RCMP Officers Can Have A Criminal Record And Still Serve

Monday, July 27, 2009 03:45 AM

I confess I was taken a back by a comment made by RCMP Inspector Eric Brewer at a news conference last week.

I was asking the Inspector about the three RCMP constables who had been charged under the Provincial statutes with three driving infractions. I asked why they hadn’t charged them under the Criminal Code with say, “dangerous driving”. He said that the RCMP had consulted with the Crown about the charges and the Crown left it up to the RCMP on the type of charges.

I commented that the three wouldn’t have a job if they were convicted under the criminal code because they would have a record, he said "Not necessarily, no." I then asked, " You can have a criminal conviction and still remain in the RCMP?" He responded "Absolutely."

That of course raises some interesting thoughts.

You couldn’t get a job in many vocations if you have a criminal record that is why they ask for a record check as a condition of employment.

For example if you want to operate the radar machine as a Speed Watch volunteer to show passing motorists how fast they are going, you will need a criminal record check.

If you want to work in many departments at the hospital you will need a criminal record check. If you drive for a living and you have a criminal record many companies will not hire you. Many guide outfitters require their crews to have a criminal record check, afterall they will be near firearms. You can’t be a Brinks driver if you have a criminal record, but you can have a criminal record and still investigate any wrong doing of that Brinks driver?

So there is absolutely no guarantee that the next time you are pulled over you may be getting a ticket from a police officer who has a criminal record. Has a funny ring to it now doesn’t it?

I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, July 27, 2009 03:45 AM in Views by Ben Meisner

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: ammonra on July 27 2009 8:37 AM

I believe the rule also is that the offence you have been convicted of has to be relevant to the area in which you work. That is, someone convicted of possession of marijuana could still work as a painter, since it is irrelevant to the work being done.

Posted by: diplomat on July 27 2009 11:16 AM

Well, that makes sense. A criminal record that consists of one impaired driving conviction does therefore (using the above reasoning) not disqualify a person from holding a high office in politics, for example.

Posted by: ammonra on July 27 2009 12:29 PM

Ah, politics, in a world all its own!

Posted by: Clean on July 27 2009 1:11 PM

Just add it to their reputation.

Cops basically have no credibility.
It must be an embarassment walking around in that uniform.

Posted by: BCRacer on July 27 2009 3:22 PM

Again, in my opinion, the press choses to once again slam the RCMP members...surely you have other things to report.

Posted by: Truth on July 27 2009 7:47 PM

Cop gangs employ only lawless elements who will make false arrests and commit Perjury. Most entities require that a candidate use 20-25 different references. That way, they ensure that cop references determine employment. A minority candidate usually must work as a 'special constable' (unpaid) until he gets enough cops to help him. Only when they know that he will join in incriminating the innocent and exhonerating cop criminality, will he get references.

Conviction for Common Assault in false arrest/excessive force matters makes a cop a hero. In the notorious "Stanley Park 6" incident, where Vancouver cops kidnapped and battered and threatened 3 innocent street persons, 2 of the cops received promotions to sergeant, less than a year after conviction. The police services gave those animals a year's paid vacation, after they were charged. I have records of over 20 recent convictions of BC cops (most are not published; I learned 2 days ago of the conviction of a Vancouver cop, who is up on NEW charges for Assault)

Cops expect 45 years pay for 25 years of pseudo work. One in three Vancouver cops earns over $100,000 per year, and will receive pensions equalling 90% of the highest wage attained. For all that money we get work product of 1 conviction per month; 1 incarcerated person per year.

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2004/2004bcpc1/2004bcpc1.html

We need to make pension confiscation a cottage industry in Canada.

Posted by: foxtrapper on July 27 2009 7:50 PM

"the offence you have been convicted of has to be relevant to the area in which you work"
Any offence is relevant to your position as a member of the RCMP and they should be held to a higher scrutiny than anyone else.

Posted by: caranmacil on July 27 2009 8:02 PM

Many positions require that you be 'bondable'. If you are not (due to,say breaking a macdonalds window when you were a teen) then you dont get/keep your job.

Posted by: Truth on July 28 2009 9:43 AM

No matter how high profile the incident, cops are proven to be inherent liars. Millions of words have been written about the Henry Gates' arrest in the US. Gates - a writer friend of Pres Obama - accused a cop of "racial profiling." In fact, that corrupt cop falsely claimed that the person who reported the possible "break in" on 9-11 had told him that "two black males" were involved, mentioned only one possible "hispanic."

http://www.thestar.com/article/672658

It is NEVER a crime to attempt to present exculpatory evidence to cops; it is a crime for them to make arrests when it is readily available. Remember the Ian Bush murder? The arresting cop arrested Bush for Obstruction for goofing about his identity, even though Bush complied with disclosure. Thus, there was no present ability to conceal said identity, because Bush had ID on him at the time, and presented it.

Cops enforce Contempt-of-Cop as if it is a crime. They do it because they are lawless slime, whose service is less than worthless.

Posted by: MrPG on July 28 2009 10:37 AM

So, Truth, are these broad generalizations you make based on isolated incidents 'The Truth' or your spin on it?

"The arresting cop arrested Bush for Obstruction for goofing about his identity, even though Bush complied with disclosure. Thus, there was no present ability to conceal said identity, because Bush had ID on him at the time, and presented it."

Nice spin here. Lol!

I'd rather have cops than not have them.

Posted by: BCRacer on July 29 2009 11:55 AM

In my opinion had these three not been police officers we would never have even heard about it.

Posted by: chilako-pete on July 29 2009 6:24 PM

This is gutter journalism at it's finest. There has been no attempt by the author to delve further into the issue. Brutal.

Posted by: Truth on July 30 2009 1:34 AM

Chilako-Pete: how many years "in" are you? When do you move into the worthless 9-5 jobs that cops like you dream of?

I would suggest you change your retirement plans. Once the public gets wind of exactly what they are paying for, your self-gifts are GONZO.

For those who do not want to work for a living: become a cop.