No more uniforms in court

[lenaitch]

This is exactly why CAF members should be in uniform when they goto court.

Where there is smoke there is fire and the people who finally get caught very often have a laundry list of times they got away with shit.

Let the public see CAF members being held accountable. And if it's a senior ncm or officer with a history of this behavior let people start asking how they got to this point. Call out leaders that let subordinates get away with stuff time and time again. Ask why they were covered for for so long.

I actually have a bit of a problem with this type of statement. While it is often known to be true by pretty much every regular player in the criminal justice system, somebody standing in the dock is there facing whatever the state says they did, this time. Any weight of previous probably-got-away-with, likely-did-before or is-the-type of person-who is, to me, dangerous. If there is a provable history of similar acts, there is a legal way to get that into evidence or it may come out at sentencing.

Accountability is a wonderful thing, but in the civilian criminal justice system, the accountability for a domestic assault by a baker or a CAF member should be similar. Employer accountability by the CAF or baker's guilt may undoubtedly be diffferent.

 

[Remius]

Accountability is a wonderful thing, but in the civilian criminal justice system, the accountability for a domestic assault by a baker or a CAF member should be similar. Employer accountability by the CAF or baker's guilt may undoubtedly be diffferent.

True. But the news will always invariably highlight any link to the CAF as opposed to the baker who may only get a glancing mention about his type of employment. Now this isn’t unique to the CAF. LEOs, teachers, coaches etc will also have the same issues depending on the accusations levelled against them.

 

[mariomike]

I remember reading this in a book about an NYPD officer on trial, and the effect uniforms can have on a jury.

Becker rallied the support of his colleagues, and made a powerful entrance to his trial surrounded by a phalanx of policemen.
He was aquitted.
He learned about the power of the badge and how he could call upon his colleagues for help.

( Ironically, it didn't do him much good 19 years later when he was executed for murder by proxy, twice removed. )

 

[Kilted]

Oh, for an AO, sure- if their duties require civilian clothes, yeah, pay the casual allowance for whatever it’s called. Though I would hope that any assisting officer would have at least some sort of appropriate civilian clothing. It’s not like they’re going on the stand.


Court is invariably on weekdays, during normal duty hours for most CAF members. Last I checked, CAF gets to prescribe your order of dress. I’ve been out a couple of years but is that not still the case? In any event, why would you wear medals to your own criminal trial other than to try to influence the court or jury with shinies? CAF is fully in the right to prohibit this, as it looks like an accused leveraging military status for leniency.



Bloody right. Any of us on trial for alleged offences will not be wearing a police uniform to our trial. Testifying as a witness? Sure, might be in uniform, might be in a suit, usually depends on what our normal duties are that day before and after court. If I’m on a 0600-1800 shift on the road and I’m a trial witness at 10, I’m probably there in uniform. If my normal job is plainclothes, I’m likely there in that.

At the end of the day, why WOULD a CAF member be permitted to wear their uniform to civil court as the accused in a criminal trial? CAF absolutely has the right to prohibit that and to protect its image.

What ever happened to officers being expected to be gentlemen? They should already own a suit.

 

[brihard]

What ever happened to officers being expected to be gentlemen? They should already own a suit.

Sure, but CAF has policy that if you’re expected to wear civvies for duty, there’s an allowance for that. Nothing wrong with claiming it.

 

[Remius]

Sure, but CAF has policy that if you’re expected to wear civvies for duty, there’s an allowance for that. Nothing wrong with claiming it.

Agree.

And we seem to be making assumptions that those guys with 6 figure salaries haven’t already made good use of those claims.

 

[brihard]

Agree.

And we seem to be making assumptions that those guys with 6 figure salaries haven’t already made good use of those claims.

Oooh, is this the part where @dapaterson and @daftandbarmy treat us to a Statler and Waldorf routine on how senior officers dress in civvies?

 

[dimsum]

Oooh, is this the part where @dapaterson and @daftandbarmy treat us to a Statler and Waldorf routine on how senior officers dress in civvies?

But who is who?

 

[brihard]

But who is who?

Doesn’t matter. I trust them to deliver.

 

[dapaterson]

I have more hair...

And not just on my back.

 

[daftandbarmy]

But who is who?

I'm just old.

Dataperson is senior

 

[Brad Sallows]

True. But the news will always invariably highlight any link to the CAF as opposed to the baker who may only get a glancing mention about his type of employment. Now this isn’t unique to the CAF. LEOs, teachers, coaches etc will also have the same issues depending on the accusations levelled against them.

Concur. The media can be trusted to widely promulgate stories of members reflecting discredit on the CAF; the member doesn't have to show up in uniform in court to show that the CAF is dealing with something.