The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Halifax Tar]

Toronto, Canada and Global Breaking News – CP24

Most recent News stories and video from CP24

www.cp24.com

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.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Toronto, Canada and Global Breaking News – CP24

Most recent News stories and video from CP24

www.cp24.com

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.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

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…

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Does it really matter? The way things are adjudicated today make it a crap shoot. Facts seldom matter.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

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…

 

[Booter]

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…

 

[Halifax Tar]

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.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

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

Citizen’s Arrest and Self-defence Act

Federal laws of canada

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

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.

 

[Dana381]

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.

Shopkeeper's charge shelved?

A case that started with a Chinatown store owner being charged with kidnapping and assaulting a shoplifter has gone off in unexpected directions.

www.thestar.com

 

[Booter]

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

 

[Dana381]

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.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

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.

 

[Halifax Tar]

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

Our laws are more of the issue, IMO.

And our courts.

 

[Remius]

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.

 

[Jarnhamar]

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.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I was about to call bullshit.



That's fucked.

Right ? Welcome to bizzaro world.

 

[Haggis]

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.

 

[suffolkowner]

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.

It shouldnt really be that way IMO. This charging people for fun that the Crown/Police engage in because their are no consequences to them shouldnt be the default position and it really shouldnt when its clear that this individual was being attacked. I dont think prior history should limit or even enter into the discussion of your self defence claims or ability. This guy will likely get off like most do but at what cost and to what purpose? What public good is being served by the charges?

I think the guy has a RPAL(?) Im not sure what that means exactly if you get charged with a crime you dont lose your PAL do you lose your RPAL? One can be a criminal and have a license as long as you dont need to get caught. Is there any information out there on how many PAL/RPAL's are refused and/or taken away and why?

 

[BrianWL]

It shouldnt really be that way IMO. This charging people for fun that the Crown/Police engage in because their are no consequences to them shouldnt be the default position and it really shouldnt when its clear that this individual was being attacked. I dont think prior history should limit or even enter into the discussion of your self defence claims or ability. This guy will likely get off like most do but at what cost and to what purpose? What public good is being served by the charges?

I think the guy has a RPAL(?) Im not sure what that means exactly if you get charged with a crime you dont lose your PAL do you lose your RPAL? One can be a criminal and have a license as long as you dont need to get caught. Is there any information out there on how many PAL/RPAL's are refused and/or taken away and why?

rather doubt laying the charge was a fun filled activity. think the problem is the law as it stands is not clearly defined and there are a lot of moving parts, and we don't know what actually happened minus whatever the homeowner/accused's lawyer is saying, which will only be in favour of his client. i do not know what happened here, but history tells us that most home invasions (not all) are connected to some sort of criminal activity. maybe not here, we will see. personally, i support stand your ground. shit rats should be shitting their pants prior to kicking in someones door with a gun in hand. but. that would also quite likely lead to people shooting the paper delivery guy who mistakenly chucks the paper against some uber stand your ground person............

 

[suffolkowner]

rather doubt laying the charge was a fun filled activity. think the problem is the law as it stands is not clearly defined and there are a lot of moving parts, and we don't know what actually happened minus whatever the homeowner/accused's lawyer is saying, which will only be in favour of his client. i do not know what happened here, but history tells us that most home invasions (not all) are connected to some sort of criminal activity. maybe not here, we will see. personally, i support stand your ground. shit rats should be shitting their pants prior to kicking in someones door with a gun in hand. but. that would also quite likely lead to people shooting the paper delivery guy who mistakenly chucks the paper against some uber stand your ground person............

I dont care if the defendent had a criminal past they are still in their home.

Its FUN because its not done seriously or with any concern for the consequences or any repercussions to the officers or prosecuters at best/worst if its a high profile case with a good lawyer the public pays out but the vast majority of cases dont involve that

What I understand about this case is that, please correct me if I am wrong

up to 5 people attempted to do something
2 may have stayed in the vehicle and up to 3 entered the home
at least 1 of those 3 was armed and unlicensed, status of firearm unknown
1 of those individuals fired the weapon inside the home
1 of those individuals was killed in the course of the events
the defendent was a licensed firearm holder and was charged