[Regina]

Just reading the current story in the Globe and Mail and it seems this whole story keeps changing as time goes on.................in fact now Police are preparing to storm a rural Alberta home that has been surrounded since a shooting. The injuries to the police have changed as well as the number of people involved.
One of the things I read was that there was someone who was threatening to kill someone a few days earlier. I would assume that if that was true AND the person had a weapon, it would have been a good call to get that out of that person's hands.
Don't think we'll know how it all went down for some time to come.

[Regina]

"Residents also said police responded to a domestic disturbance at a rural trailer just outside of Hardisty on the weekend, an incident that was the talk of the town even before news spread of the shootings. Rumours were flying that a man wanted to kill somebody in Hardisty.

“Everybody knew about it,” said Michael DeSantos, president of the local Chamber of Commerce, but he didn’t know the identity of the alleged victim."

[andyt]

One man has been found dead in that home. They are still looking for another deemed armed and dangerous. If "everyone knew" why didn't the police? If the police were shot in the torso, why weren't they wearing vests? This sounds like Mayerthorpe all over again. The cops seem to get too slack with this sort of stuff. If you're going to a house with a weapon in it, surely you exercise some precaution. It certainly doesn't sound like what Bart wants to make it - the police just arbitrarily wanting to seize a weapon.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

If "everyone knew" why didn't the police? If the police were shot in the torso, why weren't they wearing vests?

They were. But 'bulletproof' doesn't mean 100% bullet proof. The weapon they were looking for (from reports) was a .45 calibre. Point blank, most standard issue vests won't stop it.

andyt andyt:

This sounds like Mayerthorpe all over again. The cops seem to get too slack with this sort of stuff. If you're going to a house with a weapon in it, surely you exercise some precaution. It certainly doesn't sound like what Bart wants to make it - the police just arbitrarily wanting to seize a weapon.

It sounds nothing like Mayerthorpe. It sounds like what police across the country face on a daily basis.

And Bart lives in a different world than us. I'm not a fan of the long gun registry, but handguns have always been registered - and if there is a threat of death from the owner of a registered handgun I'm also the first to say "go and sieze the weapon" because that does not sound like a responsible owner.

[andyt]

$1:

Sgt. Patrick Webb says a search is on for a 27-year-man seen leaving the property Tuesday when four Mounties from the detachment in Killam were on the scene.
Webb says Sawyer Clarke Robison could be armed and dangerous, and should be considered a high risk. Members of the public should not approach him.
Police had said Tuesday that the public was not at risk.
Robison is not a suspect but is considered a person of interest.

Guess they're covering all the bases now.

$1:

"Once we knew who the people involved were, and once we knew there was some very significant weapons involved, we had to be extremely careful that we weren't walking into a situation that would put more members at risk."

Why didn't they know that beforehand?

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

If "everyone knew" why didn't the police? If the police were shot in the torso, why weren't they wearing vests?

They were. But 'bulletproof' doesn't mean 100% bullet proof. The weapon they were looking for (from reports) was a .45 calibre. Point blank, most standard issue vests won't stop it.

andyt andyt:

This sounds like Mayerthorpe all over again. The cops seem to get too slack with this sort of stuff. If you're going to a house with a weapon in it, surely you exercise some precaution. It certainly doesn't sound like what Bart wants to make it - the police just arbitrarily wanting to seize a weapon.

It sounds nothing like Mayerthorpe. It sounds like what police across the country face on a daily basis.

And Bart lives in a different world than us. I'm not a fan of the long gun registry, but handguns have always been registered - and if there is a threat of death from the owner of a registered handgun I'm also the first to say "go and sieze the weapon" because that does not sound like a responsible owner.

It sounds like Mayerthorpe because "everyone knew" except the cops. In these small communities, you'd think the cops would know exactly who they're dealing with.

It doesn't sound like they went to just seize a weapon - they were executing a search warrant. My guess is they were planing to arrest the owner as well if the weapon was found. Did they take adequate precautions for that scenario.

The spokesman said "now that we know who we're dealing with". Again, in a small community such as this, I would expect the cops to know who they're dealing with.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

...if there is a threat of death from the owner of a registered handgun I'm also the first to say "go and sieze the weapon" because that does not sound like a responsible owner.

Then, like I'm saying, if the RCMP were there to seize the weapon BECAUSE of a valid threat then why did they go in as if it were just a procedural matter?

Now you have me asking why they did not respond with MORE force?

I'm thinking the original take on the story is correct and the 'new information' is just spin being put out to justify what's happened.

One story says it was a domestic violence call with no mention whatsoever of a court order to seize a firearm:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... le2331001/

$1:

What provoked the shooting is unclear, but Sgt. Webb said it was related to a domestic violence call police investigated on the weekend, which had local residents abuzz.

Hate to say, but I'm wondering if the RCMP showed up on a domestic violence call and then asked if there were any guns in the home. Joe Bob Citizen probably said 'yes' at which point the RCMP went nuclear and Joe Bob got shot by the RCMP and then someone else in the house got the drop on the RCMP.

I'm not saying this as a slam on the RCMP, I'm saying it because both perps and cops alike have problems with getting their stories consistent when they're trying to cover up a clusterf*ck. In this case it is abundantly clear that the story from the RCMP is the story that keeps changing direction as actual facts surface.

I say that because no one has heard from the perps yet. Oh, and one of them is dead and he'll be saying whatever the cops want him to say.

Going back to my previous point, if the RCMP were there to respond to an overt threat of armed violence then they're guilty of gross incompetence for going in woefully unprepared...and I don't believe the RCMP would do that. Therefore, I think there's an element of BS and spin in their various accounts of what transpired.

No doubt the RCMP Internal Affairs folks are thinking the same things, too.

[andyt]

I'm coming from a different place than you Bart, but thinking much the same thing. And you know we're going to get flamed here for being cop haters, right?

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

I'm coming from a different place than you Bart, but thinking much the same thing. And you know we're going to get flamed here for being cop haters, right?

I really don't know what to think. So many reports, all of them different. None of them seem to add up to any sort of sense. I guess time will tell.

And I don't think Andy, that any of the LEOs here would begrudge anyone from asking questions. I'm sure they are doing the same thing.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

I'm coming from a different place than you Bart, but thinking much the same thing. And you know we're going to get flamed here for being cop haters, right?

I'm an extreme part-time LEO so I hope I don't get the 'cop hater' label. I've seen stuff and I'm not so deeply into the Cop Club that I'm willing to excuse any and every action taken by people with badges and guns.

Which is probably a contributing factor to my not being called for duty all that often.

[andyt]

Nice reasonable post Caleb - let's see if you're right. Of course we're just armchairing and right now nobody really knows what happened, including the cops. Never stopped us before tho. And I think Bart makes a good point that the cops will spin the story to put themselves in a best light, even as they likely ask themselves hard questions on how to prevent this sort of thing.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

Nice reasonable post Caleb

I +'d him for you.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

...if there is a threat of death from the owner of a registered handgun I'm also the first to say "go and sieze the weapon" because that does not sound like a responsible owner.

Then, like I'm saying, if the RCMP were there to seize the weapon BECAUSE of a valid threat then why did they go in as if it were just a procedural matter?

Now you have me asking why they did not respond with MORE force?

I'm thinking the original take on the story is correct and the 'new information' is just spin being put out to justify what's happened..

Like you said, it could just be a form of de-escaltion or again, we don't know the whole situation. I'm just jugding by the conversations I heard on the radio this morning that neighbours knew what was going on, and that the RCMP were called because of a death threat, and they had a vaild warrant to sieze a .45 calibre weapon in the residence.

The only reason I could think they would do that is if they knew it was there, and therfore it was registered.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

One story says it was a domestic violence call with no mention whatsoever of a court order to seize a firearm:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... le2331001/

$1:

What provoked the shooting is unclear, but Sgt. Webb said it was related to a domestic violence call police investigated on the weekend, which had local residents abuzz.

Hate to say, but I'm wondering if the RCMP showed up on a domestic violence call and then asked if there were any guns in the home. Joe Bob Citizen probably said 'yes' at which point the RCMP went nuclear and Joe Bob got shot by the RCMP and then someone else in the house got the drop on the RCMP.

I'm not saying this as a slam on the RCMP, I'm saying it because both perps and cops alike have problems with getting their stories consistent when they're trying to cover up a clusterf*ck. In this case it is abundantly clear that the story from the RCMP is the story that keeps changing direction as actual facts surface.

I say that because no one has heard from the perps yet. Oh, and one of them is dead and he'll be saying whatever the cops want him to say.

Going back to my previous point, if the RCMP were there to respond to an overt threat of armed violence then they're guilty of gross incompetence for going in woefully unprepared...and I don't believe the RCMP would do that. Therefore, I think there's an element of BS and spin in their various accounts of what transpired.

No doubt the RCMP Internal Affairs folks are thinking the same things, too.

It could be that as well. Like Andy said, it's all 'armchairing' until an official statement is made.

Someone on the radio also wondered why they were surrounding the house if no one was in it. Well, this is Alberta, and the RCMP only do that in Newfoundland. (too soon?)

[andyt]

A dead guy was in it. They didn't know that he was dead. They said they were being cautious once they found out who they were dealing with and what kind of weapons (note plural) were involved. That would have been good info to have before going in the first place.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

A dead guy was in it. They didn't know that he was dead. They said they were being cautious once they found out who they were dealing with and what kind of weapons (note plural) were involved. That would have been good info to have before going in the first place.

I'd like the winning lottery numbers head of time too, but that won't happen either.