the daily snivel

  More on police misconduct.

Now, believe me, I cannot emphasize enough that the job of a police officer is a difficult and demanding one, and the actions of police officers who break the law should not be a taint on the entire force of a whole. However, no one will respect police or the justice system if they believe the police will not treat them fairly. Not long ago, I wrote about a constable on the Ottawa Police Service who plead guilty to assaulting a woman while arresting her. Now, unfortunately, a Toronto police officer has also been found guilty of an assault while making an arrest, again due to the fact that the beating was videotaped:

A Toronto police officer who was caught on videotape as he punched a Somali immigrant during an arrest in 2003 has been found guilty of assault. He is to be sentenced on Friday.

Const. Roy Preston was charged after Jama Said Jama complained that he was beaten by police at the scene of a fight in a northwest Toronto coffee shop parking lot. The 21-year-old landed immigrant said he had been trying to break up the fight.

...

Jama fled after being punched in the face. He was arrested a short distance away and charged with assaulting police and causing a disturbance. He could have been jailed and deported had he been convicted.

...

Police at first said he had been injured in another incident before he was arrested. The charges against him were dropped, and Preston was charged instead, after a videotape of the confrontation taken by tourists from Ottawa surfaced.

It showed an officer punching Jama, who did not appear to be resisting.

Here we have someone who, while assaulted by a police officer, was charged with assaulting a police officer. It was a police officer's word against his as to what happened. Again, without the videotaped evidence of the assault on Mr. Jama, I find it highly unlikely that his version of events would have been believed. We are lucky the events were videotaped, but what message does this send the larger community? Would justice have been done had not the assault been caught on tape? And what does this say about the respect we as citizens are supposed to maintain for the police?

Credibility of an accused and of witnesses are a key issues in deciding ultimate guilt or innocence, and our system is predicated on the word of a police officer being afforded a high level of credibility. The credibility of the police is tainted here, and that does harm to future cases in which the word of a police officer must be weighed against another witness or an accused. It lessens the public trust in the police when their cooperation is sought to help solve a crime.

In one sense, we can be thankful that the true story came out, and that justice was done, but this only raises the question of how many times an injustice is not videotaped. It is even more shocking that a person who is innocent of the crime charged (such as assaulting a police officer, which was alleged here and which judges tend to treat especially harshly) was put in jeopardy because a police officer lied in accusing him. 

  Malapropism of the week

"I could care less"

I'm stretching the definition of "malapropism" a bit here by using it to refer to a misused turn of phrase (as opposed to a single word), but I still think it's appropriate in the context of the error made here. This is an expression that's become increasingly common on television and in everyday conversation, but really means the opposite of what people intend when they say it.

Saying "I could care less" really doesn't mean you don't care. It means you do care. It means "I care more about this than that thing I couldn't care less about.

So stop saying it.

Now, this expression could come in handy someday if you ever want me to stop hanging out with you and let leave me feeling like I haven't been dumped: use either this expression or the linguistic blunder "irregardless" and just watch me start making excuses that allow me to get as far away from you as I can. 

  I hate e-mail forwards

Normally, I hate being on those mass e-mail forwarding lists, where people send you videos of kittens doing cute things (nothing against kittens doing cute things -- just people who forward them. They can die and go to hell) or chain letters that tell you to "pass it on to 15 friends" or credible sounding alerts that two seconds on snopes.com would have told you are e-mail hoaxes.

I make exceptions for content that is timely and appropriate, or really of specific interest to me. When someone sees something they think is really important, or too funny to pass up, and send it to you alone or at most five other contacts -- and most importantly don't do it with every last goldurned thang to be forwarded into their mailboxes by others -- I am of course, quite pleased because some thought actually went into sending it along.

This is one of those occasions. You may have seen it (a similar version went around when Dr. Laura relied on the Bible to justify her obsolete views), but it's very biting and exposes the hypocrisy of claiming that the Bible forbids some activities as abominations (say, gay marriage) but is perfectly OK on all the other abominations that would otherwise inconvenience you personally or conflict with the laws we all agree make society bearable.

Dear President Bush,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said, "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman." I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... end of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev 15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there "degrees" of abomination?

Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27.
How should they die?

I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev 24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev 20:14)

I know, President Bush, you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Jesus wouldn't judge others, kids. Nor should you.

P.S. Redemption is through a life of good works, not just faith. Anything less is just jiving the Lord. 

  No TV and no oil make George W. Bush something something.

Let's drive the Preznit nuts. I was referred to this petition by a good friend after she and I watched this cute commercial from the World Wildlife Fund spoofing a Paid Political Announcement, complete with a down home folksy Old Rich White Guy telling us it would be OK if there were oil spills because all those birds would just soak it up on their downy, downy feathers.

Anyway, as much as I know that astroturf campaigns don't always have a lot of political weight, it certainly can't hurt to add your name to a petition trying to get the Prime Minister to gently remind our American friends that drilling exploring for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is no kind of energy plan at all.

SAY NO TO OIL DRILLING IN THE ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE!

WWF-Canada has launched a campaign to focus attention on the U.S. government's plan to open up oil drilling in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge is home to thousands of migratory birds and to the 40,000 porcupine caribou calves that are born there every year. Drilling will have a devastating effect on this delicate Refuge - disrupting the Porcupine Caribou's ability to reproduce and rear young, decimating nesting grounds for countless birds and even putting at risk the livelihood of the Gwitch'in people of north Yukon, who rely heavily on the migrating caribou herds.

Let the Prime Minister's Office know you're against the drilling. Encourage him to act on his government's stated opposition to this legislation now before Congress. The prime minister must take the strong message to Washington that drilling in this refuge is wrong.

PASSAGE OF THE BILL COULD BE ONLY WEEKS AWAY. WE MUST STOP IT NOW!

Join your friend and sign our petition today! Your voice will make a difference!

--------------------------------------------------------------
SIGN THE PETITION NOW!
Visit www.DoNotDrill.ca or copy and paste the following URL into your Web
browser: http://www.donotdrill.ca

Though I would wholeheartedly approve of drilling the fuck out of that Refuge under (and only under) the following conditions. 

  Police officer pleads guilty to assault

In 2000, Constable Martin Cardinal of the Ottawa Police Service made an arrest. A woman was intoxicated and disruptive, and neighbours had complained to the police. In making the arrest, he handcuffed her and bent her over the front of the cruiser. During this apprehension, he grabbed her by the hair and repeatedly slammed her head against the hood of the cruiser. Unbeknownst to them, a neighbour videotaped the incident from his balcony. The officer claimed that when arresting Julie Cayer, she resisted and was rearing back against his hold, and he was simply pushing her back down. Her testimony in concert with the video indicated that she was deliberately beaten. Moreover, it was only because of the video tape (which went straight to the media since the cameraman testified he feared the police would have suppressed it had he given it to them first) that the incident ever came to public attention. Ms. Cayer testified she would not have come forward with a complaint otherwise, doubting anyone would have believed her. I personally doubt very much that, in the absence of the tape, her testimony about being assaulted would have been given any weight.

The officer was convicted of assault in 2003, but a retrial was ordered when his lawyer successfully appealed on the basis that too much weight had been given to the video evidence. Today, at the beginning of his second trial for assault, the officer changed his plea and entered a plea of guilty to assault.

I am going to be entering the criminal defence bar, and believe strongly in the rights of an accused and the presumption of innocence. In this case, however, I feel an equally strong sympathy for the victim. Throughout the media frenzy surrounding this incident and the first trial, Ms. Cayer's criminal record and past incidents of intoxication and unruliness were trotted about to both justify the officer and discredit her testimony. Any good lawyer is going to jump on a shady witness, of course, since this can be the difference between a conviction and an acquittal, but I confess I'm given pause to reflect when a victim of police misconduct is blamed for the incident, directly or indirectly. The police have a difficult job and deserve our respect, but the justice system is only worthy of that respect when we can be confident that no one is above the law -- and certainly not police officers who swear to enforce the law and protect society. Anything less only brings the administration of justice into disrepute.

What remains of course, is the sentence, and whether the Constable will be allowed to remain with the Ottawa Police Service at the conclusion of this matter. And, furthermore, whether the police are actually effective at policing themselves when the public makes complaints, or whether an independent civilian commission is required to investigate (or, for that matter, if the only way justice will be done is so long as everyone videotapes everyone else).

Okay, and since I just can't resist ending with a pompous and "Springer's Final Thought"-esque last word like "who will police the police?" I am instead swiping this quote from the Simpsons episide, Homer the Vigilante:

Homer: So I said to him, "Look, buddy, your car was upside down when we got here. And as for your Grandma, she shouldn't have mouthed off like that!"

Lisa: Dad, don't you see you're abusing your power like all vigilantes? I mean, if you're the police, who will police the police?

Homer: I dunno. Coast Guard?

Exact same thing.