“No reason to think Debra’s indigenous background played any role in police decisions in this case, it must be acknowledged that indigenous women and girls are vulnerable to stereotypes” – Justice Renee Pommerance
An example of the somewhat twisting crooked line thought process of Justice Renee Pommerance of the Ontario Superior Court, who was recently presiding over the court case of Regina versus Doering. This case was either another misconduct case brought against a police officer– another example of the police victimizing an indigenous woman–or was it a gross miscarriage of justice?
In this London Ontario court case, Justice Renee Pommerance, at the end of the trial found Constable Nicholas Doering guilty: of one count of criminal negligence causing death; and one count of failing to provide the necessities of life.
The case involved the death of 39 year old Debra Chrisjohn of the Oneida of the Thames First Nation and occurred on September 7, 2016. Her cause of death was cardiac arrest– a likely and predictable result of prolonged methamphetamine use. This happened while she was last in the custody of the Ontario Provincial Police.
Constable Doering is an officer with the London City Police, who turned over his custody of Debra Chrisjohn, to the Ontario Provincial Police and it is while in the latter’s custody that Ms. Chrisjohn eventually died.
Cst Doering, however, was the one charged. This wrinkling fact, one that doesn’t seem to flow from any normal victim timeline. In trying to uncover and assign responsibility, this alone was a significant departure from what one would normally expect and raised some questions at the logic that must have been in play.
This aside, the highlight for the television and print news attending the trial was that the victim, Chrisjohn, was an “indigenous woman”. In the current times an indigenous person as a victim is an inescapable inference for the media implying, even if not stated, that there was a possibility of overt racism and wrong-doing on the part of the police.
Justice Pommerance would in her summation find nothing racist in the actions of the police officer; but then seemingly still drew a line of guilt to the officer hinged on the fact that the victim was a drug user and this combined with being indigenous made her therefore more open to being stereotyped. It is ok to scratch your head at this point.
Maybe more telling was the fact that the indigenous were protesting and drumming outside the courtroom throughout the trial, only there one would have to assume serving to imply racism, regardless of the facts that were being outlined inside the courtroom. The continuing photo and television coverage of the case never failed to show the indigenous protests.
This should have been seen as the first sign that this trial had the potential to enter into the political social atmosphere where the whims of a few would or could override common sense.
This set of circumstances started out like many calls during the normal life and routine of uniform police officers.
Constable Doering responded, along with other police officers and three paramedics, to several calls of a woman wandering into traffic and trying to force her way into vehicles. She was described as being “agitated”, “high on drugs trying to get into her van with her and her kids..yelling profanities..throwing herself against the car” according to the one caller.
When the police arrived at the scene, the situation had escalated to the point that Ms. Chrisjohn was now being physically restrained and held down on the ground by a member of the public.
Cst Doering was the officer who eventually stepped up to take responsibility for her; arrested her, and put her in the back of the police vehicle. Checks of her legal status showed that she was also wanted on a warrant for “breach of recognizance”. The warrant was held by the Ontario Provincial Police at a nearby detachment.
At the time she was put into the vehicle she was described as being “alert” and “conscious” and was responding to the police demands, talking and moving about.
Ms. Chrisjohn at the time of the call was quickly recognized by some of the attending officers as having been taken into custody the day before. She had a history with the police and was known to be a user of methamphetamine. In fact the day before the police had also dealt with her over a suspected overdose and she had been hospitalized. The warrant was not executed at that time as the police had to wait for a medical clearance from the hospital.
At the point of this latest arrest, Ms. Chrisjohn was observed by a paramedic but only through the cruiser window, at which point they offered up the opinion that it would be pointless to try and take her vital signs in this agitated state, that her vital signs would be skewed if in fact she was on methamphetamine. Her outward appearance was consistent with the use of “meth”.
There is an interesting sidebar with regard to the three paramedics who attended. In their reports they had indicated that Constable Doering turned down their offer of examination. However, under cross-examination by the defence, it was learned that they had not actually offered their examination, and it wasn’t turned down by Cst Doering. The implication was of course that the paramedics wrote their reports to to cover their own backsides.
Because of Ms. Chrisjohn outstanding warrant, Cst Doering made arrangements to meet an OPP officer at a local Tim Horton’s to turn over the prisoner to them.
So far there is nothing unusual in this story. This scene or one like it gets played out hundreds of times throughout this country on an almost daily basis.
But it is in the next 45 minutes, during the transport of Ms. Chrisjohn; that the Justice feels the officer failed in his duties.
Ms. Chrisjohn, according to Cst. Doering, goes from being abusive and a little resistant; sitting straight up and talking, but at some point slumps over and is “moaning” and “shaking”.
It was during this same time, that Cst. Doering stops the police cruiser to insure that she has not escaped from the handcuffs, not to check on her well-being.
Constable Doering stated there was no conversation during this time, that he had the window open so it would have been difficult to talk in any event.
In his testimony Cst Doering described the victim as displaying “interludes of angry outbursts…bouts of incoherence…” and “talking about bombs in the back seat of the police car”.
Justice Pommerance in her decision states that Constable Doering did not take into account Ms. Chrisjohn’s “deteriorating condition” and did not seek the “medical” help she couldn’t obtain for herself. She felt that Constable Doering’s “inaction” was “likely” shaped by “preconceived notions he had of drug users”.
The Justice further states that “it is not clear what if any observations would have prompted him to call EHS”. This too is a bit of a confusing statement. If the Constable did not observe anything that warned him of a medical condition, why in fact would he change his opinion?
The meeting took place and the prisoner was turned over to Constable McKillop of the OPP. She frisked her and put her in her police vehicle for the final journey to the cells. She did not call for medical attention at this time, so one can only conclude there was still nothing observed which warranted an immediate medical examination. She did state that she was told by Cst. Doering that she had already been “medically cleared.”
If this is true, Cst Doering made a huge error here and should have been forthright and accurate about her medical history. It would not have changed anything, but it would not have allowed for the perception of callousness that was being portrayed by Crown in the courtroom.
In the beginning, Constable McKillop had in fact been charged as well as Doering, but those charges were later dropped by the Crown who said that there was “no reasonable prospect of conviction”. One has to assume that McKillop being told that the subject had been medically cleared was an exoneration in terms of her personal culpability.
If one takes the Crown viewpoint however, how is that McKillop is not charged? Was she not in a position to also observe the prisoner and therefore have the implied need to observe the condition of the prisoner? It seems patently illogical.
Once the OPP officer had arrived at the lock-up in Elgin, Ontario Ms. Chrisjohn was “limp” and was taken into the cells: “feet dragging as being carried toward the cell, where she is placed on the floor in the recovery position”. There is no evidence that Ms. Chrisjohn is not breathing, it is only after a couple of hours that she is observed to not be responding.
At 7:52 pm she had lost consciousness and was rushed to the hospital. She died later that evening.
Those are the pertinent details and if accurate, this verdict should scare the daylights of each and every street level police officer in Canada.
One should also be reminded that criminal negligence causing death is no small charge. Section 219 of the Criminal Code says that everyone is “criminally negligent who in doing anything, or in omitting to do anything that is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons”. Of course the key words in this case and other criminal negligence cases is how one would define “wanton or reckless disregard”.
As any observer of the news or recent court decisions will attest, the indigenous card is constantly at play in many levels of jurisprudence in this country. This is true especially in each and every circumstance involving the police. We now seem to have another example of the warping of the system to fit a repetitive narrative.
There are seemingly two subjects in this country which cannot be questioned or commented upon in polite political and social circles, or reported on in any meaningful way. Immigration and the Indigenous.
Many, including this writer, historically, always had faith in the court’s courage– the last resort for standing for what was right, not what was politically expedient. Many hope that the final arbiter would judge by the facts, immune to often hysterical special interest groups.
Unfortunately, that seems to be changing, as strong and compelling evidence is mounting of political interference seeping into the court system; whether it be in the naming of judicial appointments, or in the verdicts and findings of cases that have gone to trial. Evidence of Crown offices over-stepping their reasonable expectations of a successful conviction in the interest of political expediency is also growing in parallel.
The Indigenous with their constant cries of indignation and a seemingly endless supply of monies for lawyers, seem to be the blunt leading force of this drive to their particular view of what constitutes justice.
An indigenous involved criminal case is the equivalent of chumming the waters for lawyers who have discovered a new and lucrative speciality. Government policy puts them at an operating advantage. Settlement over trial– not likely to get their hands dirty in the confines of a public courtroom has great appeal to our learned friends.
This case is another glaring example and is similar to the case in Saskatchewan involving Colten Boushie, where no less than the Indigenous Justice Minister at the time, Jody Wilson-Raybould inferred racism with the acquittal of a clearly innocent and victimized Gerald Stanley.
Throughout this trial indigenous protestors were outside the courthouse, holding vigils, drumming, and putting out the usual media talking points of “she was a human being, she had a family, she was a mother, she was a sister, she had friends”, all duly reported and mopped up by the local media. A dozen police officers also attended the trial in support, but their pictures were not taken– the few indigenous who attended were on the front page.
There were the usual persons in attendance which seem to now flock to the side of the Indigenous, the requisite lawyer always now present for the victim family. In this case it was Caitlyn Kaspers, who was a lawyer with Aboriginal legal services and was also acting as legal counsel for the family. She made some curious comments including “that the family recognized and was thankful for was that the justice consistently respected the dignity of Debra”. That the judge was “making sure that all counsel tendered evidence that was as respectful as possible, and the family noticed that”.
Justice Pommerance said that the officer had “pre-conceived notions about drug users and that Cst. Doering held fast to those notions when dealing with Ms. Chrisjohn. Rather than moulding his theory to fit the facts, he seemed to have moulded his facts to fit his theory”.
And here comes the first indication that Justice Pommerance is open to the the race card. Judge Pommerance as noted in the introduction to this blog says: “it must be acknowledged that indigenous women and girls are particularly vulnerable to stereotypes”. Ms. Chrisjohn being indigenous, was more prone to be stereotyped according to the Justice.
So Constable Doering’s offence is that he did not somehow interpret the actions of Ms. Chrisjohn in the back seat of his police vehicle as being a person in need of immediate medical attention.
First lets point out the known effects of methamphetamine.
Negative effects of crystal meth according to the Foundation for a Drug Free World state that those side effects, in the short term are: “disturbed sleep patterns, hyperactivity, nausea, delusions of power, increased aggressiveness and irritability”.
Because they push their body to artificial levels they can also experience a serious “crash” or physical or mental breakdown. The long term damage is “increased heart rate and blood pressure” which could lead to “cardiovascular collapse”
The symptoms observed by the Constable were entirely consistent with the use of crystal meth, including her slumping over and becoming lifeless. There were no signs at the time, nor would there be many that she had entered the state of a cardiac arrest.
When examined later in the cells due to her irregular breathing, they determined that she had now become at risk for cardiac arrest, was alive when they transported her, but died after arriving at the hospital.
“She had been identified as a drug user who was known to London police. This informed the officer’s interpretation of her conduct” said the Judge.
Should history, or observed behaviours not be a factor in an officers actions?
The SIU who conducted the investigation and recommended the charges against Cst. Doering and Cst. McKillop should also be viewed in a critical light.
The SIU came about as a result of race relations that had deteriorated in 1990 in Ontario. It was labelled as the “first of its kind” and was heralded as “all civilian”. (If this sounds familiar to the IIO in the Province of British Columbia– it is)
The Ford government recently stated that the legislation supporting the SIU as the “the most anti-police legislation in history”. Lengthy delays in reports, lack of police insight, and civilian investigators led to criticism as to their capabilities to see beyond the political. Suffice to say there were a lot of growing pains, which continue to this day.
Having slumped over three times during her ride with Cst Doering, he should have interpreted this behaviour to mean that she was in need of medical attention and to not do so meant that he behaved with a “wanton, reckless disregard” for her well being.
There is no evidence that even if she had been examined at the scene, or enroute, that somehow this would have saved her from cardiac arrest.
In the end, Justice Pommerance seems to have listened or was able to draw a line from the police behaviour to the indigenous cause. It seems like she was hearing the drums, there doesn’t seem to be any other possible explanation.
No one should doubt that the Liberal progressives, the same ones which are paradoxically stymying freedom of speech in this country have the political majority. Bias is being shown and bias is being reported without any kind of journalistic conscience. In this atmosphere the message is clear, that there can be no criticism of the indigenous.
Ms. Chrisjohn at the age of 39, personally and as a direct result of her lifestyle brought eleven children and three grandchildren into the world that are now motherless. Her addictions did not cause her death, that was someone else’s fault, the colonial system caused her death, or so the current narrative goes.
Race is not the sole determinant in any court case and certainly was not in this one. Justice Pommerance seemed naive of the day to day vagaries of policing, but to then tie it to race was egregious.
The courts, like police management, the Crown and the media seem to be falling down the Orwellian precipice where justice is secondary to optics and pleasing the vocal few.
To be a uniform cop in this era is indeed a dangerous job, but it is not the criminals who are the threat.
Photo Courtesy of Ashley MacKinnon via Flickr Commons – Some Rights Reserved
3 thoughts on “Hearing Drums…”
An interesting somewhat connected letter published in the Vets Newsletter earlier this week cut and posted as an observance from a different yet similar perspective:
Premium content Contributed Published: Nov 14 at 11:55 a.m. Dr. Chris Milburn: “Through my 20 years working in emergency departments, people have taken a swing at me, I’ve had my shirt ripped off, and I’ve been spit on numerous times.” -ContributedDR. CHRIS MILBURN There is something that I need to speak out on before it’s too late. I was prompted to write this by the high-profile case of the two Halifax special constables who were convicted on Sunday of criminal negligencecausing the death of a man in custody. As an emergency physician, I have a strong connection to this issue, and this court case makes me shudder. The starry-eyed view of medicine is that we spend our time helping appreciative people who are polite and reasonable. In reality, on a very regular basis, we deal with “the criminal element.” Through my 20 years working in emergency departments, people have taken a swing at me, I’ve had my shirt ripped off, and I’ve been spit on numerous times. I have been told “I know where you live” (probably true in our small community) and physically threatened. I have seen criminals spit at, assault and threaten officers and the officers’ families. I am constantly amazed by the grace, compassion, and patience shown to these patients, which often exceeds that from our physicians and hospital staff. I was taught to respect authority and take responsibility for my own actions. As such, I have always had great respect for police and related professions. My respect has only grown during my many interactions with them and jail guards during my work. On at least one occasion, I am quite sure they saved me from grievous harm (or worse) when dealing with a particularly violent criminal. The ED has always dealt with people involved in altercations, stabbings, domestic assaults, etc. This is not new. But the amount of ED resources being taken up by criminals has been on the rise. In the last decades, there has been increased scrutiny on police, and new rules dictate that they havecriminals “medically cleared” before locking them up. Anything bad that happens to a criminal now seems to be the fault of the police, and not the individual under arrest. Police policy here in Nova Scotia now mandates that any person under arrest about whom officers have any medical concern must be brought to emergency for “medical clearance.” How does this policy translate in practice? It is the patients who are too violent, refuse to be honest, and are the most wild-behaving and impaired that have tobe brought to the ED for “clearance.” This means that screaming, spitting, potentially dangerous people are now brought to EDs for doctors, nurses and support staff to deal with. It is much too dangerous for a blood collector or nurse to approach the patient with a needle, as this puts patient and staff at great risk for injury.
-14 -Spit hoods sound cruel and unusual to someone who has never been around one of these patients. But it is not safe, nor reasonable, to expect police, jail guards or hospital staffto be spit on as a normal part of their job. A large percentage of patients who would spit on someone trying to help them are carrying dangerous infectious diseases. I am quite convinced that if we could share video of these interactions, the public would be much more sympathetic to police and hospital staff and their conundrum. Meanwhile, the poor old lady with cancer trying to sleep in the next room is woken up by screaming and profanity. All the waiting room patients are held longer as we deal with police and patients coming through the back door. Police who should be patrolling our streets are stuck in an ED waiting with the patient. So where does this leave me? I make my best judgment after getting as much information as I safely can. I usually sign the form. Off they go to lockup. Over the years, I have done this God knows how many times. So far, nobody I have sent to lockup has died. I don’t say this to pat myself on the back. I’ve mostly been lucky. One day, one of these criminals will have taken a drug, or drug combination, that will kick in later. He will have swallowed a baggie of cocaine that will later explode and cause an overwhelming overdose. One of these times, my luck will run out. Then they will come for me. So I’m speaking out about this now. I don’t think the general public has any idea of how many thousands of these patients/criminals go through our jails and EDs in the run of a year. Given how difficult they are to safely manage and assess, it is amazing to me, and a testament to just how good our system actually is, that such a tiny percentage of them do die while in custody. It’s also important to keep in mind that for every one of these people who dies in custody, many times thatnumber die in flop houses, alleys or at home. Being arrested is the safest thing that could possibly happen to them. Police and jail guards have great power. They must be held to a high standard, and I believe they already are. They should not be held to an impossible standard. We can never create a perfect system that locks up dangerous, intoxicated criminals and protects the public from violent criminals 100 per cent of the time, yet never have one of these criminals die in custody, ever. It’s not possible. In our quest to create this unachievable perfect system, we will use an incredible amount of resources. Use of tax money is a zero-sum game, and for every extra dollar we put to making violent criminals safer, your grandmother waits longer to have her hip replaced. In medicine, we joke that the most accurate diagnostic tool is the “retro-spectroscope.” It is easy to play armchair quarterback. The public can now look at slow-motion video of a police takedown and say what an officer should and shouldn’t have done, whereas the officer had to make the call in real time. They can judge a system based not on the 99.9 per cent of cases that worked out safely, but the 0.1 per cent that ended badly. “Hard cases make bad law,” as they say. We should look at how this system functions overall, consider how often it works well vs. how badly, and make reasonable decisions based on that balance. More knee-jerk policy based on the ridiculous idea that we can create a system where no intoxicated violent person EVER dies in custody just creates unreasonable demands on health care and justice, taxing already strapped systems. Blaming those of us who try so hard to protect the public (and the individual himself) from dangerous criminal behaviour is destructive to our future direction as a society. Maintaining that the criminal himself is primarily responsible makes it more likely that we will see a decrease in this type of behaviour. “First they came for the jail guards, and I said nothing because I was not a jail guard.
-15 -Then they came for the police, and I said nothing because I was not a police officer. Then they came for the doctors, and there was nobody left to speak for me.” Dr. Chris Milburn is an emergency room physician in Sydney. These views are his own.
As always thank you for your insight and writings.
Both postings (this & Whitetailer’s) have rendered me aghast.
It’s taken me a few days to digest and process. It never ceases to amaze me all those ‘wise’ judges who have little wisdom and zero common-sense when applying the law. It’s all gotten too complicated, too complex and out of order! I’m always ranting about the lack of ‘common sense’ in today’s society and even more prevalent in the judicial system. All these ‘wise’ judges have forgotten, or perhaps never possessed, the purpose and intent of common law. I went so far as to write Scheer during his election campaign to suggest he put serious consideration to overhaul our judicial system and its representatives. I get that the general public wants little if anything to do with justice or the cog that moves the system, at least not until the horrors of crime enter their lives and then they are awaken to the bowels of injustices that really transpire. My latest tyrant has do with Crown having the power/authority to present a case based on the ‘likely’ or ‘probability’ of a conviction. Does that power/authority not fly in the face of being Judge, jury and execution? That’s my interpretation. Seems to me that Crown can just flippantly stay charges – or – intent to charge based on their assessment of conviction. What is wrong with this picture? Is the system not supposed to be blind? Hence the Scale of Justice Lady being blindfolded. I’m getting off the original topic, but what I’m trying to say the ‘connection’ is: who the (bleep) decided on a “probable or likely” conviction by charging an Officer with such a ridiculous offence? To me, it would have been a stretch of the imagination and ‘likely’ have not been a conviction – if only I had that level of power and authority!
What I witness here, is the basic insult to all those (Officers/Medical etc) who execute a public duty (I certainly could never do) but are constantly under scrutiny for their decision making and the 20/20 hindsight brigade. And now they have the courts and incompetent judges to deal with. They have to hire their own legal defence and are put in a position of ‘guilty till proven innocent’ scenario. What a sloppy, dysfunctional and discreditable system this country has. Very sad. I don’t believe you could pay me enough to put my life/career/family in jeopardy only to be fret with worry that I too would be ‘charged’ with such ridiculous perceived negligence. It would appear those subjected to the horrors of constantly second guessing their decisions and dodging the persecution bullets (no pun intended) would live a very shorten life under all that stress.
I have to say, I have asked this question out loud several times since reading the original history of the deceased….. 11 kids!! Who the (bleep) is responsible for them and are any of them productive and contributors to society today? Maybe that incompetent judge could follow up and she can convict the deceased for failing to provide for her children!