rcmp confiscate guns from evacuated community

[SkyDekker 1,121]

champu

One of the concerns that people have here in the US really stems from the sum total of anti-gun behavior.

In California (yeah, one state but over 12% of the population) it's legal to own just about anything. But over the last 15 years it has become illegal to buy more and more things. You cannot buy assault weapons, even from other people through a dealer. You cannot buy 10+ magazines, even from other people through a dealer. You cannot buy NFA items even if you go through the federal tax and registration process. You cannot buy any handgun designed in the last couple years new, and you can only buy older models new as long as those manufacturers continue making them, unchanged, and as long as they pay fees to CA uninterrupted. For now, you can still buy any used handgun through a dealer.

So what happens in a disaster?

"Hey, there's a fire in the hills nearby and we're not sure which way it's going to go, so we're evacuating your neighborhood."

Okay...

Police kick in every door to make sure everyone is out and, hey while they're there, take all firearms to "secure" them. Firefighters control the blaze (thank you firefighters) and people return to their homes.

What happened to the guns? Oh the police accidentally stored them in a sewer and they've been destroyed. But don't worry the county will reimburse you.

"Well, can I replace what I had?"

"Nope, sucker! Go pound sand!"

Now, is this likely to happen? Well, by definition it is only as likely or less likely to happen as the natural disaster itself. But there are plenty of individuals in positions of power in law enforcement agencies in California who could implement responses like this more or less single-handedly and, judging by some of their past statements and behavior, would more than happily do so. It seems to be what happened in the OP case and it seems to be what happened in the case of Katrina.

So we are back to criminal cops.

I have no issue with the policy for Canada. It makes total sense to me. The cops who didn't follow the rules/law should be punished accordingly.

What doesn't make sense to me is taking away good policy because cops cannot be trusted.

[turtlespeed 212]

SkyDekker

What doesn't make sense to me is taking away good policy because cops cannot be trusted.

That's rich.

I'll remind you of that when next you discuss policy of US police and their trustworthiness.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[SkyDekker 1,121]

turtlespeed

***

What doesn't make sense to me is taking away good policy because cops cannot be trusted.

That's rich.

I'll remind you of that when next you discuss policy of US police and their trustworthiness.

Apparently Canadian cops weren't trustworthy either in this case.

So, how do we deal with that? Your option appears to be, don't allow them to check if people need help evacuating. My option is punish the cops responsible, but keep checking if help is required in those instances.

Not sure how "that's rich".

[turtlespeed 212]

SkyDekker

******

What doesn't make sense to me is taking away good policy because cops cannot be trusted.

That's rich.

I'll remind you of that when next you discuss policy of US police and their trustworthiness.

Apparently Canadian cops weren't trustworthy either in this case.

So, how do we deal with that? Your option appears to be, don't allow them to check if people need help evacuating. My option is punish the cops responsible, but keep checking if help is required in those instances.

Not sure how "that's rich".

So how is fair compensation made available then?

All the people want is their priceless heirlooms back.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[SkyDekker 1,121]

turtlespeed

*********

What doesn't make sense to me is taking away good policy because cops cannot be trusted.

That's rich.

I'll remind you of that when next you discuss policy of US police and their trustworthiness.

Apparently Canadian cops weren't trustworthy either in this case.

So, how do we deal with that? Your option appears to be, don't allow them to check if people need help evacuating. My option is punish the cops responsible, but keep checking if help is required in those instances.

Not sure how "that's rich".

So how is fair compensation made available then?

All the people want is their priceless heirlooms back.

Which is why the cops should be punished for not following the correct procedures and ensure this doesn't happen again.

[champu 1]

SkyDekker

So we are back to criminal cops-

I never said that. The police need not do anything criminal for someone to get screwed over by the sum-total of behavior, that's kinda the point of my post. And the fact that there would be nothing criminal about it is actually what makes your prospects of trying to get back to where you started so terrible.

What's the alternative? I dunno, maybe if police have such a bad record of collecting, documenting, properly storing, and returning firearms to their owners they should just leave them the hell alone. How about that?

[SkyDekker 1,121]

champu

***So we are back to criminal cops-

I never said that. The police need not do anything criminal for someone to get screwed over by the sum-total of behavior, that's kinda the point of my post. And the fact that there would be nothing criminal about it is actually what makes your prospects of trying to get back to where you started so terrible.

What's the alternative? I dunno, maybe if police have such a bad record of collecting, documenting, properly storing, and returning firearms to their owners they should just leave them the hell alone. How about that?

So your solution is that if due to lawlful police action a firearm is left in plain view and for easy taking, in other words unsafe, the cops should just leave it?

I think the current policy when properly implemented makes more sense. If due to lawful police action a firearm is left unsafe, they have a procedure to deal with that.

What the cops did was wrong, the policy isn't wrong.

[turtlespeed 212]

SkyDekker

************

What doesn't make sense to me is taking away good policy because cops cannot be trusted.

That's rich.

I'll remind you of that when next you discuss policy of US police and their trustworthiness.

Apparently Canadian cops weren't trustworthy either in this case.

So, how do we deal with that? Your option appears to be, don't allow them to check if people need help evacuating. My option is punish the cops responsible, but keep checking if help is required in those instances.

Not sure how "that's rich".

So how is fair compensation made available then?

All the people want is their priceless heirlooms back.

Which is why the cops should be punished for not following the correct procedures and ensure this doesn't happen again.

Punishment is in NO WAY WHATSOEVER recompense for the loss. Proper compensation should and MUST BE MADE, or you cannot truthfully say that the actions were even remotely a good thing.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[skypuppy 1]

BartsDaddy

Of course the RCMP are just keeping the looters from getting them.

by throwing it in the bottom of their boat and betting it all covered in mud and water on the way to drop it off in a pile on the floor of the garage of their station, with only a small sticky not to say where it came from...

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[skypuppy 1]

SkyDekker

******So we are back to criminal cops-

I never said that. The police need not do anything criminal for someone to get screwed over by the sum-total of behavior, that's kinda the point of my post. And the fact that there would be nothing criminal about it is actually what makes your prospects of trying to get back to where you started so terrible.

What's the alternative? I dunno, maybe if police have such a bad record of collecting, documenting, properly storing, and returning firearms to their owners they should just leave them the hell alone. How about that?

So your solution is that if due to lawlful police action a firearm is left in plain view and for easy taking, in other words unsafe, the cops should just leave it?

I think the current policy when properly implemented makes more sense. If due to lawful police action a firearm is left unsafe, they have a procedure to deal with that.

What the cops did was wrong, the policy isn't wrong.

what about all the ammunition, none of which was returned?

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[SkyDekker 1,121]

turtlespeed

***************

What doesn't make sense to me is taking away good policy because cops cannot be trusted.

That's rich.

I'll remind you of that when next you discuss policy of US police and their trustworthiness.

Apparently Canadian cops weren't trustworthy either in this case.

So, how do we deal with that? Your option appears to be, don't allow them to check if people need help evacuating. My option is punish the cops responsible, but keep checking if help is required in those instances.

Not sure how "that's rich".

So how is fair compensation made available then?

All the people want is their priceless heirlooms back.

Which is why the cops should be punished for not following the correct procedures and ensure this doesn't happen again.

Punishment is in NO WAY WHATSOEVER recompense for the loss. Proper compensation should and MUST BE MADE, or you cannot truthfully say that the actions were even remotely a good thing.

Yeah, I never said the actions were a good thing. I said the policy was good.

Here we go having to spend time on you again...

[aphid 0]

skypuppy

by throwing it in the bottom of their boat and betting it all covered in mud and water on the way to drop it off in a pile on the floor of the garage of their station, with only a small sticky not to say where it came from...

skypuppy

what about all the ammunition, none of which was returned?

I think we understand, Rob. You're chapped at the RCMP. (And the liberal-media, and the lefties, and the gun-haters, and the CBC, and Air Canada, and the CRTC... have I neglected any?)

The report doesn't indicate their poor handling in this incident is endemic or systemic.

Some of the officers, likely under the direction of overwhelmed command-officers, made mistakes.

The RCMP appear to be responding by reinforcing correct procedure/actions while continuing to follow a legal and (inmho) legitimate policy.

Personally, I'm more receptive to this approach as opposed to any who would wish the offending officers be publicly flayed in the town square at high noon.

[turtlespeed 212]

SkyDekker

******************

What doesn't make sense to me is taking away good policy because cops cannot be trusted.

That's rich.

I'll remind you of that when next you discuss policy of US police and their trustworthiness.

Apparently Canadian cops weren't trustworthy either in this case.

So, how do we deal with that? Your option appears to be, don't allow them to check if people need help evacuating. My option is punish the cops responsible, but keep checking if help is required in those instances.

Not sure how "that's rich".

So how is fair compensation made available then?

All the people want is their priceless heirlooms back.

Which is why the cops should be punished for not following the correct procedures and ensure this doesn't happen again.

Punishment is in NO WAY WHATSOEVER recompense for the loss. Proper compensation should and MUST BE MADE, or you cannot truthfully say that the actions were even remotely a good thing.

Yeah, I never said the actions were a good thing. I said the policy was good.

Here we go having to spend time on you again...

It seems to me that those that support this policy should be the ones to make the reparations.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Of course it would seem that way to you.

It is very logical for people who support a good policy, but are against the poor implementation of it, to make those reparations.

That's why you always stand first in line to make reparations for slavery.

[turtlespeed 212]

SkyDekker

Of course it would seem that way to you.

It is very logical for people who support a good policy, but are against the poor implementation of it, to make those reparations.

That's why you always stand first in line to make reparations for slavery.

So you think slavery was a good policy and just had poor implementation. Kinda like obamacare.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[SkyDekker 1,121]

turtlespeed

***Of course it would seem that way to you.

It is very logical for people who support a good policy, but are against the poor implementation of it, to make those reparations.

That's why you always stand first in line to make reparations for slavery.

So you think slavery was a good policy and just had poor implementation. Kinda like obamacare.

Yes clearly that is what I think.

[skypuppy 1]

aphid

***
by throwing it in the bottom of their boat and betting it all covered in mud and water on the way to drop it off in a pile on the floor of the garage of their station, with only a small sticky not to say where it came from...

skypuppy

what about all the ammunition, none of which was returned?

I think we understand, Rob. You're chapped at the RCMP. (And the liberal-media, and the lefties, and the gun-haters, and the CBC, and Air Canada, and the CRTC... have I neglected any?)

The report doesn't indicate their poor handling in this incident is endemic or systemic.

Some of the officers, likely under the direction of overwhelmed command-officers, made mistakes.

The RCMP appear to be responding by reinforcing correct procedure/actions while continuing to follow a legal and (inmho) legitimate policy.

Personally, I'm more receptive to this approach as opposed to any who would wish the offending officers be publicly flayed in the town square at high noon.

Specifically the report does state the disorganization of the collection of guns and how they were physically treated, quoted by the officer who later was placed in charge of them. It was not just one or two officers who were negligent in the way the weapons were handled and or stored, and indeed, it was endemic. I believe it stated that they HAD NO OFFICIAL POLICY on how to handle them, and this is indeed a problem and is endemic.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone