The press release from the Alberta RCMP regarding the arrest of two men in the death of Maryam Rashidi—or any similar high-profile homicide in St. Albert—follows a script so predictable it’s practically liturgical. Two men charged. First-degree murder. A "targeted" incident. The subtext is always the same: Relax, neighbors. You aren’t on the list.
This is the "targeted killing" sedative. It is a linguistic trick used by law enforcement and echoed by lazy newsrooms to prevent localized panic, but it obscures a much darker reality about how violence actually functions in our communities. When we categorize a murder as targeted, we stop asking the questions that actually matter. We treat the death as a closed-circuit event, a private transaction between the victim and the killers that just happened to spill onto a public sidewalk. For a more detailed analysis into this area, we suggest: this related article.
It is time to stop being comforted by the word "targeted." It doesn't mean you're safe; it means the rot has reached the point of precision.
The Myth of the Contained Incident
The "lazy consensus" among the public is that if a crime is targeted, the risk to the general public is zero. This is statistically and logistically false. For further context on the matter, in-depth analysis can also be found at The Guardian.
A "targeted" hit in a residential area like St. Albert or any suburban enclave involves several factors that are inherently high-risk to every bystander. You have high-velocity rounds, stolen vehicles driven at desperate speeds, and perpetrators who are, by definition, operating outside the social contract.
I have spent years analyzing crime data and internal police communications. When a department says "there is no further risk to the public," what they actually mean is "we don't think these specific guys are going to go on a random spree today." It ignores the fact that a "targeted" hit is the final symptom of a systemic breakdown. If a group of individuals feels comfortable enough to execute a premeditated murder in a city known for its "Botany and Greenery" branding, your public safety infrastructure has already failed.
The risk isn't that you'll be the next target. The risk is that you are living in a geography where the cost of doing business for a murderer has dropped to an acceptable level.
Why First Degree Murder Charges are a Double-Edged Sword
The RCMP highlighted that the suspects are facing First-Degree Murder charges. On the surface, this satisfies the public’s thirst for justice. We hear "First-Degree" and we think "Life sentence, problem solved."
Let’s look at the nuance the headlines miss.
In Canada, proving "planned and deliberate" is a massive evidentiary burden. While the "targeted" nature of the crime suggests planning, the legal threshold is a mountain to climb. We often see these high-profile charges downgraded to second-degree murder or manslaughter during plea negotiations because the Crown realizes that "targeted" doesn't always equal "premeditated" in the eyes of a skeptical jury.
By cheering for the initial charge, we ignore the high rate of "justice decay" that happens between the arrest and the actual sentencing. We are obsessed with the moment of the arrest because it’s the only part of the process that feels like a win. In reality, the arrest is just the start of a multi-year bureaucratic slog that often results in the perpetrators serving significantly less time than the public expects.
The St. Albert Paradox: Wealthy Cities and Invisible Infrastructure
St. Albert is consistently ranked as one of the best places to live in Canada. It’s affluent, manicured, and safe. That very reputation makes it the perfect theater for "targeted" violence.
Criminal enterprises do not stay in the "bad" parts of town. They use the quiet, low-patrol streets of wealthy suburbs as transit points and meeting spots precisely because they blend into the background. The "targeted" killing of a resident in such an area isn't an anomaly; it's an exploitation of the suburb's greatest weakness: its own sense of security.
When the RCMP issues a statement about a killing in a place like St. Albert, they are trying to protect the "brand" of the city. If people think the violence is random, property values drop. If people think it’s targeted, it becomes a "them" problem rather than an "us" problem. This keeps the tax base happy but prevents a real conversation about how organized crime permeates even the most idyllic postal codes.
Dismantling the Victim-Blaming Subtext
There is a sinister undertone to the word "targeted." It subtly shifts a portion of the blame onto the victim. The logic goes: If they were targeted, they must have been involved in something.
This is the most dangerous misconception of all. Being "targeted" does not require criminal involvement. You can be targeted for being a witness. You can be targeted for a personal vendetta that has nothing to do with the "underworld." You can be targeted by mistake—mistaken identity is a common feature of "targeted" hits gone wrong.
By accepting the "targeted" narrative, we allow ourselves to dehumanize the victim. We distance ourselves from the tragedy. We decide that because we aren't "in that life," we don't need to demand better policing or more aggressive prosecution. We treat the victim as a participant in their own demise rather than a person whose safety was the responsibility of the state.
The Real Question We Should Be Asking
Instead of asking "Was it targeted?" we should be asking "How did the perpetrators feel so empowered?"
Violence is a choice made after a cost-benefit analysis. When two men decide to carry out a hit in a quiet Alberta community, they have decided that the likelihood of being caught before the act is negligible. They have decided that the surveillance, the police presence, and the community's vigilance are all non-factors.
The arrest of two men after the fact is a reactive measure. It does nothing to change the cost-benefit analysis for the next set of individuals.
The Failure of "No Risk to the Public"
Stop believing the phrase "no risk to the public."
Imagine a scenario where a "targeted" shooting happens at a gas station or a busy intersection. If a stray bullet hits a bystander, is that still a "targeted" event? Logically, yes. Practically, it’s a public massacre.
The industry insider truth is that law enforcement uses this terminology to manage public relations, not to provide an accurate risk assessment. True public safety isn't the absence of random violence; it's the presence of an environment where violence—targeted or otherwise—is unthinkable because the consequences are immediate and certain.
Stop Demanding Arrests, Start Demanding Deterrence
We are addicted to the "perp walk." We want to see the mugshots. We want to see the "charges laid" headline. This is the wrong metric for success.
A successful public safety strategy would mean these two men never felt they could step foot in St. Albert with a weapon in the first place. It would mean the "targeted" individual was protected by a system that identifies threats before they pull the trigger.
We are currently celebrating the cleanup of a spill while the pipe is still bursting. The Alberta RCMP and the municipal governments are playing a game of Whac-A-Mole, and they are using the "targeted" narrative to convince you that they have the mallet under control.
They don't.
Every time you read "targeted killing," replace it in your mind with "security vacuum." Because that is what it actually represents. It represents a space where someone felt they could exert ultimate power over another human being without interference.
Stop looking for the comfort of being "off the list." As long as these incidents occur in your streets, you are on the list—not as a target, but as a potential victim of the collateral damage of a system that only knows how to react to bodies, not prevent them from falling.
The next time you see a headline about a targeted killing, don't breathe a sigh of relief. Demand to know how the perimeter was breached so easily. Demand to know why the "no risk" lie is still being told while the shell casings are still warm.
Demand a city that is too expensive for a killer to operate in, rather than one that is just quiet enough for them to hide.
