Regular readers of The Black Rod know that we've been staunch defenders of the police. When critics attacked the police for being too rough when making an arrest, when politicians and "activists" jumped on wholly invented allegations of police misconduct, when the anti-cop crowd lobbied to defund the police, we stood up for the police.
Not this time.
On February 13 a mob of Winnipeg police shot and killed a
scared, innocent man in his own home on Magnus Avenue. This wasn't a doped up
criminal with a weapon charging police in a back alley in the dead of night, or
a car thief trying to run down a policeman after a car chase.
This was a man minding his own business, not a threat to
anyone, in his own home, a place where everybody should feel safe and expect
the police to protect, not kill, them.
The
next day the police issued a news release to say what happened, and held a news
conference to not answer questions. That's right, they clammed up tight,
refusing to elaborate on any details while hiding behind a mandatory
investigation into the police homicide by the Independent Investigation
Unit (IIU), the so-called police watchdog.
They knew they were in trouble, but were relying on the carefully worded news release to feed a narrative in the mainstream and social media, a narrative which went something like this:
'police were sent to execute a warrant on a
mentally ill man who answered his door acting erratically and armed with a
crowbar. He attacked them and locked himself in the house. They were forced to
call in the tactical support team, a unit trained to deal with armed drug
dealers and violent outlaw motorcycle gangs, to break into the house and lay
siege to the unstable man who had barricaded himself in a bedroom. He
eventually stepped out armed with "a large edged weapon" and the
police, fearing for their lives, had to shoot him.'
The first red flag went up when we actually read the news release.
It told a completely different story.
Just before sunrise on Feb. 14 police showed up at 259 Magnus Ave.
to tell 59-year-old Bradley Singer they had a Mental Health warrant to
take him against his will to see a doctor. He didn't want to go, possibly
because police had forcibly taken him to a doctor on another Mental Health
order a week earlier (according to a neighbour) and he had been seen and sent
home.
They were "met at the door." The news release declared Singer was "exhibiting agitated behaviour and in possession of a crowbar."
On Magnus Avenue
answering a knocking at the door before sunrise while holding a crowbar would
not be unusual. Police notably didn't say that he waved the crowbar, he
brandished the crowbar, or he threatened them with the crowbar. The implication
was that being mentally ill meant Singer was unstable, irrational and
upredictable. In short, hint hint, potentially violent and armed with a
dangerous weapon.
The police didn't say what "agitated behaviour"
was. How calm would you be if strangers woke you up knocking loudly on your
front door that early in the morning? Singer had been diagnosed as a paranoid
schizophrenic. Did he say anything that would make police fear him? He wasn't
being sought for any violent act. Why were two police officers armed with guns,
pepper spray, batons, possibly a Taser, afraid of
him?
"As officers approached the male, he discharged
a fire extinguisher in
their direction before
retreating and locking himself inside."
When did he put
down the crowbar? Members of the public on social media are asking why police
didn't use non-lethal methods to subdue Singer. That morning he was the only one who resorted to
"non-lethal" measures--- to protect himself. Note that he sprayed the
fire extinguisher "in their direction", a carefully worded description
that means he did not spray fire-retardant foam on the
police, or even on their clothes or shoes. Just "in their direction."
Like, at the ground?
The attending police then immediately "summoned the Tactical
Support Team (TST)., who upon arrival, made repeated
attempts to communicate with the agitated male, which were met with
negative results."
Within an estimated 45 minutes of first
arrival, a neighbour saw the police Tactical Support Team installing a
battering ram on their 8 l/2 ton armored response vehicle.
"TST
members breached and entered the residence..."
The police smashed through either a front window or the
front door. Press photos show a mangled door. But photos also show a large hole
in the bottom right corner of the plywood sheet over a front picture window. If
the police smashed through the window, it's unlikely they boosted a member
through the window to open the door from the inside. It's more likely a member
armed with an assault rifle was positioned at the window to kill Singer if he
tried to prevent the team from manually breaking through the front door.
"...continued their attempts to
communicate with the male, who had now barricaded himself in a second-story
bedroom."
The neighbour heard the "attempts to communicate"
which she described as banging and yelling. Note that Singer made no attempt to
stop the police from entering his home, having instead fled to the safety of a
bedroom. How had he "barricaded" the room? With a chair, like in the
movies? Or was the door simply closed?
"The male again discharged a fire extinguisher at TST members."
"After some time, the male exited the bedroom and
confronted officers while armed with a large edged weapon."
Confronted? A word deliberately chosen to give the
impression that Singer was aggressively challenging the police. How? By being
"armed" with a "large, edged weapon."
What sort of weapon. Apparently that's top secret
information not to be shared with the public. Was it a knife? A machete? A
screwdriver?
"During
this encounter, officers discharged their firearms, striking the male."
The only legal reason for shooting him to death was if he
was a threat to somebody. To whom?
Singer was facing nine Tactical Support Team members,
each wearing 17 pounds of body armour, armed with guns, who had just chased the
terrified man upstairs. He was no threat to anyone. He was defending himself from a threat---a mob that had just
smashed into his home, screaming, waving guns.
This was a George Floyd-style incident. Remember that
Minneapolis police responsible for the death of George Floyd claimed he
accidentally choked to death as they held him down because he was resisting
arrest. But video showed beyond a doubt that he was "resisting" by
struggling to get an officer's knee off his throat so he could breathe.
What details have Winnipeg police provided about the
manner of Singer's death?
Only that "officers discharged their firearms."
How many officers shot Singer at close range and how many times? Apparently
that too is Top Secret not to be disclosed to the public.
But we can guess some facts from this statement in the
police news release:
"Officers provided immediate emergency
medical care to the male with the application of chest seals and a
tourniquet."
Note 'seals', plural. So police shot Singer more than
once in the chest. And a tourniquet is attached to a limb to prevent someone
from bleeding to death, so he was likely shot at least a third time in an arm
or leg.
The next day Winnipeg Police Service acting Chief Art
Stannard said that police in this incident could not call for Alternative
Response to Citizens in Crisis, a two-man team consisting of a police officer
and a clinician, designed to address mental health crises.
“Based on the information we had, it was not a response
for AARC at all,” he said. “Absolutely not. The safety conditions and the
information we had, it was definitely a police response.”
The civilian-police partnership is “not appropriate for
high risk or potential violence situations,” a media report quoted
him. High risk?
What information did they have? Top secret, not to be
disclosed to the public.
But it has to be extremely significant, or else Stannard
must be held accountable for misleading the public.
Three days before police killed Singer, a standoff on
College Avenue lasted six hours. Two
men were holed up. A shotgun was fired and three policemen were hit by pellets,
probably ricochets. A crisis negotiator was called in. Nobody was killed.
Two weeks prior to Singer's killing, police attended a
standoff in Transcona which lasted three
hours. A man with a rifle was reported holding a woman inside. A crisis
negotiator responded.
And yet there was apparently some rush to seize Bradley
Singer.
We may have discovered the reason. Keep reading.
Also at the police news conference following Singer's
death, Superintendant of Community Engagement Bonnie Emerson spoke. She made a
feeble attempt to make the police the victims.
"We’re
the only ones mandated to do this...And we cannot do this alone. Officers are
human beings. they are required to make life-and-death decisions in high-stress
situations and unknown risk. They do
the best they can with the circumstances they’re presented with and
the training and equipment they’ve been given.”
Could
you be more tone deaf? The uniformed police and TAT members had, at all times,
a choice.
LEAVE!
Bradley Singer was going nowhere. He was
threatening nobody. He was in his own home.
They could
have secured the doors. And waited for mental health crisis negotiators. If it
took 3 hours or 6 hours, so be it. There was NO REASON to kill him.
A mental
health warrant is not a death warrant. Why do Winnipeg police need to be
reminded of that?
Emerson,
still trying to get the police off the hook, sent questioners to the Mental
Health Act. We'll bet she never
thought any journalist would actually go and read it?
We
did.
https://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/_pdf.php?cap=M110
The Act states that an Order
for an involuntary medical examination gives a peace officer the authority to
take the person named in the order into custody (Sec.11.2) and to enter any
premises to accomplish the task (Sec. 12.2).
But reading further we were struck by something in the Act that
sent a chill down our spines.
Order valid for 7 days
11(3) An order under
this section expires at the end of the seventh day after the day it is made.
The Winnipeg police news release started with this statement.
"On February 8, 2024, the Winnipeg
Police Service received an order under the Manitoba
Mental Health Act to apprehend a 59-year-old male and convey him to
hospital for a non-voluntary physician examination. Officers made several attempts during the following
days to apprehend the male but were met with negative results."
The Mental Health order was issued for Bradley Singer six
days before he was killed by police.
OMG. Was that the
reason for the rush to apprehend him, for failing to de-escalate the
confrontation by waiting for a crisis negotiator of mental health clinician,
for failing to contain the scene while Singer's doctor or family member could
be called to help?
Was he killed because the mental health order expired the
next day and he had managed to elude police until the sixth?
Will
this be examined closely by the Independent Investigation Unit?
We re-read the Mental Health Act and realized we had
overlooked this:
Reasonable measures
12(2) A peace officer may take any reasonable
measures when acting under this section or section 9 or 11 or subsection 44(1)
or 48(2)...
Who is going to define "reasonable measures' as
shooting an innocent man to death in his own home, even a man defending himself
against intruders who have smashed their way in?
This is not for the IIU to adjudicate. This is for a jury
of 12 men and women.
The police have been described as the thin blue line.
This time they crossed that line.
Charge 'em.