[ASLplease]

there you go again making false and inacurate claims about an average hard working Canadian. This Canadian didn't murder your beloved quad theif, he just winged him.

And, if you have ever fired a rifle, you would realize that it is very easy to maintian a 6 inch groupin on such a shot. This canadian didn't aim at the head or the mid section, he hit the criminal in the leg, which means that at worst case he was aiming for the criminals nuts.

But we all know the criminal has no balls. If he did, he would have stayed put and waited for the police to come arrest him so he can be held accountable for his actions.

--------------------

and what the hell do you mean by 'not in the house'? a campsite is considered a place of residence. I know a guy that was charged for having a beer on the tailgate of his pickup truck, but the judge tossed it out of court because he was camping in the back of his truck....it was his place of residence.


"o look, Johny! someone parked that quad.....and its not in a house....lets steal it, because the law says we can run away if we get caught."

[PublicAnimalNo9]

$1:

The suspects tried to flee on their quads and as they did, one of the men from the residence pulled out a gun, police said

Hmm wonder where he pulled the "rifle" from. Seems to me if it was a rifle, the cops would have said rifle and the would be thieves would have seen it before they left.

$1:

Howse said a .22-calibre semiautomatic gun was used to shoot in the direction of the suspects.

That's twice the word gun was used instead of rifle. But let's assume for a second that he did use a rifle, that's pretty good shooting considering the motion detector light was on and they were fleeing away into the dark. Obviously, YOU have never stood in light while trying to hit a moving target at night. Maintain a 6 inch grouping in those conditions, dream on Hell even without the light on, the muzzle flash alone is enough to fuck yer night vision.
And finally, the gun did NOT come into play until AFTER they started to leave. That's not defense of anything, it's called assault.

ASLPlease ASLPlease:

and what the hell do you mean by 'not in the house'? a campsite is considered a place of residence. I know a guy that was charged for having a beer on the tailgate of his pickup truck, but the judge tossed it out of court because he was camping in the back of his truck....it was his place of residence.

Nice game of semantics to dodge the question. Wanna answer it or do you wish to continue dancing around it? Is murder LESS reprehensible than theft when it's your material possessions being defended? Would you be willing to kill someone cuz they were trying to steal say, your lawn tractor?

[Yogi]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Yogi Yogi:

It's called 'reasonable force'. A very old common-law concept.

Geez EB, you just went and ruined one of the "documents" advocates of gun toting like to trot out every so often. I guess they "forgot" about THAT part of English common-law

Obviously, 'you guys' have a very different concept of 'reasonable force'. 'Your' concept being- a slap on the fingers with the admonishment " Now, now. Don't do that again. OK"!
While mine is more to the point of "SLAP THE BEJESUS OUTTA THEM, MAKE SURE I GET THEIR COMPLETE AND UNDIVIDED ATTENTION, THEN INSTILL SUCH A TERROR INTO THEM THAT THEY ARE SURE TO CHANGE THEIR WAYS" ![/quote]

'Resonable force' comes from the rule of law. I'm baffled how this escapes you, or I'm apalled at how little it means to you.
As I've mentioned earlier, the stance that the law does not apply to you is the same as the thief.

In the end, you're no better than they are.[/quote]

If some low-life wants to 'take the price tag off my 'weed-eater', and tie it to his big toe'... As I said before " Poor choice on his part for putting such a low price on his own health and well-being"!

Until 'the law' ever gets back into the business of being 'the law', carry on being 'apalled'.

[EyeBrock]

ASLplease ASLplease:

there you go again making false and inacurate claims about an average hard working Canadian. This Canadian didn't murder your beloved quad theif, he just winged him.

And, if you have ever fired a rifle, you would realize that it is very easy to maintian a 6 inch groupin on such a shot. This canadian didn't aim at the head or the mid section, he hit the criminal in the leg, which means that at worst case he was aiming for the criminals nuts.

But we all know the criminal has no balls. If he did, he would have stayed put and waited for the police to come arrest him so he can be held accountable for his actions.

--------------------

and what the hell do you mean by 'not in the house'? a campsite is considered a place of residence. I know a guy that was charged for having a beer on the tailgate of his pickup truck, but the judge tossed it out of court because he was camping in the back of his truck....it was his place of residence.


"o look, Johny! someone parked that quad.....and its not in a house....lets steal it, because the law says we can run away if we get caught."

Have you ever fired a weapon? Have you ever shot a firearm at a moving target?

Do you really think that the grade-one plonker who shot at this idiot thief on the quad was trying to 'wing' him?

Centre of mass is what is aimed for.

For you to say you can get a 6" grouping on a moving target just goes to show that you lack all credibility on this subject.

[EyeBrock]

Yogi Yogi:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Yogi Yogi:

It's called 'reasonable force'. A very old common-law concept.

Geez EB, you just went and ruined one of the "documents" advocates of gun toting like to trot out every so often. I guess they "forgot" about THAT part of English common-law

Obviously, 'you guys' have a very different concept of 'reasonable force'. 'Your' concept being- a slap on the fingers with the admonishment " Now, now. Don't do that again. OK"!
While mine is more to the point of "SLAP THE BEJESUS OUTTA THEM, MAKE SURE I GET THEIR COMPLETE AND UNDIVIDED ATTENTION, THEN INSTILL SUCH A TERROR INTO THEM THAT THEY ARE SURE TO CHANGE THEIR WAYS" !

$1:

'Resonable force' comes from the rule of law. I'm baffled how this escapes you, or I'm apalled at how little it means to you.
As I've mentioned earlier, the stance that the law does not apply to you is the same as the thief.

In the end, you're no better than they are.

[/quote]

$1:

If some low-life wants to 'take the price tag off my 'weed-eater', and tie it to his big toe'... As I said before " Poor choice on his part for putting such a low price on his own health and well-being"!

Until 'the law' ever gets back into the business of being 'the law', carry on being 'apalled'.

[/quote]






And with that attitude, the Crown will have no problem getting a conviction against you should you not just be talking utter shite and actually try that as a 'defence' at court.

The notion of reasonable force is a basic tenet of English Common-law that goes back centuries.

There is no definitive level of force that can be described as reasonable and it is up to a court or a jury to decide if the force applied was indeed 'reasonable'.

Shooting at a fleeing suspect will never been seen as reasonable in Canada. There is a lot of case-law that would guide any of you should you decide to actually read up on this subject before you make any further silly posts.

[Gunnair]

ASLplease ASLplease:

Gunnair Gunnair:

You're as contemptable as the thief, if not more so because you think your illegal actions are somehow alright. At least the thief knows he's doing wrong.

No matter how you try to buttress your arguments to attain the moral highground, you are wallowing below the ethical sea level.

well, this is where we will forever disagree.

I am no where near as contemptable as a theif, or a murderer, or a rapist.....or any other scumbag that bleeding heart liberals love to worry about.

I am just an average hard working Canadian, and I get really pissed off at liberal ideas like "the average Canadian is too stupid to vote", "the average Canadian can not be trusted with a firearm", and "the average Canadian should not be allowed to defend himself or his property"

Contempt? I think that you have contempt for the average Canadian.

These are attitudes that have to stop, ffs.

Sorry, you are contemptable.

Now, I don't know you. You could be telling the truth or more likely, you're taking advantage of an anonymous forum to talk tough.

Irrespective of that, the fact that you hold Canadian law in such utter contempt makes you no different than any thug who'd kill for a smoke or the despicable scum bags who killed this girl.



What you don't get is that you have no moral highground. You are not a responsible hardworking law abiding Canadian when you view the laws of the land with such disrespect, and have no plans to abide by them.

You are prepared to kill not within the letter of the law, but on a point of your personal code. No one steals from you, and if you catch them, you believe you can kill them.

That's the views of the lowest most common and most cowardly street punk.

The other thing, of course, is the contempt you hold your family in. It's not enough that you're willing to kill a kid for stealing your weedeater, because you do it outside the law, you will go to jail. That means that you remove yourself from the lives of your family over a point of your personal code for years.

That's the kind of selfishness that also makes you contemptable.

[uwish]

This one is tricky for me, I believe you have the right to defend your home and property however, you only have the right to use deadly force when your honestly believe your life is in danger.

If this owner confronted a thief with a firearm and the thief was threatening, had a weapon or something else after said owner attempted to arrest, it would be different. I guess I am just as frustrated as everyone else here to a point, this thieving scumbag becomes the victim in this. I don't see it that way, but I am not completely condoning the owners actions either.

I think people are just plain sick and tired of increasing crime, and tired of being victims. Tired of the revolving door of justice and the apparent lack of accountability of the judiciary.

[EyeBrock]

uwish,

What you propose is 'reasonable force'.

If you or your family are in mortal danger, shooting the person who places them in danger to stop threat will be seen as 'reasonable'. However once the threat has ended, executing the offender would not be 'reasonable', nor would shooting at him as he fled and was no longer a threat.

Executing a thief isn't reasonable.

Our laws and courts seperate us from the Third World and despotic nations.

[Yogi]

uwish uwish:

This one is tricky for me, I believe you have the right to defend your home and property however, you only have the right to use deadly force when your honestly believe your life is in danger.

If this owner confronted a thief with a firearm and the thief was threatening, had a weapon or something else after said owner attempted to arrest, it would be different. I guess I am just as frustrated as everyone else here to a point, this thieving scumbag becomes the victim in this. I don't see it that way, but I am not completely condoning the owners actions either.

I think people are just plain sick and tired of increasing crime, and tired of being victims. Tired of the revolving door of justice and the apparent lack of accountability of the judiciary.

That sums it up nicely! +

[ASLplease]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Have you ever fired a weapon?

$1:

Have you ever shot a firearm at a moving target?

$1:

Do you really think that the grade-one plonker....

$1:

Centre of mass is what is aimed for.

I guess you must gut shoot you deer and elk. You`ve most certainly missed every duck or goose in flight. And, if you`ve ever shot small game like grouse with a 30-30, you`ve never found anything but a cloud of feathers.

You are wrong, you are so wrong. if you shoot at `centre of mass` on anything other than a paper target, you deserve to have your firearms taken away from you, eyebrock. I hang around with a working class group of sportsman and not one of them would go out hunting with you if they heard this ridiculous statement from you.

$1:

For you to say you can get a 6" grouping on a moving target just goes to show that you lack all credibility on this subject.

I`ve taken harder shots than a moving quad, I`ve taken down prairie deer on the run, if you dont know how this is done, then dont take the shot.

Furthermore, I dont consider myself skilled in shooting. I`ll bet that I wouldnt do well in even a local competition. I am average, and would probably score an average score

[ASLplease]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

uwish,

What you propose is 'reasonable force'.

If you or your family are in mortal danger, shooting the person who places them in danger to stop threat will be seen as 'reasonable'. However once the threat has ended, executing the offender would not be 'reasonable', nor would shooting at him as he fled and was no longer a threat.

Executing a thief isn't reasonable.

Our laws and courts seperate us from the Third World and despotic nations.

`Son, why did you not shoot at your mother`s murderer`

`Because he left the axe in mom`s skull and ran away from me`



F*ck that. There is wrong, then there is Eyebrock wrong.

[ASLplease]

IMO, if the guy is a murderer, you shoot the scumbag between the ears, then claim temp insanity due to emotional distress.

IMO, if the guy is a theif, you perform a citizens arrest. if he chooses to use his legs to run away from you, then you shoot his legs out from under him. shooting his legs would be no different than taking a motorvehicle and running him down. in fact, it is more responsible than running him down, because you have better control over the results if you shoot him in the leg.

[EyeBrock]

I don't shoot animals ASL.

I have been trained for the past 25 years to shoot humans. We defenders of your liberty and peace shoot at centre of mass of those who would try and harm you.

The times I have had to aim at the centre of mass on duty haven't been at a paper target or an elk.

This thread is about a law-and-order issue, not hunting. Maybe you should stick to threads that deal with killing deer and elk unless those animals are stealing quad bikes or weed eaters.

[EyeBrock]

ASLplease ASLplease:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

uwish,

What you propose is 'reasonable force'.

If you or your family are in mortal danger, shooting the person who places them in danger to stop threat will be seen as 'reasonable'. However once the threat has ended, executing the offender would not be 'reasonable', nor would shooting at him as he fled and was no longer a threat.

Executing a thief isn't reasonable.

Our laws and courts seperate us from the Third World and despotic nations.

`Son, why did you not shoot at your mother`s murderer`

`Because he left the axe in mom`s skull and ran away from me`



F*ck that. There is wrong, then there is Eyebrock wrong.

There is little point in continuing this discussion. You have no clue about any of it. Go kill a few animals with your chums.

[Gunnair]

ASLplease ASLplease:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

uwish,

What you propose is 'reasonable force'.

If you or your family are in mortal danger, shooting the person who places them in danger to stop threat will be seen as 'reasonable'. However once the threat has ended, executing the offender would not be 'reasonable', nor would shooting at him as he fled and was no longer a threat.

Executing a thief isn't reasonable.

Our laws and courts seperate us from the Third World and despotic nations.

`Son, why did you not shoot at your mother`s murderer`

`Because he left the axe in mom`s skull and ran away from me`



F*ck that. There is wrong, then there is Eyebrock wrong.

"Dad, why are you gang raped in prison so much?"

"Son, that fourteen year old was stealing my pond furniture. I took the shot, winged him, and killed that little girl sleeeping in bed next house over."

Was convicted of a lot of things, and oddly enough, the guys in here don't like child killers, even if it was an accident. Besides, it's safer in here being gang raped compared to what the little girl's dad is going to do to me when I get out."

There is dumb, then there is ASLplease dumb.