Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy
It seems obvious the man had no choice. True, I was not there, and know only what was in the media, and God knows they are often wrong............but, assuming they have it right.....
Assumption is perfectly alright for here and our discussion, but when it comes to the technical points of the law and justice, assumption has no place.
The police do not HAVE to press charges, and when they do, the man is twice victimized, as this will undoubtedly cost him thousands of dollars..........IMHO, the police often assume it is only them that are allowed to defend themselves.........
While there is some play as to judgement calls where the police are concerned, in matters as complex and important as this must go before a judge. The police are there to gather evidence and the facts involved in the case. If evidence of indictable offence are present, police are obliged by the standard of their profession to make the charge.
There already are precedents, going back hundreds of years, that self-defense is one of our most basic rights....you do have a right to "security of the person" listed in the Charter. Therefore, he has admitted nothing, as firing a weapon in defense is NOT an offense. If it were, police and guards would not be permitted to carry them. And the POLICE should have made that determination in an investigation.........and not charged him, according to what we know. There could be other, unknown circumstances.
Hundreds of years ago people owned people and women were also a man's property in some respects. Times change Colpy. So does the ways and means of the law. Much to the disappointment of some who wish to remain living in the past.
They seized his weapons, leaving him defenseless, unless, of course, he didn't register all of his guns.
If he didn't register all of his guns then he is a criminal and shouldn't be allowed to have any guns at all.
Many people are and should be unarmed. Hardly defenceless but certainly not armed with a gun.
Want a real good look at how well you are protected by the police in McGuinty's Liberal Ontario?
Read Helpless, by Christie Blatchford.
Oh Colpy, you are so short sighted friend and I dare say a bit naive. Everyone has plenty of guns and so it's not going to be a good brandishing of the weapon that sorts things out. Even a shot into the ground isn't going to make all those Mohawk warriors flinch and run away. The only way to remove a well armed group that is organized and ready to make a stand, is start killing them until you get to the people who don't want to die more than they want to be right. All well and good if you aren't a politician. But that's what the name of the game is son.
Or start with this.............the nanny state society is the antithesis of liberty.
Christ this is so dumb. You fail to grasp that in a society where fools are allowed to live and breed, the onus on all others is to make things fool proof. This does mean that any thing can be made damn fool proof.
Now if everyone has to have a gun, then instead of just arming a few kooks like yourself who feel there is an imminent danger about to befall them, we have to arm every kook in the land. Not just that, but all the children have to be armed, which is even more crazy than arming all the nuts, and of course those who can't manage to do anything with a gun other than fire it.
The thousands dead seem no consequence to you. This is much more dangerous than all the Caledonia's in the world.
In the case of self defence, it must go before a judge in a court with due process. That it makes you mad is inconsequently a matter of fact.
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington
He admitted to firing his gun. He didn't admit to an offence.
I would say that if he was charged with it, it was an offence to discharge a firearm within the town. So admitting he fired his gun is admission to that offence even if he doesn't choose to see it that way.