“Cop Suspended With Pay, Hta 172”

hwybear wrote:We are trained from day one at OPC in PVO (police vehicle operations). Multi tasking is pretty much the whole course. Maintaining control of the car (skids, braking, turning, speeds), rules of the road, radio, lights, etc.

Once a recruit comes out, they are then placed with a coach officer for further in depth multi-tasking issues radio, phones, computers, radar, observation skills, etc..

Now I know, and knowing is half the battle.

admin wrote:If he is found guilty, couldn't the victims of his falsified evidence sue the government or police force for compensation??

I'm going to say yes. They could sue for malicious prosecution. I think the Sergeant himself would probably be on the hook for some of it. Stay tuned, I guess. I know if I had my car seized under those circumstances I would be recruiting the most monstrous, spiteful civil lawsuit attorney in Canada.

Radar Identified wrote: I would be recruiting the most monstrous, spiteful civil lawsuit attorney in Canada.

So much for Jim "The Hammer" Shapiro

the hammer?

weird

Cheers

Viper17

Radar Identified wrote:

I'm going to say yes. They could sue for malicious prosecution. I think the Sergeant himself would probably be on the hook for some of it.

I'm not sure about the officer ever paying a dime. Ontario labour law would come into effect. I think it says something like... an employee cannot be charged (monetary, not criminal) for a mistake they made on the job. Let's say I'm a dishwasher and I drop a load of plates. My boss tries to deduct the cost of the broken dishes from my pay, so I file a complaint with the labour board and they have my money returned to me. A similar case was covered in the Toronto Star with a downtown eatery called Joe Badali's.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are laws protecting police officers from civil suits based on decisions they made on the job. When you think about it, there would have to be given the litigious society we live in. Victims will have to sue the crown so us tax payers can cover the costs of this Sergeant's mistakes. We have deeper pockets anyway

pinch wrote:My boss tries to deduct the cost of the broken dishes from my pay, so I file a complaint with the labour board and they have my money returned to me. A similar case was covered in the Toronto Star with a downtown eatery called Joe Badali's.

I believe that's employer-employee relations. What happened was entirely different - the Sergeant in question allegedly committed an offence against a member of the public, he didn't damage OPP goods or do something against the OPP. I'm not immune from being sued if I screw up and someone gets injured or killed just because I happen to be at work, and I don't think he would be either. Perhaps Ticketcombat could clarify this.

Radar Identified wrote: I'm not immune from being sued if I screw up and someone gets injured or killed just because I happen to be at work, and I don't think he would be either. Perhaps Ticketcombat could clarify this.

If you mess up, you won't be around to worry about it.

hwybear wrote:

Radar Identified wrote: I'm not immune from being sued if I screw up and someone gets injured or killed just because I happen to be at work, and I don't think he would be either. Perhaps Ticketcombat could clarify this.

If you mess up, you won't be around to worry about it.

Might be, flying to the Bahamas instead of Thunder Bay does have it's advantages........

Radar Identified wrote:

pinch wrote:My boss tries to deduct the cost of the broken dishes from my pay, so I file a complaint with the labour board and they have my money returned to me. A similar case was covered in the Toronto Star with a downtown eatery called Joe Badali's.

I believe that's employer-employee relations. What happened was entirely different - the Sergeant in question allegedly committed an offence against a member of the public, he didn't damage OPP goods or do something against the OPP. I'm not immune from being sued if I screw up and someone gets injured or killed just because I happen to be at work, and I don't think he would be either. Perhaps Ticketcombat could clarify this.

Speaker Al McLean's hanky panky in the Ontario Legislature was covered by Ontario taxpayers (though he paid back his portion due to extreme pressure from the party).

TTC driver kills pedestrian. The lawsuit will be against the TTC, not just the driver. The driver faces the penalty upon conviction but the legal costs are covered by the employer as he was driving their bus.

In another context, if the employee "removes" himself from the employment context then the union may end up paying for his defence. For example, TTC driver accused of sexual assault. The union pays for his defence. The TTC will end up paying the lawsuit as it occurred on their property.

reflections wrote:

hwybear wrote:

Radar Identified wrote: I'm not immune from being sued if I screw up and someone gets injured or killed just because I happen to be at work, and I don't think he would be either. Perhaps Ticketcombat could clarify this.

If you mess up, you won't be around to worry about it.

Might be, flying to the Bahamas instead of Thunder Bay does have it's advantages........

TC - thank you for clarifying.

hwybear wrote:If you mess up, you won't be around to worry about it.

If it's a really big mistake... Could happen. Example: Comair crash in Lexington, Kentucky a couple of years ago. First Officer was the only survivor and he, among others, got sued for negligence. That said, insurance would cover everything... probably even in the case of Sgt. Mahoney-Bruer if a lawsuit comes forward.

Reflections wrote:Might be, flying to the Bahamas instead of Thunder Bay does have it's advantages........

I gotta try that some time...

Or I could be like the Northwest Airlines crew that landed in Brussels when they thought they were landing in Frankfurt.

Radar Identified wrote:

Or I could be like the Northwest Airlines crew that landed in Brussels when they thought they were landing in Frankfurt.

Yeah, maybe their radar was not tested to an independant source such as a tuning fork

hwybear wrote:Yeah, maybe their radar was not tested to an independant source such as a tuning fork

I'm not letting go of the independent test issue that easily.

Besides, you bring up an interesting point. Almost everything in aviation requires independent testing or verification. Approach aids have self-monitoring systems but they're still flight-checked. There's two of us on the flight deck so if one of us goofs up the other can catch it. Weather radar has to be checked both with an internal and external test before we go into areas of significant weather. The weather radar manual states that the device must have an external (practical) test to be verified to be working correctly and must undergo periodic bench testing. With some severe consequences possible in Ontario for certain acts of speeding, why should a police radar device escape the same level of scrutiny?

how do you externally test a radar built into a plane? Have Bookm run around the tarmat with a pie plate strapped to his chest and a aluminum foil helmet? Now on a serious note, what would simulate a plane at all different angles around....(i don't know, just askin)

hwybear wrote:Have Bookm run around the tarmat with a pie plate strapped to his chest and a aluminum foil helmet?

hwybear wrote:how do you externally test a radar built into a plane?

Glad you asked. When we're safely clear of the apron/ramp area, during taxi we turn the radar on and point the nose (radar antenna is in the nose cone) at a distant object or set of buildings. If there is a rainshower in the area, even better; we tilt up the antenna and see if the rain shows up on our Multi-Function Display (MFD). Only takes a couple of seconds for the radar sweep to pick it up. We then check that the pattern on the MFD "jives" with what we see outside. So more of a practical test than anything.

En route, a lot of pilots keep the radar at a tilt setting where it's just picking up some "ground clutter" at the edge of the range. Clutter's pretty easy to distinguish, so this is basically an on-going test. I had one case where the internal self-check was showing that it was working, even en route, but the antenna had failed (that was one fun afternoon )... which is why I'm a bit skeptical of internal circuit tests proving that the device is working. As for Air Traffic Control radar, they've usually got multiple feeds from different radar sites, depending on the area. Not sure of all the tests they do for those, though.

Not saying that this is applicable to any outcome in court, but I think it's worthwhile mentioning.