Brass Rail shooting update
- Thread starter S.C. Joe
- Start date
Let all the gang-bangers shoot each other. WGAF! As long as they don't shoot innocent bystanders as in this case.
Hi. Recently I heard interview subject state gun crime in Canada has gone down by a factor of 7, however, 'identifiable gang' related gun crimes rose in the same time period. I didn't hear the time period being referenced though; the interview was with some police official responding to the American national rifle association making false claims to the opposite as indemnification of gun control.Sheik said:
I heard that.frankcastle said:
Punk ass will probably do less than a year and will be laughing his ass off at what a joke the system is.
Anyone of those pieces of shit who were running around firing off a gun that day should get life with no parole as far as I am concerned.
I just know that at the end of the day our uber liberal cry baby, society made them do it so called justice system will allow everyone involved in killing Jane Creba to go free with not one serving more than a year or two.
Same goes for this poor bastard who got shot outside the BR just walking home. Both those punks will get maybe a slap on the wrist, a year or two at max.
If guns were banned, people would use knives
If knives were banned, people would use dogs.
If dogs were banned, people would sharpen sticks.
If sharpening sticks was banned, people would throw rocks.
The fact of the matter is, the tools for destruction change, but they are all in control of the owner. It is what he or she decides to do with the tool that matters. I have always stated, guns do not kill people, people kill people.
If knives were banned, people would use dogs.
If dogs were banned, people would sharpen sticks.
If sharpening sticks was banned, people would throw rocks.
The fact of the matter is, the tools for destruction change, but they are all in control of the owner. It is what he or she decides to do with the tool that matters. I have always stated, guns do not kill people, people kill people.
I somewhat disagree with this. To beat someone with your hands or even to stab someone is much different from shooting a gun, as I've said before in regard to this incident. A gun provides a distance that allows people who might not otherwise cause harm to others to feel powerful. It's truly a coward's weapon in that sense. Of course you're right that people are responsible for how they use tools and banning guns would never stop violence... but there are lots of people who would shoot a gun who wouldn't be able to strangle someone.a 1 player said:
Where does this 1 to 2 years for manslaughter thinking come from?
Just last week a guy in Toronto got 10 years for manslaughter. He shot and killed the wrong guy. He was given 10 years in jail. With time already sever he was looking at 6 more years.
http://www.thestar.com/article/306018
Just last week a guy in Toronto got 10 years for manslaughter. He shot and killed the wrong guy. He was given 10 years in jail. With time already sever he was looking at 6 more years.
http://www.thestar.com/article/306018
I am just the casual observer of the legal system. I have been trying for years to understand our sytem. Sometimes I just shake my head.S.C. Joe said:
Why does it have to be a long trial? It should be pretty simple!!! Two men get removed from a bar. They are not happy with it. They are pretty pissed off in fact. They talk about killing someone (the bouncers perhaps). One of them tells the other to shoot the gun... The gun is fired, someone ends up dead from the bullet!!!!
End of fucking story!!!!! The trigger man goes away for 15- 20, and his buddy goes away for 5-15.
Who give a shit whether the bouncers did not treat them nicely. For all I care they bouncers could have called them N*****s and told them their mother were crack whores who liked to get fucked up the ass...
I can understand that the defence for these two criminals would raise all of these circumstances... but from the judge and jury's perspective, it should be quite simple...
You took a gun, you fired a shot, and killed someone.
As far as 1st or 2nd degree... I don't know... but ANYONE ABOVE THE AGE OF 10 KNOWS THAT IF YOU AIM A GUN AT A PERSON AND SHOOT, THERE IS AN EXCELLENT CHANCE THAT SOMEONE'S GONNA GET A HURT REAL BAD....
lol
Yes in a none violent crime, in the federal system. You are can apply for parole at one 6th your sentence. For a violent crime one third So in the case of 10 yrs 3650 days he be hitting the street around 1095 days. Miss spent youth guess why I know this ...Sheik said:
First it needs to come out how the person got the gun, if they were trained, licensed. What they may have been doing that day-did he go target shooting earlier that evening and was going back home afterwards and thought they stop in the club as they were walking by it or was he just carry the gun for no good reason that day.
The crown is going to have to prove the other guy knew his buddy was carry a gun on him
Then the employees get checked out, how long they been dancers, bouncers any training they may have had. Any problems in the past at this or other clubs they may have worked at.
Then it needs to be told what leaded up to both of them being asked to leave. Their lawyers may ask if they were wearing their baseball caps why they were let in dressed like that. If the house rules are posted or were they told before hand they were not to wear caps backwards.
Sounds like many people seen or hear what was happening. They all need to get on the stand, afterwards they get question by the men lawyers.
Before you know it, the week is over with. Not sure about Toronto but some courts do not have trails 5 days a week. 1 day may be set aside for other court business.
Thats a very half ass answer why the trail will not take 1 day.
The crown is going to have to prove the other guy knew his buddy was carry a gun on him
Then the employees get checked out, how long they been dancers, bouncers any training they may have had. Any problems in the past at this or other clubs they may have worked at.
Then it needs to be told what leaded up to both of them being asked to leave. Their lawyers may ask if they were wearing their baseball caps why they were let in dressed like that. If the house rules are posted or were they told before hand they were not to wear caps backwards.
Sounds like many people seen or hear what was happening. They all need to get on the stand, afterwards they get question by the men lawyers.
Before you know it, the week is over with. Not sure about Toronto but some courts do not have trails 5 days a week. 1 day may be set aside for other court business.
Thats a very half ass answer why the trail will not take 1 day.
In addition to all of that there will be a long process of discovery. Some very long time will go by before the trial even starts while the lawyers on both sides gather information and share it with one another. They will then have long arguments about what information is or isn't admissible and so on.
All that said it does seem to me too that the legal processes could be streamlined, and that trials do take a lot longer than they really need to.
All that said it does seem to me too that the legal processes could be streamlined, and that trials do take a lot longer than they really need to.
Not so half assed.... thanks for that... I did not expect it to take a day, and of course the men need proper representation. I guess my point is that in the end (unless these men were being threatened with guns), sentencing should be a simple thing, and the penalty should be strict...S.C. Joe said:
The difference is that a gun is very easy to use. That same 115 lbs guy would have a much harder time killing a bouncer and would probably think twice before trying it. The problem is that every guy with a gun thinks he's Superman.a 1 player said:
People could just learn to resolve issues without resorting to weapons like the rest of Canadian Society.a 1 player said:
The worst situation I have gotten myself into was walking up Younge Street (oddly near the Brassrail about 11p.m.-12a.m.). Some huge drunk guy came up to me and asked for cash, He was flanked by his buddies. It kind of went down like this:
He said can you spare some cash.
I said "No I am sorry I can't" (Respectful tone. He had a nicer jacket then I did.)
He became enraged and said "I know you do."
I said "No I am sorry I don't change"
His buddy said "Come let it go. He said he doesn't"
I went along my way. I had no reason to pull a weapon or get upset. If I used a weapon I could have got hurt or worse.
I said earlier in this thread I was booted out of SC in my youth... Yeah I was to drunk to remember pouring a pitch of beer on a friend of mine (bartender)... Anyway I got escorted out, I guess, I had no weapon, no attitude and no problems. The next day all I had to do was apologize to the bouncer (after he told me what happened.) No one got hurt or killed.
That there is what it is all about. It takes a real man to make an apology when he knows he is wrong, but in a lot of cases ego prevails. It is really a shame.hunter001 said:
The system also (wrongly, in my opinion) gives double or even triple "credit" for time served prior to the trial. How that applies to parole eligibility, I don't know, but it does mean that cases which take a long time to go to trial can see a convict walk free in much less time than the sentence would suggest.Tiffany_69 said:
Part of that is just bad parentinga 1 player said:That there is what it is all about. It takes a real man to make an apology when he knows he is wrong, but in a lot of cases ego prevails. It is really a shame.
Part of that is the gangsta mentality out there...
No one just says sorry, and then moves on... it seems to have become a shame for one to admit that they made a mistake...
First, I agree with you that it won't be a single day trial unless there is a plea after the Crown opens. I suspect 3 days to a week.
As the “Dirty Harry” line goes a man has got to know his limitations - and I’m not in the Criminal Law. However, I believe you’re making this case rather more complicated than it really is.
Two other bar staffers said they heard Zekarias urge Paredes to use variously his "gat,'' "piece'' or "rod.''
Further, once again private place - they can ask you to leave because they don’t like guy over 30 with hair or guys over 25 without hair. You may have civil recourse but not leaving isn’t an option.
As the “Dirty Harry” line goes a man has got to know his limitations - and I’m not in the Criminal Law. However, I believe you’re making this case rather more complicated than it really is.
Not to sound like a wisea_s, but legaly how is this relevant to the charge (he didn’t have any concealed weapons permit) and was not allowed to bring the firearm into the club. I believe someone mentioned that he did have a PAL but I can’t locate where I read that.S.C. Joe said:
From the article that you posted "I am going to shoot you,'' Zekarias is alleged to have threatened, after brushing himself off from a rough deposit on the street, as bouncer Mario Ordonez told police. Gibson quoted: "Zekarias was shouting (to Paredes), "Give me the gun. I'll do this guy.''S.C. Joe said:
Two other bar staffers said they heard Zekarias urge Paredes to use variously his "gat,'' "piece'' or "rod.''
Once again it would only go to the reduction of the charge to Manslaughter. And, I’m reasonably sure case law holds that there has to be true immediacy. Past actions (in the time frame of this story) don’t count - although of course the defense is still likely to raise them.S.C. Joe said:
Further, once again private place - they can ask you to leave because they don’t like guy over 30 with hair or guys over 25 without hair. You may have civil recourse but not leaving isn’t an option.
