Sorry. Misread; my bad
sokay
Sorry. Misread; my bad
What right does that guy have in his property, in his truck at 3am?It was not self defence tho (at least based on what has been released). He was stealing his car their is no evidence to suggest that his life or others were under immediate threat. If a cop had shot someone while stealing a car we would have 20 page thread naughts condemning him. This is not an appropriate use of lethal force.
What right does that guy have in his property, in his truck at 3am?
Not really. It's a country area where people are not in close proximity. The only reason he will be there is for malicious intend. If I see someone in my property in the middle of the night, in the middle of bumfuk. I won't know his intentions. He could want to ram my truck into the middle of the house or fire bomb me in my sleepNone you are trying to make a false dichotomy
Yup. He has the right to protect his life even using a Firearm but a use of force of this magnitude was not appropriate for a property protection.
Not really. It's a country area where people are not in close proximity. The only reason he will be there is for malicious intend. If I see someone in my property in the middle of the night, in the middle of bumfuk. I won't know his intentions. He could want to ram my truck into the middle of the house or fire bomb me in my sleep
Where would lethal force be justified where a human life was not under immediate threat?
A) You see some idiot about to dump a tub of live Asian carp into the Humber River and you can't stop him any other way. Eco disaster if you don't stop him.
B) Someone is about to throw a pail of acid at the Mona Lisa.
C) Someone about to blow up an unoccupied bridge or building.
No immediate threat to human life but potentially billions or trillions in damages. I'm not saying the above or similar wouldn't have long term health issues including premature death.
BTW I vote yes to A & B and maybe to C, depending if I have a use for the structure.
I hate the fact that any form of self defense is frowned upon by the government. Stupid
Exactly. What if a kid is passing by and see the door of a car open and goes and closes it, at that moment the owner comes out and shoots him in the head.Every gun owner in Canada, licensed or otherwise, would not be surprised by this outcome
He was not defending "self".
That's going to be the shooters defence at trial. Who is going to say otherwise? Not the dead career criminal from Six Nations chop shop.
Pretty hard to claim self defense if you come out of the house already packing heat.
Pretty hard to claim self defense if you come out of the house already packing heat.
Yea likely will be the defence.. and who knows perhaps the details will come out that it was a valid defence of his person only basing on whats been released it does not seem so.