RCMP now face 'Class Action' lawsuit for their High River Gun-Grab

[Jack Hardin]

Originally Posted by LCCFisherman

Great idea.. now the deficit you all create by sueing the RCMP they will be giving out speeding tickets for 102 in a 100....

The crown will not "normally" accept tickets issued in the range that you describe. If you get one, just plead not guilty and the prosecutor will probably withdraw it. I saw one in Red Deer court where a county mountie issued a speeding ticket for 6 over on a highway. The judge (before traffic commissioners came into being) had to find the person guilty but, he admonished the officer for 6 over on a highway. In other words he was telling the officer no to be so chintzy.

Now, having said that, 6 over in a school or playground zone is a little different.

[horsepower]

Originally Posted by benamen

If that were true, why weren't the door to the police officer's homes in High River kicked in?

As it was told to me when asked of an officer why his door was not kicked in ..."privileges".

[coreya3212]

Does any one know what personnel the search teams were made up of? Were they all rcmp members? Were there any CF involved? Locals? How many roughly per team and how many teams?

[HalfBreed]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

Does any one know what personnel the search teams were made up of? Were they all rcmp members? Were there any CF involved? Locals? How many roughly per team and how many teams?

Good ole deflection.

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by HalfBreed

Good ole deflection.

So , that would be a ,"I don't know" answer. Same as me. I don't know. that's why I asked. What am I deflecting sir?

[Matt L.]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

So , that would be a ,"I don't know" answer. Same as me. I don't know. that's why I asked. What am I deflecting sir?

Because it's pretty immaterial?

[HalfBreed]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

So , that would be a ,"I don't know" answer. Same as me. I don't know. that's why I asked. What am I deflecting sir?

The question warrants it's own thread, this is about the RCMP 'class action'.

Any non RCMP is non relevant.

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by Matt L.

Because it's pretty immaterial?

Is that another " I don't know" ? Half breed may accuse you of deflecting, answering a question with a question.

I don't think its immaterial, so I asked the question.

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by HalfBreed

The question warrants it's own thread, this is about the RCMP 'class action'.

Any non RCMP is non relevant.

I didn't bring up the RCMP homes not searched in this thread, I was simply asking a few questions along the same lines.

You really think we need another High River thread? I don't.

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

Didn't the EOC ask the RCMP to search every building. What difference does it make if people phoned in or not.

Why in the heck should they be searching homes that are locked and known to have nobody in them because of the phone calls?

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

Why in the heck should they be searching homes that are locked and known to have nobody in them because of the phone calls?

Why would the EOC tell them too search homes that were locked down and known to have no one in them?

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

Why would the EOC tell them too search homes that were locked down and known to have no one in them?

To search for guns?

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

To search for guns?

Interesting . this is the first mention I have heard that would have the EOC in cahoots with the RCMP on the gun seizures. So the town of High river was trying to disarm its own citizens? I don't think that would be the case but some might agree with you.

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

Interesting . this is the first mention I have heard that would have the EOC in cahoots with the RCMP on the gun seizures. So the town of High river was trying to disarm its own citizens? I don't think that would be the case but some might agree with you.

Why were they told to enter locked homes that were known to be empty? (From the Phone calls)

I don't no why they did, but they shouldn't have if they were known to be empty. Wasn't there excuse for searching homes, because they were looking for people who might possibly need help?

Kind of seems strange, don't you think?

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

Why were they told to enter locked homes that were known to be empty? (From the Phone calls)

I don't no why they did, but they shouldn't have if they were known to be empty. Wasn't there excuse for searching homes, because they were looking for people who might possibly need help?

Kind of seems strange, don't you think?

It seems we are not on the same page. The Emergency Operations Center (Town of High River), asked the RCMP to enter every building. From the CICP report , " The EOC directed RCMP members to enter and search all town residences, including using force for the purpose of saving lives. Subsequently, the EOC issued additional orders and directions for RCMP members to enter (and re-enter) homes to facilitate pet rescues and health and safety inspections."

It seems that is why they entered every residence, and re-entered, and used force. And rightly so. I can imagine the blame if they didn't search a home cause of a phone call and the address was mixed up on the "list".

To answer you directly, it wasn't their excuse that they were searching for people who might need help, its the reason they were given, as to why they were being asked to search every home.

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

It seems we are not on the same page. The Emergency Operations Center (Town of High River), asked the RCMP to enter every building. From the CICP report , " The EOC directed RCMP members to enter and search all town residences, including using force for the purpose of saving lives. Subsequently, the EOC issued additional orders and directions for RCMP members to enter (and re-enter) homes to facilitate pet rescues and health and safety inspections."

It seems that is why they entered every residence, and re-entered, and used force. And rightly so. I can imagine the blame if they didn't search a home cause of a phone call and the address was mixed up on the "list".

To answer you directly, it wasn't their excuse that they were searching for people who might need help, its the reason they were given, as to why they were being asked to search every home.

So it is okay for the RCMP members to say that there house is clear and doesn't need to be searched, but for the rest of the public it is not? Why weren't all houses searched? I mean what if someone was seeking refuge in one of the RCMP members house? What if?

I'll just agree to not agree.

[Ricktye]

Finally, a more honest and realistic report from a national newspaper:
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/globe-d...service=mobile
Good on the Globe and Mail for standing up to the whining idiots that THINK they know it all!!!

[brendan's dad]

Liability Protection for Emergency Service Providers

Minister

27. No action lies against the Minister or a person acting under the
Minister’s direction or authorization for anything done or omitted
to be done in good faith while carrying out a power or duty under
this Act or the regulations.
2010 c5 s11

Local authority
28. No action lies against a local authority or a person acting
under the local authority’s direction or authorization for anything
done or omitted to be done in good faith while carrying out a power
or duty under this Act or the regulations during a state of local
emergency.
2010 c5 s11

Search and rescue organization
29. No action in negligence lies against a search and rescue
organization, the directors of that organization or a person acting
under the direction or authorization of that organization for
anything done or omitted to be done in good faith while acting
under an agreement between that organization and the Minister.
2010 c5

So if the info posted by "coreya3212" is accurate would the EOC be considered the local authority?



Also the Act makes provisions for compensation for any property damage caused as direct result of the local authorities decisions.

Powers of local authority
24(1). On the making of a declaration of a state of local emergency
and for the duration of the state of local emergency, the local
authority may do all acts and take all necessary proceedings
including the following

16
(a) cause any emergency plan or program to be put into
operation;
(b) exercise any power given to the Minister under section
19(1) in relation to the part of the municipality affected by
the declaration;
(c) authorize any persons at any time to exercise, in the
operation of an emergency plan or program, any power
given to the Minister under section 19(1) in relation to any
part of the municipality affected by a declaration of a state
of local emergency.

(1.1) If the local authority acquires or utilizes real or personal
property under subsection (1) or if any real or personal property is
damaged or destroyed due to an action of the local authority in
preventing, combating or alleviating the effects of an emergency or
disaster, the local authority shall cause compensation to be paid for
it.


So my question is, if compensation is already addressed in the Act, is the "Class Action" suit even requesting financial compensation and if so, what is the compensation for? Is it financially compensation for "pain and suffering" or for something else?

Note:

If you don't believe that during the Law Suit that the question of "who was present during the searches?" won't come up, then maybe the earlier comments towards coreya3212 were warranted.

Just because who don't agree or like the possilbe answer to certain questions does not make them irrevelant.

[Trap30]

Originally Posted by Ricktye

Finally, a more honest and realistic report from a national newspaper:
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/globe-d...service=mobile
Good on the Globe and Mail for standing up to the whining idiots that THINK they know it all!!!

x1000

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

Liability Protection for Emergency Service Providers

Minister

27. No action lies against the Minister or a person acting under the
Minister’s direction or authorization for anything done or omitted
to be done in good faith while carrying out a power or duty under
this Act or the regulations.
2010 c5 s11

Local authority
28. No action lies against a local authority or a person acting
under the local authority’s direction or authorization for anything
done or omitted to be done in good faith while carrying out a power
or duty under this Act or the regulations during a state of local
emergency.
2010 c5 s11

Search and rescue organization
29. No action in negligence lies against a search and rescue
organization, the directors of that organization or a person acting
under the direction or authorization of that organization for
anything done or omitted to be done in good faith while acting
under an agreement between that organization and the Minister.
2010 c5
[/B]


So my question is, if compensation is already addressed in the Act, is the "Class Action" suit even requesting financial compensation and if so, what is the compensation for? Is it financially compensation for "pain and suffering" or for something else?

Note:

If you don't believe that during the Law Suit that the question of "who was present during the searches?" won't come up, then maybe the earlier comments towards coreya3212 were warranted.

Just because who don't agree or like the possilbe answer to certain questions does not make them irrevelant.

I don't think that the "in good faith" component applies, the firearms confiscated were unrelated in all ways shapes and forms to the natural disaster that caused the State of Emergency declaration. That action was an unnecessary tangent, plain and simple. The firearms were stored in formerly locked buildings after all.

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by Ricktye

Finally, a more honest and realistic report from a national newspaper:
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/globe-d...service=mobile
Good on the Globe and Mail for standing up to the whining idiots that THINK they know it all!!!

So that's where fishgunner went.

[roper1]

So the Globe calls Harper opportunistic, but they are just reporting?? No hypocrisy there. And the Globe knows more from Toronto than the posters on here who lived in the town?? No hypocrisy there. The Globe is better informed than the Complaint Commission?? Wrong!!So Harper did the correct thing & righted an obvious wrong, which the impartial commission confirmed!! BTW, once the illegally confiscated firearms were returned to their rightful owners, were there any crimes committed with the guns. Of course not!!!

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

So it is okay for the RCMP members to say that there house is clear and doesn't need to be searched, but for the rest of the public it is not? Why weren't all houses searched? I mean what if someone was seeking refuge in one of the RCMP members house? What if?

I'll just agree to not agree.

I would say, in my opinion, that if a member of a search party, in the moment, says this house is mine, and all my family members are accounted for, yes it is okay to not search that residence. That's why I asked the question, who was part of the search parties. It may be true that no RCMP residences were entered, but it may also be true that no search party members residences was entered. It just may be that all the searching people were RCMP.


They would not be looking for someone " seeking refuge". If they were , every residence already searched would need to be researched the minute it was out of sight....

We can agree to disagree.... I believe the RCMP were in the wrong for confiscating properly stored firearms. That is all I have a problem with in regards to what I am aware of went down in High River... which is only what I can read.

[roper1]

So if we can agree to illegal confiscation of improperly stored firearms, what should the charges be, and to whom?

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by roper1

So if we can agree to illegal confiscation of improperly stored firearms, what should the charges be, and to whom?

Do you mean that properly stored firearms were confiscated? Or are you saying the improperly stored firearms were illegally confiscated?

I can admit to not reading every post in all the high river threads. Are folks upset over proper stored firearms being seized, improper stored firearms being seized, or the fact that any firearm was seized??

[roper1]

Illegal confiscation of properly stored firearms.

[coreya3212]

I was reminded of intent the other day. I doubt the criminal intent of any of the actions that day. I would not lay any charges to those rcmp members who overstepped, I also would not lay any charges against those residents who improperly stored firearms. There were a lots of f ups that day, and I think everyone would be better off taking some lessons from it and hoping to do better next time.

I am not sure what the class action law suit is for. Stress and humiliation? Please. I don't by it. It reminds me of that girl who sued over the beer call albino rhino. If people whos legally stored firearms were damaged, they should be repaired or compensated, that's it.

I also realize that my opinion on this goes against the grain around here, so be it. Its just my opinion.

[roper1]

One of your more even-handed posts, thanks for that. But how do you reconcile the over-arching sense of outrage over this event, and the general level of dissatisfaction growing with every over-stepping of authority? To just walk away & say 'we'll be better next time' rings so hollow!!!

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

I don't think that the "in good faith" component applies, the firearms confiscated were unrelated in all ways shapes and forms to the natural disaster that caused the State of Emergency declaration. That action was an unnecessary tangent, plain and simple. The firearms were stored in formerly locked buildings after all.

The "good faith" could apply to the fact that they were following orders that they believed were lawfully given. Remember they were not ordered to kill people, they were given orders to enter residence by whatever means necessary and seize firearms. These are normally Police duties in relation to many police investigations. Arguing that they believed the orders were lawful is not a very unreasonable. What rational would any member have to get on the radio or phone and start questioning the EOC's orders?

[Kanonfodder]

Actually EOC never ordered the illegal seizures, the RCMP took it upon itself to bypass those pesky things like warrants