Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Alberta man who shot thief awaiting verdict ...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Massena View Post
    Texas is no longer an independent republic; it's a state just like the other 49.
    Not so similar in some ways. Not many of the other states can choose to divide into as many as five new states. It is in the treaty that annexed Texas. There must be something good about it. Look at all the Yankees and Californians moving in...

    Pruitt
    Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

    Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

    by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Massena View Post
      Texas is no longer an independent republic; it's a state just like the other 49.
      Actually, no.

      Due to the clauses when it joined the USA after being an independent nation, it has certain privileges.

      Primarily ceremonial, admittedly. But it raises us above the unwashed masses.

      Our state capitol is taller than the Federal capitol. By law. Which means that the Texas flag flies above the Stars & Stripes.
      Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

      Comment


      • #33
        All charges have been dropped the Crown couldn't prove that he shot at the people breaking into his vehicle on purpose but only shot in their direction and a bullet ricocheted hitting one of them.
        Good way it ended as it still lets criminals stealing from rural areas know that they may not be safe.

        http://edmontonsun.com/news/crime/ru..._autoplay=true

        Comment


        • #34
          The charges were weak from the get go. Really, a thief was shot in the arm and the shooter went to trial? When will the trials start for the two sneak thieves? "The Crown" has its priorities backwards here.

          Pruitt
          Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

          Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

          by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Snowshoveler View Post
            All charges have been dropped the Crown couldn't prove that he shot at the people breaking into his vehicle on purpose but only shot in their direction and a bullet ricocheted hitting one of them.
            Good way it ended as it still lets criminals stealing from rural areas know that they may not be safe.

            http://edmontonsun.com/news/crime/ru..._autoplay=true
            Best case scenario for all concerned, except the thieves involved. The case brought the problem of rural crime in the area to the forefront, forcing the Prov. gov't to allocate funds directed for that purpose:

            "I think without us having to go through this, the rural crime problem wouldn't be at the forefront" Maurice said outside the courthouse.

            "I just think it's just not going to go away. People are just going to keep talking about it, (rural crime) issues are still going to come up. I'm not going to be the last, probably, unfortunately."

            Even though the Crown felt that he/she couldn't prove the intent required to convict on the aggravated assault, Maurice still could've been convicted of Careless Use of a Firearm; the Crown elected to drop all charges, a good call.
            "I am Groot"
            - Groot

            Comment


            • #36

              Does the office of the Crown have say over which case was heard first? Why would they schedule the property owner to go to trial first? It sounds from afar like they wanted to discourage property owners from defending their property. The perps were lucky the guy was not using a shotgun and buckshot.

              Pruitt
              Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

              Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

              by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Marmat View Post
                Except, ...



                ... criminal offenses in Canada are a federal responsibility i.e. the Criminal Code of Canada. The offenses of aggravated assault, pointing a firearm and careless use of a firearm are the same, whether you live in Alberta, Quebec, or Newfoundland, as are the penalties. The provinces are responsible for administration, appointing crown attorney's, judges etc., but that's it. It takes time for a newly elected government to work its way through sitting judges to apply any sort of will over how they adjudicate.
                If you aim at an intruder and you hit him, how is that "careless use of a firearm"?
                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                  If you aim at an intruder and you hit him, how is that "careless use of a firearm"?
                  As I stated in the OP, the accused, Edouard Maurice, was initially charged with three counts of aggravated assault, pointing a firearm and careless use of a firearm. Given forensics showing the injury was caused by a ricochet, the Crown likely thought there was reasonable doubt in regards to intent and aggravated assault, and pointing a firearm; but there remained sufficient grounds to get a conviction on careless use. The lesser charges were likely included for what amounts to plea purposes; the Crown elected to drop all charges, he/she may have considered that to proceed would've been chintzy, and may have placed the "administration of justice into disrepute." See sections 86 and 87 of the Criminal Code of Canada, I think you'll see what I mean: Careless use of firearm, etc.

                  • 86 (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, uses, carries, handles, ships, transports or stores a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition in a careless manner or without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons.
                  • Marginal note:Contravention of storage regulations, etc.

                    (2) Every person commits an offence who contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 117(h) of the Firearms Act respecting the storage, handling, transportation, shipping, display, advertising and mail-order sales of firearms and restricted weapons.
                  • Marginal note:Punishment

                    (3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2)
                    • (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment
                      • (i) in the case of a first offence, for a term not exceeding two years, and
                      • (ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, for a term not exceeding five years; or
                    • (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
                  • R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 86;
                  • 1991, c. 40, s. 3;
                  • 1995, c. 39, s. 139.
                  Marginal note:Pointing a firearm

                  • 87 (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, points a firearm at another person, whether the firearm is loaded or unloaded.
                  • Marginal note:Punishment

                    (2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
                    • (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
                    • (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
                  • R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 87;
                  • 1995, c. 39, s. 139.
                  "I am Groot"
                  - Groot

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                    Does the office of the Crown have say over which case was heard first? Why would they schedule the property owner to go to trial first? It sounds from afar like they wanted to discourage property owners from defending their property. The perps were lucky the guy was not using a shotgun and buckshot.

                    Pruitt
                    "The Crown" in legal terms is synonymous with "Crown Attorney", which is roughly equivalent to "District Attorney" in the US. I don't know how the Crown elected to proceed in regards to how the charges were heard in this case. For that matter, the Defense may have requested the theft put over until the assault etc. on his/her client(s) was adjudicated. If Maurice was convicted, you can bet there'd have been a call for the theft charges to be withdrawn. If Maurice had been using a shotgun, and the thieves were struck by even a single projectile, the shot dispersion zone showing intent would've been significantly larger, and he may not have been lucky enough to have charges withdrawn.
                    "I am Groot"
                    - Groot

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      After reading the legal code posted by Marmat Iím having trouble determining if this is a case of self castration or capital emasculation.
                      I guess it doesnít matter the result is the same, you are neutered.
                      Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                      Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                        If you aim at an intruder and you hit him, how is that "careless use of a firearm"?
                        Are you a revolver guy or a semi guy?

                        I'm one of the single action revolver nuts, I've been a fan of quick draw for more than a couple of decades.
                        Credo quia absurdum.


                        Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Bwaha View Post

                          Are you a revolver guy or a semi guy?

                          I'm one of the single action revolver nuts, I've been a fan of quick draw for more than a couple of decades.
                          There's a pun in there somewhere...

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Marmat View Post

                            "The Crown" in legal terms is synonymous with "Crown Attorney", which is roughly equivalent to "District Attorney" in the US. I don't know how the Crown elected to proceed in regards to how the charges were heard in this case. For that matter, the Defense may have requested the theft put over until the assault etc. on his/her client(s) was adjudicated. If Maurice was convicted, you can bet there'd have been a call for the theft charges to be withdrawn. If Maurice had been using a shotgun, and the thieves were struck by even a single projectile, the shot dispersion zone showing intent would've been significantly larger, and he may not have been lucky enough to have charges withdrawn.
                            In the US the DA has to present to the Grand Jury each case he wants to pursue. They can also present to a Hearing Judge who will either sign an arrest warrant or shut things down. I can only wonder what the agenda is when a Canadian DA would take the property owner to court before the trespasser? All I can say is this is a strange way to do things. I hope you never have to defend your property and loved ones.

                            Pruitt
                            Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                            Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                            by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Pruitt View Post

                              I can only wonder what the agenda is when a Canadian DA would take the property owner to court before the trespasser? t
                              Prioritising crimes against people, above property crime?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Aber View Post

                                Prioritising crimes against people, above property crime?
                                I'd look at it more like chicken or the egg? The trespasser created the situation by committing a crime. The homeowner responded to that crime with a firearm. Had the trespasser not committed the first crime, the second would not have occurred.

                                That's why it's so much better in Arizona. If someone here breaks into a home and the homeowner shoots, bludgeons, whatever the person entering, the state has to prove that it wasn't self defense. The homeowner is automatically assumed to have acted in self-defense. They need not claim "feared for my life" or some other fig leaf excuse. The state has to show it wasn't. That's hard to do so it's rare that the state will even bother to try and take someone to trial or charge them when breaking and entering is involved.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X