Belleville Police asks for public’s opinion on armoured vehicle in survey with leading questions

Open Council commentary

The results of the survey have not been published and have been requested from the Belleville Police Services Board.

Open Council analysis

Introduction

Assessment: Biased/leading. “Enhance tactical response,” “designed with a focus on agility and protection,” and “adoption … speaks to its role” all frame the vehicle positively. Linking to the manufacturer also nudges perceptions. This undercuts neutrality and may affect later answers.
Fix: Provide neutral context (what the vehicle is, potential uses, basic cost range, oversight/policy guardrails) and link to images hosted by you, plus a short “pros/cons” summary.

Q1 When you first see this type of vehicle, what is your impression? (required, single choice)

• Positive – looks like a valuable tool for emergencies
• Neutral – not sure yet
• Negative – looks intimidating

Assessment: Biased/leading question. The options are “loaded.” They force a specific reason onto an emotion. A respondent might have a Positive impression because they think it looks technically impressive, not necessarily because it’s a “valuable tool.” They might have a Negative impression because of the cost, not because it “looks intimidating.” To improve, use a standard 5-point scale (e.g., Very Positive to Very Negative), then ask why in a follow-up if necessary.

Q2 What kinds of situations do you believe this vehicle should be used for in our community? (Multiple choice)

• Emergency rescue
• High-risk calls where officer and public safety are at risk
• Community events and demonstrations
• Search and rescue in remote or rural areas
• Assisting neighbouring police services (e.g., Kingston Police Service, OPP, other regional partners) during major incidents

Assessment: Overbroad/overlapping (“Emergency rescue” vs “High-risk calls”); ambiguous (“demonstrations” could mean parades or protests); local feasibility unclear (“remote or rural areas”); lacks “Other,” “Unsure,” and “None.”
Fix: Clarify scenarios, avoid overlap, define terms, and add catch-alls. Missing “none of the above”.

Q3 Some people worry that vehicles like this look militarized or suggest police are preparing for war. How concerned are you about this perception (single choice)

• Very concerned
• Somewhat concerned
• Neither concerned nor unconcerned
• Somewhat unconcerned
• Very unconcerned

Assessment: Generally good: clear concept, balanced 5-point scale with midpoint. The introductory phrase “Some people worry…” is a leading technique framing the question slightly.
Fix (optional): “How concerned, if at all, are you about the vehicle contributing to a militarized police appearance?”

Q4 In your opinion, how important is it to balance investment in specialized equipment with other community priorities (e.g., homelessness, mental health supports, theft prevention)? (single choice)

• Somewhat important
• Extremely important
• Not important

Assessment: Unbalanced scale (missing “slightly,” “very,” “neither”), non-standard ordering.
Fix: Use a standard 5-point importance scale:

• Not at all important
• Slightly important
• Moderately important
• Very important
• Extremely important
  (+ “Prefer not to answer”)

Q5 When thinking about the cost of such a vehicle, what matters most to you? (multiple choice)

• Taxpayer affordability
• Long-term maintenance costs
• Vehicle sustainability (e.g., fuel-efficient, electric, environmentally friendly)
• Ability to save lives and protect the community
• Funding sources
• Overall ability for police to effectively do their job and respond to high risk situations

Assessment: Flawed Precision (Mixed Categories). The options mix strictly financial costs (taxpayer affordability, maintenance) with benefits or values (ability to save lives, sustainability).

Q6 What information would help you feel confident about the appropriate use of this vehicle? (multiple choice)

• Clear policies on when and how it can be used
• Community demonstrations or open houses where residents can see the vehicle and its uses firsthand
• Annual public reporting on how often and for what purpose it was used
• Case studies or examples showing where similar vehicles have saved lives in other communities
• Integration into broader community safety initiatives

Assessment:  Good question, but missing an option for those who will never feel confident (e.g., “Nothing would change my mind / Unsure / Other.”).

Q7 Police frequently respond to high-risk situations that help protect the community and improve public safety. Based on this, how important do you feel it is for the Service to have a specialized community rescue vehicle? (rating out of 5)

Assessment: Not neutral. This is a textbook leading question. It states a premise that demands agreement (“Police… protect the community”) immediately before asking the question. It pressures the respondent to rate it as “important” to be consistent with the premise.

Q8 Overall, do you support the police service pursuing this vehicle for community rescue and emergency response? (single choice)

• Strongly support – I believe this vehicle is needed and should be acquired as soon as possible
• Support with conditions – I would support it if there is clear accountability on when and how it is used
• Support with conditions – I would support it if costs are reasonable and funding sources are transparent
• Neutral / Undecided – I need more information before forming an opinion
• Oppose – I do not believe this vehicle is necessary for our community

Assessment: The “Single Choice” format breaks here because the options are not mutually exclusive.

• What if a resident supports it ONLY if both accountability AND reasonable costs are met? They cannot accurately answer this with a single choice.
• The options are unbalanced: there are three “Support” nuanced options, but only one blunt “Oppose” option.