This was the topic of an earlier thread a few months back. Seems the crown determined that they would not be successful in prosecuting. Good to see that the tresspassers are still up on their charges.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...pped-1.4716423
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/applau...ting-1.3984882
Good. It's high time that criminals learn they won't win.
It's sometimes frustrating when the Crown keeps withdrawing charges like these instead of allowing them to proceed to trial. They do that to avoid a trial which could result in the establishment of judicial precedent in case a jury acquits an accused necessitating the case to go to The Supreme Court. If the acquittal is upheld there,then,armed defense becomes the "de facto" law of the land in every case instead of each case being judged on it's own merits. Even a Liberal-controlled Parliament and Senate would have great difficulty changing it. The word from "on high" is that's to be avoided at all costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Frankly, with this limelight seeking bunch of activists on the SCC the less they have a say on the better.
This is a good signal.
It would be interesting to hear what the “new information “ was....
The problem with this large grey area about self defense, is that it is going to force the "Courts Vs John Public" case to be so huge that the outcome of the case well do more then just convicted or acquit a person. It could end up affecting not only laws around self defence and firearms, but cause changes the charter of rights.
I know that is a very grand statement, but how far will the courts go to avoid these cases? How tragic will it have to be before the case gets all the way to the supreme Court?
With the increase in the numbers of criminals carrying firearms, how long is it going to be till one of the farms gets a visit from a well armed group of them?
Two possible outcomes would create so huge of a event, that the courts could not sweep it under the rug.
1) Armed Gang robs farm at gunpoint and kills people ( if a child was killed god F'ing us).
2) Armed gang "Tries" to rob farm at gunpoint and it starts a gun fight between them and people on the farm.
Now #2 is not as likely to happen just out of the blue, without the right tension in the community.
If #1 happened once or twice, well there is a good chance #2 is just a matter of time.
I'd be curious to hear if all his firearms and PAL were seized, never to be returned?
If the charges were withdrawn,his firearms would need to be returned forthwith and they better hope they weren't damaged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmoose
We both know that the CFO doesnt need charges to make a persons life miserable? They can just claim "in the interest of public safety" or something to that effect?Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21