I have to wonder why judges are always appointed to head an inquiry such as in the Roszko case when they pose part of the problem. For instance, a judge ordered weapons returned to a deranged man in Spruce Grove who eventually killed RCMP member Jim Galloway — although the police had seized the weapons in an earlier incident at this home.
The power sought by the judges, the current legal system and flaws in the Charter of Rights also led to the deaths of the four RCMP members in Mayerthorpe; no fault lies with the RCMP. When Roszko fled, the police were required to preserve the evidence at the scene — that being stolen auto parts and the marijuana grow operation. By law, they were required to seek additional warrants in order to seize such items instead of taking the goods when they first accosted Roszko.
Had they been able to seize those goods, perhaps they would not have been required to stay at the farm and an arrest warrant could simply have been issued for Roszko. Perhaps he may have been arrested at a later date without incident but there is the good possibility those four policemen would not have been killed.
As learned during the inquiry, Roszko had access to many weapons — many of which were obtained illegally or via theft. A permit would not have resolved anything and therein lies the judicial challenge.
The police are always required to follow the rules and the bad guys do not have to jump through hoops and barrels to continue their illegitimate pursuits. I would rather see a group of laymen with common sense and attuned to the rights of the whole of the citizenry than a judge who only focuses on individual rights. Perhaps a panel of concerned citizens that have been victims and/or those who have a lost a loved one through the actions of a criminal would render better decisions than a judge. At least common sense would prevail.
After all, the judge’s only leeway is to discredit the police, the actions they took and remove the blame from their legal system — not to be confused with the police systems. Again, they are infallible and one cannot remove them from office nor are they ever held accountable for their judicial decisions. It’s a crazy system indeed when electing them would seem to be the answer — it’s only way they can be held accountable by the citizens they purport to represent.
A. I. Smith, St. Albert
