Image Credit: CFJC Today / File

By Doug Collins

One Man's Opinion

COLLINS: Taking non-lethal weapons from RCMP makes little sense

Jun 26, 2022 | 6:47 AM

RCMP AND OTHER police forces have a protocol to follow when they go out on a call. On a normal call, they start with verbal communication, then proceed through a series of non-lethal options until, if nothing else works, officers have to resort to lethal force, such as firearms.

But to go directly from talk to gun seems to leave fewer options for police officers who feel threatened during a confrontation.

The Public Safety Minister is talking about reform within the RCMP. And so he is asking the force to stop using non-lethal weapons like neck restraints, rubber bullets and tear gas.

In an increasingly violent society, are we putting our officers more in danger by taking away these resources? Do we now want the RCMP to answer a call with guns blazing because they have no other resources?

There are certainly far too many incidents of excessive force on the part of police officers. That changes are needed is self-evident. But as former West Van Police Chief Kash Heed says, this seems to be a knee-jerk reaction.

ARMCHAIR MAYOR

ROTHENBURGER: Who would survive if we had a recall law for City councils?

9h ago

SOUND OFF

SOUND OFF: Strengthening our wildfire training

Apr 17, 2024

ARMCHAIR MAYOR

ROTHENBURGER: City caught flat-footed with sale of The Loop drop-in property

Apr 17, 2024

Proponents of the move say it’s long overdue.

Some B.C. experts say Ottawa’s directive that the RCMP stop using neck restraints, tear gas and rubber bullets should have happened years ago.

Others, however, warn taking away some so-called “less-lethal” options may not be the right move.

Last month, Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino issued a new mandate letter calling on RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki to end the police force’s use of the techniques. He also called for developing national standards for the use of force. New standards, new methods, perhaps using crisis intervention workers to work with police officers in certain instances. These are important. Choosing recruits better suited to fit into today’s force and be representative of various Indigenous and immigrant groups? No brainers!

But, as one consultant said in a recent CBC article, if you take away an officer’s options, things can escalate very quickly.

So while those who see the situation through the eyes of protestors and civil libertarians, and applaud the changes, others see it through different eyes altogether.

Look at the recent trucker’s protest in Ottawa. I know people who lived amidst the trucks in nearby apartments. They were terrified and it wasn’t the police they were terrified of.

Spearheaded by agitators, these events get out of hand quickly. So if we take away the tear gas and rubber bullets, real bullets are all that’s left.

I’ve covered riots in my career, people taking the law into their own hands. And now we’re saying the police can’t protect us? And yet we let people buy firearms that can be used against the police? That is asinine.

Obviously, these weapons are only to be used in appropriate circumstances, and maybe that’s where education and better training are needed. That makes common sense.

But when knee-jerk reactions like this take place, I am reminded of the legendary Charles Dickens. In Oliver Twist, when Mr. Bumble, the unhappy spouse of a domineering wife, is told in court that “…the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction”.

“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass – a idiot”.

Nuff said.

I’m Doug Collins and that’s One Man’s Opinion.