Police in Manitoba have, like James Bond, a licence to
kill, according to the latest report from the provincial police watchdog, the
IIU (Independent Investigation Unit).
That's the shocking conclusion of a mandatory, and
seriously slanted, investigation into the police killing of 59-year-old Bradley
Singer in his home on Magnus Avenue a year ago.
Singer was an innocent man, alone, probably asleep,
bothering nobody, when police arrived at his door just before dawn in February
2024. He was diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia, magnified by extreme
paranoia. Police had come with an order to take him to see a doctor who was
concerned that Singer's mental health was deteriorating.
But, through a series of misjudgements and missteps,
about two hours later Singer was dead, peppered with at least six police bullets
fired at point blank range.
https://blackrod.blogspot.com/2024/02/charge-em-magnus-avenue-shooting-by-cops.html
We knew the IIU had something to hide when they
stealthily slipped the report of their "investigation" out the back
door at the last minute on a Friday afternoon.
It's a common practice by government and public bodies to
release a report they don't want anyone to question on a Friday, when reporters
have gone home for the weekend, when it's too late to fully read, when it's
impossible to get anyone to comment on it because they too have gone home.
What
were they hiding?
The IIU had only one question to answer: why didn't police at any point back off, surround the house, and call in a mental health professional, a family member, or a police negotiator to calm Singer and resolve the stand-off peaceably?
The police "watchdog" ignored the question,
raising instead the straw man that police were so scared of Singer they had no
choice but to kill him in his own home.
Make no mistake. The Winnipeg Police Service was 100
percent responsible for the unnecessary killing of Bradley Singer. By refusing
to even discuss the WPS failure to de-escalate their confrontation with Singer,
the IIU destroyed any credibility it had.
Their report is a WHITEWASH.
The Independent Investigation Unit obviously cannot be
trusted to be "independent". No future report by the body can be
believed. The agency must be dissolved and replaced.
Let's review the facts provided by the IIU it its
one-sided investigation.
* Two policemen knocked on Singer's front door at 7:36
a.m. the morning he was shot to death. Getting no answer they tried the side
door. Singer had a cot by the side door, so was likely sleeping there. He
opened the door, saw the policemen and slammed the door shut.
* The police had come to serve Singer with a Mental
Health Order allowing them to take him into custody so he could be assessed by
a physician. Given Singer's reluctance to go with the police, one of the
officers phoned his supervisor to tell her Singer was "was not going to
co-operate and additional resources may be required" as the report put it.
* While he was on the phone, Singer came out his side
door and whacked the door frame with a crowbar, saying "You know what this
is for". He went back in. Anyone with any social skills knows this meant
"Go away, leave me alone."
* Two other police cars arrived. There were now six police officers besieging the house. The
incident had escalated one step.
One of the first officers tried to pull the door frame
away from the wall, but gave up after opening a 3-inch gap.
His partner had his Taser out and he told the other
officer to pull his gun "in case (Singer) attempted to attack them."
Where Singer had been peacefully sleeping less than half an hour earlier, he
now faced a policeman ready to shoot him. The situation had escalated another
step.
* To make the police go away, Singer squirted a fire
extinguisher in the direction of the police through the gap made by the officer
in the door frame of the side door. The police retreated from the door.
* The acting patrol sergeant arrived, making it seven police officers at the
house.
She was told somebody had called the police department's
paramilitary Tactical Support Team, who were coming ”to assist as they were now
in a situation with an armed individual
refusing to come out." The situation had escalated out of control.
* The 9-member TST arrived, making it 16 police officers at the house. You
read that right. SIXTEEN POLICE OFFICERS.
Sixteen police carrying handguns and rifles outside. One
terrified, paranoid middle-aged man with a mental illness inside.
* The TST proceeded to try and talk to Singer. They used
a loud-hailer, sirens, and sent a TST officer to break down the front door with
a hand-held battering ram..."to attempt to open the door so some
communication could be established."
Eventually they decided to attach a stronger battering ram to their civilian armoured personnel carrier (with eight gunports), and use it to smash a hole in a wood panel covering the front window.
* A TST policeman was assigned to provide "lethal force coverage" for
the vehicle.
"Announcements were made that they were the police
and they were there to help."
Getting no response, they smashed through the front door. "... this
was followed up with more sirens and more announcements over the loud hailer.
A neighbour watching the event described the
"attempts to communicate" as banging and yelling
* Singer wasn't there. The team heard noises upstairs and
a team was sent up some stairs.
"There were 10 to 15 stairs culminating in a
90-degree turn to the left followed by approximately five more stairs and a
closed door at the top." or " The stairs went up approximately twelve
steps up to a small landing where the stairs turned left and continued for
another five to six steps, up to a closed door."
(Apparently the Forensic Identification Section
investigator assigned to the shoddy investigation never counted exactly how
many stairs, so 'just guessing' was the standard.)
* When they got to the door, Singer shot the fire
extinguisher through a cat door (10x8 inches), forcing the tactical team to
down the stairs and out the front door.
* Regrouping, the TST team went back up the stairs. In
the lead, carrying a ballistic shield and his handgun, was the officer who
provided "lethal force coverage" when the tactical officers smashed
their way into Singer's home. Behind him was an officer armed with a rifle. And
last was a policeman carrying "a less-than-lethal beanbag shotgun".
The two police armed to kill went first, the one with a non-lethal weapon was last.
Remember,
Singer was in his own home, hurting no one, minding his own business, besieged
by sixteen armed police who just smashed their way into his house, defending
himself against a mob armed with handguns and rifles--- with a fire
extinguisher.
* What happened next, is anyone's guess. You might think
that's the job of the IIU, to investigate and determine what happened. But
here's how the IIU reached its conclusion.
The two TST police who shot Singer immediately lawyered
up. They couldn't be questioned, never mind cross-examined. They provided
obviously polished statements of their version of what happened.
In effect, the IIU received second-hand accounts of the
killing of Bradley Singer from people paid to defend the men who shot him.
* The first man up said in his statement that he opened
the door to a room at the top of the stairs--- and was met with something right
out of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
“SO1 pushed the door open with the shield and stepped
into the doorway. He immediately heard yelling coming from a dark room to his
left located a few feet from the door. He then observed an axe charge at him
and then repeatedly and violently ram and strike the left side of the shield in
a piercing motion.
“SO1
retreated backwards taking a few steps down the staircase
while AP continued advancing and switched to swinging and striking the shield
with the axe. AP was now in the doorway overtop of SO1 and another TST member.
“AP raised the axe in the air towards me and my teammates in a chopping motion. It all happened within seconds. In that moment, fearing for my life and fearing of grievous bodily harm or death to myself and my teammates, I discharged my pistol.”
* The rifle-wielding policeman behind him had this
account:
“SO1 was slowly opening the door when AP appeared to use
his body to slam the door shut. SO1 fell backwards causing SO2 to support him
from behind to prevent him from falling. SO1 recovered and placed the ballistic
shield against the cat door to prevent any further fire extinguisher discharge...
“SO1
started opening the door and SO2 saw a blur of motion and heard the impact of
something heavy hitting the police shield and a male screaming and swearing at
us.
SO2 moved to SO1’s left and could see that AP was attacking SO1 with an axe. AP was swinging the axe down hard at the
shield with both of his hands in a clear attempt to strike SO1.
“SO2
stated that AP was screaming and swearing at the officers with his face locked
on to SO1. SO2 saw the axe handle hit the top of the shield with the blade of
the axe entering the area between the shield and SO1’s head.
“According to SO2, at that time it was clear to him that
SO1 was at risk of death or grievous bodily harm. SO2 leaned out to the left of
21 the shield and discharged between two to four rounds at AP’s centre of mass.”
* The officer with the bean-bag shotgun, who happened to
be the patrol partner of the man with the rifle, played the perfect Sgt.Schultz
of "I see nothing. NOTHING" fame. He told the IIU investigator:
“When they made it up the stairs, the door opened quickly
and then slammed shut. The door opened again and the two officers in front of
him fell back into WO7 and pinned him on the stairs. WO7 had no view of the
door at this point as his view was totally obstructed by the two officers in
front of him. As this was happening, WO7
heard someone yell "axe” and then he heard three to five gunshots.
* Another officer standing several steps below the first
three said he "could see the three officers but not the door...WO7 then
observed the door open and AP was standing there with an axe held above his
head. Almost simultaneously, he heard a bunch of shots and someone transmitting
on the radio that AP was down".
*The second-in-command of the Tactical team that day
said:
"SO1 reached for the door handle and attempted to
open the door. WO5 observed the door open and AP moving aggressively and
quickly towards the officers. AP had a wooden object in his hands and appeared
to be pushing it in a horizontal fashion
towards the ballistic shield and officers. The three officers moved
suddenly backwards into the wall of the
staircase/landing. At the same moment, WO5 heard gunshots and observed SO2
discharge his gun.”
* The officer in command said:
“WO4 observed SO2 and WO7 (rifle and beanbag) moving
suddenly backward on the landing and
into the wall beside the stairs. WO4
thought the officers were possibly being pushed down the stairs. WO4 then
observed SO2 bringing up his rifle and firing three or four times. Due to the
angle of the stairs at the landing, WO4 could not see SO1 or AP from his
vantage point.
******
Bradley Singer was shot at least six times. He suffered
three rifle shots at point blank range to his upper abdomen. He had a gunshot
to his upper right arm which caused a visible broken bone. The coroner said any
one of these four shots could have killed him. Singer also had a gunshot to his
upper left arm and his left forearm. A paramedic told of seeing two or three
entrance wounds to the arm with the broken bone but one could have been an exit
wound seen by another paramedic.
The exact number of shots fired could have been
determined by examining how many bullets were missing from the handgun and the
rifle. The Forensic investigator
apparently didn't do that.
The second-hand accounts of the shooting provided to the
IIU are not corroborated by officers in command that day, who saw pushing and
not an axe attack, and those accounts are contradicted by two officers regarding
the timing of the shots.
By
choosing the accounts supplied in writing by the officers who fired the shots
over those given in person by witnesses, the IIU exposed its inherent bias of
selecting "evidence" that exonerates police who kill over evidence
that disputes their stories.
We looked further into that premise. We discovered that
the conclusions in the report were those of Acting Civilian Director Bruce
Sychuk. Who? We asked the same question. We quickly learned he was a provincial
prosecutor.
There's a saying that roughly goes this way: when you're
a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To a prosecutor, defendants all look
guilty and police witnesses are all saints. Is that what happened here? Is this
the mind-set that defines the so-called Independent Investigation Unit?
Following the Singer killing then-acting police chief Art
Stannard said there just wasn't time to call for a mental health professional
to the scene.
But he was talking only about the isolated minutes immediately preceding the shooting.
Supt. Bonnie Emerson said at the time "Officers are
human beings"
What was Bradley Singer? An animal to be hunted, chased,
and captured or killed? For what? Failing to show up for a doctor's
appointment?
There will be a mandatory inquest, but will the issue of
police incitement of an incident be examined?
After J.J. Harper was killed by a policeman, there was a public inquiry.
If the officers are not charged with homicide to let a
jury of civilians decide what defines "reasonable force", then the
government must call a public inquiry for Bradley Singer.
But what about the license to kill?
Sychuk, in dismissing the matter of why Singer was
killed, cited some law. There's a section of the Criminal Code that says police
can use "as much force as necessary" to do their job "if he acts
on reasonable grounds..." Sychuk then cited Section 25 (4) of the Criminal
Code which reads
(4) A peace officer, and every person lawfully
assisting the peace officer, is justified in using force that is intended or is
likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to a person to be arrested...
But police weren't a Singer's house to arrest him. They
had no arrest warrant. They had a Mental Health Order.
So Sychuk cited a section of the Manitoba Mental Health
Act reading:
Protection
from Liability
118
No action for damages or other proceeding lies or may be brought personally
against the director... or any other person acting under the authority of, or
engaged in the administration of this Act or the regulations for anything done
... in the performance or exercise, or the intended performance or exercise, of
any duty or power under this Act or the regulations, or for any neglect or
default in the performance or exercise, or intended performance or exercise in
good faith of such a duty or power.
While the section specifies 'action for damages', such as
paying for smashing in your door, that's a civil matter. But everyone knows
that in law words matter, so we consulted a dictionary to determine the meaning
of "other proceeding".
Here's what we found:
A legal proceeding is a formal process that involves
invoking the power of a court to enforce the law. It can also refer to a step
in a larger legal action.
Examples
of legal proceedings:
A court hearing
A trial
An application to the court
An appeal of a court decision
A bankruptcy proceeding
A divorce proceeding
A criminal proceeding
In a nutshell, the Act says no action or proceeding may
be brought against any person action under the authority of this Act for
anything done under this Act or for any neglect or default in the performance
of such a duty or power.
Where's Joe Biden with preemptive pardons when you need
him?