Printable View
If a police officer commits a criminal offence and is convicted of such by our court system than he/she get double or triple what a normal person gets, not less. They are in a position of trust and as such should be held to a higher standard and not given special treatment just because they are a serving officer. Treating them special because they are in authority is something a corrupt politician would do. Is this what you are advocating?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
All that and your only concern... or is it distraction in reality is 1 criminal case of a person that was about a person that was supposed to be properly trained, is trusted to carry and use firearms in places where others would be imprisoned just for possession.. hmm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Let's see... .Forcillo was found guilty, he shot the guy 5 times and shot 9 times, 3 in the heart even though no one was being threatened other than the officers there and they weren't in close proximity....there was a taser on site, should have been a stungun or other options in my opinion but that is another problem I think.. in the end the "victim" of the shooting is dead... so why do you think the shooter shouldn't face mandatory sentences or get some special treatment? His case was reviewed by a court and judge, and he was found guilty It is still going to be appealed and he is still out on bail ...so ...what secret insight didn't you share with them or do you have? Maybe it is just the usual lefts view the victim is at fault.?.. Actually in this rare case there is some truth to that, guilty, man is dead that there were options ... sounds valid to me.
Are you for real Gilroy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Why do you think leo deserve any kind of preferential special treatment when found guilty of serious crimes?
Yes it's a good law and the fact an officer went postal, didn't even try to de-escalate a situation where the crazed citizen was contained in a streetcar, virtually a threat to no-one before unloading him. Then putting six more into him, he should count his lucky stars the only thing that saved him from being found guilty of murder, is that the public does understand the nature of the job and would find it very hard to return a guilty verdict.
4 years for manslaughter with a firearm...
He should be happy thats all, and sorry, wearing a badge isn't a get out of jail card when serious crimes are committed. So you would prefer that for the sake of someone who wore a badge, committed a crime, we go easy on gangbangers and everyone else that commits firearm offences? Who are the real problem when it comes to guns/gun violence?
The "serving Toronto PC" is,now,a convicted criminal of one of our most grievous offenses,so,I would say "YES",it seems like a very good move when a criminal goes to the big house. Mike McCormick stuck his foot in his mouth,too,when he said "This will send shock waves through the Police Services of Canada." Ha,no shyte,Sherlock and it gawd dam well better,too,loud and frickin' clear that the authority to carry and use a firearm doesn't give one the power to be an executioner. I don't know what happened to the training model in the use of deadly force in recruit and in-service instruction over the last thirty-seven years since I took it,but,if it's morphed into a free-fire zone as a matter of course,then, it is needs a huge re-think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Forcillio had his trial and convicted of attempted murder. He will appeal. The legal system worked as it was supposed to. It will continue to work as the appeals are launched. I fully support mandatory minimum sentences with crimes involving firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Well, they also made other promises during the campaign that seem to be falling by the wayside. Now they are reversing laws on transparency with union and aboriginal financing, basically making hiding expenditures from band members and dues paying union members a Liberal approved way of doing business. When it starts to taint the great one it will fall by the wayside again.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Actually the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported there was in fact a small surpluss when the government fell, so once again you don't know what you are talking about or are knowingly lieing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
True enough. But writing my MP a letter reminding her of the principle of transparency is surely more effective than the more popular alternative, whining on the Internet.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Incidentally, one of the promises they made that has fallen by the wayside was to immediately implement the UN marking regulations. I'm still waiting for one of our conspiracy theorists to weigh on on how that broken promise reflects the confiscation agenda.
LOL Welsh, some times you hit the nail on the head.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Ah but "whinning" on the internet is how change ultimately occurs these days. Print media is a shadow of what it used to be, be that journalism, or reach or a dying model. Social media is where the court of public opinion resides.
People wage campaigns: Cecil, PETA, etc
Unions wage sympathy and fear campaigns: See "nurses know"
Politicians wage the same: See the Selfie king and Justin Beiber...sorry Trudeau
See the 'left" whinging about Harper, Ford, or the "right" and McWynne.
Its the present and future.
****