PyROTech

might be repost, but

Rotating strike. Employees from different Canada Post branches around the country are taking turns to go on strike.

time to go reagan on there ass. damn unions.

I love android

?

?

cops came this morning, got very little. It aint like on tv. Alot of photos and filling out cards and taking photos of the cards, then more photos of the cards they fill out (documentation if something ever turns up). Got some prints, but then again it could be mine or anyone that has touched the van. Gave them the video and still photos. They send it off, and i guess i just wait. Im not very hopefull. I was hoping a nice 5 finger smudge free hand would be on the door, but no luck.

for some reason i thought of justin when i viewed the pic

today, minivan had someone in it. Called police, finger prints should actually prove good this time around. Van is sitting in driveway awaiting cops... camera has video of places of fingers. Great facial of person!!!

so my iphones fixed.. it just doesnt get service anymore !

its not that. otherwise i wouldnt have a problem

its a feature on iphones, not a problem. Sorta how i purchase a phone that has "works" as a feature highlight.

So like I said, that law only hurts legal citizens. Troublemakers won't be following those rules.

wow, the words i was looking for. Also applies to the stupid long gun registry.

How many gang bangers are buying guns legally and registering them? Basically these laws make honest citizens into criminals.

i have now seen what could happen in canada...

and these women decided to get greedy. Im still laughing.... (fine the car, but I aint buying no fucking new tires)

http://northcountrynow.com/news/two-potsdam-women-accused-threatening-accuse-man-rape-if-he-didnt-give-them-car-030366

"Two Potsdam women accused of threatening to accuse man of rape if he didn't give them a car"

"Village police say that Christine L. Laraby, 45, and Miranda L. Laraby, 17, threatened a man that they would report to police that he had physically abused and raped Miranda Laraby if he did not sign over his vehicle to the defendants with a note saying that they had paid him $500 cash for it."

"Police say the defendants subsequently took possession of the man's 1997 Subaru Legacy."

"The police allege that the women subsequently told the victim that if he did not buy new tires for the vehicle and give them $500, they would carry through on their earlier threat."

Does your breaching crew have a $10 budget? Needs more winches and jackhammers. Weaksauce. Like a crack dealer holed up in his house is going to pay attention to rules about fortification

How does a warrant serving go? Knock knock, open uh in der, eh? I like the way SWAT does it. Shout "police" while dropping a 50lb concrete log through your door, deploy a flash bang, and toss all those confused poor fuckers face first in to the floor at gun point. If surveillance indicates the door is "fortified", arrive with a truck and a winch. Hook it up, hit the gas, and proceed shouting "police" as usual.

your assuming its a one story bungalo. Imagine the fun with breaching the first floor only to find each floor entrance has a new set of fun, all the way to the 4th.

edited part: btw im not concerned about cops and trucks and the man power for that. Im concerned about that crack dealer that is holed up, deciding its time to acquire a new tv from my house with a couple of friends.

im sure most people when reading the topic title thought it was a thread about guns. I choose not to include a poll in this thread due to the many different dynamics of the topic. Im writing this b/c of something that has being going around the province of Ontario and probably other parts of the world for some time.

Crime has been a problem in my life for along time. And many of the bylaws seem to relate to persons engaged in criminal activity. But the bylaws relate to property owners who themselves engaged in self preservation measures.

It comes down to the trend of "fortification bylaw" laws.

Most of the members on this board are american. And maybe some of this doesnt apply to you.

this is an example of whats going on...

http://www.oshawa.ca...rtification.pdf

highlighted notes...

"Excessive Fortification" and "Excessively Fortify" means the Construction of devices,

barriers or materials applied to Land and includes but is not limited to:

i) the Application of steel plates, steel bars, bullet-resistant shutters, laminated

glass or heavy gauge wire mesh to a window, door or any other opening on any

level of any building or structure other than the basement level of such building

or structure;

ii) the Application of concrete block, brick, or other masonry or similar product to

partially or completely obstruct or seal any window, door or other exterior

entrance or egress to Land;

iii) the Application of steel sheeting or plates or other similar products to the interior

or exterior walls of a building or structure such as to reinforce walls or create a

secondary wall such as to protect against firearms artillery, explosives, vehicle

contact, shock, and any other similar intrusions;

iv) armour plated or reinforced doors, whether exterior or interior, designed to resist

against impact of firearms artillery, explosives, battering rams, shock or vehicle

contact;

v) pillars, cones or barriers Constructed of concrete, steel, or any other building

material that are designed to obstruct, hinder, restrict, or deny access to Land by

conventional means of access or modes of transportation; and

vi) an observation tower designed to enable a visual observation of surrounding

areas beyond the perimeter of the Land whether the tower is occupied by an

individual or a surveillance camera or like equipment.

