Printable View
Here is another cowboy giving gun owners a bad name and from all accounts he should of known better being a reservist and all. His life was in no danger , the dbags were outside his house trying to steal a truck. Call 911 and be done with it.
http://www.640toronto.com/2016/02/05/oakley-507/
Read that in the Sun. Was shaking my head. I don't want to quarterback for the guy but I can't think of a good reason. Maybe he confronted them with the gun and they grabbed it? It doesn't do gun owners any favors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter John
Your right stay inside.
This will be another charge that will be withdrawn by the Crown to avoid setting a legal precedent. There are many,many others like this in Canadian case law.
I'll wait for the FACTS to be released before passing judgement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter John
He has lawyered up and is going to fight it. Good for him
How do you defend, killing an unarmed person, who was no physical threat to you, but only wanted to steal your stuff ?
So far I don't know if the thief was unarmed, how long it would take for the police to arrive, if it is sop to call 911 whenever someone drives up your driveway, or if the homeowner was attacked and feared for his life. I don't even know if he called 911 before going outside or how many people he encountered once he got out there.
Up here a noise in the night might be a bear in the chicken coop so even if it were only a raccoon it would be dumb of me to investigate unarmed.
Needless to say I agree with Wahoo
Let's wait to hear all the facts before we judge .if he just stood on his step and shot the guy yes he may be in trouble but we don't know if he went over and confronted the criminal or if the Criminal wad armed or if the Criminal came at him .Remember the Criminal was there on private property to steal a truck ..right now the home owner is the victim.
How do you know this? Did the homeowner take his gun to protect himself, told the guy to piss off and then things escalated? It is plausible.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
As I said, we have no idea EXACTLY what transpired. I'll let this guy have his day in court before I will pass judgement.
Not really. Truck was not stolen, and a man is dead. So the shooter is not the victim.Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchhunter
I agree that there are plenty of facts still to be straightened out, but I'd be willing to bet that the truth ends up being very close to the current optics - the guy shot to kill an unarmed criminal who was posing zero threat.
If he (deceased) was unarmed, how would he have been able to break into the truck? The media always have a way of making a cut & dry statement. Wait for the courts to decide. We don't know the whole story.
Not that I condone shooting the guy (I'll reserve that judgement until the facts are presented) I also know that if one doesnt one to get shot, its best to not steal trucks.
Missing the point much ???? Why would anyone need to UNSECURE a gun and then LEAVE THE SAFETY OF THE HOME to confront somebody potentially trying to steal a truck.?? I agree if someone is in your home go ahead and blast away, just make sure they are dead, they are not shot in the back and they are indeed iiside the house.
Happened to me years ago, my daughter informed me someone was taking our tractor, we kept watch as we called the cops, .. any of you so called hero coyboys on here care to share how my family would of been better off if I went outside with a loaded gun to confront the thieves? ????? Anybody.???
I didn't think so.
We will see what comes out in court but once you LEAVE the house to confront , you are likely fooked under Canadian law regarding property theft.
I wonder, if the cops would approach this guy without a fire arm out. When you have seconds to live, help is only minutes away!
I don't know the facts so can't say anything about this case but reading some of the comments on here gets me a little concerned about our rights and freedom. I may not be the guy to go out with a gun to confront some thieves but Canadians should have more options then having to leave everything to the police. Granted, I may be one of those guys that calls 911 but that doesn't mean everyone should have to.
I've got it! In an emergency, Arm yourself, then call 911!!:goodstuff:
Quote:
Originally Posted by fratri
For me it would be situational, , steal my stuff and Im not in danger I would let the cops handel it, come in my home and I will handle it without predujice. . And f or the record I have no sympathy for the guy trying to steal the truck. My point was ,,,, , He will lose his guns,,, incur THOUSANDS of dollars in legal fees.. May go to jail.. AND for what???? ( At least they didn't steal my truck).
On the surface it doesn't look good. For all anyone knows the guy was drunk, and thought he was opening the door to his own truck and not a robber/threat at all......(no I'm not serious). However given what little is known. Not looking good.
forensics will likely help determine how much of a threat he posed. (Distance, etc etc). Seems to me a Leo was charged with murder for shooting a kid, that didn't pose much of a threat...a great many thought he was guilty............possibly people who think shooting a car theif is ok, and home owners have no rights and should be able to shoot......
can we defend ourselves? Yes we can but you had best have a lot on your side. Be it in the house, etc etc.
http://m.torontosun.com/2016/01/28/s...g-at-mcdonalds
Well one thing is for sure, if he was stealing a car, he won't steal anymore. Sorry, I have no sympathy for him, rip.
Without all the details its hard to form an opinion. But unless the guy was being attacked by the thief then there is no justification to kill the man. If he was in the house and armed then no pity but it doesn't sound like this was the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter John
Well said...........let's see what play out in court before you all start condemning anyone!
Coincidentally, last week my young son was asking, "Daddy, if someone is stealing your truck, can you shoot them?" We had a good long talk which I summed up with, "I can always get another truck, but Daddy will sure miss you if I get taken away to jail".
Nobody is saying you MUST go out. It's all about choice. This guy choose to do it. From what I heard on the radio the other day, the Police had planned community meetings to advise the public about the rampant thefts that were going on in the area. Seems they were having trouble getting a handle on things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter John
With that said, I have little sympathy for a person who steals ANY tool (vehicle, trailer, tools, computer etc.) that a working individual needs and uses to make a living and be a contributing member of society. Some people take the threat of losing that way to make a living (and/or the inconvenience that comes with it), much more seriously than others.
I just hope they dont use this to pass some more crazy gun laws. The liberal media loves this stuff.
Well I'll tell you what I would do down here - I look out the window and see this guy trying to steal my truck - I arm myself - with a pistol in my belt and with my pistol grip shotgun loaded with BB shot - I go out and point the shotgun at the guy and tell him to lay on the ground or I'll shoot him - now it is his call - he either complies or runs away or attacks me - if he is on the ground I use my cell phone to hit 911 and hold the guy until the cops come - if he runs away I let him go and let a load of shot fly over his head - I doubt if he will be back again - if he attacks me he goes down -
Some may say - why not just stay in the house and call the cops - well by the time the cops come my truck and everything in it is gone - why should I be expected to just watch while some bum is taking my truck - the crook will keep stealing unless people start resisting in some form
The one thing I notice is that up in Canada there is more stealing going on and I think it is that way because the consequences if caught are either none or a slap on the wrist - down here crooks know that they may get hurt if they try to steal something and so think twice before doing it - it is pretty sad when a person can't protect his property and has to let a crook just take it and go
maybe he didn't have theft insurance on the truck
From a bad guys point of view......
Man, if I was a crook and heard about this, I would be hoping the cops throw the book at him... I mean after all who does he think he is shooting at us crooks for stealing his truck.... What's next, get shot for robbing them at the ATM? Those cops better do their job and put that guy away for good or others think they might be able to stop us too....
Exactly! Amen. If it ain't yours, you have to reason to acquire it. Goddam thieves.Quote:
Originally Posted by woody1948
Truck theft in this area is terrible. I had mine stolen. My brother had his stolen. Both were found stipped on the reservation. Everytime I go into Home Depot, go to see a movie, go to fortinos etc. I am very anxious to see my truck is still where I left it.
Plus the reservation police force know the people/organizations behind it all but turn a blind eye. Makes me sick.
Thats likely where my tractor went, things are so bad around here the cops were leaving bait trucks in the Ancaster meadowlands ( large shopping area) and after they pinched a bunch or them the thieves moved on to private residents.
He shot an adult not a kid.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
He shot someone armed with a switchblade who moments earlier had slashed at the face of a woman on the streetcar...while holding his dick in his other hand.
He shot someone who repeatedly brandished the blade moved forward and said, to the police, 'I'm going to f***ing kill you'
That's why he was found not guilty of shootimg him 3 times, one of which killed Yates with a bullet through the heart.
Of course Forcillo then f'ed up by shooting Yatim 6 more times while he lay on his back. For that, he was guilty of attempted murder.
However he didn't see someone on the street with a coat hanger trying to steal a car and then shoot him dead.
I think you'd be charged in all three scenarios you outlined (if he flees, complies or attacks) . I'm reasonably sure you don't have the authority to brandish a firearm and threaten someone's life under that scenario you outlined. It's unreasonable in the eyes of the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoePa
I think you missed the analogy Sakimo.
There are many who think or feel he was guilty of "murder" and didn't or don't buy the "self defence" aspects. He was no danger to anyone but himself at that point...which consisted of Forcible spending a whole 50 seconds trying to de-escalate...aka not at all......
not the least of which was the SIU who laid the charges.
And lets not also overlook or forget that a great many people would naturally have a hard time convicting leo of murder most do understand its a dangerous, thankless job. Hence the "compromise"...
Some of those people who think it was murder and not self defence at all, might now be arguing this home owner or we as home owners should be able to shoot car thieves or petty thieves as the case may be. Cant have it both ways.
Leo shoots a kid who poses little threat...Off with his head we say
Homeowner shoots a kid at his truck, or stealing his TV...Justifiable self defence we say now that the shoe is on the other foot
I live in the U.S. - everything I outlined would be legal down here -Quote:
Originally Posted by sakimano
Ah yes different story. This is a Canadian website. You realise that right?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoePa
Unless you're from Ontario california and are lost lol.
Ah! You must have been watching from the end of the drive way... So many crystal ball owners on this site. You know he was not armed for a fact? You can confirm there was no altercation? total BS!Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
A thread like this was shut down on Gunnutz due to speculation and dubious "facts" and if THEY shut it down,it's REALLY had to be right off the wall. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Bandwagon
first it was not a kid that was shot. He was a adult who choose to enter private property and steal a truck
Second the man that shot him was a adult and s good hard working man .and I have to believe he did what he felt was right or needed at the time of the shooting. So until we know different we should side with the home owner. Dutch
Why? You assume to much about both individuals. I do not believe you should be able to shoot someone if there is any way to avoid it. Yes even including locking yourself in your house while someone steals your truck, rather than confront him with a gun.
If everyone thought thus way the world would be in big trouble. S free for all for thieves murder and sll kinds of crszy stuff.stand up for your rights.
You can not, and should not, be able to shoot someone over property, only when your life is in danger , not to protect your stuff.
I think A leads to B. Where do you draw the line?
You should have the right to intervene with force to protect your property and life. As soon as you set foot onto someone else's property with criminal intent your life should be on the line. You then have something precious to lose.
I am sure the liberal cult would love a country of sheep and certainly they embrace the "Hug a Thug" mentality.
We we will be a nation of victims if our PM has his way.
Where do you draw the line? Between property and life! Nobodys stuff is worth anyones life, period. Shoot to protect life only, period. Sorry I killed your son, but he wanted to steal my car, just does not cut it. He did not get your car, but you will be in jail , as you should be.
He would probably be charged because this is Canada, not because there is anything inherently wrong with his actions.....Quote:
Originally Posted by sakimano
What about...."he only wanted to steal my vehicle and when I confronted him he ran at me with a baseball bat....didn't notice the pistol in my hand"Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Granted that works, but only if you are looking for an excuse to shoot someone...... But the first question would be, ' why were you carrying a loaded handgun outside on your driveway' ? the second would be, 'did you intend to use it when you brought it out of the house, if not, why did you bring it. Then they would say ' get in the back of the car while we go inside and confiscate the rest of your guns'. ' You might get them back in 3 or 4 years, once we get this sorted out, and you have spent 20 thousand on lawyers fees'.
All depends on your definition of 'wrong' I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by patvetzal
Firing a shotgun blast over someone's head isn't exactly responsible behaviour
Firing a warning shot at someone fleeing is not legally justified. In fact a lady was arrested, charged, and found guilty of attempted murder for firing a warning shot. She received a 20 year prison sentence which she began serving a couple of years ago. Mother of three.
She fired a warning shot to scare off her abusive husband. On appeal she was released from prison but not after spending 3 years in the clink and destroying her family. She plead guilty on the appeal to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and is a felon.
You are a fine example of what is wrong with society in Canada today.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
You don't seem to get the point. A leads to B. If a criminal knows he can walk onto your property and steal a 40K truck knowing you won't stand up for yourself what is stopping him from taking the next step? Maybe taking something more valuable from you and harming your family in the process?
You don't know how far a criminal will go to get what they want or what their intent is when they show up on your doorstep.
Maybe you can try to have a reasonable conversation with them while they are beating you to death....
It should be legal to protect your home and your property.
It IS absolutely legal to defend your home and property,despite what the fishermccanns and the liberals on this forum seem to think. There's lots of case law that has established precedents to that affect,but,in this case,there's too much info that's not available or being deliberately surpressed until the investigation is complete.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Jack
A leads to B.....What is to stop him, the fact that you have the law on your side to protect life. Protect your property, yes to a certain extent, but take a life to do it, no way. If you shoot or kill someone to protect that ATV in the garage, you will, and should, spend part of your life in jail.
Saying "I can always get another truck" is victim speak. We should have the right to defend our family and property by any means necessary. I can't think of any better deterent to crime than a population that can legally defend itself. Anything less and we are nothing more than a nation of professional victims.
Unfortunately thieves / criminals don't ponder that thought before committing their crimes. Maybe crime rates would go down if thieves knew if they get caught in the act, the could end up deadQuote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
I wouldn't say sorry to a parent for killing their kid that was stealing my stuff. I would tell them they did a piss poor job of raising their kid to think it's ok to steal people's property.
Do you think we should do away with attempted murder too? I mean if you didn't actually achieve the goal, but just wanted to and were in the process of doing it, it just doesn't cut it.
It would be interesting to know if the property owner went out to place the thief under citizens arrest and the thief resisted.
I do not think that even cops, have the right to shoot someone who is resisting arrest.
Boy Fisher' - I don't want to pick on you but man you are in left field - so you say that you shouldn't defend your property - stay in the house while the guy is stealing your truck - stay up in your bedroom as the guy is empting your downstairs furniture - stay in the closet while the guy rapes your daughter - lay down while the guy beats the hell out of you - at what point do you stand up like a man and shoot the guy - and because you don't the guy will continue to do the same to other victims -
Then lets apply this thinking to the national scene - don't go to war just because someone wants to take over your country - evil will prevail when good men do nothing -
When I read some of these posts about defending yourself and family and property I am so glad that I live in a country where we have the right - and even are expected to - defend our lives and property - one last thought - the liberal approach to solving problems has uprooted the whole fabric of society and that's why things are going down the tubes -
Kill to defend , people, family, friends, even enemies sure, but kill to defend stuff no way. Why do you folks always go to the extreme, no one said you have to let someone beat you, kill you or rape anyone. If the perp is no physical danger to you and yours, you can't shoot him.
they have the right to use what ever force is required. They can't just say, yeah had to let em run, he didn't want to be arrested today.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Unfortunately regular citizens are not allowed to legally possess a tazer or pepper spray, both of which the police have as tools to deploy when someone is resisting. That along with most circumstances cops wouldn't engage the suspect alone.
As I outlined what I would do if someone was stealing my truck you will notice that I would only shoot the guy if he attacked me - but in the end he would not take my truck - what finally happened was entirely up to him - if he did attack me then I would kill him - its not something I would like to do but as things worked out it was his call - and when the cops came I would tell them that it was self defense - then I would exert my constitutional right to remain silent - at the end I kept my truck - society was rid of a crook - and I would be given a medal my the local police department as a upstanding citizen - maybe even get mentioned in the NRA's magazine under the Armed Citizens section - a win, win situation all around - except for the dead guy
How exactly do you tell what their intention is?Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Lots of people die every year from beatings sustained by robbery attempts.
Again you have a choice in determining best course of action. I'm not advocating being a vigilante. I am simply saying that you should have the right to defend your home including everyone and everything in it.
If you make society look like a sheep the wolf will come.
If his life was in immediate danger then it should come out. The way it is written here the guy was stealing his truck and he went out and shot him, killing him, that is not justifiable.
If you pull that trigger you are responsible. There was a 911 call a few years back of a woman in the US who called 911 and while on the phone you hear her yelling at the guy to stop or I'll shoot over and over again, she shot and killed him inside her home, a huge difference than what I can tell here. This one is up there with the guy who shot and killed an elderly man who would not leave his lawn.
Yep! The only trouble with letting some a**hole steal your truck is that they know you'll just claim it on the insurance and buy a new one..........then,they can come back and steal it,too. After all,you let them away with it the last time so WTH........Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakezilla
Lets not forget, that "Timothy Bosma " was killed by people that wanted to steal his truck !
They could have shot him in his house randomly too, Tim Bosma's number was up for some reason, it was not just about stealing the truck.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee
If you live in this kind of fear I feel bad for you.
Not to hijack this thread,but,because these two mutts had previously "cased" two other trucks and for some reason backed down on both,it appears that it WAS about trucks. Why they decided to kill Bosma and not the others remains to be seen as does what they were planning to do with the trucks,too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Believe me, "I live with no fear at all ".Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
It was definitely about stealing a truck as they had checked out a couple of other trucks , one of the other owners replied to them , "you don't want to know what I did in the Israeli Army " when one of them asked what he did previously. They obviously chickened out for fear of harm being done to them , then picked on a soft going person like Timothy Bosma .
I am not making this up as this comment has made national news and the news papers, they apparently would not go after someone that was tough , so they picked on and killed Tim Bosma and just for a truck !
your comment is out of line, and shows you know nothing about the situationQuote:
Originally Posted by Fox
They called about 2 other trucks. One they went on a road test before Tim. The owner was a huge guy who said he had experience with the diesel engines that were in those trucks during his time in the israeli army... The other guy was asleep and missed the call.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Which would suggest it was not just about stealing a truck..they had more planned.....................As Fox said. Would seem Fox does actually know plenty enough about the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by one shot scott
TB could have...could have (not suggesting should have) taken their drivers licences down, names an addresses and not gone with them......He could have opted to.....stay in his house.
Actually yes they do. They don't have the right to shoot someone who runs. They have an obligation to pursue but can't use bullets to chase someone. When they do, they go on trial and go to prison.Quote:
Originally Posted by B Wilson
...pretty sure he just said don't shoot someone for trying to steal a truck lol. Not sure why anyone is raping your daughter in that scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoePa
Quite a leap. That's how not to argue.
Except the scenario where you fired a shot at him for good measure while he fled...you'll go to prison for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoePa
And when you do...can I borrow your truck?
Thanks, you never can tell when something is going on, I have had a few situations where my brain told me I needed to get out of the situation and I trust it. Once I was on the 401 headed back towards Ottawa, a car flew up behind me and was flashing the lights, he then pulled out to my left to pass, passed me then slammed on the brakes to match my speed. I knew something was up and locked up the brakes, a liquor bottle came flying out of the passenger window of the car and just missed my car, they took off and I was not able to get a license plate number.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Does this mean I will never drive the 401 again? No
Does this mean I will never be near Kingston again? No
I cannot live in fear of these things happening and basing the killing of another human being around what happened to someone else does not justify it. If this man was in fear for his life and killed this other man because of it then he will have to live up to the consequences no matter what. If someone was stealing my car I would not be shooting them, it is just a car and I do not want to see my life ending because of a car. If someone bursts into my house with a gun, knife, bat or anything else like that and is threatening myself or my family it is a much different situation.
The people who killed Tim Bosma wanted to kill someone, if they wanted to steal a truck there are a lot easier methods, Tim was just in the wrong place at the wrong time not unlike a car crash, he was targeted and we may never know why.
That's mostly true but they were psychopathic serial killers. Let's not pretend this was a truck heist gone bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee
Did you know they had their animal carcass incinerator all queued up and ready to go that night? This wasn't aboit a truck. The 3500 engine was a nice bonus but their plan was to target, kill, and attempt to dispose of the body
Don't forget they did the exact same thing with Laura Babcock and she didn't have anything worth stealing. Just her life.
Fox, I took your post to mean that it was specifically about targeting Tim, which it wasn't. I understand what you were trying to say now. It had everything to do with getting a truck similar to Millards, and they had no intention of buying it.
Don't worry I won't be going to jail - not down here anyway - as far as borrowing my truck - no way - its my baby - an F350 X4- wouldn't lend that to anyone - its an 05 with only 30K miles on it - all from hauling my camper and boat to go fishing - mostly up into Canada - there is one thing I don't like when I travel to Canada is the fact that I can't have any protection with me - can't carry a gun so I depend on a canister of bear spray just in case -Quote:
Originally Posted by sakimano
Here is an interesting lawyer's perspective:
Peter Khill case: Law says it's self-defence if the force is 'reasonable'
Someone can use force to stop another person from taking property, says a criminal defence lawyer
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...able-1.3437343
Exactly! See post #43. All the homeowner has to say is "I told him to stop and he threatened to kill me and started to come after me,your honor. I feared for my life." Right now,the Crown will be working feverishly to "develop" a case against this man. If that doesn't work,charges will be "withdrawn because of no reasonable prospect of conviction." It's done to prevent a blanket precedent being set as a matter of law instead of having each case judged on it's own merits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wahoo
Ian Thomson was taken to trial and acquitted because he fired warning shots from INSIDE his house in order to scare away some punks who FIREBOMBED his house. He and his family were in REAL danger and I likely would of done the same but they threw every charge they could at him,from inproper storage to careless use and illegal discharge.( probably more).
How much did he pay in legal fees ? did he ever get his guns back? how many years of his life wasted? I have no sympathy for the punk that got shot stealing a truck but you gotta ask yourself if it would be worth it and unless the laws in this country change to protect the victims of theft I would have to say no, not worth it.
Armchair quarterback aside ,If the Hamilton man simply yelled out that the cops were on the way I am sure the thieves would of taken off back to oshweekin as thieves don't like to be caught.
Just sharing a link for anyone who might want to chip in towards his defense.
https://www.gofundme.com/ppnsxqd4?ut...tion_receiptv5
Why should you be allowed if we cannot drive around with ours down there;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by JoePa
The bear spray is very effective, to say thr least. Using it on people as it were regular pepper spray (Which we are not even allowed up here...), will get you in serious trouble regardless if the guy is seriously injured or not
Hey, i'm all for the better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, but a canister of bear spray is designed for a polar bear and not to teach a punk some manners
It's my understanding that having bear spray is legal in Ontario - when checked at the border the agents see what I have and say that it's ok - I always have a can or two with me when I go camping and fishing - If I see some punk stealing my fishing equipment out of my boat some night while its docked I'm going to confront the punk and if he makes any move in my direction he's getting a face full of bear spray - naturally I felt that the punk was going to harm me so I acted in self-defense - you really think the punk is going to the cops and tell them that he got sprayed while trying to steal something - I don't think so - and if by chance he does you going to tell me that I'm in trouble - things can't be that bad in Ontario - I sure hope not because if they are I ain't going there anymore - because I ain't going to stand around while some punk steals from me - no wayQuote:
Originally Posted by Waftrudnir
You've been coming to Ontario for how long JoePa?
I bet you've NEVER had cause to use firearm nor bear spray in self defense against a thief. But you'd get bent out of shape if it did turn out to be illegal? Lol
I think you said it right Joepa that if you confront him and he comes charging you can use the weapon of opportunity which in this case would be your pepper spray. You carry it for bears and pests. Your age, remoteness, abilities, and what else you had available would all become factors. Change the scenario and you are downtown Toronto for a night at the theatre with the spray you might have a harder time articulating resorting to the spray. Why did you have it.
All of us on here probably carry a knife of some sort because of our lifestyle. It's not for protection it's for doing what we love. If you use it to defend yourself it's a weapon of opportunity the same as a fishing net, shovel, walking stick. ... would be.
People often say the old line fight or flight. Often forgotten is submit which is actually the other option even in nature. Animals and people just submit sometimes.
This is exactly why, I responded to your post!Quote:
Originally Posted by JoePa
The punk will certainly tell someone, because after getting a full canister of bear spray in the face he will spend some time in the ER... Again this is not a tiny dose of low concentration pepper spray (not that it were legal either).
http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/02/05/...r-pepper-spray
[QUOTE=Oddmott;956608]You've been coming to Ontario for how long JoePa?
I bet you've NEVER had cause to use firearm nor bear spray in self defense against a thief. But you'd get bent out of shape if it did turn out to be illegal? Lol[/QUOT
I worked for awhile in Ontario back in the late 50's and early 60s - been going to Canada to fish since then - I carry bear spray because I often camp and fish in areas where there are bears and wolfs - that's why I have it - now if some occasion arose where I needed it for self defense I would use it - have I personally used a firearm or bear spray while up there - the answer is no - but I read all the time of people being ripped off by punks stealing everything not bolted down - I wouldn't be walking around Toronto with the spray but then I was in Toronto only twice in my life - try to stay away from that place
So many of the laws up here seem to be made to protect the criminal rather than the victim
Up here, if you use TOO much force, you become the criminal, rather than the victim. So it should be.
I can't believe that statement, by it you are just giving criminals "carte blanche" to do whatever they want with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
How so? The courts decide what is excessive force, not the one handing it out. Someone is stealing your pencil, but are no physical threat to you, you then beat them within an inch of their life, you are charged for the beating , they are charged with the theft , how is this wrong?
I would have videotaped the whole thing and called the cops.
I need a new truck anyway and that's why I pay insurance.
Now we are going down , down to only stealing pencils , here I thought this thread was more about stealing auto's, something to fight over .
However if I decide to beat the snot out of whoever is trying to steal "my stuff" , that is entirely "up to me " not for you to decide what I should do , or for you to worry about.
I was being facetious , please change pencil to car, truck or boat, whatever. Yes very true, but and when you are charged, pay, do time for it , don't complain, because the law clearly states you cannot do that. So it should be.
My family, my property, my decision , mine only and I will do as I see fit at the time , I know what the law states and how it works , Leo's in the family and friends , thank you for your concern , now "say goodnight"!
Leo in the family/friends?
Pumping yourself up? Just kidding JC, couldn't resist though :)
At the end of the day, we should know the law. If someone decides to break the law, they are rolling the dice. And if it goes to trial, well our peers do get to decide and do get to say what we can and can't do.
Is a car or X worth 100k in legal fees and potentially jail time, lost jobs ($) and a criminal record. Which can affect everything from employment opportunity to entry in to the U.S. (Simple assault will do that).
to each their own.
and until someone is actually in that situation....
My father's family is from Caledonia the same as Roper. If you read the original article in the Hamilton Spectator, the dead man was from Ohsweken (the six nations reserve outside Caledonia). As Roper says this kind of thing is common in that area, the vehicle is later found burned out on the reserve and nobody knows who did it. People from this same reserve terrorized the people of Caledonia a few years back and occupied a partially completed subdivision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roper
They used to come in the middle of the night when I was young and steal gas from the pumps for our tractors.
The original article makes no mention of what happened or if the dead man was armed. We will have to wait until the trial to find out what really happened.
Roe+
You are 100% right, it is your decision, but don't take offence if I say, that anyone who does what you are advocating deserves whatever punishment up to and including jail, that it meted out to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee
Well Fisher' - just let me say this - a society will get what it puts up with - if the law makes it so difficult for a home owner to resist a punk who is stealing something from him then you will get a lot more stealing going on - on the other hand if you hang any punk who is caught stealing you won't have any stealing going on - it's that simple - with your thinking I can see why there is so much stealing going on up there - a lot more than down here in the States - where you can kick the sheet out of a punk who is trying to steal your truck - without any fear that you will be in trouble with the law - so take you pick -
Rather have a few trucks stolen, than have everyone with guns in their pocket , looking over their shoulder..... 'A society will get what it puts up with'.... is that how come you have so many gun deaths, because you put up with it...why, for safety reasons?..... PS. You also have more of your population, % wise, incarcerated than any other country in the world, how is that working out for you?
The U.S.'s rate of theft is also considerably higher. But... yeah...Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Leo's - plural, The only thing I meant by that is, they all know how I feel about these situations !:DQuote:
Originally Posted by JBen
hence why I said "just kidding". I know what you meant. ;)
***************
This topic, or very closely related ones seem to come up every few months.
/quick someone go find me a bat, there's a horse stealing a thread I need to beat into submission
:)
I think there is a warm and cozy spot at the sheep trough for a few folks and there are others that will stand up for themselves.
You are whichever you are and that is fine. It's nice to hypothesize what you'd do but until you land in that situation you won't know.
Let's let the details of this case come out as what has been released is next to nothing.
Big diff. in standing up for yourself, and breaking the law or taking it into your own hands. It seems to me that some think their manhood is being questioned, if they do not beat or kill someone who has stolen from them. Sometimes it takes a bigger man to make the call, and let the justice system do it's job.
Its working out good - this is a positive statistic - these bums are in jail instead of out on the streets - and you know full well that if you didn't count certain big cities - like Detroit - Chicago - our gun deaths would be way down - I heard a statistic on the Bill O'Reilly show last night - blacks make up 13 % of our population - they commit 37% of the murders - 90% of the victims are black - take it from there - mean while back at the ranch -Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Are all colours of people not American?:whacked: You throw out those stats, like they are not citizens of your country, and do not matter.:sad: Would you be more inclined to shoot a black guy who is stealing your car, because they are only going to shoot each other anyway? 63% of murderers are not black.
Remember, he is also taking his numbers from Bill O'Reilly, take that with the smallest of grains of salt.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Sure they are Americans - I pointed that out to show you why our gun deaths would be a lot lower if it wasn't for certain big cities - and as far as Fox News - if it wasn't for that news organization we wouldn't know what was going on - the rest of the news companies are all so liberal that you can't believe a thing they say - it is all managed news - and everybody knows it -
Exactly!! It's even worse here in this country with the media and their noses up the Liberal's a**holes like dogs in heat.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoePa
Anyone else think it's funny the American thinks he needs a gun at all times for protection?
I think this is why Americans kill each other with guns to a disproportionate degree. We have 1/10th the population of the US, but only 1/50th the number of gun murders. We have loads of guns up here but we're not constantly ready for a gun battle the way Americans are. Its a fear thing. Americans seem to live in constant fear of the boogey man. As a result they're armed and ready, and as a result of that arguments turn into gun battles (or single shooter shootings) at the drop of a hat.
It's a weird thing.
There are lots of us Canadians would like to ability to legally carry hand guns for personal protection and we fully understand that does not give us the right to shoot someone because they dropped a hat.Quote:
Originally Posted by sakimano
Read this and get a better idea of what is actually happening - http://usconservatives.about.com/od/....htm---roughly 32,000 gun related deaths per year of which 60% are suicides - 11,000 homicides of which the majority are gang related in certain big cities - so you see things are not as bad as you make it out to be -
I just got reading the post titled - Depression - I came away with the idea that your government has so much control over its citizens that you can't do anything without its permission - what can you do without being watched, reported, licensed, .etc - me I'd rather have my freedom and guns -
No it is not fear , their constitution allows them "The right to keep and bear arms (often referred to as the right to bear arms or to have arms) is the people's right to possess arms for their own defense, as described in the philosophical and political writings of Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, Machiavelli, the English Whigs and others.Quote:
Originally Posted by sakimano
Also as B Wilson posted; "There are lots of us Canadians would like to ability to legally carry hand guns for personal protection and we fully understand that does not give us the right to shoot someone because they dropped a hat. "
What does that have to do with their constant state of fear?Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee
In any event the right to bear arms is a joke. That was written hundreds of years ago, not to allow people to carry to the corner store. It was to allow a fledgling country without an army to protect itself against an oppressive Britain. It allowed the people of America to become their own militia and they'd need the right to their own munitions if so.
Fast forward a few hundred years and last time I checked Britain ain't coming to take over...oh and that nation without an army? They now have the most powerful military int the world.
What do the constitution clinger say to that?
I can answer it for you...they need these guns to protect themselves from the US government. Not making that up, this is what they hang on. It's pretty funny.
Sometimes it's a waste of time to try and explain things to someone who hasn't the foggiest idea of what is going on - this is one of those times - in the meantime - all is quiet on the southern front -
Definitely a figment of your imagination.Quote:
Originally Posted by sakimano
There are so many out there that are constantly saying it , "living in fear and yours, constant state of fear".
Show us definite proof , and I mean definite proof , not what you think about how they are living .
Well we could quote the one American posting in this thread for starters
Certainly not a good sample size but interesting to hear his comments about being in fear for his safety when in Canada (because he doesn't have his weapons) to the point he carries bear spray.
In any event it's just an opinion. Not a theory tested by the scientific method. Feel free to prevent your opinion as to why Americans are so prone to gun violence and killing each other with those guns. Don't blame the 'black guys in detroit' either. That'd retarded.
Worry about our own back yard not his. He knows his homeland so let's not bash someone because you claim to know better. I know a few Americans and they are good folks and don't seem to be afraid of their shadow. I can guarantee you that they wouldn't be cowering in the corner as some crook stole a hard earned truck or endanger their family. They would likely see it as the same thing. You may not agree with their way of life but don't bash them either.
If I were you, I would reread JoePa's post and reread it again so you understand what he said , this is his quote "carry bear spray because I often camp and fish in areas where there are bears and wolfs - that's why I have it .Quote:
Originally Posted by sakimano
All he is saying that he is prepared, no different than when I and my wife on camping trips into known bear country go prepared with a short barreled shotgun, and an emergency medical kit , just in case of a possible bear attack as the one that killed a doctor from Cambridge when she and her husband were camping around Chapleau.
Being prepared is hardly as you would claim , "living in fear " being prepared is being wise.
Against my better judgement.
Why do people fail so often to realize, the world is rarely black or white, normally a shade a grey. Or alternatively when faced with He said, she said (and where the truth lies). Or put simply can both sides be right?
Re gun deaths in the US and their so called "gun culture".
Do Americans live in fear?
Yes, hard to argue that. Recall hunting for a week with a couple guys from Maine, decent normal guys but hardly big city people. They lived in fear, so much that they wouldn't let their wives drives into town without carrying. Incase the car broke down and well the wrong person stopped to help them. Theres so much more that could be said on this.......How many Americans these days want to carry in movie theatres...millions. How many in schools...millions....Thats "fear based". I myself have teased Joe re the US govt. In so much as, if that day ever comes, it doesn't matter how well armed citizens are, resistance will be squashed like a bug. Just as fast as the Iraq army was....
Do all Americans? Hardly think so.
Me? I have zero problems with their "right to keep and bear arms". Do think they have serious problems, and don't understand why the gun lobby, gun owners are totally unwilling to sit down, bring in some controls that make sense, are effective, aren't the end of the world.
GC works, just look at Canada where we are so very similar, in so many things including having lots of firearms per capita. And yet, we don't have near the same "problems".
And finally as Big Jack said. Who are we to look down our noses at them or "bash" them, we have a ton of problems of our own. I am always amazed how quick we Canadians are to bash the US, or look down our noses at them. We certainly don't live in Utopia either. Funny last time I looked we reap so many benefits thanks to them and their way of life, we rely, yes rely on them and their arms to defend us and the way things are going in Ottawa that will be getting more reliant be it the war on terrorism, the Arctic and the NW Passage and more.......We Canadians, so fast to look down our noses, yet reap so many benefits, and then fast to hike our skirts and run from fights, fast to cry help us, defend ourselves..
Food for thought.
Compromise, when it comes to gun control, is ALWAYS about one side losing something. Which is the very antithesis of compromise.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Like what will, most likely, soon happen to us.
Perhaps.
Would be very hard to argue when you compare CDA to the U.S. to say GC doesn't work. There's more to it than our present controls/system, however. We don't have near the same problems with criminal elements, cops being executed, mass shootings, accidents in the home, and much more.
whether we need more, or improvements is a different arguement imo, as what we have is working.
I agree with Jben on the legal costs. Your trying to save a $30 000 truck that's insured from being stolen will cost you $50 000 in legal fees if your found innocent, more if guilty with spending on appeal and pardons.
I don't know what would happen in Canada but if some guy is stealing my truck and I go out to stop him with a gun and he attacks me and I shoot him and the cops come and I tell them what happened - there will not be any charges filed against me - I didn't break any law - so I don't have any legal expenses to worry about - if you have the idea that you should let him take the truck because you have insurance - I can see why so many trucks are stolen up there - the crooks have nothing to worry about -
And Joe................................that seems to be the biggest problem we got up here......our crooks have no fear.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoePa
Quote:
I don't know what would happen in Canada but if some guy is stealing my truck and I go out to stop him with a gun
And that right there is what will possibly (or probably) see you a lot of legal trouble.
1)Why did you grab the gun there was no indication up to that point you were in danger
2)Why did you leave your house to confront him, there was no indication you were in danger
3) Ever hear of 911. Was there anything stopping from calling loudly "I've called 911, police on their way" and chasing the would be thief off?
Those are questions ( I'm sure there are more) the prosecutor will likely ask.
4) Instead we have a dead teen, and a decent guy on his way to jail and if not that bankruptcy
******
Forget how many years ago, google searches might find the case. There were a couple guys (father/son maybe) breaking into a truck yard or similar and steal stuff. Someone (maybe the owner) staked it out (waited for them, or maybe it was their property) and fired a warning shot from his S/G somewhat in their direction. Want to guess how that went?
Crooks have plenty to "fear" if they are a threat to you. Despite popular belief we can defend ourselves.
The devil is in the details
Not going to weigh in on which is right/better. Both (Cda and the US) have big problems
Will say I rarely lock my doors at night. If I lived in the US in a comparable area.
Damn right I would.....
Property and vehicles are protected by insurance. It's cheaper than a lawyer but more expensive than a bullet.
The man in question might have been in self defence and no insurance slip can protect you from violence.
Maybe he was giving a reminder to all crooks that your playing a dangerous game. I respect that only because the next theif stealing someone's personal property will think twice.
Car thiefs don't likely cab it or take the bus to the next victims house so probably someone else was involved.
If you are out numbered and being robbed do you not already feel threatened? That's why I would be carrying a weapon while confronting some individuals who are taking what I have worked hard to own.
If he blasted through the cab of his truck at the perpetrator then he didn't give a darn about the truck to begin with.
If the truck was about to run him over then he did what he had to do.
Either way lawyers are the only ones going home with his truck... and then some.
Don't think I would sit back and have my truck stolen by punks but can't say I would kill one for trying either.