 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Indeed this is correct. Lethal force nor the threat of the use of lethal force is not a legal deterrent against property crime. However, just be aware that people like Stanley, Maurice, Khill and myself are paying the price for this patty-cake morality, The thieves know the law too. It it emboldens them and they are laughing at us. But I guess the law will never change just as long as it's always 'somebody else' taking up the butt from these criminals...Originally Posted by TT1900
Last edited by Autolite; 06-27-2018 at 10:15 PM.
I am not unsympathetic to drug addicts. I am firm believer that addiction is a mental health issue, best treated by hospitals not prisons. It is a very predictable and understandable pattern that a drug addict may resort to property crime to sustain the habit. I don't think they deserve time either, unless one could prove that even without the addiction they would still be prone to theft.
But that is all a very far cry from feeling that drug addicts are entitled to steal with impunity, or that property owners should be defenseless and forced to surrender their property on the mere whim of an addict either. And it should be noted that whether the addict is in control or not, violence is violence, many addicts are violent, and society is under no obligation to tolerate the unlawful initiation of violence, despite what sympathies we might have for the suffering addict.
Not deserving to do time at the hands of the justice system is one thing, not deserving to get shot in the face by someone who is tired of being victimized by violent addicts is something else entirely.
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods. HL Mencken. 1919.
Except that the law did change in 2013, and now you can use lethal force to protect property, as long as the use of force is reasonable under the circumstances.
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods. HL Mencken. 1919.
Lethal force means DEADLY or "sufficient to cause death" FORCE! If it is now legal to kill somebody solely to protect property then I stand corrected. I must have just imagined the Maurice and Khill trials. My bad...
I know what lethal force means. Yes it is now legal to kill someone solely to protect property, but killing them must be reasonable under the circumstances.
Since 2013 neither the laws for defense of the person or defense of property contain any reference to lethal, deadly, or any other such degree of force.
The thing you have to remember is that under no circumstances can a legal property owner be compelled to forfeit his possession or right of ownership over something to a criminal. A property owner is allowed to use force prevent property from being stolen, and to recover it after its been stolen. The only limit in law to what such a use of force can be is that which is reasonable.
If the thief is so committed to the crime that the only way to prevent the theft is over the thief's dead body, regardless of whether the thief ever posses a direct threat to the property owner or not, then clearly over the thief's dead body becomes reasonable.
If the property owner is reluctant to kill someone for the sake of the property, than that is between the property owner and his own conscience, and not for a judge or jury or any of us to decide. The law thankfully is quite clear. The only thing that can be in dispute, on a case by case basis, are the facts. Which is basically what trials are for.
You definitely imagined the Maurice trial. Charges were dropped before it got that far.
Maybe you fell asleep when they were discussing the facts during the Khill trial, because that case was settled as a defense of the person trial, not defense of property.
I accept your apology.
Last edited by Cameron SS; 06-27-2018 at 11:39 PM.
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods. HL Mencken. 1919.
Evidently your imagination must be as vivid as mine...
I think perhaps we just have differing ideas of what defines a "civilized nation". In both the Maurice and Khill cases, the Crown was out to crucify each of the defendants. High profile public support saved Eddie Maurice because the Crown backed down knowing that it wouldn't get a conviction with a justice minded Alberta jury. The Crown in the Khill trial (surprisingly IMO) lost to an Ontario jury despite their determined attempt to send him to prison. In my "civilized nation", neither Maurice nor Khill would have been charged in the first place...
To add to that...in my "civilized nation", neither of these triggering incidents would have occurred, resulting in Maurice and Khill having to react to them and putting them in the positions they found themselves in.
Ha! Too funny! Both of you.
At least on that we can agree completely.
1st Ontario turfs the Liberals harsh.
2nd they acquit a gun owner who acted inself defense.
Whats next, ATCs for downtown Toronto?
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods. HL Mencken. 1919.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote