AMBIGUOUS CONCERNS

I find absurd Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts' comments that "the rights of
the criminals are first and foremost. And the safety of the general
public, of course, is always secondary."

They completely miss the issue at play in this judgment -- which is
that there was no good reason to conduct this particular search by
rushing into the house with a battering ram and loaded weapons drawn,
without knocking and announcing first.

By doing so, the Surrey RCMP unnecessarily endangered the safety of
the accused and anyone else in the house.

Given this "standard practice" of entering suspected marijuana
grow-ops, there's a real concern this will continue to result in
wrongful shootings of both criminals and innocent civilians

I believe Madam Justice Bruce was sending the message that this
"standard practice" is dangerous and police should either change the
practice or continue to watch criminals walk free out of the courtroom's door.

The issue here is: Do the safety concerns expressed by Surrey RCMP in
its "standard practice" outweigh the accidental and wrongful Surrey
RCMP shootings that are the direct result of this "standard practice?"

Public-safety concerns outweigh Surrey RCMP's ambiguous concerns for
its members' safety.

Clinton Bauman,

Vancouver