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

Idiotic responses to the idiot who shot 2 Mounties

Status
Not open for further replies.

GAP

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
24
Points
380
I did not want to put this in the condolance thread so: (might need to be put in radio chatter)

RCMP are investigating a letter to the Edmonton Sun they believe may have been penned by the prime suspect in the Saskatchewan Mountie murders.
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/2006/07/18/pf-1690151.html

The signature on the letter reads Curt Dagenais, wanted after constables Robin Cameron, 29, and Marc Bourdages, 26, were shot in the head July 7.

They died in hospital overnight Saturday.

The letter blames police and Dagenais's sister for the shooting.

"I feel terrible about what has happened, but they (police) would not leave me alone," states the letter.

The five-page letter was postmarked Friday at Shell Lake, Sask., a town of 172 people about 30 km from Spiritwood.

The officers were shot on the night of July 7 while chasing Dagenais, 41, after a domestic dispute in Spiritwood.

Shell Lake's website describes the town as being "surrounded by lakes, hills, forest and farmland."

The letter writer recalls the dispute, saying he wanted to remove some "so-called family of mine" from his home.

The writer said he and his mother Elsie own the property, "not my sister (Grace), who I wanted removed ... because she has told me things to mislead me, to give herself more time to screw me over as to division of family property due to the divorce of (my parents)."

The writer complains Mounties wouldn't help him remove his sister from the home, not because "it was family," as Mounties allegedly told him, but because of a pending civil lawsuit of his against Mounties over alleged "obstruction of justice and tampering with evidence." A Mountie spokesman yesterday couldn't confirm the suit.

Cameron and Bourdages arrived at the house, while the letter writer waited outside in his truck.

"Cameron said I was under arrest for assault and assault with a weapon. I couldn't believe it. I had a screaming match with my sister, but never touched her.

"When I (earlier) backed away (out of the yard) with my pickup, I didn't realize my steering was turned the wrong way and crowded Grace a bit. But Elsie and Grace can wrap any RCMP around their finger."

The writer said he was so startled at being under arrest he fled because he felt that was "within my rights."

During the chase that followed, the writer complains police "would ram me hard, hoping to spin me out of control, hoping that I would roll."

When he came to a stop at some trees, he said he didn't have a chance to get out of the truck before Mounties started firing at him. "They wanted to kill me, to hush me about their dirty work."

The writer alleged he was earlier assaulted by police in an unrelated matter.

He said he wrote the letter to the Edmonton Sun because he used to buy the newspaper on trips to Lloydminster, which straddles the Alberta-Saskatchewan border.

He said he likes the Sun "because if you people have something to print, you print it ...."

The writer complained media in Saskatchewan didn't want to run his side of the story.

Alberta RCMP spokesman Cpl. Wayne Oakes said the information would quickly be passed on to Saskatchewan counterparts.

While the letter, a copy of which was provided to the RCMP, "certainly could be" authentic, handwriting samples would be compared, as well as other tests, to confirm its authenticity, he said.

Lenore Jessop, Shell Lake's postmaster, said Mounties were in her post office shortly after the Mounties were notified of the letter yesterday. "They heard that he was in the area possibly, and to keep our eyes open. They were interested in the post box, was it locked at night."

Neither she nor a co-worker could recall seeing Dagenais.

The letter suggested phoning Dagenais' lawyer, Lori Gollan. Having seen the letter, she said it wasn't clear she was to comment on the case on his behalf. "I'd need some confirmation of that from my client," she said.

A spokesman for Dagenais's mother and sister said they were unavailable for comment yesterday
 
I hope when they find this shitpump they let the dog chew on him for nice long while... that is if he's taken alive...
 
paracowboy said:
kneel down. Face the ditch.
Or bite the curb. Either way.  May justice come swiftly, and harshly to this idiot.
 
sirukin said:
I've not met the guy, but I'd much rather have the whole story before I decide I'm going to pelt the guy with fruit at any possible court appearances.

The whole story?  He shot and killed 2 members of the RCMP.  What can you possibly think would excuse that?  What sort of extenuating circumstances could allow for that behaviour to be explained?

T
 
sirukin said:
This is indeed a tragedy, but sometimes I wonder if the media is really telling the whole story.
This is being sensationalized. This isn't news, this is entertainment. Fear-mongering.
I mean, everyone's initial reaction is "KILL THE BASTARD" rather than "why did this guy do this?"
I'm of course assuming he's lucid and rational, which is a safe bet because most people are.

shit happens. What counts is what's done afterwards.
Now I'm done preaching, hopefully the guy turns himself in before some crazy vigilante decides he's going to play
hero and begin shooting anyone who resembles the guy.
Which judging by the level of aggression for someone noone here has met is quite high.
I've not met the guy, but I'd much rather have the whole story before I decide I'm going to pelt the guy with fruit at any possible court appearances.
heh
shake your head.
 
sirukin said:
I'm not condoning this
I'm simply saying the blame lays as much on the circumstances as on the criminal himself.

You're going to have to be a lot more specific to connect the dots from the points in the article above to justifying two murders.
 
sirukin said:
I'm not condoning this
I'm simply saying the blame lays as much on the circumstances as on the criminal himself.

You are wrong, the blame lies with the criminal who pulled the trigger.
 
sirukin said:
sorry, I was just thinking that perhaps that the rcmp should have learned something from the monroe incident in northern alberta.
I really don't have all the facts. I drop my case. Let's find the guy and remove his testicles and skull frig his rotting corpse.

So, based on the Monroe case, what exactly do you think the Mounties "should have learned"?
 
sirukin said:
I don't know.
I certainly think that incidents like these are appearing in the news far more often than they should.
perhaps the influx of new(er) rcmp members is giving the force a larger predominence to have a more gung-ho attitude than in last decade or so.

You continue to make inferences without basis in fact.  That is called trolling.  Do you have anything substantial to add to this thread?

 
From his letter it sounds like maybe they were shooting at his tires and ramming his car during the chase....He would not have known what they were aiming at, and maybe felt like they were shooting to try to kill him. And then he returned fire towards their car....

What to learn? Don't shoot at people who have guns unless you have a bulletproof windshield.
 
You two have got to be kidding.  If the cops were firing at him, it's because he had passed the point that their ROE's allowed them to.  Simple as that.  What's to learn?  I think I'm learning that we still have morons alive and well who spout BS without knowledge.  ::)

T
 
sirukin...  be quiet... especially when you're behind a rock and a hard place

This guy definitely does not want to take responsibility for his actions

It doesn't seem rational to be within your rights to evade police when you are being arrested.
Last time I checked, that wasn't law.

It would appear he has some issues that are causing him not to think clearly..
however, that does relieve him of his responsibility of court and other actions.

 
DustyFoot said:
From his letter it sounds like maybe they were shooting at his tires and ramming his car during the chase....He would not have known what they were aiming at, and maybe felt like they were shooting to try to kill him. And then he returned fire towards their car....

What to learn? Don't shoot at people who have guns unless you have a bulletproof windshield.

So you're saying his paranoia justifies his shooting at cops?

And that the cops shouldn't try to confront people who may be armed?
 
I think it's pretty standard for cops to try to shoot out someone's tires during a chase. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with doing that. Just saying that when you shoot at someone who has a gun they are probably going to shoot back....

 
sirukin said:
I think the point is that perhap the rules aught to be changed.
I mean, two high profile incidents is a pretty good indication that perhaps fighting crime aught to be less dying and more fighting crime.
I'm sorry if that is crude, but personally I like my cops alive and well thank you very much.

Okay, I'm not saying this guy is justified in anything. Can I make it any more clear?

Which rules?
Changed to what?
At exactly what point do you want the cops to stop pursuing a criminal because he/she might be forced to try and kill them if they don't?
Justify any potential decrease to public safety.

 
Michael O'Leary said:
So you're saying his paranoia justifies his shooting at cops?

And that the cops shouldn't try to confront people who may be armed?

Not sure how you can infer that from what I said. I said what should be learned is that they need to have bulletproof windshields if they are going to be putting themselves in positions where they are going to be shot at from that angle.....

If I said a cop who gets shot should wear a bulletproof vest would that mean I am saying it was justified that he was shot?
 
Two RCMP officers were shot and killed. Examine it any way you want but I know how I see it. :rage:

The windshield comment...Common. Uncalled for.
 
DustyFoot said:
Not sure how you can infer that from what I said. I said what should be learned is that they need to have bulletproof windshields if they are going to be putting themselves in positions where they are going to be shot at from that angle.....

If I said a cop who gets shot should wear a bulletproof vest would that mean I am saying it was justified that he was shot?

Let's review:

DustyFoot said:
From his letter it sounds like maybe they were shooting at his tires and ramming his car during the chase....He would not have known what they were aiming at, and maybe felt like they were shooting to try to kill him. And then he returned fire towards their car....

What to learn? Don't shoot at people who have guns unless you have a bulletproof windshield.

Now, what should the cops do until they get these windhields? Nothing?

 
sirukin said:
I think the point is that perhap the rules aught to be changed.
I mean, two high profile incidents is a pretty good indication that perhaps fighting crime aught to be less dying and more fighting crime.
I'm sorry if that is crude, but personally I like my cops alive and well thank you very much.

Okay, I'm not saying this guy is justified in anything. Can I make it any more clear?

Sirukin, STFU.

Officers go into harm's way on a frequent basis, you have no right to second guess their actions unless you have been there yourself and done that, what do you know about "fighting crime" and the procedures that go into chases?

Stop typing, step back, shake head.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top