Dunphy inquiry — what you said, part 1
Rereading the news release issued by the RCMP in April 2015, two days after Donald Dunphy died in his living room after being shot by a Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officer, makes me shake my head.
I read it the first time and took it at face value; not thinking, initially, about all it did and did not say.
It said that a “Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officer assigned to the Protective Services Unit was advised of the existence of a social media comment … which was felt to be a concern as it was believed to be directed towards provincial politicians. … Prior to attending the Mitchell’s Brook residence the RNC officer conducted a routine risk assessment within the scope of his duties. … The officer assessed the risk as low, based on all information he received and as such determined that a multi-officer response was not warranted. … The police officer was faced with Mr. Dunphy holding a long barrel firearm which was pointed at the officer. Evidence indicates the police officer responded to this threat with lethal force by drawing and discharging his service pistol. Mr. Dunphy was fatally shot and succumbed to his injuries immediately…”
How carefully crafted and clinical. How one-sided. How fait accompli.
I read it the first time as a citizen, not as a journalist. I did not know Donald Dunphy and knew nothing of his circumstances. In this province, police shootings of civilians are rare, and it’s human nature to reassure yourself with, “That’s terrible, but surely to God there was no way around that tragedy.”
Of course, nothing is black and white. Through the inquiry into his death, we’ve all learned that what happened to Donald Dunphy was anything but.
I’ve done a lot of thinking since then about his life, his death, how systems work and how they need to change.
And so have you. In my March 18th column, I asked for your thoughts and expectations about the inquiry. Many of you delivered, with anger, cynicism, hopefulness, trust and mistrust. Starting in this space and continuing in Monday’s Opinion section, I turn my public forum over to you.
I have had to excerpt what you wrote, but I hope many of your points are made. Thank you for your generous and thought-provoking responses.
I know who the authors are, but not all wished to be fully identified publicly. For that reason, I am using initials as requested.
M.R.: Them vs. us
“Paul Davis was never elected democratically. Don Dunphy spoke out against him.… (The police) protect each other and it really is them against us. …
“They, and (Child, Youth and Family Services), and I would say any other agency, keep files on people who complain about them. …
“I am not a criminal, I work every day and pay taxes. … Why do I and many other common law-abiding citizens have no faith in this police force and the politicians down here? Remember Mount Cashel? The police knew about that and done nothing.”
Andrew Abbass: Silencing dissent
“It’s quite obvious from the inquiry and the report of the Citizen’s Rep that the government is shirking their duty to protect the public with comprehensive legislation.
“My own matter of my detainment shows the same lack of checks and balances in the Mental Health Care and Treatment Act. The hearing before the Court of Appeal last April exposed the gaping holes in the legislation when compared to a province like Ontario.
“The system in N.L. is being abused on all levels to support an
unsustainable way of life and to silence those who dissent against it.”
Jim Brown: So much for public trust
“Any government officials in a position of public trust should be held responsible for their actions and given twice the penalty… as they are sworn to uphold the law and protect its citizens.
“Should I remind you the number of cases that have come to the public light with little or no recourse? Please ask yourself how many cases went unheard for fear of repercussions.”
Much more to come on Monday.