RCMP charge Okotoks homeowner after shots fired

[jaycee]

Millard is an exceptional case. He's far from the typical criminal.

And the thing about a predator like Millard is, he planned it out. There was nothing Bosma could have done.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

That would apply to a lot of criminals, they plan things out and no one but themselves know anything about it to prepare themselves.
Therefore should we all not be prepared for the worst, you never know what's on their minds.

There are many others out there , how about Bernardo and his wife, did the Mahaffy and French girls or their families have any ideas of what was going to happen to them

COL. Russel Williams from CFB Trenton, murderer and rapist , 2 counts of murder, 82 counts of break and enter, He could possibly have killed more had the opportunity presented itself.
If I sat down and thought about it, I could come up with many more.

[welsh]

You've got examples of famous predators who made the news. Three examples spanning over two decades.

This is not typical crime.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[Big Jack]

I think we can all agree that Millard and Smich deserve the most severe penalty which for them might actually be all this time in jail because these pretty boys one from a privileged upbringing are going to have a very hard time. Even the Judge in his summation said "I wish you all the best in the penitentiary and I really mean that ". I have NEVER heard a Judge say anything like that in 40 years in the business. In fact that is almost a RED LIGHT for the hard cases in jail to take these guys out.
Mr Millard now faces a trial for killing his own father who raised him in this privileged lifestyle, he will no doubt get convicted again especially if he act,s again as his own counsel.

So you are ok with someone else doing the dirty work on this.

Both of these guys are poster boys for capital punishment.

Society should not tolerate these types.

[Sam Menard]

Yes I do believe in capitol punishment, just not by homeowners protecting their property. Some people deserve to die.

I support your point of view. I also support defending yourself, including using lethal force when in imminent danger. However, I also believe that punishment should be handed out by the courts. Our country's values are based on law and order. Admittedly, our governments or justice system aren't perfect and have made questionable decisions, however the thought of an armed citizenry taking matters into their own hands concerns me. Makes me think of a mixture of road rage and Frontier justice. No doubt, someone breaking into my home or vehicle would anger me and make me feel violated. I might have the urge to pound the piss out of them too, but the crime wouldn't justify ending their lives.

I can understand that my values may not align with those of others in this thread and that is OK. Being able to agree to disagree is one of the virtues of living in a civilized and just society.

[Species8472]

While I think FM and Welsh are generally too soft hearted, in regards to killing to someone for stealing/vandalizing property I hate to admit it but I am more or less on their side. Unless personal or family safety is threatened, ending a human life is not something that should be acceptable . The only exception to that is if the property being harmed or stolen is my coon hound. My hound's well being is worth more than the well being of any criminal.

[MikePal]

Unfortunately, the original topic of the discussion was lost early on in the thread by the usual cast of charterers spewing their nonsense. The issue is not about whether or not you could or would take a life in defense of your property. As the rural folk of Alberta have said it's about your right to defend your property as landowners without being charged and forced to defend yourself.

Our present system requires that charges be laid against a landowner for defending his property from a trespasser, even in a case like this, where the trespasser has been charged with trespassing by night, mischief to property, theft under $5,000 from a motor vehicle, possession of methamphetamine and failure to comply with probation.

And since Mr Edouard Maurice has been charge he will now have to hire a lawyer, that will probably cost him upwards of a $100k , to defend his decision to confront the trespasser, on his property, to a judge and jury.

The farmers and landowners in Alberta are not been adequately served by the RCMP (by their own admission) in a timely manner to protect their property. So residents are more and more taking matters into their own hands, knowing that the decision may make them criminals. The only hope being that a judge will drop the charges or a jury of their peers will find them not guilty, as is what happens in most of the these trials (Gerald Stanley case).

This is not how the legal system should work and it's not in places that have adopted 'Castle Doctrine' provisions and why it has been enacted in the majority of the US states. With property crimes on the increase and the RCMP unable to protect the landowner it's time that the Provincial laws take a look at adopting similar provision to protect land owners rights.

“There’s been a lot of discussion about rural property crime given the recent court case in Saskatchewan,” Scott said, referencing the acquittal of Gerald Stanley in the killing of 22-year-old Indigenous man Colten Boushie.

“It would be obvious that if you’re living in a rural location the RCMP response is a little bit slower than a municipal city’s response, and every property owner knows how far away their detachment of jurisdiction is,” she said. “But that doesn’t mean that the RCMP supports property owners … taking matters into their own hands.

“I understand that property owners may want to protect their property, but there are limits to what people can do to protect their property. We will consistently encourage people to call the RCMP, let us do the investigation, let us manage the situation.”

Alberta rural RCMP detachments have seen a 16 per cent increase in Criminal Code offences over the past five years, according to Scott.

[greatwhite]

To be honest I am surprised that you agree in Capital punishment. However I do feel people under certain conditions can defend themselves and their loved ones. If I came home and someone was say raping my daughter at that point in time that person becomes my personal property to do as I see fit. Protecting property with lethal force maybe not but protecting family or others absolutely.

Yes I do believe in capitol punishment, just not by homeowners protecting their property. Some people deserve to die.

[welsh]

Our present system requires that charges be laid against a landowner for defending his property from a trespasser....

Our present system requires no such thing.

The landowner may in fact defend his property provided that the force he uses is proportional in the circumstances.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[MikePal]

The landowner may in fact defend his property provided that the force he uses is proportional in the circumstances.

ergo, because the trespasser did not have a gun, charges were laid....

With Castle Doctrine, that requirement doesn't need to be meet..

[welsh]

ergo, because the trespasser did not have a gun, charges were laid....

With Castle Doctrine, that requirement doesn't need to be meet..

So you are not saying landowners need the right to defend their property; you are saying they need the right to shoot people.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk