• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Active Shooter In NS. April 19 2020

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
4,976
Points
1,110
Disbarred lawyer who got kids drunk, and also represented Medellin Cartel members incarcerated in New Brunswick for flying $25M in cocaine, destined for Montreal? Check. Evidence of illicit drug smuggling? Check. Insurance fraud? Check. Tax fraud? Check, check and check.

Oh, and a plot to attack the NB jail and break out the smugglers? Check.

I presume you are referring to the piece of trash that slaughtered 22 people.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,964
Points
1,090
OT:

CPP isn't self-funded. Today's contributors pay today's recipients. There is a fraction covered by investment profits of the funds as well. Basically just taxing today's workers to pay yesterday's.
Incorrect. General revenues cover the majority of current expenditures. Current contributions are invested; those investments generate income which covers (in theory) program costs since the inception of the investment account.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,557
Points
1,010
Money's fungible. There's no meaningful separation between "money in" and "money out" which provides that the former is invested and the latter obtained from investment profits. That the CPPIB is able to build up the fund because contributions in exceed benefits out and the rate of return to plan members is frequently less than what the fund earns does not change that; it's just a solvency buffer.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
5,891
Points
1,110
Ignoring for a moment the content of her testimony, I'm curious which image consultant advised the Commissioner to appear out of uniform for her testimony.


I was curious about that today myself. I was told they’re all testifying in civilian clothes; potentially something to do with trauma informed practice or something. I just found Darren Campbell’s testimony, and from a super quick check it looks like he was in civvies too. I suspect what I was told is accurate, but don’t plan to dig any further than the tiny bit I have.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
9,190
Points
1,360
Ignoring for a moment the content of her testimony, I'm curious which image consultant advised the Commissioner to appear out of uniform for her testimony.


Well, there was that...yes, with her looking more like a civil servant than a policewoman...


Then there was what she actually said...


So which is it, Commissioner????

Is a question 'asking' or is it 'direction'?
The head of the RCMP has repeated her stance that she didn't deal with political pressure to make firearms details about the Nova Scotia mass shooting public, saying government officials were simply "asking" and not directing — which is a "big distinction."

Commissioner Brenda Lucki faced questions from the Mass Casualty Commission leading the public inquiry into the April 2020 mass shooting on Tuesday in Halifax, as well as from a lawyer for most of the victims' families.

Michael Scott of Patterson Law asked Lucki about various topics, including concerns from Nova Scotia RCMP members that the Liberal prime minister and minister of public safety wanted details of the perpetrator's firearms released ahead of their gun control legislation.

On Tuesday, Lucki again said that then-public safety minister Bill Blair never directed or ordered her to disclose the makes and models of the guns during the April 28, 2020, press conference — Blair's office was simply checking on whether it would be included.

"When somebody says 'can you do that?' that's to me direction, and it wasn't that at all. It was just an if — is that information going to be part of that media event?" Lucki said.

Interested Ooo GIF by reactionseditor
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,760
Points
1,140
Implied orders are still orders.

"Commissioner, can you do this because it would help us -and possibly you - if you did?"

"Yes, minister, I can".

"Good, good....."

Her appearance today in civvies is curious in that all her prior appearances before the MCC and SECU on a variety of topics have been in uniform. It could be an attempt by the GoC to "humanize" her in the eyes of counsel and the public or give a preview of her next career move.
 
Last edited:

lenaitch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,279
Points
1,040
My failing memory thinks that all the police witnesses have appeared out of uniform, but I admit I may be mis-remembering.

I tried to find if there had been any direction given by the Commission regarding police witnesses, which I could not, but did stumble across this little gem in its Rules of Practice and Procedure and recalled that the government had initially withheld documents related to a police witness (Campbell's notes of meeting with Lucki?). saying that they were reviewing whether there was any privilege:

Privilege 19.Where a Participant objects to the production of any document on the grounds of privilege, a true copy of the document will be produced in an unedited form to Commission Counsel who will review and determine the validity of the privilege claim. In the event the Participant claiming privilege disagrees with Commission Counsel’s determination, the Commissioners, on application, may inspect the impugned document(s) and make a ruling.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
4,976
Points
1,110
Ignoring for a moment the content of her testimony, I'm curious which image consultant advised the Commissioner to appear out of uniform for her testimony.

Terrible - she and the other RCMP uniformed members should have been in scarlets IMO. Its an inquiry and its serious business.
 

Booter

Full Member
Reaction score
770
Points
810
Terrible - she and the other RCMP uniformed members should have been in scarlets IMO. Its an inquiry and its serious business.
They actually steer us away from that at inquiries. I don’t recall the exact reason but there was one provided to me years ago.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
723
Points
1,260
I’m
Guessing here you’d be intimidating the panel.

For an inquiry, maybe something in between a ceremonial outfit, and civvies. Like the dark business-style uniform.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,641
Points
1,260
Not related necessarily. But interesting and more woes for the NS RCMP.


I'm now hearing people openly say if the RCMP interacts with them they will call 911 to verify The officer before interacting.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
5,891
Points
1,110
Not related necessarily. But interesting and more woes for the NS RCMP.


I'm now hearing people openly say if the RCMP interacts with them they will call 911 to verify The officer before interacting.
A couple of hard realities:

1. Communities will get the policing they’re willing to pay for.

2. Police mostly deal with problems that already exist, and that are not ultimately solvable by policing. We can arrest someone caught stealing to feed an addiction, but we can’t do anything about the addiction, and we also can’t do anything about what the courts do when an accused is before them.

To keep two police officers working 24/7, you’re going to need probably 15 officers all in to cover absences for vacation, training, parental, court attendance, illness etc., and the necessary supervisory structure. Figure $2m a year? Not a lot of small rural communities will be able to afford that. That means you’re sharing officers with a much larger area and other communities, and that will absolutely affect response times. You can save costs by not going 24/7 and having an on call model, but that means when the 911 call comes in, dispatch may be calling two officers to wake them up.

You want real improvement? Look upstream in the problem set. Deal with addiction, housing unaffordability, and mental health before it becomes a 911 call.
 

Booter

Full Member
Reaction score
770
Points
810
Not related necessarily. But interesting and more woes for the NS RCMP.


I'm now hearing people openly say if the RCMP interacts with them they will call 911 to verify The officer before interacting.
I’ve been places for periods where everyone calls to verify the identity of police. I’ve been called in multiple times- 911 to report a fake police officer as well.

Also, with a meth problem in their small community- I guarantee several of the people in that meeting are complaining while also protecting their kids who use from consequences. When they want something done- it’s that they want something done to someone else- AND they are not calling in. Just complaining to each other. The staff sgt even says it in the article that they aren’t reporting crime.
 

Booter

Full Member
Reaction score
770
Points
810
A couple of hard realities:

1. Communities will get the policing they’re willing to pay for.

2. Police mostly deal with problems that already exist, and that are not ultimately solvable by policing. We can arrest someone caught stealing to feed an addiction, but we can’t do anything about the addiction, and we also can’t do anything about what the courts do when an accused is before them.

To keep two police officers working 24/7, you’re going to need probably 15 officers all in to cover absences for vacation, training, parental, court attendance, illness etc., and the necessary supervisory structure. Figure $2m a year? Not a lot of small rural communities will be able to afford that. That means you’re sharing officers with a much larger area and other communities, and that will absolutely affect response times. You can save costs by not going 24/7 and having an on call model, but that means when the 911 call comes in, dispatch may be calling two officers to wake them up.

You want real improvement? Look upstream in the problem set. Deal with addiction, housing unaffordability, and mental health before it becomes a 911 call.
Two officers on 24 hours with usual vacancy rates, vacation etc is a detachment of at least 21 officers without incurring massive overtime.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
5,891
Points
1,110
Two officers on 24 hours with usual vacancy rates, vacation etc is a detachment of at least 21 officers without incurring massive overtime.
Thanks, I wasn’t sure. I wasn’t factoring in some of the long term vacancy realities like long term sick leave and members pulled for secondments to other priorities, plus the lg time in filling spots when members transfer out.

So, closer to 2.5-3m in human costs, plus infrastructure and capital costs.
 
Top