......sigh
Printable View
......sigh
Since our resident ambulance chaser has decided to continue with his nonsense I’m going to bow out, haven’t got it in me to have to keep explaining things to him.
I see that there is a crowdsourcing campaign page set up at TD to help Mr. Edouard Maurice pay his legal fees..so if you have a few $$ to spare please contribute.
http://www.660news.com/2018/03/02/le...hooting-thief/
I’m sure it will do well as there are a lot of folks that see this is a travesty, as I do….
I’ll be back when there is progress in the case, I think it’s March 9th he’ll be in front of a judge.
One problem the farmers and other rural dwellers have is police response time. More often than not by the time a cruiser shows up the crime has occurred. This is also the case with the school shootings. By the time the swat teams arrive the carnage has happened. I think the school's entry system could be improved but a rural farm not so much. Even when my kids were in grade school the doors were locked all day and you had to introduce yourself and reason for being there before you were buzzed in. Not sure that setup would stop an armed madman but it could be built to do so without having 62 yr old Mrs Linton the KG teacher packing a Glock.
as for the farmers being able to defend themselves with a firearm, if the farmer suspected the crooks were armed then I say go for it. Unfortunately I think the farmer would be arrested and financially ruined for doing so. As for the baseball bat thing, my buddy the senior cop says doing so without a clear and provable history of using that bat for sports shows you were predisposed to use it as a weapon and it will be seen and used in the criminals defence.
You have the authority to arrest someone committing a criminal offence in relation to your property. You are also protected from civil and criminal repercussions if you use only the force necessary to make the arrest. Firing shots or even pointing a firearm is in excess and will likely result in charges. The police don’t even have the right to do those things, unless there is other circumstances, like the subject being armed or the belief he/she is armed.
I’ll wait on this one to find out exactly what transpired, before I donate.
My concern about the castle doctrine is that it promotes the use of lethal force in the protection of property. I'm not sure I would value a stack of CD's in a vehicle higher than human life. One may advocate in using a weapon to frighten off an intruder but, as we've seen, the worst outcome can happen
Thanks RI. Your last post made the most sense. That's why some will disagree. 'Use only the force necessary'. Works for me. SM, the problem is some people feel their , 'stuff ' , is more valuable than another persons life, and do not like when the courts tell them it is not so.
My sentiments exactly with regard to vehicle thefts or thefts from out buildings and garages,however,once a crook enters a dwelling without regard for persons inside the residence,all bets are off. That's a special kind of dangerous criminal that would commit such a crime and the Courts in Canada deem that type of crime as a "home invasion" of a particularly grievous nature where,should a homeowner fear for their lives or of their families,the Criminal Code allows for extenuating circumstance as a defense to the use of deadly force. Blanket statements like "firearms can not be used for self defense" are very disingenuous, incorrect and deliberately obtuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Menard
Jails have their own set of rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Jack
What happens if the poor guy is a deaf mute. Shame on you,shame on you,No Justice No Peace, deaf lives matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
In my opinion, he becomes the loser!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
You can come up with so many what if's that it becomes boring and ridiculous.