COP CLEARED FOR NOT INTERVENING IN AN INCIDENT

                                                           

Many years ago, I read in a newspaper of an incident in which a man in a small town carried his small baby into the office of the local cop telling the cop that the baby had to be taken to the hospital as she was very sick. The man didn’t have a car so he asked the cop to drive the baby to the hospital that was out of town. The cop refused saying that since he was the only cop in town, he couldn’t leave the small office in case someone in the town was in need of a cop. The baby died. The cop was cleared of his refusal to take the baby to the hospital. In my opinion, those were bad decisions on both parts of the cop and his superiors.

Here is another case involving a situation in which a cop didn’t intervene.

An incident occurred on an afternoon in February 2016 in the city’s west-end High Park when a passerby encountered Alexandre Boucher, who was tying a rope around a tree branch and around his neck. The woman called her husband, who was nearby and drove to the park to help.

On arrival, the man saw Constable Upjohn in a cruiser near the park entrance and alerted the officer to the fact that a man named  Bouche in the park appeared to be on the verge of suicide in the park and asked for help. Records show Upjohn lied about being on another call and refused to get involved. He told the man to call 911 and then he drove off. By the time emergency responders arrived, Bouchehad killed himself.

Upjohn, was suspended with pay after being  initially charged with criminal negligence causing death, failing to provide the necessaries of life, and breach of trust.

Now here it comes. Brace yourself.

 The 0ffice of the prosecution withdrew the first two charges because it would have been impossible to link Upjohn’s failure to act with the cause of Boucher’s death.

In January, 2019, , Superior Court Justice Maureen Forestell tossed out the breach of trust charge against Upjohn before trial was scheduled  to be heard.  Despite finding that the officer had failed to carry out his duty, lied about what he was doing, and had tried to cover up what he had done, Forestell agreed with the cop’s lawyer that there was no evidence Upjohn had an ulterior personal motive for driving away that would have supported the charge.

The evidence was obvious. He simply couldn’t be bothered to come to the aid of the man who was determined to kill himself.  

The prosecution appealed on the basis that Forestell had misinterpreted case law on breach of trust. It argued Upjohn’s decision to put his own comfort or needs before the good of the public was enough of an ulterior motive to prove the crime.

The Appeal Court rejected that argument, saying the crux of the offence rests on an intention to use public office for purposes other than the benefit of the public — even if the evidence in this case could lead to the conclusion that Upjohn exhibited “shocking a complete disregard for the duties” police officers are sworn to uphold.

To satisfy the improper purpose requirement, there must be an improper purpose that is materially different from the decision not to perform the duty,” Justice Rouleau found. “In my view, a desire to avoid an unpleasant duty does not make the grade.”

The point, Justice Rouleau  of the Appeal Court said that the issue is that any lazy public official could be convicted of breach of trust for simply deciding to avoid doing their job.

Rouleau also said, “This would not be consistent with fundamental criminal law principles that have historically set a high bar to establishing mental culpability for public misfeasance,. Simply failing to carry out one’s duty to avoid doing the work even where the work is considered to be unpleasant by the public official  will not suffice.”

That decision by Justice Rouleau is pure unadulterated hogwash.

It is one thing for the officer to refuse to wash the squad car but to refuse to save a life is quite something else simply because the cop couldn’t be bothered to get off his ass and save the man who was going to kill himself.

It is ironic when you think about it. The motto of the Police Department in Toronto that is on the police vehicle is TO PROTECT AND SERVE.  That creep didn’t bother to protect the stricken man or serve the man who asked the cop to intervene.

The evidence a supported the inference that in avoiding the cop’s  duty was knowingly untrustworthy, and that his purpose in breaching his duty was not for the public good but only in the cop’s only interest.

Upjohn was facing an internal disciplinary proceedings. Meaghan Gray, a spokeswoman for Toronto police, said the professional misconduct counts had been put on hold pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings. There was no criminal proceedings.

Upjohn had been  suspended with pay, and was accused of three counts of misconduct under Ontario’s Police Services Act stemming from the incident, including neglect of duty. Tribunal documents allege that the officer refused to help a concerned citizen who was trying to enlist Upjohn’s assistance to intervene in the suicide.

The document outlining the allegations before the tribunal stated.  “You told the citizen that you were on call and that he should call 911. This advice was inconsiderate, disingenuous, and not in keeping with the Toronto Police Service customer service strategy.”  Alas, I can’t find any record of the decision of the police tribunal hearing or whether or not this creep was fired.

If he wasn’t fired, that wouldn’t surprise me. In cases in which conduct is so disreputable that the police officer is no longer of any use to the service or it would cause irreparable damage should the officer remain on the force. But in some cases, some of these officers weren’t fired. That is because it is difficult to argue that the officers are no longer useful to the police services  when some officers were  returned to full duties and given significant responsibility to which they responded in a positive matter.

Police officers are respected per se because they put their lives at risk when they face with armed criminals.  it is my opinion  that this particular creep when facing a armed criminal holding a woman by her hair would say to the woman, “I am sorry but I can’t help you as I am on call somewhere else.” even though he isn’t on call. This creep should be fired.