Richard Rosenthal says he's ready to make a mark as B.C.'s first independent police monitor by investigating serious incidents involving officers in a timely and transparent way that the province has not seen before.
After repeated scrutiny over police investigating themselves, the Independent Investigations Office (IIO) is set to take over criminal investigations into all on- and off-duty incidents involving police in B.C. that result in death and serious harm starting Sept. 10. Rosenthal heads the agency which is required to be led by a civilian who has never been a police officer.
The independent body was a major recommendation from the Braidwood Commission which probed the death of Robert Dziekanski who was Tasered by the RCMP at the Vancouver International Airport in 2007.
Rosenthal jumped at the chance to head the IIO but also to live in B.C. which he told The Huffington Post B.C. is “a great place to raise my kids. It’s a great place for everything, for work, for play.” He says he's even given his new chainsaw a spin already.
Rosenthal, who carried a gun while prosecuting gangsters in Los Angeles, created Portland’s first police oversight agency and then made a mark in Denver as its first independent police monitor. He left few fans within the force in Colorado with his no-holds-barred approach to investigating police brutality and calling for stiffer punishments for officers when he saw fit.
Unlike similar agencies in Alberta and Ontario, Rosenthal has ensured that only half of the B.C. office is made up of former police officers and the other half are civilians with investigative experience from places such as the coroner’s service.
Richard Rosenthal speaks during a news conference in Vancouver in December 2011. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jonathan Hayward)
Why is it so significant that you have investigators with diverse backgrounds in terms of ethnicity and experience?
It’s important to have diversity in all kinds of respects. We have to make sure we conduct competent investigations so we have to have investigators with experience to conduct serious investigations.
We need people who will look at these investigations from a fresh perspective and from a perspective of ensuring that the public will have faith and integrity in the investigation and a faith that the office will be independent of the police, not just structurally but also in the way we think and evaluate investigations.
Clearly the past practice of having the police conducting the investigations into these incidents was not resulting in the level of public confidence that’s necessary in order for the police to succeed.
That "level of public confidence" — that doesn’t necessarily mean that those internal police investigations were flawed or missing information; is it just about public perception?
It can be. Obviously there were instances where police investigations had indications of bias and that seemed to be the biggest problem as opposed to them not including all of the aspects that they should. But even there, there have been past criticisms of investigations and their quality. But the reality is that no matter how competent an investigation would be or how fair, as long as it’s conducted by the police, of the police there will be a certain lack of confidence or concern about the bias that the people conducting the investigations and reviewing the incidents may have.
The high profile investigations such as the one that lead to Braidwood — the Dziekanski case — and more recently Monty Robinson. How would the independent agency have handled those differently?
I don’t want to go in to the details of how those cases were specifically handled other than they would have fallen into our jurisdiction.
I can say the one thing we would be able to do under our new statute is we’re in a position to publicly report on those cases in a more robust fashion than has been done in the past. And so part of our mandate, part of our plans are, if a case does not result in a referral to Crown, and it’s a significant case involving deaths or what have you, we will publicly report and explain why. If a case does go to Crown -- obviously we can’t issue a public report there but what we do then is we provide the support to Crown that’s necessary.
What’s been the biggest challenge in setting up the office?
The biggest challenge is the geography of the province of trying to make sure that we are both capable of investigating urban and rural incidents. And be capable of getting out to the various locations in the province in a timely fashion.
A lot of the complaints is why do these investigations take so long? Is there a target in decreasing the time it takes to get results to the public?
Yes, that’s huge. Currently it can take well over a year, even two years before an officer or the public is aware of whether or not a case is going to be referred to Crown for a charging decision. And it doesn’t serve anyone well. The officer has the Sword of Damocles hanging over their head. The family members do not know what’s going to happen and are left in the dark for extended periods of time which will lead to frustration and frankly assumptions that there’s a cover-up going on.
This is not something solely suffered by B.C. This is an issue that’s suffered everywhere including the U.S. with the big agencies. Timeliness has repeatedly been a factor in interfering with public accountability.
It’s safe to say those goals will be sooner than the one to two years that you mentioned?
My hope is frankly that people may be shocked at how quickly in some cases we are able to get it done because they’re used to it taking so long.
Is there a different approach in the US to independent police oversight versus Canada?
In the U.S. there are several large civilian-led bodies ... but they are primarily responsible for the administrative investigations and the disciplinary aspect of it, not the criminal investigations. That’s something that’s different in Canada. So that’s something where Canada is further along than the U.S.
Who’s your favourite crime-fighting hero?
(Laughs) The problem is that when you’re in the business, you just don’t really something you pay a lot of attention to. (Sighs) Can I tell you my favourite book or movie instead? Bonfire of the Vanities, the book, not the movie. And then for movie, To Kill a Mockingbird.
This interview has been condensed and edited.
Sister of man shot and killed by RCMP has questions
Sister of man shot and killed by RCMP has questions
Sister of man shot and killed by RCMP has questions
VANCOUVER/CKNW (AM980)
James Lewis
Email news tips to jlewis@cknw.com
9/13/2012
The sister of the man shot by the RCMP in Prince George says he was a decorated veteran, struggling with post-traumatic stress.
40-year old Greg Matters was killed Monday night, after a long stand-off with the mounties.
His sister Tracey says she has confidence in the investigation, but also has serious questions.
"Why was it necessary to use lethal force on a man, on his own property, who didn't have a firearm?
Why wasn't my brother allowed to talk to his doctor, his mother, or family friends during the stand-off... when this was requested?"
The new "Independent Investigation Office" remains on-scene.
Let us all hope the new Independent Investigation Office is not just a lot of noise like ther new commissioner.
Sister of man shot and killed by RCMP has questions
VANCOUVER/CKNW (AM980)
James Lewis
Email news tips to jlewis@cknw.com
9/13/2012
The sister of the man shot by the RCMP in Prince George says he was a decorated veteran, struggling with post-traumatic stress.
40-year old Greg Matters was killed Monday night, after a long stand-off with the mounties.
His sister Tracey says she has confidence in the investigation, but also has serious questions.
"Why was it necessary to use lethal force on a man, on his own property, who didn't have a firearm?
Why wasn't my brother allowed to talk to his doctor, his mother, or family friends during the stand-off... when this was requested?"
The new "Independent Investigation Office" remains on-scene.
Let us all hope the new Independent Investigation Office is not just a lot of noise like ther new commissioner.
BCCLA urges RCMP to 'get out of the editorial and media policy business'
BC
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association is calling on the RCMP to “get out of the editorial and media policy business” after recent media-related actions by a northern B.C. detachment.The B.C. Civil Liberties Association is calling on the RCMP to “get out of the editorial and media policy business” after recent media-related actions by a northern B.C. detachment.
“The RCMP has a job to police impartially and to share public safety information with media outlets impartially, even if those outlets may be critical of some aspects of their work,” said Lindsay Lyster, President of the BCCLA, in a release.
The Terrace RCMP allegedly advised the editor of Terrace Daily – a local news and blogging website – that an article “which lampooned the local mayor and RCMP Inspector had offended the force,” according to the release. The editor also alleged that the RCMP in Terrace told him “that TerraceDaily.ca would not receive news releases until they changed their editorial policies to give satirical stories that criticized the RCMP and local politicians lower prominence.”
The Terrace RCMP confirmed that they had stopped sending news releases, said Const. Angela Rabut, because “at this point, the Terrace Daily online is not a credible news source.”
The editor is “running more of a blog-site, where there’s a lot of opinion and fictional stories mixed in with credible news stories,” she said.
The detachment is also under fire by the BCCLA for a letter written by Insp. Dana Hart to the CRTC in support of a merger between Astral Media – a local TV station – and Bell Canada.
“The RCMP may well prefer the coverage of one media outlet to the other,” said BCCLA’s Lyster, “but retaliation for negative coverage by withholding public information is not acceptable, nor is using an impartial public platform to advocate for the private interests of media outlets that provide favourable coverage.”
Hart has since asked for the letter to be withdrawn, said Rabut, adding “it was not his intent to choose sides in this at all, it’s just to show support for a local [TV] station.”
“We have one TV station in town, and we work very closely with them,” she said, “and so we’ve always supported them [as] they support us.”
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/BCCLA+urges+RCMP+editorial+media+policy+business/7168655/story.html#ixzz25XcP183ECLA urges RCMP to 'get out of the editorial and media policy business'
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association is calling on the RCMP to “get out of the editorial and media policy business” after recent media-related actions by a northern B.C. detachment.The B.C. Civil Liberties Association is calling on the RCMP to “get out of the editorial and media policy business” after recent media-related actions by a northern B.C. detachment.
“The RCMP has a job to police impartially and to share public safety information with media outlets impartially, even if those outlets may be critical of some aspects of their work,” said Lindsay Lyster, President of the BCCLA, in a release.
The Terrace RCMP allegedly advised the editor of Terrace Daily – a local news and blogging website – that an article “which lampooned the local mayor and RCMP Inspector had offended the force,” according to the release. The editor also alleged that the RCMP in Terrace told him “that TerraceDaily.ca would not receive news releases until they changed their editorial policies to give satirical stories that criticized the RCMP and local politicians lower prominence.”
The Terrace RCMP confirmed that they had stopped sending news releases, said Const. Angela Rabut, because “at this point, the Terrace Daily online is not a credible news source.”
The editor is “running more of a blog-site, where there’s a lot of opinion and fictional stories mixed in with credible news stories,” she said.
The detachment is also under fire by the BCCLA for a letter written by Insp. Dana Hart to the CRTC in support of a merger between Astral Media – a local TV station – and Bell Canada.
“The RCMP may well prefer the coverage of one media outlet to the other,” said BCCLA’s Lyster, “but retaliation for negative coverage by withholding public information is not acceptable, nor is using an impartial public platform to advocate for the private interests of media outlets that provide favourable coverage.”
Hart has since asked for the letter to be withdrawn, said Rabut, adding “it was not his intent to choose sides in this at all, it’s just to show support for a local [TV] station.”
“We have one TV station in town, and we work very closely with them,” she said, “and so we’ve always supported them [as] they support us.”
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/BCCLA+urges+RCMP+editorial+media+policy+business/7168655/story.html#ixzz25XcP183ECLA urges RCMP to 'get out of the editorial and media policy business'
Sun News : Mounties can't retaliate for negative coverage, BCCLA says
Sun News : Mounties can't retaliate for negative coverage, BCCLA says
Credits: MARCO VIGLIOTTI/ HIGH RIVER TIMES/ QMI AGENCY
BYRON CHU
QMI AGENCY
VANCOUVER -- The RCMP are coming under more fire in B.C. over what critics say are ongoing attempts to squash media commentary that is critical of the force and its members.
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) is demanding the Terrace RCMP detachment resume sending press releases to the Terrace Daily News, after delivery ceased in June.
Publisher Merv Ritchie said the media outlet was blacklisted after publishing a story and BCCLA letter critical of RCMP Inspector Dana Hart, and after two other articles critiqued and spoofed the Mounties.
Terrace RCMP spokesperson Angela Rabut wrote to Ritchie explaining, "The Terrace RCMP issues news releases to credible media outlets. The Terrace Daily does not fall in this category."
"She said we have to change the way we do our website," Ritchie said, adding she told him to take satirical pieces off the front home page.
"But that's the way we run our website. Everything goes on the front page. And that's not going to change."
Rabut did not return calls for comment on Friday. Calls to the provincial RCMP media relations department also went unreturned.
"Retaliation for negative coverage by withholding public information is not acceptable," BCCLA president Lindsay Lyster said in a media release.
Lyster also criticized Hart, a former member of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's security team, for writing a letter to the CRTC on official RCMP letterhead supporting Bell Communications acquisition of Astral Media.
In the letter dated July 27, Hart wrote, "Terrace RCMP rely on our local Astral Media extensively to inform the public about issues affecting public safety "¦ BCE's acquisition will "¦ also help to ensure the production of new Canadian content."
Lyster said it's unacceptable for Hart "to advocate for the private interests of media outlets that provide favourable coverage."
Controversy has dogged the RCMP in B.C. this year over its reactions and responses to critics.
A week ago, the force raided the home of a man connected to the Re-Sergeance Alliance blog, which aimed to publish stories of corruption inside the force. The BCCLA has criticized the RCMP for obtaining the search warrant using the rare charge of defamatory libel, which the rights group said has been struck down as unconstitutional in at least three provinces.
In February, Osoyoos Times editor Keith Lacey apologized for publishing a "slanderous" editorial about the behaviour of an RCMP officer when he was pulled over while driving, after the force threatened to release video of the incident.
Simon Fraser University criminal psychology professor Ehor Boyanowsky, who is also a member of the Canadian Constitution Federation, said it's important to protect the public's democratic right to criticize the police, "even if the criticism turns out ultimately not to be true."
Defamatory libel
Courts in several provinces have ruled that S.301 of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional as it says anyone who publishes defamatory material, whether truthful or not, is committing defamatory libel, an indictable offence with a maximum penalty of two years in jail.
In 1996, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal upheld a ruling in the case of John and Johanna Lucas, who had carried placards and posted flyers criticizing a child sexual abuse investigation. The court ruled that S.301 was not a justified limit on the freedom of expression.
Also in 1996, the Ontario Court of Justice also struck down S.301, used to charge Bradley Waugh and Ravin Gill who put up wanted posters of six Kingston Penitentiary guards implicated in the suspicious death of an inmate. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association intervened, and the judge ruled S.301 of no force and effect in Ontario.
