From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V7 #302 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Errors-To: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Cdn-Firearms Digest Friday, July 23 2004 Volume 07 : Number 302 In this issue: Summer biathlon training Court lets RCMP off the hook: Woman sued police BASELINE: Canada Firearms: Armed Robbery Re: BASELINE: Canada Firearms: Armed Robbery My letter to the New Tecumseth Free Press Online letter to Post, Citizen (unpub) ... More letters to the New Tecumseth Free Press Online Police can't 'fish' for evidence, Supreme Court rules Police can't fish fo evidence legitimizing long arms ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 13:49:48 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Summer biathlon training PUBLICATION: Yellowknifer DATE: 2004.07.23 SECTION: Sports Check BYLINE: With Chris Puglia - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sports Check - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summer biathlon training Advanced and beginner biathletes are shooting up the range for dry land training. Every Tuesday at 7 p.m. the athletes head to the biathlon range at the Yellowknife Ski Club to practise. Plans are to move the advanced athletes to Thursday and keep the beginners training on Tuesdays. Coach Rick Bolivar said beginner practices are open to anyone interested, but they are limited by the number of rifles the club has. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 13:50:04 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Court lets RCMP off the hook: Woman sued police PUBLICATION: Vancouver Sun DATE: 2004.07.23 EDITION: Final SECTION: News PAGE: A1 / Front BYLINE: Ai Lin Choo SOURCE: Vancouver Sun ILLUSTRATION: Color Photo: Ian Lindsay, Vancouver Sun / Bonnie Mooney hasbeen pursuing her case in the courts for eight years. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Court lets RCMP off the hook: Woman sued police for failing to prevent ex-mate from maiming daughter, killing best friend - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The B.C. Court of Appeal Thursday dismissed a woman's lawsuit that claimed the RCMP was liable for the actions of her estranged common-law husband, who maimed her daughter, killed her best friend and then shot himself in a violent rampage in 1996. Bonnie Mooney sued the police for failing to protect her, for failing to prevent the death of her best friend and for the injury to her daughter. In April 1996, Mooney's ex-common-law partner, Roland Kruska, broke into her house carrying a sawed-off shotgun. After cutting power and telephone lines Kruska killed Mooney's best friend, Hazel White, shot Money's then 12-year-old daughter in the upper arm, and set the house on fire before killing himself with the shotgun. Several weeks before the attack, Mooney went to Prince George RCMP to report that Kruska chased her in his vehicle after an argument. The officer took a statement from Mooney and advised her to get a lawyer. Her case was then closed and left uninvestigated. Kruska was on probation at the time after serving 21 days in jail for choking Mooney and beating her with a cane. He had also been convicted of manslaughter in 1979, and of sexual assault in 1985. The appeal court panel ruling upheld trial judge Justice Ross Collver's decision, which stated that the police are guardians and not guarantors of public safety. Collver found the police officer was negligent, but said there was no direct evidence to suggest the RCMP's failure to investigate her complaint caused the violent outburst. "It's been an eight-year battle and justice hasn't been served," Mooney said after Thursday's court decision was released. "Believe me, it ain't over yet. We're taking this to the Supreme Court of Canada." The case has focused attention on how police should handle cases of domestic violence, and whether they should be held accountable under private law. Mooney's appeal is reminiscent of the so-called Jane Doe affair in Toronto, when a female rape victim successfully sued police for failing to warn her and other women that a serial rapist was assaulting women in her neighbourhood. Mooney's suit against the RCMP, the attorney-general of B.C. and the federal Department of Justice was first argued in 2001. It went to the appeal court last year where her lawyer argued that the 1996 shooting could have been prevented if the police officer had fulfilled his duty. On the night of the shooting, Kruska broke into Mooney's Cluculz Lake home through a sliding glass door. Mooney, her two daughters, and Hazel White, her best friend, were asleep. When Mooney realized he was in the house she escaped through a window. Kruska shot Mooney's 12 year-old daughter in the upper arm and shot White in the back, killing her. Mooney describes the ordeal as life-changing and says she and her daughters still suffer psychologically and physically. "It's ripped our family apart," she said. "What does the decision say? It says Hazel's life meant nothing." Women's groups said Thursday's appeal court decision is deplorable and argue Mooney's case points to larger systemic problems surrounding police responses to domestic violence. "I think this judgement sends out a message that will further discourage women from using the police," said Samantha Kearney of the Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter. "Police protection is a simple request that each and every woman in Canada should be entitled to." The transition house was granted intervener status during the appeal proceedings, allowing it to tell the court why the case is an equality issue. The appeal decision was not without dissent. Justice Ian Donald, one of the three appeal court judges, decided the circumstances of the case were strong enough to allow the appeal. "In my judgement, the right to police protection in these circumstances is so strong and the needs for teeth in the domestic violence policy so great that the causal linkage must be found sufficient to ground liability," Donald said in his decision. Mooney's lawyer, Henry Wood, said that even though he's disappointed with the dismissal, Donald's dissent is encouraging, especially in light of an anticipated appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. "The decision indicates that the issues are not straightforward and caused the court some difficulty," he said. "It's discouraging, but the [court] process is deliberately set up as a multi-stage one and it's not over yet." alchoo@png.canwest.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 13:50:20 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: BASELINE: Canada Firearms: Armed Robbery BASELINE The Project Management Centre July 1, 2004 Canada Firearms: Armed Robbery By Mel Duvall http://www.baselinemag.com/article2/0,1397,1620245,00.asp ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 14:14:07 -0600 (CST) From: 10x <10x@telus.net> Subject: Re: BASELINE: Canada Firearms: Armed Robbery At 01:50 PM 7/23/04 -0600, you wrote: > > >BASELINE >The Project Management Centre > >July 1, 2004 >Canada Firearms: Armed Robbery >By Mel Duvall > >http://www.baselinemag.com/article2/0,1397,1620245,00.asp > "2001 Government extends amnesty program to Dec. 31, 2002, to turn in newly restricted weapons such as .25 and .32 caliber handguns." These firearms were classed as restricted since 1934. Then new legislation has reclassified them as prohibited and has allowed current owners to keep them. If those who researched this report don't understand this, then what other errors have they made due to misunderstanding. Also, these individuals seem to have discounted the numbers of firearms owners in Canada and the numbers of firearms in Canada. At least 14 million guns as of 1998 according to those on the Firearms Users Group who had access to Department of Justice numbers on firearms in Canada. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:15:39 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: My letter to the New Tecumseth Free Press Online Just submitted, not yet printed. Have you written a letter today? - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Crown withdraws charges, OPP officers cleared in takedown Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:54:49 -0400 From: Bruce Mills To: tony.veltri@sympatico.ca Imported from Toronto Crown Attorney Lisa Cameron's decision not to proceed with charges against the three OPP "officers" who brutalized and humiliated Jonathan Logan is as incomprehensible as it is unconscionable! What did she expect the answer from the Ontario Police College, which trains OPP officers, to be? Since when is it acceptable for an organization to absolve itself of wrongdoing? If the actions by these "officers" were "appropriate" and "by the book", does she not think it incumbent upon her to put these "standard procedures" on trial? Cameron's decision has doomed all law-abiding gun owners to the same "standard procedures" as Mr. Logan had to suffer. Police "officers" may now harass and humiliate us at will. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:16:20 -0600 (CST) From: "Robert S. Sciuk" Subject: letter to Post, Citizen (unpub) ... Gun registry used for U.S. bungling study ... (fwd) Dear Sir/Madame, I read with great interest how the firearms registry represents a textbook case in mismanagement and a veritable cookbook of what not to do. I cannot believe that our civil service, however inefficient, even on their worst day, managed to bungle this so badly. For this level of incompetence, political intervention (and direction) is a given! In your article you indicated that "The U.S. study does not draw conclusions on whether the gun registry is effective in crime prevention, although it notes police rely on the database to determine if weapons are present before entering homes." This strikes me as odd in several respects. Any policeman who relies upon the information which is present in, and more importantly absent from, the electronic registry to determine how to respond to a domestic situation is risking much. While it may be interesting to know that a responsible firearms owner (licensed and registered) lives at a certain address, it does not follow that an irresponsible person does not have firearms simply because his name is absent from a list. Moreover, a person likely to actually use a firearm in an assault upon the officer is not likely to have either obtained a license, or registered their weapon(s). The Auditor General, Sheila Frasier, while taking shots at the registry and its problems was prevented from drawing any conclusions as to its efficacy. I suspect that the Liberal government do not want any consideration of whether the underlying principle of firearms registration is flawed. Upon reflection -- it most certainly is! I think there are other reasons to study the Canadian Firearms Act. It remains a textbook case of a government run amuck trying to invent a problem in order to solve it. It turns out that Canadians don't really have a problem with duck hunters, and they certainly cannot afford the solution. Let's just get tough on the real criminals instead, shall we? Sincerely, Robert S. Sciuk Oshawa, Ont. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:17:01 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: More letters to the New Tecumseth Free Press Online http://www.madhunt.com/letterhutchinsonjuly22.html End result different if officers had 'lived in the community' to the editor, The end result of the Crown's investigation into the OPP was a foregone conclusion. The cops acted according to the rules of engagement. This is what these kids are taught. There is no common sense taught to young officers. If any of the young officers had lived in the community they would have known that the "armed" man was a local hunter and a good guy. If the officers lived in the community there would not have been a take down. If the officers involved lived in the community, no one would have been embarrassed. If the officers lived in the community, no charges would have been laid against Jonathan Logan, and no charges would have been laid against the three officers. If the officers had of lived in the community none of this crap would have happened. There are two victims that come out of this affair. The main victim is Mr. Logan. He is a good guy and a well trained responsible hunter. The other victim is the OPP. Because of this incident, hunters across Ontario have less trust of the OPP than they ever have. The citizens of Baxter and Essa Township and New Tecumseth have less trust of the OPP because of this incident, and other similar incidents. Unfortunately, this will not be the last of these type of incidents. These kinds of "take down" procedures will continue as long as the OPP continues to be a transient police force. These incidents will continue in this community especially with the high turn over of young officers in the Nottawasaga detachment. The only OPP constant we have had in our community is Inspector Mark Allen, and Mr. Allen is 80 per cent of the problem. If Allen spent more time talking "with" his officers rather than "to" his officers, things might improve. If Allen spent more time on the streets than in his office things might improve. If Allen spent more time making sure his officers were not patrolling large geographic areas with only a few officers on duty things might improve. If Allen spent more time worrying about his staff rather than coming in under budget, things might improve. If Allen spent more time being a municipal cop rather than kissing the asses of municipal politicians things might improve. Do I really think things will change? Not a chance. Wayne Hutchinson, Alliston - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.madhunt.com/lettercmartinjuly23.html Using laws to justify bullying people There are some police officers who use the gun laws and the federal bias against gun owners as an excuse to bully people. Calvin Martin, QC, Toronto - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.madhunt.com/letterstoreyjuly23.html Doesn't know all the facts to offer an informed opinion to the editor, Do I know for sure that the officers did not "overreact"? No, I don't but the fact of the matter is, someone was concerned enough, called in about a man with a gun reportedly 300 yards away from large number of kids and adults at school ground soccer pitch. A report like this obviously warrants a serious response. The wisdom of hunting in this area could be called in question, but, again, I was not there, and am not qualified to judge. But in regards to Wayne Hutchinson's letter, you were not likely there either, were you? Was the caller a local? If so, why would the caller have even dialled the phone and instigated all of this "crap" as you put it, instead of automatically knowing the man with the gun to be a good guy. While the hunter in question may be the finest of gentlemen, how can you blame the officers for their actions to ensure the safety and security of all involved, directly or indirectly? The Professional Standards Bureau didn't seem to find a problem with the officers' actions. Having been involved in a scenario they investigated once before, they do not seem to me to be totally biased on the side of the officer. One could clearly interpret your statements about this scenario to mean that, in general, officers should live in the areas they police, get to know everyone, and anyone they get to know to be "good guys" be greeted like pals you meet on the street, and when a report of an armed individual comes in happens to be buddy? How many times have you read in the paper, or watched on the news, even locally, about the good guy that snapped and killed? What if this was a case of a not-so-good-guy and an Essa Township modified version of Columbine took place. I can only imagine how fast the fingers would be flying across the keyboard on Mr. Hutchinson's computer about how Mark Allen and the officers were inept and didn't respond appropriately had that been the case. Fortunately, this was not the scenario that played out. I sympathize with what all of the parties in this situation, and their families, have gone through at the time of the incident and since. I can also understand the stress someone in emergency services goes through when someone complains about your actions while serving the public, being a member of this professional group for 14 years. I would not expect Mr. Hutchinson to understand the situations emergency service personnel have to cope with considering his paycheque comes from brokering poultry deals and being a landlord, last I heard. Important contributions to society as well, but not the same scenarios are in his daily work routine. I have always found the vast majority of OPP, and other police service, officers to be dedicated professionals who diligently provide service to the public in an often thankless position. Have there been some individual officers that I have questioned the ethics and integrity of? Yes, but the same could be said about any profession, including chicken brokers and landlords. I have had nothing but positive, professional dealings with Mark Allen personally. I can say that without having any lip prints on my ass, seeing as I am not a politician, per the comment in Wayne's letter. Although I find humour in Mr. Hutchinson's all-knowing opinions in his many, oh-god so many, letters, and do not dislike the man personally. I sometimes have to ask why NASA has not drafted him if he knows so much about everything. I have yet to hear Mr. Hutchinson declare any intention to run for politics to be the driving force of making things right, in so many ways. How does that saying go? A little more action, a little less gabbing, goes a long way, Wayne. Trevor Storey, New Tecumseth - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.madhunt.com/lettermallenjuly23.html 'Actions of officers involved were inexcusable' to the editor, "Despite the stress placed on the officers by the intense media attention to this issue, the officers continued to come to work each day and serve their communities." This article, and more specifically the above quote, sicken me. Jonathan Logan was lawfully hunting with a license on his own property when some "soccer mom" decided that the fact that he had a gun was offending her and called the cops. What are the actual facts? Was he in plain view of the soccer field? Did he point a firearm at anyone? Did the soccer fans only "hear" shots? In my opinion the actions of the officers involved were inexcusable. I admit I have only heard one side of the story, but if the facts are as Mr. Logan states them then this should never have gone as far as it has. I would expect that these officers would be better trained in conflict resolution and be more aware of Canadian Gun laws. I am sure Mr. Logan stated he was simply hunting, but these "gung ho" police officers had to take him down with weapons drawn and proceed to assault him in front of his family and passerby's. According to Mr. Logan they even went as far as to not let his wife go into the house to get medication for his sick daughter, in my mind endangering her life. As much as I respect the work that most of our police officers do, they are not above the law and this kind of cover up of officer misconduct makes me sick. I hope there is a civil suit filed in this case and I hope it makes Mr. Logan a very rich man. His life is ruined by weapons charges and the only statement the police can make is that there officers are stressed by all of the media attention. Suck it up, princess. Mike Allen, Brampton - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.madhunt.com/lettercbantingjuly23.html Justice not served because it was outside public scrutiny to the editor, I feel in this case Jonathan Logan and his family, who have no doubt been permanently traumatized by the handling of this incident, deserved to have their charges against the O.P.P. officers decided by due process, in front of and by a Judge. Now the public will never know what really happened and no one will be held accountable. His supporters and those interested in civil rights of the individual gave it their best shot but they were fighting unlimited resources. If this incident in this area is condoned, I am sure there will be more. Lets watch and see. Carl Banting, Utopia - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.madhunt.com/letterrhobbsjuly23.html Communication would have solved the problem to the editor, RE: The Jonathan Logan case: Whatever is wrong with the OPP's Professional Standard's Bureau? Is it appropriate to knock a man down on his own property and pull down his pants in full view of his wife and children? It would have been considerably more appropriate to have talked to him first, and determined there was no risk or cause for action. Robert Hobbs Devon, AB ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:32:19 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Police can't 'fish' for evidence, Supreme Court rules http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/07/23/scoc_winnipeg040723.html Police can't 'fish' for evidence, Supreme Court rules Last Updated Fri, 23 Jul 2004 13:06:55 EDT OTTAWA - Police officers can temporarily detain suspects if they have reasonable grounds, but they can't go on "fishing expeditions" for evidence in the pockets of people they're detaining, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Friday. The decision upholds a ruling by a trial judge in Winnipeg, who acquitted Phillip Henry Mann of possessing marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. Winnipeg police had stopped Mann on the street, saying he matched the description of a break-and-enter suspect. During a pat-down, police felt a soft object in his pocket. An officer reached in and discovered a bag of marijuana. The court wrote that reaching into Mann's pocket after feeling a soft object was "problematic" because the object didn't pose a security risk to the officer. "The search here went beyond what was required to mitigate concerns about officer safety and reflects a serious breach of (Mann's) protection against unreasonable search and seizure," the court wrote. "Individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their pockets," wrote Justice Frank Iacobucci in a majority decision that divided the court 5-2. Mann was acquitted at his initial trial, but an Appeal Court judge overturned the decision and found that the pat-down and search were allowed. Written by CBC News Online staff ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:06:41 -0600 (CST) From: "Jim Hill" Subject: Police can't fish fo evidence This is easily extended to "routine stops" on the hwy during hunting season where they question you on where you are going and why, are there any guns in the vehicle etc. When you allow your vehicle to be checked and firearms to be removed from cases so they can check serial numbers it goes beyond officer safety and becomes a fishing expedition also. Jim Hill Fletchers Lake, NS ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 18:36:08 -0600 (CST) From: "Todd Birch" Subject: legitimizing long arms A friend of a friend (honestly....) has two class long arms for sale. He has had them so long they are unregistered. He wants to part with them and I have found a potential buyer. This person wants to legitimize them to safeguard his professional status. He holds a valid PAL. I believe that he only needs to have them verified and apply to the CFC for registration. Is this the only thing he needs to do? Todd Birch ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V7 #302 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:moderator@hitchen.org List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca FAQ list: http://www.magma.ca/~asd/cfd-faq1.html and http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/homepage.html FTP Site: ftp://teapot.usask.ca/pub/cdn-firearms/ CFDigest Archives: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/~ab133/ or put the next command in an e-mail message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca get cdn-firearms-digest v04.n192 end (192 is the digest issue number and 04 is the volume) To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next five lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-alert unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".) If you find this service valuable, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the freenet we use: Saskatoon Free-Net Assoc., P.O. Box 1342, Saskatoon SK S7K 3N9 Phone: (306) 382-7070 Home page: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/ These e-mail digests are free to everyone, and are made possible by the efforts of countless volunteers. Permission is granted to copy and distribute this digest as long as it not altered in any way.