SQ (Surete du Quebec ..... Quebec's Provincial Police) officer gets away with killing a 5 year old.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/no-charges-for-s%C3%BBret%C3%A9-du-qu%C3%A9bec-officer-in-car-crash-that-killed-5-year-old-1.2840143

.. doing over twice the speed limit
.. on duty yet not responding to an emergency call
.. rams into a car causing death
.. No charges laid
.. No justice at all for the family

Was he conducting surveillance on someone? Law Enforcement here can break speed laws if they are.

damn!

harsh!

kid killer kops on the loose!

call the kid killer kop squad to go kommando!

all that aggression, all over hearsay at this point, they would deem in a court of law...

first hand witness testimony only...

since no one here was actually there and actually knows yet what actually happened...

but oh yea, that is being handled no doubts, as no doubt Mr policeman be a quakin in his black shiney boots, wondering just what his fate shall be...

but it sure is nice of folks to care so deeply about other folks kids for a change!

He was on way to replace a surveillance vehicle. I'm sure that the officer he was replacing could have waited the few minutes more it would have taken to safely drive through a residential area.
I've lived in that area. Residential housing on one side of the street (Gaetan-Boucher) and a large municipal park on the other right at that intersection.


Because there are no charges laid the family receives absolutely no compensation. Even if the Board inquiry finds him at fault the family can't get a thing except an "Oops, we're sorry"

Actually not, he has violated the law. No hearsay whatsoever, just plain facts.

Within natural law, there is no such thing as speed limits with numerals. The limit is what a prudent person would follow to maintain the safety of those around him. When one has violated and harmed another, that is speeding and is accountable. No one nor no thing has immunity, all are as equals.

true true...

however this post is actually not truly addressing that at all...

it's truly exaggerated innuendo only, and not for actual factual purposes.

smiles...

only and most to reduce the accusations of "cops can't be going around killin our kids"! ! !

as that creates more "hair trigger" cops, who care even less about the public, and so will show even less empathy and humanity than before.

and screamin cops are goin around killin kids will bring no more mutual remediation's if they are possible, possibly stop them.

the public has hearts, the world shows it each day, and gathering funds to help these folks by the public, shames with no words of accusations...

and many departments that feel obligated to do something, if not to truly help, just as a token to save face.

so truly helping is created by creating empathy and sympathy...

not accusations.

like we need even more tensions between the police and the people.

well...

everybody has their methods...

some actually perpetuate things becoming worse for all, even the one's thinking their are gonna get justice by screaming and demanding it.

demands and accusations of actual individuals may provoke something that looks like progress in the public light of day, for the show, but each time these such methods are employed the internal screws, get wrenched a few more turns tighter.

and the whole system wounds tighter, like a fuccking spring loaded mouse trap.

because anger builds with accusations, as it be one thing humans hate worst.

and even then more so, those who carry electric cattle prods and AR-15's and tanks and ect...

yea, let's just ratchet the old spring even tighter.

anyhow...

see your good points too!

IF WE look beneath the surface of our public affairs, we can discern one fundamental fact, namely: a great redistribution of power between society and the State. This is the fact that interests the student of civilization. He has only a secondary or derived interest in matters like price-fixing, wage-fixing, inflation, political banking, "agricultural adjustment," and similar items of State policy that fill the pages of newspapers and the mouths of publicists and politicians. All these can be run up under one head. They have an immediate and temporary importance, and for this reason they monopolize public attention, but they all come to the same thing; which is, an increase of State power and a corresponding decrease of social power.

It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn. Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power. There is never, nor can there be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power.

Moreover, it follows that with any exercise of State power, not only the exercise of social power in the same direction, but the disposition to exercise it in that direction, tends to dwindle. Mayor Gaynor astonished the whole of New York when he pointed out to a correspondent who had been complaining about the inefficiency of the police, that any citizen has the right to arrest a malefactor and bring him before a magistrate. "The law of England and of this country," he wrote, "has been very careful to confer no more right in that respect upon policemen and constables than it confers on every citizen." State exercise of that right through a police force had gone on so steadily that not only were citizens indisposed to exercise it, but probably not one in ten thousand knew he had it.

Heretofore in this country sudden crises of misfortune have been met by a mobilization of social power. In fact (except for certain institutional enterprises like the home for the aged, the lunatic-asylum, city-hospital and county-poorhouse) destitution, unemployment, "depression" and similar ills, have been no concern of the State, but have been relieved by the application of social power. Under Mr. Roosevelt, however, the State assumed this function, publicly announcing the doctrine, brand-new in our history, that the State owes its citizens a living. Students of politics, of course, saw in this merely an astute proposal for a prodigious enhancement of State power; merely what, as long ago as 1794, James Madison called "the old trick of turning every contingency into a resource for accumulating force in the government"; and the passage of time has proved that they were right. The effect of this upon the balance between State power and social power is clear, and also its effect of a general indoctrination with the idea that an exercise of social power upon such matters is no longer called for.

-Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy, The State (1935)

Wrong, the family can get everything if they press the matter. Harm has been done and there are remedy's in law.

Wrong. Under Quebec law unless you are a direct victim of a crime ( in this case being a parent that has lost a child due to a crime) you cannot be compensated by Victim Compensation. No charges files = no crime committed so no Victim Compensation. Though at the moment all the family wants is ....... a straight answer to the question WHY did it happen?