this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2025
229 points (97.9% liked)

Not The Onion

18646 readers
1004 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Wren@lemmy.today 6 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

I'm way oversimplifying here:

Judges can only make decisions within their scope, the extent of the law, and on the evidence before them. They do have some jurisdiction within their court, like holding someone in contempt, but they can't convict when no charges have been laid.

Cops can be sued civilly, but since we're talking criminal law the charges would be determined by a crown. The problem is the whole criminal court process usually starts with cops arresting someone and presenting their reports, so good luck finding cops who will rat on a buddy. Or, a crown who wants to risk losing the cooperation of the police. I know one who moved to practice in another province after they went after an extremely corrupt detachment.

The CCLA has done a bunch of work taking up cases to hold cops accountable, but the whole judicial foundation isn't just cracked, it's crumbling. Ask any half decent crown, judge, or lawyer in private what they think of the police if you want to get stuck down a depressing rabbit hole.