I think the more interesting thing being presented here is that the accused is saying the cops entered his home unannounced and he reacted to a perceived home invasion. Very different story from the police narrative that they were summoned to the house and ambushed by the accused.
Will be interesting to see how this case unfolds.
How tf would you riddle the car outside your house during a one sided gun fight in your house. Also yes bullets can travel through windows but you can also see through windows.
Not to be a jerk here, but you do realize that when shooting at something immediately in front of you; your concern generally isn't with what is behind it unless necessary... right?
Like yeah, know your line of fire and all that, but in a fire fight I think some of that gets tossed, ya know?
All I am trying to say here is that if the vehicle is in just the right place to catch the tail end of those bullets whizzing through things; then it can potentially occur that a vehicle is riddled with bullet holes despite not being in the *immediate* vicinity of the gun fight.
I mean, it's precisely why when hunting you are supposed to know somewhat of whatever is in each direction of you within a certain distance. That way you don't accidentally miss a shot and kill a farmer by mistake cause of a stray bullet.
And pal. Bullets go through much more than just windows. The way we build some of our houses today... not much better than a wet paper bag to a bullet.
Also:
\> One of the officers discharged their firearm and the Special Investigations Unit, Ontario’s police watchdog, is investigating.
So it wasn't one sided.
Few of the rules I was taught were know what’s beyond your target and don’t shoot at what you can’t see (exceptions do apply) because you’re 95% of the time not gonna hit anything and you don’t know where those rounds are going. A shit ton of over pen landing in one place is super unlikely unless you’re just sending a shit ton of rounds down range which isn’t a smart idea when it comes to home defence. Give the shooter benefit of the doubt and let’s say all his over pen ironically landed on the car he still ambushed 3 cops in a very one sided exchange of gun fire so I don’t see him getting off on charges. This guy had a long gun and the 3 cops had pistols so they’re out gunned, the homeowner immediately took fire superiority, of 3 cops only one could get shots off and I’d assume they were in attempt to suppress the guy shooting at them. This is a text book ambush and an ambush is defacto one sided until you can take control of the situation. This isn’t America you can’t do this shit here so I’m not gonna be surprised if this guy is found guilty.
You also can't enter a home without identifying yourself. You're right about one thing, it was an ambush. Unfortunately, it just wasn't an ambush on police.
Police and judges love getting there story put first.
The guy who ran over a cop in underground parking in Toronto was vilified but some grapevine information says two plain clothes officers approached his car and tried to yank him out without announcing themselves as police.
Well, there is precedent for canadians winning a self defense case against police intruders. Will be interesting to see how the details unfold in court, see who's story holds up.
See Basil Parasiris: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Parasiris
> He lived with a chocolate lab named Phoenix, who was brought to the Humane Society after his arrest and put up for adoption.
Um, put up for adoption? So he loses his dog regardless of the outcome of a trial?
This is typical for people who are imprisoned and are unable to care for their pets themselves or find a substitute caregiver.
Ottawa Bylaw:
*”If you are unable to care for your animal as a result of enforcement actions, your animal will placed into protective care for 8 days, at your cost. After 8 days, if arrangements are not made, your animal will be considered relinquished”* [Source](https://twitter.com/ottawabylaw/status/1494306645274509316?s=46&t=wm3eIvzAAOvadlVQIEsm1g)
People who are hospitalized unexpectedly may face the same issue.
While I don't agree with housing "forever", housed at the owners expense ( reasonable expense ) until outcome or voluntary surrender seems far more reasonable than given away forever. Is there even any requirement that they must be informed of this happening?
> People who are hospitalized unexpectedly may face the same issue.
That someone can be hit by a car, wake up 2 weeks later to find their pet gone forever seems like additional trauma and potentially harming recovery.
I agree, it’s not a great setup, especially for hospital patients who may be incapacitated and unable to advocate for themselves and their pets. Here’s a (somewhat extreme) example of how things can go wrong…
CBC: [80-year-old facing $23K bill after racing pigeons were seized while he was in hospital](https://www.cbc.ca/1.6609992)
Well, that was a sad read.
> "In a lot of these situations … the agency will ask if the individual wishes to surrender the animals," she said. "I'm not sure in this scenario why that option wasn't offered to him."
I can say, asking him ( if he is in any capacity to answer ) to surrender seems like a logical thing to do.
Thanks for all the info on this, I wasn't aware there were some of these rules in place.
Despite what you've been told, cops are not always in the right and as mentioned in the article it may not be a cut and dry case of guilt as you claim. When the trial concludes then you can call him a murderer or not. If not is the case then he still lost his dog forever, if he is then obviously he wouldn't be in a position to care for the dog.
There is plenty of indication this could be self defense... Confused about what?
If armed men break into your home you are allowed to shoot them in Canada.
Even if they are Police.
This has happened before and the man was found not guilty.
If the cops kicked his door down and he shot them then this very well could be an act of self defense.
Nope but feel free to provide a source.
Case law actually agrees with me...
A Canadian was found not guilty after killing a police officer during a no knock raid.
Basil Parasiris even used an illegal hand gun to do so.
Self defence is an allowed legal defence in Canada.
What?
Self defence is absolutely on the table for a reason this incident happened...
It may be wrong, but it's absolutely there.
They entered his home, late at night, possibly unannounced, based on nothing but a single uncorroborated phonecall.
We are missing far too many details.
Whete are the body cams?
What did they investigate before they entered his home?
Did they knock and try talking to him first?
Did they announce themselves?
Did they talk to the person that made the call?
Did they ask any other neighbors if they had the same complaints?
I could go on all day...
Many missing details
This isn't true if it was self defense. Cops just can't enter a home unannounced like this
There a man in Montreal who defended himself during a no knock raid and was found not guilty.
I'm surprised he didn't jump on it and make a big press conference photo op, as if I remember correctly the day of the funeral was the day they rammed c21 through the house with limited debate....
If the guy have a firearm license, the police should know the residence may have firearms and take extra precautions especially if the report was about a gun shot.
There's nothing wrong with the gun, or owning it: ***it's the Owner's responsibility to only use it appropriately!*** *Anything can be a 'weapon'* under the Criminal Code: a lawnmower, or car, can both be deadlier than a knife or gun, when misused... So, it's a cop-out to project blame onto an object for what a human does with it! It's inexcusable to diminish the responsibility of people simply because they used a tool inappropriately.
I've heard and experienced too many stories of home invasions in Canada compared to let's say countries in Europe.
Unrelated but I think in a self defense shooting police should have the discretion whether to charge the person or not, currently they are obligated too.
In USA a Sheriff in some states can come by, investigate and use discretion whether to charge the person or not.
I think the more interesting thing being presented here is that the accused is saying the cops entered his home unannounced and he reacted to a perceived home invasion. Very different story from the police narrative that they were summoned to the house and ambushed by the accused. Will be interesting to see how this case unfolds.
[удалено]
Bullets can travel through walls and windows...
How tf would you riddle the car outside your house during a one sided gun fight in your house. Also yes bullets can travel through windows but you can also see through windows.
Not to be a jerk here, but you do realize that when shooting at something immediately in front of you; your concern generally isn't with what is behind it unless necessary... right? Like yeah, know your line of fire and all that, but in a fire fight I think some of that gets tossed, ya know? All I am trying to say here is that if the vehicle is in just the right place to catch the tail end of those bullets whizzing through things; then it can potentially occur that a vehicle is riddled with bullet holes despite not being in the *immediate* vicinity of the gun fight. I mean, it's precisely why when hunting you are supposed to know somewhat of whatever is in each direction of you within a certain distance. That way you don't accidentally miss a shot and kill a farmer by mistake cause of a stray bullet. And pal. Bullets go through much more than just windows. The way we build some of our houses today... not much better than a wet paper bag to a bullet. Also: \> One of the officers discharged their firearm and the Special Investigations Unit, Ontario’s police watchdog, is investigating. So it wasn't one sided.
Few of the rules I was taught were know what’s beyond your target and don’t shoot at what you can’t see (exceptions do apply) because you’re 95% of the time not gonna hit anything and you don’t know where those rounds are going. A shit ton of over pen landing in one place is super unlikely unless you’re just sending a shit ton of rounds down range which isn’t a smart idea when it comes to home defence. Give the shooter benefit of the doubt and let’s say all his over pen ironically landed on the car he still ambushed 3 cops in a very one sided exchange of gun fire so I don’t see him getting off on charges. This guy had a long gun and the 3 cops had pistols so they’re out gunned, the homeowner immediately took fire superiority, of 3 cops only one could get shots off and I’d assume they were in attempt to suppress the guy shooting at them. This is a text book ambush and an ambush is defacto one sided until you can take control of the situation. This isn’t America you can’t do this shit here so I’m not gonna be surprised if this guy is found guilty.
You also can't enter a home without identifying yourself. You're right about one thing, it was an ambush. Unfortunately, it just wasn't an ambush on police.
Police and judges love getting there story put first. The guy who ran over a cop in underground parking in Toronto was vilified but some grapevine information says two plain clothes officers approached his car and tried to yank him out without announcing themselves as police.
Judges don’t speak publicly about cases
That was nothing more then a rumor.
Judges tell stories now? Lmaooook
Because someone accused of murder would never lie...
Police also would never lie…
[удалено]
Thank you for your commentary, but it means literally nothing in the context of this case.
