|
(Prime Time Crime exclusive Dec. 14, 2009)
By Bob Cooper
When I wrote a previous column (Truth will out) last March on the Hubbard shooting I was already working on this one because the events were so predictable. For those not familiar with the case, 2 VPD Constables stopped 58 year old Michael Vann Hubbard near Homer and Dunsmuir. Hubbard matched the description of the suspect in a Theft From Auto that had just occurred and the black pack he was carrying matched the description of the property stolen. According to witnesses Hubbard appeared to cooperate initially but then pulled what’s been variously described as a ‘utility’ knife or an ‘exacto’ knife. Whatever it was, it was certainly capable of causing death or grievous bodily harm.
Hubbard refused the Constables’ commands to drop the knife and advanced on them on a crowded sidewalk while they tried to warn members of the public to clear off for their own safety. Hubbard continued to move in on the Constables until one shot him once in the chest. Despite the efforts of one Constable who performed CPR on Hubbard, he died at the scene. In fairness, I’d point out that later investigation established that Hubbard was not the thief the cops were seeking but they had no way of knowing that at the time and the moment he pulled the knife, that fact became irrelevant.
Before the shell casing hit the ground, David Eby, the BC Criminal Liberties Association, and the Pivot Legal Society were beating that well-used drum of theirs and before poor Hubbard hit the ground he’d become the latest Poster Boy of Vancouver’s anti-law enforcement coalition. They got hold of his estranged family in Illinois and convinced them to file a law suit and make a few final bucks off dear old dad.
Even though he wasn’t required to do so, Chief Constable Jim Chu asked the Abbotsford Police to conduct the investigation in an effort to give it a sense of independence. His efforts were dismissed along with the investigation itself as a whitewash because it wasn’t being conducted by Pivot. Then, into Eby’s lap fell a young marihuana activist named Adam Smolcic who claimed to have recorded the shooting on his cell phone camera only to have it taken from him and erased by a cop. To Eby, this was manna from heaven. Instead of doing the responsible thing and quietly bringing Smolcic in to be interviewed by the Abbotsford detectives Eby rushed him in front of the cameras to tell his tale in an effort to further his agenda of undermining public confidence in the police. Some media outlets treated this with the skepticism it deserved while others swallowed it whole.
Eby’s ardor was to be short-lived when an examination of high-quality security video failed to show Smolcic anywhere in the scene and his bogus claims began to unravel. In an effort to bring some balance to the situation Chief Chu released this fact along with a timeline gleaned from the video in a memo to all members of the VPD. This has now led to Hubbard’s family, with Pivot’s encouragement, filing a complaint against the Chief with the Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner alleging that the information in his memo could have prejudiced the investigation. You see, only the Left are allowed to have a voice in these matters and all who disagree with them are to be shouted down, denounced, and silenced by any means available. At the time I praised the Chief for doing this and I stand by that. These people are just bullies trying to use the system to intimidate their detractors and cloud the issue.
Now the investigation has come to the conclusion that the Constable who shot Hubbard acted properly and was protecting herself, her partner, and anyone else in the vicinity from death or grievous bodily harm. Like I’ve said before cops aren’t expected to risk their lives to save the lives of suspects who are trying to maim or kill them. This led to John Richardson of Pivot to ask why the cops weren’t armed with Tasers. Excuse me? Wasn’t this the same bunch that was previously shrieking and screaming that Tasers be banned? Like everything else, only when it suits them and their agenda. The truth is situational to these people. By the way, anyone wanting to buy into claims that these investigations are biased and tainted would have to believe that the detectives invented 80+ witnesses and manufactured their statements. Then again, some people still believe O.J. Simpson was innocent.
A by-product of the investigation was a recommendation of a charge of Public Mischief against Eby’s pal, Adam Smolcic. For laymen, Public Mischief is a Criminal Code offence that involves misleading the police in a criminal investigation like, for instance, falsely claiming that a cop erased a video that you hadn’t recorded in the first place. Let me make it clear that I have no inside knowledge of the Abbotsford Police investigation but experience tells me that they wouldn’t think of recommending such a charge unless they had incontrovertible, rock-solid evidence, and likely a confession. Crown Counsel have been somewhat reluctant to pursue these charges in the past fearing that it might discourage people from complaining. You can bet that the law enforcement community will be watching this case closely. Allegations like this are extremely serious and the act of making false ones deserves serious consequences.
Now Eby stands unmasked as the charlatan he is. He and his ilk have less collective credibility than Balloon Boy’s dad or Tiger Woods. Vancouver Police Union President Tom Stamatakis has demanded an apology from Eby. Don’t hold your breath Tom. These people have no shame.