Gunsmith shot by police Ontario

[sns2]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

As long as you are around here "fighting the good fight", I am sure no one will forget about it.



Good Job!

It's now pretty obvious that your just taking potshots. We all do from time to time.

So unless this is just a purely personal issue, can you please explain why members on a gun forum should forget about what happened in High River?

We are all ears.

Sent from my SM-A705W using Tapatalk

[Ackleyman]

Maybe....just maybe ... [once again PURE speculation , but possible] the old boy shot at the police and in self defense the officer shot back in a very dangerous situation. I know how long it takes to dump 4 rounds out of a 9mm...not long. Sad that the man lost his life but it could of been a police officer.. ?

[Scott N]

Why put anyone's life at risk, cop or otherwise, with these no-knock type of entries if no one's life is in immediate danger?

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by sns2

It's now pretty obvious that your just taking potshots. We all do from time to time.

So unless this is just a purely personal issue, can you please explain why members on a gun forum should forget about what happened in High River?

We are all ears.

Sent from my SM-A705W using Tapatalk

I will let people make there own decision but here's a link to the entire report incase you weren't there or haven't seen it yet.

https://www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/en/chai...igh-river#exeS

Pasted below is the "Summary" of that report. Have a read and let us know what conspiracy theory you buy into?

1. They were creating a High River Gun Registry?
2. Dry run for nation wide gun grab?
3. RCMP wanted to disarm the entire town?
4. Aliens are in command of the RCMP?


Executive Summary
Background
On June 20, 2013, unusual levels of rainfall resulted in the normally sedate Highwood River becoming a rampaging torrent that uprooted trees and submerged cars and homes in southern Alberta's Town of High River. The extent of the flood and the damage it caused were unprecedented.

Over the next seven days, countless acts of heroism and humanitarianism were witnessed from volunteers, firefighters and first responders, including 380 Canadian Forces personnel and hundreds of local, provincial and national Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) members, all working long hours to evacuate the town and search for, and rescue, hundreds of stranded residents. An estimated 600 people were rescued by helicopter and 200 were saved using boats, trucks and farm vehicles. However, as the crisis wore on, the conduct of RCMP members was questioned, as residents were informed that during the evacuation, their homes were forcibly entered, and in some cases windows were broken, doors were kicked in and firearms were taken.

Public Interest Investigation
By the first week of July, it was apparent that an external, independent examination of RCMP members' actions was required. Consequently, on July 5, 2013, the Chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP (now the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP,Footnote1 hereafter referred to as the “Commission”) initiated a public interest investigation into the conduct of members of the RCMP during the evacuation of High River. The Commission's investigation set out to review the actions and decisions of RCMP members and focused on whether RCMP members complied with applicable laws, policies, procedures, training and guidelines with respect to the entry into private residences during the evacuation and the seizure of firearms from those residences. The Commission's investigation also reviewed whether the RCMP's internal policies, procedures and guidelines are adequate.

Following an extensive investigation involving the review of over 10,000 pages of documents, emails, notes and seizure logs; more than 1,000 images and 50 videos; RCMP operational and administrative policies; applicable laws and court decisions; and after interviewing dozens of individuals, the Commission has made 52 findings and 10 recommendations.

In summary, RCMP members were authorized as part of a declared state of emergency to enter High River buildings and with the exception of a relatively small number of homes, the force used to enter was necessary to comply with directions from emergency management officials. However, once inside the homes, RCMP members discovered firearms and contraband and, with insufficient supervision and guidance by senior RCMP members or any judicial oversight, performed warrantless searches and seizures of firearms from some of the evacuated homes. In addition, the lack of a public communication strategy resulted in the public's mistrust of the words and actions of RCMP members and set in motion a domino effect of challenges for the RCMP.

Context
The Commission would be remiss in failing to acknowledge that the emergency personnel, including RCMP members, did a remarkable job responding to this extraordinary natural disaster in the initial days.

However, when considering the community's reaction to the actions of the RCMP in the days that followed the flood, it is evident that there were failings from which lessons can be learned. The remedial focus of the Commission's mandate allows for the identification of any failings as an opportunity to enhance the RCMP's accountability, strengthen its relationship with the communities it serves, and assist in reclaiming the trust of those residents who have had their confidence in the RCMP shaken.

State of Emergency
On the first day of the flood, the Town of High River declared a state of emergency pursuant to Alberta's Emergency Management ActFootnote2 (EMA), and the Town's Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) prepared emergency plans requiring the RCMP's input and participation for 1) rescue and recovery, 2) security, 3) search, and 4) re-entry efforts. These four plans were prepared and their execution was ordered by local and provincial officials using emergency powers in the EMA. Pursuant to paragraph 19(1)(h), the EMA authorized RCMP members to enter any building without a warrant in the course of carrying out the EOC's emergency plans.

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. In the process of carrying out these emergency plans, RCMP members entered 4,666 homes, and forced entries into more than 754 of those homes. The results of these searches were the discovery of approximately 38 people in need of help, the rescue of 700 pets, and the facilitation of provincial health and safety inspections, which deemed half of the homes inspected in High River as uninhabitable.

While authorized to enter homes by the EOC, RCMP members, acting on their own initiative, discovered or searched for firearms and contraband, resulting in the removal of 609 firearms from 105 homes, the seizure of marijuana plants from 5 homes, and prohibited weapons from 1 house.

Decision to Enter and Search Homes
The rapidity of the flood caught many by surprise. As residents quickly fled their homes, RCMP members began receiving reports that some residents were being swept away by flood waters, or were trapped in their homes and cars as large parts of the town were becoming impassable. By late morning on the first day of the flood, the EOC struggled with challenges of its own, as its location was flooded, which hampered its ability to direct the emergency efforts. At the same time, the RCMP's dedicated communication system was inoperable, along with the majority of the town's voice and data services provided by landlines and cell towers. Those needing help were unable to connect with emergency services. In the late afternoon of that first day of flooding, the EOC ordered the mandatory evacuation of the entire town of High River.

On the morning of the second day of the flood, the EOC met with the RCMP Incident Commander, Superintendent Frank Smart, who recommended a “systematic door-to-door search of every residence in the town.” With communication lines down, the concern was that no area of town could be considered cleared, as there was no means of knowing if anyone was trapped in a home or incapacitated without physically checking inside. The outcome of the EOC meeting was clear: time was of the essence and protection of life was the priority. The Director of the EOC, Mr. Ross Shapka, confirmed that the aim of the first round of the house-to-house searches was to ensure “life safety.” The EOC therefore made the decision to order the “search of all town residences to ensure that people had been evacuated.”

Means and Methods Used to Enter and Search Homes
In the afternoon of the second day of the flood, as the preparation of the search plan was in the final stages, some RCMP members sought clarification on the measures to be used for their “door-to-door” efforts if nobody answered the door, particularly in neighbourhoods where the water level was lower. Superintendent Smart instructed RCMP members to use as much force as necessary (to enter every building), but as little as possible to mitigate damage.

To add to the already complex operating environment, along with the heavy burden to save lives, many of the team members had never been in High River. RCMP members were sent out in boats in search of flooded neighbourhoods they had never seen before, looking for submerged street signs.

In the worst-hit neighbourhoods, search teams had to contend with live wires, gas leaks or unstable ground before entering homes. Some homes were unlocked, others were accessible through open garage doors, while others required the breaking of windows and doors, and when made available on teams, a dozen locksmiths unlocked or drilled locks. In some cases, the teams were able to enter through damaged entrances caused by the intensity of the flood waters and large debris. The nature of the emergency response made speed a priority at the expense of damage done to the exterior and interior of homes.

However, even though the RCMP members were directed to enter every residence, in the neighbourhoods located in the “high and dry” areas—approximately five percent of the town—it appears that the force used to enter sometimes caused extensive damage to homes that had not been affected by the flood.

Search and Seizure of Firearms
Although the EMA granted RCMP members the lawful authority for warrantless entries in furtherance of the EOC's emergency plans, these statutory powers did not authorize searches and seizures of firearms and contraband. RCMP Deputy Commissioner Dale McGowan indicated that for such seizures, RCMP members were relying on the Criminal Code.

Section 489 of the Criminal Code authorizes warrantless seizures of unsecured firearms or contraband discovered in “plain view.” Furthermore, section 489.1 of the Criminal Code requires that all items seized be reported to a justice.

In a number of instances, RCMP members seized firearms that were properly secured or that were not in plain view. In these cases the firearms were not removed with lawful authority.

An alternate proposition advanced by the RCMP as a rationale for seizing the firearms was that members were also justified in seizing the unsecured firearms which they came across in plain view because they posed a threat to public safety. With the evacuation order in place, the RCMP was receiving reports of break-ins and thefts, and there were over 300 people who refused to evacuate, including one high-risk offender.

While RCMP members, acting on their own initiative and with little guidance, may have acted with public safety in mind, they nonetheless failed to comply with legal requirements concerning the seizure of firearms. Absent a warrant, RCMP members were obligated to report their seizures to a justice pursuant to section 489.1 of the Criminal Code. The judicial oversight component of seizures cannot be overstated in the context of police officers taking personal property from a home. Parliament has indicated its desire to regulate the warrantless seizure of personal property in a manner that ensures police accountability, transparency and judicial oversight. Had the RCMP reported their seizures to the court, it may have addressed many of the concerns and criticisms from residents, the media, and politicians.

Communications
The Commission's investigation revealed a number of failings related to communications, which had a direct impact on public perceptions of RCMP performance during the crisis and undermined public confidence in the RCMP.

First and foremost, the RCMP leadership failed to adequately plan and resource external or public communications related to the High River flooding crisis. Overall, responsibility for communications lay with the High River EOC. But the RCMP's failure to plan and prepare for external communications during the emergency, and above all the insufficient importance attached by the RCMP to public communications, worked to the detriment of RCMP operations and the Force's reputation. This was a particular concern with respect to the forced entries into homes and the seizures of firearms.

RCMP ineffectiveness in external communications was the direct result of inadequate policies and procedures and insufficient training on existing public communications policies and procedures. This led to poor planning and under-resourcing, with consequent confusion about roles and responsibilities, and poor coordination of public communications internally and with partners. For example, there was a failure to explain to the public why houses in the evacuation area were being entered, in some cases more than once, and why unsecured firearms were seized. Failure to explain these actions allowed speculation to develop.

The Commission recommends that the leadership of the RCMP's Alberta Division (referred to as “K” Division) undertake a comprehensive review of its communications function to address the shortcomings exposed through the High River communications response, particularly in the areas of planning and resourcing. At the national level, the RCMP should develop a practical crisis communications handbook for use in emergency operations. The RCMP should also take measures to ensure that emergency management policies and procedures support the close integration of external communications and operations.

Emergency Response Policy
Given the lack of supervisory guidance surrounding the entries, searches and seizures, RCMP policies and procedures did not adequately present legal authorities for RCMP members to 1) enforce evacuation orders, including when it may be appropriate to arrest a person who fails to leave an evacuation area, and 2) enter homes and conduct searches and seizures when acting under provincial emergency management powers or pursuant to the common law powers of police.

The Commission recommends as a result that the RCMP review its emergency management policies at the national and divisional level, to ensure that they provide clear and comprehensive direction with respect to the legal authorities and duties of its members in emergency situations, taking into consideration the specific authorities and duties set forth in provincial or territorial legislation.

More specifically, given the lack of supervisory guidance noted in the Commission's review of the circumstances surrounding the RCMP's seizure of firearms, the RCMP should create procedures or guidelines with respect to the seizure of firearms in disaster response situations like the High River flood.

Evacuation of RCMP Members
In addition, concerns arose regarding the failure of some RCMP members to evacuate. These members remained in their homes in the evacuation area in order to respond to the emergency. Allowing RCMP members to remain in their homes in an evacuation area risks creating the perception of favouritism toward RCMP members.

The Commission therefore recommends that RCMP policy or guidelines direct RCMP emergency responders whose homes are located in an evacuation zone to vacate their homes in accordance with evacuation orders.

Incident Command System
Implementation of the Incident Command System (ICS)Footnote3 protocols indicate that during the activation phase of an emergency, staffing requirements must be determined and the necessary personnel with specific skills must be assigned accordingly. The implementation of the protocols was negatively affected by a lack of training. Thus, the Commission found that the RCMP has not fully implemented ICS into its emergency preparedness framework.

The Commission therefore recommends that the RCMP develop a policy making ICS the standard for emergency management situations and requiring ICS training for key positions, including Detachment Commanders, at a level commensurate with their responsibilities in an emergency response situation.

Note-Keeping
This report has noted the poor note-keeping of members involved in the response to the High River flood, which hampered the Commission's investigation. For instance, note-taking by search teams lacked consistency and sufficient detail. RCMP members also failed to maintain proper notebook entries during their escort of home inspection teams, in particular with respect to the use of force to gain entry into homes.

The Commission recommends that the RCMP develop national practice guidelines requiring the creation and use of neighbourhood inquiry sheets or similar documentation for emergency responders.

Conclusion
In the end, what should have been a story about heroic actions of countless front-line responders, including many RCMP members, turned out to be something far different for the RCMP.

The RCMP was evidently surprised and responded in a reactive manner to the anger of many High River residents over RCMP members having entered their homes and then seized firearms therefrom. Yet, the community's reaction was somewhat predictable, given that the sanctity of one's home from state interference is a deeply rooted legal principle. This principle was outlined eloquently by British statesman William Pitt in a speech to the House of Commons in 1763:

The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter, the rain may enter,—but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.Footnote4

Various factors identified in this report led to the negative outcome experienced by the RCMP, including a lack of leadership in terms of supervisory guidance and clear policy direction, as well as a failure to articulate and then communicate in a transparent and timely manner the reasons and legal justification for the RCMP's actions.

The RCMP will inevitably be involved in disaster response efforts in the future, performing the dual roles observed in High River of law enforcement agency and emergency responder. In order to maintain the public's confidence in the RCMP's ability to perform these roles, the Commission's report recommends various measures to be taken by the RCMP to ensure that its members: fully understand their legal authorities and duties in the particular context of responding to a natural disaster; effectively communicate the nature of their actions and the rationale behind them, both internally and to the public; and supervise their execution in a manner that demonstrates leadership and accountability.

[urban rednek]

Originally Posted by Scott N

Why put anyone's life at risk, cop or otherwise, with these no-knock type of entries if no one's life is in immediate danger?

Because they can. Dynamic Entries with overwhelming force are exciting; whether they are actually necessary in every case is immaterial.
Because they are infallible.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/no-kn...ctic-1.5942819

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/no-kn...ions-1.6072238

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

I will let people make there own decision but here's a link to the entire report incase you weren't there or haven't seen it yet.

https://www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/en/chai...igh-river#exeS

Pasted below is the "Summary" of that report. Have a read and let us know what conspiracy theory you buy into?

1. They were creating a High River Gun Registry?
2. Dry run for nation wide gun grab?
3. RCMP wanted to disarm the entire town?
4. Aliens are in command of the RCMP?


Executive Summary
Background
On June 20, 2013, unusual levels of rainfall resulted in the normally sedate Highwood River becoming a rampaging torrent that uprooted trees and submerged cars and homes in southern Alberta's Town of High River. The extent of the flood and the damage it caused were unprecedented.

Over the next seven days, countless acts of heroism and humanitarianism were witnessed from volunteers, firefighters and first responders, including 380 Canadian Forces personnel and hundreds of local, provincial and national Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) members, all working long hours to evacuate the town and search for, and rescue, hundreds of stranded residents. An estimated 600 people were rescued by helicopter and 200 were saved using boats, trucks and farm vehicles. However, as the crisis wore on, the conduct of RCMP members was questioned, as residents were informed that during the evacuation, their homes were forcibly entered, and in some cases windows were broken, doors were kicked in and firearms were taken.

Public Interest Investigation
By the first week of July, it was apparent that an external, independent examination of RCMP members' actions was required. Consequently, on July 5, 2013, the Chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP (now the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP,Footnote1 hereafter referred to as the “Commission”) initiated a public interest investigation into the conduct of members of the RCMP during the evacuation of High River. The Commission's investigation set out to review the actions and decisions of RCMP members and focused on whether RCMP members complied with applicable laws, policies, procedures, training and guidelines with respect to the entry into private residences during the evacuation and the seizure of firearms from those residences. The Commission's investigation also reviewed whether the RCMP's internal policies, procedures and guidelines are adequate.

Following an extensive investigation involving the review of over 10,000 pages of documents, emails, notes and seizure logs; more than 1,000 images and 50 videos; RCMP operational and administrative policies; applicable laws and court decisions; and after interviewing dozens of individuals, the Commission has made 52 findings and 10 recommendations.

In summary, RCMP members were authorized as part of a declared state of emergency to enter High River buildings and with the exception of a relatively small number of homes, the force used to enter was necessary to comply with directions from emergency management officials. However, once inside the homes, RCMP members discovered firearms and contraband and, with insufficient supervision and guidance by senior RCMP members or any judicial oversight, performed warrantless searches and seizures of firearms from some of the evacuated homes. In addition, the lack of a public communication strategy resulted in the public's mistrust of the words and actions of RCMP members and set in motion a domino effect of challenges for the RCMP.

Context
The Commission would be remiss in failing to acknowledge that the emergency personnel, including RCMP members, did a remarkable job responding to this extraordinary natural disaster in the initial days.

However, when considering the community's reaction to the actions of the RCMP in the days that followed the flood, it is evident that there were failings from which lessons can be learned. The remedial focus of the Commission's mandate allows for the identification of any failings as an opportunity to enhance the RCMP's accountability, strengthen its relationship with the communities it serves, and assist in reclaiming the trust of those residents who have had their confidence in the RCMP shaken.

State of Emergency
On the first day of the flood, the Town of High River declared a state of emergency pursuant to Alberta's Emergency Management ActFootnote2 (EMA), and the Town's Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) prepared emergency plans requiring the RCMP's input and participation for 1) rescue and recovery, 2) security, 3) search, and 4) re-entry efforts. These four plans were prepared and their execution was ordered by local and provincial officials using emergency powers in the EMA. Pursuant to paragraph 19(1)(h), the EMA authorized RCMP members to enter any building without a warrant in the course of carrying out the EOC's emergency plans.

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. In the process of carrying out these emergency plans, RCMP members entered 4,666 homes, and forced entries into more than 754 of those homes. The results of these searches were the discovery of approximately 38 people in need of help, the rescue of 700 pets, and the facilitation of provincial health and safety inspections, which deemed half of the homes inspected in High River as uninhabitable.

While authorized to enter homes by the EOC, RCMP members, acting on their own initiative, discovered or searched for firearms and contraband, resulting in the removal of 609 firearms from 105 homes, the seizure of marijuana plants from 5 homes, and prohibited weapons from 1 house.

Decision to Enter and Search Homes
The rapidity of the flood caught many by surprise. As residents quickly fled their homes, RCMP members began receiving reports that some residents were being swept away by flood waters, or were trapped in their homes and cars as large parts of the town were becoming impassable. By late morning on the first day of the flood, the EOC struggled with challenges of its own, as its location was flooded, which hampered its ability to direct the emergency efforts. At the same time, the RCMP's dedicated communication system was inoperable, along with the majority of the town's voice and data services provided by landlines and cell towers. Those needing help were unable to connect with emergency services. In the late afternoon of that first day of flooding, the EOC ordered the mandatory evacuation of the entire town of High River.

On the morning of the second day of the flood, the EOC met with the RCMP Incident Commander, Superintendent Frank Smart, who recommended a “systematic door-to-door search of every residence in the town.” With communication lines down, the concern was that no area of town could be considered cleared, as there was no means of knowing if anyone was trapped in a home or incapacitated without physically checking inside. The outcome of the EOC meeting was clear: time was of the essence and protection of life was the priority. The Director of the EOC, Mr. Ross Shapka, confirmed that the aim of the first round of the house-to-house searches was to ensure “life safety.” The EOC therefore made the decision to order the “search of all town residences to ensure that people had been evacuated.”

Means and Methods Used to Enter and Search Homes
In the afternoon of the second day of the flood, as the preparation of the search plan was in the final stages, some RCMP members sought clarification on the measures to be used for their “door-to-door” efforts if nobody answered the door, particularly in neighbourhoods where the water level was lower. Superintendent Smart instructed RCMP members to use as much force as necessary (to enter every building), but as little as possible to mitigate damage.

To add to the already complex operating environment, along with the heavy burden to save lives, many of the team members had never been in High River. RCMP members were sent out in boats in search of flooded neighbourhoods they had never seen before, looking for submerged street signs.

In the worst-hit neighbourhoods, search teams had to contend with live wires, gas leaks or unstable ground before entering homes. Some homes were unlocked, others were accessible through open garage doors, while others required the breaking of windows and doors, and when made available on teams, a dozen locksmiths unlocked or drilled locks. In some cases, the teams were able to enter through damaged entrances caused by the intensity of the flood waters and large debris. The nature of the emergency response made speed a priority at the expense of damage done to the exterior and interior of homes.

However, even though the RCMP members were directed to enter every residence, in the neighbourhoods located in the “high and dry” areas—approximately five percent of the town—it appears that the force used to enter sometimes caused extensive damage to homes that had not been affected by the flood.

Search and Seizure of Firearms
Although the EMA granted RCMP members the lawful authority for warrantless entries in furtherance of the EOC's emergency plans, these statutory powers did not authorize searches and seizures of firearms and contraband. RCMP Deputy Commissioner Dale McGowan indicated that for such seizures, RCMP members were relying on the Criminal Code.

Section 489 of the Criminal Code authorizes warrantless seizures of unsecured firearms or contraband discovered in “plain view.” Furthermore, section 489.1 of the Criminal Code requires that all items seized be reported to a justice.

In a number of instances, RCMP members seized firearms that were properly secured or that were not in plain view. In these cases the firearms were not removed with lawful authority.

An alternate proposition advanced by the RCMP as a rationale for seizing the firearms was that members were also justified in seizing the unsecured firearms which they came across in plain view because they posed a threat to public safety. With the evacuation order in place, the RCMP was receiving reports of break-ins and thefts, and there were over 300 people who refused to evacuate, including one high-risk offender.

While RCMP members, acting on their own initiative and with little guidance, may have acted with public safety in mind, they nonetheless failed to comply with legal requirements concerning the seizure of firearms. Absent a warrant, RCMP members were obligated to report their seizures to a justice pursuant to section 489.1 of the Criminal Code. The judicial oversight component of seizures cannot be overstated in the context of police officers taking personal property from a home. Parliament has indicated its desire to regulate the warrantless seizure of personal property in a manner that ensures police accountability, transparency and judicial oversight. Had the RCMP reported their seizures to the court, it may have addressed many of the concerns and criticisms from residents, the media, and politicians.

Communications
The Commission's investigation revealed a number of failings related to communications, which had a direct impact on public perceptions of RCMP performance during the crisis and undermined public confidence in the RCMP.

First and foremost, the RCMP leadership failed to adequately plan and resource external or public communications related to the High River flooding crisis. Overall, responsibility for communications lay with the High River EOC. But the RCMP's failure to plan and prepare for external communications during the emergency, and above all the insufficient importance attached by the RCMP to public communications, worked to the detriment of RCMP operations and the Force's reputation. This was a particular concern with respect to the forced entries into homes and the seizures of firearms.

RCMP ineffectiveness in external communications was the direct result of inadequate policies and procedures and insufficient training on existing public communications policies and procedures. This led to poor planning and under-resourcing, with consequent confusion about roles and responsibilities, and poor coordination of public communications internally and with partners. For example, there was a failure to explain to the public why houses in the evacuation area were being entered, in some cases more than once, and why unsecured firearms were seized. Failure to explain these actions allowed speculation to develop.

The Commission recommends that the leadership of the RCMP's Alberta Division (referred to as “K” Division) undertake a comprehensive review of its communications function to address the shortcomings exposed through the High River communications response, particularly in the areas of planning and resourcing. At the national level, the RCMP should develop a practical crisis communications handbook for use in emergency operations. The RCMP should also take measures to ensure that emergency management policies and procedures support the close integration of external communications and operations.

Emergency Response Policy
Given the lack of supervisory guidance surrounding the entries, searches and seizures, RCMP policies and procedures did not adequately present legal authorities for RCMP members to 1) enforce evacuation orders, including when it may be appropriate to arrest a person who fails to leave an evacuation area, and 2) enter homes and conduct searches and seizures when acting under provincial emergency management powers or pursuant to the common law powers of police.

The Commission recommends as a result that the RCMP review its emergency management policies at the national and divisional level, to ensure that they provide clear and comprehensive direction with respect to the legal authorities and duties of its members in emergency situations, taking into consideration the specific authorities and duties set forth in provincial or territorial legislation.

More specifically, given the lack of supervisory guidance noted in the Commission's review of the circumstances surrounding the RCMP's seizure of firearms, the RCMP should create procedures or guidelines with respect to the seizure of firearms in disaster response situations like the High River flood.

Evacuation of RCMP Members
In addition, concerns arose regarding the failure of some RCMP members to evacuate. These members remained in their homes in the evacuation area in order to respond to the emergency. Allowing RCMP members to remain in their homes in an evacuation area risks creating the perception of favouritism toward RCMP members.

The Commission therefore recommends that RCMP policy or guidelines direct RCMP emergency responders whose homes are located in an evacuation zone to vacate their homes in accordance with evacuation orders.

Incident Command System
Implementation of the Incident Command System (ICS)Footnote3 protocols indicate that during the activation phase of an emergency, staffing requirements must be determined and the necessary personnel with specific skills must be assigned accordingly. The implementation of the protocols was negatively affected by a lack of training. Thus, the Commission found that the RCMP has not fully implemented ICS into its emergency preparedness framework.

The Commission therefore recommends that the RCMP develop a policy making ICS the standard for emergency management situations and requiring ICS training for key positions, including Detachment Commanders, at a level commensurate with their responsibilities in an emergency response situation.

Note-Keeping
This report has noted the poor note-keeping of members involved in the response to the High River flood, which hampered the Commission's investigation. For instance, note-taking by search teams lacked consistency and sufficient detail. RCMP members also failed to maintain proper notebook entries during their escort of home inspection teams, in particular with respect to the use of force to gain entry into homes.

The Commission recommends that the RCMP develop national practice guidelines requiring the creation and use of neighbourhood inquiry sheets or similar documentation for emergency responders.

Conclusion
In the end, what should have been a story about heroic actions of countless front-line responders, including many RCMP members, turned out to be something far different for the RCMP.

The RCMP was evidently surprised and responded in a reactive manner to the anger of many High River residents over RCMP members having entered their homes and then seized firearms therefrom. Yet, the community's reaction was somewhat predictable, given that the sanctity of one's home from state interference is a deeply rooted legal principle. This principle was outlined eloquently by British statesman William Pitt in a speech to the House of Commons in 1763:

The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter, the rain may enter,—but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.Footnote4

Various factors identified in this report led to the negative outcome experienced by the RCMP, including a lack of leadership in terms of supervisory guidance and clear policy direction, as well as a failure to articulate and then communicate in a transparent and timely manner the reasons and legal justification for the RCMP's actions.

The RCMP will inevitably be involved in disaster response efforts in the future, performing the dual roles observed in High River of law enforcement agency and emergency responder. In order to maintain the public's confidence in the RCMP's ability to perform these roles, the Commission's report recommends various measures to be taken by the RCMP to ensure that its members: fully understand their legal authorities and duties in the particular context of responding to a natural disaster; effectively communicate the nature of their actions and the rationale behind them, both internally and to the public; and supervise their execution in a manner that demonstrates leadership and accountability.

Here is what stands out to me

In a number of instances, RCMP members seized firearms that were properly secured or that were not in plain view. In these cases the firearms were not removed with lawful authority.

