Kelowna, B.C. (CHBC News) – The BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) has filed an official complaint against the Kelowna RCMP and several members.
The BCCLA alleges the RCMP members, including Cst. Geoff Mantler, who arrested Buddy Tavares on Friday, January 14, 2011 at KLO Road and Pandosy Street unlawfully used force to take the Kelowna man into custody.
The organization has also made a conduct complaint against Superintendent Bill McKinnon, Kelowna RCMP spokesperson Cst. Steve Holmes and other members involved in the release of information claiming that Mr. Tavares arrest was related to a domestic violence situation.
“We initially weren’t going to file a complaint because the RCMP had said they were already doing their own Code of Conduct investigation,” says BCCLA Executive Director David Eby. “But given that we were complaining about the release of information, it made sense to us to complain about the kick to the face as well, which really seemed to be the major issue for us and for most people around this case.”
“We are not sure whether or not Mr. Tavares has filed his own complaint so we want to make sure that someone was tracking the investigation as well,” says Eby.
Eby says Mr. Tavares and his family have told numerous media the domestic incident asserted by RCMP is without merit.
The BCCLA says in a news release,
“Given the potential impact on an individual’s reputation in his or her community, the RCMP should use extreme caution in releasing information to the media, especially if the information has not been investigated and verified as best possible and there is little or no public interest in releasing the information.”
The release continues to ask RCMP to use more caution when releasing information about members of the public who have filed complaints of RCMP misconduct.
“Casting aspersions on any person complaining about RCMP members could easily be seen to be a form of retribution for filing a complaint, or as a form of character smearing engaged in to improve public perceptions of the police versions of events.”
The BCCLA cites the Braidwood inquiry into the death of Robert Dziekanski, where Commissioner Braidwood found RCMP released information to the media that was, and it goes on to quote, “self-serving, painting Mr. Dziekanski in an unfairly negative, and the officers in an unfairly positive, light”.
The BCCLA is asking for an investigation into potential misconduct, believing their complaint is in the public’s interest to maintain and enhance the public’s confidence in the RCMP.
Your lips to Gods ear boomer. The upper management of the RCMP have yet to grasp this nugget of wisdom. There are some that will howl for information and scream cover-up when you do not supply comment / information though.
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
9
The BCCLA says in a news release, “Given the potential impact on an individual’s reputation in his or her community, the RCMP should use extreme caution in releasing information to the media, especially if the information has not been investigated and verified as best possible and there is little or no public interest in releasing the information.”
IN MY OPINION, The leading problem the RCMP has these days stems from their officers making public media announcements about ongoing investigations. In the old days before they had accomplished Media Liaison Officers, members would only say: THE FILE IS ON GOING AND WE HAVE NO COMMENTS AT THIS TIME. They knew how to use “KISS“, Keep It Simple Stupid. The media has always spun the story the way they want anyway, trying to make the member look good is only giving those in the media, more to work with.
The current RCMP Media officers take courses on how to communicate to the media and give press statements. Deceptively or somewhat wrong or right, if your member(s) have made a mistake or not, It will come out in the court or plays out in a civil trial, (if the victim is not paid off first). Take the advice of the BCCLA and don’t say anything,
It’s always easier to K.I.S.S. and make up later.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
11 
3
Mr. Braidwood outlined the problems with the rush to provide information in his report. The outcome of poor, mis-communicated, erroneous, or conflicting information released to early led to the unfounded accusations of cover up, which Mr. Braidwood dismissed.
The policy of getting everything out as fast as possible has a downside, and it can be characterized in various ways. It is interesting to compare the municipal media releases with the RCMP. They (municipal) are much shorter and more like you suggest in the last sentence. Pretty hard to misconstrue or be accused of spin.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
12
As usual the release of information about the vicious kick to the head of Mr Tarvares proves the RCMP have not learned a single thing from the Dziekanski case.
There is no reason to have a instant press conference when you end of realizing you didn’t know what you were talking about.
It is so easy to confirm information IF you only step back for a short time to review what really happened, not what you want the public to think happened.
We keep hearing that the RCMP are changing and learning from their mistakes, more proof it is just “double speak”.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
19
I’m really of two minds about this latest gaffe and I honestly can’t decide which option is the most disturbing.
Was the RCMP hoping to skew the public’s perception of Mr. Tavares by painting him as a violent domestic offender who on some level deserved a kick to the face? The RCMP has demonstrated repeatedly that their first response to any situation is pro-RCMP spin-doctoring. Their investigation (or should I say witch hunt) of the unfortunate Robert Dziekanski is a recent and cringe-inducing example. Or are the people putting together supposedly factual press releases just incredibly incompetent? These people are supposed to be investigators. How difficult is it to establish the basic facts about a 911 call? How difficult is it to tell the press “we’re confirming that information and as sure as we’re certain we’ll let you know”?
Shameful, either way.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
11