City of Laval responsible in shooting by ex-RCMP cop

[Neil]

It's a range hood.

That was impossible to tell from the picture.

[Grey Fox]

Eh, it's a trendy one.

[viper37]

English link:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/03/30/laval-shooting-survivors-win-lawsuit.html

And Viper - 'accountable' sounds great as a word, but how does that work out in this case.  This isn't where the police did something, and they screwed up doing it.  Here the allegation is the police could have done something to prevent this from happening.  That's pretty damn speculative IMHO.

I'd love to see a written decision, because I have trouble seeing how they establish liability on the police.

thanks for the english link   Easier to discuss with you that way

Ah, accountable, imho, for any public servant, is not when they tried to do something and made a genuine mistake.

It's rather the case of not doing anything when they should have.

In this case, had they filed the complaint, paid a visit to the guy, advised the RCMP of the threat, and the murder still happenned, I don't think they would have been liable for the tragedy, nor do I think they would have deserved it.

[Admiral Yi]

I thought it was a stainless steel domino gripper.

[DGuller]

I wonder what happened to the two dickheads who visited her house, and chose to protect one of their own rather than investigate the allegations.

[dps]

I agree that the police should have done more.  I have real trouble though with attaching liability however.  The police do have limited resources and can not fully investigate every complaint ever.  There has to be some level of prioritizing.

As I said, not the first fuck up from this police corps.

I understand they have limited resources, but really, if a women reports that her armed ex-boyfriend who's armed is threatening her, it shouldn't be dismissed like that.  They should have at least made a check on the guy, contact the RCMP, something.  Not doing nothing.  Had they contacted the RCMP, maybe they would have done nothing, but maybe it would have raised a flag as this was the second time he was threatening someone.

Besides, I'm all for the public servants to be accountable for their negligence.

Imagine if the police corps was a private company.
Would Neil & Dps think it was misapropriate to sue them for negligence?

Nah, sue away.  But the taxpayers shouldn't have to pony up for these cops being fuck-ups.  Want to hold them accountable?  That's fine--fire their asses, demote them, whatever--but don't make the taxpayers liable.

[Barrister]

Nah, sue away.  But the taxpayers shouldn't have to pony up for these cops being fuck-ups.  Want to hold them accountable?  That's fine--fire their asses, demote them, whatever--but don't make the taxpayers liable.

Who the hell would ever join the police under those rules?

[Jaron]

Police forces generally scrape the bottom of the Societal barrel anyways.

[ulmont]

Nah, sue away.  But the taxpayers shouldn't have to pony up for these cops being fuck-ups.  Want to hold them accountable?  That's fine--fire their asses, demote them, whatever--but don't make the taxpayers liable.

Who the hell would ever join the police under those rules?

*clap*  To restate:  "we should allow the police to fuck up, because fuckups are the only police we can hire."

[garbon]

Who the hell would ever join the police under those rules?

I'm not sure why people would want to join now.

[Martinus]

The problem is - people make threats, even death threats, all the fucking time.  It's often hard to get the courts to take uttering threats charges seriously as a result.

I agree that the police should have done more.  I have real trouble though with attaching liability however.  The police do have limited resources and can not fully investigate every complaint ever.  There has to be some level of prioritizing.

But that being said - it's cases like this are why I take a zero tolerance approach to domestics.  I don't drop charges, I don't agree to their bail.  Because if the shit hits the fan (which it will) I can show that I did everything that I could.  There was a case in BC two years ago where a fellow was charged with assaulting his wife, then breached his bail a couple of times, and the prosecutor agreed to release him.  He of course proceeded to murder/suicide the whole family, and that prosecutor's career was in tatters (despite doing nothing wrong).

I agree that the duty of care is more difficult to establish when it comes to inaction than when it comes to action, but I disagree that it is impossible or pointless to try to establish.

What we have here is a question whether the decision not to do anything about the threats was a reasonable (if, in retrospect, wrong) resource-dedication judgement, or a case of laziness, or worse yet, protecting one's own by the police.

[dps]

Nah, sue away.  But the taxpayers shouldn't have to pony up for these cops being fuck-ups.  Want to hold them accountable?  That's fine--fire their asses, demote them, whatever--but don't make the taxpayers liable.

Who the hell would ever join the police under those rules?

Uh, most of us can get fired from our jobs if we screw up badly enough.  Why should that be any different for police officers?

[Grey Fox]

Nah, sue away.  But the taxpayers shouldn't have to pony up for these cops being fuck-ups.  Want to hold them accountable?  That's fine--fire their asses, demote them, whatever--but don't make the taxpayers liable.

Who the hell would ever join the police under those rules?

Uh, most of us can get fired from our jobs if we screw up badly enough.  Why should that be any different for police officers?

Same reason that it's actually not true for a lot of us...Unions.

[Barrister]

Nah, sue away.  But the taxpayers shouldn't have to pony up for these cops being fuck-ups.  Want to hold them accountable?  That's fine--fire their asses, demote them, whatever--but don't make the taxpayers liable.

Who the hell would ever join the police under those rules?

Uh, most of us can get fired from our jobs if we screw up badly enough.  Why should that be any different for police officers?

Of course police (like anyone else) should be fired if they fuck up.  That's not the issue.

The issue is that if you make a mistake in your job you suddenly aren't on the hook for the cost of that mistake.  If you screw up badly enough you'll be fired, but you don't have to make up the cost.

That's the case for every job.  Short of absolute malfeasance (deliberate bad acts) the employer is responsible for any mistakes.

Why on earth would you make policing different?  In most jobs ifyou make a mistake you might cost your employer some money.  But police will have to make decisions based on very little information that can potentially cost a lot more than that.

I was just dealing with a file where the police, at 5am in a remote community, made a decision that in retrospect that cost someone's house to burn down.  With hindsight it was a terrible decision.  But at the time, with the limited facts that officer knew?  I can see where he was coming from.

[dps]

Nah, sue away.  But the taxpayers shouldn't have to pony up for these cops being fuck-ups.  Want to hold them accountable?  That's fine--fire their asses, demote them, whatever--but don't make the taxpayers liable.

Who the hell would ever join the police under those rules?

Uh, most of us can get fired from our jobs if we screw up badly enough.  Why should that be any different for police officers?

Of course police (like anyone else) should be fired if they fuck up.  That's not the issue.

The issue is that if you make a mistake in your job you suddenly aren't on the hook for the cost of that mistake.  If you screw up badly enough you'll be fired, but you don't have to make up the cost.

That's the case for every job.  Short of absolute malfeasance (deliberate bad acts) the employer is responsible for any mistakes.

Why on earth would you make policing different?  In most jobs ifyou make a mistake you might cost your employer some money.  But police will have to make decisions based on very little information that can potentially cost a lot more than that.

I was just dealing with a file where the police, at 5am in a remote community, made a decision that in retrospect that cost someone's house to burn down.  With hindsight it was a terrible decision.  But at the time, with the limited facts that officer knew?  I can see where he was coming from.

WTF are you talking about?  Where did I say that police officers should have to make up the financial cost of any errors that they make?  I agreed with Neil that suits against the police for errors in judgement is a bad thing (and later explained my reasoning--that the taxpayers generally shouldn't be liable--which might not match his, since he never explained his unless I missed it).  I  also later stated that I have no problem with people suing private security firms for in similar circumstances.  And finally I stated that police officers should be held accountable for their actions, and be subject to the same potential types of discipline that any other employee would be subject to from their employers--firing, demotion, etc.  Nowhere did I say sue the individual police officers.