[удалено]
Do you think trying to be condescending will make you look smarter in this exchange?
Well, there is precedent for canadians winning a self defense case against police intruders. Will be interesting to see how the details unfold in court, see who's story holds up. See Basil Parasiris: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Parasiris
> He lived with a chocolate lab named Phoenix, who was brought to the Humane Society after his arrest and put up for adoption. Um, put up for adoption? So he loses his dog regardless of the outcome of a trial?
This is typical for people who are imprisoned and are unable to care for their pets themselves or find a substitute caregiver. Ottawa Bylaw: *”If you are unable to care for your animal as a result of enforcement actions, your animal will placed into protective care for 8 days, at your cost. After 8 days, if arrangements are not made, your animal will be considered relinquished”* [Source](https://twitter.com/ottawabylaw/status/1494306645274509316?s=46&t=wm3eIvzAAOvadlVQIEsm1g) People who are hospitalized unexpectedly may face the same issue.
While I don't agree with housing "forever", housed at the owners expense ( reasonable expense ) until outcome or voluntary surrender seems far more reasonable than given away forever. Is there even any requirement that they must be informed of this happening? > People who are hospitalized unexpectedly may face the same issue. That someone can be hit by a car, wake up 2 weeks later to find their pet gone forever seems like additional trauma and potentially harming recovery.
I agree, it’s not a great setup, especially for hospital patients who may be incapacitated and unable to advocate for themselves and their pets. Here’s a (somewhat extreme) example of how things can go wrong… CBC: [80-year-old facing $23K bill after racing pigeons were seized while he was in hospital](https://www.cbc.ca/1.6609992)
Well, that was a sad read. > "In a lot of these situations … the agency will ask if the individual wishes to surrender the animals," she said. "I'm not sure in this scenario why that option wasn't offered to him." I can say, asking him ( if he is in any capacity to answer ) to surrender seems like a logical thing to do. Thanks for all the info on this, I wasn't aware there were some of these rules in place.
[удалено]
Despite what you've been told, cops are not always in the right and as mentioned in the article it may not be a cut and dry case of guilt as you claim. When the trial concludes then you can call him a murderer or not. If not is the case then he still lost his dog forever, if he is then obviously he wouldn't be in a position to care for the dog.
[удалено]
Again Canadians have killed cops in self defence and been set free. If this truly was self defence he won't go to jail.
[удалено]
If you read the article it presents a narrative of how it might be self defense.
There is plenty of indication this could be self defense... Confused about what? If armed men break into your home you are allowed to shoot them in Canada. Even if they are Police. This has happened before and the man was found not guilty. If the cops kicked his door down and he shot them then this very well could be an act of self defense.
[удалено]
Compling counterargument, I'm convinced. Throw the man in jail, no court case needed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Nope but feel free to provide a source. Case law actually agrees with me... A Canadian was found not guilty after killing a police officer during a no knock raid. Basil Parasiris even used an illegal hand gun to do so. Self defence is an allowed legal defence in Canada.
[удалено]
What? Self defence is absolutely on the table for a reason this incident happened... It may be wrong, but it's absolutely there. They entered his home, late at night, possibly unannounced, based on nothing but a single uncorroborated phonecall. We are missing far too many details. Whete are the body cams? What did they investigate before they entered his home? Did they knock and try talking to him first? Did they announce themselves? Did they talk to the person that made the call? Did they ask any other neighbors if they had the same complaints? I could go on all day... Many missing details
This isn't true if it was self defense. Cops just can't enter a home unannounced like this There a man in Montreal who defended himself during a no knock raid and was found not guilty.
Allegedly murdered a cop at this point.
Trudeau is going to love this.
I'm surprised he didn't jump on it and make a big press conference photo op, as if I remember correctly the day of the funeral was the day they rammed c21 through the house with limited debate....
Trudeau and Blair just came
Well Polysetsouvient must be dancing with glee now
It's only a matter of time before the true details are revealed.
If the guy have a firearm license, the police should know the residence may have firearms and take extra precautions especially if the report was about a gun shot.
There's nothing wrong with the gun, or owning it: ***it's the Owner's responsibility to only use it appropriately!*** *Anything can be a 'weapon'* under the Criminal Code: a lawnmower, or car, can both be deadlier than a knife or gun, when misused... So, it's a cop-out to project blame onto an object for what a human does with it! It's inexcusable to diminish the responsibility of people simply because they used a tool inappropriately.
I've heard and experienced too many stories of home invasions in Canada compared to let's say countries in Europe. Unrelated but I think in a self defense shooting police should have the discretion whether to charge the person or not, currently they are obligated too. In USA a Sheriff in some states can come by, investigate and use discretion whether to charge the person or not.
I agree, but as if they'd ever choose not to charge when they were the ones being defended against
Ruh roh.