New Brunswick Senior Punished For Self Defence

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Jan 15, 2015.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1


    I did NOT expect this in Canada. the senior is facing a harsher penalty compared to the attackers.

    charges for the 68 Y/O.
    *Discharging a firearm with Intent
    *Discharging a firearm in a reckless manner

    teens charges.
    17 Y/O
    *Robbery & assault with a weapon

    19 Y/O
    *Robbery
    *breaching a probation order.


    jail term if convicted for the 68 Y/O could be up to 10 years.
     
  2. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #2
    I wanted to read a news account as opposed to watching a video but couldn't find the story online.

    Can anybody (OP?) help out by linking to a published news story?
     
  3. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #3
    guess its not the first Time Canada tries to stick it to those defending themselves

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/karen-selick/ian-thomson-charged-with-defending-self_b_2410861.html

     
  4. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #4
    This seems very unreasonable but I suspect that there is more to this story. Perhaps, once the home owner had subdued the burglars and regained control over his home, he gave chase and continued to shoot at the suspects while they were attempting to flee. If that's the case, I agree with the charges.
     
  5. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #5
    When I read the headline I thought this happened at Rutgers!
     
  6. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #6
    By "stick it" do you mean the hassle of an investigation and going though the courts to see if the home owner was abiding by the laws of the country?

    The very article you quote (in an unrelated story... so who knows what applies to the New Brunswick incident) specifically says the home owners self defense claim was valid. As a direct result of that defense claim the charges of careless use and pointing a firearm being dropped before trial. The other two charges (unsafe storage of a firearm and unsafe storage of ammunition), went to trial and the judge declared the home owner not guilty.

    So what are you trying to imply? That when someone uses a firearm on their property no investigation is warranted?
     
  7. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #7
    from link
    seems the Crown has serious issues with citizens defending themselves.
     
  8. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #8
    No the Crown charges only dealt with storage of the firearm and the ammunition. There were no charges brought to court regarding the man's defense of his home.

    I will say the case seemed a little excessive at the time, but it is well within the right of the police to determine if the homeowner was abiding the laws regarding possession and storage of a firearm.
     
  9. cfedu macrumors 65816

    cfedu

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto
    #9
    Investigate and charge are two different things. Investigate, yes 100 % but to charge and bring to trial costs the individual time and money. People should not be penalized for defending themselves. To me hiring having to hire a lawyer for frivolous charges is a violation of the Canadian charter of rights and the prosecutor should be charged and have to defend himself on his own dime.

    ----------

    He was initially charged with four offences, they dropped the other charges.
     
  10. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #10
    I'm still trying to find the story. JKCerda supplied a HuffPo link which contains a link to the Calgary Herald where it said more details can be found. But that link goes to a Calgary Herald page that says, "Sorry, this url contains an invalid document id. Please check your url or click Back and try again."

    It appears that site is deprecated. Clicking on the header takes you to a newer Calgary Herald site, but when I search the name "Ian Thomson" I can't find any news story at all.

    So again, where is this story coming from? Can anyone find the original reporting and not reposts?
     
  11. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #11
    the gun was stored in a SAFE.
    investigation? no problem,charging him over this? problem, seems the crown is out to nail people who defend themselves .
     
  12. cfedu macrumors 65816

    cfedu

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto
    #12
  13. citizenzen, Jan 15, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2015

    citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #13
    Following up further I did friend this on the deprecated Calgary Herald site in the editorial section ...

    Will follow up at a later time ...

    Little bit of follow-up ...

    Editorial from the National Post, January 4, 2013 ... http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/04/matt-gurney-after-two-years-judge-acquits-man-who-defended-himself-with-a-gun/
     
  14. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #14
    This is beginning to sound like a broken record. In the absence of any other information we can only speculate as to why the unsafe storage charges came up... maybe the police and the crown didn't believe his story of where the firearm and ammo were contained.

    Also why are we still on this particular case on an article now almost 2 years old. That has been dealt with and a verdict of not guilty obtained...Where's the talk about the senior in New Brunswick? It seems like you spoil for a fight that's already resolved.
     
  15. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #15
    the only thing I was able to find on the senior is what is on the video. you are welcomed to address it.
     
  16. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #16
    Can't watch youtube videos here; you're welcomed to elaborate.
     
  17. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #17
    then try reading post one.
     
  18. cfedu macrumors 65816

    cfedu

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto
    #18
  19. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #19

    [​IMG]

    from link
     
  20. Raid, Jan 15, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2015

    Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #20
    FYI That is a list of charges not an elaboration of the incident.

    Actually useful. Providing a name, date, and very brief description. Thanks.


    from: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Law/Offences/Discharging_a_Firearm
    from: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Law/Defences/Self-Defence_and_Defence_of_Another
    Great so the issue now becomes did Mr Woodard act in accordance with his right to self defence.
     
  21. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #21
    And apparently he did, because he was acquitted on those charges.

    So ... what's the problem here?

    btw, just a side note: according to the accounts that I read he discharged the gun into the ground and into the trees, not aiming at the suspects.

    So this so-called firearms expert fired warning shots. :eek:

    That should elicit scorn from the gun advocates here. OMG! Warning shots?!
     
  22. cfedu macrumors 65816

    cfedu

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto
    #22
    You are getting the two incidents mixed up Mr Woodward is still charged. Ian Thomson had 2 charges dropped and was found not guilty of 2 other charges.
     
  23. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #23
    Oy.

    So who's Woodward? Isn't this about Ian Thomson?

    All I know is someone fired warning shots, a crime of utmost severity in these discussions.
     
  24. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #24
    He should not be charged at all
     
  25. cfedu macrumors 65816

    cfedu

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto
    #25
    http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/01/13/defending-self-defence

    Woodward case just happened this past December, Ian Thomson (Firebombing case) case happened in Ontario in 2010. The Ian Thomson case was mentioned to show how stupid the other case is.
     

Share This Page