Saunders' comments belong in a police state: Keenan | Toronto Star

Another brick in the wall of the Canadian security apparatus. No video released no name of the offender involved in the incident. Since when is ANYONE outside of a police officer allowed to pack a loaded gun when off-duty?

Quite evident that Saunders is not the right guy for the job as police chief. The quicker this guy is tossed to the curb the better Toronto will be.

Security guards, bank guards and licensed personal guards have always been able to carry loaded weapons on duty. They can also carry to and from duty because guns don't magically appear once they get to their job.

Security guards, bank guards and licensed personal guards have always been able to carry loaded weapons on duty. They can also carry to and from duty because guns don't magically appear once they get to their job.

I think people like him don't really have a clue about life outside of moms basement.

I agree that police should have to explain why they didn't charge somebody in a case such as this.

This seems to be the way things are going. You can thank the Baby Boomers--or "The Frightened Generation" as I like to call them these days. They've enabled this government mentality of "Nevermind what we're up to, what exactly are you doing?"

He's only making himself and the department look like they have something to hide. How hard would it be to say,

a. It was investigated and the shooting was deemed legal, or
b. Further investigation is needed before a decision is made.

They have made a decision. They just need to provide some evidence to back it up. they seem to have plenty of it.

Security guards, bank guards and licensed personal guards have always been able to carry loaded weapons on duty. They can also carry to and from duty because guns don't magically appear once they get to their job.

This has nothing to do with him killing two unarmed men. His gun is for work purposes, not for use outside. He can't open fire in the streets to shoot cans on a fence, so how is he allowed to kill two people? Why are the police protecting the identity and details so closely? Why no release of the video? Does this decision create open season for any security guard who feels threatened and a desire to shoot people? This is supposed to be Canada after all, we have strict gun laws.

Saunders has to go. He is another clown, following the footsteps of other clowns such as Fantino (dirtiest of them all) and Blair.

If you are in legal possession of a gun, and fear for your life, anybody is allowed to use deadly force. Just that most people are usually not in legal possession of a gun.

It's not even clear to me that the attacker didn't have a gun, since the guard was also injured by gunfire. At the very least, this would indicate that the attackers were trying to take his gun away from him. The question is did he have sufficient reason to draw the gun in the first place. I do wonder if, knowing he had a gun, he came on heavier with these two than he would have otherwise.

The decision is flimsy at best. If you have little prospect to secure a ruling against someone who opens fire on two unarmed men in public, then the officers in charge of the investigation should be replaced along with the Crown attorneys.

If they provided video evidence for all to see as they do in a transparent democracy, we can all judge whether the case makes sense. I can't see how a security guard would have a gun on his holster in his vehicle on the way home. His gun is supposed to be stored somewhere right? At the very least in his glove compartment box.

Regardless. The only way I can see this guy getting off without some form of punishment (even if it meant only his ability to remain in security) would be an obvious case of him being attacked by two men specifically attempting to gain access to his gun. He would then have to explain why it was in the open for two idiots to try and rob him of it.

Sounds like a confrontation and he was scared and used lethal force. What else can we make of the secrecy behind the decision? Don't the police always say "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't worry about showing your ID"? Never one to practice what they preach...

Sure this is what I figure too, but, as we can see we are left to theorize and hypothesize since they provide zero details to the public. Instead he goes into CYA, BS mode when the mic is in his face. The obvious question is why?

It also goes to a further point. However inconvenient, he and others shouldn't have easy access to a firearm when off duty. Did he enter the McDonalds with a loaded gun? Did he have the gun in full view on the passenger seat of his car? At the very least; even if self defense is warranted, he should be impacted by his poor decision making if this is the case. We can't expect a higher standard for regular civilians while those in the security industry have a lower threshold. On the contrary, we expect a much higher threshold of responsibility in their duties.

He likely did enter McDonald's with a loaded gun. Seems like the most sensible thing to me, instead of locking it in the trunk of his car - if he even had a car. He may have walked to McD's.

I would guess that if the guard did anything illegal in regard to carrying the gun, he would have been charged with it. Just as the police don't take off their guns when they are on a break, neither would he.

It's like the thought didn't even occur to him that the guy could be in a McDonalds on his lunch break.

It's like the thought didn't even occur to him that the guy could be in a McDonalds on his lunch break.

So his logic is it's better to enter McDonalds in public with a loaded gun than to go pick up his grease in the safety of his car at the drive through? Not the brightest bulb in the pack. This could have become much worse if what you are suggesting is true, there could have been fatalities of employees and innocent by standers all because he carried a loaded weapon into a public place outside his scope of duty.