10 July 2010

Bright lights, big city

Lucky number 28...

A man is dead after he was shot in the head inside a restaurant in Toronto’s Chinatown early Saturday.

The shooting happened around 3 a.m. at a restaurant called Excellent Cantonese Seafood, at 263 Spadina Ave.
No word yet from Mayor Miller's office, on which gun club the shooter belonged to.

P.S. -- My favorite line from all the media coverage...
"Police are hoping those that were in the restaurant will contact them."
Hey... hope is cheap.

**********

UPDATE: Victim is identified
An autopsy reveals Tien Pham, 17, of Toronto died of a gunshot wound to the head.
And this was one cold hitter...
“The actions of the offender in this case were certainly directed and deliberate,” Code said. “The offender basically walks into the dining room, walks straight up to the deceased, shoots him once in the back of the head, turns around, briskly walks out the same way that he came to the laneway.”


38 comments:

Anonymous said...

let us know when Harper's crime and punishment agenda accomplishes anything.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"another anonymous troll screeches... let us know when"

of course, nonny... a 17 year-old gets shot in the head at 3:00am in chinatown... and that's the fault of that diabolical, scheming bastard... stephen harper.

you're a genius.

*

Anonymous said...

ah, it seems, -you're- the genius, no?

I never said it was the "fault of Stephen Harper" now did I?

I merely referred to the well known fact that the Harper crew has very loudly proclaimed that they are going to address gun crime -nationally-.

Now perhaps you might feel that Toronto is exempt from all this, but I was there when mr. Haprer stood on a soapbox in this city right after Jane Creba was shot, and made absolute political hay over how it was the liberals who allowed this to happen and that they, would be the forces of change. How dare those criminal lovin liberals, allow this happen.

So it seems I struck a nerve then...

So, as a tax payin Canadian, I -would- like to know when my government will accomplish something on this and stop hiding behind the liberal skirt blaming everyone else rather themselves.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"another anonymous troll returns yet again... they are going to address gun crime"

and nonny... they are doing just that... by introducing (despite the best efforts of liberal senators to derail it) "tough on crime" legislation.

the way the glacially paced canadian criminal justice system works... it'll be a while before the first thugs feel the lash of the legislation. you get that, right?

your implication that putting criminals in jail... rather than simply continuing to turn so many of them over to social workers after laughably brief sentences... is an ineffective way of dealing with violent crime... is well, at minimum... grade school naivety.

so... how exactly is that on stephen harper & the conservatives? you thought the law was passed... crime would magically stop?

hey, here's a thought... you could try float this feeble shit over at liblogs... they'll love you long time.

*

Anonymous said...

If you actually think, that emulating the US with it's super jails and crime agenda is the way to do things, you are far, far more delusional than I first thought.

Clearly, the US case study, laughs in your face, and your bleatings of ' grade school naivety.' Pretty much a slam dunk.

Speaking of feeble...

Neo Conservative said...

*
"another anonymous troll tries yet again... bleatings of 'grade school naivety.'"

yeah, nonny... you've got me... dalton mcslippery's "catch & release" program is obviously the way to go.

*

Anonymous said...

you continue to go in circles. And I'm not "another" anonymous troll. I'm the same commenter throughout here. The same one who commenter last engaged you a few weeks ago, I tried to enlighten you to checking IPs if you're so concerned, I guess you still haven't figured this out. And if you merely see it as trolling, the option to shut off anonymous commenting is right there in the blogger preferences. One click, is all it takes.

Since I despise McGuinty, why would I think his methods are any better and when did I suggest this?

Joe said...

I don't think any of my comments have come close to any of the masturbatory references to "cumstains" or any any of the other beauties you've examples on your "rules" page. But that's maybe more fun for you I'm not sure. Count me out of that thanks.

I'm sorry I don't do google or it's gmail nonsense to simply comment somewhere, but if assuming names tickles your fancy, then fine. All better now?

Neo Conservative said...

*
anony-joe says... if assuming names tickles your fancy, then fine. All better now?"

do i really need to explain, once again, the difference between pseudonymous & anonymous?

i have been here, every day, for over three years. you & your anonymous brothers have my email & these comments. you know exactly where to find me... and you do... DAILY.

so tell me, uh... joe... where exactly do i find all you cowardly, dishonest little know-nothing dumbsticks in the millions of other vexatious, ANONYMOUS trolls?

oh yeah... that'd be nowhere.

you take a gmail id... i know it's you & you alone. no one else can post from that id.

that's not that hard to follow, right?

*

the one, and only... Joe. said...

well, I'm not the one who has a google blog, with the clear option to limit comments to ONLY those with a google ID. I recently set up a google blog for a friend and it was one click to ensure this.

