The Great Gun Control Debate

[Halifax Tar]

One of the two men who were accosted buy the intruders is the brother of my subordinate.  He has a very colorful past.

Agreed this does sounds like throwing crap at a wall to see what sticks.  From what I have been told it was a very violent entry and a very fast retreat.

 

[Jarnhamar]

If only one or two charges were to stick would shotgunning a dozen charges against someone cost the accused more in court and lawyer fees?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

If only one or two charges were to stick would shotgunning a dozen charges against someone cost the accused more in court and lawyer fees?

Absolutely.

 

[Stoker]

I see some companies are offering firearm legal insurance. Anyone have it?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Absolutely.

That seems like a way to punish someone without needing to find them guilty.

I see some companies are offering firearm legal insurance. Anyone have it?

I think I recall seeing CCFR offers it. I also think they have some lawyers with their core owners/supporters. Worth looking in to.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

That seems like a way to punish someone without needing to find them guilty.

That is exactly what it is.

 

[suffolkowner]

That seems like a way to punish someone without needing to find them guilty.

Pretty common in our justice system, really always better to have a good lawyer. in the end though if three intruders break into your house better to take your chances with our justice system than the intruders sense of justice

 

[Lumber]

Is this an official practice that can be verified, or is it just a by-product of our justice system that happens to really suck for the accused?

There is a big difference. On the one hand, you have a bunch of people entrusted to apply the law doing so with malice, which is not ok, and on the other, you simply have a people doing their job and it just so happens that their tools and guidelines suck for those involved in weapons related situations, which still sucks, but is more ok, in my books.

 

[Jarnhamar]

In this case I guess it depends on more of the circumstance that hasn't been mentioned.

But for arguments sake lets say I break into your house with a couple buddies and point a handgun at you. You wrestle the handgun out of my grip and fire a couple bullets at my direction, one of them hitting me and giving me non-life threatening injures. I run away.

The police show up at your house and by the time they leave you're told you're being charged with:
-attempted murder
-intent to discharge a firearm
-intent to discharge a firearm when being reckless
-careless use of a firearm
-improper storage of a firearm
-pointing a firearm, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose
-unauthorized possession of a firearm
-possession of a firearm knowing that possession is unauthorized
possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Would you feel like the police are just doing their job or would you feel a bit short changed?

In this case I really hope there is more to the story than what we're seeing and the police have a good reason to nail the guy with all those charges.

I've thankfully had the exact opposite treatment by the police.

 

[Lumber]

I'm not disagreeing that this situation seems unjust and that there appears to be details missing.

However, what I'm asking is:

1. When the police laid these charges, did they consciously apply an official policy/strategy developed between law enforcement and the Crown Attorneys' Office to hammer people involved in gun related crimes with the goal of causing so much duress that the accused caves and signs whatever plea bargain the Crown wants; or
2. When the police laid these charges, did they simply apply existing legislation, precedent, and law enforcement policy that perhaps states that when there is evidence of weapons involvement in a crime, they must apply all charges that could possibly be derived from the facts of their investigation.

Re-reading what I just wrote, I realize the difference is small, but it's a matter of motive. In situation 1, the policy and crown attorneys are demonstrating malice toward gun owners, and in the other, they are simply doing their jobs as police officers.

I ask, because the last few posts in this thread imply that malice is exactly what the police are demonstrating, and I'm not denying it, I'm simply asking for non-anecdotal proof.

I feel like if there is no official written policy to do what everyone is implying is being done, then someone at the shitty end of this stick would have had grounds at some point to put forward a charter challenge and stop this un-sanctioned practice.

 

[Stoker]

In this case I guess it depends on more of the circumstance that hasn't been mentioned.

But for arguments sake lets say I break into your house with a couple buddies and point a handgun at you. You wrestle the handgun out of my grip and fire a couple bullets at my direction, one of them hitting me and giving me non-life threatening injures. I run away.

The police show up at your house and by the time they leave you're told you're being charged with:
-attempted murder
-intent to discharge a firearm
-intent to discharge a firearm when being reckless
-careless use of a firearm
-improper storage of a firearm
-pointing a firearm, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose
-unauthorized possession of a firearm
-possession of a firearm knowing that possession is unauthorized
possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Would you feel like the police are just doing their job or would you feel a bit short changed?

In this case I really hope there is more to the story than what we're seeing and the police have a good reason to nail the guy with all those charges.

I've thankfully had the exact opposite treatment by the police.

If that happened in the USA you would get a pat on the back from the police.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I've been told make sure you hit him/her/them in the chest and not the back. 

Shooting them in the back means they were going away from you and not a threat any more...

 

[Lumber]

If that happened in the USA you would get a pat on the back from the police.

I don't know if this is in legislation anywhere, but I feel like the big difference between the US and Canada is the value difference between Life and Property.

I don't know if the below examples are legally correct, so please correct me:

I Canada, if someone is trespassing on your property taking a baseball bat to your car, you can't shoot them, because your car is worth less than their life. Don't kill someone over material items. You cna only use deadly force to protect yourself or your family from death or bodily harm.

In the States, however, that doesn't seem to be the case. Depending on the state, the impression I get is that you can shoot at someone to protect your property.

Am I off here?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I don't know if this is in legislation anywhere, but I feel like the big difference between the US and Canada is the value difference between Life and Property.

I don't know if the below examples are legally correct, so please correct me:

I Canada, if someone is trespassing on your property taking a baseball bat to your car, you can't shoot them, because your car is worth less than their life. Don't kill someone over material items. You cna only use deadly force to protect yourself or your family from death or bodily harm.

In the States, however, that doesn't seem to be the case. Depending on the state, the impression I get is that you can shoot at someone to protect your property.

Am I off here?

Nope. In Canada, you may not use deadly force to protect property. If you injure or kill someone who is breaking into your house, you had better be able to convince the investigating police force and the local crown attorney that you feared for your own life and the life of you family members, or you are most likely going going to court and maybe to jail. You may even get sued by the perp. As was noted upthread, that threat has to immiment- if the bad guy starts to run away, carrying your tv, you cannot shoot him in the back. You are no longer at risk of bodily harm or death, when he is running.

That is my understanding of how the CCC is currently written. I await correction by FJAG!

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Something smells funny in this case in Halifax, which is why I hesitate to rush to the home invasion victims defence.

Why was he charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking (a drug charge)?

For that to happen, he had to have a reasonably significant quantity of illicit drugs in the house, no?

???

 

[Stoker]

I don't know if this is in legislation anywhere, but I feel like the big difference between the US and Canada is the value difference between Life and Property.

I don't know if the below examples are legally correct, so please correct me:

I Canada, if someone is trespassing on your property taking a baseball bat to your car, you can't shoot them, because your car is worth less than their life. Don't kill someone over material items. You cna only use deadly force to protect yourself or your family from death or bodily harm.

In the States, however, that doesn't seem to be the case. Depending on the state, the impression I get is that you can shoot at someone to protect your property.

Am I off here?

In Canada we don't really have property rights like in the US, thus the reason why the government has no problem banning or confiscating things. In the US you have the right of self defense of you, your family and your property. Here in Canada the police would rather have you call them, than you taking matters into your own hands.

 

[Lumber]

In Canada we don't really have property rights like in the US, thus the reason why the government has no problem banning or confiscating things. In the US you have the right of self defense of you, your family and your property. Here in Canada the police would rather have you call them, than you taking matters into your own hands.

Ok, so it's as I thought, and personally, I don't see a problem with this.

Are you really ok with taking someones life over material items? I have no problem shooting someone to protect my family, but I wouldn't feel ok knowing I took someone's life because he was trying to make off with my PlayStation, or because they were drunk and taking a baseball bat to my car.

 

[Stoker]

Ok, so it's as I thought, and personally, I don't see a problem with this.

Are you really ok with taking someones life over material items? I have no problem shooting someone to protect my family, but I wouldn't feel ok knowing I took someone's life because he was trying to make off with my PlayStation, or because they were drunk and taking a baseball bat to my car.

No I'm not but the deterrence factor is there knowing they maybe shot, wounded or detained by the homeowner. Violent home invasions are on the rise in Canada. I do believe we should have the right to self defence of yourself and your family including the use of deadly force. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

No I'm not but the deterrence factor is there knowing they maybe shot, wounded or detained by the homeowner. Violent home invasions are on the rise in Canada. I do believe we should have the right to self defence of yourself and your family including the use of deadly force.

If someone was in my house at 3am and they're obviously not in duress I wouldn't care.  Stealing a playstation can escalate to assault, rape or murder pretty quick. My families well being is worth more than someones sob story or drug habit.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Editing