Stolen rifle /calgary police

[pseelk]

Originally Posted by does it ALL outdoors

Life in prison for theft from an auto? Sounds reasonable...

Maybe if there were real consequences for thefts,this problem would be less prevelent.Perhaps it it was your property constanly disappearing by these lowlifes you would feel differently.I have no sympathy for these creeps.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by pseelk

Maybe if there were real consequences for thefts,this problem would be less prevelent..

One would like to think that, but I don't think it really makes any difference. Couple of issues:

1. Most crooks don't think they are going to get caught, so the severity of the punishment doesn't make much difference.
2. It's about morals, not punishment. Ask yourself this: If they lowered the penalty for , say, B&E from a year in jail to six months in jail, would you decide to start doing B&E's? No. And if you are already doing them, I doubt you are thinking "I'm fine with doing six months but I'll stop I it's a year". If increasing punishment worked there would be no murders in death penalty states.

I'm not arguing against longer penalties. Maybe it will keep crooks off the street longer, maybe it will just make us feel good. But I don't think it's going to dissuade criminals.

[NEWB]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

As a Yin to your Yang, without a thief there would be no theft. Chicken or the egg?

The Calgary Police Facebook feed has some security camera stills posted of a suspect vehicle and 'witness' vehicle. Could it be that both vehicles are suspects? Team theft? It was noted that without this being there a theft wouldn't have occurred, I disagree. While I agree the C8 should not have been there, it merely meant these theives had a different target; stuff was getting stolen throughout that parking lot that night regardless.

Yes the officer was in breach of a couple of regulations, but so were the crooks. I'm going to go out on a limb and bet the criminal(s) have priors, and didn't do much time for them. Is a lax criminal justice system also responsible?

I'll bite.

The act of theft will always be there.

Theft is comprised of the folowing. Want, need, desire and opprotunity.

We can logically deduct want, need and desire from the equation. I do not think the thieves knew in advance the officer was going to be there, they did not know he was going to be taking a restricted firearm in a private vehicle and with out knowing in advance how can they desire it?

Next we come to opprotunity.

The officer created the opprotunity by leaving the firearm in the vehicle while stopping at shanks.

Was the thief out in the parking lot: Yes.
Was that the only thief in the parking lot? Probably not.
Was the opprotunity there for the thieft to act on. Yes.

The officer was in breech of a couple of criminal regulations which provided the opprotunity for the theft to happen.

Was the officer a victim? Yes. However this theft could have easily been pevented.


Caber,

You know the laws. Now if you were to leave an restricted firearm in your vehicle while stopping at shanks for a few beers to find out later it was stolen and you did not take the necessasy precautions do you think the police would give you the same leniancy as they would with this officer?

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by qwert

IIRC, semi-auto ARs are placed in the restricted class, but since the C8 is DESIGNED AND BUILT as full-auto (or select-fire), they are classed as prohibited even if they have been factory modified to function as semi-auto. This is because they could easily be converted back to full-auto. IIRC, this was the reason given for reclassifying the Swiss Arms and the other similar (CZ859??) rifles from non-restricted to prohibited class.

I question why (most?) police forces have selected the C8 rifle rather than one of the many other ARs that are DESIGNED AND BUILT to be semi-auto only, and not capable of easy conversion back to full auto?

The standard capacity (30 round) magazines 'designed and built' for the AR and other similar rifles are a 'prohibited device' (unless modified to 5 rd max).

C8's issued to CPS, EPS, and RCMP are all "Restricted", not "Prohibited." C8 are not considered "converted full auto's" like the Swiss Arms situation. They do make a full auto version of the C8 but that is considered a different firearm and issued a different FRT number.

[pseelk]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

One would like to think that, but I don't think it really makes any difference. Couple of issues:

1. Most crooks don't think they are going to get caught, so the severity of the punishment doesn't make much difference.
2. It's about morals, not punishment. Ask yourself this: If they lowered the penalty for , say, B&E from a year in jail to six months in jail, would you decide to start doing B&E's? No. And if you are already doing them, I doubt you are thinking "I'm fine with doing six months but I'll stop I it's a year". If increasing punishment worked there would be no murders in death penalty states.

I'm not arguing against longer penalties. Maybe it will keep crooks off the street longer, maybe it will just make us feel good. But I don't think it's going to dissuade criminals.

Of course you are right.My point is if not for the thief this officer would not have the problem he now has.It wasnt that long ago that no one locked thier doors ,Hunting rifles were carried and left in the back windows of pickups and were not touched.We certainly live in different times.Guess I just hate lowlife thieves too much.

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by pseelk

Of course you are right.My point is if not for the thief this officer would not have the problem he now has.It wasnt that long ago that no one locked thier doors ,Hunting rifles were carried and left in the back windows of pickups and were not touched.We certainly live in different times.Guess I just hate lowlife thieves too much.

Couldn't the officers actions be classified as theft as well? He took something that was not his - and something that he clearly did not have permission to take.

2 wrongs don't make a right.

[pseelk]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Couldn't the officers actions be classified as theft as well? He took something that was not his - and something that he clearly did not have permission to take.

2 wrongs don't make a right.

Do we really know what CPS policy is.If not for the thief there would be no problem.I'm pretty sure the officers motive was not the same as the thiefs.The thief probably didnt know what was in the case either.Like any thief he was just looking for something to steal and there happened to be a firearm in the case.If the case was empty things would have been better but he still would have taken it.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Couldn't the officers actions be classified as theft as well? He took something that was not his - and something that he clearly did not have permission to take.

2 wrongs don't make a right.

That remains to be seen. There needs to be intent to steal. You know that.

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

That remains to be seen. There needs to be intent to steal. You know that.

How can one throw intent to steal into this?

The officer took a firearm without permission. It was clearly not known that he took the firearm home. It is clear that he understood the firearm was not his, he knew it was not a personal firearm and was to be locked up when he was not on duty.

How does one define theft? Taking without permission? I don't care how it was taken. Even if he had intent to bring it back.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

One would like to think that, but I don't think it really makes any difference. Couple of issues:

1. Most crooks don't think they are going to get caught, so the severity of the punishment doesn't make much difference.
2. It's about morals, not punishment. Ask yourself this: If they lowered the penalty for , say, B&E from a year in jail to six months in jail, would you decide to start doing B&E's? No. And if you are already doing them, I doubt you are thinking "I'm fine with doing six months but I'll stop I it's a year". If increasing punishment worked there would be no murders in death penalty states.

I'm not arguing against longer penalties. Maybe it will keep crooks off the street longer, maybe it will just make us feel good. But I don't think it's going to dissuade criminals.

Risk/reward...... Determines a criminals doings.
If the risk is to high for the reward, he moves on. Always been like that.
That being said, people's views on risk/reward are different with each individual.
Up the punishments and the risk does not seem as inviting as it once did.

[pseelk]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Risk/reward...... Determines a criminals doings.
If the risk is to high for the reward, he moves on. Always been like that.
That being said, people's views on risk/reward are different with each individual.
Up the punishments and the risk does not seem as inviting as it once did.

Problem is when you throw the need for drugs into the mix,all bets are off.

[whiteout]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

How can one throw intent to steal into this?

The officer took a firearm without permission. It was clearly not known that he took the firearm home. It is clear that he understood the firearm was not his, he knew it was not a personal firearm and was to be locked up when he was not on duty.

How does one define theft? Taking without permission? I don't care how it was taken. Even if he had intent to bring it back.

Who has stated that it was removed without permission? All the CPS (one inspector) has said is that HE FEELS there is no reason to take it home. Not that there is a policy that prohibits it.

Judging by the statements they have made and their actions, I'd be willing to bet that there is no CPS policy that prohibits taking duty firearms home and they are concerned about optics of how that knowledge would be received by the ignorant public.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by pseelk

Problem is when you throw the need for drugs into the mix,all bets are off.

to a degree.
You will not get murdered for your wallet while standing in the midst of several policeman..... The risk is to great. You will get murdered for your wallet on a back alley at 3:00 am..... The risk has dropped significantly.... Drug attic or not...

[pseelk]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

to a degree.
You will not get murdered for your wallet while standing in the midst of several policeman..... The risk is to great. You will get murdered for your wallet on a back alley at 3:00 am..... The risk has dropped significantly.... Drug attic or not...

Point taken.

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by whiteout

Who has stated that it was removed without permission? All the CPS (one inspector) has said is that HE FEELS there is no reason to take it home. Not that there is a policy that prohibits it.

Judging by the statements they have made and their actions, I'd be willing to bet that there is no CPS policy that prohibits taking duty firearms home and they are concerned about optics of how that knowledge would be received by the ignorant public.

Whiteout, it's a restricted firearm that won't be registered to the officer.

An off duty officer has to follow the same laws that Joe Canadian follows when not on duty. He is bound by the same firearms act, same storage laws etc.

Think about it this way. One of your friends takes one of your restricted firearms and ammunition from your home without your knowledge or permission. Does that make it theft? Does that make it right?

[Au revoir, Gopher]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Couldn't the officers actions be classified as theft as well? He took something that was not his - and something that he clearly did not have permission to take.

Where are you getting that information? Every thing I've seen says that the officer had signed out the weapon and that they are allowed to take them home... he is in trouble at work because he did not secure it properly (by CPS standards, not the Firearms Act) when he left it in his vehicle.

ARG

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by Au revoir, Gopher

Where are you getting that information? Every thing I've seen says that the officer had signed out the weapon and that they are allowed to take them home... he is in trouble at work because he did not secure it properly (by CPS standards, not the Firearms Act) when he left it in his vehicle.

ARG

Where are you getting that information from? Signed out the weapon to take it home? Or signed out the weapon for work, and didn't return it before heading home?

[whiteout]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Whiteout, it's a restricted firearm that won't be registered to the officer.

An off duty officer has to follow the same laws that Joe Canadian follows when not on duty. He is bound by the same firearms act, same storage laws etc.

Think about it this way. One of your friends takes one of your restricted firearms and ammunition from your home without your knowledge or permission. Does that make it theft? Does that make it right?

On-duty or off-duty is not the correct wording to be used to interpret requirements for adherence to the Firearms Act by a peace officer.

"in the course of or for the purpose of the public officer’s duties or employment"

would be the correct language. As such, it can be reasonably interpreted that transporting a firearm to his home in order to clean it is part of his duties as a police officer. Without a policy specifically prohibiting members taking issued firearms home, it would be incredibly hard to make a charge under the FA stick.

Notwithstanding that, it is impossible for a firearm owned by the government and considered to be restricted or prohibited when possessed by a member of the public to be transported in accordance with conditions that would be set out on an ATT.

[riden]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Where are you getting that information from? Signed out the weapon to take it home? Or signed out the weapon for work, and didn't return it before heading home?

I am with ARG.

If they are allowed to take side arms home, and commonly do, how do you know the rules are any different for a C 8?

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by riden

I am with ARG.

If they are allowed to take side arms home, and commonly do, how do you know the rules are any different for a C 8?

In Stuarts own words...

He said it’s not uncommon for police officers to bring their handguns home, especially after a night shift, with court duties to follow the next morning. But he stressed that every officer is subject to the same rules and laws as Canadian citizens in regards to the safe storage of firearms.

There is no reason, in my mind, why an officer would take this firearm home

[whiteout]

So it is the opinion of one officer. Nothing more.

If there was a policy prohibiting it, the police would probably be falling over themselves to make it clear and charge the guy.

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by whiteout

So it is the opinion of one officer. Nothing more.

If there was a policy prohibiting it, the police would probably be falling over themselves to make it clear and charge the guy.

Either way, they are making a big stink over it.

Still, it makes me wonder, lots of cars in the parking lot - and so far his is the only one that was broken into.

He either left it in plain view or someone knew it was there.

[riden]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

In Stuarts own words...

How can you possibly twist that into he was not allowed to take it home and then leap to theft?

You own sources proved you wrong.

[Au revoir, Gopher]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Where are you getting that information from? Signed out the weapon to take it home? Or signed out the weapon for work, and didn't return it before heading home?

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/officer-fa...icle-1.2312724

Watch the video, the report states a) it was signed out and b) they are allowed to take firearms home with them.

But he stressed that every officer is subject to the same rules and laws as Canadian citizens in regards to the safe storage of firearms.

Not entirely accurate; they are subject to the Public Agents Firearms Regulations which defaults to the same storage requirements but can be over ridden by the policy of the Agency. Interestingly that Regulation doesn't address transportation.

ARG

[Got Juice?]

Originally Posted by coreya3212

Got Juice? , what were you charged with? If their is a thread explaining it already I could be pointed to that.

28 counts of unsafe storage for starters... And a few others.

I will make a thread about it in August.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

How can one throw intent to steal into this?

You asked why this couldn't be theft. Because a guilty verdict for theft requires intent. To charge the fellow they would have to believe he was planning to steal the rifle. It's not theft if I take my company computer home to do more work for my employer, even if there are rules against it. Breaking a rule is not the same as committing a crime.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Risk/reward...... Determines a criminals doings.
If the risk is to high for the reward, he moves on. Always been like that.
That being said, people's views on risk/reward are different with each individual.
Up the punishments and the risk does not seem as inviting as it once did.

Then how would you explain higher crime rates in jurisdictions that have more severe penalties? By your estimation the murder rate should be lower in Texas (death penalty) than in Alberta ("slap on the wrist"), yet it is not.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Then how would you explain higher crime rates in jurisdictions that have more severe penalties? By your estimation the murder rate should be lower in Texas (death penalty) than in Alberta ("slap on the wrist"), yet it is not.

Perhaps Alberta has less poverty/better economy? Desperate times call for desperate measures? Everyone in Texas is packing heat? Not sure to tell you the truth.

[pacs5]

Funny there has been no mention of breath test results when officer was found having care and control of a vehicle and a crime has been commited especially when the officer was by own admission in a bar.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by pacs5

Funny there has been no mention of breath test results when officer was found having care and control of a vehicle and a crime has been commited especially when the officer was by own admission in a bar.

Was he found in the car?