# Idiotic responses to the idiot who shot 2 Mounties



## GAP (18 Jul 2006)

I did not want to put this in the condolance thread so: (might need to be put in radio chatter)

RCMP are investigating a letter to the Edmonton Sun they believe may have been penned by the prime suspect in the Saskatchewan Mountie murders. 
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/2006/07/18/pf-1690151.html

The signature on the letter reads Curt Dagenais, wanted after constables Robin Cameron, 29, and Marc Bourdages, 26, were shot in the head July 7. 

They died in hospital overnight Saturday. 

The letter blames police and Dagenais's sister for the shooting. 

"I feel terrible about what has happened, but they (police) would not leave me alone," states the letter. 

The five-page letter was postmarked Friday at Shell Lake, Sask., a town of 172 people about 30 km from Spiritwood. 

The officers were shot on the night of July 7 while chasing Dagenais, 41, after a domestic dispute in Spiritwood. 

Shell Lake's website describes the town as being "surrounded by lakes, hills, forest and farmland." 

The letter writer recalls the dispute, saying he wanted to remove some "so-called family of mine" from his home. 

The writer said he and his mother Elsie own the property, "not my sister (Grace), who I wanted removed ... because she has told me things to mislead me, to give herself more time to screw me over as to division of family property due to the divorce of (my parents)." 

The writer complains Mounties wouldn't help him remove his sister from the home, not because "it was family," as Mounties allegedly told him, but because of a pending civil lawsuit of his against Mounties over alleged "obstruction of justice and tampering with evidence." A Mountie spokesman yesterday couldn't confirm the suit. 

Cameron and Bourdages arrived at the house, while the letter writer waited outside in his truck. 

"Cameron said I was under arrest for assault and assault with a weapon. I couldn't believe it. I had a screaming match with my sister, but never touched her. 

"When I (earlier) backed away (out of the yard) with my pickup, I didn't realize my steering was turned the wrong way and crowded Grace a bit. But Elsie and Grace can wrap any RCMP around their finger." 

The writer said he was so startled at being under arrest he fled because he felt that was "within my rights." 

During the chase that followed, the writer complains police "would ram me hard, hoping to spin me out of control, hoping that I would roll." 

When he came to a stop at some trees, he said he didn't have a chance to get out of the truck before Mounties started firing at him. "They wanted to kill me, to hush me about their dirty work." 

The writer alleged he was earlier assaulted by police in an unrelated matter. 

He said he wrote the letter to the Edmonton Sun because he used to buy the newspaper on trips to Lloydminster, which straddles the Alberta-Saskatchewan border. 

He said he likes the Sun "because if you people have something to print, you print it ...." 

The writer complained media in Saskatchewan didn't want to run his side of the story. 

Alberta RCMP spokesman Cpl. Wayne Oakes said the information would quickly be passed on to Saskatchewan counterparts. 

While the letter, a copy of which was provided to the RCMP, "certainly could be" authentic, handwriting samples would be compared, as well as other tests, to confirm its authenticity, he said. 

Lenore Jessop, Shell Lake's postmaster, said Mounties were in her post office shortly after the Mounties were notified of the letter yesterday. "They heard that he was in the area possibly, and to keep our eyes open. They were interested in the post box, was it locked at night." 

Neither she nor a co-worker could recall seeing Dagenais. 

The letter suggested phoning Dagenais' lawyer, Lori Gollan. Having seen the letter, she said it wasn't clear she was to comment on the case on his behalf. "I'd need some confirmation of that from my client," she said. 

A spokesman for Dagenais's mother and sister said they were unavailable for comment yesterday


----------



## paracowboy (18 Jul 2006)

kneel down. Face the ditch.


----------



## COBRA-6 (18 Jul 2006)

I hope when they find this shitpump they let the dog chew on him for nice long while... that is if he's taken alive...


----------



## tabernac (18 Jul 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> kneel down. Face the ditch.


Or bite the curb. Either way.  May justice come swiftly, and harshly to this idiot.


----------



## Torlyn (18 Jul 2006)

sirukin said:
			
		

> I've not met the guy, but I'd much rather have the whole story before I decide I'm going to pelt the guy with fruit at any possible court appearances.



The whole story?  He shot and killed 2 members of the RCMP.  What can you possibly think would excuse that?  What sort of extenuating circumstances could allow for that behaviour to be explained?

T


----------



## paracowboy (18 Jul 2006)

sirukin said:
			
		

> This is indeed a tragedy, but sometimes I wonder if the media is really telling the whole story.
> This is being sensationalized. This isn't news, this is entertainment. Fear-mongering.
> I mean, everyone's initial reaction is "KILL THE BASTARD" rather than "why did this guy do this?"
> I'm of course assuming he's lucid and rational, which is a safe bet because most people are.
> ...


shake your head.


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Jul 2006)

sirukin said:
			
		

> I'm not condoning this
> I'm simply saying the blame lays as much on the circumstances as on the criminal himself.



You're going to have to be a lot more specific to connect the dots from the points in the article above to justifying two murders.


----------



## COBRA-6 (18 Jul 2006)

sirukin said:
			
		

> I'm not condoning this
> I'm simply saying the blame lays as much on the circumstances as on the criminal himself.



You are wrong, the blame lies with the criminal who pulled the trigger.


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Jul 2006)

sirukin said:
			
		

> sorry, I was just thinking that perhaps that the rcmp should have learned something from the monroe incident in northern alberta.
> I really don't have all the facts. I drop my case. Let's find the guy and remove his testicles and skull frig his rotting corpse.



So, based on the Monroe case, what exactly do you think the Mounties "should have learned"?


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Jul 2006)

sirukin said:
			
		

> I don't know.
> I certainly think that incidents like these are appearing in the news far more often than they should.
> perhaps the influx of new(er) rcmp members is giving the force a larger predominence to have a more gung-ho attitude than in last decade or so.



You continue to make inferences without basis in fact.  That is called trolling.  Do you have anything substantial to add to this thread?


----------



## DustyFoot (18 Jul 2006)

From his letter it sounds like maybe they were shooting at his tires and ramming his car during the chase....He would not have known what they were aiming at, and maybe felt like they were shooting to try to kill him. And then he returned fire towards their car....

What to learn? Don't shoot at people who have guns unless you have a bulletproof windshield.


----------



## Torlyn (18 Jul 2006)

You two have got to be kidding.  If the cops were firing at him, it's because he had passed the point that their ROE's allowed them to.  Simple as that.  What's to learn?  I think I'm learning that we still have morons alive and well who spout BS without knowledge.   :

T


----------



## Trinity (18 Jul 2006)

sirukin...  be quiet... especially when you're behind a rock and a hard place

This guy definitely does not want to take responsibility for his actions

It doesn't seem rational to be within your rights to evade police when you are being arrested.
Last time I checked, that wasn't law.

It would appear he has some issues that are causing him not to think clearly.. 
however, that does relieve him of his responsibility of court and other actions.


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Jul 2006)

DustyFoot said:
			
		

> From his letter it sounds like maybe they were shooting at his tires and ramming his car during the chase....He would not have known what they were aiming at, and maybe felt like they were shooting to try to kill him. And then he returned fire towards their car....
> 
> What to learn? Don't shoot at people who have guns unless you have a bulletproof windshield.



So you're saying his paranoia justifies his shooting at cops?

And that the cops shouldn't try to confront people who may be armed?


----------



## DustyFoot (18 Jul 2006)

I think it's pretty standard for cops to try to shoot out someone's tires during a chase. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with doing that. Just saying that when you shoot at someone who has a gun they are probably going to shoot back....


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Jul 2006)

sirukin said:
			
		

> I think the point is that perhap the rules aught to be changed.
> I mean, two high profile incidents is a pretty good indication that perhaps fighting crime aught to be less dying and more fighting crime.
> I'm sorry if that is crude, but personally I like my cops alive and well thank you very much.
> 
> Okay, I'm not saying this guy is justified in anything. Can I make it any more clear?



Which rules?
Changed to what?
At exactly what point do you want the cops to stop pursuing a criminal because he/she might be forced to try and kill them if they don't?
Justify any potential decrease to public safety.


----------



## DustyFoot (18 Jul 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> So you're saying his paranoia justifies his shooting at cops?
> 
> And that the cops shouldn't try to confront people who may be armed?



Not sure how you can infer that from what I said. I said what should be learned is that they need to have bulletproof windshields if they are going to be putting themselves in positions where they are going to be shot at from that angle.....

If I said a cop who gets shot should wear a bulletproof vest would that mean I am saying it was justified that he was shot?


----------



## WannaBeFlyer (18 Jul 2006)

Two RCMP officers were shot and killed. Examine it any way you want but I know how I see it. :rage:

The windshield comment...Common. Uncalled for.


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Jul 2006)

DustyFoot said:
			
		

> Not sure how you can infer that from what I said. I said what should be learned is that they need to have bulletproof windshields if they are going to be putting themselves in positions where they are going to be shot at from that angle.....
> 
> If I said a cop who gets shot should wear a bulletproof vest would that mean I am saying it was justified that he was shot?



Let's review:



			
				DustyFoot said:
			
		

> From his letter it sounds like maybe they were shooting at his tires and ramming his car during the chase....*He would not have known what they were aiming at, and maybe felt like they were shooting to try to kill him.* And then he returned fire towards their car....
> 
> What to learn? Don't shoot at people who have guns unless you have a bulletproof windshield.



Now, what should the cops do until they get these windhields? Nothing?


----------



## MikeM (18 Jul 2006)

sirukin said:
			
		

> I think the point is that perhap the rules aught to be changed.
> I mean, two high profile incidents is a pretty good indication that perhaps fighting crime aught to be less dying and more fighting crime.
> I'm sorry if that is crude, but personally I like my cops alive and well thank you very much.
> 
> Okay, I'm not saying this guy is justified in anything. Can I make it any more clear?



Sirukin, STFU.

Officers go into harm's way on a frequent basis, you have no right to second guess their actions unless you have been there yourself and done that, what do you know about "fighting crime" and the procedures that go into chases?

Stop typing, step back, shake head.


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Jul 2006)

sirukin said:
			
		

> I really don't know, these events could have led anywhere.
> I would really just like to see that the rcmp has a more firmer grasp on these kinds of situations.



Now, just keep reading those two sentences until they make sense together. Then, short of a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach, describe a possible solution within the Charter that would have effectively dealt with both cases - without assuming prior knowledge of the suspect's intentions.


----------



## DustyFoot (18 Jul 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Let's review:
> 
> Now, what should the cops do until they get these windhields? Nothing?



Well he is free and on the loose right now. If they let him go he would still be free and on the loose, but they would be alive.

If we can't accept letting the guy go, then I think the tactics could be better at catching/killing him. The police do their job by exercising overwhelming force.....

If a guy has a gun (or might have a gun), either shoot and kill him, or point your gun at him.....If you chase/corner him, and shoot near him you are going to make him react in a certain way....Either shoot to kill, or don't shoot.

If someone has a gun and you threaten their life, what do you think is going to happen? Either don't threaten their life, or put them into a situation where they are unable to threaten your's.


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Jul 2006)

DustyFoot said:
			
		

> Well he is free and on the loose right now. If they let him go he would still be free and on the loose, but they would be alive.
> 
> If we can't accept letting the guy go, then I think the tactics could be better at catching/killing him. The police do their job by exercising overwhelming force.....
> 
> ...



Nice solution :



> If a guy has a gun (or might have a gun), either shoot and kill him





> Either shoot to kill, or don't shoot.




Gee, lets hope no-one ever complains about you to the police and just decides to toss in the remark "I think he's armed."  'Cause that might suck.

Well, back to work for me.


----------



## DustyFoot (18 Jul 2006)

Well just seems to me that shooting at someone who is armed, but not killing them is like cornering a racoon in your attic and poking it with a stick......

If you are going to corner a dangerous person/animal and put it in a situation where it feels its life is threatened you better be prepared to deal with the way dangerous people/animals react when they feel their life is threatened....


----------



## paracowboy (18 Jul 2006)

DustyFoot,
shut up. You are talking so much bullshit, I don't even know where to begin. Anyone with the slightest grasp of LEO tactics (And mine are very slight indeed) knows that you haven't made a lick of sense since you started babbling. And the fact that you would base any of your bizarre conjecture on a letter written by someone stupid enough to shoot at Police Officers, leads me to question your intellect further.


----------



## DustyFoot (18 Jul 2006)

Ah yes, personal attacks and insults. The sign of someone who knows what they're talking about.


----------



## WannaBeFlyer (18 Jul 2006)

> Ah yes, personal attacks and insults. The sign of someone who knows what they're talking about.


Oh this is going to be good....


----------



## paracowboy (18 Jul 2006)

DustyFoot,

I am not going to debate this with you. You have illustrated quite clearly that you have no clue as to what you are talking about, and therefore, *cannot* debate. I find your second-guessing our LEO insulting to them, and so, I say to you: Shut up. One more post from you in this thread will result in Administrative action.


----------



## armyvern (18 Jul 2006)

DustyFoot said:
			
		

> * The police do their job by exercising overwhelming force*.....
> 
> If a guy has a gun (or might have a gun), either shoot and kill him, or point your gun at him.....If you chase/corner him, and shoot near him you are going to make him react in a certain way....Either shoot to kill, or don't shoot.



WOW with the above. Are you a LEO? A soldier? I think not based on the highlited (my emphasis) point you make here.

Far from doing their jobs "exercising overwhelming force"

the aim is to use "the minimal amount of force necessary" in order for any injury to an arrestee etc to be considered "justifiable." 

Think whichever way you want, smoke whatever you wish, you can not justify this idiot's murder of 2 of Canada's finest because this waste of rations and O2 decided that he did not want to be arrested and was willing to lead them on a chase. 

Anybody can plan for any contingency...no body can plan for the actions of wilful idiots who deem themselves god and above the laws and morals of mainstream society.


----------



## NavComm (18 Jul 2006)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> WOW with the above. Are you a LEO? A soldier? I think not based on the highlited (my emphasis) point you make here.
> 
> Far from doing their jobs "exercising overwhelming force"
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## DustyFoot (18 Jul 2006)

Ok sorry I shouldn't have said it that way, thats not what I meant by "Overwhelming Force"......What I met by "Overwhelming Force" is that when you have 10 cops surrounding 1 suspect you shouldn't need to use any force. 

If you have 20 ERT guys with assault rifles pointed at one guy with a shotgun, you shouldn't need to fire any shots......

Thats what I meant by exercising overwhelming force......


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Jul 2006)

> If a guy has a gun (or might have a gun), either shoot and kill him, or point your gun at him.....If you chase/corner him, and shoot near him you are going to make him react in a certain way....Either shoot to kill, or don't shoot.



problem is dangerous criminals break the law yet RETARDED left wing (or is it right wing? whatever) bleeding heart people start crying over criminals who are shot.

ohh the police are too agressive, maybe they didn't have to shoot! 
Maybe they could have done something different!

Enter the taser. In an attempt to  save the lives of asshole criminals we start using tasers.  What do we get for thanks?  More lawsuits.  Ohh maybe we didn't have to use tasers!  Someone (out of thousands) died when you shot them with a taser, how horrible.

I think we should take those people and put THEM in a police uniform and send them into the shit. Let them with their infinate wisdom make the decision on whether to shoot or not.

I don't see what the problem is here?
I'm sure this guy had tons of reasons behind his actions. Don't all criminals?  Who cares?  Police tried to stop him. He didn't stop. Two cops whilist performing their duty were killed.  

His running away (and killing police) pretty much destroys anything I'd care about his story.



> If you have 20 ERT guys with assault rifles pointed at one guy with a shotgun, you shouldn't need to fire any shots......



Your assuming here my friend.  That one guy might be high on drugs and hes going to say you know what Im going to take down as many of them as I can. So while you try and use logic and surmise you shouldnt needs to fire any shots, he's just fired and killed 2 or 3 officers with families who were just doing their job. Now their kids get to grow up without a mom or dad JUST because someone did something they _shouldn't_ have done.

Assuming gets people killed.

It's just too easy to sit back on a couch or computer screen and talk about what was overwealming force and what wasn't. Put a uniform on, put yourself in that situation and then you will have the right to decide what force to use.


----------



## MPIKE (18 Jul 2006)

Header should now read "2 idiots  :blotto: respond to Mounties shot thread"... 

 I wondering if it's even worth giving these two a venue...  :threat: trolls

Dusty et al ...learn your arcs!!!

also fill in your profile which will probably save us the bandwidth.


----------



## DustyFoot (18 Jul 2006)

I don't see why looking for ways to prevent this kind of thing always ends up with someone accusing someone of justifying murder.

If you think it is inevitable and we should just let it happen then so be it. Some people like to try to make improvements and constantly better the system.....


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Jul 2006)

You have a point there I agree.  But thats not the responsibility of the police. Thats the court and justice system.  Or whoever else.

There was a reason but the fact remains he ran from the police which requires the police to stop him.  Whatever his reason, he was in the wrong when he decided to a) step on the gas  b) pick up a gun.


----------



## DustyFoot (18 Jul 2006)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Your assuming here my friend.  That one guy might be high on drugs and hes going to say you know what Im going to take down as many of them as I can. So while you try and use logic and surmise you shouldnt needs to fire any shots, he's just fired and killed 2 or 3 officers with families who were just doing their job. Now their kids get to grow up without a mom or dad JUST because someone did something they _shouldn't_ have done.
> 
> Assuming gets people killed.
> 
> It's just too easy to sit back on a couch or computer screen and talk about what was overwealming force and what wasn't. Put a uniform on, put yourself in that situation and then you will have the right to decide what force to use.



So you think that because people are unpredictable that means we should not try to come up with policies and procedures that will protect police officers lives?

You think that because the guy might be crazy or on drugs that means it doesn't matter if you go into a situation with 20 ERTs or with one person?


----------



## NavComm (18 Jul 2006)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> problem is dangerous criminals break the law yet RETARDED left wing (or is it right wing? whatever) bleeding heart people start crying over criminals who are shot.
> 
> ohh the police are too agressive, maybe they didn't have to shoot!
> Maybe they could have done something different!
> ...



I agree with Ghost. It seems to me lately that criminals go ahead vandalizing property, robbing innocent hard-working people and when they get injured by police who are trying to protect the law-abiding citizens, they cry blue bloody murder and try to sue the government on some trumped-up civil liberties bullshit.

Anyone stupid enough to engage the police in a gun battle and lucky enough to survive it after having killed an officer, deserves death IMHO. If this letter to the paper *is* from the escapee, then he must think we're all gullible enough to believe that he honestly thought he could just drive away after being told he was under arrest! That's just not believable.

Edited to add Ghost's quote


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Jul 2006)

> So you think that because people are unpredictable that means we should not try to come up with policies and procedures that will protect police officers lives?



Of course I do.



> You think that because the guy might be crazy or on drugs that means it doesn't matter if you go into a situation with 20 ERTs or with one person?



Huh?

Your suggesting that if 20 law enforcement officers circle one single suspect that they 





> shouldn't


 have to fire a shot.  I'm saying that attitude gets police officers killed.


----------



## MPIKE (18 Jul 2006)

Dusty,

where are you getting this 20 ERT crap and what is your background on tactics and deployment of LEOs??

Can you give us a run down on your expertise in this area? thinking from the get go that it is limited given your wordsmithing..... 

also i encourage you to maybe learn from posts of the pasts
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27740.0/all.html 

I said in that thread and I'll say it again....


> As already suggested refrain from uninformed opinions , get the facts from an Inquiry or from someone who was there and not the media's spin before putting your comments in print.


----------



## karl28 (18 Jul 2006)

*DustyFoot*  Also please remember that these RCMP officer where killed in the line of duty try and remember that when you posting please , and next do your self a favor man fill out your profile honestly and some people might take what you say more seriously  and remember this piece of advice " be ware the toes that you step on today because it might belong to the A@! you have to kiss tomorrow "


----------



## big bad john (18 Jul 2006)

DustyFoot; Please fill in your profile so all here can see where you are coming from.  If you have no military or police backround feel free to use the notes section.  Please think more before engaging brain on topics that you do not seem to have an operation grasp of.


----------



## paracowboy (18 Jul 2006)

All,

Dustyfoot will not be posting in this thread again. I told him some posts back not to. He chose to disobey Directing Staff. I don't care if he has 30 years experience in ERT/SWAT. If he posts again in this thread, I will bump his Administrative Actions up to the next level.


----------



## Andyd513 (18 Jul 2006)

The idea of saving police officers lives is a noble one however there hasn't been one logical idea presented in this thread as to how we could have saved these officers lives.

I don't think any one of us here is qualified to say what change in policy could have saved these officers lives as we have not seen the crime scene reports or exactly how the incident happened. I say let this idiot stab himself in the foot by sending letters that can only help detectives, let this dangerous crimincal be caught without any more police or civilian casualites and then allow the people's who's job it is to make the policy, procedure, and training of the RCMP figure out what went wrong (if anything did, as this outcome can happen even if everything is done right) and how they can save their brothers and sisters in the future.

Godspeed to the police finding this guy, and remember all of the issues such as "his state of mind" will come out during the trial. Thats what our justice system is for. Lets just hope for a quick and peaceful apprehension of the suspect.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (18 Jul 2006)

Posts: 28


     Re: Idiot who shot 2 Mounties writes to Edmonton Sun 
« Reply #4 on: Today at 12:08:49 » Quote  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is indeed a tragedy, but sometimes I wonder if the media is really telling the whole story.
"This is being sensationalized. This isn't news, this is entertainment. Fear-mongering.
I mean, everyone's initial reaction is "KILL THE *******" rather than "why did this guy do this?"
I'm of course assuming he's lucid and rational, which is a safe bet because most people are.

crap happens. What counts is what's done afterwards.
Now I'm done preaching, hopefully the guy turns himself in before some crazy vigilante decides he's going to play
hero and begin shooting anyone who resembles the guy.
Which judging by the level of aggression for someone noone here has met is quite high.
I've not met the guy, but I'd much rather have the whole story before I decide I'm going to pelt the guy with fruit at any possible court appearances.
heh 



This is the same stuff you hear all the time. Oh lets find out if he was happy or sad. How fricken hard is it for you to understand he shot at 2 cops which now died. Its that easy. Nothing else to say. The guy is a tool and should(if he has not already)put that rifle into his mouth and pull the trigger himself!!!


----------



## Infanteer (18 Jul 2006)

PIKER said:
			
		

> Header should now read "2 idiots  :blotto: respond to Mounties shot thread"...



Good point, done.  We don't want people thinking this is a valuable discussion on the topic....


----------



## paracowboy (18 Jul 2006)

I was just about to go through and purge the stupid stuff, but this works, too.


----------



## military granny (18 Jul 2006)

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2006/07/18/1691143.html

Idiot turns himself in

Part of the editorial in the Edmonton Sun today:

There is no single solution. But there is one thing that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government should seriously consider. In order to send the strongest possible message that Canada has absolutely no sympathy for those would defy the law to a degree that it ends up with a police or RCMP officer losing his or her life in the course of their daily duties, Canada should bring back the death penalty for cop killers. 
It's too glib to say that police officers know the risks associated with their jobs. The average Canadian has no idea what those risks really entail - we don't have to go to a stranger's home on a call wondering if they've got an unregistered, unlicensed gun inside that can cause havoc; we don't have to engage in high-speed chases while bullets fly; we don't have to go to work every day thinking it might be our last. 

Cops put their lives on the line for Canadians.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jul 2006)

sirukin said:
			
		

> I'm surprised that merely questioning anything would lead to such beratement.



Be suprised no more. Go join your buddy.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Jul 2006)

sirukin said:
			
		

> I'm surprised that merely questioning anything would lead to such beratement.



I'm surprised you haven't realized the importance of the principle of "timing".  Many here are or have close friends who are LEO's.  It is a community that shares duty on "the wall" with the military.  So spare us the drama if you get offended when people aren't eager to discuss your theory of how society is responsible for a cop killer pulling the trigger.


----------



## Scott (18 Jul 2006)

sirukin said:
			
		

> Well it's a good thing he's in custody.
> But why have I been placed on verbal warning?
> I'll read over the conduct guidelines, I haven't gone over them as of yet.
> However, I'd like to know why.



I thought one was supposed to read the Guidelines before posting here...

Get cracking.


----------



## Sub_Guy (18 Jul 2006)

He turned himself in, I am diappointed the K9 didn't get a good piece of his a**.


http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/07/18/rcmp-regina.html


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jul 2006)

sirukin said:
			
		

> Well it's a good thing he's in custody.
> But why have I been placed on verbal warning?
> I'll read over the conduct guidelines, I haven't gone over them as of yet.
> However, I'd like to know why.



Another reason for being where you are. You haven't read the guidelines, and you didn't read the message that came with your warning. The one that said you got it for trolling, contrary to the guidelines. 

And no sense debating it here. Your instructions for redresss are also there for the reading.

 More reading, less talking. More reading, less talking. More reading, less talking. More reading, less talking.


----------



## Franko (18 Jul 2006)

sirukin said:
			
		

> But why have I been placed on verbal warning?
> I'll read over the conduct guidelines, I haven't gone over them as of yet.
> However, I'd like to know why.



*READ THE GUIDELINES*

*You agreed* to them before entering the site.       :

Regards


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Jul 2006)

sirukin said:
			
		

> Well it's a good thing he's in custody.
> *But why have I been placed on verbal warning?*
> I'll read over the conduct guidelines, I haven't gone over them as of yet.
> However, I'd like to know why.



Where to begin?

Ah yes, at the beginning.

Let's review:



			
				sirukin said:
			
		

> This is indeed a tragedy, but sometimes I wonder if the media is really telling the whole story.
> This is being sensationalized. This isn't news, this is entertainment. Fear-mongering.
> I mean, everyone's initial reaction is "KILL THE *******" rather than "why did this guy do this?"
> I'm of course assuming he's lucid and rational, which is a safe bet because most people are.
> ...



Yes, lucid rational people often shoot at police officers and then run away.



			
				sirukin said:
			
		

> I'm not condoning this
> I'm simply saying the blame lays as much on the circumstances as on the criminal himself.



But, after all, maybe it's not really his fault.



			
				sirukin said:
			
		

> sorry, I was just thinking that perhaps that the rcmp should have learned something from the monroe incident in northern alberta.
> I really don't have all the facts. I drop my case. Let's find the guy and remove his testicles and skull frig his rotting corpse.



Perhaps there's a way to lay this at the feet of the RCMP, after all it's not their first time.



			
				sirukin said:
			
		

> I don't know.
> I certainly think that incidents like these are appearing in the news far more often than they should.
> perhaps the influx of new(er) rcmp members is giving the force a larger predominence to have a more gung-ho attitude than in last decade or so.



Maybe they just have too many young and dumb Mounties, they have been expanding the force, so that must be a logical conclusion, right?




			
				sirukin said:
			
		

> I think the point is that perhap the rules aught to be changed.
> I mean, two high profile incidents is a pretty good indication that perhaps fighting crime aught to be less dying and more fighting crime.
> I'm sorry if that is crude, but personally I like my cops alive and well thank you very much.
> 
> Okay, I'm not saying this guy is justified in anything. Can I make it any more clear?



Maybe with different rules, nor that I can provide any, this wouldn'tr have heppened. After all, I already said it might have be possible to blame the Mounties.



			
				sirukin said:
			
		

> I really don't know, these events could have led anywhere.
> I would really just like to see that the rcmp has a more firmer grasp on these kinds of situations.



Those cops just need to get a grip.




You did, however, get one thing right in this thread.



			
				sirukin said:
			
		

> fine.
> and I'm the troll.




Any other questions?


----------



## Trinity (19 Jul 2006)

Nice summary Michael..


----------



## Screw (19 Jul 2006)

DustyFoot said:
			
		

> I think it's pretty standard for cops to try to shoot out someone's tires during a chase. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with doing that. Just saying that when you shoot at someone who has a gun they are probably going to shoot back....



Easily available RCMP policy states that you will NOT shoot out the tires on a vehicle. If you are using your firearm you are "stopping the threat"- i.e. kicking in the guys life insurance. Alwyas shooting at the subject.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (19 Jul 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> You continue to make inferences without basis in fact.  That is called trolling.  Do you have anything substantial to add to this thread?



I'm just wondering what "kneel down and face the ditch" was supposed to add to the thread.

In any event, the underlying question was - could the guy's story have any veracity (ie did the RCMP start shooting unprovoked). On the face of it, we would all like to believe it is impossible.  I think it is possible but extremely unlikely, as in 99.99% unlikely. But so far we have one fellow in the thread "straying out of his line" and being told to shut up by a bunch of other fellows equally out of their lane.

Unless, of course, any of y'all were actually at the incident in question.

As for this:



> I mean, everyone's initial reaction is "KILL THE *******" rather than "why did this guy do this?"



FBIFM to argue with Michael O'Leary, but on the face of it, it's true. Unless "kneel down and face the ditch" isn't actually a call for a summary execution (which is about as moronic as anything else in this thread IMO).


----------



## BEN 621 (19 Jul 2006)

Sirukin & Dustyboots...

Unless you were there, you don't know what happened.
Do us all a favour and save your desire to be heard for the Globe & Mail's "Leave a comment" section. I'm sure they will appreciate your intellect and contributions.


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 Jul 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> FBIFM to argue with Michael O'Leary, but on the face of it, it's true. Unless "kneel down and face the ditch" isn't actually a call for a summary execution (which is about as moronic as anything else in this thread IMO).



So, you equate one off-hand comment (which I would doubt any rational person would take as an actual "call for summary execution") with sirukin's persistent attempt to say that perhaps the police officers and the RCMP were at fault for their own deaths?  Notably, no-one found the "kneel" comment offensive enough to challenge (even you), nor was it defended in such a randomly vague manner as sirukin's "theories."

Regardless, this thread has outlived its usefulness.


----------

