thou shalt not kill

thou shalt not kill

Postby mexi cali » Feb 9th, 2018, 10:44 am

"Opinion: No, rural Prairie dwellers, you can’t shoot to protect your property"

"The death of Colten Boushie"

Rural folk in the Saskatchewan area are lobbying for the right to protect their property and possessions with lethal force.

It is a complex, societal issue with no easy answers as far as I can see but I am interested in what others think about this.

Boushie was on Gerald Stanleysproperty illegally. Likely up to no good but regardless. Stanley says he fired at least two warning shots from his handgun but the vehicle with Boushie and friends did not leave. He says he removed the magazine, forgot about the round in the chamber and approached the car, reached in to remove the keys and the gun discharged killing Boushie. Maybe, maybe not.

Now, he is fighting for his own life and I think he goes to prison for manslaughter. We'll see.

Anyhow, the interesting question is how others feel about the extent that individuals should be able to go to to protect their property.

Using this situation as an example, I suggest this; the property owner does not know the intent of the people who are illegally on his property. This could be literally any situation and not just this one.

He is armed, as most rural dwellers are and he has attempted to get the intruders to leave. They don't.

Is a piece of physical property worth a life? Mostly no but again, the property owner doesn't know what the intent of the intruders is.

At what point can you justifiably use deadly force to protect life and limb? If you have reason to believe that you are in harms way because of the presence of intruders on your property, what do you do? do you wait to determine what it is they want? Do you wait to see evidence of a weapon?

Do you wait until they have physically harmed you? Do you wait until they have entered your home where your family may be?

It is very easy to suggest that no piece of physical property is worth killing someone over if you were not in the situation which resulted in a life being lost. If you weren't the one who had to make what could be a split second decision which could impact the rest of your life.

Like I said; there are no easy answers but there are opinions and I would like to hear what people have to say.

I would ask that before you answer on either side that you try to envison it being you who is being confronted.
Praise the lord and pass the ammunition

2 people like this post.
User avatar
mexi cali
Guru
 
Posts: 5331
Likes: 2203 posts
Liked in: 3323 posts
Joined: May 5th, 2009, 2:48 pm

Re: thou shalt not kill

Postby Bsuds » Feb 9th, 2018, 11:03 am

We once had 4 drunks trying to break in our back door while we were home.
They were determined and even after I yelled at them from inside they continued to kick the door.
Luckily when my Wife called 911 and the Police came in less than 5 min they ran away.

If the Police had not arrived quickly and they had breached the door I would happily have shot them. (if I had a gun which I don't).

As far as the guy on the farm we have to consider that he is situated in a remote area and help is not close or is going to arrive quickly if at all. I'm not sure I believe it happened that way but we were not there. Was he justified? Maybe, maybe not but he warned them and they should have left.

It's unfortunate that someone died but given the circumstances I might have done the same.
I have never tried Yoga but I bent over to pick up my keys once so I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like it.

9 people like this post.
User avatar
Bsuds
The Wagon Master
 
Posts: 42134
Likes: 8175 posts
Liked in: 10353 posts
Joined: Apr 21st, 2005, 10:46 am

Re: thou shalt not kill

Postby coffeeFreak » Feb 9th, 2018, 1:14 pm

Of course this conversation is based on the assumption that the farmer's version of events is true.

2 people like this post.
User avatar
coffeeFreak
Guru
 
Posts: 5173
Likes: 1089 posts
Liked in: 451 posts
Joined: Oct 22nd, 2009, 6:06 pm

Re: thou shalt not kill

Postby Ka-El » Feb 9th, 2018, 4:34 pm

mexi cali wrote: At what point can you justifiably use deadly force to protect life and limb? If you have reason to believe that you are in harms way because of the presence of intruders on your property, what do you do? do you wait to determine what it is they want? Do you wait to see evidence of a weapon?

Interesting questions, but I think (and hope) there is little chance the Criminal Code will be amended to allow people the right to protect their property and possessions with lethal force. As far as protecting life and limb, or believing you are in harm’s way, section 37.(1) of the Criminal Code specifies “everyone is justified in using force to defend himself or anyone under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it. Section 37.(2) goes on to state “nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent”. Presumably, if you saw evidence of a weapon and could justifiably argue you feared for your life, you could be vindicated in using lethal force.

More specific to matters concerning the protection of property, section 41.(1) states “everyone who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling house or real property, and everyone lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than necessary.” In other words, you cannot shoot someone dead because they were trying to steal your snowblower. Even if we choose to believe the farmer’s versions of events (“I didn’t know my gun was still loaded”), he was using a firearm for lethal threat and/or intent and is responsible for the outcome. Sadly, it would seem to me that he would certainly be guilty of manslaughter, and since a firearm was used in the commission of the offence he will face a minimum sentence of four years (section 236(a)) if convicted.

eta: another opinion:

The death of Colten Boushie has exposed many ugly attitudes in Saskatchewan, and few as troubling as the idea that a person has some inherent right to shoot to protect property like ATVs, trucks and tools. The argument has taken root in online debate around the trial of Gerald Stanley, the man accused of killing Boushie, and it’s hard to say what’s more astounding: the ignorance underlying it, or the arrogance it implies.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/op ... &ocid=iehp
research shows right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and people with low
childhood intelligence that tend to grow up to be conservative with racist and homophobic views

2 people like this post.
User avatar
Ka-El
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 4454
Likes: 2256 posts
Liked in: 3876 posts
Joined: Oct 18th, 2015, 9:19 am

Re: thou shalt not kill

Postby vegas1500 » Feb 9th, 2018, 5:41 pm

I think the farmer in question should have stayed indoors instead of confronting them. That being said I am in favor of using lethal force if my life is in danger in my own home. I may or may not have a glock in the night stand and if I was awoken to an intruder in my house, my only assumption would be that they are there to harm me. I would have no problem using lethal force and dealing with the consequences. A friend of mine lost his cousin because she was awoken by an intruder and was stabbed in the hallway. Happened in Edmonton I believe early 90s... this past summer in my neighborhood there was 3 armed home invasions during the daylight. They were driving around and looking for people in their garage with the door open...like many people do on a nice summers night. I do believe if you choose to use a weapon, you should be well trained and willing to pull the trigger.

http://edmontonsun.com/2014/11/02/forme ... 164a65d90e

5 people like this post.
User avatar
vegas1500
Übergod
 
Posts: 1053
Likes: 3154 posts
Liked in: 1341 posts
Joined: Aug 4th, 2013, 6:53 pm

Re: thou shalt not kill

Postby Veovis » Feb 9th, 2018, 6:15 pm

Out on a farm, no cops are coming. A discussion means you and your family are raped, murdered or worse. We cannot have a law saying you can shoot if you feel like it, any death should require investigation and justification, however, we can't have a law that makes people up to no good feel safe either.

Perhaps a proximity to police station slide rule.....

Heck I live in town and if people broke in, in the night, I would have the police called, but if needed I would hope I would kill them to save mine.

6 people like this post.
Veovis
Guru
 
Posts: 5687
Likes: 839 posts
Liked in: 3846 posts
Joined: Apr 19th, 2007, 3:11 pm

Re: thou shalt not kill

Postby Queen K » Feb 9th, 2018, 6:25 pm

I may or may not have bear spray on hand right in my room.

I've been in a van at night where drunks tried to break in. This was in Edmonton, years ago. I still remember what it felt like way back then.

Coming home to my B&E, never occurred to me that the perps might still be in the basement when I ran down there to check o things. Assumed they were gone. DOH. Good thing they were.
Our saddest days are when we add up our losses, and losses seem to be our saddest when we lose our best. Proud to be a "Leaf-licker" and I know who else is too. **smiles**
User avatar
Queen K
Queen of the Castle
 
Posts: 52095
Likes: 11651 posts
Liked in: 12105 posts
Joined: Jan 31st, 2007, 12:39 pm
Location: What? You mean here?

Re: thou shalt not kill

Postby featfan » Feb 9th, 2018, 7:04 pm

Sask farmer found Not Guilty re CBC news.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada

6 people like this post.
featfan
Board Meister
 
Posts: 609
Likes: 432 posts
Liked in: 193 posts
Joined: Jul 21st, 2005, 11:48 am

Re: thou shalt not kill

Postby Nedroj » Feb 9th, 2018, 7:59 pm

Just read the story and verdict and I agree I believe justice has been served. It was an unfortunate self defence accident and I would say the trespassers were more at fault for 1) trespassing in the first place and 2) continually trespassing after being warned multiple Times.

If this was in the states they wouldn’t have even received a warning, just simply shot in the head. Luckily this is Canada and they were given plenty of chances to retreat. And I’m sure this guy will live with the moral guilt of having taken someone’s life for the rest of his life. Even though he’s not guilty.

But what annoys me more so now about this is the reaction from the family claiming it’s because Colton was a First Nations and the justice system is racist. Which is complete non sense and the typical bs we’ve seen recently. Race had nothing to do with the verdict.

Outside the courthouse, Baptiste said to reporters the justice system has to change to serve First Nations people
.”
'I hear and I forget, I see and I remember, I do and I understand' - Confucius

3 people like this post.
Nedroj
Fledgling
 
Posts: 138
Likes: 73 posts
Liked in: 167 posts
Joined: Apr 10th, 2014, 2:36 pm

Re: thou shalt not kill

Postby Queen K » Feb 9th, 2018, 8:20 pm

In complete agreement Nedroj, if this case has nothing to do with race.

Try telling them that.
Our saddest days are when we add up our losses, and losses seem to be our saddest when we lose our best. Proud to be a "Leaf-licker" and I know who else is too. **smiles**

4 people like this post.
User avatar
Queen K
Queen of the Castle
 
Posts: 52095
Likes: 11651 posts
Liked in: 12105 posts
Joined: Jan 31st, 2007, 12:39 pm
Location: What? You mean here?

Re: thou shalt not kill

Postby vegas1500 » Feb 9th, 2018, 8:41 pm

It’s always a race issue.........according to the race in question....

5 people like this post.
User avatar
vegas1500
Übergod
 
Posts: 1053
Likes: 3154 posts
Liked in: 1341 posts
Joined: Aug 4th, 2013, 6:53 pm

Re: thou shalt not kill

Postby Ken7 » Feb 9th, 2018, 10:42 pm

As WE are not privileged in hearing all of the evidence, one should not assume.

Sitting on side of LAW without prejudice I consider all. When I learned one of the Crown witnesses came forth and stated he lied when originally interview by police and also when giving evidence at the Preliminary Hearing, I began to think what really happened on that day.

If we consider the fact four persons pull onto your property, you are one likely intimidated as you are out numbered.
What was said and done by intruders I do not know, but you have to consider help is not minutes away, but hours.

IF what the defendant says is true, there was a bullet in the chamber of the weapon unknown to him as the clip was removed and the firearm went off accidentally. That being his story without evidence to the contrary. By what the media has stated openly about the evidence, one must consider all.

In Criminal Law it must be without reasonable doubt. When you look the totality of evidence, was there doubt?

What are the elements of the offense Second Degree Murder? What must be proven to prove this charge? Mens rea and actus rea. Was this a planned deliberate act?

Guilty knowledge and wilfulness. A fundamental principle of Criminal Law is that a crime consists of both a mental and a physical element. Mens rea, a person's awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal, is the mental element, and actus reus, the act itself, is the physical element.

Obviously, the jury felt there was question and that the evidence produced was insufficient to suggest that the accused was guilty without a reasonable doubt.

Will have to research the case law, and read what evidence was tendered and then make a educated opinion on what was in court.

3 people like this post.
User avatar
Ken7
Guru
 
Posts: 6342
Likes: 3470 posts
Liked in: 2432 posts
Joined: Sep 30th, 2007, 4:09 pm

Re: thou shalt not kill

Postby oldtrucker » Feb 10th, 2018, 12:13 am

I have done the live off the land middle of bumsville Sask thing for many years.
First thing...your on your own out there, and your best friend is a .30 cal.
When there are no cops, you are the law enforcement.
And, yes, we should be able to defend persons and property with lethal force. Especially in a rural situation including the thieves like the ones in question.( I hate thieves). Someone gets shot trying to steal...to bad. Don't steal.
You are invited to attend extinction event number 6. Enjoy.

6 people like this post.
User avatar
oldtrucker
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 715
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 376 posts
Joined: Nov 24th, 2013, 4:19 pm

Re: thou shalt not kill

Postby Rider59 » Feb 10th, 2018, 4:02 am

Veovis wrote:Out on a farm, no cops are coming. A discussion means you and your family are raped, murdered or worse. We cannot have a law saying you can shoot if you feel like it, any death should require investigation and justification, however, we can't have a law that makes people up to no good feel safe either.

Perhaps a proximity to police station slide rule.....

Heck I live in town and if people broke in, in the night, I would have the police called, but if needed I would hope I would kill them to save mine.


I would have no problem adding a few grams of well placed weight to anyone I caught breaking in. If they get within 10 feet on any family member (or the HD) it's gunna be real painful for them.

3 people like this post.
Rider59
Board Meister
 
Posts: 521
Likes: 368 posts
Liked in: 466 posts
Joined: Aug 17th, 2016, 10:02 am

Re: thou shalt not kill

Postby Chyren » Feb 10th, 2018, 7:04 am

Perhaps the Crown charged him with the wrong offence?

I have seen a lot of FN on Twitter commenting about the "all white" jury. How is this NOT considered them being racist?

A jury in Canada is selected by the Crown and Defense combined. Both sides.

The reality is the facts of this trial will become diluted in the racial nonsense that will ultimately spew from this trial.

Some people in the FN community are already linking it to the 60's Swap, and the Residential Schools. This is again nonsense.

Those were real issues that destroyed a ton of lives. This was a trial for murder.

Perhaps if manslaughter was the charge then the Crown could have won. This story is FAR from over.

KiloHotel likes this post.
Chyren
Fledgling
 
Posts: 349
Likes: 33 posts
Liked in: 299 posts
Joined: Dec 30th, 2016, 9:45 pm

Next

Return to Canada

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], Jflem1983, Ranger66 and 2 guests