So the RCMP called my friend tonight, he told me they were basically trying to trick him into saying I would solve a situation with violence. " Has your friend ever acted violently?" ....no...." Would you friend ever use violence to solve a problem.?....no..." So your friend wouldn't use violence to even defend himself" .....well.....how else would it be defending yourself if you didn't react back violently? " So...you friend would use violence to defend himself?......" My friend is a family man I'm sure if it came down to protecting himself or his family he could react violently....no different than anyone " So why does your friend want a rifle anyway? " Because his grandfathers greatest passion is hunting and he'd like to be able to share the experience with him while he's still physically able to..." Ok...thanks for your time" ........anyone else have this BS?
I would never use violence against another person....even if I was defending my family or myself...
I would use 'force' but I would definatly not call it violence....theres a difference. To me, violence infers that I intend to do harm or injur another person. So no, I myself wouldnt ever use violence....
Either way, sometimes its all about how people understand questions, etc. Its a security check, those sorts of questions are expected to be asked....not sure I'd call it BS right away.....you'll get your PAL....I wouldnt be concerned...
Best one I heard was about a friend of mine. RCMP called the reference and asked if so and so would possibly harm his ex-wife. The reply was, if he was going to do that, he'd have done it long ago.
Grizz
__________________
"Indeed, no human being has yet lived under conditions which, considering the prevailing climates of the past, can be regarded as normal."
John E. Pfeiffer The Emergence of Man
written in 1969
You could always try the Philade[phia lawyer bit:"Yes, I am sure that he might, but only within the constraints and limits as specified in the Criminal Code of Canada". but the problem is that the law or truth have little to do with this! When the top officers of the RCMP cannot be trusted to be truthful, how the hell can they expect civilians to be held to a higher standard?
I have always been supportive of the police and the difficult job they perform, which is why the recent direction of the RCMP is alarming and disappointing.
So the RCMP called my friend tonight, he told me they were basically trying to trick him into saying I would solve a situation with violence. " Has your friend ever acted violently?" ....no...." Would you friend ever use violence to solve a problem.?....no..." So your friend wouldn't use violence to even defend himself" .....well.....how else would it be defending yourself if you didn't react back violently? " So...you friend would use violence to defend himself?......" My friend is a family man I'm sure if it came down to protecting himself or his family he could react violently....no different than anyone " So why does your friend want a rifle anyway? " Because his grandfathers greatest passion is hunting and he'd like to be able to share the experience with him while he's still physically able to..." Ok...thanks for your time" ........anyone else have this BS?
I have done several references and the answers I would give to those questions would have gone: 1. No; 2. No; 3. Correct; 3. No; 4. Hunting.
RCMP PAL reference...
Me dig, me
Linear Mode
