Policy

Injury, Death, and Concealment: A Tale of Two Police Forces

By Lorne Warwick
Published August 08, 2011

Most people by now are well-familiar with the botched raid by the Hamilton Police that resulted in serious injury to Burmese immigrant Po La Hay, who wound up with facial lacerations, three broken ribs and a fractured vertebra.

While the court has dismissed the case against the officer in question, Ryan Tocher, citing insufficient evidence of the use of excessive force, the judge, Justice Paul Currie, had excoriating words for Tocher's fellow officers, none of whom could put a face to the leg and foot stomping /kicking Mr. Hay:

Currie suggested the conduct of four police witnesses in the case "raises the spectre of a coverup."

Currie was particularly concerned that neither Sergeant Paul Henderson, the raid supervisor, nor Detective Constables Chris Camalleri, Christopher Button or Angela Weston - all of whom where in the kitchen with Hay and the accused - could positively identify Tocher as the officer who stomped Hay.

"I find the collective evidence of the witness officers to be troubling. Their inconsistencies in their version of the evidence and their apparent inability or unwillingness to identify the person attached to the leg, as most were easily serving in close proximity to the person who was attached to it, strains credulity and raises the spectre of a coverup," Currie said in his ruling.

This troubling trend toward concealment seems to have had its birth during last year's massive violation of Charter Rights during the G20, when police arbitrarily abused, assaulted, and arrested over 1,100 people. Despite investigations, the force, due to a strange collective memory loss, was unable to identify the perpetrators of these abuses, with the exception of one officer.

That penchant for secrecy and concealment continues to this day. For example, after the recent Caribbean Carnival Parade shooting, it took three days for the SIU to release the name of a man who was shot and killed, the Unit stating only that:

officers had "discharged their weapons" in the incident, with spokesman Frank Phillips later adding in an interview that cops had "interacted" with three men prior to the fatal shooting.

The use of euphemisms is never an encouraging sign, given that they are more often than not used to conceal some unpleasant truths; in this case, "discharged their weapons" and "interacted" were apparently deemed good substitutes for the less palatable, but more accurate fact that the deceased was shot and killed by the police.

The latest instance of police action resulting in death came the other day, when a handicapped 46-year-old man, Charles McGillivary, out for a walk with his mother, was tackled by police, went into cardiac arrest, and died. As reported in the Toronto Star, the SIU says:

police officers were conducting an investigation in the neighbourhood before McGillivary's arrest.

The release said McGillivary collapsed after a "physical interaction" during the arrest.

The SIU did not respond to a request for an interview.

The need for careful investigation of each instance of possible police wrongdoing is paramount. The SIU has demonstrated repeatedly that it is not up to the job. The troubling inability/refusal to identify fellow officers involved in the Hay beating and the G20 Charter Abuses is evidence either of police incompetence or obstruction of justice, the later a criminal offence. Clearly, newer and more compelling forms of police oversight are needed.

I leave the reader with a simple yet pressing question: Why is the public's right to know exactly how our police forces are conducting themselves being thwarted, it seems, every step of the way by an increasingly secretive and truculent constabulary?

Lorne Warwick is a retired high school teacher who spends his time reading, traveling, doing crosswords, volunteering, and becoming increasingly concerned about the state of democracy in Canada.

73 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Brandon (registered) | Posted August 08, 2011 at 08:12:46

Are they "increasingly secretive and truculent" or are we just getting used to having more information and discovering that some sources have never provided it?

It's the "snitch" dilemma. Do you do the right thing and identify the guilty party, knowing that that guilty party may have friends who you will be relying on to back you up at some point in the future? What if they take a few more minutes to respond to that emergency in which you've called for help?

Cops are people too, human and flawed.

Permalink | Context

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted August 09, 2011 at 17:50:14 in reply to Comment 67621

Yes, cops are people too, but they just happen to be mostly bigger, better trained physically, arrive with back-up & are armed with a gun. That's the difference between the average citizens mentioned here & a police officer.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrgrande (registered) | Posted August 08, 2011 at 08:16:47

I find it shocking how toothless (or is it gutless?) this SIU is. They can ask officers to come in for an interview. If the officer says no, that's all they can do.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By SpaceMonkey (registered) | Posted August 08, 2011 at 09:33:32

The whole mentality needs to change. The police culture should encourage snitching to get rid of lousy and abusive cops. Give the highest medal of honour or bravery or something like that to any officer who snitches out the jerk.

Permalink | Context

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted August 08, 2011 at 17:42:03 in reply to Comment 67629

You are absolutely right the whole culture should change. When police say get on the ground people should get on the ground. When police say do not move people should stay where they are. People should not riot, loot or become mobs and cause trouble. That is what needs to change. The police have perhaps the most thankless job in society. Day in and day out they have to deal with a society that is less and less restrained and more and more violent.

Permalink | Context

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted August 09, 2011 at 17:59:53 in reply to Comment 67675

I agree with you Mr. M., but only up to a point.
Our Fearless Leader, Mr. McG. told people that they could protest the G20 peacefully (which they did!) @ Queen's Park. Then for some reason, the peaceful protestors ended up running for their lives, pushed into panic mode by the Police riot squad, & horse patrols. So, who do we blame? Last time I checked peaceful protest was legal in a democracy. Blare? Maybe.. Or the person who suggested that police chase citizens like scared rabbits, without regard to intent, age, gender, or even physical disability.
I think Mob Mentality can take over any group or organization, & predatory chase behaviour clearly took over that day.

Permalink | Context

By Billmitchell (anonymous) | Posted August 08, 2011 at 10:25:20 in reply to Comment 67629

Medals are for valor in the face of danger. A medal for snitching ???? you sound like the kind of child (because an adult would know better)that was either always picked last or never picked at all for a team - and that's the key word - team. I doubt you could be relied on for support when the going gets tough. My condolences to your future spouse and kids. The implied of nobility of public service in an environemnet of danger is obviously a paradigm completely foreign to you. I'm afraid you fail as a judge of human nature.

Permalink | Context

By Brandon (registered) | Posted August 08, 2011 at 12:35:43 in reply to Comment 67634

Here's a good question:

Let's take the four RCMP officers who were involved in the death of Robert Dziekanski. Do you support the police attempting to suppress the video of that event because it showed a marked difference between their description of events and what actually happened?

Can you see that officers closing ranks around their own, regardless of the reasons for it, can only lead to distrust from those that they are charged with protecting?

Permalink | Context

By SpaceMonkey (registered) | Posted August 08, 2011 at 10:51:31 in reply to Comment 67634

You obviously lack the mental capacity to look at things from a different perspective than the one you were brainwashed to believe. Anyone with half a brain will understand the point I was making (well trying to).

My future spouse and kids? Do you know something about me that I don't? you're an idiot.

Permalink | Context

By bill itchell (anonymous) | Posted August 08, 2011 at 14:14:55 in reply to Comment 67635

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted August 09, 2011 at 18:13:51 in reply to Comment 67650

Considering some police responses I've heard about lately, the media might arrive to chase a crook, or an assaulter faster than the Police.
Last week, a person (maybe drunk or on drugs?)walked into a place of business (Not a bar)& began to beat up one of the sales staff. Police were called. They didn't show up. They were called a 2nd. time. By the time they got there some time much later, the violent man had gone. He had threatened his victim before leaving, in front of witnesses. The perp was unknown to the victim.
The same thing happens on a regular basis, & not just in Hamilton.
That doesn't exactly give the general public a lot of confidence in the police to 'Serve & Protect'.

Permalink | Context

By Brandon (registered) | Posted August 08, 2011 at 16:08:13 in reply to Comment 67650

I think my assessment of you resonates moreso with reality than yours of me. The quick rush to name calling speaks for you in ways nothing else could. Well done!

Seeing as you led the way with name calling that's a pretty ironic statement which "speaks for you in ways nothing else could".

Yes my typing skills are poor, I will grant you that. I'm also ugly and your mom dresses me funny! You sleep peaceably in your bed at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on your behalf. This includes the police. get a grip little girl. When someone on your block gets assaulted or intimidated by criminals, will you call the media before you call a cop?

Are you suggesting that because someone is a police officer they can do no wrong? Or that they shouldn't be held accountable if they do wrong?

Comment edited by Brandon on 2011-08-08 16:08:34

Permalink | Context

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted August 08, 2011 at 17:48:48 in reply to Comment 67667

Police officers can certainly do wrong. We as a society need to give them the greatest benefit of the doubt that we can. They are often worried and scared and when suspects do not co-operate bad things happen. Seldom do the police just hurt someone without some trigger.

Permalink | Context

By Brandon (registered) | Posted August 08, 2011 at 22:23:46 in reply to Comment 67679

See, here's the problem.

I, as a default setting, would prefer to trust the police as much as I can.

The problem is that I've seen far too many scenarios where they have done wrong and lied to cover it up.

Do the police police themselves? Apparently not in this case, nor in the case of Robert Dziekanski, nor in the case of the G20 actions. How can you recommend blind trust in authority when the authority has demonstrated a blatant unwillingness to punish wrongdoing by itself?

Permalink | Context

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted August 09, 2011 at 06:43:58 in reply to Comment 67700

Never said blind trust. The G20 hoodlums were looking for trouble, they knew it, the police knew it, and as is often the case if you go looking for trouble you will find it. In Mr. Dziekanski's case that is something different entirely. Yet if you look at the case in a dispassionate way the triggers are not hard to spot. The fact the police used a taser within 25 seconds of dealing with the man is unconscionable. Then to use it 4 more times in quick succession is just unexplainable.

Permalink | Context

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted August 09, 2011 at 18:25:55 in reply to Comment 67705

Oh Come Now, Mr. M. The Black Block bums never got arrested at the time! The Police had to publish pictures of them to get any arrests at all, & that was weeks later. Ditto the Fire starters.

The bulk of the people arrested were doing NOTHING illegal. Being told you can protest peacefully @ Queen's Park, & then arresting those peaceful people is entrapment. Being arrested for trying to get to work is insane. Taking away a handicapped man's prosthetic leg,(they said it might be a dangerous weapon.. huh? ) & his canes & leaving him a cell to pee himself for 12 hours...(The guy had money taken from his wallet too, & never got it back.)

I'm sorry you got so taken in by the media who called everybody's behind 'Black' & then had to recant their fibs at a later date when all the evidence to the contrary came in.

If we loose our right to legal peaceful protest, it's game over for democracy, & you know it!

Permalink | Context

By Brandon (registered) | Posted August 09, 2011 at 07:58:32 in reply to Comment 67705

Not talking about the hoodlums. I'm talking about the kettling, the lack of name tags, the takedown of Adam Nobody where no police were able to identify any of the officers involved, etc....

Regarding Dziekanski, not only are their actions at the time unconscionable, but the force's reaction was to bury it and all evidence of it. To me, that's even scarier, it speaks of institutionalized acceptance of this sort of thing, sort of a "cost of doing business" approach.

Then there's the Ottawa police force's treatment of Roxanne Carr and Stacey Bonds. When these officers and others like them are put forward by their departments for mistreatment of people without having their hands forced by public outrage I will begin to have confidence in them.

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted August 08, 2011 at 17:58:35 in reply to Comment 67679

Sometimes the trigger is the culture of a particular police force.

Permalink | Context

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted August 09, 2011 at 06:45:24 in reply to Comment 67680

I guess. Much more frequent are the actions of the suspects.

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted August 09, 2011 at 12:16:42 in reply to Comment 67706

The actions of the suspects are filtered through the culture the officers are operating in. Suspect behaviour that would be handled calmly and professionally in one jurisdiction, might earn a suspect multiple taserings in another. This is why it is dismissive and simplistic to put all the blame on suspects.

Permalink | Context

By Brandon (registered) | Posted August 09, 2011 at 07:59:52 in reply to Comment 67706

Irrelevant. The suspects are not contracted by society at large for protection.

Officers need to be held to a higher standard and to have that standard rigorously enforced.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By BillMitchell (anonymous) | Posted August 08, 2011 at 10:01:04

If you expect that any civilian (not a cop or a soldier) to break an implied code of allegiance due to honour, you fail at judging human nature.
The criminal element at the G20 who toerched and burned cars and storefronts, the indless morons at the Vancouver riots are confrimation. No one tattled.
The BLACK BLOCK from last years G20 don't go after the crack houses and dealers in our midst - THE BLUE BLOCK does.
Expecting any less loyalty from within a true band of brothers (and sisters) who deal with the public security and handle the crackheads, thieves, liars and pimps FOR US, relieving us of risk and danger to do it ourselves, is the ultimate of hubris.
Monday morning quarterbacks and back seat drivers NEVER live in the stress and risk of the moment-whether its NFL, police raids or Seal Team 6. The condemnation of the fools take 20 minutes to order a coffee at starbucks, I seriously doubt could react to make life/death judgement calls to safeguard the public any better. Whether it's on our behalf or the people they serve with, if you beleive anyone would have the courage and trust to serve with them.

Permalink | Context

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted August 09, 2011 at 18:39:14 in reply to Comment 67630

A Monday morning quarterback is a person who gets all the data, & prefers to misinterpret it.
There were only about a dozen Black Block hooligans making damage on Day 1. When people called the Police...they never came. The store owners & private citizens can vouch for that.
Lumping everyone, even the people who were not involved at all, as Troublemakers is exactly Why people in Toronto no longer trust or respect the local police in the same way that they did before G20.
The only people that the police seemed interested in arresting, knocking down & wacking were the protestors, the News Media, & people on King St. (people who were defenceless & not expecting this kind of treatment from Their Police!)
The Black Block got away scot-free until later, cuz the Police didn't bother to show up that day.

I don't drink Starbuck's coffee, & bet I've dealt with more 'life & death' in my life that you ever will, so shut up ya pompous ponce!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted August 08, 2011 at 10:17:46

Police in Chicago have shot 43 people so far this year, and killed 16. That's nearly as many as in all of last year. The issue of police violence is exploding (often literally) all over the world right now. The fiery riots in London over the weekend would be another example of this, and a frightening glimpse of what is bound to happen when people start getting fed up.

http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/08/c...

It isn't just that police don't always cooperate with investigations - it's official policy not to. The local Police Association advices against cooperating with the SIU. Tells ya exactly how much they value things like "law" or "justice".

Permalink | Context

By keiff0rz (registered) | Posted August 09, 2011 at 17:25:36 in reply to Comment 67631

And your involvement with the local Police Association is what exactly??

Police officers are held far more accountable than any other profession in the world. Police officers have their performance reviewed by the SIU, Police Services Board, OIPRD and numerous phone call and walk in complaints that are dealt with internally by supervisors. Police officers can face criminal charges but also face Police Service Act charges for any indiscretions and are ordered to comply with these investigations.

In all these 'Police Bashing' comments about cover ups and snitching no one seems to mention that so many officers are cleared in these investigations because they are doing their job correctly and using the powers given to them by government.

You talk about Police violence 'exploding' however in the same sentence you tell us why; because people are becoming more violent and ultimately forcing the hand of the Police officers that deal with them. Makes sense doesn't it?

Permalink | Context

By Brandon (registered) | Posted August 09, 2011 at 17:40:00 in reply to Comment 67741

You talk about Police violence 'exploding' however in the same sentence you tell us why; because people are becoming more violent and ultimately forcing the hand of the Police officers that deal with them. Makes sense doesn't it?

It's called "youtube". When combined with smartphones it provides a wealth of information that was never available to the general public. Are cops more violent than before? I doubt it. Are they getting caught more often? Yep.

Permalink | Context

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted August 08, 2011 at 18:02:12 in reply to Comment 67631

The site that you link to in your post tells of a 13 year old boy shot by police. The police were responding to a shots fired call in the area. They tried to stop him and he ran and/or pulled a bb gun. Why would he run? What are the police to think when someone tries to run? The immediate human reaction is that the person is running because they are hiding something or are guilty of something, maybe the gunshots that the police were investigating.

Why would a 13 year old run from the police? Where did he learn such behaviour? Why did his parents not teach him to listen to the authorities?

There is so much talk today about peoples rights and how the police can and do infringe on them. What about responsibility? Why is there no list of responsibilities in our national charter? Why are we not teaching our children responsibility? The whole attitude is bass ackwards.

So often I hear and read about people complaining about a violation of their rights, on this site and every other one on the net. Not just on line but in every other medium as well. What about their responsibilities?

Permalink | Context

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted August 08, 2011 at 18:19:14 in reply to Comment 67682

Why would a 13-year-old black kid run from police in a city struggling with racially-motivated issues of police brutality and murder? Are you serious?

Running is NOT a justification for killing.

BTW: the BB-gun was contested by witnesses.

Comment edited by Undustrial on 2011-08-08 18:19:37

Permalink | Context

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted August 09, 2011 at 07:13:39 in reply to Comment 67684

How often have you heard of a cop shooting someone if they drop to the ground and just lay there with there hands and feet visible and not moving? Sure they are likely to cuff him until they figure out what is going on but he would still be alive today. Police are sometimes overzealous in their use of force but it usually triggered by actions of the suspect. I suspect that the lad was not shot in the back since that alone would have made huge headlines so it is unlikely that he was running away from the police. The report states that he had wondered off from the party and yet when he was shot suddenly there are family witnesses.

Why did the boy die? He was shot 8 times, twice in the hand, once in each shoulder and 4 times in the leg. The hospital said he had non life threatening injuries shortly before he died.

Permalink | Context

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted August 09, 2011 at 08:35:08 in reply to Comment 67709

Overzealous in their use of force? They gunned down a 13-year-old boy. Where's the evidence that he was even involved in a crime?

