[andyt]

martin14 martin14:

This is parsing things pretty closely. The guy that was shot was driving away, ie going for some distance. And this isn't Omaha beach where they're going to dig in to make another assault on the bunker.

With your logic, you could shoot anybody in the back, 'cause they might "reposition" themselves. That's pretty scary.

You can knock off the insults and just admit you cant get inside the mind
of someone else, and therefore never know what's really going on.[/quote]

Wow, you're touchy. I'm just following your logic here. You're right, can never get inside the mind of somebody. These could be psycho killers on a rampage, and this house was next in line. On that improbable supposition, you would give people the right to just blast away at somebody running away from their property and who hasn't actually caused you any harm?

[2Cdo]

andyt andyt:

With your logic, you could shoot anybody in the back, 'cause they might "reposition" themselves. That's pretty scary.

It's only scary if you're a criminal who is engaged in illegal activities!

[Gunnair]

2Cdo" wrote

$1:

ROE's are like Canadian law and there is a lot of grey area within them both.

In some cases. In some cases they are quite clear. It is illegal to use deadly force to protect your quad.

$1:

I also never mentioned you when stating the support for the criminals. Also, under Canadian law, one can be judge, jury and executioner when one has a "reasonable expectation" that their life is in danger. This also applies to any and all ROE's whether war-fighting or old UN-style peacekeeping.

I have pointed out the legal use of deadly force repeatedly in defending oneself and one's family from grievous bodily harm. This thread is about using deadly force to defend a quad, and more importantly, about using deadly force irresponsibly by firing at a fleeing suspect and with no discernable target.

$1:

Also, I have never violated any ROE's on any deployment, whether I agreed or not with them.

Excellent. Why then would you wish to violate Canadian law?

[martin14]

andyt andyt:

Wow, you're touchy. I'm just following your logic here. You're right, can never get inside the mind of somebody. These could be psycho killers on a rampage, and this house was next in line. On that improbable supposition, you would give people the right to just blast away at somebody running away from their property and who hasn't actually caused you any harm?

No, what I said a couple of pages ago is that these things do need some clarification, because things could get out of hand.

Moving away does is not an absolute indication the encounter is over.

[Gunnair]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

martin14 martin14:

We have a third hand non witness writing their opinion,
or even better, a statement from a criminal..

This is where things get cloudy.

To be perfectly honest, in the majority of cases the people who support the criminal will believe whatever he says and discount the victim or the police as liars. On a larger scale, anything terrorists accuse us (military) of doing is gospel truth and any rebuttal we offer is propaganda.

Sometimes it's just not worth worrying about.

I'm amazed, truly amazed, at how quickly the support the criminal gambit is employed when someone tries to apply the rule of law to all. It is the saddest of the sad ploys to end any kind of thoughtful discussion and quickly reverts the discussion into a polarized bun fight.

Guess I dig out the baps...

[andyt]

martin14 martin14:

andyt andyt:

Wow, you're touchy. I'm just following your logic here. You're right, can never get inside the mind of somebody. These could be psycho killers on a rampage, and this house was next in line. On that improbable supposition, you would give people the right to just blast away at somebody running away from their property and who hasn't actually caused you any harm?

No, what I said a couple of pages ago is that these things do need some clarification, because things could get out of hand.

Moving away does is not an absolute indication the encounter is over.

I think it's a pretty good indication not to shoot somebody in the back who hasn't actually done you any harm nor shown him/herself to be a threat.

I would buy your argument if there was a history of home invasions or arson attacks or similar in this area. But even then, what kind of home invader leaves their weapons stashed when they first go to invade the home, and then retreats to "reposition" themselves?

The guy firing should have fired in the air. Message sent, and no further trouble for him.

[Gunnair]

martin14 martin14:

andyt andyt:

Wow, you're touchy. I'm just following your logic here. You're right, can never get inside the mind of somebody. These could be psycho killers on a rampage, and this house was next in line. On that improbable supposition, you would give people the right to just blast away at somebody running away from their property and who hasn't actually caused you any harm?

No, what I said a couple of pages ago is that these things do need some clarification, because things could get out of hand.

Moving away does is not an absolute indication the encounter is over.

You are correct it does not.

Following this line of thought, what do you think you are then allowed to do under Canadian law?

[Gunnair]

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

My appologies to the group for my lack of editing my post.

I'm not a super gun nut, but I once got mugged in New York City. When you experience something like that you take defense of self and home very seriously.

I take the defence of my home and family very seriously. I pride myself on being a pretty good shot, but unless the guy is close enough and threatening me or my family, I ain't going to shoot. It ain't necessarily legal and it certainly ain't responsible.

Nor will I shoot if some young fuck breaks into my truck to steal my CDs. There are plenty of little kids around here and a stray shot fired in anger/excitement/adrenaline rush killing one of them would be pretty damned hard on my conscience.

