Vancouver, B.C. (Canadian Press) – A British Columbia RCMP officer caught on video kicking a suspect in the face was charged Thursday with two counts of assault causing bodily harm in relation to two separate incidents.
Constable Geoff Mantler is accused of assaulting 51-year-old Buddy Tavares during an arrest on Jan. 7 as he responded to a call about shots fired at an area golf course.
The witness video shows Mr. Tavares on his hands and knees when an officer boots him in the face.
The Crown said a charge has been approved in relation to that incident and another while Constable Mantler was on duty last August, but provided no further details of the earlier incident.
“The complainant on that file has not spoken publicly or been publicly identified to this point, so Criminal Justice Branch is not releasing any information in relation to the person’s identity,” Crown spokesman Neil MacKenzie said.
Constable Mantler, a three-year member of the RCMP, has been suspended with pay. An RCMP official said suspension with pay is the only option open to the force at this point in the process.
“There’s a process to continue towards suspension without pay. That process is in the works or in progress and that determination will be made fairly shortly as I understand it,” Deputy RCMP Commissioner Peter Hourihan told reporters in Kelowna.
The Crown said a third incident involving Constable Mantler’s arrest last August of a man repossessing a boat is still under review.
In November, Jeremy Packer complained that Constable Mantler allegedly punched him several times when he was pulled over on Kelowna’s Bennett bridge.
Mr. Packer had been towing a boat across the bridge when he was stopped by police. Officers told him the owner had reported the boat stolen but Mr. Packer said it was being repossessed, and he has not been charged.
He said one officer pulled him from his truck and held him down while another began punching him in the head.
The videotape of Constable Mantler allegedly kicking Mr. Tavares in the face was recorded by a reporter who was at the scene.
Deputy Commissioner Hourihan later visited Mr. Tavares at home and apologized for the incident.
Constable Mantler is scheduled to make his first appearance on both charges in Provincial Court on April 26.
D: “If the RCMP in Kelowna released information that was accurate I suspect Jill Bennett wouldn’t have to worry about the accuracy of her story. Typical, try put blame on the reporter. ”
Try to comprehend what I said. The thrust of the reporters position was that the RCMP should be servicing the media. I said nothing about the Kelowna incident in relation to her comments and neither was she. http://ezinearticles.com/?Three-Easy-Ways-to-Increase-Reading-Comprehension&id=115164
You will also be sad to learn that the changes to the RCMP Act that presently sit before Parliament will now have to be re-introduced. That and the legislation vis a vis unionization died with the dissolution the other day as well. They included changes to the disciplinary/ internal process you continually bleat about. I guess that would also be the fault of the RCMP?
“DT, say what you want, all I know is the girl that has cut my hair has twice the training (hours) than the mountie (SIC) that graduates and carries a gun.”
Say what I want about what? And we are to draw what conclusion from your remark? My accountant also has more time in training. Your point? How long does the foot soldier spend in basic training?
Canadian Forces website: “All recruits, including officer candidates, take an intensive 13-week course designed to teach the skills you will need in your career and build strength of character.”
Hmmm, didn’t work for the Colonel. So you obviously don’t mean that, so what is your point? Are you saying that training does not necessarily translate into competency? if you are trying to say that I would have to agree, however I don’t know what you are trying to say. Its not clear.
As for Silvercore, you can check the BC newspaper, the Vancouver Sun for information which states that
“And now Travis Bader and several family members are suing the solicitor-general’s ministry and others for damages related to a criminal investigation that ended with more than 30 firearms charges stayed by prosecutors earlier this year.” December 2010. Charges laid then stayed by the Provincial Crown.
Research is not difficult, it just sometimes takes a bit of effort.
“So Mantler was charaged (SIC) in less than several weeks, seems to me it took a very long time compared to the few hours it took to charge Buddy?”
We have already covered this, I guess you ascribe to the PPR school of reading, that is you do not read what others say.
“In regard to more people visiting this site, look at the people that are showing their comments on Like or Dislike and compare it to stories of a year ago.”
The thumbs up system was only implemented by the moderators of the site a short time ago. Although the system now applies to all posts going back years, therein lies the explanation. As I opined before, you could ask the moderators for the number of visitors for any period of time as they have access to those statistics. Then you could make a pronouncement that would have verification and context.
“His comment of sitting in the office was a reference to doing nothing. It was way past shift change time and some or all should in his mind be out working. Believe me it wasn’t a compliment.”
So if he is retired, how would he know that they at that point in time are all sitting in the office? How long has he been retired? Or is it just “speculation”?
“I am not against the RCMP in general as I know they have some very fine officers”
That is not what you said, and I quoted you precisely. Has there been a change in your position? Has some factor been prevalent in this change?
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
3
F-S; Have you even told someone something only to hear it come back at you changed and you say; “That’s not want I meant”?
If the RCMP members are so interested in civilians learning about the laws of this land, trusting only in their own interpretations and not being so ignorant about them then why don’t they petition the gov and ask them to teach it in schools and maybe then when the students sign up to a police academy they will know something before they get there and make which should make this whole mess allot simpler.
Hopefully they will teach them about civil rights and hopefully both might keep the students from abusing and killing each other.
Lets face it the victims who are being abused at the hands of CERTAIN POLICE OFFICERS out there will likely never forget the treatment and talk about it for years if not forever and who will this help in the future?
Sounds like bad seed to me and planted in bad soil will only produce a bad crop for the RCMP. I know they don’t like it but it’s still not bad enough that something will be done.
Hot debate. What do you think?
3 
9
Figured it was time to dust off the old keyboard and make a post on this one.
At the risk of sounding paranoid, the media shouldn’t be trusted. Not completely at any rate. The primary objective of the news today is not to inform the public. Not really. It would seem, from my personal involvement with events in the news, that the media’s main goal is to get people to watch/listen to/read the news. It is pretty basic human nature to want to hear about screw ups, cover ups, conspiracies and of course, good guys turned bad. That’s a camp favorite.
The news doesn’t report on things like police procedure, investigational methodology, rights to an individuals privacy ect. They don’t report on it because nobody wants to hear about it.
We can’t blame the media though, because they are a business like any other and to stay afloat they need to sell their product. Nobody is buying good news. Bad news is what sells. Keeping this in mind, it is our responsibility as citizens of a free country to be objective. What is the most plausible explanation? Is Mantler a problem? Sure seems like it. Is the entire body of the RCMP made up of incompetent, self preserving, lazy and evil people? Doesn’t seem plausible, unless you got caught by the police at some point in your life and will hold it against them for the rest of it (Someone who posts on this site perhaps?).
PPR:
“When they are caught doing something wrong;”
“1: They are innocent until proven guilty”
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. EVERYONE. Do you think police should be guilty until proven innocent? Is that how you would like to be treated?
“2: You need overwhelming evidence”
You need overwhelming evidence to get a conviction in any criminal case because reasonable doubt is not so reasonable. Just take a look at conviction rates in BC versus charges laid. Ever seen an impaired driving charge go to trial? Ever seen one convicted?
“3: Someone on your side, good luck”
Someone on your side? What does that mean? Legal aid provided by the government? The BCCLA? The CPC? Global News? Is everyone against you or something?
“4: Investigations take forever.”
Agree with you here. Internal investigations within the RCMP do take a frustratingly long time.
“5: Paid holiday and court costs covered.”
Are you suggesting that you should be able to take away a persons livelyhood, family income perhaps, without being found guilty? What if the courts did that to people? Locked them away or punished them before going to trial. Give me a break. Also, do you know anyone who has been found not guilty and had to pay court costs?
“6: Then the charges takes so long to be filed if any at all and for the crown to move forward well justice grinds very slow in this area.”
Do you know the average time it takes for a criminal case to get to trial in BC? I am not sure of the exact time frame, but I am fairly sure its years in a lot of cases. Anyone able to supply some numbers? Slow for everyone, not just police.
“When the public gets caught;”
(Note, he says get caught, not ‘gets caught doing something wrong’. See the bias in the language?)
“1: They are locked up and charged right away.”
Total nonsense and lies. About 95% of people arrested are released from custody to await their first court apearance. The only reason they are locked up is because they are usually so drunk that they don’t understand a bail document.
“2: The media is notified right away.”
Another spew of lies. I watch the news. The only time the media is notified right away is when a major criminal is caught, OR an RCMP officer is charged. Prove me wrong.
“3: Everybody knows they are guilty and headed for court”
Everybody knows they are guilty? Is everybody privy to the evidence? No. Are they headed for court? Yes. That is where they are found guilty or not guilty. OF COURSE THEY ARE HEADED FOR COURT! Where else would they be going? Straight to prison?
“4: The police are always right”
If the police are always right, then how come the news always says they are wrong? How come you always say they are wrong? Why do they admit openly that sometimes, yeah, they are wrong? If the police are always right, friend, then why do we have a court system? Shouldn’t everyone the police arrest just be sent to prison without trial?
Seeing your points here compounded with my earlier ranting about the media, maybe its time you use this wonderful internet thing and do a little reading outside of the news circuit. We live in a country where we have access to the laws of the land and every government agency involved with our justice system and NOBODY WANTS TO READ IT FOR THEMSELVES. I cant imagine living in a place where that kind of information is behind closed iron doors. It just goes to show that we as a society are spoiled with a disgusting sense of self entitlement. Spoon feed me my news, spoon feed me my rights, spoon feed me my freedoms, just as long as I don’t have to take personal responsibility for anything. Feel ill now. Think I will go to bed.
As always, if any of my figuring is incorrect, I welcome correction. Disagreement I don’t care about, but correction is fine.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
23 
7
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
2 
10
D: “His comment of sitting in the office was a reference to doing nothing. It was way past shift change time and some or all should in his mind be out working. Believe me it wasn’t a compliment.” If only you had managed to be this clear the first time around. Assuming your recall of this retired member’s comments is at all accurate, or that the conversation took place at all, why would you believe what he said? You’re on record numerous times as mistrusting all RCMP (see DT’s recent recap of your comments) yet you’re quite happy to believe this guy – not because he has any evidence – but because his perceptions play in to your own preconceptions. Assuming again that this conversation you describe so poorly actually took place this retired member had no idea what was going on in the detachment because he wasn’t there and doesn’t work there any more.
D: “The spokesperson said in a interview, we did not have video evidence, the statement was plain and simple.” She said a lot more than that. You just prefer to cherry pick conversations for the nuggets that you feel support your views.
D: “If the RCMP in Kelowna released information that was accurate I suspect Jill Bennett wouldn’t have to worry about the accuracy of her story. Typical, try put blame on the reporter.” Wrong again. She identified no concern about the accuracy of the information she was given. She just wants information more quickly – as DT wrote, “as events were still transpiring”.
D: “Is it possible the RCMP in Kelowna tried to release misinformation to justify what happened to Buddy? After all in the end what they said was completely innacurate and who is being held accountable for that?” Yes, it is possible and we know it was inaccurate. Nobody here has claimed differently.
D: “In regard to your criticism on my rambling, yes I ramble and “sticks and stones”, can you remember the rest?” Sure, I remember “sticks and stones”. Its what small children prattle when they can’t come up with a more intelligent response to being called a name. I haven’t called you any names so, once again, your quote has no relevance at all to the situation. I said you had an apparent inability to construct grammatical sentences (your sentence quoted here is a perfect example), difficulty with accurate reporting, quoting and paraphrasing, and a habit of throwing in extraneous words and capital letters. None of this inspires any confidence in your ideas or opinions. I do hope that you’ll take some of the criticism of your writing style and thought processes to heart, do a little research in the service of accuracy and increasing your knowledge of our legal system, and try to write in a way that gets your points across clearly otherwise people will just get tired of reading your posts.
Fourstring: “The news doesn’t report on things like police procedure, investigational methodology, rights to an individuals privacy ect. They don’t report on it because nobody wants to hear about it.” Well said.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
9 
1
Quite right sickntired. I would add that the following comment that appears from PPR sums up the methadology used by some:
“As for me I don’t even at times read what they even have to say because it seems to be in the line of the same old stuff.”
So very pedestrian an attitude.
You will find that there has been numerous links, statistics, references, and sources quoted in this forum that bear on the issues at hand. You will find that the above quote from PPR applies to more than just his actions. In order to fully delve into and discuss the root causes for issues, some are content with surface skim just like the media. Nobody professes that there are not some issues. However, the causes and effects are not, as you pointed out, simple. They also effect other parts of our lives and therefore need informed discourse. They are not all relegated to the RCMP, the government or the legal system. One would, as you also noted, like some suggestions as to how to address or correct issues that have arisen.
You will also find that some of the contributors have openly discussed their bones of contention with the RCMP.
Its probably self satisfying to declare ‘off with their heads’, ‘put them in the digger’ or other such nonsense, but reasoned discourse is always the best solution, providing you can engage in it.
I think that D perspective can be summed up with the following:
“Well myself and many others have lostl (SIC) respect for all of them. D — 2010.09.11 @ 20:02 —
They have lost my trust forever, even if Elliot makes massive changes it will take decades to rid the force of the “rot” D — 2010.09.11 @ 10:34 —
Sad but true and personally I have no trust or faith in them at all. D — 2010.09.11 @ 00:33 —
Personally I will stick with my opinion that the entire force is dysfunctional. D — 2010.09.14 @ 01:31 —
In regard to saying I disrespect the members. I am happy to say I show them the same respect they have shown me. D — 2010.09.15 @ 23:27 — “
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
22 
4
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
12 
23
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
7 
23
You’re welcome sickntired. At a recent meeting in Surrey BC with a plethora of Commissioned Officers you will be interested to know that addressing them by invitation was a media panel which included radio and television. The new Commanding Officer of the Province of BC was the host.
I do not see in any of the media that they were invited to provide input with respect to working with the RCMP in getting facts out as soon as possible and with sufficient verification so as to not cause concern about “misleading” information. In fact, apparently Jill Bennett from the BC news station CKNW was piqued that she was unable to get a full run down on a few incidents from Watch Commanders as events were still transpiring. Her vein was that the RCMP should be servicing the media immediately with whatever they have, verified or not even before its provided to management.
It is this type of attitude that does not serve the public well. Information still unconfirmed from the field, through supervisors to the Watch Commander and then to the media, there is too much room for error, misinterpretation, and incompleteness. One wrong or misconstrued bit of information and the howls of cover-up, slandering, and the like rise immediately.
But you will not read about that exchange will you? And if you were deemed important enough to be informed by the media, you probably would not hear that the other media personalities held the RCMP in high regard.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
23 
10
“The problems of the RCMP do have a simple solution and it is unfortunate that the “brilliant” minds at the top can’t figure out what to do.” And clearly neither can you, D, simple though you claim it is.
“My comments on Mantler are not confusing at at all, he is reported to be a nice guy so was the inquiry into his background so shallow they really missed a serious flaw, or did the recruiters really care?” Your original statements did not mention at all the possibility that the background investigation missed or ignored something. Try to remember that whatever is going on in your head as you write must be translated into text if you expect others to understand the point you’re trying to make. Clarity, D, clarity.
“Denial” and “paranoia” do not mean the same thing so your “ivory tower” comment again makes no sense. Try a dictionary. And stop using capitals where they aren’t required – its a common error of the marginally literate.
“I actually am with citizens that are dismayed at the continual wrong doings and that is very disconcerting.” Yes, we know, as you keep repeating this to the point that its meaningless. The use of “actually” suggests that someone has suggested otherwise, but nobody has. Your points would be made more clearly if you stopped throwing in extraneous words that simply muddy the waters.
“A spokesperson who said “we didn’t have video evidence” about a assault and you think the public trusts the force. So if you can’t furnish video evidence we aren’t going to take your accusation seriously. I guess the only thing the RCMP trust is video evidence, after all we all know no mountie has ever told a lie!” Not exactly what she said but I recognize that you have problems with accuracy. I covered the point I think you’re trying to make here in an earlier post.
“Look up and think about the meaning of “something is rotten….” possibly I should have used Canada but thought being a famous quote of Marcellus it would suffice.” Yes, we all know what “rotten means”. But you didn’t use “rotten” – you used “Fishy” (with a capital F for some reason). If you’re going to use a quotation you need to be accurate, and the fact that its a “famous” quote means that its easy for you to check and get right. If you wanted to change a quotation to better reflect the situation on which you’re commenting (its called paraphrasing, by the way) you should have written, “Something is rotten in (the state of) Canada.”
“I am surprised you have no comment on the 25 year vet that made the comment about the entire watch “probably sitting in the office”. Truth hurts.” Well, DT has already made this point to you but … again, you made no mention of why he thought they might be sitting in the office. That’s the important part. You wrote, “He said he wasn’t sure but bet they were all sitting around the office, heck I thought they would be at Tim’s on the other side of the city.” So … sitting around the office (a) goofing off (b) buried in paperwork (c) shift change/debriefing (d) coffee or meal break (e) shift over. Because you have again not been clear we don’t know what this retired member thought and are left to guess. As he said, according to you, that he thought they’d have been at another Tim’s across town that suggests they were on a coffee break, or should have been. Either this retired member can’t express himself clearly or you have once again either recorded his statement incorrectly or failed utterly to communicate the significance of his statement. You appear to trying to suggest that the members are involved in some wrongdoing but the “evidence” you offer supports no such thing.
Its pretty easy to tell which of the posters here are or have been RCMP officers. D, I suspect that you are not. Had you ever applied you would not have made the cut simply because you have difficulty accurately recording events and statements and writing in a logical and linear fashion. Both skills are crucial to the making of notes and the preparation of court briefs, investigative files and correspondence.
DT: Thanks again for the information. A lot of the news from BC doesn’t penetrate this far east with any regularity. The Q&A session was frustrating. I found that questions that should have been asked of Hourihan were not asked at all i.e. was there any indication in Cst. Mantler’s background investigation that suggested he had anger management or violence issues? And why did it take three complaints of violence before RCMP management apparently took any steps to address this issue?
You’re correct about the problems inherent in the RCMP’s practice of releasing information to the press when it hasn’t been verified. The initial press releases on Mr. Tavares illustrate perfectly what can and does go wrong. I suspect that Jill Bennett isn’t particularly interested in accuracy but only wants go be the first to break a story.
I’d like to make a general comment on what D wrote about more people reading this site, assuming that’s actually the case. It would be interesting to read what these people think as well. I’m fairly new here but so far we seem to hear from only the same 4 people.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
22 
5
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
7 
21
“To me it is just proof that too many are too blind to see or admit the truth. You know it is just deny, deny, deny to the point I actually think some believe their denials.”
Are you sure D that you are not mixing up denials with opposing view points or devils advocate points? I do not recall anybody denying the incidents have taken place. What I have observed is a number of people trying to understand what factors are at play. Perhaps apply some context to make sense of it all. Some are unwilling to look past their own prejudices to examine a larger picture but that larger picture needs to be examined to perhaps shed some light on the root causes of said issues.
I will give you an example in your last post: “He said he wasn’t sure but bet they were all sitting around the office, heck I thought they would be at Tim’s on the other side of the city. Guess his opinon (SIC) will now be called cynical or something rather than admitting a 25 year veteran who knows the habits of his former comrades.”
If in fact his observation is true, then your interpretation would be that what? They are lazy? Not as good as the 60’s cops (Groenke excluded)? How about an inordinate amount of time in the office due to PRIME? Excessive paperwork that has grown exponentially since your new acquaintance was hired? You see D, there are always other facets to any issue that need be examined in order to fully understand, debate, offer solutions to, various issues.
Here’s another: “I have never read that the number of complaints was in relation to the (size) compliment of the detachment, just a raw number.”
The number and make up of the complaints is readily available for those who wish to examine them. You have been provided with some in the past. Easier to just blurt out they have the highest without any interest in the why’s and wherefores. Feeds the bias machine. How many officers commended for their work? Don’t care right? No balance?
All indignant about transgressions, yet have no quarrel with the media ignoring officers shot working on your behalf. Usually mute on above and beyonds.
And another: “One thing is there seems to be many more people viewing this site and that is a good thing.”
How do you know this without the statistics available to the site managers? Speculation due to being on the downside of the thumbs? You provide no context for us to believe your hypothesis.
And another: “Then all the charges are dropped, charges by the way that took what..less than 72 hours to lay…and yet Mantlers charges took weeks. ”
Besides being wrong, there has been cogent information provided by more than one contributor to inform about that. Didn’t read it or don’t believe it?
Did you check out the link I provided to the question asked by sickntired? Lots of fodder for fertile minds there. If the link does not open, just cut and paste the link into your browser. Right click your mouse for both or use the keyboard ctrl c for copy and ctrl v for paste.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
22 
8
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
7 
21
I see the paranoia train has left the station, all aboard. Perhaps if in fact the comments by D are regularly of poor rating is because the visitors to the forum do not agree with the hyperbole and sky is falling mentality that is prominent in the posts.
Time and time again we have noted media reports and their subsequent follow-ups that fail to ask the pertinent questions, add empirical facts, or any context to the discussions that are ongoing. Based on little data, conclusions are drawn and perhaps some other persons require some tangible proof or identifiable logic to agree with someone else’s view.
Perhaps PPR should peruse Douglas Noel Adams and discover SEP. Information that concerns the various articles presented here is readily available with a little research. I assume some prefer to ignore relevant or ancillary information because it does not fit into their personal biases.
PPR says” “I can’t see anybody else but them objecting to what you are posting in here.” I guess you overlook myself PPR, as I differ in view on most occasions with D. If in fact any large number of RCMP officers stop by and proffer a thumbs up or down, I am sure you would see a lot higher numbers than the ones quoted in the legend. A quick view shows me in the order of the 30’s the number on any side at any time. You could ask the moderators how many visitors there were to the site in a month, as they have those statistics available to them.
Would you not think PPR that if the RCMP wanted to close out D and negative commentary they would use their secret units to shut down the site with denial of service attacks and other cyber stealth?
sickntired says: “I have this mental vision of dozens (well, maybe 5 or 6) RCMP management types hunched over their desks logging on repeatedly to give D a “thumbs down” in hopes of hiding RCMP wrongdoing. ”
LOL That is definitely a good one. Brings to mind the dark basement with the floodlights on the huge tank containing the pulsating brain in strange liquid attached to a myriad of cables and electronic components. I think the first step if they wanted to hide information would be to stop putting out press releases on internal investigations that nobody would probably find out about anyway.
As for your query on the interview sickntired:
http://bc.rcmp.ca/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=50&languageId=1&contentId=19056
And you only get one vote on the thumbs PPR. Sorry. Your posts are eerily similar to another that has not been here for a while….
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
24 
8
DT: Thanks for the link which does clear some things up. I didn’t realize that there was a third complainant in addition to Mr. Tavares and Mr. Packer. Its an interesting and rare experience to actually get more clarity from the RCMP than from the press.
D: Its great that “on the serious side” you’re not bothered about your thumb ratings on this site. I’m still curious as to what you were going to say on the non-serious side. That’s like saying “Firstly … ” and then never following up with “Secondly …” – confusing and unnecessary.
I also don’t often agree with you, and even when I do concur with one of your statements your supporting arguments are faulty or nonsensical. For example, you write that you’re against “the hiring of people who are not fit to wear the uniform”. Nobody with any intelligence would argue with that statement. But then you describe Cst. Mantler as being by “all accounts” polite and welcome in the homes of his friends. This undermines your original statement. Then you wonder if he was a “bad hire”? Obviously he has turned out to have been a bad hiring choice, but do you think an RCMP investigator could review all those positive accounts and yet somehow jump to the conclusion that Mantler was not fit to wear the uniform?
There’s also your habit of making stunningly obvious (and often ungrammatical) statements, such as: “What other excuse for the problems they have if it were not for who them hire.” Well, no kidding. The fact is that there is no way for the RCMP to guarantee that the apparently suitable kid they hired won’t at some later time spectacularly derail. All they can do is make a hiring decision based on the available information. If you want to guarantee no personnel problems at all – well, you’d have to stop hiring completely.
And then there’s this: “The RCMP has a major public relations problem and really have no idea how to correct it when in actuality it could be very simple.” Again no argument here on the first two points but then you ruin it with that “in actuality it could be very simple.” That begs the question: do you know how the RCMP should correct this? If so, why don’t you tell us? On the other hand you wrote “could be very simple” which suggests that (a) it may not be simple at all and (b) you don’t know how they should correct the problem.
You may well have valid rationales for some of the things you write but its often difficult to tell. A little attention to improving the clarity of your writing and the presentation of logical arguments might help. And its, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
19 
3
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
10 
20
Too bad the media did not print or run the video the question and answer scrum with the Commanding Officer. It would answer your questions.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
22 
5
PPR writes: D; why is it that you get the most thumb down in here than any body else? It seems like there’s a move in here to block and suppress many of your comments.
- and -
Since most of your comments have been hidden here by someone who does not want them to be viewed can we assume that you have been under surveillance and/or being followed as well?
Wow, we have the power to “block and suppress” comments?? If a comment gets a lot of thumbs down it doesn’t pop up with others but the site makes clear that it isn’t visible and its a simple “click” to make it visible. Aren’t people allowed to disagree with some of the things D writes? That’s only reasonable.
I have this mental vision of dozens (well, maybe 5 or 6) RCMP management types hunched over their desks logging on repeatedly to give D a “thumbs down” in hopes of hiding RCMP wrongdoing. That is when they’re not lurking outside D’s home with binoculars and parabolic mics. Seriously, PRP??
DT: I also would have liked to see that Q&A! Did you see it? Anything of substance said?
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
21 
5
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
13 
23
Lets call a spade a spade. This was not an incident of excessive use of force. This was assault causing bodily harm.
I do have some concerns as to why the Mr. Packer, the victim of the August 2010 assault, didn’t make a complaint until November 2010. You’d think he’d at least want to document any facial marks immediately. That delay may well have contributed to the likelihood that little was being done about his complaint until such time as the Tavares assault hit the press.
I’m also surprised that a decision re: charges has not yet been made in that incident. RCMP spokesperson Annie Linteau’s statement that Mr. Packer’s complaint is taking longer to investigate because there was no videotape evidence (from a previous news report) is ridiculous. Whether or not videotape evidence exists a statement should be sought from every witness and suspect so unless there were many more witnesses to the assault on Mr. Packer compared to the assault on Mr. Tavares the fact that a videotape exists is irrelevant to the speed of the investigation. Cst. Linteau’s comment only adds to the impression that Mr. Packer’s complaint was initially going nowhere.
And as for Crown spokesman Neil MacKenzie’s assertion that Mr. Packer hasn’t spoken publicly or been publicly identified … what the heck?? Mr. Packer identified himself to the police in November 2010 when he made a formal complaint and he personally spoke to the press when news of the assault on Mr. Tavares broke in January.
I suspect (and hope) that the RCMP will expedite the process required to suspend Cst. Mantler without pay.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
21 
4
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
14 
25
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
19 
27