Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Aquittal of Basil Parasiril and Wife in Shooting of Officer


Recommended Posts

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.

at least you get the point I am making, the police officer said, this many cells and pagers in total, no indication of the number of either, wether they were working, wether they had service.

at one time, we had four phones for three people and we have three computers for two people, all very suspicious stuff, right?, right?

then the "variety of drugs", another vague statement from the officer, quoted in the article,

like I said, in light of the fact the jury acquitted, the evidence must have been scanty, the number of cellphones and pagers doesn't necessarily mean much of anything, at all.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest American Woman
at least you get the point I am making, the police officer said, this many cells and pagers in total, no indication of the number of either, wether they were working, wether they had service.

Thirteen cell phones and four pagers and I'm guessing if they were broken-down old models, it wouldn't have caught their eye.

at one time, we had four phones for three people and we have three computers for two people, all very suspicious stuff, right?, right?

Four phones for three people is a whole lot different from 13 phones for four people <_< , especially when one of the four is a seven year old.

then the "variety of drugs", another vague statement from the officer, quoted in the article,

As I already pointed out, the drugs were pot and cocaine, and not in large amounts as they had suspected. Reading more than one article usually gives more insight. The "vague statement from the officer" could very well be "vague reporting."

like I said, in light of the fact the jury acquitted, the evidence must have been scanty, the number of cellphones and pagers doesn't necessarily mean much of anything, at all.

While the number of cellphones and pagers "doesn't necessarily mean much of anything," it doesn't necessarily mean it's not relevant, either. As I pointed out earlier, all police officers can do is act on the information they have. They don't go to trial first to see if the information does or doesn't mean anything. Btw, the police also found "eight pages of documents that, according to a Surete du Quebec investigator who testified during Parasiris's bail hearing in May 2007, looked like the accounts of a drug trafficker."

Like I said, the officers likely were acting in good faith that their information was accurate-- there's no reason to think otherwise-- and in regards to the other suspects, it was accurate. It's not as if the police were purposely trying to act against what is best for society; quite the opposite.

I find it odd how little attention the four guns, three unregistered and the one registered not registered to his home address, are getting from the critics of the police.

Edited by American Woman
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Its not that I disagree with your point, its that in the context of the reporting it is moot. And yes, the reporting could be the culprit.

But the cells would in large part play a role after the fact, not before nor in the lead up, not without cell records anyhow.

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.

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?

No one is perfect, damn, I know that everyday I wake up.

The loss of life is tragic no matter how it occured. I dont want any cop to die on the job. I am not so sure that the warrant was a good one considering how quickly it was dismissed. There may well have been more sugar coating put on the original application to make it better. Cops have a selling job to do, and the results are they get promoted for the record they present. I understand that since we all do it. The downside is they dont get punished for their actions as a normal worker does. (pretty much all union jobs are that way)

As for societies best interests at heart , I have trouble with that. For the most part, yes I concur. Universally I dont.

For one , not enough cops report the rogues to the superiors, thus making them complicit in the lack of respect shown police.

Two, police , almost to a man believe the law (insofar as minor laws) does not apply equally to them. (to whit :Asset forfieture laws used to pad police coffers)

Three - police, like society are casual users of pot in virtually the same numbers as society at large.

Four, police are taught not to tell us , the public, anything. They are taught to be guarded about everything.

But at the end of it all, yes, society would be in horrible shape bordering on if not entirely consumed by anarchy. So.....rather the devil I know than the one I dont.

I do not disrespect police in any situation. My interactions with them are courteous since I know that one cop can make life miserable for me. It is the uniform, not the person that gets respect. Exc ept for the ones I personally know that is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

An old thread, and mostly picking nits, but hopefully taken in the right way:

... The downside is they dont get punished for their actions as a normal worker does...

I agree. They're usually punished far more severely, both by their employers and by the media. The type of error that in any other job would result in an informal reprimand often results in a suspensions, fines, forced transfers, or terminations. The media screams bloody murder over honest mistakes, especially when they were justifiable.

There's a lot of reasons for this that would make a discussion in of itself, some of them valid and some not, but it is grossly unfair to claim that police have it easier when it comes to punishment for error or malfeasance (especially malfeasance).

]As for societies best interests at heart , I have trouble with that. For the most part, yes I concur. Universally I dont.

For one , not enough cops report the rogues to the superiors, thus making them complicit in the lack of respect shown police.

Two, police , almost to a man believe the law (insofar as minor laws) does not apply equally to them. (to whit :Asset forfieture laws used to pad police coffers)

Three - police, like society are casual users of pot in virtually the same numbers as society at large.

Four, police are taught not to tell us , the public, anything. They are taught to be guarded about everything.

These are some pretty interesting assertions to be making without evidence. Number 1 is a sadly common belief, that IMO is much, much rarer than your statement purports. It is also a very common human behaviour that you will find in all environments - I would actually argue the police do it less than others, but I also have no evidence of this.

As for Point 2? Well, their belief is in many cases correct. There are many instances in Federal and Provincial law where peace officers are specifically exempt from certain laws, because they need to be to perform their duties. There are also other cases where police have to follow laws that civilians do not. I believe you are alluding to instances where police flaunt the law due to percieved immunity where it does not exist - I concede that this happens, but not so often as you seem to suggest.

Number 3 is so specific and nigh-inflammatory that it would be best verified with actual evidence. I positive that it is not true, but if you have some facts to prove it, I would reconsider (and be very suprised).

Number 4 I will not dispute. It is true, and 99% percent of the time totally necessary. As society in general becomes ever more litigous regarding privacy, this trend will continue. The media is not terribly helpful in this regard.

But at the end of it all, yes, society would be in horrible shape bordering on if not entirely consumed by anarchy. So.....rather the devil I know than the one I dont.

I do not disrespect police in any situation. My interactions with them are courteous since I know that one cop can make life miserable for me. It is the uniform, not the person that gets respect. Exc ept for the ones I personally know that is.

It doesn't sound like we're that far apart. I guess my point is that bad apples can be found in any barrel, and genuinely bad cops are so rare that I think you should assume that the *person*, in addition to the uniform, is worthy of respect until proven otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many comments in this thread that need to be addressed. First of all saying that cops are more harshly punished is a joke. How many cops get convicted of impaired driving for instance? Funny how the other cops always seem to make "mistakes" when investigating other officers. Google Taman or dereck harvey zenk to see how police get away with killing.

As for unregistered firearms, probably 30-40% at least of rural western homes have at least one. The same people that complain to no end about the gun registry are willing to crucify this guy because he had one? I wouldn't be surprised if some of the complainers have an old unregistered gun kickin around. I'm not talking about handguns, or guns normally used for crime, I'm talking about hunting rifles and shotguns used to deal with pest animals around the farm, or a grandfather's old war rifle that is a family heirloom. Its important to remember that these guns were in the guys home, he was not carrying them around and kicking in people's doors in the middle of the night. I am much more worried about people who use guns for intimidation and aggression than I am about people who have them in their homes for protection , hunting and animal control. I think if any of the weapons were handguns or automatics the police would have been shouting it from the rooftops.

I have at least 4 or 5 old cell phones that are sitting in a desk drawer not working. So What?

If even a baseball bat is found at a "grow-op" you can bet that police will tell the press that drugs and weapons were found.

Prohibition is to blame for the death of the officer. I'm sad for him and his family but that does not mean that I believe anyone but those who support prohibition are to blame for his death. In war there are casualties, and you people who support the "war on drugs", or more accurately the war on people who use non-government approved drugs have to realize that your side are the aggressors and deserve to face casualties for the crimes you commit against peaceful citizens. I don't hear you crying for the lives lost of the people you hunt down like animals because they refuse to be owned by the state. How many "dealers" or "users" have been killed or assaulted by police? A lot more than cops have been assaulted or killed by pot users, guaranteed. You fight to have your will imposed on the rest of us, we fight for our freedom. Our cause is just.

I can tell you for a fact that where I live the local pot dealer is a lot more popular and respected than any of the local police. People like Argus want to dehumanize people who use unapproved drugs by calling us potheads, druggies, or simply the "scum of the earth", but in reality we are just like everyone else, trying to raise our families as best we can, earn a living, and have fun with our friends. We come from all walks of life, we pay taxes and contribute to our communities. These attempts to minimalize and dehumanize us are so that there will be less public outcry about the way we are treated, and the way our basic human rights are violated. People like Argus need to be reminded that if they have ever bought a friend a beer they have trafficked drugs. So Argus are you a "scum of the earth" drug dealing hypocrite, or just a puritan who is aiming for a 1000 year sin free existance?

Again I would just like to reiterate that prohibition is to blame for all the deaths on both sides. Does anyone really think that people would kill each other over a plant that practically anyone can grow in their flowerbed for free? Prohibition makes it necessary to protect oneself because unlike the rest of society we can not rely on the police or justice system to resolve disputes. Also prohibition makes certain plants literally worth their weight in gold. People get killed over money not drugs. Years of prohibition have made people fear, hate, and disrespect the very people who are supposed to serve and protect us. Police officers working to harass peaceful people who use or sell drugs to others who wish to purchase them get as much respect as they deserve from me, NONE.

If you want to blame someone for the increased further casualties in the war on drugs I suggest you start with Stephen Harper, Rob Nicholson, and the biggest hypocrite of them all, the biggest "drug dealer", Tony Clement. Next in line is your conservative Mp, or any other MP that supported the ramp up of the war on drugs in Canada. And last but not least blame Argus. The next time a cop dies in the line of work, or a kid is shot in the street over a few grams of coke or pot, blame the Conservative party. Prohibition has never made ANY drug more safe, has never reduced drug use. Prohibition has only ever raised the danger, the stakes, the risks, and the profits. The people responsible for this policy are the ones that need punishment.

Edited by DrGreenthumb
Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree. They're usually punished far more severely, both by their employers and by the media.

I do not agree. They are routinely re-assigned with some handslap. Wonder why Chief McCormacks son got away with all he and his cronies did for years?

As for Point 2? Well, their belief is in many cases correct. There are many instances in Federal and Provincial law where peace officers are specifically exempt from certain laws, because they need to be to perform their duties. There are also other cases where police have to follow laws that civilians do not. I believe you are alluding to instances where police flaunt the law due to percieved immunity where it does not exist - I concede that this happens, but not so often as you seem to suggest.

Have you ever seen an MVR for a cop? Funny thing is virtually every single one is clear of tickets. I wonder how that is?

Alcohol abuse has been a problem for Police for many years , yet statistically they dont have the same , not even close, numbers as the public at large does. Call it professional courtesy, call it what you want, but the simple fact is they dont get treated like anyone else would.

Number 3 is so specific and nigh-inflammatory that it would be best verified with actual evidence. I positive that it is not true, but if you have some facts to prove it, I would reconsider (and be very suprised).

It is not inflammatory at all. The numbers of users is the same across the board. Police are no different.

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...