Police warning extended as four shot and wounded in Gastown

[SpongeG]

Police warning extended as four shot and wounded in Gastown

An unprecedented warning by Vancouver police of a “high probability” of gang violence this past weekend has been given an open-ended extension after four people were shot and wounded Sunday morning on the sidewalks of Gastown.

“It’s not something we would retract unless we had a very good reason to – for example we made arrests,” Constable Jana McGuinness told a news conference on the sidewalk where the shooting occurred hours earlier as people were out celebrating Halloween.

Friday’s unusual warning was focused on the Halloween weekend, but Constable McGuinness said there is no longer a time limit, and that the public should remain alert in the coming days.

“[The advisory] is not necessarily limited to two days or three days,” she said. “That information that we have that concerned us enough to put out a notification is something we will continue to follow up on in the days to come.”

A spokesman for the regional anti-gang unit said there is a similar regional warning in effect, and noted that the Oct. 16 shooting of a man with gang links as he sat in his SUV at the Metrotown mall in Burnaby is helping to stir things up in the gang world in a manner that may be risky to the public.

“Is there a danger to the public? There is always a concern for public safety when we know these individuals deal with their disputes in an overt public fashion,” Sergeant Shinder Kirk of the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit said in an interview.

“We know there are several groups out there and certainly individuals among those groups that are at the core of this. However, we’re still out there trying to identify the other ones that might be participating in it,” he said.

“We know it’s not just restricted to Vancouver, and not just restricted to Surrey or any other community within Metro Vancouver.”

Sgt. Kirk noted Vancouver police were echoing an alert issued Thursday by Superintendent Tom McCluskie of the task force after police arrested seven gang members and their associates meeting at about 4:30 p.m. on Oct. 27 in Kensington Park. Police seized two assault rifles and a handgun.

In Vancouver, Constable McGuinness was not disclosing the specific nature of the information that spurred the release of the advisory, which said officers would be out in higher than usual numbers because the force received information “of a high probability of an increase in gang-related violence.”

Constable McGuinness conceded the tactic was “quite unusual” but necessary because police decided the public had a right to know about the increased police presence on the streets.

The warning was issued at about 6:30 p.m. Friday night. By 2:15 a.m. Sunday, officers were dealing with an “incredibly disturbing” incident in one of the city’s most popular tourist areas at Richards and Water Streets at the western entry into Gastown.

A group of people in their 20s were the targets of gunfire that left three women and a man – all believed to be innocent bystanders – with non-life-threatening injuries as they mingled on the sidewalk celebrating Halloween. Officers arrested two men, also in their 20s, who were known to police.

No weapon has been recovered.

...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1779874/

[cabotp]

This is going to be cold hearted but I don't give a bloody crap what others think.

If someone is known to police is known to be in a gang. Then the police should just find these people and shoot them cold dead. End of story no sympathy no funeral no nothing. The fact that these people are known already tells me they are guilty I don't need a court case to say they are guilty. These people are worth nothing their lives are worth nothing.

[nova9]

Originally Posted by cabotp

This is going to be cold hearted but I don't give a bloody crap what others think.

If someone is known to police is known to be in a gang. Then the police should just find these people and shoot them cold dead. End of story no sympathy no funeral no nothing. The fact that these people are known already tells me they are guilty I don't need a court case to say they are guilty. These people are worth nothing their lives are worth nothing.

i hope to god you never find yourself in any seat of power/influence. what you are describing is what happens in some of the most corrupt nations on our planet. you might think you sound all macho when you say stuff like that - in fact, i'd ideally like to go further and appoint myself as judge, jury, and executioner - but i'm glad people like you or me are not the authority otherwise the killing would not be limited to just gangsters, it would expand to any stupid people I ever saw.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by nova9

i hope to god you never find yourself in any seat of power/influence. what you are describing is what happens in some of the most corrupt nations on our planet. you might think you sound all macho when you say stuff like that - in fact, i'd ideally like to go further and appoint myself as judge, jury, and executioner - but i'm glad people like you or me are not the authority otherwise the killing would not be limited to just gangsters, it would expand to any stupid people I ever saw.

Uh at first you don't condone what I said. Yet at the end you talk about expanding it to stupid people as well. So which is it?

Don't worry I don't want to be in any seat of power in ever. I have no desire to be. At the same time though all the rights that are supposed to protect you and me also protect these gangsters and that to me is a big problem. The fact that they are known to police as being in a gang already tells me they are guilty of something.

[Yume-sama]

It might also help if they received more than a slap on the wrist and probation after a short sentence.

I'm talking deportation back to their Country of origin, as a lot of the criminal element did not ORIGINATE in Canada~

[Pinion]

Up until mid august I walked across that intersection every Sunday morning for work.

My brother drove through there five minutes after it happened.

Now I work in an even worse neighbourhood! Yay!

[DKaz]

All the victims were innocent bystanders, I assume not known to police? That's scary.

[nova9]

Originally Posted by cabotp

Uh at first you don't condone what I said. Yet at the end you talk about expanding it to stupid people as well. So which is it?

Don't worry I don't want to be in any seat of power in ever. I have no desire to be. At the same time though all the rights that are supposed to protect you and me also protect these gangsters and that to me is a big problem. The fact that they are known to police as being in a gang already tells me they are guilty of something.

i'm afraid you didn't fully get my point. i'm saying that your thoughts are that revolutionary or that unique. I and many others have those thoughts too but we have the ability to understand that there is no way a civilized and democratic society would ever devolve to such a state where those most authoritarian of thoughts would be standard policy.

And so what if they are known members? Due process means unless you can prove to the courts that they are guilty of something, society must treat them as innocent. It doesn't mean we treat them with respect but we have to be careful about just assuming guilt - i hope to god you are never charged or accused of any crime under your desired reality.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Phusion

I was going to say the exact same thing about another one of his posts. His radical ideas have no place in civilized society

And gangs belong in a civilized society as well

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by nova9

i'm afraid you didn't fully get my point. i'm saying that your thoughts are that revolutionary or that unique. I and many others have those thoughts too but we have the ability to understand that there is no way a civilized and democratic society would ever devolve to such a state where those most authoritarian of thoughts would be standard policy.

And so what if they are known members? Due process means unless you can prove to the courts that they are guilty of something, society must treat them as innocent. It doesn't mean we treat them with respect but we have to be careful about just assuming guilt - i hope to god you are never charged or accused of any crime under your desired reality.

While I do support the due process and people being innocent until proven guilty. I also feel a lot of gangsters get away on bogus technicalities. Lawyers have turned the courts into a circus. The lawyer that comes up with the best excuse wins. Even if the evidence does point to the fact that that the defendant did commit the crime.

You may think I'm a radical. I'm not going to go out and promote the idea. But I will always think that gangsters should not have the same rights as you and I. Same with former sex offenders and people getting out of jail on parole on murder charges or such things. In those cases I feel a tighter watch on them is needed. Even if it does violate their rights.

[Overground]

I don't think there is many people on the street that would object to gathering up these animals and sticking them on an Arctic iceflow and cast off for good. But, besides bringing Charles Bronson back from the dead - these thugs are terrorists and should be treated as such under Canada's anti-terrorism laws. Anyone with any connection to these "gang" members should be as well. The Anti-terrorism Act is "aimed at disabling and dismantling the activities of terrorists groups and those who support them."

Are gangs not groups of people with the intent to break the law and cause death to others to support their beliefs and crime? Surely anyone who premeditates firing weapons into innocent people in public areas and have no regard if these people die or not, are terrorists, full stop. So the question is, can organised gangs be defined as terrorists? If they can be, then the Anti-terrorism Act could possibly hamper gang activity.


Highlights of the Anti-terrorism Act:

* It gives the police wide, sweeping powers to act on suspected acts of terrorism.
* It allows suspected terrorists to be detained without charge for up to three days.
* It makes it easier for the police to use electronic surveillance, which used to be seen as a last resort.
* It allows for preventive arrests.
* It allows judges to compel witnesses to give evidence during an investigation.
* It allows for the designation of a group as a terrorist organization.


The legislation makes it a crime to:

* Knowingly collect or provide funds, either directly or indirectly, in order to carry out terrorist crimes. Using this definition, the Crown must prove that the accused collected, provided or made available funds that he or she knew would be used to help a terrorist group. Canadian courts would be given the jurisdiction to try this offence even if it were committed outside Canada, when the accused is found in Canada. The maximum sentence for this offence would be 10 years.


* Knowingly participate in, contribute to or facilitate the activities of a terrorist group. The participation or contribution itself does not have to be a criminal offence and would include knowingly recruiting into the group new individuals for the purpose of enhancing the ability of the terrorist group to aid, abet or commit indictable offences. The maximum sentence for the offence of participating or contributing would be 10 years imprisonment. The maximum sentence for facilitating would be 14 years imprisonment.

* Instruct anyone to carry out a terrorist act or an activity on behalf of a terrorist group (a "leadership" offence). This offence carries a maximum life sentence.

* Knowingly harbour or conceal a terrorist. The maximum sentence for this offence would be 10 years.

[quobobo]

This sure turned into a CBC news comment thread quickly.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by quobobo

This sure turned into a CBC news comment thread quickly.

Don't you mean the opposite? CBC news commentators would be blaming the Liberals for the lack of social program funding.

[delboy]

Originally Posted by cabotp

This is going to be cold hearted but I don't give a bloody crap what others think.

If someone is known to police is known to be in a gang. Then the police should just find these people and shoot them cold dead. End of story no sympathy no funeral no nothing. The fact that these people are known already tells me they are guilty I don't need a court case to say they are guilty. These people are worth nothing their lives are worth nothing.

I knew of a fella who thought it was a good idea to shoot criminals, amongst others,his name was Adolf Hitler.

[delboy]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

It might also help if they received more than a slap on the wrist and probation after a short sentence.

I'm talking deportation back to their Country of origin, as a lot of the criminal element did not ORIGINATE in Canada~

No, but most do. Problem here is that we don\t have significant sentences for so called disruption offences, such as selling drugs, carrying firearms etc, and anti gang legisltation is diffucult to prove. these activites are rife in crime groups and are much easier to prove than larger conspiracy or murder charges. If one was sent to jail for say, 5-10 for carring a firearm, the police would be better placed to deal with the issues. However, it's not the case, a gangster would be lucky to do 6 months here.

[delboy]

Originally Posted by Overground

I don't think there is many people on the street that would object to gathering up these animals and sticking them on an Arctic iceflow and cast off for good. But, besides bringing Charles Bronson back from the dead - these thugs are terrorists and should be treated as such under Canada's anti-terrorism laws. Anyone with any connection to these "gang" members should be as well. The Anti-terrorism Act is "aimed at disabling and dismantling the activities of terrorists groups and those who support them."

Are gangs not groups of people with the intent to break the law and cause death to others to support their beliefs and crime? Surely anyone who premeditates firing weapons into innocent people in public areas and have no regard if these people die or not, are terrorists, full stop. So the question is, can organised gangs be defined as terrorists? If they can be, then the Anti-terrorism Act could possibly hamper gang activity.


Highlights of the Anti-terrorism Act:

* It gives the police wide, sweeping powers to act on suspected acts of terrorism.
* It allows suspected terrorists to be detained without charge for up to three days.
* It makes it easier for the police to use electronic surveillance, which used to be seen as a last resort.
* It allows for preventive arrests.
* It allows judges to compel witnesses to give evidence during an investigation.
* It allows for the designation of a group as a terrorist organization.


The legislation makes it a crime to:

* Knowingly collect or provide funds, either directly or indirectly, in order to carry out terrorist crimes. Using this definition, the Crown must prove that the accused collected, provided or made available funds that he or she knew would be used to help a terrorist group. Canadian courts would be given the jurisdiction to try this offence even if it were committed outside Canada, when the accused is found in Canada. The maximum sentence for this offence would be 10 years.


* Knowingly participate in, contribute to or facilitate the activities of a terrorist group. The participation or contribution itself does not have to be a criminal offence and would include knowingly recruiting into the group new individuals for the purpose of enhancing the ability of the terrorist group to aid, abet or commit indictable offences. The maximum sentence for the offence of participating or contributing would be 10 years imprisonment. The maximum sentence for facilitating would be 14 years imprisonment.

* Instruct anyone to carry out a terrorist act or an activity on behalf of a terrorist group (a "leadership" offence). This offence carries a maximum life sentence.

* Knowingly harbour or conceal a terrorist. The maximum sentence for this offence would be 10 years.

Nice try, but no, not terroists. And suspension of rights under the Charter and extended detentions etc, are considered highly unusuall. Bill C 14 deals with the issue of gangs and imposes harsher penalties if criminal acts can be attributed to gang groups.....good luck though, it's very, very difficult to prove. The amount of police resources that would be required make the bill laughable and is of little use to the police. Even the Hells Angels have not been successfully proven to be an organised crime by definition of the law. Despite project E Pandora that spent years, and millions and millions of dollars trying to prove it.

As I noted, we need distruption offences to take the groups apart from the inside. Catching these idiots with guns and drugs is not that difficult.

[djh]

The Police blame the Legal System
The Legal System blames the Politicians
The Politicians blame the Voting Public
The Voting Public blame the Police...

[delboy]

Originally Posted by djh

The Police blame the Legal System
The Legal System blames the Politicians
The Politicians blame the Voting Public
The Voting Public blame the Police...

BS...we, that is the police, have to play by the rules and follow the law. Everything we do is governed by the Charter...read sections 7, 8, 9 and 10. Common law and Case Law define and interpret the law. The criminal code lays out legal requirements that the police have to meet. If we don't follow it evidence is lost, charges are stayed and criminals go free.

Bit like playing a game of hockey where one team must follow the rules and the other can do what the hell it pleases.

nice try mr arm chair quarter back..

[Yume-sama]

I'm not sure how the public could perceive the blame to be that of the police. Usually disparaging comments are made at the legal system, and yes, the legal system does blame the politicians, and in the end nobody does anything about anything. If anything, I'm surprised the police still bother to go through the hours of writing reports only to have a dangerous offender released before the ink is dry, ready to re-offend.

What's a criminal record do in this Country anyways ? Certainly doesn't seem to matter in court.

How many times do you hear "so and so had 23 prior convictions for (insert criminal act here), and was out on probation"

[delboy]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

I'm not sure how the public could perceive the blame to be that of the police. Usually disparaging comments are made at the legal system, and yes, the legal system does blame the politicians, and in the end nobody does anything about anything. If anything, I'm surprised the police still bother to go through the hours of writing reports only to have a dangerous offender released before the ink is dry, ready to re-offend.

What's a criminal record do in this Country anyways ? Certainly doesn't seem to matter in court.

How many times do you hear "so and so had 23 prior convictions for (insert criminal act here), and was out on probation"

to get a real perspective on how broken the system is here, try sitting in on first apperances in court room 100 at 222 Main Street, it's a real eye opener. Many breaches, such as no go breaches or no contacts etc, are largely plead out with the time spent in jail overnight as the penalty. It's a real production line with many of the criminals laughing at the court.

It really is a thankless job, but we are only as good as the tools that we have, so yes we do lay blame on the legal system and rightly so.