Mantler trial

[Treblehook]

I don't think that anyone, including the RCMP has denied the fact that public confidence in the Force is low. Seems Buddy had the same lack of confidence in the RCMP and the judicial system with his doubt that Mantler would be convicted. All of the rest of your comments in your most recent post [xkite] are interesting. Some undoubtedly valid and some based on sources of pretty questionable credibility, but nonetheless, they do nothing to support your contention that the RCMP circled the wagons to protect Mantler. This thread is about the Mantler case and that is what I am calling you on. What you are trying to feed the reader is a pile of crap. And remember, if you decide to argue that point, stick to the Mantler case... that is what this thrread is about!!!

[xkite]

Its pretty obvious there was a past history in which the RCMP were aware the sort of person Mantler was and the sort of actions he was engaged in. Twice before he was up on charges and twice before he got off the hook. The RCMP and the Crown work together to bring about charges and convictions.

That was before Buddy. In the first reports to come out in reaction to that video, no one in the public believed there could be any excuses for that behaviour. Reaction was unusual in the breadth and scope in that regard. Politicians even spoke out. The RCMP did not join in whatsoever. They stayed near silent. Some may view that as proper, some may not. Mantler was just put on administrative leave with pay. Some believed that was far below what was required of the situation.

While that was going on,

To add insult to injury, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association says the RCMP then made allegations of domestic violence against Tavares in an effort to smear him, which appears to be a consistent pattern going back to the Tasering death of Robert Dziekanski at the Vancouver International Airport in 2007. The RCMP portrayed Dziekanski in the media as a violent alcoholic.

Further to an already busy file, the BCCLA says “between 2002 and 2006, 56 percent of all RCMP in-custody deaths in Canada occurred in BC. Only 33 percent of the RCMP police force is situated in BC. During this time, the BCCLA became quite concerned with the rate of in-custody deaths in BC, and little has changed since then. Since 2005, the BCCLA has filed police complaints regarding in-custody deaths, serious misconduct, and policy concerns.”

Not the best link but will suffice for the quote:
http://www.viewfromthewest.ca/index_files/Page1197.htm

Earlier reports gave the impression that the RCMP were seeking a way to justify the level of violence in the first days following the incident. So although one could take a purely legalistic stand and require an official statement from the RCMP stating their support of or not for Mantler, that did not and is not going to happen. Instead you are left with a preponderance of evidence, a trail that can be followed from the earlier incidents up to the Buddy affair and beyond to the change of plea. One can interpret all that in whatever way they wish, everyone can decide for themselves which load of crap they prefer.

If one is to be part of calling for some sort of meaningful change, one has to first see a problem. For those who see no problem, there is no sense calling for change. For others there is and for the betterment of the community they will at least be keeping a more vigilant eye. To each his own.

Additional details here there and everywhere for anyone wanting more..

http://ryviewpoint.blogspot.ca/2011/01/update-on-buddy-tavares-rcmp-victim.html

What is the basis for a claim of misusing a firearm?

He had a permit, he had a job, he shot it 3 times at his workplace, I don't see any manager from the golf course saying this was an "unexpected" or "unacceptable" discharge of a firearm.

The video shows his ex-wife with him. She makes it very clear there was no "domestic violence". So what is the basis of a domestic violence charge?

All I can see is a bureaucracy going into denial, refusing to accept any version of the story except the one they have mysteriously manufactured.

What outrages me is that:

Buddy Tavares was viciously kicked for no reason. And the police really haven't acknowledged that. They are "we are investigating" mode. What is there to investigate when you have a video that shows the whole incident?

He was held for 3 days in jail before they brought he before a judge who then set a court date. Why the judge -- who should have looked at the video! -- didn't throw out the charge and immediately give the RCMP a tongue lashing is beyond me. Worse, the judge is letting the idea of "domestic violence" ride for the month of so until a court date. Why? On what basis is there a charge? The ex-wife was there and on video saying "no domestic violence". Is the judicial system so brain dead that it refuses to acknowledge fact? It will punish a guy with jail on the basis of a charge that morphs over time and which has no basis in fact. Bizarre! All I see is taxpayer dollars going down the tube to go through legal mumbo-jumbo before the obvious facts are finally acknowledged. Now I understand the need for an effective and rigorous judicial system. But the legal system must have prima facie "justice" to it. To hold a guy who was clearly assaulted by the RCMP on a charge where he wife is there saying "where did this charge come from?" should have immediately thrown the case out. Who made the charge. That person should be in jail and paying for expensive lawyers. Not Buddy Tavares!

[Trunk-Monkey]

To the above post, as it is way too long to quote. 1st let me clearly state I am defending no one here, I am only here to offer my opinion on this. 2nd you seem to be concentrating on two points, one how the RCMP has been portrayed in the media and the second how the Mantler occurrence happened and was handled.
1st dont believe everything you read in the media. Its as simple as that.
2nd the occurrence was put before the courts as well as an internal review by the RCMP. Mantler pled guilty and will answer for what he has pled guilty for by our judicial system. I am not going to debate any of the facts or rumours of the occurrence with you except to say that you must remember video does not always catch everything that is actually happening. Again I am not defending anyone here, I am merely speaking from experience on this matter.

[xkite]

Fair enough and enough said, outsiders may interpret differently than insiders. I readily admit I obtained my impression from all the above points and media reports, same as most everyone else. I read trial coverage. I noted Sgt. Lane's comments. I recognize there is a civil action yet to commence and I recognize that there was an internal review. The public has not been privy to any or all recommendations made by that internal review and may not hear if any til completion the civil affair. Fair enough.. We the public got a pretty good idea what led up to the incident and some of the factors that may have played a role. We do not wish to see any repeats of the same procedural irregularities. Seeing is believing whether the RCMP wish to state that there have been changes made or not. Impressions have been left whether right or wrong. Perhaps after the civil case, statements and recommendations will be forth coming? We will be watching. (each from our own perspectives)

[jimsenchuk]

This is quite comical, all of it. (all your rants) Buddy will win his suit, Mantler will be fired and hopefully incarcerated for a couple of years.

[MAPearce]

So you make a comment that it would be easier if they refutted...and they did but yet the paint still gets "brushed"...

you missed this.....

It appears that some did in Mantlers trial...Kudo's to them.

The " Kudo's" part is where I paint with my good brush.,....

[Trunk-Monkey]

The " Kudo's" part is where I paint with my good brush.,....

Fair enough.