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.
Showing posts with label mitchell's brook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mitchell's brook. Show all posts
Saturday, April 11, 2015
Thursday, April 09, 2015
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 08, 2015
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 07, 2015
The shooting aftermath and truth
This afternoon we had an "update" from the RCMP regarding the shooting of Don Dunphy by an RNC officer on Easter Sunday.
The report appeared to be an attempt to answer questions posed by bloggers and tweeters - most of are which ordinary citizens.
I am an ordinary citizen and I want to believe in our system of justice - I want to believe that our police services are sound and professional.
I also know scrutiny of our democracy is essential for it's survival - justice too must be prepared for intense scrutiny by citizens for that same purpose.
1. There have been many instances where evidence has been collected improperly,
2. People have been wrongfully convicted,
3. Citizens with mental illness have been shot,
4. Police officers from both forces been found guilty of crimes,
5. People have died while being held in the lock-up or in penal institutions
It is for these obvious reasons we must always remain diligent and as a society ensure that our system of justice remains intact. It is incumbent on all citizens to watch carefully - probe if necessary - to maintain a reasonable level of confidence in the system.
As an RNC or RCMP officer - you know the perils of the job. It is a job with risks - and many times significant risks and it should be noted that:
1. Many police officers have saved the lives of innocent people,
2. Arrested people who ultimately have been found guilty of heinous crimes,
3. Have been killed in the line of duty - while serving to protect,
4. The majority of them have served and retired with impeccable records of service.
With the power given a police officer - it certainly follows the responsibility is great. You are permitted to carry a loaded gun on your person and may fire it and take a life if the threat against you requires that response. Taking the life of another human being is a pretty large burden. You must expect that scrutiny will follow and you must be prepared to accept and participate in that scrutiny.
One moment a man is alive and having a conversation - the next moment he is dead. That's permanent and painful to think about.
I have noticed many making comments such as "well if we can't trust the police", or "well why wouldn't we believe the officer", or in response to people asking questions "why does everything have to be a conspiracy". These comments are not responsible, not helpful, and frankly naive. Not everything is good and not everything is bad - that's why we need critical thinking, constructive probing questions, and healthy skepticism.
Today we are faced with a situation where one man is dead and the only witness to the event - shot him. It is extremely difficult for all parties.
The RCMP "update" today said that Don Dunphy aimed a gun at the officer. Am I to presume the investigation on that information is complete? I can only assume at this time that this information is what has been provided by the officer. Are the forensics complete? Are the angles of gunshot/s - positioning of the gun found by the body of Mr. Dunphy all determined? Has everything the officer said been completely vetted? What I heard from the RCMP officer in response to a media question was that he could not comment on whether the officer followed protocol and was justified to shoot. I also heard the investigation is continuing. The RCMP might have said - the statement given by the officer says....
The RCMP "update" also answered the question regarding communication between the RCMP and the RNC prior to the officer going to Mr. Dunphy's house. There was a determination - said the update - that the visit to Mr. Dunphy's house was low risk and therefore only one officer went.
Clearly something went wrong - for people to ignore that or brush it aside would be willingly ignorant. A low risk assessment ended in the death of one person - shot by the only other witness. This must be the worst possible outcome.
The CBC was taking a bit of heat today on the "source/s told the CBC" piece regarding Mr. Dunphy pointing a gun. Today the RCMP claim this was their belief. Why did David Cochrane and the CBC tell us a day before the police were willing to? This breeds speculation of spin and targeted messaging.
The questions regarding this tragic event are such that an independent inquiry of some sort should be called.
As a citizen - I want to ensure this never happens again. I want to ensure everything possible was done to avoid this outcome.
A inquiry is needed now to place a degree of separation between the two forces that determined the low risk assessment which resulted in one man dead and the officer who shot him - as the only witness. This is a mess and it needs to be addressed.
Let's look at the possible questions:
1. What type of assessment was done and who was involved?
2. What information did the police use to determine a low risk assessment?
3. Who determined that the best approach was to send in an officer from special detail?
4. Who determined that it would not be more reasonable to send in an officer or officers who Mr. Dunphy was familiar with?
5. Did the RCMP know that Mr. Dunphy had a gun?
and on the evidence :
1. Did Mr. Dunphy fire a weapon?
2. Where was the alleged weapon during the entirety of the officer's presence in the home?
3. When did the alleged gun appear?
4. Where was Mr. Dunphy when he allegedly pointed the weapon - where was the officer?
5. What exactly was the conversation between the two?
6. What was talked about immediately before the alleged change in Mr. Dunphy's behavior?
7. Is there any evidence of violence in Mr. Dunphy's past?
Obviously a hundred more questions could be asked.
As I write this - news reports PRESS HERE Contains graphic material
and in January of this year PRESS HERE
Everyday there are reports on both sides - officers killed in the line of duty and officers being charged.
What is paramount for our people and for our system of justice is that we achieve the best truth possible and work to avoid this from ever happening again.
Remember Judge Luther's findings of a judicial inquiry of 2001 - an inquiry on the deaths of two people - one shot by an RCMP officer the other by an RNC officer. PRESS HERE
There are things to be learned from the tragic death of Mr. Dunphy in his own home on Easter Sunday.
An independent inquiry is needed here regardless of the findings of the RCMP.
1. Who would interview the RCMP officer/s involved with risk assessment?
2. What can alleviate most doubt and concern as it relates to the only witness being the shooter?
3. What can we learn from the alleged sudden and unpredicted behavior of Mr. Dunphy?
4. What medical or psychiatric expertise exists on this alleged unpredicted behavioral change in Mr. Dunphy?
5. What can we learn about Mr. Dunphy's continued assertions about being a "tortured injured worker"?
6. Was the Premier's media circuit on the events harmful to the investigation?
7. What is the media's role?
There is a great burden of responsibility placed upon an officer who carries a sidearm. There is a great burden of responsibility placed upon that officer - when he determines a life might need to be taken. There must be a complete acceptance by an officer that scrutiny is expected following the death on another human being.
Let's use whatever tools are available to us to achieve this independent review. This is necessary for all parties involved and for the public to maintain confidence in the system of justice.
We all agree - we were not there - and therefore do not know what took place - let's try to achieve the best level of truth possible through an inquiry or inquest where information and testimony can be seen by all of us and recommendations can be made to avoid another similar tragedy.
When a life is gone - this is the least we can do.
The report appeared to be an attempt to answer questions posed by bloggers and tweeters - most of are which ordinary citizens.
I am an ordinary citizen and I want to believe in our system of justice - I want to believe that our police services are sound and professional.
I also know scrutiny of our democracy is essential for it's survival - justice too must be prepared for intense scrutiny by citizens for that same purpose.
1. There have been many instances where evidence has been collected improperly,
2. People have been wrongfully convicted,
3. Citizens with mental illness have been shot,
4. Police officers from both forces been found guilty of crimes,
5. People have died while being held in the lock-up or in penal institutions
It is for these obvious reasons we must always remain diligent and as a society ensure that our system of justice remains intact. It is incumbent on all citizens to watch carefully - probe if necessary - to maintain a reasonable level of confidence in the system.
As an RNC or RCMP officer - you know the perils of the job. It is a job with risks - and many times significant risks and it should be noted that:
1. Many police officers have saved the lives of innocent people,
2. Arrested people who ultimately have been found guilty of heinous crimes,
3. Have been killed in the line of duty - while serving to protect,
4. The majority of them have served and retired with impeccable records of service.
With the power given a police officer - it certainly follows the responsibility is great. You are permitted to carry a loaded gun on your person and may fire it and take a life if the threat against you requires that response. Taking the life of another human being is a pretty large burden. You must expect that scrutiny will follow and you must be prepared to accept and participate in that scrutiny.
One moment a man is alive and having a conversation - the next moment he is dead. That's permanent and painful to think about.
I have noticed many making comments such as "well if we can't trust the police", or "well why wouldn't we believe the officer", or in response to people asking questions "why does everything have to be a conspiracy". These comments are not responsible, not helpful, and frankly naive. Not everything is good and not everything is bad - that's why we need critical thinking, constructive probing questions, and healthy skepticism.
Today we are faced with a situation where one man is dead and the only witness to the event - shot him. It is extremely difficult for all parties.
The RCMP "update" today said that Don Dunphy aimed a gun at the officer. Am I to presume the investigation on that information is complete? I can only assume at this time that this information is what has been provided by the officer. Are the forensics complete? Are the angles of gunshot/s - positioning of the gun found by the body of Mr. Dunphy all determined? Has everything the officer said been completely vetted? What I heard from the RCMP officer in response to a media question was that he could not comment on whether the officer followed protocol and was justified to shoot. I also heard the investigation is continuing. The RCMP might have said - the statement given by the officer says....
The RCMP "update" also answered the question regarding communication between the RCMP and the RNC prior to the officer going to Mr. Dunphy's house. There was a determination - said the update - that the visit to Mr. Dunphy's house was low risk and therefore only one officer went.
Clearly something went wrong - for people to ignore that or brush it aside would be willingly ignorant. A low risk assessment ended in the death of one person - shot by the only other witness. This must be the worst possible outcome.
The CBC was taking a bit of heat today on the "source/s told the CBC" piece regarding Mr. Dunphy pointing a gun. Today the RCMP claim this was their belief. Why did David Cochrane and the CBC tell us a day before the police were willing to? This breeds speculation of spin and targeted messaging.
The questions regarding this tragic event are such that an independent inquiry of some sort should be called.
As a citizen - I want to ensure this never happens again. I want to ensure everything possible was done to avoid this outcome.
A inquiry is needed now to place a degree of separation between the two forces that determined the low risk assessment which resulted in one man dead and the officer who shot him - as the only witness. This is a mess and it needs to be addressed.
Let's look at the possible questions:
1. What type of assessment was done and who was involved?
2. What information did the police use to determine a low risk assessment?
3. Who determined that the best approach was to send in an officer from special detail?
4. Who determined that it would not be more reasonable to send in an officer or officers who Mr. Dunphy was familiar with?
5. Did the RCMP know that Mr. Dunphy had a gun?
and on the evidence :
1. Did Mr. Dunphy fire a weapon?
2. Where was the alleged weapon during the entirety of the officer's presence in the home?
3. When did the alleged gun appear?
4. Where was Mr. Dunphy when he allegedly pointed the weapon - where was the officer?
5. What exactly was the conversation between the two?
6. What was talked about immediately before the alleged change in Mr. Dunphy's behavior?
7. Is there any evidence of violence in Mr. Dunphy's past?
Obviously a hundred more questions could be asked.
As I write this - news reports PRESS HERE Contains graphic material
and in January of this year PRESS HERE
Everyday there are reports on both sides - officers killed in the line of duty and officers being charged.
What is paramount for our people and for our system of justice is that we achieve the best truth possible and work to avoid this from ever happening again.
Remember Judge Luther's findings of a judicial inquiry of 2001 - an inquiry on the deaths of two people - one shot by an RCMP officer the other by an RNC officer. PRESS HERE
There are things to be learned from the tragic death of Mr. Dunphy in his own home on Easter Sunday.
An independent inquiry is needed here regardless of the findings of the RCMP.
1. Who would interview the RCMP officer/s involved with risk assessment?
2. What can alleviate most doubt and concern as it relates to the only witness being the shooter?
3. What can we learn from the alleged sudden and unpredicted behavior of Mr. Dunphy?
4. What medical or psychiatric expertise exists on this alleged unpredicted behavioral change in Mr. Dunphy?
5. What can we learn about Mr. Dunphy's continued assertions about being a "tortured injured worker"?
6. Was the Premier's media circuit on the events harmful to the investigation?
7. What is the media's role?
There is a great burden of responsibility placed upon an officer who carries a sidearm. There is a great burden of responsibility placed upon that officer - when he determines a life might need to be taken. There must be a complete acceptance by an officer that scrutiny is expected following the death on another human being.
Let's use whatever tools are available to us to achieve this independent review. This is necessary for all parties involved and for the public to maintain confidence in the system of justice.
We all agree - we were not there - and therefore do not know what took place - let's try to achieve the best level of truth possible through an inquiry or inquest where information and testimony can be seen by all of us and recommendations can be made to avoid another similar tragedy.
When a life is gone - this is the least we can do.
"Sources told the CBC"
It's now day three of the investigation into the death of Don Dunphy.
