• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Active Shooter In NS. April 19 2020

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
4,446
Points
1,110

Interesting item to pop over my news feed from down south
Yeah, it’s nonsense. That’s not how confidential informants are paid, nor would a CI see that kind of money. An agent may, but they get outed in court, and in any case, they wouldn’t be picking up their pay at a brinks place.

Some of the Informations to Obatain search warrants have been released to the public, and the large cash withdrawal appears to have been accounted for by him getting paranoid about COVID and cashing out investments.

In any case, with the royal commission ongoing it’ll all come out in the wash. Covert agent status wouldn’t be something they could keep buried in circumstances like this. It’s an entertaining conspiracy theory for some, but not grounded in reality.
 

Booter

Full Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
596
Points
810
Why on earth would you pay an agent on camera through a bonded company…and what use is a dentist that collects police memorabilia. An agent is an incredibly specific process that requires a bloody use.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,272
Points
1,060
It's hard to shake the feeling some really don't want this inquiry to happen.

Nova Scotia Mounties should be compelled to testify at mass shooting inquiry: experts

Public trust in the inquiry investigating the mass shooting in Nova Scotia almost two years ago would be undermined if the RCMP officers involved are not compelled to testify, legal experts say.

Last week, the commission of inquiry came under intense scrutiny when the RCMP’s union argued the 18 officers would be “re-traumatized” if they are forced to relive April 18-19, 2020, when a man disguised as a Mountie fatally shot 22 people during a 13-hour rampage.

Police officers routinely give evidence under oath at trials and public inquiries, even when the subject matter is profoundly disturbing and graphic. But the federal-provincial inquiry in Halifax, which started hearings last month, has adopted a novel, “trauma-informed” approach.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
10,450
Points
1,160
I have to agree with their new Union on this one. They've already got the information, so why insist these Officers testify publicly as well?

N.S. mass shooting inquiry: RCMP, police union resist calls for officers to testify​

The RCMP and a police union are resisting calls to have officers who responded to the worst mass shooting in Canadian history be compelled to testify at the public inquiry investigating the tragedy.

All 18 officers who responded to the killings that left 22 people dead over two days in April 2020 run the risk of being re-traumatized on the witness stand, the lawyer for the National Police Federation argued Thursday.

Nasha Nijhawan told commissioners they must consider the inquiry's mandate to be "trauma-informed" in dealing with witnesses.

In addition, Lori Ward, the lawyer for the Attorney General of Canada, which represents the RCMP, said the families' lawyers must realize the public inquiry is attempting a "brave new world" in terms of its format.

"We hear the frustration from lawyers used to a trial-style approach to gathering evidence, but that doesn't mean other methods or alternate methods of evidence aren't meaningful," Ward said.

Most of the RCMP officers who responded to the killings have already provided extensive, unsworn interviews to commission counsel, she said, adding that unless it's clear something is missing, that should suffice.

Lawyers for family members on Thursday asked the inquiry for constables Stuart Beselt and Vicki Colford to testify under oath about the early hours of the attacks in Portapique, N.S., the community west of Truro where the shootings began on April 18, 2020.

Beselt was an acting corporal who was among the first four RCMP members to respond to 911 calls after the killer began his shooting spree.

Michael Scott, a lawyer representing 14 of the 22 victims' families, said, "We need to hear from these officers for the simple reason: they were there. We need to know what the officers heard and saw and did.

"We haven't heard from any witnesses and at this point in the process, we've moved very quickly through one of the central timelines."

Steve Topshee, a lawyer who represents two of the victims' families, noted that Beselt was the first to arrive and within minutes encountered Andrew MacDonald, who had been shot and injured, and MacDonald's wife, Kate MacDonald, as they were exiting the community.

The inquiry's summaries, released earlier this week, indicated that it was Beselt who determined that there was a mass shooting underway and decided to advance on foot with his body armour and carbine, along with constables Adam Merchant and Aaron Patton.

Colford, meanwhile, remained at the main entrance to the community, assisting the MacDonalds and relaying information to other officers.

"It's not to put him (Beselt) on the stand to cross-examine him, it's to get to the truth and get to the facts," Topshee said. "It's not a blame-seeking situation. It's an inquisitorial and fact-seeking situation."

He noted that as Beselt prepared to enter the community on foot, rather than continuing in his patrol car, he talked about the Moncton, N.B., shooting of five RCMP officers in June 2014. During an interview Beselt gave to the commission before hearings began, he told investigators that the Moncton shootings had taught officers that it was riskier to be in a car during a mass shooting than on foot.

"What is he talking about? That has to be explored," Topshee said. "That has to be looked into."

Topshee said he wanted to ask Colford, who has retired from the force, questions about information she had relayed to officers on April 18, 2020, about a possible escape route the killer could use.

The commission has published transcripts in which Colford radioed to her colleagues that she had heard there was "kind of a road that someone could come out," after she spoke to Kate MacDonald. The commission has said that the killer likely escaped through a rough road that wasn't being monitored by the RCMP.

Ward said Beselt and Colford had addressed key issues in their interviews, and she said it's unclear further testimony is needed. She also suggested questions could be submitted in writing.

Lawyers for the police union and RCMP argued that the questions victims' families have about the killings have already been answered and can be found in the written transcripts of pre-inquiry interviews.

Commission lawyer Gillian Hnatiw didn't advocate for having any of the officers testify. Instead, she said that some police officers, including Beselt, would participate in "a series of roundtables" composed of firefighters, paramedics and police that are scheduled to take place during the inquiry's second phase later this year.

However, Scott said this wouldn't address the questions families have about the police response on April 18-19, 2020, during the 13-hour manhunt for the perpetrator, who was driving a replica police vehicle.

"We are extremely frustrated at the prospect of having to justify seeking facts in a fact-finding process," he told the commission.

 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,272
Points
1,060
Does "unsworn interviews" mean they were not under oath for lack of a better word?
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
4,446
Points
1,110
Does "unsworn interviews" mean they were not under oath for lack of a better word?
Yes, but under oath or not, they still have a legal requirement to be truthful in any of their statements made or reports filed in the course of their duties, which this definitely is. Unless there’s reason to doubt their prior statements - which should be corroborated by the reports they all would have also submitted for the criminal investigation - I don’t see why there would be a need to put them up there to have to relive this yet again. They’ve each had to make full accountings of this already, and I expect their notes would have also been submitted to the inquiry. This would all be further corroborated by recorded radio audio, 911 calls, calls by police to the Operational Communications Centre, dispatch logs, in car computer/GPS data, etc etc.

You'd think the NPF would have a vested interest in getting answers through the commission that would help them improve conditions for their members.

They do, and they’ve been supportive of the inquiry throughout. They also have a responsibility to advocate for the health and well being of the members they represent. In this case, those two things are not inconsistent given that all the information sought is already available and has been provided.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,612
Points
1,140
They do, and they’ve been supportive of the inquiry throughout. They also have a responsibility to advocate for the health and well being of the members they represent. In this case, those two things are not inconsistent given that all the information sought is already available and has been provided.
I will admit that an earlier article I'd read on this lacked the context required for a fully informed rebuttal. While I agree in this context, there may be need for some clarification of statements made and a blanket assertion that members should not be compelled to testify is excessive.

This government has problems with transparency and honesty particularly where gun violence gun laws are involved. This was evidenced by Trudeau using this as a part justification for the May 1st 2020 OIC gun band and Minister Mendicino's remarks last week at the Public Safety Committee hearings. This will do nothing to lessen those concerns and members should be allowed to testify if they so desire.
Since when do the police get a choice whether to testify or not? This disturbs me.
In Ontario, for example, during investigations into police use of force, officers are not required to give statements or provide their notes as of right.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
607
Points
1,260


Since when do the police get a choice whether to testify or not?

In Ontario, for example, during investigations into police use of force, officers are not required to give statements or provide their notes as of right.

Regarding "subject officers" and "witness officers" in Ontario,

Under Ontario law, subject officers — like anyone suspected of a crime — have the right to remain silent and cannot be compelled to speak to the SIU, despite calls for police officers to be held to a higher standard given their duty to protect.

The regulations governing police officers and their duty to speak with the SIU are complicated. In any investigation, officers are broken down into two categories: witness officers who saw what happened, and subject officers who are themselves under investigation.

Under the current legislation, subject officers cannot be compelled to speak to the SIU.

 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,272
Points
1,060
Yes, but under oath or not, they still have a legal requirement to be truthful in any of their statements made or reports filed in the course of their duties, which this definitely is. Unless there’s reason to doubt their prior statements - which should be corroborated by the reports they all would have also submitted for the criminal investigation - I don’t see why there would be a need to put them up there to have to relive this yet again.
Thanks. It's weird their is an option not to be under oath when givng a testimony. I was under oath for a BOI even though I'm pretty sure I need to be truthful in any of my statements. Maybe it's some kind of nuance.

Could be a big nothing burger but there still seems to be something strange about this whole case, response and aftermath.

They’ve each had to make full accountings of this already, and I expect their notes would have also been submitted to the inquiry.
I've read of a few cases where police refused to submit their notes for incidents, hopefully that isn;t the case here.

Most of the RCMP officers who responded to the killings have already provided extensive, unsworn interviews to commission counsel, she said, adding that unless it's clear something is missing, that should suffice.
Most and Should leaves a bit of room for interpretation. This means some officers may have not been interviewed.

kind of like that case how the CAF investigating sexual misconduct stopped interviewing witnesses mid case. Or it may have been some inquiry, either way.
 

Booter

Full Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
596
Points
810
The strange thing about the case is the bizarre completely groundless conspiracy nonsense surrounding the case, not even mildly in the realm of reality. Some of which they printed in national magazines.

There were hundreds of officers involved in this case. They won’t all be at the inquiry and they won’t have all provided detailed accounts of what they did because they stood a hundred kms away in an intersection. They would have dropped off their notes and left.

The police in the incidents you’re talking about are providing evidence against themselves in a criminal probe of their actions. This is an inquiry. Not the same thing.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,272
Points
1,060
Fair points.

The strange thing about the case is the bizarre completely groundless conspiracy nonsense surrounding the case, not even mildly in the realm of reality. Some of which they printed in national magazines.

It might have been the original "nothing to see here" response by Bill Blair and Mark Furey. The full-scale public inquiry victim family members, academics, advocates, and politicians called for was originally rejected. In it's place was an independent review panel with no power to compel witnesses or testimony, no power to subpoena evidence, no power to challenge any agency or organization that refuses to provide information, and no power to make binding recommendations to the government.

Not very much teeth but thankfully something convinced them to change their mind.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,662
Points
1,140
I've been in a few OIS interviews - never once was I placed under oath - as the requirement is for LE to give truthful statements in that regard. For a sworn LEO - violating that results in job loss, and worse...
See what happened to the HRT Agents who lied about firing on the moving car down here (even though they where legally allowed to do so) - the only crime was the falsehoods in the statement - that got 2 of them kicked out of HRT and a few other admin actions.


Like @brihard mentioned it's a mountain out of nothing.

I tend to think the reliving the trauma is a bit of a odd duck - but it's hardly an X-Files conspiracy.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,788
Points
1,060
With the hostility towards the RCMP in NS following the shootings, by some Nova Scotians, I don’t blame any of the LEOs who don’t want to appear in front of the inquiry. I also don’t believe the states “motives” of the lawyers representing families either. First off they’re lawyers and secondly, as I mentioned there was and is blame and hostility towards the RCMP, as if they were to blame. 1 person and 1 person only was and is responsible for the deaths he caused.

Are there Lessons Learned? Sure - there always is. Are there some questions that need(ed) answering, like what happened at the fire hall where shots were fired at building sheltering citizens? Hell yes.

But, from what I saw and read after the events, a fairly significant amount of anger and blame as directed at the very Officers who were willing to lay their lives down that night.

After reading some of the comments and nut bars online crap following the tragedy, I am not surprised if the LEOs in question reply with a GFY to this answer questions under oath stuff.
 

RedFive

Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
139
Points
630
There is also institutional fear on the part of members of being the next YVR/Dziekanski members to be bussed in the name of public outrage in the stead of the failings of the RCMP as an organization.

I would strongly encourage anybody interested in learning how badly those members were treated (two out of four went to prison) to read Blamed and Broken by Curt Petrovich.
 

Furniture

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,033
Points
1,110
Off topic, but relevant to the discussion about distrust of the RCMP by average people in the Maritimes..

Back home on PEI a few people were arrested for allegedly shooting harbour seals. The names of the people involved in the shooting were known in the community, and the names were reported to the RCMP. The RCMP showed up to each house with multiple cars, lights flashing, making a big scene to arrest, without incident, people who would have voluntarily showed up at the station if called, and asked to come in.

That turned the entire community against the RCMP... My parents, who are about as pro-law as anyone ever, were incensed that the police would make a scene for no reason, just to "look like they were doing something". I got into an argument with my parents trying to explain that RCMP officers might be "from away", and not know that shooting seals isn't a sign that the local idiots aren't the next Mayerthorpe, or Moncton shooter.

Policing in Canada has a problem, that maybe this thread isn't the place to discuss, but police have lost the "average person". When working class "peace, order, and good government" people question the motivations and decisions of the RCMP perhaps the most open and honest possible discussion is what is needed.

The more the shooting inquiry is seen as compromised, or "hiding something", the more people will question the police.
 
Top