Would Gabriel Wortman have been stopped much earlier, if police had a less casual moral attitude to domestic violence ?

Defund SIRT and use the money for ROYAL COMMISSION on why police more violent against their kids & spouses and yet less likely to be charged by fellow cops 

Members of police forces may not have started life with a casual attitude to violence in general and domestic violence in particular but it may be that their job’s perks, soon hardwires their brain cells that way.

Legally, the police (along with soldiers and prison guards) are granted the very rare privilege to use violence in their daily job and yet, generally, not go to jail for doing so.

The police are society’s legal “enforcers” and frequently, society’s prosecutor, judge and jury  as well. For most things they investigate never proceeds to formal public trial and are decided - on the spot - by the copper on the beat.

And so gradually, this attitude may transfer to their home lives, where they “lay down the law”, using the methods they have come to know best.

Evidence is clear : they are both MORE likely than the general public to commit domestic violence and LESS likely to be charged.

Thus the police, twice-over, develop a casual attitude personal attitude to domestic violence, the rulebook be damned.

What a PUBLIC INQUIRY might choose to investigate (don’t hold your breath) is whether this casual personal attitude to domestic violence coloured how the RCMP (& maybe HRM police ?) reacted/ didn’t react to the complaints re Gabriel Wortman for alleged acts of domestic violence against his common law partner Lisa Banfield.

More likely, only steadily mounting public pressure, particularly from those so crucial ‘female swing voters‘, will have to build before some election-hungry party promises - and then delivers : quel surprise ! - a Royal Commission on the issue.

Keep on pegging away fellow public employers : at some point our public employees might actually obey you...