Man Held for Threatening to Kill Someone, Released on Bail & Follows Through
- Thread starter trtinajax
- Start date
The last bastion of the of the ignorant/desperate, feel free, but it doesn't make your idiot comments any less so for others to see.Allright dumbrock, you're either trolling or you have down-syndrome.
You're going on ignore
If whether BO needs armed protection is irrelevant why did you bring it up?
Are you now arguing that only women should have handguns and men not have handguns?
Your argument is actually best directed a children. Surely the only hope for children being attacked by an adult is a handgun.
It amazing the depths of stupidity you can sink to so quickly.
I brought it up and you guys immediately changed the subject. I brought up a relevant point and you made a straw man out of it. To answer your question blackrock no I havnt fired a gun and no I didnt get a useless liberal arts degree going 50k into the hole, learning jack shit about life like you and your socialist friends have.
Come on, Oagre, you know better than that.Well, he DID make a mistake. He released a guy who was charged with threatening death who then went out and killed the victim of the threat. So the secondary ground sorta, kinda got missed on this one.
The JP has the opportunity to review the Crown's case and also to eyeball the accused for a while during the bail hearing. What the result means is that any suggestion that the guy was really going to do what he threatened got swept under the rug at the bail hearing and the JP didn't make the call that the accused was sufficiently nutso and angry to follow through.
The test for secondary grounds is SUBSTANTIAL likelihood of committing further offences. A guy with no record on a house arrest plan SHOULD be released as a rule, subject to rare exceptions. Eye balling a guy who is quietly sitting in a prisoners dock is not gonna get any JP very far.
A threat is a very very common charge in domestic context and 99 times out of a 100 it's an empty threat I bet you there was no way for the JP to know that this guy did mean it.
You guys are missing the main point though, if an ex-boyfriend comes over to kill his girlfriend her chances of survival are much greater if she has a handgun in her possession.
Thats a fact
Thats a fact
Liberal Arts, who said anything about Liberal Arts? More of that invisible words you seem to see in what others post. As for going $50,000 in debt, that's only if you don't prepare and/or just sit back and let the debt accumulate. Then benefit financially from the increased money earned with a degree. Many people get a professional degrees and work at the same time to keep the cost in line. It's clear you're the former, but many of us figured that one a long time ago.I brought it up and you guys immediately changed the subject. I brought up a relevant point and you made a straw man out of it. To answer your question blackrock no I havnt fired a gun and no I didnt get a useless liberal arts degree going 50k into the hole, learning jack shit about life like you and your socialist friends have.
So you never handled/fired a gun and I'm guessing never taken a life, and yet feel qualified at espousing how it easy it is to do so and be taken seriously, especially considering the other shite you post.
As for being a socialist, that's been discussed and answer so often it's really not worth the effort to repeat again.
I am not sure of that. If he has a gun and he puts in enough effort to find her near her house at 4am, he is probably going to shoot her first. The only fact as far as I am concerned is: i would not want to be anywhere near this fucking house when bullets start flying.You guys are missing the main point though, if an ex-boyfriend comes over to kill his girlfriend her chances of survival are much greater if she has a handgun in her possession.
Thats a fact
Thats one possible outcome.I am not sure of that. If he has a gun and he puts in enough effort to find her near her house at 4am, he is probably going to shoot her first. The only fact as far as I am concerned is: i would not want to be anywhere near this fucking house when bullets start flying
Another outcome is he pounds down her door, and she shoots him between the eyes. Game over!
Or he pounds down the door knocking her unconscious, because she was looking out the peep hole, then he kills her. Fantasy, yes, but just as likely.Thats one possible outcome.
Another outcome is he pounds down her door, and she shoots him between the eyes. Game over!
Ya but the the bullet can ricochet and hit a class full of kindergarten students on a field trip who otherwise would have been ok.Thats one possible outcome.
Another outcome is he pounds down her door, and she shoots him between the eyes. Game over!
For some reason anti-gun people are uncomfortable of victims being able to defend themselves, i wonder what theyd prefer if THEY were in that same situation.
For all the anti gun folk people out here, what would you prefer to have in this girls case?
A cell phone, restraining order or a glock 17 with 10 rounds of hollow point bullets? :biggrin1:
You left out "kind words".A cell phone, restraining order or a glock 17 with 10 rounds of hollow point bullets? :biggrin1:
Murdering savages can usually be reasoned with, didnt you know?!
I guess we need to take guns away from cops and instead sign them up for some "negotiation" classes lolYou left out "kind words".
Murdering savages can usually be reasoned with, didnt you know?!
Your arguments are stupid. I fired a lot of rounds while I was in the military. I have great respect for firearms and I am a gun owner.I brought it up and you guys immediately changed the subject. I brought up a relevant point and you made a straw man out of it. To answer your question blackrock no I havnt fired a gun and no I didnt get a useless liberal arts degree going 50k into the hole, learning jack shit about life like you and your socialist friends have.
And yes I have a liberal arts degree, and an llb on top of that.
But your problem is not lack of degrees, it is a lack of intelligence or reasoning ability.
Actually I am not at all uncomfortable with victims being able to defend themselves.Ya but the the bullet can ricochet and hit a class full of kindergarten students on a field trip who otherwise would have been ok.
For some reason anti-gun people are uncomfortable of victims being able to defend themselves, i wonder what theyd prefer if THEY were in that same situation.
For all the anti gun folk people out here, what would you prefer to have in this girls case?
A cell phone, restraining order or a glock 17 with 10 rounds of hollow point bullets? :biggrin1:
But I know, that adding substantial numbers of handguns to our society will increase the number of gun deaths, crimes and injuries.
What happened to this women was terrible. But if we add more guns to the social equation and increase the number of deaths, is that how we should respond to violent crime, by creating circumstances that will create more of it.
It seems you are comfortable with the idea of increasing the number of murders.
Actually there is really good information out there on how de-escalation works. It saves lives. You should look some of it up Rambo.You left out "kind words".
Murdering savages can usually be reasoned with, didnt you know?!
Then all you need is a big honkin' knife isn't it?They drew first blood!!!!!!!
No im for trying to prevent more deaths.Actually I am not at all uncomfortable with victims being able to defend themselves.
But I know, that adding substantial numbers of handguns to our society will increase the number of gun deaths, crimes and injuries.
What happened to this women was terrible. But if we add more guns to the social equation and increase the number of deaths, is that how we should respond to violent crime, by creating circumstances that will create more of it.
It seems you are comfortable with the idea of increasing the number of murders.
There are more than 10,000,000 guns in canada as we speak, im not for handing them out to anyone who wants one and saying good luck.
Im for training, strict background checks, however i would like for the people who go through all these checks and balances to be able to defend themselves if they chose to do so, just like police officers are, or armoured vehicle personnel. What kind of message are you sending your citizens when you can apply for an ATC and get it when you are picking up/delivering money for a bank, but you cannot do the same for your family?
Does the bank's money have more value than my family's lives?
How about the politicians? Why are their lives so much more important than my family's? Why do they have armed security with fully automatic mp5 and m16s and my semi-auto ar15 is capped to 5 rounds, my handgun is capped to 10 and i cannot take it out of my house unless im going to the range? Why is it my gun has to be locked up with a trigger lock and ammo has to be in another room, and if god forbids i do manage to get the locks off and get to my ammo and shoot at someone who's come into my home in the middle of the night, why is it that i will be charged even when the law clearly states that i can defend myself?
Am i the only who sees something wrong with this?
