|
So, according to Kady O'Malley, one of our august MP's brought up a petition about Chemtrails in the HoC today. However, she neglected to mention which one. I don't think it was May, otherwise Kady would have said party leader, or May herself. Anyone know who?
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 08:21 |
|
|
lonelywurm posted:A British parent can confer a form of citizenship to their children (my mum has a UK passport because of this), but grandparents only let you get the visa. At least it did in 2006, when I was considering doing it. I'm glad now I didn't. In the past, grandparent definitely conferred passport. I guess that's an example of the tightening I was referring to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
My grandpa always wanted to get his EU citizenship but never did. Now I'm cut off from the promised land forever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:So, according to Kady O'Malley, one of our august MP's brought up a petition about Chemtrails in the HoC today. However, she neglected to mention which one. I don't think it was May, otherwise Kady would have said party leader, or May herself. Anyone know who? It's probably not May - she backed off from the chemtrails thing. She said it was inadvertent. Chemtrailchat: Someone has been plastering anti-chemtrail messages in downtown Montréal. A bunch of municipal campaign signs have been defaced by sharpies with "STOP CHEMTRAILS NOW", there are pretty artful tags on the sidewalk, and most inexplicably posters of Mr. T in front of a chemtrail backdrop with "I pity the fool who thinks this is normal".
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:I don't understand what they think they're doing there. Do they really think they're in danger and need to camouflage themselves and approach leapfrog-style through cover with rifles out like they're in a warzone? I'm guessing not, because if they thought the situation was dangerous they wouldn't let a photographer stand out in the open taking snapshots. I don't understand so many people's weird distinctions they make with LEOs wearing, gasp, camouflauge (in a rural area?!). From the pictures and videos, it seems that the majority of the officers were lightly armed, wearing the standard uniform, and they had a few officers nearby to provide immediate emergency support if their intelligence about firearms in the crowd turned out to be correct. I think thats the right thing to be done, and in fact it should be supported. Instead of arming every single officer with an assault rifle, they had the ERT members, in prone positions or off to the side simply providing long range security. It doesn't take a "sniper" with a scope and accurized rifle to plink someone off, there are plenty of .303s and other rifles that can reach out and touch somebody. For officers only armed with pistols, this puts them immediately at a disadvantage and puts them in danger. Also, they were allowed to take photographs because it isn't illegal to take photos of an officer? So you're complaining that this protester took a photo, yet if he was detained or arrested you would scream bloody murder about his legal right to take photos. Having a couple officers, with the proper gear, off to the side conducting covert recce, or in this picture's case, overwatch on a potentially dangerous situation is fine. I dont understand people's obsession with looking at pictures of cops in MOLLE gear and body armour and screaming POLICE STATE. Was it so much better when cops in the 60s wore aviators, blue shirts, shiny badges and clubbed people with batons? Who cares what they are wearing? Hearing reports about what the RCMP did in this case don't lead me to believe much of anything happened outside of a usual court injunction lead warrant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Chemtrailchat: Someone has been plastering anti-chemtrail messages in downtown Montréal. A bunch of municipal campaign signs have been defaced by sharpies with "STOP CHEMTRAILS NOW", there are pretty artful tags on the sidewalk, and most inexplicably posters of Mr. T in front of a chemtrail backdrop with "I pity the fool who thinks this is normal". Yeah, probably one guy, it's all around the metro Rosemont area.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
This seems relevant given we were talking about outfitting cops with cameras the other day:The Globe and Mail posted:The Toronto Police Service is considering outfitting all uniformed officers with body-worn video cameras. swagger like us posted:I dont understand people's obsession with looking at pictures of cops in MOLLE gear and body armour and screaming POLICE STATE. Was it so much better when cops in the 60s wore aviators, blue shirts, shiny badges and clubbed people with batons? Who cares what they are wearing? Hearing reports about what the RCMP did in this case don't lead me to believe much of anything happened outside of a usual court injunction lead warrant. I think the general objection is that the more the police dress like the military, the more they seem to take on a military mindset which isn't really appropriate for law enforcement. It also seems like there are more and more situations where the police want to take an extremely aggressive default posture to delivering warrants or detaining people. Maybe some of these changes are genuine improvements to public safety but there does seem to be a general trend toward the police acting more and more like a pseudo-military organization and that makes a lot of people uncomfortable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
I think there's some pretty legitimate concerns with the militarization of the police. It absolutely changes both the perceptions of the public towards the police, and it also puts the police in the mindset more of a soldier than a police officer. They tend to get overly excited about playing with and thus justifying buying all their new toys so what in the "old days" may have been just a few cops with side-arms knocking on your door to deliver a warrent suddenly involves a bunch of idiots who played too much call of duty pretending they're super elite commandos and kicking down the door and swarming in while flashing cool hand-signals just like in the movies mannnnn we're so badass ok lady here's your warrant PS we had to shoot your dogs. Ooops sorry wrong house. Back in the day SOME police departments would have swat teams that would only be called out in extreme situations. The bar for those situations kept being lowered and lowered over the years and it's gotten to a ridiculous point that only serves to antagonize the public and embolden the cops to more violent and heavy-handed tactics. It's often the cops own self-fulfilling prophesies why they need to go full military mode every time. Basically I don't buy the need for police militarization and believe its a self-fulfilling prophesy that they "need" military gear and tactics to handle a growing number of situations, that their military gear, tactics, and attitude escalate and inflame situations that a few properly trains cops actually doing their jobs could handle/diffuse without being adversarial and threatening as hell as the default.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:I've sort of heard and seen second-hand how creepy and controlling the Irivings can be. It's bizzare that they've had the province as their little fiefdom for so long, but that's NB for you I guess. I heard there was a lot of controversy over the pension change but I hadn't heard how sketchy the whole process was. Wow. Not just NB, the Irvings are a constant presence throughout the East. Your post made me realise that I can't think of a time when I was not aware of the Irving empire, even as a child, if only through the curses of people around me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:As Pinterest says, all a future parliament needs to do is blink and the law goes away in any case so it isn't really that damaging. It's damaging. It's a really horrible thing to do. Why not just pass EVERY law with a clause that says "and you can't EVER change this". A horrible waste of public time and money. Why is it always conservatives passing these stupid things too?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Chemtrailchat: Someone has been plastering anti-chemtrail messages in downtown Montréal. A bunch of municipal campaign signs have been defaced by sharpies with "STOP CHEMTRAILS NOW", there are pretty artful tags on the sidewalk, and most inexplicably posters of Mr. T in front of a chemtrail backdrop with "I pity the fool who thinks this is normal". I guess this is the next phase after all the truther crap that was posted all over downtown in 2008-2010 or so. Next up, wi-fi giving our kids autism. Paper Mac posted:Not just NB, the Irvings are a constant presence throughout the East. Your post made me realise that I can't think of a time when I was not aware of the Irving empire, even as a child, if only through the curses of people around me. I didn't realize they had a presence outside of NB, although that makes sense, there's no reason why they wouldn't have influence in the other Atlantic provinces. The funny thing is most people outside of the Maritimes would have no idea who the Irvings were or understand how much influence they have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I think there's some pretty legitimate concerns with the militarization of the police. It absolutely changes both the perceptions of the public towards the police, and it also puts the police in the mindset more of a soldier than a police officer. They tend to get overly excited about playing with and thus justifying buying all their new toys so what in the "old days" may have been just a few cops with side-arms knocking on your door to deliver a warrent suddenly involves a bunch of idiots who played too much call of duty pretending they're super elite commandos and kicking down the door and swarming in while flashing cool hand-signals just like in the movies mannnnn we're so badass ok lady here's your warrant PS we had to shoot your dogs. Ooops sorry wrong house. Your analysis of why Police have adopted military style gear and tactics is literally "because cops are manchildren and play video games". Give me a break. You're telling me, that because the Police wear MOLLE gear, and some leg-drop holsters, suddenly it somehow psychologically, magically, changes their mindset and makes them more aggressive? What kind of half-baked, pseudo-psychological theory is that? Did the Stanford Experiment include the guards suddenly becoming more aggressive because they put on a panel of MOLLE pouches on the outside of their body armour to hold gloves? Look, if you want to analyze direct actions by LEOs in their carrying out of warrants, thats fine. But to hold that their gear available to them becoming more diverse is somehow magically affecting their training and tactics is ridiculous. There are plenty of instances in law enforcement that have pointed for a need for Police to have some sort of readily available capabilities. Even as far back as when Charles Whitman took a rifle to a tower and started shooting people, police had to literally round up a posse of people who had long rifles to even begin to engage him. North Hollywood shootings, police officers had to basically borrow assault rifles from a gun shop in order to take down bank robbers armed with assault rifles and body armour. Mayerthorpe, Alberta, RCMP members were killed on carrying out a warrant when a guy who had a long rifle ambushed them and they couldnt defend themselves because all they had was pistols, and the police car only had a shotgun in it. There's plenty of precedent as to why Police need long arms. So then what is it specifically? Is it body armour? Should cops not wear body armour because now they magically fear for their lives less so they become more violent? What about helmets and faceshields? Okay thats too scary looking too. Pouches, how about pouches that are literally probably carrying gloves, scarves and a pair of socks. Okay, MOLLE pouches are banned too because they are scary. Camouflauge? Alright, I guess the only time Police engage in warrants are in metropolitan areas, and they have no reason to ever covertly watch a house or a farm. My point is, people are critiquing the wrong thing. Even if we lived in a society that had all the progressive policies in the world, egalitarian, leftist, feminist everything, the Police would still require this equipment and it has nothing to do with the way they carry out warrants. What matters is the actions, not how they look. Cops wearing aviators and shiny badges committed much more police brutality, carried out much more violent warrants, and conducted themselves way worse than cops wearing MOLLE and cordura gear attached to their legs ever have. Who cares? People who are making legitimate critiques of Law Enforcement's actions are getting sidetracked with fear mongering and weird tea-party esque cries of POLICE STATE! FASCISM!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
I don't know why you find it hard to believe that the clothing and gear someone carries could influence their behaviour. Its widely recognized that cars are a direct contributor to "road rage" and part of the reason military's, schools, religious organizations and the like use uniforms is because they do have a psychological impact on team building and group identity. You're free to handwave this idea away as ridiculous but I think most people, if they stop and think about their own experiences and observations, will recognize that the tools we carry and the clothes we wear can have a pretty big impact on our psychological disposition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:I didn't realize they had a presence outside of NB, although that makes sense, there's no reason why they wouldn't have influence in the other Atlantic provinces. Irving Oil is everywhere in the Maritimes, I think, some Quebec and US as well. They own the shipyards (Irving Shipbuilding) in Halifax, as well. I had thought the huge refinery in Dartmouth was theirs, but that's Imperial Oil, apparently. In any case, they own a lot of the infrastructure. e: Looking at the JDI wiki I'm remembering that Irving owns literally everything jesus christ quote:J.D. Irving Limited is a privately owned conglomerate company headquartered in Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada. Its activities include many industries: forestry, paper products, agriculture, food processing, transportation, shipbuilding. The company forms, with Irving Oil and Brunswick News, the bulk of the Irving Group of companies, which regroups the interests of the Irving family. ugghhgh Dreylad posted:The funny thing is most people outside of the Maritimes would have no idea who the Irvings were or understand how much influence they have. I think this may be related to the difficulty people have in understanding the political dysfunction in places like NB and NS. Paper Mac fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Oct 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:I think this may be related to the difficulty people have in understanding the political dysfunction in places like NB and NS. I only have a vague understanding of the problems, if you've got time could you elaborate?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:I only have a vague understanding of the problems, if you've got time could you elaborate? Massive handouts/"loans" in the name of jobs. Seriously - if you're a big company, set up a shop in the Maritimes, get in financial "trouble", and the government (NS for sure) will hook you up with a forgivable loan. No biggie. Then you can leave a few months later.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
brucio posted:Massive handouts/"loans" in the name of jobs. Seriously - if you're a big company, set up a shop in the Maritimes, get in financial "trouble", and the government (NS for sure) will hook you up with a forgivable loan. No biggie. Then you can leave a few months later. Hopefully this will stop for a while, since the liberals were pretty critical of all the ways the other parties screwed this up over the last few years. this won't ever change 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
Odddzy posted:Yeah, probably one guy, it's all around the metro Rosemont area. I saw it as well near the library at Berri. Some old guy gave it a glance and shook his head sadly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I don't know why you find it hard to believe that the clothing and gear someone carries could influence their behaviour. Its widely recognized that cars are a direct contributor to "road rage" and part of the reason military's, schools, religious organizations and the like use uniforms is because they do have a psychological impact on team building and group identity. Of course uniforms can influence behaviour but I have a hard time believing without some concrete evidence rather then "if you stop think and use personal experience and observation" (aka anecdotal evidence, aka bullshit) that firstly, it increases aggression, and secondly wearing a certain type of carriage for equipment somehow also increases aggression even further than the initial increase of aggression caused by uniforms. As well, the claim above had nothing to do with how uniforms effect behaviour, but rather how it can have a direct effect on aggression. Do Boy Scouts suddenly get aggressive because they wear a uniform? Do Nurses, who all wear near identical scrubs somehow get more aggressive? How about Priests? What I'm saying is these observations stink of personal bias. I lurk this thread a lot, and I'm pretty left wing, progressive and skeptical, but I can't believe I am having an argument with someone here that personal anecdotes about how they "feel" about cops is somehow a fair argument to make. I think most people are judging the concept of "militarization" of Police, not off of actual tactical and strategic decisions of our law enforcement agencies, but rather on how "scary" they look. Want to argue against kettling in riot tactics? Fair enough. Want to argue about no-knock warrants? Fine. But to come in here and say that law enforcement is becoming more "militarized" because they suddenly use comparable equipment (that, surprise, have comparable functionality) is directly implying correlations into causation and it makes very broad connections that a lot of extremist groups are scarily using as justification for attacking Police officers. In my neighbourhood, theres pamphlets been posted around of a picture of Greek Riot Police on fire and in big block letters it says "SELF DEFENSE IS JUSTIFIED" and goes on to explain how Police are oppressors yadayada etc. It paints a dangerous precedent to disconnect the community even further from the Police. Not to say of course Law Enforcement hasn't done this a lot to themselves, and they have a lot to do in terms of reconciliation on their part, but to inhibit this even further with scare mongering is problematic. Despite media portrayal, most interactions with Police are formulaic, surrounding routine situations and safety concerns. Statistically, these media attention grabbing events like riot suppression et. al are not the majority of Police-Public interaction, and to suggest now that an Officer on the beat is some militarized soldier type talking to the public with a carbine at the low-ready position is ridiculous. swagger like us fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Oct 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:Of course uniforms can influence behaviour, and disposition but I have a hard time believing without some concrete evidence rather then "if you stop think and use personal experience and observation" (aka anecdotal evidence, aka bullshit) that firstly, it increases aggression, and secondly the effects of FURTHER gear ontop of the already uniform standards somehow increase violence and aggression on top of the aforementioned uniform. As well, the claim above had nothing to do with how uniforms effect behaviour, but rather how it can have a direct effect on aggression. Do Boy Scouts suddenly get aggressive because they wear a uniform? Do Nurses, who all wear near identical scrubs somehow get more aggressive? How about Priests? What I'm saying is these observations stink of personal bias. I find it a little funny that you're willing to admit that uniforms have an effect on psychology, and that different uniforms have a different effect on psychology, but immediately disregard the possibility that putting a military uniform - and specifically one designed to be used in combat situations - would make the wearer more militaristic. I'd also suggest that it has the effect of making the protesters react more defensive. Maybe suiting up into military fatigues and pointing sniper rifles at Canadian citizens because people that may be them allegedly threatened some people was a super terrible idea!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
