|
|
|
Is it leagl?-not HTA related
- Thread starter omnivore
- Start date
Never said it was for my benefit. Just said that you have the right to have them charged. To me both situations are not different as they are both Summary Convictions. If I have the choice to have the people that I caught stealling then his brother should have the choice of having that man charged under 445. Also what ever other charges are assossiated with using the gun in an unlawful manor.Which is what we're looking at here: CC-445.
Right, so they were giving themselves a way out of having to follow up. Believe me; it wasn't for YOUR benefit
Do you really think that the police would side with the shooter, when there were kids present and calling the dog and he shot from his porch which he could have easily gone inside and placed a call to police if he was that scared for his life??? I don't care how good this guys story is the cops have to be complete retards or rediculously lazy to not pursue this.
New info:
Turns out a couple months ago the dog's collar broke and he wandered next door. The old man has a garden pond with a fountain. The dog was playing in the fountain. This dog loves spraying water as I have witnessed it playing in a hose sprinkler before.
He came out then, and hit the dog on the head with a shovel as the kids were pulling the dog from the pond. The man told the kids if they or their f'n dog came back ever again he'd shoot them and their dog in the head-exact words. 2 hrs later the cops came to my bro's house-the old man called them to complain about the dog. The cops told my bro to keep his dog ties=d or the neighbour would shoot their dog-my bro asked the OPP at that time if the man could and the cop shrugged. My bro told the OPP to charge the man with uttering threats, and the cop got ****** at my bro and told him to let it go, leave the old man alone, and keep the dog tied. Period. End of story. Lazy cops won't do real police work, just traffic enforcement.
If a young guy threatened someone, maybe it'd be different, but since it was a good'ol boy, it's fine I guess.
So true to the man's word, he shot the dog in the head. (pre-meditation?) The kids were 2 metres away from the dog, approaching the dog from the side. The man was 4 or 5 metres in front of the dog, on his porch, so the kids were to his right front. He may have seen and heard them calling the dog. If he didn't see them as it was night and rainy, then shooting a gun into the dark where he couldn't see well isn't what I hope a registered firearm owner would do. Apparently the old man fires his shotgun up into the trees daily to scatter crows and starlings that frequent his garden, as he hates their poop and them eating in his garden. Obviously not a very good decision maker when it comes to gun handling.
The fact that he was able to come out of the house so quickly and discharge the gun also tells me that he likely doesn't keep said gun in locked cabinet away from locked up ammo either.
The OSPCA is appalled at the whole thing, as is going to press charges for animal cruelty at the very least if the OPP refuse to do anything. A guy I know (lowlife) went to jail for 3 wks or threatening to strangle a puppy he gave to his ex wife as a gift, when he found out she had a new man in her life. He didn't harm the pup, just threatened to, and he was jailed. Surely this trumps that? It's funny how you can go to jail for kicking a dog, but you can shoot one in the face? The dog was not attacking the man. The man was behind closed doors and came out with the loaded gun with the sole purpose of killing their dog.
Turns out a couple months ago the dog's collar broke and he wandered next door. The old man has a garden pond with a fountain. The dog was playing in the fountain. This dog loves spraying water as I have witnessed it playing in a hose sprinkler before.
He came out then, and hit the dog on the head with a shovel as the kids were pulling the dog from the pond. The man told the kids if they or their f'n dog came back ever again he'd shoot them and their dog in the head-exact words. 2 hrs later the cops came to my bro's house-the old man called them to complain about the dog. The cops told my bro to keep his dog ties=d or the neighbour would shoot their dog-my bro asked the OPP at that time if the man could and the cop shrugged. My bro told the OPP to charge the man with uttering threats, and the cop got ****** at my bro and told him to let it go, leave the old man alone, and keep the dog tied. Period. End of story. Lazy cops won't do real police work, just traffic enforcement.
If a young guy threatened someone, maybe it'd be different, but since it was a good'ol boy, it's fine I guess.
So true to the man's word, he shot the dog in the head. (pre-meditation?) The kids were 2 metres away from the dog, approaching the dog from the side. The man was 4 or 5 metres in front of the dog, on his porch, so the kids were to his right front. He may have seen and heard them calling the dog. If he didn't see them as it was night and rainy, then shooting a gun into the dark where he couldn't see well isn't what I hope a registered firearm owner would do. Apparently the old man fires his shotgun up into the trees daily to scatter crows and starlings that frequent his garden, as he hates their poop and them eating in his garden. Obviously not a very good decision maker when it comes to gun handling.
The fact that he was able to come out of the house so quickly and discharge the gun also tells me that he likely doesn't keep said gun in locked cabinet away from locked up ammo either.
The OSPCA is appalled at the whole thing, as is going to press charges for animal cruelty at the very least if the OPP refuse to do anything. A guy I know (lowlife) went to jail for 3 wks or threatening to strangle a puppy he gave to his ex wife as a gift, when he found out she had a new man in her life. He didn't harm the pup, just threatened to, and he was jailed. Surely this trumps that? It's funny how you can go to jail for kicking a dog, but you can shoot one in the face? The dog was not attacking the man. The man was behind closed doors and came out with the loaded gun with the sole purpose of killing their dog.
Nothing in the CC specifically bars shooting in the dark. The Ministry of Natural Resources bars most (but not all) hunting activity at night, but the shooter in this case was not hunting per se.
Those are valid issues, but they are completely separate from the issue of shooting the dog.
Except - is there a lawful excuse exception to theft charges? Um, no.
That man should be arrested and charge. Those cops from the first responce should have a formal complaint made agaist them cause if they had done their jobs properly then, this may have not happened. Those girls could have been killed. This is a very serious situation and it should not be taken lightly. Also, depending on how much time has passed your bro might be able to press charges for the uttering death threats from before.
That is what a judge is for to decide if there was an exception in this case. It is not up to the police to decide this. That is why people are inocent until proven guilty.
mike100
Well-known member
Actually hunting is typically restricted to daylight hours, not shooting.
Second, not a cabinet, but a locked enclosure, which a locked house would qualify. Besides the restrictions on storage do not apply for control of predators as long as a firearm can be discharged legally.
Discharging a firearm within 4-5 meters of children who are 2 meters to the side of the intended target is not, in my opinion, using a firearm with reasonable precaution for the safety of others, hence careless use of a firearm under Section 86 of the Criminal Code. A further agravating factor is the prior encounter with the kids and the dog, the threats and therefore no reasonable expectation that the dog was harrassing livestock or damaging crops or property. The only reasonable grounds for shooting the dog would be that the old man feared harm from the dog. Had the old man not known the dog, he would have been justified in shooting the dog. I would pursue the issue with the Crown Attourney. It's ignorant people like that, that give gun owners a bad name. You can and should call the Canadian Firearms Centre and file a complaint or safety concern relating to the prior threat and recent events - 1 800 731-4000. Keep us posted.
Last edited:
Charges get vetted at every stage of the investigation/prosecution process. Many charges are conditional in that is there may be lawful excuses that make an ordinarily-unlawful act a completely lawful one. Hitting another person is ordinarily unlawful, but hitting an attacker in self-defense or to repel an attack is perfectly legal. Many offences have such exceptions.
Consider this - if someone assaults and you strike back in self-defence knocking one of his teeth out, should you be charged with assault causing bodily harm? How about plain assault? Should police have the right to let you walk away without charges after their investigation determines that you acted reasonably in self defence?
Or should each and every case go before a JP or judge to decide?
The cops decide whether or not to lay a charge based on the outcome their investigation. If the police lay a charge, the Crown decides whether or not to dismiss, stay, or proceed with that charge before a judge or JP ever sees it. If the charge does make it before a judge or JP, the JP may decide whether or not to dismiss the charge before hearing evidence.
Being forced into the expense and strain of mounting a legal defence against criminal charges is punishing in and of itself. Surely you would expect cops to be the first line of assessment when it comes to deciding whether charges should be laid or not according to the circumstances of a given incident? If a person has a credible and lawful excuse for an otherwise criminal act and there is no preponderance of conflicting evidence otherwise (and I'm not saying this is the case with the OP), then the police should think long and hard before laying charges.
Last edited:
Dead. Put down.
EDIT - no, apparently not dead. Initial OP post suggested otherwise:
Last edited:
I thought gun storage is the same for all gun owners. Locked firearm unloaded, and ammo seperate from the firearm. Unless it is also locked in a container.
http://www.ontariooutofdoors.com/hunting/firearms/?ID=12&a=read
Firearms storage
By: Steve Cooke
Nearly every day in Canada a newspaper reports someone being charged with unsafe storage of firearms. While some charges are genuine, a lot of them are a result of firearms owners and the police not understanding the legislation. Firearms owners appear to believe that anything better than what they had before is okay, while the police appear to take the attitude that they'll lay charges and let the courts figure it out. This leaves a lot of grey area. To compound the problem, the government has yet to set up a body that can approve or reject specific methods of storage that will comply with their confusing legal-language documents. One thing is certain, if you don't know the legislation, chances are you might not be in full compliance.
The display and storage sections for dwellings do not require protection against theft. The concern here is that the firearm is rendered incapable of being loaded and fired. The transportation section, however, shifts the focus from disabling the firearm to protecting it from theft. Don't believe me? Go back and read it carefully.
This means that a cable run through the trigger guards of several firearms and secured to the wall or floor is not safe storage. A firearm hidden in the attic or the floor joists in the basement is not safely stored. It means that tucked into the corner of an unlocked closet is not safe storage, because those firearms are not rendered inoperable.
Cable locks are also apparently acceptable, but not the type referred to previously to prevent theft. You must use those designed to be run through the bore of a firearm, out the muzzle and action, and locked back on themselves. This prevents ammunition from being loaded into the chamber and the action from being closed.
The best bet is to purchase a locking steel cabinet, safe, or vault. They're available in a broad price range. They range from lightweight models with key locks, to industrial-grade safes with bank-vault-type combination locks and fire-rated insulation.
Light-grade steel cabinets are the least expensive and most common options. They usually employ a double locking system, which helps to prevent the doors from being forced open. They typically hold 6 to 12 firearms and have shelf space for a few accessories. Add-ons are available. They're not particularly attractive and offer little protection in the event of a fire, but they are serviceable. Many are shallow, however, making storage of rifles with large scopes on them difficult.
For years, the next choice jumped into the "Cadillac" category. These bank-style vaults feature heavy doors, multiple locking-point closures, and sophisticated combination or key locks. They're finished in attractive metallic paints and burnished steel fixtures and would look good in even the most elegant living room. Capacities vary according to the model, but some can store up to 22 long guns. The higher the grade, the more fire protection they afford, and most companies advertise them as the perfect place to also store important papers and fine jewelry. The major disadvantage, of course, is the cost. They're also heavy, making them difficult to move and place, but that's an advantage when it comes to theft. The other downside is that the interior configuration for the large storage capacity often means the particular firearm you want to use will often require emptying the safe to get it out. In the long run, however, if you have expensive firearms you really cherish, it's probably the best bet.
The latest development is a gun safe that falls between the high-end version and the simple steel cabinet. Capacities can match the more expensive models, but locking devices, while still adequate, are often less complex and robust. The finish is not as elaborate, but still attractive, and fire protection is available as an option. Cost, of course, is reduced as well.
Integral locking devices are also showing up on new firearms. These include a built-in key system that locks the action so a shell can't be discharged or often even loaded. It's a great system, but anyone who has forgotten to take the key for their trigger lock along on a hunt will know that a built-in lock also has a disadvantage.
As I mentioned before, there are no guidelines available to rate the effectiveness of these devices, or even to declare whether they meet the intent of the law. The only way to be even half sure is to go for an overkill position and hope for a sensible(and possibly a hunting)judge, if you ever have to go to court.
If you think firearm storage regulations are difficult to understand, then ammunition storage requirements may seem even more ambiguous. In order to achieve as accurate an interpretation of the law as possible, we had CFC spokesman David Austin review the following information.
The only mention of ammunition storage in the Firearms Act Regulations is in the clause relating to storage laws for non-restricted guns: safe firearm storage means, "it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into." This means that ammunition stored with guns in a dwelling must be locked up.
One option is that ammunition may be stored with your firearms in a locked cabinet, safe, or vault that meets the requirements for safe firearm storage. Otherwise, you must store ammo separately where it is not readily accessible to the firearm for which it is intended.
Austin agrees that the common scenario of storing locked firearms upstairs and ammunition in the basement constitutes "separately." He adds that a CFC flyer sent to every Canadian household in 2000 stated, "Put the ammunition someplace else, or lock it up." Although not a legal requirement, ammo is best stored separately under lock and key, particularly if you have children in the household.
A problem can also occur while you're hunting. There is no regulation stating that ammunition has to be locked up while in an unattended vehicle. If it is with a firearm, however, the CFC advises that ammunition should be locked in the trunk or stored out of sight, as must any firearms, inside the locked vehicle. Be forewarned, however, that we know of several cases where police have laid unsafe-storage-of-ammunition charges because the ammo wasn't in its own locked container. A court case in this instance is winnable, but the better solution would be to have police officers informed properly about what the law requires in the first place.
Again, your safest bet is to exceed the basic requirements. Purchase a toolbox and a padlock to keep your ammo stored locked up, both at home and on the road. And be sure to hide the keys to it so they are not "readily available." The same goes for keys to gun locks and containers. Leave nothing to chance.
The most important things to do are read the regulations again, evaluate your present storage system, and remedy any deficiencies. Hindsight is not the best way to handle our ambiguous firearm laws. A "common-language" version of the regulations, which is easier to understand than the official regulations, is available on-line at www.cfc.gc.ca. Questions concerning your situation can be directed to the CFC at 1-800-731-4000.
David Austin recommends using common sense. He's right, but first we have to understand what is required. Clearing up fuzzy sections of the Firearms Act Regulations would be a good start.
Yes turbo, but you are forgeting that there is evidence here against the man, so matter what story he comes up with he should be charged... Previous encounter, uttering death threats, shooting a dog a few feet away from children, a dog that was put down cause of his actions. We are talking about this particular case, what actions the police should be taking are we not? To me and most of the others here it is pretty clear that the old man should be charged.
mike100
Well-known member
Nope there are exceptions...which this person may qualify. Still think he is going to be screwed for firing the gun...but probably not on a storage charge.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/SOR-98-209/page-2.html#anchorbo-ga:s_5
I am so sorry to read this. Please accept my condolences.
The bastard needs to do time for something like this.
The bastard needs to do time for something like this.
True, unless the Firearms Officer pays him a little visit, to check up on him, and finds that he stores the gun in a loaded condition.
Well, first off you made your blanket statement and determination before the OP made any mention of the previous incident.
You've also made your determination on the basis of the OP's post, without giving the other side an opportunity to respond, and without any further background investigation. In policing that would be considered an incomplete investigation.
mike100
Well-known member
Since he has generated some gun related interest with the police, a inspection from a firearms officer with a warrant could be in his very near future.
|
|
|
|
|