The RCMP shooting of former Flin Flonner Steven Campbell in Thompson in November has brought a big-city and south-of-the-border concern to northern Manitoba.
As is the case in many police shootings, some of which are justified and some of which are not, the facts in the death of Campbell are not clear-cut.
RCMP said Campbell, identified only as a male driver, accelerated toward an RCMP officer who pulled him over for erratic driving. According to police, the officer then shot Campbell.
But Campbell’s mother says one of the passengers in the vehicle told her that the RCMP vehicle struck Campbell’s vehicle to force it to pull over.
Then, this account states, the officer immediately exited his vehicle and started shooting, striking Campbell three times and a female passenger once.
The truth may be one or the other of these versions, a mixture of both or something rather different.
Different people experience the same event differently. The distinction between being pulled over and accelerating toward another vehicle, or being struck by that vehicle while driving, is not necessarily as black and white as it may seem.
The problem for the public, and investigators, in situations like this is that an objective set of facts does not exist.
When such a case makes its way to court – and this one may not – the outcome often depends on the relative credibility that jury members assign to those on opposite sides of the incident.
In the past, police have often benefitted from the greater credibility afforded them as enforcers of the law. This isn’t always the proper course, as they are not necessarily more truthful than civilians. They’re still people.
In many recent police shootings in the United States, the public can judge for themselves whether the accounts provided by police officers are accurate thanks to video evidence.
Police themselves film some of the video, while other footage comes from witnesses with cellphone cameras.
In a particularly shocking example, a police officer who claimed to have been engaged in a struggle with a man he killed turned out to have shot that man in the back as he ran away, posing no danger to the officer.
However, though some police officers do act outside the bounds of the law, there is no reason to assume that all of them do. It is quite likely that, as in the public at large, there are some bad seeds and a great many more who do their best to abide by the rule of law.
It isn’t the media’s place to pre-judge cases like the recent RCMP shooting in Thompson. Investigators will have far more information to base its decision on, much of which may not be made public.
The RCMP does not make a habit of using dash cams or body cams on officers, as some other jurisdictions do – or if they do, they are awfully quiet about it.
It might be something they should consider adopting in the future. Though the use of such cameras can create privacy issues and further stress on an organization, the fact that they are used elsewhere indicates there are ways to work around such problems.
Dash cameras and body cameras could add a further layer of detail to investigations of incidents that take place out of public view – not necessarily eliminating the “he said, she said” aspect of things, but helping investigators and the public determine if what they hear from witnesses and those involved coincides with the tale of the tape.
When it comes to investigating potential criminal activity, having more evidence would be a good thing.
