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

With tax time just around the corner, can any of us be surprised that the Liberal government naturally empathizes with the drug-addled thieves?
 
Cameron SS said:
Look at the states. Every single defensive shooting is fully investigated as you would expect. The difference is in the US they remember what the presumption of innocence is, and the police lay charges only when they have ecidence of a BAD use of force.

In Canada, they assume any use of force of wrong, lay the charges, and then investigate. Thats where the punishment by process and miscarriage starts, bit obviously doesnt end there.
Click to expand...

How do you reconcile that with supporting a guy who more or less intended to pass a death sentence on a thief without any process? It's normal to cut some slack to someone you identify with (in this scenario, I suppose you own a property, one or more guns, and don't go steal into other peoples cars, so you probably identify more with the shooter than the shootee), but it's still not how the law works.

It's cute that some of you want to give the benefit of the doubt to the gunowner/homeowner, but not the slightest bit to the "thief". At the moment that the shooter took his potshots, he didn't know they were metheads, didn't know they had priors, he didn't know anything really, other than "these guys are walking on that particular square foot of land that belongs to me".

As for presumption of innocence, the shooter does benefit from it. He's still presumed innocent. Only when/if he pleads guilty or is declared guilty will the presumption that he is innocent disappear. The fact that our society provides him with that presumption although he does not debate the fact that he did shoot someone is kind if a lot considering he didn't offer that same thing to the "thief".

What some people on this board are asking for is not presumption of innocence or a fair trial, it's for the right of homeowners to perform summary executions on car-stealing metheads. Case in point:

emerson said:
I'm fine with thieves getting shot.
Click to expand...
 
you break in to someone else's property or home,you get what you deserve,if it happens enough,,maybe these low lifes will stop taking the chance,
 
There's something to this.
Wiskey1 said:
you break in to someone else's property or home,you get what you deserve,if it happens enough,,maybe these low lifes will stop taking the chance,
Click to expand...

Right now they do it, because they know they can get away with it


Once word gets out that property owners are taking a stand, these bums will look elsewhere to score their drug money.
 
I believe the problem lies in the justice system that doesn’t provide enough disincentive to criminals. This alleged theif ( because he is innocent until proven guilty in court, right?) was a repeat offender and didn’t seem to think the risk outweighed the reward. As others have said, the system gets played by the criminal element, everyone has rights and feelings and such.

Until it’s your house/car/business that is targeted. Or your family. I am certain that anyone that has posted that a criminal’s life is worth more than fill in the blank would make an about face when put in the position this land owner was.

I am not willing to take the risk that someone entering my home unannounced is just after some loose change. I see it as a premeditated attack on my safety and security, why should you have rights when you have decided to ignnore mine?

I’m not waiting at the door woth loaded fire arms, but I certainly don’t think the home owner in question did anything wrong when faced with the situation. Until criminals are presented with consequences that will stop the crime, innocent people will suffer.
 
those that sympathize with the criminal element have never been threatened and outnumbered by thieves . to try and make an informed opinion you have to have had the experience.i have had it happen to me and you do not get to pick the time or place or circumstances as i was working late at night and was confronted by two large individuals intent on robbing me of my property .for those of you advocating to call the police and let them deal with it you may not have the option.it is very easy to say you should do this or do that but if you find yourself outnumbered it is a different ball game.
 
farmer47 said:
those that sympathize with the criminal element have never been threatened and outnumbered by thieves . to try and make an informed opinion you have to have had the experience.i have had it happen to me and you do not get to pick the time or place or circumstances as i was working late at night and was confronted by two large individuals intent on robbing me of my property .for those of you advocating to call the police and let them deal with it you may not have the option.it is very easy to say you should do this or do that but if you find yourself outnumbered it is a different ball game.
Click to expand...

Those who sympathize with the shooter have never been shot.
 
Wiskey1 said:
you break in to someone else's property or home,you get what you deserve,if it happens enough,,maybe these low lifes will stop taking the chance,
Click to expand...

Not if they're actually metheads. They're just gonna try to get guns to shoot you before you shoot them. And btw the current "low-life" didn't break into anyone's home.
 
I have to admit I stopped reading about halfway through... pisses me off when people say "Why didn't he hide in the closet and call the cops?". "Pay the deductible in the morning". You realize this is exactly the attitude that got us in this ####ing mess? If the risk of rummaging through a farmers truck was a bullet in the head, I assure you, thieves would think twice about doing it...

Good for him. Hope he gets off. EMT out.
 
OldFrankHog said:
I have to admit I stopped reading about halfway through... pisses me off when people say "Why didn't he hide in the closet and call the cops?". "Pay the deductible in the morning". You realize this is exactly the attitude that got us in this ####ing mess? If the risk of rummaging through a farmers truck was a bullet in the head, I assure you, thieves would think twice about doing it...

Good for him. Hope he gets off. EMT out.
Click to expand...

The death penalty has never stopped murders, so why would killing burglars stop B&E's?
 
wookiezzz said:
The death penalty has never stopped murders, so why would killing burglars stop B&E's?
Click to expand...

Every action as a consequence. If the consequence is too light, no one cares about doing the action. IF the consequence is heavy, you might think twice. The death penalty is definetly a good enough reason for 99.9% of people. Sure some people will not care, they get weeded out pretty fast though. But your right, like all the Libs, "If it saves 1 life!"... lol
 
OldFrankHog said:
Every action as a consequence. If the consequence is too light, no one cares about doing the action. IF the consequence is heavy, you might think twice. Sure some people will not care, they get weeded out pretty fast though.
Click to expand...

Every action does have a consequence; you are correct. This young property owner in Okotoks is now learning this fact, unfortunately.
 
VinnyQC said:
Those who sympathize with the shooter have never been shot.
Click to expand...

Cry me a river. I'm not a pansy or thief so I can't sympathize with either. However, when I was growing up I hung out with alot of people involved in this stuff. I know them personally and alot of them grew up to be career criminals.

Back then and to this day, none of them would blame a person for shooting them while they are committing acts(readily expect it actually). Most of them would also stand up in court and testify to have their charges dropped, as they know how to work the system and have turned off their conscience.

Criminals know what they are doing, they would all laugh at the pansies who want to punish those who defend themselves from them. They count on those pansies and sheep for survival.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom