Right. We dont know. So we cant make up our minds one way or the other on Guilt, Or Fault. More information is needed. Thats whats Gambit is saying
Cop crashes bike into 4 year old girl then shoots and kills her father
- Thread starter Roasted
- Start date
Right. We dont know. So we cant make up our minds one way or the other on Guilt, Or Fault. More information is needed. Thats whats Gambit is saying
Nope, don't know anyone who carries a gun on their person. Although I doubt if I met someone who did they would tell me "hey btw I got a hand gun strapped to me so dont worry you're safe
if anything happens" .... I'd feel quite the opposite... in fact I'd probably back away slowly and then proceed to get away from this person. Do you guys go to burrito boys meets with your guns ?
Nope, don't know anyone who carries a gun on their person. Although I doubt if I met someone who did they would tell me "hey btw I got a hand gun strapped to me so dont worry you're safe
You know CCW isnt legal in Canada right?
suprPHREAK
Well-known member
OK, that is fine, as you are not in a legal or moral position to carry a gun. But if you were in that cop's position of being beaten by two emotionally charged able-bodied men, you wouldn't make use of anything around you to defend yourself? For example a drywall knife you might have on you (because you are a drywaller on your way home from work), your baseball bat after practice, a rock you see within reach. All of these are not legally defined as weapons until used as such, and may all be on one's person without any presumption of ill intent. All of them can cause death.
Can you really say to any of us here that if you were about to pass out from the beating of a lifetime, that you would do NOTHING to fight back, to stop the beating?
A lot of people here seem to miss the fact that reasonable use of force is not defined by the tools involved; It is defined by the threat level. If you are not in fear of your life, you may not kill. If you are in fear of grievous bodily harm or death, then you may kill. It is simple. You like to think that maybe the threat of the gun would be enough, or a shot in the air, but how do you know? This is an emotionally charged father here, so expect the worst.
As far as "laying the bike down" goes, it sounds rediculous, but given that the child lived, has anyone considered that it might have actually been the best available choice?
7 pages eh?
All i'm reading from this article is > "Father doesn't properly supervise his child, then makes a piss poor decision and gets shot to death"
In this case, once 2 guys start beating on you, it's potentially a life threatening situation. I would have shot him too.
All i'm reading from this article is > "Father doesn't properly supervise his child, then makes a piss poor decision and gets shot to death"
In this case, once 2 guys start beating on you, it's potentially a life threatening situation. I would have shot him too.
This is a thread posted on a message board with the intent to promote discussion for entertainment purposes. This isn't the Supreme Court. I think everyone already acknowledges that we have limited info to go on.
Unless everyone wants to start adding "allegedly" before every e-opinion is made, or simply not commenting at ALL, because 'hey, we may not have all the facts!!!1', maybe we can just carry on.
Should be charged with what? Since you have all the facts in the case?
He was Legally carrying the gun.
It is not against the law to Follow someone
He even called 911 to report the activity (Cutting through the private gated commuity)
He (Claims) he fired in self defence when being beaten (Unless you have evidence to the contrary?)
So what should he be charged with?
Nope never said that, in fact, had he used just about anything else he had available to him to defend himself maybe no one would have died.
All I'm saying is that when a gun is in play the chances that someone dies goes up exponentially. All it takes is a pull of the trigger and its over. Sure it's great if death is what you want to achieve but even in a self defence situation most of the time the intention is to debilitate the other person - not to kill them. If your intention is to kill them because they attacked you, and your life wasn't in danger - then that's not self defence.
In this situation we don't really know to what extent this guy's life was in danger when he pulled the trigger. Maybe it wasn't, maybe he was just piss*d off because his bike got scratched. Who knows. Everyone seems to be making the conclusion that his reaction was perfectly reasonable without really knowing enough IMO.
(Half joking about the pis*ed off about his bike remark...but the point is we don't know)
Last edited:
OpenGambit
Banned
Murder.. duh?
I cant win..I get blasted by Gambit for holding a position i dont hold and when I atempt to clarify you shoot me (poor phrasing lol) to being accurate.
You can prove it was not self defence? You should be the Prosocuter in Florida!
I cant win..I get blasted by Gambit for holding a position i dont hold and when I atempt to clarify you shoot me (poor phrasing lol) to being accurate.
At GTAM, you're safe from no one.
I'm not really targeting you, I'm just shaking my head at the direction this thread has gone.
OpenGambit
Banned
Thats what the court is for, you asked me what he should be charged with. I told you. The Prosecutor thought it was a good charge. Maybe you know better than she does, because of your super anti news media knowledge.
Do you not understand how the justice system works?
If you are saying he shouldn't be charged at all, well then I guess you can keep drinking the Kool-aid.
Last edited:
At GTAM, you're safe from no one.
I'm not really targeting you, I'm just shaking my head at the direction this thread has gone.
I know im kidding...We need Peg here TBH....
Do I understand the Justice system. (Yes, maybe better than you but since we have not met I cannot say but you already believe you know more than me or you would not ask this question and you dont know me or my background)
I do also understand that just because someone chages you with something does not make it true. And that they have laws. the Cops are qucik to arrest if they THINK you might have broken one, That was not the case and it was not until after a Public outcry that the prosocuter made charges. That still does not make the charges correct, does not mean they will hold up in court and does not mean they are good charges either.
If you think he should be charged based on the evidance that has been presented then should the police officer in this case also be charged?
Griffin
Well-known member
The cop started the fight by punching the father? Or am I getting my stories crossed?
What the guy did or didn't do previously has no bearing on the matter unless knowledge of that history may have formed a concern for safety by the person being attacked. i.e. I know Bob has beaten three people to death and Bob is coming at me I would be more anxkous for my safety than if I have no idea who Bob is or what he's done.
I have a lot of experience with situations that are subsequently reported by the media. One thing I can assure you, WHATEVER is reported is NOT the whole story, many if not most "facts" will be wrong and the whole story may not be remotely close to the actual facts.
Neither would I. I had mine destroyed a long time ago. I prefer a club for self-defense, knives are too slow to incapacitate even if they are easier to carry.
Are you sure? I was pretty sure the rare person could carry in Canada.
I agree with much of what you've said regarding guns - they do escalate things to very real and very final quickly. But, I still think you're playing down the danger of being kicked by assailants; when this happens you are likely to die.
Are you talking about the Trayvon Martin thing in Florida? If so, once again I agree with Gambit. I think if you go out with a gun looking for trouble, you're likely to find it. Unfortunately you're likely to be the cause of it.
EDIT: Hey Outlaw, FYI, I suspect Gambit is or was a prosecutor.
OpenGambit
Banned
Zimmerman should have been charged on the facts. and you can call that my professional opinion if you want.
Cops shouldn't be making these kinds of decisions except in the clearest of cases. And Zimmerman's case bascially has nothing in common with a self defence scenario.
*Griffin* yes, that discussion was about florida - I made the point that the person doing the shooting has a pretty strong incentive to present the facts a certain way and should be viewed with skeptism. Zimmerman's case is actually a good example, so I used it.
And as to your final comment, the answer is "was", but I did do both sides at different points. Defence work was pro bono though. ( I am now in business, didn't like the Crown life ( or pay)
Last edited:
Ok this just made me laugh:
You're hilarious calling me out for "getting it wrong" because I tried to use my own words, when I essentially said the same thing, then you go and do the exact same thing by trying to explain in your own words and this is your response when someone similarly calls you out on it:
I don't get why your puzzled. Sure you can argue that you believed that me coming at you with a butter knife would have resulted in your imminent death so you fired off 30 rounds of your auto machine gun into me.... but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't qualify as "reasonable grounds" that you couldn't otherwise preserve yourself.
You guys are funny. :lmao:
You're hilarious calling me out for "getting it wrong" because I tried to use my own words, when I essentially said the same thing, then you go and do the exact same thing by trying to explain in your own words and this is your response when someone similarly calls you out on it:
I don't get why your puzzled. Sure you can argue that you believed that me coming at you with a butter knife would have resulted in your imminent death so you fired off 30 rounds of your auto machine gun into me.... but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't qualify as "reasonable grounds" that you couldn't otherwise preserve yourself.
You guys are funny. :lmao:
Yea you are correct. With the expectation of police an Authorization is carry is available in Canada. However can not be concealed and can only be non-Restricted weapon. So no pistol as in this case. Its limited to wild life protection in wilderness. The ACT-3 dose allow Concealed carry but it almost impossible to meet requirements and and firearms administration basically refused to issue them
OpenGambit
Banned
You can carry an unloaded unrestricted weapon in Canada. As far as I remember.
