Details on Dunphy shooting too little, too late

It may be a matter of experience gained through countless shootings involving police officers in the United States, but you’ve got to at least acknowledge that authorities there are quick to communicate the details.

Just one day after the killing of Philando Castile by police July 6, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety issued a news release naming the officers involved and describing what unfolded. Here’s an excerpt:

Officer (Jeronimo) Yanez approached the vehicle from the driver’s side and Officer (Joseph) Kauser from the passenger side. At one point during the interaction, Officer Yanez discharged his weapon, striking Castile multiple times. No one else was injured. A gun was recovered at the scene.

Officer Yanez radioed a request for an ambulance. There were two passengers in the vehicle, Diamond Reynolds and her juvenile daughter… Castile was transported to Hennepin County Medical Center where he was later pronounced dead.

Of course, millions of people also learned about the shooting through video from Diamond Reynolds’ cellphone shown on social media. But in general, American authorities tend to be more forthcoming about what they are willing to divulge to the public than their Canadian counterparts.

In Dallas, the police department addresses officer-involved shootings (OIS) right on its website, noting, “This process of transparency begins at the scene of an OIS shooting with press briefings and social media communications and continues with additional updates as information becomes available. We believe that this is an expectation of the community that will increase trust and legitimacy in OIS investigative process.”

Well, this community has expectations, too. But updates have been scarce since Don Dunphy was killed by a Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officer at his Mitchell’s Brook home on April 5, 2015. One day later, we knew an RNC officer was involved in a shooting while conducting “followup inquiries” and a 59-year-old man was dead. That’s about it.

Two days later we knew Dunphy’s name and why the officer had gone to his house — to look into perceived threats to politicians on Twitter, and that, according to the RCMP, Dunphy pointed his gun at the officer. But many questions remained. We know Dunphy’s gun was seized but not whether the officer’s pistol was, or whether his actions breached police protocol.

The RCMP concluded their investigation in January, yet we still don’t know exactly what happened and why.

Justice Minister Andrew Parsons said he’s as frustrated as anyone about the lack of information.

“When people don’t know, they wonder, they speculate,” he said, adding transparency and accountability are in everybody’s best interests, which is why the province needs its own body to conduct independent oversight rather than having one police force investigate another. Police officers have told him the same, he said.

The Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) can’t say when its review of the RCMP investigation might be finished.

“Although we attempt to provide our reviews as expeditiously as possible, there is a multi-staged process to ensure the same standard of excellence in every file, and there are no shortcuts,” communication officer Lynn Neufeld said via email this week.

It’s reassuring to know due diligence is being done, but the lack of information about what happened to Dunphy, more than a year later, is unsettling. Some people have had their faith in the police shaken and the only possibility of restoring that is full and timely disclosure. We’re far from having the tense relationship with the police that some people have in the U.S., and I respect the difficult and often dangerous work our police forces do, but one case of perceived injustice is one too many. You have to feel for Dunphy’s family, waiting all this time for answers.

The justice minister said once the government hears from ASIRT, the public will be informed and an inquiry can be held, calling it the best means of finding the truth.”

An inquiry is a good idea, but perhaps the truth would be better served and the community would be less inclined to suspicion and mistrust if transparency and accountability are watchwords from day one.