Individual that Allegedly Shot RCMP Officers Not Guilty

[Fish along]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

That is one possibility. The other possibility is that they knew they didn't have enough evidence to obtain a conviction, but they took it to trial anyways, just to punish him, both financially and emotionally. by making him endure the trial.

Yes I would bet that this sort of thing happens Quite often,to bad that they don't have to pay out of their own pockets for this total misuse of public money.

[roper1]

A point I would bring up Red if we could get to this utopian level playing field would make me happy. Even a little closer
But the police force isn't paying Robison's legal fees.
There are still way too many uneven cases. No forensic evidence & no eyewitness would mean no trial if it was the cop being investigated.
WTH is going on with the patrol carbine in Calgary. More uneven distribution of justice.
I'm with you on cop screwing up, charges & trial.
Citizen screws up, charges & trial.
Right now it ain't working that way & you & I both know it!!!

[Cappy]

I'll have to read the the transcripts, but from what I remember of the case it was something like this.

Mounties arrive to serve warrant to recover a .45cal handgun owned by Robinson that he loaned to a buddy to use to intimidate his girlfriend. Robinson answers the door, but begins to pull back into the house. RCMP go in after him. Naked uncle jumps out shooting a .40cal at the RCMP who get hit, retreat and return fire. Robinson had retreated further into the house.

Uncle is hit and commits suicide where he fell in kitchen. More members arrive. During this time Robinson is able to flee. The house is secured and entry made. Dead uncle found with .40cal beside him that has his prints on it. Numerous .40cal casings found in kitchen. Also near the dead uncle is a .45 cal pistol. Same one that they were there to seize, the one belonging to Robinson. This pistol has no evidence on it...none, it's clean. Deeper in the house numerous spent .45 casing are found. Uncle was never seen in this area.

Attending officers only saw uncle firing with one handgun from the kitchen. Robinson fled the scene armed with numerous firearms.

Circumstantial evidence lead the RCMP and the Crown to believe that Robinson had fired on the RCMP members from deeper inside the house. That is a reasonable belief and meets the requirements to lay charges. The judge didn't feel it met the threshold for a conviction.

I'll keep all the speculation to those who like to speculate.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Cappy

I'll have to read the the transcripts, but from what I remember of the case it was something like this.

Mounties arrive to serve warrant to recover a .45cal handgun owned by Robinson that he loaned to a buddy to use to intimidate his girlfriend. Robinson answers the door, but begins to pull back into the house. RCMP go in after him. Naked uncle jumps out shooting a .40cal at the RCMP who get hit, retreat and return fire. Robinson had retreated further into the house.

Uncle is hit and commits suicide where he fell in kitchen. More members arrive. During this time Robinson is able to flee. The house is secured and entry made. Dead uncle found with .40cal beside him that has his prints on it. Numerous .40cal casings found in kitchen. Also near the dead uncle is a .45 cal pistol. Same one that they were there to seize, the one belonging to Robinson. This pistol has no evidence on it...none, it's clean. Deeper in the house numerous spent .45 casing are found. Uncle was never seen in this area.

Attending officers only saw uncle firing with one handgun from the kitchen. Robinson fled the scene armed with numerous firearms.

Circumstantial evidence lead the RCMP and the Crown to believe that Robinson had fired on the RCMP members from deeper inside the house. That is a reasonable belief and meets the requirements to lay charges. The judge didn't feel it met the threshold for a conviction.

I'll keep all the speculation to those who like to speculate.

Exactly, it's called probable cause.

Just like the cops in Baltimore, know one knows exactly what happened to Freddy Gray, but there is enough probable cause to charge the six cop and go through a trial to decide guilt or innocence.

Now when a suspect is charged by the cops and found not guilty it's conspiracy not probable cause.

Funny how this attitude is getting more and more prevalent amongst gun owners.

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by roper1

A point I would bring up Red if we could get to this utopian level playing field would make me happy. Even a little closer
But the police force isn't paying Robison's legal fees.
There are still way too many uneven cases. No forensic evidence & no eyewitness would mean no trial if it was the cop being investigated.
WTH is going on with the patrol carbine in Calgary. More uneven distribution of justice.
I'm with you on cop screwing up, charges & trial.
Citizen screws up, charges & trial.
Right now it ain't working that way & you & I both know it!!!

I'm in Bodo, Roper. I have no idea wth is going on with the carbine incident and neither do you. How is it an uneven distribution of justice?

I never said the system was perfect. I've even howled myself about a legal system not a justice system. I realize sometimes you're the bug and sometimes you're the windshield.

It's a simple situation. If you screw up, man up, and shut up. [not you personally].

Otherwise work to change the system. And that doesn't mean trash every thing the cops do from the safety of the keyboard.

Cappy's post gives a different perspective.

[densa44]

Wasn't this the case where the guy that ran/escaped the scene had a .50 rifle that he wasn't supposed to have?

Maybe that was another case?

[Cappy]

Same case

[CNP]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

In both cases the shooter was killed, so he couldn't be punished. As a result, they tried to punish whomever they thought that they could get away with punishing.

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

That is one possibility. The other possibility is that they knew they didn't have enough evidence to obtain a conviction, but they took it to trial anyways, just to punish him, both financially and emotionally. by making him endure the trial.

Originally Posted by hal53

^^^^ this...

Originally Posted by roper1

^^Sure looks this way^^No forensic evidence or eyewitness accounts but they proceeded anyway

You're saying the "they" is the RCMP? RCMP don't take anyone to trial.

[purgatory.sv]

Originally Posted by CNP

You're saying the "they" is the RCMP? RCMP don't take anyone to trial.

They provide information, it is then evaluated.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by purgatory.sv

They provide information, it is then evaluated.

Correct.....................the Crown Attorney decides whether or not to proceed with charges

[Sneeze]

The posts in this thread should be a good wake up to the RCMP.

I know zip about the situation but I trust a farm boy who is good with guns a whole bunch more then the RCMP guys that put him in cuffs. Experience and past events make me think the judge got this one right.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by CNP

Correct.....................the Crown Attorney decides whether or not to proceed with charges

Based pretty much entirely on the information that he is provided by the RCMP.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Based pretty much entirely on the information that he is provided by the RCMP.

Isn't that how it is supposed to work? Yes it is one sided, but I am pretty sure Robinson's lawyer advised him not to saw a word until the trial. That's the way our system works. Police forward information to the crown. The crown evaluates it and decides if it has enough merit to proceed to trial.

They then have to disclose all of it to the defense. The defense does not have provide anything to the crown or the police. It's like playing poker where you have to show your hand to the dealer but the dealer can keep their's hidden.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Based pretty much entirely on the information that he is provided by the RCMP.

Yeah. That's how it works. What is your point? But we know what your point is:

Originally Posted by elkhunter11
That is one possibility. The other possibility is that they knew they didn't have enough evidence to obtain a conviction, but they took it to trial anyways, just to punish him, both financially and emotionally. by making him endure the trial.

Are you going to say now that the RCMP fabricated a story? It's been acknowledged that there was insufficient/lack of evidence to support Robinson as a shooter. The police did not say he was observed as being the shooter. Your comments are misleading at best or cop bashing at worst. The case should maybe not have gone to trial because the Crown Attorney and/or Judge erred on bringing the case to trail, not the RCMP. Some serious crimes were committed here. Police officers were shot.

[NEWB]

Originally Posted by CNP

Yeah. That's how it works. What is your point? But we know what your point is:



Are you going to say now that the RCMP fabricated a story? It's been acknowledged that there was insufficient/lack of evidence to support Robinson as a shooter. The police did not say he was observed as being the shooter. Your comments are misleading at best or cop bashing at worst. The case should maybe not have gone to trial because the Crown Attorney and/or Judge erred on bringing the case to trail, not the RCMP. Some serious crimes were committed here. Police officers were shot.

Are you implying RCMP have never fabricated stories to cover up the actions of their members?

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

If a cop screws up, he gets charged and goes to trial and we accept the verdict.

If a civilian screws up, he gets charged and goes to trial and we accept the verdict.

And right there is the issue Red, but fairness under the law is missing here.

There are enough Cases in Canada where people got arrested and charged - and we know now that the cops fabricated evidence and or lied. That is one bad precedent to set. On the flip side of the coin, bad people go free because cops lie - there are many cases showing this.

We see cops laying down beatings, drunk driving, killing folk and getting away with it. Why. All dangerous precedents - but when it comes to one of their own, it's generally preferential treatment. And who pays for the lawyers when they screw up?

For the rest of us schleps, we have the charter of rights to protect us. And many times it's not sufficient. When your only remedy against trampled rights is to go to court and pay out of pocket, that's an issue. If you're arrested, charged - you can be guaranteed that you will not be treated like a cop under arrest.

[CaberTosser]

In a discussion on GunNutz about this same case, people were referring to Sawyer Robison as being one of those "Freemen of the land" types, like that psychopath nightmare tenant that hit the news here in Calgary a year or two back. Does anyone have any info to back up this claim? Certainly Robison would have been eager to note some of his beliefs in court were this the case, unless his counsel managed to muzzle him effectively. Those weirdo's love nothing more than to have a soapbox that actually has peoples attention.

[Redfrog]

It's statements like this that diminish the seriousness of situtations involving bad cop behavior.

"There are enough Cases in Canada where people got arrested and charged - and we know now that the cops fabricated evidence and or lied. That is one bad precedent to set. On the flip side of the coin, bad people go free because cops lie - there are many cases showing this.

We see cops laying down beatings, drunk driving, killing folk and getting away with it. "

And here's why I say that.

There are not 'enough' cases. There are too many. One is too many when a cop intentionally does the wrong thing.

But there are more than two sides to the coin you refer to. There is also the thousands of times every day across Canada that the cops get it right.

When cops lay down beatings, drive drunk, kill folks, how is it they 'get away with it'.
How do we even know about these things if they "get away " with it.

The facts say they do not get away with it.

Unfortunately, some folks think being investigated, charged and convicted is getting away with it, because there was no firing squad involved. Even when the cop is convicted and sentenced, it's not good enough.

Some folks think getting investigated, charged, arrested, tried and found not guilty is an outrage when the person tried is a civilian, but it's a coverup when the person tried is a cop.

Reading your posts it sounds like the number of bad cops is in the thousands and may actually be most of law enforcement, when the reality is that the number is small.

I'd like to see it at zero, but then I like to think I'm realistic in what I expect.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by NEWB

Are you implying RCMP have never fabricated stories to cover up the actions of their members?

No. What is your point?

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

It's statements like this that diminish the seriousness of situtations involving bad cop behavior.

How does it diminish the seriousness of bad behavior Red? It's them that is setting the precedent, not me.

Originally Posted by Redfrog

There are not 'enough' cases. There are too many. One is too many when a cop intentionally does the wrong thing.

Well, at least we agree there. When those that are sworn to uphold the law - break that law - it's a serious precedent.

Originally Posted by Redfrog

But there are more than two sides to the coin you refer to. There is also the thousands of times every day across Canada that the cops get it right.

Yes, you are right about that one. Still begs the question tho, how many cases of lying and perjury do we not know about? It's the officers that are creating the suspicion.

Originally Posted by Redfrog

When cops lay down beatings, drive drunk, kill folks, how is it they 'get away with it'.

How do we even know about these things if they "get away " with it.

Here is where you and many others are at loggerheads. Look at officers like Monty Robinson for example, and I like to use him. If you're not familiar with him, he was one of the RCMP that was involved with the tazer death in the Vancouver airport. All they could get him on (and the others) was lying. Robinson went on to kill a kid on a motorbike while he was drinking - and if you're not familiar with that case, please feel free to find his "punishment".

Originally Posted by Redfrog

The facts say they do not get away with it.

That is blatantly wrong. I'll have to sit down later and find a list of cases for you where the officer was in the wrong, and not convicted.

Jason Nevill in Barrie, spent 6 months in jail. One of the ones that actually served jail time, and rightly so Red. 230 pound cop that put a beatdown on an innocent man (you believe that everyone is guilty of something). He had at least 20 complaints (that were known about) against him, shouldn't have been a cop long enough to lay the beatdown.

Doesn't it at least put some inkling in your mind about past arrests?

[NEWB]

Originally Posted by CNP

No. What is your point?

You agree that the RCMP have fabricated stories in the past to to cover their members and to try to get a conviction?

[CNP]

Originally Posted by NEWB

You agree that the RCMP have fabricated stories in the past to to cover their members and to try to get a conviction?

Yes. What is your point?

[NEWB]

Originally Posted by CNP

Yes. What is your point?

Thank you.

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by CNP

Yes. What is your point?

The point? Any cop that gets caught lying - needs to be fired. Period.

It's a job. They don't belong.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by NEWB

Thank you.

I still do not know what your point is wrt the OP and the resulting verdict? Is there evidence that someone fabricated a story?

[CNP]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

The point? Any cop that gets caught lying - needs to be fired. Period.

It's a job. They don't belong.

The police in the OP were caught lying? Or is this a derailed post, turned witch hunt?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by CNP

I still do not know what your point is wrt the OP and the resulting verdict? Is there evidence that someone fabricated a story?

Where did anyone post that the police fabricated a story. They may have simply convinced the prosecutor to take the case to trial, even though they knew the evidence was weak, because they wanted the accused to be punished by being forced to endure a trial. Perhaps the prosecutor knew that the case was weak, but took it to trial to appease the police, and to keep on their good side?

[CNP]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Where did anyone post that the police fabricated a story. They may have simply convinced the prosecutor to take the case to trial, even though they knew the evidence was weak, because they wanted the accused to be punished by being forced to endure a trial. Perhaps the prosecutor knew that the case was weak, but took it to trial to appease the police, and to keep on their good side?

Are you for real? The police control the prosecutors? Your whole point in this post is to discredit all police, all the time. That's all. That is your point. Look over your posts...

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by CNP

Are you for real? The police control the prosecutors? Your whole point in this post is to discredit all police, all the time. That's all. That is your point. Look over your posts...

Without the cooperation of the police, it would be pretty difficult for the crown prosecutor to do his job, so yes the police definitely have influence with the prosecutor.

[Cappy]

They have influence, but not control. Kind of hard not to when the police are the ones who have to bring cases forward for review. What is you suggestion elkhunter? How can it be done better?

I don't think there was any suggestion that the police were fabricating things in this instance was there? I thought it was simply a matter of the Judge not feeling that the crown had proved it's case beyond a reasonable doubt?