Stolen rifle /calgary police

[Sputnik]

Wow, talk about a love for the police.

That aside. Having at one time been a Private in the army, I would not have wanted to be the young fella making that call to my Sgt!

Also having once been a Sgt I know exactly what the response would be and the next step would have been picking the seat of his pants out of my teeth!

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

Here's the skinny,

The arguement or case will be based on 1 major factor, "Was the Officer in possession of the firearm as a part of his normal duties?"

So, are the CPS Members authorized to take home their service firearms to practice with them and clean them? Was it common knowledge that they could or couldn't. Is there specific CPS regulations forbidding the Members from taking their Carbines home for cleaning or practice?

If the Member argues that he considered himself on duty when transporting the Carbine home because his intentions were to complete work related duties such as cleaning, then they may find in favor of the the Officer. If so, there will be no criminal charges in relation to the regulations as Peace Officers on duty are exempt from all firearms act regulations. That is why they can possess a firearm without a PAL, open carry without a permit, discharge in a prohibited location, and leave a loaded shotgun in an unattended vehicle.

But, if he is found to be on duty they could still consider a "Careless Use" charge if the circumstances warrant it.

Regardless, if he is cleared of Criminal Code charges the Officer we still be subject to internal discipline for failing to secure the carbine case with the locking cabel. NOTE: This securing with a cable is internal CPS policy only as it is not required under the Fireram Act.


Now, if CPS rules that he was not on duty then the file will most likely be forwarded to crown for charges which could included:

Careless Use
Unsafe Transport
Unathorized Possession
Unauthorized Possession in a Motor Vehicle
Unathorized Possession of Restricted Firearm with Ammunition. (3 year minimum)

But, given recent case law out of Ontario where it was ruled that a Peace Officer does not lose there Peace Officer status by merely going "off duty" it may be difficult to convict the Member on any Criminal Code charges other then the Careless Use.

I am actual shocked by the article that the Supervisor came straight out and said that termination of employment was a possibility.

One thing for sure, if CPS did not have policy in place prior, it is being written as we speak.

Oh Yeah! Where are the wild assumptions? Where are the woulda, coulda, shoulda dones in this post. I think it's irresponsible to try to rain on our parade. How are we supposed to keep the torches burning and the pitchforks waving.? Well tell me how? Oh I get it. You don't like mob justice.

Have you ever seen a post on here where the victim of the crime was blamed? Well have you ever seen video of a poor old cow in the river with a bunch of pirahnas ? Me too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLsg0EvZozI

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

Oh Yeah! Where are the wild assumptions? Where are the woulda, coulda, shoulda dones in this post. I think it's irresponsible to try to rain on our parade. How are we supposed to keep the torches burning and the pitchforks waving.? Well tell me how? Oh I get it. You don't like mob justice.

Have you ever seen a post on here where the victim of the crime was blamed? Well have you ever seen video of a poor old cow in the river with a bunch of pirahnas ? Me too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLsg0EvZozI

[NEWB]

Originally Posted by Battle Rat

If your focus is on the cops mistake and not the low life crook that stole the gun the you are no better than the anti gun liberals.
No wonder we have such bad gun laws in this country when some members of a forum like this can't see the root of the problem.
Well done Wendy, the idiots are following you.

If it wasn't for the LEO's action then this discussion would not be happening.

The root of the problem was the officer. He was the catalyst in this.

Hope that clarifies things for you Wendy.

[vcmm]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Blue wall coming down? Head of the Calgary Police union doesn't like the comments from the Superintendent...



Wow...

http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/04/06...ice-union-boss

I guess all Union folk can use this one too.

[Newview01]

Why are so many people assuming you would immediately get charged? I know police officers who would not feel the need to immediately press charges, as they also enjoy sport shooting and understand how sometimes there is the occasional stop. You people are almost writing the law for the government to enforce. Please, read every letter of the firearms act to educate yourself. To me the only questionable issue here is the two magazines.

[roper1]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Blue wall coming down? Head of the Calgary Police union doesn't like the comments from the Superintendent...



Wow...

http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/04/06...ice-union-boss

Naw, this is the blue wall coming up, the rank & file reminding their bosses who really runs the show

[roper1]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

That is what I found a little odd with the Police press conference and various statements made by the service. Official said things like "We don't do that", "That's not our practice", "Those guns are left in locked areas at the offices". But what was never said, as far as I can see, is anything like "He broke regulation X which states...". IF they have a regulation or policy one would think they would mention or quote it.

I got the same impression first time I read it, but the officer got a week off... Can one senior officer suspend the guy, or do they discuss what they know with a senior group?? The news conference was a few hours after the theft, would seem like the sup.t would have his facts straight by then. That sup't, who has more facts than us was really ticked.....so just a simple little oversight or a really big screwup. The sup't went so far as to sat the cop's job was in jeopardy.

