If he has a '64 Corvette split window coupe, it's definitely a collector's item, because it would be the only one ever made.
Home invasion Canadian style
- Thread starter Bald1
- Start date
- Status
OP
He knows it's a 63. He's a car guy. Just a typo.
GypsmJim
Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2009
- Messages
- 4,129
- Reaction score
- 7,269
Yeah, but not a typo, just old age memory loss.
Outpost75
Member
A neighbor not very far away raises pigs and has a backhoe.
Having lived in Canada, I can tell you that people there are indoctrinated against the idea of self defense and especially gun ownership for self defense.
In fact, if you apply for any of the multiple types of firearm permits (and this was decades ago!) even mentioning self defense was a sure fire way of guaranteeing that your application would be denied.
You would often read or hear in the news/media smug, self-righteous statements like, "We Canadians have always been willing to sacrifice some of our freedom to live in a safer society than the US."
The majority there truly believe this, even when they're getting robbed/beaten/stabbed/shot.
"Take off, eh, you hosers"!
In fact, if you apply for any of the multiple types of firearm permits (and this was decades ago!) even mentioning self defense was a sure fire way of guaranteeing that your application would be denied.
You would often read or hear in the news/media smug, self-righteous statements like, "We Canadians have always been willing to sacrifice some of our freedom to live in a safer society than the US."
The majority there truly believe this, even when they're getting robbed/beaten/stabbed/shot.
"Take off, eh, you hosers"!
OP
I think that number is closer to 40%. But I do know the majority of Canadians live close to US border. As populated as Ontario is. It's still pretty rural, especially north of Toronto. Barrie , Simcoe, Muskoka Nippising etc. It's funny how the border crossing in Buffalo is in the heart of a large city. Right across the Bridge is Ft Erie Ontario. Small town that becomes rural real quick. My buddy would tell me about duck and rabbit hunting while hearing truck traffic on Buffalo side of river.
There's "a bit of a gafuffle" over this issue up here right now as there have been cases of citizens being charged for protecting their homes. Home attacks are not common, but they are happening more than they used to. Violent crime is on the rise. The police have been asking for bail reform to keep violent criminals and reoffenders behind bars, but to little avail.
This is part of an email I got this morning from "one of our political parties":
In Canada, your home is supposed to be your sanctuary.
A place where your family is safe.
But under the [current] broken justice system, honest Canadians who are just defending their families are treated like criminals.
All while repeat violent offenders get out on bail and walk free.
And yet, in response to Pierre Poilievre's announcement calling on the government to amend the Criminal Code to ensure Canadians won't be thrown in jail for simply defending their homes, their families and themselves, here's what a Liberal Minister had to say:
No, it isn't "the wild west" but he's clearly out of touch and thinking of the Canada of 25+ years ago.
Relatively few of us have guns (compared to you folks), and keeping a firearm within reach "just in case" is verboten - they must be locked up and unloaded. I'm not sure what charges you'd be faciing if you used something other than a gun, but the thought of using a firearm is simply abhorrent to those currently in charge of our fair country. We are allowed to "use up to lethal force if deemed necessary" to defend our lives, but not our property AFAIK. And even defending our lives with a gun will result in having to defend yourself in court to explain how you managed to have a gun available.
We appreciate the relative lack of violence up here, but we seem to be unwilling to accept the increasing reduction of innocence that we have enjoyed for so long.
OP
Brownhat, the problem as I see it is someone stealing property can and probably will escalate into violence against the citizen. Now you're defending your life. Sounds like all reasonable thinking has gone out the window
Matt_X
Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2023
- Messages
- 349
- Reaction score
- 323
That is generally true in the US as well. One can respond proportionally to threats (or reasonably perceived threat) to life or extreme bodily harm. It seems the difference is mostly in how the laws view that perception, and whether the action is considered 'justifiable' rather than 'excusable'.
The big divergence seems be how the US laws generally presume a home to be more than property. Another aspect, at least in many of states, is what you write. An entry, particularly a forced entry, is seen as reasonable indicator that the person(s) entering are willing to use extreme force against the occupants. However if their actions prove otherwise (such as fleeing when confronted) then with maybe one or two exceptions, additional force is no longer justified.
My comments here about Canadian and UK laws are drawn from https://law-school.open.ac.uk/overv...shmans-castle-use-lethal-force-defence#ou-org which is not strictly a legal analysis but a look at how laws in different places relate to the expected or natural emotional response when a home has been invaded.
OP
Matt you may be correct. But if someone forcibly breaks in. And is then convinced he pick the wrong house and tries to retreat. Is the home owner supposed to assume he will not reengage ? I personally am not giving a home invader the chance to say "oh my bad, we good"
We are very very NOT GOOD.
We are very very NOT GOOD.
A) He was NOT "murdered".
B) He was kicking in the entry door in the middle of the night.
C) He got exactly what that behavior earned.
D) He won't be doing that again.
kamloops67
Member
Oh boy , now we get to hear the bs here as well ,not just Facebook etc
A lot of us Canadians are ready to do what's necessary at the appropriate time
There is a pretty loud conversation going on right now in the wake of several deadly home invasions
Our conservative leader is talking about the need for castle doctrine , such as is found in your peaceful country
There are still many people that want to institute conceal carry , I don't see that happening , nor would I necessarily want it .
Most of the people I meet don't have the emotional maturity to pack a gun
Wilderness carry I would completely support
Don't judge Canada on the basis of what some liberal idiot police chiefs say
A lot of us Canadians are ready to do what's necessary at the appropriate time
There is a pretty loud conversation going on right now in the wake of several deadly home invasions
Our conservative leader is talking about the need for castle doctrine , such as is found in your peaceful country
There are still many people that want to institute conceal carry , I don't see that happening , nor would I necessarily want it .
Most of the people I meet don't have the emotional maturity to pack a gun
Wilderness carry I would completely support
Don't judge Canada on the basis of what some liberal idiot police chiefs say
Anyone who thinks ringing a doorbell is justification for deadly force frightens me. You, sir, frighten me. Note to self...keep the grandkids a million miles away from where that guy lives.
"some liberal idiot police chiefs"? It seems to me to be a pretty strong indication on how to base my judgement. If his is NOT the dominant view point in Canada then why would a free population allow him the power he holds?
Matt_X
Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2023
- Messages
- 349
- Reaction score
- 323
If that is a reasonable conclusion based on the totality of the circumstances.
So if he is running out the door, shooting him in the back will be legally problematic, and for most of us morally problematic, unless perhaps there is some reason we know he is very dangerous.
On the other hand, detaining him at gunpoint until the police arrive is reasonable, if your state allows. I think it would be unreasonable to put your gun away if the gun is how you convinced him to change his mind.
tripledipper
Member
Law enforcement is supposed to be apolitical but today's LE brass are just politicians with badges so we can assume that also applies to Canadian LE as well. The other issue is how many firearms are owned.There are 35 guns per 100 people in Canada versus 120 guns per 100 people here, so the bad guys up there are less concerned about being confronted by citizens when committing crimes. Eh?
He was an 11 year old child . A child……a…. Child ……
To be honest I might put myself in that category. I'm very familiar with guns but at this point in my life (73) I think I would be uncomfortable carrying a gun, except in the bush, except perhaps if I took some serious training. Agree 100% on wilderness carry. AFAIK you can't even shoot a handgun on your own property, even if you are on lots of acreage outside city limits. A woman in Alberta got charged for that I few years ago I think.
I don't know the opinions of most of our police chiefs, but the insatiable desire of some Liberals to keep adding ridiculous regulations about owning guns is not supported by many police chiefs. What they want is bail reform and stiffer penalties for criminals. I know that a few years ago when there was a push to ban handguns, including by the idiot mayor of Vancouver at the time, the then head of the Can. Assoc. of Chiefs of Police, who was also the head of the Vancouver Police, thought it a complete waste of time, effort and money. And a lot of this is the usual urban/rural divide.
- Status
Similar threads
