bishopshodan Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 2 minutes ago, stawns said: people walk through my fields, stuff stolen a fair amount and I still would never shoot at another human being unless there was a deathly threat. Me neither. I probably could have been shot tons as a kid. Never committed any crimes beside trespassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 Just now, bishopshodan said: Me neither. I probably could have been shot tons as a kid. Never committed any crimes beside trespassing. it's just stuff, none of it is worth a human life, imo 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Alflives Posted October 9, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 9, 2019 17 minutes ago, Fateless said: Alf, your comments are way out of line and certainly do not speak for the majority of Canadians. You're telling me that if some homeless guy came up to your recycling bin which is sitting outside your garage and is rifling through it to take some pop cans, you feel that you should be legally entitled to kill him? That is a disgusting overreaction. "Shoot first, and ask questions later" may be one of the worst lines I've read on these forums. That shows a callous disrespect for life. There are far too many potential instances of mistake to even remotely sustain the argument you've put forward. Yes, there needs to be some strong rules in place to protect property owners, but give your head a shake if you think taking someone's life is fair punishment for theft. That is some third world sh*t. So what you're saying is that if a criminal comes into your home, you are not allowed to defend your family? You are saying that it's up to the homeowner to determine the level of intention that the thief has, right? How is the homeowner supposed to divine what the criminal is thinking? Why should the homeowner be bound by that consideration? If someone comes onto your property, and doing criminal things, then (IMO) the majority of Canadians would want to be able to defend themselves, and their families. Why should a criminal have rights, while committing a crime? And why are my views, because they differ from yours, considered disgusting? Is that the proper response in dialogue? You don't agree with someone else, so their opinion is disgusting? Do you tell people in face to face conversation (who you don't know) that their views are disgusting, because they disagree with you? I normally don't write so directly to a poster, but your comments directed towards my personal views are beyond rude. So there, you're been chastised. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted October 9, 2019 Author Share Posted October 9, 2019 10 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: what if you are walking on there to ask for help, and someone kills you? what if its a minor? a person with a disability of some sort? there's a reasonableness test that gets applied to these things. Just open fire if someones on your property seems like an extreme option - is rural crime at that point that this is the response needed? Staying on topic, Maurice had spoken to the two thieves (which are what the two of them are) and stated that they needed to leave his property immediately, yet they continued to rummage through his vehicles. He has a young baby too, and lives on a rural property. Seeing the recent events occurring in BC, might have made Maurice a little more worried than usual. Frankly, if a person decides that they need to rummage through someone else's property instead of finding their own, I lose a ton of respect for those people. People walking onto someone else's property looking for help, usually do their best to make their presence known. I've had to walk onto a few peoples properties in the past due to vehicular issues, and always made sure to walk very much in plain sight, trying my best to get the residents attention, and when I did, I always had my wallet out ready to show them identification and explain my encroachment. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 3 minutes ago, Alflives said: So what you're saying is that if a criminal comes into your home, you are not allowed to defend your family? You are saying that it's up to the homeowner to determine the level of intention that the thief has, right? How is the homeowner supposed to divine what the criminal is thinking? Why should the homeowner be bound by that consideration? If someone comes onto your property, and doing criminal things, then (IMO) the majority of Canadians would want to be able to defend themselves, and their families. Why should a criminal have rights, while committing a crime? you do have the right to defend your family already, using reasonable force. But you don't have the right e.g., to booby trap your home (people try this from time to time) because there can be situations where innocent people get hurt. We live in a society where everyone has a basic level of rights. The alternative is pretty freaky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, stawns said: it's just stuff, none of it is worth a human life, imo These were men, not children. They were rummaging through a farmer's equipment at night, and didn't leave when first warned. How come it's upon the homeowner to decide what the criminals' intentions were? Does the home owner need to wait for the criminal to attack them, before being allowed to defend himself, and his family? People keep posting scenarios where the homeowner is shooting some kid cutting through a yard. This circumstance is nothing like that. It's night, and the police are at least 15 minutes away. There are men stealing from the property. Yet, we expect the homeowner to wait and see if these thieves are only their to steal things, and not act in violent ways? Shoot first, and ask questions later. Edited October 9, 2019 by Alflives 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 2 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said: Staying on topic, Maurice had spoken to the two thieves (which are what the two of them are) and stated that they needed to leave his property immediately, yet they continued to rummage through his vehicles. He has a young baby too, and lives on a rural property. Seeing the recent events occurring in BC, might have made Maurice a little more worried than usual. Frankly, if a person decides that they need to rummage through someone else's property instead of finding their own, I lose a ton of respect for those people. People walking onto someone else's property looking for help, usually do their best to make their presence known. I've had to walk onto a few peoples properties in the past due to vehicular issues, and always made sure to walk very much in plain sight, trying my best to get the residents attention, and when I did, I always had my wallet out ready to show them identification and explain my encroachment. thats because you're a rational human. I have no doubt he was worried, I would have been too. As I said, I might have done something similar. I just don't know that allowing a blanket shoot to kill is the solution either as some are asking for. Yeah for sure those two creeps may have raised the anxiety level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 4 minutes ago, Alflives said: These were men, not children. They were rummaging through a farmer's equipment at night, and didn't leave when first warned. How come it's upon the homeowner to decide what the criminals' intentions were? Does the home owner need to wait for the criminal to attack them, before being allowed to defend himself, and his family? People keep posting scenarios where the homeowner is shooting some kid cutting through a yard. This circumstance is nothing like that. It's night, and the police are at least 15 minutes away. There are men stealing from the property. Yet, we expect the homeowner to wait and see if these thieves are only their to steal things, and not act in violent ways? Shoot first, and ask questions later. This attitude and complete disregard for life is disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted October 9, 2019 Author Share Posted October 9, 2019 5 minutes ago, Alflives said: So what you're saying is that if a criminal comes into your home, you are not allowed to defend your family? You are saying that it's up to the homeowner to determine the level of intention that the thief has, right? How is the homeowner supposed to divine what the criminal is thinking? Why should the homeowner be bound by that consideration? If someone comes onto your property, and doing criminal things, then (IMO) the majority of Canadians would want to be able to defend themselves, and their families. Why should a criminal have rights, while committing a crime? And why are my views, because they differ from yours, considered disgusting? Is that the proper response in dialogue? You don't agree with someone else, so their opinion is disgusting? Do you tell people in face to face conversation (who you don't know) that their views are disgusting, because they disagree with you? I normally don't write so directly to a poster, but your comments directed towards my personal views are beyond rude. So there, you're been chastised. They shouldn't have such rights, but they do. There have been instances of armed robbers injuring themselves (that in no way involved the homeowner) in the residence they were vandalizing who were able to sue the homeowner. Even people crossing another person's land should do their best to show that they merely mean to use their land as egress. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said: you do have the right to defend your family already, using reasonable force. But you don't have the right e.g., to booby trap your home (people try this from time to time) because there can be situations where innocent people get hurt. We live in a society where everyone has a basic level of rights. The alternative is pretty freaky. Jimmy to state our right to protect ourselves and our family is limited to the force necessary to do so is telling the homeowner they have to somehow divine what the criminal's intentions are. That's impossible, isn't it? How in all that is common sense force a homeowner to do that? A person committing a criminal act should have no rights to be protected from harm. Shoot them, or do whatever it takes to protect yourself and family. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bure_Pavel Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 13 minutes ago, stawns said: people walk through my fields, stuff stolen a fair amount and I still would never shoot at another human being unless there was a deathly threat. I guess bear traps can work too, the fact he has two small daughters increases the level of protection needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 1 minute ago, PhillipBlunt said: They shouldn't have such rights, but they do. There have been instances of armed robbers injuring themselves (that in no way involved the homeowner) in the residence they were vandalizing who were able to sue the homeowner. Even people crossing another person's land should do their best to show that they merely mean to use their land as egress. What? So if my carpet is not properly attached, and a thief slips and bangs their head, I could be responsible? That's totally insane. Who in the hell writes these laws? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted October 9, 2019 Author Share Posted October 9, 2019 1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said: thats because you're a rational human. I have no doubt he was worried, I would have been too. As I said, I might have done something similar. I just don't know that allowing a blanket shoot to kill is the solution either as some are asking for. Yeah for sure those two creeps may have raised the anxiety level. Maurice gave the men options to leave when he initially yelled at them. They didn't stop their thieving though, which speaks to them not showing remorse for their actions. That's got to be unnerving. Shooting to kill immediately is not the answer, I agree. Give the idiots an opportunity to show themselves and leave, or just leave. However, when you have a substantial acreage (especially wooded), knowing when a person has left your property is hard to determine. Which is why it's good to have dogs. About four or five very large and very hungry dogs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted October 9, 2019 Author Share Posted October 9, 2019 5 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said: I guess bear traps can work too, the fact he has two small daughters increases the level of protection needed. They'd for sure attempt to sue the owner of the land for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BPA Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 I can totally see this "Shoot First Ask Later" getting out of hand. Leave a bike in the yard, watch for a potential thief to attempt to steal it. Bang!! Yup. Got me another thief. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonMexico Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 2 minutes ago, Alflives said: Jimmy to state our right to protect ourselves and our family is limited to the force necessary to do so is telling the homeowner they have to somehow divine what the criminal's intentions are. That's impossible, isn't it? How in all that is common sense force a homeowner to do that? A person committing a criminal act should have no rights to be protected from harm. Shoot them, or do whatever it takes to protect yourself and family. https://www.thesouthafrican.com/tag/farm-murders/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted October 9, 2019 Author Share Posted October 9, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Alflives said: What? So if my carpet is not properly attached, and a thief slips and bangs their head, I could be responsible? That's totally insane. Who in the hell writes these laws? If the trespasser can prove that the issue that caused them harm was intentionally set, they can for sure. In fact, according to Canadian law, a frequent trespasser must be given warning according to an exception in Premise liability: Homeowners can't possibly anticipate a random burglar coming into their home. However, if there are signs of a frequent trespasser, the homeowner does have a duty to warn about known dangers on the property. Edited October 9, 2019 by PhillipBlunt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 5 minutes ago, inane said: This attitude and complete disregard for life is disgusting. So you disagree with my views, and dehumanize me by stating my views are disgusting? You believe the homeowner has no right to protect his family, even when he has a pregnant wife and two small daughters? You think the homeowner needs to figure out the criminal's intentions before acting to protect his family? I think your views show no compassion for a man, who is protecting his wife, and children. Where is your empathy? Can you not understand what this homeowner could be feeling, or thinking? He has a wife and children to protect. And no your views, although I disagree with, I don't find disgusting, even though you clearly lack empathy. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 Just now, Alflives said: So you disagree with my views, and dehumanize me by stating my views are disgusting? You believe the homeowner has no right to protect his family, even when he has a pregnant wife and two small daughters? You think the homeowner needs to figure out the criminal's intentions before acting to protect his family? I think your views show no compassion for a man, who is protecting his wife, and children. Where is your empathy? Can you not understand what this homeowner could be feeling, or thinking? He has a wife and children to protect. And no your views, although I disagree with, I don't find disgusting, even though you clearly lack empathy. Someone rummaging through farm equipment is not the same as someone endangering your family. Your blanket 'shoot first ask questions later' and repeated stance on here to just cull the herd and kill people all the time is disgusting. I'm sorry if that offends your delicate ego. I just feel bad for you and how you must go through life just terrified that any perceived threat to you demands murdering people in response. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 1 minute ago, Alflives said: Jimmy to state our right to protect ourselves and our family is limited to the force necessary to do so is telling the homeowner they have to somehow divine what the criminal's intentions are. That's impossible, isn't it? How in all that is common sense force a homeowner to do that? A person committing a criminal act should have no rights to be protected from harm. Shoot them, or do whatever it takes to protect yourself and family. is it? A reasonable thing could be if the two creeps started walking toward him and his daughter he then has a reason to think he's now in imminent danger. If they still in the truck, whats the physical danger? He also had the choice to go back in the house to remove himself from the immediate danger. I don't live on a farm, but i know if someone broke in to my condo, didn't leave, and came at me I'd be fine in using force to protect myself. I think what you're not considering maybe is that your approach of shoot to kill won't stop crime. It sure doesn't in places where this is allowed. All the criminals will do is kill you first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now