• 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

Booter

Sr. Member
Reaction score
881
Points
810
Thanks, I wasn’t sure. I wasn’t factoring in some of the long term vacancy realities like long term sick leave and members pulled for secondments to other priorities, plus the lg time in filling spots when members transfer out.

So, closer to 2.5-3m in human costs, plus infrastructure and capital costs.
I’m sure that the RCMP would quote a number closer to yours. You can build the schedule- it just doesn’t survive contact. So you were “right”. The practical reality calls for a number a little higher that’s all.

At that lower number you wind up with secret dishonest 24 coverage where one officer works and one is a on call. Or two or three hour periods where there is on call every once in a while because of vacancy. “Risking it out”

I was digging through this stuff recently being called to a detachment that was now refusing to take overtime- they came together saying the over reliance on OT was burning them out- so they wouldn’t be taking ANY OT call-outs.

So in order to bring it to a proper functioning schedule that allowed for the usual vacancy we see now we needed that higher number to actually float it.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
7,156
Points
1,110
I’m sure that the RCMP would quote a number closer to yours. You can build the schedule- it just doesn’t survive contact. So you were “right”. The practical reality calls for a number a little higher that’s all.

At that lower number you wind up with secret dishonest 24 coverage where one officer works and one is a on call. Or two or three hour periods where there is on call every once in a while because of vacancy. “Risking it out”

I was digging through this stuff recently being called to a detachment that was now refusing to take overtime- they came together saying the over reliance on OT was burning them out- so they wouldn’t be taking ANY OT call-outs.

So in order to bring it to a proper functioning schedule that allowed for the usual vacancy we see now we needed that higher number to actually float it.
Yup. And under the new collective they can refuse on call on RTO days. I figured we’d eventually see that used for concerted pushback in hurting detachments.
 

Booter

Sr. Member
Reaction score
881
Points
810
I was happy to see them collectively say that they wouldn’t do something, Despite my mild annoyance at having to deal with it. They are right that they are staffed inappropriately.

As you’re saying- it’s been an eye opener for many managers once they have to operate within a structure with some rules.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
852
Points
1,260
Are RCMP offered the choice of "Cash or Lieu" when they volunteer, or are mandated, for Overtime, Standby, Call-Back, Stats etc.?
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
7,156
Points
1,110
Are RCMP offered the choice of "Cash or Lieu" when they volunteer, or are mandated, for Overtime, Standby, Call-Back, Stats etc.?
Very simplified answer, either/or, but with caps on how much time can be banked in lieu. In practice in a lot of places it’s so hard to get released for leave that lieu banks fill up quick and can’t be depleted. Obviously there are a lot of situational nuances.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
4,289
Points
1,160

Testimony from key RCMP officer at mass shooting inquiry can't be broadcast

The comission investigating the mass shootings in Nova Scotia in April 2020 has made a surprise decision just before the long weekend to block the testimony of a key witness from public broadcast.

RCMP Const. Greg Wiley is set to testify Tuesday afternoon, but in a decision released Friday afternoon, the Mass Casualty Commission ruled that his testimony via video link would not be disseminated as either audio or video via the normal webcast.

"In order to receive the best information possible from Cst. Wiley, we have directed that Cst. Wiley's testimony not be webcast and a transcript be posted on the website," wrote the commission in its decision.

The Attorney General of Canada made an application for accommodation for Wiley, citing personal health reasons.

Wiley is the officer who visited the gunman's Portapique home 16 times in the years before the deadly rampage of April 2020.

He told investigators in an interview that he never saw anything alarming.

Accommodation granted for 'best information'​


Is this implying that in order for Cst Wiley to be open and honest his testimony needs to be hidden from public view?

It sucks that Wiley is in a position where they've had to goto the guys place 16 times with nothing apparently being done about it. That's got to be heavy on their conscience even though it's surely a fault of our system and not them as an officer. Still, needing to hide the testimony seems odd.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
9,754
Points
1,090
My immediate assumption was that if he can't be broadcast in video or audio is that he has worked or is working undercover.

If it's for health reasons, well, it could backfire, since media will scrum around the entrances and exits to try to get quotes / images they can use, which will be potentially much more invasive than a broadcast of a controlled hearing.
 

lenaitch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,488
Points
1,040
My immediate assumption was that if he can't be broadcast in video or audio is that he has worked or is working undercover.

If it's for health reasons, well, it could backfire, since media will scrum around the entrances and exits to try to get quotes / images they can use, which will be potentially much more invasive than a broadcast of a controlled hearing.

From further down the CBC article that I read:

". . . the request concerns personal health information . . . "
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,471
Points
1,360
This just keeps getting better and better

plead monty python GIF
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,248
Points
1,090
My question is would these be standard sop to record all conversations or did someone record her without her knowing and then deleted.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
10,375
Points
1,360
My question is would these be standard sop to record all conversations or did someone record her without her knowing and then deleted.
Whichever it is/was, it’s legal in Canada. Some refer to it as IAG…insurance against gaslighters.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,248
Points
1,090
Whichever it is/was, it’s legal in Canada. Some refer to it as IAG…insurance against gaslighters.
Yeah and that’s fine. Not about the legality, It’s more about it being deleted. If the conference call SOP is to officially record and it was deleted for “reason” then it looks bad. Kind of like your body cam being suddenly NS at a key moment. If someone did of their own recording and deleted it then it seems less conspiratorial.

That’s the crux of my question. Is it SOP or was someone recording to ensure he still had a seat when the music stopped.
 

RedFive

Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
309
Points
830
I think we need an LEO to answer that.
You would need an LEO with experience in these high level politically charged meetings.

Every serious crime/murder investigation I've been a part of records all meetings/briefings etc but I can't say for certain its SOP amongst the likes of Superintendents, Assistant and Deputy Commissioners, or the Commissioner of the RCMP herself.

What I can say with absolute certainty is that the recording having been made was in fact evidence and never should have been destroyed. Given this was the largest mass murder in Canadian history, and the conversation involved the senior most ranks of the RCMP there is absolutely no excuse or reasonable explanation as to why this recording was deleted. No brand new Constable oopsies, no "we didn't think the recording was relevant", no "reached its purge date per policy".

To me this is destruction of evidence, plain and simple. At the least, somebody should be fired. I'd prefer to see somebody charged, made an example of, and then dismissed.
 

lenaitch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,488
Points
1,040
I have no clue whether it is routine for senior police executives' phones calls to be recorded (I was a tad shy of prerequisites for those corridors) but I would suspect not, given that they routinely speak to elected officials, ministers, etc., but if she was speaking from an ops centre/incident room/whatever they call it, at Fort Rose Marie in Ottawa, I would suspect that it would be SOP to record all calls and perhaps even room audio.

Regardless, as RedFive points out, once recorded should have been preserved and no civilian would have the unilateral authority to make that decision.
 
Top