The Tragedy of Michael Eligon

It should come as little surprise that the Special Investigations Unit recently absolved Toronto Police of any wrongdoing in the February 3^rd shooting death of 29 year-old Michael Eligon.  In the period ranging from 2000-2011, the SIU in Ontario investigated 2384 complaints against officers, which varied from people held in custody being injured, to allegations of sexual assault, as well as all incidents where a fatality occurred. Of those investigations, 68 charges in total were laid as a result of the almost 2400 cases investigated a slightly underwhelming .0285%.

In his summary of the Eligon case, SIU director Ian Scott believed that the bullet-proof vest-wearing officer who fired the fatal bullets at a man armed only with scissors was justified in doing so. This may indeed be the case. There seems to be little dispute that Eligon was holding  the scissors, rummaging through various backyards in the neighbourhood where he was gunned down, and, just prior to the fatal shooting had been warned by police to drop the scissors. He had obviously ignored the commands; this too seems to be verified by the witnesses.

Prior to wandering into the neighbourhood where he would be shot, Mr. Eligon apparently caused an incident at a convenience store, where he nicked the attendant. However, rather than appearing violent to the clerk, he appeared to have been “blanked out,”  a description that leads one to wonder if this man was not only mentally disturbed, but heavily medicated during the time he was killed.

The story is wrought with several troubling details. The first, reported in The Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1128985--police-didn-t-need-to-shoot-man-in-hospital-gown-witness), comes from the man who originally called the police to inform them of Mr. Eligon’s presence.  The man, who was doing renovations in the neighbourhood, and was apparently able to convince Eligon to leave the property he was working on without incident. While Eligon unquestionably appeared upset and frightened, the man did not see him as a dangerous threat. Apparently, this account falls in line with the accounts of other neighbours who witnessed the incident.

It also appears the officers were somewhat careless with their weapons—given that they shot what appeared to be a mentally ill man, this may be an epic understatement—the officer fired three shots at a fairly close range. Only one hit Mr. Eligon; it seems fortunate that in a residential area such as this, none went further astray.

However, the real tragedy is with the one bullet that did hit its intended target. A 29 year old male, showing every conceivable sign of mental illness or distressed was gunned down by an officer who would be duly acquitted.  (http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1148660--michael-eligon-shooting-siu-finds-no-wrongdoing-by-toronto-police)

By their own later admission, the officers involved knew that they were likely dealing with a mental patient; the officer gave it as the reason for declining the use of pepper spray during the incident to Director Scott saying “…he understood that it (pepper spray) is sometimes ineffective when used on those with a mental disorder.”

But if Mr. Eligon was such a threat that police—who are supposedly trained for conflict situations—felt they had to shoot him, why was an untrained renovator able to calmly remove him from a property?

Several answers could be possible, but it seems rather obvious by further accounts of the shooting that police were yelling and hostile toward Eligon. Consider that for a moment: how much wisdom does it take to avoid provoking a potentially medicated, clearly mentally distressed patient in this situation? And if one officer who was aggressive would have caused Eligon heightened anxiety, how badly would that have multiplied if there were 12, apparently with guns drawn confronting him? Not only was this not the best way to handle the situation, short of having even more high-strung police present, it was the worst.

If the events described in the aftermath are accurate, they paint an even more troubling picture of the officer’s conduct. After shooting Eligon the police proceeded to kick and stop the dying man as they moved to restrain him. Whether this was the effect of the adrenaline rush that accompanies dealing with a situation like this, natural reaction on the part of police or just an added act of violence was never addressed. But it likely doesn’t matter; at best, the actions in the aftermath show a bunch of edgy policemen too wound up to be dealing with a situation like this. At worst, they show an anger and easy propensity to over-the-top violence. The man had been shot; was kicking and stomping his body really necessary?

While the incident is troubling enough by itself, the greater-reaching ramifications paint a much more disturbing picture.

According to the Canadian Mental Health Association, 20% of Canadians will experience some form of mental illness in their lifetimes. 8% of Canadians will experience depression, 5% will experience anxiety attacks of various severity, 1% bipolar disorder, and a further 1% schizophrenia. Given that many people are loath to admit any kind of mental illness, these statistics may potentially be on the low end.

According to the 2011 census, there were over 6 million people in the Greater Toronto Area. This means that on a given day in the GTA, there may be as many as 1.2 million people with some form of mental illness; 480 000 people experiencing depression; 300 000 fighting some form of anxiety; 60 000 severely depressed and another 60 000 who are schizophrenic. All these people may further be medicated to some degree. And for all those figures, Toronto Police claim that they are trained 10 hours per year to deal with mental issues. Even if they received outstanding training, this would mean that they receive 6000 minutes of training to deal with 60 000 schizophrenic  people. There is no way to make the math sound better.

Given that one of the targets of Canada’s new crime legislation are drug users, and given that many mentally ill people self-medicate or use drugs as a means of escape, they will be the ultimate targets for increased policing and harassment. It requires no great imagination to see more situations where a highly-agitated mentally ill person comes into contact with an even more agitated but apparently well-trained and well-armed police officer, or several of them.

Regardless of how one feels about  if the police in the Eligon shooting were justified in using lethal force, or your thoughts about the reckless discharge of the firearm that fired three bullets, or your thoughts on the purported kicking and stomping of his body, one fact seems to be indisputable:  a great number of police are put into situations that they are completely unqualified to be in in dealing with the mentally ill, and that combination of an aggressive officer or officers with an unstable, possibly medicated individual is likely to turn out in tragedy. Michael Eligon’s case wasn’t the first of its kind; tragically, given the new environment laid by the government and supported by law enforcement, the stage seems set for several repeating incidents.

In the end perhaps Mr. Scott got it right: it would be wrong to blame a single officer. The officer is the product of an incompetent system; it is that system that should be put on trial and found guilty.

Defending Your Enemies: Your Commitment to Liberty Defined by Thomas Paine

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he a establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." - Thomas Paine

Jessie Sansone: Injustice is Served

In a bizarre way, recent events on the Canadian political landscape may well be the greatest agent for change in decades.

It would seem unlikely that anything could surpass the uproar created by Public Safety Minister Vic Toews’ Bill C-30.The Bill. Mr. Toews attempt to bring Orwellian utopia to your home computer, otherwise known by the paranoia inducing title “Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act” caused such a public outcry that the dogmatic Harper government was forced to retreat and bring the Bill back to a Parliamentary committee for amendments. In other words, the current government has come the closest it has ever done to doing the unthinkable: admitting that they were wrong in matters of potential legislation.

In reaction to this, the now infamous “Vikileaks30” Twitter account emerged, and with it, sordid details of Mr. Toews rather ugly but also rather dated divorce came out. Originally blamed by the Conservatives for its existence on the NDP, Liberal Leader (can we drop “interim” finally?) Bob Rae later had to admit that he account was the creation of a Liberal staffer. This led to the pony-show round of apologies from all parties.

Potentially towering over both these events  of course is the “robocall” scandal in which hundreds of phone calls were made to voters just ahead of last spring’s election advising them that their polling place had changed. Some of these calls were apparently made by an automatic dialing system, and misdirected many voters to the incorrect polling stations. Given that the targets were known Liberals, voter suppression, and potential outright election fraud seem to be looming over the Conservatives. Vikileaks30 was ugly; the legislation that provoked it is a horrendous expansion of unchecked power in the hands of non-elected officials. But if the allegations of fraud prove true, the other events may pale in comparison. The uproar over a fraudulent election will be a roar over in comparison to the current one regarding the events around Bill C-30.

But perhaps the greatest individual injustice, and the one that we should all share the greatest common concern over, didn’t happen in Ottawa, and wasn’t committed by an elected representative that needs to account for his actions on a daily basis to other elected members as well as the combined media. It happened in the Kitchener-Waterloo area, and under a circumstance that could possibly be seen in any community.

26 year-old Jessie Sansone, was arrested at his children's school, strip searched, held by police, and told he was being charged with illegal possession of a firearm after his four-year-old daughter drew a picture of a gun in school, claiming that her father shot monsters and bad guys with it. After hours spent searching the home—and producing a plastic toy that shoots balls and can likely be purchased at any toy store, Wal-Mart or even SuperStore to name a few—Mr. Sansone was released by police, who, instead of offering an apology, started an investigation, ostensibly on the basis that this was a “child safety issue” according to Chief Matt Torigian. Of course it is. Much like Toews Bill C-30, the easiest way to justify expansion of state power is to claim you are “protecting the children.” A Conservative minister declared as much by throwing down the gauntlet to “either stand with us or with the child pornographers.” Given their retreat on the legislation, it appears that the government is edging towards the child pornographer side. Or, perhaps they have just had a small tussle with public accountability and that in and of itself has forced them to backtrack.

It appears Mr. Sansone won’t be offered the same level of common sense or dignity. Just the opposite so it seems:  Chief Torigian’s behaviour is mild in comparison to Alison Scott, executive director of Family and Child Services for the Waterloo Region. Not only is Ms. Scott unapologetic for her agency “for fulfilling our mandated responsibility,” unlike the police who have had the sense to drop all charges and review their own actions, Ms. Scott’s agency is continuing its “open investigation” into the matter.

With the exception of periods when Canada faced Quebec sovereignty issues, Canadians show a rather passionless attitude toward political events. Government grows, government takes away, Canadians shrug their shoulder and while a few may raise a hand in protest, generally the indifference that is all too common prevails.

It should be pointed out that Bill C-30 would have expanded the powers of a completely unelected body of government—the police—and that body would have little to nothing to answer for in a public forum. In other words, the people who hire them, who they are supposedly serving, have no way of knowing what their money is spent on, nor can they call them into account for any misdeeds. Ms. Scott’s behaviour typifies this; not only will an unelected official not hold her own department accountable, in an effort to justify their incompetence, they will continue to “openly investigate” a man guilty of doing nothing but fathering a child who drew a picture in school. She will help herself to the funds supplied by Mr. Sansone and others from her district to expand the witch hunt against them as she sees fit. This is a woman not to be stopped by something as trivial as a few facts.

The public outcry over Toews’ intrusive legislation was a step in the right direction. That Canadians felt enough anger to demand some accountability from an elected official was encouraging. But it was only a small step. Until we realize that every branch and level of government serves us—including school boards and police—and we start to demand accountability from them all, rather than allow them to infringe and limit us, we will continue to lose more and more freedom to them. Mr. Sansone’s ordeal should drive home to each of us how easily the state can steal liberty, and how little we can do about it.

But perhaps that will be the Harper government’s greatest legacy. As they seek to limit liberty, or engage in scandalous behaviour, they may well show that the real enemy we need to fight is not our elected or unelected officials; rather, it has been the collective apathy we have shown toward them that has cost us the freedoms we are supposed to enjoy.