This forum is for non aviation related topics, political debate, random thoughts, and everything else that just doesn't seem to fit in the normal forums. ALL FORUM RULES STILL APPLY.
It was with great sadness that I read about the death of four members being killed by some mad man who should have still been in jail.
The kicker was when Anne McLellan (Douche Bag) says that tougher sentences should be handed out. Go f*** yourself Anne as it was you who allowed the 2/3 of your sentence should be only served in jail, who has passed no stiffer laws on drug dealers and has supported the gun registry. They died with no help from you. I apologize if this comes across to stong, but when I read about some idot claiming to care when she was a indirect cause of it that pisses me off. I feel for the members families and love ones, and lower my head.
I saw this on tv a couple of nights ago and I felt sick. It's horrible that four young officers, should lose their lives like that. I have great respect for the police officers in our country and the sacrifices they make to do their job; and my thoughts and feelings are with the families and friends of those officers. It's simply awful and as a fellow human being I share their grief and loss.
That being said, legalize it. To me legalizing it is not really a moral issue, it's a practical one. I know I'm going to catch some flak for that, but read on for a moment before firing off a nasty post..
Legalizing it would remove the motivation for organized criminals to grow pot, and also remove a huge source of cashflow. I hate the idea of anyone funding the Hells Angels or the Rock Machine and I think legalizing it would put a substantial dent in the money they take from Canadian citizens. The gov't could collect taxes on it, using the money to fund treatment programs for addicts who otherwise receive no help, and helping to further fund heathcare for those who need it as a result of their addictions. Basically, let the Hells Angels pay out of their pockets instead of reaping the rewards.
I worry that if the gov't imposes harsher penalties for growing they will only encourage more violence. For example, say they come out with a penalty of life imprisonment for pot growers. If a grower sees they are about to be busted and know that they will spend the rest of their life in jail, more of them might be likely to try to fight their way out as they have nothing to lose. Removing fear helps to curb violence, it's a simple truth.
I think that nothing can prevent a madman with a rifle from creating a tragedy like this, but I am looking at the big picture for a moment. In the wake of this awful event I worry that the knee-jerk reaction will simply fuel the underground economy and increase future violence.
It is a sad day when the good guys lose,made even sadder by the apologists that would surrender the laws of the land that those brave souls were defending .
To surrender to give up,laying down without a fight is not the end of your troubles only the begining.to surrender to criminals will not the violence will not end the aggresion ,it will only embolden the criminals to enslave the rest of us .The criminals have already enslaved the weak and feeble with drugs and intimidation.
Capital punishment is the only proven deterent in capital crimes.
For those that have no respect for life,no fear of the law,no love of god,no love of their fellow humans,what can you do?
Anyone using a gun against the police should be Hanged .
Capital punishment a deterrent? Let's not turn this into a debate over capital punishment - a quick look at the US justice system tells you where that leads.
Sully - Well said. The only way that we're going to get a handle on the drug problem in this nation is if we understand that most drug users are VICTIMS. You don't have to be innocent to be a victim, or without blame. That said, the only way to break the cycle is to treat the addicts. The gloves come off when you're talking about dealers, but let's make sure that addicts get away and stay away from using the drugs.
From the information that I've seen, the fact that there was a grow op on this individual's property was an ancilliary cause...this guy would dealt with "trespassers" using lethal force...he had fired shotguns at trespassing teenagers in the past. Many sources have stated that he actually hated the police, and had apparently offered a teenager money in the past to kill a police officer.
Yes...these murders were commited using an assault rifle...but from my understanding of the events, a shotgun would have served him just as well. Let's head the gun control argument off at the pass.
---------- ADS -----------
Please don't tell my mother that I work in the Oilpatch...she still thinks that I'm the piano player at a whorehouse.
You know its bad when Americans are coming up to me offering condolences to our country. No doubt, everyone has big respect for our RCMP. The classiest cops on the planet.
I would also like to pass on my condonlences to the families.
Legalizing this shit won't make a difference. There will still be grow-ops, they will be people trying to undercut the governemnt (remember cigarettes in the early 90's), and you have a huge market down south that will still feed the illigal grow-ops. Making it legal won't stop the volence, going in there with a tactical team will (or just bomb the shit holes from the air, that's what I would do...get the CF-18s a workout).
Harsher penalties are in need. I've asked peope that sell weed if they knew that they would spend 10 years in jail if they got caught selling, would they have started, their answer was no.
I'm in favour of not legalizing it. Deciminalizing it, maybe. But the governemnt will have to take a hard long look at how it will regulate the industry.
desksgo wrote:You know its bad when Americans are coming up to me offering condolences to our country. No doubt, everyone has big respect for our RCMP. The classiest cops on the planet.
Name another country on this planet that has a police officer as one of it's national symbol. It says something about Canadians and their values and that was horribly attacked by this crazy mad man as well.
The system had this guy they knew all about him. Why wasn't he given his dangerous offender hearing and locked away.
If organized crime in Canada feels the need to offer employment to indviduals like this guy to protect their interests, then they're no different than terrorists in my book. Treat em like taliban and see how long they stay in business.
My sincere condolences to their families.
w squared wrote:
Sully - Well said. The only way that we're going to get a handle on the drug problem in this nation is if we understand that most drug users are VICTIMS. You don't have to be innocent to be a victim, or without blame. That said, the only way to break the cycle is to treat the addicts. The gloves come off when you're talking about dealers, but let's make sure that addicts get away and stay away from using the drugs.
Yes...these murders were commited using an assault rifle...but from my understanding of the events, a shotgun would have served him just as well. Let's head the gun control argument off at the pass.
Most drug users are victims??? Of what their own stupidity? I'll grant you the crack babies etc that really are victims since they got hooked in the womb; but anybody else that uses drugs isn't a victim, they're an idiot.
No the murders weren't committed with an assault rifle; they were committed with a semi-automatic available just about anywhere in the country. I haven't heard the type as of yet but I'd lay odds it was a .30/.30 or 30/.06 probably the most common weapons in the country.
First of all, any weapon that needs to have a shell MANUALLY injected into a chamber IS NOT a semi-automatic weapon. A semi-automatic weapon requires only the pull of a trigger to fire a shell and the next shell is chambered automatically and NOT MANUALLY. If it was fully-automatic, then that one pull of the trigger would fire rounds until the magazine was empty or the trigger released.....again, all automatically.
Secondly, there was a MAJOR screw-up of some description WITHIN the ranks of the RCMP by one or more persons with chevrons on their sleeve or gold crowns and swords on the epaulets. There is no way possible that four very junior Members should have been allowed or ordered onto that property for ANY REASON, with the common knowledge of the past violence of that man that the Force had. Those members received 3 months basic training and another 3 months as Cadets on Detachment duties, before returning to Regina to write their exams. At one time that training was 11 1/2 months long and after graduation 4 junior members might have gone to lunch together, but as far as police duties were concerned, they ALWAYS travelled with a Member more Senior by many years......and for the obvious reasons......they were learning. To do otherwise was to put that junior, still-learning Member "in harm's way" because he was still learning to read "danger signals" and "cautions".
I do not know anywhere near all the details and I may never know all the details, but I'll guarantee you all one thing.......whoever the NCO or Officer was that ordered 4 very junior Members onto that property without a very Senior Member leading them, needs his career shortened real quickly before he puts others "in harm's way" again. The only thing that could have happened that would have been more irresponsible, would have been for one of those junior members to have been allowed to take his wife or young daughter with him. Four good men, with careers and lifetimes ahead of them, were needlessly made into targets because of their lack of "in the field training" and the order of some senior NCO or Officer who ignored that and now has his whole lifetime to think about that.
Damn this makes me mad......maybe a Member would have been killed anyway or badly wounded, BUT not four.......no bloody way, if they would have a had an experienced member with them. Hell, for one of them, that was his first duty as a policeman out of training and his first Detachment posting......and he's in that situation with 3 others slightly more senior to him. Like I stated already....some NCO i/c some Detachment or some Officer at HQ in Edmonton needs a severe "fire-side chat" in the RCMP washroom......and I suspect that that "fire-side chat" may have already taken place.
If this man was into weapons as much as he was reported to be, then he wasn't going to be fooling around with some weapon from WW2. He could buy and make automatic, if he wished, an M-16......and that's defined as an Assault weapon. They are .223 cal and available at many sporting goods stores across Canada....and IF he had any ties whatsoever to the Hell's Angels or any group like them, then he could have had any kind of weapon his heart desired....including any kind of Assault rifle or Uzi.
Thank you LH for bringing up a point I've been wondering about ever since the incident occured; namely how did one guy with a semi automatic rifle manage to kill four RCMP members? One for sure since he surprised them; I'd even believe two or on a long shot three, but all four? You've given as good an answer as I've seen so far; they were too inexperienced to be there.
It's a terrible tragedy that didn't need to happen.
C'mon folks let's vote NDP or Green, and let people grow a plant in their back yards. This'll put the grow houses out of business, and give the the police and court systems more time to take care of the really bad stuff, like heroin and cocaine.
But, alas, the ignorant majority won't do that. It makes too much sense.
The calibre .308 is the civilian version of the 7.62mm Nato (and EXACTLY the same) cartridge and available at your local sporting goods stores throughout North America and has been for over 50 years....so it still could have been an Assault weapon as reported.
Lastly and this is REALLY important.......QUIT with the dumping of all this at the feet of the Liberal Party of Canada, Jean Chretin or Paul Martin. Did they contribute to the various things mentioned?...most defintely "Yes". Did the ruling Conservatives of years past also give their able contribution to all this?....most definitely "yes". This crosses all politcial boundaries and no one political Party or person can be blamed.To say otherwise denotes one's age and how many different parties have presided over canada during their lifetime or plain old partisan politics.......and that has no place in this type of horrible incident.
It makes absolutely no difference whether that weapon was registered or not and it made absolutely no difference to the 4 members whose knees buckled as they went down. The point being that responsible gun owners would not have done this and it's extremely unlikely that the likes of this man and his hatred of anything called "authority" would have registered anything. Therefore, for this man and his ilk, they can make whatever laws they wish to and it will change nothing. If his kind want it, they'll get it and nobdy will know about it until they use it. Once that happens, then those that don't think like that will take the blame enmasse and the rules for them will get even stricter until one day they take all the weapons away altogether. Problem is, that even when and if that is accomplished, how does that effect those that aren't responsible or don't think like that?
Bottom line here is multi-fold. The "greener" and less-experienced the Member, the farther from the epicenter of the concern they should have been. The closer into the possible center of conflict one went, the more experence one should have found onsite. Experienced members would not have been together and would have spread themselves out throughout the room or building, one by each door, one moving doing a possible investigation or search and another scanning the room for anything including movement and acting as security for the unexpected of any description, including wires, booby-traps or explosive devices on possible timers. They would have done that because he was yet to be found and could be anywhere, was known to be armed at all times and could spring upon the scene at any moment. That doesn't make the new Members stupid, It means that to go from walking down the street as a civilan, getting a total of 6 months of training and then being thrust into a potentially dangerous situation such as that where more experience is needed is patently wrong and irresponsible on someone's part. Unfortunately, I believe that part of the reason they were thrust into that situation was because of a man-power problem and that's been with the RCMP for years now. Manitoba alone is approximately 400 Memebers under-strength and has been since the early 60's, so junior Members are often into situations with possible deadly results for the inexperienced. Doing night patrols and stopping vehicles at 3AM all by yourself in lonely places is no place for someone "green" unless they have an experienced Member with them to be alert and give and read the danger signals. Seeing two RCMP Members in one car is not a site seen too often anymore and that goes back to man-power and the resultant changes in policing policy. Shoot the Member that stops you on the highway and unless another Member happens to be nearby, then you've got a 15 minute head start to clear the area, even if he reported your license plate number AND nobody has a descrption of you because he was ALONE at 3AM in the morning.
One story said the RCMP were ambushed but it is hard to believe he hit all four. And I think the farm belonged to the killers father so where the hell was the father?
I heard two were already dead when the other two got there. It would be hard to hide from a scoped hunting rifle, even for older, wiser, members of the force. This will bring the anti gun folks from the 416 and 905 area codes out in droves.
If the two Members were dead then they couldn't have answered their radios. They would've have been called by experienced Members BEFORE entering that property for clearance. With no reply after repeated calls, they would've "held" because of the non-reply on the radios indicating some type of problem and possible danger BECAUSE the whereabouts of Rozko was still unknown. If they got out of their cars, it would've been on the "off-side" with the car between them and any danger. Offices would have already been advised and man-power would've have been enroute at great haste and the Members present told to "Hold" or back-off if they were uncomfortable with their exposure. Even if Rozko had a .50 cal SMG with a laser-guided scope, how does he kill 4 policeman in a scenario like that? Again.....kill 1, 2 or maybe even 3 Members......maybe...just maybe.....but all 4...no way....UNLESS some NCO was asleep at the switch and even then, the "in the field" experience would have saved at least one of their lives.
How can I venture an opinion such as this on the information released to date?.............let's just say I come from an "informed and experienced position" and leave it there.
2R wrote:Capital punishment is the only proven deterent in capital crimes.
For those that have no respect for life,no fear of the law,no love of god,no love of their fellow humans,what can you do?
Anyone using a gun against the police should be Hanged .
......100 % behind you......and not just against the police but anybod
I agree also, but unfortunately, I have to deal with the chances of that happening and they aren't great anymore. In the meantime a compromise is needed that will be better than what we have at present. LIFE in Canada right now is 25 years. LIFE in the US is 99 years. In order to calm those people down who fear taking a possibly innocent life by using the Death Penalty, this is what I would prefer to see and works for me. Be convicted of murder in the First Degree and you diappear for 99 years....so you're basically gone from society forever. IF, in ensuing years, it is found out that you were wrongfully convicted, then out you come and for our mistake we'll recompense you liberally for the years incarcerated.
As in most compromises, not everyone is happy and I wouldn't be a 100% happy either. Bottom line is the murderer is gone from society forever, never to be seen again. It costs money to house and feed this person and I'll stomach that in order to rid society of this menace for the life of everyone breathing now. That means none of these present sentences of LIFE with no chance of parole for 10 years. Parole would still be available, but no chance of it for 75 years of the 90 years instead, dropping the original sentence down by 15 years. Again, the vast majority of inmates might even qualify for that parole, but unfortunately they would succomb to old age and/or disease before qualifying. Once again, my personal wishes would be satisfied to see the hearses leaving the penitentaries with the dead bodies in which society had no part in ending. One way or another, you commit First Degree murder and you are gone forever period.
Anonymous wrote:It's a terrible tragedy that didn't need to happen.
C'mon folks let's vote NDP or Green, and let people grow a plant in their back yards. This'll put the grow houses out of business, and give the the police and court systems more time to take care of the really bad stuff, like heroin and cocaine.
But, alas, the ignorant majority won't do that. It makes too much sense.
End rant
-istp
Now that's just plain stupid as is any legalization plan. The best way to deal with the issue is to stiffen sentences for pushers etc; give em thirty years with parole eligibilty on their twenty-ninth. Then get creative with the users. Filling up jails with them isn't going to work too well and I'll agree it's a waste of the court's valuable time to deal with them. My solution is to give the recreational users sentences that will embarass them and make it less fun to use drugs. When caught, they get dragged in front of a magistrate who sentences them on the spot to park clean ups etc; while wearing bright orange coveralls with "drug user" painted on them. It'll have two benefits; it'll encourage some, maybe even most to quit, and it'll clean up our parks and streets etc at no cost to the taxpayer.
Apperently he had been kicked off a grehound bus a few times and his threts to the driver were go ahead and get the cops I'll shoot them right after I shoot you. He also has shot at cars on the road near his farm from the shed the police were trying to secure.
