RCMP now face 'Class Action' lawsuit for their High River Gun-Grab - Page 2

fish gunner · #31 02-12-2015, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buckhead

Private property was confiscated without a warrant.
That is that and there is no getting around it.

All of it returned promptly. And not a single house was bulldozed as the emergancy act allows. Its the whole point. if it was this giant conspiricy from the top down bring in a half dozen D10 there we go HR is secure. Nothing to see move along folks sorry for your luck .

Deo101 · #32 02-12-2015, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fish gunner

So you know next to nuthing abought what happened in high river . Carry on .

I've followed this closely since day one. You brought up them turning a blind eye to things. (pot plants) Which I don't know if that happened and I doubt you know that to be fact. I suggest it's more likely that they knew that even if they see 1000kilos of blow in the back room, there's nothing they could do about it anyways. Maybe throw it down the river but they certainly aren't going to be able to charge anyone.

They weren't doing people a favor by not charging them with illegal storage, they couldn't charge them! Don't you watch Law and Order?

Please educate me on what really happened there.

mark-edmonton · #33 02-12-2015, 04:37 PM

Regardless, it was illegal confiscation period! Do I think the guys on the ground are responsible, no! I'm sure they were following orders( illegal ones) yes someone should be accountable!

lifesagarden · #34 02-12-2015, 04:38 PM

So if 609 guns had been stollen and in the hands of criminals would we be yelling at the improperly stored firearms owner or the RCMP for not propley safe gaurding our homes? Im confused as to who i should be mad at this week. Poor decisions during a time that did not allow for debate... And no i do not know anything about high river. Pretty sure we know what happened to the last guy who was perfect.

Deo101 · #35 02-12-2015, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Of course omg so why would the RC's all of a sudden care abought that law when as every one claims they spent a week robbing houses??? It makes no sense " break all the laws you want lads to get them guns ....but dont break the law on warrants" that ones sacred.

Because they aren't the Prosecutor! Nor the one to decide if a warrant is justified.

You love getting people going eh! I should know better.

fish gunner · #36 02-12-2015, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deo101

I've followed this closely since day one. You brought up them turning a blind eye to things. (pot plants) Which I don't know if that happened and I doubt you know that to be fact. I suggest it's more likely that they knew that even if they see 1000kilos of blow in the back room, there's nothing they could do about it anyways. Maybe throw it down the river but they certainly aren't going to be able to charge anyone.

They weren't doing people a favor by not charging them with illegal storage, they couldn't charge them! Don't you watch Law and Order?

Please educate me on what really happened there.

Put on your close eye glasses its in the report.

HunterDave · #37 02-12-2015, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark-edmonton

Regardless, it was illegal confiscation period! Do I think the guys on the ground are responsible, no! I'm sure they were following orders( illegal ones) yes someone should be accountable!

Everyone is responsible for their own actions. If you are given an unlawful order it is your duty to refuse to follow it. "I was just following orders" is not a defence. It didn't work in Nuremberg and it's not a reasonable explanation for what happened in High River.

I doubt that any members of the RCMP will be charged with anything though.

Redfrog · #38 02-12-2015, 04:57 PM

I wish posters would quit quoting some people in their replies. It defeats the ignore function.

fish gunner · #39 02-12-2015, 04:57 PM

[QUOTE=Deo101;2733762]! Nor the one to decide if a warrant is justified.

/QUOTE]

Ta daaaaaaaa. End of story .

Deo101 · #40 02-12-2015, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redfrog

I wish posters would quit quoting some people in their replies. It defeats the ignore function.

Can you ignore yourself? haha. I should probably follow your lead.

C5Hines · #41 02-12-2015, 05:04 PM

I know it probably feels like an invasion of privacy but I'd rather it be them than someone sneaking around looting houses.

I don't know much about the situation, did the residents who had firearms taken get all their guns back? If they did then whatever who cares. If they didn't then ya, sue them and get your stuff back.

I know people are all in a tizzy about this but personally I would rather the R.C.M.P. go into my evacuated house and take my guns than have some looter do it, even if the chances of my place getting looted were 1%.

Deo101 · #42 02-12-2015, 05:05 PM

[QUOTE=fish gunner;2733787]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deo101

! Nor the one to decide if a warrant is justified.

/QUOTE]

Ta daaaaaaaa. End of story .

Warrant first then entry. Ta daaaa. What were you getting at there?

fish gunner · #43 02-12-2015, 05:10 PM

[QUOTE=Deo101;2733797]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Warrant first then entry. Ta daaaa. What were you getting at there?

You just stated the police are not there to deem if a warrent is justifyed.

Scott N · #44 02-12-2015, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C5Hines

I know it probably feels like an invasion of privacy but I'd rather it be them than someone sneaking around looting houses.

I don't know much about the situation, did the residents who had firearms taken get all their guns back? If they did then whatever who cares. If they didn't then ya, sue them and get your stuff back.

I know people are all in a tizzy about this but personally I would rather the R.C.M.P. go into my evacuated house and take my guns than have some looter do it, even if the chances of my place getting looted were 1%.

Hey bud, do you know what the RCMP did with all the ammo they took? They destroyed it all, every last round. You're OK with that? At least you're honest and admit to not knowing much about the situation. Everyone knew from the beginning that nothing..... NOTHING would happen to the RCMP that ordered this, and the others that did the dirty deeds. There was an interview at the time where an RCMP officer took a lot of glee in explaining how much fun it was to kick someone's door in.

Deo101 · #45 02-12-2015, 05:18 PM

[QUOTE=fish gunner;2733803]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deo101

You just stated the police are not there to deem if a warrent is justifyed.

Just want to be clear on your stance here...Do you agree there was warrant less searches? Are you okay with that?

By warrant I mean the piece of paper from a Judge that give the authority to enter. Not how they felt at the time.

fish gunner · #46 02-12-2015, 05:21 PM

[QUOTE=Deo101;2733817]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Just want to be clear on your stance here...Do you agree there was warrant less searches? Are you okay with that?

By warrant I mean the piece of paper from a Judge that give the authority to enter. Not how they felt at the time.

I fully agree with a warrant less searchs in a town with the courthouse under 6' of river with the water rising. When saving lives is the object of 4000 searches.

C5Hines · #47 02-12-2015, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott N

Hey bud, do you know what the RCMP did with all the ammo they took? They destroyed it all, every last round. You're OK with that? At least you're honest and admit to not knowing much about the situation. Everyone knew from the beginning that nothing..... NOTHING would happen to the RCMP that ordered this, and the others that did the dirty deeds. There was an interview at the time where an RCMP officer took a lot of glee in explaining how much fun it was to kick someone's door in.

Destroying the ammo seems extreme. Should have just catalogued and stored everything from each house then returned it after the evacuation was lifted or should have reimbursed them for the ammo.

As for the guy having a good time kicking in doors, every job, sport or activity has their bad apples.

dewalt18 · #48 02-12-2015, 05:25 PM

I've spent the last year and a half keeping ,y opinion on this subject to myself, and not broadcasting it across the intrawebs. But, my tongue is about been bitten through reading this.

Still, I'll leave it to just asking a few questions. . .

Question one:

Fish Gunner, were you there?

Question two:

Fish Gunner, what's with towing the RCMP line?

And lastly:

Even with the report out against them, plus a law suit, does anybody actually think it will change anything?

Done is done.

Deo101 · #49 02-12-2015, 05:28 PM

[QUOTE=fish gunner;2733821]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deo101

I fully agree with a warrant less searchs in a town with the courthouse under 6' of river with the water rising. When saving lives is the object of 4000 searches.

Hard to argue with that.

In the case of High River though, search's went on for days in area's that weren't flooded. Targeting guns specifically.

I've yet to see you change your mind on AO so I'm wasting bandwidth.

Have a Good rest of the Day.

Scott N · #50 02-12-2015, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C5Hines

As for the guy having a good time kicking in doors, every job, sport or activity has their bad apples.

That's the problem that you don't seem to notice... the RCMP has their bad share of bad apples like every other organization, but in most organizations, the bad apples get punished when they do something out of line. The RCMP seemingly answer to no one, especially the ones at the top.

Scott N · #51 02-12-2015, 05:32 PM

...

Deo101 · #52 02-12-2015, 05:38 PM

I think I've been misquoted....haha.

Scott N · #53 02-12-2015, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deo101

I think I've been misquoted....haha.

yes, sorry about that!

Selkirk · #54 02-12-2015, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ganderblaster

If successful with the lawsuit I hope the money comes directly from the pockets and off the salaries of the officers and others responsible. Sadly I suspect we will end up paying for this mistake while the RCMP pleads for increased government funding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LCCFisherman

Great idea.. now the deficit you all create by sueing the RCMP they will be giving out speeding tickets for 102 in a 100....

I assure you, gentlemen ... this class-action lawsuit is 'not' about money! If you have been following this story (The RCMP High River Gun-Grab), you will know that it's about something far bigger, and much more important, than a wad of cash.

Mac

pseelk · #55 02-12-2015, 06:03 PM

[QUOTE=fish gunner;2733821]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deo101

I fully agree with a warrant less searchs in a town with the courthouse under 6' of river with the water rising. When saving lives is the object of 4000 searches.

Than why steal the guns?they should know they were breaking the law.What has stealing guns got to do with saving lives.They had the town locked down.I guess they were the only ones that could steal them.The report says they broke the law and the lawsuit will make them pay and allow the world to see what kind of police state the top brass are trying to turn this country into.

twofifty · #56 02-12-2015, 06:06 PM

MacLeod is right, it's about our fundamental right to be free from illegal search and seizure. Once authorities are allowed to disregard this fundamental right without suffering serious consequences, the right effectively disappears.

I want to preserve a free society, not live in an oppressed society.

dmcbride · #57 02-12-2015, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twofifty

MacLeod is right, it's about our fundamental right to be free from illegal search and seizure. Once authorities are allowed to disregard this fundamental right without suffering serious consequences, the right effectively disappears.

I want to preserve a free society, not live in an oppressed society.

X2

dmcbride · #58 02-12-2015, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lifesagarden

So if 609 guns had been stollen and in the hands of criminals would we be yelling at the improperly stored firearms owner or the RCMP for not propley safe gaurding our homes? Im confused as to who i should be mad at this week. Poor decisions during a time that did not allow for debate... And no i do not know anything about high river. Pretty sure we know what happened to the last guy who was perfect.

Lol. There are a lot of easier places to steel guns.

roy9525 · #59 02-12-2015, 07:14 PM

apparently the lawsuit will be based on the fact the rcmp were lawfully entering homes under emergency act, and taking notes of homes that had guns. they then came back several days later and illegally entered the homes doing all the damage and seizing the guns.

recce43 · #60 02-12-2015, 07:17 PM

Its funny that the cps didn't go around kicking in doors and they didn't take any rifles ..and they evacuated thousands of people .. oh by the way the military saw what the rcmp where doing with dnd battering rams so 5hey took them away from them .