Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Alberta man who shot thief awaiting verdict ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    The RCMP ...

    Originally posted by Snowshoveler View Post
    Most in Western Canada haven't much problems with criminals being shot to stop their crimes especially with rural people like in this case the Mounties haven't been helped financially much until this budget by the Alberta government to combat rural crimes I hope it helps but hardly nobody around here is going to be upset if another criminal robbing a farmer gets shot considering the extremely high crime rate going on now.
    ... are a hot mess when it comes to alot of things; they're comparatively under paid, and under equipped, they're 10 years behind the major Cdn police services. Their Commissioner was charged under the Labour Code following the shooting death of 3 officers, and 2 seriously wounded, by an active shooter with a rifle in Moncton NB in 2014; and this after Mayerthorpe. They had no long guns, their radios were on different channels, and they lacked training, a dog's breakfast, yet they responded and did their best.

    The RCMP tried to justify themselves, were fined $550,000 earlier this year. Technically, the Provinces who have contracts with the RCMP for General Policing, have to pay the Feds; the provinces get the level of policing that they pay for.

    "I am Groot"
    - Groot

    Comment


    • #17
      Since when is it ok to shoot someone in canada just because they are trespassing on your land. if they assault or attack you yes you can use reasonable force to defend yourself . by that i mean if they attack with a snowball then you can use something similar or slightly better. but you can not use a machine gun to defend yourself against a snowball. you get my point .

      Comment


      • #18
        Why I like the Republic of Texas.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by bill shack View Post
          Since when is it ok to shoot someone in canada just because they are trespassing on your land. if they assault or attack you yes you can use reasonable force to defend yourself . by that i mean if they attack with a snowball then you can use something similar or slightly better. but you can not use a machine gun to defend yourself against a snowball. you get my point .
          So you are in favor of the homeowner having to stand by as the thieves loot his house and home?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Freebird View Post
            So you are in favor of the homeowner having to stand by as the thieves loot his house and home?
            Of course he is, as long it is not his own house .

            Comment


            • #21
              So you are in favor of the homeowner having to stand by as the thieves loot his house

              No of course not , but what about the man that shot a man at his door that had an accident and wanted to use a phone .
              The self-defence provisions of the Criminal Code don't differentiate between firearms and other methods. You're entitled to use deadly force if you reasonably believe (a) that the person you shoot is about to cause death or grievous bodily harm *and* (b) that you don't have any other option.

              As a practical matter, it would seem to me that you should expect your actions in such scenarios as you describe to be closely scrutinized. You don't get to shoot burglars just because they happen to have weapons. If you're in a position to withdraw from the situation, you're obligated to do so. If you've got a gun and he just has a knife, then your entitlement to shoot will only likely kick in when he's charging toward you with knife in hand.

              BTW this is Canada not the states .

              Comment


              • #22
                Does it make a difference if you shoot them coming or going in Canada ?

                I remeber one similar case of a jeweler here, who was robbed, got out his gun and shot the thief in the back as he was running - he faced charges also, can't quite remember how it worked out..

                Edit, found guilty, without punishment apparently.

                http://www.standaard.be/cnt/nflb15112002_002

                Best to shoot them in the face as they come in, if you're going for self defence
                Last edited by Snowygerry; 13 Apr 18, 02:44.
                Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Game.

                Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by bill shack View Post
                  No of course not , but what about the man that shot a man at his door that had an accident and wanted to use a phone .
                  The self-defence provisions of the Criminal Code don't differentiate between firearms and other methods. You're entitled to use deadly force if you reasonably believe (a) that the person you shoot is about to cause death or grievous bodily harm *and* (b) that you don't have any other option.

                  As a practical matter, it would seem to me that you should expect your actions in such scenarios as you describe to be closely scrutinized. You don't get to shoot burglars just because they happen to have weapons. If you're in a position to withdraw from the situation, you're obligated to do so. If you've got a gun and he just has a knife, then your entitlement to shoot will only likely kick in when he's charging toward you with knife in hand.

                  BTW this is Canada not the states .

                  When you're considering that Humans are Humans, and would seem to have some inalieable right to Life and to have that life safe within the confines of their own home, I don't think that your last sentence bears any weight in the least. Unless you're conceding that Canadians are Untermensch and do not have the same right to life, in which case I will defer to your expertise as a Canadian.

                  So to address the bolded portion of your post:

                  1) If you know burglars have weapons, then you've seen them, and they're close enough to use those weapons, unless you're a Lycanthrope and can see in the dark (as most occupied burglaries occur in the dark).

                  2) If you're in your house, and someone breaks their way in with a weapon, where in the flying F*** do you retreat to? Exterior doors have bolts and are double or triple the strength of interior doors for a reason, that being that they're there to keep people OUT. Interior doors are simply there to hide things you don't want guests to see or to address minor privacy concerns. Do you retreat Outside? Where the threat came from in the first place? Maybe see if they'll give you time to get in your attic and close the disappearing stair?

                  Again, addressing the bolded portion, it is illogical to demand that someone retreat from an actual place of 'safety' into the open where their safety is quite literally non-existent, in order to 'follow the law'. It is also illogical to anyone who has even watched one of those BS History Channel Specials on tactics to demand that someone continue to, in the dark, run further and further back into their home, possibly behind an ineffective barrier after the 'effective barrier' has already been breached, until they have exhausted all possible room for maneuver and are now confronted with a deadly force encounter at mere inches in their damned bathroom or closet.

                  And to address the thing immediately after the bolded post. Obviously you've never been stabbed. I'm what could be called a 'professional gunslinger'. 6 years in the Corps, 9 years on the force, 2 years on SWAT. Professionally, this year alone, I've shot right at 4000 rounds, as estimated by one of the rangemasters when we were talking yesterday. My hands are sore and my shoulder feels like tenderized meat from running a pump shotgun through several rifle courses yesterday (feeding that girl get's really really tiring). Given all of that to put me not as an expert but as a "someone more knowledgeable about guns and the differences in CQB between guns and knives than the average bloke on the street". And I say all that to say this. If I'm in my kitchen and someone tries to break in, I'm not going back to where any of my guns are stored. I'm grabbing a chef knife and going to work. In CQB, against an unarmored target, a knife is just as effective as a gun, and a stab wound can and will kill you just as quickly or more quickly than a gunshot wound. Last guy I dealt with that had been shot....410 shotgun to the stomach at contact distance.....died of a heart attack from the stress, not the trauma itself. Seen people bleed out from stabs, and I've been stabbed, it bloody sucks. So....you wait until the guy is in full lunge before you think about pulling the trigger......make sure to have your address left somewhere so I can send flowers to your missus.
                  Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Or, you could just shoot the bastartd and say the same thing any cop would say..."I saw him holding/going for/pointing (what could have been) a gun/knife/cellphone/hot dog/library card and I was afraid for my life."
                    Here, on the short seacoast, in the nighttime we shoot anyone found in our house who doesn't belong there and who has not been invited.
                    ARRRR! International Talk Like A Pirate Day - September 19th
                    IN MARE IN COELO

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      no righ to stand your ground in canada

                      you are allowed to defend yourself or your home but not allowed to shoot a trespasser unless he is a real threat
                      http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/self-d...-law-1.1229180
                      Your dwelling house seems to be the property you're allowed to protect the most," Nichols says.

                      Under Section 40 of the Criminal Code, which deals with the defence of dwellings, Nichols says, "everyone who is in possession of a dwelling house is justified in using as much force as necessary, to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or entering the dwelling house without lawful authority."

                      Cohen echoes Nichols' sentiments, adding that when it comes to defending themselves, Canadians have the most rights inside their own homes.

                      "This area is less grey than others. The rule of reasonable force still applies, but most judges will give you the benefit of the doubt," Cohen says. " You can use any force you deem necessary to remove the burglar from the house and eliminate the threat to yourself."

                      "You could use a significant amount of force. If you knocked them out and rendered them unconscious, you will probably not be charged with assault," Cohen adds. "But if he was retreating and you hit him in the head with a bat and he was [critically injured], you might have a problem."

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by bill shack View Post
                        you are allowed to defend yourself or your home but not allowed to shoot a trespasser unless he is a real threat
                        http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/self-d...-law-1.1229180
                        Your dwelling house seems to be the property you're allowed to protect the most," Nichols says.

                        Under Section 40 of the Criminal Code, which deals with the defence of dwellings, Nichols says, "everyone who is in possession of a dwelling house is justified in using as much force as necessary, to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or entering the dwelling house without lawful authority."

                        Cohen echoes Nichols' sentiments, adding that when it comes to defending themselves, Canadians have the most rights inside their own homes.

                        "This area is less grey than others. The rule of reasonable force still applies, but most judges will give you the benefit of the doubt," Cohen says. " You can use any force you deem necessary to remove the burglar from the house and eliminate the threat to yourself."

                        "You could use a significant amount of force. If you knocked them out and rendered them unconscious, you will probably not be charged with assault," Cohen adds. "But if he was retreating and you hit him in the head with a bat and he was [critically injured], you might have a problem."

                        There in lies the rub. In most jurisdictions, and I'd assume Canada is this way, you the person using self-defense are held to a higher standard of proof that you were in fact defending yourself. That is, the state assumes you're guilty of assault or another crime against the intruder until you can prove otherwise.

                        Arizona on the other hand places this onus on the state to prove. That is, the assumption here is that you were indeed defending yourself and it's up to the state to make the case and prove you were not.
                        That makes home self-defense a much more viable option in Arizona as you are assured so long as you acted semi-reasonably, the state isn't going to come after you for whatever actions you took against an intruder.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          There in lies the rub. In most jurisdictions, and I'd assume Canada is this way, you the person using self-defense are held to a higher standard of proof that you were in fact defending yourself. That is, the state assumes you're guilty of assault or another crime against the intruder until you can prove otherwise.

                          Arizona on the other hand places this onus on the state to prove. That is, the assumption here is that you were indeed defending yourself and it's up to the state to make the case and prove you were not.
                          That makes home self-defense a much more viable option in Arizona as you are assured so long as you acted semi-reasonably, the state isn't going to come after you for whatever actions you took against an intruder.
                          I agree that is the rub. It appears that Canada, like some other US states and a lot of your more progressive countries, demand that the homeowner (who is already the victim of a Felony BEFORE any sort of force encounter occurs) be at a horrific and possibly terminal disadvantage before they can start actively defending themselves.

                          You're a homeowner. Most likely you're not "Me"....that is to say you're not a 248lb (by the scales this morning) SWAT operator with CQB, weapons retention, and hand to hand training. You're far more likely to be an average person of average strength at best with a weapon you barely know how to use and certainly don't know how to retain from an active disarmament attempt.

                          And some places want you to be at a disadvantage before you can take the fight to the felon who has already knowingly and willfully broken into your home and place of refuge? Bull$hit.

                          Now if the felon is running out the door, no, you can't blast him in the back with buckshot. I agree with that, the threat has abated. But if you turn the corner and find said felon still inside, still doing crime, and at a disadvantage.....well my opinion is that it sucks to be him and you should go to work. If he had the drop on you he wouldn't hesitate to disable or kill you in order to succeed in his crime or make his escape. Bash him over the head, shoot him as he's turning to face you, all of that is perfectly valid.

                          It's not perfectly related, but to give a training example. Years ago my agency did some simulator training on various things. One scenario was an 'active shooter' in an office building. You turn the corner (simulated on the screen) and you see the shooter facing about 100 degrees or so away from you, having fired a round a few seconds ago....and armed with a shotgun (you have a pistol for the simulation). Lots of the officers who went through that training (and I was about halfway through the training day before I did it) started giving commands and ended up in a gun battle.

                          By contrast, I turned the corner, saw the situation, and immediately dumped five rounds, four in the torso and one hit him in the chin as he was turning and falling. The instructor stopped the scenario and asked me why I never said a word. My response: "He already knew what he was getting into when he started. No reason to give him an opportunity to shoot me too"
                          Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
                            Now if the felon is running out the door, no, you can't blast him in the back with buckshot. I agree with that, the threat has abated.
                            That was exactly the case in the incident I posted about above, the homeowner shot the felon (with a strictly speaking illegal, hunting gun), when he had already fled the property and was making his getaway with the goods.

                            In such a case, I cannot reasonably conclude self-defence, but certainly the circumstances should be considered.

                            If this case results in a similar verdict, I'd say the law works as intended.
                            Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Game.

                            Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
                              That was exactly the case in the incident I posted about above, the homeowner shot the felon (with a strictly speaking illegal, hunting gun), when he had already fled the property and was making his getaway with the goods.

                              In such a case, I cannot reasonably conclude self-defence, but certainly the circumstances should be considered.

                              If this case results in a similar verdict, I'd say the law works as intended.
                              It's why I'm a fan of 'castle doctrine' as it simplifies a Lawyer or Veteran Cop level of legalese into plain language.

                              Running away from your house, no threat? Don't Shoot.
                              Inside your house? Shoot.
                              Actively trying to get inside your house? Shoot.
                              Actively trying to get inside your car that you're inside? Shoot.
                              Coming at you with a weapon and you didn't start the fight? Shoot....you're not required to retreat.

                              It's when you start getting into 'force continuums' that things get really screwy for civilians. As part of annual training, cops have a review of the use of force as far as the law and policy is concerned. A civilian who's not a lawyer has probably had a youtube video on it, maybe read a pamphlet at some point or had an instructor spend about 20 minutes on it 10 years ago. Which is why I cringe when the words "appropriate" and such are used in reference to homeowner defense laws.....you need a few years of street experience or a law degree to understand 'appropriate'.

                              I always get a good chuckle when reporters get run through simulated use of force training. There you have probably your best approximation of a non-violent, likely anti-violence, civilian. And every d*mn time they either reenact the Rodney King case or shoot people that didn't need to be shot. Civilians are quite frankly ignorant....and it's not a bad thing, it shows that society is somewhat civilized at least because those ignorant of these things can exist.

                              But civilians need very simple, "Barney Style", instructions when it comes to complex things like use of force and self defense. That's why I like Castle Doctrine, it makes things simple to understand and puts the onus on the State to spend that money and prove them guilty rather than on the homeowner to spend their life savings proving themselves innocent. And that's why I tell non-shooters to buy a good used 12ga pump for home defense, dummy level operation and the length means they're likely to not shoot themselves.
                              Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post
                                Why I like the Republic of Texas.
                                Texas is no longer an independent republic; it's a state just like the other 49.
                                We are not now that strength which in old days
                                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X