Shooting in Burnaby, British Columbia

[Topaz]

Has the Mexican drug cartel hit British Columbia with all the shootings and killings? What is the province and the Feds are going to do about this before the Olympics start? Another guy was killed this morning and this really has to stop and Canadians should be screaming about the safety of the citizens out there.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/090315/cana...urnaby_shooting

[bush_cheney2004]

I agree...simply outrageous. I'd rather be in Detroit for the Final Four than at a bullets ridden Olympics in BC.

It's just not safe.

What is the world coming to?

Edited March 16, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[bill_barilko]

Well I live in Vancouver and about a month ago heard gunfire in my oh-so-tony neighbourhood one bad guy had chased another from some distant suburb to a IGA parking lot here to plug him full of lead-the victim lived the shooter escaped

Nothing to do with Mexico at all though just the same garden variety gangsters the police can never seem to catch.

And it's the police and their clueless operation methods that are to blame.

I mean after the first wave of violence they held a press conference to announce they'd handed out over 4 dozen traffic tickets to 'suspects'. Can you believe this?

Since then there's been one arrest on some minor fraud charge and they just keep plugging each other.

The simple fact is that police work isn't about taking down criminals it's about putting oneself in a position to take credit for same-intelligence isn't shared between different police forces (and there are at least 16 on the job in the Greater Vancouver area) ) it's hoarded and cloaked in bureaucratic mire so that it does little good to anyone-and gangsters know this.

[blueblood]

Well I live in Vancouver and about a month ago heard gunfire in my oh-so-tony neighbourhood one bad guy had chased another from some distant suburb to a IGA parking lot here to plug him full of lead-the victim lived the shooter escaped

Nothing to do with Mexico at all though just the same garden variety gangsters the police can never seem to catch.

And it's the police and their clueless operation methods that are to blame.

I mean after the first wave of violence they held a press conference to announce they'd handed out over 4 dozen traffic tickets to 'suspects'. Can you believe this?

Since then there's been one arrest on some minor fraud charge and they just keep plugging each other.

The simple fact is that police work isn't about taking down criminals it's about putting oneself in a position to take credit for same-intelligence isn't shared between different police forces (and there are at least 16 on the job in the Greater Vancouver area) ) it's hoarded and cloaked in bureaucratic mire so that it does little good to anyone-and gangsters know this.

Well jeez, you guys get after the cops for being too harsh and now for being lax. Cripes they can't go after those gangsters without warrants. Left wingers wanted checks and balances, well this is what happens when we get too many checks and balances...

Go after the judges for not issuing warrants, those SWAT teams are very effective at collecting gangsters for trial.

[guyser]

Well jeez, you guys get after the cops for being too harsh and now for being lax. Cripes they can't go after those gangsters without warrants.

If it needs a warrant it needs a warrant, unless you advocate just busting a door down whenever they feel like it, or search your car whenever they feel like it.

Left wingers wanted checks and balances, well this is what happens when we get too many checks and balances...

And rightwingers , by comparison then, want no checks and no balances which means we have a police state.

Uh no, no one wants that, left or right.

Go after the judges for not issuing warrants, those SWAT teams are very effective at collecting gangsters for trial.

IF a judge deems it not worthy of a warrant, and they are not hard to get, then it means (normally) that there is a violation of rights in progress, or nothing to sudstantiate getting one.

What BB is getting at can be seen with respect to Paul Bernardo. Toronto Police and Niagara Police did not want to talk , thus Paul was ablle to keep on raping etc.

Lets not forget what a colossal FU that whole case was. Wasnt the judge who made grievous errors.

[eyeball]

And rightwingers , by comparison then, want no checks and no balances which means we have a police state.

Uh no, no one wants that, left or right.

I wish I could believe that.

If Fruedian slips - such as associating Stalin's name with idea's on how to free the world from drugs - do reveal people's innermost feelings, I'd say the Harper Conservatives I have in my neck of the woods indicate the right is quite comfortable with the idea of a police state.

[guyser]

I'd say the Harper Conservatives I have in my neck of the woods indicate the right is quite comfortable with the idea of a police state.

I know what you speak, but frankly they will be schooled when they get to court and time after time this shite will be thrown out.

Only the uber right wing want it. And thankfully they are small in number.

[eyeball]

I know what you speak, but frankly they will be schooled when they get to court and time after time this shite will be thrown out.

Only the uber right wing want it. And thankfully they are small in number.

They're not so small that it prevented the Conservatives from winning in my riding.

Sometimes I really do think the only way to school our society in the real horrors of a police state once and for all, is to seriously flirt with it. I know it might be like swooping too close to the Sun for some people but perhaps going after alcohol and tobacco really is the only way.

Show people the real edge of the abyss and maybe they'll back away from it. Maybe.

[guyser]

Sometimes I really do think the only way to school our society in the real horrors of a police state once and for all, is to seriously flirt with it.

How about those that want it get a wake up call in the form of....

There they are sleeping soundly, and then the flash bang goes off , the kids are crying and one awakes to a flash light shining in their face and a JBT 's boots on his chest.

For the most part I think people get it, but there is an element of non-criminal society that doesnt take it to the next level , meaning if we do X, then Y can certainly happen.

[blueblood]

If it needs a warrant it needs a warrant, unless you advocate just busting a door down whenever they feel like it, or search your car whenever they feel like it.

No arguement with needing a warrant, it shouldn't be having to click your heel five times and then reciting the greek alphabet backwards in order to get one.

If the cops F up there, the court will throw it out.

And rightwingers , by comparison then, want no checks and no balances which means we have a police state.

Uh no, no one wants that, left or right.

Nobody left or right wants to go through 10 miles of bureaucratic red tape to get things done either.

IF a judge deems it not worthy of a warrant, and they are not hard to get, then it means (normally) that there is a violation of rights in progress, or nothing to sudstantiate getting one.

What BB is getting at can be seen with respect to Paul Bernardo. Toronto Police and Niagara Police did not want to talk , thus Paul was ablle to keep on raping etc.

Lets not forget what a colossal FU that whole case was. Wasnt the judge who made grievous errors.

blueblood Posted Yesterday, 06:46 PM

Remember judges interpret the law and beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

There is nothing wrong with due process, and it should be followed, but there is a limit to protecting the rights of an individual perpetrator and tossing the right to public safety in the crapper.

Whats going on in BC is a collasal FU by everybody.

[guyser]

No arguement with needing a warrant, it shouldn't be having to click your heel five times and then reciting the greek alphabet backwards in order to get one.

I dont know if that is suppsoed to make it hard or easy. Sorry, you lost me on that one.

Nobody left or right wants to go through 10 miles of bureaucratic red tape to get things done either.

Getting a warrant is not very hard. I am unaware of the red tape you allude to.

There is nothing wrong with due process, and it should be followed, but there is a limit to protecting the rights of an individual perpetrator and tossing the right to public safety in the crapper.

Whats going on in BC is a collasal FU by everybody.

There is no limit to protecting ones rights. Period.

Is public safety a right?

[blueblood]

There is no limit to protecting ones rights. Period.

Is public safety a right?

Well people do have a right to a security of person, those gangsters in BC are taking that right away. That being said, so do the gangsters.

Are you comfortable with these people dying so that these gangs which are more than likely monitored by the police don't get disturbed while they are in their clubhouse.

Even Trudeau being the jackass he was understood this line when he invoked the War measures act. This is the same guy who was responsible for the Charter in the first place.

[guyser]

Well people do have a right to a security of person, those gangsters in BC are taking that right away. That being said, so do the gangsters.

No they aren't. I will refer you to the relevant sections of "security of person" under our charter.Look under Sec 7. It has to do with rights not being restricted by the government, not drug dealers.

Are you comfortable with these people dying so that these gangs which are more than likely monitored by the police don't get disturbed while they are in their clubhouse.

That is a non starter. Of course I am not comfortable with anyone dying needlessly, however that has nothing to do with not being disturbd in the clubhouse.

Put it this way, if there is something in the clubhouse that the cops have reasonable suspicion is illegal, they get a warrant and in they go. It really is as easy as that.

Even Trudeau being the jackass he was understood this line when he invoked the War measures act. This is the same guy who was responsible for the Charter in the first place.

Again, a non-starter. Trudeau used a suspension of our then Bill of Rights to envoke the WMA.

Trudeau understood that in order to jail or hold someone indefinitely , he had to suspend rights. He did not , as you allude, just say "hey round up these folks."

[Oleg Bach]

The only person that had the charter work on their behalf was Margaret Trudeau...it got her off her drunk driving charge. It seems that it was specifically drawn up for her. Not one other person in Canada has ever done well bring a charter issue forward and having it actually work as intended. It's a nice looking document but our judicary hate it. So if every judge in the land feels that the charter deminishes his authority - he stamps on it with both feet - or lies about it. For instance - When a so-called "dead beat dad" does not come up with the money - They pull his drivers licence - so in effect he can not operate - move to other areas to gain employment and is by modern standards immobilized - He has lost he freedom of mobility - You ask a judge or a lawyer if this is against the charter - and they will say 'Oh it's been tested at the Supreme Court level and it's legal to immobilize" They lie. It has never been tested by the Supreme Court Of Canada - so why do judges and lawyers spead this trash about?

They hate the charter - so what good is it if those in charge of the Charter bury it?

[guyser]

Not one other person in Canada has ever done well bring a charter issue forward and having it actually work as intended.

Earth oleg, we are on earth, come on down and see it.

Failing that, here are 106 pages of case law and the charter. Wanna bet some of them won, as intended? (psst bet you dont so just say yes)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cana...eedoms_case_law

For instance - When a so-called "dead beat dad" does not come up with the money - They pull his drivers licence - so in effect he can not operate - move to other areas to gain employment and is by modern standards immobilized

Ok...show us where , in the Charter, it says one has to be mobile or his rights have been denied.

- He has lost he freedom of mobility -

Lazy shite could walk, take a taxi, board the TTC, ride a bike, call you for a spaceship ride, grab a carpet and hope for the best, buy a skateboard, get rollerblades, get a pogo stick....shall I go on with recommending something to improve his mobility ?

You ask a judge or a lawyer if this is against the charter - and they will say 'Oh it's been tested at the Supreme Court level and it's legal to immobilize"

Only a judge appointed from the same place you get your famous sea monkies and Ben Weider "I used to be a 98LB weakling. The back of a comic book.

Legal to immobilize....hmmm....perhaps the Judge spared you a harsh lesson in law since he kind of thought, 'wtf is this guy on..?..mobilization issues? Wha?'

They lie. It has never been tested by the Supreme Court Of Canada - so why do judges and lawyers spead this trash about?

They hate the charter - so what good is it if those in charge of the Charter bury it?

You hate the law, we get it you lost.

Go read those 106 pages and come back to tell us whats up.

(are saturns rings as beautiful as they say? )

Edited March 17, 2009 by guyser