Clear Full Forecast

Yet Another Step With No Resolve In Dziekanski Death

By Ben Meisner

Wednesday, December 09, 2009 03:45 AM

The report by Paul Kennedy, the Commissioner of Public Complaints Against the RCMP into the death of Robert Dziekanski and surrounding investigation by the RCMP into the matter is a good one; it however will be met in the same manner as the previous investigations.

The RCMP is not compelled to accept any of his findings , so in fact the report has no teeth.

We now will hold an Inquest into the death of the Polish immigrant because the law calls upon the system to do so when a person dies while in the custody of a police force in BC. That inquest will see all of the previous information trotted out again, they will have the four officers again give testimony and then the Jury will sit. Will they find fault in the matter?  No, they are not allowed to do that as a Coroner’s jury , so it will be step two in the ongoing meaningless process.

We then will have to wait for the findings of Retired Justice Thomas Braidwood in the inquiry conducted before him. Unless he over steps the bounds, he cannot recommend that charges be laid, he is however the kind of guy that might come close to suggesting that. So that will end step three in the process without anything ever really coming out of it.

Then there is the matter of  an RCMP  disciplinary hearing, and that won't happen because it is supposed to be held within  one year of the event in question.  It has been two years since Dziekanski died.

The Crown meantime had the opportunity to lay charges in the matter but told the people of the province that there was, in their mind, insufficient evidence for a conviction. That decision by the way came before the Braidwood Inquiry took place and that file was prepared by the RCMP.

Now we do know that the media spin from the RCMP was such at the beginning that had the Pritchard video not appeared, the matter would have died a very quick death. The public however was exposed to something much different than what was portrayed by the police.

Unless the Provincial Government decides to appoint a special prosecutor and lay charges in the matter, the whole set of circumstances surrounding the death of the Polish immigrant is scheduled for a trip to the garbage can. At the outset the matter should have been put before a judge in a court of law. Let the evidence be presented and let that evidence determine whether a crime was committed or not.

Allowing a Crown Attorney to decide whether there is sufficient evidence is akin to having the four investigating officers determine if there was any wrong doing, and our system supposedly does not allow that, although it is becoming more common place every day.

For those people that like to comment that a police officer's job is difficult, keep this in mind,  a police officer swears to uphold the law , not make up  laws as he or she deems fit. The moment police officers start making up their own laws, that in any other country of the world is called a police state.

It should be the goal of every honest, honourable, hard working police officer to ensure that the bad are weeded out, protecting those that bend the system does nothing but paint them all with the same brush.

As for the the charge that the media have just sensationalized the issue, lets hope that they continue to talk about the death front and center, because in may be the only court in which Robert Dziekanski will be heard.            

I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion.


Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

Canada third world police state, welcome all.
Amen. I agree especially with that it should have gone straight to court. Allowing a Crown Attorney to decide whether there is sufficient evidence I think is all to often where our justice system fails us due to expediency or otherwise dare I say political motivations. That some how has to stop and crimes should be decided in a court room under the rigerous examination of law and fully recorded in the light of day so that people can feel the justice system works for all of us and not just the cases deemed to have sufficient evidence by unaccountable back room decision makers. If anything good came out of this incident than change in this area would be one I would like to see.

Who's to say Crown Attorneys are not also cutting deals behind the scenes that circumvent justice in the court rooms claiming 'lack of evidence' or such? How much does that corrupt our system that we have no record of or light of day to deter?

The courts need to be simplified for the aggrieved so as to allow for citizen initiated actions in cases like this to be decided in the courts before a judge.
Is there an inquiry yet on how to improve this system of inquiries??????

I vote we have at least three of those. We need to keep those dollars in the hands of the RCMP and the lawyers.
The media hates to be called sensationalistic. I would love to live in Mr. Meisner's black and white world.

Moral(s) of the story:
- Don't get arrested.
- Don't flip out and act aggressively in the secure area of any airport.
- Play nice with others. (I learned that one in kindergarten.)
The media hates to be called sensationalistic. I would love to live in Mr. Meisner's black and white world.

Moral(s) of the story:
- Don't get arrested.
- Don't flip out and act aggressively in the secure area of any airport.
- Play nice with others. (I learned that one in kindergarten.)

Moral of the story; -If you are a police officer say whatever is necessary so you don’t get arrested. Perjury is okay because you are a police officer.
Use 4 police officers to tazer a man , who doesn’t speak your language, and make certain that you don’t find out the circumstances of why he is agitated before you tazer him. You after all are a police officer and you can do what you want, the law is there to protect you,not him.
Play nice with others, in kindergarten we were taught , although not all of us listened, that you don’t act like a bully, six people to take down a person armed with a stapler is okay, because you are a police officer and that allows you to do whatever you want.
All of you have a tazer, a gun, and a baton, he has a nothing so you can play whatever way you want.

Above all make sure the story is painted in such a way that you as a police officer are never at fault. Police officers after all never break the law, they make it.

History has taught us although some people are slow to learn that when you have police making the laws as Meisner has said, you have a police state, some people are very slow to learn
So if the crown attorney ist to decide when to lay charges, who is? And when the charges are laid right away, and the case isnt solid yet, and the perps get off scott free, then where's the benefit? Maybe we ought to allow 'the people' to decide who gets charged....then again, from what i have seen of the wisdom of the people, that would be tantamount to saying: let the press and the internet decide when to lay charges. Rediculous.
Mr meisner is clear on one point: He will not consider this matter settled until the officers in question are charged and convicted. Given this fact, his judgements of the validity of the process are subject to a huge amount of bias. This isnt about sensationalizing anything, it is about people condemning the system because it will not yield the result they desire.
It is nonsense to suggest that this incident will just fade away if charges are not laid. I cannot imagine how this one death could have reverberated more than it has.
No one has ever suggested that the police are never at fault. There are a lot of people on this board who suggest the opposite. Statements like those posted above are what I and others tend to respond to, even though we ought to know better.
By the way, what would Mr Meisner and the other self appointed experts say if charges were laid but no convictions were obtained? I suspect I know already. There would be a whole new list of people who needed to be fired and systems that needed reformation. Funny how that works isnt it?
Simple proposition, charge them, and let’s see if they are found at fault. Instead of excuses such as the one that Corporal Monty Robinson is using, let the court decide.
You may want to read the comments of Paul Kennedy, do you suppose if he had the power, charges would have been laid . He thought that the officers didn’t act properly .
Don’t presuppose what the public will say, you already have made your mind up , we are aware of that, now let’s see what 12 of your fellow men and women have to say, isn’t that the way the system is supposed to operate ?

As to why so much attention, the whole world is watching and they don't like what they see.
A police state? Not even close. Go live in Iran for awhile if you want to see a police state.
MrPG, not sure where you are coming from, but I would guess from the bowels of the RCMP.

It is not for the Crown Attorney to determine whether a party is guilty or not. It is for a jury of our peers! Too many cases go unheard, because of lazy Crown Attorney's.

This is a free country?? I call BS!
Anyone read the story of the Victoria Police Undercover Agent, who switched with the bus driver on the bus that was carrying the protesters who were protesting the Olympics????

These people were innocent of any charges, were within the law to protest, and were infiltrated by the police. This is another example of the Police overstepping their authority, and is behaviour that is more likely to take place in a Police State.

Its time for some **boneheads** to stop trying to protect the Police in this case. WATCH THE VIDEO. Its pretty bloody obvious what happened.

Paul Kennedy the Commissioner disregarded the Police testimony and relied on the video to arrive at his conclusions. Surely some of the **boneheads** on these posts could do the same. Jeezzzzz.
I guess im a bonehead... this is really so simple. If Mr D (or Ian Bush for that matter) had sat down and shut up they would be alive today. End of story. Try acting aggressively in a major US airport and you would just be shot...
You would know better than the rest of us what your headis made of, Interceptor.

The point is we do not live in the US, so what would happen there is completely irrelevant. What matters here, in Canada, is whether those police officers broke the law they were supposed to uphold. If they did, they should be charged. That should be the Canadian way.
"I guess im a bonehead... this is really so simple. If Mr D (or Ian Bush for that matter) had sat down and shut up they would be alive today. End of story. Try acting aggressively in a major US airport and you would just be shot..."

Sorry but in a modern enlightened society we don't sentence people to death for making a stink, being drunk in public or having a hissy fit. Perhaps you'd feel more comfortable in North Korea?
"MrPG, not sure where you are coming from, but I would guess from the bowels of the RCMP."

You would be wrong if you guessed that. I have no ties to the RCMP whatsoever.

Again, it is quite simple. To keep a situation from escalating and becoming dangerous, don't be a jack-ss if you happen to have a run in with the cops.
MrPG also don't be a jack-ss if you happen to run into someone who needs medical help. You need to learn to look at the big picture, full circle. One day you might be in a situation. Who can guarantee you won't need help one day and get a jack-ss to your rescue? "It won't happen to me" attitude isn't a good one to have.

You know you and I are like night and day and you don't know how well I sleep at night knowing that!
The real issue is a man died. The RCMP put forward their PR story and all would have been forgotten except a video came to light that totally contradicted the RCMP spin on things. From there is was all down hill for the RCMP. Time for them to step up to the plate and admit their mistakes and lies. The coverup is not going to work. RCMP credibility is non-existent.
"You know you and I are like night and day and you don't know how well I sleep at night knowing that! "

Acting like you are somehow superior to me or anyone else isn't going to fix anything heidi. You may not like my opinion and I may not like yours, but let's leave these kinds of statements out of it. Ever hear of 'Let's agree to disagree'?


It's not about acting superior "MrPG" it's about acknowledging the problem, seeing right from wrong, finding solutions and carrying on in the proper direction.
Clear, straight and true.
Sorry heidi, its about judging, you judged mrPG and insulted him, just as you and others have judged the cops here.
Lest you all get into more accusations of people having ties to the RCMP (a sure sign of an irrational mind by the way, assuming that anyone disagreeing with you has a vested interest, but lets move on, shall we?)I have no feelingon whether the cops in this case are guilty or not. It s true. I do, however have feelings about people assuming their bias gives them the right to judge things clearly, and the right to suggest others are being fools.
The question i addressed was whether ANY solution to this incident would satisfy the author (or others on this board) if it was short of a criminal trial and subsequent conviction. If any of you answer no to that question then you are not after justice, you are a mob member. You know, the guys with farm tools and torches wanting to hang the guy in jail because they 'know what they know'. Funny how some folks could miss the point of such a straightforward story.
I also took issue with the idea that charges ought to be laid no matter what, and that the justice system ought o be modified to make that happen (ie: people ought to decide who gets charged, regardless of their stupidity, not qualified professionals who's job it is to weigh the evidence. I am assuming that folks want this change just for this case and dont really want to convene the equivalent of a grand jury every time someone is accused of a crime. Perhaps people just want this forum for cops charged with wrongdoing, as in pretty well every arrest they make. Lots of sense there, no rationalization for blood lust at all.
I also disagree with the idea that nothing short of criminal charges will suffice to make this incident have any long term ramifications. I think that the publicity in this case has been more than adequate (the front page of the las province i read for one example) as have the inquiries.
Whether this incident leads to changes in the review process is worthy of discussion, and opinions on whether these changes are necessary , and what form they should take are also worthy fodder. Judgements of guilt and innocence by people on this forum, as well intentioned as they might be, are worth exactly what you paid for them.

All I can say is I'm glad people speak their minds......I guess.
Changed my mind...I have more to say. Shocking isn't it?

The topic of acting with seniority over others. Yes, there has been some comments over the last couple of years that blasted the whole of the RCMP. However, most comments if you read them over again are directed at the officers who have severely screwed up and those who protect them by keeping them employed on our streets. Who is superior now?

When you feel you need to sit under oath and lie you know you've done something wrong and unjust. Afraid of the consequences of your actions. It's wrong. It's not right and it's just down right crazy that we have to put up with it.
Superior or not, heidi you miss the point. The point is that you and others have convicted these cops and insist that they be charged and punished. It isnt kosher to do so. Criticize the system of justice and suggest reforms, thats good. Suggest that people shouldnt have an opinion counter to yours, or suggest that you are glad you are not them (presumably because they are some kind of scum) is not good. If MrPG believes mr Dziekanski contributed to his own death, then it is his right. To suggest that he is somehow morally wrong to do so is to be guilty of a superior attitude. WHy do you, and some others I could name seem to think that your view of guilt or innocence or accountability trump those of other people? If you want to convince MrPG that he is wrong, then put forth some real arguments, and save the scorn. It shows weakness.
Discussions, real actual ones, involve the exchange of ideas, even opposing views, in as rational and logical a way as is possible.
By the way, MrPG might have been a little off topic but then again, the things he said made sense. It is undeniable that most of us exhibit the truth of his statements in our everyday lives. While it may not justify the level of force used (and certainly not the apparent bungling of medical treatment after he arrested) it is still just common sense that when you escalate a situation, you increase the risk to yourself.
The video convicted them, I never. My eyes and ears tell me darn rights they should be punished! I really don't feel I missed the point.

Paul Pritchard is a Canadian hero. Too bad the officers didn't enter the situation differently and all of them besides Robinson of course due to his previous incident could have been the heroes and got Robert D to the hospital to see what was causing him to behave the way he was.
It's so sad to think that when he first saw the officers how happy he must have first been to finally think he was getting out of the airport and finally on to see his mother and to start his new life. How many seconds later until he realized he was in danger of losing his life?

C'mon caranmacil let's get real here.

Don't feel you need to stick up for MrPg. Anyone who can talk about a deceased man as being a jack-ss surely won't be hurt by my words.
No, I don't think MrPg is scum and I was reacting to his comment not his whole being on this planet.