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

Do we have a breakdown of what exactly happened?

I'm not much for shooting people on my property

BUT

I will support anyone who does (verbally and with my wallet) if his/hers life was in danger.*

Flame suit on! :)
 
Last edited:
slim123 said:
From what I understand gofundme will not allow him..as the rcmp charged him criminally...and although not proven in court...they wont let anybody with criminal charges (proven or not) be funded on their page
Click to expand...
I will bet go fund me would have no problem supporting a case if the demographics were different.

wiener said:
Sorry, but you shouldn't be allowed to shoot people breaking into cars. No justification it, it is excessive force.
Click to expand...

You arent shooting them for breaking into your car. You are using reasonable and neccessary force to prevent the theft. It is in fact the criminal that gets decide how much force is lawful and necessary to deter the theft. The more committed they are to the theft, the more likely shooting them in the face will be necessary.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the force being used against the victim.

With the criminals firmly in the drivers seat of how quickly they abandon their theft after learning of the presence of the victim, there should be no tears if the criminal is unhappy with the outcome.
 
I have mixed feelings on his. Did they enter his home and confront him and his family? Need the full facts before I drive down to support this. I guess I'll do some research.
 
Facts of this case are unclear. I don't agree with shooting someone unless you or your family or friends are in imminent danger. If you just see someone breaking into your car, call the police. If police don't arrive on time you have insurance for theft, use it. I can't support shooting someone because you think they're stealing something. You could be wrong.
 
Netghost said:
Facts of this case are unclear. I don't agree with shooting someone unless you or your family or friends are in imminent danger. If you just see someone breaking into your car, call the police. If police don't arrive on time you have insurance for theft, use it. I can't support shooting someone because you think they're stealing something. You could be wrong.
Click to expand...

The premise is self defense, everyone on this site wants self defense laws more clearly defined. This case could set a precedent.
 
Who actually believes that firing at someone, who's rummaging through your car out in the driveway, is a REASONABLE act in the circumstances? A few fellows here seem to think so...

I hate thieves but c'mon. I'm all for putting a slug in a junkie's chest when kicks in my front door. But stealing my Tim Hortons change is not a reason to shoot at someone.
 
The fact that the charges against the man defending his property and family are more serious than the charges against the man shot in the process of robbing someone is a sure fire indicator of how screwed the system is.

A simple, straight forward fact: if you don't want the #### show of consequences that can occur when you disrespect a persons right to peace and safety for themself and their family on their property, their castle as it were, then don't ####ing rob them. Because in that situation, all of the responsibility of what happens after, falls solely on your shoulders for breaking the law in the first place.
 
Because as we all know, things have a habit of escalating quickly in this world. And our thinking that insurance will cover for the egress and excesses of others is wrong, and has gotten us into our current economic situation. Hey, let's change this into a political discussion:)
 
Netghost said:
Facts of this case are unclear. I don't agree with shooting someone unless you or your family or friends are in imminent danger. If you just see someone breaking into your car, call the police. If police don't arrive on time you have insurance for theft, use it. I can't support shooting someone because you think they're stealing something. You could be wrong.
Click to expand...

The man needs his day in court, and he doesn't deserve to have his family and life destroyed, in the process of trying to get it.



That's why I'm donating to the family. I don't agree with shooting someone over an insurance premium, either; but I think our system is so out-of-balance right now, that there is no chance of this man (or the perpetrators) actually getting justice.

Wife and I are just getting out of the 'toddler phase'. Taxes are almost caught up, credit's coming along and the bills are getting paid. I'm making pretty good coin and she's almost fully up and back to work. Life is stabilizing and right now we're a benefit to our community and society.....and something like this happening to my family, would just about destroy us, and would have me out on the street, ironically probably to end up the same ruined junkie committing these loser-style petty thefts.

I can't go down like that (and brother, society does not want me playing for the bad team. Trust me :l), and it's only going to stop, when we decide to stop it.
 
oddball_ted said:
Who actually believes that firing at someone, who's rummaging through your car out in the driveway, is a REASONABLE act in the circumstances? A few fellows here seem to think so...

I hate thieves but c'mon. I'm all for putting a slug in a junkie's chest when kicks in my front door. But stealing my Tim Hortons change is not a reason to shoot at someone.
Click to expand...


Just because you personally might only have loose change in your vehicle does not mean others should not have the right to defend themselves and their property.


If people dont want to get shot they can stop stealing, enough of this molly coddling of criminals, don't steal, don't get shot, simple.
 
oddball_ted said:
Who actually believes that firing at someone, who's rummaging through your car out in the driveway, is a REASONABLE act in the circumstances? A few fellows here seem to think so...

I hate thieves but c'mon. I'm all for putting a slug in a junkie's chest when kicks in my front door. But stealing my Tim Hortons change is not a reason to shoot at someone.
Click to expand...

Everything about the situation, from why the guys were on meth and stealing in the first place, to the fact that this family is getting run through a meat grinder over it, is UNREASONABLE!

It's a tricky thing, trying to inject select slivers of reason, into a wholly crazy and unreasonable situation.



There's lots wrong with this whole situation. At the moment, stopping the courts from financially ruining this family, is the best way to help it (I think). What else do we do, other than turn a blind eye, and hope it's never us on the other end?
 
CoonT said:
Everything about the situation, from why the guys were on meth and stealing in the first place, to the fact that this family is getting run through a meat grinder over it, is UNREASONABLE!

It's a tricky thing, trying to inject select slivers of reason, into a wholly crazy and unreasonable situation.



There's lots wrong with this whole situation. At the moment, stopping the courts from financially ruining this family, is the best way to help it (I think). What else do we do, other than turn a blind eye, and hope it's never us on the other end?
Click to expand...

Exactly, well said.

Charging innocent gun owners and punishing them by process despite their innocence has to stop.

Zero sympathy for meth heads and other junkies.... aww poor them, its just not safe to rob people anymore!
 
GreenBob said:
Do we have a breakdown of what exactly happened?

I'm not much for shooting people on my property

BUT

I will support anyone who does (verbally and with my wallet) if his/hers life was in danger.*

Flame suit on! :)
Click to expand...

None of us here are investigators or lawyers. We need to trust the courts to decide if this man was right or wrong.

When you decide to take up arms (so to speak) you are taking the lives and futures of everyone around you, and putting them into your hands. It is a big responsibility that comes with that big power, and we need to trust the court to punish him if he's wrong, and protect him if he's right.

GreenBob, the problem I have, is that he is being severely punished by the system already, whether he is in the right or not. That's what this funding drive is all about (imo), to give this man the basic protection that the system refuses to.
 
You can support self defence as defined by Canadian law, and not believe senseless murder is illegal. I love this us or them mentality leftists take. It's either you can't use a gun to protect yourself from equal or more force, but instead rely on the fairness and good spirit behind the perpetrator to hopefully not want to induce pain, maiming or murder to their list of crimes.

Being a victim of violent crime, as well as a few property crime is an awful feeling, I can relate because It has happened to me if I had rights to proactively defend myself I know my 9 on 1 "fight" would have been much different.

I didn't have the right to carry anything for protection, but it didn't stop them from using bottles and sticks. But that's okay, they got probation.
Then reoffended.
And again.
And again
Now 12 years in jail.
Justice was received inthe end. Not for me, I wasn't informed I "dropped charges" until he finished probation.
 
Steve_B said:
I'd like to see the criminals prove in court that they were only there to steal.
What? They're going to produce references from prior victims?
A contemporaneous urine sample to show they were on their meds and nothing else?
A certificate from their Thieves' Guild that they've taken Anger Management?

It's bull####. Stay off people's property and you stay safe. Choose to violate a guy's house, you rolled the dice d-bag.
Click to expand...

The criminals don't have to prove they were only there to steal. Not how justice works.
 
Cameron SS said:
I will bet go fund me would have no problem supporting a case if the demographics were different.



You arent shooting them for breaking into your car. You are using reasonable and neccessary force to prevent the theft. It is in fact the criminal that gets decide how much force is lawful and necessary to deter the theft. The more committed they are to the theft, the more likely shooting them in the face will be necessary.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the force being used against the victim.

With the criminals firmly in the drivers seat of how quickly they abandon their theft after learning of the presence of the victim, there should be no tears if the criminal is unhappy with the outcome.
Click to expand...

lethal force is not reasonable for B&E.
 
Netghost said:
Facts of this case are unclear. I don't agree with shooting someone unless you or your family or friends are in imminent danger. If you just see someone breaking into your car, call the police. If police don't arrive on time you have insurance for theft, use it. I can't support shooting someone because you think they're stealing something. You could be wrong.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom