Nearly five months after rioters smashed windows, looted shops and set cars on fire, the Vancouver police say they have recommended 163 charges to be laid against 60 people allegedly involved in June's Stanley Cup final riots.
Ya gotta admire Jim Chu. He's in a completely different league than Pat Fogherty. Jim Chu is intelligent but he also has heart. He's a media magician but more importantly I really believe he cares. He cares about his job, he cares about the people he serves and he cares about the public interest. He is what we would describe as a good cop. They do exist and they restore our faith in the system.
Regardless of Mr. Chu's character, you gotta wonder why it takes five months to bring charges against brazen robbers who were witnessed by dozens of bystanders. In the England riots, the thieves appeared before magistrates who worked around the clock and were then quickly marched off to jail. The suspects included middle-class people, students, civil servants, etc. Harsh? Well, robbery IS a criminal offense in most civilized societies, and criminals normally spend time in jail. Except maybe in Canada. But then, as this blog testifies, serious crime in Canada is a growth industry.
ReplyDeleteTrue there was a large delay in charges and the VPD obviously caved in to public pressure which in my opinion was a good thing. The England riots were the other extreme. The looting was senseless but the officers who murdered that suspect that triggered those riots and lied about the suspect shooting at the police never will be charged. That is an injustice in the other extreme.
ReplyDeleteBetter late than never? It should prove instructive as to what kind of sentence arson brings....
ReplyDeleteThe London police didn't really "lie." Their investigative commission issued an immediate report that said they "believed" the suspect shot first, since one officer had a bullet lodged in his radio. Then the commission's ballistics test confirmed that only the cops fired, and that finding was announced to the public 5 days later. The suspect, a hardcore gangster, was armed and on his way to carry out a revenge killing.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, the vast majority of the jailed looters weren't motivated by the shooting. They confirmed afterward they were motivated by the desire to acquire luxury merchandise without having to pay for it.
The initial demonstration over the death of the gangster did have the sympathy of the authorities and was staged without interference. The police began arrests only after local businesses, who were being violently attacked, pressured them to do so.
But they did lie. They said the suspect shot at the police and hit one officer in the chest which hit his police radio. Then they fired on the suspect and shot him dead. Only he hadn’t shot at them. That’s kind of hard to misinterpret. It reeks of a b rated crime movie when the dirty cop places a gun on the unarmed suspect he just shot. The evidence would clearly imply the police shot their own radio to make it look like the suspect had fired upon them warranting the use of lethal force. The evidence clearly implies that the police maliciously falsified the evidence to support their lie. Nothing being said or done about that is truly tragic.
ReplyDelete