Your right to defend yourself and property. - Page 4 - ehMac.ca
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Advertise


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Feb 7th, 2012, 03:24 PM   #31
kps
Tritium Glow
 
kps's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: North of the Mullet Line
Posts: 7,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDL View Post

A little over two years ago an eighty year old Moncton area woman defended herself with a pitchfork and drove an intruder away. I understand the elements of her use of force and why they are lawful. The story is here.

Recently a thread was started on the topic of a study that in essence said conservatives like simple (minded no that can't be correct) policies, as complex policies are too difficult for them to comprehend.

I believe the laws as are currently in force are sufficient.

Bullets in guns are only for hunting or target practice. Hunting humans or using them for target practice, in my estimation should remain illegal in all cases.

Because someone believes they are morally superior isn't sufficient justification to use a loaded gun as a response to "I hear a noise."
Geez, I'm so glad you agree that grams should have the right to her pitchfork and not get charged for defending herself.

However, I have to disagree with your assertion that the laws are sufficient. There is no "Castle Doctrine" that is not obfuscated and hidden in muddied waters and grey areas. I want to see it brought to the forefront of that section of the law where necessary and properly clarified.

The self defence law is equally vague and mired in grey.

So instead of a gun, is it morally superior to use an ax, a pitchfork? Tell that to the poor bastard who came home to find a strange car in his driveway and a couple of thieves running out of the house. The ax he grabbed got him a fast trip to the court house.
__________________
kps is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old Feb 7th, 2012, 03:25 PM   #32
Honourable Citizen
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by kps View Post
"not plaguing our system"? What has that got to do with it and how do you know that?
it has everything to do with it. I don't think canadians should get worked up over a few isolated cases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kps View Post
I could spend a few hours and google all the cases for you, but I won't and you'll just have to take my word for it.
so you say this to me, and then you say this to bryanc :

Quote:
Originally Posted by kps View Post
You have facts...data...or you just making thing up?
So you'll forgive me if i ask for evidence that this is actually a substantial problem to be concerned about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SINC View Post
The law is wrong and criminalizes ordinary Canadians who defend themselves. That is what needs to be changed.
has any canadian actually been convicted & imprisoned for self defence? I'm not being facetious, I actually don't know.

I'm all for standing up for canadians rights to protect themselves, but that right certainly doesn't give them carte blanche when dealing with the matter. lethal force should only be used as a last resort, and they certainly shouldn't use more force than necessary. I don't have a problem if the odd person gets charged as long as there is evidence that they stepped beyond that reasonable force or broke the law in another way. things aren't always black & white and sometimes a court has to rule on the grey areas.
i-rui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7th, 2012, 03:46 PM   #33
Honourable Citizen
 
BigDL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Moncton
Posts: 6,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macfury View Post
Who is suggesting they change? The laws have been misapplied in this case and they should not set a bad precedent.
Sinc for one.

The law is being applied as it always has, witness the story of the elderly woman, for some thats not good enough apparently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joker Eh View Post
No one here has said anything about hunting humans. Where in this thread has a member said such? Stay on topic please.
And no one on here said they were morally superior. Again stay on topic.

It is about the right to protect ones property and life.
When you go out of the house with a loaded gun what lawful purpose do you have? Hunting and target practice as far as I know, perhaps you could provide an instance where loaded guns for everyday citizen have another lawful purpose. This thread started at that proposition of, Mr. Thomas leaving the house with a loaded gun, so not so much off topic. The "Castle Doctrine" has the legal hunting of humans at the heart of its premiss.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SINC View Post
You do understand that I do not like current Canadian law as it pertains to self defence. Good for you.

Now all you need to understand that in spite of your opinion, many would like to see Canadians freed from unfair prosecution for doing so, no matter the weapon.

The law is wrong and criminalizes ordinary Canadians who defend themselves. That is what needs to be changed.
Apparently the use of reasonable force is not palatable for some folks. They want to have the right to use unreasonable force at will, I guess?
__________________
OGL breathed life back into the dying Bloc...way to go Steve!

Ad links aka CLICK BATE in my posts were not put there by me.

DO NOT CLICK on the random links in my post if not logged in as a member of this site.
BigDL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7th, 2012, 03:51 PM   #34
kps
Tritium Glow
 
kps's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: North of the Mullet Line
Posts: 7,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by i-rui View Post
it has everything to do with it. I don't think canadians should get worked up over a few isolated cases.
I disagree, I think Canadians should get worked up even if it's just one case. Are you saying that you're ok with innocent people being charged as long as it doesn't plague the legal system...I hope a situation never arrises where you have to defend yourself your family or your property.

Quote:
Originally Posted by i-rui View Post
So you'll forgive me if i ask for evidence that this is actually a substantial problem to be concerned about.
bryanc likes data... I called him on the 10x to one business. As far as your statement, well Rui I'm just surprised at your nonchalance with respect to people being dragged through the courts and the expense of it when they protect themselves and their homes. As I already said, I don't care how many incidents...even one is too much.


