When someone dies at police hands, their identity must be made public
A worrisome practice reared its head again recently after a man was shot to death by police, and two officers wounded, at a Burlington gas station.
The provincial Special Investigations Unit (SIU) that investigates all police shootings said that, after a discussion with the dead man’s family, it would not be releasing his identity. This, the SIU spokesperson said, was to respect the privacy of the family.
This is not the first time that the identity of someone killed by police, or others, has been withheld from the public, and there are several reasons for concern.
In April 2015, Peterborough police shot and killed a man a short distance from the city’s downtown.
The SIU investigated and cleared the officers in the shooting — but, again, the man was not identified by the agency, or Peterborough police, although his identity eventually became public through media reports.
There are other gaps in SIU records, where it appears that some people killed in police shootings in Ontario (and in other provinces) were not identified either by the agency or by a police service.
The Sept. 22 shooting in Burlington was followed the next day by a statement signed by Ontario SIU Director Tony Loparco that said the decision was meant to “minimize the pain” felt by their family.
“What about the person fatally shot by police?” the statement asked. “Some media complain we’re being secretive and lack transparency by not releasing his name. The people who need to know — family, friends, employers — know.”
That’s not good enough. When someone is killed by an agent of the state — and, yes, that’s a provocative distillation of a police officer’s position — full transparency is essential.
When someone puts himself or herself in the position of being shot by police through their own violent actions, they surrender their right — and yes, their family’s right — to anonymity.
Yes, the family’s pain is real. And in the vast majority of police shootings, the family’s pain is exposed to public view.
The SIU director says those who need to know, know. How can he be sure that’s true?
Police detectives know that sometimes a missing piece of a puzzle comes from unexpected places. A relationship between two parties may be known only to a tiny circle of others. There may be context to an “interaction” (a favourite SIU term for a police shooting) that is not readily apparent. Circumstances from years ago may not be known in the present day.
How can the public feel confident that the SIU has fully done its job if an essential piece is withheld?
The “right to privacy” is far too often cited, often wrongly, to withhold information from the public, in matters large and small. The arguments can, and probably will, go on forever.
But the killing of a person rises above more mundane issues. It is the extreme end of the scale of what we allow the state and its agents to go to.
It is no slight to police that the public demand absolute transparency and accountability. It’s the price to be paid.
When someone puts himself or herself in the position of being shot by police through their own violent actions, they surrender their right — and yes, their family’s right — to anonymity.