What a difference an (almost) year makes

This is what I wrote May 18, 2008 in regards to some curious comments by Edmonton City Police:

Speaking of the biased nature in which EPS investigates themselves -- and the media lets them get away with it -- is in this byline to the story: "Police haven't determined who owned the marijuana in officer's crashed BMW" So the next time there's pot found in my car, will EPS perform an investigation to learn how it got there?

Now we see this echoed in this story:
Acting chief stresses competence of officers in fatal shooting

Edmonton's acting police chief offered support Monday for a rookie constable involved in the fatal shooting of a robbery suspect.

"She has just under a year's experience," Norm Lipinski said. "I have full confidence in the training we give at the Edmonton Police service. As far as I'm concerned, whether it's one year or 10 years, they're competent people out there."

The question as to whether or not the cop shooting was justified or not is an open one that is yet to be determined. However, in the same way its inappropriate for police officers with marijuana to get a benefit of the doubt Joe Blow (pun unintended) doesn't, its strange to hear that an EPS officer who shoots somebody gets their competance publicly complimented by the police chief while no such status was offered to, say, the so-far anonymous killer of 23 year old Mitchell Chambers in December 2008. "We'll start interviewing neighbours and hopefully pick up some witnesses, and hopefully come up with a suspect" said Inspector Terry Rocchio at the time. Suspect? Suspect? As far as I'm concerned, whether the killer has been at his current job one year or 10 years, he's a competant person out there and shouldn't be instantly suspected of anything!