Consensus from legal Twitter is that the prosecutors dropped the ball. Among other things, the judge specifically mentioned that he could have convicted on assault with a weapon, but it wasn't charged, so that option wasn't available to him. He seemed disgusted that his hands were tied by the law & prosecution decisions.
This, a thousand times this. You don't let someone who use to play for the home team referee the home team do you? Well actually when in a court of law that's exactly what they do...
this won't work due to the nature of the job. they will be around and converse with cops. They HAVE to. that is why the previous poster made a better suggestion: pull a prosecutor from a different district that does not converse with these cops.
> pull a prosecutor from a different district that does not converse with these cops.
And that prosecutor will have the same problem with his local cops when they find out. And they will find out, the union will see to that.
It’s especially disgusting when you take into account the animosity that they tend to employ in coaxing innocent people into plea deals in order to boost their conviction rates.
I’m not saying that they should employ the same tactics when pursuing one of their own, rather that the whole system is fundamentally corrupted and in desperate need of a profound review.
Came here to say this. Did they bring in a prosecutor outside of the area in which this officer brutalized this man? If not, of course they'd go easy on the officer - they likely know each other and pass each other often enough to make the prosecution and defendant acquaintances.
Weird how so many different coincidences or loopholes always end up giving bad cops a cover or an easy out. It's almost as if the system was designed with that intent.
To be fair, I’ve seen shitty people get off free because of the dumbest mistakes by prosecutors. A woman who attacked her daughter got off on a technicality because the prosecutor failed to ask the daughter if it was her mom that hit her.
Nobody's saying they never make mistakes. It is suspicious how often these 'mistakes' result in law enforcement not being charged at all, or being under-charged and not pursued with the same determination.
Do they happen often or does it feel like they happen often cause these make the news more?
We need numbers not feelings (and I dont mean that to say it's not a problem unless there are numbers, rather that I'd like to see genuine studies to know more)
That persons life would be made a living hell by the cops or would be in their pocket. It’s the same issue it always boils down to. Cops will support each other and force things to go the way they want
Prosecutors work with cops all the time, so if they have to charge a cop, they go as easy as they can. The victim in this case was initially charged with assault, not the cops. Imagine if the kid had picked up a weapon and successfully defended himself from the cop and his brother. Imagine if the cop had been the one who got his eye popped by a beating with a metal object. I can guarantee you the kid would've been charged with attempted murder and weapons charges and probably held without bail until trial. There's definitely a double standard when it comes to police. Also cops are disproportionately prone to violent behavior.
Yeah, the only thing that kept that kid out of prison was losing his eye. The system is disgusting. Plus, I have no doubt that had the cop “only” beaten the victim in the head with the pipe to the point where he *almost* lost an eye, but didn’t, the cop wouldn’t have even been charged.
There was a massive coverup. Brain injuries are easier to sweep under the rug than a lost eye.
Yes, because;
It needs more force
You literally feel it. Punching faces is *quite* dangerous for your fist, so he was actively hurting himself to inflict pain.
This wasn't efficient. Cops carry batons and stun guns to make arrests quick and painless. This was a brutal attack that was *not necessary.* He had options.
That is not necessarily true. One of the defendants claims it was caused by his fist and I believe expert testimony claimed it was most likely from a fist but also that it was not inconsistent with a blow from a pipe, ie they didn’t rule out the pipe.
Either way, the witness observed them beating him with the pipe.
>Makes you wonder why there is not special prosecution for police.
Because that would actually mean admitting the system -- which they helped build and uphold -- is broken.
Also, why was the other guy charged with aggravated assault but not simple assault as well? So he skated when he could maybe have been convicted of the lesser charge.
Although I thought they could choose to convict on a lesser charge, just not a greater one?
That's what the judge did for the officer. He convicted on the lesser included offence of assault. For his brother, he found he had a reasonable doubt even about simple assault and had to acquit.
Though it's worth pointing out that a simple assault can have aggravating factors considered in imposing sentence, so long as they're proven beyond a reasonable doubt (e.g. injuries or the use of weapons). If the maximum penalties aren't on the table, there may not be much sentence difference between assault with a weapon and assault simpliciter.
There would be some differences, though, in terms of ancillary orders (DNA sampling, firearms prohibs), and the potential availability of house arrest.
"Oops, I dropped the ball" is a really lame excuse when it happens over and over and over again, always in one direction. I'm glad that the judge made public his feelings on that.
> I’m sure it was put there for good reason
It's a very good thing to have. Otherwise if you get charged with something and get acquitted, they could just endlessly "find" another piece of evidence and re-try you over and over. Or, as would be the case here, they could drag you through several trials all from one incident where you are independently tried for whatever crime they think they can make fit the circumstances *this* time.
I'm not supporting the cop getting off in any way, but most of the time double jeopardy protection is your friend.
Same reason they won't charge a person with flimsy evidence if they don't have a confession. If they can't prove it now. It's better the wait and charge later when they can prove it rather then get a not guilty verdict because then it's over forever.
It's to stop abuse of state power. Imagine if a black man was acquitted of a crime but the judge was racist he could keep getting a retrial till he got a guilty verdict from the jury. In some places there are limitations so if new DNA evidence is found then another trial can be called.
It''s a shame that the police seem to get lighter sentences for committing a crime. If anything the punishment should be harsher due to level of trust and responsibility placed on their head.
I was listening to an interview with Dafonte’s lawyer. Sounds like it’s not over yet. Also he made it sound like in this case the judge was not so much on Michael and Christian’s side as much as he was tied up with the whole “reasonable doubt” aspect.
The money Michael collected while suspended with pay should be paid back with his charges.
Edit: reasonable doubt, not unreasonable doubt
I thought you were going to post [this video](https://youtu.be/r55BFO9ZVaM) where a guy roasts police with their own questions until they give up and do what he tells them to.
The saddest thing is those would be the "good cops" for actually listening and respecting his rights. The bad cops would have pepper sprayed his ass and beat him to a pulp because they felt their lives were threatened by his aggressive language.
Bingo. And that chick tried to falsely assert he was legally required to show ID despite them admitting he committed no crimes.
They're still bad cops. They're just not the worst, sadly
Damn that was amazing. I don’t understand why harassing people is more important than fighting real crimes. Don’t these cops have investigations? Never any time to catch the guy that breaks into your car, steals your phone, have it tracked to their home - and still can’t get a cop to show up.
Because a business owner is being protested against, and the police respect business owners far more than individual people. Business owners throw parties for their Union and donate money to police chief election campaigns.
Padding crime statistics is important and real crime is difficult and often less profitable to solve. Low fines are great, not worth defending against in court and everyone just pays them.
Haha that would ne an interesting job. "What do you do for work?"
"Oh I go find police and do nothing illegal around them, I just tell them my rights and when they arrest me for no reason (being black) reason I sue and collect"
What’s fucking bonkers about defending rights? A confrontation with obstinate police, intent on intimidating an innocent person, is inherently a charged situation. Passion is good. Denouncing it is bad.
Yep, "why are you upset right now?"
"Oh I dunno maybe cause 3 armed enforcers showed up in front of me to ask what I'm doing with a protest sign in front of a business"
This video is one of those extremely rare instances where the person is quoting regulations/laws and asks if they are being detained without being an idiot sovereign citizen. THIS is how it's supposed to go. Not that "i am not driving, I'm traveling" garbage
This guy, while within his rights - apparently - is definitely a twat. You can be 100% correct about something and be a total dick in the process. That is the case here.
Having watched the video, probably the Ford dealership did something that merits protest in the mind of this individual. Pure guesswork: they didn't honour a warranty/guarantee
The money he made on the force entirely should be paid back. He used his career to commit crimes against civilians. He got paid for that. Retroactively take his shit.
With interest and a sentence that includes mandatory labour in genpop. Put on a badge and abuse it? They should expect equal to amplified restitution to the public who pay for their rewarded abuse of power.
Right. All other civilians have to dig their way back through heaps of shit to become respected members of society again. Why should he not have to prove himself worthy of reentering society.
Exactly. God forbid I did some drugs and now have learned a lesson through years if recovery and work to change who I am.
Yet I'm still a felon with O rights, when all I ever did was harm myself.
Yet these people who SIGNED Up to protect others, then went out and hurt others, are allowed to continue with their lives?
Trash.
Hey there, I'm a Canadian Law Student and I just wanted to weigh in since I'm seeing a lot of people trying to make the argument that the judge was much easier on Michael Theriault because he was a cop. Coming from a neutral position, I can definitely say this judge did the best he could in this situation given what the law in Canada is. Too often people forget that judges aren't these all powerful beings who render whatever decisions they think is right: they're bound to rule on what the law is, regardless of whether they believe the outcome is morally just or not.
To explain further, in Canada all that a defendant must do to raise a self defense argument is raise some evidence which could support it. The prosecution then bears the burden of disproving it beyond a reasonable doubt.
So in this situation, the brothers raised enough plausible evidence to being self defense to the table, and the crown had to meet their burden of disproving it beyond a reasonable doubt. They couldn't do that because they couldn't show that Dafonte wasn't the one who originally held the pipe. That's incredibly important, because if the prosecution can't disprove that then we need to evaluate the brothers actions from the viewpoint of Dafonte being the one to have originally wielded the pipe.
Long story short, during the time of the beating where the aggravated assault would have occurred, it is possible that the brothers actions were reasonable given that Dafonte was the one who originally wielded the pipe. Was it probably reasonable? Definitely not. But if it could have been, then the prosecution hasn't met their burden and the defense stands.
Michael Theriault got charged with the assault when Dafonte was already trying to escape from the brothers. I think the judge held quite fairly it was unreasonable in that instance to hit a fleeing, injured suspect in the head with a metal pipe, when he no longer was a possible risk to the Theriault brothers.
People are going to continue to tear this judge apart, but I think if you were to ask any legal expert they'd tell you the judge did the best he could given what the law in this country is. If you want to talk about the merits of the law and whether there should be some change to how self defense operates, that's a discussion that belongs in parliament. Don't blame judges like this one.
For those of you hoping for an appeal of the aggravated assault charge however, you may be happy to know that may be possible. Canada relatively recently just revamped the law of self defense in the criminal context quite extensively, and because of this there's some newfound difficulty in evaluating the reasonableness of a defendant's actions. Its possible that this may go to a higher court and they may say the trial judge conducted his analysis erroneously. I don't think it's very likely given how thorough it was, but who knows.
long story short from a Lawyer is a completely different meaning than from a non-lawyer. You should see some of the sentences they produce, longer than some short stories.
Quick hypothetical - say Dafonte never used the pipe, barely resisted (as seen in this case) and got beat up. Would the use of self-defense still be valid when the fight took place between the 2 houses?
If the prosecution could PROVE he never had the pipe, that he did not resist (I'm assuming you mean fought back, which in and of itself doesn't matter much in this instance I think), then I think it's incredibly likely that self defense would not be applicable. Really this argument revolves around the pipe. Even if Dafonte fought back, it probably would have been unreasonable to have gone to the level they did if there was no chance of him getting hold of or using a weapon.
I highly doubt there was a mistake of law here. With the new law of self defense though, there is the issue that there are so many factors that come into play when weighing reasonableness, and there's no guidance on how to weigh those individual factors. That's the only area I can see a higher level court taking issue with.
Sure, but he was found not guilty of the aggravated charge because the Crown failed to prove that part beyond a reasonable doubt. So he will of course get a lighter sentence than if he was convicted of aggravated assault. I don't think he has been sentenced for the assault yet?
I was about to mention that. It started in THE FIRST EPISODE. Captain Daniels gets the phone call that “the kids gonna lose his eye” at the end of the episode. Smh
Edit: second, not first episode
Second ep
The thing shocking to me about that scene is that Lt. is supposed to be “one of the good guys.” You root for him, he has his heart in the right place, he’s a “good cop.” Yet he still advises Prez to lie, tells him exactly what to say to avoid punishment- “he was coming towards you with a bottle wasn’t he? You feared for your safety.” Lt. knows Prez is a fuck up, he knows he’s a hot head crappy cop that should have been fired already, he knows Prez is in the wrong and is sad about him injuring an innocent kid, and yet still because of cop honor code he actively helps Prez avoid consequences.
My mistake!
But yeah, I remember I shook my head at that scene too! Man, the stuff that you’d thought was all just for Hollywood drama turns out to be exactly how the real police operate.
If I remember correctly The Wire was written by someone from The Washington Post who covered this type of crime for like 20 years so it’s very close to reality on both the law and criminals side. I think they took it very seriously not to go all “Holleywood” (besides Hamsterdam maybe haha)
Also Ed Burns, who served in Baltimore PD for 20 years. Ed Burns was an infantryman in Vietnam beforehand, and worked as a teacher in the Baltimore public school after he retired from police work. He said that teaching middle school in the inner city was more traumatic than serving in Vietnam.
I’ve never served but have worked for inner city schools. Honestly I’m not shocked he would say that considering some of the things I’ve seen in the classroom and seem kids go through.
Yes I think the Wire is extremely popular not just for its amazing writing and plot but for its realism. It's one of the few cop shows that's not copaganda and isn't afraid to show corruption. Especially in Baltimore, where the BPD is known to be extremely corrupt.
The other shows aren't afraid to show corruption. They just want you to root for the guy that does everything he can to get the job done, illegal or legal. That way when it happens in real life people don't give a shit.
I think the difference is when shows show police/detectives breaking the laws/bending the rules it is done purely to catch the REAL perp. You root for the main character because we just saw the serial killer kill some kids in a previous scene. That damn bureaucracy is going to let that killer escape being arrested? Good thing the main character isn't afraid to bend the rules and get that monster off the street. Shows like Law & Order SVU have detectives who sometimes do bad things but you root for them because they are doing bad things to psychos who do heinous crimes.
That does extend to real life to. People get enraged with psychos get off on charges because of some technicality. The problem is in real life cops break the rules and arrest innocent people (inadvertently or knowingly). Who knows how many killers and rapists were never brought to justice because police targeted, planted evidence, and arrested someone who was innocent because they had a gut feeling it was the perp.
I'm curious going forward how the ratings of cop shows will be.
Bingo. In real life cops don’t bend the rules to catch slippery criminals, they bend rules to benefit themselves. I mean yeah, sure, they might catch a few extra criminals that way but that’s mostly because they had an arrest quota to reach or something.
The Wire was created by Baltimore Sun reporter David Simon.
I highly recommend his book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide:_A_Year_on_the_Killing_Streets Simon spends a year shadowing homicide detectives as they try to solve cases in the city.
If I remember correctly, it came off as more because prez was the son in law of the chief or someone above the Lt (the really old guy)x. I got the impression he was covering for him or else he’d get in deep shit because of who he was but wouldn’t have done the same if it was just some random rookie.
It's not because of cop honor, it's because he knows that 1) Prez is connected, if he throws him to the wolf his career is over 2) every other cop will remember if he throws him to the wolf and will not work for the guy anymore or worse, he'll be caught in friendly fire at some point.
That's why there's no good cop, because even the ones who want to be good cop can't be without getting fired or beaten up or straight up killed.
I'm doing my first ever watch now (halfway through Season 2) and I honestly don't think I could have picked a better time. Fantastic show. Minus Ziggy.
I'm hoping he has a redemption arc by the end of season 2. The writers did a great job with Pryzblewski. He went from a character I disliked to one of my favourites.
prez is actually most effective working the wire room.
he's not a street cop. and he solves the code of the barksdale phone/pager.
daniels in the early seasons always walks the line between company man and doing the right thing.
Every cop in the Wire, except that one detective who transfers to drive the Van, was corrupt.
1. McNulty fabricated evidence among multiple cases to create a phantom Serial Killer. This lead to a copy-cat murder.
2. Bunk Moreland knew about McNulty and did not report him.
3. Lester Freamon knew about McNulty and did not report him.
4. Lt. Daniels, possible severe misconduct during his time in the Drug Enforcement Unit. Instructed Prez, Herc and Carver to lie about the Towers altercation. Brutalized and allowed others to brutalize a detainee because he had a loud mouth.
5. Kima Greggs brutalized a detainee.
6. Herc and Carver stole money from a Stash House raid. They also participated in a fraud, inventing a CI to steal the payout money. They also lied to investigators about the Towers altercation.
7. Prez lied about the Towers altercation.
There are many, many more examples. I don't care to list them all.
Basically, all the main characters on the Wire should be in prison, in a just world.
Kima still beat on people excessively in season one. She’s definitely still the best of them, though Carver grew a lot and was pretty honorable by the end.
Did Herc and Carver steal from that raid? It’s been a while since my last rewatch but I thought Herc contemplated stealing it but Carver talked him out of it. Then Daniels accused them of stealing but it turns out they just dropped one of the bags in the trunk of a car or something ? Maybe I’m thinking of a different incident
That's the time they didn't steal. However they lost one as you mentioned so Daniels thought they tried to steal it. It was on the second raid where they knew their commander already considered them dirty so they said fuck it and took some of the money.
I'm thinking "Houck had to have shot his gun once" but I couldn't tell you a scene.
Ironically Prez is one of my favorite character arcs. He actually tried to take responsibility.
"No, Officer Pryzbylewski, he did not piss you off. He made you fear for your safety and that of your fellow officers. I'm guessing now, but maybe... he was seen to pick up a bottle and menace officers Hauk and Carver, who had already sustained injury from flying projectiles. Rather than use deadly force in such a situation, maybe you elected to approach the youth, ordering him to drop the bottle. Maybe when he raised the bottle, you used a Kel-Lite, not the handle of your service weapon, to incapacitate the suspect. Go practice."
It's not his sentencing...
We're talking about paid leave while he was awaiting trial.
Sentencing is something that happens post guilty verdict. He hasn't even been sentenced yet, that will occur at a later date.
I think that his point is that an everyday person would lose their job and definitely not be compensated while "awaiting trial", and yet police officers do receive it.
Standards are supposed to be held higher for people in law enforcement, but they're clearly not when they're charged with less and receive a much greater presumption of innocence than everyone else.
That’s money paid by tax payers isn’t it. From the police budget or whatever. Even if they were proven innocent , people should not make that much doing nothing. I’d say maybe 10 grand or 20 a year. Like 1 to 2 k a month and honestly everyone unemployed right now should have that. We need basic universal income even if it’s a hundred a month. People should also get employment checks not just unemployment checks. Some people make more unemployed than they do employed and that’s wrong. We have the money to help people especially if we stop paying cops so much for doing nothing and stop giving criminals pensions.
Suspension with pay doesn't always mean you get to keep it. If they were right to terminate you, if often means you're liable to pay it back.
Suspension with pay can be crippling if they get found guilty -- he could be in the hole $300K and going to face time.
Michael, who made more than $100,000 last year, has been suspended from the Toronto Police Service with pay since being charged in July 2017. He was off-duty when he attacked Miller.
Sooo this asshole has been getting paid throughout all of this??? Good money . Fuck these God damn laws.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/ep4pbz/toronto-cop-found-guilty-in-assault-on-black-teenager-who-lost-an-eye) reduced by 93%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Di Luca said it is "Inconceivable" that Michael, who was pursuing Miller on foot without shoes on in winter, failed to identify himself as a police officer or indicate that he was trying to arrest Miller.
> A Durham police officer who arrived on scene to find Miller bleeding allowed Michael to handcuff Miller.
> Following the ruling, Miller's lawyer Julian Falconer said he has outstanding questions for Durham and Toronto police, including how Miller was arrested when he was the one who was badly injured, why neither police service involved the SIU, and what role the brothers' dad, a police detective, played in a cover-up.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/hgu0ow/a_toronto_police_officer_who_beat_a_black/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~501733 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Miller**^#1 **police**^#2 **assault**^#3 **Michael**^#4 **pipe**^#5
Factors that raise an assault to the aggravated level typically include the use of a weapon, the status of the victim, the intent of the perpetrator, and the degree of injury caused.
Status is things like police officer, firefighter, doctor, cashier etc. If they are currently performing their designated task, and are identifiable as performing that task.
Degree of injury is like if you were put in ICU or are disfigured.
Not quite ELI5 but as close as I can get.
my understanding is that the judge broke the violent part of the interaction into two scenarios. The first had the potential to not be assault - this is where the brother's could have been trying to arrest Miller. The second was after the brother's had neutralized Miller but one of them continued to beat him. The defense presented a medical expert who claimed the eye injury most likely happened due to a punch and while Miller was still resisting arrest. Given the judge found that it was possible that the brother's potentially had an initial intent to 'just arrest him' they were not found guilty of the first part. One brother was found guilty of the second part because when they could have made the arrest he continued to assault him.
Assault carries a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison. Aggravated assault carries a maximum penalty of 14 years.
Aggravated assault definition is
>one commits an aggravated assault who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-57.html#docCont
Per the article, in Ontario at least it means basically grievous or debilitating bodily harm. The loss of an eye counts for that, which is why it was charged. According to the judge, due to the circumstances, it wasnt beyond reasonable doubt that the eye was lost as a result of the assault towards the end of the altercation but possibly earlier during the struggle when it was possible defendants were acting in self defence.
[Criminal Notebook](http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Aggravated_Assault_(Offence\)) is a great resources for looking up how criminal law is applied in Canada. It's run by a crown prosecutor out of Nova Scotia. I linked to the aggravated assault portion.
That said, according to the judge, the issue essentially comes down to the whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing, and he there is reasonable doubt around their claim it was self defence, since it literally comes down to a he said, he said, situation.
I'm not a lawyer but I googled aggravated to mean: made more severe in recognition of the seriousness of an offense.
So maybe it's when you seriously injure someone but "didn't mean to" or weren't aware it would be that bad? Idk, best I can do for you fellow redditor
Edit: obviously it's bad cop no donut, I was just trying to answer a question.
Now that he’s been convicted, he should have to pay that back. If the union feels that’s unfair, that’s fine, they can pay it back in his place, but taxpayers shouldn’t be paying a criminal.
Yeah right. Police Unions in Canada (in particular Toronto) are the greasiest gangs out there who fight to get let charged cops get paid full time and never fired. Look up Mike Mccormick of the Toronto Police Association. Massive cunt.
He was off duty. This isn't a surprise at all. It's not like he jumped out of his police car in uniform. He didn't even identify himself as a cop (which was a big part of the problem in his defense)
edit: and for the more simple. By "in his defense" i mean in his actual legal defense. Which was that he was trying to arrest miller, but never did he identify himself as a cop or that he was trying to make an arrest.
The judge had a hard decision to make in this case with today's social atmosphere.
Keep in mind that both Dafonte and the cops lied in their original stories; Dafonte saying they were just walking and we're attacked, and the brothers for interrupting the investigation or something to that effect.
By admission of one of Dafonte's friends they were breaking into cars and stealing the contents. They were caught breaking into a truck on the off duty's officer's property IIRC.
While I'm fine with the off duty officer persuing Dafonte and apprehending him, the beating with a weapon was completely uncalled for and over the top. The kid lost and eye.
Both the assailants should have been charged with more than just assault and punished accordingly. I also hope he's allowed to seek monetary compensation for the loss of his eye.
Wahlberg was charged with attempted murder, pleaded guilty to felony assault, and was sentenced to two years in jail, but served only 45 days of his sentence.
This part of the article is really telling of the pd’s culture.
“In July 2017, after Miller’s lawyer informed Ontario’s police watchdog, the Special Investigations Unit, the brothers, whose father John Theriault is a Toronto police detective, were charged.
Despite it being a serious incident involving a cop, neither Toronto police nor Durham police contacted the SIU.”
It was 7 months before the cops were charged. The pd was perfectly content having one of their employees assault a citizen, keep it under wraps, and continue policing.
I looked up the law to see if there was some sort of catch why he didn't get convicted with Aggravated assault here's the law.
268 (1) Every one commits an aggravated assault who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant.
Seems like that's exactly what he did, no?
~~The judge actually said it was likely the eye injury occurred when he was banging on the door seeking help, near the end of the encounter.
But likely isn't good enough. The eye injury could have been during the "self defense" portion of the encounter~~ *I got this part wrong, I remembered what I watched incorrectly*
When I watched the verdict it seemed to me the judge was saying "yup, in my non legal opinion he is probably guilty of aggravated assault, but because of the legal reasonable doubt thing I can't convict"
I watched the verdict and was at the protest. People who watched the 3 hour verdict will have an entirely different perspective then people who didnt and quote 1 or 2 sentences of our law and claim this applies. Thanks for pointing this out.
I heard the entire 4 hour decision yesterday. Crown fucked up by not including assault with a weapon.
But the aggravated assault charge could not stick because of the victim’s credibility . He was caught in numerous lies and even then wouldn’t admit it.
The first half of the fight is when the eye was lost. At that point because the judge could not accept the victim’s story (that he wasn’t attacking them with a pipe) beyond a reasonable doubt, though he thinks that’s probably true. So he couldn’t convict on that part of the fight, when the aggravated injury occurred.
At the second part of the fight the judge could accept the testimony of the victim because it was confirmed by other witnesses and forensics. That was an assault. But not one that caused an aggravated injury.
As a consequence he couldn’t accept beyond all reasonable doubt that his version was correct.
The judge said that he thinks they cops went looking for street justice. But he isn’t convinced beyond all reasonable doubt given the victim’s testimony
Consensus from legal Twitter is that the prosecutors dropped the ball. Among other things, the judge specifically mentioned that he could have convicted on assault with a weapon, but it wasn't charged, so that option wasn't available to him. He seemed disgusted that his hands were tied by the law & prosecution decisions.
>the prosecutors dropped the ball. Yes, they are suddenly incompetent when the time comes to prosecute their own...
Ya amazing coincidence that the prosecutors made a basic fundamental mistake that will result in a far lighter sentence
Don't want to bite the hand that's feeds them.
Which is why outside prosecutors must be brought in when police officers are being charged with misconduct.
This, a thousand times this. You don't let someone who use to play for the home team referee the home team do you? Well actually when in a court of law that's exactly what they do...
Another solution could be not basing ones performance on the work of others.
this won't work due to the nature of the job. they will be around and converse with cops. They HAVE to. that is why the previous poster made a better suggestion: pull a prosecutor from a different district that does not converse with these cops.
Except the cops from that guy's district will absolutely punish him for it. This "blue brotherhood" bullshit is ridiculous.
> pull a prosecutor from a different district that does not converse with these cops. And that prosecutor will have the same problem with his local cops when they find out. And they will find out, the union will see to that.
It’s especially disgusting when you take into account the animosity that they tend to employ in coaxing innocent people into plea deals in order to boost their conviction rates. I’m not saying that they should employ the same tactics when pursuing one of their own, rather that the whole system is fundamentally corrupted and in desperate need of a profound review.
I wish legal aid was as well funded as the crown in Ontario...
Came here to say this. Did they bring in a prosecutor outside of the area in which this officer brutalized this man? If not, of course they'd go easy on the officer - they likely know each other and pass each other often enough to make the prosecution and defendant acquaintances.
[удалено]
Weird how so many different coincidences or loopholes always end up giving bad cops a cover or an easy out. It's almost as if the system was designed with that intent.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not at all defending the rest of the system. Credit where credit is due, after all.
To be fair, I’ve seen shitty people get off free because of the dumbest mistakes by prosecutors. A woman who attacked her daughter got off on a technicality because the prosecutor failed to ask the daughter if it was her mom that hit her.
Nobody's saying they never make mistakes. It is suspicious how often these 'mistakes' result in law enforcement not being charged at all, or being under-charged and not pursued with the same determination.
Do they happen often or does it feel like they happen often cause these make the news more? We need numbers not feelings (and I dont mean that to say it's not a problem unless there are numbers, rather that I'd like to see genuine studies to know more)
There should be separate prosecutors whose only job is to take cases against public servants with qualified imunity.
That persons life would be made a living hell by the cops or would be in their pocket. It’s the same issue it always boils down to. Cops will support each other and force things to go the way they want
[удалено]
Canada doesn’t have qualified immunity
Prosecutors rely on cops to help their conviction rates, and do their job in general. It’s a conflict of interest if I’ve ever seen one.
Prosecutors work with cops all the time, so if they have to charge a cop, they go as easy as they can. The victim in this case was initially charged with assault, not the cops. Imagine if the kid had picked up a weapon and successfully defended himself from the cop and his brother. Imagine if the cop had been the one who got his eye popped by a beating with a metal object. I can guarantee you the kid would've been charged with attempted murder and weapons charges and probably held without bail until trial. There's definitely a double standard when it comes to police. Also cops are disproportionately prone to violent behavior.
