Charles,
Memo to Self: saw comments in the Irving press - FPF Cpl. Lou LaFleur, on his criminal charges. Must send thoughts to Blogger Charles, ‘cos LaFleur doesn’t seem to understand the law; wants to be treated differently than people he persecuted over 21 years as a cop. He went for a walk, said he didn’t take the dogs, and ended up at a low-end bar with a fellow cop’s sister. (I wouldn’t be happy if I was his wife!) Googled said bar, Speedbumps, and reviews say “beware of drunk/rude old men. Avoid this place at all costs!” and “below average bar”, “bartender working tonight was very hateful and rude… First experience and most definitely my last…”
Lou sounds pissed off - says the process of Crown approval might not have been adhered to (welcome to our world!) AND he will be asking his lawyer to adjourn his plea, until he has been told if there was an abuse of process laying a charge without the elements of the offence...The day the article was printed said lawyer entered Lou’s not guilty plea. Ooops, that didn't work out. Mr Burke also sounded mighty displeased Lou spilled his guts to the press.
Lou thinks his file was sent to the Miramichi plods because of the complexity of the case and lack of evidence!!! Wow – he’s delusional; sounds like he thought Miramichi cops were competent and his case was important. (There’s more evidence in his case than most of the ones that end up with convictions and jail time.) “LaFleur said not all impairment files involving members or ex-members of the Fredericton Police Force get forwarded to other police agencies for investigation prior to Crown approval or charge.” Jeez Louise, how many drink driving charges do they get? Sounds like a lot more than we are told about.
Lou says he’s confident evidence will show he wasn’t driving the vehicle in question that night – I don’t think he read any case law... Care and Control of a vehicle while intoxicated means a drunk person, sitting in the driver’s seat, MIGHT set the car in motion, and risk damaging property or people. Said drunk person’s defences are: (a) there was no risk of danger to person or property (their car hit a concrete slab and post), (b) a taxi or other plan had been made to get home, (Lou now wishes he’d done that…) or (c) the vehicle was inoperable. This really sucks for Lou! He said the vehicle was moving – his lady friend drove it out of the car park with the concrete slab and post tagging along! Lou said when smoke was pouring out of the car he got into the driver’s seat and that’s when the cops showed up and arrested him.
He’s ticked off that “Six months to the date of the incident I was served with a summons to appear in court to answer to the charge...” He’s also ticked off the cop didn’t read the formal breathalyser demand; says these charges get thrown out for that. I don’t think so Lou, ‘cos the demand is to fully inform those who do not understand the procedure – since you’re a cop I guess that bird won’t fly. Welcome Lou - welcome to the world of Charles LeBlanc and mere mortals!!! Karma’s a bitch.?
With defendants like Lou we don’t need prosecutors. LaFleur should have taken care and control of the vehicle, by stopping his very drunk friend from driving, and calling cabs. By not doing that he, as a cop, put himself, his friend and the public at risk. This flower smells bad and, in support of bilingualism, cette fleur sent mauvais!
Concern INTELLIGENT citizen
