1 week Ago By Stan Tataryn
TWO men were stabbed in a random, unprovoked attack at the Polo Park mall last week. The accused was arrested and charged with simple assault, possessing a weapon, and breaching a previous undertaking — and then released on another undertaking. Read this article for free: Already have an account? To continue reading, please subscribe: * TWO men were stabbed in a random, unprovoked attack at the Polo Park mall last week.
The accused was arrested and charged with simple assault, possessing a weapon, and breaching a previous undertaking — and then released on another undertaking. Read unlimited articles for free today: Already have an account? Opinion TWO men were stabbed in a random, unprovoked attack at the Polo Park mall last week. The accused was arrested and charged with simple assault, possessing a weapon, and breaching a previous undertaking — and then released on another undertaking.
‘How could this be?,’ I asked. ‘Why was this accused not detained to protect our citizens from further attacks?’ I am a retired police officer and I could understand why this upset me, but I couldn’t understand why it upset me to the degree it did. Then a long-forgotten incident I was involved in came to mind.
It happened in 1972 and I think it directly relates to what we are discussing 52 years later; hopefully it will show the folly of the police thinking they have to put the interests of an accused ahead of those of the public they are sworn to protect. In 1972, I was a young beat cop who got the opportunity to work a cruiser car when one of the regular crew was away. One August morning I was doing just that when we got a call to attend the federal parole halfway house.
This old brick house was home to convicts who had been released from Stony Mountain Penitentiary on supervised parole. Once there, we were met by a staff member who related how one of the tenants had breached his parole conditions by staying out all night and returning with signs he had been drinking. He reported that when he confronted the parolee, he was punched in the face.
He went on to state he would be applying for a warrant to have this man’s parole revoked and he wanted him charged with assault and detained until that could be accomplished. He was adamant he didn’t want him back at the house. We took custody of the parolee and drove him to the Public Safety Building.
He was a hard man and would not talk to us other than to provide his name and date of birth. The procedure was we’d gather the facts, we would go to the detective office where we would brief the sergeant and follow his instructions. Now, in early 1972 the Canadian Bail Reform Act was enacted, which allowed for the release of an accused on an appearance notice for certain crimes they would previously have been detained for.
The reason for detaining that person instead was to assure their appearance in court, protect the public from further offences prior to trial, and if their detention was deemed to be in the public’s interest. Winnipeg’s police department was slow to accept this change and continued to detain people the Crown thought could have been released. This resulted in the attorney general meeting with the police chief and “laying down the law.
” The chief was not happy and members like our sergeant of detectives bore the brunt of his displeasure. The sergeant told me to release the man on an appearance notice with a future court date. Now, the police department was much more paramilitary than it is today and you didn’t argue with a superior, especially a sergeant of detectives.
I just couldn’t restrain myself and protested that the man had no fixed address and would only be detained until a parole violation warrant was issued. His response was that I would ask the man if he could find someone who would take him in and then release him. The man provided the name of a friend who I phoned to confirm would take him in.
I then released him on an appearance notice. The next morning I was assigned to the same unit and our first call was to a shop in a downtown high-rise that had been broken into overnight. Stolen from the till was the petty cash and a ring of several keys.
I was on weekly leave the next day but was called in to write my report as someone had been arrested for this offence. Then I learned the following: my parolee had broken into the shop and stolen the cash and keys. He convinced another man to join him and in the early morning hours went to the lobby of the high-rise with the keys.
One of the keys had the name Brown on it and sure enough there was a Brown listed on the wall directory. The parolee tried the key and opened the front door. The two went to Mr.
Brown’s suite intending to rob it. The key opened the suite door and the two entered. While in the suite the two were confronted by Mr.
Brown, who they tied up and eventually beat to death. The key wasn’t a key made for Mr. Brown’s suite, it was a pass key that had been manufactured by the Brown Lock and Key company and opened all the doors in the building.
Is there a present-day lesson here? I hope so. The laws provide options and the decision on how to apply them rests with the police supervisor. There will be pressure from an overcrowded downtown remand centre and the backlogged courts to release rather than detain but the protection of the public has to the deciding factor.
I knew then, as I know now, that this parolee should have been locked up, just as I know that the accused Polo Park stabber should have been locked up. Stan Tataryn is a former Winnipeg police officer. Advertisement Advertisement.
