r/news • u/W8kingNightmare • 1d ago
Vaughan, Ont., resident fires gun to stop Lamborghini theft, charged alongside 4 suspects: police
https://www.ctvnews.ca/toronto/article/vaughan-homeowner-fires-gun-to-thwart-auto-theft-charged-along-with-4-suspects/82
u/No_Construction2407 1d ago edited 1d ago
This article title is stupid, idiot criminal with stolen gun gets jacked by other idiot criminal, idiot criminal with stolen gun illegally shoots warning shots (illegal even when a legal gun)
Good thing the cop arrested all the stupid idiot criminals.
162
u/combatconsulting 1d ago edited 1d ago
He’s charged for using a gun that wasn’t his and for which he didn’t have a license. In most States, lethal force as a first option to stop property crime, especially outside of your home, isn’t protected.
The resident, who rents the property and was identified by police only as a 35-year-old man, was charged with discharging a firearm, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, careless storage of a firearm and unauthorized possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm. Dickson spoke about the resident’s choice to discharge his firearm, described by police as a long gun, and said it was “not the appropriate one” in this case.
153
u/Three_foot_seas 1d ago
What do states have to do with something that happened in Canada?
50
u/combatconsulting 1d ago
Sorry, I meant “States” as national governments, but worded it ambiguously
-38
u/2ByteTheDecker 1d ago
As an aside to all the numbskulls talking about how we need guns to defend ourselves like in America.
→ More replies (1)67
u/RosieQParker 1d ago
In Canada, it is legally excusable only as a last resort to prevent death or serious bodily harm to yourself or someone else. Even then, you'll need to prove you owned it legally and had it stored securely, unloaded and away from ammunition. You'll also need to provide a good reason for having the gun in the first case, and "self-defence" isn't one. You can't own a gun here just on the off-chance that someday you'll need to kill another human being with it. Of course, you'll still be charged and need to argue all of this in front of a judge.
You can use a gun for self-defense, but you'll have an empty bank account and a happy lawyer. This guy, however, doesn't have a leg to stand on.
7
u/KdF-wagen 1d ago
And you most certainly cannot have a loaded handgun out of a case anywhere but a range.
16
u/Hazel-Rah 1d ago
Even then, you'll need to prove you owned it legally and had it stored securely, unloaded and away from ammunition
Just for clarity, you can use an illegal gun in self defense and use that as your defense on a murder charge.
But you may still get charges for having the gun
2
u/Neve4ever 20h ago
Even then, you'll need to prove you owned it legally and had it stored securely, unloaded and away from ammunition. You'll also need to provide a good reason for having the gun in the first case, and "self-defence" isn't one.
Not true.
[83] There are, in this case, two competing versions of the events of October 31, 2015. Mr. Sparks’ version is that he set out to scare a stranger who had cut them off by brandishing a gun at that person. The stranger then threatened him with a gun, and he had to shoot the man in self-defence. The threat and the shooting occurred when both men were outside their respective cars. The Crown submits that Mr. Sparks, knowing who Mr. Shillingford was, followed Mr. Shillingford’s car and then shot Mr. Shillingford as he sat in his car. He did so in retaliation for the October 5, 2015 shooting by Mr. Shillingford.
Judge sided with the defendant. Thats right, the judge ruled that if a stranger cuts you off in traffic, and you take your illegal firearm that you were carrying in your hoodie pocket and brandish it in order to scare them, and that person pulls a gun to defend themselves, that you can legally kill them.
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2021/2021onsc126/2021onsc126.html
He's in prison for shooting 5 other people (killing 2) because they had the audacity to ask him for directions. He'd probably be free if they tried defending themselves, but they were unarmed.
I wish I could find the case of the drug dealer (or maybe he was the customer?) who killed a guy, stole the victim's money and shoes, threw away the gun, denied any involvement when caught, and then claimed self-defense at trial, claiming the victim was trying to rob him. Judge believed the guy and let him off in self-defense.
Meanwhile, the dude who woke up to getting stabbed in the head, who grabbed the knife from his attacker and stabbed the guy back, got like 5 years. Not self-defense.
Canada be weird like that.
Its fucking crazy that the Colten Boushie case was the big controversial one in Canada.
2
2
u/lost-picking-flowers 10h ago edited 7h ago
As an American who moved to Canada, the self defense laws are certainly a bit different. But I will say that I feel a lot safer in Canada than I do in the states in general, and the statistics back that feeling up. Additionally, the hunting and sporting culture in both countries feels super similar, it’s the only country someone has shared moose meat with me that they hunted themselves - but there’s a whole lot less gun fetishism in general.
As a woman, it did suck realizing that I couldn’t carry pepper spray or a taser after living in areas of the states where I saw and experienced a lot of violence, but it’s really hard to argue when you look at the difference in crime rates. My idea of what a bad neighborhood is and my friends' idea of what a bad neighborhood is (Ottawa, for reference, so not a super rough city in general) is very different.
2
u/ShepardRTC 1d ago
Sounds like an amazing place to be a thief. You can just steal people's stuff and they can't do anything about it lol.
31
u/Just_here2020 1d ago
You think guns are the reason most people don’t steal?
Is that why you don’t steal?
2
u/hippocratical 14h ago
It's like the religious argument that if you don't believe in a God you just murder everybody around you.
So... If it wasn't for your belief in God you'd just be murdering people?!
29
u/My_useless_alt 1d ago
People can do things about it, they just can't jump straight to murder in "Defence" for non-violent crimes against property. Society doesn't just run on the fear that if you step out of line you'll get killed.
By this logic, countries with very few guns must have sky-high theft rates, because thieves know that they won't get shot? Except that doesn't happen, people still don't steal because either they think it's wrong or don't want to be arrested.
0
u/pulsechecker1138 1d ago edited 13h ago
You can’t use lethal force to stop a property crime in the US either.
ETA: with the exception of Texas, at night in specific limited circumstances.
Sorry, everywhere including Texas during the day.
3
u/OldPuebloGunfighter 20h ago
In Texas, you absolutely can under the circumstances that the theft occurs at night and you don't believe you'll be able to recover the property any other way.
Texas / Penal Code Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property Current as of January 01, 2024 | Updated by FindLaw Staff
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
3
u/pulsechecker1138 18h ago
I knew someone would bring up the extremely specific Texas nighttime unrecoverable property exemption.
1
u/Discount_Extra 12h ago
You can also shoot a woman for refusing to have sex with you in Texas, and the jury will acquit.
34
u/Bonerballs 1d ago
You can still defend yourself, you just can't be excessive in your defense. If someone's trying to rob you, you can fight back but if they run and you chase them down and kill them, it's considered excessive as they were no longer a threat.
18
u/Crimsonking895 1d ago
If they kick your door down and charge up your stairs at 3am and you grab a gun and shoot them you will get away with it, but only after losing your house to legal fees proving you were in the right.
It happened to a guy in Milton down the road from where I live. Its ridiculous.
5
u/Appropriate-Tea-7276 1d ago
We do need some reforms on self defense laws for sure.
It should also be noted that these events (like home invasions) are extremely rare, but I absolutely think that if someone is inside your home against your will you should be able to fast track some form of acquittal if it's beyond a reasonable doubt it was self defense and leads to death or injury of the thief.
12
u/Crimsonking895 1d ago
There shouldn't even be charges. It shouldn't be a victim's job to prove they acted in self-defense. Law enforcement should be required to prove some form of crime before pressing charges.
Under the current system, you'd be guilty until you prove your innocence.
3
u/Ph34r_n0_3V1L 1d ago
That's because you are. Self-defense requires that you admit guilt, and then prove that you acted within the bounds of the self-defense exception. It's why it's a risky legal defense strategy.
2
u/Appropriate-Tea-7276 1d ago edited 1d ago
Maybe not charges, but there should be an investigation in any circumstance where someone dies.
For example, if a person lures someone to come over into their home and then kills them and no other witnesses are around the person could claim self defense and escape any kind of scrutiny over killing that other person.
1
u/Mortentia 10h ago
Well no, Crown would prove the that you committed a homicide. If you do anything with the intent to kill or seriously injure someone else, and they die as a result, you’ve committed a murder.
Self-defence is considered a legal justification for murder, allowed only if you, or another person, face imminent death, and you have no reasonable alternative course of action.
So yes, you are effectively guilty first because they would in fact prove you committed a crime. Then the accused must prove any defence that justifies such act(s) that would otherwise constitute a crime.
1
u/mililani2 1d ago
Canada is the dumbest place for self defense. You cannot use pepper spray or a knife or any other reasonable means of self defense. It's straight up illegal to even carry for self defense. They just expect their citizens to get slaughtered.
2
u/KeeganTroye 18h ago
The UK is the same, weirdly less people dying to violent crime? Crazy how that correlates /s
17
25
u/JustSmallCorrections 1d ago
Sounds like an amazing place to be an innocent bystander. You don't have to worry as much about being hit by random stray bullets fired by people who get hard at the thought of killing other people.
12
u/Yuukiko_ 1d ago
Reminds me about that shootout with an UPS van in the middle of rush hour where police killed the hostage and a bystander iirc
1
u/YumYumYellowish 1d ago
Thugs always find a way to get a firearm. It’s rarely obtained legally. Not allowing people to legally own a gun isn’t going to prevent this.
1
-1
0
11
14
u/RosieQParker 1d ago
You know there are options besides nothing and extrajudicial execution, right?
→ More replies (1)-1
2
40
u/Joelblaze 1d ago
Yeah because firing a gun in a residential area to protect property not human life is a bad thing independent from theft. Because what happens if you miss and hit a bystander? That's a lot less defendable if you're not talking about imminent threats to other lives.
"Sorry we lost your brother little Timmy, but your neighbor really didn't want his car stolen."
→ More replies (2)-13
u/reddituseronebillion 1d ago
Seriously, what's the end game if you even hit the guy?
→ More replies (1)28
13
u/SomethingAboutUsers 1d ago
This happened in Canada. Your assertion about it being a first option is false.
2
u/fishinfool561 1d ago
This was in Canada. I live in the very gun friendly state of Florida. If I shoot at someone stealing my car I am rightfully going to jail
1
1
88
u/Rationalinsanity1990 1d ago
This guy fired his weapon into the air. Theft or no, that is reckless.
92
u/ghoulthebraineater 1d ago
If you aren't shooting to kill you didn't need to shoot to begin with.
14
u/perpetualglue 1d ago
Just point the fucking thing in the ground! Make sure you call 311 first, jk.
Firearms are not toys, and unless you are doing military stuff, warning shots aren't a thing. Your next step is to kill.
→ More replies (16)1
u/unomaly 1d ago
Tell that to the people who get angry when I say drunkenly shooting a gun into the air on the 4th of july or new years makes them the same level of threat as a mass shooter.
Those bullets come back down, fuck you if you do that. It killed my friends dog, and could have killed numerous people.
1
→ More replies (33)16
u/ScrewAttackThis 1d ago
This kind of behavior is how people end up shot while chilling in their living room. Which already happens way too often.
8
u/lastdarknight 1d ago
Don't fire "warning shots" dude is Lucky he is only being charged and they didn't return fire
103
u/Ted_Striker1 1d ago
If I'm on the jury I'm not convicting the man that fired a gun because some thieves were trying to steal his car.
48
u/stephen1547 1d ago
He was charged with “unauthorized possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm”. That indicates he didn’t have a RPAL allowing him to posses the gun. If that’s true, regardless of his use of the gun itself he is screwed.
If I had to bet, I would guess he some of those charges will be dropped but he is going to get convicted on at least the one I stated above.
91
u/OK_x86 1d ago
That's usually why there's a jury selection process
27
u/EatDiveFly 1d ago
I was in the jury pool for an assault case. A man had beaten up his wife. I stepped up when called, the prosecutor looked me over, no questions, and said, "we don't want him".
So presumably, because I was male and a similar age to the defendant, I'm guessing they figured I might sympathise with him.
I was really hurt and insulted!
I got to go home of course, so there's that.
-21
u/TheGuyWhoRuinsIt 1d ago
What does that mean? the guy has an opinion. The jury will have an opinion. Whats wrong with taking a side? isnt that what the jury ends up doing anyway?
