Safe Storage RCMP Style

[hillbillyreefer]

You just can't make this stuff up. The horsemen once again show how competent they are with firearms care and control.


Andrew Weichel, Digital Reporter and Editor, CTV Vancouver
@ctvandrew

Published Friday, July 4, 2014 4:49PM PDT
Last Updated Friday, July 4, 2014 7:04PM PDT
Mounties’ faces are matching their jackets on the University of British Columbia campus, where two students found a loaded RCMP shotgun in the middle of the road Thursday night.
Peter Zhao said he was stunned to make the dangerous discovery while walking with a friend on Wesbrook Mall.
“It looked real, it looked loaded, and there was a sack in the back for extra ammo,” Zhao said. “It felt dangerous. I felt my adrenaline going while I was holding it.”

A loaded RCMP shotgun fell off the trunk of a cruiser and onto the road on UBC campus on July 3, 2014. (CTV)
The students tried to take it to the nearby University RCMP detachment but found it closed, so they called 911 instead.
“I think it’s really fortunate we found it [rather] than someone with bad intentions,” Zhao said.
Staff Sgt. Darren Malcolm said an officer was putting equipment in his cruiser, left the shotgun on the trunk by mistake and drove off.
The weapon fell onto the street just outside the detachment and was quickly run over by another car, rendering it inoperable, Malcolm said.
“It turned out well but obviously firearms are dangerous,” he said. “In this particular case the gun safety was on, there was nothing loaded into the chamber.”
The RCMP has promised to investigate the incident and Malcolm said the officer, who’s only been on the force two years, may face disciplinary action.
“The member is quite upset with himself and has been beating himself up because he recognizes the potential hazards,” he said.
Malcolm wouldn’t say what potential discipline the officer could receive.
With a report from CTV Vancouver’s Scott Roberts


Read more: http://bc.ctvnews.ca/students-find-loaded-rcmp-shotgun-on-ubc-campus-1.1899946#ixzz36ZfFs9vP

[Redfrog]

"The member is quite upset with himself and has been beating himself up because he recognizes the potential hazards,” he said.
Malcolm wouldn’t say what potential discipline the officer could receive.
With a report from CTV Vancouver’s Scott Roberts
"

If that's true you can add assaulting an officer to unsafe handling and storage charges.:thinking-006:

[hillbillyreefer]

Doesn't look damaged to me. I suspect the only damage is "damage control" by the horseshoes.

[Moosejuice]

Doesn't look damaged to me. I suspect the only damage is "damage control" by the horseshoes.

The weapon fell onto the street just outside the detachment and was quickly run over by another car, rendering it inoperable, Malcolm said.

I don't believe it either.

The lie is revealed in his statement that it was quickly run over by another car.
How do they know that?
If they do know that then why did they leave it laying out there?

That gun looks good to go.
Seems like nothing short of water boarding will get the truth out of these guys.

[pickrel pat]

not to derail a good cop bashing thread but how far up the red deer river can one realistically expect to catch sturgeon with any consistency?

[ganderblaster]

Has the media created such a fear of firearms that young men feel adrenaline just by holding a shotgun?

[1899b]

Has the media created such a fear of firearms that young men feel adrenaline just by holding a shotgun?

Depends on the kids upbringing. I very often have guns out on my reloading bench as I buy Junkers and refurbish them. My kids don't give them a second look. If a neighbourhood kid comes over you can sure tell right away if they have been ever exposed to real firearms. It has nothing to do with media. More so the home they come from. Me having a tactical shottie laying out is no different than a ball peen hammer sitting on the bench to my kids..

[Taco]

not to derail a good cop bashing thread but how far up the red deer river can one realistically expect to catch sturgeon with any consistency?

Jeez 'nother sarcastic smartass, I don't know ya Hoss but I'm startin' to like ya. LMFAO

[elkhunter11]

And it was only two years ago, that an RCMP officer left a handgun on a B.C. ferry.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/passenger-finds-rcmp-gun-on-bc-ferry-1.1258458

They should spend less time harassing firearms owners about the safe storage or transportation of firearms, and instead concentrate on their absent minded members who are leaving loaded firearms laying around.

[58thecat]

not to derail a good cop bashing thread but how far up the red deer river can one realistically expect to catch sturgeon with any consistency?

Far up as one wants to go but don't forget your paddle:thinking-006:

[catnthehat]

The weapon fell onto the street just outside the detachment and was quickly run over by another car, rendering it inoperable, Malcolm said.

I don't believe it either.

The lie is revealed in his statement that it was quickly run over by another car.
How do they know that?
If they do know that then why did they leave it laying out there?

That gun looks good to go.
Seems like nothing short of water boarding will get the truth out of these guys.
If it was a Remington it would take more than running over it with a car to stop that gun!:thinking-006:
They should find out who ran it over and charge them with undo care and attention!!:sHa_sarcasticlol:
Cat

[58thecat]

If it was a Remington it would take more than running over it with a car to stop that gun!:thinking-006:
They should find out who ran it over and charge them with undo care and attention!!:sHa_sarcasticlol:
Cat

That's what I say abuse of a firearm will not be tolerated:)

[wwbirds]

Of when the wife left her cell phone and coffee mug on the trunk lid of the Volvo and drove all the way to Calgary before calling me on her cell to go look for the personalized pewter coffee mug. It was at the end of the driveway.

[Battle Rat]

Has the media created such a fear of firearms that young men feel adrenaline just by holding a shotgun?

Ya, he makes it sound like he was holding a ticking time bomb.

[avb3]

"There were no bullets in the chamber"

No sh*t Sherlock.

It was a friggin' shotgun.

[OpenRange]

I particularly like the part that said the safety was on and there was nothing in the chamber. Bahahahaha, I'll remember that one if I ever get pulled over and accidentally forgot to pull the magazine out of my rifle. But I guess it's all good as long as the safety is on right? What a joke!

[bobinthesky]

If an ordinary citizen did this they would be up on charges and would be very fortunate if they didn't land up in jail! Even "the safety was on" excuse would be fruitless!
This officer should be charged as any one of us would be but that will never happen.

[Scottmisfits]

The news report said the boys found a loaded shotgun. The RCMP is saying it wasn't. I'm not sure who to believe in this one......

[rugatika]

No charges for them, must mean no charges for us.

[hillbillyreefer]

The news report said the boys found a loaded shotgun. The RCMP is saying it wasn't. I'm not sure who to believe in this one......

The RCMP have two standards for loaded shot guns too. One for them, no rounds in chamber, not loaded. The one for us, rounds in mag tube, it's loaded.
No accountability, pathetic.

[twofifty]

Just a few more minutes and you'll all be accused of RCMP bashing...
Carry on, the comments are well deserved.

[CNP]

This direction of the thread doesn't appeal to me. When tens of thousands of cops carry and transport guns every working day, mistakes will be made. Same type of thing happens regularly in the military. The officer will be charged. There was no tragic event. Guy drops the ball and he will pay a price for it. There is no excuse. He will be punished.

[twofifty]

Sure he will be charged and punished, but not under the Criminal Code like would happen to an ordinary Joe who has a brain fart.

[Mulehahn]

Two things,
1) The students who found it are lucky someone didn't call 911 on them for walking around campus with a shotgun. That could of gotten ugly real quick, for what, trying to so the right thing. They never should of been placed in that situation.
2) The issue to me is not that mistakes happen, but rather that 10s of 1000s of law abiding citizens transport firearms safely everyday in this country, but should one of them make this mistake they would most likely of been brought up on charges for illegal transport.

To me RCMP officers should be held to a higher standard, but baring that they should at least be to the same standard

[twofifty]

Naturally and rightly so, the nation was full of sympathy and goodwill towards the RCMP in the aftermath of the New Brunswick murders.

The above presents the brass with a rare opportunity to replace their usual news conference obfuscations with as much transparency as circumstances call for. This doesn't seem to be happening.

[brendan's dad]

Well the police are exempt of any regulation under the firearms act while on duty. So they can not be charged with unsafe storage or transport. That is why they can have a loaded firearm in a vehicle and carry a restricted firearm (duty pistol) in public, loaded using a prohibited mag. Police are not required to possess a PAL/RPAL and do not need an ATT or open carry permit.

Now for a charge under Sec. 86(1) Careless Use of a Firearm, the courts must prove that at least one life was put in danger by the act. So who's life was put in danger? We always argue that it is the person responsible for the crime and not the gun that causes the violence. So if we maintain that argument how does a loaded firearm left in public on the ground cause an imminent risk. It is not until a person picks it up and uses it in violent manner does the risk occur.

There is also a charge for failing to report a lost or stolen firearm but it a seems the officer was unaware of his error until the shotgun was found, so I don't think that charge will be laid.

So what criminal charge could they lay?

I figure it will be internal discipline under the RCMP Act.

[twofifty]

Which means they'll probably transfer him to the ERT team, so's he can lose an MP5 next time.

[Mackinaw]

"There were no bullets in the chamber"

No sh*t Sherlock.

It was a friggin' shotgun.

You are saying because its a shot gun it has NO chamber??????????¿

[avb3]

You are saying because its a shot gun it has NO chamber??????????¿

A 'bullet' is part of a cartridge, which in a rifle consists of a bullet, case, gunpowder and primer.

A shot gun round would have a case, primer, gunpowder, wading and usually shot, but slugs are also common.

[CNP]

I figure it will be internal discipline under the RCMP Act.

Yes.

[elkhunter11]

Now for a charge under Sec. 86(1) Careless Use of a Firearm, the courts must prove that at least one life was put in danger by the act. So who's life was put in danger? We always argue that it is the person responsible for the crime and not the gun that causes the violence. So if we maintain that argument how does a loaded firearm left in public on the ground cause an imminent risk. It is not until a person picks it up and uses it in violent manner does the risk occur.


If an RCMP officer leaving a loaded firearm in public, for anyone's child to pick up and play with, possibly killing themselves or someone else, is not putting someone's life in danger, then how can you justify convicting anyone under that charge? There does not have to be criminal intent for a child to play with a firearm found laying around, but it could kill or maim someone just the same.

The whole idea of our safe storage regulations is supposedly to protect the public. Supposedly the regulations are to keep children from shooting themselves, or one another, and to prevent people from easily stealing firearms that could be used to commit crimes, or to harm members of the public. If it's legal for an RCMP to leave a loaded firearm unattended in public, then we might as well do away with all of the safe storage regulations for everyone.

I figure it will be internal discipline under the RCMP Act.

In other words, no charges, no fines, nothing of any consequence.

[silverdoctor]

Yes.

That we will never hear about...

[tri777]

the media created such a fear of firearms that young men feel adrenaline just by holding a shotgun?

If people are seriously running over fallen guns off the backs
of police cars unawares,that is what gets my adrenaline going!

[CNP]

If an RCMP officer leaving a loaded firearm in public, for anyone's child to pick up and play with, possibly killing themselves or someone else, is not putting someone's life in danger, then how can you justify convicting anyone under that charge?

The whole idea of our safe storage regulations is supposedly to protect the public. Supposedly the regulations are to keep children from shooting themselves, or one another, and to prevent people from easily stealing firearms that could be used to commit crimes, or to harm members of the public. If it's legal for an RCMP to leave a loaded firearm in public, then we might as well do away with all of the safe storage regulations for everyone.



In other words, no charges, no fines, nothing of any consequence.

It is not legal for a citizen to have a loaded firearm on the streets........for the police of course it is legal. Your comment that there be no charges/fines/nothing of consequence is not true.

That we will never hear about...

Maybe and maybe not.

Members get charged/fined for firearms related stuff in the military often and it is not always reported on the nightly news.

[elkhunter11]

It is not legal for a citizen to have a loaded firearm on the streets........for the police of course it is legal. Your comment that there be no charges/fines/nothing of consequence is not true.


We aren't talking about just having a loaded firearm on the streets, we are talking about leaving a loaded firearm "unattended", and unsecured, in the streets, for anyone to pickup or play with. As a citizen, I can legally carry an unloaded firearm in the street, but I can't legally just leave it laying "unattended" and unsecured in the street.

Members get charged/fined for firearms related stuff in the military often and it is not always reported on the nightly news

The RCMP and the military, are entirely different organizations.

[silverdoctor]

As a citizen, I can legally carry an unloaded firearm in the street

Let me know when you do that, I want be handy with a video camera to record the take down. :scared0018:

[twofifty]

Hey, stuff happens in any organization.

The RCMP screw up in our communities, on our streets and highways, in our homes. We know what usually happens: bs investigations, lies and spin, transfers, sometimes promotions.

Military firearms screw-ups are usually on base, within training areas, fenced off from civilian communities. So they deal with it internally.

What's unpalatable is that when a civilian screws up - even within the confines of his own home - he faces criminal code charges instead of internal disciplinary measures.

[elkhunter11]

Let me know when you do that, I want be handy with a video camera to record the take down.

I have carried dozens of firearms to and from stores and my vehicles, parked on the street. Some are in cardboard boxes, some are cased, and some I just carry as is, and I haven't had an issue yet. The point being, that it is still legal for me to carry a firearm in the street.

Hey, stuff happens in any organization.

The RCMP screw up in our communities, on our streets and highways, in our homes. We know what usually happens: bs investigations, lies and spin, transfers, sometimes promotions.

Military firearms screw-ups are usually on base, within training areas, fenced off from civilian communities. So they deal with it internally.

What's unpalatable is that when a civilian screws up - even within the confines of his own home - he faces criminal code charges instead of internal disciplinary measures.


That is exactly my point.

