Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Justice for LeviFollow

#1 Nov 15 2011 at 3:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,089 posts
Story
Just some back story. In 2009 a young man was killed by OPP(Ontario provincial police) in a remote northern Ontario location. They were then instructed to not write down any notes on the matter until they (the officer who shot and the witness officers) could all talk to a lawyer two days later. (one lawyer for all officers involed)

The courts have ruled that this practice is not just and hopefully will never happen again.


Edit: spelling

Edited, Nov 15th 2011 4:22pm by Peimei
____________________________
SSubZero wrote:

MNK: "OK we're gonna go in and get those items."
WHM: "Did you have a plan?"
MNK: "Plan? I was going to walk through the front door and start punching people."
#2 Nov 15 2011 at 5:32 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Isn't it normal for police involved in any kind of shooting which requires an internal investigation to be allowed to speak to a lawyer first? I know you guys up in Canukistan don't have that pesky 5th amendment, but I'd think the basic principle should still apply. I don't know the details of this case, and it's entirely possible that there was some sort of collusion to conceal the truth after the fact by the police, but it seems like a ruling like this is the judicial equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#3 Nov 15 2011 at 5:37 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,519 posts
gbaji wrote:
Isn't it normal for police involved in any kind of shooting which requires an internal investigation to be allowed to speak to a lawyer first? I know you guys up in Canukistan don't have that pesky 5th amendment, but I'd think the basic principle should still apply. I don't know the details of this case, and it's entirely possible that there was some sort of collusion to conceal the truth after the fact by the police, but it seems like a ruling like this is the judicial equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


To speak to their lawyer before they even record the events of the investigation? No, that's absurd. Their job REQUIRES them to tell the absolute truth about what happened. There's absolutely no reason for a lawyer to be involved until there is legal action taken.

And they do have a 5th amendment equivalent, dumbass.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#4 Nov 15 2011 at 5:49 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,089 posts
One of the main issues with this case was the witness officers sat down with the shooting officer and a lawyer and they all wrote there notes together. Two days after the event.
Also Gbaji police are supposed to be more accountable then a civilian so no they don't get the same rights.
____________________________
SSubZero wrote:

MNK: "OK we're gonna go in and get those items."
WHM: "Did you have a plan?"
MNK: "Plan? I was going to walk through the front door and start punching people."
#5 Nov 15 2011 at 6:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
To speak to their lawyer before they even record the events of the investigation? No, that's absurd.


Is it? Again, I thought that was standard procedure in a shooting case. They schedule an IA appointment, where they present their account of the event and they most certainly are allowed to speak to counsel first and have an attorney present when giving the interview.

Quote:
Their job REQUIRES them to tell the absolute truth about what happened.


But they're also allowed to protect themselves from potential self incrimination.

Quote:
There's absolutely no reason for a lawyer to be involved until there is legal action taken.


If SOP for a shooting is to have an IA investigation (again, isn't that the norm?), then by definition that *is* legal action. It is a legal deposition and carries the same weight and the officer is allowed the same protections of his rights. Again, I'll state that I'm not aware of the specifics in this case, and the linked article was incredibly sparse, so I can't say that there weren't other aspects of this that were problematic, but the basic idea that an officer involved in a shooting can seek legal counsel prior to writing down his account of what happened seems reasonable to me, doubly so if there's an expectation (such as in this case) that what is written absolutely can/will be used against the officer with very real legal ramifications.

Quote:
And they do have a 5th amendment equivalent, dumbass.


Ok. But you can't have it both ways. Either the officers report can be used as a sworn statement in court later, or it can't (and I think we both know that they can and are all the time). If it can, then the officer absolutely has a right to speak to an attorney before he can be required to write such a statement.


My "baby with the bathwater" statement earlier was because it seems like some people think the attorney present thing is the problem, where I would assume it's the possible collusion. But weakening the right of any officer to seek legal counsel in a case like this in order to go after a single instance of collusion is the wrong thing to do. For every case like this where that rule may allow collusion by the officers, there are a hundred cases of an officer who's not particularly court savvy writing something in a report which results in criminal or civil charges being filed simply because someone wrote something the wrong way.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#6 Nov 15 2011 at 6:09 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,519 posts
There's a massive difference between being on and off duty.

An officer off duty has all the rights and privileges associated with being a citizen of the US. An officer ON duty is acting as an arm of the gov't, not as a private citizen.

You shoot someone in an official capacity, you have no right to wait to make a report, to consult a lawyer before you do so, etc. You are required, in virtue of your very position, to tell the absolute truth. Rights about self-incrimination do not apply when you are working in an official position.

Furthermore, officers don't have the right to convene with each other to decide what should be noted and what shouldn't. If there are inconsistencies in the reports, it's a sign that something went wrong.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#7 Nov 15 2011 at 6:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
An officer off duty has all the rights and privileges associated with being a citizen of the US. An officer ON duty is acting as an arm of the gov't, not as a private citizen.


And the government will serve time if he's found guilty of some crime?

Quote:
You shoot someone in an official capacity, you have no right to wait to make a report, to consult a lawyer before you do so, etc. You are required, in virtue of your very position, to tell the absolute truth. Rights about self-incrimination do not apply when you are working in an official position.


You keep saying this, but I'm not talking specifically about the "right to remain silent". Clearly, the officer must provide a report. My question is whether he can seek counsel first, and I would think that it is allowed in cases where he may be subject to disciplinary or even criminal action.

Quote:
Furthermore, officers don't have the right to convene with each other to decide what should be noted and what shouldn't. If there are inconsistencies in the reports, it's a sign that something went wrong.


This I agree with. But the statements in this thread went well beyond just "they can't talk to each other and get their stories straight".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#8 Nov 15 2011 at 6:35 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,175 posts
Peimei wrote:
One of the main issues with this case was the witness officers sat down with the shooting officer and a lawyer and they all wrote there notes together.
That seems to be the biggest issue with the case, since both the investigated individual and the witnesses aren't ever supposed to interact. Should have been more expedient, but not knowing the location and the availability of legal counsel I can't really say whether or not two days is an extraordinary amount of time.

As far as the legal counsel issue this thread is throwing around: The Miranda Rights (or equivalents) apply to everyone. That's all there is to it. Period. The officer in question has the right to remain silent until he has legal counsel. While the OPP (yeah you know me) case messed up by allowing the witness and suspect converse with the same lawyer, that doesn't mean that the officer didn't have the right to legal counsel if he's the target of the investigation. Any report he would have made would be considered a statement.

So to recap: Wrong of suspect/witness to work together to write said notes. Wrong for lawyer to represent both of them. I can't vouch for the two days thing; Like I said I don't know the area, workload, availability and such. Right for the officer to have legal counsel before making any statements.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#9 Nov 15 2011 at 6:48 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
19,519 posts
Quote:
As far as the legal counsel issue this thread is throwing around: The Miranda Rights (or equivalents) apply to everyone. That's all there is to it. Period. The officer in question has the right to remain silent until he has legal counsel. While the OPP (yeah you know me) case messed up by allowing the witness and suspect converse with the same lawyer, that doesn't mean that the officer didn't have the right to legal counsel if he's the target of the investigation. Any report he would have made would be considered a statement.


He wasn't the target of an investigation, so such rights wouldn't apply to him. This is all concerning his report after the incident, which is his report as an officer of the law.

He would have been free to not make a report, of course. But that has its own ramifications. He still could have chosen it, though.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#10 Nov 15 2011 at 6:51 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,089 posts
The area was fairly remote so two days for counsel is justified. However they were instructed to not write anything down. AT all. How good is your memory after two days. When you just ended a life? There were many other inconsistencies in the case that I don't really think I need to go into as the main point was what has been discussed. Either way this is the closest thing to justice the family and friends of Levi Schaffer will get.

Also in canada the moment an officer draws his weapon there is an investigation so this decision will be far reaching. Of course the blue wall of silence basically makes it a moot point as cops wont rat on cops so as the saying goes here.
You cant spell OPPression without OPP.
____________________________
SSubZero wrote:

MNK: "OK we're gonna go in and get those items."
WHM: "Did you have a plan?"
MNK: "Plan? I was going to walk through the front door and start punching people."
#11 Nov 15 2011 at 7:04 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
19,519 posts
Quote:
You cant spell OPPression without OPP.

Eh?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#12 Nov 15 2011 at 7:17 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,175 posts
idiggory wrote:
He wasn't the target of an investigation, so such rights wouldn't apply to him.
Dude, it's like the first sentence.
OP Article wrote:
Ontario's highest court has ruled that police involved in an SIU investigation are not permitted "to have lawyers vet their notes or to assist them in preparation of their notes."
Now that I've read it (because, simply put, I'm just not interested enough), yeah half and half but the article is pretty vague. I'm kind of curious if they ruled for the whole police report, or just the parts that don't involve the official statement near the end. Which, at least here, would be completely illegal. So the cops should have done the basic Who/What/Where/When sections of the report, but I can't imagine any court ruling that legal counsel isn't allowed for a legal statement that could be used against the individual in a court. But like I said, the article is vague and I'm not invested enough to hunt down a more detailed report on the matter.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#13 Nov 15 2011 at 7:21 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
19,519 posts
"involved in" doesn't mean "subject of" though. But maybe I'm just reading something that isn't there, since you are right that it is vague though.

Still, there's no good reason for a police officer to need to consult an attorney for his official report considering any investigation he was leading or a part of. If he's the subject of the investigation, I totally get it. But allowing him or her to do so before making an official report (a report that would be endorsed by the gov't because of his position) just seems to me like begging to leave open a space for corruption, without any obvious benefit to civil liberties.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#14 Nov 15 2011 at 7:23 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,175 posts
Peimei wrote:
How good is your memory after two days. When you just ended a life?
I'm only comfortable enough to elude to remembering certain events eight years ago with enough clarity to make me wake up in a sweat. Can we leave it at that?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#15 Nov 15 2011 at 7:32 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,089 posts
I get lost in your avatar gaxe. It's scary
____________________________
SSubZero wrote:

MNK: "OK we're gonna go in and get those items."
WHM: "Did you have a plan?"
MNK: "Plan? I was going to walk through the front door and start punching people."
#16 Nov 16 2011 at 12:33 AM Rating: Good
**
574 posts
Peimei wrote:
I get lost in your avatar gaxe. It's scary


I picture thats what he'll look like in about 12 years or so on the day when the first poor little soul ask his daughter out right down to poping out the bushes.

The whole being allowed hear what others have to report or thier statement on what happen is the biggest issue here.
____________________________
.
#17 Nov 16 2011 at 8:45 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,531 posts
I'd think a law enforcement agency would have standard reporting procedures to follow after an on-the-job shooting.

Is this it?

The public and the family have a right to know what went down in the woods.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#18 Nov 16 2011 at 3:03 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Elinda wrote:
I'd think a law enforcement agency would have standard reporting procedures to follow after an on-the-job shooting.


They do.

Quote:
Is this it?


More or less. While I suppose this varies by location, the common practice is to *always* have an investigation after an officer involved shooting. And the officer is the "subject" of that investigation. For that reason, it's absolutely proper for him to seek counsel prior to writing anything down or saying anything to anyone. Advising the officer to not talk to anyone or write anything down until he speaks with counsel is also not unusual at all. It's basic legal advice that works in any situation.

The article was vague about how many officers were involved with the actual shooting and how many were just witnesses. It was also vague in terms of them all speaking to the same lawyer. In a small remote town, that might not be avoidable. The bigger question is whether or not the officers were able to collude in some way to make their stories fit. If that the case, then that's wrong. But it has nothing to do with allowing the officers access to counsel. IMO, that's perfectly normal and acceptable.


Quote:
The public and the family have a right to know what went down in the woods.


Absolutely. But if the officer are going to lie about what happened, they're going to lie about it. If the compared stories in order to make it easier to lie, then that's the thing that needs to be focused on. The officer(s) absolutely have a right to counsel as well.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#19 Nov 16 2011 at 3:31 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
19,519 posts
Quote:
Absolutely. But if the officer are going to lie about what happened, they're going to lie about it. If the compared stories in order to make it easier to lie, then that's the thing that needs to be focused on. The officer(s) absolutely have a right to counsel as well.


No one disagrees with you here. But that doesn't mean that they have the right to counsel at the expense of making a prompt report, that they deserve to have it before making their report, that they deserve to have a single attorney act on behalf of all of them, that they have the right to associate with the witnesses prior to filing a report, or that there's any reason they would need counsel until the investigation begins (which won't be until after their report is submitted).

If, after an investigation is launched, they want to seek counsel--feel free. They are no longer in a position of official power in the case. But if you are acting in an official capacity, you do not have all the rights of a private citizen--you trade them in for a different set of rights and privileges.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#20 Nov 16 2011 at 3:32 PM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
You cant spell OPPression without OPP.

Eh?
You're not down? :(
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#21 Nov 16 2011 at 3:36 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,519 posts
Sweetums wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
You cant spell OPPression without OPP.

Eh?
You're not down? :(


So it would seem. Smiley: frown
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#22 Nov 16 2011 at 4:01 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,089 posts
Here's a link to the group that brought this to the courts. It has the story and all other details if you are so inclined. The family and friends that put it all together are friends of mine, and I knew Levi as well.
____________________________
SSubZero wrote:

MNK: "OK we're gonna go in and get those items."
WHM: "Did you have a plan?"
MNK: "Plan? I was going to walk through the front door and start punching people."
#23 Nov 16 2011 at 4:12 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Peimei wrote:
Here's a link to the group that brought this to the courts. It has the story and all other details if you are so inclined. The family and friends that put it all together are friends of mine, and I knew Levi as well.


Maybe I'm missing something, or the story was written by someone who assumed that any random reader already knew most of the story, but I still don't see anything wrong in terms of the police procedures. I don't see anything in that story saying that they colluded, or even that both of them used the same lawyer (although that might be elsewhere, I didn't read the court documents of the case). So this is about problems with a standard police procedure because there *might* have been collusion?

I'm still sticking with my "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" comparison. The right of the officers to speak to counsel prior to writing their reports (I'm assuming that's what they mean by "notes") is important and does not automatically mean that they are being deceptive or coordinating their stories. Heck. The officers could have done that at any time during/after the shooting (they were the only two people there, right?). They don't need a lawyer to do that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#24 Nov 16 2011 at 4:47 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
19,519 posts
Quote:
I don't see anything in that story saying that they colluded, or even that both of them used the same lawyer (although that might be elsewhere, I didn't read the court documents of the case).


Whether or not they colluded is only part of the issue. But the fact is that they violated laws designed to keep them from colluding.

And, please, give me a single legitimate reason why a police officer would need to consult a lawyer before submitting a report?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#25 Nov 16 2011 at 4:49 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
19,519 posts
Also, there's DEFINITELY no reason why an officer who is a witness would have a reason to speak to a lawyer. You might argue that Miranda rights apply to an officer, since his report will cause an investigation if it includes a shooting. That doesn't apply to the witness in a case--he will only be investigated if they find evidence that he lied.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#26 Nov 16 2011 at 4:57 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
I don't see anything in that story saying that they colluded, or even that both of them used the same lawyer (although that might be elsewhere, I didn't read the court documents of the case).


Whether or not they colluded is only part of the issue. But the fact is that they violated laws designed to keep them from colluding.


No, they didn't. They followed standard procedure, some people complained and took them to court, and a judge ruled that they shouldn't use that procedure. But the "baby with the bathwater" aspect of this is that it weakens the right to avoid self-incrimination for police officers and sets a horrible precedent.

Quote:
And, please, give me a single legitimate reason why a police officer would need to consult a lawyer before submitting a report?


For the same reasons lawyers tell clients not to speak to the media, or to make statements without them present (yes, even innocent clients). The same argument you're trying to use here applies equally to anyone accused of a crime. That's why it's a dangerous precedent.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#27 Nov 16 2011 at 5:57 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,253 posts
If a civilian shoots someone he is arrested and then is given access to a lawyer. If a police officer shoots someone he is not arrested, but he's not arrested because he explains the legitimate reason he/she had for shooting someone. If the officer isn't willing to immediately explain his actions he should be arrested and given access to an attorney like the rest of us.

It's simple as that. There are no rights being broken here the officer still has a choice.
#28 Nov 16 2011 at 6:18 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,089 posts
The officer didn't have a choice he was instructed by his superior to wait till he and the witness officer could sit down, together, with a lawyer to right their report. The issue is the wait time makes for an inaccurate report to begin with and having the only witness write his report with you there for your input is not just or fair.
If you went out and shot someone the police wouldn't lock you up with the witnesses for obvious reasons.
____________________________
SSubZero wrote:

MNK: "OK we're gonna go in and get those items."
WHM: "Did you have a plan?"
MNK: "Plan? I was going to walk through the front door and start punching people."
#29 Nov 16 2011 at 8:49 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Peimei wrote:
The officer didn't have a choice he was instructed by his superior to wait till he and the witness officer could sit down, together, with a lawyer to right their report.


Where is that stated as fact in this case? I agree that if both sat down in the same room with the same lawyer, that's a problem. But the closest I could find on the linked site was that they were told to wait until they had "both consulted O.P.P.A. lawyers". There is a statement that "Too often, the same union lawyer will review both subject and witness officers statements. The section of the Police Act that calls for officers to be segregated until after being interviewed by the SIU is violated through this practice."

It just seems counterproductive to exaggerate the details here. What *actually* happened here? Because the facts I'm reading don't match what you keep saying in your posts. Don't get me wrong, there's certainly some issues if the legal staff are making adjustments to reports to make sure they match up, but that's a wholly separate issue from whether or not police should have a right to speak with counsel prior to writing their reports in the first place. Those reports should not be subject to adjustment after the fact (or during writing) is all.

Given that the link only says that sometimes the same lawyer is used doesn't tell me if that was the case here. Was it?

Quote:
The issue is the wait time makes for an inaccurate report to begin with and having the only witness write his report with you there for your input is not just or fair.


Again, was the shooting officer in the same room with the witness officer while he wrote his report? If not, could you stop exaggerating the facts? There's sufficient legitimate cause for concern here, you don't have to stretch things.

Quote:
If you went out and shot someone the police wouldn't lock you up with the witnesses for obvious reasons.


Sure. But did the equivalent actually happen in this case? I'm getting a serious telephone vibe going on with the facts here. Can you show me facts indicating that they not only used the same lawyer in this case but wrote their reports together in the same room at the same time? Because if that happened, then obviously that's hugely wrong. But if not, then I'd rather we talked about what actually happened, why it might be wrong, etc.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#30 Nov 16 2011 at 9:16 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,089 posts
Wait. Aren't you the anecdotal evidence is A OK guy?


Quoted from the SIU report.

Shortly after the incident, the subject officer was instructed not to write up his
notes in his memo book until he spoke with Ontario Provincial Police Association
(OPPA) legal counsel. The association lawyer advised the officer to prepare
notes which only he would review. Once the lawyer approved the notes, the
officer wrote up his memo book two days later based on a combination of his
confidential notes to counsel and discussions with him.
“The only witness to the shooting, the second officer, was also advised not to
contemporaneously write up his notes in his memo book. He too wrote up a set of
notes which he shared with the same legal counsel before entering them into his
memo book two days later. Neither officer provided the SIU investigators with
their first set of notes.
“This note writing process flies in the face of the two main indicators of
reliability of notes: independence and contemporaneity. The notes do not
represent an independent recitation of the material events. The first drafts have
been ‘approved’ by an OPPA lawyer who represented all of the involved officers
in this matter, a lawyer who has a professional obligation to share information
among his clients when jointly retained by them. Nor are the notes the most
contemporaneous ones – they were not written as soon as practicable and the first
drafts remain in the custody of their lawyer. I am denied the opportunity to
compare the first draft with the final entries. Accordingly, the only version of the
material events are OPPA lawyer approved notes.”


Link to affedavit by Levi's mother where she quotes said material.
I'm not really interested in getting into a debate on whether the cops did wrong or not. My opinion on that will never change. I was posting this more because it's amazing that the courts are actually doing something about this.
____________________________
SSubZero wrote:

MNK: "OK we're gonna go in and get those items."
WHM: "Did you have a plan?"
MNK: "Plan? I was going to walk through the front door and start punching people."
#31 Nov 17 2011 at 1:36 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,519 posts
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
I don't see anything in that story saying that they colluded, or even that both of them used the same lawyer (although that might be elsewhere, I didn't read the court documents of the case).


Whether or not they colluded is only part of the issue. But the fact is that they violated laws designed to keep them from colluding.


No, they didn't. They followed standard procedure, some people complained and took them to court, and a judge ruled that they shouldn't use that procedure. But the "baby with the bathwater" aspect of this is that it weakens the right to avoid self-incrimination for police officers and sets a horrible precedent.

Quote:
And, please, give me a single legitimate reason why a police officer would need to consult a lawyer before submitting a report?


For the same reasons lawyers tell clients not to speak to the media, or to make statements without them present (yes, even innocent clients). The same argument you're trying to use here applies equally to anyone accused of a crime. That's why it's a dangerous precedent.


Standard procedure demands they be segregated until after their reports are filed. They weren't. It also demands that they make their reports in a timely matter. They didn't. And part of this case seems to have been about whether or not police procedure was violating laws (and it seems that the judges agreed that it was).

And it's a very, very different scenario. There's plenty of reason for a client not to speak to the media or to the police, even if innocent.

There's absolutely no good reason for a police officer to need to speak to one when making his official report as a representative of the government.

The decision this court reached was that lawyers have no right vetting notes, but that police DO have the right to seek counsel regarding what their rights are.

The Appeals Court wrote:
"The use of legal counsel to advise or assist in the preparation of notes would be inconsistent with the purpose of police notes and with the duty imposed on police officers to prepare them."


This. It's too bad that law requires a police officer to fess up to the fact that he shot some guy in cold blood. But that's the cost of acting as an officer of the law. If I shoot someone, I'm not obligated to tell anyone. He is (assuming he did it while on the job). That's the difference.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#32 Nov 17 2011 at 7:52 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,531 posts
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
I'd think a law enforcement agency would have standard reporting procedures to follow after an on-the-job shooting.


They do.

Quote:
Is this it?


More or less.
You found the SOP on file for the Ontario special forces unit?

That's some pretty good detective work there.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#33 Nov 17 2011 at 3:29 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Peimei wrote:
Wait. Aren't you the anecdotal evidence is A OK guy?


Sure. If you're providing an example of something. Here, we're looking for specific details of a single incident. That's kinda different, isn't it?


Quote:
Quoted from the SIU report.

Shortly after the incident, the subject officer was instructed not to write up his
notes in his memo book until he spoke with Ontario Provincial Police Association
(OPPA) legal counsel. The association lawyer advised the officer to prepare
notes which only he would review. Once the lawyer approved the notes, the
officer wrote up his memo book two days later based on a combination of his
confidential notes to counsel and discussions with him.
“The only witness to the shooting, the second officer, was also advised not to
contemporaneously write up his notes in his memo book. He too wrote up a set of
notes which he shared with the same legal counsel before entering them into his
memo book two days later. Neither officer provided the SIU investigators with
their first set of notes.
“This note writing process flies in the face of the two main indicators of
reliability of notes: independence and contemporaneity. The notes do not
represent an independent recitation of the material events. The first drafts have
been ‘approved’ by an OPPA lawyer who represented all of the involved officers
in this matter, a lawyer who has a professional obligation to share information
among his clients when jointly retained by them. Nor are the notes the most
contemporaneous ones – they were not written as soon as practicable and the first
drafts remain in the custody of their lawyer. I am denied the opportunity to
compare the first draft with the final entries. Accordingly, the only version of the
material events are OPPA lawyer approved notes.”


I'm still not seeing anything in here which says that the two officers were in the same room when they gave their reports, a claim you made three times in your earlier post.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#34 Nov 17 2011 at 3:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
To be fair, he's been following this for a while, given he knew the deceased, so it's possible that it was mentioned in one of the other pieces he's read, or someone on the news said it.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#35 Nov 17 2011 at 4:18 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
To be fair, he's been following this for a while, given he knew the deceased, so it's possible that it was mentioned in one of the other pieces he's read, or someone on the news said it.


That's the impression I got as well. But isn't it possible his own proximity to the case is clouding his perception of it? He appears to be repeating claims that maybe aren't quite 100% true because they make the victim look more victimized and make the officers actions look more wrong. I'd just like to know if those claims are actually true, or just things people repeat but never bothered to verify.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#36 Nov 17 2011 at 4:20 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
19,519 posts
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
To be fair, he's been following this for a while, given he knew the deceased, so it's possible that it was mentioned in one of the other pieces he's read, or someone on the news said it.


That's the impression I got as well. But isn't it possible his own proximity to the case is clouding his perception of it? He appears to be repeating claims that maybe aren't quite 100% true because they make the victim look more victimized and make the officers actions look more wrong. I'd just like to know if those claims are actually true, or just things people repeat but never bothered to verify.


That would constitute an immense and fundamental aspect of the case. So, no, I doubt he's confused.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#37 Nov 17 2011 at 5:03 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
To be fair, he's been following this for a while, given he knew the deceased, so it's possible that it was mentioned in one of the other pieces he's read, or someone on the news said it.


That's the impression I got as well. But isn't it possible his own proximity to the case is clouding his perception of it? He appears to be repeating claims that maybe aren't quite 100% true because they make the victim look more victimized and make the officers actions look more wrong. I'd just like to know if those claims are actually true, or just things people repeat but never bothered to verify.


That would constitute an immense and fundamental aspect of the case. So, no, I doubt he's confused.


Except that I can't find anything in the case itself which mentions the two officers being in the same room. Just that they used the same counsel to go over their notes prior to them submitting them, and that said counsel *could* have edited them in order to make sure there were no inconsistencies. The primary complaint appeared to be that since the original notes they submitted to counsel are protected by privilege, they were stuck with the official versions instead.

Now if you can find me some facts of the case in which its stated that the two officers were ever actually physically in the same room discussing the details of the event prior to submitting their notes, I'd love to see it. I just haven't run across anything like that even though the claim keeps getting repeated. Hence why I keep asking if that's just something that he heard and is repeating, or if its actually true. People do tend to exaggerate.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#38 Nov 17 2011 at 5:10 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
19,519 posts
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
To be fair, he's been following this for a while, given he knew the deceased, so it's possible that it was mentioned in one of the other pieces he's read, or someone on the news said it.


That's the impression I got as well. But isn't it possible his own proximity to the case is clouding his perception of it? He appears to be repeating claims that maybe aren't quite 100% true because they make the victim look more victimized and make the officers actions look more wrong. I'd just like to know if those claims are actually true, or just things people repeat but never bothered to verify.


That would constitute an immense and fundamental aspect of the case. So, no, I doubt he's confused.


Except that I can't find anything in the case itself which mentions the two officers being in the same room. Just that they used the same counsel to go over their notes prior to them submitting them, and that said counsel *could* have edited them in order to make sure there were no inconsistencies. The primary complaint appeared to be that since the original notes they submitted to counsel are protected by privilege, they were stuck with the official versions instead.

Now if you can find me some facts of the case in which its stated that the two officers were ever actually physically in the same room discussing the details of the event prior to submitting their notes, I'd love to see it. I just haven't run across anything like that even though the claim keeps getting repeated. Hence why I keep asking if that's just something that he heard and is repeating, or if its actually true. People do tend to exaggerate.


Their notes being reviewed by the same counsel before submitting is itself problematic. The point is for their two statements to be completely separate. It is unacceptable for them to have any avenue (that can be reasonably avoided) to plan their statements with each other.

You give one person, who has the right not to disclose what goes on with his or her clients, the power to advise them both regarding notes of the same event. There's absolutely no way to ensure that their notes wouldn't be collaborated through this process.

I'm generally accused of being overly idealistic on this board, and even I can see that just trusting lawyers to not do this is pretty absurd. Yeah, in a perfect world that lawyer will consider both sets of notes with no regard to the other set. But there is absolutely no way someone could know if he/she did or did not do this. And there needs to be a control for that.

Especially, since this case has demonstrated, any investigation that relies on their notes to determine wrongdoing is incapable of making any kind of determination, so a corrupt cop will go free. I believe, very strongly, in innocent until proven guilty. I don't believe that we should be making it easier for a dirty cop (of which there undoubtedly are) to evade repercussions by using the same legal counsel as the witnesses to his actions, who will have a vested interest in defending the department as a whole (which, for nearly all institutions, generally consists in keeping any wrongdoing from being found out).
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#39 Nov 17 2011 at 7:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:

Their notes being reviewed by the same counsel before submitting is itself problematic.


Agreed. But it's not the same as having both officers in the same room while writing those notes as was repeatedly claimed. There's a difference between "problematic, but could be an innocent scheduling issue" and "no way this could be done without an intent to falsify the resulting reports". Alleging the latter if it didn't happen is disingenuous at best.

Quote:
You give one person, who has the rightprivilege not to disclose what goes on with his or her clients, the power to advise them both regarding notes of the same event. There's absolutely no way to ensure that their notes wouldn't be collaborated through this process.


Semantics, but it's important in this case.

If the process involved a back and forth, yes. But if either different lawyers were used (the best way to handle this IMO), or even if the same lawyer handles both but does them serially (meaning he takes the statement from the first officer, advises him on the best legal language to use, and they write an official report and when he's completely done, he goes on to the second officer) much of that concern can be reduced. In the second case, you're still left with the possibility that the lawyer could advise the second officer in ways which result in a more consistent report at the end.


Honestly though, I'm not sure how critical this is. In that case, the attorney would have to be knowingly violating the law. Not many attorneys are going to do that. And frankly, there are a hell of a lot easier ways for the officers to get their stories straight than this if they really want to. While I'll freely admit to having never heard about this case before, it honestly looks to me like a group of people not satisfied with the official explanation of the shooting, and in the absence of any contradiction or questionable statements in the reports of the officers or evidence collected from the scene, or any other data which might be available, have decided to sue over the methods by which the reports were written in the first place.


And I guess my biggest issue is that the way it's being presented here is like this was some gross violation of the rules. But this appears to be the standard way of handling officer related shootings in that organization. I can't imagine that this just appeared out of the middle of no where. Someone just decided in this case to sue over it, and an investigator decided to raise a big stink about it (apparently about something which would be true in every case involving an officer related shooting for some time now), and a judge decided to rule in the favor of the plaintiffs.


I suppose that's how legal changes happen, but I still have some concerns about the apparent bending of public policy to public outrage (which may very well be exaggerated via the very kinds of false claims being posted in this thread). That's a really bad reason to make judicial rulings which may have a significant impact on people's rights, so I'm a bit concerned about that.

Quote:
I'm generally accused of being overly idealistic on this board, and even I can see that just trusting lawyers to not do this is pretty absurd.


We trust lawyers to do the exact same thing every single time a person is arrested though (or even just questioned). You're guaranteed the right to speak to an attorney prior to being questioned by authorities. Always. And any one of those lawyers might coach their client on what to say and what not to say (in fact, they do this all the time). But they aren't allowed to tell their clients to lie, and they aren't allowed to knowingly present false statements on behalf of their clients. Yet, they certainly *can* do this. And we still extend them attorney/client privilege and we don't consider this a problem. Even in cases where the same lawyer represents two people in a case! OMG!!!

The legal system is required to work around those things. Find evidence at the scene that contradicts the statements of the officers. Find some reason to doubt their statements. But don't just assume that because they *could* have written false statements and the lawyer *could* have facilitated this that this means that there's some problem with the process itself.


Quote:
Yeah, in a perfect world that lawyer will consider both sets of notes with no regard to the other set. But there is absolutely no way someone could know if he/she did or did not do this. And there needs to be a control for that.


Sure. Use different lawyers just to avoid the perception that this could happen. But IMO that's still not a violation if they don't. As I said above, the legal system has to work around that. We extend those rights and privileges to every other attorney and client, and I don't think making an exception in this case is warranted.

Unless there's some reason to actually think the officers lied other than family and friends insisting that there must have been more to the story? Is there anything?

Quote:
Especially, since this case has demonstrated, any investigation that relies on their notes to determine wrongdoing is incapable of making any kind of determination, so a corrupt cop will go free. I believe, very strongly, in innocent until proven guilty. I don't believe that we should be making it easier for a dirty cop (of which there undoubtedly are) to evade repercussions by using the same legal counsel as the witnesses to his actions, who will have a vested interest in defending the department as a whole (which, for nearly all institutions, generally consists in keeping any wrongdoing from being found out).



I see both sides of this though. I agree that as a matter of policy the department should segregate the lawyers representing the two in the same way they segregate the officers themselves, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to find some violation of law if they didn't. I'm far more concerned with the precedent this sets. Why not do the same for cases with multiple defendants? After all, it's a big pain in the butt for police investigators trying to get the truth from a group of people if they lawyer up and then are allowed to possibly coordinate their stories through a common lawyer, right? But we allow this. But police would love it if they could separate the suspects *and* not allow them any possibility to have the same lawyer represent them. Is that ok?

If not, why in one case, but not the other?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 Nov 17 2011 at 8:08 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,519 posts
Quote:
Quote:
Their notes being reviewed by the same counsel before submitting is itself problematic.

Agreed. But it's not the same as having both officers in the same room while writing those notes as was repeatedly claimed. There's a difference between "problematic, but could be an innocent scheduling issue" and "no way this could be done without an intent to falsify the resulting reports". Alleging the latter if it didn't happen is disingenuous at best.


Are you honestly going to pretend like they just HAPPENED to see the same attorney because of some freak scheduling accident?

Some additional notes on your post, since a full response is way too much work for someone who won't get it anyway.
1. Actually, you should assume that statements could be falsified... in a situation where they could have been falsified.
2. Do you think we live in some magical world where forensic evidence can let us recreate a crime like on CSI? The statements of police officers involved in a shooting are extremely important in an investigation, regardless of the likelihood that they could have done something wrong.
3. Are you really going to pretend like this is something that could happen, but that we have no reason to believe it will happen, so then we shouldn't prepare for it? And this is "could happen" in a sense of, "Tomorrow, I could skip class" and NOT "The earth could implode in 17 seconds." You know, in case you wanted to try and use transliteration here.

It's absolutely unacceptable for any kind of legal document, at any point, to exist outside of parameters designed to protect its authenticity. When we are discussing witness reports, it's absolutely necessary that the reports of those involved be kept absolutely separate, insofar as is possible. Having them cycle through the same person, who is legally guaranteed the right to secrecy, before they are submitted is just absurd.

I don't agree that they should have the right to an attorney before submitting their report, but whatever--plenty of people disagree with me. But I absolutely do not think they have the right to the same attorney.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#41 Nov 17 2011 at 8:59 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Are you honestly going to pretend like they just HAPPENED to see the same attorney because of some freak scheduling accident?


I have no clue how that happened. But neither do you. I'm not assuming there was some calculated intent to manipulate the reports though, am I? For all I know, they were in some tiny podunk town and there was only one attorney working for the local police force to represent them. If you want to convince me otherwise, then show me that there were 10 different attorneys working in that office and the police captain (or whomever) deliberately sent both officers to the same one.


I agree that the normal procedure should be to use different attorneys. However, I'm not going to assume that them using the same one in this case automatically indicates an intent to falsify the reports in some way. Barring evidence to the contrary, that is. Which is why I've repeatedly asked for more detail supporting the claims being made, and aside from a huge list of links which I don't have time to sift through, haven't received any.


It's not like I have a horse in this race or anything. I just haven't seen enough information to make me assume anything was screwy with how this was handled.

Quote:
1. Actually, you should assume that statements could be falsified... in a situation where they could have been falsified.


I don't think that's what you meant to write, but agreed! Self evident is self evident. It doesn't mean that we should assume such a thing *did* happen though, or even that the possibility of it happening requires some sort of mandates which may not always be able to be met.

Quote:
2. Do you think we live in some magical world where forensic evidence can let us recreate a crime like on CSI? The statements of police officers involved in a shooting are extremely important in an investigation, regardless of the likelihood that they could have done something wrong.


Yes. They are important. I'm not sure what your point is here.

Quote:
3. Are you really going to pretend like this is something that could happen, but that we have no reason to believe it will happen, so then we shouldn't prepare for it?


You're really naive enough to think that this case is just about procedure and nothing more? The family is trying to claim that the police officers did something improper or illegal which resulted in the death of that man. And in the absence of any evidence to support that claim, they are going after the method by which the reports the officers filed were written.

What do you think will happen if/when a judge decides that said methodology was improper? While it's easy for us to sit here and debate the issue in objective terms, this is not how the case is going to play out. It will be seen as proof that there was some sort of falsification and that will be used to sue the police. And they'll probably win. All because someone decided after the fact that a methodology which has probably been in use for decades should in this case be made suspect.

The public perception from this case will e that those officers *did* collude and lie about something, not just that since they could have, we should change the methods used in cases like this. Again, you're naive if you don't see that bigger picture here.

Quote:
It's absolutely unacceptable for any kind of legal document, at any point, to exist outside of parameters designed to protect its authenticity. When we are discussing witness reports, it's absolutely necessary that the reports of those involved be kept absolutely separate, insofar as is possible. Having them cycle through the same person, who is legally guaranteed the right to secrecy, before they are submitted is just absurd.


So you do believe we should not allow multiple suspects to have the same attorney represent them and speak with them prior to giving statements to the police? You realize you've just turned over a few centuries of legal rights precedent right there? What do you think happens when we let a single attorney speak to his clients before they have to give a statement (which is a guaranteed right)? That attorney absolutely could aid the suspects in straightening out their stories. If he is willing to commit a crime, that is.

Police still have that same right. While me might suggest that when possible their policies should separate them and their counsel, that's a matter of PR and not law.

Quote:
I don't agree that they should have the right to an attorney before submitting their report, but whatever--plenty of people disagree with me. But I absolutely do not think they have the right to the same attorney.


It's not about what they have a right to. They have a right to "an attorney". That it might be the same one is a secondary consideration. The question is whether the government has the authority to not allow them to have the same counsel represent them. Again, I agree that the policy should lean towards not doing so. But that's purely because you presumably want to avoid the exact perception that's going on in this case. But that's not the same as legally mandating something. In some cases, it may not be easily possible to do that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#42 Nov 18 2011 at 11:53 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,089 posts
Ultimately this case has set a precedent to stop the possibility of witness and shooting officers from falsifying there notes. As far as I understand no officer has been charged or even reprimanded in this case, the way in which these incidents are handled by the SIU have been changed that's all.
Again there were a lot of other circumstances involved in the shooting that made people question what really happened.
____________________________
SSubZero wrote:

MNK: "OK we're gonna go in and get those items."
WHM: "Did you have a plan?"
MNK: "Plan? I was going to walk through the front door and start punching people."
#43 Nov 18 2011 at 1:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
44 posts
You are absolutely wrong. I am an Officer and have experience in Officer Involved Shootings. It may upset you to learn that Officers, on AND off duty are first and foremost citizens and afforded the rights of every other citizen. When you are involved in a shooting, you have the right to an attorney and are encouraged to speak with one before you make an official account of what happened. You should make a brief statement to a supervisor on scene as the very basics of what happened to avoid and officer safety issues (other outstanding suspects, location of the shooting etc....)

Whether you like, agree, disagree or don't care, those are the facts. It is ridiculous to expect people employed in a profession that has a high likelyhood of injury and deadly force to have any type of curtailed rights. Constitutional rights don't stop because you are a government employee. There are other mechanisms in place to help curtail officer misconduct (civilian review boards come to mind).
____________________________
I'm a man who loves his taffy

- Mayor Adam West
#44 Nov 18 2011 at 2:08 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
RCMP, Provincial or Municipal?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#45 Nov 18 2011 at 2:53 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,175 posts
Peimei wrote:
Ultimately this case has set a precedent to stop the possibility of witness and shooting officers from falsifying there notes.
No it doesn't. It just makes them falsify those notes sooner should they want to.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#46 Nov 18 2011 at 3:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Peimei wrote:
Ultimately this case has set a precedent to stop the possibility of witness and shooting officers from falsifying there notes.
No it doesn't. It just makes them falsify those notes sooner should they want to.


Like say while walking back to the car to radio in the shooting in the first place? I guess that's what I'm still not getting about this case. There are two officers, partners presumably, out in the middle of nowhere. One of them shoots a man by a lake. Yet we're to assume that if any collusion or adjusting of the story occurred, it happened two days later by an attorney who wasn't there, wasn't involved in the shooting and just decided to commit a crime to falsify a police report for fun I guess, rather than by the two officers right there and then? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#47 Nov 18 2011 at 4:40 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,175 posts
The information is too vague to draw any conclusion, so I'm avoiding discussing it unless something more solid is presented. I just know human nature: If someone wants to lie, they're going to lie.

But just off what little we do have, I don't think they did lie. I think the officers both panicked after the shooting, and to calm them down the supervisor told them to not make their report until after speaking with legal counsel. I think it's a podunk little town out in the middle of nowhere, so legal counsel is limited which is why it took so long and why they both saw the same lawyer. I think the cops in question should have written their notes and reports, and had them sealed prior to legal counsel to review a copy, and the copy should have been released with the original untouched. That way a third party review board could look at the two in their own investigations, and if the two are so different then the originals could be released.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#48 Nov 18 2011 at 5:08 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,519 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
The information is too vague to draw any conclusion, so I'm avoiding discussing it unless something more solid is presented. I just know human nature: If someone wants to lie, they're going to lie.

But just off what little we do have, I don't think they did lie. I think the officers both panicked after the shooting, and to calm them down the supervisor told them to not make their report until after speaking with legal counsel. I think it's a podunk little town out in the middle of nowhere, so legal counsel is limited which is why it took so long and why they both saw the same lawyer. I think the cops in question should have written their notes and reports, and had them sealed prior to legal counsel to review a copy, and the copy should have been released with the original untouched. That way a third party review board could look at the two in their own investigations, and if the two are so different then the originals could be released.


I'm perfectly fine with this.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#49 Nov 19 2011 at 8:20 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,089 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
The information is too vague to draw any conclusion, so I'm avoiding discussing it unless something more solid is presented. I just know human nature: If someone wants to lie, they're going to lie.

But just off what little we do have, I don't think they did lie. I think the officers both panicked after the shooting, and to calm them down the supervisor told them to not make their report until after speaking with legal counsel. I think it's a podunk little town out in the middle of nowhere, so legal counsel is limited which is why it took so long and why they both saw the same lawyer. I think the cops in question should have written their notes and reports, and had them sealed prior to legal counsel to review a copy, and the copy should have been released with the original untouched. That way a third party review board could look at the two in their own investigations, and if the two are so different then the originals could be released.

That would have been the best solution. Of course like you said if someone wants to lie, they are going to lie.
____________________________
SSubZero wrote:

MNK: "OK we're gonna go in and get those items."
WHM: "Did you have a plan?"
MNK: "Plan? I was going to walk through the front door and start punching people."
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 55 All times are in CDT
Aethien, Bijou, ElneClare, Kavekk, Samira, Anonymous Guests (50)