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

matm said:
Im glad that this man and his family are safe. from what i gathered he shot at the suspects in his driveway? If so that unfortunately may be a tough sell to the court. There was a similar situation in Hamilton a couple years ago. I can't remember if he got off or not. Its hard to justify a life threat when they aren't in the house or trying to get in. Hard to know their intent though.
Click to expand...

From what has been reported, late at night he found a couple of guys going thru his vehicles. He was at home with his wife and kid(s). He confronted them, alone. Shots were fired. One of the thieves ended up with a wound to his arm. He has been charged with aggravated assault, pointing a firearm and careless use of a firearm. He could do federal time b/c it's a violent offense involving a firearm.
 
matm said:
Im glad that this man and his family are safe. from what i gathered he shot at the suspects in his driveway? If so that unfortunately may be a tough sell to the court. There was a similar situation in Hamilton a couple years ago. I can't remember if he got off or not. Its hard to justify a life threat when they aren't in the house or trying to get in. Hard to know their intent though.
Click to expand...

Case in Hamilton has not yet been tried...Peter Khill is the homeowner in that case.
 
Just heard that in the Gerald Stanley case the witnesses(perps) were given immunity for their testimony then proceeded to lie on the stand..WTF.
 
bcbravo2zero said:
From what has been reported, late at night he found a couple of guys going thru his vehicles. He was at home with his wife and kid(s). He confronted them, alone. Shots were fired. One of the thieves ended up with a wound to his arm. He has been charged with aggravated assault, pointing a firearm and careless use of a firearm. He could do federal time b/c it's a violent offense involving a firearm.
Click to expand...

Thank you for this information. Theres a pretty clear line between protecting life and protecting property. I believe that defending the life of yourself and your family should be a right no question. Defending physical property ie vehicles with lethal force, i don't necessarily agree with. Personally i would rather pay an insurance deductible on a stolen or damaged vehicle as opposed to the absolute legal nightmare this man and his family are now facing. Not siding with the criminals or anything but this isn't the wild west. Just my opinion though.
 
matm said:
Thank you for this information. Theres a pretty clear line between protecting life and protecting property. I believe that defending the life of yourself and your family should be a right no question. Defending physical property ie vehicles with lethal force i don't necessarily agree with. Personally i would rather pay an insurance deductible on a stolen or damaged vehicle as opposed to the absolute legal nightmare this man and his family are now facing. Not siding with the criminals or anything but this isn't the wild west. My opinion though.
Click to expand...

I hear you. Prima facie, I don't think this is unreasonable.
However, you need to put yourself in his shoes: late at night, he's alone, rural area where the police are far away; thieves come to his home, his wife and child are inside, he goes out to see what's what and a there's a confrontation.
Would you reasonably fear for your life and the life of your family? Would it be unreasonable in to bring your firearm with you when you go out to check on your property in those circumstances?

I certainly don't know if Mr. Maurice did everything right but from what I know so far, I don't want him doing time for this.
 
Last edited:
What if when confronted the methed up perps told the victim that if he didn’t f@&k off they’re gonna come rap him and his family!
 
bcbravo2zero said:
I hear you. Prima facie, I don't think this is unreasonable. However, you need to put yourself in his shoes: late night, he's alone, rural area where the police are far away; two thieves come to his home, his wife and child are inside, he goes out to see what's what and a there's a confrontation, 2 vs 1. Would you reasonably fear for your life and the life of your family?
Click to expand...

I 100% agree with you, this is where the details become important.

-did he see the individuals and decide to arm himself and leave his home to confront them? Were the police called before the confrontation? That's for the court to decide. Ill always give the benefit of the doubt to the homeowner but there is still a possibility he is in the wrong.
 
EMT sent. I would suggest setting the EMT account up for automatic deposit. I know this is what Tactical Teacher does. It would alleviate any password confusion.
 
bcbravo2zero said:
I hear you. Prima facie, I don't think this is unreasonable. However, you need to put yourself in his shoes: late night, he's alone, rural area where the police are far away; two thieves come to his home, his wife and child are inside, he goes out to see what's what and a there's a confrontation, 2 vs 1. Would you reasonably fear for your life and the life of your family?
Click to expand...

Why go out and confront them? If you see from your house that they're armed, you're pretty much legitimized to shoot, but engaging armed people 2 vs 1 might not be the smartest move. If you shoot on unarmed people (in the sense that they might be armed, but you don't know) you might very well be shooting at a harmless hobo or just someone whose car is broken and phone battery is dead.

I agree with matm, I'd rather call the cop, stay inside with my gun, and if they don't try to break into my house, pay the deductible in the morning. If they try to break in, then the story is different. Different enough that the homeowner probably doesn't even get charged.
 
Donated to the fundrazr!! Keep the donations coming everyone, even if it's not much everything counts, everyone pitch in!!

Feel so sorry this man is stuck in a country like this with fruitcakes all around, even on this forum!! Let him know that there are plenty of good people in Canada.
 
VinnyQC said:
Why go out and confront them? If you see from your house that they're armed, you're pretty much legitimized to shoot, but engaging armed people 2 vs 1 might not be the smartest move. If you shoot on unarmed people (in the sense that they might be armed, but you don't know) you might very well be shooting at a harmless hobo or just someone whose car is broken and phone battery is dead.

I agree with matm, I'd rather call the cop, stay inside with my gun, and if they don't try to break into my house, pay the deductible in the morning. If they try to break in, then the story is different. Different enough that the homeowner probably doesn't even get charged.
Click to expand...

I might have stayed inside too. Then again, I can afford to. I'm older, I have money and lots of expensive insurance. Stealing my stuff, even if it happens multiple times, will not threaten the financial welfare of me and my family.

In any case, why should a homeowner who hears strange sounds outside be required to stay inside and not investigate? There is no indication that this was a "hobo" hanging out on his property, or a stranded motorist, or anything like that. They were pretty clearly thieves, at his rural property in the middle of the night, and they had broken into his vehicle(s). But yes, if he had gone out spraying bullets just b/c there was someone on his property then he would probably not have my sympathies. But again, this was not the case.

And BTW, if you believe that if they had broken in and he'd shot them that he wouldn't be charged, then you are kidding yourself. I have friends and colleagues who are Crown counsel. This is how it works: use a gun under any circumstances, get charged, let the trial judge sort it out.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom