[nns]

The provincial government introduced Tuesday legislation that will create an independent, civilian-led office responsible for investigating all serious and fatal incidents involving B.C. police officers.

Bill 12 comes almost a year after retired judge Thomas Braidwood published his damming report into the fatal RCMP handling of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver International Airport.

If passed, the bill, which follows key recommendations found in Braidwood’s report, will see the creation of the Independent Investigations Office, which will be led by a civilian who has never served as a police officer.

“It is critical that British Columbians have confidence in our police and that the police are accountable to them,” said Premier Christy Clark in a release. “This legislation is a historic step for policing in B.C. and will strengthen public faith.”

The bill, introduced in the house by Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General Shirley Bond, was met with praise from David Eby, the executive director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, who said the tabling of such legislation is a longtime coming.

He said the biggest test of the new office is whether or not the police forces being investigated are cooperative and whether or not it receives adequate funding from the province.

“I think it shows that the years of advocacy that our organization and many other have done on ended police self-investigation has finally been heard,” said Eby, who just last week was battling the premier for a seat in the legislature.

“I think it will help restore public confidence in police if the body is set up in the right way, that is, if it is truly independent of police.”

The office will have the power to investigate members of the RCMP and municipal detachments, will report to the Attorney General and have investigators with the status equivalent to that of other police officers, according to a government release.

There will also be a civilian monitor who has access to all the information of the investigation and who can raise concerns to the director about the integrity of any investigation.

The office’s director will be allowed to hire ex-police officers as long as they haven’t worked as cops in B.C. within the past five years. The ultimate goal, however, is to have a staff composed entirely of people who have never worked as police officers or as members of a police agency.

Clark said the government is still looking into where the office will be located, its budget and its staffing requirements, although it is expected to be operational by the end of the year.

© Copyright (c) The Province
http://www.theprovince.com/news/government+verge+stopping+police+investigating+the mselves+says/4798417/story.html

Everything else besides their ultimate goal sounds good. I remember reading that because ASIRT's investigators is composed of both civilian and sworn police officers, the officers are able to provide insight that civilian investigators wouldn't have in an investigation.

[flagella]

Should've done a long fucking time ago. It's actually ridiculous this isn't even implemented. This is the same concept as board of directors in a company where objectivity and independence should be the utmost priority. How the fck can they investigate when there is clearly a conflict of interest going on?

[zulutango]

I always wondered why the public have a problem with the Police being a part of any investigation in situations involving public complaints,...even though that they are investigated by another Police department, the coronor, the Public Complaints commission and any other inquirey deemed appropriate...yet they are fully Ok with lawyers investigating themselves, teachers Unions investigating the teacher's actions, doctors investigating themselves, engineers investigating themselves, dentists investigating themselve, nurses investigating themselves, politicians investigatiing themselves, stock brokers investigating themselves, your kids sports associations investigating the actions of coaches etc etc etc. If it is just because of the legal aspect...or life and death...then what about lawyers, doctors, engineers (in case of disasters like structure collapse?

If you feel that the Cops will cover up another Cop's bad actions then how do you trust a doctor facing a death and a multi million dollar lawsuit? Just trying to figure the locic ? None of these other professions are held up to the same standards of accountability or scrutiny, nor are they deemed guilty of almost every allegation by anyone with any sort of reason to complain. Anyone remember the guy in Vancouver with the cell phone video that was "erased by the Cops" and the BCCLU and PLS supported his rants...and didn't withdraw their statememnts or apologize, when independant video showed that he wasn't even there?

I am not saying that there are no bad Cops...I am saying that the public and special interest groups are ready to hang them out to dry without any sort of process that they would demand for anyone else. Bad Cops, after processing, deserve to be prosecuted if the facts support the charges...so do bad teachers, lawyers, doctors etc. There should be one standard for everyone and all should be held accountable, Cops included.

[EmperorIS]

WHO YOU GONNA CALL??

http://www.icac.org.hk/newsl/issue3/pic/ICAC%20logo(col)%20.jpg
http://1stopmedia.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/icac_investigators_2009.jpg

[TheKingdom2000]

I always wondered why the public have a problem with the Police being a part of any investigation in situations involving public complaints,...even though that they are investigated by another Police department, the coronor, the Public Complaints commission and any other inquirey deemed appropriate...yet they are fully Ok with lawyers investigating themselves, teachers Unions investigating the teacher's actions, doctors investigating themselves, engineers investigating themselves, dentists investigating themselve, nurses investigating themselves, politicians investigatiing themselves, stock brokers investigating themselves, your kids sports associations investigating the actions of coaches etc etc etc. If it is just because of the legal aspect...or life and death...then what about lawyers, doctors, engineers (in case of disasters like structure collapse?

...

I think it's because it's a public position?

I guess baby steps right?
Rome wasn't built in a day. And think about how long this bill was probably in the works. It takes time to get stuff like this done. That's what I'm assuming.

[Gt-R R34]

I always wondered why the public have a problem with the Police being a part of any investigation in situations involving public complaints,...even though that they are investigated by another Police department, the coronor, the Public Complaints commission and any other inquirey deemed appropriate...yet they are fully Ok with lawyers investigating themselves, teachers Unions investigating the teacher's actions, doctors investigating themselves, engineers investigating themselves, dentists investigating themselve, nurses investigating themselves, politicians investigatiing themselves, stock brokers investigating themselves, your kids sports associations investigating the actions of coaches etc etc etc. If it is just because of the legal aspect...or life and death...then what about lawyers, doctors, engineers (in case of disasters like structure collapse?

If you feel that the Cops will cover up another Cop's bad actions then how do you trust a doctor facing a death and a multi million dollar lawsuit? Just trying to figure the locic ? None of these other professions are held up to the same standards of accountability or scrutiny, nor are they deemed guilty of almost every allegation by anyone with any sort of reason to complain. Anyone remember the guy in Vancouver with the cell phone video that was "erased by the Cops" and the BCCLU and PLS supported his rants...and didn't withdraw their statememnts or apologize, when independant video showed that he wasn't even there?

I am not saying that there are no bad Cops...I am saying that the public and special interest groups are ready to hang them out to dry without any sort of process that they would demand for anyone else. Bad Cops, after processing, deserve to be prosecuted if the facts support the charges...so do bad teachers, lawyers, doctors etc. There should be one standard for everyone and all should be held accountable, Cops included.

My opinion is that none of these jobs uses or allowed to use deadly force. That's the driving factor in the difference between a Police officer and say a Lawyer.

You can get disbarred and you can't practice your craft any more. It might cause people mental or monetary harm but you won't die or be physically assaulted.

Or a structure collapse, it has to pass through more then just the engineer, you have builders, contractors. Where as a policemen can be violent by himself.

My point is policemen can do physical harm and he can justify it as "self defense" where as any of the other jobs can't be done.

[BNR32_Coupe]

I always wondered why the public have a problem with the Police being a part of any investigation in situations involving public complaints,...even though that they are investigated by another Police department, the coronor, the Public Complaints commission and any other inquirey deemed appropriate...yet they are fully Ok with lawyers investigating themselves, teachers Unions investigating the teacher's actions, doctors investigating themselves, engineers investigating themselves, dentists investigating themselve, nurses investigating themselves, politicians investigatiing themselves, stock brokers investigating themselves, your kids sports associations investigating the actions of coaches etc etc etc. If it is just because of the legal aspect...or life and death...then what about lawyers, doctors, engineers (in case of disasters like structure collapse?

If you feel that the Cops will cover up another Cop's bad actions then how do you trust a doctor facing a death and a multi million dollar lawsuit? Just trying to figure the locic ? None of these other professions are held up to the same standards of accountability or scrutiny, nor are they deemed guilty of almost every allegation by anyone with any sort of reason to complain. Anyone remember the guy in Vancouver with the cell phone video that was "erased by the Cops" and the BCCLU and PLS supported his rants...and didn't withdraw their statememnts or apologize, when independant video showed that he wasn't even there?

I am not saying that there are no bad Cops...I am saying that the public and special interest groups are ready to hang them out to dry without any sort of process that they would demand for anyone else. Bad Cops, after processing, deserve to be prosecuted if the facts support the charges...so do bad teachers, lawyers, doctors etc. There should be one standard for everyone and all should be held accountable, Cops included.

Rather than pointing fingers and saying "what about them?" why not take a closer look into differentiating factors that would make this proposed plan logical.

First off, the feasibility of implementing such bodies to the areas you've mentioned are probably insignificant due to the frequency, or lack thereof, in issues occurring. How often is a police officer accused of abusing their power versus how often is a doctor accused of malpractice (in canada that is, because I'm sure in the states its a daily thing and a source of income to some poor families).

In addition, the main difference between all of those professions is that the police have authority. I'm not talking about the authority to issue prescription drugs or legal authority to represent someone in court. I'm talking about the kind of authority that tells you to sit down, shut up, and wait until I'm done writing you a flag on your file so big, other cops pull you over for comradery and fun. Then when I talk smack to you, unless you want me to find other things to ticket you for, you better reply back to me politely.

That kind of authority is what separates police officers from doctors, lawyers, or any other civilian.

[optiblue]

:fuckyea:

[gars]

Rather than pointing fingers and saying "what about them?" why not take a closer look into differentiating factors that would make this proposed plan logical.

First off, the feasibility of implementing such bodies to the areas you've mentioned are probably insignificant due to the frequency, or lack thereof, in issues occurring. How often is a police officer accused of abusing their power versus how often is a doctor accused of malpractice (in canada that is, because I'm sure in the states its a daily thing and a source of income to some poor families).

In addition, the main difference between all of those professions is that the police have authority. I'm not talking about the authority to issue prescription drugs or legal authority to represent someone in court. I'm talking about the kind of authority that tells you to sit down, shut up, and wait until I'm done writing you a flag on your file so big, other cops pull you over for comradery and fun. Then when I talk smack to you, unless you want me to find other things to ticket you for, you better reply back to me politely.

That kind of authority is what separates police officers from doctors, lawyers, or any other civilian.

We're not talking about police officers who are rude to you when they pull you over - we're talking about incidents that result in serious injury or deaths. IMO, Getting someone who has zero knowledge or experience in the field to investigate this could turn out really badly.

Politicians get flak all the time for introducing bills without proper research or consultation. This is the exact same thing. I don't want police officers power tripping and shooting/tazing everybody on the street, BUT, I also don't want them pussyfooting around everytime there is a potentially dangeous situation, just because they decided to hire a nobody to investigate all the complaints.

[seakrait]

i'm not sure how this independent investigations office will function properly past the five year transition period from having ex-police investigators with detective experience to civilians who will have only had 5 years of real training.

if a person is shot and killed by police officer, it becomes a homicide investigation. how do you learn to solve a homicide with NO police experience?

if this investigations office is only to deal with very serious matters (which are pretty rare, relatively speaking, when you think about how many people officially complain about the police to the OPCC/various Professional Standards Sections), how much practice are they going to get that they'll be trusted to run a proper investigation when something does go wrong? how often, again relatively speaking, does that happen? i mean, they're going to only come into play when someone is seriously injured or killed by police action/inaction.

i dunno, i don't see how this office will ever run a solid investigation without someone with police experience. i'd feel better about it if this office handled ALL complaints against the police.

[TheNewGirl]

There are people who do this, lawyers, investigators, anthropologists, military, medical personal. There's lots of people who have investigative skills with out ever being police officers.

I'm just curious if they will be the people who get hired.

And I agree, it would be ideal if an independant office handled every police complaint (even the rude traffic stop ones), not just the lethal ones.

[zulutango]

"How often is a police officer accused of abusing their power versus how often is a doctor accused of malpractice (in canada that is,"

You would be surprised how often doctors kill people. One of my work partners had his daughter killed by a doctor who ignored information given to him. He administered medicine, over the feeble objections of the attending nurse who knew better, and the daughter died. it took my buddy over 18 months to get this guy finally brought to task and all it resulted in was other doctors saying that he had made a "mistake". The nurse was not penalized but all the doctor got was a fine. No criminal charges, no court appearance. He is still in business working on one of the nearby gulf islands, treating people. Do a bit of research on medical deaths and you will find that more die at their hands than at the hands of Police. The Police deaths usually happen during periods of violence while the medical ones do not. Why do you think the medical profession has to have malpractice insurance? Saying all this, my wife works in the medical profession and I'm aware of some of the stuff that goes on. Doctors do have the power and authority to take lives and they sometimes do.

According to Stats Can...doctors kill 5 men a day and 2 women a day due to their malpractice. Cops don't kill 2555 people a year. When doctors kill they call it "surgical/medical misadventure"...doesn't have the same ring as..."Cop guns down man who is just turning his life around".

"More than 23 750 patients died in a Canadian hospital in 2000 when receiving a preventable medical error in their treatment. In 1999 a report concluded that up to 98 000 people died from medial errors. Hospitals are under pressure to fix the problem.

Source: summary of medical news story as reported by The Globe And Mail

Read more at http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/news/tens_of_thousands_of_deaths_in_hospitals_caused_by _medical_errors.htm?ktrack=kcplink

[TheNewGirl]

I agree with this. I think Doctors should be externally audited though too.

[91civicZC]

Unfortunately I am one of the people of BC who really has lost faith in our Police and RCMP detachments.

The way that I understood this is that the group will be headed by a non affiliated civilian, but the body would always have ex police involved. I thought that was a great plan, and should have been coming for a long time. To remove all police expereince from the group seems like an odd move for sure, not one I totally agree with.

While I understand that officers may find it frustrating that the public doesn’t see them in the same light as maybe they once did, they only have themselves to blame. Every officer should be happy about this move, as the officers here remind us if you aren’t doing anything wrong you wont get in trouble. If they are not crossing the line, this body can then show that to the public, without it looking like a bias view.

My only complaint here is that this isn’t enough. I would also like to see the panel be a part of almost any complaint, not just the serious offences. I can only imagine when an officer actually crosses the line its after he has been “working up to it”. It would seem to me that catching them before they become problems would be a better idea, and I would think the non serious offences is where it would start.

I would also like to start seeing the senior officers in charge of some of the “bad apples” being held accountable for officers under there direct command who break the law while on duty. If someone in my offices really messes up, I can be held accountable. That’s part of the reason I am their boss. Why aren’t the police the same? Maybe they are and the public isnt made aware? Im not sure.

Zulutango, unfortunately I think your post, at least for me, speaks to my frustration with the Police And RCMP. We are not talking about the “other guy”. We are talking about the police. In same way I am sure if someone posted up about being caught with a group of speeders and being the only one pulled over, I am sure most officers (including yourself maybe?) response would be somewhere along the line of “we are not talking about them, we are talking about you”, I would say the same applies here. Do as I say not as I do is only put up with by the public for so long from people in its employment. While I understand that it may be frustrating for you personally if you feel you are not part of the problem, I would think you would be cheering this group on for the vindication it could provide not pointing the finger at other professions you belive are in the wrong as well.

In my personal experiences the attitudes of Police and RCMP officers that I have dealt with has become the “us against them” attitude without any kind of provocation. Story after story has come to light showing that officers cannot be trusted. Yes, this is a broad brush stroke, but it is the same I find I am painted with by the police for my dress, my choice in vehicles, my age, my looks, or my choice in friends. Policing needs to go back to serving the public good, and anyone using a position in the police to help them boost themselves up due to “little man” syndrome should not be tolerated by the public or by the officers they work with.

[Ferra]

actually...i found both doctors & police officers have these "close pact" mentality... e.g. "we help each other out like we are a family, even if you made a mistake"

a retired relative who was a doctor once told me....doctors almost never give incriminating opinions against their colleges in court or in investigations...those who do are seen as a "traitor"
Their reasoning is that, a doctor takes many years and money to get his license, and he shouldn't lose everything just because he made 1 mistake. :rolleyes:

[RiceIntegraRS]

So far all i heard from people who are opposed of this new Bill is this. "Officer why was i pulled over for speeding? the guy next to me was going faster than i was"

Sure theres been problems with doctors, but were not talking about Doctors right now, there talking about Police Officers. And is it soooo unreasonable not to have them investigate themselves? I know the one problem is having people with no or little experience in policing in this investigation office but i think it is a good thing. Like ferra said, Police officers are a family and the last thing they will wanna do is punish them for a mistake they have made.

To me if an accident occured, its not to hard to figure out if the cop was doing his/her job or made a huge error in judgement

[bengy]

Police kill perfectly healthy humans with the full intention of doing so.

Doctors kill sick people by mistake with the intention of making them better?

[Jsunu]

"How often is a police officer accused of abusing their power versus how often is a doctor accused of malpractice (in canada that is,"

You would be surprised how often doctors kill people. One of my work partners had his daughter killed by a doctor who ignored information given to him. He administered medicine, over the feeble objections of the attending nurse who knew better, and the daughter died. it took my buddy over 18 months to get this guy finally brought to task and all it resulted in was other doctors saying that he had made a "mistake". The nurse was not penalized but all the doctor got was a fine. No criminal charges, no court appearance. He is still in business working on one of the nearby gulf islands, treating people. Do a bit of research on medical deaths and you will find that more die at their hands than at the hands of Police. The Police deaths usually happen during periods of violence while the medical ones do not. Why do you think the medical profession has to have malpractice insurance? Saying all this, my wife works in the medical profession and I'm aware of some of the stuff that goes on. Doctors do have the power and authority to take lives and they sometimes do.

According to Stats Can...doctors kill 5 men a day and 2 women a day due to their malpractice. Cops don't kill 2555 people a year. When doctors kill they call it "surgical/medical misadventure"...doesn't have the same ring as..."Cop guns down man who is just turning his life around".

"More than 23 750 patients died in a Canadian hospital in 2000 when receiving a preventable medical error in their treatment. In 1999 a report concluded that up to 98 000 people died from medial errors. Hospitals are under pressure to fix the problem.

Source: summary of medical news story as reported by The Globe And Mail

Read more at http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/news/tens_of_thousands_of_deaths_in_hospitals_caused_by _medical_errors.htm?ktrack=kcplink

I always wondered why the public have a problem with the Police being a part of any investigation in situations involving public complaints,...even though that they are investigated by another Police department, the coronor, the Public Complaints commission and any other inquirey deemed appropriate...yet they are fully Ok with lawyers investigating themselves, teachers Unions investigating the teacher's actions, doctors investigating themselves, engineers investigating themselves, dentists investigating themselve, nurses investigating themselves, politicians investigatiing themselves, stock brokers investigating themselves, your kids sports associations investigating the actions of coaches etc etc etc. If it is just because of the legal aspect...or life and death...then what about lawyers, doctors, engineers (in case of disasters like structure collapse?

If you feel that the Cops will cover up another Cop's bad actions then how do you trust a doctor facing a death and a multi million dollar lawsuit? Just trying to figure the locic ? None of these other professions are held up to the same standards of accountability or scrutiny, nor are they deemed guilty of almost every allegation by anyone with any sort of reason to complain. Anyone remember the guy in Vancouver with the cell phone video that was "erased by the Cops" and the BCCLU and PLS supported his rants...and didn't withdraw their statememnts or apologize, when independant video showed that he wasn't even there?

I am not saying that there are no bad Cops...I am saying that the public and special interest groups are ready to hang them out to dry without any sort of process that they would demand for anyone else. Bad Cops, after processing, deserve to be prosecuted if the facts support the charges...so do bad teachers, lawyers, doctors etc. There should be one standard for everyone and all should be held accountable, Cops included.

The issue with this argument was that I wished there was further clarification to why an an independent body would be more or less bias. It seems like a lot of your position hinges on the fact that a lot of institituions do investigate themselves (which in my opinion is still somewhat not a great thing to do).

[Phil@rise]

Zulutango Its simple really. They are in a position of power over us and have the authority to kill us. Upon their own discretion.
Its that errant disctretion that leads to mistakes and deaths. If there is no fear of accountability then there will be less attempt at sound judgment. To make matters worst when their suspended with pay for the duration of investigations its of no consequence either its just a vacation and when it all blows over like it always does its right back to work like nothing happened.
An independant body is intended to protect the public with its judgment. A public that is fed up and wants to see heads roll. Said independant body would like to keep its job and the only way to do so is to keep the popo in line and make the public feel safe

[gars]

Police kill perfectly healthy humans with the full intention of doing so.

Doctors kill sick people by mistake with the intention of making them better?

I don't know what's worse, killing someone on purpose, or incompetence leading to death - especially since the latter seems to kill many, MANY more people.

The issue with this argument was that I wished there was further clarification to why an an independent body would be more or less bias. It seems like a lot of your position hinges on the fact that a lot of institituions do investigate themselves (which in my opinion is still somewhat not a great thing to do).

I don't disagree with an independent body doing investigations - I'm more worried if they use an independent body with zero knowledge/experience with the matters they are investigating.

[StylinRed]

@Zulu

I'm not okay with any 'body' investigating themselves but on the matter of the financial world I think the govt. does the investigating, no? (when the issue is too great that is)


As for doctors I wholeheartedly agree based on personal knowledge I'm actually disgusted that they get to investigate themselves.

I think I'm as passionate about the issue of the Medical world as well as the Policing, when other peoples lives are in hand scrutiny should be left to an outside party, period.


The only problem with these investigations is what actual cooperation will be given to the investigators; sadly I doubt there will be any cooperation except for the feigned kind.

[seakrait]

The only problem with these investigations is what actual cooperation will be given to the investigators; sadly I doubt there will be any cooperation except for the feigned kind.

If this investigative body is to really work, there will be legislation (the aforementioned bill in the OP's post) that will "force" the police agency to hand over all necessary information under penalty of fines or worse.

[seakrait]

I don't disagree with an independent body doing investigations - I'm more worried if they use an independent body with zero knowledge/experience with the matters they are investigating.
+1

[Neva]

Zulutango Its simple really. They are in a position of power over us and have the authority to kill us. Upon their own discretion.
Its that errant disctretion that leads to mistakes and deaths. If there is no fear of accountability then there will be less attempt at sound judgment. To make matters worst when their suspended with pay for the duration of investigations its of no consequence either its just a vacation and when it all blows over like it always does its right back to work like nothing happened.
An independant body is intended to protect the public with its judgment. A public that is fed up and wants to see heads roll. Said independant body would like to keep its job and the only way to do so is to keep the popo in line and make the public feel safe

This and exactly this. When you're in a position where you hold power over the public, serving the public, it only makes sense to have the same public drop the hammer if need be.

[l2_narain]

''And now the police can do the same as any citizen... lawyer up and tell the investigators to take a hike.
So where will they find experienced investigators with no police experience?
And note they will have police authority. Does this not make them police investigating police?
Probably want to carry guns as well.
Wonder who will investigate them when they screw up?
Can the police get help from Eby if they complain their rights are being violated?''

lol...

Anyways, there are civilian oversight in other parts of the world, and in Ontario it's called the SIU

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Investigations_Unit

Click on this link for a recent story on civilian oversight:
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/WFive/20110408/w5-above-the-law-110409/

edit: my point is the proposal is flawed because there hasn't been much research done to make this happen.
IMO, I think it's just a government push to focus on other topics...

[Hehe]

I agree with this. I think Doctors should be externally audited though too.

The thing with external audit to doctors is, you can't really have an expertise in their science without being one.

[zulutango]

But civillians with no training or experience in dealing with what Cops do, are qualified? Never been in a life and death situation where someone was trying to kill you and had to decide to shoot or not shoot? Do you know that, unlike TV and movies, it is impossible to shoot the knife out of someone's hand, wound them in the arm or leg...hell, you are just lucky to hit them centre mass because of the stress you are undergoing ?

You also can't communicate with someone undergoing a mental health crisis and get them to nicely calm down. A 3 day training session I attended that was sponsored by the Schitzo Assn. told us that...and so did the actual Schitzo patients who were part of the training.....yet the family members who know this, insist that Police didn't try to talk to their violent, out of control family member who was attacking the Cops. The guy who tried to kill me and four others with a knife was exactly this and his mother went on a rampage against me and the Cops.

If you have never tried to safely arrest a small 90lb female drug addict in the throes of a violent episode, trying to not hurt her, but she doesn't feel any pain, so it requires 4 large Cops to manhandle her for 5 minutes to get her into the back of the Cop car, you shouldn't judge.

I had an uninformed member of the public yell at me and 5 others while we tried to arrest a man in a store parking lot. He was resisting, was punching at us, had been pepper sprayed ( with no effect) and then started kicking at us as we forced him up against a car to try to cuff him. He kicked me on the shins so I used my baton to strike the kicking leg to get him to stop...he did. The witness yelled police brutality and started taping us. The witness did not know that this same man had just brutally beaten a mentally and physically handicapped man who had refused to sell him anymore booze in a liquor store and he was doing his best to do the same to us.

All of the scenarios I have presented are from actual situations and similar ones have been splattered all mover the media with public outcry. Without any investigation or understanding of the real world dynamics of policing, let alone any form of legal due process the Cops are hung out to dry. Police are permitted by the criminal code to use force when needed and the job requires it. Very few violent people want to go quietly. If the force is excessive, then there should be reprocussions...but the determination should be made by somebody who is qualified and who knows what happens in the real world.

[StylinRed]

no offense zulu, but you seem to be too far on the defensive here, you're already questioning credentials/experience, relatability, etc. before there is even anyone to criticize (what if they recruited combat veterans among the commitee) there is more to investigate than merely the interaction between officer and detainee. conspiracy after the fact is also something that must be looked at (like the officers that were charged with lying just now) There are many factors to consider, when investigating, and many are capable of doing so, like how judges must consider many aspects
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

i understand your view; its like 'how can you commentate on the hockey game when you don't even know how to play hockey' but obviously commentators/investigators will have to learn the game before the play

[zulutango]

No offence taken. :) The announcement said that they would only allow investigators with Police experience during the first 5 years. After that they would not be permitted. To train someone to investigate, in a classroom, without having hands-on real world experience, does not give the investigator the background and experience needed to make informed judgements. Reading a book on how to fly an airplane does not make you qualified to say if a pilot made the correct landing decision.

[nns]

I think you're reading it wrong. It says they'll allow ex-cops as investigators so long as they haven't served in BC in the last 5 yrs. IE, they can hire AB, ON, etc cops as investigators, in theory, immediately.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Glove]

maybe if the cops werent such pricks to everyone and anyone, and didnt start killing people when its 5 on 1,

there wouldnt be an issue

[geeknerd]

"Hey, we dont need civilians to investigate our fuck ups because they might fuck up."

[Phil@rise]

another thing that you gotta think of also in the comparison between docs lawyers and cops and the respective investigations they may be enduring for any potential wrong doing.
cops get payed while under investigation the rest don't

[zulutango]

Not true...some Cops are suspended without pay but I have never heard of a teacher, doctor, engineer, lawyer, stockbroker etc ever being suspended without pay while they investigate themselves. Unless someone is found guilty, they are supposed to be presumed innocent...and that includes Police. If you suspend them with no pay, how are they supposed to live while the investigation is being completed? Just because somebody accuses somebody of something, it doesn't automatically make them guilty, just accused.

[Phil@rise]

Not true...some Cops are suspended without pay but I have never heard of a teacher, doctor, engineer, lawyer, stockbroker etc ever being suspended without pay while they investigate themselves. Unless someone is found guilty, they are supposed to be presumed innocent...and that includes Police. If you suspend them with no pay, how are they supposed to live while the investigation is being completed? Just because somebody accuses somebody of something, it doesn't automatically make them guilty, just accused.

Docs don't work doc's don't make money its that simple same as lawyers. They are not payed a salary or hourly wage they are payed piece work

[RiceIntegraRS]

zulutango, what type of cases get investigated anyways?

1. The ones where cops use force when the suspect is obviously a threat to them, like wielding a knife or some type of weapon?

2. Cases like where the guy got tasered in the airport and died, or when the abbotsford man got kicked for no apparent reason other than moving a tad bit slow, or when a man was beaten by 2 cops for being accused of domestic violence and later found out it was the wrong person or when a Victoria man was kicked and punched to the ground when he was in no threat to a cop or anyone in the vicinity.

Cause in that # 2 column im about 75% sure all of them got away with basically a slap on the wrist. And you wonder why everyone aside from u are actually for this new Bill. But i could be wrong..........

And the cops that tasered the man in the airport are being charged for lying in there deposition i believe not for the act itself.

I should add that im aware that the main part of the arguement is whose gonna be doing the investigating. Well b4 it was themselves, your argument is that it should be people with atleast experience in the field, but i honestly think that if you had it your way the outcome in the cases being investigated wont change at all and thats the problem.

[geeknerd]

Not true...some Cops are suspended without pay but I have never heard of a teacher, doctor, engineer, lawyer, stockbroker etc ever being suspended without pay while they investigate themselves. Unless someone is found guilty, they are supposed to be presumed innocent...and that includes Police. If you suspend them with no pay, how are they supposed to live while the investigation is being completed? Just because somebody accuses somebody of something, it doesn't automatically make them guilty, just accused.

hey, if they are fined for their actions/found guilty, do they have to give back the money they got while they were suspended w/ pay?