It鈥檚 clear to anyone viewing the video posted on YouTube in 2010 that Victoria police officers used excessive force in making an arrest during a brawl outside a bar. What鈥檚 not so clear is what it鈥檚 like to be a police officer in the middle of a drunken melee.
Constables Chris Bowser and Brendan Robinson were two of the Victoria police officers called to deal with a brawl outside a downtown bar in March 2010. A bystander took a video of the two officers tackling, then handcuffing one of the men involved in the fighting. The video clearly shows Bowser, who was the supervisor at the scene, kicking the man on the ground. The scene was viewed by hundreds of thousands of YouTube viewers.
After an investigation by 91原创 city police, the B.C. criminal justice system decided Bowser would not be charged. Disciplinary proceedings conducted by former New Westminster deputy chief Dave Jones concluded that allegations of abuse of authority against Bowser and Robinson had not been proven. Complaints were filed against the two officers with the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, and a public hearing was called.
Last week, adjudicator Ben Casson from the police-complaint office ruled that Bowser had abused his authority, but Robinson, while he used excessive force, did so because of an honest but mistaken perception of the situation.
Bowser now faces a disciplinary hearing, which is tentatively scheduled to begin this week. After the hearing, Casson has 10 days to recommend disciplinary action, which can range from a reprimand to dismissal.
Long before any official proceedings took place, Bowser faced trial by YouTube, in which countless armchair legal experts had already found him guilty. It鈥檚 an easy call to make, sitting at home in front of a screen, away from the noise of a raucous crowd and the smell of alcohol and blood.
The video lasts less than a minute. The public hearing, which started in June 2012, heard from 24 witnesses over 17 days and examined 34 exhibits.
Casson鈥檚 report sums up the situation:
鈥淚n this matter, both officers were lawfully engaged in their duties within a challenging and potentially dangerous environment. They were seeking to end a brawl amongst several males, where at least one individual appeared injured and unconscious on the ground. There were numerous bystanders in this area, and a legitimate concern that matters could potentially escalate. The officers were required to act quickly to bring about order and control to the situation.鈥�
One man was lying on the ground with another man stomping on his head, and Robinson thought he might be witnessing a homicide. It鈥檚 interesting to note that there hasn鈥檛 been much outrage about that incident of brutality.
Police have to toe a fine line between keeping order and using excessive force. That line is a little difficult to discern at midnight in the middle of an alcohol-fuelled fight when the party animals greatly outnumber police officers.
Violence is not necessarily the solution to violence, but a soft approach isn鈥檛 always appropriate, either. In volatile situations, force is often necessary.
That is not to advocate heavy-handed police tactics. Police are held to a high standard of conduct and self-restraint, and when they violate those standards, they should be held accountable. Safeguards are necessary, both for the public and for the police themselves.
We require police to put their lives on the line and to make split-second decisions in dangerous situations.
The disciplinary process is a necessary part of policing, but it should take into account the fact that there could also be a danger in using too little force.
