RCMP Perception Problems Highlighted In Shooting Deaths

Monday, February 05, 2007 04:45 AM

22-year-old Ian Bush of Houston was shot inside the RCMP Detachment in 2005

UNBC History Professor Jonathan Swainger says civilian oversight of the RCMP would be one way to remove the mistrust and other perception problems associated with police investigating themselves in cases like the shooting deaths of Ian Bush and Kevin St. Arnaud.

A Coroner’s Inquest into the December 2004 death of 29-year-old Kevin St. Arnaud just recently concluded in Vanderhoof, while an inquest into the October 2005 killing of Ian Bush inside the Houston RCMP detachment has yet to be scheduled.

The UNBC professor has studied policing in the north. He says these cases are, "A particularly poignant demonstration of where we ought to be considering the possibility of a publicly-administered police commission."

"We’ve got to be so careful here because I don’t think the police, or indeed anybody, ought to be judged by these worst-case scenarios," says Professor Swainger, "But that said, we still nonetheless ought to have a system in place whereby these worst-case scenarios can be handled, and addressed, and investigated in a way in which the community has absolute faith in the results."

"Because now we’re going to be in a situation - and we certainly are - in which people are going to be questioning the veracity of the coroner’s inquest, questioning the veracity of the police investigations. I mean, where are we now to turn to some sort of sense that this is being handled in an equitable, and reasonable, and transparent way."

Swainger points out the job is an extraordinarily difficult and dangerous one and says he doesn’t levy any criticism from that basis at all. But the UNBC prof says the expectation we have of RCMP officers is that they’re here to serve and protect and, "In that sense they need to be responsible to the community to whom they’re supposed to be serving and protecting."

He says a civilian-operated and administered police commission would be one way of fulfilling that expectation.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, February 05, 2007 04:45 AM in News by Michelle Cyr-Whiting

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: metalman on February 5 2007 9:03 AM

The Prof. makes a good point, I agree with him. If an unbiased panel of civilians were permitted to participate in these inquests, the general public would probably feel more comfortable with the results of an inquiry. I do not advocate opening the proceedings up to the general public, but then again, why not? They might get a few hecklers, annoying perhaps, but this is a free country, right?
metalman.

Posted by: owl on February 5 2007 10:47 AM

"We�ve got to be so careful here because I don�t think the police, or indeed anybody, ought to be judged by these worst-case scenarios,"

Everyone else who is reponsible for lives in their situation is. Why not police?

Worse case scenarios is what it is all about. If worse case scanarios are not of special concern, then what would be of special concern? People are judged and ought to be judged. They are judged every day. If it a death is accidental, or an unavoidable mistake, then so be it. People will then be judged accordingly.

There is another factor which one must not forget. Police, the same as aircraft pilots, bus drivers, doctors, and a seemingly endless list of other "professionals" who are trained to do their work properly, are expected to handle such "worst case" scenarios on a completely different level than the general public.

When something goes wrong and they do not perform to that expected level in the interst of public safety or the safety of those in thier care, then the system has to be examined so that we can learn from it. We may have to select diffrently, teach differently, monitor differently, set different standards. Who knows.

Road accidents which kill or maim and aircraft accidents, whether they kill or not are just a couple in a longer list.

In my point of view, to suggest that one ought not to be judged by worse case scenarios is to throw due diligence out the window. Those are precisely the cases where both people and the system those individuals rely on ought to be judged.

Posted by: owl on February 5 2007 10:49 AM

I just noticed ..... History professor????

Posted by: Harbinger on February 5 2007 11:53 AM

I thought "perception" was everything. Hmmm?

Posted by: Chadermando on February 5 2007 10:41 PM

Owl, I would much rather hear the balanced opinion of a history professor than one of those political science social engineering types always proclaiming their judgements.

At least history professors have been trained through years of citation for their works to not make exagerated claims not supported by anything other than a political ideology.

I recommend all young people that want to get a degree in the arts get one in history and branch out from there with your own opinions and not those of others.

Posted by: metalman on February 6 2007 8:52 AM

Well said Chadermando.
Owl, good point. Police are people too!
Just like the 747 pilot, the 747 mechanic who services the hydraulic system, the air traffic controller.........
metalman.

Posted by: Marty on February 7 2007 11:49 AM

Police are actually doing themselves harm in the long run.
They are no longer respected as much as they used to, and many people view them as thugs, and not to be trusted.

If they did not lie, cheat, steal, drink and drive, beat people, shoot unarmed people etc. they would have an easier job.
Because people would be more open to talk to them, and listen to them.
But if you are viewed with suspicion as cops now are, its harder to be effective.
In the back of many peoples minds is the nagging thoughts that a cop may just beat you, lie to you or even possibly shoot you for no good reason.
If having a beer with pals in a parking lot, or walking across a soccer field can get you shot, its going to make you very leary of cops.
or possibly driven miles out of town and beat to a pulp and left to die by a cop for no good reason like in Merrit recently.
Or the cops that took people to Stanley park and beat them. and on and on the ist goes...and these are just the ones we hear about.
If cops held up their end of the deal, most people would be more trusting of them to.
And cops being allowed to lie is just BS...Why should they expect honesty if none is given by them to start with ?

The old adage " Do unto others " seems to be lost if you are a cop.

Posted by: heidi1555 on February 7 2007 5:36 PM

http://www.canada.com/globaltv/bc/news/story.html?id=2f3bdcaf-3d21-43a6-9dae-c55cf72ee667&k=36801

Posted by: heidi1555 on February 7 2007 5:46 PM

it's shocking also when one googles police what one will find on the internet. It's shocking all the stories you can read and finally "hear" about Marty. People share all on internet....so glad for that. I also came across this one site in the U.S. where college students have their own police scanner and go to the scene and video tape it after letting the police know they are there. Was so mentally draining and upsetting reading story after story but the stories must be read in order for change.

Posted by: trollunderthebridge on February 7 2007 9:42 PM

So Marty are you speaking for everyone or just your buddies around the coffee table? 30,000 police or so in Canada and they are all bad according to you? If I generalized and said that all truck drivers are liars and thieves I'd probably get punted off this forum for good.Kind of funny on this website how some groups are allowed to be continuosly attacked and slandered while others are not. Unbiased media? Hmm.