Four Mounties apparently killed near Mayerthorpe

[Rejean31]

Originally posted by Looger@Mar 4 2005, 08:02 AM
Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan held a news conference to say she will consider tougher penalties for grow operations in the proposed marijuana decriminalization bill.

we all know what this means - nothing.

It p*ssed me right off seeing Anne McLellans face on TV talking about this tragedy. Hey Anne, tell us again how the 2 billion dollars your Liberal govt wasted on the gun registry is going to keep people safe in this country?? It can't even keep the police safe. She shouldn't even comment on this.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Sylvanfan@Mar 4 2005, 04:56 AM
But consider this, if no one smoked pot in Canada or the U.S. would these grow ops be able to thrive???

People will smoke pot. It's not something we will ever get rid of. In fact I would guess usage is probably increasing. There will always be demand. The government knows this.

Alcohol was prohibited at one point as well. If it were would you be demanding that all your friends not do it? Marijuana is a similar drug in terms of magnitude of effect. In fact one could certainly argue that it doesn't impair judgement/co-ordination as much as alcohol and is not directly associated with violence as often. Of course one could also argue that it encourages laziness. Why is one illegal and the other not? It would appear that history and societal acceptance play a role but logically I don't see any reason why alcohol should be legal if pot is not. Both are drugs. Both have negative side effects.

I don't see recommending that people quit pot as the logical response to this. I think people should definitely question why it's illegal when more powerful drugs like Salvia and Dextromethorphan (the active ingredient in cough syrup) are available with no regulation. The fact that it's illegal is what causes grow ops. You recommend removing demand. I see that as impractical and impossible.

And something else to consider is that according to the radio, the man's father considered him trigger happy, said that he hated police and he made himself an outcast. Sounds like we might not have been dealing with a stable person. Had he not isolated himself, he might have already murdered a cop in a non-drug related event.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Sammie+Mar 4 2005, 06:16 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Mar 4 2005, 06:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-KowOfLang@Mar 3 2005, 09:13 PM
Or maybe the government should just legalize it and regulate it...

Oh, what a priceless suggestion!!! Get the government to legalize and regulate it!

I'm sure the government will do just a wonderful job! After all, look at the amazing success this government has had after setting up and regulating the gun registry. In spite of spending up to $2 billion on the program they still couldn't keep this scum from getting his hands on a gun!

With this kind of success, how can anyone doubt their ability to regulate illegal drugs?!!! [/b][/quote]
Well it wouldn't be illegal if it were legalized.

And the government does have a hand in regulating alcohol. Do you think they've botched that one completely? And I'd like someone to tell me why alcohol should be legal if pot isn't. I don't see a logical case for alcohol being a "better" drug than pot.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by calculoso@Mar 4 2005, 07:54 AM
For those who think that legalizing it is the answer, who would be monitoring all the grow-ops? Do you think that the current "bad guys" would stop growing it?

I'm not sure exactly how it would work but one could look at the US after alcohol-prohibition. If you make it legal, then companies could grow it and the number of individuals who grow it and distribute it could decrease.

We're all capable of making our own alcohol "grow-op" as it were but that isn't really an issue now with alcohol legal is it? We don't have organized crime producing and distributing alcohol to a large extent. Why wouldn't the same thing happen with pot over time? If people can conveniently go pick some up from the local pot store then why would there be a need for criminal grow operations?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Sammie@Mar 4 2005, 06:16 AM
I'm sure the government will do just a wonderful job! After all, look at the amazing success this government has had after setting up and regulating the gun registry. In spite of spending up to $2 billion on the program they still couldn't keep this scum from getting his hands on a gun!

With this kind of success, how can anyone doubt their ability to regulate illegal drugs?!!!

I don't think you understand what the gun registry is for. It isn't designed as a barrier to stop people from getting guns. If people want them, then they will get them no matter what. The same thing with people who want pot.

It is another tool that police can use to catch criminals. The only people who will go out of their way to own an unregistered gun are those who want to hide the fact they have it because they are involved in other criminal activities. That way, if they have to use their gun for unlawful purposes, it would be harder to trace back to them. This makes it so that if police find an unregistered weapon, they can then have the ability to investigate the person - which most of the time I would imagine pays off.


On the occasion where someone is killed with a registered gun, it makes it easier for police to trace the gun's origin which can help catch the bad guy and prevent him/her from killing another person. Granted, murders with registered guns might be more infrequent, but they will happen. The question is; how much is an innocent human life worth to you? You complain about $2 billion, but I guarenteed that it has had virtually no effect on your life while possibly saving lives in the future. That seems a tad selfish, doesn't it?

To say gun registry is a waste of money because it won't stop people from killing with guns is the same as saying that police are a waste of money because they can't do the job either.

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm not sure if the legalization of MJ will have an effect on events like last nights. If MJ is legalized and it kills the growops, the people running it will find another way to make the quick and easy buck.

So Grow ops will turn into meth labs, people selling dope will start selling hash, and acid and other things.

And as you get into more hardcore drugs, you start dealing with a way more serious criminal.

In my viewpoint, legalization of grass might be beneficial to the casual user, but it will have no real effect on the criminal side of the business.

On the RCMP side, each cruiser has a mounted shotgun in the vehicle within reach of the driver, this sounds like it happened so quickly that they didn't have a chance to get them.

On the bullet proof vests, they are actually worse to wear if your being shot at by a high powered round.

A bullet from a assault rifle traveling at high speed will punch straight through you, and probably won't kill you if it dosen't hit a key organ or a bone. but if your wearing the vest, when the high powered round hits it, it slows from 1000's of fps, to 100's of feet per second, and the bullet deforms from a shape that can pass through you, to a mishappened wide faced bullet that can be stopped by bone or flesh.

Just my two cents.

[Bill Bumface]

I agree that criminals will always find criminal things to do. You take growing weed from them and they'll find something else.

[Cowperson]

As you get into this story, there are profiles of two of the slain officers.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...4/BNStory/Front

Photos of the slain officers

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...allery01?slot=1

Cowperson

[metallicat]

It's unfortunate that this thread has turned into a pot-legalization discussion. This is about four Mounties who gave their lives in the line of duty, not about weed. Regardless of how this happened, four cops are dead. It's tragic, sad, and discomforting. I still feel sick.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Hesla@Mar 4 2005, 01:33 AM
I wish for once someone would put the blame on the head of the guy that shot the officers, not the police department. No matter the facts around this incident the fact remains... someone shot four police officers in cold blood.

AMEN!!!

[Sammie]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Mar 4 2005, 10:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Mar 4 2005, 10:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Looger@Mar 4 2005, 03:02 PM
grow-ops are typically staffed by low-level mules that don't even know who put the money up for the operations.

point of fact, out here in bc you hear all kinds of crazy stuff, like the government itself being involved at some levels.

one thing for sure - they don't do all they can, i believe because it is an integral part of the economy.# #2 industry here.

grow-ops are a low priority.# period.

That's true. A friend of mine was offered a chance to take care of a grow op. He turned it down because of the risk. I don't think this guy in Mayerthorpe is "typical" in anything. He sounds more like a redneck than someone running a massive organized crime ring.

I had a grow-up next door to me in BC and the people in the neighbourhood actually didn't mind. It seems that there is a belief among many that neighbourhoods with a grow-op are actually safer from crime. The reason I heard is that people who steal stuff and break into houses/cars are less likely to do it if they know there is a grow-up around because they know there are people watchin and they wouldn't want to rip anyone off who is affiliated with the grow-op.

I can't say if that is true since it would be hard to find numbers, but I know a lot of people that seem to believe it, and it's one of the reasons people don't rat them out. [/b][/quote]
That's an insult to any redneck. Rednecks are very principled and have a very strong sense of values and have a very high regard for the traditional law of the land. They would never run, or approve, a grow-op.

You can call this guy anythng you want but he sure isn't a redneck or a good-ol'-boy,

[metallicat]

As far as I'm concerned he was a terrorist.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by oilers_fan@Mar 4 2005, 10:07 PM
It's unfortunate that this thread has turned into a pot-legalization discussion. This is about four Mounties who gave their lives in the line of duty, not about weed. Regardless of how this happened, four cops are dead. It's tragic, sad, and discomforting. I still feel sick.

Cause you're the only one. Oh high and mighty moral warrior, please tell us what to think, feel and discuss. If not for your guidance, society would surely fall into decay and destruction.

If you bothered to read the thread, you'd find basically every poster has lamented the deaths of these officers.

This is a discussion board, if you don't want to discuss, feel free.

I find the cause of these officer's deaths to be immediately interesting, with possible ramifications on the underground narcotics circles. The reason this thread has any length beyond simple condolences is because there's actually something to talk about here that many of us can relate to; drugs, law enforcement, and how we interact with these institutions.

If you want a tears-only thread, start one.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by oilers_fan@Mar 4 2005, 10:21 PM
As far as I'm concerned he was a terrorist.

Sure, why not? The term is already about as diluted as it can get. A 'terrorist' also threw a rock at the bus I was on today. He couldn't have been more than 14, terrorists sure do come young these days. I believe he was from the Hawkwood cell...

[metallicat]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Mar 4 2005, 04:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Mar 4 2005, 04:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-oilers_fan@Mar 4 2005, 10:21 PM
As far as I'm concerned he was a terrorist.

Sure, why not? The term is already about as diluted as it can get. A 'terrorist' also threw a rock at the bus I was on today. He couldn't have been more than 14, terrorists sure do come young these days. I believe he was from the Hawkwood cell... [/b][/quote]
Anyone that kills four police officers in cold blood for no reason other than severe hatred for what they do justifies the term terrorist.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by oilers_fan+Mar 4 2005, 10:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (oilers_fan @ Mar 4 2005, 10:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Sure, why not? The term is already about as diluted as it can get. A 'terrorist' also threw a rock at the bus I was on today. He couldn't have been more than 14, terrorists sure do come young these days. I believe he was from the Hawkwood cell...

Anyone that kills four police officers in cold blood for no reason other than severe hatred for what they do justifies the term terrorist. [/b][/quote]
As Tranny was kind enough to point out to me a few weeks ago;

Terrorist: a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

Maybe the stolen property had religious significance? I don't think so, he's a murderer and a suicide, no more, no less. Isn't that enough? Sheesh.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Sammie@Mar 4 2005, 10:20 PM
That's an insult to any redneck. Rednecks are very principled and have a very strong sense of values and have a very high regard for the traditional law of the land. They would never run, or approve, a grow-op.

You can call this guy anythng you want but he sure isn't a redneck or a good-ol'-boy,

I was going to post a laughing smile, but I thought you might actually be serious.

I'm not simply talking about rural people. I'm talking about the bigoted, anti-government people that the slang term "redneck" is often associated with. If you call that "principled" - well then.... enough said.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Mar 4 2005, 03:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Mar 4 2005, 03:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-oilers_fan@Mar 4 2005, 10:21 PM
As far as I'm concerned he was a terrorist.

Sure, why not? The term is already about as diluted as it can get. A 'terrorist' also threw a rock at the bus I was on today. He couldn't have been more than 14, terrorists sure do come young these days. I believe he was from the Hawkwood cell... [/b][/quote]
Did you just compare the murder of four police officers to someone throwing a rock at a bus? What the hell is wrong with you.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard+Mar 5 2005, 12:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mean Mr. Mustard @ Mar 5 2005, 12:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Sure, why not? The term is already about as diluted as it can get. A 'terrorist' also threw a rock at the bus I was on today. He couldn't have been more than 14, terrorists sure do come young these days. I believe he was from the Hawkwood cell...

Did you just compare the murder of four police officers to someone throwing a rock at a bus? What the hell is wrong with you. [/b][/quote]
Well, if you read the argument, I was trying to point out that calling the murderer a 'terrorist' was eronneous, and complained that too many classes of crime and criminal are being tagged as 'terrorists' these days.

Its a simple premise and real easy to follow, what the hell is wrong with you?

Originally posted by Flaming Homer+Mar 4 2005, 01:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flaming Homer @ Mar 4 2005, 01:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Sorry he is the scum of the earth and I don't consider him a person in the matter. Right now four police officers were murdered.

I'm not very fond of police officers, but I don't wish death on nobody that doesn't deserve it. BUT I don't give anybody special emotions if one cop shot four con's I'd feel the same way as if one con shot four cops. Wether you like drug dealers or not for some of them it's a living. The way I see it is it's no different than one person shooting four others. I don't remember anybody calling the Columbine shooters scum, just misguided. [/b][/quote]
This is the most insulting, inflamitory statement I have ever read. I am speechless and therefore will not make comment on such an obviously uninformed, ignorant rant... you make me sick.

Do us all a favour and NEVER post again.