[chemgear]

Originally Posted by MegaErtz

I remember this story well. A hockey player who was coached by Patrick Roy in the QMJHL ended up becoming the captain of the MRU Cougars. I think he was 26 when he got drunk at a party, ate some mushrooms, then broke into a random house that happened to be occupied by a prof from MRU. He broke through a glass door and beat the woman half to deal with a broom handle.

I lived in Calgary for most of my life and never understood the American fascination with guns. I'm the last guy who would ever own a gun. I'll tell you what though, a guy like this breaking into my house and beating a senior with a broom handle and then being found not guilty because he was too drunk and high to be held responsible for his actions makes the justice system look like a joke. How could anyone argue against the case for having a firearm for protection when this kind of thing is allowed to go unpunished?

Going to see this used to whole lot to excuse raping women and drunk drivers killing people.

From the article:


Kerri Froc, associate professor of law at the University of New Brunswick, offered a different perspective.

The problem is, Froc said, that it’s unclear what that will actually mean.

For example, she cited court case data from 1994 until the present to illustrate dozens of criminal defendants have still tried to use the defence — including 35 cases involving sexual assault.

In 80 of the 86 cases that she and research co-author Elizabeth Sheehy tracked, the defendants were male while the victims were overwhelmingly female.

It’s a defence that’s mainly brought forward by men to excuse violence against women,” Froc said.

And while the trilogy of cases the court ruled on involved the use of drugs, Froc said the door is not closed for defendants in cases of intoxication by alcohol could try to use it as well.