Lancaster Posted May 22, 2020 Share Posted May 22, 2020 1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said: what? the RCMP can take the information from a credible person, an argue its reasonable grounds for a search. In this case, we had a very credible career military person who reported being both intimidated by and shown his illegal stockpile. Yes, they did drop the ball in not obtaining a search warrant. It becomes hearsay. For all intent and purposes, it's one military person accusing an established orthodontist(?). It's hearsay at best and it's a slippery slope to have the accused being forced to prove their innocence (this case not withstanding). It's like me accusing you that you have a stockpile of weapons and will be going on a rampage. It shouldn't mean the police should show up and tear apart your house, your place of employment, etc... just to prove or disprove something. I'm not sure any judge will be signing off on a warrant based on a hearsay. At best they can probably drop by for a chat and maybe ask to take a quick peek (which you can deny).... that's probably the extent of it. Not a perfect system... but it's probably the best balance between security and personal freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted May 22, 2020 Share Posted May 22, 2020 16 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said: By following up on a credible report that he had a stockpile. If they ran his name and found no license, then that would give them credible grounds to assume its illegal. The RCMP did fail on this, there's no way around that. Multiple credible people reported his behaviour and guns and no one followed up. This story appears to back this up: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/she-witnessed-the-ns-mass-shooters-violence-shes-still-struggling-to-be-heard/ar-BB14rMBD?li=AAggNb9 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 22, 2020 Share Posted May 22, 2020 1 hour ago, Lancaster said: It becomes hearsay. For all intent and purposes, it's one military person accusing an established orthodontist(?). It's hearsay at best and it's a slippery slope to have the accused being forced to prove their innocence (this case not withstanding). It's like me accusing you that you have a stockpile of weapons and will be going on a rampage. It shouldn't mean the police should show up and tear apart your house, your place of employment, etc... just to prove or disprove something. I'm not sure any judge will be signing off on a warrant based on a hearsay. At best they can probably drop by for a chat and maybe ask to take a quick peek (which you can deny).... that's probably the extent of it. Not a perfect system... but it's probably the best balance between security and personal freedom. our legal system has a lot built into it based on trust and credibility. Of course the word of a career military person should be given some weight. It freaks me out a little that you think a person like that shouldn't be taken seriously when we see what the result can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted May 22, 2020 Share Posted May 22, 2020 3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: our legal system has a lot built into it based on trust and credibility. Of course the word of a career military person should be given some weight. It freaks me out a little that you think a person like that shouldn't be taken seriously when we see what the result can be. A word of a doctor should hold equal weight too, no? I'm worried that you aren't thinking of how this can be abused. As with my hypothetical scenario, I accuse you.... what will you do? How much searching are you going to allow the authorities to do? Go through your dressers? Start sniffing around your wife's undergarment drawers? Turn your child's bedroom upside down? Open up your vehicles part by parts like what border services can do? Take out picks and shovels and tear up your yard? What's stopping them to believe that maybe you stashed your "hidden cache" at your parents place? Thus they should start searching your parents, in-laws, relatives, a list of friends, etc? I mean... it's about preventing mass shootings, right? If you're not in favour of it... does that mean you're okay with murders of innocent people? Wanting safety and security is important... but not when it comes to a point where you have to prove your own innocent by charges without any evidence to back it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 22, 2020 Share Posted May 22, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Lancaster said: A word of a doctor should hold equal weight too, no? I'm worried that you aren't thinking of how this can be abused. As with my hypothetical scenario, I accuse you.... what will you do? How much searching are you going to allow the authorities to do? Go through your dressers? Start sniffing around your wife's undergarment drawers? Turn your child's bedroom upside down? Open up your vehicles part by parts like what border services can do? Take out picks and shovels and tear up your yard? What's stopping them to believe that maybe you stashed your "hidden cache" at your parents place? Thus they should start searching your parents, in-laws, relatives, a list of friends, etc? I mean... it's about preventing mass shootings, right? If you're not in favour of it... does that mean you're okay with murders of innocent people? Wanting safety and security is important... but not when it comes to a point where you have to prove your own innocent by charges without any evidence to back it up. an experienced officer can pick apart a persons story very fast. if a credible person comes forward with a complaint that passes the questioning of an experienced officer, yes that needs follow up. Thats hardly taking the lid off freedoms. If some goofball tries to make up a story just to hassle his neighbour thats not going to get very far. Edited May 22, 2020 by Jimmy McGill 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted May 22, 2020 Share Posted May 22, 2020 1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said: an experienced officer can pick apart a persons story very fast. if a credible person comes forward with a complaint that passes the questioning of an experienced officer, yes that needs follow up. Thats hardly taking the lid off freedoms. If some goofball tries to make up a story just to hassle his neighbour thats not going to get very far. Not saying there should be no follow-up, but how much "following-up" are you going to allow? A simple statement of the accuse may just be.... "Oh yeah, I saw that person what appears to be an 'assault weapon'... and I am really concerned". How much investigating are you going to do with this statement? Picking apart a story only works on someone who isn't prepared. I can just easily document what time you come home on what day and just keep the story simple. You came home this day at this time, I saw you carrying a gun indoors. And I don't have anymore details because I'm not sure and I'm not the authorities, thus I called the cops. In your opinion, what should the next investigative processes be? So far, you're just saying that the police should "do more" without any specifics or limits on how far they should be doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted May 22, 2020 Share Posted May 22, 2020 @Jimmy McGill I agree with your points about smart gun technology. I came across this article today, which delves into some of the reasons it isn't being employed. Thought I'd share: https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-smart-gun-doesn-t-exist-for-the-dumbest-reasons?utm_source=pocket-newtab It's a pretty long read, so I'm just posting the link. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted May 22, 2020 Share Posted May 22, 2020 (edited) 39 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said: @Jimmy McGill I agree with your points about smart gun technology. I came across this article today, which delves into some of the reasons it isn't being employed. Thought I'd share: https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-smart-gun-doesn-t-exist-for-the-dumbest-reasons?utm_source=pocket-newtab It's a pretty long read, so I'm just posting the link. The problem is that technology is ever outpacing regulations, etc. I mean technically... this is what is considered as "the gun"... A skilled machinist can probably make one pretty easily. The rest of the gun does not have any requirement/licenses to procure. Plus nowadays some people (mostly in the US) just print them with a 3D printer. Edited May 22, 2020 by Lancaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 22, 2020 Share Posted May 22, 2020 2 hours ago, Lancaster said: Not saying there should be no follow-up, but how much "following-up" are you going to allow? A simple statement of the accuse may just be.... "Oh yeah, I saw that person what appears to be an 'assault weapon'... and I am really concerned". How much investigating are you going to do with this statement? Picking apart a story only works on someone who isn't prepared. I can just easily document what time you come home on what day and just keep the story simple. You came home this day at this time, I saw you carrying a gun indoors. And I don't have anymore details because I'm not sure and I'm not the authorities, thus I called the cops. In your opinion, what should the next investigative processes be? So far, you're just saying that the police should "do more" without any specifics or limits on how far they should be doing it. I think in a case where you have a credible person making the complaint, the story stands up to initial scrutiny and you can corroborate the main or most serious aspects with at least one other witness of it then that must be enough of a benchmark process to go looking for a stockpile. So in this case with the NS shooter we had a credible military person, and also other witnesses that the RCMP could have followed up with. Its really hard for multiple people to lie about something and keep it all straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 22, 2020 Share Posted May 22, 2020 2 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said: @Jimmy McGill I agree with your points about smart gun technology. I came across this article today, which delves into some of the reasons it isn't being employed. Thought I'd share: https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-smart-gun-doesn-t-exist-for-the-dumbest-reasons?utm_source=pocket-newtab It's a pretty long read, so I'm just posting the link. good read, and shows how something that could be so useful gets beat down by the US gun lobby. 1 hour ago, Lancaster said: The problem is that technology is ever outpacing regulations, etc. thats an easy fix. When you make regulations based on a risk profile you don't need to chase the technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted May 22, 2020 Share Posted May 22, 2020 6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: I think in a case where you have a credible person making the complaint, the story stands up to initial scrutiny and you can corroborate the main or most serious aspects with at least one other witness of it then that must be enough of a benchmark process to go looking for a stockpile. So in this case with the NS shooter we had a credible military person, and also other witnesses that the RCMP could have followed up with. Its really hard for multiple people to lie about something and keep it all straight. Okay... lets say you believe the accuser.... what's the next step? Where/how should the authorities be searching? It's easy to say, "do something", but you still haven't answered "what to do?" yet. 2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: thats an easy fix. When you make regulations based on a risk profile you don't need to chase the technology. Umm... if I 3D print a gun, how would anyone know about it? Unless you're going to ban 3D printers and metalworking equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 1 hour ago, Lancaster said: Okay... lets say you believe the accuser.... what's the next step? Where/how should the authorities be searching? It's easy to say, "do something", but you still haven't answered "what to do?" yet. starters would be the location where the NS shooter showed them off. Search the home, the truck, wherever you would store guns. The police know how to search a home, i don't need to re-invent that process. 1 hour ago, Lancaster said: Umm... if I 3D print a gun, how would anyone know about it? Unless you're going to ban 3D printers and metalworking equipment. 3d printed guns would be much lower down the list of risk than other guns, the chances of someone making one that could stand up to all the use in a mass killing is low. Add to that unless you really know what you're doing the thing is just as likely to blow up in your hand. https://www.fastcompany.com/90290217/3d-printing-guns-at-home-is-dangerous-mostly-for-the-person-shooting-it its also not really a new problem, people have been making zip guns for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 Just now, Jimmy McGill said: starters would be the location where the NS shooter showed them off. Search the home, the truck, wherever you would store guns. The police know how to search a home, i don't need to re-invent that process. 3d printed guns would be much lower down the list of risk than other guns, the chances of someone making one that could stand up to all the use in a mass killing is low. Add to that unless you really know what you're doing the thing is just as likely to blow up in your hand. https://www.fastcompany.com/90290217/3d-printing-guns-at-home-is-dangerous-mostly-for-the-person-shooting-it its also not really a new problem, people have been making zip guns for years. You consider a military individual as trustworthy. So myself, just a regular guy working a business job in downtown, make the same accusation towards you, should the police take my concerns not as serious? If so, does that mean any accusation will require the police to tear up your home? A home has like a million places to stash firearms. Just think of the average house.... how many drawers and dressers, the garage, closest, shed, mattresses, under the floors, within the walls, miscellaneous boxes, laundry room, etc? This isn't just some RPG game where you click "search" and everything is "Searched". If someone has an illegal firearm, you'd assume the authorities will be very thorough. Going through your wife's bra and pantie drawer... I mean, you can hide a handgun in there. Slice open your child's mattress... but it could technically have a rifle within. Dig out your yard, open up all your hardwood flooring, inspect all your vents, perhaps opening up your drywalls, empty out your entire garage for ever single box, container, etc. Tear apart your vehicles. There's also no guarantee they will fix everything (assuming they have the abilities too) or that you will be financial reimbursed for the damaged if proved false. A simple question really.... would this be fine if someone has accused you? You can just machine the receiver and barrel... everything is usually polymer anyways. DIY guns are getting better and better in quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 1 hour ago, Lancaster said: You consider a military individual as trustworthy. So myself, just a regular guy working a business job in downtown, make the same accusation towards you, should the police take my concerns not as serious? If so, does that mean any accusation will require the police to tear up your home? A home has like a million places to stash firearms. Just think of the average house.... how many drawers and dressers, the garage, closest, shed, mattresses, under the floors, within the walls, miscellaneous boxes, laundry room, etc? This isn't just some RPG game where you click "search" and everything is "Searched". If someone has an illegal firearm, you'd assume the authorities will be very thorough. Going through your wife's bra and pantie drawer... I mean, you can hide a handgun in there. Slice open your child's mattress... but it could technically have a rifle within. Dig out your yard, open up all your hardwood flooring, inspect all your vents, perhaps opening up your drywalls, empty out your entire garage for ever single box, container, etc. Tear apart your vehicles. There's also no guarantee they will fix everything (assuming they have the abilities too) or that you will be financial reimbursed for the damaged if proved false. A simple question really.... would this be fine if someone has accused you? You can just machine the receiver and barrel... everything is usually polymer anyways. DIY guns are getting better and better in quality. the police would examine your complaint. If it was found to be valid on its face and could also be confirmed in part by someone else then why not have a knock at the door? I'd have no problem with that. It doesn't seem to matter what anyone suggests, you don't want any changes to the gun laws. How about you suggest a specific mechanism then? how would you control the border e.g.,? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said: the police would examine your complaint. If it was found to be valid on its face and could also be confirmed in part by someone else then why not have a knock at the door? I'd have no problem with that. It doesn't seem to matter what anyone suggests, you don't want any changes to the gun laws. How about you suggest a specific mechanism then? how would you control the border e.g.,? So far you're not providing anything of substances. You keep saying the police should just "do more" and "follow-up" without any hint to be what that would encompass. As of now, your verification process is... nothing really. Just hope and pray it's right. Some guy you supposedly have more faith in makes a claim and you're gung-ho about it without ever thinking of the negative consequences of it maybe being a mistake. You say that because a military guy mentioned that the NS gunman had illegal firearms, that it's grounds for the police to upend the guy's place. If in an alternate scenario where it's really just a military guy pissed at his neighbour... then with his knowledge of firearms, give lots of accurate (but false) details to the cops and they tear this guy's house apart only to find out it's fake (or maybe the accuser "made a mistake")... what then? The police just go, "oops, sorry... please don't sue"? If the police did talk to the NS gunman and they only did a quick look around and missed the hidden weapons cache... you'd be blasting the RCMP for not being thorough enough. Looking for an illegal weapon, you either breeze through or you go full tear down mode, there really isn't an in-between. The reason I'm adamantly against any new laws because they're ineffective. A weapons ban wouldn't have stopped this guy. A registry wouldn't have stopped the shooting. Licensing wouldn't have made any difference. The only part that may have helped, might be border security.... but even that might not have done anything as there are stolen firearms on the black market too. I'm alarmed that you're in favour of actual trampling of the rights of all Canadians just so maybe you can catch one or two criminals. Meanwhile probably messing up hundreds or others. The police searching your entire house from top to bottom, based on hearsay... and you say there's no infringement? What's next? Mandatory cavity search at any moment at anytime to prove you're not a drug mule too? The legal system is based upon innocent until proven guilty. Right now, you're promoting guilty until proven otherwise. That's really messed up. As for the border.... enforce the laws on the books already. You're caught smuggling firearms, 2 years in prison per gun. Multiple offensive are cumulative, eg. 1st time caught with 1 gun = 2 years... 2nd time caught with just 1 gun again... away for 2+2 years, etc. If you've been convicted of any firearms/drugs/smuggling crimes... for 10-20 years after, mandatory check every time you arrive at the border. Caught with an illegal firearm.... 2 years in prison per firearms. Crime will still occur... but you have to make it as difficult and as punishing as possible to slow the flow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanukfanatic Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 On 5/21/2020 at 6:18 PM, Jimmy McGill said: By following up on a credible report that he had a stockpile. If they ran his name and found no license, then that would give them credible grounds to assume its illegal. The RCMP did fail on this, there's no way around that. Multiple credible people reported his behaviour and guns and no one followed up. You have no clue about police work, that much is clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanukfanatic Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 9 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said: our legal system has a lot built into it based on trust and credibility. Of course the word of a career military person should be given some weight. It freaks me out a little that you think a person like that shouldn't be taken seriously when we see what the result can be. At this point, it is clear you have no clue about what "reasonable grounds" means for police to get search warrants. No use debating this with someone with no knowledge. I do enjoy your hockey posts though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 13 hours ago, Lancaster said: So far you're not providing anything of substances. You keep saying the police should just "do more" and "follow-up" without any hint to be what that would encompass. As of now, your verification process is... nothing really. Just hope and pray it's right. Some guy you supposedly have more faith in makes a claim and you're gung-ho about it without ever thinking of the negative consequences of it maybe being a mistake. You say that because a military guy mentioned that the NS gunman had illegal firearms, that it's grounds for the police to upend the guy's place. If in an alternate scenario where it's really just a military guy pissed at his neighbour... then with his knowledge of firearms, give lots of accurate (but false) details to the cops and they tear this guy's house apart only to find out it's fake (or maybe the accuser "made a mistake")... what then? The police just go, "oops, sorry... please don't sue"? If the police did talk to the NS gunman and they only did a quick look around and missed the hidden weapons cache... you'd be blasting the RCMP for not being thorough enough. Looking for an illegal weapon, you either breeze through or you go full tear down mode, there really isn't an in-between. The reason I'm adamantly against any new laws because they're ineffective. A weapons ban wouldn't have stopped this guy. A registry wouldn't have stopped the shooting. Licensing wouldn't have made any difference. The only part that may have helped, might be border security.... but even that might not have done anything as there are stolen firearms on the black market too. I'm alarmed that you're in favour of actual trampling of the rights of all Canadians just so maybe you can catch one or two criminals. Meanwhile probably messing up hundreds or others. The police searching your entire house from top to bottom, based on hearsay... and you say there's no infringement? What's next? Mandatory cavity search at any moment at anytime to prove you're not a drug mule too? The legal system is based upon innocent until proven guilty. Right now, you're promoting guilty until proven otherwise. That's really messed up. As for the border.... enforce the laws on the books already. You're caught smuggling firearms, 2 years in prison per gun. Multiple offensive are cumulative, eg. 1st time caught with 1 gun = 2 years... 2nd time caught with just 1 gun again... away for 2+2 years, etc. If you've been convicted of any firearms/drugs/smuggling crimes... for 10-20 years after, mandatory check every time you arrive at the border. Caught with an illegal firearm.... 2 years in prison per firearms. Crime will still occur... but you have to make it as difficult and as punishing as possible to slow the flow. you keep setting impossibly high bars for new gun laws. I was very specific about police responding to a complaint, you just don't like the answer. Whats messed up is something reasonable like police using the standard bar of "reasonable grounds" is too far for you to have someone check out a report of a potential illegal gun stockpile. I'll remind you, its up to you the gun owner to convince me the 8/10 other people in Canada that you need these things. So far you're not doing a very good job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 10 hours ago, Kanukfanatic said: At this point, it is clear you have no clue about what "reasonable grounds" means for police to get search warrants. No use debating this with someone with no knowledge. I do enjoy your hockey posts though well then why don't you explain it to me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 10 hours ago, Kanukfanatic said: You have no clue about police work, that much is clear. care to explain how you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now