Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
These incidents are so rare in our country and you cannot say that in your own. Maybe there is something else going on behind the scenes that is not so straight forward.
Besides violence is not in our blood so we don't find the need to keep guns in houses or in a holster. Basically there is no need for it in a peaceful nation. We are not interested so we don't protest about it. I don't want our country to end up like USA. So that's why I don't want to adopt your ways.
But the family in the main article (involving the First Nations people) had more than one gun in the house. That surprised me. And there was another incident the OP mentioned, that also (I thought) involved a Canadian homeowner who kept a gun at home.
I understand people keeping hunting rifles, but at least one of the guns in the main story was not for hunting. Are Canadians allowed to have guns for self-protection? Or does it go by Province?
OP, IIRC, you currently live in or near Toronto, with your parents? Where were you born and raised?
For some reason in the Canadian justice system, the government does not like Canadian's defending their own homes and they will arrest and prosecute anyone who does so it seems. In many cases, the defendant is acquitted, cause a jury knows that the government has made an unjustified indictment and has overblown the situation.
Here is an example where a man protected his home from burglars, and was charged afterwards, when one of the burglars ended up shot in the process:
There were two other examples where this has happened but I cannot remember the names of the homeowners charged. But the Canadian government has a tendency to think every citizen should be pacifist and not protect themselves from a burglary invasion, for some reason.
Now here is an example of a burglary type story in the US, where a mother had defended her children in a theft. Similar to the Canadian example, where a father had to protect his family:
Now the woman in this example, was released after questioning by police. No arrest and bale, in case indictments were to be executed later, no nothing. Just released right after.
This is so much better than the Canadian system and why is it that Canada believes it's citizens do not have the right to protect themselves, and have to remain pacifist against endangerment from robbery, but in the US, they recognize defending your loved ones from danger, as a right?
Why? I wish the Canadian government would adapt the American viewpoints. But what do you think?
I don't think these cases are similar at all. In one, the shooter said he didn't shoot on purpose and it went off accidentally while he was trying to prevent his truck from being stolen. In the other, a mother is trying to save her children. In both cases the shooters were aquitted, so I'm not sure what the issue is. There are plenty of cases in the U.S. where people were tried and convicted of shooting to defend property. This woman's case was different as her kids were in the car. In the U.S., law states you can shoot only to defend a life, not property. If her kids had not been in the car and she shot them just for stealing the car, she'd be behind bars right now.
I don't think these cases are similar at all. In one, the shooter said he didn't shoot on purpose and it went off accidentally while he was trying to prevent his truck from being stolen. In the other, a mother is trying to save her children. In both cases the shooters were aquitted, so I'm not sure what the issue is. There are plenty of cases in the U.S. where people were tried and convicted of shooting to defend property. This woman's case was different as her kids were in the car. In the U.S., law states you can shoot only to defend a life, not property. If her kids had not been in the car and she shot them just for stealing the car, she'd be behind bars right now.
The issue the OP has with these, seems to be that the people shouldn't have been arrested in the first place. They were acquitted, so why did authorities subject them to a seemingly unnecessary trial? But that overlooks the fact that someone is dead as a result of the first incident. It looked to the RCMP like the homeowner had shot someone for no reason, other than that they were attempting to steal some personal property of his. So the police arrested him, to let the courts sort out the legalities and finer points of the case. When someone dies as a result of a bullet, the police don't really have the discretion to let the shooter just walk away. I didn't read the second case.
OP, it sounds like what you're asking, is: why would anyone in a castle-doctrine state get arrested for killing someone who wanders onto their property. Why did George Zimmerman get dragged into court at all--is that what you're asking? Why would anyone have to defend themselves, if they've shot and killed a trespasser, in a state that allows them to defend their property?
I think it's important to scrutinize such cases, so people don't just go nuts, shooting anyone, whose appearance they don't like. But in the Zimmerman case, the family of his victim took him to court. That's how it happens, sometimes. They sue, to demand that the case be examined in court, and the perpetrator be held accountable.
In some states, the homeowner defending himself from an intruder has to prove that his life was being threatened. THat's not so easy to do, especially when an intruder was unarmed, and even more so if the homeowner shot him in the back, as was the case involving the First Nations people.
The issue the OP has with these, seems to be that the people shouldn't have been arrested in the first place. They were acquitted, so why did authorities subject them to a seemingly unnecessary trial? But that overlooks the fact that someone is dead as a result of the first incident. It looked to the RCMP like the homeowner had shot someone for no reason, other than that they were attempting to steal some personal property of his. So the police arrested him, to let the courts sort out the legalities and finer points of the case. When someone dies as a result of a bullet, the police don't really have the discretion to let the shooter just walk away. I didn't read the second case.
OP, it sounds like what you're asking, is: why would anyone in a castle-doctrine state get arrested for killing someone who wanders onto their property. Why did George Zimmerman get dragged into court at all--is that what you're asking? Why would anyone have to defend themselves, if they've shot and killed a trespasser, in a state that allows them to defend their property?
I think it's important to scrutinize such cases, so people don't just go nuts, shooting anyone, whose appearance they don't like. But in the Zimmerman case, the family of his victim took him to court. That's how it happens, sometimes. They sue, to demand that the case be examined in court, and the perpetrator be held accountable.
In some states, the homeowner defending himself from an intruder has to prove that his life was being threatened. THat's not so easy to do, especially when an intruder was unarmed, and even more so if the homeowner shot him in the back, as was the case involving the First Nations people.
Off topic, but in the Zimmerman case no one was on his property. He was out playing pretend cop. He just saw him walking through the neighborhood and decided to go follow him.
In the second case OP listed, the lady shot as her car was being driven away WITH her kids in the backseat. That makes it very different than a property defense situation, and is the reason she was let go pretty quickly.
Even the first wasn't really property defense by shooting as the shooter said the gun went off accidentally. I don't see any similarities at all between the two cases.
Even the first wasn't really property defense by shooting as the shooter said the gun went off accidentally. I don't see any similarities at all between the two cases.
That's really egregious. I don't see how any castle doctrine or stand-your-ground law would apply, then. I didn't follow the case; I only first heard of it after joining C-D, so I don't mean to start a re-hash here, but---wow.
Off topic, but in the Zimmerman case no one was on his property. He was out playing pretend cop. He just saw him walking through the neighborhood and decided to go follow him.
In the second case OP listed, the lady shot as her car was being driven away WITH her kids in the backseat. That makes it very different than a property defense situation, and is the reason she was let go pretty quickly.
Even the first wasn't really property defense by shooting as the shooter said the gun went off accidentally. I don't see any similarities at all between the two cases.
There are only similarities if you over-simplify the cases. The OP sees the first one as being a defense-of-family-member case, too, because the man thought (or claims to have believed) his wife was in the car the intruders were attempting to steal. And in both cases, the shooters were acquitted. Those are the only similarities.
There are only similarities if you over-simplify the cases. The OP sees the first one as being a defense-of-family-member case, too, because the man thought (or claims to have believed) his wife was in the car the intruders were attempting to steal. And in both cases, the shooters were acquitted. Those are the only similarities.
In the case of the woman (the mom), she wasn't even arrested, just brought in for questioning and let go. The second case, the people could have just let the thieves drive off with the car, the only reason the man thought his wife might be under it was that the family was all out there fighting off the thieves and trying to prevent the truck from being driven away. It makes it much murkier. In the second case with kids in the backseat, allowing them to drive off was not an option.
He was not protecting his home from burglars. Some burglars attempted to steal a car of his, They weren't trying to break into his home.
The intruders were unarmed. There was absolutely no justification for using deadly force against them.
A vehicle is a deadly weapon.
Mr. Stanley, in his testimony, said after he fired the warning shots he suddenly feared his wife was underneath the Escape, and sprinted to check on her. As he knelt down, he heard the engine revving and ran around to the driver's side to reach in with his left hand, which was holding the magazine, to turn off the ignition. It was at that moment, he said, the gun went off accidentally. He said he never pulled the trigger. His defence lawyer suggested it must have been a hangfire, particularly since the cartridge casing found inside the vehicle had an unusual bulge firearms experts could not reproduce.
The purps wanted to steal his car. If they did the right thing and left him and his family alone nothing would have happened to them. All of this is on them.
I don't see how the OP compares the 2 stories. The first story involves an attempted car theft, there are some discrepancies in testimony and the shooter "thought" his wife was under the car. Then the gun "accidently" discharged, shooting the person in the back of the head. The father said he ran, the son said he walked etc.
Then in the second story, the woman's car was being carjacked with her children in the backseat. She didn't "think" the children were there. More an apples to oranges comparison.
A few years ago, near where I live a person heard some people stealing his car from the street outside his home. He went out and shot at the car. If I recall killing one, he was charged. I think too many people get their ideas from TV or movies where the hero seems to shoot first and ask questions later. The worst thing is the person shot usually seems to belong to a minority group.
Yeah true some good points made. I thought maybe the father was walking to be weary in case they tried anything, but was so panicked that he felt like he was running in his mind.
When you say the worst thing, is that the person shot happens to be of a minority group, how is that the worst thing exactly?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.