Author Topic: Nunavut man who fired a semi-automatic rifle...has murder convictions overturned  (Read 266 times)

Offline Canadian Prepper

  • Survivalist Mentor
  • *****
  • Posts: 397
  • Karma: 17
  • New TSP Forum member
I thought that forum members might be interested in this rather unusual self defence case from Canada's far North. It's unclear from the article whether or not the man has been charged for having an above legal capacity magazine (it seems to suggest that he unplugged a 25 round magazine pinned to five).

Just weeks ago a Southern Ontario man, Ian Thompson, was aquitted of safe storage charges after he fired warning shots at two arsonists yelling death threats and throwing molotov coctails at his home. His two year ordeal ended after the Crown contended unsuccessfully that if he had time to unlock and load his gun that the ammo was too accessable to satisfy Canada's safe storage laws.

I'm not familiar with all of the details of this case, but it shows a reluctant but growing trend of the Canadian court system to accept the right of self defence with a firearm (just not with more than five rounds (okay, maybe eight in a Garand and ten rounds in pistol mags).

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/canada/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/31/chris-bishop

Nunavut man who fired a semi-automatic rifle...has murder convictions overturned
 
Nunavut man who fired a semi-automatic rifle at five home intruders, killing three, has murder convictions overturned
 
A Nunavut man who fired a semi-automatic rifle at five people breaking into his home, killing three and wounding two, has had his murder convictions overturned.
 In a strong defence of self-defence, a panel of appeal court judges declared a self-defence claim can be made even when three of the dead were shot in the back — one while wounded on the ground — and two who survived were shot while running away.
 Although not calling it justified, the Nunavut Court of Appeal accepted that self-defence was a plausible defence that was tainted by the trial judge’s rulings on what evidence the jury was allowed to hear.
 The appeal court ordered a new trial.
 
(edit: archer: to meet TOS) see link above for details
« Last Edit: February 01, 2013, 09:12:37 AM by Archer »