Alflives Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 5 minutes ago, RonMexico said: https://www.thesouthafrican.com/tag/farm-murders/ wow! That's scary. Farmers are really quite vulnerable, considering they are so far from any police protection, and even their neighbors. If Canadian farmers cannot defend themselves and their families, and the criminals know that, doesn't that make the criminals even more confident to do what they want? And it sounds like in SA the criminals make sure they leave no witnesses behind. Is that the road we're heading down here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 10 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said: 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. yeah thats a very reasonable thing actually. Have fun with my Rottweiler. I do think one change to the law should be that if you are committing a crime, and are hurt by your own actions, the homeowner should not be held liable. And that should include self-defence actions. This guy fired warning shots into the ground and nearby vehicles, showing to me at least he was trying to not over-escalate the situation. I really can't see an Alberta judge siding with the criminal in this one either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 Just now, Jimmy McGill said: 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. Again you (the law more specifically) are making it the responsibility of the home owner to figure out what the criminal's intentions are. What if the criminals have a gun too? What if the farmer waits for the criminals to walk towards him, and while doing so, he's shot? I'm totally impressed by this farmer's willingness to give these thieves a verbal warning before shooting. In doing so, he was inviting those thieves to shoot him. How in the world is the homeowner supposed to know the criminals don't have guns? Why give the criminal a warning? Shoot first, especially in the scenario of this farmer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 4 minutes ago, Alflives said: And it sounds like in SA the criminals make sure they leave no witnesses behind. thats what I was getting at with you earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Neilsons Towel Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 50 minutes ago, Fateless said: The law already allows someone to defend themselves with deadly force (such as with a gun) so long as it is a proportionate response to the threat of bodily harm/death being perpetrated against them or someone else. Yes and No. You would still be brought up on criminal charges and lose thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars defending yourself in court over said charges. Should you be found innocent you would still be on the hook for the funds required for your defence. You would also most likely be found guilty of improper storage of a firearm, as is common in these cases. Not because it was improperly stored prior, but was not properly stored while it was being used, in this hypothetical case to defend yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted October 9, 2019 Author Share Posted October 9, 2019 29 minutes ago, stawns said: Suing him is ridiculous, but shooting at a trespasser is way, way out of line and should never be tolerated unless their is an imminent threat of death or serious injury He spoke to the intruders first, and then shot (nowhere near them) to issue a warning. He then shot again between the two cars. Never directly at them, as the article states the idiot who got hit by the bullet was due to a ricochet. If I hear or see people rummaging through my land who don't react to being spoken too, AND continue to steal as though I'm not there, well what is their true intention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 20 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. I have a daughter as well and would never, ever shoot at another human being unless the threat of death was real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted October 9, 2019 Author Share Posted October 9, 2019 5 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: yeah thats a very reasonable thing actually. Have fun with my Rottweiler. I do think one change to the law should be that if you are committing a crime, and are hurt by your own actions, the homeowner should not be held liable. And that should include self-defence actions. This guy fired warning shots into the ground and nearby vehicles, showing to me at least he was trying to not over-escalate the situation. I really can't see an Alberta judge siding with the criminal in this one either. Or any judge who truly wants to serve the public. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 1 minute ago, PhillipBlunt said: He spoke to the intruders first, and then shot (nowhere near them) to issue a warning. He then shot again between the two cars. Never directly at them, as the article states the idiot who got hit by the bullet was due to a ricochet. If I hear or see people rummaging through my land who don't react to being spoken too, AND continue to steal as though I'm not there, well what is their true intention? their intention is to steal stuff. Stuff can be replaced. If you shoot a weapon at someone, even as a warning, be prepared to pay the consequence at that. This isn't America, we don't shoot people for petty crap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Alflives said: Again you (the law more specifically) are making it the responsibility of the home owner to figure out what the criminal's intentions are. What if the criminals have a gun too? What if the farmer waits for the criminals to walk towards him, and while doing so, he's shot? I'm totally impressed by this farmer's willingness to give these thieves a verbal warning before shooting. In doing so, he was inviting those thieves to shoot him. How in the world is the homeowner supposed to know the criminals don't have guns? Why give the criminal a warning? Shoot first, especially in the scenario of this farmer. This is so crazy lol What if what if what if what if JUST MURDER NO MATTER WHAT lol Edited October 9, 2019 by inane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BPA Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 Just now, stawns said: I have a daughter as well and would never, ever shoot at another human being unless the threat of death was real. There was no threat of death in this case. Presumably the protection of assets. I can get on board shooting to protect yourself and loved ones when life is in danger. In this case, it was not. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 7 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: yeah thats a very reasonable thing actually. Have fun with my Rottweiler. I do think one change to the law should be that if you are committing a crime, and are hurt by your own actions, the homeowner should not be held liable. And that should include self-defence actions. This guy fired warning shots into the ground and nearby vehicles, showing to me at least he was trying to not over-escalate the situation. I really can't see an Alberta judge siding with the criminal in this one either. agred and I'm not saying that the man should be sued, in any way. Dogs are the best defence, for sure 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 Just now, Alflives said: Again you (the law more specifically) are making it the responsibility of the home owner to figure out what the criminal's intentions are. What if the criminals have a gun too? What if the farmer waits for the criminals to walk towards him, and while doing so, he's shot? I'm totally impressed by this farmer's willingness to give these thieves a verbal warning before shooting. In doing so, he was inviting those thieves to shoot him. How in the world is the homeowner supposed to know the criminals don't have guns? Why give the criminal a warning? Shoot first, especially in the scenario of this farmer. you can't read someone's mind or know whats in their pocket. But you do have to act like a reasonable person. With these two jokers, sitting in the truck isn't a situation of immediate physical threat. What you're suggesting is we're allowed to kill someone for being on your property and not have to act in a reasonable way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 8 minutes ago, inane said: 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. In your view it's murder. In my view it's culling the criminals (and their future acts of terror - and I'd say the farmer's family was terrorized by those men stealing) from causing harm to future families. Unfortunately criminals do not stop at one crime. Their actions become a pattern. Then, after the damage caused to the families they traumatized, we the tax payers pay for that criminal's incarceration. So really we are paying for those who traumatize us to live comfortable lives, although in prison. In this case the farmer shouldn't have even given a warning. What if those thieves had guns? They could have turned and shot, missing the farmer and killing one of his family. The consequences of any criminal act could be severe. Those who commit those crimes don't care. They just want what others have. Sometimes it's only property, but why is it the victim's responsibility to figure out the criminal's intentions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 I will say it's a double edge sword kind of issue because I also feel that if you're out there stealing stuff, you should be prepared to face imminent consequences for your actions. Though I don't think the farmer in the Boushie case should have been out there confronting them with a weapon, I also don't think the family should be crying foul when their son was out there drunk and robbing people when he was killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted October 9, 2019 Author Share Posted October 9, 2019 5 minutes ago, Roger Neilsons Towel said: Yes and No. You would still be brought up on criminal charges and lose thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars defending yourself in court over said charges. Should you be found innocent you would still be on the hook for the funds required for your defence. You would also most likely be found guilty of improper storage of a firearm, as is common in these cases. Not because it was improperly stored prior, but was not properly stored while it was being used, in this hypothetical case to defend yourself. People I've spoken to in law enforcement aren't fans of those laws. They state that if someone attacks you in your home, it's better overall to kill them versus trying to merely injure them, as the lawsuit that the intruder would bring against you would be far worse than the issues one would face explaining self-defense. 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: why is it the victim's responsibility to figure out the criminal's intentions? because the alternative is allowing people to be killed for stepping on your lawn. There has to be some sort of action that a reasonable person thinks could lead to physical harm, not just property loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 2 minutes ago, Alflives said: In your view it's murder. In my view it's culling the criminals (and their future acts of terror - and I'd say the farmer's family was terrorized by those men stealing) from causing harm to future families. Unfortunately criminals do not stop at one crime. Their actions become a pattern. Then, after the damage caused to the families they traumatized, we the tax payers pay for that criminal's incarceration. So really we are paying for those who traumatize us to live comfortable lives, although in prison. In this case the farmer shouldn't have even given a warning. What if those thieves had guns? They could have turned and shot, missing the farmer and killing one of his family. The consequences of any criminal act could be severe. Those who commit those crimes don't care. They just want what others have. Sometimes it's only property, but why is it the victim's responsibility to figure out the criminal's intentions? What if they were kids? What if it was his kid? What if it was someone who was lost? What if it was the neighbour? What if what if what if is a stupid game to play. Your fear defines you, I pity you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted October 9, 2019 Author Share Posted October 9, 2019 1 minute ago, stawns said: I will say it's a double edge sword kind of issue because I also feel that if you're out there stealing stuff, you should be prepared to face imminent consequences for your actions. Though I don't think the farmer in the Boushie case should have been out there confronting them with a weapon, I also don't think the family should be crying foul when their son was out there drunk and robbing people when he was killed. When confronted by five adults, most of whom are stealing his property, what should he arm himself with, per se? Again, he fired off two warning shots which didn't do much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Neilsons Towel Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 1 minute ago, PhillipBlunt said: People I've spoken to in law enforcement aren't fans of those laws. They state that if someone attacks you in your home, it's better overall to kill them versus trying to merely injure them, as the lawsuit that the intruder would bring against you would be far worse than the issues one would face explaining self-defense. I wasn’t even referring to civil damages. That would be above and beyond what I was referring to. In the example I was responding to I thought it was implied that you had shot the intruders in self defence. Even if the court agreed with you and you were found innocent the cost of your criminal defence would financially ruin the average Canadian. 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