Suzanne Fournier (Canwest News Service) – Amid conflicting internal accounts, disappearing e-mails and disastrous publicity following the death of Robert Dziekanski, a top Mountie admitted at the Taser inquiry Tuesday that the RCMP shouldn’t investigate itself.
The inquiry is probing Dziekanski’s October 2007 death, after he was Tasered five times by four RCMP officers at the Vancouver International Airport.
RCMP Supt. Wayne Rideout, who was the third Mountie to take the stand Tuesday, denied a key part of his superior officer’s evidence and then told commissioner Thomas Braidwood that, “We are not perceived by the public to be able to investigate ourselves.
“We’re not good at this, we shouldn’t be doing this,” said Rideout.
He said he thinks “it is time” for B.C. to consider an independent body to investigate the RCMP.
“While we’re competent and confident in our investigation, we recognize that’s not the perception.”
Outside the courtroom, RCMP spokesman Sgt. Tim Shields echoed Rideout’s assertion.
“He’s not the only one with that view,” he said.
Shields said that B.C.’s top Mountie, Deputy Commissioner Gary Bass, also supports outside investigation of RCMP-involved incidents.
“We believe our investigations are impartial and thorough, but we’re aware of the optics,” he said.
Rideout’s dramatic admission came after two of B.C.’s top three Mounties took the stand, with RCMP Chief Supt. Dick Bent saying that he stood by his Nov. 5, 2007 e-mail that derailed the conclusion of the Braidwood inquiry last June.
The e-mail contradicts the four officers’ testimony heard earlier this year.
Bent quietly repeated on the stand Tuesday that he was just recording in his e-mail what the four Mounties’ supervisor had told him, “that the members had discussed en route and decided that if he (Dziekanski) did not comply that they would go to CEW (conducted-energy weapon).”
The e-mail was addressed to Assistant Commissioner Al MacIntyre and sent on the eve of the release of bystander Paul Pritchard’s video, which showed Dziekanski being Tasered, restrained and eventually dying on the airport floor.
But Rideout, noting that he “respected” Bent as a “busy” senior officer, insisted his e-mail contained “wrong” information.
When Bent’s e-mail surfaced last June, Braidwood declared its omission “appalling” and adjourned the inquiry until Tuesday.
MacIntyre testified he didn’t get Bent’s e-mail due to problems with his new BlackBerry.
I believe Sir winston Churchill once said that “democracy is the worst sort of political system, except for all the other systems.” DT is correct, there is no panacea out there. The Ontario SIU unit has been criticized recently by that province’s Ombudsman for being too defferential to that province’s police forces. I still think that any step away from the current system is a step in the right direction and I am happy to see the RCMP advocating this step. Still, this comes after the RCMP in B.C. echoed a call by municipal police chiefs for the Campbell government to set up an SIU-type unit to investigate “serious police incidents” in this province. Is Elliot trying to get the Harper government to head off Campbell at the pass and set up a Canada-wide SIU for the RCMP. One of the problems people in this province already have with the RCMP contract is the fact that there are two different civilian complaints processes. Lets complicate things by having two different SIUs. No panacea indeed.
Oh, I also agree that such a unit can and should only investigate serious incidents where death and grevious injury is concerned. To have a force of investigators looking into every complaint about any cop (Munie or Mountie) who was supposedly rude when they issued a parking ticket would be ludicrous (not to mention, very frigging expensive).
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
0
Just don’t see the formation of an external body as the panacea for the ills, perceived or not, in the present system. There will always be a level of dissatisfaction with any body, claims of bias and the like, from persons who feel aggrieved. Granted that the quasi independence will afford a measure of confidence. Remember who performs the investigations.
On another note, some Provinces like Alberta, Ontario, and Manitoba have oversight bodies performing that function. They are limited to serious events and do not encompass day to day “attitude” type of complaints. They have some difficulties.
Can we look forward to the day when lawyers are subject to independent oversight as well? The recent Goldberg debacle would suggest that is exactly what is needed there as well. And perhaps physicians as well could benefit from some “civilian” oversight. One can only hope.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
1
There are those who may want to make much of the bald contradiction between two senior officers (Rideout and Bent). After all, it’s not an oblique collision involving two almost identical shades of grey; it’s a head-on ‘yes you did’ -’ no I did not’, open ice, full tilt, full on collision of evidence. And while there are reasons to have examined this contradiction I doubt we will learn much more that will point to which version is the more accurate.
Both men seem to be sticking to their version, and absent any further reliable information or unimpeachable independent insights Mr. Justice Braidwood may find himself in the unenviable position of having to sort out what weight to give this contradiction and whether one version is to be preferred over the other. Goodness knows I wouldn’t wish to trade jobs with him.
But while there are those who will dwell on the contradiction (as is their right to do so) I think there is something more important and much more far-reaching in impact in Superintendent Rideout’s statement. And it’s something we may all have to pay attention to sooner or later.
Not withstanding the Commissioner’s earlier observations about the difficulty of having an outside body investigate complaints against detachment members in remote communities, and the (at least to some) seeming unwillingness to surrender control to outside investigators, here we have a much different view.
I think we just heard Superintendent Rideout admit there is a public mistrust of RCMP self investigation that he doubts can be overcome. And later on the official spokesperson, Sgt. Tim Shields, opened the gate further when he claimed Rideout isn’t the only one with that view. So while Rideout saves some face asserting they are “competent and confident” he also suggests there are problems with self investigation and the time may be here for an outside investigative body to take over future cases.
Is it not reasonable to believe that if an independent, competent and thorough (non-RCMP) investigation of the Dziekanski death had been undertaken, that a significant amount of the damage done to the force including loss of some amount of public confidence and goodwill, could have been avoided? In retrospect, wouldn’t the force rather have avoided some of the wounds to reputation senior Mounties now seem to be referring to?
I believe there are three good reasons why police forces can benefit from independent, professional external investigation of serious complaints against their members.
The first is the virtual impossibility of avoiding the stigma of conflict of interest. Even good and true members of any organization charged with auditing and judging their peers may quickly discover the tug of divided loyalties: on one hand a desire to seek the truth and finger any wrongdoing. On the other hand, a sense of a shared culture and set of beliefs that bonds the investigator to the suspect in ways not conducive to letting the chips fall where they may. Sometimes there even seems to be a calculation afoot among investigators whether burying a bad act by officers that would not be tolerated if committed by a civilian, is preferable to exposing the malice and risking further damage to the reputation of a police force.
The second is the belief on the part of a significant percentage of the public that police are anything but impartial when they investigate each other. Oh I realize some would lay all the blame for loss of public confidence at the feet of the “media” alleged to be on a baseless witch hunt. But lots of citizens can and do think for themselves and don’t need or even accept a reporter telling them how to judge events. And let’s not forget that past convictions for illegal acts by police on various forces have not helped polish the image of police as absolutely reliable tellers of truth, first time, every time, all the time. Even if the numbers of such acts are small (and I have reason to think they are) the damage to credibility is done and cannot be wished away.
And third, the findings and recommendations of an independent, impartial, respected, and professional investigative body would carry more weight simply because of their independence.
I believe we are at a crossroads of sorts. Surrendering control and authority to an external investigative body, however nerve racking that may be, seems like an idea whose time has come. At least Superintendent Rideout seems to think so. Perhaps he has a lot of company.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
0