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

[josh1976]

It seems that the FundRazr campaign has stalled out again. It hasn't budged for at least the last two days.

It has also occurred to me that the Stanley fund raiser did so well because the Stanley incident received ten times the amount of media coverage. The media latched onto that story because, in that case, the dead criminal's family got to play the race card. Not so with the Maurice case.

So how bad do things need to get before people wake up to the fact that rural crime is a serious problem here in Canada? I remember reading about the Alberta senior who was sliced up with a machete by home invaders last year. I also remember reading about intruders who threw acid into the face of a homeowner's dog in order to disable it.

The laws that prohibit us from protecting ourselves are not gonna change. The criminals in the federal government will continue to protect their own. So again I ask, what is it going to take to make people realize that as home and property owners we really are all on our own here???

I hear ya. wish I was rich... All I know for sure is that I don't want to see this father/ husband locked behind bars.

[holzmeister]

It seems that the FundRazr campaign has stalled out again. It hasn't budged for at least the last two days.

It has also occurred to me that the Stanley fund raiser did so well because the Stanley incident received ten times the amount of media coverage. The media latched onto that story because, in that case, the dead criminal's family got to play the race card. Not so with the Maurice case.

So how bad do things need to get before people wake up to the fact that rural crime is a serious problem here in Canada? I remember reading about the Alberta senior who was sliced up with a machete by home invaders last year. I also remember reading about intruders who threw acid into the face of a homeowner's dog in order to disable it.

The laws that prohibit us from protecting ourselves are not gonna change. The criminals in the federal government will continue to protect their own. So again I ask, what is it going to take to make people realize that as home and property owners we really are all on our own here???

For me and many others I have talked about the lack of facts is keeping people from becoming incensed so they can act. It has not gotten wide media attention because it is a non starter. Shooting someone for taking your property is just not justification to point and fire upon someone. He broke the law and as has been stated on other forums all that is left if for him to answer to it. I do think he will get probation, loss of his privilege to possess firearms and a fine. Hopefully the bloke that he shot will be barred from seeking damages for the assault.

I live in a rural community and if this trial was to be set here the accused would be found guilty. Many in my community have been victims of petty theft, loose change stolen from the car, a snow shovel even a lawnmower but all of those things are trivial in comparison to taking someones life.

[Autolite]

Shooting someone for taking your property is just not justification to point and fire upon someone.

Under Canadian law, it is illegal to employ any type of bodily harm to protect property yet the thieves are often showing up armed. They have no reservations about the use of, or the threat of, serious physical harm to facilitate their criminal activities. That was the case with the Stanley incident and it was also the case with my own attempted break-in.

The prohibition of the use of (or the threat of) serious bodily harm to protect property might be legitimate and justifiable if the police/government provided effective crime deterrents. But they don't and the criminals know it. Do you really feel that home and property owners should be satisfied with (and just accept) this situation???

[Autolite]

Many in my community have been victims of petty theft, loose change stolen from the car, a snow shovel even a lawnmower but all of those things are trivial in comparison to taking someones life.

I had a gate barring the entrance to my driveway. The thieves used a STOLEN four wheel drive truck to bend and rip out the steel gate posts that had been cemented into the ground in order to gain access to my home. And they were armed as well.

Is there any point at which you feel the use of, or the threat of, bodily harm would be justifiable to deter this type of crime???

[Autolite]

I hear ya. wish I was rich...

As I've mentioned before, if only half of the gun owners in Canada contributed just one dollar the political statement would be hard for the media to ignore. I would much rather see that happen than any one individual making a single huge financial donation.

I'm just now hoping when the trial itself starts (April 06) that that might generate more support...

[Autolite]

It has not gotten wide media attention because it is a non starter.

No. It has not gotten wide media attention because there's nothing about the story that the degenerate Leftist MSM can use to their advantage...

[holzmeister]

Under Canadian law, it is illegal to employ any type of bodily harm to protect property yet the thieves are often showing up armed. They have no reservations about the use of, or the threat of, serious physical harm to facilitate their criminal activities. That was the case with the Stanley incident and it was also the case with my own attempted break-in.

The prohibition of the use of (or the threat of) serious bodily harm to protect property might be legitimate and justifiable if the police/government provided effective crime deterrents. But they don't and the criminals know it. Do you really feel that home and property owners should be satisfied with (and just accept) this situation???

I think many would agree had these thieves come there armed, and intended to harm this person then more severe actions could have been warranted. The accused could have turned on the lights, yelled out to them that he knew they were there and he had called the police, HAD he felt threatened yelling out to them that he was armed. But none of that was stated. While the laws are not perfect, they are all we have. Not long ago there was a bloke in the US who was tired of beer being pilfered from his garage beer fridge so he lay in wait and shot someone trying steal a beer. IIRC it was an exchange student who was shot and killed. Had the accused shot and killed this person it would have been over some pocket change. THAT would have gotten media attention and he would have been charged with manslaughter. While every situation is different this one seems, from what has been reported, pretty clear cut. The accused shot an unarmed thief rummaging through his car. The accused was not in fear for his life nor for the lives of his family. I do feel empathy for this poor sod, but he broke the law. I can see a fine probation and banning him from owning a firearm his punishment.

[holzmeister]

I had a gate barring the entrance to my driveway. The thieves used a four wheel drive truck to bend and rip out the steel gate posts that had been cemented into the ground in order to gain access to my home. And they were armed as well.

Is there any point at which you feel the use of, or the threat of, bodily harm would be justifiable to deter this type of crime???

I find that terrible but I have to wonder why they would have gone to such great lengths to gain access to your property. What was it they were after? That type of commitment leads me to believe they knew exactly what they were after and its value was great or such a risk.

[Northaways]

I find that terrible but I have to wonder why they would have gone to such great lengths to gain access to your property. What was it they were after? That type of commitment leads me to believe they knew exactly what they were after and its value was great or such a risk.

Off the top, hmmm, guns maybe??

[Autolite]

I find that terrible but I have to wonder why they would have gone to such great lengths to gain access to your property. What was it they were after? That type of commitment leads me to believe they knew exactly what they were after and its value was great or such a risk.

As much as I try to keep things out of sight behind buildings and what-not, you can still see from the road that I have several vehicles and tractors. This tells the thieves that it is most likely that I would also have tools and portable maintenance equipment that can easily be stolen and transported. In my case, the criminals actually sat across the road and cased my place (looking through the trees) several hours before the attempted break-in. The RCMP didn't even believe me when I told them that.

The biggest incentive however is that the thieves know too that the police cannot or will not respond in time. Compounding this is the fact that the thieves are also fully aware that (thanks to people like you) the homeowner is prohibited by the government from adequately protecting their property.

I don't even really blame the criminals. They know that they hold all the advantages. And again, it's you and people like you who have afforded them that...