A British Columbia man convicted of using a gun during a home invasion, even though the gun was actually in his car during the crime, has lost his appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.I can see getting Steele on a threat charge. But "use"?
It's hard to feel any sympathy for the lowlife who lost his appeal, but the reasoning applied by Justice Fish (and if that doesn't sound like the title of an "Adult Swim" cartoon about a team of super groupers, nothing does) really stretches credibility--and takes the law in a dangerous direction for someone who may say they have a gun when in a prohibited area to protect themselves.
wow, great, once we roll together with Canada and Mexico this kind of nonsense will be with us forever.
ReplyDeleteGoing by the fish, every only one is terrorizing folks and should face patriot act prosecution.
“The use of a firearm in the commission of a crime exacerbates its terrorizing effects, whether the firearm is real or a mere imitation,” Justice Morris Fish wrote in upholding Andre Omar Steele’s 2005 conviction. “Indeed, they share that very purpose.”