Crime In Rural Areas

542 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

Yes Paladin, I know that knives are sharp, and that they can maim and kill. I'm also not stupid enough to pick up one of them and try to use it on another person.

Seeing as I'm not the one making the casual arguments in favour of killing people maybe you and others here might want to consider your own advice about deadly weapons.

If I need to explain my point, police are trained to use deadly force. The wise ones, like the one Aristotleded24 mentioned, try to avoid using it if possible. The arrogant and thoughtless ones use it all the time when it is not necessary, and kill people. I figured you'd be aware of this, given your knowledge of firearms and their use. But here:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41314562

"Those officers would 100% have been legally justified to use deadly force," said Lt Lutz. "Had they stood their ground a deadly encounter would have been forced at that point. By allowing it to unfold, it ended with an arrest and the suspect is alive. Five or 10 years ago, he wouldn't be."

It is not just relevant to mental health cases.

And no one is arguing in favour of letting people steal whatever they want. How many times to I need to point out this is about avoiding people getting killed.

Why are we even stuck on this point? This is about dealing with the issue of rural crime. Is the best that the three of you can come up with really to give everyone guns and let them shoot it out?

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
And no one is arguing in favour of letting people steal whatever they want. How many times to I need to point out this is about avoiding people getting killed.

If everyone must avoid being killed, how is that not going to allow people to steal what they want?  What, if not non-existant police or "foolhardy" homeowners is going to discourage them from just showing up at the door with the biggest loot sack they can find?

This thread was initially started in the hope of discussing ways by which rural residents could deal with being robbed.  Any thoughts on how we can prevent rural crime like that?  Other than "offer them help loading your possessions in the truck"?

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Are you really thinking about what you are recommending here? You are talking about someone (not sure who) dying.

I'm not recommending it, I'm saying people have the right to self-defence. During a home-invasion it's best to flee but if you can't flee, for example you are protecting your family, or the intruder could catch you, then you have the right to use whatever means necessary to protect yourself. 

On the other hand, if you arrive home, and realise someone has broken into your home, legally you must flee. 

I would never own a gun because I'm the kind of person who would get it taken away from me. I wouldn't live in a remote location because I would be afraid to. 

6079_Smith_W

Magoo, Have you been following this thread?

Do you really need me to point out, again,  the aspects of dealing with crime we have talked about other than shooting people?

Not to be rude, but this is involving a lot of having to repeat things, and a lot of having to correct things that were not said. Might I recommend some note-taking?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

No need to be that way, Smith.  You ignore things others say too, when you don't think they're relevant.  Please don't be hard done by.

6079_Smith_W

You posted the article on the RCMP meeting in Perdue. Did you read all that was said there?

The notion that the only option other than murdering people is handing everything over to them is absurd. I know this seems to be all some want to talk about, but there actually was a good deal said on the topic of dealing with crime.

 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

If I need to explain my point, police are trained to use deadly force. The wise ones, like the one Aristotleded24 mentioned, try to avoid using it if possible. The arrogant and thoughtless ones use it all the time when it is not necessary, and kill people. I figured you'd be aware of this, given your knowledge of firearms and their use. But here:

My friend, not a jab but sorry you're starting to come across as a little condisending. Like we're stupid for not seeing things your way with your "do I need to repeat myself?" or "what don't you understand?" mantra. It's becomming ad hominem. I've taught a number of law of armed conflict lectures and trained people in the use of force model. I also have regular discussions with police officers about the subject including with officers who are police use of force instructors. You really don't need to keep dropping the "I figured you'd know this stuff" stuff. There's more to things than arrogant and thoughtless just blasting people away.

You said;

Quote:
Do we really want to follow the example of all those trigger happy cops who shoot everyone who has a knife?

To me, and maybe I'm wrong here, that seems pretty critical of police officers in situations with knives. Almost dismissive. Same page as why don't police shoot the knifr or gun out of a bad guys hand or why not shoot them in the leg. Yes police can try to disengage from a subject the same way they can back off from a high speed chase but they don't always have that option. Police also don't shoot to kill someone, they shoot to stop the threat. Might sound like semantics but legally it's a huge difference.

 

Quote:
Why are we even stuck on this point? This is about dealing with the issue of rural crime. Is the best that the three of you can come up with really to give everyone guns and let them shoot it out?

Please recall where I said I'm supportive of home owners having firearms for self-defense but wasn't sure I supported or agreed with people driving around with firearms in their vehicle. That's a strawman comment too by the way.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

You posted the article on the RCMP meeting in Perdue. Did you read all that was said there?

The notion that the only option other than murdering people is handing everything over to them is absurd. I know this seems to be all some want to talk about, but there actually was a good deal said on the topic of dealing with crime.

Of course proper security is first but few people live in bunkers like the Hell's Angels. Neighbourhood Watch is good too but it is not the job farmers to patrol to protect thieves. 

Once someone breaches the walls of your home those solutions have failed. Are you suggesting people should not have the right to self-defence, or that they not be allowed to plea self-defence unless they are physically harmed? 

6079_Smith_W

Paladin1 wrote:

My friend, not a jab but sorry you're starting to come across as a little condescending.

No worries. Angry is more like it.

Someone really got killed because of this craziness. And someone else just got shot last weekend for rifling through someone's car.

Sorry, but I really have a hard time believing we are having a casual discussion about killing people.

Especially as the alleged only option for protecting property.  And especially here.

And if I am pressing people on whether they really understand what they are saying about killing over a car or a quad or a TV, and taking a risk - one which professional cops don't take in this situation - of getting killed themselves there's actually a reason for that.

It isn't that I don't understand rural crime; I have some experience and understand the frustration , which isn't all that different from frustration in the city. But there is a whole lot of what is being promoted here that has nothing to do with that.

 

 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Someone really got killed because of this craziness. And someone else just got shot last weekend for rifling through someone's car.

Yup. It all started with a car load of young adults who decided to  put innocent people at risk with their drinking and driving and then tresspass on someones property with the intent of stealing their stuff.

Driving around with guns- somewhat different debate.

Quote:

And if I am pressing people on whether they really understand what they are saying about killing over a car or a quad or a TV, and taking a risk -

I see people who feel threatened.  Yes we've covered shooting someone whos stealing music CDs out of your car is wrong but the grey area starts when the person is moving towards your house, or the homeowners feel threatened by the presence of someone on their property.

Quote:

It isn't that I don't understand rural crime; I have some experience and understand the frustration

I recognize this.

6079_Smith_W

Drinking and driving justifies killing someone now?

Fact is, when they tried to take something from another farm they failed and left.

At Gerald Stanley's farm one of them was shot in the back of the head while he was doing nothing.

You are right it is a different debate. One is about dealing with rural crime. The other is about people who don't think the law should apply to them, even when it comes to murder.

These people aren't asking for guns as a defense when their lives are in danger. They want to be able to shoot people they suspect of stealing:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/okotoks-shooting-homeowner-charged...

Why do you need the RCMP at all when you can become your "own trained first response". Doesn't sound like an NRA talking point at all.

Pondering

Smith, you are presenting strawman arguments and avoiding questions. 

Gerald did not plead self-defence. There was no justification of the shooting. It was not to protect life or property.

In the second case in which someone shot at people rummaging in a car, I think he will be charged and convicted because I don't think he can claim self-defence or warning shots. 

No one has supported the notion that people should be able to use a gun to protect property.

The only valid reason to use a gun is to protect yourself from physical harm. I'm pretty sure everyone here agrees with that statement.

The question then becomes, what constitutes enough of a physical threat to justify shooting at a person?

If someone is willing to break into my home while I am in it that is a home invasion not robbery.  I assume they are prepared or intend to harm me. 

6079_Smith_W

I mention that this is serious because it involves this casual talk is really about people being shot and killed, and the response I get is that some people were drinking and came on property to steal.

It's either a justification, or an attempt to cast some sort of blame.

How do you think I am spinning that as a strawman? And what question do you think I am avoiding?

 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Drinking and driving justifies killing someone now?

Strawman again.

Quote:

Quote:

At Gerald Stanley's farm one of them was shot in the back of the head while he was doing nothing.

