is the only option. For the CAF "you'll lose your pension" really means you'll be kicked out before eligible.

Maybe somewhere some employer has that written into the pension terms, but that would seem unnecessarily punitive.

Understood, but in the instance I’m talking about, that’s not the case. At least one service (RCMP) can yank your pension and return your contributions even if you could retire already with an immediate annuity. A Mountie could be in their thirty sixth year of service and sixty five years old, and if dismissed for misconduct (internal- not crim code) could lose their pension.

A Mountie who is convicted of an indictable criminal offence even after retirement can, if they committed the offence which still serving, lose their pension benefits if the criminal act is deemed to have constituted misconduct had they not left the RCMP.

I don’t know how often these provisions have been used, but it definitely does happen.

 

[brihard]

If you're caught on video knocking a guy out of wheel chair and then giving him the boots, you should lose your job and pay as a LEO.

LEOs should want these guys and gals gone as they don't do your profession any justice.

Agreed. Bear in mind that criminal courts rule on criminal matters. They cannot dictate employment consequences. Calgary Police will have a disciplinary process separate from (and usually subsequent to) criminal proceedings. Police disciplinary matters will normally stay paused pending a criminal prosecution so as not to muck up the latter.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

If you're caught on video knocking a guy out of wheel chair and then giving him the boots, you should lose your job and pay as a LEO.

LEOs should want these guys and gals gone as they don't do your profession any justice.

One thing that really bugs me about Police Unions is they don't seem to self-police each other. At least, that's the appearance they give off.

My Union self-polices its membership. We fought hard for the things we do have in our CBA and if you're a shit pump, we generally don't want you working with us.

For one, I don't want to be working around heavy equipment with you, especially when any accident with heavy equipment usually results in death and/or dismemberment.

We also follow a practice of "the entire crew goes down together with the ship". If an incident happens, the entire crew goes down for it.

So that Officer that stood by watching Officer Plummer commit a bunch of criminal acts and did nothing, yah, you're gone as well!

Makes people get with the program real quick! Nothing worse than a bunch of bystanders who should know better. Like those 15 dumbasses from CPS who showed up to Plummer's trial in uniform no less to congratulate him.

Congrats buddy, you got found guilty, well done! Great look for Calgary's finest.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Agreed. Bear in mind that criminal courts rule on criminal matters. They cannot dictate employment consequences. Calgary Police will have a disciplinary process separate from (and usually subsequent to) criminal proceedings. Police disciplinary matters will normally stay paused pending a criminal prosecution so as not to muck up the latter.

Police forces need to be better in addressing this. Fighting delaying actions with unions and such is only hurting the profession.

Catching these acts on Camera is pretty damning. But hey its not my profession. They are free to run it into the ground as they see fit.

 

[mariomike]

I’m not convinced that human interactions in the course of policing duties can be easily or accurately analogized to parking a train full of dangerous goods. Without minimizing the very real risks and hazards of your profession’s work environment, ours is distinct and different in many ways. If we had the control and predictability of literal rails to guide everything, many aspects of our job would be much less prone to things going wildly wrong. A train is a train, answerable to the laws of physics. In our world, the other guy always gets a vote, and sometimes will exercise that franchise dangerously and stupidly.

Public Safety Canada put it this way,

Public Safety Officers (PSO), such as firefighters, police, and paramedics, are personnel that provide immediate response to crises, putting their own safety at risk to aid the public and maintain public safety and security.

Compensation benefits for PSOs are important not only for the welfare of the emergency response provider and their family, but also to encourage recruitment and sustain existing emergency response services.

Death or permanent disability can occur for PSOs on or off duty

Research Summary: Compensation for Public Safety Officers in Canada: A Brief Overview

The objective of this project was to: 1) Identify what existing federal, provincial/territorial, and municipal compensation plans pay to PSOs for a) death; b) “permanent disability” and what is meant by “permanent disability”; 2) Identify when death and permanent disability are paid out in the...

www.publicsafety.gc.ca

 

[Good2Golf]

Time for him to find a new line of work, IMO.

Tow truck operator?

 

[brihard]

Police forces need to be better in addressing this. Fighting delaying actions with unions and such is only hurting the profession.

FWIW, within my organization, and in my time as a union rep, I didn’t see the union delaying misconduct matters. On the contrary, conduct files often dragged well beyond what they should because the senior officers sitting as conduct adjudicators also have other executive functions and would let conduct files sit on their desk while members languish on suspension. We would often be trying to push for updates and forward progress. The role of the union in the ones I saw was representing the member in ensuring due process, and assisting the member in providing factual, contextual, and, at times, motivators submissions. For serious enough cases, where employment is at risk, the union will provide legal coverage to ensure the member has adequate and fair registration. But I have not seen my organization’s union do anything with the intent of delaying matters. The service is slow enough on its own and doesn’t need the help. It’s frustrating because if allegations are not substantiated, it can mean a member was hung out to dry for a long time, with significant career and financial consequences for something they didn’t even do wrong.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Public Safety Canada put it this way,

Research Summary: Compensation for Public Safety Officers in Canada: A Brief Overview

The objective of this project was to: 1) Identify what existing federal, provincial/territorial, and municipal compensation plans pay to PSOs for a) death; b) “permanent disability” and what is meant by “permanent disability”; 2) Identify when death and permanent disability are paid out in the...

www.publicsafety.gc.ca

Paramedics get a raw deal in terms of compensation IMO, as do all Healthcare professionals.

Compensation & Benefits for Police are high though, nobody here is arguing it shouldn't be.

We are saying that they need more accountability though. The lack of accountability is what's contributing to the loss of respect for the profession.

 

[Halifax Tar]

FWIW, within my organization, and in my time as a union rep, I didn’t see the union delaying misconduct matters. On the contrary, conduct files often dragged well beyond what they should because the senior officers sitting as conduct adjudicators also have other executive functions and would let conduct files sit on their desk while members languish on suspension. We would often be trying to push for updates and forward progress. The role of the union in the ones I saw was representing the member in ensuring due process, and assisting the member in providing factual, contextual, and, at times, motivators submissions. For serious enough cases, where employment is at risk, the union will provide legal coverage to ensure the member has adequate and fair registration. But I have not seen my organization’s union do anything with the intent of delaying matters. The service is slow enough on its own and doesn’t need the help. It’s frustrating because if allegations are not substantiated, it can mean a member was hung out to dry for a long time, with significant career and financial consequences for something they didn’t even do wrong.

I'm all for investigations and due course. But video evidence is pretty damning.

Much like the CAF what's needed is a speedy way to offload the dead weight and walking liabilities.

 

[brihard]

I'm all for investigations and due course. But video evidence is pretty damning.

Much like the CAF what's needed a speedy to offload the dead weight and walking liabilities.

Video evidence shows some (not all) of WHAT happened. It will seldom suffice to tell you why, and that matters.

It’s easy to take a case of a cop tipping a wheelchair and kicking someone in the face, and finding prima facile misconduct in it. Cause yeah, sometimes it’s absolutely there. Some police should not be on the job. Sometimes cases will be quite clear… But something that obvious will be rare. The potential threats and risks officers detect or perceive based on training, experience, and direct knowledge of a subject can only come out in an investigative process and in an officer’s articulation of what their legal grounds were to use force. That’s why you see such radically different outcomes between cases like Forcillo and Pompeo.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The knocking a guy off a wheelchair is just one case. It doesn't take a lot of searching on YouTube or google to find a plethora of examples.

Look I get it not ACAB, as stated elsewhere my personal biases towards LEOs has been changing from the good service I've received as of late from HRPD, but the public perception battle needs to be won by you guys. And right now you guys are losing. How you right that ship is up to you guys. All I know is I think getting rid of the dummies who are cops just to break skulls is a good first move.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Video evidence shows some (not all) of WHAT happened. It will seldom suffice to tell you why, and that matters.

It’s easy to take a case of a cop tipping a wheelchair and kicking someone in the face, and finding prima facile misconduct in it. Cause yeah, sometimes it’s absolutely there. Some police should not be on the job. Sometimes cases will be quite clear… But something that obvious will be rare. The potential threats and risks officers detect or perceive based on training, experience, and direct knowledge of a subject can only come out in an investigative process and in an officer’s articulation of what their legal grounds were to use force. That’s why you see such radically different outcomes between cases like Forcillo and Pompeo.

Just because you didn't ultimately commit a criminal act doesn't mean you shouldn't still lose your job.

Again, maybe you are just bad at your job? There should be consequences for being bad at your job. Especially when your poor performance leads to negative outcomes for others.