High Ranking Police Folk Allegedly Behaving Badly

[Booter]

GuelphToday reporter detained, camera seized while covering news event

An OPP officer detained a senior reporter with GuelphToday on the morning of Dec. 20 at the scene of a fatal collision, and his memory card was seized by the coroner's office

www.sudbury.com

Little more info. I think the OPP is going to eat crow on it.

I think the last time I arrested a journalist for obstruction was like 2008.

I’m a little surprised when cops do stuff like this- it’s been a long time. Most guys weren’t on the road when this was more common. Same with the “stop filming me” crowd.

 

[brihard]

GuelphToday reporter detained, camera seized while covering news event

An OPP officer detained a senior reporter with GuelphToday on the morning of Dec. 20 at the scene of a fatal collision, and his memory card was seized by the coroner's office

www.sudbury.com

Little more info. I think the OPP is going to eat crow on it.

I think the last time I arrested a journalist for obstruction was like 2008.

I’m a little surprised when cops do stuff like this- it’s been a long time. Most guys weren’t on the road when this was more common. Same with the “stop filming me” crowd.

I think so too. No idea what the grounds for detention were, doesn’t sound like he was Chartered either. If you’re gonna lay hands on someone, better get that out pretty quick.

 

[lenaitch]

Uhh…. Nothing in that convinces me. A journalist isn’t legally obligated to be nice or considerate or decent. Taking photos of something from a public space where there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy is not in and of itself ‘obstructing’. Photographing a fatal collision from a public vantage point, while distasteful, is not an offense.

If he was specifically directed to move back or to give them space and didn’t, that would be one thing. I don’t see anything corroborating that. There’s no word of charges. Flip side, the seizure of the camera and the statement that the coroner wants the photos corroborate the original reporter’s account.

I remain convinceable, but not convinced.

Likewise. There was a somewhat similar incident elsewhere in that region a couple of years ago where a couple of local journalists were charged which were later tossed. Obviously, we don't know all of the information. If the scene had been taped off and the reporter crossed inside, that's one thing but; otherwise, it seems extremely questionable to restrict the recording of public space.

In a sense, I can see some of the member's concerns. Revealing the identity of persons and vehicles involved before NOK notifications and other activities are completed can be a concern; although moreso with TV coverage, but they can be easily solved with a chat with professional media (not so much with so-called 'citizen journalists, who generally neither know nor care about the rules).

It has always be tacitly assumed that, during a death investigation, we were working on behalf of the coroner, but it's always been a little confusing when there are criminal or provincial matters being simultaneously being investigated. Typically, when criminal matters are involved, it was not unusual to assign one member to 'assist' the coroner and kept separate from the criminal side. Any authority being exercised on behalf of the coroner better ensure that it is in furtherance of the Coroners Act and not something else; it's not a blanket authority. Additionally, we don't know if the authority of the coroner was formally delegated as required by the Act. It's usually not a big deal if you are just 'doing stuff', but if you're going to start actively exercising authorities, you'd better have your grounds in order. I'm not sure if the coroner's authority under Sec. 16 has ever been Charter tested. It seems pretty broad in today's terms.

But, as a viewer of local TV news, what I notice now is bodies left in public view draped with orange sheets.

Given court rulings on evidence admissibility, and the advancements in forensics, leaving a body 'in situ' is increasingly common in a criminal investigation. Even without criminality, they might be waiting for a coroner to attend the scene. If death has been confirmed in an acceptable way, the police need the coroner's authority - somehow - to move the body. If a criminal investigation is underway, the Coroners Act takes a back seat.

In the beforetimes, it was not uncommon for local coroners to not attend scenes, heck, some didn't even attend the hospital. In the above discussion, this made the police assumption of the coroner's authority a little more tenuous. Those days of coroners not attending scenes is all but gone.

 

[brihard]

Likewise. There was a somewhat similar incident elsewhere in that region a couple of years ago where a couple of local journalists were charged which were later tossed. Obviously, we don't know all of the information. If the scene had been taped off and the reporter crossed inside, that's one thing but; otherwise, it seems extremely questionable to restrict the recording of public space.

In a sense, I can see some of the member's concerns. Revealing the identity of persons and vehicles involved before NOK notifications and other activities are completed can be a concern; although moreso with TV coverage, but they can be easily solved with a chat with professional media (not so much with so-called 'citizen journalists, who generally neither know nor care about the rules).

It has always be tacitly assumed that, during a death investigation, we were working on behalf of the coroner, but it's always been a little confusing when there are criminal or provincial matters being simultaneously being investigated. Typically, when criminal matters are involved, it was not unusual to assign one member to 'assist' the coroner and kept separate from the criminal side. Any authority being exercised on behalf of the coroner better ensure that it is in furtherance of the Coroners Act and not something else; it's not a blanket authority. Additionally, we don't know if the authority of the coroner was formally delegated as required by the Act. It's usually not a big deal if you are just 'doing stuff', but if you're going to start actively exercising authorities, you'd better have your grounds in order. I'm not sure if the coroner's authority under Sec. 16 has ever been Charter tested. It seems pretty broad in today's terms.



Given court rulings on evidence admissibility, and the advancements in forensics, leaving a body 'in situ' is increasingly common in a criminal investigation. Even without criminality, they might be waiting for a coroner to attend the scene. If death has been confirmed in an acceptable way, the police need the coroner's authority - somehow - to move the body. If a criminal investigation is underway, the Coroners Act takes a back seat.

In the beforetimes, it was not uncommon for local coroners to not attend scenes, heck, some didn't even attend the hospital. In the above discussion, this made the police assumption of the coroner's authority a little more tenuous. Those days of coroners not attending scenes is all but gone.

Thanks for your insight on this.

 

[mariomike]

Given court rulings on evidence admissibility, and the advancements in forensics, leaving a body 'in situ' is increasingly common in a criminal investigation.

Nothing new about death.

But, who decides if a body is dead?

As a PCP, this was our Deceased Patient Standard

Obviously Dead
means death has occurred if gross signs of death are obvious, including by reason of:

1. decapitation, transection, visible decomposition, putrefaction; or
2. absence of vital signs and:
a. a grossly charred body;
b. an open head or torso wound with gross outpouring of cranial or visceral contents;
c. gross rigor mortis (i.e. limbs and/or body stiff, posturing of limbs or body); or
d. dependent lividity (i.e. fixed, non-blanching purple or black discolouration of skin in dependent area of body).

Even then, leaving a body in a public place ( during my time ) was very rare.

From what I have seen on the TV news, and as mentioned here, leaving a body 'in situ' seems to have become increasingly common.

To transport, or not transport, a patient(s) who met the Deceased Patient Standard from a public place would ultimately be at the discretion of the police and coroner.

Those who did not meet that Standard ( Vital Signs Absent ), were typically treated as Load and Go.

Location would also be a factor. Was the body in a rural / remote area, or in a more public place like Sankofa Square ( formerly Yonge and Dundas ).

 

[lenaitch]

Location would also be a factor. Was the body in a rural / remote area, or in a more public place like Sankofa Square ( formerly Yonge and Dundas ).

This shouldn't matter. Major highways and roadways are shut down for hours to gather evidence. There are obvious biological limitations and urgencies about letting a body just lie there, but whether it is a farmer's field or the middle of the 401 isn't one of them.

 

[mariomike]

This shouldn't matter. Major highways and roadways are shut down for hours to gather evidence. There are obvious biological limitations and urgencies about letting a body just lie there, but whether it is a farmer's field or the middle of the 401 isn't one of them.

When the patient was Code 5 ( Obviously dead - Deceased Patient Standard ), it belonged to the police and coroner.

Up to them if they wanted us to move it, as a public courtesy, or leave it as evidence.

Made no difference to us either way. Our job there was done.

VSA only, that was a Code 4. Load and Go.

In my experience, here in the ashpalt jungle, when a Code 5 was in public view, more often than not, they wanted us to move it.

As mentioned, and from what I have seen on the TV news since I retired, "leaving a body 'in situ' is increasingly common".

 

[Haggis]

Another Guelph media's take on it though...... some heavy accusations against the reporter. Local Reporter Detained, Equipment Seized by OPP

Returns as a dead link.

 

[lenaitch]

Returns as a dead link.

It was working last night. 'Caught in Guelph' appears to be a community group with a webpage and FB account. I didn't read their article that closely but it was pretty scathing. It seems that they have no reporters. Perhaps the way they went off on the Guelph Today reporter's story, absent the usual caveats of 'allegedly', attempts to obtain information all on their own, etc. prompted a chat from the media outlet's lawyer, or even sober second thought.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

It was working last night. 'Caught in Guelph' appears to be a community group with a webpage and FB account. I didn't read their article that closely but it was pretty scathing. It seems that they have no reporters. Perhaps the way they went off on the Guelph Today reporter's story, absent the usual caveats of 'allegedly', attempts to obtain information all on their own, etc. prompted a chat from the media outlet's lawyer, or even sober second thought.

I'm thinking lawyer,....it was pretty scathing.

 

[brihard]

I'm thinking lawyer,....it was pretty scathing.

If written by a lawyer, they probably aren’t a very good one. It was an angry editorial but really offered nothing of substance.

 

[dapaterson]

If written by a lawyer, they probably aren’t a very good one. It was an angry editorial but really offered nothing of substance.

I think Bruce is suggesting a lawyer advised that the article may have crossed several lines...

From my recollection, it was "how dare that evil journalist take pictures or do anything anywhere close to a potential crime scene without approval and control by the OPP?"

This may turn out to be a flustered officer stuck with a difficult crime scene that they were trying to control to protect the investigation. And with fragmentation of the media, it can be difficult to know if someone is a professional journalist or an asshole with a camera.

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . . it can be difficult to know if someone is a professional journalist or an asshole with a camera.

Is there a difference?

 

[brihard]

I think Bruce is suggesting a lawyer advised that the article may have crossed several lines...

From my recollection, it was "how dare that evil journalist take pictures or do anything anywhere close to a potential crime scene without approval and control by the OPP?"

This may turn out to be a flustered officer stuck with a difficult crime scene that they were trying to control to protect the investigation. And with fragmentation of the media, it can be difficult to know if someone is a professional journalist or an asshole with a camera.

I think you’re right about what Bruce meant. Duh.

 

[brihard]

Is there a difference?

I’ve generally had good interactions with professional journalists on the job. I’ve had my name dragged in public once too; it is what it is. Most of them are pretty decent.

 

[dapaterson]

Is there a difference?

Yes.

I have a friend, retired Captain, who is a professional photojournalist.

 

[mariomike]

Thanks for posting this - I have been meaning to follow up on it

Elijah' s mom had this to say today,

They cannot blame their job training for their indifference to evil or their participation in an evil action…that is completely on them. May their souls rot in hell when their time comes. Divine Justice for Elijah McClain.

Elijah McClain's mom: May they "rot in hell" as Colorado jury deliberates case of 2 paramedics charged in son's death

Jeremy Cooper and Peter Cichuniec have been charged with reckless manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide and assault.

www.cbsnews.com

If the jury can't reach a verdict by tomorrow, they'll resume deliberations the day after Christmas.

 

[CBH99]

Elijah' s mom had this to say today,

Elijah McClain's mom: May they "rot in hell" as Colorado jury deliberates case of 2 paramedics charged in son's death

Jeremy Cooper and Peter Cichuniec have been charged with reckless manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide and assault.

www.cbsnews.com

If the jury can't reach a verdict by tomorrow, they'll resume deliberations the day after Christmas.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me...at least on the surface. But I also feel like there is part of the story missing...

I have learned that no matter how cut & dry some things sound, it's foolish to armchair quarterback anything. There is always something we don't know.

And the media has discredited itself so much that I'm skeptical even when the media doesn't have any apparent skin in the game.



All 4 of these individuals are professionals. And all 4 seemed to think that injecting him with ketamine seemed reasonable at the time.

If we just go off of the details reported, it sounds like cut & dry murder. And maybe it was.

I just feel like there's something being left out...

 

[brihard]

All 4 of these individuals are professionals. And all 4 seemed to think that injecting him with ketamine seemed reasonable at the time.

Is there any evidence that the police officers have any advance medical training that includes administration of medication? There’s absolutely nothing within the normal scope of our profession that would in any way qualify us to assess if administering a sedative is medically appropriate. We might be able to form a reasonable belief that it’s unreasonable, but ruling it in would be a vastly different matter.

It’s not impossible that they both happen to have prior training or experience in another profession or through some police medic specialization that puts something like that in scope. But I’d be REALLY surprised were that the case.

I can’t speak to the paramedic side at all.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I think Bruce is suggesting a lawyer advised that the article may have crossed several lines...

From my recollection, it was "how dare that evil journalist take pictures or do anything anywhere close to a potential crime scene without approval and control by the OPP?"

This may turn out to be a flustered officer stuck with a difficult crime scene that they were trying to control to protect the investigation. And with fragmentation of the media, it can be difficult to know if someone is a professional journalist or an asshole with a camera.

The smart ones have press passes, which helps avoid awkward situations for both parties concerned.