Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 10, 2021, 05:40:58 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/burnaby-shooting-ihit-update-1.6020644
The police were shot at. The criminals took off in a Honda Pilot, which the police failed in their attempts to stop, or even to follow. They got away clean. They found the vehicle several hours later burnt up.
What stellar police work.[/sarcasm]
It makes me realize the severe lack of security that is at our biggest airport where someone can shoot the place up and get virtually no resistance from the cops on site. And the cops responding failed to come close to capturing them. I’m pretty sure Vancouver has a police helicopter somewhere? Maybe at YVR???
https://goo.gl/maps/5CGdMTsjjXVPxYYf7
There are very few ways in and out of Sea Island where YVR is located.
Extremely pathetic law enforcement response.
Post by: wilber on May 10, 2021, 10:24:50 pm
Post by: BC_cheque on May 10, 2021, 10:54:47 pm
RCMP were chasing the vehicle when they were shot at. I don't know, I'm happy they didn't fire back and endanger people by continuing the chase.
Skip the first 9 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQECxTkb0Wg
Post by: BC_cheque on May 10, 2021, 10:59:11 pm
Post by: kimmy on May 14, 2021, 12:03:18 am
-k
Post by: waldo on May 14, 2021, 02:28:13 am
This is clearly a mistake, since Canada's government has taken Tough Action On Gun Violence tm.
member kimmy, as the resident gunner here are you able to separate your disdain for recent federal gun control measures from BC's government intended legislation targeting gang & drug violence, vis-a-vis the Firearm Violence Prevention Act, SBC 2021?
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 14, 2021, 08:06:20 am
This is clearly a mistake, since Canada's government has taken Tough Action On Gun Violence tm.
-k
Don't feed Gremlins after midnight or bad things happen.
Don't read the incantation in the old book, or the evil ghouls will rise from their graves.
Don't say anything bad about the Trudeau Government any time or you will summon the Waldo. ;)
Post by: kimmy on May 20, 2021, 12:01:03 am
member kimmy, as the resident gunner here are you able to separate your disdain for recent federal gun control measures from BC's government intended legislation targeting gang & drug violence, vis-a-vis the Firearm Violence Prevention Act, SBC 2021?
I have only glanced over the BC law, but it looks like a good effort. Rather than more harassment of law abiding gun owners, they're targeting illegal transport and gang members. It seems like BC Public Safety Minister Farnsworth put some genuine thought into this, unlike his not-very-smart Federal counterparts.
-k
Post by: waldo on May 20, 2021, 12:07:53 pm
Rather than more harassment of law abiding gun owners... not-very-smart Federal counterparts.
certainly, gunners (like you) aren't in favour of any additional gun control measures - of course! Why would any responsible gun owner have a concern with a buyback program for all military-style assault rifles legally purchased in Canada... a program intended to offer fair market prices for owners; a program providing more resources for law enforcement to administer the program? Why would any responsible gun owner have a concern with the following?
(https://i.imgur.com/2nnQDs0.png)
Post by: Omni on May 20, 2021, 01:06:20 pm
Post by: wilber on May 20, 2021, 07:09:30 pm
Post by: waldo on May 20, 2021, 08:45:38 pm
Meanwhile, Trudeau gets rid of mandatory minimums for multiple firearms offences. What a tough guy. How can anyone take him seriously on this folder.
are you getting ahead of your fake outrage... has Bill C-22 received Royal Assent? Well, has it?
in any case, no one can be as tough as your boy Harper - the guy responsible for tripling the number of offences subject to mandatory minimums! But c'mon, you're either purposely misinforming... or you have little grasp/understanding of what's actually in the bill. In keeping with your use of the 'tough guy' labeling, now do the Supreme Court: Top court strikes down mandatory minimums for gun crimes --- High court rules 6-3 that Harper government's gun sentencing is unconstitutional... is that tough? Of course lower courts have done the same.
here, chew on this infographic - yes?
(https://i.imgur.com/2VwBx3p.jpg)
Post by: wilber on May 20, 2021, 10:54:07 pm
Quote
To address the over-incarceration rate of Indigenous peoples, as well as Black and marginalized Canadians, MMPs for the following offences would be repealed:
Using a firearm or imitation firearm in commission of offence (two separate offences)
Paragraphs 85(3)(a) and (b): MMPs of 1 year (first offence) and 3 years (second and subsequent offence)
Possession of firearm or weapon knowing its possession is unauthorized (two separate offences)
Paragraphs 92(3)(b) and (c): MMP of 1 year (second offence) and 2 years less a day (third and subsequent offence)
Possession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition
Paragraphs 95(2)(i) and (ii): MMPs of 3 years (first offence) and 5 years (second and subsequent offence)
Possession of weapon obtained by commission of offence
Paragraph 96(2)(a): MMP of 1 year
Weapons trafficking (excluding firearms and ammunition)
I guess black, indigenous and otherwise "marginalized" gang bangers are less lethal than the average gang banger.
Post by: waldo on May 20, 2021, 11:52:31 pm
I guess black, indigenous and otherwise "marginalized" gang bangers are less lethal than the average gang banger.
so says wilberHang'EmHigh! Stats show there is most certainly a disproportionate application of ManditoryMinimumPenalties (MMP)... impacting upon the indigenous, blacks & members of marginalized communities - those you summarily dismiss as gang bangers. Of course, some of those MMP offences you've quoted have already been struck down by the courts. By the by, please step up to show reference(s) that MMP has resulted in crime reduction.
I'm quite sure you haven't any understanding that the somewhat 'companion' Bill C-21 increased maximum penalties for firearms offences related to gun smuggling and trafficking.
Quote
Repealing certain MMPs will help ensure that a person found guilty of an offence is sentenced appropriately.
Sentencing judges must still impose a sentence that is proportionate to the degree of responsibility of the offender and the seriousness of the offence, taking into account all aggravating and mitigating factors. This includes the risk to public safety. It also includes the individual and their experience with systemic racism.
Repealing MMPs provides sentencing judges with the flexibility to impose just punishments, including terms of imprisonment that are lower or higher than the MMPs that would be repealed.
Quote from: Justice Minister David Lametti
We are turning the page on a failed Conservative criminal justice policy. It was an approach that did not make our communities safer. It did not deter criminals. It did not make the justice system more effective or more fair. Its singular accomplishment has been to incarcerate too many Indigenous people, too many Black people and too many marginalized Canadians.
Post by: wilber on May 21, 2021, 09:13:06 am
Please show references where Liberal gun laws have resulted in crime reduction.
Post by: waldo on May 21, 2021, 12:22:35 pm
Quote from: {former} Chief Justice Beverly McLachin
Mandatory minimum sentences, by their very nature, have the potential to depart from the principle of proportionality in sentencing. They emphasize denunciation, general deterrence and retribution at the expense of what is a fit sentence for the gravity of the offence, the blameworthiness of the offender, and the harm caused by the crime. They function as a blunt instrument that may deprive courts of the ability to tailor proportionate sentences at the lower end of a sentencing range.
the Chief Justice also wrote... "that trial judges are not prevented from imposing exemplary sentences that emphasize deterrence and denunciation in appropriate circumstances."
Post by: kimmy on May 22, 2021, 12:59:41 pm
certainly, gunners (like you) aren't in favour of any additional gun control measures - of course! Why would any responsible gun owner have a concern with a buyback program for all military-style assault rifles legally purchased in Canada... a program intended to offer fair market prices for owners; a program providing more resources for law enforcement to administer the program? Why would any responsible gun owner have a concern with the following?
(https://i.imgur.com/2nnQDs0.png)
Why would I be mad? I've been scapegoated for the actions of a bunch of gangsters and punks. I've been inconvenienced. I've got a piece of property that I'm no longer able to use and no financial compensation for it. And, I liked that rifle. I enjoyed it. I am disappointed that I won't have it anymore. Imagine how you'd feel if someone took away your favorite Justin Trudeau body-pillow, that's about how I feel about having my rifle expropriated.
Fair market prices? I'll believe it when I have the cheque in my hand. I know how much my particular rifle was retailing for before the ban, so I have an exact dollar figure in mind. I see no reason why I should take a penny less, and I don't see why any gun owners should take a financial loss because of the government's decision. As this drags on there should probably be interest charges.
Also, what buy-back program? When is that happening? Is it in the in-box right behind electoral reform, fighting wealth inequality, and a national drug plan? It's been a year and as far as I can tell they've put this file on Bill Blair's desk and are watching to see if it moves under its own power. How hard can it be to set up a buy-back program? Have they just not found the right Liberal-connected firm to administer the program yet?
GIMME MY GOD DAMNED MONEY JUSTIN YOU FUCKEN DEADBEAT
I'M GETTIN REAL TIRED OF YOU DUCKING ME PUNK
-k
Post by: waldo on May 22, 2021, 01:18:22 pm
Why would I be mad?
GIMME MY GOD DAMNED MONEY JUSTIN YOU FUCKEN DEADBEAT
I'M GETTIN REAL TIRED OF YOU DUCKING ME PUNK
caps lock mad? Really? Since the program isn't compulsory, just keep your gun... given you won't be able to {legally} use it, that should help keep it in pristine condition. Win-win, right?
Post by: wilber on May 23, 2021, 09:34:24 am
the Chief Justice also wrote... "that trial judges are not prevented from imposing exemplary sentences that emphasize deterrence and denunciation in appropriate circumstances."
Except that is bullshit. Trial judges are bound by case law and plea bargains, they tell us that all the time in their decisions. Sentencing laws in Canada are a complete joke, they don't really exist. Whenever I hear someone spouting a maximum penalty for a crime in Canada I feel like puking. Except for first degree murder which has only one penalty, I challenge you to find a case in recent history where a Canadian judge has imposed a maximum penalty for any criminal offence regardless of how heinous an example of that crime.
This is about the legal system maintaining complete control over whether and how laws are enforced in this country.
Post by: waldo on May 23, 2021, 11:55:18 am
Trial judges are bound by case law and plea bargains, they tell us that all the time in their decisions.
no - this is Canada member wilber... this is Canada; not the U.S..
(https://i.imgur.com/0Zcez0J.png)
and... given the non-standardized nature of 'fitness tests' across provinces (as used by judges to gauge the appropriateness of a plea bargain), the SCOC has further ruled that:
Quote
...a jointly recommended sentence now can only be disregarded by a sentencing judge when the jointly recommended sentence is “so unhinged from the circumstances of the offence and the offender that its acceptance would lead reasonable and informed persons, aware of all the relevant circumstances, including the importance of promoting certainty in resolution discussions, to believe that the proper functioning of the justice system had broken down.”
so, member Hang'EmHighwilber, take a do-over and come back against Crown Prosecutors and the plea bargain system itself... sure you can!
Post by: wilber on May 23, 2021, 12:18:44 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/judge-penthouse-party-covid-sentencing-1.6005931
Quote
"Had Crown been seeking a period of incarceration, you need to know I would have imposed it," Gordon told Movassaghi as he stood before her.
Clearly this judge was putting 100% of the responsibly for this guy not getting prison time on the prosecution. She took no responsibility or initiative herself other than giving the guy a good scolding.
Still waiting for an occasion where a Canadian judge has imposed a maximum penalty under the law regardless of how badly it was broken.
Post by: wilber on May 23, 2021, 01:01:42 pm
Quote
...a jointly recommended sentence now can only be disregarded by a sentencing judge when the jointly recommended sentence is “so unhinged from the circumstances of the offence and the offender that its acceptance would lead reasonable and informed persons, aware of all the relevant circumstances, including the importance of promoting certainty in resolution discussions, to believe that the proper functioning of the justice system had broken down.”
Which directly contradicts
Quote
that the court is not bound by any agreement between the accused and the prosecutor
and
Quote
that trial judges are not prevented from imposing exemplary sentences that emphasize deterrence and denunciation in appropriate circumstances.
Post by: waldo on May 23, 2021, 01:10:13 pm
Clearly this judge was putting 100% of the responsibly for this guy not getting prison time on the prosecution. She took no responsibility or initiative herself other than giving the guy a good scolding.
oh my member wilber! Uhhh... was this a criminal offence with related charges brought forward, or... a violation of B.C.'s Public Health Act?
in this regard the violator received 1 day jail sentence (in addition to previous 7 days spent in jail for breaching bail release order), received a $5000 fine and 50 hours of community service.
Post by: waldo on May 23, 2021, 01:16:20 pm
Which directly contradicts
no - again, given the non-standardized judicial review 'fitness tests' across provinces, the SCOC ruled to reinforce just how the court is not bound by any agreement between the accused and the prosecutor
Post by: wilber on May 23, 2021, 04:01:40 pm
no - again, given the non-standardized judicial review 'fitness tests' across provinces, the SCOC ruled to reinforce just how the court is not bound by any agreement between the accused and the prosecutor
It does directly contradict. It says that if you go against plea deals get used to being overturned on appeal.
Prosecutors only care about getting a conviction, it is up to judges to make sure sentences fit the offence, otherwise they are merely referees overseeing a process.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 23, 2021, 06:02:54 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/2VwBx3p.jpg)
Do you walk around with a hard drive full of Liberal government infographics and other propaganda or something? Do you write this crud for a living?
You remind me of a Liberal version of Pierre Poilievre. Always pumping the party lines, always kissing azz, hey!
Post by: waldo on May 23, 2021, 11:11:20 pm
Do you walk around with a hard drive full of Liberal government infographics and other propaganda or something? Do you write this crud for a living?
You remind me of a Liberal version of Pierre Poilievre. Always pumping the party lines, always kissing azz, hey!
the infographic relates directly to the discussion concerning MMP and reflects upon Bill C-22. Clearly it's too difficult for you to actually contribute/participate in the ongoing discussion... choosing instead to whine/blather on about "propaganda... partisanship".
Post by: wilber on May 24, 2021, 12:05:21 pm
Post by: waldo on May 25, 2021, 12:14:21 am
I guess black, indigenous and otherwise "marginalized" gang bangers are less lethal than the average gang banger.
So getting shot by a black, indigenous or otherwise disadvantaged gang banger is less odious than other gang bangers. Good to know.
90% of the current YVR shootings involve South Asians but I guess we need to cut them some slack because they are disadvantaged.
Mandatory minimum sentences should be recognized as failed sentencing practice (https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/opinion/mandatory-minimum-sentences-should-be-recognized-as-failed-sentencing-practice/331377)
Quote
At their core, MMPs are unconstitutional. Point blank. Courts across the country and all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada have found that MMPs violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
.
Because the evidence is clear: MMPs are an ineffective and dangerous justice tool. They do not deter crime. They do not increase public safety. They disproportionately affect Indigenous and other racialized Canadians. And they are incredibly expensive.
Post by: wilber on May 25, 2021, 11:29:03 am
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 25, 2021, 05:08:15 pm
The Indo-Canadian gangs have been shooting each other up at an alarming rate lately on the Lower Mainland. The latest one was at the Vancouver International Airport in front of several witnesses, in broad daylight outside a relatively busy terminal.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/burnaby-shooting-ihit-update-1.6020644
The police were shot at. The criminals took off in a Honda Pilot, which the police failed in their attempts to stop, or even to follow. They got away clean. They found the vehicle several hours later burnt up.
What stellar police work.[/sarcasm]
It makes me realize the severe lack of security that is at our biggest airport where someone can shoot the place up and get virtually no resistance from the cops on site. And the cops responding failed to come close to capturing them. I’m pretty sure Vancouver has a police helicopter somewhere? Maybe at YVR???
https://goo.gl/maps/5CGdMTsjjXVPxYYf7
There are very few ways in and out of Sea Island where YVR is located.
Extremely pathetic law enforcement response.
Defunding the police should help this problem lol.
Airports are usually crawling with cops and border peeps with guns. How do you shoot someone at an airport and get away? It's laughable. It's a mother effing airport, you'd think there would be, like, police helicopters or something around there. I get that they didn't want to open fire and start a gun battle in a busy public but all you need is a copter.
I spent a July 4th once on the US west coast. We went out to watch fireworks. They had police helicopters roaming the skies in the city overhead anticipating bad stuff going down. I thought it was pretty crazy, it also wasn't the safest area in the US. It felt like a movie. That's obviously not the society I want to live in either, but it goes to show how the US and Canada can go from one extreme to another in police enforcement.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 25, 2021, 05:35:48 pm
Myself and about 4 friends in my class formed the gang while we were in elementary school. We didn't plan or commit any criminal activities, it was more like a social club. We just thought it would be cool and impress the ladies (it didn't). We had a gang name, and everyone had to do a specific non-criminal, non-sexual deed in order to gain entry as a member.
One time one of the guys in the gang was being as jerk so we kicked him out of the gang. His feelings were hurt after being exiled. Our teacher caught wind of it and made the decision to force us to break up the gang. Our parents were informed. The gang only existed for about a month in total.
Moral of the story: join a gang, it's fun.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 25, 2021, 07:07:05 pm
Defunding the police should help this problem lol.
Actually, it would.
Rather than chasing around minorities for minor infractions, and escalating these encounters so that it takes 5 or 6 cops, these same cops could be chasing actual criminals, or guarding the airport.
Post by: wilber on May 25, 2021, 08:40:19 pm
Actually, it would.
Rather than chasing around minorities for minor infractions, and escalating these encounters so that it takes 5 or 6 cops, these same cops could be chasing actual criminals, or guarding the airport.
Sure they would. Victoria bylaw officers won't go into parks with homeless people without a police escort.
Post by: waldo on May 26, 2021, 01:36:16 am
When it comes to multiple firearms offences, public safety is at the bottom of the priority list.
in your statement you forgot to qualify the size of your blanket! In any case, your unqualified blanket statement is easy to state.
Post by: wilber on May 26, 2021, 09:18:03 am
in your statement you forgot to qualify the size of your blanket! In any case, your unqualified blanket statement is easy to state.
Police are constantly arresting people for breach of conditions only to re arrest them for breaching new conditions which no one expected them to keep in the first place. It’s the way out system works.
Post by: eyeball on May 26, 2021, 10:43:51 am
Sure they would. Victoria bylaw officers won't go into parks with homeless people without a police escort.By the same token armed police probably shouldn't go anywhere like that without a psychiatric first-responder. I'm pretty sure de-funding simply means allocating less funds towards conventional police so we can put money into something like the first-responder I mentioned.
I'd also like to see police cars being outfitted with surveillance drones that take off and hover above the scene of an arrest to provide a record from that perspective.
Post by: wilber on May 26, 2021, 11:29:06 am
By the same token armed police probably shouldn't go anywhere like that without a psychiatric first-responder. I'm pretty sure de-funding simply means allocating less funds towards conventional police so we can put money into something like the first-responder I mentioned.
I'd also like to see police cars being outfitted with surveillance drones that take off and hover above the scene of an arrest to provide a record from that perspective.
How much are you prepared to spend. I'm sure the police would like more drones as well.
Post by: eyeball on May 26, 2021, 12:14:49 pm
How much are you prepared to spend. I'm sure the police would like more drones as well.How much are we spending after the fact in terms of investigations, inquiries, trials, preventing/putting down riots in the wake of policing disasters etc etc?
On another very related note I was calling for wearable police-cams about 20 years ago and pretty much calling for the same things for their political masters - our representatives IOW - for the very same reasons, transparency and accountability. I suspect we would have moved a long way down the road of policing reforms by now if we'd done that too. Our world would be a very very different and I think less dysfunctional place from our perspectives as governed people - people in power of course would have hated it at first. By now though they'd be thinking little of it and taking it in stride the way police wearing cameras do. Just about the most systemic wrong bar none in our society is the official avoidance of transparency and accountability on all levels and more so the higher up you go. Police are just the tip of the inverted ice-berg parked above us.
Post by: wilber on May 26, 2021, 12:56:57 pm
How much are we spending after the fact in terms of investigations, inquiries, trials, preventing/putting down riots in the wake of policing disasters etc etc?
On another very related note I was calling for wearable police-cams about 20 years ago and pretty much calling for the same things for their political masters - our representatives IOW - for the very same reasons, transparency and accountability. I suspect we would have moved a long way down the road of policing reforms by now if we'd done that too. Our world would be a very very different and I think less dysfunctional place from our perspectives as governed people - people in power of course would have hated it at first. By now though they'd be thinking little of it and taking it in stride the way police wearing cameras do. Just about the most systemic wrong bar none in our society is the official avoidance of transparency and accountability on all levels and more so the higher up you go. Police are just the tip of the inverted ice-berg parked above us.
Police are buried in paperwork to get charges even when things go right. Our whole system is one of obstruction.
Lets talk about body cams. I think they are a good idea but there are also privacy concerns that have to be addressed for everyone who might appear in recordings who weren't part of the incident. When will they be turned on and how long will the video be kept? Will video just be used in court or will it also be used for investigations etc?
Post by: Ginxa22 on January 11, 2022, 10:53:27 pm
Sure they would. Victoria bylaw officers won't go into parks with homeless people without a police escort.I guess being paired up with Indigenous 'Bear Clan patrol' would skeer the hey outta them?
