Law Supreme Court of Canada: Prosecutors Owe No Duty to Police

[Swamp]

What in the flying fk does this have to do with anything being discussed here ?
The same Supreme Court ???
Furthermore, that judgement is from 1993, you putz. How’s that the "same" SC ?
The only similarities are in the institution.

You should seriously limit yourself to answering polls on threads and discussing who’s bulge is more due to a cup and who’s is natural, on the heavies.

I am not arguing what is legally correct. Whatever the SCC says is legally correct is legally correct.* I am taking issue with the decision from a policy perspective.

It's controlled is what I'm saying so you can expect bullshit decisions from the SC.

 

[4daLuLZ]

It's controlled is what I'm saying so you can expect bullshit decisions from the SC.

I can see why your last account got banned, buddy.

 

[nhbbear]

And I think cops should be personally be liable to be sued when they arrest you on false charges. That means arrests that result in no convictions / don’t even make it to trial.
No union liability / help too.

This should be fun !

If it could be proven, sure. But simply because an arrest doesn’t end in conviction doesn’t mean that it was a false arrest. I actually do think that if a cop knowingly arrests someone on a false or made up charge, they should lose their qualified immunity and possibly face false imprisonment charges.

 

[EndlessCritic]

And I think cops should be personally be liable to be sued when they arrest you on false charges. That means arrests that result in no convictions / don’t even make it to trial.
No union liability / help too.

This should be fun !

And... the supreme court ruled in 2019 that you could do that.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2019/2019scc45/2019scc45.html

 

[4daLuLZ]

If it could be proven, sure. But simply because an arrest doesn’t end in conviction doesn’t mean that it was a false arrest. I actually do think that if a cop knowingly arrests someone on a false or made up charge, they should lose their qualified immunity and possibly face false imprisonment charges.

So did they prove that these prosecutors knowingly pressed charges, on fake premises, on these cops ?

 

[Swamp]

I can see why your last account got banned, buddy.

Why make yourself look like a bitch that can't handle a different point of view?

A SC trapped in the Liberal sphere of influence is not going to make the best decisions.

 

[nhbbear]

So did they prove that these prosecutors knowingly pressed charges, on fake premises, on these cops ?

I haven’t seen anything concrete that I recall

 

[EndlessCritic]

So did they prove that these prosecutors knowingly pressed charges, on fake premises, on these cops ?

The cops were never charged criminally.

 

[HereticBD]

Personally, for proven false claims, I think charges should be filed and the officers should be able to sue in the case of false claims harming reputation and future promotions as well as for damages when s shitbag attacks an officer

The prosecutors though? They're just trying a case. You have to let the courts sort that out, and live with the verdicts. If it's proven the accuser was lying, then you can sue them, but not the lawyers. They're just doing their job, and much like cops, they need a certain amount of immunity to be able to do it effectively.

 

[nhbbear]

The prosecutors though? They're just trying a case. You have to let the courts sort that out, and live with the verdicts. If it's proven the accuser was lying, then you can sue them, but not the lawyers. They're just doing their job, and much like cops, they need a certain amount of immunity to be able to do it effectively.

I didn’t say anything about suing the lawyers. I think police should be able to sue if a person attacks them on duty.

Last week, a routine traffic stop in Maryland made national headlines when a suspected drunk driver plowed into a police officer and his vehicle, putting the officer in the hospital with critical injuries. The driver was not hurt at all and refused to take a breath test at the scene. Police took him into custody and said they expected to charge him, NBC News reported.

Noah Leotta, 24, was in critical condition in the days after the incident. He had volunteered to work on a special holiday alcohol-enforcement patrol, Police Captain Paul Stark said, "It is ironic that here he was trying to keep the community safe and the roads safe for everyone, yet he was struck by someone who is suspected of having alcohol or drugs in his system."

Assumption of Risk

Situations like this one raise the question of a police officer's assumption of risk. Can Leotta sue the suspected drunk driver -- Luis Gustavo Reluzco -- in civil court for negligence?

The answer is, it depends ... But probably not in this context. Every state has a version of the fireman's rule, which generally bars police officers and firefighters from suing people whose recklessness or negligence caused the hazard they are responding to. If the rules didn't exist, an emergency responder would have a basis for a lawsuit almost every time they did their job.

But just because some types of jobs assume a certain amount of risk does not mean that police or firefighters can never sue a civilian. In California, for example, the rule only bars actions for injuries caused by the misconduct that prompted the officer's presence at the scene. An injury that occurs independently of the misconduct to which the officer responds is outside the scope of the rule and the officer can sue civilly.

What Does That Mean?

Given what we know now about the traffic stop that put Leotta in the hospital, it seems unlikely he will be able to sue Reluzco in civil court for the injuries he sustained pulling him over last week. Applying the general principles of the fireman's rule, it seems designed to bar precisely this kind of claim.

Leotta was out on the street to respond to potentially intoxicated drivers and pull them over. He did that and ended up hurt by Reluzco. With no evidence that Reluzco intentionally hit the police officer and no other incidents arising from the original, it seems likely that Leotta will be barred from making a civil claim

 

[nhbbear]

And... the supreme court ruled in 2019 that you could do that.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2019/2019scc45/2019scc45.html

oh Canada. Not in the US. I know officers that have settled with insurance companies after being struck by a vehicle while on duty. But we have always been told we can’t sue if a person intentionally harms us

 

[maximus__]

Lol, no. This isn’t the Middle Ages.
Legally speaking, all criminal offences are considered offences against the State. That’s why it’s always Regina (the Queen) v. the accused, in Canada. The US does The State v. The Accused.










Thanks for helping me save the effort of reading that judgement and replying.





What in the flying fk does this have to do with anything being discussed here ?
The same Supreme Court ???
That judgement is from 1993, you putz. How’s that the "same" SC ?
The only similarities are in the institution.

You should seriously limit yourself to answering polls on threads and discussing who’s bulge is more due to a cup and who’s is natural, on the heavies.

The state accepts the role as the victim. That is why it becomes a crime against the state. It's just a different way of using the same word. I dodn't know what they do in every country so I explained it in simplest terms possible as part of my post I made.

It covers all the different ways cases are heard in the world. Someone takes the role of the Victim and someone the Accused. The basic premise of prosecutor, defence and judge or judicial authority is the same. It changes in a jury trial because the judge is basically the umpire/ a sort of coach and the jury make the decision.