By Mike Archer. The Abbotsford Police Department (APD) and its chief, Bob Rich, have never faced such scrutiny and controversy as they do right now.
While Abbotsford Today has had a rocky relationship with Rich over a variety of issues, this week’s revelations that his department faces 148 allegations against 17 officers of corruption and misconduct have garnered national attention and controversy.
Not only has Rich set a distinctly angry and combative tone with the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner (OPCC) but now the Public Prosecution Service of Canada has announced it will be reviewing drug cases in Abbotsford as a result of the allegations by the OPCC.
What is at stake is not only the reputation of the department but the manner in which the City and the APD chose to deal with our reputation as the ‘Murder Capital of Canada’ and as a centre for illegal drug gangs in BC. The number of cases which must now be reviewed is not yet clear but a number of convictions may now be in question and doubt will most certainly be cast on the department’s activities over several years if any of the allegations are found to be true.
Abbotsford Today has criticized both Rich and the City of Abbotsford for overstepping their bounds by using local bylaws, policies and procedures in order facilitate tactics which might otherwise be considered illegal, or at the very least highly questionable, when it issued the City of Abbotsford Crime Reduction & Community Safety Strategy under former Mayor George Peary.
Equating drug use with gang activity is just one of the problems we’ve raised with the document, precisely because it wanders into areas of jurisprudence and interpretation of criminal law (a federal jurisdiction) over which the City has no jurisdiction.
In the current controversy, if the APD broke the law in order to enforce the City’s crime strategy, it will be almost as big a black mark on the City’s reputation as its attempts to deal with the homeless through its Anti-Homeless and Anti-Harm Reduction bylaws.
Given the seriousness of what is at stake, it was with more than a little surprise that we witnessed Mayor Henry Braun and Councillor Dave Loewen jump up to publicly defend the APD this week without letting the investigations unfold or provide any answers to these disturbing questions.
Mayor Henry Braun, as the head of the police board said, on Wednesday, “The Board has the utmost confidence in the Abbotsford Police Department and cautions the public drawing any conclusion before this matter has been resolved and the facts released.”
While the suggestion that the public not rush to judgment is certainly well taken, it is somewhat contradicted by the preceding sentence in which Braun expresses utmost confidence in the APD. It will be understood for what it is – a necessary piece of political posturing from an establishment which is now under siege.
But; if the allegations are eventually proven to be true, Braun may have to eat his words or explain why he and his board had such immediate and unquestioning loyalty to our chief and his department without knowing any of the facts.
You can’t take one side in an investigation before it has even occurred. Expressing such seemingly unquestioning loyalty to the police chief and his department comes very close to choosing sides.
Councillor Loewen
Then there is the case of Councillor Dave Loewen.
Loewen took to the ether-waves after the controversy broke and, on his Facebook page*, reminded the world that crime has gone down in Abbotsford over the last several years. It would be humourous if this were not such a serious issue, that the graph is prefaced with the word, ‘unverified.’
While it is entirely possible that Dave picked this particular moment in the City’s history to remind us of this trend (one which is consistent throughout the western world), some might conclude that he was weighing in publicly on a serious matter before ever hearing, seeing or examining any evidence or conclusions about the matter.
The APD and its officers are absolutely innocent until proven guilty. No one has a right to presume their guilt or pre-judge the results of the OPCC’s investigations.
By the same token, neither Braun nor Loewen should be pre-judging their innocence in such a blind and unquestioning matter. These same public officials refuse regularly to discuss matters which are before the courts, or involve, even vaguely, issues of personnel, contract or legality.
If you are going to shut up and refuse to discuss matters of legality and personnel when it suits you, you should be consistent and keep your mouth shut when one of your own is facing public scrutiny and possible charges of wrongdoing.
If the APD made a habit of falsifying information in order to get warrants, then both the APD and the City of Abbotsford will have established a dishonest, illegal and fundamentally flawed relationship with the justice system.
Perhaps even more so than during the Chicken Manure Incident, the world is watching Abbotsford very closely again.
Pretty heady stuff to be dismissing with graphs about unverified crime statistics and blanket statements of blind, unquestioning support. Particularly from elected officials who have either voted on and participated in decisions leading to or involving some of the bylaws, policies and procedures which are now, more than ever, in question and being reviewed.
*Dave Loewen’s Facebook thoughts on crime in Abbotsford.
Enrique Rempel Says:
The police and our justice system for that matter are always in a no win situation.
They are required by the law to follow certain regulations and procedures while the criminals are educated on those same procedures but are not bound by them. As a result they have a HUGE advantage. So we blame them when criminals are not caught, get off on technicalities etc. when they do step out of the guidelines and manage to get convictions we criticize the methods.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe they should stay within the rules, we have them for a reason. Having said that, I fit is my family that is being hurt but the criminals, I want them dealt with and I am ok with some short cuts. They are placed in an impossible position of never being able to be “right”.
Though I was one of the first to comment on the support shown to the police by identifying the difference on how they are presumed innocent until proven guilty vs how there was a lack of public support for homeless when they are being investigated (who deserve the same presumption of innocents), I am not sure if I would say it is blind support.
You work with people day after day, literally laying your life on the line for people that criticize you when you do well and criticize you when you do poorly, I think it is natural to say that I stand by you until the investigation is complete. Not only do I think it is natural I think it is healthy. Our police force would not be a force if they fell apart every time allegations were made. They need to stand by each other for all our sakes.
Having said this, if they are found guilty then they need to treat them as they would with any criminal and not just give them a slap on the hand.
My issue is not the support shown when the investigation is in progress but rather how things are handled once a guilty verdict is brought down. That is where our system often falls so short.
From Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=772425169477226&id=447088788677534&comment_id=772436496142760&offset=0&total_comments=1
Mike Archer Says:
Valid points Enrique. Thanks for raising them. I take issue with the idea of shortcuts. I’d rather they just obey the law when enforcing it. Who decides when short cuts are OK? You or I could be next.
From Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=772425169477226&id=447088788677534&comment_id=772436496142760&offset=0&total_comments=1
Enrique Rempel Says: I agree with you Mike. My words were “if it was my family being hurt, I would be ok with some short cuts”. I think the feelings are always different when we are personally affected.
Eg: a man molests my daughter and the difference in him going free or paying the price is a warrant that wasn’t filled out properly isn’t justice in my eyes. We have way too many criminals on the streets because they can afford better lawyers who turn our justice system into a contest of who can manipulate the law better instead looking at guilt or innocence.
I agree there has to be a line and that line should be the law.
Having said that, to the point of support, it is very unbalanced. I did not see either stand up publicly with the homeless when “manure” was being dumped on the homeless. Not saying there wasn’t support but at the time it wasn’t like this. That is an issue I have. Everyone should have the same support, regardless of standing and your article is well taken in that fact.
From Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=772425169477226&id=447088788677534&comment_id=772436496142760&offset=0&total_comments=1
Meghann Coughlan Hernandez Says:
Dave should come spend a week in my neighbourhood. Wonder how long he’d last.
From Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=772425169477226&id=447088788677534&comment_id=772436496142760&offset=0&total_comments=1
Bruce Anderson Says:
looks like the new mayor is just as bad as the old mayor they both knew what was goin on and turned a blind eye, whats the new mayor gonna do when the fed’s start ripping the APD apart and charging the cops with breaking the law, is he gonna stand by them, of course he will
From Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=772425169477226&id=447088788677534&comment_id=772436496142760&offset=0&total_comments=1