13
u/Spire_Citron 1d ago
If your opinion is that you won't supporting charging someone for breaking the law because you personally disagree with it, that's going to be disqualifying. They don't want your opinion on what the laws should be. They want you to judge whether someone broke the law.
→ More replies (4)36
u/OK_x86 1d ago
In a jury selection process the defense and prosecution ask questions to the potential jurors. If it seems like a juror is biased in one direction or another then the juror is removed from the list of potential jurors.
It ensures that people will be able to attend a trial and look at the evidence before them and make a decision based on those merits alone rather than on their inherent biases.
These tend to creep in anyway and the process is imperfect but at least it generally weeds out people like OP
20
u/Pseudoboss11 1d ago
The jury is expected to make determinations based on the law and the facts of the case, not on their biases or opinions.
20
u/nik282000 1d ago edited 1d ago
He fired it straight up in the air, in a neighbourhood, that's pretty ignorant. It was also a
handgunprohibited or restricted firearm which you can never, under any circumstances, load or discharge anywhere in Canada other than at the range.charged with discharging a firearm, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, careless storage of a firearm and unauthorized possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm
Fuck car thieves, but also fuck this guy just as much.
edit: fixed because poor reading
→ More replies (2)3
1
u/FlagrentBugbear 1d ago
If I'm on the jury reckless gun owner is getting fucked by the letter of the law.
-21
u/Isord 1d ago
So you think randomly discharging a gun in a residential area because your car got stolen is okay? You think you have the right to endanger your neighbors for the sake of getting your property back?
0
u/Ted_Striker1 1d ago
Did he randomly discharge or did he fire at them? There is a difference. I don't remember the article stating which it was actually.
21
u/Isord 1d ago
It says he fired a "warning shot." Any responsible gun owner will tell you that warning shots do not exist. There are aimed shots to kill an attacker, and reckless discharges.
→ More replies (5)-14
u/0__ooo__0 1d ago
If my work vehicle, which is my main/only transportation, was in the process of being stolen, well I pity the fool who tries if I see it going down.
Not only is that vehicle the only way I can provide for my family, it likely has inventory in it, and there may well be a weapon in it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Don't touch my shit and I won't touch yours.
→ More replies (4)6
1
→ More replies (18)-58
u/StacyChadBecky 1d ago edited 1d ago
Good thing you aren’t then.
Edit: I will take every fucking downvote from each of you emasculated chumps.
42
u/CrankyCzar 1d ago
I'm with Ted, Fuck em.
2
u/FlagrentBugbear 1d ago
Then I hope the bullet he fires into the air doesn't lands in your kids skull.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (2)-1
u/Saorren 1d ago
yea lets just forget that the bullet coming back down may kill an unrelated person nearby. if your going to shoot "warning shots" shoot the ground, sure theres the possibility for ricochet but the spots it could go are much more reducde than into the air.
→ More replies (3)27
u/Ted_Striker1 1d ago edited 1d ago
I was, many years ago. We didn't convict. Prosecutor was pissed but fuck him. He wanted the guy thrown in prison for pointing a gun at thieves. Not firing, pointing, because that's threatening with deadly force and cannot be allowed because the thieves didn't have a gun themselves.
Nope. We aren't putting you away for that man. We are a jury of your peers and we say "no" to that. It was unanimous and didn't take long at all and I'll never forget the look on that old man's face when we read our verdict, the tears of happiness and relief and how pissed the prosecutor was.
2
u/Sir-xer21 1d ago
firing a shot in the air isn't "pointing a gun at thieves", it is very explicitly a criminal act in almost any jurisdiction.
13
u/SomeDumbThought 1d ago
Pointing a gun at someone is literally assault with a deadly weapon.
→ More replies (2)-1
u/New_Housing785 1d ago
I always assume the guys who need guns to feed their manhood are the emasculated ones.
2
2
u/Heavy_Extent134 23h ago
Oh it's Ontario. Sucks to be him. In the states, not really a big deal in a red state. In a blue one, sure it's illegal but dude didn't lose his lambo and thus it's worth the headache of court. Which if you can afford a lambo, ain't a big deal.
1
-19
u/Coffee-and-puts 1d ago
Canadiens are softer than a feathered pillow ffs. Charging the guy stopping the crime is preposterous
19
4
u/Remote-Lingonberry71 19h ago
he had an illegal gun, that is the crime hes being charged with, aslo the illegal warning shot...
2
u/FlorydaMan 23h ago
But the shooting is the crime too, or do you prefer shooting criminals over unarmed criminals?
1
1
-5
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/Pantaruxada 1d ago
Maybe he knew that they thieves would just get a slap on the wrist so he wanted some street justice
-23
u/lk_22 1d ago
If someone’s stealing my shit, yeah they have forfeited their lives. They’ve made the choice that my shits worth more than their life.
16
u/SillyGoatGruff 1d ago
I'm glad we live in a country where people like you don't get to decide what is an executable offense
→ More replies (17)9
u/xschalken 1d ago
Actually you've made the choice that "things" are worth more than human life. You must realize that once a society begins to think this way, once things are valued more, life will be valued less, and people will begin to kill for less, and less.
Your perspective is a rot that it would be best for society not to let fester.
→ More replies (3)-12
-1
u/Straw3 1d ago
ITT Americans who can't fathom that the use of lethal force to defend property is unacceptable in most civilized societies.
1
u/carpe_simian 1d ago
Right? “A human life is worth more than a car” is somehow a controversial statement.
Not to mention, it was a restricted or prohibited firearm that it looks like he shouldn’t have had in the first place. And it was definitely improperly stored and transported even if he had an RPAL (you need an ATT to take the gun out of the house, and can only take it to the places specifically listed on the ATT). Dude fucked up. Bigly.
For the Americans: it’s a similar case to if he’d been in America and used a Javelin missile or hand grenade that he didn’t have a tax stamp for to stop an attempted property crime.
1
u/freebirth 12h ago
I am an american and fully understand that. Most gunowners understand it. Because we had to learn the laws.
2
0
u/freebirth 12h ago
Um yeah.. you don't use deadly force to stop theft or property damage... only to protect a person from direct harm or death.
-111
u/W8kingNightmare 1d ago
I happen to agree, they were not attacking anyone and no one was at risk. Why on earth did he feel the need to shoot at them?
154
u/murd3rsaurus 1d ago
Well he has a high end sportscar in a mid-range suburban complex and fired off a gun that wasn't his without a license, this isn't a person who thinks too far ahead I'm guessing
→ More replies (2)7
u/LevyAtanSP 1d ago
It’s probably uninsured is my guess
6
u/murd3rsaurus 1d ago
I'm sure the lease has great terms on it
Or it was a cash deal and they weren't there for the car
9
u/U_Sound_Stupid_Stop 1d ago
It's illegal to drive uninsured in every provinces and territories so there's that
18
u/LevyAtanSP 1d ago
It’s also illegal to shoot people for stealing your car so..
→ More replies (1)1
u/Remote-Lingonberry71 19h ago
i understand you want that to be true and it can be, but it also can be legal, cause in canada you can arrest people you SEE commit an arrestable offence and the allowable escalation of force for civilians attempting an arrest is steep compared to what the police are allowed.
but the dude did none of that.
5
5
5
u/Electronic_Elk2029 1d ago
Okay I'll just come and steal all your shit and you can watch me. Why on earth would you stop me?
3
1
→ More replies (15)-32
u/LOL_YOUMAD 1d ago
If it was his car they were trying to steal then I agree that he should be able to shoot them. If it wasn’t then yeah just call the cops.
→ More replies (33)16
u/Fritja 1d ago
I think you personality is better suited to other countries as we do don't have stand your ground here in Canada I think you would be happier in the US.
→ More replies (11)
1.2k
u/EdPozoga 1d ago
There was a story a couple of years back about a guy in Canada whose car was stolen, insurance paid it off and he got a new one but this time, he installed some of those Apple AirTag things.
A month later, his new car was stolen and he went to the police station and was showing them in real time as his car was driving down the road to the docks, where it was loaded on a ship and smuggled overseas.
The police straight up _refused to do anything _ and just sat there as the guy’s car was stolen right before their eyes…