Everything Canadian Police

[Fancy]

Don't overlook the federal work they do and those that work out of uniform.

[my5cents]

Oh, ya the "shoot first and ask questions later" doctrine.

On this same day if a citizen on his own property saw a marked RCMP cruiser pull into his driveway and the driver got out wearing a vest and the citizen opened fire. Just what do you think would happen to the citizen ?

Well considering the citizen had no reason to do so I'd say they would be charged with attempted murder? That is if they missed

In my scenario, the citizen knew there was a guy going around killing people, the citizen had information that the culprit had on a yellow vest and was operating what looked like an RCMP cruiser. The citizen saw a marked cruiser with a person wearing a yellow vest coming into his driveway.

I agree with you that the citizen had "no reason" to open fire but the same is also true for the police officer who saw a marked cruiser and a person wearing a vest at the firehall.

The police who opened fire at the fire hall were acting more like uncontrolled vigilantes than trained police officers.

Attempted murder needs intent. The shooting would be a case of negligence or unlawful/dangerous use of a firearm in that it was completely irresponsible to fire a weapon at someone based on the circumstances.

The same was true for the RCMP that did fire their weapons. That's my point.

[cyruslosco66]

Stench of partisan politics exposed in lethbridge police

[AtlantisKelowna]

In my scenario, the citizen knew there was a guy going around killing people, the citizen had information that the culprit had on a yellow vest and was operating what looked like an RCMP cruiser. The citizen saw a marked cruiser with a person wearing a yellow vest coming into his driveway.

Well in the real-life scenario as in the one that actually happened, the public did not have anywhere close to the same information as the police did at the time. Basing your argument around a self-made scenario is really not helping your case.

I agree with you that the citizen had "no reason" to open fire but the same is also true for the police officer who saw a marked cruiser and a person wearing a vest at the firehall.

No, the police have a job and sometimes it requires using a high level of force. In this case, a suspect has been on a killing spree and it just so happens that this person matched said description. In the moment they knew how many people had been murdered already so why you think either of them would resort to less lethal force to subdue a nutcase like this? Oh right, you just judge from your keyboard and don't know what it's like to put yourself in harm's way for the rest of your community.

The police who opened fire at the fire hall were acting more like uncontrolled vigilantes than trained police officers.

Again, no! These vigilantes as you like to call them were putting their life on the line to protect people and haters much like yourself who pass judgement on them for trying to do the right thing. The best part is they still get up and do it even for the haters like yourself.

Attempted murder needs intent. The shooting would be a case of negligence or unlawful/dangerous use of a firearm in that it was completely irresponsible to fire a weapon at someone based on the circumstances.

They had plenty of intent. This situation did not allow for a huddle to discuss the best approach. You seem to miss the point that there was a mass murderer on the loose and theses heroes were trying to prevent any further deaths. The one in a million chance that this person matched every detail the police had on the suspect was unfortunate but nobody was injured.

The same was true for the RCMP that did fire their weapons. That's my point.

Well, sadly you are wrong. Maybe you should read this article and quit being so judgemental.

"The province's Serious Incident Response Team has cleared the Mounties of wrongdoing in the incident, according to a news release. The SIRT investigation found that they reasonably believed the man at the fire hall might have been the mass killer.

SaltWire Network is not identifying the man who killed 22 people from the night of April 18 to the morning of April 19 at multiple locations in the province, beginning at Portapique and ending at an Enfield gas station where he was shot and killed by police.

The two Mounties involved in the Onslow Fire Hall shooting had been called in to help with the investigation into what was then only known to be multiple killings in Portapique.

Both officers were recalled to duty at 3 a.m. on April 19, the report said.


“At the command post, they were briefed on what was then known about the events which had occurred in the preceding six hours and assigned to assist with the investigation,” the SIRT report said. “It was unknown at this time if the killer was either still alive and at large or deceased but whose remains had yet to be found.

“They learned that several children had witnessed their parents being shot dead and that a total of five persons were dead. The actual total number of victims was unknown at the time of the briefing because several buildings in Portapique were on fire and whether there were additional victims had not yet been determined. They were also informed of a man in his car being injured by the killer who had driven up beside the man's vehicle and shot at him with what appeared to be a laser sighting firearm.”

They later were informed that the killer was driving a replica RCMP patrol car and was dressed like an RCMP officer, wearing a reflective vest.

A radio transmission notified officers of a structure on fire in Wentworth in the vicinity of where a woman was killed.

“While en route to the scene of that shooting, SO1 and SO2 learned from another officer that the driver of the marked police vehicle seen driving away from Wentworth was wearing a reflective vest,” the SIRT report said. “Shortly thereafter another radio transmission advised all members that the killer was now at a residence on Highway 4 in Glenholme. SO1 and SO2 together with other officers including members of the Emergency Response Team went to that residence, however by the time they arrived, the killer was no longer there.”

A short time later, they heard more reports that two more people had been shot dead in their vehicles on Plains Road in Debert.

They began searching the area for the killer, eventually heading in the direction of Onslow.


Their search for the killer took them to the fire hall, where they found a man wearing a yellow reflective vest standing next to an RCMP car.

Because they were facing the passenger side of the vehicle, the approaching officers could not tell that another RCMP officer was in the driver's seat.

The report also states that the officers tried to use their radios to contact other officers but had trouble with their communications at the time due to overwhelming radio traffic.

“SO1 yelled to AP2 'police' and 'show your hands,'” the SIRT report said. “AP2 did not show his hands but rather ducked behind the marked police car then popped up and ran toward the fire hall entrance. The SOs fired their weapons. SO1 fired four shots and SO2 fired one shot. Neither AP2 who had run
into the fire hall nor AP1 who, unbeknownst to the SOs, was sitting in the police vehicle were struck by the shots.”

The report said the officers were aware that they were searching for “a ruthless and heavily armed killer” who had resumed a rampage he had begun the previous night.

“The investigation found that based on everything the officers had seen and heard since coming on duty and what they had observed at the time, they had reasonable grounds to believe that the male was the killer and someone who would continue his killing rampage,” the SIRT release said. “They discharged their weapons in order to prevent further deaths or serious injuries.”

[my5cents]

You've got a lot to learn about police work. No matter what, police or civilian, you don't "shoot first and ask questions later".

The members who shot at the civilian were not shot at. They had the opportunity to remain behind cover and ascertain if this was the suspect, or perhaps an innocent civilian.

As for being cleared, they got a mulligan. They are lucky.

I stand by what I said and stand by saying that if a civilian did something similar they wouldn't have received a mulligan.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[AtlantisKelowna]

You've got a lot to learn about police work. No matter what, police or civilian, you don't "shoot first and ask questions later".

The members who shot at the civilian were not shot at. They had the opportunity to remain behind cover and ascertain if this was the suspect, or perhaps an innocent civilian.

As for being cleared, they got a mulligan. They are lucky.

I stand by what I said and stand by saying that if a civilian did something similar they wouldn't have received a mulligan.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Clearly, you missed the part I kindly highlighted in red so that you wouldn't miss it.

“SO1 yelled to AP2 'police' and 'show your hands,'” the SIRT report said. “AP2 did not show his hands but rather ducked behind the marked police car then popped up and ran toward the fire hall entrance. The SOs fired their weapons. SO1 fired four shots and SO2 fired one shot. Neither AP2 who had run
into the fire hall nor AP1 who, unbeknownst to the SOs, was sitting in the police vehicle were struck by the shots.”

Officer identifies himself as a police officer and then asks to see his hands. He hides and then runs.....this is why they fired their weapons. First of all the person matched the description, second, he began to flee (typical of a guilty suspect) and third, the people under fire are not even upset about what happened so why are you being so ignorant. Yes, it was a mistake and luckily no more innocent people died.

You should create another scenario and put yourself in their shoes. In a split second, knowing 20 people are already dead, one being a fellow officer and another officer full of bullets it would be a tough decision for anyone to make.

This was the largest mass murder in Canadian History yet all you can do is shame the people who ran into the face of danger and made a simple human error based on a case of mistaken identity and nobody was even injured. You are a sad individual.

[my5cents]

Clearly, you missed the part I kindly highlighted in red so that you wouldn't miss it.

“SO1 yelled to AP2 'police' and 'show your hands,'” the SIRT report said. “AP2 did not show his hands but rather ducked behind the marked police car then popped up and ran toward the fire hall entrance. The SOs fired their weapons. SO1 fired four shots and SO2 fired one shot. Neither AP2 who had run
into the fire hall nor AP1 who, unbeknownst to the SOs, was sitting in the police vehicle were struck by the shots.”

Officer identifies himself as a police officer and then asks to see his hands. He hides and then runs.....this is why they fired their weapons. First of all the person matched the description, second, he began to flee (typical of a guilty suspect) and third, the people under fire are not even upset about what happened so why are you being so ignorant. Yes, it was a mistake and luckily no more innocent people died.

You should create another scenario and put yourself in their shoes. In a split second, knowing 20 people are already dead, one being a fellow officer and another officer full of bullets it would be a tough decision for anyone to make.

This was the largest mass murder in Canadian History yet all you can do is shame the people who ran into the face of danger and made a simple human error based on a case of mistaken identity and nobody was even injured. You are a sad individual.

Oh ya, I saw the red, gee thanks.

You may see police shooting at suspect who don't show their hands and run on TV, but in the real world, especially in Canada that's frowned on.

I'm not shaming anyone. Being a mass murderer doesn't give license to kill on sight. That's the difference between trained Canadian police officers and others.

Yes, it's a very tough decision. When it's all over what the cops did in a few split seconds is analyzed with a microscope. The investigation took, what 10 months. Over what took place in real time, a few seconds.

Ya think that might be why questionable police actions were found to be within reason ?

As I said, agree to disagree.

[my5cents]

https://www.castanet.net/news/Canada/33 ... ova-Scotia

"In the 12 months since a man disguised as a Mountie murdered 22 people in rural Nova Scotia, the RCMP's handling of the horrific case has come under intense scrutiny.

Through the intermittent disclosure of heavily redacted files, the RCMP and the Crown have gradually divulged a narrative that raises questions about why it took police 13 hours to stop one of the worst mass killings in Canadian history.

Wayne MacKay, a law professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax, says the glacial pace of the RCMP's investigation and their reluctance to release search warrant applications does not reflect well on the Mounties......."

[AtlantisKelowna]

You may see police shooting at suspect who don't show their hands and run on TV, but in the real world, especially in Canada that's frowned on.

Only by people like yourself. If you don't want to follow the lawful commands of the people we put in place to protect the good citizens of this country then you deserve whatever happens to you. If you are a law-abiding citizen then you have absolutely nothing to be concerned about, it's really that simple.

I'm not shaming anyone. Being a mass murderer doesn't give license to kill on sight. That's the difference between trained Canadian police officers and others.

So you think this guy deserved to have his day in court then right? I'm sure the 23 dead people's families would disagree with that. So in a sense you are shaming the victims by standing up for a murderer. As for the license to kill on sight, this is a perfect example of when that should be granted.

Yes, it's a very tough decision. When it's all over what the cops did in a few split seconds is analyzed with a microscope. The investigation took, what 10 months. Over what took place in real time, a few seconds.

Ya think that might be why questionable police actions were found to be within reason ?

As I said, agree to disagree.

The investigation time when an officer uses their weapon is anywhere between 6-12 months so there is nothing special about this case. There was nothing questionable about the actions taken by these officers, they were doing their job. The officer that ran instead of identifying himself was the only one questionable in this scenario. Luckily he wasn't killed and if he was it would have been his own fault.

[my5cents]

To start with "AtlantisKelowna" you are so far off on this that I don't know if you are putting me on, or actually think what you've said is true.

Only by people like yourself. If you don't want to follow the lawful commands of the people we put in place to protect the good citizens of this country then you deserve whatever happens to you. If you are a law-abiding citizen then you have absolutely nothing to be concerned about, it's really that simple.

That's so far from what the law dictates. Proof positive watching US News coverage and TV shows does not demonstrate how Canadian police do their job.

So you think this guy deserved to have his day in court then right? I'm sure the 23 dead people's families would disagree with that. So in a sense you are shaming the victims by standing up for a murderer. As for the license to kill on sight, this is a perfect example of when that should be granted.

Without a doubt he deserved his day in court. There are lots of emotions from family and friends of victims all over, that doesn't change the law. ?? "I'm shaming the victims by standing up for a murderer" ? Saying a murder suspect has the right to a fair trial is "standing up" for the them ?

The investigation time when an officer uses their weapon is anywhere between 6-12 months so there is nothing special about this case.

Nobody said there was anything special about the time frame.

There was nothing questionable about the actions taken by these officers, they were doing their job. The officer that ran instead of identifying himself was the only one questionable in this scenario. Luckily he wasn't killed and if he was it would have been his own fault.

How many times do I have to say it. A police officer isn't legally allowed to kill someone because they look like a suspect or the person didn't do as they were told. There could have been a hundred good reasons why the person didn't comply, that doesn't give police the right to kill them.

Where do you get your ideas ???

[Ken7]

Removed

[OKkayak]

Be curious as to the officer's reasoning for this is:



Edmonton cops do a "wellness check" and move the home owners security cameras away so the officers are not in the field of view.

[bb49]

https://www.castanetkamloops.net/news/C ... hewan-RCMP

A sad day for police officers.

[techrtr]

Be curious as to the officer's reasoning for this is:



Edmonton cops do a "wellness check" and move the home owners security cameras away so the officers are not in the field of view.

Think about it - the person they're checking on could be known to possess firearms. They could be sitting in their living room, watching the police approach the house on their monitor, ready to shoot them through closed doors, walls, curtained windows. Hardly sinister - officer survival skill.

[techrtr]

https://www.castanetkamloops.net/news/C ... hewan-RCMP

A sad day for police officers.

Poor kid. Just goes to show, there's no such thing as routine in police work.