In 2008, the Newfoundland Supreme Court ruled S.301 unconstitutional when it was used to charge Byron Prior for distributing flyers alleging a public justice official raped and impregnated his 12-year-old sister some 40 years before. The court ruled S.301 could not stand because it prevents the publishing of material even if it is truthful.
In May of this year, prosecutors in New Brunswick dropped libel charges against Charles LeBlanc for posting comments on his blog about a police officer. Director of public prosecutions Luc Labonte said that with the previous rulings striking down S.301 in other jurisdictions, "we really didn't think that any court in this province would rule against those other cases." Fredericton police had obtained a warrant for defamatory libel to search LeBlanc's house and seize his computer.
Section 300 of the Criminal Code also addresses defamatory libel with a maximum penalty of up to five years' prison, but civil liberty groups say it is much more difficult for prosecutors to achieve a conviction under that charge. Prosecutors must prove that a suspect is fully aware his statement is false, and that he published his statement with the specific intent to defame.
Credits: MARCO VIGLIOTTI/ HIGH RIVER TIMES/ QMI AGENCY
BYRON CHU
QMI AGENCY
VANCOUVER -- The RCMP are coming under more fire in B.C. over what critics say are ongoing attempts to squash media commentary that is critical of the force and its members.
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) is demanding the Terrace RCMP detachment resume sending press releases to the Terrace Daily News, after delivery ceased in June.
Publisher Merv Ritchie said the media outlet was blacklisted after publishing a story and BCCLA letter critical of RCMP Inspector Dana Hart, and after two other articles critiqued and spoofed the Mounties.
Terrace RCMP spokesperson Angela Rabut wrote to Ritchie explaining, "The Terrace RCMP issues news releases to credible media outlets. The Terrace Daily does not fall in this category."
"She said we have to change the way we do our website," Ritchie said, adding she told him to take satirical pieces off the front home page.
"But that's the way we run our website. Everything goes on the front page. And that's not going to change."
Rabut did not return calls for comment on Friday. Calls to the provincial RCMP media relations department also went unreturned.
"Retaliation for negative coverage by withholding public information is not acceptable," BCCLA president Lindsay Lyster said in a media release.
Lyster also criticized Hart, a former member of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's security team, for writing a letter to the CRTC on official RCMP letterhead supporting Bell Communications acquisition of Astral Media.
In the letter dated July 27, Hart wrote, "Terrace RCMP rely on our local Astral Media extensively to inform the public about issues affecting public safety "¦ BCE's acquisition will "¦ also help to ensure the production of new Canadian content."
Lyster said it's unacceptable for Hart "to advocate for the private interests of media outlets that provide favourable coverage."
Controversy has dogged the RCMP in B.C. this year over its reactions and responses to critics.
A week ago, the force raided the home of a man connected to the Re-Sergeance Alliance blog, which aimed to publish stories of corruption inside the force. The BCCLA has criticized the RCMP for obtaining the search warrant using the rare charge of defamatory libel, which the rights group said has been struck down as unconstitutional in at least three provinces.
In February, Osoyoos Times editor Keith Lacey apologized for publishing a "slanderous" editorial about the behaviour of an RCMP officer when he was pulled over while driving, after the force threatened to release video of the incident.
Simon Fraser University criminal psychology professor Ehor Boyanowsky, who is also a member of the Canadian Constitution Federation, said it's important to protect the public's democratic right to criticize the police, "even if the criticism turns out ultimately not to be true."
Defamatory libel
Courts in several provinces have ruled that S.301 of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional as it says anyone who publishes defamatory material, whether truthful or not, is committing defamatory libel, an indictable offence with a maximum penalty of two years in jail.
In 1996, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal upheld a ruling in the case of John and Johanna Lucas, who had carried placards and posted flyers criticizing a child sexual abuse investigation. The court ruled that S.301 was not a justified limit on the freedom of expression.
Also in 1996, the Ontario Court of Justice also struck down S.301, used to charge Bradley Waugh and Ravin Gill who put up wanted posters of six Kingston Penitentiary guards implicated in the suspicious death of an inmate. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association intervened, and the judge ruled S.301 of no force and effect in Ontario.
In 2008, the Newfoundland Supreme Court ruled S.301 unconstitutional when it was used to charge Byron Prior for distributing flyers alleging a public justice official raped and impregnated his 12-year-old sister some 40 years before. The court ruled S.301 could not stand because it prevents the publishing of material even if it is truthful.
In May of this year, prosecutors in New Brunswick dropped libel charges against Charles LeBlanc for posting comments on his blog about a police officer. Director of public prosecutions Luc Labonte said that with the previous rulings striking down S.301 in other jurisdictions, "we really didn't think that any court in this province would rule against those other cases." Fredericton police had obtained a warrant for defamatory libel to search LeBlanc's house and seize his computer.
Section 300 of the Criminal Code also addresses defamatory libel with a maximum penalty of up to five years' prison, but civil liberty groups say it is much more difficult for prosecutors to achieve a conviction under that charge. Prosecutors must prove that a suspect is fully aware his statement is false, and that he published his statement with the specific intent to defame.
RCMP must disclose intimate relationships, draft policy states
RCMP must disclose intimate relationships, draft policy states
RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson .Photograph by: Blair Gable , ReutersSupervisors and subordinates in the RCMP who engage in consensual, intimate relationships will be required to “immediately” report in writing details of their relationships under a draft administrative policy obtained by Postmedia News.
Such relationships raise concerns about potential conflicts of interest, preferential treatment and sexual harassment, the draft policy states, and could be damaging to morale, productivity and public confidence in the force.
In an interview Friday, Commissioner Bob Paulson said the policy is not intended to regulate people’s lives or prohibit relationships from forming — “I’m all for relationships,” he said — but to ensure that the workplace remains respectful and professional.
“The trouble with relationships where there’s a relative power imbalance in the workplace should be pretty evident to everybody,” he said.
The draft comes at a time when Paulson has been trying to clamp down on officer misconduct and is grappling with allegations of pervasive sexual harassment and discrimination within the force.
The draft “interpersonal workplace relationships” policy defines reportable relationships as “ongoing or singular consensual, intimate, romantic or sexual relationships” between those in positions of authority and their subordinates or those who fall under their sphere of control.
The policy would also apply to those working together in undercover operations and employees working on the same tactical troops, emergency response teams or dive teams.
Employees involved in such relationships would be required to report the “existence, nature and extent” of their relationships to a manager immediately in writing.
Once notified of such relationships, managers would work with human resource officers to discuss whether intervention is needed. Options could include removing or transferring one of the employees, reassigning duties, or “any other measures to mitigate concerns of conflict of interest, preferential treatment, or a reasonable apprehension of bias within the workplace.”
Failure to report an interpersonal workplace relationship could result in disciplinary action, including dismissal, the draft policy states.
Jennifer Berdahl, a professor of organizational behaviour at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, said Friday that such disclosure policies are common in the working world. Some companies are stricter than others.
Berdahl said the RCMP appears to be moving in the right direction. Such transparency, she said, not only helps to mitigate conflicts of interest but could also help uncover coercive relationships and manage souring relationships before they get really nasty.
“When people try to hide these things, it backfires,” she said. “People pick up on it, rumours start spreading. You don’t want that going around the RCMP.
“Better to have it on the record,” she said. “It can be awkward, but it’s going to come out anyway.”
Staff Sgt. Mike Casault, who sits on the national executive of the RCMP’s staff relations program, said Friday members of the internal affairs committee are still reviewing the draft to ensure the policy doesn’t infringe on members’ privacy and charter rights.
Paulson said he hopes to have a policy in place in the fall.
© Copyright (c) Postmedia News
Too much, too late.
RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson .Photograph by: Blair Gable , ReutersSupervisors and subordinates in the RCMP who engage in consensual, intimate relationships will be required to “immediately” report in writing details of their relationships under a draft administrative policy obtained by Postmedia News.
Such relationships raise concerns about potential conflicts of interest, preferential treatment and sexual harassment, the draft policy states, and could be damaging to morale, productivity and public confidence in the force.
In an interview Friday, Commissioner Bob Paulson said the policy is not intended to regulate people’s lives or prohibit relationships from forming — “I’m all for relationships,” he said — but to ensure that the workplace remains respectful and professional.
“The trouble with relationships where there’s a relative power imbalance in the workplace should be pretty evident to everybody,” he said.
The draft comes at a time when Paulson has been trying to clamp down on officer misconduct and is grappling with allegations of pervasive sexual harassment and discrimination within the force.
The draft “interpersonal workplace relationships” policy defines reportable relationships as “ongoing or singular consensual, intimate, romantic or sexual relationships” between those in positions of authority and their subordinates or those who fall under their sphere of control.
The policy would also apply to those working together in undercover operations and employees working on the same tactical troops, emergency response teams or dive teams.
Employees involved in such relationships would be required to report the “existence, nature and extent” of their relationships to a manager immediately in writing.
Once notified of such relationships, managers would work with human resource officers to discuss whether intervention is needed. Options could include removing or transferring one of the employees, reassigning duties, or “any other measures to mitigate concerns of conflict of interest, preferential treatment, or a reasonable apprehension of bias within the workplace.”
Failure to report an interpersonal workplace relationship could result in disciplinary action, including dismissal, the draft policy states.
Jennifer Berdahl, a professor of organizational behaviour at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, said Friday that such disclosure policies are common in the working world. Some companies are stricter than others.
Berdahl said the RCMP appears to be moving in the right direction. Such transparency, she said, not only helps to mitigate conflicts of interest but could also help uncover coercive relationships and manage souring relationships before they get really nasty.
“When people try to hide these things, it backfires,” she said. “People pick up on it, rumours start spreading. You don’t want that going around the RCMP.
“Better to have it on the record,” she said. “It can be awkward, but it’s going to come out anyway.”
Staff Sgt. Mike Casault, who sits on the national executive of the RCMP’s staff relations program, said Friday members of the internal affairs committee are still reviewing the draft to ensure the policy doesn’t infringe on members’ privacy and charter rights.
Paulson said he hopes to have a policy in place in the fall.
© Copyright (c) Postmedia News
Too much, too late.
Understanding the RCMP
The Red Coats
Understanding the RCMP
by George Forbes B.A., B.Ed.
The RCMP, among other police forces in Canada, often has members visit schools and give talks to students. These members address many issues of great interest to the students including specific laws and consequences of breaking those laws. They also talk about the actual job of policing, just as visiting professionals like accountants and dentists and skilled tradespeople of all kinds do when invited to speak in the classrooms. However, unlike other visitors, the police are also routinely invited to offer group counselling to the children upon the subject of peer pressure and it's many facets- like bullying and gangs to give two of the most important examples. The assumption is that by the very nature of their work with the victims of negative peer pressure- the police seem to be the obvious ones to ask. When you think about it though, particularly in the case of the RCMP in BC, the police have proven themselves time and time again to be the last people we should ask to speak to our children about peer pressure, bullying and gangs because- to quote...... "they are one".
For once in the field of psychological terminology, the accepted definitions and explanations of peer pressure make perfect common sense to everybody. A child starts school with a set of philosophical, moral and social standards that he or she acquired in their first five years of life. In order to get along in his new school and on the playground each child must adapt his or her behaviour to that prescribed by the teacher and by his classmates. How smoothly this goes depends upon how closely the standards the child arrived with conform to the standards he or she encounters at the school, and his ability to adapt to the differences. As we all know, some children do better at it than others and really, when you get right down to it, not much more needs to be said. All of us know about it because we all went through it. Even if we haven't been near a school in years we all remember and understand how it works. What is particularly interesting to note, however, is that when we apply our understanding of how peer pressure works specifically to the RCMP, we find to our dismay that the RCMP as an organization and the individual members themselves are perfect poster examples of all that can go wrong when negative peer pressure is allowed free reign.
The 'Bad Apple' Theory
The bogus 'Bad Apple Theory' is a good place to start. Most people don't dwell on the subject of the RCMP and it's many well published failings because of the many other things in life that require our immediate attention. However, when they were interrupted in their daily routine and specifically asked in a recent Angus Reid poll in BC, over 70% of us said the RCMP as an organization is failing us. That failure is a fact that has become such common knowledge that it isn't even necessary to take the time here to cite specific examples of the many excessively violent and often cowardly acts perpetrated by RCMP gang members. Routine inappropriate use of tazers and pepper spray, the punching of handcuffed people by officers, money crimes, sexual excess and depravity, harrassment, and downright investigative incompetance. Even the RCMP spokespeople now tend to say they will fix it, rather than trying to flog the blatantly false assertion that it isn't happening all the time.
Most of the survey respondents felt somehow disloyal about having to denounce the formerly well respected RCMP organization, and because of that feeling many were quick to add that while the RCMP as a whole is failing us, they have heard the fault originates with a few 'bad apples' who are spoiling everything. This 'Bad Apple' theory is so seriously flawed that is completely ludicrous, but the RCMP brass and their political apologists support it with enthusiasm because they mistakenly think it helps take the blame for the degeneration of the RCMP away from where it belongs- the top. (They add to this 'bad apple' excuse the thin claim that they are hamstrung by the RCMP Act when it comes to discipline. I will dispose of that in a few words while discussing the 'bad apple' theory).
What is wrong with the 'Bad Apple' theory?
Unpleasant though it may be to contemplate, it is pretty clear to all of us that the 'bad apples'- vicious swaggering bullies, moral reprobates and down-right crooks- would simply not be able to function within the RCMP if the RCMP members themselves would refuse to tolerate their presence rather than meekly consent to work alongside them in a business as usual manner. If you are an RCMP officer reading this- and if you are not too far gone- you will be feeling more than a little awkward at this observation. The simple every day fact is that if you have any backbone at all you would use the normal social instruements of behaviour that you learned in the school yard to keep the miscreants among you at arms length. Do you seriously think it isn't partly your own fault that we civilians look upon you with less respect as every month goes by with scandal heaped upon scandal?
An officer punches a handcuffed teenage girl in the face- you ostracize him. You refuse to treat him with any friendliness or respect. Right? Well apparently not. By going on with business as usual you condone their actions, and by condoning them you become their accomplices. How can you fail to see that? You voluntarily tar yourself with their brush, and in doing so you earn and deserve our disrespect. Also, by the way and while we're on the subject, if the top brass was serious and came out from hiding behind the RCMP Act, they could disarm the rejects they claim can't be fired and assign them to public service work like washing dishes in a soup kitchen or picking up highway garbage for their eight hours a day. Who does the top brass think they're kidding? It's as embarrassing to all of us that the RCMP brass spouts this kind of tripe and thinks we're buying it, as it is disappointing that the rank and file don't make the job untenable for the thugs and crooks among them.
So much for the 'bad apple' theory. You might as well say the Hell's Angels are a really nice bunch of swell guys except for a few bad apples. It would be more accurate to say that the RCMP has become a gang- a gang like any other whose members have more loyalty to their fellow members than to anybody outside their group.
Back to you, you long suffering regular RCMP hopefully non-villain member. When you joined the RCMP and went off to the training depot, like just about everybody starting a new job you had to compromise your internal standards that you had at that point in order to avoid rejection within your new group. Sound familiar from your school days? The difference between you and us is, you threw so many of your own standards completely down the toilet that you allowed yourself to be turned into somebody else! Let's skip a few steps and fast-forward five or six years to you being a fairly experienced officer now. You have seen the public begin to complain more and more frequently about various crimes many of your fellow officers have committed without those officers even being brought to book like any civilian would have been- let alone fired. The lack of consequences for their aberrant behaviour is a travesty and an insult to a people who deserve much better.
This point must be hammered home: we civilians understand that the mutant philosophical and moral standards that RCMP gang members now maintain in order to be accepted as worthy members, are standards that are totally in conflict with our standards. More and more, as we read daily accounts, we cannot bring ourselves to excuse the RCMP- neither the top brass nor the rank and file- for actively embracing a culture whose standards allow- even require- that they tolerate and even accept the behaviour of so many so extremely deviant fellow members. By tolerating them the gang itself becomes complicit. Make no mistake- by tolerating the rejects the rank and file members knowingly betray us. While the brass should have the rejects sweeping sidewalks in the first place, the fact remains that having been stuck with them by thier leaders, the rank and file haven't ostracized those rejects like they should have. No individual member has to be friendly or civil with anybody they don't respect, even if they are too chicken- hearted to be more obvious about it than simply giving them the cold shoulder. The fact that RCMP gang members, of all people, lecture to our children about peer pressure, bullying and gangs is a sad joke.
Before turning to the subject of gang mentality within the RCMP, I'd like to say a few things about the RCMP 'apologists' I mentioned earlier. RCMP apologists are the people who actively try to get us to excuse the RCMP. No matter what the latest crime or outrage committed by an RCMP member, the apologists will write in to the newspaper comment sections and saying in defence of the RCMP things like, " How would you like it if some creep treated you that way?" or, "These guys are on the front line while you sit safely at home criticising them", or even derisively "Listen to the Civil Liberties Association complain about this one!". Well here are a few facts for those apologists (many of whom I can't stop myself from suspecting are paid by the RCMP to read the papers and submit such comments no matter how outrageous the RCMP behaviour being reported) :
School teachers are often subjected to some extremely bad behaviour from students- some of whom are bigger than the teachers, stronger, and extremely volatile. Bus drivers, nurses, social workers and many others will know first hand what I'm talking about.When confronted by these same antagonistic children and adults on the streets, RCMP officers have tazers and pepper spray at their disposal, as well as usually being in the company of at least one other officer similarly equipped. An RCMP officer will tazer anyone from eleven to eighty years old rather than risk being touched. When it comes to being hurt on the job, the RCMP is tenth on the list, far below farmers, fishermen, construction workers and garbage men! And the RCMP wouldn't even be in tenth place if they didn't have so many car accidents. A police officer with a grade twelve education and one year on the job gets paid over sixty thousand dollars a year with full benefits, clothing supplied, excellent pension and retirement at an early age. The apologists for the RCMP have no more than a load of hooey to sling.
Before examining gang mentality within the RCMP I'll conclude this peer pressure aspect of understanding the RCMP with the following nearly twenty year old report but still perfectly relevant today about the importance of individual officers having the guts to stand up......
Former Police Corruption-Fighter on Peer Pressure and Ethics
By SELWYN RAAB
Published: June 18, 1995
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/18/nyregion/former-police-corruption-fighter-on-peer-pressure-and-ethics.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
John Guido was in charge of uprooting and deterring corruption in New York City's Police Department from 1972 to 1986 -- a period viewed by most police experts as one of the cleanest in the department's history. He retired in 1986 as Chief of Inspectional Services and the Internal Affairs Division, with a reputation as the most hated commander on the force because of his relentless investigations.
Last week, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and Police Comissioner William J. Bratton announced a new set of anticorruption measures to clean up a department troubled by a series of scandals. In an interview. Mr. Guido (pronounced GUY-doe) discussed the corruption problems that are again besetting the department and ways of combatting police misconduct.
Q. Why can't the department stop, or at least contain, this chronic series of corruption and abuse problems?
A. I think the problem is the police itself -- I'm talking about the patrolmen basically. What it is, here, they outnumber the supervisors 10 to 1. And somehow the department failed to instill in these individuals a sense of doing the right thing. They come out -- I don't care how long you train them in the academy, you could keep them there a year, two years, three years -- the minute they come out, the first tour, they go into a radio car. There's a veteran police officer, he's got decorations from his shoulder down to his hip, and he tells him: "Hey, kid, forget about that baloney they told you in the academy. Here's how the job is done." And that's his peer and I think peer pressure will far, will far outlast any supervisory pressure.
The best thing I have in my experience -- and I'll never forget this until the day I die -- is how the policeman should react. I was the head of the I.A.D. and somebody came in and said, "There's an officer from the Ninth Precinct who wants to talk to you. He wants to make an appointment to see you." I said, "Bring him in." And this guys comes in -- his name was Robert Ellis -- and he's in the Ninth Precinct. I said, "What's on your mind, Bob?" And the guy started telling me a harrowing tale -- I couldn't really believe it. I said, "I wonder if he's playing with a full deck." So I said, "Well, why are you doing this?" And here's the key. He was in the U.N. Security Force, and he came in the job kind of late, he was in his 30's. He said, "I always wanted to be a cop." And he said: "I'm proud of my job, I'm proud of being a cop. But these guys are so corrupt."
So he tells a story. There's a clique, between seven or nine men, ripping off drug addicts in the Ninth Precinct. He said they come and brag, and one guy carries a bugle, and when the guy won't tell him where the money is he blasts out his eardrums. Medically, you know, we substantiated later medically and it proved to be right.
So anyway, at the time when he came in I had my reservations. "Listen," I said, "you know you have to help us now."
He said, "Of course."
So I, you know, kind of almost fell off my chair. I said, "You know we want to wire up your car."
He said, "Why don't you wire me up?"
I said, "Oh, you're going to assist us?"
"You tell me what you want me to do," he said, "and it's done."
So the next day he started in. We put him in with one of the cops in a civilian car -- they were trying to get him to go into the group. They used to come into the locker room and just throw bundles of money in there and tell him what a jerk he was for not joining. Next day, he wears the wire and there it is, everything he's saying, it's corroborated.
Q. Can you produce enough honest officers to turn in others?
A. Well, they won't do it. I personally blame the P.B.A. because the thing is this: They built up a subculture which is stronger than the -- 10 times stronger than the supervisory culture.
Q. What is that subculture that you think is created by the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association?
A. The subculture is that they've got to stick together, that the world is against them and everything else.
Q. Are corruption and brutality inevitable? Is it a way of life in the department?
A. It really doesn't have to be if you could get more Robert Ellises. You know, here's what I found. Back in the late 60's and the early 70's I had a Public Morals Division, that's a high corruption-hazard enforcement. And twice my men came to me and turned in their own guys. Twice! Because the majority of the men in there -- and I don't know, maybe it was my leadership, because I used to be with them all over, I used to live with them -- and twice they came in and told me about officers that were deviating because there were more honest guys than there were thieves. And the thieves, you know, who would have broke out under different leadership.
But I think the thing is this. I have a dream, you know, that they are turning out a platoon and there's 40 cops. And one cop says, "Look, I want to make it known to everybody that I'm working with, if I see any corrupt practices, I'm turning that police officer in." And then another guy raises his hand and he says, "I'm with you." And before you know it out of the 40, 35 raise their hands -- they won, they won. That's the end of corruption.
Q. But you say that's a dream.
A. That's a dream. Because the culture -- they have a stronger culture.
Q. Is there any possibility that the police can police themselves?
A. Yeah, somehow if they produce more Robert Ellises.
Q. You mean more honest officers?
A. Yeah. Well, no, no, no. Don't say more honest cops. I think you have enough honest cops. What you have is the desire for the honest cops to influence the others that aren't.
Q. What is the single most important step that the department can take to deter corruption and misbehavior?
A. It's still in the police officers that there's more honest cops than there are corrupt ones and the honest ones should win out.
Back to......
The Red Coats
Understanding the RCMP
Conclusion:
'Groupthink' is an interesting term for an obvious phenomena. Members of sports teams, fraternities and civilian service organizations and hobby groups of many kinds psychologically reinforce and strenghthen each others pre-existing views that caused them to join the group in the first place. A T-shirt joke I read and enjoyed illustrates the idea perfectly: it depicts two fishermen outside their tents in the early morning darkness organizing their gear while a hunter with his rifle walked by in the background of their campsite. One fisherman said to the other "Can you imagine that idiot getting up this early to go hunting?!"
Unlike many harmless or even positive types of groupthink, members of the RCMP lean upon groupthink as a self-defence mechanism, rather than as an instruement to intensify their experience in a friendly or positive motivational spirit. They depend on groupthink to help preserve their sanity in the face of growing criticism all around them. They depend upon 'groupthink' in exactly the same way and for most of the same reasons as a moon-shine hillbilly family, secret society, or simple gang of thugs. Unfortunately, more and more, the RCMP resort to swaggering bravado and barely concealed contempt and sometimes outright violence and brutality in an effort to maintain their authority in the face of our growing knowledge. Tasers and pepper spray are favourite means of communicating with the public- young and old. They cannot succeed. Police through the ages have had to rely in the long run upon the cooperation and basic approval of the society they serve. The Red Coats have squandered their best weapon- the goodwill of the people. The Indians used to call them 'Red Coats' in terms of respect. Now neither the Indians nor anybody else would call the Red Coats at 911 unless they want to have the gang come out to mug somebody.
I believe we have now reached the point as a society that we have had enough. The 70% disapproval of the RCMP in a recent Angus Reid poll says it all. Canadians are slow to anger, but harder to appease once angered. Our provincial and federal political leaders and the top brass in the RCMP are making a big mistake thinking that the promise of reform will win them time, when it is plain that "bad apples"- who should have been ostracized from within anyway- could be immediately disarmed and shunted to public service work in charity organizations until the government changes the RCMP Act. Lately I have heard that a reformed Police Act will not be retroactive. At first I found this to be heaping insult upon insult, but then I realized it wouldn't matter if it was retroactive or not if the rejects were assigned to unarmed kitchen duty and ostracized by their peers. They don't have to wear special dunce caps or be humiliated in any public way. They just have to be disarmed and employed as highly paid undercover RCMP charity workers until they can be fired- if ever. Nobody has to know who they are. All we have to know is that they have been disarmed and have had their authority taken away.
Sound fair? You bettcha!
Understanding the RCMP
by George Forbes B.A., B.Ed.
The RCMP, among other police forces in Canada, often has members visit schools and give talks to students. These members address many issues of great interest to the students including specific laws and consequences of breaking those laws. They also talk about the actual job of policing, just as visiting professionals like accountants and dentists and skilled tradespeople of all kinds do when invited to speak in the classrooms. However, unlike other visitors, the police are also routinely invited to offer group counselling to the children upon the subject of peer pressure and it's many facets- like bullying and gangs to give two of the most important examples. The assumption is that by the very nature of their work with the victims of negative peer pressure- the police seem to be the obvious ones to ask. When you think about it though, particularly in the case of the RCMP in BC, the police have proven themselves time and time again to be the last people we should ask to speak to our children about peer pressure, bullying and gangs because- to quote...... "they are one".
For once in the field of psychological terminology, the accepted definitions and explanations of peer pressure make perfect common sense to everybody. A child starts school with a set of philosophical, moral and social standards that he or she acquired in their first five years of life. In order to get along in his new school and on the playground each child must adapt his or her behaviour to that prescribed by the teacher and by his classmates. How smoothly this goes depends upon how closely the standards the child arrived with conform to the standards he or she encounters at the school, and his ability to adapt to the differences. As we all know, some children do better at it than others and really, when you get right down to it, not much more needs to be said. All of us know about it because we all went through it. Even if we haven't been near a school in years we all remember and understand how it works. What is particularly interesting to note, however, is that when we apply our understanding of how peer pressure works specifically to the RCMP, we find to our dismay that the RCMP as an organization and the individual members themselves are perfect poster examples of all that can go wrong when negative peer pressure is allowed free reign.
The 'Bad Apple' Theory
The bogus 'Bad Apple Theory' is a good place to start. Most people don't dwell on the subject of the RCMP and it's many well published failings because of the many other things in life that require our immediate attention. However, when they were interrupted in their daily routine and specifically asked in a recent Angus Reid poll in BC, over 70% of us said the RCMP as an organization is failing us. That failure is a fact that has become such common knowledge that it isn't even necessary to take the time here to cite specific examples of the many excessively violent and often cowardly acts perpetrated by RCMP gang members. Routine inappropriate use of tazers and pepper spray, the punching of handcuffed people by officers, money crimes, sexual excess and depravity, harrassment, and downright investigative incompetance. Even the RCMP spokespeople now tend to say they will fix it, rather than trying to flog the blatantly false assertion that it isn't happening all the time.
Most of the survey respondents felt somehow disloyal about having to denounce the formerly well respected RCMP organization, and because of that feeling many were quick to add that while the RCMP as a whole is failing us, they have heard the fault originates with a few 'bad apples' who are spoiling everything. This 'Bad Apple' theory is so seriously flawed that is completely ludicrous, but the RCMP brass and their political apologists support it with enthusiasm because they mistakenly think it helps take the blame for the degeneration of the RCMP away from where it belongs- the top. (They add to this 'bad apple' excuse the thin claim that they are hamstrung by the RCMP Act when it comes to discipline. I will dispose of that in a few words while discussing the 'bad apple' theory).
What is wrong with the 'Bad Apple' theory?
Unpleasant though it may be to contemplate, it is pretty clear to all of us that the 'bad apples'- vicious swaggering bullies, moral reprobates and down-right crooks- would simply not be able to function within the RCMP if the RCMP members themselves would refuse to tolerate their presence rather than meekly consent to work alongside them in a business as usual manner. If you are an RCMP officer reading this- and if you are not too far gone- you will be feeling more than a little awkward at this observation. The simple every day fact is that if you have any backbone at all you would use the normal social instruements of behaviour that you learned in the school yard to keep the miscreants among you at arms length. Do you seriously think it isn't partly your own fault that we civilians look upon you with less respect as every month goes by with scandal heaped upon scandal?
An officer punches a handcuffed teenage girl in the face- you ostracize him. You refuse to treat him with any friendliness or respect. Right? Well apparently not. By going on with business as usual you condone their actions, and by condoning them you become their accomplices. How can you fail to see that? You voluntarily tar yourself with their brush, and in doing so you earn and deserve our disrespect. Also, by the way and while we're on the subject, if the top brass was serious and came out from hiding behind the RCMP Act, they could disarm the rejects they claim can't be fired and assign them to public service work like washing dishes in a soup kitchen or picking up highway garbage for their eight hours a day. Who does the top brass think they're kidding? It's as embarrassing to all of us that the RCMP brass spouts this kind of tripe and thinks we're buying it, as it is disappointing that the rank and file don't make the job untenable for the thugs and crooks among them.
So much for the 'bad apple' theory. You might as well say the Hell's Angels are a really nice bunch of swell guys except for a few bad apples. It would be more accurate to say that the RCMP has become a gang- a gang like any other whose members have more loyalty to their fellow members than to anybody outside their group.
Back to you, you long suffering regular RCMP hopefully non-villain member. When you joined the RCMP and went off to the training depot, like just about everybody starting a new job you had to compromise your internal standards that you had at that point in order to avoid rejection within your new group. Sound familiar from your school days? The difference between you and us is, you threw so many of your own standards completely down the toilet that you allowed yourself to be turned into somebody else! Let's skip a few steps and fast-forward five or six years to you being a fairly experienced officer now. You have seen the public begin to complain more and more frequently about various crimes many of your fellow officers have committed without those officers even being brought to book like any civilian would have been- let alone fired. The lack of consequences for their aberrant behaviour is a travesty and an insult to a people who deserve much better.
This point must be hammered home: we civilians understand that the mutant philosophical and moral standards that RCMP gang members now maintain in order to be accepted as worthy members, are standards that are totally in conflict with our standards. More and more, as we read daily accounts, we cannot bring ourselves to excuse the RCMP- neither the top brass nor the rank and file- for actively embracing a culture whose standards allow- even require- that they tolerate and even accept the behaviour of so many so extremely deviant fellow members. By tolerating them the gang itself becomes complicit. Make no mistake- by tolerating the rejects the rank and file members knowingly betray us. While the brass should have the rejects sweeping sidewalks in the first place, the fact remains that having been stuck with them by thier leaders, the rank and file haven't ostracized those rejects like they should have. No individual member has to be friendly or civil with anybody they don't respect, even if they are too chicken- hearted to be more obvious about it than simply giving them the cold shoulder. The fact that RCMP gang members, of all people, lecture to our children about peer pressure, bullying and gangs is a sad joke.
Before turning to the subject of gang mentality within the RCMP, I'd like to say a few things about the RCMP 'apologists' I mentioned earlier. RCMP apologists are the people who actively try to get us to excuse the RCMP. No matter what the latest crime or outrage committed by an RCMP member, the apologists will write in to the newspaper comment sections and saying in defence of the RCMP things like, " How would you like it if some creep treated you that way?" or, "These guys are on the front line while you sit safely at home criticising them", or even derisively "Listen to the Civil Liberties Association complain about this one!". Well here are a few facts for those apologists (many of whom I can't stop myself from suspecting are paid by the RCMP to read the papers and submit such comments no matter how outrageous the RCMP behaviour being reported) :
School teachers are often subjected to some extremely bad behaviour from students- some of whom are bigger than the teachers, stronger, and extremely volatile. Bus drivers, nurses, social workers and many others will know first hand what I'm talking about.When confronted by these same antagonistic children and adults on the streets, RCMP officers have tazers and pepper spray at their disposal, as well as usually being in the company of at least one other officer similarly equipped. An RCMP officer will tazer anyone from eleven to eighty years old rather than risk being touched. When it comes to being hurt on the job, the RCMP is tenth on the list, far below farmers, fishermen, construction workers and garbage men! And the RCMP wouldn't even be in tenth place if they didn't have so many car accidents. A police officer with a grade twelve education and one year on the job gets paid over sixty thousand dollars a year with full benefits, clothing supplied, excellent pension and retirement at an early age. The apologists for the RCMP have no more than a load of hooey to sling.
Before examining gang mentality within the RCMP I'll conclude this peer pressure aspect of understanding the RCMP with the following nearly twenty year old report but still perfectly relevant today about the importance of individual officers having the guts to stand up......
Former Police Corruption-Fighter on Peer Pressure and Ethics
By SELWYN RAAB
Published: June 18, 1995
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/18/nyregion/former-police-corruption-fighter-on-peer-pressure-and-ethics.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
John Guido was in charge of uprooting and deterring corruption in New York City's Police Department from 1972 to 1986 -- a period viewed by most police experts as one of the cleanest in the department's history. He retired in 1986 as Chief of Inspectional Services and the Internal Affairs Division, with a reputation as the most hated commander on the force because of his relentless investigations.
Last week, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and Police Comissioner William J. Bratton announced a new set of anticorruption measures to clean up a department troubled by a series of scandals. In an interview. Mr. Guido (pronounced GUY-doe) discussed the corruption problems that are again besetting the department and ways of combatting police misconduct.
Q. Why can't the department stop, or at least contain, this chronic series of corruption and abuse problems?
A. I think the problem is the police itself -- I'm talking about the patrolmen basically. What it is, here, they outnumber the supervisors 10 to 1. And somehow the department failed to instill in these individuals a sense of doing the right thing. They come out -- I don't care how long you train them in the academy, you could keep them there a year, two years, three years -- the minute they come out, the first tour, they go into a radio car. There's a veteran police officer, he's got decorations from his shoulder down to his hip, and he tells him: "Hey, kid, forget about that baloney they told you in the academy. Here's how the job is done." And that's his peer and I think peer pressure will far, will far outlast any supervisory pressure.
The best thing I have in my experience -- and I'll never forget this until the day I die -- is how the policeman should react. I was the head of the I.A.D. and somebody came in and said, "There's an officer from the Ninth Precinct who wants to talk to you. He wants to make an appointment to see you." I said, "Bring him in." And this guys comes in -- his name was Robert Ellis -- and he's in the Ninth Precinct. I said, "What's on your mind, Bob?" And the guy started telling me a harrowing tale -- I couldn't really believe it. I said, "I wonder if he's playing with a full deck." So I said, "Well, why are you doing this?" And here's the key. He was in the U.N. Security Force, and he came in the job kind of late, he was in his 30's. He said, "I always wanted to be a cop." And he said: "I'm proud of my job, I'm proud of being a cop. But these guys are so corrupt."
So he tells a story. There's a clique, between seven or nine men, ripping off drug addicts in the Ninth Precinct. He said they come and brag, and one guy carries a bugle, and when the guy won't tell him where the money is he blasts out his eardrums. Medically, you know, we substantiated later medically and it proved to be right.
So anyway, at the time when he came in I had my reservations. "Listen," I said, "you know you have to help us now."
He said, "Of course."
So I, you know, kind of almost fell off my chair. I said, "You know we want to wire up your car."
He said, "Why don't you wire me up?"
I said, "Oh, you're going to assist us?"
"You tell me what you want me to do," he said, "and it's done."
So the next day he started in. We put him in with one of the cops in a civilian car -- they were trying to get him to go into the group. They used to come into the locker room and just throw bundles of money in there and tell him what a jerk he was for not joining. Next day, he wears the wire and there it is, everything he's saying, it's corroborated.
Q. Can you produce enough honest officers to turn in others?
A. Well, they won't do it. I personally blame the P.B.A. because the thing is this: They built up a subculture which is stronger than the -- 10 times stronger than the supervisory culture.
Q. What is that subculture that you think is created by the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association?
A. The subculture is that they've got to stick together, that the world is against them and everything else.
Q. Are corruption and brutality inevitable? Is it a way of life in the department?
A. It really doesn't have to be if you could get more Robert Ellises. You know, here's what I found. Back in the late 60's and the early 70's I had a Public Morals Division, that's a high corruption-hazard enforcement. And twice my men came to me and turned in their own guys. Twice! Because the majority of the men in there -- and I don't know, maybe it was my leadership, because I used to be with them all over, I used to live with them -- and twice they came in and told me about officers that were deviating because there were more honest guys than there were thieves. And the thieves, you know, who would have broke out under different leadership.
But I think the thing is this. I have a dream, you know, that they are turning out a platoon and there's 40 cops. And one cop says, "Look, I want to make it known to everybody that I'm working with, if I see any corrupt practices, I'm turning that police officer in." And then another guy raises his hand and he says, "I'm with you." And before you know it out of the 40, 35 raise their hands -- they won, they won. That's the end of corruption.
Q. But you say that's a dream.
A. That's a dream. Because the culture -- they have a stronger culture.
Q. Is there any possibility that the police can police themselves?
A. Yeah, somehow if they produce more Robert Ellises.
Q. You mean more honest officers?
A. Yeah. Well, no, no, no. Don't say more honest cops. I think you have enough honest cops. What you have is the desire for the honest cops to influence the others that aren't.
Q. What is the single most important step that the department can take to deter corruption and misbehavior?
A. It's still in the police officers that there's more honest cops than there are corrupt ones and the honest ones should win out.
Back to......
The Red Coats
Understanding the RCMP
Conclusion:
'Groupthink' is an interesting term for an obvious phenomena. Members of sports teams, fraternities and civilian service organizations and hobby groups of many kinds psychologically reinforce and strenghthen each others pre-existing views that caused them to join the group in the first place. A T-shirt joke I read and enjoyed illustrates the idea perfectly: it depicts two fishermen outside their tents in the early morning darkness organizing their gear while a hunter with his rifle walked by in the background of their campsite. One fisherman said to the other "Can you imagine that idiot getting up this early to go hunting?!"
Unlike many harmless or even positive types of groupthink, members of the RCMP lean upon groupthink as a self-defence mechanism, rather than as an instruement to intensify their experience in a friendly or positive motivational spirit. They depend on groupthink to help preserve their sanity in the face of growing criticism all around them. They depend upon 'groupthink' in exactly the same way and for most of the same reasons as a moon-shine hillbilly family, secret society, or simple gang of thugs. Unfortunately, more and more, the RCMP resort to swaggering bravado and barely concealed contempt and sometimes outright violence and brutality in an effort to maintain their authority in the face of our growing knowledge. Tasers and pepper spray are favourite means of communicating with the public- young and old. They cannot succeed. Police through the ages have had to rely in the long run upon the cooperation and basic approval of the society they serve. The Red Coats have squandered their best weapon- the goodwill of the people. The Indians used to call them 'Red Coats' in terms of respect. Now neither the Indians nor anybody else would call the Red Coats at 911 unless they want to have the gang come out to mug somebody.
I believe we have now reached the point as a society that we have had enough. The 70% disapproval of the RCMP in a recent Angus Reid poll says it all. Canadians are slow to anger, but harder to appease once angered. Our provincial and federal political leaders and the top brass in the RCMP are making a big mistake thinking that the promise of reform will win them time, when it is plain that "bad apples"- who should have been ostracized from within anyway- could be immediately disarmed and shunted to public service work in charity organizations until the government changes the RCMP Act. Lately I have heard that a reformed Police Act will not be retroactive. At first I found this to be heaping insult upon insult, but then I realized it wouldn't matter if it was retroactive or not if the rejects were assigned to unarmed kitchen duty and ostracized by their peers. They don't have to wear special dunce caps or be humiliated in any public way. They just have to be disarmed and employed as highly paid undercover RCMP charity workers until they can be fired- if ever. Nobody has to know who they are. All we have to know is that they have been disarmed and have had their authority taken away.
Sound fair? You bettcha!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
