All posts by Cst. Jim Ingram

My name is Jim Ingram and I'm currently assigned to the Patrol Division with Delta Police in Delta, British Columbia, Canada. I have a background in technology and I'd like to share stories from the road with you using social media to help connect the community with the police.

I put it to you, the public…

QuestionSo it’s been a couple weeks since I published Subject Behaviour / Officer Response and there’s been some great feedback and discussion.  If you’ve read through the post, I’d like to pose a hypothetical scenario to you, the reader.

What if, after 4 hours of our stand off a bystander, or neighbour, realized what was happening, brought out their smart phone and began to record just as the male decided to force our hands, commit suicide by police and charge at us as he stated he would.

The bystander’s video captures;

  • A male sprinting at full pace 15m toward the police
  • The male screaming “kill me!”
  • A dull thump as a bean bag is launched and a shotgun action cycling. The bean bag appeared ineffective as the male was at a full run and goal oriented
  • Immediately after a pop and fast paced tick, tick, tick of the CEW are heard as the second probe goes low & misses because he’s moving rapidly
  • Immediately after a loud bang as a round is fired and the male falls to the ground as the team of police are moving backwards to avoid him.
  • The video is 3 seconds long. There’s no further context.

The media headline the next morning reads “Heavily Armed Police Kill Emotionally Disturbed Man” and includes this hypothetical 3 second video clip.  You haven’t read the previous story and have no back story or context.

What is your initial thought about the headline and 3 second video? What opinion do you think that you would naturally form?

The headline isn’t technically wrong.

  • The police were heavily armed, as described all of the tools in the post were deployed.
  • The male may have been emotionally disturbed or in some form of mental health crisis
  • Police did deploy lethal force.

As much as I personally don’t like the bias placed in the headline, the media wouldn’t technically be wrong.  The media also does have a job to do, they have to sell a story.

What happens in the background, that is likely never mentioned in the story, is that the Police officers involved are now subject officers in a Homicide investigation and can not publicly explain what transpired until the investigation moves through the court process which takes years.

The Police Department has to maintain an unbiased stance and can’t comment on the actions of the officers that are currently under investigation.

The public is left without a full explanation for years.  All that exists for the public to make their own judgement is a 3 second video, lacking context, and a headline.

Now put yourself in our shoes.  Read the comments from the public attached to all of the stories.  Perhaps you’d read some supportive comments, but you’d also see comments like;

  • “Police fired everything they had on a man in crisis”
  • “Why didn’t they shoot him in the leg?”
  • “Police need more training to detect and deal with mental health crisis”
  • “Police should have just grabbed him and thrown him down”

Without context, there’s no doubt that the video would look horrible.  We wouldn’t be able to give context until the investigation and court process is complete (years).

How damaging is it to public perception of the police that we can’t address comments like that?

What I would ask you, the public, is the same thing you demand of the police.  Due process.  Let the accused (in this case, the officer that was forced to fire the tragic round) remain innocent until proven guilty in court.  I’m not asking for blind faith in the police, just understand that there may be more to the story.   I’m also not suggesting that the police are infallible and didn’t make mistakes in the process.  It’s just impossible to critique without the full context.

Advertisements

Subject Behaviour / Officer Response

It’s been a busy few months in Delta with several dozen shootings along the Delta / Surrey border related to the street level drug trade.  I’ve been working as part of a uniformed Violence Suppression Team initiative.   Our mandate has been to be highly visible and check anyone suspected of involvement in gangs or drugs and to disrupt their business in the area.  Some of our activities involve priority response to shooting scenes, vehicle checks, curfew and condition compliance of known offenders, our Inadmissible Patron Program (removing anyone related to gangs, violence or drugs from licensed establishments) and street level drug and weapons enforcement. We’ve been quite busy.

As you may imagine, dealing with the potential violence of armed offenders with a predisposition to public violence, we have certain tools and force options at the ready.

In the photo above are a couple of the guys I’ve been working with. As the project and investigations are on going I can’t speak much about them.  I can talk about one call that my partner and I happened upon while working one evening though that speaks to our preparation and our deployment of force options.  This call actually combined the use of many of our specialized tools available to properly trained patrol officers in Delta.

To set the tone, I was working a Violence Suppression shift with my partner, my good friend who happened to also be my partner at the Academy.  We’ve been close since we got on the job and we work very well together, he truly is a brother (from another mother).

It was a dry night, just past dark and we were just leaving the Police Station, I was driving and he was probably making a joke about my control issues (I’m not a great passenger).  We got half way down the block away from the station and saw a male walking up the shoulder toward us drinking from a 40oz liquor bottle.  I’d passed him, turned around and got back in front of him. I stopped the truck, the male turned away, I turned the emergency lights on letting him know we were stopping him.

Partner and I both stepped out of the truck, the male turned back around at us, about 20 meters away, drew a knife from his pocket and began screaming at us that he was going to make us shoot him. This very routine pedestrian check just turned hostile and potentially deadly.   We couldn’t let him walk away and we couldn’t let him harm himself or us.

Have you ever seen how long it takes a goal oriented person to run 20 meters?  No time at all.  Knives are quite capable of inflicting lethal wounds.  Partner and I both instinctively drew our sidearms.  My partner had the male’s attention and began giving him commands to stop moving.

Put yourself in our shoes, let me walk you through this.  Imagine what you’d see, what you’d feel and what you would do;

You’re on a dimly lit street, houses on one side, a large school field to the other, police station behind you, more houses behind the person. An emotionally distraught person, with a knife, demanding that you kill him or he’ll attack you forcing you to kill him.  He’s 20 meters away and there’s nothing between you.

  • You’re holding a sidearm
  • You’re looking down the sights
  • Your finger is indexed, off the trigger
  • You have to get on your radio and let everyone know what’s happening.
  • You need to turn your light on to see him better
  • You need to talk to him
  • You need to think clearly
  • You need to de-escalate
  • You need to know if there’s someone behind him
  • You need to see if there’s someone else, a bystander, that he could attack
  • You need to understand what he’s screaming
  • You need to protect the public
  • You need to protect yourself and your partner
  • You need to protect the subject
  • You need to assess and decide on a “line in the sand” when you must deploy lethal force
  • Is this alcohol induced? Is this a mental health issue? Is this an emotional reaction?  Does it matter?
  • You have a microsecond.

Now allow me to illustrate what went through my mind and what steps we took; Seconds go by.  My partner begins to establish dialogue with the male.  Because we work well together, know each other’s training, have trained in reality based scenarios, we have confidence in each other.  Our tasks split.

My partner had dialogue and naturally took on the role of negotiator.  I took on the role of lethal overwatch and as resources started arriving, became the team lead. My partner is constantly assessing the male’s behaviour while actively listening to him and starting dialogue in an attempt to de-escalate.  He still has to protect himself and manage his force options.

I take a moment and quickly transition to my patrol carbine.  My carbine (rifle) has pin-point accuracy at a greater distance than my pistol, it also has magnified optics mounted on it so that I can assess the male’s behaviour from a safer distance.  I know that if I have to use lethal force it’ll be dynamic, extremely quick and close, I need to be precise and accurate.

My job now is to let my partner negotiate, but still stay engaged.  I may need to switch roles if the male’s focus changes to me.   I’m now lethal overwatch and my partner’s safety rests in my hands. Seconds go by.  I’ve let everyone know what’s going on and I can hear sirens in the distance and voices in my ear asking what I need and where I need it.

The male begins to close the distance, he’s walking toward my partner.  15 meters.  He’s still screaming that he’s going to make us kill him.

  • I’m looking through my rifle scope, assessing what’s in his hands. It’s a fixed blade knife.  40oz bottle in the other hand.  Something heavy in his coat pocket, another bottle? a gun?
  • Where’s my partner
  • Where’s my line in the sand
  • I need less lethal options
  • I need police to surround the area and make sure no bystanders get close.
  • I need a K9 officer
  • Do we have a helicopter up in case he runs?
  • Can we stop traffic?

My next two police officers arrive, now I have 4 police officers here.  I have pistols, rifles, a bean bag shotgun and conducted energy weapons (CEWs or more commonly known as Tasers).  We also have our batons and OC Spray however with a lethal force threat, such as a knife, batons and OC are not viable force options.

The 12ga bean bag is an extended range impact munition.  Think of it as a baton launched from a shotgun.  The injury potential from the beanbag may be higher than that of the baton depending on the range deployed and the area of the body targeted.  The bean bag, while potentially causing some injury, is mainly a pain compliance tool.  As with OC Spray, if a subject is goal oriented or impervious to pain stimulus, the bean bag may be entirely ineffective.

The CEW typically fires 2 barbed probes at a subject, when the 2 probes make contact with a subject, the electrical component of the CEW creates Neuro-Muscular Incapacitation (NMI).  Simply put, it disrupts the bodies ability to control muscle response.  NMI is very effective in stopping a subject’s threat.  However for NMI to be effective the police officer has to realistically be within at least 12-15′ (5m) of the threat, both probes (which leave the CEW at an angle to each other) must contact the subject and then the NMI is limited to 5 seconds.

This subject wants us to harm him, it’s what he’s been screaming for what seems like an eternity but has only been 2 or 3 minutes.   I believed deploying bean bag rounds would only stimulate him. We are not close enough to use a CEW.

He’s still 15m away.  We’ve moved to a position that puts our police car between us.  My partner is still negotiating.  I communicate a plan that involves us holding our ground at the police car and a layered force approach if the male comes at us where we attempt to employ less lethal options to stop him before having to use lethal force. I do not want to use force on this male.  My deployment of force is going to be based off his behaviour.

  • I’m still focussed on my role as lethal overwatch.
  • I now have a negotiator and 2 officers with less lethal options out that I have to protect.
  • I also have to keep my eyes up for bystanders coming into our area.
  • I direct other police resources to strategic points to control the male if he decides to run
  • I have to make sure each of those containment points has proper layered force options (firearms, CEWs, bean bags)
  • I have to keep the bosses in the loop, I’m also the eyes for incident command
  • I have to formulate and communicate contingency plans, what if the male starts stabbing himself?  What if he charges us?  What if he runs away?  What if he finds a bystander?
  • I’m still watching his hands, now he has 2 knives, a fixed blade and a box cutter
  • He’s still upset but is maintaining dialogue with my partner
  • My partner is still maintaining efforts to de-escalate and doing a great job given the behaviour of the distraught male.

I have to formulate a plan, if this male begins to critically harm himself how are we going to intervene?  We don’t have the luxury of risk avoidance, we only mitigate risk.  We might have to physically intervene.

My intervention plan, should the male begin to critically injure himself includes us closing the distance, deploying bean bags to change his focus until we’re close enough to deploy the CEW so that we have 5 seconds to get our hands on him and stop his self-harm.  This is an incredibly dangerous plan and involves us launching force options and causing harm, but less harm than the subject is causing himself.

One of our K9 officers has arrived.  We decide that the K9 deployment is a last resort as we don’t want to force the male to injure the police dog.

I broadcast all of the contingency plans.  The 4 other officers I’m with have to know their roles.  The containment officers need to know their roles and incident command ultimately has to approve our plan to deploy force (incident command approves plans for a planned response, for spontaneous threats, the individual officer still maintains the authority and discretion to deploy force).

Just as my partner has to keep assessing the male’s behaviour, the environment and all of the circumstances, I have to formulate and broadcast these plans while maintaining lethal overwatch, assessing the environment and all of the circumstances.

This is complicated by the male himself who is intent on moving around, walking through a fence line into the school field and forcing us to move with him maintaining as much safety as possible while I manage and shift containment teams. The male begins to violently stab himself in the abdomen.  At least that’s what it appeared.  Do I launch my intervention plan? I have microseconds.  One last assessment through my magnified rifle scope and I can just see that he’s using the butt end of the box cutter, not the blade.  Apparently in an attempt to get our attention.

  • I have to observe
  • I have to keep my team safe
  • I have to keep the public safe
  • I have to keep the subject safe
  • I have to communicate what I see
  • I have to decide, launch less lethal and intervene or hold?
  • I have to decide to deploy force and jeopardize my team’s safety
  • I’m on the radio, I’m focussed on the subject, is the area still safe?

A microsecond, a split second decision. Go or no go.

No go.

The male realizes that he didn’t force our hand.  My partner is still talking to him.  The dedicated negotiators have shown up, they’re backing up my partner, he’s still primary because he’s got a rapport and doing a great job. I’m back to lethal overwatch, ensuring I’ve got all the resources I need.  Is everyone safe?  I’m back to being the eyes on the radio so the incident commander knows what’s going on. The male tries to force our hand again, rushing toward us.

  • Do we pull back to a point of safety?
  • Communicate on the radio
  • Ensure the safety is off on my rifle
  • Aim, Breathe, Concentrate
  • My team mates with less lethal have to launch first when he crosses their threshold
  • He’s almost there, if he keeps going I may be forced to use lethal force.  I don’t want him to force me to press my trigger but I can’t let him harm my team or me.

He stops, just before our line in the sand to launch a bean bag as if he knew. This back and forth, negotiation, constant focus, constant assessment continues for 4 hours.

In the end our most valuable tool was communication.  We were able to take the male into custody without deploying force.  We had everything available to us out and prepared.   Each person and each force option had a specific purpose.  Our combined purpose was to preserve life.  Our response is driven by our subject’s actions.

My partner and I spoke to the male after he was in custody and had calmed down.  His plan was to come into the police station and attack someone forcing the police to kill him, a concept known as “Suicide by police”.

We have all of these force options available to us.  We train with them, we train with each other.  Some of these tools look pretty scary but they all serve a specific purpose.  I hope I’ve given you some insight into what the purpose of each is, and how we can deploy with them.  From this call though, I’d like to highlight how important our ability to communicate is.

Once the male was in custody, we all took a breath, ensured the required investigational steps were completed, knew there’s some paperwork ahead and headed back out on the street for the next call.

This sounds a lot like “My partner and I…” and a little bit about the rest of our team.  The reality is that I could write intimately about this specific incident because I was there but this is what we do and by we, I mean the policing profession as a whole.

This was that “Police incident, road closed” report that you never see further details about.  This was that time you saw a police car parked, emergency lights on, but no one around and didn’t think anything further of it.  This was that call at 2am on your street that you slept right through.  This is the 99.9% of the time that police deploy force options and aren’t forced to use them.  This is the professional work that police do every day, in every city across North America that never results in a media story.

My 4 days on the line at the Burnaby Mountain Kinder Morgan protest.

How I spent 4 days on the line at the Burnaby Mountain Kinder Morgan protest.

On the night of Wednesday, November 19 2014 my phone rang the familiar tone of a Tac Troop Call out, within hours I would be in uniform on Centennial Parkway in Burnaby.   I’m attached to the Lower Mainland District Integrated Tactical Troop and one of our functions is crowd management.  Days before the callout the Supreme Court of BC issued an injunction that allowed Kinder Morgan  to conduct 2 survey drillings on the mountain in preparation to put a bitumen (Tar sands oil) pipeline through the mountain.  A group of protestors had already assembled on the site during the months before to protect the mountain, the environment and their homes.   They had a camp setup in the area known as “Borehole 2”, the gravel parking lot on the way up Centennial Parkway.

The Supreme Court injunction outlined a very specific area for Kinder Morgan to work that was defined by GPS coordinates.  It also stated that no one shall interfere with their work.

The protest camp was setup in a location that had to be cleared for the injunction.  The people were given days after the injunction was read without much police presence in order to move.  They chose not to.

This is where we showed up.  We arrived and the injunction was read again and again the people in the protest camp chose not to move.  Several people chose to make a statement, link arms and sit on the ground forcing us to make the first arrests of the week.

We began by taking control of the camp itself, which had a sacred fire burning.  We expanded our work area to encompass the totem pole area that was being carved.  While trying to work with the protestors and Kinder Morgan to determine exactly where the work area was to be we allowed a small, controlled group of people in to keep the fire going and continue carving the totem pole.

Through the day the area that we had to work was further defined and unfortunately the decision was made that we needed more space to the North.  Kinder Morgan’s work area was defined and we required a safe work space for ourselves and to get equipment and people into the work space.  Our command determined where our lines had to be.

The line of protestors did not agree with this and chose to resist our movement.  Command asked us to form a line and push the crowd North.  Prior to moving, our Negotiators and Command informed the crowd and asked everyone to move back to a specific point, many chose not to.

Thus began the first real confrontation between Police and Protestors.  We were enforcing a legal court order, they were standing up, passionately, and exercising their right to assemble and protest.  We moved the line to the North.

We established our area, put Police tape up and made it clear that anyone coming through the tape would be interfering with the court injunction and was arrestable for breaching the court order.  That was our “line in the sand” so to speak.

Use of Force

As I’ve been asked, Yes, I have seen some of the photos and the videos.  I cannot speak to the level of force used by any other officer.  It’s not my place, I don’t know what they saw, heard or felt and it’s not fair for me to speculate.  Each officer is personaly responsible for articulating the level of force they used.

I can tell you that I ended up with a wad of spit on my shoulder during this initial confrontation, I don’t know where it came from. I had a load of garbage tossed over me.  I know that when people pushed against me, as I was moving the line North, I pushed back.  I would have much rather preferred that a peaceful crowd move back to where they were asked and directed to be.  This was not the highlight of my week.

Protesters, Police

At one point the protestors blocked Kinder Morgan vehicles from bringing equipment up to the site.  This was interfering with their work.  We formed a wedge in front of the vehicles and marched up the hill moving protestors out of the way and ensuring no one would be hurt by the moving vehicles behind us.

Fighting the wrong fight

The crowd was obviously upset but most of them upset with Kinder Morgan and the fact that they were being allowed, by the Supreme Court of BC, to do their survey work.

Was the court wrong? Perhaps.  I know the decision is being appealed.  I know the Mayor of Burnaby is against the pipeline.

I know that crude oil and bitumen affects the environment negatively.

I agree 100% that as a world society we need to develop new sources of cleaner energy.  I also know that right now the world depends on oil.

As Tyner Gillies, another blogger, so eloquently put it in his post “Only As Good As My Word“, I was there to keep my word.  I was there because I swore an oath of office to uphold the laws of Canada.  The Supreme Court of BC issued an order that I swore to uphold.

There was a group of very passionate people who were angry that I, as a Police Officer, was there.  The insults were relentless at times.  I was called a myriad of colourful names.  I was ridiculed for not walking off the job.  One lady who looked like a nice normal mother type told me that without clean water I wouldn’t be able to have my coffee and doughnuts. Another screamed at me that the environment was more important than my pay check.

Ladies and Gentlemen, you don’t need to convince me that what you’re doing is important.  I get it, I appreciate you being there to make a statement, I appreciate you trying to get the word out to the masses about the environmental risks.

I didn’t show up for a pay check.  I didn’t show up because I thought if I didn’t I’d lose my job.  I showed up because I’m passionate about upholding the oath that I swore.

We are all cogs in this system.  The protestors were there to make a stand against big money, oil and to protect the environment and the land they hold sacred.  I was there to uphold the law of the land.   We have a process, we have a system.  It’s not perfect but we’re all part of it.

The fight is not with the Police.  The fight should be to educate the masses, get the public support, and convince the courts and politicians that’s not what the people want (or ultimately vote them out).  I support that fight and you can fight that fight without breaking the law.

Arrests

Yes, many people were arrested and the vast majority peacefully for walking across the police line.  Parents decided to bring their children through the line, the elderly also took a stand.

From this side of the system, I don’t understand it, aside from the fact that it gathers fleeting media attention.

What happens when you’re arrested for breaching a court order like this?  Well people on site cheer, you get put in a prisoner wagon and driven off site.

If the Police decide to recommend charges, you get released with a Promise to appear, possibly with some conditions not to do it again. If the police decide not to recommend charges you just get released and it’s over, you’re off the mountain and no longer in the spotlight.

If the Police do recommend charges, the Crown still have to approve them.  Your PTA may be cancelled some time before your court date.   In the event you make it to court, you’ll likely be paying a lawyer to argue the validity of the Supreme Court order and how you breached it.  This costs money.  There’s a big push online to crowd source the legal fees for these people that may make it in front of a judge.  There’s not likely to be any media at your trial unless you can convince them there’s a story in it.

Wouldn’t it be better to crowd source funding for an education campaign to convince the masses watching on TV, Twitter, YouTube, etc to get up and actually do something themselves?

Wouldn’t it be better to stay on the mountain and be a part of the presence and convince more people to join you instead of staying home on the couch using “I don’t want to be arrested” as an excuse not to be present too?

And yes, children crossed the line with their parents.  No they weren’t “arrested” or even legally detained.  The children were turned back over to another parent or guardian across the line.  Had both parents gotten themselves arrested what were we to do?  Well we would have had to turn the children over to the ministry because they can’t be arrested.  That’s the law, and it’s how the system works.  The parents knew that crossing the line was an arrest able offence but some how the media decided to play up the “Police arrest 11 yr old” headline angle.  As a parent I understand teaching your children values and to stand up for those values, I don’t understand teaching them to defy the law.

The Media

I’m not sure where the line is between reporting facts and selling a story but it sure did seem that the only media coverage was when the Police used force or when people, especially children and the elderly, got arrested.

I haven’t seen much coverage of someone throwing garbage over me, or people spitting at the line of Police.  How about all the times that we had good, healthy, interesting discussions with people across the tape and shook hands or posed for selfies?

It seemed when there was yelling and shouting, even a little pushing the cameras turned right to it.  When there was a hand shake, a nod, or even some smiles and laughing they turned away.

My experience

As this is my editorial piece I guess I owe it to you, the reader, to give my take on things.  It was a very interesting 4 days up on the mountain.  I learned some things.

On the first day, once the decision was made to allow the totem carvers back through the line, I was asked to initially stand with them.  It’s very rare that when we, the police, are working we allow someone who doesn’t agree with what we’re doing to hold and use sharp, pointy tools as they can very quickly become weapons. It was immediately apparent that the two gentlemen allowed to carve weren’t a threat.  They were passionate about their cause, and I wholeheartedly respect that.  One, more vocal in his disagreement with our presence than the other, argued that we had setup illegal lines.  I politely disagreed.  There needed to be a safe work space and there needed to be room to move equipment in and out.  Both gentlemen carvers were there every day I was and I respect their dedication.

On the first day when we had to push the line North, I had to physically step around a gentleman in orange rain gear.  I now know him to be Bob Kull and was happy to read his written account The RCMP were kind and civil as they arrested me on Burnaby Mountain. I was pleased to hear of the support from other protestors upon Mr. Kull’s release.

I also met a gentleman and lady, Eric and Julia, who faithfully attended, setup their mat, tarp or log and meditated in a yoga pose that I’m not quite flexible enough to pull off.  They had their own message and were dedicated to be there as much and as often as they could. They spoke with other officers and I had a chance to engage in discussion one morning.  I was standing on the line talking to a gentlemen just getting out of his tent about the reasons we were both there, one of the carvers came by and joined in and debated our reasoning as Eric arrived to setup his space.  I really appreciated Eric joining in the conversation and respected his point of view.  We were there for different reasons, both trying to set an example.  He made some very good points to the group around us that change starts with the smallest of actions and 1 person’s actions can serve as an example to others to create larger change.  He said perhaps they won’t win this battle but they need to keep fighting as the change needs to start with 1 person and an action.  He may have disagreed with some of the reason I stood there or some of the actions of some of my colleagues but he was respectful, made his point and did his thing.  If there’s anyone on that mountain that could convince me (if I needed convincing) what they were doing was right, it would be Eric and Julia.

There was a group of people that struck me as the middle aged local residents.  The people that made snide comments about not being able to have doughnuts and coffee without clean water.  The fact that they decided to be disrespectful completely tarnished their credibility.  You could have the best argument in the world but when it starts with “You’re only here for a pay check, it’s shameful! SHAMEFUL!” it’s hard to want to pay attention.

One morning I was very politely asked by someone to go home. I asked him what would happen if we all packed up and left.  He told me that he figured the Kinder Morgan employees would be peacefully escorted off the site but their equipment may not be left in working order.  Well if that were the case, not only would people be breaching the court order, the damage to equipment would constitute a criminal offence (mischief) and if the workers decided to try and protect the equipment there may even be assaults.  Our job was to prevent those criminal offences from occurring.

Combine that with a handful of people covering their mouths and faces yelling obscenities. We had garbage and sticks thrown at us.  We found a stash of glass bottles, we wondered if they were for recycling or were they going to be used as projectiles?  What if one well-intentioned person’s recycling became someone else’s projectile?  We heard reports of potential plans for violence.  We had to balance standing the line and interacting with people like average, normal members of society.

I personally don’t disagree with the message of the group at large.  I think they need to get their message out and educate the masses.  As I said before, I was there to honour my word, my oath, and uphold the law while trying to enable the people to have their say.

I made a commitment to the people of Canada and BC that I would uphold the laws of the land.  I don’t disagree that sometimes the laws need to be changed or those in power need to be replaced.  We have a system for that, don’t fight the system, be a part of it and make change.

More questions in case of cop charged with murder

Further insight from Leo Knight.

Crime & Punishment

The more the extraordinary 2nd degree murder charge laid against Delta Police Constable Jordan MacWilliams in the 2012 death of 48-yr.-old Mehrdad Bayrami is looked into, the more it appears to be the railroading of a good, young police officer.

Murder is an extraordinary charge to be laid against a police officer engaged in executing his or her duty. It is even more extraordinary when laid against an officer working as an ERT (Emergency Response Team) officer.

There are so many aspects of this story that haven’t been told and I’m sorry to say so many apparent gaps in the investigation conducted by the Independent Investigations Office (IIO) that one must question whether ulterior motives or politics played a part in laying a charge of murder in this case.

MacWilliams was a member of the Municipal Integrated Emergency Response Team (MIERT) on November 8th, 2012 when, at the start of his…

View original post 586 more words