support for eddie Maurice's self defense case Please read...

[CoonT]

lethal force is not reasonable for B&E.

'B&E' is hindsight. At the time, there is no way of knowing what laws the criminals are willing to break. I bet in most cases, they don't even know, and they are letting one bad decision make another.

The criminals don't have to prove they were only there to steal. Not how justice works.

The criminals only need to show that they are willing to commit crimes. The crimes and violence they end up committing, are largely up to chance and circumstance; and it's reasonable to assume that one bad decision will follow another. Are you willing to let your child's life, sit in the hands of chance, or the decision-making capacity of an offender, who already demonstrates a lack of judgement and a willingness to harm you?

I'm not, and neither are you.


Again, wiener, we're not condoning or saying it's acceptable to shoot someone for touching your car. What this thread is about (afaik) is making sure that this family is able to represent themselves in court properly and fairly. Imo, they have a right to not be pressured into capitulation, by the punishment of the process.

I bet you would agree to that too, and I bet you would donate to help support that, eh?

 

[Cameron SS]

From what I understand gofundme will not allow him..as the rcmp charged him criminally...and although not proven in court...they wont let anybody with criminal charges (proven or not) be funded on their page

Sorry, but you shouldn't be allowed to shoot people breaking into cars. No justification it, it is excessive force.

lethal force is not reasonable for B&E.

Maybe not in your house. Your house, your rules.

In my house anything authorized by law in terms of self defense for people or stuff is reasonable.

NOT defending yourself, or trusting the criminal to be the reasonable one, is not just unreasonable, its insane.

 

[Cameron SS]

'B&E' is hindsight. At the time, there is no way of knowing what laws the criminals are willing to break. I bet in most cases, they don't even know, and they are letting one bad decision make another.





The criminals only need to show that they are willing to commit crimes. The crimes and violence they end up committing, are largely up to chance and circumstance; and it's reasonable to assume that one bad decision will follow another. Are you willing to let your child's life, sit in the hands of chance, or the decision-making capacity of an offender, who already demonstrates a lack of judgement and a willingness to harm you?

I'm not, and neither are you.


Again, wiener, we're not condoning or saying it's acceptable to shoot someone for touching your car. What this thread is about (afaik) is making sure that this family is able to represent themselves in court properly and fairly. Imo, they have a right to not be pressured into capitulation, by the punishment of the process.

I bet you would agree to that too, and I bet you would donate to help support that, eh?

Look at the states. Every single defensive shooting is fully investigated as you would expect. The difference is in the US they remember what the presumption of innocence is, and the police lay charges only when they have ecidence of a BAD use of force.

In Canada, they assume any use of force of wrong, lay the charges, and then investigate. Thats where the punishment by process and miscarriage starts, bit obviously doesnt end there.

 

[bcbravo2zero]

Good news...it’s up to almost $20K
But they’re going to need more $ than that for his family’s bills and lawyer’s fees.

 

[emerson]

Thank you for this information. Theres a pretty clear line between protecting life and protecting property. I believe that defending the life of yourself and your family should be a right no question. Defending physical property ie vehicles with lethal force, i don't necessarily agree with. Personally i would rather pay an insurance deductible on a stolen or damaged vehicle as opposed to the absolute legal nightmare this man and his family are now facing. Not siding with the criminals or anything but this isn't the wild west. Just my opinion though.

The law says people can steal without risking deadly force used against them. I'm fine with thieves getting shot.

 

[GUB]

The VP showed us a security vid from a local high school yesterday. Not a student doing a school ripoff with school open and filled with students and teachers
Anyone that thinks they and their family can cour in a closet and wish the bad people will go away while they wait for the police?? Are living in LA LA land!!
Bad guys have no remorse,guilt,conscience,feelings,empathy ,pride (insert other words)!!!!
They are not like us in any way.. And if you think they will act like us?? Once again LA LA land and you have lived a sheltered life

 

[slim123]

It's nice to see so much traffic on this thread....like I said earlier he looked real scared at the courthouse today...and any one of us who have a wife and kids that depend on you could understand the stress he is under right now....with the possibility of facing prison....for being a victim of crime.

Some have called into question his actions.....but please lets leave the facts for the courts to decide...and give the guy the benefit of the doubt and support him. Try to imagine living in his shoes right now...not only the possibility of prison time....but having to leave his wife and young kids alone.....possibly even losing the farm.....all because some lowlife scumbags decided to rob him......think hard about that......

Let's do all we can..every little bit counts....as every win in a case like this ...is a win for the entire firearm community.

Irg's is awesome for taking this thread on....and I will definitely remember that come time for my next purchase

i'll reiterate....plz ppl...let the courts decide the FACTS.....lets support this guy and his family and give him the benefit of th doubt...and not take facts from the media..but wait for the courts to decide.....but that will cost money to put up a good defense

 

[hermie]

Deposited $100 this morning at local TD bank.

 

[matm]

The fact that the charges against the man defending his property and family are more serious than the charges against the man shot in the process of robbing someone is a sure fire indicator of how screwed the system is.

A simple, straight forward fact: if you don't want the #### show of consequences that can occur when you disrespect a persons right to peace and safety for themself and their family on their property, their castle as it were, then don't ####ing rob them. Because in that situation, all of the responsibility of what happens after, falls solely on your shoulders for breaking the law in the first place.

the initial charges are worse for the homeowner because if you take the stories of both parites involved at face value, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon is indeed a more severe crime than theft. It will be up to the investigation to determine if his actions are justified. Just because there are charges that doesn't mean he is guilty. The justice system may not be perfect but there is one and this is how it works. Firearms are a very politically charged topic so when they are involved, things get complicated very quickly.

 

[Pepperpopper]

But stealing my Tim Hortons change is not a reason to shoot at someone.

That is my thinking and how I live. But it isn't an absolute rule, it is a privilege highly dependent on where you live. Martial law being the obvious example. If the threat to property, if the tendency to lawlessness gets bad enough, any government will resort to martial law, it's normal. Rural life isn't a license to print money, it is highly dependent on being able to employ tools to get the job done. You don't drift happily through civic infrastructure and then earn a living having fancy thoughts, you need to be able to manipulate your environment, or at a minimum move to places where the money can be made. You have to have the confidence that when you leave home, that your family will be safe, or if you stay that you can get down to the business of farming. This way of life is actually somewhat fragile, but the rural environment isn't what it once was and not all your neighbours are saints, and you basically exist without police coverage. When seconds count the police are often just hours away.

So lets call two guys against one man what they are: Lethal force. And keeping it to that level is just pure chance. What if there were more of them skulking around. What if they had weapons. What if they had violence on their minds.

There was a case in Newfoundland where a drug dealer successfully employed stand your ground in his legal defense, of a shooting of rivals. At least he knows who is who, being in the business. But is our theory of this case, for this young man and his family, that he needs to get the hell behind his door and wait till however many people who are out there, however armed, kick the door in? Then he gets to present his defense. Or will someone just break out more cover for the goblins and second guess even that move.

I don't want to see people hurt, and I don't believe the punishment, in Canada, for theft is death, or anything near it. Though that kind of gracious approach to larceny, and the holes it tears in people's sense of security and pocketbooks, is always dependent on the sense that society is at the level of ease where that is a reasonable attitude. Maybe there were just two of these thugs to help with the heavy lifting involved in taking possession of Eddie's property. But the risk they need to take 100% of, is for the position they put Eddie into, and how their actions might be interpreted. He didn't know them, or what their intentions were. He didn't have much of a play. The bad guys are responsible for whatever level of fear they intentionally or unintentionally produce; they are responsible fore the most dire interpretation that a reasonable person would make of the threat, and intentions their presence might imply. All of that falls on their shoulders.

We owe criminals concern for their lives and wellbeing just as we have concern for anyone else. That is a claim that any human can levy on any other human. But there is a wacky gearing at work in these maters. Let's say these guys only wanted the change out of Eddie's cup holders, other than that, "have a nice day". But from the Eddie's situation that is by no means the worst case reasonable scenario. And all the responsibility for that disproportion needs to be born by the criminals, not by Eddie or his family.

 

[NickTdot]

Farmer vs Meth head probie..
http://calgaryherald.com/news/provi...hief/wcm/6aaa5d05-9365-4d16-9bed-a0699afb88f7

 

[Melvin]

Give the man the resources and rights to a fair trial but please do not use the result either way as a precedent setting, rub it in the publics face excuse for gun ownership for self defence purposes based on the gun owners judgement as to when to use it. This will only allow the non gun owning public one more reason to restrict our use of guns for hunting and legitimate recreational purposes. if you want our guns to be taken away run around telling everyone to buy a gun to shoot criminals. I will bet this man and the one recently acquitted will tell you if They had to do it all over again they would not have brought out the gun knowing what they know now and had to go through.

 

[matm]

Give the man the resources and rights to a fair trial but please do not use the result either way as a precedent setting, rub it in the publics face excuse for gun ownership for self defence purposes based on the gun owners judgement as to when to use it. This will only allow the non gun owning public one more reason to restrict our use of guns for hunting and legitimate recreational purposes. if you want our guns to be taken away run around telling everyone to buy a gun to shoot criminals. I will bet this man and the one recently acquitted will tell you if They had to do it all over again they would not have brought out the gun knowing what they know now and had to go through.

I was looking for a comment like this, very well said

 

[Hunter1970]

Just kicked in as well.

 

[Pepperpopper]

Firearms are a very politically charged topic so when they are involved, things get complicated very quickly.

What irritates me is that there is a totally different set of rules for police and the rest of us. Of course the police receive training, and have resources that none of us has, that is why we would happily default to them if we could. But individuals get charged when they have more at stake (say the lives of their family); Are hopelessly outnumbered; don't have the training (which is not their fault when the fight gets pushed on them); and don't have the resources of being a walking armory with body armor. The authorities need to imagine how they would feel if they were stuffed in a car with their loved ones; stripped of their resources; and dispatched to a call at the Maurice house where if they make a bad play the whole car load of them gets murdered in their socks.

 

[matm]

What irritates me is that there is a totally different set of rules for police and the rest of us. Of course the police receive training, and have resources that none of us has, that is why we would happily default to them if we could. But individuals get charged when they have more at stake (say the lives of their family); Are hopelessly outnumbered; don't have the training (which is not their fault when the fight gets pushed on them); and don't have the resources of being a walking armory with body armor. The authorities need to imagine how they would feel if they were stuffed in a car with their loved ones; stripped of their resources; and dispatched to a call at the Maurice house where if they make a bad play the whole car load of them gets murdered in their socks.

The police have the resources and equipment because their job gets them involved in situations that could involve self defence much more often then the average person. Also they have guidelines for when lethal force is authorized and every case that a suspect is killed or shot is investigated thoroughly. Much like this mans case will be investigated to make sure it was justified. The situation that actually occurred will determine this mans innocence or guilt, not what could have happened. Is it possible that the theft could evolve into a home invasion or worse? Absolutely. However the other side is that they rummage though the vehicles and leave. You can't use a hypothetical situation as defense.

 

[ihadamp5]

Yes just call 911. Everything will work its self out.

 

[Pepperpopper]

The police have the resources and equipment because their job gets them involved in situations that could involve self defence much more often then the average person.

And I am grateful to them, and would happily leave it to them where they are effective. I don't begrudge them their resources. What irritates me is that the rest of us, without a doubt, get held to a higher standard (based on the same principles) when we have far fewer options. Let's say one puts one of the bad guys on the ground. I don't have cuffs I can legally use to hold him; convey him to my mobile jail cell etc... So to create the same effect I would have to take him definitively out of the fight. But they will judge me more severely because I am not in the club, and they will probably not be all that happy about the higher level of force I am required to use.

Also they have guidelines for when lethal force is authorized and every case that a suspect is killed or shot is investigated thoroughly. Much like this mans case will be investigated to make sure it was justified.

Generally, and in recent times I have seen a number of use of force situations in Toronto where they got taken down in situations where it didn't seem evident that a reasonable cop would have behaved otherwise.

The situation that actually occurred will determine this mans innocence or guilt, not what could have happened.

I don't think that is correct, they will look at what actions a reasonable person would have taken given their apprehension of the threat. And threat is about what could have happened.

Is it possible that the theft could evolve into a home invasion or worse? Absolutely. However the other side is that they rummage though the vehicles and leave. You can't use a hypothetical situation as defense.

Stanley did in part rely on the perception that a car driven by Boushie might have been driven over his wife, or that the intention of the driver was to cause bodily harm.

If by "hypothetical" you mean a discussion of cases involving different sets of fact (not presidents of course), that is beside the point. However in a stress situation the defendant will be running 'What if"/hypotheticals at full speed. And that is part of the defense in that you can rely on what considerations a reasonable person would have entertained in the same situation. That kind of point was outlined by the Judge in his instructions to the jury in the Boushie case which is not under appeal.

On a forum like this, it is entirely reasonable to discuss what policy ought to be through the use of alternative scenarios or hypothetical cases. Even given the fact that this is a real world case with real people. I think the thinking on this stuff is changing a little, and public opinion may be part of that. In Boushie, I was surprised that the judge in his instructions referred to the firing of warning shots with a handgun as entirely reasonable. That didn't seem to be the case not to long ago in say Thomson.

 

[matm]

Than you pepperpopper for the well articulated statements, i cant say i disagree with anything you said. It's all just discussion i hope i didn't upset anyone.

The perception of threat is quite a difficult topic given its subjectivity. I guess that's where the reasonable person becomes the standard. Threat is still dictated by the situation at hand. Anyone can make a situation much worse in their mind. It has to be decided that the percieved threat matches the events that occurred.

 

[MustangFrank]

Rubber buckshot and bear bangers might be a reasonable first step with thieves on rural property depending on the situation and if your goal is to prevent property from being stolen. If the situation changes, you can switch to lead, however you cannot re write current laws . So, one must respond to the threat accordingly and with the appropriate use of force. Otherwise things go downhill fast.