RCMP charge Okotoks homeowner after shots fired

[line052]

You are correct..."only the POLICE are allowed to do that"...Homeowners..MEH...

"you shouldn't be allowed to shoot someone for breaking into your car".

[line052]

BOOOM...truth..be spoken.... Happened to my Nephew in Nova Scotia a diabetic...Would always fight me for years on FB as a liberal supporter (I was then Conservative), then when I moved to the Libertarians he continued. Once Justin got in power and he became a family man, taxpayer and found out they were cutting his tax benefit for diabetes..he seen the light. Today he is helping to organize the NS Libertarian Party, has sent me numerous apologies (not that they were needed) and now knows the power, control and the government has over his life. Each peoplekind has to find their own way...

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.

Sound familiar?

[line052]

Because it is legal to protect the banks property...and not yours... Anyone see the problem here... you have no rights to protect your personal property, but the banks can protect theirs. Bushmoose, if your property was a pile of cash on your table (like an armoured car), you would be charged for defending it. Banks..no worries..we have armed guards for that...

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?

[fishermccann]

or as I pointed out, the Jury in most cases tells the court they had the right to use deadly force.

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.

Why? because most people-voters in Canada do not agree with castle doctrine that is why it is not legal. Using deadly force should be a 'personal choice', I think not.

[fishermccann]

Why can't some people understand, the voters in Canada have decided that the we as a nation, do not want 'castle doctrine' or giving its citizens the right to shoot -kill other humans over possessions. I do not think that there are enough voters who feel we should have it , to change the law . so get used to it, in Canada you will never have the right to shoot people over 'stuff'. If you do not agree with this law that is fine, try to get enough votes to change it. If you do not obey this law , you should be in jail.

[MikePal]

Using deadly force should be a 'personal choice', I think not.

I don't think you understood....If it is legal to use deadly force to protect your property...then it is your choice whether you do or not........ ie; it becomes your personal choice if you want to shoot that man standing in your kids room at 2:00 am or to I run back into your bedroom and call 911.

Sadly to many voters don't want the option...

[line052]

WE AS CANADIANS did not decide this..governments did. No national referendum..

Why can't some people understand, the voters in Canada have decided that the we as a nation, do not want 'castle doctrine' or giving its citizens the right to shoot -kill other humans over possessions. I do not think that there are enough voters who feel we should have it , to change the law . so get used to it, in Canada you will never have the right to shoot people over 'stuff'. If you do not agree with this law that is fine, try to get enough votes to change it. If you do not obey this law , you should be in jail.

[fishermccann]

The courts decide hundreds, no thousands of things, for which we have no referendums.

[MikePal]

as a nation, do not want 'castle doctrine' or giving its citizens the right to shoot -kill other humans over possessions.

By that logic, your saying the correct thing to do is; ...confront the guy in your kids room at 2:00 am and ask what he's doing...if he answers "stealing your kids Gaming Box".. your response is .."OK just close the door on the way out, we're insured for that"....LOL...

I'd rather have the choice to handle it differently...

[fishermccann]

I do not want you to have a choice how to handle it, if one of those choices is to kill for a 'game box'.