Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 27 to 39 of 62
  1. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by jmac00 View Post
    OMG!!!! YOUR KIDDING?
    The Home owner should have gone outside UNARMED and confronted the people that ARE ARMED????

    I take back what I said before: THIS is the stupidest thing you have said here? had the HO'r gone outside unarmed, for Canadians this whole thing would have been a non-issue, the HO'r would be dead or at the very least, real toasty. That should make your government happy. A law abiding tax payer burnt to a crisp.

    what happens to the bad guys, I bet they get a misdemeanor Trespass ticket. Those poor misunderstood people.
    You read that wrong, I am saying that he should have gone out their armed but that he should not have fired until they made a threatening gesture to him. Hell even spit at him and they could be seen as targeting him. As it was they targeted his property. If you want to film yourself shooting at someone you better have your ducks in a row otherwise you will have a court fight on your hands. He may still win this one but giving the cops the tapes just gave the cops cause to charge him.

  2. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by ga-hvac-tech View Post
    One more thought: What I hear loud and clear in this statement (quoted) is: Law abiding citizens are expendable...criminals are important. WHY: Obviously criminals get more support from the law than law-abiding citizens do.

    Would someone explain how this is the government serving the citizens?

    IMO this is a sign of a government that needs some house-cleaning... as in retire a bunch of them and replace them with some common sense folks.
    No, what has happened is the government does not want the public to go shooting at some damn kid playing hide-and-seek with his buddies late at night in the neighborhood. If there is no clear and present danger to life they do not want you shooting off rounds into the night. Since he was not targeting the intruders then the bullets were fired in an irresponsible manor. And that is one of the things they charged him with. Just because they charged him does not mean that he broke the law. If he can convince a judge that he did the right thing under the circumstance he will get off. More than likely they want to charge him with a number of things and then settle for an unsafe storage of a firearm. That way they will look like they are tough on people that take the law in their own hands.

    And before you answer back that is another one of the stupidest things I said, this is their logic not mine.

  3. #29
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    14,193
    Quote Originally Posted by printer2 View Post
    But as this case is now making headlines you could probably surmise this kind of thing really does not happen much up here. I can see this case going to our Supreme Court.
    it happens more often than you think:

    http://www.nationalpost.com/endanger...262/story.html
    BEING AN ADULT

    is the dumbest thing I have ever done

  4. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by jmac00 View Post
    and the government won't give him his property back either, will they.

    Now they guy has to rely on a fire extinguisher. What happens when the BG's return with more Molotov cocktails.
    Who said he will not get his property back? It is standard practice if you get charged with a major firearm offence that they seize your guns.

  5. #31
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    14,193
    Quote Originally Posted by printer2 View Post
    You read that wrong, I am saying that he should have gone out their armed but that he should not have fired until they made a threatening gesture to him. Hell even spit at him and they could be seen as targeting him. As it was they targeted his property. If you want to film yourself shooting at someone you better have your ducks in a row otherwise you will have a court fight on your hands. He may still win this one but giving the cops the tapes just gave the cops cause to charge him.
    ya right, see post 29, those guy went out with an unloaded shotgun, when things calmed down they put it away, IN A SAFE, yet they were charged with gun crimes anyway?~~~~5 days later. seems the Crown just likes to harass people
    BEING AN ADULT

    is the dumbest thing I have ever done

  6. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by jmac00 View Post
    it happens more often than you think:

    http://www.nationalpost.com/endanger...262/story.html
    Yeah, saw that yesterday. I am sure it has happened more yet but it is not like it is common enough that it does not get reported in the papers. It just does not happen as much as you might think.

    You do notice the difference in the two stories, the one you quoted had the guy with an unloaded gun but carrying some shells? How likely is that? But his statement eliminates a couple of charges that he could have faced. Whereas the firebombed homeowner supplied the cops with the evidence to charge him with.

  7. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by jmac00 View Post
    ya right, see post 29, those guy went out with an unloaded shotgun, when things calmed down they put it away, IN A SAFE, yet they were charged with gun crimes anyway?~~~~5 days later. seems the Crown just likes to harass people
    Yes he did get charged with pointing a firearm at the kids. It is against the law to point a firearm at a person. You know the old saying, 'I did not mean to shoot him, I didn't know it was loaded.' Quite a few people get shot with unloaded guns it seems. Being charged five days later does not seem unusual, the cops first have to pick up the kids, charge them, get their version of events, do the paperwork. It was not like he was an immediate risk to re-offend so you can imagine the cops did not rush into charging him.

    Oh, and he locked it up in storage, not put it away in a safe.

  8. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Atlanta GA area
    Posts
    20,893
    Quote Originally Posted by printer2 View Post
    No, what has happened is the government does not want the public to go shooting at some damn kid playing hide-and-seek with his buddies late at night in the neighborhood. If there is no clear and present danger to life they do not want you shooting off rounds into the night. Since he was not targeting the intruders then the bullets were fired in an irresponsible manor. And that is one of the things they charged him with. Just because they charged him does not mean that he broke the law. If he can convince a judge that he did the right thing under the circumstance he will get off. More than likely they want to charge him with a number of things and then settle for an unsafe storage of a firearm. That way they will look like they are tough on people that take the law in their own hands.

    And before you answer back that is another one of the stupidest things I said, this is their logic not mine.
    The person claiming 'stupid things' is not me...

    What I see clearly here is: The kids do not have any respect for other's property... and they do not fear a property owner's right to defend his/her property. If this were in a state of the USA which has the castle doctrine... the public would KNOW that hiding in the bushes and threatening fire-bombing could well get one shot and killed... and the legal system will support the property owner's right to do so...

    Now how many folks, if they KNEW clearly the consequences (I may get shot and killed, lawfully), would still do the crime???
    GA-HVAC-Tech

    Quality work at a fair price with excellent customer service!

    Romans Ch's 5-6-7-8

    2 Chronicles 7:14

  9. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by ga-hvac-tech View Post
    The person claiming 'stupid things' is not me...

    What I see clearly here is: The kids do not have any respect for other's property... and they do not fear a property owner's right to defend his/her property. If this were in a state of the USA which has the castle doctrine... the public would KNOW that hiding in the bushes and threatening fire-bombing could well get one shot and killed... and the legal system will support the property owner's right to do so...

    Now how many folks, if they KNEW clearly the consequences (I may get shot and killed, lawfully), would still do the crime???
    As kids my friends and I would split up in two teams, one hiding out and the other searching for them. Sad to say we used the neighbors yards as our playground. You know, hide behind bushes, up in trees, under decks. Nothing to do with disrespecting property, just being kids. Can't see why kids should be shot for that.

    The kids in the story took things further. Yes they should be taught some respect but is their crime at the level that they should loose their life over it? Our justice system does not hand out judgments that harsh in that kind of situation, neither does Islamic Law, which is not known to coddle criminals. Why should a homeowner be judge, jury, and executioner?

    In the firebomb case I am more inclined to see it as a threat to his safety.

  10. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, Oh
    Posts
    4,923
    Sounds like the police weren't completely sure if he met the requirements to use his firearm in the way he did, so they arrested him, and removed his guns, as a precaution. Then hand the evidence over to the courts, to let them hash it out.

    I somewhat see it as a wise move on the police department. What if the guy was a nutball, hunts someone he thinks is in cahoots with the bad guys, and shoots them down. I could already see the police taking heat for it.

    So, my question for printer is:
    Is it legal, in canada, for the police to hold an individual for multiple days, and allow a court to look at the situation?

    I doubt it would fly here.
    "Better tell the sandman to stay away, because we're gonna be workin on this one all night."

    "Dude, you need more than 2 wires to a condenser to run a 2 stage heatpump."

    "Just get it done son."

    Dad adjusted

  11. #37
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    14,193
    Quote Originally Posted by printer2 View Post
    Yes he did get charged with pointing a firearm at the kids. It is against the law to point a firearm at a person. You know the old saying, 'I did not mean to shoot him, I didn't know it was loaded.' Quite a few people get shot with unloaded guns it seems. Being charged five days later does not seem unusual, the cops first have to pick up the kids, charge them, get their version of events, do the paperwork. It was not like he was an immediate risk to re-offend so you can imagine the cops did not rush into charging him.

    Oh, and he locked it up in storage, not put it away in a safe.
    Fact: Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against
    criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13
    seconds.151 Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using firearms defensively stated that
    they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so.
    Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.

    151 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995
    ,

    Fact: Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a
    warning shot to scare off their attackers.

    Fact: When using guns in self-defense, 91.1% of the time not a single shot is fired.155

    155 National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000
    BEING AN ADULT

    is the dumbest thing I have ever done

  12. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Atlanta GA area
    Posts
    20,893
    Quote Originally Posted by printer2 View Post
    As kids my friends and I would split up in two teams, one hiding out and the other searching for them. Sad to say we used the neighbors yards as our playground. You know, hide behind bushes, up in trees, under decks. Nothing to do with disrespecting property, just being kids. Can't see why kids should be shot for that.

    The kids in the story took things further. Yes they should be taught some respect but is their crime at the level that they should loose their life over it? Our justice system does not hand out judgments that harsh in that kind of situation, neither does Islamic Law, which is not known to coddle criminals. Why should a homeowner be judge, jury, and executioner?

    In the firebomb case I am more inclined to see it as a threat to his safety.
    It appears we are playing spin games now...

    I clearly stated in my post the issue of no respect for other's property... and we have been talking about fire-bombing one's personal property...

    Now somehow the topic gets changed to kids playing hide and seek... Sounds suspiciously like someone is more of a spin-master than seeking to learn.

    When all parties learn to respect each other in discussion (rather than play games), I may (or may not) return to the discussion.

    Respect is a two way street Printer... when you show it to me... you may get it back.

    For now, I am out of this thread.
    GA-HVAC-Tech

    Quality work at a fair price with excellent customer service!

    Romans Ch's 5-6-7-8

    2 Chronicles 7:14

  13. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by hvacvegas View Post
    Sounds like the police weren't completely sure if he met the requirements to use his firearm in the way he did, so they arrested him, and removed his guns, as a precaution. Then hand the evidence over to the courts, to let them hash it out.

    I somewhat see it as a wise move on the police department. What if the guy was a nutball, hunts someone he thinks is in cahoots with the bad guys, and shoots them down. I could already see the police taking heat for it.

    So, my question for printer is:
    Is it legal, in canada, for the police to hold an individual for multiple days, and allow a court to look at the situation?

    I doubt it would fly here.
    I will quote from a pamphlet.

    If the police suspect me of a crime, will they arrest me?

    It depends. If the crime is minor, you might be charged without being arrested if you tell the truth about who you are, and the police believe that:
    you will not destroy evidence,
    you will not repeat the offence, and
    you will go to court as required.
    If the crime is serious, you will be arrested. To find out whether the police are arresting you, you can ask them politely, “Am I under arrest?” If you are, ask them why.
    Later, the police might release you from the police station. They could ask you to agree to certain conditions before letting you go. Or you might be kept in police custody and then taken to court, usually within 24 hours of your arrest.
    At the court, you will be given your first opportunity for a bail hearing. At this hearing, a judge or justice of the peace will decide if you should be released, and on what terms and conditions. The judge or justice of the peace may order you to be detained until your trial is over if he or she believes that you will not show up for trial or you might commit another offence if you are released.
    And since it is related.

    What are my rights if I am arrested
    or detained?

    The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is part of the Canadian Constitution, sets out your rights.
    If you are arrested or detained, you must be:
    told why you have been arrested or detained,
    told immediately that you have the right to a lawyer,
    told about Legal Aid and your right to free legal advice, and
    allowed to speak to a lawyer, in private, as soon as possible, if you ask to do so.
    If you ask to speak to a lawyer, the police should stop questioning you. And if you have been arrested, the police should give you the 24-hour, toll-free number to get free legal advice from duty counsel.
    http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source...o8Ps1rqqa7jIsw

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event