doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Digweed Attacked

This is sad. It's referred to as an 'accident' by all, including yourself, but the high court judge equates it to any other criminal use of a firearm. Maybe, the legal outcome should be the same, but the activism might be reserved for off duty hours.

You've mentioned the release of premeditated murderers in the past based on native ethnicity. If the punishment should fit the crime, this fellow easily paid many times over, and is shackled with a life sentence in his mind and heart. Why do I think it's ideological activism, he was given a four year sentence.

Something no one has commented on also is that having a weapon of some discription ready case of intruders, can become a weapon to be used against you by an intruder. I have heard of instances of this happening. I have also heard of intruders using this as a defence in court, as they said they were in fear of their life !

craigd

Cry me a river. If he wasn't such an idiot he wouldn't be in the situation he is in. Would you feel differently if one of your kids caught one of his stray rounds between the eyes?

Craig, Chronicle-Herald reports today, in part, under three-column head "Sympathetic judge jails N.S. man who shot son":

"Brian Church, Dockrill's lawyer, argued that he should not face the mandatory sentence because he's already living in 'a prison of grief.'"

"Crown attorney Rick Woodburn, who was seeking a five- to seven-year sentence, said outside the court that it was wrong to refer to the matter as an accidental shooting, as Dockrill intended to shoot someone.

"He meant to kill a home invader and, in turn, killed his son.That's tragic," he said. "When someone has a drug operation going on inside a house and they want to protect it, arming yourself and shooting invaders is not self-defence and it is not an accident."

Let's see. Father and son drug dealing. Father accidentally shoots son thinking he's the home invader. If prosecuted in Georgia, he would be potentially facing felony murder and mandatory life with parole eligibility after serving 30 years, especially if he was actively engaged with a drug transaction at the time. If not, maybe some wiggle room. If a grand jury saw fit to indict as felony murder, perhaps a sympathetic prosecutor (oxymoron) would charge bargain to voluntary or involuntary manslaughter and allow the judge to sentence and avoid mandatory life. However, the discretion to charge bargain is solely with the DA and not the judge. Gil

This is the thought that I suspected was underlying. It wasn't about having the right mental state to pull the trigger, then face the music. The original point was made about gun crimes being taken seriously up in Canada. I'm certain some would argue that recreational drug use is a victimless crime.

I still said maybe the sentence was appropriate, but the extraneous high court comments are questionable. I agree that any father that would 'accidentally' shoot a son won't get my sympathy either. Maybe the best sentence would've been a ricochet that took out the shooter.

I just think examples are chosen for a reason, not for the informational public service.

After reading an account like this, I am thankful every day that I live in the United States and in a State with the castle doctrine. If someone enters my house uninvited I can legally do whatever I believe is necessary to protect myself and my family.
God Bless America!
Jim

This would, or should, be true most anyplace within the U.S., and I agree completely. But as with much of what King Brown posts here, it is always best to verify his claims because he tends to leave out a lot of information that might not support his anti-2nd Amendment positions.

First off, it appears that the father was not actively working with the son in dealing drugs out of his home. There was testimony that perhaps he knew about it and tolerated it, yet he was not convicted of either drug use, possession, or dealing. Insofar as I can tell, the father was never even charged with those crimes, And there is no evidence that the father was told by his son, who gave him the .30-30 rifle only a week before, that there was an imminent home invasion due to his drug dealing activities.

I'm not excusing the father's actions. He was clearly negligent and reckless. Canada's strict gun laws didn't do anything to prevent this tragedy. If anything, Canada's laws and legal system may have permitted it to happen, because there were previous break-ins at the home, and at one point, Police had seized 17,000 grams of marijauna. Therefore, the Canadian justice and legal system had apparently sloughed off the opportunity to stop the drug dealing and put the son in jail for felony level drug dealing. So who is really responsible for this tragedy... guns, a reckless father who fired blindly after being awakened by a home invasion and being physically attacked, or a Liberal Legal Justice System that treated drug dealing with little more than a hand slap?

Considering the untold parts of the story, it seems likely that the "Wild West" U.S. justice and legal system would have dealt with this situation more harshly, and in a manner that may have prevented the ultimate tragic shooting. The son was obviously a felon by U.S. standards. Yet he had drugs, scales and drug dealing paraphernalia, a shotgun, and other offensive weapons, and should not have even been able to purchase that rifle.

Here's a few links to stories with the parts King left out:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1281261-father-negligent-in-son%E2%80%99s-shooting-death-jury-finds

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1345024-sympathetic-judge-jails-n.s.-man-who-shot-son-%E2%80%98i-truly-feel-terrible-for-you%E2%80%99

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nati...rticle28934902/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/michael-dockrill-sentencing-1.3465246

I can't don't know why the Chronicle Herald links won't work. You'll have to copy and paste them into your browser if you'd like to read more of the story.