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

[TriggerTime]

So, the shooter gets to have a full investigation although he admits to the shooting before he gets a fair trial, while the alleged thief doesn't even get the benefit of the doubt before getting shot.

That's summary execution. Plain and simple.

BAAC, CoonT, and Pepperpopper have all given you sound arguments as to why this is not a case of Hollywood vigilantism, and I'm not using the quote function simply to avoid a wall of text - but you seem intractably committed to your opinion. Fine. Recognize that you're in the minority here, don't contribute if that's your wish.

Hello to everyone else in the room, I've been absent for some time and it's good to see the community responding so generously. update: I just came from the FundRazr page, it's around a quarter of the way to the goal now...

[Cameron SS]

So, the shooter gets to have a full investigation although he admits to the shooting before he gets a fair trial, while the alleged thief doesn't even get the benefit of the doubt before getting shot.

That's summary execution. Plain and simple.

Yes he admits to the shooting. You are taking for granted that the shooting is illegal. Benefit of the doubt means that if it looks like it could have been justified, and the shooter says it was justified, then the police should believe them until they have evidence that contradicts this.

The home owner defending his family and property does not need to afford a criminal-in-progress the benefit of the doubt, but he needs to be reasonable and not overreact either.

The justice system certainly owes the criminal that same benefit of the doubt in determining whether or not he was actually stealing. By the same benefit of the doubt afforded to the home owner, if the "thief" says he wasn't stealing, and there is no evidence to the contrary, then the police should not charge him either until they have evidence that he was stealing. IN this case, they had evidence that he was stealing which overrides the benefit of the doubt.

Perhaps you need a thesaurus, or to re-read my previous posts, but execution is a punishment, meted out for crimes after they have been committed. Self defense is about stopping the crime from proceeding any further.

If you were talking about a self defense regime where A) there was an automatic presumption of bodily harm from anyone unlawfully on property, and B) lethal force is always authorized regardless of what is actually necessary to stop the trespass/attack, then yes, trespassing could carry a de facto death sentence IF caught in the act. There are probably some people here on the forum would want such a regime, but personally I agree with you that this would be excessive and frankly UnCanadian, but that is not at all what we have now, or what we are talking about.

[play.soccer]

Access to justice is a problem in this country for anyone facing criminal charges, this guy isn't special in that regard. Handing him a few bucks won't help with anyone else who's stuck in that system.

This whole thread makes for a good argument in favor of legal insurance. Had the guy forked a hundred buck to Capri he'd be covered for (I think) 250k$.

Doubt it. Lots of those firearm insurance policies have a clause that says they can drop you for a variety of reasons.

[merlin1]

So, the shooter gets to have a full investigation although he admits to the shooting before he gets a fair trial, while the alleged thief doesn't even get the benefit of the doubt before getting shot.

That's summary execution. Plain and simple.

"summary execution"ya ok

[Max Owner]

You guys have so farrrr lost the idea/point to this thread.

I'm ready to unsubscribe because it is too painfull to try and keep up.

[merlin1]

You guys have so farrrr lost the idea/point to this thread.

I'm ready to unsubscribe because it is too painfull to try and keep up.

unfortunately just some are in the left field regarding this thread-cheers

[Dohhunter]

$100 EMT.

This thread is to assist in the legal fees of someone who is going to be dragged through the system via a pre-defined notion by the prosecution over fear of precedent. Give anything you have....it could be any one of us.

-Doh

[ericbrowning]

Saw the news coverage on tv last Friday with video of the group of supporters. It showed Mr. Maurice with his very young daughter, wife and Lawyer. He appears to be a very humble, quiet kind of guy(IMHO) that might have been substantially "outnumbered" during the RCMP investigation. I certainly hope his lawyer is very sharp and understands gun laws throughly.

[bcbravo2zero]

You guys have so farrrr lost the idea/point to this thread.

I'm ready to unsubscribe because it is too painfull to try and keep up.

I agree.
Reading articles on WebMD doesn't make you a doctor.
Reading a portion of a statute or the Regs thereto does not make you a lawyer or mean you understand the law and its practice.
There are many reasons why you need 8 or 9 yrs of schooling/training before you can be called to the bar.

$23,830 as of this morning. This is what's important.

[jg007]

$23,880, keep spreading the word CGN