Jump to content
Check your account email address ×

You do not have the right to self defence in Canada


Rod

Recommended Posts

Picture this—— a group of intoxicated 20 something’s were terrorizing a northern sask rural neighbourhood. Driving though yards, smashing vehicles and rummaging though personal property for items to steal. They had a live and loaded firearm, which they were using to smash windows out of vehicles

several calls to the rcmp were made however they are a long ways away which makes for a poor response time 

the last yard they terrorized, they went through the barn then rammed into the owners vehicle, whilst brandishing a semi automatic firearm.  

An altercation ensued with the owner  leaving one occupants of the vehicle shot in the head and killed.

the terrorizing groups firearm was found at the scene, loaded, as was pieces of the Stock from the last yard they terrorized 

sounds pretty clear at this point. These adults were armed, looking for trouble and found it. Self defence, to hell with these scum. These attacks are very common in rural communities.

however this is where the lines get fuzzy: the person who got killed has a darker skin tone than the person protecting himself, family and property.

national outrage ensued from the people with slightly darker complexion.

the lighter skinned man is now on trial for 2nd degree murder

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

Picture this—— a group of intoxicated 20 something’s were terrorizing a northern sask rural neighbourhood. Driving though yards, smashing vehicles and rummaging though personal property for items to steal. They had a live and loaded firearm, which they were using to smash windows out of vehicles

several calls to the rcmp were made however they are a long ways away which makes for a poor response time 

the last yard they terrorized, they went through the barn then rammed into the owners vehicle, whilst brandishing a semi automatic firearm.  

An altercation ensued with the owner  leaving one occupants of the vehicle shot in the head and killed.

the terrorizing groups firearm was found at the scene, loaded, as was pieces of the Stock from the last yard they terrorized 

sounds pretty clear at this point. These adults were armed, looking for trouble and found it. Self defence, to hell with these scum. These attacks are very common in rural communities.

however this is where the lines get fuzzy: the person who got killed has a darker skin tone than the person protecting himself, family and property.

national outrage ensued from the people with slightly darker complexion.

the lighter skinned man is now on trial for 2nd degree murder

 

The problem was he left witnesses all of the FUCKS should have been shot in the head  and killed :flush: 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, steve from amherst said:

Was his shit being destroyed, or his life in actual danger? Yes I know he was scared , and probably pissed off too. But my question is if he didn't fire would he have lost his life?

Fortunately he didn’t have to find out 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
1 minute ago, Rod Johnson said:

Fortunately he didn’t have to find out 

But that is the question the jury will want answered. So that's leaves us with who will answer it better. Do you have a case or victom/ suspect name?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, steve from amherst said:

Was his shit being destroyed, or his life in actual danger? Yes I know he was scared , and probably pissed off too. But my question is if he didn't fire would he have lost his life?

Thank god for Wisconsin and the Castle Law. Gives no fucks about threat of life. Fuck you, eat a bullet intruder. Freedom, Merica, fuck you.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
1 minute ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Thank god for Wisconsin and the Castle Law. Gives no fucks about threat of life. Fuck you, eat a bullet intruder. Freedom, Merica, fuck you.

But that dosnt keep you from getting sued , And your case heard by a jury who may or may not be sitting by patiently waiting for their free money day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
2 minutes ago, steve from amherst said:

Was his shit being destroyed, or his life in actual danger? Yes I know he was scared , and probably pissed off too. But my question is if he didn't fire would he have lost his life?

So you are suppose to wait to lose your life before you defend it?

I'd like to know more facts but I'll error on the side of the person protecting life AND property every time.  Pretty simple if you don't want to die committing a crime then don't do it in the first place.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, steve from amherst said:

But that dosnt keep you from getting sued , And your case heard by a jury who may or may not be sitting by patiently waiting for their free money day.

A) If there were multiple armed men on my property there would be no witnesses. Either they all died, or I died. There wouldn’t be an in between...

B) Who is going to sue with no eye witnesses? 

C) America!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
1 minute ago, Highmark said:

So you are suppose to wait to lose your life before you defend it?

I'd like to know more facts but I'll error on the side of the person protecting life AND property every time.  Pretty simple if you don't want to die committing a crime then don't do it in the first place.   

Oh I agree with not committing a crime if you don't want to die. I am also happy the scumbag is pushing daisys. But I would not pull the trigger unless the gun was aimed at me or the assailant or several were with 15 ft on me . And I live in a state where the state constitution gives us the right to use deadly force not just to protect life but also property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

A) If there were multiple armed men on my property there would be no witnesses. Either they all died, or I died. There wouldn’t be an in between...

B) Who is going to sue with no eye witnesses? 

C) America!

You guys definitely have it more figured out than we do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Momorider said:

This part of the story basically get the guy off in my books :dunno: 

 "went through the barn then rammed into the owners vehicle, whilst brandishing a semi automatic firearm."   

You’d think but you’re not factoring in skin colour 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rod Johnson said:

Yup

Ic....bad area for chugs around there...my buddy sold his farm last yr in that area...said fuck it....everytime he went away the house was broken into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DAVE said:

Ic....bad area for chugs around there...my buddy sold his farm last yr in that area...said fuck it....everytime he went away the house was broken into.

Yup. Zero consequences for the perpetrators. That’s why one needs a right to protect your property. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
14 minutes ago, steve from amherst said:

Oh I agree with not committing a crime if you don't want to die. I am also happy the scumbag is pushing daisys. But I would not pull the trigger unless the gun was aimed at me or the assailant or several were with 15 ft on me . And I live in a state where the state constitution gives us the right to use deadly force not just to protect life but also property.

That is very difficult to claim without being in a position actually having to make that judgement.   If some guy was walking at your wife or other family member with a knife you wouldn't pull your weapon?   Each situation is different and until we are actually faced with a threat we have no idea how we would act.  

I know I would be much quicker drawing my weapon in my home than in a public setting.   

 

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

Picture this—— a group of intoxicated 20 something’s were terrorizing a northern sask rural neighbourhood. Driving though yards, smashing vehicles and rummaging though personal property for items to steal. They had a live and loaded firearm, which they were using to smash windows out of vehicles

several calls to the rcmp were made however they are a long ways away which makes for a poor response time 

the last yard they terrorized, they went through the barn then rammed into the owners vehicle, whilst brandishing a semi automatic firearm.  

An altercation ensued with the owner  leaving one occupants of the vehicle shot in the head and killed.

the terrorizing groups firearm was found at the scene, loaded, as was pieces of the Stock from the last yard they terrorized 

sounds pretty clear at this point. These adults were armed, looking for trouble and found it. Self defence, to hell with these scum. These attacks are very common in rural communities.

however this is where the lines get fuzzy: the person who got killed has a darker skin tone than the person protecting himself, family and property.

national outrage ensued from the people with slightly darker complexion.

the lighter skinned man is now on trial for 2nd degree murder

 

Canada is a shithole

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol

×
×
  • Create New...