Friday, May 22, 2015

Shooting outside Coquitlam Centre mall



CTV is confirming a News 1130 Twitter post about a shooting outside Coquitlam Centre mall this afternoon. Global is reporting that "calls came in to RCMP at about 3 p.m. saying one person had been shot near the Montana’s Restaurant."

There has also been an update on the biker brawl in Waco Texas. Breitbart.com is confirming the claim that all the bikers who were shot dead were shot dead by police. Their source is the Aging Rebel who was told that by the bikers or supporters.

7 comments:

  1. You might want to check out a blog< Belt Drive Betty. she writes a blog about/for motorcycle riders and related issues. She has a few comments about the issues also.

    ReplyDelete
  2. there was some early on information regarding the cause of death of the bikers, police bullets.. It maybe why all were arrested and put on a million dollar bail. the police don't want the truth to get out. American police have made quite a regular event of shooting African-American men. Shooting 9 men of European descent might be a whole different song.

    Most of the news has been from the police via MSM outlets. There has been one biker released on a $million bail, with a bullet still in him, per his lawyer. His lawyer also informed the press, there was a biker in jail with a bullet still in his chest.

    Regardless of whether these men are "criminals" or not, there is a standard of care which police need to abide by. We also have the old line of "innocent until proven guilty".

    There was a lot of media "noise" about weapons, but Texas is one of those states where guns and the use of them is quiet o.k. per their laws. When the police spokesperson was speaking of weapons what was he really talking about brass knuckles or automatic weapons--guns. There is a difference.

    Given this did happen in Waco, Texas we ought to sit back and wait for more information. This is where the Branch Dividiens were murdered by the F.B.I.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anyone who's read this blog for a while knows I am more than ready to speak out about LE douchebaggery but a short brief on the use of deadly force would seem to be in order for those who have never worked in a capacity (meaning 99% of the population) where that is a consideration.

    A police officer (or indeed any citizen, but good luck with that in Canada, you would be in jail) my use deadly force to prevent death or grievous bodily harm to any person, not just themselves. A police officer actually has a duty to do exactly that. Thus, any biker participating in the melee with a weapon in his hand is fair game under the circumstances as they are now known. You're chasing someone with a knife/ball peen hammer/whatever in front of a deployed SWAT team whose members are already looking at you over their sights, the outcome is fairly predictable, and justifiable.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

    ReplyDelete
  4. deadly force if warranted, but we have only one side to say it was warranted. Do we really know who had the weapons, besides the police. Do we know if the police shot the chaser or the chase. Not having much faith in American police, but understanding the right use deadly force, some of that American police use, is deadly alright, but they may not always be using it when warranted.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Even the bikers admit that a fight broke out between them which spilled over onto the street. The bikers admit that they had knives and stabbed several people. The bikers admit that one of them pulled out a gun. It's safe to conclude the police didn't make that part up because even the bikers admit that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, a biker pulled a gun and 9 bikers were shot dead by police. The bikers admit they had knives and stabbed several people, but lets remember, it was other bikers who were getting stabbed. Did they deserve to die for stabbing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL, "for stabbing".....you mean "for attempted murder"....:rolleyes: Deserve is the wrong word here. Let me expand on this a bit.

      There is no such thing as "shoot to kill". There is only shooting to stop.

      While someone may well die as a consequence of being shot, they are not being shot to kill them, (that would be murder 2nd degree/manslaughter as opposed to justifiable homicide) they are being shot to stop them from doing whatever it was they were doing that justified them being shot. When they stop doing it, whether because they are incapacitated or whatever, you are no longer justified in continuing to shoot them/at them. That's the law/doctrine on both sides of the border for legal/justifiable use of deadly force. If someone was at risk of death or grievous bodily harm ("stabbing" qualifies, in case you're not clear on that) then it's game on.

      Lets say you're not a very good shot (like many cops) and you open fire on a knife wielding biker who is actively attempting to close with and stab his intended victim. Your first couple of rounds miss, but those rounds whizzing by his head cause said biker to have a come-to-Jesus moment and he drops his knife, hands in the air, ceasing his attack. Ideally you then stop shooting at him, because he is no longer doing anything that justifies the use of deadly force. Did you shoot to kill? Nope, (otherwise you would continue to shoot if that was your intent) you shot to stop. And when he stopped, you stopped shooting at him.

      Shooting to kill would be more like, you shot them, they fell down, and you continued shooting. Maybe you just wanted to be sure they didn't get back up again. While that may be understandable, it's not legally permissible. On the other hand if they were shot, fell down, but then were continuing some kind of meaningful attempt to retrieve or continue using their weapon, continuing to shoot would be justified, as they had not fully ceased doing what justified the use of deadly force against them.

      Whether they die or not as a consequence of deadly force being used against them is pretty much up to chance, ie did they get hit or not, and if so, where (meaning the path of the projectile into the body and what organs/structures did it damage) and if the wounds were initially survivable, how quickly did they receive meaningful medical attention.

      So in the end, to quote William Munney, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it".

      Delete