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

[NickTdot]

Farmer vs Meth head probie..
http://calgaryherald.com/news/provin...d-a0699afb88f7

[Melvin]

Give the man the resources and rights to a fair trial but please do not use the result either way as a precedent setting, rub it in the publics face excuse for gun ownership for self defence purposes based on the gun owners judgement as to when to use it. This will only allow the non gun owning public one more reason to restrict our use of guns for hunting and legitimate recreational purposes. if you want our guns to be taken away run around telling everyone to buy a gun to shoot criminals. I will bet this man and the one recently acquitted will tell you if They had to do it all over again they would not have brought out the gun knowing what they know now and had to go through.

[matm]

Give the man the resources and rights to a fair trial but please do not use the result either way as a precedent setting, rub it in the publics face excuse for gun ownership for self defence purposes based on the gun owners judgement as to when to use it. This will only allow the non gun owning public one more reason to restrict our use of guns for hunting and legitimate recreational purposes. if you want our guns to be taken away run around telling everyone to buy a gun to shoot criminals. I will bet this man and the one recently acquitted will tell you if They had to do it all over again they would not have brought out the gun knowing what they know now and had to go through.

I was looking for a comment like this, very well said

[Hunter1970]

Just kicked in as well.

[Pepperpopper]

Firearms are a very politically charged topic so when they are involved, things get complicated very quickly.

What irritates me is that there is a totally different set of rules for police and the rest of us. Of course the police receive training, and have resources that none of us has, that is why we would happily default to them if we could. But individuals get charged when they have more at stake (say the lives of their family); Are hopelessly outnumbered; don't have the training (which is not their fault when the fight gets pushed on them); and don't have the resources of being a walking armory with body armor. The authorities need to imagine how they would feel if they were stuffed in a car with their loved ones; stripped of their resources; and dispatched to a call at the Maurice house where if they make a bad play the whole car load of them gets murdered in their socks.

[matm]

What irritates me is that there is a totally different set of rules for police and the rest of us. Of course the police receive training, and have resources that none of us has, that is why we would happily default to them if we could. But individuals get charged when they have more at stake (say the lives of their family); Are hopelessly outnumbered; don't have the training (which is not their fault when the fight gets pushed on them); and don't have the resources of being a walking armory with body armor. The authorities need to imagine how they would feel if they were stuffed in a car with their loved ones; stripped of their resources; and dispatched to a call at the Maurice house where if they make a bad play the whole car load of them gets murdered in their socks.

The police have the resources and equipment because their job gets them involved in situations that could involve self defence much more often then the average person. Also they have guidelines for when lethal force is authorized and every case that a suspect is killed or shot is investigated thoroughly. Much like this mans case will be investigated to make sure it was justified. The situation that actually occurred will determine this mans innocence or guilt, not what could have happened. Is it possible that the theft could evolve into a home invasion or worse? Absolutely. However the other side is that they rummage though the vehicles and leave. You can't use a hypothetical situation as defense.

[ihadamp5]

Yes just call 911. Everything will work its self out.

[Pepperpopper]

The police have the resources and equipment because their job gets them involved in situations that could involve self defence much more often then the average person.

And I am grateful to them, and would happily leave it to them where they are effective. I don't begrudge them their resources. What irritates me is that the rest of us, without a doubt, get held to a higher standard (based on the same principles) when we have far fewer options. Let's say one puts one of the bad guys on the ground. I don't have cuffs I can legally use to hold him; convey him to my mobile jail cell etc... So to create the same effect I would have to take him definitively out of the fight. But they will judge me more severely because I am not in the club, and they will probably not be all that happy about the higher level of force I am required to use.

Also they have guidelines for when lethal force is authorized and every case that a suspect is killed or shot is investigated thoroughly. Much like this mans case will be investigated to make sure it was justified.

Generally, and in recent times I have seen a number of use of force situations in Toronto where they got taken down in situations where it didn't seem evident that a reasonable cop would have behaved otherwise.

The situation that actually occurred will determine this mans innocence or guilt, not what could have happened.

I don't think that is correct, they will look at what actions a reasonable person would have taken given their apprehension of the threat. And threat is about what could have happened.

Is it possible that the theft could evolve into a home invasion or worse? Absolutely. However the other side is that they rummage though the vehicles and leave. You can't use a hypothetical situation as defense.

Stanley did in part rely on the perception that a car driven by Boushie might have been driven over his wife, or that the intention of the driver was to cause bodily harm.

If by "hypothetical" you mean a discussion of cases involving different sets of fact (not presidents of course), that is beside the point. However in a stress situation the defendant will be running 'What if"/hypotheticals at full speed. And that is part of the defense in that you can rely on what considerations a reasonable person would have entertained in the same situation. That kind of point was outlined by the Judge in his instructions to the jury in the Boushie case which is not under appeal.

On a forum like this, it is entirely reasonable to discuss what policy ought to be through the use of alternative scenarios or hypothetical cases. Even given the fact that this is a real world case with real people. I think the thinking on this stuff is changing a little, and public opinion may be part of that. In Boushie, I was surprised that the judge in his instructions referred to the firing of warning shots with a handgun as entirely reasonable. That didn't seem to be the case not to long ago in say Thomson.

[matm]

Than you pepperpopper for the well articulated statements, i cant say i disagree with anything you said. It's all just discussion i hope i didn't upset anyone.

The perception of threat is quite a difficult topic given its subjectivity. I guess that's where the reasonable person becomes the standard. Threat is still dictated by the situation at hand. Anyone can make a situation much worse in their mind. It has to be decided that the percieved threat matches the events that occurred.

[MustangFrank]

Rubber buckshot and bear bangers might be a reasonable first step with thieves on rural property depending on the situation and if your goal is to prevent property from being stolen. If the situation changes, you can switch to lead, however you cannot re write current laws . So, one must respond to the threat accordingly and with the appropriate use of force. Otherwise things go downhill fast.