They obviously do, you can't put words in his mouth or know what he's going to say or how credible he is.
Milton Man, 22, charged with murder after fatally shooting suspect who tried to rob his house, lawyer says
- Thread starter dirtyharry555
- Start date
I trust the court to evaluate all of the evidence and determine who is telling the truth. There's clearly more to this story, and I don't trust HIS LAWYER to be telling us the full truth either. Saying "he didn't intend to kill him" would fit with "I shot him in the back so he would be arrested by the cops" for example. The truth will come out in court.
WTF are you talking about?
That's not how it works in Canada. We don't have grand juries, they don't exist here. Second cops charge people and it goes to court. In Ontario it's not reviewed by lawyers.
Just waiting for the other shoe to drop. As some people have said there’s more to the story than what we’ve heard.
The police have said it was a targeted robbery, you have to wonder why they were targeted.
The police have said it was a targeted robbery, you have to wonder why they were targeted.
Personally I think you should be allowed to shoot someone in the back even if they attempt to flee. This is a ridiculous rule that expects people to be fully present, and analytical in a high stress, volatile, dangerous situation that they are not trained for or used to. I mean lets say you have kids and elderly people in the house and you show up with a gun, and the guy makes sudden movements towards the door. You dont know whether or not he is fleeing and you may end up shooting him in the back and killing him reflexively. To hold those people guilty in these situations and put them through a torturous legal process is ridiculous in my opinion.
Ummm...Hate to break it to you and your myopic view of the world, but these laws have been on the books for nearly a century (if not longer). There is a reason why Canadian law doesn't want this shit to happen. We'd rather have all people stay alive and face the Crown's justice. Has nothing to do with being "woke" or anything, it's the fucking law. And again, we do not have all the facts. Maybe, as @mandrill speculates, the guy was running away and was shot in the back. We don't know.
I did say in my post - assuming that there are no significant changes to the story - which there are likely to be .
The problem is that the Justice System has become more lax all the time [ parole and enforcement of conditions ] and that those who broke in will probably be out on bail in 2 days and committing crimes again in 3. It is entirely obvious that parole enforcement is somewhere between lax and totally ineffective. You may want this type of scum out on the street again, maybe the next house that they break into will be yours. It is no wonder that the violent crime situation is getting worse in the GTA almost by the day.
Just wondering what the results of this armed break- in would have been if one of the intruders had not been confronted and shot. Maybe you have preferred that that scenario had played out in full instead ??
First, where have I ever said that those accused of violent crime should be out on bail immediately? For the most part, that doesn't happen. Sure, there have been cases where someone has been released and done some horrible shit, but much more frequently they toe the line and make it to their next court date with no issues.
As for speculating what would have happened....I'm not going to play that game. We don't know. It could have been a double murder, a savage beating, or they just tied them up and took shit. As I said, I'm surprised at the second degree murder charge. The only way that makes sense is if he shot the fuckers as they were fleeing. All I'm saying is our laws are the antithesis of, say, Texas, where they celebrate a form of Lex Talionis....and allow folks to shoot anyone who comes on their property if they feel threatened (a combination of the Stand Your Ground laws and the Castle Doctrine).
Not that I disagree with the sentiment but you cannot be worried about the law when you and yours are being threatened. I mean if someone who isn't supposed to be in your property, is in your property, with any sort of nefarious intent, then you should be justified in making the choice to use lethal force - whether or not they were "running away", which is very hard to determine or react to in the moment.
Excerpt from the article regarding his interview on this, it seems the coroner agrees with the sheriff!A friend lives in Lakeland and she told me that reporters asked why they shot a suspect 68 times -this is from 2006- and he replied "we ran out of ammo"
They love him down there, he knows how to send a message and doesn't give a shit. lol
Polk County Florida Sheriff - "You kill a policeman it means no arrest...no Miranda rights...no negotiations...nothing but as many bullets as we can shoot into you...PERIOD." An illegal alien, in Polk County, Florida , who got pulled over in a routine traffic stop, ended up "executing" the deputy who stopped him. The deputy was shot eight times, including once behind his right ear at close range. Another deputy was wounded and a police dog killed. A state-wide manhunt ensued. The murderer was found hiding in a wooded area. As soon as he took a shot at the SWAT team, officers opened fire on him. They hit the guy 68 times. Naturally, the liberal media went nuts and asked why they had to shoot the poor, undocumented immigrant 68 times. Sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinel: "Because that's all the ammunition we had." Now, is that just about the time greatest answer or what! The Coroner also reported that the illegal alien died of natural causes. When asked by a reporter how that could be, since there were 68 bullet wounds in his body, he simply replied: (BEST QUOTE ever) ...."When you are shot 68 times you are naturally gonna die.'
Oh please stop with this grotesque chest thumping over police. Okay so they shot a guy who tried to shoot them. That is no reason to rejoice and make jokes. This maliciousness is why nobody likes right wing cunts.
ACAB.
Its not up to people to play judge, jury and executioner. The courts should decide that and even in cases of murder I am not for the death penalty. I am not for state sponsored revenge.
Killing someone in self defence when they attack you or your family is one thing.
But the entire police force exacting revenge on someone for committing a crime against one of their own, is very problematic gang like behavior. Which is what they are really. Goons in uniform. They always operate on a us (police) vs them (civilians) basis.
I have a feeling unless there is something we don't know most juries will find him innocent. Although my hunch is they knew one another and he was expecting something to happen. If the gun was stored properly I don't believe he would have been able to access it in time to shoot anyone.
I posted the video for a frame of reference.
I posted the article in response to a post about an occurance and statement made by the same sheriff.
There is no chest thumping.
There is no "rejoicing" and I didn't make any jokes, just an observation.
If you find my post malicious, you may need to reevaluate yourself.
Derogrotory terms are no way to conduct yourself in an adult discussion.
Good day.
Actually the law makes allowances for rushed judgment and flawed decision-making. But shooting a fleeing guy in the back is pretty clearly over the line.
I doubt the "liberal media" went nuts. Sounds like pretty clear self defence by the cops to me. The perp was armed, firing and had killed cops before.
Pumping 60+ rounds into what must have been a corpse on the ground is barbaric and grotesque, as is the focus on the "undocumented immigrant" aspect. But that's the rural South, I guess.
Remember this incident?
Toronto McDonald's shooting: Security guard won't be charged after 2 die | CBC News
Toronto McDonald's shooting: Security guard won't be charged after 2 die | CBC News
