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

[NewbieCanuckFan]

1 hour ago, inane said:

This is wack. The penalty for stealing something is not death. You belong in saudi Arabia. 

Even they only take an appendage.

 

Now *armed robbery* is a different thing where there's a good chance of a deadly outcome in the course of their activities.

[Fateless]

4 minutes 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?
 

 

Yes, it does. The moment there is a legitimate threat of serious bodily harm or death. If Maurice was all the sudden charged by trespassers who were already in the process of stealing from him, then he has legitimate grounds to fear for his bodily safety and has a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm or death. Sure, he might get taken to Court to explain his actions, but he'd likely be successful in the circumstances. As he should be. But that is a very different set of facts than shooting some random trespasser who wasn't going to do anything to harm a homeowner. 

[JM_]

1 minute ago, Fateless said:

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 given 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.

thats an interesting idea - not what a reasonable person would do but a reasonable person assumed to be in more danger due to their remote location and lack of police presence. It would pre-condition the charge decision to have more leeway on force.

 

[Fateless]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

thats an interesting idea - not what a reasonable person would do but a reasonable person assumed to be in more danger due to their remote location and lack of police presence. It would pre-condition the charge decision to have more leeway on force.

 

Exactly. The definition would need to be a "reasonable person in similar circumstances as the accused" rather than the standard "reasonable person" test. That way it allows the Courts to consider the differences between someone living rurally with no RCMP assistance versus someone living on Hastings Street where there is a cop on every corner.

[Lancaster]

Maybe to prevent any "shoot now, ask later", all interaction regarding firearms requires video evidence of the homeowner politely asking trespassing individuals to leave immediately.

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, Fateless said:

Exactly. The definition would need to be a "reasonable person in similar circumstances as the accused" rather than the standard "reasonable person" test. That way it allows the Courts to consider the differences between someone living rurally with no RCMP assistance versus someone living on Hastings Street where there is a cop on every corner.

I was thinking of just raising the bar for the RCMP so it doesn't even get to charges, keep it out of the courts entirely. 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

2 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

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. 

I think what Alf is trying to say is, where is the line between what is perceived from property crime to the safety of your family.
 

A guy walking onto your property with his hands air announcing his intentions is different than getting caught stealing and most rational people can differentiate that. But there’s a lot of grey situations that it’s not so black and white and it would be very hard to know What the intentions are. In those situations where a crime is already in progress it’s better to be safe than sorry, is it not. 
 

the way are current law is set up. It would be better to shoot to kill right off the bat and just claim self defense later. I don’t think that’s right either. But rural homeowners need to have more protection. 

[HerrDrFunk]

2 hours ago, Alflives said:

It's pretty clear to me, and (IMO) a lot of Canadians.  If people are on your property and stealing (or worse) you should be fully within your rights to shoot and kill those criminals.  To suggest that people committing criminal acts (like in this case) will not escalate from stealing to violence is assuming we know what the criminals are thinking.  A victim of crime should not have to make that judgement.  Shoot first, and ask questions later.  

 

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I think what Alf is trying to say is, where is the line between what is perceived from property crime to the safety of your family.
 

A guy walking onto your property with his hands air announcing his intentions is different than getting caught stealing and most rational people can differentiate that. But there’s a lot of grey situations that it’s not so black and white and it would be very hard to know What the intentions are. In those situations where a crime is already in progress it’s better to be safe than sorry, is it not. 
 

the way are current law is set up. It would be better to shoot to kill right off the bat and just claim self defense later. I don’t think that’s right either. But rural homeowners need to have more protection. 

 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 minute ago, Lancaster said:

Maybe to prevent any "shoot now, ask later", all interaction regarding firearms requires video evidence of the homeowner politely asking trespassing individuals to leave immediately.

 

 

[Alflives]

27 minutes ago, Fateless said:

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.

so you are supporting allowing criminals to rape, and disembowel farmer's little children, because you say the farmer cannot shoot criminals on his property, but (must first) divine with some magic wand what those criminal's intentions are.  What is it going to be?  Do you believe a property owner must ask a criminal what his intentions are before defending his pregnant wife and little girls?

I find your lack of empathy closely represents a sociopath's way of thinking.  Why can you not have empathy for the farmer, who needs to protect his children and pregnant wife?

 

[PhillipBlunt]

2 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I think what Alf is trying to say is, where is the line between what is perceived from property crime to the safety of your family.
 

A guy walking onto your property with his hands air announcing his intentions is different than getting caught stealing and most rational people can differentiate that. But there’s a lot of grey situations that it’s not so black and white and it would be very hard to know What the intentions are. In those situations where a crime is already in progress it’s better to be safe than sorry, is it not. 
 

the way are current law is set up. It would be better to shoot to kill right off the bat and just claim self defense later. I don’t think that’s right either. But rural homeowners need to have more protection. 

Exactly. Living on a large acreage, especially with forests on it, presents a fair amount of challenges for the landowner should someone come onto their land with the intention to steal something, or worse.

[HerrDrFunk]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

so you are supporting allowing criminals to rape, and disembowel farmer's little children, because you say the farmer cannot shoot criminals on his property, but (must first) divine with some magic wand what those criminal's intentions are.  What is it going to be?  Do you believe a property owner must ask a criminal what his intentions are before defending his pregnant wife and little girls?

I find your lack of empathy closely represents a sociopath's way of thinking.  Why can you not have empathy for the farmer, who needs to protect his children and pregnant wife?

 

Alf, no one is saying that at all. 

 

We're going by your posts that state you believe you're fully within your rights to kill someone if you catch them stealing a bag of grain from your farm. 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

4 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Exactly. Living on a large acreage, especially with forests on it, presents a fair amount of challenges for the landowner should someone come onto their land with the intention to steal something, or worse.

Perps ain't too bright in that I can't think of too many homeowners in such remote areas that don't carry some kind of firearm (not just to protect themselves against burglars but wildlife if it came to that or hunting for food, etc.,).

Edited October 9, 2019 by NewbieCanuckFan

[BPA]

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

so you are supporting allowing criminals to rape, and disembowel farmer's little children, because you say the farmer cannot shoot criminals on his property, but (must first) divine with some magic wand what those criminal's intentions are.  What is it going to be?  Do you believe a property owner must ask a criminal what his intentions are before defending his pregnant wife and little girls?

I find your lack of empathy closely represents a sociopath's way of thinking.  Why can you not have empathy for the farmer, who needs to protect his children and pregnant wife?

 

Why are you moving the goal posts?

 

The pair of thieves were stealing (rummaging through a car).  You advocate to shoot and kill if they are on the property.  Some here (including myself) think that's a bit overboard.  FTG makes a fair point that 20s or less if thieves decides to rush him.  But kudos to the farmer for firing warning shots.  I'm hoping the case gets thrown out of court.

 

But under no circumstances would I advocate killing someone from stealing from a car.  The thieves were not in the household. 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

3 minutes ago, BPA said:

Why are you moving the goal posts?

 

The pair of thieves were stealing (rummaging through a car).  You advocate to shoot and kill if they are on the property.  Some here (including myself) think that's a bit overboard.  FTG makes a fair point that 20s or less if thieves decides to rush him.  But kudos to the farmer for firing warning shots.  I'm hoping the case gets thrown out of court.

 

But under no circumstances would I advocate killing someone from stealing from a car.  The thieves were not in the household. 

This should be stressed (assuming if true).  He didn't go out there 'guns blazing' seeking to go Rambo on the perps.

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Alf, no one is saying that at all. 

 

We're going by your posts that state you believe you're fully within your rights to kill someone if you catch them stealing a bag of grain from your farm. 

There were comments that Alf is all for shooting a kid that comes onto the lawn to collect a Frisbee.  Why, if we consider that one extreme, is having actual criminals coming onto a farmer's property, at night, and stealing not be (therefore) extended to include that there is the potential  those criminals will commit savage acts?  

 

My basic premise for shoot first and ask questions later is:  when someone is committing a crime by invading your home,  why is it the homeowner's responsibility to figure out the intentions of the criminal?  Why could the homeowner not figure the criminal, who has invaded his home, not have more than just stealing property as his intention?  Considering the violent crimes committed, why is it so hard to accept that a homeowner (who's house has been invaded) not think that he and his family are in grave danger?  Why is it the homeowner who is responsible for the criminal's intentions?   Why give a criminal, who has invaded your house, a warning?  Did that criminal give the homeowner warning?  The law is clearly protecting criminal behavior from consequences that would be a natural deterrent.  The law is wrong.   

[PhillipBlunt]

9 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Perps ain't too bright in that I can't think of too many homeowners in such remote areas that don't carry some kind of firearm (not just to protect themselves against burglars but wildlife if it came to that or hunting for food, etc.,).

I can't think of one.

[Alflives]

8 minutes ago, BPA said:

Why are you moving the goal posts?

 

The pair of thieves were stealing (rummaging through a car).  You advocate to shoot and kill if they are on the property.  Some here (including myself) think that's a bit overboard.  FTG makes a fair point that 20s or less if thieves decides to rush him.  But kudos to the farmer for firing warning shots.  I'm hoping the case gets thrown out of court.

 

But under no circumstances would I advocate killing someone from stealing from a car.  The thieves were not in the household. 

That's a good point, which I accept.  However, I could argue that the inside property of a farm (the farmyard) is actually an extension of the house.  It would be similar to a criminal being in a regular home owner's garage.  The access to the safety and security of the house is at hand for the criminal.  

[inane]

16 minutes ago, Alflives said:

so you are supporting allowing criminals to rape, and disembowel farmer's little children, because you say the farmer cannot shoot criminals on his property, but (must first) divine with some magic wand what those criminal's intentions are.  What is it going to be?  Do you believe a property owner must ask a criminal what his intentions are before defending his pregnant wife and little girls?

I find your lack of empathy closely represents a sociopath's way of thinking.  Why can you not have empathy for the farmer, who needs to protect his children and pregnant wife?

 

Yes, you've nailed it on the head. Finally you understand the point here is that we not only think 'shoot first as questions second' is dumb but that we also support raping and mutilating children. I'm so happy you've come to that brilliant conclusion. 

[BPA]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

That's a good point, which I accept.  However, I could argue that the inside property of a farm (the farmyard) is actually an extension of the house.  It would be similar to a criminal being in a regular home owner's garage.  The access to the safety and security of the house is at hand for the criminal.  

You are going to open a Pandora's box.

 

With that line of reasoning, the front lawn and backyard are extensions of the home.  That I can lawfully shoot anybody stepping one foot on it.  That is one slippery slope.