[martin14]

Gunnair Gunnair:

martin14 martin14:

andyt andyt:

Wow, you're touchy. I'm just following your logic here. You're right, can never get inside the mind of somebody. These could be psycho killers on a rampage, and this house was next in line. On that improbable supposition, you would give people the right to just blast away at somebody running away from their property and who hasn't actually caused you any harm?

No, what I said a couple of pages ago is that these things do need some clarification, because things could get out of hand.

Moving away does is not an absolute indication the encounter is over.

You are correct it does not.

Following this line of thought, what do you think you are then allowed to do under Canadian law?

I have no idea.

I'm not a gun person, so I've never followed the law that closely.


I do know I don't favor us moving any closer to the British example,
where you have no possibility to defend yourself.


Regarding this thread, I also dont think shooting someone moving away
is necessarily enough to charge someone.
I understand it doesnt look very good, but we werent there,
we're not getting the full picture.

[martin14]

andyt andyt:

martin14 martin14:

andyt andyt:

Wow, you're touchy. I'm just following your logic here. You're right, can never get inside the mind of somebody. These could be psycho killers on a rampage, and this house was next in line. On that improbable supposition, you would give people the right to just blast away at somebody running away from their property and who hasn't actually caused you any harm?

No, what I said a couple of pages ago is that these things do need some clarification, because things could get out of hand.

Moving away does is not an absolute indication the encounter is over.

I would buy your argument if there was a history of home invasions or arson attacks or similar in this area.

p.s go read the article.

[andyt]

martin14 martin14:

I do know I don't favor us moving any closer to the British example,
where you have no possibility to defend yourself.


Regarding this thread, I also dont think shooting someone moving away
is necessarily enough to charge someone.
I understand it doesnt look very good, but we werent there,
we're not getting the full picture.

Agree we should be able to defend ourselves - these people weren't by all indications.

Charging someone and convicting them are different things. The police would have interviewed everybody and made their decision. They're certainly in a better position to do so than us playing armchair quarterbacks. Mot that that's ever stopped us before. Trying to make an excuse for this shooting, based on the story as reported, is really clutching at straws.

[Gunnair]

"martin14" wrote

Gunnair Gunnair:

martin14 martin14:

andyt andyt:

Wow, you're touchy. I'm just following your logic here. You're right, can never get inside the mind of somebody. These could be psycho killers on a rampage, and this house was next in line. On that improbable supposition, you would give people the right to just blast away at somebody running away from their property and who hasn't actually caused you any harm?

No, what I said a couple of pages ago is that these things do need some clarification, because things could get out of hand.

Moving away does is not an absolute indication the encounter is over.

You are correct it does not.

Following this line of thought, what do you think you are then allowed to do under Canadian law?

$1:

I have no idea.

Of course you do, you're just being coy.

$1:

I'm not a gun person, so I've never followed the law that closely.

It's not a gun law. It's as applicable to gun owners as it is to those who own baseball bats, beer bottles, and pocket knives.

$1:

I do know I don't favor us moving any closer to the British example,
where you have no possibility to defend yourself.

We agree.

$1:

Regarding this thread, I also dont think shooting someone moving away
is necessarily enough to charge someone.
I understand it doesnt look very good, but we werent there,
we're not getting the full picture.

True, however, if charges are being laid, then there is enough evidence to suggest weapons offences were committed. That being said, when has this forum ever confined itslef to waiting for the facts before passing judgement?

[2Cdo]

Gunnair Gunnair:

2Cdo 2Cdo:

martin14 martin14:

We have a third hand non witness writing their opinion,
or even better, a statement from a criminal..

This is where things get cloudy.

To be perfectly honest, in the majority of cases the people who support the criminal will believe whatever he says and discount the victim or the police as liars. On a larger scale, anything terrorists accuse us (military) of doing is gospel truth and any rebuttal we offer is propaganda.

Sometimes it's just not worth worrying about.

I'm amazed, truly amazed, at how quickly the support the criminal gambit is employed when someone tries to apply the rule of law to all. It is the saddest of the sad ploys to end any kind of thoughtful discussion and quickly reverts the discussion into a polarized bun fight.

Guess I dig out the baps...

It's truly amazing that you can't admit that it is a factor when discussing these things. Do you honestly think this discussion is anything but polarized views? Yourself included!

[Dragom]

Okay heres what the ROE looks like for the Quad stealing incident.

1. You must start the confrontation with a loud and clear demand. Something along the lines of "Get off my land." You must allow the interloper to back down.

2. In the event of stubbornness or stupidity, you must proceed with a clear threat of violence. Advance menacingly with your baseball bat, allow the light to play off the blade of a hunting knife or for the unsubtle fire a shot into the air with a rifle. Again, you must allow the interloper to back down.

3. In the event of suicidal behavior, You may now attempt to inflict harm. Your right to inflict harm is immediately revoked if the intruder backs down.

Except in this instance, we didn't get to step 1, because they backed down before it started!

[andyt]

martin14 martin14:

p.s go read the article.

The article mentions quad thefts. Nothing about threats to people's lives except the thieves'.