Printable View
Same story:
Rural areas underserviced by Police, with response times in excess of 40 minutes.
Yet the historical expectation is that you will call 911 and wait.
If you don't understand guns, learn to shoot.
If you don't own guns, buy one.
If you don't believe in guns, be prepared to stand behind someone that does. If you Believe that is going to be a police officer in rural Canada, you're going to have a problem.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...sser-1.5390160
Exactly !!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
interestingly there was no Charges against the Home owner, and the article makes note that he had ALL firearms and ammo stored with locks and had to remove ALL the safety devices.
Maybe once the bad guys realize home owner can legally sit on the couch with a firearm on the coffee table and a couple Mags or a box on ammo on the end table it will help. The thing that needs to be allowed is the right to use those in self-defence. Once we can shoot back( not just shoot first), or discharge our firearms.
The way things are now, It's like we can legally walk around the house with a Fire extinguisher, but if the pot on the stove catches fire we still have to call the Fire department and stand around well the place burns down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwalker
It happens a house by my moms burned to ground 4 doors down from the fire station.
Something happened to the truck and took awhile to get it going . Guess it is what happens when there is only one truck 40 km apart. They got to pump the water in too so again it takes time .
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
I think you missed the point....and the symbolism. I can legally carry a firearm and ammo around with me in the house, but I can never use it for self defence. If the same legal restrictions was to apply to Fire Extinguishers then I would not be "LEGALLY" allowed to extinguish the small fire in a fry pan and stop the house from burning down.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishfood
I know I was only commenting on the fires in rural areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwalker
Ps you can do whatever you want to.
Just remember about the consequences lol. [emoji106]
This guy took his own actions apparently nothing happened. Yes I also surprised he got not nothing. But the out come could of been way worse. . If the younger one would of shot the other guy and he did fire back to kill he would be doing some time regardless. Definitely do a couple of years for sure. So many things could of been totally different.
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
Either the Crown looked at the situation and realized that the homeowner applied as much non-lethal force as was humanly possible, and wouldn't have a chance of having any charges stick, or.....they are starting to see the light.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwalker
Charging the homeowner, would have resulted in a defense based on the fact that police response times in rural / isolated areas are a real factor, and likely would have resulted in charges being dropped, or worse for Canadian Law in the eyes of the Crown.....it could have resulted in a finding of not guilty.
Not guilty would have set a legal precedent, wherein....anyone using a firearm in defense of property / person in these areas, in effect would be reassured that no charges would be forthcoming. Recognizing that the wild West, still is......
No, the Crown and the RCMP wouldn't want that, so no charges preferred. And they can continue to prosecute / not prosecute based on each individual cases merits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
By NOT charging him with anything, they have also set a legal precedent. The next guy that is charged for punching an attacker or a robber can use it. I don't mean beating someone up, but a quick couple shots to the head.
Canadian case law has already established the fact that people can defend themselves with a firearm if their life is threatened. You may have to go through the courts to do so. Case law has been established by courts not finding Ian Thompson, Gerald Stanley and Peter Khill (there may be others) not guilty in deaths involving firearms. Hopefully police and the crown prosecutors have better guidelines to figure out if charges are warranted on a person who has to defend themselves in a situation with a firearm. In an ideal world, if you were the victim of a crime, the police would be close by and respond reasonably quickly but averaging 40 mins on a response is too long. I live in Ancaster and I would imagine our police services would respond quickly but if my home was being invaded and my family was in the house, any wait time for the police is too long.
I know someone who beat the hell out a kid who broke Into his house at night.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwalker
He was charged at the time but was dropped in court.
I personally will defend first before calling the police. I think I would send a better message than the police will [emoji106][emoji2958]. That is just me and I would be prepared for my actions and consequences. To each their own I know how the police work lol. They will look into it, I will deal with it. [emoji8]
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
^^^^^^^ THIS!! ^^^^^^ People espousing the concept that firearms can't be used in home defense are flat out wrong.....full stop. Canadian case law is full of cases where deadly force in home defense has been used without charges being laid or withdrawn after the Crown realizes there's no chance of conviction at trial. The issue at law is "measured defense" appropriate to the initial offence. which means we can't shoot people out right unless a clear and present danger of severe bodily harm or death is blatantly obvious (armed intruder; visible threats of intent to bodily harm with a weapon of any sort; body size differential etc.). Canadian courts have set precedence where any type of home invasion is exceedingly egregious substantially lowering the bar of culpability for homeowners faced with serious danger who shoot and kill intruders. Nobody should ever feel good about killing a crook that's made no bones about killing or causing bodily harm,but,we shouldn't expect people to be loosing any sleep over them,either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
Yes.... BUT... in many cases you can expect for the courts to try and make it as punitive as possible, possibly ruining your career, your future (huge legal debts) and making you an example.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Remember the judges often follow the Liberal ideal that you have to be wholly dependant on the gov't and its police and remember the criminal has more rights than the victim. Looking at the current responses to some of the events in the world the Canadian Liberal if he was sent back in history would be walking along with the Ottoman sacking the city pointing "Oh Bob, his wife and kids and money are probably in the hidden room under the table" and "Fred, his daughter and loot are probably in the hidden attic" .... remember ... being a man and not curling up in a corner and handing over the "loot" well to some it seems it is "toxic" or "offensive".... their must rely on others for thinking and action is rather pathetic in reality!
I think I may have gotten Ian Thompson wrong. He was acquitted on firearm discharge charges in relation to being in a life threatening situation rather than being charged and acquitted of murder. Sorry about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
I think "measured response" would be a more accurate term in this type of situation rather than "measured defense". I think this would prevent people from automatically shooting a burglar but would leave citizens open to arming themselves against a potential risk to themselves if the situation escalates (burglar has a weapon, burglar has decided to rape the resident who is a single woman, etc).
Trimmer21, you are correct. No person should get satisfaction about killing another human. But they shouldn't be penalized if that is the end result of a life threatening situation. While I don't think we want hard core stand your ground laws in Canada like they have in some US states, we also do not have to retreat either and I think the courts are beginning to realizing that.
I have a couple of close buddies who are home builders of rural properties. Some of their clients are upgrading at least one main bedroom as a "safe" room for refuge realizing that even here in Ontario, on average, it takes Police 12-20 minutes to respond and in cases for the OPP,even longer depending on how many units are on duty and their proximity in rural detachment areas. I could write some real horror stories,but,suffice to say that a lot of serious shyte can happen in a very short period of time,especially,with the proliferation of stoned and wired crooks that don't have any filters. It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6,notwithstanding the "prosecution by process" alluded to by other posters..
I also looked at firearms defense insurance here in Canada.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Basically $95 per year.