Used a gun in self defense: GUILTY..

[clem24]

.. of non-culpable homicide. No charges laid. Just because everyone here thinks we can't protect ourselves. Shoot away!

Calgary man Joseph Lesley Talbot's death concluded as non-culpable homicide

Category: Canada
Published on Thursday, 23 August 2012 15:55
Written by Len Humes

The Crown Prosecutor’s office has determined the suspicious death of a man earlier in the year to be a non-culpable homicide, and as such the Calgary Police Service has concluded charges will not be laid.

Non-culpable homicide finds the accused had no legal wrong-doing in the death of another person, such as in the case of self-defense.

At approximately 9 a.m., Saturday, Jan. 14, 2012, police responded to a report of a possible break-in, in the 100 block of Erin Circle S.E.

There were several people in the home at the time. While officers were removing people from the house in order to determine what was going on, they discovered the body of a deceased man.

An autopsy took place on Monday, Jan. 16, 2012, and confirmed the manner of death as homicide. The deceased died as a result of a gunshot wound.

The man was identified as Joseph Lesley Talbot, 35, of Calgary.

Police believe the deceased forcibly entered the residence uninvited, brandishing a knife. A struggle ensued and Talbot was shot. This incident was not random as the deceased and the persons in the home at the time were known to one another.

http://www.oyetimes.com/news/canada/...pable-homicide

[Modelexis]

It's just a shame that if you apply for a gun licence and your put down 'self defense' as a reason for ownership they will deny your application.
This story is proof that a gun can be deployed in self defense in a legal manner within Canadian laws.

[GQBalla]

what happened to equal or lesser force...

ive been misinformed

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by GQBalla
what happened to equal or lesser force...

ive been misinformed

That's never been the law, ever. It's REASONABLE force. A knife is deadly force, and so is a gun. So he's legally allowed to defend himself with a firearm, as this case proves.

[D'z Nutz]

He did go to the stampede.

And it was a blast.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by D'z Nutz
He did go to the stampede.

And it was a blast.

haha... I see what you did there.

Yeah, I'm not surprised the homeowner was not charged. The guy had a knife and lives were threatened.

Actually, strike that... I'm *somewhat* surprised he was not charged, but would have been indeed surprised if he was found guilty of murder. (Or even manslaughter). People rag on Canada's laws in matters such as this, but they are vague and exist for a reason - to keep us from being all gun-happy. The laws put doubt in people's mind so that they only use this kind of force if absolutely required.

Unfortunately, I think it might also keep people from using force in fear of being prosecuted - which potentially endangers their lives in the process...

[5000Audi]

i have a PAL and have an assortment of guns in my house, but they are all locked in a gun safe and my ammo is kept in a smaller safe.. im kind of suprized this guy had a loaded gun sitting around.. seeing at they knew each other i have a funny feeling he was expecting this...

i know alot of people that legally own firearms as well some with retricted licence to own handguns BUT not one of them keep a gun in the open let alone loaded ready to fire!!! my bolts dont go in until im at the gun range or out hunting!!

so kind of shocked there wasnt further investigation of how he was able to get gun so fast

[revelations]

Was the victim shot in the back? Obvious question, but would make all the difference in court.

[IRL]

Originally posted by 5000Audi
i have a PAL and have an assortment of guns in my house, but they are all locked in a gun safe and my ammo is kept in a smaller safe.. im kind of suprized this guy had a loaded gun sitting around.. seeing at they knew each other i have a funny feeling he was expecting this...

i know alot of people that legally own firearms as well some with retricted licence to own handguns BUT not one of them keep a gun in the open let alone loaded ready to fire!!! my bolts dont go in until im at the gun range or out hunting!!

so kind of shocked there wasnt further investigation of how he was able to get gun so fast

Without knowing the details of the case, I would think this wasn't a break and enter as we normally would expect it. They knew each other, and this happened at 9am, I figure the people inside were well aware this guy was standing outside with a knife. The owner had more than enough time to call 911, then head over to his gun locker to retrieve his firearm. While they wait for police to arrive, this guy makes his way into the house...where he is fatally shot.

As long as the home owner showed a gun safe and a means to properly store his firearm, I am pretty sure he would be off the hook for any firearms related charge.

[FraserB]

Ammunition can be stored with the firearm. It doesn't take too long to unlock a gun safe, remove a trigger lock and load.

[DEATH2000]

This guy shoots and kills someone and gets off, but what about the rancher where guys were firebombing his house? He fires a warning shot at them while they were trying to burn him alive in his house and he gets charged with Careless Storage of a Firearm....


Lovely system we have here.

[psycoticclown]

Originally posted by DEATH2000
This guy shoots and kills someone and gets off, but what about the rancher where guys were firebombing his house? He fires a warning shot at them while they were trying to burn him alive in his house and he gets charged with Careless Storage of a Firearm....


Lovely system we have here.

Good thing we live in Alberta. If this was in Ontario, guaranteed this guy would be charged with murder and failing a conviction, the prosecution will charge him with unlawful storage and other bullshit charges.

[TurboMedic]

Great step in the right direction, but I can't help but think that had a handgun been used, that would have swayed the other way for no reason whatsoever

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by DEATH2000
This guy shoots and kills someone and gets off, but what about the rancher where guys were firebombing his house? He fires a warning shot at them while they were trying to burn him alive in his house and he gets charged with Careless Storage of a Firearm....


Lovely system we have here.

I think you're talking about Wiebo Ludwig. If so, that's not a fair summary of what happened.

Kids were joyriding on his property (not firebombing his house). An unknown individual fired 3 rifle shots from one of the buildings on the property, wounding one teen male and killing a teen female.

Police couldn't determine who fired the shots and couldn't charge everyone on the property with being a party to the offence. So, no homicide or manslaughter charges were lain.

It was Wiebo Ludwig who had been convicted of bombing, on many charges relating to oilfield equipment (IIRC some oilfield worker was injured or killed in one explosion, but not certain) - no one was trying to firebomb his home.

If you weren't referring to Wiebo Ludwig, I apologize, but maybe you could provide some more detail.

[TurboMedic]

Originally posted by dexlargo
I think you're talking about Wiebo Ludwig. If so, that's not a fair summary of what happened.

Kids were joyriding on his property (not firebombing his house). An unknown individual fired 3 rifle shots from one of the buildings on the property, wounding one teen male and killing a teen female.

Police couldn't determine who fired the shots and couldn't charge everyone on the property with being a party to the offence. So, no homicide or manslaughter charges were lain.

It was Wiebo Ludwig who had been convicted of bombing, on many charges relating to oilfield equipment (IIRC some oilfield worker was injured or killed in one explosion, but not certain) - no one was trying to firebomb his home.

If you weren't referring to Wiebo Ludwig, I apologize, but maybe you could provide some more detail.

Nope, he was talking about Ian Thompson

[dexlargo]

My bad.

I had heard about that case before, but forgot. I don't think Ian Thomson is a rancher though, not that it matters.

Anyway, the Thomson case is a bit different. Although initially charges were lain, the prosecutors did not pursue any charges relating to use of the firearm to defend himself and his property.

Apparently though, the prosecutors think that they have evidence that Mr. Thomson wasn't complying with the firearm storage laws, and kept live ammunition in his bedside table, not in a locked container.

In the grand scheme of things, it's not a serious charge. I don't know if a criminal record appears for it, but maybe.

It does seem like kicking the guy when he's down, but with the high profile nature of the incident, they might have in mind that they don't want to send a message that it's okay to violate the storage regulations. They follow through with that charge to deter the general public from thinking it's okay to store live ammunition in a similar fashion. Not saying I agree with that, but that seems like a reason I can understand if not fully support.

The trial on the storage charge is still going on - Thomson is now trying to strike down the storage regulation itself (kind of a sign that he thinks he actually was in violation of the regulation), because it's vague. Not sure how that's going to work out for him.

It's important to remember that two people were charged with arson in relation to that incident, and hopefully they face some serious consequences. Arson is a very serious offence in the Criminal Code. If found guilty and it's proven that these guys knew Thomson was in the house or were reckless as to whether or not he was in the house, they can go to jail for life - and they should.

[DEATH2000]

Yes, I was refering to Ian Thompson.

His case was unique. What happened was he heard a noise and when he came out to the back of his house a masked person was holding a molotov cocktail, and said "Are you ready to die?". This then becomes a threat of bodily harm and he can defend himself appropriatley. What he did was return to the house and grab a loaded .38 and fired at the man. I do not know if his intent was to stop him (shoot him) or just scare him off. The Crown agresivley pursued charges for long time. I believe the issue may have been that the gun was already loaded (acording to reports) and that it was a handgun. We all know how much politicians and the like hate handguns. He was initially charged with four firearms offenses. While dropping the more serious charges they hung onto an unsafe storage charge.

In the National Post link it says he reinacted how he went and got his gun. It says it took him 38 seconds to retrieve his gun, load it, and return. That doesnt seem that unfeasable to me. Specially with combo locks on the safe.

More detail here:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01...lls-gun-trial/

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...cting-himself/

http://www.cfi-icaf.ca/index.php?opt...dard&Itemid=31

[TurboMedic]

And there is no requirement to have your ammo in a locked container anywhere. It's recommended but it's not law, so that isn't unsafe storage

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by DEATH2000
Yes, I was refering to Ian Thompson.
...
In the National Post link it says he reinacted how he went and got his gun. It says it took him 38 seconds to retrieve his gun, load it, and return. That doesnt seem that unfeasable to me. Specially with combo locks on the safe...

My understanding is that the crown's theory is that the gun was stored, loaded, in Thomson's night table. He says no, it was in a gun safe and that he got it out and loaded it with ammunition that he keeps in his night table.

The crown says they don't believe him, but even if that's true, storing the ammunition in the nightstand also makes out the offence.

Trial is still going on, with dates set in October and then in January for continuation.

Originally posted by TurboMedic
And there is no requirement to have your ammo in a locked container anywhere. It's recommended but it's not law, so that isn't unsafe storage

Beyond always teaches me to be precise with my language. I know that the regulations don't say you have to lock up ammunition, but that's often the way that the requirement of keeping the firearm 'inaccessible to ammunition' is fulfilled.

The regulations state that when you store a restricted firearm, you have to locked up the firearm in one of a few listed ways and that you can't have it accessible to ammunition - unless the ammunition is also locked in the same vault or safe as the firearm.

So that's the issue - what does 'having the firearm accessible to ammunition' mean? The crown says that means it takes more than just locking the firearm in a safe separate from the ammunition, otherwise the extra requirement of having the firearm inaccessible to ammunition is superfluous, because locking up the firearm would always satisfy this requirement.

Anyway, that's a legal argument for the lawyers on that case to work out. I have no idea how the courts will interpret the wording of the regulation and I don't really care which way they go, but some clarity would be nice for gun owners.

[Gman.45]

I store my firearms in a vault. This means my handguns do not need to be in trigger locked. I also store some of my ammunition in this vault, mainly in magazines. With the push of four buttons I have immediate access to pistols and rifles with loaded magazines right beside them, and I am in full compliance with the law. I have over 100000 rounds of ammunition, over half of it. 22 and 15k of it 5.56, and I store this in a large standing metal cabinet with 2 locking systems.

Bernie, the former local firearms officer for the old CFC visually approved my setup, so anyone saying you cannot store ammo in this way is full of it.

I agree with the previous posted that some clarity on the poorly written act is required. I doubt it will fall in gun owners favor and my storage system may have to change after this case is decided.