Thursday, September 1, 2011

RCMP Officer accused of sexual assault

The other article in the Vancouver Province I was commenting on was the Mountie Sex Suit where a high ranking RCMP officer, Staff-Sgt. Travis Pearson, has been accused of sexually assaulting a female officer. It is frighteningly familiar to the Colonel Wing Nut case and many others where someone in a position of authority abuses that position to pressure someone vulnerable into a sexual relationship.

We can't discuss this case because we don't have the evidence before us but we can discuss the article because it raises several important points. Here we have a female RCMP officer claiming she was raped and pressured into a relationship by one of her superiors. Those allegations are either true or false. Either way it is very disturbing.

Seemingly the VPD investigated the case but the VPD investigator concluded the evidence did not support the complaint and no charges were laid. The victim claims the VPD detective failed to contact relevant medical experts or adequately consider evidence about alleged inappropriate conduct by Pearson in connection with two other female officers, and several municipal employees, including an alleged relationship “which had elements in common with [Gastaldo’s] complaint.”

If that is true it does indeed establish a pattern of abusive behavior. Her lawyer claims “When you have police officers investigating police officers there is always issues that are held up, and really this is the type of thing that needs to be investigated by a civilian arm.”

That is basically what we have been saying all along. We need a civilian agency to monitor police complaints. However, this case does raise a dilemma. Can civilians investigate criminal charges? After all, if someone wants to press criminal charges against anyone, the police must be involved to investigate. Can civilians investigate criminal charges? It is indeed very problematic.

I completely agree we need a civilian agency to investigate police complaints. Yet all police complaints would likely involve criminal activity. If they have been accused of using excessive force, that would constitute assault. In this case, if someone is accused of rape, that would also involve criminal charges.

Obviously civilians do not have the power to lay criminal charges. They do however have the authority to make recommendations to the crown and they can over see disciplinary courts. When the Delta police investigated the Kelowna mountie who kicked the suspect in the face when he was on his knees, they recommended criminal charges be laid. That is the same thing a civilian agency could do.

It is possible that the VPD did a thorough investigation and sincerely did believe that there was not enough evidence to pursue charges. The victim was married. The complaint surfaced when her husband found text messages of a sexual nature on his wife's phone. No doubt the defense would argue they were in a consensual relationship i.e. she was having an affair and told her husband she was raped. Possible but no more possible than the possibility that she was indeed raped and her eventual submission “was directly related to his authority over her and the command culture of the RCMP.”

Indeed the command culture of the RCMP is something that needs to be looked at. Yet if the guy was raping her, you'd think he wouldn't be texting her incriminating evidence. Unless he was just another wacko that got off on weird stuff. I'm certainly not going to minimize the case and say the victim is lying because she might not be. If what she says is true and her allegations are supported by other witnesses who experienced similar abuse then that does need to be investigated by a civilian agency. In fact it is. A civil court is investigating the matter. Hopefully due process will prevail.

I still don't think this case is enough reason to disband the RCMP. Create a civilian agency yes. Examine the command culture of the RCMP yes but disband it no. We don't disband the education system because a teacher sexually assaults a student. Likewise, we don't dissolve transit because a bus driver has an accident under the influence.


  1. "Obviously civilians do not have the power to lay criminal charges".

    You may want to check this, it may have changed in the years since I had anything to do with this in Canada but my recollection is that civilians CAN swear out a charge against someone, but that in practice the police decide whether they will allow it....I may have this wrong.

    Started reading 'Dark Alliance'. Some interesting points so far.....

  2. You can make a citizen’s arrest if you witness a crime. I don’t think a civilian can then investigate the charge on behalf of the crown. The Dark Alliance book is good. Gary Webb documents everything. Catherine Austin Fitts keeps asking what about Mena Arkansas:

  3. Investigate no. I know all about citizens arrests, I'm thinking of a procedure whereby a citizen files a complaint directly with the Crown. I forget what it's called.

    The Clintons have always been dirty. His wife is as bad or worse that he is.

    Check this.

  4. Hillary was just as dirty as Bill and the Bush’s in Mena but to claim “George Bush was the most intelligent and discipline president” is likely the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life.

  5. Dude, I know you hate the guy but come on, he graduated Harvard even though he was partying hard, with a GPA that surpassed Kerry's, AND HE FLEW JETS. That is HUGE right there, I urge you to re-evaluate your opinion of him in that light, because if you think an undisciplined dumbass can fly jet fighters, or will be allowed to by the U.S Air Force, you are just 'plane' wrong.

    Never let emotion cloud reality. The fact that the leftist MSM pilloried the guy unmercifully for 8+ years, trying to portray him as a dunce ('Barry Soetero' is still trying to blame him for his own lack of results after 3 years in office) doesn't necessarily make him the dumbass they tried to make him out to be. And at the end of the day, the opinion the Secret Service guys hold of him is coming from people who are right up close with him every day, and who are far from stupid or undisciplined themselves.

    That said, in his shoes I would not have gone to war with Iraq, or at least I would not have gone all the way to Baghdad, as his father was wise enough not to do, so I'm not suggesting the guy is perfect. He managed to get re-elected though, which is better than a former 'community organizer' is gonna do....

  6. That video clip is politically motivated and inherently dishonest. The US Secret Service is without question the most corrupt and dishonest organization in recorded history. Gary Webb’s book attests to that. There is no doubt that someone who supports the US Secret Service would support the Bush Administrations. Bush Sr. was a director of the CIA at a time it was accused of dealing arms for drugs out of Mena and Nicaragua. And now Mexico.

    Reagan had Alzheimer’s. He couldn’t remember the name of his cat. They liked him because he did what he was told:

    There is not a chance that George W. would have dared veto Operation Northwoods had he lived in Kennedy’s time. Instead, history has recorded he vetoed the bill to stop the CIA torturing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

    He flew jets. He got the lowest score possible on his test and still was bumped to the front of the line for the National Guard so he could avoid service in Vietnam. The guy was a brain dead idiot. He was too painful to listen to. Obama is a great orator like Martin Luther King. It’s two different worlds. George Bush was the most hated US president internationally in the world’s history. He was hated more than Nixon. Anyone claiming he was brilliant is completely out of touch with reality. He was a scoundrel dripping in fraud.

    That video clip is exactly what Katherine Austin Fitts would describes as attack poodle disinformation. It clearly has a political motive. It’s trashing every democratic president and kissing every republican president’s ass. It is inherently dishonest.

  7. Well, we'll agree to disagree again. No biggie.
    But.... "Obama is a great orator like Martin Luther King."

    To use your words, "(this) is likely the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life".

    Really, Obama, the guy who can fuck up a wet dream unless he has a teleprompter, in the same league as MLK? Really??

    Dude, put down the kool-aid. Even people who were wild for that guy 3 years ago have realized how bad they were hood-winked. That man has about as much substance as a twinkie. (Notice how I got 'wink' in there twice in 2 sentences? :D )

    Seriously, Jimmy Carter is sleeping better these days because he knows he's not going to his grave as the worst president in living memory.

    Just so we're clear, I don't dislike Obama because he's black. (He's actually more correctly termed bi-racial) I dislike him because of his "America is bad" re-distributionist politics. I'd vote for Herman Cain or Allen West before I'd vote for any other GOP candidate other than Ron Paul. I find it interesting how Paul is being ignored by the MSM even though Bachmann only beat him by 149 votes in the Iowa straw poll, and his total number of votes was more than the next three candidates combined. People in both the Republican and Democratic party 'establishments' fear what could happen with that guy. Which is one reason why I'd vote for him.....

  8. This is what I mean. We live in two different worlds. Obama is a great speaker. His problem is that he isn’t different enough from the Bush Administration. Goldman Sachs became his largest campaign contributors and he bowed down for the conflicted bank bailout which was a result of fraud. He closed down Guantanamo bay but opened another one up in Afghanistan. Why? Because he isn’t in control the shadow government is. The US secret service is anything but honorable and noble.

    You dislike Obama because he’s a democrat. I’m not saying all republicans are bad and all democrats are good. I’m saying all corruption is bad and when it enters either party we need to grow up and get rid of the brain dead robo blinders and stop spewing the same old insanity over and over again.

    The Bush family were dirty. The whole family. Bush Jr., Bush Sr., Jeb, Neil the whole lot. Bush’s freaking grandfathers did business with Nazi Germany. They put the gas in the gas chambers. Hiding that, denying that, or glorifying that is absolutely offensive.

    The Secret Service submitted Operation Northwoods. There is absolutely nothing honorable or noble in that plan. Allen Dulles was the Director of the CIA at the time. Allen Dulles was the one who helped hide the Bush’s family’s dealing with Nazi Germany.

    Kennedy didn’t like the secret service either. He didn’t trust them. For good reason. They killed him. They called back his body guard right before he was shot:

    It’s highly likely Bush Sr. was involved in that murder. No he didn’t pull the trigger but there is no doubt he supported it. His family friend, Allen Dulles was in charge of Operation 40 which was tied to Barry Seal who became the CIA’s arms and cocaine smuggler out of Mena. When a person refuses to recognize any flaw or any historical corruption in one political party and keeps blindly endorsing that political party over and over again, not only is the credibility lost, the motive is suspect.

    Obama is ten million times better than Sarah Palin or Donald Trump. Bush vetoed the bill to stop torture at Guantanamo bay. How do you feel about that? Was that a good thing to do? And you had to trash Ron Paul too. It figures.

  9. You need to re-read what I wrote, because you misunderstood me, I hardly trashed Ron Paul, I said he's being ignored by the MSM because he's a threat to Obama. I would in fact have no problem voting for him. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

    I'm not the conspiracy theorist you are, but there IS a lot of shit goes on you'll never read about. ;)

    By the way, Guantanamo is still open, and when we say 'torture', we mean water boarding, sensory deprivation, etc.. were not talking Spanish Inquisition shit here.

    Would I water board a terrorist? Absolutely. HA's/gangsters/drug dealers/too. That's actually the least of what I'd do to such people if I had my way. Surf's up, dude.

  10. Sorry, I misread your previous post. You said other than Ron Paul. I thought you were trashing him too. I wouldn’t waterboard a terrorist or a HA. Most of the suspects aren’t terrorists they are what the new SS arbitrarily labels as terrorist without a trial and are more likely political prisoners. Yet the torture went far beyond waterboarding. The photos in Afghanistan are of hooded individuals with electrodes attached to their hands. I’m reading an old book called none dare call it conspiracy and will make a post on it. It refers to the big banks controlling everything and raises some interesting concerns for a constitutional republic.

  11. What do you mean Guantanamo is still open? It looks like we’ve been had. Turns out Obama used to work for the CIA:

    If Obama is bad it’s not because Bush family was good, it’s because he’s too much like them.

  12. I can't claim credit for this.....someone recently observed that the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is similar to a the difference between a shit sandwich and a shit sandwich with mustard. I'm good with that comparison. The entrenched "establishment" of both parties is the problem. This is why Karl Rove savaged Christine O'Donnell when she beat the Republican party choice a while back in Delaware. The Republican establishment has been busy trying to co-opt the Tea Party movement (read "grass roots groundswell")since the moment they became a threat to them. American's who are involved in the Tea Party movement want change, and the last thing the establishment on both sides of the aisle wants is that change. They want business as usual.

  13. That’s a petty colorful metaphor. Which is the one with mustard? I like Jesse Ventura’s analogy comparing the two party system to a choice between Coke or Pepsi. They’re a little bit different but they’re both soft drinks and they taste pretty much the same. I think the Tea Party movement is good as long as they do what they say. That seems to be the inherit problem of politics. Harper says he won’t tax income trusts, then he does. Campbell says he’ll oppose the gold plated pension then he implements it. Republicans saying they won’t tax and spend like the other guys then they do even more so. Obama saying he’ll close Guantanamo bay and opens another one up elsewhere.

    If the Tea Party really do adhere to the Constitution then I think that is a good thing. It’s like Lenin promising to tear down the wealthy and give to the poor, then doing the opposite and shooting the trade unions he exploited to get power. I’m concerned when Sarah Palin talks about the constitution in one flag waving breath, then destroys it with the next policy breaking breath. Yet I think the Tea Party are distancing themselves from her but I’m not sure.


Comments are moderated so there will be a delay before they appear on the blog.