Police Folk Allegedly Behaving Badly

[brihard]

Pointing a firearm, assault with a weapon, using a firearm in the commission of an offense, careless use of a firearm, uttering threats.

What did the other RCMP officers get in the way of discipline for just watching this unfold?

Given that it went to a conduct hearing, sounds like they reported it. From the limited description in the written conduct decision, we don’t know who did what after the brief span of seconds the incident took place in. We don’t have a video de they the others “just watched this unfold”, though we do have evidence all but one of them didn’t see much. A place the size of Kelowna would have a couple levels of supervisor on shift; the appropriate actions would be to report it up right away and truthfully provide statements on what they saw to assist an investigation. If that was done there would be no reason to do a conduct investigation on any of the witnesses.

Worth noting that RCMP only publishes their most serious conduct matters, those that go to a “conduct hearing”. Those are conduct processes where the member’s job is on the line. They also have “conduct meetings” for lower stuff, pretty comparable to a CAF summary hearing. An RCMP conduct hearing can’t do criminal so it would kind of fall between a summary hearing and a court martial. They can’t impose detention or prison but can impose large fines.

Anything criminal for RCMP or other cops would go through normal civilian court, separate from the conduct process.

 

[Haggis]

The ultimate (so far) Canadian police story:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/donovan-perjury-acquittal-1.7272601

Un-freakin-believable! But, that's not necessarily a Canadian police story but more of a Canadian law story.

 

[dapaterson]

Un-freakin-believable! But, that's not necessarily a Canadian police story but more of a Canadian law story.

"On duty police officer attacks other on duty police officer, second officer shoots first officer ten times" would seem, at first blush, to be a police-centric.

 

[brihard]

"On duty police officer attacks other on duty police officer, second officer shoots first officer ten times" would seem, at first blush, to be a police-centric.

It’s at least a little bit policey.

 

[dapaterson]

It’s at least a little bit policey.

To be fair, the article does not mention double-doubles and TimBits, so those core elements of Canadian policing can only be surmised.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Given that it went to a conduct hearing, sounds like they reported it. From the limited description in the written conduct decision, we don’t know who did what after the brief span of seconds the incident took place in. We don’t have a video de they the others “just watched this unfold”, though we do have evidence all but one of them didn’t see much. A place the size of Kelowna would have a couple levels of supervisor on shift; the appropriate actions would be to report it up right away and truthfully provide statements on what they saw to assist an investigation. If that was done there would be no reason to do a conduct investigation on any of the witnesses.

Worth noting that RCMP only publishes their most serious conduct matters, those that go to a “conduct hearing”. Those are conduct processes where the member’s job is on the line. They also have “conduct meetings” for lower stuff, pretty comparable to a CAF summary hearing. An RCMP conduct hearing can’t do criminal so it would kind of fall between a summary hearing and a court martial. They can’t impose detention or prison but can impose large fines.

Anything criminal for RCMP or other cops would go through normal civilian court, separate from the conduct process.

That's why this is a double standard.

If a civilian pointed a loaded pistol at an RCMP officer, even for a second or 'as a joke', they wouldn’t get a conduct hearing. They’d be arrested on the spot, charged, and likely held for a bail hearing. Or just as likely, get a 9mm hollow to the chest. Nobody would be talking about limited descriptions or giving them the benefit of the doubt about who saw what. If the situation involved a civilian pointing a gun, no one would accept 'they didn’t see much' as a reason for zero accountability.

It seems the officers present were having a great old time laughing at the female officer, egging the one office on, then when she pulled out her blaster in the office all of a sudden those officers were inspecting their feet, checking their phones, and reading the minutes from last months safety meeting. Exaggerating but we both know why people all of a sudden don't see anything.

It looks like this incident didn’t immediately trigger criminal proceedings. Instead it appears it stayed almost entirely inside the RCMP’s internal disciplinary system. There's no viable excuse why this incident should have been treated as an internal matter when pointing a firearm at someone is a criminal act for everyone else in Canada. The handling of this incident looks like the organization insulating its own members unfortunately.

