Northern Alberta homeowner charged after shooting intruder

[B00Mer]

Northern Alberta homeowner charged after shooting intruder

RCMP have laid charges after a home invasion in the Town of Fairview, north of Grande Prairie, led to a round of ‘shotgun justice.’

Investigators say one of the occupants of the home was being assaulted by three armed suspects, who had burst in around 10 o’clock on Thursday night.

But the tables quickly turned when the homeowner suddenly appeared with a shotgun, pulling the trigger and pumping hot lead into one of the suspects — who is now said to be in stable condition in hospital.

Meanwhile, the person who was originally assaulted in the home has since been released from hospital.


Police say Nathan McNamara, who is 31, and one of the three suspects, has been charged with break and enter and commit, along with assault with a weapon.

The homeowner, Dave Sietsma, who is 29, has been charged with discharging a weapon with intent, and two counts of possession of a weapon and ammunition while prohibited.

They’re both being held in custody and will make their first appearance on the 25th of November, in Fairview Provincial Court. (td)

source: Northern Alberta homeowner charged after shooting intruder | 630 CHED - Edmonton Breaking News, Traffic, Weather and Sports Radio Station

..........................................

Now law says, cant protect your own family/home.

 

[gerryh]

two counts of possession of a weapon and ammunition while prohibited.

interesting.

 

[DaSleeper]

interesting.

"While prohibited"
I can think of only two things it could mean, since a shotgun is not by itself a prohibited weapon.....
1- It had been modified
2- The man, for some reason, could not legally own a firearm

we can only suppose until more is known!

 

[B00Mer]

"While prohibited"
I can think of only two things it could mean, since a shotgun is not by itself a prohibited weapon.....
1- It had been modified
2- The man, for some reason, could not legally own a firearm

we can only suppose until more is known!

I would guess not legally allowed to own a firearm, just by his actions. You don't hear every day of somebody shooting an intruder in Canada.

 

[petros]

"While prohibited"
I can think of only two things it could mean, since a shotgun is not by itself a prohibited weapon.....
1- It had been modified
2- The man, for some reason, could not legally own a firearm

we can only suppose until more is known!

Probation.

 

[SLM]

Probation.

Parole, probation. It's a common condition of release, either after or in lieu of incarceration isn't it?

 

[petros]

Yup.

 

[gerryh]

I would guess not legally allowed to own a firearm, just by his actions. You don't hear every day of somebody shooting an intruder in Canada.

So, you admit your original statement is inflammatory and untrue. More lies from the boomster.

Now law says, cant protect your own family/home.

 

[CDNBear]

Actually, technically he didn't lie. The law pretty much says you can't use a weapon to defend yourself against persons with weapons. If you're on prohibited by law.

 

[gerryh]

Actually, technically he didn't lie. The law pretty much says you can't use a weapon to defend yourself against persons with weapons. If you're on prohibited by law.

Oh? This is new? Something enacted recently? If not, then the dumb a$$ lied in his statement.....or...... it's another example of his stupidity and ignorance.

 

[CDNBear]

Oh? This is new? Something enacted recently? If not, then the dumb a$$ lied in his statement.....or...... it's another example of his stupidity and ignorance.

Ummm, it kind of makes him right.

For years I was barred by law from defending my family with a weapon. Simply because I was a convicted criminal.

 

[DaSleeper]

Probation.

Which is part of #2

 

[CDNBear]

Which is part of #2

Or in possession of.

 

[gerryh]

Ummm, it kind of makes him right.

For years I was barred by law from defending my family with a weapon. Simply because I was a convicted criminal.

Key word in his statement is "now", implying that it was different in the recent past.

 

[CDNBear]

Key word in his statement is "now", implying that it was different in the recent past.

Ahhh, my bad.

 

[DaSleeper]

On another note, it seems you will not even be charged if you kill a home invader with his own gun...

Homeowner lauded for killing armed intruder

Yet you can't do it with your own gun?

 

[gerryh]

On another note, it seems you will not even be charged if you kill a home invader with his own gun...

Homeowner lauded for killing armed intruder

Yet you can't do it with your own gun?

The fu cking kid was prohibited from being in possession of a firearm. It doesn't matter who's weapon it was, he wasn't allowed to have one. Therefore, he get's charged.

 

[DaSleeper]

"While prohibited"
I can think of only two things it could mean, since a shotgun is not by itself a prohibited weapon.....
1- It had been modified
2- The man, for some reason, could not legally own a firearm

we can only suppose until more is known!

The fu cking kid was prohibited from being in possession of a firearm. It doesn't matter who's weapon it was, he wasn't allowed to have one. Therefore, he get's charged.

Where did I argue that in reference to the OP?
My other post was a general statement discussing the laws in Canada Comparing cases if you will, my last post and for example the Thomson case which was in court for years, a legal gun owner, and didn't even aim at anyone!
"On another note" means what? to you?
Man did you ever get up on the wrong side of the bed!

 

[CDNBear]

I bet my lawyer could have got me off a possession while restricted, if I was using one of SCB's firearms years ago.

 

[gerryh]

Where did I argue that in reference to the OP?
My other post was a general statement discussing the laws in Canada Comparing cases if you will, my last post and for example the Thomson case which was in court for years, a legal gun owner, and didn't even aim at anyone!
"On another note" means what? to you?
Man did you ever get up on the wrong side of the bed!

I guess I should put you in the same boat as JLM... old age catchin up with you. "on another note" along with your statement makes the link you provided a comparison to the original OP. If that is not what you intended, I suggest being a little more careful in your wording and double or even triple (considering your age) your intent before posting.