Ian Thompson acquitted

Forum Sponsor
It is funny how when former Attorney-general, Michael Byrant killed a cyclist,that he was spared the inconvenience of a trial. Richard Peck, a Vancouver lawyer brought in to prosecute the case decide there was no reasonable chance of conviction. I think in Ian Thomson's situation, it was even more obvious there would not be a conviction.

Another example of our political elite getting special treatment.
 
Icbones said:
It is funny how when former Attorney-general, Michael Byrant killed a cyclist,that he was spared the inconvenience of a trial. Richard Peck, a Vancouver lawyer brought in to prosecute the case decide there was no reasonable chance of conviction. I think in Ian Thomson's situation, it was even more obvious there would not be a conviction.

Another example of our political elite getting special treatment.
Click to expand...


Nothing to do with that.its guns that get all the people wound up. Hell a young kid points his finger at school and says bang bang in make believe and gets suspended. A deaf kid whose sign for his name looks like his hand is making a gun is told he can't make that symbol. Guns get the average weenie uptight
 
Icbones said:
It is funny how when former Attorney-general, Michael Byrant killed a cyclist,that he was spared the inconvenience of a trial. Richard Peck, a Vancouver lawyer brought in to prosecute the case decide there was no reasonable chance of conviction. I think in Ian Thomson's situation, it was even more obvious there would not be a conviction.

Another example of our political elite getting special treatment.
Click to expand...

It was no more obvious than in Bryant's case. It was no less obvious either. And I can't stand Bryant.

The idea of declaring no reasonable prospect of conviction is meant to not only protect the defendant from undue hardship, but to ensure that The Crown does not waste money on a trial they really could never expect to win. In this case I hope that The Crown or Crowns who were responsible for this debacle have the costs involved raised at their next performance review.
 
I understand how the firearms have to be stored - but that's when they are stored. How about when they are not in storage e.g. because you're home and decided to take them out of storage? Apparently a very murky subject (to my surprise) and careless storage is the most common charge that's laid:

"Now, comes in an area which many people find very confusing, the difference between storage and use.

Situation: You are at home, and you have your Remington 700 bolt-action rife sitting on your gun bench. You are cleaning it. The doorbell rings and you leave the firearm sitting on your bench and leave the room to answer the door.

At the door is a police officer.

If he were to enter your home, and see your Remington 700 rifle sitting on the bench, would you be subject to any charges?

Answer: Today, as long as you had a valid firearm license, either an FAC or a POL or PAL, and a registration certificate for the firearm, there would be no charges that he could lay which would hold up in court, because the firearm is not IN STORAGE, so no storage law applies to it.

In some cases like this, the firearm owner has been charged with illegal storage of a firearm, in spite of the fact that the firearm is not in storage, and has been removed from storage."

from

http://nfa.ca/resource-items/safe-and-legal-storage-non-restricted-firearms
 
I'm pretty sure on of Mr. Thompson's key arguments was that his firearms were no longer in storage and since the charges for careless use were dropped the storage charges became redundant.
 
It was a case of throw the book at him, something will stick. In the end the prosecution was saying the ammo was not safely stored. There are no rules to lock up the ammo. The idiot prosecutor in the end was saying that ease of access of ammo is not to the guns but to the owner. How idiotic is that.
 
Macs said:
I'm pretty sure on of Mr. Thompson's key arguments was that his firearms were no longer in storage and since the charges for careless use were dropped the storage charges became redundant.
Click to expand...

The implication was that he was keeping them in a more "handy" location, rather than in his proper and legal safe. There was clearly no evidence to support this supposition though, so that charge should have never been laid in the first place.
 
^ And maybe you're saying the same thing, but if Thompson's home he can surely take firearms out of storage and 'use' them. Somehow Crown would have to prove that firearms weren't in storage when Thompson wasn't home - so I am not surprised the charge failed. I don't get how Crown thought they could win.
 
johnp said:
^ And maybe you're saying the same thing, but if Thompson's home he can surely take firearms out of storage and 'use' them. Somehow Crown would have to prove that firearms weren't in storage when Thompson wasn't home - so I am not surprised the charge failed. I don't get how Crown thought they could win.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not saying the same thing. There was no reason to think that his weapons were anywhere but in secure storage, when the incident began.
 
OK I see that we're saying different things.

It seems, however, that firearms didn't even have to be in secure storage when the incident began; Thompson could have been 'using' the firearms. Making it even less likely that the charge would stick.
 
RetroGrouch said:
This comment is rather enlightening:

...

Dear folks, this is no laughing matter. Please stay away from Niagara.
Click to expand...

That is enlightening. It's actually the only way it all make sense; the Niagara law enforcement are operating like the Gestapo.
 
johnp said:
OK I see that we're saying different things.

It seems, however, that firearms didn't even have to be in secure storage when the incident began; Thompson could have been 'using' the firearms. Making it even less likely that the charge would stick.
Click to expand...

Even so, Mr. Thompson demonstrated for the court he could have (and did) open the safe and arm himself well within 60 seconds. I know if SHTF I can be armed to the teeth in that time as well and our safe is 2 flights of stairs away.
 
The crown knew the charges would not hold up. Unfortunately, the justice process itself was used as the punishment.
 
Icbones said:
The crown knew the charges would not hold up. Unfortunately, the justice process itself was used as the punishment.
Click to expand...

Our justice system is fair and affordable to your average, working, law-abiding citizen <-- Try to say that with a straight face :D
 
Dirty Frank said:
shame on him for not killing the SOB's
a corners inquest would have been a better use of tax dollars
Click to expand...

The fact that he didn't kill them outright, when he could, just goes to show that he's the sort of person who SHOULD be permitted the ownership of firearms.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
The fact that he didn't kill them outright, when he could, just goes to show that he's the sort of person who SHOULD be permitted the ownership of firearms.
Click to expand...

Would there be a review after he kills somebody or would he be grandfathered in?
 
BNKN said:
Would there be a review after he kills somebody or would he be grandfathered in?
Click to expand...

Had he actually shot one of them, and evidence shows that he shot that person at an angle that indicates that person wasn't a threat, the book would have been thrown at him... And it's pretty damn easy to tell where a bullet goes in and comes out to tell it's direction.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom