Alberta Flood Watch 2013

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

What is the RCMPs big goal here? Does the average RCMP officer want to take the town over before getting off work and spending time with his family?

Why are they not allowing people into their houses? Power trip?

You people never think these things through...

The "average RCMP officer" has nothing to do with this. Just following orders, ma'am! I'm sure many of them were uncomfortable with their orders, but really have no choice but to follow them. Police forces (not the officers...the organizations) have long opposed private gun ownership, and have decided to take the opportunity to grab a few more. Most will be returned, but some will certainly get caught up in technicalities and retained.

Think this one through: the official authorities have full control of the town, with the exception of a few hundred who are technically breaking the law by remaining in town. If they were interested in preventing theft, is it more logical to arrest and remove those people, or to search every home in town for potential theft targets? Is it easier to *find* the 300-odd people, or the untold numbers of guns?

Why are they not allowing (some) people into their houses? Primarily because they're in full "CYA" mode -- fearful of allowing any of the defenceless flock into a slightly hazardous situation, for fear that they may be blamed for any harm that occurs. Secondarily, to avoid giving any ground on the borders of the town for fear that if "Charlie" gets to go to his house in a safer neighbourhood, then "Sam" will get even angrier because he's not allowed into his house that's still 6' underwater. Trying to retain the appearance of fairness with a blanket ban, rather than a fact-based analysis.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

"You people" should think about the quote/misquote (sources vary) above. If you don't believe in that, then quite honestly, there's as little point for me to argue with you as there is for you to argue with me. Neither of us will talk sense into the other, so I'm going to bed.

[SebC]

You know, I think if my camera was left sitting in my residence, but I wasn't allowed to go in and the police were, I might appreciate them picking it up and storing it away from potential looters.

[Winnie]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

The "average RCMP officer" has nothing to do with this. Just following orders, ma'am! I'm sure many of them were uncomfortable with their orders, but really have no choice but to follow them. Police forces (not the officers...the organizations) have long opposed private gun ownership, and have decided to take the opportunity to grab a few more. Most will be returned, but some will certainly get caught up in technicalities and retained.

Think this one through: the official authorities have full control of the town, with the exception of a few hundred who are technically breaking the law by remaining in town. If they were interested in preventing theft, is it more logical to arrest and remove those people, or to search every home in town for potential theft targets? Is it easier to *find* the 300-odd people, or the untold numbers of guns?

Why are they not allowing (some) people into their houses? Primarily because they're in full "CYA" mode -- fearful of allowing any of the defenceless flock into a slightly hazardous situation, for fear that they may be blamed for any harm that occurs. Secondarily, to avoid giving any ground on the borders of the town for fear that if "Charlie" gets to go to his house in a safer neighbourhood, then "Sam" will get even angrier because he's not allowed into his house that's still 6' underwater. Trying to retain the appearance of fairness with a blanket ban, rather than a fact-based analysis.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

"You people" should think about the quote/misquote (sources vary) above. If you don't believe in that, then quite honestly, there's as little point for me to argue with you as there is for you to argue with me. Neither of us will talk sense into the other, so I'm going to bed.

I'm having a hard time reading between the crazy. Are you implying some sort of hidden agenda other than safety for keeping the town closed?

[MrMastodonFarm]

From the Herald

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

The "average RCMP officer" has nothing to do with this. Just following orders, ma'am! I'm sure many of them were uncomfortable with their orders, but really have no choice but to follow them. Police forces (not the officers...the organizations) have long opposed private gun ownership, and have decided to take the opportunity to grab a few more. Most will be returned, but some will certainly get caught up in technicalities and retained.

Think this one through: the official authorities have full control of the town, with the exception of a few hundred who are technically breaking the law by remaining in town. If they were interested in preventing theft, is it more logical to arrest and remove those people, or to search every home in town for potential theft targets? Is it easier to *find* the 300-odd people, or the untold numbers of guns?

Why are they not allowing (some) people into their houses? Primarily because they're in full "CYA" mode -- fearful of allowing any of the defenceless flock into a slightly hazardous situation, for fear that they may be blamed for any harm that occurs. Secondarily, to avoid giving any ground on the borders of the town for fear that if "Charlie" gets to go to his house in a safer neighbourhood, then "Sam" will get even angrier because he's not allowed into his house that's still 6' underwater. Trying to retain the appearance of fairness with a blanket ban, rather than a fact-based analysis.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

"You people" should think about the quote/misquote (sources vary) above. If you don't believe in that, then quite honestly, there's as little point for me to argue with you as there is for you to argue with me. Neither of us will talk sense into the other, so I'm going to bed.

This post really hit all the points. You even brought out that quote! The RCMP are just waiting to pounce on natural disaster areas grab our guns!

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Tell me where you live and I'll come right over to search your house when you're not home. You can nominate me for the "stupidest post" award if you want, but people like me--who give a rat's ass about freedom and personal rights--are the only thing protecting people like you from the type of authoritarianism that is the inevitable result of unchecked state power.

You're my hero.

[starseed]

This slippery slope talk reminds me of the gay marriage issue. As a homosexual myself, I believe that I have a unique perspective on this.

I initially was on a similarly coloured bandwagon as the majority of sheeple... er... posters seem to be on. I believed that we did not need to worry about the dam bursting when gay marriage was legalized. I thought it would stop at just people like me being allowed to get married. Unfortunately, moral integrity in Canadian society has severely eroded since then... and I fear that we may never recover. Just look at all the looting and chaos that has broken out on the streets of Calgary after the floods came. I now regret leaping blindly onto my ignorant self-righteous crusade.

Now I see posters on the "loosen the reigns on the RCMP" bandwagon. They do not seem to understand how quickly we will fall into a totalitarian nightmare. If we do not stand our ground here and correct this egregious injustice, we are culpable when that day comes. You do not think politicians are plotting the destruction of our rights and freedoms, but that is because you are blind to human nature. Wake up! Make a stand! The time has come for us to become free men on this land!

[WhiteTiger]

Perhaps coincidentally, I have found an amusing and frequent correlation between those folks who whine the loudest about police/government interference in their lives and the ones who yell the loudest as soon as they get in some sort of trouble that requires city or federal assistance. There's also an interesting match between how much people claim they want government agencies to leave them alone, and how fast they try to sue/blame them if they aren't protected from their own stupidity...

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Perhaps coincidentally, I have found an amusing and frequent correlation between those folks who whine the loudest about police/government interference in their lives and the ones who yell the loudest as soon as they get in some sort of trouble that requires city or federal assistance. There's also an interesting match between how much people claim they want government agencies to leave them alone, and how fast they try to sue/blame them if they aren't protected from their own stupidity...

The human element.

There are about 12,500 High River residents you're not seeing in the news right now, worried about the future but quietly making adjustments.

Although I know a lot of people in a High River, having hung out there for 26 years more or less, I'm thinking this morning about a couple I met only a week before the floods.

I stopped by their place early on a Saturday morning. They were in their early 30's, sitting on their front porch in the sun, coffee mugs in hand, waiting for me to stop in to pick up a food product they were donating for the half marathon I was organizing. They had also supplied the same thing to the food tent at the Calgary Marathon. They made this food product in their basement. They told me business was booming. They were smiling and very happy on an early, sunny, summer morning.

A week later they would have been underwater. A big setback.

Individual stories multiplied by thousands.

Cowperson

[killer_carlson]

Cbc.ca lead story blaming the alberta flood on Failed climate change preparation plans by cities.

As for High River, this is getting absurd. The town bureaucracy and the RCMP need some serious PR advice right now. I am very sympathetic towards the townspeople who are displaced.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Cbc.ca lead story blaming the alberta flood on Failed climate change preparation plans by cities.

As for High River, this is getting absurd. The town bureaucracy and the RCMP need some serious PR advice right now. I am very sympathetic towards the townspeople who are displaced.

So what is a city like Calgary to do? Plan for more floods? drought? 20 years ago they would of been planning to stop the advance of glaciers into the city. Despite what some others might say there seems to be a lot of conflicting information about what climate change will bring - I saw an interview with Dr. Suzuki from a year or so ago on al jazeera where he flat said we have no idea who climate change will effect the weather.

[HockeyIlliterate]

1st time poster, 3-year lurker here....

I just wanted to say thanks to everyone in this thread for providing timely, on-point, and useful information over the course of the last week.

Information was being posted on here faster than seemingly anywhere else in Calgary, and it greatly helped in understanding what was going on and who was being affected. I don't know how you all were able to get the correct information so quickly and post it all so accurately, but this thread has been a great service to most Calgarians.

Thanks again.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Tell me where you live and I'll come right over to search your house when you're not home. You can nominate me for the "stupidest post" award if you want, but people like me--who give a rat's ass about freedom and personal rights--are the only thing protecting people like you from the type of authoritarianism that is the inevitable result of unchecked state power.

Manhattan, come on by the next time my entire neighborhood is washed away and declared a state of emergency.

Oh, and thank you so much for your fearless efforts to protect me, you really should get a medal.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by ken0042

It may not be a conspiracy, but it also isn't right. Sure- if they find a gun sitting on the kitchen table, they might want to secure it. But this does seem a little excessive to me.

What I don't get is why authorities can't try to meet the residents part way? Maybe tell the Alderside refugees they can select X number of people to go into town accompanied. These people may have lost everything they own in the world. Both sentimental items and expensive items. Some people stand to lose 100's of thousands of dollars. Others had to fight to get them to check in on pets.

I get that there are risks to allowing people into the town. As suggested earlier, make the people sign a waiver saying they understand the risks.

Waivers are often worth little more than the paper they are printed on. If there are known risks and people are allowed in there is the potential for liability, regardless of a waiver.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Tell me where you live and I'll come right over to search your house when you're not home. You can nominate me for the "stupidest post" award if you want, but people like me--who give a rat's ass about freedom and personal rights--are the only thing protecting people like you from the type of authoritarianism that is the inevitable result of unchecked state power.

[ae118]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Yes, you're in the wrong country, CubeInmate. I think you'd be more comfortable down south.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by SebC

You know, I think if my camera was left sitting in my residence, but I wasn't allowed to go in and the police were, I might appreciate them picking it up and storing it away from potential looters.

I really don't know how I feel about this. The situation you listed above is not exactly comparable to what happened with these guns.

It would be like the RCMP seeing your laptop and taking it for safe keeping and only returning it to you if you can present the receipt. It is also not the RCMPs job to hold items to prevent looting, they are to prevent looting.

I think I can see the logic in taking the guns if there had been a problem already with looting in the town. Has there been any looting?

The optics are not great, if the RCMP had announced they were going to pull guns prior to doing it I think it would have been better.

I don't know a whole lot about what guns were taken, if there were rifles littering the floor in a house it is one thing, but if they are locked up with a trigger guard it is another.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

I really don't know how I feel about this. The situation you listed above is not exactly comparable to what happened with these guns.

It would be like the RCMP seeing your laptop and taking it for safe keeping and only returning it to you if you can present the receipt. It is also not the RCMPs job to hold items to prevent looting, they are to prevent looting.

I think I can see the logic in taking the guns if there had been a problem already with looting in the town. Has there been any looting?

The optics are not great, if the RCMP had announced they were going to pull guns prior to doing it I think it would have been better.

I don't know a whole lot about what guns were taken, if there were rifles littering the floor in a house it is one thing, but if they are locked up with a trigger guard it is another.

Assuming of course that your laptop is a deadly weapon

[Jimmy Stang]

It seems that the RCMP had to choose between the lesser of two evils:

- High River residents complaining that the RCMP let someone steal their guns, and having stolen guns to worry about.
- High River residents complaining that the RCMP are temporarily and securely storing their firearms, and no stolen guns to worry about.

I can understand the frustrations of not being allowed back into their homes, but it is obviously more complicated than letting some hero in a pickup truck wade into his home with no power, no sewer, and no running water. They make it sound as if the RCMP is part of a conspiracy when in fact it is quite simple: the town is not yet safe for habitation. I hope that for everyone's sake that it is soon. Surely the RCMP are not pleased to have to keep people from their homes either.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

"You people" should think about the quote/misquote (sources vary) above. If you don't believe in that, then quite honestly, there's as little point for me to argue with you as there is for you to argue with me. Neither of us will talk sense into the other, so I'm going to bed.

To harp on you a bit more, this Franklin quote is about Martial Law, but it's been misappropriated in recent years by libertarian weirdos to make hay about "ARE GUNZ AND OBAMA IS TAKING THEM BIG GUBBERMINT FOUNDING FATHERRRRSZSSSSSS"