Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Shots fired in Surrey

Global is reporting that shots were exchanged between two vehicles this afternoon in Surrey near 127th Street and 93rd Avenue around 3 p.m. RCMP are looking for a beige Jeep and a white crossover-type vehicle. No one was injured.

The Surrey Leader is reporting that earlier this afternoon three people were arrested after an RCMP officer fired a gunshot at a suspect vehicle in White Rock. "According to an RCMP release, plainclothes officers were investigating a "known crack shack" near Russell Avenue and Finlay Street around 12 p.m., when three suspects attempted to flee the area in a vehicle. An officer shot at the suspect vehicle, and the three occupants were subsequently arrested. No injuries were reported."Chalk one up for the good guys.

Bustin up crack shacks. Now that's what I'm talking about.

A blog reader was on scene and took a picture:


  1. Shooting at vehicles is a bad idea. It had originally gained acceptance under the concept that the driver was using the vehicle as a weapon against an officer and that deadly force was therefor justified.

    But rather than being used only in circumstances where it is unquestionably justifiable, it has now become a thing where anytime a vehicle comes anywhere near an officer, (or even is just attempting to flee) that is now used as the excuse to open fire, the officer states that he felt he was in danger, and that is the end of it. Try getting out of the way, dumb ass.

    The problem is this. Shooting at a vehicle to attempt (and I use that word for a reason) to disable it is on the whole a bad idea. Pistols bullets are not all that powerful, they frequently fail to immediately stop a human being who is shot with them, how is it logical to believe you can immediately and safely stop a car, whether targeting the engine, the driver, or the tires.Shooting at tires basically means you are shooting at the pavement, and that means MAJOR ricochet potential. On a long enough timeline, one of those bullets will hit an "unintended target". This target may be animate, or not. If hit it may thereafter cease to be animate. This is a problem.

    As well, shooting the driver, even if this is accomplished, does not guarantee outcome. It does not guarantee that the vehicle will not go out of control and hit an innocent, be it right there or some distance down the street when the driver loses consciousness from blood loss. It may hit another car at that point, causing an accident.

    For all these reasons, and the attendant liability that goes with them, LE agencies to the south are increasingly moving away from the idea that pistol fire (or indeed any other firearm) is acceptable for stopping a moving vehicle. They have done it a lot more than all the agencies in Canada combined, and have experienced all the negatives I've listed. Just recently a police officer in New Mexico has found himself unemployed and his certifications to work as a police officer revoked after he opened fire an a minivan who was attempting to flee but not being used as a weapon against an officer. It turned out there were children in the vehicle and only by the grace of God and the fact that the officer was a really bad shot (as are many police officers) were none of them injured or killed.

    A wise man learns from the mistakes of others more than his own, which are thereby minimized such as they can be.

    1. I agree shooting into a vehicle is not a good idea when the suspects are unarmed. However, in this case when it's crackheads fleeing the scene I'll make an exception. I still say there's nothing wrong with putting one in the tire. It doesn't always have to be in the chest.

    2. If you are say, 10 feet away it's not that difficult a shot, but at greater distances, on a moving target, under stress, actually hitting the tire is an iffy proposition. Also remember that as the target is moving, the scene behind/downrange of the target (if you miss) is also constantly changing. Rule #4, "Know your target AND what is beyond it." (emphasis mine) Add that the target is resting on a hard flat surface and you have a scenario that screams "ricochet".

      "Fleeing the scene" is unacceptable even to the police as a reason to shoot. Use of the firearm = deadly force, and the only legal reason to use it is to protect against "death or serious bodily harm". That is the law.

      Again, one must consider the level of marksmanship that the average police officer possesses, and it's not all that high. Their training revolves around the ability to effectively engage the center of mass of a stationary humanoid target at 15m or less, with the emphasis being heavily on less. They usually qualify only 2-4 times a year, and the amount of trigger time necessary to develop a higher level of skill than possessed by reason of the basic training course is somewhat problematic, "too American".

      People think of the police as experts in the use of a firearm because they carry one all the time. In fact this is not true, most never handled one until they attended training (true even in the US, never mind a gun-phobic country like Canada) and at various competitions civilian members of "the gun culture" consistently out shoot them. The average police officer's level of knowledge of firearms in general as far as types/models/capabilities is similarly low, almost any civilian enthusiast possesses a much higher level of knowledge and expertise than they do.

  2. Agent K what's wrong with..people sell crack to live and people will smoke it regardless like what is your problem? This is LIFE u clown this isn't your world this is ours

    1. Wait ‘till I tell ye… Crack is cut with superbuff. That gives you flesh eating disease. Even if it wasn’t cut with superbuff crack messes you up. Just like crystal meth it eats you alive. If somebody smokes a blunt that’s no one else’s business. But crack affects everyone. It is so addictive it creates a huge amount of trickle down crime from prolific property theft, to off the hook violence to greedy bitches shooting each other over the profit to be made from selling it. That is no life for anyone.

  3. Needing to be continuously ramped-up on a drug is a consequence of distress intolerance and emotional immaturity. Infants also suffer from distress intolerance, incidentally. Emotional immaturity manifests itself in unrealistic needs and expectations. As well, a person’s overall level of life functioning is directly proportional to their emotional maturity.

    I’ve a sneaking suspicion that CokeWave isn’t one of life’s high flyers.

    Just light up, CokeWave, and soon you’ll be as vacuous and unoriginal as everyone else involved in the drug culture. Like cogs on a wheel, you’ll all rotate in harmony on an axis of banality.

    This country is becoming more and more like a third-world dosshouse, with citizen’s whose moral turpitude is reminiscent of a Somali warlord’s.

    Keep up the good work, Agent K!


Comments are moderated so there will be a delay before they appear on the blog.