Quote:
Originally Posted by i-rui View Post
has any canadian actually been convicted & imprisoned for self defence? I'm not being facetious, I actually don't know.
Good question and I don't know either. We'd have to search every provincial court record, I doubt there is a national statistic on this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by i-rui View Post
I'm all for standing up for canadians rights to protect themselves, but that right certainly doesn't give them carte blanche when dealing with the matter. lethal force should only be used as a last resort, and they certainly shouldn't use more force than necessary. I don't have a problem if the odd person gets charged as long as there is evidence that they stepped beyond that reasonable force or broke the law in another way. things aren't always black & white and sometimes a court has to rule on the grey areas.
For the most part, I'd agree with that, but the law should always err on the side of the victim and not the other way around. I don't see that being the case today with self defence or castle laws.
__________________
kps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7th, 2012, 03:56 PM   #35
Seriously?
 
Joker Eh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
Posts: 4,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDL View Post
When you go out of the house with a loaded gun what lawful purpose do you have? Hunting and target practice as far as I know, perhaps you could provide an instance where loaded guns for everyday citizen have another lawful purpose. This thread started at that proposition of, Mr. Thomas leaving the house with a loaded gun, so not so much off topic. The "Castle Doctrine" has the legal hunting of humans at the heart of its premiss.
he was under attack with people fire bombing his house. did you decide to ignore that fact? Have you watched the video of what happened? You know there is video right?
Joker Eh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7th, 2012, 03:58 PM   #36
kps
Tritium Glow
 
kps's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: North of the Mullet Line
Posts: 7,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDL View Post

When you go out of the house with a loaded gun what lawful purpose do you have? Hunting and target practice as far as I know, perhaps you could provide an instance where loaded guns for everyday citizen have another lawful purpose. This thread started at that proposition of, Mr. Thomas leaving the house with a loaded gun, so not so much off topic. The "Castle Doctrine" has the legal hunting of humans at the heart of its premiss.
Mr.Thomas did indeed grab his revolver and fire at the three individuals trying to burn him alive in his own house...and the police did not charge him with that because he was within his rights to go outside and "hunt" those trying to murder him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDL View Post
Apparently the use of reasonable force is not palatable for some these folks. They want to have the right to use unreasonable force at will, I guess?
That depends on who makes the judgement as to what is reasonable...I'd never want you to make that judgement DL, not in a million years.
__________________
kps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7th, 2012, 04:06 PM   #37
Honourable Citizen
 
BigDL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Moncton
Posts: 6,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joker Eh View Post
he was under attack with people fire bombing his house. did you decide to ignore that fact? Have you watched the video of what happened? You know there is video right?
Would Mr. Thomas have a safe exit from his home? Was his life in immanent danger if he left in a direction opposite to the fire bombers location?

Didn't Mr. Thomas go towards the persons intruding into his yard and attempting to fire bomb his house? Wasn't Mr. Thomas attacking or hunting the arsonists?
__________________
OGL breathed life back into the dying Bloc...way to go Steve!

Ad links aka CLICK BATE in my posts were not put there by me.

DO NOT CLICK on the random links in my post if not logged in as a member of this site.
BigDL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7th, 2012, 04:06 PM   #38
Honourable Citizen
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by kps View Post
Are you saying that you're ok with innocent people being charged as long as it doesn't plague the legal system...I hope a situation never arrises where you have to defend yourself your family or your property.
i'm not "ok" with it, but the truth is innocent people are charged within our legal system every day. The criminal conviction rate is around 60%, so there are obviously 1000's and 1000's of innocent people charged every year. That's why we have a court system, to (ideally) give them a fair trial.

It's not a perfect system, but i don't think we have any alternative.
i-rui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7th, 2012, 04:10 PM   #39
Honourable Citizen
 
BigDL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Moncton
Posts: 6,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by kps View Post
Mr.Thomas did indeed grab his revolver and fire at the three individuals trying to burn him alive in his own house...and the police did not charge him with that because he was within his rights to go outside and "hunt" those trying to murder him.



That depends on who makes the judgement as to what is reasonable...I'd never want you to make that judgement DL, not in a million years.
That's good because I wouldn't want to be in the positions of making that judgement call. I will leave that to people,who dress in black robes and who sit in a building with a green roof, in Ottawa.
__________________
OGL breathed life back into the dying Bloc...way to go Steve!

Ad links aka CLICK BATE in my posts were not put there by me.

DO NOT CLICK on the random links in my post if not logged in as a member of this site.
BigDL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7th, 2012, 04:14 PM   #40
Seriously?
 
Joker Eh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
Posts: 4,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDL View Post
Would Mr. Thomas have a safe exit from his home? Was his life in immanent danger if he left in a direction opposite to the fire bombers location?

Didn't Mr. Thomas go towards the persons intruding into his yard and attempting to fire bomb his house? Wasn't Mr. Thomas attacking or hunting the arsonists?
head shaking, head shaking, head shaking, head shaking

So it is ok for them to torch everything he has? And he should just walk away with the shirt on his back because what the hell someone else has decided he shouldn't have what he has or they don't like him as a neighbour? It is ok for these criminals to get away with it because if the house had been torched there would be no video evidence. Your way no one stands up and fights back.

Yep your way is the way to go!!
Joker Eh is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:40 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999 - 2012, ehMac.ca All rights reserved. ehMac is not affiliated with Apple Inc. Mac, iPod, iTunes, iPhone, Apple TV are trademarks of Apple Inc. Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2

Tribe.ca: Urban living in Toronto!