Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-08-2018, 07:10 PM
 
5,110 posts, read 3,042,276 times
Reputation: 1489

Advertisements

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:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle37929427/

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:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44727882

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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-08-2018, 07:55 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,246 posts, read 23,866,643 times
Reputation: 32607
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpony View Post
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:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle37929427/

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:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44727882

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?
Canada is a different country.
Canadians have different viewpoints than Americans.
Canadians have a different process for getting laws passed.

Frankly, why is it our business?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2018, 08:21 PM
 
5,110 posts, read 3,042,276 times
Reputation: 1489
Oh when you say why is it out our business, I didn't mean to imply that I was asking the Americans only, for their opinion, I was welcoming opinions on from users from any nations on here, to give more of a world viewpoint on why it is like this here, and what everyone from all different countries think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2018, 08:37 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,071 posts, read 107,036,480 times
Reputation: 115868
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpony View Post
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:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle37929427/

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:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44727882

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?
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.

What happened, and I assume the reason for his arrest, was that he made unnecessary use of deadly force. He was not being threatened with bodily harm. His safety was never in danger, nor was the safety of any family members. Someone was trying to steal a car from his yard. The homeowner was never in danger.

Does that answer your question?

Why didn't the homeowner call police, instead of grabbing a gun, and firing on the trespassers? Alternatively, he could have told his son to go in the house and call police, while he attempted to scare the trespassers off, with warning shots, as he had begun to do. He should have let the police (RCMP) do their job, instead of taking the law into his own hands. That's why he was charged. The intruders were unarmed. There was absolutely no justification for using deadly force against them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2018, 08:46 PM
 
5,110 posts, read 3,042,276 times
Reputation: 1489
Sorry I should have specified more. In the case, his wife was last scene near where the truck was, and he thought that his wife might have been under the truck and went to her hopeful rescue.

Of course his wife was not under there it turned out. But the wife could have been in danger. The reason for taking matters into his own hands is cause he lived in a remote farm and the police would have taken too long to get there and he had to scare them off, as they were driving around the property, and who knows what they could have done. The police would have been there too late, since the location was remote from them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2018, 09:57 PM
 
9,345 posts, read 4,286,319 times
Reputation: 3022
In Canada you have the right to defend yourself from harm. In the case you mentioned it was questionable if the home owner was in harms way or not. Courts are the legal way for deciding this matter. We don't have the Castle idea that you can kill an intruder even if you are not threatened.

Much of Canada is an hour or further away from police and there is not very much killing of home owners or intruders. 8f it is the case I am thinking of he was much closer to police assistance than farmers and ranchers where I live.

I for one do not want to live in a society where all a homeowner has to do is claim they were scared whenever they shoot a person on their property. If the police can determine it was justified then no charges, if not certain usually charges are laid and sometimes goes to court and sometimes the Crown drops the chsrges. And in Court some found guilty and some not guilty. That's a fair legal system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2018, 09:59 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,071 posts, read 107,036,480 times
Reputation: 115868
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
Canada is a different country.
Canadians have different viewpoints than Americans.
Canadians have a different process for getting laws passed.

Frankly, why is it our business?
The OP lives in Canada.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2018, 10:08 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,071 posts, read 107,036,480 times
Reputation: 115868
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpony View Post
Sorry I should have specified more. In the case, his wife was last scene near where the truck was, and he thought that his wife might have been under the truck and went to her hopeful rescue.

Of course his wife was not under there it turned out. But the wife could have been in danger. The reason for taking matters into his own hands is cause he lived in a remote farm and the police would have taken too long to get there and he had to scare them off, as they were driving around the property, and who knows what they could have done. The police would have been there too late, since the location was remote from them.
OK, according to another poster, it's questionable, as to how remote he was from police assistance. I also agree with the other poster, that it's preferable to live in a country, where one can't snuff out a life on a flimsy excuse, as has happened too many times in the US. So a balance needs to be struck. In this case, the police decided to issue a citation, so that the courts could decide, and they did.

According to some of the details, it sounds like it was an unfortunate accident. He said he didn't intend to made the final shot, the one that struck one of the would-be thieves in the head.

There will be borderline cases like this, that make a very tough call. It concerns me, that no one involved thought to call the police. Since there were two family members available to deal with the situation, one of them should have gone into the house to make the call. The way things unfolded, the police would have arrived too late, but that couldn't have been known in advance. If the gun hadn't accidentally discharged, it's quite possible the police would have arrived as the intruders were attempting a getaway.

Seems strange that they were tryin to steal a car. I guess they didn't have a spare tire??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2018, 10:14 PM
 
5,110 posts, read 3,042,276 times
Reputation: 1489
Yeah I can see that the flimiest excuses shouldn't be used, but I don't think this was just a flimsy excuse that deserved to go to trial. The defendant said that he used a gun to scare them off, and that the gun went off accidentally, and the prosecution didn't have enough evidence to prove otherwise to go to trial, yet they do anyway. So I feel that it in this case the excuse was not flimsy and the prosecution was being a little unreasonable.

There was another case in Canada, where a homeowner pointed a gun at people breaking into a neighbors house to scare them off, and the gun wasn't loaded. The homeowner just pointed it at them to scare them off.

Yet he was arrested and charged with reckless endangerment, and released months later, determining that he was innocent, but why arrest the guy for months at all in a case like that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2018, 10:24 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,246 posts, read 23,866,643 times
Reputation: 32607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
The OP lives in Canada.
And how would I know that? There is no info about where he lives in his bio. And, assuming that' true, why would he be asking us "why is it that Canada believes"...?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top