senae posted:I find it a little funny that you're willing to admit that uniforms have an effect on psychology, and that different uniforms have a different effect on psychology, but immediately disregard the possibility that putting a military uniform - and specifically one designed to be used in combat situations - would make the wearer more militaristic. Great conjecture, but no one has yet produced a shred of evidence outside of "Well duh, JUST THINK ABOUT IT, they LOOK like soldiers, so they MUST feel like soldiers. CORRELATION IMPLIES CAUSATION". But please explain to me the proper Police response if there is credible intelligence on firearms in a crowd? Oh wait, Police are all just itching aggressive alpha males who are looking for any excuse to kill people or rough them up, so obviously they falsified any intelligence, and are completely lying about it  . If you are an Officer you sure as hell would prefer there are at least a few Officers nearby who could defend you if an already aggravated crowd had long arms and decided to plink off an Officer wearing soft armour and carrying a 9mm pistol. swagger like us fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Oct 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:Great conjecture, but no one has yet produced a shred of evidence outside of "Well duh, JUST THINK ABOUT IT, they LOOK like soldiers, so they MUST feel like soldiers. CORRELATION IMPLIES CAUSATION". Anyone disagreeing with you would seem to be arguing that, sans militaristic uniforms and weapons, our police forces would be kinder, gentler, more enlightened organizations than they currently are. I'm struggling with that one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Anyone disagreeing with you would seem to be arguing that, sans militaristic uniforms and weapons, our police forces would be kinder, gentler, more enlightened organizations than they currently are. He isn't even really objecting that the police have gotten a heck of a lot more para-militarized than they used to be. He is just mad someone suggested the uniforms caused it. I think I fall into the uniforms and weapons are an effect, not the cause, category myself. Of course, the United States has a different dynamic occuring. Since it is well known that police forces never communicate with one another, Canadian police departments are probably insulated from it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:Great conjecture, but no one has yet produced a shred of evidence outside of "Well duh, JUST THINK ABOUT IT, they LOOK like soldiers, so they MUST feel like soldiers. CORRELATION IMPLIES CAUSATION" I'm pretty sure you're the only one bringing up body armour, btw, I was explicitly talking about dressing up in combat gear and playing soldier. They absolutely should have been wearing armour because they were about to instigate a riot. Which happened. Possibly sooner than expected because we had civilian police dressing up like members of the armed forces which is a little terrifying. Also the lack of citations from me is because I'm at work on my phone. Here's one though! "American psychological association posted:For example, an experiment in 1974 by Harvard anthropologist John Watson evaluated 23 cultures to determine whether warriors who changed their appearance--such as with war paint or masks--treated their victims differently. As it turned out, 80 percent of warriors in these cultures were found to be more destructive--for example, killing, torturing or mutilating their victims--than unpainted or unmasked warriors egg tats fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Oct 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:Do Boy Scouts suddenly get aggressive because they wear a uniform? Do Nurses, who all wear near identical scrubs somehow get more aggressive? How about Priests? What I'm saying is these observations stink of personal bias. Actually yes I do think if we arms priests, nurses, or boyscouts and gave them intense training focused on leathal tactics vs negotiation and more "soft skills" then yes, we'd see those people get way the gently caress more aggressive. Specially nurses, I know many nurses that would be VERY happy to be given a range of leathal and less lethal weapons to deal with violent poo poo head patients. They'd probably feel safer and after getting a taste of the thrill and power of just tear gassing or shooting the next uncooperative drug addict who came in with an OD they'd lobby strongly that they NEED their weapons and ballistic masks. They're putting their lives on the line and who are we to say they can't have the tools they need to protect them selves. But that's just my feelings on possible outcomes of militarizing priests, boyscouts, and nurses. You just "feel" cops are justified in being increasingly militarized and "feel" that the whole thing is being over blown. There's a lot of feelings on this issue, but I'm sure there's some studies and interesting articles out there on this though. Oh here's some about how hosed up police militarization is! http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/police-militarization-an-interview-with-radley-balko http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/witness/201310/militarization-when-the-extraordinary-becomes-ordinary "With full armor, the right poo poo, and training, you can kick rear end and have fun." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/cops-speak-out-on-police-_n_3688999.html “Captains like to attack even the smallest problem, like a domestic dispute, with overwhelming force. Swamping makes them feel safer but it also increases the chances of stuff going bad.” So here we have articles strongly pointing that the police are driving the "arms race" and inventing their own reasons they want this stuff to not just feel safer but "have fun" and that these tactics are not effective in most situations and mostly only lead to rapid violent escalation from both sides of an arrest or protest. Police are knowingly favouring tactics that have a much higher chance of resulting in violence because it's literally "more fun" and gives them a feeling (although only a feeling since it leads to more violence) of safety and power. The militarization (which isn't just what clothes you wear, or gear you carry, but your training, tactics, and institutional culture) of the police in Canada is a loving disaster and something we need to curb hard at the political level.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Anyone disagreeing with you would seem to be arguing that, sans militaristic uniforms and weapons, our police forces would be kinder, gentler, more enlightened organizations than they currently are. The uniform and weapons are just part of the problem. If the Police are segregated from "us" they begin to see themselves as their own group deserving of protection above the citizens. This is a bad thing though because the life of a police officer is worth exactly as much as anybody else, but to them citizens are annoyances that get in the way of their safety. This leads to the mentality that they are in danger 100% of the time, so every minor situation gets treated like it could 'be their last.' There needs to be more police on the streets WALKING and actively engaging their communities. Not patting down every person standing in front of the community housing complex, but introducing themselves and making Police presence about THEIR safety. Only when the police realize their overblown fear of the public is unfounded will things get better, but don't ever expect this to happen because it will mean less toys. bring back old gbs fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Oct 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:I only have a vague understanding of the problems, if you've got time could you elaborate? My exposure to Maritime politics is almost entirely from growing up in NS, so I can't speak quite as much to NB, but my impression is that the problems are similar. Irving is a representative problem because it's not your typical faceless holding group being operated on behalf of some enormous transnational concern, it's the quasi-feudal dominion of the Irving family, complete with succession problems and inter-company feuds. It might be a commonplace to point out that a particular place's politics are dominated by local networks of power and patronage, but in the Maritimes those interests are exceedingly narrow. It's not unusual to look at a provincial policy and ask "cui bono" and be able to define particular firms, families, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/rcmp-bombed-oil-site-in-dirty-tricks-campaign-1.188599 "The Mounties bombed an oil installation as part of a dirty tricks campaign in their investigation into sabotage in the Alberta's oil patch. " "Lawyer Richard Secord told Court of Queen's Bench that when Alberta Energy Co. and police blew up an AEC shed last Oct. 14, they blamed it on his client, farmer Wiebo Ludwig." Just in case anyone still had even an ounce of trust or respect for the RCMP left. They are literally bombing oil installations to frame people that cause the oil industry problems. These are the tactics they use to protect the oil industry. Yet any time people question the RCMP's side of any story they're called a conspiracy nut.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/rcmp-bombed-oil-site-in-dirty-tricks-campaign-1.188599 CBC Article posted:Their lawyer produced evidence that the RCMP bombed a wellsite and that they did it with the full support of the energy company that owned it. The Crown admits the allegations are true. bring back old gbs fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Oct 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
Helsing posted:This seems relevant given we were talking about outfitting cops with cameras the other day: I don't understand why there's always the cry of "privacy issues" when it comes to worn cameras. Cops work in public places, the camera will be recording public places for the most part, and the footage will be in the hands of official people anyways as opposed to being vomited onto Youtube automatically. Plus you don't hear cops saying "well we can't do that, it violates peoples' privacy" when it comes to CCTV in public places. swagger like us posted:I don't understand so many people's weird distinctions they make with LEOs wearing, gasp, camouflauge (in a rural area?!). From the pictures and videos, it seems that the majority of the officers were lightly armed, wearing the standard uniform, and they had a few officers nearby to provide immediate emergency support if their intelligence about firearms in the crowd turned out to be correct. I think thats the right thing to be done, and in fact it should be supported. Instead of arming every single officer with an assault rifle, they had the ERT members, in prone positions or off to the side simply providing long range security. It doesn't take a "sniper" with a scope and accurized rifle to plink someone off, there are plenty of .303s and other rifles that can reach out and touch somebody. For officers only armed with pistols, this puts them immediately at a disadvantage and puts them in danger. I wasn't complaining about the photo being taken, I was saying that if the cops thought there was a real danger of bullets flying they wouldn't have been posing for the photographer, they would have told the photographer to get down/not be in the danger zone/etc.. Seems like you were looking to attack me too hard. BattleMaster fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Oct 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Actually yes I do think if we arms priests, nurses, or boyscouts and gave them intense training focused on leathal tactics vs negotiation and more "soft skills" then yes, we'd see those people get way the gently caress more aggressive. Specially nurses, I know many nurses that would be VERY happy to be given a range of leathal and less lethal weapons to deal with violent poo poo head patients. They'd probably feel safer and after getting a taste of the thrill and power of just tear gassing or shooting the next uncooperative drug addict who came in with an OD they'd lobby strongly that they NEED their weapons and ballistic masks. They're putting their lives on the line and who are we to say they can't have the tools they need to protect them selves. First, to answer your point about Nurses, they already have that capability, theyre called Security Guards, who have training and certification to protect Nurses and other Doctors, and every hospital has them on call for those situations. They have that protection and safety, so they dont need those capabilities themselves. American Law Enforcement militarization is MUCH different than the Canadian situation and conflating the two is completely unfair. Furthermore, the situation at the blockade, you literally had a couple "militarized" RCMP members providing security, while the rest were largely at a non-lethal disposition (guns not drawn), in regular police uniform and soft caps, or wearing riot masks for protection. In fact I see this as an example of good riot protection, keeping the armed emergency response on hand, while not having every single Officer in that state of readiness. But thats still needed. Also its disgusting for people to handwave away legitimate concerns of personal safety for officers. I know most of you scoff and roll your eyes at the notion of them putting themselves at risk, but thats what officers are entrusted to do, and in reply to that duty we're obligated to give them the best equipment possible for their safety. Now, its a murky line, sure. Does some small town RCMP det in Falkland, BC need an Armoured Vehicle to respond to Domestic disputes? Probably not. Does a police officer enforcing a warrant on a suspect with a history of firearms offences need body armour with plates? Is he suddenly militarized because he is using an MP5 submachine gun in response to the suspect possibly having pistols?. Now he needs pouches on his vest so he can quickly access them so he doesn't get shot while reloading. But hey, thats fine, he can just stuff his mags into his pockets and fumble with it because the public thinks it looks too much like an Army. You're making giant broad accusation about how they "feel" militarized. Please again, name me some specifics that officers could change, or better yet, name me some policies that can determine how they use them, and compare them to policies in place. You make it sound like LEOs in Canada are literally on patrol wearing full plates, carrying carbines like its Afghanistan, yet so far the only time I have see Police being "militarized" are to warrants involving people with firearms or possible firearms, gang related warrants, and other high profile crimes. Is the intelligence wrong in their case? If so, how do you suggest they change their intelligence analysis? What I am saying is I have yet to see specific ideas you want the RCMP or other LEOs to implement that aren't just some broad, "oh hey don't look so scary when doing your job". I still don't see the argument about why its "bad" when law enforcement use certain tactics that happen to also be functional within the military. On a high risk warrant, with a high risk offender with a history of violence and gun use, the tactics are the same in clearing a room. Surprise surprise, not every situation can be fixed with verbal judo, or negotiation. I know some people find that hard to believe because everyone is a unique special snowflake and would never dare harm anyone else. quote:I'm pretty sure you're the only one bringing up body armour, btw, I was explicitly talking about dressing up in combat gear and playing soldier. They absolutely should have been wearing armour because they were about to instigate a riot. Which happened. Possibly sooner than expected because we had civilian police dressing up like members of the armed forces which is a little terrifying. Again, everyone keeps crying that they look like the Armed Forces, please directly explain why that its bad that they look like that? You say its terrifying, why? Do MOLLE pouches and leg-holsters scare you that much? What EXACT piece, or pieces of kit, that police officers wear, make them look "militarized", "terrifying" and on top of that, what are their other options that any other reasonable police officer would make in that situation? I think the situation in Canada is MUCH different than the United States, and to conflate the two is unbelievably unfair. It seems like you guys are against the existence of ERT or SWAT teams as well? You do realize the history behind them was a response to increased violence, and an increase in technology available for officer safety? As well, the colours are muted for a reason, so that they dont make an easy target when executing a warrant. Or is everyone against high risk warrants being executed at all? So, which part, of a STANDARD officer's gear and demeanour make them militarized, because so far all I have seen are pictures of ERT members, dressed appropriately to a high risk warrant or situation. Its not like an RCMP member is dressed in full fighting order to pull over someone at a traffic stop. I implore you to give me Canada examples, because everyone loves to just point to American Law Enforcement and out of control Sheriffs budgets, Homeland Security grants etc. to be the same thing. In Canada it is still, a lot different. swagger like us fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Oct 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
It is no less disingenuous than equating East Van flyers promoting the firebombing of cops, with a concern that perhaps they are taking their safety concerns too far and endangering the public while they do so. I don't want situations like that Albertan shooting that killed four RCMP to occur, however that doesn't mean I will accept that they do not have to risk their lives to ensure public safety. Shooting people dead that are crawling around on the street with a bike chain, or the more recent TTC shooting in Toronto highlight an inability to de-escalate situations and a shoot first mentality. That sniper in camouflage is a clear example of a hilarious overreaction, made more comical by the line of RCMP just down road and the photographer standing just off his field of fire. They are well compensated for the risk they put themselves in, and if they cannot stomach that risk I hear Canada is desperately short of carpenters. Perfectly safe occupation I understand. E: There was a picture of a sniper wearing camouflage posted just today. There is only one reason for a camouflaged sniper, so how about you tell us why you aren't scared of it. ocrumsprug fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Oct 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
I thought it was ridiculous that the protests had been peaceful for weeks and they still decided they needed people playing soldier and acting like it was a warzone. And in spite of outnumbering the protesters they still managed to get cars burned. How does that even happen?ocrumsprug posted:They are well compensated for the risk they put themselves in, and if they cannot stomach that risk I hear Canada is desperately short of carpenters. Perfectly safe occupation I understand. I think Jesus would beg to differ.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:It is no less disingenuous than equating East Van flyers promoting the firebombing of cops, with a concern that perhaps they are taking their safety concerns too far and endangering the public while they do so. So where's the line drawn between officer safety and public mentality, and who draws it? You cant unilaterally declare it a dangerous job, therefore no safety measures should be taken in place. Thats akin to telling a high rise window washer he can't have a safety harness: "Sorry buddy, I hear carpenting isnt as dangerous". So, where is the line, and what policies and methods do you use to come to it? Im not saying that LEOs have the only authority to decide this, policy makers and public relations should come into play here. I am sorry, I came off a little reactionary to some of the sensationalism one can see in media so Im curious for an actual dialogue on this. swagger like us fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Oct 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYC6BpD72ik Caleb is a very rad dude. He CAN throw a hatchet and sue you. He gives me a lot of hope regarding first nations issues. It's an honour to know him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 03:48
|
|
|
There is an option on the Canadian Forces application to have your information forwarded automatically to the RCMP recruiters should you wash out of CF recruitment. So imagine there are a decent amount of Mounties right now who wanted to be soldiers, were somehow not good enough to gain entry, so now they're constables in some detachment in Saskatchewan, trying to live the dream anyway. Not all of them, obviously, but there's a non-zero amount of them which are, almost certainly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 05:05
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:There is an option on the Canadian Forces application to have your information forwarded automatically to the RCMP recruiters should you wash out of CF recruitment. So imagine there are a decent amount of Mounties right now who wanted to be soldiers, were somehow not good enough to gain entry, so now they're constables in some detachment in Saskatchewan, trying to live the dream anyway. I would've assumed the rejection overflow would've gone in the other direction. Don't you typically just need to be able to fog a mirror to be accepted to the CF?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 06:00
|
|
|
I failed the C.F. medical when I was 17 due to a blood condition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 06:02
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:I failed the C.F. medical when I was 17 due to a blood condition. They rejected my militia application due to a bee sting allergy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 06:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 08:21 |
|
|
Too dumb for the army, join the RCMP. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 07:07
|
|