O/T What's With This Judge?

[A.W]

I'd like to know why this guy is still a judge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thu, August 17, 2006

Judge told cop to lose his gun'I do not want anyone testifying while wearing sidearms'
By ALAN CAIRNS, TORONTO SUN

A left-leaning judge has shocked Toronto Police with an order that uniformed cops could not testify in his court if they wear their guns.

Ontario Court Justice Melvyn Green told a flabbergasted cop witness in a routine impaired driving case Tuesday to "check (his gun) somewhere."

Const. Chris Horton walked a gantlet of criminals as he stored his gun in a basement storage locker, the cop union says.

Justice Green, who once quarterbacked an appeal on behalf of Const. Todd Baylis' killer Clinton Gayle and was a key player in the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted (AIDWYC), backtracked in a similar case yesterday.

Green -- forewarned of possible police brass and union intervention -- tossed the gun issue in the laps of prosecutors and defence lawyers.

"It's their trial, not my trial ... if there is no objection, I am not going to raise the objection myself," the judge said. "It is a question of fairness and the appearance of fairness ... for the optics of the parties."

Despite Green's turnabout, brass and union lawyers fear Green has opened the door for litigation.

"It hasn't died. It has just gone away," Staff Insp. George Cowley, head of Toronto Police legal services, said outside court.

Cowley, who was set to intervene on behalf of Chief Bill Blair, said Blair feels "very strongly" that cops should keep their guns.

UNION WILL FIGHT

Cop union lawyer Peter Brauti said the union will fight any looming gun ban "in a heartbeat."

Brauti said cops face more danger in a courtroom full of criminals than "out in the parking lot."

The union's uniform director, Mike McCormack, said courts are inherently dangerous places for cops.

"Where else do you get a couple of hundred criminals all meeting under one roof," McCormack asked. "The potential for an explosive situation exists and should not be taken lightly."

Transcripts from Tuesday's impaired trial of Stephen Bodington at 1000 Finch Ave. W. court show Green told two cops who were set to testify that they must remove their guns and store them "somewhere."

Green told prosecutor Nenad Trbojevic to "tell" cop witnesses that he did not want "anybody testifying while wearing sidearms."

When Green was later advised by Trbojevic that on-duty uniform police officers are policy-bound to carry firearms, Green said while it "makes sense, I just do not see the need for them to wear them while they testify."

CASE DELAYED

Confusion over Green's unprecedented order led to Bodington's trial to be adjourned and put over for another five months, which prompted Bodington's lawyer to suggest the case could be open to a charter challenge because of unreasonable delay.

When Const. Robert Jackson took the stand with his holstered pistol in the impaired case of Colak Gursel yesterday, Green told Trbojevic and defence lawyer Susan Pennypacker the issue was in their hands.

Pennypacker said she did not want to delay or prejudice Gursel's trial.

Both Gursel and Bodington have pleaded not guilty.

McCormack said cops should also not have to worry what they wear when they testify in court.

"I personally would rather see us spend our time policing, rather then changing clothes," McCormack said.

He wondered if Green and other judges were "prepared to walk the hallways in their robes unescorted" rather than use the back corridors.

http://torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGT ... 4-sun.html

[WAB]

and they wonder why people are loosing faith in the courts. I feel most judges need a real reality check. I don't know what colour the sky is in their world

[Hi5]

There is a sound reason for telling the witness not to appear in court armed.

The court room is supposed to be a weapons free zone. It would not be necessary for the witness to be armed....if there were elevated security concerns, the security staff should be the ONLY ones who are armed.

The witness should come before the court in a position of equality with all other witnesses. That is, he should be in no position to appear to intimidate anyone, including the judge.

To summarize, there is no NEED for him to be armed. Being the only one (likely) to be armed may give the impression that he is a special witness deserving of special deference. That is not the case.

Think of it this way. In Nazi Germany, judges would certainly only have been judges if they were friendly to the Government. However, if a member of the Gestapo were testifying, that would likely be intimidating to a judge, and certainly would be more threatening if the witness appeared in court armed.

That's an extreme example, but the principle is the same. A judge should be able to do what's right without a government agent intimidating him, or even appearing to do so. Appearances are important.

[ComfyBear]

There is a sound reason for telling the witness not to appear in court armed.

The court room is supposed to be a weapons free zone. It would not be necessary for the witness to be armed....if there were elevated security concerns, the security staff should be the ONLY ones who are armed.

The witness should come before the court in a position of equality with all other witnesses. That is, he should be in no position to appear to intimidate anyone, including the judge.

To summarize, there is no NEED for him to be armed. Being the only one (likely) to be armed may give the impression that he is a special witness deserving of special deference. That is not the case.

Think of it this way. In Nazi Germany, judges would certainly only have been judges if they were friendly to the Government. However, if a member of the Gestapo were testifying, that would likely be intimidating to a judge, and certainly would be more threatening if the witness appeared in court armed.

That's an extreme example, but the principle is the same. A judge should be able to do what's right without a government agent intimidating him, or even appearing to do so. Appearances are important.

DITTO! I AGREE. The playing field should be level, especially in an arena where fairness should be both demanded and expected.

[A.W]

There are no armed court security personnel in the courts in Ontario. Police officers are required to be armed when on duty.

Some may remember that back in the '80's there were 2 or 3 people shot and killed in a courtroom in Osgoodehall in down town Toronto. There were no armed police personnel in the courtroom. The perp.(for what ever reason) was the only one armed.

Judges are not intimidated by armed police in a court and if they are they're in the wrong job. This guy is totally left wing just as bad as being right wing. In the past I have been detailed to attend court in uniform and with my gun as security for a high risk trial. Should I have left my gun at home?

As bad or good a system as some people may think we have, it certainly has nothing to do with Nazis.

Bye the way. It's NOT his court (judge's) It's the people's court.

I'm sure that the witness' and victims will not feel intimidated by somebody that is paid to protect them, wearing a gun that was issued by their police department for their protection!!

[TScottW]

Oh yeah. An unarmed Officer in court. That works really well. Just ask the people who were shot last year in GA

A Police Officer is armed when he is working and should be in court. It is part of his uniform. Where does it stop? No calling the Officer, Officer? No handcuffs allowed? No pepper spray?

[Hipwader]

A.W.
You couldn't have said this more perfectly, The sidearm an officer wears is there as part of their uiniform. It is the peoples court and the general population in society associates uniformed personal with their sidearms. If this keeps going, officers will be asked to leave their firearms in the trunks of their cars and to only bring them out in a weapons call. People need to attend court a couple of times and see the collection of "wrongly accused" gathering in the hallways. Just ask the people of Windsor about the individual that charged the bench with a rather large knife in his hands. Sorry to rant...
Hipwader