Who said he was armed? The contention here was that the defence of property itself justifies killing.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
Printable View
Who said he was armed? The contention here was that the defence of property itself justifies killing.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
One of the real points of confusion in this thread is the incorrect assumption that expanded castle doctrine allows killing in defence of property.
That may be the effect of these laws, but that's not what they actually say. "I shot him to protect my TV" will still land you in jail.
What these laws do is to shift the burden of proof by creating the assumption that a homeowner fears bodily harm.
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
A very thoughtful post welsh. It is refreshing to see that some morality exists within the hunting community.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
I'd bet some of the people spouting this "I'd like the option to murder someone over my TV" garbage even have the nerve to show their faces in a church on a Sunday.
Stupid and deadly to assume he's not armed...Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
The confusion here is that very few debating the issue have a clue what 'Castle doctrine' means...Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Take a few minutes to read the Wiki article and then come back to the debate with a better understanding of what you're debating...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
The “Hug a Thug” mentality on here is astounding to me
Canada needs toughen up a bit. I’m glad the guy is getting support from his community.
MP , if you like the laws made by Americans for Americans ,by all means move there. The laws we have are made by Canadians for Canadians, the courts in Canada, decide what is an appropriate response to crimes against individuals. Are you saying for 150 years we have had left leaning judges , what a crock. If you trust wiki as fact about anything you are misinformed. Try the C.C.C.
A large segment of Albertan's are offering their support and demanding changes...Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Jack
http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...ed-in-shootingQuote:
“What, are we supposed to sit back and let these thieves come in?” she said. “I mean, I don’t blame the RCMP, they can only go so fast and do what they can do. But you’re supposed to sit there, watch them come in and threaten your family, take your stuff and just say, ‘can you come help me?’ ”
She said she feels Maurice should never have been charged, and punishing the homeowner only lets thieves know that victims have no way to protect themselves.
Kevin Avram, a director with the Grassroots Alberta Landowners Association, said the charges against Maurice only embolden criminals.
“It’s a message to criminals that they have carte blanche,” Avram said. “The RCMP and the system is sending signals to all these criminals that they can come on our property.”
The RCMP said rural detachments in Alberta have seen a 16 per cent increase in Criminal Code offences over the past five years.
There is long way between, 'hug a thug', and killing a TV thief, something in the middle might be more appropriate.
Like what though?Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Given the circumstances I think the guy got off lucky. You must know you take chances with your well being perpetrating a criminal act in this manner.
How the hell are you to gauge someone else’s criminal intent or how far that criminal will go for that matter.
You are advocating for the hug a Thug approach in my opinion.
In my opinion you risk your well being committing such acts and you can only have an expectation of harm coming your way.
We are becoming sheep and our system allows the wolves to flourish unchecked.