# Guns, Gangs and Toronto



## Jonny Boy (2 Dec 2005)

i was just listening to the news this morning on my way home from work and i heard about another gun related murder in Toronto. to tell you the truth i was not surprised at all. gun violence is at a record high in Toronto and by the looks of it it will only get worse. with this being Toronto's 74th murder so far this year it is the highest number since 1991.

i was just thinking that Toronto is becoming less and less safe each year. i have some idea's why , but the biggest one is that the police can't do anything to stop it. i was also wondering about the new Police chief. i don't think he is doing even close to as good as a job as Julian fantino had done. it is now rare to go a weekend with out hearing of some type of shooting or murder.

i don't know if others feel the same as i do but this has become a real big problem. there have been 2 gun related murders down the street from me since i got home in september.


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Dec 2005)

Gee, wasn't this stuff supposed to end when all us redneck hicks registered our coyote control systems?  I'm truly disillusioned, how could it fail?


----------



## kincanucks (2 Dec 2005)

Five billion dollars more and there will be no more problems with guns.


----------



## KevinB (2 Dec 2005)

Murders are murders -- I dont see how they are rleated to firearms, knives etc.


----------



## kincanucks (2 Dec 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Murders are murders -- I dont see how they are rleated to firearms, knives etc.



Ok?


----------



## kincanucks (2 Dec 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> I've got to say, I'm confused.



Sorry my feeble attempt at connecting the rash of gun related homicides in Toronto with the very expensive gun registry.


----------



## KevinB (2 Dec 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> I've got to say, I'm confused.



I think it was sarcasm.



 I take issue with a headline that states gun related homicides.   Guns are tools - inanimate objects -- Better put Gang driven Homicides - but heaven forbid the media protray a gang problem -- its gotta be a gun problem -- never make anyone responsible for their actions   :


----------



## kincanucks (2 Dec 2005)

I hear you.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Dec 2005)

Kev,
You are right, the problem is the gangs. However, the ability to have a firearm in these little pukes possesion means that they can pull the trigger and , just like a video game, something far away[ well far away for them] and impersonal falls to the ground.
The majority of these little shiit-rags don't have the parts to get close enough to anybody to do them harm one on one the olde fashioned way. You would laugh your asses of if you could see most of them go through A&D and, for the first time, they don't have other punks or a piece to make them feel like big men..... :crybaby:


----------



## Infanteer (2 Dec 2005)

Remember, the ability of these gang-members to aquire firearms has nothing to do with the legal status of them in Canada.  These are (for the most part, I am assuming) illegally-aquired and possessed.  Blaming the problems on guns in Canada is a red herring.  It's like getting upset with teenage drinking and driving and pointing the finger at the guy who has a beer after work....


----------



## The_Falcon (2 Dec 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I think it was sarcasm.
> 
> 
> 
> I take issue with a headline that states gun related homicides.   Guns are tools - inanimate objects -- Better put Gang driven Homicides - but heaven forbid the media protray a gang problem -- its gotta be a gun problem -- never make anyone responsible for their actions   :


The other reason why people are more concerned with an increase in the use of firearms vs say knives, is that firearms tend to injure innocent bystanders, as these dimwits aren't very good shots.   Like that young kid Shaquan, who CityTV likes to repeatedly show on the news.   Or like at Caribana with people shooting at a target in a large crowd.   Huge potential for collateral damage.   That is why there is a concern, because these pukes have no qualms about using firearms anytime/anywhere regardless of who gets hurt.   It is much harder to accidently stab a bystander 10 feet away from a quarrel.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Dec 2005)

Infanteer,
I agree with you on the legality issue, I don't blame honest gun owners whatsoever.......I just think that those who traffic in these deathbringers should be facing the same penalty the rapists/ murderers/meth/herion/crack dealers should face :soldier:


----------



## Infanteer (2 Dec 2005)

Yup - I think there was a bill that the Liberals were drawing up (I'm unsure if it passed or not in time) that would amend the Criminal Code to impose harsher penalties on those who used firearms (or stole them) in the commission of a crime.  The problem is, for all the "get tough" legislation the government imposes, the justice system doesn't seem to interested in using the hammer they are provided....


----------



## KevinB (2 Dec 2005)

The Conservative already added a firearm in commissioning of an offence.  It is never used.  The issue is not another law that won't be implemented - but implement laws that are on the books

Trafficing in unresgistered guns is for prison and no one ever gets it.


----------



## midgetcop (2 Dec 2005)

-Hutch- said:
			
		

> i was just listening to the news this morning on my way home from work and i heard about another gun related murder in Toronto. to tell you the truth i was not surprised at all. gun violence is at a record high in Toronto and by the looks of it it will only get worse. with this being Toronto's 74th murder so far this year it is the highest number since 1991.



I'll have to search for a link, but I'm pretty sure that Toronto doesn't land first in Canada for homicide per capita. 

Plus, I'm pretty sure it's the homicide BY FIREARM, and not necessary the general homicide rate that has increased in Toronto.


----------



## midgetcop (2 Dec 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> The Conservative already added a firearm in commissioning of an offence.   It is never used.   The issue is not another law that won't be implemented - but implement laws that are on the books



Also, to implement harsher sentences for gun-related crimes.


----------



## The_Falcon (2 Dec 2005)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> I'll have to search for a link, but I'm pretty sure that Toronto doesn't land first in Canada for homicide per capita.
> 
> Plus, I'm pretty sure it's the homicide BY FIREARM, and not necessary the general homicide rate that has increased in Toronto.



Your right in saying that, Toronto doesn't land at the top of the list of homicides per capita, however Toronto does have the highest (if not the highest) number of murders committed each year in this country.   Personally I think comparing a Place like Sudbury to Toronto on the basis of per capita murder is like comparing apples and oranges. Additionally the numbers for homicide by firearms, and *homicide* are up this year in Toronto.   My criminology prof likes to tell us for the last 10 odd years Toronto only has had a high between 65-68 murders a year (some years less than 50 or 60). Seeing as how we are at 74 this year with just under a month left, I can safely presume the murder rate is up this year.


----------



## Jonny Boy (2 Dec 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> You could kill someone with a spoon if you wanted. I'm willing to bet cars kill more people each year then guns, but do you see the gov't trying to ban cars?



yes you could kill someone with a spoon but i don't think that happens to often. also most of the people that are killed by cars are not targets. drivers do not drive off the road hitting all kinds of people when aiming for one, thats what happens with guns and Innocent bystanders getting shot.

pistols are bought for one purpose on the streets. although people claim they are for protection, you would not need firearm protection if people did not shoot each other.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Dec 2005)

-Hutch- said:
			
		

> yes you could kill someone with a spoon but i don't think that happens to often. also most of the people that are killed by cars are not targets. drivers do not drive off the road hitting all kinds of people when aiming for one, thats what happens with guns and Innocent bystanders getting shot.



Maybe not an intentional target, but a person hit by a drunk driver and killed is an unintentional act due to criminal misuse of an object (in this case a car).  The fact that a gun was used in an assault/murder is irrelevent to the fact that somebody decided to go out and kill another person.


----------



## KevinB (2 Dec 2005)

-Hutch- said:
			
		

> yes you could kill someone with a spoon but i don't think that happens to often. also most of the people that are killed by cars are not targets. drivers do not drive off the road hitting all kinds of people when aiming for one, thats what happens with guns and Innocent bystanders getting shot.
> 
> pistols are bought for one purpose on the streets. although people claim they are for protection, you would not need firearm protection if people did not shoot each other.




Well tell you what -- until criminals disarm  : -- I will keep my guns... 

 Your putting up terrible argument, in blaming a tool - guns are neither good or bad it is the weilder - we need to make people understand the value of human life, and also reinforce that peopel are responsible for their actions.

My personal guns have killed less people than Teddy Kennedy's car...


----------



## the 48th regulator (2 Dec 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> Thats why I avoid going to many parts of Toronto unless I'm armed.
> 
> Since I own no firearms at all, I don't go to Toronto.



Maybe I should introduce you to some of our pipers, they would be glad to guide you along and not get hurt in our fair city.....







dileas

tess


----------



## paracowboy (4 Dec 2005)

-Hutch- said:
			
		

> yes you could kill someone with a spoon but i don't think that happens to often. also most of the people that are killed by cars are not targets. drivers do not drive off the road hitting all kinds of people when aiming for one, thats what happens with guns and Innocent bystanders getting shot.
> 
> pistols are bought for one purpose on the streets. although people claim they are for protection, you would not need firearm protection if people did not shoot each other.


you want to put an end to innocents being caught in cross-fires? Teach everyone to shoot straight.


----------



## KevinB (4 Dec 2005)

:

I fail to see what a pic of some gang clown with illegal weapons has got to do with this other than prove you cant fix society...


----------



## Jonny Boy (4 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Maybe not an intentional target, but a person hit by a drunk driver and killed is an unintentional act due to criminal misuse of an object (in this case a car).   The fact that a gun was used in an assault/murder is irrelevent to the fact that somebody decided to go out and kill another person.



i agree about drunk drivers, but not all people that are killed by cars are killed by drunk drivers. 



			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

> I just don't like Toronto period. I'm a Sens fan you see.   ;D



you poor thing. just Wait until the playoffs.




			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> you want to put an end to innocents being caught in cross-fires? Teach everyone to shoot straight.



that is just like the Ontario liberals idea of stopping the spreading of aids by supplying crack kits to crack addicks


----------



## paracowboy (4 Dec 2005)

-Hutch- said:
			
		

> that is just like the Ontario liberals idea of stopping the spreading of aids by supplying crack kits to crack addicks


"addicts". And, no, it is nothing like that. You were lamenting the victims of poor marksmanship. Improve everyone's marksmanship, and your issue disappears.

If your issue is with private ownership of firearms, you need to seriously remove your head from your arse. More guns in the hands of skilled, law-abiding users inevitably results in lower crime rates. Smart criminals move, stupid ones die.


----------



## GO!!! (5 Dec 2005)

> that is just like the Ontario liberals idea of stopping the spreading of aids by supplying crack kits to crack addicks



I don't think I've ever heard of anyone getting HIV/AIDS from smoking crack, but in the T dot, I guess anything is possible.  

Also, I find it surprising that racial profiling has not become a more widely used method of law enforcement, especially in Toronto, where the "elephant in the living room" seems to be that the vast majority of the shooters and their vicitms are young, urban, black males. 

A Toronto city councillor suggested empowering the Police to randomly search anyone in the affected neighborhoods who matched this description, as a method of stopping the carnage by getting the guns off the street - he was ignored - why?


----------



## KevinB (5 Dec 2005)

What Elephant...


----------



## COBRA-6 (5 Dec 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Also, I find it surprising that racial profiling has not become a more widely used method of law enforcement, especially in Toronto, where the "elephant in the living room" seems to be that the vast majority of the shooters and their vicitms are young, urban, black males.
> 
> A Toronto city councillor suggested empowering the Police to randomly search anyone in the affected neighborhoods who matched this description, as a method of stopping the carnage by getting the guns off the street - he was ignored - why?



Cause the lefties scream racism every time the issue of profiling comes up, whether it makes sense or not. I love when people get upset at the idea of airport security scrutinizing certain groups, like they should make no distinction between middle eastern males and scandanavian grandmothers...   :


----------



## midgetcop (5 Dec 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Also, I find it surprising that racial profiling has not become a more widely used method of law enforcement, especially in Toronto, where the "elephant in the living room" seems to be that the vast majority of the shooters and their vicitms are young, urban, black males.



It *is* used....but of course the public relations machine would never admit it. 

*Should* it be used? Absolutely. It would be foolish to ignore the trends (not just young, black males, but neighbourhoods too). 

The innocent people getting pulled over/questioned by the police have to realize that it's not the cops they should get angry with - they can thank local gang activity for that.


----------



## Jonny Boy (5 Dec 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> "addicts". And, no, it is nothing like that. You were lamenting the victims of poor marksmanship. Improve everyone's marksmanship, and your issue disappears.
> 
> If your issue is with private ownership of firearms, you need to seriously remove your head from your arse. More guns in the hands of skilled, law-abiding users inevitably results in lower crime rates. Smart criminals move, stupid ones die.



so your saying if we let everyone have a gun and teach them to shoot properly than gun related murders will decrease?



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> I don't think I've ever heard of anyone getting HIV/AIDS from smoking crack, but in the T dot, I guess anything is possible.
> 
> Also, I find it surprising that racial profiling has not become a more widely used method of law enforcement, especially in Toronto,



ya forget the HIV/AIDS thing. the liberal ggovernmentis supplying crack kits to try and reduse the amount of people using crack. 

if you even suggest that bring in racial profiling, you are labled a racists and put all over the news. people have tried it, and it does not work.


----------



## KevinB (5 Dec 2005)

-Hutch- said:
			
		

> so your saying if we let everyone have a gun and teach them to shoot properly than gun related murders will decrease?



Yeah its a small arms related MAD concept...   ;D

Seriously criminals will have access to weapons regardless -- they are criminals...   Lawfully Armed civilians are a huge deterent.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Dec 2005)

Much as I do not like firearms, Kev is bang on here........cowards pick on the weak and not knowing would sink lots back under their rocks.....


----------



## KevinB (5 Dec 2005)

for example -- my parents have two Labs (a 5 year old male and a 2 year old female)

 The male grew up around an old cockerspaniel male who was quite frankly an unpleasnt dog -- so he (the lab) is not always a nice dog to other dogs.  He tends to try to intimidate other dogs with his size (he is pretty big and fit for a Lab as he does about 20km a day in walks - plus his own fooling around) -- However if another dog calls his attitude he tends to run away.

 Same issue with schoolyard bullies - and street thugs.


----------



## Slim (5 Dec 2005)

Canada, in that regard, needs a serious overhaul.

I love how criminals have more rights in this country to protect themselves than the rest of us do.


----------



## Jonny Boy (5 Dec 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Canada, in that regard, needs a serious overhaul.
> 
> I love how criminals have more rights in this country to protect themselves than the rest of us do.



welcome to canada


----------



## zipperhead_cop (8 Dec 2005)

I think alot of you are missing the point.  The problem in TO is not a gun control issue.  As long as criminals exist, guns will be their tools.  The issue is the fact that for the last fifteen years, the people of Toronto have been screaming "racism" whenever a cop rolled onto the block.  It got to the point where two gangs could be fighting, and when the POPO showed up, they would turn on them.  This led to the FIDO call---Fuck It Drive On.  If coppers would pull up on a call involving obviously gang related parties ie) from their gang banger uniforms, then they would roll on and say "f_ck it".  Because, if they stopped and tried to help, the gangs would drop their differences and turn on the Police.  The "Leaders" of the Black community (can you say Dudley Laws) have worked dilligently for ten to fifteen years to create a political jug f_ck that ties the hands of the Police and makes an environment of permissiveness for the gang memebers.  If that community fought for that long to keep Police out of their affairs, then when their own community starts shooting itself up, then fuck them.  They reap the rewards that they worked for for so long.  Boo Friggin Hoo.  Eventually  they will run out of motivated individuals (criminals have a terribly short attention span) and things will die down.  What matters is will the Toronto Police have the political backing to do the job that the City needs?


----------



## Old Ranger (8 Dec 2005)

"Cut the head off the Snake"  who said that ???


----------



## FastEddy (8 Dec 2005)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I think alot of you are missing the point.   The problem in TO is not a gun control issue.   As long as criminals exist, guns will be their tools.   The issue is the fact that for the last fifteen years, the people of Toronto have been screaming "racism" whenever a cop rolled onto the block.   It got to the point where two gangs could be fighting, and when the POPO showed up, they would turn on them.   This led to the FIDO call---frig It Drive On.   If coppers would pull up on a call involving obviously gang related parties ie) from their gang banger uniforms, then they would roll on and say "f_ck it".   Because, if they stopped and tried to help, the gangs would drop their differences and turn on the Police.   The "Leaders" of the Black community (can you say Dudley Laws) have worked dilligently for ten to fifteen years to create a political jug f_ck that ties the hands of the Police and makes an environment of permissiveness for the gang memebers.   If that community fought for that long to keep Police out of their affairs, then when their own community starts shooting itself up, then frig them.   They reap the rewards that they worked for for so long.   Boo Friggin Hoo.   Eventually   they will run out of motivated individuals (criminals have a terribly short attention span) and things will die down.   What matters is will the Toronto Police have the political backing to do the job that the City needs?




Excellent obsevation reminds me of a incident, while investigating a Armed 7/11 Robbery committed by two Black youths. On questioning one of the Suspects Parents at their Residence, the Suspects mother protested quite  loudly and vehemently  "Why are you dumb ?ss Cops always picking on us poor black folks".  After leaving, a plain clothes team staked out the residence. Latter that night, the Suspect was apprehended whilst leaving his parents residence. He and the other Suspect were arrested ,charged and found guilty. I guess what we did could be considered Racial Profiling.

So tell me, where should we have looked, the City's Mayors white up-scaled neighborhood. In answer to your question, no we will never get the political backing, not as long as its tied to VOTES.


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Dec 2005)

The cops are screwed no matter what they do.  They can't touch anybody but straight white males without being declared homophobes racists and sexist.  When that one kid was shot and killed at the funeral of his friend (who had also been shot and killed), everyone was saying that police should have BEEN there to protect them, but they weren't because they were black.  That is a ludacris statement as we all can imagine if the cops had been there, they would have been saying that they were being picked on and being discriminated against cause they are black.  Either way the cops are screwed.  People need to come down of their high horses and realize there is a big problem in the Black community in certain parts of T.O. and labelling people as racists or bigots when they are pointing out the obvious does nothing to help the situation.  Whether or not people like the idea profiling works.


----------



## Slim (8 Dec 2005)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I think alot of you are missing the point.   The problem in TO is not a gun control issue.   As long as criminals exist, guns will be their tools.   The issue is the fact that for the last fifteen years, the people of Toronto have been screaming "racism" whenever a cop rolled onto the block.   It got to the point where two gangs could be fighting, and when the POPO showed up, they would turn on them.   This led to the FIDO call---frig It Drive On.   If coppers would pull up on a call involving obviously gang related parties ie) from their gang banger uniforms, then they would roll on and say "f_ck it".   Because, if they stopped and tried to help, the gangs would drop their differences and turn on the Police.   The "Leaders" of the Black community (can you say Dudley Laws) have worked dilligently for ten to fifteen years to create a political jug f_ck that ties the hands of the Police and makes an environment of permissiveness for the gang memebers.   If that community fought for that long to keep Police out of their affairs, then when their own community starts shooting itself up, then frig them.   They reap the rewards that they worked for for so long.   Boo Friggin Hoo.   Eventually   they will run out of motivated individuals (criminals have a terribly short attention span) and things will die down.   What matters is will the Toronto Police have the political backing to do the job that the City needs?



Bud

I don't know who you are but you're bang on!


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Dec 2005)

It is unfortunate that the concept of "profiling" has become synonymous with "racism".  If you see a scrote of any colour at 3am in a residential area with all black clothes and a backpack and gloves on in the summer time, do you care if he is white, asian or black?  He is a B&E boy and you deal with him.  If someone goes out of their way to appear to be someone who is breaking the law ie) gangbang clothes, motorcycle helmet with "f_ck the Police", 50 Cent kevlare fashion vest etc, then they may just get the attention they were hoping for.  If I went out with a pointy white sheet on my head with eye holes and a long white robe, when someone teed off on me for being a Klansman it would be pretty thin to try to say that "I just like the way the cotton feels against my skin".  And if you see a Dodge Shadow or older Caravan it gets jumped, no matter who is driving it.
Does anyone remember the skin heads?  I dealt with a few, with nazi insignia and all, who protested to the end that they were not racist but just liked to dress like that.  Oddly, when they got their heads kicked in by a black or Philipino group, I was never to anxious to take their report.
The Mossad have unappologetically used profiling successfully for years.  It doesnt matter what gets you on to your target, it's how you deal with them afterwards that will dictate how you are judged.


----------



## midgetcop (12 Dec 2005)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> It is unfortunate that the concept of "profiling" has become synonymous with "racism".  If you see a scrote of any colour at 3am in a residential area with all black clothes and a backpack and gloves on in the summer time, do you care if he is white, asian or black?  He is a B&E boy and you deal with him.  If someone goes out of their way to appear to be someone who is breaking the law ie) gangbang clothes, motorcycle helmet with "f_ck the Police", 50 Cent kevlare fashion vest etc, then they may just get the attention they were hoping for.  If I went out with a pointy white sheet on my head with eye holes and a long white robe, when someone teed off on me for being a Klansman it would be pretty thin to try to say that "I just like the way the cotton feels against my skin".  And if you see a Dodge Shadow or older Caravan it gets jumped, no matter who is driving it.
> Does anyone remember the skin heads?  I dealt with a few, with nazi insignia and all, who protested to the end that they were not racist but just liked to dress like that.  Oddly, when they got their heads kicked in by a black or Philipino group, I was never to anxious to take their report.
> The Mossad have unappologetically used profiling successfully for years.  It doesnt matter what gets you on to your target, it's how you deal with them afterwards that will dictate how you are judged.



Our security company does a lot of work in and around the Toronto Housing projects, where about 95% of the tenants are black. And you *bet*, the second that an arrest has to be made they cry "racism!", and when it starts to get physical they cry "brutality!". 

I might have felt differently 5 years ago, but being involved with law enforcement and seeing the realities up close and personal in Toronto, I can't help but support racial profiling. Not only racial, but "geographic" profiling. Police officers need to use their skills, experience, and gut instincts in order to do their jobs. But if they're afraid to pull over or make an arrest on a black male because they'll up the stats, then they're putting their community in more danger. Policing shouldn't be political, nor should it concern itself with being politcally correct. 

Honestly, IMO skin colour does not determine squat about what kind of person you are. BUT, I think that culture, affiliations, geography, and social class will determine how likely it is that one will end up on the wrong side of the law. And unfortunately in Toronto right now, those people happen to be disproportionately black at the moment.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (12 Dec 2005)

I think any group that enjoys special status because of any identifiable feature will ultimately end up with people who take advantage of it.  Down here, the vast majority of problems are with straight up white trash, who cry "disadvantage" and "product of CAS".  If it gets them milage in court or anywhere, they will use it.  It is human nature to seize advantage.  What we let them get away with is up to us.  I have worked tirelessly to promote the cause of the disadvantaged Scottish man, who has suffered under the yolk of British oppression for hundreds of years.  Unless you are a Scot, you cant know the hatred and suffering my people and I have sufferred for years.  And no amount of British/Irish/Welsh guilt will sooth the chain scars on my wrists from what those limeys did to my family 400 years ago.  Now don't get on me when I celebrate my heritage, down a bottle of single malt and go on a window smashing, head butting rampage.  Be sensitive to my peoples needs.


----------



## GO!!! (12 Dec 2005)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I have worked tirelessly to promote the cause of the disadvantaged Scottish man, who has suffered under the yolk of British oppression for hundreds of years.   Unless you are a Scot, you cant know the hatred and suffering my people and I have sufferred for years.   And no amount of British/Irish/Welsh guilt will sooth the chain scars on my wrists from what those limeys did to my family 400 years ago.   Now don't get on me when I celebrate my heritage, down a bottle of single malt and go on a window smashing, head butting rampage.   Be sensitive to my peoples needs.



Amen, and anyone who disagrees with anything you do or think is instantly a hood wearin' cross burnin' racist, who can be safely pigeonholed and ignored.

I think all we Scots should demand massive compensation from the British Government, as we are "10th Generation Scottish Genocide Survivors"

We can build "Scotocaust" memorials all over the world (even in countries that had nothing to do with it) and drill guilt into the rest of the world for decades to come.....

And don't you dare laugh - Scotocaust denier!


----------



## TCBF (12 Dec 2005)

" BUT, I think that culture, affiliations, geography, and social class will determine how likely it is that one will end up on the wrong side of the law."

- Correct.

All people are equal, BUT, all cultures are NOT.

Tom


----------



## George Wallace (12 Dec 2005)

Sounding rather 1984ish there Tom.   ;D


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Dec 2005)

Not to pee on the campfire (much), but Scots, Welsh, and Irish are ALL British, just not English.  You lot should be able to get over a little thing like being conquered.     :warstory:


----------



## big bad john (12 Dec 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Not to pee on the campfire (much), but Scots, Welsh, and Irish are ALL British, just not English.   You lot should be able to get over a little thing like being conquered.        :warstory:



"Great Britain is a country ruled over by the Welsh.
Fought for by the Scots and the Irish, for the benefit the English."
David Lloyd George


----------



## GO!!! (13 Dec 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Not to pee on the campfire (much), but Scots, Welsh, and Irish are ALL British, just not English.   You lot should be able to get over a little thing like being conquered.        :warstory:



Quite.

Perhaps you limeys should remember that you would be speaking German right now if all the Scots had'nt abandoned the rainy isles, moved to North America, multiplied and come back and saved you from enslavement and domination - twice.

And lets not forget their subsequent kicking you out of the US, and your present colonial status to that country. 

I'd say we're over that - Frech colonial subject as the limey Queen's representative anyone?


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Dec 2005)

true, they did breed like roaches, didn't they?


----------



## GO!!! (13 Dec 2005)

Due to a prepondrance of heterosexuals, a problem not encountered in England.     ^-^  Then or now.....


----------



## TCBF (13 Dec 2005)

"true, they did breed like roaches, didn't they?"

-Well, Du-uh!, Yeah! Once they found a place where they could finally get their TEETH fixed!

 ;D

Tom


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Dec 2005)

England gave them 500 of repression, they gave the world golf, haggis and bagpipes.... I'd say we're even


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Dec 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Due to a prepondrance of heterosexuals, a problem not encountered in England.   ^-^  Then or now.....



Pretty manly talk for a nation of skirt wearing sheep shaggers


----------



## Glorified Ape (13 Dec 2005)

-Hutch- said:
			
		

> you poor thing. just Wait until the playoffs.



Indeed. 



			
				-Hutch- said:
			
		

> that is just like the Ontario liberals idea of stopping the spreading of aids by supplying crack kits to crack addicks



I believe that was heroin, as crack is smoked, not injected, and thus not an avenue of HIV transmission.



			
				Piper said:
			
		

> Thats why I avoid going to many parts of Toronto unless I'm armed.
> 
> Since I own no firearms at all, I don't go to Toronto.



I lived 22 years in Toronto, visit there frequently, and have never even seen a gun on anyone, short of the police. I've spent my share of time in the seedier parts of the city and have only been in two violent altercations, both of which took place in a relatively affluent area.  I have no idea where this image of "Toronto the Dangerous" comes from.


----------



## scm77 (13 Dec 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I believe that was heroin, as crack is smoked, not injected, and thus not an avenue of HIV transmission.


It's crack kit's too.


> Crack users commonly experience abrasions and cuts on their lips. Crack pipes are frequently shared, which exposes crack users to potentially infectious blood. While smoking drugs such as crack cocaine is generally thought to be a lower-risk practice than injection drug use, studies have shown that crack smokers are at high risk of HIV and Hepatitis C infection. In order to respond effectively and comprehensively to the HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C epidemics in Canada, drug policies need to incorporate harm reduction approaches such as safe crack-smoking kits.



http://www.cdnaids.ca/web/pressreleases.nsf/pages/cas-news-0144


----------



## GO!!! (13 Dec 2005)

Kilts are worn only by those so "scottishly" endowed that pants (or knickers as you say) would be unduly restrictive.

Need we discuss the antics of a certain nations' national army? I'll give you a hint - they are predisposed to poor dental care and hygiene, binge drinking, dressing up like women, and a revolting game known as "$hit tag". I'll let you connect the dots..... :-*


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Dec 2005)

That nations army is full of Scots also, who play the same games.  They also watch Braveheart 4 nights a week, hoping for a different ending.  It must be very disheartening to know that such a worthless people managed keep your lot down for the best part of a thousand years.


----------



## TCBF (13 Dec 2005)

Though one has to admit, fashioning one's musical instruments from the hollowed out thigh-bones of one's enemies does have a certain cachet to it.

 ;D

Tom


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Dec 2005)

... as does blowing into a sheeps pissbag....


----------



## Old Ranger (13 Dec 2005)

I Love Hijacks!!


----------



## Jonny Boy (13 Dec 2005)

scm77 said:
			
		

> It's crack kit's too.
> http://www.cdnaids.ca/web/pressreleases.nsf/pages/cas-news-0144



yay i knew i was right.


----------



## Jonny Boy (13 Dec 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I lived 22 years in Toronto, visit there frequently, and have never even seen a gun on anyone, short of the police. I've spent my share of time in the seedier parts of the city and have only been in two violent altercations, both of which took place in a relatively affluent area.   I have no idea where this image of "Toronto the Dangerous" comes from.



so you don't think it is pretty bad when you need police to guard a funeral becausei fear of another murder taking place.


----------



## Glorified Ape (13 Dec 2005)

scm77 said:
			
		

> It's crack kit's too.
> http://www.cdnaids.ca/web/pressreleases.nsf/pages/cas-news-0144



I stand corrected, thank you. 



			
				-Hutch- said:
			
		

> so you don't think it is pretty bad when you need police to guard a funeral becausei fear of another murder taking place.



Sure it's bad, but it's no basis on which to judge the safety or character of an entire city - especially one the size of Toronto.


----------



## Old Ranger (13 Dec 2005)

-Hutch- said:
			
		

> so you don't think it is pretty bad when you need police to guard a funeral becausei fear of another murder taking place.



Would this be stepping into Racial and localized geografical profiling?

"Welcome to the Jungle"  opps, there was a memo years back not to refer to that song.


----------



## GO!!! (13 Dec 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> .....such a worthless people.....



Now now, don't get all down in that toothless mouth just yet, since the limeys are fortunate enough to live on the southern tip of Scotland, (commonly referred to as 'england') there is hope that with enough intermarriage and procreation, the Scottish side will assimilate the English, creating a new breed, still inferior to the Scots, but head and shoulders above what nested there before.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (16 Dec 2005)

I grew up in Toronto and am proud to have called it home.  I used to hang out downtown, play at the arcades on Yonge St, ride the moving sidewalk at Spadina Station for hours because we were bored.  There are crap areas where ever you go.  I imagine that you being you, walking down any street would be safe.  Dont act like a victim, dont be a victim.  If you happen to be wearing a big downfilled parka with a bandana on and a Chicago Bulls hat on sideways, with one pant leg pulled up and you have x-amount of bling jewelry on with gang symbols for pendants, maybe a shot could get lobbed your way.  A uniform is a uniform, on the street or on the battlefield.  When they trot these dead dinks out on TV and show their grad photo or some other lame crap, they are talking to the family.  When you hear crap like "he was trying to break up the fight" or "he was never in trouble" your bullshit-o-meter should peak out in the red.  How many times do you have to go to a dance hall for some reggee dance or clogging competition that gets shot up or someone gets stabbed to come up with the idea "Gee, I don't want to get shot or stabbed.  I'm not going".  But if you are a gang banger who is all worried about his "street cred" and has to let people know "this is how I roll" then you have to show.  
We never really heard the real story down here about why Fantino left.  Did he suck, or did he get ridden out by the socialist political nightmare that is Toronto city counsel?


----------



## The_Falcon (16 Dec 2005)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> We never really heard the real story down here about why Fantino left.   Did he suck, or did he get ridden out by the socialist political nightmare that is Toronto city counsel?


  Depends on who you ask, but the general consensus among people who lean to the right and followed the story is that Miller turfed him.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (16 Dec 2005)

I guess that is a good example of "no good deed goes unpunished".  And he was turning out to be such a smash hit with the gay community.  Poor Chief.


----------



## The_Falcon (16 Dec 2005)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I guess that is a good example of "no good deed goes unpunished".   And he was turning out to be such a smash hit with the gay community.   Poor Chief.



Who knows maybe someone can convince him to run for Mayor one day.


----------



## Slim (17 Dec 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Who knows maybe someone can convince him to run for Mayor one day.



Jesus...the left leaning feel goods would blow a gasket if he got elected for mayor of T.O.

Personally I'd love it! I bet he'd get right to work on the gang problem and back the police up for a change, probably toss the protestor-oriented police services board we have running the cop shop here in TO as well! I bet he'd also scare up a helicpter for the TPS in short order. Its almost a crime that they don't have one now!

Wouldn't be a bad thing at all! All the City Council, Mayor we have now and the P.S.B. read NOW magazine too much anyway.


----------



## The_Falcon (17 Dec 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Jesus...the left leaning feel goods would blow a gasket if he got elected for mayor of T.O.
> 
> Personally I'd love it! I bet he'd get right to work on the gang problem and back the police up for a change, probably toss the protestor-oriented police services board we have running the cop shop here in TO as well! I bet he'd also scare up a helicpter for the TPS in short order. Its almost a crime that they don't have one now!
> 
> Wouldn't be a bad thing at all! All the City Council, Mayor we have now and the P.S.B. read NOW magazine too much anyway.



HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!  I am just a little worried this city will be plunged into chaos once this new city of Toronto Act goes forward, and the Mayor and Council are given additional taxing powers, at same time moving towards a strong mayor system.  Maybe we can start petioning Fantino to run for this coming election,  Three more years of Miller and his socialist comrades  *shudder*, I mean they are actually proposing safe injection sites for the Moss Park area as well as provide to substances to shoot up with (they already provide safe crack kits) all paid for by tax payers.  And when the gun violence in the area increases due to more drug trafficking ,  they are going to sit there and offer more group hugs, basketball courts, and take away guns from law abiding citizens.


----------



## 48Highlander (17 Dec 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!  I am just a little worried this city will be plunged into chaos once this new city of Toronto Act goes forward, and the Mayor and Council are given additional taxing powers, at same time moving towards a strong mayor system.



Yeah I can see it now;  everyone's taxes go up to 70% so we can pay to "help the homeless".  Pretty soon 70% of the city is homeless, and you're waiting in line for 5 hours to buy bread 



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Maybe we can start petioning Fantino to run for this coming election,  Three more years of Miller and his socialist comrades  *shudder*, I mean they are actually proposing safe injection sites for the Moss Park area as well as provide to substances to shoot up with (they already provide safe crack kits) all paid for by tax payers.



That should be great.  You weren't there for the last domestic-response exercise so you probably didn't hear about this, but some crackhead tried robbing one of our boys at knife-point right on the corner by moss-park.  I can't prove the guy was high on crack, but when you pull a 2 inch knife on someone wearing combats, a flack-jacket, and TV with a bayonette on his chest, chances are you've been doing SOME kind of drugs.  Now they want to give us a safe-injection site in the same area so we'll be surrounded by even more idiots like that.  I'm thinking that, in the future, I'll travel with my K-bar more easily accessible.


----------



## TCBF (17 Dec 2005)

"surrounded by even more idiots like that.  I'm thinking that, in the future, I'll travel with my K-bar more easily accessible."

- And some Commie lawyer will paint you as a right wing racist thug.  Carry something more innocuous and every-day like that a normal human being out shopping or going back to return merchandise may have on them at any time of the day.

Make the bastids work for your conviction, don't just hand it to them on a silver platter.

Tom


----------



## GO!!! (18 Dec 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - And some Commie lawyer will paint you as a right wing racist thug.   Carry something more innocuous and every-day like that a normal human being out shopping or going back to return merchandise may have on them at any time of the day.



Like a 6 foot length of chain or a nice paperweight - shaped like this...http://www.selfdefenseproducts.com/misc.htm


----------



## The_Falcon (18 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> That should be great.   You weren't there for the last domestic-response exercise so you probably didn't hear about this, but some crackhead tried robbing one of our boys at knife-point right on the corner by moss-park.   I can't prove the guy was high on crack, but when you pull a 2 inch knife on someone wearing combats, a flack-jacket, and TV with a bayonette on his chest, chances are you've been doing SOME kind of drugs.   Now they want to give us a safe-injection site in the same area so we'll be surrounded by even more idiots like that.   I'm thinking that, in the future, I'll travel with my K-bar more easily accessible.


Actually I was there that weekend, the DCO thought it was me for some reason that had got jacked.  They are going to start having to have us at the armoury 24/7 to make sure the arsenal doesn't get ripped off, particulary if that safe injection site goes through.  But they are really starting to get brazen, trying to rob UNIFORMED members of the army.


----------



## TCBF (18 Dec 2005)

http://www.selfdefenseproducts.com/misc.htm

GO! , you aren't helping me here....  ;D

But, ref your link (above), the wind-proof zippos look like a good deal.

Safe injection site?  Are you guys in T.O. as nutz as Vancouver?

Tom


----------



## 48Highlander (18 Dec 2005)

WE aren't, but our politicians seem to be.  They've been debating safe-injection sites for years now and as far as I can figure, most of the population is still against the idea, however they seem to be ready to go ahead with it anyway.  Right now, according to a recent newspaper article, the only thing holding them back is the "lack of a suitable location".  I'm sure Moss Park will seem like a suitable location to them.  Hell, set it up right on the parade square, and have the medics passing out needles.  We can turn the gun-park into a homeless shelter while we're at it, and they'll have the arsenal close at hand to help with their "shopping" after they've shot-up their drug of choice.

GO!, I love the paperweights   But this is still my favourite self-defence product.  Now if I can just think of a good reason to be carrying a bedside table around with me....


----------



## Slim (18 Dec 2005)

I'm glad I *NO LONGER * call Toronto home.

Safe injection sites! Even the people that run the missions are speaking out against it!

I don't want to live in a country that panders to people who have that sort of self-control issues. How the heck are we as a nation supposed to move forward with that type of thinking? I sometimes really wonder what the Liberals are thinking (if anything at all!?)


----------



## zipperhead_cop (18 Dec 2005)

Im pretty sure that anyone with a decent job and half a brain moved out of TO for the surrounding areas a while ago.  If the yuppie idiots want to implode the city, so be it.  
What would happen if someone helpful was working at the safe injection site, and was helpfully giving out needles that helpfully had something like, oh say, botulism.  A terrible tradgedy to be sure, but the grounds around the armoury might look a little nicer.
Too harsh?


----------



## TCBF (18 Dec 2005)

"Too harsh?"

- Ya think?  Yeah, for this website, I would say so. We (the royal we?) might be hard on the convicted and the perps-in-progress, but extending the Moss Park Armoury 'lebensraum' through fatal chemical injection is a tad extreme at this point.

Tom


----------



## zipperhead_cop (19 Dec 2005)

Got it.  If they did a back ground check first....?


----------



## TCBF (19 Dec 2005)

Hey, we just need this injection thing to be administered as part of the Firearms Act.  After all, needles are dangerous, and should be registered.  All needles are made to inject, and every illegal needle started out as a legal one...

 ;D

So, only registered needles are given to licensed junkies.

Tom


----------



## Slim (19 Dec 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> So, only registered needles are given to licensed junkies.
> 
> Tom



Does no one realize that this is going to send petty crime (and perhaps not so petty crime) through the roof in those neighbourhoods as junkies try to finaince their next score?!

Glad I no longer live there.

Slim


----------



## The_Falcon (19 Dec 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Does no one realize that this is going to send petty crime (and perhaps not so petty crime) through the roof in those neighbourhoods as junkies try to finaince their next score?!
> 
> Glad I no longer live there.
> 
> Slim


  Either they have their heads buried in the sand (possible with some members of council), or much more likely they just plain don't care cause where ever this thing ends up, it won't be in their ward so it won't be their problem.  And when crime goes through the roof in the area, will they blame themselves for the mess they foisted upon the said community?  HxELL NO!  They will blame it on poor relationships with the police, racial profiling, the lack of basketball courts and group hugs, and for good measure Mike Harris and Ernie Eves.  Maybe the higher ups will allow a few of us Infantry types who work out of Moss Park to hone our marksmenship skills from the roof of MPA (with surpressed weapons of course ).


----------



## Slim (19 Dec 2005)

Liberals = A$$hats without a clue!


----------



## 48Highlander (19 Dec 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Maybe the higher ups will allow a few of us Infantry types who work out of Moss Park to hone our marksmenship skills from the roof of MPA (with surpressed weapons of course ).



$5 if you can hit the syringe!


Hell I've been arguing for OBUA livefire practice in the jane/finch and regent park areas for years now.  This city needs to learn to utilize it's resources  ;D


----------



## aluc (19 Dec 2005)

Having the pleasure of working at a provincial courthouse in Toronto  has afforded me the opportunity to see who's committing the crimes out there. (like I didn't know before , this just confirms it though) I get the chance to speak with a lot of court officers also, and the majority of them just keep telling me the same things. 

I hear cries of racism almost everyday...and in most cases the accused is obviously guilty....anyone remember last week's mugging and assult of an 83 year old woman in the West end....three 15 year old boys.....none of them even showed any remorse... and they robbed her for the minuscule amount of $13.

I witness cases like this on a regular bases. Blaming the government and society is not the answer. It all comes down to common values  that we all share in order to make our society thrive, and it appears this has been lost on the younger generation. 

I honestly think pop culture has a lot to do with  helping to facilitate a generation of kids that don't hold any of the values of those that came before them. Now you will have those people out these who will tell you that people were saying the same thing about rock music in the 60's and so on...but you cannot compare today's "music" with anything that came before it. And simply saying that it is the choice of the child or parent to monitor what is being listened to is bullsh*t.  If the "music" these kids are listening to does not have an effect on them, why do they all dress in the same thugged out fashion? Why have they forgone learning proper english for "gansta"? Why are they all so selfish, prone to violence? etc....They are all spitting images of their hero's they see on TV, or listen to on the radio. 

Having a choice is a good thing if you can differentiate between fantasy and reality. However, children who are raised on this nonsense become predisposed to its message and values. I honestly believe we have to get rid of  this crap, it's rotting their brains, and unlike rock music that came before it, there is no good message in here....it is purely destructive. And if you think the kids still aren't influenced by it...then what do you think  they watch and listen to all day long while their parents are both working all day and there's no one to monitor them.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (19 Dec 2005)

I would agree with most of that, except boil the blame down to where it belongs.  It is not so much blaming society and the Govt (although if the Liberals are any sort of example, we would all be wearing suits and jacking people for huge cash to give to our Franco friends).  Ask "why" did it end up that way.  It is a combination of fringe groups pushing for more advantage in socitety, and the people allowing it.  
When did telling someone "no" become so distasteful?  If you stop someone from doing anything ie) lobbing spit balls, robbing crippled elders, and they complain, it is how you react to the complaint that set the tone.  I regularly get the race card thrown at me, and I throw it right back.  It is the last chance cry of a weak and insecure individual.  If someone says they are going to lodge a complaint, I write down the phone number and my badge for them and encourage them to call.  I have even given out the number for the Black Coalition branch number for people using that particular card.  (No one else seems to have a ____ Coalition yet).  I know my stats will show I deal with far more white trash than anything.  In the GTA, if you are white you are the minority.  A clever individual should be able to work that into some sort of come back.  
But whose fault is it?  If you shrink and back down when anyone starts squaking about you holding them accountable, then it is, in part, your fault.  You let it happen.  If you know you have colour of right, then dont back down.  It's the same for school teachers.  They put up with so much crap from the parents, and why?  Tell the parents to pound sand up their a$$ or put their brat in a private school.
We have to stand up and take our values back ourselves.


----------



## TCBF (19 Dec 2005)

"We have to stand up and take our values back ourselves."

- I'd vote for you.

Tom


----------



## zipperhead_cop (19 Dec 2005)

Ha! Thanks, Tom.  I imagine if I was ever in the public eye it wouldnt take too long for the liberal media to paint me as some sort of new age facist psycho monster.  And lets face it, with a few variations, this website is alot of preaching to the converted.  I'm happy taking care of my family, and my city for now.  Maybe a retirement job in a few years...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Dec 2005)

I see an apparent drive-by in TO today........


----------



## zipperhead_cop (27 Dec 2005)

Stand by for posted "grad phot" and "was known to the Police"


----------



## GO!!! (27 Dec 2005)

It appears that Toronto's plague of wannabe thugs are at it again....

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/12/27/toronto-shooting-051227.html



> As many as 15 young people were involved in a wild shooting spree that killed a teenage girl and injured six others in a packed downtown Toronto area on the busiest shopping day of the year, police said Tuesday.
> 
> Det. Sgt. Savas Kyriacou told a news conference that an intense police investigation is underway following the Boxing Day shooting.
> 
> ...




Methinks that when these idiots are caught, they will be portrayed as misguided youth, failed by our social and school systems, and really not responsible for their actions. They (and their lawyers) will place the responsibility for their actions at societies' feet.

The death penalty is too good for these ones....


----------



## 48Highlander (27 Dec 2005)

Notice the total absence of surprise by the law-enforcement community?

The "day when Toronto has finally lost its innocence"?  The only ones surprised by this are the goddamn politicians, and I'm sure they're thrilled to have yet another chance to play at partisan politics.  Personaly I've been expecting something like this for years, and any cop or gaurd who's worked in that area will tell you the same.



> "What's happening here is that you have perpetrators taking control of city streets," Delores Lawrence, an anti-gun violence advocate, told CBC News on Tuesday.
> 
> *"They are lawless, fearless and they don't care,"* she said.



It seems that even "ant-gun violence" advocates understand the problem.  These individuals have no respect for the law, they "don't care".  Yet what's their proposed solution?  Make yet another law.  Take away the guns of law-abiding citizens.

Really makes one proud to be a Canadian doesn't it?


----------



## m410 (27 Dec 2005)

Try replacing putting the word "gangs" where it belongs in the article.  Funny it was never mentioned.


Police added that *gangs *could have been involved and there could be more arrests.

10-15 people may have been involved

Police said they believe the gunfire broke out between two *gangs*, with 10 to 15 people in their late teens to early 20s involved in an exchange of gunfire on busy Yonge Street.

News of the shooting shocked the city, which has been reeling from a mounting toll of *gang *violence this past year.

There has already been a record number of *gang*-related deaths this year in Toronto – 52 – reported by Dec. 26, out of 78 slayings in total.

Mayor David Miller said in a statement he was "saddened and angered that such a brazen act of senseless violence would be perpetrated on Toronto's main street on Boxing Day."

*Gang* violence in Toronto has become an issue in the federal election campaign.

Political issue

In early December, Prime Minister Paul Martin chose Toronto to announce plans to introduce a law that would virtually ban *gang membership* across Canada, and double minimum prison sentences for some offences.

...

Anti-violence advocates have also expressed their dismay and anger over the shooting.

"What's happening here is that you have perpetrators taking control of city streets," Delores Lawrence, an anti-*gang* violence advocate, told CBC News on Tuesday.

"They are lawless, fearless and they don't care," she said.


----------



## Thompson_JM (27 Dec 2005)

Probabbly... Pity a 19 year old woman had to get shot and killed just cause she wanted some boxing day bargans....

I swear.... Id love to get the charter of rights revoked for just 3 days...... on those same three days call in Aide to Civil Power and moblize reserve units accross canada....  Lets kick down some doors and see what we can find? 

a little too drastic and a bit too facist? yeah i know... but i bet it would probabbly take a few weapons off the street and shut down a couple gangs for a little while....


realistically though? maybe the Govt and Courts should be makeing and enforcing stiffer penalties for violent crimes and weapon offences instead of focusing on Gay Marriage and Swinger Parties..... Sheesh... real great sense of priorities...  :


----------



## Infanteer (27 Dec 2005)

Brillant juxtaposition.


----------



## Guest (27 Dec 2005)

This is going to sound racist.. hell maybe it IS racist..

Toronto will never solve it's gang problem untill it, and certain communities.. own up and face some hard, uncomfortable truths.

What truths? Well. Well over 90% of "street gangs" are "non-white" That statement makes people uncomfortable.. but it is true.

There are no "White Malvern Boys".. or White "Bloods" or "Crips" Ask anyone in Regent park, Jane/Finch areas. 

There are"White Gangs" Bikers.. Italian and Russian Mafia ect. but they don't deal drugs on the corner.. they don't do drive by crowd shootings ect.. they do it.. a different way, a quiet way.. out of the public eye.

The police know exactly WHO the Thugz are.. who has the drugs.. the guns.. but they can't do anything about it.. like stop a car.. do a random id check ect. 'cause that would "upset the community" (Damm racist police)

Look back at ANY of the public shootings.. now show me how many were done by people of "other than white" origin.

Did a gang of Irish guys shoot that bus up?

Was it a crowd of Italians who shot up boxing day?

Did a Polish guy shoot up that funeral???

Everyone knows who does this stuff.. no one has any balls to spit it out.

Call me a racist..but you can't say I'm lying.


----------



## geo (27 Dec 2005)

Take the gang members, from all gangs and ship em up to the great white north. drop em off at some old mine or logging site and tell em that they must depend on each other to survive the full term of their sentences... and visit the site once every 12 months...


----------



## 48Highlander (27 Dec 2005)

Guest said:
			
		

> This is going to sound racist.. hell maybe it IS racist..
> 
> Toronto will never solve it's gang problem untill it, and certain communities.. own up and face some hard, uncomfortable truths.
> 
> What truths? Well. Well over 90% of "street gangs" are "non-white" That statement makes people uncomfortable.. but it is true.



And....?

How will "owning up" and facing "some hard, uncomfortable truths" help?  What's your solution?  Deporting all blacks?  Or maybe we can just give police the power to randomly stop and search anyone guilty of being black?

I'm not disputing your basic assertion - you're absolutely right that most of these shootings involve blacks both as shooters and targets.  Ironicly enough, just 5 minutes walk down the street from where this incident occured there's a bar which is often frequented by members of russian, chinese, and italian gangs; however, they've never been a problem.  But how exactly will acknowledging the race of the criminals help?


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Dec 2005)

I always thought Toronto lost its innocence the day Harold Ballard bought the Leafs....


----------



## Griswald DME (27 Dec 2005)

I am too brain dead at the moment from writing my first draft on a major paper (worth 40% of my final mark) to consider if the comments are racist or not.  But to add a different slant, if you are saying new immigrants (I'm not slagging you, just saying if you are) then possibly Canada needs to consider if we welcome people into the country, we need to offer additional supports for these families.  Why are "their" kids in particular getting into more trouble than others?  I think this has to be dealt with in a non judgemental, non racist way, while at the same time taking into account cultural differences.  I would imagine if I was a young kid moving to a country where things were quite different, I'd not only be as scared as hell I'd be trying to fit in as well.  Comments?

DME


----------



## Infanteer (27 Dec 2005)

Guest said:
			
		

> Toronto will never solve it's gang problem untill it, and certain communities.. own up and face some hard, uncomfortable truths.
> 
> What truths? Well. Well over 90% of "street gangs" are "non-white" That statement makes people uncomfortable.. but it is true.



Aren't ethnic gangs in many cases the street-level workers for the larger criminal organizations.  Sure, you typical organized crime ring (bikers, etc, etc) may do big deals off the street; but all that crack, weed and guns goes somewhere.

Be careful not to form an inaccurate picture by focusing soley on one part of a whole equation.


----------



## nULL (27 Dec 2005)

http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?id=1141

...sounds like a pretty good plan of attack to me, election rhetoric or not. As well, the gay marriage issue is dead - I believe our vaunted Conservative leader is the only one who wishes to see the issue resurrected.


----------



## Roy Harding (27 Dec 2005)

nULL said:
			
		

> http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?id=1141
> 
> ...sounds like a pretty good plan of attack to me, election rhetoric or not. As well, the gay marriage issue is dead - I believe our vaunted Conservative leader is the only one who wishes to see the issue resurrected.



You quote the Liberal Party of Canada website to support the Liberal Party of Canada's platform??

What's gay marriage got to do with "gun-related homicide at a record high in T.O."??


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Dec 2005)

I don't see why their colour makes any difference. Who cares of their black kids working for white bosses or Chinese immigrants working for the Russians?

Their guilty, track em down and put them away. If they committed murder, well put them away for 99 years or put them to sleep.



Guest, what do you mean the cops don't want to upset the community? You mean the gang community or the blue and white collar types who would be inconvinced by roadside checks and what not.


----------



## nULL (27 Dec 2005)

Piper's last post agreed with that of another who complained that the former issue was taking up court space. 



> You quote the Liberal Party of Canada website to support the Liberal Party of Canada's platform??



Who _else_ would I quote to do such a thing? 



> Your kidding....right?



I'm wearing my serious face. You, Piper, said that "the best the gov't will do about the gang problem in Toronto is to 'ban those evil handguns'." Step up big guy; what do you think the answer is? I'm at least happy to see that the issue is being acknowledged seriously and that a new approach is being offered. As to its feasability, I'm not sure - ask a cop if they would feel their job protecting the public would be easier were there a lack of deadly, easily concealed and readily available weapons amid the civlian populace? Personally, I'd feel better knowing that if someone wants to kill me, they're going to have to use a shovel. 

The media is reporting that the Yonge street shooters were using handguns - not UZI's. But....both are EQUALLY available to gang banging street shits, right?  :


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (27 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Aren't ethnic gangs in many cases the street-level workers for the larger criminal organizations.  Sure, you typical organized crime ring (bikers, etc, etc) may do big deals off the street; but all that crack, weed and guns goes somewhere.
> 
> Be careful not to form an inaccurate picture by focusing soley on one part of a whole equation.



I guess it would depend on which gangs we're talking about. 

Theres a lot of "gangs" downtown that like to "bust slugs" and talk the talk, who turn out to be simple low level thugs. Whether this is the case for Jane & Finch type incidents, or a deeper routed issue is yet to be seen.


----------



## NavComm (27 Dec 2005)

nULL said:
			
		

> http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?id=1141
> 
> ...sounds like a pretty good plan of attack to me, election rhetoric or not. As well, the gay marriage issue is dead - I believe our vaunted Conservative leader is the only one who wishes to see the issue resurrected.



 :brickwall:

From the link nULL provided:



> This plan would include federal legislation that would enable provinces and territories to legally prohibit handguns within their borders. It would toughen penalties for gun crimes, help eliminate the supply of illegal handguns, and increase protection for communities across the country.



How do you think this would help eliminate the supply of illegal handguns? If the authorities haven't found all these illegal handguns by now, how will enacting more laws help with that?

IMO this entire plan is just another pile of BS like the gun registry. I personally don't own a gun, but the people I know that do are law abiding citizens, they aren't out shooting holiday bargain hunters on boxing day with registered weapons.

Why punish legitimate gun collectors and people who shoot for a hobby? Why not just start enforcing the laws we already have? Why not start supporting the police - the men and women who spend time taking these thugs off the street - by actually sentencing the criminals to the maximum sentence for the crime (as opposed to the minimum, then releasing them after serving 2/3 of their sentence).

The courts need to start upholding the laws we already have, adding more laws that aren't adhered to, doesn't make much sense IMO.

Maybe next time I'm in the downtown eastside of Vancouver, I'll ask a few criminal types if they think the 'new ban on handguns' will have any negative impact on their ability to obtain, use and keep handguns.  :rofl:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Dec 2005)

nULL said:
			
		

> As well, the gay marriage issue is dead - I believe our vaunted Conservative leader is the only one who wishes to see the issue resurrected.



Him and about 85% of the Canadians that make up the silent majority. Only a Communist would agree with the way it was crammed down our throats with a whipped vote.


----------



## nULL (27 Dec 2005)

Is it the same "silent majority" that wanted Canada to go to Iraq? The fact is, a democratically elected, legitimate government made a *decision*, which is what we put them into power to do....and that should be the end of it. 

Pertaining to the proposed gun law, I don't see the harm in taking a new approach. 

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/FirearmsMisuse.html

"The Metropolitan Toronto Police Service’s report on gun related crime found that in 1997, of the 2304 firearms seized by police, rifles and shotguns figured prominently at 41.7% while 52.8% were handguns, 1% machine guns, 0.5% machine pistols and 3.9% were unknown"

"Many of the firearms recovered in crime in Canada were at one time legally owned. Legally owned firearms, for example, figure prominently in domestic violence, suicide and impulsive acts."

(I'm aware of the bias of the source, but I think we can both agree to the importance of an organization such as this to err on the side of accuracy in reporting statistics.)

The last time I was discussing this issue with people in my mess, I kept being told how "easy" it was to aquire a handgun. However, upon further questioning, it became apparent that none of them had connections with international smugglers; their plan was hitched on either stealing or buying a weapon from someone who had one - presumably legally.

This isn't a quick fix, it's an investment. Will it prevent crime, certainly not - will it at the very least make it more difficult, inconvenient, and risky for criminals to use/possess handguns? Certainly - and that's worth a shot.


----------



## GO!!! (27 Dec 2005)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> I don't see why their colour makes any difference. Who cares of their black kids working for white bosses or Chinese immigrants working for the Russians?
> 
> Their guilty, track em down and put them away. If they committed murder, well put them away for 99 years or put them to sleep.
> 
> Guest, what do you mean the cops don't want to upset the community? You mean the gang community or the blue and white collar types who would be inconvinced by roadside checks and what not.



It matters what color they are because racial profiling works. Here in Edmonton, where blacks are relatively rare, Asian gangs have filled the niche, shooting, stabbing and running each other over on a regular (though not as often as TO) basis.

There is a paralell thread on the merits of capital punishment and life improsonment, leave it there.

Check stops for blue and white collar people of any other color are useless. Nearly every one of these crimes has been perpetrated by a young black man, living in one of a handful of neighborhoods. Cops slowing traffic in Rosedale or Yorkville will solve nothing.

I would advocate checkstops for anyone wearing a backwards hat, Lugs, Do - Rags, FUBU, Sean John or XXXXXXXXXXXL Nike Basketball jersies first. This would find the guns, and their bearers, and get both into a cell with Bruce, where they belong.


----------



## 48Highlander (27 Dec 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I would advocate checkstops for anyone wearing a backwards hat, Lugs, Do - Rags, FUBU, Sean John or XXXXXXXXXXXL Nike Basketball jersies first. This would find the guns, and their bearers, and get both into a cell with Bruce, where they belong.




I guess you haven't been to Toronto for a while....this plan would include about half of the current population.


----------



## Guest (27 Dec 2005)

The Majority of the VERY public shootings in Toronto have been drug/gang related. The MAJORITY of these incidents involved persons who would be considered "non-white" in appearence.


BTW.. an increasing number of these shootings, invloved persons who were "just pissed off at somebody" IE: The TTC Bus shooting.

Again, they we'rnt Kids from Woodbridge either.

As far as thier "communities" are concerned.. cops are the enemy.. we are racists.. we UNFAIRLY target their youth.

We KNOW who the ""bad guys" are.. we can't touch them, thanks to lawyers.

All the cops on this board know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

We can't even pull over the Navigator SUV with 6"persons of interest" (Owning a $50,000 vehicle in an Ontario Housing apt building should be reason enough for concern)

If we did.. we'd be sued for harrasment.. demoted ect..

Don't think we don't know who the street criminals are.. we just can't do a thing about it.. untill it's too late. 

BTW, if It's 6 white kids in Etobicoke.. we can stop em anytime we want.. nobody will cry "racism"

These are real world facts of life.

What do you think would happen if crime/race stats were made public???


----------



## TCBF (27 Dec 2005)

It sounds to me as if you guys are more worried about your pensions than you are about doing your jobs.

Look what Chief Herman did in Thunder Bay - his Dept Int guys made the connection between bad drivers, car thieves, and bad guys in general (white or native) and they got in their back pockets.  Figure out where the crime nodes are, and be there when the predictables screw up.  You trying to tell me these apes don't do running stops at stop signs or have their seatbelts undone?  That they don't jaywalk?

Get on them, and get a Police Association with some balls to stand up for you while you are at it, instead of pro Gun Registry toadies who wouldn't say sh_t if their mouths were full of it.

Get the Association to collect crime stats and announce them.

If you guys have the nuts to protest on your day off while carrying sidearms - a violation of the police act, then you should have what it takes to tell the truth about who really is doing all the crime.

Tom


----------



## TCBF (27 Dec 2005)

No it is not worth a shot. You would limit the rights of millions of people to defend themselves with handguns just so a criminal will find it slightly more difficult to acquire one?   Ridiculous.

Oh, and by the way, suicide is means independant.

So, how about registering criminals instead of guns?

And how about reading the various gun control threads on this site to learn a bit about the issue?

Tom


----------



## nULL (27 Dec 2005)

I have read many of the threads, I'm simply adding my thoughts pertaining to the latest incident of gun violence in our largest city. 



> You would limit the rights of millions of people to defend themselves with handguns just so a criminal will find it slightly more difficult to acquire one?



At the off chance that instead lives are saved by said parties finding it *difficult* to aquire handguns - yes;  I will lose no sleep over the inability of millions to enjoy their favourite hobby.


----------



## 48Highlander (27 Dec 2005)

nULL said:
			
		

> This isn't a quick fix, it's an investment. Will it prevent crime, certainly not - will it at the very least make it more difficult, inconvenient, and risky for criminals to use/possess handguns? Certainly - and that's worth a shot.



Eh?  Can you please explain how exactly this will make it "more difficult, inconvinient, and risky" for criminals to have guns?

You're suggesting that someone who has no problem with blasting away on a crowded street is going to be intimidated or inconvinienced by.....what exactly?  The Liberals saying that guns are illegal?   :clown:

"Give me all your money!"

"Hey, didn't you hear?  Paul Martin says your handgun is illegal!"

"Oh, shit!  Man, I don't wanna go to jail!  Please, don't tell the Liberals about this!"


----------



## GO!!! (27 Dec 2005)

quote author=nULL link=topic=37051/post-313983#msg313983 date=1135738093]
At the off chance that instead lives are saved by said parties finding it *difficult* to aquire handguns - yes;  I will lose no sleep over the inability of millions to enjoy their favourite hobby.  
[/quote]

With the exception of the most recent incident in TO, most gun violence seems restricted to the criminal underclass, both perpetrators and their victims. 

I suppose you also support a society that bans other potentially dangerous hobbies, powerful automobiles, model rocketry, martial arts etc. Perhaps the government should shield us from all possible sources of harm, so that only those who have no regard for the law can pracitce those activities that violate it.

The POS who are shooting people are already aware that murder is illegal, concealed weapons are illegal, that using a gun in the commission of an offence is illegal, etc. Why legislate against the law abiding citizen when the law breaking one already operates with impunity?


----------



## Infanteer (27 Dec 2005)

nULL said:
			
		

> At the off chance that instead lives are saved by said parties finding it *difficult* to aquire handguns - yes;  I will lose no sleep over the inability of millions to enjoy their favourite hobby.



_Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Benjamin Franklin_


----------



## nULL (27 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Eh?  Can you please explain how exactly this will make it "more difficult, inconvinient, and risky" for criminals to have guns?
> 
> You're suggesting that someone who has no problem with blasting away on a crowded street is going to be intimidated or inconvinienced by.....what exactly?  The Liberals saying that guns are illegal?   :clown:
> 
> ...




Well, if handguns are hard to GET, then, following that same line of thinking, they are hard to USE - illegally. 

http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?id=1141

Of note:

"Toughening penalties by re-introducing legislation to crack down on violent crimes and gang violence, by doubling the mandatory minimum sentences for key gun crimes."




> I suppose you also support a society that bans other potentially dangerous hobbies, powerful automobiles, model rocketry, martial arts etc. Perhaps the government should shield us from all possible sources of harm, so that only those who have no regard for the law can pracitce those activities that violate it.




Not at all - but the day an innocent pedestrian is hit and killed by gangs engaged in model rocketry warfare, we'll open a new thread. 
Your last sentence will make an interesting thesis for next semester though - I like it!



> The POS who are shooting people are already aware that murder is illegal, concealed weapons are illegal, that using a gun in the commission of an offence is illegal, etc. Why legislate against the law abiding citizen when the law breaking one already operates with impunity?



To make it difficult for them to turn legally purchased weapons into illegal tools of death and mayhem. Can't abuse it if you can't use it right? 

As to Infanteer's comment, well - security should be left to those that practise it as a profession; all I expect from my neighbours are that they keep it quiet after 2:00am.


----------



## 48Highlander (28 Dec 2005)

nULL said:
			
		

> Well, if handguns are hard to GET, then, following that same line of thinking, they are hard to USE - illegally.
> ....
> To make it difficult for them to turn legally purchased weapons into illegal tools of death and mayhem. Can't abuse it if you can't use it right?





You mean the way the prohibition stopped alcohol consumption?

Or the way the war on drugs stopped drug use?

Or maybe the way anti-piracy laws have stopped people from copying music and movies?

Or the way our anti-prostitution laws have stopped prostitution?

Do you get the point yet, or should I keep going?

The only thing that criminalizing a substance, object, or act does is to increase street value and involve the criminal element.  That's it.  Anyone who has any interest in it can buy a gun, smoke some crack, and pay for a blowjob.

So imagine for a second that guns become "illegal".  What's going to happen?  All the criminals will pack up and close shop?  Or do you suppose it's more likely they'll simply increase their efforts to smuggle in weapons from elsewhere?  It's a simple matter of supply and demand.  As long as there's a demand, the market will find a way to supply it.  Even when enforcement efforts ARE succesfull in decreasing the supply and increasing the risk to criminals, the result has traditionaly been MORE violence rather than less.  Any time you skew the market so that demand vastly exceeds supply, you create a much greater margin of profit.  And the greater the margin of profit, the more people there are willing to commit murder in order to capitalize on it.  Think about it, if a baggy of crack goes for $10, who's going to kill someone over it?  On the other hand, when the price shoots up to $10,000 because the supply has shrunk, it suddenly becomes a lot more lucrative to kill your dealer instead of paying him.  Same principle goes for any black-market items, including guns.



			
				nULL said:
			
		

> Of note:
> 
> "Toughening penalties by re-introducing legislation to crack down on violent crimes and gang violence, by doubling the mandatory minimum sentences for key gun crimes."



That's the only part that makes sense.


----------



## NavComm (28 Dec 2005)

> Not at all - but the day an innocent pedestrian is hit and killed by gangs engaged in model rocketry warfare, we'll open a new thread.
> Your last sentence will make an interesting thesis for next semester though - I like it!



Innocent pedestrians have been killed in BC by out of control crack heads in stolen vehicles. Should we ban vehicles because criminals steal them and sometimes use them as deadly weapons?


----------



## TCBF (28 Dec 2005)

"At the off chance that instead lives are saved by said parties finding it difficult to aquire handguns - yes;  I will lose no sleep over the inability of millions to enjoy their favourite hobby."

- I did NOT say hobby, I said:

 'No it is not worth a shot. You would limit the rights of millions of people to defend themselves with handguns just so a criminal will find it slightly more difficult to acquire one?   Ridiculous.'

The operative word is DEFEND. You are willing to sacrifice the lives innocent homeowners to save the life of one home invader? Is this some sort of wealth re-distribution plan for the disadvantaged and oppressed inner city gangstaz?  Kindly get your brain housing unit into the sunlight.

Tom


----------



## zipperhead_cop (28 Dec 2005)

There are plenty of laws that make handguns unlawful without the proper documentation and permits.  There are plenty of harsh penalties for possession, use, pointing.  What is lacking is the sentencing from the judges.  
Any of you who are legit handgun owners known how much aggravation it is to maintain.  The expense, training, club involvement etc all takes cash.  If you have that kind of cash and motivation, chances are you are educated with a job, which is not the general criminal profile.  
If we want to throw cash at this, then beef up the borders and stop the illegal guns from the source.


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Dec 2005)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> We never really heard the real story down here about why Fantino left.  Did he suck, or did he get ridden out by the socialist political nightmare that is Toronto city counsel?



Well: he certainly sucked in here London and now his little CYA micro-managing protege is in charge here. He had his inspectors in YRP  threaten his own men with lawsuits to protect his rep, but that's a story I'll save for a get together crushing cans.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Dec 2005)

The problem being mentioned isn't that the "gangs" are made up of blacks or other ethnic minorities, but that their home communities are not actively assisting the police in driving them out. In many instances, I have seen news reports where there was a shooting at an "after hours" club full of people, yet not one witness would step forward to assist the police. The so called community leaders are not any better, actively opposing policing of their neighbourhoods and making accusations against the police. 

TCBF is simply stating a truth which the New York Police Department used to break the crime wave in the 1980s and 90s; get all available officers onto the street (away from the desk and out of the cars), flood troubled neighbourhoods and crack down on any and all crime. Often the jay walker or tresspasser also had a firearm or drugs, which led to information about other criminal activity (simply putting together a picture of who was doing what and establishing connections worked wonders). We do similar things on deployments, only the gangs are working for warlords and crime bosses in Bosnia or Afghanistan, so the principles are similar (even if the end results are different).


----------



## winchable (28 Dec 2005)

I could totally get away with it.


----------



## TCBF (28 Dec 2005)

Che old man, did you post on the wrong thread?

Tom


----------



## 48Highlander (28 Dec 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Well: he certainly sucked in here London and now his little CYA micro-managing protege is in charge here. He had his inspectors in YRP  threaten his own men with lawsuits to protect his rep, but that's a story I'll save for a get together crushing cans.



You serious?  We were actually pretty happy with him in Toronto.  There was a pretty big fuss when he was "retired"; the general consensus seemes to be that it was entirely due to politics.


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> You serious?  We were actually pretty happy with him in Toronto.  There was a pretty big fuss when he was "retired"; the general consensus seemes to be that it was entirely due to politics.



Thats because Metro was the only place he ever wanted to be Chief. London was not his first choice, and I do believe the man went back to Toronto at every and any opportunity that presented itself and most defintiely kept himself in the political-social loop there.  

LOL- IIRC he (or one of his minions) once had a small scale investigtion conducted to try and determine who threw a Timmie's cup into his underground parking space at 601 D.   

We found him to be all style and no substance, and for taxpayers he was an expensive man to have around- and perhaps that is his lasting legacy for the LPS at every city council budget meeting since he left. He "modernized" the LPS by trying to model it on Metro- a model that does not quite fit the city. 

Anyway, water under the bridge, he's long gone. I will say one thing for him - the man went from auxilary to Chief of the largest city police force in Canada, and he did so with bare knuckles and a penchant for never forgetting who his enemies (and friends) were.   He certainly never put up with shit from the police associations when they were clearly in the wrong, and the associations clearly [and thankfully] were not succesful in attempting to intimidate him. He could always put himself in the position of the average constable on any issue before him- perhaps thats why so many were happy with him. 

Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Dec 2005)

nULL, have you ever purchased a firearm, let alone a handgun?  Do you know what the existing storage and transport laws are?

If you have and you do, you wouldn't be running at the mouth about how easy it is to get a handgun.

Sure, someone can get a heater on the street, but that is already banned, isn't it?


----------



## redleafjumper (28 Dec 2005)

Banning legally owned firearms is a sure way to increase the crime rate, especially property crimes but also crimes against people.  There are numerous references available as to the increase in crime in the UK, Australia, and other jurisdictions where such nonsense has been foisted on those who obey the law.  What the hoplophobes never seem to "get" is the simple fact that those who want firearms for nefarious purposes can always get them.  Firearms are not complex technology and neither is the ammunition to make them work - it's simple, you need a projectile, a propellant, some form of initiator (primer), a tube and a receiver to hold the tube and voila, you have a firearm.  

What happened to that young girl in Toronto was despicable.  But there is no way that banning any firearm or its use would have prevented that death, or would prevent the next such act.  Funny thing is that at nearly the same time a cabby was stabbed to death with a knife, and while there are calls for more knife control in some circles (and yes, there is knife control in Canada by order in council) no one really takes them as seriously in this country as they are taken in the UK.  Others have made reference to the resounding failure of bans generally so there is no need to take much more time on that issue.  Suffice it to say that banning something often has the reverse of the desired effect, that is that the item becomes more attractive as a status symbol.  It certainly happened with prohibition of alcohol and it has certainly happened with handgun restrictions.

Perhaps if there were more, not fewer, shooting clubs where young people learned about firearms at a young age and developed the proper respect for such things along with empathy for people then we wouldn't have such trouble.  Restoring the shooting programme to the cadet movement would be a good step, as would restoring the old school target ranges and building up the old DCRA postal matches.

What would solve the so-called gun problem in this country is more legal access to firearms, increased access to social and youth programmes to keep kids out of gangs and some basic enforcement of existing laws coupled with fair punishment for criminal activity.


(edited to improve word choice)


----------



## winchable (28 Dec 2005)

Oh damnit.


----------



## Wils21 (28 Dec 2005)

Wed, December 28, 2005

Call in army, pastor pleads
By TOM GODFREY, TORONTO SUN


 We've heard lots of talk from politicians about violent crime, but where's the action? Criminals need to fear consequences


An Etobicoke pastor says enough is enough and yesterday stepped up calls for up to 8,000 soldiers to be deployed in Toronto to help root out gunmen plaguing the city. 

"We have had this scenario of killings all summer," said Pastor Allan Bowen, of the Abundant Life Assembly on Dixon Rd. "The Boxing Day shootings have all the earmarks of those in the troubled areas." 

Bowen has attended or officiated at the funerals of at least 10 men, some who were suspected gang members, murdered last summer in the Jane-Finch area. 

"(City leaders) have to call in the army," he said yesterday. "There is no end in sight for the killings." 

He said a list of 30 gun-plagued Toronto neighbourhoods must be compiled and simultaneous raids conducted by an army-police task force to seize guns and other weapons. 
  

DECREASE IN TOURISTS 

"The army should be left in the communities for two years," he said. "They will be able to conduct random checks until the guns disappear." 

He said if the murders continue to rise it will lead to a decrease in tourists and conventions heading here. 

Bowen was pastor to the parents of Amon Beckles, 18, who was murdered last month outside a Rexdale Seventh Day Adventist church, where he was attending the funeral for buddy, Jamal Hemmings, 17, who had been gunned down a week earlier. 

"Things will never be same here again," he said. "At least there hasn't been any murders in three weeks." 

A month ago Bowen called for the War Measures Act to be introduced to target the shooters. 


People want the violence to stop but they would freak out if the army were called in.  It would be priceless to see the face of these wannabe thugs when their faced with someone who knows how to shoot back.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Dec 2005)

I wonder what Pastor Allan Bowen's slant on Racial Profiling is?  Isn't this what he is calling for in his cry for the Army to come into "30 gun-plagued Toronto neighbourhoods".  Is he a proponent of turning Toronto into another Belfast with his demand that the Army remain there for two years conducting Random checks and raids?


----------



## CBH99 (28 Dec 2005)

This post is in response to "Guest", who posted claiming to be a police officer with the TPS.

What kind of crack are you smoking buddy?  Literally.

I work as a paramedic with the City of Calgary, and work on the reserve TEMS platoon in conjunction with the CPS.  Anytime they do any sort of raid, and throughout various calls of the day, Calgary EMS and Calgary Police Service work hand-in-hand, all the damn time.  Which is why I asked the question above.

-  The police are SUPPOSED to look into suspicious activity, thats one aspect of their job.  In the CC, it states that an officer is authorized to search vehicles and persons, as long as that search is reasonable.  Having several 'persons of interest' driving around in a $50,000 vehicle would definitely classify them under the category of being reasonably searched.  They can call racism, police harrassment all they want - but if you find an illegal firearm, or narcotics, or anything illegal at all - who gives a shit?  They can try to use whatever lame excuse they want, such as racism or police harrassment - bottom line is though, they broke the law and they got caught.  Tough shit.

-  Are you trying to tell me that one of the reasons you guys don't move in and make some pretty bold moves is because your afraid of your superiors coming down on you?  Thats a total shame, that the relationship between the politicians, police board, and the street officers is that way.  Here in Calgary, everybody will back you up 100% of the time.  They might do an 'inquiry' to ensure professional standards are met, but everybody ranging from your superiors, to the police association, the police board, and even local politicians will support you 100%.  Your there to do a job, which is serve the community and make the community safer by preventing and tackling crime at all levels.  People can say what they want and try to use whatever lame excuse they want, but if they get caught breaking the law - tough shit.

-  A little side note, having police officers go on strike and walk out is absolutely unheard of, here in Calgary.  Not in a million years would you ever find a Calgary Police Officer walking a picket line in his uniform...that is the most unprofessional garbage I have ever heard of in a long time.  How is the public supposed to maintain confidence in the men and women who have sworn to protect them, if they are on a picket line whining about wages and working conditions?  I know you folks out there in Ontario, especially the Toronto area, face a diverse network of problems in many areas, but for f**k sake - your police officers; aka, role models.

-  You should also know that it really doesn't matter if the politicians back you up, nor your own police board.  Its whether the public supports your decisions or not.  And, having lived in Toronto for 6yrs before moving out here to the West, I'm confident in saying I think the public would support some bold action on behalf of the police, especially considering the gun-problem and gang-problem your currently trying to deal with.  

Here in Calgary, the asian-gang problem was made very public this year with several shootings and drive-by shootings, similar to that of Ontario.  The difference is, is that the Calgary Police Service networked, gathered a lot of great intelligence, and stuck to these guys like dirt on a white shirt.  They pulled them over for EVERYTHING;  i.e., illegal lane changes, jay-walking, obstructed license plates, speeding, 'driving suspiciously', etc, etc.  After harassing them big time, and staying on them like mud, arrests eventually started to rack up for firearms, narcotics, and other offenses.  The story goes on, but the point is;  they gathered the right intelligence, and they acted on it in a way that arrested the people who needed to be arrested, and deterred a lot of other folks from becoming public due to the sheer amount of police pressure on them.  The problem isn't over, but the CPS sure has a handle on things in regards to gang-warfare now.


----------



## ArmyRick (28 Dec 2005)

TO is paying the price for being such a head turned the other way community. Mayor Miller is a complete idiot. Lets stop blaming the americans for making the guns because at the end of the day, its Canadians pulling the trigger.

I agree lets dispense with the BS and use racial profiling. It does help sort out who is doing what. Also all the cops and stuff like that won't make a damn unless we get a tougher justice system that holds people accountable for their actions.

A 30 year sentence for attempted murder and 100 year sentence for murder would be a good start !

make a few examples. true, it will not control all the violence. It will help.

Here is an inside tidbit. There are numerous deported criminals from nearby countries (I ain't talking about the states either) that continiously come back into this country and cause more problems (we are talking about people who have no right to be here). How about an ugly story of someone being deported legally three times in two years? It has happened.


----------



## kcdist (28 Dec 2005)

Tsk....

You people and all your crime fighting rhetoric.

Just build community centres on every street corner, ban all the guns, and crime will dissapear overnight.

We ALL share responsability for Toronto's woes because we are not practicing the politics of inclusively nearly enough. Shame on us.


----------



## MPIKE (28 Dec 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Well: he certainly sucked in here London and now his little CYA micro-managing protege is in charge here. He had his inspectors in YRP  threaten his own men with lawsuits to protect his rep, but that's a story I'll save for a get together crushing cans.



Whiskey,  
Being on the YRP know a lot of that lawsuit info was blown out of proportion IMHO.  Putting aside Fantino's mega plan to get closer to his TPS endstate he did do some good things for York that outweighed his autocratic style.  We had a dark cloud history with another chief in our past.  So he was golden when he arrived.  You are right he was able to be a copper's copper.  The greatest thing I respect him for was causing mass panick among some senior officers to start kitting up when the left their office and being ordered to drop by a T-stop if it was on their way.  I'm sure a few had orange guns when they came out of their drawers.   I think maybe the biggest hit against him from the frontline was his mandatory hat policy. (not a big deal in the scheme of things)

The reality is that any chief is longer a LEO but an administrator and a politician.  Only rose coloured glasses would suggest otherwise. 

Zipperheadcop,

Kudos to your comments on the existence of legislation vs sentencing.  Now if only they made judicial accountability an election issue??


----------



## GO!!! (28 Dec 2005)

CBH 99,

While I agree with some of what you are saying, the situations in Calgary and Edmonton vs TO are like night and day. Calgary and Edmonton have small, quiet visible minority populations. They are the exception, not the rule, and when their proprietary gangs step out of line, they are far more easily found and watched until they make an illegal rolling stop, and are pulled over. In Edmonton, Mill Woods and the area of 97th and 104th are really the only areas for the Asian/Lebanese/Native etc. gangs. 

The EPS put a damper on crime in the north east by putting a large detachment smack dab in the middle of it - officers serve some people with warrants and walk them back to the building!

TO is a little bit of a different story, because the population is so much bigger, and the pool of support for the police seems to be smaller, as a proportion as well. Edmonton has a similar problem with an activist police commission, filled with lawyers and social activists, each intent on making a name for themselves in order to (I think) run for public office later on. The EPS, by and large, have risen above these parasites, and arrested those who need arresting, shot those who need shooting, and policed the city rather well, despite being consistently undermined by the police comission. Crime has fallen here, while TO is experiencing murder statistics similar to a US city of the same size.

Cops walking a picket line is not "unprofessional garbage" as you so eloquently put it. If the police officers who put their lives on the line cannot get a decent wage and benefits, they will not retain or attract the best talent, they will be left with the dregs, as the best and brightest move on to greener pastures.

In sum, Calgary is able to get a grip on gangs because they are a small segment of a population, and they have the full support of the public, who is, by and large, white and supportive of aggressive policing. People here laugh when some POS who is "known to police" or "has gang connections" is blasted by the EPS, or a rival, while in TO they want to crucify the officer for doing his job and screaming "racism" if the dead guy is any color but bright white. The police cannot do their job with (public support) without a homogenous population.


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Dec 2005)

PIKER said:
			
		

> I think maybe the biggest hit against him from the frontline was his mandatory hat policy. (not a big deal in the scheme of things)



LOL- OMG I had forgotten about that!!


----------



## CBH99 (28 Dec 2005)

I agree with some of the things you mentioned in your post GO!! - but there are some things I have to respectfully disagree with.

-  Police officers walking a picket line, demanding better wages and/or working conditions should NOT be allowed at all.  People look to the police for help on an everyday basis, from situations ranging from small-damage fender benders, to hostage situations.  On a day to day basis, police officers must be out on the street, enforcing the various laws that society lives by - especially those laws that people seem to view as more relevent than others.  (By this, I'm referring to the laws that people think of off the top of their head; I'm not saying some laws are actually more relevent than others.)  When the police officers the public looks to for help, support, and leadership walk a picket line holding up signs and wearing union baseball caps, it dramatically reduces the confidence the public has in their police service.
  Although I do agree that if the situation is bad enough, police officers may feel compelled to act boldly in order for their message to be heard, I do not believe walking a picket line is the answer.  I'm in the process of applying to various police sevices, as I just finished my degree in Criminology - and Toronto was on my list, and may be again in the future.  However, as a paramedic/TEMS officer, and an aspiring police officer, I found the tactic of walking a picket line to be unprofessional, and somewhat of a 'turn off' in regards to which departments to apply to.

In Calgary, the CPS experienced a similar problem.  The police commission's response was the "Back The Blue" campaign, which was a huge success.  Rather than walking a picket line and refusing to perform certain functions, the Calgary Police Service functioned as usual.  They sold bumper stickers at various police stations and at the police booth in the local malls to help raise funds for the campaign.  The service the police provided was not interrupted, nor was there any public spectacle of a picket line.  A few politicians whined, and said that the police were more likely to let someone off with a warning if they had a "Back The Blue" sticker on their bumper, which I think is probably true, but I believe the tactic was much more professional than the action taking in TO.  It was bold, the message was very public, yet it was still professional.  At the end of the campaign, the police service temporarily stopped performing radar enforcement - a tactic which threatened city coffers.  Eventually, a deal was made.

In terms of gang violence in Toronto, perhaps your right.  The demographics are much different there than they are in either Calgary or Edmonton, not to mention the huge population increase.  However, dealing with gang warfare I don't think differs all that much.  Gather as much intelligence as possible  (Which may be more difficult in TO, due to the public's apparent apathy towards their police officers) -- and act on that intelligence.  Follow them around, search them for anything, watch for anything even slightly illegal to clear the officer to 'approach them, and question them'  (Whoever said anything about harassment?)  Certain members of the public might cry racism, or police harassment, but I'm sure they'll shut right the f**k up if the person happens to have a firearm, or narcotics on them.  Wouldn't you think?

Anyhow, to sum it up - I do agree with various parts of your post.  However, on some parts I do have to disagree.  Although I am not a police officer, I work closely with the CPS and have a lot of experience in dealing with law enforcement.  I don't think walking a picket line was the most professional way to convey a message, nor do I think it fulfilled its purpose nearly as effectively as a campaign similar to what the CPS did would have.

Cheers


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Dec 2005)

Shit I smell some class B comming up.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Dec 2005)

Wils21 said:
			
		

> Call in army, pastor pleads



That would be one heck of an OP HARVEST!

I honestly think that the Toronto situation is being blown out of proportion.  Welcome to North America - the crime and murder in Toronto is only about a quarter of what it is in places like Chicago (there was a stat on CBC last night).  As Toronto becomes larger and larger, we're going to see more of this.


----------



## kincanucks (28 Dec 2005)

kcdist said:
			
		

> Tsk....
> 
> You people and all your crime fighting rhetoric.
> 
> ...



Is this another lame  attempt at sarcasm?


----------



## kcdist (28 Dec 2005)

Golly, kincanucks, what do YOU think. :

Fact is though, this is the viewpoint of a great many politicians and a great many Torontonians. So to spell it out for you, it was a statement mocking beliefs that appear to be held by a majority in Toronto.

As a society, we have practised this approach to crime far too long, for example:

-Major expose in the Toronto Star about police profiling while a major crime wave was unfolding (Something like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic).

-Political talk about the need for inclusivity in perhaps what is the most inclusive city in the world.

-Alternative sentencing such as conditional sentences for major crime.

-The infamous Liberal promise of a handgun ban, which would of course remove financial resources otherwise available for crime fighting.  

If something good can come of this incident, perhaps it will be a wake up call to the citizens of Toronto. Perhaps they will come to realize that if they continue to vote Liberal, it will only get worse.


----------



## the 48th regulator (29 Dec 2005)

Well here is loss of innocence,

The wife, my wee two kids, and myself, went up to the Roger Video at the Malvern Town centre (it's one block away from me, yep I live in "Malvern" oooh)....

My wife was the one that caught it and had to drive the van around so I Could roll down the window to see.

A Car was running, nothing fancy about it either, Chrysler I think, but it was what we saw..

Two bumper stickers...One said "I (Heart) Boxers" and the other...

_This Car is unlocked, and the Keys are in the ignition...Right Beside the boxer in the front seat!_

Here was the clincher  the car was running, the doors unlocked (you could see the tabs up), the keys were obviously in the ignition, and the most beautiful, and very big, boxer was sitting in the front seat eyeballing us as we drove by!!!

God bless the average chap that snubs the reputation of a community...

hehehe

dileas

tess


----------



## zipperhead_cop (29 Dec 2005)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> and while there are calls for more knife control in some circles (and yes, there is knife control in Canada by order in council)



Are you referring to the guidelines for knives that are prohibited weapons ie) switchblades, butterfly knives, kubotans with blades?  Other than the prohibited ones, knives are pretty much unregulated.

If anyone wants to go off on a wild knife tangent:
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=735
They loves their knives!


----------



## zipperhead_cop (29 Dec 2005)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Anyhow, to sum it up - I do agree with various parts of your post.  However, on some parts I do have to disagree.  Although I am not a police officer, I work closely with the CPS and have a lot of experience in dealing with law enforcement.  I don't think walking a picket line was the most professional way to convey a message, nor do I think it fulfilled its purpose nearly as effectively as a campaign similar to what the CPS did would have.


I bet you watch all of the CSI and Law and Order shows, and tape America's Most Wanted too, right?
Please come off as a misinformed know it all in your subsequent interviews so you will see the success in Policing that you deserve.  
NO ONE has a right to pass judgement on the Toronto Police Service members.  Those people have been fighting a brutal demoralizing war of politics for about 15 years.  They get no support from their counsel or Police Services Board and little from the people.  
I have seen several posts with a "bash on do what you need to" spirit and I wish that was the case.  CBH99 made some comments to "GUEST" to that effect.  I also like to pursue what is commonly referred to as "the Ways and Means Act" which is basically "get the job done at any cost".  The problem with that is when it gets to court and the liberal judges start looking at the case, it gets tossed and the criminal gets a shot at some free civil suit money.  Look at the poor guys in Toronto who got pinned for the "driving while black" case:
http://www.kingstonelectors.ca/forums/archive/index.php/t-808.html
That was a bunch of crap, and you can bet every time for the rest of their careers that when one of them has a vis-min under arrest and in court, this will come up.
Also:  "You should also know that it really doesn't matter if the politicians back you up, nor your own police board.  Its whether the public supports your decisions or not. "  is a lovely sentiment, CBH99, but as many of these posts highlight, what the public thinks doesn't mean dick in the legal world.

95% of us out there, if freed up of all political constraints, would go out and tear our cities a$$hats new holes all over.  The mad blue hordes!  In reality we have regs out the ass that we have to deal with.  I am lucky in that Windsor is not so very hamstrung with the PC rules that Toronto does.  
As far as profiling goes, it is not racial profiling that is needed.  I maintain that sh_theads are translucent and take on whatever colour that they end up in.  CRIMINAL profiling is what we do, and there is no way to quantify it.  It comes as a result of training, experience and paying attention to patterns.  Some might call it "instinct", but it is learned.  Street level criminals all tend to act the same way, regardless of what colour they are.  It is this drawing of attention that gets Police to check them out.  

It would be nice if we could get some of those good, common sense values that are apparently still out there in Alberta to infect Ontario.  Send it east, because BC is a write off.

By the way, if anyone wants to see the face of the person who this thread is about...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20051228/ca_pr_on_na/toronto_shootings


----------



## pbi (29 Dec 2005)

Sadly, the problems that led to this incident and the recent slew of gun homicides aren't new in Toronto. The criminal lifestyle involving mainly Jamaican males was brewing in the Jane-Finch area of northwest Toronto back in the early 1970's when I joined the Militia. My first section commander was a PC with the Metropolitan Toronto Police, stationed in the division that covered the Jane-Finch area. He told me that even in those days, they did not respond to a call in that area with anything less than two cars. I heard later that the North York Fire Dept would not dismount from their trucks in that area without the police being there first. I though at thev time that these were bizarre things that only happened in big bad US cities. 

Accusations of racism from the Jamaican community against the Toronto Police are not new either: the police killing of Albert Johnston, a mentally disturbed black man wielding a knife, provoked an outburst that included a march on the local police station by the black community: that event happened in the 1970s. My section commander was himself eventually charged in connection with another police shooting of a black male, also surrounded with controversy. And the unusually high levels of criminality and violence have been noted in that area for decades (and in the last few years in the Scarborough area of eastern Toronto). I don't know if anybody, on any side, really did much to fix things. Like many social problems, I think it was left to the police to respond to and sort out.

So, I have to be a bit skeptical about this "loss of innocence" comment: in Toronto's case it is years too late IMHO.  I also have no patience with the politicians who are blaming this on the availability of guns in Toronto: if that were the sole cause then I suggest that all criminal elements in Toronto would be slaughtering each other in the streets. This is not happening: the huge majority of the firearms homicides in Toronto this year (if not all of them...) have been in the black Caribbean community. Following the recent outrageous shooting that took place at a funeral of yet another young black man shot by others, Caribbean black community leaders spoke out. Surprisingly, but positively, they admitted that their community was responsible for most of these gun killings. Even more surprisingly, amongst many other changes and reforms, they called for the collection of race-based crime statistics by Toronto police in order to get a better grip on the full scope of the problem facing their community. Considering how much grief that idea caused Julian Fantino, the previous Chief of the Toronto Police, it was amazing to read about this particular demand. Around the same time, I also caught a Toronto radio show that is directed at the Carribean community. The host, while agreeing that he and his people faced issues of racism from "the powers that be" in Toronto, also told his listeners that it was high time the community admitted that they had too many young men with no respect for themselves, respect for women, or for any kind of authority. He identified the need to raise these young men in a better way, with better self respect. Interestingly, he stated that he would not take the normal phone-in responses right away: he felt that the subject would make too many community members too angry. In other words, he knew he had touched a sore nerve. He was reminding his community that is false to just blame everything on "racism", as much as that can be a part of the problem. Perhaps it is natural, and certainly more comforting, to think that your problems are not of your own making and that fixing them is somebody else's job.

Is there racism in the TPS? Yes, some-it is inevitable in a police force that large. A recent highly pubicized incident in which a police officer pulled over a carful of young blacks reinforced this impression: when asked for his badge number he replied " my badge is 666". Unfortunately this stupid response was recorded by one of the passengers with a cellphone. Is this constable in a minority? Almost certainly. As well, not to defend racists, but when police are constantly arresting the same people in the same communities, know of the existence of much more crime than they can apprehend, and can sense the attitude of the neighbourhood towards them when nobody comes forward to speak about what everybody saw, it is inevitable that some police will put the problem down to race, instead of to culture which IMHO is where it belongs.

When I say culture as opposed to race, I mean that these killings do not appear to involve all blacks, nor are they because the perpetrators or victims are black: people who have immigrated from Africa (for example) seem to be conspicuously absent from these incidents. My experience with Somalis and Ethiopians in Winnipeg through the ESL program where I volunteered downtown was that they are mostly like all other immigrants to Canada, they want to work hard and get on with life. Most do. Instead, the swamp that breeds these gangsta idiots in Toronto is a sub-culture that is marked by father absent homes, low education levels, poor or nonexistent job skills, a glorification of "guns, cars, drugs, clothes, bling and ho's", homage to the powerful violent male as a leader figure, and a rejection of much of what normal productive people in civil society aspire to.  And, as far as I can tell, this particular problem has been centred in Toronto's Jamaican community for a long time. Is it all Jamaicans, or even a majority? I'm not sure, but I doubt it very much. But it is certainly enough of a percentage to cause their own community leaders to be finally galvanized into public action, whatever they may have attempted to do internally over the years. While other immigrant communities in Canada have "done their time" and graduated up to suburban houses in Markham, Mississauga and Oakville, and successfully entered business, government and education, IMHO this community has found itself largely left behind and living in less than desireable areas: no doubt this has contributed to the outlook of the young criminals who see gang membership and the use of terror as the only means to achieve status and respect.

IMHO these killings and this sick gang culture will only end when the young men in this community don't have any more desire to indulge. As long as the gangsta culture is glorified, the police are depicted as the enemy, all of a community's failings are reflexively blamed on outsiders, and trying to get ahead through decent hard work is viewed as a fool's game, then the ranks of these gangs will be full, and the killings will continue. The police by themselves, or stricter sentences by themselves, will only deal with symptoms, and even then probably only after the fact. They are even less effective against anti-social young men who do not fear arrest or jail, and who may be actually be looking for a showdown with the police. The police cannot abandon the streets, but I don't think they can win them back on their own either. The solution must come from within.

Cheers


----------



## Bograt (29 Dec 2005)

What I would like to comment on is what I have heard repeatedly on the radio and television interviews of social pundits based out of the GTA. They continue to espouse that these groups represent "marginalized" and "disenfranchised" members of the population.

 I was under the impression that Canada was a multicultural community where all cultures were celebrated and valued for their contribution to the Canadian identity.

 If this is the case, than how can the same champions of this vision then state that these criminals are marginalized? Has the concept of personal responsibility and accountability been completely obliterated in Canada? 

Shhhhhhhhh. Speak quietly, or you might offend the criminals.


----------



## GO!!! (29 Dec 2005)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Look at the poor guys in Toronto who got pinned for the "driving while black" case: http://www.kingstonelectors.ca/forums/archive/index.php/t-808.html



I'm still at a loss on this one.

If I was pulled over by the EPS with 45g of Coke, would I be able to defend myself with "driving while Scottish" comments?

The article does say that the Cops lied about the location of the drugs though.....


----------



## redleafjumper (29 Dec 2005)

Yes, the knife prohibitions are exactly what I was referring to.  The OiC's also, by description, include the Inuit ulu knife.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (29 Dec 2005)

Dont tell that to these guys:
http://www.ulu.com/

You'll be able to hear the hearts breaking :crybaby:


----------



## zipperhead_cop (29 Dec 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> Is there racism in the TPS? Yes, some-it is inevitable in a police force that large. A recent highly publicized incident in which a police officer pulled over a car full of young blacks reinforced this impression: when asked for his badge number he replied " my badge is 666". Unfortunately this stupid response was recorded by one of the passengers with a cellphone. Is this constable in a minority? Almost certainly. As well, not to defend racists, but when police are constantly arresting the same people in the same communities, know of the existence of much more crime than they can apprehend, and can sense the attitude of the neighbourhood towards them when nobody comes forward to speak about what everybody saw, it is inevitable that some police will put the problem down to race, instead of to culture which IMHO is where it belongs.



Just as an exercise for the next couple of days, when you are behind a car driving (try this day or night) ask yourself what the race of the person driving is.  Then try it with cars with limo tint windows.  Then try it with dark tinted SUV'S.   It is damn near impossible to know what you are pulling over until you start to walk up.  Any of us out there should be thinking in terms of always being on camera or being recorded and that was a dumb thing to say.  
I fail to see how it was a racist comment?  Is the number of the anti-Christ somehow a slam on a non white person?  That is a bit of dogma that I missed in Sunday school.  Closer to the mark is that the kids in the car were being uncooperative and smart a$$es and the officer was being a smart a$$ back.  Not a good idea, but I can see it happening.  But it is that sort of crap that the TPS is up against.  If the officer needed to be spoken to (the Police Services Act requires us to provide our badge number on request) then treat it as such.  All of a sudden, some dink is crying "racism" and everyone goes "oh, they were black, it must have been race".  In a normal city that crap would get no steam and die almost straight out.  But in Toronto, they eat that crap up and go nuts.  There is always going to be some seditious prick that needs to create problems by throwing out the race card at  target.  Look at how the race card got tossed out for the New Orleans mess.  A bunch of tools fail to leave when directed, shoot at the relief workers that show up, then bitch that they would have gotten better treatment if it was white people under water.  
And trust me-not being interested in helping people who don't want to cooperate is not monopolized by the black community in Toronto.  There are plenty of "no service" areas all over Canada.  What the Jamaican community did is make a lot of noise (thank you Dudley Laws) and cause people to have a false perception of police and the black community.  Any time you put up with some groups wailing and thrashing, you give them power, and power is intoxicating.  That is what these gangs have; power.  Power to intimidate, power to not need to conform to any other society than their own.  The citizens of Toronto for many years, by not supporting their police and entertaining this bulls_it made a decision and said "we value the right of gang members to traffic drugs and get into shoot outs rather than put aside our collective 'white guilt' and apply a bit of common sense".  So then you get your FIDO calls and the police start to shut down and close ranks.  It's a sound military tactic-when you don't know where you're enemy is coming from, set up an all round defensive.  
It is encouraging that someone is starting to try to put the accountability back onto the people who need to accept it.  Unfortunately it may be too little, too late.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (29 Dec 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I'm still at a loss on this one.
> 
> If I was pulled over by the EPS with 45g of Coke, would I be able to defend myself with "driving while Scottish" comments?
> 
> The article does say that the Cops lied about the location of the drugs though.....


The bad guy said he had no idea that there were drugs in the car.  If that was the case, how could he say that they lied about the drugs location?
And "driving while Scottish" is only a defense to an impaired driving charge. ;D


----------



## Blackhorse7 (29 Dec 2005)

TCBF, be careful of the comments about simply wanting to protect our pensions.

I'm not defending Guests comments (I don't agree with a lot of it), but that being said, I don't think it's fair to say things like that until you have walked a mile in a cop's shoes.  I can't think of another job in the World where you are as highly scrutinized as a Police officer is.  If you aren't getting it from a member of the public (who are largely ignorant of what our training and powers of arrest etc are..), you are getting it from your suspect.  Or your complainant for not coming out with the response to their problem that they wanted.  Or your supervisors for being behind in an investigation when you have 40 - 50 SUI files backed up, and more being piled on everyday.  It's a tough job.  End rant.

That being said, there is *nothing wrong* with pulling over suspects that you feel are suspicious.  So long as you can articulate your reasons for the legal stop.  I find that you average member coming out of training very rapidly loses the basics, and has trouble articulating their actions.  A Police Officer *must* be able to take the stand, and articulate to the courts "Yes, your Honour, I had arrested the suspect for assault with a weapon.  I searched the subject incidental to arrest, for items related to the offence.  While doing so, I came across a firearm in the small of his back."  That search would stand up in court.  While maybe not looking for a gun (a knife or items used in the assault), the illegally possessed items was found while conducting a lawful search.  Articulation, articulation, articulation.


----------



## CBH99 (29 Dec 2005)

Zipperhead_Cop:

I definitely don't know even close to everything, and I don't mean to come off that way.  And I understand that the political situation in regards to the TPS is much, much different than working here in Calgary.  Our leaders, both in the commission and politically, back us up 100%, and we are very fortunate for that.  Perhaps I am underestimating just how bad and deep the various issues are in regards to the TPS, but I still don't believe a picket line is appropriate.  As I said though, perhaps I am unaware of just how bold a move was required by the TPS in order to have their message heard;  I don't personally know any TPS officers.  However, when we heard of the picket line here in Calgary, the general consensus was "Wow, that would never happen here".

BTW, I hate CSI.


----------



## NavComm (29 Dec 2005)

Well either we've convinced poor nULL of the error in his thinking or he's just plain given up arguing with the masses!


----------



## ArmyRick (30 Dec 2005)

Try being a toronto cop with an idiot like mayor Miller. My cousin is a toronto cop and he constantly tells me of how many times he has been called a racist pig while cuffing a person who just got busted doing something really stupid (drugs, assault, rape, etc, etc). I lived in Bathurst Finch area for several years. I had a neighbour who was a hard working Jamaican family man. He was a good guy and really lived a clean life. I asked him if he ever lived in Jane and Finch and he replied that he did but he would never return. Never.

I have alot of problems with the city of toronto, it is a city that is rotten with politics and political correctness. Most of it in mind starts with the city politics and their gouging the tax payers money for pay raises and crap. then add in the special interest BS and the questioning the police every time they do their job.


----------



## Blackhorse7 (30 Dec 2005)

ArmyRick,

It like we said, it's a tough job.  We get the same racist crap out here, but with First Nations's people.  "You are just doing this because I am native."  "No, I am doing this because you beat up your wife in a drunken rage."  But I do agree that going on strike is ill advised for a Police Force.  I think that would be a rapid slope to losing pubic favor.  I realize that going on strike is a valuable tool for job action when a union is involved, but for a Police Force, I don't think so.  A "work to rule" action would be better.  For those not in the know that is where you do things _exactly_ to policy, without deviation.  It really slows things down, and when John Q. Public starts to complain that his theft of lawnmower file has taken six months to investigate, people start to listen.

It's fine to say "suck it up, your an essential service."  But as in my previous post, until you've walked a mile in my shoes, yada, yada, yada.


----------



## Blackhorse7 (30 Dec 2005)

And on a side note, the Lower Mainland here in BC has had five shooting incidents in the last four days.  Thank God nobody has been killed yet.  But no doubt, in major urban centre's, gun violence is on the rise.


----------



## Jonny Boy (31 Dec 2005)

Cpl Thompson said:
			
		

> Probabbly... Pity a 19 year old woman had to get shot and killed just cause she wanted some boxing day bargans....



actually she was 15. it sickens me to see this kind of stuff happening. it is not even at night and away from the public anymore. it is on a very busy street on one of the busiest days of the year. 6 people shot one killed for what?


----------



## pbi (31 Dec 2005)

Zipperhead: I should perhaps clarify. You are right to say that a PC identifying himself as the Devil is not racist in itself, although it is still stupid, especially when bad asses carrying recording devices is nothing new: bikers have known about this trick for years. The point is that once he pulled over a carload of black youths, he was already in the danger zone and anything he said that was the least bit out of line was going to be misinterpreted, as it was; and hyped in the media, as it also was. This is not fair, nor what we want, but it is the way things were in Toronto.

Now, I think, things are changing. Anybody who was living in a tunnel for the last few years in the GTA, and didn't already know,  has now been made fully aware of the extent of the violent crime plaguing the Jamaican community. Even if the media studiously refuses to report descriptions of suspects, video footage reveals on TV night after night quite clearly who is involved. Two other factors  will, I think, have a sobering effect on all the PC weeping and wailing as well. First: about two months ago a private video got into the hands of the media and the TPS, and was widely publicized. This video, made by the gangbangers, showed them standing around brazenly in what looked like a housing project, brandishing all types of firearms and  making all kinds of threatening gangsta idiot statements. With one exception all the participants were black. It was quite frightening to watch because it made you realize that people like this are loose on the streets. It would tend to undermine support for the idea that they are harmless victims of society who only want to actualize their blahblahblah......


Second, a recent highly publicized incident at a northwestern Toronto high school, in which a group of black teenagers were arrested in a controversial raid at the school as a result of allegations of sexual harrassment charges by a white female student, did not display the community in question in a very good light. The parents of the accused immediately claimed that the arrests were racially motivated ("racial profiling" one mother called it... as if police would arrest white, red or yellow suspects if the description was for a black male...). The parents were reported to have mobbed a police-school-community meeting that was held after the arrests, shouting and acting in a disruptive, confrontational manner. At no time was there any significant expression of concern for the alleged victim: in fact a number of parents seem to have made a point of questioning her truthfulness and character. Again, I don't think these actions won many points.

Now, of course, we have had the latest shootings that took place right where Jimmy and Janey Yuppie and "average suburbians" go into downton TO to shop and enjoy life. People can't ignore the problem by saying "It's a Jane-Finch thing". They are forced to acknowledge it, and to acknowledge the sick, dangerous mentalities that commit these acts.

I expect now that the TPS (which has always had the support of the majority of people, in my opinion, because the great majority of people in TO and in the GTA are law-abiding middle and upper middle class) will get the support it needs.

Cheers.


----------



## the 48th regulator (31 Dec 2005)

> Make the style un-cool, and kids will stop trying to live it.



Geez how do you propose to do that??  Start a new trend?  


dileas

tess


----------



## zipperhead_cop (31 Dec 2005)

Piper said:
			
		

> The majority of people causing these public shootouts are young, mostly black males wearing 'urban' clothes and trying to live the 'urban' lifestyle. There is a reason they wear baggy pants and huge jackets/shirts...easier to hide a weapon. Thats one of the reasons this 'style' started, gangbangers wearing baggy clothes to conceal weapon and stolen stuff from the liquor store.


Maybe you forget the violence that the Hells Angels were involved in just a few years ago?  And I don't know about your parts, but we have had three Albanian shootings where indiscriminate shots were fired into restaraunts and public sidewalks.  I got shot at off duty at a crowded restaraunt by a good old white trash Caucasian.  Don't get hung up on the colour.  The Jamaicans are just the current flavor drawing all the heat.  The Russians, Asians, Italians, Yugo's, and bikers are all doing their business just fine, with weapons at the ready.  
You are correct in that there is a "gangsta" culture that glorifies this type of lifestyle.  But if "G-Yo-Capp Assmaster" went to jail for fifteen years for something like this, it wouldn't seem so cool.  As it is, watch what happens.  I predict that the a$$hat pleads guilty to manslaughter, gets the weapon charges dropped (all which had mandory sentences, very distasteful for judges) as part of the plea arrangement, get sentenced to 6 to ten years (which means six) and then does two years actually in custody, minus the double time credit he will get leading up to the trial for his dead time.  He will come out with all of his street cred in tact and probably a free Bachelors degree in Law.  Now thats Justice.

If you don't want your kids to dress like thug idiots, then buy thug idiot clothes like them and hang out with your kids when they go to the movies or mall.  Make sure you talk like a street thug with all the requisite ebonics, but street lingo that is at least five years old.  Daaaaaaymm, Boyyyy!  That is dope!!


----------



## zipperhead_cop (31 Dec 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> Now, I think, things are changing. Anybody who was living in a tunnel for the last few years in the GTA, and didn't already know,  has now been made fully aware of the extent of the violent crime plaguing the Jamaican community. Even if the media studiously refuses to report descriptions of suspects, video footage reveals on TV night after night quite clearly who is involved. Two other factors  will, I think, have a sobering effect on all the PC weeping and wailing as well. First: about two months ago a private video got into the hands of the media and the TPS, and was widely publicized. This video, made by the gangbangers, showed them standing around brazenly in what looked like a housing project, brandishing all types of firearms and  making all kinds of threatening gangsta idiot statements. With one exception all the participants were black. It was quite frightening to watch because it made you realize that people like this are loose on the streets. It would tend to undermine support for the idea that they are harmless victims of society who only want to actualize their blahblahblah......
> 
> 
> Second, a recent highly publicized incident at a northwestern Toronto high school, in which a group of black teenagers were arrested in a controversial raid at the school as a result of allegations of sexual harassment charges by a white female student, did not display the community in question in a very good light. The parents of the accused immediately claimed that the arrests were racially motivated ("racial profiling" one mother called it... as if police would arrest white, red or yellow suspects if the description was for a black male...). The parents were reported to have mobbed a police-school-community meeting that was held after the arrests, shouting and acting in a disruptive, confrontational manner. At no time was there any significant expression of concern for the alleged victim: in fact a number of parents seem to have made a point of questioning her truthfulness and character. Again, I don't think these actions won many points.
> ...


Yeah, thats great.  Now the TPS gets the public support after x number of people get waxed.  That same public was dead silent for the past fifteen years or so, and now they want their police to run around and make it all better?  Their "white mans guilt" that allowed a socialist city counsel crush the spirit and effectiveness of the TPS is what allowed this situation to get this bad.  
As far as the Jamaicans being "plagued", isn't this what they fought to have?  Dudley Laws and all of his toadies fighting tooth and nail to have the PoPo leave them alone?  Congratulations!!  You got what you wanted.  Enjoy the glory of autonomy.  And the fact that a bunch of parents showed up and railed against their criminal kids getting rounded up is further proof that that community is not mature enough to band together, stand up and say "we want to be part of normal Canadian society again, what can we do to help?".  Nope.  Put up a fence and let them shred each other like rats in a box.  After they are begging for police action and sign a public contract of support and cooperation, then maybe.  Without community support, it will be no different than the Americans trying to keep a lid on things in Iraq.  Does that seem callous?  Probably.  But these people need to be a little scared that their lives are out of control so they don't even think about doing a band aid job on this, then go back to throwing frozen oranges at cruisers from high rises after the body count settles down.


----------



## GGboy (1 Jan 2006)

Two points about the Boxing Day shootout:

One of the two charmers arrested shortly after the shooting (and subsequently charged with participating in the gunplay) was on probation at the time for assorted robbery and threatening death convictions. He had been out on the street exactly two months and three weeks after serving 30 days for his various misdeeds. 
So I have some sympathy with cops complaining about the courts letting these scumbags off with wrist slaps.

However, of Toronto's 52 shooting deaths in 2005 the TPS has made arrests in exactly 18. So the courts aren't the whole problem ...


----------



## kcdist (1 Jan 2006)

GGboy said:
			
		

> However, of Toronto's 52 shooting deaths in 2005 the TPS has made arrests in exactly 18. So the courts aren't the whole problem ...



GGboy...Hope you're wearing armour...you're going to get some major reaction from your inference that the TPS is dropping the ball...

Although they have only made 18 arrests, I would bet large coin on the fact that they have suspects for at least twice that many...if not all. I would love our legal system...if I were an accused. Not only is the sentencing a major issue, but so is the actual conduct of trials. Rules on the exclusion or acceptance of evidence is heavily weighted in favour of the accused.

It is highly likely that the TPS may have evidence on the culprit from a variety of sources, such as Confidential Informants, eye witnesses, forensics and even video surveillance. However, each of the sources has to be considered individually as to whether it would hold up under a brutal cross examination or even if it would be accepted into evidence by a judge.

Eye witnesses that co-operate on the day of the shooting often change their story when on the witness stand or when asked to participate in formal, recorded interview.

Informant evidence, even if 100% credible and reliable, often can't be used in trial at the risk identifying the source.

Forensic evidence is great, however if can only identify such things as which gun the bullet came from. If that same gun was located under the seat of a vehicle with five occupants, it likely can't be linked to one single individual. To charge all five with the murder would be possible, but likely unsuccessful without further corroborating evidence.

Despite wonderful advances in technology, most video surveillance tape is nearly worthless. The quality systems cost major $, and even big chains such as 7-11 have crappy systems in which you could hardly identify your mother.

When a case is brought to trial, the police and crown prosecutors only have one chance for a conviction. If they know who dunnit, but they have weak sources, they likely will not proceed with an arrest. In Canada, there are no second chances for prosecutions. If the accused is found not guilty because either the evidence was thrown out or was weak, the bad guy walks for good, regardless if something comes up later. It is also very possible that some of those arrested may be linked to other homicides, but without suitable supporting evidence, the additional charges are not laid.

Additionally, the TPS are dealing with a unique situation in Toronto of an entire community that appears hostile to, and uncooperative with, the police. The boxing day shooting was different in that it was done in a highly public place, and there was likely no shortage of witnesses willing to come forward. However, the majority of TO's shootings were performed by and against members of a single community, with few, if any, witnesses outside of that community. Therefore, if the consensus inside that community is that co-operating with the police is unacceptable, there is very little to go on.

THEREFORE, I would not be blaming the TPS for lack of arrests. The homicide unit is likely very competent, however, evidence that would hold up in court can't be manufactured. Knowing who committed the crime, and proving it beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal trial, are often two separate issues. 

I would lay blame at the doorstep of the Jamaican community, followed by the lack of political will, and a close third would be the courts and their liberal interpretation of the Criminal Code.


----------



## Old Ranger (1 Jan 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> I just suggest that maybe we should work harder to attempt to discourage a culture that is completely based on crime/violence/drugs. Dress codes in ALL schools are a start, Yes!
> 
> I don't forget that all races are involved in crime (in Guelph, all our 'gangstas' have white skin). But hip-hop (the 'nice name' for gangsta culture) is mostly a Black invention (helped along by record companies) and has become a uniform of sorts for many ethnic youth. Talking about race is an unpleasent subject, and no race is more prone to crime then others. Do we blame the Media for which crimes and how the report them?  Should the Media have to follow conduct guidelines?


----------



## Blackhorse7 (1 Jan 2006)

Well, said kcdist.  Although problems like this come from all sorts of community types.  While I'll admit that I am ignorant to the social climate particular to TO, I do come across people regulalry that say "Why aren't the Police doing something about these problems?"  My answer to that is that I am just one part of many parts that are needed to get a conviction on a person.  People need to start taking ownership of problems, and making a stand.  When communities start doing that, and helping Police rather than pointing the finger at them, you would see a big change in things.


----------



## Roy Harding (1 Jan 2006)

The Peelian Principles or Nine Points Of The Law are below.

1 / The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2 / The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
3 / Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4 / The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5 / Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6 / Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
7 / Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8 / Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9 / The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

Citizens everywhere, but for the purposes of this discussion, especially Toronto, should pay attention to point 7 above.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Jan 2006)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> Citizens everywhere, but for the purposes of this discussion, especially Toronto, should pay attention to point 7 above.



+1


----------



## Infanteer (1 Jan 2006)

Looks like Toronto is off to an early start for 2006.  :

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/01/01/toronto-homicide060101.html


----------



## GO!!! (1 Jan 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> "Suspect is a young black male, baggy pants, big jacket and a du rag"
> 
> Do you have ANY idea how many people that description fits in Toronto?



I would bet that that number would decline if distinctive dress and location was grounds for a bodily search. Gang colors are banned in bars, clubs and other areas, why could'nt the definition be expanded to certain types of dress? 

Search anyone dressed in a certain manner, find the guns and drugs, and throw them in jail - you can't tell me that most of the accused and convicted were'nt dressed in a certain, common way when they committed their crimes, dress could be added to the list of "at risk behaviours".


----------



## Infanteer (1 Jan 2006)

No, because despite the fact that a "gangsta" sub-culture exists among these gang-members, we do not subvert our principles to deal with them.  I have a right to dress how I feel and not to be targetted by the government based upon my appearence; so does every other Canadian.  Clubs and whatnot are private establishments and a dress code is within reason but on the streets and in public, freedom of expression cannot be run over based upon something as flimsy as presumption of guilt.  There is a deep and sound rationale behind the principle of lawful search and seizure - throwing it to the wayside and giving arbitrary powers to the government is stepping in the wrong direction; in 1776 men saw this and listed similar items as "causes which impel[led] them" to oppose their sovereign.

What's next?  Tagging everybody walking out of a mosque and watching them?  Ever see that movie The Seige?  Do we follow a "presumption of guilt" the logical end and conclude that since you, GO!!!, are a registered gunowner (and thus pose a threat of "at risk behaviour") that the government can arbitrarily tap your phones, spy on you, and search you when they wish?

We don't need to go on witch hunts to figure out who these guys are; I'm willing to be that most of these shootings involve people who were "known to police" - this is the case in Vancouver everytime Indo-Canadian dealers or Hell's Angels knock guys off.  It is the job of the courts (and, by extention, us) to keep them off the streets.  The fact that a fellow on probation for robbery and uttering threats was involved with the boxing day shooting is indication enough of where the problem lies.


----------



## kcdist (1 Jan 2006)

Infanteer,

I don't disagree with your response, however, there should be some allowances made for when a community is in crisis.

For example, existing law in Canada does not require a pedestrian, or a vehicle passenger, to provide Police with identification. 

For example, group of 'bad' looking guys in suspicious place. Cops' 'spidy senses' are tingling, and despite no report or evidence of crime, approaches group. Cop asks for identification. 'Bad' guys tell cop to take a hike. Cop has no recourse.

Now, if there was a crime reported or evidence of criminal activity, that's a different story, and the suspects can be placed under investigative detention without being placed under arrest.

Most cops are able to engage in B.S. using veiled threats and sometimes outright lies to gain positive identification. Most times it's simply provided upon request. However, many hardened bad guys are fully aware of their rights, and will not provide any information. Often times, the bad guys may have outstanding warrants, or may be under curfew or have a 'no association' clause. Unless the cop specifically knows who he's dealing with, the bad guy walks.

'Check-up slips' are an invaluable resource as an investigation tool, however, the hardend bad guys are under no obligation to play along. Bottom line is, without his knowing, the cop may have witnessed the beginning or aftermath of a crime, and without articulable evidence, is powerless to do anything.

I don't believe it would offend the sensibilities of most Canadians if, in a community in crisis such as the affected areas of Toronto, Police were granted special powers to deal with suspicious looking activity, even something as simple and innocuous as compelling persons to provide identification upon request.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Jan 2006)

kcdist said:
			
		

> I don't disagree with your response, however, there should be some allowances made for when a community is in crisis.



I challenge you to reasonably prove to me that there is a "crisis" in Toronto.

There were 78 homicides in Toronto in 2005, 52 of which involved a firearm.  I'm not sure what percentage of these 78 homicides were due to gang-violence.  Are you trying to tell me that in a city of 5,000,000 people that 50 some-odd deaths constitutes a crisis?!?  Christ, Dallas and Chicago were each close to 500 homicides in 2005 (IIRC) and I don't see them running to burn the Bill of Rights to solve that problem.

If there is a real crisis in Toronto, then the Emergencies Act exists to deal with it.  Build a case to see it enacted if you wish. 

This is my real concern with the Liberal proposal to ban guns - they are blowing the matter out of proportion for votes.  There is no consideration of principle or a real estimate on the gravity of the problem at all - it is demagoguery pure and simple and in the end, it is the Canadian public who will bear the cost of falling for it....


----------



## zipperhead_cop (1 Jan 2006)

Those are nice concepts but we know that there is now way in Gods green earth that we would ever get away with that.  The civil libertarians would be screaming and flagellating themselves in the street howling about "slippery slope!!!" and "big brother!!!" and other such rhetoric.  It would be easy enough to fit us out with some of the new facial recognition software and run checks that way, but you will get the same whiny bitch-fest.  
If anyone can rally the masses, we have the ability to sign a notwithstanding clause and suspend parts of the Charter of Rights ala Quebec and the anti-English laws.  But again, the sh_tstorm that would ensue would be quite a thing to behold, but would likely tear down that idea too.
One thing that might help is ramp up the laws that make it illegal to belong to a criminal organization.  Make just looking like a gang member a crime, and see the clothes go in the dumpster right quick.  No one would argue if there was a law against wearing KKK robes, because everyone hates those guys.  If you look like a criminal, you get treated like a criminal.  It would no doubt be a total pain to enforce and charges would get tossed like candy.  But it would still be fun releasing prisoners from the detention unit in blue paper jumpsuits because you had to seize their stuff for evidence. >
Nope.  The people have spoken.  They want the killing, drug trafficking, the lawlessness.  They may make poo poo faces when the headlines hit, but Canadians do not care in any real or effective way.  At least until one of their kids gets killed.  Me?  I'll just be the catch-and-release cop and be assured of thousands of dollars of court overtime for the rest of my career.
Cheers!!


----------



## Infanteer (1 Jan 2006)

It's fitting to see, in the same paragraph, somebody whine about "civil libertarian rhetoric" and complain that Canadians want killing, drug trafficking and lawlessness.  Talk about irony.

Do you really understand the consequences of the arguments you are making?  Make "looking like a gang-member" a criminal offence?  You'd be willing to outlaw a red bandanna and baggy pants in Canadian society for what, to stop a few young men from assaulting and killing each other?  I see "unprincipled egoist" is a common fit around here.

Governments are products of the people that they serve.  They are, like people, inherently imperfect and fallible.  There is a reason we hold principles like the Rule of Law to be sacrosanct; it is to maintain a proper relationship between citizens themselves and between the citizens and their government.  You start by telling me what I, as a citizen, can and can't wear today and tommorrow you'll be telling me to turn in my Rap albums along with my handgun and that I can only cut my hair in the prescribed manner (this would all fit in with your proscription against "looking like a gang member") .  Sorry, but that is tyranny plain and simple and you'll find yourself in a bad spot if you come to enforce that upon me, my family or my friends.   

You are a catch-and-release cop for a reason and it doesn't involve our fundamental freedoms....


----------



## GO!!! (2 Jan 2006)

Infanteer, 

I suppose you also support the "right" of the Angels to grace our city streets wearing their patches, and their prospects to throw their weight around - the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was intended to protect the citizens of this nation, not to give criminals something to hide behind. 

The "liberal interpretation" of the criminal code that you accuse the judges of having is alive and well in your post when you immediately equate restrictions on dress with "tyranny". Are tyrrannies like speed limits and drug restrictions also included? 

No one is trying to "ban" a certain type of dress, only associate it (officially) with a certain lifestyle that is a threat to society. Just as gun owners give up some money and jump through administrative hoops to remain legal gun owners, I see no reason why a "criminal dress code" could not be used as reason for a search - after all, if you have nothing to hide - what's the big deal?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (2 Jan 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It's fitting to see, in the same paragraph, somebody whine about "civil libertarian rhetoric" and complain that Canadians want killing, drug trafficking and lawlessness.  Talk about irony.


No, that is sarcasm.  A subtle but important difference.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Do you really understand the consequences of the arguments you are making?  Make "looking like a gang-member" a criminal offence?  You'd be willing to outlaw a red bandanna and baggy pants in Canadian society for what, to stop a few young men from assaulting and killing each other?  I see "unprincipled egoist" is a common fit around here.
> 
> Governments are products of the people that they serve.  They are, like people, inherently imperfect and fallible.  There is a reason we hold principles like the Rule of Law to be sacrosanct; it is to maintain a proper relationship between citizens themselves and between the citizens and their government.  You start by telling me what I, as a citizen, can and can't wear today and tommorrow you'll be telling me to turn in my Rap albums along with my handgun and that I can only cut my hair in the prescribed manner (this would all fit in with your proscription against "looking like a gang member") .  Sorry, but that is tyranny plain and simple and you'll find yourself in a bad spot if you come to enforce that upon me, my family or my friends.


I guess I should have been more specific about what dress.  Yes, locking a kid up for wearing baggy pants would be unreasonable.   But if someone is wearing Hells Angels colours or any other established gang, it should be a no brainer.  You have to go through a lot of crap to get those and not just buying them at the Gap.  Same for street gangs.  It is well known that there is gang symbology and various ways to wear clothes and colours indicate your membership in a gang.  There is no way to accidentally put together some of these combinations.  I believe I started off by saying that we are far to liberal to enact such laws, and was trying to suggest a somewhat painless solution, since it is already against the law to belong to a criminal organization.  
By all means, please don your best G-Unit hoodie with three point crown medallion on a 36" gold chain with baggy urban camo cargo pants and a brand new Carolinas ball cap with black and white bandanna under it, pull up your left trouser leg to over your calf, cap your front teeth with your best gold and diamond covers, have your four finger ring "playa" bling and roll up to some homies in the Jane/Finch corridor and jump out.  In a clear steady voice proclaim "Fo shizzle, my bitches!!" and revel in your uniquely Canadian experience.  We'll see you on the cover of the Sun with the headline "Courageous Tyranny Fighter Tragically Struck Down". 



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> You are a catch-and-release cop for a reason and it doesn't involve our fundamental freedoms....



And feel free to qualify "the reason" *you * think I have to do catch-and-release.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Jan 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I suppose you also support the "right" of the Angels to grace our city streets wearing their patches, and their prospects to throw their weight around



Yes I do.  I don't understand how targetting somebody's choice of fashion is supposed to stop criminal acts.  Until they break the law, a fat slob with a patch is free to wear whatever they want because they are just that, a fat slob with a patch.  However, I also support Bill C-95; some Biker's brazen use of his freedom of expression will also provide reasonable evidence to tag him with the additional sentence of belonging to a organized crime group.  Now, if one were able to prove that these low-level shooters in Toronto are actually organized criminal enterprises (Crips and Bloods come to mind) then use their dress against them; but I doubt it - most of these guys are probably low-lifes with a silly sense of fashion they lifted from some crappy rap album.



> the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was intended to protect the citizens of this nation, not to give criminals something to hide behind.



Protect citizens from what?  You should read into what roles constitutionalism and a bill of rights serve in a liberal, democratic society - the wiki links provided are a good starting place.  Constitutionally entrenched individual rights serve to regulate the relationship between people and their government.  A government has a lot of resources and power and can bring the hammer of god down on an individual if it wishes - constitutional rights establish the "rules of the game".  This is certainly the founding principle behind the US Bill of Rights - it responded to many of the complaints that were lodged in the Declaration of Independence.  Our own constitutional evolution is much the same.  The Charter is far from perfect (Section 33 is a joke), but it is a step in the right direction.



> The "liberal interpretation" of the criminal code that you accuse the judges of having is alive and well in your post when you immediately equate restrictions on dress with "tyranny".



I don't get where you are getting this from.  How do you equate a justice system that cycles criminals in and out of a "rehabilitative" penal system and the government saying "Hey you, wearing those clothes in that fashion is now against the law!" as the same thing?



> Are tyrrannies like speed limits and drug restrictions also included?



Bullocks.  A definite case can be made to show that excessive speed (which is really reckless use of an automobile) and hardcore drug use represent reasonable cases of risk to society; sure, there is a gray area that is open to debate - I think 110Km/H isn't speeding and that Marijuana doesn't constitute a "hard core" drug - but the principles are generally sound.  I've yet to see any of you make the case that violating the fundamental freedom of expression will add any realistic value to a law enforcement officers tool-belt when compared to the costs of doing so in both moral and enforcement terms.  Sure, there is a cessation of some liberty to the government to ensure a relatively free and peaceful society; these reasonable legal proscriptions in society are covered under the Section 7 of the Charter and as far as I am concerned "dresses funny" is not _"in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."_



> No one is trying to "ban" a certain type of dress, only associate it (officially) with a certain lifestyle that is a threat to society.



