With policing, everything should be ‘premediated’

In closing arguments at the Braidwood Inquiry this past week, the lawyer for Poland suggested that the RCMP officers talked about using a taser before they arrived on scene to the incident. He called what they did a premediated action which resulted in excessive force.

What the lawyer fails to understand (even though he is an ex-police officer) is that it is vitally important to discuss with other officers your plans before you arrive on scene, especially for dangerous situations. If you are working with a partner, it is crucial to ensure that both officers understand what each other is thinking as they arrive on scene. For instance, “ok, if he does this, we’ll do this, etc. ok?” or “You take this side, I’ll take the other, if they exit, we’ll challenge them”. This communication protects the safety of the officers involved and often is a mental rehearsal or refresher for those attending of the safest way to approach a situation.

To say that talking about an incident before you get there is wrong creates an erroneous belief that we must be treating an incident like it is in court before police even attend (i.e. dont’ talk to other witnesses). In some serious situations, you don’t have the opportunity to have a huddle during the situation to figure out what you’re going to do next. You have to trust that the other officer is going to make the same decisions based on similar training or a pre-incident communication.

The four officers have taken lots of scrutiny during their testimony at the inquiry and it’s not my intention to add to that. However, when asked if they discussed using the taser before they arrived, they should have said “Yes. I discussed all options with my partners, including the most serious so we could be most prepared for the incident.” Of course in hindsight, we can say what should have been said, but all in all, officers should not be made to feel at fault for discussing and planning options for their courses of action before arriving on scene.

Other officer bloggers have similar thoughts…

Braidwood Recommendations

The Braidwood Inquiry is wrapping up in BC. For those that didn’t know, it is the inquiry into the taser death of a polish immigrant at the Vancouver Airport. A few months ago, the judge released some interim recommendations regarding taser use in Canada. Despite that the whole of the inquiry has been media sensationalized, there were some useful recommendations to come out of it.

http://www.braidwoodinquiry.ca/report/

One of the more useful recommendations is stricter standards on the use of tasers. In the recommendation, tasers should only be used in situations where bodily harm has been caused or is imminent. This would prevent the taser from being used in other circumstances (non cooperative people) which seems to develop the most public and media scrutiny. Police officers sometimes are their own worst enemy when it comes to decision making regarding the taser.

I do like how Braidwood acknowledges that the taser still has use in Canadian policing and that he also talks about how policing Canada’s streets is much different now than 30 years ago. Although critical of the nation’s police forces training, records keeping, rules of use and accountability regarding taser deployment, he still seems sympathetic to those who do the job and make decisions quickly to protect public safety.

I look forward to reading his final report. There do need to be changes in how the taser is used in Canadian policing. What is unfortunate is its villification by the media. I find it interesting that if someone is shot by the police and killed, it receives much less media attention than if someone dies after being tasered.
see: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/09/19/bc-fatal-police-shooting.html

Tasers unpopular? So what.

According to a recent news article, the old commish of the RCMP believes members shouldn’t use tasers.

Zaccardelli, how long has it been since you’ve been on the street? Obviously, he hasn’t worked the street in a long time — to say that for political reasons, we should get rid of a tool on the officer’s belt.  Perhaps we should ban handguns too, as what they do isn’t popular in the media.  Lets make officers duke it out with offenders without any tools other than a big billy club, just like the old days.  Zaccardelli, you’re retired.  Stop pulling down the membership with more decisions based on politics rather than practicality.  Tasers save more lives than they take and when used properly, are an integral tool to police the street.

Since when did politics and perception override officer safety?

What an incredibly dangerous precedent

I’d have to say I’m a bit concerned with a recent decision in Quebec by a jury in what USED to be a capital murder offence. The case was the trial of a man for killing a police officer during a botched drug raid. Two officers were actually shot in the raid by this man, one died. The accused was charged with 1st degree murder, attempted murder, and drugs and weapons charges. With last weeks decision, all were acquittals or dropped by the crown. Upon hearing this on the radio, my mouth also dropped in shock. Here we have a dead officer, a maimed officer and the general public and police community in shock at the verdict.

What was it? Well, from media accounts, it was a dynamic entry of a SWAT team into a house executing a search warrant. In a dynamic entry, no announcement is made by the entry officers. Sometimes explosive or distractionary devices are used to surprise any occupants and prevent them from destroying evidence or escaping before an arrest can be made.

In this case, upon entry, the officers were faced with gunfire from the drug dealing occupant. In the trial, the defence argued that the defendant did not know the entry officers were police, thinking he was being robbed of his drugs and shot the officers as a result. The jury BELIEVED this argument and acquitted him of murder. Also, the trial judge ruled in camera that the search warrant was not valid. This however was not revealed to the jurors, who decided on their own. This decision sets an incredible precedent to any criminal — indicating they can shoot anyone entering their home, including police. I just don’t buy the argument that the accused did not realize the person entering his home was an officer until after he was on the ground, that is incredible. Also what is incredible, is that this man survived the ensuing entry team. I’m surprised there wasn’t just a fatality inquiry rather than a trial for this cop-killer.

To the crown, please please please appeal this case to the Supreme Court of Canada. We need to vindicate justice, if at least for the sake of the officer’s family. No one should be allowed to shoot a cop in ANY circumstance.

The neverending case that shouldn’t be…

The Cst. Ferguson manslaughter trial has always puzzled me and continues to do so. Back in 1999, Cst. Ferguson was in a life or death struggle with a prisoner in a cell area. The prisoner grabbed his gun and Cst. Ferguson fired 2 shots at the prisoner during the struggle. In the eyes of the court, the first shot was self-defence and the second constituted manslaughter, despite the judge saying it was admittedly from his training. This conclusion by the court baffles me. Although, I only know what I’ve read in the decision and the papers about the case, it seems that Cst. Ferguson was in a life or death struggle (which it is when someone grabs your gun), why does one shot over another differ in a response? What does this say for a trained ‘double tap’ response to a lethal force situation? Are we supposed to wait to see what the first bullet does first, then continue if necessary? You can begin to see the trouble in assessing a deadly struggle in such a way.

Nevertheless, Cst. Ferguson served time in jail for the ‘crime’, was paroled and yet an appeal was just finalized at the Supreme Court level. From the latest appeal, the Supreme Court has said that the trial judge shouldn’t have skirted the mandatory minimum prison term for manslaughter with a firearm due to the circumstances of the case. So, he may be going back to jail? Its not clear. It is certainly a wierd one.

As an aside: it would be interesting to see how many of these cases have appeared in recent years (firearm struggles in cell area, resulting in deaths). Perhaps there needs to be a policy change in Canada where firearms should be locked up before entering all police detention areas. It is the case in prisons throughout the country, but I don’t believe its a standard with the police facilities. (Some have certain areas restricted, but others aren’t clear).

Another media misrepresentation

I’m actually getting tired of talking about these stories, but I feel I should. Too often do we see the media jump to conclusions quickly, talk about subjects they don’t understand and use a short video clip to justify a full sensationalized news story. This is the case yet again with a video from Victoria of an incident that occurred three years ago.

The video is of a detention cell and a youth who was held in cells after being arrested while intoxicated and drunk at party. The video shows the youth having her legs restrained (with a hobble, not a leash as the reporter called it). I haven’t used my leg restraint yet, but would during instances which its necessary, including aggressive arrestees, regardless of their age.  Also, why does the reporter seem that by taking parts of your clothing off is so offensive?  Anything could be used against officers or the subject themselves, such as shoe laces, bra straps, belts, elastic waist bands, ad nauseum.  To the reporter, Kathy Tomlinson: perhaps you should learn about regular police procedures and terminology first before attempting to sensationalize the incident.  Also, why did you only include a short clip from the officer and then have a long story from the girl’s family?

After watching and reading about the story, I can’t help but wonder a few questions: Who released this video? Was it the plantiff in the civil case? For what reason? Due to the timing, it seems the reasoning behind the video release is not for ‘public awareness’ of what occurred, but to benefit somehow the civil suit which begins next week in court. Why did it take 3 years for this story to be released?

There is more to this story than we are lead to believe.

Ban Handguns, now.

With the recent shootings in Toronto, the mayor David Miller has repeated his appeal to the federal government to ban all handguns in Canada. I would support such a ban and I’d like to think that many others would as well.

Handguns have no other purpose than for shooting other people. Despite those that must possess a handgun for workplace use, such as police or military, I can see no reason why anyone must own a personal use handgun. Handguns lack any social purpose other than nefarious ones — unless of course you’re from the States — where they appear as their own living, breathing ‘entity’. We must resist falling into the influence from the US culture and the outrageous arguments from gun lobbyists about self-defence and rights under their constitution. The bottom line is that we aren’t the US, nor do we want to be.

When I was younger, we lived in a country which had a ban on personal ownership of all guns. Even as a young kid, I felt safe walking around on my own, taking the train to school — it was a society that we generally felt secure. The only persons who could legally possess guns were the police, but I imagine there was an illegal trade as well. We’re not going to prevent all handguns from entering the country by illegal means and the criminals would find their own ways to get handguns. However, at least they wouldn’t be able to steal guns from private citizens, borrow from a legitimate owner or order them through the States.

A perfect example of a successful ban on guns is the automatic weapon prohibition. Occasionally, an automatic rifle shows up on the radar during a police seizure, but it is a rare event. Using this as an example to a handgun ban, we could surely reduce the prevalence of handgun crimes to a rareity. Its a long term proposal, but definately worth it to save lives.

This isn’t candid camera

I’ve been busy at work lately, and as a result, haven’t had much time for posting. The little hiatus though has given me a chance to think of some things to talk about. One topic has been nagging me ever since New Year’s Eve.

I worked New Year’s Eve voluntarily this year. (I know, crazy eh?) The service was offering to anyone interested for a call-out shift to bolster the usual numbers for New Years. Seeing that I’m a junkie for call-out, I accepted and we went around putting ‘fires’ out and passing ‘band-aids’ out all night as per usual on such a busy evening.  At one of our many house party calls, we attended to backup another car who had an arrest. The officers had asked us to watch their prisoner while they were inside dealing with the incident and I stood outside watching the guy who was sitting in the back of their car. A few minutes later, one of the party-goers began video recording me with their cell phone. I stood there for a while, then realized that someone was video taping me while standing around near the porch area. I approached him, told him to stop and he tried to lie about what he was doing. He put down the phone and left after I confronted him about it. A few minutes later, the arrest began doing something stupid in the back of the car. Needless to say, the arrest was taken out of the back of the car and sorted out. While we were doing this, the citizen began recording again from just outside the house. I didn’t notice as I was dealing with the arrest, but my partner confronted him a second time and he eventually was led back into the house.

The irony in this story is incredible. In my previous job, I was a researcher and organized research studies on police, private security and the like. I never video taped officers, but I audio taped them with their permission. I did however read many studies on the proliferation of video recording devices and how they are reversing the stereotypical Big Brother analogy from state-derived surveillance to civilian surveillance. Now, more than ever, anyone can have access to video or photo technology and without much effort, post it to a world-wide audience. The prevalence of this type of technology has changed our notions of surveillance and social control greatly. Not only are citizens observed more easily, they observe the observers just as well (or better!).

While I would be the first to defend civil rights and the Charter Rights of the individual, I’m starting to feel that for many civilian amateur videographers, its not about ‘being a voice’ for the people, human rights or whatever. Sadly, these videographers are only out for one thing, fortune (and with that, maybe a little fame too). Recent publicized video recordings such as the Vancouver Airport video, the downtown Calgary video, and others have garnered sensational media attention. In some cases, these videos have ‘earned’ a significant windfall of cash for the camera person. (In the Vancouver case, it was several thousand dollars from each tv station).

Another problem arises with these videos: they are still only a snapshot of the incident. They do not show the circumstances that lead up to the video being started, the TOTALITY of the incident (ie. what lead to the arrest, the dealings with the arrestee, what was said, etc). Usually what occurs is the video is misunderstood and it becomes a media event.

In the end, with all that said, I don’t like being video recorded without my knowledge. Too often it seems there are those out to make a quick buck from a short video taken out of context. There are those that say, “Well, if you’re not doing anything wrong…you have nothing to worry about.” I don’t need someone else to tell me, because I know I do the right things at work. However, I would never want to be the scapegoat of a media circus, bent on making stories sensational in order to sell their product.

Why don’t YOU bring that taser to a gun fight…

Today, the RCMP public complaints commission released an interim report on the use of tasers in the RCMP. The report seemed to be a knee jerk reaction to highly publicized recent in-custody deaths and gives several recommendations when the taser should be used in police practice. One recommendation that Paul Kennedy makes is that officers should use the taser only in instances where the subject has entered the “death or grievous bodily harm” category (in other words, the subject may inflict death or grievous harm to someone). This recommendation is flat-out ridiculous and devoid of common sense. If an officer in one of these situations, they will most certainly use their firearm — the weapon designed for the situation (or another type if in the event that it is unavailable). To suggest that the taser should be used in a lethal force scenario puts officers and the public at risk and is completely against training and indoctrination. Who would trust a taser for saving someone’s life, including the officer? Come on people, stop making rash decisions from a locked room with only news articles as sources…

Speaking for Valour

This Hour Has 22 Minutes, normally a comedy show in Canada, had a moment of seriousness for an important statement to be made on the show.

I applaud them for their candor, it is sorrily needed more often in our society.

See it here for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGi7Ns3fMhw

Also: http://www.petitiononline.com/05142004/petition.html