high river flooding RCMP lawsuit
- Thread starter sledneck_03
- Start date
somethingnuw
Active VIP Member
found this article yesterday... interesting read
so they gave back the guns!!!!
GLOBE EDITORIAL
[h=1]Did the RCMP confiscate guns in High River? Hardly[/h]The Globe and Mail
Published Sunday, Feb. 15 2015, 6:00 PM EST
Last updated Sunday, Feb. 15 2015, 10:41 PM EST
It’s not often that one feels sorry for the RCMP. The federal police force has embarrassed itself more than a few times lately and come in for some rough criticism. But a new rebuke of the Mounties’ actions during the catastrophic flooding in High River, Alta., in 2013 is unfair, given what the RCMP officers were faced with. Not only that, Prime Minister Stephen Harper owes the Mounties an apology for unfairly criticizing them during the height of the crisis.
[h=4]MORE RELATED TO THIS STORY[/h]
The rebuke comes from the RCMP Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, which ruled last week that the Mounties exhibited a number of “failings” during the flooding. But in the process of establishing the facts, the Commission makes a good case that the Mounties in fact did extraordinary work and were unfairly saddled with the anger of residents forced out of their homes. Mr. Harper’s pile-on only made matters worse.
High River flooded within a matter of hours on June 20, 2013. The damage was instant and massive; half the town’s 4,700 homes were left uninhabitable, and more than 600 were writeoffs.
By noon of the first day, the town had no telephone, cellphone, radio or Internet communications. People were trapped in homes and in cars. The High River emergency operations centre (EOC) declared a state of emergency and ordered a mandatory evacuation of the entire town. It then ordered the RCMP to inspect every single home to make sure no one was stranded.
In the course of those inspections, the RCMP rescued 38 people. They also discovered that some homeowners had taken their firearms out of locked storage and moved them to higher ground to prevent them from being damaged. In one home, officers found 50 unsecured weapons in a child’s bedroom. In other homes, there were fully operational guns on tables and stacked against walls.
Worried about looting, and the possibility of the guns falling into criminal hands, in many cases the Mounties seized the firearms on the spot. In other cases, they left the guns but went back for them later. In a few cases, they simply moved the guns out of view by hiding them in a closet or locking them in an available room in the house.
It’s an offence under the Criminal Code to leave a legal firearm unsecured. But the RCMP never intended to lay charges. The Complaints Commission accepts that the officers only ever wanted to gather up the weapons, store them safely at their headquarters, and then return them in an orderly fashion after the crisis had passed. All have since been returned.
By the time the original 4,700 home checks were done, the RCMP had collected 609 firearms from 105 residences. In the following days, the EOC ordered the RCMP to return to the homes to help with the rescue of 700 abandoned pets. And then it ordered the RCMP to go back one more time with tradesmen doing safety inspections.
At the same time, the RCMP had to deal with upset and angry residents. In the chaos, the officers became the de facto spokespersons for the evacuation and rescue operations, even though those operations were run by the EOC. Communications with the residents was poor, and people blamed the police.
The Complaints Commission now says the RCMP officers acted properly when they seized the unsecured firearms. Although the police entered the homes without a warrant, they had been authorized to do so by Alberta’s Emergency Management Act. Under the Criminal Code, they were also within their rights to seize firearms that weren’t properly secured.
But the Complaints Commission says the RCMP didn’t have the authority to later return to homes solely to seize firearms; that a small number of the weapons were properly secured and shouldn’t have been taken; that the seizures were “arbitrary” because sometimes the officers simply moved the weapons out of view; and that the officers should have kept better notes.
Given the chaos of trying to get to 4,700 homes, most of them badly flooded, and move as quickly as possible to save lives, none of those missteps seem unreasonable.
What was unreasonable was that, on Day 8 of the catastrophe, when stressed-out residents began to complain about what they incorrectly assumed were unwarranted seizures of legal firearms, the Prime Minister’s Office suddenly weighed in. “We expect that any firearms taken will be returned to their owners as soon as possible,” the PMO said. “We believe the RCMP should focus on more important tasks such as protecting lives and private property.”
This opportunistic armchair sniping was an insult to the RCMP officers working in High River. The Complaints Commission’s report makes it clear that the Mounties acted courageously. They made mistakes and overstepped, but not in ways that harmed anyone’s rights. And there is zero evidence that the officers acted in bad faith.
The Mounties don’t deserve rebuke. They deserve gratitude, and an apology from Ottawa.
so they gave back the guns!!!!
GLOBE EDITORIAL
[h=1]Did the RCMP confiscate guns in High River? Hardly[/h]The Globe and Mail
Published Sunday, Feb. 15 2015, 6:00 PM EST
Last updated Sunday, Feb. 15 2015, 10:41 PM EST
- 275 comments
5K
5K
57
0
- /
- AA
It’s not often that one feels sorry for the RCMP. The federal police force has embarrassed itself more than a few times lately and come in for some rough criticism. But a new rebuke of the Mounties’ actions during the catastrophic flooding in High River, Alta., in 2013 is unfair, given what the RCMP officers were faced with. Not only that, Prime Minister Stephen Harper owes the Mounties an apology for unfairly criticizing them during the height of the crisis.
[h=4]MORE RELATED TO THIS STORY[/h]
The rebuke comes from the RCMP Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, which ruled last week that the Mounties exhibited a number of “failings” during the flooding. But in the process of establishing the facts, the Commission makes a good case that the Mounties in fact did extraordinary work and were unfairly saddled with the anger of residents forced out of their homes. Mr. Harper’s pile-on only made matters worse.
High River flooded within a matter of hours on June 20, 2013. The damage was instant and massive; half the town’s 4,700 homes were left uninhabitable, and more than 600 were writeoffs.
By noon of the first day, the town had no telephone, cellphone, radio or Internet communications. People were trapped in homes and in cars. The High River emergency operations centre (EOC) declared a state of emergency and ordered a mandatory evacuation of the entire town. It then ordered the RCMP to inspect every single home to make sure no one was stranded.
In the course of those inspections, the RCMP rescued 38 people. They also discovered that some homeowners had taken their firearms out of locked storage and moved them to higher ground to prevent them from being damaged. In one home, officers found 50 unsecured weapons in a child’s bedroom. In other homes, there were fully operational guns on tables and stacked against walls.
Worried about looting, and the possibility of the guns falling into criminal hands, in many cases the Mounties seized the firearms on the spot. In other cases, they left the guns but went back for them later. In a few cases, they simply moved the guns out of view by hiding them in a closet or locking them in an available room in the house.
It’s an offence under the Criminal Code to leave a legal firearm unsecured. But the RCMP never intended to lay charges. The Complaints Commission accepts that the officers only ever wanted to gather up the weapons, store them safely at their headquarters, and then return them in an orderly fashion after the crisis had passed. All have since been returned.
By the time the original 4,700 home checks were done, the RCMP had collected 609 firearms from 105 residences. In the following days, the EOC ordered the RCMP to return to the homes to help with the rescue of 700 abandoned pets. And then it ordered the RCMP to go back one more time with tradesmen doing safety inspections.
At the same time, the RCMP had to deal with upset and angry residents. In the chaos, the officers became the de facto spokespersons for the evacuation and rescue operations, even though those operations were run by the EOC. Communications with the residents was poor, and people blamed the police.
The Complaints Commission now says the RCMP officers acted properly when they seized the unsecured firearms. Although the police entered the homes without a warrant, they had been authorized to do so by Alberta’s Emergency Management Act. Under the Criminal Code, they were also within their rights to seize firearms that weren’t properly secured.
But the Complaints Commission says the RCMP didn’t have the authority to later return to homes solely to seize firearms; that a small number of the weapons were properly secured and shouldn’t have been taken; that the seizures were “arbitrary” because sometimes the officers simply moved the weapons out of view; and that the officers should have kept better notes.
Given the chaos of trying to get to 4,700 homes, most of them badly flooded, and move as quickly as possible to save lives, none of those missteps seem unreasonable.
What was unreasonable was that, on Day 8 of the catastrophe, when stressed-out residents began to complain about what they incorrectly assumed were unwarranted seizures of legal firearms, the Prime Minister’s Office suddenly weighed in. “We expect that any firearms taken will be returned to their owners as soon as possible,” the PMO said. “We believe the RCMP should focus on more important tasks such as protecting lives and private property.”
This opportunistic armchair sniping was an insult to the RCMP officers working in High River. The Complaints Commission’s report makes it clear that the Mounties acted courageously. They made mistakes and overstepped, but not in ways that harmed anyone’s rights. And there is zero evidence that the officers acted in bad faith.
The Mounties don’t deserve rebuke. They deserve gratitude, and an apology from Ottawa.
so what should be done about predators teeth, they are designed to kill
Killing things to eat is natural. I say let the predators keep their teeth...lol
lloydguy
Active VIP Member
The above article is pure garbage.They talk about the law and opinion's and switch between the two
whenever is paint's a more favorable picture for the rcmp.
Here is a quote regarding law of house entry during a state of emergency.
"Although the police entered the homes without a warrant, they had been authorized to do so by Alberta’s Emergency Management Act. Under the Criminal Code, they were also within their rights to seize firearms that weren’t properly secured."
Summery-They use an act to gain entry then use criminal law to seize fire arm's.
End result of quote- RCMP did not break the law.
" They also discovered that some homeowners had taken their firearms out of locked storage and moved them to higher ground to prevent them from being damaged. In one home, officers found 50 unsecured weapons in a child’s bedroom. In other homes, there were fully operational guns on tables and stacked against walls.
Worried about looting, and the possibility of the guns falling into criminal hands, in many cases the Mounties seized the firearms on the spot"
"It’s an offence under the Criminal Code to leave a legal firearm unsecured"
End result of quote's- Home owner's are the one's that broke the law.
Then later in the article they talk about rcmp taking fire arm's that WERE stored properly(illegal seizure's), But when the rcmp break the law
it's called a "miss step"
"In one house they found 50 unsecure firearm's" , but to paint a picture for the reader's they say "child's bedroom".to make the
home owner sound like an animal of some sort.
Makes me puke that they paint the home owners as criminal's,and when the rc's broke into safes it's a "miss step" given the circumstances.
whenever is paint's a more favorable picture for the rcmp.
Here is a quote regarding law of house entry during a state of emergency.
"Although the police entered the homes without a warrant, they had been authorized to do so by Alberta’s Emergency Management Act. Under the Criminal Code, they were also within their rights to seize firearms that weren’t properly secured."
Summery-They use an act to gain entry then use criminal law to seize fire arm's.
End result of quote- RCMP did not break the law.
" They also discovered that some homeowners had taken their firearms out of locked storage and moved them to higher ground to prevent them from being damaged. In one home, officers found 50 unsecured weapons in a child’s bedroom. In other homes, there were fully operational guns on tables and stacked against walls.
Worried about looting, and the possibility of the guns falling into criminal hands, in many cases the Mounties seized the firearms on the spot"
"It’s an offence under the Criminal Code to leave a legal firearm unsecured"
End result of quote's- Home owner's are the one's that broke the law.
Then later in the article they talk about rcmp taking fire arm's that WERE stored properly(illegal seizure's), But when the rcmp break the law
it's called a "miss step"
"In one house they found 50 unsecure firearm's" , but to paint a picture for the reader's they say "child's bedroom".to make the
home owner sound like an animal of some sort.
Makes me puke that they paint the home owners as criminal's,and when the rc's broke into safes it's a "miss step" given the circumstances.
Pantherscry
Active member
Crime rates are dropping everywhere including Canada where gun ownership is much lower then the USA. Saying that guns have caused a reduction in crime is a fairly big streach.
somethingnuw
Active VIP Member
i'm not a lawyer and maybe you are correct! But it's interesting because its the first real thing i've seen written on the issue. if you follow police long enough you know they never say anything up front because of impending civil court... the fact that they paid for all the doors they kicked in tells me they know they did something wrong?!! THe gov't doesn't do anything for nothing or out of the goodness of its heart imhop?
But after reading all the opinions and lies about what happened to the guns i thought the article was interesting. I don't believe for one second the guns were seized and destroyed like others have been saying and passing along as fact... its okay to throw the police under the bus... but be lets have the facts before we do or else any good arguments we have just gets thrown out with the trash... and bottom line keeping and eye on the police so that they learn and realize they work for us is what it's all about!
X-it
Active VIP Member
The only vandalism and destruction of property that was done in this town was by the RCMP. I hope your proud of yourself, and your investigation
I didn't say they did, just posted the article for reading.
DRD
Active VIP Member
Not a stretch, check out the statistics and decide for yourself.
To me, I'd expect something like that to be written by a grade 10 english student..... trying to impress a teacher, or the spouse of the RCMP officer giving the orders trying to save his/her job.
This "The damage was instant and massive; half the town’s 4,700 homes were left uninhabitable, and more than 600 were writeoffs." becomes "Given the chaos of trying to get to 4,700 homes, most of them badly flooded,"
"What was unreasonable was that, on Day 8 of the catastrophe, when stressed-out residents began to complain about what they incorrectly assumed were unwarranted seizures of legal firearms, the Prime Minister’s Office suddenly weighed in. “We expect that any firearms taken will be returned to their owners as soon as possible,” the PMO said. “We believe the RCMP should focus on more important tasks such as protecting lives and private property.”
|Maybe the PMO, like the stressed our people, know and understand what the law means. Nowhere does the law allow the police to go on 'fishing expeditions'. \Look at what's happened recently with all of the 'Mr. Big' stings that they've been doing.... and even at a traffic stop, any vehicle searches must be done properly.
Two other things;
- what authority does the RCMP Civilian Review and Complaints Commission have over what the RCMP do? (answer = nothing)
- the article states all of the the questionable actions the RCMP did were the result ORDERS from the "The High River emergency operations centre (EOC). (this is absolutely laughable).
And finally - the article makes lots of statements about who did what and who should apologize to the RCMP (the public and the PMO) --- yet no one signed it
Last edited:
Pantherscry
Active member
Its like saying my child got autism because they got their mmr vaccination. Correlation does not equal causation.
DRD
Active VIP Member
Didn't look did you? It's easy to find.
Pantherscry
Active member
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]http://www.psmag.com/books-and-culture/gun-ownership-neither-increases-nor-decreases-crime-rate-55473[/COLOR][COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]http://swacj.org/swjcj/archives/6.3/4%20-%20Guns%20and%20Violent%20Crime.pdf[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]http://www.bu.edu/sph/2014/09/29/higher-gun-ownership-rates-linked-to-increase-in-non-stranger-homicide-bu-study-finds/[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/
The science hardly agrees.................there are many articles on both sides. John Lott, a very popular advocate for gun ownership decreasing crime is challenged and proven wrong in some articles and upheld for good work in others. The fact is to saying guns are the reason for the decreased crime removes all the other factors from the equation which is not good science. Like I said correlation does not equal causation. [/COLOR]
ZRrrr
Active VIP Member
Similar threads
