Clinton Jaws - RCMP vs Civilian Review and Complaints Commission

Episode Date: September 9, 2020

Hey guys I had no idea that there was an agency responsible for examining complaints of improper on-duty conduct by members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I came across an article from the media titled "RCMP Watchdog Reveals Troubling Pattern Of Police Misconduct" and it got my blood boiling so I rambled on about it for too long. Not my best work but I found it interesting. https://www.clintonjaws.com/ https://www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/en/sample-review-findings view the reviews here.

Hey guys, Clint here again. I'm sitting in my living room. I come across an article, an article from the media. I don't know how this video is going to go. I just kind of hit record. I want to go through it with you. Kind of live. The title of the article is RCMP Watchdog reveals troubling pattern of police misconduct. I had to click on it, right? because there is a troubling pattern of police misconduct. I know there isn't. And so that's why I clicked on it. And it's an article written from the Huff Post.

I think it's the Huff Post. Does it even really matter? It's media. Her name is Samantha Beattie. She's got a cute picture, which is too bad, because I got to talk about her article. And I don't know why I just mentioned she was cute, but she is. So Samantha wrote an article.

It's about the Civilian Review Complaints Commission. CRCC. Did you guys know about this? I didn't know about this. I know my shirt is too tight. I didn't know about this. Civilian review and complaints commission. didn't know about, I didn't know that this even existed. So what they are, I did some research.

What they are is we get a, police get a lot of complaints. They get a lot of complaints from bad guys. After bad guys get arrested, they are going to kill your kids. They're going to cut off your head, shit down your neck. They're going to do all these things. And they're going to sue you. They're going to sue your asses off. So after they get arrested, the bad guys, they make a complaint. They can make a complaint about anything. I once had a guy that I heard of complain because his handcuffs are too tight. Even though handcuffs are supposed to be tight, they're not supposed to be loose. They're supposed to be tight for a reason.

People make complaints about anything and everything. And after they make the complaint, the RCMP investigated. If they don't like the result, this is who they go to. did you guys know this? I didn't know this when I was a police officer. I didn't care. I didn't pay attention to stuff like this. But there's a committee, CC, CRCC.

They get paid for bad guys to come to them. They review their case, and then they make their findings. You know what they do with their findings now? They put them online. They put them online. These are civilian people telling police how they should do their job better. So this is what Beattie writes. As the RCMP faces backlash for how officers handle mental health calls, backlash, use excessive force and discriminate against indignuous people, the force's

watchdog has quietly begun making public the results of its misconduct reviews. And they've posted 23 reviews. So Beattie, what the hell is her name? Yeah, Beattie. She goes on to talk in the Arctic. So, BD reads these 23 complaints online. So did I. She reads them, all the cases, and she makes this article, this news post for everybody to read, all of Canada. Let's go through it. She determines officers did not provide people in their custody with proper medical care, delayed allowing people.

he'll access the legal counsel, botched a sexual assault investigation, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Bedi starts talking about several cases that the police, the RCMP, have messed up on after she does her review. One of the cases, the RCMP officers were called to check in on a person, possibly experiencing a mental health crisis. when they arrived at the person's home they claimed to smell marijuana the police officer smell marijuana and arrested the person punching them twice in the head and fracturing one of the ribs this is what beatie wrote and i'm like holy shit police just showed up and just punched them twice and broke a rib this person the bad guy suffering from mental health issues complained to the police

and the police said now everything the police did was fine so this committee reviews it okay oh this gets so good guys this is all she says in it no no sorry she says more in its review the CRCC

determined the opposite in fact they found that they had no intention to pursue a marijuana session investigation at all, but rather used it as an excuse to make the unlawful arrest. The CRCC said the RCMP should apologize and review its national policy. Da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-bbb. Okay, here's my point. The only reason I catch onto this stuff is because I used to be a former police officer.

So when I read something that doesn't really look right, then I start, it's funny what you find when you start digging into things. They arrived at the person's home. This is what this journalist says. They arrive at the person's home, claim to smell marijuana, marijuana, and arrested the person punching them twice in the head and fracturing one of their ribs. No cop in their right mind is going to be. to show up to somebody's house and just start punching them for no reason. I know that.

Police officers know that. So I'm going to review exactly what Beattie reviewed. I'm going to bring up the case. This is what the CRCC reviewed. Who were the police fighting? The police are fighting everybody. They're fighting the CRCC. They're fighting reporters. Can't every... I won't, I won't my... Okay. Just let's review it. This is what the CRCC reviewed. They got a complaint from this guy, so they review the case. The members go to this house. The CRCC, it's online, you can review it.

They go to his house. They meet the guy suffering from mental health at the front door. He's got his hands in his pocket. Right away, there's a confrontation. They ask him to take his hands out of his pocket. So he does. And what does he have in his hands? Two clenched fists.

Two clenched fists is combative. Right away, these officers are hands-on on on this guy. But Beattie didn't write that. She didn't say that this guy was combative. Isn't that something? Isn't that this is the world we live in? We rely on the media to tell the truth. And she forgets to say that the complainant, they're calling them a complainant, was combative.

Two clenched fists, they go hands on. But when you read these articles, not the, it's articles, but it's CRCC, their narrative. They leave out a ton of information, a ton of information. The RCMP member told the complainant to remove their hands from the pocket, which they declined to do and instead form two fists. A scuffle ensued during which the RCMP member used a close fist to strike the complainant twice in the head. See how they jumped to a scuffle ensued?

CRCC. I know what you're doing. What about, what did the so-called complainant do to the police? You forgot to mention that part. So did Beattie, the media. You're jumping. You're jumping from two fists, all of a sudden the police officer has to throw two strikes to him. You forget to mention it on purpose.

So, guys, when you're reviewing this shit online from the CRCC, just remember, they're not even telling the full story. You don't even have the RCMP report on this. It's their own narrative that they're writing. The complaint was then subdued. nothing about how the complainant fought the police. Two clenched fists is a combative person. BD didn't want to talk about that.

Why? You know why. It doesn't sell papers. It's not good business. And she thought she could get away with it. This is fucked. What else? The commission didn't like that the RCMP arrested this guy

that was suffering from a mental health crisis. but what they don't realize. Well, they do, but they don't care. It's that the guy was combative, right off the bat, right off the bat. And they said even if the detention had been reasonable, the commission examined the use of force and noted that two strikes with a close fist to the complainant's head were unreasonable and not consistent with RCMP training. Bullshit.

That is bullshit. You come in contact with a combative male? you got a ton of things you could do. Taser, pepper spray, baton, hands-on, two strikes. That's exactly what training is. These are the people that are reviewing this shit. They get paid for this, guys. They have no idea about RC&P use of force.

They have no idea about... The only way you can have any idea of use of force is if you go to training. RCMP training, police training. that's the only way that you're going to understand and you're going to be able to make a comment on somebody else's use of force, a police officer's use of force. That's the only, I think I'm getting just tired

of talking about nonsense. Nonsense. I think that's what it is. Like there's so much I want to say, but what am I really doing here? Like it's agonizing to listen to people that aren't police officers.

tell police officers how to do their job. But the only way you can do that is if you went to police training and you trained use of force. I trained use of force at training. I did it entirely through my career, continuously through my career. You get good at it after a while. Sometimes you get good at it right away. And you've got civilians that are telling you

how to be cops, but they have no idea. They have no idea that sometimes when you go to a call like this and you open up the door, people are combative right away. And sometimes they suffer from mental health issues. That's not the police fault. The police are reacting to their behavior. It doesn't matter that they're suffering from mental health. You have to react to their behavior.

If somebody's combative, you have to react to that. You don't just let it go. You don't just get pumbled and hit in the head. You have to grab onto people. They don't even talk about what this guy did being combative. Two-fists? Guaranteed he did more than two-fis to receive two strikes. But they don't talk about that.

Do you, CRCC? You don't. And you don't be, E, E. Why is that? It goes on. They bring up some recommendations. The purpose of the police intervention was related to the complainant's mental health. Doesn't matter.

Doesn't matter what it is. Bottom line, CRCC didn't like that police attended a mental health call and the guy became combative. Happens all the time. Happens all the time. I know that's a racist thing to say. I know you want nurses to go. go to these calls. But you don't want them to go to these calls unarmed facing combative people. This is their findings. Okay. This is what they found. This is what they ruled in their case.

Fuck. R. CMP use of force against a complaint was unreasonable as initial detention was unreasonable. No, it wasn't unreasonable. You have to react to their behavior. What are you going to do, CRCC? What are you going to do? somebody is fighting you, hurting you, is combative towards you, what are you going to do? I'm trying to be reasonable here. I'm trying to talk in a good tone. I want to freak out. RCMP members use of two strikes with a closed fist to the complainant's head

was unreasonable and inconsistent with RCMP training bullshit. No, it wasn't. We all know that. They're lying. You're actually liars. That's what you are. You're lying. You're fibbing to every Canadian.

And so is Beattie by writing this shit. She didn't mention combative. Why wouldn't she mention combative in her article? Why would she leave that part out? Members just showed up and punched this guy twice. Doesn't mention combative? That he was combative? Why, Beattie?

Why'd you forget to mention that? One member's use of force against a complainant resulted in injuries including abrasions in a fractured rib. Yeah, so? Fuck. Yeah? Not the member's fault. It's a complainant's fault.

If we're calling him a complainant, it's his fault. Stop being combative, weirdo. That's not the police's problem. The police want to go home to their families. They show up, the guy's a combative, a complete idiot, a jerk. What are you supposed to do?

You have to go hands-on because he's making you go hands-on. Not the police officer's fault that he has a broken rip. I really wish I could read the police report on this one. What did that so-called complainant actually do during the fight? But they skip over that. The two RC&P members unreasonably failed to take notes regarding the incident. Can you believe this part? These are civilians telling police how they should do their job.

They don't have a clue about note taking. Why should we believe that they have a clue about note taking? Did they look at the notes and say that it wasn't sufficient? Do you know how many times we have a little notebook right here, okay? When we're out a file, we take it out after the file and rewrite in the notebook. we write it we make notes i didn't always do that i didn't always use my notebook you know what i used to use i used to use the computer in my car that was set up in my car right after the file and i used to type up the entire incident you know what that was that's my notes civilians are trying to tell police

they failed to take notes did they really though did they see rcc or do you know what you just not understand what police do? That's what I'm thinking. Why would you? You're not a police officer. You can't even make these comments. These people get paid for what they're doing. They're getting paid. This committee started in the 80s. I know I'm rambling. I can't help it. I can't help it. I know this is shit that I'm saying right now, but I'm passionate about it and I want to talk about it. Okay? What's the point of this one? Media, Huff Post, decides to eliminate the part where bad guy was competitive.

You want to hear what else she has to say? Do you? I don't even know if I want to talk about it. This is so ridiculous. And it's posted online. For all Canadians to see. But you're not getting the true story. You're not getting the full story. BD goes on to talk about more things after she did her review of the CRC. She talks about a man was accused.

You got to listen to this. You have to listen to this shit. Man was accused of being intoxicated and getting into an altercation at a nightclub. While the RCMP was arresting the man, he suffered a head injury. He was detained for 10 hours. Holy doodles. With no medical attention for the bleeding wound. The RCMP did not notify his family or friend.

of his arrest. Yeah. They didn't conduct a sobriety test also. Or investigate the validity of the initial complaint. All unacceptable, the CRCC said. This is what she wrote. This reporter wrote this. So the CRCC found, and I haven't gotten into what they really said,

found that he didn't, that the police didn't tell his, family and friends of the rest, conduct a sobriety test, or investigate the initial complaint. All unacceptable. So I opened up the real complaint. Well, half the complaint, because you're not getting the RCMP version, you're getting CRCC's version, who hates police. So I open it up. The complainant, bad guy, he's at a nightclub. This is what the CRCC is writing.

The complainant was at a nightclub with friends and had one beer. This guy who spent 10 hours in cells had one beer. You know it ain't true. Right off the bat. Right off the bat when you read this shit. You know the guy was hammered. Of course he was hammered. You're hammered.

You were hammered. I know you were. Every cop knows you were. What else does it say? Because I can't wait to hear about while the RCMP were arresting the man, he suffered a head injury. Okay, I can't wait to hear that part. Oh, the complaint.

it was involved in an altercation with another patron. Hmm. You're at a bar. You get into an argument with another guy at the bar, two drunk people. Guess what happens, right? They get into a fight, right? They don't say that part, though. They don't have to.

I already know that's what happened. And so what happens when two people get into a fight? Two dudes get into a fight in a bar. The staff intervened, right? Don't they? Yeah. The nightclub staff, because that's what happened, the complainant got an altercation with another patron.

The nightclub staff intervened and forcibly removed the complainant from the property. Listen to this. In the process, the complainant's head was injured and bloodied. Beattie, you told me in your article that he got bloodied from when the police arrested him. but now I'm hearing the part true story that it was actually when the staff intervened. Probably punched him in the head, probably threw him to the ground. It was the staff that hurt his head. Papedi doesn't...

The staff called 911. A cop attends outside the nightclub and sees that the guy's causing a disturbance, right? Obviously. Every cop knows what this guy was doing outside the nightclub. nightclub. He was arrested and held in custody overnight and was told that he would be released without charge once sober. When two people get into a fight, a consensual fight, there usually are no charges. Do you know how many times I've been to a bar where there's a guy outside, drunk, mad, angry, causing a disturbance, and the only way to make him safe for the night is to arrest him

and put him to cells so he can sleep it off. That's all the cop did. CRCC and B-D have a problem with us. B-D, you're a journalist. How can you get this wrong? Canadians trust you. They want to... When they read your shit, if I wasn't a cop

and I read your stuff, I would think it was believable. But either you're lying, or it's just bad. reporting he didn't hurt himself the police didn't hurt him when they arrested him it was a staff how can you fuck that up is that not important to you it's important to me maybe nobody cares about this shit it's funny when you dig a little bit how many people have read this and thought it was factual this is the media guys this is what they're doing they've been doing it for years

And nobody talks about it. They just allow it. Let's keep going. The complainant said in his complaint, arrest unreasonable, right, medical attention was not provided, boo-hoo. The complainant's version of events was not obtained. His family or friends were not informed of the arrest. No sobriety test was administered. And BD already said that the CRCC agreed that was bad.

10-hour incarceration was unreasonable. Really? Because sometimes they're held for 15 hours. You're held until you're held. You're held until you're sober. Sometimes it takes a long time. And this guy was pissed. Guaranteed.

RCMP found everything fine with this. The police officers conduct reasonable. Civilians didn't like it. Of course they didn't like it. They're not cops. They didn't go to cop school. on the review, this is what the commission is going to talk about, okay? RCMP failed to provide medical assistance to the bloodied complainant with a visible head injury.

Just because you have a visible head injury don't mean shit. Okay, you weren't there. CRCC wasn't there. You weren't there. How can you comment on this? Sometimes you have a scratched knee, a bloodied head, a wound to the nose. you don't need medical attention. We're not going to waste our entire night getting you medical attention.

We're short. We're overworked. We don't got time and there's no importance for it. If you want to tend to your wound in the morning, you tend to your wound in the morning when you're released. They further found that the RCP member failed to make inquiries to understand what led to the 911 call and failed to inform the complainant's family or friends of the arrest.

It doesn't matter what led to the 911 call. They show up. They got an intoxicated guy that's causing a disturbance. They know they have to arrest them. Failed to inform the complainant's family or friends of the arrest? Never done that. If it's a youth, I did it. But I'm not going to do an adult.

I'm not going to fucking... Why would any cop call their family or friends of the arrest? First of all, you're not even allowed to. confidentiality you're not allowed to do you know how much shit cops would be in if they started calling family and friends about somebody's arrest this is ridiculous this is the shit they're coming up with this is the shit they're they're writing these people are paid maybe i'm the only one that cares oh listen to this listen to this one this is so dumb this is such a dumb video that I'm making, but I'm passionate about it. I can't help it. The commission was

satisfied that no sobriety test was required to arrest the complainant for causing a public disturbance. Of course there's no sobriety test. You don't need a test. When you come across a drunk person, you know they're drunk, okay? Red eyes, glossy eyes, slurred speech, no balance, wobbly. It goes on and on and on. They're drunk. We know what drunk people are. You're not going to give a, what's a sobriety test anyway? Are they talking about the ASD? I don't know. What are they talking about here? But anyways, the commission, the commission was fine that the police didn't conduct a sobriety test. But hold on a second. That's not what Beatty said. She said, the RCMP did not notify his family, conduct a sobriety test, all on except.

the CRCC said. She got it wrong again. This is the shit that Canadians are reading. She's a journalist. And she got it wrong again. No, Beatty. That's not what the CRCC said. They agreed that a sobriety test was ridiculous.

But you said, they said, it was all unacceptable, the CRCC said. Lastly unreasonable for the cops to hold the complaint in custody until sober which was contrary to the release requirements in Section 497 of the criminal code I don't know, fuck. Really? Come on.

Is there any point talking about this? This is so ridiculous. This is their recommendations. Police should make reasonable efforts to obtain the whole story before an arrest. Really? What were they supposed to do? The cops show up at the bar.

Guy's freaking out. Guaranteed he's freaking out. He's causing a disturbance. Hey, sir, can you just sit down? I'm going to get the whole story. That's what I'm going to do right now. Before I arrest you. No, you...

Hi, sir, he. You show up. You arrest the guy right away like they did. You have to. You have to take control of situation. Guaranteed there is grounds. arrest him. You don't get the full story. You arrest them. You put him in the back. If you don't arrest them, bad things are going to happen. Like Chief Adam, if he was arrested right away,

it would have been a different story. He wouldn't have been combative, like two or three times. That wouldn't have gone on for half an hour. You arrest people right away. You take control of them right away. You don't let them wander around. You don't let them continuing to conduct a criminal offense. Is that a word? Conduct a criminal? You don't continue them. You don't watch them break the law. Police come to a scene. You arrest them right away.

If they're breaking the law, you arrest them right away. And they are saying that you don't arrest them right away. You get the full story first. No. Fuck off. That's not what you do. That's not what you do. You guys are idiots.

The CRCC are idiots. And nobody's talking about this. Why am I so pissed off at it? RCMP should make sure that it's important. They should ensure that friends or family of a person in custody are made aware of the person's incarceration. Bullshit. Not true. No, you shouldn't.

That's a lie. They're making this shit up. But, of course, civilians are going to say this. Before I was a cop, maybe I was, maybe I become part of this committee. I'm not a cop. I would probably come up with these ridiculous, recommendations also. Members should receive training regarding the release from custody.

Is there any point of even going on? Is there any point of even going on to what else BD wrote? I'm actually getting tired of talking about this one. I'll try to make this quick. Beatty talks about another thing. During what the CRCC called a flawed sexual assault investigation, An officer arrested and indignant aboriginal teenager. If you don't know me by now, I can't speak.

An aboriginal teenager in his home in the middle of the night without a warrant. Oh, my God. Without a warrant? Secretly recording the interaction. Oh, my God. You mean he hit record on his recorder and he didn't tell the person? The teen was later released after proving he was at work when the assault was said to have happened, and there is no evidence to support the allegation.

So it sounds like the cop did his job. Just reading that paragraph, sounds like the cop did his job. Police don't just arrest people to charge them and throw them in jail. They also try to find if they're innocent or guilty or not. And it sounds like the cop found out that the guy was innocent.

But according to Beattie in the CRCC, it was a flawed sexual assault investigation. let's see how it was flawed okay i know this is boring this is the last one i'm doing okay i read it so what happens is it involves two young people they're in aboriginal the victim calls up the police makes a report police officer goes over talks to the victim about it says she was sexually assaulted by this guy police officer goes to his house, arrests a young guy, brings him back, interviews him, determines in fact that the young person was working during the time that the victim said it occurred. There was absolutely no way for the accused to have actually sexually assaulted the victim.

So he releases the accused with no charges. the police officer does his investigation, proves him innocent, and the parent of the accused complains because they came to his house and arrested the young guy. CRC reviewed this one. Let's get into it. I'll make it quick. The complainant alleged that RCMP members' investigation

and the rest of the complainer's child were both unreasonable and motivated by racial bias, the youth being Aboriginal heritage. Of course, right? Of course. Right? Of course. Because that's what police do. They don't hunt down bad guys. They hunt down color. Right? That's what they do. Let me tell you something. No police officer wants to make an arrest at all. You start your night shift? You want to work on your files. There's no hunting bad guys. Sorry. We just don't want to do it. We're overloaded. We're overworked. You don't want to arrest any. You don't want to arrest any. anybody. That's a good night being a cop. You don't arrest anybody. I went off there. But anyways, RC&P member found the members conduct reasonable. Commission didn't, of course, right? They got

they got some recommendations. This is insane. But it's gold. I just love watching civilians tell police how to do their job. I mean, you can't get any better than this. And this is just going to keep on coming and coming and coming and coming. There's 23 of these. This will be my last. one. The commission disagreed with the RCMP. You know why? Because the member failed to video record the interview of the young person in accordance with the RC&B policy and the criminal code. I believe they're talking about the victim. Video recorded? So what are we supposed to do? Sometimes a video recording unit's not even working. What are you supposed to say? I'm sorry, victim. My video back at the The detachment's not working.

So I can't continue on with this investigation. Maybe in about five days when we get it. No. You don't let that stop you. That's not unreasonable. What the fuck? Sometimes statements aren't video recorded guys. Maybe after the fact, if there's going to be charges.

Sometimes that doesn't happen. There's a lot of reasons why. Going to somebody's house and talking to them is a statement alone. But they don't understand that because they're civilians and they're not police officers. In addition, RCMP members warrantless arrests of the young person inside the house to be unreasonable. Warrantless arrest. They think that you need a warrant to arrest somebody. Is there anybody overseeing the CRCC?

I would. I do it. I'm bored. They don't get it. They think that if you go to somebody's house, you need a warrant to arrest. them. Do you believe this shit? You knock on the door. Hey Timmy, I need to arrest you, but I don't have a warrant so I got to turn around and write. No. If you have reasonable and probable grounds, which they do because they took a statement, a verbal statement from the victim, when people tell us

something happened, that is reasonable and probable grounds to arrest somebody, just from what they say. If you're in a marriage, male hits, female wife you show up female says that guess what happens to the male even if it's not true we arrest him all the 90% of the time she doesn't want to give a statement we still arrest him you don't need a warrant for that could you imagine the world would be shit if you needed a warrant for every arrest that you make these people don't understand what they're talking about read more. The secret audio recording of the rest was also considered improper. What the fuck? Really? Maybe times have changed because when I was a cop, I once

audio recorded an entire B&E in progress where I arrested the bad guy didn't once tell him that it was recorded. It was a secret. And I handed in all the documentation to Crown. They seen the recording and the guy was convicted. Maybe things have changed. I don't know. I don't think they have, but maybe they have. The only time you can't record is if it's two people, two conversations that you're not part of.

If you're part of the conversation to record it, I actually asked a member that was well informed when I was a cop, can I record? I got this recorder, can I record? He was kind of hazy on it, but he said, yeah, technically you can. Maybe it's changed. Maybe it's changed.

I don't know. Lastly, the commission did not find that the RC&P member was motivated. Did not find that the RC&P member was motivated by racial bias. Well, I disagree with that one. The commissioner said, every RC&P member is racist. So, of course, it was motivated by racial bias. Of course it was. Because all RC&P members are racist.

The commissioner said so. so I don't know why they would say that. The RCMP Commissioner, oh, accepted the commission's findings and recommendations and added that audio recordings are contrary. Audio recording. Serpard.

Fuck, I'm not even going to say it. Who gives a fuck? I can't say big words. I don't know. Sorry for the head scratch. I don't know. Maybe I'm the only one interested in this stuff. I don't know.

This is so dumb. I probably shouldn't have done a video on this because I'm all over the place. It was an experiment. Okay? It's not my best work. To me personally, it's gold to see what civilians have to say about police officers and how they do their job. It's not, it's actually not their fault. They're just, I didn't know.

When I became a cop, I had no idea. Beattie. Maybe I feel bad for her piece. She's cute looking. I gotta stop saying that because that's getting weird. But it's just a bad article. How many bad articles? I just started looking at this shit.

How many bad articles are out there? Nobody, there's nobody out there in Canada that actually criticizes the media. They get away with it. I don't know how that's allowed. My next video is going to be better. Okay? I don't know if I'm going to post. this was all over the place. Bye-bye.