Stratmore and Chestamere police go MAD

[trophybook]

Originally Posted by Oldan Grumpi

Certainly not. I’m saying that on the proviso that the home owners story is true. In this case an allegation has been made and must be held as ‘true with caution’ until proven or disproven.

That’s the problem we have here - eight pages of posts from people who don’t have any idea of what actually happened, making assumptions and arguing their purely imagined positions.

But, I guess that’s the Internet for you. I’m done. This thread is too much like talking to recalcitrant teenagers.

And what's sad is this is a good representation of the general population. We are hooped 90% of the people on here need a new hobby

[ctd]

Originally Posted by Oldan Grumpi

Certainly not. I’m saying that on the proviso that the home owners story is true. In this case an allegation has been made and must be held as ‘true with caution’ until proven or disproven.

That’s the problem we have here - eight pages of posts from people who don’t have any idea of what actually happened, making assumptions and arguing their purely imagined positions.

But, I guess that’s the Internet for you. I’m done. This thread is too much like talking to recalcitrant teenagers.

It's funny because on the one post the home owner made he said the news got it correct with their story they published, he was thankful they did a proper job. (That post is now gone from his FB).
The article said his side, then the statement from the Police.
It painted a picture that if you remove emotions from and just list the facts as stated it was pretty obvious the police responded more aggressively the way they did do to his hanging up the phone.
But never let facts get in the way of a great discussion.

Did the Police respond 100%perfect? More then likely not. But every response is fluid as things change.
Possibly the esculating point was the phone hang up. At that point they had 100%reason to believe some wrong doing was going on. Had to respond properly.


The police showed up in force as a initial response. Had the homeowner come out as initially requested. The Police may have responded differently.
I guess we will never know as that's not what happened.

Hey at least they didnt use flash bangs, tear gas, armoured vehicles, snipers, dogs and over whelming force.

[R3illy]

moral of the story. Be prepared for a tactical take down if shooting guns on your property and expect to be treated like a criminal.

[bobtodrick]

Originally Posted by trophybook

And what's sad is this is a good representation of the general population. We are hooped 90% of the people on here need a new hobby

This!!
If all the armchair civil rights lawyers here could charge for their services AO would be the richest forum in Canada.

[ctd]

Originally Posted by R3illy

moral of the story. Be prepared for a tactical take down if shooting guns on your property and expect to be treated like a criminal.

More like if you have bad neighbours which you have on going disputes with. When they call the Police you panic and hang up on them. Expect to have a response larger then what it needs to be.

Other wise get good neighbours and everything will be good

[New Hunter Okotoks]

Originally Posted by ctd

More like if you have bad neighbours which you have on going disputes with. When they call the Police you panic and hang up on them. Expect to have a response larger then what it needs to be.

Other wise get good neighbours and everything will be good

I could be wrong here, but my guess is that most people don't have the option of choosing who their neighbours are going to be.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by New Hunter Okotoks

I could be wrong here, but my guess is that most people don't have the option of choosing who their neighbours are going to be.

No kidding, it's not like the residents of the area all have input as to who can purchase land, and move into the area.

[R3illy]

Originally Posted by ctd

More like if you have bad neighbours which you have on going disputes with. When they call the Police you panic and hang up on them. Expect to have a response larger then what it needs to be.

Other wise get good neighbours and everything will be good

seems like your suggesting letting your crazy neighbors dictate what you can and can not do on your land. Maybe give that a bit more thought.

If it's my land and I'm not breaking any laws I'll do what i want to do. My neighbors wont be the one setting those terms.

[fishnguy]

Originally Posted by Oldan Grumpi

Certainly not. I’m saying that on the proviso that the home owners story is true. In this case an allegation has been made and must be held as ‘true with caution’ until proven or disproven.

That’s the problem we have here - eight pages of posts from people who don’t have any idea of what actually happened, making assumptions and arguing their purely imagined positions.

But, I guess that’s the Internet for you. I’m done. This thread is too much like talking to recalcitrant teenagers.

I agree, that’s what people have been doing. Gymnastics, like Walking Buffalo said.

Following your track of thought, that an allegation has been made and must be held true until proven otherwise, there was another allegation made prior, which gave a start to the whole thing, being someone shooting at the neighbour (read it as shooting in her direction, direction of the house, etc). Someone has even been charged with what fits the description of that allegation. We must then think that this is also true until proven otherwise. Did the police then act accordingly (not saying perfectly) given the situation? Shots fired at a person, the shooter may still be on the property, may still be armed and ready to shoot again. This is all on your train of thought being every allegation should be held true until proven otherwise. Kind of sheds a bit of different light on how the cops were acting given the responses of all parties that we know of from David’s story, which we believe to be true. Or do we believe only certain allegations, that perhaps fit our “core beliefs” better than the others?

There was no evidence provided to support anything he said. He did not post the video he said his wife recorded when he was coming out and being yelled at and called names and sweared at. Why not? He posted everything else he had. There are discrepancies in his story. Some things just don’t make any sense straight up. And lots of emotion, of course.

We can’t choose neighbours, unfortunately. We can do what we want on our land, as long as it is legal. According to the complaint from the neighbour, what was going on was not legal, in spite of the fact that the guy says he is ready to bet everything he owns on the fact that nothing illegal was done. Reality is, he doesn’t really know either because he was not with the shooters and didn’t see where they were shooting. According to your logic, what the neighbour said happened is true as well.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by fishnguy

I agree, that’s what people have been doing. Gymnastics, like Walking Buffalo said.

Following your track of thought, that an allegation has been made and must be held true until proven otherwise, there was another allegation made prior, which gave a start to the whole thing, being someone shooting at the neighbour (read it as shooting in her direction, direction of the house, etc). Someone has even been charged with what fits the description of that allegation. We must then think that this is also true until proven otherwise. Did the police then act accordingly (not saying perfectly) given the situation? Shots fired at a person, the shooter may still be on the property, may still be armed and ready to shoot again. This is all on your train of thought being every allegation should be held true until proven otherwise. Kind of sheds a bit of different light on how the cops were acting given the responses of all parties that we know of from David’s story, which we believe to be true. Or do we believe only certain allegations, that perhaps fit our “core beliefs” better than the others?

There was no evidence provided to support anything he said. He did not post the video he said his wife recorded when he was coming out and being yelled at and called names and sweared at. Why not? He posted everything else he had. There are discrepancies in his story. Some things just don’t make any sense straight up. And lots of emotion, of course.

We can’t choose neighbours, unfortunately. We can do what we want on our land, as long as it is legal. According to the complaint from the neighbour, what was going on was not legal, in spite of the fact that the guy says he is ready to bet everything he owns on the fact that nothing illegal was done. Reality is, he doesn’t really know either because he was not with the shooters and didn’t see where they were shooting. According to your logic, what the neighbour said happened is true as well.

Logic tells us, that since no criminal charges resulted, the police did not believe that the complainant's story, that the shooters were shooting at her. Obviously, she was either mistaken, or she just made up the story about them shooting at her. Given the feud over their dogs, which should be able to be verified if bylaw was involved, she obviously had motive to make up such a story.

[fishnguy]

I agree and hopefully this will be figured out and something will be done if she simply lied.

The charges to the shooters would be appropriate if they were shooting towards the house and not necessarily at her, or within 200 yards of her house, or causing the projectiles to cross within that distance, would they not?

Problem I see is how do you figure if that really happened or she lied? Isn’t it just her word against theirs unless there were witnesses. I don’t know, I am not a cop. I don’t know how situation where it is just one’s word against the other’s are dealt with. Common sense would suggest that those charges would be dropped if there is no actual proof.

[New Hunter Okotoks]

Originally Posted by fishnguy

I agree and hopefully this will be figured out and something will be done if she simply lied.

The charges to the shooters would be appropriate if they were shooting towards the house and not necessarily at her, or within 200 yards of her house, or causing the projectiles to cross within that distance, would they not?

Problem I see is how do you figure if that really happened or she lied? Isn’t it just her word against theirs unless there were witnesses. I don’t know, I am not a cop. I don’t know how situation where it is just one’s word against the other’s are dealt with. Common sense would suggest that those charges would be dropped if there is no actual proof.

If the men shooting at gophers did in fact shoot towards her house, then they should be charged. Here's my opinion on why people are upset about this. There were only two men shooting in the field, so once the Police had them detained, then it should have ended there, but it didn't. The Police then cleared the house and forced the people inside to come out, and they had them all at gunpoint by 8-12 Officers. The man claimed that the adults were all handcuffed and left face down in the dirt for an extended period of time. Even though though they really had no reason to, the Police still dragged the homeowner down to jail, left him in a cell for a couple of hours, and then released him in the middle of the night with no ride home. Common decency would dictate that if they really did make an honest mistake, then they would have apologized to him and had someone drive him home. This alone should indicate that they were acting in poor form.

I don't think that anyone has a problem with the Police showing up the way that they did if in fact the call was that someone had been shot at. The problems start after they already had the two people in the field detained. If his story is even remotely true, then I would hope that the people ripping on him will admit that they were wrong. The Police can lay charges whenever they want wfor whatever reasons they want. They can also withdraw those charges at any point until they are in the courtroom. This does happen and in my opinion, amounts to abuse of power because it puts a great deal of emotional, mental, and financial stress upon the person who is charged. The Police will lay criminal charges which forces the person to shell out money for a lawyer, and then they will withdraw the charges right before the trial.

A lot of people use the: "Were you there???" argument. The answer is that none of us were there and are taking him at his word. If that's the case, then we might as well consider every single person a liar on this forum when they tell a story of what happened to them. If someone starts a thread on AO claiming that they were charged by a Grizzly Bear, should we tell the person that they had better provide proof of the charge otherwise they are lying? If someone starts a thread saying that they were treated poorly by a staff member at a store, is it okay if people calls them a liar, accuse them of looking for attention, or claim that they must have done something wrong for the employee to treat them that way? Because how can any of us "know" if we weren't there? You can't believe everything you hear online you know...

[last minute]

.

[SnipeHunter]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Logic tells us, that since no criminal charges resulted, the police did not believe that the complainant's story, that the shooters were shooting at her.

Charges were laid but under the Wildlife Act.

Hunting in a dangerous manner
27(1) A person shall not hunt
(a) in a manner that endangers other persons, or
(b) without due regard for the safety of other persons.
(2) Without limiting section 28, a person shall be regarded as
having hunted in contravention of subsection (1)(a) or (b) if, while
the person was hunting,
(a) the person was in physical possession of a firearm, and
(b) the conditions of light prevailing at that time were such
that visibility was less than the shorter of
(i) the potential range of fire of the firearm, or
(ii) 1/2 mile,
unless the person proves that the hunting did not endanger any
other person or that the person did not act without due regard for
the safety of other persons, as the case may be.

Apparently, there was an obstruction charge laid against the brother.

There was an article in the National Post -

Gopher shooting session turns into heavily-armed RCMP takedown on Alberta farm

[RandyBoBandy]

The Supreme Court of Canada should be abolished and all the powers they have should be transferred to a "sub-committe" within the AO members. We have many many experts on here to TACKLE criminal and social injustices

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by SnipeHunter

Charges were laid but under the Wildlife Act.



Apparently, there was an obstruction charge laid against the brother.

There was an article in the National Post -

Gopher shooting session turns into heavily-armed RCMP takedown on Alberta farm

Exactly, if there was evidence to indicate that they were actually shooting at her, there would have been criminal charges.

[JD848]

Originally Posted by randybobandy

the supreme court of canada should be abolished and all the powers they have should be transferred to a "sub-committe" within the ao members. We have many many experts on here to tackle criminal and social injustices :sha_sarcasticlol:

x10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

[brslk]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

If it is determined to be true, that the woman phoned in falsely, I might drive down there and beat her up. No promises. See how busy work is.

I'd be willing to assist, but only if it's on a weekend... after noon. I need my beauty sleep. I might need to borrow gas money too.

[TreeGuy]

So in summation, one idiot enlists a bunch of idiots to deal with another idiot who then behaves idiotically and mass idiocy occurs. Go figure.

Tree

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by TreeGuy

So in summation, one idiot enlists a bunch of idiots to deal with another idiot who then behaves idiotically and mass idiocy occurs. Go figure.

Tree

Yup and then someone calls the cops to deal with the idiots.....go figure eh!

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

Yup and then someone calls the gods to deal with the idiots.....go figure eh!

Fixed for you.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

Yup and then someone calls ASIRT to deal with the idiots.....go figure eh!

No no no.... I fixed it for you

[bobtodrick]

Originally Posted by New Hunter Okotoks

If the men shooting at gophers did in fact shoot towards her house, then they should be charged. Here's my opinion on why people are upset about this. There were only two men shooting in the field, so once the Police had them detained, then it should have ended there, but it didn't. The Police then cleared the house and forced the people inside to come out, and they had them all at gunpoint by 8-12 Officers. The man claimed that the adults were all handcuffed and left face down in the dirt for an extended period of time. Even though though they really had no reason to, the Police still dragged the homeowner down to jail, left him in a cell for a couple of hours, and then released him in the middle of the night with no ride home. Common decency would dictate that if they really did make an honest mistake, then they would have apologized to him and had someone drive him home. This alone should indicate that they were acting in poor form.

I don't think that anyone has a problem with the Police showing up the way that they did if in fact the call was that someone had been shot at. The problems start after they already had the two people in the field detained. If his story is even remotely true, then I would hope that the people ripping on him will admit that they were wrong. The Police can lay charges whenever they want wfor whatever reasons they want. They can also withdraw those charges at any point until they are in the courtroom. This does happen and in my opinion, amounts to abuse of power because it puts a great deal of emotional, mental, and financial stress upon the person who is charged. The Police will lay criminal charges which forces the person to shell out money for a lawyer, and then they will withdraw the charges right before the trial.

A lot of people use the: "Were you there???" argument. The answer is that none of us were there and are taking him at his word. If that's the case, then we might as well consider every single person a liar on this forum when they tell a story of what happened to them. If someone starts a thread on AO claiming that they were charged by a Grizzly Bear, should we tell the person that they had better provide proof of the charge otherwise they are lying? If someone starts a thread saying that they were treated poorly by a staff member at a store, is it okay if people calls them a liar, accuse them of looking for attention, or claim that they must have done something wrong for the employee to treat them that way? Because how can any of us "know" if we weren't there? You can't believe everything you hear online you know...

The issue with your argument is if someone reports they were attacked by a bear they really have nothing to gain and no one loses. In this case there is the possibility that:
a) something was going on and the person is trying to build a case in his defends
b) he just has a thing against cops
Not the same at all.

[BlackHeart]

Two questions keep nagging at me.

1) What size is his property and the neighbours....are we on farm land or acearage sized parcels.

2) He can see his neighbors home quite well, so how close are the two residences.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by bobtodrick

The issue with your argument is if someone reports they were attacked by a bear they really have nothing to gain and no one loses. In this case there is the possibility that:
a) something was going on and the person is trying to build a case in his defends
b) he just has a thing against cops
Not the same at all.

There is also the possiblity that the complaintaint greatly embellished the events that took place in the field , by claiming that she was being shot at, and the police simply over reacted as a result.

[bobtodrick]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

There is also the possiblity that the complaintaint greatly embellished the events that took place in the field , by claiming that she was being shot at, and the police simply over reacted as a result.

Completely agree with you. Just saying that what we are doing in this thread is being judge and jury and handing down a verdict after hearing only one side of the story.
I know it’s more fun that way...but pretty pointless 🙄

[JeanCretien]

Our provincial government and municipalities need to seriously consider termination of the RCMPs policing contract and use local police officers, provincial.
It would mean these employees would be held accountable by local politicians, not Ottawa. It would also severely decrease Ottawa’s ability to force laws down our throat as the province would be able to self determine what the priorities of enforcement are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SnipeHunter]

Originally Posted by JeanCretien

Our provincial government and municipalities need to seriously consider termination of the RCMPs policing contract and use local police officers, provincial.
It would mean these employees would be held accountable by local politicians, not Ottawa. It would also severely decrease Ottawa’s ability to force laws down our throat as the province would be able to self determine what the priorities of enforcement are.

You raise a strong point. You may have heard how this plays down in the US at the state or even local level:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...force-gun-laws

[ctd]

Originally Posted by JeanCretien

Our provincial government and municipalities need to seriously consider termination of the RCMPs policing contract and use local police officers, provincial.
It would mean these employees would be held accountable by local politicians, not Ottawa. It would also severely decrease Ottawa’s ability to force laws down our throat as the province would be able to self determine what the priorities of enforcement are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have you read the Provincial Police Act? Its interesting in regards to the accountability to who and what?.

I am not sure how being accountable to the local politician will make better Officers or even a better system. When Policing services all across the Country are having issues with complaints on abuse of power and excessive use of force.

If you can start another thread to discuss this It would be a great discussion I think.
Cheers.

[6.5 shooter]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

Some days one has to wonder, is the RCMP an impartial police force or a monster that needs to be reigned in ??? A lot of really clumsy and unbelievable apology here. Amazing they can stand there spouting this with a straight face. this guy deserves all the compensation he can get and more.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5487490/w...eleased-today/

Grizz

Just for those who chose not tot go to the story:

The RCMP chose not to disclose an investigator’s theories about other suspects to a wrongfully convicted Halifax man fighting to prove he was innocent of murder, federal documents revealed on Friday.

Not only that, but the Mounties digitally erased or destroyed most of this potential evidence – including the possibility a serial killer, Michael McGray, was a suspect, says the report.

Yup, Some are good but not all....