• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Victoria is facing a public-safety crisis

OldSolduer said:
Oh yes this happened in Calgary in 1986. A drug store had been robbed twice by the same robber, third time the owner blasted him with a shotgun. Dead.

Not guilty. By a jury of his peers.
Click to expand...
I remember that - was living in Q's and the place wasn't far from the Base. I seem to recall the big issue was he shot them in the back while running away (or was that the second time he schwacked someone - IIRC, he shot two people in successive robberies)?
 
Halifax Tar said:
That and it's showing way(s) in which our legal system is failing. Words and paper are great when people are willing honor them equally.

What we see now is what happens when a certain segment of the population understands that it really means nothing and the only absolute is what's in front of your face at the moment.

Eventually the citizenry will fix this if the powers that be continue to spin their wheels.

This from Halifax:

halifax.citynews.ca

Police believe homicide victim was invading home

Investigators believe two men were committing a home invasion when they were confronted by a resident
halifax.citynews.ca halifax.citynews.ca

Chalk that up as a win for the good guys.
Click to expand...
Finally, a good news story

(Good news in the sense that the homeowner that was being robbed didn't end up in more trouble than the robber)
 
That article is written in an American context of exercising rights of self defence - which is somewhat more permissive in the US than in Canada. He was charged with murder because the offender that died was shot in the back while fleeing. He was likely able to articulate something regarding fear for life of being caught between two armed robbers I'm guessing and dealt with the one not shooting back first to take them out of the picture, thinking they might come back and flank them or something. Speculation on my part.

Halifax Tar said:
I shed no tears nor lose any sleep over the death of a criminal.
Click to expand...

I rarely do either, however schwacking someone after the fact vs in literal commission are really two different things. There really is a fine line you're toeing that you can fall over and land flat on your face if you're not careful. I'm sure a copper might chime in. I'm also looking at things from the side of a prospective juror, as I have a summons to appear for jury service this month :rolleyes: .
 
medicineman said:
That article is written in an American context of exercising rights of self defence - which is somewhat more permissive in the US than in Canada. He was charged with murder because the offender that died was shot in the back while fleeing. He was likely able to articulate something regarding fear for life of being caught between two armed robbers I'm guessing and dealt with the one not shooting back first to take them out of the picture, thinking they might come back and flank them or something. Speculation on my part.



I rarely do either, however schwacking someone after the fact vs in literal commission are really two different things. There really is a fine line you're toeing that you can fall over and land flat on your face if you're not careful. I'm sure a copper might chime in. I'm also looking at things from the side of a prospective juror, as I have a summons to appear for jury service this month :rolleyes: .
Click to expand...
A prisoner of war armed robber is someone who tries to kill you and, having failed, begs you not to kill him. :cool:

some guy named Churchill
 
medicineman said:
I rarely do either, however schwacking someone after the fact vs in literal commission are really two different things. There really is a fine line you're toeing that you can fall over and land flat on your face if you're not careful. I'm sure a copper might chime in. I'm also looking at things from the side of a prospective juror, as I have a summons to appear for jury service this month :rolleyes: .
Click to expand...

With respect you and the law can hand wring over technicalities if you'd like, I am comfortable in my clarity.

The criminal does not cease being the criminal if they are not presently commiting a crime. Killed in the act, or die in their sleep. I care not which way, I sleep soundly and without tear.
 
Last edited:
Kat Stevens said:
A prisoner of war armed robber is someone who tries to kill you and, having failed, begs you not to kill him. :cool:

some guy named Churchill
Click to expand...
Can almost guarantee that if that were a police officer that shot someone in the back, fleeing or not, they'd be pushing carts at Costco not long afterwards, if nothing else because of the optics of shooting someone in the back who was no longer an active threat...in fact, I seem to recall a few years after this incident a Calgary cop mag dumping their Glock at the back of a fleeing car that tried running them over...they were suspended. While said dirtbag did try running them over (and a Calgary cop had been killed a few years previous by another dirtbag that ran them over while he was tossing a spike belt out in front of them to end a chase), the person and car were no longer a threat AND it was a busy street, and not many rounds made it to the car, so that means those rounds were flying around 14th Ave as the bars were emptying. Had they Bootlegged it and drove back at them, another story that might have ended differently.

Again, I have no issue with dickheads being removed from society by taking the sidewalk temperature challenge...I'm just saying we have to be careful that we do it right and don't turn into the same dickheads, as we will lose what rights we have. As it is, the bad guys seem to have more rights than us.

Halifax Tar said:
With respect you and the law can rand wring over technicalities if you'd like, I am comfortable in my clarity.

The criminal does not cease being the criminal if they are not presently commiting a crime. Killed in the act, or die in their sleep. I care not which way, I sleep soundly and without tear.
Click to expand...
It's not the Wild West anymore...You may want to go to West World to try and work out some issues ;).
 
Halifax Tar said:
With respect you and the law can hand wring over technicalities if you'd like, I am comfortable in my clarity.

The criminal does not cease being the criminal if they are not presently commiting a crime. Killed in the act, or die in their sleep. I care not which way, I sleep soundly and without tear.
Click to expand...
Sure, but those ‘technicalities’ determine whether someone has committed a crime and goes to jail, or whether they acted in legitimate self defense.

Any use of deadly force, by police or a civilian, will only be justified if the person using force can explain why they perceived a threat of death or grievous bodily harm to themselves or another. It has to be an imminent and realistic threat, not a conceptual, hypothetical, or future one.

There can be circumstances where it may be justified and even necessary to shoot someone in the back- say they’re an active shooter moving away from you and towards new victims; we actually go through this as a training scenario. But these are vents are rare. In a case where someone is fleeing a crime scene, you can’t shoot them to stop them fleeing and arrest them. (There’s a very narrow exception for certain cases of escape from a penitentiary, but I’m not up to speed on the fine details of that.)

Anyway- the right to use deadly force in self defense stops when the imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm stops. If the person turns and runs and you have time to perceive that, good luck articulating why you shot at them as they fled. You’ll be charged and probably convicted, and it will be correct. But, in the moment of self defense, you can absolutely use reasonably necessary and proportionate force with whatever is at hand. Even something unlawfully possessed can be lawfully used in self defense, though that won’t get you off the hook for possessing it.
 
Most of the recent self-defense cases in Canada involved bad guy vs bad guy. Lethal force in Canada is still legitimate for citizens, but as Brihard mentions, you can still be charged and consider that the Crown will not be your friend. If you are likely to be in a situation where deadly force is going to be used, then what you said beforehand and afterward will be used against you. Boastful posting about shooting someone could come back to haunt you at the trial.
 
Colin Parkinson said:
Most of the recent self-defense cases in Canada involved bad guy vs bad guy. Lethal force in Canada is still legitimate for citizens, but as Brihard mentions, you can still be charged and consider that the Crown will not be your friend. If you are likely to be in a situation where deadly force is going to be used, then what you said beforehand and afterward will be used against you. Boastful posting about shooting someone could come back to haunt you at the trial.
Click to expand...

If you pull a trigger, be prepared to explain why to a judge and jury ;)
 
brihard said:
Sure, but those ‘technicalities’ determine whether someone has committed a crime and goes to jail, or whether they acted in legitimate self defense.

Any use of deadly force, by police or a civilian, will only be justified if the person using force can explain why they perceived a threat of death or grievous bodily harm to themselves or another. It has to be an imminent and realistic threat, not a conceptual, hypothetical, or future one.

There can be circumstances where it may be justified and even necessary to shoot someone in the back- say they’re an active shooter moving away from you and towards new victims; we actually go through this as a training scenario. But these are vents are rare. In a case where someone is fleeing a crime scene, you can’t shoot them to stop them fleeing and arrest them. (There’s a very narrow exception for certain cases of escape from a penitentiary, but I’m not up to speed on the fine details of that.)

Anyway- the right to use deadly force in self defense stops when the imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm stops. If the person turns and runs and you have time to perceive that, good luck articulating why you shot at them as they fled. You’ll be charged and probably convicted, and it will be correct. But, in the moment of self defense, you can absolutely use reasonably necessary and proportionate force with whatever is at hand. Even something unlawfully possessed can be lawfully used in self defense, though that won’t get you off the hook for possessing it.
Click to expand...

Very good, it's all a word salad that I've read before. And I fully expect you're in everyway correct.

It's still changes nothing for me. A dead criminal means nothing to me.
 
Halifax Tar said:
Very good, it's all a word salad that I've read before. And I fully expect you're in everyway correct.

It's still changes nothing for me. A dead criminal means nothing to me.
Click to expand...
Am I the only one who finds it odd that folks found it necessary to explain to you the fundamental rule of engagement - self-defence - on this forum of all places? 😅

I thought it was very clear from the get go that your stance is a moral one, not a legal or technical one.
 
Colin Parkinson said:
If you are likely to be in a situation where deadly force is going to be used, then what you said beforehand and afterward will be used against you. Boastful posting about shooting someone could come back to haunt you at the trial.
Click to expand...

Possibly even as a job applicant.
www.thestar.com

Would you reveal your Facebook password for a job?

In their efforts to vet applicants, some companies and government agencies are going beyond merely glancing at a person’s social networking profiles and instead asking to log in as the user to have a look around.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com
 
Colin Parkinson said:
Most of the recent self-defense cases in Canada involved bad guy vs bad guy. Lethal force in Canada is still legitimate for citizens, but as Brihard mentions, you can still be charged and consider that the Crown will not be your friend. If you are likely to be in a situation where deadly force is going to be used, then what you said beforehand and afterward will be used against you. Boastful posting about shooting someone could come back to haunt you at the trial.
Click to expand...

As a legal firearms owner I am well versed on the sad trials we put our people through because they had to take law into their own hands.

I remain unchanged, a dead criminal means nothing to me. You want to live that life, you accept it's possible fates and outcomes. Same as all choices we make in life, righteous or evil.
 
A dead criminal may mean nothing to you, but if you are the one to put them in that state, you had better be prepared to justify your actions or you may be arguing your case to a cell-mate.

The actions and force must be justified and proportionate. We've moved on from mobs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blackadder1916
    • Wow
Saanich Bank Robbery/Aftermath (sep fm Victoria is facing a public-safety crisis)
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
45K
The Bread Guy
The Bread Guy
daftandbarmy
    • Like
Vancouver, Surrey voters elect new mayors; bring promises of more police, RCMP stays
2 3
Replies
56
Views
26K
Good2Golf
Good2Golf
daftandbarmy
‘Defence’ doesn’t fit the job of Canada’s military any more. Let’s create a Department of National Safety instead
2 3
Replies
46
Views
72K
foresterab
F
Kirkhill
    • Insightful
Artillery Logistics Lessons.
5 6 7
Replies
137
Views
68K
FJAG
FJAG
C
Vancouver Mayor, Police Chief say city facing "mental health crisis"
Replies
14
Views
16K
The Bread Guy
The Bread Guy
Back
Top