First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
Home invader shot with own gun, victim now faces charges
6426 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / One of the few lo...
Offline
Posted 7/31/17 , edited 7/31/17

octorockandroll wrote:

What needs to be explained? Seriously, I get by now that you have little to no understanding of the law, but what is needed to be explained here? Do you really need someone to tell you that illegal possession of a firearm is illegal? It's kinda self explanatory. Unless you're talking about the shooting, in which case it's interesting how you seem to have ignored that the suspects had already left when shot.

"The two in the home seized a firearm from one of the suspects and several shots were fired as the suspects fled. Police later located one of the suspects, who had non-life-threatening gunshot wounds"

It's almost like you're lying to push an agenda or something.


Hey Octo....

So, you have definitely got something wrong here. As per the article.

"The two in the home seized a firearm from one of the suspects and several shots were fired as the suspects fled. Police later located one of the suspects, who had non-life-threatening gunshot wounds."

Key words there are seized a firearm from the one of the suspects.

Munroe wasn't using an unlawfully owned weapon of his own ownership. He is being charged for using the criminals gun against the criminal.

Make sense now? I hope so, because that's why this is so fucked up. Many of us Canadians are very well aware of the fact that we have no laws or liberty to actually protect ourselves in our own home. (Literally. Someone breaks into your home, you can't do fuck all legally other than call the cops. Even then, the cops take 30 minutes minimum to get anywhere out here... so they are useless as tits when it comes to home invasions. Sorry police. Truth hurts.)

So I don't think OP has an agenda at all here really. Even if OP does, the point of the matter is that Munroe is being charged for crimes that are usually used on a person when they are the ones who unlawfully owned the gun in the first place. They are trying to charge him for taking ownership over the gun by picking it up in the first place.

Here's how things would have gone down if he had used a blunt weapon instead. He would have been charged with battery and assault with a deadly weapon.

As soon as he picked up the gun however, the police view that as him taking it into his ownership and thus the relative charges. Technically, they are right. You are responsible for the weapon you hold up here. If it kills someone while under your direct ownership, and that could be as little as having been the last person to hold it, then you are responsible. Essentially. That's not how they have it written down, but clearly from how the police are treating it, how I explain it iis how they treat the situation.

It's fucked.

Hope my rambling has helped clear things up a bit.

For context, the country is having a lot of problems with the police going overboard lately on these things, due to a few past incidents. Do yourself a favor and don't believe a word the police here say when it comes to guns and drugs. It's not as bad as it is down there for you Americans yet, but seriously.... it's getting there. Just in its own stupid way.


-edit- I just realized looking at your profile Octo that you are in Manitoba.

If that's the case, why the retarded comment Octo? You should know better.
6426 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / One of the few lo...
Offline
Posted 7/31/17 , edited 7/31/17

Ejanss wrote:


Amyas_Leigh wrote:
Explain yourselves Canadians.


Wait, aren't Canadians always telling us they don't have guns?


We typically don't. That said, the criminals closest to the states particularly the great lakes area, and hunters/farmers will have guns.

Usually it's just rifles and shotguns too. Licensed, legal and everything.

But the handguns that end up in the cities are not legal. Almost no one is legal to own one here, and if they do own one, they went through a fuck of a lot of trouble to get it if it is legally owned. Like seriously, it's almost easier to become a police officer than to get licensed to own a handgun here.

As for buying them blackmarket however...

Anyone who tells you that guns don't exist in Canada is a fucking deluded shit head who needs to go outside and smell the roses.
Ejanss 
16823 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/31/17 , edited 7/31/17

CrownedSonofFire wrote:


Ejanss wrote:

Wait, aren't Canadians always telling us they don't have guns?


Anyone who tells you that guns don't exist in Canada is a fucking deluded shit head who needs to go outside and smell the roses.


(Yep, he's Canadian...)
6426 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / One of the few lo...
Offline
Posted 7/31/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1487818-break-in-suspect-shot-man-in-home-charged#.WXM6Wmvlgdg.facebook
Armed thugs broke into a man's home, a fight ensued that ended with the victim shooting at the burglar with his own gun. The victim was arrested.


Munroe faces charges of 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, and possession for the purpose of trafficking.


Explain yourselves Canadians.


Canadian here;

Our cops mean well, but some of them are fucking retarded. So much so that if this gets the right judge, you can expect most of it to be thrown out as BS, and new precedent will be made on how to deal with such cases.

Our cops like to act like they are some sort of judge and jury, but they get their dicks slapped around a lot in the courts. I guarantee it. It just depends on the exact details of the situation.

This one looks like a judge is going to have a field day with the police force if all goes well and I hope it does.

We could very well even see changes to the laws about how we can and cannot defend our own property. Rare chance, but if any case has the chance for it, it might be this one and there have been quite a few in the past couple years now.
6426 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / One of the few lo...
Offline
Posted 7/31/17

Ejanss wrote:


CrownedSonofFire wrote:


Ejanss wrote:

Wait, aren't Canadians always telling us they don't have guns?


Anyone who tells you that guns don't exist in Canada is a fucking deluded shit head who needs to go outside and smell the roses.


(Yep, he's Canadian...)


It's that bloody obvious eh'?
6426 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / One of the few lo...
Offline
Posted 7/31/17 , edited 7/31/17

YouGottobeFockingKidding wrote:

Well no one said Canada was perfect It's got it's B.S. as well.


That might be the biggest understatement of the year. I wouldn't compare it to the U.S.A's BS right now as that might trigger some PC LGTBSQI2 SJW University nancies, but it's pretty fucking dumb up here right now. We have extremist invalids on the left and right in all sorts of ways in this country right now, geographically and politically.
Posted 7/31/17
Explain yourselves Canadians.

11630 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 7/31/17

CrownedSonofFire wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

What needs to be explained? Seriously, I get by now that you have little to no understanding of the law, but what is needed to be explained here? Do you really need someone to tell you that illegal possession of a firearm is illegal? It's kinda self explanatory. Unless you're talking about the shooting, in which case it's interesting how you seem to have ignored that the suspects had already left when shot.

"The two in the home seized a firearm from one of the suspects and several shots were fired as the suspects fled. Police later located one of the suspects, who had non-life-threatening gunshot wounds"

It's almost like you're lying to push an agenda or something.


Hey Octo....

So, you have definitely got something wrong here. As per the article.

"The two in the home seized a firearm from one of the suspects and several shots were fired as the suspects fled. Police later located one of the suspects, who had non-life-threatening gunshot wounds."

Key words there are seized a firearm from the one of the suspects.

Munroe wasn't using an unlawfully owned weapon of his own ownership. He is being charged for using the criminals gun against the criminal.

Make sense now? I hope so, because that's why this is so fucked up. Many of us Canadians are very well aware of the fact that we have no laws or liberty to actually protect ourselves in our own home. (Literally. Someone breaks into your home, you can't do fuck all legally other than call the cops. Even then, the cops take 30 minutes minimum to get anywhere out here... so they are useless as tits when it comes to home invasions. Sorry police. Truth hurts.)

So I don't think OP has an agenda at all here really. Even if OP does, the point of the matter is that Munroe is being charged for crimes that are usually used on a person when they are the ones who unlawfully owned the gun in the first place. They are trying to charge him for taking ownership over the gun by picking it up in the first place.

Here's how things would have gone down if he had used a blunt weapon instead. He would have been charged with battery and assault with a deadly weapon.

As soon as he picked up the gun however, the police view that as him taking it into his ownership and thus the relative charges. Technically, they are right. You are responsible for the weapon you hold up here. If it kills someone while under your direct ownership, and that could be as little as having been the last person to hold it, then you are responsible. Essentially. That's not how they have it written down, but clearly from how the police are treating it, how I explain it iis how they treat the situation.

It's fucked.

Hope my rambling has helped clear things up a bit.

For context, the country is having a lot of problems with the police going overboard lately on these things, due to a few past incidents. Do yourself a favor and don't believe a word the police here say when it comes to guns and drugs. It's not as bad as it is down there for you Americans yet, but seriously.... it's getting there. Just in its own stupid way.


-edit- I just realized looking at your profile Octo that you are in Manitoba.

If that's the case, why the retarded comment Octo? You should know better.


Okay, yeah nevermind. I did indeed miss the part about taking the gun from the crooks. Not quite as sure how I feel about it now, but I'll definitely wait until an actual verdict is carried out before going so far as to call the system unfair.
414 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34
Online
Posted 7/31/17 , edited 8/5/17

Kavalion wrote:


Silentveil wrote:

Americans believe in shooting people in the back.

It's considered to be our constitutional right ...to kill someone who has obviously given up or surrendered.

No mercy, and when someone points out what is wrong with this stance.

WE also reserve the right to take on the role of the villain while trying to keep our halo straight.



Running away isn't surrendering. They can come back, sneak up on you, and kill you. It's better to down them while you still have eyes on them. If they wanted to surrender, they should have gotten on their knees with their hands on their head so they can be secured and taken into custody.

It's only really dishonorable to shoot someone in the back if you snuck up on them while they weren't fighting you, not if you were finishing off dangerous people who attacked you, your home, your family, and were just trying to escape so they can do it again another day.


Twisted logic

Running away is ... a strategy to kill you.

You took the criminals weapon away from him, and now that you got a weapon and he has a weapon ...he feels he have a better chance of killing you. :

Option 1: Breaking into a unknown situation to kill you.
Option 2: Waiting until he can sneak up on you and kill you.

Home invader choose Option 1 ....why? If their intention was to kill you ... :

It is dishonorable to disarm someone, and then shoot them in the back as they flee.

Wounds on the back was considered to be dishonorable, because you was killed or injured trying to flee.

No one thinks taking out a fleeing opponent is a good thing (when you have their weapon), and people who are fleeing aren't considered to be someone still trying to fight.

As for your suggestion, were they suppose to follow it ...before or after the person started shooting, because if you are willing to shoot someone in the back running away ...what's the promise you wouldn't shot them in the head while and after they stay put and surrender.

Devil Angel.
5365 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/31/17

Amyas_Leigh

Explain yourselves Canadians.


It's Canada. Not very surprised.
6426 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / One of the few lo...
Offline
Posted 7/31/17

octorockandroll wrote:


CrownedSonofFire wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

What needs to be explained? Seriously, I get by now that you have little to no understanding of the law, but what is needed to be explained here? Do you really need someone to tell you that illegal possession of a firearm is illegal? It's kinda self explanatory. Unless you're talking about the shooting, in which case it's interesting how you seem to have ignored that the suspects had already left when shot.

"The two in the home seized a firearm from one of the suspects and several shots were fired as the suspects fled. Police later located one of the suspects, who had non-life-threatening gunshot wounds"

It's almost like you're lying to push an agenda or something.


Hey Octo....

So, you have definitely got something wrong here. As per the article.

"The two in the home seized a firearm from one of the suspects and several shots were fired as the suspects fled. Police later located one of the suspects, who had non-life-threatening gunshot wounds."

Key words there are seized a firearm from the one of the suspects.

Munroe wasn't using an unlawfully owned weapon of his own ownership. He is being charged for using the criminals gun against the criminal.

Make sense now? I hope so, because that's why this is so fucked up. Many of us Canadians are very well aware of the fact that we have no laws or liberty to actually protect ourselves in our own home. (Literally. Someone breaks into your home, you can't do fuck all legally other than call the cops. Even then, the cops take 30 minutes minimum to get anywhere out here... so they are useless as tits when it comes to home invasions. Sorry police. Truth hurts.)

So I don't think OP has an agenda at all here really. Even if OP does, the point of the matter is that Munroe is being charged for crimes that are usually used on a person when they are the ones who unlawfully owned the gun in the first place. They are trying to charge him for taking ownership over the gun by picking it up in the first place.

Here's how things would have gone down if he had used a blunt weapon instead. He would have been charged with battery and assault with a deadly weapon.

As soon as he picked up the gun however, the police view that as him taking it into his ownership and thus the relative charges. Technically, they are right. You are responsible for the weapon you hold up here. If it kills someone while under your direct ownership, and that could be as little as having been the last person to hold it, then you are responsible. Essentially. That's not how they have it written down, but clearly from how the police are treating it, how I explain it iis how they treat the situation.

It's fucked.

Hope my rambling has helped clear things up a bit.

For context, the country is having a lot of problems with the police going overboard lately on these things, due to a few past incidents. Do yourself a favor and don't believe a word the police here say when it comes to guns and drugs. It's not as bad as it is down there for you Americans yet, but seriously.... it's getting there. Just in its own stupid way.


-edit- I just realized looking at your profile Octo that you are in Manitoba.

If that's the case, why the retarded comment Octo? You should know better.


Okay, yeah nevermind. I did indeed miss the part about taking the gun from the crooks. Not quite as sure how I feel about it now, but I'll definitely wait until an actual verdict is carried out before going so far as to call the system unfair.


yeah... the way they worded it was what caught my eye and I figured that might be the case.

On topic/off topic... This kind of thing is the real reason why misinformation is so plentiful as of late. These misunderstandings that people have because of the misuse or proper use but misunderstood use of a word... Or multiple words.

Not to single you out, but because I see this problem a lot in my life... If everyone would learn to slow down, read and re-read the things you write, read and/or otherwise, there would be a lot less of this misinformation around lately.

Seriously, it's like everyone is playing a really bad game of High speed Impatient Telephone, except there is no Operator, the illiterate shot her. (If this confuses anyone, feel free to ask wtf im talking about. The rest of you will get it, might chuckle a bit.)

6426 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / One of the few lo...
Offline
Posted 7/31/17

D4nc3Style wrote:


Amyas_Leigh

Explain yourselves Canadians.


It's Canada. Not very surprised.


Yeah... we have some pretty ass backwards laws around here, and even more ass backwards police officers and RCMP to deal with to boot. Some nice ones. Plenty really... but hot damn is it bloody deluded up here sometimes.
6426 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / One of the few lo...
Offline
Posted 7/31/17

Silentveil wrote:


Kavalion wrote:


Silentveil wrote:

Americans believe in shooting people in the back.

It's considered to be our constitutional right ...to kill someone who has obviously given up or surrendered.

No mercy, and when someone points out what is wrong with this stance.

WE also reserve the right to take on the role of the villain while trying to keep our halo straight.



Running away isn't surrendering. They can come back, sneak up on you, and kill you. It's better to down them while you still have eyes on them. If they wanted to surrender, they should have gotten on their knees with their hands on their head so they can be secured and taken into custody.

It's only really dishonorable to shoot someone in the back if you snuck up on them while they weren't fighting you, not if you were finishing off dangerous people who attacked you, your home, your family, and were just trying to escape so they can do it again another day.


Twisted logic

Running away is ... a strategy to kill you.

You took the criminals weapon away from him, and now that you got a weapon and he has a weapon ...he feels he have a better chance of killing you. :

Option 1: Breaking into a unknown situation to kill you.
Option 2: Waiting until he can sneak up on you and kill you.

Home invader choose Option 1 ....why? If their intention was to kill you ... :

It is dishonorable to disarm someone, and then shoot them in the back as they flee.

Wounds on the back was considered to be dishonorable, because you was killed or injured trying to flee.

No one thinks taking out a fleeing opponent is a good thing (when you have their weapon), and people who are fleeing aren't considered to be someone still trying to fight.

As for your suggestion, were they suppose to follow it ...before or after the person started shooting, because if you are willing to shoot someone in the back running away ...what's the promise you wouldn't shot them in the head while and after they stay put and surrender.

Devil Angel.


".what's the promise you wouldn't shot them in the head while and after they stay put and surrender."

I am not going to approach the rest of your... comment. I wouldn't call it drivel, but you definitely have your priorities mistaken.

First of all, the quoted piece...

You make a good point with that. there really isn't any promise at all in the first place though. Think about it. If a criminal is willing to pull a gun on you in the first place, what promise is there they weren't going to use it on you when you were under their control?

Yet somehow that criminal lost his gun. Now the tables have turned. If anything, that criminal is now at the mercy of the person they could very well have shot if not for the new predicament.

Now for the whole bit of the morality of the situation. Let's look at the situation at hand. There was a loved one to be protected, so right there Munroe has every right to start shooting if he see's fit. The criminal already has made their potential morals very clear and that is that they don't really have any.

The crook only ran because he knew that he was less likely to be shot that very moment. Because society puts taboo on killing people from behind. But was it really so wrong for him to shoot the crook as he ran? The crook would have shot Munroe if he ran. Without a doubt.

Should he not shoot to be the bigger person? Will that keep him alive? Does he have any guarentee that the crook won't come back with another gun to silence Munroe?

Munroe did the very thing that he felt was the right choice in the heat of the moment.

None of you have any right to judge that. Because none of you have the right to say that he should have risked his or someone elses life to uphold some small idea of morality that just could have gotten him killed instead.

Ones life always trumps the groups idea of morality. Your life is worth more than someones opinion.
6426 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / One of the few lo...
Offline
Posted 7/31/17

MysteryMiss wrote:

Explain yourselves Canadians.



Yeah... Cause America so fucking great.... right?
riem2k 
11158 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 7/31/17 , edited 7/31/17
Reminds me of Ian Thomson case but he was charged at the time for just warning shots, I personally wouldn't mind a castle doctrine law but only for inside someones dwelling in Canada.

"Ontario man acquitted of charges in home attack says case sets self defence precedent"
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/01/05/ontario_man_acquitted_of_charges_in_home_attack_says_case_sets_self_defence_precedent.html
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.