Blaine Gaffney, Kelowna, B.C. (CHBC News) – The top ranked RCMP officer in British Columbia has said sorry to Buddy Tavares.
Tavares is the Kelowna man who was kicked in the face by Cst. Geoff Mantler while being arrested on January 7th.
RCMP Deputy Commissioner Peter Hourihan visited Tavares at his Kelowna home Monday morning.
Tavares says during the 45 minute meeting, Hourihan apolgized for Cst. Mantler’s actions but didn’t offer any compensation for the assault which left Tavares bleeding heavily on the pavement.
Tavares makes a court appearance Monday afternoon when it’s expected he’ll find out if the Crown will proceed with the charge of careless use of a firearm that Kelowna RCMP laid against Tavares the day after his arrest.
The court will also deal with an application by government prosecutors to have Tavares banned from possessing firearms.
Tavares says he won’t fight the application, saying keeping his guns is not that important to him.
He also points out the Crown has a good argument for the ban because of a recent brain injury Tavares suffered in a motorcycle crash.
Related: Assault charge recommended against Kelowna RCMP after man kicked, arrested
Related: B.C. Mountie suspended after kicking incident
“Personally if I had to work harder/longer because of a shortage of manpower due to suspensions, or legal costs I would work on seeing it didn’t happen again.”
Really? A sure recipe for stress from being overworked and poor service due to lack of resources. Ludicrous idea.
“The reason for wanting the Detachment involved to pay for all costs is the hope that quickly local mounties would be part of the process of riding the force of the “rot”.”
Who actually “pays” for this? The very citizens who would suffer from a lack of 911 response. Is that what you wish on your fellow citizens?
“Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t Kelowna the Detachment with the highest amount of complaints against it in 2010.”
Is that substantiated complaints or just complaints including whiners and malicious attempts to get out of a ticket? Surrey has the most in the area of excessive force, your bugbear. Research D. Research.
“You are judged by the company you keep, no matter who you are or what you do.”
Nice motherhood statement. Re-read sickntired on that point, he is dead on.
“…Mantler was a problem from the incident on the bridge last August and nothing was done to make a change.”
Perhaps you could share your knowledge on that one, I do not recall a report of any conviction or adjudication. Remember, presumption of innocence, due process, etc.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
21 
14
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
18 
32
You know, D, you often make some good points in your letters and your heart is clearly in the right place as regards Mr. Tavares. But what you suggest here as a “solution” is simplistic and just not viable in the real world.
You wrote: “The reason for wanting the Detachment involved to pay for all costs is the hope that quickly local mounties would be part of the process of riding the force of the “rot”. They know who the good and bad are and showing initiative to make changes would improve their image and working conditions.” Well hope is a wonderful thing but … how would they do this, exactly? The local members can’t fire their co-workers. Sometimes they do know who the bad guys are but the best they can do is alert management to specific incidents and hope that management will take steps to address the problem child before things get worse. Often they don’t know who the bad guys are given that we all get transferred a lot and don’t have the luxury of following the entire career history of the people we work with. Even if we can assume that the rest of the detachment knew that Mantler was a problem child what do you propose that they should have done about him? Shun him? Bad-mouth him? Beat him up? Cue the harassment complaints. So come on – give us some specifics on how “local mounties” can be part of the process. And again – how will using up the detachment budget help the taxpayer? Deepthroat has already pointed out the obvious problem with your approach.
You wrote: “Personally if I had to work harder/longer because of a shortage of manpower due to suspensions, or legal costs I would work on seeing it didn’t happen again.” Again, how would you work on it? I really want to know.
You wrote: “You are judged by the company you keep, no matter who you are or what you do.” This is a valid enough statement if you’re talking about people you can choose to associate with, or not. But it doesn’t apply to this situation. You can’t pick and choose your co-workers.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
22 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
12 
27
“I do understand you comments on comments, just think that your mountie buddies in Kelowna don’t understand what you write about. Possibly you should contact them and have them be a little more diligent in the communications.”
Your statement carries two misconceptions. One that the officers in Kelowna are my “buddies” and two why would I address the level that cannot effect a change there?
“Public sentiment is totally against the RCMP in Kelowna and that will show in the decision of the jury.” More hyperbole. Really, try a little research:
http://bc.rcmp.ca/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=404&languageId=1&contentId=8875
The UBCM already reiterated their support for the RCMP in the Province of BC at recent meetings.
http://bc.rcmp.ca/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=50&languageId=1&contentId=17493
http://ubcm.ca/assets/Resolutions~and~Policy/Policy/Community~Safety/Jan%202011-MEMBER%20RELEASE-RCMP%20Contract-pt.pdf
http://bc.rcmp.ca/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=50&languageId=1&contentId=18729
“I also think you will find even the courts are getting tired of abuse of authority by RCMP members and settlements are going to show that.”
You had better hope that that does not happen. Because that would mean that every case is not adjudicated on its merits, but on a predisposition of the Court that is not acceptable in any arena of jurisprudence, as it show bias. Just think for a moment and extrapolate what that would mean for any citizen / group that comes before a Court if a Judge begins every case with bias.
“It is unfortunate the detachment related to the suit does not bear all the costs. Lawyers and all, then the real effect might be noticed in the detachment. Having to recduce (SIC) the compliment of officers and put a larger work load on others might make some think a little differently, or maybe not??”
I am not sure if you are really serious or just being obtuse with that question. IF Mr. Tavares did get a “bucket of money” in his civil suit and it came directly out of the local police office budget, you would be without police service. Who would that affect the most? Try some research again:
http://www.kelowna.ca/CityPage/Docs/PDFs//Financial%20Services%20Division/Previous%20Year’s%20Financial%20Plans/2010%20Financial%20Plan/V-Police%20Services.pdf
Which services would you cut to the public if the “bucket of money” came from the budget? I would refer you to pages v5 and v6. Consider what your idea of a “fair” settlement would be and subtract that from say, wages, and see how many officers would be left. If you are so inclined to actually look at the information you will note on page v5 under “Customer Satisfaction” you will see is at 92% vis a vis Performance Measures on importance of service provided by the RCMP.
The above noted document provides you with a comprehensive look at the municipality of Kelowna’s interaction with the RCMP in respect of financial concerns. If you read it in its entirety you will get a grasp on further dynamics regarding service requirements and personnel.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
24 
17
“DT, tried to post a reply to your comments earlier but I guess I was too sarcastic in my reply..”
Sorry cannot help you with that D. The site does have the following instructions though: “Comments must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind or other content or materials that in the moderators reasonable judgment may be found objectionable by users of this site.” Its their site and they have the authority to edit.
“Your comment that the amounts awareded (SIC) ae (SIC) far smaller than I think, well then explain how one person not long ago rec’c (SIC) 1.5 million dollars if I remember the story correctly??”
Let me be more specific then, the lawsuits settled by the Department of Justice on behalf of the Federal Government when paid out due to actions adjudicated / settled against the RCMP, on average are not as much as you would think. The information is readily available via the FOI avenue. Buckets and buckets would be widely inaccurate. Do some research. If you are referencing the settlement of 4 women in Alberta, that was a total divided between them and their lawyers.
Remember that settlements are about not spending money defending as well as trying to “right a wrong”. If the DOJ thinks its cheaper to settle quickly right or wrong, they will do it.
Things like: after registering convictions for weapons offenses and forfeiting them, in 2007, an Alberta person sues for emotional distress because they were of sentimental value. He got 5,450 of your tax dollars.
“Things have to change, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.” Imitation is a form of flattery. Thanks.
As far as the information put out to the media, re-read my comments. I am not sure you understood them.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
27 
19
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
17 
35
I suspect that Mr. Tavares will certainly get some sort of cash settlement from the RCMP (or the Federal Government i.e. the taxpayer) whether or not Cst. Mantler goes to trial and long before an actual lawsuit is filed. Nobody has argued here that he will not get a settlement nor have they argued that he does not deserve one – he certainly does. In addition I don’t think anyone could argue (or has argued here) that a kick to the head would do anything other than impede his recovery from his previous brain injury. Accordingly I don’t see the logic in arguing about it. There’s also really no point in arguing about how much money he’ll get or what exactly constitutes “buckets” of money.
D: As for suggesting that “the detachment” bear the costs incurred as a result of Cst. Mantler’s actions: I realize that in a perfect world the taxpayer wouldn’t be on the hook for such settlements but I can’t believe you have thought through the ramifications of your statement. How exactly would that work? If the money were to come out of the detachment budget, thus increasing the workload on the rest of the members, and further reducing service to the public how would that help? Why should the other members and the public suffer for the actions of Cst. Mantler? The detachment is already running one short as a result of his suspension. The usual result of a detachment running short-handed is that the members end up putting in more overtime. This actually increases the drain on the annual budget. How will that solve anything? Or are you expecting all of the members, who bear no responsibility, chip in from their own pockets? And how do you suppose the other members, having been punished for the actions of one person, would prevent such an action from happening again? From experience I can assure you that a talent for precognition is not a hiring requirement. None of us know in advance when one of our co-workers is about to do something stupid.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
20 
1
“The apparent attempt of “character assaination” (SIC) of Buddy is unbelievable and appears to have been done to try to inflluence (SIC) public opinion immediately after the apparent assault by Mantler.”
The blurting out of whatever information was at somebodies hand is not helpful in any situation. As Mr. Braidwood pointed out in his examination of the issue in the final report. The policy of trying to reiterate the information at hand as fast as possible to the media is backfiring on the organization. You may characteristic it as your bias dictates, however to make the accusation of a purposeful character assassination, you will need more facts to be credible. I opine that the present policy is in need of revision and any delay effects encountered in verification (court resilient) is desirable to the debacles such as this, along with the attendant bleating such as you provide. Delay will no doubt be met with cover-up accusations from the usual sides, however I for one would rather await information that is verified than get a hodgepodge of unverified “facts”.
“I think the idea of paying RCMP members for extended holidays while awaiting trial/internal investigation has to change. If I was suspended by my employer he in no way would pay me a single cent.”
sickntired has outlined what has been outlined to you several times in the past vis a vis the law, presumption of innocence and due process. Your constant complaining is not going to change the law as it is applied in this country. I very much doubt if your employer suspended you that you would not be paid until your adjudication was complete unless the transgression so heinous that the employer could justify it in court. Perhaps you live in another country.
“Cudos to Hourihan for what he did, is it going to save the public any money…very doubtful, and it shouldn’t.”
Maybe he, as the new head of the Province of BC, thought it was the right thing to do? For you to assign a money saving aspect to the act of travel to the area and apologize for the actions of one of his employees is repugnant. If he kept silent on the issue you would probably bleat about his “indifference” and further fuel your personal bias. What is it exactly that you think he should do?
And with respect to the public purse being drained, the amounts awarded (by the courts and agreed settlements) are far smaller than you would think.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
34 
17
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
18 
36
D: “Early today it came to my attention that the Supt. in charge of the Kelowna RCMP Detachment was out of town when his BOSS came to apologize to Buddy. Now personally I find that a little puzzling as the Supt. made the statement to the media that Buddy was being charged in regard to a “domestic violence situation”. ”
I suspect it was arranged that the OIC Kelowna was away. The RCMP can now say that he had a commitment elsewhere instead of admitting that he is/may soon be one of the subjects under investigation for spreading the “domestic situation” theory. It would make sense that someone in authority, and not involved in that investigation or the investigation into Cst. Mantler’s actions, speak to Mr. Tavares, so Hourihan was a reasonable choice. Not a good idea to have one of the “suspects” apologize to the victim before the investigation is complete.
I also suspect that the “domestic situation” statement to the press was originally an assumption i.e. Tavares was at the golf course with a shotgun and his ex-wife worked there, ergo he was after her. Those two separate facts, with no evidence to link them, would certainly have been significant consideration right up to the point where Mr. Tavares wife was located unharmed. Unfortunately someone’s tiny brain immediately assumed that (a) plus (b) MUST add up to “domestic situation” and the statement was subsequently parroted in press communications from then on. That statement did in fact cast Mr. Tavares in a negative light and to make matters worse the RCMP seemed to be offering this “fact” as some sort of justification for Cst. Mantler’s assault.
No question that Hourihan’s personal visit and apology to Mr. Tavares is unprecedented (although clearly an attempt to defuse some of the negative press), particularly as Cst. Mantler hasn’t (yet) been found guilty. Its interesting that he only apologized for Cst. Mantler’s actions but not for the “domestic situation” comments.
Lots of comments here about members being on paid leave while awaiting the resolution of criminal charges. RCMP policy and Canadian law both support this. Simply put you can’t be penalized monetarily prior to being found guilty. I agree that members often languish at home while drawing a pay cheque and this must be frustrating to the taxpayer. Please remember though that part of being a Canadian citizen is the right to defend yourself in court and to have the court, NOT your employer, find you guilty or not guilty. If the RCMP were to penalize a member who was subsequently found not guilty (as has happened before and will again) the RCMP would be subject to legal action – even more taxpayers funds wasted.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
25 
6
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
20 
41
“Interesting now that Buddy has rec’d a apology from someone alot (SIC) higher up the food chain in the RCMP than the Supt. who first commented on what happened.” I would hope that the
Commanding Officer of the Province would indeed so this. He is the top man and I am glad to see him out doing it.
“Considering Mantler is under another investigation for use of excessive force from a previous incident there is no doubt his employment should be terminated at the earliest time.”
IF he is convicted on both, one can only hope for your suggested outcome. However, remember the statute sections I quoted you before that seem to deter this avenue.
“The unfortunate thing is Mantler will not have to pay for the settlement personally…”
You cannot beat anybody up on that one D. Its the law in this land. Do some research.
“Also interesting that even though the Abbotsford City Police recommended charges quite some time ago as of today Mantler is still on a paid holiday without being charged… I wonder why.”
The “recommendation” of charges is just that. Crown counsel in the Province of BC has charge approval authority, unlike most Provinces who have the police lay the charges and the Crown has to proceed.
“Paid leave for a indefinite period by “rogue” RCMP members is another thing that sticks in my throat, along with countless other people I have talked to.”
You’re gong to have it stuck there until the law changes.
“Time for big changes, time to support the hard working members and purging the “rot” and criminals from this organization.”
Nice change of tack lately, compared to your earlier posts vis a vis no respect.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
40 
17
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
25 
33
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
24 
41
D; It’s honorable for this senior officer to go and bang on the door of this man’s house and apologize but it shows very little sincerity.
If he had come, with the officer and this officer who kicked him in the face had apologized that would have been sincere or if the senior officer had brought news that the officer had been seriously disciplined and not just a slap on the hand or a doc in pay that also would have been sincere.
This officer’s action with his brutal kick in the head and the responses of this police force about the excessive force is the problem that has been plaguing this force for longer than I can remember. Since the resignation of the former Commissioner G.Z in disgrace to Robert’s death at the B.C. airport and others that followed there has been very little action from this police force to make things right for the victims but instead showing a total disrespect to the oath they have taken to uphold the law and protect the public they claim they represent here in Canada and around the world, which is a real joke.
They scream they do not want to be part of the Government or have the government involved but when they break the laws not like the PM of Canada B.M. did in Ottawa with the airbus issue they love it when they are not held accountable for their actions and love it when they foot the bill to Canadians who are already strained to the max by out of control government spending and taxes.
I would have expected at the least that this officer would have banged on this man’s door and said that this insane out of control officer has been fired and there would never be any other threats to a citizen but unfortunately we will never see this law abiding action from this federal police force and they are the ones that set the standards and lead the rest of the police forces in Canada in doing police work with integrity, if you can call what they do and how they respond when something goes wrong as integrity.
D; their lack of accountability and honest representation in the career some of them have chosen and the others stand by and watch happen is appalling to say the least and the government must address this issue ASAP to give Canadians a confidence that we live in a democratic society.
Throwing money away to silence the victims is not acceptable any more and real reform is needed or a replacement must be made considered seriously.
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
29
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
19 
40
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
32 
42