"Quebec man acquitted in police officer slaying" during a botched drug raid.

[jody]

Quebec man acquitted in police officer slaying

A jury in Quebec has acquitted a man of first-degree murder in the deadly shooting of a Laval police officer who raided his home last year.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

He was charged with first-degree murder in the death of Const. Daniel Tessier, who died after being shot three times last spring after he entered Parasiris's Brossard home with a battering ram during a botched drug raid.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

The father of two insisted he believed his family was being attacked by home invaders when a police team swarmed their house on March 2, 2007.

Believing the invaders were going to harm him, his wife and his children, Parasiris testified he had no choice but to shoot.

[pop goes the weasel]

1. that's a refreshingly different ending n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

2. Refreshingly different than what?

The officers shooting the innocent home owner and killing him. I'm sorry for the officer and his family.

David

[pop goes the weasel]

15. than self-defense not being accepted

It's awful that the officer was killed. But it is also awful when these sorts of searches, which can not be differentiated by the average person from a home invasion, occur. This isn't the first time that an officer was killed by a panicked resident, and I doubt it will be the last if these types of searches continue. But quite often, especially if the shooter was involved in a crime other than what transpires, the jury will convict the shooter of murder of a law enforcement official, even though the purpose of these midnight raids is to catch the suspect asleep and not fully aware. The midnight raids of drug suspects' homes need to stop. Too many people, both police and regular citizens, end up getting killed.

[iverglas]

18. "the average person"

Any chance you'd like to buy a clue?

[virginia mountainman]

3. This is what happens when you Militarize the Police..

Innocent folks on BOTH sides get hurt and killed. As happened many times before.

[rdenney]

16. We agree on something, for once. The police need to go back to pre-SWAT days.

The police running around dressed up in black with military weapons and even armored assault vehicles,
like the SS thugs of WW II, is very bothersome to me, as well.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. Worse here in Seattle

A while back, I was walking into my workout place, and here I see a fat guy in a sweaty t-shirt, wearing aviators, carrying a AR-15 running right at me. Look to my right, see another fat guy in a stained T-Shirt trucking down the sidewalk with a AR-15 (or similar, same apparent receiver and gas piston barrel arrangment), and again, shitty aviator sunglasses.

Fortunately I didn't react right away, because they were carrying low ready, and both seemed to be looking past me, not at me. Then I spot two uniformed officers, one backing up each guy with a rifle, pistols at low ready. I figured if the guys with rifles were bad guys, the officers would just shoot them in the back, so I didn't do anything.

Turns out, all four were cops, responding to a faulty alarm at the Wells Fargo bank next door.

Fat guys in sweaty and stained T-Shirts. No badge. No id. No, 'hey it's ok, I'm a cop'. Just unidentified fat guys with rifles, hustling at me.


I would have preferred they were in SWAT gear, with POLICE emblazoned across the front. Sure, someone could engineer such a thing with a can of white spray paint and a stencil, but seems a bit far fetched. Would have kept my blood pressure down a bit.

[Anexio]

4. That's a goddamned tragedy

"Beyond the verdict, it is useful to remember that Mr. Parasiris had four firearms in his home and only one was legally registered," Gariepy told a news conference Friday night. "We found a variety of drugs and 17 cellphones and pagers in the home."

So the bad guy got away, but I saw nowhere in the article how the raid was botched.

I thought all guns in Canada where for recreational hunting? Guns for self-defense? WTF???

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

5. Why wasn't he charged in the other crimes?

No word on what drugs were found. If you break in my house you will find numerous cell phones (my wife collects them for an abused women's charity) and a variety of (prescription) drugs and several handguns, rifles and a shotgun. So the cops could kick in my door unannounced kill me and release a press statement saying that they had an anonymous informant, got a no knock warrant, executed that warrant, when they did they shot me when they saw a firearm near me and that they found numerous cell phones, an arsenal of weapons and a variety of drugs. Then I'd just be another innocent guy killed by the police. This article isn't well written and is missing a lot of facts.

David

[iverglas]

8. forgive the source

http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=586091

Parasiris still faces eight charges related to four loaded firearms he kept in his house, including the Ruger .357 magnum revolver he used to shoot Tessier. Parasiris had a license for the revolver, but not for the address he kept it at.

He did not have licences for the other firearms and is charged with improperly storing all three.

And if he had obeyed the goddamned law, NOBODY WOULD BE DEAD.

[krispos42]

9. You can't say that with any certainty

It is entirely possible that we could be reading a story about an officer stabbed through is body armor or clubbed in the back of the neck and killed, or an officer shooting and killing Parasiris as Parasiris tried to stab or club the people breaking into his house.






"And if he had obeyed the goddamned law, NOBODY WOULD BE DEAD."

Hmmmm...

[iverglas]

7. you thought semi-right

I thought all guns in Canada where for recreational hunting? Guns for self-defense? WTF???


He could ONLY have had a licence to possess handguns IF:

- he qualified by taking the appropriate instruction and was accepted as a member of an approved gun club; or

- he qualified by demonstrating that he was a genuine collector, i.e. was "knowledgeable" about the things he collected.


He could ONLY have been in possession of the firearms WITHOUT BREAKING THE LAW if:

- they were stored in accordance with the relevant regulations, WHICH THEY WERE NOT; and

- he maintained the registration up to date, specifically by notifying the Firearms Registry of his change of address, WHICH HE DID NOT.


He was a scum drug dealer. HE ADMITTED IT. And the chance that he was not LYING when he said he believed the people who broke into his house were not police is just about nil.

But to be acquitted, he had only to raise a reasonable doubt. And a good liar can often do that quite easily.




Oh, just to help you out yourself, though: you thought quite wrong, really. And what the hell is "recreational hunting"? The actual fact is that many firearms in Canada are used for SUBSISTENCE hunting, by First Nations people and others, and also for commercial hunting, by outfitters, many of them First Nations people, and their customers.

[iverglas]

6. for any ignoramuses in the vicinity desirous of a clue

http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=ca&q=Daniel+Tessier&btnG=Search+News


http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=211d9455-d8d2-4c29-8286-b90ea9ffa2a4

Parasiris jury has questions on self-defence

The jury in the first-degree murder trial of Basil Parasiris is apparently giving the issue of whether he was acting in self-defence when he killed Laval police Constable Daniel Tessier considerable consideration.

In their second day of deliberations yesterday, the jury asked Justice Guy Cournoyer if they could go over the instructions he gave them on Tuesday. They later specified they wanted to review his instructions about how to determine whether or not the 42-year-old Brossard resident was acting in self-defence.

The jury also asked to listen to recordings of testimony given by Parasiris and his wife, Penny Gounis. Cournoyer arranged for them to hear the recordings.

Parasiris and Gounis testified they had no idea who stormed into their Brossard home shortly after 5 a.m. on March 2, 2007, until after Parasiris shot Tessier.

While giving his instructions on Tuesday, Cournoyer told the six men and six women of the jury that even though Parasiris testified, the onus was on the Crown to prove he wasn't acting in self-defence when he shot Tessier.

It's called REASONABLE DOUBT. It isn't called "he was an innocent householder attacked by a mob of cops".

The reasonable doubt arose because the accused claimed not to know the person he shot was a cop. Believe that if you will. The jury didn't have to believe it. It only had to find that he had raised reasonable doubt as to a material element of the offence.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=ee1f4182-8389-48b6-b090-ab198527fd70

Key issue in murder trial: Was cop easily identified?
Published: Friday, May 23

Was Constable Daniel Tessier clearly identified as a police officer when he was killed during the raid last year at Basil Parasiris's home?

The question, which is bound to be a recurring key issue during the jury trial at the Longueuil courthouse where Parasiris stands accused of first-degree murder, was raised for the first time yesterday by defence lawyer Jacques Larochelle.

... The photo clearly shows that the word "police" written in black letters on a white background at the front of Tessier's bulletproof vest was completely covered by black material. The material is part of the vest and gives an officer the choice of revealing the word "police" or obscuring it. The photo suggests Tessier, who was one of the first officers to enter the house, chose to cover it.

... Marchand <hospital worker> later said he recalled placing Tessier's baseball cap - which has a Laval police logo on the front - in a bag after Tessier was declared dead. He said the baseball cap was near Tessier's feet on the stretcher the constable was brought in on.

The jury was also told Tessier was wearing his badge on the front his utility belt and that a patch, of the Laval police logo, was embroidered near the shoulder of a shirt he wore during the raid.

Parasiris was a fucking drug dealer.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080614.ACQUIT14/TPStory/National

The verdict was the latest slap in this case for the Laval police. The trial had revealed that the force's search warrant relied on dubious evidence and didn't allow a night-time raid; that officers didn't properly check whether Mr. Parasiris owned guns; and that they fired by mistake into a child's bedroom.

... Mr. Parasiris was targeted in a police probe into cocaine trafficking. But Judge Cournoyer ruled that the police failed to prove he had drugs in his home and weren't justified in using force to enter.

The court was told that police didn't know Mr. Parasiris had a registered gun. The officers didn't check his name in the firearms registry, only the address. However, he had failed to report that he had moved.

So exactly how did he get a permit to own a handgun? By joining a gun club and taking up target shooting? By proving he was a genuine collector?

Awakened by the noise, Mr. Parasiris grabbed a Ruger .357 magnum revolver, one of three guns he kept in his closet.

Gosh. It's AGAINST THE FUCKING LAW to keep handguns in your closet.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor98-209/whole.html

6. An individual may store a restricted firearm only if

(a) it is unloaded;

(b) it is

(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device and stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or

(ii) stored in a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of restricted firearms and that is kept securely locked; and

(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in

(i) a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or

(ii) a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of restricted firearms and that is kept securely locked.

Anybody who wants to pretend to believe that someone who had BROKEN THE LAW by failing to report the change of the address where his handguns were stored, and who was able to whip out his Ruger and shoot someone entering his home the way he did, was in compliance with those regulations ... well, you can be on any jury I ever face. Please.


The only "home invaders" this scum thought were breaking into his house were other drug dealing scum.

But of course, dammit, he's entitled to keep loaded handguns in the closet in a home where young children live, in case any other drug dealing scum come looking for him. He's as entitled to defend himself as anybody else, eh?


http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=74ccfd2f-d56b-4a0f-a2f6-bb663ccea0e4

Cop was shot at close range, murder trial told

Constable Daniel Tessier was probably three feet away from the muzzle of Basil Parasiris's .357 magnum revolver when he was shot to death.

Presenting her analysis of the powder burns found on the slain police officer's face and the bullet holes in his clothing, ballistics expert Linda Vézina told the jury at Parasiris's first-degree murder trial yesterday that Tessier was very close to the gun when the first shot stuck his jaw.

Powder burns were found on Tessier's lips and cheeks. A shot fired from a 9-millimetre pistol would normally leave such burns at two feet, Vézina said. But a shot from a .357 magnum, a very powerful revolver, could leave powder burns from three feet away.

... The jury heard that the .357 magnum revolver was found in a toilet after Parasiris surrendered to police and was handcuffed. Three other firearms were found in other parts of the house.

Who the hell puts their firearm in a toilet after accidentally shooting a cop?

http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=586091

Police also found eight pages of what one investigator described as possibly being the accounts of drug trafficking and Parasiris admitted during an interrogation that he was involved in drug trafficking for three years to get out of financial trouble. The jury also never heard this evidence.

So there you go, folks.

Drug dealing scum who is in violation of multiple laws governing firearms shoots cop.

Now, I WANT TO HEAR IT.

I want to hear the chorus of:

DRUG DEALERS ARE ENTITLED TO KEEP HANDGUNS IN THEIR CLOSETS
SO THEY CAN SHOOT OTHER DRUG DEALERS WHO BREAK INTO THEIR HOUSES.

Who will go first?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

10. Iverglas was this executed like our no knock warrants?

I never saw an explanation of how the warrant was executed and am unfamiliar with how they do that in Canada.

David

[iverglas]

13. it sounds similar

I was limited by how much I could quote from here and there, and it can be difficult to tell from a bad translation of idiot Quebec bureaucratic French bafflegab. Tomorrow I can check around the French-language media to see whether there's anything more comprehensible.

The Globe article says:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080614.ACQUIT14/TPStory/National

The verdict was the latest slap in this case for the Laval police. The trial had revealed that the force's search warrant relied on dubious evidence and didn't allow a night-time raid; that officers didn't properly check whether Mr. Parasiris owned guns; and that they fired by mistake into a child's bedroom.

The jurors agreed with Mr. Parasiris's defence that he thought he was the victim of a home invasion.

(Now keep in mind that this is bullshit reporting. The jury didn't "agree with" anything. It acquitted him. If found, at a minimum, that there was reasonable doubt as to his guilt. They might have thought he was guilty as sin but found that the Crown had not made its case beyond a reasonable doubt, or they might have thought he was a poor beleaguered innocent householder -- keep in mind that they were not permitted to hear evidence of his drug dealing or the investigation into the drug trafficking ring. We don't know what the jury thought. It is very illegal in Canada for juries to discuss their deliberations with *anyone*, ever.)

Jurors weren't even told that the judge, Mr. Justice Guy Cournoyer of Quebec Superior Court, had invalidated the search warrant the officers were using.

i.e. Parasiris challenged the warrant, and it was quashed -- after the raid. Oh, and this would be why no drug charges were laid: improperly obtained evidence. I don't think he could likely rely on the defective warrant to avoid the firearms charges, or so it seems.

Jurors heard that Constable Lauzon and Constable François Leblanc mistakenly thought the shots had come from a door in front of them, so they fired 10 shots at the bedroom of Mr. Parasiris's 15-year-old son.

Parasiris had fired at the first cop point blank in the face. Apparently those other cops mistook where the shooting was coming from.

... Okay, it was in the Gazette article; knew I'd seen it somewhere ...

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=a5d83324-005a-4640-9278-02842a2a7194

The technical changes to the way Laval police execute search warrants are not an admission of any failure of police methods, Laval police chief Jean-Pierre Gariépy insisted last night.

"There's only one person whose fault it is and that's Basil Parasiris," Gariépy said, gritting his teeth during a news conference at Laval police headquarters. "He's the one who pulled the trigger. He's the one who shot Daniel Tessier. He's the only one who's responsible for the death of Daniel Tessier.

A judge issued a warrant for the raid on Parasiris's home, but police did not use it properly as it did not allow for a raid at night, Gariépy said. They went there at 5:10 a.m., and legal standards consider it night time until 6 a.m.

"We didn't specify we wanted to do the raid at night," Gariépy said. "It's only a matter of 50 minutes but that 50 minutes made our search warrant invalid." Laval police have asked Quebec's Department of Public Security to review dynamic entry raids like the one carried out on Parasiris's home.

"Dynamic entry raids" would appear to be the thing here.


Now Dave ... was it you saying that this is the kind of thing one might find lying around your house? --

Gariépy said he regretted that the jury was not told that less than a gram of cocaine, nearly two grams of marijuana, 13 cellular phones and four pagers were found in Parasiris' home.

He was a trafficker, btw; no indication he was a major user. Middle-class businessmen with families who are trafficking in drugs to solve their money problems probably aren't in the habit of keeping lots of drugs in the closet with the guns.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

14. I appreciate the explanation.

I was using the statement of them finding a variety of drugs as opposed to a variety of illegal drugs as an example of bad reporting. I haven't used illegal drugs in over 20 years. I still don't like the cops firing into a room where they thought the shots came from. One of the tenets of gun safety is to clearly visualize and identify your target. This could have been even more tragic if the cops had killed an innocent teenager who was just sitting in their room. Although it sounds like his fathers business choices have made him a more likely victim of gun violence whether at the hands of the police or a rival drug dealer. Just got called to a 2 alarm fire we'll have to continue this later.

David

[iverglas]

23. hmm

I was using the statement of them finding a variety of drugs as opposed to a variety of illegal drugs as an example of bad reporting.

Yes, Dave. A reporter would generally make a point of mentioning the aspirin and valium found in someone's medicine cabinet ...

I still don't like the cops firing into a room where they thought the shots came from. One of the tenets of gun safety is to clearly visualize and identify your target.

Sure, and when you have somebody firing a gun at you in the dark, you feel free to be very careful to stand still and figure out where the shots are coming from before you fire back.

This could have been even more tragic if the cops had killed an innocent teenager who was just sitting in their room.

It was 5:10 a.m. Nonetheless, a bullet could have hit the son. What actually happened is that bullets hit a cop and killed him.

All in all, it's probably unrealistic to expect things to work out really well when you start dealing drugs. Police have a duty to be careful when carrying out actions like this. They also have a duty to investigate law-breaking and apprehend law-breakers, and do their best to gather the evidence needed in order for law-breakers to be charged, tried, convicted and punished.

I'm generally in the legalize-drugs camp. That doesn't mean that as long as my gummint is prevented by the US government from doing that, I think the Hell's Angels and their camp followers should be allowed free reign as they go about their evil work.

This man was engaged in a pattern of illegal activity that endangered other people. The police were entitled, and required, to do what was necessary and appropriate to apprehend him.

If he didn't want people busting into his house at 5:10 a.m. and endangering his children, he had some pretty obvious choices he could have made. Right up to and including not shooting that cop.

Interestingly, if he had been correct in his suspicions and the "home invaders" were gang rivals (does someone think he thought they were random burglars?), and he'd shot and killed one of them, his son might very well be dead now. That many people in his house, him with his handgun -- who's going to come out on top?


The big problem with the trial is that the jury heard NO EVIDENCE about his criminal activities. The jury had no clue about who he might have thought was busting into his house. The jury was left to think he must have thought it was burglars. No wonder the jury was as confused as it obviously was.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. What's with the attitude?

My point about the reporters is if the cops make a statement and say we found a variety of drugs in the house, a good reporter should ask what kind. Clearly the articles you posted referenced what drugs were found, so I found the original reporting sloppy. Which you seemed to acknowledge when you said excuse the source.

You wrote, "Sure, and when you have somebody firing a gun at you in the dark, you feel free to be very careful to stand still and figure out where the shots are coming from before you fire back."

Actually the tactically correct procedure would be to move to a position of cover until you could identify a target not just shoot randomly. That demonstrates incredibly poor training on behalf of these officers. You talk about gun safety all the time and knowing what you are shooting at is a tenet of safe shooting in every training class I have ever taken or heard of.

I agree with you this guy is scum. He was breaking the law and killed a cop. I don't know much about your court system but it seems that the warrant was illegal. The cops made mistakes in this case and those mistakes contributed to the death of one of their own. It is tragic, the officer that got killed probably had nothing to do with the illegal warrant. That doesn't change the fact that this guy is a scumbag. I have lots of friends who are officers but no knock warrants are largely a recipe for disaster.


David

[iverglas]

25. aaaaargh

Which you seemed to acknowledge when you said excuse the source.

The source was the National Post -- Canada's rightest wing national media outlet. Right-wing, dishonest piece of shit.

But in this case, the facts were widely available, my google news search just happened to find the ones I was looking for conveniently assembled in a Post article. I used that source and asked for it to be excused, since in this case the nature of the source wasn't an issue, although in other instances it is very much an issue.


My point about the reporters is if the cops make a statement and say we found a variety of drugs in the house, a good reporter should ask what kind.

That isn't a point, Dave. It's a hoked up bit of silliness. Cops do not say they "found a variety of drugs" and mean aspirin and penicillin. Reporters do not mindlessly convey statements from police without knowing what they mean. Not where I'm at. Not even at the National Post. Your attempt to make a case for this is just silliness.


Actually the tactically correct procedure would be to move to a position of cover until you could identify a target not just shoot randomly. That demonstrates incredibly poor training on behalf of these officers.

Well, so sez you. The cops made a mistake -- they fired at where THEY THOUGHT the shots had come from, we are told. You're calling this "random". There is a difference between making a mistake and doing something randomly. If I had the blueprints for the house in question, we could examine them. Since we don't, and neither of us was there, I'll go with a mistake, and think it possible that the mistake was not unreasonable.

It could have been a little difficult to "move to a position of cover" when standing in the second-floor hallway of a house with multiple doors opening off it. Which door has the lady, and which has the tiger?


I don't know much about your court system but it seems that the warrant was illegal.

Not my impression. It was illegally executed -- it was executed 50 minutes before 6:00 a.m., the time that is allowed if no exception is made in the warrant for a nighttime search.

I might point out that the police and courts are generally being extreeeemely careful in the biker gang trials in Quebec (as I said, I assume this case was part of the whole huge biker gang investigation) and that striking down a warrant may have seemed wiser than risking reversal on appeal.


The cops made mistakes in this case and those mistakes contributed to the death of one of their own.

Really? You think that if they had executed the warrant at 6:01 a.m., the whole thing would have gone completely differently?

Of course it would have. They would have been in an alternate time line. Maybe the guy would have killed TWO cops; who knows?


I have lots of friends who are officers but no knock warrants are largely a recipe for disaster.

Well, actually, they're a recipe for getting the evidence that is needed to prove the charges for the things that many people are actually guilty from. Obviously you know that the reason for them is to avert having someone on the premises destroy evidence. Speaking of which ... I'm still trying to figure out how the handgun used to kill the cop got into the toilet ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

29. Iverglas I'm seeing a new side of you.

You must be a prosecutor or the equivalent up there. The type of drugs seized may not matter to you, it does to me. I get worried anytime I hear the cops seized an arsenal of weapons and a variety of drugs. I often find out later that they seized prescription meds and 3 rifles and 2 shotguns. I'm glad you acknowledged the cops made a mistake in shooting into the childs room. It wouldn't have mattered if they had blueprints they shouldn't be firing into a room they can't see in to. They shouldn't be firing at all if they haven't clearly identified a target posing a threat. My guess on the gun in the toilet is that he was standing in the bathroom and dropped the pistol once he figured out they were cops and it dropped into the toilet, although he may have been stupid enough to try and flush it. Given his line of work I wouldn't put it past him.

David

[iverglas]

30. aaaaarrrrghhhhh

I get worried anytime I hear the cops seized ... a variety of drugs. I often find out later that they seized prescription meds ... .

Where on earth do you hear such bizarre things???

Why would cops report finding prescription drugs (for which there were prescriptions, of course)? Why on earth would a journalist repeat such a meaningless statement? When exactly have you heard this and found this out, and in what circumstances?


My guess on the gun in the toilet is that he was standing in the bathroom and dropped the pistol once he figured out they were cops and it dropped into the toilet, although he may have been stupid enough to try and flush it.

Your guess is such utter nonsense that it doesn't even qualify as a guess.

He was standing in the hall doorway of his bedroom when he shot the cop point blank in the face. He wasn't in the bathroom. He knew the "home invaders" were cops immediately.

MY guess is that in the brief confusion following the shooting either he ran to the bathroom and dumped the gun or he handed it off to his wife who did that.

And that's just the kind of thing that discredits a claim of self-defence, it seems to me. Trying to conceal the weapon used to shoot in self-defence, that's just, hm, odd.

Oh, unless the cops put it there ... lalala ...


It wouldn't have mattered if they had blueprints they shouldn't be firing into a room they can't see in to.

Like I said. When someone is SHOOTING AT YOU in close quarters, you feel free to take a survey before taking action.

Funny how the real, big "MISTAKE" was made by the guy who SHOT FIRST without knowing who HIS target was ... if we believe him ...


Just fyi, the very tiny bit of criminal work I ever did (associated with political demonstrations) was defence side. Just as the landlord-tenant work I did was tenant side, and the immigration/refugee work I did was immigrant/refugee side ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. aaaaaaaargh......aaaaaargh

I have seen cases where cops relying on bad informants raided houses and found reportedly large quantities of hydrocodone and an arsenal of weapons. Turns out the hydrocodone was prescribed for a chronic pain condition and the guns were all legal and no criminal activity was taking place. Just someone who go arrested deciding to give the police some bad information, maybe for revenge, maybe to try and cut a deal. Cops routinely bust in the wrong house in the US. In Atalanta, they shot and killed an 90 year old woman last year after getting the address wrong. Another officer was killed here when he executed a search warrant on the wrong house, the man who shot the officer was acquitted when the jury believed him when he said the officers never announced they were the police.

You wrote, "Like I said. When someone is SHOOTING AT YOU in close quarters, you feel free to take a survey before taking action.

Funny how the real, big "MISTAKE" was made by the guy who SHOT FIRST without knowing who HIS target was ... if we believe him ..."

That's probably the same argument his defense attorney made, someone broke into his house with guns drawn it was close quarters he had to take action to protect his family. Apparently the jury bought it.

We have tried and convicted soldiers in Iraq for killing innocent people in close quarters after someone shot at them. I would expect the police in Canada to be able to show as much restraint as 19 and 20 year old American soldiers.

oh and by the way aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh.

David

[iverglas]

32. just keep on saying it now

Apparently the jury bought it.

You know by now that there is no factual basis for that statement. You cannot help by now but know that there is no factual basis for your statement. All you know is that the jury returned a verdict of "not guilty", and that in order to return that verdict they only needed REASONABLE DOUBT on the question of whether he feared for his life.

THE JURY DID NOT HAVE TO *BUY* ANYTHING, AND YOU HAVE NO BASIS FOR STATING THAT IT DID.

But say it again.

Why people want to make themselves look like fools or falsehood speakers, I just never can figure out. But that's just me.


By the way, your vague tale of guns and drugs did not offer any basis for thinking that what was reported in this case was anything other than what it was -- prohibited substances.

And as I recall, the 90-yr-old woman who was shot and killed did exactly what the asshole in this story did -- SHE SHOT FIRST. She just wasn't as lucky as the asshole in our tale here.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

33. The jury bought his story enough to have reasonable doubt.

I'm not saying he's innocent, the jury didn't say he was innocent. Neither was OJ. I can't believe you are justifying the police shooting of a 90 year old woman. They kicked in her door at the wrong house, she clearly wouldn't have shot, if they had announced themselves as police, she had nothing to hide. They shoot and kill her and she's an asshole. You are a piece of work.

David

[iverglas]

34. "They shoot and kill her and she's an asshole."

Hey, bub. If you say so. I just said she was dead, myself.


The jury bought his story enough to have reasonable doubt.

Don't be thinking any more about going to law school, 'k? It wouldn't work.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

35. Are you saying he got convicted?

The jury believed enough of his story to find reasonable doubt. What's so hard to understand? If you got through law school then everyone's got a chance Iverglas. You clearly compared the 90 year old woman to the asshole in your story. I guess I should have just made the observation that you thought the guy got lucky enough to kill a cop, but I don't think you meant that.

David

[iverglas]

36. I don't know what's so hard to understand. Really I don't.

The jury believed enough of his story to find reasonable doubt.

You don't know that, and yet you keep saying it.

The jury found that it had reasonable doubt as to whether he had committed the offence, i.e. intended to kill someone without justification or excuse.

The jury did not have to believe one single shred of his story in order to come to the conclusion that there was reasonable doubt on that point.

If he had NOT TESTIFIED AT ALL, the jury could have had reasonable doubt. Surely you understand that.

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1997/1997rcs3-320/1997rcs3-320.html

Per Lamer C.J. and Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.: A jury must be provided with an explanation of the expression “reasonable doubt”. This expression, which is composed of words commonly used in everyday speech, has a specific meaning in the legal context. The trial judge must explain to the jury that the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is inextricably intertwined with the presumption of innocence, the basic premise which is fundamental to all criminal trials, and that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution throughout the trial and never shifts to the accused. The jury should be instructed that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or frivolous doubt, nor is it based upon sympathy or prejudice. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense which must logically be derived from the evidence or absence of evidence. While more is required than proof that the accused is probably guilty, a reasonable doubt does not involve proof to an absolute certainty. Such a standard of proof is impossibly high. Certain references to the required standard of proof should be avoided. A reasonable doubt should not be described as an ordinary expression which has no special meaning in the criminal law context, and jurors should not be invited to apply to the determination of guilt in a criminal trial the same standard of proof that they would apply to the decisions they are required to make in their everyday lives, or even to the most important of these decisions. Nor is it helpful to describe proof beyond a reasonable doubt simply as proof to a “moral certainty”. As well, the word “doubt” should not be qualified other than by way of the adjective “reasonable”. To instruct a jury that a “reasonable doubt” is a “haunting” doubt, a “substantial” doubt or a “serious” doubt may have the effect of misleading the jury. Lastly, it is only after proper instructions have been given as to the meaning of the expression “beyond a reasonable doubt” that jurors may be advised that they can convict if they are “certain” or “sure” that the accused is guilty. ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. In this case though......

He did testify as did the police officers. His story was contradictory to the officers, so someone on the jury had to believe at least part of his story. Otherwise they would have believed that he knew they were cops and shot anyway. Since very few of the facts are in dispute it seems like the verdict hinged on the 2 different stories. Are juries allowed to be interviewed after the fact in Canada? I guess they could tell us.

David

[iverglas]

38. IN THIS CASE THEY ACQUITTED HIM

And that is ALL WE KNOW. It is ALL WE KNOW. We DO NOT KNOW WHY they acquitted him. We WILL NEVER KNOW WHY they acquitted him. For the love of fucking fuck, how difficult is that to understand?????


omeone on the jury had to believe at least part of his story.

NO.

NO ONE HAD TO BELIEVE ANYTHING HE SAID.

The jury had to agree that they had A REASONABLE DOUBT as to whether he intended to kill the cop without justification or excuse.

They could have thought: HE IS LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH. But they were not CERTAIN that he was lying.

They had to be CERTAIN, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, that he was lying. If they felt that there was some reasonable possibility that he was not lying, they were REQUIRED to acquit him.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN that anyone on the jury believed anything he said.

The jury simply cannot KNOW whether someone is lying, in a case like this. If he had said "the earth is flat", they would have KNOWN he was lying. When someone states what they believed in a particular circumstance, the jury cannot KNOW whether the person is lying.

If they are not convinced BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the person is lying, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO ACQUIT.

Lord fucking jesus.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. To quote you, you can believe that if you want to.

It's simply not plausible to think that the jury heard the cops story, completely believed the cops, listened to the defendants story and didn't believe one shred of it and then acquitted a man, who they thought was a liar and who committed the premeditated murder of a police officer. If you honestly believe that juries act that impartially then I seriously doubt you have spent much time around people much less juries. In the mean time. I'll be praying for you and that anger problem and the officers family.

David

[iverglas]

41. if I want your prayers

I will be sure to let you know. Until then, you may keep them. But hey, you gotta love somebody who uses his prayerfulness to insult someone else, eh? Wot a Christian fellow. Keep it up.

[Tejas]

27. better yet, anti-gunners Rule #4 might work better...

Sure, and when you have somebody firing a gun at you in the dark, you feel free to be very careful to stand still and figure out where the shots are coming from before you fire back.


Retreat!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

11. Why did the police shoot into the child's bedroom?

[krispos42]

12. Yes, we all know in Canada it is virtually impossible to legally defend yourself with a firearm

We get it. The only time a person legitimately defends themselves with a firearm they get in trouble for storing it in violation of the law.

Anybody who wants to pretend to believe that someone who had BROKEN THE LAW by failing to report the change of the address where his handguns were stored, and who was able to whip out his Ruger and shoot someone entering his home the way he did, was in compliance with those regulations ... well, you can be on any jury I ever face. Please.

Yes, yes, yes, he broke Canada's extremely strict safe-storage laws. The laws that presume public safety and child safety trumps easy access for self defense.

The only "home invaders" this scum thought were breaking into his house were other drug dealing scum.

Yup. And drug-dealing scum, or drug-using scum, breaking into his house is a situation that justifies arming yourself in self-defense. After all, even convicted criminals have the right to defend themselves against violent attacks, right?

Drug dealing scum who is in violation of multiple laws governing firearms shoots cop.

Drug-dealing scum had no criminal convictions or mental-health issues that would have prevented him from owning a gun, even in Canada.

Being in violation of multiple gun laws does not change the fact that the drug-dealing scum's use of deadly force was not justified self-defense. It does mean that after the police detectives get through with the investigation the drug-dealing scum goes to jail for the violations. And any other illegal activities the detectives and crime-scene investigators uncover. Tax evasion, perhaps. Child porn. Whatever.

And it was not known the cop was in fact a cop until after the fact.

DRUG DEALERS ARE ENTITLED TO KEEP HANDGUNS IN THEIR CLOSETS
SO THEY CAN SHOOT OTHER DRUG DEALERS WHO BREAK INTO THEIR HOUSES.

Since this is Canada, nobody is entitled to keep handguns in their closets, loaded or unloaded. Ergo, it is not a true statement regardless of the occupation of the shooter or shootee.

So I guess nobody's going to be in the chorus.

[iverglas]

17. facts not in evidence

And it was not known the cop was in fact a cop until after the fact.

That was the killer's claim.

I don't believe him. You can believe him if you like.

I just don't find it credible that a bunch of cops would batter down the door of a house and make it to the bedroom door without once uttering the word "police", loudly and with a few exclamation marks.

We don't know whether the jury believed him. From the to-ing and fro-ing in the courtroom on the issue, I suspect at least some of the jury did not believe him.

All the jury had to do was find that there was REASONABLE DOUBT on the question of whether he killed in self-defence. If they could not be SURE that he knew he was shooting at a cop, they had to acquit him.

And I think it's pretty obvious that this is what happened.


Drug-dealing scum had no criminal convictions or mental-health issues that would have prevented him from owning a gun, even in Canada.

Sorry -- but have you still failed to grasp how the licensing process works in Canada?

Criminal convictions are not a bar to obtaining a licence, and absence of criminal convictions is not a free pass to obtaining a licence.

This man operated a bar. He apparently had a licence to possess restricted firarms, and had one registered handgun. And three unregistered, i.e. illegally obtained, handguns.

I do very much want to know how he got the licence. I want to know what gun club is approving scum drug traffickers for membership. Oh, hey, maybe he had the handgun before he went into the drug trade, and he was just a bar owner who liked to shoot at targets. Maybe we can believe his statement that he'd only been involved in drug dealing for three years.

Maybe these and other questions will be answered if there is a trial on the firearms charges.


DRUG DEALERS ARE ENTITLED TO KEEP HANDGUNS IN THEIR CLOSETS
SO THEY CAN SHOOT OTHER DRUG DEALERS WHO BREAK INTO THEIR HOUSES.
Since this is Canada, nobody is entitled to keep handguns in their closets, loaded or unloaded. Ergo, it is not a true statement regardless of the occupation of the shooter or shootee.

My dear, we're talking about fundamental human inalienable rights, aren't we? The right to self-defence being one? Aren't drug dealers entitled to exercise them? Isn't that what you just said? --

Yup. And drug-dealing scum, or drug-using scum, breaking into his house is a situation that justifies arming yourself in self-defense. After all, even convicted criminals have the right to defend themselves against violent attacks, right?

Yup. Engage in a course of criminal activity that makes it likely that you will be the target of violence, and keep loaded handguns in your closet just in case.

Yup. A society that permits this is just the kind of society I want to live in. Fortunately, I don't.

[krispos42]

19. A surprisingly short post from you

that either means you're in a hurry or I didn't give you a lot to argue about... :-)

That was the killer's claim.

I don't believe him. You can believe him if you like.

I just don't find it credible that a bunch of cops would batter down the door of a house and make it to the bedroom door without once uttering the word "police", loudly and with a few exclamation marks.

Well, yes, that was the man's claim. The evidence presented was apparantly legit, otherwise the judge (magistrate?) would have squashed it, yes?

Before we, you and I, can really do more than express theory about whether or not it was heard by the defendent we need to know facts that were not present in the article. For example, were flash-bang grenades used? Such a concussion to the eardrum results in temporary hearing loss. I know this because I have fired guns with unprotected hearing while hunting, and that first shot negatively affects your hearing.

Did the police yell "Police, this is a raid!" right before smashing in the door with the battering ram, or right after? Both? Neither? What woke the household members up, the yelling or the smashing? What could have been heard after they woke up?

Did the police continue to yell as they moved through the house? I watch "Cops" and similar shows on a regular basis, and I have notices that after the initial entry, they tend to be quiet and move quickly, only yelling "Police!" when they see somebody that is not an immediate threat.

Was the officer's dress, his uniform and body armor, visible? Since tactical doctrine usually means very dark clothing, probably not. How about his badge or the word "POLICE" stitched on his clothing? Did the officer have a flashlight? Did he blind the guy, preventing him from seeing anything?

:shrug: Dunno. Presumebly such points were brought up at the trial.

Criminal convictions are not a bar to obtaining a licence, and absence of criminal convictions is not a free pass to obtaining a licence.

Given that "criminal conviction" encompasses a very broad range of activities it is understandable that it takes a certain kind of conviction to have the priviledge of a licence removed. I was thinking that a drug-dealing criminal conviction would be one of them, though of course that infomation is your area of expertise, not mine.

Yup. Engage in a course of criminal activity that makes it likely that you will be the target of violence, and keep loaded handguns in your closet just in case.

Yup. A society that permits this is just the kind of society I want to live in. Fortunately, I don't.

You society does not permit either of the two aforementioned activities. It does, however permit the use of lethal force in legitimate self-defense, which is what this trial was about. Since he was not in process of committing a crime that makes self-defense illegitimate, like, say, robbing a gas station, the case can be made, and apparantly has been successfully made, for a justifiable homicide. The issue is not that he acted in self-defense, the issue is that he illegally possessed and stored the weapons used in that defense.

[iverglas]

21. in a hurry

Still am.


Well, yes, that was the man's claim. The evidence presented was apparantly legit, otherwise the judge (magistrate?) would have squashed it, yes?

I can't begin to fathom what that means.

An accused is entitled to make his defence -- which includes calling evidence to support a claim of self-defence to justify the act with which he is charged.

His statements as to his knowledge, belief, etc., are evidence. Whether his statements are credible is a matter for the jury to decide. The judge should instruct the jury on assessing credibility. But a judge may most definitely not prevent an accused from saying whatever s/he wants in his/her own defence, subject to cross-examination by the prosecution to attempt to undermine its credibility.

Evidence is not either "legit" or not "legit". It is either admissible under the rules of evidence, or it is not admissible. The testimony of people as to what they saw or believed will be heard and considered by the trier of facts, judge or jury as the case may be, jury in this case.

If the jury had decided that his statement about what he believed was completely non-credible -- say the police reported that they had been carrying a billboard saying "police" and shouting "police" at the top of their lungs, and had videotaped the whole thing and the tape showed that what the accused was saying was total bunk -- then they could have convicted him. The jury doesn't have to believe what an accused says. The jury really could perfectly well have believed what the police said, but still found, according to the rules governing reasonable doubt, that they had to acquit. Their personal belief would be no more relevant than yours or mine.

The finding they made in this case does NOT mean they found him credible. It means they had REASONABLE DOUBT. They might have believed every word he said, but they DID NOT have to believe him in order to acquit him.


Many of your other questions can be answered by reading the various articles I've posted.


Given that "criminal conviction" encompasses a very broad range of activities it is understandable that it takes a certain kind of conviction to have the priviledge of a licence removed. I was thinking that a drug-dealing criminal conviction would be one of them, though of course that infomation is your area of expertise, not mine.

NO criminal conviction is a bar to obtaining a firearms licence in Canada. Aaaargh. Drug and weapons offences are things that the cihef firearms officer is directed to *consider*. They are not a bar!!

But in this case, he had no convictions that I know of. There was a lengthy and complex investigation underway in which he was a target. I would be very surprised if it was not connected with the Hell's Angels investigations.

And speaking of which, I'm having to finish up something that's peripherally connected with that myself, so must run.


Since he was not in process of committing a crime that makes self-defense illegitimate, like, say, robbing a gas station, the case can be made, and apparantly has been successfully made, for a justifiable homicide.

Yes, as I was saying ... engaging in an (admitted) three-year course of conduct consisting of trafficking in drugs, including having illegal drugs and firearms in his home, doesn't mean he shouldn't have access to firearms to ward off whatever harm someone might want to do to him in connection with that conduct ...

Yeesh.

We don't have "justifiable homicide" up here. We have the justification/excuse of self-defence which canbe used to raise reasonable doubt as to the essential element of intent in a homicide case, and will, if successful, result in a "not guilty" verdict / acquittal.

The jury DOES NOT find that a homicide was justified or justifiable. It finds that the prosecution has failed to make out its case of culpable homicide.

[Tejas]

20. alas,

I just don't find it credible that a bunch of cops would batter down the door of a house and make it to the bedroom door without once uttering the word "police", loudly and with a few exclamation marks.

You watch too much television.

[iverglas]

22. that you, Yorick?

Actually, the accused and his wife admitted hearing "police!!" after he fired the gun.

I guess I just don't think cops are generally stupid enough to batter someone's door down without mentioning who they are. But you feel free.

[Tejas]

28. You and your moot points

"Actually, the accused and his wife admitted hearing "police!!" after he fired the gun."

Your point? Oh, okay, all the more evidence to aquit.


"I guess I just don't think cops are generally stupid enough to batter someone's door down without mentioning who they are. But you feel free."

Generally no, at least not in this country, but for you to suggest it never happens..........

[pipoman]

26. It doesn't sound like it

Maybe these and other questions will be answered if there is a trial on the firearms charges.

Unless they refile or appeal or there is still a pending weapons charge on the third unregistered weapon found. In the US if the warrant was found to be faulty, likely none of the seized evidence would be admissible.

Two weapons-related charges were also dropped earlier this week.

The rest is really a shame. In many jurisdictions in the US the police have a video camera at all dynamic entries for this very reason..it seems a wise and simple move which would nix claims of failure to identify themselves on a raid.