Mountie docked pay for firing service pistol at home and into upstairs apartment

(Ottawa Citizen) – It will likely be the last time RCMP Cst. Matt Slipp loads his service pistol at home, of all places.

Slipp has been docked five days pay for accidentally discharging his service pistol in his basement apartment a few years back. The bullet went through the ceiling, through a hardwood floor above, then lodged into a couch in an upstairs room. The folks who live upstairs were outside when the young constable fired his gun.

Cst. Slipp admitted the allegations of disgraceful conduct at a disciplinary hearing. He said he was cleaning his pistol and wanted to make sure the gun was in good working order so he inserted one live round in a magazine, then into the pistol.

Constable Slipp said his thumb slipped off the hammer.

It should be noted that the press reported from his criminal trial that the officer immediately informed his superiors. That version is at odds with the admitted version at the internal disciplinary hearing. The new version has it that he never bothered to tell his bosses and they found out after a civilian asked about it some six months later.

And in his favour, he accepted responsibility.

Some readers like unfiltered information, so here you go.

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS:

ALLEGATION #1

1. On or about October 1, 2008, while off-duty, Cst. Slipp was in his basement suite apartment in Red Deer, Alberta, and handling his service pistol when it discharged and a bullet traveled through the ceiling, through the hardwood floor of a room of the main floor and lodged itself in a couch located in that room.

2. Cst. Slipp explained that after having cleaned his pistol, he wanted to ensure that his pistol was in proper working order. Cst. Slipp inserted one live round in a magazine, which was then inserted in the pistol. Cst. Slipp claims he wanted to ensure that the bullet would be properly chambered and ejected. Cst. Slipp attempted to hold the pistol’s hammer in order to ensure that the firearm would not discharge. Cst. Slipp moved the pistol’s slide back and held the hammer as the live round was in the chamber. Cst. Slipp’s thumb slipped off the hammer and the firearm discharged.

3. An analysis conducted by the Firearms Section of the RCMP National Forensic Services determined that to pull and hold the hammer of the RCMP’s service pistol as Cst. Slipp claims he did, the trigger must be partially pulled to expose the hammer, which can then be held back. If during this process the hammer is released, the pistol may discharge.

4. Cst. Slipp’s handling of his service pistol was contrary to any training provided to him by the RCMP and was reckless.

5. Cst. Slipp was subsequently charged criminally for careless use of a firearm pursuant to section 86(1) of the Criminal Code. On November 3, 2010, Cst. Slipp plead guilty to the criminal charge and was sentenced to a $250 fine.

ALLEGATION #2

1. Cst. Slipp was alone in the basement suite apartment that he rented in Red Deer, Alberta, and was handling his service pistol when it discharged and a bullet from his service pistol traveled through the ceiling of his basement suite, through the hardwood floor of a room on the main floor above his suite and lodged itself in a couch located in that room.

2. Cst. Slipp immediately attended upstairs. The occupants were not in the apartment but were outside in the yard. Cst. Slipp advised them what had occurred. Cst. Slipp paid for all repairs and damages to the occupants’ satisfaction.

3. Cst. Slipp did not report this discharge of his service pistol to his immediate supervisors or Detachment Commander as required by policy.

4. It is only in April 2009 that the discharge of Cst. Slipp’s service pistol was made known to the Force when a civilian third party inquired about the incident to a member of the Red Deer RCMP Detachment.

DECISION ON THE ALLEGATIONS

[5] Based on the facts presented in the ASF and Constable Slipp’s admission to the allegations, the Board finds that the identity of the member and the facts surrounding the alleged conduct have been proven on a balance of probabilities. The Board also finds that a reasonable person, having the knowledge of the relevant circumstances, including the realities of policing in general and those of the RCMP in particular, would conclude that discharging his service pistol in his home in a manner that resulted in a criminal conviction for careless use of a firearm, is disgraceful and sufficiently related to the employment situation to warrant disciplinary measures against the member. The Board reached the same finding in relation to Constable Slipp’s failure to report the discharge of his service pistol. There is a clear relationship in this case between the conduct and the interests of the Force insofar as the disgraceful conduct brings discredit on the Force. The Board finds, along with Constable Slipp’s admission, that the allegations have been established.

EVIDENCE ON THE SANCTION

[6] The parties submitted a joint proposal on sanction that consisted of a global sanction of a reprimand and the forfeiture of five days’ pay. Neither party called evidence on the sanction.

[7] The Board accepts the majority of the aggravating and mitigating factors put forward by the parties. The most significant mitigating factor in our view is that Constable Slipp accepted responsibility for his actions as demonstrated by his guilty plea to the criminal charge and his participation in the early resolution process.

DECISION ON THE SANCTION

[8] As a member of the RCMP, Constable Slipp has agreed to abide by a Code of Conduct and he must keep this obligation in mind at all times. The nature of this profession demands that, as peace officers, members must hold themselves to a much higher standard of conduct than what is expected from a member of the general public.

[9] While coming to its decision, the Board considered the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and the mitigating and aggravating factors. The Board also noted the judicial encouragement for adjudicative bodies to give deference to sanction agreements reached by the parties, while recognizing that the ultimate authority rests with the Board pursuant to subsection 45.12(3) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

[10] The Board is of the view that the range of sanction for the misconduct in this case would be from a reprimand and the forfeiture of pay in the low to mid range for the first allegation, and a reprimand and the forfeiture of pay in the low range for the second allegation.

[11] Bearing all of the foregoing in mind, the Board accepted the joint submission recommended by the parties and imposed as sanction, a reprimand and the forfeiture of three days’ pay for allegation 1, and a reprimand and the forfeiture of two days’ pay for allegation 2.

[12] Constable Slipp may appeal this decision by filing a statement of appeal with the Commissioner within the limitation period set out in subsection 45.14(4) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

ORAL DECISION RENDERED the 24th day of October 2011. Dated at Edmonton in the Province of Alberta this 1st day of November 2011. __________________________________ Inspector G. Annetts Chairperson, Adjudication Board

[Source]