TheAgitator.com
Basil Parasiris Acquitted
Tuesday, June 17th, 2008Parasiris is a Quebec man who shot and killed a police officer during a botched drug raid on his home. Parasiris’ wife was shot in the arm, and his two children witnessed the exchange of gunfire. Last week, a Canadian jury acquitted Parasiris of murder charges. The Montreal Gazaette editorializes:
Laval police conducted the raid in the belief that Parasiris was involved in a local drug ring. Unfortunately, as Superior Court Justice Guy Cournoyer ruled, there was little proof to back this belief, certainly not enough for a search warrant to be executed in a surprise, pre-dawn raid. Such a raid should be carried out only in an emergency.
Parasiris was wakened by his wife screaming shortly after 5 a.m. on March 2, 2007. Seeing a shadow at the doorway to his bedroom, Parasiris picked up one of four loaded guns he kept in his bedroom and fired off at least two shots. He said he believed his home had been invaded.
In a way, it had been. Nine police officers forced Parasiris’s front door open with a battering ram. Five officers sprinted up the stairs to the bedrooms. Within less than a minute, Tessier lay dying, Parasiris’s wife was shot through the arm, a second police officer was hit by a bullet from Parasiris’s gun and Parasiris’s two children were traumatized.
Both sides seem to have panicked. It was an inevitable reaction on the part of the Parasiris family. But for the police to have fired off so many rounds suggests a lack of training in general and of planning for this raid in particular.
A search warrant for "dynamic entry" should not, on the evidence, have been issued in this case. Police could have arrested Parasiris under calmer circumstances.
A man is dead as a result of an apparently ill-planned raid. Only vigorous corrective action by the authorities can add anything positive to this tragic series of mistakes.
It’s nice to see a sensible outcome to one of theses cases, even if it had to come from Canada.
Certainly the right result. The guy’s home was invaded; he had no way of knowing who was attacking him and fired back. Two reservations, however:
1. The newspaper propagates the “too many police bullets” fallacy:
I’m 100% sure the police didn’t panic. They acted on their training — when fired on, fire back. More impressively, rather than panicking they managed to realize what was going on and stopped shooting before it was too late. In other words, they fired a lot less bullets than one would expect and didn’t kill the man shooting at them.
2. This is a mens rea issue I’m not sure about: Assume the police had had sufficient evidence, leading to a valid “dynamic entry” warrant. Should that turn the shooting into a murder? Even criminals can fear for their lives during home invasions. Denying criminals their right to self-defense makes life safer for the police. What is the correct balance?
Perhaps we should all just put signs on our front doors, similar to “no solicitation” signs, which read “all persons entering this home via forced entry will be assumed to be hostile and engaged in criminal activities, and be met with deadly force”.
I have to hand it to the Canadian Judge to come up with this insightful thought.
“A search warrant for “dynamic entry” should not, on the evidence, have been issued in this case. Police could have arrested Parasiris under calmer circumstances.”
Lets see, maybe when his two children were not present. Thank god no one shot one of them.
How about, when he left his home and was driving to work, arrest him, then go back to the house to search.
Maybe, knock on the door and let him answer it, then conduct the search.
No! Come to think of it those are bad ideas, because a police officer may get injured then.
all persons entering this home via forced entry will be assumed to be hostile and engaged in criminal activities, and be met with deadly force
I think I’m going to have this made up for my door.
Even criminals can fear for their lives during home invasions.
Obviously they don’t fear for their lives enough, because if they did, the wouldn’t be invading my home.
It would be interesting to know if Basil actually was heavily involved in the local drug ring. Not that this should have changed the verdict, but it would be a slightly more impressive aquittal if in hindsight the police turned out to have the correct house.
a revision for brevity’s sake:
All persons forcibly entering this home will be presumed criminally hostile and will be met with deadly force.
Good idea, Thorn.
can even get rid of the second “will be”
(just trying to save money on sign costs)
Holy crap, that editorial bravely addressed the issues!
Honest journalism about “dynamic entries” is rare, hell, I’ve never seen it before. Same goes for the Judge being interested in justice in these common debacles.
“The grief and consternation of Daniel Tessier’s family and of his fellow officers were obvious and understandable on Friday”
BS! The police wanted blood because a peasant dared stand up to the samauri who wanted to test their swords on his neck. The warrant was bogus, nine Laval officers should have been charged with felonies including murder.
I have zero sympathy for Tessier or the Laval police department. They are a street gang with union representation, not a constabulary force and it was a pity that only one out of nine got what he deserved. Those that act as an army of occupation as a matter of policy shouldn’t be surprised when the Maquis decide to deal with them.
I have zero sympathy for Tessier’s family. They chose to become part of Vichy Canada, they should have the decency to lie in the bed they have made for themselves. At least the Laval police chief is considering change, but I doubt anything will happen until a few more gang members bite it.
“I have zero sympathy for Tessier or the Laval police department. They are a street gang with union representation, not a constabulary force and it was a pity that only one out of nine got what he deserved. Those that act as an army of occupation as a matter of policy shouldn’t be surprised when the Maquis decide to deal with them.”
QFT
Lior: “Even criminals can fear for their lives during home invasions. Denying criminals their right to self-defense makes life safer for the police. What is the correct balance?”
Require police to knock and announce. Better yet, just wait till the guy is leaving his house anyway and just arrest him in a no gunfire, no trauma method.
It is one thing to do a no knock surprise attack on a known crack house with known armed men inside. But using paramilitary tactics on every single arrest is just moronic.
Finally, if a cop hadn’t died in the raid, we would never have heard about it. If it was just the man, or his innocent wife, or one of his innocent kids, it would have just been chalked up as collateral damage. You may not be willing to sacrifice your life for the drug war, but the government is.
Well, maybe not Canada. They seem a little more sane.
thanks for posting this.
Lior- ‘I’m 100% sure the police didn’t panic. They acted on their training — when fired on, fire back. More impressively, rather than panicking they managed to realize what was going on and stopped shooting before it was too late. In other words, they fired a lot less bullets than one would expect and didn’t kill the man shooting at them.’
This is an interesting quote…. How can you be ‘100% sure’ unless you were there? I don’t know how it is in Canada, but many departments in the US have had to scale back live fire training due to ammo shortages associated with the war in Iraq. These departments clearly aren’t training under stress as much as they used to. I’ve seen many dynamic situations involving police officers and many of these were very precise- but I’ve seen enough clusters and panicking to rule out ever being ‘100% sure’ when it comes to cops.
While the verdict was certainly correct. I don’t see how you can’t have sympathy for Tessier or his family. Unless you are 100% sure that Tessier himself was responsible or knew about the faulty warrant. It certainly could be that he was just showing up for work that day. No sympathy for his family is quite the stretch that would imply that his entire family had knowledge that the Police was severely corrput. I’d be willing to bet there is a 4 year old son/nephew/niece somewhere that lost a father/uncle that deserves some sympathy.
Certainly though no sympathy is needed for the Police Department however sympathy or any emotion for an organization as opposed to its members is a bit of a foreign concept.
After some research,
Tessier joined this particular police unit only 1 week prior to his death (so was unlikely to have had much todo with the warrant) and is survived by a 10 and 12 year old daughter. I’d say it is pretty callous to not have sympathy for him or his family.
[...] See here. [...]
Mike - FWIW, the police say he had 4 guns, 3 unregistered, and over a dozen pagers and cell phones in the house. I think he probably was involved in the drug trade, which makes this acquittal remarkable.
It also makes me more optimistic about Ryan Frederick’s chances (I know, different country, but I can dream).
Yeah, “100% sure” is a hyperbole; there’s no way for me to be sure. But his trope about “so many bullets” ticked me off. The police here showed considerable self-restraint by managing to stop a gunbattle with as few casualties as possible. People have been watching to many movies where Clint Eastwood can stop any opponent with a single perfectly aimed bullet. Hiding here is wishful thinking like “people shooting each other is an awful awful thing so bullets are evil; to see how badly the police behaved we should count the number of evil bullets they used”.
Regarding the self-defence issue, the situation I was discussing (and Ben misunderstood) is of someone who has in fact committed a crime defending himself against home invasion — say a genuine drug dealer or a common embezzler shooting police coming into his house to arrest him.
You can say “such a person has duty to suspect people charging into his house might be policemen” or “such a shooting is a forseeable consequence of the criminal activity” so the man should be charged with murder. You can also say “even though this guy is a criminal, he still has a right to self-defence — his actions should be judged based on what a reasonable home-owner would do.
I’m not sure how to think of this. Continuing Matt’s circumstantial evidence, say actual drugs have been found in the house. Should this have changed our view of the shooting?
“the police say he had 4 guns, 3 unregistered, and over a dozen pagers and cell phones in the house. I think he probably was involved in the drug trade”
Perhaps the reason he had so many guns and phones was
a) he’s a collector (we don’t know how many of them were loaded):
b) his house had been broken into on prior occasions (like Ryan Fredericks);
c) he sells cell phones and pagers.
Those are just off the top of my head. Given time, I could come up with a few more alternate explanations.
Also, “police say” he had that many guns, phones and pagers. How do we know? The cops could have inflated the numbers to make their case stronger. Believe it or not, it’s happened before. Even in the US and A.
While I am sorry for the Tessier family’s loss of their loved one…it is uplifting to know that Superior Court Justice Guy Cournoyer recognized that this surprise ill-planned “raid” that left a man dead as its result, was not deserving of a search warrant for “dynamic entry” based on the evidence, and should not have been issued in this case.
I applaud the judge for his courageous decision. I know it is not well received by law enforcement, but policies that allow for this type of unnecessary escalation and results, are at fault, and demand correction and change.
Every human being’s life is precious, unique, irreplaceable and priceless…and no one should have to risk life and liberty because of unwarranted, over the top “policing.”
Radley, thanks for letting us know there “is” hope.
http://www.justiceforsal.com
As we approach the 4th of July, does anyone here wonder we we ever bothered to have a revolution?
I could take the Queen’s face on my coins if we could get good rulings like this. Also, they are better on drug policy there as well.
Andrew - Of course there are lots of reasons a man can have illegal guns and lots of pagers, that’s why I prefaced my comment with FWIW.
It doesn’t matter so much that he could have owned these things innocently… that’s certainly not the story that prosecutors told, and juries usually listen to prosecutors.
RE Frank:
First off, I agree with the verdict. The drug war is a failure and must be stopped. But really, Frank. Vichy Canada? Peasants? The Marquis? You may want to update your references if you wish to be taken seriously. Holy shit, am I at an IndyMedia site or the Agitator? Look Frank, this is the kind of overheated rhetoric that allows the establishment to characterize libertarians as “anti-government extremists” instead of citizens that desire constitutionally limited government that exists primarily to protect the rights of the citizens. I hope the information Mike added to the conversation (about the officer’s short tenure in the unit and his young children) convinced you to reconsider some of your earlier statements. If you object to the Us vs. Them syndrome that afflicts law enforcement, as I do, then you must understand that cruel stereotyping of the police will only encourage tribalism among officers. But perhaps I am wasting my breath. It is unfortunate, but even the movement for freedom is susceptible to infiltration by heartless psychopaths, eh Frank.
Matt–I had no idea what FWIW meant; therefore, I took your words at face value. And, even with the disclaimer, we only have the police’s word that the gun(s) were illegal. The Montreal Gazette editorial does not say they were illegal (i.e. unregistered). And as I said before, we know the cops have a history of using “drops” (leaving guns, drugs, etc. on the premises to make somebody look like a criminal). So I’m still very skeptical of this report. And, of course, police in general.
I almost forgot Frank, do you remember what the Marquis nearly did to Tom Paine when he suggested they might be going a wee bit overboard with the guillotine treatment? Do you also wish to follow the “revolutionary” example of Lenin? Or Che? Or Mao? How about Pinochet? Do you get my drift comrade? Be careful when you endorse violent revolution. To paraphrase Forrest, ya never know what you’re gonna get.
Actually, I have several unregistered guns in my home, and a whole BUNCH of cell phones. My 4yo loves to play with them, so we buy broken ones at the flea market sometimes. Also, every time I upgrade, the old one goes in the drawer. I know we have at least 15 cell phones (only 2 work) in this house. The guns… inherited. Old hunting rifles, etc. Plus 5 registered handguns and 6 registered rifles and shotguns. Holy crap, I’m a drug dealer! Never expect that from the 30yo accountant, mother of 2.
“So I’m still very skeptical of this report. And, of course, police in general.”
So am I. But we’re regular readers of The Agitator; We naturally distrust drug police and prosecutors. My point is that it’s amazing that this jury didn’t buy the story, either… whether the story is true or not is beside the point. Juries have convicted plenty of drug dealers based on planted or illegally obtained evidence in the past, so I’m hoping this is a sign of a change in the weather.
Eeeek… my 4 year old plays with the cell phones, not the guns. Those are in the safe.
“My point is that it’s amazing that this jury didn’t buy the story, either… whether the story is true or not is beside the point. Juries have convicted plenty of drug dealers based on planted or illegally obtained evidence in the past, so I’m hoping this is a sign of a change in the weather.”
Quoted for truth. You and me (and everyone else here, I wager).
With the possible exception(s) of trolls with badges.
For the benefit of a couple later posters, #9 Frank did not commit a typo. He meant Maquis, as in the WWII resistance fighters from the south of France and also Brittany. Named after the scrub bushes that grow in their mainly mountainous terrain.
The term eventually grew to encompass any resistance fighter.
Has nothing to do with any Marquis, Tom Payne or whatever.
#14 #15
Here’s a couple of free clues: No one put a gun to Tessier’s head and made him become a police officer. Likewise, no one put a gun to Tessier’s head to make him join that particular domestic terror squad within that police department. He went in with his eyes wide open knowing that the unit he was joining was at best lazy and taking unacceptable shortcuts and at worst corrupt from the top down.
As for his family, well again, no one put a gun to Mrs. Tessier’s head to make her marry a cop, it was her own choice. Granted this is Canada, but here in the USA the Constitution defines only one crime, treason, and within the definition is the phrase “adhering to it’s enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” As for the children, the phrase “nits make lice” comes to mind as more often than not ‘law enforcement’ is a generational phenomenon.
It’s long past time some of you apologists reading this blog acknowledged the de facto gang war occurring in North America. The gang is the police and those who authorize their paychecks against the rest of us, and that gang treats us with utter contempt. Go lurk on a web board for law enforcement if you don’t believe me, it will make you sick. The only exception is Fire/EMS, who are granted a form of honorary “good guy” status amounting to second-class citizenship. Otherwise you’re “little people”. It takes something heinous like the police execution of an old lady in Atlanta for something to change, and even that will have no staying power.
The good cops (and there are a few) are just as bad because they won’t report the bad ones, out of a fear of ending up like Serpico. One of these days they will learn that “I was just following orders” will play as well here as it did in Nuremberg.
And God help anyone that tries to bell the cat. If you’re a politician the police union will destroy you, painting you as soft on crime, never mind that the real criminals are wearing blue. Regular citizens that file complaints can expect harassment and arrest on fabricated charges. Lawsuits rarely affect those who truly need to be corrected or dismissed and that’s only assuming your jury isn’t stuffed with retired cops and cop family members and dismissed outright.
Under those conditions, demanding that I have sympathy for anyone even peripherally involved in this kind of crap is not reasonable. This is a war, and anyone who isn’t a cop or family of a cop is the enemy. I’m supposed to have sympathy for those trying to kill me or ruin my life for no good reason, and their quisling supporters?
http://www.fortunecity.com/bennyhills/holygrail/201/homey.wav
As for the children, the phrase “nits make lice” comes to mind as more often than not ‘law enforcement’ is a generational phenomenon.
Frank, do you realize who you’re quoting here?
Frank is right. If the gladhandling lackeys who cover up for these rampaging gangsters are what passes for “good cops” then any sympathy for any cop is always misplaced. I don’t support revolutions (i.e. replacing one set of entitlement-minded goons with another), but I do smile a little at every body bag.
“I know your family’s grieving. Fuck em.”
Frank,
So your saying we would be better off if the entire police force was disbanded? If it’s anarchy you want I’m sure there are other nations with far less law and order which may be more to your liking, Whats the weather like in Darfur this time of year?
Personally I do think there is a need for a police force, and while corruption does exist the only realistic way to solve its problems are using the existing system.
Your alledging that Tessier joined this unit knowing full well that it was morally bankrupt. How about showing some evidence to back this up.
You alledge that the harm to Tessier’s wife doesn’t matter because she married a cop. I say the only way to change the system is to work from within so perhaps he was a good cop and thus deserving of sympathy.
Then you insult is two young girls with the “nits make lice” quote made famous as a justification of murdering native american women and children. I got a better quote for you: “Sell crazy someplace else, we’re all stocked up here”
“It’s long past time some of you apologists reading this blog acknowledged the de facto gang war occurring in North America”
Okay, I think I’ve got a winner in the “Most Hysterical Internet Post of the Day” contest.
Did you have to take to the fainting couch after that one, Frank?
Frank gets his inspiration from the genocidal killers of American Indians, then tries to claim the moral high ground. He delights in the suffering of innocent children. He broadly sterotypes an entire class of workers and gets his jollies from their deaths. Wow, what a hero. My earlier comments stand Frank. You are a heartless psychopath, not a true radical.
While Frank’s comments are over the top, this isn’t going to get you very much. Prosecutors don’t care about this problem. Judges don’t care about this problem. Politicians don’t care about this problem. In fact, I’d argue that all of the above constituencies actually benefit from the status quo. Politicians make political hay out of being “law and order”. Our judiciary has been working assiduously to undermine the Constitution from the Switch in Time to Save Nine. Prosecutors get lots of good cases that they can prosecute to further their careers. Working with the current system is not going to very efficacious in my view in that the current system is part of the problem.
What is the solution? I don’t know. A new system maybe?
Thank you for your more nuanced comments Steve. Thank you also for being humble enough to admit that you don’t know what the solution is. Neither do I. The obvious solution is to develop a groundswell of support among citizens to end the drug war. And I don’t just mean writing your representatives or supporting appropriate NGO’s. Direct action, in the form of jury nullification for instance, will probably be required to put the justice system on notice. Additional ideas: hold police and prosecutors CRIMINALLY responsible for corruption or not allowing exculpatory evidence (these aren’t just ethical lapses, they are criminal acts!); demand transparency in the police department (Civilian review w/ supoena power, advisory committees for each geographical area, requirements to videotape any raid, etc.); if officials are resistant to change, form watchdog groups, monitor/videotape police activity, and most importantly, stop calling the police to report victimless crimes! Ok, that’s all I have time for, but I think ideas like these are more practical (and moral) then winking at bloodshed. Thanks to all Agitator commenters who are really trying to be part of the solution!
What Frank is ignoring is the culpability of most of the general public. Most people go along with law-and-order demagogery because they want to be made totally safe from crime and don’t care how that happens. When there is a reported criminal outrage the response is “Just do something.”.
They don’t allow themselves to think about the costs of simple quick solutions. They want to believe that only people who deservit are affected by this sort of raid. They want to have confidence in the authorities. Ultimately without their support and their willful blindness these raids would not be happening.
The police and prosecutors demonize drug suppliers and this is evil. I do not use that word lightly. It is also evil to demonize the police. Evil is thoughtlessness. It is willfully or habitually ignoring relevant major moral considerations. And evil can be fueled by seeking to see oneself as virtuous. The worst forms are.
#38 But what is the alternative? If you don’t work the existing system it implies at a minimum that you want to fire every member of the existing police force and start fresh. Or it could mean ripping up the constitution and our whole jurist system. At its root I don’t believe the problem is with the police force anyway. The police aren’t responsible for writing the law they just enforce the laws. Ultimately it is the politicians that are responsible for the SWAT raids and Drug war. So disbanding the police and reforming them may somehow reduce internal corruption but that doesn’t solve any real issues.
To me verdict in this case would be no less valid if they HAD obtained a valid warrant. Even a drug dealer with 500 Kilos of cocaine in his bedroom needs to know that the people entering his house are police. Just because he is a drug dealer doesn’t mean that he somehow forfeits that right or have any foreknowledge that the people raiding him are likely to be police. They are just as likely to be a rival drug gang.
The police aren’t responsible for writing the law they just enforce the laws.
In the the land between Canada and Mexico, the Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land. Any statutes, regulations, ordinances, judicial rulings, or policies which contradict the Constitution are illegitimate. As all state officials are required to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the U.S., they are very much to blame if they act in a manner inconsistent with the Supreme Law of the Land.
So your saying every government employee must be an expert constitutional scholar? The only way they can cover themselves from liability in thier actions is to pass the buck up to the next level on the food chain.
I don’t think we really want to let all local officials put thier own interpretation on the constitution, that is what the supreme court is for. Police should be taking thier direction on what is consitutional from supreme court decisions and without any decision they should be obeying/enforcing the laws written by congress.
An good point Lloyd and further support for my assertion that the current system is part of the problem. Maybe Dave Hummels notion of increasing public support for changing the system is a good one, but it is indeed a long row to hoe so to speak. Afterall most people take Lloyd’s view or worse, they think, “Well he has been charged with a crime therefore he must be guilty of something,” and then cease to give the matter anymore thought.
Mike,
Yes, that would be the conlcusion, but mayb that is an option we should consider. Think of it this way, you pull your milk out othe fridge and smell it. Hmmm, smells bad. Do you put it back in the fridge hoping tomorrow it wont be bad? Sometimes thing get so bad that redical measures are the solution, that is what our founding fathers thought…revolution and a radical new form of government. There is precedence for it.
Please stop waving this around like some sort of protective talisman. The Constitution has been treated like toilet paper by all three branches of government for a long, long time. I don’t think there is much left to rip up.
But the idea isn’t to do away with the Constitution but to restore it to its rightful place in our body of legal thought. That it doesn’t mean whatever you want to read into it.
I do believe you are making my point here. That the rot is pervasive throughout the entire system, not localized in just one spot which can then be excised.
No, he is just saying that the Nuremberg Defense is no defense. Even in the absence of a Supreme Court Decision. Seriously, do you think that if a law was written that, for the sake of argument, allowed for the rounding up of all people with red hair and incarcerating them on nothing else the police should simply shrug their collective shoulders and start the round ups and raids? Really? It is the agent of the State’s job to try and discern when an order is legal or illegal.
I would agree it is responsibility of the officer to use some discretion when enforcing the law. However that is a secondary concern. Our main ire in your hypothetical should be directed at those responsible for creating the “red hair” law. In the real examples of the Drug War/Paramilitary raids your hypothetical does not hold up as well. If an issue is borderline unconstitutional is it upto the individual officer to decide? Doing that gives more authority to the police force and I thought we were trying to reign them in.
I personally don’t want some backwoods sherriff making the decision if a full cavity search is warranted on a routine public intoxication charge.
So if the real problem is with the lawmakers, disbanding the police force doesn’t solve any problems. The police are not the cause of the drug war they are just the tool used to implement it. Firing the entire police force and starting fresh won’t solve any problems it just means a new police force is in charge of enforcing a flawed set of laws.
Again, Mike. The Nuremberg Defense has never been considered a defense. The “I was just following orders” is not a sufficient defense. Perhaps in gray areas the officers would be given some leeway, but they already have partial immunity while on the job.
Strawman here Mike. Nobody is saying it is all open to interpretation, but that agents of the state are responsible for discerning when an order is illegal and not carrying it out. If you follow an illegal order when you know the order is illegal, then you are indeed guilty of a crime and should be punished. IANAL, but there is probably some “reasonable person” concept in the law that would provide agents of the state some cover.
Crap, blew the html, the last part should read,
Have you been reading Radley’s site? He has quite a few incidents of police engaging in misbehavior and even illegal behavior…and knowingly so. As such, getting rid of such officers strikes me as reasonable. Getting rid of those officers who defend the incompetent and corrupt is also reasonable to me, just as it would be reasonable to prosecute an accomplice, after the fact, in murder. Same goes for judges, prosecutors, and politicians. Problem is we run into the point Lloyd raised as well as my own objections, which pretty much neuters your claims of wanting to work within the system. The system is part of the problem.
Think of it this way. Is democracy any better than its alternatives? Sure with monarchy, meritocracy, etc. you aren’t assured of getting the best person for the job. But do you get that with democracy? With democracy you have to get people to vote for you. We end up with leaders who are skilled at both lying and pandering, not usually things one considers as good for “the right man for the job”. This is one reason I despise Democrats, and lately Republicans, both love to swing a Federal bat at any and all problems. Once you get a program at the Federal level getting rid of it via voting is virtually impossible.
Mike, you are arguing for the status quo.
I certainly agree that the excesses mentioned on Radley’s site need to be stopped. It is just the mechanism fix the problem and the scale of the problem.
For the scale you are implying that a majority/strong minority of the police force needs to be excised. Whereas perhaps the majority of SWAT units that need rethought the majority of the Police Department is functioning correctly.
It sounds to me to accomplish your goal calls for nothing short of a full on armed revolution and an overthrow of the government. While perhaps not a bad idea I think there is no chance in hell of your gonna pull it off.
Working within the system I think the odds of actually getting something accomplished in our lifetime are a lot more realistic.
Mr. Parasiris has always been a calm soft spoken man whenever I have met with him. It was a very stormy and snowy night and the police decided to choose that moment for their raid. Everyone admits there was chaos once the Police rammed the door open. The fact that one officer shot Mr. Parasiris’ wife in the arm and Officer Tessier in the foot and another officer shot 5 times into Mr. Parasiris’ sons room is proof of this. Time for the police to apologize to the Parasiris’ family and stop harassing them in the media. Mr. Parasiris already has a libel suit for what was said -after he was acquitted - by Laval Police Chief Gariepy and his spokesperson Nathalie Lorrain.