 

[dapaterson]

Imagine if a CAF member illegally brought their personal weapon into a secure zone at work. Certainly that would warrant significant punishment - especially if they were, say, a MWO in the military police, NCIU, aircraft security officer. Right?

Anderson J.A.J. (Master Warrant Officer), R. v. - Chief Military Judge

Get quick, easy access to all Government of Canada services and information.

decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca

 

[Haggis]

It’s at least a little bit policey.

Up to the point where it ends up in court. Then, it's just another attempted murder case.

@dapaterson no Timbits or double-doubles are allowed in courtrooms.

 

[brihard]

That's why this is a double standard.

If a civilian pointed a loaded pistol at an RCMP officer, even for a second or 'as a joke', they wouldn’t get a conduct hearing. They’d be arrested on the spot, charged, and likely held for a bail hearing. Or just as likely, get a 9mm hollow to the chest. Nobody would be talking about limited descriptions or giving them the benefit of the doubt about who saw what. If the situation involved a civilian pointing a gun, no one would accept 'they didn’t see much' as a reason for zero accountability.

And by the time anyone on scene realized what was going on her gun was back in the holster. And that’s where our knowledge of the facts ends. The decision doesn’t tell us who then did what. It doesn’t describe much of the conduct investigation. We don’t know if charges were referred to crown and declined (remember this is BC, and this was all going on when courts were badly messed up during COVID.)

It seems the officers present were having a great old time laughing at the female officer, egging the one office on, then when she pulled out her blaster in the office all of a sudden those officers were inspecting their feet, checking their phones, and reading the minutes from last months safety meeting. Exaggerating but we both know why people all of a sudden don't see anything.

As you say, exaggerated. I’m going to stick to what limited established facts we do have. Thinking of any office I’ve worked in, I could easily buy a situation where most can’t see everything going on, especially if she in fact stayed sitting.

It looks like this incident didn’t immediately trigger criminal proceedings. Instead it appears it stayed almost entirely inside the RCMP’s internal disciplinary system. There's no viable excuse why this incident should have been treated as an internal matter when pointing a firearm at someone is a criminal act for everyone else in Canada. The handling of this incident looks like the organization insulating its own members unfortunately.

As I said we don’t know that. We would only know if charges were approved by B.C. crown. They would only happen after an investigation. That investigation would not be carried out by the officer’s immediate colleagues who were present at the times; that would be handled by a professional standards unit.

I can say with confidence they a whole lot of various criminal stuff in society at large went unaddressed during COVID, and note that the event in question happened on March 6th, 2019. I remember things getting super weird about a week later.

Your original comment I’m challenging is that the other officers on scene should have been hit with conduct proceedings. You don’t have an evidentiary basis to say that.

 

[brihard]

Imagine if a CAF member illegally brought their personal weapon into a secure zone at work. Certainly that would warrant significant punishment - especially if they were, say, a MWO in the military police, NCIU, aircraft security officer. Right?

Anderson J.A.J. (Master Warrant Officer), R. v. - Chief Military Judge

Get quick, easy access to all Government of Canada services and information.

decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca

Absolute discharge? Sweet deal.

 

[Haggis]

Imagine if a CAF member illegally brought their personal weapon into a secure zone at work. Certainly that would warrant significant punishment - especially if they were, say, a MWO in the military police, NCIU, aircraft security officer. Right?

Anderson J.A.J. (Master Warrant Officer), R. v. - Chief Military Judge

Get quick, easy access to all Government of Canada services and information.

decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca

Why not just sign one out from the weapons lockup? Bad plan, poorly executed.

@brihard with a conditional prohibition order that doesn't affect his employment, to boot.

 

[Jarnhamar]

And by the time anyone on scene realized what was going on her gun was back in the holster. And that’s where our knowledge of the facts ends. The decision doesn’t tell us who then did what. It doesn’t describe much of the conduct investigation.

I don't imagine everyone was oblivious to what just transpired, especially after they were in-office laughing at the female officer and egging on the male officer (or which lead to him being egged on).

We don’t know if charges were referred to crown and declined (remember this is BC, and this was all going on when courts were badly messed up during COVID.)

That's true. Maybe the officers did arrest her and try to lay a bunch of charges and some how that never made the news or is put in official records. In BC if the crown declines can police officers charge anyways? Or can they only lay charges if the crown agrees?

As you say, exaggerated. I’m going to stick to what limited established facts we do have. Thinking of any office I’ve worked in, I could easily buy a situation where most can’t see everything going on, especially if she in fact stayed sitting.

Fair enough, I'll stick with my where there's smoke there's fire observation.

As I said we don’t know that. We would only know if charges were approved by B.C. crown. They would only happen after an investigation. That investigation would not be carried out by the officer’s immediate colleagues who were present at the times; that would be handled by a professional standards unit.

Right. Maybe the RCMP officers tried to charge her for a bunch of criminal offences and for some reason the charges all got dropped.
Would that be a common occurrence in BC?

I can say with confidence they a whole lot of various criminal stuff in society at large went unaddressed during COVID, and note that the event in question happened on March 6th, 2019. I remember things getting super weird about a week later.

That's something I didn't take into consideration.

Your original comment I’m challenging is that the other officers on scene should have been hit with conduct proceedings. You don’t have an evidentiary basis to say that.

You're right I don't. I think they were fucking around in the office and when the female officer spazzed out they all found something else to do and didn't see nothing. I don't think they arrested her, took her gun away, or tried to charge her criminally. I also think if our friend Eaglelord17 did that with a pistol towards an RCMP officer the story would be much different. Another story painting RCMP officers as a bunch of frat boys, unfortunately.

But that's just my unsolicited uninformed opinion

 

[Jarnhamar]

Imagine if a CAF member illegally brought their personal weapon into a secure zone at work. Certainly that would warrant significant punishment - especially if they were, say, a MWO in the military police, NCIU, aircraft security officer. Right?

Not if 'He's a good guy'.

 

[brihard]

I don't imagine everyone was oblivious to what just transpired, especially after they were in-office laughing at the female officer and egging on the male officer (or which lead to him being egged on).


That's true. Maybe the officers did arrest her and try to lay a bunch of charges and some how that never made the news or is put in official records. In BC if the crown declines can police officers charge anyways? Or can they only lay charges if the crown agrees?


Fair enough, I'll stick with my where there's smoke there's fire observation.

Right. Maybe the RCMP officers tried to charge her for a bunch of criminal offences and for some reason the charges all got dropped.
Would that be a common occurrence in BC?


That's something I didn't take into consideration.


You're right I don't. I think they were fucking around in the office and when the female officer spazzed out they all found something else to do and didn't see nothing. I don't think they arrested her, took her gun away, or tried to charge her criminally. I also think if our friend Eaglelord17 did that with a pistol towards an RCMP officer the story would be much different. It's also another story painting RCMP officers as a bunch of frat boys.

I think you have an unrealistic expectation that the officers on scene would have been arresting her and writing up a charge package.

This would probably be immediately escalated to a supervisor, who would very quickly bring in their own chain of command. A professional standards unit would deal with the actual investigation.

An arrest in the moment would be an option but would be legally unnecessary. In fact 495(2) C.C. would argue against if if the situation was already calmed back down by the time people realized just WTF was going on, and if all the things an arrest is intended to accomplish are satisfied. If, in these circumstances, the supervisor were to say “take off your belt, leave it with me, you’re done for the night, there’s going to be an investigation, now go home and wait for a call”, that would be unsurprising and would be an appropriate next step in this context.

I think - and I’m speculating - that something like this going down (and it sounds like it was over fast) would have initially been a really shocking “WTAF just happened?” and probably in the first moments resulted in some surprised and disbelieving reactions that would not seem appropriate or scaled to the event in hindsight. And I think that’s something most of us here can actually related to. Clearly this was then handled appropriately enough that the conduct process kicked off, and we don’t know if that took seconds, minutes, or days. I’d guess minutes.

There’s a lot of speculating going on here about a situation that was fast and that would have been shocking and exceptionally anomalous. Unless you imagine a colleague or subordinate doing this for real and you mentally rehearse your response, who the hell knows what your very first reactions the moment of will be?

IMO she got off very light. The ‘prosecution’ was seeking dismissal and I’d agree with that. Or at least “resign or be dismissed”.

EDIT TO ADD: I’ll welcome a chime-in from @lenaitch or @Booter , both of whom hold or have held power I cannot possibly fathom.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I think you have an unrealistic expectation that the officers on scene would have been arresting her and writing up a charge package.

Naw I get it. I'm just trying to posture Internal Affairs vibes incase anyone is out there recruiting

An arrest in the moment would be an option but would be legally unnecessary. In fact 495(2) C.C. would argue against if if the situation was already calmed back down by the time people realized just WTF was going on, and if all the things an arrest is intended to accomplish are satisfied. If, in these circumstances, the supervisor were to say “take off your belt, leave it with me, you’re done for the night, there’s going to be an investigation, now go home and wait for a call”, that would be unsurprising and would be an appropriate next step in this context.

Right. On one hand a civilian will get treated differently. I don't think anyone can disagree.

On the other hand "it's different" because of the nature of the job, more nuanced maybe?

At a guess, police don't often like arresting other police if they can help it. We see that in stories where cops crash a car and are allowed to just go home despite RPG to believe alcohol is a factor.

The situation/aftermath you described seems to make the most sence of what would be expected to happen.

I think - and I’m speculating - that something like this going down (and it sounds like it was over fast) would have initially been a really shocking “WTAF just happened?” and probably in the first moments resulted in some surprised and disbelieving reactions that would not seem appropriate or scaled to the event in hindsight. And I think that’s something most of us here can actually related to. Clearly this was then handled appropriately enough that the conduct process kicked off, and we don’t know if that took seconds, minutes, or days. I’d guess minutes.

If I was on a range and a soldier pointed their loaded firearm at another soldier and threatened them I would remove their firearm and ammo and call the military police to arrest them. They might catch administrative measures as well but I'm pretty sure they're being charged with a service offence or straight criminal code.

I'm still of the mind our police get away with a lot, more than they should. And light sentences are common place.

There’s a lot of speculating going on here about a situation that was fast and that would have been shocking and exceptionally anomalous. Unless you imagine a colleague or subordinate doing this for real and you mentally rehearse your response, who the hell knows what your very first reactions the moment of will be?

I think your reaction to witnessing this on a range would be the same as mine.

I'd agree it's obviously happening less in police stations and not something someone reasonably trains for but I still expect police to respond quickly to wtf situations. Someone pointing their loaded pistol at someone else shouldnhave it removed- I hope that at least happened.

I'm going to do some digging and see if I can find out whether criminal chargers were even brought up or it went straight to internally handled. I'd be very happy to have my suspicions proved wrong here.

 

[Haggis]

Naw I get it. I'm just trying to posture Internal Affairs vibes incase anyone is out there recruiting

I'm sure IA folks are recruited internally.

Right. On one hand a civilian will get treated differently. I don't think anyone can disagree.

If the incident is reported, most likely.

At a guess, police don't often like arresting other police if they can help it. We see that in stories where cops crash a car and are allowed to just go home despite RPG to believe alcohol is a factor.

I have seen - first hand - the exact opposite in my line of work. Professional courtesy only gets you so far.

I'm still of the mind our police get away with a lot, more than they should. And light sentences are common place.

Those are the ones that make the news, as they offend the public sensibilities. I'm sure there are many others where harsher punishments are meted out that don't make it to print.

The public assumes that LEOs are experts in firearms handling. As a firearms instructor I can tell you this is not the case. Better than average, yes, but by no means "experts".

The same can be said for CAF members. Remember when a certain BGen had two NDs in Afghanistan, one with his carbine and the other with his, umm, "gun"? Which got more press coverage?

 

[Booter]

Show me where they get lighter sentences in court being as they are “common place”. I’ll show you people sexually assaulting children and getting probation. So let’s do it. Show me where police officers are getting “lighter sentences”

we ll start there.

Police aren’t generally arrested at the time because there aren’t grounds to arrest them as we know them, they have no criminal history, and if we stop them from driving or take their gun out of their locker they are no longer able to continue the offence. Which is the standard for whether an everyday person is arrested as well.

I have arrested cops. Including those in uniform. You’re just unhappy we don’t parade them in uniform in front of a camera and embarrass them. You don’t want equal treatment you want them treated worse. It would be a more honest conversation if you could just admit that.

The court systems first time sentences for everyone are light. If you’re shocked at their criminal conviction sentences: it is shock with the systems usual punishments. You are just seeing a normal sentence in Canada first hand- little to nothing to do with being a police officer.

The most common assault outcome in Canada is a fine or a conditional sentence. Impaireds- diving prohibs and fines. Same for everyone. Threatening people is a peace bond and a conditional sentence. Like it’s literally the same for everyone. Domestics that are simple assault 266- usually deferred for spousal counselling and programming with a conditional sentence,

These are what every Canadian can expect from their first criminal charges. While there are cops charged multiple times, and charged with more serious offences, anything higher than these on their firsts would be worse than anyone else. If you want to make that argument it can be made- but your “special treatment” argument is make believe.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I'm sure IA folks are recruited internally.

Yeah. I'm just passionate about this stuff.

If the incident is reported, most likely.

What would happen if a CBSA agent got mad at a coworker and pointed a loaded weapon at them?

I have seen - first hand - the exact opposite in my line of work. Professional courtesy only gets you so far.

The case of a off-duty RCMP officer hitting a 14 year old and being told by the first cop on the scene to go home and wait before the scene was properly investigated comes to mind.

The public assumes that LEOs are experts in firearms handling. As a firearms instructor I can tell you this is not the case. Better than average, yes, but by no means "experts".

I agree about LEOs not being experts with firearms, both in the handling sense or laws surrounding them. Pointing a loaded firearm at someone because you're mad is a completely different issue though.

 

[Booter]

The case of an off-duty RCMP officer hitting a 14 year old and being told by the first cop on the scene to go home and wait before the scene was properly investigated comes to mind.

Quick tell me what the “scene being properly investigated” looks like for an assault of a 14 year old?

Simple assault complaints unless there are extenuating circumstances are compelled to court without an arrest. For everyone. I know where Bill lives and I’ve id’d him. I get statements. If a charge is supported we just give them a court date on a document.

In your case Cop Bill faces professional sanctions as well. So he gets to go through two investigations.

 

[Haggis]

Yeah. I'm just passionate about this stuff.

That's admirable. Perhaps a VOT is in order.

What would happen if a CBSA agent got mad at a coworker and pointed a loaded weapon at them?

To my knowledge it hasn't happened yet. But suspensions have been handed out for lesser transgressions. And, for the umpteenth time on these forums, we are Border Services Officers not CBSA agents, despite what the MSM says.

I agree about LEOs not being experts with firearms, both in the handling sense or laws surrounding them.

BSO applicants (see what I did there) are required to successfully complete the CFSC and CRFSC prior to applying to CBSA, so there's that which gives them a bit of an advantage on a lot of other Canadian LEOs as far as understanding our byzantine firearms laws. That being said, we enforce or administer almost 100 federal acts and regulations so we can't be experts in all of them.

Pointing a loaded firearm at someone because you're mad is a completely different issue though.

I don't care who you are, that's just stupid and, if you don't face criminal sanctions, you should lose your privileges to carry a firearm for at least a substantial period of time and be re-trained and re-evaluated, as per agency policy.