First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
Home invader shot with own gun, victim now faces charges
12143 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 7/31/17 , edited 7/31/17

CrownedSonofFire wrote:


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.)



Yeah I think I and a lot of others should definitely read the stuff we talk about in depth more. At the same time, I can kinda understand not wanting to put too much focus into reading up on criminal justice cases while on an anime forum.
25798 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 7/31/17 , edited 8/1/17

Silentveil wrote:
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.


You don't seem to understand honor.

A coward is someone who runs from a fight.
A coward is also someone who ambushes another from behind.

Gunning down a coward who is trying to run is just fine. They will cause more trouble later if they are allowed to escape. Obviously, the police had to hunt them down anyway and their job was made easier and less dangerous by the fact that the burglars had been wounded.

Why do you care so much for the lives of home invaders, anyway? You and your family aren't safe with them around, no one is.
8450 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / One of the few lo...
Offline
Posted 7/31/17 , edited 7/31/17

octorockandroll wrote:


CrownedSonofFire wrote:


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.)



Yeah I think I and a lot of others should definitely read the stuff we talk about in depth more. At the same time, I can kinda understand not wanting to put too much focus into reading up on criminal justice cases while on an anime forum.


Totally. I mean, I just recently put a post up about Jordan Peterson.... I could have handled it better I suppose, but I wrote all that I wrote with full intent behind each word. It's just the readers don't actually understand how to read between the lines as it were, or how to read at all it seems in some cases... lol.
8450 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / One of the few lo...
Offline
Posted 7/31/17 , edited 7/31/17

riem2k wrote:

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


I want it for the whole property. You set foot on my lawn, are not allowed on my premises without my permission and threaten my life to boot....

You are in for it .... and we have lots of room in Saskatchewan for a coyote burial.

That's not to say that I don't like visitors or anything like that, but if you are going to go out of your way to hurt me, steal from me, or kill me, the law is the last thing I am worrying about.

So why make a law that makes a criminal out of the innocent in the first place? The criminal only is getting their justified consequence to begin with.

Now, that's not to say I think we all should just kill all intruders on the spot all the time, and the bit about Coyote burials was a small joke.

But why should I or anyone else fear for their lives when they could just put an end to the problem in a heartbeat?

I mean, not to bring rape into it, but we wouldn't expect a woman to not kill her rapist if she had the chance to while being raped, would we?

Sadly, according to our laws, I suspect the police probably would arrest the woman, and treat the rapist like he is the one harmed.
runec 
39536 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/31/17 , edited 7/31/17
A) This article is terribly written and clearly missing some details.

B) You don't get to shoot people in the back who are fleeing. In Canada or the US.





Banned
1273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
101 / O / bendover
Offline
Posted 7/31/17 , edited 7/31/17
Still going at it I see.
25798 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 7/31/17 , edited 8/1/17

CrownedSonofFire wrote:
Should he not shoot to be the bigger person?


Well, if we're just trying to be the bigger person, that's still the flaw of pride. Our motivations should always be logic/fairness. I think it just boils down to the fact that the criminals do need to be taken into custody and have proven themselves dangerous, so shooting them while they're fleeing is logical and fair.
25798 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 7/31/17 , edited 8/1/17

runec wrote:
B) You don't get to shoot people in the back who are fleeing. In Canada or the US.


I'm pretty sure the fleeing felon rule says you get to do that.
Posted 7/31/17 , edited 7/31/17
Yes, arrest the traumatized victim, that's the right thing to do... (sarcasm)
Posted 7/31/17 , edited 7/31/17

Online_ wrote:

Yes, arrest the traumatized victim, that's the right thing to do... (sarcasm)


He seems to have got a restriction order for traumatizing the two poor gentlemen, a typical case of turning the victim into the bad guy.

"Munroe is banned from any contact with two named individuals, must attend court as ordered, keep the peace and be of good behaviour, not leave his residence except for essential activities such as work or medical appointments, remain in Nova Scotia, not consume drugs or alcohol, not possess a cellphone or pager, have no weapons, and answer the door to police when they check at his home."

7411 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / Pacific North West
Offline
Posted 7/31/17 , edited 7/31/17
I dont live in Canada so really my opinions mean well.. not much. But here is my thoughts

#1 3 armed men entered the home. only 1 firearm was taken from the invaders... Shooting at the remaining 2(who were possibly firing while running away) does not seem so terrible. Now if it was a 1 vs. 1 the situation might play out a bit different

#2 3 armed men went into someones house without invitation, and armed. This would tell me they had intention to do serious to life threatening harm.

#3 If any of you have ever been in the military or in a real life shooting scenario then you know full well logic/fairness goes out the door pretty fast. You become impulsive and you develop tunnel vision. Its also referred to as condition Black by some circles(See "Cooper's colors"). Its possible the victim was not aware they were trying to flee. He might have simply thought they were regrouping.

#4 I am really curious as to why the victim has a restraining order against him.. should'nt the 3 be in jail right now? If they are not in jail then I really have to question the situation.
21907 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F
Offline
Posted 7/31/17 , edited 7/31/17
If i was shot and bleeding to death and i shot back in the t minutes before i died from bleeding to death id still be in the wrong
Ill never forget the woman who reached up and shot the ceiling when her husbandcharged at her ...she got 10 years in jail
49429 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / New Jersey, USA
Offline
Posted 7/31/17 , edited 7/31/17
So, was the guy suppose to let the thugs shoot and kill him? Or was he supposed to reason with the bastards over a cup of tea? This is bullshit!
31166 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 7/31/17 , edited 7/31/17
I mean you shouldn't really shoot a home intruder in some countries sure it's the thing to do in America but that doesn't instantly make it the right decision everywhere.

IF there laws are made so you cannot shoot someone in self defense (which is fine gun laws as much as i hate them can work when done right like in Australia for example...or they can make shit worse but again laws are laws) then......the owner is in the wrong.

Honestly i don't get the whole "kill anyone who breaks in" Attitude Americans have i know logically it's self defense and protection your property but if you can avoid conflict and not have anyone shot that is the best option of course sometimes that isn't an option.

It's sad but this is how the law is an people need to respect it honestly you are grasping at straws when forcing a foreign ideal onto another country.

I could say what the fuck about the fact you guys are even allowed to own guns and sometimes have them in the streets when concealed.
This is not surprising and honestly if you find it so then you must not know much about the world outside America alot of places still see killing in self defense as wrong (which to an extent it is it shouldn't be illegal for sure but it's still not the best choice and unless needed it should be avoided),

TL;DR The laws exist there for a reason Canada isn't some American "Shoot whoever comes onto your property like a maniac" country and i respect them for that.


GRANTED in this case and reading it this is bullshit but the laws sadly don't make special circumstances :/ (they really should)
31166 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 7/31/17 , edited 7/31/17

qualeshia3 wrote:

So, was the guy suppose to let the thugs shoot and kill him? Or was he supposed to reason with the bastards over a cup of tea? This is bullshit!


Give them what they wanted when they leave call the cops.
Sure they could of still killed him true but it's the law and you should never kill anyone even an intruder unless it's the only option left.

Is that so hard to understand? not every country believes in shoot to kill on a break in.
this is bullshit as it seems he had no other option but the law does exist for a reason.

Honestly if Canada wasn't at the border of America i would be surprised as to why they haven't made guns specifically for special purposes.

In this case they shouldn't be charged as it was the only available option but the laws are strict and don't make exceptions sadly..it's just as bad as if it were like America's laws on shooting people who break in.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.