Glaring inconsistency - did it cost a life?

I have been blogging and tweeting for the past few days on the need for an inquiry on the death of Don Dunphy.

Always remembering to keep an open mind helps when you are seeking fair questions. Analytical versus confrontational is best when tragedies like this occur.

One of the most contentious points in this entire discussion has been whether or not Don Dunphy's tweets were threatening or simply a political statement.

Most people I have heard or spoken to and much of what I have read points to the latter - a political statement.

I will be open about my belief - I believe the statements were a political rant in response to two politicians out driving on a sunny day listening to a CD. People who suffer as much as Don said he did with respect to a workplace injury are bound to get riled when he perceives two politicians relaxing out for a drive - while he tries to get any one of them to listen to his plight.

Forget what I believe for a moment - let's go back to the objective and not subjective.

If the police, Premier's staff, and others really believed that a threat might have been made or in the absence of that - had been made - they erred on the side of caution and treated it like a threat. A decision was then made to follow that up by investigating Mr. Dunphy - part of which was visiting him at his home. So we can say with certainty that what police authorities and staff of the Premier are telling us is that they believe the tweets might represent a threat.

Now let's move to the risk assessment portion of this tragic event. Apparently an assessment was done on Mr. Dunphy with participation of both the RNC and RCMP - this is what we have been told. Considering a decision was made that a "threat" might be present here - enough to warrant investigation - then how did a risk assessment come back as "low". Why did they not err on the side of caution with respect to the type of deployment to Mr. Dunphy's house?

Err on the side of caution to protect politicians - but not err on the side of caution for Mr. Dunphy? This thinking is not logical and leads one to suspect the visit was more of an intimidation than a justified interrogation.

If we are to believe the officer's statement in full - then we must also believe completely that the risk assessment was incorrect. If it was incorrect then - obviously we need changes so as to avoid another such tragedy.

If the visit was one of political intimidation then we may find some clues as to the state of mind of both the officer and Mr. Dunphy at the time of the event.

The inconsistency in determining the tweet was a potential threat but the risk assessment was low - may have cost a man his life.

Further as the assessment was completed with participation by both RNC and RCMP - neither can investigate this aspect of the event.

We need an independent inquiry into the death of Mr. Don Dunphy.