By accident and they shouldn't have been there in the first place. Did anyone "deserve" to die, gone over that a bunch but no. People are damn lucky those people in the car didn't hit and kill anyone and they should be hit with a handful of charges themselves IMO.

Quote:

You are right it is a different debate. One is about dealing with rural crime. The other is about people who don't think the law should apply to them, even when it comes to murder.

So people who tresspass, steal and assault people aren't acting like the law doesn't apply to them?

Quote:
These people aren't asking for guns as a defense when their lives are in danger. They want to be able to shoot people they suspect of stealing:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/okotoks-shooting-homeowner-charged...

I read the article and no one said "I want to shoot people suspected of stealing".  Maybe they want to make a citizens arrest? Point a gun at someone and say don't move until the police arrive.

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

If someone is willing to break into my home while I am in it that is a home invasion not robbery.  I assume they are prepared or intend to harm me. 

 

Which is completely plausable.

6079_Smith_W

Well why did you even bring up their drunk driving and tresspass? If they didn't want to die they shouldn't have gone there? Or they showed reckless disregard so they deserved it? If I got it wrong what did you mean?

I didn't say people who steal shouldn't be prosecuted. What I said was that the consequence should not be death, and by pushing this whole crime question into picking up guns, you are increasing the likelihood of someone getting killed.

I don't think you quite appreciate what that means. And that is why I continue to ask pointed questions that you think are condescending. This is ultimately about people getting killed, much as some of you want to dance around it.

This isn't about reducing crime; it is about upping the ante to assault and homocide.

 

 

Paladin1

I'm saying it's perplexing that it seems you're more concerned about farmers using firearms to defend themselves and their property than you are about the sky rocketing increase in crime in rural Sask.

It's strange you seem to condemn farmers for having guns but totally downplayed the facted there was a loaded gun in Boushie's car. You made a bunch of excuses like the gun didn't even work (after it was broken breaking into another vehicle).

Quote:
This isn't about reducing crime; it is about upping the ante to assault and homocide.

It SHOULD be about reducing crime. Then farmers won't feel like they have to arm themselves with guns.

"Don't shoot people stealing your stuff" does nothing to address the problem. This gun stuff is a symptom.

6079_Smith_W

No, actually shooting someone is a serious example of  the problem of crime in rural areas. It is far more serious than theft. And it is a crime.

That alleged shooter in Alberta? He is charged with the crime of aggravated assault. He isn't a victim; he is the accused.

And did you read the articles? It isn't "skyrocketing" here in Saskatchewan. It rose over a few years and dropped back down to 2011 levels. RCMP at these meetings are saying the complaints don't match their statistics, and they can't deal with a problem they aren't told about.

There have been a number of things brought up in this thread to deal with the problem of theft in rural areas. That doesn't seem to be what some of you are interested in. As for these gun owners, All I see is them thinking the law should not apply to them.

As for those skyrocketing crime rates, even before they dropped again in 2016 they weren't exactly skyrocketing:

You know, I’m hearing a whole lot of talk about an epidemic of rural crime here – and zero evidence.

That terrifying trio of masked gunmen stalking rural roads last fall?

There were never any arrests. In fact, it didn’t take long for residents, and the RCMP (according to one reliable source), to start questioning whether the whole thing was made up.

Another Kindersley area farmer disputed the armed-combine stories, saying the whole thing was just some kind of weird inside joke.

And six months prior to defending the motion to allow farmers to kill trespassers or would-be thieves on their property, SARM president Ray Orb told the Canadian Press that he really wasn’t hearing anything from scared rural residents, except for what he saw on the news.

https://oursask.ca/2017/03/21/its-okay-kindersley-you-really-dont-need-t...

And the article referenced regarding how many complaints there really have been, also worth reading:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/09/22/saskatchewan-rcmp_n_12138612.html

Paladin1

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/sask-crime-severity-index-1.4...

Quote:

This province has the highest crime severity index and crime rate in Canada. Saskatchewan's crime severity index rose by nine per cent.

Regina's crime rate went up more than 11 per cent in 2016. Firearms offences jumped 233 per cent in the city — with 58 incidents, up from 17 in 2015.

Violent crime increased more than seven per cent in 2016.

 

Skyrocketing so bad they had to alert the ISS.

Farmers are going to protect themselves until the RCMP or government of Sask figure out what to do about the thefts.

 

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 These people aren't asking for guns as a defense when their lives are in danger. They want to be able to shoot people they suspect of stealing:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/okotoks-shooting-homeowner-charged...

Which no one here agrees with. All we are defending it the right to protect oneself from bodily harm. 

You want people to assume the intent of a home invasion is purely to steal property and does not carry any risk to the homeowner. That just isn't true. Some home invasions do result in injury to the occupants. Women in their eighties have been raped by young men. They didn't wear a sign. 

I and others are maintaining that the act of home invasion is a threat to the physical safety of the occupants regardless of the perpetrator's intent because that cannot be known by the occupant. The act itself constitutes a declaration of hostile intent and justifies fear of personal injury on the part of the occupants. When someone invades someone else's home they are putting themselves at risk. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Women in their eighties have been raped by young men. They didn't wear a sign.

In the interest of offering constructive ideas, what if we start requiring home invaders to wear a sign?

6079_Smith_W

So let me get this straight - you want people in Regina to be able to settle disputes with guns too?  I hate to break the obvious to you, but that will make firearms offences rise even higher.

Someone was killed 10 years in Macwacis by a stray bullet that went through a wall. There was also a baby in the house. Another person was seriously injured two years later in the same community, also by a bullet going through the wall of a house.

I know we can't be letting these CD thieves get away with it, but maybe you should think this one through a bit more.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/latest-gang-shooting-in-hobbema-l...

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

So let me get this straight - you want people in Regina to be able to settle disputes with guns too?  I hate to break the obvious to you, but that will make firearms offences rise even higher.

Someone was killed 10 years in Macwacis by a stray bullet that went through a wall. There was also a baby in the house. Another person was seriously injured two years later in the same community, also by a bullet going through the wall of a house.

 

 

So if an intruder or intruders break into my house and I feel my life is threatened I shouldn't resort to using a gun to defend myself from being assaulted because the bullet might go through a wall and hit someon else.   I should just hope for the best that I'm not murdered or my family.  Okay.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Someone was killed 10 years in Macwacis by a stray bullet that went through a wall. There was also a baby in the house. Another person was seriously injured two years later in the same community, also by a bullet going through the wall of a house.

Does this story describe the shootings you're referring to?  Because it sounds to me like someone fired a gun at the house, from outside.

6079_Smith_W

It is against the law to discharge a firearm in any city or residential area a. In my experience that include s RMs anywhere near a city or town, and places with residential lots. Bullets can travel a long way with deadly force, sorry.
And my point Magoo is that bullets travel through walls. But I am talking about shootings in 2008 and 2010.
There is a link.

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:
It is against the law to discharge a firearm in any city or residential area a. In my experience that include s RMs anywhere near a city or town, and places with residential lots. Bullets can travel a long way with deadly force, sorry. And my point Magoo is that bullets travel through walls. .

Sure is against the law. I'd expect to be charged and proably have my liscence and firearms taken away. Pay a lawyer $10'000+.

Bullets sure do go through walls. They can also stop rapists and murderers dead in their tracks. Or scare them away. And impropperly stored firearms can kill or injure kids.  Lots of decisions to make.

It's a rabbit hole but I'd like to treat DUIs as attempted murder, or attempted manslaughter? Whatever it's called. It's basically randomly firing a gun with a 2000 pound bullet.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

So let me get this straight - you want people in Regina to be able to settle disputes with guns too?  I hate to break the obvious to you, but that will make firearms offences rise even higher.

Someone was killed 10 years in Macwacis by a stray bullet that went through a wall. There was also a baby in the house. Another person was seriously injured two years later in the same community, also by a bullet going through the wall of a house.

I know we can't be letting these CD thieves get away with it, but maybe you should think this one through a bit more.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/latest-gang-shooting-in-hobbema-l...

Yet again you make no distinction between theft and physical harm. You seem to have the attitude that intruders never harm anyone. 

The decision to have a gun is a serious one. In cities it isn't just that there are more cops on patrol it's also more likely that there will be witnesses to a crime or someone will hear a cry for help. If you escape your home there is refuge close by. 

I'm very anti-gun, especially hand guns, especially in cities. I personally would never own one. There are many factors, such as children living in the home, that need to be taken into account. Living in an isolated spot is also a consideration. 

I understand your concern that fear for safety can be used as an excuse to shoot at someone who was just there to steal not harm anyone. There are limitations. You can't shoot someone who is fleeing. Gerald could not have plead accidental discharge in most other situations. 

I expect the man who shot at people rummaging his car will be charged and on the face of it he should be convicted. 

I would target way more anger at the lack of protection of the crime scene and leaving Colton's body there for so long. It doesn't seem like they left anyone there to watch the body. It's sickening. The car door was left open in the rain. To me that is gross negligence. If I were a juror that would influence me to not convict. I would feel like I was being asked to convict someone without all the evidence in a case that had the inexplicable factor of the bulge and that it was old ammuntion. The defendent shouldn't pay for the incompetence of police. 

I know nothing about police work but even I know that a scene with a questionable gun death needs to be protected and the body should be photographed if need be then moved to a morgue as quickly as possible not just covered with a tarp. Basic human decency demands it. 

 

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

Yet again you make no distinction between theft and physical harm. You seem to have the attitude that intruders never harm anyone.

Actually you are begging the question.

Gerald Stanley didn't make that distinction. That fellow in Okotoks didn't either, nor are the people who support him and are asking to be their own law. Same for municipal reps at the SARM convention.

For that matter, the law doesn't make that distinction either. It says you aren't allowed to carry a weapon as a defense against people. The fact a judge might give you a break in an extreme situation doesn't change that law. And using a cute trick like saying it's just to shoot gophers doesn't change it either.

So I am not actually the one making false assumptions here.

You and others here seem to be ignoring the reality that if you arm twitchy self-entitled white people (especially ones who assume the absolute worst - that others are potential sickos and torturers) what you are setting up is a recipe for murder.

That's not solving or reducing crime.

 

Paladin1

Maybe it should be illegal for white people to own guns.

6079_Smith_W

I know Unionist thinks so.

I'd be happy with them recognizing the law applies to them just like it does to everyone else.

6079_Smith_W
Pondering

Pondering wrote:
Yet again you make no distinction between theft and physical harm. You seem to have the attitude that intruders never harm anyone.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
  Actually you are begging the question.

Gerald Stanley didn't make that distinction. That fellow in Okotoks didn't either, nor are the people who support him and are asking to be their own law. Same for municipal reps at the SARM convention. 

Concerning specific events different outcomes will result depending on the details. Gerald Stanley did make that defence. The gun was to protect life and limb not property. That justified his having the gun in his hand. In Gerald's case he claimed the gun went off accidently when he tried to turn the vehicle off. In the second case I don't think the shooter could use a similar defence. No one here supports the people who want to justify using weapons to protect property. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
  For that matter, the law doesn't make that distinction either. It says you aren't allowed to carry a weapon as a defense against people. The fact a judge might give you a break in an extreme situation doesn't change that law. And using a cute trick like saying it's just to shoot gophers doesn't change it either. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/self-defence-what-s-acceptable-under-canad...

"Your dwelling house seems to be the property you're allowed to protect the most," Nichols says.

Under Section 40 of the Criminal Code, which deals with the defence of dwellings, Nichols says, "everyone who is in possession of a dwelling house is justified in using as much force as necessary, to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or entering the dwelling house without lawful authority."

Cohen echoes Nichols' sentiments, adding that when it comes to defending themselves, Canadians have the most rights inside their own homes.  

"This area is less grey than others. The rule of reasonable force still applies, but most judges will give you the benefit of the doubt," Cohen says. "… You can use any force you deem necessary to remove the burglar from the house and eliminate the threat to yourself."

"You could use a significant amount of force. If you knocked them out and rendered them unconscious, you will probably not be charged with assault," Cohen adds. "But if he was retreating and you hit him in the head with a bat and he was [critically injured], you might have a problem."

Nichols says the words "as much force as is necessary" are one of the things taken into account by judges.

"It might depend on where the person was, and what they were doing. A judge would look at what degree of force was used and where you struck the person," Cohen says.

"There's a ton of case law out there where people have been charged in these types of situations," Nichols adds, referring to situations where an intruder has entered and a dwelling occupant has used lethal force.

"Generally they're treated very, very leniently, or the charges are dropped altogether," she says.

The law is not absolute. People are allowed to carry guns in their own home for self-defence if they discover an intruder in their home or trying to get into their home. It is even legal to shoot the intruder if circumstances warrant it. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 You and others here seem to be ignoring the reality that if you arm twitchy self-entitled white people (especially ones who assume the absolute worst - that others are potential sickos and torturers) what you are setting up is a recipe for murder.  

Self-defence is not murder. The act of breaking into a home is threatening the homeowner with violence. The person breaking in is putting their own life in danger. It is not up to the victim, the homeowner, to place themselves at risk to protect intruders. 

That is never ever going to change because the right to self-defence cannot be removed. People cannot be expected to potentially sacrifice their lives when threatened. 

You may well consider it a smokescreen to claim carrying a weapon is to kill rodents that threaten a farm, and you may be right, but unless it can be proven otherwise the farmer does have a right to be armed on their own property to hunt or to shoot magpies, gophers or other animals. If they are then threatened by a human they do have the right to shoot in self-defence. 

Potential thieves have been warned. Rather than arguing that it is illegal to shoot at people for stealing it would be better to warn young people to stay the hell off of farmer's property because they could be shot. If, at some later point, it is proven that the farmer committed murder, the intruder will still be dead. 

Trying to intimidate farmers not to have guns won't work. There is no chance a gun law will be passed in the foreseeable future that bars farmers from owning guns or from having them loaded on their person on their own farm even if they are just shooting at skunks while harvesting. 

https://www.quora.com/How-many-small-animals-are-killed-when-harvesting-...

And let me tell you it is horrible having to stop to clean out the animal remains. Which is why I keep a Gun in the Combine or tractor. Partly to scare the animals, sometimes to kill them before they enter the combine, the big reason is because I am not crushing another dogs skull with my boots because he was loose and hiding in a corn field and was torn in half, and crying.

That comment had nothing to do with justifying having a gun as a smokescreen. There are valid reasons for farmers to have guns and to carry them. It's impossible to prove otherwise. If they are threatened while they have the gun in their possession it is legal for them to use it for self-defence because barring it would make no sense. 

If you dive into a pool without checking for rocks it is not the fault of the rocks for being there. If a thief breaks into an occupied home it is a home invasion therefore it is valid for the occupants to be afraid and to assume the invader means them harm. Otherwise, they would wait until the home was unoccupied before trying to steal. 

I commend you for being unafraid when people break into your home but I would be terrified. I'm happy to live in an extremely secure building on an upper floor. If I lived somewhere more isolated I would want a gun for self-defence and I would shoot at anyone who broke into my home while I was in it rather than give them a chance to gain the upper hand. If I returned home and saw evidence my home had been broken into I would run away not investigate. 

You are outraged at the Stanley verdict because to you the fact that Gerald was holding the gun close to Colton's head and Colton died from a bullet from that gun is sufficient proof to call it murder or at the very least manslaughter but it isn't that simple.

There are specific points of law that allowed Gerald to get the gun and load it for the purpose of self-defence. There are specific points of law that allow farmers to have guns to shoot at animals on their property. 

What do you propose? Making it illegal to use a gun in self-defence on your own property? 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Gerald Stanley didn't make that distinction.

Here's one way we could consider this.

We all should know, and probably all agree with, the idea that the defendant in any trial cannot be be obligated to "prove themself innocent".  That's not how it works and it's not how it should work, and I don't think any of us here disagree.

But if I'm on trial for using "excessive force" against an intruder, is there a similar legal principle under which there is no onus on him to prove that when he intruded, it was solely for material gain, and not to harm me or my family?

It would be nice if we could ask the intruder:

1.  why were you on someone else's property when it should have been totally clear to you that you were not on YOUR property, but someone else's?  Were there fences to scale, or locks to pick, or doors to break that might have informed you that you were invading someone's property?

2.  what were you there for?

3.  what were you willing to do, in the pursuit of what you were there for?  Were you ready to run away, if detected, and did you?

4.  did you prepare for this (e.g. by bringing a weapon)?

5.  what did you do to ensure that the person you were invading was fully aware of why you were there?  Did you give them reasonable reason to believe that you posed no threat to their safety, nor that of their family?

I'd be happy to hear what home invaders and "thieves" and carjackers and suchlike might have to say.  But if they don't have a particularly good reason for invading, and if they can't convince a jury that they would never harm someone just for the silverware, and if they were armed with any weapon then I think we can disregard any sillytalk about how it's all about property. 

If you're really only out to steal the silverware, you don't need to bring a knife to fight the fork.  If you're armed then that's for me, not my stereo.

6079_Smith_W

Stanley didn't make that distinction; because he shot a man in the back of the head who was doing nothing to him.

His defense was that it was an accident, not delf defense, but he didn't use that gun because of any imminent threat to his or anyone else's person. And he still killed someone. So this supposed rule Pondering keeps bringing up has nothing to do with the reality on the ground, for the reasons I explained in my last post, and for this reason, which I am explaining again.

It is actually meaningless except in the context of a judge deciding whether you get an excuse from committing assault or homocide. Unlike the way these farmers and their supporters spin it, it isn't a case of deciding ahead of time how far you can let your gun hang out of your pocket while you are on patrol for bad guys.

That fellow from Okotoks thought he knew, and he thought wrong. Or who knows, maybe he'll get the right jury.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Stanley didn't make that distinction; because he shot a man in the back of the head who was doing nothing to him.

OK, but I thought this was an "in general" thread, so "in general", how shall we know why some person or persons jumped our fence?

If you want to use a specific case as an example, that's cool.  But hopefully it clarifies the "general" case, rather than just its own singular case.  There's already a "Stanley" thread, if that's what we're really talking about.

6079_Smith_W

Go back and read what I said at 229.

I'm not just talking about Gerald Stanley. None of this is about just needing the freedom to defend your life in an emergency.

And "why someone jumps your fence"? What does that even mean? Are you seriously that paranoid? That's a good argument for keeping guns OUT of people's hands altogether if you ask me.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I'm not just talking about Gerald Stanley.

True.  You included all twitchy, self-entitled white people.

I wonder just how many killings in my hometown of Toronto as a result of twitchy, self-entitled white people.

Quote:
And "why someone jumps your fence"? What does that even mean?

It means that a fence should be an obvious thing.  What's the confusing part, Smith?  It's like a lock on a door.  Is that similarly confusing for some?

6079_Smith_W

Yup. Pretty twitchy. And although we don't know who all these cops are, we do know who proportionally is more likely to be a victim.

"They shot him because they let their fear of a black man with a hammer (8.5 metres) away overcome what should have been a compassionate and humane response," Shime said in his closing arguments.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/loku-inquest-closing-arguments-1.4...

https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2015/08/16/how-many-black-men-have-be...

https://nowtoronto.com/news/toronto-cold-cases-have-a-race-problem/

And a fence is a solid object that might stop a ball or keep your dog in the yard. The confusing part is you floating the idea that anyone who passes through it might be coming to kill you. It's ridiculous, and yes, anyone who seriously thinks that way should not have a gun.

 

Paladin1

More reason for white Canadians not to be allowed guns and white cops only given tasers. Or even whistles.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
And a fence is a solid object that might stop a ball or keep your dog in the yard. The confusing part is you floating the idea that anyone who passes through it might be coming to kill you.

Well, if they come through it they're probably a ghost, and I don't even know what a ghost wants.

Everyone else has to climb over it, as though it were some natural phenomenon like a mountain range, and not some obvious thing that says "you're not invited here".

Again, just like a lock.  If you have to pick a lock, that might mean you're supposed to stay out.  But what say you?

6079_Smith_W

You have a lock on your front gate?

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I have a lock on my door.  I'm curious what kind of message it reasonably sends.  Like a fence.  What could a fence possibly mean?

Could either say "you're not allowed here"?  That's what I'm asking.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Stanley didn't make that distinction; because he shot a man in the back of the head who was doing nothing to him.

His defense was that it was an accident, not delf defense, but he didn't use that gun because of any imminent threat to his or anyone else's person. And he still killed someone. So this supposed rule Pondering keeps bringing up has nothing to do with the reality on the ground, for the reasons I explained in my last post, and for this reason, which I am explaining again.

There are two parts to Gerald's defence. The first part was establishing why he had the gun. He stated he went and got the gun for self defence. If he had said he wanted to protect his property he would have been convicted. He made a distinction. It established his right to be holding the gun but not to shoot Colton. 

Part 2 is the actual shooting of Colton which could not be proven to be deliberate. 

No one here has suppported the Farmers with Firearms desire to expand their rights.

I only support the law as it stands. How would you have the law changed?

6079_Smith_W

People jump fences all the time and don't get shot for it, Magoo. And very few rural home quarters have fences around them, so I am not sure how that relates. It is actually legal to open someone's gate and walk up to the door.

I know you were just making a turn of phrase; the real point is assuming that everyone who walks up to your door might be there to kill you is paranoid. It is also what got that former police officer walking up to buy a can of gas shot and killed.

And I repeat, it is an argument to keep guns out of people's hands altogether, though you probably didn't intend it that way.

 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And I repeat, it is an argument to keep guns out of people's hands altogether,

No thank you :)

The Liberals are about to pass some new gun laws. 

What I've read previously from Mr Goodale the items actually seem pretty good. Stricter background checks, more money towards mental health and especially border security.   BUT, I'm thinking they have been shitting the bed so bad recently that they're going to try and win some confidence back by using the shooting in the states to push some heavy restrictions here. Rural MPs don't seem very impressed and a move like that could easily backfire for the Liberals but I'm getting the feeling they're kinda desperate.

Pondering

deleted off topic

Paladin1

Pondering I came across this video of a woman being held hostage in a B&E situation  out west. The men went on to murder someone. I thought you might be interested in watching it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjUzkVrEV1o

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:

Pondering I came across this video of a woman being held hostage in a B&E situation  out west. The men went on to murder someone. I thought you might be interested in watching it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjUzkVrEV1o

Thank-you, and for the other video as well. Good thing there were no guns in the house. 

I also feel better about never opening my door unless someone calls first or I am expecting them. There is no need for a chain on my door. Those things are useless anyway. 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

People jump fences all the time and don't get shot for it, Magoo. And very few rural home quarters have fences around them, so I am not sure how that relates. It is actually legal to open someone's gate and walk up to the door.

I know you were just making a turn of phrase; the real point is assuming that everyone who walks up to your door might be there to kill you is paranoid. It is also what got that former police officer walking up to buy a can of gas shot and killed.

And I repeat, it is an argument to keep guns out of people's hands altogether, though you probably didn't intend it that way.

If your solution is outlawing private gun ownership good luck to you. 

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Pondering I came across this video of a woman being held hostage in a B&E situation  out west. The men went on to murder someone. I thought you might be interested in watching it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjUzkVrEV1o

Thank-you, and for the other video as well. Good thing there were no guns in the house. 

I also feel better about never opening my door unless someone calls first or I am expecting them. There is no need for a chain on my door. Those things are useless anyway. 

You're welcome Pondering. You're a great example of how someone can disagree with something but still be very open minded about discussion.

I used to never think twice about opening my door for strangers but now I'll look to see who it is and if I get a weird feeling talk to them through the window away from the door.

Guns can be good for home protection but so too can thick doors, sturdy locks, strong or reinforced windows, security system and a healthy suspicious mentality.  Even a few seconds can give a home owner time to call the police.

I may have posted this video before (last video for a while promise) but here's a video of how fast someone can get through the door. Had the tenant not had a gun it's easy to imagine they'd be hacked to death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT1JjwuAxmQ

Pages