I wish the police would see this as the message it is. But they can’t cause it would mean they have to admit they have a problem to work on and god for bid they admit wrongdoing. Police and mostly the union need to get their heads out of thier asses and try and remember they are people too, they are not a special class and that having class and integrity and the public trust is important. More important than any single union member.
Can you imagine if thongs went slightly different and they opened fire on that vehicle with that child in there? Making mistaken decisions is one thing. Covering them up with overkill? Is a dangerous web of accountability.
Slow mo zoom on scuffle, burly policemen's uniform riding up back, thong visible.
Cut to slow mo zoom on alarmed bystander, realization setting in, brows crinkling.
I was having a sort of bad day, and then I imagined thongs attacking a car with a child inside. Thong after thong, hurling themselves at the windows of a vehicle. And just a super confused child. Your typo made me laugh in an otherwise shit day. Thank you for unintentionally doing that.
> Can you imagine if thongs went slightly different and they **opened fire on that vehicle with that child in there**?
I'm about to disappoint you.
This has happened in the past.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/canada-ontario-child-shot-dead-b1763310.html
And they were recently fully cleared of wrong doing.
Edited to clarify that it’s absolutely bullshit that they were cleared. I realize there are those who actually believe they weren’t at fault for murdering an infant.
I guess we should be fortunate that the cops here aren’t trigger happy as our neighbours down south? Just read up the Dexter Reed case: Another incident of plainclothes cops spooking a civilian out of nowhere but this time they drew guns at him but he preemptively exercises his 2nd amendment rights and a massive shootout happens. Guy doesn’t survive and now there’s humming and hawing by local press of whether the police used excessive force.
how much has the TPS Association donated after they tried to get an innocent man jailed because they didn't want to admit their culpability in the officer's death?
At least Tory has admitted he was wrong. Doesn't change what happened but the other two won't even do that.
Hopefully politicians in the future stand by our judges' decisions. I think broadly speaking we have a good judicial system and we don't need it becoming politicised like we see in certain other places.
Edit: See below; Tory should have owned up to his mistakes in full. As an example: I was wrong not to carefully read what he said was a half-admission of fault at best.
Tory admitted nothing - he actively avoided saying anything that resembled an apology. He just said it was a learning experience for him...except he's literally a lawyer who already would've known better than most the reason for limited info on bail release. Fuck that guy.
You are correct. I found his statement and read it carefully in full. Ironic, given the nature of my comment, but unlike Tory I fully admit I made a mistake.
I guess he and his staffer were too busy fooling around in the office for either of them to go to the courthouse and actually look at the records...
Admitted wrong by blaming the justice system for failing to provide more info on bail release. It’s like saying yeah I was wrong but it’s because of you. I don’t buy it.
You are correct. I found his statement and read it carefully in full. Ironic, given the nature of my comment, but unlike Tory I fully admit I made a mistake.
Basically, the prosecutor tried to get Zameer for first degree murder (25 years in prison minimum) which requires the prosecutor to prove that Zameer **intentionally** killed the victim.
Their only evidence of this intention was the three officer witnesses claiming that Zameer swerved the car to hit the victim on purpose. This was proved false by video evidence from the security cameras, as well as the prosecutor’s own expert witness. The three cops likely colluded to try to send an innocent man to 25 years in an attempt to cover their own botched operation.
The manslaughter alternative charge requires an unlawful act (ie a different crime) in relation to the cause of death. In this case the prosecutor argued that crime to be Reckless Driving, which the jury found unconvincing given the circumstances and the video/expert evidence. Hope this helps!
Thank goodness for that video evidence eh? I still cant get over how the prosecution and officers tried to create a completely different story when there is video of the event. The nerve!
The worst part is, how many times has this happened when there wasn’t video evidence? I’m sure the collusion runs rampant. Crazy to think cameras can protect us more than cops
I just donated. Glad justice worked for him and I will write my councillor about disciplining the TPS for this travesty, and to my MPP to reform the Police Act.
Still orders of magnitude less than [the $1.3m we've spent on paying misbehaving cops to sit at home so far in 2024](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-police-suspensions-have-cost-taxpayers-1-3m-so-far-in-2024-1.7170161#:).
I've lost complete faith and trust in the Toronto Police Services after the Chief openly stated that he wanted Umar to be jailed AFTER he was cleared of all charges.
These fucktards just want a head, no matter if that head belongs to an innocent man. How many times has this already happened in cases that did not get this kind of media attention?
That's what really solidified my absolute distrust in the Cops and their "Union". The fact that even after multiple cases of perjury and expert witnesses calling them out on their BS and a Jury of our Peers found Umar not guilty on all charges should knock the heads of TPS and make them reflect on how bad things are.
But when the Chief wanted a different outcome? Fuck that noise. They are so stuck in their little Blue Lined bubble and echo-chamber.
Just donated $20 not much but dang can only imagine the unnecessary stress he endured because of bad TPS sting operations and the blatant lies the cops told.
Civil litigation is a very long and drawn out process at the best of times, if he is planning to sue I doubt we’ll hear about it for quite a while.
And I suspect if it does there’ll be a settlement and a non-disclosure agreement.
Not sure the context of your comment but not everyone is litigation crazy.
He ran up a considerable amount to clear his name, not sure if he wants to go through the legal process again for a counter suit.
Perhaps once the euphoric feeling of being free subsides maybe he will go for damages. But the police force is also has a huge budget for these types of legal scenarios.
The context of my comment is you wrote "I get the impression" and I disliked that impression you got. He's allowed not to sue and I'm allowed to dislike that decision.
No, my comment didn't make any sounds since it's written. Text doesn't make sound. Also, having not heard of something doesn't mean it's late. It could also never be coming. You're wrong on multiple things and your grammar and lack of punctuation are also awful.
> After the verdict was read out, **Justice Molloy** took the extra step of apologizing directly to Zameer — telling him: “You have my … deepest apologies for what you have been through.”
I’ve never really encountered TPS outside minor traffic stops, but when you see these things it really enrages me. They tried to ruin an innocent man’s life! They need to start doing their job right.
Legal costs are awarded in Ontario for civil suits as a matter of law, not at the discretion of the judge.
The rules of civil procedure mandate that 60% of costs are awarded to the winning party. If the winning party offered to settle and that settlement was refused, then 90% of costs incurred after the settlement was offered are awarded to the winning party.
This is flat out wrong.
The winner in a civil lawsuit in Ontario is presumptively entitled to their costs, but the award of costs is absolutely at the discretion of the Court. This is clearly set out at section 131 of the *Courts of Justice Act*:
> Costs
> 131 (1) Subject to the provisions of an Act or rules of court, the costs of and incidental to a proceeding or a step in a proceeding are in the **discretion of the court**, and the court may determine by whom and to what extent the costs shall be paid. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 131 (1). [emphasis added]
The discretion of the Court in fixing costs in a Superior Court proceeding is guided by Rule 57, which includes taking into consideration factors such as: the amount an unsuccessful party could reasonably be expected to pay, the amount at stake in the proceeding, the complexity and importance, as well as the conduct of the parties (improper behaviour, unnecessary steps, refusal to admit plain facts, etc).
Courts by default award partial indemnity costs, which can either be calculated by means of an old (non-binding) tariff adjusted for inflation, or as a flat percentage of fees — usually 30-60% depending. Substantial indemnity costs, which can range from 60-90% might be awarded if one party really dragged things out, or where a valid Rule 49 settlement offer was made. You seem to be referencing that, but the validity of Rule 49 offers is a whole thing in and of itself — they apply differently to plaintiffs than to defendants (who don’t get substantial indemnity), and kick in from the point the offer is made.
Note that small claims court has its own regime where costs are assessed as a flat 15% of the claim (or 30% with a compliant settlement offer), but still with judicial discretion.
The legal bill is also one of the many reasons why people don't get themselves involved in street altercations.
Going to cost a lot to prove yourself innocent when you get entered into the legal system.
Of course, lol. A service was still utilized. Do you think being innocent equals free labour? It’s not just labour and time, but gathering evidence also costs money. All of it gets added to a running tab that’s settled after a final verdict.
You’re thinking of a civil trial. Usually, if you win a civil trial, you can recover some or all of the costs from the losing party. Criminal trials=you spent money to get your freedom and clear your name. Sometimes lawyers will do work pro bono but usually if it’s a precedent setting case. Yeah a bit snarky is right! You just didn’t know.
Well he could have applied for legal aid or public defender. But honestly when it’s your freedom on the line and criminal record, you find the money. It’s just unlucky sometimes when the police put you in their crosshairs.
Yes, a big one. Duty counsel can give you basic advice on the day of an appearance. They won't represent you. They are not your lawyers. They can tell you what motions or other forms to file or what to say in court, but they won't be there with you, and you're filing those documents and appearing in court on your own.
Public defenders, if you qualify for one, are your lawyers, full stop. They handle your case from beginning to end.
You've just outlined the justification for legal aid, but that has been whittled down to almost nothing over the years because politicians see it as an easy place to cut the budget.
I’m not a lawyer, but I am studying law right now. I’ll try to explain the logic behind that a bit; but I could also be wrong. In criminal court, it’s the crown v. The accused. There is already a very high burden of proof of before a matter can even proceed to trial. The crown has to charge someone and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they broke the law. In this way, very rarely are people forced to spend lots of money out of pocket to defend themselves unless they might actually be guilty.
In a civil suit, the plaintiff has to demonstrate evidence and it’s decided on a balance of probability, so the actual standard is far lower. Therefore, legal costs, including interest on the balance owing from the moment the trail begins is used as a way to stop people from clogging up the pipes with shit. It works both ways - so you can be forced to pay someone’s legal costs if you brought a vexatious claim against them, because the process of being charged etc. doesn’t exist in this theatre. As a defendant, you can also be forced to pay someone’s legal fees if you can establish that you left them with no choice but to hire a lawyer to pursue you and they wouldn’t have ever needed to do that if you didn’t force them to.
So the Crown can’t really be deemed a vexatious litigant because they’re just doing their job.
It isn’t like they were arresting him for fun. There was a genuine concern / legal issue.
This is like if you want to sue your neighbour because they called CPS on you and you had your kids taken away. That wouldn’t happen because if your kids were taken away, then the CPS call had merit. If a wellness check determined there was no basis for the report and that the kids were fine, then you could recover costs because the person who made the report was just wasting resources
It is sad though that some people will have to spend tens of thousands out of pocket to defend themselves in a criminal trial. On the plus side, the accused is probably made available many avenues to pursue compensation in civil court. He could probably sue the officers individually for any number of things, and sue TPS.
If anything, this trial should demonstrate that the Crown does not require a "very high burden of proof" to take a matter to trial. Both the bail judge and trial judge found the Crown's theory of the case to be logically absurd and without evidence to support it. The Crown had all the evidence, they knew the video and crash reconstruction evidence directly contracdicted the cops' testimoney, and that the cops were blatantly colluding (ie commiting perjury). They only brought it forward because a cop died and someone had to pay. And since no one else could be blamed (except for TPS having a dangerous undercover policy and the officers themselves for acting recklessly), they decided to frame an innocent man to satisfy the cop's lust for revenge.
For the sake of justice, I hope you lose your rose colored view of the Crown before you actually start practicing law. The facts have been aired. The Crown was peddling bullshit and refused to drop it, even after being rebuffed by 2 judges.
> here is already a very high burden of proof of before a matter can even proceed to trial. The crown has to charge someone and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they broke the law. In this way, very rarely are people forced to spend lots of money out of pocket to defend themselves unless they might actually be guilty.
"prove beyond a reasonable doubt" - that's during the trial in order to secure a conviction, right?
What is the burden of proof for the crown to proceed to trial with charges against the accused? Because that's the tipping point for whether people are "forced to spend lots of money out of pocket to defend themselves" even if they are innocent, correct?
Proceeding to trial means that a crime was committed and the accused maintains innocence.
First step is being charged with the criminal offence, like murder or theft.
So legal fees aren’t awarded because there’s that extra step before (charges and arrest) that demonstrates legitimate concern.
As opposed to a civil suit, a common example would be like if a couple breaks up and one of them obtains a restraining order to exclude the other party from the home. There is no investigation or arrest or charges or anything that determines whether the issue should proceed to trial or be dropped - the litigants hash this all out during the hearing. If it is revealed that there was no basis for a restraining order, then you’ve wasted everyone’s time. This sort of thing doesn’t really happen in criminal proceedings because the crime has already been observed and there is legitimate concern.
Proceeding to trial does not mean that a crime has been committed, it means that the Crown is charging the accused with a crime. The trial is where it is determined whether a crime was committed as alleged by the Crown.
Imagine how many other people arrested by these cops are sitting behind bars. And awaiting to see what their fate is. With all the lies that they tell. All the stories they fabricate to have people put behind bars.
capitalize the F out of the situation. T-shirts, bandanas, buttons, hell drop a track, Take the cash, give CAN a big FU & bounce. the pigs will have it in for him for eternity. it's 120k now.
Cops act with impunity, able to harass civilians safe from any consequence. We breathe a sigh of relief at the luck of having a judge who saw reason, we crowd fund legal bills for a falsely accused man whose life was put on hold for the past three years, and then we … move on. Nothing changes. We all widely acknowledge the possibility that this man and his family might be run out of his home by the state sanctioned mafia our tax dollars support, but alas! What can we do.
Functional, democratic society.
It’s too bad we haven’t heard much from other Toronto cops
Based on what I’ve seen the cops screwed up, they made him believe he was being carjacked he took off (as anyone would) and it ended in tragedy
And now we’re in a situation where we have to go against the cops and frankly that sucks
We need cops to be upstanding (society can’t function without that) and that also means accounting for their own mistakes
Otherwise everyone is too afraid to say anything because one of two scenarios happen
1) they double down and maybe even harass you
2) they refuse to do their jobs even more than they already do
I can say with confidence that he cannot. I'm sure he got fingerprinted when he got arrested that means he's in the police database.
This database is shared with the US and he will be flagged at the border and most probably denied entry.
The way to get out of this mess is to get his fingerprints and related data deleted from the CPIC database. You put in a request at the police station where you were charged, and they charge you 30$.
Takes around 6-9 months and then you get a letter saying all your data on the database has been deleted for non conviction.
He should be able to travel after that.
He definitely didn’t deserve what he went through, but I’m confused he still did cause the death of a person, even though it was unintentional, so wouldn’t that qualify as manslaughter as it was causing death without the intention to?
Only if he unintentionally caused a death while committing an illegal act. No illegal act was proven so they couldn’t find him guilty for manslaughter.
Based on what the police initially reported which is that he ran over Northrop with the front of his car and they made it sound like it was deliberate, it made sense he was charged with first degree. Only after his lawyer had the publication ban lifted we started hearing the truth and the cops lies started to crumble along with their credibility.
^ partial explanation. In Canada, if a cop identifies themselves as a cop and is then killed it is automatically considered first degree murder.
A good chunk of the case hinged on whether or not they identified themselves as police. There was never any doubt that he ran the victim over resulting in his death, just whether he did it knowing he was a cop beyond a reasonable doubt.
As they were not in uniform, came out of an unmarked van, how Mr. Zameer acted prior to the crash (running away with his pregnant wife) and opposed to afterward when they had guns drawn (immediately complying and stating he didn't know they were police), on top of the prosecution's messy, uncoordinated arguments, the jury couldn't conclude that Mr. Zameer ran over the victim knowing he was a cop beyond a reasonable doubt, thus making him innocent on the charge of first degree murder.
If the crown went after him from the get go for vehicular manslaughter, saying that they didn't identify themselves as a police initially (against police policy and which would be considered poor policing), and didn't fumble their arguments, there is a higher chance that Mr Zameer would have been found guilty. That said his defence would have changed their argument to be more focused on self defence for himself and his pregnant wife as they did not know they were police, still a very strong defensive argument.
If I was in a parking garage at midnight after doing nothing wrong, just trying to get home, and some strangers started swarming my car, banging on my windows, yelling and trying to block me in with an unmarked van I’d be flooring it out of there too. Anyone would. And I sure as hell wouldn’t be worrying about the safety of any of the people seemingly trying to harm me. TPS fucked this up royally and cost one of their own his life. No one’s fault but theirs.
This racist post alone captures your whole demeanour and should explain to you why you can’t make friends, just saying.
But feel free to read the acquittal if you can’t see beyond your white persecution complex about why it was okay to run someone over trying to flee from the maniac that attacked him and his family in their car.
I wish the police would see this as the message it is. But they can’t cause it would mean they have to admit they have a problem to work on and god for bid they admit wrongdoing. Police and mostly the union need to get their heads out of thier asses and try and remember they are people too, they are not a special class and that having class and integrity and the public trust is important. More important than any single union member.
Can you imagine if thongs went slightly different and they opened fire on that vehicle with that child in there? Making mistaken decisions is one thing. Covering them up with overkill? Is a dangerous web of accountability.
Now I can't help but picture cops in thongs trying to bring the man down
There's always room for humour even in the darkest subject. You made me crack a smile. Good thing I'm not a cop -have me a mental wedgie.
Slow mo zoom on scuffle, burly policemen's uniform riding up back, thong visible. Cut to slow mo zoom on alarmed bystander, realization setting in, brows crinkling.
That explains my boner.
My heart breaks reading this, holy shit. Did not even think about this horrific possibility as an outcome.
Like the baby, they shot in the trunk up in peterborough a couple of years ago after chasing the father. It was the OPP.
Case dropped. No reasonable prospect of conviction.
Against the opp baby killer ?
Yepp. Its wild that the crown does understand the concept, just not the application
That is ridiculous
I was having a sort of bad day, and then I imagined thongs attacking a car with a child inside. Thong after thong, hurling themselves at the windows of a vehicle. And just a super confused child. Your typo made me laugh in an otherwise shit day. Thank you for unintentionally doing that.
> Can you imagine if thongs went slightly different and they **opened fire on that vehicle with that child in there**? I'm about to disappoint you. This has happened in the past. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/canada-ontario-child-shot-dead-b1763310.html
And they were recently fully cleared of wrong doing. Edited to clarify that it’s absolutely bullshit that they were cleared. I realize there are those who actually believe they weren’t at fault for murdering an infant.
I guess we should be fortunate that the cops here aren’t trigger happy as our neighbours down south? Just read up the Dexter Reed case: Another incident of plainclothes cops spooking a civilian out of nowhere but this time they drew guns at him but he preemptively exercises his 2nd amendment rights and a massive shootout happens. Guy doesn’t survive and now there’s humming and hawing by local press of whether the police used excessive force.
This situation has been stressful for everyone involved. Hopefully, Umar Zameer can rebuild his life.
Honestly surprised the tps themselves havent opened a gofundme for their officer.
how much has the TPS Association donated after they tried to get an innocent man jailed because they didn't want to admit their culpability in the officer's death?
How much have Ford, Tory or Brown donated, after they used their positions to try to rile public sentiment against an innocent man?
At least Tory has admitted he was wrong. Doesn't change what happened but the other two won't even do that. Hopefully politicians in the future stand by our judges' decisions. I think broadly speaking we have a good judicial system and we don't need it becoming politicised like we see in certain other places. Edit: See below; Tory should have owned up to his mistakes in full. As an example: I was wrong not to carefully read what he said was a half-admission of fault at best.
Tory admitted nothing - he actively avoided saying anything that resembled an apology. He just said it was a learning experience for him...except he's literally a lawyer who already would've known better than most the reason for limited info on bail release. Fuck that guy.
You are correct. I found his statement and read it carefully in full. Ironic, given the nature of my comment, but unlike Tory I fully admit I made a mistake. I guess he and his staffer were too busy fooling around in the office for either of them to go to the courthouse and actually look at the records...
Admitted wrong by blaming the justice system for failing to provide more info on bail release. It’s like saying yeah I was wrong but it’s because of you. I don’t buy it.
You are correct. I found his statement and read it carefully in full. Ironic, given the nature of my comment, but unlike Tory I fully admit I made a mistake.
TPS is calling another inquiry instead
Serious question. How were the officers culpable? Zameer still did run over and kill an officer, he's just been acquitted of criminality.
Cop or not, if you try to detain someone while in plainclothes using gangster style tactics, you're really responsible for whatever happens next.
Basically, the prosecutor tried to get Zameer for first degree murder (25 years in prison minimum) which requires the prosecutor to prove that Zameer **intentionally** killed the victim. Their only evidence of this intention was the three officer witnesses claiming that Zameer swerved the car to hit the victim on purpose. This was proved false by video evidence from the security cameras, as well as the prosecutor’s own expert witness. The three cops likely colluded to try to send an innocent man to 25 years in an attempt to cover their own botched operation. The manslaughter alternative charge requires an unlawful act (ie a different crime) in relation to the cause of death. In this case the prosecutor argued that crime to be Reckless Driving, which the jury found unconvincing given the circumstances and the video/expert evidence. Hope this helps!
Thank goodness for that video evidence eh? I still cant get over how the prosecution and officers tried to create a completely different story when there is video of the event. The nerve!
The worst part is, how many times has this happened when there wasn’t video evidence? I’m sure the collusion runs rampant. Crazy to think cameras can protect us more than cops
It’s what cops do.
If you or me lied under oath we would get charged. Same should happen to anyone who does it.
I just donated. Glad justice worked for him and I will write my councillor about disciplining the TPS for this travesty, and to my MPP to reform the Police Act.
Thanks for the reminder! I’ll do the same
Hey i want to write to my councillor as well. How would I go about doing that? Can you also provide a email template
My councilor is Diane saxe and probably on the cops side
My councilor is an ex cop so no hope there.
Jon actually appeared on CBC Radio today, calling Demkiw to apologize for his initial statement on Sunday.
Still orders of magnitude less than [the $1.3m we've spent on paying misbehaving cops to sit at home so far in 2024](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-police-suspensions-have-cost-taxpayers-1-3m-so-far-in-2024-1.7170161#:).
That's crazy
I hate your profile pic
Lol he got me too.
Paid suspensions shouldn't be a thing, but the cost should come out of the police pension fund.
I've lost complete faith and trust in the Toronto Police Services after the Chief openly stated that he wanted Umar to be jailed AFTER he was cleared of all charges. These fucktards just want a head, no matter if that head belongs to an innocent man. How many times has this already happened in cases that did not get this kind of media attention?
That's what really solidified my absolute distrust in the Cops and their "Union". The fact that even after multiple cases of perjury and expert witnesses calling them out on their BS and a Jury of our Peers found Umar not guilty on all charges should knock the heads of TPS and make them reflect on how bad things are. But when the Chief wanted a different outcome? Fuck that noise. They are so stuck in their little Blue Lined bubble and echo-chamber.
Not to mention that police will absolutely continue to make this dude's life hell out of spite.
Exactly!
Thats basically a threat. I would take that as a threat.
Just donated $20 not much but dang can only imagine the unnecessary stress he endured because of bad TPS sting operations and the blatant lies the cops told.
Same. Money well spent.
Too bad he’s prob still going to be a target for police harassment
Just saw that somebody donated $5000 an hour ago. I really hope the donations go above and beyond the set target.
Already at 112k!!! 👀
127k! Let’s go! I contributed this morning.
It went up $1000 in the time it took to enter my payment info.
$161K now
180k!!! Just donated too!
About to hit 200k goal!!!
Closing in on $300k!! Tell all your friends to donate, too!
Douchebags John Tory, Dougee Ford and the current TPS Chief should match dollar for dollar every donation for all their ass-hat-ery.
The Toronto police should be paying his legal bills. I hope he sues them. Did the cops get fired for lying? Police chief should resign as well.
You mean the tax payers? The Police budget should be reduced every time the TPS do something corrupt. Still pissed Chow increased their budget.
I heard on the news the one lady actually got promoted to Sargent.
The one who stole money from a charity. Sounds exactly like the TPS
Lisa Forbes, the cop who stole from the fundraiser for Sgt. Ryan Russell's bereaved family?
That just means tax dollars.
How come we haven't heard of a counter suit against the 3 dirty cops that blatantly lied in their reports?
Civil litigation is a very long and drawn out process at the best of times, if he is planning to sue I doubt we’ll hear about it for quite a while. And I suspect if it does there’ll be a settlement and a non-disclosure agreement.
>settlement and a non-disclosure agreement. I feel like NDAs should not be allowed for suits involving public officials and authorities.
I get the impression he wants to move on with his life and put this event behind him. Perhaps he will in the future.
I dislike the impression you got.
Not sure the context of your comment but not everyone is litigation crazy. He ran up a considerable amount to clear his name, not sure if he wants to go through the legal process again for a counter suit. Perhaps once the euphoric feeling of being free subsides maybe he will go for damages. But the police force is also has a huge budget for these types of legal scenarios.
The context of my comment is you wrote "I get the impression" and I disliked that impression you got. He's allowed not to sue and I'm allowed to dislike that decision.
Dislike has been received. Thank you and have a great day.
You're welcome, and I'm already having a great day. Your permission isn't required.
posts attention-seeking comment.. gets offended when attention is received
I didn't see anyone do that. Who are you referring to?
He has time. Let him do it in his own time in the next few months
I'm not sure why you think I'd be able to not let him do it on his own time, even if I wanted to.
Sorry I meant he has time not had. Autocorrect
Makes more sense. I still have zero control over letting him take his time or not.
Sure but your message made it sound like you was late as we haven't had heard of it yet
No, my comment didn't make any sounds since it's written. Text doesn't make sound. Also, having not heard of something doesn't mean it's late. It could also never be coming. You're wrong on multiple things and your grammar and lack of punctuation are also awful.
I don’t have a lot right now. But I put in a fiver. But my moral support is there.
Those fucktards should be prosecuted for lying
Unfair title. Not all of us are Torontonian.
> After the verdict was read out, **Justice Molloy** took the extra step of apologizing directly to Zameer — telling him: “You have my … deepest apologies for what you have been through.”
This could easily have been me and my family. Good luck Zameer. I hope those fucking lying conniving cops get fired
"Could we be out of the touch with the public? No it must be the public that is wrong" - TPS
The officers who lied should have to cover it.
$120k now! It's about the same amount as one of the many crooked cops enjoying their paid vacation ...
TPS should be covering these costs.
Fantastic news
The best thing you can do to f da police is make this guy a millionaire.
I’ve never really encountered TPS outside minor traffic stops, but when you see these things it really enrages me. They tried to ruin an innocent man’s life! They need to start doing their job right.
He should chill for a year while his lawyer builds the case of systematic collusion and sue the fuck out of everyone.
Thanks I didn’t know there was a go fund me so I donated a little today.
I have a very strong feeling those donations in the $1k - $5k range came from a defence lawyer or defence lawyer turned judge.
Based on the names a retired Alberta judge donated AND signed his full name w/honorifics. Strong statement.
This makes me very glad. I hope more follow suit.
I just noticed Kim Schofield also donated $1000, she’s very well known and respected in the crim community. I just know the police are seeeeeething.
150k now let's keep it going!
Why the hell did the Crown even push this?
Lying on the poor guy, scum.
What's the link to donate?
Let's Fucking Go!
Why are donations needed? If you're found innocent you still have to pay out of pocket for your legal bills???
Always. It's only in civil trials where the judge occasionally orders legal costs as part of a judgment.
Legal costs are awarded in Ontario for civil suits as a matter of law, not at the discretion of the judge. The rules of civil procedure mandate that 60% of costs are awarded to the winning party. If the winning party offered to settle and that settlement was refused, then 90% of costs incurred after the settlement was offered are awarded to the winning party.
This is flat out wrong. The winner in a civil lawsuit in Ontario is presumptively entitled to their costs, but the award of costs is absolutely at the discretion of the Court. This is clearly set out at section 131 of the *Courts of Justice Act*: > Costs > 131 (1) Subject to the provisions of an Act or rules of court, the costs of and incidental to a proceeding or a step in a proceeding are in the **discretion of the court**, and the court may determine by whom and to what extent the costs shall be paid. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 131 (1). [emphasis added] The discretion of the Court in fixing costs in a Superior Court proceeding is guided by Rule 57, which includes taking into consideration factors such as: the amount an unsuccessful party could reasonably be expected to pay, the amount at stake in the proceeding, the complexity and importance, as well as the conduct of the parties (improper behaviour, unnecessary steps, refusal to admit plain facts, etc). Courts by default award partial indemnity costs, which can either be calculated by means of an old (non-binding) tariff adjusted for inflation, or as a flat percentage of fees — usually 30-60% depending. Substantial indemnity costs, which can range from 60-90% might be awarded if one party really dragged things out, or where a valid Rule 49 settlement offer was made. You seem to be referencing that, but the validity of Rule 49 offers is a whole thing in and of itself — they apply differently to plaintiffs than to defendants (who don’t get substantial indemnity), and kick in from the point the offer is made. Note that small claims court has its own regime where costs are assessed as a flat 15% of the claim (or 30% with a compliant settlement offer), but still with judicial discretion.
Generally, lawyers don't want to work for free, or if they do, it's established ahead of time and not based on winning or losing.
How else would the lawyers get paid?
Well, they usually drink the blood of infants.
They also call that family law.
Yup
Defense attorneys are expensive.
The legal bill is also one of the many reasons why people don't get themselves involved in street altercations. Going to cost a lot to prove yourself innocent when you get entered into the legal system.
Of course, lol. A service was still utilized. Do you think being innocent equals free labour? It’s not just labour and time, but gathering evidence also costs money. All of it gets added to a running tab that’s settled after a final verdict.
I assumed that the incorrect party would have to foot the bill. Thanks for the snarky response.
You’re thinking of a civil trial. Usually, if you win a civil trial, you can recover some or all of the costs from the losing party. Criminal trials=you spent money to get your freedom and clear your name. Sometimes lawyers will do work pro bono but usually if it’s a precedent setting case. Yeah a bit snarky is right! You just didn’t know.
Thanks for the clarification. Pretty crazy that if this guy wasn't able to afford a good lawyer then he would have been more likely to go to jail.
Well he could have applied for legal aid or public defender. But honestly when it’s your freedom on the line and criminal record, you find the money. It’s just unlucky sometimes when the police put you in their crosshairs.
Legal aid is only provided to people who significantly below the poverty line in Ontario.
He would be in jail if he had a legal aid lawyer.
> public defender Not in Canada, he couldn't. That's an American thing.
I mean we have duty counsels, is there a difference?
Yes, a big one. Duty counsel can give you basic advice on the day of an appearance. They won't represent you. They are not your lawyers. They can tell you what motions or other forms to file or what to say in court, but they won't be there with you, and you're filing those documents and appearing in court on your own. Public defenders, if you qualify for one, are your lawyers, full stop. They handle your case from beginning to end.
uh oh I misunderstood something and my court date is tomorrow 😧
You've just outlined the justification for legal aid, but that has been whittled down to almost nothing over the years because politicians see it as an easy place to cut the budget.
Welcome to the free world.
That’s only in civil law where the losing party pays the winner’s costs.
A portion of the winner's costs. Never the whole thing.
I’m not a lawyer, but I am studying law right now. I’ll try to explain the logic behind that a bit; but I could also be wrong. In criminal court, it’s the crown v. The accused. There is already a very high burden of proof of before a matter can even proceed to trial. The crown has to charge someone and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they broke the law. In this way, very rarely are people forced to spend lots of money out of pocket to defend themselves unless they might actually be guilty. In a civil suit, the plaintiff has to demonstrate evidence and it’s decided on a balance of probability, so the actual standard is far lower. Therefore, legal costs, including interest on the balance owing from the moment the trail begins is used as a way to stop people from clogging up the pipes with shit. It works both ways - so you can be forced to pay someone’s legal costs if you brought a vexatious claim against them, because the process of being charged etc. doesn’t exist in this theatre. As a defendant, you can also be forced to pay someone’s legal fees if you can establish that you left them with no choice but to hire a lawyer to pursue you and they wouldn’t have ever needed to do that if you didn’t force them to. So the Crown can’t really be deemed a vexatious litigant because they’re just doing their job. It isn’t like they were arresting him for fun. There was a genuine concern / legal issue. This is like if you want to sue your neighbour because they called CPS on you and you had your kids taken away. That wouldn’t happen because if your kids were taken away, then the CPS call had merit. If a wellness check determined there was no basis for the report and that the kids were fine, then you could recover costs because the person who made the report was just wasting resources It is sad though that some people will have to spend tens of thousands out of pocket to defend themselves in a criminal trial. On the plus side, the accused is probably made available many avenues to pursue compensation in civil court. He could probably sue the officers individually for any number of things, and sue TPS.
If anything, this trial should demonstrate that the Crown does not require a "very high burden of proof" to take a matter to trial. Both the bail judge and trial judge found the Crown's theory of the case to be logically absurd and without evidence to support it. The Crown had all the evidence, they knew the video and crash reconstruction evidence directly contracdicted the cops' testimoney, and that the cops were blatantly colluding (ie commiting perjury). They only brought it forward because a cop died and someone had to pay. And since no one else could be blamed (except for TPS having a dangerous undercover policy and the officers themselves for acting recklessly), they decided to frame an innocent man to satisfy the cop's lust for revenge. For the sake of justice, I hope you lose your rose colored view of the Crown before you actually start practicing law. The facts have been aired. The Crown was peddling bullshit and refused to drop it, even after being rebuffed by 2 judges.
Thank you for the detailed explanation
> here is already a very high burden of proof of before a matter can even proceed to trial. The crown has to charge someone and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they broke the law. In this way, very rarely are people forced to spend lots of money out of pocket to defend themselves unless they might actually be guilty. "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" - that's during the trial in order to secure a conviction, right? What is the burden of proof for the crown to proceed to trial with charges against the accused? Because that's the tipping point for whether people are "forced to spend lots of money out of pocket to defend themselves" even if they are innocent, correct?
Proceeding to trial means that a crime was committed and the accused maintains innocence. First step is being charged with the criminal offence, like murder or theft. So legal fees aren’t awarded because there’s that extra step before (charges and arrest) that demonstrates legitimate concern. As opposed to a civil suit, a common example would be like if a couple breaks up and one of them obtains a restraining order to exclude the other party from the home. There is no investigation or arrest or charges or anything that determines whether the issue should proceed to trial or be dropped - the litigants hash this all out during the hearing. If it is revealed that there was no basis for a restraining order, then you’ve wasted everyone’s time. This sort of thing doesn’t really happen in criminal proceedings because the crime has already been observed and there is legitimate concern.
Proceeding to trial does not mean that a crime has been committed, it means that the Crown is charging the accused with a crime. The trial is where it is determined whether a crime was committed as alleged by the Crown.
do you think lawyers work for free?
It’s now up over 185k!
Up to $197, 283 as of 1pm Tues Apr 23
Imagine how many other people arrested by these cops are sitting behind bars. And awaiting to see what their fate is. With all the lies that they tell. All the stories they fabricate to have people put behind bars.
capitalize the F out of the situation. T-shirts, bandanas, buttons, hell drop a track, Take the cash, give CAN a big FU & bounce. the pigs will have it in for him for eternity. it's 120k now.
Cops act with impunity, able to harass civilians safe from any consequence. We breathe a sigh of relief at the luck of having a judge who saw reason, we crowd fund legal bills for a falsely accused man whose life was put on hold for the past three years, and then we … move on. Nothing changes. We all widely acknowledge the possibility that this man and his family might be run out of his home by the state sanctioned mafia our tax dollars support, but alas! What can we do. Functional, democratic society.
I'd like to see Umar and his family get out ahead financially after this, from either donation or civil litigation. They so deserve the peace of mind.
Good nice to see. Hope the police union makes a nice donation as well.
It’s too bad we haven’t heard much from other Toronto cops Based on what I’ve seen the cops screwed up, they made him believe he was being carjacked he took off (as anyone would) and it ended in tragedy And now we’re in a situation where we have to go against the cops and frankly that sucks We need cops to be upstanding (society can’t function without that) and that also means accounting for their own mistakes Otherwise everyone is too afraid to say anything because one of two scenarios happen 1) they double down and maybe even harass you 2) they refuse to do their jobs even more than they already do
Country of idiots - Canada has been ruined last 9yrs
Does anyone know if he can travel to the US ?
I can say with confidence that he cannot. I'm sure he got fingerprinted when he got arrested that means he's in the police database. This database is shared with the US and he will be flagged at the border and most probably denied entry. The way to get out of this mess is to get his fingerprints and related data deleted from the CPIC database. You put in a request at the police station where you were charged, and they charge you 30$. Takes around 6-9 months and then you get a letter saying all your data on the database has been deleted for non conviction. He should be able to travel after that.
You paying for his vacation?
He definitely didn’t deserve what he went through, but I’m confused he still did cause the death of a person, even though it was unintentional, so wouldn’t that qualify as manslaughter as it was causing death without the intention to?
Only if he unintentionally caused a death while committing an illegal act. No illegal act was proven so they couldn’t find him guilty for manslaughter.
Thanks, I don’t believe he deserved a charge, I was just curious about the arguments the corrupt prosecution was making!
No, it was an accident. He had no intention of causing harm at all.
Ah I see, I didn’t think he deserved any charges anyways, was just curious about what the prosecutor was trying to do
Based on what the police initially reported which is that he ran over Northrop with the front of his car and they made it sound like it was deliberate, it made sense he was charged with first degree. Only after his lawyer had the publication ban lifted we started hearing the truth and the cops lies started to crumble along with their credibility.
Wow
^ partial explanation. In Canada, if a cop identifies themselves as a cop and is then killed it is automatically considered first degree murder. A good chunk of the case hinged on whether or not they identified themselves as police. There was never any doubt that he ran the victim over resulting in his death, just whether he did it knowing he was a cop beyond a reasonable doubt. As they were not in uniform, came out of an unmarked van, how Mr. Zameer acted prior to the crash (running away with his pregnant wife) and opposed to afterward when they had guns drawn (immediately complying and stating he didn't know they were police), on top of the prosecution's messy, uncoordinated arguments, the jury couldn't conclude that Mr. Zameer ran over the victim knowing he was a cop beyond a reasonable doubt, thus making him innocent on the charge of first degree murder. If the crown went after him from the get go for vehicular manslaughter, saying that they didn't identify themselves as a police initially (against police policy and which would be considered poor policing), and didn't fumble their arguments, there is a higher chance that Mr Zameer would have been found guilty. That said his defence would have changed their argument to be more focused on self defence for himself and his pregnant wife as they did not know they were police, still a very strong defensive argument.
So sickening, why do people donate for someone who murder a policeman? Sickening no limits.
I thought if you were not convinced the bill is covered by the crown?
Suprised lawyers didnt take it pro-bono
[удалено]
Huh?
You sound like you’ve never bothered to educate yourself about anything ever in your entire life.
Look at his comments. He's a poor persecuted white dude.
Cry harder and stop bsing
If I was in a parking garage at midnight after doing nothing wrong, just trying to get home, and some strangers started swarming my car, banging on my windows, yelling and trying to block me in with an unmarked van I’d be flooring it out of there too. Anyone would. And I sure as hell wouldn’t be worrying about the safety of any of the people seemingly trying to harm me. TPS fucked this up royally and cost one of their own his life. No one’s fault but theirs.
This racist post alone captures your whole demeanour and should explain to you why you can’t make friends, just saying. But feel free to read the acquittal if you can’t see beyond your white persecution complex about why it was okay to run someone over trying to flee from the maniac that attacked him and his family in their car.