Gunsmith shot by police Ontario

[HunterDave]

The incident was investigated and the Officers were cleared of any wrongdoing:

Watchdog clears RCMP officers who shot at N.S. firehall during mass shootings

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...port-1.5933594

I’m sure that the expert internet keyboard warriors won’t like to hear that.

[Phil McCracken]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

And besides, it was just one harmless old man who got killed by the police anyway, right Phil? Mistakes happen, no point making a big deal about it.

Just saying.

I was of course referring to the NS incident. Which I admitted was kind of a hijack to this thread.

That one is still under investigation, and I will refrain from commenting on that one. All the facts are not out yet.

Just saying...

[sns2]

Originally Posted by chuck

This isn’t the stock boy at the grocery store spilling a carton of milk. Of which, if done twice, would likely be looking for a new job.

Let’s be honest. If we had someone here who shot a mule deer thinking it was a whitetail they would be drawn and quartered on this forum.

Thank you.

I couldn’t agree more.

I do find the “Blindly defend men in uniform regardless the situation” crowd on here surprising. I never expected that much.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

The incident was investigated and the Officers were cleared of any wrongdoing:

Watchdog clears RCMP officers who shot at N.S. firehall during mass shootings

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...port-1.5933594

I’m sure that the expert internet keyboard warriors won’t like to hear that.

I already posted that link days ago, and it's no surprise , can you imagine the position the province would be in , if charges resulted against the officers? There would be even more public outrage, about the entire fiasco, and then there would be trials that would gather even more attention, and make even more people aware of the incompetent officers trying to kill another officer. Quickly clearing these two goofs was an attempt to get this out of the news quickly , so people would forget about it sooner.

I do find the “Blindly defend men in uniform regardless the situation” crowd on here surprising. I never expected that much.

Just like Trudeau supporters, no matter what he does, they won't ever admit that it was wrong. It makes a person wonder how there can be so many of them.

[Phil McCracken]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I already posted that link days ago, and it's no surprise , can you imagine the position the province would be in , if charges resulted against the officers? There would be even more public outrage, about the entire fiasco, and then there would be trials that would gather even more attention, and make even more people aware of the incompetent officers trying to kill another officer. Quickly clearing these two goofs was an attempt to get this out of the news quickly , so people would forget about it sooner.



Just like Trudeau supporters, no matter what he does, they won't ever admit that it was wrong. It makes a person wonder how there can be so many of them.

Couple of things:

SIRT is independent of the Police and Government. So who else do you think should have investigated this?

And no...I am not a "Trudeau" supporter, and never will...strange you would edit your post to add that...But you know what? All good.

We will simply agree to disagree...

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Phil McCracken

Couple of things:

SIRT is independent of the Police and Government. So who else do you think should have investigated this?

And no...I am not a "Trudeau" supporter, and never will...strange you would edit your post to add that...But you know what? All good.

We will simply agree to disagree...

Who funds SIRT, and who are the members?

The Team
The Serious Incident Response Team includes:

Director (Civilian). The current Director of SiRT is Felix Cacchione.

Felix Cacchione studied law at Dalhousie University and has been a member of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society since 1975. He practised criminal law throughout his career and was appointed a Nova Scotia county court judge in 1986 and a Supreme Court judge in 1993 when the courts merged.He has taught criminal law at Dalhousie Law School and St. Mary’s University as well as provided criminal jury trial seminars and criminal law trial simulations at the National Judicial Institute. He also volunteered his time to teach aspiring and practicing lawyers and judges.Felix spent 32 years on the judicial bench and recently retired from the Nova Scotia Supreme Court.

Two civilian investigators, each with over 33 years of criminal investigation experience with the RCMP.
Two full-time seconded police officers who answer only to the Director while seconded, one from the Halifax Regional Police and one from the RCMP.
Other police resources as required.
Administrative support.

So two members that formerly worked with the RCMP, one current RCMP, one Halifax regional police, and one former judge. So four out of five current or former police officers, so basically police or former police investigating the police. And they are funded by the government just like the RCMP.

[Phil McCracken]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Who funds SIRT, and who are the members?



So two members that formerly worked with the RCMP, one current RCMP, one Halifax regional police, and one former judge. So four out of five current or former police officers, so basically police or former police investigating the police. And they are funded by the government just like the RCMP.

Are you suggesting possible collusion?

And please answer my previous question to you:

Who should investigate these incidents?

...

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Phil McCracken

Are you suggesting possible collusion?

And please answer my previous question to you:

Who should investigate these incidents?

...

I am suggesting that police and former police are more likely to sympathize with the officers, and may be less likely to do anything that might reflect badly on the force. Personally, I would like to see an all civilian group oversee the investigations and decide if the actions were legal, and justified. Or at least no members current or past from the force being investigated.

[hilt134]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

The SIRT report said that the two officers who fired their weapons did so believing the person they were shooting at was the gunman. This is because he was dressed similarly to the gunman — wearing a yellow and orange reflective vest — and standing near a marked RCMP cruiser at the time of the shooting.

Did the firehall get stormed? Either way it screams of negligence. Suspected someone enough to shoot at them and a firehall but not enough to follow them in?

[hilt134]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I am suggesting that police and former police are more likely to sympathize with the officers, and may be less likely to do anything that might reflect badly on the force. Personally, I would like to see an all civilian group oversee the investigations and decide if the actions were legal, and justified.

I agree with you, but I wonder how you could do that. Appointments would cause the same issue we have now. Elected officials seems better but at a national level it seems hard to pull off.

[sk270]

Originally Posted by Phil McCracken

Are you suggesting possible collusion?

And please answer my previous question to you:

Who should investigate these incidents?

...

I agree with you, and the other poster, that I have never been in law enforcement or in any situation where someone was deliberately shooting at me. In fact, I have told more than one RCMP member that I wouldn't want their job. One of them responded that she wouldn't want mine.

Investigations of these incidents is problematic because former justice officials, including former police officers, may be biased. However, civilians may lack the background or knowledge needed. Some sort of balance would restore confidence as would shorter delays in issuing official statements.

I used to trust the RCMP in these cases. My trust has been eroded, starting from the top, by secrecy and lack of responsiveness to oversight. There are many complaints about the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, and there are no timelines for the RCMP to respond to concerns. Body camera introduction has been delayed. Commissioner Lucki has been as effective and timely in dealing with sexual harassment complaints as Sajjan was in the military. The Nova Scotia RCMP are reported to have relied on Twitter during the mass shooting event instead of the central alert system. And so on.

I don't have any suggestions about the best make-up of investigative panels. However, starting from the top, the RCMP should be more willing to hold news conferences and be more responsive to the Review and Complaints Commission. They have to shake off their paramilitary history.

There are image issues that need to be addressed. It is a fact that many of us in Saskatchewan and Alberta are wondering about replacing the RCMP with provincial forces. There are valid reasons for this and the RCMP should pay attention.

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by sns2

Thank you.

I couldn’t agree more.

I do find the “Blindly defend men in uniform regardless the situation” crowd on here surprising. I never expected that much.

Until they prove otherwise, do we not at one point in our lives put faith in the people that are there to protect us?

How can we not?

When there is a situation where it is proven there was no doubt the Officer was wrong I am all for harsh sentencing befitting the circumstance, but lately the constant ring in here is 'all cops are evil, look at what the entire police force in canada did at (some single locaton)' where the entire establishment is painted for one man or group. DEFUND THE POLICE ring a bell?

I have to hold out some hope that these people are good, that they do their jobs to the best of their ability, and have our best interests at heart.

If I lose that, what is left? How do we teach our children and grandchildren not to hate or fear the badges?

I am sorry if that is old fashioned, I guess I am. We need to hold out some hope do we not?

[sns2]

Originally Posted by Phil McCracken

Are you suggesting possible collusion?

And please answer my previous question to you:

Who should investigate these incidents?

...

I feel these boards should be similar to that of a Grand Jury in that they are chosen from the population, I certainly see the need for former members of law enforcement to be on them, but not in a voting capacity. They should only be there to guide true citizen oversight. I would also suggest a member of the legal profession, but again, not in a voting capacity. Oversight of law enforcement by the citizenry is necessary in true democracy. If the findings real in recommendation of charges by the Crown, then they must be pursued quickly. If the Crown chooses not to, it must be clearly explained to the public why they are not being pursued. All cases should be a matter of public record.

I appreciate greatly the efforts of the vast majority of officers. However, when you strap a firearm on your hip, you take on an added layer of responsibility. And if you use that firearm it increases exponentially.

[sns2]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

Until they prove otherwise, do we not at one point in our lives put faith in the people that are there to protect us?

How can we not?

When there is a situation where it is proven there was no doubt the Officer was wrong I am all for harsh sentencing befitting the circumstance, but lately the constant ring in here is 'all cops are evil, look at what the entire police force in canada did at (some single locaton)' where the entire establishment is painted for one man or group. DEFUND THE POLICE ring a bell?

I have to hold out some hope that these people are good, that they do their jobs to the best of their ability, and have our best interests at heart.

If I lose that, what is left? How do we teach our children and grandchildren not to hate or fear the badges?

I am sorry if that is old fashioned, I guess I am. We need to hold out some hope do we not?

Yes, we do. It is getting harder.

[midgetwaiter]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I am suggesting that police and former police are more likely to sympathize with the officers, and may be less likely to do anything that might reflect badly on the force. Personally, I would like to see an all civilian group oversee the investigations and decide if the actions were legal, and justified. Or at least no members current or past from the force being investigated.

The reason you use police officers for that is that they’re also more likely to know what they’re doing. Who else would you use, plumbers?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by midgetwaiter

The reason you use police officers for that is that they’re also more likely to know what they’re doing. Who else would you use, plumbers?

How about you use former police officers as experts on police policy and training, but as sns2 suggested, they advise the civilian panel, but don't actually have a vote on whether the police actions were justified? That would be just like a jury listening to expert subject matter witnesses in a trial, but ultimately, the jury would have the vote to insure impartiality.

[midgetwaiter]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

How about you use former police officers as experts on police policy and training, but as sns2 suggested, they advise the civilian panel, but don't actually have a vote on whether the police actions were justified? That would be just like a jury listening to expert subject matter witnesses in a trial, but ultimately, the jury would have the vote to insure impartiality.

Crown prosecutors perhaps?

What you’re describing is at best slightly different than what we have now in practice, all you’re doing is adding more layers.

[cody j]

Doesn’t APOS regulate themselves? Everyone thinks they do a great impartial job, right?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by midgetwaiter

Crown prosecutors perhaps?

What you’re describing is at best slightly different than what we have now in practice, all you’re doing is adding more layers.

Absolutely not, they work with the police, so they would be biased. You could have your small group of core people as in one police policy/training expert, one legal expert and one administrator, and let them gather the facts, hold a hearing with a small civilian jury/panel,and the jury/panel rules after hearing the experts present them with the details of the investigation. The panel/jury, would not even have to be full time employees, depending on the workload. If a temporary jury, with no subject matter experience, can decide murder cases, why can't they decide on these investigations?

[hilt134]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

Until they prove otherwise, do we not at one point in our lives put faith in the people that are there to protect us?

How can we not?

When there is a situation where it is proven there was no doubt the Officer was wrong I am all for harsh sentencing befitting the circumstance, but lately the constant ring in here is 'all cops are evil, look at what the entire police force in canada did at (some single locaton)' where the entire establishment is painted for one man or group. DEFUND THE POLICE ring a bell?

I have to hold out some hope that these people are good, that they do their jobs to the best of their ability, and have our best interests at heart.

If I lose that, what is left? How do we teach our children and grandchildren not to hate or fear the badges?

I am sorry if that is old fashioned, I guess I am. We need to hold out some hope do we not?

Small children probably better to let them think cops are all hero’s. as they get older let them know there’s scum in every profession and teach them to approach them the same as everyone else.

In slight issue I have with what you mentioned is that it isn’t really the individual cops I distrust. I’m willing to bet most cops are great and caring people. Sheriffs a little less so but that doesn’t matter. It’s actually the establishment I have an issue with. The lack of public over site, nearly complete anonymity as to how decisions are made. Regulatory powers. It’s ridiculous. Look at all the over reactions we have seen due to covid policing all handled internally and never really talked about later.

defunding the entire rcmp is a complete over reaction and terrible idea but I if nothing changes then nothing changes. Maybe we do need a decent tremor through the system, at what point is the good cops propping up a bad system doing more harm than good? I really don’t think it’s that bad right now but I don’t see it getting better

[brendan's dad]

I am going to speak directly about ASIRT but I am fairly sure SIRT is very similar in their structure and what they do.

ASIRT is comprised of both active police officers and civilian investigators. The active officers are on a secondment from their police and answer directly to the Alberta Solicitor General. The civilian investigators are normally retired police officers.

ASIRT's mandate to investigate serious crimes committed by active police officers. Normally the crime include serious injury or death or at the Sol Gen's discretion they can investigated crimes that are likely to generate public interest.

So in the case in Ontario, SIRT would investigate like any other homicide unit. SIRT, at the conclusion of their investigation, will forward the case file to Crown for charge recommendation and approval. For ASIRT, the civilian Executive Director is a lawyer and makes the charge determinations.

Now to suggest that ASIRT or SIRT could be replace by a civilian group or committee would be no different than having Edmonton Citizens on Patrol investigate a Homicide. Are we to expect these civilians to start doing surveillance, developing confidential informants, writing and executing search warrants, arresting suspects, and then conducting interviews of witnesses and suspects?

Civilian oversight of police agencies and agencies such as ASIRT is very important. But does anyone have any information suggesting that these organizations don't have enough civilian oversight already? Do you think if it was a civilian investigative group, they could hold a press conference every day detailing the progress of the investigation?

The investigation will reveal whether the officer was right or wrong in his actions. But getting rid of units like ASIRT and SIRT would be huge step backwards in police accountability. These specialized units are absolutely the best solution available to investigating serious misconduct by police. The other option is the "internal affairs" model which is absolutely "police investigating police"

[Phil McCracken]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Absolutely not, they work with the police, so they would be biased. You could have your small group of core people as in one police policy/training expert, one legal expert and one administrator, and let them gather the facts, hold a hearing with a small civilian jury/panel,and the jury/panel rules after hearing the experts present them with the details of the investigation. The panel/jury, would not even have to be full time employees, depending on the workload. If a temporary jury, with no subject matter experience, can decide murder cases, why can't they decide on these investigations?

You are a decent guy Elkhunter11. My call on that is from reading many of your previous posts.

I respect your opinion(s) even though we do not agree on some of them. All good......

That is why we frequent Forums. As long as everything is "respectful"... But at times heated...

But prosecutors don't work with the police in Alberta. Trust me when I say this.

In BC for example, the Crown's Office will often refer the charges, not the Police. Provinces are different...maybe that is a problem.

However....

It is hard to determine, as a civilian, who should be investigating these incidents. Often emotions get involved, from previous incidents (ie. High River which is always brought up). But they are not all the same.

RCMP, or other police forces, don't "F*** up all the time. Just seems we have many haters here. But you know what? Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

For me, I would like someone with previous experience to do these types of investigations. Union 101 drywallers (nothing against drywallers) cannot do it.

At the end of the day, the SIRT Director has the hammer, and has the final word.

He is an X lawyer and Judge, and I trust his credibility...

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Phil McCracken

You are a decent guy Elkhunter11. My call on that is from reading many of your previous posts.

I respect your opinion(s) even though we do not agree on some of them. All good......

That is why we frequent Forums. As long as everything is "respectful"... But at times heated...

But prosecutors don't work with the police in Alberta. Trust me when I say this.

In BC for example, the Crown's Office will often refer the charges, not the Police. Provinces are different...maybe that is a problem.

However....

It is hard to determine, as a civilian, who should be investigating these incidents. Often emotions get involved, from previous incidents (ie. High River which is always brought up). But they are not all the same.

RCMP, or other police forces, don't "F*** up all the time. Just seems we have many haters here. But you know what? Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

For me, I would like someone with previous experience to do these types of investigations. Union 101 drywallers (nothing against drywallers) cannot do it.

At the end of the day, the SIRT Director has the hammer, and has the final word.

He is an X lawyer and Judge, and I trust his credibility...

I am not suggesting that civilians do the investigation, any more than the jury in a trial does the criminal investigation leading up to the trial, that they serve on. I am suggesting that we still have experienced investigators, but that the final say in whether charges are recommended would be decided by some type of civilian jury/panel based on input from the subject matter experts, in the same way that a jury rules in a criminal trial, or in a civil trial involving a jury.
As to the police in general, I do believe that the vast majority of officers are honest, and do their job to the best of their ability, but like in any profession, there are rotten apples. My issue with the RCMP and some other forces, is that they seem extremely hesitant to hold those rotten apples accountable in a court of law. Whether it's because admitting that those officers breaking the law reflects badly on the entire force or some other reason, it just seems that way. The ironic part is, that when the RCMP does not use the legal system to deal with those officers, that does reflect badly on the entire force.
And when it comes right down to it, I have nothing but contempt for the catch and release legal system we have, it must be frustrating to arrest some scumbag ,and he/she is released on bail and disappears, or is convicted, and gets a slap on the wrist, then goes right back to committing crimes.
And I have equal contempt for the idiots that order the police not to do their job and arrest illegal protestors, or vandals tearing down statues and damaging property.

[sns2]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I am not suggesting that civilians do the investigation, any more than the jury in a trial does the criminal investigation leading up to the trial, that they serve on. I am suggesting that we still have experienced investigators, but that the final say in whether charges are recommended would be decided by some type of civilian jury/panel based on input from the subject matter experts, in the same way that a jury rules in a criminal trial, or in a civil trial involving a jury.
As to the police in general, I do believe that the vast majority of officers are honest, and do their job to the best of their ability, but like in any profession, there are rotten apples. My issue with the RCMP and some other forces, is that they seem extremely hesitant to hold those rotten apples accountable in a court of law. Whether it's because admitting that those officers breaking the law reflects badly on the entire force or some other reason, it just seems that way. The ironic part is, that when the RCMP does not use the legal system to deal with those officers, that does reflect badly on the entire force.
And when it comes right down to it, I have nothing but contempt for the catch and release legal system we have, it must be frustrating to arrest some scumbag ,and he/she is released on bail and disappears, or is convicted, and gets a slap on the wrist, then goes right back to committing crimes.
And I have equal contempt for the idiots that order the police not to do their job and arrest illegal protestors, or vandals tearing down statues and damaging property.

Doesn’t matter that I’ve come to count him as a good friend and member of my year round outdoor adventure crew, I could not express my thoughts any more clearly. I think Elk11 captures the frustrations of many of us in these words.

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by midgetwaiter

The reason you use police officers for that is that they’re also more likely to know what they’re doing. Who else would you use, plumbers?

I'd have more faith in the plumber......

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I am not suggesting that civilians do the investigation, any more than the jury in a trial does the criminal investigation leading up to the trial, that they serve on. I am suggesting that we still have experienced investigators, but that the final say in whether charges are recommended would be decided by some type of civilian jury/panel based on input from the subject matter experts, in the same way that a jury rules in a criminal trial, or in a civil trial involving a jury.

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

As to the police in general, I do believe that the vast majority of officers are honest, and do their job to the best of their ability, but like in any profession, there are rotten apples. My issue with the RCMP and some other forces, is that they seem extremely hesitant to hold those rotten apples accountable in a court of law. Whether it's because admitting that those officers breaking the law reflects badly on the entire force or some other reason, it just seems that way. The ironic part is, that when the RCMP does not use the legal system to deal with those officers, that does reflect badly on the entire force.
And when it comes right down to it, I have nothing but contempt for the catch and release legal system we have, it must be frustrating to arrest some scumbag ,and he/she is released on bail and disappears, or is convicted, and gets a slap on the wrist, then goes right back to committing crimes.
And I have equal contempt for the idiots that order the police not to do their job and arrest illegal protestors, or vandals tearing down statues and damaging property.

The problem with that concept is that you can not simply add an additional lawyer or step of judicial procedure simply because it is a police officer. ASIRT as an investigative body still needs to follow the same rules of law and procedure as a normal police investigative unit. ASIRT can not be seen as advantaging or disadvantaging just because the person being investigated is a police officer. Unless you are suggesting all charges against persons in Canada are subject to the same type of civilian over sight and charge approval, then it would never work.

The bar that Crown needs to meet to lay a charge is much less than the bar you need to meet for a conviction. What you are describing sounds a lot like preliminary hearing, but in that case it is a judge determining if sufficient evidence exist to send the matter to trial.

I am not sure I would want a civilian jury/panel making decisions on what does and doesn't go to trial. Especially if the jury/panel is politically appoint or has any political affiliation. I would suggest if we had a Liberal or NDP government in Alberta right now and such a jury/panel, the gentlemen in Red Deer County my not have been cleared of shooting the intruder in his house this past summer.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

[B]

The problem with that concept is that you can not simply add an additional lawyer or step of judicial procedure simply because it is a police officer. ASIRT as an investigative body still needs to follow the same rules of law and procedure as a normal police investigative unit. ASIRT can not be seen as advantaging or disadvantaging just because the person being investigated is a police officer. Unless you are suggesting all charges against persons in Canada are subject to the same type of civilian over sight and charge approval, then it would never work.

The bar that Crown needs to meet to lay a charge is much less than the bar you need to meet for a conviction. What you are describing sounds a lot like preliminary hearing, but in that case it is a judge determining if sufficient evidence exist to send the matter to trial.

I am not sure I would want a civilian jury/panel making decisions on what does and doesn't go to trial. Especially if the jury/panel is politically appoint or has any political affiliation. I would suggest if we had a Liberal or NDP government in Alberta right now and such a jury/panel, the gentlemen in Red Deer County my not have been cleared of shooting the intruder in his house this past summer.

The public already sees the police being investigated by SIRT , with four out of five members being past or present police officers, as an advantage for the police being investigated. All technicalities aside, the public still sees this as the police being investigated by the police, which many people do not see as unbiased . The only way to make the public feel that the investigation isn't biased , is to have people not associated past or present with the police, making the call as to whether charges should result. And the longer the system remains as it is, the less the public will trust the police, and the more people we will see protesting against the police, and demanding that they be defunded .

[glen moa]

Who do they work for ?
Maybe that’s who they should answer to.

In case you didn’t know. They work for us.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The public already sees the police being investigated by SIRT , with four out of five members being past or present police officers, as an advantage for the police being investigated. All technicalities aside, the public still sees this as the police being investigated by the police, which many people do not see as unbiased . The only way to make the public feel that the investigation isn't biased , is to have people not associated past or present with the police, making the call as to whether charges should result. And the longer the system remains as it is, the less the public will trust the police, and the more people we will see protesting against the police, and demanding that they be defunded .

The investigator in ASIRT and SIRT do not make the call whether or not a police officer is charged. They conduct the investigation and collect evidence. The case file is then forwarded to a lawyer for review and charge recommendation.

Now if you are suggesting that ASIRT or SIRT investigators taint the investigation by omitting or fabricating evidence in favor of the accused police officer, that is a whole different issue which would be corruption at the highest level.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

The investigator in ASIRT and SIRT do not make the call whether or not a police officer is charged. They conduct the investigation and collect evidence. The case file is then forwarded to a lawyer for review and charge recommendation.

Now if you are suggesting that ASIRT or SIRT investigators taint the investigation by omitting or fabricating evidence in favor of the accused police officer, that is a whole different issue which would be corruption at the highest level.

According to this, SIRT does make recommendations as to whether charges should result.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7654292/r...ing-fire-hall/

As to whether SIRT chooses to interpret the evidence in favor of the police or not, the fact that it is basically police (present or past) investigating police and making recommendations as to whether to charge officers, the public is not convinced that their findings and recommendations are unbiased. And with the trust in the police so badly eroded that people are protesting against the police, and calling for them to be defunded, the situation is obviously only getting worse. Each and every incident, from the Vancouver airport incident, to High River, to the firehall shooting, and now the shooting of the gunsmith , just erodes the public trust in the police further.