Posted on 07/21/2007 6:48:20 AM PDT by stm
Threatening someone with a gun may be enough to warrant being charged with a firearms offence, even if one isn't being carried, Canada's top court ruled Friday.
In a unanimous ruling, the nine-member Supreme Court of Canada upheld a court decision in B.C. that convicted a man of gun possession, even though he argued he never had the weapon on him during a break-in four years ago.
if a gun was nearby and accessible quickly, then whether or not it was on the criminals was irrelevant, said the ruling.If a gun was nearby and accessible quickly, then whether or not it was on the criminals was irrelevant, said the ruling.
It didn't matter whether 25-year-old Andre Omar Steele or his three accomplices carried a gun during the crime, the top court said.
An offender "uses" a firearm when he or she makes it known "by words or conduct" that it is available, and as long as it is on the body or readily available, Justice Morris Fish wrote.
"They [the four B.C. men] repeatedly referred to a firearm in their physical possession or readily at hand in order to facilitate the … offence of break and enter," the ruling said.
Steele was convicted of an October 2003 break-in at a B.C. marijuana grow operation.
According to court documents, Steele and three accomplices warned the residents inside, "We have a gun," and repeatedly told one another to "Get the gun, get the gun."
At one point, one of the men pulled a dark metal object from his inside jacket that was described by the victims as "about the size of a gun."
The four men fled minutes later, but police stopped their getaway car shortly after and found several weapons, including a loaded handgun under the driver's seat.
The judge in the original trial concluded all four men knew a gun was involved.
The B.C. Court of Appeal upheld Steele's conviction and the Supreme Court of Canada agreed, saying the point of gun laws is to reduce crimes, either through intimidation or actual injury.
If a gun was nearby and accessible quickly, then whether or not it was on the criminals was irrelevant, said the ruling Friday from Ottawa.
When you outlaw imaginary guns only the outlaws will have imaginary guns.
This ruling sounds good to me.
Good thing not too many of those folks make it all the way down here to Texas. Idiotic behavior such as "Get the gun, get the gun." will only get them shot dead and the CHL holder that shoots them will get a "No Bill" by the local Grand Jury.
If the folks complaining are a “marijuana grow operation” it will be off to prison for any and all involved.
Now, come September here in Texas the Castle Doctrine goes into effect. I predict burglary/home invasion will drop to almost nothing.
Saying you are going to turn someone to stone, even though have a desire to do so, and have been reading up on spells and curses to do so, does not make it possible to complete the necessary overt act, i.e., turning someone actually into stone.
Saying you are going to shoot the crap out of someone with your nonexistent Jack Bauer Model H&K .40cal never empty blaster, does not mean you can do it, if you do not have the weapon, or even own such a weapon.
Now if the charge was verbal assault by implied threat to do bodily harm, that would be a Poule of a different recipe. But in the article I read of a Firearms related offense. This is just more dumb case law created by idiot judges and moronic attorneys.
Wishing does NOT make it so.
EXCEPT IN CANADA COURTS, I suppose.
Canada gets loopier and loopier
Colorado’s laws include the threat of use or possession of a firearm to increase the crime to equal the actual possession and use of a firearm.
For instance, it is a lower crime of menacing if simply threatening someone but a higher felony if also saying you are armed and will use a firearm even if you are not actually in possession of a firearm. Basically, making someone believe you have a gun is enough.
BUT...this law also helps someone use a firearm in self defense. If a person claims to have a gun and threatens its immediate use and you shoot them then you have a defense.
I was reading this from the victims perspective.
What if you’re being robbed and you get into a hassling position with the perp where you threaten him ... “when I get a hold of your gun I’m gonna kill you”
Will the court prosecute the citizen for this?
How about imaginary outlaws? :)
The court came up with this one just to expand the powers of the state.
Next ~ t-shirts ~ with the letters "g", "u" and "n" in any order ~ maybe one purchased from the Zoo that has a picture of a large harry animal unscored with "GNU".
Me? I'll go along with the court's decision. I'll take the risk of being arrested for wielding an imaginary gun.
Pretty wordy Canuck, aren't you. Guess you missed this part...
The four men fled minutes later, but police stopped their getaway car shortly after and found several weapons, including a loaded handgun under the driver's seat.
Sounds like a straw man, Eh?
In New England or California? Probably.
In a sane state? Probably not.
Nicely registered; wrapped in pretty ribbons; all good.
The verbal threat without the instrumentality, i.e., the weapon being actually shown, means very little. Even under silly Canadian law rulings. Or the Canada customs requiring warrants to search vehicles, cargoes or persons at the border. Piss poor selection of personnel to be Judges.(sadly not much worse than our own here in the USA)Sort of like saying you are going home to get your big brother. We shall see.
The verbal threat without the instrumentality, i.e., the weapon being actually shown, means very little. Even under silly Canadian law rulings. Or the Canada customs requiring warrants to search vehicles, cargoes or persons at the border. Piss poor selection of personnel to be Judges.(sadly not much worse than our own here in the USA)Sort of like saying you are going home to get your big brother. We shall see.
“Is that a gub (gun) in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?
I think you will find that a number of states treat the threat of use of a firearm as the same as possessing the firearm. Several states even hold the usage of a toy gun in the commission of a crime the same as the use of a real gun.
Basically, if the victim reasonably believes that the use of a firearm is possible, then the threat is the same thing as actually possessing the firearm.
Now, I think this goes a bit too far, but the Canadian ruling is not terribly far out of line with the laws in several states.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.