Here is the latest on this story.
CBC News
Dec. 8, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columb ... eport.html
Here are the highlights of the Public Complaints Commission Inquiry
- While they were in the lawful execution of their duties as police officers, the four officers failed to adopt a measured, co-ordinated and appropriate response to Dziekanski's reported behaviour.
-The senior on-scene RCMP member failed to take charge of the RCMP's response.
-No meaningful attempt was made to de-escalate the situation.
-No warning, visual or otherwise, was given to Dziekanski prior to him being hit by the conducted energy weapon (CEW).
- Use of the CEW against Dziekanski was premature and inappropriate.
-The CEW was used multiple times on Dziekanski without any significant effort made to determine the need for further use.
-The RCMP members present should have more actively provided first-aid and monitored Dziekanki's condition.
-The four RCMP members inappropriately met alone after the death of Dziekanski prior to giving their statements.
-The versions of events given to investigators by the four RCMP officers involved in Dziekanski's death are not deemed credible.
-The senior on-scene RCMP member should not have been present at the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team (IHT) briefing held at the Richmond Detachment on Oct. 14, 2007.
-No bias or partiality toward the involved RCMP members was present in the IHIT investigation of the death of Dziekanski, but the video shot by a member of the public should have been shown to the members before taking statements from them.
-The RCMP should have released certain information to the media which would have served to clarify information pertaining to the death of Dziekanski and corrected erroneous information previously provided without compromising the IHIT investigation.
In short, this will probably pave the way for a dandy lawsuit. #3 in particular seems bad as you would think that effort to de-escalate a situation should be pretty much an automatic first step whenever possible. Hard to do that in 30secs or less.
That their testimony was "not deemed credible" is also quite troubling. That is about as close to saying "you lied" as you can possibly get. The only other interpretation was that you were badly mistaken which doesn't really speak well either.
The last piece I have to wonder about is why the Officers should have viewed the video before giving statements. I find that a bit confusing as their statements should corroborate the events on video, not be guided by them. Basically it should be
"speak the truth" as you see it and see what comes out in the wash. Either it is a case for honest depiction or need for more training or attempted deception. I'm not sure that the RCMP would bother to show a suspect what they have up their sleeve before taking a statement so why should Officers should be treated any differently before they give their versions? Isn't that why they shouldn' t have gotten together to compare notes which was another criticism.
