Nova Scotia shootings

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Messages
26,557
Reaction score
3,690
I think the money thing is a red herring, personally, and that MacLean's followed it down what was probably a rabbit hole.

He had his own business, and one which we all know, produces/turns over quite a bit of cash (being in convo to replace with something the tooth that was removed Tuesday, I can tell you that good fake teeth are not inexpensive). He kept his money with Brinks because he was a small business, and from what I hear, was frightened into moving it into cash because of Covid-related economic predictions.
That is what the RCMP said. Again, they don't have to tell the public the truth about their use of informants (or identify them), unless it's in court.

Why would he move that much cash and then do what he did if he was afraid of covid? He had to know his violent spree wasn't going to end well for him. That reasoning doesn't really make sense. He wasn't behaving like somebody even remotely thinking about the danger of covid.
 
Messages
26,557
Reaction score
3,690
I wonder why CBC didn't counter the MacLean's story sooner. They sat on it until talk of it died down before they did so. They had time to gather a counter-spin. They didn't investigate, though, like the Maclean's team did. They just took the statements from people saying it wasn't true. That's lazy and convenient. I find it odd that CBC didn't get on it until now. I was wondering why they just ignored the story and its allegations, instead of either calling out MacLean's or debunking the allegations in the story with diligent investigative reporting of their own. The silence was strange.
 
Last edited:

Ritafee

TWOFORTHESHOW
Messages
6,522
Reaction score
1,640
The CBC received $556.9 million in revenues (advertising) in 2017, and $1.7 billion in government funding.

After expenses and non-operating items, the CBC still managed to operate at a net loss of $7.8 million.

Even though it is funded by the taxpayer, the CBC refuses to make public its employees’ salaries, not to mention the pensions they receive.

CBC investigates “itself” for wrongdoing or complaints, and is not and has never been held accountable for its incredible bias.

Kind of like the RCMP investigating itself ...

I wonder why CBC didn't counter the MacLean's story sooner.
Guess they were hoping it would go away ... But the people want a public inquiry and Trudeau and the RCMP do not.

Time for her majesty's servants to use their bought and paid for propaganda arm of the CBC to liberally change our minds for us.
 
Messages
26,557
Reaction score
3,690
I don't know how a violent crime (series of crimes) so massive, and so bizarre, with so many errors on the part of the RCMP in warning the public, does not immediately warrant a full scale inquiry. To just say "well, they got the bad guy. That's that." ...that's odd.
 
Messages
26,557
Reaction score
3,690
The CBC received $556.9 million in revenues (advertising) in 2017, and $1.7 billion in government funding.

After expenses and non-operating items, the CBC still managed to operate at a net loss of $7.8 million.

Even though it is funded by the taxpayer, the CBC refuses to make public its employees’ salaries, not to mention the pensions they receive.

CBC investigates “itself” for wrongdoing or complaints, and is not and has never been held accountable for its incredible bias.

Kind of like the RCMP investigating itself ...


Guess they were hoping it would go away ... But the people want a public inquiry and Trudeau and the RCMP do not.

Time for her majesty's servants to use their bought and paid for propaganda arm of the CBC to liberally change our minds for us.
I don't know what's liberal about sitting on the story and hoping it goes away - but their editorial staff makes decisions about what to cover based on something - for some reason they just ignored a huge story by fellow journalists working for a reputable source . It is up to CBC to investigate the Maclean's story more vigorously - not just take the RCMP's word for it - if they have good reason to believe it's not true.

If it came from a highly questionable source somewhere on the Internet, then they could, in better conscience, ignore it. Maclean's has no reason to just make stuff up. They're more professional than that. CBC needs to do due diligence. They get paid enough to do more than just print statements from officials.

They need to have that full inquiry. The public needs to know what happened and why they're not telling us.
 
Last edited:
Messages
26,557
Reaction score
3,690

Northwind

Still knitting. Walking the path to health.
Messages
10,377
Reaction score
4,075
That's interesting @Kimmio Laughterlove. It will be interesting to see what they decide. I recognize the need to keep some things private while there's an investigation. It's a fine balance though between private and message control. There may be room for the police to be more transparent here. Time will tell.
 

