Constable Zahara Lucks Out With A Female Judge

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Your whole "Oh, who knows what drove her yada yada...." 


I do believe you are just being obstinate............"ratted out" is soooo much different than "rat job". :

 

[chris_log]

No my friend, because you would'nt get it in a Thousand Years.

Sure, because I'm not a police officer, right? Thin (and these days, very thin) blue wall of silence, right? So by your logic I should hope you will stop commenting on politics (because your not a politician), logistics (because your not a logistician) and anything else beyond the realm of Military Policing. In fact, by your logic, you shouldn't even be commenting in this topic because she's an RCMP officer because as we all know, Military Policing is not at all the same as being a civvie police officer.

Phhhh, she wasn't ratted out nor is she being unfairly roasted here. Being a police officer is NOT an excuse for doing something stupid. As pro-police as I am, your comments are EXACTLY why I support units like the Ontario SIU being stronger and with longer reaching powers to investigate the police. In fact, your defending her actions scares me enough as it is.

Oh, and finally, in my fun little part time hobby I get to interact nightly with the local police, and I understand what they do and what they go through. You should be a little more careful when you try to compare phallic sizes over the internet with people you have never met. 

 

[J.J]

As pro-police as I am, your comments are EXACTLY why I support units like the Ontario SIU being stronger and with longer reaching powers to investigate the police.

True because the SIU is a apolitical, effective agency that has always been fair and upfront with their dealings with the Police and have never succumbed to political pressure.... :

 

[chris_log]

True because the SIU is a apolitical, effective agency that has always been fair and upfront with their dealings with the Police and have never succumbed to political pressure.... :

Never said it was perfect, but comments like those made by FastEddy simply reinforce the fact that orgs like the SIU are needed. This is one of the things I believe strongly in, accountability for ones actions and especially when it comes to the actions of people in positions of trust or authority. Thats why I keep harping on it in this thread, much to the obviously growing frustration of certain law enforcement/law enforcement-ish types on army.ca.

I still don't understand why some people are continuing to defend/excuse the actions of this police officer. Because, of course, had she been a gang member or some other type of undesirable person we (this website) would be all over her, calling for her head (and the most vocal defenders of this officer would be the first to jump up and villify her had she not been LE). I hate double standards.

 

[FastEddy]

I still don't understand why some people are continuing to defend/excuse the actions of this police officer. Because, of course, had she been a gang member or some other type of undesirable person we (this website) would be all over her, calling for her head (and the most vocal defenders of this officer would be the first to jump up and villify her had she not been LE). I hate double standards.

No one has defended her actions, a suggestion has been put forth why she was promted or driven to this incident and by who or what. Being a member of the RCMP is the only reason for the prominence and News Value of this incident.

And by your own argument, you agree that there should not be a double standard, which in her case you have assigned, due to the nature of her employment. Your statement even equates her to a Undesirable Person and on the same level as a Gang Member and that she should be regarded as such in her punishment for her indiscretion.

And yes, the fact that her Employment and a Outstanding Record, should play a role in the leniency afforded her Sentencing. Anything contrary to that because of her Employment is a double standard. We afford it to repeat DUI's causing Death to the general public

What you're saying to all LEO's, GOD HELP YOU, if you foul up, because we're going to Crucify You. And because of your Profession you do not deserve any consideration or Leniency regardless.

And for your opening paragraph there isn't enough time or space to reply, with the exception that its the most disjointed and stupidest thing I've read in a long time.

As far as your partime fun excursions, I hope you realize Tolerance doesn't always equal Acceptance.

 

[chris_log]

No one has defended her actions, a suggestion has been put forth why she was promted or driven to this incident and by who or what. Being a member of the RCMP is the only reason for the prominence and News Value of this incident.

And by your own argument, you agree that there should not be a double standard, which in her case you have assigned, due to the nature of her employment. Your statement even equates her to a Undesirable Person and on the same level as a Gang Member and that she should be regarded as such in her punishment for her indiscretion.

And yes, the fact that her Employment and a Outstanding Record, should play a role in the leniency afforded her Sentencing. Anything contrary to that because of her Employment is a double standard. We afford it to repeat DUI's causing Death to the general public

What you're saying to all LEO's, GOD HELP YOU, if you foul up, because we're going to Crucify You. And because of your Profession you do not deserve any consideration or Leniency regardless.

And for your opening paragraph there isn't enough time or space to reply, with the exception that its the most disjointed and stupidest thing I've read in a long time.

As far as your partime fun excursions, I hope you realize Tolerance doesn't always equal Acceptance.

Hmmm...maybe MedTech was right, this topic can only go down the tubes. Certain LE types are going to defend her regardless, and those of us not as connected to the issue are going to have the more unbiased and reasonable point of view.

And what was wrong with my opening paragraph? I was simply continuing along your line of logic which was; since I'm not any type of LEO I can't possibly understand the topic at hand or why her being reported is seen by some as being 'ratted out'.

Like I said, I'm as pro-law enforcement as you can get (heck, maybe a job in that field is in my future) BUT, I don't take kindly to having my opinions dismissed by someone with a arrogant and misplaced sense of superiority nor do I like the idea that this officer's record or status as a police officer seems to have got her preferrential treatment in this matter. Simple as that. Imagine if she had not been a police officer and tell me what would have happened.

Finally;

As far as your partime fun excursions, I hope you realize Tolerance doesn't always equal Acceptance.

My statement was actually an attempt to ensure you that I am neither wholly ignorant nor am I anti-law enforcement. Whether or not they 'accept' me (and they do) really has no bearing on what I said. But hey, if it helps you sleep at night  : 

 

[Good2Golf]

This has nothing to do with gender and only in part to do with employment.

It has everything to do with JUDGEMENT and CONTROL, or to be correct, lack thereof.

The individual showed incredibly poor judgement in deciding to deliberately and inappropriately discharge a firearm in an unsafe manner (unless you're on a range, pointing at the target, it's unsafe.)  This is further compounded by an inability to control one's self from acting in such an irresponsible manner.  This really undermines any reasonable person's confidence in the individual to behave in the manner expected by society on the whole, and to exercise self-control/internal discipline in the conduct of one's duties; behaviour that society has every right to expect high standards from.

The Court's decision?  Well...it's quacking and it has webbed feet...I don't think that this person was treated the same way that most other members of society would have been treated, all other things being equal.

I concur that the title is inappropriate.  In the objective, unemotional world, one should question whether the "Judiciary" got it right -- critiquing the gender of the judge has no place in the issue.

G2G

 

[FastEddy]

This has nothing to do with gender and only in part to do with employment.

It has everything to do with JUDGEMENT and CONTROL, or to be correct, lack thereof.

The individual showed incredibly poor judgement in deciding to deliberately and inappropriately discharge a firearm in an unsafe manner (unless you're on a range, pointing at the target, it's unsafe.)  This is further compounded by an inability to control one's self from acting in such an irresponsible manner.  This really undermines any reasonable person's confidence in the individual to behave in the manner expected by society on the whole, and to exercise self-control/internal discipline in the conduct of one's duties; behaviour that society has every right to expect high standards from.

The Court's decision?  Well...it's quacking and it has webbed feet...I don't think that this person was treated the same way that most other members of society would have been treated, all other things being equal.

I concur that the title is inappropriate.  In the objective, unemotional world, one should question whether the "Judiciary" got it right -- critiquing the gender of the judge has no place in the issue.

G2G

Now here is a critique of this incident that one can hardly find fault with and is very well presented.

However, it must be appreciated that the record of an Accused on sentencing must and is taken into consideration. This fact applies to everybody convicted of a Crime, regardless of their calling.

Of course two persons convicted of a identical offense (non Capital) could or should receive different sentence's.
Whereas a Police Officer with a impeccable Record of Service, never a hint of scandal, a solid member of the Community and up to this point, a Law Biding Citizen. Who in this case Unlawfully discharged a firearm into a wall of her residence. GUILTY AS CHARGED

Now John Doe of no fixed address and unemployed, with priors of Drunk & Disorderly, Breaking and Entering, and 3 years for Assault. Who did Unlawfully discharge a firearm into the air at the Hot Spot Cafe. GUILTY AS CHARGED.

I can guarantee you the sentence's would be different, and that's not Favoritism or Bias it Justice.

If we place individuals on pedestals, then we shouldn't be surprised if occasionally one falls off, but that does not give us Licence to treat or punish then more severely because they've disappointed us.

Again excellent appraisal of the situation and good post.

Cheers.

 

[armyvern]

Which statement would that be ?.

Edited to add:   Were you drinking when you wrote this ?.

How about your statement that he "ratted her out" told on her.

Funny how when it happens to be a police officer reporting a SERIOUS incident with another police officer that the term "rat" gets used.

Isn't that what gang bangers call it when one of their own does the same to them?

I'm sure I've also heard discussions, seen interviews etc, where police officers express their disgust/disappointment with the fact that many average citizens won't come forward with details surrounding criminal activity (as her actions ALSO were) because they don't want to be known as "rats".

Eery how the disappointment is applicable to those cases, yet some police officers would still choose to use that very same terminology to describe another citizen (who happens to be a police officer) who reported a crime committed by another police officer just as you did. YOU set the double standard there.

So, next time you express your disappointment because some criminal or other citizen won't "rat out" a criminal, just remember that you've somewhat justified that action as acceptable by accusing a police officer of same simply because the criminal happened to be a fellow cop. Oh yes, and in case you've missed it - she was CONVICTED.

 

[2 Cdo]

That he "ratted her out" told on her.

Funny how when it happens to be a police officer reporting a SERIOUS incident with another police officer that the term "rat" gets used.

Isn't that what gang bangers call it when one of their own does the same to them?

I'm sure I've also heard discussions, seen interviews etc, where police officers express their disgust/disappointment with the fact that many average citizens won't come forward with details surrounding criminal activity (as her actions ALSO were) because they don't want to be known as "rats".

Eery how the disappointment is applicable to those cases, yet some police officers would still choose to use that very same terminology to describe another citizen (who happens to be a police officer) who reported a crime committed by another police officer just as you did. YOU set the double standard there.

So, next time you express your disappointment because some criminal or other citizen won't "rat out" a criminal, just remember that you've somewhat justified that action as acceptable by accusing a police officer of same simply because the criminal happened to be a fellow cop.

Well said Vern. It seems the "thin blue line" is still alive and well in the law enforcement community. This "officer", should be banned from owning firearms, released from the RCMP and do some time in jail for her actions. Anyone who claims her actions were not dangerous to her child or ex, is right out to lunch!

 

[Kat Stevens]

"Of course two persons convicted of a identical offense (non Capital) could or should receive different sentence's.
Whereas a Police Officer with a impeccable Record of Service, never a hint of scandal, a solid member of the Community and up to this point, a Law Biding Citizen. Who in this case Unlawfully discharged a firearm into a wall of her residence. GUILTY AS CHARGED

Now John Doe of no fixed address and unemployed, with priors of Drunk & Disorderly, Breaking and Entering, and 3 years for Assault. Who did Unlawfully discharge a firearm into the air at the Hot Spot Cafe. GUILTY AS CHARGED."


However, me, as a law abiding citizen with a (mostly) clean record can still expect a heftier sentence, if I were to decide to shoot off any firearm in my own home.  The SERT guys would be knocking my door down and a hard takedown would be in my future.

 

[TCBF]

...However, me, as a law abiding citizen with a (mostly) clean record can still expect a heftier sentence, if I were to decide to shoot off any firearm in my own home.  The SERT guys would be knocking my door down and a hard takedown would be in my future.

- Or worse, if it was the NWEST PER season and they needed some checks in the boxes for their crew leaders.

;D

 

[FastEddy]

"Of course two persons convicted of a identical offense (non Capital) could or should receive different sentence's.
Whereas a Police Officer with a impeccable Record of Service, never a hint of scandal, a solid member of the Community and up to this point, a Law Biding Citizen. Who in this case Unlawfully discharged a firearm into a wall of her residence. GUILTY AS CHARGED

Now John Doe of no fixed address and unemployed, with priors of Drunk & Disorderly, Breaking and Entering, and 3 years for Assault. Who did Unlawfully discharge a firearm into the air at the Hot Spot Cafe. GUILTY AS CHARGED."


However, me, as a law abiding citizen with a (mostly) clean record can still expect a heftier sentence, if I were to decide to shoot off any firearm in my own home.  The SERT guys would be knocking my door down and a hard takedown would be in my future.

GOOD POINT, Now lets say you with your clean (mostly) record are charged with the same offence  as Const. Lucks and appear on the Docket with our John Doe. Are you saying you would not expect or your defence to plead your previous good record in the rendering of your sentencing.

Should you receive in all fairness and equality the same sentence as John Doe and his previous Criminal Record. Should his Criminal Record not influence his sentence ?.

And please don't come back with: Shes a Police Officer and we don't expect that behavior from Police Officers, but its okay and we do expect it from you, because that's is is what you'd be saying in fact.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Removed, in the interest of not getting into a pissathon.