RCMP prevent attack - 10 Aug 2016

[jmt18325]

All are protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that we brought in during days when we were much more law abiding and civil.

Or not:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2015001-eng.htm

 

[mariomike]

Stop being such panty waists and do what is necessary.

 

[jmt18325]

At the same time, the necessity of having a Warrant by the LEOs to conduct many of their duties in investigations can hamstring their efforts. 

Good - for every would be terrorist event, there are hundreds of chances for police to abuse our Constitutional rights if we give them warrant-less power.  I'm not anti police at all, but context is important - we're pretty safe, even with things like this.

 

[jmt18325]

I will have to disagree with you on the warrant thing, George. What makes liberal democracies like Canada different from places like Turkey, Russia or Venezuela is the "Rule of Law" and the requirement to show cause before taking actions against citizens.

Allowing arbitrary State power to decide who is a "threat" and to unilaterally take action is the fast road to dictatorship, and can be very easily be manipulated to deploy State power against people for political ends. The unsavoury attempts to quash "due process" in American Colleges and universities through Title IX Kangaroo courts for victims of sexual assault, or our own experience in Canada with Human Rights Tribunals should be unsettling enough. If you think that *we* are in no danger, stop and re read this site. Many of the opinions expressed by many of the posters (and yes, including myself) could be potentially marked as "hateful" or "xxxphobic" or whatever weasel word is in vogue, and then you or I could get sucked into a process which would at the very least cause massive financial hardship, hurt our chances at employment and affect our ability to communicate in public. I for one am not willing to see civil liberties eroded to that extent even in the face of terrorism.

And I say this as a father who potentially could have lost his son at Citi Plaza on the 10th. I want to live as a free man, and also that my children will live as free citizens in a liberal democratic society. I didn't spend my adult life as a soldier guarding these liberties just to casually give them away.

Bravo.  I couldn't agree more.  With freedom (measured as we have it) you have to accept a certain amount of risk.  That's reality.  I don't want to give the police or governments the power to do as they please.  They won't all be as benevolent as the last century has given us.

 

[jmt18325]

Fair enough, but when a valid threat is identified (such as this scumbag) and said threats are proven in a court of law, then society should be adequately protected.  The courts are too lenient on these people once convicted.  Stop being such panty waists and do what is necessary.

This guy wasn't convicted though.  A peace bond was a way to show them doing something - anything.  It actually weakened their ability to monitor him, as it removed the ankle bracelet.  The evidence was obviously pretty shaky.

 

[dapaterson]

The evidence was obviously pretty shaky.

Not necessarily.  Sometimes, intelligence services have information that is compelling but not admissible in court.

 

[YZT580]

I would say the evidence was rather convincing.  After all, how many people take a cab ride with a IED in their briefcase?  It is a very fine line between diligent oversight and the start of oppression.  Bravo on the authorities and those in the US who were able to tread that fine line.  It is unfortunate that it led to a death but that outcome became inevitable

 

[Eye In The Sky]

This guy wasn't convicted though.  A peace bond was a way to show them doing something - anything.  It actually weakened their ability to monitor him, as it removed the ankle bracelet.  The evidence was obviously pretty shaky.

Or the laws are weak, or a combination of both.

OR you could look past the 'not convicted' part, and remember that in the end, he took (unknown to us what kind) actions that lead to him being taken down with lethal force.  But ya, other than that...there's not much eh?  Just that small "brought about his own demise". 

Or are we going to suggest that the lethal action taken wasn't justified.  If so, I hope who ever does reads the post above about kangaroo courts and stuff above...

Anyone...ANYONE..who sticks up for this POS who advocated for the deaths of Canadian military and police members is right out of 'er as far as I'm concerned.  Respect the laws of a civil society and you have no issues, right?  He didn't.  He brought about his own end.  Let's not go off into the peckerbrush relating this to dictatorships and all that stuff.  The guy was a POS who went looking for trouble and found it.

 

[George Wallace]

OK....Let's get something straight here.  When I made this statement, it is not a statement advocating that the LEOs should not need a Warrant to perform their duties.  It is a statement that says that the process of obtaining a Warrant can sometime hamstring the LEOs from a timely arrest or take down of criminals/terrorists/law breakers.  It has on occasion permitted suspects to escape the Law. 

At the same time, the necessity of having a Warrant by the LEOs to conduct many of their duties in investigations can hamstring their efforts. 

Do not misconstrue that statement.  They still need to follow due process under the Law.

 

[jollyjacktar]

This guy wasn't convicted though.  A peace bond was a way to show them doing something - anything.  It actually weakened their ability to monitor him, as it removed the ankle bracelet.  The evidence was obviously pretty shaky.

I don't know if dickhead was on the watch list that does exist, if not he should have been.  Getting on that list takes effort on your part, you shouldn't arrive on it without careful consideration by proper authority of your actions in the past, present and expectations of the future.  If you make the grade, then as far as I am concerned the Eye of Sauron should fall upon thee, be it electronic leash or other effective method.  You should have the least amount of opportunity to stray off the path and commence with what you've been espousing such as this week or in Normandy with the execution of the Priest. 

If we cannot manage to keep them out of trouble here then I would rather see them go to whatever hell hole they believe is just dandy and fulfil a role as the aiming marker for some sort of airstrike.

 

[George Wallace]

Or not:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2015001-eng.htm

I don't think you grasped the point being made, but OK. 

 

[jmt18325]

I would say the evidence was rather convincing.  After all, how many people take a cab ride with a IED in their briefcase?  It is a very fine line between diligent oversight and the start of oppression.  Bravo on the authorities and those in the US who were able to tread that fine line.  It is unfortunate that it led to a death but that outcome became inevitable

Sorry - I'm talking about when the Peace Bond was ordered, without the benefit of hindsight.

 

[jmt18325]

Or the laws are weak, or a combination of both.

OR you could look past the 'not convicted' part, and remember that in the end, he took (unknown to us what kind) actions that lead to him being taken down with lethal force.  But ya, other than that...there's not much eh?  Just that small "brought about his own demise". 

Again, that's with the benefit of hindsight.  When the Peace Bond was ordered, that wasn't the case.  The evidence presented in court was not enough for anything beyond that.  The law is sometimes a weakness, but it's our greatest strength.

Anyone...ANYONE..who sticks up for this POS who advocated for the deaths of Canadian military and police members is right out of 'er as far as I'm concerned. 

There's no need for a straw man.  No one did that.

 

[jmt18325]

I don't think you grasped the point being made, but OK.

The point was that we were more willing to follow the laws.  Not quite, it seems.

 

[jmt18325]

I don't know if fool was on the watch list that does exist, if not he should have been.

I agree with that.  The authorities, it seems, were unable to present a case that the judge saw as warranting such action.

 

[The Bread Guy]

This guy wasn't convicted though.

Even if this guy had no peace bonds against him, even if he had no record, if police saw a threat (don't know the specific legal terms), they have ROE to deal with that threat without having to go to court.

Again, that's with the benefit of hindsight.  When the Peace Bond was ordered, that wasn't the case.  The evidence presented in court was not enough for anything beyond that.  The law is sometimes a weakness, but it's our greatest strength.

But the court proceedings from last year and earlier this year didn't consider what happened this week when police became engaged with this individual.  I wasn't there this week, but maybe the police's response would have been different if the guy's behaviour was different.

No matter what happened in court, even if nothing happened in court, police can respond to threats without the use of force having to be brought to court for approval.  Or, to put it differently, if someone's breaking into your house, do the cops have to go to court to deal with the robber as s/he's breaking in?

 

[George Wallace]

The point was that we were more willing to follow the laws.  Not quite, it seems.

My point was probably not worded correctly enough, in order to allude more to our society following more "rule of Law" than some Third World Dictatorship; not a comment on crime statistics.

 

[jmt18325]

My point was probably not worded correctly enough, in order to allude more to our society following more "rule of Law" than some Third World Dictatorship; not a comment on crime statistics.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Again, that's with the benefit of hindsight.  When the Peace Bond was ordered, that wasn't the case.  The evidence presented in court was not enough for anything beyond that.  The law is sometimes a weakness, but it's our greatest strength.

I've seen instances, though, where a law was clearly broken but the judge gave the accused the benefit of the doubt and a peace bond was used instead of charges that 'served the interest of law and public'.  It was a domestic incident (not involving me, I attended the court in a support to the victim role), but perhaps the principles of use are the same in Canada across the spectrum of law? 

There's no need for a straw man.  No one did that.

I was just making my opinion known.  8)

 

[jmt18325]

That doesn't seem to be at all the situation.