0:00

Introducing Mazda's largest two-row

0:02

SUV, made for power

0:05

and elegance and

0:07

meaningful journeys. The

0:09

first ever Mazda CX-70 mild hybrid

0:12

inline-six turbo. In

0:16

2007, TV network CBS dropped 40 kids in

0:20

the middle of the New Mexico desert as part

0:22

of a brand new reality show. These kids would

0:25

have to build their own society from scratch. And

0:27

if this sounds like Lord of the Flies to

0:29

you, well, it was meant to. We

0:31

were on this mission together. We were going to prove

0:34

to the world that we could make a better society

0:36

than adults could. I'm Josh

0:38

Gwyn and I want to know

0:40

what this wild TV experiment was

0:42

really about. Split Screen

0:45

Kid Nation, a six-part podcast

0:47

from CBC. Available

0:49

now. It

0:59

takes a lot to force

1:02

change into a large institution,

1:05

especially when that institution

1:07

often thinks of itself as

1:09

above the law. It

1:11

remains to be seen right now if

1:13

policing in Toronto will actually change as

1:16

a result of the past few weeks,

1:18

but a tipping

1:20

point seems to be at hand.

1:23

First, there was total exoneration

1:25

for a man who was charged

1:28

with first-degree murder in an officer's

1:30

death after a

1:32

trial that many experts said should

1:35

never have happened at all. Zemir

1:38

and his family burst into tears

1:40

after a jury found him not

1:42

guilty of all criminal charges, including

1:44

first-degree murder in the death of

1:46

Toronto police officer, Jeffrey Northrup. And

1:49

then, just days later, four

1:52

people, including grandparents and an

1:54

infant, died after

1:56

a high-speed chase that, again,

2:00

The experts said never should have

2:02

happened at all. Ontario's Police Watchdog

2:04

is investigating after four people including

2:06

an infant were killed in a

2:08

multi vehicle crash on the for

2:10

a one in with Be last

2:13

night. The collision followed a police

2:15

chase on the highway with both

2:17

the suspect vehicle and police cruiser

2:19

traveling the wrong way. After

2:22

racing to defend their own officers at

2:24

the expense of an innocent man in

2:26

the first case, Police.

2:28

Have since announced a review into their

2:30

protocols That may have led to the

2:33

officers. The

2:35

question Now following the fatal

2:37

crash after a chase. Is

2:40

if police will once again.

2:43

Rally around their own. Even.

2:46

At the expense of the public's

2:48

trust. And

2:53

Jordan, he's Rawlings. This is the

2:55

big story. Patrick

2:58

Watson was an assistant professor at

3:00

the Center for Criminology and Socio

3:02

Legal Studies at the University of

3:05

Toronto. Thanks for

3:07

finding some time for us today, Patrick,

3:09

It's my pleasure, thanks for and well

3:11

why don't we start with a brief

3:13

refresher for those who haven't followed of

3:16

the headlines that have come out of

3:18

Toronto over the last couple of weeks.

3:20

Can you explain what happened between Mars

3:22

The Mirror and Police Constable Jeffrey Northrop?

3:25

Absolutely And dog when I'm gonna do.

3:27

years and years of preface my description

3:29

with the proviso that my account is

3:31

derived from media coverage and statements meaning

3:33

court. Both. Well we know from

3:35

court is that on July First, Twenty

3:37

Twenty one. Boomers. A mere

3:40

or his pregnant wife and his two

3:42

year old toddler son. Had. Driven

3:44

from their home in Von just north

3:46

of Toronto into downtown I'm They were

3:48

coming into Toronto to celebrate Canada Day.

3:51

So. they drove downtown and they perks they

3:53

are b m w in an underground parking

3:55

lot of trying the city hall around midnight

3:58

after the celebrations had run up, the family

4:00

were walking through the grounds of City Hall

4:02

to get back to their car, and

4:05

they happened to cross paths with someone

4:07

who had recently been stabbed. And this

4:09

was a complete coincidence. There was nothing

4:11

involved there on Zameer's part at all.

4:14

And that trial, Zameer testified that way.

4:16

He saw this person and it raised

4:18

his concerns that he wanted to leave

4:20

the area with his family as quickly

4:22

as possible. Now around the

4:24

same time, there was a call made

4:26

to Toronto Police Service or TPS to

4:28

report the stabbing, and several

4:30

officers responded to search for a suspect.

4:33

The suspect was described as a

4:35

dark-skinned man with a beard, and

4:37

Zameer had a lighter brown complexion

4:40

and was clean-shaven. So

4:42

several TPS officers were dispatched to investigate

4:44

the stabbing and search for a suspect,

4:46

and among them were Constable's Jeffrey Northrup

4:49

and his partner, Sergeant Lisa Forbes. Both

4:52

were addressed, in my opinion, what would

4:54

be best described as undercover attire, although

4:56

it's been called plainclothes attire throughout the

4:58

reporting of the incident. We'll talk about

5:00

that distinction in a little bit, because

5:02

I find it really interesting. But yeah,

5:04

continue, please. So the story that appears

5:06

to have been accepted by the jury

5:08

is largely derived from Zameer's testimony. And

5:10

what Zameer told us was that two

5:13

people ran up to his van. They

5:15

were bearing guns, and they banged on the

5:18

windows and screamed at him. And his account,

5:20

they did not clearly identify themselves as

5:22

police, albeit the police who

5:25

were witnesses to this event testified that they

5:27

did. Zameer testified that

5:29

he was afraid that these people were

5:32

trying to harm him and his family,

5:34

so he tried to drive away. He

5:37

put his car into forward gear, and it

5:39

was at that point that Correa and Pace,

5:41

who were driving this unmarked van, stopped the

5:43

van in front of his car. So

5:45

he put his car into reverse, and he backed up

5:47

to get out of the parking spot that he was

5:49

in. And it was

5:51

at this point that two accident reconstructionists,

5:54

they both agreed that when the car

5:56

reversed, the video evidence indicated that the

5:58

car backed up. construct comfortable

6:01

northrup and that is not going to

6:03

the ground. The video evidence then showed

6:05

that the mayor drove out of the parking

6:07

spot in reverse and as he put the

6:09

car into forward gear to attempt to drive

6:11

away. Northrup was in the

6:13

path of the car and the mayor drove

6:16

over northrup and that's how northrup was called.

6:18

Well the mayor testified that he couldn't see

6:21

northrup and did not realize that he'd driven

6:23

over him and the mayor's account was supported

6:25

by the defense accident reconstruction this expert witness

6:27

who testified that northrup would have been in

6:29

the vehicle's blind spot. Well he was detained

6:31

the mayor said to the arresting officers that

6:34

he didn't understand that the people who are

6:36

banging on his car were the police and

6:38

he didn't realize that he'd run anyone over.

6:41

And his trial just concluded about

6:44

two weeks ago here in toronto what

6:46

i want to talk to you about

6:48

today is the police protocols surrounding all

6:51

this and how tragedy can change them

6:53

so but just briefly before we do

6:55

it this was a heavily politicized trial

6:57

in the immediate aftermath of northrup's death

7:00

and zamir's arrest how is

7:02

the incident described by police and some

7:04

politicians and what was the general sense

7:06

of it. Right so shortly

7:08

after the incident and this information was

7:10

presumably derived from statements that were made

7:12

by sergeant forbes that were later proved

7:15

erroneous in court. But we

7:17

had toronto interim police chief james

7:19

raymer great reporters and he told

7:22

those reporters. That the Toronto

7:24

police theory with this was an intentional

7:26

act and a targeted act and here

7:28

was trying to kill northrup. I

7:30

driving over him and this was the explanation

7:33

that was given to a company a charger

7:35

first degree murder. We

7:37

saw a remarkable and i

7:40

would say very inappropriate reaction

7:42

from Toronto mayor john torrey.

7:45

Brampton mayor patrick brown and

7:47

premier Doug Ford all

7:49

whom took the twitter and they

7:51

made extremely dangerous and prejudicial comments

7:53

about the mirror and i

7:55

really want to stress here how inappropriate

7:57

that conduct was. John

8:00

Tory and Patrick Brown are both

8:02

trained lawyers. They went to law

8:04

school, they understand constitutional

8:06

law, they understand the presumption of

8:09

innocence, and they both

8:11

should have known much better than

8:13

to make these statements on Twitter.

8:16

Now John Tory has since released

8:18

a statement saying that lessons were learned, and

8:20

I really want to underscore here how insufficient

8:22

I find that statement, that this was

8:24

a person who should have known much better at the

8:26

time, and I think there's much more atonement warranted. And

8:29

on the other hand, Doug Ford, who doesn't have

8:31

any legal training, yet has been

8:33

informed about the inappropriateness of his comments,

8:36

has still to apologize for the prejudicial statements

8:38

that he made against Zameer at the time.

8:41

Ultimately, Zameer was exonerated completely, which

8:43

is why we're having this conversation

8:45

about just how inappropriate those comments

8:47

were. But I'm more interested, and

8:49

especially in talking to you about

8:51

this, in how this whole

8:54

thing might have been avoided. And maybe

8:56

you can explain the process here and

8:58

start with the term state-created

9:01

danger. What does that mean

9:03

in this case? Right. So a

9:05

state-created danger is, first of all, it's

9:07

a legal doctrine that comes from the

9:09

United States. And in the US, it's

9:11

primarily been used in civil litigation cases

9:13

where tragic outcomes have occurred, and

9:16

where the government or the state arguably had

9:18

some duty of care for an aggrieved party.

9:20

So either a victim of some tragic

9:22

incident or that victim's survivors would seek

9:25

damages from the government for

9:27

whatever it was that occurred. And

9:30

in these cases, the onus is usually on

9:32

the aggrieved party to demonstrate that the state

9:34

played a negative role in that outcome, that

9:37

the government or a state agent deprived an

9:39

individual of their rights through action of

9:41

a government agent, like a social services

9:43

worker or a police officer. Now

9:46

criminologists have used the term slightly

9:48

more broadly to illustrate how tactical

9:51

decisions made by, for example, police

9:53

officers place both citizens

9:55

and the police in dangerous

9:57

conditions and tragedy then ensues.

10:00

In this case, we can make

10:02

the argument that there's a combination

10:04

of both the Toronto Police Service

10:06

uniform policy and policies for

10:08

responding to calls for service from

10:10

undercover or plainclothes officers that produce

10:13

the condition of state-created danger. And

10:16

what I mean when I say that

10:18

is the Toronto Police Service themselves have

10:20

a uniform policy that states that the

10:23

uniform provides safety both

10:25

to officers and to the public. That

10:27

is the very least, if someone

10:29

comes running up to you wearing a police

10:31

uniform, you should be relatively

10:34

confident that that person doesn't intend to

10:36

harm you without provocation, that

10:38

someone isn't planning to rob you or

10:41

carjack you or so on. Now

10:44

that said, there are conditions like

10:46

undercover operations where a uniform would

10:48

inhibit some police investigative practices. So

10:51

the TPS uniform code does say that

10:53

officers can work outside of the uniform

10:55

for specific functions with the permission of

10:57

the chiefs. Now my understanding

10:59

is that Northrop and Forbes are part of a

11:02

major crimes unit or in Northrop's case

11:04

was part of a major crimes unit and

11:06

he had permission to wear plainclothes as a

11:08

result of that. Now that

11:10

said, wearing plainclothes does come with some

11:13

inherent risks that even if an officer

11:15

in plainclothes does identify themselves, it's not

11:17

beyond reason in my opinion for a

11:19

citizen to be somewhat skeptical of those

11:21

claims. You probably remember that a number

11:24

of years ago, there was a

11:26

lot of discourse about how to respond to unmarked

11:28

police cars if they were trying to pull you

11:30

over and things like this. And

11:33

in cases where we see

11:35

somebody in plainclothes who's also

11:37

exhibiting aggressive or erratic conduct,

11:40

and I can understand why insecurities

11:43

and suspicions might be raised in

11:46

those conditions. So

11:48

when a chief of police says to

11:50

a police officer of operational necessity, we're

11:52

going to ask you to forego the

11:54

uniform and the protective equipment, the

11:57

chief is effectively asking those officers to take

11:59

on more. risk and forgo some

12:01

of the protections that the uniform

12:04

affords. And this can be

12:06

argued to produce state created danger for

12:08

both the officer themselves, as well

12:10

as the citizens that they're interacting with. How

12:13

common is permission to use

12:15

plain clothes? And how

12:18

broad is that permission, I guess? Does

12:21

it mean that they can just decide whenever

12:23

they like not to wear the uniform? Is it

12:25

granted for only specific duties? Like

12:27

what's the protocol around it and how did

12:29

it apply here? Absolutely. So

12:31

what the uniform code tells us is

12:34

that the plain clothes permission comes from

12:36

the chief and it has to have

12:38

some sort of operational purpose. There has

12:40

to be some function that plain clothes

12:42

is serving. And as

12:45

far as I understand TPS policy

12:47

around plain clothes, it's something of

12:49

an operational security issue that it's

12:51

not explicitly discussed. And

12:54

I have not been able to find

12:56

any information that specifically relates to plain

12:58

clothes deployment today. That

13:01

said, in 2007, there was a

13:03

report given by then chief

13:05

Bill Blair. He was

13:07

responding to a coroner's inquest for a

13:09

Toronto police killing of a Scarborough teenager

13:11

named Jeffrey Riotica. Now

13:14

in that report, Blair indicated that there

13:16

were 1300 plain clothes

13:18

police officers and 500

13:20

unmarked police vehicles that were used by Toronto

13:23

Police Services. In

13:25

2007, the annual police report showed that TPS

13:27

had 5,557 officers. So

13:31

that would mean that just under 25%

13:33

of TPS sworn officers, which is different

13:35

than civilian employees, were working

13:37

in plain clothes capacity. If

13:39

I said that's a lot, am I right? Like

13:42

that seems like an absurd amount to me. I

13:44

don't have a point of reference. Just

13:46

intuitively, it seems high to me. We

13:48

have to keep in mind that this

13:50

includes the detective units who typically would

13:52

wear plain clothes as well. But

13:55

this is another issue that we've sort

13:57

of been sitting on the outside of.

14:00

that plain clothes doesn't

14:02

necessarily mean undercover. When

14:04

we think of plain clothes officers,

14:07

we think of detectives and other

14:09

higher ranking officers who are wearing

14:12

sort of business or more formal attire, the

14:14

suits that we would sort

14:16

of be accustomed to seeing in, for

14:18

example, fictional depictions. When we look at

14:20

something like Law & Order Toronto, we

14:22

see these detectives that are walking

14:24

around in suits that are sort of formally attired,

14:26

and they're doing work that's not

14:29

as public facing as a uniformed officer.

14:32

So back to the question I

14:34

mentioned off the top, what's the

14:36

difference between undercover and plain clothes?

14:38

And why were you saying that

14:41

this feels more like undercover clothing,

14:43

having seen the video? And what does that

14:45

mean in a situation like this? So

14:48

again, plain clothes, as we understand it,

14:50

means professional attire, that somebody would be

14:52

identified as being someone in a respectable

14:54

position. Like a detective in a suit.

14:56

Like a detective in a suit. So

14:58

you likely have a badge exposed very,

15:00

very prevalently, worn on the belt or

15:02

worn around the neck or so forth.

15:05

There's also other officers that we see

15:07

wearing a less formal attire, but they

15:09

might be wearing a vest. And I

15:11

think it's really important that we draw

15:13

this distinction out, because that 2007 report

15:15

by Chief Blair said that

15:20

TPS should develop some clear markers

15:23

for plain clothes police officers. Blair

15:25

noted that plain clothes are sometimes

15:27

advantageous and necessary. But

15:30

when responding to an emergency, police

15:32

need to be clearly identifiable. So

15:35

Blair made the recommendation that at the

15:37

very least, officers have some kind of

15:39

identifying arm band that they could use

15:42

or a windbreaker that they could throw on,

15:44

so that they would be easily recognizable by

15:46

the public. And I would

15:48

suggest that this shows how Blair recognized

15:50

to the conditions of state-created danger that

15:53

accompany the uniformed policy. He

15:55

was looking for ways to ameliorate that danger,

15:58

and it's not clear to me why Blair's...

16:00

recommendations were not fully enacted during

16:03

this incident that Northrop and Forbes didn't

16:05

have something like a windbreaker or an

16:07

armband that they could throw on that

16:09

would have made them more identifiable to

16:11

Zamir and his family members. So

16:14

what happens from here? You wrote a piece for

16:16

the Star about how this may

16:18

spark change in policy. What are the police

16:20

doing about this? So we're

16:22

seeing that there's going to be

16:25

a comprehensive review of the TPS

16:27

uniform policy including the permissions that

16:29

are going along with plainclothes officers

16:31

and I expect we might see

16:34

some adjustment to emergency

16:36

response that plainclothes

16:38

officers might have a more restricted

16:40

role in future calls for

16:43

service that when police officers

16:45

are doing something like an investigative

16:47

pursuit we might see conditions

16:49

where either an officer has to wear

16:51

something that makes them more easily identifiable

16:54

to members of the public or that

16:56

those officers will simply be excluded from

16:58

that type of activity from that one.

