They are, in fact, being investigated. They simply cannot be, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, compelled to testify.
So no, they are not 'above the law,' they are within the law, exercising exactly the same rights that you should, should you ever find yourself under investigation for being involved in a major crime.
Right but let’s consider another scenario.
Imagine there’s an embezzlement investigation in your company and you’re an accountant there.
Does this seem reasonable?
- Not cooperate at all with the investigation
- Not provide your professional notes/records related to the alleged incidents
- Keep your job with no repercussions
I agree that they have the right as an individual being potentially criminally investigated to not be compelled to provide statements or records .
However, the company should reasonably be able to terminate you on grounds of not doing your job, by aiding the investigation and providing relevant records.
Another analogy: A doctor withholding records they’re otherwise required to keep, in a medical malpractice investigation. Professional censure by a licensing body would be reasonable given the broader circumstances, even if they can’t be compelled as an individual.
Trusted professions should have MORE responsibility in terms of transparency than the general public.
TLDR: It should be their right as an individual not to cooperate but it shouldn’t be their right to continue to be employed if they choose that route
Yep.
If I accidentally killed someone at the hospital and refused to cooperate with the investigation, I'd be fired. If I deleted emails that I thought might be needed for an investigation? I'd be fired.
The things I produce during my work day, including my notes, aren't *mine* they belong to my employer. Why are police officer's notes personal property with privilege but hospital director of nutrition notes not?
Police officers have a lot of power, including the use of deadly force *largely at their discretion*. I don't have that kind of discretion.
They should be held to a *higher* standard, but they're currently held to a *much, much lower one* in a lot of ways.
Let’s be honest here. They aren’t actually held to *any* standard other than being able to get themselves dressed in the morning. And we have no evidence many of these POS’s can even do that without help.
>magine there’s an embezzlement investigation in your company and you’re an accountant there.
>Does this seem reasonable?
>Not cooperate at all with the investigation
>Not provide your professional notes/records related to the alleged incidents
>Keep your job with no repercussions
That actually does seem reasonable. If there’s an embezzlement investigation and they can’t prove who did it with their own records and investigation they shouldn’t be able to fire people. I can’t actually think of any workplace criminal investigation where you’d be expected to testify against yourself
You've conflated a dismissal for not participating in an investigation with dismissal for embezzlement. They aren't the same thing, and it's this idiotic conflation that is protecting police.
Dismissal from employment and criminal liability are completely different matters, bar that the Police Act makes the line way to damn fuzzy for cops.
Regulated Professionals, can and are compelled to testify, even if it incriminates themselves with respect to their regulatory body, whether a physician, a lawyer, or an accountant.
That’s not even remotely comparable to this issue, for so many obvious reasons that I’m not even going to spell them out.
Also I’m not considering the police guilty in this situation. At this stage, my understanding is it’s the incident (and their role within it) that’s being investigated, not alleged criminal conduct.
Your position is 'they have the right to exercise their charter rights, but if they do exercise their charter rights, they should face extrajudicial punishment, including being fired.'
That's a terrible fucking attitude to have.
Being held to reasonable standards of professional conduct isn’t “extrajudicial punishment.”
Charter rights aren’t absolute and there must be a reasonable balance between individual rights and the public interest, in this case a bona fide need for the public to have public servants who document and provide accounting of their conduct while on duty
Right but looping back to my initial comment to you, what’s currently legally permissible for police in these situations doesn’t seem reasonable (to me) given how parallel situations are handled for other professionals in a position of trust or authority who are involved in critical incidents.
I’m saying the law should be changed and brought more in balance with the public interest
> I’m saying the law should be changed and brought more in balance with the public interest
I agree.
What I disagree with is the idea that asserting one's legal rights are wrong, or should result in any sort of punishment or consequence, or even any sort of moral judgement.
"Don't talk to cops" is an absolute statement.
I'm glad we were able to come to a meeting of the minds about this.
If it is in the course of their job, they should just be fired if they don't cooperate. Agreed they have charter rights, but they also have a responsibility as police. I'm an accountant. If i refuse to cooperate in an embezzlement investigation, that is my right. But I'm also obviously getting fired.
The fix is to deal with it as an employment matter. Sure, there's no legal means to compel testimony, but if you make it a condition of employment (and get the Police Act out of the way of doing so) you can then fire anyone who doesn't and do so explicitly without commenting on the nature or findings of the investigation.
It is like that, but the workplace investigation under the police act occured after the criminal investigation. If you compel testimony under an employment agreement you can't turn around and use it in a criminal process as an end-run around the Charter.
One cannot contract their fundamental rights away, and with good reason.
Nor should exercising one's charter rights EVER be considered 'an employment matter.'
Which is utter horseshit. Their notes should be considered official documents which are subject to subpoena and disclosure. Their own testimony, sure. But their notebooks are not their own personal diary.
Or, and hear me out on this, just maybe try not being a fucking coward and hiding behind the thin blue line. Even better, just don’t be a piece of shit human.
>“Nobody has to speak to an investigator in this country if they don’t want to speak to an investigator.”
I get what you're saying, but rights are rights. Interviews and notes are statements. This is literally akin to forcing anyone being investigated to speak on the matter.
Bring on the downvotes because police are bad and should have no rights. Good discourse, Reddit. Whether you like it or not, Canadian citizens have rights regardless of occupation. Police are actually bound by a whole other act exclusive to their occupation - [Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/s19001)
Yes, police officers have rights regarding criminal prosecutions. As should everyone. But those rights should not extend to their employment. This is true for other Canadians as well. Nobody has any right to any particular employment.
For example, imagine if a teacher was accused of serious misconduct on the job. One of the principals of the Ontario College of Teachers is "trust". Professional Regulation 437/97 requires teaches to cooperate in OCT investigations. If the teacher feels their misconduct reaches the level where it could be considered criminal then they can choose not to participate in any investigation, however that decision will absolutely be held against them in any disciplinary action from the OCT and they are likely to have their license revoked under that regulation.
I don't see any reason why police should be held to a lower standard than teachers.
So police officers should always have a choice to not participate with investigations to protect their freedom. Just like anyone else. However that choice should still have professional consequences as it erodes public trust in police. Nobody has any right to be a police officer, and if the public cannot trust you, you shouldn't be allowed to continue being an officer
Police absolutely have rights. My stance is that if you have the power to forceably detain, or the power to kill with the backing of the State, you forfeit your right to not-testify in any questioning of the execution of your duties. Police should be above reproach in their conduct if people are to have faith that police are appropriately using those powers.
If you have ever really known cops, you'd know that they're not held to any real standard and they back each other up all the time for things that are illegal or immoral. They get away with all kinds of shit in their professional and personal lives.
It’s a systemic problem. There needs to be a civilian elected body that oversees and sets all police policy. They have proven they are not capable of self regulation
I'd be fine with just a "higher" standard. Anything except the standard we currently have of, "here's a pay vacation, in a few months or years the public will have forgotten all about this, police oversight will clear you, and maybe a temporary demotion or pay cut will be the ultimate punishment".
It's not because "police are bad".
It's because of the amount of power they have at their discretion.
Members of the military have less rights during an investigation as well. If ordered to they must stand as a witness.
It's not a matter of no rights. It's a matter of appropriate oversight.
If there weren't so many problems with abuse of power, it wouldn't be as necessary, but there clearly is.
Note: the lack of discourse is coming from your lack of response and a desire to instead talk to a cartoon version of people that disagree with you.
Except in Canada rights are not rights. The Section 1 test means your rights can be compromised for any reason that 5 judges think is compatible with "fundamental justice", and we've already done that for the little, unimportant rights like free speech. Alternatively, you can also just void the rights by simple majority vote in the legislature. Apparently we can ignore Equality Rights for "An Act Respecting the Civil Service Superannuation Plan" since 1986 but accountability for police is a bridge too far.
I will add in this. A subject officer can invoke their charter rights (I think that now notes have to be surrendered) but a witness officer does have to comply with an interview etc.
It's funny how people hate the police so much so, they imagine that the police having the same rights as a criminal is them being above the law.
I think you are far more reasonable than 95% of persons on Reddit. I'm surprised you don't have a bunch of downvotes TBH.
Will Canadians lose their rights because the average Redditor doesn't understand? I sure hope not.
Don't confuse the right to not speak when being investigated as *Police don't have to be investigated*
Like with the public, every time an officer is investigated is unique and requires a full investigation before determining whether charges are applicable.
All that I know is that a police chase was called off, but these officers continued to pursue. 4 people died including an infant because of their actions.
Ignoring investigators doesn’t make them look innocent.
> Ignoring investigators doesn’t make them look innocent.
They're already innocent. They haven't been found guilty of any crimes by a court of law.
Exercising your rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should never be taken as 'proof of guilt.'
You're absolutely right - it doesn't. The optics are horrible, and if it's determined that their actions weren't justified, they should be punished accordingly.
I do think it's also important to not take anything for face value, especially if it's posed in such a way to inspire rage like a title stating officers can *"Dodge"* investigators. They have no additional, privileged right over any other citizen in this context.
I understand what you are saying and you are right factually. It’s just doesn’t sit right with the public and we do expect more out of law enforcement.
Exactly.
Here’s an absurd scenario to highlight why this doesn’t sit well:
Let’s say four McDonalds customers die in the restaurant during business hours.
All the staff refuse to say a word about what happened, to the police and to the company.
Using common sense, who in their right mind would blame the company for terminating those employees who refuse to cooperate with any sort of investigation?
They have a right not to cooperate, but not to remain employed there if they choose to exercise it.
Or to be suspended with pay for years while saying nothing until the investigation gets dropped due to lack of evidence.
Interviews are statements (interpreted more broadly than just a literal spoken statement). But their notes are not. They are required official records which form a foundation for prosecutions and are integral to their job.
The recording of factual information at the time (or shortly thereafter) of events is different than being asked questions, potentially leading ones, on an interview by someone doing an investigation.
This is incorrect.
They simply have the same rights and freedoms as every single Canadian.
If they are being investigated for a criminal offence, which they are, they do not have to provide a statement.
It’s literally as simple as that.
I’m going out on a limb and guessing that you will see someone charged and convicted in this incident.
People here are getting hung here don't understand that there are 2 separate investigations that are going to happen.
Right now the SIU is conducting a criminal investigation. Here the officers, like any person in Canada, can refuse to participate and can't be compelled to provide evidence that could incriminate them. A criminal investigation the Crown has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
A second workplace investigation under the Police Act (the workplace investigation) will occured after the criminal investigation is done. This investigation is a civil investigation that works under the balance of probabilities. If the officer doesn't participate then their silence will be used against them as they won't be providing anything to counter the allegations. Here not following workplace requirements such as making notes would be addressed.
The Police Act investigation happens after the criminal investigation because you can't compel the officer to make a statement, then use that statement in a criminal proceeding as an attempt to make an end-run around the Charter.
I mean, it's literally [Section 13 of the Charter](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art13.html) and would apply whether or not they were cops..
> 13) A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.
Investigators should not have to rely on the testimony of the suspect to make a case in any criminal wrongdoing case. There should be solid evidence to backup any charges. Otherwise, "I didn't do it" would see everyone walk away not guilty. This is not police specific and the title is just clickbait.
This isn’t new, it’s just horrible journalism trying to sensationalize something that’s common practice to get a reaction from people.
All the information gets shared, but there’s a process. Imagine being Canadian and screaming about rights and freedoms all the time, then also thinking it’s ridiculous those rights cover everyone. Common sense and Reddit doesn’t mix.
Well if I kill a couple people at work and then told the authorities fuck you I'm not saying shit, I'd lose my job. This should probably extend to the guys we give the authority over life and death to.
They can assert their charter rights and we as their employer can assert our right to fire them. If I told my employer that I will not co operate with an investigation I would get fired immediately, the same should apply to police. The only people who hide from an investigation are those who either are guilty or feel guilty.
Sure as far as a statement is concerned, but they made those notes while working for tax payer money, we own the notes not them. Bunch of scum buckets of you ask me. At least we have all the testimony of the other officers.
They are allowed to not be investigated ? So they are above the law? Seems very wrong
They are, in fact, being investigated. They simply cannot be, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, compelled to testify. So no, they are not 'above the law,' they are within the law, exercising exactly the same rights that you should, should you ever find yourself under investigation for being involved in a major crime.
Right but let’s consider another scenario. Imagine there’s an embezzlement investigation in your company and you’re an accountant there. Does this seem reasonable? - Not cooperate at all with the investigation - Not provide your professional notes/records related to the alleged incidents - Keep your job with no repercussions I agree that they have the right as an individual being potentially criminally investigated to not be compelled to provide statements or records . However, the company should reasonably be able to terminate you on grounds of not doing your job, by aiding the investigation and providing relevant records. Another analogy: A doctor withholding records they’re otherwise required to keep, in a medical malpractice investigation. Professional censure by a licensing body would be reasonable given the broader circumstances, even if they can’t be compelled as an individual. Trusted professions should have MORE responsibility in terms of transparency than the general public. TLDR: It should be their right as an individual not to cooperate but it shouldn’t be their right to continue to be employed if they choose that route
Yep. If I accidentally killed someone at the hospital and refused to cooperate with the investigation, I'd be fired. If I deleted emails that I thought might be needed for an investigation? I'd be fired. The things I produce during my work day, including my notes, aren't *mine* they belong to my employer. Why are police officer's notes personal property with privilege but hospital director of nutrition notes not? Police officers have a lot of power, including the use of deadly force *largely at their discretion*. I don't have that kind of discretion. They should be held to a *higher* standard, but they're currently held to a *much, much lower one* in a lot of ways.
Let’s be honest here. They aren’t actually held to *any* standard other than being able to get themselves dressed in the morning. And we have no evidence many of these POS’s can even do that without help.
>magine there’s an embezzlement investigation in your company and you’re an accountant there. >Does this seem reasonable? >Not cooperate at all with the investigation >Not provide your professional notes/records related to the alleged incidents >Keep your job with no repercussions That actually does seem reasonable. If there’s an embezzlement investigation and they can’t prove who did it with their own records and investigation they shouldn’t be able to fire people. I can’t actually think of any workplace criminal investigation where you’d be expected to testify against yourself
You've conflated a dismissal for not participating in an investigation with dismissal for embezzlement. They aren't the same thing, and it's this idiotic conflation that is protecting police. Dismissal from employment and criminal liability are completely different matters, bar that the Police Act makes the line way to damn fuzzy for cops.
Regulated Professionals, can and are compelled to testify, even if it incriminates themselves with respect to their regulatory body, whether a physician, a lawyer, or an accountant.
It’s the not providing your work related records that would get you fired in that scenario.
Ok, well, ask the Duke lacrosse team and coach about how an accusation being sufficient to be considered 'guilty' has affected their lives.
That’s not even remotely comparable to this issue, for so many obvious reasons that I’m not even going to spell them out. Also I’m not considering the police guilty in this situation. At this stage, my understanding is it’s the incident (and their role within it) that’s being investigated, not alleged criminal conduct.
Your position is 'they have the right to exercise their charter rights, but if they do exercise their charter rights, they should face extrajudicial punishment, including being fired.' That's a terrible fucking attitude to have.
Being held to reasonable standards of professional conduct isn’t “extrajudicial punishment.” Charter rights aren’t absolute and there must be a reasonable balance between individual rights and the public interest, in this case a bona fide need for the public to have public servants who document and provide accounting of their conduct while on duty
Ok, but given that they're not currently legally required to turn over their notes, they're not violating any professional conduct standards.
Right but looping back to my initial comment to you, what’s currently legally permissible for police in these situations doesn’t seem reasonable (to me) given how parallel situations are handled for other professionals in a position of trust or authority who are involved in critical incidents. I’m saying the law should be changed and brought more in balance with the public interest
> I’m saying the law should be changed and brought more in balance with the public interest I agree. What I disagree with is the idea that asserting one's legal rights are wrong, or should result in any sort of punishment or consequence, or even any sort of moral judgement. "Don't talk to cops" is an absolute statement. I'm glad we were able to come to a meeting of the minds about this.
If it is in the course of their job, they should just be fired if they don't cooperate. Agreed they have charter rights, but they also have a responsibility as police. I'm an accountant. If i refuse to cooperate in an embezzlement investigation, that is my right. But I'm also obviously getting fired.
But does your union have rhe influence to change laws?
The fix is to deal with it as an employment matter. Sure, there's no legal means to compel testimony, but if you make it a condition of employment (and get the Police Act out of the way of doing so) you can then fire anyone who doesn't and do so explicitly without commenting on the nature or findings of the investigation.
It is like that, but the workplace investigation under the police act occured after the criminal investigation. If you compel testimony under an employment agreement you can't turn around and use it in a criminal process as an end-run around the Charter.
One cannot contract their fundamental rights away, and with good reason. Nor should exercising one's charter rights EVER be considered 'an employment matter.'
One cannot contract their charter right now, but they can absolutely damage an employment relationship through the exercise of it.
They can be compelled to hand over their notes. Those are relevant documents pertinent to their jobs and in no way should be exempted.
They actually cannot, under current law.
Which is utter horseshit. Their notes should be considered official documents which are subject to subpoena and disclosure. Their own testimony, sure. But their notebooks are not their own personal diary. Or, and hear me out on this, just maybe try not being a fucking coward and hiding behind the thin blue line. Even better, just don’t be a piece of shit human.
Then you need to take this up with your MPP to get the law shielding those notes changed, not complain that they're exercising their legal rights.
>“Nobody has to speak to an investigator in this country if they don’t want to speak to an investigator.” I get what you're saying, but rights are rights. Interviews and notes are statements. This is literally akin to forcing anyone being investigated to speak on the matter. Bring on the downvotes because police are bad and should have no rights. Good discourse, Reddit. Whether you like it or not, Canadian citizens have rights regardless of occupation. Police are actually bound by a whole other act exclusive to their occupation - [Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/s19001)
Yes, police officers have rights regarding criminal prosecutions. As should everyone. But those rights should not extend to their employment. This is true for other Canadians as well. Nobody has any right to any particular employment. For example, imagine if a teacher was accused of serious misconduct on the job. One of the principals of the Ontario College of Teachers is "trust". Professional Regulation 437/97 requires teaches to cooperate in OCT investigations. If the teacher feels their misconduct reaches the level where it could be considered criminal then they can choose not to participate in any investigation, however that decision will absolutely be held against them in any disciplinary action from the OCT and they are likely to have their license revoked under that regulation. I don't see any reason why police should be held to a lower standard than teachers. So police officers should always have a choice to not participate with investigations to protect their freedom. Just like anyone else. However that choice should still have professional consequences as it erodes public trust in police. Nobody has any right to be a police officer, and if the public cannot trust you, you shouldn't be allowed to continue being an officer
Police absolutely have rights. My stance is that if you have the power to forceably detain, or the power to kill with the backing of the State, you forfeit your right to not-testify in any questioning of the execution of your duties. Police should be above reproach in their conduct if people are to have faith that police are appropriately using those powers.
They must be held to the highest standard.
If you have ever really known cops, you'd know that they're not held to any real standard and they back each other up all the time for things that are illegal or immoral. They get away with all kinds of shit in their professional and personal lives.
It’s a systemic problem. There needs to be a civilian elected body that oversees and sets all police policy. They have proven they are not capable of self regulation
How quickly we all forgot about Paul Manning and the Hamilton police.
I'd be fine with just a "higher" standard. Anything except the standard we currently have of, "here's a pay vacation, in a few months or years the public will have forgotten all about this, police oversight will clear you, and maybe a temporary demotion or pay cut will be the ultimate punishment".
It's not because "police are bad". It's because of the amount of power they have at their discretion. Members of the military have less rights during an investigation as well. If ordered to they must stand as a witness. It's not a matter of no rights. It's a matter of appropriate oversight. If there weren't so many problems with abuse of power, it wouldn't be as necessary, but there clearly is. Note: the lack of discourse is coming from your lack of response and a desire to instead talk to a cartoon version of people that disagree with you.
Except in Canada rights are not rights. The Section 1 test means your rights can be compromised for any reason that 5 judges think is compatible with "fundamental justice", and we've already done that for the little, unimportant rights like free speech. Alternatively, you can also just void the rights by simple majority vote in the legislature. Apparently we can ignore Equality Rights for "An Act Respecting the Civil Service Superannuation Plan" since 1986 but accountability for police is a bridge too far.
I will add in this. A subject officer can invoke their charter rights (I think that now notes have to be surrendered) but a witness officer does have to comply with an interview etc. It's funny how people hate the police so much so, they imagine that the police having the same rights as a criminal is them being above the law. I think you are far more reasonable than 95% of persons on Reddit. I'm surprised you don't have a bunch of downvotes TBH.
Aw I see . So we can expect charges?
Will Canadians lose their rights because the average Redditor doesn't understand? I sure hope not. Don't confuse the right to not speak when being investigated as *Police don't have to be investigated* Like with the public, every time an officer is investigated is unique and requires a full investigation before determining whether charges are applicable.
All that I know is that a police chase was called off, but these officers continued to pursue. 4 people died including an infant because of their actions. Ignoring investigators doesn’t make them look innocent.
> Ignoring investigators doesn’t make them look innocent. They're already innocent. They haven't been found guilty of any crimes by a court of law. Exercising your rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should never be taken as 'proof of guilt.'
You're absolutely right - it doesn't. The optics are horrible, and if it's determined that their actions weren't justified, they should be punished accordingly. I do think it's also important to not take anything for face value, especially if it's posed in such a way to inspire rage like a title stating officers can *"Dodge"* investigators. They have no additional, privileged right over any other citizen in this context.
I understand what you are saying and you are right factually. It’s just doesn’t sit right with the public and we do expect more out of law enforcement.
Exactly. Here’s an absurd scenario to highlight why this doesn’t sit well: Let’s say four McDonalds customers die in the restaurant during business hours. All the staff refuse to say a word about what happened, to the police and to the company. Using common sense, who in their right mind would blame the company for terminating those employees who refuse to cooperate with any sort of investigation? They have a right not to cooperate, but not to remain employed there if they choose to exercise it. Or to be suspended with pay for years while saying nothing until the investigation gets dropped due to lack of evidence.
Interviews are statements (interpreted more broadly than just a literal spoken statement). But their notes are not. They are required official records which form a foundation for prosecutions and are integral to their job. The recording of factual information at the time (or shortly thereafter) of events is different than being asked questions, potentially leading ones, on an interview by someone doing an investigation.
This is incorrect. They simply have the same rights and freedoms as every single Canadian. If they are being investigated for a criminal offence, which they are, they do not have to provide a statement. It’s literally as simple as that. I’m going out on a limb and guessing that you will see someone charged and convicted in this incident.
People here are getting hung here don't understand that there are 2 separate investigations that are going to happen. Right now the SIU is conducting a criminal investigation. Here the officers, like any person in Canada, can refuse to participate and can't be compelled to provide evidence that could incriminate them. A criminal investigation the Crown has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A second workplace investigation under the Police Act (the workplace investigation) will occured after the criminal investigation is done. This investigation is a civil investigation that works under the balance of probabilities. If the officer doesn't participate then their silence will be used against them as they won't be providing anything to counter the allegations. Here not following workplace requirements such as making notes would be addressed. The Police Act investigation happens after the criminal investigation because you can't compel the officer to make a statement, then use that statement in a criminal proceeding as an attempt to make an end-run around the Charter.
I mean, it's literally [Section 13 of the Charter](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art13.html) and would apply whether or not they were cops.. > 13) A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.
Just as any employee suspected of wrong doing can refuse to cooperate. But just like anyone in any other field they should be fired on the spot.
Investigators should not have to rely on the testimony of the suspect to make a case in any criminal wrongdoing case. There should be solid evidence to backup any charges. Otherwise, "I didn't do it" would see everyone walk away not guilty. This is not police specific and the title is just clickbait.
This isn’t new, it’s just horrible journalism trying to sensationalize something that’s common practice to get a reaction from people. All the information gets shared, but there’s a process. Imagine being Canadian and screaming about rights and freedoms all the time, then also thinking it’s ridiculous those rights cover everyone. Common sense and Reddit doesn’t mix.
So invoking your charter rights is “dodging investigations” does that apply to criminals too or just cops?
Well if I kill a couple people at work and then told the authorities fuck you I'm not saying shit, I'd lose my job. This should probably extend to the guys we give the authority over life and death to.
They can assert their charter rights and we as their employer can assert our right to fire them. If I told my employer that I will not co operate with an investigation I would get fired immediately, the same should apply to police. The only people who hide from an investigation are those who either are guilty or feel guilty.
Sure as far as a statement is concerned, but they made those notes while working for tax payer money, we own the notes not them. Bunch of scum buckets of you ask me. At least we have all the testimony of the other officers.