An email or manifesto?

Mr. Dunphy's funeral service is over. The family is left to mourn his tragic death and find a way forward.

The leaked "email" from the yet unidentified officer involved in the shooting death of Don Dunphy - was reportedly sent to the officer's colleagues at the RNC.

Let's reflect first on what RNC Chief Janes said about the officer when answering  questions from the media. Listen and watch HERE

Question from Fred Hutton VOCM news:

Have you spoken with the officer who fired the shot? 

Answer from Chief Janes: Yes I have

Question from Fred Hutton: and How's he doing?

Answer from Chief Janes:

umm I think ah how he feels will change over time and em part of our response is the....

I now ask Chief Janes if the "email" reflects how the officer felt when he first spoke to him? Or does the "email" by the officer represent a change in how the officer felt when he first spoke to him?

In my opinion the alleged "email" from an unnamed individual to an unconfirmed list of people - leaked or given to the CBC is hardly a communication that would lessen the concerns of a troubled society.

If this "email" was written by the officer and sent to his colleagues - he/she has managed to increase the level of confusion, take a wide swipe at the intelligence of the population, cause even more questions that need to be vetted by a judicial inquiry, and continues to ignore the actions and behavior of some of his police colleagues.

Unlike the tweets of Mr. Dunphy - which were separated and referenced without context in the initial released information of the "perceived" threat, the CBC in this instance released all of the "email" so we could read it in context. Further the CBC unlike the immediate identification of Mr. Dunphy has yet to release the name of the officer.

Without at the very least the CBC telling us - the officers rank - years of service - educational background - professional areas of expertise - before or in conjunction with the release of the "email" - in my opinion is irresponsible. It appears the CBC is being controlled by somebody outside of it's own organization.

Over the past number of years and as recently as the days immediately after the death of Mr. Don Dunphy - the public has been served up with very questionable and some criminal activity of RNC officers.

We have been subject to wrongful convictions, failure to act on the Mount Cashel complaints, convictions under the criminal code, investigations of officers who did not act professionally during investigations, evidence being thrown out in court as the result of improper collection of said evidence. This coupled with events both in other provinces in Canada and and states in the USA involving questionable or criminal activity of police officers - provide educated reason for the public to be skeptical, concerned, troubled and vocal when an instance such as the shooting death of Mr. Dunphy happens.

The alleged "email" from the officer pointed many fingers at social media participants, callers to talk shows, and the "prolific ignorance prevailing in our society" - but failed however to point one finger at the behavior of some of his police colleagues as a significant reason for distrust and concern.

While this "email" appears to take some issue with social media and callers to talk shows speaking freely and asking questions that they feel need answers - there are many in society and authority who give thanks for such openness of communication and scrutiny of authorities. It has resulted in many instances where events that may never have seen the light of day - being fully vetted through independent inquiry.

The "email" has made its way to the public and presents a one-sided view of an event that took the life of the only other witness.

The positive components of the "email" revolve around identifying the need to help a person in crisis. If one reads the "email" and accepts as truth the entire contents then they are left with serious questions about WHSCC, sitting politicians, the RCMP and family members. The "email" allegedly written  by the officer who shot Mr. Dunphy certainly questions how Mr. Dunphy would have reached this state without receiving some sort of help.

It questions any other officer who has visited Dunphy prior to this event. It questions the response of government, commission employees, and politicians to Mr. Dunphy over a significant period of time. It even questions the role of his family and their response to his needs. What the "email" does state by the author is "For Mr. Dunphy we were certainly too late - " and "I unequivocally wish I could have visited Mr. Dunphy at a point in his life where another level of intervention may have been possible". So what was everybody else doing during that time? The statement and judgement issued by the officer in the alleged "email" can certainly appear to be damning to others who were in communication with Mr. Dunphy regarding his grievances. It certainly should be enough to warrant a judicial inquiry into the entire event that led to the death of Mr. Dunphy.

The "email" contains the following statement: "We live in a time where opinion is ubiquitous, while facts seemingly take a back seat to what is titillating." My response to that is when did we live in a time when opinion was not ubiquitous? My understanding is that the great wars were fought to protect that. With regard to the "titillating" comment - I take issue with the word used - however if we are to use it - arguably the most "titillating" information comes from this "email" by an anonymous author - leaked to the CBC and the select use of one tweet by Mr. Dunphy in isolation of the entire thread.

I would respectfully suggest the author of the "email" read a report entitled Police Involved Deaths - The Need for Reform found here and the Judicial Inquiry headed by Justice Donald Luther found here and the McDonald Commission of Inquiry found here and the Lamer Commission of Inquiry found here (University of Manitoba site - unbelievably it has been removed from the NL Dept. of Justice Link) and many others readily available thanks to the internet and social media. Perhaps the author of the "email" could provide some insight into the transcript between Sgt. Buckle and Const. Kelly found here currently under review of the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Justice. Perhaps the author can suggest what the appropriate response from the public should be upon reading that transcript.

Oddly the "email" suggests failures but does not insist on a judicial inquiry. Why not? These inquiries have resulted in policy and educational changes in police forces - have found deficiencies in Mental Health programs and responses to individuals needing that help.

The "email" states "The vocal minority engaged in social media and open line talk shows appear to want an immediate cyber-trial in a veritable town square, instead of a professional and detailed investigation involving interviews and scientific analysis." It did not say some of the vocal minority or some participants in social media and open line talk shows - it painted all of such participants to appear to want...

To the contrary - most people involved on social media and open line talk shows want a judicial inquiry. We want an inquiry independent of the police forces involved in the events leading to the death of Mr. Dunphy. I do note that the author of the "email" does not even suggest that potential appearances of conflict with police investigating police should be addressed.

The "email" bordering on a manifesto states: "Some will tell you that our Premier should be, or is an ordinary person; the reality however is that while they may have once been an "ordinary person" (if such a thing exists), they are now our Premier, and there is nothing ordinary about that Office. Society has eroded many of the comforts and standard amenities that should come with being an elected official - all in the name of politics."  

Surely this statement should cause all in a democracy to be concerned. The basic premise of democracy is the participation of all citizens in their governance - and does not include providing amenities and comforts for political office. It is a position of public service and the indisputable evidence that that person is "ordinary" is found in the arguable position that many Premiers and Cabinet Ministers are not educated sufficiently in the portfolio they hold. Perhaps the author of the "email" might tell us how to change our democracy to suit his/her beliefs on this political system. The "email" blames a society - he serves and is paid by - for eroding comforts and amenities of politicians. This appears to be an individual who believes in the entitlement of elected officials. It also ignores the conviction and incarceration of many politicians who felt they were entitled to more. It was his/her force that participated in the investigation of many of these politicians. Once an elected person ceases to be an ordinary person - they should quit or join in a political system where the public serves the politicians and not the other way around.

I also note the "email" is addressed to friends and colleagues - I was of the understanding by the media that it was addressed to colleagues. Has the email been sent to any person other than currently active duty RNC officers or has it been sent to others as well - if so - what is the complete list? Considering the CBC got a copy - how far did the original email go?

The email certainly goes a long way in describing the judgement of the officer on the event, on the mental health of Don Dunphy, on the behavior of participants in social media, on the behavior of open line talk show participants, how society treats politicians, and the general ignorance of people.

The "email" states the following: "Protective Policing — is predicated on intelligence led investigations.  Most will inherently view police work as something that is reactive.  ie.  Somebody is threatened and we respond accordingly.  Intelligence based policing is proactive, and in the case of protective services, attempts to identify potential concerns and disconcerting behavior, and through a risk analysis endeavors to assign threat levels and implement corrective measures before an act of targeted violence occurs.   Use the Ottawa shooting as an inverse comparison;  society was quick in this case to ask where the police were in identifying red flags.  Erroneous misleading statistics associated to the depth of work police carry out is difficult to explain in a media sound-bite, but people need to understand that a singular police file number does not capture what we do in its totality."

One of the key questions from the vocal portion of the public has been why did the officer attend Mr. Dunphy on his/her own without another officer. Was the risk assessment that led to this decision accurate? Many people I have spoken to have grave concerns about this and are concerned about circumstances such as this where there are no other witnesses to the outcome. Clearly the concern is warranted - as one individual has lost their life. This is what the majority of people in our society want to avoid. Further the question remains on whether or not the officer was under orders to attend the residence of Mr. Dunphy and if so by whom. On the issue of using an "inverse comparison" - we might also ask ourselves what would be the reaction if it was a police officer shot and killed by an individual - without witnesses. Would that individual be sending out emails to friends and colleagues suggesting the state of the officer at the time of the event? Would the individual be taken into custody? Would the CBC be publishing leaks? Have a look in South Carolina and ask - what would be the story if a video-tape had not been produced by a private citizen?

This "email" reinforces not reduces the need for a judicial inquiry on this matter.

I am the daughter and granddaughter of retired uniformed officers.