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.