Well, Mr Zipperheadcop said "If you look like a criminal, you get treated like a criminal", so I can only assume that a "ban" was the intention.  Baggy pants and doo-rags are not a threat to society - I implore you to prove to me that they are.



> Just as gun owners give up some money and jump through administrative hoops to remain legal gun owners, I see no reason why a "criminal dress code" could not be used as reason for a search - after all, if you have nothing to hide - what's the big deal?



As I said above, good governance implies that we surrender a certain amount of negative freedom to ensure a free and safe society.  It doesn't mean we violate our fundamental principles by flagrantly disregarding the most basic liberal democratic freedoms.  Unfortunately, the right to bear arms and protect oneself isn't entrenched, but either way subjecting owners to public scrutiny with a licence and validation is not unreasonable (we do the same with automobiles).  Saying that "if you wear X, you open yourself up to arbitrary detainment and arrest" is unreasonable and I challenge you to prove otherwise; there is no reason that you should face a derogation of your rights and freedoms for shopping at the "Urban Barn" and wearing "FUBU".

The "law-abiding citizens have nothing to hide" line is stale.  Citizens, irregardless of who they are, shouldn't have to juggle their rights when dealing with the government.  As I said earlier, people are fallible and thus governments are apt to follow the fickle whim of whoever is pushing the levers at the time if constraints aren't put in place (and backed by the will to enforce them by the people who live under them).  The proof is in the pudding right on Army.ca; look at all the jaw-jaw that goes around these forums.  One guy says it would be great to forbid anyone to have handguns without providing any real good reason what-so-ever (except for some lame, unfounded cry to security) while another guy wants to put limits on what people do in the sack for the sake of a "moral wall" that "protects society".  Now we see folks willing to base a presumption of guilt upon fashion sense and have no qualms against ignoring the freedom of expression.

You can throw the term "liberal" at me in a crappy ad hominem attempt to undermine my argument, but everything I see here only helps to reinforce my belief in principles because I have no doubt that if we didn't stick to them they would be pissed away in an instant.  Because some idiot who likes Fifty-Cent happens to shoot some other guy from his neighbourhood shouldn't grant anybody, including agents of the state (and that includes us soldiers), the authority to tar all with the broad brush of "presumed guilty" for the mere fact that they (in this specific case) happen to prefer similar dress.

Guys, all of this - gun control, morality between the sheets, the clothes you choose to wear and the right against unreasonable search and seizure - is all connected and underlined by the same fundamental principle.  Just as I don't appreciate some yuppie from Toronto telling me what firearms I should be allowed to own for the sake of public safety, I don't appreciate some cop telling all Canadians (which is what happens when you make a law) what styles of dress should be more appropriate for wear if you wish to avoid detainment.  As I have before, I'll pull out Brad Sallows quote which helps to best encapsulate the debate:



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The point of having principles - such as respecting the freedom of others to pursue their own happiness - is to do so consistently, not merely when it's potentially your ox that is about to be gored.  OTOH, if you are an unprincipled egoist, that would not apply.
> 
> Presumption of innocence - does that mean anything to you?  How about right of enjoyment of property, or pursuit of self-fulfillment and happiness?  Are these just things which may be cast aside when it is convenient so that you personally may feel just a little less timid each day?
> 
> I do not own any firearms or a FAC, but I do have a shred of respect for the rights of others.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Jan 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I believe I started off by saying that we are far to liberal to enact such laws, and was trying to suggest a somewhat painless solution, since it is already against the law to belong to a criminal organization.



Is it?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but looking at the results of Bill C-95 I can see that:


> "criminal organization offence" means
> 
> (a) an offence under section 467.1 or an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for five years or more, or
> 
> (b) a conspiracy or an attempt to commit, being an accessory after the fact in relation to, or any counselling in relation to, an offence referred to in paragraph (a);



Which seems to me to indicate that being a gang-member isn't against the law, but rather committing a criminal offence for the benefit of one is.  This seems to be backed by:



> Participation in criminal organization
> 467.1 (1) Every one who
> 
> (a) participates in or substantially contributes to the activities of a criminal organization knowing that any or all of the members of the organization engage in or have, within the preceding five years, engaged in the commission of a series of indictable offences under this or any other Act of Parliament for each of which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for five years or more, and
> ...



Participation is dependent upon *engaging in indictable offences* - I don't see anything here to indicate that simply belonging to an organized criminal enterprise itself is a crime - and for good reason; if somebody is a member of a motorcycle gang and never commits a crime in their life, how can your put them in jail?  Although the probability of this happening is probably quite rare due to the way these organizations work, the principle of presumption of innocence forces us to assume it to be a possibility.  Until you have an indictable criminal offence, you can't put a guy away for wearing gang colours.  Once you put him away, the gang colours can add some time on to his sentence, depending upon his function within the criminal organization.

Is this correct?



> And feel free to qualify "the reason" *you * think I have to do catch-and-release.



Well, you really answered your own question.  The reason you do "catch-and-release" is because we are constantly releasing.  Incarcerating dangerous criminals for longer periods of time (in a gulag) and executing capital offenders isn't going to eliminate crime (which probably isn't going away anyways, as it is tied to the human condition), as there will always be somebody else who'll violate the law, but it lessens the work load and allows you to work on the new guys when the veteran-felons are up in a camp in Nunavut for 20 years (no parole), no?


----------



## Cloud Cover (2 Jan 2006)

Not sure if this has actually been tested before a competent court without  the commission of an actual offence.  I suppose the basis to detain and release stems from any R&PG relating to the part boldened below:

 "criminal organization offence" means

(a) an offence under section 467.1 or an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for five years or more, or

(b) a conspiracy or an attempt to commit, *being an accessory after the fact in relation to, or any counselling in relation to*, an offence referred to in paragraph (a);

With respect to the words "conspiracy ... to commit"- one can be part of a conspiracy to committ by "knowledge"; "wilful blindness" and perhaps in extremely rare circumstances "reckless disregard." 


I note that 467.1(1)(a) requires the crown to prove a mental element along with the other conditions precedent in the 5 year period outlined by Infanteer below. The knowledge requirement raises a significant legal challenge for the crown- the accused does not have to disprove knowledge, the crown must prove knowledge. I think the LEA could provide all kinds of evidence to support that part of the offence, but getting a judge to accept it is not a cake walk. Here is where it really gets interesting- notice it doesn't say "convicted of an indictable offence"  anywhere in the section? It just says "engaged in the commission of a series of ...." Although in theory it could work both ways, I would think that if there haven't been any convictions, it would raise the workload for the crown to prove the knowledge element of the offence. 

Second,  notice the condition subsequent in (b) - the accused must be a party to the commission of the offence (very broad language- one can be a party to the commission of an offence without actually committing the offence) at a point in time after  developing the knowledge.  

This tells me that arrests leading to charges under 467.1 are generally intended for indictable offences in the advanced planning stage through to points past commission of the offence. 

467.1 contains far too many subcomponents and has a very complex web of requirements to act effectively for a general anti-gang law. "Membership" alone should be disentangled from the section and set up as a separate offence. What we really need in Canada is a clearer crown elective charge that would make it illegal to knowingly benefit or be wilfully blind to the source of any benefit from the commission of any offence or series of offences committed by a criminal organization in which only one  of the members is convicted for the offence. This would cast a very wide net, and would give the crown an pre-emptive opportunity make examples out of those who think it's cool to be a gangster prior to their own rather predictable involvement in something wicked at a later date.   Of course, 2 immediate impacts would be felt- (1) after recent convictions, a lot of Liberals could end up in jail the next time they steal; and (2) the Charter would kick the shit out of any theory of criminal liability along those lines.


----------



## kcdist (2 Jan 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I challenge you to reasonably prove to me that there is a "crisis" in Toronto.
> 
> There were 78 homicides in Toronto in 2005, 52 of which involved a firearm.  I'm not sure what percentage of these 78 homicides were due to gang-violence.  Are you trying to tell me that in a city of 5,000,000 people that 50 some-odd deaths constitutes a crisis?!?  Christ, Dallas and Chicago were each close to 500 homicides in 2005 (IIRC) and I don't see them running to burn the Bill of Rights to solve that problem.



Infanteer,

According to the 2001 census, approximately 150,000 Torontonians were new or first generation Jamaicans. It is generally agreed that the Jamaican community comprises either the victims and the culprits in almost all the shootings this past year.

The national homicide rate for 2003 was 1.73 for every 100,000 citizens in Canada.

Based on attributing 50 of Toronto's 78 homicides in 2005 to the Jamaican community, the homicide rate for that community would be  33.33 for every 100,000.

Conclusion - Does not a homicide rate of 19 times the national average constitute a crisis?

I didn't state I thought the entire city of Toronto was in crisis. Unfortunately though, one of it's core communities is.

Now the true callous observer could state that there is still not a crisis, because the homicide rate in Jamaica is 50/100,000 vice only 33.33/100,000 for Jamaicans in Toronto, but that would be true liberalspeak.




			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Incarcerating dangerous criminals for longer periods of time (in a gulag) and executing capital offenders isn't going to eliminate crime (which probably isn't going away anyways, as it is tied to the human condition), as there will always be somebody else who'll violate the law, but it lessens the work load and allows you to work on the new guys when the veteran-felons are up in a camp in Nunavut for 20 years (no parole), no?



As stated above, major cities in the U.S have homicide rates that put our worse cities to shame. Now, this is only going on personal experience, but one of the wonderful things about Canada is that the huge majority of our citizens are law abiding. If, for example, a Katrina-like disaster happened anywhere in Canada, I think it would be far-fetched to expect the type of lawlessness we all observed in New Orleans.

When I worked as a police officer in Calgary, it was often the same culprits over and over and over again. Perhaps only 0.2% of the population, however, with our revolving system of justice, that was enough to keep an entire Police Service busy. (That, and the mandatory ticket quota.....but I digress)

I strongly believed that with that core group out of the food chain, we would be virtually crime free. There are not hundreds/thousands of wanna-be bad guys in the wings waiting for their chance at crime once the king pins fall. I think a three strike.....heck even a six strike.....law in Canada would be phenomenally effective. 

With the exception of some parts of Winnipeg and Toronto, Canada as a whole doesn't have major breeding grounds for criminals. Once they're gone for good, they aren't coming back.

Bring on the gulags....


----------



## pbi (2 Jan 2006)

> I strongly believed that with that core group out of the food chain, we would be virtually crime free. There are not hundreds/thousands of wanna-be bad guys in the wings waiting for their chance at crime once the king pins fall. I think a three strike.....heck even a six strike.....law in Canada would be phenomenally effe



I am equally certain that removing this group would, for a short run, reduce the most violent crime statistics. I would suggest, however, that we incarcerate them forever, deport them, or subject them to internal banishment since I have no faith whatsoever that our prison system would do much to make useful citizens out of them. Maybe, in the best interests of our society, one of my three options might not be a bad idea.

But, in the longer run, what then? How do we get at the root causes of why young men (and, to a very much lesser extent, young women) go this way? Because, if we don't get at those causes, then a new crew will simply step forward to fill the shoes of the first crop we lock up or ship out.

While I tend to sympathize with Infanteer that simply banning a style of clothing probably won't do much, I think that we do have to tackle and neutralize that whole culture that gives rise to the mentality represented by "colours".  This is best done, and perhaps can only be done, through the cultural group that is the home of the problem. But how do you get people to cooperate with the police, to set up Neighborhood Watch groups, to teach their kids respect for authority, for women, for themselves? I really don't know how to go about this, but IMHO if that doesn't get done we (society--all colours and cultures-) can't win this. The police are a part of the solution, just like the military is part of the solution in places like Iraq or Afgh, but the police won't defeat it on their own, just as I don't believe they have defeated it in US cities of comparable size and demographics to Toronto, with far bigger (proportionally speaking) forces and a much more aggressive court system behind them. 

Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Jan 2006)

kcdist said:
			
		

> Conclusion - Does not a homicide rate of 19 times the national average constitute a crisis?
> 
> I didn't state I thought the entire city of Toronto was in crisis. Unfortunately though, one of it's core communities is.
> 
> Now the true callous observer could state that there is still not a crisis, because the homicide rate in Jamaica is 50/100,000 vice only 33.33/100,000 for Jamaicans in Toronto, but that would be true liberalspeak.



I don't know - Ghiglieri in The Dark Side of Man points out that, on average, the murder rate of juvenile US gang members (ages under 18 and of all ethnic groups) is *463/100,000.*  This is much higher then anything seen in Canada.  Does it constitute a crisis that demands a suspension of some civil liberties?  I don't think so - as I said, you don't see the Americans running to shred the Bill of Rights to deal with its inner-city crime problems.  This is not an immanent threat to the well being of Canada but rather an indication that there is an acute social problem within a specific community that needs to be addressed.  I don't think you can address social problems with the Emergencies Act.



> I strongly believed that with that core group out of the food chain, we would be virtually crime free. There are not hundreds/thousands of wanna-be bad guys in the wings waiting for their chance at crime once the king pins fall. I think a three strike.....heck even a six strike.....law in Canada would be phenomenally effective.



I agree with you here, kcdist.  As I said earlier, this doesn't need any extraordinary measures to be dealt with.  If all these guys who were "known to police" were off the streets, then they wouldn't be out shooting people.



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> But, in the longer run, what then? How do we get at the root causes of why young men (and, to a very much lesser extent, young women) go this way? Because, if we don't get at those causes, then a new crew will simply step forward to fill the shoes of the first crop we lock up or ship out.



I firmly believe that the cause is rooted in our biology - we aren't going to escape from the fact that some young men will use violence to achieve the goals.  However I agree with you that dealing with the community with measures you indicated is the way to diminish this outbreak of youth violence.  My guess is you need to put the communities destiny in its own hands; they can then drop the ball or run with it.  I guess the question is how does one do this?


----------



## 3rd Herd (2 Jan 2006)

I think it was W5 recently ran  a show on the number of immigrants that were returning to their homelands, Canada not in reality to what they were told. PHD's doing janitorial work etc. I think allot has to do with cultural values( value of human life for example) and the clash of cultural values. To a certain extent the lack of education plays a part and leads to a frustration of not being able to succeed. Next add in peer pressure, natural leaders and followers. Throw into the mix those who will always try and find the easy way. Add a pinch of approiate role models( here there is a deffinite lack of) and the pot will "boil and bubble"


----------



## 1feral1 (2 Jan 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Take the gang members, from all gangs and ship em up to the great white north. drop em off at some old mine or logging site and tell em that they must depend on each other to survive the full term of their sentences... and visit the site once every 12 months...



For the non-Cdn ones, ie, landed immigrants etc, why not deport them (they do here with applause from the mainsteamers - irregardless of colour - we don't want that type of person in our country)? If they love a violent culture, most come from places where this is a daily routine, so I say ship 'em out. End the gravy boat of dole payments, and won't they have the longest faces you've seen.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Infanteer (2 Jan 2006)

You won't find an argument from me Wes - BC did that with an landed immigrant from India; he had a real bad driving record and ultimately ended up killing an innocent pedestrian in a street race.  Instead of running him through our penal system, he was just sent back to India and told not to bother coming back....


----------



## karl28 (2 Jan 2006)

Its most definitely time to crack down on these gangs and violent crimes . I say if
your caught with a hand gun in a crime than you should get life no second chances  . If your not a citizen of this country or recent immigrant than deport them . IT sounds harsh I know but something has to give this is getting way out of control.People are not safe anymore no matter where you are .  Just my two cents worth I hope that I didn't offend any one not my intentions


----------



## tourwife (2 Jan 2006)

Unfortunetly it's not only Toronto...Edmonton has become just as bad.  The only reason we don't think much about it is because the numbers are lower.  When you look at per capita though, Edmonton and Toronto really are the same, Edmonton if not worse.


----------



## 3rd Herd (2 Jan 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> You won't find an argument from me Wes - BC did that with an landed immigrant from India; he had a real bad driving record and ultimately ended up killing an innocent pedestrian in a street race.  Instead of running him through our penal system, he was just sent back to India and told not to bother coming back....



Indian military was waitting to for him when his plane landed, instant join up. All so several Indian gang members over the years, Bindi Johel for one but not enough


----------



## NavComm (2 Jan 2006)

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> All so several Indian gang members over the years, Bindi Johel for one but not enough



Do you mean Bindy Johal was waiting for this guy or that Bindy Johal was also awaiting deportation before he got killed?

I recall the uproar about Johal (what a media darling he was  : ) because I missed being caught in that crossfire by mere minutes (1994) in what IIRC was the start of the Indo-Canadian gang war over drugs and territory that IIRC ended (that particular war) with Johal's death in 1998.

The guy (it might have been one of the Dosanjh brothers, but I don't remember now) was killed on Kingsway at Fraser - my usual route to work - at the time that I would have normally been going through that intersection, but by the grace of God, I was delayed that day and passed by when the police and paramedics were already at the scene.

We've had lots more gang violence and gun battles with unregistered guns since that time in Vancouver. It seems to go in fits and starts. What is most alarming now though, is that more and more innocent victims are being caught in the crossfire. Rachel Davis, Lee Matasi being two who come to mind, but there are have been many others.

As much as my heart goes out to the families and friends of the innocent victims, I cannot support banning registered hand guns or believe that doing that will have any negative impact on the way criminals operate because:

They don't pay any attention to the current laws - which are strict already
When they are caught, they get minimal sentences and are out before you can say "Bob's your uncle".
 Law abiding citizens are the only ones who will suffer yet another law that courts don't enforce

. 

just my $0.02


----------



## midgetcop (3 Jan 2006)

kcdist said:
			
		

> Infanteer,
> 
> According to the 2001 census, approximately 150,000 Torontonians were new or first generation Jamaicans. It is generally agreed that the Jamaican community comprises either the victims and the culprits in almost all the shootings this past year.



They are mainly black. But I'd like to see your source indicating that they were mostly recent Jamaican immigrants (you could indeed be correct, but I'd like to know for sure).



> The national homicide rate for 2003 was 1.73 for every 100,000 citizens in Canada.
> 
> Based on attributing 50 of Toronto's 78 homicides in 2005 to the Jamaican community, the homicide rate for that community would be  33.33 for every 100,000.
> 
> Conclusion - Does not a homicide rate of 19 times the national average constitute a crisis?



Depends on whether your first statement is 100% factual. And, IMO it's more a gang/drug-issue, and not one isolated to ethnicity.  

Irregardless, proving that certain types of crimes happen within particular groups doesn't constitute a crisis. That's like saying that since the average suicide-rate amongst Native Canadians is 20 times higher than the national average it constitutes a crisis (then again, maybe it does...).


----------



## midgetcop (3 Jan 2006)

tourwife said:
			
		

> Unfortunetly it's not only Toronto...Edmonton has become just as bad.  The only reason we don't think much about it is because the numbers are lower.  When you look at per capita though, Edmonton and Toronto really are the same, Edmonton if not worse.



Toronto's not even 2nd on the list:

"And Toronto's murder rate per capita this year is lower than the rate for Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver and Calgary."


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jan 2006)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> Irregardless, proving that certain types of crimes happen within particular groups doesn't constitute a crisis. That's like saying that since the average suicide-rate amongst Native Canadians is 20 times higher than the national average it constitutes a crisis (then again, maybe it does...).





			
				midgetcop said:
			
		

> Toronto's not even 2nd on the list:
> 
> "And Toronto's murder rate per capita this year is lower than the rate for Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver and Calgary."



Nice one-two punch.  I think this supports the point that a "crisis" is the work of the media and politicians.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 Jan 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I don't know - Ghiglieri in The Dark Side of Man points out that, on average, the murder rate of juvenile US gang members (ages under 18 and of all ethnic groups) is *463/100,000.*  This is much higher then anything seen in Canada.  Does it constitute a crisis that demands a suspension of some civil liberties?  I don't think so - as I said, you don't see the Americans running to shred the Bill of Rights to deal with its inner-city crime problems.  This is not an immanent threat to the well being of Canada but rather an indication that there is an acute social problem within a specific community that needs to be addressed.  I don't think you can address social problems with the Emergencies Act.


Nice.  So lets hang back and let the problem snowball until the violence is 100 times worse here.  You don't think that if the US could turn back the hands of time and get a grip on this crap before it got this bad they wouldn't?  How about taking a pro-active stance and nipping it in the bud before we get there.  There is no greater cultural influence to Canada than the USA.  We are a shadow of them (like it or not, no matter how much 'Corner Gas' you force yourself to watch) but we don't have to be like them.  All of these problems are manageable and correctable, with a few intelligent (read not liberal) steps in the right direction.  

Back a page, your point about not enforcing the laws against organized crime members until they get caught doing something;  how do you think they get their colours?  By hosting a tastefully appointed garden party and integrating origami napkins?  For real gangs it takes years of being a hanger on, striker, probationary member before you get your full colours.  The non-full patch members are the ones who do the most crime, in order to prove themselves.  Once they get their colours, they have committed a heap of criminal acts to get there.  Connecting their crime to the organizations is pretty easy.  Intelligence gathering is coming into a new golden age, and it's at a point where I can read a report filed in Vancouver, or pull up a mug shot.  And just because a law exits doesn't mean it gets enforced.  Discression does kick in as does common sense.  There have been dozens of kids that I could have locked up over the years for wearing those rings that go across more than one finger for being a prohibited weapon, but you look at the kid and his record and you choose not to.  Discression is what terrifies you liberals, because you can't handle not knowing what will happen.  I'm sure your friend Brad Swallows has a trite quote for this too, but what you are arguing is the old "Police State" bogeyman.  Maybe some input from people who live in a police state, like Singapore would be useful.  Maybe we would find out that when you have a rock bottom crime rate you can free up community resources for social programs and education.  PBI was bang on with his post about the effectiveness of tough sentencing options and better social nets.  Unfortunately, the only thing that has a nice fluffy feel to it is working on the social programs.  There has to be a two pronged attack with both concepts to be effective.


----------



## midgetcop (3 Jan 2006)

Whoa. zipperhead, your arguments would sound a lot more reasonable if you left out all the irrational liberal-bashing.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Jan 2006)

They sound fine to me


----------



## midgetcop (3 Jan 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> They sound fine to me



Alright. Then explain:



> Discression is what terrifies you liberals, because you can't handle not knowing what will happen.



..because in/out of context I have no idea what he's talking about. 

:shrug:


----------



## Cloud Cover (3 Jan 2006)

"discretion" ...


Anyway, having attended the revolting and rather endless parade in the criminal courts in Toronto a few times, I just can't see how any amount of social safety net programs are going to change anything for the better. To me, that's just throwing good money after bad.  

I'm not so sure that the reason crime is so low in Singapore can be accounted for by any fear of the law alone. I have to wonder if it can be explained by an effective and highly disciplined education system that is properly funded and structured, and which teaches simple social skills - like how to be a responsible person. 

Going back to the Toronto court rooms, IIRC all I ever saw was a whole lot of irresponsibility sustained if not actually propelled by a culturally and constitutionally entrenched broken system which seems to reward brazen disrespect not just for authority and law, but on fundamental human terms as well.   The culture of victimhood in Canada has deeply polluted our society to the extent that even the most despicable crimes and criminals are somehow always the fault of another, and never the accused. That is precisely the mistake the United States made post WW2, and for a country that consistently thumps its chest and says "we're better because ...", we seem to follow the US for better or for worse- and now it's starting to get people killed.  IMHO the gang problem is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jan 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Nice.  So lets hang back and let the problem snowball until the violence is 100 times worse here.  You don't think that if the US could turn back the hands of time and get a grip on this crap before it got this bad they wouldn't?  How about taking a pro-active stance and nipping it in the bud before we get there.



Again, does it constitute a crisis that is going to turn Toronto into Johannesburg or Sodom and Gomorrah?  As midgetcop pointed out, there are far more lethal problems in Canadian society and other cities have higher homicide rates per capita then Toronto.  I think you are being a bit of a chicken little on this one.



> Back a page, your point about not enforcing the laws against organized crime members until they get caught doing something;  how do you think they get their colours?



Thanks for the lessons on the obvious; you'll remember that I pointed that out - catch them for the crime then.  We don't need to invent new laws to get these guys.  You've yet to address my concern that the one guy charged in connection with the boxing day shooting had a nice rap sheet - I think we can both figure out the problem.



> Discression is what terrifies you liberals, because you can't handle not knowing what will happen.  I'm sure your friend Brad Swallows has a trite quote for this too, but what you are arguing is the old "Police State" bogeyman.



lol - I love how you constantly refer to me as a "liberal".  Is it making my argument easier to debate when you insist on bringing in meaningless outside rhetoric?  You, or anyone, have yet to build a reasonable case as to why extraordinary measures are required to fight organized crime.

As I said, the "Police State boogyman" obviously isn't a boogyman when Law Enforcement officers come here and say we should outlaw certain types of clothes or justify search and seizure upon flimsy grounds.



> Maybe some input from people who live in a police state, like Singapore would be useful.



I'd hardly consider Singapore a police state.  They, like us, have a Constitution and they abide by the "rules of the game".



> PBI was bang on with his post about the effectiveness of tough sentencing options and better social nets.



Well it is good to see you agree with me then, because PBI concurred with my disagreement with your idea and I agreed with him on tough sentencing.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 Jan 2006)

I have found that there is a point of commonality in liberal though that has a theme of "you cant trust the government" (no Liberal endorsement suggested) and "its a slippery slope/it will be Big Brother".  In all likely hood, the ones who advocate rights for the sake of rights at societies expense are highly educated free thinkers who could handle themselves credibly in a completely autonomous environment.  They also are not the ones who are committing the crime.  Criminal thought (this is from experience, not some study) is closer to animal instinct for habitual offenders.  They think in terms of "what do I want now" and don't look much farther than about an hour down the road.  The only thing that stops this kind of introverted view is a sense of consequence.  Criminals generally don't have that because there is nothing in our system that provides it.  Do you think that a $200 fine is an appropriate sentence for a drug dealer (who is currently doing dead time for setting up a robbery scheme with another crack head and a hooker who would lure a john into an alley then jump the guy) with a 30 conviction plus record for resisting arrest where they forced their way into a strangers home to escape from officers?  $200 @ $40 per crack rock=5 drug transactions minimum which takes roughly one hour.
Police have used discression for years with no "slide" into draconian conditions.  Has no one ever gotten a break on a traffic stop?  Ever gotten a 12 hour suspension when you could have gotten drilled for impaired op of a car?  Just because the law exists, doesn't mean it will be enforced.  It gives us options.  The only thing in the Criminal Code which requires us to make an arrest is when a warrant for an arrest existsBetter to have the option and not use it, than not be able to do anything about this gang problem.
Im sure that there are hundreds of issues that we could point to needing work, but is this thread not "Guns, Gangs and Toronto"?
As for "liberal bashing" when has that ever been irrational?  Or even discouraged for that matter?


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jan 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure that the reason crime is so low in Singapore can be accounted for by any fear of the law alone. I have to wonder if it can be explained by an effective and highly disciplined education system that is properly funded and structured, and which teaches simple social skills - like how to be a responsible person.



You got that right - there is a reason you can leave your bike, unlocked, out on the street overnight in Japan or Singapore.  I think it is related to the issue below.



> Going back to the Toronto court rooms, IIRC all I ever saw was a whole lot of irresponsibility sustained if not actually propelled by a culturally and constitutionally entrenched broken system which seems to reward brazen disrespect not just for authority and law, but on fundamental human terms as well.   The culture of victimhood in Canada has deeply polluted our society to the extent that even the most despicable crimes and criminals are somehow always the fault of another, and never the accused. That is precisely the mistake the United States made post WW2, and for a country that consistently thumps its chest and says "we're better because ...", we seem to follow the US for better or for worse- and now it's starting to get people killed.  IMHO the gang problem is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.



Yup.  That is probably the root societies within Canada gone awry - no responsibility.  Me, me, me causes them to fall apart and then "it's someone else's" fault in a "rehabilitative" penal system only reinforces that mantra.  I'm going to blame it on Trudeau.   

That's why I like the gulag and the noose - if they aren't going to be responsible then we'll take responsibility for them.


----------



## midgetcop (3 Jan 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> ... we seem to follow the US for better or for worse- and now it's starting to get people killed.  IMHO the gang problem is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.



It's "starting" to get people killed? Where have you been the past 20 years??


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jan 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I have found that there is a point of commonality in liberal though that has a theme of "you cant trust the government" (no Liberal endorsement suggested) and "its a slippery slope/it will be Big Brother".



You need to examine the term "liberal" and its various meanings.  In the context for which you are using it - which I will assume is "left-wing" - you are completely out to lunch.  Left-wing ideology is most often statist, aiming towards centralizing control into the hands of the state so as to better exercise control over the populace and provide what it determines to be adequate service in various facets of daily life.

So now I guess this makes YOU a "liberal" for wanting to give the police unheard of powers of enforcement and the ability to target people based upon their appearance alone.  Of course, this wouldn't be the first time I've seen this from a law-enforcement officer; I had one guy tell me that he didn't think the average Canadian deserved the right to defend himself with lethal force as "he didn't need any Rambo's making his job tougher".  He probably voted for the Gun Registry too....

If you had bothered to actually read what I have said, you'd see that this is the exact opposite of the above.  I believe in smaller government that will stay out of the lives of the common citizen - and this includes the police.  Until somebody is arrested and convicted for a crime, there is no reason to take them off the streets.  The average citizen needs to be empowered to repel a threat so that the public does not need to require the police as it's sole source for security.  Remember that Peel Principle that was put up earlier?

-  _"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that *the police are the public and the public are the police*; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to *duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence*."_

You'll forgive me if I don't feel like being pestered, detained and search everytime a cop feels I've done something wrong.  It is not incumbent on every citizen, in the interests of community welfare and existence, to violate fundamental rights that come with being a citizen.  If we don't define the proper relationship between the citizen and the state appropriately, there is nothing to say that it won't happen - you put too much faith in "discretion".



> In all likely hood, the ones who advocate rights for the sake of rights at societies expense are highly educated free thinkers who could handle themselves credibly in a completely autonomous environment.



Huh?



> Criminal thought (this is from experience, not some study) is closer to animal instinct for habitual offenders.  They think in terms of "what do I want now" and don't look much farther than about an hour down the road.  The only thing that stops this kind of introverted view is a sense of consequence.  Criminals generally don't have that because there is nothing in our system that provides it.



I'd argue that this behaviour is probably common for most, if not all, humans.  Where is the sense of consequence when some chick is trying to put makeup on her face while driving to work, putting countless others at risk.



> Do you think that a $200 fine is an appropriate sentence for a drug dealer (who is currently doing dead time for setting up a robbery scheme with another crack head and a hooker who would lure a john into an alley then jump the guy) with a 30 conviction plus record for resisting arrest where they forced their way into a strangers home to escape from officers?  $200 @ $40 per crack rock=5 drug transactions minimum which takes roughly one hour.



No I don't, and I don't see where you are getting this idea that I am "soft on crime", so quit trying to peg it on me.



> Police have used discression for years with no "slide" into draconian conditions.  Has no one ever gotten a break on a traffic stop?  Ever gotten a 12 hour suspension when you could have gotten drilled for impaired op of a car?  Just because the law exists, doesn't mean it will be enforced.  It gives us options.  The only thing in the Criminal Code which requires us to make an arrest is when a warrant for an arrest existsBetter to have the option and not use it, than not be able to do anything about this gang problem.



Police are human too, no?  Then it only follows that police, like any other citizen, is fallible and can screw up and cross the line.  It doesn't take any stretch of the imagination to picture that.

Police officers can do lots about the gang problem - the fact that they guys they bust are out after 3 months is the problem.



> As for "liberal bashing" when has that ever been irrational?  Or even discouraged for that matter?



I'm still trying to figure out when respect for fundamental freedoms became the domain of the "liberal"....


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jan 2006)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> It's "starting" to get people killed? Where have you been the past 20 years??



He was referring to the "culture of victimhood".  People will always kill people, but now we are seeing people killed unnecessarily because we are soft and allow those who should have went up the creek to rejoin society and commit crimes again and again.


----------



## midgetcop (3 Jan 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I have found that there is a point of commonality in liberal though that has a theme of "you cant trust the government" (no Liberal endorsement suggested) and "its a slippery slope/it will be Big Brother".



When you can prove that that is a "liberal" viewpoint, then you can you righteously throw that claim around. 



> In all likely hood, the ones who advocate rights for the sake of rights at societies expense are highly educated free thinkers who could handle themselves credibly in a completely autonomous environment.  They also are not the ones who are committing the crime.



Huh??



> Criminal thought (this is from experience, not some study) is closer to animal instinct for habitual offenders.  They think in terms of "what do I want now" and don't look much farther than about an hour down the road.  The only thing that stops this kind of introverted view is a sense of consequence.



You contradict yourself. If they look no further than an hour down the road, then how are they supposed to have any sense of consequence??



> Criminals generally don't have that because there is nothing in our system that provides it.  Do you think that a $200 fine is an appropriate sentence for a drug dealer (who is currently doing dead time for setting up a robbery scheme with another crack head and a hooker who would lure a john into an alley then jump the guy) with a 30 conviction plus record for resisting arrest where they forced their way into a strangers home to escape from officers?  $200 @ $40 per crack rock=5 drug transactions minimum which takes roughly one hour.



Sure. Are you willing to cough up the tax dollars to fund more prisons??



> Police have used discression



I'm not trying to be a jerk. But do you mean "discretion"?



> for years with no "slide" into draconian conditions.  Has no one ever gotten a break on a traffic stop?  Ever gotten a 12 hour suspension when you could have gotten drilled for impaired op of a car?  Just because the law exists, doesn't mean it will be enforced.  It gives us options.  The only thing in the Criminal Code which requires us to make an arrest is when a warrant for an arrest existsBetter to have the option and not use it, than not be able to do anything about this gang problem.
> Im sure that there are hundreds of issues that we could point to needing work, but is this thread not "Guns, Gangs and Toronto"?



Sure. But your posts are quickly falling into incoherence.



> As for "liberal bashing" when has that ever been irrational?  Or even discouraged for that matter?



Bashing of *any* political party/leaning has never been encouraged in terms of providing a logical, rational opinion. Sure, it can influence. But when it comes to outright insults - it never earns credibility.


----------



## midgetcop (3 Jan 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> He was referring to the "culture of victimhood".  People will always kill people, but now we are seeing people killed unnecessarily because we are soft and allow those who should have went up the creek to rejoin society and commit crimes again and again.






 :


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jan 2006)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> :



I'm serious - can you think of any other reason that a guy who had prior convictions of robbery and uttering threats was able to take part in the shootout last week?


----------



## midgetcop (3 Jan 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm serious - can you think of any other reason that a guy who had prior convictions of robbery and uttering threats was able to take part in the shootout last week?



The only logical reason I can think of is system overload - meaning, that he had been let off previously because we don't have anywhere to put him. 


I know it's easy for people to feel that justice has gone "soft", or that judges/justices do not know what they're doing. 

Maybe I'm totally out to lunch, but I honestly don't think it's a matter of ineptitude , but rather of unfortunate necessity. 

How can we truly know either way?


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jan 2006)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> The only logical reason I can think of is system overload - meaning, that he had been let off previously because we don't have anywhere to put him.
> 
> I know it's easy for people to feel that justice has gone "soft", or that judges/justices do not know what they're doing.
> 
> ...



Well, I guess that means we agree then, as you seem to be saying that the the guy wasn't where he should have been, which was off of Toronto's streets.  The only difference is that I say we won't drop the hammer and you say we can't drop the hammer - the real answer is probably a combination of both.


----------



## mdh (3 Jan 2006)

It seems to me that Whiskey601 has pointed out the essence of the matter - a "culture of victimhood" that defies easy remedy by the state. 

The social pathologies of Jane and Finch (to use one enclave of poverty by way of example) are deeply entrenched and reinforced by a sub-culture that puts a premium on anarchic behaviour. Without any social and community restraints (and these restraints are also a matter of cultural orientation and upbringing), I'm not sure that prison terms are going to be the answer; we know that US incarceration rates are high -- but recidivism remains equally high. 

I doubt that the Total Cop Solution proposed above will get us very far in combating gang violence - most of which is directed at rival gang members anway. (The notion that Toronto "lost its innocence" in this recent incident is a media fiction - there have been gang shootings in the area of the Eaton Centre before and downtown night clubs are regular venues for handgun assassinations.)

Increasing sentences might be part of a solution - or there might not be a solution at all.  I'm not sure how you turn back the clock and make it unacceptable for fathers to abandon families, banish the romance of "Gangta Rap" from the media, instill traditional notions of individual responsbility, respect for the law, etc, etc? If anyone knows of a successful program that achieves all that - let me know.

Even the much-heralded success of the "broken windows" approach to policing in New York (which saw a dramatic fall in the crime rate) was probably due less to aggressive policing then simple demographics - a fall in the total number of violence-addicted youths which had reached a peak in the 1970s.


----------



## GO!!! (3 Jan 2006)

mdh said:
			
		

> Even the much-heralded success of the "broken windows" approach to policing in New York.....



What is this?


----------



## 48Highlander (3 Jan 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm still trying to figure out when respect for fundamental freedoms became the domain of the "liberal"....



Today's "liberals" (ie. those who support the Liberal party in Canada, or the Democrats in the US) tend to be the ones associated with absolute rights and zero responsibilities.  They're the ones pushing social programs and high taxes so that we can "provide for the poor".  They're also the ones who are against strict punishment and instead push "rehabilitation" or "prevention".  So while historicaly, "liberal"/communist regimes tend to actualy be quite oppressive, that only becomes obvious to the masses once that government implements it's ultimate goals.  In the meantime, "liberals" always see themselves as the champions of human rights and freedoms.  The USSR was supposed to be a "workers paradise", remember?


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jan 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Today's "liberals" (ie. those who support the Liberal party in Canada, or the Democrats in the US) tend to be the ones associated with absolute rights and zero responsibilities.  They're the ones pushing social programs and high taxes so that we can "provide for the poor".  They're also the ones who are against strict punishment and instead push "rehabilitation" or "prevention".  So while historicaly, "liberal"/communist regimes tend to actualy be quite oppressive, that only becomes obvious to the masses once that government implements it's ultimate goals.  In the meantime, "liberals" always see themselves as the champions of human rights and freedoms.  The USSR was supposed to be a "workers paradise", remember?



See, that's the trouble between liberal and Liberal.  The folks you are referring to are socialists, the antithesis of liberals.  This is what my reference was indicating:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal


----------



## 48Highlander (3 Jan 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> See, that's the trouble between liberal and Liberal.  The folks you are referring to are socialists, the antithesis of liberals.  This is what my reference was indicating:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal



Yeah, I'm quite aware of that, just trying to point out where the confusion is coming from so you guys can get past arguments based on simple symantics  

On the same note (if a bit off topic), you might enjoy this article:

I'm a "Conservative" because I'm a liberal


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jan 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'm quite aware of that, just trying to point out where the confusion is coming from so you guys can get past arguments based on simple symantics



 ;D



> On the same note (if a bit off topic), you might enjoy this article:
> 
> I'm a "Conservative" because I'm a liberal



Nice one.  Highlights very well why I disagree with both "Left" and "Right", or "Conservative" and "Liberal",  on various different things.


----------



## mdh (3 Jan 2006)

GO!!!

Here's a good summary on wikipedia about Broken Windows - makes for interesting reading...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_Windows

cheers, mdh


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 Jan 2006)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> You contradict yourself. If they look no further than an hour down the road, then how are they supposed to have any sense of consequence??


Don't be so thick.  They don't consider consequence because there IS NO CONSEQUENCE.  So they do whatever they have to at that moment.


			
				midgetcop said:
			
		

> Sure. Are you willing to cough up the tax dollars to fund more prisons??



Absolutely.  Please feel free to divert all of my tax contributions that go to welfare and divert them to a fund for a new prison if that means there is space freed up to keep these clowns in for longer.  I would like to see a little less Club Fed and a little more gulag, though.


			
				midgetcop said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to be a jerk. But do you mean "discretion"?


Too late.  If this comes down to a spell checker argument, we should sum up and lock this thread.



			
				midgetcop said:
			
		

> Bashing of *any* political party/leaning has never been encouraged in terms of providing a logical, rational opinion. Sure, it can influence. But when it comes to outright insults - it never earns credibility.


I guess I have to put a smiley on anything that is supposed to be sarcastic with humorless types around.  And as someone has already mentioned, there is a difference between big "L" and small "l" lliberals.  I am referring to the small l.  





			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> See, that's the trouble between liberal and Liberal.  The folks you are referring to are socialists, the antithesis of liberals.  This is what my reference was indicating:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal



So I apparently should be referring to socialists instead of liberals.  I stand corrected.  My definition is exactly what 48Highlander posted above.

Since my ideas are so easy to attack and completely irrational, how about some solutions from the SOCIALISTS in this debate?  It's pretty easy to hang back and shoot down ideas and spelling  but what do you suggest?  Infanteer, some useful protocol from Brad Swallows?  How would he handle Toronto?  What about you, Midget?  From your name and profile, you suggest that you are a police officer in the GTA, so you should have a perfect solution, since you live it everyday, right?  I only speak from experience and from observations of how this system works (or fails to).  We apparently have unlimited band width, so hack away, I can take it.  But maybe take a little time out from the self righteous pious-fest and offer something useful?


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jan 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Since my ideas are so easy to attack and completely irrational, how about some solutions from the SOCIALISTS in this debate?  It's pretty easy to hang back and shoot down ideas and spelling  but what do you suggest?  Infanteer, some useful protocol from Brad Swallows?



A.  I never questioned your spelling or grammar.

B.  So now I'm a socialist..... :rofl:



> We apparently have unlimited band width, so hack away, I can take it.  But maybe take a little time out from the self righteous pious-fest and offer something useful?



The "self righteous pious-fest" is yours and yours alone on this one.  I've given my ideas, go back and read them.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Jan 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The "self righteous pious-fest" is yours and yours alone on this one.  I've given my ideas, go back and read them.


Reply #11--complaining
Reply #14--someone else's idea, and complaining
Reply #21--opinion
Reply #108--compliment to previous post
Reply #115--good point, but no ideas
Reply #133--someone else's quote
Reply #145--attacking someone else
Reply #158--opinion
Reply #190--practicing math
Reply #192--link to article
Reply #194--opinion starting to slide into the hysterical for point of drama
Reply #196--opinion
Reply #198--opinion attacking me
Reply #201--lots of opinion and a call to maintain the status quo (and a shot at me)
Reply #202--support of existing laws and more shots at me
Reply #206--quote American stats, and finally an idea! "My guess is you need to put the communities destiny in its own hands; they can then drop the ball or run with it.  I guess the question is how does one do this?".  Ah, nuts.  No solutions.
Reply #209--good idea on Immigration
Reply #216--other peoples quotes and downplaying Toronto's problems
Reply #222--point by point cut down of my post, and fun with semantics
Reply #224--someone else's quotes, and an endorsement of forced labor camps and death penalty
Reply #226--call ME a liberal, then more point by point attacks
Reply #227--clarify a point that someone else made
Reply #230--replying to animated smileys
Reply #232--someone else's quote, and an opinion
Reply #236--a link to a definition
Reply #238--comment on link to article
Reply #241--a comment, an animated smiley and a challenge to go back and harvest the usefull solutions already posted.  

So here I am.  Did you mean I was supposed to go through all 8227 of your previous posts for your solutions for gang violence?


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Jan 2006)

I wasn't picking on your spelling per se- I kind of admire the creative flare added by your version of the word. 

My impression is that the vast majority of shitheads who belong to gangs (or are generally career criminals) do so because it is a learned behaviour in a socially permissive environment. As a result, changing the social aspect of the environment may be helpful in addressing the problem. 

Gangs and affiliated groups of criminals thrive because the state, especially police, are constrained to the point that they are nearly powerless to influence bad social behaviour- especially when faced with the power of a gang mentality. Whatever the state does to intervene in neighborhoods and cultural zones where gangs breed, there will always be those who say it is not enough or that the intervention is structurally imbalanced to favour one group over or at the expense of another. Hence, entitlement and victimhood intersect and work together to worsen a situation that might otherwise be contained.( but never extinguished)  There must be a social explanation, which I gather historically from Infanteers posts, lies with the permissive and tolerant nature of our society which we all have an interest in preserving to the maximum extent possible. One method of countering the gang phenomenon is to attempt to change the nature of the social environment that feeds the desire of young people to belong to gangs or otherwise participate in the criminal culture.   That doesn't mean increasing welfare or creating government supported jobs, it means injecting the necessary seeds of change into an otherwise poisoned garden. And yes, sometimes one has to pull the weeds and perhaps spray a little Round-Up.       

I believe criminal gangs are equal to tribalism, and tribes exist primarily for safety, security and familiarity. Hostile, anti social tribes have  therefore become a particularly nasty but thankfully small segment of what our society has evolved into. Without resorting to a truly oppressive system of laws backed up by extremely intrusive police powers applicable to all who are subject to the law, the only real alternative is to counter the root causes of gang mentality. That means doing things other than law enforcement, but not at the expense of enforcing the law. I don't think we have the right balance right now. That being said, I think in the short run [i.e. the next 40 or so years - 2 generations], we may have to rely on radical police powers to contain the growth of criminal gangs. 

Here is the real kicker that a lot of Canadians probably have with the heavy handed approach to dealing with gangs. They do not want to be equally subjected to the intrusive laws and invasive powers which some would have put in place to deal with criminals and criminal organizations - even if they break the law themselves. For some reason, many Canadians would prefer 2 sets of laws in the country- one set for habitual ass clowns and the other set for themselves- (with proper safeguards in place to protect their rights and minimize the consequences of their actions if they should have a mishap and go temporarily astray.)


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Jan 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> The USSR was supposed to be a "workers paradise", remember?



You mean it wasn't a paradise? Somebody should tell all those Buzz Hargrove/Liberal hating auto-workers in Oshawa that, because they are going to make sure "Komrad" Sid Ryan gets elected just to spite the Buzzmeister.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Jan 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I believe criminal gangs are equal to tribalism, and tribes exist primarily for safety, security and familiarity.



Don't forget massive profit from illegal activities, unless that falls under "security"



			
				whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Here is the real kicker that a lot of Canadians probably have with the heavy handed approach to dealing with gangs. They do not want to be equally subjected to the intrusive laws and invasive powers which some would have put in place to deal with criminals and criminal organizations - even if they break the law themselves. For some reason, many Canadians would prefer 2 sets of laws in the country- one set for habitual ass clowns and the other set for themselves- (with proper safeguards in place to protect their rights and minimize the consequences of their actions if they should have a mishap and go temporarily astray.)


Having their cake and eating it too is a long standing Canadian tradition.  It won't change any time soon.  
Whisky makes the best collective point I have seen in this thread so far.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jan 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> So here I am.  Did you mean I was supposed to go through all 8227 of your previous posts for your solutions for gang violence?



Well, you didn't have to go that far back with your interpretation of this gong-show.  I've stated quite clearly that a more strict justice system and a reformed penal system is one important part of solution.  The fact that a large majority of the crimes are committed by folks who are "known to police" (ie: in some process of the justice system) means that they obviously haven't been "rehabilitated".  Talk to Bruce Monkhouse about the way things work in Canada's jails - you'll see why I'm a little skeptical that criminal punishment is doing anything to help or protect Canadians.

Say we do adopt your proposed solution and grant excessive powers of search and detention and even outlaw "gangsta" clothes.  What is this going to do?  You are simply going to get another reason to catch the same people in the same places probably doing the same things.  You charge him for "gangsta appearance" and he does another quick loop through the justice system and is out in a day.  But now we also add to this the fact that my kid brother is now getting stopped and searched in downtown Vancouver because he has a penchant for large pants and wearing his hat sideways (thankfully he outgrew that trend a few years ago).  Having innocent Canadians subject to unnecessary scrutiny seems to be a big price to pay for such little return as another cycle of some punk through the courts.  It would really suck once it was you or your family that was subject to it - this should be one of the principles of establishing whether an act is just or unjust.  Look at the original position and the "maximin" theory for a further understanding of this principle.

The fact is, midgetcop put up stats to show that there are far bigger dangers in Canada and there a cities with more murders per capita.  The nature of your argument and proposals seem to border on moral panic.  So there is a spike in violence in Toronto.  A few years before it was Indo-Canadian drug dealers popping eachother off in Vancouver.  Was this a grave threat to public welfare and security?  I sure didn't fear for my life every time I set foot in the city during that "crisis".

As far as I am concerned, until Canadians are ready to truly make criminals pay for their flagrant disregard for society's laws, then Canada can reap what it sows and live with guys "known to police" and with Clifford Olson telling us his stories from jail.  My solution is as simple as that - there is no need for increased police powers as the benefit to Canadian society at large is minimal and, with the current justice system, the effects would be negligible.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jan 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I believe criminal gangs are equal to tribalism, and tribes exist primarily for safety, security and familiarity. Hostile, anti social tribes have  therefore become a particularly nasty but thankfully small segment of what our society has evolved into.



Sounds pretty good - it is also no coincidence that rates of violence amongst gang members happens to be quite close to those amongst tribal societies in New Guinea and the amazon.

I would say the "tribal" comparison is apt for street gangs where the payoff is low, but I've seen very convincing construct from a professor (who was also a civilian member of the RCMP) that views "higher" organized crime groups like Hell's Angels or the Mafia as business groups - the prime motivator is economic gain and the use of violence is mainly a method of solving business disputes since recourse to the legal system is out of the question.  "Higher" forms of OC are rational economic pursuits while "lower", street level criminal groups fit the "tribal" paradigm where prestige, protection and belonging are the prime motivators for its members.  Ghiglieri discusses this in great detail in his examination of the male psyche and its inclination to violence.


----------



## kcdist (4 Jan 2006)

Here's my solution to the gang/gun problems plaguing all major Canadian cities:

1. Impose mandatory minimum sentences as follows:

-Possession of a handgun - 5 years no parole

-Use of a handgun - 10 years no parole

-Use of a handgun causing death or injury - Life without parole

-Possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking - 10 years no parole

-Robbery - 10 years no parole

-There would be more, but you get the idea.

2. Impose a 5 strike law. Fifth criminal convictions equals minimum 10 years in jail - No parole

3. Ban concurrent sentencing

4. Remove lifetime tenure for Judges. Place all Judges on five year contracts, with a meaningful review of sentences and results as a condition of renewal. Make the review impartial, however...important principle here...have judges accountable for their decisions with a view to termination if they make enough bad ones.

5. Review immigration policy and race statistics for crime. If one group of immigrants from a particular region or ethnic group is statistically responsible for a disproportion amount of crime, reduce or stop immigration from that area until full integration into society is achieved by those already landed. 

6. Introduce a policy that would require the immediate deportation of any immigrant with less than five years residence in Canada upon conviction of a criminal offense. Time would be measured upon commission of the crime and not conviction. Reduce any appeal period to a maximum of thirty days.

7. Immediately tackle the problem of illegal immigration. Significantly increase the manpower of the immigration department to allow for a major crackdown in the numbers of illegal immigrants, both those in the country illegally, and those who have been 'deported' but have not left. Take steps to reduce the onerous appeal procedures to a level deemed reasonable by the majority of Canadians. 

8. Remove mandatory parole as a tenet of our legal system.

9. Make serving time in prison 'hard time'. Relocate prisons or build new ones in economically depressed and isolated areas of the country, far away from the influences of major cities. Make the prisons follow the model of Canadian Forces detention centres.

10. Review social programs in affected areas with a view to developing targeted programs specifically designed to assist those wishing to leave the gang lifestyle.  

11. Appoint a gang Czar as a cabinet level position within the Federal Government. The Czar would we responsible for overall coordination of all efforts across all departments.

12. Provide immediate funding for additional prisons, immigration officers, immigration board members, police services, social programs and any other area required for the implementation of the above policies.


I agree that, statistically, there doesn't appear to be a major crime problem in Canada. But that argument, my friends, is a cop out. There is no reason for Canada to have _*any*_ problem with gangs or organized crime. Canada is a weathly country, where even our impoverished are well taken care of. Racism and Classism are not major factors. We have little historical baggage (1st Nations excepted). Social resources are readily available for those that desire them. Poverty and 'hopelessness' are self induced. Show me a 'barrier', and I'll show you an excuse.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jan 2006)

That seems like a good list of solutions - it is one I would support after some fine tuning.

The only quibble I have is _"But that argument, my friends, is a cop out. There is no reason for Canada to have any problem with gangs or organized crime."_ - I think crime is just one of those things that is part and parcel of civilization; you won't get rid of it.  If you successfully address this "street level" crime, then it morphs into blue collar (bikers) or white collar (Enron) organized criminal activity.  Even serene Japan has the Yakuza.  Crime and punishment will be an eternal struggle for any human society - however, anyone who says that we can't target it aggressively is copping out; all we need is the will to do so.


----------



## Blackhorse7 (4 Jan 2006)

What about Judges having to run for election, like they do in the US?  I think that may put more pressure on them to take into account public opinion when convicting some of our repeat offenders.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jan 2006)

Blackhorse7 said:
			
		

> What about Judges having to run for election, like they do in the US?  I think that may put more pressure on them to take into account public opinion when convicting some of our repeat offenders.



http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27758.0.html


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Jan 2006)

Wow, did we argue ourselves to almost being in concensus? 
Infanteer, just so I am being clear--only for confirmed organized gangs ie)HA's, Banditos, Crips, Bloods who go out of their way to be identifiable should the membership laws be firmed up.  I also don't believe that having your ass hanging out of the back of your pants should be arrestable.  HOWEVER, if someone chooses to look or act in a criminal way, they should not be blown away when they get some police attention.  There are whole fashion lines that are dedicated to clothing specifically designed to hide weapons and drugs from searches.  If I see anyone wearing a fanny pack that I know to be a holster, I will stop them.  As far as the revolving door, the concept of "rehabilitation" should be pushed to the rear, and get back to "punishment".  Simple cause and effect.
So far as my family getting stopped, if any of them chose to go out looking like a gang banger and got checked out, then I would tell them to get used to it and revel in the glory that is being a criminal.
KCDist pegs it when he says that Canada doesn't have to get as bad as the US.  It may seem like we live in a utopia of freedoms and liberties, but the fact is criminals just see that as weak and abuse their privileges.  There have been suspensions in the Charter, when there was sufficient cause.  For example the ability to pull over a car and require the driver to identify themselves does technically violate sections 8 and 9, but the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that this was a reasonable suspension of rights, for the greater good of the public.  
KCDist's ideas should be printed off and drafted as a private members bill.  With the member support on this site being so widely distributed across Canada, I have to believe that we could get it off the ground and at least one reading before it got shredded.  Maybe that would be enough to spark a national debate?  Anybody know how to go about doing one of those?


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Jan 2006)

>Infanteer, some useful protocol from Brad Swallows?  How would he handle Toronto? 

I don't have a complete solution, but I would not proceed from the assumption that a few bad neighbourhoods and/or zones in a few major Canadian cities justifies limiting freedoms of all residents of those cities, let alone all of a province or all of the nation.  Whenever I hear proposals that the solution to crime is to more closely monitor honest people and intrude into our lives, I am inclined to disarm the police and arm the citizens.

One of the problems facing Canada is the lack of will to address a problem only where it exists and politely tell the complainers to fcuk off when they bitch that they are being discriminated against.


----------



## NavComm (4 Jan 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Anybody know how to go about doing one of those?



Try Randy White, Conservative member of parliament for Abbotsford, BC. randy.white@shawcable.com

He'd probably introduce a bill like that. He's always talking about how soft we are on criminals and I'm pretty sure he would support the list.


----------



## 3rd Herd (4 Jan 2006)

Did not the MP from the lower mainland who recently died of cancer continually push for a strenghtening of the Criminal code? (Sorry I cannot remember his name at this moment)


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Jan 2006)

Do you mean Chuick Cadman? I believe his son was killed by a gang or in a mugging and Chuck became a law and order advocate.


----------



## Blue Max (4 Jan 2006)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Do you mean Chuick Cadman? I believe his son was killed by a gang or in a mugging and Chuck became a law and order advocate.


Yes Old Sweat, the former independent member of parliament "Chuck Cadman", represented Surrey, central I believe? He was impressively fighting for law and order changes, because his son was killed in front of a McDonald's after being swarmed by teenagers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jan 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Infanteer, some useful protocol from Brad Swallows?  How would he handle Toronto?
> 
> I don't have a complete solution, but I would not proceed from the assumption that a few bad neighbourhoods and/or zones in a few major Canadian cities justifies limiting freedoms of all residents of those cities, let alone all of a province or all of the nation.  Whenever I hear proposals that the solution to crime is to more closely monitor honest people and intrude into our lives, I am inclined to disarm the police and arm the citizens.
> 
> One of the problems facing Canada is the lack of will to address a problem only where it exists and politely tell the complainers to fcuk off when they bitch that they are being discriminated against.



Agreed!

We, Canada at large, do not have a crime problem or a gun problem nor even a gun/crime problem.  Violence, including violence with guns, is blessedly rare throughout most of Canada, just as it is throughout most of the USA and, indeed, most of Australia, Belgium, Chile and so on.

Some, thankfully only a few, identifiable, self-segregated _communities_ within Canada, especially within our cities, *DO* have serious, deadly social problems with manifest themselves in bloody murder, often with guns.

I believe that the _segregation_ – especially the self-segregation – is the key issue.  Most people, it seems to me, based upon my own rather extensive _observations_ during 60+ years of service and travel on several different continents, are fairly peaceful.  The more prosperous the more peaceful: the rich and fat have no stomach for risk or violence – although some would argue that the rich and fat employ the poor and hungry to do violence to their equally poor and hungry neighbours to preserve the _status quo_.  I also observe that prosperous nations are less inclined to make war on their neighbours – especially on their equally prosperous neighbours.  Peace and prosperity seem to go hand in hand.

Here in Canada I would tend to divide the segregated communities into two groups:

1.	The poor and ill-educated; and

2.	The socially un-integrated.

I believe that Toronto black community and many (most) aboriginal communities – including, especially the urban ones – fall into the first category.  I think poverty and poor education are tightly intertwined – even in the most _liberal_ of rich societies.  I believe that most _affirmative action_ programmes in most rich, liberal societies have the perverse effect of entrenching _self segregation_, inadequate educational expectations and achievements and, as a direct consequence, poverty.  I believe that when _self segregated_ societies are poor and poorly educated and have access to the mass media which displays the imagined trappings of wealth then crime must follow; violence must follow crime; guns are quick, easy, effective tools for dealing out violence in a criminal society.

Despite the best efforts of earlier generations some Asian (East and South Asian) communities have declined to integrate into the Canadian _mainstream_.  They are, often, prosperous, successful communities but they eschew _integration_ which means that the societal norms are seen, by young people, especially, to be _foreign_.  These communities, too, despite good educations, can turn violent because they are unconstrained by the broader social norms.

Let’s fix the communities which have the crime/violence problems – the crime/violence will, then, fall to broad, national levels.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jan 2006)

Anybody have access to the Globe and Mail - I read an excellent piece by Jeffrey Simpson today that is online here but I don't have internet access to it.  It fits perfectly with the discussion on this thread.


----------



## TCBF (4 Jan 2006)

Yesterday, Margarette Wente, writing in the Globe and Mail, actually had the temerity to use the 'J' word (Jamaican).  In a newspaper.  In Toronto.   How that got past the editors, we can only guess.

Tom


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jan 2006)

Someone should sign up for the 14-day trial and post it here....


----------



## NavComm (4 Jan 2006)

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> Did not the MP from the lower mainland who recently died of cancer continually push for a strenghtening of the Criminal code? (Sorry I cannot remember his name at this moment)



Chuck Cadman, he founded a victims group after his son died which lead to a career in politics. He was IIRC more interested in strengthening the young offenders act.

I think White is even tougher in his views on crime.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jan 2006)

Here, reproduced under the fair comment provisions of the Copyright Act, is Peggy Wente's _Globe and Mail_ column from 3 Jan 06:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060103/COWENTE03/Columnists/Columnist?author=Margaret+Wente


> Blowing the whistle on gun murder
> By MARGARET WENTE
> 
> Tuesday, January 3, 2006
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jan 2006)

Here, reproduced under the fair comment provisions of the Copyright Act, is Jeffery Simpson's _Globe and Mail_ column from 4 Jan 06:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060104/COSIMP04/Columnists/Columnist?author=Jeffrey+Simpson


> Read my lips: There is no crime epidemic in Canada
> By JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> Wednesday, January 4, 2006
> ...


----------



## Armymedic (4 Jan 2006)

I never want to be a police officer, no matter what you do, you'll be screwed.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060104/racial_profiling_060104/20060104?hub=Canada

Black lawyer to file lawsuit against police today
Updated Wed. Jan. 4 2006 9:17 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

A Toronto lawyer who says his car was surrounded by police who accused him of having drugs and guns will file a lawsuit Wednesday for the surprise shakedown. 

Jason Bogle, one of Toronto's youngest black lawyers at 26, says he was sitting in the parked Lexus with his girlfriend outside her house on his birthday, Dec. 29, when five or six police cars surrounded them. 

Bogle said he decided to file the lawsuit after the officers allegedly connected the ambush with the Boxing Day shootings on Yonge Street.

Bogle told CTV's Canada AM he is one of many of Toronto's young black males who have received this type of treatment -- what he calls "driving while black."

"I think a lot of people seem to think that racial profiling… doesn't really happen, but here's a clear case where I was in a vehicle that was parked and I was minding my business and for some reason these officers decided to take it upon themselves… to investigate myself and my occupant," Bogle said Wednesday.

Bogle said the cars were all unmarked except one and appeared suddenly, flashing their high beams before surrounding the Lexus. He said the officers got out and lined both sides of the vehicle, while one opened Bogle's door, grabbed his shoulder and demanded identification.

"Because they had flashed in such an erratic manner, I was unable to discern whether they were officers," he said. "I was very upset because I didn't understand what was going on." 

"Then accusations came out about me being in possession of guns or drugs and I remember an officer making the same reference to my girlfriend's mother. She had just come outside to see her daughter and myself surrounded by all these officers," he said, saying the confrontation drew the attention of many neighbours as well.

After presenting his Ontario bar card, Bogle said he continued to face difficulty convincing police he was a lawyer, not a drug dealer. It ended, he said, with police admitting they had the wrong person, but he did not receive an apology nor an explanation.

"These were people that are trained to serve and protect the community," said Bogle, adding the police tried to convince him to "let bygones be bygones" after the incident. 

"It's kind of funny because when I described my story to other persons, there was a number of other people that experienced the same thing," he said.

Bogle said he wants to use his position as a lawyer to change what he believes is a systemic problem of racial profiling.

Toronto Police Spokesman Mark Pugash insists the officers were professional throughout the process. He said the officers also claim they went to extraordinary lengths to explain to Bogle why he was stopped.

Bogle will be filing the lawsuit against the Toronto Police Service in court Wednesday. The Canadian Press has reported Bogle plans to sue the force for $1.5 million for wrongful detention and inflicting emotional distress.


----------



## Blackhorse7 (5 Jan 2006)

Bogle can kiss my (fill in whatever you like). :mg:


----------



## The_Falcon (5 Jan 2006)

Yeah, I am sure Mr. Bogle was the epitome of a well composed polite individual when he was stopped too. :  What a tool.  

In other news, Harper is finally in Toronto and is going to be announcing some policy WRT to the current situation.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (5 Jan 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> He said the officers got out and lined both sides of the vehicle, while one opened Bogle's door, grabbed his shoulder and demanded identification.



Oh my goodness, imagine any police officer taking personal precautions when approaching a vehicle with unknown occupants...



			
				Armymedic said:
			
		

> "Because they had flashed in such an erratic manner, I was unable to discern whether they were officers," he said. "I was very upset because I didn't understand what was going on."



 So you feel that several unmarked cars would flash their lights at you to steal your car?



			
				Armymedic said:
			
		

> "Then accusations came out about me being in possession of guns or drugs and I remember an officer making the same reference to my girlfriend's mother. She had just come outside to see her daughter and myself surrounded by all these officers,"



Are you saying the officers asked you if you had any weapons or drugs? Boy thats not right is it?



			
				Armymedic said:
			
		

> After presenting his Ontario bar card, Bogle said he continued to face difficulty convincing police he was a lawyer, not a drug dealer.



After all, a bar card cant be forged and everyone knows lawyers dont use drugs......its against the law



			
				Armymedic said:
			
		

> "These were people that are trained to serve and protect the community,"



 Its probably better if they didn't stop vehicles and ask questions, that would protect and serve the community better. Im sorry but as a citizen of Canada, I would take no offence to an inquiry or even a search if it meant crime rates went down. Maybee someone should sue him for backlogging the courts system with stupid accusations.


----------



## The_Falcon (5 Jan 2006)

I just watched Harper live, and I liked it.  Some of the highlights were hiring an additional 1000 RCMP officers, providing federal funding for provinces/cities to hire 2500 Police Officers, higher mandatory minimums for 26 weapons offences, ending statutory release, and ending conditional sentences for violent/repeat/sexual offenders,and hiring more Customs Officers and arming them with firearms .  He also took some major swipes at Martin, mentioning things about Canadian values and what not.  Go Harper!


----------



## kincanucks (5 Jan 2006)

Mr. Bogle  :tsktsk: :boring: :-[

Mr. Harper  :cheers: :king:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Jan 2006)

A lawyer deal drugs??....naw, THAT could never happen in our jails..... :

Whats funny is that he thinks he should be treated different because of his occupation....wouldn't that be some form of discrimination towards us non-lawyer types?? ;D  I should sue him.....

Whiskey??....


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Jan 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> A lawyer deal drugs??....naw, THAT could never happen in our jails..... :
> 
> Whats funny is that he thinks he should be treated different because of his occupation....wouldn't that be some form of discrimination towards us non-lawyer types?? ;D  I should sue him.....



Oh stop....

On a related front, how many of these are kicking around?:

____________________________________________________________________________________________  

C B C . C A   N e w s   -   F u l l   S t o r y : 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Toronto teen arrested after mom turns in assault rifle
Last Updated Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:28:29 EST 
CBC News
A Toronto teenager has been charged with weapons and drug offences after his mother turned in a loaded AK-47 rifle to police. 

The suspect's mother said she was shocked when she found the weapon and a magazine filled with bullets on her son's bed in their east-end home on Tuesday evening, the Toronto Sun reports. 
  
AK-47 rifle (file photo)  
After she took the rifle to the police station, officers searched the home for more weapons. 

The 17-year-old, who was not home at the time, was arrested later that evening after he returned to the house. 

He was charged with 13 offences, including weapons charges and possession of cocaine. 

The suspect cannot be identified under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. 


Copyright ©2006 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - All Rights Reserved


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Jan 2006)

Good for her, now if only the Judicial system could give him the same kick in the ass that I got at 16 and not some " hugs and teddy bears".

...and Whiskey, its not the profession I don't like, its the "society" who wants to run your shows.....just like I have no trouble insulting some of the plunkers running my union, but that doesn't mean I insult everyone in OPSEU because of it.
Beers? :cheers:


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Jan 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ...and Whiskey, its not the profession I don't like, its the "society" who wants to run your shows.....just like I have no trouble insulting some of the plunkers running my union, but that doesn't mean I insult everyone in OPSEU because of it.
> Beers? :cheers:



I know. You know I'm a sensitive guy.

Yes. Prior to the 31st, when hell is scheduled to get a little hotter.


----------



## sigtech (5 Jan 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Good for her, now if only the Judicial system could give him the same kick in the *** that I got at 16 and not some " hugs and teddy bears".



We need to treat this scum bag kids like adults , but the problem is we send them away and all they get is smarter with better contacts. Couldn't we just shoot them on the spot and be done with it


----------



## NavComm (5 Jan 2006)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I just watched Harper live, and I liked it.  Some of the highlights were hiring an additional 1000 RCMP officers, providing federal funding for provinces/cities to hire 2500 Police Officers, higher mandatory minimums for 26 weapons offences, ending statutory release, and ending conditional sentences for violent/repeat/sexual offenders,and hiring more Customs Officers and arming them with firearms .  He also took some major swipes at Martin, mentioning things about Canadian values and what not.  Go Harper!



I know I'm a cynic when it comes to politics and politicians. 

Here's my .02 on election promises made by Mr. Harper and Mr. Martin.

Election _promises_ are just that, promises. The only significant difference between these ones and the ones you might make to say, your spouse or your best friend, is that these promises are made to be broken.

Once elected, those promises usually fall by the wayside and then the elected politician and his spin doctors devise ways to break the news to the gullible public that although they still *want* to carry through with those promises, the opposition or the lack of available funds, or the corruption of the previous gov't, or any other excuse that sounds good, has made it impossible for them to deliver said promises.

I don't see a lot of difference between what the Conservatives are promising they will deliver and what the Liberals are promising. I don't see how, if elected,  the Conservatives will deliver more than the Liberals would if they were re-elected. Because frankly, IMO neither party has much of a choice but to increase military spending and border safety,  and to get tough on crime right now. There is a lot of pressure from both inside and outside of Canada for the next government to deal with those issues asap.

The Conservatives, when they were in power were accused of all kinds of horrible things by the opposition, and now that they are in opposition they are merrily slinging mud at the other side hoping to distract us all from the real issues. I know the scandalous state of our government, but I'm not enthusiastically impressed with the other team either.

Jack Layton should make up his mind which side he wants to bash more or shut up entirely. Preferably the latter. I'm sick of watching him gleefully jump on one band wagon then hitch a ride on the next one as it passes by. He hasn't got a hope in hell of forming a government and he knows it, so IMO, like the Green Party, he should also be left out of the debates because he is insignificant. Oh I know, the NDP and the Bloc held the balance of power but that's just too scarey to continue contemplating, so I won't.

I agree with the Globe and Mail articles posted previously stating that there is no crime epidemic. Unfortunately, I don't think the majority of electors in Canada read the Globe and Mail, the ones that do will weigh the policies of the two main parties in Canada against their own personal beliefs and vote for that party, or maybe, like I did, vote for a proven candidate even if you're sick to death of the party that candidate is affiliated with. The vast majority of Canadians will watch the 6 o'clock news and depending on which side is better at convincing us all that the other side is a bunch of yo-yo's will get the votes.

You'll always have those people who will vote for Greens and independants, but overall this is a two-horse race and the NDP will slide up the middle along with the Bloc and on January 24, my world won't have changed in any significant way, no matter who we call "Mr. Prime Minister".

/end of cynical rant


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jan 2006)

Moving back to the issue of guns.....



> *Blame America*
> “We must blame them and cause a fuss. Before somebody thinks of blaming uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuus.”
> 
> By Doug Gamble
> ...


----------



## The_Falcon (5 Jan 2006)

Navcomm sure the conservatives can go back on their word if elected (o ye of little faith), however there are some major differences between there proposals to curb crime (specifically gun, crime which is why I posted this here) and the liberals.  Lets look at them shall we, Tories-increases mandatory minimums to 5-10 years for 26 firearms related offence (each offence will have its own min, for example possesion 5 years, possesion while commiting an offence 10 years.  These are my examples I don't have the policy package).  Liberal-increase mandatory mins from 1 year to 2 years across the board.  Tories would make bail hearings for gun crime have a reverse onus, liberals the same (although they stole this idea from the Tories).  Tories-no more mandatory release and no more conditional sentences for violent/repeat/sexual offenders.  Liberals-? Tories-Increase number of RCMP and provide additional funds to provinces/cities to hire more cops.  Liberals, I think may have mentioned something about additional RCMP but I am not sure.  Tories-Reconstitute Ports Police. Liberals-Disbanded them, no plans on bringing them back.  Tories-Have more frontline officers at border crossing points (RCMP/customs) and the would ARM customs officers.  Liberals-have suggested that they would put some RCMP on the border, but have flatly refused to arm Customs officers. 

The differences are clear.  Time to have some faith, and believe that some people may actually keep thier promises.  If they don't then toss em out next time around.


----------



## NavComm (5 Jan 2006)

Hatchet I don't want to hijack this topic too much so I will stick to the gun issue also. IMO no matter what any politician says right now, it's all rhetoric. There is no crisis in Toronto. There is no need for so much hysteria about gangs and violence and murder in Toronto. I don't mean to diminish the pain the victims and their loved ones suffer, but the media has really tossed out a red herring and the politicians are having a hey day with it.

And what's this 26 violations? OMG why isn't something done after the 1st offense? Can a person have 26 drinking and driving convictions before they get more than 18 months? Oh, wait, probably in our soft system they can. You can probably mow down a bunch of innocent citizens in a DUI and get your license taken away (like that stops habitual drink/drivers) and drive again without ever being found out.

So I guess if I'm looking for a silver lining here, I'm having a hard time finding it. I'd have to say that we're equally soft on all sorts of violent criminal offenses in this country and neither the Conservatives or the Liberals have got a handle on it so far. I don't have much faith that politicians or political parties or more laws are the answer to the problem.

The answers are probably found in this thread, I've read some great ideas here. We can only hope that some politician will read this thread and see that somewhere in all these 19 pages, there is at least a starting point and some very good direction that doesn't have to be sensationalized in the media.

I'd love to have my faith restored in our justice system, but all I have to do is crack open the Globe or the Sun and I'm back to square one, shaking my head and wondering what the heck ever happened to common sense?


----------



## The_Falcon (6 Jan 2006)

NavComm said:
			
		

> And what's this 26 violations? OMG why isn't something done after the 1st offense? Can a person have 26 drinking and driving convictions before they get more than 18 months? Oh, wait, probably in our soft system they can. You can probably mow down a bunch of innocent citizens in a DUI and get your license taken away (like that stops habitual drink/drivers) and drive again without ever being found out.



I think you misread/misinterpreted what I posted. They would introduce new mandatory minimums for the 26 types of criminal code offences that one can commit/get charged with, like possessing a restricted weapon, possession of prohibited weapon, possession of restricted weapon know possesion is unauthorized etc.  Not you would have to commit an offence 26 times.  



			
				NavComm said:
			
		

> Hatchet I don't want to hijack this topic too much so I will stick to the gun issue also. IMO no matter what any politician says right now, it's all rhetoric. There is no crisis in Toronto. There is no need for so much hysteria about gangs and violence and murder in Toronto. I don't mean to diminish the pain the victims and their loved ones suffer, but the media has really tossed out a red herring and the politicians are having a hey day with it.



It may not be a big crisis perse when compared to the US, but I for one don't want to get to that point where we have 400+ murders a year before we start to take action.  If we are going to get all worked up over murders, I would rather those numbers remain small.



> So I guess if I'm looking for a silver lining here, I'm having a hard time finding it. I'd have to say that we're equally soft on all sorts of violent criminal offenses in this country and neither the Conservatives or the Liberals have got a handle on it so far. I don't have much faith that politicians or political parties or more laws are the answer to the problem.


  

True Canada in general is soft on crime when compared to our neighbours to the south, but it will take a huge change in the mindset of many people before we start seeing people sentence to 100 year in prison for child rape (as an example).  The liberals have been the ones in power for the last 12 years don't forget that.  Its hard for any opposition party to change/introduce new law in this country when you are dealing with a party that has large majority governments.  So I don't think it is entirely fair to say that conservatives have dropped the ball consider the current leader wasn't even an MP during most of Chretiens Reign.  Also they aren't planning on making new laws (cept 1 or 2 new firearms related offences), just strengthen what is on the books, remove the silly a hug a thug crap (conditional sentences, mandatory release), and put more boots on the ground. 



> The answers are probably found in this thread, I've read some great ideas here. We can only hope that some politician will read this thread and see that somewhere in all these 19 pages, there is at least a starting point and some very good direction that doesn't have to be sensationalized in the media.


  Were in an election, things are going to get sensationalized.



> I'd love to have my faith restored in our justice system, but all I have to do is crack open the Globe or the Sun and I'm back to square one, shaking my head and wondering what the heck ever happened to common sense?


  
Did you read Thursdays Toronto Sun, were they explain how they (TPS) caught and convicted the duo who killed a teen in a Scarborough Hotel.


----------



## GO!!! (6 Jan 2006)

At least a few of the editorials posted here state the truth (  George).

This is not a Canadian problem. Gun violence in Canada, as has already been stated, is pertpetrated by Jamaicans in Toronto, Bikers in Ontario and Quebec, "Indo-Canadians" in BC, and to a much smaller extent, Natives in the west.

Having lived (albeit for short times) in all of these areas, I am of the opinion that only the aboriginals have a valid "beef" with our society - they are truly a "made in Canada predicament" and we have a responsibility to them.

As to the rest - this is nothing but a showcase for the failures of multiculturalism. Our mistake (as a society) was to encourage the populations of other areas to move to Canada, and keep their patterns of behaviour, as opposed to adopting new ones. As a result, problems that exist in Jamaica, now exist in Canada. We do not have a society which seeks to integrate immigrants into Canada, we Ghettoize them - and encourage them to co-operate - under the aegis of "tolerance" and "multiculturalism". So we can't be too surprised when Jamaican problems show up in Jamaican areas of Canadian cities.

The solution? Model our immigration system on Australia's. All migrants, refugees and asylum seekers are free to apply from abroad, or to await processing in spartan, but humane detention facilities, until their identity, health, background and eligibility to enter Canada are determined. If they are successful, they are subject to a "one strike" rule, and deported sans property (if not executed)the minute they are convicted of a major crime, or a combination of minor ones, with a prohibition against them ever returning.

Admittedly, this problem is already quite advanced, and would pose a bit of a quandry, especially in regards to population growth, given that our immigrant populations are expanding far faster than our long tern citizen ones. I believe that it is a viable solution though, as it places the "onus" of good behaviour on the new canadians themselves, and not on some tripe that "society has failed them". If someone immigrates to Canada, and steals a car a month later, they have no-one to blame but themselves when they find themselves handcuffed to an immigration officer and dropped off back in their countries of origin.


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Jan 2006)

NavComm said:
			
		

> Jack Layton should make up his mind which side he wants to bash more or shut up entirely. Preferably the latter. I'm sick of watching him gleefully jump on one band wagon then hitch a ride on the next one as it passes by. He hasn't got a hope in hell of forming a government and he knows it, so IMO, like the Green Party, he should also be left out of the debates because he is insignificant. Oh I know, the NDP and the Bloc held the balance of power but that's just too scarey to continue contemplating, so I won't.
> 
> I agree with the Globe and Mail articles posted previously stating that there is no crime epidemic. Unfortunately, I don't think the majority of electors in Canada read the Globe and Mail, the ones that do will weigh the policies of the two main parties in Canada against their own personal beliefs and vote for that party, or maybe, like I did, vote for a proven candidate even if you're sick to death of the party that candidate is affiliated with. The vast majority of Canadians will watch the 6 o'clock news and depending on which side is better at convincing us all that the other side is a bunch of yo-yo's will get the votes.



Pretty interesting stuff, in light of todays Globe and Mail comments on the NDP and law and order. [NDP described as the 4th largest party in Parliament(?) WTF is with that little twist on pecker size?]

*NDP joins law & order pushBy STEVEN CHASE * 
Friday, January 6, 2006 Posted at 4:04 AM EST

*Globe and Mail Update*

 Vancouver — NDP Leader Jack Layton is proposing to spend $1-billion over several years fighting crime in a bid to boost the party's credibility on law and order, an issue that has rocketed to the top of the election agenda after shootings in Toronto.

The NDP was the fourth largest party in Parliament  before the House dissolved for the election, and has little hope of forming the next government, but it will try to convince whichever party is leading the country to adopt its proposals.

Mr. Layton's law and order policies, to be announced Friday at a news conference in Surrey, B.C., rely heavily on community reinvestment and prevention.

He will propose tougher criminal penalties for suspects apprehended with guns, sources say, and that young offenders aged 16 and over who employ firearms should be treated as adults under the law.

The NDP will propose funding their policies by using the sales of the proceeds of crime seized by police and investing the preventative cash in the neighbourhoods where the assets were discovered.

Sources confirmed Mr. Layton will propose the cash be used to fund youth initiatives that keep kids off the street, such as recreation centres, scholarships and mentoring programs.

Party sources confirmed other elements of the plan, which was still being drafted early Friday morning, include:

– $400-million to assist youth at risk.

– $200-million over four years to help victims of violence.

– $200-million to protect witnesses and encourage Canadians to talk to authorities without worry they could be tracked down and punished by criminals.

– $200-million to help cut down on the use of crystal meth, a popular street drug.

Other elements of the NDP plan include tough sentences for illegally possessing and selling restricted guns, beefing up police efforts to crack down on gangs, and moves to halt the flow of black-market weapons into Canada from the United States.

Reproduced under the fair dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.


----------



## NavComm (6 Jan 2006)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I think you misread/misinterpreted what I posted. They would introduce new mandatory minimums for the 26 types of criminal code offences that one can commit/get charged with....



Yes, I did misunderstand it. That makes much more sense!



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> The liberals have been the ones in power for the last 12 years don't forget that.  Its hard for any opposition party to change/introduce new law in this country when you are dealing with a party that has large majority governments.  So I don't think it is entirely fair to say that conservatives have dropped the ball consider the current leader wasn't even an MP during most of Chretiens Reign.  Also they aren't planning on making new laws (cept 1 or 2 new firearms related offences), just strengthen what is on the books, remove the silly a hug a thug crap (conditional sentences, mandatory release), and put more boots on the ground.


Remember also that the Conservatives were in turmoil within their own party. I doubt they could have governed effectively while going through all the changes that were taking place within their party. I read an interesting story on cbc.ca about the top ten political scandals in Canada and it's not exclusive to one party or the other. Here's the link http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/groupaction/scandals.html

Mandatory release is at the discretion of the parole board, which is supposed to be independent of gov't. It was actually Diefenbaker's Conservative gov't at the helm when the parole board was established in the late 50's.
  





			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Did you read Thursdays Toronto Sun, were they explain how they (TPS) caught and convicted the duo who killed a teen in a Scarborough Hotel.



No I didn't. I'm in Vancouver, I'd have to see it online. What did they do?



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> The solution? Model our immigration system on Australia's. All migrants, refugees and asylum seekers are free to apply from abroad, or to await processing in spartan, but humane detention facilities, until their identity, health, background and eligibility to enter Canada are determined. If they are successful, they are subject to a "one strike" rule, and deported sans property (if not executed)the minute they are convicted of a major crime, or a combination of minor ones, with a prohibition against them ever returning.



You bring up an interesting topic there GO!!, health. In 1999 boat loads of Chinese refugees arrived on the shores of BC. According to HepNet.com, a large percentage of them were carriers of HepB and syphillis.

We weren't very successful keeping them detained, although the governments of the day, both provincial and federal wanted them detained so they could be processed, judges were allowing them out on "bail".

Again, I think the laws are there, they just aren't enforced. Soft judges and bleeding heart parole boards make our system a laughing stock. Criminals know they are never going to be treated harshly in Canada and so it's a mecca for gangs of all colours and stripes.


----------



## NavComm (6 Jan 2006)

Whiskey, yeah, well Jack Layton can have all the policies he wants. Nobody has to listen to them because he's not going to form the government. If we end up with another minority government, it will most likely be the Bloc that holds the balance of power and frankly I have more faith in them being able to hold gov'ts feet to the fire if they decide to force the gov't to get tough on guns and gangs. 

If Layton keeps playing footsie with both sides of the floor, soon no one will pay him anything but lip service. Oh wait, isn't that what they do now? He's like the snot-nosed kid brother that nobody really listens to.


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Jan 2006)

Don't get me wrong, I think smiling Jack is not good for Canada, buthe will definitely make gains in the Toronto and Ottawa areas.   Maybe even large gains.


----------



## NavComm (6 Jan 2006)

I don't know that he will. I think the next few weeks will be telling. It will depend on several things, especially what spin the media puts on everything. Canadians are such fickle voters. They can turn on one issue.

I'm happy that all the politicians are at least reviewing their party positions on violence and gangs. I just don't have much faith in anything said in an election. The proof will be in the pudding as they say. Once whoever gets elected takes office, we'll see if anything changes.

Hopefully if the Liberals are re-elected, they will be talked out of their silly handgun ban. That IMO is not going to do anything but add another law for the criminals to ignore and law abiding citizens to be punished with.

If I had to make a prediction on the election, I would say it's going to be another squeaker, too close to call. I think the Bloc will get about the same or maybe a few more seats, the NDP might make a few gains in Ontario, but overall it's still a two horse race.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Jan 2006)

NavComm said:
			
		

> You bring up an interesting topic there GO!!, health. In 1999 boat loads of Chinese refugees arrived on the shores of BC. According to HepNet.com, a large percentage of them were carriers of HepB and syphillis.
> 
> We weren't very successful keeping them detained, although the governments of the day, both provincial and federal wanted them detained so they could be processed, judges were allowing them out on "bail".
> 
> Again, I think the laws are there, they just aren't enforced. Soft judges and bleeding heart parole boards make our system a laughing stock. Criminals know they are never going to be treated harshly in Canada and so it's a mecca for gangs of all colours and stripes.


FYI--there are currently six countries that you can claim refugee status(including Iraq) from and you will not be turned away for *any* reason, including having a criminal record or an active disease like HIV or Hep.  We are so desperate to hand charity to these poor people :'(. The only cold consolation we have on this is by and large, most of the illegals coming into Canada are trying to get to the USA and will eventually be their problem.

If anyone is curious about the mind of a typical criminal, check out this tool:

http://www.baitcar.com/node/105/

Pretty standard.  Including the BS remorse and dedication to change his ways.  I wish we had these in  Windsor.


----------



## Kilo_302 (7 Jan 2006)

Nearly all the firearms being used in these crimes are not registered, so I agree to some extent that law abiding Canadians who own firearms should not have to suffer under poorly conceived laws. Most of the handguns being used are to my knowledge being smuggled in from the US. Will arming  customs officers stop this? I doubt it. If a criminal is smuggling in a load of illegal firearms into Canada, not being able to shoot a customs officer without receiving return fire will not stop him. Being caught on the other hand will. So I think Canada definitely needs to increase the numbers of customs officers, thereby increasing the number of vehicle searches they can conduct (there may be an economic price for this, so it would have to be applied in a balanced way). I also agree with arming them, but only because they deserve such protection, not because it will help them find illegal firearms as the NDP claims. However, some Toronto gangs are using registered firearms that have been stolen from their rightful (and in most cases, law abiding) owners. The question becomes whether it is acceptable to limit the ownership of handguns in Canada even further. While I know many gun owners would be against such a proposition, how do you balance the right of someone to own handguns, which are only made to kill people (other than target pistols for competition purposes) with the possibility that such a law may save lives? I am not suggesting I agree with the latter opinion, because as an owner of several firearms, I would probably stand to lose some of them if restrictions on firearms were increased. But, I could never tell a victim of a shooting in Toronto (who may have been shot by a stolen gun) that my right to shoot off loads of ammo at my farm supercedes their right to not be shot while going to the corner store.

As for the crime and punishment side, I definitely agree with the Tories  ( and now the NDP  ???) that mandatory sentences for firearm related offences should be legislated. I disagree with the NDP that 16 year olds should be tried as adults automatically for gun crimes. The human brain is not fully developed until 21 in most cases, so I think that teenagers who commit crimes should be dealt with on a case by case basis, as they are currently. I think the overall answer lies in more investment for youth programs in areas of Toronto that are most afflicted with gang violence. Its been proven in the US that increasing sentences and applying the death penalty more liberally has not worked as a deterrent.


----------



## 48Highlander (7 Jan 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> While I know many gun owners would be against such a proposition, how do you balance the right of someone to own handguns, which are only made to kill people (other than target pistols for competition purposes) with the possibility that such a law may save lives? I am not suggesting I agree with the latter opinion, because as an owner of several firearms, I would probably stand to lose some of them if restrictions on firearms were increased. But, I could never tell a victim of a shooting in Toronto (who may have been shot by a stolen gun) that my right to shoot off loads of ammo at my farm supercedes their right to not be shot while going to the corner store.



And you'd have to be an idiot to see any correlation between the two.  That argument only makes sence if you assume that, were all handguns to be made "illegal", there would be no more shootings.  Anyone with half a brain knows that that's not the case.  Therefore your right to "shoot off loads of ammo" has nothing to do with their "right to not be shot".  You may as well have said "I could never tell a victim of a shooting in Toronto (who may have been shot by a stolen gun) that my right to eat porkchops for dinner supercedes their right to not be shot while going to the corner store".


----------



## the 48th regulator (7 Jan 2006)

Interesting article fromt he Toronto Star.;



> *Fugitive in paradise*
> Thieves took two days to break open a safe to steal at least 32 guns
> Collector lost $40,000 in firearms
> `I'm shattered,' he says of shootings
> ...



That last thing that was needed was fuel for the ban of handgun advocacy.

dileas

tess


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (7 Jan 2006)

A really sad thought is that if the federal gun registry (estimated at around $2 Billion cost so far) were used instead to buy the estimated 7 million firearms (registered and unregistered as quoted at http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/GunsinCanada.htm), Every gun could be sold back to the government at a cost of $285.00 each.

 Now if they only bought back unregistered handguns, they could most likely offer atleast $2000 per gun and I am pretty sure that would get alot more handguns off the street than by simply telling Canadians "OK now your unregistered handgun is really illegal so give it to us"


----------



## Kilo_302 (7 Jan 2006)

Well there definitely would be a correlation between the two if the gun used in the shooting was stolen from a registered owner, such as myself. Now obviously if handguns were illegal to own in Canada, criminals would resort 100% to obtaining guns from the US and shootings would continue. All I'm saying is that there are two sources for the guns used by gangs. Theft from legal gun owners, and guns smuggled in from the US. I can understand why people would see the elimination of one of those sources to be a good start in reducing shootings. I have said I disagree with further restrictions on hand guns. But that doesn't mean people who agree with that idea are "idiots" as 48 Highlander so eloquently put it. It would mean that they just don't see the need for hand guns in Canada, and believe that legal hand gun owners, no matter how responsible, cannot ensure their weapons will not fall into the wrong hands. I think what you're getting at 48th and I agree, is that there is no cause and effect between registered firearms and shootings. But if a gun used in a shooting was stolen from a registered owner, that weapon becomes part of the equation, and therefore a correlation.


----------



## TCBF (8 Jan 2006)

"A really sad thought is that if the federal gun registry (estimated at around $2 Billion cost so far) were used instead to buy the estimated 7 million firearms (registered and unregistered as quoted at http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/GunsinCanada.htm), Every gun could be sold back to the government at a cost of $285.00 each.

 Now if they only bought back unregistered handguns, they could most likely offer atleast $2000 per gun and I am pretty sure that would get alot more handguns off the street than by simply telling Canadians "OK now your unregistered handgun is really illegal so give it to us""

I am amazed at how normally lucid people on this site fall into a pile of jello soon as someone is killed by a gun.  You think punks carry guns to save $225?  No.  They carry guns to save their ass in the drug trade.

So here it is people.  THERE ARE 18,000,000 (that's 18 million for you hillbillies out there) guns in Canada!

There are also 18,000,000 (Hillbillies: see above) cars in Canada.  So...  everytime you look at cars you see, think of the guns you don't see that are safely stored, owned, used, and enjoyed that is not being used by some third world punk in Toronto or Edmonton or Vancouver.

It isn't the guns that are ruining our culture - our culture was built, secured, and defended by guns in the hands of our free citizens.  The problem in our culture is the people living in it who refuse to adapt to it and contribute to it and respect it's traditions!  And one of those traditions is the possession and use of firearms by free citizens.

The possession of firearms by free citizens is the cornerstone of democracy. 

Tom


----------



## kcdist (8 Jan 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> That last thing that was needed was fuel for the ban of handgun advocacy.



Look at the source of the article. According to the story, the theft occurred over *two years  * ago. Could it be just a coincidence that this story is running at the same time that an election is in motion, and the party that the Toronto Star supports has announced a 'handgun ban' for collectors? I think not.

A truly unbiased newspaper would also run an investigative piece on the relative ease of smuggling a handgun into Canada from the US.

As an aside, I challenge anyone to provide supporting documentation on the gospel that 'half' of the illegal handguns on the street are stolen from legitimate collectors and target shooters. I was a cop for eight years, and not once did I investigate or even hear of a handgun theft from a legal source, despite involvement or knowledge of numerous street seizures of handguns.


----------



## 48Highlander (8 Jan 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Well there definitely would be a correlation between the two if the gun used in the shooting was stolen from a registered owner, such as myself. Now obviously if handguns were illegal to own in Canada, criminals would resort 100% to obtaining guns from the US and shootings would continue. All I'm saying is that there are two sources for the guns used by gangs. Theft from legal gun owners, and guns smuggled in from the US. I can understand why people would see the elimination of one of those sources to be a good start in reducing shootings. I have said I disagree with further restrictions on hand guns. But that doesn't mean people who agree with that idea are "idiots" as 48 Highlander so eloquently put it. It would mean that they just don't see the need for hand guns in Canada, and believe that legal hand gun owners, no matter how responsible, cannot ensure their weapons will not fall into the wrong hands. I think what you're getting at 48th and I agree, is that there is no cause and effect between registered firearms and shootings. But if a gun used in a shooting was stolen from a registered owner, that weapon becomes part of the equation, and therefore a correlation.



The weapon becomes part of the equation, sure, but your ownership of it does not.  Would you be at all responsible if someone stole your car and mowed down some old lady?  Or if someone stole your baseball bat, and bludgoned someone to death?  Or what if they stole your shoelaces, and used them to strangle someone?

So what's the solution?  Obviouly your right to drive, play baseball, and have laced up shoes is not as important as someone's right to live.  Better make all those things illegal, eh?


----------



## Blackhorse7 (8 Jan 2006)

48th, I'm sure we are all in agreement that there are many ways that a person can be killed, and by using many means to do so.  But Kilo 302 brings up a valid point.  Handguns are made to kill people.  There is no other valid purpose for handguns, other than target competition.  They are made to be highly portable, and concealable.  Why does you average citizen need a Glock .40 with a tactical light on it?  Or a Beretta 9mm?  Or ANY of the firearms whose design has been geared towards law enforcement or tactical operations?  I don't believe your average citizen needs a weapon like that.

The Criminal Code states that you can use as much force is as reasonably necessary to stop an act of violence being committed against you.  I can tell you this... if a person shot and killed a subject that had broken into their home, he better be able to say that he feared grievous bodily harm or death.  And even being able to say that, he better be able to explain how he had time to get to his properly stored firearm (in this case it would have to be locked up AND trigger locked or disabled), then get to his separately stored ammunition, and *then* deal with the threat to his life.  To say nothing of the fact that your average citizen does not or will not take the proper training, which must be an ongoing thing, to operate that firearm safely and effectively.  It's no different than a knife.  It can be as dangerous to you as to the person who you are defending against if you don't know what you are doing with it.


----------



## 48Highlander (8 Jan 2006)

Blackhorse7 said:
			
		

> 48th, I'm sure we are all in agreement that there are many ways that a person can be killed, and by using many means to do so.  But Kilo 302 brings up a valid point.  Handguns are made to kill people.  There is no other valid purpose for handguns, other than target competition.  They are made to be highly portable, and concealable.  Why does you average citizen need a Glock .40 with a tactical light on it?  Or a Beretta 9mm?  Or ANY of the firearms whose design has been geared towards law enforcement or tactical operations?  I don't believe your average citizen needs a weapon like that.



Frankly, who the HELL are YOU to tell me what I need?  Last I checked, we're SUPPOSED to be living in a free society.  I know it hasn't actually been that way for a while now, but that doesn't mean I want to give up any more of my rights.



			
				Blackhorse7 said:
			
		

> It's no different than a knife.  It can be as dangerous to you as to the person who you are defending against if you don't know what you are doing with it.



Thinking along those lines....why does your average person need a knife?  Knives are made to kill people.  There is no other valid purpose for knives, other than their culinary applications.  They're highly portable and concealable.  I don't beleive your average citizen needs a weapon like that.

</SARCASM>


----------



## Blackhorse7 (8 Jan 2006)

Wow, you've got a mouth on you 48th.  Read my profile if you want to see my credentials about what I think is right.

I'm the guy who is going to have to face down one of those guns on the street, not you.  So before you go running off at the mouth, you better know what the hell you are talking about.  And if you took the time to *read* my post, I never said that I thought a handgun ban was the right answer.  I'm simply stating that unless you can give me a *VALID* reason why you would need that gun, I would support it.  And the way it stands right now, I don't see a valid reason for a citizen to have a law enforcement/military grade pistol.

And as for your comments on knives, I don't even know if I want to respond to that.  Hell, I will anyway.  I carry a gun and a knife in the course of my daily duties.  I use my knife almost every day (opening mail, boxes, prying locks, and God forbid, if I have to cut a seatbelt).  I don't use my gun everyday, but I'm glad it's there.


----------



## 48Highlander (8 Jan 2006)

Blackhorse7 said:
			
		

> Wow, you've got a mouth on you 48th.  Read my profile if you want to see my credentials about what I think is right.



According to your profile....you're a 32 year old male from Prince George, BC.

....

AND??  What exactly does that tell me about your credentials?  Maybe you're talking about the uber-eleet JTF display picture you've got going?



			
				Blackhorse7 said:
			
		

> I'm the guy who is going to have to face down one of those guns on the street, not you.  So before you go running off at the mouth, you better know what the hell you are talking about.



Ah, I see.  So you're what, a cop?  Frankly, you're from Prince George, and I'm from Toronto.  I could be a kindergarden teacher, and I'd still have more chance of "facing down one of those guns" than you  ;D



			
				Blackhorse7 said:
			
		

> And if you took the time to *read* my post, I never said that I thought a handgun ban was the right answer.  I'm simply stating that unless you can give me a *VALID* reason why you would need that gun, I would support it.  And the way it stands right now, I don't see a valid reason for a citizen to have a law enforcement/military grade pistol.



I don't need to give you a reason for anything.  You're the one that wants to restrict my right to own a firearm based solely on your opinion that I don't need it.  That's horse-shit.  What's next?  Maybe you think I don't need to be reading certain books?  Maybe you don't think I need to be voicing certain beleifs?  Hell, nope, too late for that one, I'm already restricted in what I can say thanks to hate-speech laws.  So now you're controling what I can say and what I can own.  How long untill you try to control what I can read, and what I can think?



			
				Blackhorse7 said:
			
		

> And as for your comments on knives, I don't even know if I want to respond to that.  Hell, I will anyway.  I carry a gun and a knife in the course of my daily duties.  I use my knife almost every day (opening mail, boxes, prying locks, and God forbid, if I have to cut a seatbelt).  I don't use my gun everyday, but I'm glad it's there.



You don't go to the range on a fairly regular basis?


----------



## Blackhorse7 (8 Jan 2006)

Your just showing off your ignorance now.  This was professional until you starting making it personal.  Try to keep your comments a little more objective rather than downright insulting.  And as for your comments about TO, well... I deal with know-it-all's like you everyday.  Maybe you should become a Police Officer if you have more of a chance than facing a gun than I do.  That is, if you got past the interview, which I doubt if you came off with the same attitude that you have displayed to others in your comments.

Keep on track of the thread instead of making personal attacks.


----------



## 48Highlander (8 Jan 2006)

Blackhorse7 said:
			
		

> Your just showing off your ignorance now.  This was professional until you starting making it personal.  Try to keep your comments a little more objective rather than downright insulting.  And as for your comments about TO, well... I deal with know-it-all's like you everyday.  Maybe you should become a Police Officer if you have more of a chance than facing a gun than I do.  That is, if you got past the interview, which I doubt if you came off with the same attitude that you have displayed to others in your comments.
> 
> Keep on track of the thread instead of making personal attacks.



Fine, but don't start pretending your "credentials" give you some sort of moral authority over the rest of us.  You want to debate why gun control is or isn't a good thing, GREAT.  Let's have a reasoned discussion!  So far your only reasoning has been that you don't see why I need to have a gun.  Oh, and that YOU are the one who's going to have to face these guns "on the street".  Do you REALLY think that either of those is a logical argument?

Oh and for future reference, if you're going to make a post asking someone to refrain from using personal insults in a thread, it's best if you try not to refrain from insulting the person at the same time.  Otherwise it usualy degenerates even further.


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Jan 2006)

Gentlemen, please debate the topic (on facts supported by references or declared as personal opinions) and minimize the personal attacks.

Thank you.


----------



## Kat Stevens (8 Jan 2006)

Every day I have to cross the road to get my mail.  There is a school on that road, and school buses run up and down all day.  The school board bought those buses, now I have to face them on the street, every day.  It's not right, something should be done.... ;D


----------



## Blackhorse7 (8 Jan 2006)

You are the one projecting this "moral authority" issue, not me.  I thought this was a place to voice constructive opinion without prejudice.  Note I said "constructive" opinion.

For God's Sake, read posts before you reply.  Back to my initial post, I simply pointed out that Kilo 302 had a valid point, and I voiced my opinion on why I believe that he had a valid point.

And pardon me if I see coming back to my family safe at night as a valid reason for making my point.  The simple fact is that less guns on the street means I have a better chance at making it home alive.  Period.  

While we are discussing your rights, why don't you tell us all why you want a handgun?  I mean, if you were deployed to A-stan, you would be issued one, wouldn't you?  Why do you want your own?


----------



## 48Highlander (8 Jan 2006)

Blackhorse7 said:
			
		

> You are the one projecting this "moral authority" issue, not me.  I thought this was a place to voice constructive opinion without prejudice.  Note I said "constructive" opinion.
> 
> For God's Sake, read posts before you reply.  Back to my initial post, I simply pointed out that Kilo 302 had a valid point, and I voiced my opinion on why I believe that he had a valid point.
> 
> ...



Why do you want a car?  I mean, you HAVE two feet, it's not like you need wheels too.  Heck, get a bicycle, they're much safer for everyone involved.

I should have pointed this out earlier, but if my firearm happens to get stolen, you're not going to be facing it on the street.  My gun isn't going to walk up to you on it's own and threaten your life.  You're going to be facing the individual holding that firearm.  You're a cop, and you've had plenty of experience with criminals; can you honestly tell me that you beleive that a criminal who wants to have a gun is going to be in any way impacted if I'm not allowed to own a firearm?  Or do you think it's much more likely that we'll se an increase in military and police firearms going "missing", as well as an increase in guns being smuggled in from outside of the country?


----------



## Blackhorse7 (8 Jan 2006)

You are just not listening, are you?  I apologize in advance for the bold caps, but it seems that they are required here to make my point.

*I DID NOT SAY I AGREE WITH A FIREARMS BAN!!!  I SIMPLY SAID THAT I DON'T SEE A VALID REASON FOR AN AVERAGE CITIZEN TO OWN A LAW ENFORCEMENT/MILITRAY GRADE PSITOL!!!*

Can I be any more clear than that?  What other use can a person possibly have for a pistol (again aside from target competition) that to use against another human being?  I said right from the start, that if someone were to give me a _valid_ reason why they would need a pistol, then I wouldn't have an issue with it.  Yes, you are right, guns don't kill people, people kill people.  And yes, a ban would do nothing to stop gun crime.  But, read above.  I don't see a valid reason for a citizen to have a pistol.  I cannot make it any more clear than this.  I guess that what I am saying is that if you are against a firearms ban, then offer a better reason to the Government why you feel this way.  Simply saying "Well, because I want one."  or "It's my right."  just doesn't cut it.


----------



## 3rd Herd (8 Jan 2006)

why did I want a hand gun? I didn't everytime the CQ tried to give me one I politely said no thank you, same to the SMG. For years I have the option to own and poses a hand gun. Two yearsin a remote location  and several more in semi remote were the bears out number the humans the hand idea had some appeal, compact, fair amount of rds anywhere from 6 to 14 and for the most part good stopping power. Did some research ended up with a Winchester Defender 12 gauge ( full kit various barrels). Magazine load bird shot in chamber, followed by another bird shoot followed by three slugs. Reasoning behind this combination easy bird shoot works as a "bear banger" fired into ground in front of curious bear if turn aggressive then I have three slugs. In other words with a pistol you do not have the option scaring the bear it is a straight out kill most of the time orphaning cubs. As to range work if I want to shoot pistols I have several friends who regularly invite me. Having BTDT I concur with Blackhorse " why don't you tell us all why you want a handgun?" And for the life of me except for competitive shooting I cannot see a legit reason for a hand gun in a urban area as I have just stated my views of the rural aspect.


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Jan 2006)

Gentlemen, I'm locking this one for now. Remind me tomorrow and I may unlock it for further responses on the topic and without personal attacks or innuendo.

Thank you.


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Jan 2006)

Reopened, please keep the discussion on the topic without personal attacks.

Mike
Staff


----------



## Manimal (11 Jan 2006)

four of us were coming from small town Owen Sound last Friday, going to our course in TO, and on the way down we talked about the future of CF member travelling down there. we figured we should be armed, or at least have armed escorts lol


----------



## geo (11 Jan 2006)

(or a Pshych exam 
(JK)


----------



## TCBF (11 Jan 2006)

" What other use can a person possibly have for a pistol (again aside from target competition) that to use against another human being?  I said right from the start, that if someone were to give me a valid reason why they would need a pistol, then I wouldn't have an issue with it.  Yes, you are right, guns don't kill people, people kill people.  And yes, a ban would do nothing to stop gun crime.  But, read above.  I don't see a valid reason for a citizen to have a pistol.  I cannot make it any more clear than this.  I guess that what I am saying is that if you are against a firearms ban, then offer a better reason to the Government why you feel this way.  Simply saying "Well, because I want one."  or "It's my right."  just doesn't cut it."

- Well, actually, it does cut it.

Democracy is based on three boxes:
1.  The ballot box. - Voting the bastids in and out.
2.  The soapbox.  - Hyde Park tradition - freedom of speach and audience.
3.  The ammuniton box.  - secures the above two freedoms.

I did not buy a pistol until it became clear to me that - apart from voting and being active in politics - the best contribution most Canadians can make towards the retention of useful democracy in this country would be to use the present laws to the LIMIT.  If there are 18,000,000 Canadians who can vote, and 3/4 of them are legally, mentally and physically capable of possessing a Firearms License, then they should all do so.  If they can then own rifles and shotguns, then they should do so.  If they can qualify for and own restricted firearms (pistols) then they should do so.  While they are at it, they should also join associations that contribute towards the protection of our historical culture of firearms possession (the NFA, CSSA, etc).  Then, we would not have 'useful idiots' in Ottawa saying 'But you don't NEED one.'

No, and he doesn't 'need' his hooker and SUV either, but democracy is about doing what you want so long as it does no harm to others, not about what is needed.  Communism and National Socialism is about what is 'needed'.

But, really gun control is about one premis:  That a 98 pound woman should be forced to fist-fight her 337 pound attacker.

If you agree with gun control, then you agree with that statement.

And please, no "Call 9-1-1 and Die" arguments here.

The other chilling aspect to this are the "Keystoners".  "Keystoners" are bureaucrats in Police uniforms who want bigger budgets and more power but care little about the proper traditions of policing in a democracy (Sir Robert Peel, anyone?) and would willingly disarm the citizen and increase the citizen's risk of death merely to make the officer's job more comfortable.  Fortunately, we have very few "Keystoners" on this military site, as the military equivalent ("I am in the Army now, and I don't want to get hurt, so we should ban all armoured vehicles from the planet") is too ludicrous to comprehend.  

Suffice to say with both the police and military world - the risk comes with the pay.  We should not attempt to water down the rights and freedoms of others merely to make our own skins safer.

Tom


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Jan 2006)

Right you are, Tom.

In fact, to go further, no one NEEDS to smoke.  

No one NEEDS to drink alcohol.  

No one NEEDS to drive cars- especially if you live in a city.  Take transit.

No one NEEDS to take part in risky activities such as skydiving, mountain climbing, skiing, scuba diving.

All of these activities have been statistically proven to injure and kill people.  And since I pay taxes which fund health care, I don't think any of these activities should be allowed.  

The point is that, in a free society, the government should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt why it is dangerous to the group or society beyond all reason for me take part in an activity or past time.  The onus should not be on me, a citizen with no criminal record, to prove why I should be allowed to do something.  That said, I do happen to support reasonable efforts to license and train gun owners and to require safe storage of those firearms.  I can even stomach registration of firearms- if the current regime was not such a mess.  I don't support blanket bans on handguns, because I don't think the case has been made that all handguns are a plague on society.  And even if they were banned, it would not affect the availability of handguns to criminals one iota- which is kinda the point, no?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (11 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> The other chilling aspect to this are the "Keystoners".  "Keystoners" are bureaucrats in Police uniforms who want bigger budgets and more power but care little about the proper traditions of policing in a democracy (Sir Robert Peel, anyone?) and would willingly disarm the citizen and increase the citizen's risk of death merely to make the officer's job more comfortable.  Fortunately, we have very few "Keystoners" on this military site, as the military equivalent ("I am in the Army now, and I don't want to get hurt, so we should ban all armoured vehicles from the planet") is too ludicrous to comprehend.
> 
> Suffice to say with both the police and military world - the risk comes with the pay.  We should not attempt to water down the rights and freedoms of others merely to make our own skins safer.
> 
> Tom



I would have to agree with you on this one.  I live with the stark reality that if a motivated individual wants to kill me in an ambush, I am going to likely get pretty hurt (we never admit we can die).  If you really want to split hairs, getting into a hand gun fight is preferable, since if someone sets up with a long gun and a scope, my side arm is going to be pretty sad and useless.  At least hand gun on hand gun I have half a chance.  There is an inherent risk in being a police officer.  That is why there are lots of nice applicable laws to deal with people who are in possession of handguns unlawfully.  Lets use some *sentencing* to deal with these tools.  As far as the "lady versus big attacker" in all likelyhood if she had a gun with her to defend herself she was committing some sort of offence, but the end justifies the means in that  particular case.  All of the women in my life are loaded up with "bear spray" because we have such an uncontrollable urban bear population roaming around.  It is not illegal to possess, only illegal to use.  But if they need it...back to the ends/means comment.
Plus, lets pretend that we live in Liberal Utopia (bbrrrr) and we actually made all of the handguns disappear.  All you will see is a outbreak of chopped down rifles and shotguns and the power that goes with them (ballistic).  
The current laws are sufficient.  I would bet if the Liberals could take back their stupid promise about the hand guns they would.


----------



## TCBF (11 Jan 2006)

The only problem is Registration of firearms only leads to eventual confiscation: Germany, UK, Australia, Rwanda, etc.

Fom a military standpoint - you should hold at the mouth of the defile.  The defile here is the human - not the firearm.  Humans are easy to find - everyone has to come out and eat eventually whereas guns can stay buried forever.  Register ONLY those pers with criminal, mental, or social records that should prohibit them from owning any class of firearms, then you only need 300,000 files instead of 18,000,000 (for guns).  Then, put it online - I sell to someone on that list, I go to jail.

Also:  You have a gun in your house, fine.  You want to carry it concealed: you need some training.  

Safe storage is supportable, but to many safe storage charges are being layed when the gun was in 'use'. 'Storage' is not 'use'.  It should not be a catch-all.

"why there are lots of nice applicable laws to deal with people who are in possession of handguns unlawfully.  Lets use some sentencing to deal with these tools. "

I agree. I have friends on the force in my hometown, and how they keep their morale up somedays I will never know.

Tom


----------



## Kilo_302 (11 Jan 2006)

> But, really gun control is about one premis:  That a 98 pound woman should be forced to fist-fight her 337 pound attacker.
> 
> If you agree with gun control, then you agree with that statement.



I don't think the world is that black and white. That's akin to saying that someone who disagrees with Israeli foreign policy is an anti-semite. You also didn't define what you meant by gun control. I would think that everyone on this board believes in some form of gun control. You're not suggesting that civilians should be able to own military grade firearms are you? The fact that I personally believe in gun control does in no way mean I believe that people should be forced to defend themselves in the streets or die. I think the streets should safer, so that situation does not arise as often.Why can't I use the 911 argument? 911 WILL work in most cases. Giving people more guns would make the streets more dangerous, not safer. I think we have already established that gun crimes are usually committed with guns smuggled from the US, or guns stolen from registered owners. Increasing the number of registered owners does not help the problem, especially if we're talking concealed hand guns. It would be interesting to see the murder stats in a nation that has decreased gun control, vs those stats prior to that. 



> the best contribution most Canadians can make towards the retention of useful democracy in this country would be to use the present laws to the LIMIT



That is assuming that all laws in Canada are good ones. There are some that should be abolished, some that haven't been even made yet, and there are some that should be modified. By your above statement, I guess you think we should all visit the swing clubs the government just made legal, and on the way home, visit a gay bath house in downtown TO. "Useful democracy" is different for everyone.



> The only problem is Registration of firearms only leads to eventual confiscation: Germany, UK, Australia, Rwanda, etc



I have heard anti-gun control advocates point to Rwanda as example of "people killing people, not guns killing people". But can you imagine how many more would have died if everyone was armed with a gun instead of a machete?


----------



## TCBF (11 Jan 2006)

".Why can't I use the 911 argument? 911 WILL work in most cases."

9-1-1 does not stop the COMMISSION of a crime.  It allows law enforcers to arrive in a timely fashion and secure your body..  You decide for you.  I'll decide for me.

" You're not suggesting that civilians should be able to own military grade firearms are you?"

- Why not?  I do.  So do a lot of my friends.  We statistically pose less of a risk than all other identifieable groups in this country.  Your point? 

" The fact that I personally believe in gun control does in no way mean I believe that people should be forced to defend themselves in the streets or die."

But they are now! And  you prefer it the way it is now, where they die trying to survive a fight they could have discouraged if they had a gun.  News to you: you flacid pro-criminal morality and idiotic anti-gun phobia do not give you the right to render others defenceless.

" Giving people more guns would make the streets more dangerous, not safer. I think we have already established that gun crimes are usually committed with guns smuggled from the US, or guns stolen from registered owners. Increasing the number of registered owners does not help the problem, especially if we're talking concealed hand guns. It would be interesting to see the murder stats in a nation that has decreased gun control, vs those stats prior to that."

- Holy shrimp, did you just get the internet for the first time? on Army.ca alone there are many threads with thousands of hits dealing with freedom and guncontrol.  You have not absorbed these, so I will summarize:  Elimination of civilian gun ownership increases violent crime (UK, Australia, NZ).  States in the USA with civ 'concealed carry' laws have a lower rate of violent crime than in Canada (Vermont).

States and cities with TOUGHER gun laws than in Canada (Washington DC, etc) have a much higher rate than in Canada.

Next time, do your own research.

Tom


----------



## 48Highlander (11 Jan 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I don't think the world is that black and white. That's akin to saying that someone who disagrees with Israeli foreign policy is an anti-semite.



eh?  No, there's a distinct difference.  You can be against one aspect of Israel without being an anti-semite.  You're opposing a policy, not a distinct cultural or religious group.  If, on the other hand, you support gun control, then you ARE saying that you are not in favour of that notional 98lb woman being able to use a firearm to defend herself against a 300lb man.  Maybe you're not in favour of her being totaly unarmed, perhaps you'd allow her a knife, or maybe a pointy stick.  Either way, you're in favour of reducing her ability to defend herself.  What the hell does that have to do with Israel?



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> You also didn't define what you meant by gun control. I would think that everyone on this board believes in some form of gun control. You're not suggesting that civilians should be able to own military grade firearms are you? The fact that I personally believe in gun control does in no way mean I believe that people should be forced to defend themselves in the streets or die. I think the streets should safer, so that situation does not arise as often.



 ;D  Well thank you Captain Obvious.  It's good to know you're in favour of our streets being safer.  However, even if you had a workable plan for doing that, even you acknowledge that all we'll be able to accomplish is to ensure that "that situation does not arise *as often*".  In other words, you're STILL in favour of limiting the ability of citizens to defend themselves, you're just hoping that maybe we can make it so they don't have to defend themselves too often.

Guess what, wether I have to use a gun to defend myself just oncethanks to your "safer streets" policy, or 5 times, I'm still just as dead if you take it away from me.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Why can't I use the 911 argument? 911 WILL work in most cases.



 :rofl:

What the....I'm really trying hard not to go into personal attacks here, but you're making it pretty hard.

How, pray tell, is 911 going to help a woman who is being raped?  How is it going to help a 16 year old kid being kicked to death by 10-15 other individuals?  How is it going to help those caught in the middle of the shootout in downtown Toronto?



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Giving people more guns would make the streets more dangerous, not safer. I think we have already established that gun crimes are usually committed with guns smuggled from the US, or guns stolen from registered owners. Increasing the number of registered owners does not help the problem, especially if we're talking concealed hand guns. It would be interesting to see the murder stats in a nation that has decreased gun control, vs those stats prior to that.



Go ahead and look up the stats if you like.  I'll tell you right now what you'll find.  States that have a responsible gun-control program, including licencing and training of gun owners, as well as a concealed-carry program, generaly have a much lower crime rate than states which forbid gun ownership.  It's simple logic really; criminalize guns and only criminals will have guns.  What happens when only criminals have guns?  Well, they're fully aware that YOU don't have one.

It's very much like Chris Rock's famous line:

"Never go to a party with metal detectors.  Sure it feels safe inside, but what about all those guys with guns outside?  They know you aint got one."


----------



## Glorified Ape (11 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Elimination of civilian gun ownership increases violent crime (UK, Australia, NZ).



It was you that brought out the "correlation is not causation" argument, wasn't it?


----------



## Kilo_302 (11 Jan 2006)

Some nations that have increased gun control show higher rates of violent crimes. But there is more to the story here. Have you accounted for other variables during these periods of study? You bring up Vermont as an example of a safe place to live even though it allows concealed firearms. Whats the average income of a citizen of Vermont? How many large cities does it have? Is there a large immigrant population? Does it experience a lot of ethnic tension? Come on, Vermont is a laughable example.  I have to agree with Ape, I thought you did not believe in these direct correlations.


----------



## 48Highlander (11 Jan 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Some nations that have increased gun control show higher rates of violent crimes. But there is more to the story here. Have you accounted for other variables during these periods of study? You bring up Vermont as an example of a safe place to live even though it allows concealed firearms. Whats the average income of a citizen of Vermont? How many large cities does it have? Is there a large immigrant population? Does it experience a lot of ethnic tension? Come on, Vermont is a laughable example.  I have to agree with Ape, I thought you did not believe in these direct correlations.



You're the one that brought statistics into it.  Fact is, statistics will never prove for certain wether concealed carry laws impact the crime rate in a negative or positive manner.  But every they certainly indicate that it's positive.

Next time, if you don't want statistics, don't ask for them.  It's a little disingenius to say "hrm, I wonder what the statistics on this are", and then, when informed of them, come around and say "well, correlation doesn't equal causation....".


----------



## TCBF (11 Jan 2006)

Quote from: TCBF on Today at 17:46:21
  Elimination of civilian gun ownership increases violent crime (UK, Australia, NZ). 

"It was you that brought out the "correlation is not causation" argument, wasn't it"   - GA

-Yes.  I submit that other factors and observations reinforce the statistics in this particular case.  

Tom


----------



## Blackhorse7 (11 Jan 2006)

And I see we are right back to where we left off when the topic got locked.  Tit for tat.  Well, I'll sum up with this.  Remember Mayerthorpe.  That lunatic killed four members of the RCMP with a military grade firearm that even ERT body armour would not have defeated.  But as others have pointed out, it was his right to have it.  I'm sure that's a comfort to their families.   

I'm done with this.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Jan 2006)

Blackhorse7 said:
			
		

> And I see we are right back to where we left off when the topic got locked.  Tit for tat.  Well, I'll sum up with this.  Remember Mayerthorpe.  That lunatic killed four members of the RCMP with a military grade firearm that even ERT body armour would not have defeated.  But as others have pointed out, it was his right to have it.  I'm sure that's a comfort to their families.
> 
> I'm done with this.



Please don't try lay any guilt trips on law abiding citizens. I have legally owned many types of firearms for forty years. I have not been in trouble with the law. Other than the fact that you don't like it, why can't I persue my chosen past time? Besides, if the Gov't doesn't provide me decent practice time and ammunition to keep up my military skills, I guess it's up to me to do it eh? Just like doing PT on my own time.


----------



## TCBF (11 Jan 2006)

And I point out that it was illegally in his posession, as he was under a firearms ban, and that had the leftist intellectual legal liberal elite of this country been FORCED to take citizen AND officer safety seriously, he would have not been able to commit the crime because he would have still been in jail for all of the crimes he had previously committed.  But you guys don't see it that way.  You believe ALL of society should limit their freedoms so we can let the scum go free, and if they happen to kill people while they are on the outside, well, that is just an INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT of the Legal Industry, and lets take the guns away from every one who did not do it to fool the peasants into thinking we actually care about their pathetic gap-toothed, no-necked, clay-hill, red-neck lives.

Right?

Tom


----------



## Glorified Ape (11 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Quote from: TCBF on Today at 17:46:21
> Elimination of civilian gun ownership increases violent crime (UK, Australia, NZ).
> 
> "It was you that brought out the "correlation is not causation" argument, wasn't it"   - GA
> ...



Studies? I've browsed quite a few gun control/anti-gun control stuff in the past but I've never run across anything pointing to a miraculous and spontaneous increase in crime at the exact point of gun control enactment. I could be wrong, it's not uncommon.


----------



## 48Highlander (11 Jan 2006)

Blackhorse7 said:
			
		

> And I see we are right back to where we left off when the topic got locked.  Tit for tat.  Well, I'll sum up with this.  Remember Mayerthorpe.  That lunatic killed four members of the RCMP with a military grade firearm that even ERT body armour would not have defeated.  But as others have pointed out, *it was his right to have it*.  I'm sure that's a comfort to their families.
> 
> I'm done with this.



There you go, making things up again.  Here's a brief history of Mr. Roszko:



			
				http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/rcmp/suspects.html said:
			
		

> Roszko racked up a string of charges dating back nearly 30 years. Court and parole documents give details of his criminal past, which included pointing a loaded handgun at a young man he had lured into his house and demanding sex, as well as using alcohol and money in attempts to befriend young people.
> 
> The trail started in February 1976, when Roszko faced charges including break and enter, and possession of stolen property. He was sentenced to one year's probation in April 1979.
> 
> ...



Now, if this individual was allowed to posses firearms of any sort (which I seriously doubt), then our legal system needs a serious re-working.

Considering he was, at the time, also employing a 20 round magazine for his rifle (which is illegal in Canada), I seriously doubt he would have had any compunctions about obtaining his firearms through illegal means.

And you've yet to show why exactly you think it's a good idea to trample all over my rights.  Coming from a Cop, your attitude is quite disturbing.


----------



## TCBF (11 Jan 2006)

Difficult to determine?  Perhaps.  Very seldom is gun control conducted at once. Ron Basford, I think, spoke of a fifty year process, and that was in the late sixties.  A much  quicker process occured in Australia and the UK, BUT, it was at the same time as loosening of immigration policies to encourage those who may have had difficulties adapting to our western ways, with the usual gang related problems for the next generation.  

The trouble is that gun control is such a visceral subject.  It focuses on one item and the attendant casualties yet seldom on the reasons for the disarming of citizens and how that will reduce crime - because it won't.

And, what is the real reason behind it?  Why is a peaceable nation whose violent rates have never been that alarming bben told it had to get rid of guns?  Why wouldn't honest politicians trust their voters with guns?  What is there to fear?  A suicide epidemic? No, suicide is means independant.

The proponents are fond of saying that 'less guns mean less gun dead', but what if it increased the over all amount of dead when guns were taken away, and what if we ended up with the WRONG kind of dead - hoimeowners instead of home invaders?

It would be nice to see some intellectual honesty  - I think Gary Mauser alluded to that in his book "Gun Control in Canada - Reflections on a One Way Street:

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Research/Observations/

"2. Firearm Violence
2.4 International Comparisons
"...commonly compared foreign nations with strict gun controls had lower violence rates before controls were implemented,...one therefore cannot conclude from such simple cross-national comparisons that stricter gun controls reduced violence." [51] 
Kleck, Point Blank 

Firearm prohibitionists constantly repeat that the United States has the highest homicide rate in the western world. That statement is false. According to the World Health Organization, this dubious distinction belongs to countries such as Mexico and Jamaica, which have homicides rates almost twice as high as the U.S. [52]. 
Russia virtually prohibits gun ownership by civilians (as does Jamaica) but has a murder rate higher than either the United States or Canada [53]. The majority of the European nations, with the exception of Switzerland where firearm ownership is a citizen's obligation, exhibit homicide rates similar or higher than Canada despite much more restrictive gun control laws [54]. 

The states of the American midwest exhibit homicide rates substantially lower than the adjoining Canadian prairie provinces despite easier legal access to firearms and liberal handgun laws [55]. 

Britain prohibits centerfire semiautomatic and pump action rifles. All firearm and shotgun owners and their guns are resitered. Compliance with the firearm control bureaucracy's storage requirements are expensive and rigorously enforced [56]. Firearm prohibitionists credit these strict and often puzzling firearm laws (a shotgun for many years was not considered a firearm in Britain) for a low level of gun-related homicde and violent crime, unfortunately, this is nothing more than an illusion [57]. Great Britain had much lower levels of homicide and violent crime when their gun laws were casual compared to the existing legislation [58]. 

While the firearm and non-firearm robbery rates in both Canada and the United States declined during the 1980's, in Great Britain the firearm/non-firearm robbery rates grew by over 100% and increased steadily after extremely restrictive firearm control laws had substantially decreased the legal ownership of firearms [59]. While the number of legal firearm owners in Great Britain has been declining due to a hostile gun control bureaucracy, crimes involving firearms increased 196% between 1981-1992 [60]. 

Great Britain's harsh firearm regulations have been ineffective at controlling increasing levels of gun-related crime. As in Canada, the persons who abide by the laws and regulations concerning the acquisition and ownership of firearms are the least likely to commit any crimes with them. 

One of the reasons Great Britain has maintained a relatively low violent crime rate is because criminals face stiff sentences for crimes of violence. A life sentence for murder in Great Britain is taken far more seriously than in Canada. Any released murderer who violates any aspect of parole is immediately returned to custody for the rest of their natural life. Convictions for violent crimes in Great Britain typically carry an average sentence of 20 months; robbery, 48 months [61]. 

The British experience with firearm controls is in sharp contrast to Switzerland, one of the few countries in the world without a standing army. Virtually every adult male belongs to the citizen's militia and is required to keep an assualt rifle, ammunition, gas mask, and other military equipment readily available in their home. When the individual's term of militia service ends, usually around age 50, he keeps his issue military weapon. Obsolete military firearms are sold freely to Swiss citizens [62]. 

In a nation of only six million people, there are at least two milion firearms, including 600,000 automatic assault rifles and 500,000 pistols [63]. If firearms availability is directly linked to violent crime, then Switzerland should be the most violent place on earth; however, their homicide rate is identical to Britain's and similar to the majority of nations in Europe which exhibit much more restrictive gun control laws [64]."

----------------


"And you've yet to show why exactly you think it's a good idea to trample all over my rights.  Coming from a Cop, your attitude is quite disturbing"

- Keystoner Alert!  Keystoner Alert!

 ;D

Tom


----------



## Michael OLeary (12 Jan 2006)

Gentlemen, I think that's enough since we seem unable to simply debate the topic.

Locked once more and it can stay that way.

Mike
Staff


----------

