Author Topic: Rampage murder in NS - at least 16 dead  (Read 1045 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Rampage murder in NS - at least 16 dead
« on: May 12, 2020, 11:47:42 pm »

I’m not willing to jump to that conclusion, especially on the basis of your linked article.  If no one testified to witnessing the assault, and the victim wouldn’t tell the police the truth, what are they to do? 

Police don't need the victim's permission to investigate domestic violence allegations.

They can’t search for guns on someone’s say-so.... someone who heard from someone about the assault.

This is a guy with a known history of violence.
https://news.sky.com/story/father-of-canadas-worst-ever-mass-murderer-ive-contemplated-suicide-11978735
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2020/04/21/death-toll-could-rise-in-nova-scotia-as-investigation-into-mass-killing-continues.html

Assaulted a teenager on the street, required to take anger management and prohibited from owning weapons for 9 months. Beat up his own father. Threatened to kill his uncle. 

You've got a guy with a known history of violence, a credible allegation of domestic violence, an eyewitness claiming they've seen illegal firearms. All of this should have been enough to amount to "probable cause" to for police to investigate.

You would be freaking out about police overreach and “the war on gun owners” if the police were allowed to do this. 

This is a bullshit response for several reasons:

 (1) clearly neither you nor the government nor the RCMP give a **** about the feelings of gun owners, so citing the feelings of gun owners as a reason why you don't think they should have investigated this guy is clearly a load of crap.

 (2) legal gun owners, those of us who went through the process and got our licenses, have no complaint about the police investigating a guy with a known history of violence and a credible allegation of illegally acquired firearms. Legal gun owners have no interest in letting criminals obtain firearms and no interest in preventing the police from investigating people who have illegally acquired them.

 (3) I wouldn't be complaining about "the war on gun owners" if they did this, because the Firearms Act already gives the government the power to legally inspect my home for firearms on nothing more than a "reasonable belief" that there might be something amiss.  We have already agreed to let the firearms office inspect our collections at their convenience. We signed up for that when we applied for the license.  You have a PAL, don't you?  You should already know this.

Quote
Inspection

    102 (1) Subject to section 104, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Act and the regulations, an inspector may at any reasonable time enter and inspect any place where the inspector believes on reasonable grounds a business is being carried on or there is a record of a business, any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is a gun collection or a record in relation to a gun collection or any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is a prohibited firearm or there are more than 10 firearms and may

        (a) open any container that the inspector believes on reasonable grounds contains a firearm or other thing in respect of which this Act or the regulations apply;

        (b) examine any firearm and examine any other thing that the inspector finds and take samples of it;

        (c) conduct any tests or analyses or take any measurements; and

        (d) require any person to produce for examination or copying any records, books of account or other documents that the inspector believes on reasonable grounds contain information that is relevant to the enforcement of this Act or the regulations.

As well it needs to be pointed out that the police can and do confiscate firearms from licensed gun owners if they have reasonable concerns that the license holder may be a danger to themselves or other people. 


But all that only applies to PAL/RPAL holders.  Doesn't it seem ridiculous that if the RCMP gets a tip that a PAL holder has a gun that they shouldn't have, they can investigate immediately, but in this situation where the RCMP got a tip that somebody who doesn't have a license at all has a gun they shouldn't have, who also has a known history of violence and a credible allegation of domestic violence, their reaction is "meh, what can we do?"

It has a Monty Pythonesque quality to it.

"That bloke has firearms! It ain't legal!"
"Yeh, but ye see 'e ain't got a license."
"I know 'e ain't got a license, that's what makes it illegal!"
"Well if 'e 'ad a license we could go investigate, coz o' the Firearms Act. But since 'e ain't got a license, ain't nuffin' we can do, see?"
"Well if 'e 'ad a license it wouldn't be illegal!"
"Well that's a real conundrum, innit?"

It could be that the police were incompetent, and it seems in some ways, they were.  Not sending out an emergency broadcast seems pretty damn bad.  But, again, this isn’t necessarily a policing issue...  it could be an issue with the Province...   I have no idea who is responsible for giving the cops the go ahead to send out a broadcast, or what the routine is for doing so. 

It’s going to take an independent public inquiry to get to the bottom of all the things that went wrong here.

There should definitely be.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City