Gunsmith shot by police Ontario

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

Body cameras should be mandatory on every person involved in a take down like this. The footage should then be reviewed by a panel including members of the public, every time something goes sideways. They had lots of time to prep. It's a no brainer.

The video footage is the reason that the actual events at the Vancouver airport incident were revealed, and why police officers were convicted of perjury, for lying about what happened. Video may not be perfect, but it is a lot more trustworthy than just having someone's word as to what actually happened.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Once again, you are assuming that there were repeated commands, and that they were given before any shots were fired. Did you ever wonder how the police even knew that he would be in the shop, when they arrived? Given he was a senior, with a shop at his residence , and the fact that it was mentioned that the "customer" called the night before to make sure that he would be there, it appears that he worked by appointment. Unless the police made an appointment, or had a "customer" make an appointment how could they be sure that he would be at his shop when they arrived, And of course that would explain why nobody seems to know who this mystery "customer " was, and why no details of who he is, have been released, it's not like the police would want the identity of a paid/confidential informant released. And you can be certain that an informat is going to give whatever statement the police tell him to give. That is why I would like to know who this "customer" was, and if he had any ties to the police.
As to the details of what happened, I believe that he had a handgun on the desk or in his hand, he is after all a gunsmith. But I find it more logical, that a police officer thought that the handgun was a threat and opened fire, without the gunsmith actually pointing it at the officers. And if he had the handgun in his hand and was startled by the police, he may have waved it when he was startled, and the officer took that movement as him swinging the gun on the police. But I don't find it at all logical, for a gunsmith to pick up a partly assembled handgun, and point it at the police, even after being told multiple times to put it down. I don't for a second believe that the police would even wait to give several commands if they honestly believed that he was pointing a loaded handgun at them because the delay could get one of them killed.
As to why they would come up with the story about him pointing the handgun, and giving him multiple commands, I believe they walked up on the body, realized that the handgun was not even complete, let alone loaded, and realized how badly the truth would look to the public. So they made up their story, made certain the "customer" was on board, and that is the version that they all reported.
Now of course I wasn't present, just as none of us were, but my version is based on logic, and makes a lot more sense than the one reported in the SIU release.

based on logic...thx...I really needed that one Your version is simply based on the direction your mind is set on.

this will play out in court or not....

I do agree and cant see why it is not standard equipment for all LEO to wear body cams, get it into the budgets and get on with it but even that will have its faults etc

One thing for sure far from a perfect world out there.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

based on logic...thx...I really needed that one Your version is simply based on the direction your mind is set on.

this will play out in court or not....

I do agree and cant see why it is not standard equipment for all LEO to wear body cams, get it into the budgets and get on with it but even that will have its faults etc

One thing for sure far from a perfect world out there.

So the police just happen to show up when he is in his shop with a customer, he points a partly assembled handgun at them, and they command him several times to put the gun down as it is pointed at them. Are you saying that there is more logic in that version?

It wasn't long ago that a woman was trampled by a horse in Ottawa, the Ottawa police claimed that someone threw a bicycle at the horses legs, that caused the horse to trample the woman. Yet when several videos and pictures of the incident are studied carefully, there was no bicycle, the " bicycle" was actually a walker, and it wasn't thrown at the horse, the horse kicked it , when it trampled the woman. The fact is that the police lied to try and justify the woman being trampled, but once again, videos and pictures exposed that lie.

[RandyBoBandy]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

So the police just happen to show up when he is in his shop with a customer, he points a partly assembled handgun at them, and they command him several times to put the gun down as it is pointed at them. Are you saying that there is more logic in that version?

It wasn't long ago that a woman was trampled by a horse in Ottawa, the Ottawa police claimed that someone threw a bicycle at the horses legs, that caused the horse to trample the woman. Yet when several videos and pictures of the incident are studied carefully, there was no bicycle, the " bicycle" was actually a walker, and it wasn't thrown at the horse, the horse kicked it , when it trampled the woman. The fact is that the police lied to try and justify the woman being trampled, but once again, videos and pictures exposed that lie.

[Phil McCracken]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11;4499210[B

]So the police just happen to show up when he is in his shop with a customer, he points a partly assembled handgun at them, and they command him several times to put the gun down as it is pointed at them.[/B] Are you saying that there is more logic in that version?

It wasn't long ago that a woman was trampled by a horse in Ottawa, the Ottawa police claimed that someone threw a bicycle at the horses legs, that caused the horse to trample the woman. Yet when several videos and pictures of the incident are studied carefully, there was no bicycle, the " bicycle" was actually a walker, and it wasn't thrown at the horse, the horse kicked it , when it trampled the woman. The fact is that the police lied to try and justify the woman being trampled, but once again, videos and pictures exposed that lie.

Actually, police first told him, and the customer, to put their hands up, which Kotanko did not do. Instead, he reached for the handgun on the counter.

But of course that does not matter if you and others don't believe the SIU report...

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by Phil McCracken

Actually, police first told him, and the customer, to put their hands up, which Kotanko did not do. Instead, he reached for the handgun on the counter.

But of course that does not matter if you and others don't believe the SIU report...

That's what the report says alright. And there is no proof that it is accurate, or a lie. It's just the word of the folks who did the killing, since the dead guy doesn't get a say.

If someone shoots a trespasser and claims self defense, and he is the only witness, it's amazing how they always end up being charged and have to prove their innocence. Just look at the Stanley/Boushie incident. Ruined a family that was just minding their own business. Police get a pass though.

And of course they don't want to wear body cams.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

That's what the report says alright. And there is no proof that it is accurate, or a lie. It's just the word of the folks who did the killing, since the dead guy doesn't get a say.

If someone shoots a trespasser and claims self defense, and he is the only witness, it's amazing how they always end up being charged and have to prove their innocence. Just look at the Stanley/Boushie incident. Ruined a family that was just minding their own business. Police get a pass though.

And of course they don't want to wear body cams.

Exactly, what we have is one version of what supposedly happened, with no proof as to whether it is fact or fiction.

[RandyBoBandy]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Exactly, what we have is one version of what supposedly happened, with no proof as to whether it is fact or fiction.

Notwithstanding, the officer involved, decided to plead the 5th (as per his right) What does that say??

[Phil McCracken]

[QUOTE=Twisted Canuck;4499343]That's what the report says alright. And there is no proof that it is accurate, or a lie. It's just the word of the folks who did the killing, since the dead guy doesn't get a say.

If someone shoots a trespasser and claims self defense, and he is the only witness, it's amazing how they always end up being charged and have to prove their innocence. Just look at the Stanley/Boushie incident. Ruined a family that was just minding their own business. Police get a pass though.

And of course they don't want to wear body cams.[/QUOTE]

First of all, this thread is not about Stanley/Bushie.

Secondly, it is Provincial procedures there as we speak (body cams)...however, not all have them (TPS, OPP, RCMP) have them due to budgets. And I discussed that one previously. Scroll back as you obviously failed to catch that one.

Also, why would anyone lie about this when they could face potential perjury charges, criminally or civilly, down the line?

Guess we will agree to disagree...

[Phil McCracken]

Originally Posted by RandyBoBandy

Notwithstanding, the officer involved, decided to plead the 5th (as per his right) What does that say??

It says he has rights like you and I...

[IR_mike]

Originally Posted by RandyBoBandy

Notwithstanding, the officer involved, decided to plead the 5th (as per his right) What does that say??

I really doubt the 5th amendment to the U.S. constitution is valid in a canadian court.

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by Phil McCracken

Also, why would anyone lie about this when they could face potential perjury charges, criminally or civilly, down the line?

Guess we will agree to disagree...

Why would anybody lie about it? Let's see....facing a perjury charge, vs facing being charged for gunning down a well respected gunsmith without cause?

You believe the SIU report is Holy writ. What evidence do you actually base that on? And 'because they say so' doesn't count.

And of course we don't want to make a comparison to how civilians are treated compared to how police are treated. It wouldn't work to not have two completely different standards.

But personally, I think the police need to be held to a higher standard of accountability. And the nonsense about no budget for cameras is just that. They are available. TPS has them already. Sometimes they just don't get used. I would expect when executing a firearms related warrant, would be a good time to use them. From the public's perspective anyway. Maybe not from the TPS perspective.

That whole situation was handled with complete incompetence, and somebody got killed. By the police. Somebody with such a lack of criminal history, the TPS had to dig up a pot possession charge from the 70s to paint him. Somebody who had passed all the background and criminal checks to become a gunsmith, who deactivated firearms and repaired firearms for the local OPP by all accounts. A seventy year old man. Very threatening. He didn't obey the police order to raise his hands they say, he had a gun in his shop where he works as a gunsmith, so he had to die.

Nothing to see here.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by IR_mike

I really doubt the 5th amendment to the U.S. constitution is valid in a canadian court.

In Canada if you are asked what happened, you don’t have to make a statement or say anything until you talk to your lawyer first and then in court.
To me this works in favour of accused party’s so you don’t incriminate yourself.
Allowing time to get all your ducks in a row and stories straight.
Cops always push for a statement from the accused party right away for that purpose.
Yet here we have one of there own going down the other path. It doesn’t look good for the public. Public wonders why he wouldn’t cooperate if he has nothing to hide.

[Phil McCracken]

[QUOTE=Twisted Canuck;4499355]

Originally Posted by Phil McCracken

Why would anybody lie about it? Let's see....facing a perjury charge, vs facing being charged for gunning down a well respected gunsmith without cause?

You believe the SIU report is Holy writ. What evidence do you actually base that on? And 'because the say so' doesn't count.

Actually, there are a lot more witnesses that could face perjury charges, not only the one that actually shot. And perhaps all the SIU investigators/forensic/contracted officials should get boned also...Yep...bunch of people lying about this.

Look, I understand you, and others are having a hard time with the SIU investigation. It is all good. As I stated before, we'll agree to disagree...

Somehow my entire message, and quoting didn't work. Maybe because we are replying too quickly?

[sns2]

Originally Posted by RandyBoBandy

Notwithstanding, the officer involved, decided to plead the 5th (as per his right) What does that say??

Says he’s bloody hiding something… namely the blood of that senior citizen which is all over his hands.

Story ads up about as much as a Trudeau plea on an ethics charge.

I will be quick to apologize to Phil if it turns out to be death by cop.

[Twisted Canuck]

Yes we will disagree.

[Mb-MBR]

[QUOTE=Phil McCracken;4499347]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

That's what the report says alright. And there is no proof that it is accurate, or a lie. It's just the word of the folks who did the killing, since the dead guy doesn't get a say.

If someone shoots a trespasser and claims self defense, and he is the only witness, it's amazing how they always end up being charged and have to prove their innocence. Just look at the Stanley/Boushie incident. Ruined a family that was just minding their own business. Police get a pass though.

And of course they don't want to wear body cams.[/QUOTE]

First of all, this thread is not about Stanley/Bushie.

Secondly, it is Provincial procedures there as we speak (body cams)...however, not all have them (TPS, OPP, RCMP) have them due to budgets. And I discussed that one previously. Scroll back as you obviously failed to catch that one.

Also, why would anyone lie about this when they could face potential perjury charges, criminally or civilly, down the line?

Guess we will agree to disagree...

Come on Phil, are you trying to tell us "some" LEOs have no reason to lie? If a guy was to research you will find situations in every province to dispute your truth. The whole Thunderbay police force is currently under investigation. There have been others mentioned by others in this thread. I suspect they would like the same reason a citizen would, to deny.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

Why would anybody lie about it? Let's see....facing a perjury charge, vs facing being charged for gunning down a well respected gunsmith without cause?

You believe the SIU report is Holy writ. What evidence do you actually base that on? And 'because they say so' doesn't count.

And of course we don't want to make a comparison to how civilians are treated compared to how police are treated.

But personally, I think the police need to be held to a higher standard of accountability. And the nonsense about no budget for cameras is just that. They are available. TPS has them already. Sometimes they just don't get used. I would expect when executing a firearms related warrant, would be a good time to use them. From the public's perspective anyway. Maybe not from the TPS perspective.

That whole situation was handled with complete incompetence, and somebody got killed. By the police. Somebody with such a lack of criminal history, the TPS had to dig up a pot possession charge from the 70s to paint him. Somebody who had passed all the background and criminal checks to become a gunsmith, who deactivated firearms and repaired firearms for the local OPP by all accounts. A seventy year old man. Very threatening. He didn't obey the police order to raise his hands, he had a gun, so he had to die.

Nothing to see here.

Exactly, an officer sees a gun, panics and opens fire, killing the man. Then they discover that the firearm was only partly assembled and wasn't a threat to them, and they realize, that a man is dead for no good reason. So to cover for the mistake,they add in the part about the gunsmith grabbing the gun and pointing it at them, to make the shooting appear to be justified, so nobody faces charges of manslaughter, or even murder, for the wrongful shooting. Since there is nobody to challenge their version of what happened, they know that the truth will never be exposed.

And the simple truth is, we will likely never know what actually happened.

[Talking moose]

Wow
Well this wow seems out of place now….lol

[Phil McCracken]

I bet if we could all personally sit down around a fire, have a few beers or toddies together, we could actually have a decent conversation about this, and other more important topics, like hunting and fishing. We could actually agree, to a point, on many issues.

Internet "discussions" are obviously not my forte. So I'm out on this one...said what I had to say...

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by Phil McCracken

I bet if we could all personally sit down around a fire, have a few beers or toddies together, we could actually have a decent conversation about this, and other more important topics, like hunting and fishing. We could actually agree, to a point, on many issues.

Internet "discussions" are obviously not my forte. So I'm out on this one...said what I had to say...

Me too Phil.

Gotta get fishing gear ready for tomorrow.

[Twisted Canuck]

And at this point there is nothing more to add to this thread. Done.