[CNP]

The RCMP and the military, are entirely different organizations.

Both require members to be in possession of firearms in the course of their work. The Firearms Act does not control the employment of these firearms. Both are subject to a code of discipline that regular citizens are not subject to. I appreciate you want to see, feel and smell the punishment you feel should be made public.

[silverdoctor]

I have carried dozens of firearms to and from stores and my vehicles, parked on the street.

That's not exactly walking down the street. Yes it is legal, and yes, I support your right to do so, I couldn't care less. All it takes is some idjit calling you in, and we'll see the result. Try walking down a busy street in Edmonton with a firearm and see what happens. Especially since Moncton.

What about the guy carrying a firearm on, what was it, the subway?

[Mackinaw]

A 'bullet' is part of a cartridge, which in a rifle consists of a bullet, case, gunpowder and primer.

A shot gun round would have a case, primer, gunpowder, wading and usually shot, but slugs are also common.

I'm I missing something I do not see bullet mentioned in the artical?

[silverdoctor]

Here it is...

http://globalnews.ca/news/822700/man-facing-charges-after-carrying-rifle-on-lrt/

Wether he had it legally or not, they evac'd the LRT and treated the situation like it was the most dangerous. May be legal to do so but the results?

“He’s facing weapons charges with respect to the transporting of the rifle. It was a .22 calibre rifle with a scope on it,” explained Inspector Chad Tawfik with EPS.

[Pathfinder76]

Give the guy a break. He had the safety on.

[OpenRange]

What's unpalatable is that when a civilian screws up - even within the confines of his own home - he faces criminal code charges instead of internal disciplinary measures.

Internal Disciplinary measures?? That scares me, simply because if I left a loaded weapon unattended in my house I would face a harsher penalty from my wife than the police. I'll take the police any day.

[tri777]

Take refuge in at least the officers car door wasn't smashed
in to see if there were anymore unsafe firearms being transported
around inside!

[elkhunter11]

Both require members to be in possession of firearms in the course of their work. The Firearms Act does not control the employment of these firearms. Both are subject to a code of discipline that regular citizens are not subject to. I appreciate you want to see, feel and smell the punishment you feel should be made public.


It's more a case that we want to know that the person was actually punished, rather than just another coverup taking place.:rolleye2:

Take refuge in at least the officers car door wasn't smashed
in to see if there were anymore unsafe firearms being transported
around inside!

Why bother to break in to a vehicle to search for firearms, when there is a loaded firearm left unsecured, and unattended, for anyone to take?

[CNP]

It's more a case that we want to know that the person was actually punished, rather than just another coverup taking place.:rolleye2:



Why bother to break in to a vehicle to search for firearms, when there is a loaded firearm left unsecured, and unattended, for anyone to take?

Why would the institution cover up a members careless behaviour? I don't understand that and why would you believe the institution would back up a members careless behaviour?

[twofifty]

Why? I don't know why but they keep on doing it, year in year out.
Cover ups is what Canadians have come to expect from the RCMP brass.

I'm sure they do it to preserve the force's image...in spite of getting the exact opposite results. The cover-ups keep blowing up in their face. Their behaviour is so predictable it has become a farce.

If the RCMP learned to quickly deal with their inevitable screw-ups in a forthright manner, with transparency and real consequences, this forum wouldn't have its weekly RCMP screw-up thread. I'm sure this would make their line officers' lives much easier too.

How the RCMP keeps dealing with the High River break-ins is a perfect example of their persistent adherence to lies and obfuscation.

[elkhunter11]

Why would the institution cover up a members careless behaviour?

Perhaps they are trying to preserve the reputation, and the respect that the force once held. Unfortunately, the reputation has been badly tarnished by their recent behavior, and the respect is long gone.


I don't understand that and why would you believe the institution would back up a members careless behaviour?

It has happened so often recently, that it is what the public now expects from them.

The results of the High River inquiry will be a major factor in deciding if the reputation of the force can be saved, or if is beyond saving. If the RCMP comes clean about High River, and they hold the guilty party/parties accountable, they can undo some of the damage done to their reputation. However, it the coverup continues, their reputation may be tarnished to the point, that the public will never again trust them.

[twofifty]

A few more High Rivers, Braidwood inquiries (Robert Dziekanski tasering) and on-the-job sex harassment cases and the RCMP as an institution might go the way of the Canadian Airborne Regiment.

[greylynx]

Don't get into a snit you guys.

A least no Polish immigrants were murdered in this incident.

Whoops: edit time. twofifty beat me.

Sorry twofifty, we posted at the same time. Brilliant people think alike.:sHa_shakeshout:

[wwbirds]

any firearms incident is serious but having said that while working the gun counter for 5 year we had at least one customer a year come in with a loaded rifle or shotgun. Take it out of case and hand it over to us to appraise or do work on. Instinctively we always check chamber and eyes popped at the same time as a live round hit floor or counter. (1 guy had 5 rounds in a lever 30-06) So if you think the public is less likely to make a mistake with a firearm than another group (military or RCMP) you are mistaken. Not aware of any of those customers being charged with unsafe storage transporting a loaded firearm etc but they sure got a lecture from the staff. Internal discipline is probably all that is required here as the public embarassment and knowledge of his peers that this happened may be enough to bring his attention to detail to a much higher level just like those customers.

[elkhunter11]

any firearms incident is serious but having said that while working the gun counter for 5 year we had at least one customer a year come in with a loaded rifle or shotgun. Take it out of case and hand it over to us to appraise or do work on. Instinctively we always check chamber and eyes popped at the same time as a live round hit floor or counter. (1 guy had 5 rounds in a lever 30-06) So if you think the public is less likely to make a mistake with a firearm than another group (military or RCMP) you are mistaken. Not aware of any of those customers being charged with unsafe storage transporting a loaded firearm etc but they sure got a lecture from the staff. Internal discipline is probably all that is required here as the public embarassment and knowledge of his peers that this happened may be enough to bring his attention to detail to a much higher level just like those customers.

You are talking about an entirely different situation. You are talking about people bringing in a loaded firearm, that was in their care and control, not a loaded forearm that was left unattended in public for anyone to take, or for any child to access. As for the reason that those people in your store were not charged,they won't get charged, unless they are reported.

[greylynx]

Why would the institution cover up a members careless behaviour? I don't understand that and why would you believe the institution would back up a members careless behaviour?

You should see what the military covers up when it comes to lost stuff.

Several years ago I obtained the Freedom of Information report requested by the Globe and Mail of how many and what type of guns that have "disappeared" from the Canadian Armed Forces from the 1990's onward.

The report was given to the NFA, and all I can say is "Oh Dear" "Oh My".

Some of the really neat stuff was lost in Bosnia, and we all know what a bunch of nice guys they are.

Funny, That freedom of information report was taken off the list. I wonder why.

I am confident it continues to exist though.

[wwbirds]

You are talking about an entirely different situation. You are talking about people bringing in a loaded firearm, that was in their care and control, not a loaded forearm that was left unattended in public for anyone to take, or for any child to access. As for the reason that those people in your store were not charged,they won't get charged, unless they are reported.
__________________
Yeah it was in the case until they swept the counter area taking it out and out of their control handing it to an employee. What if a child in their home accessed a loaded 30-06 on the rack or case or in the back seat of vehicle on the way to the store. As I said any incident is serious.
Hundreds, perhaps thousands of people make mistakes in this country daily but if a member of any police force makes any mistake at all the same lynch mob surfaces. I hope the same people turn themselves in if and when they ever stop being perfect in every way. Internal discipline is not a pleasant situation for this officer and isn't a good mark on a young (2 year) career.

[Au revoir, Gopher]

I don't know, I find the reporting kind of refreshing. No hyperbole (with the possible exception of the student they interviewed); no references to "assault weapons", "ammo caches" or "arsenals". I wish the police and media were always this calm and factual when discussing firearms.

ARG

[elkhunter11]

Yeah it was in the case until they swept the counter area taking it out and out of their control handing it to an employee. What if a child in their home accessed a loaded 30-06 on the rack or case or in the back seat of vehicle on the way to the store.

You don't know if that firearm was stored locked in a safe, or in a locked gun case, or in a locked room prior to being brought into the store, so you don't know if children or anyone else had access to that firearm. In the case of the loaded forearm being left in the street, we know that it wasn't secured, and that anyone could come along and take it, or that a child could play with it.

Yes bringing a loaded firearm into your store was stupid and dangerous, but it still wasn't the same situation. As well, if your staff had reported the incident, do you honestly believe that charges would not result? Personally, I would like to see people that are that careless charged, but unless they are reported, that won't happen.

[brendan's dad]

Again, storage and transport laws do not apply to the police so the only possible charge is careless use.

As I stated it before the crown must prove someone was put in danger for the charge to stick. Maybe the "a child could come along" argument could sell it to a judge to meet the charge but then you would have to look at the officer intent with the action. Was there willful and malicious intent to create the dangerous situation? Might be difficult to prove that the officer intended to leave it on his trunk. Now with storage and transport laws there is a legal expectation that a person possessing a firearms know the laws/regs and forgetting to store or transport properly is not a defense.

Remember that sec 86 deals with 2 part

Careless use in relation to usage and Careless use in relation to storage/transport. Only Careless usage can apply here and intent would then need to be proven

[twofifty]

wwbirds, I and the others who you characterize as a lynch mob (thanks for that btw) aren't asking for this officer's head on a platter.

What bothers many is that we know the very same officer and his superiors would go after our heads -with a Criminal Code charge instead of the fine the above officer might get- if we inadvertently had a brain fart and, for instance:

- forgot to place a blanket over a firearm in a parked and locked vehicle while stopped at a restaurant on the way back from hunting, or
- forgot to close the lever on a HG's combo trigger lock before storing it in its locked case in our home.

Never mind the appropriateness of the outcomes, it's the disparity in outcomes that is not right. And the pattern keeps repeating itself over and over.

WW, I can't see you liking or approving of the "Do as I say not as I do" aspects of many of these incidents either.

[twofifty]

Good observation, ARG, on the media coverage.

[sask]

This direction of the thread doesn't appeal to me. When tens of thousands of cops carry and transport guns every working day, mistakes will be made. Same type of thing happens regularly in the military. The officer will be charged. There was no tragic event. Guy drops the ball and he will pay a price for it. There is no excuse. He will be punished.

Yeah .... 2 days without pay ?

[elkhunter11]

What bothers many is that we know the very same officer and his superiors would go after our heads -with a Criminal Code charge instead of the fine the above officer might get- if we inadvertently had a brain fart and, for instance:

- forgot to place a blanket over a firearm in a parked and locked vehicle while stopped at a restaurant on the way back from hunting, or
- forgot to close the lever on a HG's combo trigger lock before storing it in its locked case in our home.

Never mind the appropriateness of the outcomes, it's the disparity in outcomes that is not right. And the pattern keeps repeating itself over and over.

That is the issue that I have with this situation. We have strict regulations placed on us, as to how we must store and transport our firearms, and if we do not comply, be it intentional, or due to an oversight, we are punished. Yet when the very people that we as taxpayers pay to enforce those laws, do not comply, they do not face the same punishment that we do. It's not like that shotgun is any less of a danger to the public, just because an RCMP officer left it unattended and unsecured in a public place, it could kill someone just as easily as if any citizen had left it there. Either punish everyone that doesn't comply, or scrap the regulations for everyone.


Yeah .... 2 days without pay ?

Or two days with pay.:)

[wwbirds]

we know the very same officer and his superiors would go after our heads
No you speculate. In order for disparity to exist it would have to be common practice for LEO to lay these types of charges, I think they are quite rare. Charges are laid at officer discretion so I "assume" they would have to consider it serious to warrant a charge. If in doubt most officers would discuss with peers or a supervisor and in many cases a prosecutor to see if it could be successfully prosecuted on the basis of the information.
If a firearm on your way home from hunting is out of sight you do not have to put a blanket over it. It must be out of plain sight, so if not readily seen and reported why would they charge.
I do recall a member here who left his firearm in the bush a year or so ago and I don't recall that leading to charges. Probably didn't make the news either but this incident will be national news, so the officer is already in more of a spotlight than the general public for his omission/error .
You are right I don't think there should "do as I say not as I do" but the vast majority of officers daily handle, store and transport firearms more in a month than many of us who are keen on shooting sports do in a year. Errors will be made with the volume of officers in this country.

[twofifty]

Rather than punishing* everyone or scrapping all regulation, I'd rather see the licensing, storage and transport requirements taken out of the CC.

As to licensing, yes, we all know that anyone no matter their criminal background and mental state, can obtain a firearm without holding a license. So what good are PALs? However, I do like the idea of mandatory firearms handling/training before a license is issued, so that's what should be the aim of licensing. Kinda like driver training tests.

I think that safe firearms storage is something that should be encouraged where there are children or untrained persons in a household. That's what new storage regs would do: provide an incentive toward education and safe storage.

Let's give the new regs the same status as hunting and fishing laws and regs have, where tickets are issued and fines collected. Doing so would reduce court costs for all parties. Only repeat, or serious offences where harm was actually caused through gross negligence, would bring about some jail time.

Let's simplify the storage and transport rules such that everyone -even police officers- can understand and readily comply with and enforce them.

* edit: i.e. throwing them in jail or bankrupting them in court

[Matt L.]

The thing that frustrates and infuriates me is the political style lying and doublespeak from the RCMP spokespersons and leaders. It's like they aren't allowed to be honest and forthright. This is not a bash on individual members. It's like the leadership feels they should not be accountable to those they serve.

[twofifty]

WW, I'm speculating based on the patterns I see through the firearms news list-serve.

Matt, I totally see the lying and doublespeak as being entrenched in the RCMP brass, not so much in the lowest ranks. Given enough time of following superior officers' orders to stonewall or lie, the practice becomes normalized throughout an institution. Peer group pressure is a powerful force.

Officers who have career aspirations and who clearly see what behaviours are rewarded by the organization's culture will toe the corporate line.

[rugatika]

Rather than punishing* everyone or scrapping all regulation, I'd rather see the licensing, storage and transport requirements taken out of the CC.

As to licensing, yes, we all know that anyone no matter their criminal background and mental state, can obtain a firearm without holding a license. So what good are PALs? However, I do like the idea of mandatory firearms handling/training before a license is issued, so that's what should be the aim of licensing. Kinda like driver training tests.

I think that safe firearms storage is something that should be encouraged where there are children or untrained persons in a household. That's what new storage regs would do: provide an incentive toward education and safe storage.

Let's give the new regs the same status as hunting and fishing laws and regs have, where tickets are issued and fines collected. Doing so would reduce court costs for all parties. Only repeat, or serious offences where harm was actually caused through gross negligence, would bring about some jail time.

Let's simplify the storage and transport rules such that everyone -even police officers- can understand and readily comply with and enforce them.

* edit: i.e. throwing them in jail or bankrupting them in court

Well said. There is no reason why the RCMP member or any civiiian should have to face a criminal conviction for a clerical error, or a moment of forgetfulness. Having said that...what's good for the goose is good for the gander. There is no way in heck I would be getting only a stern talking to if I left a LOADED shotgun on the trunk of my car and it fell off onto the street to be turned in by some kid (safety on or not). Not a popsicles chance in Phoenix. I would be, at a minimum sinking thousands and thousands of dollars into lawyers and crapping bricks for a year if not longer.

Criminal charges should be reserved for crimes with intent or at least willfull negligence.

These things are in the criminal code to dissuade potential gun owners from going through the hoops to aqcuire guns.

[pickrel pat]

Criminal charges for an accident(zero intent) is beyond absurd. To ruin a persons life for a split second brain fart where nobody suffered is a stretch.

[elkhunter11]

Well said. There is no reason why the RCMP member or any civiiian should have to face a criminal conviction for a clerical error, or a moment of forgetfulness. Having said that...what's good for the goose is good for the gander. There is no way in heck I would be getting only a stern talking to if I left a LOADED shotgun on the trunk of my car and it fell off onto the street to be turned in by some kid (safety on or not). Not a popsicles chance in Phoenix. I would be, at a minimum sinking thousands and thousands of dollars into lawyers and crapping bricks for a year if not longer.

Criminal charges should be reserved for crimes with intent or at least willfull negligence.

These things are in the criminal code to dissuade potential gun owners from going through the hoops to aqcuire guns.

Exactly, if there are no criminal charges when an RCMP officer leaves a loaded firearm unattended in public, then there shouldn't be charges when anyone else does the same. Either lay charges against the officer, or amend the regulations, so a violation doesn't result in criminal charges for anyone.

[Moosejuice]

If it was a Remington it would take more than running over it with a car to stop that gun!:thinking-006:
They should find out who ran it over and charge them with undo care and attention!!:sHa_sarcasticlol:
Cat

Bingo.
I run over a pop can in my truck and I know it.
Running over a SG would probably feel like a small speed bump.
You'd know that you ran over something, especially at low speed over a hard surface unless you were driving something more than the average passenger vehicle.
And most people hearing and feeling something that big under the wheels would stop to check what it was and for vehicle damage.

That statement was just the habitual "no harm=no foul" statement that we see every time someone with a badge buggers up.

I understand that mistakes happen and I'm not saying that cop should be crucified but half truths and excuses are not acceptable.
A loaded and capable firearm was left unsecured and not accounted for for a full 24 hours.
And if someone had not found it then gone public it seems likely that it would have been brushed under the table.

A bit of sincerity and open honesty would go a long way to helping their public image but that fact seems to elude them.

[Moosejuice]

This direction of the thread doesn't appeal to me. When tens of thousands of cops carry and transport guns every working day, mistakes will be made. Same type of thing happens regularly in the military. The officer will be charged. There was no tragic event. Guy drops the ball and he will pay a price for it. There is no excuse. He will be punished.

So when a weapon goes missing in the military it is no big deal?

BS.

[Mackinaw]

So when a weapon goes missing in the military it is no big deal?

BS.

Where did he state this .........?????¿??

[rokman]

They're leaving them behind on purpose, but they always end up in the wrong hands, from people being in the WRONG place.... at the WRONG time;
http://r.fod4.com/s=w600/http://a.fod4.com/images/user_photos/1209742/60ea0bfae5cfe9bbd25775c6a7a65f33_original.jpg
I saw it in a movie once:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF6G99ujvG0

[woody1948]

I have no interest in seeing the officer charged, I am sure he is aware of what he did and how the outcome may have differed.
But I do have an interest in how quickly the coverup starts. The gun was run over and disabled, the gun was empty, everything to make you believe no harm could have came from this.
Why not just state the facts, say a mistake was made. But no, this has to be coloured to make us think they are above making mistakes, and if they do, no harm would come from it.

[.257Weatherby]

People who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones....
There are many guys who have done the same thing in the field.
Some have had their guns returned and others have not.
Mr. Zhao is a drama queen at best...UBC he says, who woulda thunk.
How many here would have called 911 after finding said shotgun in the middle of the street in front of their house?
We would have done the right thing and that would be that...only this guy ran to the media and cried like he wet his panties ....
Just my .02 this morning.
BTW, this didnt make the media here locally and I wonder why...not really, but what ever.
Rob

[brownbomber]

You think he woulda found a RPG or something by the statements made by the finder. Cop should get in trouble but not crucified. We've all had our minds wander. If I did the same should get a similar fate.

[leeaspell]

People who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones....
There are many guys who have done the same thing in the field.
Some have had their guns returned and others have not.
Mr. Zhao is a drama queen at best...UBC he says, who woulda thunk.
How many here would have called 911 after finding said shotgun in the middle of the street in front of their house?
We would have done the right thing and that would be that...only this guy ran to the media and cried like he wet his panties ....
Just my .02 this morning.
BTW, this didnt make the media here locally and I wonder why...not really, but what ever.
Rob

I would have kept it(ya know, for safe keeping so it didn't fall into a bad guys hands) and waited to see how long it took for them to admit they had lost it.

[twofifty]

Good idea. There would probably have been plenty of time to send it to a gunsmith for repairs. ;)

[bison]

I wonder how many of you have left their gun laying on the trunk and drove off like that cop did :rolleye2:

[Scott N]

I wonder how many of you have left their gun laying on the trunk and drove off like that cop did :rolleye2:

It must happen from time to time...a buddy of mine found shotgun, slightly rusted, in a ditch while working one time. I'm guessing that's how it got there.