[NEWB]

Originally Posted by roper1

I got the same impression first time I read it, but the officer got a week off... Can one senior officer suspend the guy, or do they discuss what they know with a senior group?? The news conference was a few hours after the theft, would seem like the sup.t would have his facts straight by then. That sup't, who has more facts than us was really ticked.....so just a simple little oversight or a really big screwup. The sup't went so far as to sat the cop's job was in jeopardy.

It is willful omission of details and fact.

It is all about damage control. Admiting the policy or referencing it in anyway will sink your ship.

[riden]

Originally Posted by NEWB

If it wasn't for the LEO's action then this discussion would not be happening.

The root of the problem was the officer. He was the catalyst in this.

Hope that clarifies things for you Wendy.

Are you sure you are calling the right person Wendy?

The catalyst is the opportunist thief, not the person who was the victim of the crime.

[Mossyoak]

I wonder if he had two full pints and was over the limit to drive home...


Possession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition

95. (1) Subject to subsection (3), every person commits an offence who, in any place, possesses a loaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, or an unloaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm together with readily accessible ammunition that is capable of being discharged in the firearm, unless the person is the holder of
(a) an authorization or a licence under which the person may possess the firearm in that place; and
(b) the registration certificate for the firearm.

Punishment

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
(i) in the case of a first offence, three years, and
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.

Wasn't the police officer considered a 'civilian' at the time of the incident ?

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by Mossyoak

Wasn't the police officer considered a 'civilian' at the time of the incident ?

When it comes to firearms, yes. Unless there are circumstances where it's required for officer safety.

Off-duty or on-duty seems to be a gray area. Everything i've read over the years suggests this anyhow and court cases have been scarce. Since they can be basically called out at any given time, they are classified as on-duty 24 hours a day. Or on call if you will. Is that fair? You decide.

Some officers seem to be always on the lookout off hours, others shut it off when they are not working.

They can - as far as I know - exercise their police duties after hours, but they take the risk. If an off-duty officer gets in a scuffle with someone, what are the chances they can be injured by another officer that doesn't know he's a cop? Is it worth the chance.

It's also important to note if you're approached by someone claiming to be an off-duty officer - they must ID themselves.

They cannot carry as an off-duty unless there are circumstances surrounding officer safety and they are given permission.

Off-duty, the officer must follow the same laws surrounding firearms as Joe Canadian.




Silly question, wouldn't 28 rounds in a magazine be prohibited for the average firearms owner?

[NEWB]

Originally Posted by riden

Are you sure you are calling the right person Wendy?

The catalyst is the opportunist thief, not the person who was the victim of the crime.

Nice try.

The officer created the opportunity by leaving the firearm in the vehicle.

The thief did not place it there.

Thieves will break in as an opprotunity exists.

We can therefor deduct that the C-8 was in plain sight, created an opprotunity and executed the option for theft.

If nothing was in sight, what possible reason would exist for a sole vehicle break in and theft of opprotunity to occur?

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by NEWB

Nice try.

The officer created the opportunity by leaving the firearm in the vehicle.

The thief did not place it there.

Thieves will break in as an opprotunity exists.

We can therefor deduct that the C-8 was in plain sight, created an opprotunity and executed the option for theft.

If nothing was in sight, what possible reason would exist for a sole vehicle break in and theft of opprotunity to occur?

you're basing that on c-68.

if it gets thrown out in court it's a huge win for firearm owners and could be used in court should a civilian find themselves in this situation.

god i hope it gets thrown out and pokes holes in c-68

[twofifty]

Originally Posted by greylynx

For the police it is called a "Patrol Rifle".

If I owned one it would be an "Assault Rifle" or "Machine Gun".

So now we know what is in the trunk of Calgary Police Cars. Patrol Rifles.

And just how many of these "Patrol Rifles" are missing, or are going to be missing?

That would be an interesting venture for any non liberal journalist.

Yesterday CBC Radio was commenting about that dude in Newfoundland who was shot by the Premier's security detail. Apparently the bad guy had
what CBC calls a "LONG GUN RIFLE". What will they dream of next.

[buyandsellguycalgary]

does any know if the gun was ever found and recovered?

[Battle Rat]

Originally Posted by NEWB

If it wasn't for the LEO's action then this discussion would not be happening.

The root of the problem was the officer. He was the catalyst in this.

Hope that clarifies things for you Wendy.

So who do you think should receive the harshest punishment the cop or the crook?

[bagwan]

I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't common practice to take arms home for cleaning etc. This young guy just had the bad luck that a thief hit his vehicle at an opportunistic time. Bad judgement in where he was at and aPOS in the neighborhood. At least I hope it was not an inside job. I agree with fish-e-o I hope this gets thrown out if it goes to court. A blanket, parka etc over the case doesn't stop a theft. The pelican case would possibly be considered a deterrent to a judge as its not identifiable as to what's inside. I have been in the same situation where I threw a blanket over an uncased rifle/shotgun lots of times when hunting geese in the morning and deer afterward. Dollars to donuts there are new rules on taking weapons home in black and white just to cover the upper echelons rump after the Supt threw the officer under a bus.

[NEWB]

Originally Posted by fish_e_o

you're basing that on c-68.

if it gets thrown out in court it's a huge win for firearm owners and could be used in court should a civilian find themselves in this situation.

god i hope it gets thrown out and pokes holes in c-68

Precisely!

Really at the end of the day an opptotunity was there. The opprotunity was a firearm and created by the officer. The opprotunity could have been a wallet, phone, purse, keys, cash etc.

[NEWB]

Originally Posted by Battle Rat

So who do you think should receive the harshest punishment the cop or the crook?

With out something to steal there would be no theft.

[Fisherpeak]

Originally Posted by bagwan

I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't common practice to take arms home for cleaning etc. This young guy just had the bad luck that a thief hit his vehicle at an opportunistic time. Bad judgement in where he was at and aPOS in the neighborhood. At least I hope it was not an inside job. I agree with fish-e-o I hope this gets thrown out if it goes to court. A blanket, parka etc over the case doesn't stop a theft. The pelican case would possibly be considered a deterrent to a judge as its not identifiable as to what's inside. I have been in the same situation where I threw a blanket over an uncased rifle/shotgun lots of times when hunting geese in the morning and deer afterward. Dollars to donuts there are new rules on taking weapons home in black and white just to cover the upper echelons rump after the Supt threw the officer under a bus.

It is not common practice to take them home for cleaning.It is not common practice to take them home for any reason.
It was not a rifle under a blanket,it was a restricted police weapon.

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by NEWB

Precisely!

Really at the end of the day an opptotunity was there. The opprotunity was a firearm and created by the officer. The opprotunity could have been a wallet, phone, purse, keys, cash etc.

if it was a wallet or any of those things we wouldn't be having this discussion. the problem is i think you are saying that because he's a firearms owner that he's now a criminal.

if you get your wallet stolen you don't possibly face jail time, losing your job, spending your savings on legal fees, or losing your family. visa will even compensate you if it does get stolen.

it's a sad age we live in where good people are considered criminals simply because of the acts of a bad person.

[NEWB]

Originally Posted by fish_e_o

if it was a wallet or any of those things we wouldn't be having this discussion. the problem is i think you are saying that because he's a firearms owner that he's now a criminal.

if you get your wallet stolen you don't possibly face jail time, losing your job, spending your savings on legal fees, or losing your family. visa will even compensate you if it does get stolen.

it's a sad age we live in where good people are considered criminals simply because of the acts of a bad person.

I am only repeating the law. I do not believe is a criminal. The law has made him a criminal. There is a difference.

Having a firearm stolen should not be a criminal offence. However the law as supported by and drafted by the RCMP have made him a criminal.

I get that it was a bad move and I do not envy him. However I did not create the law.

As it has been stated many times. Ignorance of the Law is no excuse. Those who enforce the law should know the laws and follow the laws.

[JohninAB]

Originally Posted by NEWB

However the law as supported by and drafted by the RCMP have made him a criminal.

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by NEWB

I am only repeating the law. I do not believe is a criminal. The law has made him a criminal. There is a difference.

Having a firearm stolen should not be a criminal offence. However the law as supported by and drafted by the RCMP have made him a criminal.

I get that it was a bad move and I do not envy him. However I did not create the law.

As it has been stated many times. Ignorance of the Law is no excuse. Those who enforce the law should know the laws and follow the laws.

so i think we should support him and what's right.

and not condemn him as a "false" criminal

[bagwan]

Originally Posted by Fisherpeak

It is not common practice to take them home for cleaning.It is not common practice to take them home for any reason.

You know this for a fact or because the upper management said so in the media scrum. I agree it was a bad decision on his part to make a stop on the way home. All I'm saying is that it MAY have been done by others in the past and they got lucky or went straight home. Hopefully it will be recovered.

[NEWB]

Originally Posted by fish_e_o

so i think we should support him and what's right.

and not condemn him as a "false" criminal

No.

What our opinion of what a criminal is is irrelevant. What matters is thr rule and spirit of the law.

He broke the law and should be punished accordingly. If i broke the law i would be punished as a criminal. I am pretty sure the police would not make an exception to that. Why should this officer be exempt?

As LEO's like to say.. "Don't like the law. Write your MP".

Maybe you and the officer involved should write your MP.

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by NEWB

As LEO's like to say.. "Don't like the law. Write your MP".

Maybe you and the officer involved should write your MP.

let's do it! i'm in, i already have.

we the people make the law, we need to be reminded that we still have the power to live life in the manner of our choosing.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by fish_e_o

let's do it! i'm in, i already have.

we the people make the law, we need to be reminded that we still have the power to live life in the manner of our choosing.

Your glass is half full!!!

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Your glass is half full!!!

you calling me dumb lol

i have faith