Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm

Shootings and Knifings

Recommended Posts

All you can do is take em to court and/or vote em down. Future elections leave me with a sense of dread now and I suspect I'm not alone, surely that isn't good for democracy

Even people who admit they either don't know or have it all wrong, will cling to the narrative rendering all discussion with them worthless.

38 specials fire 38 rounds and 44 magnums fire 44... and that's all there is to it. I can't even imagine what they think a 45-70 does. Clearly magazines that hold 4,570 rounds should be banned eh? Maybe that should include aircraft speeds in excess 4,570 knots over the city of Toronto too. Cleared for takeoff on RWY 94....

 

 

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not unexpected from Toronto

These uninformed people are the same ones who elected Trudeau. TWICE

Stupid is as Stupid does !

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jaydee said:

Stupid is as Stupid does !

And it needs to be contained to those locations where the population insists on it. Nothing wrong with getting what you want if you are willing to pay for it. 

I was never a fan of election reform before  but I see no other solution now.  In its absence, it wouldn't surprise me to see rural counties designating themselves sanctuary "this or that" and instructing their police forces to ignore federal/provincial laws..... just like we see happening in the US now. We would all be the poorer and worse off for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wolfhunter said:

 

Even people who admit they either don't know or have it all wrong, will cling to the narrative rendering all discussion with them worthless.

What do you know about assault rifles?  Nothing.

What do you think of the assault rifle ban?  Oh, I support it.

How can you support it when you know nothing about them?   Well, there's too much crime so we should ban them.

Moronic, uneducated people and they have the same vote as you!

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wolfhunter said:

it wouldn't surprise me to see rural counties designating themselves sanctuary "this or that" and instructing their police forces to ignore federal/provincial laws..... just like we see happening in the US now

Could be a little trickier in Canada than US given the predominant role RCMP play in rural policing in Canada outside of Que & Ont.

Edited by Airband
fat fingers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update on the Nova Scotia killings.  https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/n-s-mass-shooting-new-documents-show-killer-had-five-guns-ready-to-fire-when-he-was-killed-at-gas-station

Quote

The arsenal

When Wortman was finally shot and killed by police, as he stopped for gas in Enfield, N.S., he had five guns within easy reach, the document reveals. The details of Wortman’s death are redacted from the document.

Police found five guns and ammunition in the SUV he had stolen from Webber.

Two semi-automatic rifles were ready to fire, one with a bullet in the chamber, the document says.

There were two handguns, also with a round in their chamber, and spent shell casings scattered around the SUV. One pistol’s hammer was cocked and its safety switch off, meaning it was ready to fire with just a trigger pull.

The last gun police found in the SUV was Stevenson’s Smith & Wesson 9-mm service pistol.

Boxes of ammunition and a metal ammunition can were on the front seat. Wortman has never had a firearms license, the document says.

Never had a firearms license, so a ban on weapons would, as most of us concluded, would have not prevented him acquiring and using illegal weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's sad because if applied to any other issue it falls flat under it's own weight. The deliberate proliferation of misinformation and outright lies by the Liberals is what truly galls me though, I had expected better, even from people known for manipulating facts.

It's like suggesting that an A320 holds 320 passengers and that it's unsafe to carry that many people on such a small airplane... the only reasonable thing to do is ban them in Canada. 

Since Liberals consider 24 year olds to be children for data collection purposes (when it suits them), these youngsters clearly shouldn't be voting until at least 25.

In the case of the NS shooting, gaining access to information that tends to undermine the governments propaganda is like pulling teeth. Government lawyers are on the job working hard to suppress anything that undermines the narrative during a period where the constructed narrative has purpose. Soon it won't matter and the mantra will change to being "unapologetic for keeping Canadians safe." 

https://nationalpost.com/news/n-s-shooter-who-dressed-as-mountie-during-his-rampage-was-related-to-two-retired-rcmp-members?video_autoplay=true

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Gun advocates’ changing definition of ‘assault rifles’ is meant to sow confusion

The decision of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to carry out his 2019 campaign promise to prohibit many semi-automatic rifles has sparked another round in the gun-control debate. Gun lobby groups allege that advocates of stronger firearm laws unfairly label firearms such as the AR-15 “assault rifles.” Historical evidence, however, suggests that members of the firearms community have themselves played word games with guns, changing how they describe some weapons in response to shifting political winds. In fact, many gun owners once called the AR-15 and similar weapons assault rifles. They only abandoned this term because of fears that the federal government might ban these firearms in the aftermath of the 1989 Montreal Massacre.

'However, in the 1990s the firearms community suddenly developed an allergy to calling any civilian firearm an assault rifle.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Airband said:

The thing is that when a firearms owner calls it an assault rifle he/(she) is simply using a commonly understood term within the firearms community - it's meant as a type of shorthand for a certain style of rifle.  When an "anti" refers to something as an "assault rifle" they are making it out to be an evil, killing machine.

You see, to me, you could call it an assault rifle, a semi-automatic target rifle, a lightweight varmint rifle, a sporting rifle, a polymer-framed-collapsable-stock-customizable-22 caliber-high velocity- AR-15 patterned rifle and it doesn't change my feelings about it or for it in the least because I know they all mean the same thing.  Antis call them assault rifles for one reason - to evoke a negative emotional state.

Also, from the article:

A search of Canadian newspapers in the 1970s and 1980s reveals a widely held, though colloquial, understanding that an assault rifle was a semi-automatic weapon with a large capacity magazine that was often a civilian version of a gun originally designed for military service.

1.  There's that word "weapon" again.  Is a hammer a weapon?  How about a knife?  An axe?  They all could be weapons but aren't until they are used as such.  Like this; the antagonist in the movie used an axe as his weapon to kill the wolf, etc.

2.  Canada does not have large capacity magazines - limited to 5 cartridges only.

3. The jeep was originally designed for military service - is a modern jeep up to the challenge of military use?  Nope.  It's like saying my Subaru was "originally designed for rally driving".  Well, that's true but meaningless.  I could no more take my Imprezza out on a rally course than someone could take a civilian AR-15 into military service.  Somewhat similar but miles apart.  

So, even though the term "assault rifle" is essentially meaningless the firearms community stopped using it to prevent an unintended negative emotional response while the antis specifically use it for that exact reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assault rifle is pretty clearly defined. It has selective fire and a high capacity magazine. The AR 15 is no more an assault rifle than my pickup truck is a Mercedes by virtue of putting racing stripes on it. For those old enough to remember the FNC1A1, it was a battle rifle by virtue of no selective fire. That's it, that's all. There is no confusion other than that which is deliberate and for political expediency. A320s don't carry 320 pax, and no amount of screaming A320 changes that.... all kinds of people may believe it though, but mostly it would be because they want to.

The RCMP, government ministers and the CBC were very carful to call that C8 in the trunk of RCMP cars a "patrol carbine" for the same reason.

Combat UAV/UAS are commonly referred to as drones.... they most definitely are not drones though. People who have actually flown them usually don't even mention it because it immediately results in a discussion about collateral damage with folks who have nothing but opinion and fake news to draw from. It is simply a no win scenario. 

Gun owners didn't abandon the term assault rifle for political purposes.... it was no more an assault rifle than a combat UAV is a drone or an A320 carries 320 people. BTW, it's most definitely not military grade either, no military uses it and not even JT could sell it to a foreign military, much less with a 5 round capacity mag. They would laugh at him. FORD truck beds may be made of military grade aluminum, but by mil spec definition, it could well be the same aluminum used in mess tins. 

Words change nothing, an orange it's not a banana no matter how much someone screams banana at it. The information on the street (from the media) is convoluted, unduly complicated (this is simple) and deliberately deceiving. 

One need only compare CNN with FOX and consider what it is they report, what they don't report, how they report it and why they do what they do. Who was it that commissioned the story and for what purpose? What were the statistical data points? Are 24 year old gang members really considered children in the eyes of the law or those of the public? Are nail guns really firearms and have you ever read an accurate news clip about an aviation related incident you were personally involved in.... I haven't. To date, I have been unable to trust the government to fill potholes on our road.

Here's another example of how they play with numbers: a crime gun is any gun present at the scene where a crime has been committed. So you are having a party at your house and someone punches their wife and the police are called. Since assault is an indictable offence, your entire collection of black powder muskets are now considered crime guns even though they were safely stored, no one had a clue how to load them and they were never a factor in the first place. Since you acquired them legally in Canada, they also have the distinction of being domestically sourced... cool eh?

 

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People call things by different names because they are reminded of something, because it's cool, because it's close to the thing.  You call your motorcycle a "bike", lots of people call a guitar an "axe" and some people call an AR15 an "assault rifle."  The point is that an AR15 is as close to an assault rifle that a civilian can own and so the owner of said rifle might call it that as a nod to an actual assault rifle.  People with real knowledge of these things know it isn't really an assault rifle and this causes no concern but the antis use the lack of knowledge as a tool to stir up an emotional response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wolfhunter said:

 

Here's another example of how they play with numbers: a crime gun is any gun present at the scene where a crime has been committed. So you are having a party at your house and someone punches their wife and the police are called. Since assault is an indictable offence, your entire collection of black powder muskets are now considered crime guns even though they were safely stored, no one had a clue how to load them and they were never a factor in the first place. Since you acquired them legally in Canada, they also have the distinction of being domestically sourced... cool eh?

 

Yeah, I like that one.  Here's another;  old fella passes away, he had an old shotgun in the closet, wife doesn't have a firearms licence so, eventually, she calls the police to pick it up.  It was never used in a crime, she just wanted to safely dispose of it; domestically-sourced crime gun.

Edited by seeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, seeker said:

It was never used in a crime, she just wanted to safely dispose of it; domestically-sourced crime gun.

And unless she is the executer of the will, in the absence of her having a PAL, she is in illegal possession of it and subject to being charged for unlawful possession of said crime gun.

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Wolfhunter said:

And unless she is the executer of the will, in the absence of her having a PAL, she is in illegal possession of it and subject to being charged. 

Likely wouldn't be charged but the gun will be listed as a domestically-sourced crime gun for the stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wolfhunter said:

JT could sell it to a foreign military,

What would jt know about the military??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit long, but the police perspective taken from Blue Line forum. Note the extensive use of "patrol rifle." Contrary to popular belief, numerous 12 gauge shotguns are now banned based on appearance... so don't add racing stripes to your grandfathers 12ga until after the next election.

If ever there was a single issue allowing regular members of the general public to see government manipulation and media bias first hand for themselves, this would have to be it.

Wait til they start sawing up Great Grandpa's 50-90 Sharps that's been in the family since it came out in 1872.... Clearly the ease of concealment and high rate of fire the Sharps is famous for, along with the those 50 round  magazines makes them a favourite among Toronto street gangs. In all fairness though, I'm pretty sure it only applies to 50 BMG so the Sharps is likely safe for now. But the point is, the list of unintended consequences is getting larger.


Less than two weeks after the mass homicide in Nova Scotia that left 22 innocent people dead and three others injured, the Liberal government passed an overnight ban on approximately 1,500 different types of firearms, including a variety of semi-automatic rifles whose capacities are limited to five cartridges. Although it was described as an “assault-style” weapon ban during the announcement, its legal implications appear to be much broader. For example, some manual action firearms — including certain bolt action and single-shot rifles — met the ban criteria as well. Also included were a select number of .22 rimfire rifles, some shotguns, as well as many large-bore, long-range target guns.

Immediately following its passage, debate began in legal circles as to whether the order-in-council (OIC) may have inadvertently banned some 12- and 10-gauge shotguns with removable chokes (due to the new 20-mm bore diameter limit). Minister of Public Safety Bill Blair responded by stating that the OIC was not intended to include any hunting or sporting shotguns, but in the weeks following the OIC passage, some previously non-restricted shotguns have been moved to the prohibited classification, not due to bore diameter, but instead because of an aesthetic similarity to the AR-15. Additionally, the classification of some centre-fire rifles that were not explicitly listed in the ban have had their legal classification changed as they have been re-examined and classified to meet the definition of an AR-15 variant.

Most patrol rifles in Canada now designated as prohibited
Prior to May 1, most of the patrol rifles in use in Canada were classified as restricted firearms and those models could be purchased privately by anyone holding a restricted firearms license. These privately-owned guns, however, could only be sold with five round magazines.

With the passage of the new OIC, all private sales of these firearms have stopped. The most common firearm in Canada that appears on the list of banned rifles is the AR-15 (Armalite Rifle model 15) and its variants, which also happens to be the most common type of patrol rifle in Canada for general duty/patrol use, as well as for many specialty teams.


During its time as a restricted firearm, officers who wanted to frequently practice their patrol carbine skills could purchase their own AR-15 and practice on their own time, beyond the once or twice a year mandated qualification their police service provides. These officers must now be aware that such privately owned firearms are prohibited and can no longer be trained with.

Because the ban goes beyond the AR-15, any Canadian police officer who owns firearms, AR-15 or not, should carefully review the list of banned firearms and the ban criteria so as to avoid being in criminal possession at the conclusion of the two-year amnesty. The prohibited firearms must now be kept within the confines of the owner’s residence and then disposed of within the amnesty period. After that time, criminal penalties are applicable — peace officer status or not. Anyone who did not already own one of these firearms prior to May 1, 2020 is not able to acquire one of these newly-prohibited firearms.

With the private ownership option gone, officers will be limited in their ability to seek out additional training from private companies who offer, or at one time offered, patrol carbine training. With this new legal framework, it will be a difficult proposition for an officer to get approval from their department to take a department-owned carbine out of service to go to outside training that hasn’t been reviewed and evaluated by the department. Permission by the department to attend private training and to use department-issued equipment could be viewed as an endorsement of the training by the police service, which is something that many liability-aware police services may be understandably hesitant to approve. In addition, firearms trainers, many of whom are private citizens but with former law enforcement or military backgrounds, will be unable to use for teaching the very firearms platforms that they instruct on. In the past, privately-owned patrol carbines removed these road-blocks, and now officers will be much more limited in their training options.


The single shot Ruger No. 1, chambered in .460 Weatherby Magnum, is one of the unexpected firearms now prohibited under the May 1 order-in-council.
Photo: Ruger.com

Impact on departmental qualifications
The ban may have implications on firearm qualifications with departmental-owned patrol rifles as well. Now that privately-owned AR-15’s can no longer be taken to public ranges, there is debate within the firearms community as to whether public ranges (typically run by civilian volunteer board of directors or private businesses) should cater their ranges to allow these types of firearms to be used, department-owned or otherwise. If the vast majority of their range members will no longer be using these banned firearms, they may not accommodate police services to use theirs. Without significant capital investment by departments into these public ranges to preserve training space, or the development of their own private government ranges, departments may lose appropriate space for these types of firearms qualifications.

Education, buy-back and possible grandfathering
Now that the AR-15 and other affected firearms are prohibited, officers who frequent their local shooting range, hunting field or back-country shooting locale may be pressed into on-the-spot public education when members of the gun community approach them to inquire about specifics of the OIC.

In the course of police business, officers may encounter gun owners using their newly prohibited firearms in ignorance of the new law. A farmer shooting their Mini-14 ranch rifle at coyotes on their cattle range may not have heard their rifle is now prohibited, especially because of how quickly the ban was enacted. As many of the firearms on the list were previously non-restricted (excluding the AR-15), there is no way to specifically locate and inform owners of these guns of the prohibition, aside from a generalized blanket letter notification to all firearms license holders.

Gun owners whose rifles fall within the 10,000 joules of muzzle energy prohibition, but are not explicitly named by model on the OIC, will need to do their own research to determine if the particular calibre and barrel length of their firearm pushes it over the 10,000-joule limit. Owners of single shot .700 Nitro Express and .460 Weatherby Magnum hunting guns will not find those calibres expressly described in the OIC list of banned rifles, but they violate the 10,000-joule rule and make them liable to possession of a prohibited firearm at the end of the amnesty. Additionally, officers need to be careful not to apply the OIC too broadly — there are many non-restricted and restricted semi-automatic, 5-round rifles that function similarly to the AR-15 and have similar aesthetics, and yet they are not included in this ban. Which of these firearms are considered a variant, and which are not, continues to evolve on a daily basis as the ban criteria are fully implemented.

During the announcement of the ban, the government noted there would be mechanisms for disposal of the firearms that will have to be addressed via follow-up legislation. One such avenue mentioned was a buy-back, similar to what the New Zealand government recently conducted, with questionable owner compliance. As weapons are involved, this will likely be a police-led process of collection, lodging, filing and destruction. With the number of firearms involved (in excess of at least 105,000, according to a government official at a technical briefing following the announcement of the ban), it is anticipated that there will be significant labour and logistical hurdles involved for already busy and cash-strapped police services.

Initially there had also been mention of possible grandfathering — where current owners would be able keep possession of the prohibited firearms they own — but they would never be able to use them again. This option was initially listed on the Canadian Firearms Program public website but has since been removed.

An exception in the field
There is an important exception on newly prohibited firearm use during the two-year amnesty period officers should be aware of which allows an individual to legally have one of these newly prohibited guns in the field. An individual whose newly prohibited firearm was previously non-restricted can use that firearm for hunting — so long as the individual is an Indigenous person exercising treaty rights to hunt or is a sustenance hunter. There does not appear to be any allowance in the law for such an individual to transport the firearm for sighting in at a range or to take it for repair at a gunsmith in preparation for hunting, however, so the exception appears to be limited to specific hunting activity.

Careful study of the new law is key
Due to the widespread use of these newly prohibited firearms in the Canadian gun community, police and other enforcement officers will need to closely review the newly passed OIC and any subsequent follow-up legislation that the government has indicated will be forthcoming. Further anticipated changes as announced by the Liberal government include potential prohibitions on private handgun ownership, and changes to storage regulations. These changes impact not only private gun ownership among officers but also their enforcement actions as well.

It is also possible the OIC may be amended or repealed altogether. A public petition to the House of Commons, e-2574, has been set up to oppose the ban, and one Canadian gun advocacy group has launched a charter challenge in court. With the law evolving so quickly, officers will need to follow any changes closely to ensure they apply the law correctly both to themselves and the public they serve.

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here go my conspiracy theories again.....or just plain coverup:

Quote

Family members of victims and legal experts have repeatedly called for more information on the police handling of the rampage, which lasted more than 12 hours.

There have also been questions raised about how the RCMP informed the public of the shootings as they unfolded over five locations. The perpetrator's prior history of domestic violence has also been raised as a key issue to examine.

Quote

Last week, a former neighbour of Wortman said she reported an account of a 2013 incident of domestic violence by Wortman against the common-law spouse to the RCMP in Truro. Brenda Forbes said she reported witnesses telling her that Wortman had strangled and beaten his common-law partner, and she said she told police there were guns in the house.

The RCMP said in an email Friday it is still looking for the police record of the incident and declined further comment.

This is an excerpt from a CBC article where Trudeau avoids committing to a public inquiry to the Nova Scotia shooting.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/trudeau-avoids-promising-ns-shooting-inquiry-

This incident will not fit the jt narrative of a legal gun owner using “assault rifles”/need for weapons  ban so much as a law enforcement agency being sloppy to a domestic violence complaint....not a great response for a feminist pm to rationalize.

He might regret politicizing the issue so quickly when/if  the true findings come out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.  Having a public inquiry will expose/highlight significant organizational and administrative problems.  What plans were in place to coordinate the handling of a situation that crosses jurisdictional boundaries?  Almost none I assume.  What plans were in place to control a situation that crosses the areas of multiple detachments within the same police force?  Who was in control of the situation and who's job to advise the public?

2.  Disclosing police procedures will expose gaps that are maybe better not exposed - kind of like knowing the guard takes his coffee break every night between 2:30am and 3:00 am.  My father used to tell me stories about growing up in a small farming community in Sask in the 50s and 60s.  They knew the route that the solitary RCMP officer would follow through the dozen or so small towns in his area and so would simply watch for him to pass through.  They were then free to do whatever they wanted (which, apparently consisted of hanging out on main street drinking beer) knowing he wouldn't be back for the night.  In the same way, I expect an inquiry would show minimal staffing at certain times and in certain areas along with a poor ability to call in extra staff.

3.  An inquiry would likely show complaints from individual officers about staffing, equipment, training and/or procedures that were never addressed by management.

I'm not saying that I think an inquiry shouldn't be done but rather that I think there will be lots of resistance to it by those who stand to wear the responsibility.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more concerned about the legal failures leading up to the event itself than tactical communications and command post coordination. I would be happy to leave the RCMP to develop their doctrine on that front independently and quietly for exactly the reasons you mention. That could be and entire thread itself... in fact, the value of air support in such circumstances could cover more pages than the Trump thread.

But, he was previously reported for domestic abuse and illegal possession of weapons multiple times, and he had a previous assault conviction, how did all of that fall through the cracks and what are the corrective measures to be applied nationally. As it stands now, violence against women is a huge talking point for the Liberals, but there are laws in place to deal with that.... why weren't (or aren't) they being enforced?

I have lots of other (non tactical doctrine) questions, but you get the drift of the direction I would want to see it go.

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the issues surrounding police procedures, but from what I have read so far, the force seems to have gotten top heavy and politically correct....maybe the rank and file would be in favour of the inquiry so the shortcomings can be corrected and get back to being an effective law enforcement organization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it weren't so solemn, sad and pathetic, the level of derangement here would actually be funny as it plays out over, and over, and over, and over..... 

A bit like explaining Bernoulli's theory of incompressible flow to a blind goat; that kind of funny. The kind of funny that makes you want to cry and the type of funny for which no cure is likely to be discovered any time soon:

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/parole-revoked-for-man-who-sold-guns-to-triple-killer-dellen-millard

Since AK47s and 32 calibers are already illegal, we have illegal guns, illegally imported, illegally possessed, illegally transported, illegally sold, and illegally discharged in the commission of a murder (which also happens to be illegal). I would like to know what additional bans might have saved the day here and why this creature was trafficking women while on parole. Saddest of all will be the smug assertion that....."see, the system worked, his parole was revoked." All you can do then is return to the blind goat, start over and hope for the best.

In areas of high gang density and activity, the notion that TAVIS (now disbanded) and street checks are racist seems unfathomable to Gus. I tried to put tin the context of wolves, the notion being that he is racist to assume (that in the absence of bite marks) the wolf outside the pasture fence actually wants to eat him and the girls. No luck. 

He also doesn't understand how a properly functioning parole system could look anything like what we have, and why anyone would site the example above as proof that it works... then again, he can't even spell Bernoulli despite my best efforts. 

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm starting to think the problem is that voters in Toronto think registered gun owners (who are primarily rural) are as irresponsible and foolish as they are, it explains why fact based conversation is futile.

Something has changed and it isn't guns, hand gun technology (for instance) has changed very little since 1911. People have changed and the biggest changes have occurred in large urban areas. Toronto has been on my motorcycle no go list for a while now.... and that took a sustained effort on their part.

How do you negotiate with this? The attitude is reflective of the population so it's not as simple as suggesting this is an isolated group and not representative. You can't even suggest it's onlyToronto either, but places like Toronto carry the day when it comes to elections.

"A lot of complaints were coming in from the residents, people urinating, people defecating on their properties,”

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/shocked-ford-outraged-as-thousands-coverge-on-toronto-park

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wolfhunter said:

I'm starting to think the problem is that voters in Toronto think registered gun owners (who are primarily rural) are as irresponsible and foolish as they are, it explains why fact based conversation is futile.

Something has changed and it isn't guns, hand gun technology (for instance) has changed very little since 1911. People have changed and the biggest changes have occurred in large urban areas. Toronto has been on my motorcycle no go list for a while now.... and that took a sustained effort on their part.

How do you negotiate with this? The attitude is reflective of the population so it's not as simple as suggesting this is an isolated group and not representative. You can't even suggest it's onlyToronto either, but places like Toronto carry the day when it comes to elections.

"A lot of complaints were coming in from the residents, people urinating, people defecating on their properties,”

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/shocked-ford-outraged-as-thousands-coverge-on-toronto-park

You can’t continually import “Diversity” , then concentrate it into one urban area, put Canadian standards and values on the back burner In the interest of “Diversity” and not expect to have “Diversity !

Thank you Justin for all you do !!
 

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2020 at 10:19 AM, seeker said:

1.  Having a public inquiry will expose/highlight significant organizational and administrative problems.  What plans were in place to coordinate the handling of a situation that crosses jurisdictional boundaries?  Almost none I assume.  What plans were in place to control a situation that crosses the areas of multiple detachments within the same police force?  Who was in control of the situation and who's job to advise the public?

2.  Disclosing police procedures will expose gaps that are maybe better not exposed - kind of like knowing the guard takes his coffee break every night between 2:30am and 3:00 am.  My father used to tell me stories about growing up in a small farming community in Sask in the 50s and 60s.  They knew the route that the solitary RCMP officer would follow through the dozen or so small towns in his area and so would simply watch for him to pass through.  They were then free to do whatever they wanted (which, apparently consisted of hanging out on main street drinking beer) knowing he wouldn't be back for the night.  In the same way, I expect an inquiry would show minimal staffing at certain times and in certain areas along with a poor ability to call in extra staff.

3.  An inquiry would likely show complaints from individual officers about staffing, equipment, training and/or procedures that were never addressed by management.

I'm not saying that I think an inquiry shouldn't be done but rather that I think there will be lots of resistance to it by those who stand to wear the responsibility.

when I was younger asll we had to do was  drive by the police station and count the cars.  If there were 6, the game was on.  if there were 5 we had to be careful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this