Shootings and Knifings


Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, Wolfhunter said:

My goodness, talk about a dangerous precedent.

I could never live in such a place, hats off to you... far greater tolerance than I could ever muster. I need a minimum of 5 acres, septic system, drilled well, wood stove and a generator pony panel hook up. I want to be able to back my car on my own land anywhere I want to anytime I want to. 

If you can't back in (to drive out) and you can't drive in (to back out) what do y'all do? Is hover taxi an option there? 

I'm surprised people put up with such things. I'm always amazed by some of the stories in the US about home owner associations and the arbitrary power they project.... it's a form of oppression IMO.

I will state that the above issue is generated by two different bylaws to which no one happened to see the conflict.  I only know of 1 person to ever have a ticket for it however (there may have been more to his issue).

I think this fine example of municipal bylaw planning is a good example as to why anything criminal which could permanently harm an individual should be kept firmly out of the hands of municipal governments

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Back to carding and minimum 5 years in jail if caught with a gun! 

Magic 94.9 Web Poll Do you think banning handguns in Canada would curb gun violence? Yes     (1.23%)

Am I missing something ? The baggage retrieval area in most airports can be accessed by anyone in the general public, especially in the US. So anyone in the general public could have walked in, and in

Posted Images

On 2/23/2021 at 1:44 PM, boestar said:

I think this fine example of municipal bylaw planning is a good example as to why anything criminal which could permanently harm an individual should be kept firmly out of the hands of municipal governments

 

I agree.

What about standing it all on its head though.... If what you're saying is reasonable (and I think it is) shouldn't the reverse also be true? In other words, should a municipality have the right to opt out of federal/provincial law? Whats to prevent my road association (private road) from opting out of the highway traffic act?

Sanctuary cities come immediately to mind here; federal immigration law is ignored and the efforts of federal enforcement officers thwarted by the municipality. Should DMVs in the sanctuary city be allowed to issue state/provincial drivers licences to illegals that are recognized province/state, and country wide when they are the only jurisdiction to ignore the law?

No end of possible scenarios it seems. A bad idea that threatens to create more of them IMO and you only need to look south to see sanctuary gun jurisdictions that choose to ignore any and all gun control efforts.  

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit like "Andrew Shear is a white supremacist" and this will get repeated over and over again.

They seem to be hitting the concealed carry and over capacity magazine thing pretty hard now.... it was never even on the radar before 

 

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Wolfhunter said:

It's a bit like "Andrew Shear is a white supremacist" and this will get repeated over and over again.

They seem to be hitting the concealed carry and over capacity magazine thing pretty hard now.... it was never even on the radar before 

 

3A5A67A8-1802-461C-8371-42AEB6AA3595.jpeg

96E82E53-DD3B-4252-8973-296DF8D691E8.jpeg

1E072215-A2E2-476D-82F4-56D40AACBC58.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Defund the police they said..........
45 police officers shot in the US, 11 killed, since the beginning of 2021

The numbers represent an increase from the first two months of 2020, during which eight officers were fatally shot in the line of duty

D9AA6319-AFB3-422A-807D-BC25A98C4CA9.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting report on the Nova Scotia RCMP firehall firearms discharge:

https://sirt.novascotia.ca/no-charges-discharge-firearms-rcmp-officers-onslow-fire-hall

Spoiler - no charges (actually, it's right there in the title).

So, after reading the coverup sorry, "Investigative Report" I'm left with a few questions but let me summarize the report:

There were reports of an individual wearing a fake uniform and driving a fake cruiser.  Our two RCMP officers roll up to the firehall and spot a dude wearing a reflective vest standing beside a cruiser.  They yell at him, he ducks and runs so they start shooting.  After firing many shots they leave.  The investigation recommends no charges 'cause they thought he was the bad guy.  The end.

The question about whether there should be charges hinges, IMO, on whether the officers were prudent and whether the shooting was justified.  Why did they leave without confirming either that the "suspect" was dead or had left the location?  Obviously, they either got a radio call telling them to stop or made a radio call to report they were shooting and were told to stop.  Was it prudent to shoot on the basis of the information they had?  I don't believe that comes anywhere close to prudent. 

I would hope that if a report comes in that says a bank on Main Street was robbed by a dude in a black hoodie that the police don't just drive to Main Street and shoot the first guy they see in a black hoodie.  I would expect that before shooting at a man simply wearing similar clothing standing beside a cruiser the officers would attempt to confirm there were no real officers doing that exact thing.  In fact, it's even worse because they were in such haste that they didn't even notice the officer sitting in the cruiser - this alone was enough to show they had not encountered the bad guy but rather a real officer.

I'm not even that smart but it occurs to me that knowing the bad guy is wearing a uniform would make me want to take extra time to confirm who I'm looking at rather than less time - I would be extra careful rather than spring-loaded to shoot. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some great comments on Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/halifax/comments/lw97au/no_charges_in_discharge_of_firearms_by_rcmp/

 

I'll cut-and-paste a few here for those who don't do Reddit;

 

 

novemberxray:

"We investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong!"

 

reddelicious77:

Seriously, though.

Cop - "Judge - I'm sorry, I had to shoot blindly into that large public building b/c I thought that guy running away was a shooter. You can't charge me!!"

Judge - "Sir, that was ENTIRELY irresponsible, and you could have easily killed many innocents - never mind not knowing if the guy you were shooting at was actually the perp. The basics of firearm safety is knowing not just what your target is, but who is behind it. You are guilty!"

Cop - "But but... I'm a cop!"

Judge - "ooOOooo well .... that changes everything. Why didn't you say so? Not guilty!"

 

harnislc:

What makes this even worse is that there were in the vicinity of 30 bullet holes counted in the fire hall, yet SiRT says only 5 shots were fired based on what was left in the magazines of offending officers. Clearly there is a huge discrepancy here.

 

 

I-Love-Canada:

**bleep** Blue wall of Silence ..... AGAIN. People wonder why everyone doesn't smile and wave to the Police and appreciate them ' protecting us' . Could have SOMETHING to do with loose cannon Cops shooting up a **bleep** volunteer fire hall..... And getting let go for the crime because it is their **bleep** peers investigating them.

 

 

Scotianherb:

Wow. Just wow.

Careless discharge then leaving the scene.

If anyone else did this they would be in jail.

tiberria:

It's time for the province to announce the immediate dissolvement of SiRT, because clearly they are useless and an extension of the RCMP. The fact that they are openly condoning and clearing RCMP officers for shooting at a target without positive identification (and no - wearing a safety vest - is not positive identification for using deadly force - JFC) and shooting at a fire hall like this is just going to enable further RCMP misconduct and incompetence. Why was nothing said about the fact these officers ran away like scared deer after doing this?

Disgusting and ridiculous.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you needed an example of how bill C21 is out of touch with the reality of today’s violent offenders, associated gun crimes and the new removal of minimum mandatory sentences.....

Quote

In this incident, the sadness I feel for the victim and her family is mixed with frustration for a complete failure of our justice system to protect her," he said last July. "At the time of this incident, the accused was the subject of an interim judicial release stemming from a previous domestic violence incident between the accused and the victim."

Since that charge, Duraiappah said, Reid had been arrested on four separate occasions for breaching the terms of his release by being in contact with Henderson-Bellman.

"This represents a tragic outcome for a young person who carried a bright future. I extend my sincerest condolences to the loved ones who have been left behind."

Reid was also arrested for possession of an illegal firearm in connection with an unrelated matter in May 2020, two months before the shooting.

After spending six days in custody, Reid was released back into the community with a GPS monitoring device despite clear concerns regarding his apparent risk to Henderson-Bellman and the rest of the community, Duraiappah said.

According to the chief, Reid "regularly ignored his conditions of release and continued to offend by possessing illegal firearms."

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-man-charged-with-first-degree-murder-in-shooting-of-ex-girlfriend-seven-months-ago-1.5334234

 

I am saddened for the family and the failure of the system to protect their daughter. 
Diversity is our strength.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a bit of legal perspective on municipal handgun bans. It's always good to stand things on their head and anticipate potential consequences like what if municipalities now chose to authorize concealed carry or suspend all existing storage and transport rules.

Anyway, pour yourself a glass of wine first, you might need it:

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

The number of gang members arrested for weapons offences while they are out on bail for weapons offences is well known... not to mention a staggering display of justice system buffoonery. 

Here's another one. There might be other words for it but buffoonery comes to mind because it's almost funny... almost:

Alberta pastor accused of flouting COVID restrictions to remain in jail before May trial

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

From CTV Montreal. Not widely covered nationally though.... I wonder why that might be.

https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/rcmp-arrests-sherbrooke-man-seizes-249-guns-near-quebec-u-s-border-1.5339719

Anyone think it's an accident that you have to look so diligently for these stories? Is it an accident the NS shooting information is being released one molecule at a time? 

If only they would make it illegal to illegally import and illegally transport illegal weapons with illegal over capacity magazines for illegal sale to those for which possession of illegal handguns is illegal.

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy isn't a terrorist either?

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/17/man-arrested-near-kamala-harris-residence-gun-and-ammunition-found.html

Man wanted by police arrested near residence of Vice President Kamala Harris, gun and ammo found in car

KEY POINTS
  • A Texas man wanted by the police was stopped by the U.S. Secret Service and arrested Wednesday afternoon near the residence of Vice President Kamala Harris.
  • Police said they found a rifle and ammunition in the man’s car, which was parked some distance away in a garage in downtown Washington.
  • Paul Murray, 31, of San Antonio, was stopped by Secret Service officers just after noon in the northwest section of Washington on Massachusetts Avenue, right outside the Naval Observatory, which contains Harris’ residence.
Link to post
Share on other sites

deicer;  a serious question for you;  I've clearly missed something, can you tell me the significance to you of having someone labelled as a terrorist?  Are you saying the guy should be called a terrorist and isn't or somebody did call him a terrorist and you don't think he is?

 

I'm not getting your point.

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

I've clearly missed something, can you tell me the significance to you of having someone labelled as a terrorist? 

I have a few acquaintances that consistently do the same thing because they want the definition to fit their own beliefs/agenda. Based on that experience, I predict you will find yourself fighting a loosing battle by presenting any valid definition of terrorism and even the notion of criminal intent will fall on deaf ears.   

I’ve previously posted the individual definitions of “terrorism” several times here in direct response to this. Although there are subtle differences between agencies such as the RCMP, Military, DHS, FBI, UN etc, it generally boils down to the notion of intent which in this case is violence in support of religious or political beliefs. Intent also stands as the measure of difference between terrorism and a hate crime…. another blurry area for some.

So, there is a difference between someone who firebombs a car because he doesn’t like FORD’s and someone who does the same thing because of a hatred toward the ethnicity of the people driving that particular FORD. There is also a difference if the same action is undertaken in support of a political or religious cause. The difference here remains one of intent and the only common thread was the destruction of a  FORD.

Now, if you were an ardent lover of all things FORD you might see these examples through the lens of vehicular atrocities perpetrated against FORD. You might consider it the work of terrorists with out regard to the motivation behind the attacks and see it simply as the destruction of automobiles based on brand name.  

No one would ever be able to convince you otherwise.... this is that IMO.

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2021 at 8:12 AM, seeker said:

deicer;  a serious question for you;  I've clearly missed something, can you tell me the significance to you of having someone labelled as a terrorist?  Are you saying the guy should be called a terrorist and isn't or somebody did call him a terrorist and you don't think he is?

 

I'm not getting your point.

If you look back through recent right news channel history, if it was a person of colour, they would have been labeled a 'terrorist'.

Why not apply the same labels equally?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, deicer said:

If you look back through recent right news channel history, if it was a person of colour, they would have been labeled a 'terrorist'.

 

I'm not familiar with examples.  Can you provide?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2021 at 11:39 AM, seeker said:

I'm not familiar with examples

That's likely because federal policing, security services and military organizations everywhere apply strict definitions. There is no effort to achieve equality of prosecution based on race when the definition itself hinges on motive. 

 News outlets, politicians and those with agendas don’t see it that way.... and that's fine because redefining it helps them make a point. The only question I would pose is do they want scarce and expensive anti-terrorism efforts directed to their definition of terrorism or the existing one? If the former, I predict costs will soar, interdiction efforts will be severely impaired and Bill will have fodder for another "New Rule" segment.

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2021 at 1:13 PM, deicer said:

Interesting but I don't think those links made your point.  You said, the "recent right news channel history" labels violent activities by "people of colour" as being terrorist. 

To make your point you need to list examples of right-leaning news channels doing this and left-leaning news channels not doing this by comparing reports of the same event. 

Seems like a lot of work but I'm not the one making the claim.

I'm going to make an analogy that some might find crass or insensitive.  Simply have to because it fits so perfectly. 

When discussing deer hunting the question will come up sometimes about whether it's better to use a light bullet fired at a higher speed or a heavy bullet fired at a slower speed.  The lighter bullet shoots flatter (easier to make long shots) the heavier bullet  has more energy at target but it is harder to calculate the bullet drop.  The correct answer is that the deer doesn't care.  In a case of a violent shooting - the victims are dead and the families don't care whether the killer was a "terrorist" or not.

I do not see the advantage to labeling some violent incident as being terrorist after the fact especially in case of a "lone-wolf" type of occurance.  I suppose if there's some sort of organization carrying out the attacks being labelled as terrorist might be cause for more attention but I'm not convinced this is the case or makes much difference overall.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the second example I posted covered your question of what right and left news agencies do.

Your analogy doesn't fit in this scenario because it isn't hunting.

It is terror and revenge in most cases of mass shootings.

As for labelling after the incident, it happens.  What I am discussing is why it is mainly 'terrorist' if it is a person of colour, and 'lone wolf' if it isn't.

 

 

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.