RCMP MEMBER CHARGED WITH FIREARMS OFFENCES IN CALGARY

[KevinB]

Plain clothes and UC aren’t the same, and the rules, tactics, aren’t the same.

One would hope - but plain clothes duty shouldn't require the same gear as uniformed patrol either - the same as an ERT team doesn't have the same needs.

 

[Booter]

One would hope - but plain clothes duty shouldn't require the same gear as uniformed patrol either - the same as an ERT team doesn't have the same needs.

Plain clothes members wind up making physical arrests, less frequently, but still. Because they physically handle people they need their options.

The ERT guys carry their collapsible batons as well. It’s just a thing,

Generally they’ll have those options affixed to a vest. It’s really not that big a hinderance.

Or they’ll have it in a backpack etc, it’s just accessible for the duties,

Not like say on their belt. And if we re being honest…it gets a pretty loose interpretation sometimes, for the reasons you’re talking about

 

[brihard]

Plain clothes and UC aren’t the same, and the rules, tactics, aren’t the same.

I was taken down at gunpoint in a major city years ago in plain clothes despite them being made aware I was in the area and what I was doing.

An off duty cop with a gun is liability in a nonsensical drunken barn dance when you’re trying to control the chaos and make sense of a call. It’s just some other guy with a gun and a complication.

People don’t like to hear it but we aren’t the same as the states. They have a different view of what they can reasonably expect to be present on calls.

Yup. I’ve worked in an environment where, in a crisis, we would likely have heavy interface with plainclothes members as well as other police services. We constantly see this come up as an issue in scenarios. From those I’ve talked to in the RCMP and Ottawa Police, this was a major problem during the Parliament Hill shooting; lots of spurious calls of more gunmen who were in fact plainclothes members who had self deployed.

In Canada we don’t expect, in most contexts, to see someone show up with a gun but without a uniform. I remember one case where I had to take ad hoc command of a scene, secure a perimeter, and sequentially search inside a residence and outside. I had ten bodies from four different teams/units. Included, I had a couple plainclothes members show up to assist and I was grateful to have them, but the first thing I did was split them up and put each one hip to hip with a uniform.

Canada’s not the US. The society and the profession have marked differences here.

 

[Booter]

If people are interested- and I am several years out of it, I am predominantly administrative now,

The big difference is the concept of “furtive movement”- in the states because of the everyday presence of firearms they are able to articulate shootings based on that concept,

In Canada, at least when I was doing the court side of use of force, it was no acceptable- when a Canadian police officer sees a furtive movement they watch and have to evaluate what it coming from the movement- how much is where it gets hazy- but the movement alone is generally not accepted as acceptable,

In the states the movement can constitute the grounds to pull the trigger on its own in a lot of ways.

That is a foundationally trained difference from day one of the creation of officers.

That’s not a scientific hard and fast but it’s a conceptual difference that demonstrates the difference in expectation between the countries,

 

[Haggis]

If people are interested- and I am several years out of it, I am predominantly administrative now,

The big difference is the concept of “furtive movement”- in the states because of the everyday presence of firearms they are able to articulate shootings based on that concept,

In Canada, at least when I was doing the court side of use of force, it was no acceptable- when a Canadian police officer sees a furtive movement they watch and have to evaluate what it coming from the movement- how much is where it gets hazy- but the movement alone is generally not accepted as acceptable,

In the states the movement can constitute the grounds to pull the trigger on its own in a lot of ways.

That is a foundationally trained difference from day one of the creation of officers.

That’s not a scientific hard and fast but it’s a conceptual difference that demonstrates the difference in expectation between the countries,

The expectation in the US is that anyone encountered by a LEO may be armed as of right (with certain exceptions like felons). That being said, there is no expectation under Canadian Law or the IMIM that an officer has to actually face/see a lethal threat before drawing/firing. A lot of people think that, the same as they think an officer can/must attempt to shoot the weapon out of a subject's hand or hit them in the leg (potentially lethal) or arm before shooting for centre of mass.

 

[KevinB]

If people are interested- and I am several years out of it, I am predominantly administrative now,

The big difference is the concept of “furtive movement”- in the states because of the everyday presence of firearms they are able to articulate shootings based on that concept,

In Canada, at least when I was doing the court side of use of force, it was no acceptable- when a Canadian police officer sees a furtive movement they watch and have to evaluate what it coming from the movement- how much is where it gets hazy- but the movement alone is generally not accepted as acceptable,

In the states the movement can constitute the grounds to pull the trigger on its own in a lot of ways.

That is a foundationally trained difference from day one of the creation of officers.

That’s not a scientific hard and fast but it’s a conceptual difference that demonstrates the difference in expectation between the countries,

Rather broad brush I would say, as it really depends on the region you are in, and how the officer articulates their actions.
Reasonability is the key, with best information at the time (no hindsight).
There is no fundamental difference between the laws - (okay we can shoot fleeing felons in the back) when it comes to the use of deadly force - but societally there is a "tie goes to the runner" down here with precedent for shooting on movement - but it still needs to be articulated as to the why - and its getting less and less acceptable in most areas to shoot first.

Body Cameras (or their like) have become a much larger thing now, but most of those do a poor job - as they don't show the same perspective from the officers vision.



Back to the original issue: the charges as listed by CPS related to the Constables Service Handgun, and the magazines he is issued for that.
It seems to point - he took the handgun to the range without authority, thereby was in the possession of a prohibited weapon to wit a 10(5) prohibited short barrel handgun - and prohibited devices (the magazines for the service pistol).
Interesting case - I used to shoot with a bunch of RCMP folks who brought their pistols to the range all the time - I'm curious what the end result will be - and why it became such an issue.

 

[Booter]

you are required to evaluate the threat. You don’t need to see it pointed at you, have it in their hands even, or have them facing you- but you are required to understand reasonably what youre shooting.

I think we re splitting hairs on the same idea though.

 

[mariomike]

If I'm walking the dog and see something that I would have typically been dispatched to, I have no legal obligation - particularly if it took me onto private property.

Off-duty and retired First Responders "can call 9-1-1 with the best of 'em."

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

I am very sure there is more to the story than the 1 or 2 paragraphs in the newspaper story. Details would help explain the charges and guessing those will come out in court or some where

Side note I lived in the Iowa for a few years. My neighbour was a the Chief Deputy Sherriff for the local county ( deputy to the elected Sherriff) he drove his Sherriff car home every night after his shift. ( soon as he did a radio check he was considered on duty and good to go) There was always a shot gun in the car, in the trunk. Maybe an AR styled weapon ( only saw the hard case it was stored in) , and his partner ( the drug dog) lived at his house. There was never concern about his weapons in the trunk. Or when he threw the cases on the front lawn for his bi weekly car cleaning. But that was the US and this is Canada, different countries and the rules change at the borders. He carried on and off duty. He worked part time for the town police ( term rent a cop applies. Town had a force of 1 officer, and when he was away or needed a night shift replacement they hired from a pool of officers who had the proper training and were graduates of the State Police College and sworn peace officers , on those nights he worn the town badge and carried his own firearm. He carried a 40cal, and the other guy until he died in an unrelated traffic accident an old school 38 cal. )

 

[brihard]

you are required to evaluate the threat. You don’t need to see it pointed at you, have it in their hands even, or have them facing you- but you are required to understand reasonably what youre shooting.

I think we re splitting hairs on the same idea though.

Probably the best case law on this right now is R v Pompeo. An RCMP officer (Pompeo) shot a suspect who appeared to be reaching for something. He was originally convicted of assault causing bodily harm. His conviction was overturned on appeal and he was acquitted at his new trial. It’s a good survey on how Section 25 of the crim code for peace officer use of force gets analyzed in the context of an officer’s reasonable perception of imminent death or grievous bodily harm.

2016 BCPC 133 (CanLII) | R. v. Pompeo | CanLII

Access all information related to judgment R. v. Pompeo, 2016 BCPC 133 (CanLII) on CanLII.

www.canlii.org

 

[mariomike]

I recall seeing another report about 10 or 15 years ago that there were just over 600 persons with such an ATC.

We had a Metro Councillor issued one. Shot a "perp" attempting to rob his North York bakery. It was self defence and he was not charged.

 

[Remius]

Interesting stuff. I’m actually engrossed in reading this conversation. Glad to have SMEs in the thread.

 

[KevinB]

I am very sure there is more to the story than the 1 or 2 paragraphs in the newspaper story. Details would help explain the charges and guessing those will come out in court or some where

CPS charged him with 3 offenses.

• Possession of a firearm while unauthorized;
• Possession of a prohibited firearm; and
• Possession of a prohibited device (over capacity)

The 2nd and 3rd are linked to the first.

prohibited device means

• (a) any component or part of a weapon, or any accessory for use with a weapon, that is prescribed to be a prohibited device,
• (b) a handgun barrel that is equal to or less than 105 mm in length, but does not include any such handgun barrel that is prescribed, where the handgun barrel is for use in international sporting competitions governed by the rules of the International Shooting Union,
• (c) a device or contrivance designed or intended to muffle or stop the sound or report of a firearm,
• (d) a cartridge magazine that is prescribed to be a prohibited device, or
• (e) a replica firearm; (dispositif prohibé)

prohibited firearm means

• (a) a handgun that
  • (i) has a barrel equal to or less than 105 mm in length, or

Now it comes interesting is the Criminal Code sections:
Public officers

• 117.07 (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, but subject to section 117.1, no public officer is guilty of an offence under this Act or the Firearms Act by reason only that the public officer
  • (a) possesses a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, any prohibited ammunition or an explosive substance in the course of or for the purpose of the public officer’s duties or employment;

Unauthorized possession of firearm

• 91(1) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm or a non-restricted firearm without being the holder of
  • (a) a licence under which the person may possess it; and
  • (b) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate for it.
• Marginal note:Unauthorized possession of prohibited weapon or restricted weapon
  (2) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, other than a replica firearm, or any prohibited ammunition, without being the holder of a licence under which the person may possess it.
• Marginal noteunishment
  (3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2)
  • (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
  • (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
• Marginal note:

Definition of public officer
(2) In this section, public officer means

• (a) a peace officer;
• (b) a member of the Canadian Forces or of the armed forces of a state other than Canada who is attached or seconded to any of the Canadian Forces;
• (c) an operator of a museum established by the Chief of the Defence Staff or a person employed in any such museum;
• (d) a member of a cadet organization under the control and supervision of the Canadian Forces;
• (e) a person training to become a police officer or a peace officer under the control and supervision of
  • (i) a police force, or
  • (ii) a police academy or similar institution designated by the Attorney General of Canada or the lieutenant governor in council of a province;
• (f) a member of a visiting force, within the meaning of section 2 of the Visiting Forces Act, who is authorized under paragraph 14(a) of that Act to possess and carry explosives, ammunition and firearms;
• (g) a person, or member of a class of persons, employed in the federal public administration or by the government of a province or municipality who is prescribed to be a public officer; or
• (h) the Commissioner of Firearms, the Registrar, a chief firearms officer, any firearms officer and any person designated under section 100 of the Firearms Act.

________________________________________________________________________________


Edit: I found out more info -- I'm abandoning this conversation now.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Plain clothes and UC aren’t the same, and the rules, tactics, aren’t the same.

I was taken down at gunpoint in a major city years ago in plain clothes despite them being made aware I was in the area and what I was doing.

An off duty cop with a gun is liability in a nonsensical drunken barn dance when you’re trying to control the chaos and make sense of a call. It’s just some other guy with a gun and a complication.

People don’t like to hear it but we aren’t the same as the states. They have a different view of what they can reasonably expect to be present on calls.

I was in a coffee shop lineup near the court house. The guy in front of me smelt of "cop" and his gun in a holster was showing a little bit, so I quietly whispered that he is showing his gun. He quickly fixed it and thanked me. had I seen a gun with no holster I would have quietly called the cops on him.

 

[lenaitch]

One would hope - but plain clothes duty shouldn't require the same gear as uniformed patrol either - the same as an ERT team doesn't have the same needs.

Depending on the agency, so-called 'field-based' crime unit members, detectives, etc. might not answer collision or barking dog calls, they are still doing their slice of day-to-day police work, just in suits and unmarked cars. If I hit the little red button on the mic because I'm rolling in mud with some miscreant and losing, I expect everybody who reasonably can to show up equipped to play. The excuse that you are wearing a suit or enroute to take a statement on a bad cheque won't carry much mileage with me.

Trust me, the question of how a suit be expected to carry all the U-of-F kit has been asked, but risk adverse policy makers and departmental counsel stick to their guns (!?). The end result is many p/c members carry what they feel is appropriate and (hopefully) have the rest in the trunk.

True UC members are, in a sense, living a lie - for a living. They take on a non-police personae. It takes a particular personality and set of skills I never had. So-called 'old clothes', street crime, etc. members are somewhere in the middle, but less immersive or infiltrative.

The statistical reality is, in Canada, the majority of members will go their entire career without firing their weapon 'in anger'.

 

[Remius]

Depending on the agency, so-called 'field-based' crime unit members, detectives, etc. might not answer collision or barking dog calls, they are still doing their slice of day-to-day police work, just in suits and unmarked cars. If I hit the little red button on the mic because I'm rolling in mud with some miscreant and losing, I expect everybody who reasonably can to show up equipped to play. The excuse that you are wearing a suit or enroute to take a statement on a bad cheque won't carry much mileage with me.

Trust me, the question of how a suit be expected to carry all the U-of-F kit has been asked, but risk adverse policy makers and departmental counsel stick to their guns (!?). The end result is many p/c members carry what they feel is appropriate and (hopefully) have the rest in the trunk.

True UC members are, in a sense, living a lie - for a living. They take on a non-police personae. It takes a particular personality and set of skills I never had. So-called 'old clothes', street crime, etc. members are somewhere in the middle, but less immersive or infiltrative.

The statistical reality is, in Canada, the majority of members will go their entire career without firing their weapon 'in anger'.

Small anecdote. Years ago I witnessed a serious car accident at a busy intersection. I was in combats and picking up my son from daycare. I did emergency scene management until first responders showed up. Tow trucks arrived first of course. Then a uniformed LEO who looked and acted like a new guy. EMS showed up and took over first aid. The uniformed guy looked a bit flustered. Then a plain clothes officer showed up took over and started telling the uniformed guy what to do. Was all done professionally. The funny part was when he pointed out the tow truck driver was already loading a car up before the scene was under control. Just posted and said, go deal with that. Uniformed guy stormed over.

No clue if the plain clothes guy was on duty, responding or just happened to drive by. It was near a police station though. Sorry for the derail.

 

[RedFive]

Another anecdote for you.

Called to the scene of a collision with injuries by plain clothes types, who had stumbled across a pedestrian struck in a parking lot, he had been attempting to instruct his girlfriend in the use of a manual transmission and it didn't go well. They didn't know where they were, they were incapable of giving reasonable updates as to what was happening, and just said repeatedly and distressfully "get General Duty here now!". Gets the blood going, we thought they were in a fight or something.

We get there, with no help from them (they hadn't even turned the red and blue lights in their car on), took over the scene, got the victim to the hospital and the file investigated. Numerous plainclothes members, all of whom had more than five years of service(RCMP, that's a lot in a contract Detachment in the Lower Mainland) and not a single one had an intervention option or radio with them. They elected to use the radio installed in the car to call us.

The earful I gave them was not received well, by them or their supervisors. Such is life.

EDIT: To clarify closer to the topic at hand, they were on duty at the time

 

[Booter]

there’s poor performers in every job in the outfit. No matter the clothes they wear to work. Be it skills or attitude

We re a cross section of the Canadian public.