a. Go back to sleep
b. Go after the guy
c. Wait for the RCMP
d. None of the above, the guy is obviously a disadvantaged person who needs your vehicle much more than you ever will, and hey, he deserves it because of his tough life.
If you picked d. you are a lefty bleeding heart who has never had any run-ins with the law, or you are a lefty bleeding heart who has a kid in jail.
If you picked b. you are a knuckle dragging neanderthal who supports gun ownership and believes that your property is actually yours.
City slickers think crime does not happen in rural areas, they also think meat comes from the supermarket frozen food section. They think gun BANS will stop gun killings. They lock their doors and their minds, they ignore the fact that their own kids are the problem, and they blame the government for not protecting them while refusing to co-operate with them in crime investigations.
Rural people out of necessity are a close knit community. If something bad happens, they band together and solve the problem. They do not think the RCMP will protect them, but they do know that they can protect themselves.
Enter the criminal and the RCMP.
An Alberta farmer who is facing charges after police say he chased and shot at an alleged thief last Thursday has people from across the province rallying to his defence.
Brian Knight was charged with seven offences, including assault and criminal negligence, after police say he took the law into his own hands when he thought someone was stealing his All-Terrain Vehicle.
This is an indication of how sick our liberal society has become. Start a swingers club, no problem. Chase a guy who is stealing your property, you get charged. Funny thing is, we all know that Brian Knight is being charged, but the police are keeping the name of the REAL criminal under wraps. So, they protect the criminal and vilify the homeowner who was the innocent victim.
Our justice system is royally screwed up. Think about what the law abiding Knight is going through right now. Think about the expense of defending himself. He would have never been in this position if a criminal had not tried to steal from him, but he did and he is already out on bail.
We never used to lock our doors, but the criminals have made it so that we have to, we even have a bat right behind our door encase someone tries to get into our house. As kids we disappeared all day and our parents never worried. Now, we don't even dare let them walk to school by themselves.
Do you feel that vise around your life, that feeling of disgust with our justice system? If there was ever a case where we, the suffering majority, should rise up and protest, this is it.
I hope that Knight chooses a trial by jury, because there is not a jury in Alberta that will convict him of anything major.
54 comments:
I think there is a fine line here. He doesn't have the right to kill someone (which he was obviously trying to do) over a piece of property (an ATV). He wasn't being attacked, so he can't say he was defending himself -- he wasn't. He chased them. If you think it is OK to shoot someone for taking something of yours, where do you draw the line? You can shoot them for taking your ATV, how about that leather jacket, or your new rubber hose?
I wouldn't call the Mounties under any circumstance -- they think a loaded stapler is a deadly weapon.
PS. I live in a rural area where the Hell Angel's are "active"
Ode to the NRA:
Apr 5, 2009 Washington Family of Five, Murder-suicide
Apr 4, 2009 The Pittsburgh Police Officer Murders
Apr 3, 2009 Mass Shooting In New York
Mar 30, 2009 Mass Shooting In Carthage, North Carolina
Mar 29, 2009 Family of Five Murder-Suicide Shooting, Santa Clara, Calif
Mar 21, 2009 Four killed in Oakland, Calif.,
Mar 11, 2009 Alabama Rampage Shooting
Not a bad month, eh?
S Quebec, you are just like the soft headed 'leftie' the author mentions at the beginning of his post.
If, now follow me here, IF it was perfectly legal to shoot, maim, kill, a would-be thief, at the very worst scenario can could possible paint.... would be to EVEN the odd in favour of the law abiding citizen. These punks NOW terrorize us daily with their robberies, muggings and violence, and often-times with weapons. When do we get to be as equally well armed to protect our homes, property or our lives against these thugs that know full well they can meet us in a dark alley and that they KNOW you are un-armed?
As for your list of killings and massacres... I'm never buying into that argument because it's completely false. Not once since guns were invented has a gun shot somebody with the aid of a person holding it. There are plenty of cases where an armed defender, read good citizen, could stop a massacre from taking place because he or she was 'there' to stop it. Look at all the school shootings over the years... if a teacher or other responsible person was armed and could have stopped the killer before the body-count climbed.