"Excessive Protective Elements" means devices, objects, material components, or

any contrivance applied to Land and includes but is not limited to the Application of:

i) perimeter warning devices such as "laser eyes" or other types of advanced

warning systems designed to forewarn of the encroachment onto the perimeter

of Land from adjoining lands or roadways but excluding similar applications to

forewarn of entry into a building or structure on Land;

ii) electrified fencing or other similar barrier including hidden traps, electrified doors

or windows, land mines or other explosive devices or any weapon or thing that

may cause injury or death when triggered or activated; and

iii) visual surveillance equipment, including video cameras, night vision systems, or

electronic surveillance devices capable of permitting either stationary or

scanned viewing or listening beyond the perimeter of the Land.

This is the part that provides for what you would assume to be an exclusion to the above, yet its up to interpretation.

Section 2.2 does not prohibit:

(a) the use or Application of commercially marketed security devices designed and

applied to provide reasonable protection from theft or other criminal activity against a

Person or property of a Person;

(the reasonable use of Protective Elements such as a "laser eye" or other advance

warning devices on windows or doors of a dwelling for the purpose of providing a

warning to an occupant of the dwelling or of dispatching emergency services

personnel where an entry into a dwelling has occurred; or

© a "normal farm practice" as defined in subsection 1(1) of the Farming and Food

Production Protection Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c.1.

Interesting part...

Application for Partial or Complete Exemption

6.1. Any Person wishing to obtain a partial or complete exemption from the provisions of this Bylaw must file with the Chief Building Official a written application containing at least the

following:

(a) date of application;

( proof that the Person is the sole owner of the Land or, alternatively, each owner’s

written authorization to submit the application;

© the Land’s legal description and municipal address;

(d) particulars of the existing use(s) of the Land, and of the intended use(s) if any change

in use is anticipated;

(e) a sketch or survey of the Land and structures;

(f) particulars of all existing and proposed Fortification and Protective Elements including

the date or dates of Application of existing Fortification and Protective Elements;

(g) particulars of each exemption requested including the reasons for requesting the

exemption; and

(h) payment of the fee from time to time prescribed by the City’s General Fees and

Charges By-law 13-2003, as amended or superseded.

now. later.

I met a 28 year old Army chick at the bar last night who proceeded to buy me drinks and then took me to her place. Fuking good night

refer to my horror movie post

And on that note the Canadian Supreme Court appears to have some funny ideas on what constitutes consent for sexual activity between partners. Better not piss off your wife/S.O. and then kiss her while she's sleeping.

I read about that. Been in the papers. Its based on specific laws already in place related to those acts. Not the same as the doctor/sedation consent. What is odd, is the the logic, but not the law that was written. And some what related i believe, since i think the courts didnt want to rule in favour of something that could have a slippery slope... just like the DNA situation above.

edited part: ohhh, what are you talking about with justin not refering to something else? btw i prefer cashmere socks.

justin, unlike you. We wash our socks, so sometimes a fresh batch is needed.

http://ccla.org/2011/05/25/press-release-ccla-urges-opp-to-stop-mass-dna-testing/

"Toronto, ON – May 25, 2011 – The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is calling upon the Ontario Provincial Police to immediately stop the practice of requesting “voluntary” DNA samples from members of the public as part of the ongoing investigation of the murder of Ontario nurse Sonia Varaschin. This practice, which does not involve prior authorization by a court, is highly coercive. It will leave innocent individuals feeling that that they have no other option than to hand their most private information over to the state.DNA samples can contain a wide range of private and sensitive information about a person’s biological make-up. Innocent people have very legitimate privacy interests in this information, and should not, in the absence of a court order, be “asked” to hand it over to the state. Suggesting that such individuals can choose to provide DNA samples on a “voluntary” basis is misleading, and ignores the coercive nature of police requests. Moreover, it ignores the reality that innocent individuals who assert their privacy rights could be perceived as guilty of a heinous crime, even where there is absolutely no evidence to support this perception. If police want to make a request for a sample of an individual’s DNA, they should be required to obtain judicial authorization before doing so.

Nathalie Des Rosiers, the CCLA’s General Counsel, observed that “It is not appropriate for police to conduct criminal investigations by process of elimination”. Des Rosiers further noted that, “Canadians have a legal right to refuse when police ask for warrantless access to their most private personal information. This is a bedrock principle of our system of justice, and one that the OPP is subverting by effectively coercing innocent people to hand over DNA samples to police.”"

http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DWycL_rO5RiY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dDVGtojJTI

HAHAHA. Years with DHS and I can tell you thats not how it happens

i believe your referring to the database? I based my speculation on the fact that a member of the Canadian forces was not presented with a DNA match to the crimes. I took your comment to mean that members of the military have DNA on file. It was based on Canada and not the US, but you have the knowledge I dont, so you could always elaborate on how information is shared. Also, another speculation, the search warrants executed during the initial stages of the investigation appeared not to include his military office on base, but took longer to access. Which i feel means that regular le doesnt have the same freedom in certain cases as it would with the public, even when obtaining warrants issused by the courts.

edited part: though the office could have been delayed due to the sensitive information he has access to, b/c he was the commander of the base.