RCMP Officer Docked 1 week's pay

[Flash Walken]

Also, it seems even more disturbing that this is only seeing hte light of day as a result of a CBC inquiry into OTHER RCMP misconduct in Manitoba. It appears as though these documents were part of a RCMP release to CBC as a result of a different, yet also appalling, case of misconduct by a different RCMP officer. All told, this just contributes to the increasingly large volume of lawsuits the RCMP is facing for similar actions amongst it's own members as well as the general public.

Here's what CBC was investigating when they received documents pointing to what's already being discussed in this thread:

A Portage la Prairie, Man., RCMP constable took a complaint from a woman who was choked, beaten, stripped, and pushed out of a house naked by her boyfriend, but didn’t interview any witnesses and tried to convince her not to lay charges.

Const. Allan Poapst “did nothing to assist her or bring her attacker to justice,” according to disciplinary hearing documents obtained by CBC News.

Poapst got a reprimand and was docked three days of pay, which an RCMP adjudication board states “adequately reflects society’s intolerance for the conduct.”

Critics call the officer’s conduct outrageous, and say the RCMP’s response does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the situation.

The incident occurred in 2010, but a written decision on the case didn’t come until 2013. Internal RCMP discipline cases are not routinely made public, but CBC News asked for and received some recent Manitoba-based decisions.

“It is outrageous that an RCMP officer would not follow through on an investigation of a sexual assault on a woman,” says Darryl Davies, a Carleton University criminology professor. He is also troubled by the RCMP’s adjudication board comment that a reprimand and docking of three days’ pay reflects society’s attitudes.

“It basically says that the RCMP do not take matters of sexual assault seriously,” said Davies.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...gate-1.2892050

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Yeah that isn't a good or close comparision

How do you know? What if she didn't have anybody else to pick her up? You are making the assumption that she was still drunk and the officer released her so he could do something nefarious. Perhaps he knew she didn't have family whose custody she could be released into?

I agree there is limited information, but when you think the other officers followed in a cruiser?

Yes, what exactly was the purpose of the other officers following in a cruiser? To determine where they were going? The other officers followed and then reported to their superior who called the officer in question and asked him to take the lady home. He complied. Were they peeping in the windows? There is no mention of a sexual assault or anything so they followed him home to determine that's where he took her and nothing else.

To me, the most disturbing is the guy who admittedly 'joked' about having a threesome with her and the officer. What was his punishment?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

I mean regarding any sexual misconduct that may or may not have happened. We don't know enough details.

Fair enough, but my question still stands.


Can charges be brought by a third party, if for whatever reason the victim doesn't want to bring charges?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by FireFly

How do you know? What if she didn't have anybody else to pick her up? You are making the assumption that she was still drunk and the officer released her so he could do something nefarious. Perhaps he knew she didn't have family whose custody she could be released into?

If she needed a ride home (as in her house), then it should have been done by an on duty officer in a cruiser.

I am not assuming she was still drunk. The article says "intoxicated".

Yes, what exactly was the purpose of the other officers following in a cruiser? To determine where they were going? The other officers followed and then reported to their superior who called the officer in question and asked him to take the lady home. He complied. Were they peeping in the windows? There is no mention of a sexual assault or anything so they followed him home to determine that's where he took her and nothing else.

To me, the most disturbing is the guy who admittedly 'joked' about having a threesome with her and the officer. What was his punishment?

The most distubring this is the unnamed officer that "joked" about a threesome, but you are ok with:

• Off duty officer taking an "intoxicated" famle back to his house
• A senior officer releasing the "intoxicated" female to the off duty officer so he could take her to his house

[fatso]

Rubecube's head is going to explode when he reads this article. Thoughts and prayers.

[Drummer]

She could try hiring a lawyer who would take it to civil court and they could reach a settlement.

[underGRADFlame]

“It basically says that the RCMP do not take matters of sexual assault seriously,” said Davies.

This right here is my problem with media reports into police. So ten's of thousands of RCMP members are doing an outstanding job and go above and beyond. A handful of members, who probably shouldn't have been cops anyway, now represent the entire force. It's a poor representation of the hundreds of thousands of full, frank and fair investigations that occur. No different then calling every priest a pedophile, every teacher a child rapist, every lawyer a sleaze bag and every politician a backstabbing self involved narcissist.

As for the officer in this story, much like every initial report it looks bad, and poor decision making was made for sure. But with out the whole story I think calling for his job and criminal charges is a bit of an over reach.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

This right here is my problem with media reports into police. So ten's of thousands of RCMP members are doing an outstanding job and go above and beyond. A handful of members, who probably shouldn't have been cops anyway, now represent the entire force. It's a poor representation of the hundreds of thousands of full, frank and fair investigations that occur. No different then calling every priest a pedophile, every teacher a child rapist, every lawyer a sleaze bag and every politician a backstabbing self involved narcissist.

As for the officer in this story, much like every initial report it looks bad, and poor decision making was made for sure. But with out the whole story I think calling for his job and criminal charges is a bit of an over reach.

Dude, there is a class action lawsuit pending against the RCMP where more than 300 current and former members are detailing allegations of sexual assault and harassment.

This has been an ongoing problem for the RCMP since the 1970s.

“When we hit 100 I was surprised,” said lawyer David Klein of Klein Lyons, the firm handling the class action. “As we hit 200, I was less surprised, and then 300 even less, because we were beginning to have a sense of the magnitude of the internal problem at the RCMP with women in the force.”

The suit, which now has 336 complainants, alleges widespread systemic discrimination by the RCMP against female members. Janet Merlo, a former RCMP officer based in Nanaimo who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the others, said she suffered bullying and harassment throughout her career of nearly 20 years.

A certification hearing has been pushed back to next June to allow lawyers more time to gather information.

Corporal Catherine Galliford, a former RCMP spokeswoman whose claims of sexual harassment in 2011 have been credited with opening the door for others, said she is encouraged to see women coming forward, but saddened they did not before.

Corporal Galliford, who said she still has post-traumatic stress disorder from years of harassment, has been on sick leave since 2006. Her case is scheduled to go to trial in February.

An internal RCMP report released in 2012 suggested gender-based harassment happened frequently to the female officers who participated in a study of their experiences of being bullied by colleagues and superiors.

That's how they deal with their own female members. We're supposed to believe this is just another case of a 'few bad apples'?

Come on, man.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

If she needed a ride home (as in her house), then it should have been done by an on duty officer in a cruiser.

I am not assuming she was still drunk. The article says "intoxicated".

The article also says:

Theriault and another constable had arrested the woman at a party and placed her in a cell until she sobered up.

Maybe she had sobered up?

The most distubring this is the unnamed officer that "joked" about a threesome, but you are ok with:

• Off duty officer taking an "intoxicated" famle back to his house
• A senior officer releasing the "intoxicated" female to the off duty officer so he could take her to his house

I'm taking the 'intoxicated' to be an error in writing as it says she was put in the drunk tank for 6 hours to sober up. I wasn't there and I haven't read the documents in question. You'd have to be pretty drunk to take much longer than 6 hours to sober up.

Did she have a breathalyzer before she left? Do we know for certain she was still drunk?

I'm not saying there isn't anything wrong with the actions of the officer who took the lady home or the officer who released the lady to his care. Do we know that the officer who released the lady into the care of his fellow officer knew his intentions? No, we don't, so why are we blaming him?

Fellow officers teased and goaded him by text message to see “how far he would go,” and another constable observed flirting between Theriault and the indigenous woman, saying he “jokingly made a comment about having a threesome” with her.

Texting him and goading him to see how far he would go? Joking about a threesome? This is what our officers have become? This speaks more to the mentality of the department than anything else I've read in the article. Sounds like a great place to work for women, right?

I must be reading things completely different than everyone else. I see a guy who liked a girl and got caught up in a moment but admitted he was wrong. Without any further information I assume that the lady was not sexually assualted and this is just a misuse of power and a complete lack of judgement.

I also see that his fellow officers seem to think they work in a locker room and have no qualms about cracking jokes that would land people in hot water with HR for any other company. "Boys will be boys," right? It's not okay for a guy to lose his head over a girl he likes but it is okay for them to joke about sex with her and to taunt him into "going far" with her, whatever that means.

For all we know his intentions with her were honourable. I would like to think so and will continue to do so based on what I've read. Was what he did stupid? Absolutely. Should he be fired and thrown in jail for it? I don't think so.

Should the officers who think it's okay to joke about threesomes with prisoners be relieved of their duties? IMO, yes. It's part of the larger problem in the RCMP as indicated above.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Unlike other stories about RCMP misconduct, we're not really trying to establish guilt here, as the officer in question admitted to his misconduct.

It said he admitted to the allegations, but it does not establish what the allegations were and why exactly was he reprimanded. I don't think anyone has really suggested what the officer did was appropriate. At the bare minimum he was flirting with an intoxicated female who he had arrested and tried to establish a personal relationship with while on the job. That could be all he did though.

Alternatively, the way the article is written and the details left up for interpretation, this could just as easily be an abuse of authority, blackmail, potentially a form of kidnapping and even attempted rape and sexual misconduct.

I don't know if it was just a poorly written article or that the details themselves are limited (the incident occurred 4 years ago and the report may be minimal) but this is certainly not a cut and dry story.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by FireFly

The article also says:

Maybe she had sobered up?





I'm taking the 'intoxicated' to be an error in writing as it says she was put in the drunk tank for 6 hours to sober up. I wasn't there and I haven't read the documents in question. You'd have to be pretty drunk to take much longer than 6 hours to sober up.

Did she have a breathalyzer before she left? Do we know for certain she was still drunk?

I'm not saying there isn't anything wrong with the actions of the officer who took the lady home or the officer who released the lady to his care. Do we know that the officer who released the lady into the care of his fellow officer knew his intentions? No, we don't, so why are we blaming him?



Texting him and goading him to see how far he would go? Joking about a threesome? This is what our officers have become? This speaks more to the mentality of the department than anything else I've read in the article. Sounds like a great place to work for women, right?

I must be reading things completely different than everyone else. I see a guy who liked a girl and got caught up in a moment but admitted he was wrong. Without any further information I assume that the lady was not sexually assualted and this is just a misuse of power and a complete lack of judgement.

I also see that his fellow officers seem to think they work in a locker room and have no qualms about cracking jokes that would land people in hot water with HR for any other company. "Boys will be boys," right? It's not okay for a guy to lose his head over a girl he likes but it is okay for them to joke about sex with her and to taunt him into "going far" with her, whatever that means.

For all we know his intentions with her were honourable. I would like to think so and will continue to do so based on what I've read. Was what he did stupid? Absolutely. Should he be fired and thrown in jail for it? I don't think so.

Should the officers who think it's okay to joke about threesomes with prisoners be relieved of their duties? IMO, yes. It's part of the larger problem in the RCMP as indicated above.

Wow, I have to say that you can sure split hairs.

If she was drunk enough to be taken to cells, I would suggest that she would need more than 6 hours to sober up. You can try this website out to see how you would do after an evening out:

http://whenwillibesober.com/

An average liver can process approximately 1 unit of alcohol per hour. This means that if you drink 12 units, it'll take you roughly 12 hours to fully sober up. Our calculator uses an average for drinks size and strength to give you a rough time for sobriety

I am not sure that I want an individual that can't make decisions exclusive of his penis, to be making decision in stressful situations. His decision making skills sound suspect at best.


He is a crazy idea. He ignores her advances (professionals do that), he doesn't go home and get changed, he doesn't come back he doesn't ask more than once to take her home with him, he doesn't take her home.

We never have this discussion.

All he had to do want make one, correct decision and this never happens.

But he didn't.

[underGRADFlame]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Dude, there is a class action lawsuit pending against the RCMP where more than 300 current and former members are detailing allegations of sexual assault and harassment.

This has been an ongoing problem for the RCMP since the 1970s.

That's how they deal with their own female members. We're supposed to believe this is just another case of a 'few bad apples'?

Come on, man.

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!

I am just surprised Flash has taken to position he has.... your torch and pitch fork have to been worn down by now, no? Sounds like you've done a thorough investigation by reading this article.

For the record, unlike the US, Canadian police decide whether there is enough evidence to lay a charge. Yes, police can lay a charge without the cooperation of a victim.

The article itself is rather poorly written. What exactly did he admit to during the RCMP investigation? What was he reprimanded for?

No doubt, as the article is presented, he made some serious errors in judgement at the least . However, although Flash likes to present it as some systemic issue common with police, I would suggest it is not.

How many police interactions are there in Canada in a calender year? Tens of millions. Fact is, the amount of incidents like this are rare and not a regular Saturday night as Flash likes to present (ya, I can speak in hyperbole too).

[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

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Wow, I have to say that you can sure split hairs.

If she was drunk enough to be taken to cells, I would suggest that she would need more than 6 hours to sober up. You can try this website out to see how you would do after an evening out:

http://whenwillibesober.com/

You bet I can split hairs... This weather is awful for that.

Seriously though, how drunk do you have to be to be taken to the cells? Do you have to blow a certain amount, act a certain way, or is it a judgement call by the officer in question?

Also, how 'sober' do you have to be to be considered sober? If .07 is sober enough to drive, is it sober enough to make your own decisions? What exactly is the criteria for release from the drunk tank?

I am not sure that I want an individual that can't make decisions exclusive of his penis, to be making decision in stressful situations. His decision making skills sound suspect at best.

I'm certain you've had nights where your penis made decisions for you as well. These are not ALL of his decisions for his entire life. People make mistakes. If you feel that strongly about people who can't make decisions exclusive of their penis making decisions in stressful situations, how did you feel about JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis? I mean, he had that whole affair with Marilyn Monroe and all that... I'm sure there are MANY instances of males thinking with their penises who have also had to handle stressful situations. Seriously. A guy does one thing wrong and should never make decisions ever again? Who are you to judge?

He is a crazy idea. He ignores her advances (professionals do that), he doesn't go home and get changed, he doesn't come back he doesn't ask more than once to take her home with him, he doesn't take her home.

We never have this discussion.

All he had to do want make one, correct decision and this never happens.

But he didn't.

Professionals also don't talk about threesomes and urge their coworkers to 'tap that' or whatever it was they said in the text messages. The Officer in question apparently wanted to pursue a personal relationship with the lady, not have a one night stand. He admitted his mistake which is something professionals also do.

I didn't see any comments from the other officers saying they shouldn't have goaded him or that they shouldn't have made lewd remarks about threesomes.


You seem outraged at this one week suspension but the officer who tried to convince a lady who was beaten, choked, stripped and left outside not to press charges was only docked three days pay.

The two incidents are not even close IMO. Telling an aboriginal sexual assault victim not to press charges? Slap on the wrist and 3 days pay docked. Trying to pursue a relationship with an indigenous female prisoner? 7 day suspension without pay.

All this tells me is that the ones doing the suspending don't think much of aboriginal women.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Seriously though, how drunk do you have to be to be taken to the cells? Do you have to blow a certain amount, act a certain way, or is it a judgement call by the officer in question?

Also, how 'sober' do you have to be to be considered sober? If .07 is sober enough to drive, is it sober enough to make your own decisions? What exactly is the criteria for release from the drunk tank?

What is damning initially his request was denied by the senior individual on site. I assume it was denied because it was a bad decision/request.

I'm certain you've had nights where your penis made decisions for you as well.

Never in a work related situation like he was in. Remember the article (sadly lacking a lot of information) said he was flirting with her while she was in cells. That means he was still on the job.

These are not ALL of his decisions for his entire life. People make mistakes. If you feel that strongly about people who can't make decisions exclusive of their penis making decisions in stressful situations, how did you feel about JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis? I mean, he had that whole affair with Marilyn Monroe and all that... I'm sure there are MANY instances of males thinking with their penises who have also had to handle stressful situations. Seriously. A guy does one thing wrong and should never make decisions ever again? Who are you to judge?

JFK? WTF, I wasn't even alive then.

Who am I to judge, same as you to judge (we are both judging we are just coming up with different "decisions").

Professionals also don't talk about threesomes and urge their coworkers to 'tap that' or whatever it was they said in the text messages. The Officer in question apparently wanted to pursue a personal relationship with the lady, not have a one night stand. He admitted his mistake which is something professionals also do.

Then do it in an appropriate manner. This isn't New York, this is rural Manitoba. I am sure that if he wanted to have a personal relationship with her he could have found her after the fact. He could have given her his card (not sure I am in agreement with that).

I didn't see any comments from the other officers saying they shouldn't have goaded him or that they shouldn't have made lewd remarks about threesomes.

You seem outraged at this one week suspension but the officer who tried to convince a lady who was beaten, choked, stripped and left outside not to press charges was only docked three days pay.

The two incidents are not even close IMO. Telling an aboriginal sexual assault victim not to press charges? Slap on the wrist and 3 days pay docked. Trying to pursue a relationship with an indigenous female prisoner? 7 day suspension without pay.

All this tells me is that the ones doing the suspending don't think much of aboriginal women.

I agree which is why I said earlier that the review/"punishment" system appears "broken".

[killer_carlson]

Cases like this erode the public's confidence in the accountability/discipline process. Police are given substantial privileges that most of society will never possess. With that comes an expectation that these privileges will be used responsibly. When they are not, there is outrage.

When the discipline/accountability process does not hold those accountable who were given positions of high authority, the erosion of public confidence only accelerates.

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Cases like this erode the public's confidence in the accountability/discipline process. Police are given substantial privileges that most of society will never possess. With that comes an expectation that these privileges will be used responsibly. When they are not, there is outrage.

When the discipline/accountability process does not hold those accountable who were given positions of high authority, the erosion of public confidence only accelerates.

I completely agree.

What is also a shame is that the media chooses to publicize this instead of the millions of intelligent, helpful and courageous acts police do everyday. And that some then take those negative stories and judge all members of the police community with those biases.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

I completely agree.

What is also a shame is that the media chooses to publicize this instead of the millions of intelligent, helpful and courageous acts police do everyday. And that some then take those negative stories and judge all members of the police community with those biases.

To be fair BW, the media doesn't publicize too many positives stories, and that is usually true across the board.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Cases like this erode the public's confidence in the accountability/discipline process. Police are given substantial privileges that most of society will never possess. With that comes an expectation that these privileges will be used responsibly. When they are not, there is outrage.

When the discipline/accountability process does not hold those accountable who were given positions of high authority, the erosion of public confidence only accelerates.

It's in the best interest of the RCMP to be as transparent about these sorts of things as possible.

The problem is, it's often in the worst interest of many of the people in position to affect that kind of change.

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

I completely agree.

What is also a shame is that the media chooses to publicize this instead of the millions of intelligent, helpful and courageous acts police do everyday. And that some then take those negative stories and judge all members of the police community with those biases.

The media doesn't do reports on me doing my job correctly, either.

No one is saying because one cop tried to take home a girl from the drunk tank that all RCMP and Metro Police officers also try to take girls home from the drunk tank. It's transparent you keep doing this 'anti-cop' routine.

What IS telling about this is the involvement of other officers, including the supervisory officer, and the opinion of the disciplinary panel which all seem to point to a genuine apathy or indifference up to outright support towards the officer in question's actions.

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

To be fair BW, the media doesn't publicize too many positives stories, and that is usually true across the board.

The news media does positive news stories a lot, especially on cops.

Here's one from November:

Staff Sgt. Tom Hanson with the police drug unit said a public tip resulted in a month-long investigation that zeroed in on the siblings, who are now charged with several offences.

“The quantities are quite large and the variety is kind of unusual to have,” he said.

“It’s like a party drug pharmacy.”

Investigators wrapped up the operation Oct. 15, searching a rental car and an apartment in the 100 block of 13 Ave. S.W.

The haul included cocaine, marijuana, GHB, ecstasy, LSD, MDMA and hashish that combined would be worth close to $200,000 on the street.

Here's one from December:

As dozens of volunteer elves filled gift shoeboxes around him, a Calgary cop emotionally recalled passing them out to needy kids in Costa Rica.

Last June, Const. Garry Woods was one five Calgary police officers and two Edmonton counterparts who helped hand out 2,000 of the shoeboxes, collected by charity Samaritan’s Purse, to movingly grateful children in the Central American country.

“Their reaction is something that’s very, very hard to put into words,” said Woods.

“They were the most genuine smiles and gratitude I’ve seen from anybody ... to get anything at all means so much to them.”

Minutes earlier, Woods and a police honour guard were piped into the Samaritan’s Purse warehouse workshop, receiving an ovation from box-stuffing volunteers taking a quick break from their tasks.

It’s that camaraderie and the connection forged between children and police officers in Costa Rica that’s convinced the Calgary and Edmonton cops to make a return visit — with another 2,000 shoeboxes — to the country in March.

“We’ll go with a slightly larger team and focus more on education,” said Woods.

That’ll once again entail sharing best practises with Costa Rican cops in combatting scourges such as drugs, bullying and sexual exploitation.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/12/09...needy-children

Now, that says nothing about trying to dismiss the validity of what is an actual news story about actual police misconduct that is a part of actual ongoing general RCMP misconduct.

Is this not a valid news story? Can we only do news stories on police about calendars and food drives and drug busts?