No Charges for Edmonton Officer

It's rather frustrating that the "officer" (their term, not named) gets a pass, while the public knows full well what would happen to them in this situation?

"[COLOR=#191919] However, while the Crown determined there was a reasonable likelihood of conviction, it believed it was not in the public interest to proceed with prosecution and the officer will not be charged."

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/no-charges-for-edmonton-police-officer-who-fired-service-pistol-at-another-officer-asirt

Link: https://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...-officer-asirt

Wow a whole lot of wrong in this whole scenario:

Quote:

---

While there will be no criminal prosecution, it is reiterated that the evidence in this case established, at a minimum, an extremely serious lapse in judgment and carelessness in the handling of a firearm,”

---

They were playing laser tag in the bullpen area !!!

Quote:

---

About 10 officers were in a “bullpen” area unwinding, with some of them bouncing lasers from SIRT laser training pistols off mirrors and onto each other, ASIRT said in a Monday news release.

---

Senior Officer in the room should be getting a severe reprimand . Hard to believe this was at a training facility and weapons handling wasn't controlled. Range officer should be losing his career over this at the least.

"there is a reasonable likelihood of conviction, it has been determined that it would not be in the public interest to proceed with a prosecution."


What that actually means-it would not be in the public interest to proceed.
I am lost with this one.

So..... Is this how officers goof around and anti's think I might be dangerous? I don't point my gun at people.

The Legal Eagle's point of point of view..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6wkpOLQVxI

Down in LaSalle & Amherstburg the regional cops were caught doing the same thing but pointing their guns at each other while in their patrol cars.

At the very least should be charged under the Police Act by Professional Standard's.

On the bright side this case should set a precedent for any civilian in the future in the same scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

It's rather frustrating that the "officer" (their term, not named) gets a pass, while the public knows full well what would happen to them in this situation?

"[COLOR=#191919] However, while the Crown determined there was a reasonable likelihood of conviction, it believed it was not in the public interest to proceed with prosecution and the officer will not be charged."

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/no-charges-for-edmonton-police-officer-who-fired-service-pistol-at-another-officer-asirt

---

https://www.edmontonpolice.ca/Contac...bPoliceActForm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

At the very least should be charged under the Police Act by Professional Standard's.

On the bright side this case should set a precedent for any civilian in the future in the same scenario.

---

How would this set a precedent? It hasn't gone to court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

At the very least should be charged under the Police Act by Professional Standard's.

On the bright side this case should set a precedent for any civilian in the future in the same scenario.

---

I doubt civilians would be involved in this type of training. I imagine the training officer has some ‘splainin’ to do. Tactical training is inherently dangerous. There was obviously a breakdown that allowed live ammo and duty firearms on the training site....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

How would this set a precedent? It hasn't gone to court.

---

Does not need to go to court to set a precedent.

"an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances"

I always remember Allan Rock saying only the Military and police should have guns.