On a more serious note, it is interesting to see how a private citizen and an LEO are treated differently when something like this happens.

[Mackinaw]

I wonder how many of you have left their gun laying on the trunk and drove off like that cop did :rolleye2:


Just think how many times on this forum that some one says they left a rod at the lake or a tackle box is found, a net fell out of the boat on the way home, binos were left on the trunk. For everyone you read about there is probably 10 you don't, you think it happens with guns or bows of course it does. Just no one is going to put it in print on the internet. **** happens always did always will get over it. If you think nothing will come of this guess again.


Mack

[elkhunter11]

I wonder how many of you have left their gun laying on the trunk and drove off like that cop did

I can honestly say that it hasn't happened to me, or anyone that I hunt with. We did have a couple of detachable mags get misplaced, and a knife was left at a kill site after dressing an animal, but it hasn't happened with anything as large, or as valuable, as a firearm.

It must happen from time to time...a buddy of mine found shotgun, slightly rusted, in a ditch while working one time. I'm guessing that's how it got there.

I do know of a rifle that was found in a ditch, but in this case, the cause was believed to be a poacher throwing it out the window when he saw a F&W vehicle coming after him.

[twofifty]

Just think how many times on this forum that some one says they left a rod at the lake or a tackle box is found, a net fell out of the boat on the way home, binos were left on the trunk. For everyone you read about there is probably 10 you don't, you think it happens with guns or bows of course it does. Just no one is going to put it in print on the internet. **** happens always did always will get over it. If you think nothing will come of this guess again.


Mack

Stuff happens all the time.

The point being made by others and myself is that we are questioning why it is that the same mistake (or brain fart) that results in criminal charges for regular Joes leads to nothing but a disciplinary outcome for a police officer.

It is ludicrous to make civilian brain farts subject to the Criminal Code, and police brain farts subject to a disciplinary letter or loss of a day's pay.

[covey ridge]

I wonder how many of you have left their gun laying on the trunk and drove off like that cop did :rolleye2:

I found one once in an area where vehicles park to hunt a duck slough.

Last year I drove all the way home from the range with the tail gate of my truck down.


A shooting friend reported a very expensive shotgun left unattended and stolen from a club rack on an un attended skeet range while we all swilled coffee in the club house. A few present suggested that he not report the incident to the RCMP because he would probably get charged and they might harass the club. He reported it anyway and later mentioned that the officer who took the report acknowledged his lack of attention when he left the gun unattended but that was all. No charge! No warning! No lecture!

[twofifty]

Selective enforcement:- the criminal likely was an old fudd, one of those fat white guys I keep hearing about. If younger with pants half way down to his knees the outcome would have been different. ;)

[Mackinaw]

Stuff happens all the time.

The point being made by others and myself is that we are questioning why it is that the same mistake (or brain fart) that results in criminal charges for regular Joes leads to nothing but a disciplinary outcome for a police officer.

It is ludicrous to make civilian brain farts subject to the Criminal Code, and police brain farts subject to a disciplinary letter or loss of a day's pay.

Do you know for a fact what will happen or you just assUming...?:)

[covey ridge]

It is ludicrous to make civilian brain farts subject to the Criminal Code, and police brain farts subject to a disciplinary letter or loss of a day's pay.

I think that those civilian brain farts could be subject to the criminal code, but I do not think many are. I have been hanging around people with guns for a very long time and I know both fudds and those with low hanging pants. I do not know of one single person who was nailed for a brain fart.

This is a big forum. Lets here some of those brain farts that have resulted in code charges.

[elkhunter11]

I think that those civilian brain farts could be subject to the criminal code, but I do not think many are. I have been hanging around people with guns for a very long time and I know both fudds and those with low hanging pants. I do not know of one single person who was nailed for a brain fart.

This is a big forum. Lets here some of those brain farts that have resulted in code charges.

A person that had a brain fart, and shot a hole through the firewall of his truck in front of my father's business, was charged with careless use of a firearm. Obviously, he didn't shoot his truck on purpose, and nobody was hurt, although there was considerable damage to the truck.

[twofifty]

Quote: "Do you know for a fact what will happen or you just assUming...?"

Mackinaw I think you've just called me an ass. Cleverly done!

You're looking at one incident, I'm looking at years' worth of incidents.
Do you not realize that looking for patterns, discerning amongst patterns and drawing conclusions from patterns is a useful life skill?

Here, I'll help and give you an example.

Say, for instance, that you've been snapping valve cover bolts on each engine that you've ever worked on. After a while, this bad outcome will reveal itself to you as a pattern. You'll draw the conclusion that not all small bolts, particularly valve cover bolts, need to be torqued like head bolts.

In the case that concerns you, the RCMP's behaviour pattern is found in years of media reports and Commissions of inquiry. There's even a page on RCMP screw-ups and cover-ups on Wikipedia.

Therefore, as you correctly pointed out, I am assuming that not much will come out of this particular case.

[elkhunter11]

You're looking at one incident, I'm looking at years' worth of incidents.

I did post a link to the case where an RCMP handgun was left on a B.C. ferry in 2012, in an earlier post, so this isn't a one of a kind incident. Below is another link to an incident involving an RCMP officer.

http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=38662f20-3552-480e-b7f0-50bb28d83c16

How is this sentence just? Another double standard.

http://christopherdiarmani.com/3279/police-state/police-sentencing-double-standards/sentencing-double-standard-rears-its-ugly-head-again-kelowna-rcmp-staff-sergeant-gets-a-wrist-slap-for-assault-and-firearm-charges/

Does anyone not see the pattern?

[covey ridge]

A person that had a brain fart, and shot a hole through the firewall of his truck in front of my father's business, was charged with careless use of a firearm. Obviously, he didn't shoot his truck on purpose, and nobody was hurt, although there was considerable damage to the truck.

I would say that a brain fart that actually resulted in a weapon discharge that caused considerable damage should result in charges laid.

[elkhunter11]

I would say that a brain fart that actually resulted in a weapon discharge that caused considerable damage should result in charges laid.


It was a brain fart, but nobody was hurt, and he didn't leave a loaded firearm laying in public, for anyone to take, or for any child to play with. I have no issue with him being charged, but anyone else that is careless with a firearm, should be treated in kind.

[twofifty]

Covey Ridge, here's something topical found on the NFA's website.

Please note that Gary Mauser and Dennis R. Young, well respected advocates for sensible firearms legislation, are mentioned in the story:

Police should be asking, “How many of our guns have fallen into the wrong hands?”

A recent Access to Information Act request found that the RCMP acknowledges that 428 firearms have been lost by or stolen from the RCMP, other police services and public agencies in Canada. “The police are quick to point accusing fingers at law-abiding gun owners who have their firearms stolen from them but aren’t so quick to admit their failure to keep their own firearms out of the hands of criminals,” said National Firearms Association President, Sheldon Clare.

This new information was obtained from the RCMP through an Access to Information Act request submitted as a collaborative effort by two independent researchers, Gary A. Mauser, Professor Emeritus, Simon Fraser University and Dennis R. Young, retired Parliamentary Assistant to Garry Breitkreuz, MP. The RCMP does not regularly report information on lost or stolen firearms to Parliament.

Summary of the number of firearms missing or stolen from the police in Canada:
- Firearms Lost by and Stolen from the RCMP = 32
- Firearms Lost by and Stolen from other Police Services = 316
- Firearms Lost by and Stolen from other Public Service Agencies = 80

[elkhunter11]

Covey Ridge, here's something topical found on the NFA's website.

Please note that Gary Mauser and Dennis R. Young, well respected advocates for sensible firearms legislation, are mentioned in the story:

Police should be asking, “How many of our guns have fallen into the wrong hands?”

A recent Access to Information Act request found that the RCMP acknowledges that 428 firearms have been lost by or stolen from the RCMP, other police services and public agencies in Canada. “The police are quick to point accusing fingers at law-abiding gun owners who have their firearms stolen from them but aren’t so quick to admit their failure to keep their own firearms out of the hands of criminals,” said National Firearms Association President, Sheldon Clare.

This new information was obtained from the RCMP through an Access to Information Act request submitted as a collaborative effort by two independent researchers, Gary A. Mauser, Professor Emeritus, Simon Fraser University and Dennis R. Young, retired Parliamentary Assistant to Garry Breitkreuz, MP. The RCMP does not regularly report information on lost or stolen firearms to Parliament.

Summary of the number of firearms missing or stolen from the police in Canada:
- Firearms Lost by and Stolen from the RCMP = 32
- Firearms Lost by and Stolen from other Police Services = 316
- Firearms Lost by and Stolen from other Public Service Agencies = 80

But if you take all of the firearms that the RCMP took , when they broke into the High River homes, they are likely on the positive side of things. :)

[Mackinaw]

Quote: "Do you know for a fact what will happen or you just assUming...?"

Mackinaw I think you've just called me an ass. Cleverly done!

You're looking at one incident, I'm looking at years' worth of incidents.
Do you not realize that looking for patterns, discerning amongst patterns and drawing conclusions from patterns is a useful life skill?

Here, I'll help and give you an example.

Say, for instance, that you've been snapping valve cover bolts on each engine that you've ever worked on. After a while, this bad outcome will reveal itself to you as a pattern. You'll draw the conclusion that not all small bolts, particularly valve cover bolts, need to be torqued like head bolts.

In the case that concerns you, the RCMP's behaviour pattern is found in years of media reports and Commissions of inquiry. There's even a page on RCMP screw-ups and cover-ups on Wikipedia.

Therefore, as you correctly pointed out, I am assuming that not much will come out of this particular case.


No intent to call you an ass just a reminder of what can happen when we assume..lol
all I'm saying you can't assume nothing will be done to the officer
just like you can't assume anything would be done to Joe public

I apologize if any insult was taken



Mack

[twofifty]

Thank you Mack.
Musta been the word assUming that I misinterpreted.
My bad. ;)

[sask]

No doubt it was a brain fart .....and that we all have them at time.

Anyone that states that Joe Public, if he had left a firearm loaded on a university campus that was found in the manner of this one,would NOT have more serious legal consequences than this RCMP member.......

My grandfather had a saying....... Are you that stupid or do you think I am ?

The lies and bs about, safety on.....ran over and damaged, etc. Come on

[bigd]

No you speculate. In order for disparity to exist it would have to be common practice for LEO to lay these types of charges, I think they are quite rare. Charges are laid at officer discretion so I "assume" they would have to consider it serious to warrant a charge. If in doubt most officers would discuss with peers or a supervisor and in many cases a prosecutor to see if it could be successfully prosecuted on the basis of the information.
If a firearm on your way home from hunting is out of sight you do not have to put a blanket over it. It must be out of plain sight, so if not readily seen and reported why would they charge.
I do recall a member here who left his firearm in the bush a year or so ago and I don't recall that leading to charges. Probably didn't make the news either but this incident will be national news, so the officer is already in more of a spotlight than the general public for his omission/error .
You are right I don't think there should "do as I say not as I do" but the vast majority of officers daily handle, store and transport firearms more in a month than many of us who are keen on shooting sports do in a year. Errors will be made with the volume of officers in this country.

Agreed and well said Rob. A dozen years of policing and I've never laid any storage related charges. Not to say that I've never come across storage or transport issues. I've seen lots of situations where gunowners/ hunters have done the most idiotic things that could have resulted in seizure and/or charges...but I've never laid one of these charges.

Am I the only one in Canada that doesn't typically charge charge charge when ever the 'opportunity' exists? I know for a fact that I'm not. Of course, if I were to take as gospel the statements of some of the fear mongerers on this and the other forum, the police, specifically the RCMP, must be waiting around every corner waiting to catch gun owners breaking the firearms laws. There must be road blocks, search warrants and dragnets taking place every where you look. Except none of these things seem to be taking place, at least none that I've ever happened upon.

Arrest, seize, charge, destroy. Must be going on everywhere, hard to believe there are still guns out there after all this dedicated enforcement of storage and transport laws that's been happening lol.

Now I'm really curious...I wonder how many of our 10's of thousands of AO members have been charged with storage and/or transport offences? :thinking-006:

[covey ridge]

It was a brain fart, but nobody was hurt, and he didn't leave a loaded firearm laying in public, for anyone to take, or for any child to play with. I have no issue with him being charged, but anyone else that is careless with a firearm, should be treated in kind.

I sure have no problem with him being charged because the gun discharged. I do not feel sorry for him one bit.

The result of the brain fart is always taken into account. If one blows a red traffic light one may be ticketed. If one blows a red traffic light and a fatality results to someone else, you can bet that criminal charges will be laid.

[covey ridge]

Now I'm really curious...I wonder how many of our 10's of thousands of AO members have been charged with storage and/or transport offences? :thinking-006:

I sure would be interested in that as well.:)

[covey ridge]

But if you take all of the firearms that the RCMP took , when they broke into the High River homes, they are likely on the positive side of things. :)

You should put that thought in your signature line.

[elkhunter11]

If one blows a red traffic light and a fatality results to someone else, you can bet that criminal charges will be laid.

A fatality is a very long stretch from a situation where nobody is hurt, and the only expense incurred, was to the person that made the brainfart.

I sure would be interested in that as well.

You won't get charged, if you follow the regulations. As stupid as some of our firearms laws are, I still comply with them. Of course even that doesn't guarantee that the police won't break into your home and take your legally stored firearms.

[Ithaca Dog]

I wonder how many of you have left their gun laying on the trunk and drove off like that cop did :rolleye2:

Nash Buckingham lost the original Bo Woop.

Lost and found: Buckingham's beloved "Bo Whoop" sells for $175,000

http://www.ducks.org/news-media/news/6922/lost-and-found-buckinghams-beloved-bo-whoop-sells-for-175000

Lost...

The story goes that on Dec. 1, 1948, Buckingham was showing his prized Bo Whoop, custom made by Philadelphia gunsmith Burt Becker, to a warden near Clarendon, Ark. After looking at the gun, the warden placed the gun on the back fender of the car in which Buckingham was riding, unbeknownst to Buckingham. As the car drove away, the gun apparently fell off, disappearing for close to 58 years.


And found...

In 2006, the story of the gun's travels came out. Wes Dillon, firearms sales coordinator for James D. Julia Inc., said, "According to the consignor [who hails from Georgia], this gun was bought by his grandfather with a broken stock for $50 in the 1950s and was passed down through the family to him. The consignor decided in 2006 to have the broken stock remedied and took it to a competent gunsmith for restocking. The stockmaker, seeing Buckingham's and Becker's names on the barrels, alerted the consignor to the importance of the gun."

[twofifty]

Nah, that couldn't happen in Canada

[covey ridge]

]A fatality is a very long stretch from a situation where nobody is hurt, and the only expense incurred, was to the person that made the brainfart.

Yes it is and that is what I said. "The result of the brain fart is always taken into account."

The officer left his gun on the trunk of his car. No expense incurred by anyone! I have no problem if he is charged and I have no problem if he is not charged. It he is charged criminally or not he probably will still be charged internally and contrary to popular AO opinion internal disciplinary action is not jmust a slap on the pee pee.

[covey ridge]

You won't get charged, if you follow the regulations. As stupid as some of our firearms laws are, I still comply with them. Of course even that doesn't guarantee that the police won't break into your home and take your legally stored firearms.

That is not actually a big revelation that you will not get charged if you follow the regulations. What I was interested in was how many AO have actually been jacked up or charged over some of the regulations you call stupid? You and many others seem to imply that that RCMP are getting off on the very things us honest law abiding types get charged for. Well, I am interested in how many here have been charged for violating those stupid firearms laws as you call them.

BTW I do not agree with the Police breaking into homes and taking legally stored firearms but I do not let what happened in High River dictate that I must bring it up on every thread about the RCMP.

[sask]

Well, I am interested in how many here have been charged for violating those stupid firearms laws as you call them.

BTW I do not agree with the Police breaking into homes and taking legally stored firearms but I do not let what happened in High River dictate that I must bring it up on every thread about the RCMP.

Not charged but threatened......with totally bogus bs. When I called his bluff and told him to go ahead he backed off. Same ******* that charged people with shooting (gophers) from a vehicle if/when he found ANY empty 22 rim fire on the floor of their vehicle. He hung unsafe storage on a few (not me) ; one sterling example was an unloaded 22 on the back seat of a locked vehicle.....it was only 'partially' covered with a jacket.

The complaints .....just seemed to disappear , including the one I (and others) made to his Sargent. So , yeah , it happens

[Mackinaw]

Not charged but threatened......with totally bogus bs. When I called his bluff and told him to go ahead he backed off. Same ******* that charged people with shooting (gophers) from a vehicle if/when he found ANY empty 22 rim fire on the floor of their vehicle. He hung unsafe storage on a few (not me) ; one sterling example was an unloaded 22 on the back seat of a locked vehicle.....it was only 'partially' covered with a jacket.

The complaints .....just seemed to disappear , including the one I (and others) made to his Sargent. So , yeah , it happens

Is there proof of these charges and complaint?

[elkhunter11]

Is there proof of these charges and complaint?

Likely the same type of proof that the officer that left the handgun on the B.C. ferry was ever disciplined. The same type of proof that the officer that left the loaded shotgun on the street in this case will be disciplined. Or the same type of proof that the shotgun in this case, would not function after being run over.

[Halfton]

Good thing that shotgun never went off when it was ran over :sign0176:...The poor driver probably would have been charged with illegally discharging a firearm in a public place and a host of other things....:sHa_sarcasticlol:

Jim

[Mackinaw]

Likely the same type of proof that the officer that left the handgun on the B.C. ferry was ever disciplined. The same type of proof that the officer that left the loaded shotgun on the street in this case will be disciplined. Or the same type of proof that the shotgun in this case, would not function after being run over.

I don't know if there was proof did you ever look into the handgun issue.
How could there be proof at this time if he will be disciplined when it is still under investagation?

[lattery1]

It will be lied about and swept under the rug from the top down by the RCMP. I lost faith in them years ago to do the right thing when it involves one of their own. It will end up that he had PTSD over the Moncton incident and wasnt thinking clearly.

[sask]

Is there proof of these charges and complaint?

I made one so you can believe me or not ;

I was standing in the room , listening to it on speaker phone, when another verbal one was made via telephone the next step up (Depot) . The response was " what has he done now" .

Take it any way you want

[Mackinaw]

I made one so you can believe me or not ;

I was standing in the room , listening to it on speaker phone, when another verbal one was made via telephone the next step up (Depot) . The response was " what has he done now" .

Take it any way you want

So you phoned in a complaint. You did not fill out a CPC form?


Mack

[sask]

So you phoned in a complaint. You did not fill out a CPC form?


Mack

Y'know Mack , there was a question asked on this . I replied. I don't need to 'prove' what I , or others, did to you or anyone else

Take it or leave it .

If you want to call me a liar have the balls to do so

[Mackinaw]

Y'know Mack , there was a question asked on this . I replied. I don't need to 'prove' what I , or others, did to you or anyone else

Take it or leave it .

If you want to call me a liar have the balls to do so

I just asked you a simple question if you don't want to answer very well..
As far as calling you a liar I don't see where I need balls for that.

You had no issues with not beleiving the police but then get in a fluster when someone questions you....?...
Mack

[roper1]

Quote: "Do you know for a fact what will happen or you just assUming...?"

Mackinaw I think you've just called me an ass. Cleverly done!

You're looking at one incident, I'm looking at years' worth of incidents.
Do you not realize that looking for patterns, discerning amongst patterns and drawing conclusions from patterns is a useful life skill?

Here, I'll help and give you an example.

Say, for instance, that you've been snapping valve cover bolts on each engine that you've ever worked on. After a while, this bad outcome will reveal itself to you as a pattern. You'll draw the conclusion that not all small bolts, particularly valve cover bolts, need to be torqued like head bolts.

In the case that concerns you, the RCMP's behaviour pattern is found in years of media reports and Commissions of inquiry. There's even a page on RCMP screw-ups and cover-ups on Wikipedia.

Therefore, as you correctly pointed out, I am assuming that not much will come out of this particular case.

Very eloquently stating what so many think.