Canadians all seem to get weak-kneed at the thought of us protecting ourselves from criminals. Look around you next time you see an officer from Fisheries and Oceans, the Brinks guard, Police, Conservation officer or Customs agent. All carry side arms now. They are just regular people like you and me. They have all had proper training, just as we could get.
But getting back to crime and self defence. If the petty criminal KNEW his sorry and pathetic life was going to ended with a double-tap of my Glock.....or yours, just to steal your ATV or iPod... do you think he might think twice? If he KNEW you'd be lauded as a hero and not go to jail, do you think he might think that flipping burgers is a better way to earn his money? Because right now, it's a pretty risk-free job, crime, that is... He knows he can take from you and you can't do anything about it. How just and fair is that?
We already have the 'gunfight at the OK Corral' in Toronto on any given day. The only people not armed is the law abiding citizen.
Even the odds a little bit... I promise to just shoot him in the foot, no really!
"But getting back to crime and self defence. If the petty criminal KNEW his sorry and pathetic life was going to ended with a double-tap of my Glock.....or yours, just to steal your ATV or iPod... do you think he might think twice? "
If this were true, there would be no crime in America. Try again!
I will ask you the same question I posed at Joanne's.
First, whether or not you think it is right, the fact is this man is alleged to have broken the law. It is the duty and responsibility of police officers to charge people when there is evidence the criminal code has been violated.
Second, the law in Canada does not permit the use of force to defend property, so he cannot rely on the defence of property here. All he can do is argue he was effecting a citizen's arrest - but even there his right to use force is limited by the criminal code, and clearly here the RCMP believed the force used was excessive.
So what you are in effect asking is that this man be treated differently from other people who break the law. In that light, here is my question:
If one teenager was trying to steal another teenager's bike, and then he gave up and ran away, would the victim of this attempted theft be within his rights to shoot the would be thief?
Just where do you think the line should be drawn?
Two additional points - this man is alleged to have used a firearm in the commission of an offence, which means those mandatory minimum sentences come into play.
Your belief in the jury system is admirable, however the judge may have to instruct the jury to convict. At a minimum, the judge may have to instruct the jury that Knight is not entitled to rely on self defence. If the jury ignores the judge and acquits anyway, the crown will appeal and it will be taken out of the jury's hands.
If I were a criminal reading the posts from southern Quebec and Gayle, I would be heading directly to Canada. They are telling the world that in Canada the rights of a criminal is more important than law abiding citizens.
Don't worry if you break the law, we will protect you and our judge's will supercede jury's to protect you so you will not have to give up your life of crime.
If you are a lawyer Gayle, no wonder the justice system has lost the respect of hard working, law abiding Canadians. Canadians deserve better!!!
Fay - maybe you should read my post again. I was simply explaining the facts.
If you want an honest discussion about this issue, you need to be honest. You need to base it on reality.
Do you have an answer to my question?
Fay: Do you believe that you should be able to shoot anyone who takes something of yours?
Where does is say that the criminals rights supercede the victim?
About a year or two ago, two thugs broke into someone's house near Langdon, Alberta. The home owners ended up killing one of them in his own bedroom and the other guy escaped but with injuries.
Of course, the RCMP could of used this well published incident to warn the thugs, murders and rapist that breaking into peoples home's can result in terrible consequences for them.
But they didn't, instead, what we got was a lecture and threats from these politely correct enforcers directed at all law abiding citizens about how they were going to make the innocent guy pay! Pay with his freedom for having the audacity to defend himself against some scum bag who came into his bedroom, while he was asleep, in the middle
of the night, in order to do him harm.
And there you are folks, this is why it’s now referred to as our legal system, and not our justice system. In our legal system its more important to experiment with our lives using the latest theory that a bunch of half wit Sociology Professors have concocted, than protecting people.
But, it ended up being a lot of PC tough talk. They dropped all charges against the guy when the numbskulls figured out they would never get a conviction, but I guess they were successful in costing the innocent guy a lot of money, time and grief.
One last thing seeing as how were talking about the RCMP. I say it’s time to send them back to Montreal or Ottawa or wherever they’re headquartered. It’s time we have our own Alberta Mounted Provincial Police ( AMPP )
Re : Gayle "If you want an honest discussion about this issue, you need to be honest. You need to base it on reality."
Who's reality you talking about Gayle! Yours ! Don't make me laugh. I'm mighty glad I don't live in your "reality".
Re : Southern Quebec
"Do you believe that you should be able to shoot anyone who takes something of yours?" After all, some folks need shooting.
In some cases, yeah, for sure. I'd be okay with it.
Yours Truly
Blame Crash
The Mounties are headquartered in Regina...that's in the West I believe...
Hey Blame - do you think I just made up the law? Because i assure you that I have accurately set out what the law is.
To get what you want, you have to change the law. All I am doing is suggesting that you should think that through to the end before you support doing that.
You see, "in some cases" just does not work. If the law is changed to allow people to use violence to protect property, that law will apply to everyone - not just nice farmers you happen to identify with. That punk teenager who shoots the kid stealing his bike will be just as innocent as the farmer shooting the guy who steals his ATV.
Where exactly has it been shown that the gun was fired *at* anyone?
The jury will have a chance to see what really happened, if the jury trusts what three thieves have to say.
Rural folks know the folly of having to go through dispatchers, totally out of their community to get any help.
I see a line being drawn right there, that no urban type would put up with, at all.
Maybe that line should be drawn at putting your things out at the driveway, with the keys in them.
Then if they are there in the morning, no one really wanted or needed them, and they are the owners for the day.
The law is doing all it can *to fail to protect* rural property, and its owners.
Gayle, why are you adding in the two teenager element into this?
There is something very different about being isolated on a farm.
If the law refuses to see that, then that is where laws need to start changing.
Are you up for helping farmers try to change laws that leave them exposed to outright thievery?
Acacia - I am relying on the facts as they have been summarized. You are correct that we have no idea how the facts will come out at trial. That is why I have never said Knight is guilty of anything - just that the police are alleging his guilt. The complaint seems to be that the police charged him in the first place.
As for why I am bringing the two teenagers in to this - it is because you have to consider that the law applies equally to everyone in this country. If it is OK for a farmer to shoot a trespasser, it must also be OK for an urban teenager to do the same. You cannot allow one without allowing the other. That is a fact, and something you must think about when you advocate the change the law.
The law already criminalizes theft. How do you suggest the law exposes farmers to thievery? As SQ points out above, allowing people to shoot trespassers will not prevent the trespass - if it did crime in the US would be non-existent.
Having dispatchers located outside your community is a legitimate concern. Not only do we need to change that, we need to put more police in rural areas, and perhaps more police detachments as well. That is an issue for your local MP and MLA. I suggest you contact them and voice your concerns.
Re : Southern Quebec
"The Mounties are headquartered in Regina...that's in the West I believe..."
Wrong Again SQ, the following excerpt is from the RCMP's "Corporate Facts" sheet.
"Additionally, the organization is
sub-divided into 15 divisions plus
its National Headquarters in Ottawa"
Now, what was it you also said?
Wasn't it "Try Again". And that's good advice for all of us.
Re : "Hey Blame - do you think I just made up the law? Because i assure you that I have accurately set out what the law is."
Well, then why did they drop the charges in the case I mentioned?
That's a rhetorical question so don't bother.
It is an easy one to answer, rhetorical or not. I have to assume (because I am relying on the facts as you outlined them, which may or may not be accurate or complete) the home owner in this case could reasonably be said to be acting in self defence.
It is perfectly legal to use force, even lethal force, to defend yourself if you reasonably apprehend your life is at risk. It is not legal to use force of any kind to defend your property.
I trust you see the difference.
And now, having read a news report about the incident in Langdon it appears I was correct. The two people who broke in physically attacked the two occupants of the home.
He was entitled to use force. It is a no brainer.
So, Gayle, I'm I as a woman entitled to use force only if I am attacked in my home? How about if someone jumps into my car and tries to abduct me? Can I pull out my pellet gun and shoot him as he escapes the car or do I have to play nice while he rapes me and takes my car and then passively wait for the RCMP?
Funny how lefties use the law when it suits them, but yap about letting terrorist supporters into our country, because of freedom of speech.
No Hunter, that is not what I said.
The law on this is very clear - you are entitled to use force when you reasonably apprehend a risk of bodily harm or death. This is not my opinion - this is the law. If you do not believe me then I refer you to sections 34-37 of the criminal code.
So yes, if someone attacks you, wherever that attack takes place, you have the right to defend yourself.
You may only use the force that is necessary to protect yourself - ie. you cannot shoot someone who pushes you. You can shoot someone who is about to commit bodily harm - such as rape.
I am not sure why you think I was limiting this to one situation???
"These punks NOW terrorize us daily"
pussy.
KEvron
"No Hunter, that is not what I said."
it never is, gayle. i like that quote in the article about not being able to "do anything" about robbers. it's not the case that one can do nothing, he just can't kill over a robbery. but try to explain that to a lying wingnut....
KEvron
So Gayle explains how the law works, that the Police HAVE to arrest both the thief and the guy who shot at him.
Then you lot accuse Gayle of being a lefty who's soft on crime or something.
Then Gayle politely tries to explain the variety of situations where deadly force would be acceptable, and where that force wouldn't be acceptable. And then the accusations of being a dread lefty who loves criminals get trotted out again.
At no point, in my read, did Gayle actually advance any opinion on whether the law is correct, or even if this case was worth pursuing he/she just tried to explain the law.
An example, I don't think possession of pot is a big deal, I really think it should, at a minimum be criminalized (IE you should get a ticket or something). Now, I don't do drugs, but I have friends who do, and they are all aware of the law. They might not be happy about it, but they get that if they get caught they will get arrested. That's just how it is.
Same same with this situation: you don't get to shoot people who aren't presenting a threat to you or your family. And even if they are presenting this threat, you'd probably get arrested and charged with something if you shot or killed them. Because you've killed someone and our society doesn't make a distinction between killing nice people or criminal people, it just says "Don't murder or kill". Now, if you shot the guy in your bedroom as he went to stab you, you'd get off no problem. But the whole point of a criminal justice system is that the system takes over.
An example: Valery Fabricant killed those people at Concordia. It's a straight up fact. Everyone with a brain knew it before the trial, everyone knows it after the trial. But the trial had to happen and so did the properly handled arrest. Because that's how the system works.
Again, same same your example. Part of what the system is designed to handle is making it sure that people don't go around killing people they believe (no matter how strongly, or how much proof they have) to be criminals.
Anyway, it was quite sad to watch Gayle get savaged so completely for trying, quite politely, to explain the law to you.
OH, just so we're clear. There are no swear words, no insults and nothing to make this a troll.
But I am lefty, and you seemingly don't make much of a distinction between "lefty" and "lefty troll".
Yikes if kevron appears it must mean CC has sent it's mindless drones over here from leftyville.
Go back home and learn to think for yourself kevron. On second thought, keep posting so everyone can see a stellar representative of lefties.
Hunter, could I ask a question?
I notice that in your rules it says that "This is a family viewed site, NO SWEARING will be tolerated."
So, if I read this correctly, you are after promoting civility, am I correct?
If I'm correct, could you please explain how "mindless drones over here from leftyville" does not denigrate everyone on the left?
Additionally, could you further explain how this "Funny how lefties use the law when it suits them, but yap about letting terrorist supporters into our country, because of freedom of speech." is something that could be described as civil?
I could also ask about the leading question that you asked Gayle: I've just reread the thread and I can't find one piece of evidence where Gayle suggested that you can't resist/hurt/kill a rapist... and yet that's what you came up with...
It's troubling that you don't seem to see that insults of this ilk (and make no mistake that they are just that) are as bad, or worse, than a simple swear word.
By the by, I am really quite saddened that my immediate second step after posting at any BT site is now to either cut and paste a copy of my comment or take screen caps...
Well Cameron, click away.
You come to my site and because we don't agree with your point of view, you are upset?
Was it not lefties that were protesting Galloway's right to free speech? The facts are that lefties will protest in support of terrorist supporters, remember Coderre marching with Hezbollah and Liberal MP's at Tamil functions?
If you find it distasteful for me to mention that fact, maybe you should look at what you in fact support, maybe it is your way of thinking that is wrongheaded.
Also, if you do not like visiting here, you have the freedom to not do so. If Gayle's feeling have been hurt and she went running to papa CC, she doesn't have to post here anymore, it's her CHOICE, as lefty females like to tell us.
Way to miss the point Hunter.
Bravo.
Good job.
Seriously, that level of dishonesty is what we've come to know and love from so many of you on the right. Bless you for staying the course.
Now, can you explain to me, as I asked you so very politely, how your insults are somehow more civil than a swear word?
Further, and I'm asking now, not leading (please note the difference, you lead and make things up, I'm asking a question): In what way do you think I (or Gayle for that matter) have advanced an opinion on this specific situation.
Gayle explained the law (not an opinion, but the facts of the law) and I pointed out that she/he had done that and tried to add some examples to further explain how the law works. This isn't a matter of opinion, this is a simple reality of how the Canadian Criminal Code works. For this Gayle was mocked ("your reality" is the term that one of your commentators used... which reminds me of that joke about reality having a left wing bias .. but I digress).
What bothers me (I wouldn't say "upset" as much as "makes me curious at the apparent internal inconsistencies of your logic") is how you can ban swearing and promote civility all while insulting people.
I would also like to address: Was it not lefties that were protesting Galloway's right to free speech? The facts are that lefties will protest in support of terrorist supporters, remember Coderre marching with Hezbollah and Liberal MP's at Tamil functions?
Let's start with Galloway shall we? I think the man is a loathsome self promoting toad. I think he's sell his mother down the river to advance his political causes. By which I mean I believe him to be a politician. He's been convicted of nothing, he's broken no laws and he was banned from coming to Canada for political reasons (but but but the $45000 dollars!!! He gave that to the legally elected government of that region. I don't like them. At all. But they won. Democracy sucks like that sometimes).
Still on Galloway, do you really think that it's a great idea, from a strategic point of view, to point at him and mock people for wanting him to have the right of free speech? It just strikes me that one could then point to your side of the aisle and point out some of the people that you and yours have supported of late. I'm just saying.
Coderre marched with Hezbollah? Really. Hmm... I don't remember him going over to the middle east to do that. Oh! Wait, you mean he marched in a parade where there were people with Hezbolah flags present. Yeah, that's the same thing. Yes yes.
Now, about Liberal MPs at Tamil functions (by which I think you mean Tamil Tiger, unless you think that the entire Tamil community is suspect...). That would be something that I'd wear and would sting me if, you know I'd ever voted for the LPC in my whole life.
Sadly for your "gotcha!!!" moment, I never have.
Sorry (this binary thought process you're caught in is playing hell on your debating - one can be against something with out automatically being for the opposite thing).
Hey, now can we talk about CPC members of parliament rising in defense of people who blog like they are channeling David Duke? Or CPC members at functions that also had ties to unsavory groups?
Again, not to tell you how to debate, but once one opens a door, the other guy gets to go through it so, to switch metaphors, glass houses etc etc.
Finally, your last comment If Gayle's feeling have been hurt and she went running to papa CC, she doesn't have to post here anymore, it's her CHOICE, as lefty females like to tell us., it's funny, but once again I sense a tiny bit of the uncivil and I'm left wondering, once again, why these rules that you love don't apply to you.
Actually, that could be the over all theme of this whole post couldn't it?
They absolutely do not get the the simplicity of the solution or complication of the cause.
If we did not have 30+ years of nurturing the bad guy and victimizing the victims, we would not have mindless little losers, knowing they could.
That's the simple part and the complicated part is well, Mr Trudeau with a fattening dollop of, Mr Chretien. Undoing this moral disaster will be, chaotically complicated.
Cameron, your arrogant Liberal/lefty I'm right attitude is showing. Now, can you explain to me, as I asked you so very politely, how your insults are somehow more civil than a swear word?
My insults? Oh, you mean this?
If I'm correct, could you please explain how "mindless drones over here from leftyville" does not denigrate everyone on the left?
Oh poor baby, can't handle the lefty label? Of course I can denigrate lefties, it's freedom of speech. I don't find it denigrating, just the truth.
You are of course right, we shouldn't debate an issue that might hurt someone's feelings. But, us rednecks don't much cotton to those there ideas of group think and criminals need to be cuddled. We prefer our guns, beer and God.
Let me be clear, anyone threatening me, my family or my property, are going to be met with force, even if it is a baseball bat to the head, or perfectly legal bear spray.
If the law, that Gayle loves to quote, makes that a criminal act, so be it. You can bet that a jury of my peers (rednecks) will understand my motivation and acquit me.
If the judge overrules their verdict as Gayle suggested, then they will be forced to let me go on house arrest, as this is now the accepted sentence for murder. (see http://www2.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=228adfcf-add4-497e-8709-9666c832ad03&k=39677).
You see the law only when it helps your cause, and lefties use the HRC's to further their cause, and if that doesn't work you protest.
Us rednecks, we just mind our own business, unless our property is threatened, and then we could really care less that the guy stealing our car is from a typical dysfunctional lefty family.
Ah, more insults instead of an argument.
Thank you hunter, this has been most instructional.
This is what happens when one of the dread lefties tries to discuss anything with you.
Thanks.
If the law, that Gayle loves to quote, makes that a criminal act, so be it. You can bet that a jury of my peers (rednecks) will understand my motivation and acquit me.
And then the law that Gayle loves to quote (you know, the one that is, you know, the law) would have worked wouldn't it have?
And it's not the "lefty" label (if you'd bothered to read my comments, something I'm starting to realize you don't do, you'd see I used it on myself) it's the "mindless" bit.
But, us rednecks don't much cotton to those there ideas of group think and criminals need to be cuddled. Can you show me where I said that criminals need to be cuddled? You can't. That's called lying hunter. That's not denigrating, that's the truth.
You see the law only when it helps your cause, and lefties use the HRC's to further their cause, and if that doesn't work you protest. No, again, if you'd read my early comments I pointed out that I might not like a law, but that I understood that it existed and understood that it would be applied to me if I broke it. You're making things up again. What does a discussion of vigilantism have to do with the HRC's? I find this very curious. I expect that you'll start calling me a terrorist lover again shortly, since that would also be a) not true and b) totally off topic.
Finally, arrogance? Arrogance is posting a half-baked argument for vigilantism and then insulting anyone who points out that the Canadian Criminal Code was applied perfectly correctly in this case.
Again, thank you for keeping true to form.
Your welcome Cameron, you all come back soon, ya'hear!
Like I said, what I expect from a BT, lies, half truths and evasion.
A triumph of a performance.
Oh, get off your high horse Cameron, you are a lefty that thinks he can come to a Conservative blog and preach to us about how wrong our thinking is.
If you do not like my opinions, or those of my posters, go back to the CC gang who think swearing makes their point for them.
Hunter, your opinion is that we should all be able to shoot criminals without consequence. When people offered a disenting point of view (based in law) ulyou started insulting us.
Proving that you don't care a whit about civility, just about swearing and tending to your echo chamber.
Wow Hunter
Your complete failure to grasp the point, and your need to resort to childish insults in lieu of rational argument, actually astounds me.
I mean, I knew it was bad, but really, it shocks me that anyone could be so obtuse.
Is that because you really do not get it, or because you are too arrogant to acknowledge when you have it wrong.
And just in case you were wondering, calling me a "lefty" is not actually a rational argument.
Try again.
Gee, I wonder if you will post a final insult and then shut down the comments? It is not like you have done that before or anything...
Re : Gayle : "As SQ points out above, allowing people to shoot trespassers will not prevent the trespass - if it did crime in the US would be non-existent."
I would say that if I was you too, but I say your wrong. You have it upside down.
The correct way to look at that would be " how much higher the crime rate in the US would be if
they didn't."
Another "no brainer" eh Gayle!
No, Cameron, I support the right of individuals to act in their best interests to protect their families and property. You just can't see that can you? You are totally blind to any other way of thinking about this issue then yours. Not one word about how the actual criminal got let out on bail. Nope, it's all about the victim being wrong.
You come here and TELL me how wrong I am? That's too funny! Could Cameron Campbell actually be CC in disguise? Now that would be really funny as I refuse to go anywhere near it's rabid blog, so it has to come here to get some attention.
Gayle it's not as if I called you a socialist....oh wait.
Gayle I am having way too much fun tonight, you lefties are hilarious. You all travel in groups because you are so insecure, you insult me and other posters and then whine about me not letting your comments through?
Be honest now Gayle, have I ever deleted one of your comments? Right, thought not, but go with the "she's a big Meany" shtick. This is not rabble or the globe and mail, I have the right to delete any comment for any reason, but I rarely do it. If I feel like it I can, for no reason, if you don't like that, start your own blog.
Re : Gayle : "And now, having read a news report about the incident in Langdon it appears I was correct. The two people who broke in physically attacked the two occupants of the home."
And it was YOU who was correct !
That's exactly what I said Gayle. Good Grief Gayle!
It seemed like another "no brainer" Gayle but I'll try again to make my point. Read slower and use your finger if it helps.
The point was, despite the totally obvious fact that the home owner was in the right, the RCMP and the media went public with their threats of charging this guy with a serious crime.
Well your idea of protection and the law of Canada don't jibe.
As for your paranoid theory about my initials: a simple
Ip log would prove u wrong. Here I'll help a bit: I'm on a Vodaphone NZ iphone in Dunedin, NZ.
SQ, if he had wanted to kill the guy he would have. I bet the name of the culprits are well known in the area, and spread around via the coffee shop. I think the guy is out without bail. Perhaps the cops etc should remember the 4 mounties killed by a known bad guy, but no one would put him away. Oh, and all those mass murders in the states in the past few days, all under O's watch. Wonder if that is the change he was promising voters.
"Obtuse" Gayle?
You're calling someone else "Obtuse"!
Now that's funny!
Good Night and Good Riddance:)
Over and Out.
I noticed that as well Blame Crash, but you are right, Gayle took the credit for what you had already stated as fact.
MaryT, From what Gayle has said on Blue like You, it was a pellet gun. Is that like the beebee guns we all had to shoot gophers with?
If in fact it was a pellet gun, the jury is guaranteed to laugh the case out of court.
If in fact it was a pellet gun, the jury is guaranteed to laugh the case out of court.
Then the system will have worked... just like it's supposed to.
Yay!
The thread is long, so I hope that someone's already pointed this out; The moment you decide to start shooting at someone you suspect has committed a crime (imminent threat to your life notwithstanding), you've made the leap from "law abiding citizen" to "vigilante judge-jury-and-executioner". The tenability of legally endorsing the use of lethal force in response to mere suspicion of attempted theft seems to me to be pretty self-evident.
Thanks, though, for giving us all a peek at what lies beneath that conservative "law and order" mask.
"The point was, despite the totally obvious fact that the home owner was in the right, the RCMP and the media went public with their threats of charging this guy with a serious crime."
Really? I thought you were trying to say the two incidents were the same. It was kind of hard to tell since your comments did not make much sense. You were trying to say I was wrong without actually saying why I was wrong. Oh, I know your opinion differs from mine, but since all I did was present the facts, and you, well, provided no facts to dispute them, I was just not sure what you were saying.
Furthermore, when in comes to Mr. Knight, it is not "totally obvious" he was defending himself. Maybe that is because he is not claiming he was trying to defend himself. No, he was trying to catch the guy who stole his property.
As for this:
"The correct way to look at that would be " how much higher the crime rate in the US would be if they didn't.""
I did not know we were just making stuff up to "prove" our points. If I knew I could indulge in some creative writing I, too, could have produced a work of fiction to "defend" my position.
Sadly, I am a bit obsessed with grounding my comments in reality...
"Go back home and learn to think for yourself kevron."
no.
KEvron
Gayle, and we all know that facts have a left wing bias.
Post a Comment