Stand - Off on Hwy 33.

[Fancy]

I rest my case.

[60-YEARS-in-Ktown]

The. Problem with the Bonnie and Clyde ending is......
Where do all, the bullets end up that get past the suspects.... That is a concern..


Perhaps this thread should be retitled...
To.......The Melee on 33......

[Fancy]

It's obvious this rental property is a concern for the neighbours. Certainly a concern for police since they've had to attend more than once in a week. The public doesn't have all the information and it's too bad the neighbours have to endure the comings and goings the tenants deny outright is happening. The neighbours need to get together and document everything if they wish to have some peace of mind down the road.

[Fancy]

The. Probkem with the Bonnie and Clyde ending is......
Where do al, the bullets end up that get past the suspects.... That is a concern..

I see where a problem lies - there were no bullets but an alleged knife.

[Atomoa]

The. Probkem with the Bonnie and Clyde ending is......
Where do al, the bullets end up that get past the suspects.... That is a concern..

Local cop quoted on the Remembrance day thread as justifying the reason they took their assault rifles to the parade was incase some random started shooting they had "better control" with the high velocity round as opposed to their low velocity handguns.

If someone started shooting and everyone started panicking and running around, apparently it's better to shoot NATO rounds through a crowd that travel faster and further rather than bullets that travel slower and a lesser distance because the police have bad aim.

You know, as opposed to assuming that Kelowna BC won't be a terrorist-war-target and bringing non leathal weapons to a peace ceremony.

[Easypeasy]

As someone who lives very close to the property in question, (no I wasn't the person that called the police), I'm very satisfied with the police response. Not once were we ever concerned about "living in a war zone" while the stand-off was occurring. I truly believe that the police are highly trained (no I'm not rcmp, nor am I related to one) and responded to the incident appropriately. It's not like the Police are inflatable car lot windsock men with automatic weapons attached. They were focused on one particular very problematic residence with a history of emergency services calls (we hear the sirens, and see the responders every time). I'm sure the police are very well aware of who lives in the house, and what goes on there. If this was the first time they had been called to the address, they might have simply knocked on the door like a girl guide selling cookies, and asked if everything was alright. Instead, after countless visits, which I can imagine become increasingly frustrating, and time consuming, they responded with some "muscle". Obviously to deal with the report of a weapon, but also to possibly slow down the ever present traffic and in and out activity...........which by the way resumed within a couple hours of the police departure.

[Daspoot]

Given my devotion to the subject and the main author of 50+ page thread on the subject, why do you assume I am not familiar with the training they receive? Aside from its obvious application on our streets it's not hard to grasp.

Posting a bunch on a forum thread is not a qualification or proof of knowledge.

The police are the only ones you would ever accept "expert knowledge of training" from, and to them there is no much thing as overkill. Why even bother asking me educate myself? You will only accept the word of the person who says they can do no wrong.

So you're also an expert on what I will and won't accept too? I was questioning your knowledge of response protocol, and reasoning behind it. Something you've not only not shown any understanding of, but actually posted opinion (phrased as fact) that show you don't have any clue as to what their response protocol dictates, and also have no idea why their response to situations like this is like it is. (and might I add look like overkill to an uneducated layman)

Are you suggesting that because the police are becoming more militarized and more aggressive, that has resulted in lower crime rates? I've never heard that one.

What a warped conclusion to my request that you add some other factors to your forgone conclusions to help you with perspective.

I wonder how many more times innocents get wounded or killed due to using SWAT teams in civilian settings 29 times in 13 years compared to 200+ a year? The answer is too many. That's why this is such a popular subject.

Ahh yes, like this one where nothing happened to anyone. Please learn why the Police and RCMP respond like they do before criticising it because you don't like the optics and have a chip on your shoulder about it.

Back to the "..not going in there with our hands in our pockets" black and white thinking. You're either at war and at 100% aggression or you're a fluffy pink toy that's going to get killed.

Yes, this was 100% aggression and "war", what an astute assessment of a situation where nobody got so much as a stubbed toe because you think the Cops were more prepared than you think they should have been. And this based on your interpretation of the wording of small news blurb and movie clip.

Maybe just for a moment consider that you don't have a whole lot of information on this one in the grand scope, and think perhaps your forgone conclusions might just be less informed than those who actually managed the incident.

[Atomoa]

Ahh yes, like this one where nothing happened to anyone.

Since 2001, more civilians have been killed the US by the police than soldiers in Iraq. Over 5000 dead.

40 billion dollars in military gear and training applied to the civilian population will do that to people. 5000+ people weren't killed because crime rates are at historical lows.

[Atomoa]

As someone who lives very close to the property in question, (no I wasn't the person that called the police), I'm very satisfied with the police response. Not once were we ever concerned about "living in a war zone" while the stand-off was occurring.

That's great. I was.

Obviously to deal with the report of a weapon, but also to possibly slow down the ever present traffic and in and out activity

Assault rifles and sniper positions to slow down "traffic". Doesn't have a problem with use of force.

Ok then, big surprise.

[Daspoot]

Ahh yes, like this one where nothing happened to anyone.

Since 2001, more civilians have been killed the US by the police than soldiers in Iraq. Over 5000 dead.

40 billion dollars in military gear and training applied to the civilian population will do that to people. 5000+ people weren't killed because crime rates are at historical lows.

Stats without context are worse than no stats at all.

[Daspoot]

So what do you suggest if a problem involving someone with a knife is reported, send out one cop with a slightly bigger knife?

[60-YEARS-in-Ktown]

How about 3. And the dogmaster...

But hey, I forgot..they send four for a guy brandishing a stapler..that just came thru international flight screening..
And look how that ended..

[slootman]

*removed*

[Daspoot]

How about 3. And the dogmaster...

But hey, I forgot..they send four for a guy brandishing a stapler..that just came thru international flight screening..
And look how that ended..

Yeah, if you're gonna go off you nut, best not to do it in an airport these days.

I won't sit here and say every Police action is beyond reproach, but people who think they should try to make friends without back-up in a "person with weapon" scene really have no friggin clue what it takes to be the guy going on the call (after call, after call...)

[JayByrd]

If someone started shooting and everyone started panicking and running around, apparently it's better to shoot NATO rounds through a crowd that travel faster and further rather than bullets that travel slower and a lesser distance because the police have bad aim.

You know, as opposed to assuming that Kelowna BC won't be a terrorist-war-target and bringing non leathal weapons to a peace ceremony.

Shoot rounds through a crowd? So you're suggesting the RCMP would mow down civilians with automatic weapons, in order to get at the bad guy?

"Shooting rounds through a crowd" is designed to sound alarming, and make the reader feel afraid. That's manipulation and it's a poor way to construct an argument. For a guy who claims to be an authority on this issue (at least within this forum), you're very willing to sacrifice your credibility to make a point. It makes you sound like an anonymous guy who just writes whatever he wants.