Hacker News Reader

Comment by gadders | Hacker News Reader

The thing they were found not guilty of? https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/anthony-olienick-chri...

> But Anthony Olienick and Chris Carbert were both convicted on other charges of mischief and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. Olienick was also convicted of possessing a pipe bomb.

> "It was an overcharge to begin with," Beyak said.

> He said if police tried to storm the barricade, he would "slit their throats."

So a few of them had guns then?

They won't tell you this because the patchwork of regulations makes it literally impossible to do so legally but a very large minority, perhaps brushing up to scant majority depending on where you measure, of truckers in North America pack heat. They're in and out of all sorts of sketchy places all the time, never have local knowledge and would be insanely easy pickings for various types of career criminals if they (as a class of people) were not a risky target.

Can't speak for Canada, but this is definitely true in the US. I have no data other than my girlfriends dad (who I spent a lot of time with) was a trucker who refused to carry (and was a big fan of Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11, mentioned so you know his bias) who got into a lot of debates with his coworkers about it. In the western US where the gun laws are more friendly, "damn near everyone" kept at least a pistol. At one point he actually started carrying as well after getting (wrongly, he claims :-D) roughed up by a pimp at a remote truck stop.

Fortunate for him, he benefit from all his coworkers having a pu lic reputation for packing heat even though he didn't approve of it himself. The criminals who might otherwise try to take advantage of him wouldn't know that he was unarmed, but would be wary of truckers in general.

Except he was victimized anyway, so the NRA talking point that criminals will rethink their ways based on an imagined firearm remains fantasy.

I think the implication was that he may have had some hand (or other body part) in the creation of that situation. It wasn't just some criminals saying "oh, a trucker, this will be easy money".

Not sure that distinction matters? In the “guns prevent violence” framing, the pander should have been afraid of the alleged john being armed, and not attempted physical violence.

You could be right, but it could also be that it was common knowledge that he was anti-gun because he never was shy of sharing his opinion, and it's very common for the same truckers to do the same routes repeatedly. I don't think there's enough evidence either way in this anecdote to make any reasonable conclusions.

If you think criminals don't consider the risk of being shot when picking their targets, I'm afraid it is you who is fantasizing. Robberies aren't "crimes of passion" where emotions overrule normal common sense.

Yet the guy was still assaulted, despite truckers being a prime demographic for packing heat.

I don’t think you have any sources to back that up.

I don't know about the details of this prosecution, but having served on juries, it is important to remember than "not guilty" is a finding that the government didn't meet the burden of proof, not necessarily a finding of actual innocence. That article would certainly suggest that they were prepared for violence, even if acquitted on the most serious charge.

It certainly is a finding of innocence when the presumption is innocent until proven guilty.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com