EDiv A/Cst's petition to Minister of Public Safety

General Law Enforcement discussion which does not fit into other channels. Post your thoughts and feelings about anything you want (LE related), or just vent those fumes about whatever is on your chest.
User avatar
Mr. Islander
Seasoned Member
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:52 pm
Contact:

Re: EDiv A/Cst's petition to Minister of Public Safety

Postby Mr. Islander » Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:45 pm

.
Last edited by Mr. Islander on Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tango5
Rookie Member
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:34 am
Location: E Div
Contact:

Re: EDiv A/Cst's petition to Minister of Public Safety

Postby Tango5 » Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:13 pm

Expressed in words?, like yes or no?.. No
Expected to eventually happen, 100% (can’t avoid it, not during the 3 or 4 years it was practiced having 2 or 3 cars out) unless of course one turns a blind eye on someone in distress or in need of an immediate medical or other assistance waving down.
And you are absolutely right, you never know until you stop.
... For the Grammar Police, get off my back, I wasn't born here.

User avatar
John014
Seasoned Member
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:45 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: EDiv A/Cst's petition to Minister of Public Safety

Postby John014 » Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:24 pm

Tango5 wrote:
Understood but using s122 isn’t really fair as we aren’t trained in the EVO, If we were this example wouldn’t be as valid as the policy could change at a stroke of a pencil. Laws don’t change that easily.

Besides the above, which is a very valid limitation example, in general;

Policies are policies and as far as I truly respect them and obey by (note please, detachments have latitude and discresion)., they aren’t Laws, and considering any questionable lack of action on my part while on duty raised by a plaintiff represented by a lawyer or Crown themselves, wouldn’t allow me the pleasure to hide behind those policies in the case of any criminal or civil charge in court of law.

Note: It’s not about what I did, but rather what I didn’t do when I actually could according to law despite the policy in place.

Am I wrong here?[/quote]


Yes you are wrong.

Even though a law is in place if the policy restricts you from doing something then you are working outside of your boundaries and doing your job incorrectly. Also you are not covered in any way if shit goes sideways and would be entirely liable for any and all costs incurred possibly resulting from your actions.

Also the latitude/discretion is incorrect. The only discretion they have is to further limit your actions. If national policy says you cannot do something and someone else says you can do it because you are in (insert random location), they are wrong.

There is no need to reply to my response in an attempt to backpedal or say your words were misunderstood or that you will reply later. I am answering your question above asking if you are wrong.
If you choose Law Enforcement you LOSE the right to be unfit.

Police Officer

User avatar
Mr. Islander
Seasoned Member
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:52 pm
Contact:

Re: EDiv A/Cst's petition to Minister of Public Safety

Postby Mr. Islander » Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:04 pm

Nevermind

Stark
Regular Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 9:23 pm
Contact:

Re: EDiv A/Cst's petition to Minister of Public Safety

Postby Stark » Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:37 pm

Code99 wrote:
Tango5 wrote:I respect your comments Dave.

Edit.
Just a couple of thoughts.

-Any Aux talking about what they did last night on shift should get a boot.

-Whatever you say I should be familiar with, I am not.
-Cant say All but here, we don’t overstep boundaries, we might walk the line but that’s all. Aka driving marked cars etc.
-All that we do or did, was with full knowledge and encouragement of the detachment.

(Not trying to pick a fight)

Oh yes, and Auxiliaries serve in their own community mostly. Nothing can be done here.
And, Aux can still drive unmarked for non-operational duties - “observe report” etc.



I know a bunch of aux guys in the lower mainland. If you think for a second that the majority of them don't go home after a ride along and tell everyone exactly what happened then you're absolutely delusional. This is based on first hand experience. The quality of aux constables I've seen is incredibly questionable to be completely honest. They don't look or act like regular members for the most part. There are obviously exceptions to that as with anything. I fundamentally believe they should be restricted to community events and showing kids the inside of a PC.

Additionally, the thought of an aux driving a PC whether it's marked or unmarked without a RM and being flagged down is genuinely concerning considering they don't have the same UoF options available to them and therefore can't deal with certain situations. You can't honestly tell me that unpaid volunteers will have the same level of devotion and commitment to adhering by the rules as someone who is in a career with the RCMP. That just isn't possible.

I have an immediate family member who is a GD RM in the lower mainland of BC. I believe the job of an RCMP member is far too important to hand off to an unpaid volunteer. I believe the people showing up at calls should of gone through the RM recruiting process and graduated from Depot Division. I know of multiple LMD auxiliaries who have been deferred by the RCMP on multiple occasions in RM process.

Additionally, I think someone assisting a regular member on a traffic stop wearing something that says "volunteer" is incredibly stupid and will cause confusion among members of the general public who have no idea what an aux constable is in the first place. This goes back to my point regarding the fact they should just be doing community events.

Nothing an RCMP member does should be assumed by anyone in a volunteer position. Although there have been numerous phenomenal aux constables over the years, you should just become a cop if that's what you want to do.


Agreed. I think they're a very valuable tool if used for things like the above plus doing traffic control at hockey games/concerts and doing community policing.

User avatar
mack_silent
Rookie Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:36 am
Contact:

Re: EDiv A/Cst's petition to Minister of Public Safety

Postby mack_silent » Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:24 pm

I think most Officers would be happy to have an Auxiliary riding shotgun in their vehicle.
Especially one who has a good head on their shoulder like Tango5
I know if I was an RCMP Officer, I'd be happy to have a good Aux next to me, for the conversation, assistance, and added presence.

While I don't personally like the idea of a volunteer riding alone (I think RM should be there with them)
I think the situations which concern the RM's on here, are ones brought out by the past vagueness of policy, which appears to be changing
If a detachment is allowing Aux's to ride solo, then it is very foreseeable they would be flagged down for assistance while solo too
This would be where having a good head would come into play... calling in for an RM, while helping within your limits or standing by
KCCO. Wake up. Kick butt. Repeat.

Tango5
Rookie Member
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:34 am
Location: E Div
Contact:

Re: EDiv A/Cst's petition to Minister of Public Safety

Postby Tango5 » Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:59 pm

You will never ‘hear’ me because you don’t approve of Auxiliaries and/or think that all are ALL dumb and fit in one pot or you are plain and simply ignorant to facts at hand . That’s fine.

Just today AM I saw a pair in an unmarked car pull into Starbucks, walked in, we chatted. They were on their way to an event.
So.. imagine someone approaching them, bleeding all over.?, saying they were just assaulted by someone and they are terrified. What the fuck should they do? Give them a friggen number to call?, or perhaps call it in and drive off because they shouldn’t do this or that? And the poor guy gets jumped again?

Lawyers would eat me alive and policy wouldn’t help... and I have personal experiences to the fact that courts in BC don’t differentiate between Aux and RMs, nor they allow policies to be brought up against present laws. Further more, to save face, PSU would help to shred my ass to little tiny pieces.

So yeah, I’d rather be charged for acting against (not their paper weight worth) policies in good faith than be charged for doing nothing to save a live or not addressing the wellbeing of a person in distress, then, being judged by friggen media and public, being dragged through Twitter, Face Book, never mind Yutube ... looking like another internal idiot, having news papers blow the shit out of proportion.

And, detachment have no discretion or latitude to use their Aux as they see fit?
Remember?, Ottawa halted the National policy directing that Aux cannot appear in uniform alone, with out of armed oversite never mind driving a police car?. Above is example one.

Example 2. No ridealongs, no Counter Attacks yet.. just past Christmas’s Kamloops detachment has openly used Aux in this apparently forbidden task.

https://www.kamloopsbcnow.com/watercool ... oad_block/
... For the Grammar Police, get off my back, I wasn't born here.

Stark
Regular Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 9:23 pm
Contact:

Re: EDiv A/Cst's petition to Minister of Public Safety

Postby Stark » Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:37 am

I'm assuming counter attack is the same thing as checkstops for impaired drivers and seems to be a useful area to use auxiliary's. Proper supervision, more bodies to pull people over and if it's a suspected impaired driver; it can be passed over to an actual police officer.

NSAUX
Rookie Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Nova Scotia
Contact:

Re: EDiv A/Cst's petition to Minister of Public Safety

Postby NSAUX » Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:07 am

mack_silent wrote:I think most Officers would be happy to have an Auxiliary riding shotgun in their vehicle.
Especially one who has a good head on their shoulder like Tango5
I know if I was an RCMP Officer, I'd be happy to have a good Aux next to me, for the conversation, assistance, and added presence.

While I don't personally like the idea of a volunteer riding alone (I think RM should be there with them)
I think the situations which concern the RM's on here, are ones brought out by the past vagueness of policy, which appears to be changing
If a detachment is allowing Aux's to ride solo, then it is very foreseeable they would be flagged down for assistance while solo too
This would be where having a good head would come into play... calling in for an RM, while helping within your limits or standing by


Any don't forget our MOST important function.... GPS! :)

User avatar
Mr. Islander
Seasoned Member
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:52 pm
Contact:

Re: EDiv A/Cst's petition to Minister of Public Safety

Postby Mr. Islander » Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:56 pm

.
Last edited by Mr. Islander on Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tango5
Rookie Member
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:34 am
Location: E Div
Contact:

Re: EDiv A/Cst's petition to Minister of Public Safety

Postby Tango5 » Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:30 pm

It is what it is, I can’t change that. Some RMs will agree with you, some won’t.

Mind you, the policy allows driving cars, unmarked, (even the marked if authorized), being in public, under general detachment’s supervision. As far as I agree with you (believe it or not), you can’t expect the guys to just sit in the car for 10 hours. Sooner or later they will exit.
The sturbacks example... yeah, they were on the way from A to B and probably could skip that. However, a lot of times the whatever we do, is drive around most of the shift for verious non-operational reasons as assigned by command.
And, believe it or not, none of my shifts I attended I was ever restricted to just stay in the car, don’t get coffe, use a diaper or accelerate when being waved down etc.

All this is changing anyways.

For now, the program is status-quo with few extra restriction that detachments can by-pass with their own risk assessments. All I was trying to convey.

But hey, I do understand the concerns.
... For the Grammar Police, get off my back, I wasn't born here.

User avatar
Mr. Islander
Seasoned Member
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:52 pm
Contact:

Re: EDiv A/Cst's petition to Minister of Public Safety

Postby Mr. Islander » Wed Jan 31, 2018 4:21 pm

.
Last edited by Mr. Islander on Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
mack_silent
Rookie Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:36 am
Contact:

Re: EDiv A/Cst's petition to Minister of Public Safety

Postby mack_silent » Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:33 pm

I think he understands it pretty clearly.
He's followed the policies which have allowed him to operate a vehicle or go out solo.
These policies come from higher-ups, who decide if/when/how Auxs operate.

I too think that laws trump policies, and courts would certainly agree.
This means anyone operating in the field (RM or Aux) needs to use sound judgment, to avoid legal repercussions.
If he's placed in a car, and sees someone needing First Aid, and drives past them... that'd be an issue.

From what I've seen in reading posts and talking to Tango, he doesn't strike me as a Cowboy.
He's doing what he's told and appears to have expressed sound judgment while doing so.

I respect and understand the feelings of apprehension that some people have
towards Aux's operating alone in field, I'd too like to see them paired with an RM.

We have to respect the decision of the higher-ups, if they okay'd it, then that's how it is.
KCCO. Wake up. Kick butt. Repeat.

Tango5
Rookie Member
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:34 am
Location: E Div
Contact:

Re: EDiv A/Cst's petition to Minister of Public Safety

Postby Tango5 » Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:58 pm

Not that I haven’t stated a few times that I get the point, that I understand the concerns and I agree with them.

I don’t argue to just argue, nor paddle-back (apparently). I perfectly understand the points brought up by RMs. I ain’t stupid.

Considering the policy vs Law, the problem is just it, the fact that an Aux havev the same responsibilities and the obvious liabilities as per Acts and the oath they took make me believe that I have a legal obligation to stop when waved down.
Like I said before, (not to argue), I’d rather be coded for something I did than charged criminally for not doing so.

If anyone can point me in direction where I can be persuaded that while on duty, on road, in a car, in uniform I don’t have an obligation to stop thenI will gladly come back and state publicly that I am wrong and will never bring this up again.

Then the policy?
Nowhere is states in our policy we can’t drive cars, nowhere it states that we can’t be waved down. In fact the policy lists tasks Aux can do and can not do. Plus it states that tasks are authorised by the EDiv Commanding Officer. (Not quoted) so whatever he authorizes or de-authorizes goes.
All it tells us we can’t do enforcement tasks in the jist. Operating a police vehicle while performing authorized duties and being waved down isn’t considered being operational or engaged in any enforcement duty. Common.
... For the Grammar Police, get off my back, I wasn't born here.

User avatar
John014
Seasoned Member
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:45 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: EDiv A/Cst's petition to Minister of Public Safety

Postby John014 » Wed Jan 31, 2018 11:00 pm

Never mind. Waste of typing.
If you choose Law Enforcement you LOSE the right to be unfit.

Police Officer


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SemrushBot and 6 guests