Mrs.Anteater

Just keep going....
Messages
4,215
Reaction score
2,047
This should go here not in the conspiracy thread. It is related to saving credibility of a journalistic source and story though - and to how much message control is happening..

I think there will be eventually a lot of embarrassing details come out - like the cops who shot at the firehall and their own colleague who was guarding it. I don’t see the need to make everything from the investigation public, as long as there is an independent investigation of the police procedure.
This is a very close knit community. Too much details can be bad for it, lead to blaming each other for not coming forward with information beforehand, as the abused girlfriend already has been blamed and attacked. I think people who come forward with information should have a right to privacy as long as that information is not needed in court.
Media are supposed to help control the systems in place, their role in stirring up dirt for the sake of sensation in community relationships is questionable.
 
Messages
26,557
Reaction score
3,690
I think there will be eventually a lot of embarrassing details come out - like the cops who shot at the firehall and their own colleague who was guarding it. I don’t see the need to make everything from the investigation public, as long as there is an independent investigation of the police procedure.
This is a very close knit community. Too much details can be bad for it, lead to blaming each other for not coming forward with information beforehand, as the abused girlfriend already has been blamed and attacked. I think people who come forward with information should have a right to privacy as long as that information is not needed in court.
Media are supposed to help control the systems in place, their role in stirring up dirt for the sake of sensation in community relationships is questionable.
I don't think public needs names of everybody. Person A and person B (names redacted for the public but have the record show they said xyz)is sufficient if they are not accused of a crime. It's in Canadians' interest to have more investigating into the shooter's alleged ties to the RCMP. If there's corruption in the RCMP, bickering neighbours is no reason not to find out.
 
Last edited:

Mrs.Anteater

Just keep going....
Messages
4,215
Reaction score
2,047
. It's in Canadians' interest to have more investigating into the shooter's alleged ties to the RCMP
You are stuck on this theory. All that is to it is that he was hanging out with a neighbour who had a criminal background and that he got money through Brinks. Hardly convincing. I doubt anything will come out of this, plainly because there wasn’t anything.
 
Messages
26,557
Reaction score
3,690
You are stuck on this theory. All that is to it is that he was hanging out with a neighbour who had a criminal background and that he got money through Brinks. Hardly convincing. I doubt anything will come out of this, plainly because there wasn’t anything.
I don’t believe the reasoning given, after the big story was printed in Maclean’s and refuted, that he got $475K cash out before he did what he did, because he was scared of covid. And I don’t believe Maclean’s would make up a giant story out of nothing. From further away, with some objectivity, I think there definitely needs to be more investigating. If nothing comes of it then Maclean’s was irresponsible. However, it is journalists’ job to report the news, and yes, it is the role of investigative journalism to follow leads that the powerful sometimes try to bury. We have all but forgotten that.

Maclean’s hasn’t issued any retractions or apologies for their story that I know of. They are credible. If they were not standing by it, they would’ve said something by now.
 
Last edited:

BetteTheRed

Resident Heretic
Messages
17,018
Reaction score
7,968
And all the story really said was "huh, this is interesting". I don't think it hurts MacLean's credibility to try a rabbit hole. And maybe it's not, but they haven't followed up, either, thus far.
 
Messages
26,557
Reaction score
3,690
And all the story really said was "huh, this is interesting". I don't think it hurts MacLean's credibility to try a rabbit hole. And maybe it's not, but they haven't followed up, either, thus far.
It was a pretty long story. Somebody buried it, for some reason, that's why. No, I'm not obsessed with it (Mrs. A) - I don't think about it constantly, or even daily. It's just one of many thread topics here I follow up on. I just hope it's more fully investigated from every angle, including the angle presented in Maclean's. No news org is looking too far into the credibility of the Maclean's story either. Nobody's called for a retraction or apology by the editor of Maclean's. Nobody's suing them. Nobody's interviewing them. If they were so sure it's not true other credible investigative journalists worth their salt would really be on Maclean's case about their irresponsibility rather than just having a couple of people say a few words that disagree and that's that - they'd be speaking to the editor, trying to find out more about why they felt it important to do a feature story about potential links of the shooter to the RCMP - several people seem to be hoping it'll fade away. That's not even normal. It's a huge story - once a credible source puts it out there, it is of national importance - and everybody just put their hands in their pockets and walked away whistling, it seems to me.
 
Last edited:

BetteTheRed

Resident Heretic
Messages
17,018
Reaction score
7,968
It's a huge story - once a credible source puts it out there, it is of national importance - and everybody just put their hands in their pockets and walked away whistling, it seems to me.
It might be a big story. It might just be an a**hole. I don't see evidence of cover-up, more "wait and see".
 
Messages
26,557
Reaction score
3,690
Journalists are supposed to hold the powerful accountable to the public. When something like that story is put out by a well established credible source then there's a duty, I think, to either pursue the original lead in solidarity with their fellow journalists - or look for the problem in who ran the story, why they ran it, what they were hoping to accomplish, and where their idea came from.
 

Lastpointe

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,004
Reaction score
1,453
Something I always wonder about with horrific case like this is what could have been done

and it always comes up. People after the fact discuss fear or they think he should have been stopped or they th8nk someone knew something.......

to me it gets back to the idea of do we stop someone from doing something we think they might do or not

there was a Tom Cruise movie. I think it was The Minority Report, but I may have the wrong movie. But it was futuristic. If the government algorithm saw you ere going to commit a crime in the future they locked up

but we don’t lock people up for the potential to do crimes. So it becomes what to do about someone who seems dangerous but has yet to do anything unusual. And what are your rights against arbitrary government interference.
 
Messages
26,557
Reaction score
3,690
Something I always wonder about with horrific case like this is what could have been done

and it always comes up. People after the fact discuss fear or they think he should have been stopped or they th8nk someone knew something.......

to me it gets back to the idea of do we stop someone from doing something we think they might do or not

there was a Tom Cruise movie. I think it was The Minority Report, but I may have the wrong movie. But it was futuristic. If the government algorithm saw you ere going to commit a crime in the future they locked up

but we don’t lock people up for the potential to do crimes. So it becomes what to do about someone who seems dangerous but has yet to do anything unusual. And what are your rights against arbitrary government interference.
No but when someone behaves as strangely as he did, it’s normal to raise concern. Like, with the replica cop car and collection of auctioned police cars. It’s amazing people knew about it and he was allowed to drive that car. The assault on his partner. Those things needed to be on the radar before he got into a replica cop car to go anywhere. I think they might’ve been ignored for a reason, though, as per the Maclean’s story. Of course we don’t know because our media is tight lipped, bought and paid for.
 
Messages
26,557
Reaction score
3,690
Maybe we will get answers. Maybe the media is trying to do their job. A consortium of media organizations, led by CBC, is working to try to get court documents and redactions unsealed. They are citing ongoing police investigation as reason for holding back the info they're asking for. Except the shooter is dead. He's not going on trial - his fate has been decided. They're not protecting his rights to a fair trial. So who are they protecting? Obviously personal details about his victims, we don't need to know. We do need to know about what happened. We need to feel confident that the RCMP is not above the law and if they royally screwed up, or if there's any type of corruption involved, we need to know the details.

 
Last edited:

Northwind

Still knitting. Walking the path to health.
Messages
10,377
Reaction score
4,075
They are citing ongoing police investigation as reason for holding back the info they're asking for. Except the shooter is dead. He's not going on trial - his fate has been decided.
I think there's an investigation of the police and structures isn't there? They need to figure out things like why it took so long to put out warnings and the like.
 
Messages
26,557
Reaction score
3,690
I think there's an investigation of the police and structures isn't there? They need to figure out things like why it took so long to put out warnings and the like.
They are investigating themselves, I guess, because there's still curfuffle about how they are going to proceed with a full public inquiry - citing technicalities as reasons for stalling. The media consortium is just trying to get access to what they already know about this case. And, as such, the perpetrator is dead - he's the criminal who committed the atrocities - so they aren't needing to protect him in their ongoing investigation. (That information does not jeopardize the "suspect" in a criminal trial - because he's gone.)
 
Last edited:
Top