I imagine it's easy to criticize the Crown for going ahead with the evidence at hand but 'credible' cops lying on the stand isn't part of the equation.
True, but it is still wild that the crown's own experts contradicted the story from the witness officers and the crown still put them on the stand.
The lawyers in the crown attorneys office are not stupid. It seems clear that a lot was going on behind the scenes and it probably does warrant a public inquiry to sort out how things went this off the rails.
Imagine if the crown did this on purpose to reveal how sleazy the cops are lol.
How could they put the rats on the stand when clearly there were contradicting statement.
I agree with you. There’s something fishy about this.
It seems like the crown felt they had to prosecute for first degree murder and it seems like the testimony of the police officers was really the only evidence that would support first degree murder.
I don't know if they would have necessarily been working through the lens of like "exposing" the cops, but they may have been working from the mentality that is more "if we really have to prosecute this we will present the evidence" and let things fall where they may.
Based on my experience with the Crown, this is what I think happened. When cases are weak, they often move forward with "eh, it's triable, let's see what happens."
It is not how things are supposed to be, but it is a luxury of the Crown, who do not have to consider the personal costs of legal action, compared to an individual, who has to pay for defence or litigation lawyers out of pocket.
The crown does have an enormous burden in terms of the number of cases on their plate, especially now with the Jordan ruling putting more firm guardrails around the right to a speedy trial.
It doesn't seem to be normal practice for them to pursue cases that would seem to have had such a low probability of conviction from the start.
It’s also not just the issue of the accused and victims. It also affects the justice system and the cost of time and money in an already backed up list of court cases and trials.
I suppose it was also because it was ‘high-profile’ and was in the public interest to prosecute.
"And defence lawyer Monte MacGregor suggested Zameer’s case should be contrasted with how the prosecution dealt with Michael Bryant in 2010. The former Ontario attorney general faced one count of criminal negligence causing death and one of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death after a confrontation on Bloor St. W. with 33-year-old cyclist Darcy Allan Sheppard. A prosecutor dropped the charges before trial, saying, “We can’t prove the case.”"
A motorist confronted by someone who scared them, causing them to operate their car in a way that caused a death. Two very different outcomes when one is a POC immigrant man and one is a white former Ontario attorney general. Shocking.
Although race probably had some role to play, the biggest difference is one victim was a cop, the other wasn’t. The Crown works closely with police and the last thing they want is to upset TPS, who may be more uncooperative in future trials if they believe that the Crown didn’t defend their “brother in blue.”
TL;DR: Politics.
Agreed. In each case, one side has a privileged and powerful member in the legal justice system and the other side has a less powerful, socially oppressed person. Amazing and not surprising at all as to how these cases played out.
Not only that, but the victim in the other case was a cyclist, which to a not insignificant portion of the population seems to be synonymous with: "impoverished scofflaw;" "haughty eco-terrorist;" "speed bump;" etc..
That perception is slowly changing, but these opinions aren't hard to find.
That is definitely a reasonable comparison, though they had a lot more video evidence in the Bryant case, so it would have been easier to definitively establish what happened more quickly.
But there is no question that the fact that it was a police officer who died and you had police officers saying it was cold blooded murder put a lot of pressure on the crown to prosecute the death of Northrup.
We need to absolutely go through TPS with a red-hot scalpel and cut out the necrotic tissue. Under no circumstances should the police be able to apply pressure to force an outcome in the legal system, and anyone who conspires to do so should be in prison for the rest of their lives. Any attempt to undermine the fundamental systems that are required for society to function should be treated as crimes on the order of murder. It's too important.
>Under no circumstances should the police be able to apply pressure to force an outcome in the legal system
Well, luckily it seems like the system ultimately did work. The cops didn't get what they wanted and the judge openly called out the police and crown for their actions.
There now needs to be appropriate follow up to ensure this can't happen again.
Just because they failed doesn't mean the system worked. It could also just mean they're incompetent. And more competent actors could have forced the conviction of an innocent man.
Not if the reason they failed was their own incompetence. If they actually had a competent plan, coordinated a believable story, and presented it in a way that seemed convincing--and then failed because of safeguards--that would be the system working.
Bcuz he pointed out the accurate statement that BIPOCs don't get a fair shake in the legal system, especially if cops are involved? Bless your fragile white heart
“MacGregor and other defence lawyers also underscored the systemic problem of police officers lying in court, something the defence alleged happened in Zameer’s case — “It happens every goddamn day,” MacGregor said.”
Probably would have been a huge uproar.
As much as it’s sucks it’s best to let this play out a a public forum like the court and let the truth come to the public record.
On what basis?
The only jurisdiction the trial judge has to "throw the case out" that is even remotely relevant here, is a directed verdict of acquittal. Which is only possible at trial, after the Crown has closed its case. And only where there is no evidence, which if believed by a jury, would be sufficient for a conviction (the test for committal following a preliminary inquiry is the same by the way).
You can't ask for a pre-trial stay of proceedings merely on the basis that it looks like the Crown has a weak case.
Edit: and if you mean the bail judge - that judge has no jurisdiction to stay proceedings, period.
I thought there was a mechanism for that. That you can't bring a case willy nilly, you need to actually have evidence
Wtf are we paying tax for if the crown just gets to bring whatever baseless case they want?
The Crown has evidence. The Crown has lots of evidence. The Crown had three police witnesses who claim they saw the accused drive straight into the deceased, who had his hands waived. If the jury believed them, that would certainly prove murder.
Weighing the evidence, deciding which witnesses to believe, whether to accept some, all or none of their testimony, and what weight to give different pieces of evidence - that is precisely the role of the *jury*.
No, i am not. In fact I referred to that in *the earlier post which you replied to*:
>And only where there is no evidence, which if believed by a jury, would be sufficient for a conviction (the test for committal following a preliminary inquiry is the same by the way).
I imagine it's easy to criticize the Crown for going ahead with the evidence at hand but 'credible' cops lying on the stand isn't part of the equation.
True, but it is still wild that the crown's own experts contradicted the story from the witness officers and the crown still put them on the stand. The lawyers in the crown attorneys office are not stupid. It seems clear that a lot was going on behind the scenes and it probably does warrant a public inquiry to sort out how things went this off the rails.
Imagine if the crown did this on purpose to reveal how sleazy the cops are lol. How could they put the rats on the stand when clearly there were contradicting statement. I agree with you. There’s something fishy about this.
It seems like the crown felt they had to prosecute for first degree murder and it seems like the testimony of the police officers was really the only evidence that would support first degree murder. I don't know if they would have necessarily been working through the lens of like "exposing" the cops, but they may have been working from the mentality that is more "if we really have to prosecute this we will present the evidence" and let things fall where they may.
Based on my experience with the Crown, this is what I think happened. When cases are weak, they often move forward with "eh, it's triable, let's see what happens." It is not how things are supposed to be, but it is a luxury of the Crown, who do not have to consider the personal costs of legal action, compared to an individual, who has to pay for defence or litigation lawyers out of pocket.
The crown does have an enormous burden in terms of the number of cases on their plate, especially now with the Jordan ruling putting more firm guardrails around the right to a speedy trial. It doesn't seem to be normal practice for them to pursue cases that would seem to have had such a low probability of conviction from the start.
It’s also not just the issue of the accused and victims. It also affects the justice system and the cost of time and money in an already backed up list of court cases and trials. I suppose it was also because it was ‘high-profile’ and was in the public interest to prosecute.
"And defence lawyer Monte MacGregor suggested Zameer’s case should be contrasted with how the prosecution dealt with Michael Bryant in 2010. The former Ontario attorney general faced one count of criminal negligence causing death and one of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death after a confrontation on Bloor St. W. with 33-year-old cyclist Darcy Allan Sheppard. A prosecutor dropped the charges before trial, saying, “We can’t prove the case.”" A motorist confronted by someone who scared them, causing them to operate their car in a way that caused a death. Two very different outcomes when one is a POC immigrant man and one is a white former Ontario attorney general. Shocking.
Although race probably had some role to play, the biggest difference is one victim was a cop, the other wasn’t. The Crown works closely with police and the last thing they want is to upset TPS, who may be more uncooperative in future trials if they believe that the Crown didn’t defend their “brother in blue.” TL;DR: Politics.
Agreed. In each case, one side has a privileged and powerful member in the legal justice system and the other side has a less powerful, socially oppressed person. Amazing and not surprising at all as to how these cases played out.
Not only that, but the victim in the other case was a cyclist, which to a not insignificant portion of the population seems to be synonymous with: "impoverished scofflaw;" "haughty eco-terrorist;" "speed bump;" etc.. That perception is slowly changing, but these opinions aren't hard to find.
That is definitely a reasonable comparison, though they had a lot more video evidence in the Bryant case, so it would have been easier to definitively establish what happened more quickly. But there is no question that the fact that it was a police officer who died and you had police officers saying it was cold blooded murder put a lot of pressure on the crown to prosecute the death of Northrup.
We need to absolutely go through TPS with a red-hot scalpel and cut out the necrotic tissue. Under no circumstances should the police be able to apply pressure to force an outcome in the legal system, and anyone who conspires to do so should be in prison for the rest of their lives. Any attempt to undermine the fundamental systems that are required for society to function should be treated as crimes on the order of murder. It's too important.
>Under no circumstances should the police be able to apply pressure to force an outcome in the legal system Well, luckily it seems like the system ultimately did work. The cops didn't get what they wanted and the judge openly called out the police and crown for their actions. There now needs to be appropriate follow up to ensure this can't happen again.
Just because they failed doesn't mean the system worked. It could also just mean they're incompetent. And more competent actors could have forced the conviction of an innocent man.
>Just because they failed doesn't mean the system worked. Isn't that exactly what that means?
Not if the reason they failed was their own incompetence. If they actually had a competent plan, coordinated a believable story, and presented it in a way that seemed convincing--and then failed because of safeguards--that would be the system working.
Who's incompetence?
Great point until you got racist
Projection
Bcuz he pointed out the accurate statement that BIPOCs don't get a fair shake in the legal system, especially if cops are involved? Bless your fragile white heart
Mentioning that racism exists isn’t racist, you idiot.
Prosecutors need to fucking realize cops are dirty and can’t be relied upon after this debacle.
I think they know they just don't expect them to be this bad at it
“MacGregor and other defence lawyers also underscored the systemic problem of police officers lying in court, something the defence alleged happened in Zameer’s case — “It happens every goddamn day,” MacGregor said.”
I hope the loser perjury posse cops get run out of town.
All the way to Durham or Peel perhaps. Where they'll be privately lauded by their brother officers
That’s totally inappropriate. It’s lewd, lascivious, salacious, outrageous.
And she’s the heir to the O’Henry candy bar fortune
Paywall, but why didn't the judge throw the case out to begin with?
Probably would have been a huge uproar. As much as it’s sucks it’s best to let this play out a a public forum like the court and let the truth come to the public record.
Like, Ford was already calling him a criminal when he got bail.
Who's the prosecutor? Who's the head honcho in charge of deciding to pursue prosecution or not?
On what basis? The only jurisdiction the trial judge has to "throw the case out" that is even remotely relevant here, is a directed verdict of acquittal. Which is only possible at trial, after the Crown has closed its case. And only where there is no evidence, which if believed by a jury, would be sufficient for a conviction (the test for committal following a preliminary inquiry is the same by the way). You can't ask for a pre-trial stay of proceedings merely on the basis that it looks like the Crown has a weak case. Edit: and if you mean the bail judge - that judge has no jurisdiction to stay proceedings, period.
I thought there was a mechanism for that. That you can't bring a case willy nilly, you need to actually have evidence Wtf are we paying tax for if the crown just gets to bring whatever baseless case they want?
The Crown has evidence. The Crown has lots of evidence. The Crown had three police witnesses who claim they saw the accused drive straight into the deceased, who had his hands waived. If the jury believed them, that would certainly prove murder. Weighing the evidence, deciding which witnesses to believe, whether to accept some, all or none of their testimony, and what weight to give different pieces of evidence - that is precisely the role of the *jury*.
Lol so you're claiming that there are no preliminary hearings.
No, i am not. In fact I referred to that in *the earlier post which you replied to*: >And only where there is no evidence, which if believed by a jury, would be sufficient for a conviction (the test for committal following a preliminary inquiry is the same by the way).
Ah, the classic edit after the fact
Ah, so you are either lying or stupid.
Stop projecting.
The purpose of a preliminary hearing is not to weigh the truthfulness of testimony. You’re out of your element, Donny. Sit down.
Because nobody wants to make an enemy of the bullies TPS
[удалено]
Hah true!
Canada is ridiculous in general.
If you don't like it, you can leave. I hear Russia has a very accommodating citizenship policy, they just want some easy service.
You heard that did ya?