Auxiliary Police Interview - TPS

Discuss the educational and physical requirements, testing process and background phase involved in the hiring process. Includes the experiences and advice of current and past applicants. All agency application related questions belong here.
Soxpomox
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 3:58 am
Contact:

Re: Auxiliary Police Interview - TPS

Postby Soxpomox » Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:47 pm

pukie wrote:
Soxpomox wrote:I doubt the interviewer will challenge how I feel about the ticket because they weren't even there, so it's not their place to challenge me on it in terms of who was right and wrong.



You have got to be kidding me...if you ever become and that's a big IF you ever become a PC, what are you going to say when a defence attorney challenges you in court...oh right, they weren't there so it's not their place.

You may think I'm picking on you but I'm calling it for what it is.


You are comparing apples to oranges, pukie. Unless the interviewer has the facts of the case like a defense attorney would, I don't see how they can challenge me based on what they do not know, can you agree?

What I should have said is, "I doubt the interviewer will challenge how I feel about the ticket because unless they know the details of what happened, I don't see how they would be able to decide who was right and who was wrong". That is a rule of life, don't act on what you don't know (or are able to back up).

I don't doubt that the interviewer will ask me about my contacts with the police, because I'm sure they already know that I was in those situations and are trying to figure out if I am trying to hide that information from them. What I do doubt, though, is that the interviewer will start making their own opinions about what happened (unless, like I said, they have the details of the case). Even if in their own minds I am guilty, they ultimately just want to know I'm not lying to them about being stopped or charged or what not. Am I right?

Now, if it turns out the interviewer has access to the information a defense attorney would, and they want to decide I was wrong, I'm not going to argue with them.

pukie
Lord of the Poobahs
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 9:59 pm
Location: LLL Division
Contact:

Re: Auxiliary Police Interview - TPS

Postby pukie » Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:05 pm

Soxpomox wrote:Unless the interviewer has the facts of the case like a defense attorney would,



:lol:

User avatar
CourtOfficer
Site Admin
Posts: 6036
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Auxiliary Police Interview - TPS

Postby CourtOfficer » Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:29 pm

When I was an applicant, I was questioned about my tickets in a Police interview. They wanted to know if I had a trial or whether I pled guilty. Luckily I had pled guilty and they told me that showed that I accepted responsiblity. Your challenging of tickets in court whether it is spoken or not, will be considered. Like it or not. Your attitude shines very clearly through on here.

CO

User avatar
CBR600F4i
Seasoned Member
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 8:56 am
Location: British Columbia
Contact:

Re: Auxiliary Police Interview - TPS

Postby CBR600F4i » Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:30 pm

You have got to be kidding me...if you ever become and that's a big IF you ever become a PC, what are you going to say when a defence attorney challenges you in court...oh right, they weren't there so it's not their place.


Here in British Columbia they're considering an additional form that must be submitted with all Crown briefs which is completed by the officers involved in the file. The form, by the sounds of it, will be a background disclosure where you tell the Crown about your criminal history or run ins with the law - whatever it may be. That way the Crown doesn't get any nasty surprises down the road but it also opens your credibility up to the defence.

It'll be interesting to see if that ever happens.

bcw
Regular Member
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:42 am
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Auxiliary Police Interview - TPS

Postby bcw » Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:34 pm

CBR600F4i wrote:
You have got to be kidding me...if you ever become and that's a big IF you ever become a PC, what are you going to say when a defence attorney challenges you in court...oh right, they weren't there so it's not their place.


Here in British Columbia they're considering an additional form that must be submitted with all Crown briefs which is completed by the officers involved in the file. The form, by the sounds of it, will be a background disclosure where you tell the Crown about your criminal history or run ins with the law - whatever it may be. That way the Crown doesn't get any nasty surprises down the road but it also opens your credibility up to the defence.

It'll be interesting to see if that ever happens.


I highly doubt that would be approved. It's really hard to believe. I would have to be put down through a legislation. I highly doubt it would be passed. I'm pretty sure the police union would some how decline such actions. But who knows, right?

User avatar
CourtOfficer
Site Admin
Posts: 6036
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Auxiliary Police Interview - TPS

Postby CourtOfficer » Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:13 pm

Bcwan wrote:
CBR600F4i wrote:
You have got to be kidding me...if you ever become and that's a big IF you ever become a PC, what are you going to say when a defence attorney challenges you in court...oh right, they weren't there so it's not their place.


Here in British Columbia they're considering an additional form that must be submitted with all Crown briefs which is completed by the officers involved in the file. The form, by the sounds of it, will be a background disclosure where you tell the Crown about your criminal history or run ins with the law - whatever it may be. That way the Crown doesn't get any nasty surprises down the road but it also opens your credibility up to the defence.

It'll be interesting to see if that ever happens.


I highly doubt that would be approved. It's really hard to believe. I would have to be put down through a legislation. I highly doubt it would be passed. I'm pretty sure the police union would some how decline such actions. But who knows, right?


We do it here in Ontario. It's called a McNeil report.

CO

Soxpomox
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 3:58 am
Contact:

Re: Auxiliary Police Interview - TPS

Postby Soxpomox » Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:14 pm

CourtOfficer wrote:When I was an applicant, I was questioned about my tickets in a Police interview. They wanted to know if I had a trial or whether I pled guilty. Luckily I had pled guilty and they told me that showed that I accepted responsiblity. Your challenging of tickets in court whether it is spoken or not, will be considered. Like it or not. Your attitude shines very clearly through on here.

CO


CO, what if you went to trial because you were 100% positive the officer had made a mistake (not saying thats the case with me, just a hypothetical) and plead not guilty and were found not guilty? Then you go for your interview and you don't get the job because you plead not guilty in court and the interviewers think you aren't accepting responsibility, even though you are 100% innocent. That's just ridiculous and totally undermines the court system. What's the point of being found not guilty if it means nothing in the eyes of the law? If that's the case I might as well plead guilty even if I'm innocent.

Basically what you're saying to me is that if you plead not guilty and are found not guilty when you ACTUALLY AREN'T GUILTY, you are still guilty in the eyes of these recruiters and won't get the job. That's a load of bull and I think everybody would agree with me on that.

I'm not meaning to sound disrespectful because I know you are a respected member on these forums and I have agreed with a lot of what you have said in other threads, but if recruiters are hiring based off of whether or not you plead guilty in court, than that's just not right, as you should agree if you read what's written above.

If recruiters are actually putting this method to practice, then it puts the Constitution and our rights as Canadians to shame.

Please don't start flaming, my arguments are solid and I'm being respectful about this.

User avatar
Kopparoo2b
Rookie Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 11:25 am
Contact:

Re: Auxiliary Police Interview - TPS

Postby Kopparoo2b » Mon Nov 08, 2010 8:13 am

The thing is...you'll never know the WHY of why you failed an Interview.

You'll just get a letter for the records saying you've been deferred. When that happens, you'll just have to move along and re-apply in another year, or two or three. Depending on the deferral. And you'll have to think all on your own the "whys" of the deferral.

Just saying..be prepared because they WILL ask you how you felt about the ticket (s), why you decided to fight it etc. They will question you to see how you react/respond to being questioned about your sincerity and integrity.

Hope you can handle it. The answers you're getting here are still pretty mild .
kopparoo2b

"Its not enough to just talk about it"

GoodWitness
Rookie Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:25 am
Contact:

Re: Auxiliary Police Interview - TPS

Postby GoodWitness » Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:00 pm

You know, you might be the nicest guy in the world, very mature, and a great candidate for an auxiliary position, but that's not really how you're coming across here.

A forum is a medium where you can think through your responses, preview your posts and ensure that what you're saying, and how you're saying it, is as you intended. Assuming that you know this, and have done so, your post hasn't presented the right kind of picture for someone with aspirations to law enforcement.

So far you've used the "edit" function to try to "take back" what you've posted, you've SHOUTED at everyone when you didn't like their responses, and tried to steer the discussion back to answers that you prefer when people have challenged you or tried to provide some valuable food for thought.

I hope you can think better on your feet and make a good first impression at your interview than you have here, with all the time in the world to consider the message you're delivering.

Soxpomox
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 3:58 am
Contact:

Re: Auxiliary Police Interview - TPS

Postby Soxpomox » Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:01 pm

Lol, all I wanted to know from the beginning was how much of a problem my specific contacts with the police will be in the interview stage, not if I was right or wrong in those situations, and the first response I got was that I was a liar and I just started getting flamed from there on in. I'm sorry if I come off as a sorry excuse for a candidate by defending myself, but most of the people posting here are utterly and needlessly ruthless and aren't answering my questions for what they are. I was very specific about what I wanted to know, but that didn't seem to matter. It really just seemed like it was cops sticking up for the cop I got pulled over by 3 years ago. I expected better conduct on the part of a lot of these "respected" members. An applicant shouldn't have to be needlessly harassed when they come to these forums looking for help.

Someone should comment on the post I made previous to this one because I am interested to see if anyone can actually argue against it.

User avatar
CourtOfficer
Site Admin
Posts: 6036
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Auxiliary Police Interview - TPS

Postby CourtOfficer » Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:39 pm

Soxpomox wrote:
CourtOfficer wrote:When I was an applicant, I was questioned about my tickets in a Police interview. They wanted to know if I had a trial or whether I pled guilty. Luckily I had pled guilty and they told me that showed that I accepted responsiblity. Your challenging of tickets in court whether it is spoken or not, will be considered. Like it or not. Your attitude shines very clearly through on here.

CO


CO, what if you went to trial because you were 100% positive the officer had made a mistake (not saying thats the case with me, just a hypothetical) and plead not guilty and were found not guilty? Then you go for your interview and you don't get the job because you plead not guilty in court and the interviewers think you aren't accepting responsibility, even though you are 100% innocent. That's just ridiculous and totally undermines the court system. What's the point of being found not guilty if it means nothing in the eyes of the law? If that's the case I might as well plead guilty even if I'm innocent.

Basically what you're saying to me is that if you plead not guilty and are found not guilty when you ACTUALLY AREN'T GUILTY, you are still guilty in the eyes of these recruiters and won't get the job. That's a load of bull and I think everybody would agree with me on that.

I'm not meaning to sound disrespectful because I know you are a respected member on these forums and I have agreed with a lot of what you have said in other threads, but if recruiters are hiring based off of whether or not you plead guilty in court, than that's just not right, as you should agree if you read what's written above.

If recruiters are actually putting this method to practice, then it puts the Constitution and our rights as Canadians to shame.

Please don't start flaming, my arguments are solid and I'm being respectful about this.


I've just never known Police to lay charges thast weren't legit. Outside of any "technicalities".

CO

GoodWitness
Rookie Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:25 am
Contact:

Re: Auxiliary Police Interview - TPS

Postby GoodWitness » Mon Nov 08, 2010 4:34 pm

Okay, I'll bite. The situation you outlined in your example is completely different than your situation (bolded). You have admitted that you were speeding, but when you went to court did you state that you had been speeding, just that you didn't think you were going as fast at the officer said? It sounded more like you decided to "fight the ticket" and it was not upheld in court for whatever reason - in other words, you knew you had been legitimately caught speeding but "won" the case... Do you see the problem here? Integrity? Accountability? Trust and respect? Justice? Some little buzzwords that the po-lice like to throw around.

If an interviewer knows you've been to court, charged with an offence and found not guilty, they're going to want to know about the circumstances. Let's say, for example, that you were charged with impaired driving. At trial, evidence is presented that you were over 0.08, but you hire a lawyer who convinces the judge that, because of timing issues, you may not have been over that level at the time you were pulled over, and that your blood alcohol level rose while in custody. You could be found not guilty, but you know darned well you were impaired, and so does everyone involved. How would you discuss this with a BGI or during an interview? "Not guilty, therefore it isn't relevant, and says nothing of my character."

Come on, let's get real here. Actions have consequences. You were caught speeding, you wriggled out of it. Not something you should be proud of. As for the other matters, yes, people make bad decisions, especially where alcohol is involved. Own up to it, no one's perfect. Your attitude about these police contacts says much more than the charges involved.

Let's take another example. Someone, when 15, is caught with a group of friends in possession of alcohol in a park. You haven't been drinking, you're not holding, your friends are hammered. The police pour out the beers, send you on your way, and issue offences to your friends and call their parents to get them. You weren't charged, the police just took your name down and told you to get lost. Did it happen? Do you talk about it with a BGI?

Soxpomox wrote:CO, what if you went to trial because you were 100% positive the officer had made a mistake (not saying thats the case with me, just a hypothetical) and plead not guilty and were found not guilty? Then you go for your interview and you don't get the job because you plead not guilty in court and the interviewers think you aren't accepting responsibility, even though you are 100% innocent. That's just ridiculous and totally undermines the court system. What's the point of being found not guilty if it means nothing in the eyes of the law? If that's the case I might as well plead guilty even if I'm innocent.

Basically what you're saying to me is that if you plead not guilty and are found not guilty when you ACTUALLY AREN'T GUILTY, you are still guilty in the eyes of these recruiters and won't get the job. That's a load of bull and I think everybody would agree with me on that.

I'm not meaning to sound disrespectful because I know you are a respected member on these forums and I have agreed with a lot of what you have said in other threads, but if recruiters are hiring based off of whether or not you plead guilty in court, than that's just not right, as you should agree if you read what's written above.

If recruiters are actually putting this method to practice, then it puts the Constitution and our rights as Canadians to shame.

Please don't start flaming, my arguments are solid and I'm being respectful about this.

User avatar
Pacific_BSO
Regular Member
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:07 pm
Contact:

Re: Auxiliary Police Interview - TPS

Postby Pacific_BSO » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:05 pm

Image

Image

AND

Image
**CBSA Officer**

Soxpomox
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 3:58 am
Contact:

Re: Auxiliary Police Interview - TPS

Postby Soxpomox » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:17 pm

GoodWitness wrote:Okay, I'll bite. The situation you outlined in your example is completely different than your situation (bolded). You have admitted that you were speeding, but when you went to court did you state that you had been speeding, just that you didn't think you were going as fast at the officer said? It sounded more like you decided to "fight the ticket" and it was not upheld in court for whatever reason - in other words, you knew you had been legitimately caught speeding but "won" the case... Do you see the problem here? Integrity? Accountability? Trust and respect? Justice? Some little buzzwords that the po-lice like to throw around.

If an interviewer knows you've been to court, charged with an offence and found not guilty, they're going to want to know about the circumstances. Let's say, for example, that you were charged with impaired driving. At trial, evidence is presented that you were over 0.08, but you hire a lawyer who convinces the judge that, because of timing issues, you may not have been over that level at the time you were pulled over, and that your blood alcohol level rose while in custody. You could be found not guilty, but you know darned well you were impaired, and so does everyone involved. How would you discuss this with a BGI or during an interview? "Not guilty, therefore it isn't relevant, and says nothing of my character."

Come on, let's get real here. Actions have consequences. You were caught speeding, you wriggled out of it. Not something you should be proud of. As for the other matters, yes, people make bad decisions, especially where alcohol is involved. Own up to it, no one's perfect. Your attitude about these police contacts says much more than the charges involved.

Let's take another example. Someone, when 15, is caught with a group of friends in possession of alcohol in a park. You haven't been drinking, you're not holding, your friends are hammered. The police pour out the beers, send you on your way, and issue offences to your friends and call their parents to get them. You weren't charged, the police just took your name down and told you to get lost. Did it happen? Do you talk about it with a BGI?

Soxpomox wrote:CO, what if you went to trial because you were 100% positive the officer had made a mistake (not saying thats the case with me, just a hypothetical) and plead not guilty and were found not guilty? Then you go for your interview and you don't get the job because you plead not guilty in court and the interviewers think you aren't accepting responsibility, even though you are 100% innocent. That's just ridiculous and totally undermines the court system. What's the point of being found not guilty if it means nothing in the eyes of the law? If that's the case I might as well plead guilty even if I'm innocent.

Basically what you're saying to me is that if you plead not guilty and are found not guilty when you ACTUALLY AREN'T GUILTY, you are still guilty in the eyes of these recruiters and won't get the job. That's a load of bull and I think everybody would agree with me on that.

I'm not meaning to sound disrespectful because I know you are a respected member on these forums and I have agreed with a lot of what you have said in other threads, but if recruiters are hiring based off of whether or not you plead guilty in court, than that's just not right, as you should agree if you read what's written above.

If recruiters are actually putting this method to practice, then it puts the Constitution and our rights as Canadians to shame.

Please don't start flaming, my arguments are solid and I'm being respectful about this.


I don't dispute that I was in the wrong being at a park party where the police took my info or that I was wrong when I got the open liquor charge. The only time I was stopped and felt completely wronged was when the officer cited me for speeding.

There are multiple reasons I felt the officer had made a mistake. First of all, the intersection he wrote down on the ticket does not exist, as the two streets do not intersect and were km's apart from eachother (he wrote that he stopped me at Avenue Rd. and Blythwood, and if you look at any up to date map you will see what I'm talking about), how he made that major mistake I do not know. Second, he wrote that he had stopped me going north on Avenue Rd. but I was on Bayview Ave. Another big mistake on his part. Third, he pulled me over not 30 seconds after I pulled onto Bayview Ave. from a friends house and he was very hostile when he approached my car stating he had been following me for a while and had a hard time catching up. That really threw me off because, like I said, I had just begun driving and highly doubt I could have reached such a high speed that quickly in the Honda I was driving even if I wanted to.

Needless to say, I fought the ticket because I was quite positive the officer had me mistaken for somebody else who may have been driving a very similar car (perhaps he lost sight of the offender and then saw me thinking I was the original offender). That is the only way I can explain why he said he had been following me for quite some time, because that was just impossible, as I had only been on the road for about half a minute. In any case, I went to court, showed all of this to the prosecutor, and they dropped the charges.

GoodWitness
Rookie Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:25 am
Contact:

Re: Auxiliary Police Interview - TPS

Postby GoodWitness » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:24 pm

Why didn't you say that in the first place? Sheesh. The street being wrong and whatnot isn't a good reason for the ticket to be dismissed, but the rest sounds pretty good to me. I guess it sounded good to the court crown too.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Luskie, SemrushBot and 3 guests