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

[captainamazing]

How do you reconcile that with supporting a guy who more or less intended to pass a death sentence on a thief without any process? It's normal to cut some slack to someone you identify with (in this scenario, I suppose you own a property, one or more guns, and don't go steal into other peoples cars, so you probably identify more with the shooter than the shootee), but it's still not how the law works.

It's cute that some of you want to give the benefit of the doubt to the gunowner/homeowner, but not the slightest bit to the "thief". At the moment that the shooter took his potshots, he didn't know they were metheads, didn't know they had priors, he didn't know anything really, other than "these guys are walking on that particular square foot of land that belongs to me".

As for presumption of innocence, the shooter does benefit from it. He's still presumed innocent. Only when/if he pleads guilty or is declared guilty will the presumption that he is innocent disappear. The fact that our society provides him with that presumption although he does not debate the fact that he did shoot someone is kind if a lot considering he didn't offer that same thing to the "thief".

What some people on this board are asking for is not presumption of innocence or a fair trial, it's for the right of homeowners to perform summary executions on car-stealing metheads. Case in point:

Its called the "castle doctrine" meaning if a person breaks into my home, harm to me and family is IMPLIED! I will defend the f*** out of my house if anyone breaks in looking for trouble. Im not hiding in my closet hoping the criminal will spare me.

F****ing Hell! where did all the men go in Canada?

[wookiezzz]

Its called the "castle doctrine" meaning if a person breaks into my home, harm to me and family is IMPLIED! I will defend the f*** out of my house if anyone breaks in looking for trouble. Im not hiding in my closet hoping the criminal will spare me.

F****ing Hell! where did all the men go in Canada?

There is nothing like castle doctrine in Canadian Law. To use lethal force in defense of person requires reasonable apprehension of grievous bodily harm or death. And as an aside; harm cannot (legally or in reality) ever be implied - harm is actual physical injury. You ask "where did all the men go in Canada?" Who knows; but perhaps they all died with the generation that believed shooting an unarmed man was the act of a coward. This young man in Okotoks (if the newspaper reports are correct) noticed people breaking into his car and you equate that with people busting into your house a la home invasion style - apples and oranges.

[Bartok5]

What some people on this board are asking for is not presumption of innocence or a fair trial, it's for the right of homeowners to perform summary executions on car-stealing metheads. Case in point:

While I am not completely comfortable with this notion, I am far from convinced that our revolving door courts actually dispense "justice" in any meaningful manner. This is particularly true if you happen to be a property owner who exercises the use of potentially lethal force in the defence of said property. Is "stuff" worth more than a human life? I remain convinced that in the case of career criminals, it may very well be. When is enough, enough? Career recidivism needs to be decisively curbed. A bunch of dead meth-head career thieves caught and killed with their hands in the rural "cookie jar" ought to get the message out and achieve the desired effect quicker than any minimal time spent in the remand criminal country club...

[Firearmsking]

This is how liberals want you to think. So just wondering I guess you will first fully interview the thief (or killer) to find out his true intent... I mean there is no chance this thief has a weapon and had intent to use it against you?

How do you reconcile that with supporting a guy who more or less intended to pass a death sentence on a thief without any process? It's normal to cut some slack to someone you identify with (in this scenario, I suppose you own a property, one or more guns, and don't go steal into other peoples cars, so you probably identify more with the shooter than the shootee), but it's still not how the law works.

It's cute that some of you want to give the benefit of the doubt to the gunowner/homeowner, but not the slightest bit to the "thief". At the moment that the shooter took his potshots, he didn't know they were metheads, didn't know they had priors, he didn't know anything really, other than "these guys are walking on that particular square foot of land that belongs to me".

As for presumption of innocence, the shooter does benefit from it. He's still presumed innocent. Only when/if he pleads guilty or is declared guilty will the presumption that he is innocent disappear. The fact that our society provides him with that presumption although he does not debate the fact that he did shoot someone is kind if a lot considering he didn't offer that same thing to the "thief".

What some people on this board are asking for is not presumption of innocence or a fair trial, it's for the right of homeowners to perform summary executions on car-stealing metheads. Case in point:

[Bartok5]

Dupe

[slim123]

$22,000 Raised!! Only 270 people supported so far though.. Get the word out!!

https://fundrazr.com/b1KjM0?ref=fb_8...ndv6MIUyhtDndv

Its great that the pot is getting bigger in fundrazr.....but i'll bet it's a lot higher considering the direct deposit and EMT. A lot of rural folks around here more than likely gave money thru the bank and emt....at the rally nobody even knew about the fundrazr website.

Its great to see so many ppl come together in support..... IRG's as I said before is "top notch" for taking up this thread......shows they really care about people....not just their money and patronage

[Donny Fenn1]

Emt sent earlier today.

[b_w.]

$50 towards the cause. Good reason to have legal defence insurance.

[león trotsky]

In the spirit of your own "philosophy" or rather, rant - i refer to the verbiage at the bottom of your reply - would you kindly keep your own misery to yourself?

Leon

[josh1976]

those that sympathize with the criminal element have never been threatened and outnumbered by thieves . to try and make an informed opinion you have to have had the experience.i have had it happen to me and you do not get to pick the time or place or circumstances as i was working late at night and was confronted by two large individuals intent on robbing me of my property .for those of you advocating to call the police and let them deal with it you may not have the option.it is very easy to say you should do this or do that but if you find yourself outnumbered it is a different ball game.

very true. I have been in this similar situation. I've been absolutly dumbfounded by suggestion of "why didn't you call 911". I DID... only after I was in a fight for my life and able to get the guy off my back! Having said this, I am glad no firearms were involved. Yes, he was intent on fighting, yet I was able to use the force required to defend simply using my hands. It wouldn't have been worth shooting the kid, and even though he came at me, I couldnt live with knowing I could have handled it differently. Now, if I was vulnerable, it would be nice to be legally supported should things escalate. Dont forget, these people are coming into OUR homes. Like I said before, yes they could just by petty theives, but oh my........try confronting one during a bump in the night and you just might find yourself in an otherwise unavoidable fight. I hope that this gentleman Mr. Maurice has a leg to stand on ad opposed to taking potshots. We simply don't know yet.