Printable View
For my own part I am hardpressed to see where the RCMP actions in some instances were not outright violations of the law. I feel a rather tersely worded letter to my MP coming on! I hardly think a 'rebuke' serves to properly address the blatant home invasions and unlawful seizure of property that occurred.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2...hdog-says.html
http://www.680news.com/2015/02/12/rc...alberta-flood/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle22940656/
Nothing will come of it. It seems that 'lack of leadership' and 'no plan' is code for excuses as to why no criminal charges will be laid.
Just another reason why I don't trust the state and value my privacy. No, to little, consequences for serious breaches of our rights.
As said above. Nothing will come of it.
Which is exactly why I plan to write the MP (in my case Pierre Lemieux). Don't have a complete list in my mind but I would expect as a minimum:Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
a. Charges and/or reprimand to those individuals guilty of illegal search and siezure;
b. Charges and/or reprimand to those individuals in leadership positions that condoned guilty of illegal search and siezure;
c. Changes to the RCMP accountability such that in addition to damages to property, a fine payable to the victim is imposed; and
d. Changes to the laws to protect the public from this ever occurring again.
There is no real charge for Unlawful Search and seizure just typically legal remedies. Say for example someone was charged with Careless Storage and in this case the firearm was seizure illegal the remedy is the evidence is inadmissible therefore you can't prove the charge. In this case they have said there are no charges stemming. I don't think that is them being considerate but instead they know that they have no hope in hell in legally proving anything. The other remedy is civil.Quote:
Originally Posted by DGearyFTEWhich is exactly why I plan to write the MP (in my case Pierre Lemieux). Don't have a complete list in my mind but I would expect as a minimum:Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
a. Charges and/or reprimand to those individuals guilty of illegal search and siezure;
b. Charges and/or reprimand to those individuals in leadership positions that condoned guilty of illegal search and siezure;
c. Changes to the RCMP accountability such that in addition to damages to property, a fine payable to the victim is imposed; and
d. Changes to the laws to protect the public from this ever occurring again.
There is a piece of paper called a report or return to justice that is required for seized property explaining the reason and circumstances of the seizure. This has to be presented following a seizure before 14 days expire. If they hadn't of neglected to do this a lot of the criticism would go away. They would have had to explain to a justice why they took it and the justice could determine if the detention of the property is justified.
I question there "plain view" justification. I don't know how many of you have your guns sitting in plain view. I question the scope of the search on this point. Why would the be going into places where people or pets wouldn't be.
Regarding A and B. They have clearly laid out that there wasn't criminal intent for the RCMP actions so I don't know that charges are appropriate . I do believe that reprimand is.more appropriate. I would say if it's rogue officers then address them but if they were following orders of superior go after them.
Regarding C this exist. It wouldn't be a fine but instead a settlement or civil remedy. Fine implies something legal imposed but in this case it doesn't exist.
Regarding D the law exist. I think it's a fine line of OK thanks for saving my dog but wtf were you doing getting my guns out of a secreted hidden location (say between a matress)? Were you looking for grandma? If some rcmp commander says go check houses for people and pets that should be the scope. If during that time they see a gun on the kitchen counter fine or in the corner by the door. Real plain view. If Commander says look for stuff that doesn't have a heart beat on purpose then the problem is him.
We could probably learn from Jersey and New Orleans. Post a note on the door. No pets or people inside. Stay out.
That's a terrible breach of authority. They turned a public service for the safety the residents into an unlawfull search and seizure. I suspect during the ensuing investigation, they got a lot of fingers pointing in every direction, making it hard to identify blame. Ultimately the blame starts at the top and flows down from there.
Public Trust...it's the be all and end all.
Agree with Mdiddi with respect to charges. The "problem" (right word?) as I see it, is this leaves the public having to go civil. Even if all affected receive settlements.
Its paid for by the tax payers, not those who stomped all over peoples rights.
Where's the accountability?
Where's the incentive not to do it again?
Where's the taking responsibility for one's actions?
Imagine a world where if all my speeding tickets were paid for by tax payers.
heads should be rolling.
oh and
gag
Yep, lets blame it on the ground troops, they weren't acting under anyone's orders or authority. Please over look the fact this then means chain of command, discipline in the RCMP is sorely lacking.Quote:
In a report released Thursday, the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP said that officers who conducted the “warrantless” seizures were undersupervised.
Here is a link to the web and pdf Interim Report: (the Commissioner has to review and respond before it is presented to the Minister)
https://www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/en/chai...igh-river#toc6
https://www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/pdf/highR-en.pdf
Jben made a good point that really any settlement would be on the backs of taxpayers.
As per discipline at the command level they could reduce them in rank and therefore pay.
That's the part I have a problem with, too. You have your rights, but YOU have to go and fight for it (i.e. pay a fortune in legal fees).Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
I sometimes wonder what the accountability of our government and enforcement in this country really is. Good thing, it's too cold to grow bananas...
There is no question that officers and command personal OVER stepped the limits.
Many times it is not so much "what you do" as "how you do it".
Cases and point: Few years ago I am walking past Sunridge Mall ( Calgary ) to catching the train downtown to go fishing with my daughter and the grandkids. I have a backpack tackle box and a rod case( double rod case).
As I am half way across to the train station a Calgary police car pulls to a stop in front of me, and the officer jumps out and says "Give me your backpack and case then get in the car now!". I ask what the reason for the random stop and illegal search was. The officer told me that she saw me walking through the packing lot and had to stop because of public safety.
Now the second officer asks "What is in the case?" Two fishing rods say I "oh can I see them?"
Showed the rods to the second officer, she says thanks " You have a knife in your backpack?" Yes a filleting knife. "Ok so where you going?" Down to the Elbow to do some fishing. A couple question I was on my way.
First officer exceeded the limit of her powers, and was in fact arresting me.
Second officer investigated and decided there was no crime.
The Globe article is recent. It reads: "...will be returned to them as soon as is practically possible.”
So the RCMP is still in unlawful possession of private property?!
File a complaint against the first one! That is the ONLY way to sort them out; hard enough with all the union BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwalker
Un freakin believable . I hope the get sued to high hell and back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waftrudnir
From all the yelling and screaming by the media,I don't think,as yet,that one single formal complaint from any of the affected residents has been registered. If those folks are that complacent and allow the Police to get away with this,then,we're all screwed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter John
Can you imagine seizing things and not filing a return?? That really galls me.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
People are probably scared of retaliation by the police. They have pretty well proven they will do what they want regardless of laws. Likely don't want to get in a legal battle with police and lose their children's University money. The police can put you through living hell and destroy your life even if all charges are eventually dropped. And they know it. Once they are accepted on the force they are no longer equal citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
There is nothing worse than when individuals who are suppose to support the law go and break it - at the least some people at the top should be fired - this is the kind of stuff that goes on in dictatorships and not in a so-called free society - boy if something like that happened down here all hell would break loose - some RCMPs would be looking for work - you need to make a big stink about this -
There are snakes in the grass keeping their heads low? Who was the politician that thought seizing the guns was a good idea because the citizens wanted back in their homes and might become violent once they saw what had been done?
The other really bad thing when this happens is if there happens to be another need for an evacuation and people start telling the Police to pound salt. All kinds of bad things will happen,then.
I will be the first to defend our men and women in law enforcement but lately I'm finding it increasingly difficult to do so. The High River gun grab, the OPP refusing to enforce any laws in Caledonia, the OPP "investigating" their corrupt employers (provincial liberals) etc etc etc. I have now just heard about a Hamilton police officer on PAID suspension after being charged with uttering threats and improper storage of a firearm - if that was anyone of us we'd be presumed guilty by the cops, likely strip searched in our front yard and forced into bankruptcy in order to defend ourself.
Exactly. I'm as pro police as anybody. Some of my closest freinds are LEO. The two guys I own my deer camp with are LEO as are some of the guys who hunt in it. But they all say the force is changing drastically and recruits are now as antigun as the extremist nuts out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by M_P
Heard the story yesterday on the CBC radio. Content etc. was all correct, but interesting HOW the presented it:
First story of some collector who has normally all firearms locked up in vaults in the basement and who had to bring them upstairs because of the flood. He hid them with trigger locks under the quilt. So, all absolutely legal, but the way it was presented, it might have sounded to the outsider significantly more “unsafe” than vaults in basement. The facts from the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission were rushed through briefly and they closed a short snip from the interview: “RCMP has not acted in bad faith…
None of the real critique from the commission was aired
That's the problem. We have a left wing media with an "agenda" jamming this BS down the throats of people that don't know any better. You could write volumes from what they won't tell anybody. I wouldn't trust a reporter if Jesus,himself,had his arm around their shoulders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waftrudnir
yeah, who was the guy who said to seize the firearms from people who followed the evacuation orders. most likely the same one (within the RCMP) that valued the high risk offender's right to stay in his residence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus
so, take the guns (and rights) from those who won't fight (they have other problems right now)
Just going on memory from one of the Sun broadcasts it was a provincial politician of some sort.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waftrudnir