Police Self-Investigations; Conflict of Interest?

[Wilber]

Where'd your 2nd party get to? As I see it you've got the officers being investigated - the 1st party, the SIU - the 2nd and then the auditors - the 3rd.

I would think the complainant would be the 1st party, the police involved in the complaint the 2nd party and the investigating agency the 3rd party, but why pick nits.

Yes but only because their bosses could. The propensity for corruption, secrecy with an intent to deceive, trickles down not up.

That's my point, it does trickle down and those at the top are not accountable to local government and citizens, as are the people in charge of municipal forces. It's not corruption as such, just a greater opportunity to ass cover. It is also a Crown Corporation attitude that I have seen before with organizations who have always been able to operate in their own little world with little interference. "This is the way we have always done things so it must be the best and we aren't going to change". This can't help but result in rot if it isn't corrected.

If the Dzienski case hadn't involved the RCMP, it would have been investigated by another department, there would have been much less ability to cover up and in all probability an entirely different result.

This is true of DFO, and many other sectors of society that should be governed by local/regional citizenry. This is a governance issue. Auditing the procedures and process followed by SIU's is a different matter.

The police are supposed to be at arms length from the politicians otherwise they wouldn't be able to investigate government.

Interesting you should bring up the DFO. The DFO doesn't carry guns nor is it authorized to use force. They also seem to be in the process of making as big a mess of the west coast fishery as they did the east. Why is that? Could it be that the people making the decisions won't have to live with the consequences because they are accountable only to Ottawa mandarins, not those who earn their living from the fishery? Hmm, sounds very similar to the RCMP.

I'm wondering what the big deal is here. The Stanley Park Six have been brought up. They were convicted remember. In the case of Monty Robinson and the motorcyclist he killed, Delta police recommended charges of impaired driving and dangerous driving causing death. It was the Crown which decided not to pursue those charges. If you've noticed from the number of impaired charges that have been laid against police officers in recent years, they aren't getting cut much slack from their fellow officers. This issue is more optics than substance.

[M.Dancer]

I seriously doubt a non police entity would have made arrests in this case.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/vancouver-cop-fired-for-allegedly-trafficking-in-marijuana/article1542456/

He said a top investigative team, including officers from a squad that dismantled a notorious gang, were assigned to the case.

To ensure there was no internal leaks on the investigation, the team worked out of a special office set up outside the police department.

“Over the course of the investigation we had as many as 30 officers working on the case, including investigators from our Professional Standards Unit, Major Crime Section, and other experts within the VPD,” said Mr. Chu.

The VPD also had RCMP assistance on the case, he said.

[Argus]

I think the police, when accused or involved in an event that warrents an investigation, should be investigated by an organization that has no experiance in criminal investigations or the criminal code.

That should make you happy.

If there's anything we've learned courtesy of the RCMP it's that they can't be trusted to investigate their own. I recognize that it's better to have another force do an investigation but I still think there is a bias in the fraternity of policing which can cause any police investigator to look more favorably on the testimony of a police officer than anyone else. Therefore I reluctantly have come to the conclusion that a civilian force, which has capable, experienced investigators and clear knowledge of the criminal code should investigate all serious complaints.

[Argus]

Can anyone who can read know how to conduct an investigation? Judges are the end product of 20 odd years of exp[eriance....never the less, there has been no demonstrated need for the SIU to be replaced...they get their convictions far better than a well meaning group of dilletants.

The SIU IS a civilian unit independent of the police, which is exactly what the poster is calling for.

[Argus]

No, just the need to subject SIU's to independent third party audits has been demonstrated.

See Dziekanski et al.

Dziekanski's death was not investigated by an SIU. It was investigated by the RCMP who found nothing wrong with it. The lies on the constables' reports were accepted without question.

[Argus]

What does he have to do with anything? There was no criminal investigation and no one was charged with a crime.

They should have been. Perhaps when the final report comes out they will be. They certainly should no longer be police officers.

[Argus]

So the fact there was no crime, no criminal intent...means you think that is a reason for an outside police force to investigate?

The fact they acted inappropriately and then lied on their official statements - accepted without question by the RCMP - certainly indicates the validity of the theory that the RCMP can't be trusted to investigate their own. You might also examine the Ian Bush investigation. A rookie constable shot Bush, whose crime was having an open can of beer outside a local hockey arena, in the back of the head "in self defense", while he was being released from the local jail, then destroyed all his notes from that day. When he was questioned by police, the questions were supplied to him ahead of time so he could think about them first.

[Argus]

To my mind, that incident is a reason to not have public investigations of the police. There was a a lot of second-guessing in the reporting.

There was a lot of exposure of what kind of lying incompetent weasels the four constables are, too.

[Argus]

They never testified in court. They appeared at a public inquiry

And lied, and lied, and lied, and lied...

[wyly]

Police are street wise- little old ladies are not. IF we can not trust seniour police officers in charge then all is lost. As a young guy..I was quite wild and had a few clashes with police...all I know is that I was never mistreated and always respected - because I empowered them with respect also...I just don't understand how a person can be so stupid to irritate cops...I was not brought up that way...ONCE a cop understands that you are intelligent enough to get it...they act properly - If you offend them - you MIGHT just get offended back because cops are human beings with failings also.

my experience is that they can't be trusted, there are good cops and bad cops and they will lie and cover up to protect their own...even if an investigation was fair and honest it will always be questioned because there are those that cannot be trusted...an independent investigation is the best procedure...

Edited April 22, 2010 by wyly

[Born Free]

You might also examine the Ian Bush investigation. A rookie constable shot Bush, whose crime was having an open can of beer outside a local hockey arena, in the back of the head "in self defense", while he was being released from the local jail, then destroyed all his notes from that day. When he was questioned by police, the questions were supplied to him ahead of time so he could think about them first.

The RCMP saw the hole in the back of his head and claimed that it was the worst case of suicide they'd ever seen.

A pox on the RCMP. The litany of wrongdoings by those folks is legendary...

[eyeball]

Interesting you should bring up the DFO. The DFO doesn't carry guns nor is it authorized to use force.

DFO enforcement officers definitely carry guns.

They also seem to be in the process of making as big a mess of the west coast fishery as they did the east. Why is that? Could it be that the people making the decisions won't have to live with the consequences because they are accountable only to Ottawa mandarins, not those who earn their living from the fishery? Hmm, sounds very similar to the RCMP.

Precisely, but not because they have guns.

I'm wondering what the big deal is here. The Stanley Park Six have been brought up. They were convicted remember. In the case of Monty Robinson and the motorcyclist he killed, Delta police recommended charges of impaired driving and dangerous driving causing death. It was the Crown which decided not to pursue those charges. If you've noticed from the number of impaired charges that have been laid against police officers in recent years, they aren't getting cut much slack from their fellow officers. This issue is more optics than substance.

Funny you should put it that way. The big deal for me is that we might get one step closer to making the government transparent and accountable.

[wyly]

I'm wondering what the big deal is here. The Stanley Park Six have been brought up. They were convicted remember. In the case of Monty Robinson and the motorcyclist he killed, Delta police recommended charges of impaired driving and dangerous driving causing death. It was the Crown which decided not to pursue those charges. If you've noticed from the number of impaired charges that have been laid against police officers in recent years, they aren't getting cut much slack from their fellow officers. This issue is more optics than substance.

and I know of case where a cop was so drunk that the officers pulled him over driving down the wrong side of the street at 1:30 am, he could barely stand so they drove him home, no DUI...I know this true because I knew the guy that drove him home and worse yet I was drinking with the other guy, I left the pub at mindnight after two beers he left at closing after a couple of pitchers...so do I trust cops to police themselves? no...

[Machjo]

As for the OP, my opinion is that it depends on whether the proper checks and balances are in place.

[eyeball]

As for the OP, my opinion is that it depends on whether the proper checks and balances are in place.

Hence the need for independent third party audits to prove and ensure they're in place. 'Trust me' just doesn't cut it no matter who is saying it.

[MysTerri]

Hence the need for independent third party audits to prove and ensure they're in place. 'Trust me' just doesn't cut it no matter who is saying it.

That is so true!

What it boils down to is that you HAVE to trust a bunch of independent somebodies (who are elected and paid) to lead jurors in investigations into police misconduct charges. Jurors, to me, are the employers of police and if someone doesn't trust them, don't argue with the boss; it's the boss's right to participate.

Of course if you can bring that about, you are free to try and talk the government into having overseers or jurors, but it seems a waste of time and money. All I ever hear from politicians is how to cut things out not include them.

Edited April 22, 2010 by MysTerri

[Wilber]

That is so true!

What it boils down to is that you HAVE to trust a bunch of independent somebodies (who are elected and paid) to lead jurors in investigations into police misconduct charges. Jurors, to me, are the employers of police and if someone doesn't trust them, don't argue with the boss; it's the boss's right to participate.

Of course if you can bring that about, you are free to try and talk the government into having overseers or jurors, but it seems a waste of time and money. All I ever hear from politicians is how to cut things out not include them.

Why shouldn't everyone be subject to the same process when how they have done their job is in question? Why just the police? What you seem to be advocating is every time the police use force they should be subject to a trial.

[Argus]

Why shouldn't everyone be subject to the same process when how they have done their job is in question? Why just the police? What you seem to be advocating is every time the police use force they should be subject to a trial.

Not everyone can hurt others the way police can. If you hurt someone, there ought to be someone looking in to see that you were justified in doing so.

[Wilber]

Not everyone can hurt others the way police can. If you hurt someone, there ought to be someone looking in to see that you were justified in doing so.

Of course but not a jury inless there are criminal charges laid.

[MysTerri]

The RCMP saw the hole in the back of his head and claimed that it was the worst case of suicide they'd ever seen.

A pox on the RCMP. The litany of wrongdoings by those folks is legendary...

Yes what happened to Ian Bush is a prefect example of the malignancy police self-investigations propagate.

Sign my petition, copy it and collect signatures yourself. Let's stop police self-investigations. They are DEADLY to the public.

http://www.gopetition.com/online/35135.html

[MysTerri]

Why shouldn't everyone be subject to the same process when how they have done their job is in question? Why just the police? What you seem to be advocating is every time the police use force they should be subject to a trial.

No not a trial, an independent investigation. Meaning .... the police don't get to supply the evidence if there is to be a trial. People with a vested interest in justice, truth and fairness investigates police when there is cause to, and the independent team gets to supply the evidence for a trail if it feels one is warranted.

[eyeball]

Why shouldn't everyone be subject to the same process when how they have done their job is in question? Why just the police? What you seem to be advocating is every time the police use force they should be subject to a trial.

An audit is not a trial.

Anyone who's job could adversely impact critical areas of public safety, the environment or the economy, and especially the democratic system that governs these should be subject to audits.

[MysTerri]

Police are street wise- little old ladies are not. IF we can not trust seniour police officers in charge then all is lost.... - If you offend them - you MIGHT just get offended back because cops are human beings with failings also.

You're obvious blindness as the the wisdom of little old ladies and trust in police who fail too, are at the root of the problem we have with police today. Even little old ladies know that.

Police DO fail and also fail at an investigations when they have the chance to cover for someone behind a blue wall. History has shown that truth over and over and over and over.

There is no argument FOR police investigating themselves that is not full of failure.