This is Newfoundland and Labrador people - this is a very serious, disturbing, and critical situation. We must all be awake and alert to fully understand what took place on Easter Sunday in Mitchell's Brook.
Yesterday I made an argument that a judicial inquiry or coroner's inquest needs to be called on this event.
Today I will argue - that the investigation has been sullied and therefore the instruments available for an independent investigation are now limited to an inquiry or inquest.
I am deeply troubled as you should be that a "source/s" told the CBC that a long gun was aimed at the officer by Don Dunphy.
Let me state first - I believe in the anonymity of credible sources to the media - so as to ensure that information relevant to the public good, that might otherwise be swept under a rug - sees the light of day.
There are times however that sources use the media to set a stage - to manage - to spin - information that has not been properly vetted.
Yesterday two pieces of information became headlines provincially and nationally - the first was that a man was shot in Mitchell's Brook as a result of an incident that occurred when a member of the Premier's security detail was checking out a "threat" on Twitter. The second was that Don Dunphy aimed a long gun at the officer.
The CBC was told by some credible authority that Don Dunphy aimed a long gun at the officer. The Chief of Police and the Premier would not confirm that statement publicly. It is without a doubt a very compelling comment that may give rise to prejudicial and premature thoughts. It is without a doubt the very guts of what an investigation would be looking into.
In this case who are the possible sources that would lead the CBC - our national public media - to report such a stark and condemning piece of information?
1. Police authorities
2. Government authorities
3. The officer
4. Fabrication
This is not the type of information that would come from a person in the community - the term"long gun" is not normal Newfoundland language. It is more police speak and government speak.
I do not like the table set for me by people or authorities who wish to spin public opinion before the investigative process is complete. I do not want the partial truth - I want the truth. If this source was law enforcement or government - I do not believe an independent investigation by the police is possible. This "leak" of information is not acceptable. Who is responsible?
We need an inquiry or inquest to determine just such things.
Further - it is time that Premier Davis stop the media circuit - making comments such as he called the officer and offered him his personal support. Once again this is prejudicial and not something the Premier should be doing while an investigation is ongoing.
A man is dead - an officer from the security detail shot him - on his own property - the officer was investigating a perceived threat on Twitter toward the Premier or his family. Was the Premier's conversation with the officer recorded? It was inappropriate and could be viewed as interfering with a serious investigation. The Premier is a former police officer and his Chief of Staff a former RNC Chief - they know better than this. How did the Premier even know who the officer was? The public has not been told.
We must have an inquest or inquiry in order to maintain any level of confidence in the system of justice and to serve impartially both the officer and Don Dunphy.
We need an authority that can compel evidence - is in no way involved, and can be completely impartial.
It happens that our Premier is a former RNC officer and his Chief of Staff a former Chief of the RNC - this does matter and to ignore this ignores what could possibly be conceived as a conflict. The test for conflict must remain as perception.
On a side note - Power and Politics - Evan Solomon - the interview last night was unprofessional, incomplete, leading, and misleading. More on this later.
This is Newfoundland and Labrador people - this is a very serious, disturbing, and critical situation. We must all be awake and alert to fully understand what took place on Easter Sunday in Mitchell's Brook.
Yesterday I made an argument that a judicial inquiry or coroner's inquest needs to be called on this event.
Today I will argue - that the investigation has been sullied and therefore the instruments available for an independent investigation are now limited to an inquiry or inquest.
I am deeply troubled as you should be that a "source/s" told the CBC that a long gun was aimed at the officer by Don Dunphy.
Let me state first - I believe in the anonymity of credible sources to the media - so as to ensure that information relevant to the public good, that might otherwise be swept under a rug - sees the light of day.
There are times however that sources use the media to set a stage - to manage - to spin - information that has not been properly vetted.
Yesterday two pieces of information became headlines provincially and nationally - the first was that a man was shot in Mitchell's Brook as a result of an incident that occurred when a member of the Premier's security detail was checking out a "threat" on Twitter. The second was that Don Dunphy aimed a long gun at the officer.
The CBC was told by some credible authority that Don Dunphy aimed a long gun at the officer. The Chief of Police and the Premier would not confirm that statement publicly. It is without a doubt a very compelling comment that may give rise to prejudicial and premature thoughts. It is without a doubt the very guts of what an investigation would be looking into.
In this case who are the possible sources that would lead the CBC - our national public media - to report such a stark and condemning piece of information?
1. Police authorities
2. Government authorities
3. The officer
4. Fabrication
This is not the type of information that would come from a person in the community - the term"long gun" is not normal Newfoundland language. It is more police speak and government speak.
I do not like the table set for me by people or authorities who wish to spin public opinion before the investigative process is complete. I do not want the partial truth - I want the truth. If this source was law enforcement or government - I do not believe an independent investigation by the police is possible. This "leak" of information is not acceptable. Who is responsible?
We need an inquiry or inquest to determine just such things.
Further - it is time that Premier Davis stop the media circuit - making comments such as he called the officer and offered him his personal support. Once again this is prejudicial and not something the Premier should be doing while an investigation is ongoing.
A man is dead - an officer from the security detail shot him - on his own property - the officer was investigating a perceived threat on Twitter toward the Premier or his family. Was the Premier's conversation with the officer recorded? It was inappropriate and could be viewed as interfering with a serious investigation. The Premier is a former police officer and his Chief of Staff a former RNC Chief - they know better than this. How did the Premier even know who the officer was? The public has not been told.
We must have an inquest or inquiry in order to maintain any level of confidence in the system of justice and to serve impartially both the officer and Don Dunphy.
We need an authority that can compel evidence - is in no way involved, and can be completely impartial.
It happens that our Premier is a former RNC officer and his Chief of Staff a former Chief of the RNC - this does matter and to ignore this ignores what could possibly be conceived as a conflict. The test for conflict must remain as perception.
On a side note - Power and Politics - Evan Solomon - the interview last night was unprofessional, incomplete, leading, and misleading. More on this later.
Monday, April 06, 2015
Judicial Inquiry or Coroner's Inquest needed
This is a very difficult and disturbing post I write. (NEW INFORMATION AT BOTTOM OF POST)
Yesterday Don Dunphy died at his home in Mitchell's Brook - St. Mary's Bay.
Don Dunphy was known to many on the local Twitter scene. Most knew he was an injured worker who was in terrible mental and physical pain. There were times when I would respond to his questions and even try to find a direction for him to take. There were times when I would block him - when I felt he was no longer interested in "normal" discussion regarding his situation. Clearly he had been in anguish for some time.
The struggle was very long and difficult for Mr. Dunphy. It was obvious he felt betrayed by a system and by elected officials.
I was eating an early Easter dinner with my parents when I noticed several marked an unmarked police vehicles zooming by with sirens on. Next there was one ambulance followed by additional police vehicles.
We were all hoping that if this was a vehicle accident - all were okay. The road to Mitchell's Brook is in horrific shape - no doubt for Mr. Donahue - a reminder of being left behind - uncared for - ignored.
There have been serious vehicle accidents on this road before. By the number of police vehicles present - it certainly did not look good.
Then came word via Twitter that there had been a shooting. There was a fatal shooting. All sorts of things run through your head when you are just minutes from the scene. Was this a domestic abuse situation? Was this an alcohol related event? It was awful. It certainly was not clear if there was any immediate danger to people in the community.
Then bit by bit details began coming out. When I drove near the site - I noticed a number of distraught people on the side of the road. Clearly this was and is a community in crisis.
The local media have been tweeting and reporting using one tweet from a thread of four consecutive tweets. We all know it's hard to complete a paragraph on Twitter - so quite often the use of one tweet without using the ones preceding it - on the same thread - can be misleading. This is not journalism. (I noticed the CBC has changed it's story - in an attempt to contain complete thread - but still not) - old story not available. When there are two people at a place and one ends up dead - how do we get the whole story?
Complaining about the media in this province is quite often futile as they hold themselves above criticism - they act like partisan politicians - and quite often try to demean or diminish the individual delivering the criticism. As with everything - this is not universal as some of them are above this behavior.
I have read the series of tweets - and being familiar with Don's use of words, grammar, and phraseology - I interpret it as there are 2 politicians who are already deceased - and if there is a God - it may have happened that way so as not to be able to enjoy their political pensions. Finally the tweet which is used by media as describing the "threat" - is Don telling the reader - he would name the deceased MHA's other than he did not want to unnecessarily hurt people in their family - who may well be "good" people. I did not and do not see a threat in the thread of tweets.
Journalists by profession - by talent - would immediately be looking at possible contexts of the thread and asking questions about the context they were being taken in. Unfortunately this was not the case to date - rather they have been repeating that a tweet was in fact a "threat". It was reassuring to see that some media outlets used the words "perceived threat" instead.
The natural questions that come from this event are as follows:
1. Who decided the tweets were in fact threats?
2. Who ordered the officer (reportedly from the Premier's detail) to show up to Mr. Dunphy's home on Easter Sunday?
3. Was the officer alone?
4. Was the officer in uniform?
5. Did the officer identify himself?
6. How did the officer get inside Mr. Dunphy's home?
7. Did the officer have a search warrant or arrest warrant?
8. Why didn't the RCMP conduct an investigation rather than a direct detail to the Premier?
9. Was this situation treated differently because the Premier is a former officer of the RNC and his Chief of Staff the former Chief of the RNC?
10. Were the RNC familiar with Mr. Dunphy prior to this event?
11. Did any of the RNC units investigate the potential that this individual was suffering from mental illness or extreme physical or mental duress?
12. What was the exact purpose of the visit to Mr. Dunphy's home?
13. Was Mr. Dunphy informed of this visit prior to the officer showing up?
14. Exactly what are the series of events immediately prior to the shooting?
15. Is there any video available of this event? Was Officer wearing a body cam?
16. Who will speak for the dead man?
Open Line, Back Talk, and Nightline have been an outlet for injured workers for many years and Mr. Dunphy did speak to the hosts via Twitter.
Anybody who observes Twitter must know that Mr. Dunphy believed the system was destroying him and that he certainly was very weary of politicians - who he felt did nothing for him.
This incident warrants a judicial inquiry - and must have one.
This government claims to be proactively dealing with mental health issues. If this is real and not a topic de jour - then certainly this situation must have a complete independent review.
If this government is truly serious about mental health and unnecessary consequences a judicial inquiry would be launched immediately.
Is there a lawyer representing Mr. Dunphy's family? Who will be speaking for him?
In Newfoundland and Labrador - if a member of the Premier's security detail actually shoots and kills a man on his own property - while being there because of a perceived Twitter threat - surely it is time to thoroughly investigate. We must have a judicial inquiry on this death or we must have a coroner's Inquest such as the one held for Ashley Smith in Ontario.
I watched carefully the interview with Premier Paul Davis just moments ago and am now more concerned about this situation.
More particularly when the Premier who knows an investigation is underway and claims to have been unaware of the tweet in question - decides to telephone the officer and offer his support. He has known him for a number of years he says.
New Questions:
1. Has the Premier jeopardized the integrity of the investigation by contacting the officer directly?
2. Is there any degree of separation between the Premier's Office and the RNC?
3. Davis says his staff controls his Premier's account and they would have been the ones who alerted police; so was that the former Chief of Police?
4. Why is the Premier offering his personal support to the officer at this critical investigative time?
Yesterday Don Dunphy died at his home in Mitchell's Brook - St. Mary's Bay.
Don Dunphy was known to many on the local Twitter scene. Most knew he was an injured worker who was in terrible mental and physical pain. There were times when I would respond to his questions and even try to find a direction for him to take. There were times when I would block him - when I felt he was no longer interested in "normal" discussion regarding his situation. Clearly he had been in anguish for some time.
The struggle was very long and difficult for Mr. Dunphy. It was obvious he felt betrayed by a system and by elected officials.
I was eating an early Easter dinner with my parents when I noticed several marked an unmarked police vehicles zooming by with sirens on. Next there was one ambulance followed by additional police vehicles.
We were all hoping that if this was a vehicle accident - all were okay. The road to Mitchell's Brook is in horrific shape - no doubt for Mr. Donahue - a reminder of being left behind - uncared for - ignored.
There have been serious vehicle accidents on this road before. By the number of police vehicles present - it certainly did not look good.
Then came word via Twitter that there had been a shooting. There was a fatal shooting. All sorts of things run through your head when you are just minutes from the scene. Was this a domestic abuse situation? Was this an alcohol related event? It was awful. It certainly was not clear if there was any immediate danger to people in the community.
Then bit by bit details began coming out. When I drove near the site - I noticed a number of distraught people on the side of the road. Clearly this was and is a community in crisis.
The local media have been tweeting and reporting using one tweet from a thread of four consecutive tweets. We all know it's hard to complete a paragraph on Twitter - so quite often the use of one tweet without using the ones preceding it - on the same thread - can be misleading. This is not journalism. (I noticed the CBC has changed it's story - in an attempt to contain complete thread - but still not) - old story not available. When there are two people at a place and one ends up dead - how do we get the whole story?
Complaining about the media in this province is quite often futile as they hold themselves above criticism - they act like partisan politicians - and quite often try to demean or diminish the individual delivering the criticism. As with everything - this is not universal as some of them are above this behavior.
I have read the series of tweets - and being familiar with Don's use of words, grammar, and phraseology - I interpret it as there are 2 politicians who are already deceased - and if there is a God - it may have happened that way so as not to be able to enjoy their political pensions. Finally the tweet which is used by media as describing the "threat" - is Don telling the reader - he would name the deceased MHA's other than he did not want to unnecessarily hurt people in their family - who may well be "good" people. I did not and do not see a threat in the thread of tweets.
Journalists by profession - by talent - would immediately be looking at possible contexts of the thread and asking questions about the context they were being taken in. Unfortunately this was not the case to date - rather they have been repeating that a tweet was in fact a "threat". It was reassuring to see that some media outlets used the words "perceived threat" instead.
The natural questions that come from this event are as follows:
1. Who decided the tweets were in fact threats?
2. Who ordered the officer (reportedly from the Premier's detail) to show up to Mr. Dunphy's home on Easter Sunday?
3. Was the officer alone?
4. Was the officer in uniform?
5. Did the officer identify himself?
6. How did the officer get inside Mr. Dunphy's home?
7. Did the officer have a search warrant or arrest warrant?
8. Why didn't the RCMP conduct an investigation rather than a direct detail to the Premier?
9. Was this situation treated differently because the Premier is a former officer of the RNC and his Chief of Staff the former Chief of the RNC?
10. Were the RNC familiar with Mr. Dunphy prior to this event?
11. Did any of the RNC units investigate the potential that this individual was suffering from mental illness or extreme physical or mental duress?
12. What was the exact purpose of the visit to Mr. Dunphy's home?
13. Was Mr. Dunphy informed of this visit prior to the officer showing up?
14. Exactly what are the series of events immediately prior to the shooting?
15. Is there any video available of this event? Was Officer wearing a body cam?
16. Who will speak for the dead man?
Open Line, Back Talk, and Nightline have been an outlet for injured workers for many years and Mr. Dunphy did speak to the hosts via Twitter.
Anybody who observes Twitter must know that Mr. Dunphy believed the system was destroying him and that he certainly was very weary of politicians - who he felt did nothing for him.
This incident warrants a judicial inquiry - and must have one.
This government claims to be proactively dealing with mental health issues. If this is real and not a topic de jour - then certainly this situation must have a complete independent review.
If this government is truly serious about mental health and unnecessary consequences a judicial inquiry would be launched immediately.
Is there a lawyer representing Mr. Dunphy's family? Who will be speaking for him?
In Newfoundland and Labrador - if a member of the Premier's security detail actually shoots and kills a man on his own property - while being there because of a perceived Twitter threat - surely it is time to thoroughly investigate. We must have a judicial inquiry on this death or we must have a coroner's Inquest such as the one held for Ashley Smith in Ontario.
I watched carefully the interview with Premier Paul Davis just moments ago and am now more concerned about this situation.
More particularly when the Premier who knows an investigation is underway and claims to have been unaware of the tweet in question - decides to telephone the officer and offer his support. He has known him for a number of years he says.
New Questions:
1. Has the Premier jeopardized the integrity of the investigation by contacting the officer directly?
2. Is there any degree of separation between the Premier's Office and the RNC?
3. Davis says his staff controls his Premier's account and they would have been the ones who alerted police; so was that the former Chief of Police?
4. Why is the Premier offering his personal support to the officer at this critical investigative time?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)