17:01

And again you know to echo some of

17:03

your comments earlier that 25% figure

17:06

seems to be something that might be important here that

17:09

if we're going to say that 25%

17:11

of police officers can no longer

17:13

respond to calls for service because

17:15

they're not wearing the appropriate equipment

17:18

we're talking about a major portion of

17:20

the police budget that would become inaccessible

17:22

at that point to do the nuts

17:24

and bolts policing work the public service

17:27

policing work that the city demands of

17:29

police of the police service. Introducing

17:35

Mazda's largest two-row SUV

17:37

made for power and

17:39

versatility and electrifying possibilities.

17:42

The first ever Mazda CX-70

17:45

plug-in hybrid. We're

17:52

able to discuss this case and the changes

17:54

that it may spark with a little bit

17:56

of certainty now because we have some distance

17:58

from the verdict and we have response. from

18:00

police in terms of what they're actually going to

18:02

do. The next thing

18:04

I want to discuss is something that

18:06

we have really little certainty about right

18:09

now but has certainly seemed at least

18:11

so far to be the

18:13

kind of controversial police actions that might result

18:15

in a very similar case at some point.

18:17

So maybe for those who

18:19

again haven't heard you could very briefly

18:21

explain what happened on the 401 in

18:24

the middle of a police chase earlier

18:26

this week. So what I

18:28

understand of this incident is there

18:30

was a liquor store robbery that

18:33

was observed by an off-duty police

18:35

officer. That that off-duty police officer

18:37

phoned in a report of this

18:39

robbery and that that robber

18:42

fled the scene in a U-Haul rental

18:44

van. This van took off at high

18:46

speed. It was pursued

18:48

by the officer, the off-duty officer,

18:51

who witnessed this at some point

18:53

during regional police officers took over

18:56

this pursuit. Those officers

18:58

followed this van at high speed

19:00

with lights and sirens on and

19:02

the van proceeded on to the

19:04

401 going contrary the

19:07

flow of traffic. So they were driving

19:09

into vehicles on the 401 coming towards

19:11

them. Typically police

19:14

services around North America have come

19:16

to see high speed vehicle chases

19:19

as they created danger par excellence

19:22

and in general police services do

19:24

not engage in high-speed chases.

19:26

As soon as officers are able to

19:28

identify the driver and identify a license

19:31

plate or the description of the vehicle,

19:33

typically that is the point at which

19:36

the pursuit would break off. Seeing

19:39

a pursuit in

19:41

the wrong direction on the highway

19:44

is extremely exceptional. This

19:46

is not something that that

19:49

I would ever anticipated having seen and

19:51

I have to

19:53

say watching that video

19:55

I was absolutely terrified and

19:58

not just for a the

20:00

people who are passing by who are

20:03

in the way of these cases, but

20:05

for the police officer then himself or

20:07

herself who decided to

20:09

undertake this pursuit, it seems

20:12

incredibly ill advised. We

20:14

have reporting from the Toronto Star that

20:16

seems to indicate that officers were instructed

20:18

to stop pursuing this vehicle and

20:21

that somewhere along the line either that

20:23

instruction was not listened to, was not

20:25

heard or was not adhered to. It's

20:28

an extremely alarming case and

20:30

extremely tragic. Police officers are

20:33

asked to weigh the

20:36

risk that a fleeing suspect

20:38

poses to the public versus

20:40

the risk that's inherent

20:43

in chasing that person. And

20:46

I cannot see any calculus

20:49

that would give us a condition where a

20:52

police officer would say that the

20:54

certainty of risk involved in chasing someone

20:56

the wrong way on the highway was

21:00

not outweighing the certainty of risk

21:03

of somebody who was in a car by

21:05

themselves in possession of a knife. And

21:08

aside from driving, no threat to

21:10

anyone at that point. It

21:12

seems to me an incredibly dangerous

21:15

action and it seems to me that it

21:17

will require a very,

21:20

very strong public response. We

21:22

to be fair do not know every single detail

21:24

yet as you point out we're speaking on Thursday

21:26

afternoon, but as you look at this as

21:29

a criminologist, is

21:32

this something we're eventually going to

21:34

be seeing a in a courtroom

21:36

or b in the kind of

21:38

policy review that police are currently

21:40

undertaking right now regarding

21:42

plainclothes officers. I'm

21:45

not even sure we're going to need to

21:47

see a policy review in this case. To

21:49

my understanding the policy is quite clear. There

21:52

is a case that has some

21:54

similarities and that was an incident

21:56

involving three Ontario Provincial Police officers

21:58

who were triggered. after

22:01

they pursued an individual who was

22:03

involved in a custody dispute. And

22:06

those police officers from Corotha Lakes

22:09

pursued this individual, knowing that

22:11

the one year old child

22:13

that this individual was the

22:15

father of, was in that vehicle

22:17

with them. That resulted in

22:20

a collision. And three

22:22

of those police officers who saw

22:24

this collision then got out

22:27

of their vehicles, they approached

22:29

the pickup truck with both

22:31

the father and the son.

22:34

The son's name was Jamison Shapiro. He

22:36

was one year old and those

22:38

police officers, again from the preliminary

22:41

inquiry, these officers were charged. And in

22:43

the preliminary inquiry, we heard that they

22:45

observed a gun, a gun fell out

22:47

of the car, that they were notified

22:49

that there might have been a gun in the

22:51

vehicle through radio reports, and they

22:54

opened fire in response. And in

22:56

choosing to do so, they

22:58

killed both Jamison Shapiro and

23:01

his father, another tragic incident

23:03

that again, arguably could be attributed to

23:05

state created danger. And I say so

23:08

because dispatchers in that

23:10

case had instructed officers to back

23:12

off. That case was charged by

23:14

the SIU and it went through

23:16

preliminary inquiry. It went through preliminary

23:19

hearings and it was following the

23:21

preliminary inquiry that the Crown

23:23

decided to withdraw charges that they didn't

23:25

see a reasonable prospect of conviction, given

23:28

that the police officers said that they had seen

23:30

this gun and they were reacting to the gun

23:32

and that they could not, the Crown wouldn't be

23:34

able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they

23:37

didn't have a reasonable fear of a person with

23:39

again. That said, I really

23:42

do believe that there were reasonable grounds

23:44

here where proceeding with a trial, even

23:47

outside the reasonable prospect of conviction,

23:51

would nevertheless have served as the

23:53

most solid public airing of evidence

23:55

so that the public would understand

23:57

precisely what was involved on the

23:59

off. the officers part there, precisely

24:01

what those officers believed, precisely

24:03

what those officers were reacting

24:06

to, and that there is a public

24:08

utility in having that type of

24:10

earring. And I hope that

24:12

we get some sort of similar type

24:15

of account where at the very least

24:18

we have a very thorough exposition

24:20

of the evidence. This

24:22

is my last question, and it's my attempt

24:24

to tie these two incidents together. In

24:27

the aftermath of the Zamir case,

24:30

there was clearly, as evidenced by the

24:33

politician speaking out, the police chief speaking out,

24:35

there was an attempt to rally towards

24:37

the side of the police. And on

24:40

the police side, an attempt

24:42

to seek out the maximum penalty

24:44

clearly. Have the

24:46

police learned any lessons

24:48

from how that turned out that

24:50

might be applied to what happens

24:52

next with regards to the 401 incident?

24:56

Or will we in the coming days

24:58

hear all sorts of reasons for

25:00

why they did this, and it was a

25:02

terrible accident, but of course you can't hold

25:05

it against police for doing their jobs? I

25:08

have a lot of thoughts on this, and it

25:10

informs a lot of my research and my reasons

25:12

for doing research. We

25:15

are in a very tentative moment in

25:17

policing, or a very scary moment, to

25:19

be quite frank, between police and the

25:21

public. This is a

25:23

moment that saw spikes following

25:26

the murder of George Floyd, and in

25:28

my opinion it hasn't, it

25:30

may have gone slightly into recession

25:32

in terms of public consciousness of this

25:34

moment, but in terms of

25:36

the consequences between police-public relations, I'm

25:39

not sure that we've moved very

25:41

far beyond the 2020 protests. My

25:45

concern is that the polarization between the

25:47

police and the public has not diminished,

25:49

and the police as evidence

25:51

through things like thin blue line

25:53

patches, things like statements

25:56

made by police representatives, police staff

25:58

representatives, and other people. police

26:00

employee association representatives, that

26:03

there is a strong air

26:05

of pitting the police against the

26:07

public. Policing is

26:09

a great compromise in our system, that

26:11

democratic policing, as it was written in

26:13

the 1820s in England, where

26:17

our model of policing came from, it was

26:19

vitally important to Robert Peel,

26:22

the person who wrote a philosophy of

26:24

policing that brought about the Met police,

26:27

that the police are the public

26:29

and the public are the police,

26:31

that police legitimacy is based on

26:34

public trust, and that

26:36

the police rely on the public

26:38

in order to adequately perform those

26:40

duties. And if the police don't

26:42

trust the public, if the police believe

26:44

that the public are against

26:47

them, that they view them with suspicion, that

26:49

they view them with mistrust, that

26:51

this degrades the

26:54

institution of policing and makes

26:56

policing impossible, that we

26:58

cannot have a democratic model of policing

27:01

unless the police trust the public. And

27:03

generally speaking, the public do trust the

27:05

police. Opinion polling shows that the

27:08

police are the most trusted

27:10

public service that's provided by

27:12

government over and over and over again. That

27:14

number has started to decline, but

27:17

the police reaction cannot be to

27:19

circle the wagons. It

27:22

is vitally important to public trust that

27:24

when a mistake is made, it's recognized.

27:27

And when a mistake has fatal

27:30

consequences, like the death of a

27:32

toddler, that may result

27:34

in the most serious sanctions our

27:36

society saves for the people that

27:38

we trust to protect us from

27:41

just those types of risks. So

27:43

I really hope that these incidents

27:45

are moments for police introspection, that

27:47

we see an accusation made against

27:49

the police in Zamir, that they

27:53

may have contrived evidence that

27:56

magnified the degree of guilt to which a

27:58

Zamir could be perceived to have happened. had.

28:01

And if we see something similar

28:03

here where this incident is simply

28:05

blamed on the reckless actions

28:07

of a liquor store robber who was

28:09

a risk to society and that police

28:11

had to pursue them, I really think

28:14

that will be damaging to police-public relations.

28:16

I am buoyed by the fact that

28:19

what we've seen in the media is

28:21

many former police officers coming

28:23

out and saying right away that this is

28:25

not something that should have happened, and I

28:27

believe that will echo public sentiment. And

28:30

I genuinely hope that police

28:32

executives, police associations recognize the

28:34

severity of this and the

28:37

severity of the moment and that a full

28:39

public airing and perhaps the most severe

28:41

consequences are warranted in this particular case

28:44

when we see the body of evidence

28:46

that's presented. Patrick, thank you so

28:48

much for this. That's a very thorough answer to

28:50

that question and a lot to think about. My

28:53

pleasure. Patrick

28:56

Watson of the Center for Criminology and

28:58

Sociolegal Studies at U of G. That

29:02

was The Big Story. For more, you

29:04

can head to thebigstorypodcast.ca. You can also

29:06

get in touch with us. The way

29:08

to send feedback is by email at

29:11

hello at thebigstorypodcast.ca or

29:13

by leaving a voicemail at 416-935-5935. Joseph

29:20

Fish is the lead producer of The

29:22

Big Story. Robin Simon is also a

29:24

producer. Chloe Kim is our editorial assistant.

29:26

Mary Jubrin is our digital editor. Diana

29:29

Kay is our manager of business development.

29:31

And this week, our sound

29:33

design is done by Mark Angley and

29:35

Christy Chan. Thanks

29:37

for listening. I'm Jordan Heath-Rawlings. We've got a

29:40

couple of surprises in the feed for you

29:42

this weekend, and then we'll be

29:44

back with a fresh Big Story, the conclusion

29:46

of the Inside Story of the Green Belt

29:48

scandal, on Monday. We'll

29:50

talk then. Pbs

30:00

get forty kids in the middle of the

30:02

New Mexico desert as part of a brand

30:04

new reality. So beautiful. Have to build their

30:07

own society from scratch and if this sounds

30:09

like Lord of the Flies to you, well

30:11

it was meant to. We were on

30:13

this mission the other. We were gonna prove that the

30:16

world that we should make a better society than adults

30:18

could. I'm just going and

30:20

I want to know what

30:22

does Wilde T V Experiment

30:24

was really a split screen.

30:27

Sydney send a six part

30:29

part as from Cbc available

30:31

next.