Monthly Archives: October 2017

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals by Killer Mounties Kwesi Millington and Monty Robinson in Dziekanski Case

On Monday, October 30, 2017, The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed appeals from killer Mounties Kwesi Millington and Benjamin (Monty) Robinson who had been convicted of perjury in connection with the killing of Robert Dziekanski at the Vancouver airport in 2007. The two Mounties were among four RCMP officers charged with perjury following a public inquiry into the killing of Mr. Dziekanski, a traveler from Poland who was tased multiple times in the arrivals area of the airport. Millington was sentenced to 30 months in prison while Robinson was sentenced to two years less a day, one year of probation, and 240 hours of community service.

The Dziekanski killing put on display clearly the culture of deception and lies that marks Canadian policing in general and the RCMP in particular and was infused with lies through and through. The RCMP spokesperson initially proclaimed publicly that Mr. Dziekanski was acting aggressively toward officers, not complying, and apparently drunk. All of these claims against the victim were shown to be lies when a civilian video of the encounter appeared showing that, in fact, Mr. Dziekanski did not confront officers aggressively and appeared to be following their orders (despite a language barrier as none of the officers spoke Polish). RCMP had taken the video from the videographer and attempted to keep it from being released publicly.

The Supreme Court rejected the appeals immediately after hearing them. Because they ruled from the bench, formal reasons for their decision were not immediately available.


Police Kill at Least One Person in Incident at Hospital in Cobourg, Ontario (Oct. 27, 2017)

Details are still emerging about a police involved shooting at the Northumberland Hills Hospital emergency room during which two people were left dead, at least one whom was killed by police. The incident unfolded right before midnight, Friday, October 27, 2017, at the hospital in Cobourg, Ontario, a small town about 115 Kilometers east of Toronto. The two victims are a husband and wife in their 70s. The Special Investigations Unit (SIU), which examines cases of police harm to civilians in Ontario, is investigating.

SIU spokesperson Jason Gennaro has publicly stated that police in Cobourg were initially called to the hospital emergency room on reports of the sound of gunshots at about 11 PM. The SIU reports that police claim they encountered the 70-year-old man and two officers fired their weapons striking the man and killing him. He was pronounced dead on the scene. The SIU reports that officers then found a 76-year-old woman who was dead, apparently of some type of head wound.

The SIU has only confirmed that the couple were admitted to hospital. “for unknown ailments” and that at some point in the evening they had been next to each other on gurney’s in a triage area of the emergency room. Other important details have not been released publicly or confirmed.

There has been some speculation that the woman had been shot, but Gennaro would not confirm that. It has also not been confirmed at this point that the man had any type of weapon.

One witness claims hearing at least five or six shots after police arrived. Other witnesses have reported hearing multiple shots in a manner that suggested to them the use of an assault weapon.

Northumberland Hills Hospital has only confirmed in a statement that there was a “serious incident” in its emergency department that involved a weapon. There are no details on whether this refers to the police weapons or another weapon. The SIU has not confirmed that the man had a weapon, but questions have been asked of the hospital how a patient with a gun could be admitted.

The SIU has assigned six investigators and two forensic investigators to investigate this shooting by police.


Killer Cop Daniel Montsion’s Lawyer Claims Vicious Beating Did Not Kill Abdirahman Abdi

There used to be an old saying, “Help the police, beat yourself up.” Now Michael Edelson, the lawyer for killer Ottawa cop Daniel Montsion, wants a court and the public to believe that the vicious beating his client inflicted on 37-year-old Abdirahman Abdi had nothing to do with killing him. Instead, he suggests Abdi died of a heart attack. And he apparently wants people to believe that, even if he did have a heart attack, a severe beating with baton by police did not play a part in it. So, according to copagandist Edelson, Abdi is responsible for his own death: not the brutal assault he was subjected to. Maybe he beat himself to death.

Edelson made these absurd and offensive claims in an attempt to move up the court date for officer Montsion. According to audio court transcripts from the October 20 hearing, Edelson suggested: “This is not a beating that caused the death of Mr. Abdi. Mr. Abdi died of a heart attack. That’s what killed him.” Montsion has been charged with manslaughter, aggravated assault, and assault with a weapon in the killing of Abdi in July 2016.

The lawyer’s request to move the trial date was denied. The 12-week trial remains scheduled to start in February 2019, which is almost three years after Abdi’s killing.


Winnipeg Cops Delay Breathalyzer for Colleague Justin Holz in DUI Hit-and-Run Killing of Cody Severight

Questions are being raised publicly about egregious delay in police officers administering a breathalyzer test to their colleague who was involved in a fatal hit-and-run in Winnipeg. Constable Justin Holz (34) was arrested away from the scene a short tome after striking 23-year-old Indigenous man Cody Severight of Waywayseecappo First Nation on October 10, 2017.

Len Eastoe, a former cop who now runs Traffic Ticket Experts to help people fight fines, cannot understand why it took three to four hours to administer the test to Constable Holz. Said Eastoe: “It is a rather strange period of time” (quoted in CBC 2017). Eastoe notes that there can be a passage of time in administering the breath test, in this case the gap between when the crash happened and when Holz was tested is much too wide. He suggests that the test is usually done within two hours. In his view: “There has to be some sort of a reason for that, and then you’ve really got questions as to whether that test is going to be admissible or not” (quoted in CBC 2017).

Of course, some would offer the rather obvious answer that they are doing what cops routinely do in protecting their colleagues who kill. And in this case, as Eastoe suggests, it could rule the test inadmissible in any court proceedings against the officer, thus shielding him from conviction.

Even more, two police officers who had been assigned to investigate Holz have been placed on paid administrative leave and could face charges, for as yet unspecified activities. Winnipeg police Chief Danny Smyth has only said that the officers did not administer the breathalyzer test and were not at the scene of the collision.

The Independent Investigation Unit (IIU), Manitoba’s police oversight body, said on Friday, October 20, that it had been notified of “irregular and improper conduct of two officers” and is assessing whether charges should be laid. It ahs been reported that one of the officers in question was at The Pint, the bar at which officer Holz was drinking before getting in his car and killing Cody Severight. Did they watch as their colleague got into his car to drive off after an evening of drinking?

Constable Holz has been charged with impaired driving causing death and fleeing the scene of an accident.

 

Further Reading

CBC. 2017. “Breathalyzer Delay for Officer Charged in Fatal Hit-and-Run Raises Questions, Former Cop Says.” CBC News. October 25. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/breathalyzer-test-length-of-time-justin-holz-1.4370540


Person Killed by Alberta RCMP Identified as 26-Year-Old Cree Man, Cavin Poucette

Family members have identified 26-year-old Cavin Poucette as the person shot and killed by Alberta RCMP on the morning of October 19, 2017, in the town of Gleichen, victim of Thursday morning’s shooting in the town of Gleichen, east of Red Deer. Poucette has been identified by friends as a “proud Cree” originally from Morley on the Stoney Nakoda First Nation.

The incident that resulted in the killing started when two RCMP officers conducted a traffic stop near the intersection of Haskayne Avenue and Gleichen Street, for reasons not yet disclosed publicly. It ended when an RCMP officer shot Mr. Poucette, who was pronounced dead at the scene.

Relatives later recognized Poucette and his vehicle within the crime scene tape and publicly identified him as the victim.

Family members have some serious questions about the killing. Gildas Storm, Poucette’s uncle, said to CTV Calgary: “They should tell us what’s going on. All they say is they don’t know who that is and they don’t know who… That’s my nephew!” (quoted in White 2017).

He continued in frustration: “Cops stopped us here and they said that ASIRT was going to get ahold of us. They’re driving all over the damn reserve trying to find people. We’re right here. If ASIRT wants to find the family, we’re right here” (quoted in White 2017).

The Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) is investigating.

 

Further Reading

White, Ryan. 2017. “Friends and Family Mourn Man Fatally Shot by RCMP in Gleichen.” CTV News. October 21. http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/friends-and-family-mourn-man-fatally-shot-by-rcmp-in-gleichen-1.3643126

 


Trial for Killer Cop Simon Beaulieu Hears Cops Should Be Given More Consideration Than “Regular” Citizens

Quebec City police officer Simon Beaulieu drove into and killed Guy Blouin  on September 30, 2014, backing his police vehicle over the victim who was riding a bicycle at the time. We have already documented the base policing assumptions that led Beaulieu to act in the way that he did in killing Blouin (assuming Blouin was suspicious because he was riding the wrong way on a one way street; assuming he had something to hide because he did not obey an order allegedly given to stop, etc.).

On Monday, October 23, 2017, the court heard, during Beaulieu’s trial on charges of criminal negligence and dangerous driving causing death, that as a police officer he “could not be judged on the same level as a regular citizen” (Page 2017). Said Beaulieu’s defense attorney Maxime Roy: “We can imagine that being on patrol requires more manoeuvres than your average person” (quoted in Page 2017). And Roy concluded that Beaulieu was simply “trying to do his job and apprehend a suspect” (Page 2017). Never mind that the so-called suspect was a product of the officer’s authoritarian privilege and did nothing more than ride the wrong way and, the clincher, disobey a police order (which there is no way of knowing was either given or heard).

It is no surprise that police believe they are better than “regular” members of society and should be treated preferentially in all cases. This is a rather common approach to getting killer cops off in the rare cases in which they are actually brought to trial. That it could be confidently uttered as an element of defense in a killing of a civilian who did no wrong shows the nature of the criminal justice system in the Canadian state context.

 

Further Reading

Page, Julia. 2017. “Defence Attorney Calls for Acquittal on all Charges Against Quebec City Police Officer.” CBC News. October 23. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/simon-beaulieu-defence-closing-arguments-1.4367741


Judge Upholds Dismissal of Charges Against Killer Cops Patrick Bulger and Mathieu Boudreau in Michel Vienneau Killing

Constables Patrick Bulger (38) and Mathieu Boudreau (26) had each faced charges of manslaughter with a weapon, assault with a weapon, and unlawfully pointing a firearm for the shooting and killing of businessman Michel Vienneau on January 12, 2015 under highly questionable circumstances. The police had been given an erroneous anonymous “tip” that Vienneau was in possession of drugs when the officers confronted him outside the Bathurst, New Brunswick train station.

On October 20, 2017, Court of Queens Bench Judge Tracey DeWare upheld an earlier court decision dismissing the charges against the two constables. The evidence in the case still remains subject to a publication ban for at least 30 days, unless the ruling is appealed.

In February, provincial court Judge Anne Dugas-Horsman ruled, following a preliminary hearing, that the prosecution failed to produce enough evidence to warrant a trial. The judge dropped charges against the officers. New Brunswick’s Public Prosecutions Services challenged that ruling, arguing that the  the judge failed to consider all relevant evidence.

An RCMP investigation later found that Vienneau was not involved in any criminal activity. A civil lawsuit on behalf of Vienneau’s partner, who was accompanying him at the time he was killed, alleges that his death was caused by police negligence.

This decision is not surprising in the least since the state consistently protects the state in cases of police killings of civilians in Canada.


Saskatchewan RCMP Shoot and Kill 22-Year-Old Indigenous Man, Brydon Bryce Whitstone (Oct. 21, 2017)

Saskatchewan RCMP shot and killed 22-year-old Brydon Bryce Whitstone of Onion Lake Cree Nation around 9 PM on the evening of Saturday, October 21, 2017, in North Battleford.

RCMP have reported that they received a call from a man, saying he had been chased and shot at from a vehicle.  Police located the suspected vehicle and gave pursuit until they immobilized the vehicle. During their interaction with the driver shots were fired injuring a man inside the vehicle.  The victim, now identified as Brydon Bryce Whitstone, was pronounced dead at around 9:40 PM, while en route to hospital.

RCMP also report that a woman inside the vehicle suffered minor injuries. She was taken to hospital, but then released into police custody. Neither her condition nor the specific reason she was taken into custody have been reported publicly at this time. Neither has it been reported publicly how many shots were fired by RCMP officers. None of the police claims have been independently confirmed.

There is no independent investigative unit In Saskatchewan to examine cases of police harm to civilians in the province. RCMP Chief Superintendent Maureen Levy has reported that the Regina Police Service is now investigating the circumstances surrounding the killing of Whitstone by RCMP officers.

Saskatchewan’s Ministry of Justice will also appoint what it calls an independent observer to oversee the investigation, but such observers are almost always former police officers, so in no way independent. Justice Ministry spokesman Drew Wilby explained at a news conference that in cases were an independent observer is requested, the ministry appoints someone such as a former police officer. Yet, Wilby suggested, incredulously, that, “This individual will not be connected to the RCMP.” But it could well be a fellow officer so no claims of independence have any credibility.

Saskatchewan RCMP are a directly colonial military force. It remains a force of settler colonial military occupation of Indigenous lands and has an ongoing history of violence against Indigenous people and communities.


Letter From SIU Head to Ottawa Police Chief Raises Questions About Transparency and “Old Boy” Favors in Investigations

Two officers of the Ottawa Police Service were involved in a car chase that ended with the death of 24-year-old Alex Cross and an unnamed 39-year-old on April 12, 2016. Cross was killed when a Pontiac G6 plowed into his car on the city’s Vanier Parkway, throwing him and a 21-year-old woman from the vehicle. The woman was  seriously injured. The driver of the G6 died in hospital eight months after the crash. The two officers had chased the G6. They have never been named publicly.

Now the Ottawa Citizen has gained access to a letter sent to Ottawa’s police chief, Charles Bordeleau, by the head of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), the agency that examines police harm to civilians, offering a stern rebuke of the two officers and raises significant questions about the training that police officers receive and the transparency of investigations into police.

 

The “Old Boys” Letter

The letter from SIU head Tony Loparco to Chief Bordeleau, states that the police chase “clearly” broke Ottawa Police Service policy and “likely also ran afoul” of the provincial regulations that govern police chases, specifically of Ontario Regulation 266/10 under the Police Services Act (Shaw 2017). Additionally, the letter points out that the two officers were “long overdue” for their driver training (Shaw 2017).

Notably the letter was dated April 21, 2017, which was about a month before the two officers were cleared of any wrongdoing by the Special Investigations Unit, the very unit that is raising these issues and reporting them, not publicly but only to the chief of the officers’ force. This raises deep concerns and questions about the transparency of the SIU, its insiders practices and friendly relationships with the forces it is supposed to be independently investigating, favoritism toward killer cops, and the lack of public accountability for police and for the SIU.

This letter was only obtained through the efforts of the Citizen and its filing of a freedom of information request. Loparco’s concerns about the force were not communicated publicly, only to police, and did not seem to inform the SIU assessment of the officers’ actions or the SIU’s decision to let them off, odd given the issues raised by the SIU’s own director in his letter.

 

The “Investigation”: Chasing Training

Four SIU investigators and two forensics investigators were assigned to the case. They interviewed nine civilian witnesses and five witness police officers. On May 17, 2017, thirteen months after the crash, the SIU absolved the two officers of even any suggestion of wrongdoing. Said the SIU news releases at the time: “There is no basis whatsoever to hold either of the two subject officers responsible for the terrible outcomes of the motor vehicle collision” (Shaw 2017).

Yet, this finding is in complete contradiction with Loparco’s own review and assessment of the officer’s actions in this case as communicated to Chief Bordeleau. Loparco’s letter states that, if not for a senior officer calling off the chase, the two officers could have been in criminal jeopardy and this was a “pursuit that never should have occurred” (Shaw 2017).

According to the Ottawa Police Service, its Suspect Apprehension Pursuit policy was developed in conjunction with provincial guidelines that all Ontario police services must follow (Laucius 2017). All officers involved in pursuits are required to have successfully completed a course in pursuit driver training which is approved by the Ontario Police College and they must complete refresher training every two years (Lauicius 2017). Yet the two officers in this case did not follow the policies. Said Loparco, in his letter: “It is my hope that as Chief of the Ottawa Police Service, you will revisit the training that these two subject officers have received” (quoted in Shaw 2017). Yet, really, what does it matter if police disregard policies leading to the deaths and injuries of multiple civilians if they face no negative consequences for their actions?

 

Questions

It is still not known why one officer made the decision to try to stop the Pontiac G6 around 1:15 AM that morning. All that has been said publicly is that it was for “licensing and regulatory” reasons (Shaw 2017). There was no criminal offence suspected. Yet Ottawa police policy only allows for chases in criminal cases, and a handful of other restrictive conditions (Shaw 2017). The officer who initiated the pursuit was not conducting a criminal investigation and already had the license plate number for the G6. Loparco noted that the Ottawa police list of requirements for engaging in a pursuit includes:  “an identified criminal offence; no other alternative for apprehension; a threat to public safety; the vehicles involved in the pursuit are marked and the police officers involved have successfully completed police college driver training and refresher every two years” (Lauicius 2017). The first officer even radioed for assistance leading another officer to join the chase. A road sergeant had to make two calls for the officers to end their pursuit.

In Loparco’s words, the road sergeant insulted the officers from charges but he does not say why since the officers did initiate and pursue a chase improperly. Said Loparco:

 

“I commend him for his commitment to public safety. I am also hopeful that the officers under his command appreciate that his directions insulated them from criminal jeopardy in these circumstances. Their imprudent actions could well have grounded dangerous driving or criminal negligence charges if they had persisted in a pursuit that should never have happened in the first place.” (quoted in Laucius 2017)

 

Here is the thing. The fact that the chase was initiated in “the absence of a criminal investigation,” as Loparco notes in his letter, means, by definition, that the two officers in pursuit broke both their own force’s rules, as well as possibly violating provincial police chase regulations as established in the Police Services Act.

Why did SIU head Loparco raise these serious issues privately with the chief of the force involved, but never publicly? Why did Loparco identify these serious violations yet absolve the officers in spite of his knowledge, beforehand, of these violations?

While the SIU director often sends a background letter to the chief of police in the jurisdiction where the incident occurred, outlining any concerns the director has about the case, after a case ends, this letter was sent beforehand.

 

Conclusion

Where there are questions about a police officer’s actions under terms of the Ontario Police Act, a police chief or a victim’s family member can request an investigation by the Office Of Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD). This office is responsible for receiving, managing, and overseeing public complaints about police in Ontario (Laucius 2017).

At present, there is no legislative mechanism for the SIU to notify OIPRD about concerns it has regarding  misconduct or neglect of duty involving police (Laucius 2017). In consultations with Court of Appeal Justice Michael Tulloch, who led a recent review of police oversight in Ontario, it has been recommended that the SIU be made a “direct complainant” to OIPRD or the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (Laucius 2017).

This case offers some important insights into the nature of police “oversight” in the Canadian state context. It shows the secrecy of investigations into police and the lack of accountability in even obvious or basic situations of police violations of their own limited regulations. It also shows the friendly “old boys” networking that exists between investigative bodies and the police they are supposed to investigate. The state protects the state and informs its members instead of the public.

 

Further Reading

Dawson, Tyler. 2017. “Private Letter to Bordeleau Reveals Officers Lacked Training in Night of Horrific Crash.” Ottawa Citizen. October 19. http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/dawson-training-needed-on-police-pursuit-policies

Laucius, Joanne. 2017. “SIU Director Sent Scathing Letter to Ottawa Chief Over Downtown Chase.” Ottawa Sun. October 18. http://www.ottawasun.com/2017/10/18/siu-director-sent-scathing-letter-to-ottawa-chief-over-downtown-police-chase


SIU Lets Off Cop in 2016 Police Chase Death of Teen, Despite High Speed, Possible Breaches of Police Services Act

The Special Investigations Unit (SIU), which examines cases of police harm to civilians in Ontario, has decided not to recommend charges against a Leeds OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) officer who was involved in a high speed chase in May 2016 that ended in a crash near Smith Falls that killed a teenager in May 2016.

According to the SIU, the officer, who has not been named publicly, saw a vehicle, a Hyundai, allegedly speeding  on County Road 17 and turned around to follow it. With the police pursuit the vehicle turned down a dirt road into trees, killing the 18-year-old male driver. A 16-year-old girl who was a passenger in the front seat was not seriously injured. The SIU report suggests that the speeding car was going 100 km on a stretch of road with speed limits varying between 50 km/h or 80 km/h when the officer saw it, and around 170 km/h when it left the road.

SIU director Tony Loparco, who has rather consistently sided with police officers and forces in cases of harm to civilian since assuming his position, did raise concerns about the officer’s speed, reporting that  the OPP vehicle reached 165 km/h, and about the fact that the officer did not immediately notify the dispatcher of the pursuit. According to Loparco, each of these may have constituted a breach of the Ontario Police Services Act.

Yet Loparco decided that the officer’s actions did not meet the bar either for dangerous driving or criminal negligence. In his words: “There is no evidence that the [officer’s] driving created a danger to other users of the roadway or that at any time he interfered with other traffic; additionally the environmental conditions were good and the roads were dry.”

This is a curious statement given that the teen driver was driving at speeds less than the officer reached at the time the officer began pursuit. So if even the officer’s higher speed and the road conditions did not pose a threat to the public, why pursue a joy riding teen driving at lower speeds under the same conditions?

Loparco went further, suggesting that there was no causal connection between the officer’s pursuit and the crash. In his words: “I am unable to establish that there was a causal connection between [the officer’s] actions…and the single-vehicle collision that caused the…death.” Yet the stated evidence appears to suggest the teen both sped up and turned off the road in response to the officer’s pursuit and the closing speed of that pursuit.

The SIU assigned eight investigators to the case. Once again it appears the state has protected the state.