Gunsmith shot by police Ontario

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

Therer was a witness as well.
Cat

Which is why I would like to know if the witness was in any way associated with the police. If he was totally unknown to the police, I would be much more inclined to believe his testimony, than if he was someone associated with the police. It just doesn't make sense for the gunsmith to point an incomplete, unloaded firearm at the police, unless the intent was suicide by police.

[Au revoir, Gopher]

SIU new release here. It has a link to the report.

ARG

[nelsonob1]

What a very odd account. As others have said, it makes no sense unless he was suicidal or just unhinged. Definitely not the character described by his family and friends.

[tri777]

Originally Posted by Au revoir, Gopher

SIU new release here. It has a link to the report.

ARG

Taken from link:

"On November 3, 2021, officers went to Mr. Kotanko’s residence on Port Ryerse Road to execute
a warrant as part of a firearms-trafficking investigation.."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there any further info on the bolded?

[Phil McCracken]

How many idiots have been shot by police after pointing fake/disabled guns at them?

You believe the police know that it is a real gun or a fake/disabled one when it is pointed at them? No, and they will not wait. Things escalate quickly. Some LEOs have died because of that.

And I am pretty sure the "witness" has been investigated/interviewed.

So the conclusion is that the police officer acted in self defense. Gunsmith was ordered more than once to drop it and raise his hands. He didn't.

Why is it so hard for some to understand that?

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by Phil McCracken

How many idiots have been shot by police after pointing fake/disabled guns at them?

You believe the police know that it is a real gun or a fake/disabled one when it is pointed at them? No, and they will not wait. Things escalate quickly. Some LEOs have died because of that.

And I am pretty sure the "witness" has been investigated/interviewed.

So the conclusion is that the police officer acted in self defense. Gunsmith was ordered more than once to drop it and raise his hands. He didn't.

Why is it so hard for some to understand that?

Exactly....feel sorry though for all Involved to an unfortunate outcome.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Phil McCracken

How many idiots have been shot by police after pointing fake/disabled guns at them?

You believe the police know that it is a real gun or a fake/disabled one when it is pointed at them? No, and they will not wait. Things escalate quickly. Some LEOs have died because of that.

And I am pretty sure the "witness" has been investigated/interviewed.

So the conclusion is that the police officer acted in self defense. Gunsmith was ordered more than once to drop it and raise his hands. He didn't.

Why is it so hard for some to understand that?

If the "witness" was a real customer, with no ties of any kind to the police, and he wasn't being intimidated for reason, then he would have no reason to tell anything but the truth. If however, the "witness" was a person sent by the police, and it wasn't just an actual coincidence that he happened to be present during the raid, that changes things entirely. Or if the "witness " wasn't 100% legally in possession of the firearm that he took to the gunsmith, that also changes things for me. Hopefully, we do find out who the witness actually was, and whether there were any factors that could influence his statement to investigators.

[Phil McCracken]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

If the "witness" was a real customer, with no ties of any kind to the police, and he wasn't being intimidated for reason, then he would have no reason to tell anything but the truth. If however, the "witness" was a person sent by the police, and it wasn't just an actual coincidence that he happened to be present during the raid, that changes things entirely. Or if the "witness " wasn't 100% legally in possession of the firearm that he took to the gunsmith, that also changes things for me. Hopefully, we do find out who the witness actually was, and whether there were any factors that could influence his statement to investigators.

Bottom line is:

Kotanko had a decision to make, and unfortunately he made the wrong one.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Phil McCracken

Bottom line is:

Kotanko had a decision to make, and unfortunately he made the wrong one.

Based on the information we have , that seems to be the case, the only question at this point is whether the information is 100% fact. If the witness is unbiased and wasn't intimidated in any way, I can accept his statement of what happened as fact, but as of yet, we have no details as to who the witness is, and whether he is 100% unbiased, and is not being intimidated in any way. And we may never know who the witness is, and whether his statement was unbiased.

[M.C. Gusto]

Unless he was suicidal, that just doesn’t add up.

[Mb-MBR]

This from the news article posted.

"The officer who shot and killed Kotanko also declined to co-operate with the SIU probe, as is his legal right. He also did not submit his notes."

I have no faith in cops investigating themselves, I don't much care if they are ex or current. Not sure how he can have a legal right not to cooperate with the investigation when it was his actions that led to the killing.

[Phil McCracken]

Originally Posted by Mb-MBR

This from the news article posted.

"The officer who shot and killed Kotanko also declined to co-operate with the SIU probe, as is his legal right. He also did not submit his notes."

I have no faith in cops investigating themselves, I don't much care if they are ex or current. Not sure how he can have a legal right not to cooperate with the investigation when it was his actions that led to the killing.

He has the same rights as you and I, and every Canadian citizens.

"In Canada, people are presumed innocent until found guilty based on the evidence. People detained or arrested who know about and understand the right to remain silent can speak to the police if they want to. In this case, whatever they say can be used against them in court."

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by Phil McCracken

How many idiots have been shot by police after pointing fake/disabled guns at them?

You believe the police know that it is a real gun or a fake/disabled one when it is pointed at them? No, and they will not wait. Things escalate quickly. Some LEOs have died because of that.

And I am pretty sure the "witness" has been investigated/interviewed.

So the conclusion is that the police officer acted in self defense. Gunsmith was ordered more than once to drop it and raise his hands. He didn't.

Why is it so hard for some to understand that?

It is very easy to understand that story. And many of us knew that is what the story was going to be long before the investigation was complete. And since there was an investigation, it must be true. The police always tell the truth, and the dead man must have been a criminal or they wouldn't have shot him. Tie it with a ribbon.

[barsik]

Originally Posted by Phil McCracken

How many idiots have been shot by police after pointing fake/disabled guns at them?

You believe the police know that it is a real gun or a fake/disabled one when it is pointed at them? No, and they will not wait. Things escalate quickly. Some LEOs have died because of that.

And I am pretty sure the "witness" has been investigated/interviewed.

So the conclusion is that the police officer acted in self defense. Gunsmith was ordered more than once to drop it and raise his hands. He didn't.

Why is it so hard for some to understand that?

do you remember sammy yatim in Toronto? the officer was charged with attempted murder. is there any camera footage of the entire Kotanko event? normally pointing a gun at a police officer is more than justifiable grounds, but the reason some of us are skeptical is because Rodger had a very good reputation, doing firearm repair for police officers.

[W921]

Originally Posted by Phil McCracken

He has the same rights as you and I, and every Canadian citizens.

"In Canada, people are presumed innocent until found guilty based on the evidence. People detained or arrested who know about and understand the right to remain silent can speak to the police if they want to. In this case, whatever they say can be used against them in court."

My father was chief of police and in law enforcement for 20 years. I had two uncles who where RCMP. Years ago police where the good guys. Things have changed, training has changed.
Your statement about innocent until proven guilty is so out of date.
I'm happy that you still believe the police are good and honestly hope you never live through the truth.

[cody j]

Originally Posted by Mb-MBR

This from the news article posted.

"The officer who shot and killed Kotanko also declined to co-operate with the SIU probe, as is his legal right. He also did not submit his notes."

I have no faith in cops investigating themselves, I don't much care if they are ex or current. Not sure how he can have a legal right not to cooperate with the investigation when it was his actions that led to the killing.

I wonder, How does it work if a lone officer shot and killed someone during an arrest and there were no other witnesses? Can they just claim the right to remain silent ? Is any explanation required?

[58thecat]

A few here are always going to cop bash regardless of the situation and this is a fact. Funny same ones are always grumbling about something every day, I could only imagine being that negative how it is playing out on their overall well being.
The investigation has concluded with the findings and yet here we are debating right, wrong or whatever else can be tossed around from a credible forums perspective.
Like I mentioned earlier sad day for all involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Redhorse Ranch]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

It is very easy to understand that story. And many of us knew that is what the story was going to be long before the investigation was complete. And since there was an investigation, it must be true. The police always tell the truth, and the dead man must have been a criminal or they wouldn't have shot him. Tie it with a ribbon.

Bingo.

Move on, nothing to see here. Trust us.

[tirebob]

Why don't cops wear body cameras when executing search warrants etc? Seems crazy not to do so... I mean they wear them when writing a ticket for gosh sakes often enough.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by barsik

do you remember sammy yatim in Toronto? the officer was charged with attempted murder. is there any camera footage of the entire Kotanko event? normally pointing a gun at a police officer is more than justifiable grounds, but the reason some of us are skeptical is because Rodger had a very good reputation, doing firearm repair for police officers.

The Vancouver airport incident is an example of why I don't take all police officers at their word. Multiple officers told a story, and without video, that story would have been accepted as fact. However, due to video evidence, the truth came out, and officers were charged and convicted , for lying about the incident.

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by tirebob

Why don't cops wear body cameras when executing search warrants etc? Seems crazy not to do so... I mean they wear them when writing a ticket for gosh sakes often enough.

There is no need for cameras. The police always tell the truth. Cameras just confuse the issue.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/mat...me-behind-bars

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by Phil McCracken

How many idiots have been shot by police after pointing fake/disabled guns at them?

You believe the police know that it is a real gun or a fake/disabled one when it is pointed at them? No, and they will not wait. Things escalate quickly. Some LEOs have died because of that.

And I am pretty sure the "witness" has been investigated/interviewed.

So the conclusion is that the police officer acted in self defense. Gunsmith was ordered more than once to drop it and raise his hands. He didn't.

Why is it so hard for some to understand that?

Exactly.

Police are the only people that carry firearms because the people they are dealing with often have firearms, and for a single purpose in this situation, to get away.
It does not matter how good of a relationship he had with Police, or how good of a gunsmith he was, IF HE POINTED a firearm at Police- at anyone here that was armed should they/would you wait for him to shoot first?

Talk is very easy, the job not so much. A dead Police Officer can not help anyone.

IF that is how it actually went down, and without video we will never know, it was as they say a justified self defense.

Many people here when a criminal is wounded say 'cop needs more time at the range' funny how that changes when media says 'he was a good guy, a father, a respected member of the community'. Did CBC report this?

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

There is no need for cameras. The police always tell the truth. Cameras just confuse the issue.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/mat...me-behind-bars

You are right there!
Even when cameras are involved people are only going to see what they want to see just like reading about something it is all there black and white yet people will see, hear only what they want to and then throw in their two bits just to get the juices flowing!
Not everyone is going to be happy with a call that is made especially if it doesn’t line up with their mindset.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by tirebob

Why don't cops wear body cameras when executing search warrants etc? Seems crazy not to do so... I mean they wear them when writing a ticket for gosh sakes often enough.

Exactly.
There is only one reason that I can think of.
In case it goes sideways.
Why else wouldn’t they be worn when the potential for confrontation is very high?
If anyone knows a reason they aren’t worn(maybe they usually are worn I don’t know), let me know why.

[stubblejumper01]

Originally Posted by tirebob

Why don't cops wear body cameras when executing search warrants etc? Seems crazy not to do so... I mean they wear them when writing a ticket for gosh sakes often enough.

I agree. Especially the Swat teams. For that serious of an operation it should be standard equipment. This would protect both the officers and the civilians. You are more likely to get the truth from a video than an eye witness.

[Phil McCracken]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The Vancouver airport incident is an example of why I don't take all police officers at their word. Multiple officers told a story, and without video, that story would have been accepted as fact. However, due to video evidence, the truth came out, and officers were charged and convicted , for lying about the incident.

And rightfully so. I agree with you on that comment.

All incidents have different circumstances.

Let's not paint them all with the same paint brush...

[Phil McCracken]

Originally Posted by W921

My father was chief of police and in law enforcement for 20 years. I had two uncles who where RCMP. Years ago police where the good guys. Things have changed, training has changed.
Your statement about innocent until proven guilty is so out of date.
I'm happy that you still believe the police are good and honestly hope you never live through the truth.

Really!...where did he serve? Name? I may know him. May know your uncles also.

If your father was Chief, I'm sure he got involved in those types of reviews...and I am sure he did them all being "neutral". Contrary to the consensus here, all reviews are biased.

As to your other comment about the Charter being "out of date", please do a little research and I'll be glad discussing that one further with you...

[HyperMOA]

The thing that still makes me scratch my head is the 2 pistols.

So if he milled off the numbers they may be able to recover it anyways. Stamping will leave an indent in the structure long after eyes can’t see it. If this was the case, that he milled it, sold them illegally; why didn’t he report them stolen?

Or was he robbed and hadn’t noticed them missing from inventory by some chance?

This is the part that really confuses me. I would think that someone selling illegal firearms registered in their name would be smart enough to report them stolen to remove their name from registration. Even if the s/n was untraceable he would still have firearms in his name that he could no longer produce.

Unless he was cloning s/n I suppose. But why even stamp it then?

Not trying to speculate here, just trying to figure out scenarios for that aspect. In my trade we look for “root cause” him being shot is not root cause. Police finding pistols owned by him was the closest info we have to root cause. So I’m trying to figure that out in my mind.

[nick0danger]

Still does not explain why the TPS drove all that way. I don't believe **** without body cam footage, the Police have to be retards to think people would believe them without it and the fact body cams are so widely used, you have to think someone here is not on the up and up.

Also if they told him to raise his hands, multiple times but he went for a gun right away, none of that adds up, something is still fishy!

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by HyperMOA

The thing that still makes me scratch my head is the 2 pistols.

So if he milled off the numbers they may be able to recover it anyways. Stamping will leave an indent in the structure long after eyes can’t see it. If this was the case, that he milled it, sold them illegally; why didn’t he report them stolen?

Or was he robbed and hadn’t noticed them missing from inventory by some chance?

This is the part that really confuses me. I would think that someone selling illegal firearms registered in their name would be smart enough to report them stolen to remove their name from registration. Even if the s/n was untraceable he would still have firearms in his name that he could no longer produce.

Unless he was cloning s/n I suppose. But why even stamp it then?

Not trying to speculate here, just trying to figure out scenarios for that aspect. In my trade we look for “root cause” him being shot is not root cause. Police finding pistols owned by him was the closest info we have to root cause. So I’m trying to figure that out in my mind.

One of the articles posted indicated he reported no robberies and the search was going to look at his records. The family lawyer also stated they currently dont have access to the records for them to verify.....