dboy

what's minor about a firearm offence? Under the present law, the use of a firearm in the commission of an offence is a mandatory min 4 years. Use of an imitation is 1 year.

Pretty useless against OC as if you have proven the murder, then the jail term would be higher. Some changes to the law are that a murder committed as part of an OC is automatically first degree (25 year min).

Not sure if there is a min for simple possession of a gun. I doubt it would be anymore than a slap on the hand and would result in something like a 6 month sentence.

Yes these are tools as it allows us to pick away at the group and has proven highly effective in the UK and other countries. Look at E Pandora, most of the Hells Angels were charged for drug and weapons offences once C 95 prove useless:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...e03800&k=10748

OC is a unique area of law enforcement and is highly complex and frought with many issues.

Pandora was 10 million dollars, 5 years and somewhere in the range of 300 police officers

Almost Canadian

OK, I accept that. If E Pandora was a UK thing (I have no idea) from what you have said they were charged with drug and weapons offences. Why can you not do the same here?

The tools you have referred to appear to be offences that the police over here can already charge these people with. Are you suggesting that the sentences for such offences are longer in the UK than in Canada? If not, why are they effective elsewhere but not in Canada?

JonboyE

The trouble seems to be that when you put one gang out of business then another two or three fight it out to replace them. The more successful the police are at putting bad guys away the more street violence they create.

If we cannot stop the demand for drugs, and if we won't legalize them, then isn't the best option to let the Hell's Angels have their monopoly and run the business in an orderly manner?

Oink

The police should be given emergency powers where they suspect gang activity, until we get these muppets off the streets. Something like the UK's Prevention of Terrorism Acts, which would include but would not be limited to; more police man-power, more liberal rules surrounding evidence collecting, the introduction of hearsay evidence, a lower standard of conviction, the suspension of habeas corpus, deportation and exclusion not only of them but their families also, abolishment of parole, much longer and mandatory sentences. Stuff like would sort the bastards out.

mattieuk

Front page of the Vancouver Sun website at the moment is

'No innocent in 10 killed' - referring to that everyone killed had gang links. Seems like they booked out a resturant for the purposes of a gang related birthday or something, and some rivals took the chance to knock off a few sitting targets.

Would lose too much sleep over it everyone (unless you are incharge of an expat international drugs cartel).

Alan2005

Nobody was killed. Not that anybody will lose sleep over drug dealers, but when they start shooting at each other in public places that kind of crosses a line for me.

Besides, even if a few were killed, there'd still be the problem that our (figuratively speaking) demand will cause another bunch of violent and murderous criminals to provide the supply. The only non-idiotic response is full legalization, regulation and taxation.

mattieuk

Goodness me, you would have thought I'd have read about whether people had died a little more carefully.

I agree with you on the legalization argument, but from what I've heard the potential problems that would cause with the USA will stop this from happening anytime in the near future.

Alan2005

Yes, there is too much money in the 'war on drugs' for the US to liberalize on a federal level - it will have to come from individual states. You never know, it might happen eventually as there are a few states that are near bankruptcy and I'm sure they'd like the extra tax income.

mattieuk

I really don't want to dampen your hope, but I think that if California can't even pass a simple majority proposition to legalize just marijuana, then the hope of another state having a referendum, passing it, and getting the feds to not cut off funding revenues for that state is pretty slim.

I still think a rehashed (no pun intended!) version of Prop 19 in California come next election time is the best hope for it.

Oink

I don't think the legalization of drugs is the answer. That's admitting defeat and rewarding people for being wasters. And, I don't buy the argument that what someone does in the comfort of their own home is their business. If you're not allowed to sodomize your cat at home why should you be able to shoot up drugs? If you live in the protection and support of civil society you need to be productive and contributive members of that society not a bunch of stoners who cost the system time and money.

mattieuk

I'm cool with that, so long as alcohol is banned.

You can't claim one self-damaging drug is ok, whilst an arguably less self-damaging is illegal.

Prohibition seemed to 'create' a lot of criminals, similar to how marijuana created a lot of criminals. Only difference is where the profits go, and the political position of the USA.

Oink

Me too. Apparently, the prohibition of alcohol wasn't the unmitigated disaster the revisionists and Hollywood like to make it out to be. Of course there were organized efforts to skirt the law but people were generally healthier, domestic violence and petty crime were dramatically reduced. It was repealed simply because people like a drink.

dboy

E Pandora was an E Division Organised Crime file targeting the East End Chapter of the HA. Since C 95 failed, police were left with charges against individuals for these very naughty motorcycle enthusiasts.

Yes we can already charge for these offences, but without significant mandatory minimum sentences, they are all but useless. In the UK, possession of a firearm by an adult nets a 5 year min sentence, even a fake one is a year. A possession charge here does have a max sentence of 5 years, but without a mandatory min, judges have to abide by sentencing guidelines, which can be mere months, not years.

It is not practical to turn out the big machine for every file involving organised crime, we need to be effective and thrifty with our resources and drug and weapons charges are easier (not easy) to lay, but without significant jail terms, are of little use in disrupting gang activities.

dboy

We have the war measures act which was enacted during the October Crises by Trudeau in Quebec in the 70's following the kidnapping of two politicians, once of them British, by the FLQ, resulting in lengthy detentions without charges and wide sweeping powers of search etc.

However, the other side of the coin is no judicial over-sight, arbitrary detention, invasive search powers and no right to silence....like....hmmm, the UK. Suspension and frustration of simple human rights.

The Esses

I work at one of the hospitals. A patient had his surgery delayed because of this incident, even though he was an emergency case. The shot 'victims' had to be dealt with first.

Because of the wait, he developed a paralysis on one side from a brain infection. Luckily, this proved to be temporary as he was transferred to another hospital.

I sometimes wonder where our priorities should be.