Thursday, May 2, 2019

Police shot hostage in Whalley standoff - Update



OMG. Remember that armed standoff the Surrey RCMP had with a hostage taking in Whalley March 29th? The man and the female hostage were both killed and the report at the time said they weren't sure if the hostage taker fired a shot. That would imply that it wasn't a murder suicide and that the polcie shot the hostage. Well, that's exactly what happened.

The Peacearch News is reporting that "The Independent Investigation Office says both the man and woman involved in a Whalley standoff on March 29 were shot dead by police. “The male died from multiple gunshot wounds from police and the female died from two gunshot wounds that came from police firearms,” Ron MacDonald, chief civilian director of the IIO, told the Now-Leader Thursday." The RCMP shot the f*cking hostage.

"Did anyone shoot at police?"

“There was a report of a hostage situation of a male who had a gun and had a female hostage,” he replied. “The exact conclusions of exactly what happened, including your question, I don’t really want to get into at this point because before we talk about all those details I want to make sure I have all the facts so I can draw all the conclusions and then speak to the public about that.”

AYFKM? If you aren't prepared to answer that question now then that means no. Kinda hard to shoot at the police when you don't even have a gun. This is outrageous.

It is similar to the tragic shooting of the skateboarder running to the police for help.

Vancouver Sun / Province LIED about the incident

Take a look at how Harold Munro's cheap tabloid of corporate trash spun the story. The printed version of the fake news report refers to the incident as a shootout and states "The IIO said members of the police tactical teams entered the home at 7:30 a.m. on March 29 and there was an exchange of gunfire between the officers and the man." That is not what the IIO said.

There was not an exchange of gunfire between the officers and the man. All the shots were fired by the police. Calling it a shootout implies that the suspect was shooting at the police which is not true. This isn't just spinning the story. This is printing a bold faced lie.



CBC is reporting that "Initially, it was unclear who had fired the gunshots, but the IIO said its investigators have since determined the shots came from police." Harold Munro LIED.

The CTV Report shows the police used a freaking tank. The IIO won't say whether or not a gun was found at the scene. "Someone" said he had a gun but did he really?



Not surprisingly, Dr Kim is not reporting on this story.

6 comments:

  1. I shouldn't be laughing as hard as I am, (I almost choked on my own spit) because an innocent hostage was basically murdered by the police but OMFG what is this, a fucking clown show? A bunch of fear biting commando wannabe's, either that or they're just so eager to "get some" that they'll put rounds out without ever being shot at, take your pick. Never mind actually miss the target. Heads needs to roll for this, but of course they won't. "As long as they go home safe at the end of their shift". Here's a news flash, it's a risky job sometimes, the risk-adverse have no business wearing a badge and pretending to be of any use to anyone on the street.

    It's completely within their capability to establish which officers fire that shots that killed the hostage. It's called forensics. I could say here and now what excuses I expect them to come up with as to why they can't, but they read this blog too and I don't want to give them any help. Suffice to say that anything they say along this line is bullshit and if true would just be more negligence than they've already exhibited here.

    There's a lesson here for the next woman who's thinking of calling the police "service" for help, it appears you'd have a better chance of surviving if you just take your chances with the hostage taker WITHOUT police involvement.

    Everyone on that entry team needs to be identified to so they can specifically be precluded from employment with the new Surrey Municipal Police Service. Remember what I said earlier about training and where they get it?

    I've said it before an I'll say it again. THE WRONG PEOPLE are being hired to be police officers. Hire some Veterans with a deployment or two and you'll be better off. Not all of them, take the cream of course.

    If you're the officer(s) that killed that woman, you should go suck start your service pistol in shame. But since you won't do that, I hope you never get a decent night's sleep for the rest of your life. Even then you'll be getting off easy, that hostage will be sleeping in her grave for the rest of what there should have been of hers.

    "Clown shoes for everyone!" Unbelievable....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Saw the report on the news and it really was wtf time. The police communication officer was not going to answer any questions, that was clear. We, as the public are entitled to answers as are the families of the deceased. to the best of my knowledge the hostage taker had not shot at any one. He was holding a woman who he had previously been in a relationship. the hostage situation had been going on for 10 hrs. Don't know if any one thought about trying to out wait him, it wasn't like he was going any where. Perhaps, they just got tired of waiting. Even if the hostage taker had shot at the police it would not have been reason to fire back and kill two people. the police were well armed and prepared. Not the finest moment for the RCMP.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The officer(s) who fired the shot(s) that killed her should be charged with negligent manslaughter. None of the other officers on that team should ever be on ERT duty ever again, The public is safer if they are assigned to write jaywalking tickets on King George Highway.

    No consequences = "F*k you, we're the police, we can f**k up and get away with it, even if we kill someone and it's the wrong someone.

    Why can't they be this incompetent when they raid HA clubhouses? Well I'll tell ye.....it's because the HA have guns too, and any officer who shot and killed an unarmed HA would need to be transferred to the other side of the middle of f**king nowhere for his/her own safety, that's why. Even that might not do it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It may not have been the officers who did the shooting's idea to shoot at that moment. They might have been ordered to do so by the person in charge. A fuller investigation needs to be done, as to who did what, when.
    We had the Dziekanski inquiry, perhaps this will turn into a similar situation. Perhaps the communications officer was so abrupt because he knows it could turn into another Dziekanski inquiry situation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes we remember that two RCMP officers were convicted of perjury in that case:

      https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/10/30/supreme-court-dismisses-appeals-of-rcmp-perjury-convictions-in-robert-dziekanski-case.html


      Delete
    2. "It may not have been the officers who did the shooting's idea to shoot at that moment. They might have been ordered to do so by the person in charge."

      It doesn't work that way. There are two components,"overwatch" and "entry". All that crap you've seen in the movies about "take the shot" is just that, crap. It's not that simple. The shooter has to advise if he has a clear shot. He is not going to be told to take a shot (a clear target) he doesn't have. He may be told "take it if/when you've got it", but that still leaves the shooter as the determining factor. That doesn't mean that can't get pooch-screwed, Ruby Ridge being the best known example of the shooter taking a shot he thought he had and being wrong, or not being a good enough shooter to pull it off. Human targets are dynamic, meaning they move, often unexpectedly. That has to be taken into account. I'm just saying that even if you have a shooter/shooters on a "count down", he is still not taking the shot on command if the shot goes away. Just in case anyone cares, yes, I am "school-trained", that's how I know this stuff.

      Now, to the entry component. Again, assuming the hostage taker is armed, once you make entry it's a crap shoot, but if the guy is stand there with one arm around the hostages neck and the other holding a gun to her head, you are not going to make entry, unless the goal is to have him kill the hostage of course. The entry is supposed to be timed to give the team a small window of opportunity. Just deploying flash bangs and doing the entry, hoping it's all going to work out is not the way that stuff is supposed to go, yet that's often exactly what LE ERT teams do. As I say you need that window of opportunity. That's where waiting comes in. End of shift or unplanned overtime is not an excuse. Eventually someone needs to go to the bathroom, etc., anything such that you are not relying on the flash bang alone to make it difficult for the guy to shoot the hostage. Surreptitious entry can be an option too if you have a guy or guys on the team who can do that, but that's a bit high speed for the po-po, usually all they know is what they were taught during in service training, if they've even had that. Use of one's imagination is generally frowned on. How recently they've trained is a factor too, teamwork in short time frames is a perishable skill. Something for the dead hostages lawyer to bring up at a civil trial for negligent homicide. Of course this is the RCMP, forging training records (IF they keep them, not doing so is a red flag) would be far from the worst sin they've ever committed. Cough, :pipelinebombing: cogh cough. With these guys, it's not IF they're going to lie when they're in trouble. We KNOW they're going to. Just a matter of picking the lies apart bit by bit.

      Of course all this is predicated on the hostage taker having a gun. Knife or other other such requires arms reach of the hostage. Not many guys are going to hold a knife to someones throat for 48 hours straight, it just doesn't happen. "Window of opportunity" but they have to be capable of exploiting that. Comes from practice. Not doing so, guys who've never worked together = that already small window being squandered as people trip over their own feet. (Wearing clown shoes will make that happen....)

      Again, I feel bad about the entertainment aspect of this, but that's what I expect their explanation to be, highly entertaining. That and short on truthful details. It's not what they do.

      Delete