Rural Alberta Shootout

[trimmer21]

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.

^^^^^^^ 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 Canadian case law is full of cases where deadly force in home defense has been used without charges being laid or withdrawn after the Crown realizes there's no chance of conviction at trial.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.

[mosquito]

^^^^^^^ 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 Canadian case law is full of cases where deadly force in home defense has been used without charges being laid or withdrawn after the Crown realizes there's no chance of conviction at trial.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.

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.

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!

[Dythbringer]

^^^^^^^ 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.

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.

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.

[trimmer21]

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..

[Bluebulldog]

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.

Basically $95 per year.