Careless use, maybe. Pointing, no, unless there is evidence that he intentionally aimed the gun at the kids, and nothing posted here supports that notion.
|
|
|
Is it leagl?-not HTA related
- Thread starter omnivore
- Start date
Careless use, maybe. Pointing, no, unless there is evidence that he intentionally aimed the gun at the kids, and nothing posted here supports that notion.
Yes, you sure did.
... in defence of HTA 172.
It's one of those things that can be understood from an intellectual standpoint, but not from an emotional one. If the dog was struck by a car, that's one thing, but the acts of an evil old bastard are quite another. He deserves what the law can do to him, if only for that.
Really??? The fact that the kids were 2 meters away from the dog does. Also his previous death thread does as well. When you combine everything there is a charge there. Especially since the police were involved in the first confrontation with the old man.
It doesn't sond like you've read any of the case law on pointing a firearm. Even if you allow that the kids were only 2 meters away, that still does not constitute intentionally pointing a firearm AT them. Pointing a firearm at something NEAR them is not the same, and neither is inadvertently pointing a firearm at someone by accident or for an instant while swinging the firearm barrel around. The offence-specific mens rea needed to support a conviction is not there.
It would be like trying to charge the guy wit attempted murder for shooting the dog with the kids nearby - emotionally satisfying as that may be, it's the wrong charge and it would not support a conviction. http://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nspc/doc/2004/2004nspc7/2004nspc7.pdf
Indeed; being stupid does not constitute mens rea.
Not sure what your deal is... I am putting up suggestions to the OP not you. If you are not an officer or a proffessional in this matter then you shouldn't be saying that everything I post is not possible. Also, I am thinking with my brian not heart in this matter, just because I am a girl you are assuming that I am being emotional. Just because I feel empathy to what happened does not mean I am not capable of thinking rationally.
I have to agree with turbo on this point. The actions don't constitute "menacing", or anything of the sort. That's thinking with brain, not heart. If the old fart had said something like, You're next.", then that would qualify, but there's been no comment about that sort of thing made here.
Possessing, or even using a gun is not necessarily meant to threaten nor intimidate anyone. It's in the actions, that such a determination can be made.
Flip side, if what you are posting is not possible, you shouldn't put it up as a suggestion to the OP. In any case, it will be the professionals investigating the matter who will decide what charges are appropriate, regardless of what the OP wants or is advised to seek by others.
Until you mentioned it just now I had no idea that you were a girl, but it still doesn't change anything.
lol that is exactly my point. It is up to the professionals. Just because you think after reading some case law with different situations makes you an expert, doesn't mean that the old man can not be charged.
Well it gets evenbleaker on my brother's family side I am afraid.
Turns out the old man's porch that he was standing on, is at ground level. However, it only has one entranceway-to the front of the house. Both sides of it are covered with trellis/lattice, and the side facing the drieway is the only side of it that is 100% open for sightlines.. The dog was directly in front of the porch and the old man could see the dog right in front of him. However,as the kids were running to round up the dog from the side, he may not have seen them running across his yard towards his line of fire. Unless he were to look thru the lattice, he may have just heard them screaming but not seen them approaching. He may very well have not realized the kids were so close when he discharged the gun.
It doesn't vchange the fact that the OSPCA wants all the info and stateents as they still intend to prosectute for animal cruelty, as they confirmed that it is illegal to shoot a dog that is merely trespassing. They said that's what phone calls to OPP and SPCA are for.
Turns out the old man's porch that he was standing on, is at ground level. However, it only has one entranceway-to the front of the house. Both sides of it are covered with trellis/lattice, and the side facing the drieway is the only side of it that is 100% open for sightlines.. The dog was directly in front of the porch and the old man could see the dog right in front of him. However,as the kids were running to round up the dog from the side, he may not have seen them running across his yard towards his line of fire. Unless he were to look thru the lattice, he may have just heard them screaming but not seen them approaching. He may very well have not realized the kids were so close when he discharged the gun.
It doesn't vchange the fact that the OSPCA wants all the info and stateents as they still intend to prosectute for animal cruelty, as they confirmed that it is illegal to shoot a dog that is merely trespassing. They said that's what phone calls to OPP and SPCA are for.
And it doesn't change that his act of discharging a firearm was dangerous. If anything, it makes it more plain. He couldn't tell who else might be in close proximity, and yet he fired.
The OPP still hasn't come and taken any statemtnts from my bro's family, or even called. Seems the talk they had with the old man that nite sated all theit inquisitions?
How do I circumvent the cops and get a hold of the prosecutor's office? Obviously the cops do not want to do their job-they didn't do it when the man was making threats, infact they got mad at my bro for not letting it go. And now he has followed thru on his threats, clearly showing pre-meditation, and they still haven't even arrived to see if anyone was hurt or taken any statements.
A lawyer friend of mine in Pennsylvania has suggested that in PA , private citizens can ask the prosecuting office to open an investigation and press charges. He said the in PA, with this situation, there would definitely be charges laid, ending in the old man not being able to have access to firearms. Having talked like that, made threats of using a gun, and then shooting them off in close proximity to kids or any people for that matter, he said that the old man clearly isn't the type of person Joe Public wants armed. He also said that it shouldn't matter if he could see the kids or not-the onus is on the person aiming the gun, to be aware and ensure that the area is clear for shooting. If he didn't see the kids approaching from the side, then he clearly should have shown restraint until he was certain that no people were in the vicinity. Saying he didn't see them doesn't release the old man of blame, it simply points to his negligence and half assed methods of gun control.
How do I circumvent the cops and get a hold of the prosecutor's office? Obviously the cops do not want to do their job-they didn't do it when the man was making threats, infact they got mad at my bro for not letting it go. And now he has followed thru on his threats, clearly showing pre-meditation, and they still haven't even arrived to see if anyone was hurt or taken any statements.
A lawyer friend of mine in Pennsylvania has suggested that in PA , private citizens can ask the prosecuting office to open an investigation and press charges. He said the in PA, with this situation, there would definitely be charges laid, ending in the old man not being able to have access to firearms. Having talked like that, made threats of using a gun, and then shooting them off in close proximity to kids or any people for that matter, he said that the old man clearly isn't the type of person Joe Public wants armed. He also said that it shouldn't matter if he could see the kids or not-the onus is on the person aiming the gun, to be aware and ensure that the area is clear for shooting. If he didn't see the kids approaching from the side, then he clearly should have shown restraint until he was certain that no people were in the vicinity. Saying he didn't see them doesn't release the old man of blame, it simply points to his negligence and half assed methods of gun control.
That's ****ing ridiculous. Sorry that you & your family are going through this nightmare.
Turbo's link, OSPCA, and the media. First, however, have him meet with OPP to see what the status of their investigation is. If the status is, "What investigation?", then go to town.
If the OSPCA is interested in pursuing the case, it's probably best to let them handle it. It's quite possible that the OPP is letting the OSPCA take the lead on this. A situation in which the OSPCA presses charges *and* the OPP separately presses charges, is probably not something you want to have happen. Still worth keeping the pressure on to find out what's happening, I'd be doing that.
As far as the visibility from the old man's front yard ... It's still his responsibility. If you're at a stop sign, and you can't see what's coming from the side, that doesn't give you the right to floor it without looking. It's your responsibility to make sure it's safe to proceed before doing so. If you can't see ... don't go.
As far as the visibility from the old man's front yard ... It's still his responsibility. If you're at a stop sign, and you can't see what's coming from the side, that doesn't give you the right to floor it without looking. It's your responsibility to make sure it's safe to proceed before doing so. If you can't see ... don't go.
When discharging a firearm, you must be 100% sure of your target and backstop, should you happen to miss. The fact that the kids were down range and way too close to the target is enough, IMO, for a careless use of firearm charge. If the old man knew the position of the kids, it's careless use.........if the old man didn't know the kids were there, it's still careless use. If it was dark, it places an even greater onus of care on the old man.
Take a look at the hunting reg's and municipal bylaws. In either one, I believe there is a minimum safe distance from dwellings and property lines when using a firearm for pest control. According to the hunting reg's you must be able to clearly identify the species as well - a further aggravating factor in support of careless use. What type of ammunition was used? Bird-shot may be a no no for yotes and wolves under the hunting regs.
Every licenced firearm owner is bound to minimum standards - three of the most important are keeping the muzzle pointed in a safe direction, identifiying your target and beyond and keeping your finger off the trigger. The Firearms Act, Criminal Code, Hunting Regulations, Municipal Bylaws, Canadian Firearms Centre, SPCA and litigators provide you with a war-chest. Take that mofo down.
Last edited:
M
mlc
Guest
When this case goes to court, the old man's lawyer is going to be talking a lot about how a one year old dog has broken both a collar and a leash, and refuses to obey the owners when called. Clearly the dog is enormously strong, ill tempered, untrained, blah blah...
|
|
|
|
|