 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The point being that some will say that "protecting property is not worth a life". However, people with that view will not publicly advertise that fact. This tells me that they're comfortable with thieves thinking otherwise. And that Sir, is hypocritical...Originally Posted by altaberg
I agree brother.
I don't see myself every leaving my house to engage someone who is stealing my vehicle BUT I never had my vehicle stolen or robbed. I am sure if it happened few times, i would change my tune very quickly.
Cheers,
BE PREPARED - Noah didn't build the Ark when it was raining!
_________________________
Pretty biased CBC articles as usual with selectively quoting anything that makes Khill look guilty.
Except judge and jury remembered how it is supposed to work in the system:
quoted the judge in a comment yesterday, It's up to the crown to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defence.
"In dubio pro reo" is what it should be in our legal system.
_____________________
Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than
denial of free speech.
Charles Bradlaugh
i don't think a link to this editorial by Lorne Gunter has been posted here yet:
http://calgarysun.com/opinion/column...8-0ec2cd60eed5
He has some good points.
_____________________
Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than
denial of free speech.
Charles Bradlaugh
What we're now seeing in Western Canada is the same rural home/property owners getting hit multiple times. I've had my car stolen out of my own driveway once and on another occasion I had my steel gate torn out during an attempted armed break-in all within the space of a year. And some my neighbours have had it much worse.
The police do not offer an effective deterrent and this is why people like Stanley, Maurice and Khill chose to deal with the situation themselves. This is also why Eddie Maurice received such high profile public support.
And then the government re-victimizes the crime victims under the pretense of a 'civilized system'. It's a shame, but unfortunately it seems that we actually need more people being robbed before we collectively realize that people should be afforded their natural right to be proactive about their own security...
Last edited by Autolite; 06-27-2018 at 01:13 PM.
Eddie Maurice was on CBC Radio (Edmonton) this morning. Did anyone else here hear his comments? He advocates that home owners should be allowed by law to effectively protect themselves and their property...
Everyone is allowed to do so. You are allowed to protect yourself and others with up to and including lethal force if required. You are allowed to protect your property. The key is always proportionality and degree of force. That is why in all three recent cases the men are freely walking the streets instead of sitting in prison.
If you’re going to advocate so strongly I suggest you correctly learn the law. Advocate out of knowledge vice emotion.
Not quite. In the first two the application of force was found to be accidental and in the third case the Accused convinced the jury he acted in the belief that he was defending himself.
None of these cases established any precedent for using force to protect your property.
CSSA and now - on Trudeau's recommendation - CCFR
C-26. Read it, understand it, and you’ll find it is relevant in all three cases and provides for the protection of life and property. You’ll also then understand why all of these end up in court as it is up to the judicial system to determine whether or not the force used was proportional. You are absolutely correct about precedent which is why these always end up before the courts.
Don't ask autolite to understand the law. The guy openly threatened to kill me with a machete on this very public forum.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote