Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Aquittal of Basil Parasiril and Wife in Shooting of Officer


Recommended Posts

Yes. I have a lot of respect for our (Canadian) police, but they are just people like everyone else. They have their own institutional problems like everyone else does. You also raise another question, though: If it was not the guy that was killed, what to do with the officer(s) that did blow it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's nice to see that some on here get it.

For those who just chose to smear at me - have fun.

This has nothing to do with orgasms over the death of an officer - but of course some here just love to go at me. Knock yourselves out.

This does have to do with police misconduct during a raid on a family home - no announcement that they were police, no proper warning, no proper warrant. In the eyes of the law we are all equal - that IS the ideal, and thus it matters not whether the gent in question is a raving drug addict of a fundamental religious freak. We are all entitled to our liberty - and in this case this person's liberty and property were violated and those intruders paid the price. Sad - yes.

But justice did prevail in the courts in the form of the aquittal.

Hopefully the police will take better care at how the conduct these sorts of voilations in the future.

Glad to see though that some folk here do actually see the danger is allowing police and other paramilitary units unfettered powers, I guess there is some hope afterall for this forum. (albeit rather dim).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Was the officer killed responsible for getting the warrant and planning the raid or was he just a cop doing his job?

He was just following orders. Its entirely likely he was gung-ho about doing his job but the ultimate responsibility for his death lies with you Wilber. This is your fault.

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. I have a lot of respect for our (Canadian) police, but they are just people like everyone else. They have their own institutional problems like everyone else does. You also raise another question, though: If it was not the guy that was killed, what to do with the officer(s) that did blow it?

Well, what is it exactly that was blown? There was no information given on this guy's criminal history so what reasons did they have for entering the way they did. Not explained. This warrant that was declared illegal. What does that mean? Was it illegal because mistakes were made obtaining it or was it obtained fraudulently? Big difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman
Well, what is it exactly that was blown? There was no information given on this guy's criminal history so what reasons did they have for entering the way they did. Not explained. This warrant that was declared illegal. What does that mean? Was it illegal because mistakes were made obtaining it or was it obtained fraudulently? Big difference.

I don't get why the warrant was declared illegal, either. From what I understand, they shouldn't have had a warrant allowing "dynamic entry." Evidently the police should have rung the doorbell, according to what I've read. I'm sure that works great in a drug bust. Ring the doorbell and wait outside while the drugs are disposed of. <_<

As for not properly identifying themselves, according to police testimony, they repeatedly yelled "police" as they ran up the stairs to the bedroom.

Also, according to the police, during his interrogation Parasiris admitted that he had been involved in drug trafficking for three years to help get out of financial difficulties.

Edited by American Woman
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman
Quebec man acquitted in police officer slaying

Indeed - one which the warrants were invalid, one in which there was bad blood already between officer Tessier - all around a BS situation.

I'd appreciate clarification along with verification of your statement that there was already "bad blood between officer Tessier...."

What exactly to you mean by that, and where are you getting it from?

Link to post
Share on other sites
As for not properly identifying themselves, according to police testimony, they repeatedly yelled "police" as they ran up the stairs to the bedroom.

I imagine criminals passing themselves off as police during home invasions or to make a heist appear to be a bust from time to time. I'm quite sure its a real jungle out there.

Also, according to the police, during his interrogation Parasiris admitted that he had been involved in drug trafficking for three years to help get out of financial difficulties.

Governments traffic in alcohol to help get themselves out of financial difficulties as well. They also do this so the 'jungle out there' can be managed without people having to die over it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/443230

Cournoyer ruled before the trial the evidence used to obtain a warrant against Parasiris was insufficient, lacked detail and information and "the search warrant for Mr. Parasiris' residence should not have been emitted."

given the jury was not aware that the warrant was declared illegal, it would seem the evidence against the accused was pretty scanty.

I find it interesting to note that the officer in the article from the CBC said, "we found a variety of drugs"

"and 17 cellphones and pagers"

as if this is necessarily "sinister"

But, given the propensity this day and age for every single member of the family to have a cellphone this then being a bar owner, it is possible the man may have had one for business and one for personal.

Ditto for the pagers.

Were all the cellphones working? Active? Or in use?

That's not mentioned.

as for the "variety of drugs"

what drugs? prescription?

did he like so many these days have a variety of prescription drugs?

pain pills , sleeping pills, god , the way doctors prescribe this stuff!

if they were illegal drugs why wasn't he charged?

that is not mentioned , nor is it clear.

So it would seem, that statement, was meant as a means of throwing dirt, by employing inuendo and aspersion, onto the accused.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll buy the mistaken identity plea, he obviously thought he was being attacked by other gangsters.

how do you know he was a gangster wilber?

could you provide a link back that contention up?

I looked at several new stories wrt this incident, and didn't see any mention he was a gangster.

Link to post
Share on other sites
how do you know he was a gangster wilber?

could you provide a link back that contention up?

I looked at several new stories wrt this incident, and didn't see any mention he was a gangster.

Mr. Parasiris had four firearms in his home and only one was legally registered," Gariepy told a news conference Friday night. "We found a variety of drugs and 17 cellphones and pagers in the home."

What do you think he is, a priest?

Link to post
Share on other sites
From the former quote and the fact he admitted to dealing drugs, it is a pretty good assumption.

how many drugs are in your house?

because the cop didn't specify what the drugs were, what type, and no drug charges were persued.

I am just sticking to the facts of the case, as we know them.

Edited by kuzadd
Link to post
Share on other sites
how many drugs are in your house?

because the cop didn't specify what the drugs were, what type, and no drug charges were persued.

I am just sticking to the facts of the case, as we know them.

No, you are sticking to the facts that you wish to, so am I. I am not trying to make a case that the legal result should have been different. I don't know, but there is little doubt in my mind as to what this guy is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
how many drugs are in your house?

because the cop didn't specify what the drugs were, what type, and no drug charges were persued.

I am just sticking to the facts of the case, as we know them.

One more thing, if you have been following this thread and others you will know that time and time again when warrants have not been obtained or declared invalid, anything the police have found has not been admissible. It most likely wouldn't matter what kind of drugs they had found.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you think he is, a priest?

Any idea how many gangsters live out west?

Since many formerly law abiding gun owners refuse to register their weapons there are tons of them. Do you feel safe knowing your neighbour is a gangster? Not to mention they have drugs in the house.

Hell, I know a priest who is a gangster.

This world is going to hell in a handbasket.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, you are sticking to the facts that you wish to, so am I. I am not trying to make a case that the legal result should have been different. I don't know, but there is little doubt in my mind as to what this guy is.

good for you, their is little doubt.

but to me, it is not clear, at all.

I read a number of different news sources.

the cops said there were drugs in the house, so?

did he say what drugs, nope.

you see, when anna nicole smith and that actor , blonde guy died, there were "drugs in their house" also.

All prescription drugs, though.

which is why that kind of vague statement, could mean something or could mean absolutely nothing.

so how many drugs are in your house?

the number of cellphones and pages apparently totalled 14 or 17 or something like that, but there again, so what? how many of each one?, how many worked?, how many were activated????

doesn't say.

just some vague innuendo.

all adding up to alot of nothing, except for over active imaginations.

so how do you know he is a gangster, you don't. And from the little that was said, reported on, I am uncertain, how you drew that conclusion?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/443230

given the jury was not aware that the warrant was declared illegal, it would seem the evidence against the accused was pretty scanty.

The jury also wasn't aware that during interrogaton he had admitted to trafficking drugs for three years to get out of financial difficulties.

I find it interesting to note that the officer in the article from the CBC said, "we found a variety of drugs"

"and 17 cellphones and pagers"

as if this is necessarily "sinister"

"Sinister" or not, it's unusual, and therefore newsworthy.

But, given the propensity this day and age for every single member of the family to have a cellphone this then being a bar owner, it is possible the man may have had one for business and one for personal.

Ditto for the pagers.

That hardly adds up to 17. Honestly, how many families with 1 (7 year old) daughter and 1 (15 year old) son do you know that have 17 cellphones and pagers?

Were all the cellphones working? Active? Or in use?

That's not mentioned.

Perhaps because it's not really important whether they were working or not. I'll ask again, how many families with 1 (7 year old) daughter and 1 (15 year old) son do you know that have 17 working/non-working cellphones and pagers?

as for the "variety of drugs"

what drugs? prescription?

did he like so many these days have a variety of prescription drugs?

pain pills , sleeping pills, god , the way doctors prescribe this stuff!

if they were illegal drugs why wasn't he charged?

that is not mentioned , nor is it clear.

It was pot and cocaine, from what I've read, and not the large amounts that the police were expecting to find. If they were legal prescription drugs, it wouldn't have been newsworthy. It wouldn't have been mentioned. As for why he wasn't charged, as has already been pointed out, he wouldn't have been able to be charged with any evidence that was found once the warrant was declared illegal.

Like others here, I'm not questioning the verdict as much as I am questioning why the person who admitted to drug trafficking, who had four guns in his house, three unregistered and one registered to a different address, doesn't seem to be getting any criticism for the 'criticize the police' crowd. Again, all the police officers said they identified themselves as police.

I can understand why people would believe he should have been found not guilty, but at the same time, it seems to me there could/should be some respect for what police officers live with, the threats that they live with every day, what they do to protect society. To protect us. It seems to me there would be, along with support of the verdict, regret for an officer's death. Instead, it seems as if the police are being made out to be the villains while Parasiris is being made out to be a model citizen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Honestly, how many families with 1 (7 year old) daughter and 1 (15 year old) son do you know that have 17 cellphones and pagers?

I have , that I know of , 7 or 8 cell phones in a drawer. No kids in the house.

My point being it is totally a moot point. He could be anyone from a collector of such, to a drop off house for charity donations of cell phones.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lots, I wouldn't be surprised if they outnumbered the cops and a lot of them are better armed.

Yep, theres tons and tons of us gangsters out west. We're known as the "Pickup Truck Gangsters", and some are even the Horsey Gangsters.

You wouldn't believe the problems we have out here with "trot by" shootings. Not to mention the horses dropping land mines all over the street.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman
I have , that I know of , 7 or 8 cell phones in a drawer. No kids in the house.

My point being it is totally a moot point. He could be anyone from a collector of such, to a drop off house for charity donations of cell phones.

Ok, so you have a number of cell phones yourself; no pagers, but lots of cell phones. Point taken. But I never said Parasiris' possessing the large number of cell phones/pagers was "sinister." I said it was unusual, and I still think it is. I think the number of people who possess that many cell phones/pagers is much lower than than those who don't.

But the fact is, even though he could be a collector of such, or collecting them for charity, the fact that he had them is not a moot point because he could very well have had them for other reasons, too; reasons that could be sinister. So when police suspect drug trafficking, they aren't going to look at that and say 'oh well, it doesn't mean anything.' It definitely is worth checking out; therefore, it's not a moot point that he had them in his possession.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But the fact is, even though he could be a collector of such, or collecting them for charity, the fact that he had them is not a moot point because he could very well have had them for other reasons, too; reasons that could be sinister. So when police suspect drug trafficking, they aren't going to look at that and say 'oh well, it doesn't mean anything.' It definitely is worth checking out; therefore, it's not a moot point that he had them in his possession.

I know you didnt say it was sinister .

But by extension , we could change the "cell phones" and report he had a large amount of knives in his house. I have on last count about 15 quality knives including a large (15 inch curved blade) for carving hips of beef. (amateur chef here so I like knives)

The police, only once they have subpoenaed the cell records and made a link, or have recordings from them, can then say what they want.

My point is, it is all moot. Knives cell phones, free weights, baseball bats. To me it is the police grasping at straws.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman
I know you didnt say it was sinister .

But by extension , we could change the "cell phones" and report he had a large amount of knives in his house. I have on last count about 15 quality knives including a large (15 inch curved blade) for carving hips of beef. (amateur chef here so I like knives)

The police, only once they have subpoenaed the cell records and made a link, or have recordings from them, can then say what they want.

My point is, it is all moot. Knives cell phones, free weights, baseball bats. To me it is the police grasping at straws.

I'm not a police officer, so I don't know what could or couldn't be relevant-- but I'm guessing cooking knives, free weights, and baseball bats wouldn't be cause for further investigation. I can see, though, why a large number of cell phones/pagers would be. I can see why in the case of a suspected drug trafficker, one who admitted during interrogation that he had been involved in it in the past, it wouldn't be a moot point. That's all I'm saying.

The police admitted they didn't find the large amounts of drugs they expected to find, but they insist they had enough evidence to suspect that he did. Are the police going to always be right? Is anyone always right in the course of their job? The police are only human. If they had information that led them to believe he was part of the drug trafficking ring, they had an obligation to act on it. It sounds as if they were right about the other five (I believe it was) people they suspected; that they all pleaded guilty.

A police officer lost his life in the line of duty doing what he felt was the right thing to do. He had no idea the warrant was going to be declared illegal after the fact. It just seems to me there could/should be some regret for that along with the rest of it rather than demonizing cops as if they don't have society's best interest at heart. Where would our societies be but for our police forces?

Edited by American Woman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...