So Let Me Get This Straight………
…… an off duty RCMP officer has a collision with a motorcycle that kills the rider…. off duty RCMP officer leaves the scene with a dead or dying biker on the side of the road, says he had a couple of drinks before coming back later to see what’s going on, and
Following a detailed analysis of the results of a comprehensive police investigation, the Criminal Justice Branch has concluded that no Criminal Code driving-related charged will be laid…..
That’s a totally believable story isn’t it…. why I’m sure that any one of us could kill someone with their vehicle, leave some guy either dead or dying on the side of the road, toddle off home or to a bar, knock back a couple of quick ones (just to stead our nerves of course), and then return to the accident with that as an explanation as to why we’ve got booze breath, and have that accepted by the Crown — it probably happens all the time…….
Ask not why the public, and especially guys like me who ride bikes, have zero faith in the police; the answer is summed up in the events I described above.
PS: Did you notice the part where, on top of it all, the poor misunderstood blighter had to suffer a suspension with pay?
Certainly a sad state of affairs.
I am sure that Dave Mason guy, the BC journalist, will on this case, he has on others.
I think his name is Dave.
We do not have to believe his story. All he needs is reasonable doubt.
@travis –
From my viewpoint, the doubt hardly seems to be reasonable
@travis: Is there also “reasonable doubt” that he left a dead or dying man on the side of the road when he left the scene of an accident to go have a couple of quick ones.
What is the proof that A) he was responsible for hitting the guy and B) that he even knew there was a dead guy there? How do we know that the guy was not already dead before he got there or that he did not identify that the man was dead and then go for drinks to calm his nerves at such a ghastly site.
I have not read anywhere that he confessed to A) being drunk while driving and B) being responsible for killing the guy. If he was smart he would have kept his mouth shut and waited for his lawyer. Which I bet is just what he did. A cop would definitely know not to talk to cops.
I’m just guessing here travis…. but you haven’t actually read the news article I linked have you? It’s either that or you have definite reading comprehension issues.
Here’s a suggestion, try actually reading it and then, if you have questions, come back and ask them.
Three times. I guess I cannot read. Fuck I am glad you are not a judge:),
@travis – It happens to the best of us…….
You now have reading comprehension problems. Where does it say that he confessed?
sigh ….. he does not dispute the crash happened, he admitted (IOW he confessed) to leaving the scene of the accident, and he admitted (IOW he confessed) that he did so to go have a couple of drinks before returning.
– I know, I know, the CBC really shouldn’t put pictures in with the words, it sometimes confuses folks…..
Ah alas I can not find the sentence where he says “yes I hit the motorcyclist and fled.” He admits to fleeing but nowhere does it say “Yes I hit the Guy then I fled.” Look what you need to explain is why the crown would come to the following conclusion:
“Following a detailed analysis of the results of a comprehensive police investigation, the Criminal Justice Branch has concluded that no Criminal Code driving-related charged will be laid…..”
What you are arguing is that a conspiracy transpired on the part of the AG and the Crown (because delta police tried to lay the charges). What I am saying is that save for a confession of the type “I drank, I drove, I hit the Guy, I killed the guy, then I fled to subvert justice and then returned to the scene” the evidence is not beyond a reasonable doubt (I have no doubts the man is guilty but that is not how it works).
So stop being a jerk and just think a little bit. Circumstantial proof is not sufficient. Why do you think lawyers tell their clients not to talk to the police????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Still here?
“he admitted (IOW he confessed) to leaving the scene of the accident, and he admitted (IOW he confessed) that he did so to go have a couple of drinks before returning.”
Yes He admitted to fleeing the scene of accident that does does mean that he admitted to causing the accident (get the difference?) . Yes he admitted to having some drinks before returning. That is how he gets RD on the DUI should it come up.
I responded to your query over at Dawgs
What I am saying is that in my opinion they protect their own, from top to bottom.
So I’m gonna suggest that you quit being a jerk and further suggest that you employ the services of Comrade Google in respect to this story – there is no dispute that Robinson was the driver of the vehicle that hit the motorcycle, killed its’ rider, and left the scene to go have a couple of quick ones.
@travis –
Sorry Travis, you lose this duel.
That is great but not the links you provided. The story in the press is vague what did the witnesses see? The accident or him flee? Let us be serious here the cops who attended charged the man as you would have liked even the courts upheld it. It is on the appeal they quit. Why? Answer the fucking question. Do you know anything about criminal and just how hard it is to get a conviction. FTLOG even if we agree that the police as private citizens do not get privileged we do not need to concede that as police they get a pass.
The confusion here undermines the truth.
Sorry Travis, Canuckguy is right. SL wins this one.
@travis –
Travis, you give the impression that you would be the type of lawyer (if you were one)who would be boastful of your lawyering skills proud of getting murderers and other criminals off on technical reasons. Never mind if you even knew, as their lawyer, that they were guilty anyway. Am I right or am I right? There are lawyers just like that.
@travis: The news article is only vague if you want it to be travis – for the rest of us it’s all pretty clear.
If I don’t are you gonna hold your breath until you turn blue?
From the “on the outside of the badge” perspective of an average citizen and long time biker who has had his run-ins with the police at political demos and on the road I have what I believe to be the answer to your questions – I’ve given them to you, you don’t like them, and quote frankly you haven’t done such a good job of putting your case forward to refute any of it.
The old “leave the scene and claim you had a few drinks before your return” trick. A retired RCMP officer friend of mine explained that one to me 30 years ago. Must be a part of basic training.
“Travis, you give the impression that you would be the type of lawyer (if you were one)who would be boastful of your lawyering skills proud of getting murderers and other criminals off on technical reasons. Never mind if you even knew, as their lawyer, that they were guilty anyway. Am I right or am I right? There are lawyers just like that.”
WTF. What universe is this. In an adversarial system if I were a criminal defence lawyer of course I would use all my abilities to stave-off a conviction. And if I did not I would be disbarred. But all of that is besides the point. I am not a lawyer let alone a criminal defence lawyer and choose to be neither for good reason.
I have no doubt the man was guilty. The attending officers believed enough to charge him as such, initially the Crown said yes let us go for it (despite probably knowing he would prevail). The court actually convicted, then when he appealed the AG changed its charge to obstruction. What I was trying to explain is why they may have done that. It also matters here that obstruction of justice is a HIGHER charge than fleeing (if you know DUI causing death will not stick and fleeing is equally dubious given the actions of the accused to thwart the path of justice).
“I’ve given them to you, you don’t like them, and quote frankly you haven’t done such a good job of putting your case forward to refute any of it.”
Look when it comes to cops as cops I agree with you. I want not more but total civilian oversight and I think that the police when acting as police should actually be held to a higher standard than civilians given what their job involves.
Where I disagree with you is over whether the MAN is protecting this man. Obstruction is a serious criminal charge. I read the fact that the AG decided to go with obstruction as a sign that they decided not to abandon his prosecution but rather to find a charge that would be more appeal proof. The real crime here is that this guy and the RCMP should have been charged with the murder of the poor chap at the airport. The real conspiracy to my mind, given conversations I have had with Crowns would be if they let him appeal without charging him with obstruction knowing full well that given the fact pattern the crown would likely loose on the DUI causing death. The dropping of the charges is a way to prosecute on a different charge with a different fact pattern: one more favourable to the crown.
It is frustrating to be basically on the same political page and have this kind of acrimony.