-
August 9th, 2019, 01:22 PM
#61

Originally Posted by
fishermccann
Most people want them to thoroughly investigate all 911 calls, "sorry it was a miss-dial" does not cover it..... Many here say they want people punished for their gun crimes to the fullest extent of the law, but why in this case are people looking for loopholes to get him off? Could it be that he is not a black kid in the city?
Ya but most of these “most people” are liberals and live in Toronto and they also can’t figure out how to get a trigger lock off within a few minutes.............
I love fishing but REALLY it is just a way to pass time until hunting season!!!!
-
August 9th, 2019 01:22 PM
# ADS
-
August 9th, 2019, 01:52 PM
#62

Originally Posted by
duckslayer
Ya but most of these “most people” are liberals and live in Toronto and they also can’t figure out how to get a trigger lock off within a few minutes.............
..... and they just cant help themselves to racebait every opportunity they can. Pretty disgusting considering the Eatons Center Mall shooting court decision this week, lowering the charge from murder to manslaughter. Pathetic.
I take no lesson from them clowns.
-
August 9th, 2019, 02:00 PM
#63
I've done something similar except it was 611 I was attempting to dial. Two OPP officers showed up about ten minutes later at the front gate. I explained the situation and offered to let them search the house (they didn't ask.) They declined. It wouldn't have been a problem as my guns are legally stored.
-
August 9th, 2019, 02:03 PM
#64

Originally Posted by
rick_iles
. The fact that buddy allowed police entry, eliminates that argument.
Even a lawyer who graduated bottom 3rd of his class could win a case of diminished responsibility (capacity)....becasue it's clear that anyone who has 100 guns laying round the house and allows a LEO to come in and have a look around should not be held fully criminally liable for doing so, as their mental functions were clearly "diminished" or impaired.
-
August 9th, 2019, 02:58 PM
#65

Originally Posted by
MikePal
Even a lawyer who graduated bottom 3rd of his class could win a case of diminished responsibility (capacity)....becasue it's clear that anyone who has 100 guns laying round the house and allows a LEO to come in and have a look around should not be held fully criminally liable for doing so, as their mental functions were clearly "diminished" or impaired.
Given that rationale, anyone committing a criminal offence could say the same !!
Ya can’t fix stupid !!
-
August 9th, 2019, 04:06 PM
#66
Has too much time on their hands

Originally Posted by
fishermccann
Come on , are you are going to take dozens of guns out of safe storage at the same time to clean or admire them, in rooms all over the house? If you are going to do that do not call 911. I bet he did not have enough locks or locked storage for all his guns. Sounds like you are trying to justify, or excuse his unsafe storage. Why?
Because he's not committing any crime by being at home with his guns out of a safe or the trigger lock taken off, regardless if it's 1 or 100. They're charging him on the assumption he leaves them that way all the time.
Should you be charged on the assumption that you'll speed on the way to your cottage?
Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
"where a man feels at home, outside of where he's born, is where he's meant to go"
- Ernest Hemingway
-
August 9th, 2019, 04:13 PM
#67

Originally Posted by
GW11
Because he's not committing any crime by being at home with his guns out of a safe or the trigger lock taken off, regardless if it's 1 or 100. They're charging him on the assumption he leaves them that way all the time.
Should you be charged on the assumption that you'll speed on the way to your cottage?
Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
Well, that would depend on where they were found, or if he even had locks. Lots of information not known here.,,
-
August 9th, 2019, 04:36 PM
#68

Originally Posted by
rick_iles
Given that rationale, anyone committing a criminal offence could say the same !!
Much easier to convince a judge when your client is a 73 yrs old and happens to fail the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Test and is declared to have dementia
-
August 9th, 2019, 04:52 PM
#69

Originally Posted by
MikePal
Much easier to convince a judge when your client is a 73 yrs old and happens to fail the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Test and is declared to have dementia

If that were the case, the court could order a prohibition and if his lawyer requests, an order of disposition for the guns.
-
August 9th, 2019, 04:57 PM
#70

Originally Posted by
rick_iles
If that were the case, the court could order a prohibition and if his lawyer requests, an order of disposition for the guns.
Bingo...gets his client off the hook for the more serious fines and the general public is no longer at risk...everyone wins.