Scuba Forum / General / February 2008
Dear John:
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 26 Jan 2008 00:46 GMT "but the medical examiner's office had to confirm her identity through fingerprint samples because her face was beaten so badly her family did not recognize her."
Calgary police charge man in C-Train killing Surveillance video shows man following victim out of LRT station Last Updated: Friday, January 25, 2008 | 5:16 PM MT CBC News A 21-year-old Calgary man police say was known to them has been charged with killing Arcelie Laoagan.
Calgary police announced Friday that they have charged Christopher James Watcheston with first-degree murder.
Arcelie Laoagan worked two jobs in Calgary and hoped her five sons would one day join her in Canada.
"It is disturbing when there's a crime of this nature, when it's that violent and when it's random," said police Chief Rick Hanson.
"It is disturbing when there's a crime of this nature, when it's that violent and when it's random," said police Chief Rick Hanson.
Laoagan's battered body was found in a parking lot near the Franklin LRT station last week.
Investigators sifted through hours of LRT surveillance video and believe the accused was on the same C-Train as Laoagan on the night of Jan. 17, and that he followed her when she left the station.
Watcheston has lived in Calgary for less than a year, and is currently awaiting trial for criminal offences including assault causing bodily harm in an unrelated case, said Staff Sgt. Kevin Forsen of the homicide unit.
A passerby found Arcelie Laoagan's body near the Franklin LRT station.
The possibility a stranger committed the crime led police to warn women to take precautions while walking at night, and city council to review the safety of the transit system.
"I think the timely arrest in regard to this offence was very important for the level of anxiety that existed in this city," said Hanson.
Watcheston was arrested Thursday afternoon in the city's northwest, said police.
"I pity him because the life he made for himself, ahead, for his future because he destroyed his life," said Laoagan's sister, Marlyn Hori, in a hoarse, tired voice.
Arcelie Laoagan's siblings Caroline Maximo, left, Marlyn Hori, at the podium, and Oswald Sombrito, right, speak at her memorial.
Hori praised the police for their "professionalism" and said news of the charge gives the family some peace.
Police have not released Laoagan's cause of death but the medical examiner's office had to confirm her identity through fingerprint samples because her face was beaten so badly her family did not recognize her.
Laoagan worked two jobs in Calgary and was waiting for approval on a sponsorship application to bring her five sons, aged 8 to 19, from the Philippines to Canada. She had left a night shift and was headed home on the night she was killed.
About 1,000 attended a memorial service for Laoagan Thursday night at the southwest Calgary church where she sang in the choir.
 Signature Does anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people, and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old ones. And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder. I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too. I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762
hierophantfish@hotmail.com - 27 Jan 2008 07:07 GMT On Jan 25, 7:46 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> "but the medical examiner's office had to confirm her identity through > fingerprint samples because her face was beaten so badly her family did not [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com > http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 This kind of crime is unusual based on the statements made above. He didn't know her. He didn't rob her. He didn't sexually assault her. What exactly was the motive ? I wonder if he has a history of mental illness. I also have to wonder if he is a serial killer. Usually a first -time or second-time offender doesn't take such bold moves and the police are only admitting to him being booked on one previous assault charge. My bet is that he's assaulted many times before, if not killed others. But please notice, the police are NOT releasing the cause of death so it's very possible that he shot her and then beat her to a pulp.
Dennis (Icarus) - 27 Jan 2008 13:27 GMT On Jan 25, 7:46 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> "but the medical examiner's office had to confirm her identity through > fingerprint samples because her face was beaten so badly her family did not [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com > http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762
>This kind of crime is unusual based on the statements made above. He >didn't know her. He didn't rob her. He didn't sexually assault her. >What exactly was the motive ? I wonder if he has a history of mental Evidently, to kill.
>illness. I also have to wonder if he is a serial killer. Usually a >first -time or second-time offender doesn't take such bold moves and >the police are only admitting to him being booked on one previous >assault charge. My bet is that he's assaulted many times before, if >not killed others. But please notice, the police are NOT releasing Hmm....ok....so you say it's an unusual crime, but the person assaulted many times before? But not arrested/charged. That'd imply that they were unreported?
>the cause of death so it's very possible that he shot her and then >beat her to a pulp. Talk about assuming facts not in evidence :-) So you think that'd change things....in what way? I'm fairly certain that Doug's point was that "it can happen there". Anyone can be a victim.
Dennis
hierophantfish@hotmail.com - 28 Jan 2008 02:13 GMT On Jan 27, 8:27 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote:
> <hierophantf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > >didn't know her. He didn't rob her. He didn't sexually assault her. > >What exactly was the motive ? I wonder if he has a history of mental
> Evidently, to kill. No one can say since the method of death hasn't been told and there is no apparent link from the perp to the victim. But, yes, to kill, is sure a valid motive. Ask Ted Bundy. Oh wait. You can't.
> >illness. I also have to wonder if he is a serial killer. Usually a > >first -time or second-time offender doesn't take such bold moves and > >the police are only admitting to him being booked on one previous > >assault charge. My bet is that he's assaulted many times before, if > >not killed others. But please notice, the police are NOT releasing
> Hmm....ok....so you say it's an unusual crime, but the person assaulted many > times before? > But not arrested/charged. That'd imply that they were unreported? They may have not been arrested or charged before. Or they may have not been reported. The current studies of criminals show that those who are tending to be violent offenders, especially serial criminals, start off slow. They commit the crime in an area they are familiar with and they move out to other neighborhoods as they become more comfortable with their 'activity'. Also, they start off with one level of violence and progress to a higher level. So, someone may assault one or two or ten times. Then they murder. They work up to it in other words.
I'm surprised that you aren't aware of this fact, since you claim to know so much about crime.
> >the cause of death so it's very possible that he shot her and then > >beat her to a pulp.
> Talk about assuming facts not in evidence :-) What did Popeye assume by posting this thread ?
> So you think that'd change things....in what way? > I'm fairly certain that Doug's point was that "it can happen there". > Anyone can be a victim. I have no idea what Popeye's point was. I'm simply stating the facts.
Dennis (Icarus) - 28 Jan 2008 03:17 GMT On Jan 27, 8:27 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote:
> > Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com > >http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 > >This kind of crime is unusual based on the statements made above. He > >didn't know her. He didn't rob her. He didn't sexually assault her. > >What exactly was the motive ? I wonder if he has a history of mental
>> Evidently, to kill.
>No one can say since the method of death hasn't been told and there is >no apparent link from the perp to the victim. But, yes, to kill, >is sure a valid motive. Ask Ted Bundy. Oh wait. You can't. Which would make it a random-type occurrence. You're aware these happen from time to time, right?
>> >illness. I also have to wonder if he is a serial killer. Usually a >> >first -time or second-time offender doesn't take such bold moves and >> >the police are only admitting to him being booked on one previous >> >assault charge. My bet is that he's assaulted many times before, if >> >not killed others. But please notice, the police are NOT releasing
>> Hmm....ok....so you say it's an unusual crime, but the person assaulted many >> times before? >> But not arrested/charged. That'd imply that they were unreported?
>They may have not been arrested or charged before. Or they may have >not been reported. The current studies of criminals show that those [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >assault one or two or ten times. Then they murder. They work up to >it in other words.
>I'm surprised that you aren't aware of this fact, since you claim to >now so much about crime. I'm fully aware of this. I just found it amusing that on the one hand you said it was "unusual" then said "assaulted many times before" :-)
> >the cause of death so it's very possible that he shot her and then > >beat her to a pulp.
>> Talk about assuming facts not in evidence :-)
>What did Popeye assume by posting this thread ? I'm pretty sure I've covered that. But my guess would be the victim assumed "it can't happen to me".
>> So you think that'd change things....in what way? >> I'm fairly certain that Doug's point was that "it can happen there". >> Anyone can be a victim.
>I have no idea what Popeye's point was. I'm simply stating the facts. And I'm not surprised at all that you have no idea what Doug's point was.
:-) Dennis
hierophantfish@hotmail.com - 29 Jan 2008 22:53 GMT On Jan 27, 10:17 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote:
> <hierophantf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:7f613cfe-a343-49ed-bf36-9443e2788987@b2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 27, 8:27 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote:
> > > Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com > > >http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >no apparent link from the perp to the victim. But, yes, to kill, > >is sure a valid motive. Ask Ted Bundy. Oh wait. You can't.
> Which would make it a random-type occurrence. You're aware these happen from > time to time, right? Like I said. That means it could be a serial killing. You're aware these happen from time to time, right ?
> >> >illness. I also have to wonder if he is a serial killer. Usually a > >> >first -time or second-time offender doesn't take such bold moves and [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >I'm surprised that you aren't aware of this fact, since you claim to > >now so much about crime.
> I'm fully aware of this. I just found it amusing that on the one hand you > said it was "unusual" then said "assaulted many times before" :-) I'm betting you would be amused if you were not informed. You obvisiously are clueless.
Let me re-post it.
I said: This kind of crime is unusual based on the statements made above. He didn't know her. He didn't rob her. He didn't sexually assault her. What exactly was the motive ?"
I further said: I also have to wonder if he is a serial killer. Usually a first -time or second-time offender doesn't take such bold moves and the police are only admitting to him being booked on one previous assault charge. My bet is that he's assaulted many times before, if not killed others. The current studies of criminals show that those who are tending to be violent offenders, especially serial criminals, start off slow. They commit the crime in an area they are familiar with and they move out to other neighborhoods as they become more comfortable with their 'activity'. Also, they start off with one level of violence and progress to a higher level. So, someone may assault one or two or ten times. Then they murder. They work up to it in other words.
Now, please try to understand. THey are not usual in their crime. The "usual" crime is not a serial killer. THe "usual" crime is not someone randomly getting close enough to another person and then beating their face in. THe crime is not usual. So, does it happen ? sure it does. And the person who often commits this crime works up to it. They commit it over and over, most often in a far off neighborhood first. They then get bolder and come closer to home and get more violent.
> > >the cause of death so it's very possible that he shot her and then > > >beat her to a pulp. > >> Talk about assuming facts not in evidence :-)
> >What did Popeye assume by posting this thread ?
> I'm pretty sure I've covered that. But my guess would be the victim assumed > "it can't happen to me". You didn't cover sh.t. And please note that most victims of serial killers never try to fight back. It wouldn't matter if they had a gun and a license to carry. THey never knew what hit them. And they never suspected it coming.
> >> So you think that'd change things....in what way?
> >> I'm fairly certain that Doug's point was that "it can happen there". > >> Anyone can be a victim.
> >I have no idea what Popeye's point was. I'm simply stating the facts.
> And I'm not surprised at all that you have no idea what Doug's point was. And I'm not surprised that you think his post was so spot on. LOL It's actually comical.
dazed and confuzzed - 30 Jan 2008 00:02 GMT > On Jan 27, 10:17 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] > And I'm not surprised that you think his post was so spot on. LOL > It's actually comical. are you sure your aren't JOF?
 Signature “TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________
America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3
hierophantfish@hotmail.com - 30 Jan 2008 00:27 GMT On Jan 29, 7:02 pm, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote:
> hierophantf...@hotmail.com wrote:
> are you sure your aren't JOF? I'm sure I (mispelled your) aren't JOF. Are you Diapered and Constipated ? Or Deranged and Confabulated ? Should I go on about your credits ? I think not.
dazed and confuzzed - 31 Jan 2008 02:55 GMT > On Jan 29, 7:02 pm, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Constipated ? Or Deranged and Confabulated ? Should I go on about > your credits ? I think not. You gotta do better than that to insult me.
I just consider the source.
Then I laugh....
 Signature “TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________
America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 30 Jan 2008 00:08 GMT On Jan 27, 10:17 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote:
> <hierophantf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:7f613cfe-a343-49ed-bf36-9443e2788987@b2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 27, 8:27 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote:
> > > Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com > > >http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >no apparent link from the perp to the victim. But, yes, to kill, > >is sure a valid motive. Ask Ted Bundy. Oh wait. You can't.
> Which would make it a random-type occurrence. You're aware these happen > from > time to time, right? Like I said. That means it could be a serial killing. You're aware these happen from time to time, right ?
Hey.
"If you don't have the facts, shut the f.ck up." -Fuckfish
> >> >illness. I also have to wonder if he is a serial killer. Usually a > >> >first -time or second-time offender doesn't take such bold moves and [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >I'm surprised that you aren't aware of this fact, since you claim to > >now so much about crime.
> I'm fully aware of this. I just found it amusing that on the one hand you > said it was "unusual" then said "assaulted many times before" :-) I'm betting you would be amused if you were not informed. You obvisiously are clueless.
Let me re-post it.
I said: This kind of crime is unusual based on the statements made above. He didn't know her. He didn't rob her. He didn't sexually assault her. What exactly was the motive ?"
Can you cite those statements please?
Or shut the f.ck up.
I further said: I also have to wonder if he is a serial killer.
That's pretty factual.
Shut the f.ck up.
Usually a first -time or second-time offender doesn't take such bold moves and the police are only admitting to him being booked on one previous assault charge. My bet is that he's assaulted many times before, if not killed others.
That's pretty factual.
Shut the f.ck up.
The current studies of criminals show that those who are tending to be violent offenders, especially serial criminals, start off slow. They commit the crime in an area they are familiar with and they move out to other neighborhoods as they become more comfortable with their 'activity'. Also, they start off with one level of violence and progress to a higher level. So, someone may assault one or two or ten times. Then they murder. They work up to it in other words.
Now, please try to understand. THey are not usual in their crime. The "usual" crime is not a serial killer. THe "usual" crime is not someone randomly getting close enough to another person and then beating their face in. THe crime is not usual. So, does it happen ? sure it does. And the person who often commits this crime works up to it. They commit it over and over, most often in a far off neighborhood first. They then get bolder and come closer to home and get more violent.
> > >the cause of death so it's very possible that he shot her and then > > >beat her to a pulp. > >> Talk about assuming facts not in evidence :-)
> >What did Popeye assume by posting this thread ?
> I'm pretty sure I've covered that. But my guess would be the victim > assumed > "it can't happen to me". You didn't cover sh.t. And please note that most victims of serial killers never try to fight back.
Oh, I -gotta- see a cite for that bullshit.
It wouldn't matter if they had a gun and a license to carry. THey never knew what hit them. And they never suspected it coming.
What's simply amazing is how you've deemed this a serial killing on absolutely no fact but a loosely interpreted sentence.
Simply amazing.
> >> So you think that'd change things....in what way?
> >> I'm fairly certain that Doug's point was that "it can happen there". > >> Anyone can be a victim.
> >I have no idea what Popeye's point was. I'm simply stating the facts.
> And I'm not surprised at all that you have no idea what Doug's point was. And I'm not surprised that you think his post was so spot on. LOL It's actually comical.
Then why don't you tell us what my point was, since you've done other such cutting edge interpretation here.
 Signature Does anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people, and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old ones. And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder. I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too. I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762
hierophantfish@hotmail.com - 30 Jan 2008 00:51 GMT On Jan 29, 7:08 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> <hierophantf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message Hiero _ > Like I said. That means it could be a serial killing. You're aware these happen from time to time, right ?
Popeye_ Hey. "If you don't have the facts, shut the f.ck up." - Fuckfish
ANd now me replying : Well sure Popeye, but your MEETOO Dennis stated that it was a random killing. DId he have the facts ? Did you ? If you didn't have the facts, then why did you post it to start with ? more
Hiero says, I said: This kind of crime is unusual based on the statements made above. He didn't know her. He didn't rob her. He didn't sexually assault her. What exactly was the motive ?"
Popeye says, Can you cite those statements please? Or shut the f.ck up.
I now say... hierophantfish says, cite what statements ? THat he didn't know her or rob her ? THey are from YOUR post.
Hiero says... > I further said: I also have to wonder if he is a serial killer.
Popeye says ... That's pretty factual. Shut the f.ck up.
Now I say... Oh really. So you are telling me that you agree it's a serial killer and I should shut up ?
Hiero said, Usually a first -time or second-time offender doesn't take such bold moves and the police are only admitting to him being booked on one previous assault charge. My bet is that he's assaulted many times before, if not killed others.
Popeye says, That's pretty factual. Shut the f.ck up.
Hiero says... here we go again with Popeye.
I said, You didn't cover sh.t. And please note that most victims of serial killers never try to fight back.
Popeye said, Oh, I -gotta- see a cite for that bullshit.
Hiero says, Get off your fat a.s and do your f.cking homework. Look up serial killers. Note their methods of death.
Popeye says : What's simply amazing is how you've deemed this a serial killing on absolutely no fact but a loosely interpreted sentence. Simply amazing.
Hiero says, You have deemed this a murder that could be prevented if the chick only had a gun. And you based it on bullshit that you read from the newspaper. That's amazing too.
Popeye said, Then why don't you tell us what my point was, since you've done other such cutting edge interpretation here.
My reply is, I've already said TWICE that I have no idea what your point is. Maybe YOU should explain it to us.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 30 Jan 2008 05:13 GMT On Jan 29, 7:08 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> <hierophantf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message Hiero _ > Like I said. That means it could be a serial killing. You're aware these happen from time to time, right ?
Popeye_ Hey. "If you don't have the facts, shut the f.ck up." - Fuckfish
ANd now me replying : Well sure Popeye, but your MEETOO Dennis stated that it was a random killing. DId he have the facts ? Did you ? If you didn't have the facts, then why did you post it to start with ?
I'm not commenting on what Dennis says, he can speak just fine for himself.
I -am- quoting you, however, that if you don't have the facts, shut the f.ck up.
The story is factual, and posted to make a point, which as usual, you missed.
I don't need any other facts to post it.
Hiero says, I said: This kind of crime is unusual based on the statements made above. He didn't know her. He didn't rob her. He didn't sexually assault her. What exactly was the motive ?"
Popeye says, Can you cite those statements please? Or shut the f.ck up.
I now say... hierophantfish says, cite what statements ? THat he didn't know her or rob her ? THey are from YOUR post.
Then cite them from my post (here's a hint- you can't, and you're two stepping around the room).
Since you can't cite the facts, you should, as you say, shut the f.ck up.
Hiero says... > I further said: I also have to wonder if he is a serial killer.
Popeye says ... That's pretty factual. Shut the f.ck up.
Now I say... Oh really. So you are telling me that you agree it's a serial killer and I should shut up ?
If you consider your baseless "wondering" as factual, which apparently you do (not for the first time, I'm sure), then you might be correct.
Otherwise, you don't have the facts, and you should shut the f.ck up.
Hiero said, Usually a first -time or second-time offender doesn't take such bold moves and the police are only admitting to him being booked on one previous assault charge. My bet is that he's assaulted many times before, if not killed others.
Popeye says, That's pretty factual. Shut the f.ck up.
Hiero says... here we go again with Popeye.
"My bet" = facts, says Fuckfish.
Yup, he we go again, alright.
I said, You didn't cover sh.t. And please note that most victims of serial killers never try to fight back.
Popeye said, Oh, I -gotta- see a cite for that bullshit.
Hiero says, Get off your fat a.s and do your f.cking homework. Look up serial killers. Note their methods of death.
I've done my homework, better than three decades, and you're wrong.
You cite your own bullshit statements.
Since you can't, you should shut the f.ck up.
Popeye says : What's simply amazing is how you've deemed this a serial killing on absolutely no fact but a loosely interpreted sentence. Simply amazing.
Hiero says, You have deemed this a murder that could be prevented if the chick only had a gun. And you based it on bullshit that you read from the newspaper. That's amazing too.
I'd ask you to cite this bullshit as well, but it would be on the bottom of the list of the other sh.t you can't cite.
Of course if you had further researched the story, you would know that she could have -easily- defended herself with a gun, which is not a point I previously made.
With each post you prove yourself both factless and stupider, too stupid to take your own advice and shut the f.ck up.
You're getting colored pretty stupid tonight.
Popeye said, Then why don't you tell us what my point was, since you've done other such cutting edge interpretation here.
My reply is, I've already said TWICE that I have no idea what your point is.
Well then, your several above statements not withstanding,
If you don't have the facts, shut the f.ck up.
Maybe YOU should explain it to us.
"Us"?
You got a mouse in your pocket?
Everybody gets it but you, and, statistically, Futile John, but hand holding and explaining to the impaired is someone else's department.
 Signature Does anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people, and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old ones. And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder. I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too. I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762
Dennis (Icarus) - 30 Jan 2008 13:40 GMT With no apparentm motive, that'd make it appear random. After all, Hiero was the chap who talked about Ted Bundy and serial killing.
:-)
 Signature Support the Writers!
<hierophantfish@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:23347e3b-3e57-408d-ae2c-c6f3e5146e64@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... On Jan 29, 7:08 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> <hierophantf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message Hiero _ > Like I said. That means it could be a serial killing. You're aware these happen from time to time, right ?
Popeye_ Hey. "If you don't have the facts, shut the f.ck up." - Fuckfish
ANd now me replying : Well sure Popeye, but your MEETOO Dennis stated that it was a random killing. DId he have the facts ? Did you ? If you didn't have the facts, then why did you post it to start with ?
I'm not commenting on what Dennis says, he can speak just fine for himself.
I -am- quoting you, however, that if you don't have the facts, shut the f.ck up.
The story is factual, and posted to make a point, which as usual, you missed.
I don't need any other facts to post it.
Hiero says, I said: This kind of crime is unusual based on the statements made above. He didn't know her. He didn't rob her. He didn't sexually assault her. What exactly was the motive ?"
Popeye says, Can you cite those statements please? Or shut the f.ck up.
I now say... hierophantfish says, cite what statements ? THat he didn't know her or rob her ? THey are from YOUR post.
Then cite them from my post (here's a hint- you can't, and you're two stepping around the room).
Since you can't cite the facts, you should, as you say, shut the f.ck up.
Hiero says... > I further said: I also have to wonder if he is a serial killer.
Popeye says ... That's pretty factual. Shut the f.ck up.
Now I say... Oh really. So you are telling me that you agree it's a serial killer and I should shut up ?
If you consider your baseless "wondering" as factual, which apparently you do (not for the first time, I'm sure), then you might be correct.
Otherwise, you don't have the facts, and you should shut the f.ck up.
Hiero said, Usually a first -time or second-time offender doesn't take such bold moves and the police are only admitting to him being booked on one previous assault charge. My bet is that he's assaulted many times before, if not killed others.
Popeye says, That's pretty factual. Shut the f.ck up.
Hiero says... here we go again with Popeye.
"My bet" = facts, says Fuckfish.
Yup, he we go again, alright.
I said, You didn't cover sh.t. And please note that most victims of serial killers never try to fight back.
Popeye said, Oh, I -gotta- see a cite for that bullshit.
Hiero says, Get off your fat a.s and do your f.cking homework. Look up serial killers. Note their methods of death.
I've done my homework, better than three decades, and you're wrong.
You cite your own bullshit statements.
Since you can't, you should shut the f.ck up.
Popeye says : What's simply amazing is how you've deemed this a serial killing on absolutely no fact but a loosely interpreted sentence. Simply amazing.
Hiero says, You have deemed this a murder that could be prevented if the chick only had a gun. And you based it on bullshit that you read from the newspaper. That's amazing too.
I'd ask you to cite this bullshit as well, but it would be on the bottom of the list of the other sh.t you can't cite.
Of course if you had further researched the story, you would know that she could have -easily- defended herself with a gun, which is not a point I previously made.
With each post you prove yourself both factless and stupider, too stupid to take your own advice and shut the f.ck up.
You're getting colored pretty stupid tonight.
Popeye said, Then why don't you tell us what my point was, since you've done other such cutting edge interpretation here.
My reply is, I've already said TWICE that I have no idea what your point is.
Well then, your several above statements not withstanding,
If you don't have the facts, shut the f.ck up.
Maybe YOU should explain it to us.
"Us"?
You got a mouse in your pocket?
Everybody gets it but you, and, statistically, Futile John, but hand holding and explaining to the impaired is someone else's department.
 Signature Does anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people, and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old ones. And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder. I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too. I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762
hierophantfish@hotmail.com - 30 Jan 2008 17:31 GMT On Jan 30, 8:44 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote:
> With no apparentm motive, that'd make it appear random. > After all, Hiero was the chap who talked about Ted Bundy and serial killing. > :-) Yes Dennis. Now you're catching on. Serial killers can be random.
Dennis (Icarus) - 30 Jan 2008 18:27 GMT >On Jan 30, 8:44 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Yes Dennis. Now you're catching on. Serial killers can be random. Good that you realize this.
Dennis
hierophantfish@hotmail.com - 30 Jan 2008 17:48 GMT On Jan 30, 12:13 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> I'm not commenting on what Dennis says, he can speak just fine for himself. I don't think he does.
> I -am- quoting you, however, that if you don't have the facts, shut the f.ck up. You don't have the facts dude.
> The story is factual, and posted to make a point, which as usual, you missed. The story happened. THat much is fact. The facts you missed are method of death and weapon used.
> I don't need any other facts to post it. Of course not. That's because you're a gun nut.
> Hiero says, I said: This kind of crime is unusual based on the > statements made above. He didn't know her. He didn't rob her. He [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Then cite them from my post (here's a hint- you can't, and you're two stepping around the room). Ok. I won't two step. I'll blantantly state that YOUR POST IS LACKING IN DETAILS. YOUR POST IS LACKING. GOT IT ?
> I said, You didn't cover sh.t. And please note that most victims of > serial killers never try to fight back. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Since you can't, you should shut the f.ck up. Here ya go fat a.s. Here's your cite. Look up Ted Bundy and tell me how many of his victims fought back. How about Gacy ? How about WIlliams ?
> Of course if you had further researched the story, you would know that she could have -easily- defended herself with a gun, which is not a point I previously made. No, your MEETOO Dennis made it for you. And I disagree. You don't even know what the murder weapon was because YOUR POST IS LACKING in that detail. You don't know the method of murder because YOUR POST IS LACKING in that detail too. But you're so damned sure that she could have prevented her death. Not only have you colored yourself stupid, but you've inhaled it too. However, since you have no life but to live to argue with people here, I consider myself doing a good deed by talking with you. Helping out the handicapped is what I'm doing here by having an exchange with you. You should thank me for providing you with a spark of joy in your otherwise dismal, decaying existance.
Dennis (Icarus) - 30 Jan 2008 18:31 GMT On Jan 30, 12:13 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
><Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > >> I'm not commenting on what Dennis says, he can speak just fine for himself. > >I don't think he does. Well, there's your problem try thinking then.
<snip>
Dennis
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 30 Jan 2008 19:48 GMT On Jan 30, 12:13 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> I'm not commenting on what Dennis says, he can speak just fine for himself. I don't think he does.
No one cares.
> I -am- quoting you, however, that if you don't have the facts, shut the f.ck up. You don't have the facts dude.
I didn't offer any.
I just posted a story.
You still don't have the facts, however.
> The story is factual, and posted to make a point, which as usual, you missed. The story happened. THat much is fact. The facts you missed are method of death and weapon used.
I didn't miss either.
And while it may have been determined at this point, it wasn't then, and you didn't have them either.
> I don't need any other facts to post it. Of course not. That's because you're a gun nut.
No one knows what relevance that has.
> Hiero says, I said: This kind of crime is unusual based on the > statements made above. He didn't know her. He didn't rob her. He [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Then cite them from my post (here's a hint- you can't, and you're two stepping around the room). Ok. I won't two step. I'll blatantly state that YOUR POST IS LACKING IN DETAILS. YOUR POST IS LACKING. GOT IT ?
Now, now, don't squirt your diaper.
-You- state very clearly above: "cite what statements ? THat he didn't know her or rob her ? THey are from YOUR post."
Now, please don't slide of this -third- request for a cite to prove your statement.
> I said, You didn't cover sh.t. And please note that most victims of > serial killers never try to fight back. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Since you can't, you should shut the f.ck up. Here ya go fat a.s. Here's your cite. Look up Ted Bundy and tell me how many of his victims fought back. How about Gacy ? How about WIlliams ?
That's not a cite.
Again.
Lose, lose, lose.
> Of course if you had further researched the story, you would know that she could have -easily- defended herself with a gun, which is not a point I previously made. No, your MEETOO Dennis made it for you. And I disagree.
I don't know what he wrote, but I'll bet it's right.
You, however, have been shown wrong, wrong, wrong, and stupid, stupid, stupid.
You don't even know what the murder weapon was because YOUR POST IS LACKING in that detail. You don't know the method of murder because YOUR POST IS LACKING in that detail too.
The post had the latest info at the time it was posted.
No cause of death had been released at that time.
You were clearly wrong about the robbery.
Stupid, stupid stupid.
More information that I have, that you don't.
If you -have- any further info, about the weapon, you haven't provided it.
But it's still not relevant to the purpose of the post.
All that required to make my point was an act of violence, random or otherwise, -anywhere- in Canada.
But you're so damned sure that she could have prevented her death.
Sure, but you don't know why.
I do.
I could prove it, but, you've made no effort to cite -anything-.
Since you don't have these facts, you should shut the f.ck up.
 Signature Does anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people, and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old ones. And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder. I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too. I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762
hierophantfish@hotmail.com - 30 Jan 2008 01:11 GMT On Jan 29, 7:08 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
Can you please fix your reader with the > carets thing. It's really most annoying to try to talk with you when you're not able to be posting in the proper line to respond.
Grumman-581 - 30 Jan 2008 01:22 GMT On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:11:57 -0800, hierophantfish wrote:
> Can you please fix your reader with the > carets thing. It's really most > annoying to try to talk with you when you're not able to be posting in the > proper line to respond. Doug probably just needs to switch to another newsreader... He's using Windows Mail with its "new and improved" bugs vs the tried and true bugs of Outlook Express and such...
 Signature See NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email.
hierophantfish@hotmail.com - 30 Jan 2008 18:14 GMT On Jan 29, 8:22 pm, Grumman-581 <grumman581-usenet-2...@spambob.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:11:57 -0800, hierophantfish wrote: > > Can you please fix your reader with the > carets thing. It's really most [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > -- > See NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. Now if only he'd switch to another newsgroup too.
Grumman-581 - 30 Jan 2008 19:10 GMT On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:14:49 -0800, hierophantfish wrote:
> Now if only he'd switch to another newsgroup too. I suspect that there are more people here that know Doug and like him around than have met you...
 Signature See NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 30 Jan 2008 19:49 GMT On Jan 29, 8:22 pm, Grumman-581 <grumman581-usenet-2...@spambob.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:11:57 -0800, hierophantfish wrote: > > Can you please fix your reader with the > carets thing. It's really most [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > -- > See NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. Now if only he'd switch to another newsgroup too.
I was here ten years before anyone knew your name, and I'll be here ten years after everyone forgets it.
 Signature Does anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people, and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old ones. And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder. I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too. I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762
Grumman-581 - 31 Jan 2008 01:00 GMT > Now if only he'd switch to another newsgroup too. Like MJB?
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 30 Jan 2008 04:55 GMT On Jan 29, 7:08 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
Can you please fix your reader with the > carets thing. It's really most annoying to try to talk with you when you're not able to be posting in the proper line to respond.
Not to color you stupider, but they're not carets, and my reader is set just fine.
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762
hierophantfish@hotmail.com - 30 Jan 2008 17:29 GMT On Jan 29, 11:55 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> Not to color you stupider, but they're not carets, and my reader is set just fine. Not to color you more of an idiot because that isn't possible, but here are quotes from YOU calling them carets.
You stated in the thread Dear Geekmeisters, " I made the switch to Google because Supernews was omitting Dan's and others' posts, but also because I had other intermittent problems with posting there. But I never had a problem with my CARETS going away until recently. Now I notice that you and some others lose my CARETS when replying to my posts. Yet I don't have any problem losing my CARETS when replying to myself. What's up with that?"
And let's not forget this intelligent statement from you : "Both, but, only on had >>>>> thingies."
Eat your f.cking carets. They might help your short vision.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 30 Jan 2008 19:46 GMT On Jan 29, 11:55 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> Not to color you stupider, but they're not carets, and my reader is set just fine. Not to color you more of an idiot because that isn't possible, but here are quotes from YOU calling them carets.
You stated in the thread Dear Geekmeisters, " I made the switch to Google because Supernews was omitting Dan's and others' posts, but also because I had other intermittent problems with posting there. But I never had a problem with my CARETS going away until recently. Now I notice that you and some others lose my CARETS when replying to my posts. Yet I don't have any problem losing my CARETS when replying to myself. What's up with that?" -Mossman
And let's not forget this intelligent statement from you : "Both, but, only one had >>>>> thingies."
One missing letter/typo has you completely stumped.
Sad, but we're sure you're doing your best.
Are you sure you're not JOF?
Eat your f.cking carets. They might help your short vision.
Sorry douche bag, you just quoted Greg Mossman on the carets.
You're still getting stupider and stupider with every post.
I posted this: ======== "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in message news:13pkq0pie3pvdbd@news.supernews.com...
> "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message > news:b651f733-9601-4031-ab4b- [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > >>>>>>These things. Which, BTW, are not carets.
The caret is above your number 6 on the qwerty (^^^^^).
The punctuation chart lists these "<<<>>>" as "brackets". ========
Which you obviously saw, but ignored, thus testifying to your intellectual dishonesty.
Lose, lose, lose.
Don't think anyone's missing you slithering out of all your cites.
 Signature Does anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people, and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old ones. And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder. I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too. I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762
dazed and confuzzed - 31 Jan 2008 02:51 GMT > Are you sure you're not JOF? Looks more and more like he/she is....
 Signature “TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________
America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3
JOF - 31 Jan 2008 14:24 GMT On Jan 30, 9:51 pm, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote:
> > <hierophantf...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:00a058ee-a699-4598-b322-e060fb0f6109@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > Are you sure you're not JOF? > > Looks more and more like he/she is.... Not unless he first posted to this thread from Mexico. Besides, he's not nearly as polite as me. When have I ever referred to you as Fatass?
JF
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 31 Jan 2008 16:17 GMT On Jan 30, 9:51 pm, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote:
> Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote: > > > <hierophantf...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:00a058ee-a699-4598-b322-e060fb0f6109@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > Are you sure you're not JOF? > > Looks more and more like he/she is.... Not unless he first posted to this thread from Mexico. Besides, he's not nearly as polite as me. When have I ever referred to you as Fatass?
JF
Whatever your legion of faults, you're not the sockpuppet type.
<we were just comparing the whining techniques>
That's as close as you get to a compliment this year.
 Signature Does anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people, and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old ones. And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder. I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too. I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762
Joe English - 31 Jan 2008 17:02 GMT > On Jan 30, 9:51 pm, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > That's as close as you get to a compliment this year. hell, it isn't even February yet!
JOF - 31 Jan 2008 17:06 GMT > > That's as close as you get to a compliment this year. > > hell, it isn't even February yet! My New Year's resolution is to go back to being my old charming self. I'm gonna be a lover, not a fighter.
JF
Joe English - 31 Jan 2008 23:45 GMT >>> That's as close as you get to a compliment this year. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > JF if you love the way you fight, inquiring minds want to know. Have you ever experienced an orgasm while not alone?
JOF - 01 Feb 2008 00:30 GMT > >>> That's as close as you get to a compliment this year. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > if you love the way you fight, inquiring minds want to know. Have you > ever experienced an orgasm while not alone?- Yup. D'ya wanna know what it's like?
JF
Joe English - 01 Feb 2008 01:01 GMT >>>>> That's as close as you get to a compliment this year. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > JF uh no, I think I prefer my companions here in the states - I have heard strange things about you canuts!
JOF - 01 Feb 2008 03:00 GMT > >>>>> That's as close as you get to a compliment this year. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > uh no, I think I prefer my companions here in the states - I have heard > strange things about you canuts!- But you really should try it yerself. It's everything it's cracked up to be. Words don't do it justice.
JF
Joe English - 01 Feb 2008 03:56 GMT >>>>>>> That's as close as you get to a compliment this year. >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > JF maybe when I recover from this damn knee replacment
Greg Mossman - 01 Feb 2008 16:56 GMT > >>uh no, I think I prefer my companions here in the states - I have heard > >>strange things about you canuts!- [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > maybe when I recover from this damn knee replacment Was that the knee connected to your hollow leg?
Joe English - 01 Feb 2008 18:41 GMT >>>>uh no, I think I prefer my companions here in the states - I have heard >>>>strange things about you canuts!- [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Was that the knee connected to your hollow leg? Hollow head! but you knew that
JOF - 01 Feb 2008 23:34 GMT > >>>>uh no, I think I prefer my companions here in the states - I have heard > >>>>strange things about you canuts!- [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Hollow head! but you knew that- My sister had both legs surgically removed and reattached to correct alignment problems. The docs removed a wedge of bone from each leg. She was 57 at the time and survived. I'm sure you'll be fine. The docs know what they're doing.
JF
Greg Mossman - 02 Feb 2008 00:04 GMT > My sister had both legs surgically removed and reattached to correct > alignment problems. The docs removed a wedge of bone from each leg. > She was 57 at the time and survived. I'm sure you'll be fine. The docs > know what they're doing. Yeah, right. Here they'd probably get the right and left mixed up and Joe would never be able to dance again. The world would not be the same without a dancing Joe.
Joe English - 02 Feb 2008 00:32 GMT >>My sister had both legs surgically removed and reattached to correct >>alignment problems. The docs removed a wedge of bone from each leg. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Joe would never be able to dance again. The world would not be the > same without a dancing Joe. you ain't seen me dance, I just stand there and looke purty
they have gotten much better at stopping those mistakes. However when in pre-op they did have me down as an arthroscopy, instead of an arthroplasty. The clerical error didn't get to far
Joe English - 02 Feb 2008 00:29 GMT >>>>>>uh no, I think I prefer my companions here in the states - I have heard >>>>>>strange things about you canuts!- [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > JF getting better everyday. a power outage earlier in the week was nice we went from 73F to -2 WC (12F) in about 4 hours. After one move to my daughters house, power came back on, moved back, power went out again. I sat here cold, and dark with no contact with the outside world. No flashlight (poorly prepared) I didn't think the power would go off again. But I did have my pistol loaded and ready to go if needed (well prepared) last night and today 9" of snow - I haven't seen a plow all day - we get drifts 7-12'. My son has been on my tractor all day shovelling the driveway and helping drivers who have become stuck. Our road is a two lane country lane - quite dangerous
My doc is good - his dad first operated on my knee in 1970. It has been a long relationship.
Joe English - 02 Feb 2008 15:38 GMT >>>>> That's as close as you get to a compliment this year. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > JF I've known for years
crownfield - 02 Feb 2008 18:58 GMT -JOF wrote: -> ->>JOF wrote: ->> ->> ->>>>Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote: ->> ->>>>> That's as close as you get to a compliment this year. ->> ->>>>hell, it isn't even February yet! ->> ->>>My New Year's resolution is to go back to being my old charming self. ->>>I'm gonna be a lover, not a fighter. ->> ->>>JF ->> ->>if you love the way you fight, inquiring minds want to know. Have you ->>ever experienced an orgasm while not alone?- -> -> -> Yup. D'ya wanna know what it's like? -> -> JF -> -I've known for years
jof just found out...
-
 Signature Bob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net
JOF - 31 Jan 2008 17:04 GMT On Jan 31, 11:17 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 9:51 pm, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > That's as close as you get to a compliment this year. Hey. It's a start. 8)
JF
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 31 Jan 2008 03:24 GMT http://aguynamedbrian.blogspot.com/2008/01/arcelie-laoagan.html
Arcelie Laoagan
Arcelie Laoagan was found dead last Thursday evening here in Calgary. On her way home from the downtown around 10:00 PM, having left one of the two jobs she worked, she was allegedly killed, police believe, as she left one of the LTR stations in the city's southeast area, along the path from the Franklin Station. They also believe that she had been harassed and followed on the train by the person who eventually attacked her from the corner of 8th Street and 7th Avenue SW all the way southeast. The 40 year old mother of five who only recently immigrated to Canada from the Philippines, settling first in Toronto, and then moving west, is Calgary's fourth homicide.
The details of Arcelie's life are familiar and too sad; hard working, great religious faith, and a belief that she was able to make a better life not only for herself here in Canada, but for her family. More familiar and much sadder is the threat that her death is about to used for political leverage by elected officials and the cadre of local big business owners and fodder for a local media that is routinely lazy and woefully unintelligent.
Tucked inside today's Calgary Herald, in Don Braid's column, is a rather lengthy piece that centers on the thoughts of George Brookman. Brookman is the president and the chairman of the Calgary Stampede as well as the owner of Western Canadian Graphics, where Arcelie held one her two jobs and where she left for home late last Thursday night. Mr. Brookman is upset, described and sad and furious, that one of his employees was victim of a senseless crime. I'm not about to question the validity of his feelings surrounding Arcelie's murder. But I am about to question his and Don Braid's overall response to this latest example of Calgary's ever growing social ills.
The column's headline is Death at C-Train shows city not so safe anymore. It details Mr. Brookman's contention, communicated in an email sent yesterday to Mr. Braid that "the "Western Values" I talk about at the Calgary Stampede do not mean much if our great city isn't safe for it's own citizens." I understand Mr. Brookman's sentiment, but what is confusing is his insistence that there are somehow "Western Values" at play here and more confusing is how the man has just recently noticed that not much at all is right about Calgary's continued demise.
What are values that would be thought of as Western? Is it a belief in the overriding religion of a free market that motivates a behavior largely marked by an apolitical selfishness where interest and participation in government at any level is nonexistent? Or is it an insistence that ignoring something, something like say rampant, uncontrollable crime or the erosion of community means it doesn't really exist? Or perhaps it is a contention that it is in the best interest for a society to be one where substance abuse is not only regarded as an inalienable right, but as something to be celebrated, because that too works as a means of distracting citizens from the more pressing, less understandable problems of the day.
Just now, with the tragic and preventable murder of Arcelie Laoagan, the citizens and politicians are realized that the city is not safe, that it has changed in ways so thorough and insidious they may be irreversible? Public transportation, in addition to be woefully ineffective, is at best at nervous ride, fraught with danger, small, big, real and imagined. From the moment I arrived back here, I noticed it seemed to operate more as a caravan of low-level criminals, dangerous drug addicts, and the homeless, all of whom seemed to utilize the easily abused system to move from one area of the city to the other. No security presence - ever - and means to contact security that often fails and falls well short of offering any reassurance. Both the trains themselves and the stations - not only in the downtown core, but throughout the line - are used as shelters, toilets, and a kind of open air drug market, apparent to everyone, but of interest to few.
Seriously, how great of an overall failure could be on display? The recent elections were regarded more as a curiosity - an opportunity for the public to be told over and over again how prosperous the city was and would continue to be and a chance for the local media to parse personality rather than force issues. Mayoral candidate international felon and slumlord Alnoor Kassam and the incumbent and eventual mayor elect Dave Bronconnier both ran campaigns that seemed stunningly out of touch with the reality of Calgary, preaching a kind of parable where everything was wonderful and well, we all are having the time of our life. Mr. Braid's column suggests that there are a number of people in Calgary who would like to see Mr. Brookman run for elected office - that a man of his passion and beliefs would be prescriptive for all that ails the city. I'm sure that it would, if only because it would contrast with the current roster, all of whom seem remarkable unaware and dreadfully apathetic, his ideas of western values notwithstanding.
Don't pay attention, whatever you do. Build bigger homes with bigger security systems in bigger communities with bigger fences surrounding them and when you do arrive home, draw the drapes and kick back and watch the follies of the hapless Calgary Flames. Keep smiling. Nothings wrong. Not one thing. Even it is - and that's unlikely - what would you care?
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 31 Jan 2008 03:25 GMT Grenades found among weapons in murder suspect's home Last Updated: Friday, November 2, 2007 | 11:03 AM MT
CBC News A cache of weapons, including a grenade launcher and submachine gun, were found in the Calgary home of a man subsequently charged with second-degree murder.
Calgary police called in the RCMP National Weapons Enforcement Support Team to go through the stash of grenades, throwing stars, rifles and handguns, all in working order.
Calgary police seized a weapons cache including a grenade launcher and a Uzi submachine gun. (Calgary Police Service) "You will not encounter these kinds of things, you know, on a daily basis or a weekly basis or a monthly basis," Staff Sgt. Kevin Forsen said Thursday.
Calgary police searched a downtown residence as part of the investigation into the death of Daniel Roy Norquay outside a Mission-area bar in October. Investigators believe a fight broke out after a man made a sexual remark to a pair of young women.
Police think Norquay, 30, who was stabbed several times and died in hospital, was an innocent bystander.
On Thursday, police charged Lee Wesley Hollinger, 36, with second-degree murder and assault. He also faces 42 weapons-related charges, including possession of a prohibited weapon and unsafe storage of a firearm.
Forsen said Hollinger was not known to police before his arrest, and is not affiliated with the military or any known clubs or organizations.
Daniel Roy Norquay was found with several stab wounds near this strip mall in Calgary's Mission area. (CBC) Doug King, chair of justice studies at Mount Royal College, said the weapons seized are unusual in Calgary, and that it would be difficult for anyone without criminal connections to acquire them.
"Typically it's not someone who's a gun collector, who's doing this just to kind of admire and collect weapons," King told CBC News. "Typically it is connected to some form of illegal activity and you instantly think of gang activity and organized crime activity."
King said the weapons were likely enroute to another location as there's a large trafficking network for illegal weapons smuggled across the border from the United States.
|
|
|