NIX THE GIMMICKS

Cop Shooter Deserves Some Serious Punishment

The case of Daniell Anderson, who tried to kill a cop during a drug
raid on Jubilee Avenue, is a perfect example of why mandatory minimum
sentences are necessary.

Anderson was found guilty of attempted murder this week by Queen's
Bench Justice Doug Abra after he shot Const. Don Murray in the stomach
with a Remington 12-gauge pistol-grip pump-action shotgun on Dec. 7,
2006.

Abra concluded there was no way Anderson shot police in self-defence
because he was not under attack or under threat.

Barring any success in Anderson's silly motion that he had his charter
rights violated because he was allegedly roughed up by cops after the
attempted murder, Anderson faces a minimum four years in prison.

Under the criminal code, that's the mandatory minimum sentence the
court must give Anderson for this crime. There's no wiggle room, no
arguments to be made that he's really "a good boy" who "just made a
mistake" and deserves leniency.

Actually, if all he got was the four-year minimum, that would be
leniency.

But the minimum at least insulates the public from some marshmallow
judge or appellate court who may decree that this guy should do less
than four years.

It ensures this scumbag will not get, for example, a conditional
sentence, or house arrest.

Believe me, I've seen judges give out house arrest to people who have
killed or maimed where there was no mandatory minimum sentence in place.

Fortunately, conditional sentences are only available for sentences of
up to two years less a day.

Which means it's impossible for Anderson to get house arrest, as long
as the guilty verdict sticks.

LEGAL TRICK

And I believe it will. The motion by Anderson's lawyer that the court
should set aside the guilty verdict because police allegedly used
excessive force with Anderson is a gimmick.

It's a little legal trick that allows Anderson to be home for
Christmas.

Anderson's lawyer is arguing the alleged excessive force brought the
administration of justice into disrepute.

I think the defence lawyer's motion itself brings the administration
of justice into disrepute and should be tossed immediately.

Which leaves us with sentencing.

We know there's a mandatory minimum of four years for attempted
murder. We also know there's a maximum sentence: life.

So the judge has a pretty broad spectrum to work with, tempered by
case law and precedence.

I doubt Anderson will get the maximum of life.

But justice couldn't possibly be served if Anderson got anything less
than 15 years for the attempted murder offence.

It's imperative our courts ensure adequate weight is given to the
sentencing principles of deterrence and denunciation.

And it's critical a message is sent to criminals who are increasingly
attacking police officers that our justice system simply won't stand
for this onslaught against cops.

The sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the crime and
Anderson must get a very stiff penitentiary term.

This criminal needs to be put away for a very long time.