Pubdate: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 Source: Winnipeg Sun (CN MB) Copyright: 2008 Canoe Limited Partnership Contact: http://www.winnipegsun.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/503 Author: Joyanne Pursaga Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/raids.htm (Drug Raids) WE CAN'T IGNORE THE 'GREY' AREAS OF CRIME It should surprise no one that the case of Daniell Ian Anderson, the young Winnipeg man found guilty this week of shooting two police officers, has triggered a landslide of public debate. There's no shortage of views about the violent night that left three police officers wounded. On Wednesday, Anderson was found guilty of attempting to murder one police officer and shooting with the intent to injure the second on Dec. 7, 2006. A bullet fired by police ricocheted off a wall to hit the third cop. Police were executing a drug warrant when Anderson fired at them through the bathroom door of his Jubilee Avenue home. But on the same day he was found guilty of these crimes, Anderson was released back into the community, pending an appeal. He alleges police used excessive force to arrest him, violating his Constitutional rights. The accusation has so far prevented his formal conviction and sentencing. The threat that the guilty verdicts could be soon quashed through this appeal sparked some public outrage while others vented their anger toward police and the justice system. First of all, this type of Constitutional challenge should not have the power to spare a man from serving a lengthy jail sentence after he's been found guilty of shooting police officers. The public and our police force shouldn't be left to fend for themselves against a criminal a judge has found guilty of attempting to kill someone, no matter what happened after the shots were fired. Yet many people seem to miss the fact that whether Anderson was beaten or not can't be ignored either. The shooter accuses police of taking turns punching him in the head as they dragged him to a police cruiser following the shootout. Anderson also claimed in court that one officer even put a gun to his head and threatened to shoot him. Police told the court they repeatedly punched Anderson but only in an attempt to subdue him as he resisted arrest. True, the details of this case aside from the shooter's allegations against police were guaranteed to trigger public outrage, no matter what the verdict. Anderson's weak story, based primarily on a claim he mistook police for home invaders, likely didn't help him win much sympathy either. Whatever police actions came after Anderson's crimes don't excuse his violent behaviour but the court is also required to take accusations of police violence seriously. SHOOT BACK That fact seems to be lost as many Winnipeggers seem committed to choosing one side or the other in this case, as though any police officer could either do no wrong or do no right. Those on the law enforcement side were correct to assert that in the line of fire, Anderson is lucky police did not shoot back and seriously wound him. But why must so many people assume there is a black-and-white distinction between types of violence that completely excuses some alleged instances while condemning others? The police who bravely endured the horrors of that December gunfight were obviously justified if they hit Anderson only as much as was needed to subdue and contain him, as they stated in court. I doubt anyone would prefer police be forced to back off from future gun-firing assailants at risk of being punished for their efforts or allowing criminals to escape. HIGHER STANDARD But our laws also must respect everyone's rights and condemn every form of violence. The shooting of a police officer is an especially heinous crime because it shows neither respect for human life nor for those who vow to protect it. And no violation of rights lessens the magnitude of that crime. But the court must also consider allegations of police violence when they are raised. For better or worse, police officers must be held to a high standard and made to uphold the laws they expect others to live by. In a country where corporal punishment runs contrary to the law, this is a key part of our justice system. Some facts in the Anderson case are black and white: If someone is found guilty of attempting to kill a police officer, they should do serious time in jail. But if our society and justice system are to be effective, that punishment must be doled out in a court of law through a fair legal process. And the grey areas of a serious crime also need to be explored. - --- MAP posted-by: Larry Seguin