An alternate proposition advanced by the RCMP as a rationale for seizing the firearms was that members were also justified in seizing the unsecured firearms which they came across in plain view because they posed a threat to public safety. With the evacuation order in place, the RCMP was receiving reports of break-ins and thefts, and there were over 300 people who refused to evacuate, including one high-risk offender.

While RCMP members, acting on their own initiative and with little guidance, may have acted with public safety in mind, they nonetheless failed to comply with legal requirements concerning the seizure of firearms. Absent a warrant, RCMP members were obligated to report their seizures to a justice pursuant to section 489.1 of the Criminal Code. The judicial oversight component of seizures cannot be overstated in the context of police officers taking personal property from a home.

The illegal actions by the RCMP were a betrayal to the public trust, and should never be excused or forgotten.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Here is what stands out to me

I will suggest something to you and you can think about it and let me know what you think.

The majority of us here know what is required as per the regulations in the Firearms Act for safe storage. And the Police are expected to know that as well.

So for example a non-restricted firearm can be legally stored at your home leaning against your bedroom wall with only a trigger or cable lock installed as long as the ammunition for that firearm is stored else. A person could store that non-restricted firearm in lock plastic rifle case and have the ammunition in the case with it as well.

For a restricted hand gun, I can also store that by locking it in a small plastic case which I can legally leave on me night table as long as the hand gun is trigger or cable locked inside case.

So now you have a Member forcefully enter a house to search for people and they find a firearm or firearm case in the above described manner. The door is now breached and there is no resources, material or tools to resecure that house.

Let me ask you what the reasonable question the Member should ask themselves in this situation.

1. Is that firearm properly stored as per the regulations?

or

2. If a unknown person entered this unsecured house after police finish the search for people, could that unknown person easily walk away with that firearm?

[Redhorse Ranch]

What stands out to me is that the commission is explaining that the cops did it. They wrote the rest to excuse them for it. This is not a "conspiracy theory". This is fact.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Here is what stands out to me



The illegal actions by the RCMP were a betrayal to the public trust, and should never be excused or forgotten.

In regards to your 2nd bold statement was failure to complete a report to justice to account for the seizure.

That needs to happen for all seizures whether it is for Criminal Code, CDSA, or public safety seizures. There is no real establish timeline for CC or CDSA seizures, but it does say "forthwith." But in all cases if "forthwith" is not met, then it must be articulated why, and in this case that didn't happen.

For Public Safety seizure the CC states the report to justice must be completed within 30 days or the firearms must be returned to the owner. (117.06 CC).

I am not sure of the exact date the guns started to be returned to owners but I am sure it a matter of public record.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by Redhorse Ranch

What stands out to me is that the commission is explaining that the cops did it. They wrote the rest to excuse them for it. This is not a "conspiracy theory". This is fact.

So you are saying the report is bias?

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by Scott N

Why put anyone's life at risk, cop or otherwise, with these no-knock type of entries if no one's life is in immediate danger?

Because the element of surprise would lessen the chances the old boy could have shuffled off to the bathroom and flushed some dangerous life threatening scope mount screws or perhaps an evil peep sight.

[brendan's dad]

And just to be clear, I didn't bring High River into this thread, so if you want to stop talking about it, I'm good.

[Redhorse Ranch]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

So you are saying the report is bias?

No. I said the report explains that the cops did it. And it does.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

Because the element of surprise would lessen the chances the old boy could have shuffled off to the bathroom and flushed some dangerous life threatening scope mount screws or perhaps an evil peep sight.

That is a limited view. Unannounced warrant executions are not only for the preservation of evidence. In many cases it is to perform a technique. In this case it might have been to take the individual into custody quickly to prevent accessing firearms or creating an "Armed and Barricaded" situation.

But like many have said, people will have to wait until the report is out. But, if you have already made the decision that the report will be full of self serving lies, than there is not much sense waiting for it.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by Redhorse Ranch

No. I said the report explains that the cops did it. And it does.

And I agree, the police did take the firearms from homes in High River.

[Redhorse Ranch]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

And I agree, the police did take the firearms from homes in High River.

Illegally. And no one ever answered for it.

[urban rednek]

Although the previous links were mostly examples from Ontario, don't think you are safe from the stormtrooper mentality just because you live in Alberta.
The best part? Even though you are innocent, you have no legal recourse to compensation for damages. Even when they were clearly in the wrong. Because they are infallible.
Don't you feel safer now?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/no-kn...uple-1.6069205

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by Redhorse Ranch

Illegally. And no one ever answered for it.

Question

Police are doing a drug investigation. While doing surveillance the Police Officers observed event that cause them to do a warrantless search and seizure on a residence due to exigent circumstance under 487.11 of CCC. (trust me, it is a thing)

The guy is arrested, charged and it goes to trial. During the trial the Judge decides the grounds for the warrantless search and seizure were not there or there was a procedural error in reporting the seizure. Charges get tossed and the guy walks.

Should the Police Officers now be charged with break and enter and theft?

Are folks wanting Member's of the command post charged or is it the individual Members that did the physical seizures?

The RCMP accepted the report and instituted many changes to how they conducted business during an emergency situation. A lot of those changes were seen in Fort McMurray.

Now if the RCMP said, screw the report, we did it right and were not changing anything, then there would be a major issue, but that is not the case.

But every time any Police action is brought into question here, up comes High River and the compariosn to Nazi Germany.

[sns2]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

That is a limited view. Unannounced warrant executions are not only for the preservation of evidence. In many cases it is to perform a technique. In this case it might have been to take the individual into custody quickly to prevent accessing firearms or creating an "Armed and Barricaded" situation.

But like many have said, people will have to wait until the report is out. But, if you have already made the decision that the report will be full of self serving lies, than there is not much sense waiting for it.

Brendan, you have always seemed like a good guy to me, and I certainly have no axe to grind. But, I think it is fair for you to tell us if your are LEO, or someone in your immediate family is. That would be the honest thing to do.

I would surmise that most members have read the report before you posted it for us, but in so doing, you haven’t changed minds, just reinforced the conclusion that there was a massive overreach of powers that contravened established laws that all officers should be aware of.

Check my history if you are really bored. I am as pro LEO as any, and as a mod, I shut down countless threads that I felt were unfair toward police officers, though you’d have no way of knowing that.

I also have immediate family members who are currently cops, and two have are retired officers.

Yet my support of, and respect for, all the upstanding men and women in blue, does not make me oblivious to the fact that they can, and often do go way beyond their mandate to serve and protect.

And as for the illegal events which took place in High River not being relevant to this discussion, let’s be crystal clear they are relevant in that the discussion has included mistrust of complete and unbiased reporting of the vents which took place for the public to make up their mind.

Remember, gov’ts are to be accountable to the people, and their appointed agencies such as police forces fall under that same theoretical umbrella.

Unfortunately, in recent decades, we have all watched that theory become further and further from actual practice. And so, at this point, most of us live with a healthy dose of skepticism, especially when at first glance things do not add up.

Blasting holes in an old man certainly fits this bill.

[Redhorse Ranch]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

Question

Police are doing a drug investigation. While doing surveillance the Police Officers observed event that cause them to do a warrantless search and seizure on a residence due to exigent circumstance under 487.11 of CCC. (trust me, it is a thing)

The guy is arrested, charged and it goes to trial. During the trial the Judge decides the grounds for the warrantless search and seizure were not there or there was a procedural error in reporting the seizure. Charges get tossed and the guy walks.

Should the Police Officers now be charged with break and enter and theft?

Are folks wanting Member's of the command post charged or is it the individual Members that did the physical seizures?

The RCMP accepted the report and instituted many changes to how they conducted business during an emergency situation. A lot of those changes were seen in Fort McMurray.

Now if the RCMP said, screw the report, we did it right and were not changing anything, then there would be a major issue, but that is not the case.

But every time any Police action is brought into question here, up comes High River and the compariosn to Nazi Germany.

The dangerous precedent set by the illegal police actions in High River are what's at issue here. If there are no consequences to actions, it emboldens bad behaviour in a force empowered to protect us. No "Nazi Germany", no "conspiracy theories".

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

I will suggest something to you and you can think about it and let me know what you think.

The majority of us here know what is required as per the regulations in the Firearms Act for safe storage. And the Police are expected to know that as well.

So for example a non-restricted firearm can be legally stored at your home leaning against your bedroom wall with only a trigger or cable lock installed as long as the ammunition for that firearm is stored else. A person could store that non-restricted firearm in lock plastic rifle case and have the ammunition in the case with it as well.

For a restricted hand gun, I can also store that by locking it in a small plastic case which I can legally leave on me night table as long as the hand gun is trigger or cable locked inside case.

So now you have a Member forcefully enter a house to search for people and they find a firearm or firearm case in the above described manner. The door is now breached and there is no resources, material or tools to resecure that house.

Let me ask you what the reasonable question the Member should ask themselves in this situation.

1. Is that firearm properly stored as per the regulations?

or

2. If a unknown person entered this unsecured house after police finish the search for people, could that unknown person easily walk away with that firearm?

Does that officer ask himself if he should remove any vehicle keys, since any thief could now take those keys and steal any vehicles on the premises? Does he ask himself if he should remove any jewelery , artwork or valuables, that he has now made accessible to thieves? How about any prescription drugs that may be left inside that could be a danger to children or anyone else that can now enter the unlocked home? The fact that only firearms were targeted, makes it obvious that this had nothing to do with protecting people's property. And if the police were so concerned about keeping those firearms away from criminals, perhaps they should have had a legal plan to resecure the homes that they broke into and caused damage to?
As to how the High River incident applies to the gunsmith being shot by police, the fact is that many people no longer have full trust in our police, and that lack of trust will make us wonder about any investigation results that the police do post about the incident, especially if the report is like the Nova Scotia firehall incident report, and tells us that all police actions were justified.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by sns2

Brendan, you have always seemed like a good guy to me, and I certainly have no axe to grind. But, I think it is fair for you to tell us if your are LEO, or someone in your immediate family is. That would be the honest thing to do.

I would surmise that most members have read the report before you posted it for us, but in so doing, you haven’t changed minds, just reinforced the conclusion that there was a massive overreach of powers that contravened established laws that all officers should be aware of.

Check my history if you are really bored. I am as pro LEO as any, and as a mod, I shut down countless threads that I felt were unfair toward police officers, though you’d have no way of knowing that.

I also have immediate family members who are currently cops, and two have are retired officers.

Yet my support of, and respect for, all the upstanding men and women in blue, does not make me oblivious to the fact that they can, and often do go way beyond their mandate to serve and protect.

And as for the illegal events which took place in High River not being relevant to this discussion, let’s be crystal clear they are relevant in that the discussion has included mistrust of complete and unbiased reporting of the vents which took place for the public to make up their mind.

Remember, gov’ts are to be accountable to the people, and their appointed agencies such as police forces fall under that same theoretical umbrella.

Unfortunately, in recent decades, we have all watched that theory become further and further from actual practice. And so, at this point, most of us live with a healthy dose of skepticism, especially when at first glance things do not add up.

Blasting holes in an old man certainly fits this bill.

I don't know what happened in Ontario anymore than anyone else on this board.

In regards to Hiigh River, I will repost this paragraph and we will have to agree to disagree on the "massive overreach of powers"

While RCMP members, acting on their own initiative and with little guidance, may have acted with public safety in mind, they nonetheless failed to comply with legal requirements concerning the seizure of firearms. Absent a warrant, RCMP members were obligated to report their seizures to a justice pursuant to section 489.1 of the Criminal Code. The judicial oversight component of seizures cannot be overstated in the context of police officers taking personal property from a home. Parliament has indicated its desire to regulate the warrantless seizure of personal property in a manner that ensures police accountability, transparency and judicial oversight. Had the RCMP reported their seizures to the court, it may have addressed many of the concerns and criticisms from residents, the media, and politicians.

The commission did not even rule that the actual physical seizures of firearms were illegal. They ruled that failing to report the seizure was in contravention of law and that the failure of the command to articulate the actions of the police lead to the public anger and distrust.

If all the owners that had their firearms seized during flood had thanked the RCMP (and many did) for the seizing their guns and taking care of them during the emergency, then there would not have been a special commission in relation to the seizure.

There would have been an incident review of the entire response to better prepare for future emergencies, that happens after all of these types of occurrences and that is it.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Does that officer ask himself if he should remove any vehicle keys, since any thief could now take those keys and steal any vehicles on the premises? Does he ask himself if he should remove any jewelery , artwork or valuables, that he has now made accessible to thieves? How about any prescription drugs that may be left inside that could be a danger to children or anyone else that can now enter the unlocked home? The fact that only firearms were targeted, makes it obvious that this had nothing to do with protecting people's property. And if the police were so concerned about keeping those firearms away from criminals, perhaps they should have had a legal plan to resecure the homes that they broke into and caused damage to?
As to how the High River incident applies to the gunsmith being shot by police, the fact is that many people no longer have full trust in our police, and that lack of trust will make us wonder about any investigation results that the police do post about the incident, especially if the report is like the Nova Scotia firehall incident report, and tells us that all police actions were justified.

So you think each search team should be carting around a contractor with materials and tools to re-secure the homes/ Maybe post a Member at the door of each residence. There is tons of guys sitting around doing nothing during a flood.

My example was 1 residence in a controlled situation, not during an emergency evacuation where hundreds of house are being entered. Keys, jewelry, artwork, other valuables do not kill people in the hands of criminals.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

So you think each search team should be carting around a contractor with materials and tools to re-secure the homes/ Maybe post a Member at the door of each residence. There is tons of guys sitting around doing nothing during a flood.

My example was 1 residence in a controlled situation, not during an emergency evacuation where hundreds of house are being entered. Keys, jewelry, artwork, other valuables do not kill people in the hands of criminals.

Would it not be reasonable to expect to find some legally stored firearms when breaking into hundreds of homes? Is it not reasonable to have a plan in place to legally deal with those firearms before beginning the break ins? And some of the seized firearms were cable locked to walls or structures, is it not just as easy to break the door lock as it is to cut the cable, if thieves are what the police were reay concerned about?

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Would it not be reasonable to expect to find some legally stored firearms when breaking into hundreds of homes? Is it not reasonable to have a plan in place to legally deal with those firearms before beginning the break ins? And some of the seized firearms were cable locked to walls or structures, is it not just as easy to break the door lock as it is to cut the cable, if thieves are what the police were reay concerned about?

The difference is the door was already broken by the police. They couldn't un-break it given the situation. I go back to a previous post I made is that the Member is making a judgement call on whether a criminal could steal the firearm from an unsecured residence? That is more like to happen if the firearm is mobile or in plain view.

And yes, many recommendations came out of the commission on how the response could have been better. That is the purpose of a public inquiry, or commission or incident review; and it is a very important part of the follow up of any critical incident. But if you have ever been part of an emergency response, you will know that even with the best plans in place, nothing ever goes exactly according to the plan.

[brendan's dad]

Well Brendan turns 14 today, nice having your birthday on a holiday every year. Headed to the Rec Room.

Have a nice day guys.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

The difference is the door was already broken by the police. They couldn't un-break it given the situation. I go back to a previous post I made is that the Member is making a judgement call on whether a criminal could steal the firearm from an unsecured residence? That is more like to happen if the firearm is mobile or in plain view.

And yes, many recommendations came out of the commission on how the response could have been better. That is the purpose of a public inquiry, or commission or incident review; and it is a very important part of the follow up of any critical incident. But if you have ever been part of an emergency response, you will know that even with the best plans in place, nothing ever goes exactly according to the plan.

All of those doors didn't get broken at once, it took place over days, even if the plan was faulty, and didn't consider firearms, the first firearms that were discovered should have had the officers asking their superiors how to handle the situation before they continued on their path of damage and destruction. I have been involved with many, many risk assessments, and have helped develop many safe work plans over the years, and we amended the safe work procedure , when we encountered unforseen situations.

All of the excuses that you or anyone else can come up with don't change this

. In these cases the firearms were not removed with lawful authority.

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Apparently some people don't have an issue with our government or police ignoring the rights and freedoms that our veterans fought and died for, but I will always oppose this.

Judge, Jury Executioner and Preacher.

How did you get ALL the information before anyone else?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

Judge, Jury Executioner and Preacher.

How did you get ALL the information before anyone else?

I was commenting on the illegal actions by the RCMP at High River , and the fact that some people want this to be forgotten, as though it never happened. The fact that I quoted the post that I was responding to, should have made that very evident.

The High River report has been out for years, and was posted on this thread, by the very person that I was responding to.

[CMichaud]

Alberta Provincial Police.

If Ontario and Quebec can have their own what is our excuse...