Good ol' USA

[mmmnaked]

Forum Sponsor

Ultimately if someone is in my home I'm not gonna give caution to the law, I'm gonna do what I deem reasonable and then deal with the law afterwards.

I do think that there have been several cases where lawful defenders have had way too much stress and bs to deal with after shooting an intruder. THAT process should be simplified and the law should be on the victims side. Unfortunately the victim will almost always have to fight to get his property back because the cops WILL seize the guns for far longer than necessary.

 

[macrider]

I was getting ready for the impending apocalypse. You know religious nuts start killing themselves before the apocalypse? I'll be prepping myself Its only a month or 2 away folks, 2012. I'll be living off the land and off the grid

Well now Rockerguy, you got me worried now about 2012.
What do I need to do if I want to buy a shotgun?
For personal protection or duck hunting?

 

[ariesmars]

in ontario, she would have been arrested, charged with murder, unsafe storage of a firearm and thrown in prison to rot to make an example of to anyone else that might have the nerve to actually defend themselves.

so sad that this statement is not an exaggeration.

No Busa-B; it is an exaggeration. I know a person who killed in "self-defence". He was able to convince a judge of his "innocence" and walked. The incident was a shooting at Carribana in the 90's. I even know the poor guy that got killed too. I anit bullshiting either.

 

[RockerGuy]

Ultimately if someone is in my home I'm not gonna give caution to the law, I'm gonna do what I deem reasonable and then deal with the law afterwards.

I do think that there have been several cases where lawful defenders have had way too much stress and bs to deal with after shooting an intruder. THAT process should be simplified and the law should be on the victims side. Unfortunately the victim will almost always have to fight to get his property back because the cops WILL seize the guns for far longer than necessary.

Agreed!!

If u are a law abiding citizen, you arms would be locked up with a safe and trigger lock, with ammo stored separately. I don't think you might have the chance to use it. I think you would have a better chance of defending yourself with a baseball bat.

In that article, I don't think that woman had much of a chance to defend herself

Well now Rockerguy, you got me worried now about 2012.
What do I need to do if I want to buy a shotgun?
For personal protection or duck hunting?

Its easier to get a license for a shotgun than a handgun.

I think you need a license to hunt too. But when its apocalyptic period, I don't think anybody cares if u are shooting ducks.

No Busa-B; it is an exaggeration. I know a person who killed in "self-defence". He was able to convince a judge of his "innocence" and walked. The incident was a shooting at Carribana in the 90's. I even know the poor guy that got killed too. I anit bullshiting either.

I wonder how much money he spent on lawyers and time he took off work?

 

[ariesmars]

I wonder how much money he spent on lawyers and time he took off work?

Must of have been a **** load. But, he wasn't exactly the working type. So I've heard.

 

[RockerGuy]

Must of have been a **** load. But, he wasn't exactly the working type. So I've heard.

For an average citizen, u might get off scotch free, but the amount of money you have spent might make you wish u end up in jail instead, lol

 

[fastar1]

in ontario, she would have been arrested, charged with murder, unsafe storage of a firearm and thrown in prison to rot to make an example of to anyone else that might have the nerve to actually defend themselves.

so sad that this statement is not an exaggeration.

So sad that you believe that statement contains any truth at all.

So sad that people don't understand the concept of "reasonable use of force", which includes deadly force (when reasonable, duh!).

 

[BusaBob]

No Busa-B; it is an exaggeration. I know a person who killed in "self-defence". He was able to convince a judge of his "innocence" and walked. The incident was a shooting at Carribana in the 90's. I even know the poor guy that got killed too. I anit bullshiting either.

So he (or she) was arrested and charged for it? Were he also charged with carrying a concealed weapon?

 

[mmmnaked]

Agreed!!

If u are a law abiding citizen, you arms would be locked up with a safe and trigger lock, with ammo stored separately. I don't think you might have the chance to use it. I think you would have a better chance of defending yourself with a baseball bat.

You're again showing some ignorance of firearms regulations and storage laws.

If you have a safe, your guns do not need to be trigger locked and the ammo can be stored inside with them. You can have a loaded gun in your hands within 5 seconds or however long it take you to open the safe.

 

[BusaBob]

The only exaggeration is the "rotting" in prison comment

My comment is shaped from instances such as the Chinatown storekeeper who was arrested for assault and kidnapping for capturing the person who came back to shoplift from his store.

Please, feel free to show me cases where a normal citizen in Canada used a firearm in self-defence in their home and did NOT have a battle against the "Justice" system to exonerate themselves.

There's one case in Montreal or Quebec that I know of but I have a feeling that the French do things a little differently.

And forget about Norm Gardner. His case was very exceptional.

It's troubling to realize that you believe that our system is so equitable as to think that there is no truth in my statement at all.

I do know about "reasonable force" requirements and what they are. I worked as an armed security guard for several years.

So sad that you believe that statement contains any truth at all.
So sad that people don't understand the concept of "reasonable use of force", which includes deadly force (when reasonable, duh!).

Here's some reading I turned up after about a couple minutes worth of google searches about what people who had rightfully defended themselves have had to go through:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Right+self+defence+under+assault/5420519/story.html

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/01/20/man-faces-jail-after-protecting-home-from-masked-attackers/

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/09/16/homeowners-not-required-to-flee-intruders-court/

 

[CruisnGrrl]

if some one breaks in and dies at your hand do you think anyone would notice if they disappeared for good? odds are they didn't tell some one that they were breaking into your place first.

 

[mmmnaked]

Yeah have fun disposing of a body and opening yourself up to a possible murder charge. That sounds reasonable.

 

[fastar1]

The only exaggeration is the "rotting" in prison comment

My comment is shaped from instances such as the Chinatown storekeeper who was arrested for assault and kidnapping for capturing the person who came back to shoplift from his store.

Please, feel free to show me cases where a normal citizen in Canada used a firearm in self-defence in their home and did NOT have a battle against the "Justice" system to exonerate themselves.

There's one case in Montreal or Quebec that I know of but I have a feeling that the French do things a little differently.

And forget about Norm Gardner. His case was very exceptional.

It's troubling to realize that you believe that our system is so equitable as to think that there is no truth in my statement at all.

I do know about "reasonable force" requirements and what they are. I worked as an armed security guard for several years.



Here's some reading I turned up after about a couple minutes worth of google searches about what people who had rightfully defended themselves have had to go through:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Right%2Bself%2Bdefence%2Bunder%2Bassault/5420519/story.html

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/01/20/man-faces-jail-after-protecting-home-from-masked-attackers/

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/09/16/homeowners-not-required-to-flee-intruders-court/

That first link talks about the loss of our right to self defense and then tries to use few scenarios as examples. Only in the last scenario was self defense pertinent, and in that case the guy got off the charge.

The other two links are the same scenarios.

Having said that, I take back what I said about the lady from the OP. If this had happened in Canada the question about whether she could have, or tried to, remove herself from risk of harm before resorting to lethal force would be relevant. If so, then she wouldn't be justified in the use of force. I don't know what happened in the US, it seems she wasn't arrested but I couldn't find anything about the police procedure after the shooting that lead to that conclusion.

 

[BusaBob]

The first link doesn't try to use hypothetical "scenarios". It discusses actual events which happened when people defended themselves. This is the issue. The fact that the link is discussing our right to self defence is very pertinent in all the cases and this thread.

My issue again, is that in Canada, time after time, we hear of cases where when people rightfully defend themselves, they are criminally charged and then dragged through the court system to exonerate themselves. You seem to imply that since in the last "scenario" the guy got "off" the system is ok.

It is not "okay" if you have to be dragged through the system as a "criminal" to prove that you are not just because you were defending yourself. As far as I'm concerned that's not "justice"

Apologies for posting two separate links to the same story. I must have clicked on the wrong link. But you get the point:
in Canada, if you defend yourself (rightly) with deadly force -- even in your own home -- be prepared to be charged as a criminal and then be dragged through the system, being prosecuted as if you were in fact a criminal for having defended yourself. The fact that you may "get off" in the end doesn't offset the costs involved in mounting such a defence against such charges, and the upheaval the process it will cause in your life.

The point of this digress was because you stated that my initial statement was "so sad that believe that [my] statement contains any truth at all."

I think I've demonstrated sufficiently that there's more truth to my statement than not.

That first link talks about the loss of our right to self defense and then tries to use few scenarios as examples. Only in the last scenario was self defense pertinent, and in that case the guy got off the charge.

The other two links are the same scenarios.

Having said that, I take back what I said about the lady from the OP. If this had happened in Canada the question about whether she could have, or tried to, remove herself from risk of harm before resorting to lethal force would be relevant. If so, then she wouldn't be justified in the use of force. I don't know what happened in the US, it seems she wasn't arrested but I couldn't find anything about the police procedure after the shooting that lead to that conclusion.

So sad that you believe that statement contains any truth at all.

So sad that people don't understand the concept of "reasonable use of force", which includes deadly force (when reasonable, duh!).

 

[RockerGuy]

You're again showing some ignorance of firearms regulations and storage laws.

If you have a safe, your guns do not need to be trigger locked and the ammo can be stored inside with them. You can have a loaded gun in your hands within 5 seconds or however long it take you to open the safe.

True, I haven't read the laws in details, but I must say they are pretty redundant

 

[BusaBob]

it's only restricted firearms (handguns, "assault" guns, short barrel shotguns/rifles, etc.) that need to be in a locked room/cabinet with a trigger lock as well.

 

[mmmnaked]

it's only restricted firearms (handguns, "assault" guns, short barrel shotguns/rifles, etc.) that need to be in a locked room/cabinet with a trigger lock as well.

If they're in a locked cabinet then yes, they need trigger locks and the ammo needs to be locked away separately.

But if you have a safe (something most firearms owners should buy) or a safe/vault room then you don't have to worry about those pesky regulations. Toss your unlocked guns in there right alongside loaded mags, no problem.

 

[ariesmars]

So he (or she) was arrested and charged for it? Were he also charged with carrying a concealed weapon?

He was charged with murder in the 1st; I think. But, no, I don't remember the crown hitting 'em with any weapons charges, because, I remember seeing it on the front page of the Sun. He walked out of court that day a freeman. He was hugging his Muuma on the cover and everything. I'm guessing they dropped that charge for whatever reason. Even if he walked on the murc' charges, he should gotten time for the weapon but didn't.

 

[mmmnaked]

Guy's name is Tyrone Edwards

Subject: Caribana shooter faces new charges

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...459&call_pageid=968350130169&col=969483202845

Caribana shooter faces new charges
Self-defence claim led to '96 acquittal 1 of 4 arrested
in firearms case

TAMARA CHERRY
STAFF REPORTER
Jun. 30, 2006. 01:00 AM

A Markham man who was acquitted in a fatal 1996 Caribana shooting is
facing a series of gun-related charges after police responded to a call
for someone threatened by a man with a gun, police said Thursday.

Police were called to the Brimley Rd. and Lawrence Ave. E. area at about
8 p.m. Wednesday after receiving a call from an anonymous person
claiming to have been threatened by a man armed with a silver handgun,
said Const. Victor Kwong.

"The person called police and told them exactly where these people would
be found," said Kwong.

After locating four suspects, officers discovered a .25 calibre handgun,
a sawed-off 12-guage shotgun, a replica pellet pistol and ammunition for
the weapons.

Among those charged is 35-year-old Tyrone Edwards of Markham, who
pleaded for forgiveness eight years ago after firing a silver handgun,
which left a British nurse paralyzed for life, two others injured, and
one man dead during the Aug. 3, 1996 Caribana parade.

Edwards never denied firing the shots that killed 23-year-old Elrick
Christian and injured three others, but was found not guilty of murder
and three counts of attempted murder in 1998. During the five-week
trial, he testified that he was just trying to protect himself, claiming
he was being hunted by an armed group of men for a vendetta that stemmed
from a basketball game.

Following his acquittal, Edwards pleaded for forgiveness from Cicely
Malcolm, the British nurse whose spine was shattered by a stray bullet
intended for Christian. He also expressed his deepest condolences to
Christian's mother, her family and all the victims.

The same guy has been in trouble with the law multiple times since, including drug dealing and even human trafficking. They should've locked him up back then, I have no idea how he got away with it. Even if it was self defense.. you're still carrying a firearm illegally, and lets face it, when a gang wants you dead you're probably not a model citizen yourself.

 

[regder]

I don't know where u live but in Toronto its a little different. I am too lazy to research all the assaults that happen here, but I came across this today.

http://www.thestar.com/news/article...-attack-as-woman-sexually-assaulted-strangled

So much for calling 911 and waiting for the police to arrive

Please, crime has been on the decline for the last decade (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/110721/dq110721b-eng.htm), regardless what our Conservative government would like you to believe.

That is a terrible case, from three years ago btw, and I don't know if she had a gun the outcome would have been any different (edit, just saw in a later post that you agree). Very bad things happen in the very well armed states all of the time. As I said in my post, are the states any safer because of their relatively lax gun laws?

Forum Sponsor