Printable View
Interesting concept? Perhaps you could explain to everyone why armoured car guards carry sidearms? Protecting money? Protecting their life if someone wants to steal that money? I have a bit of money, not much, but a bit? Am I not allowed to protect it? Please, enlighten us on why you think like you do?Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Oh I like this.... good point.:thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmoose
A local farm garage was being broken into cyclically. They could no longer get insurance based on the repeated thefts. Obviously, you can't expect police officers to hide in layout blinds in the adjacent corn field - not knowing if/when they thieves would return.
So the owner elected to sleep in the garage with a shotgun by his side. The thieves returned, then made a swift exit. The owner fired 2 rounds as the car sped away. After being released from the hospital, the thieves laid charges on the garage owner.
Funny, but I never heard the outcome. ???
The law does not permit you to shoot someone who breaks into your home.
The law allows you to use force against a person who breaks into your home, but the overriding rule is the force used must be reasonable in the circumstances -- that is, it must be proportional to the threat.
Shoot an unarmed person who breaks into your home and you are probably going to jail.
As for armoured car guards, they are armed for self defence. They can't shoot a person who is (for example) running away.
Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
This was kinda my point? "Self defense"? So I guess it's possible a robber might try to harm them while stealing money (art, jewelry or other valuables) and the guards can carry a gun, at the ready, just in case? I mean, lets face it, robbers can be violent, we all know that right? But yet a home owner cannot legally load his rifle and meet with a robber, in his house at 02:00? The home owner has no idea who, what or why the robber is in the house and what the robbers intentions are? Is he in danger? Is his family in danger? Will the robber flee or retaliate? No way of knowing until the robber shows his hand. By then it could be a wee bit late, don't ya think? But yet a guard, protecting valuables, has the privilege of carrying a loaded sidearm at the ready, just in case he has to defend himself? Good logic there?Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Maybe we should cry out to our politicians to have the guards dis-armed. They could just hand over the bags of goodies to the robbers to prevent them from being violent? That'd work right? No resistance, no fighting, just hand them the cash? Call 911 and await the troops?
Do you understand the difference between robbery and burglary?
Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
OMG! Is that the best you can come up with? Its a word? 99% of people would identify with it given the scenario I mentioned. Really Welsh?Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
There's ample case law where Canadians have used firearms in defense of themselves and property where no charges were laid or were withdrawn before trial after charges were laid by over zealous,crusading crown attorneys. Nowhere in The Criminal Code is it stated that Canadians may not use deadly force with firearms. Do some research before making erroneous blanket statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
or as I pointed out, the Jury in most cases tells the court they had the right to use deadly force.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
The point should be... why do property owners have to go to trial to defend their actions when they use force to protect their property. Our laws need to be written, like they are in the 31 U.S. states that have Castle Doctrine, to allow them the right to defend themselves and their property.
Whether you use deadly force is then a personal choice, but it should not have to be made based on whether it was legal or not.
sums it up nicely...
https://i.imgur.com/UgVIBmkm.jpg