Sexy Friends Toronto
Toronto Escorts

Hamilton good samaritan shooter acquitted

TeeJay

Well-known member
Jun 20, 2011
8,052
731
113
west gta
Of course it matters. He please self defence based on a fear for his life.

He was not fleeing because he was afraid. He wasn't afraid for his life at all. He was afraid of being arrest.

But whatever... we will not agree. I've said my piece so I'm good.
No not really

Self Defence has nothing to do with "fear for your life" in Canada
You will ALWAYS be arrested and go to court for a Self Defence case
But you are very rarely convicted

34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.


He was hit, he was pursued, and he though the Samaritan was armed or crazy
(it is also very doubtful he was running because he had a fear of arrest since up to the shooting the only thing he had done was a fist fight, dude alr has 5 convictions they said so I think he knows the law)
 

Charlemagne

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2017
15,451
2,483
113
This is precisely why we have a gun problem in Toronto.
A career criminal carrying a gun and killing someone.
And what is his punishment?-walks out of court a free man-unbelievable.
No wonder so many people are carrying guns because there’s no consequences.
Not a Toronto story.
This result would not be the same if King was black.

I wonder if our elected officials will see this case and make a change in the law.
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
22,447
1,325
113
The dead guy was their religious leader who just finished preaching
4 kids all dressed up in their clothes
Plus the fact King knew the area

So yeah he knew it was a mosque I am sure
Yes and only harmless and good people are found at mosques? lol (same with churches?) The fact it was a mosque or the Vatican has really zero to do with the price of tea in China.
 

Charlemagne

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2017
15,451
2,483
113
I don't think he stood up for what was right. The two were misbehaving, but really were not harming the homeless man but I suppose without eye witnesses we will never know. To then be shown a gun and STILL engage in a chase is the height of stupidity. The showing of a gun is an act of self defence and shows intent to warn. The act of running is an act of self defence. The fact this guy still chased was the final escalation that confirmed the act was defensive. It was a warning shot that was fatal. Also if the idiotic paramedics had acted professionally he would not have died. That is the icing on the cake in this appalling sequence of events.
You are allowed to make a citizens arrest in this country.
 

Uncharted

Well-known member
Aug 8, 2013
1,025
968
113
It really does not matter what the intent for fleeing is. The fact he was fleeing demonstrated he did not pose any immediate threat to the deceased. The fact that the deceased chased him, represented a threat and intent to do harm. In such a case, its a slam dunk self defence.
It is not self defense when you, or the party you are complicit with, assaulted the person first.
One can not legally claim self defense from retaliation to a physical confrontation they themselves started.
King and his buddy started a physical confrontation, that ended in another person's death. That is at least Manslaughter.

Now, the difference between Manslaughter and Second degree Murder is;
Manslaughter is the death of a person resulting from an act that the accused would not have reasonable expected to have caused death.
2nd Degree Murder is an intention to kill stemming from the heat of the moment.

It is quite reasonable to expect that firing a gun at someone could likely result in their death. King decided to do it anyway.
That is 2nd degree Murder.

So to sum up. Self defense was not a cogent defense as soon as King and his buddy initiated the physical confrontation. Which immediately puts it to either Manslaughter, or 2nd Degree.
Manslaughter goes out the window by virtue of him firing a gun at the deceased, because it is reasonable to expect it would have resulted in his death, and he chose to do it anyway, showing clear intent on killing the victim. Thus we're left with 2nd Degree Murder.

This was a complete travesty of Justice and Law.
I would hope such a sham as this decision would be appealed by the Crown, as I believe it meets the requirements of Legal mistakes by the judge, but it likely won't.
 

SchlongConery

License to Shill
Jan 28, 2013
11,037
4,310
113
It is not self defense when you, or the party you are complicit with, assaulted the person first.
One can not legally claim self defense from retaliation to a physical confrontation they themselves started.
King and his buddy started a physical confrontation, that ended in another person's death. That is at least Manslaughter.

Now, the difference between Manslaughter and Second degree Murder is;
Manslaughter is the death of a person resulting from an act that the accused would not have reasonable expected to have caused death.
2nd Degree Murder is an intention to kill stemming from the heat of the moment.

It is quite reasonable to expect that firing a gun at someone could likely result in their death. King decided to do it anyway.
That is 2nd degree Murder.

So to sum up. Self defense was not a cogent defense as soon as King and his buddy initiated the physical confrontation. Which immediately puts it to either Manslaughter, or 2nd Degree.
Manslaughter goes out the window by virtue of him firing a gun at the deceased, because it is reasonable to expect it would have resulted in his death, and he chose to do it anyway, showing clear intent on killing the victim. Thus we're left with 2nd Degree Murder.

This was a complete travesty of Justice and Law.
I would hope such a sham as this decision would be appealed by the Crown, as I believe it meets the requirements of Legal mistakes by the judge, but it likely won't.


From your keyboard to the Supreme Court! Too bad the Judge isn't as educated on the law as you! I bet he got by on grammar and being able to write correctly.
 

SchlongConery

License to Shill
Jan 28, 2013
11,037
4,310
113
You are allowed to make a citizens arrest in this country.

Yes, but you want to know/read this first. There is a lot to it from a legal pov.


[h=1]What You Need to Know About Making a Citizen's Arrest[/h]https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/wyntk.html
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
22,447
1,325
113
It is not self defense when you, or the party you are complicit with, assaulted the person first.
One can not legally claim self defense from retaliation to a physical confrontation they themselves started.
King and his buddy started a physical confrontation, that ended in another person's death. That is at least Manslaughter.

Now, the difference between Manslaughter and Second degree Murder is;
Manslaughter is the death of a person resulting from an act that the accused would not have reasonable expected to have caused death.
2nd Degree Murder is an intention to kill stemming from the heat of the moment.

It is quite reasonable to expect that firing a gun at someone could likely result in their death. King decided to do it anyway.
That is 2nd degree Murder.

So to sum up. Self defense was not a cogent defense as soon as King and his buddy initiated the physical confrontation. Which immediately puts it to either Manslaughter, or 2nd Degree.
Manslaughter goes out the window by virtue of him firing a gun at the deceased, because it is reasonable to expect it would have resulted in his death, and he chose to do it anyway, showing clear intent on killing the victim. Thus we're left with 2nd Degree Murder.

This was a complete travesty of Justice and Law.
I would hope such a sham as this decision would be appealed by the Crown, as I believe it meets the requirements of Legal mistakes by the judge, but it likely won't.
The confrontation was started by the deceased, it ended when the two broke off and ran. The deceased decided to engage and start a new physical confrontation in spite of being warned off by a non violent act of the gun being displayed to him. I can see a charge of illegal possession, careless discharge of a firearm, assault.. etc. but I don't think 2nd degree murder holds in this case.
 

saxon

Well-known member
Dec 2, 2009
4,748
508
113
Hamilton is a tough town filled with punks like King, eventually it catches up to guys like him and they run into someone who’s bigger and tougher and he will be the victim. This case came down to him being indigenous and luckily getting a judge who threw out virtually everything he could think of because of that. The jury selection process was challenged because King’s lawyers believed he couldn’t get an impartial jury because he’s native and the judge agreed. The judge also ruled the crown could not introduce his past convictions for violent offences and that he could not be brought into court in handcuffs or leg irons. It’s obvious this judge stacked the deck against the crown.
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,703
21
38
Amazing that the judge pulled the indigenous card. King should have been convicted. As usual, someone with good intentions and a bright future is dead, and we're left with someone who will only cause more pain and heartache for everyone in the years to come.
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
22,447
1,325
113
Hamilton is a tough town filled with punks like King, eventually it catches up to guys like him and they run into someone who’s bigger and tougher and he will be the victim. This case came down to him being indigenous and luckily getting a judge who threw out virtually everything he could think of because of that. The jury selection process was challenged because King’s lawyers believed he couldn’t get an impartial jury because he’s native and the judge agreed. The judge also ruled the crown could not introduce his past convictions for violent offences and that he could not be brought into court in handcuffs or leg irons. It’s obvious this judge stacked the deck against the crown.
Why should someone be brought in wearing cuffs and leg irons. Presumption of innocence is the hallmark of our justice system.
 

TeeJay

Well-known member
Jun 20, 2011
8,052
731
113
west gta
Yes and only harmless and good people are found at mosques? lol (same with churches?) The fact it was a mosque or the Vatican has really zero to do with the price of tea in China.
Do you enjoy walking into walls or something?
Or just random quotes?
The previous poster was the one who claimed (somehow) not knowing it was a mosque would make a difference in the self defence case
 
Toronto Escorts