Role of the Media - Dunphy death

This morning - fourth day after the shooting death of Don Dunphy.

Yesterday we were informed that the RCMP has called in retired justice David Riche to oversee the independence and thoroughness of the investigation into the death of Don Dunphy.

Clearly this is a good decision and one which I hope sets the stage for a continued presence of logic into this tragic death.

It is also comforting to see local lawyers weigh in with commentary on the processes of investigation and policies of the police forces. Having the discussion means we are moving away from the cloak of secrecy.

The media response to this horrific event must also be placed under scrutiny. How our journalists cover such events is also essential to the integrity of the justice system.

Let me start here:

Almost immediately following the death of Mr. Dunphy - media reports stated that "source/s told" followed by a proclamation that Mr. Dunphy pointed a long gun at the officer before he was shot and killed by the officer.

Let me point out what was glaring in its absence. The name of the officer. It was and continues to be protected by all. The media had sources close enough to the investigation to inform the public that Mr. Dunphy pointed a long gun - but not close enough to say "source/s" told ... the officer's name is .... and he/she has ___ years of service  and has the following rank. Does the officer have a lawyer? What does he/she say?

In the past few days the media has been hunting down and reporting that sources/s said what type of person Mr. Dunphy was  - his family - his means of income. We feel as if we know the guy. The family through a lawyer has had to ask for privacy during their time of mourning.

What do we know about the officer? Surely "sources/s" must have told the media who the officer was. Or did the "source/s" stick to what Mr. Dunphy allegedly did on that fateful Easter Sunday.

This is - by the way exactly what fuelled the fire in Ferguson. It is part of what continues to haunt the residents of that town in the USA.

We need some answers on this and what the media deems okay to report. I believe some of the media know who the officer is and are simply respecting a privacy request.

Let me add this:

In the past week we have had two citizens of our province involved with police regarding perceived "threats" on Twitter.

The first is Mr. Dunphy and he is deceased. He was killed by an plain clothed officer in an unmarked SUV who went to the Dunphy residence by himself.

The second reported event is the detention of Andrew Abbass of Corner Brook. This man was apparently taken from his home by two RNC officers and detained under the Mental Health Care and Treatment Act. Mr. Abbass is still alive.

Has there been an internal change in policy at the RNC?

Two individuals that allegedly may have threatened politicians through twitter - treated completely differently. Why?

First Mr. Dunphy was in RCMP turf but the RNC responded - while in Corner Brook RNC turf the RNC responded.

In Mr. Dunphy's case there was one plain clothed officer while in the case of Mr. Abbass there were two uniformed officers.

Mr. Abbass has reported that the RNC telephoned him and asked him to come to the station prior to the detention at his home. What about Mr. Dunphy - was he asked to come in? Was he told an officer was coming? Was there a warrant?

How about the media start "working their sources" and get some answers to these questions.

Let me end by saying that while it's great that a healthy discussion has started by ordinary citizens, municipal leaders, and lawyers  - we must have an independent inquiry on the death of Mr. Dunphy.

Regardless of whether the investigation finds fault or no fault with the officer - the events that lead to this horrific outcome must be thoroughly vetted through an independent and public process.