Toronto cop charged with sex crimes

[Bubba]

Bosco you want to have first crack at him or let the boys in chains do it?.



A first-year cop with the Toronto Police Service has been charged with sex crimes involving two teenaged boys. Investigators are concerned there are other victims, police said Tuesday. Police alleged the officer sexually assaulted a 14-year-old boy between January and May 2009.


And between September 2010 and March 2011, the accused was in an inappropriate sexual relationship with a 16-year-old boy, police alleged. Const. Brandon Fraser, 24, has only been with Toronto Police seven months and is currently attached to 42 Division, police said.


He is charged with sexual assault, sexual interference and sexual exploitation and appeared in Old City Hall Court Tuesday morning. Fraser was remanded until Wednesday when his lawyer, Gary Clewley, hopes to have him released.


"The allegations are that he had an improper relationships with he met through the Internet, not through the job," Clewley said outside of court of Fraser, who has no prior convictions. "He is presumed innocent as is everyone else before the courts until proven otherwise. He is devastated, he is in a jail cell and he is a police officer."


Anyone with information should contact Det. Jason Ferry at 416-808-2827, Crime Stoppers anonymously at 416-222-TIPS (8477), online at , text TOR and your message to CRIMES (274637), or Leave A Tip on Facebook.

 

[Maurice Boscorelli]

If he is proven guilty he should receive a minimum 25 years with no chance of early release.

It will be very interesting to see who else comes forward now that the process has started.

If he is an offender there is high likelihood that there have been many more victims. This is not a behaviour they pick up as they go along. It is ingrained very early.

Once in prison although there is always segregation, there will always be that target on his back. And where there is a will..........

 

[Insertion]

Considering he's an officer the target on his back with probably have flashing neon lights.

 

[Wanker]

Considering he's an officer the target on his back with probably have flashing neon lights.

The big ones dude.

 

[Curly]

Bring out the broom sticks :no:

 

[tboy]

Ok, before we form a gang and lynch this guy, a couple of things have to be addressed:

1) were the "victims" coerced or forced into the situation or did they enter into it voluntarily?
2) How old is the cop? If he's like 30 something, then that's worse but being as how he's a first year, that would indicate that he's probably 20ish.
3) would you all be saying these things if the cop was female and the "victims" male?

(btw, I thought the age of consent was 16 so if the 16 yr old consented, and it was voluntary it shouldn't even be mentioned).

 

[McGuinty]

Ok, before we form a gang and lynch this guy, a couple of things have to be addressed:

1) were the "victims" coerced or forced into the situation or did they enter into it voluntarily?
2) How old is the cop? If he's like 30 something, then that's worse but being as how he's a first year, that would indicate that he's probably 20ish.
3) would you all be saying these things if the cop was female and the "victims" male?

(btw, I thought the age of consent was 16 so if the 16 yr old consented, and it was voluntary it shouldn't even be mentioned).

Start again and read on.

A first-year cop with the Toronto Police Service

You think he is thirty something?.

Plus you really have to play devil's advocate.

All written in stone Tboy.

 

[tboy]

Start again and read on.

A first-year cop with the Toronto Police Service

You think he is thirty something?.

Plus you really have to play devil's advocate.

All written in stone Tboy.

Read again McSquinty....

No, I don't play devil's advocate, I just don't condemn someone due to what is written in a newspaper...TYVM....

You never answered my question: if the cop was female would you all say the same things? I doubt it ONE bit......

 

[McGuinty]

Read again McSquinty....

No, I don't play devil's advocate, I just don't condemn someone due to what is written in a newspaper...TYVM....

You never answered my question: if the cop was female would you all say the same things? I doubt it ONE bit......

Cannot answer that question. I need my voters to think I am a nice guy :bad:.


OK got your point, valid. Time to crash. Till tomorrow.

 

[peace]

Bring out the PEDOPHILEBUSTERS....WHO ARE YOU GONNA CALL...THE PEDOPHILEBUSTERS!!!!

Seriously, these victims are often ignored and neglected within our legal system. Unfortunately these predators or pedophiles hardly receive stiff sentences. Dont be suprised to hear a theif who robs a store would receive a stiffer sentence than a pedophile. If you don't believe me, just check out the public records. Just a s disgusting situation....

I do agree we have to be careful about trusting newspapers in general as they often distorted information/facts. However, we should not tolerate any adults molesting any children regardless of their genders.

 

[Cycleguy007]

My blood boils whenever I read/ hear stories like this! :grrrrrr:

Once he's proven guilty: lock the fucker up and throw away the key! Or like some suggested, put him in general population- the rest of the scumbags will take care of him in a hurry!

Pretty sad eh? When someone is SO reprehensible, even the criminals don't wanna be associated with you... our legal system should take note!

 

[Maurice Boscorelli]

(btw, I thought the age of consent was 16 so if the 16 yr old consented, and it was voluntary it shouldn't even be mentioned).

The Tackling Violent Crime Act took effect on 1 May 2008, making the current age of consent 16.[1]
Although Canada is a federation, the criminal law (including the definition of the age of consent) is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, so the age of consent is uniform throughout Canada. Section 151 of the Criminal Code of Canada makes it a crime to touch, for a sexual purpose, any person under the age of 16 years. Section 153 then goes on to prohibit the sexual touching of a person under 18 by a person in three circumstances: if he or she is in a "position of trust or authority" towards the youth, if the youth is in a "relationship of dependency" with him or her or if the relationship is "exploitative". The term "position of trust or authority" is not defined in the Code but the courts have ruled that parents, teachers and medical professionals hold a position of trust or authority towards youth they care for or teach. For determining whether or not a relationship is "exploitative" s. 153 (1.2) of the Code provides that a judge can consider how old the youth is, the difference in ages between the partners, how the relationship evolved and the degree of control or influence that the older partner has over the youth.

 

[tboy]

good work bosco, but wasn't there also something in the laws about a 3 yr age difference? I seem to recall something whereby someone 19 messing around with a 16 yr old is also considered a crime?

ie: 14/17 16/19 15/18 etc

if I dig it up I'll post it........

Here it is:

The age of consent for sexual activity is 16 years. It was raised from 14 years on May 1, 2008 by the Tackling Violent Crime Act.
However, the age of consent is 18 years where the sexual activity "exploits" the young person -- when it involves prostitution, pornography or occurs in a relationship of authority, trust or dependency (e.g., with a teacher, coach or babysitter). Sexual activity can also be considered exploitative based on the nature and circumstances of the relationship, e.g., the young person's age, the age difference between the young person and their partner, how the relationship developed (quickly, secretly, or over the Internet) and how the partner may have controlled or influenced the young person.
Are there any exceptions to this?

The Criminal Code provides "close in age" or "peer group" exceptions.
For example, a 14 or 15 year old can consent to sexual activity with a partner as long as the partner is less than five years older and there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or any other exploitation of the young person. This means that if the partner is 5 years or older than the 14 or 15 year old, any sexual activity will be considered a criminal offence unless it occurs after they are married to each other (in accordance with the "solemnization" of marriage requirements that are established in each province and territory, governing how and when a marriage can be performed, including the minimum age at which someone may marry).
There is also a "close-in-age" exception for 12 and 13 year olds: a 12 or 13 year old can consent to sexual activity with another young person who is less than two years older and with whom there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or other exploitation of the young person.

An interesting point is the time line when the laws were changed. June 2008 it went from 14 to 16. The accused missed it by 6 months. Can you imagine being convicted on that?

The interesting line is "less than 5 years older".....I think the guy is screwed however if he let on that he was a cop. I think the guy's screwed no matter what, he's already been found guilty by many......

Many have accused me of playing "devils advocate" but I just wanted to point out, in this thread anyways, that it is a very VERY fine line legally between what he can be found guilty of/aka illegal. In this case, 6 months is a pretty fucking fine line.......

 

[Maurice Boscorelli]

Once he's proven guilty: lock the fucker up and throw away the key! Or like some suggested, put him in general population- the rest of the scumbags will take care of him in a hurry!

This position is always written on emotion and not practicality.

To turn a prison into a slaughterhouse is unrealistic.

To John Q Public who has never spent a minute behind bars and doesn't understand the dynamic of prison life I'm sure it seems like a plausible solution but it would only make things worse for both the inmates and the guards.

Not to mention what it would say about us as a society.

No the solution is long term jail sentences or for extreme offenders the death penalty.

In this case I will wait to hear the evidence and most importantly exactly how the ''victims'' were affected by the accused actions.

tboy does raise an interesting scenario when he asks how we would feel if the alleged perp was a 24 yr old female and the vic was a 14-16 yr old boy?

My guess is most of us would just smile.

 

[Cycleguy007]

tboy does raise an interesting scenario when he asks how we would feel if the alleged perp was a 24 yr old female and the vic was a 14-16 yr old boy?

My guess is most of us would just smile.

Only if the advances were welcomed by the 14-16 yr old boy... :shock:

 

[Maurice Boscorelli]

Only if the advances were welcomed by the 14-16 yr old boy... :shock:

Agreed.

 

[tboy]

awwww it's nice to see you two agreeing...on something at least lol.....

Speaking of prisons, I have no problem with turning some into self-policed slaughterhouses. That would be for the career offenders and those who have exhibited a preponderance to hurt other inmates or guards.

I saw on "behind bars" an interview with an inmate (multiple life sentences) who openly stated that given the chance, he'd kill a guard or inmate, just for the hell of it. He said 'what are they going to do, lock me up for life"? He already spends 24/7 in his 6 x 8 cell.

I think there should be "levels", ie: one prison for white collar crimes, one for petty thefts, petty drug possession etc, one for violent crimes, then one for rapists and murders. (the last one would be an "escape from New York" type establishment).

 

[Maurice Boscorelli]

Speaking of prisons, I have no problem with turning some into self-policed slaughterhouses. That would be for the career offenders and those who have exhibited a preponderance to hurt other inmates or guards.

I think there should be "levels", ie: one prison for white collar crimes, one for petty thefts, petty drug possession etc, one for violent crimes, then one for rapists and murders. (the last one would be an "escape from New York" type establishment).

John Q is that you?

So what happens if your the guy wrongfully convicted of rape or murder?

 

[tboy]

John Q is that you?

So what happens if your the guy wrongfully convicted of rape or murder?

same thing that happens now.....only difference is that if you've been wrongfully accused/arrested/convicted and it is discovered that someone falsely accused you, the cops didn't do their due diligence and the prosecutor hid or otherwise suppressed evidence those that committed the improprieties would take your place in the prison. (unlike now where they shrug their shoulders and go on their merry way).

For eg: there was a guy released last year in the US. Upon investigation it was found that the governor (who was then running for election) put undo pressure on the prosecutor to find this guy guilty so the prosecutor supressed evidence and the guy wrongfully went to jail. The governor should then forfeit his earnings and pay them as restitution to the convicted, and then run, not walk, directly to jail. I seem to recall the guy sent to jail was identified by a witness as being somewhere else, the prosecutor found out about this, and didn't tell anyone. I think it was the investigating officer who finally blew the whistle......or something like that.

Now one way to avoid this issue is to reserve the "roughest" prison for those who are without ANY doubt have committed the crime. ie: the idiot who stole the snowplow and killed the cop recently. Or (like my example) the guy in prison who has killed to get there and vows to kill again while there......

Oh, and Paul bernardo........and that farmer out in BC who buried so many prostitutes on his farm.

 

[Maurice Boscorelli]

same thing that happens now.....only difference is that if you've been wrongfully accused/arrested/convicted and it is discovered that someone falsely accused you, the cops didn't do their due diligence and the prosecutor hid or otherwise suppressed evidence those that committed the improprieties would take your place in the prison. (unlike now where they shrug their shoulders and go on their merry way).

So a first time offender doesn't go to the slaughterhouse?