RCMP tells SARM delegates not to take on criminals

Rural property crime has dropped by 10 percent this year, according to Saskatchewan RCMP, but that doesn’t give Herb Axten much comfort.

The reeve of the Rural Municipality of Surprise Valley lives 110 kilometres away from the nearest RCMP detachment in Weyburn, Sask.

He put assistant RCMP commissioner Curtis Zablocki on the spot at last week’s Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities meeting when he asked if he supported people taking matters into their own hands.

“What do I do when a group of hoodlums approaches me or members of my family in my yard and I dial 911 and I don’t get any response until the next day? Would you support a stand your ground law as is enforced in the state of Montana?” he said.

Axten said the provincial justice minister did not support rural councillors when they passed a resolution last spring to lobby for the right to protect themselves and their property.

“Let’s be honest. It’s the only protection we have,” he said, as other delegates applauded.

Zablocki said he understood the concern. One of the inherent challenges in rural policing is the large geographical area and response time, he said.

However, he said he is also concerned about adding firearms to a situation that could already be dangerous.

“We know that with that type of a response, that can often up the potential for violence in those types of situations,” he said.

He advised Axten to call 911 and wait for police.

“Secure yourselves as best as you can on your property in your residence and await the police arrival,” Zablocki said.

Saskatchewan’s commanding officer said that while property crime is at 1981 levels, violent crime in RCMP jurisdictions is up seven percent over last year. Homicides are down 25 percent.

However, he said much of the violence occurs between and within gangs. There is a strong and strategic effort to try to bring gang violence under control, particularly in west-central regions where the West Side Outlaws have become established.

Communities are becoming pro-active and holding meetings about how to deal with crime.

Fifty-five RMs have now joined Rural Crime Watch.

Zablocki also said the recommendations from the premier’s task force on rural crime will make a difference through enhanced visibility and quicker response.

The Protection and Response Team will include conservation officers, commercial vehicle enforcement officers and police.

In an interview, Zablocki said that effort is still in preliminary stages.

“By adding 30 new traffic officers onto the highways, I think we’re going to enhance (service),” he said. “That will allow our members that are stationed out of our de-tachments to spend more time on some of the core policing functions in their respective areas.”

About the author


  • John Fefchak

    re: self protection.
    “Let’s be honest. It’s the only protection we have,” he said, as other delegates applauded.
    Canada’s arcane and ‘contradictory’ self-defense laws need to be changed to the benefit of those who are being violated by crime activities,rather than being charged by police, when defending their home, property and family from unwelcome intruders.
    During the time of Harpers government, the Prime ministers office said it intends to re-introduce legislation to re-define self-defence, since the criminal code was written in 1892.
    Otherwise and until appropriate changes are legislated, the only other solution might be,
    is to put all your valuables out on the driveway , for the taking, if you intend to be away from your home for a lengthy period of time.
    At least, then, you won’t be charged by the police, and your home might be saved from being trashed and Crown prosecutors will not be able to allege that you didn’t meet the definition of citizen’s arrest or that you were too aggressive and exceeded your dominance in home protection.

    • Harold

      I can’t understand why people would listen to anything that the police have to say on this matter. (I can hear the gasp) Who the hell are they other than your servant unless you yourself have committed a crime? Were the people in the crowd about to commit a crime? The clouded minds think so – and they are the ones who attend these routinely offered “nothing burger” meetings. The Police Commission and its Commissioner are “nothing burger” speakers unless you are employed by them and they are paying you your wages. Curtis Zablocki is not paying us our wages, we (tax payer) are paying Curtis Zablocki his wages and I think that the crowd had forgotten that. If the crowd was looking to change things, they unknowing walked into the wrong Boardroom and that is why the public went away just as empty handed as when they had arrived. What if they offered the same meeting and nobody came; would the results have been any different? Wrong boardroom. This was nothing more than the Commission’s exercise to gain more department revenue from taxpayer dollars and the public’s acceptance to that end and is the only thing that they were focused upon and gathering. Fear tactics. However, I do wish to introduce to Curtis Zablocki the benefit of the English dictionary whereby he could look up the simple words: violence, understood, and the word Secure – and then perhaps he on his own power could dismantle some of his own illusion or fictional BS, instead of the public having to do it for him. By applaud, who exactly was the crowd saying “let’s be honest” to; a cop?
      So what is the correct boardroom? In contrast, if the Politician acting only upon the publics whim were to, create, amend, or repeal a Law today – what would the Police Commissioner, his employees, and the Judges of the land be saying tomorrow? The same Honesty, expertise, Ideologies, heartfelt concern, and buzz words that they are saying today? The proper Boardroom consists of the Public, your Politician, MLA and MP, Mayor/Reeve, Attorney General, Justice Minister, and the like, and they are on the hot seat and combined they are and were the Law makers. This is where the meeting of the minds takes place and you can easily guess which two minds. Public and Law makers. Who is Curtis Zablocki? Oops, wrong boardroom.
      The Supreme Law of Canada – still in full force today- gives Canadians the guaranteed Right to protect themselves from harm or injury but the Codes, Acts, regulations, created thereafter by Law Makers have clouded those Rights and Freedoms whereby allowing crime to prosper instead. The cloud creates fear amongst the Lawful (public) creating their lack of response and their willingness to call 911 and to wait for the police. The police are not any wiser than any other human being. Laws have to be repealed and not more created. You ask the Attorney General to answer what Code, Act, or Regulation that is preventing you your self-protection as guaranteed by the Supreme Law, and then you tell the politician to repeal that cause. Who now is Curtis Zablocki?

  • bufford54

    You loot, we shoot

    • Harold

      although I appreciate your sentiment, it is better to point a gun in an effort to hog tie and after doing so call a police cab or medic to come and pick the trash up. (paddy wagon) This is of course what the talking bobble heads of the police department and agencies can’t seem to wrap their minds around: something that actually works that requires no additional police enforcement or taxpayer dollars. It is called sharing the law with our own hands. The other thing that the talking bobble heads can’t wrap their minds around is the fact the law was written to benefit me so they can go to hell if they try to take the law out of my hands and give it to the criminal and police. The public need to share this sentiment at the next meeting of the talking bobble heads; Politician, MLA and MP, Mayor/Reeve, Attorney General, Justice Minister, and the like.
      The bobble head illusion is that the law abiding with guns are the making of the “wild west” while all around them the west has already gone wild with criminals and their guns. I do believe that the bobble heads are consuming the dope and alcohol that they confiscate; it would explain their loss to an obvious reality.

  • Lenard

    These jack asses don’t like to acknowledge the constitution gives the Canadian citizen the right to protect himself. Due to the attitude of politicians and the police they refuse to let people do that. They charge the victim and make them go through huge expenses in court.

    • Harold

      The Politicians or the Police cannot refuse to anyone the Constitution of Canada. The Constitutional Freedoms and Rights are the Supreme Law of Canada making all inferior Laws, Codes, and Acts, of no cause and effect and non enforceable when the Supreme Laws are evoked by Canadians;. they are undeniable Rights and Freedoms if those Rights and Freedoms are denied to any Canadian by anyone the action is punishable in a Court of Law. If you give up any of those individual Rights and freedoms, then by your acceptance, no harm has been committed against you. The jackass is not the policeman or the politician; the jackass is the Canadian who does not now their own Rights and Freedoms – inside and out.
      All appearances of wrong doing are brought before the Courts and they are tested. This does not mean that the party is guilty of any wrong doing, especially when the cause and nature of the party’s action was solely the intent to uphold their own constitutional Rights and Freedoms.
      No Canadian has the constitutional Right to file a false report and because Canadians do not know their Rights and Freedoms, in fear, they often lie or unknowingly accept the inferior Law and corresponding charge and are needlessly found guilty as charged.
      The Canadian Constitution preamble is as follows;
      Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
      Article #1 of the Constitution.
      The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. [The will of the majority is the demonstration]
      Article # #24 Enforcement
      (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
      (2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. [this means that the inferior law and evidence is abandoned-dismissed]
      Article #32. (1) This Charter applies
      (a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
      (b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.
      [this means that all Government and Courts must abide by the constitution – Rights and Freedoms]
      Article #52 (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
      [ notice the words – supreme law, any law inconsistent, no force or effect]
      (2) The Constitution of Canada includes
      (a) the Canada Act 1982, including this Act;
      (b) the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and
      (c) any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
      Moreover, in regards to the Constitution preamble, each of these Articles ARE the Rule of Law)
      Again, it is not the “Police” or the “Politician” who are the Jackasses; the Jackasses are the Canadians who will not read or come to know their own Freedoms and Rights and therefore they sit on the police or the politicians lap instead. Where in the constitution does it say that you do not have the Right to protect yourself? If you could choose two entities who would try to remove from you every right and freedom that you possess using instruments of indoctrination and “say so”- who would they be?

      • Lenard

        When people defend themselves it is waste of tax dollars to have the police charge these same people with criminal charges for self defense. If the individual officers had to pay the cost or were financially responsible they might think twice.

        • Harold

          Your government (politicians) has created the necessity to go to Court by their delusional thinking in creating the laws that waste taxpayer money. Simply – no law – no cost to taxpayer by enforcement and Court proceedings. A Cop does not make the law so therefore there is not the ability that allows a police officer to “think twice”. The police officer gets his money from us so to have the police officer pay the Court costs is the same as the taxpayer paying the Court but harming the police officers for the Laws that they did not create in the first place. You cannot charge anyone for violating a law that does not exist. You cannot convict anyone for violating a current Law that does not apply to them. For example, you cannot be convicted of murder if you are defending yourself because there is no law that says the act of defending yourself is unlawful. What is tested in Court is whether you were in the act of truly defending yourself or if you were engaged in the act of willful murder just because someone was physically on your property. Again, you are afraid of a charge as though a Charge applies to you; only a conviction applies. I can charge you with any of my fictions and delusions; are you now afraid? The only time to be afraid of any Charge is when you know in fact that you are guilty of a violation of law and are seeking forgiveness from the Court. The public in their delusion brought onto them only because they do not know the law are the first to say that “there ought to be a Law” not realizing that they are in turn asking for a waste of taxpayer money in enforcement and Court proceedings. The very same stroke of the pen that creates any law at the same time creates a crime, enforcement, and Court proceedings. Less law (repealed) is less taxpayer money. Often times what gets the lawful (self defence) into trouble is that they lie to the investigator to save their skin unaware that they have not violated the law to warrant any lie but those lies will in turn send them to Court whereby making any false statements are not forgiven and are assumed to be the admission of guilt. Simply put, why would someone lie if they were not guilty; that even brings the person in your life into the “court” with a “Judge” presiding in the living room of your own home; perhaps it’s your son who has lied and you or your wife are the Judge presiding. It is no different in the world outside. What you don’t know is that a moody incompetent police officer can place any charge of fiction against you but it is the Prosecutor that catches the fiction and drops the charges before it ever seen the light of Court; the Prosecutor cannot bring a police officer’s false claim to Court but he can bring your false claim to Court and have you punished for making one. If you lie to the investigator the Prosecutor will have a tougher time dropping the charge placed against you. If you are concerned about wasting taxpayer dollars then know your Rights and Freedoms and you will stay out of Court and save taxpayer dollars. If an innocent man is set free from a Charge of fiction, it has truly been taxpayer money well spent because the next one can be anyone of us sitting in the “peanut gallery”. Society seems to want to know all of the details of why someone was killed on someone else’s property and that is what the Courts are for and why the police officers take all of the parties and witnesses to Court for a hearing and why each are charged to appear. If you are innocent, you are charged to appear in Court to express it – innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around. If the Prosecutor has no grounds in which to move a case into Court proceedings lawfully, then the charges are dropped beforehand. There are many who do not understand that all charges are fiction until they are tried in Court so therefore the many fear their own fiction and get upset when their own fiction is not held true by the Court and in their ignorance and protest, they sometimes riot the streets and in their own delusion cause property damage that harm others who are the innocent – including the taxpayers. The police do not own the police cruisers – we do – and our tax dollars pay for what is destroyed by these people who do not know their own Rights and Freedoms. You protest the Politician to change the law or to repeal the law and for anything less you have wasted your time and energy. The Judge and the Police officers only obey what the politician has previously written down and enacted into Law and it is only the politician who has the ability to change it (amend) or to repeal it and for that they need to hear the public’s mouth and not the public’s silence. The government never suffers; they just raise our taxes and we suffer in lost wages instead. In regards to this topic, we need to repeal the laws and many amendments that hinder us; not create new laws and amendments that will hinder us even further and that means the public educating the politician in no uncertain terms and not the other way around.

  • Voltaire403

    All the RCMP will accomplish with this arrogance is encourage the long standing rural philosophy: Shoot, Shovel and Shut up….


Stories from our other publications