Mob hit or annoyed client?

[Barrister]

Co-incidences do happen sometimes.

I had a file where the bad guys would do a smash-and-grab into a mall cell-phone kiosk in the morning before the stores had opened.  They were stopped by a bunch of RCMP officers (and this is Edmonton, where RCMP don't have jurisdiction) were sitting having breakfast, saw them running, and tackled them.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

If the cops expected something maybe the lawyer had a vest? How bulky are they in real life versus movies?

alternatively the lawyer had no heart...

[Barrister]

Sounds like police were in fact following the shooter, now ID'd as Grayson Delong.

http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/halton-police-followed-shooting-suspect-to-the-annex-before-lawyer-was-shot-sources-say-1.3081425

[Berkut]

In Florida he would be acquitted.

[viper37]

Co-incidences do happen sometimes.

I had a file where the bad guys would do a smash-and-grab into a mall cell-phone kiosk in the morning before the stores had opened.  They were stopped by a bunch of RCMP officers (and this is Edmonton, where RCMP don't have jurisdiction) were sitting having breakfast, saw them running, and tackled them.

I remember the Hilton brothers, a family of boxers.  Two of them decided to rob a Dunkin Donut at gunpoint.  Back in the days, Dunkin Donut was famed to be a resting spot for cops...

[grumbler]

In Florida he would be acquitted.

Because he was Standing His Ground (and it was his ground that was running to the getaway car).

[Malthus]

Sounds like police were in fact following the shooter, now ID'd as Grayson Delong.

http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/halton-police-followed-shooting-suspect-to-the-annex-before-lawyer-was-shot-sources-say-1.3081425

Heh, not sure if it is the same "Grayson Delong" or not, but there are a handful of searchable appeal cases in which that name appears. The latest is from 2008, R. v. Delong, [2008] O.J. No. 2566 (Ont.C.A), and it merely states as follows:

On appeal from conviction and sentence by Justice Bruce J. Young of the Ontario Court of Justice dated September 29, 2006


APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT


[1]               The trial judge rejected the appellant's version of events and in particular rejected the position of the defence that the appellant was merely defending himself from what he claimed was unnecessary force. The only question then was whether the appellant caused unnecessary suffering to the dog. In our view, there was an evidentiary basis for the trial judge's finding in that the appellant choked the dog.

[2]               Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Well, he lost my sympathy (if it is the same guy).