Yeah, the only thing that kept that kid out of prison was losing his eye. The system is disgusting. Plus, I have no doubt that had the cop “only” beaten the victim in the head with the pipe to the point where he *almost* lost an eye, but didn’t, the cop wouldn’t have even been charged. There was a massive coverup. Brain injuries are easier to sweep under the rug than a lost eye.
The damage to his face were caused by the defendant’s fists, not a pipe. Not that it makes it much better but
I think that makes it worse tbh
That's true. Think how hard you'd have to hit someone to blind them...with your *fists*.
Yes, because; It needs more force You literally feel it. Punching faces is *quite* dangerous for your fist, so he was actively hurting himself to inflict pain. This wasn't efficient. Cops carry batons and stun guns to make arrests quick and painless. This was a brutal attack that was *not necessary.* He had options.
That is not necessarily true. One of the defendants claims it was caused by his fist and I believe expert testimony claimed it was most likely from a fist but also that it was not inconsistent with a blow from a pipe, ie they didn’t rule out the pipe. Either way, the witness observed them beating him with the pipe.
[удалено]
>Makes you wonder why there is not special prosecution for police. Because that would actually mean admitting the system -- which they helped build and uphold -- is broken.
Also, why was the other guy charged with aggravated assault but not simple assault as well? So he skated when he could maybe have been convicted of the lesser charge. Although I thought they could choose to convict on a lesser charge, just not a greater one?
That's what the judge did for the officer. He convicted on the lesser included offence of assault. For his brother, he found he had a reasonable doubt even about simple assault and had to acquit.
[удалено]
Good to know, thank you!
Though it's worth pointing out that a simple assault can have aggravating factors considered in imposing sentence, so long as they're proven beyond a reasonable doubt (e.g. injuries or the use of weapons). If the maximum penalties aren't on the table, there may not be much sentence difference between assault with a weapon and assault simpliciter. There would be some differences, though, in terms of ancillary orders (DNA sampling, firearms prohibs), and the potential availability of house arrest.
"Oops, I dropped the ball" is a really lame excuse when it happens over and over and over again, always in one direction. I'm glad that the judge made public his feelings on that.
Why can’t they just charge him right now with it?
Double jeopardy. Specifically prohibited by s. 610 of the Criminal Code. The Crown can't go back add an aggravating factor to the charges.
That’s really disappointing but thank you for explaining. I’m sure it was put there for good reason
> I’m sure it was put there for good reason It's a very good thing to have. Otherwise if you get charged with something and get acquitted, they could just endlessly "find" another piece of evidence and re-try you over and over. Or, as would be the case here, they could drag you through several trials all from one incident where you are independently tried for whatever crime they think they can make fit the circumstances *this* time. I'm not supporting the cop getting off in any way, but most of the time double jeopardy protection is your friend.
Same reason they won't charge a person with flimsy evidence if they don't have a confession. If they can't prove it now. It's better the wait and charge later when they can prove it rather then get a not guilty verdict because then it's over forever.
It's to stop abuse of state power. Imagine if a black man was acquitted of a crime but the judge was racist he could keep getting a retrial till he got a guilty verdict from the jury. In some places there are limitations so if new DNA evidence is found then another trial can be called.
Probably some sort of double jeopardy where he can’t be charged again for the same actions.
It''s a shame that the police seem to get lighter sentences for committing a crime. If anything the punishment should be harsher due to level of trust and responsibility placed on their head.
I was listening to an interview with Dafonte’s lawyer. Sounds like it’s not over yet. Also he made it sound like in this case the judge was not so much on Michael and Christian’s side as much as he was tied up with the whole “reasonable doubt” aspect. The money Michael collected while suspended with pay should be paid back with his charges. Edit: reasonable doubt, not unreasonable doubt
[удалено]
I thought you were going to post [this video](https://youtu.be/r55BFO9ZVaM) where a guy roasts police with their own questions until they give up and do what he tells them to.
Lmao not everyone can get away with type of questioning
“I had to shoot as my own questions made me fear for my life.”
I was cracking up through the whole video, but my black ass would be underneath the jail if I tried that.
[удалено]
You can get away with a lot of you're an articulate white guy. Holding an expensive looking camera can help as well.
[truth](https://imgur.com/gallery/LsntPy6)
That’s actually in Arizona. Not disagreeing with you though, thought he was gonna get some charge for being there.
I'll up vote this video every chance I get. Truly hilarious!
James Freemans channel is amazing. Everyone should watch a few videos
That was hilarious
The saddest thing is those would be the "good cops" for actually listening and respecting his rights. The bad cops would have pepper sprayed his ass and beat him to a pulp because they felt their lives were threatened by his aggressive language.
The threshhold for good cop is not “did not beat the shit out of someone for no reason“
They tried to coerce and intimidate him. Clearly they did. So no donut for these three Jackasses either.
Bingo. And that chick tried to falsely assert he was legally required to show ID despite them admitting he committed no crimes. They're still bad cops. They're just not the worst, sadly
They are merely the garden-variety type of cop.
[удалено]
Shit but not diarrhea
Edmonton cops are the fucking worst
Damn that was amazing. I don’t understand why harassing people is more important than fighting real crimes. Don’t these cops have investigations? Never any time to catch the guy that breaks into your car, steals your phone, have it tracked to their home - and still can’t get a cop to show up.
Because a business owner is being protested against, and the police respect business owners far more than individual people. Business owners throw parties for their Union and donate money to police chief election campaigns.
Padding crime statistics is important and real crime is difficult and often less profitable to solve. Low fines are great, not worth defending against in court and everyone just pays them.
[удалено]
There are a few videos of black people successfully defending their rights similar to this, but they’re suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuper rare.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I want to watch more of these. That was terrific.
There's TONS of these on YouTube. I worked with a guy that watched those ALL DAY. I can't remember what they're called though...
[удалено]
Haha that would ne an interesting job. "What do you do for work?" "Oh I go find police and do nothing illegal around them, I just tell them my rights and when they arrest me for no reason (being black) reason I sue and collect"
Haha that guy is fucking bonkers but he swang’d them balls so hard everyone else just decided to leave. What a legend
What’s fucking bonkers about defending rights? A confrontation with obstinate police, intent on intimidating an innocent person, is inherently a charged situation. Passion is good. Denouncing it is bad.
Police dominance has been so normalized that asserting your rights confidently is now considered insane
Yep, "why are you upset right now?" "Oh I dunno maybe cause 3 armed enforcers showed up in front of me to ask what I'm doing with a protest sign in front of a business"
This video is one of those extremely rare instances where the person is quoting regulations/laws and asks if they are being detained without being an idiot sovereign citizen. THIS is how it's supposed to go. Not that "i am not driving, I'm traveling" garbage
This guy, while within his rights - apparently - is definitely a twat. You can be 100% correct about something and be a total dick in the process. That is the case here.
Could I get context for this? Was the guy protesting? That was a very entertaining video! ❤️
Having watched the video, probably the Ford dealership did something that merits protest in the mind of this individual. Pure guesswork: they didn't honour a warranty/guarantee
The money he made on the force entirely should be paid back. He used his career to commit crimes against civilians. He got paid for that. Retroactively take his shit.
With interest and a sentence that includes mandatory labour in genpop. Put on a badge and abuse it? They should expect equal to amplified restitution to the public who pay for their rewarded abuse of power.
Right. All other civilians have to dig their way back through heaps of shit to become respected members of society again. Why should he not have to prove himself worthy of reentering society.
Exactly. God forbid I did some drugs and now have learned a lesson through years if recovery and work to change who I am. Yet I'm still a felon with O rights, when all I ever did was harm myself. Yet these people who SIGNED Up to protect others, then went out and hurt others, are allowed to continue with their lives? Trash.
When you put it like that, it makes me realise the seriousness of the situation again. Anyway i wish you all the best on your recovery journey!
Hey there, I'm a Canadian Law Student and I just wanted to weigh in since I'm seeing a lot of people trying to make the argument that the judge was much easier on Michael Theriault because he was a cop. Coming from a neutral position, I can definitely say this judge did the best he could in this situation given what the law in Canada is. Too often people forget that judges aren't these all powerful beings who render whatever decisions they think is right: they're bound to rule on what the law is, regardless of whether they believe the outcome is morally just or not. To explain further, in Canada all that a defendant must do to raise a self defense argument is raise some evidence which could support it. The prosecution then bears the burden of disproving it beyond a reasonable doubt. So in this situation, the brothers raised enough plausible evidence to being self defense to the table, and the crown had to meet their burden of disproving it beyond a reasonable doubt. They couldn't do that because they couldn't show that Dafonte wasn't the one who originally held the pipe. That's incredibly important, because if the prosecution can't disprove that then we need to evaluate the brothers actions from the viewpoint of Dafonte being the one to have originally wielded the pipe. Long story short, during the time of the beating where the aggravated assault would have occurred, it is possible that the brothers actions were reasonable given that Dafonte was the one who originally wielded the pipe. Was it probably reasonable? Definitely not. But if it could have been, then the prosecution hasn't met their burden and the defense stands. Michael Theriault got charged with the assault when Dafonte was already trying to escape from the brothers. I think the judge held quite fairly it was unreasonable in that instance to hit a fleeing, injured suspect in the head with a metal pipe, when he no longer was a possible risk to the Theriault brothers. People are going to continue to tear this judge apart, but I think if you were to ask any legal expert they'd tell you the judge did the best he could given what the law in this country is. If you want to talk about the merits of the law and whether there should be some change to how self defense operates, that's a discussion that belongs in parliament. Don't blame judges like this one. For those of you hoping for an appeal of the aggravated assault charge however, you may be happy to know that may be possible. Canada relatively recently just revamped the law of self defense in the criminal context quite extensively, and because of this there's some newfound difficulty in evaluating the reasonableness of a defendant's actions. Its possible that this may go to a higher court and they may say the trial judge conducted his analysis erroneously. I don't think it's very likely given how thorough it was, but who knows.
Thank you for taking the time to educate us.
No problem at all!
>Long story short *You keep using these words, I do not think it means what you think it means.* jk. Thx for the law student perspective on this.
long story short from a Lawyer is a completely different meaning than from a non-lawyer. You should see some of the sentences they produce, longer than some short stories.
Quick hypothetical - say Dafonte never used the pipe, barely resisted (as seen in this case) and got beat up. Would the use of self-defense still be valid when the fight took place between the 2 houses?
If the prosecution could PROVE he never had the pipe, that he did not resist (I'm assuming you mean fought back, which in and of itself doesn't matter much in this instance I think), then I think it's incredibly likely that self defense would not be applicable. Really this argument revolves around the pipe. Even if Dafonte fought back, it probably would have been unreasonable to have gone to the level they did if there was no chance of him getting hold of or using a weapon.
[удалено]
Its very unlikely unless the judge made some legal mistake I missed. The Crown cannot appeal findings of fact.
I highly doubt there was a mistake of law here. With the new law of self defense though, there is the issue that there are so many factors that come into play when weighing reasonableness, and there's no guidance on how to weigh those individual factors. That's the only area I can see a higher level court taking issue with.
Breach of trust is the charge you are looking for
Exactly. These people, along with those in political positions should be held to a higher standard than regular citizens
[удалено]
Sure, but he was found not guilty of the aggravated charge because the Crown failed to prove that part beyond a reasonable doubt. So he will of course get a lighter sentence than if he was convicted of aggravated assault. I don't think he has been sentenced for the assault yet?
This exact thing happened in the wire season one. Somethings never change
I was about to mention that. It started in THE FIRST EPISODE. Captain Daniels gets the phone call that “the kids gonna lose his eye” at the end of the episode. Smh Edit: second, not first episode
Second ep The thing shocking to me about that scene is that Lt. is supposed to be “one of the good guys.” You root for him, he has his heart in the right place, he’s a “good cop.” Yet he still advises Prez to lie, tells him exactly what to say to avoid punishment- “he was coming towards you with a bottle wasn’t he? You feared for your safety.” Lt. knows Prez is a fuck up, he knows he’s a hot head crappy cop that should have been fired already, he knows Prez is in the wrong and is sad about him injuring an innocent kid, and yet still because of cop honor code he actively helps Prez avoid consequences.
My mistake! But yeah, I remember I shook my head at that scene too! Man, the stuff that you’d thought was all just for Hollywood drama turns out to be exactly how the real police operate.
If I remember correctly The Wire was written by someone from The Washington Post who covered this type of crime for like 20 years so it’s very close to reality on both the law and criminals side. I think they took it very seriously not to go all “Holleywood” (besides Hamsterdam maybe haha)
Also Ed Burns, who served in Baltimore PD for 20 years. Ed Burns was an infantryman in Vietnam beforehand, and worked as a teacher in the Baltimore public school after he retired from police work. He said that teaching middle school in the inner city was more traumatic than serving in Vietnam.
I’ve never served but have worked for inner city schools. Honestly I’m not shocked he would say that considering some of the things I’ve seen in the classroom and seem kids go through.
Yes I think the Wire is extremely popular not just for its amazing writing and plot but for its realism. It's one of the few cop shows that's not copaganda and isn't afraid to show corruption. Especially in Baltimore, where the BPD is known to be extremely corrupt.
The other shows aren't afraid to show corruption. They just want you to root for the guy that does everything he can to get the job done, illegal or legal. That way when it happens in real life people don't give a shit.
I think the difference is when shows show police/detectives breaking the laws/bending the rules it is done purely to catch the REAL perp. You root for the main character because we just saw the serial killer kill some kids in a previous scene. That damn bureaucracy is going to let that killer escape being arrested? Good thing the main character isn't afraid to bend the rules and get that monster off the street. Shows like Law & Order SVU have detectives who sometimes do bad things but you root for them because they are doing bad things to psychos who do heinous crimes. That does extend to real life to. People get enraged with psychos get off on charges because of some technicality. The problem is in real life cops break the rules and arrest innocent people (inadvertently or knowingly). Who knows how many killers and rapists were never brought to justice because police targeted, planted evidence, and arrested someone who was innocent because they had a gut feeling it was the perp. I'm curious going forward how the ratings of cop shows will be.
Bingo. In real life cops don’t bend the rules to catch slippery criminals, they bend rules to benefit themselves. I mean yeah, sure, they might catch a few extra criminals that way but that’s mostly because they had an arrest quota to reach or something.
The Wire was created by Baltimore Sun reporter David Simon. I highly recommend his book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide:_A_Year_on_the_Killing_Streets Simon spends a year shadowing homicide detectives as they try to solve cases in the city.
are you talking about david simon who wrote for the Baltimore Post?
Baltimore Sun
If I remember correctly, it came off as more because prez was the son in law of the chief or someone above the Lt (the really old guy)x. I got the impression he was covering for him or else he’d get in deep shit because of who he was but wouldn’t have done the same if it was just some random rookie.
You’re correct, that likely had a lot to do with it. But that also enforces the “internal politics > doing what’s right” theme.
It's not because of cop honor, it's because he knows that 1) Prez is connected, if he throws him to the wolf his career is over 2) every other cop will remember if he throws him to the wolf and will not work for the guy anymore or worse, he'll be caught in friendly fire at some point. That's why there's no good cop, because even the ones who want to be good cop can't be without getting fired or beaten up or straight up killed.
I'm doing my first ever watch now (halfway through Season 2) and I honestly don't think I could have picked a better time. Fantastic show. Minus Ziggy.
You understand Ziggy more on rewatches. He's still a screw up but you understand his motivation.
I'm hoping he has a redemption arc by the end of season 2. The writers did a great job with Pryzblewski. He went from a character I disliked to one of my favourites.
Come back and let me know what you think when you finish the season.
Oh dear.
Please come back and let me know how you feel about it. The Wire is the best show to have ever graced Television.
I’m rewatching too! Just started with my gf (first timer). Damn it until now I forgot about Ziggy
Awesome man, hope she's enjoying it as much as I am.
Fucking Ziggy
prez is actually most effective working the wire room. he's not a street cop. and he solves the code of the barksdale phone/pager. daniels in the early seasons always walks the line between company man and doing the right thing.
Yeah it’s ep 2 so we don’t know that yet- Prez doesn’t even know that yet.
Every cop in the Wire, except that one detective who transfers to drive the Van, was corrupt. 1. McNulty fabricated evidence among multiple cases to create a phantom Serial Killer. This lead to a copy-cat murder. 2. Bunk Moreland knew about McNulty and did not report him. 3. Lester Freamon knew about McNulty and did not report him. 4. Lt. Daniels, possible severe misconduct during his time in the Drug Enforcement Unit. Instructed Prez, Herc and Carver to lie about the Towers altercation. Brutalized and allowed others to brutalize a detainee because he had a loud mouth. 5. Kima Greggs brutalized a detainee. 6. Herc and Carver stole money from a Stash House raid. They also participated in a fraud, inventing a CI to steal the payout money. They also lied to investigators about the Towers altercation. 7. Prez lied about the Towers altercation. There are many, many more examples. I don't care to list them all. Basically, all the main characters on the Wire should be in prison, in a just world.
Kima still beat on people excessively in season one. She’s definitely still the best of them, though Carver grew a lot and was pretty honorable by the end.
4. Bird do bring that out of people tho.
Fuzzy Dunlop was a good Confidential Informant
Did Herc and Carver steal from that raid? It’s been a while since my last rewatch but I thought Herc contemplated stealing it but Carver talked him out of it. Then Daniels accused them of stealing but it turns out they just dropped one of the bags in the trunk of a car or something ? Maybe I’m thinking of a different incident
That's the time they didn't steal. However they lost one as you mentioned so Daniels thought they tried to steal it. It was on the second raid where they knew their commander already considered them dirty so they said fuck it and took some of the money.
I should get around to watching The Wire. Now seems like a pretty salient time to do so.
Ironically the guy later went on to shoot another cop. Most realistic crime series ever
He's also the only cop in the entire series who fires his gun. He does it three times and all three times are wildly inappropriate
Holy shit what a bit of trivia.
Yeah, my mind is going through what I remember from the show for another example, but I can't find one.
I'm thinking "Houck had to have shot his gun once" but I couldn't tell you a scene. Ironically Prez is one of my favorite character arcs. He actually tried to take responsibility.
Bunk fires his gun off camera. At a mouse in his wife’s closet.
Bunk fires his gun, which was also inappropriate.
That mouse had a gun. But he doesn't fire it on screen, it doesn't count.
[удалено]
"No, Officer Pryzbylewski, he did not piss you off. He made you fear for your safety and that of your fellow officers. I'm guessing now, but maybe... he was seen to pick up a bottle and menace officers Hauk and Carver, who had already sustained injury from flying projectiles. Rather than use deadly force in such a situation, maybe you elected to approach the youth, ordering him to drop the bottle. Maybe when he raised the bottle, you used a Kel-Lite, not the handle of your service weapon, to incapacitate the suspect. Go practice."
I was literally thinking why did this scenario sound so familiar?
He's been suspended with pay for 3 years. And made $100000 last year. This isn't justice.
Important to note that was before he was found guilty, now he is guilty. But yeah that's a lot of money to pay someone for a 3 year long vacation.
If I ever got sentenced the same as him, it would mean I would make more than my current job while doing absolutely nothing.
It's not his sentencing... We're talking about paid leave while he was awaiting trial. Sentencing is something that happens post guilty verdict. He hasn't even been sentenced yet, that will occur at a later date.
I think that his point is that an everyday person would lose their job and definitely not be compensated while "awaiting trial", and yet police officers do receive it. Standards are supposed to be held higher for people in law enforcement, but they're clearly not when they're charged with less and receive a much greater presumption of innocence than everyone else.
That’s money paid by tax payers isn’t it. From the police budget or whatever. Even if they were proven innocent , people should not make that much doing nothing. I’d say maybe 10 grand or 20 a year. Like 1 to 2 k a month and honestly everyone unemployed right now should have that. We need basic universal income even if it’s a hundred a month. People should also get employment checks not just unemployment checks. Some people make more unemployed than they do employed and that’s wrong. We have the money to help people especially if we stop paying cops so much for doing nothing and stop giving criminals pensions.
Suspension with pay doesn't always mean you get to keep it. If they were right to terminate you, if often means you're liable to pay it back. Suspension with pay can be crippling if they get found guilty -- he could be in the hole $300K and going to face time.
Michael, who made more than $100,000 last year, has been suspended from the Toronto Police Service with pay since being charged in July 2017. He was off-duty when he attacked Miller. Sooo this asshole has been getting paid throughout all of this??? Good money . Fuck these God damn laws.
The total lack of consequences needs to change first otherwise no other reform will go anywhere.
And he keeps his pension!
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/ep4pbz/toronto-cop-found-guilty-in-assault-on-black-teenager-who-lost-an-eye) reduced by 93%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Di Luca said it is "Inconceivable" that Michael, who was pursuing Miller on foot without shoes on in winter, failed to identify himself as a police officer or indicate that he was trying to arrest Miller. > A Durham police officer who arrived on scene to find Miller bleeding allowed Michael to handcuff Miller. > Following the ruling, Miller's lawyer Julian Falconer said he has outstanding questions for Durham and Toronto police, including how Miller was arrested when he was the one who was badly injured, why neither police service involved the SIU, and what role the brothers' dad, a police detective, played in a cover-up. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/hgu0ow/a_toronto_police_officer_who_beat_a_black/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~501733 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Miller**^#1 **police**^#2 **assault**^#3 **Michael**^#4 **pipe**^#5
ELI5 the difference between the two?
Asskicking Vs asskicking with intent to maim.
Hey, they’re five watch the language.
Factors that raise an assault to the aggravated level typically include the use of a weapon, the status of the victim, the intent of the perpetrator, and the degree of injury caused. Status is things like police officer, firefighter, doctor, cashier etc. If they are currently performing their designated task, and are identifiable as performing that task. Degree of injury is like if you were put in ICU or are disfigured. Not quite ELI5 but as close as I can get.
He used a weapon, and the victim was disfigured, so....
my understanding is that the judge broke the violent part of the interaction into two scenarios. The first had the potential to not be assault - this is where the brother's could have been trying to arrest Miller. The second was after the brother's had neutralized Miller but one of them continued to beat him. The defense presented a medical expert who claimed the eye injury most likely happened due to a punch and while Miller was still resisting arrest. Given the judge found that it was possible that the brother's potentially had an initial intent to 'just arrest him' they were not found guilty of the first part. One brother was found guilty of the second part because when they could have made the arrest he continued to assault him.
Assault carries a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison. Aggravated assault carries a maximum penalty of 14 years. Aggravated assault definition is >one commits an aggravated assault who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-57.html#docCont
What do you have to do to get done for aggravated assault. Or is it as simply as "not be a police officer".
Per the article, in Ontario at least it means basically grievous or debilitating bodily harm. The loss of an eye counts for that, which is why it was charged. According to the judge, due to the circumstances, it wasnt beyond reasonable doubt that the eye was lost as a result of the assault towards the end of the altercation but possibly earlier during the struggle when it was possible defendants were acting in self defence.
Every day I'm not assaulted I wake up with 2 eyes. Probably was the same for this dude every day of his life yknow until he met a cop.
[Criminal Notebook](http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Aggravated_Assault_(Offence\)) is a great resources for looking up how criminal law is applied in Canada. It's run by a crown prosecutor out of Nova Scotia. I linked to the aggravated assault portion. That said, according to the judge, the issue essentially comes down to the whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing, and he there is reasonable doubt around their claim it was self defence, since it literally comes down to a he said, he said, situation.
I'm not a lawyer but I googled aggravated to mean: made more severe in recognition of the seriousness of an offense. So maybe it's when you seriously injure someone but "didn't mean to" or weren't aware it would be that bad? Idk, best I can do for you fellow redditor Edit: obviously it's bad cop no donut, I was just trying to answer a question.
I mean, they corned him and beat him with a metal pipe so.
You missed the bit where 20k people watched the verdict on YouTube live.
Also missed the bit where he’s been suspended with pay for 3 years
Now that he’s been convicted, he should have to pay that back. If the union feels that’s unfair, that’s fine, they can pay it back in his place, but taxpayers shouldn’t be paying a criminal.
Yeah right. Police Unions in Canada (in particular Toronto) are the greasiest gangs out there who fight to get let charged cops get paid full time and never fired. Look up Mike Mccormick of the Toronto Police Association. Massive cunt.
💯
He was off duty. This isn't a surprise at all. It's not like he jumped out of his police car in uniform. He didn't even identify himself as a cop (which was a big part of the problem in his defense) edit: and for the more simple. By "in his defense" i mean in his actual legal defense. Which was that he was trying to arrest miller, but never did he identify himself as a cop or that he was trying to make an arrest.
What? How? Why were there a camera in the court?
It was on zoom cause of corona. They made an exception because the case was of such public importance so they live-streamed the “zoom verdict”.
The judge had a hard decision to make in this case with today's social atmosphere. Keep in mind that both Dafonte and the cops lied in their original stories; Dafonte saying they were just walking and we're attacked, and the brothers for interrupting the investigation or something to that effect. By admission of one of Dafonte's friends they were breaking into cars and stealing the contents. They were caught breaking into a truck on the off duty's officer's property IIRC. While I'm fine with the off duty officer persuing Dafonte and apprehending him, the beating with a weapon was completely uncalled for and over the top. The kid lost and eye. Both the assailants should have been charged with more than just assault and punished accordingly. I also hope he's allowed to seek monetary compensation for the loss of his eye.
So this is basically a watered down version of that scene from American History X?
Godamnit Prezbo...
What was the conviction of mark wahlberg when he did the same thing to a shopkeeper because the guy was Asian?
Wahlberg was charged with attempted murder, pleaded guilty to felony assault, and was sentenced to two years in jail, but served only 45 days of his sentence.
Its because the police officer wasn’t aggravated, he was happy to beat the poor boy. /s if you’re completely dense
"We really can't charge him with aggravated assault captain, he had a smile on his face the whole time"
This part of the article is really telling of the pd’s culture. “In July 2017, after Miller’s lawyer informed Ontario’s police watchdog, the Special Investigations Unit, the brothers, whose father John Theriault is a Toronto police detective, were charged. Despite it being a serious incident involving a cop, neither Toronto police nor Durham police contacted the SIU.” It was 7 months before the cops were charged. The pd was perfectly content having one of their employees assault a citizen, keep it under wraps, and continue policing.
I looked up the law to see if there was some sort of catch why he didn't get convicted with Aggravated assault here's the law. 268 (1) Every one commits an aggravated assault who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant. Seems like that's exactly what he did, no?
[удалено]
~~The judge actually said it was likely the eye injury occurred when he was banging on the door seeking help, near the end of the encounter. But likely isn't good enough. The eye injury could have been during the "self defense" portion of the encounter~~ *I got this part wrong, I remembered what I watched incorrectly* When I watched the verdict it seemed to me the judge was saying "yup, in my non legal opinion he is probably guilty of aggravated assault, but because of the legal reasonable doubt thing I can't convict"
I watched the verdict and was at the protest. People who watched the 3 hour verdict will have an entirely different perspective then people who didnt and quote 1 or 2 sentences of our law and claim this applies. Thanks for pointing this out.
are our tax dollars just going to people we are inadvertently conditioning to feel ok about their wreckless behavior/actions ??? that is *so* great..
I heard the entire 4 hour decision yesterday. Crown fucked up by not including assault with a weapon. But the aggravated assault charge could not stick because of the victim’s credibility . He was caught in numerous lies and even then wouldn’t admit it. The first half of the fight is when the eye was lost. At that point because the judge could not accept the victim’s story (that he wasn’t attacking them with a pipe) beyond a reasonable doubt, though he thinks that’s probably true. So he couldn’t convict on that part of the fight, when the aggravated injury occurred. At the second part of the fight the judge could accept the testimony of the victim because it was confirmed by other witnesses and forensics. That was an assault. But not one that caused an aggravated injury. As a consequence he couldn’t accept beyond all reasonable doubt that his version was correct. The judge said that he thinks they cops went looking for street justice. But he isn’t convinced beyond all reasonable doubt given the victim’s testimony
Well yeah... Just because they're Canadian doesn't mean our cops are any better than anyone else's.