So after more than a week and re-sending the e-transfer notification (which you can do from online banking), my e-transfer was finally accepted.
There's been some really good comments on here regarding the case (I've read most of the 40+ pages while skipping the trolling going on). There have been some very interesting personal examples cited of people's personal property being violated and safety being threatened. I'm not sure if some people are misinformed or just uninformed while thinking they're fully informed, so I'll add my 2 cents regarding this case and others that are similar. I'd love to hear feedback, mostly of the informed and grounded type. Trolls will be hung by their toes.
In order to gain some perspective of this case, it's good to look at other cases. While many cite the Stanley case, I believe that the
Ian Thomson case is more closely related. What is most likely to be presented by the Crown is purely speculative on my part, but will probably look like this:
1) Eddie took it upon himself to leave the safety and security of his home armed to confront someone stealing his property.
2) Eddie illegally pointed his firearm at the thieves, not in fear of his life, but in defense of his property.
3) Eddie illegally discharged his firearm, not in fear of his life, but again in defense of his property.
Canadian law requires that the Use of Force be escalated only to the point required to stop someone. While it may seem trivial, it's actually sound as it helps to ensure that citizens and police alike don't use a hammer to swat a fly. While the Use of Force issue is handled somewhat differently for civilians by the courts, it does require that:
1) You use only the force required to stop someone. In other words, if you fire a warning shot and the person flees, then you're not justified in chasing them down and beating them senseless to "get even". A case in Edmonton a couple of years ago resulted in charges as 2 B&E suspects fled the scene when confronted, however, one individual chased one of the suspects several blocks away and proceeded to give him a beat down. Instead of just the perp being charged, Joe Q Citizen was charged as well.
2) Use of Force requires that you're acting "in good faith and on reasonable grounds". In other words, your actions have to demonstrate that the force used was what an informed person would believe to be reasonable. The proverbial can of worms.
3) You cannot/should not point a firearm unless you: a) Have tried lesser means that failed (ie: fired a warning shot into the air), b) Believe that severe harm to you or others is imminent c) Are fully prepared to discharge your firearm based on A and/or B to
stop the threat;
4) You cannot/should not shoot to injure, but rather to stop the threat. Use of a firearm requires that you shoot to stop or prevent imminent harm coming to you or your loved ones. If you tell the police you "winged him", be prepared to go through what the Maurice family is currently enduring.
The reason I mentioned the Thomson case is because he was acquitted of all charges (which coincidentally were reduced to improper storage once the case got underway) for the above reasons I've noted. Thomson had exercised restraint in the use of his firearm as he fired warning shots in the air despite his house being firebombed. Had he shot one of them immediately, no doubt he wouldn't have gotten off so easily and his uphill battle would have been that much harder. Thomson's case is clearly one of the Use of Force being applied appropriately and as such, the court deemed that he acted in good faith and on reasonable grounds.
I hope that my comments here do a couple of things:
1) Garner more value adding discussion with respect to the Maurice case;
2) Give lawful gun owners some information that they can digest and look at the case through a "neutral lens" if it were. I fully support Eddie and his family, hence the reason why I donated what I could, however, we must all be mindful that the use of deadly force is to be taken seriously, whether by civilians or law enforcement and as such, needs to be used only as a last resort and only in good faith;
3) I'm really hoping that those of you who are members of a range/shooting club would consider organizing an evening with a lawyer/crown prosecutor who could do a Q&A and could share their knowledge to a greater depth than what I have. I think that this is an extremely important topic and civilians have the RIGHT to know what their rights are, what the limitations of their rights are and what we need to do, collectively, as law abiding citizens to push for change with respect to defense of self and property.
I hope this information is useful and garners more in depth discussion.
