Jump to content

Two RCMP Constables Die in Saskatchewan


Recommended Posts

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...cmp-deaths.html

Someone must know where the shooter is.

A sad day for the RCMP and all of Canada.

Two Mounties killed in a domestic dispute. Four Mounties killed in a situation where they knew the perp was armed. Are these guys getting the right training to deal with these situations?

There is only so much training you can get on unpredictable human nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...cmp-deaths.html

Someone must know where the shooter is.

A sad day for the RCMP and all of Canada.

Two Mounties killed in a domestic dispute. Four Mounties killed in a situation where they knew the perp was armed. Are these guys getting the right training to deal with these situations?

There is only so much training you can get on unpredictable human nature.

True, but I fear that both of these recent tragedies were not really "unpredicatable" and are in large part due to the fact that the RCMP as a whole, and the individual officers themselves, are not bringing the appropriate level of preparedness and risk calculation to the execution of their duties.

In small-town Saskatchewan, the need for a high-speed chase is extremely rare...so when it happens it brings a level of challenge, excitement, and novelty to an otherwise "routine patrol". It is way too easy for an officer to get caught up in the moment...thinking about the great story they will have for their colleauges, friends and family once they've ended the chase by apprehending the suspect...and fail to objectively and clinically analyse the situation for all of the attendant risks and contingencies.

These officers knew they were chasing down an emotionally disturbed, highly charged man who felt he had just been screwed out of a significant inheritance due to a bitter family legal dispute. They should have assumed that if and when his vehicle was stopped he would come out with a blazing shotgun, and they should have planned for the safety of themselves and anyone who might be in the general area should such an eventuality occur.

If they could not sufficiently manage the risk of that situation, they ought to have backed off and let the suspect "outrun" them. He could have been arrested later in a much less emotionally erratic and much more tactically controlled set of circumstances.

Sure, I have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, and when I interact with violent people at work it is after the police have already caught them and they are "controlled" so I don't pretend to know exactly what it is like to be an RCMP officer in pursuit of a suspect. But I've seen enough cases to know that complacency is what gets officers killed, and in Canada, complacency is what we do best.

The fairytale is over...(why Mayerthorpe didn't tell us this I'm not sure)...the general population is increasingly less respective of the uniform, increasingly more willing to use violence, and in fact, alarmingly more likely to attack a police officer BECAUSE THEY ARE A POLICE OFFICER!

If we don't make serious changes to the training and arrest / apprehension protocols to reflect this new reality, then we will literally have a nationwide dead cop epidemic on our hands. Arguably, it has already started.

Let me pose a question...if it is not poor incident management that is to blame, why then does it seem that every time a suspect opens fire officers end up dead? If police are approaching volitile situations with an appropriate balance of the risk of losing a suspect versus the risk of losing a life...shouldn't more shootings at police be only "attempted" murders?

FTA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me pose a question...if it is not poor incident management that is to blame, why then does it seem that every time a suspect opens fire officers end up dead? If police are approaching volitile situations with an appropriate balance of the risk of losing a suspect versus the risk of losing a life...shouldn't more shootings at police be only "attempted" murders?

As a lawyer, you know it is not simply a question of losing a suspect. It is not just losing a suspect , it is killing a human being. If that is not enough on its own, you know the kind of scrutiny they come under any time they shoot someone and there is the slightest question that there may have been an alternative.

However the question of why so many and why are most of them RCMP is a good one and needs to be answered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will play the devil's advocate.

Let me pose a question...if it is not poor incident management that is to blame, why then does it seem that every time a suspect opens fire officers end up dead?
Maybe there is more to these stories that we never hear?
If police are approaching volitile situations with an appropriate balance of the risk of losing a suspect versus the risk of losing a life...shouldn't more shootings at police be only "attempted" murders?
Maybe the cops in question have a deliberate incentive to catch these people alive?

Maybe these murderers (in their own minds) in question were acting in self-defense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me pose a question...if it is not poor incident management that is to blame, why then does it seem that every time a suspect opens fire officers end up dead? If police are approaching volitile situations with an appropriate balance of the risk of losing a suspect versus the risk of losing a life...shouldn't more shootings at police be only "attempted" murders?

As a lawyer, you know it is not simply a question of losing a suspect. It is not just losing a suspect , it is killing a human being. If that is not enough on its own, you know the kind of scrutiny they come under any time they shoot someone and there is the slightest question that there may have been an alternative.

