One might ask, why did the Crown prosecute the case the way it did? Perhaps all gun crimes will be treated as major even if they are preposterous? Perhaps there is an underlying theme here? Maybe we should ask Ian Thomson of Port Colborn if he sees some commonality?
Judge rejects 'outrageous,' unconstitutional mandatory gun sentence http://natpo.st/zmqgj0
"Although the Toronto judgment will have important ramifications, the case it sprang from is strikingly droll.
It took three smashes of a battering ram for a Toronto police tactical squad to burst into an apartment at 2 a.m. in 2009.
Smickle happened to be spending the night at the apartment when officers came looking for his cousin. Smickle thought it was thunder.
When officers burst in, he was on the couch in boxer shorts, tank top and sunglasses, a pistol in his left hand and a laptop computer in his right, apparently taking pictures of himself looking "cool," court heard.
The gun wasn't his and police found other guns in the tenant's bedroom, court heard. Smickle had no criminal record, held a job, has a young child and a fiancée and was working to finish high school.
He was charged with possession of a loaded firearm."
4 comments:
The man was found holding loaded, prohibited .25 pistol. In the apartment was another loaded, improperly stored, unregistered .44 magnum revolver, and a cased rifle with ammunition. He says it wasn't his, it all belonged to his cousin and he was just holding the gun, you know, for some cool facebook pics.
The unspoken facts in the case are this guy is black, and his cousin is a gang banger.
You mention Ian Thompson, and I wonder if the judge will be as understanding of an older white dude who properly stored his handguns and chose to defend his life in a rural area where police response is measured in hours. My money says justice isn't blind and the black dude with the illegal guns will get a shorter sentence than the white dude who tried to follow what are ultimately unreasonable laws.
Ian Thompson had legal weapons. This guys were illegal.
How are the two cases even remotely close?
They are similar in that the Crown decided to go to the max merely because guns were involved
Maybe similar to you. But when I see a case with a law abiding legal firearm and a case with an illegal firearm, those two are about as close to being the same as Obama and Jefferson.
An illegal firearms should be prosecuted and a mandatory minimum given.
A LEGAL FIREARM SHOULD NEVER EVEN BE TALKED ABOUT.
Post a Comment