NOTEBOOK: A dent on the police armor

NOTEBOOK: A dent on the police armor

IT WAS a symbolic victory for the Filipino community to have some of its concerns addressed in the jury recommendations from the Coroner’s Inquest into the Death of Jeffrey Reodica.

Among these recommendations, released last October, were: measures for enhanced identification of plainclothes police when required; that plainclothes police should “take with them… all use of force options when exiting their vehicles”; and that parents should be notified by the police when youths are being detained for an interview. (Most of the seven jury recommendations were based on CASJ and the Reodica family lawyers’ submissions.)

Now that Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair’s response to the jury recommendations (See page 7.) clearly states that the police will undertake measures to implement these recommendations, we see a symbolic dent on the police armor.

Consider these: 1.) During the Inquest that took 46 working days in a period of about three months, the police officers involved and their battery of lawyers maintained that the two cops identified themselves to the Filipino youths on that fateful day. 2) The police lawyers did not submit recommendations to the Coroner because they said nothing needed to be changed. 3.) The head of the Police Association said after the conclusion of the Inquest that the police did nothing wrong, that everything they did was right. And obviously, he was not pleased with the recommendations.

Now here comes the Police Chief himself taking seriously the jury recommendations and identifying specific measures to implement some of them.

Note the following specific amounts mentioned in the Blair response: 1.) $89,000 to outfit all 1,300 plainclothes officers with “POLICE” armbands ($10 each) and “POLICE” raid jackets ($55 each). 2.) $350,000 to equip over 500 selected unmarked vehicles with “wigwag” front headlights and siren package.

Although there may be a catch here: “The 2008 and future operating budgets (of the police) will include a request to fund this equipment.” Which could mean if the request for funding this equipment is not approved then there is no way these measures will be implemented.

As to the access to all use of force options, Blair, after identifying certain conditions, did not disagree with nor resist the jury recommendation on this matter.

On the youths’ parents being informed when their kids are being detained for interview, Blair stated “There is no authority for police to detain witnesses for interviews. Witnesses to crimes are always free to leave at any time, and free to choose whether or not to give a statement to any investigating body.”

Well, then, why were Jeffrey’s friends held by police for questioning until the wee hours of the morning without being allowed to contact their parents or use a telephone? One parent was even told by police to file a missing person report when clearly the kid was being “interviewed” by police at the time.
On the recommendation about police building relationships with communities, Blair took the occasion to elaborate on the many initiatives his forces are doing to be closer to diverse communities. These are laudable projects that would not see the light of day under the law-and-order Fantino era. And Mayor David Miller has done a good job in explaining his regime’s concept of community-based policing.

But many pro-poor and grassroots organizations still cite current incidents of police brutality and racial profiling. Which casts doubts on whether this concept of policing is being effectively implemented. An explanation could be that the police force is not monolithic, that its members are not solidly adhering to one policing philosophy. Those who are constricted by a law-and-order mindset are still very much around. How else would you explain the conflicts between the Police Association and Blair? Remember the controversy that arose between the Chief and the Police Association about police carrying firearms while protesting at a rally at Nathans Philips Square?

But the real significance of Blair’s response is that the Filipino community is making a dent on the police’s resistance to change. Without the rallies and pickets, the deputations, the tit-for-tat fight at the Inquest, the conferences, the breakthrough in the mainstream media and critical writing in newspapers, we would not have reached this far. This Blair response is of far reaching significance to our community. For the first time we are able to influence changes on police matters. I hope this is not lost on many of us . And this new found power we must further enhance.