[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

Listen I know the RCMP has issues, I'm not saying they don't but even if there are say 300 members facing allegations, (which i don't think there are, I would venture a guess that of the 300 complaints would double and triple up against certain members). You are still statistically looking at less then 0.5% of the membership. Yet the other 99.5% get bunched in, men and women that are being judged simply because of their uniform.

So yes I do believe it is a case of a "few bad apples".

The RCMP has challenges to face going forward, because of the actions of a few, but I wish people would acknowledge the good that the majority has and continue to do and stop trying to label all cops the same!

Ok, let's pretend like all the allegations of the over 300 RCMP officers coming forward are all about a single individual in the RCMP:

How on earth does that officer continue to work for the RCMP?

The thing that invalidates the 'few bad apples' theory is the constant, continued lack of transparent manner under which the RCMP conducts itself.

For the "few bad apples" theory to hold any water, those bad apples must all be in supervisory positions and they must all be completely unwilling to hold their colleagues responsible in any kind of significant or relative way.

In our series of stories about dealings with the Osoyoos RCMP, one theme is consistent: the people were all disappointed with the formal process to complain about the conduct of RCMP members.

In two separate ongoing civil lawsuits, complainants said they did not initially want to file a lawsuit, and would not have done so if they had not been so thoroughly disappointed and dissatisfied with the formal complaints processes. But, they say, they felt they had no other recourse.

The stories of the Laybournes and the MacLeans are different in several key ways. The Laybourne family’s lawsuit alleges they were subjected to harassment in their dealings with some local RCMP members. Meanwhile, the MacLeans, a married couple who are still both RCMP members themselves, have filed a lawsuit alleging harassment within the Osoyoos detachment where they previously worked.

The RCMP has filed responses disputing both claims. Both cases are ongoing and no wrongdoing has been proven.

...

The two families have never met each other and although both suits involve the Osoyoos detachment, the two cases involve mostly different officers.

The MacLeans and the Laybournes initially took their cases to the RCMP’s formal complaints process, before they ever considered going the civil route.

For the Laybournes, as civilians, this involved filing a complaint with the RCMP, which conducted an internal investigation. When the Laybournes felt the investigation was biased, they lodged a complaint with the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP, or the CPC, in Ottawa.

For the MacLeans, as RCMP members, they had to file an internal harassment complaint, which then resulted in an investigation.

In each case, an RCMP officer from outside the detachment was assigned to investigate the complaints in Osoyoos. Coincidentally, the same member from Kelowna was assigned to both the Laybournes’ and MacLeans’ investigations.

After Jason MacLean’s internal complaint, he said Sgt. John Hines was assigned to investigate. MacLean felt Hines seemed to do too little to find out what had happened, and seemed to be more interested in seeing the matter go away.

MacLean said his time speaking with Hines was brief, and cut short when Hines told him he had to go to lunch. MacLean said he never heard from Hines after that. Sasha’s total conversation with Hines was less than 10 minutes, Jason MacLean said.

“We did everything we could to resolve it with every measure available to us. This whole thing could have been resolved,” MacLean said, adding that he felt their civil case against the RCMP was only made necessary because of “what John Hines had missed either by his ineptness” or attitude.

The Laybournes complained to the RCMP in 2009 about the alleged conduct of Staff Sgt. Kurt Lozinski, and Sgt. Hines from Kelowna was assigned to investigate. The Laybournes said Hines’ words and actions led them to believe he was biased and their public complaint would not be treated fairly.

Since they were not satisfied with Hines’ investigation into their public complaint, they followed the procedure in place and took their case to the Commission for Public Complaints in June 2010.

Six months later, in December 2010, the Commission released the Chair’s Interim Report into the Laybournes’ complaint, concluding that “Sergeant Hines’ public complaint investigation was biased.”

http://www.theprovince.com/news/itea...558/story.html