• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

How was the judge to reasonably anticipate that someone in contact with the justice system might know (or have been taught) some magic phrases to mitigate punishment? Surely these people are all honest while in court.
 

Obviously early on in details, but based off what is in the news so far extremely questionable charge of second degree murder.

Is this just another part of the attack on citizens rights to life liberty and security of the person?
 

Obviously early on in details, but based off what is in the news so far extremely questionable charge of second degree murder.

Is this just another part of the attack on citizens rights to life liberty and security of the person?

Pretty sad state.
 

Obviously early on in details, but based off what is in the news so far extremely questionable charge of second degree murder.

Is this just another part of the attack on citizens rights to life liberty and security of the person?
A targeted, armed home invasion attacking his mother. Can't wrap it in a better bow. Let's see how fast a legal owner, with a legitimate excuse sees bail. I'll bet they've already seized whatever guns he had at home and pulled his PAL.
 
A targeted, armed home invasion attacking his mother. Can't wrap it in a better bow. Let's see how fast a legal owner, with a legitimate excuse sees bail. I'll bet they've already seized whatever guns he had at home and pulled his PAL.
I’d be really careful about this one. The details released, so far, make wonder if the accused and the deceased had a history…
 
Does it really matter? The way things are adjudicated today make it a crap shoot. Facts seldom matter.
It might.

I am usually all for self-defence, but (completely hypothetically, NOT saying that is the case here, because I don’t know what the case is here), if it was drug dealer on drug dealer, does the guy who did the shooting get to claim self defence?

Or, the cops and Crown decided to lay a second degree murder charge, to pass the buck to a judge…
 
Anecdotally, I worked a murder years ago- where drug dealer A and drug dealer b were arguing, A told B to bring his gun to his house and see what happened. B brought his gun to A’s house with two other guys- A shot them all to death. A tried unsuccessfully to claim self defence when he had provoked and challenged them to come over- with the purpose of killing them and claiming self defence.

That is not what I see in the news story- but I don’t see any detail at all…
 
It might.

I am usually all for self-defence, but (completely hypothetically, NOT saying that is the case here, because I don’t know what the case is here), if it was drug dealer on drug dealer, does the guy who did the shooting get to claim self defence?

Or, the cops and Crown decided to lay a second degree murder charge, to pass the buck to a judge…

Solid points.
 
The prior history stuff is also present in our laws; 34,Para 2(f)


The complexity of our self defence laws are why I believe anyone who doesn’t want to just be a victim if their home is broken into etc should have bear mace and non lethal tools as well as lethal ones. And to also have some kind of firearms insurance policy.
 
Hopefully it ends like "Wang (David) Chen case and he gets acquitted. It's absolutely ridiculous how the police in this country arrest innocent people when they try to defend themselves or their property but let the bad guys get off.

The crown even gave the thief a deal to testify against Wang. "The bad guy says, `I'll help you get the good guy and our court system gives him a pat on the head,'" Lindsay said."

The police had a history of taking hours to respond when Wang called about thefts but when bystanders called police on him they arrived in minutes. Police also refused to lay theft charges multiple times letting theives go.

I feel bad that he has to through the whole court process.

 
Do you know something we don’t about the new case or are you projecting ALL of that on this?
 
Do you know something we don’t about the new case or are you projecting ALL of that on this?

Multiple men in his house unwanted and attacking his mother, not projecting just reading the news story. There is no excuse for a hone invasion and attack, even if they were both drug dealers.
 
It's absolutely ridiculous how the police in this country arrest innocent people when they try to defend themselves or their property but let the bad guys get off.

That’s a significantly too-wide brush stroke I think.

Our laws are more of the issue, IMO.
 
Multiple men in his house unwanted and attacking his mother, not projecting just reading the news story. There is no excuse for a hone invasion and attack, even if they were both drug dealers.
The initial police release indicated that the homicide was possibly targeted but was subsequently removed from the release later.

That is the eyebrow raiser for me. I guess we’ll see as details emerge.
 
The crown even gave the thief a deal to testify against Wang. "The bad guy says, `I'll help you get the good guy and our court system gives him a pat on the head,'" Lindsay said."

I was about to call bullshit.

According to a transcript of Bennett's court hearing, a judge sentenced him to 30 days instead of the 90 days requested by the prosecutor because he will be a Crown witness against Chen. He has a three-page criminal record.

That's fucked.
 
Multiple men in his house unwanted and attacking his mother, not projecting just reading the news story. There is no excuse for a hone invasion and attack, even if they were both drug dealers.
The accused killed someone with a firearm during a spontaneous confrontation. That's the basis of the 2nd degree murder charge. Self-defence is something that can be raised at trial by the defence. Then, the Crown has to prove the contrary.

Remember, too, that there is a clear political bent against firearms use for self defence against people. In the days and months following the May 2020 OIC and both iterations of Bill C-21, the PM and Ministers Blair and Mendicino have all said that "we don't arm ourselves for defence against our fellow citizens" or words to that effect. So, my guess is that this isn't as clear-cut as initial reports make it out to be. So, yes, it's possible the Crown thought "let's err on the side of politics, lay the charge and let the courts decide". A lateral pass of a political football.

I'm going to postulate that it's unlikely, as a PAL holder, that the accused was a sh!trat, But there is definitely a lot more to this that we don't know yet.
 
Back
Top