From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V9 #697 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Errors-To: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Cdn-Firearms Digest Tuesday, August 1 2006 Volume 09 : Number 697 In this issue: 'Bad guys' outgunning front-line officers: Letter: "What about hammers?" LETTER: GUN OWNERS' RIGHTS Double ordeal for victims of condo raid Plastic moose -- Entrapment [sting]: See R. v. Mack (SCC) Man shot in head in East York Rowdies trash, rob coffee shop ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 07:37:11 -0600 (CST) From: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Majordomo User) Subject: 'Bad guys' outgunning front-line officers: PUBLICATION: Edmonton Journal DATE: 2006.08.01 EDITION: Early SECTION: News PAGE: B6 BYLINE: Gary Dimmock SOURCE: Ottawa Citizen; CanWest News Service DATELINE: OTTAWA WORD COUNT: 396 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 'Bad guys' outgunning front-line officers: Constables issue public call for better firepower - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ OTTAWA - At a time when front-line Mounties are being wounded and killed while on duty, two officers -- including one who came under fire himself - -- say the force is "outgunned" by the bad guys. "They've got the big guns and they're not afraid to use them," said Const. Rip Mills. "So you go to a gunfight with a pistol and the bad guy has a rifle. What do you do with a pistol? Duck and take cover?" It is rare for Mounties to speak publicly, but with the rash of gun attacks against them, Ontario-based Mills and Const. Pete Merrifield broke rank in a public call for better firepower. They both said the national force is outmatched by criminals and that its front-line officers need more than one trip a year to the shooting range to hone their skills. "We've got a pistol and a shotgun. That's not going to cut it. How many more lives need to be lost before we change?" Mills asked. Merrifield, who once came under fire by a suspect when he was working at a small detachment on the Prairies, said front-line officers are outgunned. "It ain't getting any better and we're undergunned. We've got shitty old pump-action shotguns and pistols. If you're within 20 metres or less, a pistol is OK, but outside of that how do you face rifle fire with a pistol?" "It's time the (Mounties) stopped giving everyone a big teddy bear hug," Merrifield said. The constable, a former counter-terrorism agent, said every front-line officer needs more firearms training. Right now, front-line Mounties only go to the shooting range once a year. The Mounties' service pistol is a 9mm Smith and Wesson and each cruiser has a mounted pump-action 12-gauge shotgun. The Mounties couldn't recall a time like this. On July 21, a teenager opened fire on five RCMP officers on the Hobbema reserve. The youth has been charged with five counts of attempted murder. Police seized a rifle from the teen. Cpl. Al Fraser said officers have been warned about coming under fire on any given day. "It seems, regrettably, that the frequency of these kinds of events (is) becoming more commonplace, though I hope they're not normalized," he said. "In the past, you might have heard people say they were on a routine call. Today we have no routine calls," the corporal said. On July 7, constables Robin Cameron and Marc Bourdages were killed near Spiritwood, Sask. Curtis Dagenais, the suspect, is also accused of shooting at a third officer, Michelle Knopp. In March 2005, four Mounties were gunned down on a routine call near Mayerthorpe, Alta. In that incident, constables Anthony Gordon, Leo Johnston, Brock Myrol and Peter Schiemann lost their lives to a better-armed criminal, James Roszko, who was packing several weapons, including a high-powered rifle. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 07:38:04 -0600 (CST) From: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Majordomo User) Subject: Letter: "What about hammers?" PUBLICATION: Chatham Daily News (ON) DATE: 2006.08.01 SECTION: Opinion PAGE: 7 COLUMN: Letter WORD COUNT: 323 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ An evaluation situation - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SIR: I was stunned by the story by Erica Brown in The Daily News concerning a Patrick Robinson being sentenced to time served for whacking a man on the head with a ball-peen hammer! While a friend of his spoke to the other man, he hit him on the side of the head with the hammer! Patrick Robinson had served 71 days in pre-trial custody and his lawyer said that he has a history of mental illness and intends to get counselling. When Ontario Court Justice Edward McGrath asked Robinson why he hit the man, Robinson responded "there really was no reason." McGrath said that makes the incident worse. Robinson agreed. McGrath put Robinson on probation for 18 months and banned him from owning firearms for 10 years. The judge banned him from owning firearms for 10 years? What was this judge thinking about? What about hammers? Anyone who would hit another human (or even a defenceless animal) with a hammer, for no reason, as admitted by Robinson, needs to be committed to a mental institution until he is safe to be let out into the general public again. In my opinion, he certainly should have been detained until an evaluation of his mental fitness and danger to the general public is carried out. I for one will be writing to the justice minister about this kind of sentencing and probation period that puts me and every other citizen in danger of being attacked for no reason whatsoever. Is there something we are missing in this report that would give the general public a feeling that this person would not repeat this type of behavior in the future? Why, in God's name, wasn't he given a mental evaluation during the 71 days he was incarcerated awaiting trial and the report read into the record at the trial? I suspect nothing was done to evaluate the dangerous man and now he is on the street again. Jim Daley Chatham ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 07:39:39 -0600 (CST) From: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Majordomo User) Subject: LETTER: GUN OWNERS' RIGHTS PUBLICATION: The London Free Press DATE: 2006.08.01 EDITION: Final SECTION: Opinion Pages PAGE: A6 BYLINE: E. G. TED WENT, LONDON COLUMN: Letters to the Editor WORD COUNT: 92 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ GUN OWNERS' RIGHTS - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ After reading Jason Menard's ink blog, Reacting to crime isn't good enough (July 22), and his statement, "outlaw gun ownership (there are other hobbies, get over it)," I guess he doesn't respect the rights and privileges of his fellow citizens and some of the choices they make in life. The best thing about the gun control debate was the groundswell of resistance to it by Canadians of all kinds. It shocked people like him. What kind of people does he think we are? If you don't like guns, don't own one, but leave those of us who do own them legally, and are responsible, alone! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 07:40:02 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Double ordeal for victims of condo raid http://www.canada.com/globaltv/ontario/story.html?id=17abda68-6832-4c29-9309-d272af59025b&k=2269 Double ordeal for victims of condo raid Led out in handcuffs Zosia Bielski National Post Tuesday, August 01, 2006 Victims who were tied up, gagged and pistol-whipped during a downtown condo home invasion later found themselves in handcuffs when heavily armed Emergency Task Force officers entered the building. ETF officers were called to a robbery at the condo in the Spadina and Bremner Road area near the Rogers Centre just before 5 a.m. A man heard his upstairs neighbours screaming for help from their sixth-floor balcony, said Constable Victor Kwong. Police said as many as five masked gunmen had waited in a hallway of the Navy Wharf Court condo before the residents arrived. It is believed the victims had been tied up, but later managed to free themselves. Police cordoned off the area while ETF officers searched for suspects inside the condo and in nearby buildings, which link through underground corridors. Half a dozen people were led out of the condo in handcuffs at 6:30 a.m. and taken to 52 Division, where they were interviewed by the hold-up squad. Earlier reports suggested they were suspects, but Const. Kwong confirmed they were victims from the sixth-floor unit. They were released yesterday afternoon. "ETF goes in quick and comes out quick. They don't stop in there to ask, 'Are you friend or foe?' Anyone who they find in there comes out in handcuffs," he said. No suspects were in police custody yesterday, police said. As of yesterday, police had not laid any charges or made any links between the suspects and their victims. Earlier reports mentioned one man lying unconscious on the building's seventh floor, but Const. Kwong said he was a resident who fainted during the investigation, not a victim in the incident. Break-and-enters to apartments have increased by 40% since 2004, according to a 2005 Toronto Police Service statistical report released in June. In 2004, police reported 4,281 apartment break-ins; that number shot to 6,011 last year. © National Post 2006 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 07:55:59 -0600 (CST) From: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Majordomo User) Subject: Plastic moose -- Entrapment [sting]: See R. v. Mack (SCC) The Mack case is informative as to what constitutes entrapment. Here's the headnote: Richard Fritze xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx *This document: **1988 CanLII 24 (S.C.C.)* *Citation: */R. v. Mack/, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903, 1988 CanLII 24 (S.C.C.) *Parallel citations: *(1988), [1989] 1 W.W.R. 577; (1988), 44 C.C.C. (3d) 513; (1988), [1989] 37 C.R.R. 277; (1988), 67 C.R. (3d) 1 *Date: */1988-12-15/ *Docket: */19747/ [Noteup http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/noteUpSearch.do?origin=/ca/cas/scc/1988/1988scc100.html&translatedOrigin=/ca/jug/csc/1988/1988csc100.html&language=en [Cited Decisions and Legislation http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/1988/reflex/1988scc100.html] *Norman Lee Mack* /Appellant/ /v./ *Her Majesty The Queen* /Respondent/ *INDEXED AS: R. */*v.*/ *MACK* File No.: 19747. 1987: December 10; 1988: December 15. Present: Dickson C.J. and Beetz, Estey* ^1 http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/1988/1988scc100.html#ftn1 , McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain*, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA /Criminal law -- Defences -- Entrapment--Trafficking conviction -- Accused once an addict but had given up narcotics -- Police informer persistently requesting accused to sell drugs over lengthy period of time -- Informer threatening accused and offering large monetary inducement -- Whether or not stay of proceedings should issue on basis of entrapment -- Manner in which entrapment claim should be dealt with by the Courts./ Appellant testified at his trial for drug trafficking and, at the close of his defence, brought an application for a stay of proceedings on the basis of entrapment. His testimony indicated that he had persistently refused the approaches of a police informer over the course of six months, and that he was only persuaded to sell him drugs because of the informer's persistence, his use of threats, and the inducement of a large amount of money. Appellant testified that he had had a drug habit but that he had given up his use of narcotics. The application for a stay was refused and appellant was convicted of drug trafficking. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from that conviction. The central issue here concerns the conceptual basis of the doctrine of entrapment and the manner in which an entrapment claim should be dealt with by the courts. /Held/: The appeal should be allowed. Entrapment occurs when (a) the authorities provide a person with an opportunity to commit an offence without acting on a reasonable suspicion that this person is already engaged in criminal activity or pursuant to a /bona fide/ inquiry, and, (b) although having such a reasonable suspicion or acting in the course of a /bona fide/ inquiry, they go beyond providing an opportunity and induce the commission of an offence. It is essential that the factors relied on by a court relate to the underlying reasons for the recognition of the doctrine in the first place. The doctrine of entrapment is not dependant upon culpability and the focus, therefore, should not be on the effect of the police conduct on the accused's state of mind. As far as possible, an objective assessment of the conduct of the police and their agents is required. The predisposition, or the past, present or suspected criminal activity of the accused, is relevant only as a part of the determination of whether the provision of an opportunity by the authorities to the accused to commit the offence was justifiable. Further, there must be sufficient connection between the accused's past conduct and the provision of an opportunity, since otherwise the police suspicion will not be reasonable. While the accused's predisposition is of some relevance, albeit not conclusive, in assessing initial approach by the police of a person with the offer of an opportunity to commit an offence, _it is never relevant_ as regards whether they went beyond an offer, since that is to be assessed with regard to what the average non-predisposed person would have done. The absence of a reasonable suspicion or a /bona fide/ inquiry is significant in assessing the conduct of the police because of the risk that the police will attract people otherwise without involvement in a crime and because it is not a proper use of the police power to randomly test the virtue of people. The presence of reasonable suspicion or the mere existence of a /bona fide/ inquiry will, however, never justify entrapment techniques: the police may not go beyond providing an opportunity regardless of their perception of the accused's character and regardless of the existence of an honest inquiry. The following factors may be considered in determining if the police have gone further than providing an opportunity: (1) the type of crime being investigated and the availability of other techniques for the police detection of its commission; (2) whether an average person, with both strengths and weaknesses, in the position of the accused would be induced into the commission of a crime; (3) the persistence and number of attempts made by the police before the accused agreed to committing the offence; (4) the type of inducement used by the police including: deceit, fraud, trickery or reward; (5) the timing of the police conduct, in particular whether the police have instigated the offence or became involved in ongoing criminal activity; (6) whether the police conduct involves an exploitation of human characteristics such as the emotions of compassion, sympathy and friendship; (7) whether the police appear to have exploited a particular vulnerability of a person such as a mental handicap or a substance addiction; (8) the proportionality between the police involvement, as compared to the accused, including an assessment of the degree of harm caused or risked by the police, as compared to the accused, and the commission of any illegal acts by the police themselves; (9) the existence of any threats, implied or express, made to the accused by the police or their agents; (10) whether the police conduct is directed at undermining other constitutional values. This list is not exhaustive. Entrapment is not a substantive or culpability-based defence and the adoption of rules which historically, and by virtue of the /Charter/, conform to most substantive defences is neither necessary nor correct. Objective entrapment involving police misconduct, and not the accused's state of mind, is a question to be decided by the trial judge, and the proper remedy is a stay of proceedings. The issue of entrapment should be decided by the trial judge, as opposed to jury, for policy reasons. A judge should consider the question from the perspective of a reasonable person, dispassionate and fully apprised of all the circumstances, and the reasonable person is usually the average person in the community but only when that community's current mood is reasonable. The issue is maintaining respect for the values which, over the long term, hold the community together. One of those very fundamental values is the preservation of the purity of the administration of justice. A judge is particularly well suited to make this determination. Then, too, the determination of whether the admission of evidence obtained in violation of a /Charter/ right would bring the administration of justice into disrepute is one which should be made by a trial judge. If one of the advantages of allowing claims of entrapment is the development of standards of conduct on the part of the state, it is essential that decisions on entrapment, and those allowing the claim especially, be carefully explained so as to provide future guidance; this is not something the jury process lends itself to. Before a judge considers whether a stay of proceedings lies because of entrapment, it must be absolutely clear that the Crown has discharged its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had committed all the essential elements of the offence. If this is not clear and there is a jury, the guilt or innocence of the accused must be determined apart from evidence which is relevant only to the issue of entrapment. This protects the right of an accused to an acquittal where the circumstances so warrant. If the jury decides the accused has committed all of the elements of the crime, it is then open to the judge to stay the proceedings because of entrapment by refusing to register a conviction. Because the guilt or innocence of the accused is _not_ in issue at the time an entrapment claim is to be decided, the right of an accused to the benefit of a jury trial in s. 11(/f/) of the /Charter/ is in no way infringed. The requirement that the accused prove entrapment on a balance of probabilities is not inconsistent with the requirement that the Crown prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The guilt or innocence of the accused is not in issue. The accused has done nothing to warrant an acquittal; the Crown, however, has engaged in conduct, however, that disentitles it to a conviction. Requiring an accused to raise only a reasonable doubt is entirely inconsistent with a rule which permits a stay in only the "clearest of cases". More fundamentally, the claim of entrapment is a very serious allegation against the state. To place a lighter onus on the accused would unnecessarily hamper state action against crime. The interests of the court, as guardian of the administration of justice, and the interests of society in the prevention and detection of crime can be best balanced if the accused is required to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that the prosecution is an abuse of process because of entrapment. This is consistent with the rules governing s. 24(2) applications where the general issue is similar to that raised in entrapment cases: would the administration of justice be brought into disrepute? The defence of entrapment is to be recognized in only the "clearest of cases": this description is preferable to the term "shocking and outrageous". Once the accused has demonstrated that the strategy used by the police goes beyond acceptable limits, a judicial condonation of the prosecution would by definition offend the community. It is not necessary to go further and ask whether the demonstrated entrapment would "shock" the community, since the accused has already shown that the administration of justice has been brought into disrepute. The state must be given substantial leeway with drug trafficking because the traditional devices of police investigation are not effective. The police or their agents must get involved and gain the trust and confidence of the people trafficking or supplying the drugs. The social consequences of this crime are enormous and harmful. The police here were not interrupting an ongoing criminal enterprise; the offence was clearly brought about by their conduct and would not have occurred without their involvement. Nor were they exploiting appellant's narcotics addiction. The persistence of the police requests and the equally persistent refusals, and the length of time needed to secure appellant's participation in the offence, indicate that the police had tried to make appellant take up his former life style and had gone further than merely providing him with the opportunity. The most important and determinative factor, however, was that appellant had been threatened and had been told to get his act together when he did not provide the requested drugs. This conduct was unacceptable and went beyond providing the appellant with an opportunity. The fact that the appellant eventually committed the offence when shown the money was not significant because he knew of the profit factor much earlier and still refused. The average person in appellant's position might also have committed the offence, if only to finally satisfy this threatening informer and end all further contact. The police had reasonable suspicion that the appellant was involved in criminal conduct but they went too far in their efforts to attract him into the commission of the offence. The doctrine of entrapment was applicable to preclude appellant's prosecution and appellant met the burden of proof. The trial judge should have entered a stay of proceedings for abuse of process. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 08:19:32 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Man shot in head in East York http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1154383386638&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News Man shot in head in East York JOANNA SMITH STAFF REPORTER Aug. 1, 2006. 06:01 AM A 25-year-old man showed up at the hospital after being shot in the head in East York Monday night, police said. Staff at Scarborough General Hospital called police when a man arrived with a bullet in his forehead around 9 p.m., police said. The victim was later transferred to St. Michael’s Hospital for surgery and his life is not in imminent danger, police said. A detective said the shooting might have taken place behind an apartment complex on Thorncliffe Park Dr., southwest of Eglinton Ave. E. and Don Mills Rd., but it was hard to tell for sure as police examined the potential crime scene after dark. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 08:19:59 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Rowdies trash, rob coffee shop http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1154382610139&call_pageid=968350130169&col=969483202845 Rowdies trash, rob coffee shop STEVE RENNIE STAFF REPORTER Aug. 1, 2006. 05:56 AM A group of rowdy pub patrons stormed and trashed a Scarborough coffee shop early yesterday morning, firing at least one gunshot, police say. Roughly 30 people left the Fox and Feather pub on Kennedy Rd. at Progress Ave. around 3 a.m. and descended on the neighbouring 24-hour Coffee Time restaurant, breaking glass, emptying the tills and frightening the lone employee working the overnight shift, Toronto police report. "Basically, all the glass was broken and anything that could be destroyed was destroyed," said Staff Sgt. Bill Sheaves of 41 Division. The cashier apparently fled when she heard gunfire, said Sheaves, who reported officers found shell casings outside the shop. There was also blood inside and outside, but Sheaves said police aren't sure who the blood came from. Police wouldn't say yesterday how much money was stolen. The manager of Coffee Time, who declined to give her name, said this was the "second or third time" the cashier has been robbed in 18 months she has worked at the 24-hour coffee shop. The cashier was at home yesterday, recovering from the ordeal. The manager reported it took six hours to clean up the "horrible" mess. No one from the pub would speak to the Star yesterday afternoon. Police are examining video surveillance footage. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V9 #697 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:akimoya@cogeco.ca List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca FAQ list: http://www.magma.ca/~asd/cfd-faq1.html and http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/homepage.html FTP Site: ftp://teapot.usask.ca/pub/cdn-firearms/ CFDigest Archives: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/~ab133/ or put the next command in an e-mail message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca get cdn-firearms-digest v04.n192 end (192 is the digest issue number and 04 is the volume) To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next five lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-alert unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".) If you find this service valuable, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the freenet we use: Saskatoon Free-Net Assoc., P.O. Box 1342, Saskatoon SK S7K 3N9 Home page: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/ These e-mail digests are free to everyone, and are made possible by the efforts of countless volunteers. Permission is granted to copy and distribute this digest as long as it not altered in any way.