Calgary police chief doesn't like officers who act as sources to the media

[finboy]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...rnan-1.3515573

His comments seem a little "blue wall" to me, I'm a bit surprised this hasn't gotten more attention

Paul Wozney, a director with the police union and editor of its members' magazine, titled 10-4, said in a recently published article that the chief was right to send a "strongly worded" memo warning officers about the consequences of leaking information to the media.

"Don't you think that the member you blabbed about, who responded to two extremely high risk calls and had to make split second decisions in the interests of their own personal safety and the safety of the community, has a right to feel safe with their own organization?" Wozney writes.

"It disgusts me that one of our own members (sworn or civilian) would choose to make such a selfish decision," he adds.

Wozney questions what motivation an officer would even have for acting as a confidential source, since "the media sure doesn't pay for this information."

"If you are some sort of unhappy employee, then I suggest you leave the organization or join the fire department," he writes.

Class act considering...

A Calgary police officer charged in relation to an off-duty incident has made a plea bargain down to a bylaw offence.

Veteran police officer Paul Wozney was charged with assault and uttering threats after an incident at Cardel Place pool on June 9th, 2010.

Wozney now admits to kicking a youth at the pool, but instead of a criminal conviction, he has pled guilty to an offence under the bad behavior bylaw.

He has been ordered to pay a fine of $1,000.

The victim and his father in this case are very upset.

http://globalnews.ca/news/229618/cal...at-local-pool/

Court heard Wozney said he was kicked by the complainant, who was 17, as they passed in the pool.

A short time later, a lifeguard witnesses Wozney as he “delivered a blow” to the stomach of the other swimmer and then the two exchange words.

The bylaw is designed, in part, to address incidents that fall short of being criminal.

While the judge said the officer’s overall conduct was wrong, it did not warrant a criminal record.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/02...d-in-pool-spat

[Sugarphreak]

...

[phil98z24]

For those who think information from an active investigation should be disclosed to the public: How does this act in the interest of justice, or conducting an impartial investigation? Why do you need to know what's happening by the minute, or the status of people involved?

We have all seen what happens when the public is privy to everything within public organizations.. it typically isn't pretty. Public trials in the court of public opinion, misplaced backlash, and pressure on impartial bodies like ASIRT to "wrap it up" because it isn't happening as fast as some would like.

I'm all for transparency, but this stuff will be in the public domain before long - so I don't get why it needs to be known right now. It isn't about a blue wall; this is about people who are not authorized or in the proper position to release such information because it is confidential for good reason, and I would really like to hear some reasons for why people think this type of information should be disclosed real time when an investigation isn't finished.

[blairtruck]

police hiding info. that doesn't sound normal

[finboy]

Originally posted by phil98z24
For those who think information from an active investigation should be disclosed to the public: How does this act in the interest of justice, or conducting an impartial investigation? Why do you need to know what's happening by the minute, or the status of people involved?

We have all seen what happens when the public is privy to everything within public organizations.. it typically isn't pretty. Public trials in the court of public opinion, misplaced backlash, and pressure on impartial bodies like ASIRT to "wrap it up" because it isn't happening as fast as some would like.

I'm all for transparency, but this stuff will be in the public domain before long - so I don't get why it needs to be known right now. It isn't about a blue wall; this is about people who are not authorized or in the proper position to release such information because it is confidential for good reason, and I would really like to hear some reasons for why people think this type of information should be disclosed real time when an investigation isn't finished.

In the mentioned case, an officer who was under investigation for a lethal shooting was still on active duty while being investigated, then was involved in another lethal shooting. Had this not come to light in the media, it is suspect as to whether or not anyone would Question why he was still on duty while under investigation. The family of the first man murdered had no idea what was going on, to me that is problematic.

[kertejud2]

I suppose it isn't making news because it isn't particularly shocking the head of an organization would have such a stance. Is it really any different than most corporations having communication and social media policies? We know why they want it, because scandals and unchecked information leaks are bad for image and business.

If it isn't a statement crafted by the PR department that was combed over by lawyers, they don't want it out. Otherwise you get into all sorts of alleged [redacted]. Really no different for the police and how they want to operate.

I mean, look at the alternative:

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by finboy


In the mentioned case, an officer who was under investigation for a lethal shooting was still on active duty while being investigated, then was involved in another lethal shooting. Had this not come to light in the media, it is suspect as to whether or not anyone would Question why he was still on duty while under investigation. The family of the first man murdered had no idea what was going on, to me that is problematic.

The use of the word "murdered" is part of the reason these things aren't in the public domain yet. You think he was murdered yet you have no facts about the incident, aside from what's in the media. And tell me, he is under investigation about this, but why should that exclude him from being on duty? As far as we know he hasn't been found guilty of an offence nor has a conclusion been rendered about his fitness for duty, especially after having a mandatory 30 days off and psych testing to ensure he is fit for duty up to the standard expected after the first incident - so where is the problem?

Are we making an issue out of nothing, or is there actually an issue?

[gwill]

It's like the rcmp in red deer who tried to hide their officers who were charged and we're going to court. It hit the news the day before their court date that multiple rcmp officers were charged. Police routinely release info on all sorts of charges yet they cover for their own members.

Why can police release names and basic information to regular every day folk but think hiding info from their police members is okay?

[OTown]

Originally posted by gwill
It's like the rcmp in red deer who tried to hide their officers who were charged and we're going to court. It hit the news the day before their court date that multiple rcmp officers were charged. Police routinely release info on all sorts of charges yet they cover for their own members.

Why can police release names and basic information to regular every day folk but think hiding info from their police members is okay?

a) Source? Just want to get context on your comment

b) Any person regardless of their profession or position that is charged and attends court becomes a part of the public record and that information is available to everyone unless a publication ban is ordered by a judge or the person is under 18. So, I'm not quite sure what you are referring to when you say they are "hiding"

[finboy]

Originally posted by phil98z24


The use of the word "murdered" is part of the reason these things aren't in the public domain yet. You think he was murdered yet you have no facts about the incident, aside from what's in the media. And tell me, he is under investigation about this, but why should that exclude him from being on duty? As far as we know he hasn't been found guilty of an offence nor has a conclusion been rendered about his fitness for duty, especially after having a mandatory 30 days off and psych testing to ensure he is fit for duty up to the standard expected after the first incident - so where is the problem?

Are we making an issue out of nothing, or is there actually an issue?

I used the murder as those are the charges recommended by the agency that looked into the case...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...rnan-1.3496182

I should have used the term alleged murder, my mistake on that.

I would think that until the investigation was ended, at minimum the officer should have been kept out of situations where he would use deadly force until it was independently confirmed that he was a) fit for duty, and b) didn't murder someone. The only info I can find was that he was benched for a month, put back on duty before recommendations were released from the investigation, and shot another person in a high risk situation, then the police chief (and another officer who likes to punch teenagers apparently) expressed their annoyance that anyone in the public would find that out.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by blairtruck
police hiding info. that doesn't sound normal

Our employees hiding info.

Fixed.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by finboy


I used the murder as those are the charges recommended by the agency that looked into the case...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...rnan-1.3496182

I should have used the term alleged murder, my mistake on that.

I would think that until the investigation was ended, at minimum the officer should have been kept out of situations where he would use deadly force until it was independently confirmed that he was a) fit for duty, and b) didn't murder someone. The only info I can find was that he was benched for a month, put back on duty before recommendations were released from the investigation, and shot another person in a high risk situation, then the police chief (and another officer who likes to punch teenagers apparently) expressed their annoyance that anyone in the public would find that out.

You are quoting a completely biased source, who wants murder charges laid against that officer for what happened to his brother, and is CLAIMING that is what he is being told by ASIRT. I would look at that with some skepticism.

And further to that, you are using that term and labelling him a murderer based on that alleged recommendation for charges, which we don't even know exists and hasn't been yet tried in a court of law - yet you've reached your conclusion about it. I see you corrected it to "alleged murder" but still, your first conclusion was based on the information you saw from that source.

This is what I'm talking about.. people condemn others based on limited information (and I'm not just talking cops, I'm talking everything these days) and reach conclusions without verified information.

On your point about him being taken out of high risk situations until this is verified... sure, I could see that. It makes sense. However, knowing what I do about our service and the internal workings, there would have been some very thorough and rigorous processes including the legal department and the city's legal department, before someone would be returned to duty when involved in this. These sorts of things are weighed very seriously before a decision is made, and I think there has to be some element of faith that the proper procedures are being followed here.

You also have to remember that there is privacy legislation in place regarding all manner of scenarios, and this type of thing falls under that. There is a legal reason grounded in fundamental rights that people in this province can't just release information about each other when it's not appropriate, and that applies to the police as well. You all think this is a "cover up" but it's not.. it's about following the rules and doing things appropriately, within the confines of the law.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by phil98z24


You are quoting a completely biased source,

Like you?

[codetrap]

.

[msommers]

I like when Phil comes into threads like this. He's able to convey the phrase "pull your head out of your ass" in such an elegant way.

[codetrap]

.

[btimbit]

Originally posted by codetrap
Me too. In fact, I think I'd like to meet Phil in person, and buy him a beer.

x2

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by Seth1968


Like you?

I never rendered a public verdict of murderer or reached any conclusions based on information I don't have, or information that is coming from sketchy sources.

What I'm saying is based on what I actually know, and what is verified or can be verified. I'm not speculating or making this stuff up. This is about what is legal and what isn't based on the law, and as far as the other stuff goes I'm answering from a position of what I know is procedure and the legal standard from the province about how police officers are determined fit for duty. None of what I'm saying can't be found in the public domain.

Taking a look at our example - I even said what is being said in the media about this should be looked at with skepticism, but I didn't say it was right/wrong. I simply don't know. I just think based on how badly this family wants this determined to be a murder, it's hard to just accept that what they are saying is the truth, especially when ASIRT doesn't work that way.

I know for you the facts are simply a made up conspiracy that work against what you believe to be truth, so I'm not sure why I'm trying to convince you otherwise.

[Shlade]

Originally posted by btimbit


x2

x3

Let's all get Phil shitfaced

[FraserB]

Originally posted by Seth1968


Like you?

Not really. ASIRT has never made a statement about the case, the only people claiming that ASIRT is “pushing hard for murder charges” is the brother of the guy who was shot, who is clearly a very biased source for any information about the case.

And ASIRT doesn't lobby the Crown for charges. They simply recommend whether or not the feel charges are warranted in each case.