RCMP Gun Seizure Meeting With Danielle Smith - Page 8

Fisherpeak · #**211** 09-06-2013, 10:50 AM

I saw a pretty irate woman on the news this morning.Her house was high and dry yet the door was destroyed and 2 front windows were smashed in by the cops.Then they left it open to the elements for 3 weeks until she was allowed to go back.Several thousand dollars damage and no restitution so far.I`d be PURPLE mad.

elkhunter11 · #**212** 09-06-2013, 10:54 AM

If the RCMP did everything in a totally legal manner, why was the commander transferred across the country, right after the incident? When people run from, or are removed from the issue, it is usually, because there is something to hide.

JB_AOL · #**213** 09-06-2013, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hagalaz

I'm not sure its the exact reason, but I have my suspicions that it just may be.

Guess you didn't get the sarcasm...

JB_AOL · #**214** 09-06-2013, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

If the RCMP did everything in a totally legal manner, why was the commander transferred across the country, right after the incident? When people run from, or are removed from the issue, it is usually, because there is something to hide.

Sigh.. No, they do it for the commander's safety.. Whether the decision was his or not..

(got to love all the tin hat folks..).

silverdoctor · #**215** 09-06-2013, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

Sigh.. No, they do it for the commander's safety.. Whether the decision was his or not..

(got to love all the tin hat folks..).

So they did it in fear of retaliation... Interesting. Here comes the big blue wall again.

JB_AOL · #**216** 09-06-2013, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

So they did it in fear of retaliation... Interesting. Here comes the big blue wall again.

Use your head.. In a small town, word flies fast, everyone knows who the top dog is, whether that decision (to secure the guns) was his or not, it appears that way because he is the top dog of the department that took on the task.

Would you stay in town if you were in that situation.. for your safety and safety of your family.. NO you would not. It's clear (just on this forum alone), that even if he admitted it wasn't his call, it wouldn't matter. Because everyone here thinks otherwise.

And who knows, maybe the transfer was applied for prior to the flood.

Sundancefisher · #**217** 09-06-2013, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pikergolf

On the spot as angry residents lined up at a single microphone, Shardlow listened and responded, more often than not encouraging them to approach RCMP and file complaints formally.

He said of about 1,900 complaints, roughly 500 had everything in order and have been put forward.

There you go Sun, your complaints.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews...06-085315.html

Thanks

That is the best info so far. From that I am strongly leaning towards an RCMP screw up. Not all 500 complaints files are likely firearms related but the entry into homes and the number of homes is looking very, very suspect.

Still want to know if there was a list of homes to search or if random searches found guns. Ie...was there intent to specifically target gun owners.

silverdoctor · #**218** 09-06-2013, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

Use your head.. In a small town, word flies fast, everyone knows who the top dog is, whether that decision (to secure the guns) was his or not, it appears that way because he is the top dog of the department that took on the task.

Would you stay in town if you were in that situation.. for your safety and safety of your family.. NO you would not. It's clear (just on this forum alone), that even if he admitted it wasn't his call, it wouldn't matter. Because everyone here thinks otherwise.

And who knows, maybe the transfer was applied for prior to the flood.

So right there is proof to zero accountability, ship him out elsewhere.

I use my head, thank you very much. I like to think, to come up with my own opinions, not simply believe what i'm told.

JB_AOL · #**219** 09-06-2013, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

So right there is proof to zero accountability, ship him out elsewhere.

I use my head, thank you very much. I like to think, to come up with my own opinions, not simply believe what i'm told.

Where did I say zero accountability.. Keep twisting words SD..

silverdoctor · #**220** 09-06-2013, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

Where did I say zero accountability.. Keep twisting words SD..

I'm not twisting words at all. I'm getting fed up with Canadians giving our police forces every benefit of a doubt. Cop screws up, transfer him/her, get them out of the public's sight til things cool off.

There will be zero accountability from the RCMP and we all know it - some support it. How many officers in this country get off with murder - yet the majority still support it.

I'm getting tired of this.

HunterDave · #**221** 09-06-2013, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calgarychef

To suggest that the cops that kicked in doors shouldn't be held accountable is pure bunk. They aren't supposed to break the law, they are trained to know what the laws are so they know what they can and can't do. Even under orders they aren't supposed to break laws...yes they are guilty and yes they should be fired. I'd feel bad for them after all they do have families to feed etc. but they broke the law.

As a retired Soldier I'd like to comment on this. Yes, we are all responsible for our own actions and we will be held accountable for them. If an order is clearly unlawful then it is your responsibility to refuse to follow that order. Just ask any WWII nazi that tried to use "I was just following orders." as a defense for their actions.

IMO, given the situation in High River at the time, the order to break down doors and search properties, even searching for firearms, was not clearly an unlawful order IMO. Even with the luxury of having a lot of time to dissect what was/wasn't lawful, the lawyers, etc are still debating the law. The boots on the ground were not lawyers and were dealing with issues in real time and put their trust in their Commanders that the orders that they received were lawful.

Unless the guys in the trenches were fully aware that their actions were unlawful then I think that they should be given the benefit of the doubt with this one as the issue is not cut and dried. Whoever decided to take the action should definitely go up on the mat and have to explain what his decision was. Unfortunately, we may never know exactly who gave the order unless the individual steps up and admits to it.

I'm all for reprimanding the guys in the trenches that were over zealous in carrying out their duties (ie. causing unnecessary property damage by kicking in unlocked doors, etc) but I don't think that they knowingly carried out unlawful orders.

BeeGuy · #**222** 09-06-2013, 12:09 PM

It is absolutely necessary in this situation that transparency and accountability are provided.

The chain of command must be clearly identified, and those in command held responsible for their decisions.

I think the idea of a parade/protest for firearms owners is a fantastic idea.

A show of organization, dedication, and resolve.

It would gain significant national and international attention.

Of course, H.Harper would be invited to participate.

hillbillyreefer · #**223** 09-06-2013, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

Use your head.. In a small town, word flies fast, everyone knows who the top dog is, whether that decision (to secure the guns) was his or not, it appears that way because he is the top dog of the department that took on the task.

Would you stay in town if you were in that situation.. for your safety and safety of your family.. NO you would not. It's clear (just on this forum alone), that even if he admitted it wasn't his call, it wouldn't matter. Because everyone here thinks otherwise.

And who knows, maybe the transfer was applied for prior to the flood.

One of the major problems is not just the top dogs are untrustworthy, but most officers on the force. Everyone has seen the videos of the cops going into homes they are all at fault and few are trustworthy. The horsemen have shat in their nest now they need to clean it up or face even more backlash from the public.

The optics are poor on the transfer timing even if it was applied for and approved before the flooding. I'm sure the blue wall will never release the truth on that one. The more they cover up the more ssuspicion that wil be cast on them. Oh well they have some cheerleaders, what more do they need.

elkhunter11 · #**224** 09-06-2013, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Sigh.. No, they do it for the commander's safety.. Whether the decision was his or not..

If the RCMP aren't even capable of protecting their own leader, how can they be expected to protect the citizens?

hillbillyreefer · #**225** 09-06-2013, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

If the RCMP aren't even capable of protecting their own leader, how can they be expected to protect the citizens?

The supreme court recently ruled the police are under NO obligation to protect anyone from anything.

Seems they protect themselves, but that is about it.

Big Daddy Badger · #**226** 09-06-2013, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fisherpeak

I saw a pretty irate woman on the news this morning.Her house was high and dry yet the door was destroyed and 2 front windows were smashed in by the cops.Then they left it open to the elements for 3 weeks until she was allowed to go back.Several thousand dollars damage and no restitution so far.I`d be PURPLE mad.

Welll the up side is.... insurance should cover that damage.

pickrel pat · #**227** 09-06-2013, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

Welll the up side is.... insurance should cover that damage.

Driving insurance rates even higher....

Big Daddy Badger · #**228** 09-06-2013, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

That's just funny... Sort of like Monty "full of booze" Robinson eh?

And Sgt "Pepper"/

That guy should have been canned when they were forced to moive him out of Kimberley because of his behavior.

Big Daddy Badger · #**229** 09-06-2013, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pickrel pat

Driving insurance rates even higher....

Who cares as long as the rich get richer and the ordinary folks are still firmly wedged under a boot heel?

Got Juice? · #**230** 09-06-2013, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

Use your head.. In a small town, word flies fast, everyone knows who the top dog is, whether that decision (to secure the guns) was his or not, it appears that way because he is the top dog of the department that took on the task.

Would you stay in town if you were in that situation.. for your safety and safety of your family.. NO you would not. It's clear (just on this forum alone), that even if he admitted it wasn't his call, it wouldn't matter. Because everyone here thinks otherwise.

And who knows, maybe the transfer was applied for prior to the flood.

Let me see. If he did his job correctly, with due diligence, and in accordance with the law, then yes, stay in town.

But if you played 'the gray area' too much, or were rattled into making poor decisions (some of which are legally wrong AND morally bankrupt) , then perhaps a move would be.... For the best. Lol

Big Daddy Badger · #**231** 09-06-2013, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pikergolf

On the spot as angry residents lined up at a single microphone, Shardlow listened and responded, more often than not encouraging them to approach RCMP and file complaints formally.

He said of about 1,900 complaints, roughly 500 had everything in order and have been put forward.

There you go Sun, your complaints.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews...06-085315.html

1900 Canadians that will never trust a cop again.
Good work RCMP.

silverdoctor · #**232** 09-06-2013, 02:14 PM

Danielle speaks with sun news...

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/f.../2654167279001

JB_AOL · #**233** 09-06-2013, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Got Juice?

Let me see. If he did his job correctly, with due diligence, and in accordance with the law, then yes, stay in town.

You guys are so ignorant it's not even funny..

No one in their right mind would stay. Your family would receive threats left right and center, no matter if he is guilty or not. Why should his name/reputation be dragged through the mud if it wasn't his decision.

elkhunter11 · #**234** 09-06-2013, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Welll the up side is.... insurance should cover that damage.

Insurance will not cover damage done by the RCMP. And why should they, the doors and windows were not broken as a result of an accident, they were intentionally broken.

Quote:

No one in their right mind would stay. Your family would receive threats left right and center, no matter if he is guilty or not. Why should his name/reputation be dragged through the mud if it wasn't his decision.

Better to hide him clear across the country, and hopefully nobody will ever find out who made the decision to damage private property, and seize private property.

silverdoctor · #**235** 09-06-2013, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

You guys are so ignorant it's not even funny..

No one in their right mind would stay. Your family would receive threats left right and center, no matter if he is guilty or not. Why should his name/reputation be dragged through the mud if it wasn't his decision.

Ignorant:
a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics>
b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>

So none of us have any knowledge eh? You're the only enlightened one in this forum?

JB_AOL · #**236** 09-06-2013, 02:29 PM

I'd be curious if anyone could locate that letter that Danielle Smith said she released yesterday..

(I don't really believe much the Media or the opposition say, as they all have hidden agendas...)

If that letter is actually true, then I must apologize.. I was giving the RCMP the benefit of the doubt. But if they admit to not following any elected officials commands, and acted on their own..They (more importantly whoever called the shots) needs to charged.

JB_AOL · #**237** 09-06-2013, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

So none of us have any knowledge eh? You're the only enlightened one in this forum?

Grow up..

My comment is enlight of the quote in that POST..

If you think ANYONE would stay in this situation, whether right or wrong, you are ignorant..

(I should've know that MR high and mighty SD wouldn't be able to read my post properly)

silverdoctor · #**238** 09-06-2013, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

Grow up..

My comment is enlight of the quote in that POST..

If you think ANYONE would stay in this situation, whether right or wrong, you are ignorant..

(I should've know that MR high and mighty SD wouldn't be able to read my post properly)

I said it before, i'll say it again - The measure of a man is the ability to fess up when he screws up - with the ability to take the punishment for it. That's what earns my respect.

Running away is playing chicken. There's nothing high and mighty about it.

How many examples do we have in this country - just with the RCMP screwups - hiding behind the big blue wall. That's not accountability - and that is NOT something to be respected.

Make no assumptions about me, when I screw up, I deal with it.

JB_AOL · #**239** 09-06-2013, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

I said it before, i'll say it again - The measure of a man is the ability to fess up when he screws up - with the ability to take the punishment for it. That's what earns my respect.

And who says he hasn't done that? Maybe not publicly..

I think getting moved to NS is punishment enough..(kidding)..

pikergolf · #**240** 09-06-2013, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Danielle speaks with sun news...

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/f.../2654167279001

Gotta say she impressed me. Some interesting things came out, namely the broken chain of command, according to Danielle the RCMP acted on their own accord.

Best thing HR could do is kick the RCMP out and get their own force.