Alberta man sued by trespasser who was hit with a ricocheted bullet files counterclaim

[Bure_Pavel]

4 minutes ago, BPA said:

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.

Defense is stating "Mr. Maurice was worried that they would enter his home and harm his baby daughter"

 

I think the biggest thing being overlooked is that it was the homeonwer's birthday, thus he can do whatever he wants for a 24 hour period as per Canadian law.  

[PhillipBlunt]

10 minutes ago, stawns said:

their intention is to steal stuff.

Up to the point he confronted them, sure. Otherwise that's a healthy assumption.

 

10 minutes ago, stawns said:

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

I fully understand and respect the power of firearms, especially shotguns. Firing warning shots is doing the intruders a favor rather than killing them outright. People who enter others properties with ill intentions should face consequence as well, which many don't, which is also why many don't really react to warning shots.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

47 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

You do realize that I said investigate.  You know, collect evidence.  There are things like cameras that one can use if you're worried about people coming on your property.  Locks are a good idea.  But hey, lets just let some rural honky shoot whoever comes on their property.  

This post show how out to lunch people are outside of there own bubble.

 

First unless you catch and apprehend a person at the scene of the crime, there isn’t much that can be done. This isn’t your CSI tv show with finger prints and hair samples. My parents neighbor has had three vehicles stolen from his yard in the last year. He’s even got them on camera, but unless you get a clear face shot (no hats, no hoodies, hair out of the face) nothing can be done. 
 

Also what good is an investigation after someone’s been murdered and raped?  Is that a risk people are willing to take?

 

 

When is comes to the safety of one’s family, more freedom needs to be allow for an individual to protect themselves and their property.  These criminals were yelled at to leave and they persisted, most thieves would have left the moment they were sighted, that didn’t faze these guys.  How’s he to know that they wouldn’t all of the sudden charged his home and laid harm on his wife and baby.  He was using a 22, so it’s not like he was scoped up picking them off at 200+ yards away, they likely could have been at his front door in under 20 seconds. You never know what kind of sicko criminal you are dealing with and when it comes to family it’s always better to be safe than sorry. When it comes to protecting a wife and a young daughters you plan with the assumption that their intention aren’t noble.  

 

He gave them a warning, they ignored it and are lucky things didn’t end up more severe than a ricochet to the arm.  Do they deserve to die? I don’t think you can answer that without really knowing their full intensions.  Had they pulled their own weapon out killed Maurice and then entered the home raping/killing the wife and daughter I think most people would say, yes they do.  Thankfully a warning shot stopped any further crime from happening on that property. 

[PhillipBlunt]

5 minutes ago, Roger Neilsons Towel said:

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. 

Truly sad, isn't it?

[Fateless]

19 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? 

Because sometimes they're not intentionally committing a crime. Because your statements in this thread support a "shoot first, ask questions later mentality" that assumes someone is a criminal or intending to cause harm to you. What if someone was running up to your door to ask to use the phone because there was a car accident nearby and someone is in dire need of an ambulance? What if some kid was playing frisbee and accidently threw it onto your property and were trying to retrieve it? What if the homeless guy was just looking for some pop cans in your recycling bin? What if. What if. What if.

 

Your stated comments support the use of deadly force against the guy coming to ask for help. You openly stated you would support the killing of the kid trying to collect his frisbee. You hold the opinion that your right to protect your pop cans is more important than the homeless guy's right to life. Those are disgusting comments. I do not simply disagree with your opinion that you should be allowed to kill people without reason, but I think that the fact that you think it is morally acceptable to kill people in the above circumstances is morally reprehensible and disgusting. 

 

The current state of the law isn't great. Homeowners should have more rights than they currently do. But to openly advocate for unrestricted use of deadly force against any trespasser no matter the reason is absolute madness.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Fateless

[Roger Neilsons Towel]

5 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Truly sad, isn't it?

Very. The homeowner/victim loses either way. 

[HerrDrFunk]

9 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

This post show how out to lunch people are outside of there own bubble.

 

First unless you catch and apprehend a person at the scene of the crime, there isn’t much that can be done. This isn’t your CSI tv show with finger prints and hair samples. My parents neighbor has had three vehicles stolen from his yard in the last year. He’s even got them on camera, but unless you get a clear face shot (no hats, no hoodies, hair out of the face) nothing can be done. 
 

Also what good is an investigation after someone’s been murdered and raped?  Is that a risk people are willing to take?

 

 

When is comes to the safety of one’s family, more freedom needs to be allow for an individual to protect themselves and their property.  These criminals were yelled at to leave and they persisted, most thieves would have left the moment they were sighted, that didn’t faze these guys.  How’s he to know that they wouldn’t all of the sudden charged his home and laid harm on his wife and baby.  He was using a 22, so it’s not like he was scoped up picking them off at 200+ yards away, they likely could have been at his front door in under 20 seconds. You never know what kind of sicko criminal you are dealing with and when it comes to family it’s always better to be safe than sorry. When it comes to protecting a wife and a young daughters you plan with the assumption that their intention aren’t noble.  

 

He gave them a warning, they ignored it and are lucky things didn’t end up more severe than a ricochet to the arm.  Do they deserve to die? I don’t think you can answer that without really knowing their full intensions.  Had they pulled their own weapon out killed Maurice and then entered the home raping/killing the wife and daughter I think most people would say, yes they do.  Thankfully a warning shot stopped any further crime from happening on that property. 

Yeah, no one is really disputing how things went down in this instance. The people who are pushing back are the ones disagreeing with Alf's assertion that Maurice should have been allowed to kill all four of them. 

[Fateless]

2 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Yeah, no one is really disputing how things went down in this instance. The people who are pushing back are the ones disagreeing with Alf's assertion that Maurice should have been allowed to kill all four of them. 

Not even just the four guys in these circumstances, but Alf's assertion that any property owner should be able to kill any trespasser regardless of the reason or intention, no matter how innocent. That's where I'm, quite frankly, flabbergasted at Alf's position.

[stawns]

20 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

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.

I have no issue with him defending his family and home by use of deadly force if they are threatened, but not over stuff.  That's ridiculous

[RonMexico]

How about when you are an off duty cop and go into the wrong apartment, that you think is yours, and fatally shoot the actual homeowner, who is sitting there enjoying a bowl of ice cream, without even thinking about it?

[JM_]

4 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Yeah, no one is really disputing how things went down in this instance. The people who are pushing back are the ones disagreeing with Alf's assertion that Maurice should have been allowed to kill all four of them. 

Something does need to change, the rural situation is a hard one. But not some John Wayne movie line where we start killing innocent people.

 

I don't know if we have the national capacity to discuss this rationally, at least among our politicians. 

 

I wonder if expanding the allowable use of non-lethal options is a potential compromise here? Remote rural locations can't rely on immediate help from the RCMP so maybe some allowance is needed here? 

[PhillipBlunt]

2 minutes ago, stawns said:

I have no issue with him defending his family and home by use of deadly force if they are threatened, but not over stuff.  That's ridiculous

Are you talking about Maurice or the farmer in the other case?

 

Maurice never used deadly force.

[HerrDrFunk]

1 minute ago, RonMexico said:

How about when you are an off duty cop and go into the wrong apartment, that you think is yours, and fatally shoot the actual homeowner, who is sitting there enjoying a bowl of ice cream, without even thinking about it?

You get convicted of murder and then your fellow cops kill a witness in retaliation. 

[Ronaldoescobar]

everyone needs a gun

[ForsbergTheGreat]

3 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Yeah, no one is really disputing how things went down in this instance. The people who are pushing back are the ones disagreeing with Alf's assertion that Maurice should have been allowed to kill all four of them. 

Unless he was seeing double there was only two guys.
 

But I think there is a very grey line between what is justifiable and what isn’t. How was Maurice to know they wouldn’t charge his house. Again there was likely less than 20 seconds for him to make that conclusion if they started to charge him.

 

The fact that they didn’t leave after being sighted and yelled at would have to put him on edge even more.  
 

Let’s say his warning shot didn’t ricochet and they continued to go through his stuff and proceed to get even closer. At what point does it turn to justifiable to shoot to kill? Does it Ever?
 

 

[RonMexico]

2 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

You get convicted of murder and then your fellow cops kill a witness in retaliation. 

yeah I just read that follow up today. Such a coincidence.

[HerrDrFunk]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Something does need to change, the rural situation is a hard one. But not some John Wayne movie line where we start killing innocent people.

 

I don't know if we have the national capacity to discuss this rationally, at least among our politicians. 

 

I wonder if expanding the allowable use of non-lethal options is a potential compromise here? Remote rural locations can't rely on immediate help from the RCMP so maybe some allowance is needed here? 

For sure and I don't believe there is a simple solution there either. 

 

However, I do believe the solution is somewhere between letting thieves have free rein and killing anyone if you think they're going to try to steal your $&!#. 

[HerrDrFunk]

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Unless he was seeing double there was only two guys.
 

But I think there is a very grey line between what is justifiable and what isn’t. How was Maurice to know they wouldn’t charge his house. Again there was likely less than 20 seconds for him to make that conclusion if they started to charge him.

 

The fact that they didn’t leave after being sighted and yelled at would have to put him on edge even more.  
 

Let’s say his warning shot didn’t ricochet and they continued to go through his stuff and proceed to get even closer. At what point does it turn to justifiable to shoot to kill? Does it Ever?
 

 

Whoops, two. 

 

Yeah, again, not disputing what happened here. We're disagreeing with Alf that lethal force should be allowed in response to property crimes. 

[Ronaldoescobar]

3 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

You get convicted of murder and then your fellow cops kill a witness in retaliation. 

From my own personal experience, a lot of cops think (or act as if) theyre gangsters.

[Fateless]

7 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Something does need to change, the rural situation is a hard one. But not some John Wayne movie line where we start killing innocent people.

 

I don't know if we have the national capacity to discuss this rationally, at least among our politicians. 

 

I wonder if expanding the allowable use of non-lethal options is a potential compromise here? Remote rural locations can't rely on immediate help from the RCMP so maybe some allowance is needed here? 

I agree on all points. There is certainly a need for more options for rural communities, but there are a lot of options available to them outside of blowing random trespassers away out of fear of the unknown. Although to be honest, the existing law on proportionality on reactionary force is already pretty useful for these situations. Maybe the Courts need to provide more leeway on the application of the proportionality test for those in rural communities given that their use of force is more proportional due to the lack of immediate RCMP assistance and the risks associated with living rurally. That way the Courts can address the problem until the politicians are able to locate their rationality again and deal with it themselves.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Fateless