Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymoose
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymoose
OMG,Gilroy,I think you just found a new Liberal hunny-bunny. Now,doesn't that just warm the cockles of your heart? :joker:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymoose
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymoose
OMG,Gilroy,I think you just found a new Liberal hunny-bunny. Now,doesn't that just warm the cockles of your heart? :joker:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Well you know what they say? 2 Wrongs, don't make a Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
touché ...LOL...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmoose
Two Chinese people named Mr. and Mrs. Wong got married and had a child.
They asked the nurse if they could see their child. The nurse brought their baby, and it was a white baby.
The two of them said "But that's a white baby, and we are Chinese
and
two Wongs don't make a white."
Funny thing moose. Had two people I went to high school with... Libs all the way. Volunteered for every liberial MP, MPP, Council member and mayor that came along. Got married, and along came the first kid, job, taxes. They are not liberals anymore, but all their EX-friends on welfare are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmoose
Sound familiar?
OMG you are so racist.....the libs are heating the oil and plucking chickens as we speak....:scream:Quote:
Originally Posted by SK33T3R
My Asian friend is laughing.:thumbup:
I have to shake my head when the usual suspects bring up the castle doctrine.
If you had any grounding in legal history, you'd know that castle doctrine, from Blackstone, is what we already have in Canada; the laws in Texas etc. reflect *expanded* castle doctrine.
Promoters of expanded castle doctrine laws like to refer to their ideas as "castle doctrine" to push the idea that they are restoring good old-fashioned common sense and brushing away a few decades of Liberal rot. In fact, it's the opposite: expanded justifications are new & a reversal of long-standing trends.
No, you should not have the right to shoot someone over the theft of property that's insured anyway. Nor will most Canadians support such a right. And yes, I've had stuff stolen. Doesn't give me the right to kill anyone.
Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
As I and most people, have said before, the ONLY reason to shoot someone, is to save a life...period. Any other reason, you should be incarcerated.
Quote:
Canada
According to the Criminal Code of Canada Sections 34 and 35,[45] (which were updated in 2012 with the passage of bill C-26) force, up to and including lethal force may be used in defence of one's life or "peaceably" possessed property or the defence of another's life or "peaceably" possessed property, and is not considered an offence so long as the person believes that force is being used against them in the case of self-defence, that someone is about to or has broken into or damaged property in the case of defence of property, that they are acting in defence of themselves, someone else or "peaceably" possessed property, and that the act is reasonable in the circumstances. The criminal code also lays out the factors in either case that will be used to determine what constitutes "reasonable given the circumstances". The changes made by the government were to clarify the laws involving self-defence and defence of property, and to help legal professionals to apply the law as believed to reflect the values Canadians hold to be acceptable.
And then the common sense of a jury ;Quote:
Assertion of right to house or real property
42 (1) Every one is justified in peaceably entering a dwelling-house or real property by day to take possession of it if he, or a person under whose authority he acts, is lawfully entitled to possession of it.
Marginal note:Assault in case of lawful entry
(2) Where a person
(a) not having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or
(b) not acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right,
assaults a person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shall be deemed to be without justification or provocation.
Marginal note:Trespasser provoking assault
(3) Where a person
(a) having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or
(b) acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right,
assaults any person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shall be deemed to be provoked by the person who is entering.
Seems to me ..with the protection of 'Castle Doctrine' you are justified until they lay charges....with out it, you are charged and then have to prove you're innocent, which is what happened in the two incidents sited. The jury got it right.Quote:
When self-defence cases proceed to trial, juries are often quite sympathetic to homeowners, or even shopowners, who may have used excessive force against an intruder. In 1991, Francois Guerin opened fire on two robbers as they ran away from his wife’s Montreal convenience store, killing one and wounding the other. Police charged Mr. Guerin with criminal negligence causing death and criminal negligence causing injury, but was acquitted by a jury.
Keep shaking your head....
Naive thinking....and not prudent, as you will likely be dead before you realize your life is even in danger...that's why the law allows you to act when they come into your home.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann