The only strain on 'defending his home' is if he shot them in the back after chasing them through three backyards.
Are you saying that he should never have been charged? That doens't make any sense. It seems reasonable that the police would arrest and charge him on the spot as he was found with the gun and the victims. I'm sure there are police processes surrounding these kind of incidents. AFAIK, Ontario does not have a "stand your ground" type law. That means that these things are taken on a case by case bassis.
No, I suggest he he shouldn't be convicted if he was faced with three strangers in his own home. I agree with charging him automatically (he killed two men) until the courts sort out the details.
I was asking Darts why he thinks that Cameron should not have been charged. It should be standard police procedure to list the charges when they arrest someone, but I'm sure there have been times where it didn't happened in a timely manner. Let's hope we never face this type of situation.
Only a lawyer can answer these questions and help get the police records destroyed. As always, it depends on the case specifics.
The problem is that even being falsely charged, if it remains in your police file, could still ruin your life. It might mean no one will want to marry and/or hire you. You will be begging for spare change at the corner of Bay/King and living in tent city.
And a good lawyer should be able to help you get those records destroyed. It will take a long time, money and cause a lot of upset in his life, but that's totally different to taking someone's life. A ruined life is no the same as being dead. I'm not defending the victims of the shooting BTW.
I did say in the initial post that the charge was dropped. After they dropped the charge, I stopped following this guy around (too creepy).
So where did you get this information that the charges were dropped against him? I'm not doing homework for you. Your original post is not a source BTW. You still haven't made a reasonable case for why you think that he should not have been charged at all.
In these situations, police will always charge and leave it to the courts to make the final determination.
Congratulations on taking 2 years to post a follow up to your first post. Yet you still haven't come up with any reason why he shouldn't have been charged in the first place. I don't take issue with your earlier point about it being potentially harder to get a job or travel outside the country. Do you know that was the case though? He's a carpenter so getting a job isn't applicable.
This is tantamount to presumed guilty and the burden of proof falls on the defendant to prove his innocence. Of course, the police in this case kicked the matter to the courts.
