Toronto female Officer cleared to carry gun as protection from former boss

[RamboLiberal]

Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair gave special authorization for a female officer to carry her service gun at all times of the day and night to protect herself against her former boss, a police tribunal has heard.

The officer, who alleges she was sexually harassed by former Staff Inspector Steve Izzett, also had an alarm installed at her home.

As well, the local police force where she lives was notified to immediately contact Toronto police if a 911 call came from her house, and Izzett’s name was added to the Canadian Police Information Centre, or CPIC. It is the central computer database that law enforcement agencies can access and lists, among other things, people who are wanted, are accused of crimes and have criminal records.

The female officer, whose identity has been ordered kept secret by adjudicator Keith Hoilett, was questioned about the security arrangements by Izzett’s lawyer Leo Kinahan.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/992706--officer-cleared-to-carry-gun-as-protection-from-former-boss?bn=1

But female civilians in Canada or some areas here - being stalked & want to protect yourself? Too bad for you.

[ileus]

1. LEO's have to get permission to carry...how sad is that? and we thought US gun laws were strict.

[1620rock]

2. Um, check the murder rates in Canada compared to the US.

[eqfan592]

3. Um, clarify exactly what impact that has....

...on the right of people to be able to effectively defend themselves. Because unless Canada has completely abolished all crime, then people still have a need to defend themselves when outside of the home, and Canada's laws fail to address this need.

[lawodevolution]

4. Total gun bans: Nigeria, Jamaica, haiti

How are the crime rates there?

[Katya Mullethov]

15. ¡ Y Pobre México !

" So far from God , and so close to the United States "

The DEA in Phoenix just popped another load of Fast and Furious Kalashnikovs .

[slackmaster]

5. That's a lot of power for one public official to wield

The only rational approach to something as important as deciding who gets to carry a weapon for self defense is to implement a set of purely objective criteria.

The female officer, whose identity has been ordered kept secret by adjudicator Keith Hoilett...

Perhaps our member Kolesar will chime in to explain why her identity should be made public.

[Starboard Tack]

6. Makes perfect sense. She has a demonstrable need.

Canada has very sane gun laws. Anyone who lives or has ever lived in Canada knows that Canucks can be a little rough and ready at times and it is not unusual for them to resort to fisticuffs. The last thing they need is a bunch of clowns walking around with guns and using them to sort out their differences.

[eqfan592]

7. Yeah, because that's exactly what happens when people can legally carry...

...oh wait, it's not even close to what happens. Why is it people think that because somebody would be willing to punch somebody over a disagreement they would be equally willing to shoot somebody? One is very clearly not lethal force (generally speaking), the other very clearly is. A willingness to use the non-lethal force does not immediately translate over to the use of lethal force.

[TPaine7]

8. You have a demonstrable need as well--assuming you haven't died since your post.

You have something--something of infinite value--worth defending.

The sick joke of a standard--a demonstrable prior threat--is not the actual standard in Canada, regardless of what may be written on a piece of paper somewhere. Nor is that the actual standard in any place on earth, no matter what the claim.

Do you really beileve that any sane, adult Canadian female with a clean criminal record and a provable history of credible threats would be as successful in getting permission from the authorities? Do you really believe that in New York, Hawaii, and other repressive, unconstitutional enclaves, "demonstrable need" is the real standard and not political power, wealth, fame, status, connections, or the mood and conscience (or lack thereof) of the official?

If you believe that, see my sig line. Actually, meditate on it.

[Starboard Tack]

10. Actually yes, I do believe that some sanity still exists in this world

There are many of us who don't live in a conspiracy ridden world. Some folks enjoy their guns and their conspiracy theories. The rest of us just get on with living our lives.

[TPaine7]

11. What are you talking about?

Nothing I said hints at a conspiracy.

[Starboard Tack]

13. Really?

"New York, Hawaii, and other repressive, unconstitutional enclaves"

[TPaine7]

16. The Sherrif, Police Chief, or licensing authority doesn't necessarily conspire with anyone

they just act like human beings with arbitrary power unchecked by the Constitution.

That's why, for example, standards in California vary widely from county to county.

[Starboard Tack]

17. That's why I like California

I think the sheriff, police chief etc. are all as answerable to the constitution as anyone else.

[TPaine7]

20. So you believe that "the people"

means those persons who, through means from making campaign contributions to being powerful enough to bring pressure to being married to one of the staff to appealing to the conscience of the official (by being a particularly notoriously abused victim), have won the approval of a government official?

I notice that you avoided my earlier question: Do you think that every woman in Canada who has been similarly threatened would have the same likelyhood of getting a license to carry due to "demonstrated need"?

When officials get to make life and death decisions for other citizens based on vague terms like "demonstrated need" and "good moral character" there is no equal protection of the laws, nor can there be. And that would be true whether or not there was a Second Amendment.

In those unconstitutional enclaves, the officials are not answerable to the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, never mind the Second.

[spin]

21. California has "may issue" concealed carry ...

which translates to no concealed carry in some areas and favoritism in other areas. It can also lead to racism.

That's why I like the Florida concealed carry law which is "shall issue". I don't have to be rich or well connected to get a license and it matters not if I am White, Black, Hispanic or Asian. I pass the background check and go through the process and I get the license.

[Starboard Tack]

27. Lucky you. You also have palmetto bugs and noseeums

I'll take California. Fewer bugs, fewer guns and most Republicans are social liberals. Much more civilized, but each to his own.

[eqfan592]

28. lol, more "civilized" indeed....

I guess we just have different ideas what it means to be civilized. My idea of a civilized society is one that fully respects the right of an individual to effectively defend themselves both inside and outside of their home, especially given the lack of any government agency holding that responsibility (which would be an impossible task anyway).

[gejohnston]

29. been to California, civilized my ass.

for a couple of years. I ran into more right wing lunatics there than anywhere else other than maybe South Carolina. That was when Savage was just a local at KSFO in San Fransisco. A week did not go by where my boss did not get pulled over for driving while black. Even the the SF bay area.
Growing up in Wyoming we all had guns, had rifle clubs in high school. Never locked our doors at night. Rifles sat in school lockers every Thursday, that was rifle club day. No shoot outs in the hallways. No blood in the streets. We do not shoot up the streets. Conservation officers patrolled vast areas of wilderness unarmed until meth labs started showing up. In my life time, police officers that were killed in the line of duty were killed by cars not guns. Every election, my county voted for higher sales taxes to give more money to our school system. By now you know what I think of your "civilized" city society.

[PavePusher]

18. Nothing to do with "conspiracy"

They are quite openand blatent about it. It's public knowledge.

[gejohnston]

9. letting 12 year olds buy ammo and felons allowed to own after five years

sane? OK if you say so. I think their laws were more sane until 1995. Since they had fewer crimes than us even before 1977 law was passed, What was the point?

[PavePusher]

19. Sounds good to me. We used to have it here in the U.S....

and it wasn't a big problem until the Drug Wars(tm)....

[gejohnston]

22. I kind of remember the ammo part

the other is 1938. I like to throw that part of the current Canadian gun law when ever it comes up. FWIW, the age was 16 to buy ammo before.
I can relate.

[oneshooter]

12. I wonder how one of our former Canadian members would like this? n/t

[RSillsbee]

23. Are they a former member or a former Canadian? NT

[oneshooter]

26. Former member. n/t

[eqfan592]

25. Yeah, I'd be curious to hear her take as well...

....or maybe then again I wouldn't. :P

[DWC]

14. LEOs are NEVER off duty

Their responsibility to "Protect and Defend" does not end when they go off shift. I fight for the right of all honest citizens to be armed while moving about in public but I expect it from LEOs.

Semper Fi,

[RSillsbee]

24. If you think cops have a duty to "Protect and Defend"

Google Castle Rock V. Gonzales

[TrogL]

30. My cop friends go off duty

They come to community events, garden, walk their dogs.

[davepc]

32. The courts have ruled again and again and again that the state is not obligated to protect any one

"...fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)


See also the decisions in:

* Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958)
* Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968)
* Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983)
* Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985)
* Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)
* Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982)
* Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981)
* Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978)
* Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977)
* Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.)
* Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and
* Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982).

[RSillsbee]

31. If your average Canadian doesn't get to carry a gun for self defense

why does she?