Follow Up to ‘Short, Sweet and to the Point’
Back in March I posted a two liner titled “Short, Sweet and to the Point” after a Vancouver police officer and her partner were involved in a shooting. At the time I could not comment on the incident as it was under active investigation.
The Abbotsford Police Department was in charge of the investigation and yesterday they released video of the actual shooting as well as a press release regarding their findings.
Vancouver Police Chief Constable Jim Chu provided a statement on the incident, as did the Vancouver Police Union, both of which can be accessed through the Media Releases link (dated 2009.12.15) in the Public Affairs Media Section of the VPD website.
After watching the video, please take the time to read the statement of Chief Constable Jim Chu.
Also, feel free to leave your comments here. There is not a lot of opportunity for those who support their policing agencies to have their say, so I’m opening this post up as a forum for you to do so.
16. December 2009 at 1:46 pm :
Dear Constable Glendinning (Sandra),
I have read everything supported at the site for the V. H. shooting, and I have some comments. I am new at studying law enforcement but pretty good at studying media.
The report issued by the Abbotsford investigator follows the video. The video had very good coverage of the confrontation. Another thing the video tells us is that the unknown factors about V.H.–there was one minute of conversation, and not a chance to assess other risks (e.g., weapons) V.H. may have had. What started as a low-key conversation escalated rapidly.
1. If the police officers had started with a search, the unknown risks might have been known. However, do we want officers to search everyone before they talk to them? I say no. I say that escalates even tiny encounters. They went in with best practices.
2. Once there is escalation, the unknown risks are just as important as the knife in the right hand. Would he drop the knife and reach for a gun? (What next?)
3. The officers continued to give space for VH to de-escalate while protecting themselves, but he did not take the offer of a stand-down..
4. The video barely shows that the periphery of this incident was also very charged. Bystanders, pedestrians, drivers were also at risk–perhaps not from the knife, but from whatever unknown outcome was imminent. The officers are also sworn to protect them.
5. The tape reveals that the officers involved were separated from the aftermath immediately–I hope for a little shock management, but also to preserve the scene. The dispatcher verified that I believe twice, or it was mentioned twice.
6. Once V.H. was shot, the first effort was to preserve the scene and provide organization. Soon afterward, the organization allowed for life-preserving measures for the victim.
Any shooting is regrettable, but I don’t see how fighting VH for instance, would be a less risky alternative–in fact, more, when you consider all the elements.
Now, to the finger-pointing. I think the union statement says it all: the way the “activators” portrayed the event leads to less trust between the police and the homeless. This can only lead to more escalated incidents in at least the short-term. Very irresponsible, and I hope somebody can get that message out.
I hope that the courts follow through on the “false witnesses”. Another way to get it out would seem to be the press release, but it’s not the end. The way to get this out is to network with homeless services people, reassure the homeless community, and do what these officers tried to do the first minute:
Talk to people in a low-key manner.
I totally support the actions of these officers. I’m a little bit weepy, thinking how the burden has fallen on them, to do everything right, have it go wrong, and suffer through the process. To work so hard for a good rep and have it trashed by people who don’t pay attention. I wish those officers and all law enforcement the very best support they can get.
Truth matters the most. The truth is, they did right. It’s our turn to say so.
I guess this is awfully long, but thanks for the opportunity,
Ann T.
16. December 2009 at 1:56 pm :
First off Sandra, great blog. I started reading it as I started my RCMP and Ottawa Police applications. Very helpful and enlightening.
Up until now I hadn’t read much about this story. What I was the most disturbed by is the comments on some of the news articles. I still can’t believe that some people actually believe that the police should aim for the legs or arms instead of the chest. Not only would that take extreme amounts of training, what about the bystanders behind the target if they missed?
The other thing that gets me is that first, people complain about the use of tasers, and then they complain that a taser wasn’t used in this situation. Can’t have it both ways.
I’m glad that they’re pressing charges against the guy that allegedly had his cell phone video erased. It was a tough enough situation to begin with, and shouldn’t been used to achieve his 15 minutes of fame.
I feel bad for the officers involved here, I’m sure they have went through so much since that, not only with the incident itself, but with the criticisms afterward. Bottom line however, is that they did their jobs and went home at night. Personally, I’m glad to have officers like that on Canadian streets, had the suspect turned on bystanders instead of the police, the whole scene would have been much worse. Thanks again Sandra, I appreciate what you do, even if John Q public doesn’t seem to.
16. December 2009 at 4:18 pm :
First of all, I hope the members know that there are other police officers out there who have been involved in similar incidents, who understand what they are going through, who respect the difficult decisions they had to make, and who are very proud of the fact that they had the courage to do the right thing.
Now, as for the parasites from Pivot and the BC Civil Liberties Association and their mainstream media enablers, they are no better than the camp followers of old who came down from the hills after the battle to finish off the wounded and loot the bodies. The C/C and the Vancouver Police Union are to be commended for taking a strong stand against their disgusting behavior.
Bob Cooper says it best here:
http://www.primetimecrime.com/contributing/2009/20091214cooper.htm
Gary Cameron
16. December 2009 at 5:33 pm :
My observations:
1. The officers. Handled an incredibly tough situation well. It’s hard to tell from that distance what finally prompted them to shoot (maybe it came out in the investigation) but clearly they were backing off and were trying not to have to use deadly force. The officer sounds remarkably composed after the fact…given that an shocking event has just occurred I don’t conclude anything from that it just stuck out to me.
2. The investigation. A necessity and I’m glad it vindicated the officers. The video was a great help.
I do have one question about the medical care given to the victim. He was immediately handcuffed after the shooting, placed on his stomach and then held there by a single officer. I understand that as an immediate precaution and no doubt it is procedure. But it looks like it took about 5 minutes before any medical attention was given to the victim by an officer on scene. I doubt it would have helped in this case but I’m wondering what are the rules for rendering first aid to a suspect? Are you allowed to render first aid to a handcuffed suspect or told to wait for EHS? Not criticizing just trying to understand.
16. December 2009 at 7:07 pm :
Thank you for posting these videos Sandra.
I believe the officers acted courageously and with great patience.
However, I do have one problem with the incident. What were the bystanders thinking!? where does anyone get the idea that walking beside two officers with their guns drawn at a suspect is a good idea? Im absolutely astonished at a few of these bystanders actions, unbelievable.
Again your blog is fantastic keep the posts coming!
Sandra
16. December 2009 at 8:53 pm :
I think the video along with the statements make for an excellent training discussion, as well as helping citizens to understand the complexities of these situations.
As I sit on my couch in my safe home and watch the video, I think about all of the factors the officers were dealing with: the knife, the short distance between them, passer-byers, the roadway, the rain, a subject not responding to verbal commands, etc. In contrast, the officers had to analyze all of this in the heat of the moment. A big difference.
I say thanks to the officers for protecting the community.
17. December 2009 at 2:04 am :
“Vancouver Police officers know we work under a high level of scrutiny and accountability”.
Which raises the question, WHO holds the Media “under a high level of scrutiny and accountablity”?
My thoughts go out to the 2 Members, and their families…………………. time is on your side.
Cheers
17. December 2009 at 10:55 am :
Way to go for VPD to give it back to all those who hate police. I often wonder who controls this city, and why do we “owe” so much to so many: free or heavily subsidized housing, various social services, uninhibited drug use, and the ability to run one’s mouth without being held accountable.
It is about time VPD started calling things their real names. Especially welcome would be VPD’s labelling drug dealers as murderers and the appropriate treatment which comes with that.
17. December 2009 at 11:22 am :
I have to agree with what everyone before me has said (tough situation for the officers, handled it properly in my opinion). As for the media and the dumbass(DA) who said the police erased his cell video, they both need to be held accountable for thier statements and accusations. I’m sure the media is protected by some laws saying they just reported what they were told but I believe they need to be accountable for fact checking before they print something. The DA on the other hand needs to be charged and convicted, end of story.
Pivot and the BCCLA have the oppertunity to do a lot of good work but they seem to just look for any police actions and try to find a way to plce the blame for that action completly on the police rather than the criminal creating the situation. It seems that they are never held accountable for thier statements either.
Sorry for the rant but between the media, the DA, Pivot and the BCCLA, they just get me angry sometimes.
17. December 2009 at 12:07 pm :
Now I’m not a cop (yet. *fingers crossed*) but reading the comments people have posted on youtube and news sites just makes me so angry…
“Lets see…batons, stun guns, flak jackets…close combat training. And nothing used other than a gun? Drunk (wide stance and staggering) and beligerent = an easy take down. Those posting ‘for’ the cops in this instance need their heads examined”
Because you know… that vest is sure going to save you from a knife right? That little piece of protective equipment makes you invincible to all types of weapons.
“these are police officers and they should have some kind of training to deal with weapons with different level of damage. a gun > axe > baseball bat > box cutter etc. you dont deal with all of them with one tool- the gun. this logic comes from a civilian with no credentials/ back ground in martial arts , law enforcement and such. put me in that situation with a police baton, i couldn’t taken care of that with the old guy in the hospital then jail in no time.”
Could we please put this guy in the same situation? Seeing as he thinks its so easy… Maybe he could fend this guy off with a baton, but what happens when the guy takes a swipe at him with the knife, cuts something on his leg and now he cant walk properly for the rest of his life, or the guy grabs an innocent bystander and is now threatening THEM with the knife… Too many what if’s if you ask me. From the looks of it, all the weapons he described in his post are right up there in Grievous Bodily Harm, I for one wouldn’t want to fight someone with any of those weapons with a baton…
I think the officers in this video handled the situation as best as they could and attempted to deescalate the problem. It’s a shame that people are so quick to judge the police and their actions without being fully informed, yet in the first sign of trouble their reaching for the cell phones to call 911.
On a side note I really hope the guy with the “deleted cell phone footage” is actually charged. How many people called BS when that story suddenly fell off the face of the planet (if not before then)?
17. December 2009 at 12:40 pm :
The public comments on the CBC news site are already quite disappointing.
I actually think zealous unofficial oversight is a good and necessary thing to bring the perception of balance. (I don’t mean the stunt pulled by Mr. Smolcic)
It just means we have to support our police that much more when, as in this case, they are proven to have acted rightly.
17. December 2009 at 3:16 pm :
Dear Sandra and Everyone,
I know I’ve already said enough for five people, but where the heck do these trolls come from? They have computers, time to use them, and all they can think of is to be unkind?
To be honest, I’m more afraid of these people and the way they skew our perceptions of each other than of any homeless person I’ve ever seen. They are tearing at the fabric of social debate. We can survive any incident better than the ripping of our social fabric.
I guess they are no mystery to our first responders, but ick.
For the big and terrible things you take care of, for the little annoying icks you send safely on their way,
To all law enforcement and first responders of all sorts,
Thank You Very Much.
Ann T.
21. December 2009 at 2:30 am :
The two officers involved were both female and the usual nonsense was inevitable from the media, but what was really amusing was the comments from some of the same folks who criticized the RCMP for using a taser on Dziekanski, asking why the VPD officers involved in the shooting were not armed with tasers so they did not have to shoot V.H. The mind boggles at the sheery hypocrisy. But even though the shooting investigation is over, the cop critics are still in full voice. The family of V.H. have filed a lawsuit against the VPD claiming wrongful death. They have described V.H. as a gentle and law abiding citizen. Perhaps he was when they knew him, but when he was in Vancouver, he was homeless and violent as evidenced by his own behaviour. He was being checked by two police officers while he was carrying a black backpack similar in description to one just stolen from a vehicle. They engaged him in conversation for atleast a minute then suddenly; V.H. pulled a utility knife, which was razor sharp and fully extended.
He approached the police officers with it and they pulled their service weapons and retreated trying to keep a safe distance while containing the armed man. All the while they endeavoured to keep busy downtown traffic out of harms way. When at length, this “gentle man” charged at one of the officers after one minute and forty seconds of the standoff, he was shot. Once, to the centre of the mass, just like the officers were trained to do so. V.H. died as a result.
The complicit media tried to nail the officers on the wall, tried to obsfuscate the sequence of events to paint the police as killers and all manner of evil things. The reality is that THEY WERE DOING THEIR JOBS in investigating a just occurred theft from auto and wound up being themselves placed in harm’s way. Those two members accepted their responsibility in spite of the danger, and while trying to focus on the danger they faced also did everything they could to keep the public out of harm’s way as the drama unfolded. Never mind the nonsense from the family, from the so-called witness who said police deleted video from his phone while saying the police fired several shots, never mind all the nonsense. Those two police officers did their jobs on that day and for that they deserve to be supported not chastised by the chattering class.
And for the family, I am sorry for your loss. But really, why was your loved one homeless in Vancouver? why did he pull a knife one minute after being engaged by the police? and finally, in the face of warnings to drop the knife, why did he charge at one officer? waste your time, money and energy in a lawsuit if you want, but the two members of the VPD did their job on that fateful day. Consistent with community based policing principles.
“The basis mission of the police is to prevent crime and disorder,” as the VPD officers were trying to accomplish.
“Police should use physical force only to the extent necessary to ensure compliance with the law or to restore order only after persuasion, advice and warnings are insufficient.” Exactly as the officers did, despite what the witness claims.
This story carrys a distinct sadness as a result. Not long ago the media did not make news or spin news. They reported it. They were fair and balanced but they always worked to get the story and hold those responsible accountable for what they did. They never created a story. But they worked tirelessly to get the story. And they questioned everything.
Not so today I’m afraid.
Thanks, Sandra