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

[Autolite]

Its a shame this is not getting more publicity. I am sure that is the main reason for the slow increase in donations.

The Stanley campaign raised a ton of cash due to the huge national coverage that the MSM gave it by playing-up the 'racism' angle. No one in the Maurice case can play the race card so it's getting much less media attention. It is up to us to spread the word via emails to friends and neighbours and posting on other forums.

On a positive note, the Maurice FundRazr campaign has really started growing again after stalling out just before the Easter weekend. I'm thinking that these crowd funding campaigns will be the way to go from now on. Although it was a tragic and horrific event, the GoFundMe campaign for the Humbolt crash victims raised nearly 2 million dollars in less than 24 hours...

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...raises-2m.html

[Autolite]

I tried to donate twice through the fundRazr. They take $6 from $100 but I think its worth it because the donations being public help to send a message rather than the private EMT.

I have no problem at all with FundRazr taking a cut. We need organizations like FundRazr to stand up and do what's right. The GoFundMe people bailed on the Maurice campaign I'm guessing (IMO anyway) because they figured that it wasn't politically correct to defend your own home...

[The Cold Lake Kid]

IMHO nothing to "Wonder" about. In case anyone missed it, salaries for civil servants have reached the stratosphere. Job security is the first and foremost concern of many in said "service". Has no one else ever wondered why it takes a Judge weeks to deliberate a case and come up with a verdict or sentence? You can't tell me, that after sitting through hours and hours of testimony, presumably focused on nothing else, a Judge, someone intelligent and focused enough to reach that employment plateau to begin with,needs to rethink their position/decision for hundreds of additional hours?? Only the real world works a 40hour week. Crown attorneys etc need to make work to ensure their place at the public trough remains profitable.

As an aside, Here in Ottawa there is an apparent "wave of gang and gun violence" taking place. But yet, every time you read an article about the outcome of the trial, the unlawful possession of a restricted firearm charge is tossed out in the plea bargain process. You can't tell me the Crown, the Judge's, all parties involved think illegally obtaining a firearm is the least of the crimes committed? Do they think criminals obtain said firearms for posturing only, with no intent to use them? Time after time the firearms charges are withdrawn, anyone have a rationale explanation for why?

It seems the Legal System needs crime, (the more the better), to justify the increases in funding and staffing. Otherwise, we would be safer in our lives and we would see more habitual criminals incarcerated for longer periods.
IMHO, if the first or second sojourn inside the walls have not taught someone to behave, the Legal Systems responsibility to rehabilitate is no longer applicable and the responsibility should be focused on the potential victims; us.

[Thunderhog]

[Autolite]

I see as of today that the contributors on FundRazr has reached 430 after 38 days. That's only about 0.02% of all the gun owners in Canada. Does this not bother anybody else here?

We have here a golden opportunity to send a message to Ottawa and attract huge media attention yet (IMO) we seem to be blowing it. What is the problem with us???

[Swampy]

To be really effective the word has to be spread amongst the shooting clubs, on Fartbook, twitter & other social media forms to really get it out there.

[Autolite]

To be really effective the word has to be spread amongst the shooting clubs, on Fartbook, twitter & other social media forms to really get it out there.

I've been trying to spread the word via emails and posting on other forums. I like to think that many others are doing the same. The NFA likes us to contact our politicians by letter and/or sign petitions. This FundRazr campaign would get us ten times the recognition that any letter or petition would but we just don't seem to be taking advantage of that and I'm just not sure sure why we're not???

[mbucky32]

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.

[Autolite]

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'm just not seeing that as a realistic possibility particularly under a Liberal federal government. Why would Turdeau even want to do anything to deter criminals when it was criminals who elected him to a majority government?

In any case Canada no longer has any 'true' right wing political party due to too many years over the last five decades of federal Liberal dictatorships. All we now have today are various degrees of left-from-centre parties. We shouldn't hope or expect the government to help the home and property owners to protect themselves. That's what makes FundRazr campaigns like this one so important. It's like 'self-insurance' to protect the home/property owner from re-victimization by the government. Looking after each other is now our last and only real option...

[VinnyQC]

No Desperados. Just a bunch of rednecks, meth-heads, rig-rats and a general lack of education.

As usual the media blows things out of proportion. While there are certainly a few hotspots the vast majority is very quiet.

Well, I guess I'll be happy to stay in a large metro area, where we have clean water and people don't shoot each other. Funny, it used to be that Toronto and Vancouver were the scariest places in Canada, now the city cores are getting less and less violent and rural areas are full of met-heads. Maybe biking to work while drinking a 8$ latte makes people less prone to violence, who knows?