RCMP shoot and kill armed suspect... good.... RCMP start coverup.. bad

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/02/10/8339321-cp.html

RCMP shoot a guy who apparently shot a woman.. good job, thank you.
But why do they immediatly need to start a cover up?
"
When asked if officers attempted to strike up a dialogue with the man before he was shot, Linteau said it was still very early in the investigation.
"Those details are not available at this time. We're still in the process of interviewing everyone involved," she said. "

oh fer fricks sakes guys.. really? thats your response? Seems simple enough of a case to answer the question why oh why do you need to start hiding details?


But lets also throw some blame at the newsies too..
Really guys? that is your response? The RCMP show up after getting a report of someone being shot.. and a guy comes out holding a shotgun and you are asking if they tried to strike up a conversation with the dude? Here let me break this down for you.
HE HAD A GUN!!!... WHEN RCMP OFFICERS SHOW UP THE ONLY RESPONSE FROM ANY SUSPECT REGARDLESS OF GUILT SHOULD BE TO DROP ALL WEAPONS WITHOUT EVEN BEING ASKED TO!!!

This is not a cover up... this is a standard "We don't comment on ongoing investigations" response.

A cover-up would be to lie and tell the reporter what they needed to hear to get their sound bite and get on to their next story.

Stop trying to make everything into a conspiracy.... at least until I get my tin foil hat made, okay?

I dunno, that sounds like a standard response. There are procedures to follow, which have the potential to end up in a criminal court, so best to have the facts and keep your mouth shut until you have them.

well thats the point.. their standard response is to cover up the facts.
dont lie.. they know the details... thats a lie and a cover up.

say... we dont know all the facts right now, but according to intial information proper police procedure was indeed followed. We will continue to release details as they become available.
thats not a lie.

She didn't say they didn't have any facts.... she said they were NOT AVAILABLE (ie for public release)

COVER UP!....

its the standard response and that the problem. Hell its bad enough when the police actually do wrong that they do this... but in this case when all outward signs point to them doing 100% right? come on...

how many times does information change during the course of the investigation? A fact is not a fact until its proven as a fact... and in fact, that's a fact!

heh... none of this would even be an issue if all the cops in Canada had cameras in the cars and mikes on thier lapels.

There would still be a delay in processing all that intel, and releasing a report.

I believe that we resolved that it would be more advantageous to have cameras on all the crooks and bad guys.

Next we'll hear from those that say the bad guy should have been winged... "Why did they have to kill him?"

And nothing can be released until the tapes are pulled, reviewed, filed and attached back to the case at D-Division.

Until those tapes are reviewed and locked, no information can be released to the public.

It's not cover-up, it's policy, because too many criminals have been able to win cases against the RCMP for releasing information too early.

pretty sure this criminal wont personally be benefitting much

grumpy old man wrote:Next we'll hear from those that say the bad guy should have been winged... "Why did they have to kill him?"

Wonder what someone would say if the Mountie announced he was trying to "wing" him, but his aim was off?

Freeman wrote:

grumpy old man wrote:Next we'll hear from those that say the bad guy should have been winged... "Why did they have to kill him?"

Wonder what someone would say if the Mountie announced he was trying to "wing" him, but his aim was off?

They would say that police are not trained to 'wing' a 'perp'; if deadly force is required, its a centre-of-mass shot.

guy 20 feet away and carrying a knife.. wing the fricker... guy any distance away and carring a gun.. shoot to kill.
the weapon the person is carrying and their distance away should matter.... but.. if its cop against perp who wont listen... I am fine with him being killed if thats what it takes no matter how far or what weapon he is carrying.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7883479.stm

cops with cameras

It cost £130,000 to install the computer system at Derbyshire Police and each piece of body-worn video equipment costs around £1,000.

Seems to me that would save a fricken crap load of money in court costs and police overtime to attend court.

At 11:23 DeanK starts this thread, and he has got 9 different posts within 3 1/2 hours. Is that legal?

Why do we scrutinize the police more then we punish the criminals .

Why do we scrutinize DeanK more than we punish the criminals?

Now there is a mystery and a thread to start .

Pavolo wrote:Why do we scrutinize the police more then we punish the criminals .

uhh criminal is dead... seems to me that is pretty good punishment