However the question of why so many and why are most of them RCMP is a good one and needs to be answered.

I think my question was not clear.

I suppose I should have said losing a suspect (and I mean they get away, not they get killed) v. losing an officer's life (i.e. determining the amount of acceptable risk for an officer to place him or herself in when trying to apprehend a suspect).

If the situation is you are chasing an unidentified suspect who is fleeing the scene of an armed robbery where two store clerks have been shot, then the pursuit ought to be continued in spite of a significantly higher level of risk.

When you are pursuing a known local resident who has been carrying on a continued domestic conflict and who could easily be located and apprehended later...in my view...the pursuit is much less important and should be abandoned at a much lower level of risk.

FTA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will play the devil's advocate.
Let me pose a question...if it is not poor incident management that is to blame, why then does it seem that every time a suspect opens fire officers end up dead?
Maybe there is more to these stories that we never hear?
If police are approaching volitile situations with an appropriate balance of the risk of losing a suspect versus the risk of losing a life...shouldn't more shootings at police be only "attempted" murders?
Maybe the cops in question have a deliberate incentive to catch these people alive?

Maybe these murderers (in their own minds) in question were acting in self-defense?

Of course as members of the public we do not get the whole story...and in fact...we often get a deliberately slanted version of the story.

I can give a number of examples where I have read media reports of my cases and wondered how in the hell the story could have been so poorly / improperly presented.

And of course the police have the deck stacked against them because they have to follow the law in a pursuit and the suspects don't.

I guess what I'm saying is that if officers were doing a textbook job of incident management, then it should be a hell of a lot more difficult for a suspect to fatally wound multiple members.

FTA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...cmp-deaths.html

Someone must know where the shooter is.

A sad day for the RCMP and all of Canada.

I feel bad for the families of those two RCMP officers, but at the same time maybe it is timew for each province to have their own provincial forces instead of using the RCMP. They parachute these officers into communities from other parts of the country, and they know nothing about the people they are supposed to be policing. At least with local forces they tend to know the people, and who they are likely to have trouble with. Maybe some would still be killed in the line of duty, but maybe there will be fewer incidents.

I know in the Town where I live the local police were replaced by the RCMP, and the officers just start to get known in the community and they are transferred out. We used to have 24/7 police patrols, and now because of the expense of the RCMP vs. our our police force, we have fewer officers patrolling the streets and after 2:00 am the officers are home sleeping, on-call. Don't think for one minute that those who commit the many acts of vandelism don't know what time to start destroying properties.

When you parachute officers in from another province not only do they not know the trouble-makers, but also do not know the people. Quite often their first language is French, not English so right off they have a problem communicating with the people, and I live in a province our Premier would have other province believe is "Officially Bilingual, but the truth is that less than 20% speaks French.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Warwick Green
When you parachute officers in from another province not only do they not know the trouble-makers, but also do not know the people. Quite often their first language is French, not English so right off they have a problem communicating with the people, and I live in a province our Premier would have other province believe is "Officially Bilingual, but the truth is that less than 20% speaks French.

That's standard practice. Are you suggesting that if you are from Manitoba you can only work as a Mountie in that province?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you parachute officers in from another province not only do they not know the trouble-makers, but also do not know the people. Quite often their first language is French, not English so right off they have a problem communicating with the people, and I live in a province our Premier would have other province believe is "Officially Bilingual, but the truth is that less than 20% speaks French.

That's standard practice. Are you suggesting that if you are from Manitoba you can only work as a Mountie in that province?

Actually, I think this is a good idea for patrol officers who are working with the public on a daily basis. Certainly, they should be able to take other types of jobs wherever they are available.

BC had a provincial police years ago and now there is talk of doing it again. One problem with the RCMP is getting enough officers. A few years ago Surrey (the largest municipality in BC) was despirately short of officers and wanted to increase the size of the detatchment but the Federal government couldn't supply them. You are dependant on another government for recruiting. The RCMP has also been reluctant in the past about sharing information and resources with municipal forces, although this is slowly changing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me pose a question...if it is not poor incident management that is to blame, why then does it seem that every time a suspect opens fire officers end up dead? If police are approaching volitile situations with an appropriate balance of the risk of losing a suspect versus the risk of losing a life...shouldn't more shootings at police be only "attempted" murders?

FTA

Probably, the police should be far faster on the draw. Better a dead criminal than a dead police officer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me pose a question...if it is not poor incident management that is to blame, why then does it seem that every time a suspect opens fire officers end up dead? If police are approaching volitile situations with an appropriate balance of the risk of losing a suspect versus the risk of losing a life...shouldn't more shootings at police be only "attempted" murders?

FTA

Probably, the police should be far faster on the draw. Better a dead criminal than a dead police officer.

Somewhat agree, hence my opposition to the latest Tazer trend. If the officer feels his/her life is in danger, shoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case you missed this:

In slightly over one year six Mounties have been killed by gunshots in the government's senseless and vengeful, Bush-pleasing "War on Crime". During the same period seven members of the Canadian Forces have been killed by hostile action in Afghanistan as part of Canada's participation in Bush's fanatical "War on Terror".

Surely it is time to realize that these "wars" cannot be won using brute force. It is obviously time for negotiations, the only way to end the fruitless killing...

Canadians want our Mounties to resume their traditional role as peace officers, just as they want our soldiers to be peacekeepers--not legionaires for Bush's falling Rome.

Link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case you missed this:
In slightly over one year six Mounties have been killed by gunshots in the government's senseless and vengeful, Bush-pleasing "War on Crime". During the same period seven members of the Canadian Forces have been killed by hostile action in Afghanistan as part of Canada's participation in Bush's fanatical "War on Terror".

Surely it is time to realize that these "wars" cannot be won using brute force. It is obviously time for negotiations, the only way to end the fruitless killing...

Canadians want our Mounties to resume their traditional role as peace officers, just as they want our soldiers to be peacekeepers--not legionaires for Bush's falling Rome.

Link

I'm sorry but this is opportunistic bullshit...how possibly can one link the deaths of our 6 Mounties to some ambiguous "Bush-pleasing war on crime"?!?!?!

The 4 lost in Mayerthorpe were dealing with a career criminal who was becoming increasingly lawless in his community...the two lost in Sask. were dealing with the boiling-over of a 3-year long domestic dispute.

Is this "article" (for want of a better term) suggesting that if we didn't have a "Bush-pleasing" government right now that we would not be waging a "war on crime" and therefore our RCMP officers would not have been involved in these incidents?

The Mounties were in the normal day to day execution of their duties as peace officers when these incidents occurred...not "soldiers" in some imaginary Canadian "war on crime".

How does the author of this crap suggest that the RCMP ought to have negotiated with James Roszko?

The comments about our military exploits may have some basis for valid debate, but the comments about the RCMP are simply a way to try and leverage 6 deaths in order to make a political point...shameless.

FTA

FTA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe it is timew for each province to have their own provincial forces instead of using the RCMP.
Because they used to have and it wasnt working for them, thats why. Different provinces had different standards, and there was a lot of corruption.

Police officers are usually stationed where they DONT know they people to avoid conflict of interest. I believe the error, if one was made was in placing the Indian female officer back in her home town - with people she had known all her life.

IMO we are just seeing "the real world" coming to Canada. Our RCMP and soldiers have been very very fortunate in that Canada hasnt had a violent history - until now - until the media brought the poison into Canada.

This is a different world we live in, we grew up listening to love songs, todays generation grew up listening to music promoting violence and killing and rape and mayhem ... its brain washing, and its been proven to influence the thinking of suceptible young minds. Now they're old enough to own guns and everyone better get used to it -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but this is opportunistic bullshit...how possibly can one link the deaths of our 6 Mounties to some ambiguous "Bush-pleasing war on crime"?!?!?!

....

The Mounties were in the normal day to day execution of their duties as peace officers when these incidents occurred...not "soldiers" in some imaginary Canadian "war on crime".

How does the author of this crap suggest that the RCMP ought to have negotiated with James Roszko?

The comments about our military exploits may have some basis for valid debate, but the comments about the RCMP are simply a way to try and leverage 6 deaths in order to make a political point...shameless.

All of these deaths are tragic. But I don't think this comment is exploitative or shameless.

FTA, I think you're missing the comment's irony. No one is seriously suggesting that there's a "Bush War on Crime" anymore than that we should negotiate with Dagenais.

OTOH, simply because we meet with resistance is no reason to give up.

What was Churchill's line? Would you have Canada become a mediator between the fireman and the fire?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear FTA Lawyer,

Is this "article" (for want of a better term) suggesting that if we didn't have a "Bush-pleasing" government right now that we would not be waging a "war on crime" and therefore our RCMP officers would not have been involved in these incidents?
It isn't an 'article', just a BS post by some misguided fool on another web'log' forum.

August1991,

All of these deaths are tragic. But I don't think this comment is exploitative or shameless.
I would say the comment rates 'retarded', for shameless would indicate a painful truth, much higher up on the ladder of intellect.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of these deaths are tragic. But I don't think this comment is exploitative or shameless.

FTA, I think you're missing the comment's irony. No one is seriously suggesting that there's a "Bush War on Crime" anymore than that we should negotiate with Dagenais.

OTOH, simply because we meet with resistance is no reason to give up.

What was Churchill's line? Would you have Canada become a mediator between the fireman and the fire?

Maybe I am missing something...I took this comment to be suggestive that the 6 dead Mounties are a result of the RCMP's changed approach to policing...a war on crime type of philosophy as opposed to negotiating peace officer philosophy.

If this is the message, I call bullshit.

If what you are saying is the comment was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, then I did miss that and then I would change my view on it.

As to the notion of giving up in the face of resistance, I couldn't agree with you (and Churchill) more...and I'm quite sure that our countrymen's performances in the two World Wars are strong indicators of our will to persevere in the face of significant obstacles.

That being said, I maintain my position that police in Canada generally need to re-assess the manner in which they approach high-risk scenarios...in particular, they need to start appreciating high-risk where it might not have traditionally presented itself in Canada.

I hate to say it, because I certainly do not want to see our society deteriorate into one of fear and violence like in many places in the U.S., but I rather suspect that if two LAPD officers had been pursuing the suspect in rural Sask. two weeks ago, those same officers would be here to tell us about it today (becuase they are trained to expect every fleeing suspect to come out of his vehicle shooting at them with a shotgun and they would approach the situation accordingly).

FTA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me pose a question...if it is not poor incident management that is to blame, why then does it seem that every time a suspect opens fire officers end up dead? If police are approaching volitile situations with an appropriate balance of the risk of losing a suspect versus the risk of losing a life...shouldn't more shootings at police be only "attempted" murders?

FTA

Probably, the police should be far faster on the draw. Better a dead criminal than a dead police officer.

Somewhat agree, hence my opposition to the latest Tazer trend. If the officer feels his/her life is in danger, shoot.

Easy for you to say Geoffrey but no police officer wants to shoot people and they are grateful for such things as pepper spray and Tazers because they give them options when before they had none, other than putting themselves at severe risk or using a firearm. These days they are just as likely to be used on out of control meth addicts who are more of a threat to themselves and innocent bystanders than the police.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to say it, because I certainly do not want to see our society deteriorate into one of fear and violence like in many places in the U.S., but I rather suspect that if two LAPD officers had been pursuing the suspect in rural Sask. two weeks ago, those same officers would be here to tell us about it today (becuase they are trained to expect every fleeing suspect to come out of his vehicle shooting at them with a shotgun and they would approach the situation accordingly).

I think you're right about how it may be approached by many American forces but I'm not sure it already hasn't happened. When I was growing up in Vancouver during the 50's and 60's a patrol officer was armed with a 38 Police Special revolver and a baton. That's it. Today when my son goes on shift he has a semi automatic handgun, Tazer, pepper spray and an baton on his person. A twelve gauge shotgun and assault rifle (a type used by the SAS among others) in his car. And the apologists for our system say violent crime is down. Balls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy for you to say Geoffrey but no police officer wants to shoot people and they are grateful for such things as pepper spray and Tazers because they give them options when before they had none, other than putting themselves at severe risk or using a firearm. These days they are just as likely to be used on out of control meth addicts who are more of a threat to themselves and innocent bystanders than the police.

Of course no police officer wants to shoot anyone. The situations I fear is when someone pulls a gun and the officer needs to take time wondering if the fatality inquiry will question his use of his sidearm when he has a tazer. Remember, cops always have the whole nation looking over their shoulder ever move, more options they have, the more people expect for them to unduly risk their lives to save a criminal's.

It's problems like this that create potential for disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,770
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Akalupenn
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...