Lethbridge Range closure - Page 5

Pudelpointer · #**121** 03-06-2012, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crawfy

I am confuse with the Lethbridge City and the LRPS and the issue they kept bringing up about the Liability. So if someone was to go and shoot someone or something in downtown Lethbridge is it the City who is liable or is it the Criminal who committed the crime? If I was driving on a city street and went through a stop sign and injured or killed someone is it the city that is liable for that or me?

God knows I would never like to see someone injured/killed but it seems to me that there is someone out there with the said caliber that is either very irresponsible or commiting a criminal offence.

Their concern is that they allow a range within the City. They believe that a bullet can "by accident" leave the range, and if it happens they may be legally liable. What they refuse to accept is that there is no way for a bullet to leave the range by accident, only through negligence (almost impossible) or criminal intent. Neither the LFGA or City can be held responsible for criminal activity.

This is what happens when we have a lawyer as Mayor.

avb3 · #**122** 03-06-2012, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

Their concern is that they allow a range within the City. They believe that a bullet can "by accident" leave the range, and if it happens they may be legally liable. What they refuse to accept is that there is no way for a bullet to leave the range by accident, only through negligence (almost impossible) or criminal intent. Neither the LFGA or City can be held responsible for criminal activity.

This is what happens when we have a lawyer as Mayor.

The presentation and answers to the questions by the LFGA were some of the most professional I have seen from a volunteer group.

Well done and I wish you guys the best of luck in what ever happens on a going forward basis.

bridger2010 · #**123** 03-06-2012, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

Their concern is that they allow a range within the City. They believe that a bullet can "by accident" leave the range, and if it happens they may be legally liable. What they refuse to accept is that there is no way for a bullet to leave the range by accident, only through negligence (almost impossible) or criminal intent. Neither the LFGA or City can be held responsible for criminal activity.

This is what happens when we have a lawyer as Mayor.

That makes no sense.

geezer55 · #**124** 03-06-2012, 09:50 PM

I can't believe I listened to the entire session between city council, city police and LFGA. One thing that caught my ear was about the 19 minute mark, Inspector Catonio says that a house got hit on the east wall and because of their investigation they decided that the shot came from the range. This is the information they took to city administration. My question is how can an east wall be hit when the wall facing the range would be the west wall? The Inspector even eliminates a broken east window because its "obvious", I think the reason it's obvious is because anything on the east side of building cannot be hit from a shot from the west. This is about minute 28:50 of the meeting. I know I'm not good at explaining, just take a listen. If you eliminate one then you have to eliminate the other. Just an inconsistency that I caught.

crawfy · #**125** 03-06-2012, 09:59 PM

Go to cbc.ca eyeopener and listen to the mayor's impartial interview with the cbc.

Ryry4 · #**126** 03-06-2012, 10:13 PM

Sounds like the police are quite incompetent. I wish I could have been there for the meeting. Here's hoping that the residents of Lethbridge make Dodic remember this in the next election.

Loki610 · #**127** 03-06-2012, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crawfy

Go to cbc.ca eyeopener and listen to the mayor's impartial interview with the cbc.

http://www.cbc.ca/eyeopener/episode/...omments-submit

That is a truly horrific interview. I look forward to the next election when we can get rid of this clown. I wonder how much he'll collect from the north side developers in the next 2 weeks!

Ryry4 · #**128** 03-06-2012, 10:51 PM

I just threw up in my mouth. Your mayor is a tool.

Sneeze · #**129** 03-06-2012, 10:56 PM

That interview is straight up bull krap. MY tax dollars pay both those idiots salary.
Where are all the CBC cheerleaders on this interview? What a load of absolute garbage.

Lefty-Canuck · #**130** 03-06-2012, 11:08 PM

....who is that interviewer....such a biased jerk....bye bye Mayor come the next election....

LC

Prdtrgttr · #**131** 03-07-2012, 09:25 AM

Bad interview, especially the pointed and one sided questions. I left a comment there for the interviewer.

DustDee · #**132** 03-07-2012, 09:32 AM

Dodic is a tool.

That CBC interviewer is a tool.

And I don't mean an implement useful in accomplishing a task (like a hammer or a drill).

Wouldn't surprise me if Dodic is gone next election.

crawfy · #**133** 03-07-2012, 07:21 PM

That interview should be grabbed by the LF&G and played at the next City Counsell Meeting.

winger7mm · #**134** 03-07-2012, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bridger2010

That makes no sense.

Because our mayor was a lawyer before he became mayor

Ryry4 · #**135** 03-07-2012, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winger7mm

Because our mayor was a lawyer before he became mayor

Once a lawyer, always a lawyer.

Soreneck Racing · #**136** 03-07-2012, 09:16 PM

The Lethbridge Herald is running a poll on their web page. The question is; "Do you think that the range is a hazard to the residents"-or something very similar to it!

Need all the members of this forum to log onto their web page and vote. I know it is not a statistically significant poll, but it could be used against us.

Please help us out. We need everyones vote!

http://www.lethbridgeherald.com

Ryry4 · #**137** 03-07-2012, 09:22 PM

Done.

GOPHERSPLAT · #**138** 03-07-2012, 10:18 PM

Yep,Done.

Lefty-Canuck · #**139** 03-07-2012, 10:20 PM

Done

LC

Rackmastr · #**140** 03-07-2012, 10:28 PM

Done....and I'd say post this in the General Section or create a new thread so the numbers out there get voting.....

Halfton · #**141** 03-08-2012, 12:18 AM

Done

geezer55 · #**142** 03-08-2012, 09:08 AM

done and done

bridger2010 · #**143** 03-08-2012, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winger7mm

Because our mayor was a lawyer before he became mayor

Ya, I get that. And frankly, he was, and still is, an excellent lawyer.

What I don't get is the assertion that the city can have no liability if a bullet leaves the range, either intentionally or through inadvertance. It's a silly comment made by someone with zero legal training.

Maybe all those people who think the city won't be liable would agree to personally indemnify the city for any losses the city suffers in the event of an injury? I sure won't agree to that.

While I love shooting at the range and would be sad to see it go, I wonder what the LFGA has been doing since 2005 (or was it 2006?) to raise money to re-locate. The writing is on the wall and has been for some time.

winger7mm · #**144** 03-08-2012, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryry4

Once a lawyer, always a lawyer.

Yea I know, I was clarifing for bridger2010, as he was confused about the lawyer comment

Pudelpointer · #**145** 03-08-2012, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bridger2010

Ya, I get that. And frankly, he was, and still is, an excellent lawyer.

What I don't get is the assertion that the city can have no liability if a bullet leaves the range, either intentionally or through inadvertance. It's a silly comment made by someone with zero legal training.

Maybe all those people who think the city won't be liable would agree to personally indemnify the city for any losses the city suffers in the event of an injury? I sure won't agree to that.

While I love shooting at the range and would be sad to see it go, I wonder what the LFGA has been doing since 2005 (or was it 2006?) to raise money to re-locate. The writing is on the wall and has been for some time.

Good morning Mayor Dodic. Glad you could join us for he conversation. Didn't know you were a member of our range.

Typical lawyer double speak - bold one comment and say it makes no sense, then say that you were referring to something else.

You ask what has the LFGA been doing since 2005? Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars creating unnecessary safety redundancies to make the city happy. One of the options looked at in 2005 was to relocate the range. The city decided that they would reopen the range; I would guess that since the range was closed due to an LRPS training exercise that they could probably be held responsible for all costs associated with relocating it.

Do you know me? Do you know my educational background? Do you know my profession? Likely not.

Just like lawyer Mayor Dodic, you are obviously ignorant about the LFGA range, the history of this situation and reality, or so it appears. Whoops, I forgot it was you Mr. mayor.

Wow, with friends like this.....

Pudelpointer · #**146** 03-08-2012, 01:13 PM

Solicitor Bridger, let me ask you this:

In present day Canada, what would be an expected lawsuit ($) from an injury or death IF by miracle of miracles, a bullet left the range and hit someone?

Would a "wrongful death" type lawsuit exceed 3 million? Pretty sure I just heard of one filed recently for 2.5, and the lawer explained that the reason for the excessive amount was because the judge cannot award an amount that exceeds the claim.

Awaiting your expertise.

bridger2010 · #**147** 03-08-2012, 02:46 PM

Oh no, I'm busted!

Oh Great Prophet of AO Forum, I defer to your advanced wisdom and extensive legal research on the issue.

Pudelpointer · #**148** 03-08-2012, 03:06 PM

Answer the question.

bridger2010 · #**149** 03-08-2012, 03:20 PM

Hmmm... well.....

The answer is..... I have no fricken clue. Why don't you put some money down and get a legal opinion?

Pudelpointer · #**150** 03-08-2012, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bridger2010

Hmmm... well.....

The answer is..... I have no fricken clue. Why don't you put some money down and get a legal opinion?

Lol. We got one. Because there was no "safety incident", which would be cause for closing the range, the fact that City administration closed it on Feb. 9th they may be in violation of our lease agreement.

However, we would prefer to not get into a legal wrangle with the city - as the only people who win then are..... you guessed it, the lawyers!

If want more information come to a meeting. If you are a member, you have the right to know what is going on with our organization and have your opinion heard.

Would be glad to fill you in on all the details.

I must say that you are the ONLY person I have ever met with anything nice to say about Dodic.