Pubdate: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 Source: Winnipeg Free Press (CN MB) Copyright: 2007 Winnipeg Free Press Contact: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/502 Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/raids.htm (Drug Raids) AN APOLOGY REQUIRED WINNIPEG police officers were understandably dismayed that the man accused of shooting the officers in December has been released on bail, the judge having been convinced Daniell Anderson was neither a risk to the community or of fleeing. Their abusive comments, however, directed toward the judge are unacceptable and the officers must formally apologize to Court of Queen's Bench Justice Karen Simonsen. The apology should make clear that the Winnipeg Police Service supports the justice system and its administration. Anything short of an apology would leave the impression that at least some of the police service's officers question the credibility of the justice system. The police, like the prosecutors and judges, are servants of the system. The system is not perfect and judges make errors. Ms. Simonsen last week, having heard details in private not available to the public, concluded the community's confidence in the justice system would not suffer as a result of Mr. Anderson's release; an earlier judge felt differently and refused him bail. Officers were left with a keen sense that Mr. Anderson's rights trumped those of the three colleagues shot when they stormed his house, looking for drugs. A search found, according to evidence, marijuana and Percocet. Mr. Anderson was charged with attempted murder and drug offences, including possessing for trafficking. This spring, he pled guilty to that charge -- in a deal to have drug charges against his family dropped -- and was sentenced to time already served in custody. When Ms. Simonsen granted him bail, he went home smiling, igniting the fury in the courtroom last week. One officer was heard to say someone -- Daniell Anderson? -- should have been killed, while the mutterings of others called into disrepute the justice system. Said in the heat of the moment, they were nonetheless alarming remarks. They raise the possibility that officers believe Mr. Anderson does not deserve protection under the law and that the courts, the jurists, the legal system is either ill-equipped or unwilling to protect the community and to weigh the rights of the accused against those of victims and citizens. Citizens are free to hold such opinions, but the officers' public outbursts crossed into incitement. That is a dangerous route for those who swear to uphold the law, and to whom every citizen must look for protection. Mr. Anderson, out of jail, is like any other citizen now, in that fact. He, like all individuals, must count on the protection of the police service, if in need. The officer who publicly declared that someone should have been killed needs to be asked what he meant by it, and whether his sentiments cloud his ability to perform his duties. Most immediately, Ms. Simonsen must know she has the respect of the officers and the police service, and that requires an apology. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom