# Active Shooter In NS.  April 19 2020



## Retired AF Guy

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Has their been a dramatic increase in mass shootings and gun crime?
> 
> Not yet, but many more people than usual are under severe stress.  But the stress is the root of problems, not the guns.



1, 2, 3, ...



> N.S. police warn active shooter may be driving what looks like RCMP vehicle, wearing uniform
> 
> Police advising residents in the area to go into their basements and lock the doors
> CBC News · Posted: Apr 19, 2020 5:37 AM AT | Last Updated: 3 minutes ago
> CBC News Network
> 
> Nova Scotia RCMP have identified the active shooter in the rural community of Portapique, N.S., as 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman.
> 
> Police say there are multiple victims but would not say Sunday morning how many people were either injured or killed.
> 
> Gabriel Wortman, 51, has been identified by RCMP as the man at the centre of an active shooter situation that began late Saturday in the rural community of Portapique, N.S. (RCMP)
> 
> Police said Sunday Wortman may be driving what appears to be an RCMP vehicle and may be wearing an RCMP uniform.
> 
> "There's 1 difference btwn his car and our RCMP vehicles: the car #. The suspect's car is 28B11, behind rear passenger window. If you see 28B11 call 911 immediately," Nova Scotia RCMP tweeted.
> 
> RCMP said Wortman is considered armed and dangerous. Around 10:30 a.m. Sunday, RCMP tweeted that Wortman is currently in the Central Onslow and Debert area west of Truro in the vehicle that looks like an RCMP car and wearing an RCMP uniform.
> 
> "If you see him, call 911. DO NOT approach," RCMP tweeted Sunday morning.
> 
> Police said Wortman is a bald white man who is six-foot-two to six-foot-three with green eyes.
> 
> Police first alerted the public to an incident with a weapon involving someone with a firearm in the Portapique area on Saturday at 11:30 p.m. Residents are being advised by RCMP to stay in their homes and lock their doors.
> 
> "You may not see the police but we are there with you," the Nova Scotia RCMP tweeted Sunday morning.
> 
> RCMP spokesperson Cpl. Lisa Croteau says the public is also being asked to avoid the area of Portapique Beach Road, Bay Shore Road and Five Houses Road along the Cobequid Bay in Colchester County.
> 
> Croteau says people living on those streets should if possible "go into the basement, we just have an unfolding situation, a person with a firearm, and would like everybody to stay safe and we will provide more updates when available."
> 
> Some parts of the community have been evacuated but Croteau did not give details on how many people or from which area.
> 
> Police and other first responders have set up a staging area in the community of Great Village, about 10 minutes east of Portapique.
> 
> A five-kilometre stretch of Highway 2, which runs through Portapique, has been closed between Great Village and the community of Economy.
> 
> Portapique is about 40 kilometres west of Truro, N.S. A spokesperson for the Colchester East Hants Health Centre in Truro said the hospital went into lockdown at 11:35 p.m. Saturday, but could not give any further details.
> 
> Police, fire, and paramedics are staging in the nearby community of Great Village, about 10 minutes from Portapique, N.S., where they are responding to an active shooter situation that began late Saturday night. (Shaina Luck/CBC)
> 
> Mike MacKay, who lives just off the Glooscap Trail in Portapique, N.S., said the situation is "very uncomfortable."
> 
> He said he saw police cars on the Portapique Beach Road around 11:30 p.m. Saturday, across the Portapique River from his home.
> 
> "We saw a fire down the road, and thought that's all that it was. Then we saw a second fire and a third fire," said MacKay in a phone interview from his home Sunday morning.
> 
> MacKay said they found out hours later that it was an active shooter situation. He said he did not sleep at all overnight.
> 
> 'You're on edge'
> 
> "You're on edge. It's a small community," said MacKay. "It becomes quite a concern."
> 
> Coun. Tom Taggart, who represents the area for the Municipality of Colchester, described Portapique as a quiet community with many seniors.
> 
> "There's a lot of people very concerned," he said in a phone interview Sunday morning. "I do know that there's a huge police presence and that should make people relatively comfortable."
> 
> Taggart said there are many seasonal homes in the area, which has around 100 residents but swells to 250 in the warmer months.
> 
> "It's a beautiful, quiet, rural community," said Taggart, adding that the situation is not something he'd expect to happen in "cottage country."
> 
> The RCMP would not comment on the report of multiple house fires when asked by CBC News on Sunday morning.



Link has photos, maps and links to other articles.


----------



## dapaterson

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Has their been a dramatic increase in mass shootings and gun crime?
> 
> Not yet, but many more people than usual are under severe stress.  But the stress is the root of problems, not the guns.





			
				Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> 1, 2, 3, ...
> 
> Link has photos, maps and links to other articles.



I doubt that in a space of a month of lockdown he could acquire a uniform, firearms, and build/detail his own replica RCMP cruiser.  This looks to be long in the planning and development, not a sudden COVID stress action.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Brad jinxed it!





> may be driving what appears to be an RCMP vehicle and may be wearing an RCMP uniform.



That could really get ugly/deadly.


----------



## Haggis

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> That could really get ugly/deadly.



Huge potential for blue on blue.


----------



## Jarnhamar

https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/mobile/there-s-angels-among-us-cancer-survivor-to-receive-new-dentures-1.1928606

From giving a cancer survivor new teeth to shooting at people?


----------



## brihard

I'm listening to the EMS scanner. RCMP command post just called an EMS chopper direct for a suspect down at the Enfield Big Stop just off the highway.

Lots more to come out on this one... It's really bad.


----------



## dapaterson

Brihard said:
			
		

> I'm listening to the EMS scanner. RCMP command post just called an EMS chopper direct for a suspect down at the Enfield Big Stop just off the highway.
> 
> Lots more to come out on this one... It's really bad.



That's nearly 100km from Portapique.

Map of the two locations


----------



## brihard

dapaterson said:
			
		

> That's nearly 100km from Portapique.
> 
> Map of the two locations



Yes. He was moving and switched cars. They got him north of Halifax. No word on his status.


----------



## Haggis

Brihard said:
			
		

> I'm listening to the EMS scanner. RCMP command post just called an EMS chopper direct for a suspect down at the Enfield Big Stop just off the highway.



I was on an assignment down east last January. I used to have breakfast there almost every morning.  That's a busy spot!


----------



## GAP

CTV just announced that they have him in custody....IDK


----------



## brihard

GAP said:
			
		

> CTV just announced that they have him in custody....IDK



It's going to be some hours before a coherent story begins to come together on this one. Just wait out.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Brihard said:
			
		

> It's going to be some hours before a coherent story begins to come together on this one. Just wait out.



Unfortunately there's a captive audience who are going to be extra determined to get details. I've read people are already all over the guys facebook account posting.


----------



## garb811

Haggis said:
			
		

> I was on an assignment down east last January. I used to have breakfast there almost every morning.  That's a busy spot!


Have had breakfast there more than once myself.  Fortunately with the self-isolation, I'm guessing the restaurant wasn't open for dine-in so the normal Sunday morning crowds wouldn't have been there.


----------



## brihard

Just wait out. RCMP have a presser at 6pm NS time, sounds about right to fit the facts together coherently. What I can say with confidence is that what you’re seeing in the news right now is of very fragmented accuracy. Obviously I’m not at liberty to be specific. Just give this the few hours it needs please. This has been a difficult and crappy morning for a lot of people.


----------



## dapaterson

Mercedes Stephenson is reporting one RCMP officer killed, another wounded.  And the suspect dead as well.



> Global News has learned that suspect Gabriel Wortman has been shot dead by police. Police sources tell Global News an RCMP officer was killed by Wortman and another was shot and injured and is now in hospital.



https://twitter.com/MercedesGlobal/status/1251936606493315080


----------



## Jarnhamar

Pretty bad phrasing by Global.



> Global News has confirmed that 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman was shot and killed by Nova Scotia police *after* being taken into custody Sunday morning. Wortman is the suspect of a fatal shooting that occurred in Portapique, N.S., which killed, multiple people including a member of the RCMP. Sarah Ritchie reports.
> https://globalnews.ca/news/6838880/rcmp-active-shooter-portapique-n-s/


----------



## brihard

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Pretty bad phrasing by Global.



Wow. No kidding.


----------



## AbdullahD

Brihard said:
			
		

> Wow. No kidding.



I am suprised as all hell that passed the editors.. it may fuel more anti cop sentiments.. smh


----------



## Haggis

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Pretty bad phrasing by Global.



My first though upon reading that is that he attempted to escape after capture.  It happens. However, as Brihard mentioned earlier, I'll wait for the full story.


----------



## brihard

Looks like the wording has now been changed.


----------



## Kilted

It feels like some of the details here are taking longer to become public. Although from what I have heard from the press conference, it appears that this unfolded at numerous different locations.


----------



## brihard

Kilted said:
			
		

> It feels like some of the details here are taking longer to become public. Although from what I have heard from the press conference, it appears that this unfolded at numerous different locations.



Don’t expect much of a story to be told for a while yet. Too complex, too much to do.


----------



## GAP

10 + people dead...no report on injured, etc....


----------



## dapaterson

The CBC story indicates that the individual owned multiple properties in Portapique and Dartmouth, and that there were three fires in Portapique... lots of locations for police to secure, search and analyze, beyond the site where the suspect was captured.

It's been less than 24 hours.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

GAP said:
			
		

> 10 + people dead...no report on injured, etc....



RCMP officer was a 23 year veteran of the Force. Leaves behind two children and husband. Possibility of more victims. More here from CBC:



> More than 10 people dead after N.S. gunman's rampage, and police say toll could grow
> 
> CBC News · Posted: Apr 19, 2020 5:37 AM AT | Last Updated: 4 minutes ago
> 
> Police have confirmed the gunman has died, and identified the RCMP officer who was killed
> 
> More than 10 people were killed during a gunman's bloody 12-hour rampage through several Nova Scotia communities, and police warn there may be more victims.
> 
> In an update on Sunday evening, Nova Scotia RCMP confirmed there were at least 10 people killed in several locations across the province, including a veteran RCMP officer.
> 
> Police said there may be more victims who have not been discovered yet and their investigation continues.
> 
> RCMP identified the gunman as Gabriel Wortman, 51. His rampage began late Saturday night in the small community of Portapique, N.S. He led police on a chase Sunday morning along one of the province's busiest highways.
> 
> The chase ended near a gas station about 35 kilometres north of Halifax in Enfield, N.S., around 11:40 a.m. local time. Police confirmed Sunday evening that the gunman was dead.
> 
> RCMP Chief Supt. Chris Leather said gunfire was exchanged between police and the suspect at at least one point.
> 
> Gunman did not know some of his victims: police
> 
> On Sunday morning, police had warned that the gunman was driving a vehicle that looked like an RCMP vehicle at one point, and was wearing an RCMP uniform.
> 
> "The fact that this individual had a uniform and a police car at his disposal certainly speaks to it not being a random act," Leather said.
> 
> Due to privacy reasons, Leather said he was not able to discuss Wortman's relationship with the victims, besides saying some of the victims did not appear to have a relationship with the gunman.
> Police victim identified
> 
> Const. Heidi Stevenson, a 23-year veteran of the RCMP, has been identified as the police member who was killed responding to the active shooter incident.
> 
> "Heidi answered the call of duty and lost her life while protecting those she served. Earlier this afternoon I met with Heidi's family and there are no words to describe their pain," Assistant Commissioner Lee Bergerman told reporters Sunday evening.
> 
> "Two children have lost their mother. And a husband has lost his wife. Parents have lost their daughter and countless others lost an incredible friend and colleague."
> 
> Bergerman also said a second male officer was injured and is in hospital with non-life threatening injuries.
> 
> 'One of the most senseless acts of violence' in N.S. history
> 
> Premier Stephen McNeil addressed the investigation Sunday afternoon.
> 
> "I never imagined when I went to bed last night that I would wake up to the horrific news that an active shooter was on the loose in Nova Scotia. This is one of the most senseless acts of violence in our province's history," McNeil said.
> 
> "To the families of the victims, and to those who are still feeling afraid, my heart goes out to you. Know that all Nova Scotians are with you."
> 
> McNeil also thanked RCMP for stopping the gunman and doing their best to protect citizens.
> 
> In a media briefing Sunday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also thanked police for their work.
> 
> "My heart goes out to everyone affected in what is a terrible situation," Trudeau said in a brief statement.
> 
> 'We heard gunshots'
> 
> Darcy Sack, a Shubenacadie, N.S., resident, said she and her friend came across two burning police vehicles and the silver suspect vehicle while out driving on Sunday morning near Highway 102, one of the province's main arteries.
> 
> "We were right behind the police car that was on fire. There was one officer we could see on scene and then all of a sudden, he went running toward one of the burning vehicles," Sack said. "We heard gunshots."
> 
> Sack said her heart was pounding the whole time.
> 
> "I had that feeling that something was wrong with the [police officer's] partner — the way he looked. My heart went out to him," she said.
> 
> Sack said they then turned on to the highway and then saw the shooter in the silver car again being chased by police. She said he was dressed like a police officer.
> 
> Eyewitness saw homes burning
> 
> Mike MacKay, who lives just off the Glooscap Trail in Portapique said he saw police cars on the Portapique Beach Road around 11:30 p.m. Saturday, across the Portapique River from his home.
> 
> "We saw a fire down the road, and thought that's all that it was. Then we saw a second fire and a third fire," said MacKay in a phone interview from his home Sunday morning.
> 
> N.S. resident 'up all night' following active shooter incident
> 
> CBC has learned RCMP and fire fighters were called to a property in Wentworth, N.S., on Sunday morning shortly before 10 a.m. to respond to a house fire.
> 
> Police have not released any information about whether it is connected to the shooter investigation.
> 
> The RCMP would not comment on the report of multiple house fires when asked by CBC News on Sunday morning.
> 
> 'You're on edge'
> 
> MacKay said he did not sleep at all overnight Saturday.
> 
> "You're on edge. It's a small community," said MacKay. "It becomes quite a concern."
> 
> Coun. Tom Taggart, who represents the area for the Municipality of Colchester, described Portapique as a quiet community with many seniors.
> 
> Taggart said there are many seasonal homes in the area, which has around 100 residents but swells to 250 in the warmer months.
> 
> "It's a beautiful, quiet, rural community," said Taggart, adding that the situation is not something he'd expect to happen in "cottage country."
> 
> A person with the name Gabriel Wortman is listed as a denturist in the Halifax area on the Denturist Society of Nova Scotia website.
> 
> According to property records, Wortman owns a denture clinic and two other properties in Dartmouth and three properties in Portapique.



Link


----------



## brihard

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The CBC story indicates that the individual owned multiple properties in Portapique and Dartmouth, and that there were three fires in Portapique... lots of locations for police to secure, search and analyze, beyond the site where the suspect was captured.
> 
> It's been less than 24 hours.



I don’t know how many forensic identification members Nova Scotia RCMP have. I doubt it’s many. Same with criminal fire investigators. Lots to process...


----------



## lenaitch

One piece of footage I saw showed a Halifax Regional PS forensic van at what looked like the service centre.  They could be there to assist the province's SIRT  unit - I don't know how well they are equipped (Ontario's SIU has its own forensic team).  No doubt RCMP forensic units and possibly criminal investigators will be drawn from NB and PEI.

Multiple major crime scenes are extremely resource intensive.

Thoughts and prayers to the fallen and her family.


----------



## brihard

lenaitch said:
			
		

> One piece of footage I saw showed a Halifax Regional PS forensic van at what looked like the service centre.  They could be there to assist the province's SIRT  unit - I don't know how well they are equipped (Ontario's SIU has its own forensic team).  No doubt RCMP forensic units and possibly criminal investigators will be drawn from NB and PEI.
> 
> Multiple major crime scenes are extremely resource intensive.
> 
> Thoughts and prayers to the fallen and her family.



And it sounds like there are many scenes, and many victims. Each will need to be fully and properly handled for both the criminal investigation and the SIRT investigation.

Global News is now quoting the RCMP commissioner as so far 13 dead victims plus the shooter.


----------



## Cloud Cover

CBC radio news says I t’s now 17 dead including the shooter.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

US media (Vox.com) has picked up the shootings:

What we know about a mass shooting in Nova Scotia, Canada


----------



## Halifax Tar

I lost two hunting buddies yesterday with a 3rd wounded.....


----------



## brihard

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I lost two hunting buddies yesterday with a 3rd wounded.....



Aw frig. I’m really sorry.


----------



## Remius

CTV reporting the death toll is up to 19 so far.

What a mess.


----------



## dapaterson

A private pilot out of Halifax flew a tribute over Portapique last night.

https://twitter.com/haligonia/status/1252035451873103874


----------



## lenaitch

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> US media (Vox.com) has picked up the shootings:
> 
> What we know about a mass shooting in Nova Scotia, Canada



The one hole in their reportage is the claim that all "guns" in Canada have to be registered.  On the few other forums I haunt with many Americans onboard, I am surprised I have not yet heard that this could have been stopped in its tracks by a well armed citizenry.


----------



## Baz

lenaitch said:
			
		

> The one hole in their reportage is the claim that all "guns" in Canada have to be registered.  On the few other forums I haunt with many Americans onboard, I am surprised I have not yet heard that this could have been stopped in its tracks by a well armed citizenry.



Read the comments in the Fox News reports. I don't know why I submitted myself to that, but there it is.  There's some other stuff in their that I hope they edit out...


----------



## brihard

Baz said:
			
		

> Read the comments in the Fox News reports.



I'd rather slam my junk in a car door than read the comments on a Fox story about a mass shooting.


----------



## Remius

Brihard said:
			
		

> I'd rather slam my junk in a car door than read the comments on a Fox story about a mass shooting.




It pretty much has the same effect.


----------



## dapaterson

Halifax Examiner is keeping an up to date list of those killed at: https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/featured/too-much-pain-here-are-12-victims-in-yesterdays-mass-killing/

Names are taken from other formal releases, and on consent of families.

A reporter from the Halifax Examiner, Tom Bousquet, also reports on the perpetrator's court record: https://twitter.com/Tim_Bousquet/status/1252245303513710598



> [A] 2002 conviction of assault, two speeding tickets, and an apparent family dispute over property in Portapique (he lost that dispute) in 2015.



And an odd article from the Halifax edition of Frank Magazine of an alleged interaction between the perpetrator and Halifax police (undated): http://archive.is/QpKxo
EDIT: Appears to be from the 17 Feb 2020 edition of the magazine.


----------



## Remius

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> I see the anti gun lobby didn't waste time calling on a immediate ban of sales assault rifles in Canada even though its not clear what type of gun the madman used.



 All sides of that particular debate are calling for all sorts of stuff.

Maybe we should leave this thread to the fact of the incident and as things come to light.  We can discuss the political side in the gun debate thread. 

Not a knock to you Chief.  Just that we have people here affected directly by this on this thread.  Maybe we can move the gun debate to the right section.  

I’m happy to be told to go pound salt, but just a suggestion for everyone here.


----------



## Stoker

Remius said:
			
		

> All sides of that particular debate are calling for all sorts of stuff.
> 
> Maybe we should leave this thread to the fact of the incident and as things come to light.  We can discuss the political side in the gun debate thread.
> 
> Not a knock to you Chief.  Just that we have people here affected directly by this on this thread.  Maybe we can move the gun debate to the right section.
> 
> I’m happy to be told to go pound salt, but just a suggestion for everyone here.



Done and done my friend.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I lost two hunting buddies yesterday with a 3rd wounded.....



Very sorry for your loss, HT.  

Having spent time in most of the places the events unfolded over, I am still baffled at how peaceful little places in NS can have things like this happen.  I used to live in Enfield, fish stripers on the Shubie, hike in Economy...you just never, ever think evil of that magnitude will manifest in these peaceful places.  

There are many dark, evil details of what happened over the 12 hours; some of them are starting to be part of media updates.  I've attached a picture from a post I saw awhile ago that is some of the "good" from the events.  There was also a video today of Cst Morrison going thru Elmsdale on his way home and the community turn out to welcome him 'home'.

RIP to all the fallen, and sincere condolences to all for the lives, families and communities who will be forever scarred.


----------



## BeyondTheNow

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I lost two hunting buddies yesterday with a 3rd wounded.....



My condolences, HT.


----------



## PuckChaser

Remius said:
			
		

> All sides of that particular debate are calling for all sorts of stuff.
> 
> Maybe we should leave this thread to the fact of the incident and as things come to light.  We can discuss the political side in the gun debate thread.
> 
> Not a knock to you Chief.  Just that we have people here affected directly by this on this thread.  Maybe we can move the gun debate to the right section.
> 
> I’m happy to be told to go pound salt, but just a suggestion for everyone here.



I agree with you, but its kind of hard to do that when the Prime Minister is using the tragedy to further political talking points on gun control. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-reiterates-gun-control-commitment-in-wake-of-mass-shooting-1.4903966


----------



## brihard

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I agree with you, but its kind of hard to do that when the Prime Minister is using the tragedy to further political talking points on gun control. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-reiterates-gun-control-commitment-in-wake-of-mass-shooting-1.4903966



The ongoing gun control thread is probably still the appropriate venue for that part of the discussion given how there’s still a very serious and complicated event as the focus of this thread, and the gun control stuff tends to generate a high volume of rapid commentary. It would suck to see the discussion of the event itself crowded out.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I lost two hunting buddies yesterday with a 3rd wounded.....


Condolences ....


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I lost two hunting buddies yesterday with a 3rd wounded.....



So sorry to hear that. It's hard to lose buddies.....


----------



## lenaitch

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I lost two hunting buddies yesterday with a 3rd wounded.....



Condolences to you as a friend and to their families.  Condolences to all of the victims' families.  Words seem so inadequate at times like this.


----------



## lenaitch

I was watching the CBC news channel and caught an interview with Premier of NS.  The host seemed to be taken aback when the Premier said he was not called in the night but rather, found out about the events when he woke up.  His answer was essentially 'why would they call me unless they need some action from the government'.  I agree with him.  The last thing cops need to do in the middle of an investigative firefight in the middle of the night is to maintain an 'fyi phone chain'.


----------



## Baz

There is a GoFundMe page for Cst Stevenson at https://ca.gofundme.com/f/supporting-the-family-of-cst-heidi-stevenson.

There are also other's for other victims and as a group.  I just thought I'd let the Army.ca community know in case any of you wanted to show your support.  There are obviously lot's of NS Communities affected by this.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Apparently this scumbag was using his fake cruiser to pull over people and shoot them dead.

I am really questioning why the police didn't use the emergency alert system on our phones with this shooting(s). This is one of the few times where I can see it possibly having saved lives as it could have let them know not to be pulled over. Not much the victims could have really done in that situation, they did what they were supposed to (pull over when the sirens come on) and by time they would have realized anything was wrong it would be too late.


----------



## mariomike

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> I am really questioning why the police didn't use the emergency alert system on our phones with this shooting(s).



National Post had this to say,

https://nationalpost.com/news/officials-cant-explain-why-emergency-alert-didnt-go-out-as-gunman-tore-through-nova-scotia


----------



## brihard

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Apparently this scumbag was using his fake cruiser to pull over people and shoot them dead.
> 
> I am really questioning why the police didn't use the emergency alert system on our phones with this shooting(s). This is one of the few times where I can see it possibly having saved lives as it could have let them know not to be pulled over. Not much the victims could have really done in that situation, they did what they were supposed to (pull over when the sirens come on) and by time they would have realized anything was wrong it would be too late.



I would be wondering which info they had when, and whether it was considered solid yet. You can only imagine how ridiculously chaotic this would have been to start and what kinds of weird or potentially false reports would be coming in. We’d need to know what reports they got and what was credible. Unfortunately the circumstances suggest there would have been few witnesses to stuff like that.


----------



## lenaitch

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Apparently this scumbag was using his fake cruiser to pull over people and shoot them dead.
> 
> I am really questioning why the police didn't use the emergency alert system on our phones with this shooting(s). This is one of the few times where I can see it possibly having saved lives as it could have let them know not to be pulled over. Not much the victims could have really done in that situation, they did what they were supposed to (pull over when the sirens come on) and by time they would have realized anything was wrong it would be too late.



No doubt this question will be parsed in the months to come but I suspect the decision to use was based on the fact that it is faster.  Assuming the provincial alert system is similar to Ontario's, a request (likely from a pre-determined rank level) and crafted message would have to go the the NS EMO then approved at some senior level by them, possibly translated, run through the text-to-voice software then injected into the broadcast system, all in the middle of the night.  I suppose the RCMP determined that the ability to tweet out multiple messages in seconds (from a designated point - probably a Comm operator or supervisor) in a dynamic situation would be more effective.

Or, if it's anything like Ontario, they determined that their 911 system didn't need to be overloaded by a bunch of whinny calls from Yarmouth or Syndey complaining about being woken up for no reason.


----------



## Haggis

The Star is reporting that the alleged attacker had an assault conviction in October 2001 and an accompanying firearms prohibition order. If the order was still in force, how he got the firearms used should be interesting to hear.


----------



## brihard

Haggis said:
			
		

> The Star is reporting that the alleged attacker had an assault conviction in October 2001 and an accompanying firearms prohibition order. If the order was still in force, how he got the firearms used should be interesting to hear.



Conditional discharge for common assault. I doubt the prohibition would have still been in effect. That said, I’m not going to opine on what the likely legal status was of anything he used or possessed. It’s worth waiting for facts on that one.


----------



## Old Sweat

Stand by! There just was a post on a news site that the RCMP have announced there now are 22 victims.

Add: there is a story on CTVnews.ca.


----------



## MilEME09

Haggis said:
			
		

> The Star is reporting that the alleged attacker had an assault conviction in October 2001 and an accompanying firearms prohibition order. If the order was still in force, how he got the firearms used should be interesting to hear.



The public safety minister said in committee that the department and the RCMP do not actually track, or follow up with people who have a prohibition on owning fire arms, these could be his weapons from prior to 2001 for all we know. If people want tougher gun laws, that's were they should look, not banning guns, but closing loop holes like why the heck the RCMP doesn't track or follow up with anyone on a prohibition order. There is way to many questions that are not answered yet, until we have all the facts it is to early to say what measures should be taken to prevent future mass shootings like this one.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Military will be supporting investigation into Nova Scotia mass shooting: sources
https://globalnews.ca/news/6846634/nova-scotia-shooting-military/


> BY MERCEDES STEPHENSON AND AMANDA CONNOLLY GLOBAL NEWS Posted April 21, 2020 11:02 am Updated April 21, 2020 12:12 pm
> 
> The Canadian military will be supporting law enforcement in Nova Scotia in the investigation into a mass shooting that left at least 19 people dead, including an RCMP member.
> 
> Multiple sources tell Global News the military will be providing equipment such as tents, generators and lights to help protect and process the crime scenes.
> 
> Roughly 30 Canadian Forces members will also be involved in providing that support.


----------



## Baz

Brihard said:
			
		

> I would be wondering which info they had when, and whether it was considered solid yet. You can only imagine how ridiculously chaotic this would have been to start and what kinds of weird or potentially false reports would be coming in. We’d need to know what reports they got and what was credible. Unfortunately the circumstances suggest there would have been few witnesses to stuff like that.



Thanks for those comments.

The wording of such an alert, and the timing, would be incredibly difficult, especially in the "fog of battle."

I think that people probably made the best decisions they given what they knew.  It's unlikely anyone involved in the response acted maliciously in my mind, which is what we should expect in these situations.

My kids put hearts in the window today for Cst Stevenson, like a lot of other's on my street.  The community is doing it's best to let her family know they aren't alone.  I prefer to let the investigators do their work and supporting those impacted by this despicable act.


----------



## Haggis

Brihard said:
			
		

> *Conditional *discharge for common assault. I doubt the prohibition would have still been in effect. That said, I’m not going to opine on what the likely legal status was of anything he used or possessed. It’s worth waiting for facts on that one.


Crap!  Missed that.  Quite true.  Situations like this would completely justify the lifetime background checks in C-71.


----------



## Scott

So I might as well weigh in. I live five km from where the pedestrian, a lady I had seen walking a lot, was gunned down. I would have been on a bike ride to the park she was killed by and back had it not been for Twitter.

 I’m curious about the rather large time gap in tweets. Because this had the makings of something more than ordinary when the first tweet was sent, and they’ve stayed that Twitter was their go to.   

The emergency alert question from the provinces end has been satisfied for me. The rcmp have to make the request. So far as I know, the only way the “province” would have a live feed would be from shubie radio (willing to be disagreed with)

I am completely fine with waiting for the questions to be addressed. They’re rather bottom shelf now. But I know the answers will come. And I already have pretty good knowledge that this is going to read like no film you’ve ever imagined. 

I knew three victims and my mothers whole side of the family knows multiple victims. I also know many of the firefighters in the area, having volunteered with them. I grew up in stewiacke and roamed every single area mentioned. It’s surreal. That’s all I can say. My phone has been off the frigging hook.

One point of pure glee: dr strang saying that all the reporters from outside the province can get fucked, you’re not coming.


----------



## Scott

Here’s the other bit I know about the emergency alerts: I got the one for Covid 19 on both my personal phone (TELUS) and my work phone (bell). 

The TELUS message came in pretty much the time it was released. The bell phones message did not arrive for some hours. I just don’t think it’s a flawless system, but it would have to be used first in order to discuss failings.


----------



## brihard

Scott- words fail me. I'll simply say that you have my sympathies for the loss your your neighbours and community members. I can't imagine what it's gotta be like living through this as someone whose own community is directly impacted and disrupted. Please take care of yourself and your people.


----------



## Scott

Brihard, both of our communities have been impacted. Thank you, and to you as well. Most small bit diverse and welcoming community I’ve ever had the pleasure of getting to know. 

I’m fine. I just moved to the area in mid February. But have been in and out of the area for years to ski. 

I won’t let that cocksucker ruin my perception of the community, or my space. 

Everyone responded as they could. There are answers required. And they will come. I’m imploring patience on all angles, including the political ones. This is not a partisan issue. This is an event so big and complex it has or will completely tax every single one of our resources.


----------



## lenaitch

Scott said:
			
		

> So I might as well weigh in. I live five km from where the pedestrian, a lady I had seen walking a lot, was gunned down. I would have been on a bike ride to the park she was killed by and back had it not been for Twitter.
> 
> I’m curious about the rather large time gap in tweets. Because this had the makings of something more than ordinary when the first tweet was sent, and they’ve stayed that Twitter was their go to.
> 
> The emergency alert question from the provinces end has been satisfied for me. The rcmp have to make the request. So far as I know, the only way the “province” would have a live feed would be from shubie radio (willing to be disagreed with)
> 
> I am completely fine with waiting for the questions to be addressed. They’re rather bottom shelf now. But I know the answers will come. And I already have pretty good knowledge that this is going to read like no film you’ve ever imagined.
> 
> I knew three victims and my mothers whole side of the family knows multiple victims. I also know many of the firefighters in the area, having volunteered with them. I grew up in stewiacke and roamed every single area mentioned. It’s surreal. That’s all I can say. My phone has been off the frigging hook.
> 
> One point of pure glee: dr strang saying that all the reporters from outside the province can get ****ed, you’re not coming.



Condolences for your losses.  Strangely, these types of events can both tear apart a community and bring it together.

I agree that there will be time enough for response reviews; RCMP internal, provincial and/or perhaps even a formal inquiry, but I doubt everything will be known before the investigation is deemed complete and the Coroner/Medical Examiner has signed off.  It's a valid question whether every tool in the box was used, but there might well be valid reasons; perhaps imperfect, but still considered reasonable at the time.

It's relatively easy to view things 'at 30,000 feet', but at the time and on the ground it must have seemed to be a confusing mess.  Most likely a handful of scattered on-duty coppers late on a Saturday night, desperate and seemingly disparate calls coming into possibly multiple 911 call takers until some kind of clarity emerges to someone through the fog.  No senior command staff working, perhaps one or two supervisors.  The police don't completely know what transpired today, several days after, so I'm wondering why people expect they had any better knowledge when it was unfolding.

They are in the middle of a major criminal investigation.  Unfortunately many, including some media, expect these things to be conducted in a glass house.

My experience with police internal reviews is less than stellar.  There is little to no formal process, at least in my former Force, resulting in a lack of forthrightness, since few members are willing to stand up and pass open comment on command decisions.  If there is a record, everybody is concerned about civil and criminal repercussions and if there is no written record, then the media and lawyers figure it's a cover-up.  If charges are laid it gets worse.  Formal public inquiries are arguably the same since everybody is lawered-up.

No doubt some things will eventually be done differently.


----------



## Baz

12 Wing just did a flypast over Cole Harbour for the victims.  Circled Cst Stevenson's house which is near mine.

Photo is by Tomy Dresdel via GDMS-C.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Apparently this scumbag was using his fake cruiser to pull over people and shoot them dead.
> 
> I am really questioning why the police didn't use the emergency alert system on our phones with this shooting(s). This is one of the few times where I can see it possibly having saved lives as it could have let them know not to be pulled over. Not much the victims could have really done in that situation, they did what they were supposed to (pull over when the sirens come on) and by time they would have realized anything was wrong it would be too late.



Unfortunately, I think there is some misinformation/misunderstanding on the Emergency Alert system.  The RCMP, to my knowledge, don't have direct access.

This website has some good info on the system in general:  https://www.alertready.ca/

There is a good basic description under the _Responsibilities_ tab.  From the _FAQ_ tab:  About Alert Ready, have a read over the _About Alert Ready_, _Who Sends Emergency Alerts_ and  _What types of emergency alerts are issued via Alert Ready?_ FAQs.

This article suggests that the RCMP do not access the Alert system directly; unfortunately, many CBC story commentators don't seem to know or understand this.

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/local/nova-scotia-was-ready-to-send-emergency-alert-amidst-active-shooter-but-rcmp-didnt-request-it-440649/

Also, the NS EMO system 'adminsters' the provincial 911 system and offices.  I am at a loss to understand how the "province/Premiere' can say they didn't really know what was going on; the initial calls for fire, gunshots, etc late Saturday were called into 911 and the RCMP responded.  

https://beta.novascotia.ca/government/emergency-management-office

I think the RCMP and other first responders had an extremely difficult job to do, some of it at night with a suspect disguised as 'one of them'.  I am not happy seeing comments online about people second-guessing the RCMP for not triggering the Alert system.  I've said a few times;  imagine the public response to an active shooter, dressed as RCMP, with RCMP all over the area?  Imagine all the people phoning into 911 to report they saw an RCMP car?  I've also seen a few comments online about the people who would have 'taken the *@*@)@ out myself if I'd of known it was a fake mountie', who would have jumped in trucks with shotguns and crossbows in an attempt to 'help'.

A tough situation, and yes questions should be asked in the spirit of 'what can we learn from this, to improve SOPs', etc but...I am disappointed to see the Premiere without hesitation simply state "it's wasn't the government, it was the RCMP".  I think that is in very, very poor taste.  No one could have predicted what was going to happen;  how do you prepare for the "has never happened in the history of Canada before' type events?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Scott said:
			
		

> So I might as well weigh in. I live five km from where the pedestrian, a lady I had seen walking a lot, was gunned down. I would have been on a bike ride to the park she was killed by and back had it not been for Twitter.
> 
> I’m curious about the rather large time gap in tweets. Because this had the makings of something more than ordinary when the first tweet was sent, and they’ve stayed that Twitter was their go to.
> 
> The emergency alert question from the provinces end has been satisfied for me. The rcmp have to make the request. So far as I know, the only way the “province” would have a live feed would be from shubie radio (willing to be disagreed with)
> 
> I am completely fine with waiting for the questions to be addressed. They’re rather bottom shelf now. But I know the answers will come. And I already have pretty good knowledge that this is going to read like no film you’ve ever imagined.
> 
> I knew three victims and my mothers whole side of the family knows multiple victims. I also know many of the firefighters in the area, having volunteered with them. I grew up in stewiacke and roamed every single area mentioned. It’s surreal. That’s all I can say. My phone has been off the frigging hook.
> 
> One point of pure glee: dr strang saying that all the reporters from outside the province can get fucked, you’re not coming.



Very sorry for the loss to you, your family....everyone grieving from this.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Evacuation centre peppered with bullets morning of Nova Scotia mass shooting

Nova Scotia’s police watchdog is investigating why two uniformed officers were shooting in the direction of a fire hall in Onslow being used as a place of refuge the morning of the shooting rampage.

In a statement to Global News, Nova Scotia Serious Incident Response Team (SiRT) interim director Pat Curran said the team is investigating the discharge of firearms by two RCMP officers near the Onslow-Belmont Fire Hall about 10:30 a.m. on Sunday morning.

“At this point we don’t what they were shooting at,” Curran said. “We do know that the shooter was not in that area at that time.”
The Onslow Belmont Fire Hall is located about 25 kilometres east of Portapique, N.S., where a gunman began his deadly rampage that spanned over 12 hours and killed at least 22 people this past weekend.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6853581/nova-scotia-shooting-onslow-fire-hall-bullets/?fbclid=IwAR3DWNnBrxe6hVr65VJKPG8IST40SZnWw2VnQANBL3l356A1fF-WN9_RuAo


----------



## Remius

That sounds odd.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Remius said:
			
		

> That sounds odd.



No kidding... I knew about the competition between the 'Guns and Hoses' crowds, but that's taking it a bit far..


----------



## Scott

Yeah. A few people shook up over that one!

There are more rumours and unconfirmed/unreported stories that will make you simply shake your head. 

I’m not sharing because it might be just rumour. Unfortunately, 90% of the news I get has all been true. 

I’m good. Better this morning for sure.


----------



## Haggis

Brihard said:
			
		

> That said, I’m not going to opine on what the likely legal status was of anything he used or possessed. It’s worth waiting for facts on that one.



As announced at the RCMP presser yesterday, the attacker did not have a firearms licence.  So, his guns were not legally possessed.  I'll reserve more comments for the Gun Control 2.0 thread IOT not derail this one.


----------



## Old Sweat

And from out of the blue, or at least the Task & Purpose online newsletter, comes this story that states two of the victims had lived in New Mexico. It is reproduced under the Fair Comments provisions of the Copyright Act.


Navy vet and wife believed to be among victims of Nova Scotia mass shooting that left at least 22 dead
SCOTT TURNER, ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL16 HOURS AGO

A former Albuquerque couple appears to be among the victims of a mass shooting in a rural Nova Scotia community that has left at least 22 dead.

The home belonging to John Zahl and his wife, Joanne Thomas, was found burned following a rampage over the weekend in the town of Portapique, according to The Associated Press. Officials said the suspect, identified as 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman, was shot and later died on Sunday. It was Canada’s worst mass shooting, and authorities are still searching for a motive.

Zahl retired from FedEx, and Thomas was a former University of New Mexico employee.

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham noted the deaths in a Twitter post. She said her prayers go out to the couple’s family and loved ones.

“Sadly, we’ve learned that two former New Mexicans are presumed victims of the recent Nova Scotia mass shooting,” Lujan Grisham said late Tuesday. “John Zahl and Elizabeth Joanne Thomas raised their family in Albuquerque before retiring to Joanne’s native Canada.”

Zahl’s daughter, Jennifer Zahl Bruland, told the Journal that Canadian authorities have not yet identified her father and stepmother as victims in the rampage, but she was expecting them to do so Wednesday.

“We’re just starting to process this,” she said. “The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has been very good to us. They’ve been staying in touch and keeping us informed.”


Justin Zahl, the couple’s grandson, frantically called police after he saw that his grandparents’ two-story log cabin had been set on fire, with their two cars in the driveway, according to AP. The news organization reported that Zahl had been told his grandparents’ bodies were likely in the ruins.

Bruland said her father and stepmother had lived in Albuquerque for 30 years and moved to Nova Scotia in 2017.

“They were very dear people and very involved in Albuquerque,” Gene Valdes, a friend of the couple, told the Journal. He said the couple visited him and his wife, Dorian Dodson, in Tucson in February and kept in constant contact.

“We were best friends for 50 years,” Valdes said. He said he knew something was wrong when the couple’s grandson, Justin, called Valdes and his wife after the rampage asking them if they heard from his grandparents.

“He called us at 4 a.m. Sunday and off and on after that,” Valdes said.

Valdes said Zahl, 69, and Thomas, 58, should have been on a cruise at the time of the shooting, but the COVID-19 pandemic forced a change in plans.

He said the two had fallen in love with Nova Scotia, calling it “idyllic,” despite the harsh winters.

“But they were talking about selling their house and moving back to the U.S.,” he said.

Valdes and Zahl served in the U.S. Navy together. They were Russian translators.

He said Zahl and Thomas married in 1985 and settled in Albuquerque, where Zahl worked for FedEx and later worked part time for Albuquerque Public Schools. He also coached soccer.


Thomas, a Canadian citizen, worked at Eye Associates, the University of New Mexico and Health Care Service Corp. before she retired.

“They were very active in a local Presbyterian church where John was an elder,” Valdes said. Even though they joined a church in Nova Scotia, he said they still watched a livestream of church services in Albuquerque.

“I was talking to them on Easter,” his daughter said. “They were watching the livestream then, and had to get off the phone. They had a Zoom meeting with some of their friends.”

She called her father and stepmother “genuine people.”

“If they asked you how you were, they meant it,” Bruland said. “They cared about their friends in New Mexico.”

She said the family hopes people will remember them for “their kindness, laughter and joy,” instead of the tragedy.

She said her father had four children, another daughter, Sarah Zahl, and sons Andrew and Daniel. The couple raised two grandsons, Riley, who lives in Albuquerque, and Justin, who lives in Nova Scotia.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=Eye In The Sky]

I think the RCMP and other first responders had an extremely difficult job to do, some of it at night with a suspect disguised as 'one of them'.  I am not happy seeing comments online about people second-guessing the RCMP for not triggering the Alert system.  I've said a few times;  imagine the public response to an active shooter, dressed as RCMP, with RCMP all over the area?  Imagine all the people phoning into 911 to report they saw an RCMP car?  I've also seen a few comments online about the people who would have 'taken the *@*@)@ out myself if I'd of known it was a fake mountie', who would have jumped in trucks with shotguns and crossbows in an attempt to 'help'.

[/quote]

I've been thinking about this. I'm normally not too curious about this stuff right off the bat (reactions, lessons learned) but the more I think about this the more it seems like a huge issue. 

Like many on the forum I think if I seen an RCMP officer in distress or waving their arms or whatever I'd run to them to try and help. In this case if it was the shooter I'd have gotten shot. It's strange that the RCMP chose to alert people via Twitter but seemingly not through the Cell phone alert system. I don't have twitter or facebook so I would have missed the tweet.

A mass alert could have caused a pretty big panic. It would also have maybe stopped people from opening their door to someone banging on it (shouting RCMP open up) and it may have prevented some travel.

I'm sure a lot of people have these fantasies of grabbing guns to go and help. I put the probability of them making good on that promise the same as the CDS giving me the 20 or so "CTO days" I've built up working while on leave.

I'm pro-RCMP while believing they should be held to a high standard when they make mistakes (lost firearms, accidental shootings, harassment etc..). The same way I view the CAF. 
I hope the decision to either not use the alert system, or, figure out why it didn't get sent out sooner/took so long gets thoroughly land transparently looked at.



Using the uniform of police (or EMS or military) is such a powerful multiplier for causing chaos. An actual police vehicle is next level.
Considering the PM immediately brought up his platform on gun control and reiterated about banning assault weapons I wonder if there is going to be a discussion of police/ems/military uniforms and/or replica vehicles being in the possession of civilians.  I personally think the uniform and vehicle made this POS way more deadly than any kind of gun he could have possessed.

The last time I was deployed there was a concern/threat at one point of stolen US uniforms and infiltrators using them. It really changes things.


----------



## mariomike

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I wonder if there is going to be a discussion of police/ems/military uniforms and/or replica vehicles being in the possession of civilians.  I personally think the uniform and vehicle made this POS way more deadly than any kind of gun he could have possessed.



Speaking of vehicles, I've seen plenty of used police cars and ambulances. But, I have never seen a retired UPS truck "package car".

Apparently, they do not exist.


----------



## MilEME09

It is almost in the same realm as insider attacks in Afghanistan, like many of you have pointed out, people trusted the uniform, and all of a sudden that trust turned deadly. I am sure RCMP were relieved and horrified at the same time that the shooter wasn't actually an RCMP officer. The man didnt have a PAL, I would love to know what guns he had, and we all want to know how he obtained them.


----------



## mariomike

Speaking of fakery,

Alleged Fake Cop Ran Own 'Police Station,' Interrogated 'Suspects'
https://www.foxnews.com/story/alleged-fake-cop-ran-own-police-station-interrogated-suspects

HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. – Henry Terry had all the right accessories to impersonate a police officer, prosecutors say: authentic-looking uniforms, a car with lights and sirens, a pair of handcuffs. But Terry took it a step further, setting up a personal police station where he kept records of possible crimes and sometimes interrogated "suspects" who were handcuffed to a chair, said Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota.

To convince civilians he was a police officer, Terry bought badges, uniforms, handcuffs and other law enforcement paraphernalia from catalogs and the Internet.

If you're gonna Walt...


----------



## FSTO

How many people, especially in the Atlantic region will second guess the police car that attempts to stop them? Will they be thinking, "Is this guy a true cop? Its happened before, its it happening again?"

There will need to be a real campaign from the emergency services community to re-assure the public that they can trust the police forces again.
Its not the police's fault that this happened but they'll have to pick up the pieces, bloody well sucks all around.


----------



## Gunplumber

I did a quick search and it seems there was an auction in the area a couple of weeks ago and there were surplus police car lights. Why, why would these be sold? They should just destroy them.


----------



## MilEME09

Gunplumber said:
			
		

> I did a quick search and it seems there was an auction in the area a couple of weeks ago and there were surplus police car lights. Why, why would these be sold? They should just destroy them.



Agreed they should never be publicly sold, sell directly to movie prop companies maybe but that's it.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Like many on the forum I think if I seen an RCMP officer in distress or waving their arms or whatever I'd run to them to try and help. In this case if it was the shooter I'd have gotten shot. It's strange that the RCMP chose to alert people via Twitter but seemingly not through the Cell phone alert system. I don't have twitter or facebook so I would have missed the tweet.



Couldn't they have used TV/Radio to broadcast warnings?? They do it for extreme weather warnings, etc?

Staff edit to fix quote box.


----------



## lenaitch

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, I think there is some misinformation/misunderstanding on the Emergency Alert system.  The RCMP, to my knowledge, don't have direct access.
> 
> This website has some good info on the system in general:  https://www.alertready.ca/
> 
> There is a good basic description under the _Responsibilities_ tab.  From the _FAQ_ tab:  About Alert Ready, have a read over the _About Alert Ready_, _Who Sends Emergency Alerts_ and  _What types of emergency alerts are issued via Alert Ready?_ FAQs.
> 
> This article suggests that the RCMP do not access the Alert system directly; unfortunately, many CBC story commentators don't seem to know or understand this.
> 
> https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/local/nova-scotia-was-ready-to-send-emergency-alert-amidst-active-shooter-but-rcmp-didnt-request-it-440649/
> 
> Also, the NS EMO system 'adminsters' the provincial 911 system and offices.  I am at a loss to understand how the "province/Premiere' can say they didn't really know what was going on; the initial calls for fire, gunshots, etc late Saturday were called into 911 and the RCMP responded.
> 
> https://beta.novascotia.ca/government/emergency-management-office
> 
> I think the RCMP and other first responders had an extremely difficult job to do, some of it at night with a suspect disguised as 'one of them'.  I am not happy seeing comments online about people second-guessing the RCMP for not triggering the Alert system.  I've said a few times;  imagine the public response to an active shooter, dressed as RCMP, with RCMP all over the area?  Imagine all the people phoning into 911 to report they saw an RCMP car?  I've also seen a few comments online about the people who would have 'taken the *@*@)@ out myself if I'd of known it was a fake mountie', who would have jumped in trucks with shotguns and crossbows in an attempt to 'help'.
> 
> A tough situation, and yes questions should be asked in the spirit of 'what can we learn from this, to improve SOPs', etc but...I am disappointed to see the Premiere without hesitation simply state "it's wasn't the government, it was the RCMP".  I think that is in very, very poor taste.  No one could have predicted what was going to happen;  how do you prepare for the "has never happened in the history of Canada before' type events?



Good post.  I wasn't aware that the provincial EMO operated the 911 system; in Ontario it is the OPP and municipal police services.  While the OPP 'houses' the provincial alert system, access is the same for everybody and the protocols sound similar to NS, which makes sense since it is a nation-wide system.  It seems the protocols regarding approvals, text, translation, etc. might not be all that responsive to dynamic situations.  I would think if a message went out, much of the information might have become dated very quickly.

I'm not sure how the interpret the comments of the Premier.  Earlier he said that "he" wasn't notified in the night.  I've never quite understood why agencies feel the need to notify elected officials about events unless they need action/decision beyond the normal scope of a government department or figure they might.  Clearly, the 911 part of their EMO knew in real time, but that's what they do.  Cripes, in Ontario, if they had to notify the Premier every time there was a multiple shooting - obviously not to this scale - the poor lad would never sleep.

As said, time for that in due course.

I do kinda feel for the CrimOps C/Supt.  He obviously has to struggle with what he can say, but he clearly seems out of his comfort zone.  Public speaking doesn't come easy for everyone.


----------



## dapaterson

lenaitch said:
			
		

> I do kinda feel for the CrimOps C/Supt.  He obviously has to struggle with what he can say, but he clearly seems out of his comfort zone.  Public speaking doesn't come easy for everyone.



I suspect he's dealing with hard emotions while trying to communicate while knowing that much of the information he knows is still part of ongoing investigations and can't be shared, even though it would respond to the question being asked.


----------



## lenaitch

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I wonder if there is going to be a discussion of police/ems/military uniforms and/or replica vehicles being in the possession of civilians.



I would think it would be tough to craft regulations around this.  Some jurisdictions, like California and the UK, regulate uniform and vehicle appearance but I think it just applies to legitimate agencies, not irregular use.  They could go the copyright route but that really complicates things for the departments, and the legal recourse to that is civil.  Other than reports of people seeing his 'fake cruiser' sitting on private property, I don't think I've read anything about him seen driving it on public roads prior to last weekend.  If so, I think that would be a solid case of 'personating a peace officer'.

A stripped RCMP cruiser is a white sedan.  The graphics are readily constructable, although it will be interesting how he obtained the door logo/RCMP emblem, which I believe is copyrighted (but there is a grey/black market for everything it seems).  Disposing of surplus property is a way to recover costs, but, ya, selling red/blue emergency lights at an open auction is a problem.  They should pop the coloured lenses.


----------



## lenaitch

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I suspect he's dealing with hard emotions while trying to communicate while knowing that much of the information he knows is still part of ongoing investigations and can't be shared, even though it would respond to the question being asked.



Probably quite true.  Many departments will use a media relations spokesperson.  They are often more comfortable/experienced at it, and can only speak to the information they have been given by the investigators, so there is a degree of 'plausible deniability', but everyone wants to hear from the 'brass hats'.


----------



## dapaterson

Dressing in CAF or RCMP uniforms is already a criminal code offence, to the best of my knowledge.


----------



## Haggis

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Dressing in CAF or RCMP uniforms is already a criminal code offence, to the best of my knowledge.


CCC s. 419 covers military uniforms and medals etc. worn without lawful authority.  It is a reverse onus charge in that the accused must prove lawful use and entitlement and has been discussed to death on the Walts, Posers and Wannabe's thread.

CCC s. 130(1) covers police personation as police officers are considered peace officers. No reverse onus there.


----------



## MilEME09

New details emerging, the shooters girlfriend is the person who tipped police that he was using a police uniform and replica vehicle. Started as a domestic dispute, the girlfriend was tied up, assaulted, escaped and hid. After she escaped he went back to a house party and started the rampage. Also revealed he stole the service pistol of the RCMP officer after killing her.


----------



## chrisf

lenaitch said:
			
		

> although it will be interesting how he obtained the door logo/RCMP emblem, which I believe is copyrighted (but there is a grey/black market for everything it seems).



A cricut machine is under $300, Costco has them cheap sometimes... you can make up whatever decals you like at home.

You could probably even do it with paint and a brush if you're on a budget, may not be noticable from a distance.



> Disposing of surplus property is a way to recover costs, but, ya, selling red/blue emergency lights at an open auction is a problem.  They should pop the coloured lenses.



You can just buy them new if you like, they're not controlled in any way... they're just lights.

Our local cops have an unmarked ford focus... the "lights" are two small red and blue flashes mounted to the underside of the passenger side sun shade...

You could easily rig it up with a pair of LED button lights in strobe mode.

As frightening as it may be, not really sure theres any way to actually prevent someone from making a replica police car in their garage.


----------



## NavyShooter

So....that begs the question - what is the reasonable solution?

If a 'probable/possible' police cruiser comes up behind me with lights flashing - do I call 911 and ask the dispatcher if it's a real police car before I pull over?

Do I pull over and hope for the best - which now can possibly include the worst?

What is 'reasonable' now in a world where something this unreasonable happened?


----------



## mariomike

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> So....that begs the question - what is the reasonable solution?
> 
> If a 'probable/possible' police cruiser comes up behind me with lights flashing - do I call 911 and ask the dispatcher if it's a real police car before I pull over?
> 
> Do I pull over and hope for the best - which now can possibly include the worst?
> 
> What is 'reasonable' now in a world where something this unreasonable happened?



For reference to the discussion,



> Mar 30, 2020
> 
> Fake Police Are Pulling Drivers Over During The Stay-At-Home Directive. Here’s How To Avoid Being A Victim
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshmax/2020/03/30/fake-police-are-pulling-drivers-over-during-stay-at-home-directiveheres-how-to-get-around-it/#188dfdbc34d3


----------



## BeyondTheNow

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> So....that begs the question - what is the reasonable solution?
> 
> If a 'probable/possible' police cruiser comes up behind me with lights flashing - do I call 911 and ask the dispatcher if it's a real police car before I pull over?
> 
> Do I pull over and hope for the best - which now can possibly include the worst?
> 
> What is 'reasonable' now in a world where something this unreasonable happened?



A little helpful for readers; this is Ontario though.



> ... On the way, you can call 911 to confirm it’s a real police officer behind you. Mobile emergency calls to 911 are exempted from Ontario’s distracted driving laws.
> 
> Once stopped, lock your doors, open your window just a crack and ask for police identification — which you can verify with the police dispatcher by phone...



Full article:

https://www.thestar.com/autos/2015/04/24/is-that-unmarked-car-signaling-you-to-stop-really-a-cop.html


----------



## Kilted

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I wonder if there is going to be a discussion of police/ems/military uniforms and/or replica vehicles being in the possession of civilians.  I personally think the uniform and vehicle made this POS way more deadly than any kind of gun he could have possessed.




This reminds me of an incident a few years ago when I saw a guy walking around the main st of my town wearing cadpat with no headdress on. I figured that he was from the BMQ co-op in town. So I walk up to him (he was facing away from me at this point) and told him to put a headdress on. He turned around and gave me a deer in the headlights look. When I looked for his name tag, which wasn't there, then I realized that there was no place for a nametag and the pockets were wrong. I realized that he was wearing the fake cadpat that they use to sell. He then walked away from me and I called the police. They didn't end up charging him, because he was special needs, but they told him not to wear it anymore.


----------



## Baz

There will be an online tribute to the victims this evening.  Details can be found at https://heartcolchester.ca/.  The site also contains links to many of the active relief funds for the families.


----------



## Baz

The National Police Federation is asking we wear red and take a moment at 2PM AST to remember Heidi. "But for the first time, the RCMP will not be able to hold a regimental funeral."
https://barrie.ctvnews.ca/national-police-federation-asks-canadians-to-wear-red-on-friday-1.4907948


----------



## OldSolduer

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> New details emerging, the shooters girlfriend is the person who tipped police that he was using a police uniform and replica vehicle. Started as a domestic dispute, the girlfriend was tied up, assaulted, escaped and hid. After she escaped he went back to a house party and started the rampage. Also revealed he stole the service pistol of the RCMP officer after killing her.



According to behavioural profilers there are signs that precede the attacks far in advance.

The neighbors/coworkers etc may say “he was a quiet guy but a bit off” or similar. 

I bet he had an obsession with weapons and ammunition. He may have even stockpiled it.
And he didn’t just “snap”. This was in the works for a long while. 

I’m not surprised about the assault on the girlfriend either.


----------



## mariomike

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I bet he had an obsession with weapons and ammunition.



As far as this investigation is concerned, I just know what I read in the papers. 

But, that is an interesting point of view.


----------



## BeyondTheNow

As more details emerge, he’s sounding more and more like a disgusting piece of work in how he conducted himself and treated others.


‘He took everything’: Nova Scotia shooter had a history of property disputes

 https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2020/04/22/he-took-everything-nova-scotia-shooter-had-a-history-of-property-disputes.html


----------



## medicineman

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I bet he had an obsession with weapons and ammunition.



Sounds a lot like his main obsession was himself...

MM


----------



## Eye In The Sky

CBC articles, etc are rife with comments from people who seem to know better than the professionals who deal with situations like the one RCMP faced last weekend.  Saw this this morning...

"The following is a letter that was sent today by Eric HOWARD a Retired RCMP S/Sgt. originally from Nova Scotia to a number of media outlets in Nova Scotia. After seeing and hearing so much news reports blaming and finger pointing at the RCMP for the handling of this past weekends terrible tragedy, this gentleman’s response is worth reading."

This afternoon I sent the following to the bureau chiefs of CTV, CBC and Global TV in Nova Scotia. I am really tired of the one sided reporting. Take care, mates. Eric

Coverage of Murders in Nova Scotia

April 2020-04-22

I wish to make some comments on your television coverage of the horrible tragedy this past weekend.

Journalism should be fact based, open and transparent, and balanced in presentation. Your recent coverage is anything but. It seems you are looking for the raw, emotional aspects of a case, and then exploit a small fragment of the story to try to put blame for an incident on someone or some agency that does not deserve this scrutiny, especially this early in an investigation.

I am talking about the repeated and continuing comments that the RCMP did not request an emergency Alert. It is all well and good to interview the grieving relatives of the victims and air their complaints in their pain. That is one side of the story. 

There is much more to the other sides of the story. You did nothing to investigate and present those aspects of the story. I offer a few aspects that could have been researched and brought to the broadcasts, so the public would get a balanced news piece.

1. Did you check out the internet and cell coverage in much of the area where this happened? To say it is spotty is an understatement. Therefore, many people would not get an emergency alert on their cell phone or computer.

2. Did you interview a hundred or so families living in and around the areas this happened in, to assess what percentage of people were aware of the situation on Saturday night, how manySunday morning and how they became aware, etc.? To me, that is an important aspect of the event.

3. Did you review all the various news agencies TV and radio coverage for the time period throughout this incident? Did any agency keep the public updated continuously on the information shared on Twitter by the RCMP? If not, why not? You are a news agency, always reporting breaking news. And I know all the news agencies follow Twitter!

4. Did you research the criteria and thresholds required in order to issue an Alert on the Alert Ready system? Why not and why not make that part of the news story?

5. Did you, even fleetingly, consider the effect your news pieces have had on the first responders who were working during this terrible event? Basically, you are telling them that is their fault that so many people died, they messed up and it cost lives. Not at all true. Wortman is solely responsible for these deaths. Put the blame where it belongs, at Wortman’s feet. For a moment, imagine the dispatch centre during the 12 hour event. Pure chaos, but controlled chaos, once the first reports came in. And it was catch up from there, as the suspect couldn’t be located and moved quickly through the numerous back roads of a very rural area. It does not surprise me that the police couldn’t locate and corral him. The area is full of little back roads and escape routes. Look at the map of the area. As the police received new information they sent it out. Often, the news was old as soon as they sent it out, because Wortman was moving quickly over large distances. Think about the psychological effect of your news report!!

I think your agency owes an apology to all the first responders. You and your agency have to stop being ‘ambulance chaser newscasters’, only reporting the most sensational or controversial aspects of an event.

You and your agency have to stop being ’armchair quarterbacks’ for your stories. You weren’t there, you don’t know how things went down. So, stop giving a one sided aspect of a story. Do your research, investigate, consider the effects of your news clip on all those affected and make a balanced report.

Doing anything less puts a dark stain on you as a journalist and on your agency as a reputable news outlet.

Thank You.

Eric HOWARD
Retired RCMP S/Sgt. Originally from Nova Scotia


----------



## Quirky

If you google 28B11 - the serial number he used on his fake cop car - the first result takes you to this page - 

https://www.creativebiolabs.net/anti-il17f-antibody-scfv-fragment-123924.htm



> 'Creative Biolabs has successfully developed SARS, MERS and other anti-viral antibodies in the past to assist scientific research. Facing the difficult COVID-19, Creative Biolabs actively invests in antibody development to assist researchers to better understand the characteristics of 2019-nCoV and drug development.'



Probably a hoax right? Creative bio-labs has been around since 2005 and that website has been up since 2015. Why he used that number who knows, but that would be a pretty big coincidence.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Baz said:
			
		

> There will be an online tribute to the victims this evening.  Details can be found at https://heartcolchester.ca/.  The site also contains links to many of the active relief funds for the families.



The Natalie MacMaster piece at the beginning....caught in my throat a little.  

RIP


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Reading thru information as it now comes out, it's entirely possible the first solid "fix" the RCMP had on the killer's location after they determined he'd slipped thru the cordon was when he engaged Cst Morrison.  His pattern and movements after leaving the initial crime spree area was (from what I can tell) erratic, he switched vehicles and clothing more than once.  

While some people may still feel justified in criticizing what happened, I am thankful to the RCMP who stopped him from reaching 'the city', where who knows what might have happened.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=Quirky]

Probably a hoax right? 
[/quote]

What's your take on it?


----------



## brihard

Quirky said:
			
		

> If you google 28B11 - the serial number he used on his fake cop car - the first result takes you to this page -
> 
> https://www.creativebiolabs.net/anti-il17f-antibody-scfv-fragment-123924.htm
> 
> Probably a hoax right? Creative bio-labs has been around since 2005 and that website has been up since 2015. Why he used that number who knows, but that would be a pretty big coincidence.



That's ludicrously far-fetched. The number-letter-number code is consistent with how some RCMP divisions designate their vehicles. Albert and Yukon for instance both use that format (that's not an exhaustive list). The fact that some individuals on the internet with too much time on their hands have managed to find the same sequence in some vaccine research signifies nothing. It's not really that huge a coincidence given how many endeavours have the need to sequentially list things.

By accounts I've read, he did an impressive job of replicating the decals and livery one would see on an RCMP car from Alberta- probably a simple matter of the best examples he could find highly detailed photos of, which would be more than 'good enough' for his purposes.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Quirky said:
			
		

> If you google 28B11 - the serial number he used on his fake cop car - the first result takes you to this page -
> 
> https://www.creativebiolabs.net/anti-il17f-antibody-scfv-fragment-123924.htm
> 
> Probably a hoax right? Creative bio-labs has been around since 2005 and that website has been up since 2015. Why he used that number who knows, but that would be a pretty big coincidence.



Did you pull a muscle with that stretch?

If you had actually read the Creative Biolabs page, and not focused on the Covid-19 ad link that they (and probably similar to every other bio company out there) added to every page to pop up when opening their site you would have discovered that 28B11 has nothing to do with the current pandemic.

This product is a mouse antibody scFv fragment *targeting human IL17F*. This antibody scFv fragment can recognize IL-17F and/or the heterodimeric IL-17A/IL-17F complex, but do not recognize IL-17A.

IL17F (Interleukin 17F) is a Protein Coding gene. *Diseases associated with IL17F include Candidiasis, Familial, 6 and Chronic Mucocutaneous Candidiasis.*


----------



## MilEME09

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-nova-scotia-shooting-encapsulates-all-thats-wrong-with-the-rcmp/

Opinion piece that is fairly critical of the RCMP from someone who seems well versed in their inner workings. Some of the criticisms are fair i think, others may be a little harsh.


----------



## Cloud Cover

You don't get "sent" on the musical ride, you apply for it. Press liaison is an internal position posted if a member interested and if they have the skills, they can apply for internally. Not sure about community officers, but in any event none of these take away from the fact she met the shooter head on, put herself in that position when she could have made another choice, and she did that because it was her job.

I really hope this incident does not become about the shortcomings of the RCMP, and instead it remains focused on preventing domestic violence, eliminating the seeds of murder rage, and maybe, just maybe, an initial discussion about how maybe some of those people could have lived if they had an opportunity to defend themselves and were encouraged by our laws to do so, rather than discouraged.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

CloudCover said:
			
		

> You don't get "sent" on the musical ride, you apply for it. Press liaison is an internal position posted if a member interested and if they have the skills, they can apply for internally. Not sure about community officers, but in any event none of these take away from the fact she met the shooter head on, put herself in that position when she could have made another choice, and she did that because it was her job.
> 
> I really hope this incident does not become about the shortcomings of the RCMP, and instead it remains focused on preventing domestic violence, eliminating the seeds of murder rage, and maybe, just maybe, an initial discussion about how maybe some of those people could have lived if they had an opportunity to defend themselves and were encouraged by our laws to do so, rather than discouraged.



Well we should hold the RCMP accountable for any failings.  I wonder how the ERT works in Nova Scotia?  It's probably a part time gig for some.  

How is it that in a moment of crisis like this, The RCMP ERT members are at a gas station gassing up their trucks?  Do they not keep them filled as standard policy?

Does the RCMP have a QRF based around the ERT?  I find it interesting that the RCMP doesn't have more air assets given how large their jurisdictions are.

I personally think the RCMP should consider investigating and investing in some "fireforce" type units that could be rapidly deployed by aviation or helicopter.

It would greatly improve response times for incidents like this.


----------



## dapaterson

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> How is it that in a moment of crisis like this, The RCMP ERT members are at a gas station gassing up their trucks?  Do they not keep them filled as standard policy?



Given that the incident had begun hours before, it's entirely reasonable that the team would need to refuel, preferably before they reach a critical fuel level.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Given that the incident had begun hours before, it's entirely reasonable that the team would need to refuel, preferably before they reach a critical fuel level.



That would make sense.  I'm more interested in ERT response times then anything.  My reasoning is if we are spending all this money for highly trained operators, we better be able to put them on scene quickly.

I'm not sure if that's the case though at least it doesn't seem like it.  It was the same when I was in the Northern Communities, response time was mentioned to me as many many hours in some cases.

I don't think that's acceptable to the communities or the frontline police tasked with enforcing the law in those areas.


----------



## MilEME09

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> That would make sense.  I'm more interested in ERT response times then anything.  My reasoning is if we are spending all this money for highly trained operators, we better be able to put them on scene quickly.
> 
> I'm not sure if that's the case though at least it doesn't seem like it.  It was the same when I was in the Northern Communities, response time was mentioned to me as many many hours in some cases.
> 
> I don't think that's acceptable to the communities or the frontline police tasked with enforcing the law in those areas.



Once the investigation into the shooting is complete a inquiry of some kind is likely going to happen, at which time the RCMP will be under the microscope on all aspects. The results of which might end up being a hard pill for the RCMP to swallow but lead to changes in the force and how it operates. Not to prevent mass shootings, but to improve response so that it doesn't get as bad as this got.


----------



## dapaterson

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> That would make sense.  I'm more interested in ERT response times then anything.  My reasoning is if we are spending all this money for highly trained operators, we better be able to put them on scene quickly.
> 
> I'm not sure if that's the case though at least it doesn't seem like it.  It was the same when I was in the Northern Communities, response time was mentioned to me as many many hours in some cases.
> 
> I don't think that's acceptable to the communities or the frontline police tasked with enforcing the law in those areas.



The challenge in any service delivery in Canada is geography, and lack of population density.  Covering major urban areas is easy; covering vast, largely but not entirely uninhabited areas is not.  Look at SAR coverage and response times for a comparable problem space.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Once the investigation into the shooting is complete a inquiry of some kind is likely going to happen, at which time the RCMP will be under the microscope on all aspects. The results of which might end up being a hard pill for the RCMP to swallow but lead to changes in the force and how it operates. Not to prevent mass shootings, but to improve response so that it doesn't get as bad as this got.



Maybe that particular pill should be offered to the GoC;  the RCMP, like DND, are limited in capabilities based on funding...if there was a part of the response that 'could have been better' that wasn't directly related to "capability, or gaps in capability" that are more human-related (decision making, information processing, etc) then that seems like more of the 'hard pill to swallow for the Force' to me.

As I've said many times since it happened;  how do you prepare and train for 'something that has never happened before'?


----------



## mariomike

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Covering major urban areas is easy; covering vast, largely but not entirely uninhabited areas is not.



A discussion(s) I recall, are taxpayers in rural areas entitled to the same 9-1-1 response times as taxpayers urban areas?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The challenge in any service delivery in Canada is geography, and lack of population density.  Covering major urban areas is easy; covering vast, largely but not entirely uninhabited areas is not.  Look at SAR coverage and response times for a comparable problem space.



Absolutely but this is really my point.

The RCMP seems very poorly equipped for the remote territories they have to patrol.  The fact they have only just started equipping their Police with carbines is a problem.

Their Air Wing seems completely inadequate for the type of Operations they are required for in that their helicopters and aircraft have neither the speed, capacity or range to carry out high-risk police operations.  

Compare RCMP ERT teams with an organization like GIGN and compare their aviation fleet with the French Gendarmerie or the German Bundespolizei.

France's Gendarmerie has 55 helicopters while the German Federal Police have 84 helicopters including 22 Super Pumas (i.e. heavy lift) 

The RCMP has a measly 8 helicopters and a few light aircraft.  It should be noted that Canada is 18 times larger than France and 28 times larger than Germany geographically.

GIGN has 4 platoons of operators with two on permanent alert.  The platoons are also trained in HALO/HAHO parachuting and are based right beside a French airbase where they have dedicated access to Heavy Fixed and Rotary aviation.

It's quite clear to me that the RCMP air fleet is completely inadequate for what we expect the RCMP to do and it also seems like the ERT teams themselves are poorly optimized for response to incidents like this which is essentially a terrorist incident.  I'm beginning to wonder if the Feds need to consider bringing back SERT and making some significant investments in Police Aviation.


----------



## brihard

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Absolutely but this is really my point.
> 
> The RCMP seems very poorly equipped for the remote territories they have to patrol.  The fact they have only just started equipping their Police with carbines is a problem.
> 
> Their Air Wing seems completely inadequate for the type of Operations they are required for in that their helicopters and aircraft have neither the speed, capacity or range to carry out high-risk police operations.
> 
> Compare RCMP ERT teams with an organization like GIGN and compare their aviation fleet with the French Gendarmerie or the German Bundespolizei.
> 
> France's Gendarmerie has 55 helicopters while the German Federal Police have 84 helicopters including 22 Super Pumas (i.e. heavy lift)
> 
> The RCMP has a measly 8 helicopters and a few light aircraft.  It should be noted that Canada is 18 times larger than France and 28 times larger than Germany geographically.
> 
> GIGN has 4 platoons of operators with two on permanent alert.  The platoons are also trained in HALO/HAHO parachuting and are based right beside a French airbase where they have dedicated access to Heavy Fixed and Rotary aviation.
> 
> It's quite clear to me that the RCMP air fleet is completely inadequate for what we expect the RCMP to do and it also seems like the ERT teams themselves are poorly optimized for response to incidents like this which is essentially a terrorist incident.  I'm beginning to wonder if the Feds need to consider bringing back SERT and making some significant investments in Police Aviation.



You’re badly off the mark on a lot of this... I’ll be back to this later, but yeah. Might be time to check fire. You have failed to validate some of your assumptions or to properly situation some of the things here in the time and space of the larger incident.


----------



## MilEME09

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Absolutely but this is really my point.
> 
> The RCMP seems very poorly equipped for the remote territories they have to patrol.  The fact they have only just started equipping their Police with carbines is a problem.
> 
> Their Air Wing seems completely inadequate for the type of Operations they are required for in that their helicopters and aircraft have neither the speed, capacity or range to carry out high-risk police operations.
> 
> Compare RCMP ERT teams with an organization like GIGN and compare their aviation fleet with the French Gendarmerie or the German Bundespolizei.
> 
> France's Gendarmerie has 55 helicopters while the German Federal Police have 84 helicopters including 22 Super Pumas (i.e. heavy lift)
> 
> The RCMP has a measly 8 helicopters and a few light aircraft.  It should be noted that Canada is 18 times larger than France and 28 times larger than Germany geographically.
> 
> GIGN has 4 platoons of operators with two on permanent alert.  The platoons are also trained in HALO/HAHO parachuting and are based right beside a French airbase where they have dedicated access to Heavy Fixed and Rotary aviation.
> 
> It's quite clear to me that the RCMP air fleet is completely inadequate for what we expect the RCMP to do and it also seems like the ERT teams themselves are poorly optimized for response to incidents like this which is essentially a terrorist incident.  I'm beginning to wonder if the Feds need to consider bringing back SERT and making some significant investments in Police Aviation.




To add an example, a few years ago a story was run locally here about the plane RCMP have here in Alberta. Thats right one plane, this plane was suppose to be to help enforce speed limits on highways, however it almost never is due to it being constantly called away for other tasks. Not being able to do what its aviation arm is talked to do is definitely a capability gap the GoC needs to address.

However capabilities of the RCMP or lack of is not key to this discussion and would warrant its own thread.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Brihard said:
			
		

> You’re badly off the mark on a lot of this... I’ll be back to this later, but yeah. Might be time to check fire. You have failed to validate some of your assumptions or to properly situation some of the things here in the time and space of the larger incident.



Then please good Sir, enlighten me. I would honestly be interested in hearing your take on this as the numbers don't make sense to me.  How are you supposed to provide adequate coverage of an area as large as Canada with the resources you have?
  
I don't blame the frontline officers at all for this, people are obviously doing the best they can with the tools at their disposal but I don't think it's wrong to point out the obvious lack of assets the Federal Police Force has at their disposal.

Obviously they can access OGD assets but those assets are not theirs and take time to mobilize.  If anything, I think it's perfectly reasonable to examine some of this and ask is our Government properly resourcing our Federal Police Force?

My gripe isn't with the RCMP, it's with the Feds not providing you and others with adequate tools to do your job.  I'm not critiquing the RCMP and sorry you took it that way.  Rather, I want your force to be better equipped so you improve response times.


----------



## brihard

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Then please good Sir, enlighten me. I would honestly be interested in hearing your take on this as the numbers don't make sense to me.



Yup, sorry, just gotta play ‘essential’ for a few more hours before I clear out of work. Hopefully I’ll get back to you this evening.


----------



## blacktriangle

Something federal and uniformed under-resourced? Say it isn't so...

I briefly dated an RCMP officer when I was younger. Obviously anecdotal at best, but some of the things she told me didn't exactly inspire confidence. In a way I'm glad it didn't work out...I'd be worried sick about her.


----------



## Good2Golf

HB, not ever going to happen to the extent you are envisioning.  Even back when SERT had dedicated aviation, it was for a specific national interest task.  The Divisional ERTs (not including A Div / NHQ Div) would call upon the closest Tac Hel Sqn for airborne support.  I know of only one case where SERT’s aviation detachment supported a regional Division ERT for a specific event in Quebec.  Such specialized (inter-Departmental) aviation support stopped in 1993 because of the significant costs associated with the role and the rate of usage.  The budgeting has become only more restrictive in the 27 years that have unfolded since that special dedicated aviation ceased.

:2c:

G2G


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> HB, not ever going to happen to the extent you are envisioning.  Even back when SERT had dedicated aviation, it was for a specific national interest task.  The Divisional ERTs (not including A Div / NHQ Div) would call upon the closest Tac Hel Sqn for airborne support.  I know of only one case where SERT’s aviation detachment supported a regional Division ERT for a specific event in Quebec.  Such specialized (inter-Departmental) aviation support stopped in 1993 because of the significant costs associated with the role and the rate of usage.  The budgeting has become only more restrictive in the 27 years that have unfolded since that special dedicated aviation ceased.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> G2G



G2G, thanks for the additional insight in to this, which is exactly why I brought this up.  It's a common theme at the Federal level that the further we advance in time, the more capability respective Federal Departments seem to atrophy at an alarming rate.  It should be the opposite with advances in technology but that isn't the trend in any Federal Service, police, military, coast guard, etc.

I found it embarrassing that the RCMP was forced to contract civilian helicopter services when they conducted the manhunt last year in Northern Manitoba.  Yes, they could request CAF and OGD assistance but there is a political and cultural aversion in Canada to the Military being used domestically which slows decision-making down and in cases like this, time is of the essence.

If the Federal Government wants to improve response times to extreme acts of terror and criminality in Rural Canada, I think we need to begin employing some unique (For Canada that is) tactics and practices so that the proper assets are brought to bear to achieve the results we want.

It's easy to say we couldn't have done anything differently but you only have to look at the two examples I provided above to realize we might just be CHEAP and not resourced or structured properly.  As I said, the Bundespolizei have 84 helicopters, for a Country that is geographically half the size of Alberta.

People will crap all over the RCMP for this, an inquiry will occur, recommendations will be made and passed to Parliament..... then it will be time to open the cheque book and we will quietly shovel it to the National Archive.


----------



## Good2Golf

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> ...I found it embarrassing that the RCMP was forced to contract civilian helicopter services when they conducted the manhunt last year in Northern Manitoba.  Yes, they could request CAF and OGD assistance but there is a political and cultural aversion in Canada to the Military being used domestically which slows decision-making down and in cases like this, time is of the essence....



Perhaps to some degree, aversion, yes, but time-and-space may also play a role, although for example each Tac Hel Sqn has an aircraft and crew on standby for certain mission support purposes.

I can't refer to the specific process taken in the following request, but it happened very quickly, thankfully with a positive outcome for the victim.

RCMP say Canadian Armed Forces helped rescue girl held against will in northern Sask. cabin.  The help was a CH-146 Griffon from 408 Squadron in Edmonton.

Regards
G2G


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Please also keep in mind policing in Canada is a provincial, not federal responsibility. 

8/10 provinces contract their policing from the RCMP. But, there are really two sides to the RCMP: Federal and the provincial side that works for 8 different solicitor generals. I am pretty sure that each province would have to agree to the O&M costs for any RCMP air asset dedicated to that province. Good luck with that.


----------



## mariomike

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> As I said, the Bundespolizei have 84 helicopters, for a Country that is geographically half the size of Alberta.



I'm not a police expert. But, perhaps also worth mentioning, Germany has a population density of 232 persons per square km. 

Canada has 4 people per square Km. Probably a lot less than that if Ontario and Quebec are removed from the equation. 

Not sure if that makes any difference in policing by helicopter. Merely presented for consideration to the discussion.

Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe German police are responsible for coastal SAR. Not the military. 



> 2019
> 
> German Federal Police plans helicopter fleet renewal
> 
> ... the Super Puma family's 1,000th delivery – an acquisition driven by the transfer of responsibility for coastal search and rescue missions from the country's military."
> https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/german-federal-police-plans-helicopter-fleet-renewal/134230.article


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Please also keep in mind policing in Canada is a provincial, not federal responsibility.
> 
> 8/10 provinces contract their policing from the RCMP. But, there are really two sides to the RCMP: Federal and the provincial side that works for 8 different solicitor generals. I am pretty sure that each province would have to agree to the O&M costs for any RCMP air asset dedicated to that province. Good luck with that.



Which is yet another structural issue of the RCMP and the entire Policing Portfolio writ large.  The Regional Command & Divisional System probably briefs well on a power point in Ottawa.  Assets are not shared equally though.  

I find it interesting that 1/3 of all RCMP Aviation Assets are based in BC.  It makes some sense given the size of BC Division and some of their mandates but I think their is a lack of resources for the Force Nationally.



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> I'm not a police expert. But, perhaps also worth mentioning, Germany has a population density of 232 persons per square km.
> 
> Canada has 4 people per square Km. Probably a lot less than that if Ontario and Quebec are removed from the equation.
> 
> Not sure if that makes any difference in policing by helicopter. Merely presented for consideration to the discussion.



All the more reason to have more rapid reaction assets at the disposal of Police in this Country.  I'm left to shake my head when I see headlines like this:



> Nunavut MLA wondering why RCMP is moving its emergency response team out of territory
> Kent Driscoll
> Jun 16, 2017
> An MLA in Nunavut has been asking a lot of questions about why the RCMP has moved its emergency response team 2,000 km from Iqaluit to Montréal to the south.



https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/nunavut-mla-wondering-why-rcmp-is-moving-its-emergency-response-team-out-of-territory/

I've spent some time with the RCMP up in NU.  Four Officers in a village of 2,000 people, some of whom don't like the police very much at all.  Bullet holes in their vehicles, houses and the detachment which was built at the bottom of a big hill (great position for plunging fire btw with some good bug out routes to boot).  

It's funny because a little over 10 years ago, this is what was being planned:



> Nunavut RCMP set up tactical emergency team
> 
> CBC News · Posted: Aug 26, 2009 8:54 AM CT | Last Updated: August 26, 2009
> 
> The RCMP in Nunavut are creating a tactical emergency containment team that will respond to dangerous situations beyond the scope of what local police officers can do alone.
> 
> Fourteen Nunavut officers will be tasked with controlling emergency situations, such as armed standoffs and hostage-takings, in their initial hours until a high-level RCMP emergency response team can be flown in from Ottawa.
> 
> The emergency containment team in Nunavut will be the first of its kind in Canada, said Supt. Steve McVarnock, the RCMP's commanding officer in the territory.
> 
> "We're the first in the country that are going to get it," McVarnock said Tuesday.
> 
> "They'll learn a lot from this experience up here so they can fine tune it for other divisions, but other divisions are moving in the same direction."
> 
> *The RCMP's high-level emergency response team has been sent to Nunavut before to assist with emergencies, but it can take up to 12 hours for the squad to be flown up from Ottawa.*
> 
> McVarnock said that's why the police force is setting up a Nunavut-based intermediate group, which can contain dangerous situations while the high-level team is on its way.
> 
> The 14 officers selected for the containment team will begin a a 10-day course on Sept. 7, with experts coming up from Ottawa to train them. After the course is finished, the team will train two days a month, McVarnock said.
> 
> "Half of the team that are going to be trained are Iqaluit members, but the other half are going to be from outlying areas in some of our larger communities, like Cambridge Bay, Kugluktuk, Baker Lake," he said.
> 
> "So if something breaks over there, we have a small group of people already trained that can at least get the logistics set up while we bring in the rest of the containment from Iqaluit on the police plane. So at least we have some expertise spread out throughout the division."
> 
> McVarnock said the Nunavut emergency containment team plans to work as much as possible with Nunavummiut and with Inuit RCMP members who are trained in immediate crisis negotiations.
> 
> *He added that he hopes to have a fully trained high-level emergency response team based in the territory someday.
> *
> About 99 per cent of emergency police situations are resolved through negotiations, he said.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/nunavut-rcmp-set-up-tactical-emergency-team-1.788293

Fits with the theme of capability atrophy at the Federal level.


----------



## mariomike

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> All the more reason to have more rapid reaction assets at the disposal of Police in this Country.



Taxpayers want fast response times. They get what they pay for. 

That also ties in with our not infrequent Urban / Rural divide discussions.

Germany has a population of over 83 million to pay for their emergency services. Canada has 37 million. Considerably less than that, if Ontario and Quebec are removed from the equation.

Not to mention the municipal police services that must also be funded in the remaining provinces where the RCMP operates.



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Four Officers in a village of 2,000 people,



What is the typical ratio?



> Police resources in Canada, 2018
> 
> This represents a rate of police strength of 185 officers per 100,000 population
> https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2019001/article/00015-eng.htm


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

mariomike said:
			
		

> What is the typical ratio?



This isn't like going to Gananoque, ON.  The shit that goes on there is more akin to something you would see in Haiti or Central America.


----------



## mariomike

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The shit that goes on there is more akin to something you would see in Haiti or Central America.



I don't doubt it.

In our town, the police deploy heavily into certain areas, because "That is where the crime is."  

Taxpayers in quieter areas of town complain they are paying for protection that was going elsewhere.


----------



## brihard

OK, got a bit of time now.

First, on the Nova Scotia shooting particularly- and I won't be saying everything I want to say here, not by a long sot, but I can point out some geenral facts and observations that are plainly discernable from what's already out there, or that aren't particularly sensitive.

The event unfolded over a span of twelve + hours. Critical Incident Command was activated early, as was ERT. When the shooter was finally stopped, that wasn't the first ERT was involved. They'd been at it all night. The final confrontation wasn't a matter of the ERT truck finally happened to be making their merry little way from Halifax, and the truck had been parked with an eight of a tank of gas. An ERT guy and another member were on their own task and had been at it for a while probably bouncing around a lot as different info came in. It very much WAS pure happenstance that they ended up gassing up at the same time and place as the suspect, and it went down fast from there.

I have an exceptionally foul opinion of the characterization of Heidi in one of the 'articles' posted farther up thread. Yes, she had previously been at the Music Ride. Yes, she had done public relations work too. She also had done plenty of work as a cop on the road. At the time of her death she was working out of Enfield detachment. Before Enfield she was posted to Cole Harbour, hardly a sleepy and peaceful detachment. One of my good friends actually replaced here there. Heidi went down fighting. I'm not sure why the author thinks that an aluminum push bar mounted to a unibody chassis would have somehow given the other guy a huge advantage. By that point he had shot another member nearby (Chad Morrison), that member went over the air to report it, and Heidi moved to the threat on her own to try to stop him. Unfortunately he won that particular fight. ERT was on scene very quickly after that, and RCMP had a member overhead in an EMS helicopter -that's publicly known from the EMS radio that's open to the public.

I've seen some talk about why didn't RCMP call other police services like Truro to help? Well, they did. They helped by covering other calls not related to the shooting. That freed up Mounties to work the major file. Not least among the reasons why,t he police services do not all use compatible radios. Nova Scotia RCMP went to encrypted digital radios pretty recently. Truro police couldn't talk to them on the operational channel. HUGE liability in a major incident. You need everyone to be able to be on the same net. So we can put that one to bed. But other services did contribute to the larger picture- because while a huge thing is going on, other 'normal' but still emergency matters are taking place that can still necessitate immediate police response.

Unfortunately the bad guy hugely stacked the advantages in his favour and he made the most of it before he was stopped.


On the RMCP and rural policing more generally.

It's evident that it's not fully appreciated how independent each division is for almost all operational matters. The contract policing divisions are mostly paid for by the province, and this can include physical assets, not just officers on the road. The feds kick some money in, but if a province wants multiple ERTs, they need to pay for it. They want a helicopter, they're covering most of the costs. They want a new radio system, they're paying for it. In some cases the RCMP are contracted by municipalities themselves. Rural policing is thin on the ground anywhere you go. While the RCMP seem to have it worse than, say, OPP, it's still a simple reality that there are only so many out there- and on a night shift or weekend  you don't necessarily have a bunch of bodies in an office who can throw their belt and vest on and hit the road like what happened at Moncton. So that means that among the few scattered rural detachments - maybe 20-60 minutes apart from each other, each with just a couple members on, you need to be able to assemble and respond quickly to something highly dangerous potentially anywhere. The first few hours of that will be whoever happens to be on shift or can be called in quickly from bed.

When minutes count, ERT is only hours away. With few exceptions they generally aren't sitting there waiting for a call ready to go. Certainly not overnight in Nova Scotia. I'm not sure if NS' team is full time or part time- some provinces / territories have ERTs that are part time, when an ERT call comes in they drop what they're doing (whether at a desk or on the road), suit up and go. And at that, they can only work with the information available. They still need to be pointed at the threat and told 'go. If nobody can point them to the threat, all they can do is be ready for when that comes. ERT is a highly capable but also expensive capability. Nunavut was mentioned upthread- they had a team for a while, but they couldn't sustain it. They couldn't keep enough ERT trained members in the territory to have their own team. So now they have a containment team comprised of general duty members, and if they need ERT, they have to fly them up from Ottawa or Edmonton generally. Less than idea, but Nunavut cannot justify or sustain a full time ERT. That means you have to have enough members with that skillset doing other jobs, and that's tough. Everyone serving in the territories has volunteered to do so. Nunavut in particular is a short commitment, and there's a lot of turnover (and a lot of burnout). But, at that, nearly anywhere in the country ERT will take hours to get there. Critical incidents have a rude habit of not happening in convenient locations, and they're infrequent enough that the opportunity cost of maintaining Cadillac capabilities to respond really fast means taking away form member son the road taking calls, for a capability that will sit unused most of the time. Damned hard to justify... Yes, nearly every Mountie on the road has had a C8 and active shooter training for years now. That only goes so far.

Some changes will be coming. The RCMP are entering collective bargaining negotiations soon, having newly won the right to that and recently formed a union. Issues like 'cop to pop' ratio will be on the table for sure. The long term trend should be towards more officers on the road in isolated areas to be able to provide cover for each other. That is, however, going to come at a cost. The RCMP have been funded, paid, and treated as policing on the cheap for a long time. It's going to be a painful process as this changes, whether by agreement or binding arbitration.


----------



## mariomike

Brihard said:
			
		

> The long term trend should be towards more officers on the road in isolated areas to be able to provide cover for each other. That is, however, going to come at a cost.



Does the RCMP still operate one-officer cars?


----------



## brihard

mariomike said:
			
		

> Does the RCMP still operate one-officer cars?



Almost exclusively.


----------



## mariomike

Brihard said:
			
		

> Almost exclusively.



Reminds me of the old Texas Rangers, "One riot, one Ranger."


----------



## BeyondTheNow

Brihard said:
			
		

> Almost exclusively.



Out of curiosity, is that strictly so more coverage is available, a personnel/manning issue, budget, or all of the above? I know of several regional services wanting multiple officer vehicles in certain areas, but was wondering if the reasons those requests can’t be managed is the same for the RCMP as it is for others.


----------



## mariomike

Metro switched to the two-officer car in 1976. Nothing new about it.

Yes, it did result in hiring more officers to fill those passenger seats.


----------



## brihard

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, is that strictly so more coverage is available, a personnel/manning issue, budget, or all of the above? I know of several regional services wanting multiple officer vehicles in certain areas, but was wondering if the reasons those requests can’t be managed is the same for the RCMP as it is for others.



My thinking is all of the above. Personal opinion based on observation and conversation. I don’t have data at hand to back it.


----------



## mariomike

Brihard said:
			
		

> My thinking is all of the above. Personal opinion based on observation and conversation. I don’t have data at hand to back it.



Been pretty common across North America for decades. At least as far back as the 1950's. Remember Adam-12 and Car 54?

From the U.S. Department of Justice, 

"IN CITIES WHERE ONE-MAN PATROL PREDOMINATES, THERE IS PERSISTENT PRESSURE FROM POLICE UNIONS AND FROM THE RANK AND FILE TO MOVE TOWARD TWO-MAN CARS. IN MANY CITIES WHERE TWO-MAN CARS PREDOMINATE, THERE IS PRESSURE FROM POLICE ADMINISTRATORS CONCERNED ABOUT PATROL COVERAGE AND FROM CITY OFFICIALS CONCERNED ABOUT TAX RATES TO USE ONE-MAN CARS WHEREVER POSSIBLE."
( Copy/paste, sorry for the caps. )
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=45248

Metro fought the arbitration all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, and lost. They still dug their heels. It took a work to rule to get it finally initiated. They can thank Sid Brown.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> As I said, the Bundespolizei have 84 helicopters, for a Country that is geographically half the size of Alberta.



While the BPOL may be much better equipped aviation-wise than the RCMP, their missions are sometimes also different.  While it may be Germany's federal police agency, it does not do the front-line policing as that done by the RCMP on a contract basis.  The BPOL, which evolved from the border police and transport police, continues to have those as primary functions - controlling the border as well as some coast guard functions (including operating ships), providing security for the railway system and airports, security of Federal government buildings, helicopter rescue service (an EMS function) and of course, a counter-terrorism role (GSG 9).  It can be requested to provide support to "Landespolizei" - the state police services who do much of the uniformed policing in Germany.



> Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe German police are responsible for coastal SAR. Not the military.



The Bundeswehr does have a SAR (not just CSAR) response capability in conjunction with other government agencies as well as civilian charitable organizations - on land https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OCFGs8mEvM as well as on the sea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo808mb6Uq0 - the white and orange vessel in the maritime video is with the charitable rescue group Deutsche Gesellschaft zur Rettung Schiffbrüchiger (DGzRS) or German Maritime Search and Rescue Association


----------



## lenaitch

Brihard said:
			
		

> OK, got a bit of time now.
> 
> First, on the Nova Scotia shooting particularly- and I won't be saying everything I want to say here, not by a long sot, but I can point out some geenral facts and observations that are plainly discernable from what's already out there, or that aren't particularly sensitive.
> 
> The event unfolded over a span of twelve + hours. Critical Incident Command was activated early, as was ERT. When the shooter was finally stopped, that wasn't the first ERT was involved. They'd been at it all night. The final confrontation wasn't a matter of the ERT truck finally happened to be making their merry little way from Halifax, and the truck had been parked with an eight of a tank of gas. An ERT guy and another member were on their own task and had been at it for a while probably bouncing around a lot as different info came in. It very much WAS pure happenstance that they ended up gassing up at the same time and place as the suspect, and it went down fast from there.
> 
> I have an exceptionally foul opinion of the characterization of Heidi in one of the 'articles' posted farther up thread. Yes, she had previously been at the Music Ride. Yes, she had done public relations work too. She also had done plenty of work as a cop on the road. At the time of her death she was working out of Enfield detachment. Before Enfield she was posted to Cole Harbour, hardly a sleepy and peaceful detachment. One of my good friends actually replaced here there. Heidi went down fighting. I'm not sure why the author thinks that an aluminum push bar mounted to a unibody chassis would have somehow given the other guy a huge advantage. By that point he had shot another member nearby (Chad Morrison), that member went over the air to report it, and Heidi moved to the threat on her own to try to stop him. Unfortunately he won that particular fight. ERT was on scene very quickly after that, and RCMP had a member overhead in an EMS helicopter -that's publicly known from the EMS radio that's open to the public.
> 
> I've seen some talk about why didn't RCMP call other police services like Truro to help? Well, they did. They helped by covering other calls not related to the shooting. That freed up Mounties to work the major file. Not least among the reasons why,t he police services do not all use compatible radios. Nova Scotia RCMP went to encrypted digital radios pretty recently. Truro police couldn't talk to them on the operational channel. HUGE liability in a major incident. You need everyone to be able to be on the same net. So we can put that one to bed. But other services did contribute to the larger picture- because while a huge thing is going on, other 'normal' but still emergency matters are taking place that can still necessitate immediate police response.
> 
> Unfortunately the bad guy hugely stacked the advantages in his favour and he made the most of it before he was stopped.
> 
> 
> On the RMCP and rural policing more generally.
> 
> It's evident that it's not fully appreciated how independent each division is for almost all operational matters. The contract policing divisions are mostly paid for by the province, and this can include physical assets, not just officers on the road. The feds kick some money in, but if a province wants multiple ERTs, they need to pay for it. They want a helicopter, they're covering most of the costs. They want a new radio system, they're paying for it. In some cases the RCMP are contracted by municipalities themselves. Rural policing is thin on the ground anywhere you go. While the RCMP seem to have it worse than, say, OPP, it's still a simple reality that there are only so many out there- and on a night shift or weekend  you don't necessarily have a bunch of bodies in an office who can throw their belt and vest on and hit the road like what happened at Moncton. So that means that among the few scattered rural detachments - maybe 20-60 minutes apart from each other, each with just a couple members on, you need to be able to assemble and respond quickly to something highly dangerous potentially anywhere. The first few hours of that will be whoever happens to be on shift or can be called in quickly from bed.
> 
> When minutes count, ERT is only hours away. With few exceptions they generally aren't sitting there waiting for a call ready to go. Certainly not overnight in Nova Scotia. I'm not sure if NS' team is full time or part time- some provinces / territories have ERTs that are part time, when an ERT call comes in they drop what they're doing (whether at a desk or on the road), suit up and go. And at that, they can only work with the information available. They still need to be pointed at the threat and told 'go. If nobody can point them to the threat, all they can do is be ready for when that comes. ERT is a highly capable but also expensive capability. Nunavut was mentioned upthread- they had a team for a while, but they couldn't sustain it. They couldn't keep enough ERT trained members in the territory to have their own team. So now they have a containment team comprised of general duty members, and if they need ERT, they have to fly them up from Ottawa or Edmonton generally. Less than idea, but Nunavut cannot justify or sustain a full time ERT. That means you have to have enough members with that skillset doing other jobs, and that's tough. Everyone serving in the territories has volunteered to do so. Nunavut in particular is a short commitment, and there's a lot of turnover (and a lot of burnout). But, at that, nearly anywhere in the country ERT will take hours to get there. Critical incidents have a rude habit of not happening in convenient locations, and they're infrequent enough that the opportunity cost of maintaining Cadillac capabilities to respond really fast means taking away form member son the road taking calls, for a capability that will sit unused most of the time. Damned hard to justify... Yes, nearly every Mountie on the road has had a C8 and active shooter training for years now. That only goes so far.
> 
> Some changes will be coming. The RCMP are entering collective bargaining negotiations soon, having newly won the right to that and recently formed a union. Issues like 'cop to pop' ratio will be on the table for sure. The long term trend should be towards more officers on the road in isolated areas to be able to provide cover for each other. That is, however, going to come at a cost. The RCMP have been funded, paid, and treated as policing on the cheap for a long time. It's going to be a painful process as this changes, whether by agreement or binding arbitration.



Excellent post.

The question raised by others of rural vs. urban policing is simple; they are different, and the respective populations generally accept that.  A common benchmark is policeopulation which, by its very implication means that a small and scattered population will have a similarly small and scattered police coverage.  In Ontario, all organized municipalities are policed under contract; either via their own service, a neighbouring one or the OPP.  For the OPP, the costing formula is actually quite complex, involving weighted incident volumes, population, etc. along with a provinicial component.
I did not work with the RCMP enough to have a view on their operations (also being in a non-contract province).  Although it is a few years ago, a colleague retired to NB and got involved in community issues and his one frustration was in dealing with the RCMP contract meant they had to deal with Ottawa.  One would think that such matters would be managed at the divisional level.

Regarding specialized services, not only are they expensive, you can't simply have them is a glass jar with a hammer constantly waiting to go.  I can well imagine why a specialized weapons team in Nunuvut would be virtually impossible to keep  competent.  In the early days, the OPP had six full time tactics teams in the province (TRU).  Not only were adjoining teams too far away to relieve a deployment, the team in N/W Ontario simply didn't have the call volume to maintain competency.  They now have three larger teams.  Response times is still an issue.  You can only move a few members and some gear by helicopter or light aircraft.  The Force has also beefed up its first level weapons/containment teams (ERT).  They are part time but they are scattered throughout the province.  Aviation assets are astonishingly expensive, especially in a province the size of Ontario.  At least it has the tax base; the Maritimes not so much.

Tactical radio communications always seems to come up in just about every after action review, not only the technology but how the members use it (tactical verbal communications is not a strong point in my view; 'what, they want to tell me how to talk?').  Commonality is also an issue.  Ontario has committed upwards of $1Bn for an upgrade to its emergency services radio net.  It will not include municipalities with their own service but I beleive everybody has committed to the current North American standard.

I have obviously not been involved in an incident of this magnitude, but can well imagine a handful of on-duty night shift members scattered over a large rural area, perhaps with an NCO or two, trying to makes sense of what was unfolding.  Oftentimes, multiple calls from the public regarding the same incident add to the confusion.


----------



## Remius

Just an anecdote.  

I know the RCMP is deploying more and more Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems.  Drones.  Now they can’t  carry people obviously but they can cover a lot of space in remote locations and do a variety of tasks similar to helicopters and fixed wing aircraft.

I met a drone operator from up North.  A Civilian Member who was qualified to operate them.  Wasn’t that individual’s primary task but was so in demand that it quickly became a primary task as opposed to a secondary one. 

Some of the challenges noted were getting people qualified.  

Note: this information came to me from a casual conversation in an unrelated training environment.  I have no real information on the drone program whatsoever.  Just peripheral.  

Not a perfect replacement to some air services assets but it seems like a cheaper alternative to fill some gaps.  But i’ll defer to others that may have more knowledge on that than me.


----------



## lenaitch

Remius said:
			
		

> Just an anecdote.
> 
> I know the RCMP is deploying more and more Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems.  Drones.  Now they can’t  carry people obviously but they can cover a lot of space in remote locations and do a variety of tasks similar to helicopters and fixed wing aircraft.
> 
> I met a drone operator from up North.  A Civilian Member who was qualified to operate them.  Wasn’t that individual’s primary task but was so in demand that it quickly became a primary task as opposed to a secondary one.
> 
> Some of the challenges noted were getting people qualified.
> 
> Note: this information came to me from a casual conversation in an unrelated training environment.  I have no real information on the drone program whatsoever.  Just peripheral.
> 
> Not a perfect replacement to some air services assets but it seems like a cheaper alternative to fill some gaps.  But i’ll defer to others that may have more knowledge on that than me.



All I know about the program is conversations with some operators since it has evolved after I retired.  Drones have been widely adopted for tasks like scene mapping and some limited search roles.  For ground searching, they are still limited by battery life, translating into range and, to a degree, communications range with the controller.  Also, they lack any ability to illuminate.  Things are evolving, particularly in terms of optics; perhaps better range will come along.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Perhaps Dimsum could weigh in, but I do not believe that NavCanada has quite wrapped its head around RPAS operations in a VFR setting, which will limit how much any police force can use this technology for anything other than a specific incident or scene management. I don’t see RPAS doing traffic patrol any time soon, if that is what you are suggesting.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Has there been more information about the 2013 complaint made to the RCMP by Brenda Forbes regarding domestic abuse (assault?) and the illegally owned weapons he was apparently showing off? She alleges nothing was done about it.


----------



## brihard

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Has there been more information about the 2013 complaint made to the RCMP by Brenda Forbes regarding domestic abuse (assault?) and the illegally owned weapons he was apparently showing off? She alleges nothing was done about it.



I wouldn't expect to see any information come out about this in the short term. I'm sure it forms at a minimum a key part of the actual investigation into what happened in the shooting, and I would be astonished if there wasn't a deep dive historical review into what happened. I won't speculate any further than that.

My understanding of what's alleged is that a few people were aware of domestic violence, but that neither the victim nor actual firsthand witnesses were willing to provide statements to police on it. Similarly it sounds like whoever personally saw firearms was not willing to provide a statement and if necessary testify to that effect. I may not be 100% on this.

Stepping back form this specific case, and speaking more generally:

To *charge someone with an offense*, police have to have reasonable grounds to believe a person has committed an offense. They have to have sufficient weight of evidence that crown can take the matter through court and have a reasonable prospect of conviction. If you don't have cooperative victims or witnesses... Good luck. Been there, done that. It's frustrating. It is possible to get convictions in domestic violence cases without a cooperative victim, but generally you need a solid, credible, cooperative witness, or something really clean like good security video. Even at that, crown will tpically only push such a case through if it's very clear that the victim is probably really not in a position to feel safe cooperating, or if the accused has a history that strongly makes it in the public interest to move forward despite lack of victim cooperation. But you need that real, admissible evidence. You can have all the hearsay in the world, but that doesn't get you to charges.

The *search a premises* pursuant to an offense, police have to have _reasonable suspicion_ that:
- A certain offense has been committed
- That there is something that will afford evidence of an offense
- That that thing will be found in a certain premise or location.

The investigator then needs to very carefully and meticulously document that in an applicant to a judge or justice. The judge or justice needs to be satisfied that what the officer has outlined is reasonable in order to issue a search warrant. 

There are additional search and seizure powers specific to firearms/weapons- similarly, a justice _believes on reasonable grounds_, based on the application of a peace officer, that a person has a firearm/weapon/prohib device, and that it is not desirable in the interests of the safety of that person or another person to have them, then similarly a warrant can be issued.

At a minimum for this you would need a witness willing to provide a statement and testify to the facts alleged. If someone comes in and says 'Yeah, I was in this guy's house and saw his guns- I saw a couple semiautomatic rifles and a shotgun', and that person is willing to go on the record, that's a great start. If that's then checked against records that show the person doesn't have a PAL, OK, at this point there's a possibility of getting a search warrant. But again, it can't just be hearsay. The info would need to be recent and credible.

Against the privacy interests of searching a residence, police have to have a pretty reasonable weight of evidence, their suspicions have to be reasonable, and a justice or judge has to be satisfied of these things. Police CANNOT just go in and search based on third hand accounts, hearsay, or mere suspicion not backed with sufficient evidence. There are, of course, further investigative steps that can be taken in cases that fall short of the grounds for a search warrant. That would go in the queue against all the other outstanding maters police in a given jurisdiction have on the go.


----------



## MilEME09

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Has there been more information about the 2013 complaint made to the RCMP by Brenda Forbes regarding domestic abuse (assault?) and the illegally owned weapons he was apparently showing off? She alleges nothing was done about it.



Mcleans offers a great break down of that and other questions that have been asked. Short answer is we do not have answers yet. Heck RCMP might not have the answer yet either.

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/a-nightmarish-crisis-and-the-mistakes-that-may-have-been-made-by-the-rcmp/?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1589499266


----------



## Jarnhamar

Thanks Brihard and MilEME09.

There is definitely a pattern of people known or reported to the police with the optics appearing that the police don't act on complaints/do nothing. I'm sure that's not the case but it's clearly an issue that needs to be looked at fixed.

If people kept complaining about Wortman, including domestic assaults and especially illegal weapons, but people were too afraid to speak on the record about it clearly there's one hell of a problem. The police aren't stupid so they had to have known there was something fucked up going on with this guy. Maybe the police are annoyed with people wasting their time (for lack of a better word) making complaints about people but refusing to do it officially or have their name attached.

In any case I think the police that recognize this pattern and they (we) need to figure out a way to do more (and do better).


[quote Short answer is we do not have answers yet. Heck RCMP might not have the answer yet either.[/quote]
If past behavior is an indicator of future behavior there's a strong chance we won't get any answers. Or they'll have to be fought for tooth and nail and there'll be a lot of black marker involved.


----------



## brihard

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Thanks Brihard and MilEME09.
> 
> There is definitely a pattern of people known or reported to the police with the optics appearing that the police don't act on complaints/do nothing. I'm sure that's not the case but it's clearly an issue that needs to be looked at fixed.
> 
> If people kept complaining about Wortman, including domestic assaults and especially illegal weapons, but people were too afraid to speak on the record about it clearly there's one hell of a problem. The police aren't stupid so they had to have known there was something ****ed up going on with this guy. Maybe the police are annoyed with people wasting their time (for lack of a better word) making complaints about people but refusing to do it officially or have their name attached.
> 
> In any case I think the police that recognize this pattern and they (we) need to figure out a way to do more (and do better).
> 
> 
> [quote Short answer is we do not have answers yet. Heck RCMP might not have the answer yet either.
> If past behavior is an indicator of future behavior there's a strong chance we won't get any answers. Or they'll have to be fought for tooth and nail and there'll be a lot of black marker involved.



Just spitballing, not talking about this shooter specifically, but more generally: Let's say that over a few years there are several inconclusive reports about someone like this. Allegations that can never be brought to court, talk of firearms that can't be confirmed... Lots of red flags there for sure. Certainly where there's smoke, there may be fire. Especially where there's domestic violence history, that to me is a very significant potential indicator for future violence. Domestic abusers tend not to desist from violence of their own accord, because up to that point it has clearly worked for them. It's no great leap to go from hurting your partner to hurting others, and someone who feels entitled to control a partner probably feels some entitlement as it pertains to others. Other stuff like civil court records can give behavioural indicators as well. 

To target such cases, there would have to be some specific, dedicated investigative work by a team equipped to do so. I could think of a number of methods by which a thorough investigation could unearth evidence that could ultimately lead to a search warrant, but it could potentially be quite a bit of work.

I, for one, would look forward to watching a certain segment of the Facebook mouth breathers explode if RCMP divisions or other police services were to establish 'red flag' investigative teams to go after these sorts of bad seeds.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=Brihard]

To target such cases, there would have to be some specific, dedicated investigative work by a team equipped to do so. I could think of a number of methods by which a thorough investigation could unearth evidence that could ultimately lead to a search warrant, but it could potentially be quite a bit of work.

I, for one, would look forward to watching a certain segment of the Facebook mouth breathers explode if RCMP divisions or other police services were to establish 'red flag' investigative teams to go after these sorts of bad seeds.
[/quote]

Despite the possible abuses I think I really like a robust red flag system. Domestic abuse, firearms, terrorism, violence. 

Your dedicated investigative team would be perfect. The facebook explosions would be adamantly enjoyable but so would catching these people before they hurt others.

We can never prevent someone from doing something completely but I feel like if Wortman was somehow intercepted and possibly dealt with in 2013 this shooting would have had a considerable lesser chance of happening. 

_Where there's smoke there's fire._ We don't hold firefighters back until we see actual flames. The police need more resources to investigate and do something about the smoke.


Something else I just thought about. Brihard you mention police needing proof to go in and do their job and can't just react on complaints.

What about swatting in Canada? It seems like in these cases the police launch based off anonymous complaints.
If I can have my door kicked in while I'm playing video game because an anonymous caller called 9/11 why wouldn't the police be able to kick someones door in when accused of domestic abuse and illegal weapons?
Guessing something to do with immediate threat?


----------



## Kat Stevens

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Despite the possible abuses I think I really like a robust red flag system. Domestic abuse, firearms, terrorism, violence.
> 
> Your dedicated investigative team would be perfect. The facebook explosions would be adamantly enjoyable but so would catching these people before they hurt others.
> 
> We can never prevent someone from doing something completely but I feel like if Wortman was somehow intercepted and possibly dealt with in 2013 this shooting would have had a considerable lesser chance of happening.
> 
> _Where there's smoke there's fire._ We don't hold firefighters back until we see actual flames. The police need more resources to investigate and do something about the smoke.
> 
> 
> Something else I just thought about. Brihard you mention police needing proof to go in and do their job and can't just react on complaints.
> 
> What about swatting in Canada? It seems like in these cases the police launch based off anonymous complaints.
> If I can have my door kicked in while I'm playing video game because an anonymous caller called 9/11 why wouldn't the police be able to kick someones door in when accused of domestic abuse and illegal weapons?
> Guessing something to do with immediate threat?



So, Minority Report?  What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## brihard

Target Up said:
			
		

> So, Minority Report?  What could possibly go wrong?



No, police could still only take it to the point of getting a search warrant or laying charges in the event that sufficient evidence of offences is gathered to meet the criteria I satisfied above. We aren't talking about some sci fi 'pre crime' nonsense, we're talking about a focused effort to make better use of existing intelligence holdings to paint a fuller picture and prioritize investigative targets the same way as is currently done in the case of organized crime.

What's being discussed is intelligence led policing aimed at catching those who may have serious behavioural issues and are illegally gathering firearms before they snap. Law enforcement uses the same intelligence cycle and methodology as other fields. I've seen many cases of individuals who were widely known to be 'off', to be aggressive and hostile to others, have likely committed several offences, but victims or witnesses don't want to come forward. I've seen some cases where these individuals did in fact escalate to serious persons offences resulting in their door getting kicked one night, hopefully before someone else was too badly hurt. I've been in the position of acting on this kind of information where we had credible tips of someone having firearms they weren't supposed to have, and having committed acts of violence. It can get friggin' hairy having to deal with that in a remote setting- a call like this had me more scared one night in the woods than anything I ever faced in the military.

I would contend that if there have been credible allegations of domestic violence, credible allegations of someone illegally possessing firearms, and other indicia that someone may not be stable, that's worth some due diligence including seeing if actionable intelligence can be gained to further an investigation. We always hear *after* these events of the multiple little things that people knew, that people had reported... A lot of them could potentially have been intervened with earlier, before it came to this.


----------



## Jarnhamar

*Nova Scotia mass shooting: New information about murder rampage delayed by government lawyers*

_Government lawyers admit they are already significantly behind the court’s schedule for releasing information about last month’s Nova Scotia shooting rampage, before they have even begun to do so._

https://nationalpost.com/news/nova-scotia-mass-shooting-new-information-about-murder-rampage-delayed-by-government-lawyers


----------



## Jarnhamar

*Nova Scotia mass killer was stockpiling weapons, and ammunition before attack, police *
_Those who knew the gunman told police he talked openly about how to “get rid of a body,” telling people he kept lime and muriatic acid and barrels under his deck, the warrant reveals._
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-nova-scotia-mass-killer-was-stockpiling-weapons-and-ammunition-before/


I wonder if they reported this or figured someone else would.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> *Nova Scotia mass killer was stockpiling weapons, and ammunition before attack, police *
> _Those who knew the gunman told police he talked openly about how to “get rid of a body,” telling people he kept lime and muriatic acid and barrels under his deck, the warrant reveals._
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-nova-scotia-mass-killer-was-stockpiling-weapons-and-ammunition-before/
> 
> 
> I wonder if they reported this or figured someone else would.



His neighbour is an ex-CAF member and she reported the guns to RCMP. I heard her interviewed on CBC and it was compelling in a 'WTActualF' kind of way:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/mass-shooting-nova-scotia-firearms-gun-violence-1.5567330


----------



## OldSolduer

I've read several books by FBI profilers John Douglas and Robert Ressler. 

This guy was  a classic spree killer - the cycle between kills was so short and he didn't know or care where he'd end up.

AND he stockpiled weapons and seemed a bit "off" to those around him.

In addition, there was a "precipitating stressor" which is an event that caused the cheese to slide off the cracker. Was it the argument with the girlfriend?

And by all reports everyone knew he had issues.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Something is rotten in the State of Denmark:



> *The Nova Scotia shooter case has hallmarks of an undercover operation
> *
> Police sources say the killer's withdrawal of $475,000 was highly irregular, and how an RCMP ‘agent’ would get money
> 
> By Paul Palango, Stephen Maher, Shannon Gormley
> June 19, 2020
> 
> The withdrawal of $475,000 in cash by the man who killed 22 Nova Scotians in April matches the method the RCMP uses to send money to confidential informants and agents, sources say.
> 
> Gabriel Wortman, who is responsible for the largest mass killing in Canadian history, withdrew the money from a Brink’s depot in Dartmouth, N.S., on March 30, stashing a carryall filled with hundred-dollar bills in the trunk of his car.



More at link: https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-nova-scotia-shooter-case-has-hallmarks-of-an-undercover-operation/


----------



## Halifax Tar

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Something is rotten in the State of Denmark:
> 
> More at link: https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-nova-scotia-shooter-case-has-hallmarks-of-an-undercover-operation/



I read this, this morning.  Agreed something is rotten...


----------



## brihard

Ah, Paul Palango again... Suffice to say you can take most of what he writes on the subject of the RCMP with a considerable grain of salt.

Half a mil would be a pretty massive payment for an agent. If you think someone who’s well known as a cop fetishist with uniforms and cars is going to be able to get in that deep with organized crime... yeah. Also, agents don’t get freebies the way the innuendo in this piece suggests. Nor would police be sending an agent themselves to an institution to pick up their own payment.

For someone who purports to have access to mounties experienced in covert ops, he’s done a pretty lousy job at info gathering. For purposes of critical thinking it’s important to note that Palango has had some sort of axe to grind against the RCMP for many years, as is clear in his writing. Some of his other work on the NS shooting has been equally garbage. I would put little stock in it.

Whatever Wortman had going on, I highly doubt working with the police was among it.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Got it- the author has an axe to grind with RCMP.

So how do explain a $475k Brinks withdrawal? A mere mortal cannot do that. Somebody, somewhere had to help him with that. If it wasn’t a government agency, it implies that there is deep corruption in NS and maybe beyond to set it up in the first place and not ring bells at FINTRAC.

I am not saying he was an RCMP informant, but I think there is way more to this story than some looney tunes dude going on a rampage.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Brihard said:
			
		

> Ah, Paul Palango again... Suffice to say you can take most of what he writes on the subject of the RCMP with a considerable grain of salt.
> 
> Half a mil would be a pretty massive payment for an agent. If you think someone who’s well known as a cop fetishist with uniforms and cars is going to be able to get in that deep with organized crime... yeah. Also, agents don’t get freebies the way the innuendo in this piece suggests. Nor would police be sending an agent themselves to an institution to pick up their own payment.
> 
> For someone who purports to have access to mounties experienced in covert ops, he’s done a pretty lousy job at info gathering. For purposes of critical thinking it’s important to note that Palango has had some sort of axe to grind against the RCMP for many years, as is clear in his writing. Some of his other work on the NS shooting has been equally garbage. I would put little stock in it.
> 
> Whatever Wortman had going on, I highly doubt working with the police was among it.



I doubt the money would be to pay him.  It could be for him to conduct illegal activity with though. The guy was a Police fetishist and had known criminals he was associated with.

The fact he is a Police Fetishist makes me think he would potentially make a very good candidate for Agent status.


----------



## brihard

Sure as hell there’s weird stuff going on with the guy, no doubt there. I just thing Palango remains very out to lunch, as he has through most of this.


----------



## blacktriangle

If he was an agent, it seems like he was running some pretty lousy tradecraft. 

Definitely makes you wonder if there is more to this story though...


----------



## Cloud Cover

In this article, Paul Wells lays some compelling reasons for a full judicial inquiry into this one. In addition, he refers to some nuanced social media discussion by Jess Davis regarding the weight of argument that the shooter may have been an RCMP asset. (he likely wasn't but the RCMP need to be much more clear about that).

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/time-for-real-answers-on-the-nova-scotia-mass-murder/ 

Cheers


----------



## Furniture

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Got it- the author has an axe to grind with RCMP.
> 
> So how do explain a $475k Brinks withdrawal? A mere mortal cannot do that. Somebody, somewhere had to help him with that. If it wasn’t a government agency, it implies that there is deep corruption in NS and maybe beyond to set it up in the first place and not ring bells at FINTRAC.
> 
> I am not saying he was an RCMP informant, but I think there is way more to this story than some looney tunes dude going on a rampage.



I agree. The way this has been handled from the beginning screams cover-up. Whether it's covering up the inept response from police or something more serious, I don't know.  

If this had happened in the USA we would have had the police tell us the weapons used, the shooters criminal record, and anything else potentially useful in the first 24 hours. Up here it's cover, obscure, and delay as much as possible... The RCMP have a public image issue, and hiding information in this case is not helping it one bit.


----------



## Cloud Cover

I think that’s why we need a judicial inquiry.  I’m not prepared to accept the police response was “inept”, but I don’t trust any other process to get to the bottom of it.  It’s pretty clear there has been political interferences from early on in the disclosures. I’d like to think there was no operational or evidentiary interference.


----------



## Furniture

CloudCover said:
			
		

> I think that’s why we need a judicial inquiry.  I’m not prepared to accept the police response was “inept”, but I don’t trust any other process to get to the bottom of it.  It’s pretty clear there has been political interferences from early on in the disclosures. I’d like to think there was no operational or evidentiary interference.



I only say inept, because apparently other police services in the province, near the route/scene were not brought in to assist. My understanding is they never closed the highways/roads he was suspected to be traveling on... Seems inept to me when it's a known active shooter.


----------



## Journeyman

CloudCover said:
			
		

> In this article, Paul Wells lays some compelling reasons for a full judicial inquiry into this one. In addition, he refers to some nuanced social media discussion by Jess Davis regarding the weight of argument that the shooter may have been an RCMP asset. (he likely wasn't but the RCMP need to be much more clear about that).
> 
> https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/time-for-real-answers-on-the-nova-scotia-mass-murder/
> 
> Cheers



I suggest anyone following this issue read the Twitter thread by #JessMarinDavis.  She's ex-CSIS and is probably Canada's foremost expert on FINTRAC/criminal finances.  She highlights some serious flaws in the Macleans' article.


----------



## Remius

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I suggest anyone following this issue read the Twitter thread by #JessMarinDavis.  She's ex-CSIS and is probably Canada's foremost expert on FINTRAC/criminal finances.  She highlights some serious flaws in the Macleans' article.



I was waiting for the counter argument to come out. Thanks for the link.


----------



## NavyShooter

Inept is not the word I would use. 

Confused?  Yes, because it appears that GW was moving around and sowing confusion.  

It was a REALLY GOOD THING that his fake cruiser was taken out by the RCMP officer (though at the cost of her own life) because he appears to have been on his way to the city...he was a 10 minute drive from Lower Sackville, and a 20 minute drive from downtown Halifax.  

With the carnage he wrought in a rural environment, can you imagine what he could have done on the loose in downtown Halifax?

The bad guys always have a free reign until the first good guy with a gun shows up.  In Canada, that usually means a police officer.

NS


----------



## brihard

Furniture said:
			
		

> I only say inept, because apparently other police services in the province, near the route/scene were not brought in to assist. My understanding is they never closed the highways/roads he was suspected to be traveling on... Seems inept to me when it's a known active shooter.



They don’t use compatible radio systems. They DID assist by taking other unrelated calls on behalf of the RCMP to free up members, but they weren’t able to safely integrate on the primary call. Truro police on the road couldn’t talk to RCMP and vice versa. You can probably imagine how hugely dangerous that is. I’ve worked on the road in a jurisdiction where multiple uniformed police services overlap and don’t share radios. It can be a huge problem. Those other police services were better used taking other calls, and they did.

Bear in mind that for a considerable portion of the night he was *not* an active shooter (or ‘active threat’ in our parlance). His behaviour had changed, he had gone to ground, though all police knew is there were no longer new scenes coming in. That changes some aspects of the response. With an active threat you throw everything you have at the threat based on information about their location, which will generally continue to flow in. Once they are no longer actively killing, you slow it down, work the problem, gather info, and try to find, contain, and safely capture the suspect. In this case once he stopped killing for the night and took off, what they had was an immensely overwhelmed gaggle of night shift members, a critical incident command team establishing itself, an already horrendously complex investigation, and a whole lot of info to try to gather, corroborate, and act on. They were flooding resources in from the length of NS and from NB, but that takes time, and police services don’t ‘ad hoc’ an ORBAT on the fly nearly as capably as the military does.

There will undoubtedly be a full inquiry of this, likely resulting in something similar to the MacNeil report following the Moncton murders. Like that one, it will take time.

Transparency is important, but we also don’t know what other investigative angles are being worked, likely including the trafficking of firearms across the border. We will learn more in time, but wanting answers now does not mean we’re entitled to answers now. I’d rather they run absolutely everything down and then offer that up. The public generally has no clue how tremendously complex a major investigation is. Even with a dead suspect, all of this still needs to be meticulous in case it forms the basis for subsequent legal proceedings involving other parties.


----------



## lenaitch

Furniture said:
			
		

> I agree. The way this has been handled from the beginning screams cover-up. Whether it's covering up the inept response from police or something more serious, I don't know.
> 
> If this had happened in the USA we would have had the police tell us the weapons used, the shooters criminal record, and anything else potentially useful in the first 24 hours. Up here it's cover, obscure, and delay as much as possible... The RCMP have a public image issue, and hiding information in this case is not helping it one bit.



We also don't 'perp-walk' an accused in front of cameras or release mugshots.  I'm not sure how "useful" this information other than to satisfy public curiosity.  What is value is the shooter's criminal record?  Does it establish that he did it or just likely to do it?  At that point, they are convicted of nothing.

The singular goal in a major criminal investigation is to put the puck in the net - identify a suspect and obtain a conviction.  If something is released that is later determined to be incorrect, you have an uncertainty or inconsistency.  It all becomes part of the disclosure package.  Do that enough times and defence counsel will try to call all of it into question.  The more times a Crown witness has to clarify inconsistencies, say 'ya but' or 'I don't know' in front of a jury the better the defence case gets.  It's almost got to point now that not only do you have to prove the accused did it but prove that nobody else on the planet could have.

Obviously, in the NS case, a trial is not in the offing, but that is common investigative standard.  Besides, an inquest or inquiry is inevitable.


----------



## lenaitch

Brihard said:
			
		

> They don’t use compatible radio systems. They DID assist by taking other unrelated calls on behalf of the RCMP to free up members, but they weren’t able to safely integrate on the primary call. Truro police on the road couldn’t talk to RCMP and vice versa. You can probably imagine how hugely dangerous that is. I’ve worked on the road in a jurisdiction where multiple uniformed police services overlap and don’t share radios. It can be a huge problem. Those other police services were better used taking other calls, and they did.
> 
> Bear in mind that for a considerable portion of the night he was *not* an active shooter (or ‘active threat’ in our parlance). His behaviour had changed, he had gone to ground, though all police knew is there were no longer new scenes coming in. That changes some aspects of the response. With an active threat you throw everything you have at the threat based on information about their location, which will generally continue to flow in. Once they are no longer actively killing, you slow it down, work the problem, gather info, and try to find, contain, and safely capture the suspect. In this case once he stopped killing for the night and took off, what they had was an immensely overwhelmed gaggle of night shift members, a critical incident command team establishing itself, an already horrendously complex investigation, and a whole lot of info to try to gather, corroborate, and act on. They were flooding resources in from the length of NS and from NB, but that takes time, and police services don’t ‘ad hoc’ an ORBAT on the fly nearly as capably as the military does.
> 
> There will undoubtedly be a full inquiry of this, likely resulting in something similar to the MacNeil report following the Moncton murders. Like that one, it will take time.
> 
> Transparency is important, but we also don’t know what other investigative angles are being worked, likely including the trafficking of firearms across the border. We will learn more in time, but wanting answers now does not mean we’re entitled to answers now. I’d rather they run absolutely everything down and then offer that up. The public generally has no clue how tremendously complex a major investigation is. Even with a dead suspect, all of this still needs to be meticulous in case it forms the basis for subsequent legal proceedings involving other parties.



Inter-agency communications has been an issue in many incidents, which is why the Ontario government spent mega-bucks a number of years ago putting provincial law enforcement and EMS agencies on the same system, and is spending mega-more-bucks to upgrade it to North American standards which most if not all municipal police services are now on (and may be extended to municipal fire services).

The "want" vs. "entitled" argument is quite valid. Keeping the public happy while assembling evidence is a dance and balancing act. Some would want the police to investigate from glass houses.  I don't even like the release of ITOs before court but it seems the SC and I disagree.  Given the number and geographic spread of scenes, this investigation is astonishingly complex.  Not only do they have to solve each scene, they have to solve each scene to each other scene, and do it in a way that is comprehendable to a court/inquest/inquiry.

This unfolded in a small rural area at night.  The police were trying to make sense of what was unfolding, while it was unfolding, and ramping up their response at the same time.  It's not like the required resources are sleeping in barracks waiting for the alarm.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=lenaitch]It's almost got to point now that not only do you have to prove the accused did it but prove that nobody else on the planet could have.

[/quote]





> * Assoun murder case: RCMP suppressed, erased evidence of other suspects*
> 
> HALIFAX -- The RCMP chose not to disclose an investigator's theories about other suspects to a wrongfully convicted Halifax man fighting to prove he was innocent of murder, federal documents revealed on Friday.
> 
> Not only that, but the Mounties digitally erased or destroyed most of this potential evidence -- including the possibility a serial killer, Michael McGray, was a suspect, says the report.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.ctvnews.ca/national/canada/2019/7/12/1_4505150.html


----------



## Furniture

Brihard said:
			
		

> They don’t use compatible radio systems. They DID assist by taking other unrelated calls on behalf of the RCMP to free up members, but they weren’t able to safely integrate on the primary call. Truro police on the road couldn’t talk to RCMP and vice versa. You can probably imagine how hugely dangerous that is. I’ve worked on the road in a jurisdiction where multiple uniformed police services overlap and don’t share radios. It can be a huge problem. Those other police services were better used taking other calls, and they did.
> 
> Bear in mind that for a considerable portion of the night he was *not* an active shooter (or ‘active threat’ in our parlance). His behaviour had changed, he had gone to ground, though all police knew is there were no longer new scenes coming in. That changes some aspects of the response. With an active threat you throw everything you have at the threat based on information about their location, which will generally continue to flow in. Once they are no longer actively killing, you slow it down, work the problem, gather info, and try to find, contain, and safely capture the suspect. In this case once he stopped killing for the night and took off, what they had was an immensely overwhelmed gaggle of night shift members, a critical incident command team establishing itself, an already horrendously complex investigation, and a whole lot of info to try to gather, corroborate, and act on. They were flooding resources in from the length of NS and from NB, but that takes time, and police services don’t ‘ad hoc’ an ORBAT on the fly nearly as capably as the military does.
> 
> There will undoubtedly be a full inquiry of this, likely resulting in something similar to the MacNeil report following the Moncton murders. Like that one, it will take time.
> 
> Transparency is important, but we also don’t know what other investigative angles are being worked, likely including the trafficking of firearms across the border. We will learn more in time, but wanting answers now does not mean we’re entitled to answers now. I’d rather they run absolutely everything down and then offer that up. The public generally has no clue how tremendously complex a major investigation is. Even with a dead suspect, all of this still needs to be meticulous in case it forms the basis for subsequent legal proceedings involving other parties.



Interesting insight, thanks for sharing. Perhaps inept is the wrong word to use in this case. 



			
				lenaitch said:
			
		

> We also don't 'perp-walk' an accused in front of cameras or release mugshots.  I'm not sure how "useful" this information other than to satisfy public curiosity.  What is value is the shooter's criminal record?  Does it establish that he did it or just likely to do it?  At that point, they are convicted of nothing.
> 
> The singular goal in a major criminal investigation is to put the puck in the net - identify a suspect and obtain a conviction.  If something is released that is later determined to be incorrect, you have an uncertainty or inconsistency.  It all becomes part of the disclosure package.  Do that enough times and defence counsel will try to call all of it into question.  The more times a Crown witness has to clarify inconsistencies, say 'ya but' or 'I don't know' in front of a jury the better the defence case gets.  It's almost got to point now that not only do you have to prove the accused did it but prove that nobody else on the planet could have.
> 
> Obviously, in the NS case, a trial is not in the offing, but that is common investigative standard.  Besides, an inquest or inquiry is inevitable.



The problem is, the people being served by the police have expectations. If people don't have faith that the police are doing everything they can, and are sharing everything they can with the public, the public will lose faith in the system. I understand investigations require time, and not everything can be released as it may impact the investigation. What apparently happens though is that the police default to not releasing anything, and fight any attempt to get more information. 

A perfect example from the case being discussed is; Why was it so long before the RCMP confirmed he had no firearms license? It would have been a quick search to see if there was a license linked to his name, and address. Would confirming his lack of a firearms license impact the trial that won't happen, or did it serve to help the politicians who were pushing a blatantly partisan policy through to try to get some good news, and tick off an election promise? Why were the actual firearms used not released, same as the license? 

Maybe that isn't why it took so long to confirm a simple detail, but it sure looks that way, and that undermines the credibility of the police. Now clearly not everybody feels that way about this case, but with every case they pull these stunts they undermine their credibility a bit more with more people. 

Now to be clear, I'm not anti-police at all. My concern is that the police forces across Canada have not learned the lesson on openness and accountability the CAF had to learn the hard way.


----------



## lenaitch

Furniture said:
			
		

> Interesting insight, thanks for sharing. Perhaps inept is the wrong word to use in this case.
> 
> The problem is, the people being served by the police have expectations. If people don't have faith that the police are doing everything they can, and are sharing everything they can with the public, the public will lose faith in the system. I understand investigations require time, and not everything can be released as it may impact the investigation. What apparently happens though is that the police default to not releasing anything, and fight any attempt to get more information.
> 
> A perfect example from the case being discussed is; Why was it so long before the RCMP confirmed he had no firearms license? It would have been a quick search to see if there was a license linked to his name, and address. Would confirming his lack of a firearms license impact the trial that won't happen, or did it serve to help the politicians who were pushing a blatantly partisan policy through to try to get some good news, and tick off an election promise? Why were the actual firearms used not released, same as the license?
> 
> Maybe that isn't why it took so long to confirm a simple detail, but it sure looks that way, and that undermines the credibility of the police. Now clearly not everybody feels that way about this case, but with every case they pull these stunts they undermine their credibility a bit more with more people.
> 
> Now to be clear, I'm not anti-police at all. My concern is that the police forces across Canada have not learned the lesson on openness and accountability the CAF had to learn the hard way.



I agree, and some Forces do it better than others.  It's a dance, and the dance was probably easier when the media was all professional, with large outlets having 'crime reporters', who better understood why things were not said, and before social media.  Culturally, cops aren't big at sharing, but what is said and not said has to be credible.  We had one instance where a member was doing a live interview saying he could neither confirm or deny that a homicide had occurred while, at the same time in view of the cameras, a body was being carted out the house in the background.   Most large Forces have dedicated and fairly extensively training media relations members' however, many do not have extensive criminal backgrounds.  Neither do many senior police commanders these days, and operational leaders are often put in a position of not telling their superiors of every investigative detail, for fear that something will slip out at a press conference.  Some demand to know ('I'm the boss') until they are reminded that their name could end up in the Crown Brief.  I have witnessed that and it is uncomfortable.


----------



## Jarnhamar

*
Crown says release of N.S. mass shooting details could harm 'massive' probe*

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/crown-ns-shooting-details-could-harm-massive-probe-1.5630044


----------



## dapaterson

The Halifax Examiner has published a lengthy description and critique of the RCMP response, written by Paul Palango.

“An epic failure”: The first duty of police is to preserve life; through the Nova Scotia massacre, the RCMP saved no one


----------



## Remius

Just read that. 

Sounds like a mess if any of it is true. 

Edit:

The author has made a career of going after the RCMP in his written work,  I can%u2019t verify how accurate any of it is though.


----------



## brihard

Remius said:
			
		

> Just read that.
> 
> Sounds like a mess if any of it is true.



Some of it is accurate. A fair bit of it, particularly the parts where Palango inserts his own beliefs and assumptions, is right out of 'er. Pretty much everything he says about the initial responses - particularly with regards to IARD, containment, and the initial critical incident command - is completely worthless. IARD (I instruct it) is a response used when intelligence tells you the threat you're moving towards. If you no longer have shots, screams, or fresh witnesses pointing you towards the threat, it doesn't work. Absent those you're fumbling around in the dark.

Separately, I'm not sure how they imagine you can set up roadblocks and containment when you have a skeletal overnight crew, a half dozen crime scenes, and other first responders (fire, paramedics) to protect. I like his backhanded slam at the critical incident commander 'never attending the scene'. No crap. He's not supposed to. His role is in the CP lining up and deploying resources and making tactical decisions, not sucked into any one part of the situation. It's like asking why the battalion commander wasn't with Charlie team when they took the trench. He talks about how on the morning, they didn't call in many other cops- that's patently false. They called a ton, from all over the province, the situation simply ended with the shooter's death before many of them were in a position to assist, though many subsequently provided security at the various crime scenes. He makes lots of noise about not involving other police services, even though as I've previously discussed they didn't have compatible radios, and they did assist RCMP by taking other calls to free up Mounties. He talks about ERT just 'standing around' and not deploying to specific sites, but that's not how ERT works. They go whent here's a target area concretely identified so they don't get caught in place A when suddenly they're needed in place B. He tries to suggest the presence of a crisis negotiator suggests police had contact with the shooter, but in actuality a crisis negotiator is a part of the standard ERT / critical incident deployment package, along with several other things.

Lots of other things he gets wrong, but that's not atypical of his articles and I'm not going to take the time to dissect it further. Put stock in it if you choose to. I personally don't. There were definite things that could be improved, but fundamentally the attacker set himself up with a huge advantage, and hit an area that was very sparsely manned with police officers. He did so in just such a way as to cause maximum confusion, consume maximum police resources, but get himself out of danger spots before there could be a response.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Brihard said:
			
		

> Some of it is accurate. A fair bit of it, particularly the parts where Palango inserts his own beliefs and assumptions, is right out of 'er. Pretty much everything he says about the initial responses - particularly with regards to IARD, containment, and the initial critical incident command - is completely worthless. IARD (I instruct it) is a response used when intelligence tells you the threat you're moving towards. If you no longer have shots, screams, or fresh witnesses pointing you towards the threat, it doesn't work. Absent those you're fumbling around in the dark.
> 
> Separately, I'm not sure how they imagine you can set up roadblocks and containment when you have a skeletal overnight crew, a half dozen crime scenes, and other first responders (fire, paramedics) to protect. I like his backhanded slam at the critical incident commander 'never attending the scene'. No crap. He's not supposed to. His role is in the CP lining up and deploying resources and making tactical decisions, not sucked into any one part of the situation. It's like asking why the battalion commander wasn't with Charlie team when they took the trench. He talks about how on the morning, they didn't call in many other cops- that's patently false. They called a ton, from all over the province, the situation simply ended with the shooter's death before many of them were in a position to assist, though many subsequently provided security at the various crime scenes. He makes lots of noise about not involving other police services, even though as I've previously discussed they didn't have compatible radios, and they did assist RCMP by taking other calls to free up Mounties. He talks about ERT just 'standing around' and not deploying to specific sites, but that's not how ERT works. They go whent here's a target area concretely identified so they don't get caught in place A when suddenly they're needed in place B. He tries to suggest the presence of a crisis negotiator suggests police had contact with the shooter, but in actuality a crisis negotiator is a part of the standard ERT / critical incident deployment package, along with several other things.
> 
> Lots of other things he gets wrong, but that's not atypical of his articles and I'm not going to take the time to dissect it further. Put stock in it if you choose to. I personally don't. There were definite things that could be improved, but fundamentally the attacker set himself up with a huge advantage, and hit an area that was very sparsely manned with police officers. He did so in just such a way as to cause maximum confusion, consume maximum police resources, but get himself out of danger spots before there could be a response.



FWIW, even in hotly contested terrorist territory, where thousands of troops and police are available 24/7, one bad guy can do, and has done, alot of damage.

In my (not hugely extensive) experience, there's nothing harder than a hot pursuit in a rural area against a well equipped and determined opponent. And that includes the 'blue on blue' stuff, sadly.


----------



## lenaitch

Had a chance to read the article.  To add to comments already posted;

- He seems rather enthralled by roadblocks (checkpoints).  They have their utility in some circumstances, but gobble up a lot of people.  Absolute minimum of 2 members each, one with a long gun.  I don't know how he expected them to be in place in any numbers until sufficient staffing was assembled (considering all the other tasks that needed to be done as well).

- Large numbers of police officers on one channel.  Sounds like the 'good' old days.

- 'Many members from other detachments didn't know the area'.  Well, no shit.

- As mentioned, tactical deployment (we called it 'IRD - Initial Rapid Deployment) assumes an active threat in a given known area.  Otherwise, you are wandering around in the dark.

- The UK has (or at least had, it's been a while) a Gold-Silver-Bronze operational command system.  Gold (if required) is executive command; political leadership, etc. usually at a designated operations centre.  Silver is incident command, usually at an local operations centre, often co-located with communications, for the incident commander, scribe, intelligence, etc.  Bronze is on-scene command; tactical team leaders, i/c investigation, uniform team leaders, etc.  In this case, if the author expected the incident command to be on-scene, which scene?  It would look like that scene from 'Airplane' where the gate keeps changing.

- The author seems to be pretty blase about the safety of a non-police aircraft providing assistance.  Low altitude searching for a fugitive armed with a high-powered rifle has all sorts of risks, and I will assume a natural resources aircraft has neither infrared or night vision.  Even if it was an RCMP helicopter, I honestly don't know what the operational protocols are, but the pilot-in-command has a general responsibility for the safe operation of their aircraft.  If someone is decent with a rifle, a helicopter at low altitude can be pretty vulnerable.

It seems the announced 'review' has satisfied few, if any.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7211458/nova-scotia-shooting-public-inquiry-review-rcmp/


----------



## Remius

Brihard said:
			
		

> Some of it is accurate. A fair bit of it, particularly the parts where Palango inserts his own beliefs and assumptions, is right out of 'er. Pretty much everything he says about the initial responses - particularly with regards to IARD, containment, and the initial critical incident command - is completely worthless. IARD (I instruct it) is a response used when intelligence tells you the threat you're moving towards. If you no longer have shots, screams, or fresh witnesses pointing you towards the threat, it doesn't work. Absent those you're fumbling around in the dark.
> 
> Separately, I'm not sure how they imagine you can set up roadblocks and containment when you have a skeletal overnight crew, a half dozen crime scenes, and other first responders (fire, paramedics) to protect. I like his backhanded slam at the critical incident commander 'never attending the scene'. No crap. He's not supposed to. His role is in the CP lining up and deploying resources and making tactical decisions, not sucked into any one part of the situation. It's like asking why the battalion commander wasn't with Charlie team when they took the trench. He talks about how on the morning, they didn't call in many other cops- that's patently false. They called a ton, from all over the province, the situation simply ended with the shooter's death before many of them were in a position to assist, though many subsequently provided security at the various crime scenes. He makes lots of noise about not involving other police services, even though as I've previously discussed they didn't have compatible radios, and they did assist RCMP by taking other calls to free up Mounties. He talks about ERT just 'standing around' and not deploying to specific sites, but that's not how ERT works. They go whent here's a target area concretely identified so they don't get caught in place A when suddenly they're needed in place B. He tries to suggest the presence of a crisis negotiator suggests police had contact with the shooter, but in actuality a crisis negotiator is a part of the standard ERT / critical incident deployment package, along with several other things.
> 
> Lots of other things he gets wrong, but that's not atypical of his articles and I'm not going to take the time to dissect it further. Put stock in it if you choose to. I personally don't. There were definite things that could be improved, but fundamentally the attacker set himself up with a huge advantage, and hit an area that was very sparsely manned with police officers. He did so in just such a way as to cause maximum confusion, consume maximum police resources, but get himself out of danger spots before there could be a response.



I’m leery of the author given his history going after the RCMP for so long so I assume there is some bias on his part.


----------



## Jarnhamar

The push back and run around doesn't help the situation. I get that buddy may be connected to whatever criminal element and it's being investigated, I'm usually the first to suggest people should back off and let police do their job, but there's a lot of weird things with this one.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

> *Nova Scotia gunman allegedly smuggled guns and drugs from U.S.: court docs*
> 
> By Andrew Russell Global News
> Posted July 27, 2020 2:00 pm
> 
> 
> The gunman in the Nova Scotia shooting that killed 22 people was alleged to have trafficked drugs and firearms from the United States, according to newly unsealed documents from the provincial court in Nova Scotia.
> 
> Following the shooting, one unidentified witness told police that they were aware that “[Gabriel Wortman] had smuggled guns and drugs from Maine for years and had a stockpile of guns,” the documents say.
> 
> “Gabriel Wortman smuggled drugs from Maine and had a bag of 10,000 oxy-contin pills and 15,000 dilaudid from a reservation in New Brunswick,” a witness told Halifax Regional Police, according to the documents.
> 
> The same witness, who first met the gunman in 2011, also told police that the gunman “builds fires and burns bodies, is a sexual predator, and supplies drugs in Portapique and Economy, Nova Scotia.”
> 
> More at link



http://globalnews.ca/news/7222849/nova-scotia-gunman-allegedly-smuggled-guns-and-drugs-from-u-s-court-docs/

Nothing to see here folks, RCMP and Government are being 100% transparent and telling the truth about this guy  :rofl:


----------



## materialpigeonfibre

Small crazy world.

I was in Nova Scotia in Kentville. I was doing enemy force.
The gal I was going to marry got pregnant. It wasn't mine. I hit the blueberry ale pretty hard at Paddy's pub downtown.

A man comes in spinning a tale of how he was desperate, how he was going to loose he house, he was kicked out, got swindled out of the house, how he was trying in the courts but it wasn't likely to work.
Such a crazy story. But he spun it for an hour.
I humored him. How do you loose a house? You must have signed something.

I have a feeling it was wortman.
Unless that's a common thing in NS.



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I read this, this morning.  Agreed something is rotten...



Aye, something is rotten. Why is macleans suddenly waking up and doing reporting?


----------



## dapaterson

CBC has posted a long-form item walking through "13 deadly hours".

https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/longform/nova-scotia-shooting-13-deadly-hours


----------



## Scott

Global has a podcast on same, and CBC's Fifth Estate is supposed to be doing something tonight.

I believe that a guy I know is going to be speaking, he has some very interesting info on the response - he lived through it as a resident/neighbour.


----------



## Haggis

The Canadian Press is reporting that three people have been charged with supplying the murderer with ammunition.  One of them is identified as the attacker's common-law spouse.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Pretty weak charge. Likely a attempt to deflect from what was actually going on behind the scene.

I suspect they could even argue that any jail time for the ammo would be cruel and unusual punishment as you can legally purchase all the components required for making ammunition and assemble it yourself without penalty. Possession isn't the crime, only transfer.


----------



## brihard

If they had the evidence, not laying the charges in this case would be extremely difficult to defend and would beg the question as to why we have a requirement to be licensed to obtain ammunition at all.


----------



## Scott

Right. I'll bite. I have questions/comments. They are ones that are a common refrain in my area.

Everything that has been said about the charges the former CLS faces is mostly sympathetic toward her. Not hard to be, for many good reasons. There are also some weird things:
-she's suing his estate. Separated herself as executor, then sued the estate once she was clear. I'm sure she has a legit claim, this action just really confused locals, and angered them. She has made no public comment (her right) and that has compounded this.
-the guy who provided her shelter doesn't believe she spent a night in the woods. It was below zero that night and she appeared at his door (~0600) in yoga attire. 
-said guy is also a career forester. Knows what someone would look like after a night in the woods.

The fucking fire hall. Over thirty rounds into it. Not to mention some poor Mountie getting shot at for being a Mountie, and the firefighters and civillians/neighbours who were witness to this. 

The emergency alert. I don't know/care where the finger of blame rests now, but I think it's an easy statement to make that the people in my neighbourhood, at the very least, would have been safe if they had have known what was going on. The simplicity of it is that you don't have to download an app, or agree to TOS, or even update it to have it work - they literally broadcast the message. Done! 

I'll keep it to this. There are other concerns about 18/19 April which could beg some serious questions - but I can't confirm it as anything other than rumour.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Scott said:
			
		

> The ******* fire hall. Over thirty rounds into it. Not to mention some poor Mountie getting shot at for being a Mountie, and the firefighters and civillians/neighbours who were witness to this.



I don't remember hearing about that


----------



## Scott

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I don't remember hearing about that



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/onslow-fire-hall-gunfire-during-mass-shootings-1.5805495

It's like one of the "bad/bad" scenarios that actually happened during this event. There are/may be more.

My understanding is the shot at cop was not from the area and simply standing a post he was told to. The other two, whom I understand were also not from the area, saw him as they were driving by, and since the gunman was dressed as a cop, well, they took up behind a wooden garbage bin and in a ditch then filled the firehall, and a couple of trucks, with holes. Because he was in RCMP uniform. You know, working.

RCMP quickly paid to fix the damage and SIRT has hardly uttered a peep about this. I have heard from a couple of people that the shot at cop is still off work, can't blame the poor bastard. 

Edited to clarify my understanding about RCMP involved in shots at fire hall not from area, meaning Detachment. I have been told that the shot at Mountie was from the Pictou County area. That could be as much as an hour away.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Brihard said:
			
		

> If they had the evidence, not laying the charges in this case would be extremely difficult to defend and would beg the question as to why we have a requirement to be licensed to obtain ammunition at all.



There is a lot in this case I find highly suspicious and likely will look terrible on the government, especially the longer they drag out actually telling people what happened. To me this minor charge is basically showing them attempting to find some way to deflect blame from the results. Is there going to be charges of criminal negligence on the police officers going back over the years? Any one going to be fired over their poor judgement? Because to me it looks like either A) there was some extreme incompetency/negligence of duty, in the police in that area ignoring MULTIPLE calls and warnings that this guy illegally possessed firearms over the years, or B) they knew and due to their knowledge and refusal to do anything about it are complicit in the actions. 

I do question why we have the requirement to be licensed to buy ammo in the first place as you can legally possess ammo without a license and buy all the components to manufacture it yourself without a license.


----------



## Scott

Well, anyone hoping that Frank Magazine was going to eventually go completely online and then disappear altogether has the RCMP and both Liberal governments to thank for what I think may be a resurgence.

The Fifth Estate was a part one of a potential five, for me, just based on the conversations I've had, and the reporting I have retained.


----------



## The Bread Guy

_Another_ fake Mountie & car incident in NS - this from the RCMP yesterday:


> Antigonish RCMP have arrested a 23-year-old man from Antigonish for Impersonation of a Police Officer and seized a vehicle.
> 
> Members recently responded to complaints of a suspect driving what looked like an unmarked police vehicle in the Halifax Regional Municipality and Antigonish County. Police believe that the suspect may have used this mock police vehicle to pull over other vehicles.
> 
> The RCMP arrested the suspect without incident at a residence in Antigonish and seized a vehicle matching the description. The suspect has been released from custody on conditions and will appear in Antigonish Provincial Court on March 24, 2021 at 9:30 a.m.
> 
> Antigonish RCMP believe that there may be additional unreported incidents where this vehicle was used to attempt to pull people over between the areas of Halifax and Antigonish ...


----------



## lenaitch

It seems that every area I worked in there was some numpty who drove a post-auction police cruiser; perhaps sticking a CB antenna back in the hole.  I suppose it gave them jollies, figured it helped them in traffic or felt they were 'helping'.  Most were losers.  It became less significant during the period when the Force went to all-white cars.  I don't think any  were caught actively personating or pulling folks over, but it has happened and, as we saw in NS, can have frightening consequences in the wrong hands (minds).


----------



## Remius

That was pretty bad.  In my mind this is worse than military walts.


----------



## mariomike

lenaitch said:


> post-auction police cruiser;


Funny how people can buy used emergency vehicles at auction, when it is impossible to buy a used UPS "Package Car" for any amount of money. Their rule is simple: When UPS is done with them, they scrap every one.

Our department operated a fleet of Crown Victoria Police Interceptors. All were white. Some were marked, some were not. 

They were chosen for their acceleration, good weight distribution, handling, and traction. Idled without over heating. Had a fairly tight turning radius in city traffic. Roomy trunk for equipment (with some interesting features inside ). They took a lot of punishment ( curbs, mostly ) .

Eventually all went to public auction.


----------



## PuckChaser

Government always trying to make money, without context on public safety issues.

I would suspect UPS puts so many miles on their vehicles that they're worth more scrapped for steel than as an actual serviceable vehicle.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Well there is no reason Government property shouldn't be sold off to the public, it belongs to the public in the first place and provided there isn't some overarching danger to it (such as the vehicle is illegal for road usage such as a ML) recouping some funds by a private sale is a great thing. Punish people who do criminal acts not pre-emptively attempting to control everyone due to what someone 'might do'.


----------



## Haggis

Eaglelord17 said:


> Well there is no reason Government property shouldn't be sold off to the public, it belongs to the public in the first place and provided there isn't some overarching danger to it (such as the vehicle is illegal for road usage such as a ML) recouping some funds by a private sale is a great thing.


Like selling off "lightly" used Browning High Powers to licenced collectors?


Eaglelord17 said:


> Punish people who do criminal acts not pre-emptively attempting to control everyone due to what someone 'might do'.


Welcome to the world of lawful gun ownership in Canada. 😁


----------



## mariomike

In today's news, for reference to the discussion,


By The Canadian Press
Thu., Jan. 21, 2021
Nova Scotia working on legislation to regulate sale of used police vehicles​








						Nova Scotia working on legislation to regulate sale of used police vehicles
					

HALIFAX - Nova Scotia is drafting legislation around the sale of used police vehicles and equipment, after a man driving a replica RCMP cruiser killed...




					www.thestar.com
				




"Furey said there are no plans to ban the sale of decommissioned police vehicles despite calls by the Opposition Progressive Conservatives to prohibit those sales."


----------



## lenaitch

Despite the fact that they are provincially registered, it will interesting to see how they come up with legislation that tried to regulate the disposal of federal property.

From outward appearances, a used white Ford Taurus is a used white Ford Taurus.  Besides, where will all the taxis get their fleet?  Seeing as all the livery is stripped before sale, they might have better luck regulating graphics shops.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Haggis said:


> Like selling off "lightly" used Browning High Powers to licenced collectors?
> 
> Welcome to the world of lawful gun ownership in Canada. 😁


Especially considering the fact you can already buy Browning Hi-Powers (even made by Inglis which are exactly the same as the CF ones) civvy side


lenaitch said:


> Despite the fact that they are provincially registered, it will interesting to see how they come up with legislation that tried to regulate the disposal of federal property.
> 
> From outward appearances, a used white Ford Taurus is a used white Ford Taurus.  Besides, where will all the taxis get their fleet?  Seeing as all the livery is stripped before sale, they might have better luck regulating graphics shops.


They would be better off banning jerry cans as I understand it the shooter did more damage with those than any cop car.


----------



## dapaterson

There are extant laws against personation of peace officers.  I am not a lawyer, but I suspect these issues (if they are significant) can be addressed through law we already have, rather than creating new, narrow, confusing laws.


----------



## PuckChaser

dapaterson said:


> There are extant laws against personation of peace officers.  I am not a lawyer, but I suspect these issues (if they are significant) can be addressed through law we already have, rather than creating new, narrow, confusing laws.


You mean like banning guns because people shoot other people with them, even though murder is already illegal?


----------



## NavyShooter

However, in the interests of being seen to "DO SOMETHING" the Government will, no doubt, ban the sale of former police cars....even though it's not an actual solution to the real problem...


----------



## mariomike

lenaitch said:


> It seems that every area I worked in there was some numpty who drove a post-auction police cruiser; perhaps sticking a CB antenna back in the hole.  I suppose it gave them jollies, figured it helped them in traffic or felt they were 'helping'.  Most were losers.


I agree. But, if someone has their heart set on buying that type of vehicle, they should shy away from those used on Operations. They were treated like rented mules.

On the other hand, higher ups in the emergency services, at least in Toronto, had "company cars". They were "taxable benefits" for home and cottage. As they were considered to be "on call" 24/7. Especially after 9/11.

Those cars were treated with TLC by the emergency vehicle technicians.

If a buyer looking for that type of car at auction could find one of those , they could get a well maintained one at a good price.


----------



## lenaitch

mariomike said:


> I agree. But, if someone has their heart set on buying that type of vehicle, they should shy away from those used on Operations. They were treated like rented mules.
> 
> On the other hand, higher ups in the emergency services, at least in Toronto, had "company cars". They were "taxable benefits" for home and cottage. As they were considered to be "on call" 24/7. Especially after 9/11.
> 
> Those cars were treated with TLC by the emergency vehicle technicians.
> 
> If a buyer looking for that type of car at auction could find one of those , they could get a well maintained one at a good price.



Yup.  If I was ever in the mood, their were a few that, could I have tracked the VIN, would have been a decent purchase; usually unmarked.

On that note:



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/suspend-auction-police-cars-1.5883348
		


If such a policy holds for the long term, both for the feds and municipal/provincial, they'll have to deal with the loss of revenue stream and the environmental impact of sending them to the crusher.  Only so many can be re-cycled to other government departments as 'admin' vehicles.

Those so inclined can still buy a similar used model on the open market and trick it out.


----------



## Haggis

NavyShooter said:


> However, in the interests of being seen to "DO SOMETHING" the Government will, no doubt, ban the sale of former police cars....even though it's not an actual solution to the real problem...


That didn't take long.  Faster than a gun ban!  So it shall be written.  So it shall be done!


----------



## lenaitch

Haggis said:


> That didn't take long.  Faster than a gun ban!  So it shall be written.  So it shall be done!


I saw somebody interviewed on CTV Atlantic that maybe they could sell them to smaller municipal departments.  'Sure, we'll buy your clapped out junk'.  Perhaps a slight tweaking of the CC 'Personate  a Peace Officer' to include 'being in possession' of equipment might do it.

This will do nothing.  The one in Antigonish wasn't even marked.  I can still buy a white sedan or black SUV on the open market.


----------



## mariomike

lenaitch said:


> It became less significant during the period when the Force went to all-white cars.


From black and white to white then back to black and white.

In the municipality I live, not so long ago police cars were school bus yellow. Then grey stealth. Looks like they are going back to white. For now.


----------



## OldSolduer

mariomike said:


> From black and white to white then back to black and white.
> 
> In the municipality I live, not so long ago police cars were school bus yellow. Then grey stealth. Looks like they are going back to white. For now.


Its probably cheaper to have an all white factory paint job. The rifle green DND vans we had in the 70s cost extra to paint plus the fee to remove the AM radios.


----------



## lenaitch

mariomike said:


> From black and white to white then back to black and white.
> 
> In the municipality I live, not so long ago police cars were school bus yellow. Then grey stealth. Looks like they are going back to white. For now.



I was part of that project.  We went white because Ford and GM said they were dropping two-tone as a production option and we didn't have the desire or capacity to do it in-house.   A few years later Ford was willing to bring it back.  Initially, GM/Chrysler black and whites were actually a white vinyl wrap - I don't know if that is still the case.  Originally, the Force owned the white paint code but when B&W was revived they went with OEM white -  you call tell if different makes are parked together.

Toronto's (and other municipals) yellow was dropped by the manufacturers because of lead content.  The grey caused a bit of an uproar because it looked too 'mean'.



> Its probably cheaper to have an all white factory paint job. The rifle green DND vans we had in the 70s cost extra to paint plus the fee to remove the AM radios.



I no longer know the cost issue but it isn't huge on a large fleet order.  The don't do a re-paint'; colour-wise they are sold as-is.  The tried painting the doors black for a while but the cost of keeping the paint shop wasn't worth it just for that (they have one for fabrications; otherwise, all body work is commercial).  They used to get a 'delete-credit' for radios.  When the manufacturers dropped the credit, the members got radios.


----------



## Halifax Tar

You know there are tow facets to this.

1) The government(s) wants to be seen to have done something even if reactively. Now they can stand up and they have taken action in hopes of stopping this from ever happening again. This wins votes with the perpetually scared and uneducated.

2) The perpetually scared and uneducated public scream for something to be done after the fact. And its much easier to legislate away property and property rights than to table a budget and corresponding legislation that address the root causes of violence in our country.

Voila everyone feels better.

Welcome to Firearms Regulation in Canada.

For the sake of my position I lost two friends to this maniac.  But I know the system didn't fail when he bought a police car and guns.  It failed when our existing laws were not enforced and through the inept actions of our Policing leadership once the scenario was afoot.


----------



## MilEME09

Canadian Mass Shooter May Have Been RCMP Agent, Evidence Suggests
					

Compelling evidence, largely and strangely ignored by the mainstream Canadian news media, suggests that the gunmen responsible for the largest mass shooting in Canadian history, Gabriel Wortman, was likely a confidential agent, or in some way affiliated with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).




					funker530.com
				




Interesting item to pop over my news feed from down south


----------



## FSTO

So what is the status of the Royal Commission? Waiting for the election to be over? This should have happened months ago.


----------



## mariomike

FSTO said:


> So what is the status of the Royal Commission?


Updates here,









						Updates
					

Read Updates from the Commissioners, Community Notices and other information about the progress of our work throughout the inquiry.




					masscasualtycommission.ca


----------



## brihard

MilEME09 said:


> Canadian Mass Shooter May Have Been RCMP Agent, Evidence Suggests
> 
> 
> Compelling evidence, largely and strangely ignored by the mainstream Canadian news media, suggests that the gunmen responsible for the largest mass shooting in Canadian history, Gabriel Wortman, was likely a confidential agent, or in some way affiliated with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> funker530.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting item to pop over my news feed from down south


Yeah, it’s nonsense. That’s not how confidential informants are paid, nor would a CI see that kind of money. An agent may, but they get outed in court, and in any case, they wouldn’t be picking up their pay at a brinks place.

Some of the Informations to Obatain search warrants have been released to the public, and the large cash withdrawal appears to have been accounted for by him getting paranoid about COVID and cashing out investments.

In any case, with the royal commission ongoing it’ll all come out in the wash. Covert agent status wouldn’t be something they could keep buried in circumstances like this. It’s an entertaining conspiracy theory for some, but not grounded in reality.


----------



## Booter

Why on earth would you pay an agent on camera through a bonded company…and what use is a dentist that collects police memorabilia. An agent is an incredibly specific process that requires a bloody use.


----------



## Jarnhamar

It's hard to shake the feeling some really don't want this inquiry to happen.

Nova Scotia Mounties should be compelled to testify at mass shooting inquiry: experts​


> Public trust in the inquiry investigating the mass shooting in Nova Scotia almost two years ago would be undermined if the RCMP officers involved are not compelled to testify, legal experts say.
> 
> Last week, the commission of inquiry came under intense scrutiny when the RCMP’s union argued the 18 officers would be “re-traumatized” if they are forced to relive April 18-19, 2020, when a man disguised as a Mountie fatally shot 22 people during a 13-hour rampage.
> 
> Police officers routinely give evidence under oath at trials and public inquiries, even when the subject matter is profoundly disturbing and graphic. But the federal-provincial inquiry in Halifax, which started hearings last month, has adopted a novel, “trauma-informed” approach.


----------



## Halifax Tar

It's crap like this that makes peoples tin foil hats more tin foily


----------



## Haggis

Halifax Tar said:


> It's crap like this that makes peoples tin foil hats more tin foily


You'd think the NPF would have a vested interest in getting answers through the commission that would help them improve conditions for their members.


----------



## daftandbarmy

I have to agree with their new Union on this one. They've already got the information, so why insist these Officers testify publicly as well?

N.S. mass shooting inquiry: RCMP, police union resist calls for officers to testify​The RCMP and a police union are resisting calls to have officers who responded to the worst mass shooting in Canadian history be compelled to testify at the public inquiry investigating the tragedy.

All 18 officers who responded to the killings that left 22 people dead over two days in April 2020 run the risk of being re-traumatized on the witness stand, the lawyer for the National Police Federation argued Thursday.

Nasha Nijhawan told commissioners they must consider the inquiry's mandate to be "trauma-informed" in dealing with witnesses.

In addition, Lori Ward, the lawyer for the Attorney General of Canada, which represents the RCMP, said the families' lawyers must realize the public inquiry is attempting a "brave new world" in terms of its format.

"We hear the frustration from lawyers used to a trial-style approach to gathering evidence, but that doesn't mean other methods or alternate methods of evidence aren't meaningful," Ward said.

Most of the RCMP officers who responded to the killings have already provided extensive, unsworn interviews to commission counsel, she said, adding that unless it's clear something is missing, that should suffice.

Lawyers for family members on Thursday asked the inquiry for constables Stuart Beselt and Vicki Colford to testify under oath about the early hours of the attacks in Portapique, N.S., the community west of Truro where the shootings began on April 18, 2020.

Beselt was an acting corporal who was among the first four RCMP members to respond to 911 calls after the killer began his shooting spree.

Michael Scott, a lawyer representing 14 of the 22 victims' families, said, "We need to hear from these officers for the simple reason: they were there. We need to know what the officers heard and saw and did.

"We haven't heard from any witnesses and at this point in the process, we've moved very quickly through one of the central timelines."

Steve Topshee, a lawyer who represents two of the victims' families, noted that Beselt was the first to arrive and within minutes encountered Andrew MacDonald, who had been shot and injured, and MacDonald's wife, Kate MacDonald, as they were exiting the community.

The inquiry's summaries, released earlier this week, indicated that it was Beselt who determined that there was a mass shooting underway and decided to advance on foot with his body armour and carbine, along with constables Adam Merchant and Aaron Patton.

Colford, meanwhile, remained at the main entrance to the community, assisting the MacDonalds and relaying information to other officers.

"It's not to put him (Beselt) on the stand to cross-examine him, it's to get to the truth and get to the facts," Topshee said. "It's not a blame-seeking situation. It's an inquisitorial and fact-seeking situation."

He noted that as Beselt prepared to enter the community on foot, rather than continuing in his patrol car, he talked about the Moncton, N.B., shooting of five RCMP officers in June 2014. During an interview Beselt gave to the commission before hearings began, he told investigators that the Moncton shootings had taught officers that it was riskier to be in a car during a mass shooting than on foot.

"What is he talking about? That has to be explored," Topshee said. "That has to be looked into."

Topshee said he wanted to ask Colford, who has retired from the force, questions about information she had relayed to officers on April 18, 2020, about a possible escape route the killer could use.

The commission has published transcripts in which Colford radioed to her colleagues that she had heard there was "kind of a road that someone could come out," after she spoke to Kate MacDonald. The commission has said that the killer likely escaped through a rough road that wasn't being monitored by the RCMP.

Ward said Beselt and Colford had addressed key issues in their interviews, and she said it's unclear further testimony is needed. She also suggested questions could be submitted in writing.

Lawyers for the police union and RCMP argued that the questions victims' families have about the killings have already been answered and can be found in the written transcripts of pre-inquiry interviews.

Commission lawyer Gillian Hnatiw didn't advocate for having any of the officers testify. Instead, she said that some police officers, including Beselt, would participate in "a series of roundtables" composed of firefighters, paramedics and police that are scheduled to take place during the inquiry's second phase later this year.

However, Scott said this wouldn't address the questions families have about the police response on April 18-19, 2020, during the 13-hour manhunt for the perpetrator, who was driving a replica police vehicle.

"We are extremely frustrated at the prospect of having to justify seeking facts in a fact-finding process," he told the commission.









						N.S. mass shooting inquiry: RCMP, police union resist calls for officers to testify
					

The RCMP and a police union are resisting calls to have officers who responded to the worst mass shooting in Canadian history be compelled to testify at the public inquiry investigating the tragedy.




					atlantic.ctvnews.ca


----------



## OldSolduer

Since when do the police get a choice whether to testify or not? This disturbs me.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Does "unsworn interviews" mean they were not under oath for lack of a better word?


----------



## brihard

Jarnhamar said:


> Does "unsworn interviews" mean they were not under oath for lack of a better word?


Yes, but under oath or not, they still have a legal requirement to be truthful in any of their statements made or reports filed in the course of their duties, which this definitely is. Unless there’s reason to doubt their prior statements - which should be corroborated by the reports they all would have also submitted for the criminal investigation - I don’t see why there would be a need to put them up there to have to relive this yet again. They’ve each had to make full accountings of this already, and I expect their notes would have also been submitted to the inquiry. This would all be further corroborated by recorded radio audio, 911 calls, calls by police to the Operational Communications Centre, dispatch logs, in car computer/GPS data, etc etc.



Haggis said:


> You'd think the NPF would have a vested interest in getting answers through the commission that would help them improve conditions for their members.



They do, and they’ve been supportive of the inquiry throughout. They also have a responsibility to advocate for the health and well being of the members they represent. In this case, those two things are not inconsistent given that all the information sought is already available and has been provided.


----------



## Haggis

brihard said:


> They do, and they’ve been supportive of the inquiry throughout. They also have a responsibility to advocate for the health and well being of the members they represent. In this case, those two things are not inconsistent given that all the information sought is already available and has been provided.


I will admit that an earlier article I'd read on this lacked the context required for a fully informed rebuttal.  While I agree in this context, there may be need for some clarification of statements made and a blanket assertion that members should not be compelled to testify is excessive.

This government has problems with transparency and honesty particularly where gun violence gun laws are involved. This was evidenced by Trudeau using this as a part justification for the May 1st 2020 OIC gun band and Minister Mendicino's remarks last week at the Public Safety Committee hearings. This will do nothing to lessen those concerns and members _should be allowed _to testify if they so desire.


OldSolduer said:


> Since when do the police get a choice whether to testify or not? This disturbs me.


In Ontario, for example, during investigations into police use of force, officers are not required to give statements or provide their notes as of right.


----------



## mariomike

OldSolduer said:


> Since when do the police get a choice whether to testify or not?





Haggis said:


> In Ontario, for example, during investigations into police use of force, officers are not required to give statements or provide their notes as of right.



Regarding "subject officers" and "witness officers" in Ontario,



> Under Ontario law, subject officers — like anyone suspected of a crime — have the right to remain silent and cannot be compelled to speak to the SIU, despite calls for police officers to be held to a higher standard given their duty to protect.





			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/siu-kawartha-lakes-update-1.6259667
		




> The regulations governing police officers and their duty to speak with the SIU are complicated. In any investigation, officers are broken down into two categories: witness officers who saw what happened, and subject officers who are themselves under investigation.





> Under the current legislation, subject officers cannot be compelled to speak to the SIU.


----------



## Haggis

mariomike said:


> Regarding "subject officers" and "witness officers" in Ontario,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/siu-kawartha-lakes-update-1.6259667


You are 100% correct.  I omitted the word,* subject *officers.


----------



## Jarnhamar

brihard said:


> Yes, but under oath or not, they still have a legal requirement to be truthful in any of their statements made or reports filed in the course of their duties, which this definitely is. Unless there’s reason to doubt their prior statements - which should be corroborated by the reports they all would have also submitted for the criminal investigation - I don’t see why there would be a need to put them up there to have to relive this yet again.


Thanks. It's weird their is an option not to be under oath when givng a testimony. I was under oath for a BOI even though I'm pretty sure I need to be truthful in any of my statements. Maybe it's some kind of nuance.

Could be a big nothing burger but there still seems to be something strange about this whole case, response and aftermath.



brihard said:


> They’ve each had to make full accountings of this already, and I expect their notes would have also been submitted to the inquiry.


I've read of a few cases where police refused to submit their notes for incidents, hopefully that isn;t the case here.



> *Most of the RCMP officers* who responded to the killings have already provided extensive, unsworn interviews to commission counsel, she said, adding that unless it's clear something is missing, *that should suffice*.


Most and Should leaves a bit of room for interpretation. This means some officers may have not been interviewed.

kind of like that case how the CAF investigating sexual misconduct stopped interviewing witnesses mid case. Or it may have been some inquiry, either way.


----------



## Booter

The strange thing about the case is the bizarre completely groundless conspiracy nonsense surrounding the case, not even mildly in the realm of reality. Some of which they printed in national magazines. 

There were hundreds of officers involved in this case. They won’t all be at the inquiry and they won’t have all provided detailed accounts of what they did because they stood a hundred kms away in an intersection. They would have dropped off their notes and left. 

The police in the incidents you’re talking about are providing evidence against themselves in a criminal probe of their actions. This is an inquiry. Not the same thing.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Fair points.



Booter said:


> The strange thing about the case is the bizarre completely groundless conspiracy nonsense surrounding the case, not even mildly in the realm of reality. Some of which they printed in national magazines.



It might have been the original _"nothing to see here" _response by Bill Blair and Mark Furey. The full-scale public inquiry victim family members, academics, advocates, and politicians called for was originally rejected. In it's place was an independent review panel with no power to compel witnesses or testimony, no power to subpoena evidence, no power to challenge any agency or organization that refuses to provide information, and no power to make binding recommendations to the government.

Not very much teeth but thankfully something convinced them to change their mind.


----------



## KevinB

I've been in a few OIS interviews - never once was I placed under oath - as the requirement is for LE to give truthful statements in that regard.  For a sworn LEO - violating that results in job loss, and worse...
  See what happened to the HRT Agents who lied about firing on the moving car down here (even though they where legally allowed to do so) - the only crime was the falsehoods in the statement - that got 2 of them kicked out of HRT and a few other admin actions.


  Like @brihard mentioned it's a mountain out of nothing.

I tend to think the reliving the trauma is a bit of a odd duck - but it's hardly an X-Files conspiracy.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

With the hostility towards the RCMP in NS following the shootings, by some Nova Scotians, I don’t blame any of the LEOs who don’t want to appear in front of the inquiry.  I also don’t believe the states “motives” of the lawyers representing families either.  First off they’re lawyers and secondly, as I mentioned there was and is blame and hostility towards the RCMP, as if they were to blame.  1 person and 1 person only was and is responsible for the deaths he caused. 

Are there Lessons Learned? Sure - there always is.  Are there some questions that need(ed) answering, like what happened at the fire hall where shots were fired at building sheltering citizens?  Hell yes. 

But, from what I saw and read after the events, a fairly significant amount of anger and blame as directed at the very Officers who were willing to lay their lives down that night.  

After reading some of the comments and nut bars online crap following the tragedy, I am not surprised if the LEOs in question reply with a GFY to this answer questions under oath stuff.


----------



## RedFive

There is also institutional fear on the part of members of being the next YVR/Dziekanski members to be bussed in the name of public outrage in the stead of the failings of the RCMP as an organization.

I would strongly encourage anybody interested in learning how badly those members were treated (two out of four went to prison) to read Blamed and Broken by Curt Petrovich.


----------



## Furniture

Off topic, but relevant to the discussion about distrust of the RCMP by average people in the Maritimes.. 

Back home on PEI a few people were arrested for allegedly shooting harbour seals. The names of the people involved in the shooting were known in the community, and the names were reported to the RCMP. The RCMP showed up to each house with multiple cars, lights flashing, making a big scene to arrest, without incident, people who would have voluntarily showed up at the station if called, and asked to come in. 

That turned the entire community against the RCMP... My parents, who are about as pro-law as anyone ever, were incensed that the police would make a scene for no reason, just to "look like they were doing something". I got into an argument with my parents trying to explain that RCMP officers might be "from away", and not know that shooting seals isn't a sign that the local idiots aren't the next Mayerthorpe, or Moncton shooter. 

Policing in Canada has a problem, that maybe this thread isn't the place to discuss, but police have lost the "average person". When working class "peace, order, and good government" people question the motivations and decisions of the RCMP perhaps the most open and honest possible discussion is what is needed. 

The more the shooting inquiry is seen as compromised, or "hiding something", the more people will question the police.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Typical Islanders....report problem to police, police respond...then complain how they responded (I'm an Islander, too).  😁


----------



## Dana381

Furniture said:


> Policing in Canada has a problem, that maybe this thread isn't the place to discuss, but police have lost the "average person". When working class "peace, order, and good government" people question the motivations and decisions of the RCMP perhaps the most open and honest possible discussion is what is needed.
> 
> The more the shooting inquiry is seen as compromised, or "hiding something", the more people will question the police.



Imo policing in Canada lost the average person because of continuous scandals coming to light. Seeing police often getting off with crimes or getting a wrist slap. Add that to many stories of people who get charged with assault when defending themselves or their property, while the criminal gets nothing. 

When David Chen made a citizens arrest of a thief he was charged with kidnapping. I was truly amazed that he was found not quilty, if not for public outcry I don't think he would have been. How did we get to a place where criminals have more rights than law abiding citizens? The police are the ones that decide to press the charges, they can also decide not to press charges if they don't think they are warranted. 

I grew up in Summerside P.E.I. and many people I knew believed the RCMP were much better than the city police. I was there for the whole Dave Griffin case and general consensus was Dave was the good guy who was being railroaded by a shady chief and mayor who were afraid his backroom dealings would be exposed. 

I now live in Ontario where I have heard the OPP called "the biggest biker gang in Canada"

My first time dealing with OPP was a fraud case where my dump truck driver was falsely accused of dropping a big rock on the road and the supposed victim had expensive damage to her car. The story had more holes in it than the titanic and no rock was ever found, however the responding officer charged my driver with failing to secure his load (which was properly tarped). I truly believe the officer was involved and got a share of the insurance money for the fake damage. Jokes on them because I got the charge dropped and i think my insurance company pulled back the payout.

I believe there are good cops out there, I think they keep really quiet though as they are surrounded by shady and down right bad cops. I am not alone in this belief. A lot of the good ones in some cities resigned lately which is very bad for those cities futures.


----------



## Booter

Inside the articles


Dana381 said:


> Imo policing in Canada lost the average person because of continuous scandals coming to light. Seeing police often getting off with crimes or getting a wrist slap. Add that to many stories of people who get charged with assault when defending themselves or their property, while the criminal gets nothing.
> 
> When David Chen made a citizens arrest of a thief he was charged with kidnapping. I was truly amazed that he was found not quilty, if not for public outcry I don't think he would have been. How did we get to a place where criminals have more rights than law abiding citizens? The police are the ones that decide to press the charges, they can also decide not to press charges if they don't think they are warranted.
> 
> I grew up in Summerside P.E.I. and many people I knew believed the RCMP were much better than the city police. I was there for the whole Dave Griffin case and general consensus was Dave was the good guy who was being railroaded by a shady chief and mayor who were afraid his backroom dealings would be exposed.
> 
> I now live in Ontario where I have heard the OPP called "the biggest biker gang in Canada"
> 
> My first time dealing with OPP was a fraud case where my dump truck driver was falsely accused of dropping a big rock on the road and the supposed victim had expensive damage to her car. The story had more holes in it than the titanic and no rock was ever found, however the responding officer charged my driver with failing to secure his load (which was properly tarped). I truly believe the officer was involved and got a share of the insurance money for the fake damage. Jokes on them because I got the charge dropped and i think my insurance company pulled back the payout.
> 
> I believe there are good cops out there, I think they keep really quiet though as they are surrounded by shady and down right bad cops. I am not alone in this belief. A lot of the good ones in some cities resigned lately which is very bad for those cities futures.


no. If you think really hard- you’ll come up with a handful of examples coast to coast over ten years. Tens of millions of interactions with police.

What has changed is the ability for a story that should be local can be national news depending on the politics of who wants it to be news.

Don’t hide behind- “there are good cops”. Just say you don’t like them. They are not outnumbered and surrounded by bad ones, that’s complete and utter nonsense.

What you should look at is your company if you hang out with people that routinely find themselves in situations where they have to talk about who the biggest gang is.

Your example of some bizarre insurance scam where the police officer was taking money- with no evidence, no complaint, no follow up says lots about you. That THAT is the conclusion you came up with.

It is the correct course of action to show up where there was a load, something damaged a car, and looking at the load it’s possible to write a ticket. It’s also entirely reasonable that it won’t be convicted in court. With all the evidence at the scene, and given the variance in what is expected based of a provinces insurance practices, that you would take statements and then let the court decide it’s merits, 

Or you could live in bizarro world where the Canadian police officer is involved in elaborate insurance scams.


----------



## Dana381

Booter said:


> Inside the articles
> 
> no. If you think really hard- you’ll come up with a handful of examples coast to coast over ten years. Tens of millions of interactions with police.
> 
> What has changed is the ability for a story that should be local can be national news depending on the politics of who wants it to be news.
> 
> Don’t hide behind- “there are good cops”. Just say you don’t like them. They are not outnumbered and surrounded by bad ones, that’s complete and utter nonsense.
> 
> What you should look at is your company if you hang out with people that routinely find themselves in situations where they have to talk about who the biggest gang is.
> 
> Your example of some bizarre insurance scam where the police officer was taking money- with no evidence, no complaint, no follow up says lots about you. That THAT is the conclusion you came up with.
> 
> It is the correct course of action to show up where there was a load, something damaged a car, and looking at the load it’s possible to write a ticket. It’s also entirely reasonable that it won’t be convicted in court. With all the evidence at the scene, and given the variance in what is expected based of a provinces insurance practices, that you would take statements and then let the court decide it’s merits,
> 
> Or you could live in bizarro world where the Canadian police officer is involved in elaborate insurance scams.



I can come up with a bunch more examples without thinking hard at all. If you anonymously polled people across Canada you would have countless examples. 

There was no damage to the car, the lady showed up on scene 5 minutes after my driver pulled over for another matter (I had a witness to this). The load was properly tarped. My driver tried to help the lady find the rock. Where did it go. A rock big enough to do the damage claimed does not dissappear. No other cars were damaged. When the officer phoned me she was very evasive on details. She claimed she didn't trust my driver's story even though he was very well liked by all our customers and proved trustworthy to me during two years of service. However no evidence to back up her story existed.

The crown offered my driver no fine and no record to plead guilty. Thankfully he didn't take it and charges were dropped 1 minute before court started.

 I have no doubt it was insurance fraud. I suspect the officer had a part in it put no way to prove it.

My dispatcher had around one driver a month involved in similar fraud events.

The quote of the biker gang came from a top tier mechanic co-worker at a top heavy truck dealership in Cambridge. He was a very law abiding person who I worked alongside for four years.


----------



## lenaitch

daftandbarmy said:


> I have to agree with their new Union on this one. They've already got the information, so why insist these Officers testify publicly as well?
> 
> N.S. mass shooting inquiry: RCMP, police union resist calls for officers to testify​The RCMP and a police union are resisting calls to have officers who responded to the worst mass shooting in Canadian history be compelled to testify at the public inquiry investigating the tragedy.
> 
> All 18 officers who responded to the killings that left 22 people dead over two days in April 2020 run the risk of being re-traumatized on the witness stand, the lawyer for the National Police Federation argued Thursday.
> 
> Nasha Nijhawan told commissioners they must consider the inquiry's mandate to be "trauma-informed" in dealing with witnesses.
> 
> In addition, Lori Ward, the lawyer for the Attorney General of Canada, which represents the RCMP, said the families' lawyers must realize the public inquiry is attempting a "brave new world" in terms of its format.
> 
> "We hear the frustration from lawyers used to a trial-style approach to gathering evidence, but that doesn't mean other methods or alternate methods of evidence aren't meaningful," Ward said.
> 
> Most of the RCMP officers who responded to the killings have already provided extensive, unsworn interviews to commission counsel, she said, adding that unless it's clear something is missing, that should suffice.
> 
> Lawyers for family members on Thursday asked the inquiry for constables Stuart Beselt and Vicki Colford to testify under oath about the early hours of the attacks in Portapique, N.S., the community west of Truro where the shootings began on April 18, 2020.
> 
> Beselt was an acting corporal who was among the first four RCMP members to respond to 911 calls after the killer began his shooting spree.
> 
> Michael Scott, a lawyer representing 14 of the 22 victims' families, said, "We need to hear from these officers for the simple reason: they were there. We need to know what the officers heard and saw and did.
> 
> "We haven't heard from any witnesses and at this point in the process, we've moved very quickly through one of the central timelines."
> 
> Steve Topshee, a lawyer who represents two of the victims' families, noted that Beselt was the first to arrive and within minutes encountered Andrew MacDonald, who had been shot and injured, and MacDonald's wife, Kate MacDonald, as they were exiting the community.
> 
> The inquiry's summaries, released earlier this week, indicated that it was Beselt who determined that there was a mass shooting underway and decided to advance on foot with his body armour and carbine, along with constables Adam Merchant and Aaron Patton.
> 
> Colford, meanwhile, remained at the main entrance to the community, assisting the MacDonalds and relaying information to other officers.
> 
> "It's not to put him (Beselt) on the stand to cross-examine him, it's to get to the truth and get to the facts," Topshee said. "It's not a blame-seeking situation. It's an inquisitorial and fact-seeking situation."
> 
> He noted that as Beselt prepared to enter the community on foot, rather than continuing in his patrol car, he talked about the Moncton, N.B., shooting of five RCMP officers in June 2014. During an interview Beselt gave to the commission before hearings began, he told investigators that the Moncton shootings had taught officers that it was riskier to be in a car during a mass shooting than on foot.
> 
> "What is he talking about? That has to be explored," Topshee said. "That has to be looked into."
> 
> Topshee said he wanted to ask Colford, who has retired from the force, questions about information she had relayed to officers on April 18, 2020, about a possible escape route the killer could use.
> 
> The commission has published transcripts in which Colford radioed to her colleagues that she had heard there was "kind of a road that someone could come out," after she spoke to Kate MacDonald. The commission has said that the killer likely escaped through a rough road that wasn't being monitored by the RCMP.
> 
> Ward said Beselt and Colford had addressed key issues in their interviews, and she said it's unclear further testimony is needed. She also suggested questions could be submitted in writing.
> 
> Lawyers for the police union and RCMP argued that the questions victims' families have about the killings have already been answered and can be found in the written transcripts of pre-inquiry interviews.
> 
> Commission lawyer Gillian Hnatiw didn't advocate for having any of the officers testify. Instead, she said that some police officers, including Beselt, would participate in "a series of roundtables" composed of firefighters, paramedics and police that are scheduled to take place during the inquiry's second phase later this year.
> 
> However, Scott said this wouldn't address the questions families have about the police response on April 18-19, 2020, during the 13-hour manhunt for the perpetrator, who was driving a replica police vehicle.
> 
> "We are extremely frustrated at the prospect of having to justify seeking facts in a fact-finding process," he told the commission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> N.S. mass shooting inquiry: RCMP, police union resist calls for officers to testify
> 
> 
> The RCMP and a police union are resisting calls to have officers who responded to the worst mass shooting in Canadian history be compelled to testify at the public inquiry investigating the tragedy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> atlantic.ctvnews.ca


I was (very) peripherally involved in a commission of inquiry, and it was quite an eye-opener.  First, everybody was lawyered-up and all costs were covered by the government (I don't know for certain if this is the case in NS).  When everybody involved has been given a blank cheque to represent the interests of their clients, those interests can become 'elastic' and issues such as expediency or focus tend to slacken.  Commissions are given terms of reference or a mandate; how well they stick to them depends on the the Commissioner and Commission counsel.  They may be reluctant to take a firm line so as to not be accused of limiting a proper 'exploration'.

I can pretty much predict how it will go down if/when the first responding members are called to the stand.  They will, moment-by-moment, be led through their actions that night (the same information available in the interviews).  They will then be 'explored', in turn, by every single lawyer in the room, who will focus on the minutiae of actions or decisions made on that dark and stormy night, and 'explore' anything that is described differently during testimony vs. the interviews.  They would then do the same process with every other member, even the ones standing right beside the first one.

Some will 'explore' other areas.  This exchange said a lot to me on how the inquiry would progress if allowed to:

_"He noted that as Beselt prepared to enter the community on foot, rather than continuing in his patrol car, he talked about the Moncton, N.B., shooting of five RCMP officers in June 2014. During an interview Beselt gave to the commission before hearings began, he told investigators that the Moncton shootings had taught officers that it was riskier to be in a car during a mass shooting than on foot._​​_"What is he talking about? That has to be explored," Topshee said. "That has to be looked into."_​​It may not be directly part of the Inquiry's mandate, but everybody wants to know what went wrong and who played what part in the wrong, or series of wrongs - it's human nature.  How 'wrong' is defined can vary widely, but when you sitting in the stand, you know you are part of the wrong.
​


----------



## Scott

Dana381 said:


> I can come up with a bunch more examples without thinking hard at all. If you anonymously polled people across Canada you would have countless examples.
> 
> There was no damage to the car, the lady showed up on scene 5 minutes after my driver pulled over for another matter (I had a witness to this). The load was properly tarped. My driver tried to help the lady find the rock. Where did it go. A rock big enough to do the damage claimed does not dissappear. No other cars were damaged. When the officer phoned me she was very evasive on details. She claimed she didn't trust my driver's story even though he was very well liked by all our customers and proved trustworthy to me during two years of service. However no evidence to back up her story existed.
> 
> The crown offered my driver no fine and no record to plead guilty. Thankfully he didn't take it and charges were dropped 1 minute before court started.
> 
> I have no doubt it was insurance fraud. I suspect the officer had a part in it put no way to prove it.
> 
> My dispatcher had around one driver a month involved in similar fraud events.
> 
> The quote of the biker gang came from a top tier mechanic co-worker at a top heavy truck dealership in Cambridge. He was a very law abiding person who I worked alongside for four years.


Receipts or just stop. It's just a story, and one side of it. Same with all this anonymous polling info on "do you like cops" you want to run with.


----------



## mariomike

Dana381 said:


> A lot of the good ones in some cities resigned lately which is very bad for those cities futures.



Do you have a source for that?


----------



## lenaitch

I'm not naive enough to believe that any organization the size of the OPP (or RCMP or TPS or CAF) doesn't have any bad apples.  A couple are currently under investigation in relation to the towing industry.  Facebook has OPP 'fans' page and, for want of a better term, a not-fans page, maybe more than one.  No doubt other large services have the same.  How any of this relates to the events in Nova Scotia escapes me.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

mariomike said:


> Do you have a source for that?


C'mon. Do you want us to believe you haven't already searched everything up on the topic, drawn your conclusions and have a dozen links loaded into your mag, ready to drop as soon as an answer is given? Why don't you just save us the suspense and publish your rebuttal now?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Furniture said:


> Policing in Canada has a problem, that maybe this thread isn't the place to discuss, but police have lost the "average person". When working class "peace, order, and good government" people question the motivations and decisions of the RCMP perhaps the most open and honest possible discussion is what is needed.
> 
> The more the shooting inquiry is seen as compromised, or "hiding something", the more people will question the police.



Luckily, I've had no direct involvement with the Police in Canada in their course of their 'professional duties', but I've had extensive experience working with the RUC in Ulster, who are very similar to the RCMP in many ways. Not least because the latter were modelled on the former when created many years ago.

Some cops in some Divisions were unreliable, untrustworthy and disorganized to the point where we avoided engaging with them as much as possible.

Others were fantastic, and a real pleasure to work with. For these types of cops the common denominator, we decided, was good leadership - usually at the Inspector level and above.

Where the cop on the beat believes that they'll be hung out to dry by their bosses, who generally hide in their offices further their own careers and never get out on the ground to connect with the troops, you'll always get bad performance from the police...

... or the military, or just about any other human organization IMHO.


----------



## Jarnhamar

lenaitch said:


> A couple are currently under investigation in relation to the towing industry.



Others have been caught in insurance scams. @Dana381 's story may be improbable but it's not impossible (or unheard of) 

Police officer charged with insurance fraud



> Const. Ronald Joseph, 48, was charged with over a dozen new offences, including four counts of fraud over $5,000 and two of attempted fraud over $5,000, CBC News reported. The charges come as 12 other people were arrested and charged with fraud-related offences in connection with the same case.
> 
> Authorities alleged that* Joseph and the suspects made fraudulent insurance claims for false or staged collisions* between April 2018 and May 2020. This was reportedly made possible through a vehicle rental company owned by Joseph.



There's over 100,000 police officers in Canada. Like the military, there's bound to be bad employees.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dana381 said:


> I grew up in Summerside P.E.I. and many people I knew believed the RCMP were much better than the city police. I was there for the whole Dave Griffin case and general consensus was Dave was the good guy who was being railroaded by a shady chief and mayor who were afraid his backroom dealings would be exposed.



That started over Grimes, the ex meathead who drew on a guy for (slightly) speeding down the hill towards Reeds Corner.  Grimes was a moron, Griffin didn’t think he needed to follow orders.   The general consensus wasn’t Arsenault and Stewart were “shady”.   I don’t know where you came up with that.

Griffin didn’t do exceptionally well after retiring from the SPS.  He was involved with MADD and got caught driving impaired.  Did a week on the other side of the bars in the jailhouse.  

Worst cop Prince County ever saw?  Bill Maxwell when St Eleanor’s had its own police.  He used to sit on Pope Road on Sunday, near the corner of Greenwood drive (it changes from a 70
 to a 50 zone there) on Sunday morning pulling people over on their way home from church. He was right out of er;  after he retired he was caught fishing out of season with no license.  I don’t think the DFO Officer gave him “a break”.


----------



## dapaterson

Continuing the tangent, there are two Ottawa PS officers who had a drug bust tossed for a wild and wonderful situation where another police force contradicted them on the stand and alleged that they planted a gun on the scene, where their testimony that other OPS officers were present was disproved, and the well known to police subject they arrested is now suing them and the OPS for allegedly stealing $50k of his cash.

Ottawa police (municipal) are a whole other level...


----------



## GK .Dundas

WPS has an entertaining history some of it is hilarious some horrifying and some sad and still others that have you going , "what is your F**king problem ? Seriously get help.."
For example around here it's not drinking and driving if you're a cop . There's been at least four noticeable examples of that in last couple of years. 
My favourite goes back more then few years but it was really impressive .
Two cops turned out to be running one of the largest stolen property rings in the city's history.
One of the things they recovered was a Thompson SMG stolen from the WPS arsenal. And apparently no one had noticed that it was missing.  They also killed one of the members of the ring ,he was the Brother in law of one of the cops.
Yeah, life's interesting in the 'Peg.


----------



## mariomike

Dana381 said:


> I can come up with a bunch more examples without thinking hard at all.





Scott said:


> Receipts or just stop.



Looks like the latter.


----------



## OldSolduer

GK .Dundas said:


> WPS has an entertaining history some of it is hilarious some horrifying and some sad and still others that have you going , "what is your F**king problem ? Seriously get help.."
> For example around here it's not drinking and driving if you're a cop . There's been at least four noticeable examples of that in last couple of years.
> My favourite goes back more then few years but it was really impressive .
> Two cops turned out to be running one of the largest stolen property rings in the city's history.
> One of the things they recovered was a Thompson SMG stolen from the WPS arsenal. And apparently no one had noticed that it was missing.  They also killed one of the members of the ring ,he was the Brother in law of one of the cops.
> Yeah, life's interesting in the 'Peg.


I recall that theft ring. Definitely not one of their finer moments.


----------



## Haggis

Back on topic, there is little to no trust that the GoC will get this right. In typical knee-jerk fashion, Blair has already banned the sale of surplus federal police vehicles (impacting taxi companies nationwide). Trudeau and Blair have banned a billion dollars worth of legally owned guns despite that this killer smuggled some of his into Canada and was unlicensed.  The police failed to act on multiple reports he was violent. 

The likely outcome will be heartfelt apologies, a promise of institutional reform and to do better followed by more gun laws.


----------



## dapaterson

dapaterson said:


> Continuing the tangent, there are two Ottawa PS officers who had a drug bust tossed for a wild and wonderful situation where another police force contradicted them on the stand and alleged that they planted a gun on the scene, where their testimony that other OPS officers were present was disproved, and the well known to police subject they arrested is now suing them and the OPS for allegedly stealing $50k of his cash.
> 
> Ottawa police (municipal) are a whole other level...


News article:

*








						Ottawa police accused of planting handgun, stealing $50,000: lawsuit
					

The $850,000 lawsuit is related to Mohamed's arrest following a July 2019 raid at a Gatineau apartment.




					ottawacitizen.com
				



*


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Haggis said:


> Back on topic, there is little to no trust that the GoC will get this right. In typical knee-jerk fashion, Blair has already banned the sale of surplus federal police vehicles (impacting taxi companies nationwide). Trudeau and Blair have banned a billion dollars worth of legally owned guns despite that this killer smuggled some of his into Canada and was unlicensed.  *The police failed to act on multiple reports he was violent*.
> 
> The likely outcome will be heartfelt apologies, a promise of institutional reform and to do better followed by more gun laws.



Not that I know all the facts, but re: the bolded piece;  what didn't they do that they could/should have done?  

Gun laws are effective at keeping illegal, unregistered firearms out of criminals hands...didn't you know that?  😁


----------



## Haggis

Eye In The Sky said:


> Not that I know all the facts, but re: the bolded piece;  what didn't they do that they could/should have done?


There were several post-incident media reports that his violent and threatening behaviour and his cache of illegal weapons went unaddressed by police.


Eye In The Sky said:


> Gun laws are effective at keeping illegal, unregistered firearms out of criminals hands...didn't you know that?  😁


I do now. I guess I was wrong all along.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Haggis said:


> There were several post-incident media reports that his violent and threatening behaviour and his cache of illegal weapons went unaddressed by police.



That's probably similar to the "info" I'd read back post-April 2020...just media reports.  Something along the line of "a few people told police some things and they didn't arrest him".  Back then I was thinking "but could they have?"...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Eye In The Sky said:


> That's probably similar to the "info" I'd read back post-April 2020...just media reports.  Something along the line of "a few people told police some things and they didn't arrest him".  Back then I was thinking "but could they have?"...


"Harassing a guy that didn't do anything, those damn coppers....."


----------



## Furniture

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> "Harassing a guy that didn't do anything, those damn coppers....."


This goes back to my point about things needing to be completely open and honest. If the RCMP received complaints about him two years before the attack, that is the stuff that needs to come out. 

Even if at the time the complaints weren't enough to justify a search of his home, any recorded complaints need to brought into the public sphere to be discussed.


----------



## RedFive

Furniture said:


> This goes back to my point about things needing to be completely open and honest. If the RCMP received complaints about him two years before the attack, that is the stuff that needs to come out.
> 
> Even if at the time the complaints weren't enough to justify a search of his home, any recorded complaints need to brought into the public sphere to be discussed.


With absolutely no inside information as to the circumstances in this case, the (somewhat) experienced cop in me asks "how many of the people have crawled out of the woodwork to claim they told Police about this guy who, when they did so at the time (if they did at all and aren't just trying to get their 15), were offered the opportunity to go on the record and provide a statement and subsequently refused?"

If I had a dime for every "concerned citizen" who has approached me in the course of my duties who expresses some concern or another for the neighbour or "that house down the road" who, when provided the opportunity to formally file a complaint and provide a statement, refuses outright....

We don't extend privilege (confidentiality) to every Tom, Dick or Harry who rocks up with a complaint. It makes investigative work and subsequent prosecution nigh impossible.


----------



## Booter

Furniture said:


> This goes back to my point about things needing to be completely open and honest. If the RCMP received complaints about him two years before the attack, that is the stuff that needs to come out.
> 
> Even if at the time the complaints weren't enough to justify a search of his home, any recorded complaints need to brought into the public sphere to be discussed.


There’s no reason to believe any occurrences like that won’t be included in this inquiry. It would be totally normal,

The issue is the other type of complaint- “why are you giving me a ticket? My neighbour has a bunch of Illegal guns- go do real police work”

“what are you talking about?”

“I’m not doing your job for you”

⬆️ This guy then says he told police and they did nothing.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Two police officers responded to a 2013 weapons and domestic abuse complaint by Brenda Forbes against Gabriel Wortman. Police reviewed (or are still reviewing, probably) how it was handled. Police initially told CBC it had no record of any such complaint. They are also reviewing a policy under which some RCMP records are deleted after two years.


----------



## Halifax Tar

The Snr RCMP guy in Colchester county claims he had no idea the emergency notice system existed.  He retired most rikki tik after this happened. Lots of examples of this garbage. 

I don't think the RCMP are nefarious or malicious in this instant I think its sheer incompetence in their leadership and it likely cost the lives of constables in citizens.  And instead of doing the right thing and hoisting in the areas for improvement while fixing this they are are devoted to "protection of the institution".


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Halifax Tar said:


> I don't think the RCMP are nefarious or malicious in this instant I think its sheer incompetence in their leadership and it likely cost the lives of constables in citizens.  And instead of doing the right thing and hoisting in the areas for improvement while fixing this they are are devoted to "protection of the institution".


Remind you of another institution a certain website might be about??

...and it certainly reminds me of the institution I just retired from.
  But I guess any place where you work the f%$k out of your competent folk, while the floaters/box checkers slide, will eventually end up like this until things go south.

Ask the Russians about that.....


----------



## Halifax Tar

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Remind you of another institution a certain website might be about??
> 
> ...and it certainly reminds me of the institution I just retired from.
> But I guess any place where you work the f%$k out of your competent folk, while the floaters/box checkers slide, will eventually end up like this until things go south.
> 
> Ask the Russians about that.....



Ya I lost two hunting buddy's to this asshole.  I'm happy he's gone, I just wish he could have suffered some more. 

As for the RCMP I think like most public institutions its become overly bureaucratic and needs a complete rework.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Booter said:


> There’s no reason to believe any occurrences like that won’t be included in this inquiry. It would be totally normal,
> 
> The issue is the other type of complaint- “why are you giving me a ticket? My neighbour has a bunch of Illegal guns- go do real police work”
> 
> “what are you talking about?”
> 
> “I’m not doing your job for you”
> 
> ⬆️ This guy then says he told police and they did nothing.


I think the issue is that people expect way too much in terms of investigations from Joe/Jill Constable.  

I always read these media stories where journalists will write things like: "the police knew xxxx had guns and was a criminal " as if it was some sort of ABSOLUTE fact.

The reality is Constable xxxx probably showed up to a call, got told a bunch of random, seemingly unconnected information, that they jotted down in their notebook, asked a few questions and made a very quick judgement call that due to lack of any VERIFIABLE evidence or facts, that there was nothing more that could be done.  

It's only through obscene amounts of hindsight bias and many hours of piecing together seemingly unrelated pieces of information that we now have a better idea of what happened.

I don't blame the Police at all for anything that happened prior to incident occurring.  I do blame the Province for inadequately funding the Police to a level that significantly hampered their response times, coordination, etc.


----------



## Booter

Halifax Tar said:


> Ya I lost two hunting buddy's to this asshole.  I'm happy he's gone, I just wish he could have suffered some more.
> 
> As for the RCMP I think like most public institutions its become overly bureaucratic and needs a complete rework.


I think this is fair and accurate.


----------



## lenaitch

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I think the issue is that people expect way too much in terms of investigations from Joe/Jill Constable.
> 
> I always read these media stories where journalists will write things like: "the police knew xxxx had guns and was a criminal " as if it was some sort of ABSOLUTE fact.
> 
> The reality is Constable xxxx probably showed up to a call, got told a bunch of random, seemingly unconnected information, that they jotted down in their notebook, asked a few questions and made a very quick judgement call that due to lack of any VERIFIABLE evidence or facts, that there was nothing more that could be done.
> 
> *It's only through obscene amounts of hindsight bias and many hours of piecing together seemingly unrelated pieces of information that we now have a better idea of what happened.*
> 
> I don't blame the Police at all for anything that happened prior to incident occurring.  I do blame the Province for inadequately funding the Police to a level that significantly hampered their response times, coordination, etc.


Welcome to public inquiries.


----------



## brihard

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I think the issue is that people expect way too much in terms of investigations from Joe/Jill Constable.
> 
> I always read these media stories where journalists will write things like: "the police knew xxxx had guns and was a criminal " as if it was some sort of ABSOLUTE fact.
> 
> The reality is Constable xxxx probably showed up to a call, got told a bunch of random, seemingly unconnected information, that they jotted down in their notebook, asked a few questions and made a very quick judgement call that due to lack of any VERIFIABLE evidence or facts, that there was nothing more that could be done.
> 
> It's only through obscene amounts of hindsight bias and many hours of piecing together seemingly unrelated pieces of information that we now have a better idea of what happened.
> 
> I don't blame the Police at all for anything that happened prior to incident occurring.  I do blame the Province for inadequately funding the Police to a level that significantly hampered their response times, coordination, etc.



With no inside info about this event, what you’re describing feels like how things often go.

People not wanting to go on the record is a constant issue. Someone upthread mentioned retention- yes, files get purged after a certain amount of time depending on severity and status. I can’t tell you offhand the statutory underpinnings for that, but I know if has to do with the legal requirement to retain certain stuff for certain lengths of time.

I also totally believe someone running things in that local area was not familiar with the emergency alerts system. It hadn’t been used before, and anyone in a position of responsibility has an immense amount of things they need to stay up to speed on. I wouldn’t read too much into that member retiring. A lot of people got out after this massacre. Many of them broken. Nova Scotia RCMP is still recovering from this.


----------



## brihard

Halifax Tar said:


> Ya I lost two hunting buddy's to this asshole.  I'm happy he's gone, I just wish he could have suffered some more.


Sorry, couldn’t add this quote after I posted my previous reply. I’m very sorry for the loss of your friends. That friggin’ sucks.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:


> The Snr RCMP guy in Colchester county claims he had no idea the emergency notice system existed.



The Provincial dept that runs 911 (or, ran 911 in Apr 2020;  not sure if there has been changes) certainly knew that Emergency Notification System existed;  they (at the time) were the sole Dept who had the keys to it. 

I have, since April 2020, have asked many times why people aren't up in arms that 911 centers were receiving/dispatching calls, and did nothing.  The blame always goes to the Mounties for 'not using the ENS'.  They didn't have the ability to do anything above  a 'request'.  The senior Dept staff on shift that night...that person didn't employ the ENS...why is that not being asked?

Do I think the RCMP should have requested a ENS broadcast?  I do.

Do I believe the Provincial authorities should have thought of that and asked the RCMP if they wanted to, before the above part?  I do.

At the end of the day, the only person responsible for the deaths is the name of a POS I won't type out. 

Sorry for the loss of your friends;  RIP.  They are not forgotten by us who didn't have the pleasure of knowing them.


----------



## OldSolduer

Eye In The Sky said:


> At the end of the day, the only person responsible for the deaths is the name of a POS I won't type out.


You're correct. That asshole is responsible. Period.


----------



## lenaitch

Halifax Tar said:


> *The Snr RCMP guy in Colchester county claims he had no idea the emergency notice system existed*.  He retired most rikki tik after this happened. Lots of examples of this garbage.
> 
> I don't think the RCMP are nefarious or malicious in this instant I think its sheer incompetence in their leadership and it likely cost the lives of constables in citizens.  And instead of doing the right thing and hoisting in the areas for improvement while fixing this they are are devoted to "protection of the institution".


I know virtually nothing about how the RCMP is organized in contract provinces or their relationship with the host province or area municipalities, but if it is anything like Ontario, I'm not surprised.  Commanders in charge of large amalgamated detachments or clusters of smaller ones, and responsible for implementing a never ending parade of programs, initiatives and partnerships from on high, as well as rubbing the tummies of municipalities, have left them completely divorced from day-to-day policing issues, the nuances of local communities, etc.  'They have people for that'.  It's made even worse if they have progressed in rank via non-field service (I suppose, 'staff' roles in military parlance) and ended up in a field command because it's needed for their CV.  

If; however, they were trained and qualified as an Incident Commander then that was a deficiency.

Information management that night must have been a nightmare, made worse if you are not familiar with the community and geography, from the call takers to senior commanders.  The evolution of call taking/dispatching from local detachments to more centralized sites cost local, first-hand knowledge of areas and people.  In terms of senior leadership, people that aspire to senior rank tend to be 'big picture' people because that's what the organization wants, but that is often not completely compatible when needing to process a tsunami of small picture details.  You need a trusted detail person or two at your hip but not everybody has that, especially in the middle of the night.  Layer on that any issues with actual communications - the spoken word/electronic type - either the technology or how it is used.  I don't know if that was a problem here but communications deficiencies are often cited as a problem in events such as this.


----------



## Booter

there is a basically zero percent chance they are/were an incident commander.


----------



## Jarnhamar

If this is accurate it's pretty terrible.

Mass shooting victim’s family says mother died hours after Mounties told EHS she was dead​


> Evidence that RCMP officers gave up on Nova Scotia mass shooting victim Heather O’Brien while she was still alive is being hidden from the public, says the late woman’s family.
> 
> The Facebook post also includes computer data from the Fitbit O’Brien was wearing on the day of her death. It shows her heart continued to beat several hours after she was pronounced dead by an RCMP officer.
> 
> An interview with another Mountie, parts of which were not included in the commission’s summary of what happened, backs up the family’s claim that their mother was left to die.





> “So we... I say, we had to let her die, but you know, we had to let her just pass on,” stated Fahie. “We knew she … like to … I don’t think she was going to make it anyways. So, we got a blanket, covered her up and then we just went to the road and guarded.”




Her body was covered up but she allegedly lived for another 8 hours.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Hearing today that an RCMP officer had an opportunity to go after the killer on the highway but didn't for fear of their own safety.   Pretty much dominated talk radio today.


----------



## Booter

Halifax Tar said:


> Hearing today that an RCMP officer had an opportunity to go after the killer on the highway but didn't for fear of their own safety.   Pretty much dominated talk radio today.


The quote you’re referring to is this:



> Moments after the killer went by him, fleeing the scene, Peterson struggled to determine his next move
> 
> “I’m trying to decide, should I stop, slow down, talk to this person, or keep going?” Peterson would recall in an interview with commission lawyers.
> 
> “So, I said, ‘If I stop and this is the bad guy, I’m going to get shot here, I’m going to get killed. If I continue on, that will give me a chance to turn around and pursue him, or to do something,”‘ he told the interviewer.



He’s saying if he stopped to
Speak with the guy window to window he would get shot. He had to plan- so he turned around past him to initiate a pursuit 

Which isn’t the same thing as is being suggested. I also have some issues with the response- but taking a scalpel to quotes to fit a narrative isn’t helpful for anyone,

That Fitbit one is terrible if true.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Booter said:


> The quote you’re referring to is this:
> 
> 
> 
> He’s saying if he stopped to
> Speak with the guy window to window he would get shot. He had to plan- so he turned around past him to initiate a pursuit
> 
> Which isn’t the same thing as is being suggested. I also have some issues with the response- but taking a scalpel to quotes to fit a narrative isn’t helpful for anyone,
> 
> That Fitbit one is terrible if true.



From what I listened to today the public isn't interpreting it that way. 

I dunno, I wasn't there.  But it's not the first time I've heard allegations of RCMP officers putting their own safety first WRT to this particular incident.  I hope for the organizations sake that it's all just conjecture and rumor.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Halifax Tar said:


> From what I listened to today the public isn't interpreting it that way.
> 
> I dunno, I wasn't there.  But it's not the first time I've heard allegations of RCMP officers putting their own safety first WRT to this particular incident.  I hope for the organizations sake that it's all just conjecture and rumor.



Long article on some of the issues.

A Tragedy of Errors: how RCMP mistakes, missteps, and miscommunications failed to contain a mass murderer​


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jarnhamar said:


> Long article on some of the issues.
> 
> A Tragedy of Errors: how RCMP mistakes, missteps, and miscommunications failed to contain a mass murderer​



It's a huge shit sandwich no doubt about it.  

Let's also not forget this is unprecedented.  

Look at me cutting the cops some slack


----------



## Booter

Halifax Tar said:


> It's a huge shit sandwich no doubt about it.
> 
> Let's also not forget this is unprecedented.
> 
> Look at me cutting the cops some slack


I’m no police apologist. I’ve testified against police- successfully. I also know butchered attempts at articulating decisions. 

There is lots of lessons to be learned, LOTS of things. Lots of mistakes. 

And anything resembling this- in size and scope will be equally nonsensical in response. By any agency on the planet.

Anyways- you guys are all very knowledgeable even if we don’t agree, I do find that interpretation of that quote interesting because I have a hard time reading it like that, 

It was a cop who brought it to my attention- I tend not to follow this stuff closely knowing the circus an inquiry is. They read it the same way you folks are seeing it.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Halifax Tar said:


> It's a huge shit sandwich no doubt about it.
> 
> *Let's also not forget this is unprecedented.*
> 
> Look at me cutting the cops some slack



Absolutely. It wouldn't be fair to criticize the RCMPs mistakes without taking into account the  magnitude of the situation and their lack of training to deal with something like this. Mistakes happen but the key is to learn from them, and for that you need transparency.

Only learning 2 years later that police allegedly (with some pretty heavy indicators of truthfulness) left someone to die for 8 hours? And that report wasn't even in the commission’s summary of what happened? Hard not to ask what else has been left out of that commission and why.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jarnhamar said:


> Absolutely. It wouldn't be fair to criticize the RCMPs mistakes without taking into account the  magnitude of the situation and their lack of training to deal with something like this.
> 
> But only learning 2 years later that police allegedly (with some pretty heavy indicators of truthfulness) left someone to die for 8 hours? And that report wasn't even in the commission’s summary of what happened? Hard not to ask what else has been left out of that commission and why.



Conspiracy or not there will always be questions about the incidents and the inquiry.


----------



## Booter

Jarnhamar said:


> Absolutely. It wouldn't be fair to criticize the RCMPs mistakes without taking into account the  magnitude of the situation and their lack of training to deal with something like this. Mistakes happen but the key is to learn from them, and for that you need transparency.
> 
> Only learning 2 years later that police allegedly (with some pretty heavy indicators of truthfulness) left someone to die for 8 hours? And that report wasn't even in the commission’s summary of what happened? Hard not to ask what else has been left out of that commission and why.


That 8 hours things is bloody weird.


----------



## brihard

Halifax Tar said:


> From what I listened to today the public isn't interpreting it that way.
> 
> I dunno, I wasn't there.  But it's not the first time I've heard allegations of RCMP officers putting their own safety first WRT to this particular incident.  I hope for the organizations sake that it's all just conjecture and rumor.


My understanding of this is that he was driving on the road, saw an oncoming car that looked like a police cruiser. He knew the guy was in a replica cruiser. He knew other cops were out and were mobilized/mobilizing en masse from all over the province. He knew he wouldn’t necessarily know other officers to recognize them by sight. If he went head on on speculation he could be taking himself and another member out of the fight, or if it was the shooter he may just get himself killed (that’s how Heidi Stevenson was murdered). If he slowed down for a window chat with another cop and was wrong, he gets shot in the head at close range. If he rolled past to try to get a good look and confirm ID, the hope was then to call in the contact, rip around and pursue; his real weapon there being his radio. He had less time to make this decision than it took you to read this paragraph.

There’s no particularly good answer to this problem set. Any of them would be a roll of the dice with his life the wager. Tough to judge that. I don’t know what call I would make in his shoes. Not sure if any of us could.



Booter said:


> That Fitbit one is terrible if true.



Yeah, this is the first I’m hearing of this one. I hope it’s not true, and if it is, I hope the commission can get to the bottom of it. That’s terrible.


----------



## Haggis

Halifax Tar said:


> I dunno, I wasn't there.  But it's not the first time I've heard allegations of RCMP officers putting their own safety first WRT to this particular incident.  I hope for the organizations sake that it's all just conjecture and rumor.


Peace officer safety is essential to public safety. A disabled peace officer gives the attacker access to more weapons and ammo, a new vehicle with a complete comms setup and, maybe, a hostage. 

There was not a single factor in the officer's favour that day. His best COA was to observe, confirm the identity of the occupant (friend or foe) and call for more cavalry before engaging in what may have been a one sided fight with a prepared and determined opponent who had already killed several.


----------



## Lumber

Jarnhamar said:


> If this is accurate it's pretty terrible.
> 
> Mass shooting victim’s family says mother died hours after Mounties told EHS she was dead​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her body was covered up but she allegedly lived for another 8 hours.


Adrenaline response, maybe? So much death and chaos that in the thick of it they truly believed she was deceased even when evidence the contrary was present?


----------



## OldSolduer

Lumber said:


> Adrenaline response, maybe? So much death and chaos that in the thick of it they truly believed she was deceased even when evidence the contrary was present?


I would not depend on a piece of technology to be honest. Just my opinion but tech can be faulty.


----------



## brihard

Haggis said:


> Peace officer safety is essential to public safety. A disabled peace officer gives the attacker access to more weapons and ammo, a new vehicle with a complete comms setup and, maybe, a hostage.



This. When the ERT guy and dog man killed that piece of shit in Enfield, he had Heidi’s gun. Don’t forget, good chance that the member who encountered him on the highway had a C8 in his car. That could have quickly become available to the shooter had he killed the member.


----------



## Jarnhamar

brihard said:


> Yeah, this is the first I’m hearing of this one. I hope it’s not true, and if it is, I hope the commission can get to the bottom of it. That’s terrible.


It reads that the commission never included discussions about this incident. That triggered the family to launch and start posting on social medial about it. 

Not including it (if it's accurate) looks bad. 



Lumber said:


> Adrenaline response, maybe? So much death and chaos that in the thick of it they truly believed she was deceased even when evidence the contrary was present?



That makes sense. I can imagine they were pretty shook up and made some rash decisions when they weren't thinking clearly.


----------



## Halifax Tar

brihard said:


> My understanding of this is that he was driving on the road, saw an oncoming car that looked like a police cruiser. He knew the guy was in a replica cruiser. He knew other cops were out and were mobilized/mobilizing en masse from all over the province. He knew he wouldn’t necessarily know other officers to recognize them by sight. If he went head on on speculation he could be taking himself and another member out of the fight, or if it was the shooter he may just get himself killed (that’s how Heidi Stevenson was murdered). If he slowed down for a window chat with another cop and was wrong, he gets shot in the head at close range. If he rolled past to try to get a good look and confirm ID, the hope was then to call in the contact, rip around and pursue; his real weapon there being his radio. He had less time to make this decision than it took you to read this paragraph.
> 
> There’s no particularly good answer to this problem set. Any of them would be a roll of the dice with his life the wager. Tough to judge that. I don’t know what call I would make in his shoes. Not sure if any of us could.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, this is the first I’m hearing of this one. I hope it’s not true, and if it is, I hope the commission can get to the bottom of it. That’s terrible.





Haggis said:


> Peace officer safety is essential to public safety. A disabled peace officer gives the attacker access to more weapons and ammo, a new vehicle with a complete comms setup and, maybe, a hostage.
> 
> There was not a single factor in the officer's favour that day. His best COA was to observe, confirm the identity of the occupant (friend or foe) and call for more cavalry before engaging in what may have been a one sided fight with a prepared and determined opponent who had already killed several.



The opinion on the street is not good.  The public opinion I have been hearing  seems to overwhelmingly be they (Police) are paid a mighty wage and should be expected to advance towards the danger and are expected to endure injury or death as part of the job.  

As I said, I wasn't there.  The officer made a decision and went with it.  That's between him and himself now.

I truly think the rank and file did what they could.


----------



## Booter

Part of the grand reformation in use of force explanations and articulations was the use of language that actually expressed what it was to be “there”

Saying you were scared, describing your limitations, all those things are now actually part of how officers are trained.

When you see these things they are them trying to say- “I’ve been in Nova Scotia for 15 years and actually used my cuffs twice in the last five years- I do more school talks than fist fights. I just finished filling out the schedule when suddenly I was involved in a call of muderous rampage. My wife was messaging me to get milk when I had to suddenly be the trigger man for the first time in my life and it took me a second to understand my situation”


----------



## Haggis

Halifax Tar said:


> The opinion on the street is not good.  The public opinion I have been hearing  seems to overwhelmingly be they (Police) are paid a mighty wage and should be expected to advance towards the danger and are expected to endure injury or death as part of the job.


100% get that.  The stereotypical image of the hero cop is what people love.  However, as I noted above, sacrificing yourself to give the shooter more weapons, ammo, a vehicle, a full comms suite (with which he could've spoofed responding units for hours) may have racked up the body count even higher.


Halifax Tar said:


> The officer made a decision and went with it.  That's between him and himself now.


That's the advantage enjoyed by the public.  They have had almost two years now to determine what they believe is/was the proper COA in this instance.  This Mountie had seconds to deal with an unprecedented (in Canada, at least) and entirely unforeseen event.


Halifax Tar said:


> I truly think the rank and file did what they could.


The RCMP screwed up in many ways many times during (e.g. opening fire on a fire station) and after this event and there's a ton of good and bad reasons why they did. There were also many examples of things that went right, either on purpose or by accident.

What the public really needs is openness, and a fulsome accounting of what happened followed by properly funded concrete steps to prevent it from occurring again, as much as possible.  Given our current political leadership, this is not what they'll get.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Haggis said:


> 100% get that.  The stereotypical image of the hero cop is what people love.  However, as I noted above, sacrificing yourself to give the shooter more weapons, ammo, a vehicle, a full comms suite (with which he could've spoofed responding units for hours) may have racked up the body count even higher.
> 
> Its a complicated situation and honestly unless you're in that policeman's shoes at that time no one really knows.  Like I said he made a decision and now he has to rest easy with that, and I hope he can.
> 
> That's the advantage enjoyed by the public.  They have had almost two years now to determine what they believe is/was the proper COA in this instance.  This Mountie had seconds to deal with an unprecedented (in Canada, at least) and entirely unforeseen event.
> 
> Absolutely agree.
> 
> The RCMP screwed up in many ways many times during this event and there's a ton of good and bad reasons why they did (e.g. opening fire on a fire station). There were also many examples of things that went right, either on purpose or by accident.
> 
> What the public really needs is openness, and a fulsome accounting of what happened followed by properly funded concrete steps to prevent it from occurring again, as much as possible.  Given our current political leadership, this is not what they'll get.
> 
> The people want accountability and heads to roll for the mistakes that were made, and I think that's a fair expectation.  The public is also suspecting conspiracy and intrigue at every corner.  Its a messy situation.


----------



## brihard

Halifax Tar said:


> The opinion on the street is not good.  The public opinion I have been hearing  seems to overwhelmingly be they (Police) are paid a mighty wage and should be expected to advance towards the danger and are expected to endure injury or death as part of the job.
> 
> As I said, I wasn't there.  The officer made a decision and went with it.  That's between him and himself now.
> 
> I truly think the rank and file did what they could.


The overwhelming majority of the public will never face the need to make decisions at all close to what those members faced.

Police are expected to move towards danger, and did so. Doesn’t mean that even the worst situation is going to be appropriately resolved by a kamikaze. And again, he had less time to make that call than it took you to write the first line of your post.

The expectation that police will willingly endure death for a paycheck is out of touch with reality, and there are plenty of people making more that we can send in first if that’s the criteria. We have as much right to preserve our lives as anyone. There’s no greater onus on us to deliberately sacrifice our lives than anyone else. We will still go deliberately into danger, and will face threats to our lives, but there’s no policing equivalent to “Charlie team, take the trench”. Every officer gets to make their own risk assessment and has the duty to make decisions based on law, policy, and their training and duties.

In this case, the member had a very fast decision to make with lots of variables. Confirming ID while keeping himself kinda safe (driving past a shooter isn’t by any means safe in an absolute sense) and trying to maintain continuity while calling in the sighting and directing backup is a good call. Unfortunately it didn’t work out. Remember that had he made another choice- go head on, or stop for a window chat- the immediate consequence could have been the member getting rounds in the head, and/or potentially a super shitty blue on blue. The chaotic element of the shooter driving a marked police car isn’t something that can be undersold for how badly it screws up a lot of other decision making.


----------



## Halifax Tar

brihard said:


> The overwhelming majority of the public will never face the need to make decisions at all close to what those members faced.
> 
> Police are expected to move towards danger, and did so. Doesn’t mean that even the worst situation is going to be appropriately resolved by a kamikaze. And again, he had less time to make that call than it took you to write the first line of your post.
> 
> The expectation that police will willingly endure death for a paycheck is out of touch with reality, and there are plenty of people making more that we can send in first if that’s the criteria. We have as much right to preserve our lives as anyone. There’s no greater onus on us to deliberately sacrifice our lives than anyone else. We will still go deliberately into danger, and will face threats to our lives, but there’s no policing equivalent to “Charlie team, take the trench”. Every officer gets to make their own risk assessment and has the duty to make decisions based on law, policy, and their training and duties.
> 
> In this case, the member had a very fast decision to make with lots of variables. Confirming ID while keeping himself kinda safe (driving past a shooter isn’t by any means safe in an absolute sense) and trying to maintain continuity while calling in the sighting and directing backup is a good call. Unfortunately it didn’t work out. Remember that had he made another choice- go head on, or stop for a window chat- the immediate consequence could have been the member getting rounds in the head, and/or potentially a super shitty blue on blue. The chaotic element of the shooter driving a marked police car isn’t something that can be undersold for how badly it screws up a lot of other decision making.



Unlimited liability eh ?  The difference between a civilian and soldier.


----------



## Booter

Yeah a soldier in a car driving by would have made all the difference.

_edit because I was derailing even myself_


----------



## Halifax Tar

Booter said:


> Yeah a soldier in a car driving by would have made all the difference.



That's not my point at all.  If you don't understand, ask questions.

I was expressing the difference between a civilian police officer and soldier.   As they (we) are the only ones with unlimited liability.


----------



## Booter

It’s not. I know.

The unlimited liability concept doesn’t work in any other context but military. There are four people not 400. And your objectives aren’t the same.

There are plenty of Mounties charging into danger. I’m working the honours forms for several. 

I also have worked with enough guys with bad limbs from taking rounds that I remain convinced that we don’t need a concept of unlimited liability while we still have people showing up and doing their duty,

You will, and I’m not saying anything about this situation, have cowards in every type of uniform. Even where they have unlimited liability.


----------



## Haggis

Halifax Tar said:


> Unlimited liability eh ?  The difference between a civilian and soldier.


Remember a few years back when the Québec Hell's Angels were deliberately targeting members of the law enforcement community? That's pretty damned close to unlimited liability in application but not name.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Haggis said:


> Remember a few years back when the Québec Hell's Angels were deliberately targeting members of the law enforcement community? That's pretty damned close to unlimited liability in application but not name.



Up to but not including.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I find that the term "unlimited liability" gets used too much as an excuse crutch.    It comes with terms and conditions also.....

You don't follow the order to jump off the building just because we only brought 5 ropes and the parade commander wanted 6 rappellers.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> I find that the term "unlimited liability" gets used too much as an excuse crutch.    It comes with terms and conditions also.....
> 
> You don't follow the order to jump off the building just because we only brought 5 ropes and the parade commander wanted 6 rappellers.



Its the legal term use another if you'd like.






						Section 2 : Fundamental Beliefs and Expectations - Canada.ca
					

The military ethos speaks to and affirms certain beliefs and expectations about military service that serve to develop the military members’ professional self-portrait.




					www.canada.ca
				





> *Accepting Unlimited Liability*
> Unlimited liability is a concept derived strictly from a professional understanding of the military function. As such, all members accept and understand that they are subject to being lawfully ordered into harm’s way under conditions that could lead to the loss of their lives.



CAF members are compelled to follow the lawful commands of their superiors.  Your example is not only hyperbolic but would be unlawful.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Halifax Tar said:


> Its the legal term use another if you'd like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Section 2 : Fundamental Beliefs and Expectations - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> The military ethos speaks to and affirms certain beliefs and expectations about military service that serve to develop the military members’ professional self-portrait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CAF members are compelled to follow the lawful commands of their superiors.  Your example is not only hyperbolic but would be unlawful.


Just saying it gets used like a billy club in debates it has no reason to be in.....


----------



## Halifax Tar

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Just saying it gets used like a billy club in debates it has no reason to be in.....



How so ?  You also said it has been used an "excuse crutch".  Please, go on.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

When military folk debate with LEO's...."oh yea, well we have unlimited liability and have to follow orders."
As you yourself pointed out above, no you don't...


----------



## Halifax Tar

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> When military folk debate with LEO's...."oh yea, well we have unlimited liability and have to follow orders."
> As you yourself pointed out above, no you don't...



I think the difference is when I/C section base orders a team to enter a space and stop the ingress of water, that is a lawful command; and the expectation is that injury or death is acceptable in completion of that task, and refusal of that task for fear of injury or death or any other reason is punishable.

But to be honest its two very different professions and its not a fair comparison.  One is meant to preserve peace and order and the other is meant to establish it through violence.


----------



## Remius

Small anecdote.  Years ago when they started active shooter training at OPS it was passed on to me via a few people I know that there that a lot of members did not want that training as they didn’t want to have to go in and engage.  Apparently anyone with military experience was keen on it though.

We should note when we had an active shooter on parliament hill a few short years ago we saw video evidence of a lot of RCMP members heading towards where the gunfire and shooting was happening.

I think military types bring up Unlimited liability because it’s a known concept to us and it’s hard to conceive that certain jobs like firefighting, LEOs or what not don’t have that same concept.  To be honest I think civilians think the same way, that police should charge in headstrong regardless of danger.   

We can point to UL as something unique to the military but I think we need to recognize that it is that.  Unique. And not try to project that onto other professions.  Not saying anyone is but just something to keep in mind.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Remius said:


> Small anecdote.  Years ago when they started active shooter training at OPS it was passed on to me via a few people I know that there that a lot of members did not want that training as they didn’t want to have to go in and engage.  Apparently anyone with military experience was keen on it though.
> 
> We should note when we had an active shooter on parliament hill a few short years ago we saw video evidence of a lot of RCMP members heading towards where the gunfire and shooting was happening.
> 
> I think military types bring up Unlimited liability because it’s a known concept to us and it’s hard to conceive that certain jobs like firefighting, LEOs or what not don’t have that same concept.  To be honest I think civilians think the same way, that police should charge in headstrong regardless of danger.
> 
> We can point to UL as something unique to the military but I think we need to recognize that it is that.  Unique. And not try to project that onto other professions.  Not saying anyone is but just something to keep in mind.



Very fair.  Well said.


----------



## brihard

Halifax Tar said:


> I think the difference is when I/C section base orders a team to enter a space and stop the ingress of water, that is a lawful command; and the expectation is that injury or death is acceptable in completion of that task, and refusal of that task for fear of injury or death is punishable.
> 
> But to be honest its two very different professions and its not a fair comparison.  One is meant to preserve peace and order and the other is meant to establish it through violence.


Mm hm. And even at that, police _do_ go, time and time again, into really dangerous situations alone or with minimal backup. Moncton involved several members killed in individual interactions while trying to stop an active shooter. Fredericton, similarly. And lots more where police simply win the fight without taking casualties, so the public doesn’t notice it.

So it’s not that police aren’t frequently and selflessly standing into danger. It’s just that that last step to ‘unlimited liability’, being ordered into a tactically necessary death, isn’t a thing.


----------



## Halifax Tar

brihard said:


> Mm hm. And even at that, police _do_ go, time and time again, into really dangerous situations alone or with minimal backup. Moncton involved several members killed in individual interactions while trying to stop an active shooter. Fredericton, similarly. And lots more where police simply win the fight without taking casualties, so the public doesn’t notice it.
> 
> So it’s not that police aren’t frequently and selflessly standing into danger. It’s just that that last step to ‘unlimited liability’, being ordered into a tactically necessary death, isn’t a thing.



Absolutely and that's why police make huge salaries. Their job is often more in harms way than CAF members.  No debate.  And that's also why the expectation of the public is that they will stride toward danger and lay down their lives.  Perhaps we need more education on the role of police, or we need to renegotiate their responsibilities and liabilities.

My dad spent decades with CSC starting as a CX and working his way up to Warden.  You couldn't pay me enough to do that job.  That job nearly killed him.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

And I pretty much loved my 32 years(except for obvious certain moments) of the job.

Different strokes....


----------



## mariomike

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> And I pretty much loved my 32 years(except for obvious certain moments) of the job.
> 
> Different strokes....



I only did it part-time. But, it was a good job.


----------



## Haggis

Halifax Tar said:


> Absolutely and that's why police make huge salaries.


While I disagree about the word "huge",  there's a whole other thread on this topic.


Halifax Tar said:


> Their job is often more in harms way than CAF members.  No debate.  And that's also why the expectation of the public is that they will stride toward danger and lay down their lives.


The public only thinks about the physical harm.  Emotional harm and moral harm are the real long term hazards that go unseen on the nightly news.


Halifax Tar said:


> Perhaps we need more education on the role of police....


Blame Hollywood for that.  The hero cop. The glorious death in the line of duty.  Saving the mom and child from a predator who looks like Jack Nicholson with one shot, one kill. 

Sometimes the job is like looking into a garbage can full of snakes.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Haggis said:


> While I disagree about the word "huge",  there's a whole other thread on this topic.
> 
> Of the 1065 people listed in the sunshine list for the HRM 454 of them are listed as police.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Halifax releases 2021 sunshine list: Of more than 1,000 employees making more than $100,000, 454 are police - Halifax Examiner
> 
> 
> Halifax Regional Municipality has released its 2021 sunshine list, showing 1,065 employees made more than $100,000 in the last fiscal year, and more than 40% of them work for the police force. The municipality has released the list annually since 2016, and the 2021 edition was posted online on...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.halifaxexaminer.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seem like good pay to me.  Feel free to split this.
> 
> The public only thinks about the physical harm. Emotional harm and moral harm are the real long term hazards that go unseen on the nightly news.
> 
> Absolutely, and our injured officers should be looked after.
> 
> Blame Hollywood for that.  The hero cop. The glorious death in the line of duty.  Saving the mom and child from a predator who looks like Jack Nicholson with one shot, one kill.
> 
> Sometimes the job is like looking into a garbage can full of snakes.
> 
> There are points in our careers (Police, Military, Fire ect) when you suck back and realize this is what we singed up to do and this is why the crown or tax payer has paid us.   When in those situations we need to make peace, find internal courage and carry on with the task.  Sometimes we carry those situations with us for life. Either way its what we're paid to do.  All services like these should have robust aftercare packages that accompany the wounded for life.


----------



## Haggis

> Of the 1065 people listed in the sunshine list for the HRM 454 of them are listed as police.


With OT because of staffing shortages, unforeseen events etc. I see this as normal.  Happens all the time in my agency.


> Absolutely, and our injured officers should be looked after.


and


> There are points in our careers (Police, Military, Fire ect) when you suck back and realize this is what we singed up to do and this is why the crown or tax payer has paid us. When in those situations we need to make peace, find internal courage and carry on with the task. Sometimes we carry those situations with us for life. Either way its what we're paid to do.



While I agree with both your points, my reply was about how we (police, fire, EMS, CBSA etc.), as a profession, have public opinion of us shaped by the entertainment industry to our detriment.  Thankfully, the Canadian entertainment industry hasn't made another attempt to glamorize the CAF in the same way since Bunker and Hyena Road.



> All services like these should have robust aftercare packages that accompany the wounded for life.


 YMMV


----------



## Halifax Tar

Haggis said:


> With OT because of staffing shortages, unforeseen events etc. I see this as normal.  Happens all the time in my agency.
> 
> and
> 
> 
> While I agree with both your points, my reply was about how we (police, fire, EMS, CBSA etc.), as a profession, have public opinion of us shaped by the entertainment industry to our detriment.  Thankfully, the Canadian entertainment industry hasn't made another attempt to glamorize the CAF in the same way since Bunker and Hyena Road.
> 
> YMMV



Never heard of the bunker before... Have to check that out lol


----------



## Haggis

Halifax Tar said:


> Never heard of the bunker before... Have to check that out lol


The premise is a gigantic stretch.  Have alcohol on hand.


----------



## mariomike

Haggis said:


> With OT because of staffing shortages, unforeseen events etc. I see this as normal.  Happens all the time in my agency.


Elsewhere as well.

OT may be cheaper, and offer the employer more scheduling flexibility, than hiring.  🤷‍♂️


----------



## lenaitch

Jarnhamar said:


> If this is accurate it's pretty terrible.
> 
> Mass shooting victim’s family says mother died hours after Mounties told EHS she was dead​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her body was covered up but she allegedly lived for another 8 hours.


I agree with others that this seems a tad bizarre.  Clearly, this information should have been released by the Commission.  First, cops don't get to 'pronounce' somebody dead.  They can make some assumptions based on training and experience, but that's all they are.  Perhaps the scene was too unstable to allow EMS in, but that needs to be explored and actions/decisions articulated.

I don't know anything about Fitbits, but that screengrab seems to show a really elevated sustained heart rate.  With open wounds, a pulse rate like that over several hours does not seem realistic.  I remember when my dad passed, the machine he was hooked up to continued to sporadically beep until they turned if off.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Policing and Soldiering are apples and oranges in so many ways.  It's not even fair to even compare the two.

I know what can happen when you get soldiers doing the job of the police though:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1511288657512124421
Police are there to uphold the law but have some pretty restrictive use of force protocols they have to follow.

A soldier on operations doesn't have nearly as many restrictions or "checks and balances" depending on the situation.  

I can think of a number of personal situations when dealing with PUCs where had things escalated the steps taken between "de-escalation with words" and "violence" would have been a whole lot less than anything a Canadian LEO operating on Canadian soil would ever have had to take.


----------



## Haggis

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Policing and Soldiering are apples and oranges in so many ways.  It's not even fair to even compare the two.


There is nothing so demoralizing to an Army than to be called to police their own citizens.


Humphrey Bogart said:


> Police are there to uphold the law but have some pretty restrictive use of force protocols they have to follow.





Humphrey Bogart said:


> A soldier on operations doesn't have nearly as many restrictions or "checks and balances" depending on the situation.


The Incident Management Intervention Model actually gives a lot of latitude to LEOs.  Remember, too, that LEOs have more available intervention options than soldiers.  (The same goes for the concealed carry crowd.  De-escalation becomes very difficult if your only intervention option is lethal force.)


Humphrey Bogart said:


> I can think of a number of personal situations when dealing with PUCs where had things escalated the steps taken between "de-escalation with words" and "violence" would have been a whole lot less than anything a Canadian LEO operating on Canadian soil would ever have had to take.


Nothing in law and policy says an LEO must take each step in escalation.  I can go from officer presence to lethal force in the blink of an eye based on situational factors and my risk assessment.

Sometimes the best way to de-escalate is through lethal force, when all other options have been exhausted or are unsuitable.


----------



## Haggis

lenaitch said:


> I don't know anything about Fitbits, but that screengrab seems to show a really elevated sustained heart rate.  With open wounds, a pulse rate like that over several hours does not seem realistic.  I remember when my dad passed, the machine he was hooked up to continued to sporadically beep until they turned if off.


Given my wife's experience with the FitBit I bought her as a well meaning gift (she thinks I bought it to annoy her and it's never really worked as intended) I wouldn't trust it to prove life or death.


----------



## mariomike

Some discussion about FitBit after death, in case anyone is interested,









						The Fitbit Community
					

Yesterday somebody died wearing her Charge 2.  To determine the exact time of death we thought we could use the FitBit. Much to our surprise the FitBit still showed a heartbeat. Even 45 minutes after being declared dead there was still a heartbeat shown on the watch and the I-phone!! How is this...




					community.fitbit.com
				




Reminds me of the old Timex commercial.



Haggis said:


> Given my wife's experience with the FitBit I bought her as a well meaning gift (she thinks I bought it to annoy her and it's never really worked as intended) I wouldn't trust it to prove life or death.



My insurance carrier gives them out as part of their "Vitality" program.



Jarnhamar said:


> Her body was covered up but she allegedly lived for another 8 hours.



Whatever allegedly happened, or allegedly did not happen, in Nova Scotia, due to their popularity, I can see some families getting irate if their loved one is not transported to a hospital - if their FitBit is allegedly still showing a heartbeat.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

A quick look at my FitBit account shows this incident is not unique. Lots of complaints, but in typical FitBit fashion, no answers, explanations or fixes.


----------



## Jarnhamar

mariomike said:


> Whatever allegedly happened, or allegedly did not happen, in Nova Scotia, due to their popularity, I can see some families getting irate if their loved one is not transported to a hospital - if their FitBit is allegedly still showing a heartbeat.


I don't think the FitBit data can be used as evidence or proof.

The article also states:



> An interview with another Mountie, parts of which were not included in the commission’s summary of what happened, backs up the family’s claim that their mother was left to die.



and



> Const. Ian Fahie was one of the first officers to arrive on the scene and attended to O’Brien. In the months that followed, he talked to RCMP and Mass Casualty Commission investigators about what happened next.* In his statement to commission investigators, he suggested that O’Brien had a pulse but was left to die because she was mortally wounded and had no chance of surviving. *
> 
> 
> “*So we... I say, we had to let her die,* but you know, we had to let her just pass on,” stated Fahie. “We knew she … like to … I don’t think she was going to make it anyways. So, we got a blanket, *covered her up and then we just went to the road and guarded.*”


----------



## Booter

So where is EMS in all this?

The reason I ask, I’ve been involved in some capacity multiple times in inquiries, there is a bizarre fixation on police,

For example- drunk guy in cells, taken to doctor because police are worried he is so drunk he ll die, doctor says he’s fine. Brought back to cells dies from alcohol,

Inquiry recommendation? Police receive more training in recognizing acute alcohol intoxication to get a person to a doctor, nothing in recommendations for the doctor,

Social worker file- youth commits suicide in care- police need more training in dealing empathetically with people in the care of social services. Social worker recommendation? There needs to be more social workers.

I am biased but it always seems the other agencies skate by.

EMS is a tough cookie with their staging etc. but if you have two guys in the woods- on watch for a shooter, packaging and transporting casualties isn’t in the cards initially.

So if EMS won’t go into the hot zone while being escorted there is little to be done.

Like it or not.

That may not be what happened- I just know that in the back of my mind there is a tendency to over simplify the scale of cooperation needed to resolve these things.

In my present spot- it’s normal for the ambulance to just not attend or take several hours. We package and transport people all the time, and it’s not right- but it’s necessary. If there is an issue- I doubt it will be EMS and the hospital that gets the criticism

Now I do know that’s just one thing in a massive event and the lions share of action is RCMP actions.

Just catches my eye when I see “they left them to die!” And we re talking about the rcmp exclusively.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Booter said:


> So where is EMS in all this?
> 
> The reason I ask, I’ve been involved in some capacity multiple times in inquiries, there is a bizarre fixation on police,
> 
> For example- drunk guy in cells, taken to doctor because police are worried he is so drunk he ll die, doctor says he’s fine. Brought back to cells dies from alcohol,
> 
> Inquiry recommendation? Police receive more training in recognizing acute alcohol intoxication to get a person to a doctor, nothing in recommendations for the doctor,
> 
> Social worker file- youth commits suicide in care- police need more training in dealing empathetically with people in the care of social services. Social worker recommendation? There needs to be more social workers.
> 
> I am biased but it always seems the other agencies skate by.
> 
> EMS is a tough cookie with their staging etc. but if you have two guys in the woods- on watch for a shooter, packaging and transporting casualties isn’t in the cards initially.
> 
> So if EMS won’t go into the hot zone while being escorted there is little to be done.
> 
> Like it or not.
> 
> That may not be what happened- I just know that in the back of my mind there is a tendency to over simplify the scale of cooperation needed to resolve these things.
> 
> In my present spot- it’s normal for the ambulance to just not attend or take several hours. We package and transport people all the time, and it’s not right- but it’s necessary. If there is an issue- I doubt it will be EMS and the hospital that gets the criticism
> 
> Now I do know that’s just one thing in a massive event and the lions share of action is RCMP actions.
> 
> Just catches my eye when I see “they left them to die!” And we re talking about the rcmp exclusively.



Carful EMS is one area we can't critique around here


----------



## OldSolduer

Haggis said:


> Remember a few years back when the Québec Hell's Angels were deliberately targeting members of the law enforcement community? That's pretty damned close to unlimited liability in application but not name.


A few years? Like 30ish IIRC.


----------



## Booter

Halifax Tar said:


> Carful EMS is one area we can't critique around here


lol I knew as I was writing this…

I think what I mean is the whole public service ecosystem needs examination. I mean really you could take that to health care, education etc.

We seem to be at a point where none of our services are working as intended. Layers and layers of bandaids and blame shifting 🤷‍♀️

I suppose with certainty what I can say- is there but for the grace of god go I that I haven’t had to coordinate anything that large while depending on systems that are designed to be slow so that they don’t incur unnecessary cost.


----------



## OldSolduer

Booter said:


> We seem to be at a point where none of our services are working as intended. Layers and layers of bandaids and blame shifting 🤷‍♀️


Too much management and too many good idea fairies.


----------



## mariomike

Booter said:


> EMS is a tough cookie with their staging



I don't know the S.O.P.  in Nova Scotia.

I'm only familiar with the ASHE S.O.P. in one city, in another province.

Staging at an Active Shooter / Hostile Event ( ASHE ) until Emergency Task Force ( ETF ) arrived On Scene used to be the S.O.P.

Until Columbine.

Now it's Rescue Task Force ( RTF ). You don't wait for ETF.



> First arriving street paramedics ( NOT tactical paramedics ) team up with 2 patrol officers to move quickly into “warm” zone areas along cleared corridors to initiate treatment and evacuation of victims.
> 2 patrol officers for front and rear security and 2 street paramedics in ballistic gear with supplies to treat up to 14 patients.
> “Stabilize, position, and move on”
> Once the first RTF runs out of supplies, they grab a victim and evacuate out.
> RTF re-supply near point of entry.





> Paramedics are reminded of their responsibility under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Section 43, (1) and (2).2 These sections exclude paramedics from the right to refuse work where the circumstances are inherent in their work and/or if the work refusal would directly endanger the health and safety of another person.


----------



## Booter

My experience is those types of responses don’t exist in rural ems units, it’s part of the reason we have been pursuing all the trauma equipment training we have. I’ll be curious to see what kindve agency recommendations they’ll have for ems (along with others)

In your SOP they discuss warm zones. I’m not even sure if I’m a large portion of this event that’s discussed they ever transitioned away from that initial “hot” on the first series of calls (over several hours)


----------



## Haggis

OldSolduer said:


> A few years? Like 30ish IIRC.


1997.  Mom Boucher was convicted of ordering the killing of two Correctional Officers. There was another targeted killing of a Montreal police officer around the same time.


----------



## Good2Golf

mariomike said:


> I don't know the S.O.P.  in Nova Scotia.
> 
> I'm only familiar with the ASHE S.O.P. in one city, in another province.
> 
> Staging at an Active Shooter / Hostile Event ( ASHE ) until Emergency Task Force ( ETF ) arrived On Scene used to be the S.O.P.
> 
> Until Columbine.
> 
> Now it's Rescue Task Force ( RTF ). You don't wait for ETF.



Siri:  “Here’s something I found on the Internet about EMS policies. Take a look. Policies Protocol Manual - Government of Nova Scotia”


----------



## mariomike

Good2Golf said:


> Siri:  “Here’s something I found on the Internet about EMS policies. Take a look. Policies Protocol Manual - Government of Nova Scotia”



In Nova Scotia. The profession of paramedicine is regulated provincially in Canada.

Then, in Ontario, for example, you get into municipal policies.

If you know one paramedic service in Canada, that's what you know. One service.


----------



## brihard

mariomike said:


> I don't know the S.O.P.  in Nova Scotia.
> 
> I'm only familiar with the ASHE S.O.P. in one city, in another province.
> 
> Staging at an Active Shooter / Hostile Event ( ASHE ) until Emergency Task Force ( ETF ) arrived On Scene used to be the S.O.P.
> 
> Until Columbine.
> 
> Now it's Rescue Task Force ( RTF ). You don't wait for ETF.


This may exist in some big cities. It ain’t a thing outside of them that I’ve ever heard of.

Everywhere else, ambulances and fire stage. It’s just what they do. RCMP have a very small number of members trained up with some advanced TCCC stuff, but that’s not gonna go very far in saving a casualty who badly needs a trauma centre.

All that said, I have no idea what the actual fact set is for the situation in question. It’s just unrealistic to think that in most cases there will be some ninja medics swooping in to environments where cops still believe it’s necessary to have guns out. There will not be.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Haggis said:


> Given my wife's experience with the FitBit I bought her as a well meaning gift (she thinks I bought it to annoy her and it's never really worked as intended) I wouldn't trust it to prove life or death.



Similar experience with my wife.  I’m not sure she would have relied on it to tell the time accurately at the end of its life (about 2 days after warranty, oddly).


----------



## mariomike

Booter said:


> In your SOP they discuss warm zones.




Hot Zone - Area where there is a known hazard or direct and immediate life threat (i.e., any uncontrolled area where an active shooter/bomber could directly engage an RTF). RTFs should not be deployed into hot zones.
Warm Zone - Area of indirect threat (i.e., an area where law enforcement has either cleared or isolated the threat to a level of minimal or mitigated risk). This area can be considered clear but not secure. The RTF will deploy in this area, with security, to treat and remove victims
Cold Zone - Area where there is little or no threat, due to geographic distance from the threat or the area has been secured by law enforcement (i.e.,casualty collection points, the area where emergency services may stage to triage, treat, and transport victims once removed from the warm zone).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Anyone who thinks all LEOs should charge headfirst into danger should rethink their reasoning.  Not all LEOs have the same training, experience, and abilities.  

And we’re no different in the CAF, despite unlimited liability - let’s be realistic here.  Would a WASF hold its own against a dismounted Inf Coy?  Platoon even?  Not likely. 

If there was an active shooter on a base, what does the training tell most people to do (serving members);  charge headlong into the area, or secure in place? 

Do we expect the same combat capabilities from a cook as we do an Infantry soldier?

Why would it be any different in policing?  A good friend of mine is an ERT Tm Lead, his wife is also RCMP but Community Policing.  They have totally different skills sets and expectations from their bosses.  Sure, the basic serve and protect is there…just like UL is there for the HRA Private in Ottawa and the CSOR operator down the road from them.


----------



## Furniture

Eye In The Sky said:


> Anyone who thinks all LEOs should charge headfirst into danger should rethink their reasoning.  Not all LEOs have the same training, experience, and abilities.
> 
> And we’re no different in the CAF, despite unlimited liability - let’s be realistic here.  Would a WASF hold its own against a dismounted Inf Coy?  Platoon even?  Not likely.


I'd expect that WASF to hold their positions as long as possible, even at the cost of their lives, unless ordered to withdraw. They don't have to defeat the enemy, they just need to give the rest of the team a chance to organize, or withdraw. 


Eye In The Sky said:


> If there was an active shooter on a base, what does the training tell most people to do (serving members);  charge headlong into the area, or secure in place?


If Cpl Bloggins the HRA was armed, I'd expect them to secure their location, and wait for coordinating instructions, not hide in a room with no windows. Police are armed, clerks tend to not be, you're making an apples to cream of wheat comparison.


Eye In The Sky said:


> Do we expect the same combat capabilities from a cook as we do an Infantry soldier?


Nope, but I expect the Cook to be proficient with their weapon, and fight as best they can as long as they can. 


Eye In The Sky said:


> Why would it be any different in policing?  A good friend of mine is an ERT Tm Lead, his wife is also RCMP but Community Policing.  They have totally different skills sets and expectations from their bosses.  Sure, the basic serve and protect is there…just like UL is there for the HRA Private in Ottawa and the CSOR operator down the road from them.


The difference is, your friend's wife is still an armed police officer. There is an expectation that armed police will protect the public, even if it means risking their own life. 

Maybe the public has unrealistic expectations, but they exist...


----------



## lenaitch

mariomike said:


> I don't know the S.O.P.  in Nova Scotia.
> 
> I'm only familiar with the ASHE S.O.P. in one city, in another province.
> 
> Staging at an Active Shooter / Hostile Event ( ASHE ) until Emergency Task Force ( ETF ) arrived On Scene used to be the S.O.P.
> 
> Until Columbine.
> 
> Now it's Rescue Task Force ( RTF ). You don't wait for ETF.


Did the members of your (large municipal EMS) receive RTF training?  Although I've been gone for several years, when we did annual Initial Rapid Deployment (same thing - different name) training, EMS was never involved, nor have heard of anything similar.   Like Booter, I doubt it is much of a thing with rural emergency services.

Edit:  Pretty much similar to what Brihard said.  Our tactical units have a pool of trained and equipped EMS members from a number of ambulance services around a lot of the province but it is a part-time as-needed call out.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Furniture said:


> I'd expect that WASF to hold their positions as long as possible, even at the cost of their lives, unless ordered to withdraw. They don't have to defeat the enemy, they just need to give the rest of the team a chance to organize, or withdraw.



The "at the cost of their lives" wouldn't take long.  This is likely why WASF as it exists doesn't deploy to perform the task for ATFs, etc.  It is a Secondary Duty;  THAT is reality.  "The rest of the team", when it comes to WASF, is more of the same people equally capable of defeating that same force.



Furniture said:


> If Cpl Bloggins the HRA was armed, I'd expect them to secure their location, and wait for coordinating instructions, not hide in a room with no windows. Police are armed, clerks tend to not be, you're making an apples to cream of wheat comparison.



You're not dealing with reality then.  The comparison isn't in their "day to day battle rattle";  the comparison is "_we don't expect the same thing from all CAF members_".  THAT is reality.  So expecting the same thing from "all RCMP officers" is the same as expecting the same thing from "all CAF members".   It's not an "apples to cream of wheat" comparison.  I'm talking about and pointing to day to day reality in the CAF, and how it compares to the public and their expectations of 'all LEOs'.

* on the "not hide in rooms with no windows";  I'm not going to compromise FP TTPs.  I'll just say "you'd be surprised".



Furniture said:


> Nope, but I expect the Cook to be proficient with their weapon, and fight as best they can as long as they can.



But that isn't what I am talking about.  Simple version;  "despite being CAF members, do we expect the same reaction and results from an Inf Cpl as we do a Cook Cpl?".  Easy answer, for anyone, is "no".  So...why would we expect the same from "all members of the RCMP"?

Proficient is a term used too loosely outside of the aircrew world in my experience.  Qualified and current doesn't = proficient.  We do not do enough "round downrange" to be proficient outside of Inf (maybe, not sure what they shoot annually now), MP/CP, SOF, etc.  If you're working in a kitchen, hanger, etc...you might be qualified, you might be current but it is HIGHLY unlikely you are proficient.



Furniture said:


> The difference is, your friend's wife is still an armed police officer. There is an expectation that armed police will protect the public, even if it means risking their own life.



(Agreed to a point.  I don't expect any LEO to enter a situation and just "risk their lives".  20 gunmen, 1 cruiser responds initially.  Who expects the 1 or 2 LEOs to run blindly into that kill zone "because that's what we pay them for"? ) 

Does that include "this RCMP cruiser might be the suspect.  I'll stop next to him and see"?  (context of this thread)

OR...is there an expectation to make tactically sound decisions, despite  how the uneducated public might think, by the LEOs team mates and superiors?

Does the RCMP itself expect those same 2 members to bring the same skill sets to any / all situations?  Why would the public?



Furniture said:


> Maybe the public has unrealistic expectations, but they exist...



Maybe the public needs to educate themselves some then.  This is old, but makes the point nonetheless.

Awards honour B.C. police for valour, meritorious service


----------



## mariomike

lenaitch said:


> Did the members of your (large municipal EMS) receive RTF training?  Although I've been gone for several years, when we did annual Initial Rapid Deployment (same thing - different name) training, EMS was never involved, nor have heard of anything similar.   Like Booter, I doubt it is much of a thing with rural emergency services.



I've been retired for 13 years. I can call someone tomorrow and ask. Most training is online now.
Taking operational crews out of 9-1-1 service has never been common practice due to the negative impact it has on Response Times. Car counts are often at bare minimum.

Our policy was always pretty simple,

4. wait for police assistance if,
a. there is an active shooter scenario, or
b. there is direct evidence of ongoing violence;

5. if electing to delay service as per paragraph 4 above, immediately notify CACC/ACS;

Once the police arrive, if they are not already there, they are in charge of scene security.

Police decide if a scene is Hot, Warm or Cold.



lenaitch said:


> Edit:  Pretty much similar to what Brihard said.  Our tactical units have a pool of trained and equipped EMS members from a number of ambulance services around a lot of the province but it is a part-time as-needed call out.



Our town has ETF paramedics on regular duty under the direction of the Gun Team sergeant and under the cover of the Gun Team itself.
They are experts.

RTF are just regular street crews. But, they get there "firstest with the mostest".









						Rescue task forces and the scene safety dilemma
					

It's time that we all get real and accept the uncomfortable truth that scene safety is and always has been a myth




					www.ems1.com
				






> So if EMS won’t go into the hot zone while being escorted there is little to be done.





> RTFs should not be deployed into hot zones.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Mistaken for mass killer, man recalls shot ‘like a sonic boom’ as RCMP fired at him

HALIFAX — David Westlake is an unbelievably lucky man who still wonders what saved him when two Mounties mistook him for a killer and opened fire.

On the morning of April 19, 2020, the emergency management coordinator was at the firehall in Onslow, N.S., as the fire chief was welcoming people evacuated from nearby Portapique, N.S., where a gunman had killed 13 people the night before.

At the time, the killer was still at large and his rampage wasn’t over. He would kill a total of 22 people before being shot by police later that day.

At 10:17 a.m., as Westlake was chatting with an RCMP officer parked in front of the building, he watched in disbelief as a car screeched to a halt about 80 metres away and two men emerged with rifles. As both took aim at him, he made a dash for the firehall.

"I remember a shot that sounded like a sonic boom and then another one that was really loud, and I'm moving at this time," Westlake told a public inquiry investigating the worst mass shooting in modern Canadian history.

The two shooters were RCMP officers who mistakenly assumed Westlake was the killer, mainly because he was wearing a yellow-and-orange reflective vest that matched the police description of what the suspect was wearing.

Westlake's dramatic account of what happened that day was given to an inquiry investigator on June 15, 2021. The release Monday of a document that includes excerpts from that interview marks the first time the public has heard Westlake's version of events.

"Do not ask me what deity had their hand on my shoulder that day and made sure it wasn't my time," Westlake said in the interview.

The inquiry document also highlights the confusion that RCMP officers faced as they pursued the killer for more than 100 kilometres. Two Mounties fatally shot him at a gas station north of Halifax at 11:26 a.m.

As for Westlake, he said he still couldn't believe he escaped with his life, though the close call had not hurt his sense of humour.

"I was just a fat guy in the wrong place at the wrong time wearing a vest," he told the inquiry investigator. "I've never had malice to the two individuals that pulled the trigger. I want to meet them. I want to ask them how they missed, because I can't hide behind telephone poles."

Still, the document raises awkward questions for the RCMP, which has said little about the almost-lethal blunder.

Just before Const. Terry Brown and Const. Dave Melanson showed up in Onslow, Westlake was standing in the front lot talking to RCMP Const. Dave Gagnon, who was behind the wheel of a marked cruiser, a vehicle almost identical to the getaway car being used by the killer.

Both Brown and Melanson told inquiry investigators they did not see Gagnon in the car.

Before the two officers jumped out of their unmarked Nissan Altima, Melanson tried several times to use a police radio to report what they were seeing. But instead of getting a clear signal to broadcast, Melanson said the radio "bonged," which meant that the frequency had been jammed by too many users.

The Serious Incident Response Team, Nova Scotia's police watchdog agency, released a report in March 2021 that cleared both officers of any wrongdoing. It concluded the officers had reasonable grounds to believe they had the killer in their sights, and that they discharged their weapons "to prevent further deaths or serious injuries." The independent agency also drew attention to the jammed radios. 

Melanson said he, like Brown, believed the man in the reflective vest was the killer. "I’ve got my carbine on the guy and I'm yelling to him, 'Show me your hands!'" Brown told the inquiry's investigators last month.

"And he's looking at me and then he ducks behind the car, and I was sure he was getting a gun …. And I thought he was going to kill us. I thought he was going to kill others .... And he started running."

Westlake, however, told investigators he did not hear anyone say, "Show me your hands." He said the only thing he heard, aside from gunshots, was someone saying, “Get down!”

As well, eight people living near the firehall told investigators about what they saw that day, and none of them reported hearing anyone say, "Show your hands!"

In all, investigators found Brown fired four rounds at Westlake, and Melanson fired once. Two rounds pierced one of the station's garage doors and damaged a fire truck inside. A third round hit a roadside sign and another hit the side of the firehall. The fifth round hit a stone monument near the door that Westlake used to escape.

As for Gagnon — the constable in the cruiser — the document says he tried to use his radio to alert the other two officers about his identity, saying, “You guys are pointing your guns at me.” But the transcript from the broadcasts that day suggest the transmission did not get through.

All that was recorded was Gagnon saying: “You got that — Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey!” and “Who are you shooting at? It’s Gagnon!”

When the shooting stopped, Gagnon emerged from his vehicle with his hands up. After a brief exchange with the two other officers, he and Melanson went inside the station, where Westlake told them no one had been injured.

Neither Brown nor Melanson checked on the others inside the firehall, who included fire Chief Greg Muise, Deputy Chief Darrell Currie and evacuee Richard Ellison, whose son Corrie had been murdered in Portapique.

Westlake would later recall that he had spotted an RCMP cruiser with a black push-bar on the front driving past the firehall at 10:07 a.m. That vehicle matched the description of the killer’s vehicle, but the RCMP did not release that information to the public until they sent a tweet at 10:17 a.m. — roughly the same time the unmarked car arrived at the firehall.

There’s no indication that Gagnon saw the suspect's car.


----------



## Good2Golf

Yikes!  

Good thing for Westlake that Const.s Brown and Melanson had the aim of a Stormtrooper…


----------



## Jarnhamar

Eye In The Sky said:


> Neither Brown nor Melanson checked on the others inside the firehall, who included fire Chief Greg Muise, Deputy Chief Darrell Currie and evacuee Richard Ellison, whose son Corrie had been murdered in Portapique.



Nothing like shooting into a building and not checking if they hit anyone. At least no one was left to die this time. 




> As well, eight people living near the firehall told investigators about what they saw that day, and none of them reported hearing anyone say, "Show your hands!"



Sounds like someone needs some remedial training.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:


> Mistaken for mass killer, man recalls shot ‘like a sonic boom’ as RCMP fired at him
> 
> HALIFAX — David Westlake is an unbelievably lucky man who still wonders what saved him when two Mounties mistook him for a killer and opened fire.
> 
> On the morning of April 19, 2020, the emergency management coordinator was at the firehall in Onslow, N.S., as the fire chief was welcoming people evacuated from nearby Portapique, N.S., where a gunman had killed 13 people the night before.
> 
> At the time, the killer was still at large and his rampage wasn’t over. He would kill a total of 22 people before being shot by police later that day.
> 
> At 10:17 a.m., as Westlake was chatting with an RCMP officer parked in front of the building, he watched in disbelief as a car screeched to a halt about 80 metres away and two men emerged with rifles. As both took aim at him, he made a dash for the firehall.
> 
> "I remember a shot that sounded like a sonic boom and then another one that was really loud, and I'm moving at this time," Westlake told a public inquiry investigating the worst mass shooting in modern Canadian history.
> 
> The two shooters were RCMP officers who mistakenly assumed Westlake was the killer, mainly because he was wearing a yellow-and-orange reflective vest that matched the police description of what the suspect was wearing.
> 
> Westlake's dramatic account of what happened that day was given to an inquiry investigator on June 15, 2021. The release Monday of a document that includes excerpts from that interview marks the first time the public has heard Westlake's version of events.
> 
> "Do not ask me what deity had their hand on my shoulder that day and made sure it wasn't my time," Westlake said in the interview.
> 
> The inquiry document also highlights the confusion that RCMP officers faced as they pursued the killer for more than 100 kilometres. Two Mounties fatally shot him at a gas station north of Halifax at 11:26 a.m.
> 
> As for Westlake, he said he still couldn't believe he escaped with his life, though the close call had not hurt his sense of humour.
> 
> "I was just a fat guy in the wrong place at the wrong time wearing a vest," he told the inquiry investigator. "I've never had malice to the two individuals that pulled the trigger. I want to meet them. I want to ask them how they missed, because I can't hide behind telephone poles."
> 
> Still, the document raises awkward questions for the RCMP, which has said little about the almost-lethal blunder.
> 
> Just before Const. Terry Brown and Const. Dave Melanson showed up in Onslow, Westlake was standing in the front lot talking to RCMP Const. Dave Gagnon, who was behind the wheel of a marked cruiser, a vehicle almost identical to the getaway car being used by the killer.
> 
> Both Brown and Melanson told inquiry investigators they did not see Gagnon in the car.
> 
> Before the two officers jumped out of their unmarked Nissan Altima, Melanson tried several times to use a police radio to report what they were seeing. But instead of getting a clear signal to broadcast, Melanson said the radio "bonged," which meant that the frequency had been jammed by too many users.
> 
> The Serious Incident Response Team, Nova Scotia's police watchdog agency, released a report in March 2021 that cleared both officers of any wrongdoing. It concluded the officers had reasonable grounds to believe they had the killer in their sights, and that they discharged their weapons "to prevent further deaths or serious injuries." The independent agency also drew attention to the jammed radios.
> 
> Melanson said he, like Brown, believed the man in the reflective vest was the killer. "I’ve got my carbine on the guy and I'm yelling to him, 'Show me your hands!'" Brown told the inquiry's investigators last month.
> 
> "And he's looking at me and then he ducks behind the car, and I was sure he was getting a gun …. And I thought he was going to kill us. I thought he was going to kill others .... And he started running."
> 
> Westlake, however, told investigators he did not hear anyone say, "Show me your hands." He said the only thing he heard, aside from gunshots, was someone saying, “Get down!”
> 
> As well, eight people living near the firehall told investigators about what they saw that day, and none of them reported hearing anyone say, "Show your hands!"
> 
> In all, investigators found Brown fired four rounds at Westlake, and Melanson fired once. Two rounds pierced one of the station's garage doors and damaged a fire truck inside. A third round hit a roadside sign and another hit the side of the firehall. The fifth round hit a stone monument near the door that Westlake used to escape.
> 
> As for Gagnon — the constable in the cruiser — the document says he tried to use his radio to alert the other two officers about his identity, saying, “You guys are pointing your guns at me.” But the transcript from the broadcasts that day suggest the transmission did not get through.
> 
> All that was recorded was Gagnon saying: “You got that — Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey!” and “Who are you shooting at? It’s Gagnon!”
> 
> When the shooting stopped, Gagnon emerged from his vehicle with his hands up. After a brief exchange with the two other officers, he and Melanson went inside the station, where Westlake told them no one had been injured.
> 
> Neither Brown nor Melanson checked on the others inside the firehall, who included fire Chief Greg Muise, Deputy Chief Darrell Currie and evacuee Richard Ellison, whose son Corrie had been murdered in Portapique.
> 
> Westlake would later recall that he had spotted an RCMP cruiser with a black push-bar on the front driving past the firehall at 10:07 a.m. That vehicle matched the description of the killer’s vehicle, but the RCMP did not release that information to the public until they sent a tweet at 10:17 a.m. — roughly the same time the unmarked car arrived at the firehall.
> 
> There’s no indication that Gagnon saw the suspect's car.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I don’t have all the info of course but I am scratching my head a little on the SiRT finding of “there was no wrong doing”.


----------



## Booter

Eye In The Sky said:


> I don’t have all the info of course but I am scratching my head a little on the SiRT finding of “there was no wrong doing”.


Criminal responsibility/criminality  vs dumb or poor/mistaken belief


----------



## Halifax Tar

Incompetence does not equal criminal behavior.  Would that be what you mean @Booter


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Jarnhamar said:


> Nothing like shooting into a building and not checking if they hit anyone. At least no one was left to die this time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like someone needs some remedial training.


I mean the last course that I did with a lot of shooting, You needed to account for every round with a 3 strikes you're out policy with no room for discretion on that.

Badger Checks are also standard for anything you engage.  Sounds like the RCMP might need to have a look at their Carbine training for patrol officers 🤔


----------



## Booter

I suppose it is. Unless it’s such a marked departure that it moves into the realm of negligence- provincial oversight bodies aren’t interested and will suggest it falls outside their mandate when it fails to be “criminal” behaviour…and just incompetence for example

I actually dealt with that last week. It was an incredibly bad look for the agency, and behaviour that was totally unacceptable- but the oversight agency said it was no criminal wrong doing.


----------



## Booter

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I mean the last course that I did with a lot of shooting, You needed to account for every round with a 3 strikes you're out policy with no room for discretion on that.
> 
> Badger Checks are also standard for anything you engage.  Sounds like the RCMP might need to have a look at their Carbine training for patrol officers 🤔


This is a totally normal expectation of their training (the standards you’re describing). Real life response deviates hard from the syllabus though.

The rcmp patrol carbine course far exceeds the standards of every municipal carbine course I’m familiar with in Canada. Which is a few- but not exhaustive.

Why this particular shoot was a circus- I have no idea 🤷‍♀️

I’m going to, in a not excusing way, suggest that two guys in the dark spontaneously hunting a guy killing people dressed like a cop- who started their shift thinking they would catch up on paperwork and get a booster juice- may have some lag between their decision making and their training banks. 

Human being stuff when they’re crushed under the situation. 

That said- this still wouldn’t be acceptable, it’s a potential explanation not an excuse


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Booter said:


> This is a totally normal expectation of their training (the standards you’re describing). Real life response deviates hard from the syllabus though.
> 
> The rcmp patrol carbine course far exceeds the standards of every municipal carbine course I’m familiar with in Canada. Which is a few- but not exhaustive.
> 
> Why this particular shoot was a circus- I have no idea 🤷‍♀️


So I guess my next issue would be were they recert'ed or did they do the course years ago and never practice again after that?

Unrelated to this is my pet peeve with our BS gun laws that don't allow for people like you or I to regularly practice with our tools on our own time.


----------



## Booter

Humphrey Bogart said:


> So I guess my next issue would be were they recert'ed or did they do the course years ago and never practice again after that?
> 
> Unrelated to this is my pet peeve with our BS gun laws that don't allow for people like you or I to regularly practice with our tools on our own time.


Atlantic region is a bit of a different mindset. I noted that in the response there were more than a few members who weren’t carbine trained.

There is alot of “give and take”
When it comes to their one day carbine recerts- “just a few weeks”. “Maybe next month” “risk it out”

Without speaking as an authority, and just anecdotally with my experience with the region- I would suspect a lot of the new members were trained from depot and some people supervising weren’t current or trained.

I’ll be curious to see if they touch on that in the inquiry


----------



## Haggis

Booter said:


> I’m going to, in a not excusing way, suggest that *two guys in the dark* spontaneously hunting a guy killing people dressed like a cop- who started their shift thinking they would catch up on paperwork and get a booster juice- may have some lag between their decision making and their training banks.


According to the article the firehall shooting occurred at 10:17 AM.  Hardly dark, even in that corner of Nova Scotia.


----------



## Booter

Okay. it was light out. They probably didn’t get booster juice either.

The point is two regular guys at 10/10 floating above their bodies with their one day of shooting a year are not warriors or weapons. They are regular people responding to extraordinary circumstance.

I ve never shot at the wrong person. But it has happened.

But accuracy is important- and I was under the impression the fire hall shooting was in the dark. So that’s new to me


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Booter said:


> Criminal responsibility/criminality  vs dumb or poor/mistaken belief



Copy.   This seems like a pretty high limbo bar to negotiate.  

Thankfully, their (1) failure to gain PID and (2) questionable marksmanship didn’t result in an innocent person being wounded or killed.


----------



## Booter

Eye In The Sky said:


> Copy.   This seems like a pretty high limbo bar to negotiate.
> 
> Thankfully, their (1) failure to gain PID and (2) questionable marksmanship didn’t result in an innocent person being wounded or killed.



It is for sure- and it can get quite abused. Like the association will hang their hat on those comments like it means more than it is.

Politics.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Booter said:


> Atlantic region is a bit of a different mindset. I noted that in the response there were more than a few members who weren’t carbine trained.
> 
> There is alot of “give and take”
> When it comes to their one day carbine recerts- “just a few weeks”. “Maybe next month” “risk it out”
> 
> Without speaking as an authority, and just anecdotally with my experience with the region- I would suspect a lot of the new members were trained from depot and some people supervising weren’t current or trained.
> 
> I’ll be curious to see if they touch on that in the inquiry


 Crazy considering what the heck went down in Moncton.

I don't blame the members entirely, blame the institution for putting them in that situation without the proper training and assessment.


----------



## Booter

In fairness, since moving into financial/political positions- I have found that there is a lot of good people strung up by the bad budgetting of a decade ago.

We can all agree that something is necessary- but getting the money out of the governments, and getting the bodies available to allow for the training, can be contentious. Especially given that for literal decades Mounties did more with less- when we try to professionalize we meet a wall of questions about why it is necessary now- and not 20, 30, 40 years ago, 

The east coast is especially susceptible to this because of the incredibly thin margins and lack of real ability to increase spending. There just isn’t money.

I would share some things about switching radio systems and public safety but it would embarrass people. We can’t do fundamentals in some places.

The raise actually did a number on our ability to meet some operational challenges because it further ate into existing budgets. Better for individuals. Not good for increasing staffing and equipment


----------



## Jarnhamar

Booter said:


> The point is two regular guys at 10/10 floating above their bodies with their one day of shooting a year are not warriors or weapons. They are regular people responding to extraordinary circumstance.


Respectfully disagree here friend.
Police may not be warriors as you say (though I've spoken with enough that will argue they very much are) but they're still armed with pistols, shotguns, rifles (which the government says are just for murdering people), body armor, given training on dealing with other armed people, and finally are paid and expected to do so.

A cook in the military is given training on personal weapons, maybe basic tactics, and (should) qualify each year on an easy shoot. We say all CAF members are soldiers first (i.e they need to be able to fight) but it's accepted a cook isn't going to be using their gun outside of WW3.

Police officers driving around can be called upon to use their firearm at any time. These guys aren't regular people they're police who are paid to respond to disturbances including someone with a gun. I believe RCMP officers aren't considered civilians in the same respect members of the military aren't civilians. If these were cops regulated to desk duty and pressed into service I'd be more inclined to give them a pass but even then they're still trained more than the army cook to use guns.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Crazy considering what the heck went down in Moncton.
> 
> I don't blame the members entirely, blame the institution for putting them in that situation without the proper training and assessment.



LEOs with only sidearms would be “outgunned” in a lot of northern (rural?) NS on any day;  a crossbow w/sight has better range than a hand-banger.

Honestly, I am bewildered there is an option to NOT have a rifle and/or good 12ga on patrol.  Not just for crazy people, for injured/aggressive bears etc as well.  Lots of stuff happens at night /low light. I’d be thinking “shit I wish I had a 12ga and some 00 right about now”.

Different strokes I guess. If it was me, I’d have a rifle and/or shotgun if I was able to.  Different tools for different jobs.


----------



## Booter

Jarnhammer: (sorry I didn’t put your quote in) I expect them to respond. I expect them to go into danger and do their best. I am just aware of what the average person who trains once a year in an area with low call volume is capable of.

Maybe your expectation is too high in my eye, and my expectation is too low. I’m sure there are reasons for it,

I also taught in the military. I would not expect the average service person to fair better on a day a year with a spontaneous event. But I am jaded.

Many moons ago, I practiced a very particular action on contact when fighting indoors. I must have done this particular action 10s of thousands of times.

Then, I was sent elsewhere. Having completed this motion more than anyone else I could think of.

About 9 months later I was placed back in for fun on somethings, and a foundational thing I had done more than anyone else- didn’t happen when the circumstances required it. I misfired on my training.

It was funny and we all had a good laugh. Two or three reps in and I was slick again. But I can say that it changed my expectations of people I “re-certified”. Recert, current, doesn’t mean proficient.

Maybe I’m just bad at things.

I do appreciate the food for thought though.


----------



## Booter

Eye In The Sky said:


> Honestly, I am bewildered there is an option to NOT have a rifle and/or good 12ga on patrol.  Not just for crazy people, for injured/aggressive bears etc as well.  Lots of stuff happens at night /low light. I’d be thinking “shit I wish I had a 12ga and some 00 right about now”.
> 
> Different strokes I guess. If it was me, I’d have a rifle and/or shotgun if I was able to.  Different tools for different jobs.


You may really like this then- there is an ongoing conversation about getting rid of
870s because of the cost to retrofit them with the new items they need (lights etc)

The last OIS shooting I had as an supervisor was a member with an 870 vs guy with pistol. It was effective.

But there is a
Belief it should be phased out


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Eye In The Sky said:


> LEOs with only sidearms would be “outgunned” in a lot of northern (rural?) NS on any day;  a crossbow w/sight has better range than a hand-banger.
> 
> Honestly, I am bewildered there is an option to NOT have a rifle and/or good 12ga on patrol.  Not just for crazy people, for injured/aggressive bears etc as well.  Lots of stuff happens at night /low light. I’d be thinking “shit I wish I had a 12ga and some 00 right about now”.
> 
> Different strokes I guess. If it was me, I’d have a rifle and/or shotgun if I was able to.  Different tools for different jobs.


I grew up in Northern NB, they would be outgunned in pretty much any Rural Area where they showed up with only a handgun.



Jarnhamar said:


> Respectfully disagree here friend.
> Police may not be warriors as you say (though I've spoken with enough that will argue they very much are) but they're still armed with pistols, shotguns, rifles (which the government says are just for murdering people), body armor, given training on dealing with other armed people, and finally are paid and expected to do so.
> 
> A cook in the military is given training on personal weapons, maybe basic tactics, and (should) qualify each year on an easy shoot. We say all CAF members are soldiers first (i.e they need to be able to fight) but it's accepted a cook isn't going to be using their gun outside of WW3.
> 
> Police officers driving around can be called upon to use their firearm at any time. These guys aren't regular people they're police who are paid to respond to disturbances including someone with a gun. I believe RCMP officers aren't considered civilians in the same respect members of the military aren't civilians. If these were cops regulated to desk duty and pressed into service I'd be more inclined to give them a pass but even then they're still trained more than the army cook to use guns.



I would expect, at a minimum, these two would do a hatless dance in front of a conduct board and be disciplined for this.



Booter said:


> Jarnhammer: (sorry I didn’t put your quote in) I expect them to respond. I expect them to go into danger and do their best. I am just aware of what the average person who trains once a year in an area with low call volume is capable of.
> 
> Maybe your expectation is too high in my eye, and my expectation is too low. I’m sure there are reasons for it,
> 
> I also taught in the military. I would not expect the average service person to fair better on a day a year with a spontaneous event. But I am jaded.
> 
> Many moons ago, I practiced a very particular action on contact when fighting indoors. I must have done this particular action 10s of thousands of times.
> 
> Then, I was sent elsewhere. Having completed this motion more than anyone else I could think of.
> 
> About 9 months later I was placed back in for fun on somethings, and a foundational thing I had done more than anyone else- didn’t happen when the circumstances required it. I misfired on my training.
> 
> It was funny and we all had a good laugh. Two or three reps in and I was slick again. But I can say that it changed my expectations of people I “re-certified”. Recert, current, doesn’t mean proficient.
> 
> Maybe I’m just bad at things.
> 
> I do appreciate the food for thought though.



I think there is a general misconception of what LEOs are capable of.  That being said, were this the CAF, I can tell you with 100% certainty these two Officers would be charged for a Negligent Discharge and would be doing a hatless dance.

Had they injured/killed someone, they would be Court Martialled and would be facing jail time potentially.

Happened to a number of people overseas.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Booter said:


> You may really like this then- there is an ongoing conversation about getting rid of
> 870s because of the cost to retrofit them with the new items they need (lights etc)
> 
> The last OIS shooting I had as an supervisor was a member with an 870 vs guy with pistol. It was effective.
> 
> But there is a
> Belief it should be phased out



“Getting rid of” vs “replaced”?


----------



## Booter

I agree 100% HB.


----------



## Booter

Eye In The Sky said:


> “Getting rid of” vs “replaced”?


Mountie kit in 2002:
Pistol
Shotgun
.308

Mountie kit in this proposal:
Pistol
Carbine

There was a double take in Ottawa when they saw the cost to bring the shotguns up to speed apparently.


----------



## Haggis

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I don't blame the members entirely, blame the institution for putting them in that situation without the proper training and assessment.


It's the same in almost every agency I've been in contact with.

During firearms training I tell our recruits "these skills are the ones you will use the least in your career but have the highest likelihood of saving your life or the lives of others. They are life skills and they are perishable and it's shared responsibility to maintain them."


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Booter said:


> Mountie kit in 2002:
> Pistol
> Shotgun
> .308
> 
> Mountie kit in this proposal:
> Pistol
> Carbine
> 
> There was a double take in Ottawa when they saw the cost to bring the shotguns up to speed apparently.


I am reminded of the incident in Bathurst a few years ago:



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/bathurst-police-arbitration-hearing-decision-vienneau-death-1.5392483
		


I actually grew up with one of the Officer's in question.  

Looking at the facts, those two were very lucky they were City Cops in NB and not subject to something like the CSD of the CAF otherwise I suspect they would have received a different judgement for their actions and would no longer be carrying a badge.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Haggis said:


> It's the same in almost every agency I've been in contact with.
> 
> During firearms training I tell our recruits "these skills are the ones you will use the least in your career but have the highest likelihood of saving your life or the lives of others. They are life skills and they are perishable and it's shared responsibility to maintain them."


Hence why I think we need a different set of rules re: weapons for LEOs and Military Members WRT what they can own and train with civvy side.

Can't maintain the skills if you can't even own a civilian variant of the National Service Rifle.


----------



## Haggis

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Had they injured/killed someone, they would be Court Martialled and would be facing jail time potentially.
> 
> Happened to a number of people overseas.


Happens in Canada, too.


----------



## Haggis

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Hence why I think we need a different set of rules re: weapons for LEOs and Military Members WRT what they can own and train with civvy side.
> 
> Can't maintain the skills if you can't even own a civilian variant of the National Service Rifle.


In response to an injunction filed against the Liberal "assault style weapons" ban, the Federal Court has ruled that LEOs receive sufficient training provided by their agencies.

"Loss of Skill-Building Opportunities

[52] The Applicants argue that law enforcement officers or members of the Canadian Armed Forces will suffer a decline in their shooting skills without access to the firearms prohibited by the Regulations. They filed the affidavit evidence of Mr. Matthew Overton, President of Dominion of Canada Rifle Association [DCRA] and that of Mr. Ryan Steacy, Technical Director at International Barrels Inc., and a retired Corporal of the Canadian Armed Forces. They testified to the fact that civilian sport shooters develop techniques that they then teach to military personnel during competitions between members of military, police, and civilians, which are organized by DCRA.

However and as noted by Mr. Murray Smith (_COMMENT:_ _former head of the RCMP Specialized Firearms Support Services Section)_, also a former member of the military, the only individuals truly affected by the Regulations are the civilians competing with civilian versions of military or law enforcement service weapons. Law enforcement officers and members of the Canadian Armed Forces have prescribed training programs and they have access to ranges where they can train with their service weapons. The Court agrees with the Respondent that participation in civilian shooting competitions is not required for Canadian Armed Forces, or other law enforcement members.

[54] There is no compelling evidence that the shooting skills of Canadian Armed Forces members or law enforcement officers will decline as a result of the Regulations."

Despite that the firearms training given to the military is intended to impart a Minimum Level of Capability (MLOC), it is a standard attainable by the vast majority of CAF members. Much like railing against the "low" standards of the FORCE test, folks fail to understand and accept that both are an _absolute minimum_ required in order to do your day-to-day job. With no opportunities to train with an AR platform while "off the clock", it will be interesting to see if there is any quantifiable decrease in shooting skills across the LE and CAF communities in the coming years.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Haggis said:


> In response to an injunction filed against the Liberal "assault style weapons" ban, the Federal Court has ruled that LEOs receive sufficient training provided by their agencies.
> 
> "Loss of Skill-Building Opportunities
> 
> [52] The Applicants argue that law enforcement officers or members of the Canadian Armed Forces will suffer a decline in their shooting skills without access to the firearms prohibited by the Regulations. They filed the affidavit evidence of Mr. Matthew Overton, President of Dominion of Canada Rifle Association [DCRA] and that of Mr. Ryan Steacy, Technical Director at International Barrels Inc., and a retired Corporal of the Canadian Armed Forces. They testified to the fact that civilian sport shooters develop techniques that they then teach to military personnel during competitions between members of military, police, and civilians, which are organized by DCRA.
> 
> However and as noted by Mr. Murray Smith (_COMMENT:_ _former head of the RCMP Specialized Firearms Support Services Section)_, also a former member of the military, the only individuals truly affected by the Regulations are the civilians competing with civilian versions of military or law enforcement service weapons. Law enforcement officers and members of the Canadian Armed Forces have prescribed training programs and they have access to ranges where they can train with their service weapons. The Court agrees with the Respondent that participation in civilian shooting competitions is not required for Canadian Armed Forces, or other law enforcement members.
> 
> [54] There is no compelling evidence that the shooting skills of Canadian Armed Forces members or law enforcement officers will decline as a result of the Regulations."
> 
> Despite that the firearms training given to the military is intended to impart a Minimum Level of Capability (MLOC), it is a standard attainable by the vast majority of CAF members. Much like railing against the "low" standards of the FORCE test, folks fail to understand and accept that both are an _absolute minimum_ required in order to do your day-to-day job. With no opportunities to train with an AR platform while "off the clock", it will be interesting to see if there is any quantifiable decrease in shooting skills across the LE and CAF communities in the coming years.


Oh I know their rationale, which is why I will be glad when I am no longer working for them.... very soon 😎

I'm not going to continue to be culpable in our institutional incompetence.


----------



## RedFive

I wrote a long and wordy response to a couple of the posts in this thread, then decided better of posting it as there are some here who are directly involved in what took place and I don't want to start any drama with my assessments of where and to whom the blame belongs for this tragedy. I'm not an expert, nor was I involved I just happen to be in the same line of work and have opinions. All I'll say is while I do agree a portion of blame belongs to the RCMP, most of it belongs elsewhere in my opinion. If anybody would like to know my rationale or reasoning behind it, by all means shoot me a PM.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

There's only 1 person who is responsible for killing those people.  Full stop.  The RCMP put that POS down.

Mistakes were made, lessons were learned.  Sure.  Blaming the RCMP for someone putting a gun on their victim and pulling the trigger is unfair (nicest word I can use).


----------



## Booter

RedFive said:


> I wrote a long and wordy response to a couple of the posts in this thread, then decided better of posting it as there are some here who are directly involved in what took place and I don't want to start any drama with my assessments of where and to whom the blame belongs for this tragedy. I'm not an expert, nor was I involved I just happen to be in the same line of work and have opinions. All I'll say is while I do agree a portion of blame belongs to the RCMP, most of it belongs elsewhere in my opinion. If anybody would like to know my rationale or reasoning behind it, by all means shoot me a PM.


i think I’ll have to follow the same thought. I appreciate you mentioning that. Good advice.

I don’t think the members directly involved did anything other than what they could- making sense out of havoc.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Eye In The Sky said:


> There's only 1 person who is responsible for killing those people.  Full stop.  The RCMP put that POS down.
> 
> Mistakes were made, lessons were learned.  Sure.  Blaming the RCMP for someone putting a gun on their victim and pulling the trigger is unfair (nicest word I can use).


"Mistakes were made, lessons were learned."

LOTS of mistakes were made. Lessons were identified. It remains to be seen whether they were 'learned' or not.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Fishbone Jones said:


> "Mistakes were made, lessons were learned."
> 
> LOTS of mistakes were made. Lessons were identified. It remains to be seen whether they were 'learned' or not.



Being fair to the responding LEOs, though (which they deserve), this was an unprecedented level of killing over a vast area than ever experienced before in Canada.

And, done by a determined killer who had near-perfect camouflage and mobility.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> there is an ongoing conversation about getting rid of 870s because of the cost to retrofit them with the new items they need (lights etc)



Yeesh.  Even I know that carbines and shotguns are different tools, not the least of differences being how far lethality extends into unknown backgrounds.

Relatively speaking: equipment is cheap, equipment is cheap, equipment is cheap.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Eye In The Sky said:


> Being fair to the responding LEOs, though (which they deserve), this was an unprecedented level of killing over a vast area than ever experienced before in Canada.
> 
> And, done by a determined killer who had near-perfect camouflage and mobility.


I assigned no blame. I just don't have any faith in the current administration to do anything positive once the inquiry is over. Including remediating deficiencies in equipment, policy or application. They will remain status quo.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Fishbone Jones said:


> I assigned no blame. I just don't have any faith in the current administration to do anything positive once the inquiry is over. Including remediating deficiencies in equipment, policy or application. They will remain status quo.


An inquiry will occur, that doesn't mean any of those recommendations will be followed.

We all know this is the way.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Fishbone Jones said:


> I assigned no blame. I just don't have any faith in the current administration to do anything positive once the inquiry is over. Including remediating deficiencies in equipment, policy or application. They will remain status quo.



I can’t say my thoughts are any different.  Fixing deficiencies = funding.   The earlier post re: the 870 is an indication of how “need funding” is reacted to by bean counters removed from operational reality and needs.


----------



## RedFive

Humphrey Bogart said:


> We all know this is the way.


This is the way.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

RedFive said:


> This is the way.


Sad but True, tis a great song LOL


----------



## RedFive

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Sad but True, tis a great song LOL


----------



## RedFive

In more somber tone:

Slain RCMP officer went down in gunfight, inquiry hears


----------



## Eye In The Sky

RedFive said:


> In more somber tone:
> 
> Slain RCMP officer went down in gunfight, inquiry hears



 RIP


----------



## Jarnhamar

The only one responsible for the deaths is the shooter. Hindsight revealed that some mistakes were made along the way that could have changed some outcomes (for better or worse). Some of the mistakes appear pretty significant and should be looked into (with the caveat that this was an unprecedented and police are human).

The problem as far as I can see is transparency and accountability. The RCMP are not a transparent organization and they resist attempts to turn into one. That's not just my uneducated opinion, that's from the previous head of the civilian watchdog organization that investigates the police. The RCMP (as an organization) go out of their way to not be transparent.

*An inquiry into this shooting was pushed back against from the start.* "We don't need one". They weren't going to have an inquiry until political pressure (I suspect people wanted to get voted in again) caved.

Then we're told that not all police involved will be required to testify or speak again. We're to trust their notes are captured elsewhere and it's all good. They didn't want police reliving traumatic events. Sure, definitely sad for the officers, but (allegedly) being left to die, possibly face covered by a sheet, is probably pretty damn traumatic too. And that event wasn't even captured in this inquiry. I'll say it again, what else did the RCMP choose to leave out of the inquiry?

I genuinely feel bad for the many good cops out there taking heat because of their organization, just like we have the CAF.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Jarnhamar said:


> The only one responsible for the deaths is the shooter. Hindsight revealed that some mistakes were made along the way that could have changed some outcomes (for better or worse). Some of the mistakes appear pretty significant and should be looked into (with the caveat that this was an unprecedented and police are human).
> 
> The problem as far as I can see is transparency and accountability. The RCMP are not a transparent organization and they resist attempts to turn into one. That's not just my uneducated opinion, that's from the previous head of the civilian watchdog organization that investigates the police. The RCMP (as an organization) go out of their way to not be transparent.
> 
> *An inquiry into this shooting was pushed back against from the start.* "We don't need one". They weren't going to have an inquiry until political pressure (I suspect people wanted to get voted in again) caved.
> 
> Then we're told that not all police involved will be required to testify or speak again. We're to trust their notes are captured elsewhere and it's all good. They didn't want police reliving traumatic events. Sure, definitely sad for the officers, but (allegedly) being left to die, possibly face covered by a sheet, is probably pretty damn traumatic too. And that event wasn't even captured in this inquiry. I'll say it again, what else did the RCMP choose to leave out of the inquiry?
> 
> I genuinely feel bad for the many good cops out there taking heat because of their organization, just like we have the CAF.


Dude it's the same with the CAF.  The CAF is literally expending tens of thousands of hours of staff work, rearranging the deck chairs, when the very top of the pyramid, The CDS & The Chief of Military Justice, were both found to be corrupt.  Absolutely nothing has been done about changing the conditions that allowed that to occur.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Does this indicate it’s the govt that doesn’t want to be transparent?  Sometimes the kids are bad when the parents let them get away with it too much…


----------



## lenaitch

Booter said:


> I don’t think the members directly involved did anything other than what they could- making sense out of havoc.


Absolutely.  After a night of seemingly random, indiscriminate, repeated wanton violence - still ongoing - committed over a wide area by a still-mobile perpetrator and not yet fully comprehended.  Unprecedented in Canada and, in terms of geographic scope and the apparent successful use of the 'police personna' cover, perhaps unprecedented anywhere.

A perpetrator who reportedly drives a police car and described as wearing a safety vest.  After long, stressful hours, you're paranoid; driving down the road you come across exactly what you fear.

The reaction wasn't right but, to me it was understandable.  Would better SOPS, a more robust radio system (and/or better radio discipline) have made it better/ Perhaps, keeping in mind that policy and SOPs are either mere guidelines or hidebound rules, depending on who you ask.  This is rural Nova Scotia, not Beirut.  Relatively speaking, a handful of cops, a number of whom probably aren't fully familiar with the area, are trying to deal with that and their fears.  

Something like this is one of the big challenges of law enforcement.  You're expected to be part of the community; friendly; a problem solver; friend of kids; a keeper of peace and safety; highly-trained and knowledgeable in a wide range of areas . . . and a steely-eyed warrior at a moments notice.  Quite the gymnastics.  I used to work with a guy who was very proficient with tactics and his sidearm, and he approached every situation like the person involved was a meth-addled murderer.  Very exhausting.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

lenaitch said:


> Absolutely.  After a night of seemingly random, indiscriminate, repeated wanton violence - still ongoing - committed over a wide area by a still-mobile perpetrator and not yet fully comprehended.  Unprecedented in Canada and, in terms of geographic scope and the apparent successful use of the 'police personna' cover, perhaps unprecedented anywhere.
> 
> A perpetrator who reportedly drives a police car and described as wearing a safety vest.  After long, stressful hours, you're paranoid; driving down the road you come across exactly what you fear.
> 
> The reaction wasn't right but, to me it was understandable.  Would better SOPS, a more robust radio system (and/or better radio discipline) have made it better/ Perhaps, keeping in mind that policy and SOPs are either mere guidelines or hidebound rules, depending on who you ask.  This is rural Nova Scotia, not Beirut.  Relatively speaking, a handful of cops, a number of whom probably aren't fully familiar with the area, are trying to deal with that and their fears.
> 
> Something like this is one of the big challenges of law enforcement.  You're expected to be part of the community; friendly; a problem solver; friend of kids; a keeper of peace and safety; highly-trained and knowledgeable in a wide range of areas . . . and a steely-eyed warrior at a moments notice.  Quite the gymnastics.  I used to work with a guy who was very proficient with tactics and his sidearm, and he approached every situation like the person involved was a meth-addled murderer.  Very exhausting.


I think about this a lot.  I would probably have great difficulty with this and for anyone who knows me, I'm not exactly a kind and gentle person or really in to the touchy/feely stuff LOL. 

It's just another reminder that BLUE and GREEN ain't the same game.


----------



## lenaitch

Jarnhamar said:


> Then we're told that not all police involved will be required to testify or speak again. We're to trust their notes are captured elsewhere and it's all good. They didn't want police reliving traumatic events. Sure, definitely sad for the officers, *but (allegedly) being left to die, possibly face covered by a sheet, is probably pretty damn traumatic too.* And that event wasn't even captured in this inquiry. I'll say it again, what else did the RCMP choose to leave out of the inquiry?


Just to touch back on the 'Fitbit' discussion, I was talking to a former colleague who's spouse dropped dead in their house.  She started CPR until relieved by fire/rescue and paramedics who also deployed a defibrillator.  His Fitbit recorded recorded something as a pulse - yet somehow missed these external and electrical interventions - right up until it was removed from his wrist at the morgue.


----------



## mariomike

Jarnhamar said:


> The RCMP are not a transparent organization and they resist attempts to turn into one.



Not all emergency services are.

"Never, ever, admit the department has done anything wrong." 

Not to suggest  there is any liability in this incident.


----------



## Jarnhamar

lenaitch said:


> Just to touch back on the 'Fitbit' discussion, I was talking to a former colleague who's spouse dropped dead in their house.  She started CPR until relieved by fire/rescue and paramedics who also deployed a defibrillator.  His Fitbit recorded recorded something as a pulse - yet somehow missed these external and electrical interventions - right up until it was removed from his wrist at the morgue.


Good example of the FitBit not being reliable to monitor a pulse. I believe it.

The Const. Ian Fahie on the scene also suggested that



> O’Brien had a pulse but was left to die because she was mortally wounded and had no chance of surviving.



Perhaps she wasn't left to die for 8 hours as the family argues but the RCMP officer told the commission she had a pulse and was left to die.


----------



## Jarnhamar

mariomike said:


> Not all emergency services are.
> 
> "Never, ever, admit the department has done anything wrong."
> 
> Not to suggest  there is any liability in this incident.


You're saying paramedics bury their mistakes. I see.


----------



## Booter

Jarnhamar said:


> You're saying paramedics bury their mistakes. I see.


It is common. Right in manuals for things like collisions it says directly- admit no fault. 

I have always done so where it’s been my fault. Because I don’t GAF. I do what’s right- but it is in the manuals.


----------



## mariomike

> I don’t GAF.



I didn't know many who did. Wasn't coming out of their pocket.

A little remedial training, and back in service.



mariomike said:


> Not to suggest  there is any liability in this incident.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jarnhamar said:


> Perhaps she wasn't left to die for 8 hours as the family argues but the RCMP officer told the commission she had a pulse and was left to die.



Question for the LEO/EMS folks:

Is that a possible COA; to determine a casualty is so badly wounded they cannot be saved? Who can make that call on site legally?

I’ve heard of it happening before in NS; CAF mbr severely wounded in a motorcycle crash - EMS arrived and didn’t try to transport member as death was imminent.  Casualty expired on the crash site very very shortly after.


----------



## mariomike

Eye In The Sky said:


> Question for the LEO/EMS folks:
> 
> Is that a possible COA; to determine a casualty is so badly wounded they cannot be saved? Who can make that call on site legally?
> 
> I’ve heard of it happening before in NS; CAF mbr severely wounded in a motorcycle crash - EMS arrived and didn’t try to transport member as death was imminent. Casualty expired on the crash site very very shortly after.




Don't know about Nova Scotia. But, unless they were transected, decapitated or decomposed, my partner and I took them all.

"Just going for check-up."

Drew a chalk outline if it was a public place. Even if Obviously Dead, leaving a body in a public place used to be a big no no. Now they do.

The question was, "What are we going to say at the coroner's inquest if we are wrong?". We didn't go to medical school.

Response times were never great. "When seconds count, we're 15 minutes away.", as the old saying went.

I heard that a third of our GSW and stabbing victims arrived at the hospital in private cars, rather than wait. No first-aid.

Don't know how true that is, but I can believe it.

Hope that helps.


----------



## brihard

Eye In The Sky said:


> Question for the LEO/EMS folks:
> 
> Is that a possible COA; to determine a casualty is so badly wounded they cannot be saved? Who can make that call on site legally?
> 
> I’ve heard of it happening before in NS; CAF mbr severely wounded in a motorcycle crash - EMS arrived and didn’t try to transport member as death was imminent.  Casualty expired on the crash site very very shortly after.


I cannot conceive of a situation where we don’t call for paramedics or whatever is available. Doesn’t mean help necessarily arrives.

Tactical situation may preclude paramedics from entering the scene. Remoteness may mean there simply aren’t any.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

So legally there is no “must treat and transport/only Dr can pronounce deceased”?


----------



## Booter

Eye In The Sky said:


> Question for the LEO/EMS folks:
> 
> Is that a possible COA; to determine a casualty is so badly wounded they cannot be saved? Who can make that call on site legally?
> 
> I’ve heard of it happening before in NS; CAF mbr severely wounded in a motorcycle crash - EMS arrived and didn’t try to transport member as death was imminent.  Casualty expired on the crash site very very shortly after.


There wouldn’t be something in place like that per say. The actual medical finding isn’t made by them. But their training would tell them that while that place and shooter aren’t secure that they can’t really do anything beyond assisting that casualty in self aid while securing the area-
If they are beyond self aid and ems wont retrieve them they aren’t really in a position to assist.

A few years ago they used to refer to this as “triage black” and you can’t be helping them with cpr and ventilation.

That’s beyond the ones that are “obviously deceased”.

It changes province to province- but in some places an EMS crew under the direction of a physician can do it. Or places I ve been where I was the only person on the tundra with a doc on sat phone.

The big thing there is they assessed and had nothing to offer, the scene was active and they couldn’t just spend the time on aid- so they made a call. A call that would have been discussed in their active shooter training- the need to step over and beyond casualties that need medical in order to accomplish the first priority.

What rural EMS protocol in the county looks like who knows. They may not even be a service with REAL trauma certifications. I run into those quite often in rural.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Tks.   Helps me understand the situation the officers and EMS faced.  Those calls must be hard to make on the spot and harder afterwards “at 3am on replays”.


----------



## mariomike

Eye In The Sky said:


> So legally there is no “must treat and transport/only Dr can pronounce deceased”?



In our jurisdiction, ALS paramedics are permitted to contact the base hospital emergency physician for instructions regarding patient management or pronouncement of death. Ontario legislation permits ALS and BLS crews to pronounce death only in the presence of* rigor mortis, lividity, decomposition, or decapitation*.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Tks for the info!


----------



## Booter

mariomike said:


> In our jurisdiction, ALS paramedics are permitted to contact the base hospital emergency physician for instructions regarding patient management or pronouncement of death. Ontario legislation permits ALS and BLS crews to pronounce death only in the presence of* rigor mortis, lividity, decomposition, or decapitation*.


Pure complete speculation- but it may well be that EMS staging spoke with RCMP on scene and they made some determinations on care together remotely. Which wouldn’t be crazy.


----------



## Booter

Booter said:


> Pure complete speculation- but it may well be that EMS staging spoke with RCMP on scene and they made some determinations on care together remotely. Which wouldn’t be crazy.


I REALLY feel for those members. That’s the last conversation I would want on my mind. Questions need answering but my goodness that would torture a person.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I always understood that you did CPR, if possible, until rescue showed. It not about saving the life, it's about keeping the blood circulating so they can harvest the organs. Which to me, just makes so much sense.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Booter said:


> I REALLY feel for those members. That’s the last conversation I would want on my mind. Questions need answering but my goodness that would torture a person.



They might be made disconnected of emotion at the raw time, but they must be a absolutely haunting later on.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Fishbone Jones said:


> I always understood that you did CPR, if possible, until rescue showed. It not about saving the life, it's about keeping the blood circulating so they can harvest the organs. Which to me, just makes so much sense.


We had a sudden death, weight bench claw through an inmates head, and even though the family wanted to donate his organs they could not because of required inquests/ autopsies.


----------



## Booter

Fishbone Jones said:


> I always understood that you did CPR, if possible, until rescue showed. It not about saving the life, it's about keeping the blood circulating so they can harvest the organs. Which to me, just makes so much sense.


That’s normal first aid protocol- call for help. Do cpr. Get help- cpr continues. Others take over until whatever local protocol for declaring people exists.

But In these events- there is no real medical care until things are secure. What “secure” means and how “active” an event is- is REALLY where the conversation should be.

And that would have to be answered by the NCOs and incident commanders, not the guy with the rifle.

Which is so far not anything I’m hearing about.

Consider:

My officers are called to a murder. There’s the deceased and another person dying, they sweep the house and secure it before rendering aid to the seriously hurt person while ems attends,

My bad guys had squirt out a window and steal a car, the car is causing damage and mayhem,

I have so many officers- some are involved in the pursuit, some are managing the event, some are rendering aid.

at a certain point, in isolated places I have to start breaking them into teams.

In my sheets managing the incident, the moment I am changing phases of the operation I am recording times and how I made the decision- in this scenario my event is “hot” while I’m pursuing my suspects- but the initial scene is secure, I couldn’t justify not Rendering aid because somewhere the guy is still on the loose, so I can have a hot event and scenes that are no longer REALLY in danger.

So the real meat of the decision making is not on the front line- it’s on those people managing events across those multiple kms. What were they setting as priorities- what was communicated to the officers. What contingencies were being built during this time?

Not cst smith standing on the ashes- what was being communicated higher than them. In a real sense the guys in these stories- while their recollections are interesting, they aren’t really valuable- in the sense of making changes and identifying shortcomings.

And it may well be those coordinating things did a good job. Who knows- I don’t. Because the inquiry, so far, has a really “low” perspective in my opinion.

Maybe it’s going to move up.

When I lecture on some of these concepts I always speak about “hasty response”.

When an initial disaster happens there is the initial hasty response, it’s that finger in the dam response that buys you some clarity while you plan an organized action.

The hasty response phase lasts longer the larger and more complicated the event, the less familiar people are with the subject matter, and the speed that the decision makers orient themselves to the event.

Somethings this large and without precedent would have had this really long hasty phase where processes that didn’t exist had to be created to cope with the event.

The end of that hasty phase is what I’m watching for. But in my incredibly shallow
Understanding of the event- I can’t identify where new conflicting events stopped emerging and the commanders could have had some
Clarity emerge to move into the phase where all the processes of your response are communicating and engaging in an organized fashion.

Im sure it’s there. Just hasn’t jumped out at me yet.

I think that is why I am empathetic to the officers trying to explain themselves. Because their individual actions are not where i suspect the failings are,


----------



## lenaitch

mariomike said:


> In our jurisdiction, ALS paramedics are permitted to contact the base hospital emergency physician for instructions regarding patient management or pronouncement of death. Ontario legislation permits ALS and BLS crews to pronounce death only in the presence of* rigor mortis, lividity, decomposition, or decapitation*.


No doubt things are more structured now, and everybody is more liability conscious, but 'back in the day', 50 miles down the highway from a small town hospital, we used common sense and experience to tell us that a guy embedded in the grill of a Kenworth, or a bush worker who fell on his chainsaw probably warranted the coroner attending.


----------



## mariomike

lenaitch said:


> No doubt things are more structured now, and everybody is more liability conscious, but 'back in the day', 50 miles down the highway from a small town hospital, we used common sense and experience to tell us that a guy embedded in the grill of a Kenworth, or a bush worker who fell on his chainsaw probably warranted the coroner attending.



This was our SOP,

Obviously Dead means death has occurred if gross signs of death are obvious, including by reason of:

1. decapitation, transection, visible decomposition, putrefaction; or

2. absence of vital signs and:
a. a grossly charred body;
b. an open head or torso wound with gross outpouring of cranial or visceral contents;
c. gross rigor mortis (i.e. limbs and/or body stiff, posturing of limbs or body); or
d. dependent lividity (i.e. fixed, non-blanching purple or black discolouration of skin in dependent area of body).

Also, Public Place has to be taken into consideration.  I can't rememember the exact wording, but something public decency.

Above all else, keep the subways running.

With a Mass Casualty Incident ( MCI ) - as in this thread - you get into Field Trama Triage ( FTT ).


----------



## Haggis

Jarnhamar said:


> The RCMP are not a transparent organization and they resist attempts to turn into one. That's not just my uneducated opinion, that's from the previous head of the civilian watchdog organization that investigates the police. The RCMP (as an organization) go out of their way to not be transparent.


This is the same with most large organizations.  How many times in the CAF have you heard "don't embarrass the family"?


Jarnhamar said:


> *An inquiry into this shooting was pushed back against from the start.* "We don't need one". They weren't going to have an inquiry until political pressure (I suspect people wanted to get voted in again) caved.


An inquiry wouldn't contribute to the political narrative of the day.  The "assault style weapons" OIC, which had been in development for many months beforehand, dropped only a few days later and I'll bet the PM and Blair were more than a bit disappointed to learn that the shooter wasn't licensed and had obtained his weapons illegally (smuggling, diversion and murder) so they couldn't use the incident as even a partial rationale for the ban.


Jarnhamar said:


> Then we're told that not all police involved will be required to testify or speak again. We're to trust their notes are captured elsewhere and it's all good.


While I was initially against this as well, in a kinda of knee-jerk way, others have brought out some valid arguments supporting this. If needed later on, there is nothing stopping the MCC from compelling testimony from anyone to clarify the statements taken.


Jarnhamar said:


> I'll say it again, what else did the RCMP choose to leave out of the inquiry?


More seems to be coming out.  As long as the government doesn't impose a "Somalia Inquiry" style end to the MCC,  we may actually get to the bottom of things.


----------



## KevinB

WRT Shotguns, not sure anyone remembers the Connie Jacob’s inquiry. 
https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/2d8...1014-report-to-minister-into-death-jacobs.pdf

That pretty much sealed the end of Shotgun viability for LE in Canada, as Connie Jacob’s 9yr old son Ty was struck by two pellets and killed by an RCMP shotgun discharge aimed at his mother (who was also killed) who had shot at CST Voller.


----------



## Booter

KevinB said:


> WRT Shotguns, not sure anyone remembers the Connie Jacob’s inquiry.
> https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/2d8...1014-report-to-minister-into-death-jacobs.pdf
> 
> That pretty much sealed the end of Shotgun viability for LE in Canada, as Connie Jacob’s 9yr old son Ty was struck by two pellets and killed by an RCMP shotgun discharge aimed at his mother (who was also killed) who had shot at CST Voller.


Don’t quote me
On this- but I believe this event led to us changing our ammunition for the shotgun as well. It rings a bell for some
Reason. But that’s was 24 years ago 🥴


----------



## Booter

> Police Weapons
> Police issued shotguns should be supplied with the newly developed, R.C.M.P. approved, nine pellet "00" buck shot ammunition with 25 percent tighter spread pattern, and the rifle sights fitted on these shotguns should be replaced with bead sights.
> [77] The R.C.M.P. have already approved and are making available the new ammunition, but are having difficulty with obtaining the ammunition from the United States due to problems of approval of export licences by United States authorities. If this difficulty becomes unresolvable, it may be necessary at some point to begin manufacturing the ammunition in Canada. The benefit is, of course, obvious in that a tighter spread pattern would have decreased the likelihood of Ty Jacobs being struck by two of the pellets.





> [78] There was some evidence adduced that the rifle sights on the shotgun had the effect of blocking the lower area of the target. Evidence was adduced that this could remedied by a Mossberg ghost ring sight or the usual bead sight seen on most shotguns. The rifle sights had been placed on R.C.M.P. shotguns because of the necessity to use slugs from time to time in bear country. There is no rifling in shotgun barrels, and I would suggest that the rifle sights give a false sense of accuracy. The sensible move would seem to be to return to bead sights which were originally intended for shotguns.


There it is. Interesting the call to return to bead sights.

 “plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose”


----------



## KevinB

Booter said:


> Don’t quote me
> On this- but I believe this event led to us changing our ammunition for the shotgun as well. It rings a bell for some
> Reason. But that’s was 24 years ago 🥴


Ammunition and type of barrel IIRC. 
 Designed to decrease pattern spread.   

Frankly I’m not a shotgun fan, I know LEO’s who do a lot of Roadblocks like them with Slug - but I think one of the best quotes that came out of DHTC was a certain MWO who said “the Queen owns every bullet in the gun, once you fire it, you own it..”   


I’ve been biting my tongue for a bit on AS response drills, but my opinion based on a few course I have taken and the data they have presented is that even a lone officer should attempt to engage at the earliest possible moment.   Of course I also have a much different background than most patrol officers. Due to the abundance of take home cars down here, everyone is a solo car, unless under initial employment under a TO. 
  Every member here has a rifle assigned both at the Sheriffs and Town level, and a Plate Carrier and IFAK.  State Troopers in VA generally don’t have rifles for hiway patrol (which is pretty odd to me, but are allowed personal rifles if from the approved list).


----------



## Booter

KevinB said:


> I’ve been biting my tongue for a bit on AS response drills, but my opinion based on a few course I have taken and the data they have presented is that even a lone officer should attempt to engage at the earliest possible moment.


which is true- did you see something that disagrees with that? 

I was the builder of a muni course at their request and have collected a lot of user/instructor AS nonsense over the years,

The philosophy for all of them has that as a fundamental, how the officers chooses the engagement or what the lull in action response is what changes. 

For example- No known stimulus to guide you to the shooter. Do you hunker down, dig out a nest…how big an area do you clear for yourself? That’s really where the agencies start diverging, 

But what is built into those courses is an assumption that an event isn’t 20kms long and doesn’t carry on for 12 hours or whatever it was. I don’t recall seeing that approached. 

After the California Dorner shootings I recall that event autopsy going around but we never digested the lessons and used them. Which may have been an opportunity.


----------



## Booter

There are very few operational members who aren’t carbine trained now and should have access to them.

There are pockets of officers but generally it’s the exception now.

There is even a drift towards individually issuing HBA. Which I’ve already done for years at unit level. Same goes IFAK and my officers all get annual basic trauma training and we get trauma scenarios for them as well.

That’s not a national requirement though. Only the initial famil with IFAK is


----------



## Haggis

KevinB said:


> “the Queen owns every bullet in the gun, once you fire it, you own it..”


I'm stealing this for my recruits (with attribution, of course).


----------



## mariomike

Booter said:


> Same goes IFAK and my officers all get annual basic trauma training and we get trauma scenarios for them as well.



Saw an interesting civilian GSW involving police transport years ago.

We were in an ER, and got a call for a GSW. We were just pulling out of the ER driveway, when a police car came roaring in.

In the backseat of the police car was a young, unconscious, guy with a GSW to the chest. Must have hit a major artery. The hard plastic backseat was a "flood of blood".

The two officers were both in the front seat.

We loaded him onto our stretcher at the ER drop-off zone, and wheeled him in.

The doctor said he didn't have another minute to live.

He survived. Thanks to those two officers.

I believe police "scoop and run" was more common back then compared to now.


----------



## Booter

Most of our officers have some form of trauma kit for GSW now. But I recall a drive by gun shot to the face in 2003, it happened next to me as I was walking out of a store with my slurpee, where I just dragged a guy by his lapels into a community policing van and shoved gauze in his face while my partner drove.

It would have taken longer to get the EMS response organized than to get him to the ER, once in the ER it was EMS who saw us in the van who got them packaged for the ER

A patrol up the road took care of the high risk. We were too far behind the 8 ball when we caught up to what we saw

I to this day remember my response “what the ****….no way” slurrrrrrp “oh my god!”

When you really get down on it- you and I are discussing decades. It’s pretty amazing how things have changed eh MarioMike?


----------



## mariomike

Booter said:


> When you really get down on it- you and I are discussing decades. It’s pretty amazing how things have changed eh MarioMike?



I got on our  department's emergency bus and truck division in 1980, and looked back with no regret.  

Paid as a paramedic, but with better working conditions.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Fishbone Jones said:


> I always understood that you did CPR, if possible, until rescue showed. It not about saving the life, it's about keeping the blood circulating so they can harvest the organs. Which to me, just makes so much sense.


We done CPR on people pulled out of the river because the family was there, even though we knew it was to late. To see our guys try to save their loved one, meant a lot to them.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> even a lone officer should attempt to engage at the earliest possible moment



Suppressive fire?


----------



## Booter

Brad Sallows said:


> Suppressive fire?


such an interesting topic that I would love to discuss.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I prefer 'spec' fire. 😁


----------



## lenaitch

Booter said:


> There it is. Interesting the call to return to bead sights.
> 
> “plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose”


Unclear - did the RCMP go to 00-Buck around that time?  What did you load before?  The OPP was loading 00-Buck back in the early '70s when I joined.


----------



## Booter

lenaitch said:


> Unclear - did the RCMP go to 00-Buck around that time?  What did you load before?  The OPP was loading 00-Buck back in the early '70s when I joined.


They went to a tighter spreading 00. We were using 00 before but there was a new, All the rage, tighter spread pattern one


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Booter said:


> There it is. Interesting the call to return to bead sights.
> 
> “plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose”



Less “tunnel vision”?  I learned to shoot a shotgun both eyes open.  I learned rifles during basic, one eye closed.  It wasn’t til years later, I did a small arms coaching course with WO Ron Surette, who taught use to shoot with the C79 with both eyes open;  took a bit of time to sort it out but  once you had it, it was pretty swept up.  

I’ve lost most of those skills now;  aircrew so pers wpn is the old 9mm.  Still always “pointed” a 12ga like i did when I was 16.


----------



## Eaglelord17

My concerns with this whole case have nothing to do with the officers reactions (other than the firehall shooting). It was unprecedented, and unpredictable. They performed about as well as can be expected, they are humans not gods. 

My concerns are to do with the amount of people who reported the shooter illegally possessing firearms and nothing being done. The extremely questionable looking relationship between him and the police (i.e. was he a informant and if he was were they purposely letting him break the law). There was warning signs this guy was up to no good for a while, why had nothing been done up to that point is more my question.


----------



## mariomike

Colin Parkinson said:


> We done CPR on people pulled out of the river because the family was there, even though we knew it was to late. To see our guys try to save their loved one, meant a lot to them.



Nice.

We had to treat all patients as viable, or face the possibility of coroner's court, and putting our municipal taxpayers on the wrong end of a lawsuit.

Unless,

1. decapitation, transection, visible decomposition, putrefaction; or

2. absence of vital signs and:
a. a grossly charred body;
b. an open head or torso wound with gross outpouring of cranial or visceral contents;
c. gross rigor mortis (i.e. limbs and/or body stiff, posturing of limbs or body); or
d. dependent lividity (i.e. fixed, non-blanching purple or black discolouration of skin in dependent area of body).

I recall one family in our town ( successfully ) collected $10 million from city taxpayers for a 29 minute Delay in ( paramedic ) Service.

Not to suggest there is any civil liability in the MCI being discussed.


----------



## KevinB

Brad Sallows said:


> Suppressive fire?


Well Aimed fire, may work as suppressive. 
   But domestic LE should never be randomly firing their weapons without an identified target and clear backstop.  
  *in extremis the clear backstop can be ignored/waived on balance of probabilities.


----------



## Haggis

KevinB said:


> Well Aimed fire, may work as suppressive.


Inadvertently, yes.  Most LE firearms interventions occur with handguns and have a less than 20% hit rate. 


KevinB said:


> But domestic LE should never be randomly firing their weapons without an identified target and clear backstop.
> *in extremis the clear backstop can be ignored/waived on balance of probabilities.


Criminals have no such constraints.


----------



## Booter

KevinB said:


> Well Aimed fire, may work as suppressive.
> But domestic LE should never be randomly firing their weapons without an identified target and clear backstop.
> *in extremis the clear backstop can be ignored/waived on balance of probabilities.


We ve run very specific activities, scenarios, workshops, famils where it is necessary for the first responding pair to use a series of shots that is “suppressive” in nature but maybe not in a strict definition.

If I need to flank a shooter, I can use well aimed shots, like you said considering backdrops and factors- to push my shooter down to manoeuvre.

But the blind suppressive fire on doorways etc- there are some good American SWAT articles on why it makes no “police” sense.

So something “similar” can be accomplished but I would never refer to it as suppressive or covering fire in my notes or reports.

I suppose the delineation is this- my well aimed shots that are placed are seeking the secondary effect of suppression. If they cussed a change in behaviour- by contact or mood I would stop. My primary goal is not the advance or manoeuvre it’s stopping that threat.

Traditional “Suppressive fire” has a primary goal of reducing the enemies ability to move and be effective while I keep my ability to move and be effective?

So while functionally they look similar- they are notionally different even if the practical skills can resemble each other in a loose sense?

Thoughts?

Hard derail right here. That’s not even really relevant to this thread. Sorry. Just interesting.


----------



## KevinB

Booter said:


> We ve run very specific activities, scenarios, workshops, famils where it is necessary for the first responding pair to use a series of shots that is “suppressive” in nature but maybe not in a strict definition.
> 
> If I need to flank a shooter, I can use well aimed shots, like you said considering backdrops and factors- to push my shooter down to manoeuvre.
> 
> But the blind suppressive fire on doorways etc- there are some good American SWAT articles on why it makes no “police” sense.


I have a really good OIS example of idiocy that I would love to share, lets just say there where multiple differences in opinions about one incident - and I'm pretty sure the only reason several Local LE didn't go to jail was two Federal agents shot first - and only the bad guy was killed.



Booter said:


> So something “similar” can be accomplished but I would never refer to it as suppressive or covering fire in my notes or reports.
> 
> I suppose the delineation is this- my well aimed shots that are placed are seeking the secondary effect of suppression. If they cussed a change in behaviour- by contact or mood I would stop. My primary goal is not the advance or manoeuvre it’s stopping that threat.
> 
> Traditional “Suppressive fire” has a primary goal of reducing the enemies ability to move and be effective while I keep my ability to move and be effective?
> 
> So while functionally they look similar- they are notionally different even if the practical skills can resemble each other in a loose sense?
> 
> Thoughts?


 I have referred to shots near a bad guy as "pinning fire" - to ensure they remain in position and cannot cause any further harm to the public or other officers.   Suppressive fire as you know has many negative connotations.
   Similar in practice - but alas sending #2 Rifleman to drop a grenade on a bad guy hunkered in a ditch isn't usually viewed as acceptable in a LE standard 



Booter said:


> Hard derail right here. That’s not even really relevant to this thread. Sorry. Just interesting.


Very few bad guys - even 1%'ers will get in a shootout with LE, a buddy of mine and I took 4 multiple homicide armed guys out of a car with no issues - simply because they made the correct assumption that we had no issues killing them in a heartbeat.
   The issue comes when you run into the 1% of the 1% who will fight to their dying breath.
 It is very hard to get any LEA to train their members to  standard to be able to deal with that fraction - and even tougher to bread a mindset into an entity of "The Ethical GunFighter".   One often ends up with either a trigger happy culture (I know of several) or a risk adverse one that will not charge to the sound of the guns.


----------



## Booter

KevinB said:


> I have a really good OIS example of idiocy that I would love to share, lets just say there where multiple differences in opinions about one incident - and I'm pretty sure the only reason several Local LE didn't go to jail was two Federal agents shot first - and only the bad guy was killed.
> 
> 
> I have referred to shots near a bad guy as "pinning fire" - to ensure they remain in position and cannot cause any further harm to the public or other officers.   Suppressive fire as you know has many negative connotations.
> Similar in practice - but alas sending #2 Rifleman to drop a grenade on a bad guy hunkered in a ditch isn't usually viewed as acceptable in a LE standard
> 
> 
> Very few bad guys - even 1%'ers will get in a shootout with LE, a buddy of mine and I took 4 multiple homicide armed guys out of a car with no issues - simply because they made the correct assumption that we had no issues killing them in a heartbeat.
> The issue comes when you run into the 1% of the 1% who will fight to their dying breath.
> It is very hard to get any LEA to train their members to  standard to be able to deal with that fraction - and even tougher to bread a mindset into an entity of "The Ethical GunFighter".   One often ends up with either a trigger happy culture (I know of several) or a risk adverse one that will not charge to the sound of the guns.


Really good stuff in here. 

That pinning fire is a good label to get away from the label issue- I’ll back pocket that if you don’t mind. 

Your last sentence about the divide is super key. It’s almost impossible to breed that middle mindset. Because the threshold of Ops is either a cadence where complacent social workers are made- or so high that moral compromise judge dredds are built. If a person isn’t interested in being a moral triggerman there is no incentive. 

Interesting stuff. Thank you.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Can I ask why "suppressive fire" is a negative term? It's the perfect description of what it is, fire meant to suppress the bad guys desire to stick his head over the parapet and shoot at the good guys.


----------



## KevinB

Kat Stevens said:


> Can I ask why "suppressive fire" is a negative term? It's the perfect description of what it is, fire meant to suppress the bad guys desire to stick his head over the parapet and shoot at the good guys.


Same reason "Assault Rifle" has negative connotations, and Patrol Carbines are issued...
    Suppressive fire tends to pull up mental images of soldiers spraying automatic fire etc, especially if encouraged by a Defense Counsel, or worse an ADA/Crown.


----------



## Booter

Kat Stevens said:


> Can I ask why "suppressive fire" is a negative term? It's the perfect description of what it is, fire meant to suppress the bad guys desire to stick his head over the parapet and shoot at the good guys.


It’s just contrary to round accountability in a way. Police services like terms a lot.

Police “service” instead of “force” etc.

If suppressing fire was a book it would be huge- and it’s very small, semi-applicable police use, would be a few paragraphs. So it’s not accurate to use the term if youre splitting hairs.

I suppose in practicality you’re right. But if you used it in passing comments with lawyers you’d be in trouble. Which is where the real hesitancy would be I imagine. I would want to be very specific about my intention and goal rather than using a scary umbrella term at an inquest or a subject officer statement

Consider how people at this particular inquiry are hanging entire narratives off a few words in an hour of testimony- that’s where the issue would be


----------



## KevinB

Booter said:


> Consider how people at his particular inquiry are hanging entire narratives off a few words in an hour of testimony- that’s where the issue would be


Bingo


----------



## Kat Stevens

KevinB said:


> Same reason "Assault Rifle" has negative connotations, and Patrol Carbines are issued...
> Suppressive fire tends to pull up mental images of soldiers spraying automatic fire etc, especially if encouraged by a Defense Counsel, or worse an ADA/Crown.


I guess so, but it seems arbitrary to me...

Lawyer: "Officer, did you or did you not expend 30 rounds from your assault rifle as suppressive fire against my client?"
LEO:  "No sir, I expended 30 rounds from my patrol carbine to pin your client in position."
Prosecutor; "Prosecution rests, your honour."


----------



## Booter

But they didn’t do it to pin them. If I could shoot them and stop the threat I would have. The secondary benefit is they can’t move.

So my intention- was to hit my guy. I didn’t. But I enjoyed the benefit of keeping him from being able to take the initiative.

Whereas in “suppressive fire” my primary aim can be to only reduce the enemies ability to move and keep my ability to manoeuvre.

I wouldn’t be doing that as a primary aim in police work. Every trigger pill would be to “stop the threat”

I know that seems incredibly minor but it’s a staggering detail for explaining actions in a legal context.

About five years ago now I was tapped for an SME report for court on a shooting. The actions of the officer immediately following the shooting were talked about in court almost more than the shooting- the scalpel taken to this stuff can be incredibly specific.

So not even having “suppression” in an officers vocabulary is important 🤷‍

That’s an opinion of course. This stuff can change quite fast when it comes to training, tactics, court, and use of force.

It’s not REALLY my function anymore so I’m not speaking as an authority.


----------



## Haggis

Booter said:


> Hard derail right here. *That’s not even really relevant to this thread*. Sorry. Just interesting.


In fact, I believe it is. 

This relates directly to the quality and quantity of training LEO receive in use of force and, specifically, firearms.  Somewhere else on these forums we have discussed the decreasing round count of annual qualifications and the concordant impact on an officer's ability and confidence to respond with a firearm.  Deliberate suppressive fire is not taught. The LEO must be able to articulate why each shot was fired.


----------



## Booter

Haggis said:


> The LEO must be able to articulate why each shot was fired.



I suppose this is the succinct version of my meandering.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Booter said:


> But they didn’t do it to pin them. If I could shoot them and stop the threat I would have. The secondary benefit is they can’t move.
> 
> So my intention- was to hit my guy. I didn’t. But I enjoyed the benefit of keeping him from being able to take the initiative.
> 
> Whereas in “suppressive fire” my primary aim can be to only reduce the enemies ability to move and keep my ability to manoeuvre.
> 
> I wouldn’t be doing that as a primary aim in police work. Every trigger pill would be to “stop the threat”
> 
> I know that seems incredibly minor but it’s a staggering detail for explaining actions in a legal context.


I get that, and I have zero experience in cop shooting scenarios. Every round I ever put down range had the intention of hitting my target, other than good ol' "spec fire". I think maybe we're getting intent of fire and volume of fire conflated somehow. Suppressive fire doesn't have to be spray n pray, if you ping a round in his direction every time he pokes his head out, that's suppressive to my mind. You are suppressing him by making him not want to get shot in the head. I know I'm old and dumb, but this whole "words hurt" thing does my head in. Locate the enemy. Win the firefight. As surroundings allow, of course.


----------



## Booter

Kat Stevens said:


> I get that, and I have zero experience in cop shooting scenarios. Every round I ever put down range had the intention of hitting my target, other than good ol' "spec fire". I think maybe we're getting intent of fire and volume of fire conflated somehow. Suppressive fire doesn't have to be spray n pray, if you ping a round in his direction every time he pokes his head out, that's suppressive to my mind. You are suppressing him by making him not want to get shot in the head. I know I'm old and dumb, but this whole "words hurt" thing does my head in. Locate the enemy. Win the firefight. As surroundings allow, of course.


This is exactly what it is. 

“This isnt a practical use of language”

“Welcome to court”.

What we are looking for is a detailed account of their decision making process- but if I give them a term they will default to it rather than explain. And as you pointed out- the term can be micro and macro. 

And you got me on volume and intent of fire. I’m running things together by using one extreme example.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Kat Stevens said:


> I get that, and I have zero experience in cop shooting scenarios. Every round I ever put down range had the intention of hitting my target, other than good ol' "spec fire". I think maybe we're getting intent of fire and volume of fire conflated somehow. Suppressive fire doesn't have to be spray n pray, if you ping a round in his direction every time he pokes his head out, that's suppressive to my mind. You are suppressing him by making him not want to get shot in the head. I know I'm old and dumb, but this whole "words hurt" thing does my head in. Locate the enemy. Win the firefight. As surroundings allow, of course.


And I'll add one more thing just to _really_ secure my popularity in this topic. If I expend ten rounds in his direction, to every one of his in mine, that's an uneven equation I can totally get behind if I get to go home and eat supper that night. I'll reimburse the crown the cost of the ammo.


----------



## Haggis

Kat Stevens said:


> I guess so, but it seems arbitrary to me...
> 
> Lawyer: "Officer, did you or did you not expend 30 rounds from your assault rifle as suppressive fire against my client?"
> LEO:  "No sir, I expended 30 rounds from my patrol carbine to pin your client in position."


Lawyer:  "To what end?  My client was no threat to you after the first round, yet you felt the need to try and kill him with 29 more."
LEO: "I wanted to make sure he couldn't move from that location".
Lawyer: "Not even to surrender?"
LEO:: .......
Lawyer: "He had a revolver with six rounds.  You had an assault rifle with six thirty round clips. He was no threat to you after the first shot you fired.  He feared for his life but you wouldn't even let him come out to give up."


----------



## Kat Stevens

Haggis said:


> Lawyer:  "To what end?  My client was no threat to you after the first round, yet you felt the need to try and kill him with 29 more."
> LEO: "I wanted to make sure he couldn't move from that location".
> Lawyer: "Not even to surrender?"
> LEO:: .......
> Lawyer: "He had a revolver with six rounds.  You had an assault rifle with six thirty round clips. He was no threat to you after the first shot you fired.  He feared for his life but you wouldn't even let him come out to give up."


LEO: All he had to do was throw his revolver out into plain sight. It's not my fault he brought a slingshot to a gunfight. To misquote Mr Churchill, a criminal is someone who tries to kill you, and failing that, asks you not to kill him.


----------



## Booter

*Mr. Goudy: *Mr. Cogburn, in your four years as U.S. marshal, how many men have you shot?
*Rooster Cogburn:* I never shot nobody I didn't have to.
*Mr. Goudy: *Well, that was not the question. How many?
*Rooster Cogburn:* Shot or killed?
*Mr. Goudy: *Let us restrict it to "killed" so that we may have a manageable figure.

😬


----------



## Haggis

Kat Stevens said:


> LEO: All he had to do was throw his revolver out into plain sight. It's not my fault he brought a slingshot to a gunfight. To misquote Mr Churchill, a criminal is someone who tries to kill you, and failing that, asks you not to kill him.


Judge: "Let's not resort to sarcasm." (BTDT)
Lawyer:  "At any point during your fusillade of gunfire, did you offer him a chance to surrender?"


----------



## Weinie

Booter said:


> It’s just contrary to round accountability in a way. Police services like terms a lot.
> 
> Police “service” instead of “force” etc.
> 
> If suppressing fire was a book it would be huge- and it’s very small, semi-applicable police use, would be a few paragraphs. So it’s not accurate to use the term if youre splitting hairs.
> 
> I suppose in practicality you’re right. But if you used it in passing comments with lawyers you’d be in trouble. Which is where the real hesitancy would be I imagine. I would want to be very specific about my intention and goal rather than using a scary umbrella term at an inquest or a subject officer statement
> 
> *Consider how people at this particular inquiry are hanging entire narratives off a few words in an hour of testimony*- that’s where the issue would be


First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Haggis said:


> Judge: "Let's not resort to sarcasm." (BTDT)
> Lawyer:  "At any point during your fusillade of gunfire, did you offer him a chance to surrender?"


LEO: Words matter. It wasn't a fusillade, read a book. Shots were aimed in his direction. How do you know I didn't give him the opportunity to surrender after every shot? Assumes facts not in evidence. If he would have stayed under cover, he wouldn't have been shot at. I shoot at my target, if I don't see it, I don't shoot at it. Errr... your honour.


_EDIT_   In case you can't tell, I'm just sort of having fun with it now, mods feel free to end my massive derail any time*


----------



## Haggis

Kat Stevens said:


> _EDIT_   In case you can't tell, I'm just sort of having fun with it now, mods feel free to end my massive derail any time*


And so am I.  I was mildly scolded for using sarcasm on the stand during an assault trial.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Haggis said:


> Judge: "Let's not resort to sarcasm." (BTDT)
> Lawyer:  "At any point during your fusillade of gunfire, did you offer him a chance to surrender?"



My personal favourite, along these lines:


----------



## Brad Sallows

> pinning fire



More or less what I envisioned.  Shots close enough to make the shooter flinch.  Aimed to hit, but not obsessively so.  But instead of a rapid series of shots to try to bring someone down, spaced out a bit to buy time - for someone to move, for bystanders to flee the area, etc.


----------



## lenaitch

Brad Sallows said:


> More or less what I envisioned.  Shots close enough to make the shooter flinch.  Aimed to hit, but not obsessively so.  But instead of a rapid series of shots to try to bring someone down, spaced out a bit to buy time - for someone to move, for bystanders to flee the area, etc.


Oooo . . . bad description.  Police don't have the authority to make people flinch.  Everything needs to be to two related ends:  stop the threat and protect the public.

Provided you can articulate your cause of action and authority for taking it, in a courtroom several months later when the sun is shining and the birds are singing and people are willing to spend hours parsing your words used to describe actions and decisions taken in seconds in the dark of the night, then you'll make out fine - maybe.  In the court of public opinion, maybe not so much, because there, other factors often completely unrelated come into play.


----------



## Brad Sallows

I see the problem.  Stop/protect in such situations basically means incapacitate.  Absent clear rules about warning shots, or unnerving a shooter (which could end up in a hair-splitting court argument over "you could shoot well enough to spook, but not to hit?", it's a legal risk.



> parsing your words used to describe actions and decisions taken in seconds in the dark of the night



Watched parts of the Rittenhouse trial.  Second-guessing/split-second-by-split-second dissection was unbelievably worse than I imagined.


----------



## brihard

lenaitch said:


> Oooo . . . bad description.  Police don't have the authority to make people flinch.  Everything needs to be to two related ends:  stop the threat and protect the public.
> 
> Provided you can articulate your cause of action and authority for taking it, in a courtroom several months later when the sun is shining and the birds are singing and people are willing to spend hours parsing your words used to describe actions and decisions taken in seconds in the dark of the night, then you'll make out fine - maybe.  In the court of public opinion, maybe not so much, because there, other factors often completely unrelated come into play.


Yup. I don’t have Booter’s use of force pedigree - my instructional experience is much more modest, but still from the same school.

Force is used, basically, to change behaviour. When you tell someone they‘re under arrest and to turn around and give you their hands for cuffing, and they tell you to eff off, you may use some modest force to get him to comply. When he’s shooting at you or others, you may use a hell of a lot more to get his behaviour to change away from being a deadly threat. Maybe in the course of doing so you kill or badly wound him, or maybe you achieve a psychological stop and he gives up. In any case the force is being used to achieve the lawful execution of your duty to effect the arrest.

Any use of force has to be articulated so as to explain why it was reasonable and necessary. You also have to be prepared to explain why it wasn’t reckless or negligent, or excessive.

Any shot fired must be with the intent of changing the suspect’s behaviour to reduce the threat from that of death or grievous bodily harm. Any shot fired with an intent other than that would be super hard to defend. Any shot not fired _at_ the suspect will put you in the position of explaining why you aren’t causing a greater risk through errant rounds.

That doesn’t make it impossible. Just damned hard.


----------



## lenaitch

mariomike said:


> Nice.
> 
> We had to treat all patients as viable, or face the possibility of coroner's court, and putting our municipal taxpayers on the wrong end of a lawsuit.
> 
> Unless,
> 
> 1. decapitation, transection, visible decomposition, putrefaction; or
> 
> 2. absence of vital signs and:
> a. a grossly charred body;
> b. an open head or torso wound with gross outpouring of cranial or visceral contents;
> c. gross rigor mortis (i.e. limbs and/or body stiff, posturing of limbs or body); or
> d. dependent lividity (i.e. fixed, non-blanching purple or black discolouration of skin in dependent area of body).
> 
> I recall one family in our town ( successfully ) collected $10 million from city taxpayers for a 29 minute Delay in ( paramedic ) Service.
> 
> Not to suggest there is any civil liability in the MCI being discussed.



The one thing we don't know (well, unless we do and I missed it) in the MCI proceedings is whether (a) the scene where the victim was left was safe for paramedics and/or whether there were even paramedics around.  Did they make a decision that went against policy and protocols?  Perhaps, and I suspect there but for the grace of a god go a lot of us in emergency services.  I get that people may be angry, particularly in view of the 'Fitbit angle', but if the members are called to account, provided they can adequately articulate their good faith thought process, a reasonable assessment might agree with them.

Unless somebody is declared dead by a competent authority, they're not; but context is often key.  I worked in both rural and urban areas where the coroner almost never attended the scene, so off in the ambulance the victim went, regardless of condition.  In others, the coroner always attended but, in reality, the victim received no treatment or transport, base solely on our assessment (they still went off in the ambulance as we had no body removal service within a reasonable distance).


----------



## Kat Stevens

brihard said:


> Yup. I don’t have Booter’s use of force pedigree - my instructional experience is much more modest, but still from the same school.
> 
> Force is used, basically, to change behaviour. When you tell someone they‘re under arrest and to turn around and give you their hands for cuffing, and they tell you to eff off, you may use some modest force to get him to comply. When he’s shooting at you or others, you may use a hell of a lot more to get his behaviour to change away from being a deadly threat. Maybe in the course of doing so you kill or badly wound him, or maybe you achieve a psychological stop and he gives up. In any case the force is being used to achieve the lawful execution of your duty to effect the arrest.
> 
> Any use of force has to be articulated so as to explain why it was reasonable and necessary. You also have to be prepared to explain why it wasn’t reckless or negligent, or excessive.
> 
> Any shot fired must be with the intent of changing the suspect’s behaviour to reduce the threat from that of death or grievous bodily harm. Any shot fired with an intent other than that would be super hard to defend. Any shot not fired _at_ the suspect will put you in the position of explaining why you aren’t causing a greater risk through errant rounds.
> 
> That doesn’t make it impossible. Just damned hard.


I know I'm dumb, but putting rounds into the wall above the bad guys head stops him from popping up and shooting others, or, worse, me, until my compadres can get to a position to reel him in. Is that not altering behaviour to support the aim? Happy ending. For most of us, at least.


----------



## Haggis

Brad Sallows said:


> I see the problem.  Stop/protect in such situations basically means incapacitate.





Kat Stevens said:


> I know I'm dumb, but putting rounds into the wall above the bad guys head stops him from popping up and shooting others, or, worse, me, until my compadres can get to a position to reel him in. Is that not altering behaviour to support the aim? Happy ending. For most of us, at least.


Exactly.  The aim of any LE use-of-force is to change the subject's behaviour.  Even a missed shot can do that. 


Brad Sallows said:


> Watched parts of the Rittenhouse trial.  Second-guessing/split-second-by-split-second dissection was unbelievably worse than I imagined.


Learning how to articulate your use-of-force in court is a big part of our training.


----------



## KevinB

Kat Stevens said:


> I know I'm dumb, but putting rounds into the wall above the bad guys head stops him from popping up and shooting others, or, worse, me, until my compadres can get to a position to reel him in. Is that not altering behaviour to support the aim? Happy ending. For most of us, at least.


Will the backstop stop the round, and will the round not ricochet potentially causing injury or death to civilians?

  I am not disagreeing with you -- I'm just pointing out what can be brought up later.

Part of the reason larger LEA's have Testing entities - so the bullet performance is a known (or as well known as it can be) item.


----------



## lenaitch

Kat Stevens said:


> I know I'm dumb, but putting rounds into the wall above the bad guys head stops him from popping up and shooting others, or, worse, me, until my compadres can get to a position to reel him in. Is that not altering behaviour to support the aim? Happy ending, for most of us, at least.


It might, depending on how it is described by you and other witnesses.  The term 'articulable cause' has crept into the legal system and law enforcement training in Canada.  With apologies to R v Mann, it basically boils down to a witness (you) adequately and clearly explaining to the court how your actions were both necessary and within and satisfied your authority in the _particular set of circumstances_ at hand.  The 'adequate and clearly' part is important, since your often dealing with juries (you only get one shot at a first impression) and appellate-level courts only get to read the record.  That's one of the reasons training focuses in on so-called 'canned phrases' (varies by jurisdiction) both for testimony and notebooks; such as 'as little force as necessary' (many favour the words "as little" over 'as much'), or 'to stop the threat' (avoiding the word 'eliminate').  They really do sound canned and somewhat scripted, but they avoid stress, slang, colloquialisms or nervous coppers in the stand fumbling for words.


----------



## Booter

Kat Stevens said:


> I know I'm dumb, but putting rounds into the wall above the bad guys head stops him from popping up and shooting others, or, worse, me, until my compadres can get to a position to reel him in. Is that not altering behaviour to support the aim? Happy ending. For most of us, at least.


It would be your word salad that makes the difference. 

and as recently as 2005 the Victoria police service had warning shots in their policies. 

In the end you will have to convince people of the reasonableness. Like running over some one to stop an incident. It’s impossible to say “you can’t do that!” It’s more like “I wouldn’t want to have to explain that”


----------



## Jarnhamar

This is all really interesting. Surprising to see just how large of a microscope police are under.

Is this level of understanding of the use of force standard across the police departments?


----------



## Haggis

Jarnhamar said:


> This is all really interesting. Surprising to see just how large of a microscope police are under.
> 
> Is this level of understanding of the use of force standard across the police departments?


The national use-of-force framework is the RCMP's Incident Management Intervention Model (IMIM). Most LEA have similar use of force options (tools) such as firearm, CEW (Taser), OC spray, batons, handcuffs.  Specialty units may have other lethal and less than lethal options available (e.g. beanbag or baton rounds, tear gas rounds, OC shotgun rounds).  All federal  civilian agencies train in use-of-force to the RCMP standard.

Most provinces have slight variations of this model.  Québec police, for example, employ their tools differently but to the same end as agencies from other provinces.  The focus is always on de-escalation. And, as previously discussed, that can take many forms.


----------



## Booter

Jarnhamar said:


> This is all really interesting. Surprising to see just how large of a microscope police are under.
> 
> Is this level of understanding of the use of force standard across the police departments?


Ideally they refer to their training and what they observed and felt. Then a different person explains how and why they are trained a way. That’s why it’s important in their training I don’t seed words like “suppression”- they explain what they did and what they were looking for. Someone else explains WHY it was an acceptable action consistent with training. Kinda.

Anecdotally and dated, I have assisted officers and investigations with some of this stuff conceptually- like a particular independent agency demanding post shooting for officers to “guess” how many times they shot- it’s an unproductive exercise. I train officers to search and press the trigger while evaluating the threats behaviour. My trigger runs until I see the change in behaviour.

So when they testify or give statements- their observation starts with their threat and evaluation- the mechanism to change behaviour (in this case the trigger)- and for them to identify what changed that alerted them that they were no longer under the threat they initially faced,

It could be a snapped shot scares the bad guy and he drops the gun. That’s the change I saw so I didn’t shoot again.

Or I shot the gun in their hands because I was fixated on it. And they dropped it and that’s the change I saw so I didn’t shoot again.

Or I slowed my breathing, shot a porthole through my windshield to be able to return fire effectively on the suspect. When they observed my actions they dropped their weapon- so I didn’t shoot again.

Or when my finger touched my trigger the suspect ditched their weapon and so I knew I didn’t have to shoot.

The observation is more important than the amount of times it’s shot, the number of rounds is interesting- but not necessarily important. The reason I start shooting, why I’m shooting, and the reason I stop is.

Whether that’s because I don’t want them popping up, moving to a point of advantage, or a few other outlier odds and ends- that’s for me to explain why it was reasonable and neccessary- even If I don’t use tidy words like “suppression” etc

So for the average front end police officer- if you imagine a book, the title of the chapter could be pinning or suppression- but the chapter title isn’t really that important,

The contents and ideas in the chapter is the real important stuff- that’s what we D like to hear get articulated. Because it’s the meat of the concept. The “why” rather than umbrella term it may fall under

Because beyond the practicality of fighting, is the idea sharing/ explaining of the court room. So words, even in passing matter there.


----------



## mariomike

lenaitch said:


> The one thing we don't know (well, unless we do and I missed it) in the MCI proceedings is whether (a) the scene where the victim was left was safe for paramedics and/or whether there were even paramedics around.  Did they make a decision that went against policy and protocols?  Perhaps, and I suspect there but for the grace of a god go a lot of us in emergency services.  I get that people may be angry, particularly in view of the 'Fitbit angle', but if the members are called to account, provided they can adequately articulate their good faith thought process, a reasonable assessment might agree with them.



I don't know what the staging SOP is in Nova Scotia. Do they have one. 🤷‍♂️ Or, was there any staging?  🤷‍♂️

Our dept. called staging "the decision making process to withhold patient care".

They had an "Alert Line" in CACC (  Control Centre ) to provide immediate notification to the Duty Officer of any crew "who delay patient contact as a result of a scene safety concern."

They immediately deployed the closest available Operations Supervisor to respond to the location.

There will be delay of service incident reports.

Of course, if police were already on scene they were in charge. You took your directions from them.



lenaitch said:


> Unless somebody is declared dead by a competent authority, they're not; but context is often key.  I worked in both rural and urban areas where the coroner almost never attended the scene, so off in the ambulance the victim went, regardless of condition.  In others, the coroner always attended but, in reality, the victim received no treatment or transport, base solely on our assessment (they still went off in the ambulance as we had no body removal service within a reasonable distance).



The obviously dead were the easiest transports. Both ( crew ) up front. Smoking and joking. Who was going to complain?

90% of it was keeping the call originator, and the police, happy. ie: Transport.

On the other hand, the legally dead could lead to some interesting situations.  We had this one on an overseas flight at Pearson...


----------



## lenaitch

Jarnhamar said:


> This is all really interesting. Surprising to see just how large of a microscope police are under.
> 
> Is this level of understanding of the use of force standard across the police departments?


Comes with the big bucks. 

Just speaking from an Ontario perspective,  everybody gets the same basic training through the Ontario Police College and the Use of Force modeling comes from the government (MinSolGen) so it is standardized.  Most large police services layer additional training onto their recruits.  As well, large police services have variations of annual in-service training and I assume smaller ones (of which there are very few now) no doubt plug themselves into a larger neighbour's training if they don't do their own.

Although admittedly frustrating, stressful and annoying if you are the one on the little glass slide, if you stick to you training, keep your wits about you, stay in your legal lane and document/articulate effectively, the system invariably accepts that you did your duty.

I think the level of training and awareness can be evidenced by how very few charges that have been laid by the Special Investigations Unit since its inception in 1990.  Also, improvements in training and equipment, particularly use-of-force, are reflected, I think, in the number of police officers killed at the hands of others, which is no where near what it was in the mid-'80s.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Or you can argue SIU is just cops protecting cops. There have been cases were the SIU has said nothing bad happened, and when the case goes to trial the Judge (who will rarely say anything against the police) says they have used excessive force. 

Not saying cops aren’t better trained today than the past, just that a lack of charges through the SIU doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t deserve charges.


----------



## Haggis

Booter said:


> The observation is more important than the amount of times it’s shot, the number of rounds is interesting- but not necessarily important. The reason I start shooting, why I’m shooting, and the reason I stop is.


A good example of this is the shooting of Sammy Yatim in Toronto.  The officer fired two volleys of shots.  The first was articulatable and deemed reasonable.  The second was not and the officer faced second-degree murder and manslaughter charges as a result.  He was convicted of attempted murder instead and sentenced to six years..


----------



## mariomike

Haggis said:


> A good example of this is the shooting of Sammy Yatim in Toronto.





Haggis said:


> He was convicted of attempted murder instead and sentenced to six years..



In addition to the criminal trial,  a coroner's inquest was announced.

As well as a civil lawsuit against city taxpayers by the family.


----------



## Booter

Eaglelord17 said:


> Or you can argue SIU is just cops protecting cops. There have been cases were the SIU has said nothing bad happened, and when the case goes to trial the Judge (who will rarely say anything against the police) says they have used excessive force.
> 
> Not saying cops aren’t better trained today than the past, just that a lack of charges through the SIU doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t deserve charges.


Examples please.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Locally we had a cop assault a cooperative person being arrested. He broke the persons ribs. Then they went to jail and proceeded to drag them cell to cell talking to them about how they aren’t so tough now well a supervisor watched. Eventually they did bring the person to the hospital and they almost died of septic shock. 

SIU investigated said nothing wrong happened. Fast forward a year to the court case for the person and the judge said excessive force was used on him specifically for the dragging around the jail portion. SIU I can’t remember if they chose to reinvestigate or not but I do remember the cop complaining in the media about how his career was being held up over this situation. He was finally charged under the police services act, plead guilty, and sentenced to a loss of two days pay. Cop also happened to be the son of a former police chief. Still working as a cop as far as I am aware. 

It takes a lot for a judge to state excessive force is used, they almost always lean towards the polices side. Speaks to how far this cop went and how much of a blind eye SIU was willing to take.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Eaglelord17 said:


> It takes a lot for a judge to state excessive force is used, they almost always lean towards the polices side.


You couldn't possibly be more wrong,.....that is all.


----------



## lenaitch

Eaglelord17 said:


> Or you can argue SIU is just cops protecting cops. There have been cases were the SIU has said nothing bad happened, and when the case goes to trial the Judge (who will rarely say anything against the police) says they have used excessive force.
> 
> Not saying cops aren’t better trained today than the past, just that a lack of charges through the SIU doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t deserve charges.


The SIU doesn't have the mandate  to determine if something "bad" or "wrong" happened; it only has the mandate to determine if a criminal offence was committed.  True that some of the investigators are former members, but since only the Director has the authority to make that determination based or reasonable and probable grounds, it could also be argued that not a single Director has been a cop or ex-cop since the unit was created.

The judge, in your example, also did not make a determination that a criminal offence had been committed; they made a determination that the accused Charter rights had been infringed by the State and brought the administration of justice into disrepute.  Although not stated in the example, I assume the court tossed whatever charge the accused was facing.


----------



## Eaglelord17

lenaitch said:


> The SIU doesn't have the mandate  to determine if something "bad" or "wrong" happened; it only has the mandate to determine if a criminal offence was committed.  True that some of the investigators are former members, but since only the Director has the authority to make that determination based or reasonable and probable grounds, it could also be argued that not a single Director has been a cop or ex-cop since the unit was created.
> 
> The judge, in your example, also did not make a determination that a criminal offence had been committed; they made a determination that the accused Charter rights had been infringed by the State and brought the administration of justice into disrepute.  Although not stated in the example, I assume the court tossed whatever charge the accused was facing.


Charge was dropped, officer was then charged under police services act for the crimes he committed. Officer plead guilty and was given a two day pay suspension for his actions, which is a joke in my opinion as they clearly didn’t want to charge him in the first place and was only willing to do so after there was no other choice. 

Much like the police officer who pointed her gun at a colleague and was only moved to a different unit with light punishment, not even fired, a great example of double standard in Canadian society.


----------



## Booter

The Charge against the person charged in the file was dropped and the police laid a service act charge- which is an internal process and NOT criminal charges.

I’m struggling to respond to you because you are mixing up a lot of unrelated things.

Firstly, judges are not experts on use of force- that is why they don’t generally comment on it. When it’s a use of force issue subject matter experts are brought in- usually in my experience one for crown and defence, that present the information the judge needs to know- they then make an educated determination- and they are quite good at using the opinions they are provided, so they usually avoid flippant remarks on it unless it’s a pretty shocking event.

So, in lots of cases in Ontario, and the rules are different because police are expected to use force so it’s balanced differently, there will be a professional responsibility officer in a court where there are potential service act (which are not criminal) concerns. The officer uses comments like the ones from the judge, discussing with the crown, and makes sense of whether there is a service act concern- usually for conduct that reduces the police services reputation. They will then lay that internal charge. This is roundabout system because they need the evidence for the charge and doesn’t rely on the officers producing evidence against themselves even for internal processes. Or is how it’s explained to me as an outsider looking at their conduct system.

IIU/ SIU/IIO etc is not professional standards. Professional responsibility units are a separate, non-criminal layer of review. It is not the same as an NDA charge. It’s a policy breach that has consequence.

Generally, because I’ve only really dealt with four provinces and their systems can be different but resemble each other, a file with a firearm that is brought up- a crown opinion will be sought as to whether there is public interest in a criminal charge. When that criminal charge isn’t approved or supported it will move to a service act charge. Those non-criminal ones they do internally.

Termination is very hard because of employment law and collective agreements. We aren’t interested in working with dummies. We just get to.

So a thing can be determined to not meet the threshold for charges by SIU, it can also shock a judge- and causes a charter breach, and can also end in a non-criminal conduct service breach that cost them pay.

Those are three independent things that really don’t have much to do with each other. If you can find the SIU report, and they are all published, I can look at it for you.

I am not a police apologist. I have been an SME and SMR against officers who wander wildly out of bounds.

Although, qualifier, I’m not in this biz anymore and this stuff is always moving. So I’m not an expert- I’m just a dude who saw some things years ago.


----------



## Haggis

Eaglelord17 said:


> Much like the police officer who pointed her gun at a colleague and was only moved to a different unit with light punishment, not even fired, a great example of double standard in Canadian society.


Are you referring to this police officer?  Her punishment by the RCMP was not light. But had she been a civilian gun owner, she probably would've gotten jail time and wouldn't be owning guns any longer, if ever again.  That double standard really pisses me off.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Haggis said:


> Are you referring to this police officer?  Her punishment by the RCMP was not light. But had she been a civilian gun owner, she probably would've gotten jail time and wouldn't be owning guns any longer, if ever again.  That double standard really pisses me off.


That is the firearm example I am referring too. Not Ontario, but it can show the double standard applied to citizen vs police when one should be significantly more educated trained and well behaved than the other due to the responsibilities placed in their hands.


----------



## Haggis

Eaglelord17 said:


> That is the firearm example I am referring too. Not Ontario, but it can show the double standard applied to citizen vs police when one should be significantly more educated trained and well behaved than the other due to the responsibilities placed in their hands.


Doesn't matter which province it happened in as firearms laws are federal.  Contrast her treatment with that afforded to an Edmonton cop who "accidentally" fired a live round at/near another officer in jest.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Honestly I would put that incident below the female officer pointing and threatening with the firearm (especially with the weak lie that they were joking around instead of acknowledging she lost control, not very ethical). Reminds me a lot of those two soldiers in Afghanistan playing quick draw and one accidentally shooting the other in the chest. 

Still should have been charges even if its just careless use of a firearm.


----------



## Booter

Eaglelord17 said:


> Honestly I would put that incident below the female officer pointing and threatening with the firearm (especially with the weak lie that they were joking around instead of acknowledging she lost control, not very ethical). Reminds me a lot of those two soldiers in Afghanistan playing quick draw and one accidentally shooting the other in the chest.
> 
> Still should have been charges even if its just careless use of a firearm.


I actually agree with this. I would see any firearms ****ery by an officer met with firearms charges. And I don’t care if they get a prohib from it- go do something else.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Eaglelord17,
If I remember correctly you complained about this incident a couple years ago.....if this is the only one you can keep pulling out of your hat, the system must be doing good.


----------



## dapaterson

There's always "Niagara police officer shot by other Niagara police officer while both on duty charged, charges stayed due to shooting officer possibly accessing evidence".



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/niagara-constable-prosecution-1.6292787


----------



## Eaglelord17

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Eaglelord17,
> If I remember correctly you complained about this incident a couple years ago.....if this is the only one you can keep pulling out of your hat, the system must be doing good.


Overall I would say there has been a ton of improvements in the policing system in the last few decades. It has gone a long way from the cops asking security guards if they beat the crap out of the people they were holding until the police arrived, or obviously breaking the law knowing the other cops won't charge them.

I am very supportive of the police. I just happen to take a dim view of criminal activity and double standards. 

I have said it before policing in Canada is a old boys club. Usually they go after the criminals and do a fairly good job of it. They also struggle to police themselves, much like the military struggles to police themselves. Its human nature, no one wants to turn a buddy in, especially if that person is supposed to have your back.


----------



## Haggis

dapaterson said:


> There's always "Niagara police officer shot by other Niagara police officer while both on duty charged, charges stayed due to shooting officer possibly accessing evidence".
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/niagara-constable-prosecution-1.6292787


That was ugly all the way around.


----------



## dapaterson

Haggis said:


> That was ugly all the way around.


For ugly, look to the current Ottawa Police Service: case tossed for two officers lying about other OPS officers being present, "finding" a gun that Gatineau SWAT somehow missed in plain view while doing multiple sweeps of the location before OPS entered, and now being sued for stealing $50,000 in cash.  A related case was later overturned once the individual convicted, now cleared, learned that the related case had been tossed.









						Ottawa police guns-and-gangs unit loses another big case
					

Chris Uniat pleaded guilty last year in a drugs-and-ammo case, but, after reading about a bad warrant against an accused accomplice, struck that guilty plea.




					ottawacitizen.com


----------



## Booter

I do find it interesting, as an observation and not speaking as an rep of my agency, how often it seems like it’s “guns and gangs” units that are constantly caught up in bullshit.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

dapaterson said:


> For ugly, look to the current Ottawa Police Service: case tossed for two officers lying about other OPS officers being present, "finding" a gun that Gatineau SWAT somehow missed in plain view while doing multiple sweeps of the location before OPS entered, and now being sued for stealing $50,000 in cash.  A related case was later overturned once the individual convicted, now cleared, learned that the related case had been tossed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ottawa police guns-and-gangs unit loses another big case
> 
> 
> Chris Uniat pleaded guilty last year in a drugs-and-ammo case, but, after reading about a bad warrant against an accused accomplice, struck that guilty plea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ottawacitizen.com


Except the OPS deserves a different category then the other police services in Canada.

Maybe they could blame it on having to work in  close proximity to the lying, thieving nexus of Canada....


----------



## brihard

Haggis said:


> Are you referring to this police officer?  Her punishment by the RCMP was not light. But had she been a civilian gun owner, she probably would've gotten jail time and wouldn't be owning guns any longer, if ever again.  That double standard really pisses me off.


If the facts were in fact as alleged, she should be out. If you don’t have the temperament to use your firearm responsibly, you should move on and take your skills to a new profession.


dapaterson said:


> There's always "Niagara police officer shot by other Niagara police officer while both on duty charged, charges stayed due to shooting officer possibly accessing evidence".
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/niagara-constable-prosecution-1.6292787


That one was really messed up. The shoot itself sounds like it was legitimate self defence. The officer was acting in the scope of his duties, and the other officer pulled his baton on him.

The collapse of charges against the officer who got shot sounds to have been due to a botching of what was disclosed and how. It shouldn’t have happened, but given the bizarre set of facts, I’m not overly surprised that something like it did. Remember that, for a time, the officer who shot was charged criminally and was entitled to full disclosure of all material facts and evidence.



> Except the OPS deserves a different category then the other police services in Canada.



OPS is a special kind of dumpster fire. They even make us look good.


----------



## Booter

brihard said:


> If the facts were in fact as alleged, she should be out. If you don’t have the temperament to use your firearm responsibly, you should move on and take your skills to a new profession.
> 
> That one was really messed up. The shoot itself sounds like it was legitimate self defence. The officer was acting in the scope of his duties, and the other officer pulled his baton on him.
> 
> The collapse of charges against the officer who got shot sounds to have been due to a botching of what was disclosed and how. It shouldn’t have happened, but given the bizarre set of facts, I’m not overly surprised that something like it did. Remember that, for a time, the officer who shot was charged criminally and was entitled to full disclosure of all material facts and evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> OPS is a special kind of dumpster fire. They even make us look good.


Just one of the strangest files I’ve ever seen- and the officers conduct history is amazing too. Which doesn’t mean you should get shot- but it’s just altogether wild


----------



## brihard

Booter said:


> Just one of the strangest files I’ve ever seen- and the officers conduct history is amazing too. Which doesn’t mean you should get shot- but it’s just altogether wild


Mm hm. It's reminiscent of other discussions on this site of people getting endless second chances. Not everyone is suitable for every job.


----------



## Haggis

Booter said:


> Just one of the strangest files I’ve ever seen- *and the officers conduct history is amazing too*. Which doesn’t mean you should get shot- but it’s just altogether wild


When I read through that part, I wasn't surprised that he got shot _by someone_, but was surprised that it too that long for it to occur.


----------



## Booter

brihard said:


> Mm hm. It's reminiscent of other discussions on this site of people getting endless second chances. Not everyone is suitable for every job.


Without a hard diversion even farther- I don’t know how to fix things as long as it’s impossible to get rid of people, not fire per say but like…no longer need them.

There is a small division where there are several senior NCOs on paid leave for off duty conduct related incidents, for years. 

The amount of work going into salvaging their careers makes my eyes cross. One of whom- has been demoted previously for the same conduct.

If the average Canadian has an integrity of “6” the average cop should be an “8”. The slide into accepting “average” in an officers conduct is wrong. But hey. I’m just some guy 🤷‍♀️ I’m of the opinion that when a police officer is charged with an offence- it should be an aggravating factor that they are a police officer. Same with lawyers, judges, judges, politicians…military officers…


----------



## Haggis

Booter said:


> If the average Canadian has an integrity of “6” the average cop should be an “8”. The slide into accepting “average” in an officers conduct is wrong. But hey. I’m just some guy 🤷‍♀️ I’m of the opinion that when a police officer is charged with an offence- it should be an aggravating factor that they are a police officer. *Same with lawyers, judges, judges, politicians…military officers…*


All those professions, including the police, claim to hold themselves to a higher standard of conduct and care right up until they are standing accused, either criminally or professionally.  Then "we all deserve equal treatment."


----------



## mariomike

Booter said:


> Same with lawyers, judges, judges, politicians…military officers…



Some professions are held to a higher level of trust from both the employer and the public.





__





						Professional conduct outside of profession
					

How far should high standards of professional conduct apply when employees are off duty?




					www.hrreporter.com
				






> Certain jobs require a high level of skill and a high level of trust from both employers and the public. For employees working in those types of positions, it’s possible that off-duty behaviour can call into question that trust, if it demonstrates poor judgment. And if an employer no longer has confidence that an employee has the judgment to perform a job of high skill and responsibility, the result could be dismissal.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Two RCMP officers who shot at bystander during N.S. mass shooting say it was the right decision
					

Constables tell inquiry despite peppering the firehall being used as a comfort zone for evacuated civilians with rifle fire, they wouldn’t have done anything…




					nationalpost.com
				




Well that was pretty embarrassing to read.  I think a lot more training is in order.

On the bright side, had they been better with a carbine, they might have actually hit Mr. Westlake, so there is that to consider.


----------



## Booter

So. Mandatory training- meaning everyone has to have it in order to be operationally on the road. Recerts and user courses- usually hover around 80% and have dipped as low as 50%

For example, a few years ago a use of force option, pre Covid, dropped to 50% compliance levels for completed mandatory training- there were massive logistical issues that kept the course from being delivered properly. So a thing we HAD to have done we could get 50% through.

Presently, recert-wise, officers fully trained on their options will spend 3 days annually, minimum to get these mandatories done- plus travel. Then every three-ish years they have a week of recerts on top of that.

If you add ANY investigative courses that’s another few weeks of the year. And investigations are what they spend their time doing- in theory.

Now, add on top that most, and don’t believe a word to the contrary because it’s a shell game by the government, have vacancies in their unit in the tens of percents.

One unit I’m very familiar of- is ten times the national average for violent crime. It was recommended to have well over twenty officers for its file load in 2006 and the rcmp agreed to staff it that way, it presently has 18 postions 15 years later- with twice the population and files it had in 2006 today. Of those 18 positions 14 actually have a person in them. 

And that’s NORMAL.

So increasing training for niche events, takes a force that’s stretched thin- and adds more absence and vacancy for training. And training takes trainers- which is more people missing from the road. And when I say niche I still mean terrible, severe events we need to Learn from- but also almost the rarest instance. The danger of rare outlier calls is- even if I train you for them- they still catch you off guard. So your response can suck. If I see a thing once a year- and then I am blindsided 364 days later am I really going to rise up and meet the challenge like a stud?

Most divisional trainers do it as a part time function.

I have made the argument successfully that members need specialized training- in scenarios and mass exercise for critical incidents. And it’s slowly being rolled out in some districts. But training isn’t a panacea.

It is not weird for one of my people to be search and rescue trained, Ice rescue trained, wild land fire trained, child interview trained, be a school liaison, be on a community justice program, have court 5 days a month, carry several dozen active investigations (what they are actually supposed to be doing) EACH at any given time. They do their own court packages- something not regularly done, we do maintenance on trucks and boats, and several of them will also be training a new recruit. 

This isn’t woe is me- this is the reality of an rcmp member. So these inquiries and news agencies always suggest that maybe it’s training: if it is there needs to be thousands more officers across the country like 25-30% overnight increase to staffing. 

I had my own personal
Thoughts on that response. I still don’t understand a lot of that firehall stuff. 

This meandering post was just because you caught my eye on the training thing- my question is when you say that (and in a genuine sense) - Which part of that event would you see addressed? Like is it the threat identification? Their carbine accuracy? The major event Response? What would it look like?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Booter said:


> This meandering post was just because you caught my eye on the training thing- my question is when you say that (and in a genuine sense) - Which part of that event would you see addressed? Like is it the threat identification? Their carbine accuracy? The major event Response? What would it look like?



I'd like to know how that level judgmental error, incompetence, allows them continued employment with any police force ?  They shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a firearm for the rest of their lives.


----------



## Jarnhamar

__





						Was there a pulse? RCMP officers give contradictory evidence about woman's death in N.S. attack
					





					www.msn.com


----------



## Booter

Halifax Tar said:


> I'd like to know how that level judgmental error, incompetence, allows them continued employment with any police force ?  They shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a firearm for the rest of their lives.


How would you like it taken from them? They are allowed to carry and use a firearm in the course of their duties. You have an unprecedented event- they weren’t charged because someone reviewed their actions and while they didn’t perhaps agree with them- they could reasonably see in the circumstances that it could happen. So no criminal charges.

There code of conduct, should they have been hung on that branch- I don’t know if they were or not, would be what? In the absence of extreme aggravating circumstances they wouldn’t have faced dismissal over it,

What mechanism would have been used?

If you want to open the books about making it easier to let police officers go because it’s just not working out that’s a different conversation, in the context of this event there isn’t a mechanism to take anything from them.

(And I don’t know enough to say one way or the other. I do trust the criminal reviews of events so I usually default to the idea I don’t have all the info)


----------



## Haggis

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Two RCMP officers who shot at bystander during N.S. mass shooting say it was the right decision
> 
> 
> Constables tell inquiry despite peppering the firehall being used as a comfort zone for evacuated civilians with rifle fire, they wouldn’t have done anything…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that was pretty embarrassing to read.  I think a lot more training is in order.
> 
> On the bright side, had they been better with a carbine, they might have actually hit Mr. Westlake, so there is that to consider.


I know more than a few officers who will train off-duty.  In fact, my gun club has just seen a significant influx of LEO members from several agencies.

And then there's my post 379 wherein I noted that the federal court has ruled that LE firearms training is sufficient and there is no need for off-duty practice with prohibited platforms.  Le sigh...


----------



## Halifax Tar

Booter said:


> How would you like it taken from them?



Surly the RCMP has a mechanism for release on the grounds of professional incompetence or something of the like.  

These officers knew the risks and instead of approaching and investigating they simply opened fire on innocents and a shelter, with a victims family sheltering inside no less.

We kick people out out for far less.


----------



## Booter

Jarnhamar said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was there a pulse? RCMP officers give contradictory evidence about woman's death in N.S. attack
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.msn.com


I’m not going to make any assumptions about you. But as a guy who has taken a lot of pulses I don’t find this nearly as controversial as others here.

In fact a month ago I had someone take a pulse and call an ambulance on someone who was obviously deceased for well over an hour telling me they felt a
Pulse, they didn’t.


----------



## Booter

Halifax Tar said:


> Surly the RCMP has a mechanism for release on the grounds of professional incompetence or something of the like.
> 
> These officers knew the risks and instead of approaching and investigating they simply opened fire on innocents and a shelter, with a victims family sheltering inside no less.
> 
> We kick people out out for far less.


I’m not saying this stuff because I agree. I just think you’d be shocked at how are system applies. Even in cases of criminality that we pursue dismissal,

 The details of this event- when I take them to a hearing and I put them against similar incidents. What am I comparing it to?

They were not charged with negligence or anything related to the event, so when we drag them on to the carpet I take two people, who people wouldn’t charge and say “well they were pretty kinda negligent though but not criminally negligent”

And then I look for similar events, and then I add up their mitigating factors like the size and scope of the event.

They wouldn’t be facing dismissal.

There is no malice here. I doubt the forces releases, I certainly didn’t see it, for someone genuinely trying to do their job and not hitting the mark in extreme circumstances one time- without considering their careers in their totality, even if that miss is near catastrophic (like this one)

This is a really REALLY bad incident. It makes me groan everytime I read it, I don’t get it at all. But my experience with the conduct system- as an authority or an assisting officer doesn’t really see that you’d successfully get dismissal. I didn’t design the system and I don’t agree with it in lots of ways.

And for some extra frustration- these conduct matters take years to resolve and then they get appealed and that takes years. Even in the case of extreme cases where there is malice and criminal conduct.

And I am not making any comments specifically on these guys. Just in a general sense of the conduct system.


----------



## Booter

Anyhoo- I don’t want to overshare and be too comfy. I completely understand the shock when people look at our systems or dissect this stuff. I also have agreed and I am also frustrated Lots.

To be honest I believe the org can’t sustain itself like this for much longer. But I may be chicken little.

Remove this event, and the list of real issues facing us is still way too complex,

I would recommend where communities can switch to regional forces etc they do. Not because they’ll enjoy more success- but because when these places shoestring budget and overextend themselves- they’ll have to own it. Rather than pointing fingers at three levels of government. 

Canadians spend a premium on police. They don’t get a return on investment for a variety of reasons.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Booter said:


> I’m not going to make any assumptions about you. But as a guy who has taken a lot of pulses I don’t find this nearly as controversial as others here.
> 
> In fact a month ago I had someone take a pulse and call an ambulance on someone who was obviously deceased for well over an hour telling me they felt a
> Pulse, they didn’t.


I'm 100% with you on this one. This provides more context to what happened. 

If someone's adrenaline is through the roof it's easy to understand how they may miss a pulse or think they have one when it's absent. 

I've done first aid on a kid that was obviously gone but at that point it was for the parents. It sounds like the victim here was in a similar state. 



Court/investigation wise, what happens when two officers recall an event drastically differently? Are both accounts deemed inadmissible or is one deemed more credible and considered the more credible version?


----------



## Booter

Jarnhamar said:


> Court/investigation wise, what happens when two officers recall an event drastically differently? Are both accounts deemed inadmissible or is one deemed more credible and considered the more credible version?


That’s a super good question. There are cases where experts on memory etc testify- if the differences in recall are so significant and they can be explained by the way people store info. That would have to be a pretty big event because expert testimony is a different beast for most court matters and the time court has for things. 

The accounts would be examined to see if there is an honesty issue. But in the event that both are being honest, but just really diverge on the event, it could be possibly corroborated through other facts- like a third party witness that could be another version again- radio transmission, video.

Outside that they may gauge experience, and just the general nature of the account, 

The one I’m thinking of specifically the judge discussed it in their decision, which parts of the testimony and why. Some were based on photos and the time of the year/lighting conditions. It really is wide open.

Recall is a pretty interesting subject in law enforcement and courts. I was involved in some things a few years ago that induced stress and made people recall distances and threats, some of the accounts between two partners could be wildly different- and usually the perception of danger towards their partner was higher than how they perceived a threat towards themselves 🤷‍♀️

Anecdotally. But interestingly.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Booter said:


> So. Mandatory training- meaning everyone has to have it in order to be operationally on the road. Recerts and user courses- usually hover around 80% and have dipped as low as 50%
> 
> For example, a few years ago a use of force option, pre Covid, dropped to 50% compliance levels for completed mandatory training- there were massive logistical issues that kept the course from being delivered properly. So a thing we HAD to have done we could get 50% through.
> 
> Presently, recert-wise, officers fully trained on their options will spend 3 days annually, minimum to get these mandatories done- plus travel. Then every three-ish years they have a week of recerts on top of that.
> 
> If you add ANY investigative courses that’s another few weeks of the year. And investigations are what they spend their time doing- in theory.
> 
> Now, add on top that most, and don’t believe a word to the contrary because it’s a shell game by the government, have vacancies in their unit in the tens of percents.
> 
> One unit I’m very familiar of- is ten times the national average for violent crime. It was recommended to have well over twenty officers for its file load in 2006 and the rcmp agreed to staff it that way, it presently has 18 postions 15 years later- with twice the population and files it had in 2006 today. Of those 18 positions 14 actually have a person in them.
> 
> And that’s NORMAL.
> 
> So increasing training for niche events, takes a force that’s stretched thin- and adds more absence and vacancy for training. And training takes trainers- which is more people missing from the road. And when I say niche I still mean terrible, severe events we need to Learn from- but also almost the rarest instance. The danger of rare outlier calls is- even if I train you for them- they still catch you off guard. So your response can suck. If I see a thing once a year- and then I am blindsided 364 days later am I really going to rise up and meet the challenge like a stud?
> 
> Most divisional trainers do it as a part time function.
> 
> I have made the argument successfully that members need specialized training- in scenarios and mass exercise for critical incidents. And it’s slowly being rolled out in some districts. But training isn’t a panacea.
> 
> It is not weird for one of my people to be search and rescue trained, Ice rescue trained, wild land fire trained, child interview trained, be a school liaison, be on a community justice program, have court 5 days a month, carry several dozen active investigations (what they are actually supposed to be doing) EACH at any given time. They do their own court packages- something not regularly done, we do maintenance on trucks and boats, and several of them will also be training a new recruit.
> 
> This isn’t woe is me- this is the reality of an rcmp member. So these inquiries and news agencies always suggest that maybe it’s training: if it is there needs to be thousands more officers across the country like 25-30% overnight increase to staffing.
> 
> I had my own personal
> Thoughts on that response. I still don’t understand a lot of that firehall stuff.
> 
> This meandering post was just because you caught my eye on the training thing- my question is when you say that (and in a genuine sense) - Which part of that event would you see addressed? Like is it the threat identification? Their carbine accuracy? The major event Response? What would it look like?


Thank you for the detailed response Booter.  My response to what I would like to see addressed would be all of the above.

Looking at the event and how they themselves reacted, the three things I would focus on would  be:

1. Threat Identification;
2.  Tactical Movement/Thinking, particularly as it pertains to closing the distance, effects of fire in depth, etc;
3.  Application of Marksmanship Principles with emphasis on Follow Through i.e. "Did it Hit? Did it Work?" and Scanning and Breathing.  

I don't know what kind of training the RCMP does with Carbines, how frequently a patrol officer would need to recert on IARD training.

I can't imagine IARD training taught the Officers in question to speculatively fire their weapons at a suspect or react the way they did?

I am less concerned about their actions after the situation was concluded.  I agree with their assessment that it wasn't the time to deal with hurt feelings.

I don't believe the Officer's need to be fired but they probably need a performance review of sorts with an action plan on how to do better. If they had actually killed or injured someone, we would be having a different conversation.

Regarding training and the RCMP, it seems like a classic case of too many demands, not enough resources.  I don't even have a solution on how this gets fixed other than asking for more or reprioritization.  

I think your solution of doing away with contract policing is probably the direction this needs to go.


----------



## Booter

Humphrey Bogart said:


> 1. Threat Identification;
> 2.  Tactical Movement/Thinking, particularly as it pertains to closing the distance, effects of fire in depth, etc;
> 3.  Application of Marksmanship Principles with emphasis on Follow Through i.e. "Did it Hit? Did it Work?" and Scanning and Breathing.
> 
> I don't know what kind of training the RCMP does with Carbines, how frequently a patrol officer would need to recert on IARD training.
> 
> I can't imagine IARD training taught the Officers in question to speculatively fire their weapons at a suspect or react the way they did?
> I don't believe the Officer's need to be fired but they probably need a performance review of sorts with an action plan on how to do better. If they had actually killed or injured someone, we would be having a different conversation.
> 
> Regarding training and the RCMP, it seems like a classic case of too many demands, not enough resources.  I don't even have a solution on how this gets fixed other than asking for more or reprioritization.
> 
> I think your solution of doing away with contract policing is probably the direction this needs to go.


So, the follow through is taught in a similar way- did it hit did it work- it had been taught exactly that way but it’s changed. Annually they would be exposed to that, 

Threat identification is drilled in them in firearms- how to assess etc, it isn’t a heading in their training and recert books but conceptually it’s there, 

The effect of fire portion is essentially missing, a few years ago we rolled out an outdoor portion of IARD- which had some gaps that instructors would fill with things like what you’re discussing, I also discuss those things with people. When these topics are discussed as a need- instructors will point at the tactical movement portion of the carbine recert and course but it’s a robotic exercise not one that lets you apply it in dynamic circumstance. It’s a gap.

IARD recert isn’t really a thing. It’s happening and we do it- and it’s proposed nationally. But it’s divisionally managed. It will eventually be a necessity 

The action of tossing a few rounds at someone you suspect is going to kill people and not following up on those shots- is 100 percent contrary to their training, if that’s what happened. Just on the very surface examination for conversation sake

But one guys initiative forward is another guys planning phase so I’d really have to get down in the reeds.

Off but on topic, I wrote a report on a shooting event for court where the officers post shooting actions were used to explain things- so like the officer said “oh I was sure they were going to kill someone” but after discharging their firearm and missing- they just holstered up and left. Their actions after being completely divorced from the idea they actually believed someone was going to die. That officer isn’t employed anymore, and this is some time ago. Their actions after the fact would have been reviewed- and there are question there

You may not believe me- but of all the municipal police agencies I’ve trained with/ facilitated on carbine- the RCMP patrol carbine course is the most comprehensive. With many small to medium agencies doing only a qual that looks like a hunting rifle course of fire- five standing 100 yards etc. 

I honestly believe- on your last paragraph, that were on the cusp of creating a new service that takes a variety of things from police. There will be a break where these things shear off. Some sortve specialized emergency social services/medical something. 

I’m not smart, I just see it coming. 

I am with you that these concepts need to be in greater circulation- like the tactical mindset, effect of fire, etc, and I also know the training side and the bottlenecks

My solution is to shift responsibility onto NCOs. They need to learn greater emergency command and control and stop moving into the office as soon as they are promoted, 

An NCO course where they direct responses, expectations, plan contingincies. Decide if and why they need alerts etc. 

Stop letting NCOs skate and be admin managers. These poor mfers having to take this call, look it in the eye alone while their NCOs argue about whether to inconvenience cell phone users and if they need a media release, I need chevrons on the scene OWNING this stuff

Get out. Get on the trigger. Lead. Direct. Assist.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Plenty of charges could be applied. Criminal Negligence, careless use of a firearm, I am sure there are others if they wished to go through the book.

At the end of the day they shot at literally nothing because they were scared. Not only that they put a bunch of innocent bystanders at risk. Identify your target and only shoot if the conditions have been met to do so. If this was military members in a foreign country it would be a war crime, why should we tolerate less from our own police. Bare minimum should be fired with cause.


----------



## Booter

Eaglelord17 said:


> Plenty of charges could be applied. Criminal Negligence, careless use of a firearm, I am sure there are others if they wished to go through the book.
> 
> At the end of the day they shot at literally nothing because they were scared. Not only that they put a bunch of innocent bystanders at risk. Identify your target and only shoot if the conditions have been met to do so. If this was military members in a foreign country it would be a war crime, why should we tolerate less from our own police. Bare minimum should be fired with cause.


Once again- it would be reviewed and prosecutors would decide not to charge. Don’t let facts effect your worldview though. It is possible they understand criminal charges in a way that you don’t. 

I’m sure that they weren’t charged because of some conspiracy to protect the officers?


----------



## Haggis

Eaglelord17 said:


> At the end of the day they shot at literally nothing because they were scared.


That they were not charged shows they were able to successfully articulate why they fired and the Nova Scotia SiRT, a provincial investigative body, accepted that.


Eaglelord17 said:


> If this was military members in a foreign country it would be a war crime


Umm, no.  It would definitely be a service offence, though.

To be clear, I don't agree with the outcome and I believe some form of decisive remedial action is warranted against those officers.  But I wasn't there and I didn't do the investigation, so I'm going to trust those who did.


----------



## KevinB

Eaglelord17 said:


> Plenty of charges could be applied. Criminal Negligence, careless use of a firearm, I am sure there are others if they wished to go through the book.


Yes but you need to consider the moment in time.  The officers saw a car that was matching the description of the suspect. 

I don’t agree with their COA, but you need to understand the situation from their shoes too. 



Eaglelord17 said:


> At the end of the day they shot at literally nothing because they were scared. Not only that they put a bunch of innocent bystanders at risk. Identify your target and only shoot if the conditions have been met to do so. If this was military members in a foreign country it would be a war crime, why should we tolerate less from our own police. Bare minimum should be fired with cause.


Are you seriously for real.  
  War Crime?   Troops overseas fire weapons all the time based on the best information they have at the time - sometimes it turns out it was inaccurate informative.   

Do I think they acted correctly - no, but I also understand what it’s like to be involved in a manhunt for an active shooter and have some very poor scene management going on / and a poor understanding of the revolving activities.  

The big take away is going to be what sort of AAR was done, and from that what where the lessons learned to ensure this sort of boondoggle doesn’t occur with much worse results.


----------



## Halifax Tar

There was no reasonable excuse for shooting up that fire station.  Fear is not an excuse.  

It seems the material provides they made no attempt to identify and clarify the situation, instead chosing to open fire.  

How they are able to maintain employment in a police service, or any armed occupation, after that is astonishing and if it isn't a sign of conspiracy and corruption it's a sign of organizational incompetence.


----------



## Haggis

Halifax Tar said:


> There was no reasonable excuse for shooting up that fire station.  Fear is not an excuse.
> 
> It seems the material provides they made no attempt to identify and clarify the situation, instead choosing to open fire.


The SiRT report states otherwise.  They did identify themselves and order the subjects to show their hands.  The one subject did not and appeared to be either fleeing or taking cover.  So, the officers opened fire.  Was this the right call? For them, and for SiRT, it was.

Was their marksmanship up to the task?  Clearly not.  And that, in this case, was a good thing.


----------



## brihard

They didn’t ‘shoot at nothing’. They had a pretty specific description of a threat, because one of the two officers had personally spoken with and collected info from the killer’s wife that morning. They were looking for a male in a replica police car wearing a yellow/orange safety vest. They encountered a male in a yellow/orange safety vest. When they called at him to show his hands he instead ducked and evaded.

Now, has this been a suspicious person call, that would be one thing. But what they knew about the behaviour of the suspect was that he had already killed many, had killed one officer and shot another, had firearms and had possibly acquired another firearm from the dead officer.

So they weren’t dealing with a suspicious person they had what they incorrectly, but reasonably, thought was their suspect. They had every reason to believe a failure to stop that suspect would result in more deaths.

Through an absolute bastard set of coincidences, they thought they were face to face with a mass killer and had every reason to believe he would try to kill them too. IARD training in fact includes a scenario where a positively IDed suspect ignores you completely and starts moving towards a new room with intent to kill. You have the knowledge that they have killed and likely intend to keep killing, and are moving towards new targets, and the training objective basically presents only one correct outcome- shoot them in the back as they calmly walk away from you, before they can get into a new room full of victims. So training had actually primed them for a portion of this set of circumstances.

I can’t speak to their level of proficiency with carbine. I’ll simply say that I would be astonished if they had ever had training where the target itself is moving. Few ranges offer that. In the real situation they had a target at a bit of a distance who ducked, used cover, and moved laterally. I bet most troops would miss as well, given the small number of shots fired. While they were aware of the fire station being a backstop, they were probably hyper focused on what they believed was the mass murderer presenting an immediate threat to their lives and the lives of others.

All in all it was a horrendous combination of circumstances and a complete nightmare. They had less time to decide than it will take you to read this sentence, and all of the observable and perceivable facts DID match the threat that they were hunting- and who they knew was actively hunting other victims. Had it been the guy and had they not shot, and had he entered the fireball and killed, you guys would be shitting all over them in this thread for not taking the shot.

A complete nightmare situation. Fortunately, they missed, and the officer in the car was able to emerge and explain the situation quickly. They then had to carry on hunting the active threat.

Nova Scotia’s SIRT does thorough and fair investigations, and the entirety of the full report is available for anyone here to download and read. I would encourage anyone participating in this thread to do so. They did not find the actions of the officers rose to a criminal threshold. Though they were mistaken in who they were shooting at, their actions, given the circumstances and the information available to them, were within the provision of the criminal code that allows for police to use deadly force.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Haggis said:


> The SiRT report states otherwise.  They did identify themselves and order the subjects to show their hands.  The one subject did not and appeared to be either fleeing or taking cover.  So, the officers opened fire.  Was this the right call? For them, and for SiRT, it was.
> 
> Was their marksmanship up to the task?  Clearly not.  And that, in this case, was a good thing.



Word games. 

So they fired at someone (some people) who presented no aggression, no intent and no capability.  Simply because the civilian(s) didn't react quick enough.  Instead of keep the situation under control they went cowboy and sped away after with out even checking what they had done.  Sounds very much to me like they did identify their target or investigate the situation. 

Lets keep these guys as policemen!  Sounds like they have the qualities we need.

Color me not surprised SiRT cleared these gentlemen.


----------



## Halifax Tar

brihard said:


> They didn’t ‘shoot at nothing’. They had a pretty specific description of a threat, because one of the two officers had personally spoken with and collected info from the killer’s wife that morning. They were looking for a male in a replica police car wearing a yellow/orange safety vest. They encountered a male in a yellow/orange safety vest. When they called at him to show his hands he instead ducked and evaded.
> 
> Now, has this been a suspicious person call, that would be one thing. But what they knew about the behaviour of the suspect was that he had already killed many, had killed one officer and shot another, had firearms and had possibly acquired another firearm from the dead officer.
> 
> So they weren’t dealing with a suspicious person they had what they incorrectly, but reasonably, thought was their suspect. They had every reason to believe a failure to stop that suspect would result in more deaths.
> 
> Through an absolute bastard set of coincidences, they thought they were face to face with a mass killer and had every reason to believe he would try to kill them too. IARD training in fact includes a scenario where a positively IDed suspect ignores you completely and starts moving towards a new room with intent to kill. You have the knowledge that they have killed and likely intend to keep killing, and are moving towards new targets, and the training objective basically presents only one correct outcome- shoot them in the back as they calmly walk away from you, before they can get into a new room full of victims. So training had actually primed them for a portion of this set of circumstances.
> 
> I can’t speak to their level of proficiency with carbine. I’ll simply say that I would be astonished if they had ever had training where the target itself is moving. Few ranges offer that. In the real situation they had a target at a bit of a distance who ducked, used cover, and moved laterally. I bet most troops would miss as well, given the small number of shots fired. While they were aware of the fire station being a backstop, they were probably hyper focused on what they believed was the mass murderer presenting an immediate threat to their lives and the lives of others.
> 
> All in all it was a horrendous combination of circumstances and a complete nightmare. They had less time to decide than it will take you to read this sentence, and all of the observable and perceivable facts DID match the threat that they were hunting- and who they knew was actively hunting other victims. Had it been the guy and had they not shot, and had he entered the fireball and killed, you guys would be shitting all over them in this thread for not taking the shot.
> 
> A complete nightmare situation. Fortunately, they missed, and the officer in the car was able to emerge and explain the situation quickly. They then had to carry on hunting the active threat.
> 
> Nova Scotia’s SIRT does thorough and fair investigations, and the entirety of the full report is available for anyone here to download and read. I would encourage anyone participating in this thread to do so. They did not find the actions of the officers rose to a criminal threshold. Though they were mistaken in who they were shooting at, their actions, given the circumstances and the information available to them, were within the provision of the criminal code that allows for police to use deadly force.



I concur the circumstances were a complete nightmare.  That does not absolve an absolute break down in ones ability to correctly identify a target.  

These policemen take oaths and are paid large sums of tax money to wade towards the danger and be able to correctly operate under those conditions, if they are found wanting to such a level as this they should not longer carry a badge and gun. 

I think there is conspiracy here around this couple of days; but I don't think its an attempt to hide evidence and circumstance of the killer, I think its a maneuver to try and protect the police forces credibility and probably individual careers.


----------



## brihard

Halifax Tar said:


> I concur the circumstances were a complete nightmare.  That does not absolve an absolute break down in ones ability to correctly identify a target.
> 
> These policemen take oaths and are paid large sums of tax money to wade towards the danger and be able to correctly operate under those conditions, if they are found wanting to such a level as this they should not longer carry a badge and gun.
> 
> I think there is conspiracy here around this couple of days; but I don't think its an attempt to hide evidence and circumstance of the killer, I think its a maneuver to try and protect the police forces credibility and probably individual careers.


There was no breakdown in ability. They had a white adult male wearing a coloured vest consistent with what was described, standing next to a police car consistent with what was described, they were unable to see the police officer belonging to said car, the person was in an area consistent with where they were hunting the shooter, and when confronted the individual did NOT behave in a compliant and safe way, but rather in a way consistent with trying to evade and/or access a weapon they had every reason to believe he would have had. You take these perceptions couple with the known risk - the last officer who pulled up close to the suspect got shot - and they had a handful of seconds to make a call. They followed their training the best they could, with the limited and shitty facts at hand.

Did it prove to be a mistake? Yes- but a very understandable and justifiable one in the circumstances. There were many other issues identified in the totality of this response, such as situational awareness, communications, etc. but circumstances conspired to put them in the worst possible position to make an immediate life or death decision. They did the best job they knew how, and any other police officer making the same decision in the same circumstances would likely have seen the independent review deem their actions not criminal.

You brought up some nonsense earlier about ‘war crimes’. I can guarantee you that Canadian soldiers shot at and killed people in Afghanistan with way fewer threat cues than this. You’re marching pretty hard on a wrong bearing here.


----------



## Halifax Tar

brihard said:


> There was no breakdown in ability. They had a white adult male wearing a coloured vest consistent with what was described, standing next to a police car consistent with what was described, they were unable to see the police officer belonging to said car, the person was in an area consistent with where they were hunting the shooter, and when confronted the individual did NOT behave in a compliant and safe way, but rather in a way consistent with trying to evade and/or access a weapon they had every reason to believe he would have had. You take these perceptions couple with the known risk - the last officer who pulled up close to the suspect got shot - and they had a handful of seconds to make a call. They followed their training the best they could, with the limited and shitty facts at hand.
> 
> If that paragraph, to you, equates to *open fire* then we have vast space between us in our expectations of policing, and I would argue I expect more.
> 
> Did it prove to be a mistake? Yes- but a very understandable and justifiable one in the circumstances. There were many other issues identified in the totality of this response, such as situational awareness, communications, etc. but circumstances conspired to put them in the worst possible position to make an immediate life or death decision. They did the best job they knew how, and any other police officer making the same decision in the same circumstances would likely have seen the independent review deem their actions not criminal.
> 
> Mistakes at level should be career ending.  If that's the best the could do then their best was lacking.
> 
> You brought up some nonsense earlier about ‘war crimes’. I can guarantee you that Canadian soldiers shot at and killed people in Afghanistan with way fewer threat cues than this. You’re marching pretty hard on a wrong bearing here.
> 
> I could make some snide comment here about irony and target identification but I'm sure you will correct your aim.  That wasn't me.
> 
> Having said that if we acted like these cops on our CLPs in Afghanistan there would have been a ton of burning white Corollas and Hilux's for no reason.  Intent, proximity and capability.



* Wyatt Earp: “Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything.”*


----------



## Jarnhamar

brihard said:


> I can guarantee you that Canadian soldiers shot at and killed people in Afghanistan with way fewer threat cues than this. You’re marching pretty hard on a wrong bearing here.


Basically if someone looked at us wrong if you're creative enough with the justification, depending on the year.


----------



## brihard

Halifax Tar said:


> * Wyatt Earp: “Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything.”*


Absolutely. Accuracy matters. Reality is, shooting at moving targets is training intensive and difficult to safely and effectively execute given the limitations of most shooting ranges. Again, I suspect most soldier would miss the first few shots too. As only five shots total were fired between the two officers, fortunately neither had the opportunity to really correct their point of aim.

Hitting the target is, of course, distinct from making a justified decision to take the shot in the first place. Glad to see we've moved on from that.


----------



## Halifax Tar

brihard said:


> Absolutely. Accuracy matters. Reality is, shooting at moving targets is training intensive and difficult to safely and effectively execute given the limitations of most shooting ranges. Again, I suspect most soldier would miss the first few shots too. As only five shots total were fired between the two officers, fortunately neither had the opportunity to really correct their point of aim.
> 
> Hitting the target is, of course, distinct from making a justified decision to take the shot in the first place. Glad to see we've moved on from that.



You should open up your quote in my reply there is more in there. 

Accuracy doesn't begin at aiming a shot.  It's begins at correctly identifying the right target.  I don't care how accurate someone is, if they are shooting at the wrong target they are inaccurate.

So now we have incompetence in ability to identify the correct target and incompetence with service firearms... Thank go for the later.  

Again how these officers continue to be employed by any Police service will forever dumbfound me.


----------



## brihard

Halifax Tar said:


> You should open up your quote in my reply there is more in there.
> 
> Accuracy doesn't begin at aiming a shot.  It's begins at correctly identifying the right target.
> 
> So now we have incompetence in ability to identify the correct target and incompetence with service firearms... Thank go for the later.
> 
> Again how these officers continue to be employed by any Police service will forever dumbfound me.


Apologies, I didn't see the orange quote replies.

Police use of force is not and cannot be measured to a standard of perfection, but rather to what is reasonable in the circumstances. That has been affirmed time and time again in court. These officers had exceptionally little time in the worst possible circumstances to make a decision. The factors they identified absolutely allowed for a justifiable use of deadly force. It proved in this case to be an incorrect interpretation of the facts, and it could have been a deadly one. Fortunately they missed. With that said, in such little time, with so many threat cues and factors matching the suspect to work with, their interpretation of the fact set was absolutely understandable and many if not most police officers would probably have made the same determination, whether or not they were then in that brief time able to translate that into action. This was not a break and enter suspect. This was a mass murderer who showed every ability and intent to continue to kill, and would shoot at and kill police to do so. The fact that, by cure coincidence, an innocent person almost perfectly matched the description they had of the suspect AND behaved in a dangerous way AND was corroborated by a marked police car is a terrible set of circumstances, but one they were still bound to act in. Again, had that been the shooter and they had not fired, I bet you would have been screaming bloody murder about that.

Whether or not you 'expect more' is immaterial. Nothing you've said suggests you're equipped by training or experience to make the kinds of determinations you're making those who are, and who HAVE had to make those determinations, have done so and have cleared them for their actions on that terrible day.



> I could make some snide comment here about irony and target identification but I'm sure you will correct your aim. That wasn't me.



That was a total miss on my part. I was wrong and I'm sorry. That was @Eaglelord17 , not you.



> Having said that if we acted like these cops on our CLPs in Afghanistan there would have been a ton of burning white Corollas and Hilux's for no reason. Intent, proximity and capability.



I did CLPs in Afghanistan too. Utterly different set of circumstances. Better analogy would be if there had been a series of firefights, several friendlies had already been killed, you had a description of a specific enemy and the vehicle they were last seen in, you encountered him and in a matter of a second or two he tried to take off when you challenged him.

"Intent' of the shooter was abundantly demonstrated already. All the evidence they had at hand was that the matching male they saw was that person. There is no expectation that the person be allowed to concretely demonstrate their intent in the moment, because the human reactionary gap means that's likely he gets the first shot off. The officer's reasonable perception of the threat and articulartion of what they reasonably expect the person's intent to be suffices.

"Proximity": Per the SIRT report, they were around 88 meters away. That's well within the dangerous distance of a believed active shooter with a firearm.

"Capability": All available information was that the suspect was capable of killing, and had done so repeatedly, including one police officer already killed and another injured. Per the SIRT report, one of the two officers who fired had been personally told by the suspect's wife that morning that he had "several rifles described as “guns like the military people have…the ones that are like thirty-two rounds”." Given that when they encountered the individual he was partly concealed behind the car, and was 80+ meters away, it would not be reasonable to expect them to know with certainty exactly what he had access to. In the circumstances, having already been given information that he was armed with at least one long gun, it would be reasonable to believe that that level of threat was still present. 

The male was running towards the entrance of the fire hall when he was shot at. Given that they believed on reasonable grounds that the man they were shooting at was the mass murderer the entire province was hunting, and that he had been killing civilians and police right up to that point in time (he had killed three more in the past hour alone), it was reasonable to believe they they had to shoot to stop an imminent threat to life. I don't know what you imagine could have allowed them an opportunity to better determine their target in that situation with the limited time and considerable distance they had to work with.

Again, read the report.


----------



## Booter

Did this guy in the vest know it was someone dressed like a cop shooting people Brihard? And the cops thought this guy in a vest was out of place?

Is it possible that both the officers arriving and the guy guarding the Civis at the station behaved oddly- because of the circumstance, causing people to maybe read the lay of the land as being “off”?

 We don’t shoot at people for behaving odd. But when you stack all of this on the back of the interaction it becomes more likely someone would make a mistake. Just conversation.

I’m trying to do Costco on Mother’s Day so I don’t have time to sit with the report.

_edit_ it’s only 6 pages. I read it. That’s what it looks like.


----------



## KevinB

Halifax Tar said:


> You should open up your quote in my reply there is more in there.
> 
> Accuracy doesn't begin at aiming a shot.  It's begins at correctly identifying the right target.  I don't care how accurate someone is, if they are shooting at the wrong target they are inaccurate.
> 
> So now we have incompetence in ability to identify the correct target and incompetence with service firearms... Thank go for the later.
> 
> Again how these officers continue to be employed by any Police service will forever dumbfound me.


You are barking up the wrong tree.  

If you read the repeated comments above, you would see a reasonable person would be able to surmise that the targeted individual was potentially the shooter - and when they became evasive upon being ordered to show their hands, they became a target due to the situation.  

Accuracy has nothing to do with PID - positive identification - 
   You can argue their PID was poor - but I belief that due to the moment in time there is a reasonableness to their engagement.  

Their accuracy was atrocious, and the C2 of the sight was deplorable, as they didn’t know the car belonged to another officer.   

There is a lot of fail to the situation- but you cannot judge based on the knowledge of hindsight.


----------



## brihard

Booter said:


> Did this guy in the vest know it was someone dressed like a cop shooting people Brihard? And the cops thought this guy in a vest was out of place?
> 
> Is it possible that both the officers arriving and the guy guarding the Civis at the station behaved oddly- because of the circumstance, causing people to maybe read the lay of the land as being “off”?
> 
> We don’t shoot at people for behaving odd. But when you stack all of this on the back of the interaction it becomes more likely someone would make a mistake. Just conversation.
> 
> I’m trying to do Costco on Mother’s Day so I don’t have time to sit with the report.
> 
> _edit_ it’s only 6 pages. I read it. That’s what it looks like.


Oh for sure. The actions of the guy in the vest are totally understandable. What _he_ knows is he’s talking to a cop in a cop car, the situation is utterly fucked (he probably knows much less than officers do), and suddenly a civilian car rolls up and two guys with rifles get out nearly 100m away and start yelling at him. No doubt he was spooked. Totally reasonable on his part. That said, none of that feeds the knowledge or reasonable perceptions of the officers. They didn’t know they had another cop on scene, comms were jammed up, and the guy looked, acted, and was situated consistent with a mass shooter who posed an active threat of killing. To them it probably looked like they had caught the shooter dismounting to go wipe out the occupants of the firehall, and then he ran towards the entrance.

I feel for the guy and I hope he gets a good payout in compensation. He deserves it. But not because what they did was unreasonable.


----------



## brihard

KevinB said:


> Their accuracy was atrocious, and the C2 of the sight was deplorable, as they didn’t know the car belonged to another officer.


Standing unsupported, target moving (running) laterally from cover at 88+ meters, and I expect they never trained to shoot traversing targets before… We’re talking small town police who get the necessary mandatory training but otherwise spend most of the time dealing with drunk drivers, domestics, and burglaries. Tough to fault them for a deficiency that they hadn’t been trained to do better at.

C2 absolutely went to shit. I hope the organization learns to rectify this- but even at that this situation would likely have overwhelmed pretty much any rural policing setup.


----------



## Halifax Tar

brihard said:


> Apologies, I didn't see the orange quote replies.
> 
> Police use of force is not and cannot be measured to a standard of perfection, but rather to what is reasonable in the circumstances. That has been affirmed time and time again in court. These officers had exceptionally little time in the worst possible circumstances to make a decision. The factors they identified absolutely allowed for a justifiable use of deadly force. It proved in this case to be an incorrect interpretation of the facts, and it could have been a deadly one. Fortunately they missed. With that said, in such little time, with so many threat cues and factors matching the suspect to work with, their interpretation of the fact set was absolutely understandable and many if not most police officers would probably have made the same determination, whether or not they were then in that brief time able to translate that into action. This was not a break and enter suspect. This was a mass murderer who showed every ability and intent to continue to kill, and would shoot at and kill police to do so. The fact that, by cure coincidence, an innocent person almost perfectly matched the description they had of the suspect AND behaved in a dangerous way AND was corroborated by a marked police car is a terrible set of circumstances, but one they were still bound to act in. Again, had that been the shooter and they had not fired, I bet you would have been screaming bloody murder about that.
> 
> Whether or not you 'expect more' is immaterial. Nothing you've said suggests you're equipped by training or experience to make the kinds of determinations you're making those who are, and who HAVE had to make those determinations, have done so and have cleared them for their actions on that terrible day.
> 
> 
> 
> That was a total miss on my part. I was wrong and I'm sorry. That was @Eaglelord17 , not you.
> 
> 
> 
> I did CLPs in Afghanistan too. Utterly different set of circumstances. Better analogy would be if there had been a series of firefights, several friendlies had already been killed, you had a description of a specific enemy and the vehicle they were last seen in, you encountered him and in a matter of a second or two he tried to take off when you challenged him.
> 
> "Intent' of the shooter was abundantly demonstrated already. All the evidence they had at hand was that the matching male they saw was that person. There is no expectation that the person be allowed to concretely demonstrate their intent in the moment, because the human reactionary gap means that's likely he gets the first shot off. The officer's reasonable perception of the threat and articulartion of what they reasonably expect the person's intent to be suffices.
> 
> "Proximity": Per the SIRT report, they were around 88 meters away. That's well within the dangerous distance of a believed active shooter with a firearm.
> 
> "Capability": All available information was that the suspect was capable of killing, and had done so repeatedly, including one police officer already killed and another injured. Per the SIRT report, one of the two officers who fired had been personally told by the suspect's wife that morning that he had "several rifles described as “guns like the military people have…the ones that are like thirty-two rounds”." Given that when they encountered the individual he was partly concealed behind the car, and was 80+ meters away, it would not be reasonable to expect them to know with certainty exactly what he had access to. In the circumstances, having already been given information that he was armed with at least one long gun, it would be reasonable to believe that that level of threat was still present.
> 
> The male was running towards the entrance of the fire hall when he was shot at. Given that they believed on reasonable grounds that the man they were shooting at was the mass murderer the entire province was hunting, and that he had been killing civilians and police right up to that point in time (he had killed three more in the past hour alone), it was reasonable to believe they they had to shoot to stop an imminent threat to life. I don't know what you imagine could have allowed them an opportunity to better determine their target in that situation with the limited time and considerable distance they had to work with.
> 
> Again, read the report.



I will try to keep a standard response.

No one at that fire hall met that threat matrix.  You know why ?  Because Gabriel Wortman wasn't there they weren't him, and the officers would have known that if they had approached and and investigate the scene.  Your whole argument is based on "ifs".



> Whether or not you 'expect more' is immaterial. Nothing you've said suggests you're equipped by training or experience to make the kinds of determinations you're making those who are, and who HAVE had to make those determinations, have done so and have cleared them for their actions on that terrible day.



If you say so.  But I will say that if we want people to have faith and respect in our police forces again one of the steps is police forces need to stop protecting the shitty cops.



KevinB said:


> You are barking up the wrong tree.
> 
> If you read the repeated comments above, you would see a reasonable person would be able to surmise that the targeted individual was potentially the shooter - and when they became evasive upon being ordered to show their hands, they became a target due to the situation.
> 
> Accuracy has nothing to do with PID - positive identification -
> You can argue their PID was poor - but I belief that due to the moment in time there is a reasonableness to their engagement.
> 
> Their accuracy was atrocious, and the C2 of the sight was deplorable, as they didn’t know the car belonged to another officer.
> 
> There is a lot of fail to the situation- but you cannot judge based on the knowledge of hindsight.



The guy in the vest did exactly what I would expect of some one in his position and in that moment.  He's a civi that ran and hide when cops were pointing guns and screaming in his direction.  If you believe that clears those officers to open fire then again we have vastly different expectations of our policemen and women.

We absolutely can judge on hindsight and we do it all the time.  In and out of courts.



brihard said:


> Oh for sure. The actions of the guy in the vest are totally understandable. What _he_ knows is he’s talking to a cop in a cop car, the situation is utterly fucked (he probably knows much less than officers do), and suddenly a civilian car rolls up and two guys with rifles get out nearly 100m away and start yelling at him. No doubt he was spooked. Totally reasonable on his part. That said, none of that feeds the knowledge or reasonable perceptions of the officers. They didn’t know they had another cop on scene, comms were jammed up, and the guy looked, acted, and was situated consistent with a mass shooter who posed an active threat of killing. To them it probably looked like they had caught the shooter dismounting to go wipe out the occupants of the firehall, and then he ran towards the entrance.
> 
> I feel for the guy and I hope he gets a good payout in compensation. He deserves it. But not because what they did was unreasonable.



Again where is that capability, proximity and intent.  They guy ran and hid.  That doesn't fit anything in that threat matrix.


----------



## Booter

Here’s a new direction in the conversation:

This incident would have been reviewed:
1) from a conduct perspective by the RCMP. 
2)  and was investigated by Nova Scotias SIRT team. Which is led not by a cop- but by a retired judge who is also a university professor of law amongst other things. 

The SIRT investigation- also liaises with the provincial prosecution service for opinion etc.- all civilians

So a civilian run investigation- and civilians with, what I would suggest in my dealings with external review, a pretty incredible wealth of knowledge comparatively,

They conclude that it was above board. Having access to all the facts. Which we don’t. 

Here’s my question: what kindve Civilian oversight would satisfy people so they could say “I don’t get it- but that’s thorough and impartial”.

What is missing?


----------



## Booter

brihard said:


> Standing unsupported, target moving (running) laterally from cover at 88+ meters, and I expect they never trained to shoot traversing targets before… We’re talking small town police who get the necessary mandatory training but otherwise spend most of the time dealing with drunk drivers, domestics, and burglaries. Tough to fault them for a deficiency that they hadn’t been trained to do better at.
> 
> C2 absolutely went to shit. I hope the organization learns to rectify this- but even at that this situation would likely have overwhelmed pretty much any rural policing setup.


Coms in Atlantic region have been an issue for decades. No money to improve- and poor cell net as well.


----------



## brihard

Halifax Tar said:


> I will try to keep a standard response.
> 
> No one at that fire hall met that threat matrix.  You know why ?  Because Gabriel Wortman wasn't there they weren't him, and the officers would have known that if they had approached and and investigate the scene.  Your whole argument is bases on "ifs".
> 
> 
> 
> If you say so.  But I will say that if we want people to have faith and respect in our police forces again one of the steps is police forces needs to stop protecting the shitty cops.
> 
> 
> The guy in the vest did exactly what I would expect of some one in his position and in that moment.  He's a civi that ran and hide when cops were pointing guns and screaming in his direction.  If you believe that clears those officers to open fire then again we have vastly different expectations of our policemen and women.
> 
> We absolutely can judge on hindsight and we do it all the time.  In and out of courts.
> 
> 
> 
> Again where is that capability, proximity and intent.  They guy ran and hid.  That doesn't fit anything in that threat matrix.


“Threat matrix” is not a term in policing or in law. I have explained, repeatedly, the considerations and legalities that go into this. I have referred you to the SIRT report (have you read it?) and am prepared to point you to some case law that digests police use of force decisions, but frankly at this point I think my time would be wasted.

I understand and respect that this was a situation that also carries some emotional loading for you. With that said, you’ve doubled- and tripled-down on trying to push a clearly unqualified perspective and narrative of the situation. To be blunt, you think you know what you’re talking about, but you don’t. Police use of force is a matter completely governed by law, and in the time since this event you have not chosen to get at all acquainted with that. That’s fine, that’s your choice to make, but your expectations are worth exactly what any of us have paid for them.

Not the first time someone will think they know what police should have done and have all kinds of opinions on what they think individual police are capable of in a crisis. Won’t be the last either. Fortunately the actual decisions get made by those more invested in understanding the realities of these events.

At least you admit you’re merely judging the situation in hindsight. I respect your honestly in conceding that.


----------



## KevinB

Halifax Tar said:


> I will try to keep a standard response.
> 
> No one at that fire hall met that threat matrix.  You know why ?  Because Gabriel Wortman wasn't there they weren't him, and the officers would have known that if they had approached and and investigate the scene.  Your whole argument is based on "ifs".


You aren’t going to approach a suspect near a vehicle - they could have long guns etc in there and the Vehicle itself is a deadly weapon.    You want to gain control of the suspect from cover and place them in a disadvantaged position - and you need to see their hands because that is where the action is.   


Halifax Tar said:


> If you say so.  But I will say that if we want people to have faith and respect in our police forces again one of the steps is police forces need to stop protecting the shitty cops.


See @brihards response as to the SIRT 


Halifax Tar said:


> The guy in the vest did exactly what I would expect of some one in his position and in that moment.  He's a civi that ran and hide when cops were pointing guns and screaming in his direction.  If you believe that clears those officers to open fire then again we have vastly different expectations of our policemen and women.


The moment in time.   It is what use of force standards are based off. 
    As @brihard stated - yes given his knowledge it is reasonable - but that doesn’t make the officers actions unreasonable based on what they knew at that point in time. 



Halifax Tar said:


> We absolutely can judge on hindsight and we do it all the time.  In and out of courts.


You can learn from things with hindsight - but you cannot use hindsight to just UoF issues.  
   The situation needs to be reviewed based on what the officer(s) saw at the precise moment in time they made the decision to use force, and if it was reasonable based on what they knew then.  



Halifax Tar said:


> Again where is that capability, proximity and intent.  They guy ran and hid.  That doesn't fit anything in that threat matrix.


Lots of armed shooters will run - doesn’t mean they aren’t still a threat.


----------



## Halifax Tar

brihard said:


> “Threat matrix” is not a term in policing or in law. I have explained, repeatedly, the considerations and legalities that go into this. I have referred you to the SIRT report (have you read it?) and am prepared to point you to some case law that digests police use of force decisions, but frankly at this point I think my time would be wasted.
> 
> I understand and respect that this was a situation that also carries some emotional loading for you. With that said, you’ve doubled- and tripled-down on trying to push a clearly unqualified perspective and narrative of the situation. To be blunt, you think you know what you’re talking about, but you don’t. Police use of force is a matter completely governed by law, and in the time since this event you have not chosen to get at all acquainted with that. That’s fine, that’s your choice to make, but your expectations are worth exactly what any of us have paid for them.
> 
> Not the first time someone will think they know what police should have done and have all kinds of opinions on what they think individual police are capable of in a crisis. Won’t be the last either. Fortunately the actual decisions get made by those more invested in understanding the realities of these events.
> 
> At least you admit you’re merely judging the situation in hindsight. I respect your honestly in conceding that.



My friend one does not need first hand knowledge to comment on something.  This forum is full examples of that.  

Also, much like the military, police affairs will be dissected by the public and in NS the public smell something funny, no just around the Onslow firehall but around this whole incident.  And we, the public, are allowed to have hindsight.   I think its all about protecting a service and individual careers.  

Remove my personal connection to this.  You will never convince me that those POs are somehow justified in firing those shots.  If I was a cop I wouldn't want to be on patrol with one of them. 



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/nova-scotia-municipalities-policing-rcmp-1.6436977


----------



## Booter

You don’t have hindsight. That implies you have information and knowledge. You have a some articles and sound bites. There is a difference. And I enjoy your posts- I always learn things on this forum- but here I’m at a loss.

You want accountibility- you were pointed at the mechanisms that do it AND you’ve been asked what would be more assuring?

An investigation that starts at “they are shitty cops” wouldn’t serve the public either. That makes “fuck it- drive on” cops.

This is the literal first time I’ve ever heard it suggested that rcmp management and government is going through something to protect some constables career.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Booter said:


> You don’t have hindsight. That implies you have information and knowledge. You have a some articles and sound bites. There is a difference. And I enjoy your posts- I always learn things on this forum- but here I’m at a loss.
> 
> You want accountibility- you were pointed at the mechanisms that do it AND you’ve been asked what would be more assuring?
> 
> An investigation that starts at “they are shitty cops” wouldn’t serve the public either. That makes “fuck it- drive on” cops.



Are you disputing the existence of shitty cops or are you arguing these two officers arent shitty ? 

Shitty doesn't just mean corrupt.  I know lots of shitty people in the CAF but I wouldn't say many are corrupt.  Incompetent, absolutely.

Much like many in NS to me this whole scenario, public inquiry and the internal investigations smells rotten.  And the more it goes in and is released the worse it gets.


----------



## Booter

Halifax Tar said:


> Are you disputing the existence of shitty cops or are you arguing these two officers arent shitty ?
> 
> Shitty doesn't just mean corrupt.  I know lots of shitty people in the CAF but I wouldn't say many are corrupt.  Incompetent, absolutely.
> 
> Much like many in NS this whole scenario, public inquiry and the internal investigations smells rotten.  And the more it goes in and is released the worse it gets.


The difference is- I don’t know these officers well enough to call them “shitty”. I have one, poorly managed event, in a vacuum. 

I run into shitty cops all the time, I bet on the wrong day I’ve been called one. 

I’ve also seen the most useless people in uniform lauded in the media, I know the media doesn’t deal in reality. 

Where you see conspiracy- I see the culmination of complacency, and a lot of officers trying to make the fog of a situation work. 

If you’re suggesting that the federal and provincial governments are trying to avoid a black eye because of their layers and layers of lazy systems, and outdated infrastructure, and the failure of the provincial management bodies to predict and build contingency. 

Yes.

But these two at a table in the inquiry? Nope. They are two dudes dealing in an event no one anticipated, with systems and equipment meant for 1989 rather than 2022, without support after eating a box of pizza pops and checking their emails.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Booter said:


> The difference is- I don’t know these officers well enough to call them “shitty”. I have one, poorly managed event, in a vacuum.
> 
> I run into shitty cops all the time, I bet on the wrong day I’ve been called one.
> 
> I’ve also seen the most useless people in uniform lauded in the media, I know the media doesn’t deal in reality.
> 
> Where you see conspiracy- I see the culmination of complacency, and a lot of officers trying to make the fog of a situation work.
> 
> If you’re suggesting that the federal and provincial governments are trying to avoid a black eye because of their layers and layers of lazy systems, and outdated infrastructure, and the failure of the provincial management bodies to predict and build contingency.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But these two at a table in the inquiry? Nope. They are two dudes dealing in an event no one anticipated, with systems and equipment meant for 1989 rather than 2022, without support after eating a box of pizza pops and checking their emails.



Since we're dealing in "ifs" what if they had shot and killed one or more person at that firehall ?  

Is it still just a "whoops sorry, I felt scared" scenario like this one ?


----------



## Booter

It isn’t unprecedented that an innocent bystander gets shot, if they were found to be not criminally negligent in their initial belief- they would be, along with the organization, open to civil liability. 

I know that’s sterile. But it’s how things are legally, 

There’s also guys working that have shot into moving cars when they shouldn’t have and killed passengers- they still have jobs.

I am of the opinion that you should be able to release people easier in the police services. Maybe not with “dishonour”, for lack of a better term, but service no
Longer required. 

I will review several events a year where a police officers decision making makes me raise my eyebrow and I’ll think that it would be in everyone’s best interest that THIS person not be a police officer. 

But I have to work in the confines of the system that’s there. So when we talk about the system in general, not specifically about these two because they were reviewed At multiple levels, the system is completely busted. Serves no one- and protects people from being held accountable just by the shear lumbering bureaucracy.


----------



## Booter

To give you an idea of the system- I’ll decide if I want to handle something through performance or conduct- if I do it through performance I can have it resolved in a month or two, if I put it into conduct- it’s not unheard of they’ll be off for two years, paid, and if they are found wanting- they’ll lose a certain amount of pay. For having been off for 18 months, 

Then if they are recommended to be released…it’s appealed and dragged out for years. 

Or, I can make performance recommendations and try and salvage them- because when they go off that unit won’t fill their position. So while they eat cinnamon toast crunch at home, their coworkers are working short. 

The present system isn’t designed to even get rid of real issues, well before you get to guys that potentially made a split second mistake while TRYING to do the right thing.


----------



## Booter

Here are the conduct decisions- these are conducts that are in the more significant realm. They don’t publish the minor ones (there are allegations that get “meetings” and ones that get “hearings”)






						Navigation by Date: 2022 - Royal Canadian Mounted Police
					






					decisions.rcmp.gc.ca
				




Look at the very first one. Accused- June 2019, decision? Deep in 2021. Recommended for release- what it doesn’t say? It’s under appeal. Still going- as far as I’m aware anyways.

I am your partner in wanting this fixed. Not for the case we re discussing necessarily but in order to do anything- you’d have to have a mechanism. The mechanism is damaged. So it’s not a reasonable outcome to expect here.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I have a few questions. Brihard mentioned a 'small town police force' 
You mentioned 'systems and equipment meant for 1989 rather than 2022, without support after eating a box of pizza pops and checking their emails.'

Are these all RCMP? The RCMP are our national police force. Do they not all get the same training? Do they not all have themselves physical requirements? Are we to assume that these officers were incapable of performance due to lack of training? They got surprised and reacted to such. Do we then assume the RCMP in other small towns across Canada are likely to react the same way? Your own statements don't exactly instill confidence in ordinary citizens. Comms is always a problem. Our office actually had to order the OPP in our county to upgrade their systems and the pushback I got from senior personnel was incredible. I don't know what other equipment meets the standard of antiquated but you are armed with modern C8 assault carbines, I have no idea what sighting system it uses,  but we used to shoot 500 meters with iron sights. What kind of force doesn't teach shooters how to lead a moving target? Perhaps some time on the skeet range instead of shredding paper indoors.Vehicles are just a means to get A to B. I could suggest hard armour in the trunk, if they get into a shootout. What other modernization are you missing? Now, by my reading, either the RCMP in Ottawa are the same standard as these 'small town police force' or the STPF are undertrained, out of shape and incompetent. Which is it?


----------



## Booter

Coms and the ability to move information around is the equipment I’m talking about. Their firearms and HBA are fine. 

If you arrest two people a year, and no one fights you- and you have ten years of service you are less prepared than someone who trains on their off days, keeps their kit in order, is putting cuffs on dozens of people a month. Responding to shootings and using incident management on a regular basis. 

It is not the same. So they recert like anyone else and they sit and rust the rest of the year. I don’t really know how to quantify that better. And we don’t move Mounties around as much as we used to- so a guy does ten years with no violence and then responds to unprecedented violence. Officer B who runs and chases and uses systems all the time will be faster at making decisions inside that environment. Officer A has to catch up a lot longer. If there is a solution to this problem- I’ve never heard of it. It’s been around a long time, 

In many regards divisions (provinces) are their own beast. The prairies have multiple levels of tactical response- Atlantic region doesn’t, or not as many, and not to the same depth either. 

I can draw two helicopters, and a dozen assaulters towards a farm field in Alberta in a few minutes, 

I cannot in Baddeck.


----------



## Booter

But you can assume they didn’t have training for this scale of event. Yes. Because we seem to gloss over that before this happened it has never happened before in Canada and really has very few proxy’s elsewhere. 

It is not uncommon to have two Mounties on for hundreds of square kms in places. Infinite training cycles so they CX moving targets at hundreds of yards is not an option. 

There is a place where investigations and operations intersects with training, a GENERAL play area that the overwhelming majority of events will fall into- that’s where the training is aimed.

Any training for the 0.001 event takes away from them doing the job they have to do. If you want them trained for that- they need immediate 25-30% increase in staffing and a lot of money poured into a training budget.

Or, you accept that “okay” is good enough and we leave these events to incredibly specialized units- that are also struggling to recruit and fill positions. 

One spot, and I mentioned it already, that can be improved this month- is the command and control from NCOs. Presently it is my experience  that we have basically no expectation of them operationally. Develop a course, push them through scenarios where they actually plan and coordinate a response. Not just the five scenarios on a particular course…that only half out NCOs wind up getting


----------



## Booter

On the topic of physical shape- I have an operational member in my area who last did their physical testing in 2008. It’s not a requirement in the RCMP.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

No one expects any cop to shoot movers at hundreds of yards. Skeet shooting takes place inside 40 yards. Cops should be able to take a mover at that range. When it comes to police, firing shots in public, OK is not good enough. The death of a bystander, OK is not good enough. If that person was a child, OK is not good enough. Shit happens. We know. However, that is not an excuse. If you have trouble recruiting enough officers, similar to the CAF, you need to spend some money and drill down to the cause. Lucki is a PM appointee, she should be able to influence her boss to give you what you need. Especially, if it looks like he'll be on the hook for something where he needs her help again.


----------



## mariomike

Booter said:


> On the topic of physical shape- I have an operational member in my area who last did their physical testing in 2008. It’s not a requirement in the RCMP.



What about a medical?  Even though healthy and uninjured, I had to redo my  medical every three years.


----------



## Booter

I’ve trained hundreds, if not thousands, of officers of all levels in firearms, if you include training them in scenarios making decisions I did around two thousand a year for a few years. Several agencies.

I’m aware of the limitations of training time, logistics, and operations.

You can tell me what’s not okay- i actually agree. But I’m telling you that the law and government has decided that for you already- your bone is with them. Canada has accepted “meh” as a standard. The saving grace is- most members want to do better than that. But if you want to meh and get paid- you can.

I’ll make pipe hitters out of anyone you want- but it takes time, money, bodies. I’m not in recruiting. I’m just some senior smuck. I advise and then I make it work.

Like you make it sound like it’s that easy. There are detachments that risk out their annual bare vanilla firearms quals because of the logistics. It’s less common than it was but bet your ass it’s still out there. I would love to be having this talk over a beer instead- I would blow your mind with what things actually roll out like once you get away from capital cities. And it’s a lot of people trying to make it work.

That too comfy relationship at the top is part of the problem in my uneducated opinion. 

Mario- medical is still every three for regular guys. Tactical Specialties are annual and they also enforce their physical testing,


----------



## Booter

I’m always worried I am being An apologist. I admit I agreed, outside this context, with all the things being said etc that can be done better. I’m just saying how they are currently- not that they “should” be done this way


----------



## Halifax Tar

Booter said:


> I’m always worried I am being An apologist. I admit I agreed, outside this context, with all the things being said etc that can be done better. I’m just saying how they are currently- not that they “should” be done this way



I have no issues with your replies.  I know they come from experience and expertise.  And while I may disagree with them I can respect them. 

I think we both want well trained, well equipped, smart and dedicated Police officers.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

No apologies required. I am ignorant of real status, requirements and fixes. That's why I'm asking. Tanks for your replies and candor. I still don't  like  the current situation. It would appear that all those Superintendents all the way up to Commisioner Lucki are not intent in improving the Force. Where are their voices demanding the government fix it? I know, rhetorical. They sound like their carreers and politics are the uppermost things in their minds and not their subordinates


----------



## lenaitch

Fishbone Jones said:


> I have a few questions. Brihard mentioned a 'small town police force'
> You mentioned 'systems and equipment meant for 1989 rather than 2022, without support after eating a box of pizza pops and checking their emails.'
> 
> Are these all RCMP? The RCMP are our national police force. Do they not all get the same training? Do they not all have themselves physical requirements? Are we to assume that these officers were incapable of performance due to lack of training? They got surprised and reacted to such. Do we then assume the RCMP in other small towns across Canada are likely to react the same way? Your own statements don't exactly instill confidence in ordinary citizens. Comms is always a problem. Our office actually had to order the OPP in our county to upgrade their systems and the pushback I got from senior personnel was incredible. I don't know what other equipment meets the standard of antiquated but you are armed with modern C8 assault carbines, I have no idea what sighting system it uses,  but we used to shoot 500 meters with iron sights. What kind of force doesn't teach shooters how to lead a moving target? Perhaps some time on the skeet range instead of shredding paper indoors.Vehicles are just a means to get A to B. I could suggest hard armour in the trunk, if they get into a shootout. What other modernization are you missing? Now, by my reading, either the RCMP in Ottawa are the same standard as these 'small town police force' or the STPF are undertrained, out of shape and incompetent. Which is it?



I understood the term "small town police force" in the context that any deployed police service is a collection of work locations (detachments, posts, stations, whatever) that are staffed to meet the needs of their assigned area.  Some are large and urban - many if not most are not.  They report upward through a common command chain and get to draw on specialized resources as required.  At the patrol level, a 10 member police service and a 10 member detachment are going to be very similar.

Many police officers in Canada face little violence, certainly life threating violence, throughout their careers.  Many if not most will never fire their weapon in anger.  As a society, we see that as a good thing, but it can have a cost.  I have no doubt that a copper in a major US city, or 52 Division Toronto (or some of the Greater Vancouver area RCMP detachments by the sounds of it) would have been tactically faster on their mental feet than I ever was on a typical day on the road.   

Police services provide mandatory training to the level that legislation or policy requires.  In Ontario, that is mandated by the province, so it is the same for the 5500 member OPP as it is for 9-member Deep River PS (which probably contracts its training).  If  the public wants that standard to be raised, and what it sounds like people are expecting is very close to tactical-level, fair enough, but they're going to have to be willing to pay for it, both in increased staffing to cover training absences as well as enhanced facilities.


----------



## Booter

building off Lenaitchs post, which I agree with. I think it’s important that we consider the gear shifts for mentality of officers are making- day to day- interviewing kids. Coach sports.Talking at schools, being involved in the community. Walk around. Be friendly. Assist ems, find missing people Then also train to have that switch flip and be tactically proficient hunters of men.

It’s what we pay for - for sure. But it’s a Herculean expectation of the everyday person on the road.

Public safety isn’t an area of “good enough” to me. But some of my experience with various levels of government suggests that it’s possible that it is for others.

A few years ago a national program changed, a recommendation was made at an inquiry that a particular training had to happen- municipal governments were concerned about the cost. Because of the funding model the rcmp uses- so while things are standard across the board. Some things aren’t paid by Ottawa- and because of that there is some deviation across the country.

Even some towns side by side will have some minor deviations.

Some Municipal governments will be shown a model that allows them to have a coordinated set of resources tackle some priority issues, that they identified, but they will stay away from that process- in favour of one that has a car show up on Main Street three times a day.

The show is better than the result. I have worked with some progressive municipal governments- my point is it’s just harder than “it’s the same across the country.”


----------



## Booter

Let me try something. I’m not sure it’ll work- 

Why do we separate infantry with specializations- why is there a jump company, a recce platoon, sniper cell etc. 

If they have use, and could be spontaneously necessary- why aren’t they all trained in these things? 

Why do I have different levels of PWT etc? If everyone can be made a gunfighter why don’t we? 

Well over half of an rcmp officers time is spent admin wise. And they are selected and trained to a general level. They are not special in any remarkable way besides the ones who have an honest desire to serve their communities. The average rcmp cadet physically isn’t special, after their hundred hours of defensive tactics they aren’t “fighters”, on the old course of fire they would score 250 and be perfect- but they could graduate with a 200. That’s not remarkable. 

They are generalists. 

It’s a bit loose- like I can see some objections to some of this.


----------



## brihard

Halifax Tar said:


> I have no issues with your replies.  I know they come from experience and expertise.  And while I may disagree with them I can respect them.
> 
> I think we both want well trained, well equipped, smart and dedicated Police officers.


Yup, I think everyone does. Unfortunately hardly anyone wants to pay for enough of them, or for that training. Every day on the range is a day not working detachment files and solving crimes. For smaller rural/remote detachments, there’s also the added costs of travel and meals for training.

The raw material - the intelligence, ethics, professionalism, and dedication of the members - is generally quite good. But nothing substitutes for training and for repping it out, and it’s extremely difficult to get a whole team who normally work the road together to all have training at the same time to work command and control. Outside of specialized teams, good luck getting training days built into the schedule.

As for standardized training- yes there are standards for performance and courses. The actual delivery of training falls to each ‘division’, which in most cases corresponds to a province. Every province where you call 911 and get RCMP is very nearly its own independent police force in a lot of ways. A lot of things you would expect to be the same or easily compatible, aren’t.

Bringing this back home to the subject at hand: Portapique was an unprecedented event in Canada that landed on a rural night shift. Command and control was overwhelmed. Dispatchers and call takers were overwhelmed. And while all this was happening, the normal calls to police you get any night or any morning were still coming in. Mobilizing more members via fanout took time, and police across disparate detachments don’t by default coalesce into an organic structure the way a section of infantry fragmented in battle would naturally look for a platoon commander, or a platoon commander would find a company commander who’s making sense to glom on to. Every dead body was a crime scene to secure and be prepared to literally defend themselves there if the shooter came back.

I struggle to conceive of a worse situation for any police service to handle. A complex terrorism attack in an urban setting would likely have been literally easier to handle and resource than this. A shooter dressed like a cop and driving a well done replica PC was just shitty icing on a shitty cake.


----------



## KevinB

brihard said:


> Yup, I think everyone does. Unfortunately hardly anyone wants to pay for enough of them, or for that training. Every day on the range is a day not working detachment files and solving crimes. For smaller rural/remote detachments, there’s also the added costs of travel and meals for training.


Overworked and undermanned… 



brihard said:


> The raw material - the intelligence, ethics, professionalism, and dedication of the members - is generally quite good. But nothing substitutes for training and for repping it out, and it’s extremely difficult to get a whole team who normally work the road together to all have training at the same time to work command and control. Outside of specialized teams, good luck getting training days built into the schedule.
> 
> As for standardized training- yes there are standards for performance and courses. The actual delivery of training falls to each ‘division’, which in most cases corresponds to a province. Every province where you call 911 and get RCMP is very nearly its own independent police force in a lot of ways. A lot of things you would expect to be the same or easily compatible, aren’t.
> 
> Bringing this back home to the subject at hand: Portapique was an unprecedented event in Canada that landed on a rural night shift. Command and control was overwhelmed. Dispatchers and call takers were overwhelmed. And while all this was happening, the normal calls to police you get any night or any morning were still coming in. Mobilizing more members via fanout took time, and police across disparate detachments don’t by default coalesce into an organic structure the way a section of infantry fragmented in battle would naturally look for a platoon commander, or a platoon commander would find a company commander who’s making sense to glom on to. Every dead body was a crime scene to secure and be prepared to literally defend themselves there if the shooter came back.


110% 




brihard said:


> I struggle to conceive of a worse situation for any police service to handle. A complex terrorism attack in an urban setting would likely have been literally easier to handle and resource than this.


I’d say that depends on the area - we learned down here (DC area) with the Navy Yard shooting, and then a Multi Jurisdictional Ex at Quantico that the more pieces of separate LEA’s you add the more it becomes a train wreck.  

I’ve worked on three different Federal LE Task Forces - all have been SWAT/ERT/TAC related (which theoretically has a high standard of weapons and tactical training) and I can tell you that it can be a total cluster - I’ve had several near blue on blues, due to complacency and incompetence - and it isn’t getting better…



brihard said:


> A shooter dressed like a cop and driving a well done replica PC was just shitty icing on a shitty cake.


Nightmare scenario, as you can be pretty sure he’s going to be able to get the drop on you, which will make anyone that much more on edge.


----------



## brihard

KevinB said:


> I’d say that depends on the area - we learned down here (DC area) with the Navy Yard shooting, and then a Multi Jurisdictional Ex at Quantico that the more pieces of separate LEA’s you add the more it becomes a train wreck.
> 
> I’ve worked on three different Federal LE Task Forces - all have been SWAT/ERT/TAC related (which theoretically has a high standard of weapons and tactical training) and I can tell you that it can be a total cluster - I’ve had several near blue on blues, due to complacency and incompetence - and it isn’t getting better…


America is more of a cluster with the much greater number of police services or entities with policing responsibilities in certain geographies. It’s pretty clear who ‘the police’ are for incident command in any location, and even in a complex jurisdiction like Ottawa, a lot of the structure and joint command plans are already in place. But I was referring more to having enough bodies under a coherent command structure in a smaller geography. Portapique was chaotic not just for how many deaths over how long a time, but also have physically far it spread. While it was a single police dispatch centre running it, they themselves were limited in the number of call takers and dispatchers, and police out there are not at all accustomed to rolling into a larger incident command the way they would be in an urban centre. That’s all I was going for with that.


----------



## RedFive

brihard said:


> Yup, I think everyone does. Unfortunately hardly anyone wants to pay for enough of them, or for that training. Every day on the range is a day not working detachment files and solving crimes. For smaller rural/remote detachments, there’s also the added costs of travel and meals for training.
> 
> The raw material - the intelligence, ethics, professionalism, and dedication of the members - is generally quite good. But nothing substitutes for training and for repping it out, and it’s extremely difficult to get a whole team who normally work the road together to all have training at the same time to work command and control. Outside of specialized teams, good luck getting training days built into the schedule.
> 
> As for standardized training- yes there are standards for performance and courses. The actual delivery of training falls to each ‘division’, which in most cases corresponds to a province. Every province where you call 911 and get RCMP is very nearly its own independent police force in a lot of ways. A lot of things you would expect to be the same or easily compatible, aren’t.
> 
> Bringing this back home to the subject at hand: Portapique was an unprecedented event in Canada that landed on a rural night shift. Command and control was overwhelmed. Dispatchers and call takers were overwhelmed. And while all this was happening, the normal calls to police you get any night or any morning were still coming in. Mobilizing more members via fanout took time, and police across disparate detachments don’t by default coalesce into an organic structure the way a section of infantry fragmented in battle would naturally look for a platoon commander, or a platoon commander would find a company commander who’s making sense to glom on to. Every dead body was a crime scene to secure and be prepared to literally defend themselves there if the shooter came back.
> 
> I struggle to conceive of a worse situation for any police service to handle. A complex terrorism attack in an urban setting would likely have been literally easier to handle and resource than this. A shooter dressed like a cop and driving a well done replica PC was just shitty icing on a shitty cake.


NS could have had a much better response from the RCMP, but the politicians who demanded discount Policing and the Senior Management of the RCMP who allowed it to be so are at fault.

The RCMP needs to stop being the Walmart of Policing, and tell the people holding the purse strings what it's going to cost if they want the RCMP to police their jurisdiction.

Personal opinion only.


----------



## Booter

RedFive said:


> NS could have had a much better response from the RCMP, but the politicians who demanded discount Policing and the Senior Management of the RCMP who allowed it to be so are at fault.
> 
> The RCMP needs to stop being the Walmart of Policing, and tell the people holding the purse strings what it's going to cost if they want the RCMP to police their jurisdiction.
> 
> Personal opinion only.


There’s a complex complacent relationship between us and the provincial governments where they tell us what they’re willing to spend and we say “what are the odds! That’s exactly what we need!”

Ultimately we recommend officers and equipment and the province says yes or no- and if they say no we are very quiet about our requests so as to not embarrass anyone


----------



## Jarnhamar

Booter said:


> Ultimately we recommend officers and equipment and the province says yes or no- and if they say no we are very quiet about our requests so as to not embarrass anyone



Maybe what's required is police and their new police union to be more vocal about this. Put the province on the spot and embarrass people. 

Of course that's a double edge sword with no handle.


----------



## mariomike

Jarnhamar said:


> Maybe what's required is police and their new police union to be more vocal about this. Put the province on the spot and embarrass people.



Nothing new about 9-1-1 union scare tactics where I live.

Radio ads with hysterical callers. Dispatchers apologising they have no available units in the area to send.

The narrator putting a fright into listeners, "It's about public safety. Your safety. Maybe even your life."

They won the two-officer car arbitration in 1976. When Metro slow-walked its implementation, the union went on a slow-down.

Not sure if the new RCMP union is ready to go that far, yet.


----------



## Booter

Jarnhamar said:


> Maybe what's required is police and their new police union to be more vocal about this. Put the province on the spot and embarrass people.
> 
> Of course that's a double edge sword with no handle.


There are some items officer safety wise that have to provided for so they don’t get an option. But that’s when the money shell game starts. And generally for safety kit I don’t think anyone objects.

Where they start to object is things like paying for more officers.

I’d like to explain deeper but it’s not for open talk- but there are some stories I’d love to share on your post


----------



## daftandbarmy

Booter said:


> There are some items officer safety wise that have to provided for so they don’t get an option. But that’s when the money shell game starts. And generally for safety kit I don’t think anyone objects.
> 
> Where they start to object is things like paying for more officers.
> 
> I’d like to explain deeper but it’s not for open talk- but there are some stories I’d love to share on your post



I'm unqualified to comment, but the situation reminded me of a good old 'terrorist attack' management scenario.

It seemed less about kit and equipment, and individual Officer performance, and more about the coordination of cordon and search type operations over a large area.


----------



## Booter

The “kit” being The infrastructure (such as coms) and then the contingency planning- then the multiple levels of review behind single actions like using the alert system- provincial officials and executives. Atlantic region has struggled with coms for a long time. Even where money is put in the depth of that system- or even how many operators is bootstrapped 

But you’re right


----------



## Haggis

KevinB said:


> Nightmare scenario, as you can be pretty sure he’s going to be able to get the drop on you, which will make anyone that much more on edge.


There is still an expectation in some circles that the police should not be allowed to fire until fired upon. That's simply wrong, obviously, as the subject's first shot may be the last sound the officer hears.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Potentially more bad mojo for the RCMP 









						Truro police chief wouldn't 'explain away' RCMP's missed warnings about mass killer | SaltWire
					

David MacNeil didn’t want to be alone in the room when he took a call from two of the highest ranking Mounties in the province. It was a few weeks after ...




					www.saltwire.com


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

"It was actually worse than one bulletin.
It would turn out that RCMP received at least three warnings that Wortman had illegal weapons at his home in Portapique, was mentally unstable and had been making threats.
And that despite warnings from both Halifax and Truro municipal agencies, they never sought a warrant to search his property."

Well when they do, and things go bad, the police are still made out to be the bad guys. [check the gun thread on here]  Lets see, a proper warrant and, unlike the NS shooter, had already been involved with a sold gun/ murder scenario, so based on that on what innuendo would they have had to try for a search warrant on the NS clown's place?









						Family of Ontario gunsmith killed by police questions watchdog's investigation
					

An investigation into the police shooting death of a 70-year-old gunsmith in southwestern Ontario is "filled with holes," his family claimed Tuesday.




					www.cp24.com


----------



## Booter

Not a good look for sure. I won’t speculate on some of the stuff in there- I feel like we all can guess some of the motivations of the senior officers. I have no time for politicians in uniform. 

Unactionable officer safety bulletins go out lots. Where it’s like “we can’t prove this BUT if you stop this car be aware”

That said- public safety warrants, unless it’s changed very recently, are not difficult to get if you do have all this information and in my experience they aren’t used enough. 

I think a prudent question in this is to pile all the information and point at it and say- what proactively was done to corroborate this? 

I’ve been in meetings where everyone mentions tips that aren’t useful- but they aren’t pursuing the info to make it useful. 

That news article actually has a lot of very big issues in it for how short it is. The relationship of municipal forces and the RCMP etc


----------



## Halifax Tar

Booter said:


> Not a good look for sure. I won’t speculate on some of the stuff in there- I feel like we all can guess some of the motivations of the senior officers. I have no time for politicians in uniform.
> 
> Unactionable officer safety bulletins go out lots. Where it’s like “we can’t prove this BUT if you stop this car be aware”
> 
> That said- public safety warrants, unless it’s changed very recently, are not difficult to get if you do have all this information and in my experience they aren’t used enough.
> 
> I think a prudent question in this is to pile all the information and point at it and say- what proactively was done to corroborate this?
> 
> I’ve been in meetings where everyone mentions tips that aren’t useful- but they aren’t pursuing the info to make it useful.
> 
> That news article actually has a lot of ver
> y big issues in it for how short it is. The relationship of municipal forces and the RCMP etc



I will continue to tow the same line.  I do think there is conspiracy and corruption here but I think it's in protection careers (maybe legacies now too), and the good name of the service.

How do we get these police forces to work together ?


----------



## Booter

Halifax Tar said:


> How do we get these police forces to work together ?


As long as they are all fighting over who gets the loose change from the governments purse it’s hard


----------



## Haggis

Halifax Tar said:


> Potentially more bad mojo for the RCMP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truro police chief wouldn't 'explain away' RCMP's missed warnings about mass killer | SaltWire
> 
> 
> David MacNeil didn’t want to be alone in the room when he took a call from two of the highest ranking Mounties in the province. It was a few weeks after ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.saltwire.com


Ouch!

I get pissed at people who whine about getting an Amber Alert from the other end of the province.   Do they not realize how far someone can travel in a few hours?  Do they not care that they could become they eyes and ears of the police and be the one who spots and reports the subject vehicle which leads to a successful conclusion?

The Alert Ready system works the same way, but in this case could've informed Wortman's potential targets of his actions as well as keeping his targets of opportunity out of harm's way.  As un-Canadian as our Liberal leaders may think this to be, it could've allowed those in the area of his rampage to arm themselves against him.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Haggis said:


> Ouch!
> 
> I get pissed at people who whine about getting an Amber Alert from the other end of the province.   Do they not realize how far someone can travel in a few hours?  Do they not care that they could become they eyes and ears of the police and be the one who spots and reports the subject vehicle which leads to a successful conclusion?
> 
> The Alert Ready system works the same way, but in this case could've informed Wortman's potential targets of his actions as well as keeping his targets of opportunity out of harm's way.  As un-Canadian as our Liberal leaders may think this to be, it could've allowed those in the area of his rampage to arm themselves against him



And yet, the EMO Dept, which solely held the keys to the Alert system and knew something was going on did not issue an Alert.


----------



## lenaitch

Eye In The Sky said:


> And yet, the EMO Dept, which solely held the keys to the Alert system and knew something was going on did not issue an Alert.



They might not have had the authority to act on their own but, having said that, I don't know the NS system.

It sounds like a lot 'spin doctoring' to cover for bad/non command decisions by trying to get municipal chiefs to get onside with official lines, and not just by the RCMP.  I have a friend who is a municipal police commissioner for a PD in a contract province and he describes the relationship between the two agencies to be "strained".

The issue of poor and/or cryptic notetaking concerns me.  I can understand how incident reports get purged by policy.  I don't agree with it, but understand it, particularly when reports were physical and not simply ones and zeros.  I have been on the working end of investigating historic unsolved homicides where seemingly benign complaints and incidents (which these certainly were not) proved to be crucial.  But clear, concise, detailed first-hand notetaking by coppers is vital, both to document evidence but cover your butt; then again I was accused of writing novels.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

lenaitch said:


> They might not have had the authority to act on their own but, having said that, I don't know the NS system.



Not sure if it has changed since April 2020 but at that time, the only Dept in NS that could send alerts over the NS prov system was the EMO Dept; no one else had access.  People were all over the RCMP for not sending one, not knowing and in some cases, not caring that only the Prov had access and authority. 

McNeil, being the POS Liberal he was, was happy to stay silent and let law enforcement take the hit publicly.   He directed all questions about the subj to the RCMP.  Real trashy human being.

Edited to add; it was changed after April 2020.






						Police in Nova Scotia now have direct access to emergency alert system  | Globalnews.ca
					

Direct access to the emergency alert system is now available to the Nova Scotia RCMP, Halifax Regional Police (HRP), and to other policing services.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## Booter

After the NS issue I went looking at two provinces processes- it’s not easy anywhere apparently. Obviously- these things require sober eyes- but it is designed in many layers in both provinces I checked.

I think many things need to be cracked open- and could be with the right recommendations. But I’m not confident they have good identification of the level they need to look at


----------



## Halifax Tar

The hits keep coming...

Retired tactical officer calls RCMP 'broken organization' at N.S. mass shooting inquiry



			https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6454106


----------



## Booter

Most of what’s in there, especially the team in Nova Scotia fighting up hill, under staffed, has been known for years. I’m not surprised the senior officers didn’t stop in 🤐

I’ve known a few guys over the years out in Atlantic and they are amazing people, doing a thankless job that spits them out the other side.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Halifax Tar said:


> The hits keep coming...
> 
> Retired tactical officer calls RCMP 'broken organization' at N.S. mass shooting inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6454106


You could legit replace "RCMP" with CAF in much of that testimony.

The Brass don't care and neither do the Canadian Population writ large.


----------



## DBNSG

I live in NS and the trust in the RCMP is quite frankly very low. Good at highway patrol but other things.... . I have customers in the Truro area and there is definitely a sense that folks in Rural N.S are on their own, fend for yourself and arm accordingly.

 The CYA emanating from the Former Liberal Government and the Dartmouth RCMP Bunker, I mean HQ is palpable. McNeil keep in mind comes from a Police Family with at least 5 cops among the 13 Kids. His Justice minister spent 23 years in the RCMP before trying politics.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I can’t agree with you on the Hwy patrol.  There’s people flying on all the 100 series highways, I drive 2 hours straight and never see a single cruiser.  The highways are becoming free for alls.


----------



## Jarnhamar

How RCMP commanders’ bumbling response to Portapique allowed the killer to continue his murder spree​
2 key RCMP officers won't testify live at public inquiry into N.S. mass shooting​


----------



## kratz

There is a call for volunteers at an RCMP event next month. Interestingly, not enough people are available to meet all the volunteer positions. 
Individuals say they support the reason for the ceremony, but not the RCMP.


----------



## Halifax Tar

kratz said:


> There is a call for volunteers at an RCMP event next month. Interestingly, not enough people are available to meet all the volunteer positions.
> Individuals say they support the reason for the ceremony, but not the RCMP.



I will be surprised if they have much of presence in the province in a decade they've pretty much spent their capital here.  And that sucks for the hard working rank and file I know.


----------



## brihard

Halifax Tar said:


> I will be surprised if they have much of presence in the province in a decade they've pretty much spent their capital here.  And that sucks for the hard working rank and file I know.


If the RCMP are replaced by another police service, it’ll basically just end up full of patched-over mounties anyway, from senior leadership on down. But NS will have the advantage of having watched Surrey actually go through with such a transition, and other provinces, regions or municipalities at least doing an estimate on one.


----------



## lenaitch

brihard said:


> If the RCMP are replaced by another police service, it’ll basically just end up full of patched-over mounties anyway, from senior leadership on down. But NS will have the advantage of having watched Surrey actually go through with such a transition, and other provinces, regions or municipalities at least doing an estimate on one.



I haven't followed it closely but I understand Surrey is behind schedule and over budget.  In the case of NS, ya, where else do you come up with approx. 850 coppers who aren't RCMP.  It would be interesting to see if the federal government would still cover 30% of the cost if the province went on its own.  It's not like it is a wealthy province and setting up a police service essentially from scratch is wildly expensive.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Let talk in a decade.  Who knows? 

But the temperature sucks right now for the RCMP and it's not getting any better.  Lastly the process has already begun as various communities are now reviewing their use of the RCMP.

Maybe this will all blow over and the people will forget about the failures of the RCMP during those 2 days.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:


> Let talk in a decade.  Who knows?
> 
> But the temperature sucks right now for the RCMP and it's not getting any better.  Lastly the process has already begun as various communities are now reviewing their use of the RCMP.
> 
> Maybe this will all blow over and the people will forget about the failures of the RCMP during those 2 days.



Can we say “failures of some of the RCMP”?

That just seems fair to those who did their best that day, including Cst Morrison and Cst Stevenson (RIP).


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:


> Can we say “failures of some of the RCMP”?
> 
> That just seems fair to those who did their best that day, including Cst Morrison and Cst Stevenson (RIP).



Fair, I was aiming at the institution and higher leadership.  But I can see how that could be taken.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I think hard before posting anything in this thread;  I know there’s a lot of emotion and negative thoughts towards the cops.

Most of us have been in some kind of SHTF situation before and had to lay awake at night after second guessing the shit out of ourselves.  

I feel for the victims, their families and loved ones and friends. 

I feel for this guy, too. He’s a Mountie, but he’s also a human and a Canadian.  



			https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6463783


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:


> Fair, I was aiming at the institution and higher leadership.  But I can see how that could be taken.



I thought so and I know you lost some friends that day.   

I went to where Cst Stevenson made her stand that day (my striper spot is a stones throw from there).  It was….a heavy feeling.  We would have done the same for all the fallen that day if it was appropriate (public space).

NS doesn’t feel as “safe” to me anymore, honestly and I’ve made some changes since then.  

RIP to your friends and all the victims.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:


> I thought so and I know you lost some friends that day.
> 
> I went to where Cst Stevenson made her stand that day (my striper spot is a stones throw from there).  It was….a heavy feeling.
> 
> NS doesn’t feel as “safe” to me anymore, honestly and I’ve made some changes since then.
> 
> RIP to your friends and all the victims.



My campground is right there.  Big barn with Camping written on the side. 

I've driven through there a million times and I never fail to think of the evil the was there.  

Like you I've made changes.  And HFX definitely isn't as safe as it once was. 

Good spot for stripers.  Always lots of action on that stretch of the Shubie.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Federal government told RCMP what they could and couldn't say after mass shooting: communications director | SaltWire
					

What information was revealed to the public in the days following Canada’s deadliest mass shooting wasn’t solely up to the RCMP, claims the director of ...




					www.saltwire.com
				




Federal government told RCMP what they could and couldn't say after mass shooting: communications director​What information was revealed to the public in the days following Canada’s deadliest mass shooting wasn’t solely up to the RCMP, claims the director of strategic communications for the Nova Scotia RCMP.

In an interview this past February, Lia Scanlan told members of the Mass Casualty Commission the federal government was involved in what the police force told the public about a gunman's 13-hour rampage that killed 22 people. 

“Minister (Bill) Blair. All these people, the prime minister, they were weighing in on what we could and couldn’t say,” Scanlan said.

However, what Scanlan said before and after her comment has been redacted by the Mass Casualty Commission. 

An 89-page transcript of the interview, which is the second of two interviews she did with the commission before she testified in person at the public proceedings in Truro on Wednesday, was recently posted to the commission’s website. 

Throughout the nearly four-hour interview, Scanlan elaborates on how there was “political pressure” on the RCMP. 

While the Nova Scotia RCMP held its own news conferences in Dartmouth in the days following the mass shooting, Scanlan recalled how RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki did separate interviews. 

Scanlan said Lucki was advised “by her people” not to, but ended up doing one-off interviews anyway, where she gave “inaccurate” facts or spoke about information that was “fluid,” such as the number of structures that had been burned. 

“And she went out and did that and knew damn well — and it was all political pressure,” Scanlan said. 

“That is 100 per cent minister Blair and the prime minister. And we have a commissioner that does not push back.” 

More at link


----------



## Booter

Now we’re f*****g talking


----------



## OldSolduer

Eye In The Sky said:


> Federal government told RCMP what they could and couldn't say after mass shooting: communications director | SaltWire
> 
> 
> What information was revealed to the public in the days following Canada’s deadliest mass shooting wasn’t solely up to the RCMP, claims the director of ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.saltwire.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federal government told RCMP what they could and couldn't say after mass shooting: communications director​
> 
> “That is 100 per cent minister Blair and the prime minister. And we have a commissioner that does not push back.”
> 
> More at link


Quelle surprise.....or am I being cynical?


----------



## RedFive

Booter said:


> Now we’re f*****g talking


The candid responses from myself and some other members on this forum have provided some insight into what's not being said.


----------



## Haggis

Because the "assault style" weapon OIC had already been drafted, but the government wanted to go much farther with their gun bans, I am 100% certain that both Blair and Trudeau were disappointed to learn that the killer didn't have a PAL and that's why it took so long for that information to be released by the RCMP.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

If there’s a smidgen of truth in your post, Haggis - and I’d believe there is - that shows what POS humans the 2 of them are.


----------



## Haggis

Eye In The Sky said:


> If there’s a smidgen of truth in your post, Haggis - and I’d believe there is - that shows what POS humans the 2 of them are.


For more evidence of that, read through the new Bill C-21.  If you can find the words "gang", "gangster", "illegal" or "smuggler" in there, I owe you a drink.

You'll see "sport shooter", "athlete" and "competitor" more often.


----------



## OldSolduer

Eye In The Sky said:


> If there’s a smidgen of truth in your post, Haggis - and I’d believe there is - that shows what POS humans the 2 of them are.


Trudeay is Blair's fairy godfather. Minister Blair does not inspire confidence and should have remained a beat cop with Toronto.


----------



## brihard

RedFive said:


> The candid responses from myself and some other members on this forum have provided some insight into what's not being said.


Mm hm.

Sure as hell someone’s gonna go under a bus. Not sure who. But the person with clear and contemporaneous notes taken from the time of the event has a distinct advantage over those who don’t.

Those I know who have worked for Superintendent Campbell have only very good things to say about him. I hope he comes out of this one ok. It appears to me that he’s done his level best to speak truth.

I understand that Commissioner Lucki is scheduled to testify. That will be interesting to see.

Tangential- from a purely investigative standpoint, if part of an investigation is to trace the origin of certain firearms and who might have been involved in obtaining and transferring them, it would be prudent, wise, and justifiable to withhold specific information about them from any public disclosure until investigators have a chance to fully run it down.


----------



## lenaitch

I'm not convinced holding the higher ground, having the notes to back your position or being on the side of the angels is a shield against the long knives.  With the PM, a Minister and the Commissioner publicly embarrassed, as Russel Peters says, 'somebody's gonna get a hurt'.

People not directly involved in operations, including senior command like the Commissioner, should know enough that they should not have granular information of an ongoing operation, and should be competent enough to defend or explain that to civilian oversight.


----------



## OldSolduer

lenaitch said:


> I'm not convinced holding the higher ground, having the notes to back your position or being on the side of the angels is a shield against the long knives.  With the PM, a Minister and the Commissioner publicly embarrassed, as Russel Peters says, 'somebody's gonna get a hurt'.
> 
> People not directly involved in operations, including senior command like the Commissioner, should know enough that they should not have granular information of an ongoing operation, and should be competent enough to defend or explain that to civilian oversight.


You would think that and 50 years ago you might have been right. Competency counts for nothing. You have to be the right "check in the box" to be acceptable to His Nibs and his court jesters. Yah I'm cynical.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Eye In The Sky said:


> Federal government told RCMP what they could and couldn't say after mass shooting: communications director | SaltWire
> 
> 
> What information was revealed to the public in the days following Canada’s deadliest mass shooting wasn’t solely up to the RCMP, claims the director of ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.saltwire.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federal government told RCMP what they could and couldn't say after mass shooting: communications director​What information was revealed to the public in the days following Canada’s deadliest mass shooting wasn’t solely up to the RCMP, claims the director of strategic communications for the Nova Scotia RCMP.
> 
> In an interview this past February, Lia Scanlan told members of the Mass Casualty Commission the federal government was involved in what the police force told the public about a gunman's 13-hour rampage that killed 22 people.
> 
> “Minister (Bill) Blair. All these people, the prime minister, they were weighing in on what we could and couldn’t say,” Scanlan said.
> 
> However, what Scanlan said before and after her comment has been redacted by the Mass Casualty Commission.
> 
> An 89-page transcript of the interview, which is the second of two interviews she did with the commission before she testified in person at the public proceedings in Truro on Wednesday, was recently posted to the commission’s website.
> 
> Throughout the nearly four-hour interview, Scanlan elaborates on how there was “political pressure” on the RCMP.
> 
> While the Nova Scotia RCMP held its own news conferences in Dartmouth in the days following the mass shooting, Scanlan recalled how RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki did separate interviews.
> 
> Scanlan said Lucki was advised “by her people” not to, but ended up doing one-off interviews anyway, where she gave “inaccurate” facts or spoke about information that was “fluid,” such as the number of structures that had been burned.
> 
> “And she went out and did that and knew damn well — and it was all political pressure,” Scanlan said.
> 
> “That is 100 per cent minister Blair and the prime minister. And we have a commissioner that does not push back.”
> 
> More at link


And with this line, I am now 100% convinced Provinces need to get rid of Contract Policing and keep the Feds out of their business.


----------



## lenaitch

OldSolduer said:


> You would think that and 50 years ago you might have been right. Competency counts for nothing. You have to be the right "check in the box" to be acceptable to His Nibs and his court jesters. Yah I'm cynical.


It's not only an issue with the federal government or 'this' government.  It can, and has, happened innocently when a senior police commander hasn't risen through the operational side or managed major investigations/projects and just doesn't understand the implications.  Ideally, they will heed the advice of those who know their lane.  Sometimes not.


----------



## Booter

There is a divorced expectation when it comes to chiefs of police- the chief doesn’t know tactics etc. he relies on advice- part of the issue is chiefs presenting themselves as knowing mouths from assholes when they don’t- and the public thinking that a chief or a commissioner is in that spot because they were the “best” at each rank prior,

Police executives are administrators- and should manage and lead police. When asked for their opinion from politicians they should be Finding experts to help them put together their opinion. Set expectations and a mission and seek results. 

In this case the allegation is the commissioner wanted the details, in a certain way, so she could help the government with their legislation to keep Canadians safe.

There are several issues in that. Canadians should be free firstly, and kept safe from things and people that would take that liberty. The commissioner should be most concerned with appearing to be an honest and fair person. Not willing to compromise the truth to make people “safe”.

If we need to make a story richer to help a law along- we didn’t need the law. Otherwise it would be evident on its own. 

Anyhoo. It’s an allegation. But the wording of the notes raise my eyebrow because it’s formed in a way that is plausible.


----------



## FSTO

Humphrey Bogart said:


> And with this line, I am now 100% convinced Provinces need to get rid of Contract Policing and keep the Feds out of their business.


I'm with you on this. Federal Police for Federal and intranational policing. 
Where I'm from (SW MB) its at least an hour to get a response from Queen's cowboys. Having local yokels being the cops couldn't be any worse.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

FSTO said:


> I'm with you on this. Federal Police for Federal and intranational policing.
> Where I'm from (SW MB) its at least an hour to get a response from Queen's cowboys. Having local yokels being the cops couldn't be any worse.


Yep and why are the Feds influencing in any way what is, by jurisdiction, a Provincial matter?


----------



## Eaglelord17

lenaitch said:


> I'm not convinced holding the higher ground, having the notes to back your position or being on the side of the angels is a shield against the long knives.  With the PM, a Minister and the Commissioner publicly embarrassed, as Russel Peters says, 'somebody's gonna get a hurt'.
> 
> People not directly involved in operations, including senior command like the Commissioner, should know enough that they should not have granular information of an ongoing operation, and should be competent enough to defend or explain that to civilian oversight.


Last person that kept detailed records on the Liberals, proving they were lying was Jody Wilson-Raybould and it absolutely killed her political career. 


Booter said:


> There is a divorced expectation when it comes to chiefs of police- the chief doesn’t know tactics etc. he relies on advice- part of the issue is chiefs presenting themselves as knowing mouths from assholes when they don’t- and the public thinking that a chief or a commissioner is in that spot because they were the “best” at each rank prior,
> 
> Police executives are administrators- and should manage and lead police. When asked for their opinion from politicians they should be Finding experts to help them put together their opinion. Set expectations and a mission and seek results.
> 
> In this case the allegation is the commissioner wanted the details, in a certain way, so she could help the government with their legislation to keep Canadians safe.
> 
> There are several issues in that. Canadians should be free firstly, and kept safe from things and people that would take that liberty. The commissioner should be most concerned with appearing to be an honest and fair person. Not willing to compromise the truth to make people “safe”.
> 
> If we need to make a story richer to help a law along- we didn’t need the law. Otherwise it would be evident on its own.
> 
> Anyhoo. It’s an allegation. But the wording of the notes raise my eyebrow because it’s formed in a way that is plausible.


Another question I have at this point is why is the PMs office getting so involved in a criminal investigation as it is ongoing. This is having a lot of shades of the SNC-Lavalin affair where the PMs office attempted to interfere in the judicial system. I think we are learning a leopard doesn't change its spots, and that the PM is lucky the RCMP answer to him as he should have been charged with Fraud at least once (Aga Khan incident).


----------



## lenaitch

Booter said:


> There is a divorced expectation when it comes to chiefs of police- the chief doesn’t know tactics etc. he relies on advice- part of the issue is chiefs presenting themselves as knowing mouths from assholes when they don’t- and the public thinking that a chief or a commissioner is in that spot because they were the “best” at each rank prior,
> 
> Police executives are administrators- and should manage and lead police. When asked for their opinion from politicians they should be Finding experts to help them put together their opinion. Set expectations and a mission and seek results.
> 
> In this case the allegation is the commissioner wanted the details, in a certain way, so she could help the government with their legislation to keep Canadians safe.
> 
> There are several issues in that. Canadians should be free firstly, and kept safe from things and people that would take that liberty. The commissioner should be most concerned with appearing to be an honest and fair person. Not willing to compromise the truth to make people “safe”.
> 
> If we need to make a story richer to help a law along- we didn’t need the law. Otherwise it would be evident on its own.
> 
> Anyhoo. It’s an allegation. But the wording of the notes raise my eyebrow because it’s formed in a way that is plausible.


One of the defining traits of a good leader is to know your limits and when to listen.

In my former service, the OPP, 5 of the last ten Commissioners came up through CIB (senior major crime case management branch) - four in a row.  Of the remaining 5, one came up through forensic ident., so was equally familiar with investigative processes.  It certainly doesn't guarantee that they were great leaders; clearly a couple were anything but, but in situations such as this - complex, high profile investigations - they knew enough to not get in the way.

I was lucky to work for a couple of strong, highly skilled division commanders in criminal operations.  I sat in on one meetings with a not-one-of-the-above-five who only stopped pressing for sensitive information they didn't need to have when it was 'indicated' to them that their name would be in the Crown Brief and they can expect to be cross-examined.


----------



## Good2Golf

Eaglelord17 said:


> Another question I have at this point is why is the PMs office getting so involved in a criminal investigation as it is ongoing. This is having a lot of shades of the SNC-Lavalin affair where the PMs office attempted to interfere in the judicial system. I think we are learning a leopard doesn't change its spots, and that the PM is *lucki* the RCMP answer to him as he should have been charged with Fraud at least once (Aga Khan incident).


FTFY… 😉


----------



## Jarnhamar

I wonder if RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki's friend Justin Trudeau will rescue her if shes called to testify at the commission.


----------



## Weinie

Jarnhamar said:


> I wonder if RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki's friend Justin Trudeau will rescue her if shes called to testify at the commission.


Bus: Please be on standby.


----------



## Haggis

Eaglelord17 said:


> Another question I have at this point is why is the PMs office getting so involved in a criminal investigation as it is ongoing. This is having a lot of shades of the SNC-Lavalin affair where the PMs office attempted to interfere in the judicial system.


Involved?  Yes.

Commissioner Lucki all but confirmed that the "assault style" firearms ban OIC was drafted and ready to launch.  The PMO and Blair were hoping the evidence regarding the type and source of the firearms used and the licence status of the killer could be used to further their political agenda.  The killer didn't play into their game plan, being unlicensed, under a firearms prohibition order as well and using illegally obtained firearms.  Had the killer been licensed and the firearms he used to start his rampage and kill Cst Stevenson been legally owned, I'm confident that the OIC would've been hastily redrafted to ban a lot more.

Interfered? Not yet.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

At the end of the day, the public doesn't really care I think.  They are seeing one-liner reports on the FB wall and assuming it's all truth.  RCMP did bad things, they are responsible for XYZ.  Canadians don’t need guns.  They need to be taken away to save lives. 

Liberals want to report something about firearm control (some would say the true agenda is to disarm the population...);  it's much easier to take guns away from law abiding citizens than it is criminals.  If all you want to do is "report numbers", the easier effort is the low hanging fruit - registered gun owners (of which I am one).

If anyone is surprised by anything this PM does at this point, and it angry about it, I think they should be directing their anger at the voting population;  the PM has gotten away with a number of things and to no account.

We can only blame ourselves for letting the BS continue...


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Jarnhamar said:


> I wonder if RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki's friend Justin Trudeau will rescue her if shes called to testify at the commission.



He's throwing her under the bus as usual. Our misogynist PM is chucking another female on the pyre that fuels his corrupt occupation of the the PMO.

"When asked if he or his office put pressure on Lucki, Trudeau responded “Absolutely not… we did not put any undue influence or pressure. It’s extremely important to highlight that it is only the RCMP, it is only the police that determines what and when to release information."

So, situation, no change.


----------



## lenaitch

I'll ask for an example when any politician, of any stripe, at any level, ever said _'mea culpa, I interfered with the operation of the bureaucracy for political or personal advantage.  It's all on me'._


----------



## KevinB

lenaitch said:


> I'll ask for an example when any politician, of any stripe, at any level, ever said _'mea culpa, I interfered with the operation of the bureaucracy for political or personal advantage.  It's all on me'._


Harry S Truman. 
_On more than one occasion President Truman referred to the desk sign in public statements. For example, in an address at the National War College on December 19, 1952 Mr. Truman said, "You know, it's easy for the Monday morning quarterback to say what the coach should have done, after the game is over. But when the decision is up before you -- and on my desk I have a motto which says The Buck Stops Here' -- the decision has to be made." In his farewell address to the American people given in January 1953, President Truman referred to this concept very specifically in asserting that, "The President--whoever he is--has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job.

The sign has been displayed at the Library since 1957._


----------



## Haggis

Haggis said:


> Involved?  Yes.
> 
> Commissioner Lucki all but confirmed that the "assault style" firearms ban OIC was drafted and ready to launch.  The PMO and Blair were hoping the evidence regarding the type and source of the firearms used and the licence status of the killer could be used to further their political agenda.  The killer didn't play into their game plan, being unlicensed, under a firearms prohibition order as well and using illegally obtained firearms.  Had the killer been licensed and the firearms he used to start his rampage and kill Cst Stevenson been legally owned, I'm confident that the OIC would've been hastily redrafted to ban a lot more.
> 
> Interfered? Not yet.


Replying to my own post seems odd....but...

The PM and Blair knew the killer's licence status almost immediately (as this was released by the RCMP during a press conference) and sources of the firearms used by April 24, 2020. When asked on May 1st, 2020, "ban day", they declined to name them - deferring that to the RCMP - knowing that information went counter to their agenda.  It wasn't until November 2020 that the makes and models were made public through a ATI request by a national newspaper.


----------



## KevinB

Haggis said:


> Replying to my own post seems odd....but...
> 
> The PM and Blair knew the killer's licence status almost immediately (as this was released by the RCMP during a press conference) and sources of the firearms used by April 24, 2020. When asked on May 1st, 2020, "ban day", they declined to name them - deferring that to the RCMP - knowing that information went counter to their agenda.  It wasn't until November 2020 that the makes and models were made public through a ATI request by a national newspaper.


It’s Cultural genocide plain and simple. 
    So much for an inclusive government.


----------



## Haggis

RCMP official: Lucki claimed direct pressure from federal minister to name guns.​
Another piece of the puzzle was released today.  This continues to look bad for Blair and Lucki.


----------



## OldSolduer

Haggis said:


> RCMP official: Lucki claimed direct pressure from federal minister to name guns.​
> Another piece of the puzzle was released today.  This continues to look bad for Blair and Lucki.


Blair should resign. I hope Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition tears the GoC apart.

Lucki should be fired or resign herself.


----------



## Good2Golf

On the contrary, Blair did no wrong…









						Morning Update: Bill Blair says he ‘gave no directions’ to Commissioner Lucki on gun-control agenda
					

Bill Blair, public safety minister at the time of the Nova Scotia mass shooting, says he never linked government gun-control measures to the investigation during his conversations with Lucki




					www.theglobeandmail.com


----------



## Booter

Good2Golf said:


> On the contrary, Blair did no wrong…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Morning Update: Bill Blair says he ‘gave no directions’ to Commissioner Lucki on gun-control agenda
> 
> 
> Bill Blair, public safety minister at the time of the Nova Scotia mass shooting, says he never linked government gun-control measures to the investigation during his conversations with Lucki
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theglobeandmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 71722


We ve really lost the plot on these things in our politicians. If you’re in a position of authority over someone- real or perceived asking questions at all, and their timing, is exerting pressure, especially right before explaining that there is new legislation in the pipe! 

I really hate the semantical dishonesty written in the very fibre of these people. Speak plainly. Be honest. Do the right thing.


----------



## Good2Golf

Booter said:


> We ve really lost the plot on these things in our politicians. If you’re in a position of authority over someone- real or perceived asking questions at all, and their timing, is exerting pressure, especially right before explaining that there is new legislation in the pipe!
> 
> I really hate the semantical dishonesty written in the very fibre of these people. Speak plainly. Be honest. Do the right thing.


Yup.

Some unlucki soul will pay the price, 



but it won’t be Fils de Pierre or Blair…


----------



## Halifax Tar

Good2Golf said:


> Yup.
> 
> Some unlucki soul will pay the price,
> 
> View attachment 71723
> 
> but it won’t be Fils de Pierre or Blair…
> 
> View attachment 71724



Nope it's going to be Joe/Jane Double Double Canadian who likes to whack a deer or moose every fall and their buddy who likes to compete in shooting competitions.


----------



## Good2Golf

Halifax Tar said:


> Nope it's going to be Joe/Jane Double Double Canadian who likes to whack a deer or moose every fall and their buddy who likes to compete in shooting competitions.


Oh that’s the long term goal of  «Fils et Cie», for sure. 😔  I was thinking more about the tactical scapegoat…


----------



## Halifax Tar

Good2Golf said:


> Oh that’s the long term goal of  «Fils et Cie», for sure. 😔  I was thinking more about the tactical scapegoat…



Ya, funny thing about Liberal governments, the more time they are in Gov they more of my legally obtained property they criminalize.


----------



## Haggis

Booter said:


> I really hate the semantical dishonesty written in the very fibre of these people. Speak plainly. Be honest. Do the right thing.


You're asking for more than they are able to give right now.


----------



## GR66

Haggis said:


> You're asking for more than they are able willing to give right now.


FTFY


----------



## lenaitch

Booter said:


> I really hate the semantical dishonesty written in the very fibre of these people. Speak plainly. Be honest. Do the right thing.


Well, if you want to learn a new language, immersion is a tried a true method.  No doubt you been around a bunch of bureaucrats, or read their chronicles, and determined that it indeed a foreign language.  A unique language that has the ability to simultaneously says a lot  and absolutely nothing, and invents new words and meanings from thin air.


----------



## OldSolduer

lenaitch said:


> Well, if you want to learn a new language, immersion is a tried a true method.  No doubt you been around a bunch of bureaucrats, or read their chronicles, and determined that it indeed a foreign language.  A unique language that has the ability to simultaneously says a lot  and absolutely nothing, and invents new words and meanings from thin air.


SO....the PM hasn't fired Lucki yet? Or Blair?


----------



## Good2Golf

OldSolduer said:


> SO....the PM hasn't fired Lucki yet? Or Blair?


Methinks that Jody Wilson-Raybould wasn’t the only person smart enough to record conversations…


----------



## Haggis

OldSolduer said:


> SO....the PM hasn't fired Lucki yet? Or Blair?


Blair is bulletproof.


----------



## Weinie

Haggis said:


> Blair is bulletproof.


Yup. Gotta protect that 416 harvest.


----------



## KevinB

Haggis said:


> Blair is bulletproof.


Kevlar will burn with enough heat…


----------



## Kat Stevens

KevinB said:


> Kevlar will burn with enough heat…


He's more like Teflon, nothing sticks to him.


----------



## brihard

What would it do for him electorally?

Ontario and Quebec don’t really care about RCMP. Most will never have dealt with that service.

Atlantic Canada, where Portapique really hits home, is pretty safely liberal anyway.

The image of the LPC further pushing gun control is unlikely to change any minds at this point.

So, little of electoral import there, and the government is pretty secure in power for another three years.

Don’t forget, Lucki is to testify at the mass casualty commission later this month. They probably want to see how that goes and what she testifies to before they commit to any COA regarding her or Blair.


----------



## dapaterson

Looking at the list of RCMP commissioners, her current tenure seems to be about average for a commissioner; might she be gently retired to the Senate to clear the deck without ever admitting anyone did anything?


----------



## brihard

dapaterson said:


> Looking at the list of RCMP commissioners, her current tenure seems to be about average for a commissioner; might she be gently retired to the Senate to clear the deck without ever admitting anyone did anything?


My wild guess? It’s the 150th anniversary of the RCMP/RNWMP/NWMP next year and they may be looking to keep her on through that for the optics. They also need to have someone they would be comfortable replacing her. I’m not sure if anyone in the current senior executive really appeals to the current government. They deep-dipped for Lucki; they bypassed all the Deputy Commissioners and plucked her from Assistant Commissioner. It would be like snagging a MGen for CDS. I don’t know that they would do that twice in a row, and frankly the stuff the RCMP will be dealing with in the next decade calls for some serious institutional experience at the DComm level.

I can’t predict whether they’ll hang on to her at this point, but I’m not sure they like their choices otherwise.


----------



## Jarnhamar

brihard said:


> calls for some serious institutional experience at the DComm level.


Perhaps the RCMP should look at candidates who aren't likely to be so institutionalized.

I can think of a couple RCMP dudes on army.ca who would have my vote


----------



## brihard

Jarnhamar said:


> Perhaps the RCMP should look at candidates who aren't likely to be so institutionalized.
> 
> I can think of a couple RCMP dudes on army.ca who would have my vote


Thing is there’s nobody outside of RCMP who have their heads adequately wrapped around federal policing (arguably, not that many within it…) There’s major transformation afoot there, in part in hopes to drag the federal half of RCMP kicking and screaming into the 21st century. While that’ll all fall under the applicable DComm, any new commish should have a solid grasp of that level, as well as the rest of ‘whole of government’. The DComms are used to dealing with cabinet, parliament, etc.

Commissioner of the RCMP is best thought of as a federal government Deputy Minister role. Hell, she’s literally on that pay scale. The DComms are like senior ADMs. However, moreso than most departments, they need a ton of progressively senior experience within that department. It’s easy enough to take an RCMP senior officer and porch them to municipal or provincial police services or related agencies. Harder to go the other direction, and it’s a limited pool at the top- I think only five DComm total, not all of them in or through roles that necessarily lend themselves to taking that last step.


----------



## RedFive

Jarnhamar said:


> Perhaps the RCMP should look at candidates who aren't likely to be so institutionalized.
> 
> I can think of a couple RCMP dudes on army.ca who would have my vote


You want real change in the RCMP? Find some 5-6 year Constable fresh off his second or third isolated post on some Prairie reserve and make him or her Commissioner.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

RedFive said:


> You want real change in the RCMP? Find some 5-6 year Constable fresh off his second or third isolated post on some Prairie reserve and make him or her Commissioner.


Entertaining, but no more realistic than plucking a second tour Captain out a unit in the CAF and making them CDS…


----------



## Dana381

brihard said:


> I can’t predict whether they’ll hang on to her at this point, but I’m not sure they like their choices otherwise.



Is that because of a lack of women in high enough ranks to replace her with a woman or because the ranking members are not liberal yes men/women?


----------



## dapaterson

Or because the ranking members came up through the nepotistic, criminal regime of Zac, and can't be trusted to lead the institution?


----------



## brihard

Dana381 said:


> Is that because of a lack of women in high enough ranks to replace her with a woman or because the ranking members are not liberal yes men/women?


The notion that anyone at the upper levels of something like a police service are “Liberal yes men” is comical. You’re talking about an institution that trends as conservative as the military, if not moreso.


----------



## brihard

dapaterson said:


> Or because the ranking members came up through the nepotistic, criminal regime of Zac, and can't be trusted to lead the institution?


Zac wrapped up 18 years ago. None of the current senior leadership would have been in anything close to a senior role or really any role tangibly impacted by him. Most of the DComms were junior Inspectors at best. That’s like saying the current crop of company commanders in CAF are a reflection of Vance.


----------



## dapaterson

brihard said:


> Zac wrapped up 18 years ago. None of the current senior leadership would have been in anything close to a senior role or really any role tangibly impacted by him. Most of the DComms were junior Inspectors at best. That’s like saying the current crop of company commanders in CAF are a reflection of Vance.



OK, now I feel exceptionally old.


----------



## Jarnhamar

brihard said:


> The notion that anyone at the upper levels of something like a police service are “Liberal yes men” is comical. You’re talking about an institution that trends as conservative as the military, if not moreso.


Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me like the officers who release and go into politics usually make their way to the Liberal party.


----------



## Jarnhamar

SeaKingTacco said:


> Entertaining, but no more realistic than plucking a second tour Captain out a unit in the CAF and making them CDS…


Not realistic but maybe that's what the CAF needs too.

Even when our senior leadership don't appear to have skeletons in their closet they still seem quite institutionalized and oblivious. Heck even our current CDS didn't initially see anything wrong with General Dawe writing a character reference for a sexual offender.


----------



## brihard

Jarnhamar said:


> Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me like the officers who release and go into politics usually make their way to the Liberal party.



Assuming we’re limiting ourselves to former senior officers, I think it’s a toss up? I struggle to think of any senior Mounties elected to the HoC. Obviously there’s Bill Blair from Toronto. Two RCMP senior officers made it to the Senate that I know of offhand- Bev Busson, Lib/ISG (acting commish after Zac) and Vern White, Assistant Commissioner / chief of Ottawa Police, as a Conservative.

I’m not speaking so much to those who end up going into politics, but rather the overwhelming majority who don’t.

Like any institution, policing still has diverse views, but it appeals more to one wing of the political spectrum than others, not unlike CAF. I strongly believe it skews conservative at a distinctly greater rate than the general population.


----------



## Haggis

brihard said:


> Don’t forget, Lucki is to testify at the mass casualty commission later this month. They probably want to see how that goes and what she testifies to before they commit to any COA regarding her or Blair.


Isn't she to appear before the Public Safety Committee this month and the MCC in August?


----------



## brihard

Haggis said:


> Isn't she to appear before the Public Safety Committee this month and the MCC in August?


I could be mistaken? Not sure. She likely appears semi regularly in front of Parliamentary committee on various issues. I don’t know is the standing committee on public safety is examining this matter; parliamentary committees generally occupy themselves with specific studies and pre-planned business.


----------



## Haggis

SECU voted to hear witnesses in relation to the allegations of political interference in the subject investigation. The Committee tried to have someone from the PMO testify but thatbwas voted down by the Liberal/NDP members.


----------



## Booter

Dana381 said:


> Is that because of a lack of women in high enough ranks to replace her with a woman or because the ranking members are not liberal yes men/women?


I would suggest it’s both. Many at the D/Com/ A/Com level currently are all tainted by proximity to some tragedy. We lost, as far as advancement potential, a couple very strong female leaders- because they had names on memos or were associated in some way to something. Usually in a passive way- but still a political issue.

Several were actually passed by when they reached down to take the current commissioner, who was political taint free, for a few reasons. Paulson was actually kindve similar in a way- least impressive candidate. 

I don’t think the present government is interested in replacing their choice with a white dude because of scandal. It just would signal the wrong virtue.

In many ways the commissioner is irrelevant to me and my people anyways. We eye roll and move on. 

The current commissioner is reaching the end of the usual life cycle for the job, so maybe they allow her to take the hits. Wait for a new story about a protest or a military senior officer and she quietly retires. The timelines wouldn’t be weird at all,


----------



## Jarnhamar

brihard said:


> Assuming we’re limiting ourselves to former senior officers, I think it’s a toss up? I struggle to think of any senior Mounties elected to the HoC.



I wasn't very clear, I meant CAF officers.
The CAF is a predominantly conservative organization but retired officers tend to go red when getting into politics.


----------



## Booter

Jarnhamar said:


> I wasn't very clear, I meant CAF officers.
> The CAF is a predominantly conservative organization but retired officers tend to go red when getting into politics.


The red team recruits harder maybe- they know they need a token vet to seem like they care.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Haggis said:


> SECU voted to hear witnesses in relation to the allegations of political interference in the subject investigation. The Committee tried to have someone from the PMO testify but thatbwas voted down by the Liberal/NDP members.


It's no wonder Canadians are becoming more aggressively angry with politicians.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Jarnhamar said:


> It's no wonder Canadians are becoming more aggressively angry with politicians.


We've been sleepwalking through the last 50 years, people are just waking up.

It's  dangerous for any government to spend all of its wealth, supplied by taxpayers, on pet virtue signaling projects, while neglecting its, own citizens. The rhetoric coming from orange and red liberals is anyone not part of their group think are anti Canadian fringe group bent onmthe overthrow of the libeal government, openly and in the press.


----------



## brihard

Fishbone Jones said:


> We've been sleepwalking through the last 50 years, people are just waking up.
> 
> It's  dangerous for any government to spend all of its wealth, supplied by taxpayers, on pet virtue signaling projects, while neglecting its, own citizens. The rhetoric coming from orange and red liberals is anyone not part of their group think are anti Canadian fringe group bent onmthe overthrow of the libeal government, openly and in the press.


Which pet virtue signalling projects? And how much did the feds spend on same? Last I checked, the single biggest federal expenditure was still direct transfer payments to individuals- stuff like your CPP benefits, or OAS//GIS, or EI. Shortly behind that is federal transfers to provinces, so things like health transfer funding. Those two expenditures are about half the federal expenditures alone. I’m not gonna sit here and do an exhaustive dive into federal expenditures on my little phone screen, but your claim that the bulk of federal ‘wealth’ (weird word choice on your part) goes to ideologically motivated pet projects doesn’t survive the first glancing blow of reality.

The reality is that all governments have mostly similar major spending, most of which is statutorily defined program spending. The stuff that makes up the shiny points of election platforms is from the much smaller slice of the pie that could be called discretionary.

The pandemic, of course, saw major disruptions with the various ‘life jacket’ benefits that kept people and business afloat, but that’s temporary and receding.

So… what are you talking about, precisely?


----------



## Dana381

Not to speak for fishbone but I think he is referring to the majority of the feds discretionary spending going to fund projects that push liberal ideology. Yes the majority of the federal budget goes to pay the bills sort of speak, we tend to talk like that is a given. If I say my friend spends most of his money on motorcycles you automatically assume I mean disposable income and not his mortgage or grocery money.


----------



## brihard

Dana381 said:


> Not to speak for fishbone but I think he is referring to the majority of the feds discretionary spending going to fund projects that push liberal ideology. Yes the majority of the federal budget goes to pay the bills sort of speak, we tend to talk like that is a given. If I say my friend spends most of his money on motorcycles you automatically assume I mean disposable income and not his mortgage or grocery money.


Sure. Allowing for that likely being the case, it’s still a claim he’ll need to show receipts for (and they should be readily available). It should be easy, if true, to point to a sizeable portion (I won’t even insist on a majority, never mind ‘most’) of federal discretionary spending going to such ‘pet projects’. It ought to be easy to give specific initiatives, and attach dollar values from the federal budget.

One error of mine I’ll wear- I quoted CPP as a direct transfer payment to individuals, however it’s self-funded through the CPP investment fund. OAS, GIS, EI, however, aren’t. My curing of direct individual transfers accounting for something like a quarter of the federal budget still stands despite CPP not being part of it.

To claim that Canadians are not being looked after because money is squandered on pet projects is still a claim that requires evidence. In the most recent budget, some of the big discretionary measures cover things like housing affordability and dental care… Tough to claim those are consistent with ‘neglecting citizens’. If he wants to try to attribute Canadians’ anger at the government to specific fiscal measures, it’ll take something more rigorous than just saying so.


----------



## lenaitch

Dana381 said:


> Not to speak for fishbone but I think he is referring to the majority of the feds discretionary spending going to fund projects that push liberal ideology. Yes the majority of the federal budget goes to pay the bills sort of speak, we tend to talk like that is a given. If I say my friend spends most of his money on motorcycles you automatically assume I mean disposable income and not his mortgage or grocery money.


Perhaps then we could look at times when the Conservatives were in power and how much money they spent on projects that push conservative ideology.  They are politicians, then have an ideology, they have the purse strings.  perfect storm.


----------



## Dana381

lenaitch said:


> Perhaps then we could look at times when the Conservatives were in power and how much money they spent on projects that push conservative ideology.  They are politicians, then have an ideology, they have the purse strings.  perfect storm.



“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.” Lord Acton


----------



## KevinB

lenaitch said:


> Perhaps then we could look at times when the Conservatives were in power and how much money they spent on projects that push conservative ideology.  They are politicians, then have an ideology, they have the purse strings.  perfect storm.


Conservatives are generally more fiscally conservative.  While the LPC seems to believe one can just print money with no ill effects. 

One can see how much money the Liberals have directed to Gun Control Campaigns - which have a very specific target.


----------



## dapaterson

Disbarred lawyer who got kids drunk, and also represented Medellin Cartel members incarcerated in New Brunswick for flying $25M in cocaine, destined for Montreal?  Check.  Evidence of illicit drug smuggling?  Check.  Insurance fraud?  Check.  Tax fraud?  Check, check and check.

Oh, and a plot to attack the NB jail and break out the smugglers?  Check.









						The mass murderer was a thief, a drug runner, and a corrupt tax cheat - Halifax Examiner
					

The mass murderer was a thief, a drug runner, and a corrupt tax cheat. The financial “misdealings” of the man who murdered 22 people in Nova Scotia on April 18 and 19, 2022, who the Halifax Examiner refers to as GW, are detailed in the latest document published by the Mass Casualty Commission...




					www.halifaxexaminer.ca


----------



## Brad Sallows

OT:



> I quoted CPP as a direct transfer payment to individuals, however it’s self-funded through the CPP investment fund. OAS, GIS, EI, however, aren’t.



CPP isn't self-funded.  Today's contributors pay today's recipients.  There is a fraction covered by investment profits of the funds as well.  Basically just taxing today's workers to pay yesterday's.

"Major transfers" are somewhat above 50% of total program spending; "individuals" vs "other levels of government" splits about 55/45.


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:


> Disbarred lawyer who got kids drunk, and also represented Medellin Cartel members incarcerated in New Brunswick for flying $25M in cocaine, destined for Montreal?  Check.  Evidence of illicit drug smuggling?  Check.  Insurance fraud?  Check.  Tax fraud?  Check, check and check.
> 
> Oh, and a plot to attack the NB jail and break out the smugglers?  Check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mass murderer was a thief, a drug runner, and a corrupt tax cheat - Halifax Examiner
> 
> 
> The mass murderer was a thief, a drug runner, and a corrupt tax cheat. The financial “misdealings” of the man who murdered 22 people in Nova Scotia on April 18 and 19, 2022, who the Halifax Examiner refers to as GW, are detailed in the latest document published by the Mass Casualty Commission...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.halifaxexaminer.ca


I presume you are referring to the piece of trash that slaughtered 22 people.


----------



## dapaterson

Brad Sallows said:


> OT:
> 
> CPP isn't self-funded.  Today's contributors pay today's recipients.  There is a fraction covered by investment profits of the funds as well.  Basically just taxing today's workers to pay yesterday's.


Incorrect.  General revenues cover the majority of current expenditures.  Current contributions are invested; those investments generate income which covers (in theory) program costs since the inception of the investment account.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Money's fungible.  There's no meaningful separation between "money in" and "money out" which provides that the former is invested and the latter obtained from investment profits.  That the CPPIB is able to build up the fund because contributions in exceed benefits out and the rate of return to plan members is frequently less than what the fund earns does not change that; it's just a solvency buffer.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

RCMP officer says Lucki made him feel stupid for withholding gun information after N.S. mass shooting
					

Commissioner Brenda Lucki 'didn't seem to appreciate or recognize the importance of maintaining the integrity of the investigation,' MPs were told




					nationalpost.com


----------



## dapaterson

Ignoring for a moment the content of her testimony, I'm curious which image consultant advised the Commissioner to appear out of uniform for her testimony.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/head-of-rcmp-testifies-before-ns-mass-shooting-inquiry-1.6559387


----------



## brihard

dapaterson said:


> Ignoring for a moment the content of her testimony, I'm curious which image consultant advised the Commissioner to appear out of uniform for her testimony.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/head-of-rcmp-testifies-before-ns-mass-shooting-inquiry-1.6559387



I was curious about that today myself. I was told they’re all testifying in civilian clothes; potentially something to do with trauma informed practice or something. I just found Darren Campbell’s testimony, and from a super quick check it looks like he was in civvies too. I suspect what I was told is accurate, but don’t plan to dig any further than the tiny bit I have.


----------



## Remius

dapaterson said:


> Ignoring for a moment the content of her testimony, I'm curious which image consultant advised the Commissioner to appear out of uniform for her testimony.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/head-of-rcmp-testifies-before-ns-mass-shooting-inquiry-1.6559387


Not a good look and I am sure it didn’t go unnoticed.


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:


> Ignoring for a moment the content of her testimony, I'm curious which image consultant advised the Commissioner to appear out of uniform for her testimony.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/head-of-rcmp-testifies-before-ns-mass-shooting-inquiry-1.6559387



Well, there was that...yes, with her looking more like a civil servant than a policewoman...


Then there was what she actually said...


So which is it, Commissioner????

Is a question '*asking*' or is it '*direction*'?


> The head of the RCMP has repeated her stance that she didn't deal with political pressure to make firearms details about the Nova Scotia mass shooting public, saying *government officials were simply "asking" and not directing* — which is a "big distinction."
> 
> Commissioner Brenda Lucki faced questions from the Mass Casualty Commission leading the public inquiry into the April 2020 mass shooting on Tuesday in Halifax, as well as from a lawyer for most of the victims' families.
> 
> Michael Scott of Patterson Law asked Lucki about various topics, including concerns from Nova Scotia RCMP members that the Liberal prime minister and minister of public safety wanted details of the perpetrator's firearms released ahead of their gun control legislation.
> 
> On Tuesday, Lucki again said that then-public safety minister Bill Blair never directed or ordered her to disclose the makes and models of the guns during the April 28, 2020, press conference — Blair's office was simply checking on whether it would be included.
> 
> "*When somebody says 'can you do that?' that's to me direction*, and it wasn't that at all. It was just an if — is that information going to be part of that media event?" Lucki said.


----------



## Haggis

Implied orders are still orders.

"Commissioner, can you do this because it would help us -and possibly you - if you did?"

"Yes, minister, I can".

"Good, good....."

Her appearance today in civvies is curious in that all her prior appearances before the MCC and SECU on a variety of topics have been in uniform.  It could be an attempt by the GoC to "humanize" her in the eyes of counsel and the public or give a preview of her next career move.


----------



## lenaitch

My failing memory thinks that all the police witnesses have appeared out of uniform, but I admit I may be mis-remembering.

I tried to find if there had been any direction given by the Commission regarding police witnesses, which I could not, but did stumble across this little gem in its Rules of Practice and Procedure and recalled that the government had initially withheld documents related to a police witness (Campbell's notes of meeting with Lucki?). saying that they were reviewing whether there was any privilege:

_Privilege 19.Where a Participant objects to the production of any document on the grounds of privilege, a true copy of the document will be produced in an unedited form to Commission Counsel who will review and determine the validity of the privilege claim. In the event the Participant claiming privilege disagrees with Commission Counsel’s determination, the Commissioners, on application, may inspect the impugned document(s) and make a ruling._​​​


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:


> Ignoring for a moment the content of her testimony, I'm curious which image consultant advised the Commissioner to appear out of uniform for her testimony.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/head-of-rcmp-testifies-before-ns-mass-shooting-inquiry-1.6559387


Terrible - she and the other RCMP uniformed members should have been in scarlets IMO. Its an inquiry and its serious business.


----------



## Booter

OldSolduer said:


> Terrible - she and the other RCMP uniformed members should have been in scarlets IMO. Its an inquiry and its serious business.


They actually steer us away from that at inquiries. I don’t recall the exact reason but there was one provided to me years ago.


----------



## OldSolduer

Booter said:


> They actually steer us away from that at inquiries. I don’t recall the exact reason but there was one provided to me years ago.


I’m
Guessing here you’d be intimidating the panel.


----------



## mariomike

OldSolduer said:


> I’m
> Guessing here you’d be intimidating the panel.



For an inquiry, maybe something in between a ceremonial outfit, and civvies. Like the dark business-style uniform.


----------



## Good2Golf

mariomike said:


> For an inquiry, maybe something in between a ceremonial outfit, and civvies. Like the dark business-style uniform.


Reasonable, same as a CAF member wearing DEU tunic, I’d say.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Not related necessarily.  But interesting and more woes for the NS RCMP. 



			https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6563084
		


I'm now hearing people openly say if the RCMP interacts with them they will call 911 to verify The officer before interacting.


----------



## brihard

Halifax Tar said:


> Not related necessarily.  But interesting and more woes for the NS RCMP.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6563084
> 
> 
> 
> I'm now hearing people openly say if the RCMP interacts with them they will call 911 to verify The officer before interacting.


A couple of hard realities:

1. Communities will get the policing they’re willing to pay for.

2. Police mostly deal with problems that already exist, and that are not ultimately solvable by policing. We can arrest someone caught stealing to feed an addiction, but we can’t do anything about the addiction, and we also can’t do anything about what the courts do when an accused is before them.

To keep two police officers working 24/7, you’re going to need probably 15 officers all in to cover absences for vacation, training, parental, court attendance, illness etc., and the necessary supervisory structure. Figure $2m a year? Not a lot of small rural communities will be able to afford that. That means you’re sharing officers with a much larger area and other communities, and that will absolutely affect response times. You can save costs by not going 24/7 and having an on call model, but that means when the 911 call comes in, dispatch may be calling two officers to wake them up.

You want real improvement? Look upstream in the problem set. Deal with addiction, housing unaffordability, and mental health before it becomes a 911 call.


----------



## Booter

Halifax Tar said:


> Not related necessarily.  But interesting and more woes for the NS RCMP.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6563084
> 
> 
> 
> I'm now hearing people openly say if the RCMP interacts with them they will call 911 to verify The officer before interacting.


I’ve been places for periods where everyone calls to verify the identity of police. I’ve been called in multiple times- 911 to report a fake police officer as well.

Also, with a meth problem in their small community- I guarantee several of the people in that meeting are complaining while also protecting their kids who use from consequences. When they want something done- it’s that they want something done to someone else- AND they are not calling in. Just complaining to each other. The staff sgt even says it in the article that they aren’t reporting crime.


----------



## Booter

brihard said:


> A couple of hard realities:
> 
> 1. Communities will get the policing they’re willing to pay for.
> 
> 2. Police mostly deal with problems that already exist, and that are not ultimately solvable by policing. We can arrest someone caught stealing to feed an addiction, but we can’t do anything about the addiction, and we also can’t do anything about what the courts do when an accused is before them.
> 
> To keep two police officers working 24/7, you’re going to need probably 15 officers all in to cover absences for vacation, training, parental, court attendance, illness etc., and the necessary supervisory structure. Figure $2m a year? Not a lot of small rural communities will be able to afford that. That means you’re sharing officers with a much larger area and other communities, and that will absolutely affect response times. You can save costs by not going 24/7 and having an on call model, but that means when the 911 call comes in, dispatch may be calling two officers to wake them up.
> 
> You want real improvement? Look upstream in the problem set. Deal with addiction, housing unaffordability, and mental health before it becomes a 911 call.


Two officers on 24 hours with usual vacancy rates, vacation etc is a detachment of at least 21 officers without incurring massive overtime.


----------



## brihard

Booter said:


> Two officers on 24 hours with usual vacancy rates, vacation etc is a detachment of at least 21 officers without incurring massive overtime.


Thanks, I wasn’t sure. I wasn’t factoring in some of the long term vacancy realities like long term sick leave and members pulled for secondments to other priorities, plus the lg time in filling spots when members transfer out.

So, closer to 2.5-3m in human costs, plus infrastructure and capital costs.


----------



## mariomike

brihard said:


> 1. Communities will get the policing they’re willing to pay for.



Ante up for "acceptable" 9-1-1 Response Times.


----------



## Booter

brihard said:


> Thanks, I wasn’t sure. I wasn’t factoring in some of the long term vacancy realities like long term sick leave and members pulled for secondments to other priorities, plus the lg time in filling spots when members transfer out.
> 
> So, closer to 2.5-3m in human costs, plus infrastructure and capital costs.


I’m sure that the RCMP would quote a number closer to yours. You can build the schedule- it just doesn’t survive contact. So you were “right”. The practical reality calls for a number a little higher that’s all.

At that lower number you wind up with secret dishonest 24 coverage where one officer works and one is a on call. Or two or three hour periods where there is on call every once in a while because of vacancy. “Risking it out”

I was digging through this stuff recently being called to a detachment that was now refusing to take overtime- they came together saying the over reliance on OT was burning them out- so they wouldn’t be taking ANY OT call-outs.

So in order to bring it to a proper functioning schedule that allowed for the usual vacancy we see now we needed that higher number to actually float it.


----------



## brihard

Booter said:


> I’m sure that the RCMP would quote a number closer to yours. You can build the schedule- it just doesn’t survive contact. So you were “right”. The practical reality calls for a number a little higher that’s all.
> 
> At that lower number you wind up with secret dishonest 24 coverage where one officer works and one is a on call. Or two or three hour periods where there is on call every once in a while because of vacancy. “Risking it out”
> 
> I was digging through this stuff recently being called to a detachment that was now refusing to take overtime- they came together saying the over reliance on OT was burning them out- so they wouldn’t be taking ANY OT call-outs.
> 
> So in order to bring it to a proper functioning schedule that allowed for the usual vacancy we see now we needed that higher number to actually float it.


Yup. And under the new collective they can refuse on call on RTO days. I figured we’d eventually see that used for concerted pushback in hurting detachments.


----------



## Booter

I was happy to see them collectively say that they wouldn’t do something, Despite my mild annoyance at having to deal with it. They are right that they are staffed inappropriately.

As you’re saying- it’s been an eye opener for many managers once they have to operate within a structure with some rules.


----------



## mariomike

Are RCMP offered the choice of "Cash or Lieu" when they volunteer, or are mandated, for Overtime, Standby, Call-Back, Stats etc.?


----------



## brihard

mariomike said:


> Are RCMP offered the choice of "Cash or Lieu" when they volunteer, or are mandated, for Overtime, Standby, Call-Back, Stats etc.?


Very simplified answer, either/or, but with caps on how much time can be banked in lieu. In practice in a lot of places it’s so hard to get released for leave that lieu banks fill up quick and can’t be depleted. Obviously there are a lot of situational nuances.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Testimony from key RCMP officer at mass shooting inquiry can't be broadcast​


> The comission investigating the mass shootings in Nova Scotia in April 2020 has made a surprise decision just before the long weekend to block the testimony of a key witness from public broadcast.
> 
> RCMP Const. Greg Wiley is set to testify Tuesday afternoon, but in a decision released Friday afternoon, the Mass Casualty Commission ruled that his testimony via video link would not be disseminated as either audio or video via the normal webcast.
> 
> *"In order to receive the best information possible from Cst. Wiley, we have directed that Cst. Wiley's testimony not be webcast and a transcript be posted on the website," wrote the commission in its decision. *
> 
> The Attorney General of Canada made an application for accommodation for Wiley, citing personal health reasons.
> 
> Wiley is the officer who visited the gunman's Portapique home 16 times in the years before the deadly rampage of April 2020.
> 
> He told investigators in an interview that he never saw anything alarming.
> 
> Accommodation granted for 'best information'​


​
Is this implying that in order for Cst Wiley to be open and honest his testimony needs to be hidden from public view?

It sucks that Wiley is in a position where they've had to goto the guys place 16 times with nothing apparently being done about it. That's got to be heavy on their conscience even though it's surely a fault of our system and not them as an officer. Still, needing to hide the testimony seems odd.


----------



## dapaterson

My immediate assumption was that if he can't be broadcast in video or audio is that he has worked or is working undercover.

If it's for health reasons, well, it could backfire, since media will scrum around the entrances and exits to try to get quotes / images they can use, which will be potentially much more invasive than a broadcast of a controlled hearing.


----------



## lenaitch

dapaterson said:


> My immediate assumption was that if he can't be broadcast in video or audio is that he has worked or is working undercover.
> 
> If it's for health reasons, well, it could backfire, since media will scrum around the entrances and exits to try to get quotes / images they can use, which will be potentially much more invasive than a broadcast of a controlled hearing.



From further down the CBC article that I read:

_". . . the request concerns personal health information . . . "_


----------



## OldSolduer

lenaitch said:


> From further down the CBC article that I read:
> 
> _". . . the request concerns personal health information . . . "_


I read PTSD there and to publicly testify may make the situation worse. I hope the witness has good counsel and a counsellor on hand.


----------



## RedFive

RCMP Staffer deleted recording of controversial Lucki phone call


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

RedFive said:


> RCMP Staffer deleted recording of controversial Lucki phone call


This just keeps getting better and better


----------



## Halifax Tar

RedFive said:


> RCMP Staffer deleted recording of controversial Lucki phone call



Jesus, Mary and Joseph!


----------



## Remius

My question is would these be standard sop to record all conversations or did someone record her without her knowing and then deleted.


----------



## OldSolduer

Remius said:


> My question is would these be standard sop to record all conversations or did someone record her without her knowing and then deleted.



I think we need an LEO to answer that.


----------



## Good2Golf

Remius said:


> My question is would these be standard sop to record all conversations or did someone record her without her knowing and then deleted.


Whichever it is/was, it’s legal in Canada.  Some refer to it as IAG…insurance against gaslighters.


----------



## Remius

Good2Golf said:


> Whichever it is/was, it’s legal in Canada.  Some refer to it as IAG…insurance against gaslighters.


Yeah and that’s fine.  Not about the legality, It’s more about it being deleted.  If the conference call SOP is to officially record and it was deleted for “reason” then it looks bad.  Kind of like your body cam being suddenly NS at a key moment.   If someone did of their own recording and deleted it then it seems less conspiratorial.

That’s the crux of my question.  Is it SOP or was someone recording to ensure he still had a seat when the music stopped.


----------



## RedFive

OldSolduer said:


> I think we need an LEO to answer that.


You would need an LEO with experience in these high level politically charged meetings.

Every serious crime/murder investigation I've been a part of records all meetings/briefings etc but I can't say for certain its SOP amongst the likes of Superintendents, Assistant and Deputy Commissioners, or the Commissioner of the RCMP herself.

What I can say with absolute certainty is that the recording having been made was in fact evidence and never should have been destroyed. Given this was the largest mass murder in Canadian history, and the conversation involved the senior most ranks of the RCMP there is absolutely no excuse or reasonable explanation as to why this recording was deleted. No brand new Constable oopsies, no "we didn't think the recording was relevant", no "reached its purge date per policy".

To me this is destruction of evidence, plain and simple. At the least, somebody should be fired. I'd prefer to see somebody charged, made an example of, and then dismissed.


----------



## lenaitch

I  have no clue whether it is routine for senior police executives' phones calls to be recorded (I was a tad shy of prerequisites for those corridors)  but I would suspect not, given that they routinely speak to elected officials, ministers, etc., but if she was speaking from an ops centre/incident room/whatever they call it, at Fort Rose Marie in Ottawa, I would suspect that it would be SOP to record all calls and perhaps even room audio.

Regardless, as RedFive points out, once recorded should have been preserved and no civilian would have the unilateral authority to make that decision.


----------



## Good2Golf

Remius said:


> Not about the legality, It’s more about it being deleted.


Ack.  I agree with you 1000%


----------



## Booter

RedFive said:


> You would need an LEO with experience in these high level politically charged meetings.
> 
> Every serious crime/murder investigation I've been a part of records all meetings/briefings etc but I can't say for certain its SOP amongst the likes of Superintendents, Assistant and Deputy Commissioners, or the Commissioner of the RCMP herself.
> 
> What I can say with absolute certainty is that the recording having been made was in fact evidence and never should have been destroyed. Given this was the largest mass murder in Canadian history, and the conversation involved the senior most ranks of the RCMP there is absolutely no excuse or reasonable explanation as to why this recording was deleted. No brand new Constable oopsies, no "we didn't think the recording was relevant", no "reached its purge date per policy".
> 
> To me this is destruction of evidence, plain and simple. At the least, somebody should be fired. I'd prefer to see somebody charged, made an example of, and then dismissed.


There’s a switch over to internet based phones and teleconference systems. The ones I installed about a month ago- which is the future- records video calls and asks if you want to store them- it’s not normally done. Usually you delete them. It’s a default thing.

I believe the tech guy told me that they can pull it out of the data on the drive if they need to. But I didn’t know enough of what I was looking at.

As a practice they aren’t stored. Even my calls with ministry of justice or environment etc we go out of our way to ensure that no one is recording- because presently it’s not known how we’re going to
Store it- for what reasons- for what periods.

So presently- until the policy is sorted it’s not done.

These briefings- and the sensitive notes etc that come out of them are political beasts that are crafted by many hands. The conversations making the briefings are supposed to be open air so that you can have conversations.

You could make an argument that all conversations in a polticians office should be recorded. I think it’s a good idea. But it’s not presently a practice.

As an org the RCMP would be dragged kicking  and screaming into this.

I agree in this case I would have held into it. For historical record,


----------



## Booter

I should add- that common sense would dictate that there might need to be some exceptions on something like this. Especially if it’s a public servant. I’ll save my personal opinions on the love of bureaucracy I encounter.


----------



## Haggis

This is starting to look like


RedFive said:


> RCMP Staffer deleted recording of controversial Lucki phone call


I think the RCMP - indeed the entire Public Safety portfolio and the PMO - should be subjected to a "Somalia Documents" style search for answers.


----------



## FSTO

David Herle had a great interview with Paul Palango who has been deep into the NS Shooting File. After listening to this, there is something very rotten in the heads of our institutions. The goal of our leaders is to ensure no shyte gets splattered on them while they leave the coal face folks to muddle on with no lessons learned retraining, piss poor equipment/tactics, and no real attempt to dive deeply into the issues as to why.









						Paul Palango
					

SUBSCRIBE :  Apple Podcasts  |  Spotify  |  Stitcher  |  Google Podcasts  |  YouTube  |  RSS     Twitter          Instagram          Facebook




					www.airquotesmedia.com


----------



## OldSolduer

I do empathize with our Gravel Road Cops (term of endearment) who patrol in single Constable vehicles. QRF might be hours away. 

I cannot fathom how the leadership of the Mounties can be so incompetent or uncaring.


----------



## Good2Golf

OldSolduer said:


> I cannot fathom how the leadership of the Mounties can be so incompetent or uncaring.


Cmsre. Lucki likely sleeps quite soundly, knowing that Bill Blair and Justin Trudeau have her back (…until they don’t, of course)


----------



## Booter

OldSolduer said:


> I cannot fathom how the leadership of the Mounties can be so incompetent or uncaring.


They are simply following the example of those before them and the results of a system that rewards being obsessed with yourself.

In a new function, in a different stream I was sat down about “the game”. It’s very little about operational effectiveness


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> Cmsre. Lucki likely sleeps quite soundly, knowing that Bill Blair and Justin Trudeau have her back (…until they don’t, of course)


JWR can attest to that. 

I want to see a REAL Mountie as head of the RCMP.


----------



## daftandbarmy

OldSolduer said:


> JWR can attest to that.
> 
> I want to see a REAL Mountie as head of the RCMP.


----------



## brihard

Functionally, the commissioner of the RCMP is a federal government Deputy Minister, with their own additional and considerable set of legal authorities vested by the RCMP Act. They’re a senior government executive of a profoundly challenging ‘department’. I think any commissioner is likely going to be captured by the bureaucratic institution to some considerable degree. If any of us are hoping to see a more inspiring _leader_ come out of the upper echelons of that organization to head it up, I doubt we’ll often see that. While there are some very good leaders near the top, that may not be who the government looks at and looks for.

Lucki’s time should be done soon. It’ll be interesting to see who’s next.


----------



## FSTO

brihard said:


> Functionally, the commissioner of the RCMP is a federal government Deputy Minister, with their own additional and considerable set of legal authorities vested by the RCMP Act. They’re a senior government executive of a profoundly challenging ‘department’. I think any commissioner is likely going to be captured by the bureaucratic institution to some considerable degree. If any of us are hoping to see a more inspiring _leader_ come out of the upper echelons of that organization to head it up, I doubt we’ll often see that. While there are some very good leaders near the top, that may not be who the government looks at and looks for.
> 
> Lucki’s time should be done soon. It’ll be interesting to see who’s next.


Maybe it’s time for the RCMP to get out of the provincial police role and become a truly federal police force? It’s pretty unwieldy now with it being a rural force and First Nations force and urban force. Like many of our institutions there needs to be a deep reset as to its reason for existing and come up with options for renewal, relevance and effectiveness.


----------



## brihard

FSTO said:


> Maybe it’s time for the RCMP to get out of the provincial police role and become a truly federal police force? It’s pretty unwieldy now with it being a rural force and First Nations force and urban force. Like many of our institutions there needs to be a deep reset as to its reason for existing and come up with options for renewal, relevance and effectiveness.


That’s up to the provinces I guess. Part of the challenge there is that any province or municipality that develops their own force immediately discards a significant federal subsidization of their policing costs. That’s a lot. There’s also infrastructure, training, IM/IT (this one is HUGE), and various other things to consider.

Your point has merit. It just comes with a large bill. Watch Surrey and watch what Alberta considers.


----------



## FSTO

brihard said:


> That’s up to the provinces I guess. Part of the challenge there is that any province or municipality that develops their own force immediately discards a significant federal subsidization of their policing costs. That’s a lot. There’s also infrastructure, training, IM/IT (this one is HUGE), and various other things to consider.
> 
> Your point has merit. It just comes with a large bill. Watch Surrey and watch what Alberta considers.


Oh I understand. They could repurpose Depot as a provincial police training centre. The subsidy can be transferred to municipalities. 
Rural policing needs to be more responsive though. A lot of theft occurs on farms due to long response times.


----------



## lenaitch

FSTO said:


> Maybe it’s time for the RCMP to get out of the provincial police role and become a truly federal police force? It’s pretty unwieldy now with it being a rural force and First Nations force and urban force. Like many of our institutions there needs to be a deep reset as to its reason for existing and come up with options for renewal, relevance and effectiveness.


Discussions, studies, and op-ed comments have been made on this topic for years, and will no doubt continue, but if people are envisioning something along the lines of a 'Canadian FBI', it's more complicated than than.  The US has federal and state law which spawned separate federal and state law enforcement (the plot basis for half of the US TV cop shows) but in Canada, the administration of justice is a provincial matter.  I suppose, by agreement, the RCMP could take on a lead role for cross-jurisdictional or pan-Canadian criminal matters, but there are not many statutes that specifically empower the RCMP over other police services.  

In addition to that, I imagine they would still be responsible for frontline law enforcement in the three federal territories, but I don't know the particular legislation governing them.  I understand that, in contract provinces, the federal government pays roughly 30% (as Brihard just mentioned) so many provinces would be hard-pressed to carry on alone.  In many rural areas, the current staffing would be looked back upon fondly.  Also, as mentioned, the behind-the-scenes support services are huge costs.  Things like forensics, telecoms and aviation are hugely expensive, and if there was some hope that they would continue on in those areas would leave the RCMP kinda-sorta involved in frontline policing.

On thing that has always struck me as curious with the likes of the FBI and other federal agencies is that, in the Canadian experience, in law enforcement you learn your trade, gain your experience, 'cut your teeth' on low level investigations at the local level and get exposed to increasingly serious and complex roles.  I've often wondered how those US federal agencies do that - how to learn to connect with joe-public.  Maybe that's part of the problem.


----------



## lenaitch

FSTO said:


> Oh I understand. They could repurpose Depot as a provincial police training centre. The subsidy can be transferred to municipalities.
> Rural policing needs to be more responsive though. A lot of theft occurs on farms due to long response times.


Ok, there's one or two or three provinces covered.  The Atlantic provinces aren't going to ship their personnel to Regina for training.

I'd view a 'kick the bums out' a little more seriously if areas like the lower mainland BC could get their act together and take on their highly-populated area with a single service.  Even a large chuck of Greater Halifax is covered by the RCMP.

Federal subsidies go to provinces; it's up to them how to further distribute them.


----------



## KevinB

lenaitch said:


> On thing that has always struck me as curious with the likes of the FBI and other federal agencies is that, in the Canadian experience, in law enforcement you learn your trade, gain your experience, 'cut your teeth' on low level investigations at the local level and get exposed to increasingly serious and complex roles.  I've often wondered how those US federal agencies do that - how to learn to connect with joe-public.  Maybe that's part of the problem.



Fed recruiting of former Mil or local LE helps, as it gives background experience.   
  Other than those personnel, in my experience the direct hires from college most don’t learn and that results a large divide exists between Fed and other LE.  With the exception being Fed Task Forces with join personnel.  

I have met some fantastic Fed LEO’s and am friends with a bunch.   Others well, I wouldn’t piss on if they where on fire.


----------



## Good2Golf

brihard said:


> Functionally, the commissioner of the RCMP is a federal government Deputy Minister, with their own additional and considerable set of legal authorities vested by the RCMP Act. They’re a senior government executive of a profoundly challenging ‘department’. I think any commissioner is likely going to be captured by the bureaucratic institution to some considerable degree. If any of us are hoping to see a more inspiring _leader_ come out of the upper echelons of that organization to head it up, I doubt we’ll often see that. While there are some very good leaders near the top, that may not be who the government looks at and looks for.
> 
> Lucki’s time should be done soon. It’ll be interesting to see who’s next.


Is there a place to have a construct similar to the CAF/DND where CDS is a ‘DM Ops’ and DND DM is a DM ‘Admin’ of the Department?


----------



## lenaitch

KevinB said:


> Fed recruiting of former Mil or local LE helps, as it gives background experience.
> Other than those personnel, in my experience the direct hires from college most don’t learn and that results a large divide exists between Fed and other LE.  With the exception being Fed Task Forces with join personnel.
> 
> I have met some fantastic Fed LEO’s and am friends with a bunch.   Others well, I wouldn’t piss on if they where on fire.


Spending all of my life in Ontario, my working exposure to the RCMP is quite limited, but when I did, it often became quite easy to discern between members who came from a contract province or uniformed front line duties such as Pearson airport when they did that, and those who were posted to 'O' Division (Ontario, a federal policing non-contract role) directly from Depot.  I always wondered why they would do that.


----------



## dapaterson

Good2Golf said:


> Is there a place to have a construct similar to the CAF/DND where CDS is a ‘DM Ops’ and DND DM is a DM ‘Admin’ of the Department?


Because that works so well for DND/CAF?


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:


> Because that works so well for DND/CAF?


It did reasonably well when the DM and CDS appreciated and respected each other enough to make the relationship between ops and admin work.  When the CDS is a narcissist and opportunist and the DM is allegedly a toxic stealth gaslighter and believes that they own ops too…a little less so.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Why Nova Scotia's RCMP tactical team is 'shaking mad' 2 years after Portapique tragedy



			https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6656769


----------



## brihard

Halifax Tar said:


> Why Nova Scotia's RCMP tactical team is 'shaking mad' 2 years after Portapique tragedy
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6656769


It’s impressive that he manages to shit on both the team that worked Portapique AND the team who worked Moncton at the same time. That’s… Yeah.


----------



## Good2Golf

I guess we know who’s in the running to replace Lucki when she moves on to a plum appointment…

😔


----------



## RedFive

Well, I guess all the rumours I've heard of H Division being a corrupt hole filled with NCO's and Officers who have never left the Province and stick rigidly to "that's the way its always been done here" are true. Turns out the rumours of awful leadership were also true...


----------



## Booter

ridiculous texts aside- I’d love to know what the people on this thread would have done with that decision. Careful now- because several hundred officers were involved in the manhunt- In a deeper context than the ERT team so if you’re giving automatic two weeks off- I’ll need a full-size explanation of how you would backfill positions.

Also- psychologists only recommend the time off- A medical doctor has to approve it. So without that there wasn’t a mechanism to give it. Not a huge issue to overcome but it’s a consideration.

There is no automatic decompression leave when the teams shoot.


----------



## Booter

Yes essentially they were being asked to be reassigned to admin duties for several/two weeks. Requires medical signing off.

It wasn’t a big ask. But we also don’t know what is happening away from WhatsApp. I find articles like these very suspicious.


----------



## lenaitch

How about back-filling with members/teams from other divisions.  There were a lot of front-line, non-tactical members who could have done with a decompress as well.  Big cost, big disruption for sure, but we're talking the metal health of the members.


----------



## Booter

lenaitch said:


> How about back-filling with members/teams from other divisions.  There were a lot of front-line, non-tactical members who could have done with a decompress as well.  Big cost, big disruption for sure, but we're talking the metal health of the members.


That’s not how moving hundreds of bodies works. And exactly the inch deep solution I expected to hear- all those bodies would be vacated from their positions in other places being paid for by municipalities or functions that aren’t compensated by Nova Scotia,

When and how would you have gotten them there? Would you Have the ones that need the relief work for a while until you get people in place? Which leave type is this again? How do we track and assign who was close enough in the 200 hundred officers to get the decompression? Again- out west an officer in a shooting can be back the following week- so what am I using to do this?

Atlantic region is first among equals for not having enough officers per capita.

The staffing of these places is done incorrectly when the only solution people have is to rob Peter to pay Paul,

Sure- put a system in place with an understanding of how it would be structured and paid for. But it doesn’t exist now. And certainly didn’t then.

You know who else would have been under enormous conflicting pressures and also would have been rung out? The officers sending those texts who also were dealing with the investigation and the Ottawa pressures.

There should be a better system. But retroactive goodwill is worth a handful of dick. It didn’t exist and the division works with the rules it has. This is something that should be addressed now- but it’s not something as easy as is suggested.

Backfilling teams means someone else has to go without a team- and where the teams have “part time” members that means their detachment and regular job goes empty AND the division loses their specialist.


----------



## brihard

Booter said:


> That’s not how moving hundreds of bodies works. And exactly the inch deep solution I expected to hear- all those bodies would be vacated from their positions in other places being paid for by municipalities or functions that aren’t compensated by Nova Scotia,
> 
> When and how would you have gotten them there? Would you Have the ones that need the relief work for a while until you get people in place? Which leave type is this again? How do we track and assign who was close enough in the 200 hundred officers to get the decompression? Again- out west an officer in a shooting can be back the following week- so what am I using to do this?
> 
> Atlantic region is first among equals for not having enough officers per capita.
> 
> The staffing of these places is done incorrectly when the only solution people have is to rob Peter to pay Paul,
> 
> Sure- put a system in place with an understanding of how it would be structured and paid for. But it doesn’t exist now. And certainly didn’t then.
> 
> You know who else would have been under enormous conflicting pressures and also would have been rung out? The officers sending those texts who also were dealing with the investigation and the Ottawa pressures.
> 
> There should be a better system. But retroactive goodwill is worth a handful of dick. It didn’t exist and the division works with the rules it has. This is something that should be addressed now- but it’s not something as easy as is suggested.
> 
> Backfilling teams means someone else has to go without a team- and where the teams have “part time” members that means their detachment and regular job goes empty AND the division loses their specialist.



I think there are two issues here. One is the handling of the request by the Nova Scotia ERT to go ‘admin only’ and get some psychological recuperation. The other issue is having the curtain pulled back and seeing a senior officer talking to an also-senior subordinate about that team of police behind their backs like that, and the really derogatory way he referred to both their request, and prior similar actions by RCMP in New Brunswick following Moncton.

I have a close high school friend in the RCMP out in NS, and others in Ontario. My understanding is that a lot of RCMP members were surged from Ontario to backfill Nova Scotia members who were in a rough spot right after the shooting. Although it’s taking from Peter to pay Paul, I guess it was more of a short term loan than a robbery?

The more specialized the team, obviously the harder it is to backfill. Corollary to that- maybe the more specialized they are, the more their needs should be heard and respected in the wake of a massively shit situation. That, of course, is not to say that the members on general duty don’t also deserve as much consideration as can be given.

At a minimum, if your members come to you in distress and state a need the assist their psychological well being, maybe don’t cut them down in communications with another executive, and call their request a ‘circle jerk’.


----------



## Booter

except referring to “jittery j”, which is an old expression, what was the text that’s attacking the Moncton members? I feel like I’m missing some.  All I see is the one saying that just because they got it there doesn’t mean it was correct. Which is right.

I don’t know Tim mills, at all, I actually know very few guys in that province beyond having to deal with their prehistoric viewpoints when dealing with things nationally (generally NCOs and up- so I don’t know the work all that well)

But it’s entirely possible for him to be correct that the guys should have had their decompression time figured out (I don’t think it would have been hard) and also that he could be a complete piece of shit- as per the text. They aren’t exclusive.

I know we re supposed to hate all the Mounties in Nova Scotia and Ottawa depending on which news story we read that day and what our biases are- but I don’t see the outrage here as being well placed. The news is not your friend CAF or Mountie, they write you as incompetent or racist/prejudiced no matter your level or position. It’s just which end of the organization they are pointing to that day.

And I’m saying that as a guy who is always in shit.

It appears that the “cutting down” has happened because the conversation was moved out of channels and into Politics. It’s not like this was the first response to the topic. That’s my read anyways. I don’t agree with the characterizations in the texts of what the team would be doing for two weeks. But I have had assholes working with me that I have called assholes in text messages so I may be the enemy.


----------



## mariomike

lenaitch said:


> Big cost, big disruption for sure, but we're talking the metal health of the members.



Out of curiousity, what, if anything, does the collective agreement have to say about that?

Our CA spelled it out.

Following a difficult or critical call - as defined by the paramedic - they are taken out of service and de-briefed by the staff psychologist. 
Then sent home.

If they feel the need - and their physician and/or supervisor agree - they can take the next two 12-hour shifts off.  
No loss of pay, or deduction from the member's sick bank.

When they return to duty, if they still feel the need, and have a note from their doctor, they can go on modified duty. ie: removal from 9-1-1 operations.

Eventually, if the PTSD is determined to be a Permanent Partial Disability ( PPD ), they are relocated into a "suitable" job. What is "suitable"? That is a real wild card.   



> If the pre-injury rate of pay is higher than the relocated position rate, then the pre-injury rate is to be maintained. It is understood that the pre-injury rate is subject to all wage increases negotiated


----------



## brihard

Booter said:


> except referring to “jittery j”, which is an old expression, what was the text that’s attacking the Moncton members? I feel like I’m missing some.  All I see is the one saying that just because they got it there doesn’t mean it was correct. Which is right.
> 
> I don’t know Tim mills, at all, I actually know very few guys in that province beyond having to deal with their prehistoric viewpoints when dealing with things nationally (generally NCOs and up- so I don’t know the work all that well)
> 
> But it’s entirely possible for him to be correct that the guys should have had their decompression time figured out (I don’t think it would have been hard) and also that he could be a complete piece of shit- as per the text. They aren’t exclusive.
> 
> I know we re supposed to hate all the Mounties in Nova Scotia and Ottawa depending on which news story we read that day and what our biases are- but I don’t see the outrage here as being well placed. The news is not your friend CAF or Mountie, they write you as incompetent or racist/prejudiced no matter your level or position. It’s just which end of the organization they are pointing to that day.
> 
> And I’m saying that as a guy who is always in shit.
> 
> It appears that the “cutting down” has happened because the conversation was moved out of channels and into Politics. It’s not like this was the first response to the topic. That’s my read anyways. I don’t agree with the characterizations in the texts of what the team would be doing for two weeks. But I have had assholes working with me that I have called assholes in text messages so I may be the enemy.


The ‘jittery j’ thing is what I was referring to, yeah- to me that comes across as dripping with contempt towards how New Brunswick handled things for its team in the wake of Moncton. I think it’s a shitty way to talk about the troops, and about efforts to care for them.


----------



## Booter

Jittery J is an old expression usually used for their managements risk averse nature- inability to make decisions. Prehistoric kit. Won’t upgrade radios. Inspectors are financial holders for all detachment and uniform kit purchases. I sincerely doubt, which is worth as much as the opinion that is the opposite- because we don’t know, that it was meant in the context of people involved in the Bourque incident as individuals. But your take is as possible as mine.

It is not fair to characterize J Mounties especially in a Moncton context as anything less than people making do in extraordinary circumstance. But J division is always an outlier- prior to Jittery J we had the awful J division Mafia that took control of the force and froze any operational momentum for years under  Commish Zaccardelli.

I’ll stop beating the horse, I’m just prickly because I was forwarded this dozens of time because of my interest in members health- and it was a confirmation for some of a problem. I’m just really cynical- I see it as frustrated peoples private messages- which have public interest attached to them so I get why they’re out there- but I think you’d be hard pressed to find a group of messages that you can’t get fired up over when their is conflict.

Remember the convoy Mounties from the ride? Like it’s meant between A and B, it’s not helpful for the outside observer 🤷‍♀️


----------



## lenaitch

Booter said:


> That’s not how moving hundreds of bodies works. And exactly the inch deep solution I expected to hear- all those bodies would be vacated from their positions in other places being paid for by municipalities or functions that aren’t compensated by Nova Scotia,
> 
> When and how would you have gotten them there? Would you Have the ones that need the relief work for a while until you get people in place? Which leave type is this again? How do we track and assign who was close enough in the 200 hundred officers to get the decompression? Again- out west an officer in a shooting can be back the following week- so what am I using to do this?
> 
> Atlantic region is first among equals for not having enough officers per capita.
> 
> The staffing of these places is done incorrectly when the only solution people have is to rob Peter to pay Paul,
> 
> Sure- put a system in place with an understanding of how it would be structured and paid for. But it doesn’t exist now. And certainly didn’t then.
> 
> You know who else would have been under enormous conflicting pressures and also would have been rung out? The officers sending those texts who also were dealing with the investigation and the Ottawa pressures.
> 
> There should be a better system. But retroactive goodwill is worth a handful of dick. It didn’t exist and the division works with the rules it has. This is something that should be addressed now- but it’s not something as easy as is suggested.
> 
> Backfilling teams means someone else has to go without a team- and where the teams have “part time” members that means their detachment and regular job goes empty AND the division loses their specialist.


The logistics, leave classifications and all the other administriva I would leave to the brass hats.  How would they get there?  Drive? Aviation Division?  Air Canada?  Would it be disruptive back home and have a cost?  Sure.  I don't see this as a Nova Scotia contract problem; I see this as a RCMP problem.  Effective leadership means rising to the occasion to protect your members.  Sure, a plan should be in place, but I will forgive anybody for not having contingencies or op plans that could have matched this incident.

A month and a bit ago,  South Simcoe Police Service (100 members, 86K population) lost two members.  For three days preceding the funerals, the OPP covered all of their calls.  At least one was a barricaded person/tactical call.  They had one day to put this together.  I don't know from how far afield the the OPP members came but I can guarantee you that most will have came from contract detachments - police services paid for by the municipalities.  Who paid for this service?  Haven't a clue.


----------



## Booter

When there is any conflict at all anymore- people get inflammatory advice from a part time rep from NPF. They go right to social media, or their spouses do, trying to get political will or news interest. It doesn’t suit finding solutions.

In the messages they are dealing with the Employee relations people- so there is a literal mountain of things going on behind these 6 messages- and people are trying to leverage external pressure because it isn’t going fast enough. Maybe they are right to do so- I can’t say. It may have been that large of a crisis for people.


----------



## Booter

lenaitch said:


> The logistics, leave classifications and all the other administriva I would leave to the brass hats.  How would they get there?  Drive? Aviation Division?  Air Canada?  Would it be disruptive back home and have a cost?  Sure.  I don't see this as a Nova Scotia contract problem; I see this as a RCMP problem.  Effective leadership means rising to the occasion to protect your members.  Sure, a plan should be in place, but I will forgive anybody for not having contingencies or op plans that could have matched this incident.
> 
> A month and a bit ago,  South Simcoe Police Service (100 members, 86K population) lost two members.  For three days preceding the funerals, the OPP covered all of their calls.  At least one was a barricaded person/tactical call.  They had one day to put this together.  I don't know from how far afield the the OPP members came but I can guarantee you that most will have came from contract detachments - police services paid for by the municipalities.  Who paid for this service?  Haven't a clue.


While interesting, legitimately so- it’s an order of magnitude lower. I would be interested to see how that cost was recovered. I would like to look at that plan and how it was actioned- I appreciate that example. But without knowing how it worked- like did south simcoe pay an OT bill for these members on shoestring minimum? Then it a success of the community leaders opposed to the provincial leaders that would be the responsible ones if we used the example to our situation,

The problem with your post is that you get to have all the good intentions in the world and say what “should” happen. Those officers have to work in the structures that exist. 

“You should do this!”

“Okay- tell the polticians to pay the bill and give me the authority”

We don’t even know if they tried to speak with the province about the money and issues surrounding wellness, all we know is that frustrated people texted each other,

You are correct it’s an RCMP problem. That financial stuff bleeds right down into the training system of new recruits and how seats are assigned. Money/cost first then operations.

You can observe that in the Surrey police VS RCMP battle.


----------



## lenaitch

Booter said:


> While interesting, legitimately so- it’s an order of magnitude lower. I would be interested to see how that cost was recovered. I would like to look at that plan and how it was actioned- I appreciate that example. But without knowing how it worked- like did south simcoe pay an OT bill for these members on shoestring minimum? Then it a success of the community leaders opposed to the provincial leaders that would be the responsible ones if we used the example to our situation,
> 
> The problem with your post is that you get to have all the good intentions in the world and say what “should” happen. Those officers have to work in the structures that exist.
> 
> “You should do this!”
> 
> “Okay- tell the polticians to pay the bill and give me the authority”
> 
> We don’t even know if they tried to speak with the province about the money and issues surrounding wellness, all we know is that frustrated people texted each other,
> 
> You are correct it’s an RCMP problem. That financial stuff bleeds right down into the training system of new recruits and how seats are assigned. Money/cost first then operations.
> 
> You can observe that in the Surrey police VS RCMP battle.


You're right, we don't know the financial details.  The SSPS Police Services Board's webpage hasn't posted minutes since September and there was an agenda for a special meeting in November to approve BWC.  I suspect, and this is only a guess from what I have seen in the past, is the OPP agreed to it first and will approach government later, without or without a tacit nod from somebody at the Ministry.  Forgiveness vs. permission.

The type of arrangement is not unheard of, but is typically only part of the day of the funeral (correction: coverage was provided for two days, not three) and I don't recall it being for a Service this large.  There are very few small departments left in Ontario.  Obviously, if it between OPP detachments, the accounting and logistics are somewhat easier, but it remains that it is an unbudgeted expense.

If RCMP senior leadership lack the ability to make operational decisions, even really expensive ones, that are outside of line items, I see that as a problem.


----------



## Booter

lenaitch said:


> If RCMP senior leadership lack the ability to make operational decisions, even really expensive ones, that are outside of line items, I see that as a problem.


This is true.

But I also know that a city of hundred thousand people can be backfilled by five officers on shift. 

That’s not nearly the same thing.


----------



## lenaitch

Booter said:


> This is true.
> 
> But I also know that a city of hundred thousand people can be backfilled by five officers on shift.
> 
> That’s not nearly the same thing.


My point has always been illustrative rather than comparative.  I'll take your word on the numbers - I've been out too long to argue them.  No doubt it would be disruptive to backfill all the impacted members 24/7 for a couple of weeks.  Rest days and perhaps annual leave messed up for sure.  Maybe Fort Rose Marie in Ottawa and the divisional HQs get quieter for a few weeks. Wildly expensive.  But if the 'corporate culture' and leadership is there, and that is what is necessary for the mental strength of the members and avoid longer term problems, they need to rise to the occasion.  Flexibility and surge capacity are supposed to be a couple of the hallmarks of large deployed services; otherwise they are just a collection of smaller police departments in the same suit.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Booter said:


> Yes essentially they were being asked to be reassigned to admin duties for several/two weeks. Requires medical signing off.
> 
> It wasn’t a big ask. But we also don’t know what is happening away from WhatsApp. I find articles like these very suspicious.



I'm having a hard time 'seeing past' the comments in the WhatsApp message, regardless.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Had the release text said; "This would be nice to do if we had a perfect world, but i can't see us being able to do it, need advice on how to communicate this to the troops". then you know your dealing with leadership that cares.


----------



## Booter

lenaitch said:


> My point has always been illustrative rather than comparative.  I'll take your word on the numbers - I've been out too long to argue them.  No doubt it would be disruptive to backfill all the impacted members 24/7 for a couple of weeks.  Rest days and perhaps annual leave messed up for sure.  Maybe Fort Rose Marie in Ottawa and the divisional HQs get quieter for a few weeks. Wildly expensive.  But if the 'corporate culture' and leadership is there, and that is what is necessary for the mental strength of the members and avoid longer term problems, they need to rise to the occasion.  Flexibility and surge capacity are supposed to be a couple of the hallmarks of large deployed services; otherwise they are just a collection of smaller police departments in the same suit.


You have a ton of experience I’m being circular and difficult- I appreciate the example from the opp I find it very interesting.


----------



## lenaitch

Colin Parkinson said:


> Had the release text said; "This would be nice to do if we had a perfect world, but i can't see us being able to do it, need advice on how to communicate this to the troops". then you know your dealing with leadership that cares.


Yup, or 'big ask - we need to figure out how to make it happen'.  Or even better, after the fact; 'Supt Doyle has decided to take his career in a different direction'.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I'm hoping some with experience could expand on this.     
Scrambling for aircraft in N.S. mass shooting, RCMP told to ‘pound sand’: official​









						Scrambling for aircraft in N.S. mass shooting, RCMP told to ‘pound sand’: official  | Globalnews.ca
					

Log and audio transcripts obtained by The Canadian Press reveal muddled advice from the military's Joint Rescue Coordination Centre during the search for the N.S. gunman.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## Good2Golf

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> I'm hoping some with experience could expand on this.
> Scrambling for aircraft in N.S. mass shooting, RCMP told to ‘pound sand’: official​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scrambling for aircraft in N.S. mass shooting, RCMP told to ‘pound sand’: official  | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Log and audio transcripts obtained by The Canadian Press reveal muddled advice from the military's Joint Rescue Coordination Centre during the search for the N.S. gunman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca


🤦🏻 

I guess it turns out that in Canada, in-service primary SAR aircraft/helicopters don’t have FLIR sensors, since they normally search for warm things (humans)…#dndsarlogic

It also seems as though JRCC wasn’t prone to expediently thinking outside the this-is-how-we-do-SAR box.  Some organizations conduct concurrent activities (like check with a FLIR-equipped unit, let’s say 423 Sqn in Shearwater, NS while linking real-time with the CAOC to prep any actions required to support an ACP/CFAAD request.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> I'm hoping some with experience could expand on this.
> Scrambling for aircraft in N.S. mass shooting, RCMP told to ‘pound sand’: official​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scrambling for aircraft in N.S. mass shooting, RCMP told to ‘pound sand’: official  | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Log and audio transcripts obtained by The Canadian Press reveal muddled advice from the military's Joint Rescue Coordination Centre during the search for the N.S. gunman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca


The CAF does not roll assets on a law enforcement situation, no matter how bad it is, without several very large legal checkmarks in the box. That is how the NDA works. The RCMP calling JRCC Halifax for help is probably the least good way getting military assistance in an active shooter situation.


----------



## lenaitch

I'm actually kinda surprised SAR doesn't have IR.  I would have thought it might be helpful looking for somebody bobbing in the water but what do I know.  Flying low and slow enough to pick up reasonably useful heat signatures sounds like a bad idea if you are in an environment where somebody is shooting at just about anything.

Perhaps the other problem is the RCMP having only one rotary in the Maritimes and no Plan B when it is down for maintenance.  I do recall reading about them finally getting a NS Natural Resources machine but understand there was comms problems.


----------



## Good2Golf

lenaitch said:


> I'm actually kinda surprised SAR doesn't have IR.  I would have thought it might be helpful looking for somebody bobbing in the water but what do I know.  Flying low and slow enough to pick up reasonably useful heat signatures sounds like a bad idea if you are in an environment where somebody is shooting at just about anything.
> 
> Perhaps the other problem is the RCMP having only one rotary in the Maritimes and no Plan B when it is down for maintenance.  I do recall reading about them finally getting a NS Natural Resources machine but understand there was comms problems.


There were politics involved when the Cormorant was procured, that limited the available budget and FLIR, as useful as it would have been to rotary SAR, didn’t make the cut. 

Kind of ironic that green and grey helicopters have FLIR, but most yellow don’t. (NB. the yellow Griffon’s do have FLIR I understand, but that’s because they’re a Griffon, and we’re allocated some of the FLIRs originally procured for the Green Griffon fleet.)


----------



## Halifax Tar

lenaitch said:


> I'm actually kinda surprised SAR doesn't have IR.  I would have thought it might be helpful looking for somebody bobbing in the water but what do I know.  Flying low and slow enough to pick up reasonably useful heat signatures sounds like a bad idea if you are in an environment where somebody is shooting at just about anything.



Me as well.


----------



## Good2Golf

Halifax Tar said:


> Me as well.


Canada’s gonna Canada…


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:


> 🤦🏻
> 
> I guess it turns out that in Canada, in-service primary SAR aircraft/helicopters don’t have FLIR sensors, since they normally search for warm things (humans)…#dndsarlogic
> 
> It also seems as though JRCC wasn’t prone to expediently thinking outside the this-is-how-we-do-SAR box.  Some organizations conduct concurrent activities (like check with a FLIR-equipped unit, let’s say 423 Sqn in Shearwater, NS while linking real-time with the CAOC to prep any actions required to support an ACP/CFAAD request.



I would have called the other wing in NS;  no offense to MH but in LRP we have the legs, altitude and a better EOIR, comms etc.   We also do SAR secondary and hold Ready crews 24/7/365.  I’m totally not surprised JRCC didn’t even think of Auroras;  that’s actually a very embarrassing article for them.

Looking for people, doing veh follows, communicating…we are just better set up for it and lots of IMPACT operational experience still kicking around the fleet.  We still practice “overland stuff”.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

lenaitch said:


> I'm actually kinda surprised SAR doesn't have IR.  I would have thought it might be helpful looking for somebody bobbing in the water but what do I know.  Flying low and slow enough to pick up reasonably useful heat signatures sounds like a bad idea if you are in an environment where somebody is shooting at just about anything.
> 
> Perhaps the other problem is the RCMP having only one rotary in the Maritimes and no Plan B when it is down for maintenance.  I do recall reading about them finally getting a NS Natural Resources machine but understand there was comms problems.



Using IR for a single person in the water…not so much help really (been there done that…unsuccessfully I’ll add). 

There are lots of factors that come into play;  temps, sea state, size of search area, time of day, weather.

I’ve done overland SAR looking with IR at night.  Every camp fire, animal, etc is a potential contact.   IR searches aren’t as easy as most people think they are.

Replacing all the big shiny lights on SAR aircraft with sensors is just as bad as having no sensors and all big shiny lights.   Different searches demand different tools.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Just wanted to add a piece about JRCC; they know and deal with active shooter scenarios as readily as police depts deal with blue water SAR.  “They don’t even know what they don’t know” kind of idea.

RCAF primary SAR assets do not have sensors; I’m not even sure if they have AIS let alone an EOIR turret.   Sensor-assisted SAR is not something JRCC knows much about; our SAR Sqns are just starting to “learn sensors in SAR”.

What is too bad is that hands are tied so badly with policy and red tape between different departments that Canadians can’t even get aircraft like an Aurora, which would ultimately have been the best platform (for many reasons) airborne to protect them when they really really need it, and those planes are sitting on a ramp just a very short flying time away from where this was going down.  Looking for a bad guy, locating a specific vehicle, doing a vehicle follow and reporting it all to a ground station…is pretty routine stuff after Iraq and Syria.

Our policy, systems and procedures failed. They failed that day. Collectively, “we” failed.  Who is “we”?  All the uniformed services paid for by tax dollars that can’t inter-operate inside our own borders when the SHTF.   That kind of “we”.  

* RCAF has done DS ops to other fed depts inside Canadian airspace and TTWs.  I’ve got some of them in my logbook.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Good2Golf said:


> Canada’s gonna Canada…


You can blame a certain individual who's initials are "JC" and I don't mean the guy from Palestine.


----------



## daftandbarmy

I assume no SOPs had been developed or rehearsed...


Scrambling for aircraft in N.S. mass shooting, RCMP told to 'pound sand': officials​Log and audio transcripts show confusion around RCMP's request for aircraft assistance​

RCMP officers prepare to take a person into custody at a gas station in Enfield, N.S. on Sunday April 19, 2020. The gunman who killed 22 people was fatally shot by police at the gas station. (Tim Krochak/The Canadian Press)

Transcripts of calls between the RCMP and search and rescue officials in Halifax show an overall lack of understanding of what was required to have a military aircraft assist during the search for a gunman who killed 22 people in April 2020.

Log and audio transcripts obtained by The Canadian Press under an access to information request also reveal muddled advice from the military's Joint Rescue Coordination Centre, which was initially under the impression that it had adequately dealt with the RCMP's request for an aircraft equipped with infrared technology.

Before calling search and rescue, the Mounties had tried unsuccessfully to get an aircraft with sensors that could detect the heat signature of a human body, which they needed as they searched for the killer in the woods around Portapique, N.S., soon after the 13-hour rampage began on April 18, 2020.




			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/muddled-communication-rcmp-jrcc-mass-shooting-military-aircraft-request-1.6672392?cmp=newsletter_Evening%20Headlines%20from%20CBC%20News_1617_783989


----------



## Weinie

daftandbarmy said:


> I assume no SOPs had been developed or rehearsed...
> 
> 
> Scrambling for aircraft in N.S. mass shooting, RCMP told to 'pound sand': officials​Log and audio transcripts show confusion around RCMP's request for aircraft assistance​
> 
> RCMP officers prepare to take a person into custody at a gas station in Enfield, N.S. on Sunday April 19, 2020. The gunman who killed 22 people was fatally shot by police at the gas station. (Tim Krochak/The Canadian Press)
> 
> Transcripts of calls between the RCMP and search and rescue officials in Halifax show an overall lack of understanding of what was required to have a military aircraft assist during the search for a gunman who killed 22 people in April 2020.
> 
> Log and audio transcripts obtained by The Canadian Press under an access to information request also reveal muddled advice from the military's Joint Rescue Coordination Centre, which was initially under the impression that it had adequately dealt with the RCMP's request for an aircraft equipped with infrared technology.
> 
> Before calling search and rescue, the Mounties had tried unsuccessfully to get an aircraft with sensors that could detect the heat signature of a human body, which they needed as they searched for the killer in the woods around Portapique, N.S., soon after the 13-hour rampage began on April 18, 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/muddled-communication-rcmp-jrcc-mass-shooting-military-aircraft-request-1.6672392?cmp=newsletter_Evening%20Headlines%20from%20CBC%20News_1617_783989


Once again, according to the CBC, the CAF are the "bad" guys.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Isn't their rules about using us for Aid to Civil Power?  And a process for getting that help ?


----------



## kratz

Halifax Tar said:


> Isn't their rules about using us for Aid to Civil Power?  And a process for getting that help ?


Isn't there rules for CBC headlines? A higherachy of who to bash or malign? /s


----------



## Kat Stevens

Isn’t there also the rule of common decency? Fuck the rules for five minutes, if we can help find/stop this fucker let’s do it. Sort the paperwork out later.


----------



## Dana381

Kat Stevens said:


> Isn’t there also the rule of common decency? Fuck the rules for five minutes, if we can help find/stop this fucker let’s do it. Sort the paperwork out later.



Really? In this day and age. The person giving the order, the guy who fueled the helicopter and all the crew are definitely fired immediately. If shit goes sideways and someone get hurt or killed those people would be looking at jail time.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Weinie said:


> Once again, according to the CBC, the CAF are the "bad" guys.


Why are they asking JRCC?  Literally makes zero sense.

Also, I like how the NS RCMP are apparently told multiple times how to formally request this and they just continue to disregard it.  

Sounds like a real boy scout operation they got going on in H Division.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Dana381 said:


> Really? In this day and age. The person giving the order, the guy who fueled the helicopter and all the crew are definitely fired immediately. If shit goes sideways and someone get hurt or killed those people would be looking at jail time.


Yes. Really.


----------



## brihard

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Why are they asking JRCC?  Literally makes zero sense.
> 
> Also, I like how the NS RCMP are apparently told multiple times how to formally request this and they just continue to disregard it.
> 
> Sounds like a real boy scout operation they got going on in H Division.


Sounds like a request was made to JRCC the night of, and simply got a ‘no’. The rest of the interactions described look to have happened within a 28 minute period the next morning, resulted in a request beginning to flow the proper way, but then the matter ceased because the shooter picked and lost a fight with ERT and the dog guy at the gas station. Also note that in that time they were also working other angles for other aircraft… My bet is someone was told “find us a fucking bird” and they just worked whatever past of least resistance presented itself- hence the MNR helo.


----------



## Booter

JRCC is the path to air assets in the Canadian forces that the Mounties are familiar with from SAR. It’s the easy contact found in the policy manuals etc- any NCO who has coordinated a search and rescue would have used them- I am willing to bet if you created a circumstance  where they were asked to contact the Air Force the first call would go through this channel. 

More would be familiar with it than would be familiar with the EMO office and getting permission and requests the other way around. Which would be a very unusual process that wouldn’t be easy to find- the kind where every call you make you’re telling the person on the other end what they’re supposed to do because they have never dealt with it. 

Knowing what I know about H and budgets- I bet dollars to donuts that the cost of leasing from that PAL company and getting an appropriate budget holder to sign off was part of the issue having leased enough helicopters and seen how that goes.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Kat Stevens said:


> Yes. Really.


Let me try this on you:

Bring in an ARV and some HLVW wreckers on a low level phone call and let’s clear that trucker convoy out!

Still ok with the Military getting inserted into law emforcement without the proper Ministerial oversight?


----------



## Kat Stevens

SeaKingTacco said:


> Let me try this on you:
> 
> Bring in an ARV and some HLVW wreckers on a low level phone call and let’s clear that trucker convoy out!
> 
> Still ok with the Military getting inserted into law emforcement without the proper Ministerial oversight?


Yes, because some chucklehead running around with a gun killing people is exactly the same as a bunch of dummies with a bouncy castle


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Kat Stevens said:


> Yes, because some chucklehead running around with a gun killing people is exactly the same as a bunch of dummies with a bouncy castle


Sigh.


----------



## Kat Stevens

SeaKingTacco said:


> Sigh.


Back at ya


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Booter said:


> JRCC is the path to air assets in the Canadian forces that the Mounties are familiar with from SAR. It’s the easy contact found in the policy manuals etc- any NCO who has coordinated a search and rescue would have used them- I am willing to bet if you created a circumstance  where they were asked to contact the Air Force the first call would go through this channel.
> 
> More would be familiar with it than would be familiar with the EMO office and getting permission and requests the other way around. Which would be a very unusual process that wouldn’t be easy to find- the kind where every call you make you’re telling the person on the other end what they’re supposed to do because they have never dealt with it.
> 
> Knowing what I know about H and budgets- I bet dollars to donuts that the cost of leasing from that PAL company and getting an appropriate budget holder to sign off was part of the issue having leased enough helicopters and seen how that goes.


And that's fair.  I'm also just pissed because as per, the CBC paints the CAF to look like a bunch of chuckle heads when it looks like everyone knew exactly what their job & authorities were.

Also sounds like the Province needs to buy the RCMP an additional aircraft.  Or they'll probably just send more social assistance cheques to Cape Breton, as is tradition.


----------



## RedFive

It took a massive pile of work to purchase a single H145 helicopter for RCMP Air Services Lower Mainland. It has a hoist, IR, spot light and is absolutely the kind of helicopter they needed for this. It can apparently carry an ERT assaulter team and they have practiced insertions and extractions. It shares its time with one of the older AS350's which have significantly shorter legs and can only carry the pilot and tactical flight officer (with significant weight restrictions for those jobs).

Again going back to the theme of what I've been saying in this thread and elsewhere about how the RCMP would start doing business if I was Commissioner, Air Services would be something that the RCMP does its own way, and the bill can be sent to the Province whether they like it or not. Don't want to pay for a second helicopter despite the obvious safety and tactical considerations? Too bad, here's the bill. Don't like it? Hire somebody else to police your province.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

RedFive said:


> It took a massive pile of work to purchase a single H145 helicopter for RCMP Air Services Lower Mainland. It has a hoist, IR, spot light and is absolutely the kind of helicopter they needed for this. It can apparently carry an ERT assaulter team and they have practiced insertions and extractions. It shares its time with one of the older AS350's which have significantly shorter legs and can only carry the pilot and tactical flight officer (with significant weight restrictions for those jobs).
> 
> Again going back to the theme of what I've been saying in this thread and elsewhere about how the RCMP would start doing business if I was Commissioner, Air Services would be something that the RCMP does its own way, and the bill can be sent to the Province whether they like it or not. Don't want to pay for a second helicopter despite the obvious safety and tactical considerations? Too bad, here's the bill. Don't like it? Hire somebody else to police your province.


Canada is huge and the RCMP has an immense territory to cover.

We've seen the lack of  dedicated aviation assets rear their head a # of times now.  The manhunt in Manitoba being another example where cumbersome agreements with contracted air were required.

Sounds like the RCMP needs a couple of their own dedicated airbases with A/C always available.  I would envision it working similarly but on much smaller scale to Fireforce Operations, like those conducted in Africa, where distances are large and infrastructure is poor:



Provinces should def be billed for the use as well.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Kat Stevens said:


> Back at ya


Tell you what:

You write Mr Trudeau a letter and ask him to put down his very important file of harassing legal gun owners for ten minutes and change the NDA so the RCMP can get whatever they want from the CAF/whenever they want on a phone call.

Better?


----------



## Kat Stevens

I can’t do that my letter would be postmarked from Alberta and it would go straight in the garbage


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Kat Stevens said:


> I can’t do that my letter would be postmarked from Alberta and it would go straight in the garbage


You are not wrong….


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Kat Stevens said:


> I can’t do that my letter would be postmarked from Alberta and it would go straight in the garbage


🤣🤣🤣


----------



## Booter

Humphrey Bogart said:


> And that's fair.  I'm also just pissed because as per, the CBC paints the CAF to look like a bunch of chuckle heads when it looks like everyone knew exactly what their job & authorities were.
> 
> Also sounds like the Province needs to buy the RCMP an additional aircraft.  Or they'll probably just send more social assistance cheques to Cape Breton, as is tradition.


Organizationally we have less aircraft this year than we had last year- our air logistics are going the wrong direction,


----------



## kev994

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The manhunt in Manitoba being another example where cumbersome agreements with contracted air were required.


We sent a herc to that and the RCMP could not comprehend that the entire technology was just looking out the window with eyeballs. It’s designed for finding someone who wants to be found.


----------



## kev994

Good2Golf said:


> . (NB. the yellow Griffon’s do have FLIR I understand, but that’s because they’re a Griffon, and we’re allocated some of the FLIRs originally procured for the Green Griffon fleet.)


I’m pretty sure they do not. They do have a spotlight.


----------



## OldSolduer

Kat Stevens said:


> I can’t do that my letter would be postmarked from Alberta and it would go straight in the garbage


Actually email him


----------



## kev994

Eye In The Sky said:


> ; I’m not even sure if they have AIS let alone an EOIR turret.


they do not. I wrote an SOCD on the EO/IR in 2009, so I assume it’s making its way through the Div.


----------



## Good2Golf

kev994 said:


> I’m pretty sure they do not. They do have a spotlight.


Grrr…they whined about it and had a chunk of green Griffon’s inventory of turrets transferred to yellow many years back…I was the OpsO of a unit that shipped three of our FLIRs onwards to yellow units.   If they’re not using them now, that organization need a slap upside the head… 😠


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Weinie said:


> Once again, according to the CBC, the CAF are the "bad" guys.



In fairness, every dept, every policy, every employee who didn’t do everything they could have that day were “the bad guys”.   RCMP, EMO, JRCC, CAOC, the CofC, and our policies that left us all impotent those 2 days while 1 man wasn’t denied freedom of manoeuvre in rural Nova Scotia and killed people at will for an extended period of time.

CBC et al should be asking “what processes and policies have been reviewed since then and what improvements have been made in the RCMP, DND and the CAF to avoid a similar clusterfuck in the future?”.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dana381 said:


> Really? In this day and age. The person giving the order, the guy who fueled the helicopter and all the crew are definitely fired immediately. If shit goes sideways and someone get hurt or killed those people would be looking at jail time.



People were killed.  Many of them.  Would you care to stand in front of all of their families and friends and wholeheartedly defend the positions of the depts and governments involved?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SeaKingTacco said:


> Let me try this on you:
> 
> Bring in an ARV and some HLVW wreckers on a low level phone call and let’s clear that trucker convoy out!
> 
> Still ok with the Military getting inserted into law emforcement without the proper Ministerial oversight?



While I see the point you are making, I can’t agree the situations are comparable because of (1) the gravity and urgency of the situation and (2) the significant difference in the effect being sought by the requesting dept/agency.

April 2020, law enforcement would have remained the shooter; any airborne asset the RCAF had ONSTA would have been the spotter.

Is there still a requirement for the proper authorization from depts and government?  There is, and in situations like April 2020, those phone calls and authorizations should happen in quick time with all the cell phones and smartphones etc the tax payers fund for government employees across all depts.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Humphrey Bogart said:


> And that's fair.  I'm also just pissed because as per, the CBC paints the CAF to look like a bunch of chuckle heads when it looks like everyone knew exactly what their job & authorities were.



While I don’t expect the JRCC to properly advise other depts on the best aircraft for effects, I certainly do the CAOC.   I know what I would have replied back with and what phone calls to what WOps DWO would have happened really, really shortly after to have that crew and aircraft literally ready to start engines once the thumbs up came.

“Anticipate future tasks” was a big lesson on my CLC as a Cpl.  



Humphrey Bogart said:


> Also sounds like the Province needs to buy the RCMP an additional aircraft.  Or they'll probably just send more social assistance cheques to Cape Breton, as is tradition.



One thing these articles fail to do is point the finger at government, which is overall responsible for funding and equipping both the RCMP and CAF.  

How odd.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:


> While I see the point you are making, I can’t agree the situations are comparable because of (1) the gravity and urgency of the situation and (2) the significant difference in the effect being sought by the requesting dept/agency.
> 
> April 2020, law enforcement would have remained the shooter; any airborne asset the RCAF had ONSTA would have been the spotter.
> 
> Is there still a requirement for the proper authorization from depts and government?  There is, and in situations like April 2020, those phone calls and authorizations should happen in quick time with all the cell phones and smartphones etc the tax payers fund for government employees across all depts.



After big events, especially negative ones, our processes need to dissected and if needed improvements made. 

We always do AARs and hot washes at the tactical level.  Should be the same at the strategic and governmental as well.

We obviously need a less difficult way to get support to and from other gov depts.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

RedFive said:


> It took a massive pile of work to purchase a single H145 helicopter for RCMP Air Services Lower Mainland. It has a hoist, IR, spot light and is absolutely the kind of helicopter they needed for this. It can apparently carry an ERT assaulter team and they have practiced insertions and extractions. It shares its time with one of the older AS350's which have significantly shorter legs and can only carry the pilot and tactical flight officer (with significant weight restrictions for those jobs).



I have a close friend of many years on the Teams there;  we’ve discussed the lack of air/what air support can and should look like today/tomorrow.  It can be a vital tool but it is an expensive one so politicians don’t like to talk about them.



RedFive said:


> Again going back to the theme of what I've been saying in this thread and elsewhere about how the RCMP would start doing business if I was Commissioner, Air Services would be something that the RCMP does its own way, and the bill can be sent to the Province whether they like it or not. Don't want to pay for a second helicopter despite the obvious safety and tactical considerations? Too bad, here's the bill. Don't like it? Hire somebody else to police your province.



I wonder how the governments willingness to buy more needed EFFECTIVE aircraft would be if it suddenly became important to voters who understood and cared about these issues?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Booter said:


> Knowing what I know about H and budgets- I bet dollars to donuts that the cost of leasing from that PAL company and getting an appropriate budget holder to sign off was part of the issue having leased enough helicopters and seen how that goes.



Everyone is assuming that PAL would have had standby crews that was able to launch and fly at a moments notice on a Saturday night into Sunday morning. 

I can’t comment on the PAL crews and their proficiency on Overland Ops.  It’s a fairly perishable skill set.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:


> After big events, especially negative ones, our processes need to dissected and if needed improvements made.
> 
> We always do AARs and hot washes at the tactical level.  Should be the same at the strategic and governmental as well.
> 
> We obviously need a less difficult way to get support to and from other gov depts.



Agreed.  The current gov likes to quote “whole of government approach” the last few years.

Haven’t heard that one used yet for the April 2020 tragedy.   Again, how odd.

CBC seems quite happy to not hold the government accountable for how the RCMP is funded, equipped and trained.  It is happy to not hold the government accountable for how federal department like the RCMP and CAF exercise interoperability, which is more important with the lack of resources either of those departments have to support Canadians domestically in times of urgent need.


----------



## Good2Golf

Eye In The Sky said:


> Everyone is assuming that PAL would have had standby crews that was able to launch and fly at a moments notice on a Saturday night into Sunday morning.
> 
> I can’t comment on the PAL crews and their proficiency on Overland Ops.  It’s a fairly perishable skill set.


Like any business, I’m pretty sure…no, make that very sure, that PAL has crews working regularly planned activities for DFO and that any non-scheduled request for surplus capabilities would come from a quick sweep of “who’s not scheduled, or not up now, but could come in?” personnel.  

As you point out up thread, EITS, the CAOC would be where I would expect some dynamic consideration of available air power and how to coordinate its use in a timely and effective manner, not a blow-off by a junior duty member.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Kudos to N.S. DNRR who were able to get one of these in the air.  Not the most effective aircraft but better than what any/everyone else was capable of that fateful day.









						Airbus Delivers an H125 helicopter to Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources - Airbus Helicopters Canada
					

The H125 is the 700th Airbus Helicopter to be delivered into the Canadian market.  Heli-Expo 06/03/2017 – Airbus has delivered the 700th helicopter into the Canadian market, an H125 to the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources. The Department’s mandate includes; development, management...




					www.airbushelicopters.ca


----------



## lenaitch

Halifax Tar said:


> Should be the same at the strategic and governmental as well


Governments are perfect the way they are - just ask them.  There are all sorts of people to throw under the bus first.


----------



## Halifax Tar

lenaitch said:


> Governments are perfect the way they are - just ask them.  There are all sorts of people to throw under the bus first.



Yes I am definitely seeing that in spades on this forum these days.


----------



## RedFive

Eye In The Sky said:


> I have a close friend of many years on the Teams there;  we’ve discussed the lack of air/what air support can and should look like today/tomorrow.  It can be a vital tool but it is an expensive one so politicians don’t like to talk about them.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how the governments willingness to buy more needed EFFECTIVE aircraft would be if it suddenly became important to voters who understood and cared about these issues?


Quite frankly if it were up to me they would strap a thermal to all the extra Griffons hanging around the deliver them to the Division's Air Services hangers. They keep going with the Airbus products with fenestron tail rotors in the name of cost efficiency and noise reduction. A Griffon is more helicopter than is really needed to do traffic enforcement/take over pursuits, but nobody is going to convince me that's not a suitable SAR or tactical helicopter for ERT's purposes (And before any of the Tac Hel guys on this forum jump down my throat YES I KNOW its not a good helicopter for the CAF I'm talking about ERT and the RCMP lol)


----------



## Booter

Halifax Tar said:


> Yes I am definitely seeing that in spades on this forum these days.


Really- non of these problems are tactically insurmountable. They are politically and bureaucratically though- because Canadians love red tape in my experience 🤷‍♀️


----------



## Good2Golf

RedFive said:


> A Griffon is more helicopter than is really needed to do traffic enforcement/take over pursuits, but nobody is going to convince me that's not a suitable SAR or tactical helicopter for ERT's purposes (And before any of the Tac Hel guys on this forum jump down my throat YES I KNOW its not a good helicopter for the CAF I'm talking about ERT and the RCMP lol)


Yes and no, I’d say.  I don’t think you’ll get any pushback from TH folks who are familiar with ERT ops.  I flew SERT, E, K, O, A, C, J and H Div ERTs all with a 212/CH135 and O, A and C with a 412/CH146 and worked with FBI HRT and their 412s.  The Griffon isn’t a bad airframe for that role.   The cost to run a 146/412 is something that even O/C Div these days would have a challenge keeping current and proficient.  CFAAD request to the CAF is likely the best all-around COA to get that capability.  Each of CJOC’s regional air component commanders has aviation staff to link up with any LE in the region quickly.  I have no clue why the CAOC didn’t shoot the RCMP over to JTF-A’s ACCE (air component coord elem). 🤷🏻‍♂️


----------



## brihard

Good2Golf said:


> Yes and no, I’d say.  I don’t think you’ll get any pushback from TH folks who are familiar with ERT ops.  I flew SERT, E, K, O, A, C, J and H Div ERTs all with a 212/CH135 and O, A and C with a 412/CH146 and worked with FBI HRT and their 412s.  The Griffon isn’t a bad airframe for that role.   The cost to run a 146/412 is something that even O/C Div these days would have a challenge keeping current and proficient.  CFAAD request to the CAF is likely the best all-around COA to get that capability.  Each of CJOC’s regional air component commanders has aviation staff to link up with any LE in the region quickly.  I have no clue why the CAOC didn’t shoot the RCMP over to JTF-A’s ACCE (air component coord elem). 🤷🏻‍♂️


Am I correct in interpreting this as meaning that a call to JRCC for something like Moncton or Portapique could realistically be met with a “not from us, but…” with the request or being forwarded immediately to the appropriate authority, and a simultaneous message to a squadron saying “start up a bird, law enforcement request coming in for an active shooter”? I’m trying to envision an approach that absolutely minimizes delay through concurrent activity ‘risked out’ in anticipation of likely approval.


----------



## Good2Golf

brihard said:


> Am I correct in interpreting this as meaning that a call to JRCC for something like Moncton or Portapique could realistically be met with a “not from us, but…” with the request or being forwarded immediately to the appropriate authority, and a simultaneous message to a squadron saying “start up a bird, law enforcement request coming in for an active shooter”? I’m trying to envision an approach that absolutely minimizes delay through concurrent activity ‘risked out’ in anticipation of likely approval.


Personally I think JRCC should have immediately forwarded the request to ACCE(A) (heck, they might even be co-located in Halifax 🤷🏻‍♂️) when it was clear the situation was to support LE dealing with the situation it was and not trying to find some poor lost soul.  I don’t know what the current TT&Ps are for dealing with a request that initially comes into the JRCC.


----------



## dapaterson

Good2Golf said:


> I have no clue why the CAOC didn’t shoot the RCMP over to JTF-A’s ACCE (air component coord elem). 🤷🏻‍♂️


It was the weekend, and the one person who knows what they're doing had shut off their phone?


----------



## kev994

Good2Golf said:


> Personally I think JRCC should have immediately forwarded the request to ACCE(A) (heck, they might even be co-located in Halifax 🤷🏻‍♂️) when it was clear the situation was to support LE dealing with the situation it was and not trying to find some poor lost soul.  I don’t know what the current TT&Ps are for dealing with a request that initially comes into the JRCC.


It’s a single Captain whose background is likely a single tour at a SAR unit, and a member of the CCG. And depending what else is going on in the SRR they may be completely overwhelmed with their actual jobs, or they may have lots of time to try to puzzle through what to do with this. Sometimes there’s an assistant, usually that would be a Sgt with a SAR background


----------



## Good2Golf

kev994 said:


> It’s a single Captain whose background is likely a single tour at a SAR unit, and a member of the CCG. And depending what else is going on in the SRR they may be completely overwhelmed with their actual jobs, or they may have lots of time to try to puzzle through what to do with this. Sometimes there’s an assistant, usually that would be a Sgt with a SAR background


Ack this, @kev994.  My institutional angst really is at the CAOC, once JRCC passed it up. CAOC is tied in to all ACCEs across the country.  A DO Captain there has less excuse for not appreciating things…especially as they’re the rep on the Duty Watch for Comd 1 CAD/CANR…


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

kev994 said:


> It’s a single Captain whose background is likely a single tour at a SAR unit, and a member of the CCG. And depending what else is going on in the SRR they may be completely overwhelmed with their actual jobs, or they may have lots of time to try to puzzle through what to do with this. Sometimes there’s an assistant, usually that would be a Sgt with a SAR background


And there is probably one bird active for the entire East Coast.  

"Sorry Mr Prime Minister, Hibernia is on fire and there are a bucket load of trapped workers but our one bird was busy helping the Province with a Law Enforcement Activity that isn't even our mandate"

It's not the JRCC's job to cover for Provincial or Federal Law Enforcement deficiencies.


----------



## kev994

Humphrey Bogart said:


> And there is probably one bird active for the entire East Coast.
> 
> "Sorry Mr Prime Minister, Hibernia is on fire and there are a bucket load of trapped workers but our one bird was busy helping the Province with a Law Enforcement Activity that isn't even our mandate"
> 
> It's not the JRCC's job to cover for Provincial or Federal Law Enforcement deficiencies.


Best case there’s a Corm in each Greenwood and Gander, and a Herc in Greenwood. Unless one of them is broken, or on another mission.


----------



## brihard

dapaterson said:


> It was the weekend, and the one person who knows what they're doing had shut off their phone?





kev994 said:


> It’s a single Captain whose background is likely a single tour at a SAR unit, and a member of the CCG. And depending what else is going on in the SRR they may be completely overwhelmed with their actual jobs, or they may have lots of time to try to puzzle through what to do with this. Sometimes there’s an assistant, usually that would be a Sgt with a SAR background



The “overnight on a weekend” factor definitely shouldn’t be underestimated. And safe to guess most RCAF will never have had to take a call requesting help for an active shooter, so the “WTF?” factor would also be high. I’m also cognizant that a working theory the first night was that he had either hunkered down or killed himself. It was early the next day that the scale started to become apparent, and killings resumed. So- safe bet that RCAF at the time of the request also had little external info, and would have had no prompt that an ask was potentially going to be coming in from law enforcement. 

I hope that, in the wake of this, larger police services have planned out a faster process to make an accurate and appropriately directed request to CAF for stuff like helicopter assistance. Hopefully CAF offices who police might know to call are in a better position to turn “I don’t know” into “I know who to call”.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

kev994 said:


> Best case there’s a Corm in each Greenwood and Gander, and a Herc in Greenwood. Unless one of them is broken, or on another mission.


Yep and we all know what "best case" means 🤐


----------



## kev994

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Yep and we all know what "best case" means 🤐


Oh yeah, and they’re covering Nunavut too.


----------



## CBH99

brihard said:


> The “overnight on a weekend” factor definitely shouldn’t be underestimated. And safe to guess most RCAF will never have had to take a call requesting help for an active shooter, so the “WTF?” factor would also be high. I’m also cognizant that a working theory the first night was that he had either hunkered down or killed himself. It was early the next day that the scale started to become apparent, and killings resumed. So- safe bet that RCAF at the time of the request also had little external info, and would have had no prompt that an ask was potentially going to be coming in from law enforcement.
> 
> I hope that, in the wake of this, larger police services have planned out a faster process to make an accurate and appropriately directed request to CAF for stuff like helicopter assistance. Hopefully CAF offices who police might know to call are in a better position to turn “I don’t know” into “I know who to call”.


Totally agreed.  Part of that would come from an informal yet work related meet & greet between local law enforcement leadership & local military leadership.  (Squadron commanders & base commanders)

know that with EPS, if a shift Sgt needs more than 1 air asset, the Sgt covering EPS dispatch on any given shift has a direct number for the Duty Officer at 408 Sqn

(At least that’s was the case, a few years back.  I don’t see any reason why that would have changed)

The request for air support usually comes after dark, so maintenance is done during daytime hours.  EPS tries to keep only 1 bird airborne at a time.  Hot refuelling is common to get that ISR asset back overhead as quickly as possible, while the other helo is held in reserve.

If the need arises that there is more than 1 incident that urgently requires ISR (not what EPS calls it, but it is what it is) and the other bird isn’t available, the scene commander can coordinate a CAF asset in a fairly streamlined process.  



I don’t think many other municipal police agencies have this ability, it’s just that CFB Edmonton happens to have a Griffon Sqn, and is located just north of the city.  

(We almost had this very scenario play out last summer when we had a guy w/ a firearm hiding out in a large field just outside of town, needed a spotlight or thermal from above, and Air 1 was already deployed on another call.)


----------



## kev994

CBH99 said:


> Totally agreed.  Part of that would come from an informal yet work related meet & greet between local law enforcement leadership & local military leadership.  (Squadron commanders & base commanders)
> 
> know that with EPS, if a shift Sgt needs more than 1 air asset, the Sgt covering EPS dispatch on any given shift has a direct number for the Duty Officer at 408 Sqn
> 
> (At least that’s was the case, a few years back.  I don’t see any reason why that would have changed)
> 
> The request for air support usually comes after dark, so maintenance is done during daytime hours.  EPS tries to keep only 1 bird airborne at a time.  Hot refuelling is common to get that ISR asset back overhead as quickly as possible, while the other helo is held in reserve.
> 
> If the need arises that there is more than 1 incident that urgently requires ISR (not what EPS calls it, but it is what it is) and the other bird isn’t available, the scene commander can coordinate a CAF asset in a fairly streamlined process.
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t think many other municipal police agencies have this ability, it’s just that CFB Edmonton happens to have a Griffon Sqn, and is located just north of the city.
> 
> (We almost had this very scenario play out last summer when we had a guy w/ a firearm hiding out in a large field just outside of town, needed a spotlight or thermal from above, and Air 1 was already deployed on another call.)


I’ve seen this sort of thing play out too; we did an exercise with STARS, then a week later they couldn’t get into an area but recognized that we could parachute in and clear an LZ. They called the guy who organized our participation in the exercise, he gave them JRCCs number, this was something that JRCC would be accustomed to dealing with.


----------



## Booter

CBH99 said:


> Totally agreed.  Part of that would come from an informal yet work related meet & greet between local law enforcement leadership & local military leadership.  (Squadron commanders & base commanders)
> 
> know that with EPS, if a shift Sgt needs more than 1 air asset, the Sgt covering EPS dispatch on any given shift has a direct number for the Duty Officer at 408 Sqn
> 
> (At least that’s was the case, a few years back.  I don’t see any reason why that would have changed)
> 
> The request for air support usually comes after dark, so maintenance is done during daytime hours.  EPS tries to keep only 1 bird airborne at a time.  Hot refuelling is common to get that ISR asset back overhead as quickly as possible, while the other helo is held in reserve.
> 
> If the need arises that there is more than 1 incident that urgently requires ISR (not what EPS calls it, but it is what it is) and the other bird isn’t available, the scene commander can coordinate a CAF asset in a fairly streamlined process.
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t think many other municipal police agencies have this ability, it’s just that CFB Edmonton happens to have a Griffon Sqn, and is located just north of the city.
> 
> (We almost had this very scenario play out last summer when we had a guy w/ a firearm hiding out in a large field just outside of town, needed a spotlight or thermal from above, and Air 1 was already deployed on another call.)


I used the EPS and RCMP air assets on calls- it was very easy. And the duty officer for the city had the ability to connect with the CF base- I didn’t. It was easier to task through EPS- we had a whole parallel process that was painful, with EPS they just made calls.

It was similar using some other specialized capabilities. I could use an EPS asset with a phone call…or endure the bureaucracy.

The RCMP isn’t allowed those types of informal agreements and practical responses.

Our air logistics and transport is the number one chokepoint on all our special functions. Even beyond staffing issues. 8 guys I can project across a province well beats 16 I can’t.


----------



## daftandbarmy

kev994 said:


> It’s a single Captain whose background is likely a single tour at a SAR unit, and a member of the CCG. And depending what else is going on in the SRR they may be completely overwhelmed with their actual jobs, or they may have lots of time to try to puzzle through what to do with this. Sometimes there’s an assistant, usually that would be a Sgt with a SAR background



I'd assume that's what the 'big SOP binder' is for - informing the watchkeeper on 'the drill' for various scenarios, no matter what personal experience they happen to have.


----------



## brihard

daftandbarmy said:


> I'd assume that's what the 'big SOP binder' is for - informing the watchkeeper on 'the drill' for various scenarios, no matter what personal experience they happen to have.


Problem is it probably literally is in a binder and thus hasn’t been updated since 2007.


----------



## CBH99

brihard said:


> Problem is it probably literally is in a binder and thus hasn’t been updated since 2007.


Was just about to say almost this exact thing.  

It probably hasn’t been updated in years, contact info & who to call is all outdated, and it’s a ‘big’ SOP binder rather than a streamlined one.  

I think most of us can agree that the bulk of what’s in that binder hasn’t been read by anybody really.  



Keeping key contact info at the front, current, and highly visible would make those binders a lot more helpful.


----------



## Good2Golf

CBH99 said:


> I don’t think many other municipal police agencies have this ability, it’s just that CFB Edmonton happens to have a Griffon Sqn, and is located just north of the city.


Pembroke OPP probably still has some helo sqns on speed dial…it helped in the past.  The sqns were quite capable of quickly backtracking to 1 Wing and the CAOC to follow-up after initial actions were coordinated with LE.


----------



## lenaitch

Good2Golf said:


> Pembroke OPP probably still has some helo sqns on speed dial…it helped in the past.  The sqns were quite capable of quickly backtracking to 1 Wing and the CAOC to follow-up after initial actions were coordinated with LE.


Unless things have changed since I left (which is quite a while ago), I doubt it.  Having an individual detachment commander who just happens to be next door to a military base with 'special access' makes little sense.  If Killaloe or Lanark are the ones in need, it would make little sense that they be left out or have to go through another detachment.  There are protocols for requesting CAF either via the regional of GHQ duty officer and, as far as I know, there are standing agreements.  Trenton SAR has often been requested to assist in inland search and rescue incidents.  I also recall a few years ago where SAR plucked a worker off a crane which was over a building on fire (City of Kingston?).   Maybe it just a matter of sorting things out beforehand - planning.


----------



## Good2Golf

lenaitch said:


> Unless things have changed since I left (which is quite a while ago), I doubt it.  Having an individual detachment commander who just happens to be next door to a military base with 'special access' makes little sense.  If Killaloe or Lanark are the ones in need, it would make little sense that they be left out or have to go through another detachment.  There are protocols for requesting CAF either via the regional of GHQ duty officer and, as far as I know, there are standing agreements.  Trenton SAR has often been requested to assist in inland search and rescue incidents.  I also recall a few years ago where SAR plucked a worker off a crane which was over a building on fire (City of Kingston?).   Maybe it just a matter of sorting things out beforehand - planning.


Maybe it atrophied…but there was a day when a Maj and an Insp had each other on speed dial due to happenstance, and in at least one case it made a serious difference to some people who might not otherwise be around today.  It wasn’t about trying to have something that Lanark, or Killaloe, or Kaladar, or Arnprior, or somewhere else couldn’t have, but about mutually appreciating and communicating to help when it counted.  Folks made sure that the full process was followed…in due course. 😉


----------



## RangerRay

In Winnipeg, the city police has its own helicopter. A fantastic asset that helps in ways other departments could only dream of. I don’t know how many lives it’s saved just in being able to call off pursuits. Yet there are many on council and always at least one “progressive” mayoral candidate that wants to get rid of the helicopter for reasons.


----------



## Booter

Good2Golf said:


> Maybe it atrophied…but there was a day when a Maj and an Insp had each other on speed dial due to happenstance, and in at least one case it made a serious difference to some people who might not otherwise be around today.  It wasn’t about trying to have something that Lanark, or Killaloe, or Kaladar, or Arnprior, or somewhere else couldn’t have, but about mutually appreciating and communicating to help when it counted.  Folks made sure that the full process was followed…in due course. 😉


Good relationships with useful neighbours don’t always need to be advertised 🤷‍♀️


----------



## Good2Golf

Booter said:


> Good relationships with useful neighbours don’t always need to be advertised 🤷‍♀️


I do know that other nearby Dets were put in contact if they needed help that the Sqn could help - to be clear, Pembroke wasn’t trying to pull any ‘we’re special and have something you don’t’ on the other surrounding Dets.


----------



## CBH99

RangerRay said:


> In Winnipeg, the city police has its own helicopter. A fantastic asset that helps in ways other departments could only dream of. I don’t know how many lives it’s saved just in being able to call off pursuits. Yet there are many on council and always at least one “progressive” mayoral candidate that wants to get rid of the helicopter for reasons.
> 
> View attachment 75312


That's okay, let some silly politician make an idiot of himself.  Politicians tend to like being reelected - let the facts & dynamics of such a decision make themselves known.

No units available because there are a few shadowing a suspect vehicle, or setting up a takedown because the helo isn't around to assist?

Civilian casualty that may have been preventable if something was flying through the air instead of driving through intersections?  

Have a situation like ours where we enter a huge field with an active shooter hiding in the tall vegetation, rather than having a helicopter flying high above & finding them on a screen?


Unless someone is even somewhat experienced in a field, if they are in public office they should STFU really...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

kev994 said:


> Best case there’s a Corm in each Greenwood and Gander, and a Herc in Greenwood. Unless one of them is broken, or on another mission.



Greenwood is also mandated 1 x Ready Aurora with operational crew, 24/7/365.  Our normal Ready posture is quite a bit longer than SAR on the weekends, but we generally react to quick launch recalls like SAR with about 2 hours from call to wheels in the wells.  

I’ve been on crews that have been re-tasked airborne to SAR, and on Standby crews that have launched with a phone call, on maritime and overland SAR from as far west as Alberta to the Maritimes and north.  

We used to joke “oh, long weekend coming.   The Hercs should go U/S anytime now”.  😁


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Humphrey Bogart said:


> And there is probably one bird active for the entire East Coast.
> 
> "Sorry Mr Prime Minister, Hibernia is on fire and there are a bucket load of trapped workers but our one bird was busy helping the Province with a Law Enforcement Activity that isn't even our mandate"
> 
> It's not the JRCC's job to cover for Provincial or Federal Law Enforcement deficiencies.



There are more than Corms and Hercs in the Martimes, though.   405, 423 and 403 are all “close”.


----------



## lenaitch

RangerRay said:


> In Winnipeg, the city police has its own helicopter. A fantastic asset that helps in ways other departments could only dream of. I don’t know how many lives it’s saved just in being able to call off pursuits. Yet there are many on council and always at least one “progressive” mayoral candidate that wants to get rid of the helicopter for reasons.
> 
> View attachment 75312


Law enforcement aviation in Canada, and in Ontario in particular, isn't like the US and I suspect the perception of many is influenced by TV.  There are only a handful of municipal services that have air support units.  This doesn't include Toronto but they can get help from the shared York/Durham helicopter and the OPP if a machine is in the area.  So that's one machine dedicated to the GTA - about 6 million population.  Contrast that with LA County.  About 10 million people with, between LA city and county fire and police (I didn't check other incorporated cities in the county) over 40 helicopters.


----------



## brihard

lenaitch said:


> Law enforcement aviation in Canada, and in Ontario in particular, isn't like the US and I suspect the perception of many is influenced by TV.  There are only a handful of municipal services that have air support units.  This doesn't include Toronto but they can get help from the shared York/Durham helicopter and the OPP if a machine is in the area.  So that's one machine dedicated to the GTA - about 6 million population.  Contrast that with LA County.  About 10 million people with, between LA city and county fire and police (I didn't check other incorporated cities in the county) over 40 helicopters.


TPS doesn’t have a helicopter? WTF?


----------



## Booter

brihard said:


> TPS doesn’t have a helicopter? WTF?


Nope. Access to surrounding areas choppers and opp and rcmp on contracting basis. Super weird


----------



## mariomike

brihard said:


> TPS doesn’t have a helicopter?


​Do not believe Montreal or Vancouver do either.

I think Toronto police have always had fixed wing. 









						Documents show Toronto police own Cessna aircraft outfitted with surveillance camera - Toronto | Globalnews.ca
					

Toronto Police didn’t have to rent a Cessna to trail anyone; Transport Canada documents show the police have their own.




					globalnews.ca
				



​Evaluation of the Air Support Unit Pilot Project (Toronto Police Services)​The book is available at the library, if interested.









						The evaluation of the air support unit pilot project
					

The evaluation of the air support unit pilot project, Toronto Police Service. , Toronto Public Library




					www.torontopubliclibrary.ca
				




I wonder if lasers  were discussed,


			laser police helicopter - Google Search
		




> RICHMOND HILL, Ont. -- Police have charged a 16-year-old after a laser pointer was aimed at a police helicopter north of Toronto.





> A 22-year-old Toronto man is facing charges after police say someone targeted a police helicopter with a laser pointer, sending both officers to hospital.



From what I recall of some Toronto neighbourhoods - especially ones TPS might want to keep under helicopter surveilance - lasers would be possibly something to consider while hovering over them.

The TPS helicopter ( or lack of one ) has been discussed on here many times.

Think I will visit the library and read the book.


----------



## lenaitch

Booter said:


> Nope. Access to surrounding areas choppers and opp and rcmp on contracting basis. Super weird


Certainly no contract with the OPP and I'd be surprised there would be one with the other agencies.  The OPP has two rotaries and two fixed wings for ~1Mn sq km so the odds of just happening to be in the Toronto area are generally thin.  Planned joint forces operations and initiatives for sure; otherwise, as available if available.


----------



## Booter

Right. On a per use contracted basis not that a contract for shared service exists.


----------



## KevinB

lenaitch said:


> Unless things have changed since I left (which is quite a while ago), I doubt it.  Having an individual detachment commander who just happens to be next door to a military base with 'special access' makes little sense.  If Killaloe or Lanark are the ones in need, it would make little sense that they be left out or have to go through another detachment.  There are protocols for requesting CAF either via the regional of GHQ duty officer and, as far as I know, there are standing agreements.  Trenton SAR has often been requested to assist in inland search and rescue incidents.  I also recall a few years ago where SAR plucked a worker off a crane which was over a building on fire (City of Kingston?).   Maybe it just a matter of sorting things out beforehand - planning.


Killaloe as of last summer can still get a 427 Bird pretty quick.  
    *no it’s wasn’t me they where looking for. 

  But there was a Griffon out around 20min around Round Lake after some shots fired, and based on previous experience it’s around a 10min flight once the bird is aloft.


----------



## CBH99

mariomike said:


> Do not believe Montreal or Vancouver do either.


It's crazy that cities those sizes don't have at least one rotary wing asset, especially given they all have waterfront on major bodies of water.

Meanwhile Edmonton and Calgary both have 2.  And both assist with SAR in/around the immediate vicinity of both cities.


----------



## kev994

CBH99 said:


> It's crazy that cities those sizes don't have at least one rotary wing asset, especially given they all have waterfront on major bodies of water.
> 
> Meanwhile Edmonton and Calgary both have 2.  And both assist with SAR in/around the immediate vicinity of both cities.


Winnipeg has one too, they get questioned a lot, due to the expense, so they’re sure to pump the press whenever they do something useful.


----------



## mariomike

kev994 said:


> Winnipeg has one too, they get questioned a lot, due to the expense, so they’re sure to pump the press whenever they do something useful.



Probably the same types who question Toronto police horses.


----------



## KevinB

mariomike said:


> Probably the same types who question Toronto police horses.


But can the Horse fly?


----------



## kev994

mariomike said:


> Probably the same types who question Toronto police horses.


It’s probably not popular amongst the gangs either


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> But can the Horse fly?


Bet you it can help others fly…


----------



## Jarnhamar

mariomike said:


> Probably the same types who question Toronto police horses.



Did you know Toronto had horse ambulances?









						The horse-drawn ambulance
					

Find information on Canada's National Historic Sites, National Parks, National Marine Conservation Areas and on other cultural and natural heritage related topics.




					parks.canada.ca
				




Anytime they crashed they would say "I’ve fallen and I can’t giddyup!"


----------



## lenaitch

Booter said:


> Right. On a per use contracted basis not that a contract for shared service exists.


Not even that.  It's considered a 'provincial service'.  There are certain services that aren't charged back, regardless of whether the municipality is policed by the OPP under contract or has its own PS.  Otherwise, a major search or investigation could bankrupt some municipalities.


KevinB said:


> But can the Horse fly?


No but horse flies can, and both  can bite.

Her: 'Have you see the dog bowl?"
Me:  'I didn't know he could."

(I'll see myself out . . . )


----------



## kev994

Good2Golf said:


> Grrr…they whined about it and had a chunk of green Griffon’s inventory of turrets transferred to yellow many years back…I was the OpsO of a unit that shipped three of our FLIRs onwards to yellow units.   If they’re not using them now, that organization need a slap upside the head… 😠


Every lb you add you need to subtract a lb of fuel, apparently these are not useful often enough to justify subtracting the fuel weight all of the time.  They’re available but not normally installed.


----------



## KevinB

kev994 said:


> Every lb you add you need to subtract a lb of fuel, apparently these are not useful often enough to justify subtracting the fuel weight all of the time.  They’re available but not normally installed.


That’s pretty FUBAR logic.  
  I suspect that folks don’t have enough (any?) experience with the system if they are making that mistake.


----------



## Good2Golf

kev994 said:


> Every lb you add you need to subtract a lb of fuel, apparently these are not useful often enough to justify subtracting the fuel weight all of the time.  They’re available but not normally installed.


An MX-15 on a CH-146 is worth 6-8 minutes of fuel.  I wasn’t a SAR guy, but I question the balance between 6-8 minutes of flight time against having a sensor that has a good chance of detecting what/who one is looking for.  YMMV, of course.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

T


Good2Golf said:


> An MX-15 on a CH-146 is worth 6-8 minutes of fuel.  I wasn’t a SAR guy, but I question the balance between 6-8 minutes of flight time against having a sensor that has a good chance of detecting what/who one is looking for.  YMMV, of course.



I mentioned earlier; SAR is just starting to learn about sensor-assisted SAR.  

Fun fact; IR is still useful in daytime when correlated with other EO feeds and the Mk1 eyeball.  Cameras like EON don’t see into shadows, etc like IR.   

I’d trade that small amount of ONSTA time for a ‘15.


----------



## Good2Golf

Or a digital/HD 20… 😉


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:


> Or a digital/HD 20… 😉



I’m LRP.  I don’t know what this HD thingy is you speak of.


----------



## Good2Golf

Eye In The Sky said:


> I’m LRP.  I don’t know what this HD thingy is you speak of.


Maybe the RCAF is trying for a record…

“Greatest number of years operating an analog sensor when every other nation/operator has transitioned to digital.” 🤔

That said, even RS-170 from the spotter is optically useful.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:


> Maybe the RCAF is trying for a record…
> 
> “Greatest number of years operating an analog sensor when every other nation/operator has transitioned to digital.” 🤔



During IMPACT, this was highlighted too many times to count.  Inability to hold PID; “what’s your code” from a strike asset.  

I’ve heard rumours of a new optical sensor coming on Blk V, though so that’s good news!


----------



## GR66

Good2Golf said:


> Maybe the RCAF is trying for a record…
> 
> “Greatest number of years operating an analog sensor when every other nation/operator has transitioned to digital.” 🤔
> 
> That said, even RS-170 from the spotter is optically useful.


I think you mean "_world-wide leader in cyber-safe sensor equipment deployment_"


----------



## mariomike

My error. Meant to post in ASHE thread.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Eye In The Sky said:


> I’m LRP.  I don’t know what this HD thingy is you speak of.


I’m MH and I also do not recognize this “HD” word…


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SeaKingTacco said:


> I’m MH and I also do not recognize this “HD” word…



Must be an Army Air thing.   Something to match their fancy smancy CADPAT flight suits…


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Eye In The Sky said:


> Must be an Army Air thing.   Something to match their fancy smancy CADPAT flight suits…


Can you cook an IMP with HD?


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:


> Can you cook an IMP with HD?


HE….once…


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:


> HE….once…


So HE is better than HD?


----------



## OldSolduer

SeaKingTacco said:


> So HE is better than HD?


There is no problem that cannot be solved by using a liberal dose of HE.

Notice I said "liberal" and not "Liberal".


----------



## Halifax Tar

Interesting series from Tor Star.  

Biases admitted.



			Why are so many places in Canada talking about ditching the RCMP? | The Star


----------

