Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Seriously? It Was Okay For A Woman To Protect Herself And Her Baby?

Well, not here in Canada, but maybe we should be looking at a form of Castle Doctrine here.

The H/T from the comments:


Mike from Saskatoon
This is ludicrous.  Canada needs a Castle Doctrine.  We need to drop this dangerous and ignorant situation where the government treats people defending themselves and their property as criminals.

The US has many problems, but this is one area where they got it right.  A prime example would be the 18 year old mother in Oklahoma who faced a home invasion on Dec 31 2011.  She was recently widowed and had a 3 month old at home, and two men tried to break into her home.  She barricaded the door & called 911, but for over 20 minutes the cops didn't show up.  She ended up having to shoot one of the criminals when he managed to break down the front door, killing him.

US reaction:  congratulate the woman, and charge the surviving criminal with murder.

Canadian reaction:  haul the woman to jail, charge her with murder, and hand her child over to strangers to raise.

No sane person can say our system is superior.
I'm thinking, is that a REAL story? So, I searched it out, and sure enough, it's true!

A young Oklahoma mother shot and killed an intruder to protect her 3-month-old baby on New Year's Eve, less than a week after the baby's father died of cancer.
Sarah McKinley says that a week earlier a man named Justin Martin dropped by on the day of her husband's funeral, claiming that he was a neighbor who wanted to say hello. The 18-year-old Oklahoma City area woman did not let him into her home that day.
On New Year's Eve Martin returned with another man, Dustin Stewart, and this time was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife. The two soon began trying to break into McKinley's home.
As one of the men was going from door to door outside her home trying to gain entry, McKinley called 911 and grabbed her 12-gauge shotgun.
McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO that she quickly got her 12 gauge, went into her bedroom and got a pistol, put the bottle in the baby's mouth and called 911.
 Make sure you watch the video at that site, it will make you think about how our citizens in Canada are treated. Thankfully this guy had video too! If it would have been just his word against the criminals, the criminals would have won. Despite the taped evidence of criminals fire bombing his place.....

He is the one being charged with illegal storage of fire arms. That is how stupid Canadian law is. The guy under threat from three terrorists, is on trial. We need a form of the Castle doctrine:


Typical conditions that apply to some Castle Doctrine laws include[citation needed]:
  • An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business or vehicle.
  • The intruder must be acting illegally—the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack, for example, officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
  • The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
  • In some states, the occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some lesser felony, such as arson or burglary
  • The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
  • The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)
In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law or aiding or abetting another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use force upon an officer of the law performing a legal duty
Another person leaving a comment stated it better than I could:

 
Hobbittall
Incredible story.

Mr. Thompson did make several mistakes though and he deserves to pay.
1) He should have used a shotgun and left these bombers as a puddle on his lawn.
2) He is a white male (and therefore he has no rights).
3) He is not Indian like chiefie Spence of Attawapiskat so "Blame the victim" will not work.

I could go on with his multitude of faults...

It's clear that his proper course of action would have been to twiddle his thumbs in the corner saying "Our Father who art in Queens Park, Dalton be thy name..." as fire bombs rained down on himself and his property.

He still has a chance to redeem himself slightly though. If he were to self immolate on the steps of Queens Park to partially compensate society for his grievous crimes.

Throw the book at him I say!
As a female, I am supposed to shout "FIRE" if some predator is chasing me down the street. God forbid I have a gun to protect myself, and if I did happen to have a gun (yikes) it should be triple, double, double, locked up at home with the ammo for it at my Mom's house 8 blocks away.

Our laws are ridiculous. Mr. Thomson should have never been charged with anything, period. Unfortunately, our liberal attorney generals and police listen to Dalton and other political people and forget that their jobs are to protect, we the people, not we the politicians. Mr. Thomson has killed fewer people than a certain ex-attorney general in Ontario. 

Mr. Thomson now has to pay court and lawyer fees, while the criminals who fire bombed his place get court appointed lawyers, and they have not been charged with the most obvious crime they tried to commit, ATTEMPTED MURDER.

The main reason for the governments (on all levels) lack of response to this crime against citizens is that we have no property rights. The government reserves the right to take away anything from us, because they have the power. This is what we should be yelling about as freedom loving people.

3 comments:

gimbol said...

Seems inevitable that this will lead to vigilante behavior.

Eskimo said...

You can have no rights to protect your property until you have property rights enshrined into law.

Patsplace said...

It's a terrifying thing to be threatened with death or major harm and KNOW that your government is going to attack you for defending yourself.