Vancouver Man Shot and Killed in Road Rage Incident

[nucklehead]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/crimeincanada/vancouver-man-shot-and-killed-in-road-rage-incident-early-friday-morning/ar-BBLLcoZ?ocid=spartanntp

Quote

33-year-old Vancouver man has died after what police say was an incident of road rage early Friday morning.

Just after 1:30 a.m., police received a call about a man shot near Bridgeway Street, just under the Iron Workers Memorial Bridge.

When officers arrived, they found the victim had died from gunshot wounds.

Police say evidence suggests this incident was a result of road rage between the victim, who was believed to be in a grey Toyota Matrix, and the suspect, who was in a white sedan.

A woman believed to be in the same vehicle as the victim suffered minor injuries and was taken to hospital. She has since been released.

The identity of the victim has not been released as the next of kin has not yet been notified.

No arrests have been made and the investigation is ongoing.

Homicide investigators are asking anyone who may have dashcam footage near the intersection of McGill Street and Renfrew Street Friday morning, between 1:30 and 2 a.m., or who has information about this incident to contact homicide detectives at 604-717-2500 or Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-8477.

 

 

[JM_]

yikes 

[Ghostsof1915]

Few things stand out.

Timing, location. 

I highly doubt this is a person with a legitimate firearms licence. Because even a shotgun/rifle even non-restricted can't be transported loaded and not trigger locked. 

Of course that's no help to the victim. 

But what kind of road rage can happen at 1:30 am? 

I'm sure there's a lot more to this story.

 

Sad sign of the times. As in the book "The Big Sleep", "My, my, so many guns and so few brains..."

[SabreFan1]

29 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Few things stand out.

Timing, location. 

I highly doubt this is a person with a legitimate firearms licence. Because even a shotgun/rifle even non-restricted can't be transported loaded and not trigger locked. 

Of course that's no help to the victim. 

But what kind of road rage can happen at 1:30 am? 

I'm sure there's a lot more to this story.

 

Sad sign of the times. As in the book "The Big Sleep", "My, my, so many guns and so few brains..."

Yes.  Licenced or not, A batsh*t crazy person did something batsh*t crazy.  Vancouver is the 3rd largest metro city in Canada so you likely have more crazies just like this guy.  This one just happened to have access to a firearm.  Hopefully he gets caught before he has the opportunity to do it again.

[mpt]

This is why car manufacturers should just install dash cams in every car.  Will cut down on insurance fraud too.

[SabreFan1]

Just now, mpt said:

This is why car manufacturers should just install dash cams in every car.  Will cut down on insurance fraud too.

While you're giving away your right to privacy, why not let them install one in your forehead.

[riffraff]

7 minutes ago, mpt said:

This is why car manufacturers should just install dash cams in every car.  Will cut down on insurance fraud too.

No thanks.

[nowhereman]

7 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

While you're giving away your right to privacy, why not let them install one in your forehead.

Unless you're doing something illegal and/or dangerous, what do you have to hide? Hell, the camera's not even pointed at you. If the governments wants to, they can already gather enough information from your cell phones, laptops, tablets, etc. I highly doubt they'd event want to monitor footage of you driving down the street, regardless of whether or not they even could (which they can't).

[nowhereman]

16 minutes ago, riffraff said:

No thanks.

What's the problem, though? I've had my ass saved a few times by either having a dash cam myself or following up with another driver who had one. I've driven in New York, LA, Chicago, Toronto, Miami, etc. and Vancouver has some of the worst drivers I've ever seen. There are moments when I wonder how the streets aren't just gridlocked all day long by accidents caused by ignorant drivers and entitled pedestrians and cyclists who either don't care or don't know the rules of the road. I've been in a couple of accidents where witnesses thought I was at fault (you'd be amazed at how wrong "witnesses" can really be) and video footage absolved me of any guilt in the situation. One time, a motorist ran a stop sign at 80km, striking my vehicle coming the opposite way, and the witness said it was me who ran the stop sign and that I was on my cell phone at the time (it was night, so this idiot was just making things up at this point). Luckily, the fellow behind me solved the case instantly with his dash cam.

 

Dash cams don't really invade people's privacy, especially if they're set-up to only run while someone is driving. They could significantly cut down on insurance fraud (see Russia) and could help solve crimes like the one in this thread. And you're the only one who has access to that footage, unless there is an accident or criminal activity involved, so who really cares about privacy? Have you something to hide?

[Alflives]

10 minutes ago, nowhereman said:

What's the problem, though? I've had my ass saved a few times by either having a dash cam myself or following up with another driver who had one. I've driven in New York, LA, Chicago, Toronto, Miami, etc. and Vancouver has some of the worst drivers I've ever seen. There are moments when I wonder how the streets aren't just gridlocked all day long by accidents caused by ignorant drivers and entitled pedestrians and cyclists who either don't care or don't know the rules of the road. I've been in a couple of accidents where witnesses thought I was at fault (you'd be amazed at how wrong "witnesses" can really be) and video footage absolved me of any guilt in the situation. One time, a motorist ran a stop sign at 80km, striking my vehicle coming the opposite way, and the witness said it was me who ran the stop sign and that I was on my cell phone at the time (it was night, so this idiot was just making things up at this point). Luckily, the fellow behind me solved the case instantly with his dash cam.

 

Dash cams don't really invade people's privacy, especially if they're set-up to only run while someone is driving. They could significantly cut down on insurance fraud (see Russia) and could help solve crimes like the one in this thread. And you're the only one who has access to that footage, unless there is an accident or criminal activity involved, so who really cares about privacy? Have you something to hide?

I’m going out today, and getting a dash-cam installed on my scooter.  

[Nucksfollower1983]

1 hour ago, SabreFan1 said:

While you're giving away your right to privacy, why not let them install one in your forehead.

why not just include the option to turn it off? that way if you don't like it you don't have to use it.

[SabreFan1]

50 minutes ago, nowhereman said:

Unless you're doing something illegal and/or dangerous, what do you have to hide? Hell, the camera's not even pointed at you. If the governments wants to, they can already gather enough information from your cell phones, laptops, tablets, etc. I highly doubt they'd event want to monitor footage of you driving down the street, regardless of whether or not they even could (which they can't).

It's the beginning of a slippery slope.  When you give up a part of your liberty and/or privacy, you risk getting even more of it taken away. 

 

You don't find mandatory recording devices a problem, so what would stop the government from going one step further and eventually mandating an implantable tracking chip underneath your skin?  If we use your line of arguing, "Unless you're doing something illegal and/or dangerous, what do you have to hide?" there's a built in perfect excuse for a government to do exactly that.

[SabreFan1]

17 minutes ago, Nucksfollower1983 said:

why not just include the option to turn it off? that way if you don't like it you don't have to use it.

That's not how governments work.  I drive a luxury SUV that already has an onboard computer that records everything I do so that if I get into an accident, it can be used for or against me.  If I attempt to turn it off or circumvent it, I would have to face consequences if caught.

 

So basically every move I make is already recorded.  I decided to make that trade-off willingly so I could drive a nice new vehicle.  I could have chosen a cheaper and older car without that technology built-in, but it was my decision to go with the one I bought.  It was not a government mandate.

[wshdrvvn]

1 hour ago, nowhereman said:

What's the problem, though? I've had my ass saved a few times by either having a dash cam myself or following up with another driver who had one. I've driven in New York, LA, Chicago, Toronto, Miami, etc. and Vancouver has some of the worst drivers I've ever seen. There are moments when I wonder how the streets aren't just gridlocked all day long by accidents caused by ignorant drivers and entitled pedestrians and cyclists who either don't care or don't know the rules of the road. I've been in a couple of accidents where witnesses thought I was at fault (you'd be amazed at how wrong "witnesses" can really be) and video footage absolved me of any guilt in the situation. One time, a motorist ran a stop sign at 80km, striking my vehicle coming the opposite way, and the witness said it was me who ran the stop sign and that I was on my cell phone at the time (it was night, so this idiot was just making things up at this point). Luckily, the fellow behind me solved the case instantly with his dash cam.

 

Dash cams don't really invade people's privacy, especially if they're set-up to only run while someone is driving. They could significantly cut down on insurance fraud (see Russia) and could help solve crimes like the one in this thread. And you're the only one who has access to that footage, unless there is an accident or criminal activity involved, so who really cares about privacy? Have you something to hide?

its the choice to have it or not that is important.

 

or would be in this hypothetical situation.

[ChuckNORRIS4Cup]

2 hours ago, SabreFan1 said:

While you're giving away your right to privacy, why not let them install one in your forehead.

It's okay for the city to have video cameras all over the city to watch you, I'm pretty sure that the privacy you wish for is already gone.

[SabreFan1]

1 minute ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

It's okay for the city to have video cameras all over the city to watch you, I'm pretty sure that the privacy you wish for is already gone.

I don't own the city.  I own my vehicle.  There's a big difference between the two.

[ChuckNORRIS4Cup]

2 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

I don't own the city.  I own my vehicle.  There's a big difference between the two.

So privacy is in your eyes is only if you own something, good luck with that.

[SabreFan1]

Just now, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

So privacy is in your eyes is only if you own something, good luck with that.

So you want to put words in my mouth so you don't look bad on a hockey board for not understanding a post?  This short discussion was only about the limit of government surveillance, nothing else.

[ChuckNORRIS4Cup]

Just now, SabreFan1 said:

So you want to put words in my mouth so you don't look bad on a hockey board for not understanding a post?  This short discussion was only about the limit of government surveillance, nothing else.

You're the one saying their giving away their right to privacy and I'm telling you the city watches everyone anyways, you're privacy is gone already it's not only what your own. But go ahead and make an argument out of it.

[SabreFan1]

1 minute ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

You're the one saying their giving away their right to privacy and I'm telling you the city watches everyone anyways, you're privacy is gone already it's not only what your own. But go ahead and make an argument out of it.

I will make a discussion on a discussion board.

 

Let's take the premise of your post:

Quote

It's okay for the city to have video cameras all over the city to watch you

I live in a city that has very few surveillance cameras and plenty of the ones that they do have are used for temporary purposes.  Since they are used in areas that are high-crime only, I'm ok with that because it saves me from having to pay taxes for extra officers to patrol just that area.

 

Now would I ever become a UK citizen and move to a city like London that has one of the largest concentration of surveillance cameras in the world, not a snowball's chance in h*ll.