Sure. It just seems very dated and rather on the low end for what normally gets discussed here. I suspect if this officer were not in the news for the Belleville shooting this wouldn’t have merited mention; I’m curious therefore what your motivation is in this particular post. His past actions in no way detract from his heroism during the attack.
Police Folk Allegedly Behaving Badly
- Thread starter Bruce Monkhouse
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 43,829
- Points
- 1,210
I think we agree more than we disagree.
That a 2019 incident is only being addressed now speaks to an oft bemoaned topic hear, the lengthy delays in police discipline.
This would also not be appropriate to discuss in the main thread covering his remarkable work in taking down the shooter outside the Belleville synagogue.
But with fame and attention comes interest in someone's past. A Toronto lawyer who ran for Parliament got more attention as a NHL Hall of Fame Goaltender than he did on his platform as a candidate.
But I think we begin to disagree on what constitutes "low end". To me, a teenager swiping a bottle of Gatorade from a Lowe's would be low end.
In the case in question, the victim was assaulted, the Crown suggested he was "choked out" by the two officers charged, suffered a broken rib and a broken finger in a Taco Bell after he showed his $33 receipt to the officer and declined to go with the officer - on the allegation that he had accompanied a friend and their teenaged son to a Lowes where that son had allegedly stolen a bottle of Gatorade.
His unlawful arrest and resultant injuries were based on him being an alleged accomplice to an alleged Gatorade thief.
That is suggestive of rather egregious overreach, and not a minor issue.
That a 2019 incident is only being addressed now speaks to an oft bemoaned topic hear, the lengthy delays in police discipline.
This would also not be appropriate to discuss in the main thread covering his remarkable work in taking down the shooter outside the Belleville synagogue.
But with fame and attention comes interest in someone's past. A Toronto lawyer who ran for Parliament got more attention as a NHL Hall of Fame Goaltender than he did on his platform as a candidate.
But I think we begin to disagree on what constitutes "low end". To me, a teenager swiping a bottle of Gatorade from a Lowe's would be low end.
In the case in question, the victim was assaulted, the Crown suggested he was "choked out" by the two officers charged, suffered a broken rib and a broken finger in a Taco Bell after he showed his $33 receipt to the officer and declined to go with the officer - on the allegation that he had accompanied a friend and their teenaged son to a Lowes where that son had allegedly stolen a bottle of Gatorade.
His unlawful arrest and resultant injuries were based on him being an alleged accomplice to an alleged Gatorade thief.
That is suggestive of rather egregious overreach, and not a minor issue.
Haggis
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 4,621
- Points
- 1,140
The hearing was scheduled for five days ago and there are no updates on the web page. This may not be concluded.
I take it your understanding of the course of events comes from reading stories but not the actual decision? This one had a lot more nuance than the way you write it suggests.
In a nutshell- a separate off duty officer (Fyke, who was co-accused and acquitted) was in Lowe’s, overheard staff talking about a theft of a drink that they believed had just happened, and he spoke with the staff. He formed a belief (which the trial found to be insufficiently grounded) that all three individuals were parties to a theft. He followed them outside, co to Jed to observe, and followed them to the Taco Bell where the eventual arrest happened. On the way he called dispatch, and on duty officers attended. The on duty officers, including Smith, spoke with Fyke, took his account at face value, went inside and proceeded to arrest all three, while Fyke, still off duty, stayed outside. The first two went cooperatively, and two of the three officers left with two of the three suspects leading Smith inside with the victim. The victim did not cooperate with Smith’s arrest, leading to the use of force. Fyke, looking in from outside, ran inside, formed the belief that the victim was resisting a lawful arrest (that he had effectively directed) and he joined in to assist Smith. In an odd twist, the judge found that Fyke at that point was reasonable in believing Smith was lawfully arresting the victim, and Smith was therefore authorized to use force to assist.
So- Fyke got out over his skis, and told the three on duty officers that there were grounds to arrest the three for theft. The three on duty officers took the off duty witness officer at face value; that’s difficult to fault- in fact I remember you and I having a conversation earlier in the year about when I witnessed a distraction theft off duty, called it in, and responding officers located and arrested suspects nearby based on my description. You had kind things to say. There have been several other times where I’ve witnessed a crime off duty, and responding officers have made a lawful arrest based on my observations, with charges and convictions resulting. We do the same thing based on civilian reports all the time. So it’s not weird that responding officers took that at face value and acted accordingly.
The court found that Fyke’s assessment was subjectively reasonable, but not objectively reasonable. That made the belief of the on duty officers that an offence had been committed unreasonable and therefore the arrest unlawful. That meant Smith could not rely on the s. 25 authority to use force in the lawful execution of duties. Smith was consequently convicted of assault based on his use of force in that arrest- effectively, because he believed Fyke and trusted his judgment. This could easily happen to any officer making an arrest based on what another officers tells them happened.
The court specifically did not find that Smith caused any injuries, and it did not find that the victim was choked out. The broken rib was not attributed to police use of force; the judge found that paramedics didn’t locate that injury; in might have happened in the course of the victim being given Heimlichs or chest compressions after he was found to be probably choking.
The sentencing decision at paras 41-42 is also very informative: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc3808/2024onsc3808.html
“[41] This also goes to Mr. Smith’s moral blameworthiness. He honestly believed he had grounds to arrest Mr. Baptiste. He was relying on the stated grounds of a colleague who had more experience than him. There was also another more senior officer present who did not take any issue with the arrest; indeed, she participated in it.
[42] In my decision, I recounted the evidence of Mr. Smith and Constable McAuley about what was said to Mr. Baptiste about the police investigation before the formal arrest was initiated. The arrest itself was unlawful because the necessary objective grounds were absent, but Mr. Smith was acting in good faith. He proceeded with the arrest in graduated steps – explaining his grounds to Mr. Baptiste; asking for his cooperation; when it was not forthcoming, placing his hands on Mr. Baptiste; and it was only when Mr. Baptiste became actively resistant, that more force was used by him. Mr. Smith was not acting out of anger or due to a loss of control. His objective was, I find, to complete the arrest without injuring or otherwise harming Mr. Baptiste. And, to repeat, had I found that s. 25 applied to his use of force that night, it was not disproportionate, unreasonable or excessive.”
So, some food for thought with regards to how we might characterize constable Smith’s conduct leading to his conviction. It’s tough to read the trial decision and think there’s no way that could happen to me. I’ve definitely relied and acted upon what other officers have told me on numerous occasions.
- Reaction score
- 43,829
- Points
- 1,210
Cst Fyke's testimony was "[47] ... He thought that some of their actions were suspicious, but he did not see any of them steal anything."
Arresting three people for the alleged theft of a single drink would appear to be significant overreach on the party of Belleville Police, though. Is the theft of an item that retail for under $2 justification for such an action? "[70] ... Constable Smith believed that he had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest all three for theft of the drink."
[71] In cross-examination, he agreed that Constable Fyke did not specifically state that he had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest nor did he use the phrase “reasonable grounds”. However, Constable Smith claimed that, shortly before entering the Taco Bell, he said to Constable Fyke “So, at a minimum we have theft of the drink, maybe more”, and Constable Fyke replied “Yes”.
[72] He agreed that Constable Fyke did not tell him that Mr. Baptiste took the drink, consumed it, or discarded it. However, because all three were together when the theft happened, Constable Smith considered Mr. Baptiste to be a party to the offence. He explained that if two or more people are believed to be involved in a theft, their exact roles may not be known but they can be arrested and investigated for it.
Was their response proportionate to what they had seen? Was it proportionate to what they were told? Is the alleged theft of a $2 bottle of energy drink sufficient grounds to call in multiple units to arrest three people?
Arresting three people for the alleged theft of a single drink would appear to be significant overreach on the party of Belleville Police, though. Is the theft of an item that retail for under $2 justification for such an action? "[70] ... Constable Smith believed that he had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest all three for theft of the drink."
[71] In cross-examination, he agreed that Constable Fyke did not specifically state that he had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest nor did he use the phrase “reasonable grounds”. However, Constable Smith claimed that, shortly before entering the Taco Bell, he said to Constable Fyke “So, at a minimum we have theft of the drink, maybe more”, and Constable Fyke replied “Yes”.
[72] He agreed that Constable Fyke did not tell him that Mr. Baptiste took the drink, consumed it, or discarded it. However, because all three were together when the theft happened, Constable Smith considered Mr. Baptiste to be a party to the offence. He explained that if two or more people are believed to be involved in a theft, their exact roles may not be known but they can be arrested and investigated for it.
Was their response proportionate to what they had seen? Was it proportionate to what they were told? Is the alleged theft of a $2 bottle of energy drink sufficient grounds to call in multiple units to arrest three people?
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 48,989
- Points
- 1,160
Sigh...
A year before the charges against Todd Joseph Irving in connection with the 1988 death of Byron Carr were withdrawn, details of the police investigation — including how hundreds of DNA samples were obtained, some without consent — were heard in a Charlottetown courtroom.
Carr, a 36-year-old high school teacher, was found dead in his home in 1988. He’d been strangled with a towel, then stabbed with a knife after his death. The words “I will kill again” were scrawled on the wall.
The case went cold until 2024 when police announced that Irving had been arrested and charged with first-degree murder and interfering with human remains. Those charges were withdrawn after it was revealed that Charlottetown police lost substantial key evidence in the case, including the towel and knife and — according to court documents — the drywall taken from Carr's bedroom where the words "I will kill again" were written.
Police collected hundreds of DNA samples, some without consent, in search for Byron Carr’s killer
Collecting items abandoned in trash for comparative DNA is constitutionally sound, court rules
A year before the charges against Todd Joseph Irving in connection with the 1988 death of Byron Carr were withdrawn, details of the police investigation — including how hundreds of DNA samples were obtained, some without consent — were heard in a Charlottetown courtroom.
Carr, a 36-year-old high school teacher, was found dead in his home in 1988. He’d been strangled with a towel, then stabbed with a knife after his death. The words “I will kill again” were scrawled on the wall.
The case went cold until 2024 when police announced that Irving had been arrested and charged with first-degree murder and interfering with human remains. Those charges were withdrawn after it was revealed that Charlottetown police lost substantial key evidence in the case, including the towel and knife and — according to court documents — the drywall taken from Carr's bedroom where the words "I will kill again" were written.
Similar threads
