http://www.lfpress.com/2018/01/26/ba...wins-new-trial
Printable View
Even if he wins on these two counts,the Appeal Court didn't vacate the other conviction for shooting the garage owner nor the permanent lifetime ban. The guy shot somebody. No sympathy from this side.
The new trial is because he was charged with possession after he left prison. The firearm in question was under the control of and only being handled by licensed people. All his firearms had been sold, but they could not find a buyer for one rifle. When they did find a buyer, and tried to complite the sale he got charged. Even though he never was in possession of a firearm. The person holding the rifle, the person transporting the rifle, and the person buying the rifle are all licensed. He was not even riding in the same car as the rifle.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
He was still in constructive possession of the gun. His threat to his girlfriend pretty much helped prove the possession. Sounds to me like the new trial was awarded only because the judge in the trial basically reversed the burden of proof. It doesn’t sound like the “possession” was in question.
I can threaten to shoot you with my tank, but that does not mean I really own one. Yes you can legally own a tank in Canada. No special license needed. It can even have the main gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
If you surrender your firearm to a pawn shop or another person to be sold you still legally own it's value. But you can no longer be said to be in possession of the firearm.
There is no question that he threatened his girlfriend and should be charged for it.
I didn’t read anything about a tank! However, I guess you will have to understand what constructive possession means !!Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwalker
Constructive possession:Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
The knowledge of AND the ability to exercise control over a person or object.
He did know of the firearm, but did not have the ability to exercise control.
The police have to prove that he could have exercised a right to control over the firearm. By not allowing his brother in law or others to testify, they in fact willfully withheld evidence and witness statements that are important to his defence.
So if I threaten to run you over with an 18 wheeler, there ample evidence that I could exercise right of control over a large truck.
On the othet hand if I threaten to nuke you from orbit. Well there is very little evidence that I could every exercise control over a orbital weapons platform with nukes.
Yes I know the space station thing sounds extreme but I am making a point.
“All of those facts made up the case for constructive possession and would have led to a conviction.”....Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwalker
From the article. The fact that Degraw was listed with the gun shop as the seller, and the gun was a consignment sale, attributed to the offence of possession. Not withstanding the fact that he made a threat that basically he could get a gun that was only a short distance away. The offence was proven. The crux of the appeal was that the judge made an error, basically reversing the onus.
If I take or have someone take a firearm that I own to a gunshop to be sold, I am still the owner and still have constructive possession of said forearm. That fact was born out by Degraw being listed by the shop as the seller !! The fact that you are selling something on a consignment basis, doesn’t affect your ownership.
It was reported that all firearms were taken by his brother-in-law, and that the brother in law not Degraw was the seller. If Degraw is the seller then things are different.Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
If Degraw was/is listed as the owner/seller they did not have to wait till he made a threat. He would have been in "Constructive Possession" from the day he was charged till now. When they put the rifle in the shop Degraw should never been listed as the seller/owner. I can't believe his lawyer would/could have been that stupid.
You need to read it again. All guns were sold to the brother-in-law except “one high powered rifle,” The shop owner also said that had the gun been sold, he would have forwarded the money from the sale to Degraw.....further establishing him as the owner....Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwalker
It will be interesting to see how the new case goes.Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
The news article says that he gave all the firearms to the brother in law. Why/if Degraw was listed as the seller by the shop then it was not correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwalker
Read it again......slower !! It clearly says all guns except one....the rifle that was at Rodney!!!!!
The article says all guns were sold to the brother in law in 2007. Then goes on to say that all the guns but one was sold to a second buyer. The unsold gun was then transported to a shop in Rodney.Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
If all guns were sold to the brother in law who then arranged a sale to a second buyer, the brother in law should be the legal owner of the unsold gun.
For the store in Rodney to list Degraw as the owner would be incorrect.
Comprehension is not your strong suit !! I give up !Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwalker