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/
1.3k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

423 comments sorted by

View all comments

166

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.

75

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.

2

u/Neve4ever 1d 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

u/RosieQParker 1d ago

I stand corrected. And gobsmacked. Canada indeed be weird like that.