27 January 2011

Everybody watches the TV shows...

...and thinks it'd be way cool to be a cop...

When police showed up to arrest him about eight hours later, they found the .357 Magnum handgun, 19 bullets, four spent casings and a black hoodie similar to the one witnesses said he was wearing during the shooting in the trunk of his car.
The reality is just a little bit different...
“I just want to know who’s framing me,” the jury will hear he told detectives, Brunet said.
I've said it before... it's time to establish the Baffin Island Penal Colony.

**********

NEVER A LONG GUN REGISTRY AROUND...

...when you really need one...
-- TORONTO -- Two men wounded by gunfire were found in the parking lot of a Leaside church on Wednesday.

A passerby found the men in a car outside a church at Bayview Ave. and Broadway Rd. around 7:30 p.m.
And...
Ambulance crews told 680News they were flagged down on Bayview Avenue north of Eglinton Avenue around 8 p.m. by someone saying a man had been shot in their car.

Police believe the shooting occurred at a different location, perhaps near Eglinton Avenue and the Don Valley Parkway.
Bright lights, big city... must be Wednesday.


12 comments:

Chris said...

Classic example of why the "I did it in self defence" ought not be an 'automatic' defence like we were discussing earlier.

Sometimes these things just don't go down that way.

Neo Conservative said...

*
seriously, chris... now you're gonna try draw an equivalence between a scummy, violent drug dealer... and a man who fights off the people who firebombed his home... while he was in it?

no reach there, huh?

*

Chris said...

In your hypothetical, there certainly is a difference, no argument.

Life is far from that carefully constructed argument. The most violent offenders might actually have been acting in self defence AND the most salt-of-the-earth rural country folk might actually be lying.

The point I was trying to make is that if you allow it as an automatic, no questions asked, no doubt, be all and end all, then people will be getting away with a lot of stuff they should not be.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"chris protests... an automatic, no questions asked, no doubt, be all and end all"

hmmm... who on earth is advocating that position, chris?

oh, right... that'd be you.

*

Chris said...

Apologies...

I thought the crux of your entry about the firebomb guy was that he was defending his home and himself; that it was wrong for the police to charge him; and that because of his claim of self defence, he should not have been charged at all.

I told you that the defences were there if he was charged.

You then ended that discussion with something along the lines of 'agree to disagree'. I respect that.

In this entry I was pointing out that here is another case where someone claimed 'self defence' and the police still laid charges... which you seem to agree with.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"chris comes back with... here is another case where someone claimed 'self defence'"

no chris, read slower.

in one case, three men attacked & firebombed a home... with a law-abiding citizen inside. this man defends his person & his home... but neither kills, nor even injures any of his assailants. he also freely admits his actions to responding police officers.

in the other instance, a man with a colourful criminal record is arrested... on the strength of eyewitness testimony... as the murderer of another man. he is, additionally... found to be in possession of the murder weapon.

his initial defense is that he is being framed... then he claims self-defense.

you really see some sort of equivalence here? please tell me you're pre-law... and just having some fun here... 'cos the alternative is that you're not especially bright.

those are the attested facts.

you want a hypothetical... how about... in the war on terrorism, should we be profiling likely suspects... or do we give the same amount of scrutiny to elderly nuns... as we do to middle eastern males between 18 and 40 years of age?

*

Chris said...

More carefully constructed hypotheticals is beside the point and "facts" as reported in an edited news source are hardly conclusive. You ought to know better than that.

It may very well be that I am not very bright but before, you suggested that the 'law abiding' firebomb victim was completely above board in his actions and should never have been charged with anything. You justified this statement with the "fact" this person claimed he did it in self defence.

I wasted my time in trying to explain to you that if claims of self defence were all that is required to avoid a charge, then that is all people would have to do to get away with crimes.

Then you posted this story. Here you seem to be saying that this person should be charged, no matter what he says is self defence.

As to Mr. Firebomb, the issue is, and remains, the police obviously think there is more to his story. So he got charged and if they can make out the crime, then he has his defence available to him to justify his acts.

As to Mr. Drug Dealer, yeah - a dead body and smoking handgun sure do look problematic. But surprise, he is entitled to his defence as well... if he can prove it. And good luck with that.

In any event - when it comes to criminal law, it doesn't matter to what 'class' the accused is part of. It also doesn't matter if the person has a criminal record or is a pure as the driven snow. Home ownership doesn't matter and nor does who the accused hangs out with or what he or she does for kicks. The law looks at them all the same: Act & Intent; Defence; and if conviction, then punishment.

Then again, I may have that wrong as I am not particularly bright.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"chris insists... I wasted my time in trying to explain to you..."

and yet, chris... it doesn't seem to discourage you at all.

perhaps... and i'm just spitballing here... your time isn't as precious as you seem to think? i'm sure the john howard society has plenty of volunteer work available.

anyway... i'm afraid we're back to "agree to disagree".

i can live with that.

*

Chris said...

Yes - that's right. Explain how the law works and the folly of the 'self defence at all costs' ideal and all of a sudden I am a champion of prisoner's rights.

Hey, if that's how the math works for you, then kudos.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"chris whinges... all of a sudden I am a champion of prisoner's rights."

so chris... now you're feeling victimised?

imagine how you might feel if somebody firebombed your home... and then the police showed up & arrested you.

*

Chris said...

So how does it feel to speak out of both sides of your mouth?

Some people should be let off with a self defence explanation and some shouldn't be.

Maybe you can answer me this (Since you love your carefully constructed hypos) - All other things equal to your hero, Mr. Firebomb gunman; If the firebomb victim was, say, also a drug dealer and lived, say, not in a rural area... then what? Automatic self defence and cops walk away or a charge from the police?

And then, here is the key point so make sure to read and consider it, why would you keep your answer the same OR why would you change your mind?

(complete aside, when people call you names or attack you personally in their comments, you are all to happy to post copies of their comments with the tag line "the intellectual left says..." and yet, you always seem to start the attacks... no need to answer that, just calling you out on it)

Neo Conservative said...

*
"chris insists... Some people should be let off with a self defence explanation"

some people, chris?

how about just the people who can prove it?

again... i'm gonna have to go with agree to disagree.

*