RCMP officers to get new guns

[Rwede]

trying this again - so if homicides are down and violent gang activity is down why the guns now?

What in your mind is an acceptable level of death among law enforcement personnel and the general public they protect? So it's down, but is it at an "acceptable" level for you now?

[Fancy]

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/8 ... 01-eng.htm
Interesting shift in crime.

[KL3-Something]

Now if those two cowards who are sitting in jail for manslaughter now would have made one simple anonymous phone call to the police about Rosko being dropped off with a gun they would still be alive.

Not bringing up old dirt, but Rosko was well known to be crazy, violent and dangerous in the community and those two guys feared for their lives and were basically blackmailed into helping that guy out - under threat of death ect. They didnt "call the cops" because Rosko would have killed them if he found out - they were under extreme duress. I think its tragic what happened but "those two cowards" are just the poor suckers that got the brunt end of the stick. Worse tragedy in Canadian history - someone was going to "hang" for it and since the perp was dead....those guys went to jail.

Also, that Rosko guy ambushed the cops. Even if they knew the guy had guns ( violent history, community profile said he would probably be armed even though he was prohibited ) there is a good chance the police still would have been killed because that guy was crazy and very motivated to cause harm to those police officers. The guy had sniper nests set up and had pulled socks over his shoes to prevent foorprint tracking.

Of course the courts have said otherwise, but this tragedy was as political as it was horrible. Infact they dropped the Mayerthorpe bomb to justify these new guns - when the guns wouldn't have made a difference and they were looking at getting the new guns BEFORE this even happened. That's a pretty cheesey thing to do in the name of this tragedy.

Well I guess they could say whatever they wanted in their defense in an allocation where there is no cross-examination. You can be armed with a grenade launcher but it doesn't matter if you are ambushed and can't get a shot off.

But we're both what-if'ing and you have your opinion and I have mine.

The recommendations from the Mayerthorpe inquest were not put forward by the RCMP. They were presented by Assistant Chief Judge Daniel R. Pahl. If you think that focusing solely on the Mayerthorpe recommendations as the stimulus for this move is a "cheesy thing to do" then blame the media who are being lazy and sensationalist about it. Buzz words that get people reading sell ad space.

[normaM]

trying this again - so if homicides are down and violent gang activity is down why the guns now?

That's the difference between "reactive" and "proactive". Which would you prefer our police force to be? Wait until it is too late? What action do you take with your lawn watering? Are you one of those that waits until the lawn turns brown before turning on a sprinkler? Would you close the barn door AFTER the horses have run away?

huh? I would like to know why if crime is down the RCMP who many now mistrust feel the need to have these weapons. So I'll go to the source with my query. I'll let you know what reply I get.

[goatboy]

trying this again - so if homicides are down and violent gang activity is down why the guns now?

They may be down, but still exist, as evidenced by the Bacon murder in our own town. There is no correlation between a decrease in crime and the need for these weapons. Crime rate may be down, but the level of violence has gone up.

[steelrules]

trying this again - so if homicides are down and violent gang activity is down why the guns now?

They may be down, but still exist, as evidenced by the Bacon murder in our own town. There is no correlation between a decrease in crime and the need for these weapons. Crime rate may be down, but the level of violence has gone up.

Oh goatsie did you just pull that out of your B--t?
Please post link to that stat.

[goatboy]

I don't have any stats, you're right. Let's say then that my perception has been that the level of violence in Canada has only escalated over the years, especially the amount of gun violence. I may be wrong, but that's the way I see it.

[normaM]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... le2215324/

[steelrules]

Can ANYONE provide ANY link to any information/news article, suposition, accusation, evidence, proof that the RCMP have ever mis-handled any of their ERT weapons? What is causing you people your fear? Perhaps, you are criminals?

Seems they have misused every other weapon/tool they have been given why should anyone think this will be any different?
Hyopthetical prediction.The day will come that this weapon will be in the hands cop when he goes postal.

And as for your question about concerned citizens being criminals, I can only speak for my self and say my criminal activity consists of seatbelt ticket 12 years ago.

[steelrules]

Can ANYONE provide ANY link to any information/news article, suposition, accusation, evidence, proof that the RCMP have ever mis-handled any of their ERT weapons? What is causing you people your fear? Perhaps, you are criminals?

Seems they have misused every other weapon/tool they have been given why should anyone think this will be any different?
Hyopthetical prediction.The day will come that this weapon will be in the hands cop when he goes postal.

And as for your question about concerned citizens being criminals, I can only speak for my self and say my criminal activity consists of seatbelt ticket 12 years ago.

BUT, can you prove that THIS tool has been misused? What are YOU afraid of?

I'm afraid of that cop that's going to go postal some day, like at a peaceful protest, or storming the wrong house, or at a school.
You see I have seen the psychological profile of some police on the nightly news and it's disturbing.

[Fancy]

Which means nothing really because without the new equipment they could still go "postal" with their hunting rifles.

[Bagotricks]

Which means nothing really because without the new equipment they could still go "postal" with their hunting rifles.

Well to be fair to his point, technically if a cop did go "postal" with one of these new guns they could kill alot more people than with their 9mm or shotgun.

The issue here has always been justification.

The opposing sides are : police safety vs. public interest and keeping a civil society, not a military state.

The RCMP have never been shot at by automatic heavy gun fire. Police forces in the US rarely encounter this, if ever.

Yet there is much data on the increased militarization of civilian police forces, under the "safety of the police officers good name", all the way to armored personnel vehicles and police using tear gas, riot gear and percussion grenades on peaceful, unarmed protesters, SWAT teams serving warrants for hippie grow ops and dead-beat dad arrests. They sent in a SWAT team to raid the Gibson Guitar factory ( which is open to the public ) on a working day about some import-export laws concerning Indian wood they use for the guitars. They brought assault rifles, and old ladies were working inside polishing guitars!

I don't want the police to be shot or hurt. I also want a civil society and a non-military police force. Tricky part is finding a middle ground, but if you even try and talk about the subject, its like talking critically about Israeli foreign policy to a Zionist who only accuses you of being anti-semitic.

[Captain Awesome]

Police forces in the US rarely encounter this, if ever.

Nope, it does happen.

[Trunk-Monkey]

Which means nothing really because without the new equipment they could still go "postal" with their hunting rifles.

Well to be fair to his point, technically if a cop did go "postal" with one of these new guns they could kill alot more people than with their 9mm or shotgun.

The issue here has always been justification.

The opposing sides are : police safety vs. public interest and keeping a civil society, not a military state.

The RCMP have never been shot at by automatic heavy gun fire. Police forces in the US rarely encounter this, if ever.

Yet there is much data on the increased militarization of civilian police forces, under the "safety of the police officers good name", all the way to armored personnel vehicles and police using tear gas, riot gear and percussion grenades on peaceful, unarmed protesters, SWAT teams serving warrants for hippie grow ops and dead-beat dad arrests. They sent in a SWAT team to raid the Gibson Guitar factory ( which is open to the public ) on a working day about some import-export laws concerning Indian wood they use for the guitars. They brought assault rifles, and old ladies were working inside polishing guitars!

I don't want the police to be shot or hurt. I also want a civil society and a non-military police force. Tricky part is finding a middle ground, but if you even try and talk about the subject, its like talking critically about Israeli foreign policy to a Zionist who only accuses you of being anti-semitic.

As much as I respect what your thoughts about this issue, I have to say all of your "questions" have been answered in one way or another. It seems you just dont want to see that. I am not saying you are wrong for thinking the way you do...but if you read over all of your questions...they have been answered.
TM

[Bagotricks]

The RCMP have never hit any innocent bystanders by accident with their shotgun buckshot during the "what if" 5 year old boy in the crowded room where the cop has to take out the kidnapper with a precise sniper-shot in the heat of the moment Hollywood style situation.

The RCMP have never been attacked with heavy assault rifle fire.

My questions have been answered with misdirection and redirection back to me having the gall to question a officers safety.

Why do the police need heavy guns if there has never been a problem before? If the answer is "...what if", then by that logic we can arm our police forces with whatever they want, under any conceivable situation, just as many other civilian police forces have done, with increased escalation.

If I worked for a company and I said "I need a new phone - a blackberry" and my boss said "You have never left the office once in 50 years, and you want me to buy you a blackberry *just incase* you leave the office? And I turned around and said "Fine then if I loose a sale two years from now because I'm out of the office then it will be YOUR fault for questioning it".

Sound ridiculous right? But the only thing different here is "police safety" and calling that in question. We are fighting a war on terror apparently, and this only ends when the police have tanks and green uniforms. That is the end game here.

You don't sign up to be a cop without assuming some risk either, and that is something to think about. We could make the police's job VERY easy by getting rid of privacy rights and the charter, but again it boils down to what is better for society in a whole. It is actually a good subject that can be applied to alot of issues.