Stand your ground

[Captain Awesome]

Hope no one ever threatens anything you own or anyone you love. I can't fathom a stance that allows room for negotiation with intruders. I would ask you though, why do you seem to be sympathetic toward the bad guy in your statements regarding my own stance?

My? Sympathetic? Not really. I just don't understand why would anybody think about killing anybody over their insured plasma TV. It only makes sense to use the amount of force that is needed to drive the danger away. And for the record, I have a number of firearms at my place - all safely stored of course. And no, I don't own them to fight off raging crack heads attacking my house in the middle of the night. Zombie Apocalypse seems like a more noble cause.

So, in my opinion the law we have makes sense and changing it to give some trigger happy losers a free-for-all card to kill somebody over their NASCAR badges collection would be wrong.

[mexi cali]

So I guess then that you don,t share the feeling I have that there are certain members of our club who bring nothing to,the table but who would steal said table if given the chance and those people deserve exactly what?

[Captain Awesome]

So I guess then that you don,t share the feeling I have that there are certain members of our club who bring nothing to,the table but who would steal said table if given the chance and those people deserve exactly what?

Yes, some people steal. What do they deserve? Some slapping around, jail time, humiliation, etc. But killing somebody over theft? That's just dumb. Do you strangle your cat too when it steals ham off your table? What's with this idiotic blood thirst - insecurities over being bullied in high school?

[mexi cali]

Are we inferring that I am the idiotic one here? Or that I was somehow bullied in high school? I guess that I may have been accused of worse by better but I am still left to wonder where the blood lust comment comes from.

I do not lust or even covet the idea of mortally wounding anyone. I am stating that i am prepared to do so if I am pressed to make a choice.

Simply sated, here is where I stand. If it's mine, don't touch it. If it is someone I love, don't threaten them. I do not value human life above all else. I value and respect animals lives and I protect their right to exist among us without threat to their own. It pisses me off that animals are sacrificed for the greater good and I don't believe that we are the dominant species or that we have the right to impose our will on the rest of the planet.

Whatever we have done in our quest to live our lives has not worked out so well and human beings, if left to their own devices will do whatever it takes to preserve their own lives at the expense of others.

in other words Cap, we have no reason to be as smug as we seem to think we can be.

There is a lot of wasted skin out there and I truly have no feeling for those who fit that bill. I know it's a slippery slope but I feel the way I feel.

So, back on topic. I wish that the country I live in allowed me to protect myself the way the country protects the guilty. They seem to have more rights than you and I and I don't like it.

I would protect your life as I would mine.

While we may agree to disagree, please don't view me as inferior to you.

[Captain Awesome]

I would protect your life as I would mine.

Thanks, but I'm all set.

In all seriousness, let's agree to disagree. Sorry if I went a bit overboard with remarks.

[mexi cali]

No harm, no foul.

[mexi cali]

Mr. Lloyd

Case in point: member tries to pull one drunken female off another as she was turning the other females face into something resembling porridge. As she came to her feet she delivered a well-balanced kick with plenty of force to the member’s groin. As a reflective action (which Officers of the law are apparently expected to be immune to and above) he punched her in the face before even noticing she was going for a knife. He admitted to punching her and pled guilty to assault.

Case in point: Members were placing an offender in cells when he turned and overpowered the female member putting her into a choke hold. The offender high on methamphetamine the other member was unable to pry the offender from his colleague and he was choking her out. He employed his tazer to save her life and later plead out to the lesser charge of assault as a conviction of assault with a weapon would have resulted in a weapons restriction and the end of his career.

This is the same BS that I object to so strongly and yet you use it as an illustration to make your point while condemning me.

Pick a side and stick to it. This is no different than the inane laws that would prosecute an individual who protected his property with deadly force.

[steven lloyd]

Pick a side and stick to it.

You did notice the police did not deploy their sidearm and shoot anyone dead. In addition, both were convicted of assault.

This is no different than the inane laws that would prosecute an individual who protected his property with deadly force.

Again, you did notice the police did not deploy their sidearm and shoot anyone dead. Had they done so they would have to face a hearing to determine if the shooting was valid, likely be suspended and without a finding that a shooting was justified go to Court facing charges of manslaughter or second degree murder. This is the way it should be.

If you used a sidearm (or any type of gun) to shoot dead an intruder in your home you will also be required to demonstrate how your actions met the definition of justifiable under our Criminal Code. Under section 34.(1) the Canadian Criminal Code self-defence is defined as “Everyone who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than necessary to enable him to defend himself. Section 34.(2) goes on and states “Everyone who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if (a) he cause it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and (b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

“He was in the hallway at the bottom of the stairs and had a knife. I was at the top of the stairs with my Glock .45, clip in and round in the chamber. There was a phone on the table next to me but I did not call 911. He was dirty and dishevelled and looked threatening so I shot him dead.”

That explanation would bring charges of manslaughter or second degree murder. If he came running at you with the knife and you could convince police of that (there would likely be some evidence of the fact) you'd likely be okay. As much as you want to make your own law and take it into your own hands you are not above the law in Canada.

Better hope your new cellmate isn’t his cousin, Bubba.

[mexi cali]

He was in the hallway at the bottom of the stairs and had a knife. I was at the top of the stairs with my Glock .45, clip in and round in the chamber. There was a phone on the table next to me but I did not call 911. He was dirty and dishevelled and looked threatening so I shot him dead.”

Exactly.

You know, if you even tried to see my point in the previous post regarding your examples, we may actually have a conversation but in your world, you're the only one in the room.

You sir are tiresome.

[steven lloyd]

You sir are tiresome.

Oh well, abiding by our laws may be boring for you but I'm still grateful we have them. G'day.

[mexi cali]

Blindly abiding by laws which are outdated and totalitarian says something about those who would do so. I am all in favor of laws in general but just because they are there doesn't make them right.

This makes me sad.

[occasional thoughts]

Laws are not inherently right or wrong. By the fact that a law is promulgated doesn't mean that society is better off. Just ask B.C. teachers and other labour groups over the years, and many other individuals, groups and races. Nevertheless, laws can and will be enforced by the apparatus of the state, and we should not be surprised when that happens. Fortunately, we have a non-violent means of changing our legislators and therefore our laws.

[mexi cali]

And yet we choose not too.

[steven lloyd]

Blindly abiding by laws which are outdated and totalitarian says something about those who would do so. I am all in favor of laws in general but just because they are there doesn't make them right. This makes me sad.

Most of us believe those laws that say shooting someone dead at the least requires proof of justification are appropriate. Perhaps you prefer going back to the days of the old wild west in the gun happy excited States of America where people drew each other out from the saloons after getting looked at the wrong way? That is very scary.

Reminds me of the story where an old tombstone was found with the epitaph, “Here lies Bob – hung by mistake”.

If you’re “just” talking about the right to shoot an intruder dead in your home I hope you get some kind of satisfaction out of that, but I also hope for your sake that your weapon was registered and that you can demonstrate the shooting was justified. Even the police have to do that – and yes, I trust a cop with a gun more than I trust juiced up, trigger happy civilian.

He was in the hallway at the bottom of the stairs and had a knife. I was at the top of the stairs with my Glock .45, clip in and round in the chamber. There was a phone on the table next to me but I did not call 911. He was dirty and dishevelled and looked threatening so I shot him dead.”

Exactly.

And yet we choose not too.

There are laws that need challenging and some worthy ones (eg. our archaic marijuana laws) have growing movements devoted to that cause. However, because most of us (the majority) in Canada prefer civilization (as opposed to armed anarchy) you might find it more difficult to attract new members to your cause, but hey – fill your boots.. I’m sure you’ll find some. Extremist radicals exist everywhere. Even in Canada. That’s why we have some of the laws that we do.