-
March 3rd, 2018, 08:32 PM
#111

Originally Posted by
Gilroy
What happens if the poor guy is a deaf mute. Shame on you,shame on you,No Justice No Peace, deaf lives matter.
Then,I guess he won't hear the shot that kills his dumb a**,will he? By God,there's a Darwin Award if I ever heard one.LOL
If a tree falls on your ex in the woods and nobody hears it,you should probably still get rid of your chainsaw. Just sayin'....
-
March 3rd, 2018 08:32 PM
# ADS
-
March 3rd, 2018, 09:00 PM
#112
Take the warning labels off. Darwin will solve the problem.
-
March 3rd, 2018, 09:21 PM
#113

Originally Posted by
MikePal
The confusion here is that very few debating the issue have a clue what 'Castle doctrine' means...
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
Mike. I "live" ( part of my job) in the US for two to three weeks every month. So I will put it this way because I live with the Castle Doctrine on a daily existence.
A person enters my cab/sleeper, approaches in a threating way well I am in the trailer, the response is very violent. That is my right. I wakeup to find someone breaking into my trailer, I will just call the cops. I would be with in my rights to smash a car into the wall/guardrails if they drove up beside me and showed a gun. I do not have to prove that they were going to rob me or not.
"I saw the car passing on the left side of my truck and there was a person in the back waving a gun. "
Now before people start on about "what if it was a toy gun".
https://pin.it/ketix7p3apmudk
Last edited by Snowwalker; March 3rd, 2018 at 09:23 PM.
Take the warning labels off. Darwin will solve the problem.
-
March 3rd, 2018, 09:26 PM
#114

Originally Posted by
fishermccann
There is long way between, 'hug a thug', and killing a TV thief, something in the middle might be more appropriate.
I know I know...how about thump a thug? Sounds good to me.
Take the warning labels off. Darwin will solve the problem.
-
March 3rd, 2018, 09:27 PM
#115

Originally Posted by
Snowwalker
I do not have to prove that they were going to rob me or not.
You don't have to prove that in Canada.
Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
"The language of dogs and birds teaches you your own language."
-- Jim Harrison (1937 - 2016)
-
March 3rd, 2018, 09:43 PM
#116

Originally Posted by
terrym
It's easy to talk and say you would shoot somebody but thankfully most couldn't get it done. The thing about armed defence is you likely don't have to shoot. Cycle a 12ga pump from your dark hallway and the lowlifes will flush like 3yr old grouse. I truly think pointing the weapon would work almost all the time.
I do have a problem with the fact politicians and celebrities have the right to armed security but honest tax paying citizens don't. There is something wrong with that.
You never "brandish". Do or do not. Poop or get off the pot.
Had an idiot( had a hate for "foreign" drivers) come storming around the lunch counters saying he was going to kick my butt and rip my head off. He grabbed me, he grabbed his stomach and fell over. Never saw a blade, but he got to see the inside of a cell for six to eight months for making threats and assault. That is how "Self Defence" laws work in the states.
Take the warning labels off. Darwin will solve the problem.
-
March 3rd, 2018, 09:51 PM
#117

Originally Posted by
MikePal
ergo, because the trespasser did not have a gun, charges were laid....
With Castle Doctrine, that requirement doesn't need to be meet..
The land owner has no way of knowing how the person is or is not armed untill it is too late..
Take the warning labels off. Darwin will solve the problem.
-
March 3rd, 2018, 09:58 PM
#118

Originally Posted by
Snowwalker
That is how "Self Defence" laws work in the states.
Oddly, making threats and assault are crimes in Canada too. And self defence is a defence for any criminal act.
By the way, self defence laws vary, state by state -- unlike Canada.
Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
"The language of dogs and birds teaches you your own language."
-- Jim Harrison (1937 - 2016)
-
March 3rd, 2018, 10:05 PM
#119

Originally Posted by
Sam Menard
My concern about the castle doctrine is that it promotes the use of lethal force in the protection of property. I'm not sure I would value a stack of CD's in a vehicle higher than human life. One may advocate in using a weapon to frighten off an intruder but, as we've seen, the worst outcome can happen
The main benefit of the way it works is this.
If you saw a pile of money sitting on a table surrounded by calf high grass, would you help yourself to some?
Well that is how criminals see your property.
Now lets say you decided to line your pockets and walk towards the table...only to hear a snake or two rattling in the grass.
Well the Castle Doctrine is like a snake rattling in the grass. The criminal knows the snake is there, so if he just moves on the money stays on the table and he lives. If he thinks he can out smart the snake, well maybe he does, maybe the snake gets him.
I am cheering on the snake.
Last edited by Snowwalker; March 3rd, 2018 at 10:23 PM.
Take the warning labels off. Darwin will solve the problem.
-
March 3rd, 2018, 10:08 PM
#120

Originally Posted by
Gilroy
What happens if the poor guy is a deaf mute. Shame on you,shame on you,No Justice No Peace, deaf lives matter.
You do have a sense of humor I see.
Take the warning labels off. Darwin will solve the problem.