How to scare the general public
[QUOTE=MR2NR;526007]So the link to the Peel Police Department and their media release is incorrect?
Peel Regional Police | Media Archive
This is a Police media release, not a tv or newspaper release and i highly doubt that the information is incorrect.
Funny you should say what you just said above. Yuli and others have proved it that the model of the gun does not fit the police description of it. Don't be blind just cause the police say something. I lived in peel for a long time and the cops out there are bored and always looking to expoit something or someone such as the case here with the gun.
Peel Regional Police | Media Archive
This is a Police media release, not a tv or newspaper release and i highly doubt that the information is incorrect.
Funny you should say what you just said above. Yuli and others have proved it that the model of the gun does not fit the police description of it. Don't be blind just cause the police say something. I lived in peel for a long time and the cops out there are bored and always looking to expoit something or someone such as the case here with the gun.
What Yuli and the others have proved is this TYPE of firearm is one thing. What they have not proved is that the firearm that is now in the custody of the Peel Police Department may be another. So Nancy Drews, how do you know that the firearm has not been modified? Do you really think that the police tell you everything? I am not blind at all because the police say something, perhaps I and even others on this forum are more in tune to it than most others are.
50 Watt CAFz'r
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 93
Hmm, i have a couple things to add.
First. So our friend here according to the gentlemans "wife" was not charged with trafficking. Ok. My question is, why was he there in the first place? Attacking the media because they said he was charged with someone when he was not is arguing semantics. Welcome to being in the media spotlight. Things WILL get blown out of proportion, thats a given. Bottom line should be, that if he had not been there at all, this would have never happened right?
Second, I agree with Rob ^^. The media is not always right, press releases are not 100% accurate. Perfect example - Toronto Sun. No one is "blind" because the police tell us something. Regardless of whether it was some sort of sub-atomic machine gun or sniper rifle, the point is that it was an illegal gun, possessed by people who were trying to sell it and got caught. Just my 0.00002 cents (after taxes).
First. So our friend here according to the gentlemans "wife" was not charged with trafficking. Ok. My question is, why was he there in the first place? Attacking the media because they said he was charged with someone when he was not is arguing semantics. Welcome to being in the media spotlight. Things WILL get blown out of proportion, thats a given. Bottom line should be, that if he had not been there at all, this would have never happened right?
Second, I agree with Rob ^^. The media is not always right, press releases are not 100% accurate. Perfect example - Toronto Sun. No one is "blind" because the police tell us something. Regardless of whether it was some sort of sub-atomic machine gun or sniper rifle, the point is that it was an illegal gun, possessed by people who were trying to sell it and got caught. Just my 0.00002 cents (after taxes).
