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

Komodo said:
No wonder we didnt hear about it the guy that was shot is a white male . No story of racism for the press to make it interesting
Click to expand...

This 1000X over. Everyday CBC spewed anti-white racism and stories of white privilege in the Gerald Stanley shooting of an armed Native robber. No that its a white guy, its "gun violence" I ask honestly to any CBC employee on this forum: is it a business rule to never blame the criminal?
 
sailor723 said:
Biggest problem I see is the wildly lopsided nature of our adversarial criminal justice system. On one side you have the crown and police with virtually unlimited resources supplied by the taxpayer. On the other an individual with only what support/expertise he can afford to pay for out of his own pocket. Even if a person is completely innocent and is found not guilty he has in effect been "fined" a huge amount of money with no avenue for compensation. People can be ruined financially and lose everything when they have done nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

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$.
 
Cameron SS said:
Nonsense.

No one is issuing a death sentence on a thief. Sentences are things that are issued after a crime has been committed to punish. What we are talking about is using reasonable force to stop the ongoing comission of the offence. As I said, it is the criminal who decides how much force is necessary to deter them.

No I dont give any benefit of the doubt to the thief. We are not talking about a simple tresspasser who is cutting through. In this case the guy was rummaging through buddys car.

If you are desperate and in need, ring the door bell and ask for help. Not many here would suggest shooting uninvited callers through the front door no questions asked is reasonable.

No, the shooter didnt know about priors, meth or much else, but contrary to your assumption that implies the homeowner was a trigger happy castle doctrine enthusiast, he did know that this guy wasnt just walking across his property.

You clearly dont know how the presumption of innocence works. It isnt simply about not being able to say he did it until a judge agrees. It should also involve not even laying charges until there is enough evidence to believe that the actions were actually unlawful.

Yes police use of force gets investigated thoroughly. No one here is seriously suggesting that shootings not be investigated. Just do the investigation first, lay charges second.

The current MO in this country is to ASSUME that any use of force is unlawful until the accused can prove otherwise, ensuring that anyone who refuses to be a victim gets victimized twice.
Click to expand...

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.
 
VinnyQC said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
VinnyQC said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
VinnyQC said:
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$.
Click to expand...

Doubt it. Lots of those firearm insurance policies have a clause that says they can drop you for a variety of reasons.
 
VinnyQC said:
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.
Click to expand...

"summary execution"ya ok:jerkit:
 
$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
 
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.
 
Max Owner said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom