Sunday, August 2, 2009

A6.THE BRIDEAU ISSUE

A6.:

Update 2 on the Brideau Issue

As you know, the Municipal Government Act requires that decisions for the Town must be made by Council and in public sessions. Neither of these requirements appears to have been complied with in the Mayor Stead’s increases of Brideau’s salaries and pension plan contributions from 2007 up to 2011. If so, then these increases, outlined in a letter of Mayor Stead, dated February 15, 2007, are to be considered illegal.

In this context I have a lot of questions forwarded to the Town or published on my blog “Voices of Wolfville” since last year. None of the questions have been answered to my satisfaction by the Town or the Council yet.

Since about 11 months I am waiting for an answer from the Nova Scotia Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Review Office where I had filed a complaint on July 09, 2008. My complaint was confirmed by the Review Office in a letter dated July 14, 2008 stating that Requests for Review are processed in the order in which they are received. In a phone call to Mary Kennedy – Intake/Administration – of the Review Office on July 30, 2008 I was told that an answer could take 4 to 6 months but could go faster as well. I intend to pursue the Brideau Isuue further as soon as I will get the requested information from the Review Office.

Due to the incomplete answer from the Town’s Administration to my application under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act on May 21, 2008 I had asked the Review Office in my complaint for
  • Brideau’s missing records prior to 2007/2008
  • Reasons for the blacked-out part on Stead’s statement dated February 15, 2007

On June 05, 2009 I sent a fax to the Review Office asking for an explanation on the delay.


The Brideau Issue is not over yet or forgotten. After the election last year I had a word with Mr. Simpson in his function as the new Deputy Mayor about the still open questions. His answer was at least promising: “Give the three new Councillors (the minority of Council not involved in illegal actions regarding the Brideau Issue) some time to settle in and we will tackle your questions.”


I think more than enough time has passed in the meantime.

Lutz E. Becker / June 05, 2009

A7.THE BRIDEAU ISSUE

A7.:

LUTZ E. BECKER
Wolfville, NS.


June 29, 2009

Mr. Robert Bay
Nova Scotia Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Review Office
PO Box 181
Halifax, NS
B3J 2M4


Dear Mr. Bay:

Re: Your File FI-08-49(M) – My fax dated June 04, 2009 – Our phone conversations as of today and on June 16, 2009

Thank you for trying to speed up the processing of my file by forwarding it to “investigation” shortly.

As you know, I still have a major problem to understand why it took almost twelve months and my above reminder fax last month to have my file become noticed again.

When you then outlined to me today that your “rough estimate” would be an additional four to six months to receive the Review Officer’s recommendation, it did not brighten my day as well.

For sure, you have to follow the standard-procedure steps at your office but there cannot be much of an investigation about one blacked-out sentence on the document in question.

The mediation step thereafter does not make sense to me either. I want to know the wording of the blacked sentence and the Town of Wolfville does not want to provide it. To me there is no middle ground for any kind of mediation.

We both agreed that the reason the Town provided for the redaction that the sentence was “not relevant” finds no basis in any subsection of the MGA (Part XX) covering reasons for a refusal to disclose information.

You confirmed to me today that the Town provided you with the complete, unredacted version of the document approximately eleven months ago. And for sure you will have the missing yearly salaries for at least 2005 and 2006 on file as well.

Please try to help to get the Review Officer’s recommendation as soon as possible.

Thank you in advance.

Sincerely Yours,



Lutz E. Becker









A8.THE BRIDEAU ISSUE

A8.:

Dear Darce:

Personally, I liked the content of your article “Freedom of Information reform” in TCH on July 09, 09 very much.

I have problems with several requests under the FOIPOP provided the Town of Wolfville with.

In one case I filed a request on May 21, 08. In a document received in return, one sentence was blacked-out. The Town’s accompanying letter stated that the severed sentence was “not relevant” to my request.

We both know that “relevance” finds no basis in any subsection of the MGA (Part XX) covering reasons for a refusal to disclose information. And in any case relevance should be judged by a neutral third party.

My request for review thereafter was received by the Review Office on July 14, 08 and in a phone call with Mary Kennedy I was told that an answer might take 4 to 6 months, but could go faster.

An insider at Town Hall confirmed a few days later that the Town had provided the Review Office with the requested information – incl. the wording of the blacked-out sentence.

All the information stayed in file FI-08-49 (M) at the Review Office for about a year (11 months) with no reaction or response at all.

On June 04, 09 I sent a fax to the Review Office asking about the situation from a timing point of view.

Thereafter, I had two phone conversations with a Review Analyst, and I sent another fax on June 29, 09 confirming what I had learned during the previous two phone conversations.

In return I received a letter, dated June 30, 09, stating that the file “has now been forwarded to the Investigation stage”.

I was told as well that the file will have to pass the Mediation stage thereafter to be forwarded to the Formal Review stage and that receiving the recommendation of the Review Officer could take another 4 to 6 months.

In my second fax last month I had made it clear that I do not see a middle ground for any kind of mediation at all. I want the wording of the blacked-out sentence (on file with the Review Office) and the Town does not want me to get it for no legal reason at all.

The whole issue could have been resolved in a day or less. Instead it may finally take about 1.5 years or more.

Do you have any ideas and/or recommendations which could help to speed up this case?
Thank you in advance.

Best regards,

Lutz E. Becker / June 13, 2009


A9.THE BRIDEAU ISSUE

A9.:

Darce Fardy to me
Jul 13 Reply


Hi:

I guess you now understand what I was talking about in my TCH piece. I'm encouraged by Premier Dexter's willingness to address the long wait times... I hope the government will also heed my appeal to make the process more informal.

One piece of advice... get to your MLA and show him the contents of your email. Keep the pressure on.

Unfortunately that's about all we can do.. make noise and make nuisances of ourselves. One thing we can't do is give up.

Please keep me in the loop.

Check out our website www.nsrighttoknow.ca and find out what we are about. You might want to join our efforts by becoming a member. Although fees are voluntary we appreciate it when a new member can send a $10.00 joining fee.

My hope some day is to acquire some funding to allow us to get around the province to spread the word.

Look me up if you are ever in Halifax...

Darce Fardy

President
Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia
902 422 1481
www.nsrighttoknow.ca
darce@eastlink.ca

B1. THE WOLFVILLE POLICE ISSUE

B1.:

Chair Paul Kennedy
Commission for Public Complaints
Against the RCMP
Western Region Office
7337 137 Street - Suite 102
Surrey, BC
V3W 1A4


June 02, 2008

Hollow-point bullets

Dear Mr. Kennedy:

Saw your name a couple of times in the news lately regarding your arguments on the use of the Taser weapons by the force. Let me assure you that you have my full support on this matter.

Personally, I believe that the force seems to have become “trigger-happy” in using the Taser.

My complaint is not the outcome of a direct confrontation with the RCMP. It is a more generalized one, and I am certain the public would be interested in this one as well.

As a citizen of the town of Wolfville in Nova Scotia I recently attended an open-door event of the local RCMP detachment.

I was received by a very nice young constable that day and we had a talk about weaponry and the use and/or misuse of the Taser. I was told that the use of the Taser had saved life, but we both know, it had cost some life as well.

In addition I was shown the common pistol of the force and - shockingly - a clip filled with hollow-point bullets. The top of the bullet was carved in several times to make it “mushroom” on impact even more. Such a bullet can and will create terrible and/or deadly wounds even if it was not aimed at a vital organ.

Having served in the Army in my younger years, I know that hollow-point bullets are prohibited for very good reasons by The Hague Convention to be used by soldiers in any conflicts of war.

The constable was unable to tell me the backing source for the use of these bullets in the federal and/or provincial legislation.

After I had mentioned the tremendous fire power of the 15 rounds of 9 mm bullets in a clip - even if it was not filled with hollow-point ones - and that a “violent” offender or criminal (e.g. being drunk and/or drugged otherwise and maybe unable to judge and control his or her actions towards a police officer at the time of being shot at) would be stopped on the spot after being hit by a regular 9 mm bullet and that he or she would have a much better chance to survive and stand trial, we became interrupted by the sergeant overhearing our conversation stating: “When I draw my pistol I do it with the intention to kill.”

This statement shocked me even more. So far I was under the obviously wrong impression that the motto of the police force reads “Serve and Protect” or vice versa, which does not include the killing part.
Furthermore, I can not accept that a police officer - a young constable after just having graduated from the Academy or an experienced senior on the force – would be allowed, entitled and empowered to play judge in a life-or-death matter in Canada’s democracy.

Thereafter, I had a word with an Executive Assistant of a Nova Scotia MLA, who set up a meeting with a public relations officer a the Wolfville RCMP detachment. This 30-year veteran then told me stories about dangerous situations he had been in and that a colleague had been killed in a shoot-out with a criminal. But all this could not convince me that the fire power of 15 regular rounds in a clip (and one in the chamber) would have to be drastically increased by the use of hollow-point bullets to better prevent and maybe stop a “very personally judged” threat to the life of a police officer. And if the officer can not cope with a threat to his or her life without the use of hollow-point bullets, he or she should look for a different job career in an entirely different field.

My concern is not meant just to favour really violent criminals, but a “death penalty” can not be at the sole discretion of a police officer in a heated confrontation.

Looking forward for your opinion on this matter I do thank you in advance.

Respectfully,


Lutz E. Becker






B2. THE WOLFVILLE POLICE ISSUE

B2.:

LUTZ E. BECKER
Wolfville, NS.


August 26, 2008
Amnesty International Canada
Attn.: Hilary Homes
312 Laurier Ave. East
Ottawa, ON
K1N 1H9


Article in The Chronicle Herald on Aug. 14, 08 – My fax to Paul Kennedy on June 05, 08

Dear Hilary:

You were quoted in the article as above calling for a moratorium on stun guns for very good reasons.

In a paragraph about RESTRAINT - Risk of Death in Subjects That Resist – there was a comparison of Tasers with other methods the RCMP is using to subdue “difficult and/or mentally challenged” people.

My fax to the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP fits in right there.

As of today I have not got any response neither from Paul Kennedy nor from the Commission.

I firmly believe that the public in Canada does not know that the police force is using hollow-point bullets in their handguns and maybe rifles. All the people I spoke to found that very shocking as well.

Attached you will find a copy of my fax to Mr. Kennedy.

Looking forward to your opinion on this matter I remain with

best regards,


Lutz E. Becker

1 Attachment

B3. THE WOLFVILLE POLICE ISSUE

B3.:

Police Practices Affecting the Wolfville Community

On June 02, 2008 I sent a fax to the Commission for Public Complaints Against The RCMP attention: Chair, Mr. Paul Kennedy.

After no response, I wrote a letter on the same subject to Amnesty International Canada in Ottawa with a copy of my fax as above to Mr. Kennedy on August 26, 2008.

On September 16, 2008 I sent the two above letters under the subject Human Rights Issue as copies to the Town’s solicitor after I had informed him the previous night during the Council meeting. His answer, a day later, reads as follows: “In your two letters attached below, you raise a specific issue of police practice with firearms. My background in Human Rights has not involved any experience with the use of firearms or related policies. I therefore make no comment on how you might deal with this topic.”

Obviously, the Town’s solicitor did not understand that my issue had nothing to do with “any experience with the use of firearms” but with safety and security and even health (life/death) issues in our community.

Due to careful consideration, I have decided to inform the public and especially the Residents of Wolfville about some legitimate concerns.

What is this all about?

Prior to my fax to Mr. Paul Kennedy I had accepted a public invitation and attended an open-door event at the Wolfville RCMP detachment. I was received by a very polite and nicely talking young constable that day and after some introductory remarks we had a talk about weaponry and thereafter a discussion about the use and/or the misuse of the Taser. I got the obviously standardized answer that the use of the Taser had saved lives, but we all know that its use by the police have cost some lives as well.

In addition I was shown the common 9mm pistol of the force, which can take 15 rounds, and - most shockingly – a clip filled with 15 hollow-point bullets. The bullet at the top of the clip showed several slits carved in to make it “mushroom” even more on impact.

Hollow-point bullets are designed to spread once they enter a target to inflict more damage. They expand greatly and are designed to loose about 10% of its mass in the process and split up to hit different parts of the target. HP handgun ammo creates small entry point wounds but, on exiting, it leaves at least a fist-sized flesh wound if it will go through straight at all not hitting a bone and being broken up into pieces.

Having served in the Army in my younger years, I know that hollow-point bullets are prohibited for very good reasons by international law in any kind of warfare. Modern hollow-point bullets go back to the expanding “dum dum” ammunition created by the British in an arsenal of the same name near Calcutta, India, at the end of the 19th century. They were outlawed internationally under the “Hague Declaration” in 1899.

This means that our Canadian soldiers fighting in Afghanistan would break international law if they used such kind of ammunition.

Why are our police in Wolfville allowed to use hollow-point bullets in their handguns?

The young constable was unable to tell me the legal backing for the use of HP handgun ammo under federal and/or provincial legislation.

Is there no legal prohibition on police use of such ammunition?

Is it at the sole discretion of Police Chief Officers to decide on whatever ammunition they consider appropriate to meet their "operational needs"?

And if these questions can be answered with “yes”, you as a Resident of Wolfville should be concerned as well and help stop our police using hollow-point bullets.

The 15 rounds of 9mm bullets in a clip provide a tremendous fire and killing and maiming power, even if the clip is filled with regular bullets only and not with hollow-point ones.

A “violent” offender, attacker (e.g. drunks, druggies, mentally challenged people - maybe unable to judge and/or control their actions towards a police officer - and even a violent criminal) would normally be stopped on the spot after being hit by at least one of 15 clipped regular 9mm bullets instead of hollow-point ones, but thereafter he or she would have a much better chance to survive and stand trial in court.

When I tried to make this point to the young constable in front of me, we became interrupted by an elderly officer in gala uniform overhearing our conversation and he said: “When I draw my pistol I do it with the intention to kill.”

This statement further shocked me. So far I had been under the obviously wrong impression that the motto of our police force reads “Serve and Protect” or vice versa, which does not include the “intended” killing part.

Is it really acceptable to our rural community that police officers - a young constable after just having graduated from the Academy or even a very experienced senior on the force - would be allowed, entitled and empowered to shoot hollow-point bullets instead of regular ones, hereby increasing the killing risks tremendously, even if there would be immediate and sufficient medical help available?

I do understand that police officers have to be able to use their handguns in specific situations and carry pepper spray, the baton and the Taser as well. To subdue any kind of attacker they have to make very subjective decisions on what weapon to use as a response. In addition they can call for back-up and even the deployment of the SWAT team. To me the use of hollow-point bullets instead of regular ones equals the use of excessive and unnecessary killing and/or maiming force.

It amazes me to learn that we, the public, seem to know nothing about the fact that the police are using hollow-point ammunition in their handguns.

After the reception at the open-door event I had a word with an Executive Assistant to a Nova Scotia MLA, who set up a meeting with the public relations officer at the Wolfville RCMP detachment. This 30-year veteran then told me stories about dangerous situations he had been in and that a colleague had been killed in a shoot-out with a criminal. But all those could not convince me that the fire and killing power of 15 regular rounds in a clip would have to be drastically increased by the use of hollow-point bullets with carved-in slits to mushroom even better to hopefully prevent and stop a “very personally judged” threat to the life of a police officer when using the handgun.

My concerns are not meant just to favour really violent criminals and/or diminish the fire power of the police in possible heated confrontations.

In the meantime I have learned that police officers are trained at the firing range (where they use regular 9mm bullets) to aim their handguns at upper parts of the attackers’ bodies (where they can score a “10”) and do not go for arms or legs. This makes the use of hollow-point bullets even more problematic and could result more likely in a kind of “death penalty” outside of our court system. And what about stray bullets in regards to innocent by-standers?

Dear Residents of Wolfville, I would appreciate your feed-back. Please let me know what you think about the use of HP ammo by our police force. You should have a say while paying more than one million dollars for the policing of Wolfville out of your tax dollars. In addition, I was told by quite some people that the drastic increase in yearly policing costs - since our local Wolfville Police became an integrated part of the RCMP - does not really match a measurable increase in police services in Wolfville. But this is a different issue and I shall try to find out why Kentville kept its Kentville Police.

Your feed-back should be addressed to leb.3999@yahoo.ca.

Thank you in advance.

Lutz E. Becker / January 02, 2009


Comments:


Comment from someone who does not want to be named

Mr. Becker,

Let me say at the outset that I am not a resident of Wolfville (I live in Greenwich), but I have the feeling that your concerns about ammunition loads extend far beyond the town's borders.
I was shocked to read your handout, available at the Wolfville post office, about the use of hollow-point bullets by the Wolfville police. Any municipal council worthy of its name should immediately disallow such a practice. Having said that, I acknowledge immediately that police forces in Canada (in contrast to those in the United States) do pretty much as they please, and the taxpayers and their representatives who pay for the police service are impotent to bring about change.
As it happens, I have seen the effect of hollow-point bullets on living flesh. A hunter of my acquaintance once shot a deer through the heart using a Mannlicher-Schoenauer 6.5 mm sniper rifle whose ammo he had modified. The deer was basically cut in two. To use such a load on humans is nuts.
Your comments about a 15-shot magazine seem to me to be irrelevant.
I believe the RCMP is under the supervision of the Solicitor General of Canada (or the Attorney General) - I haven't looked it up. That is the office where, I think, you should begin your enquiries. The town's solicitor is, as you have already discovered, a comlete dead end.
Please, do not attribute to me anything I have said here.

Comments from Mr. Brian Sanderson, Wolfville

Dear Lutz,

Good to see someone is keeping an eye on things.
I find hollow-nose bullets distasteful. I'm not a big fan of the shoot for the chest/torso policy, either.
These police practices are totally out of place in Wolfville... Perhaps they are necessary out in the wild west or in Toronto --- but even then, I think they are just as likely to cause the villains to take things to the next level.

Cheers,

Brian

Comments from someone who played a cop on T.V.

Hollow Point BulletsThursday, February 12, 2009 12:52 AM
From: "Denzel Washington" dwashington1960@hotmail.com

I am appalled by your website and you comments. Do you realize that these men and women put their lives on the line everyday. I would like to see you spend a day in their shoes, having to deal with unpredictable drunks night in and night out. Most of the criminals carry a wide assortment of weapons from knives to fully automatic machine guns and they for sure don’t care what bullets the police have. These criminals carry high power assault rifles with armor piercing rounds, so the police having hollow point bullets is actually a disadvantage.
Yes these hollow points are meant to do a lot of damage, but they are also meant not to penetrate the body. The reason for this is so that the bullets don’t exit the subject and hit an innocent victim. I am sure the public would appreciate the fact the there is less likely the chance that a bullet will exit a criminal and hit an innocent person.
People like you make me glad to know that the police carry weapons.
They are there to help us in need and should be left alone to do their job. You are a person that complains about the police and anyone just to hear yourself talk. You will be the first one calling when your residence is broken into and be making a complaint because they weren’t fast enough getting to your house. And you will be the same person next week complaining that a police car was speeding down the street going to someone else complaint.
You mentioned you were in the military did you peal potatoes or were you the guy that swept the floor? Did you actually see any war time?
If not, you can’t even mention that you were in the military or talk about guns.
Simple solution, don’t point a firearm at a cop or any other weapon.
Listen to their instructions and you’ll have no issues. This is from personal experiences, when you do what they ask they won’t point their scary guns with hollow point bullets at you.
Denzel Washington (Not a Cop, but Played one on T.V.)


bxs said...

The assumption is that police are always the "good guys" and their adversary is always a "bad guy". Thus police have been given maximum killing power. Also, one can use hollow-point bullets for hunting --- so I guess the police don't like to be at a potential disadvantage since the people shooting at them may have hollow-nose bullets.On the battle field, it's not clear which soldier is the "good guy". The soldiers are just unfortunate proxies to settle a failed political dispute --- so we have rules that try to limit the damage to both sides (really these rules are a total failure in view of modern weapons).Personally, I don't trust anyone with a gun --- and neither should you. Perhaps us law-abiding citizens should be issued bullet-proof vests, Council should look into a bulk order?


Isaac said...

The issue is not as simple as you make it out to be. First, the hollow point shifts the center of gravity of the bullet to the rear, improving stability in flight. Second, hollow points do not ricochet as much, minimizing risk to innocent bystanders.I don't see what is so wrong with wanting the maximum incapacitation. Provided that the shooting is justified in the first place (e. g., there is risk of imminent death to the officer or a bystander), one wants to eliminate the target as quickly as possible so that the target can't retaliate.