[DrCaleb]

It's pointless to argue with the "Chicken Littles" of the world.

It's equally true that this guy could have gone into that McDonalds dozens of times without incident, but this one time some moron tried to grab his gun. But it's the guard's fault, right?

Carrying a loaded weapon into a public place was his right, as he had a license that said we trust him to do that. Which is more than I can say for many licensed drivers.

[shockedcanadian]

Right. So what's his name, where does he work, what are the details, where is the video why the secrecy? Some have suggested a potential inquiry would take years, a great way to bury the story for awhile. When police talk about why there is a lack of trust its because of poor decisions such as this. You don't create different laws and experiences for different people based on "instinct".

If he a regular stick up kid who didn't even use his weapon his face would have been plastered in the front of newspapers even before he had his day in court. Two people dead in a McDonalds and the police shelter him? Something is amiss here.

You can call me chicken little, but you can be sure I'm not chicken shyte.

[DrCaleb]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

Right. So what's his name, where does he work, what are the details, where is the video why the secrecy?

He has a constitutional right to privacy. Just like you and I do.

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

Some have suggested a potential inquiry would take years, a great way to bury the story for awhile. When police talk about why there is a lack of trust its because of poor decisions such as this. You don't create different laws and experiences for different people based on "instinct".

No charges will be laid, and he has a constitutional right to privacy.

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

If he a regular stick up kid who didn't even use his weapon his face would have been plastered in the front of newspapers even before he had his day in court. Two people dead in a McDonalds and the police shelter him? Something is amiss here.

His face would have been plastered on the newspapers, along with the other 5 victims of the shooting in a Toronto McDonalds if those two had managed to get the gun away from him.

See? I can make up hypothetical scenarios too! That's why that are called 'strawmen'.

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

You can call me chicken little, but you can be sure I'm not chicken shyte.

Only because with you, the sky is always falling.

[Zipperfish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It's equally true that this guy could have gone into that McDonalds dozens of times without incident, but this one time some moron tried to grab his gun. But it's the guard's fault, right?

How do you know that's what happened. Seems pretty speculative.

I'm not sure what the police policy is--not to release the name of anyone not charged with a crime? I can see that--makes intuitive sense to me, anyways. But there is no details on the decision not to charge. Which is an issue, given a sordid hisotry of police investigating police.

[shockedcanadian]

The last comment you made sums up precisely the problem in our democracy. The sky is always falling when we want basic commitments to justice, fairness, transparency and accountability. How about we EXPECT basic premises to be abided by?

Do I believe in his ability to have his name protected? Absolutely. The problem is as long as I have been alive in this country this has never been the case. A guy is suspected of something his face is on the front of The Sun, great way to create the suspicion of guilt. I don't like holding people in prison without a reasonable time before facing a court either (say, within three months even for capital crimes), still we throw people in prison for nothing more than allegations.


The comment about the bad guys being successful in obtaining the gun supports my thesis, he shouldn't have worn his loaded gun in McDonalds and then he wouldn't have been placed in a position to use it. Furthermore, other innocent people wouldn't have been in danger. If that is "just the way it has always been" than it has to change. An officer of the law is quite different than a security guard, they have very different roles and obligations, training, access to backup, common sense...

[OnTheIce]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

So his logic is it's better to enter McDonalds in public with a loaded gun than to go pick up his grease in the safety of his car at the drive through? Not the brightest bulb in the pack. This could have become much worse if what you are suggesting is true, there could have been fatalities of employees and innocent by standers all because he carried a loaded weapon into a public place outside his scope of duty.

1. Armoured cars don't fit through drive-thru's in most instances.

2. His gun is in his holster. It's to be worn at all times when working. He cannot leave it in the vehicle.

3. They won't release the video because it probably shows the two men being killed. That's not for public consumption.

3. Armed guards go about their lives on a day to day basis at work. There's no harm to the public.

These two guys, likely intoxicated, opted to start a fight and grab for the man's gun. They made a fatal mistake that was their own doing.

The police can't and shouldn't have to explain why, in every case, why someone wasn't charged.

[2Cdo]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

You can call me chicken little, but you can be sure I'm not chicken shyte.

If I was a betting man I'd say both descriptions are apt for you.

[shockedcanadian]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

You can call me chicken little, but you can be sure I'm not chicken shyte.

If I was a betting man I'd say both descriptions are apt for you.

Than you would be broke.

You can go forward with the name calling though, it reflects more on you than me.

[Zipperfish]

According to the police:

$1:

The two men became involved in a physical confrontation with an armed uniformed private security officer who was working at a nearby location. During the altercation, the private security officer discharged his firearm, fatally wounding both men. The private security officer was subsequently taken to hospital where he was treated for a firearm-related injury.

Where are you guys getting that somebody tried to get his gun?

[OnTheIce]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

According to the police:

$1:

The two men became involved in a physical confrontation with an armed uniformed private security officer who was working at a nearby location. During the altercation, the private security officer discharged his firearm, fatally wounding both men. The private security officer was subsequently taken to hospital where he was treated for a firearm-related injury.

Where are you guys getting that somebody tried to get his gun?

It was reported in the early reports on the incident which is how he sustained the gunshot wound to his hand.

[shockedcanadian]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

So his logic is it's better to enter McDonalds in public with a loaded gun than to go pick up his grease in the safety of his car at the drive through? Not the brightest bulb in the pack. This could have become much worse if what you are suggesting is true, there could have been fatalities of employees and innocent by standers all because he carried a loaded weapon into a public place outside his scope of duty.

1. Armoured cars don't fit through drive-thru's in most instances.

2. His gun is in his holster. It's to be worn at all times when working. He cannot leave it in the vehicle.

3. They won't release the video because it probably shows the two men being killed. That's not for public consumption.

3. Armed guards go about their lives on a day to day basis at work. There's no harm to the public.

These two guys, likely intoxicated, opted to start a fight and grab for the man's gun. They made a fatal mistake that was their own doing.

The police can't and shouldn't have to explain why, in every case, why someone wasn't charged.

This is the best argument I have read so far and I had considered the reluctance of showing the video due to the nature of the crime. However, I would disagree with your last comment. The video can be shown, up to the point of the obvious killings. With such a high profile case at such a high profile place of business, the public deserves to see the video up to the point of the murder to understand if this has been a fair investigation. Unfortunately; for reasons I am sure you understand, the publics trust of the TPS is not very high, providing details would add credibility to the justice system.

I have seen videos released by the TPS when they were looking to locate a suspect caught killing someone on surveillance cameras. They clearly showed the face of the victim as they were trying to obtain information about the suspect. The public didn't see the murder, but they did see the moments just prior.

We can speculate a thousand scenarios. The opinion of what is reasonable would change if we saw the two guys being loud and the security guard telling them to shut up or if we saw two drunk guys attack him and reach for his gun without provocation. We simply don't know. Remember also. There is a family grieving two dead people. If it was a warranted defense they have a right to see the evidence don't they? Wouldn't any of us want to see the facts before we were comfortable knowing the person responsible for their demise was walking the streets?

[OnTheIce]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

This is the best argument I have read so far and I had considered the reluctance of showing the video due to the nature of the crime. However, I would disagree with your last comment. The video can be shown, up to the point of the obvious killings. With such a high profile case at such a high profile place of business, the public deserves to see the video up to the point of the murder to understand if this has been a fair investigation. Unfortunately; for reasons I am sure you understand, the publics trust of the TPS is not very high, providing details would add credibility to the justice system.

While there will always be public trust issues in certain neighbourhoods, the majority of Torontonians are comfortable and trusting of their police service.

This isn't a high profile case. This was two low-lifes looking to pick a fight and got killed for it.

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

We can speculate a thousand scenarios. The opinion of what is reasonable would change if we saw the two guys being loud and the security guard telling them to shut up or if we saw two drunk guys attack him and reach for his gun without provocation. We simply don't know. Remember also. There is a family grieving two dead people. If it was a warranted defense they have a right to see the evidence don't they? Wouldn't any of us want to see the facts before we were comfortable knowing the person responsible for their demise was walking the streets?

The scenario has been laid out multiple times in the media. Two guys, intoxicated, start an argument with the armed guard. One of the men reaches for his gun, there's a struggle, the guard is shot in the hand and then he shoots the two guys.

McDonalds has state of the art surveillance system, and there were 8-10 people in the McDonalds at the time. Tons of evidence, lots of eye witnesses. This isn't a case of he-said-she-said.

The police don't have to lay out all of the evidence in a case when someone isn't going to be charged.

[2Cdo]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

2Cdo 2Cdo:

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

You can call me chicken little, but you can be sure I'm not chicken shyte.

If I was a betting man I'd say both descriptions are apt for you.

Than you would be broke.

You can go forward with the name calling though, it reflects more on you than me.

And your posts reflect a serious lack of knowledge about firearms and the jobs that require them. Just go back to being "shocked" and "amazed" that things happen in this country that you didn't have a clue about.

[shockedcanadian]

And your posts reflect a serious lack of knowledge about firearms and the jobs that require them. Just go back to being "shocked" and "amazed" that things happen in this country that you didn't have a clue about.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

I suppose we should venture into the realm of shock that no officer was charged for the G20 fiasco and Bill Blair didn't have the character to resign after lying to citizens about their rights. The guy even has the gumption to run for federal office on the basis that marijuana should be legalized after overseeing the ruining of numerous lives enforcing a law he apparently didn't agree with, nor had to courage to speak to politicians about before hand. Those abuses of authority and power without consequences are the most "amazing".

As I stated, there is a reason the TPS and it's leadership is not trusted.

[2Cdo]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

As I stated, there is a reason the TPS and it's leadership is not trusted.

YOU still don't have the "right" to know why no charges have been placed. I said on page one that they should give a firm answer on whether or not charges will be laid, and that's all the public needs to know. Not his name, address, employer etc, that you seem to want.