I think though, failing this simple proceedure, you can differentiate between the "jerk off/cumstain/bahhahaaahaa" type of nony comments, and just some duelling between hopefully relatively somewhat sane people.

If I ever decide to give in, and get a google id, I'll use it. Until then, it's not on my list simple just to comment on a blog once every 3 or 4 weeks or so.

Anyway, we've done this one in for now I think.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anony-joe... you can differentiate between the "jerk off/cumstain/bahhahaaahaa" type of nony comments, and just some duelling between hopefully relatively somewhat sane people."

joe... you wanna be taken seriously... just separate yourself from the "jerk off/cumstain/bahhahaaahaa" herd.

it's not that complicated... and it's entirely your choice.

*

Still, amazingly enough, Joe. said...

"it's not that complicated... and it's entirely your choice."

I think this was what I've tried to tell you for some time about limiting the anonymous posters.

One can only conclude, you want them, and likely enjoy them.

I don't the odd comment here once in a while is reason enough to get yet another email I don't need.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anony-joe announces... One can only conclude, you want them, and likely enjoy them."

that's the problem with folks like yourself, joe... you're only able to find a single solution to every question.

conclude away, my all-knowing pal... why would you need my input on anything?

*

Anonymous said...

what other conclusion can be drawn neo conservative anony. (I don't know who you are either btw)

You complain about anonymous comments and people not taking real IDs, yet you won't take the simple step of unchecking anonymous commenting.

I'm still awaiting however, the illumination on how following the methods of the US, who has probably 6 times the gun crime we have will make it better.

They also have less gun control than we do, which, ironically enough, is another popular conservative gripe with Canada.

Rather than a somewhat intelligent answer I suppose we can expect more of this "nony" paranoia, and some flak about liberal socialist blah blah yadda yadda.

So, let's hear it. How will the US way with their overwhelmingly higher gun crime statistics be better here.

Neo Conservative said...

*
hey, nonny-puss... what happened to "we've done this one in for now I think."

hmmm... apparently we're not.

as for anonymous vs pseudonymous... asked & answered at 4:07 PM, July 12, 2010.

you're not really interested in a dialogue, are you, nonny. you just want to jam up the comment thread.

why should i play along with that?

and if you don't think that putting violent criminals in jail for longer periods of time is a good idea... you're way past any help i can give you.

*

Joe said...

neo conservative, you are, far, far too predictable.

"and if you don't think that putting violent criminals in jail for longer periods of time is a good idea... you're way past any help i can give you."

Actually I -was- interested in a reasonable dialog, because I do truly, want to know the answer. So far, not one conservative I have asked this, has been able to address with any degree of sanity. Not... one.

Maybe one of your other friends could address it with a little more class than that.

I'm not against putting criminals in jail, only a moron would be. Yet you knee jerked to that level in a heartbeat, I knew you would.

What I am against, is the idea that this somehow will solve our gun crime problem. Which seems to be a concept lost on you.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"joe says... What I am against, is the idea that this somehow will solve our gun crime problem."

this isn't string theory, joe... the answer is right there in front of you... and it isn't about more baskeball courts.

all you have to do is ask any law-abiding owner of legal firearms and they'll tell you... use a gun, you're done.

you hand out sufficiently severe prison sentences...instead of the current catch & release program... the thugs will figure it out.

wanna put a dent in the heroin trade? 20 year no parole sentence for importation & dealing weight.

'cos that whole "more social workers" obviously ain't gettin' the job done, is it.

*

Joe said...

are you dense?

"you hand out sufficiently severe prison sentences...instead of the current catch & release program... the thugs will figure it out.

wanna put a dent in the heroin trade? 20 year no parole sentence for importation & dealing weight.
"

What part of they are doing EXACTLY this in the US, and they have 6 TIMES the gun crime we have do you not understand?

You have absolutely nothing to convince anyone that this is a solution to gun crime do you?

You're damn right this isn't string theory, even a 10 year old can figure this one out.

Once again. Why does this not work where they do exactly as you suggest????

We've all heard the stories of the huge prison sentences down in the US for drugs, why doesn't it seem to do any of what you say it will???

Enough of going around in circles. Let's have a real answer.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"joe yowls... are you dense?"

nope.

*

Joe said...

still no answer.

See this is why people like you who start these blogs cannot be taken seriously. You howl about reasonable dialog, but you have just proved within a handful of comments, that it isn't even possible here.

You asserted that larger punishments and more gun ownership is the solution. But you cannot in any way, prove it will do any good whatsoever. You were given an obvious example of the US, which does all what you suggest, and more! and clearly, it not only doesn't work for them, their problems, are WORSE.

And you can't address this, whatsoever.

Now if you can return to reasonable dialog, and explain your assertions, great.

So far, your responses have avoided the question.

Neo Conservative said...

*
joe... that's a little disingenuous.

you're obviously not looking for me to answer your question. look back over your last dozen little rants here. you're simply pounding the same nail into the plank... over & over.

you want to answer for me.

and, well... you make stuff up.

for instance... you say i said that "more gun ownership is the solution".

that's not true... i didn't say anything of the sort and anyone reading this comment thread can see that.

now, i am happy to let you vent... you are certainly allowed to have a different opinion. but don't expect me to join in your nonsensical, chattering dance.

now... where were you?

*

Joe said...

"for instance... you say i said that "more gun ownership is the solution.

that's not true... i didn't say anything of the sort and anyone reading this comment thread can see that."


You're right. Anyone reading this thread -can- see, that you in fact did suggest this very thing.

you said...
"all you have to do is ask any law-abiding owner of legal firearms and they'll tell you... use a gun, you're done."

Now perhaps this was misunderstood. If I misunderstood this to mean you see more gun ownership by the general population as a good solution to lower gun crime, sorry. I assumed that meant you saw more gun ownership by the general population as a means to address gun crime, and I guess that is totally incorrect then?

Where was I? I was asking how you expected doing exactly what is NOT working in the US would for some magical reason work here. And you seem not able to answer this very simple question.

It's a very simple question. And you've been dancing around it for some time now.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"joe says... you in fact did suggest this very thing."

see joe... you don't need me. you're making shit up... but you don't need me at all.

here's a thought.

read slower... then get back to me.

*

Joe said...

just bouncing around eh???

You simply are incapable of answering the question directly!

This, is what happens when you publicly announce something. Someone might come along, and question you on it.

I asked how you expected a solution that has so far failed miserably in the US to work here.

So far, all I see is a whole lot of dancing around, and avoiding the question. So yes, I guess one can conclude, you have no, idea, do you.

Neo Conservative said...

*
joe ends up with a grand flourish... I guess one can conclude, you have no, idea, do you."

another one of your impressive "i can read your mind" debating tactics, huh? (extra points for the innovative punctuation too).

okay, joe... i'll bite.

let's take the case in this particular post...

"“The offender basically walks into the dining room, walks straight up to the deceased, shoots him once in the back of the head, turns around, briskly walks out the same way that he came to the laneway.”

if we're not allowed to put this guy in jail for the rest of his life... what happens then?

are you saying you're gonna bring him home to live with you in mom's basement?

hey... you got enough room down there for paul bernardo or clifford olson?

*

Joe said...

the last time I checked, Paul Benardo is still in prison, and won't be let out anytime soon. At all.... Get real.

And why would you think we aren't allowed to put someone away for life if he commits first degree murder by shooting someone in the back of head?

When you get off this ridiculous merry-go-round, there is still that very simple question to address.

Neo Conservative said...

*
hey, joe... good news... here's one for your side.

time to get out the balloons & party favours... 'cos putting people in jail is so bad.

*

Joe said...

I'm sorry, but no one has said jail terms that match the crime committed is a bad thing. You're hallucinating, once again, just as you were when you yapped off about Paul Benardo who was declared a dangerous criminal, and Clifford Olsen.

You seem only capable of making stuff up, and completely incapable of actually addressing a simple question posed many many comments ago.

And you wonder why people mock you here?

No I tried the reasonable approach, it gets no where with you. So keep the anonymous option open, because real participation beyond anyone simply agreeing with you, is impossible.

Neo Conservative said...

*
sorry, joe... read slower... asked and answered.

you commit a crime... you go to jail. you commit a serious crime... you do serious time.

your solution involves... what... magic fairy dust?

i love you fuzzy-bunny thug-lickers.

*

Jow said...

"sorry, joe... read slower... asked and answered.

you commit a crime... you go to jail. you commit a serious crime... you do serious time.

your solution involves... what... magic fairy dust?

i love you fuzzy-bunny thug-lickers."

I'm sorry Neo, but you continue to go in circles and make things up.

First of all, I have not proposed a solution. Since you're clearly incapable of answering a simple question, you've decided to project your hallucinations on me instead.

I never said anything about a solution, and I have never suggested being soft on crime, -whatsoever-.

I have asked though, how you expect that doing what the US has already tried, and failed, will work here instead.

This do the crime mantra you parrot and shouting that anyone who dares ask question loves thugs, is the stuff of blithering idiots.

Now try and stay on topic. How does 'doing the time", solve gun crime, when it's never worked before?

Perhaps both approaches you've identified, "doing the time", -and- "lovin thugs", are completely brainless foolish ideas. Now if -you- want to swallow that crap, that's your problem pal, not mine. But playing this conservative vs liberal game is for idiots.

Sorry.

Joe said...

oh, and before you have a shit haemorrhage about this 'doin the time' thing you can't seem to get off of, I fully support putting violent criminals in jail and not letitng them out on parole as early as some seem to.

Not because I think this is a "solution", because you're idiot if you think that, but it's the right thing to do.

Now maybe you address the question.

Neo Conservative said...

*
sorry joe... as i said above, more than once...

"you commit a crime... you go to jail. you commit a serious crime... you do serious time."

which is what the harper government is proposing.

what part of that (and how many times have you come back now?) are you not getting?

*

Joe said...

""you commit a crime... you go to jail. you commit a serious crime... you do serious time.""

That's it, that's all you can do, is repeat this line that doesn't nothing to explain, how it is a solution to gun crime?

You are still, incapable of addressing the real question. Just plug your ears and yell la la la like the rest of the loud mouthed conservatives I've seen.

The liberals are incapable of solutions, and here you are, showing everyone the conservatives have absolutely nothing either.

Yes, that is indeed, an answer.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"joe comes back yet again... how it is a solution to gun crime?"

okay joe... wax on, wax off...let's try again, this time... really... really... slowly.

i don't divide pathological behaviour into gun crime, foot crime, poodle crime, etc.

there are people who choose to prey upon other... usually weaker... people. if they can't get hold of a gun, they find a brick, or a knife... or a group of like-minded sociopaths.

they hurt and yes, even kill other folks.

when we do catch them... my feeling is that we should throw their sociopath asses in jail. there will always be such people and it will be a struggle to keep up with this sort of predation... but that doesn't mean we should give up.

and yes, i firmly believe we should keep their skanky violent asses in jail for as long as we can. you aren't going to fix a sociopath... but you can protect the larger field of folk.

i hope i broke that down into simple enough terms that you will be able to understand it this time.

now, please... tell me what part of this you don't agree with... and your own very special innovative solution.

*

Joe said...

well, first off I noticed you deleted the comments around the irony of a "catch and release" that occurred in conservative land known as Alberta. No McGuintys there fr hundreds of miles.

Deleting, btw, doesn't make it go away.

Now, as for your last post, since we were talking about gun crime at the start, the crime referenced in your OP being gun crime, I referred to 'gun crime'. But sure, if it's a brick, knife, whatever. No need to confuse the issue. Violent crime. There, does that do?

At no point have I ever said a violent criminal should not be sentenced to a real jail term. I have repeated this over and over but like many instances here and in another post, you tend to not want to accept that. Anyway. Hopefully now that I've said again for the I donno, 10th tim, maybe that will take hold.

You just don't seem to fathom, that beyond putting a violent criminal in jail, which is the right thing to do, it does nothing to address the problem of violent crime in the city of Toronto. Nothing. They have tried this approach in th US where they hand out huge sentences and have built super jails like you wouldn't believe, and yet, their problem is drastically worse than ours!

So no, you can't seem to answer why this is.

Neo Conservative said...

*
joe... the only comments that get deleted here are from the dumbass who has been threatening my family.

you have a problem with that? seriously?

as to solving the problems of violent sociopaths in society... if that's indeed what you're asking... it can't be done... unless you're prepared to go saddam hussein on their ass.

the best we can do, as i've said repeatedly here... is lock the sick, violent fuckers up for as long as we can.

how many different ways can i say that?

p.s. - you keep forgetting to offer your own solution.

so really... this is less about actual dialogue than being an obnoxious troll, right?

funny how that works.

*

Joe said...

finally. You admit that it isn't a solution!

However, it is being made out to be some kind of solution, and people are believing this!

Why would -I- have a solution? I pay a lot of tax money every year going into politician's pockets that I expect to work on solutions. And when I see a federal government being dishonest about one, I say so. Which has been the point of ohhh, the last 30 comments or so.

Now when is Harper going to work on real solutions, like he promised? Because we all know the lock'em up isn't much of one.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"joe squeals with delight... You admit that it isn't a solution!"

there you go again, joe... telling me what i think. you don't really need me for this at all, do you?

so sorry, pal... long jolts of hard time is the only solution here.

it doesn't fix these violent broken sociopaths, but... as i said previously... it does protect the larger field of folk... which is the number one job of any government.

and that's good enough for me.

p.s. -- your ill-concealed need for me to tell you that you have "won" something here... well joe... that's just embarrassing.

how old are you anyway? please tell me you're an angst-ridden pre-teen.

*