Kooky Canada
I generally like Canadians, if you know what I'm talking aboot. But this is just silly.
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.
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.
I'm all for tossing these guys in jail for a very long time, but this sort of creative prosecution -- and judicial acquiesence -- is just silly. By this logic, if these guys broke into a home where there was a gun, then they'd be guilty of a gun crime -- even if they never are able to locate the firearm.
What's "nearby" mean? In the car outside? Your home, which is a 5-minute drive away? What if your home is 10-minutes away? What if it's 10-minutes away at midnight, but during rush hour -- which is when the break-in occurs -- it's 30-minutes away?
0 comments on “Kooky Canada”
Tags
Your analysis is incorrect. The defendant in this case threatened to use a gun, and had one in his car. The car wasn't a 5- or 30-minute drive away, it was a 30-second walk away. Furthermore, the defendant pretended to have a gun in his hand and made the victims fear for their life. This is nowhere near the same thing as the homeowner (the victim being threatened) having a gun hidden away.
It is perfectly reasonable to want to treat the threat of a gun differently from the actual use of a gun; it is unnecessary to exaggerate the reasoning behind the verdict.
My point is the judges merely said the gun needed to be "nearby" to be charged with a gun crime. I question what "nearby" will practically mean and how far this ruling can be stretched.
My point is that you can't claim this is a bad ruling by talking about some imaginary ruling. The examples you gave are so far removed from what actually happened as to be irrelevant. Your case is stronger without them.