Printable View
This is what I was eluding to in my original post. We had something similar years ago. The Crown, for whatever reason pushed the second degree murder charge and refused the manslaughter charge. The results were the same....an acquittal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
Well Mr. Sawbill - straight from google - property offenses - "Canada has 30% more break ins and motor vehicle thefts than the U. S. - so yes I am not only suggesting I am stating - brainwashed American?Quote:
Originally Posted by sawbill
Good post, Blue.
Unfortunately there are people, some of them meeting with Federal Ministers at this very moment, who are trying to turn this into a true life Canadian version of "To Kill a Mockingbird".
You nailed it right there, if the case was as you have stated (I do not know, I did not sit in the court room) then there would be no reason to review the case. If the Crown did believe this was simply based on bias then it could be appealed, I doubt it will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
So, 30% more B&Es in Canada but yet Canadians as a whole do not feel that they need to keep loaded firearms all over their home to defend themselves against this.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoePa
So I will chime now. The simple fact is causation, if they had not trespassed on the property, tried to steal, and endanger the family members Stanley would have no defence. Defence of property is illegal in CANADA, SC ruled on this in 1985. The weighted value of life, was more than property possessions. Now in this case because his wife was there one minute and after he came out with the pistol, she was gone and they had smashed into the family car and thought his wife was trapped. That raised the issue of self-defence and justified the "accidental" shooting when he reached into the car.
Joe PA, is correct and absolutely right about Property and the relation to property crimes since 1985. Since 1985, because of the SC ruling it has become illegal (SC Ruling), to defend or protect property in Canada, now what did this do over the next 2.5 generations since then, it signalled property owners have no rights to stop criminals from taking your property. The kids know there is no consequences for property crimes. It is also down the point where your whole house can be cleaned...all you get is a police report #...no investigation. Heck most of you are thinking this is OK, but, have posted on stolen cameras, tree stands and frustrations with trespassers. It's those same people that trespass who know little or nothing can be done and they know the courts have almost chance to prosecute these crimes, or those that are caught have little effect.
The other point that came from this ruling, it also allowed criminals to then sue homeowners over excessive force when protecting property. Happens all the time, and is legal because if you defend your (property), you are breaking the law and SC ruling. You know what I am saying, because you all have seen and commented on these cases.
This is the problem with perception of property crimes in the eyes of criminals and lawyers.
Property owners have no rights. You only have limited rights to self-defence, and only with certain limits you must comply law during any events that occur and it must be reasonable, which are usually fast moving and reactionary in nature. Anyone fighting for your life, does not take the time to think what is reasonable in these situations.
All these rights we think we have, and those that say….just try and steal my TV..I will beat the #### out them. If you do, you will go to jail, and more than likely be sued as well.
So, Yes Joe Pa, I agree 100% with your view. Why, because of how limited or non-existent our rights are in Canada. Yes I believe we should have the right to defend up to and including deadly force to protect your property and life. Does that mean any single one of you in Canada on this forum...would pull out a gun and shoot someone for stepping on your property..NO. I believe 100% would not and neither would I. However, if you pull out a gun and do this now...good chance you will be charged if no "threat to life" is present and you admit to police you did bye-bye guns. Even if the criminal states this...you could be in trouble as a licenced firearms owner.
I had more rights to self-defence in actions overseas, then I do at home. What the heck was defending..when we don't have the same rights at home..we are sent to defend..Freedoms...Democracy.
If the laws changed overnight and people had this right, the overnight perceptions would over property crimes and it would have an impact..if the criminals believed everyone had a legal right to defend property.
The crux of this case ( and its failure) was nothing to do with defense. It was the inability of the prosecution to make a case for conviction without reasonable doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by line052
Ironically, the host of other charges that could have been laid with respect to firearms weren't.
While Castle Doctrine is not a pillar in Canadian Law. In rural areas like Sask, and AB, where police response times are a matter of hours, not minutes, it is becoming a factor in property crime cases. This case and it's ruling have highlighted that fact as well.
Take a life, to save a life.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoePa
Fish' let me know where you live and I'll come up with a trailer truck and clean out your home - I'll bring a couple buddies to drive you vehicles away - boy when I hear what goes on up there I am truly grateful that I live in a country where you can defend yourself, family and property - how in the world did it ever get that way - you have to stand around and watch someone taking your stuff - you can't even beat the crap out of the crook - that's one thing I always worry about when I go up there fishing - someone stealing my things - terrible -Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
I think you're mistaken in your post? I believe most Canadians do in fact feel the need to have a way to protect themselves. Unfortunately for us, the law prevents it. There's a difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox