Fatal Gunfights Are LEGAL In Nanaimo, BC!

[wizard]

... this story further proves that the crown prosecutors union in british columbia is allowing criminals to get away with murder ...

... nanaimo crown counsel is refusing to prosecute a murder charge against a gangster who gunned down someone in a brazen broad daylight gun battle in nanaimo. story at this link HERE ...

... according to this nanaimo crown attorney, gangster's may engage in bloody gun battles that endanger innocent people if they are acting in self-defense. total bullcrap. that's not the law in canada at all. this prosecutor's incompetence is even more reprehensible in light of the horrifying shootings in ontario and colorado that recently happened ...

... the prosecutor should be fired immediately ...

 

[CDNBear]

total bullcrap.

That would be a great description of your posts, but not of the decision.

that's not the law in canada at all.

Mr. Dockerill was indeed defending himself, as defined by Section 34 of the CCoC. But now he faces weapons charges.

You really should brush up on the law before you make such sweeping accusations.

 

[lone wolf]

Someone's fishing for hook lines for his latest literary work. Do we get royalties?

 

[wizard]

Mr. Dockerill was indeed defending himself, as defined by Section 34 of the CCoC. But now he faces weapons charges.

... what does that section say? got a quote or a link for us?

 

[CDNBear]

... what does that section say? got a quote or a link for us?

Google it. You just might learn something and stop making such erroneous claims and accusations.

Here, I'll even give you the exact location... Section 34 (2)(a)(b)

I'm tired of leading you to facts only to watch you ignore them.

 

[wizard]

Google it. You just might learn something and stop making such erroneous claims and accusations.

I'm tired of leading you to facts only to watch you ignore them.

... i'll take that as a no, there actually isn't any law that allows gangsters to kill people, in self-defense or otherwise ...

 

[lone wolf]

If you want to be a credible writer, it might be to your benefit to do your own research

 

[CDNBear]

... i'll take that as a no...

Of course you would, lol.

there actually isn't any law that allows gangsters to kill people, in self-defense or otherwise ...

Yes, there is. I sited the exact Section, and subsections, lol.

If you want to be a credible writer, it might be to your benefit to do your own research

It would be even better if he could differentiate between reality and fiction.

 

[lone wolf]

... i'll take that as a no, there actually isn't any law that allows gangsters to kill people, in self-defense or otherwise ...

No ... I don't suppose the law uses the word "gangsters". They have legalese terms for that....

 

[wizard]

... the crown attorney was either doing someone a favor or he was paid to drop the charge. either way the prosector's a mob attorney ...

... this is why harper's tough on crime stance is empty -- the prosecutors and the judges do whatever they want regardless of the laws on the books ...

 

[CDNBear]

No ... I don't suppose the law uses the word "gangsters". They have legalese terms for that....

Although the doesn't include the term "Gangsters", a gangster was acquitted of a double murder, and an assault with a weapon charges. After he killed two fellow gangsters and wounding a British woman (Paralyzing her in the process).

Because the two men he killed, came to kill him at Caribana.

... the crown attorney was either doing someone a favor or he was paid to drop the charge. either way the prosector's a mob attorney ...

I doubt it. Her seems to have followed the law.

... this is why harper's tough on crime stance is empty -- the prosecutors and the judges do whatever they want regardless of the laws on the books ...

Not true at all, he followed Section 34 (2)(a)(b). As I already said.

 

[DaSleeper]

... i'll take that as a no, there actually isn't any law that allows gangsters to kill people, in self-defense or otherwise ...

Defence of Person
Self-defence against unprovoked assault
34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
Extent of justification
(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

 

[CDNBear]

Really DaS?

 

[DaSleeper]

Really DaS?

I don't think even that will shut him up:smile:

 

[CDNBear]

I don't think even that will shut him up:smile:

Oh so true, lol.

 

[lone wolf]

... the crown attorney was either doing someone a favor or he was paid to drop the charge. either way the prosector's a mob attorney ...

... this is why harper's tough on crime stance is empty -- the prosecutors and the judges do whatever they want regardless of the laws on the books ...

I think they just deliberately don't let you in on all the intimate details or allow you to be privy to what's going on behind the scenes in investigation capacity. I suggest you petition the Courts and Legislature to advise you on everything.

 

[Goober]

If you want to be a credible writer, it might be to your benefit to do your own research

Had to amend that- No offence LW.
If you want to be a credible writer, it might be to your benefit to do your own research

 

[CDNBear]

I think they just deliberately don't let you in on all the intimate details or allow you to be privy to what's going on behind the scenes in investigation capacity. I suggest you petition the Courts and Legislature to advise you on everything.

That would mean he'd need to use his credit card in Ontario though.

 

[wizard]

... the law makes no sense, it contradicts itself. on the one hand it says you can't cause grievous harm or death. yet on the other hand it says you can cause grievous harm or death ...

... and the prosecutors stance makes no sense. it can't be legal to kill someone with a handgun in self-defense since it's illegal to to carry weapons on the street anyway ...

That would mean he'd need to use his credit card in Ontario though.

... can i expect to be penalized with more credit card fraud for posting this message?

 

[CDNBear]

... the law makes no sense, it contradicts itself. on the one hand it says you can't cause greivous harm or death.

No it doesn't.

It says you can't unless you fear for your life.

... and the prosecutors stance makes no sense.

Actually, it's quite clear.

it can't be legal to kill someone with a handgun in self-defense since it's illegal to to carry weapons on the street anyway ...

Actually, it is legal to use deadly force with an illegal weapon in self defence. But you will be charged for possession of a restricted weapon in the end, lol.

Just like this case, lol.

... can i expect to be penalized with more credit card fraud for posting this message?

Maybe, you should stock up on tinfoil now, before it happens.