Family of Man Shot By Police Says He Was "Executed"

[DIBdaQUIB]

I think you are getting a little carried away and not objectively looking at this scenario.

Why did de Groot fire on an empty police cruiser? Why would anyone do that? He made an agressive act against the police regardless of the cruiser being empty. If he had nothing to hide from, why was he holed up in a cabin? Why not just surrender on the spot? Maybe he did try to for all we know but I certainly am not going to believe 'the locals'. I may be painting the town with a broad brush but I assume that many of the people who live in Slocan (NOT ALL) are relatives of draft dodgers and are suspicious of law enforcement in general.

I get what you are saying and that there are questions that should be asked of the police, but the whole excessive force angle that everyone loves to throw in the face of law enforcement is en vogue lately. Police are provided tools to do their job and make split second decisions. I am not saying every decision is the correct one but most times the decisions are correct based on the situation.

You accuse me of not being objective (though I am sharing observations by people who were there) and then describe all the locals as draft dodgers and not credible?!! WOW! There may be a few relatives of what you describe but this isn't exactly "Deliverance" around here. Lots of wealthy and well educated people who prefer rural life to the city.

More questions than answers for their behaviour. The police had the tools when they gunned down the kid on the tram car too. A kid with pocket knife, alone surrounded by police and one officer felt so threatened he had to empty his clip into the kid. Then the guy tazered to death for wielding a stapler.

Also, please explain the "split second" decision needed when a guy is alone in an isolated cabin? Regardless of all the antics leading up to the final event, I question the need to storm the cabin with guns blazing.

[Mr.DirtyDangles]

You accuse me of not being objective (though I am sharing observations by people who were there) and then describe all the locals as draft dodgers and not credible?!! WOW! There may be a few relatives of what you describe but this isn't exactly "Deliverance" around here. Lots of wealthy and well educated people who prefer rural life to the city.

More questions than answers for their behaviour. The police had the tools when they gunned down the kid on the tram car too. A kid with pocket knife, alone surrounded by police and one officer felt so threatened he had to empty his clip into the kid. Then the guy tazered to death for wielding a stapler.

Also, please explain the "split second" decision needed when a guy is alone in an isolated cabin? Regardless of all the antics leading up to the final event, I question the need to storm the cabin with guns blazing.

I did not know that ERT carry weapons ? Could they not have thrown tear gas, flash/bang grenade, called in support ?

The events of the last week are only going to fuel the governments clear and direct approach at creating a police state where our rights and freedoms are being trampled under foot.

[RUPERTKBD]

That's because the reports are coming form the media based on what they have been told by the RCMP.

As opposed to hearsay, couched under the umbrella of "what the locals are saying"...as if "the locals" would be in a position to know exactly what happened and couldn't possibly be biased, one way or another.

The difference between you and me is that I don't support either side of the story, because I don't know the truth, nor do I pretend to have inside information on the matter.

[stawns]

That's because the reports are coming form the media based on what they have been told by the RCMP.

The mayor of Slocan wrote a letter to the local newspaper in the valley clarifying that the RCMP held closed meetings and did not request any local knowledge or communicate with the local officials what their needs/.intent was.

This is consistent with what locals are saying. The RCMP made no effort to make use of local resources that could have defused the situation. They arrived in large numbers, instituted Marshall law and hunted the guy down.

Ask yourself why - even if the guy did fire one shot at an empty cruiser two days before - it was necessary to assault the cabin he was in? He had no hostage, had not fired his weapon again, was not threatening anyone. What was the rush? What was the risk of waiting him out? Why not allow his family to talk to him?

The local observations are that the RCMP were there to take the guy down. Was it payback for other incidents that have happened? An over reaction based on those events? Maybe. At a minimum it raises an awful lot of questions.

shoot at cops, empty cruiser or not, and guess what's going to happen? Exactly what did happen

[DIBdaQUIB]

As opposed to hearsay, couched under the umbrella of "what the locals are saying"...as if "the locals" would be in a position to know exactly what happened and couldn't possibly be biased, one way or another.

The difference between you and me is that I don't support either side of the story, because I don't know the truth, nor do I pretend to have inside information on the matter.

The difference between you and I is that I spoke to people who knew the deceased and were there when this happened. I didn't say I had all the answers but there certainly are legitimate questions based on the decision to storm the cabin, putting officers at risk, versus waiting the guy out.

[DIBdaQUIB]

shoot at cops, empty cruiser or not, and guess what's going to happen? Exactly what did happen

so three day after the event, with no escalation and the guy cornered in a remote cabin alone, the result is to shoot him. Sounds like the family was right about it being an execution because that is exactly what you describe. So the guy refused to come out of the cabin when ordered, so they storm it? Why? The courts do have an important role to play in our society. I don't feel as safe as you appear to living in a society where the RCMP can make this kind of arbitrary decision based on their version of events.

I've known and been friends with a number of RCMP in my career and you might be surprised how often they question actions taken by their members. They would laugh at the blind faith some people place in their perceived infallibility.

[RUPERTKBD]

The difference between you and I is that I spoke to people who knew the deceased and were there when this happened. I didn't say I had all the answers but there certainly are legitimate questions based on the decision to storm the cabin, putting officers at risk, versus waiting the guy out.

They were there when it happened? Why were there no mentions of eyewitnesses in the article? Why the confusing nature of the description?

The people you talked to should be able to say 100% whether the "shove" was alleged, or really happened. They should be able to categorically confirm or deny whether de Groot was armed and whether or not he fired at the police..

Finally, why are all of the accounts of what happened being provided by a sister who was 10 hours away, instead of these people whom you claim "were there when it happened"?

[DIBdaQUIB]

They were there when it happened? Why were there no mentions of eyewitnesses in the article? Why the confusing nature of the description?

The people you talked to should be able to say 100% whether the "shove" was alleged, or really happened. They should be able to categorically confirm or deny whether de Groot was armed and whether or not he fired at the police..

Finally, why are all of the accounts of what happened being provided by a sister who was 10 hours away, instead of these people whom you claim "were there when it happened"?

You're deliberately avoiding the most important questions...why storm the cabin, increasing the risk to officers and escalating the conflict? Why not wait the guy out? Why not allow family to talk on a bullhorn? Why did the police not take the offer of assistance from locals (including the one I spoke with) who grew up there and knew where he would be hiding?

"If" he shoved his neighbor...does that justify 3 RCMP in separate vehicles surrounding his house?

The local mayor felt she had to put a letter in the paper outlining how local authorities were kept from having any input/communication with RCMP in regards to De Groot or the situation in their village.

Lethal force is supposed to be a last resort and only used when officers have no other options. Storming the cabin, when no-one was at risk, forced the issue and created the environment where lethal force may have been necessary.

Who knows, in time, maybe information will come out that justifies the final action taken but for now, it appears a case of over-zealous officials/cops determined to exert their authority on a community and individual.

[RUPERTKBD]

You're deliberately avoiding the most important questions...why storm the cabin, increasing the risk to officers and escalating the conflict? Why not wait the guy out? Why not allow family to talk on a bullhorn? Why did the police not take the offer of assistance from locals (including the one I spoke with) who grew up there and knew where he would be hiding?

"If" he shoved his neighbor...does that justify 3 RCMP in separate vehicles surrounding his house?

The local mayor felt she had to put a letter in the paper outlining how local authorities were kept from having any input/communication with RCMP in regards to De Groot or the situation in their village.

Lethal force is supposed to be a last resort and only used when officers have no other options. Storming the cabin, when no-one was at risk, forced the issue and created the environment where lethal force may have been necessary.

Who knows, in time, maybe information will come out that justifies the final action taken but for now, it appears a case of over-zealous officials/cops determined to exert their authority on a community and individual.

I've already stated that I don't dispute that the police may have overreacted to the situation.

What I said is that I don't know exactly what happened, so I don't assume that one side is correct or the other. There seems to be a possibility that de Groot was armed and had fired at police. Even his sister admits that this might have been the case, in the article above.

TBH, I don't think anyone knows exactly what the truth is, except the officers that were at the scene and de Groot himself. Of course, he is unable to tell his side of the story and I think we all agree that the official story from the police is not likely to tell the whole story.

That being the case, I put the story down to a tragedy that likely could have been avoided, but that most likely were caused by the actions (and omissions) of both parties.

[DIBdaQUIB]

I've already stated that I don't dispute that the police may have overreacted to the situation.

What I said is that I don't know exactly what happened, so I don't assume that one side is correct or the other. There seems to be a possibility that de Groot was armed and had fired at police. Even his sister admits that this might have been the case, in the article above.

TBH, I don't think anyone knows exactly what the truth is, except the officers that were at the scene and de Groot himself. Of course, he is unable to tell his side of the story and I think we all agree that the official story from the police is not likely to tell the whole story.

That being the case, I put the story down to a tragedy that likely could have been avoided, but that most likely were caused by the actions (and omissions) of both parties.

Fair enough.