Firefighters union calls for public release of video in racism probe
Advertisement
Read this article for free:
or
Already have an account? Log in here »
To continue reading, please subscribe:
Monthly Digital Subscription
$19 $0 for the first 4 weeks*
- Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
- Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
- Access News Break, our award-winning app
- Play interactive puzzles
*No charge for 4 weeks then billed as $19 every four weeks (new subscribers and qualified returning subscribers only). Cancel anytime.
Read unlimited articles for free today:
or
Already have an account? Log in here »
Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 23/02/2021 (1304 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.
The United Fire Fighters of Winnipeg is demanding the release of video footage from a critical-care call in the North End last fall that sparked allegations of racism and a third-party investigation.
“It is clear that there is no longer a confidentiality issue, and as such, the video from the forward and rear-facing ambulance cameras needs to be released immediately,” the union said in a written statement Wednesday morning, urging Mayor Brian Bowman to make the information public.
“This time-stamped video evidence will show that the firefighters in question did not fail to provide proper medical care, nor did they cause any delay in the patient’s transport to hospital.”
The video footage from Oct. 7, 2020, is reportedly roughly four minutes in length. Winnipeg Fire Paramedic Service crews were dispatched after a 23-year-old Indigenous woman had stabbed herself in the throat.
Following an argument at the scene, a paramedic accused two firefighters of failing to provide proper medical care to the patient and delaying transportation to hospital. The City of Winnipeg subsequently hired a third-party investigator to review the incident.
The consultant determined “implicit racial bias” against the patient and “racial animus” against the paramedic (a person of colour) likely impacted the actions of firefighters that night. The investigator’s final report into the matter also concluded members of the firefighter crew conspired to lie in an effort to obstruct the probe.
Based on video evidence and witness testimony, the investigator said the patient’s transportation to the hospital was delayed by two minutes, and repeated requests for help from a paramedic were ignored by firefighters. The video was summarized in a two-page section of the final report.
The UFFW has repeatedly pushed back against those findings, vowing to defend its members throughout the city’s disciplinary process.
In the statement Wednesday, the UFFW said its efforts have been hindered by the fact additional video footage from the scene has been unavailable. Some cameras were not working and another was blocked by a paramedic jacket.
“The UFFW has always aggressively supported diversity and inclusiveness initiatives within the department and in the community. We cannot single-handedly resolve this global issue but remain absolutely committed to anti-racism solutions,” the local firefighters union said.
“This incident is not an issue of racism, nor does it represent our long-standing commitment to fighting intolerance and promoting diversity within the fire service. Rather, this is fallout from a long-standing and well-reported conflict between ambulance paramedics and firefighters.”
In a written response, Bowman said he would like to see UFFW president Alex Forrest publicly acknowledge the existence of systemic racism in the department. (The mayor had previously called upon the union leader to do so.)
Bowman also said he supports the release of “as much information” about the 2020 incident as possible “at the appropriate time.”
“What Mr. Forrest is requesting involves addressing legal and privacy protections afforded to his members, the patient, as well as other city unions and employees. An appropriate starting point for Mr. Forrest would be providing the written, legal consents of his members to release all of their information related to this matter,” Bowman said.
“Until that time, there is a confidential hearing process underway which is set out in the collective bargaining agreement. The mayor encourages Mr. Forrest to respect the process that was collectively bargained.”
The Manitoba Government and General Employees’ Union, which represents Winnipeg paramedics, also issued a statement in response to the UFFW demand.
“The independent third-party investigation determined, based on the evidence, that there was a delay in transport time, and an attempt to collude and cover up the events of that night. We’ll let the report speak for itself,” MGEU president Michelle Gawronsky said.
“The need for an unbiased investigation of the facts is exactly why MGEU called for an investigation by an independent third party to be done in the first place.”
ryan.thorpe@freepress.mb.ca
Twitter: @rk_thorpe
Ryan Thorpe
Reporter
Ryan Thorpe likes the pace of daily news, the feeling of a broadsheet in his hands and the stress of never-ending deadlines hanging over his head.
Our newsroom depends on a growing audience of readers to power our journalism. If you are not a paid reader, please consider becoming a subscriber.
Our newsroom depends on its audience of readers to power our journalism. Thank you for your support.
Summary of Video Evidence
The video the UFFW is demanding be released was summarized in a two-page section of the final report. Here is that summary:
Video evidence was reviewed from the cameras on the front and the rear of the ambulance; there was no audio to accompany the visual images. There was no video footage frorn inside the ambulance as a jacket obstructs the view. The front-facing video was reversed with the driver’s side of the vehicle appearing on the right in the video.
The ambulance cameras were active by 4:09 a.m. At approximately 4:10 a.m. the ambulance arrived at a station, then by 4:10:25 began to leave the station again; flashing red lights were visible on the video footage.
The video the UFFW is demanding be released was summarized in a two-page section of the final report. Here is that summary:
Video evidence was reviewed from the cameras on the front and the rear of the ambulance; there was no audio to accompany the visual images. There was no video footage frorn inside the ambulance as a jacket obstructs the view. The front-facing video was reversed with the driver’s side of the vehicle appearing on the right in the video.
The ambulance cameras were active by 4:09 a.m. At approximately 4:10 a.m. the ambulance arrived at a station, then by 4:10:25 began to leave the station again; flashing red lights were visible on the video footage.
The ambulance arrived at the scene and pulled up roughly parallel to a WPS vehicle which can be seen in part from front-facing camera; the cruiser was on the driver’s side of the ambulance. The ambulance came to a complete stop at 4:15:25 a.m.
Upon arrival of the ambulance, the rescue unit apparatus is seen to be present, with the front of the apparatus facing the ambulance. All crew members of the rescue unit were still inside the vehicle at the time the ambulance arrived.
At the rear of the ambulance, Witness 6 was first seen at 4:15:43, removing the stretcher from the ambulance. Witness 6 was observed to be speaking with someone off-camera and within a few seconds the Complainant was first observed to arrive at the rear of the ambulance from the same direction that Witness 6 was facing. No one else was present at that time and it is a reasonable assumption to make that the person she had been speaking to off-camera was the Complainant. The Complainant first appeared on camera, coming from the side of the ambulance closest to the patient, at 4:15:48.
The first person to step off the rescue unit apparatus was the Respondent, who did so at 4:15:54 a.m. The Respondent disappeared from the front-facing view as he walked between the WFPS ambulance and the WPS vehicle at 4:16:02 a.m., approaching the patient.
At 4:15:59 a.m., the remaining three firefighters left the truck. The second person to leave the truck was also wearing complete fire gear including a jacket (Witness 1), and the last two persons were wearing only fire-retardant pants with suspenders visible (Witness 2 and Witness 3). No crew member from the rescue unit was carrying any bags or other equipment when leaving the apparatus.
One of the firefighters in shirtsleeves was wearing a respirator and gloves as he exited the rescue unit (Witness 3), but was not wearing protective eyewear (neither over his eyes or on top of his head) at the time the patient was loaded into the ambulance.
At 4:17:34, the patient appears in the rear-camera footage on a stretcher. The patient was loaded into the ambulance by Witness 3 with the Complainant at her head. When being loaded into the ambulance, the patient was holding a towel in place over the wound.
Witness 3 shut the rear passenger-side door of the ambulance at 4:18:01. Upon closing the door, Witness 3 was seen on the rear-facing camera to begin removing one glove, but stops before doing so, then shook his head in the negative at 4:18:09, as he was facing Witness 2 (in shirtsleeves with a tattoo on his arm). Witness 3 was observed to walk away from the back of the ambulance at 4:18:10 and reappeared on the front camera walking slowly to the apparatus; he entered the apparatus at 4:18:33.
The Respondent was visible at the rear of the ambulance wearing his respirator, gloves and protective eyewear as the patient is loaded into the vehicle and remained behind the ambulance until 4:18:31 a.m., when he departed the rear of the ambulance and returned to the apparatus, then appeared on the front video at 4:18:39 a.m., and arrived at the fire truck at 4:18:49 a.m. Witness 2 arrived at the rescue apparatus at 4:18:54 a.m.
The firefighters were seen standing behind the door of the rescue apparatus (one person appearing to be inside the apparatus) until 4:19:10 a.m.
Witness 1 remained visible on the rear camera until 4:19:10, when he shut the remaining rear door and disappeared from the view of the rear camera immediately thereafter.
The Respondent was seen at the open door to the rescue apparatus until 4:19:29 a.m. when he began to walk back towards the ambulance putting his respirator back on as he did so; he disappeared from view of the front-facing camera at 4:19:38 a.m.
At 4:20:01 a.m., the ambulance left the scene with lights on.
The total delay from the time the patient was loaded into the vehicle and the first rear door was shut to departure of the ambulance was two (2) minutes
Ryan Thorpe
Reporter
Ryan Thorpe likes the pace of daily news, the feeling of a broadsheet in his hands and the stress of never-ending deadlines hanging over his head.
Our newsroom depends on a growing audience of readers to power our journalism. If you are not a paid reader, please consider becoming a subscriber.
Our newsroom depends on its audience of readers to power our journalism. Thank you for your support.
Related Articles
Winnipeg Fire Paramedic Service chief announces retirement
Advertisement Advertise With Us
Advertisement Advertise With Us
History
Updated on Wednesday, February 24, 2021 4:49 PM CST: Adds summary of video from report.
