|
|
|
Is it leagl?-not HTA related
- Thread starter omnivore
- Start date
So what your trying to say is that from the information given in this situation, you believe the kids were directly to the side of the old man shooting??? Does that mean the dog was directly to his side to and wasn't really shot?If they are to the side, they are not forward of the muzzle.
How in the hell can you take the stance that an excessive speeder should have the book thrown at them on the whime of a person of authority, but then come in here and try and pass this nonsense off as a "valid stance" against a crochety old man shooting his neighbor's dog, in front of his neighbors children in the dark all within the vicinity of a few dozen square meters....
Oh yeah... I know why.
That's funny. Not too long ago I was arguing against the validity of charging a driver with criminal dangerous driving for doubling the speed limit on a near-empty highway 407 where no other traffic was cut off or forced off the road.
I'm not defending the guy who shot the dog. All I'm saying is that any charges laid need to fit what actually happened. The shooter has defences available to him that may or may not provide a lawful excuse for killing the dog. That's for the police to investigate. The issue of careless use of a firearm is a separate issue, but the info given here is inconsistent and probably wouldn't support a conviction if it went to trial. Shooting a dog even in front of children watching from nearby is not enough unless the kids were close enough to be physically endangered. A "could have been" standard is not enough. However, that too is for the police to investigate.
Think with your head, not your emotions.
The OP's own words placed the dog on the lawn at very close range (15 feet) directly in front of the shooter who was standing on a porch, and the kids off to the side at varying range, 7 feet or 50 feet depending on what post you refer to.
If aiming from the shoulder while standing on the porch, shooting at a dog's head would most likely have had the shooter shooting down at an angle with the lawn itself forming an effective backstop against ricochet and stray pellets. Buckshot has some spread when it leaves a shotgun barrel, but not enough to be a factor when the target and back-stopping ground is only 15 feet away. The shooter will no doubt claim that he checked to make sure that nobody was close enough to be at risk, and the fact that only the dog was hit by buckshot would lend credence to that. Any decent lawyer will easily enough put all of this together in an effective defence against a careless use of firearms charge, if one were to be laid.
All I'm saying is that charges have to be supported by fact, and not by outrage.
i am so sorry that this happened.
best of luck getting this resolved. im disgusted and hope that your able to make this a**holes life hell.
to the ppl arguing on this thread..
like seriously what the f*** is wrong you some of you. imagine going through something like this?
but hey, theres always gotta be some a**holes talking s*** on peoples threads right?
you dont walk out of your house and shoot a dog in front of 2 children. its as plain and f***ing simple as that.
best of luck getting this resolved. im disgusted and hope that your able to make this a**holes life hell.
to the ppl arguing on this thread..
like seriously what the f*** is wrong you some of you. imagine going through something like this?
but hey, theres always gotta be some a**holes talking s*** on peoples threads right?
you dont walk out of your house and shoot a dog in front of 2 children. its as plain and f***ing simple as that.
exactly
let us know what happens OP good luck!
Sry for misleading you Turbo.
My 1st post regarding the 50' distance of kids to dog was based on info given to me by my sister in law who was not in the neighbour's yard, but at home a few hundred ft away when the gunshot was heard. It was during a later phone call when I was speaking with my 16 yr old niece that she clearly told me she was 2 metres from the dog when the gun was fired. She said she saw spots afterwards from the muzzle flash, had ringing ears for hrs, and could smell gunpowder.
She is an honour student and one sharp cookie-I trust her judgement of a couple metres.
It was after this conversation with my neice, and another with my brother about the prior incident that I had no idea about beforehand, that I made the second post updating with new info.
My 1st post regarding the 50' distance of kids to dog was based on info given to me by my sister in law who was not in the neighbour's yard, but at home a few hundred ft away when the gunshot was heard. It was during a later phone call when I was speaking with my 16 yr old niece that she clearly told me she was 2 metres from the dog when the gun was fired. She said she saw spots afterwards from the muzzle flash, had ringing ears for hrs, and could smell gunpowder.
She is an honour student and one sharp cookie-I trust her judgement of a couple metres.
It was after this conversation with my neice, and another with my brother about the prior incident that I had no idea about beforehand, that I made the second post updating with new info.
I am not outraged over a dead dog... it's just a dog after all.
But I don't think it was an acceptable action (or even reaction for that matter) for even the most general of circumstances described here.
That's fair enough. If the girl was in fact that close, that would be reasonable grounds for a careless use firearms charge.
The worst part is that my niece feels 100% responsible, as she is the one who accidentally let the dog get away. And it was her birthday party so she was distracted by her company and feels like she dawdled when looking for the dog and should have run instead of walked. She is beating herself up alot about the whole thing.
It's a different charge (87.1), but to stick the firearm pretty much needs to be pointed directly and deliberately at the other person. You won't get likely a conviction on that for a gun that is merely swung around and passes by the general direction of another person while being swung around. http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1991/1991canlii995/1991canlii995.pdf
Awe man, so sad
That case law was in regards to a weapon the wife knew was unloaded.
It makes no difference. That section of law applies to both loaded and unloaded weapons without distinction.
ok, stopped reading it once I saw unloaded.
Careless use of firearm
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
He could probably be charged for both.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
He could probably be charged for both.
|
|
|
|
|