Gang Warz

[Wilber]

So...wouldn't it make more sense for the government to deal drugs and collect taxes from drug users so they can pick up the cost of their burden to society themselves?

You're damn right tax-payers should be pissed off at endlessly throwing good money after bad.

Except that over 70% of BC's drug production is not for domestic consumption, marijuana and other designer drugs are traded across the border for cocaine and firearms. Anyone who thinks legalization in Canada alone will solve the problem has either consumed a little too much of some of that stuff themselves or doesn't really know what is going on.

You don't see gang shootings, rampant grows and meth labs across the border in Washington State, because they put those people in jail when they catch them. We don't do that in Canada so the gang activity comes here because it is a great place to do business. Regardless of a persons views on the prohibition of different drugs in Canada, it really is that simple.

[Wilber]

I read it and re-read it, no mention of a warrant. While there was surveillance, it does seem dumb that no warrant was pursued, if in fact that was the case.

There was a warrant, trust me. This is a fairly notorious case around here that has received quite a bit of attention. The Abbotsford police know that their chances of getting a conviction without a warrant are close to zero. Prosecutors also know that and probably wouldn't even bring charges if no warrant had been issued. Police here actually take special courses on warrants taking several days but that still can't account for the vagaries of individual judges.

[eyeball]

Except that over 70% of BC's drug production is not for domestic consumption, marijuana and other designer drugs are traded across the border for cocaine and firearms. Anyone who thinks legalization in Canada alone will solve the problem has either consumed a little too much of some of that stuff themselves or doesn't really know what is going on.

You don't see gang shootings, rampant grows and meth labs across the border in Washington State, because they put those people in jail when they catch them. We don't do that in Canada so the gang activity comes here because it is a great place to do business. Regardless of a persons views on the prohibition of different drugs in Canada, it really is that simple.

You do realize that BC would be a have-not province without the drug trade don't you? We should be thankful for the business.

Look, I can't help what the US does. Personally, I think we should build a 50 foot concrete wall the entire length of the country. Think of it as an economic stimulus.

[guyser]

There was a warrant, trust me.

I want to , however I needed more info.

The Abbotsford police know that their chances of getting a conviction without a warrant are close to zero. Prosecutors also know that and probably wouldn't even bring charges if no warrant had been issued. Police here actually take special courses on warrants taking several days but that still can't account for the vagaries of individual judges.

If these cops took a course, whoever paid should ask for the money back. Seems they failed the first lesson.

http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/s...58-dfc75f47e8ad

Snippets....

Judge Donald Gardiner said he had no choice but to throw out the evidence obtained against Jonathan Bacon, Rayleene Burton and Godwin Cheng because the Charter violations by police were "deliberate, wilful and flagrant."

..

Gardiner said police did not have a warrant when investigators pulled over Cheng's car, in which Bacon was a passenger.

"The vehicle was searched and police located marijuana, ecstasy pills and cash," Gardiner said.

"Some 20 minutes after the arrest of Cheng and Bacon, Rayleene Burton was pulled over as she was driving her vehicle away from the residence at Unit 41 - 2068 Winfield Drive in Abbotsford, British Columbia. Her vehicle was searched and a large sum of cash was seized."

Gardiner said the three were held in custody and denied the right to talk to lawyers for nine hours while police obtained a warrant to search the condo, where high-powered automatic weapons and ammunition were found.

"There is no evidence which could support the notion that in ordering the arrests, Cst. Forster (one of the officers involved) was acting in good faith," Gardiner wrote in his reasons."

So, I stand that the cops royally screwed this up. Not the courts.

[bill_barilko]

Did you bother to read the link I posted? Do you watch or read the news?

Right now two of the Bacon brothers are out on bail blah, blah, blah, blah......

Generally I don't bother reading your pedantic rants No, nor do I click on the links you provide because they are more of the same tiresome crap.

Haven't owned a TV since the mid-70's and now follow the news online.

Consider myself as well informed as anyone and my blood pressure doesn't spike when I post

[Wilber]

They had a warrant to search the condo and that is where the weapons were found. What was the misleading information, that there were restricted weapons on the premises? Why did the police pull these people over, perhaps it was because they knew evidence was being removed from those premises? Obviously there were grounds. I would think emphasizing that these were known gang members with previous firearms convictions would be a natural thing for a police officer to do when asking for a warrant. How is that misleading or does the judge who issued the warrant live in a vacuum and not have a clue what is going on in that community? This is one judges opinion and obviously the prosecution disagrees because the case is being appealed. I have to ask, what is it you want from the police when it comes to protecting your community and keeping the Bacons from becoming your next door neighbour? What is it you want from your judicial system when it comes to the same thing?

[Wilber]

Generally I don't bother reading your pedantic rants No, nor do I click on the links you provide because they are more of the same tiresome crap.

Haven't owned a TV since the mid-70's and now follow the news online.

Consider myself as well informed as anyone and my blood pressure doesn't spike when I post

They were newspaper articles but I suppose you don't read newspapers either. How do you get your news, through your tinfoil hat?

[eyeball]

I have to ask, what is it you want from the police when it comes to protecting your community and keeping the Bacons from becoming your next door neighbour? What is it you want from your judicial system when it comes to the same thing?

I want the police to admit that they are helpless in the face of public demand for the products the Bacon's supply and I want the judicial system to tell the legislators the same thing.

As for protecting the community from having dealers next door, I lived next door to a liquor store for a few years and it was no big deal. There were certainly no shootouts with rival liquor stores or the bar across the street to worry about.

[Wilber]

I want the police to admit that they are helpless in the face of public demand for the products the Bacon's supply and I want the judicial system to tell the legislators the same thing.

As for protecting the community from having dealers next door, I lived next door to a liquor store for a few years and it was no big deal. There were certainly no shootouts with rival liquor stores or the bar across the street to worry about.

That is not the police's job but they are constantly telling both the judiciary and the legislators that unless changes are made, the situation is unlikely to get better. That is the lawmakers job.

Booze is legal on both sides of the border. During prohibition in the US there were plenty of gangsters operating in Canada to take advantage of it. Ever visited the Moose Jaw tunnels? A Capone operation and the local chief of police was said to be part of it.

[Oleg Bach]

That is not the police's job but they are constantly telling both the judiciary and the legislators that unless changes are made, the situation is unlikely to get better. That is the lawmakers job.

Booze is legal on both sides of the border. During prohibition in the US there were plenty of gangsters operating in Canada to take advantage of it. Ever visited the Moose Jaw tunnels? A Capone operation and the local chief of police was said to be part of it.

Every Carpenters son and daughter are now lawyers...they need crime - to survive...There was a time when people from good families of worth entered the practice of law and money was not the motivation nor was sustaining a living at the expense of the ingnorant and uninformed. Law today is flooded with jerks that are judges and lawyers - who would NOT cure the problem even if they could - why would they? It is not in their best interest.

[eyeball]

That is not the police's job but they are constantly telling both the judiciary and the legislators that unless changes are made, the situation is unlikely to get better. That is the lawmakers job.

Its not the police's job to promote the war on drugs either but they are constantly telling us about the carnage they see from drugs on the street. What about the fact that 50% of their calls involve domestic alcohol fuelled violence? How come we never hear them advocating for a war against booze?

During prohibition in the US there were plenty of gangsters operating in Canada to take advantage of it.

Mmmm hmmm...and why do you suppose that is? The Law of Gravity perhaps?

Ever visited the Moose Jaw tunnels? A Capone operation and the local chief of police was said to be part of it.

I wonder what sort of arrangement today's gangsters have with their chiefs of police?

[Oleg Bach]

Not to mention any names but there was a former chief of police in Toronto ---- and a local aging hood told me that when this chief was a rookie on the drug squad - if they busted you for 20 pounds only 15 showed up as evidence in court. But of course the officer was young and foolish and now has matured and changed _ we hope!

[guyser]

They had a warrant to search the condo and that is where the weapons were found. What was the misleading information, that there were restricted weapons on the premises?

I dont know wilber, but it seems a judge found them lying to get the warrant. In your own words, 'didnt you read my link?"

Why did the police pull these people over, perhaps it was because they knew evidence was being removed from those premises? Obviously there were grounds.

Obviously not, since they were released due to police not upholding their end of the bag.

I have to ask, what is it you want from the police when it comes to protecting your community and keeping the Bacons from becoming your next door neighbour? What is it you want from your judicial system when it comes to the same thing?

You conject too much.

Anyhow, I want the police to be above the law, not to get down in it along the same low lines as the criminal since they are then no better.

I want the thin blue line disbanded. If it is law for us it is law for them.

I want our judicial system to stop incarcerating for petty laws. For the more serious crimes against man I would love to see more flexibility, in that some sentences harsher and relief for some that are not.

[Oleg Bach]

When you see an appointed female judge be an apologist for a person who is caught committing purjury ....and she states - and I saw this personally - "If she lied she must have had a good reason to lie" Call me an idealist fool - but why in heavens name do we have a judge sitting on any bench that allows deception under oath within the court room she is to maintain control and honour in? The nerve of attatching the title "You Honour" to a person who has no concept of the value. I would never go into another court room and take the place seriously - I would sit in quiet secretive contempt of all of the spoiled arrogant parasites in their sweaty black robes...and I could have sworn I saw an old male judge playing with his genitals while listening to some errotic testimony ---- ok _ made the last part up but I am not above slander at this point - seeing they are not!

[Wilber]

I dont know wilber, but it seems a judge found them lying to get the warrant. In your own words, 'didnt you read my link?"

Obviously not, since they were released due to police not upholding their end of the bag.

You conject too much.

Anyhow, I want the police to be above the law, not to get down in it along the same low lines as the criminal since they are then no better.

I want the thin blue line disbanded. If it is law for us it is law for them.

I want our judicial system to stop incarcerating for petty laws. For the more serious crimes against man I would love to see more flexibility, in that some sentences harsher and relief for some that are not.

Of course I read your link. The federal prosecutors are appealing, obviously they don't agree with that judge and would like a second opinion.

You want the police to be above the law? I thought that is what you were accusing them of. The law is not cut and dried, it changes with every decision. The cops find an arsenal of restricted weapons in a house owned by known criminals and you make them out to be the bad guys. Don't bitch when your neighbourhood goes to hell in a hand basket and they can't do anything about it. Just look in your mirror for a reason.

What petty laws does our judicial system incarcerate for, they often don't do much of it for serious crimes. In BC between 1997 and 2003 an average of 16% of convictions for running a grow op result in jail time and the average amount of time served is 4.9 months. Only 42% even resulted in fines with the average fine being $2200. Hardly draconian. One of the Bacon's associates who has a lifetime ban from possessing firearms was recently picked up with a handgun and silencer. He is out on bail again and considering the fact these guys are now using each other for target practice in public places, what do you think the odds are of him not having a firearm in his vehicle as we speak? How are the police supposed to ensure public safety with a court system which constantly does things like that?

As the Vancouver police chief said today, the missing element in this situation is fear. Fear of the system. He's right, the only things these gangs fear is each other, the law is just an inconvenience.

[Wilber]

Its not the police's job to promote the war on drugs either but they are constantly telling us about the carnage they see from drugs on the street. What about the fact that 50% of their calls involve domestic alcohol fuelled violence? How come we never hear them advocating for a war against booze?

Mmmm hmmm...and why do you suppose that is? The Law of Gravity perhaps?

I wonder what sort of arrangement today's gangsters have with their chiefs of police?

For one thing, the police don't get to decide what is illegal and they have to deal with the carnage caused by alcohol on a daily basis. I doubt you do. You also don't hear a lot of cops going on about a "war on drugs", that's a politicians game but it is the police's job to play the hand they are dealt. I've heard cops say that if they thought legalization would solve the problem, they would be in favour of it but they know better. They are the ones who have to deal with the gangsters, dealers, addicts and homeless for 12 hour shifts plus overtime like you wouldn't believe. Don't you think they have a clue or any opinions of their own on this stuff?

They aren't perfect and they make the odd mistake just like anyone else but when you consider the kind of stress they are confronted with on a daily basis and the kind of people they have to deal with, they do pretty damn well.

[bill_barilko]

They were newspaper articles but I suppose you don't read newspapers either. How do you get your news, through your tinfoil hat?

It's all online-all you have to do is look.

[Wilber]

It's all online-all you have to do is look.

And where do all your online sources get their information, from other media? The same sources as other media? Do they have their own reporters and investigators or do they just make it up?

[guyser]

You want the police to be above the law?

Sorry, I did not mean above the law, but rather treat the law as they are taught instead of trying for short cuts which, as can be seen here, gets them nowhere. Law for us is law for them.

. The cops find an arsenal of restricted weapons in a house owned by known criminals and you make them out to be the bad guys. Don't bitch when your neighbourhood goes to hell in a hand basket and they can't do anything about it. Just look in your mirror for a reason.

Like I said, you conject far too much, and in fact are much the same as Mr Canada in that regard. No I dont think nor did I say that the cops are the bad guys, but when they do dumb things like this, and ruin what probably should be a pretty cut and dried case, they are just dumb, not bad.

As for bitching, dont bitch if the police, in your wish of a world, just walks in willy nilly to any house because there may be weapons, after all, its for the safety of your neighbourhood.

I would never want that.

? How are the police supposed to ensure public safety with a court system which constantly does things like that?

The police are screwing public safety by not following the rules for warrants etc, and your blame is incorrectly aimed at the courts when it is pretty clear this was a few dumb cops doing dumb cop things.

[Wilber]

Sorry, I did not mean above the law, but rather treat the law as they are taught instead of trying for short cuts which, as can be seen here, gets them nowhere. Law for us is law for them.

Like I said, you conject far too much, and in fact are much the same as Mr Canada in that regard. No I dont think nor did I say that the cops are the bad guys, but when they do dumb things like this, and ruin what probably should be a pretty cut and dried case, they are just dumb, not bad.

As for bitching, dont bitch if the police, in your wish of a world, just walks in willy nilly to any house because there may be weapons, after all, its for the safety of your neighbourhood.

I would never want that.

The police are screwing public safety by not following the rules for warrants etc, and your blame is incorrectly aimed at the courts when it is pretty clear this was a few dumb cops doing dumb cop things.

It is a cut and dried case, the judge just chose to ignore evidence because of his own opinion as to how a warrant was obtained. You can't absolve him of his responsibilities when it comes to public safety. That is why the decision is being appealed. You seem to think that when it comes to ruling on the actions of the police, individual judges are somehow incapable of making a mistake. That judges somehow never do dumb judge things. The cops got the guns off the street and they tried to hold these thugs accountable for their actions, at least they did something.

[guyser]

It is a cut and dried case,

If thats the case why the appeal?

the judge just chose to ignore evidence because of his own opinion as to how a warrant was obtained.

A judge cannot 'ignore' that which is on the table right in front of him so lets throw that out of here. What a judge can do, and did, is to find that the reasons for the warrant were falsified/embellished and or false. At this point he not only throws that which is right in front of him (the evidence)but goes further and denies all fruits of this ill gotten apple.

You can't absolve him of his responsibilities when it comes to public safety.

Sure I can.

His job is to hear the realities of evidence , how they came to have it, and how it was obtained and finally to judge the merits of all facets of the case.

That judges somehow never do dumb judge things. The cops got the guns off the street and they tried to hold these thugs accountable for their actions, at least they did something.

Sure they can do dumb things. And they do, in fact more than I would like. In the same way that cops can do dumb things, except for the cops actions can have serious personal consequences. Not so much for the judges.

[Wilber]

Sure they can do dumb things. And they do, in fact more than I would like. In the same way that cops can do dumb things, except for the cops actions can have serious personal consequences. Not so much for the judges.

Very much so for the judges, except the consequences of their actions are always for someone else.

[sharkman]

Quite a topic. Several variants of how to control the problem of gang violence are suggested, revamping the justice system(tougher laws/punishments) being one of the favorites, or hiring more cops to deal with the problem, which has seen over a dozen killed in 2 weeks.

From the other side of the argument legalizing drugs seems to be the catchall solution. After all, restricting liquor was a big bust, and drugs are pretty much the same situation.

I heard a radio program this morning, and a caller actually said that you can't change attitudes towards drugs, they've been the same for 10,000 years. He was in favor of legalizing drugs of course. This reminded me of what I had decided concerning the issue, follow the money. Where do the gangs get their cash and revenue from? Selling drugs of course, and the violence we've seen break out onto the streets is fighting over gang turf and revenue sources. I'm simplifying things but this is the general issue.

So the gangs get their money from customers buying the pot, meth, cocaine etc. I think some of my neighbors are really good customers, I live in a townhouse complex, and around 6 pm if I walk out to my car the smell of grass is quite strong. So it turns out that we the people are empowering the gangs by buying drugs, plain and simple. The previously mentioned caller was wrong, though. We can change our attitudes about drug use. 50 years ago we thought drugs were bad, and there were no gangs in Vancouver. We changed our attitude towards drugs as well as a whole range of things: gays, abortion, pornography to name a few.

This gets to the heart of the issue though. It's about how we decide to live. If we monitor our own behavior then the police won't have to. Otherwise, there won't ever be enough police to protect us. In reality, we don't want to stop using drugs, so we won't, and Canadian cities will mimic American ones with gang violence and crime on the increase. We are driving it. Lock those doors!

[eyeball]

I think some of my neighbors are really good customers, I live in a townhouse complex, and around 6 pm if I walk out to my car the smell of grass is quite strong. So it turns out that we the people are empowering the gangs by buying drugs, plain and simple. The previously mentioned caller was wrong, though. We can change our attitudes about drug use. 50 years ago we thought drugs were bad, and there were no gangs in Vancouver. We changed our attitude towards drugs as well as a whole range of things: gays, abortion, pornography to name a few.

This gets to the heart of the issue though. It's about how we decide to live. If we monitor our own behavior then the police won't have to. Otherwise, there won't ever be enough police to protect us. In reality, we don't want to stop using drugs, so we won't, and Canadian cities will mimic American ones with gang violence and crime on the increase. We are driving it. Lock those doors!

The law and order types in my town encourage neighbours to report the smell of pot and any suspicious activity they see to their community watch group and the police. These folks think if people don't monitor and report their neighbour's behaviour it leaves the police powerless and overworked and as you say, unable to protect us.

Shrugging and looking the other way when you know your neighbours are breaking the law is the scariest edge of the wedge. Social acceptance is the grease that really makes the slope slippery.

[Wilber]

Quite a topic. Several variants of how to control the problem of gang violence are suggested, revamping the justice system(tougher laws/punishments) being one of the favorites, or hiring more cops to deal with the problem, which has seen over a dozen killed in 2 weeks.

From the other side of the argument legalizing drugs seems to be the catchall solution. After all, restricting liquor was a big bust, and drugs are pretty much the same situation.

I heard a radio program this morning, and a caller actually said that you can't change attitudes towards drugs, they've been the same for 10,000 years. He was in favor of legalizing drugs of course. This reminded me of what I had decided concerning the issue, follow the money. Where do the gangs get their cash and revenue from? Selling drugs of course, and the violence we've seen break out onto the streets is fighting over gang turf and revenue sources. I'm simplifying things but this is the general issue.

So the gangs get their money from customers buying the pot, meth, cocaine etc. I think some of my neighbors are really good customers, I live in a townhouse complex, and around 6 pm if I walk out to my car the smell of grass is quite strong. So it turns out that we the people are empowering the gangs by buying drugs, plain and simple. The previously mentioned caller was wrong, though. We can change our attitudes about drug use. 50 years ago we thought drugs were bad, and there were no gangs in Vancouver. We changed our attitude towards drugs as well as a whole range of things: gays, abortion, pornography to name a few.

This gets to the heart of the issue though. It's about how we decide to live. If we monitor our own behavior then the police won't have to. Otherwise, there won't ever be enough police to protect us. In reality, we don't want to stop using drugs, so we won't, and Canadian cities will mimic American ones with gang violence and crime on the increase. We are driving it. Lock those doors!

You sum up the issue very well but we are still left with the problem of people living in fear of winding up in the middle of someone else's gun battle or getting shot because of being mistaken for some gang banger. We can't just give up and hand our streets and neighbourhoods over to these people.

Your quite right, 50 years ago the drug problem was heroin and its use was restricted to very few people in certain parts of the city. There was no gang warfare and crimes involving firearms were extremely rare. It is our changed attitude toward drugs and the law which has brought us to where we are. Rather than seeing the law as something which protects them, people are looking at it more as something which enables them. They have their rights you know and to hell with everyone else.