I'm tired of the "he must have done something to provoke them" argument. When cops are assumed innocent until proven guilty (and generally well afterward), then the people they hurt are assumed guilty by default. The entire situation gets re-written around how the victim didn't work hard enough to placate the cops, and "shouldn've known better".

Giving people the ability to inflict whatever harm they want on others without consequences DOES NOT create a safer society. Neither does villainizing the victims.

Permalink | Context

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted August 12, 2011 at 03:05:40 in reply to Comment 67718

Being 13 is probably totally irrelevant to this situation. I cannot imagine the police basing their decision on the fact that he was 13, nor should they. A 13 year old can pull the trigger on a gun just as quickly as a 25 year old. The boy was shot in West Humboldt Park a large park in a part of the city with one of the highest crime and violence rates in the city. Since this incident there was another shooting not involving police where someone opened fire on 5 men on a porch about 2km from the park. So we have police called to a very violent part of the city at 11 o'clock at night in a park because shots had been fired and people are surprised that the boy got shot when he did not obey the police instructions.

The fact the boy was shot 8 times is probably due to more than one officer opening fire. Typically that would mean either the police were out to gun him down or he did something to provoke the shooting. I find it hard to believe that the police had it out for the boy from the time they got the call but I guess it is possible.

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted August 12, 2011 at 11:37:50 in reply to Comment 67900

Being 13 is probably totally irrelevant to this situation. I cannot imagine the police basing their decision on the fact that he was 13, nor should they.

13 year olds are children. 6 year olds can pull triggers too. Should the police treat 6 year olds the same as adults? 7 year olds? Just curious. At what point does a sociopath like yourself consider a child's age to be 'irrelevant'?

Permalink | Context

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted August 12, 2011 at 19:57:57 in reply to Comment 67930

A lot of 13 year olds are pretty big. If a 6 year old pointed a gun at you would you shoot? Not sure if I could but if it was a 13 year old, I certainly would. I honestly do not know where the line is but I guess we all have to hope we are never put in that position. I read some books about the Vietnam War and there were many incidents of kids as young as 8 and 9 using guns and shooting at the enemy. The gangs in inner cities like Chicago are using younger and younger kids to run drugs, cash and guns because in the court system they are not subject to the same repercussions as the older kids.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Palomino (anonymous) | Posted August 08, 2011 at 12:15:38

It's a good thing that Lorne isn't a public servant because his rants against the forces of order would make him a very bad one. shame on you Lorne for thinking the worse of those who protect us. The officer was found innocent...not guilty....not criminally responsible...get that? you should focus on that instead of besmirching others

Permalink | Context

By judgement (anonymous) | Posted August 08, 2011 at 12:30:38 in reply to Comment 67636

Maybe you glossed over the part in the judge's decision when he said the reason he didn't convict is he didn't have enough evidence against the officer, because none of the other officers who were there would talk.

"I find the collective evidence of the witness officers to be troubling. Their inconsistencies in their version of the evidence and their apparent inability or unwillingness to identify the person attached to the leg, as most were easily serving in close proximity to the person who was attached to it, strains credulity and raises the spectre of a coverup."

I guess the judge isn't a good public servant either??

Permalink | Context

By keiff0rz (registered) | Posted August 09, 2011 at 17:30:11 in reply to Comment 67638

Ever play twister?? Try telling me who has their left hand on Blue when you're in such close quarters focusing on your task.

Permalink | Context

By Brandon (registered) | Posted August 09, 2011 at 17:35:53 in reply to Comment 67742

Yet they are likely very clearly able to articulate everything else that was happening at the time. It's what they're trained to do, which is why the judge was so pissed off at them.

It's a tough and often thankless job but the thin blue line closes ranks and everyone can see it happening.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted August 08, 2011 at 12:38:41

It's 2011.

We can do fantastic things with cameras now.

So why aren't all officers wearing one? Even if it's not practical 24/7, a raid is not an unplanned event. Check every officer for a working head-mounted camera before they knock on that door.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By rednic (registered) | Posted August 08, 2011 at 14:10:07

Regarding the Hamilton case there still seem a lot of questions that are unanswered question that would really shed some light on what went on.

How did the cops end in the wrong apartment ?

Was it bad intelligence ? (ie the warrant had the wrong unit number on it ) or was it bad Numeracy skills ? (ie they went to an apartment with a different Number)

Hopefully it was wrong information on the search warrant, it some how makes me feel a little safer!

When the subject officers were interviewed by the SIU did they use the same lawyer? ( they are allowed to do this). This in my eyes would expose the lawyer to corruption of justice charges if he counseled his client to 'forget'.

Where Police are coming from today was best exemplified by Rob (?) McCormack head of the toronto police association speaking about the police cuts .. first was officers safety, second was public safety ... Until the police are told (and shown) that THEY work for US, nothing is likely to change.

Permalink | Context

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted August 09, 2011 at 18:47:12 in reply to Comment 67649

A-Men rednik!!

Permalink | Context

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted August 09, 2011 at 07:17:09 in reply to Comment 67649

They work for us the us being the vast majority of law abiding peaceful citizens. When you start to fight with them they no longer work for you since you are no longer one of us, they work for us.

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted August 09, 2011 at 12:25:34 in reply to Comment 67711

'Us' is all of us. People who run afoul of the law are not a race of aliens. They are sons and daughters, fathers and mothers. Even if a suspect has brought harsh treatment upon themselves through their actions, this does not give the police carte blanche. The law abiding, peaceful members of the suspects family also stand to be harmed by any use of excessive force against a suspect, or do they somehow deserve it too because they are tainted by their relationship to the suspect?

Permalink | Context

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted August 12, 2011 at 03:20:00 in reply to Comment 67727

When you become a criminal the police no longer work for you. Their job is now to detain and arrest you. I really believe that really is grounds to terminate the employer - employee relationship. If a suspect brings harsh treatment upon themselves that does not give the police carte blanche but it gives them a lot of latitude. There are a lot of times I feel bad for the family of the criminal. An acquaintance of mine had her brother sent to jail for 5 years for molesting a couple of young boys. The shame she feels is tremendous and crippling. If the police had shot her brother I do not know how badly it would have bothered her. Their father was involved in law enforcement all his working life and evidently he cannot bring himself to deal with anyone he worked with. I doubt anything the police could have done would have hurt them more than what his actions did. But I guess for every case like that there is a case where the father is a criminal too.

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted August 12, 2011 at 11:28:41 in reply to Comment 67901

Good Lord, man. Do you really have to be reminded that you are not a 'criminal' until you have been found guilty in a court of law? The whole impetus for this article was the recent case of police brutality toward AN INNOCENT MAN!

If the police had shot her brother I do not know how badly it would have bothered her.

This statement is chilling in its sociopathy, so let me put this in terms that even a sociopath like yourself can understand: if she had been a dependent minor, and the police had shot her father, she would have been impacted economically. Oh, and by the way, the rest of us are going to be impacted economically too.

Police brutality: it's bad for business!!

Permalink | Context

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted August 13, 2011 at 07:17:38 in reply to Comment 67929

No absolutely not. You are a criminal as soon as you break the law. Your comment demonstrates what is so wrong with our society. I am not a criminal if "they" cannot prove it. The whole attitude of if I do not get caught then it does not matter. Please learn the difference between criminal and convict. Weather or not you are caught, charged, fined or imprisoned is a legal issue. The police's job when you break the law and become a criminal is to catch, detain and charge you. If you are found guilty then you become a convict. Capone was a criminal of a much larger magnitude then simple tax evasion even though that is the only thing he was ever convicted of.

So I stand by my comment when you become a criminal you are no longer one of us. Their job is now to catch, detain and charge you. The police work for us.

The comment about how my friend would have felt had her brother been shot was directly based on her comments to me, I guess you had to be there.

Indeed in your farfetched scenario if she had been a minor and it was her father and not her brother she might have been damaged economically. But just as likely would be her father was repeatedly abusing her and never held a job in his life in which case she might be better off with him dead.

The police departments screw up may cost the city 2.5 million but not likely. It will cost the city some money and that is a bad thing. The officers in the raid thought that they were dealing with drug dealers and not an innocent. On the other hand had he simply laid down and not resisted he would have been spared a lot of pain, and would still have collected a nice little cheque from the police for wrongly raiding his place.

Permalink | Context

By dickthewiener (registered) | Posted August 13, 2011 at 11:45:41 in reply to Comment 67972

Yeah, laid down like Kelly Thomas? He is now dead at the hands of 6 Fullerton Police Officers. He was also an unarmed man who probably weighed about 135 lbs.

If a HPS Officer can not do his job without laying the boots to and bashing the face of a suspect, I would say he sucks at his job. Maybe he should review the meaning of RESPECT - http://www.hamiltonpolice.on.ca/HPS/Abou...

Well I guess we can be grateful that all the Officers involved (Sergeant Paul Henderson, the raid supervisor, Detective Constables Chris Camalleri, Christopher Button and Angela Weston did work as a T(eam) and didn't cross the Blue Line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Code_of_Silence)

Permalink | Context

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted August 13, 2011 at 20:50:36 in reply to Comment 67977

What happened to Mr. Thomas is a travesty. I have no doubt that the officers involved will be prosecuted and punished accordingly. And yet the incident started because the suspect refused to co-operate with the police. There are cases where the police overstep there bounds. This obviously is one of those.

Police must routinely physically subdue a suspect. By your comment I take it that you have never been in that kind of position. Until you have I suggest that you perhaps accept the fact that you are a little ignorant about the kind of situations that the police have to deal with. Or you can go along your merry little way without any kind of concern about their jobs and lives, just pray that they are there for you when something terrible happens and you really need them. It is a free country, your choice.

Permalink | Context

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted August 09, 2011 at 18:49:38 in reply to Comment 67727

Thanks Highwater, but I think talking Mr.M. is like talking to the wind that blew last week.
Until it happens to 'him?" he will never know.

Permalink | Context

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted August 12, 2011 at 03:28:08 in reply to Comment 67755

You are absolutely right. The chances of it happening to me are pretty darn slim. I always treat the police with respect and deference. That and the fact I am a very law abiding kind of guy puts me in place where I have no fear of the police what so ever. Over the last few years with all the students in our neighbourhood and their bad behaviour I have called the police many times and have dealt with them on numerous occasions never had a problem even when he was upset, tired and cranky at the end of a long shift. Now the guy who threw up on his legs and shoes I am not so sure about.

Permalink | Context

By dickthewiener (registered) | Posted August 14, 2011 at 16:54:35 in reply to Comment 67902

I am sure Po La Hay didn't think it would happen to him. He wasn't breaking the law. HPS Officer Ryan Tocher just thought he would give him a lesson on authority.

Permalink | Context

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted August 15, 2011 at 00:44:40 in reply to Comment 68000

Police, in uniform break into his house no doubt screaming at him to get down or put his hands up or some such. He does not, he physically resists the police. He got hurt. I feel bad for him, I sure would not want the police breaking down my front door screaming and yelling as they do. Terrifying, at least for me. I would lay down, probably wet myself and lay there. A few minutes later once the police have figured out how wrong they were and busted into the wrong house there would be a flurry of apologies. I would get dry underwear. A little while later there would be a meeting with their lawyer. A while after that they would mail me a nice little cheque. (and probably a get out of jail free card with the local police) Surely not a pleasant experience, but one that has likely played out many times in the past. Bad information, a typographical error, or maybe the police just screwed up and broke into the wrong house. It happens. There are procedures in place to deal with these mistakes, should not happen but it does. There is no way in the world that getting into a fight with the assault team is going to solve the problem, that will just get you hurt.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Michelle Martin (registered) - website | Posted August 09, 2011 at 08:20:00

In reference to the Dziekanski case, which was mentioned above:

Any social services job posting you see advertised these days now lists some kind of crisis intervention training certification as a prerequisite, with regular re-certification. Here are a couple of examples of that training.

The whole situation could have turned out very differently, if any of the techniques taught in such courses were applied.

Does anyone here know what kind of crisis intervention training is required of police officers?

Re: the tragedy of Charles McGillivary-- are officers never trained to understand that there are all kinds of reasons why someone may not respond verbally to you, in which insolence is not at all a factor (ABI as in McGillivary's case, language barrier, illness, confusion, hearing impairment...)?

Comment edited by Michelle Martin on 2011-08-09 08:26:58

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By stanley (anonymous) | Posted August 09, 2011 at 14:12:09

They work for us in the sense that they give themselves irresponsible wages and raises, ridiculous time off and paid leave, mandated paid duty to police picnics, when they commit crimes they cover it up and when they want anything from council they bully their way through. They are not relatively in a particularly dangerous occupation, and when they do get hurt and killed, like most jobs, it's because of bad planning and management. Yeah we need cops, but we need them to exist at their level of education and social good, which I count at somewhere in between bus drivers and social workers. Instead we let cops exist unaccountable to anyone but Bill Mitchell's BS honour system, based on Hollywood ideas of good and evil and a culture of fear (the black block!) totally foreign to reality.

Permalink | Context

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted August 15, 2011 at 00:54:36 in reply to Comment 67734

When was the last time you were in touch with the real world?

Permalink | Context

By keiff0rz (registered) | Posted August 09, 2011 at 17:37:45 in reply to Comment 67734

Not a dangerous job?

And in your day to day activities do you often find yourself punched? kicked? spat on? standing in active traffic? at fires? exposed to HIV, Hepatitis, blood, shit, piss etc????

Permalink | Context

By Michelle Martin (registered) - website | Posted August 09, 2011 at 18:23:17 in reply to Comment 67744

There are many front-line jobs where people do find themselves often experiencing many of these things.

This one, for example.

Permalink | Context

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted August 12, 2011 at 03:33:04 in reply to Comment 67749

Nurses are my heroes. That is one job I could never do.

Permalink | Context

By SpaceMonkey (registered) | Posted August 09, 2011 at 16:19:13 in reply to Comment 67734

Yeah.. all this propaganda about how dangerous their job is and using that as a means to argue that they should be paid lots and praised like gods,bugs me.

Some of the jobs which are more dangerous than being a cop: -drivers -construction workers -garbage collectors -steel workers -roofers -farmers -pilots -loggers -fishers

Permalink | Context

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted August 12, 2011 at 03:31:11 in reply to Comment 67737

What planet did you get your stats from?

Permalink | Context

By Michelle Martin (registered) - website | Posted August 09, 2011 at 19:03:52 in reply to Comment 67737

I don't think there's anything wrong at all with paying cops well for the danger they face regularly - any job, like the ones you've listed, that has an element of physical risk involved should have that risk acknowledged in the wages paid.

It would be a good thing to better equip all members of the police force to deal effectively with the different people they may encounter in a day, though.

Permalink | Context

By keiff0rz (registered) | Posted August 09, 2011 at 23:38:46 in reply to Comment 67756

Police receive lots of training to help them with the various situations they face and yes they could use lots more and more equipment. But this raises the budgets they require and opens up another can of worms.

Permalink | Context

By Michelle Martin (registered) - website | Posted August 10, 2011 at 09:10:15 in reply to Comment 67766

Wonder how much inquiries afterward cost?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By gkat (anonymous) | Posted August 10, 2011 at 12:00:40

While the death of Mr.McGillivary may or may not have been the result of criminal actions on the part of the police, a full,complete,intellectually and politically honest investigation must be conducted.It must be carried out in such a way as to affirm the value Mr.McGillivary's life as opposed to the lesser value that is often systemically placed on the rights of disabled and otherwise marginalized people.In particular I am concerned that the SIU as presently constituted,while capable generally may lack the specific expertise to arrive at a proper understanding of how disability may effect interactions with the police in a general sense as wellas in the case of Mr.McGillivary in particular.I urge the SIU,therefor to seek,consult with and defer to the recomendations of experts in this field as a part of their investigation.

As a citizen of Toronto I have the absolute expectation of living in a society that holds egalitarianism as a core value and the SIU must extent that value to Mr.McGillivary as a natural part of its investigation.Failure to be non partisan is an affront to us all.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted August 11, 2011 at 14:35:00

The trouble with closed societies, like the Police,Governments, federal intelligence agencies, doctors, & (dare I say it?) the Catholic Church(in this reference) or Churches in general etc. is that they become more "Us vs them" every day. They are resistance & annoyed by any kind of scrutiny from 'them'. They find themselves worthy of being absolved of any blame, & beyond reproach, because 'the end Always justifies the means'. Any who questions their motives become the Enemy, even if their motives are completely honest. Secrecy rules the day. (As Mr. M. alluded to.) Closing ranks happens in all closed societies, because those 'outsiders don't know what it means to a _______________..(fill in the blank)

Police, Governments, federal intelligence agencies, the medical profession, & churches are all necessary. (They must be, or we wouldn't have them.) But in saying that, "Our cause is just & selfless." doesn't mean it's above the Laws of the Land, or even basic standards of integrity.
It's a slippery slope from being Indispensable & Beyond Reproach, to Out of Control.

It's in the best interests of society as a whole to have checks, balances & scrutiny of the Indispensable People & the groups that they belong to. We can't hold them to lower standards than the rest of society, & we cannot absolve them of crimes that would get a private citizen arrested.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By dickthewiener (registered) | Posted August 13, 2011 at 11:19:54

What bothers me is how silent HPS Chief De Caire is on The Honorable Ontario Court Judge, Justice Paul Currie's comment that Detective Constable Ryan Tocher, Sergeant Paul Henderson (the raid supervisor), Detective Constables Chris Camalleri, Christopher Button and Angela Weston are all involved in a cover up. I guess even the Hamilton Police Services Chief of Police will not cross the Blue Line - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Code_o...

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds