Complaints process flawed

quote:

---

Three years ago, Patrick LeSage, the former chief justice of Ontario, declared the province's system for reviewing public complaints against police was "flawed" and required "significant systemic changes."

The Liberal government incorporated LeSage's recommendations into the Independent Police Review Act, which became law in May 2007. Michael Bryant, then the attorney general, said the new system would be operating by May of this year.

It isn't.

The commissioner for the planned police review system, Gerry McNeilly, the former head of Legal Aid Manitoba, took office only two months ago. He says nothing will be in place until the end of 2009.

A spokesperson for Attorney General Chris Bentley says the provincial election last fall slowed progress on the new regulations. Critics say the real problem is a lack of political will.

"It's as though they aren't interested in changing this," says John Sewell, head of the Toronto Police Accountability Coalition.

At present, people must make complaints of police misconduct, racial profiling or abuse to the same police force. But internal investigators can dismiss the complaint without publicly revealing the results of their investigation.

Complainants sometimes aren't told even if an officer is disciplined.

"Most of the complaints that I've brought to the police just disappear," says Young, lost in "a huge black hole of obfuscation."

---

Turns out they found out who did it. The person will not be fired, but it will go on their record.

As for the OP, damn right the complaint process is flawed. And of course, the numbers of complaints will never match the number of incidents in which the police act inappropriately, from the more benign to the murderous/fatal. Who's going to believe the poor, marginalized and oppressed that they are continually brutalized by the armed agents of the state? More, who will enact changes to stop this? Not holding my breath.

BCG, taking away their guns would not do much, they utilize everything within their availability to brutalize with.

A few years back now, maybe 4-5, my partner was walking out of nightclub in a northern BC community, with a group of people. There was a group of people in front of them, speaking with an RCMP officer, who had intercepted them, as they walked across the parking home. The RCMP officer walked away and they continued across the parking lot pushing each other around and laughing. All of a sudden, my partner and the group of people he is walking with, hear a vehicle rev up, they look over and it is the officer in his car. At that point, they see him drving very fast across the parking lot towards the group he was just speaking with.

They watched the officer actually hit a fellow and launch him through the air. The fellow ended up in the hospital for spinal cord injuries for an extended period.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
...offering no systemic challenges and critiques of the inherently flawed system that is police services.

---

This is the heart of it isn't it, an "inherently flawed system", and that is where changes must occur, first and foremost.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
2. Types of people they hire

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Well, sven your innuendos are not lost on me. However, if their mandate was changed, I would expect a broader selection of candidates would be accessed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I have a very progressive friend who just told me the other day that he is thinking about training to become a police officer. I was a bit horrified and asked him why the heck he would want to be a cop. He said that he thought that if more progressive people got involved that maybe it would change things.

---

Kudos to your friend!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I think it would take a lot more than just the occasional progressive person joining the force. Culture and systemic problems are stronger than individuals.

---

That's why your friend needs to be joined by many more like-minded individuals.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
And the system and the culture don't change without oversight and forced change.

---

It's hard to imagine an organization's culture being successfully changed by mandate. Cultures, in any organization, are organic and are largely dictated by those within the organization.

A "culture" isn't simply composed of procedures or processes. It's a system of ethics and beliefs that are adopted and internalized by the individuals which compose the organization or group. Hence, trying to impose mechanical changes to an organization (from the outside) won't change the organization's culture.

[ 03 August 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

It is the only way to bring around real positive change.

That being said, what the police need to do before becoming cops is to take a lot of courses in sociology, anti-racism and criminology. My belief is that cops cannot possibly know squat about the society they are supposed to protect if they know nothing about it.

Once they get the schooling, then that fulfils the need for more progressive people on the forces.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer: what the police need to do before becoming cops is to take a lot of courses in sociology, anti-racism and criminology. My belief is that cops cannot possibly know squat about the society they are supposed to protect if they know nothing about it.

---

quote:

---

6 months in training on how to be an asshole is clearly not working.

---

But seriously folks. As for changing work cultures, that's part of the work that I do as a consultant. It takes effort from both within and without, yes to remind's suggestion of implementing a new mandate and enforcing it at all levels, including hiring and promotions. It is also important to add elements such as anti-racism, anti-sexism, etc. into job descriptions, so that all employees know what's expected of them, and the consequences should they fail these expectations.

This change takes a long time even when everyone is on board. It takes longer, if at all, if everyone is not, which we can safely assume is the case for the police. But it would be a start, a ground-laying as it were, for more changes to be brought about in 5, 10 or 20 years.

I have a story to add to mine. While I was at the police station and before making my video taped testimony, the officer investigating and I had a few jokes. He asked me if I had anything else to add. I joked, "you mean I have to disclose my extensive criminal record?" (I don't have one) and he said you don't have one do you? Then said something about supporting OCAP (and it meant that like it was a very bad thing).

To be clear, I know this is exactly how much institutional change has come about, and the people who went first (and second and third) didn't yak about it endlessly, they did it, and still do. I would hear the suggestion better if it was coming from people from the communities that are targeted. But when, for example, poor people talk about issues with police harassment, this is never offered as a solution.

1. Any part of the state that uses violence to achieve its ends needs careful, ongoing public scrutiny. The public, and not the police, should be in charge of investigations of the police. The opposite is usually the case in Canada and it is a glaring and serious problem.

2. The police is not the only part of government that needs such oversight. The failure of the Chilean government of 1973 to get its supporters out in the street, to support the government, and other failures, resulted in the establishment of a capitalist police state/military junta under Pinochet that carried out massive social revenge, torture, and class warfare against ordinary people for years afterwards. This is a life and death issue for those on the political left.

3. In light of the toxic and poisonous effect of US ideology and law in regard to the so-called "War On Terror", our country is also being polluted in this manner. Integration or more "interoperability" of the Canadian military with the US military, the SPP, "harmonization" of laws and the repressive apparatus of the state, etc., all suggest this is a problem that will not go away and will likely get worse.

4. Our country now has a history of the politicization of the police, a process that has, I think, accelerated under the current Conservative regime.

Recall that a former Premier of BC got the boot and a televised arrest thanks to the nefarious role of the police, despite the fact that he was convicted of nothing. In Winnipeg, a lawyer for the family of J.J. Harper was also arrested on TV, for what was clearly an act of intimidation by the police. The bogus charges of sexual misconduct were without merit and complete fabrications. Political protesters and those who take part in civil disobedience are also targeted. This stuff goes on all the time. We saw in Montebello what Canadian tax dollars were used for; they were used to discredit public protests against the SPP despite the fact that such protests help, and not hinder, democracy.

A different kind of politicization, not NO politicization, is what the left should advocate in regard to reform of the police. In general it should be a kind of democratization.

quote:

---

“The hidden hand of the market,” Thomas Friedman, the Pulitzer-prize-winning foreign policy columnist for the New York Times, opined, “will never work without a hidden fist—McDonald’s cannot flourish without a McDonnell Douglas, the builder of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps” (New York Times Magazine, March 28, 1999).

---

from the Introduction to John Bellamy Foster's "Naked imperialism" (Monthly Review Press) .

"The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist." That's worth remembering.

[ 04 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

"The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist." That's worth remembering.

[ 04 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

---

quote:

---

Galeano: People were in prison so that prices could be free.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[QB5. Having mentioned the above, the police and such institutions exist to preserve the status quo. They are in place to protect the rich. And we should be realistic about how much change can take place as long as we live in such a society. The rights of working people, in particular social rights without which other "human rights" become formal and worthless, are the kinds of rights whose protection ought to be added to the responsibility of the police. Such things will never happen without fundamental social or political change.[/QB]

---

Well said.

It's not easy becoming a LEO. There is extensive psychological profiling of candidates so if your local LEO looks like and acts like a "bullethead" then it's by no accident. If you're not willing to put on some riot gear and bust in every head you can swing at, then your not going to make the force. They want what they need in those extreme situations of civil unrest and they'll make sure to get it.

Just yesterday I was pulled over by a LEO just because I was on a motorcycle. I wasn't speeding or breaking any laws whatsoever. He pulled me over to check to see if I had my class 6. He said it was for everyone's safety because some people don't bother. At the time I was just annoyed but now I'm more upset. I doubt he randomly pulls over cars to see if the driver has a class 5.

Next time I'm going to make an issue of it.

[ 04 August 2008: Message edited by: FlungPup ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Remind that was a horrible story.

That being said, what the police need to do before becoming cops is to take a lot of courses in sociology, anti-racism and criminology. My belief is that cops cannot possibly know squat about the society they are supposed to protect if they know nothing about it.

Once they get the schooling, then that fulfils the need for more progressive people on the forces.

6 months in training on how to be an asshole is clearly not working. And usually the old timers are far worse than the new cops (just my experience).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
I know a few police officers and for the most part they are just people trying to be good citizens and help others.

---

I want so badly to believe this, but it is difficult. The best example I can cite is the Taman inquiry in Winnipeg and listening to several police officers cover for a former colleague who was involved in a fatal car collision. Do you not think these officers involved know people? Do they not get together with neighbours, help out their friends, and play with their children? I can certainly understand why you wouldn't want to think of people you know being capable of causing such damage. I know a few cops myself, none of whom I have a problem with on a personal level. But my question is, if most cops are trying to help, as we all want to believe, why don't you ever hear any of them say something like, "my colleague is lying, the suspect wasn't even armed?"

ETA: Dated, but still relevant, I think:

quote:

---

A veteran Toronto police officer says he supports a call by defence lawyers for a public inquiry into the Toronto police force because the force is rife with systemic corruption.

In an exclusive interview with CBC Radio News and the Toronto Sun, Sgt. Jim Cassells said police brass have covered up, refused to investigate or buried cases of alleged police brutality, public complaints and internal corruption for years.

"I'm an experienced person, I've got 30 years on the job, and I've seen some fiddle faddle go on."

---

[ 07 August 2008: Message edited by: Aristotleded24 ]

Stargazer, that is absolutely outrageous that he said those things to you, more or less with impunity.

A friend of mine made a complaint about a police officer who sexually assaulted her at an anti-poverty protest here in town, in front of not only other police but about 20 of her friends. She says the complaint process was a horrible experience. Her complaint was eventually dismissed, but hows about this as a solution: in the meantime her friends went around putting up posters with the officer's name and badge number and saying what he did. Bold, eh? I guess this guy had a pretty hard time of it after that and I heard he ended up leaving town. Then the paper got her back by pointedly publishing her name several times as the trouble-maker behind this false allegation.

I recall that when I was having one of a series of disputes with our local police force over policy issues, the chief wrote a letter to the editor in which he used my name repeatedly. It did feel very intimidating -- didn't stop me complaining, although (after I involved the CCLU) the paper did agree to publish a response from me in which I groveled a bit and made it clear that I did respect individual officers. We were starting to get worried about what would happen if we ever got broken into or something!

A woman I used to work with went on to work for Torys, the huge Toronto law firm that defends the police. This agency has deep, deep pockets.

Wiki:

quote:

---

The Blue Code of Silence is an unwritten code of "honor" among many police officers in which reporting another officer's errors, misconduct, or crimes is regarded as a betrayal.

Studies demonstrate that most police feel that the code is applicable in cases of "illegal brutality or bending of the rules in order to protect colleagues from criminal proceedings," but not to illegal actions with an "acquisitive motive."

---

I want to highlight something from what you've said, that can be generalized to most complaints about the cops:

quote:

---

A friend of mine made a complaint about a police officer who sexually assaulted her at an anti-poverty protest here in town, in front of not only other police but about 20 of her friends. She says the complaint process was a horrible experience. Her complaint was eventually dismissed, but hows about this as a solution: in the meantime her friends went around putting up posters with the officer's name and badge number and saying what he did. Bold, eh? I guess this guy had a pretty hard time of it after that and I heard he ended up leaving town. Then the paper got her back by pointedly publishing her name several times as the trouble-maker behind this false allegation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
BCG, when there is an allegation of police misconduct (of whatever possible type), are you saying that all allegations are true allegations or are you saying that an allegation is neither true or false?

---

quote:

---

BCG:
Once a claim is shown to be without merit, as many/most complaints against the police are, it then magically becomes a "false allegation", see how that works? It's preposterous and yet that's how it's spinned and people believe it. This is exactly how allegations of sexual assault are framed, esp. when the charges are withdrawn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
Sven, I'm concerned with your levels of reading comprehension.

---

You are right. I think I understand what you're saying now that I think about it:

If the matter is dismissed, it doesn't mean that the allegation was necessarily "false". The allegation might be true but the matter may have been dismissed for a proper reason (insufficient evidence to take a matter to trial) or an improper reason (prosecutorial corruption).

So, in most circumstances, it would be better to simply say "allegation" and dispense with the "true" or "false" qualifiers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
P.S. Pronoun defaults to "he" are soooo 19th century.

---

(sigh)

If you read my other posts, you know that I do not default to the "he" pronoun.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
Sven: I really hope you're not looking for applause or anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
Oh wise Stargazer, why don't I ever listen to your advice?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Agent 204:
In order to make an agency like this as impartial as it should be, though, what's really needed is a requirement that no more than 40% of its members have a car registered under their name in the province (maybe make an exception for those who don't drive to work). I'm serious. My dad had a student once who was an ex-cop, and one of the things he told him was that if they really want to hassle you, they can find "safety problems" in just about any car on the road.

---

Excellent point and so true.

In respect to the story I related above, about my partner and others witnessing a RCMP officer purposefully running over a person, they were all followed and harassed by the RCMP looking for vehicle safety problems. In fact, the RCMP put up road blocks at the industrial site where they all worked, at shift change, and would "selectively" stop vehicles leaving the job site.

My partner started keeping a diary on each and every time they did this, at a road block, or elsewhere. He would jump out of his truck with it in his hands and write down the police vehicle plate number and take the officers names, along with a brief on what they said they said they had stopped him for and had looked at.

quote:

---

Stargazer: The police themselves dismiss complaints and stop following up on crimes that they decide won't go anywhere. It is a truly flawed system, especially in regards to sexual assaults.

---

quote:

---

just ignore my posts. It's really quite simple.

---

I have long thought it curious that the word "oversight" has two different meanings:

1. Watching very carefully

2. Not watching very carefully

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
Well I've been doing that for 3 years now, and I certainly feel the better for it!

---

It's an excellent means of reducing stress and avoiding unwanted conflict, isn't it?

There are a few, select babblers that I essentially ignore for that very reason.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
/thread drift/

I have long thought it curious that the word "oversight" has two different meanings:

1. Watching very carefully

2. Not watching very carefully

/thread drift off/

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
It's an excellent means of reducing stress and avoiding unwanted conflict, isn't it?

There are a few, select babblers that I essentially ignore for that very reason.

More babblers might want to consider adopting that approach. Their lives will be better for it!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
Those you ignore are the people who reveal you for the hypocrite that you are...

---

I don’t ignore anyone because I disagree with them or if they poke holes in my current thinking. I like having my thoughts challenged—it’s the only way to learn. So, no, I don’t avoid people who reveal weaknesses in my thinking.

quote:

---

I have long thought it curious that the word "oversight" has two different meanings:

1. Watching very carefully

2. Not watching very carefully

/thread drift off/

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
Allow me to now take Stargazer's sage advice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
Her advice was to ignore your baiting. I've taken her advice

---