Post by Jack Bauer on Mar 4, 2022 11:46:01 GMT -4
For the police and the police union no good can come out of sanctioning members to testify. This was a tragedy and I am sure internally things will change in how they respond (already has if you even look at recent firearms complaints in Halifax). That's the way they see it.
But also there will always be opposition to shining a light inside the RCMP response. Some of that info is important to keep secret - like response strategy and though we all hate that lack of transparency if criminals know all the details that can't be good. SO there needs to be trust in those who oversee the process to keep members and systems accountable and always be improving.
I have an issue with how teethless this commission is. But it may be a fact that its impossible to open it up. And if its not fully open with testimony from all places freely and unbridled someone will always say (and have reason to) that info is hidden on purpose.
I think right now we as a community should be willing to opt out of prosecuting the girlfriend of the shooter just to get the evidence on record. It is after all about preventing future catastrophe. Her going to trial and jail isn't doing any of that. She is also a victim so there should be sympathy for this.
This inquiry needs to have priorities in order. While everyone says the families need to know what happened is the raisin d'etre of this thats just virtue signaling.
The real purpose is to gather info and make sure it doesn't happen again or make sure they are better prepared to handle that type of situation.
The getting "closure" is secondary to all of that. And since this inquiry/commission isnt taking testimony from many it isnt there to lay blame.
I think we want people to blame. That's how our society rolls. And people aren't satisfied with the shooter (only) being responsible. We all want to see anyone who may have contributed in some way small or great to also be blamed. But that's the job of prosecution not inquiries. And all those people not talking have rights to be shielded from undue process and tar of reputation.
This impass will not be bridged here. The great thing about our country is our laws and rights. And in this case laws, and rights will win over the peaked interest of the majority.
I think the fear is that if the shooter was a CI for the RCMP that the people expected to handle prosecution are also the people who need to stand in the way of it to protect their own ass.
A 3rd party police force should have been investigating the RCMP's response. Not the RCMP. Especially when you weigh the historical impact of the shooting and the potential for how poorly the RCMP may look if its discovered that the person they were looking for was also someone they were working with.
To me its clearly not about the families. It's about examining the facts and timeline and trying to make sure that does not happen again. Some common sense law changes should help that. But a 3rd party telling us the RCMP did things as they should have....or maybe coming out with some recommendations on how to handle the next major event...is what this should have all been about. But it doesnt have that feel when you know the RCMP were paid to investigate themselves.