anyone know if he got fired and lost his pension?

the crown isn't asking for a stiff sentence i bet so don't expect much if anything for Robinson


they would keep cops in a section of jail that's more secure for them just like they do child molesters/rapists

the reason they're lenient on officers is because its hard enough to get people to take on the job as a cop if they started sending them to jail or give them stiffer sentences than the average person enrollment rates would drop

and there was already a scare with enrollment rates dropping a decade or so (maybe 2 now cant recall) ago and the rcmp had to loosen up the strings on recruitment so you got more assholes undeserving of the position recruited as evidenced i guess you could say

I can see not wanting to send him to jail because he's a cop. It sucks, but I get it. Basically, putting him in protective custody because of his job is unfair treatment. However...I can also make the case that he used his status as a police officer to interfere with the investigation. So, he gets it both ways?

But to even mention that his aboriginal status is a factor is the part that is truly disturbing.

So here's my solution...you can't really go to jail, ok. And your aboriginal status is a mitigating factor. OK. You can serve time in a combination of rehab and house arrest. Two birds, one stone.

I've had a few friends apply, and they always told me how hard it is to get in based on the number of competing applicants..

He resigned from his post 1 week ago. Not sure about the pension.

The house arrest is based on the obstruction of justice charge. Did he get additional sentencing for manslaughter or just the obstruction charge?

I guess killing someone then running away from the scene afterwards only deserves up to a maximum of 10 years if you're a rcmp officer, I wonder how many years it would be for a normal person? Pretty bs how lightly this shit gets treated inside the rcmp

Well, I thought Brazil was the best country to get away with murder or manslaughter. Guess I was wrong.

Fuck this guy. Fucking load of shit.

yes there's still a screen its just the holes are bigger than they used to be




1 month house arrest :fuckthatshit:

Heard it on the Radio on my way home earlier.

Didn't catch all of it, only the "No Jail time because he's Native" part on AM730.

Can someone explain to me how Natives can get away with manslaughter and Obstruction of justice?

they can't really but there are considerations in place for natives due to their dire situation/mistreatment

its meant to further assist rehabilitation for troubled youths and it really shouldn't have been used in this instance

even native chiefs voiced their distaste over it being used for Monty Robinson

this is just the govt looking out for the police once again

Bullshit indeed. That guy you beat up should get 60 days in jail for assaulting a woman.

So he kills a man while drunk driving and he doesn't get hit with anything?

I bet the OSMV sent him a letter saying he is scott free because he brought in all the revenue from operating road blocks :okay:

From what I understood in my criminal law class.

Also, the penalty for obstruction of justice is only max 2 years in prison.

They must of made a under the table deal with him or something. Telling him to quit in exchange for no jail time.

This is just total bullshit and its going to set a standard for other people out there that you can get off easy by doing the same. They should of thrown the book at him and set an example.

The fuck kinda bullshit is that.

There is no other "PC" way I can word it before somebody blames me for turning this thread into a Native Hate thread.

What a load of shit.

I don't know, but in my world touching a girl's ass in a bar does not equal getting pummeled by a guy...but that's just me.

Once again Canada, our justice system becomes a laughing stock. He wasn't a troubled native youth living on a reserve. His background shouldn't have the slightest bit of relevance in this case. He killed someone "by accident" (criminal negligence)

It is hard to explain without having an actual conversation. National surveys of public opinion on attitudes towards Aboriginals do reveal a low level of knowledge about their issues and a strong reluctance to grant them special status.

However, as a colonized minority Aboriginals were denied self-government, removed from their land and livelihood, and transformed by European culture. Their social structure was significantly eroded and their place within Canadian society become perpetually disadvantaged - which is what the Gladue decision recognizes. Besides the many overt racist policies designed to assimilate Aboriginals, children were forcefully taken from their parents and put in residential schools, not allowed to speak the language or practice their culture, many were also physically, sexually, and mentally abused, etc. Today, the cycle continues, many have had children and they have no idea how to be a parent.

So what exactly does that have to do with mowing down a person while drunk and getting away with it?

^This is what the Gladue decision recognizes and the judge in this case probably had to take into account that into account along with other sentencing guidelines such as the principle of 'stare decisis' aka precedent. I find it hard to believe that judges, who are some of the smartest people in the country, would make decisions that seem illogical to the rest of us without good justifications. Not only do you need a killer GPA to get into a decent law school in the first place (3.5GPA + decent LSAT / lower GPA + 85-95 percentile LSAT), but you need many years of experience first as a lawyer, then starting off as a lower court judge (you need a referral(s)? and 10 years experience to get the opportunity). This alone suggests that judges have to consider a wide range of factors when making a decision that can often times be very complex. This is the part that is not always clear to the public.

He was only charged with obstruction of justice here. Why not manslaughter or criminal negligence? In BC and in two other provinces, the charges are approved by the Crown, who are lawyers themselves working for the government. In every charge decision, the prosecutor considers two things: is there enough evidence and whether it is in the public interest. In this case, it is in the public interest and if they are not charging him, they must think they have insufficient evidence. This has nothing to do with the fact he is a "cop", this is a high profile case and it is in the best interest of the system to have him charged and convicted on more serious charges.

edit:

http://www.texascriminalattorneyblog...of%20proof.jpg\

Understanding each of these levels will give you a better understanding of what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means. The standard is set high on purpose so that we do not wrongfully convict people (but keep in mind that even with this threshold it is still possible to make errors)

Well said.

Special considerations is given to aboriginal people at the time of sentencing for very good reason. Unfortunately, most people are so resentful that aboriginal people receive benefits beyond those of the ordinary Canadian, it's difficult to educate the reasons behind special considerations at sentencing.

By the same logic, children of Chinese railroad workers who had their parents blown up should be able to get lighter sentences for murder and manslaughter.

Isn't that good then. It would send a message to other cops that they won't hesitate to throw them in prison if they go against the law.

Please, educate yourself before giving opinions like the one you've given; the harsh conditions faced by Chinese railroad workers does not even remotely compare to the governments policies against Aboriginal people. Also, Monty Robinson was found guilty of obstruction of justice and given a lighter sentence, not murder or manslaughter.