Search 640toronto.com

Hosts & Shows
Police Street Checks
Posted 11/12/2012 9:23:00 AM

Toronto Police will begin issuing receipts to those who are stopped on the street randomly. These random street checks are usually conducted in high risk neighbourhoods and are often criticized as nothing more than racial profiling.

But now that the police will issue a receipt to those stopped, they’re now creating a paper trail that could pop up in a future background check; which of course could cause undue consternation for a job applicant. The hiring party may shy away from a quality individual simply because a flag comes back as the applicant has been ‘spoken to by the police’.

High risk neighbourhoods require a heightened police presence but are random street checks going too far? And is issuing a receipt the right way to handle the situation?
Posted By: John Oakley  

Leave a comment:

showing all comments · Subscribe to comments
Comment Like
  • 10
  1. Douglas Ford [deleted] posted on 11/12/2012 11:27 PM
    Profiles are based on the logical evaluation of statistics.

    There’s nothing wrong with the police profiling anyone in any manner, as long as they have a logical reason to do so.

    Nuns and priests and rabbis and ministers and the OPP, the FBI and the CIA and Doris Day generally don’t sell drugs and shoot people.

    Those who do must be more carefully watched, in an attempt to prevent their criminal behaviour.

    In a “high risk” neighbourhood, more of the citizens, by definition, are more likely to be criminals.

    Therefore, random questioning is more likely to catch criminals.


    Years ago, I was walking home circa 3 a.m. in the morning, in a city near Detroit, when a police car pulled up beside me.

    One of the policemen asked for my identification.

    I showed it to him.

    He thanked me, and wished me a good night.

    I was not a criminal, so I didn’t mind identifying myself to those who protect us.


    Perhaps the reason that I was able to walk home safely at 3 a.m., was due to police vigilance.

    It wasn’t even a “high risk” area.


    Let’s be logical ….. who is doing all of the shooting and stabbing on a Saturday night?

    Is it people such as Mr. Oakley?

    I’ll let the readers answer that question.

    If you can’t answer it within 10 seconds, you’re either stupid or a Liberal who is trying to think up an excuse.
  2. JoanA_0122 posted on 11/14/2012 10:28 AM
    Watch out for the 3 a.m. masked Oakley!!

    Seriously, though, Doug Ford is right. Our society -- and the world -- has changed. We live in a surveillance society. Police tell me there is really no one left in our society who doesn't have some sort of criminal record. That is to say, police keep data on pretty much all of us.

    If an employer refuses you a job because a security check brought up a "flag" against your name that suggests you pose some risk, and if you have no criminal record of convictions, make a request for access to records under the Freedom of Information Act, because RCMP tell me often when that happens, it is because someone has stolen your identity and is using it to commit crimes that have created the flag. In that event, you want to hire a lawyer. Or that someone has the same name and birth date as you do, which strange though it may seem, is not that unusual. If the employer security check does not recognize that, you can get your fingerprints done and RCMP can clear you for your employer. I know all this because it has happened twice to me.

    We live in a society where organized and terrorist crime has expanded exponentially over the past twenty years. We need to be vigilant to stay safe.
    1. Douglas Ford [deleted] posted on 11/15/2012 12:33 AM
      @JoanA_0122 Don’t let Oakley’s kind radio voice fool you. How do you think that he learned to play harmonica so well and roll cigarettes with one hand?

      Apparently, he’s done hard time on chain gangs in the South and knows a very famous guy named Luke. During a long term at Levinworth, Oakley constantly sang the “Folsom Prison Blues” and was meaner than Johnny Cash. He twice escaped from Alcatraz and was chased from St. Louis to upstate New York, where he spent another long stretch in Attica. After that, he was in and out of Sing Sing and finally managed to escape by swimming upstream, and living off the land in the Hudson Valley.

      Wait a minute ... how could he have been on radio so long, with such a record?


      Mmmmmmmm ... that Mr. Oakley sure has something up his sleeve.
    show more replies
  3. davidn_5661 posted on 11/15/2012 11:33 PM
    Give the police all the powers they want. Let them search who ever they want. Let them get access to the internet, your cell phone records.
    Give them all the powers they want with only one condition. They are held accountable and are fired if found guilty for any misuse or abuse of power.
    Change the police services act whereby an officer is fired if he or she is found guilty of abuse of power or find guilty of any criminal code offence.
    As it stands now. Police have very little accountability for their actions. When was the last time you heard of a canadian police officer being fired? It happens but, on very rare and extreme occasions. And certainly rarely, if ever for abuse of power.

    David
    1. Douglas Ford [deleted] posted on 11/16/2012 09:49 PM
      @davidn_5661 David:

      You make a good point. I am pro-police, but Lord Acton’s adage that “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” is definitively true.

      All of us in positions of power must be monitored, to assure that we do not reach a level of corruption.

      Ontario Police rely on the Special Investigations Unit to evaluate the conduct of Ontario Policemen.

      Although the SIU is a “civilian agency responsible for investigating circumstances involving police and civilians that have resulted in a death, serious injury, or allegations of sexual assault”, all full time members are former law enforcement personnel.

      That’s about as objective as the Ontario College of Teachers and many other professions evaluating themselves.

      One cannot be objective when evaluating oneself or someone within one’s organization.

      Likewise, one cannot be objective when one is evaluating part of oneself.

      Ultimately, all organizations which hold power should be objectively evaluated.

      In other words, people with multiple perspectives should be incorporated into evaluated into an examination of police actions.

      The criteria? We should base it on political views, ethnic origins etc.

      It wouldn’t take that long to work out the criteria.

      Again, you make an excellent point, David.

      Self-evaluation is ultimately self-destructive.
showing all comments

<<May 2013>>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
2829301234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930311
2345678